Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

And I'm sad that people would suggest that the covenant had to be changed to accommadate people who are more able to follow social trends than the Lord's will. 

 It is interesting to me that I never caught the wording of the covenant - I had to have that pointed out to me. I feel that the Spirit always directed me that the covenant was what I understand (without having attended yet since the change) the covenant to be now. 

Having has some real control issues in my family I never would have sincerely covenanted what the words were in 1989 when I went had I caught them. Now I feel like the words may be catching up to what I always thought the Spirit meant. 

We have known the precise wording of the covenant since the beginning of our marriage in 1972. It has been the spiritual foundation of our marriage. I (we) have never understood the covenant to give permission to the man to exercise even an iota of unrighteousness dominion. I believe there are some in the Church and out of the Church (even in this discussion) who think it put men in a superior position and demeaned women. I have heard this criticism especially from members in their 30s and early 40s, but I believe it is a misunderstanding that is being clarified. We are still in the early stages of understanding what is going on.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[alter idem]

I have no problems with these changes, I had none with the 1990 changes either.  I have no problems with the fact that many changes have been made to the Temple ceremonies over the decades since originally introduced--there've been additions and deletions.  IMO, there is nothing wrong with making changes to the presentation--the 'vehicle' designed to teach eternal principles found in the basic covenants we make in the temple.  The 'vehicle' is what was set up by those of past time periods to teach the things of the temple and they can and ought to be changed, through inspiration and revelation, by those authorized and anointed on earth to do so at the time.  That is why we have a living prophet and continuing revelation and we should praise God we have a Prophet! If the changes help us to more clearly understand the covenants and not get bogged down or bothered by aspects of the  'vehicle' which may, in a changing time/society, come to  detract or distract, that's positive change and should be welcomed.  It is also a great condescension on the Lord's part to do this--it could have remained as is, but I think we should view  this as  the heavens being open and blessings coming to us to strengthen our faith and our understanding and helping us to gather Israel and brings souls to Christ and his church on earth. 

I feel that we as a church are being blessed to see these changes and I hope that we as individuals will pray about these changes for confirmation that this church is being led by Prophets, seers and revelators and the Lord is indeed the one who inspires them.  Because that's a vital part of this--that we receive inspiration and spiritual knowledge, strengthen our faith and testimonies as we live the Gospel of Jesus Christ and work to serve him and do his will.

[juliann]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We haven't really discussed theological implications of this.

I'm still curious how we are supposed to interpret this:

Did God want women to covenant with their husbands the way He was having them do it prior to Jan 2019?  Or, does God want women to covenant with Him the way He is having them do it now?  Or, did He just change His mind?

How much of what we do in the temple is eternal if it can keep changing?

What eternal principal has changed? Women have always thought they were covenanting with the Lord, despite the language we had to work around. Now it is much more clear and doesn’t require single women to have an imaginary husband. They only cleaned up the language for heaven’s sake. It’s not like they removed the law of chastity. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

In the end, my endowment is the same ordinance as the endowment my great-grandparents received. What can (and did) change is language and instruction that makes understanding of the intent and nature of the ordinance more clear. It has long been known to me that there were imperfections in how some of our covenants were presented. These imperfections more easily allowed misunderstanding and erroneous conclusions (some quite easily, which was a struggle for many). With these changes, many of my personal interpretations of the intent and nature of the ordinance are validated. There are and still will be imperfections in how the ordinance is presented. Personal revelation and inspiration can help one see past those.

While I understand your point, I don’t agree that it was an imperfection. 

[pogi]

13 hours 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.

Horses, not zebras.

The problem is that you are under the presumption that we are sliding backwards instead of forwards.  That our practices and ordinances are becoming more corrupt instead of more refined.  You are also under the false presumption that early prophets were less fallible and less influenced by society than modern prophets.  If modern prophets can make mistakes, why not older prophets?  How can you say that these changes are not more in line with what God intended, and that it was not actually the old wording that was influenced by false and corrupt societal views of the roles of women and men?  Or perhaps there are other reasons all together for these changes that you are not considering.

God may be unchanging, but the laws and covenants he makes with men do change - sometimes towards higher levels and sometimes towards lower levels.  God's church is progressive. 

I fundamentally disagree with the way you view things.  You view the restoration in terms of being whole and perfectly polished as it was restored in the early days, only to become dinged, chipped, marred, and corrupted as it roles along in these last days; whereas I view it as a rough stone rolling forward knocking of rough edges and becoming polished in the river bed as it rolls along. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by pogi

[Rain]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Just want to make sure I understand why you’re saying: you made covenants with God and did not pay close attention to the words, but rather understood your covenants by feel?

I paid close attention, but I didn't catch everything (and I doubt anyone does catch everything their first time). There were parts in 1989 that I really struggled with as well that overshadowed how much I was picking up. So yes, I went by some by feel and some by words, though I really couldn't tell you how much.  Because I only went 3 times before my mission and then didn't get to go on my mission till it had changed I really don't know what was still there that I learned much better after. 

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We haven't really discussed theological implications of this.

I'm still curious how we are supposed to interpret this:

Did God want women to covenant with their husbands the way He was having them do it prior to Jan 2019?  Or, does God want women to covenant with Him the way He is having them do it now?  Or, did He just change His mind?

How much of what we do in the temple is eternal if it can keep changing?

These are my questions as well. And I feel like it isn't from God but from society, maybe from Wendy Nelson, and from Pres. Nelson. And perhaps, from those watch dogs that are reading discussion forums about the un-equality of women in the temple. I believe Pres. Nelson believes it's from God though. But me personally I'm unsure if the temple is from God because of my studies about Jesus tearing the curtain down because there are no needs for temples since he has been crucified and resurrected. No need for temple sacrifice. But it's a nice touch I guess, for a church to have. But clearly Joseph got the idea from Masonry on how to do the ordinances, not from God and that's why the church can change them. If they truly came from God they wouldn't reach out and get people's opinions on the temple. And then change accordingly. I just don't feel it's true. If I did, I'd still go. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

What eternal principal has changed? Women have always thought they were covenanting with the Lord, despite the language we had to work around. Now it is much more clear and doesn’t require single women to have an imaginary husband. They only cleaned up the language for heaven’s sake. It’s not like they removed the law of chastity. 

Having it in the endowment itself puzzled me a bit because not all sisters were there for the purpose of being sealed.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I have no problems with these changes, I had none with the 1990 changes either.  I have no problems with the fact that many changes have been made to the Temple ceremonies over the decades since originally introduced--there've been additions and deletions.  IMO, there is nothing wrong with making changes to the presentation--the 'vehicle' designed to teach eternal principles found in the basic covenants we make in the temple.  The 'vehicle' is what was set up by those of past time periods to teach the things of the temple and they can and ought to be changed, through inspiration and revelation, by those authorized and anointed on earth to do so at the time.  That is why we have a living prophet and continuing revelation and we should praise God we have a Prophet! If the changes help us to more clearly understand the covenants and not get bogged down or bothered by aspects of the  'vehicle' which may, in a changing time/society, come to  detract or distract, that's positive change and should be welcomed.  It is also a great condescension on the Lord's part to do this--it could have remained as is, but I think we should view  this as  the heavens being open and blessings coming to us to strengthen our faith and our understanding and helping us to gather Israel and brings souls to Christ and his church on earth. 

I feel that we as a church are being blessed to see these changes and I hope that we as individuals will pray about these changes for confirmation that this church is being led by Prophets, seers and revelators and the Lord is indeed the one who inspires them.  Because that's a vital part of this--that we receive inspiration and spiritual knowledge, strengthen our faith and testimonies as we live the Gospel of Jesus Christ and work to serve him and do his will.

Some of what has been reported are changes to the "vehicle".  But one of the actual covenants has changed.

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We have known the precise wording of the covenant since the beginning of our marriage in 1972. It has been the spiritual foundation of our marriage. I (we) have never understood the covenant to give permission to the man to exercise even an iota of unrighteousness dominion. I believe there are some in the Church and out of the Church (even in this discussion) who think it put men in a superior position and demeaned women. I have heard this criticism especially from members in their 30s and early 40s, but I believe it is a misunderstanding that is being clarified. We are still in the early stages of understanding what is going on.

You continue to dismiss women’s concerns over and over. We get it. But you need to understand, and hopefully you will at some point, that your feelings as a man have no standing. This is about women and their experience and understanding. And about a Prophet who considers us important enough to rile up the men who don’t.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

What eternal principal has changed? Women have always thought they were covenanting with the Lord, despite the language we had to work around. Now it is much more clear and doesn’t require single women to have an imaginary husband. They only cleaned up the language for heaven’s sake. It’s not like they removed the law of chastity. 

They "cleaned up the language" to reflect what women thought the covenant meant? Is that ALL women? The change of language is significant. You suggest that women had to work around the language to get to the meaning, but you seem to think that everyone actually worked around the language to find the meaning you found. I don't think this is correct. While I'm glad you found a better meaning than what the covenant actually said, it doesn't change the fact that the language of the covenant actually said something different. So the official church language said one thing, but women worked around it to find a different meaning. Now women can apparently work with the language instead of working around it. IMO that's a big deal because I really do not believe that every member attending the endowment for all of these years ignored the actual language to find a different meaning. They took it literally for what it said which was likely, at least in part, an influence of sexism within the church. Am I misunderstanding you?

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

You continue to dismiss women’s concerns over and over. We get it. But you need to understand, and hopefully you will at some point, that your feelings as a man have no standing. This is about women and their experience and understanding. And about a Prophet who considers us important enough to rile up the men who don’t.  

 

No I don’t, and your continuing false accusations are getting tedious. I have taken time to explain at length how my wife and  I understand and have lived the covenant in a way that that does not demean or diminish women, and being told to shut up is not appropriate.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We have known the precise wording of the covenant since the beginning of our marriage in 1972. It has been the spiritual foundation of our marriage. I (we) have never understood the covenant to give permission to the man to exercise even an iota of unrighteousness dominion. I believe there are some in the Church and out of the Church (even in this discussion) who think it put men in a superior position and demeaned women. I have heard this criticism especially from members in their 30s and early 40s, but I believe it is a misunderstanding that is being clarified. We are still in the early stages of understanding what is going on.

If only the wife has to hearken, and the husband doesn’t, then it’s reasonable for someone to interpret that to mean that the husband and wife are not equal in the relationship.  One covenants to listen to the other while the other one doesn’t.

I agree though that this change could be the correction of a covenant that was too easy to misunderstand.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If only the wife has to hearken, and the husband doesn’t, then it’s reasonable for someone to interpret that to mean that the husband and wife are not equal in the relationship.  One covenants to listen to the other while the other one doesn’t.

I agree though that this change could be the correction of a covenant that was too easy to misunderstand.

 

Not only reasonable, but I think that was the teaching. Which is why I don't understand Juliann's statement that it is merely cleaning up the language and not changing any teachings or principles once thought to be eternal.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

What eternal principal has changed? Women have always thought they were covenanting with the Lord, despite the language we had to work around. Now it is much more clear and doesn’t require single women to have an imaginary husband. They only cleaned up the language for heaven’s sake. It’s not like they removed the law of chastity. 

Interesting... women always thought that they were covenanting with the Lord even though that isn't what the words of the covenant said?

Don't get me wrong - I am very grateful for the changes.  These are things that have been a concern for my wife and I over the last two decades that we've been married.  And I'm extraordinarily grateful that my daughters will never have to experience the old language.  Seriously, it is such a relief!

But this changed a covenant.

The changes in 1990 were changes to the covenants.  That's twice in my temple-going life.

If the covenants can change and the narration can change, which parts are eternal?

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Some of what has been reported are changes to the "vehicle".  But one of the actual covenants has changed.

You can’t have it both ways. The men who are objecting are aware enough to realize they must add that it didn’t really mean that women weren’t covenanting to the lord....or other rationales that it didn’t really mean what it said/didn’t matter, etc. (Ironic when they are saying it is important to keep it that way.)

A consistent and logical approach to this might work better. 

If one objects to this change, what is the message, despite efforts to make it seem more palatable to only allow men to covenant to God?  

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No I don’t, and your continuing false accusations are getting tedious. I have taken time to explain at length how my wife and  I understand and have lived the covenant in a way that that does not demean or diminish women, and being told to shut up is not appropriate.

One more time. Having no standing does not mean shut up. Talk all you want. But as a man, you have no standing in a debate about women and their experience. 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Interesting... women always thought that they were covenanting with the Lord even though that isn't what the words of the covenant said?

Don't get me wrong - I am very grateful for the changes.  These are things that have been a concern for my wife and I over the last two decades that we've been married.  And I'm extraordinarily grateful that my daughters will never have to experience the old language.  Seriously, it is such a relief!

But this changed a covenant.

The changes in 1990 were changes to the covenants.  That's twice in my temple-going life.

If the covenants can change and the narration can change, which parts are eternal?

I agree. The subjects involved in the covenant matter in a big way. For example, if I were to covenant with God to do certain things and in return he covenanted with me to make me something in His court/Kingdom, it is very different than my wife covenanting to me and then I in return covenanting to make her something in my court/kingdom. This changes so much of Mormon theology I haven't wrapped my brain around it yet.

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If only the wife has to hearken, and the husband doesn’t, then it’s reasonable for someone to interpret that to mean that the husband and wife are not equal in the relationship.  One covenants to listen to the other while the other one doesn’t.

I agree though that this change could be the correction of a covenant that was too easy to misunderstand.

 

I agree that it can be and is misunderstood especially in today’s climate. I disagree with the statement that one doesn’t listen. I have never understood it that way.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

One more time. Having no standing does not mean shut up. Talk all you want. But as a man, you have no standing in a debate about women and their experience. 

Untrue and an unfortunate attitude, but you are welcome to it. Enjoy.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[changed]

37 minutes ago, juliann said:

What eternal principal has changed? 

 

Women no longer covenant to their husbands.  That is the principle that has changed.

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They "cleaned up the language" to reflect what women thought the covenant meant? Is that ALL women? The change of language is significant. You suggest that women had to work around the language to get to the meaning, but you seem to think that everyone actually worked around the language to find the meaning you found. I don't think this is correct. While I'm glad you found a better meaning than what the covenant actually said, it doesn't change the fact that the language of the covenant actually said something different. So the official church language said one thing, but women worked around it to find a different meaning. Now women can apparently work with the language instead of working around it. IMO that's a big deal because I really do not believe that every member attending the endowment for all of these years ignored the actual language to find a different meaning. They took it literally for what it said which was likely, at least in part, an influence of sexism within the church. Am I misunderstanding you?

I was speaking of those who continued to attend. I suspect enough church going women had stopped to make this a concern to begin with. (And that isn't about taking your ball and going home, it is about not being able to, in good conscience, say yes to this stuff anymore. It felt dishonest.) 

There is usually a sequence of events that resulted in enough women responding to the surveys to indicate it was serious. At first, it has just always been that way. You don't notice, really. Maybe a hmmmm sort of reaction but no deeper involvement. And if you have a good man who does expect you to be an equal partner, it doesn't matter. Then, and it has been relatively recent, detailed discussions began on the internet. The silence was broken. More women are now reading about why they have that hmmmm reaction, or simply becoming aware of the inequities. The younger generation does notice so this might be forcing a harder look by parents. 

It takes years, I think, to become fully aware, if you are used to this kind of thing. Younger women have little idea what we experienced in our culture and why that might make this more benign to so many. Awareness is the enemy of a status quo that was developed when women had few expectations and limited opportunity.

So I speak of myself when I say the understanding was that it eventually all ended up at God anyway. It is the same thinking, probably, that we go through when we say God will work it out. Only as we can see here, there are still far too many men who think subordinating women is a good thing. Anyway, from reading the reactions of women, I do think it is accurate that those who attended, did work around this whether by lack of awareness or the God works it out rationale. 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

You can’t have it both ways. The men who are objecting are aware enough to realize they must add that it didn’t really mean that women weren’t covenanting to the lord....or other rationales that it didn’t really mean what it said/didn’t matter, etc. (Ironic when they are saying it is important to keep it that way.)

A consistent and logical approach to this might work better. 

If one objects to this change, what is the message, despite efforts to make it seem more palatable to only allow men to covenant to God?  

I don't object to the change.  I always felt that it was wrong.  I was never comfortable with it and never had any witness that it was meant to be that way (the old way).  It was one of a number of reasons why I didn't attend the temple frequently.

So I don't want it both ways.  I want it the new way.  The way it should be.

I am just puzzled by the implications of the change.

[juliann]

1 minute ago, changed said:

 

Women no longer covenant to their husbands.  That is the principle that has changed.

Was it eternal? Or more like polygamy that once dictated the subordination of women? We are shedding these understandings....circular reasoning....but that should by definition define what is eternal.

I think Pogi described it well in his post.

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Completely agree.  Just trying to make sure I understood @Duncan's point, which leans away from learning and development and towards obedience as the ultimate teaching God wants us to take in.

I don’t read that as Duncan’s point at all