Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The difference is that we have the keys. Maybe it is a double standard but in my view it is comparing apples and oranges.

Also, while changing the ordinances was bad the main loss to the early Christian Church was the slow but inevitable loss of the keys of authority after the death of the apostles. Without them the ordinances have no power even if they are unchanged. An interesting comparison is imagine that in the modern church all 15 of the apostles died. What would happen? Well, the Presidents of the Seventy would take over presumably but so much would be lost. Those who held keys would still hold them but they would not be replaceable. Some ordinances could be done but others could not. Stake Presidents and Bishops could not be replaced. Eventually you have no leaders left with keys and Priesthood ordination itself would cease.

The apostles generally do not share their reasoning and that paper does not have reasoning. It tries to lay out the facts. The main thing it gives is insights into how revelations of that kind are sought and received.

Don't Catholics claim to have the original keys as well?  I recall seeing paintings and statues of Peter with the keys in his hands.  

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, cfi said:

My mother explained her understanding of the apparent "inequality" to me several years ago:

Adam and Eve are married, and each voices a portion of a covenant they are entering into jointly. Neither is making an individual covenant. There are two parts to the covenant, just as there are two people in the marriage.

Adam voices the part that pledges obedience to God. Eve voices the part in which they agree to work together as partners -- to listen to each other's counsel, and to help each other in their obedience to God.

The split voice helps illustrate that husbands and wives have different but equal roles. Even so, both are bound by the full covenant. Both have a direct connection to God. Neither is an intermediary or an inferior.

The new changes seem to agree with my mother's understanding.

The covenant has not changed, but the revised presentation removes the need to "work around" the awkward split-voice language, and makes explicit the eternal principle that was always there: husbands and wives are equal partners.

A friend of mine explained that in a very similar way years ago in an Institute class though it was about the “I” and “We” sermons given by Adam and Eve respectively in the Book of Moses. You are not her are you?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Don't Catholics claim to have the original keys as well?  I recall seeing paintings and statues of Peter with the keys in his hands.  

They definitely make the claim. They still do not have them though.  

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I only accepted that as a basic premise when I was a child. I no longer do so. And I believe the restoration of authority is much more important then specific ritual though, of course, some rituals were laid out with specificity in revelation such as the baptismal and sacrament prayers.

But temple language has the same imprimatur as baptism and sacrament prayers.  The ordinance workers are required to recite the wording with exactness and if they mess up to repeat it again, just like for a baptism or sacrament prayer.  

[HappyJackWagon]

45 minutes 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.

Also, even though the brethren may not know/understand God's motives for making the changes, they should certainly understand their own motives for asking. It is often taught that revelation is received by those who are seeking, asking questions, etc. So I would presume that the brethren had taken it to the Lord in prayer. The question would be, why did they take it to the Lord?

Or in this case, did the Lord give them revelation for the changes without them first asking/seeking?

[hope_for_things]

Just now, The Nehor said:

They definitely make the claim. They still do not have them though.  

So it only comes down to an appeal to authority claim?  This is not what I was taught about the apostasy in Mormonism.  I was told that it wasn't just the authority, but the actual ordinance that had been corrupted and changed.  That is why baptisms of babies by sprinkling was so vehemently condemned in the BoM.  I'm not sure it even mentioned authority at all in those passages if I recall correctly.  I believe it only talks about the corruption of the ordinance.  

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's because in my understanding, being the head does not make one superior to anyone else, so that's why I don't see it as producing inequality in marriage.  Neither do I believe that being the head is an enviable position, nor do I believe that being asked to follow puts anyone at a disadvantage.  

The apostles in Christ's day were always trying to be in charge and Jesus kept trying to get them to change the way they thought about that concept because how they interpreted being 'the head' wasn't correct, but they never really seemed to get to the place where He wanted them to be.  I think our culture and society in the church still struggle greatly with that same problem.

Bluebell - I am not picking on your post in particular, but want to respond to all who have found peace in the teachings that the man acts the head, and/or that women have covenanted to hearken unto their husbands is somehow explainable as equal somehow.  That position is problematic for me.

First, as @YJacket points out, there is clear biblical precedent for women being subject to men.  In both the old and new testaments, the subject is pretty clear.

Second, there are many, many teachings by early LDS church leaders that clearly underline the difference in hierarchy between men and women.  Brigham Young exacerbated this issue, but Joseph Smith made some strong statements as well: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife... as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” (Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Latter-day Saint Messenger and Advocate, Nov. 1835)

Must we accept the new testament and the teachings of the early LDS church as the correct will of God?  Not necessarily.  BUT, it is impossible to ignore or gloss over the fact that this has been clearly taught.  It strikes me as wishful thinking to believe that all along, these clearly sexist (I use that word as pragmatically as possible here) teachings were just misunderstood, and that all along they were teaching that men and women are equal partners.

[The Nehor]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

But temple language has the same imprimatur as baptism and sacrament prayers.  The ordinance workers are required to recite the wording with exactness and if they mess up to repeat it again, just like for a baptism or sacrament prayer.  

As far as I am aware the temple ordinance was not dictated in a written revelation the way the other prayers were.

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Don't Catholics claim to have the original keys as well?  I recall seeing paintings and statues of Peter with the keys in his hands.  

Bingo - after studying at Notre Dame, I became more convinced of how arrogant we Mormons seem.  Maybe we do have the keys, but the story of how we 'restored' the keys is far less plausible, far more magical, and we have far less to show for it.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So it only comes down to an appeal to authority claim?  This is not what I was taught about the apostasy in Mormonism.  I was told that it wasn't just the authority, but the actual ordinance that had been corrupted and changed.  That is why baptisms of babies by sprinkling was so vehemently condemned in the BoM.  I'm not sure it even mentioned authority at all in those passages if I recall correctly.  I believe it only talks about the corruption of the ordinance.  

The only chapter about incorrect baptism in the Book of Mormon is Moroni 8 and it was about baptizing small children and how it was an abomination. I do not believe there is anything about sprinkling.

The ordinances were changed too. Yet even if they were word perfect they would not work without Priesthood keys. If the wording was the only important element we would have had to recognize ordinances done by the then-RLDS Church.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Bingo - after studying at Notre Dame, I became more convinced of how arrogant we Mormons seem.  Maybe we do have the keys, but the story of how we 'restored' the keys is far less plausible, far more magical, and we have far less to show for it.

How is it any more magical than believing that a dead man rose from the grave, and that by this dead man rising from the grave that you and I may one day do the same as well.  Completely implausible.

[Avatar4321]

3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Bingo - after studying at Notre Dame, I became more convinced of how arrogant we Mormons seem.  Maybe we do have the keys, but the story of how we 'restored' the keys is far less plausible, far more magical, and we have far less to show for it.

The redemption of the dead is a pretty significant aspect of the keys. If you think that it is “not much to show for it” I recommend more study of it

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Bingo - after studying at Notre Dame, I became more convinced of how arrogant we Mormons seem.  Maybe we do have the keys, but the story of how we 'restored' the keys is far less plausible, far more magical, and we have far less to show for it.

Their story of getting the keys is equally magical; it is just further back in time.

[SettingDogStar]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Also, even though the brethren may not know/understand God's motives for making the changes, they should certainly understand their own motives for asking. It is often taught that revelation is received by those who are seeking, asking questions, etc. So I would presume that the brethren had taken it to the Lord in prayer. The question would be, why did they take it to the Lord?

Or in this case, did the Lord give them revelation for the changes without them first asking/seeking?

Exactly, I think it was Joseph Smith that said something to the effect that the Key to the scriptures was to look for what question was asked to get the revelation and that would unfold the whole lesson.

[SouthernMo]

Just now, ksfisher said:

How is it any more magical than believing that a dead man rose from the grave, and that by this dead man rising from the grave that you and I may one day do the same as well.  Completely implausible.

You are dead on - all christian faiths certainly have this and other magical beliefs.  But, that doesn't mean that all magical beliefs are true.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As far as I am aware the temple ordinance was not dictated in a written revelation the way the other prayers were.

The Dialogue article I linked to earlier is really interesting and goes into some detail about how the Endowment was created/modified over time. I'll just link to it again because it's a good, relatively short read. I especially like the section of 1920's changes under President Richards.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_87.pdf?fbclid=IwAR22K8ZUDE4o44xxxNIz0bNQryAvG9cZ1hCb61w_uK7CQPLHeTgzp8FhYRo

SO if we know the history of the endowment we can clearly see that it wasn't received as a kind of word for word revelation, yet the exactness with which it is required to be performed would indicate that it is precisely what God wants. It's a conundrum. To my knowledge there are no revelations instituting/creating the endowment. If there is, could someone please point me to it?

Interesting piece of info from this article:

Quote

One practice during the Depression years was to pay people to perform endowments for the dead. Usually these temple workers were
members of the church with few funds, frequently elderly. Members who did not have time to perform ordinances for deceased ancestors customarily
paid 75 cents for men and 50 cents for women per ordinance. Typically money was left on deposit with clerks at the temple, who would
disburse it as each vicarious endowment was performed. It is not clear when this practice ended, but it was probably difficult for temples to administer
the collection and distribution of cash.130

130. George F. Richards, Jr., Oral History (interviewed by William G. Hartley, 1973, James H. Moyle Oral History Project), 58; L. Garrett Myers, Oral History (interviewed by
Bruce D. Blumell, 1976, James H. Moyle Oral History Project), 21-22; Joseph F. Smith, Anthon
H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose, "Temple Work for Church Members Abroad," Improvement
Era 17 (March 1915): 451-52.

 

[SouthernMo]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Their story of getting the keys is equally magical; it is just further back in time.

Like when Christ gave them to Peter?

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

The redemption of the dead is a pretty significant aspect of the keys. If you think that it is “not much to show for it” I recommend more study of it

I think a more apt comparison is looking at how many people have come to Christ because of the teachings of the original church versus Mormonism?

It takes far less love and effort to read an obituary and do proxy work for those who may or may not accept it.  Whether they do or do not accept it is a matter of faith.

The billions of Christians who have been converted over the last 2,000 or so years as a result of the original church is much stronger evidence of good being done.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour 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.

I think it's a bit more complex. The biggest issue in our apostasy narrative is, after all, loss of key "mysteries" (in the 1st century sense). i.e. the endowment & preparatory ordinances. But I think changing the ordinances also is a big deal. If you read the Didiche it makes sense how sprinkling became normative. There you're supposed to baptize by immersion in fresh running water. But if fresh water isn't available you can use more dank pools. But if that's not available (not uncommon in a desert environment) you can sprinkle what water you have. That became transformed from what to do in a limited case to the main case. It's a case of things getting out of hand. By way of analogy we can imagine the example of soldiers using potatoes for the sacrament when bread wasn't available but then making potatoes the normative case and building up an imaginary theology about it. You see the same thing the past 40 years with white shirts or holding ones hand behind ones back while passing. It's easy for such things to transform an ordinance illegitimately. After all with sprinkling, while perhaps in the big picture not a huge deal, the symbolism of death and resurrection is lost and only the washing is left -- and that not totally left.

But of course our ordinances have also changed. The most obvious being using water in the sacrament instead of wine.

With regards to the endowment, there have obviously been a lot of changes. Largely because culturally elements were being misinterpreted. There's not a good way given the sacredness of the rite, to explain things better. (Although part of me wishes videos explaining a lot of the symbolism were available - I think our modern culture is so disassociated from the ancient world that a lot is still misinterpreted) A big part of me wishes there was at least one session a week - perhaps in the SLC temple - that did the older rites with the curses and more masonic elements. Many of them did have deeply symbolic meanings that entered into masonry from the ancient world. I think if only as a kind of educational value that'd be very useful since again such things can't really be talked about.

Edited January 3, 2019 by clarkgoble

[halconero]

"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 key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." - Brigham Young

After pondering over some things last night, this quote came to mind. I found value in the way things were presented before. I think I would find value in the older means and ways of presentation. I will continue to find value now. That said, I sincerely believe that if I were to stand by the Saints of previous years at the gateway to Heaven, each of us would be enabled to give the angels who stand as sentinels the same necessary components without variation. That has not changed.

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I think a more apt comparison is looking at how many people have come to Christ because of the teachings of the original church versus Mormonism?

It takes far less love and effort to read an obituary and do proxy work for those who may or may not accept it.  Whether they do or do not accept it is a matter of faith.

The billions of Christians who have been converted over the last 2,000 or so years as a result of the original church is much stronger evidence of good being done.

I think the rejoinder to this is that they're converted only in part since only part was given. (That's just as true as probably most people prior to Christ as well) Of course we have faith that missionary work is ongoing in the spirit world. Indeed that's almost certainly where most of the missionary work is going on.

9 minutes ago, halconero said:

"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 key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." - Brigham Young

After pondering over some things last night, this quote came to mind. I found value in the way things were presented before. I think I would find value in the older means and ways of presentation. I will continue to find value now. That said, I sincerely believe that if I were to stand by the Saints of previous years at the gateway to Heaven, each of us would be enabled to give the angels who stand as sentinels the same necessary components without variation. That has not changed.

I think Brigham did as well as he could. Condemning things he got wrong probably isn't that helpful. And many elements as I said really do reflect ancient rites even if we don't use them now. It's worth noting that Joseph, according to Brigham, told him things weren't correct.

• "Bro[ther] Joseph [Smith] turned to me [Brigham Young] and said: “Brother Brigham this is not arranged right, but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this mat[t]er in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.” I did so and each time I got something more; so that when we went through the Temple at Nauvoo, I understood and knew how to place them there. We had our ceremonies pretty correct."  (Nuttall Journal, 7 Feb. 1877)

While some read that to mean Joseph hadn't yet made the changes Brigham did, I think that a better way of reading this is both feeling that you're trying to capture something but always fall somewhat short. That's especially true given that meaning of any performance or speech is always tied to culture. As culture shifts, sometimes we have to shift the text. I think we see that with the problems of members using the KJV of the Bible for instance. (Something I also suspect will change in my lifetime - and perhaps under Nelson)

Edited January 3, 2019 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

12 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

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?

I think he meant that delegates do not change what has been delegated to them to perform.

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, halconero said:

That said, I sincerely believe that if I were to stand by the Saints of previous years at the gateway to Heaven, each of us would be enabled to give the angels who stand as sentinels the same necessary components without variation. That has not changed.

This may be true, but generations of Masons will be able to give (at least) some of the same components.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

For me it is a welcome change that better reflects the reality, for some others it is an unwanted change because they think a subordinate wife works well. The difference is that this view is no longer supported by the church. 

So where it used to be that any woman who dared express hope that her position would be officially recognized with clarity was badgered and considered apostate, the tables have now turned. It will be interesting to watch this play out for men who have always considered their opinions about women to be backed by the church. 

[the narrator]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The difference is that we have the keys. Maybe it is a double standard but in my view it is comparing apples and oranges.

Also, while changing the ordinances was bad the main loss to the early Christian Church was the slow but inevitable loss of the keys of authority after the death of the apostles. Without them the ordinances have no power even if they are unchanged. An interesting comparison is imagine that in the modern church all 15 of the apostles died. What would happen? Well, the Presidents of the Seventy would take over presumably but so much would be lost. Those who held keys would still hold them but they would not be replaceable. Some ordinances could be done but others could not. Stake Presidents and Bishops could not be replaced. Eventually you have no leaders left with keys and Priesthood ordination itself would cease.

But even the understanding of "keys" has changed. The contemporary view of keys as some sort of metaphysical and transferable token of authority did not originate with Joseph Smith. For Joseph, "keys" referred to knowledge. It wasn't until after the death of Joseph that we start to see keys as some sort of metaphysical thing.