Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[blueglass]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Honestly I don't think conservatives would be upset with changes. Usually it's just liberals upset both by changes and not changes (or oddly today both simultaneously). 

Authority is needed to baptize (3 Nephi 12:1) Baptism is needed for salvation. (3 Nephi 23:5) QED

Yes, but that tends to imply that the office is separate from the cosmological priesthood with a separate ordinance. So I'm not sure that goes against Stapley's thesis.

As for Brown, which quote were you thinking of? The one I'm familiar with is pretty vague and just implies ruling over posterity.

When we pronounce an ordination in the proxy initiatory for the deceased to the office of elder you don't feel this is the same as the ordination to elder in the living membership record?  Please explain.  I believe we are thinking of the same quote.  I am referring to the beginning where he says "Celestial marriage enables worthy parents to perform a transcendently beautiful and vital service as priest and priestess in the temple of the home. This training will help to prepare them for the exalted position of king and queen in the world to come."  Why can we call priest, high priest, and elder an  office but not priestess an office if it can function in the home and not just the temple?

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by blueglass

[Tacenda]

I just read on another board someone said that someone in the know said this change has been in the works for a year. And that there had been a survey sent to women asking about their feelings in the temple. And that temple attendance by women has dwindled. And in their opinion this change is for the upcoming generations, I would agree. IMO, like all the other changes in the temple, it's propelled by the regular members and their answers on the surveys that have been given. 

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by Tacenda

[halconero]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Thank you.

No problem.

Quote

It looks like the priests' ordination was what sanctified them.  I don't see how the priests' ordination was required to sanctify others.

It should be noted that we ordination can only come by way of someone else who is ordained unto that power. Also that the ordinances preceding ordination are done under priestly authority. That said, these ordinances may have more to do with justification than sanctification, though it's hard to separate the two.

Quote

Maybe that is the message?  It is our own ordination that can be sanctifying?

Mostly agreed. It seems though that once ordained it's the compliance and fulfilling of the duties associated with ordination that sanctifies the individual. See Jacob's words in 2 Nephi and Jacob regarding the connection between his office and the need to preach, as well as the example of Melchizedek in Alma 13. Justification vs. sanctification is a fascinating topic.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by halconero

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just read on another board someone said that someone in the know said this change has been in the works for a year. And that there had been a survey sent to women asking about their feelings in the temple. And that temple attendance by women has dwindled. And in their opinion this change is for the upcoming generations, I would agree. IMO, like all the other changes in the temple, it's propelled by the regular members and their answers on the surveys that have been given. 

 

Probably played a part and you left out the part where it was confirmed as acceptable via revelation.

Another reason I heard for some of the changes is that some of the language was very difficult to translate well and the newer presentation is easier to get right in other languages.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

How am I moving the goalposts asking you for a reference in the BOM in which God the Father “clearly spells out ... exactly what is required for salvation...”?

Here is what you asked. I gave you the references. No comments about the passages?

Quote

I wasn’t aware that Elohim’s words are in the Book of Mormon. Can you show me the passages you’re referring to?

Where in Christ's teachings does he tell us that conversion to him requires authority?....

Still looking for the BOM instance in which God the Father explains that one needs authority to be saved.

Quote

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?

11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.

15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

 21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

In 3 Nephi 11, it is made very clear that the words of Jesus are the words of the Father....

  Quote

21 And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven.

22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputationsamong you.

23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.

24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:

25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

26 And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghostwill bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

When we pronounce an ordination in the proxy initiatory for the deceased to the office of elder you don't feel this is the same as the ordination to elder in the living membership record?  Please explain. 

No I do. I just think that doesn't get at the question of whether we should distinguish the cosmological and ecclesiastical priesthoods ala Stapley. I also confess I don't know the history of what that ordination to Elder began. Many non-Stapley interpretation of the temple often see it as redundant. (Which I suppose is an argument for Stapley)

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

I believe we are thinking of the same quote.  I am referring to the beginning where he says "Celestial marriage enables worthy parents to perform a transcendently beautiful and vital service as priest and priestess in the temple of the home. This training will help to prepare them for the exalted position of king and queen in the world to come."  Why can we call priest, high priest, and elder an  office but not priestess an office if it can function in the home and not just the temple.  

Well according to Stapley it's because it's two different functions. That is priest, high priest, and elder are all largely ecclesiastical.

Interestingly I don't think Elder Oak's talk on priesthood and women from a few years ago gets enough credit here. He tends to treat it all as keys (in the sense of permissions not knowledge). By that measure there's functionally no difference between say a Relief Society President or an Elders Quorum President because both are appendages to the priesthood determined primarily by permissions. (His talk is a bit more complicated than that but that's the gist) I get the impression he's been thinking about this for a while. 

I've heard Stapley mention that talk a few times but never fully engage with it. I think the non-Stapley interpretation of priesthood is that it's all priesthood and that you have offices/duties that are appendages in the sense of structures to do things. In this interpretation the temple endowment is the key aspect and encompasses all the others. That'd make the ordination to office for men vicariously somewhat pointless. Perhaps arising just out of the general tendency to do everything vicariously that was part of the earthly structures - after all why ordain George Washington a high priest and everyone else elders? It makes no sense if they're going to be exalted.

Given that there's no real clear revelation clarifying these issues, I suspect we'll keep doing it because we're not entirely sure if it's important or not.

My guess is that Elder Oaks talk indicates though he's been thinking and praying a lot about this. His talk actually has doctrinal innovations I don't think have been brought up before. We'll see if changes along those lines happen under Nelson or will await Oaks becoming prophet (assuming he outlives Nelson - although that's likely)
 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Asking how someone knows is key. My experience has been that when Mormons say they know something, and I ask how, their knowledge usually comes from feelings. This is the basis of testimony?

In US courts, when testimony is given, feelings are not accepted as knowledge. Why should I accept feelings as knowledge in some cases, but not in others?  Having a lesser standards for religious knowledge reduces religion’s credibility (I think).

Also, I personally do not like such a fluid use of the word knowledge because it dilutes the potency of the testimonies born by those who have more experience than just feelings.

So then on what basis do they kill people for killing others when the knowledge that murder is wrong is based on feelings?

Where us the evidence it is "wrong"?

[SouthernMo]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So then on what basis do they kill people for killing others when the knowledge that murder is wrong is based on feelings?

Where us the evidence it is "wrong"?

Not sure I understand...

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Here is what you asked. I gave you the references. No comments about the passages?

I asked you about your post:

Quote

The Book of Mormon clearly spells out in the words of the Father and the Son exactly what is required for salvation and that authority is needed to administer the parts that require ordinances. Do you not accept those parts?

I am asking you for a reference from the Book of Mormon in which the Father clearly spells out what is required for salvation and that authority is needed.

[Stargazer]

On 1/1/2019 at 11:58 PM, Garden Girl said:

The Portland Temple has a lovely Assembly Room that can accommodate several hundred people...

GG

Portland's Celestial Room isn't tiny, either!  AND it has two floors!

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Not sure I understand...

How do you justify capital punishment outside of feelings (at the core)?  Includes how we " know"/determine murder is wrong. (It is generally because most people feel human life has value imo)

Mark can correct me if I have misinterpreted his question.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 1/2/2019 at 9:00 PM, Tacenda said:

I thought the same when I went with my husband and family the first time. Before 1990 I had to go and covenant that I would obey my husband in righteousness. My face must have been hilarious because I was horrified over the word "obey". All along my soul spoke and maybe it eventually led me into disillusionment, I struggled every time in the temple but have a sis-in-law and others in my extended family that work in the temple and could stay all day. 

Oddly enough, "honor and obey" was the standard Christian marital formula for a couple of thousand years -- it wasn't some LDS temple innovation.  "Obey in righteousness" seems to be a nice softening of the original, by the way.  

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I just read on another board someone said that someone in the know said this change has been in the works for a year. And that there had been a survey sent to women asking about their feelings in the temple. And that temple attendance by women has dwindled. And in their opinion this change is for the upcoming generations, I would agree. IMO, like all the other changes in the temple, it's propelled by the regular members and their answers on the surveys that have been given. 

 

It would be interesting to know if The Brethren felt okay making the change because of historical research that seems to show that Brigham Young introduced the language making women subordinate to their husbands in response to Young's belief that Joseph's death was partly due to Emma's rejection of polygamy. Ben Park wrote a good thread on it yesterday that you can read here.

Also, I was just told about these words by Brigham Young in a book we are editing, from the High Priest Quorum Record on March 9, 1945:

Quote

Relief Society—is going to meet again—I say I will curse every man that lets his wife or daughters meet again—until I tell them—What are relief societies for? To relieve us of our best men—They relieved us of Joseph and Hyrum—that is what they will lead to—I don’t  want  the advice or counsel of any woman—they would lead us down to hell—there is no woman on the face of the earth that  can  save herself—but if she ever comes into the celestial kingdom, she must be led in by some man—God knew what Eve was, He was acquainted with woman thousands and millions of years before.

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

Oddly enough, "honor and obey" was the standard Christian marital formula for a couple of thousand years -- it wasn't some LDS temple innovation.

Which argues it may have been more about culture than eternal principle.

[Stargazer]

Just now, Calm said:

Which argues it may have been more about culture than eternal principle.

Yep!

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Also, I was just told about these words by Brigham Young in a book we are editing,

Makes it hard to like the guy.  I have learned to admire him, but have yet to find him endearing in any way.

However, given the number of women who chose to seal themselves to him, there must have been something likeable about him from a female POV.  His children seemed to have cared greatly for him as well.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Portland's Celestial Room isn't tiny, either!  AND it has two floors!

I've been in that Celestial room and I don't remember that!

[SettingDogStar]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've been in that Celestial room and I don't remember that!

Yep I was sealed there like 4 months ago and just had my brother get endowed there. Two floors with two large staircases on either side. The upper floor of the CR has a big double door that leads to a hallway of sealing rooms. 

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

How do you justify capital punishment outside of feelings (at the core)?  Includes how we " know"/determine murder is wrong. (It is generally because most people feel human life has value imo)

Mark can correct me if I have misinterpreted his question.

Oh - I get it.

values (like: don’t murder) can be based on feelings, I think.

facts (like: god exists) cannot be based on feelings, I think.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

It would be interesting to know if The Brethren felt okay making the change because of historical research that seems to show that Brigham Young introduced the language making women subordinate to their husbands in response to Young's belief that Joseph's death was partly due to Emma's rejection of polygamy. Ben Park wrote a good thread on it yesterday that you can read here.

Also, I was just told about these words by Brigham Young in a book we are editing, from the High Priest Quorum Record on March 9, 1945:

 

 

I'm guessing you meant 1845? I'm guessing a lot of the reaction from those who feel a need to defend past temple liturgy is because there is simply no way to deny that the temple liturgy did see women in such a manner. That excerpt is so bad that I suspect BY was having a bad hair day but I do think he saw women as underlings to be used for the benefit of men.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Makes it hard to like the guy.  I have learned to admire him, but have yet to find him endearing in any way.

However, given the number of women who chose to seal themselves to him, there must have been something likeable about him from a female POV.  His children seemed to have cared greatly for him as well.

Some of BY's quotes I cringe when I read them... Just saying. But I love him [Brigham Young].

Love, love, love, love Joseph Smith

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

It would be interesting to know if The Brethren felt okay making the change because of historical research that seems to show that Brigham Young introduced the language making women subordinate to their husbands in response to Young's belief that Joseph's death was partly due to Emma's rejection of polygamy. Ben Park wrote a good thread on it yesterday that you can read here.

Which, if true, raises the question of why it took 174 years and historical research to effect the changes instead of it occurring through a revelatory process in a much quicker time frame?

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Which, if true, raises the question of why it took 174 years and historical research to effect the changes instead of it occurring through a revelatory process in a much quicker time frame?

Because most don't interpret it in terms of Brigham Young's understanding but in terms of the similar scriptures which tends to undermine Brigham Young's comments above.

[Anijen]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Which, if true, raises the question of why it took 174 years and historical research to effect the changes instead of it occurring through a revelatory process in a much quicker time frame?

I guess the same could be said of the Law of Moses, many changes happened IMO, because the people needed to be ready for those changes, less they garner to themselves greater condemnation.

Besides, just perhaps, revelation did occur.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Anijen

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Makes it hard to like the guy.  I have learned to admire him, but have yet to find him endearing in any way.

However, given the number of women who chose to seal themselves to him, there must have been something likeable about him from a female POV.  His children seemed to have cared greatly for him as well.

Also, the fact that he supported the Relief Society throughout the rest of his presidency suggests he must have had a change of heart and mind.