Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[blueglass]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just curious...how does placing man in place to preside, not create, or at least imply a dynamic of inequity in a marriage. We can talk about different definitions of "preside" but at it's core the word seems to imply that the person who presides is at the head. Maybe it's just a problem with the word preside, or my understanding of it, or the cultural use of it.

Co-presiding should be the form.  In the past only men could "rule and reign".  
"You [sisters], through your faithfulness and your obedience, will find your place in the kingdom of God when it is established in its fulness and righteousness . . . It is within the privilege of the sister of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses, and I am sure if they have that power they have some power to rule and reign.  Else why would they be priestesses?"  10 Joseph Fielding Smith, "Relief society - an Aid to the priesthood" 

Edited January 3, 2019 by blueglass

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Jerry Ray said:

I was speaking with a temple sealer yesterday.... he says the ceremony wording has changed and gives a much warmer feeling to the ordinance. Sorry, I don't have any details

Yes, i read in other places that the wording in the ceremony has changed a bit.

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, Jerry Ray said:

I was speaking with a temple sealer yesterday.... he says the ceremony wording has changed and gives a much warmer feeling to the ordinance. Sorry, I don't have any details

I understand the sensitivity here - but can you confirm: was your friend talking about what is said at the altar or at the veil?

[bluebell]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

I understand the sensitivity here - but can you confirm: was your friend talking about what is said at the altar or at the veil?

What I heard was not at the veil.

[blueglass]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean the details of the speech, I'd say part of that is a trapping of masonic ritual that Brigham clearly copied. Second it's wrapped up in the masonic focus on secrecy of such things. But finally I'd say it gets at the common argument that God will only reveal to us more things if he can trust that we won't share them before the world. Joseph was explicit in making that connection.

I'd say charity and missionary work get a ton of focus - especially since those are things we can talk about openly. However people are frequently saying that revelation has ceased or other such things. Typically (IMO) if they aren't receiving them it's because they're not showing themselves able. As I've often said, you get GAs in contexts where they're confident things can be said in confidence they'll tell you a whole lot more. Even the texts people point to from the 19th century often were things never intended to be shared with the world. 

 

Covenant to not share what?  The law of obedience, law of sacrifice?  the law of the gospel, law of chastity, law of consecration?  The laws  against loud laughter, speaking against Lord's anointed, laws against all things impure and unnatural?  playing with face cards?  some of these seem like a misc bag of laws.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just curious...how does placing man in place to preside, not create, or at least imply a dynamic of inequity in a marriage. We can talk about different definitions of "preside" but at it's core the word seems to imply that the person who presides is at the head. Maybe it's just a problem with the word preside, or my understanding of it, or the cultural use of it.

The Relief Society President is called to preside, but I feel no inequality there.  To me presiding is more about being organized than who has power.  It is simply a necessary aspect of any group dynamics to have someone who presides, who keeps the group focused on the issues, ensures views are appropriately shared, voices heard, needs not forgotten when there is counseling and planning to do, even if who presides changes from meeting to meeting...whether it is simply the role of being responsible to remind it is time to discuss/evaluate past and future efforts and when it is time to move on or if they have been given authority by the group to determine who speaks when or to ensure all needed roles are filled to do that.

I think I am okay with it because I view "presiding" in the Church as a temporary necessary calling to oversee the efforts to do things correctly (such as performing the Sacrament), but that does not take away the authority of others involved, nor does their authority need come from who currently presides (many Priesthood holders are not ordain by their bishop, but someone else).  Even in SM where a bishop is presiding, he is not the only one teaching, leading, acting with authority.

I can see how both my own and other marriages could be more efficient and effective in communication if more time was invested in having a more organized and proactive approach to working together rather than operating on a more reactive basis.  And a more organized approach means to me someone has to have the job of being accountable for tracking followthrough etc.  Presiding isn't just about making decisions, it may even have little to do with it if the group has assigned out decisionmaking duties to their specialists.  

Presiding is also done by the consent of those 'presided' over.  There is also nothing in the definition that inherently allows for force or coercion, imo.  Just as the RS President may choose a person as teacher, but the person can refuse the calling based on her own spiritual understanding, so can a family member validly reject requests from the presider over the family (father if present, mother if he is not; other caregiver if there is no capable parent present) based on their own understanding.  An inspired and/or wise presider will accept the mental and spiritual (and even emotional as that has great value imo in helping us know what is important) input from others in the group.

And presiding doesn't require the presider be the one who makes all the final decision or even have input into everything the group does.  In a company different department heads may run their own department pretty independently.  It may be in the company's charter or whatever that for group decisions majority rules after the group has received counseling from the specialists in the group or to avoid corruption or undue influence assign certain crucial decisions to others (I understand compliance officers may have veto power that if ignored can cause the group legal issues, but this is only a vague sense).

 In essence the group decides what "presiding" entails for their group.  Even the Church doctrine that places the husband as presider is pretty vague about how that presiding is to be done, imo, and thus allows for a lot of variation between cultures and individual preferences.  One clear thing in Church doctrine imo is having the Priesthood does not give a man any inherent right to be a tyrant or to simply "lay down the law".  Persuasion and charitable behaviour are the tools of presiding for the Priesthood or anything else from how I read D&C 121.  It can even be read that Priesthood should not be used to have power or influence over others ("No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood").  This would indicate that fathers without Priesthood are meant to preside for the same reason that fathers with Priesthood do...because they are fathers and husbands and not just men.  It is not Priesthood that has 'assigned' them this role and therefore Priesthood does not instill and inherent superiority in presiding in a family, imo.  This would be imo why a son does not become the presider in a family when the father is absent or incapable, but instead it is the mother.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.41-46?lang=eng#p40

Quote

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

In the case of a marriage, both husband and wife are 'founders' and ideally what presiding will mean for their family will be examined prior to marriage to ensure it is acceptable to both.  I think having the father as presider in our doctrine encourages women to actively think about what they want for that role, what they will and will not accept...though this is the ideal and too often both go into a marriage without really thinking much beyond "we want to be together forever".

Edited January 3, 2019 by Calm

[Jerry Ray]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I understand the sensitivity here - but can you confirm: was your friend talking about what is said at the altar or at the veil?

I'm sorry... he didn't go into any detail. During the endowment, I was wondering if there would be any change at the veil or the name of the second token, but there was not. Maybe the same applies but I don't know

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Covenant to not share what?  The law of obedience, law of sacrifice?  the law of the gospel, law of chastity, law of consecration?  The laws  against loud laughter, speaking against Lord's anointed, laws against all things impure and unnatural?  playing with face cards?  some of these seem like a misc bag of laws.  

Many of the things you list can be found outside of the temple. If something's explicitly taught outside the temple then I think it's fair game. For what's inside I think we need to be extremely cautious about sharing except in a veiled way. (Pun - double entendre intended)

Speaking only for myself if it's in a Church manual or talk to the public then I'm fine talking about it. Otherwise I try to talk indirectly about the details. A good place to get a lay of the land is to look at Packer's The Holy Temple (conveniently now available as a pdf from lds.org) and if he talks about it, then it's fair game. Likewise if something is in scripture like Moses veiling himself in a clear temple context then I think that's fair to talk about. I should add that I think Don Bradley has done phenomenal work on the lost 116 pages and showing that there was a lot tied to the temple in there. So those scriptures about Moses actually appear to be replicated by Lehi and Nephi in many key ways relative to accessing the Liahonah in a temple context.

Edited January 3, 2019 by clarkgoble

[SettingDogStar]

2 minutes ago, Jerry Ray said:

I'm sorry... he didn't go into any detail. During the endowment, I was wondering if there would be any change at the veil or the name of the second token, but there was not. Maybe the same applies but I don't know

The trick is that you only get to do The “Short veil” ceremony when you get married once for the living or if your temple worker and have been told about the change. 

[ksfisher]

56 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I sat on a jury once.  The defendant’s explaination behind his car accident associated with an extremely high blood alcohol level was highly implausible.  Possible, but implausible. We found him guilty.

I think plausibility is essential (but not exclusive) to making a judgement of whether something is true or not.

I guess the context within which I'm speaking are religious claims. 

Scientific and legal claims are a different context. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Likewise the clothing can be seen as symbolic

I hope so.  I'm really counting on being able to wear much more comfortable clothes in the eternities. 

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I hope so.  I'm really counting on being able to wear much more comfortable clothes in the eternities. 

Could be worse. Look at what Superman had to wear just because it was some traditional Kryptonian garb left in his spaceship. (Going by the true "underwear on the outside" narrative of Superman)

Edited January 3, 2019 by clarkgoble

[blueglass]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Many of the things you list can be found outside of the temple. If something's explicitly taught outside the temple then I think it's fair game. For what's inside I think we need to be extremely cautious about sharing except in a veiled way. (Pun - double entendre intended)

Speaking only for myself if it's in a Church manual or talk to the public then I'm fine talking about it. Otherwise I try to talk indirectly about the details. A good place to get a lay of the land is to look at Packer's The Holy Temple (conveniently now available as a pdf from lds.org) and if he talks about it, then it's fair game. Likewise if something is in scripture like Moses veiling himself in a clear temple context then I think that's fair to talk about. I should add that I think Don Bradley has done phenomenal work on the lost 116 pages and showing that there was a lot tied to the temple in there. So those scriptures about Moses actually appear to be replicated by Lehi and Nephi in many key ways relative to accessing the Liahonah in a temple context.

When Elder Joaquin E. Costa visited our stake he sat with us for dinner and we had a good talk.  He had just given a priesthood leadership training on priesthood offices, duties, and responsibilities.  So I asked what about Elder Oaks talk about women and priesthood authority and power?  What are the responsibilities, duties, of the office of priestess outside of the temple?  He clamped down and would not talk about it.  He said only if we were in the temple he could discuss more.  Does this make sense?  That we can freely read the responsibilities for Elders, Priests, and teachers in the sec20, 107, etc. yet these were all revealed before the endowment and formation of the quorum of anointed.  

[clarkgoble]

Just now, blueglass said:

When Elder Joaquin E. Costa visited our stake he sat with us for dinner and we had a good talk.  He had just given a priesthood leadership training on priesthood offices, duties, and responsibilities.  So I asked what about Elder Oaks talk about women and priesthood authority and power?  What are the responsibilities, duties, of the office of priestess outside of the temple?  He clamped down and would not talk about it.  He said only if we were in the temple he could discuss more.  Does this make sense?  That we can freely read the responsibilities for Elders, Priests, and teachers in the sec20, 107, etc. yet these were all revealed before the endowment and formation of the quorum of anointed.  

One way to look at this is that the duties and capabilities of those endowed with priesthood are different from the priesthood offices in D&C 20. I think one could say that without necessarily buying into Jonathan Stapley's thesis that the temple priesthood and ecclesiastical priesthood are literally two separate priesthoods and understandings of priesthood.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Like when Christ gave them to Peter?

Yeah, and when Moses and Elijah appeared on the mount of transfiguration to give their keys.

[Duncan]

50 minutes ago, changed said:

Covenants - explain again how blindly walking into a building, pressured into bowing your head and saying "yes" to misunderstood changing terms is an honorable thing?  

 

The evils of secret combinations are becoming more and more evident to me.

But by the time you walk into a Temple you made covenants before, baptism/holy Ghost, if you are a man you were ordained to the priesthood so that's a covenant and hopefully you learned something about the Temple, which is why they don't allow people to walk in off the street to satisfy their curiousity. I was reading from Pres. George Q. Cannon who said some treat the endowment house (in our modern vernacular, the Temple) as if it was an amusement park. So, if you have trouble at the Temple stage, why did you go? You do realize that you can back out in the endowment too right? 

what is your definition of a secret combination? I don't ever recall pledging support for the overthrow of....in the Temple

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

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.

They are both.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

If the wording isn't explicitly important, then why do our practices support the importance of very specific wording?  

Because it would be insane to let temple workers ad lib.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

So the form of the ritual (baptizing young children) was the problem that the BoM describes, without any emphasis on authority specifically. 

I was just talking about that one chapter as I am guessing it is what you were referring to. In the Book of Mormon the Savior himsel is very explicit about giving Nephi and the other disciples authority to baptize and administer the sacrament.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, changed said:

Can't spend a minute worried about abused kids.  Check.

We have you to take care of hand-wringing over unsubstantiated accusations of covering up abuse of children leveled against the prophet. Trust yourself. You have this covered without our help.

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I'm trying to be careful with the sacred nature of the endowment, but why do you think tokens are tied to the 3x enforcement of "never revealing"?  Considering the need for member missionary work today, why not a 3x covenant to publish the good news of the gospel to every kindred, tongue and people?  To be a light unto the world, to believe in Christ and share with others the living waters gushing forth from your belly of revelation?  

Because some things are not meant to be shared vicariously. They can only be experienced.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Many of the things you list can be found outside of the temple. If something's explicitly taught outside the temple then I think it's fair game. For what's inside I think we need to be extremely cautious about sharing except in a veiled way. (Pun - double entendre intended)

Speaking only for myself if it's in a Church manual or talk to the public then I'm fine talking about it. Otherwise I try to talk indirectly about the details. A good place to get a lay of the land is to look at Packer's The Holy Temple (conveniently now available as a pdf from lds.org) and if he talks about it, then it's fair game. Likewise if something is in scripture like Moses veiling himself in a clear temple context then I think that's fair to talk about. I should add that I think Don Bradley has done phenomenal work on the lost 116 pages and showing that there was a lot tied to the temple in there. So those scriptures about Moses actually appear to be replicated by Lehi and Nephi in many key ways relative to accessing the Liahonah in a temple context.

If it is in the church videos on the temple, that is a good sign it is acceptable to be public.  I am thinking in particular of this one:

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2014-01-1460-sacred-temple-clothing?category=topics/temples&lang=eng

and this:

 

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Could be worse. Look at what Superman had to wear just because it was some traditional Kryptonian garb left in his spaceship. (Going by the true "underwear on the outside" narrative of Superman)

Please do not mock my people’s customs.

[Calm]

3 hours 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.

I want that quote if anyone has it.  Could swear I just read it in the past few days.   Did anyone post it elsewhere on the board?

[The Nehor]

Just now, Calm said:

I want that quote if anyone has it.  Could swear I just read it in the past few days.   Did anyone post it elsewhere on the board?

It was similar to the one posted on this thread that Joseph told Brigham.