Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The lecture was a short summation of what had been taught during the endowment ceremony.  It was in place when I went to the temple for the first time.  Nothing was taught about Adam/God as the Adam/God theory is not church doctrine.

 That's not accurate at all.  The lecture absolutely taught Adam God.

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Changes happen in eternal covenants.  Circumcision and the Sabbath are two good examples of changing covenants.

I think you should pray before accusing the prophet of anything other than inspiration from above.

Which is more likely -

God the very eternal Father who varies not changed everlasting covenants and ordinances established before the foundations of the world allowing people to be saved on different standards and principles than the previous generations.

Or good men in positions of leadership felt good about making a change that retains members, recommend holders, and makes people happy.

Horses, not zebras.

[SettingDogStar]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 That's not accurate at all.  The lecture absolutely taught Adam God.

Yep, totally did. Big time. Really cool stuff but for sure Adam/God! Haha

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Oliblish said:

Here is a summary of changes from another board.  I don't think there is anything taboo included in this list but if the moderators disagree, feel free to censor this post:

 

1. It begins with a short, two minute message from the First Presidency, explaining that at times we update the endowment, that this came by revelation, and that members should not talk about any aspect of it, or even that there have been changes to the endowment. This explanation is not part of the Endowment, per se, but will play for a temporary period to explain.

2. The movie is new, consisting of little live action at all, mostly still pictures, even of Adam and Eve, with voice-over narration. There is new music, beautiful and appropriate.

3. Much of the repetitive "return and report" was eliminated.

4. God no longer speaks just to the man, but to both Adam and Eve equally.

5. The separate covenants of obedience for man and woman are integrated into a single covenant for all, with new language to obey god, which this temple worker found to be very uplifting.

6. The robes are no longer applied for the Aaronic Priesthood, but rather, only done once for the Melchizedek/Terrestrial Kingdom. Slippers are no longer considered part of the robes and thus are not removed.

7. Instead of "That will do" after covenants, the text now says 'Thank you'.

8. The Law of the Gospel is now referred to as the "Higher Law".

9. The Law of Chastity is expressed with more equality.

10. At the end of the dramatic / movie section, BOTH Adam and Eve direct comments to the audience, and Eve has the last word.

11. No veiling of women.

also: the length was cut by about 20 minutes

If this is accurate the same source also states that:

Sealings:

- Instead of women giving themselves and the men not, they both just to receive each other, and there’s talk of them counseling with each other and laboring together to raise a family and men are given a charge to be gentle etc 

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

My normal reaction is to let things simmer for a while, engage in some study, discussion, contemplation, and prayer, and wait to see how things shake out. This has served me well in the past and I expect it to do so now.

From the first day, Sister Gui and I have strived to live the covenant we made as we understand it and we will continue to do so. After all, it is the covenant we made.

In our understanding there was nothing in the convent that gave license for domination, abuse, bossiness, condescension, subservience, overbearing, force, nor anything like unto them, but as a perfect vehicle for the blending of our complimenatary but imperfect natures and desires to obey God and create a family. This has kept us undividable through a lot of good and bad things. In fact, if any of that stuff snuck in, we viewed it as sin worthy of repentance and reconciliation.

Never in our marriage did we ever consider that Sister Gui had not covenented in an inferior way to obey God, nor that the specific wording in any way diminished or elevated either of us above the other in that obligation. For me, it was a profoundly awesome solemn mutual act for her to choose through her agency to give herself to me and trust that I could have her trust only as I obeyed God. That is powerful stuff. I imagine many members share(d) our views.

Given current social movements, I can see how some might perceive ours as an unequal or flawed relationship, but we reject that false and uninformed notion without debate. We are sad that so many people today apparently have that kind of attitude to the extent that the covenant maybe had to be changed to accommodate them. It is not without precedence.

Time will tell.

I agree with most all of this, up to the inference that the change of covenant wording was to accommodate social movements. I know many good couples (mostly older) who, like you, took the heartening language very seriously and worked to build a beautiful and successful marriage. Is your heart open to the possibility that a marriage of the same worth can be built through covenants where neither person presides over the other? 

This change need not be a rejection of your sacrifice and success. I certainly don’t see it that way. 

[Buckeye]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If this is accurate the same source also states that:

Sealings:

- Instead of women giving themselves and the men not, they both just to receive each other, and there’s talk of them counseling with each other and laboring together to raise a family and men are given a charge to be gentle etc 

Thank you. I’m so happy to hear the sealing is being made equal as well. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is more likely -

God the very eternal Father who varies not changed everlasting covenants and ordinances established before the foundations of the world allowing people to be saved on different standards and principles than the previous generations.

Or good men in positions of leadership felt good about making a change that retains members, recommend holders, and makes people happy.

I suspect the Pharisees must have engaged in similar thought exercises as they struggled with the law-breaking of the One Who claimed to have given the law. 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I suspect the Pharisees must have engaged in similar thought exercises as they struggled with the law-breaking of the One Who claimed to have given the law. 

Probably.  Just as I'm sure the early Christian Father's believed they held correct authority and were inspired by God as they slowly chipped away the gospel Christ gave from heaven.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Probably.  Just as I'm sure the early Christian Father's believed they held correct authority and were inspired by God as they slowly chipped away the gospel Christ gave from heaven.

The question comes back to where authority resides then. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I agree with most all of this, up to the inference that the change of covenant wording was to accommodate social movements. I know many good couples (mostly older) who, like you, took the heartening language very seriously and worked to build a beautiful and successful marriage. Is your heart open to the possibility that a marriage of the same worth can be built through covenants where neither person presides over the other? 

This change need not be a rejection of your sacrifice and success. I certainly don’t see it that way. 

Indeed. That’s why I said maybe. I was responding to the implications that the previous wording made women subservient and gave men license to oppress their wives. I think we will understand more about this as time goes on.i

Edited January 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Duncan]

Just got off of the phone with my older sister and her and her husband are very active but they could literally care less about the changes in the Temple,  "as long as you are faithful then what difference does it make?" She blasted me🙄

[halconero]

I went tonight. Did both. I won’t go into detail, save for the following:

- Men still preside. This is explicitly stated. The sealing is not changed, just the introductory part, which emphasizes how men are to preside in righteousness and meekness, also how marriage is a partnership and team effort.

- There are parts in the endowment I will have to ponder in their implications. By and large it was a change to presentation to emphasize the same love, righteousness and meekness.

Edited January 3, 2019 by halconero

[SettingDogStar]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Just got off of the phone with my older sister and her and her husband are very active but they could literally care less about the changes in the Temple,  "as long as you are faithful then what difference does it make?" She blasted me🙄

Yikes. 😳 Not that they’re entirely wrong to an extant...but it’s still a dangerous mindset. 

[SettingDogStar]

22 minutes ago, halconero said:

I went tonight. Did both. I won’t go into detail, save for the following:

- Men still preside. This is explicitly stated. The sealing is not changed, just the introductory part, which emphasizes how men are to preside in righteousness and meekness, also how marriage is a partnership and team effort.

- There are parts in the endowment I will have to ponder in their implications. By and large it was a change to presentation to emphasize the same love, righteousness and meekness.

Did the list of changes as quoted earlier all apply? Or no? No need for detail. The temple is just a few hours away from my home so I’m curious if what was reported is accurate. 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Yikes. 😳 Not that they’re entirely wrong to an extant...but it’s still a dangerous mindset. 

it's okay, they live in BC and they are all hopped up on Vancouver Canuck Juice🤢

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I suspect the Pharisees must have engaged in similar thought exercises as they struggled with the law-breaking of the One Who claimed to have given the law. 

I suspect that many of my grandparents generation struggled when the oath of vengeance on the united states was removed from the temple ceremony.  I do know my father was confused and disappointed by the major changes that took place in 1990.  These changes were made just two years after the church issued a survey to members in Canada and the U.S. to determine members' opinions concerning temple work.  To me it is pretty clear where the motivation is coming from.  I am going to go with Jhlprof's option two on this one: 

Quote

good men in positions of leadership felt good about making a change that retains members, recommend holders, and makes people happy.

 

[halconero]

1 minute ago, SettingDogStar said:

Did the list of changes as quoted earlier all apply? Or no? No need for detail. The temple is just a few hours away from my home so I’m curious if what was reported is accurate. 

Yes and no. It’s hard to give a nuanced answer lacking detail. The problem with the list is that it lacked nuance as well.

Using my earlier example, it is true that the introductory part to sealings (the part that opens it and precedes the actual act of sealing) emphasizes gentlesness, meakness, and love unfeigned. It emphasized working together as a couple. But the word preside still existed in it, and applied to the husband.

I could add similar sentiments to the rest of the list.

[SettingDogStar]

5 minutes ago, halconero said:

Yes and no. It’s hard to give a nuanced answer lacking detail. The problem with the list is that it lacked nuance as well.

Using my earlier example, it is true that the introductory part to sealings (the part that opens it and precedes the actual act of sealing) emphasizes gentlesness, meakness, and love unfeigned. It emphasized working together as a couple. But the word preside still existed in it, and applied to the husband.

I could add similar sentiments to the rest of the list.

Fair enough, I appreciate that they kept the presiding factor intact. Though I’m still confident it’ll be my wife dragging me through the Gates of Heaven, I understand in part the purpose of installing a “head”. I also enjoy that it’s still there since it would seem that it was part of the ceremony Jospeh originally gave, and he saw no ill in keeping it there.

Edited January 3, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

To me it is pretty clear where the motivation is coming from.  I am going to go with Jhlprof's option two on this one. 

No worries. I'm not surprised; as I've noted a couple of times previously, it is difficult to detect much difference in outcome between fundamentalism and secular progressivism. 

[SettingDogStar]

Also, as a sorta side note, in the press release they mentioned that

“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.”

I’m not questioning revelation but Joseph was adamantly against changing the ordinances. He did add to them, but from my knowledge he never took anything away. I also don’t recall any revelations or declarations by prophets claiming God will alter the ordinances to “no end”. 

Maybe this is the right direction, I’m no prophet, but I’ve got to do some pondering and praying to do...

Anyone got any quotes or insight on this little comment?

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Joseph was adamantly against changing the ordinances. He did add to them, but from my knowledge he never took anything away.

Cinnamon-scented whiskey?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Just got off of the phone with my older sister and her and her husband are very active but they could literally care less about the changes in the Temple,  "as long as you are faithful then what difference does it make?" She blasted me🙄

In the end everyone still covenants to obey God, no?

Edited January 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Duncan]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

In the end everyone still covenants to obey God, no?

That's what I think! apparently God isn't in the details where they are!

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 That's not accurate at all.  The lecture absolutely taught Adam God.

What lecture? I was endowed in 1980 and all I remember is a talk about not putting your garments on the floor.

Edited January 3, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What lecture? I was endowed in 1980 and all I remember is a talk about not putting your garments on the floor.

Mate, if you were endowed in 1980, you absolutely heard a lecture at the veil. It was a recorded summary of the ordinance that was played at the end of any session that included new endowees until 1990.

But the one JLHPROF is not doubt referring to is one that was given by Brigham Young in St George shortly before his death. There is actually no documentary evidence that it was ever given more than this once, but it's become a favourite treasure of certain fundamentalists. Quoting Buerger:

Quote

It is not clear, in fact, what did become of the lecture. The apparent ignorance of the subject matter implied by Abraham Cannon's [1888] account—despite his having been a General Authority for six years—suggest it was not routinely presented in the temple. Similar ignorance among some missionaries [in 1897] and their president ... who also presumably had been through the temple prior to their missions supports this conclusion. Although exposes of the temple ceremonies published about this time do not include any reference to this lecture, "fundamentalist" authors have asserted without serious attempt at documentation that Brigham's lecture was an integral part of the temple ceremony until about 1902-1905. In support of this has been placed the testimony of one individual who in 1959 distinctly remembered hearing during his endowment in the temple in 1902 that "Adam was our God." On returning from his mission in 1904 he noted that these teachings had been removed. While one would expect more extensive evidence than this were it true that the lecture was regularly given for twenty-five years, it ... should also be recalled that other "discredited" notions were still being promulgated in some temples by a few individuals during the early years of the twentieth century—such as the continued legitimacy of plural marriage, also a cherished fundamentalist tradition.