Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[changed]

I have not worn garments, nor attended the temple in over a year now.  I turned in my recommend because I will not be subordinate to men.  A high priest abused my kids (bishopric member who is now in jail the rest of their life), my husband lied through all interviews is unfaithful, I will not bow my head to these abusive dishonest bastards.  

a large percentage of the women in my family have been abused by Mormon men.

One sister in law - by her Mormon father growing up.

Another - by her Mormon brother, and Mormon parents did not stop the abuse.

My mother-in-law was abused by 3 different men.

I am a convert and am sickened by it.  The women who were raised LDS just shrug their shoulders, stay married to pedophiles who abuse their kids, WTF???  I'm battling mixed-faith marriage, kids are sucked into this thing, I hate it.  I hate it soo much.

My youngest - nightmares all night last night because of her abuse from HP's.  This is the nightmare I live with.

Now multiple cases in current families - it is sickening.

I stopped attending - not because I am unworthy, but from the hypocrisy of women being forced under the thumb of abusive and unloyal unchaste men.  

I want to undo all the previous covenants I made - had I known the nature of the old covenants before going in and making them I would have NEVER made them.  Tricking women into making horror covenants by not letting anyone study anything out ahead of time???

I'm happy for the next generation.  Not sure if I want to go back.

The choice:  Believe in a God who calls pedophiles into leadership positions - who leads the church and founded the church with pedophiles and think it will all work out in the end??!!??  There are some things that are never erased.  or... the other choice ... no God, just natural laws, but have to live in a world where everyone believes in a God.

 

Edited January 3, 2019 by changed

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Yeah, I understand that. For me, the implication of the change is that the restoration of women to their proper sphere will now emanate from the axis mundi, the temple, where we are to receive further light and knowledge.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I personally never saw it as teaching that, but I do understand why some did.  

I look at the proclamation to the family, for example, and see that God does not intend for men and women to have an unequal relationship, but believe that God does intend for men to preside in the marriage.  That, and other teachings, have always influenced how I interpreted the temple covenant.  I interpreted it as a covenant to allow my husband to preside, but I never believed that the lack of a covenant on his end meant that God didn't require my husband to listen to me.  

But I think the wording of the covenant was a stumbling block to many (because it was easily misinterpreted, in my opinion) and so it makes sense to me that it would need to be clarified.

[SettingDogStar]

16 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. 

Not to butt my head into the conversation but being a man does not negate our opinions in a debate about women. That would basically be tossing out anything the President of the Church, Q12, Seventy, and any man in the scriptures. Heck, even tossing out God.

Obviously nothing has been revealed about Heavenly Mother and her involvement in this world, but we pray to the Father and through the Son who have both had conversations about women. Who’s have also instructed prophets on instruction to give to women. Men have just as much standing as women because we are all children of God. 

[juliann]

1 minute ago, changed said:

I have not worn garments, nor attended the temple in over a year now.  I turned in my recommend because I will not be subordinate to men.  A high priest abused my kids (bishopric member who is now in jail the rest of their life), my husband lied through all interviews is unfaithful, I will not bow my head to these abusive dishonest bastards.  

I stopped attending - not because I am unworthy, but from the hypocrisy of women being forced under the thumb of abusive and unloyal unchaste men.  

I want to undo all the previous covenants I made - had I known the nature of the old covenants before going in and making them I would have NEVER made them.  Tricking women into making horror covenants by not letting anyone study anything out ahead of time???

I'm happy for the next generation.  Not sure if I want to go back.

I don't blame you. Keep watching, I expect more now that the temple has become more egalitarian. 

[the narrator]

41 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. 

I mostly agree. I think a big problem is the traditional LDS apostasy narrative and how it generally includes a derisive view of perceived changes to ordinances in other Christian traditions. This condemnation and frequent self-congratulatory ridicule of things such as non-immersion baptism (something I witnessed a lot of on my mission) develops an attitude within Mormonism of changes to ordinances being a mark of apostasy and a correlating belief that LDS ordinances have always been the same when, in fact, virtually every LDS ordinance has changed to varying degrees since they were instantiated.

[Jerry Ray]

Another feeling I came away with is that the Lord wants us to testify of the temple and with the testimony meeting coming up this Sunday, the timing couldn't be better. My testimony has been strengthened by the knowledge that our living prophet has indeed received these revelations needed to move the church forward and to hasten the work of the gathering of Israel 

[juliann]

1 minute ago, SettingDogStar said:

Not to butt my head into the conversation but being a man does not negate our opinions in a debate about women. That would basically be tossing out anything the President of the Church, Q12, Seventy, and any man in the scriptures. Heck, even tossing out God.

Obviously nothing has been revealed about Heavenly Mother and her involvement in this world, but we pray to the Father and through the Son who have both had conversations about women. Who’s have also instructed prophets on instruction to give to women. Men have just as much standing as women because we are all children of God. 

Nope. Not until you experience what women do. Until then you have largely uninformed opinions. Do you expect to have standing in a discussion of child birth? That is what you are saying and it is bizarre. And I don't think the Brethren would ever consider to have equal standing in discussions of uniquely female experience. They can counsel, but only because of the position they hold.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

I don't blame you. Keep watching, I expect more now that the temple has become more egalitarian. 

Lots of things are going to change. It is thrilling watching the good ship Zion drop off barnacle after barnacle as it speeds us.

I am hopeful that the changes I am expecting will come this year as a woman I love very much (one of my sister-in-laws) has been struggling with something and I hope the change I expect will heal her.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I mostly agree. I think a big problem is the traditional LDS apostasy narrative and how it generally includes a derisive view of perceived changes to ordinances in other Christian traditions. This condemnation and frequent self-congratulatory ridicule of things such as non-immersion baptism (something I witnessed a lot of on my mission) develops an attitude within Mormonism of changes to ordinances being a mark of apostasy and a correlating belief that LDS ordinances have always been the same when, in fact, virtually every LDS ordinance has changed to varying degrees since they were instantiated.

Yeah, the narrative needs to change to be about authorized changes.

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I mostly agree. I think a big problem is the traditional LDS apostasy narrative and how it generally includes a derisive view of perceived changes to ordinances in other Christian traditions. This condemnation and frequent self-congratulatory ridicule of things such as non-immersion baptism (something I witnessed a lot of on my mission) develops an attitude within Mormonism of changes to ordinances being a mark of apostasy and a correlating belief that LDS ordinances have always been the same when, in fact, virtually every LDS ordinance has changed to varying degrees since they were instantiated.

Good point. But dissing other religions is flat out wrong  and we even have that from Gen Conf so I don't consider that a valid (understandable maybe but not valid) baseline. 

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, Jerry Ray said:

Another feeling I came away with is that the Lord wants us to testify of the temple and with the testimony meeting coming up this Sunday, the timing couldn't be better. My testimony has been strengthened by the knowledge that our living prophet has indeed received these revelations needed to move the church forward and to hasten the work of the gathering of Israel 

Giving you a virtual like point until you have enough posts to have a real one!

[the narrator]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

But dissing other religions is flat out wrong  and we even have that from Gen Conf so I don't consider that a valid (understandable maybe but not valid) baseline. 

I'm not saying it's valid. You know I wouldn't think that.

 

[rockpond]

I have a testimony that the Brethren will eventually come around to making needed changes after a problem has become big and visible enough.  It will be considered revelation even though many outside the highest councils of the church already knew the change was needed.

I have a testimony that this helps pave the way for women functioning in more priesthood roles and the eventual acceptance of marriage equality for gay couples.  I have a testimony that those revelations will also come.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

Thanks for the explanation.

If it was your understanding that it all eventually ended up at God anyway, why would that be different from someone like Bernard also stating that it all eventually ended up at God anyway?

In both cases it seems to ignore the actual language of the [old] covenant but to the same effect; belief that it all ends up at God. The only real difference I see (and it's a big one) is that the language and teaching of the church didn't support that understanding and now it does. That's why I think the language is so important. It doesn't just provide words to soften the reality of church teachings, but it actually changes them in a positive way...IMO

 

 

[SettingDogStar]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, the narrative needs to change to be about authorized changes.

What we really need is some good explanations as to why the changes occurred. There are all kinds of theories and speculations about the “vehicle can change” and “God updates sometimes” or that “maybe we are receiving the higher law!”. However if they could just come out and say “this is why we ditched the penalties, this is why we just wash with a drop and not bathe, this is why we altered the covenant and here’s the revelation etc.” that would be nice. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, SettingDogStar said:

What we really need is some good explanations as to why the changes occurred. There are all kinds of theories and speculations about the “vehicle can change” and “God updates sometimes” or that “maybe we are receiving the higher law!”. However if they could just come out and say “this is why we ditched the penalties, this is why we just wash with a drop and not bathe, this is why we altered the covenant and here’s the revelation etc.” that would be nice. 

That assumes the apostles know the reasons. God may not be telling.

[hope_for_things]

45 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?

What is eternal is the question I would think most orthodox members would be asking.  Early Mormonism was built on the concept that truths about certain eternal ordinances had been lost and changed through an apostasy, and that they needed to be restored to their original true form.  Isn't this why the church claims baptisms must be performed by immersion?  

I was always under the impression as an orthodox member, that the temple ordinances were revealed in such specificity to Joseph Smith that the exact wording must be followed in order for them to be considered valid.  God required that the wording was exact, or the ordinances wouldn't be valid.  How could that wording possibly be changed then?  I thought these ordinances were restoration of some originally eternal and correct ritual form down to the very words used in the ritual.  

 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

What is eternal is the question I would think most orthodox members would be asking.  Early Mormonism was built on the concept that truths about certain eternal ordinances had been lost and changed through an apostasy, and that they needed to be restored to their original true form.  Isn't this why the church claims baptisms must be performed by immersion?  

I was always under the impression as an orthodox member, that the temple ordinances were revealed in such specificity to Joseph Smith that the exact wording must be followed in order for them to be considered valid.  God required that the wording was exact, or the ordinances wouldn't be valid.  How could that wording possibly be changed then?  I thought these ordinances were restoration of some originally eternal and correct ritual form down to the very words used in the ritual.  

 

Nope, and the restoration is still ongoing. Brigham Young once said that in time the temple ordinances would be perfected but I cannot find the quote and read it over a decade ago.

[SettingDogStar]

Just now, The Nehor said:

That assumes the apostles know the reasons. God may not be telling.

True, and that very well might be true..but it just seems odd for God to alter His ordinances and not offer an explanation for it. I know that we have the whole “walk by faith not by sight” but some of the changes have been pretty intense in the past and while we are to all be receiving revelation..it would help quell a lot of rumors, folklore and speculation.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

I think the fact that it changed illustrates that it wasn't eternal, in the sense that eternal means unending. But that doesn't mean it wasn't taught as being eternal or at the very least implied as an eternal teaching considering it was a teaching found in the temple.

However, if one were to define "eternal" as godlike, as one would do if they were speaking of eternal life being a life like God's, it could be "eternal" (godlike) and also not be eternal (unending) if that element of being godlike wasn't forever required.

[Jerry Ray]

12 minutes ago, changed said:

 

I do not have a testimony of the current prophet.  Things that bother me:

*https://fox13now.com/2018/10/03/lawsuit-alleging-sex-abuse-cover-up-filed-against-family-of-lds-church-president/

If you read through the notes on the sex abuse case, you find a chilling account - where Nelson - instead of trying to support the 6 victims, he sits down with the abusers, and protects the abusers.  (The kids wer abused, there are hospital records of their little abused bodies.)

 

**  Nelson waited how long to start dating and get remarried after his wife died?  Nelson is a polygamist - through and through.

*** He is a new-earth creationist... 

How do people justify having a testimony in someone like that??

 

My testimony stands... I may be out of the loop and that's by my own choice not to look for inequity in others. I can't spend a minute of my time worrying about things I can't control

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, SettingDogStar said:

True, and that very well might be true..but it just seems odd for God to alter His ordinances and not offer an explanation for it. I know that we have the whole “walk by faith not by sight” but some of the changes have been pretty intense in the past and while we are to all be receiving revelation..it would help quell a lot of rumors, folklore and speculation.

I do not think anything will quell those. I just remember how many different teachers when I was young taught lessons out of “Embraced by the Light”. Itching ears are not limited to those outside of the faith.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, and the restoration is still ongoing. Brigham Young once said that in time the temple ordinances would be perfected but I cannot find the quote and read it over a decade ago.

So nothing was actually restored from an ancient pure ordinance with specific wording?  Why should anyone care what words or forms are used in the ordinances then?  

Edited January 3, 2019 by hope_for_things

[the narrator]

2 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

What we really need is some good explanations as to why the changes occurred. There are all kinds of theories and speculations about the “vehicle can change” and “God updates sometimes” or that “maybe we are receiving the higher law!”. However if they could just come out and say “this is why we ditched the penalties, this is why we just anoint and not bath, this is why we altered the covenant and here’s the revelation etc.” that would be nice. 

I think the problem in their eyes is that if you provide a rationale for the changes, then it comes across as a human-inspired change rather than a divine one. In this particular case, the changes were directly a result of complaints and concerns that have been sent into Salt Lake over the past years, but Church leadership intentionally only wanted to frame it as only coming from revelation.

FWIW, I like the research, ponder, and pray approach to revelation, but for reasons (I assume of asserting a level of authority) Church leadership wants to imply that their form of revelation is somehow different.

Tied to assertions of authority is the problem of the traditional LDS apostasy narrative I mentioned earlier. If/when other traditions altered ordinances, they didn't think they were going against God's will. That would be silly. Rather, they had a rationale and believed that God was supporting the change. (I add the *if* because it's not always clear that the LDS versions is the original form while others are not.) I think that Latter-day Saints are hesitant to allow human-thinking to be a part of the process because we want it to be entirely different from those "apostate" traditions.