Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

That’d be awesome! Though I suppose that would be breaking their own announcement at the beginning of the endowment? 😂 (only joking). 

In seriousness though I would love, as would others, to hear more about the temple and it’s purpose and future here on earth. I feel like we just bump the surface when we always hear the repeated “family forever” and “get married!” Maybe I’m wrong but I feel like there’s a lot more detail and doctrine that could be (and is but just not in conference) preached from the pulpit. 

Or maybe I have to high of expectations?! 😂

Hugh Nibley had lots of interesting things to say about the temple.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Big picture: In the end, LDS validity comes down to authority. I can’t see why a loving Heavenly Father would limit salvation and confidence in this life to those who come across this authority, and happen to believe the words of 19-year olds who knock on their door.  Why won’t he honor a man’s sincere desire to come to Christ?

Small picture: The transitive properties in the LDS tradition of who says what is overused and very confusing to me.

D&C 1:38 indicates that whatever a prophet says is the same as what Christ says.

John 10:30 indicates that Christ and The Father are one.

So it seems an odd mish-mash of who said what, and one can claim any of those three when quoting the scriptures.

Thank you. I understand better.

What if the words are not those of a prophet but are direct quotes from the Source as in the examples I provided? 

I think many sincere people come to Christ and are blessed by Him. We are not left without a guide.

Quote

2 Nephi 31:3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

Moroni 7: 15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

If the Father says everyone must be baptized and follow the example of His Son, IMO He would be unjust to condemn those who have not heard. That's why I reject Calvinism. At least in our theology everyone will get the opportunity either now or later. 

 

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I can’t see why a loving Heavenly Father would limit salvation and confidence in this life to those who come across this authority, and happen to believe the words of 19-year olds who knock on their door.  Why won’t he honor a man’s sincere desire to come to Christ?

The same argument could be made for any conclusion a person comes to through his God-given ability to reason.  What difference would it make to God whether we chose Islam, Buddhism, Athiesm, or Christianity, as long as we were sincere? 

The answer is found in 1 Cor. 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

The same argument could be made for any conclusion a person comes to through his God-given ability to reason.  What difference would it make to God whether we chose Islam, Buddhism, Athiesm, or Christianity, as long as we were sincere? 

The answer is found in 1 Cor. 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

The 1 Corinthians scripture is important.

It is far more confusing to me to justify that The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is god’s one and only church than to accept that those who follow the teachings of Christ are members of his “Church” even though they don’t have their names on a list in SLC.

Put differently: It’s simpler to say that all those who follow Christ are members of His Church.

Example: Is Moses was a Mormon?  He’s not on the records of The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (as far as I know).  Not sure he was ever even baptized?  Growing up in Pharoah’s court? My guess is Christ considers him part of His Church.

Our definition of a church can go beyond a US registered 501(c)(3).  I’m not sure Christ sees his church the way we see LDS, Inc.

[JLHPROF]

51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. In our ward's case, we never found out because we couldn't get the point of realizing what might be in store. Isn't that the story of our lives, though?

Yes.  Every time we alter an ordinance we run a serious risk.  It is pure gambling.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-36?lang=eng#note15

The question is frequently asked, ‘Can we not be saved without going through with all those ordinances, etc.?’ I would answer, No, not the fullness of salvation. Jesus said, ‘There are many mansions in my Father’s house, and I will go and prepare a place for you.’ House here named should have been translated kingdom; and any person who is exalted to the highest mansion has to abide a celestial law, and the whole law too.”

"All men who become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory.”

The order of the house of God has been, and ever will be, the same, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the thousand years it will be the same; and we shall finally enter into the celestial Kingdom of God, and enjoy it forever."

We literally just changed the established order of things in the Lord's house, revised some rules/covenants (laws), and did so because some didn't want to receive the ordinances as previously ordered. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by JLHPROF

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"All men who become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory.”

Why don’t LDS practice second anointings by proxy?

[bluebell]

I just got back from the temple. My belief and testimony now is that this is not a change of any ordinances or the implementation of a lesser law. Neither do I believe it is anything newly revealed. 

My testimony, having now experienced the changes, is that they were revealed by God as a way to clarify (not change to anything more or anything less) women and men’s relationship to God and to each other, and also to remove wording and phrases which did not serve those relationships best.

 

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hugh Nibley had lots of interesting things to say about the temple.

Yes he did! I’m in the midst of his One Eternal Round Book and it’s very enlighting.

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Why don’t LDS practice second anointings by proxy?

They used to.  Now they don't admit to practing it at all despite the whispers.

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I just got back from the temple. My belief and testimony now is that this is not a change of any ordinances or the implementation of a lesser law. Neither do I believe it is anything newly revealed. 

My testimony, having now experienced the changes, is that they were revealed by God as a way to clarify (not change to anything more or anything less) women and men’s relationship to God and to each other, and also to remove wording and phrases which did not serve those relationships best.

Not speaking from experience here, and I'm glad you feel that way and see it that way.

But if the alterations are indeed as described I don't see how that can possibly be true.

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

They used to.  Now they don't admit to practing it at all despite the whispers.

Had no idea that there was once a time that ordinance was practiced by proxy!  Thanks!

[Rain]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If any once required principle or ordinance is revoked, even by God, our first question should be which blessing went with it.  Our second perhaps should be what did we do to cause this revocation and were we really right in doing it.

It's interesting that you say this because I was just talking with my husband last week about the words of the covenants and technically if a husband decided not to obey the Lord and go against the Lord or if a woman didn't have a husband  then the wife/woman couldn't receive the blessings to one of the covenants since the wording required a husband who was following the Lord.  Now we can all say the Lord makes up for it, but if we can't allow the Lord to change the wording then we really can't expect the Lord to make up for the fact that a woman does not have a righteous husband that will help her receive those blessings. 

So when I look at what I understand to be changed, having not gone yet, it sounds like to me that the men will get the same blessings, the women married to righteous men will get the same blessings, but now unmarried or married to someone who isn't living his covenants will now get those blessings as well.  So I don't see a blessing that went, but a blessing that was gained  

Edited January 6, 2019 by Rain

[Kate]

It boggles my mind just how much debate and conversation this has caused, and yet once someone has gone through the temple in the last few days, it changes them. They feel at peace, happy, enlightened! I have been twice now since the changes. I am surprised someone here even mentioned that it was about receiving the lesser law, as though we lost something because we didn't deserve it. I am sure that those who believe that have not yet experienced the new changes. It is quite the opposite. As with all of the changes, and after receiving a very strong witness during the solemn assembly that Pres. Nelson was indeed a Prophet of God, I feel we are being lifted to new heights. I'm reminded of the 10 virgins parable; one level of understanding is that the oil is the Holy Ghost, having the Spirit to guide, that you cannot buy or borrow. I feel we have just moved into that time. We should have oil in our lamps to be able to see clearly the way to the Bridegroom. Our relationship with him has just been clarified. We need to listen and live by the Spirit, in ministering, in learning, in serving, in doing genealogy, and in attending the Temple. This is a wonderful time to be alive!

[SettingDogStar]

3 minutes ago, Kate said:

It boggles my mind just how much debate and conversation this has caused, and yet once someone has gone through the temple in the last few days, it changes them. They feel at peace, happy, enlightened! I have been twice now since the changes. I am surprised someone here even mentioned that it was about receiving the lesser law, as though we lost something because we didn't deserve it. I am sure that those who believe that have not yet experienced the new changes. It is quite the opposite. As with all of the changes, and after receiving a very strong witness during the solemn assembly that Pres. Nelson was indeed a Prophet of God, I feel we are being lifted to new heights. I'm reminded of the 10 virgins parable; one level of understanding is that the oil is the Holy Ghost, having the Spirit to guide, that you cannot buy or borrow. I feel we have just moved into that time. We should have oil in our lamps to be able to see clearly the way to the Bridegroom. Our relationship with him has just been clarified. We need to listen and live by the Spirit, in ministering, in learning, in serving, in doing genealogy, and in attending the Temple. This is a wonderful time to be alive!

I’m more concerned about the alteration of the putting on of ceremonial robes. Haven’t been yet though so I’m not sure how much has truly changed except the list posted.

[Kate]

5 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’m more concerned about the alteration of the putting on of ceremonial robes. Haven’t been yet though so I’m not sure how much has truly changed except the list posted.

I won't talk about the list or the robes, but just go and experience it for yourself. Prepare yourself before you go. I would say that most of what has been discussed here has done a disservice to faithful members. Clear your mind of the discord here and let the Spirit guide you in your preparation before you go and as you arrive. Be humble.  For truly, to understand what God has given us, it's only through His spirit that we can know the truth of it. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Kate

[SettingDogStar]

One last addition here, does anyone know how the live sessions have changed at all? I assume the covenant wording would be altered along with eves dialogue..I wonder if anything else would be?

[The Nehor]

I went to the temple this morning. I could not find a parking spot at first the temple was so full. I assumed there were several weddings but that was not the case (at least not more then usual). Some people were parking where they should not have parked. I do wonder if the Temple had to have the cars of members towed. I have never seen this before. Luckily on my second trip around the parking lot I found a spot.

I felt at peace and just barely missed a session so I read a lot of Isaiah in the chapel and the clarity of the book has rarely been so transparent. There were so many people in the chapel that they had to leave some of the later arrivals for the next session despite setting up extra chairs in the room. I was bathed in the Spirit as I entered. I did have one concern based on what I was told had changed and assumed that one section would be cut. That one section had very strong meaning to me despite how I could see it being problematically understood. I was saddened when I found that it was gone and almost wept at the loss of something I felt was so inspiring and comforting and had such sweet meaning if understood correctly. Then I came across a small addition that had the same secret symbolism in an equally subtle way and did cry a few silent tears. It was as if God made sure that that piece was retained just for me even if the apostles did not know of that little insight (though they might have, I have no idea).

In my experience nothing was lost and I offered a prayer of gratitude. It was sweet to me and I disagree entirely with those who believe something was lost or that the ordinance itself was weakened or cheapened. Please do not take seriously the heming and hawing coming mostly from those who were already on the fringes. The apostles are still leading us to eternal life and, more importantly, God is guiding them.

I had planned to attend two sessions but decided to leave after one due to the crowding of the temple to allow others to have this opportunity.

Edited January 6, 2019 by The Nehor

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Example: Is Moses was a Mormon?  He’s not on the records of The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (as far as I know).  Not sure he was ever even baptized?  Growing up in Pharoah’s court? My guess is Christ considers him part of His Church.

Our definition of a church can go beyond a US registered 501(c)(3).  I’m not sure Christ sees his church the way we see LDS, Inc.

I am sure God sees the ancient Jewish people as part of His kingdom. They were the original children of God. 

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I am sure God sees the ancient Jewish people as part of His kingdom. They were the original children of God. 

What about modern Jewish people?

if not, in what year did god stop counting them as members of his church?

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I am sure God sees the ancient Jewish people as part of His kingdom. They were the original children of God. 

Also - Jewish refers to the tribe of Judah. You probably mean Israelite (children of Jacob). 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

What about modern Jewish people?

if not, in what year did god stop counting them as members of his church?

When the Savior was resurrected and the veil of the temple was rent. Now he wants to recover them.

4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.

So, not a part of the church but also not forgotten.

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

When the Savior was resurrected and the veil of the temple was rent. Now he wants to recover them.

4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.

So, not a part of the church but also not forgotten.

Seems complicated...  maybe there’s a simpler explanation for who belongs to Christ’s Church?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I just got back from the temple. My belief and testimony now is that this is not a change of any ordinances or the implementation of a lesser law. Neither do I believe it is anything newly revealed. 

My testimony, having now experienced the changes, is that they were revealed by God as a way to clarify (not change to anything more or anything less) women and men’s relationship to God and to each other, and also to remove wording and phrases which did not serve those relationships best.

 

I think either Wendy Nelson or Mother in Heaven had a say!

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We literally just changed the established order of things in the Lord's house, revised some rules/covenants (laws), and did so because some didn't want to receive the ordinances as previously ordered. 

The way I see It, the way it is communicated was adjusted to our day.  The last go around, the words were the same, but dramatic emphasis deepened the meaning and clarified the contribution of some characters.  That's what prophets who speak in the name of the Lord can do.  

I completely agree with The Nehor when he said:

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In my experience nothing was lost and I offered a prayer of gratitude. It was sweet to me and I disagree entirely with those who believe something was lost or that the ordinance itself was weakened or cheapened.

It's the Lord's House.  Each adaptation made it more beautiful and meaningful to me.  I look forward to many future sessions.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Seems complicated...  maybe there’s a simpler explanation for who belongs to Christ’s Church?

There is. Those who are baptized by proper authority.