Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it mentioned "adjustments" 

"Over these many centuries, details associated with temple work have been adjusted periodically, including language, methods of construction, communication, and record-keeping. Prophets have taught that there will be no end to such adjustments as directed by the Lord to His servants."

Doesn't say that any were made this week.  Just that they are done over the centuries and will continue.  If you're happy that your prophet has received revelation regarding the highest saving ordinances and this is what He sees fit to share - great!

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Here's the DN write up. Interesting that they are allowing comments to the story. I'd hate to be the guy that has to police those comments. Scott, don't draw the short straw !

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900048809/first-presidency-of-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-issues-statement-on-mormon-temples.html

I believe that @Scott Lloyd is enjoying retirement now.

[Buckeye]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Correct.  It didn't even acknowledge the change.  But it did say to not talk about the ordinances outside of the temple.

The key statement is below. Very puzzling. Every time my ward's youth do baptisms I meet with them to discuss the ordinances they'll perform. Because of changes last year, I meet with the Priest's Quorum for a significant discussion of how baptisms are to be performed, witnesses, and other things they'll encounter as they perform those ordinances. That seemed entirely appropriate (and necessary) to me. Still does.

"A dedicated temple is the most holy of any place of worship on the earth. Its ordinances are sacred and are not discussed outside a holy temple."

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's not a statement about the changes.  It's just a statement about the temple.  It's what they'll point journalists to when they are asked about the changes and say "no comment".

It's a statement about changes to the temple ceremonies.  The brethren are obviously not going to comment on specific goings on in temple ceremonies to the press.  Regardless on whether we agree with them, they believe it's wrong to comment on temple ordinances outside of the temple and as such, their vague response makes sense. 

It doesn't seem fair to be upset with someone for not doing something they sincerely believe shouldn't be done.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The key statement is below. Very puzzling. Every time my ward's youth do baptisms I meet with them to discuss the ordinances they'll perform. Because of changes last year, I meet with the Priest's Quorum for a significant discussion of how baptisms are to be performed, witnesses, and other things they'll encounter as they perform those ordinances. That seemed entirely appropriate (and necessary) to me. Still does.

"A dedicated temple is the most holy of any place of worship on the earth. Its ordinances are sacred and are not discussed outside a holy temple."

Perhaps they see the baptism ordinance as a separate issue since it's the only one that also takes place outside of the temple?

[SouthernMo]

23 minutes ago, halconero said:

Currently three priesthood holders are required to be present for a baptism. Note, we don't know the words Oliver and Joseph used to baptize each other. Things are always a bit wonky at the beginning of dispensations.

Side note, I find it odd that we (I'm guilty of this as well) use terms like "debunking." Maybe it's just my sensitivities, but it comes off as accusatory towards the other person's statement.

You're right - 'debunking' is a strong word.  Doesn't leave room for nuance or misunderstanding.  I should be careful when using it.

But, I ask you to consider when you make a claim that indicates that three MP holders are required to be present, that you acknowledge that the word "required" is superlative, and indicates no wiggle room for it to be wrong.  At a minimum, it may mean that you're talking about a current policy, rather than some god-established eternal doctrine.

Thanks for bringing it up!

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"Over these many centuries, details associated with temple work have been adjusted periodically, including language, methods of construction, communication, and record-keeping. Prophets have taught that there will be no end to such adjustments as directed by the Lord to His servants."

Doesn't say that any were made this week.  Just that they are done over the centuries and will continue.  If you're happy that your prophet has received revelation regarding the highest saving ordinances and this is what He sees fit to share - great!

☺️ would you say it's a coincidence then? people talking about Temple changes and then this statement talking about Temples and adjustments comes out, all in the same week? 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Will the church make these changes known, or just wait for people to figure it out as they attend?

The grapevine being what it is, more people will probably find out that way than if an official announcement gets made.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's a statement about changes to the temple ceremonies.  The brethren are obviously not going to comment on specific goings on in temple ceremonies to the press.  Regardless on whether we agree with them, they believe it's wrong to comment on temple ordinances outside of the temple and as such, their vague response makes sense. 

It doesn't seem fair to be upset with someone for not doing something they sincerely believe shouldn't be done.

I don't expect them to comment to the press.  I'm hoping that they might share information about the revelation with us.

The statement that they released doesn't even acknowledge that they made changes.  And there is plenty of detail about the temple that can be shared outside of temple walls in the right setting.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Some women push themselves into the veil and that makes ME very uncomfortable. In cases like that the positions of the hands...  well figure it out. Not good. Hard to keep the spirit with you in that situation.

Sometimes people don't talk very loudly and with the others speaking around me, it can be hard to hear.  Hope my leaning in to hear better never came across that way.  Something to be conscious of in the future.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Calm

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

☺️ would you say it's a coincidence then? people talking about Temple changes and then this statement talking about Temples and adjustments comes out, all in the same week? 

People are talking about temple changes because there are changes.  This statement seems to me to be something they can direct journalists to.

[SouthernMo]

11 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The key statement is below. Very puzzling. Every time my ward's youth do baptisms I meet with them to discuss the ordinances they'll perform. Because of changes last year, I meet with the Priest's Quorum for a significant discussion of how baptisms are to be performed, witnesses, and other things they'll encounter as they perform those ordinances. That seemed entirely appropriate (and necessary) to me. Still does.

"A dedicated temple is the most holy of any place of worship on the earth. Its ordinances are sacred and are not discussed outside a holy temple."

Interesting how in this instance, the leadership teaches that ordinances are sacred and not to be discussed outside the temple, but what is taught on LDS.org about the covenants is fairly open: https://www.lds.org/manual/endowed-from-on-high-temple-preparation-seminar-teachers-manual/lesson-4?lang=eng

It seems to me that the principle of secrecy/sacredness of the temple ordinances is being used here to discourage discussion/speculation about these changes, rather than an honest, thoughtful teaching.

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Perhaps they see the baptism ordinance as a separate issue since it's the only one that also takes place outside of the temple?

Perhaps (although confirmation and ordination of MP holders would also apply). But what about temple prep classes and the church's online instructions regarding temple clothing, garments, etc?  On the face of this statement, all a member could say is that we do ordinances call "initiatory, endownment, and sealing" but we can't tell you anything about them. How do the ordinances bring us closer to Christ or unite us as families? Can't discuss it now. What's a celestial room? Another good question, but I can't tell you anything.  Its just unworkable.

[sjdawg]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's not a statement about the changes.  It's just a statement about the temple.  It's what they'll point journalists to when they are asked about the changes and say "no comment".

that sounds about right.  

[bluebell]

Just now, rockpond said:

I don't expect them to comment to the press.  I'm hoping that they might share information about the revelation with us.

The statement that they released doesn't even acknowledge that they made changes.  And there is plenty of detail about the temple that can be shared outside of temple walls in the right setting.

I agree that would be great, but their perspective on discussing it outside of the temple might be different.  Further instruction could be coming (or it could come during special temple sessions like those held before stake conferences, where those in attendance are taught more about the temple), or maybe the brethren are leaving it up to us to do our own studying on it as we attend the temple.  

And I think most people would recognize that the brethren aren't going to put out a statement about changes to temple ceremonies out of the blue if it's not relevant to stuff happening (or about to happen) in the church, especially in this current climate of change and "buckle your seat belts!".   Even if they didn't know about the changes, having an announcement of that type would give most people a heads up.  Then they could go to the temple and find out about it for themselves.

[Duncan]

What I would like to know is where were all these whistleblowers?! Nobody told Bill Reel, Dehlin or Mormon leaks or any other flubb dubbery? people claim to have all this inside inside information but they seemed to have missed this doozie?

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sometimes people don't talk very loudly and with the others speaking around me, it can be hard to hear.  Hope my leaning in to hear better never came across that way.  Something to be conscious of in the future.

This is what I would assume as well.  It can be really hard to hear, especially if people are on both sides of you.

[sjdawg]

29 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it mentioned "adjustments" 

great.  If possible the statement is even less informative than the temple prep class I took once upon a time.😁

I get that they may not want to go into details however the statement doesn't even acknowledge that changes were made effective today.  It just says that over centuries some details have been adjusted

Edited January 2, 2019 by sjdawg

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

great.  If possible the statement is even less informative than the temple prep class I took once upon a time.😁

at least you took one!!! I never had anything! I was BLINDSIDED my first time! I thought if my folks can do this and they are semi normal, then I can do it too! hahahha!

Edited January 2, 2019 by Duncan

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Perhaps (although confirmation and ordination of MP holders would also apply). But what about temple prep classes and the church's online instructions regarding temple clothing, garments, etc?  On the face of this statement, all a member could say is that we do ordinances call "initiatory, endownment, and sealing" but we can't tell you anything about them. How do the ordinances bring us closer to Christ or unite us as families? Can't discuss it now. What's a celestial room? Another good question, but I can't tell you anything.  Its just unworkable.

I don't think it's a new perspective or teaching, so perhaps understanding that last sentence in light of some of the stuff the church has put out about the temple will highlight how it is workable?  You're right in that the statement wasn't made in a vacuum, so maybe taking it in accordance with other things that have been said will help clarify what is meant?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Ok. So I ask again. Why can’t god and Jesus come to baptisms today?  Why need mortal witnesses at all?

The pattern was laid down and the rest are modeled upon it perhaps.  Acting as proxy for others is SOP in many things in the Church, often for the benefit of those who are proxy as well as those they act for.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that would be great, but their perspective on discussing it outside of the temple might be different.  Further instruction could be coming (or it could come during special temple sessions like those held before stake conferences, where those in attendance are taught more about the temple), or maybe the brethren are leaving it up to us to do our own studying on it as we attend the temple.  

And I think most people would recognize that the brethren aren't going to put out a statement about changes to temple ceremonies out of the blue if it's not relevant to stuff happening (or about to happen) in the church, especially in this current climate of change and "buckle your seat belts!".   Even if they didn't know about the changes, having an announcement of that type would give most people a heads up.  Then they could go to the temple and find out about it for themselves.

I agree with not announcing things to the public.  I speak of members.

This isn't just an edit to a film.  This is a change to our teachings, as the now deleted BCC article eloquently explained.  And, the revelation to make these important changes must have come some time back (enough time to create a new film).  I hope that they will find appropriate forums to discuss the revelation and changes.

[bluebell]

Just now, rockpond said:

I agree with not announcing things to the public.  I speak of members.

This isn't just an edit to a film.  This is a change to our teachings, as the now deleted BCC article eloquently explained.  And, the revelation to make these important changes must have come some time back (enough time to create a new film).  I hope that they will find appropriate forums to discuss the revelation and changes.

That would be really cool.

But did they ever find it appropriate to discuss the revelations and changes made in the past?  Or even to discuss the revelations leading to the ordinances at all, outside of the temple?  (Sincere question, I really don't know what has taken place before I was old enough to notice).

I guess my question is, are they behaving differently than our leaders have always behaved in regards to the temple?

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

That person that, now famously, announced the changes in the Nauvoo temple (without specifics) was BYU Religion Professor Alonzo Gaskill.  It seems odd that he would have violated an instruction from the FP given at the beginning of the endowment.  But, he may have missed the instruction or forgotten and this would explain why he later removed the post.

My understanding is a friend told him, might not have included the instruction not to share at first.  Perhaps it was a very close friend or relative who interpreted it as not sharing in casual or public conversation, but okay in more private, personal settings.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

My understanding is a friend told him, might not have included the instruction not to share at first.  Perhaps it was a very close friend or relative who interpreted it as not sharing in casual or public conversation, but okay in more private, personal settings.

You're right... I think he did mention that in a post.  Which makes sense that as soon as he heard of the instruction to not discuss changes, he would have taken it down.