Lds Church = Rlds Church

[Coreyb]

Do you have a link to an article on it or anything? I know it's probably limited what can be said

[Robert F. Smith]

i think our church has changed drastically in 50 years already.  spencer w kimball organized the first quorum of seventy in like 1975 & extended all worhty males the priesthood in 1978.  that wasnt even 50 years ago.

 

these days, with president monson, there have also been big changes with the hastening of the work.  the Lord continues to talk to mankind through prophets, so the only thing consistant in our church, like the old adage, is change itself.

 

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

I haven't yet read "The development of LDS temple worship", nor am I old enough to remember the change, so I am a bit in the dark here. What key element was changed that you understood to be necessary? Most everything I have read about the many changes seem to have been in the presentation of the ordinances.

Some small changes have been made (such as a Hebrew phrase is now spoken in English, kind of like the Roman Catholics adopting the vernacular in place of Latin), but, as pointed out by Fawn Brodie, the temple rites and covenants have remained remarkably stable over time.  As the late Harvard biblical scholar, Frank Moore Cross (a non-Mormon), pointed out:

 

I am both interested and delighted to see so much of ancient religious tradition, particularly Biblical tradition, taken up into the religious structures and rituals of the Mormons.  LDS video "Between Heaven and Earth," http://ancient-wisdom-lds-temple.blogspot.com/ 2009/04/blog-post_6193.html .

 

Yet the means used, both ancient and now, to communicate spiritual principles can vary broadly.  Pres. David O. McKay said this during an address at the Mesa, Arizona, Temple, on Dec 30, 1956:

 

There are two things in every Temple: mechanics, to set forth certain ideals, and symbolism, what those mechanics symbolize. I saw only the mechanics when I first went through the Temple. I did not see the spiritual. I did not see the symbolism of spirituality.  *  *  *  I was blind to the great lesson of purity behind the mechanics. I did not hear the message of the Lord, . . . * *  *  How many of us young men saw that? We thought we were big enough and with intelligence sufficient to criticize the mechanics of it and we were blind to the symbolism, the message of the spirit. And then that great ordinance, the endowment. The whole thing is simple in the mechanical part of it, but sublime and eternal in its significance.  Prince & Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (SLC: University of Utah Press, 2005), 277, emphasis mine.

 

We should not allow the very figurative nature of what takes place in the temple to confuse us as to its sublime spiritual significance.

[Deborah]

 

 

 We no longer teach how to do those things the way that he revealed.  That scares and saddens me.

 

 

Really? I find no difference in the power of the endowment itself, only in how it's presented which is for a different audience. The previous old presentation had a lot of extraneous theatrics that did not enhance the spiritual message and which I personally thought distracting. I love the current new presentations, both versions, which greatly enhance the message of the Adam and Eve story.

 

Some people understandably don't like any change but of what use is living revelation if it isn't to make changes which enhance or improve on something.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Deborah

[Robert F. Smith]

Coreyb - you know we can't discuss specifics of the temple ceremony here.  Cal, if the changes were just theatrical or presentation of symbols, I would completely agree with you.  However, the temple endowment is specifically designed to teach us and instruct us how to do two specific things - communicate more powerfully with God and enter into His presence.  You can't honestly tell me that the changes didn't involve removal of some key steps in the communication process and the key method of entering God's presence.

 

I don't want to overstep here and discuss something I shouldn't (or annoy the Mod's) and I apologize if this is derailing the thread at all.  But what was changed was not presentation or symbolism - the method by which the endowment was administered has always changed.

But God gave us the endowment to provide us specifically with the power to do some things.  We no longer teach how to do those things the way that he revealed.  That scares and saddens me.

Prof.  The structure and content of holy rites has always been malleable.  The same is true of God's own religious organizations on Earth.  There is no one size fits all.  They have a purpose which must be served, and the mechanics of that may vary from one century to another. As the late Lutheran Bishop Krister Stendahl (head of the State Church of Sweden, and former Dean of Harvard Divinity School) said:

 

In antiquity, . . . the Jerusalem Temple was a place where you went to carry out holy acts, sacrifices and the like. I feel that the Mormon experience of the Temple has sort of restored that meaning to the word Temple.  “Between Heaven and Earth,” 

 

Elder John A. Widtsoe takes that point home:

 

The earthly ordinances of the Gospel are themselves only reflections of heavenly ordinances.  For instance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and temple work are merely earthly symbols of realities that prevail throughout the universe; but, they are symbols of truths that must be recognized if the Great Plan is to be fulfilled.  The acceptance of these earthly symbols is part and parcel of correct earth life, but being earthly symbols they are distinctly of the earth, and cannot be accepted elsewhere than on earth.  Widtsoe, 1915 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual (“Work for the Dead,” Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, 6:33).

Edited February 3, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

You can't honestly tell me that the changes didn't involve removal of some key steps in the communication process and the key method of entering God's presence.

 

I disagree it was an essential part of the endowment…apparently the Brethren don't think it is either.  Perhaps you should consider rethinking your interpretation of what it meant rather than insisting that your understanding preempts those who were given charge of the temple and all that we do with it by God.

 

I love the Elder Widtsoe quote, Robert.  

 

Joseph Smith taught that it will be a long while after death before we comprehend the Endowment and other principles of exaltation.  I don't think we need to panic and insist that it was somehow in its final, full and glorified form for mortals who couldn't even understand it yet and now for some reason isn't.

[JLHPROF]

I disagree it was an essential part of the endowment…apparently the Brethren don't think it is either.  Perhaps you should consider rethinking your interpretation of what it meant rather than insisting that your understanding preempts those who were given charge of the temple and all that we do with it by God.

 

I love the Elder Widtsoe quote, Robert.  

 

Joseph Smith taught that it will be a long while after death before we comprehend the Endowment and other principles of exaltation.  I don't think we need to panic and insist that it was somehow in its final, full and glorified form for mortals who couldn't even understand it yet and now for some reason isn't.

 

I understand that when you are referring to the Adam & Eve portion of the endowment - the storytelling.  Again, this has always changed.

I am referring to what Joseph referred to when he said that we have to learn "how to pray and get an answer" referring to specific type of prayer. I am referring to what  Brigham Young taught that the endowment was to teach us what we need to "pass by the angels and enter God's Kingdom".  We were taught how to do these two things, and then the "mechanics" of offering this sacred prayer and passing the angels were changed.

 

We can call it modification of a rite and we can hope it's based on new revelation if we want, but if God says "do this eternal method to offer more powerful prayers that I will always answer" and then we change how we offer those prayers, can we then expect the same blessing and answers.  When God says "here is the way you pass through the veil to enter my kingdom" and we no longer teach how to do that can we expect to enter his kingdom?

That is where I have a hard time.

[Calm]

CFR that these were specifics God himself gave us as actual mechanics and were not created symbolism for the rite, inspired choices by the prophets to teach the principle.

[JLHPROF]

CFR that these were specifics God himself gave us as actual mechanics and were not created symbolism for the rite, inspired choices by the prophets to teach the principle.

 

Oh, come on Cal.  You know full well there are no publicly written descriptions of the restoration of the actual specific sacred items we are referring to, and only apostates have revealed them publicly.  But there are references to the actual mechanics being necessary and unalterable and given by revelation.

 

Joseph Smith taught that they were revealed from heaven.

 

He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them." - Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208

 

Joseph taught that the form was ancient in origin

 

...instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessing which have been prepared for the Church of the First Born, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the eternal worlds. In this council was instituted the ancient order of things for the first time in these last days. HC 5:1-2

 

Brigham Young taught that these items were necessary to obtain exaltation.  Without them, no exaltation.

 

Your endowment is to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the keywords, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.

--Brigham Young

 

Joseph Smith warned against changing anything in the ordinances and that they were eternal.

 

Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles. (TPJS, 308)

 

and one of my favorite quotes

 

We explained briefly the Apostasy and the Restoration: that there is vast evidence and history of an apostasy from the doctrine taught by Jesus and his Apostles, that the organization of the original Church became corrupted, and sacred ordinances were changed to suit the convenience of men..." - Apostle David B. Haight

 

So, yes, I do worry when we remove pieces of an ancient and eternal ordinance to suit our convenience.  Without having the correct keywords, signs and "mechanics" we are not performing the ordinance according to the eternal order.  The spiritual meaning may be unchanged but it would be no different than switching to a sprinkling baptism.  The spiritual meaning of washing with water would be unchanged, but the ordinance would be.

[Coreyb]

Oh, come on Cal.  You know full well there are no publicly written descriptions of the restoration of the actual specific sacred items we are referring to, and only apostates have revealed them publicly.  But there are references to the actual mechanics being necessary and unalterable and given by revelation.

 

Joseph Smith taught that they were revealed from heaven.

 

Joseph taught that the form was ancient in origin

 

Brigham Young taught that these items were necessary to obtain exaltation.  Without them, no exaltation.

 

Joseph Smith warned against changing anything in the ordinances and that they were eternal.

 

and one of my favorite quotes

 

So, yes, I do worry when we remove pieces of an ancient and eternal ordinance to suit our convenience.  Without having the correct keywords, signs and "mechanics" we are not performing the ordinance according to the eternal order.  The spiritual meaning may be unchanged but it would be no different than switching to a sprinkling baptism.  The spiritual meaning of washing with water would be unchanged, but the ordinance would be.

its just hard to fit all these teachings in with the fact that many specific parts of the ordinances mirror rites in freemasonry

[williamsmith]

We already are very different than we were, but I hope we always keep those aspects of our religion that make us Mormons. I know community of Christ members, and it's seems to me that they have become almost indistinguishable from other progressive Christian denominations in current doctrine and practice. If that happens to us, I don't see much to stay for.

 

How are we "very different then we were"?  There is little to nothing at all different from how we have always been.

[Coreyb]

How are we "very different then we were"?  There is little to nothing at all different from how we have always been.

except that we no longer practice polygamy, we actually have chapels where we hold regular services, we don't consecrate all our funds, we no longer speak in tongues, we no longer stress God once being a man, we no longer receive written revelations, we no longer gather in a specific place, we don't try to set up theocratic governments etc, etc. I'm not complaining, just pointing out that we have changed many times throughout our colorful history.

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................

So, yes, I do worry when we remove pieces of an ancient and eternal ordinance to suit our convenience.  Without having the correct keywords, signs and "mechanics" we are not performing the ordinance according to the eternal order.  The spiritual meaning may be unchanged but it would be no different than switching to a sprinkling baptism.  The spiritual meaning of washing with water would be unchanged, but the ordinance would be.

There are others who share your concerns, but I think without justification.

If we were to follow the logic of your claims, we would complain that the ordinance of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper has been vastly , changed, as found in Scripture (NT vs Book of Mormon), quite aside from the shift from wine to water.  Some of us look beyond the outward appearance to the principle or meaning involved.  This was the approach meant to be considered in the comment I cited from Pres McKay.

 

You might want to ask whether the legalistic, canon law approach to the ordinances is actually what God prefers.  Perhaps you are not aware of the changes which have taken place in the revelations of Joseph Smith (changes made by Joseph), all carefully documented by the Joseph Smith Papers Project, and available online.

 

Do you imagine that ancient Temple rites among the Jews, and others in the ancient Near East, were all virtually the same as today?  Does that make them or our ordinances invalid?  See especially Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment.

Isn't some sense of perspective called for here?

[knowone]

its just hard to fit all these teachings in with the fact that many specific parts of the ordinances mirror rites in freemasonry

 

yeah, i can see how anyone can struggle with that.  its a simple answer, i believe.  just like the analogy about the broken mirror that truth spread throughout the world.  just like the ten tribes were spread throughout the world to bless all parts of the earth.  the freemasons got a shard of that truth/lineage. 

i feel the freemasons were inspired by Heavenly Father at one time.  look at all the amazing stuff they are responsible for.  endowed lds members should be the first ones to know that they were inspired in the past.  i assume that they are of the lineage of some specific tribe that specialized in making buildings such as temples in jersusalem, etc etc.  they could even be responsible for the pyramids of egypt since they were living their when they were led out of israel as workers in egypt.  workers for what, is what i ask?!

now the only church that has everything is us.