Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[blueglass]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

In the temple initiatory as of the 1880's or so men can be ordained by proxy to the office of elder.  It's literally only one line.  I ordain you an ELder for and in behalf of First name _ Last name. . Then the same Exodus 40 is read to both men and women.  What are your thoughts on Hugh B Brown's quote on the duties of priests and priestesses in the home ?  To prepare for the office of king and queen in heaven.  Not sure I understand Stapley's cosmological ideas, when we are to use the endowed power to build up the kingdom outside the temple in a process of converting the elect abroad dwelling in the dark and dreary world.   

[Calm]

2 hours 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.

Beautifully explained.  If we are to be one flesh, we have one voice...when truly acting in covenant, what one says is as if both say it.

[blueglass]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

I'm not placing limitations on experiential possibilities of spirit matter, God is.  Hence the need for all this proxy temple work right?  Notwithstanding Hebrews 9:24-26?  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, 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.  

But there is a limit on how much effort this needs to be.  For example, a bishop should not insist so much on getting wording correct in the Sacrament that they embarrass the person giving the blessing.  Thus it is the sincere effort to get it right that ismore important than exactness.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Calm

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Maybe some study of the nature and impact of ritual in spirituality is in order. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

That is why baptisms of babies by sprinkling was so vehemently condemned in the BoM

The interpretation I have is it was the doctrine behind baptism of babies that was condemned.  Sprinkling isn't even referred to.  Form is irrelevant.  A perfect baptism of the current form of an infant would still be an abomination

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither afaith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8.10-21?lang=eng#p9

[SouthernMo]

56 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

Thanks. I’m very interested in what goes on at the veil now. Not sure what i can say that would cause the moderator to ban me because the secret/sacred new name is involved.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

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.

I don't believe they were teaching equal partnership, but God was and is guiding us in steps to a perfect understanding of our roles in eternity and our relationships with others.  We are nowhere close yet.

[SouthernMo]

49 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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

Scientific and legal claims are a different context. 

See - I put these on equal footing. I refuse to have a separate language for church and one for the world. If I say “I know this is true” I want the same standard for ‘knowing’ no matter what the subject is.

Since I’ve started talking like that, my faith and testimony have become more honest and sincere.

[juliann]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

 

Would you feel the same if the RS presided over your life in the home where a lot of women spend most of their time? 

They have tried to walk back the meaning of preside, but it does mean that there is only one person making the final decision. It is the same as what happens when the RS makes well thought out decisions and the Bishop vetoes them out of hand. But that is just at church. 

I think we take on roles in marriage but that sort of works itself out unless there is an abusive husband. It is compromise, not presiding.  Some outside person isn't setting it up. 

[the narrator]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

The interpretation I have is it was the doctrine behind baptism of babies that was condemned.  Sprinkling isn't even referred to.  Form is irrelevant.  A perfect baptism of the current form of an infant would still be an abomination

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither afaith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8.10-21?lang=eng#p9

FWIW, this criticism stems from a misunderstanding of child baptism and an imposition of one view on baptism onto another.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

See - I put these on equal footing. I refuse to have a separate language for church and one for the world. If I say “I know this is true” I want the same standard for ‘knowing’ no matter what the subject is.

Since I’ve started talking like that, my faith and testimony have become more honest and sincere.

So can you "know" that you have been forgiven of your sins through faith in Jesus Christ the same way that you can "know" that water freezes at 0 degrees C?

Differing contexts can use the same words to mean different things. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

This is the position that is driving me out of Mormonism.  LDS believe that Christ saves us more than others because we have the authority?  Where in Christ's teachings does he tell us that conversion to him requires authority?

The atonement is His, and I believe he will save all who accept his atonement!  I am not arrogant enough to think that my membership makes me have a "whole conversion" while there are many, many better men than me out there who are not on the membership records of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who are way more converted to Christ than I am.

We (Saints) are only converted in part imo.  How can we be fully converted to godlythings when we have only a mortal's understanding and ability to commit?  

And simple membership is no sign of actual conversion, but by our fruits, etc.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

They have tried to walk back the meaning of preside, but it does mean that there is only one person making the final decision.

Speaking only for myself and not for Calm, if that final decision is arrived at in a righteous way, then I don't have a problem with that at all.  If a husband and wife have counseled together but still disagree, and a decision needs to be made, then one person is going to have to make it.  In my experience, having one person making the final decision does not mean that that person always gets to do what they want, not when presiding is done righteously anyway.

[Calm]

2 hours 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. 

The form had nothing to do with it, it was the doctrine that it was needed at all.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, the narrator said:

FWIW, this criticism stems from a misunderstanding of child baptism and an imposition of one view on baptism onto another.

I can see that that is true applying it today, but I don't think we have enough information about the happenings of Mormon's time to say whether or not he was misunderstanding the reason that the people around him were baptizing their infants, do we?

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

So can you "know" that you have been forgiven of your sins through faith in Jesus Christ the same way that you can "know" that water freezes at 0 degrees C?

Differing contexts can use the same words to mean different things. 

Nope. I don’t “know” that my sins have been forgiven. I believe. I have faith.

i get it. I used to talk like you do. It’s the vocabulary Mormons are raised on. Faith isn’t enough at F&T meetings.  You have to say “I know” in our culture, or you look weak 

Being more consistent in my language has made me more sincere, and more credible with others.

[the narrator]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can see that that is true applying it today, but I don't think we have enough information about the happenings of Mormon's time to say whether or not he was misunderstanding the reason that the people around him were baptizing their infants, do we?

I just don't see infant baptism--especially as framed by Mormon--being a thing in the 4th century Americas. If the BofM is based on ancient history, I think you need to go with either Joseph translating/converting some other concern of Mormon's into something of 19th century relevance or pseudopigraphically/prophetically introducing the concern into the text for the same reason.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, the narrator said:

I just don't see infant baptism--especially as framed by Mormon--being a thing in the 4th century Americas. If the BofM is based on ancient history, I think you need to go with either Joseph translating/converting some other concern of Mormon's into something of 19th century relevance or pseudopigraphically/prophetically introducing the concern into the text for the same reason.

If baptism was a thing in Mormon's time, I'm not sure why infant baptism wouldn't be though.  

[churchistrue]

Here's my take on it, especially related to the challenge the brethren have of making changes that appear liberal without upsetting the conservative base of the Church.

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/lds-temple-changes-for-2019/

 

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You have to say “I know” in our culture, or you look weak 

I think it's perfectly acceptable to say "I believe" or "I have faith that.."  I think it's also fine to say "I want to believe."

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

i get it. I used to talk like you do. It’s the vocabulary Mormons are raised on. Faith isn’t enough at F&T meetings.  You have to say “I know” in our culture, or you look weak.  

Being more consistent in my language has made me more sincere, and more credible with others.

I can see how this would be true, because being consistent in our language is almost always important.  But, I think you might be confusing being consistent with your language and believing that everyone's experience with the gospel is consistent with your experience.  You might not have ever had the experience of knowing that your sins have been forgiven.  However, if ksfisher actually does know that his sins have been forgiven, then it would be inconsistent for him to say that he only has faith or believes that they are.

You suggest that your manner of speaking about the gospel is the only way to be consistent but that seems more like your personal bias than actual fact.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I just don't see infant baptism--especially as framed by Mormon--being a thing in the 4th century Americas.

Why?  As we're not 4th century Americans I'm not sure how we can understand what their concerns were or were not, except for what they expressed in the records they left behind. 

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, juliann said:

Would you feel the same if the RS presided over your life in the home where a lot of women spend most of their time? 

They have tried to walk back the meaning of preside, but it does mean that there is only one person making the final decision. It is the same as what happens when the RS makes well thought out decisions and the Bishop vetoes them out of hand. But that is just at church. 

I think we take on roles in marriage but that sort of works itself out unless there is an abusive husband. It is compromise, not presiding.  Some outside person isn't setting it up. 

I think the rest of my post explains that I see presiding duties as very specific to a situation and group and more about ensuring efforts are organized than power and such duties to be determined by those involved in the group....marriage under the covenant would involve God, wife, husband.

So in that sense, I probably differ a great deal from the typical view of presiding.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, the narrator said:

FWIW, this criticism stems from a misunderstanding of child baptism and an imposition of one view on baptism onto another.

I like Brant Gardner's explanation of the context, but it has been too long since I read it, I don't trust my summarizing.  Maybe will find it later.