Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It definitely could, it would just mean that there would be some workers who were already in the thick of things with the changes before they were trained on them.  But, depending on what the changes could be, that woudn't necessarily be a problem.  It seems like simple changes could easily be incorporated without any fanfare.  

My understanding is that temple presidents already know and temple workers will be trained in 15 minute meetings at the start of each shift. 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My understanding is that temple presidents already know and temple workers will be trained in 15 minute meetings at the start of each shift. 

If it only requires a 15 minute meeting I can't imagine any change is very big.

[Maidservant]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm thinking I must be misunderstanding what you're saying here.

Are you saying that weddings mock marriage?

If so, I'm scratching my head.

Probably a thread derail.  But at the level of understanding I have now (historical), which I admit is not much, as far as I can see weddings are rooted in the deep past as the purchase of a woman (bride).  Not interested in perpetuating that even in an updated version.  I'm a 'let's start from scratch and really think about this' kinda gal.

I do support the union of men and women and think that is a deep reality, whether in a marriage (union) or some other means (generally in society etc).  But I don't think a wedding effects that union, nor even is a benefit to it, but rather a mock and a detraction.  Needs a new thread if we talk more, I guess.

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

How is a woman covenanting to hearken to her husband's counsel when a man makes no such covenant to his wife not a form of subservience?  At a minimum, there is an unequal relationship established by covenant!

The person who is making the decision needs to hear from the person not making the decision 😉.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What about children that attend and participate in a sealing as they haven't participated in the endowment.  

Also, I'm not sure what you mean that they would receive a token.  If you're referring to the hands of the participants, and where they are placed, an observer is only seeing a small part of something they wouldn't otherwise have any context to understanding.  There is no discussion of those symbols and covenants in specific during the temple sealing.  I don't see any harm in that personally. 

 

I do know that I was not permitted into my mother and step-father's sealing (this was the 80s).  The older BIC children were brought in to watch my youngest brother be sealed to them as child-parents.  So you are right, I had no idea about the hand.  I also saw temple robes and sealing rooms and such (this was before people could wear their Sunday clothes).  I was nine.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Maidservant

[juliann]

3 hours ago, mnn727 said:

hearken to her husband's counsel AS HE HEARKENS TO THE LORD'S

The part I capitalized makes a BIG difference in that statement, especially when seen in terms of the endowment.

 

It makes no difference at all because there is no way to measure what hearkening to the Lord is and certainly no way to enforce it. In fact, it might be assumed that men not hearkening to the Lord would be the most likely to demand obedience no matter what.  The only thing that is black and white is that women are to obey unless they can prove a man isn't obeying the Lord. 

[juliann]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I have it on fairly good authority that the changes to the endowment will start on Jan 2.  (I haven't read through the thread so if this has already been mentioned, my apologies.)

What is considered to be fairly good authority. Did you hear it from someone who was told something by someone else who......

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

My mind is not made up.  I think I'm more open-minded than you think I am.

But, when the only response is "Think about it for a while", it's a very weak response.  Not sure why @Bernard Gui chose not to give a detailed response...

An invitation to think about something as important as this is hardly a weak response. I’ve been thinking about it for over 50 years. You could spend a day or so, and I’m absolutely certain you can come up with a few ways a covenant between God, a man, and a woman can be something other than subservient.

[Avatar4321]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

An invitation to think about something as important as this is hardly a weak response. I’ve been thinking about it for over 50 years. You could spend a day or so, and I’m absolutely certain you can come up with a few ways a covenant between God, a man, and a woman can be something other than subservient.

If anyone is being called to serve the other partner in marriage it’s the husband. 

Many seem to forget that we are to  love our wives as Christ loved the Church

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If it only requires a 15 minute meeting I can't imagine any change is very big.

There are training meetings before every shift anyway. The changes for today are...

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

The only thing that is black and white is that women are to obey unless they can prove a man isn't obeying the Lord. 

You are right. It's a patriarchal church that was set up that way from the beginning and most likely will never change. 
However, I would like to refer to a quote from the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"
"The man is the head of the family, but the woman is the neck and can turn the head anyway she wants"
 

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

An invitation to think about something as important as this is hardly a weak response. I’ve been thinking about it for over 50 years. You could spend a day or so, and I’m absolutely certain you can come up with a few ways a covenant between God, a man, and a woman can be something other than subservient.

Sure. I could - but you disagreed with my belief without giving reason. This is a discussion board, and the “pray/ponder about it yourself” is a weak answer in a discussion.

Your characterization of that part of the temple covenants (as a covenant between a man, a woman, and god) is an incomplete and disingenuous description of the issue at hand. Women covenant to hearken to their husbands, but men do not covenant to hearken to their wives. That is the unbalanced issue.

We can disagree about whether that’s subservient or not, but please don’t water down the verbiage of the covenant you and your wife have made.

Perhaps we should look to the original 'revealer' of the the Endowment, and see what his thoughts are on the relationships between man and a woman:

Joseph Smith, Jr., Latter-day Saint Messenger and Advocate, Nov. 1835: “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.”

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

If anyone is being called to serve the other partner in marriage it’s the husband

In terms of the temple covenants or something else?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

You are right. It's a patriarchal church that was set up that way from the beginning and most likely will never change. 
However, I would like to refer to a quote from the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"
"The man is the head of the family, but the woman is the neck and can turn the head anyway she wants"
 

Big, Fat Greek Wedding is not scripture. 

And manipulation isn’t any better coming from the woman than domination from the man 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Calm

[pogi]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

The only thing that is black and white is that women are to obey unless they can prove a man isn't obeying the Lord. 

I don't think there is any requirement for proof.  If proof was required (which it isn't) the burden would fall on the head of the man to prove it.  If something doesn't feel right, you are under no obligation to blindly obey anyone.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There are training meetings before every shift anyway. The changes for today are...

And they are a half-hour, not 15 minutes. At least mine are. 

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Big, Fat Greek Wedding is not scripture. 

And manipulation isn’t any better coming from the woman than domination from the man 

Just trying to be funny.  You are right, but I think there is a big difference between the words "preside" and "domination."
"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and
protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one
another as equal partners." (Family proclamation)

Preside in love and righteousness is what God wants us to do; not dominate

 

[SouthernMo]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Big, Fat Greek Wedding is not scripture. 

And manipulation isn’t any better coming from the woman than domination from the man 

Agreed - these quaint little quips that are intended to 'boost' the position of the woman can often seem condescending, and can sometimes exacerbate the problem by giving us men the idea that we've addressed the plight of women's equality.

[Avatar4321]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

In terms of the temple covenants or something else?

We are under covenant to obey the Lord. He has commanded us to love our wives as Christ loves the Church. We are asked to die for them if needs be. Christ is the Servant. He descended below all things and suffered all things for the Church. We are to do the same for our wives

[Thinking]

49 minutes ago, JAHS said:

"The man is the head of the family, but the woman is the neck and can turn the head anyway she wants"

I read the following quote on a bulletin board at BYU in the 80's.

"The weaker sex is actually the stronger sex because of the weakness of the stronger sex for the weaker sex."

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, mnn727 said:

First time I went through I thought we would see all the dispensations represented, at about the hour point I was wondering how we'd get them all in.

That's because despite appearances the endowment is about our individual journey, not the history of the earth.  Even the creation piece is as much for us to recognize our premortal observation of the creation as it is about the creation itself.

The endowment is about the journey of God's children from premortality to earth and back to him.  The individual dispensations aren't needed in that explanation.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Sure. I could - but you disagreed with my belief without giving reason. This is a discussion board, and the “pray/ponder about it yourself” is a weak answer in a discussion.

Your characterization of that part of the temple covenants (as a covenant between a man, a woman, and god) is an incomplete and disingenuous description of the issue at hand. Women covenant to hearken to their husbands, but men do not covenant to hearken to their wives. That is the unbalanced issue.

We can disagree about whether that’s subservient or not, but please don’t water down the verbiage of the covenant you and your wife have made.

Perhaps we should look to the original 'revealer' of the the Endowment, and see what his thoughts are on the relationships between man and a woman:

Joseph Smith, Jr., Latter-day Saint Messenger and Advocate, Nov. 1835: “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.”

Are you using the word subservience to describe the nature of the covenant as a negative or a positive thing? I don’t consider a covenant with God to be subservience, but rather inheritance. Do you see the woman entering into a relationship that makes her subject to the whims and dictates of her husband? What do you think it means for a man to heed the counsel of God?

I do not water anything down, but rather I consider it in far more profound and complex ways than the simple reductions you have posted. You could do that too, if you wanted to. You could add faith, hope, charity or the pure love of Christ, godliness, compassion, sacrifice, grace, agency, integrity, exactness, and the symbols we wear to your thoughts, and unrighteousness dominion, force, compulsion, and the words “amen to the priesthood of that man” if you wish. You might even consider the covenant the woman makes in relation to a man who does not keep his covenant with her and with the Father and what the consequences are for him. That should be enough to think about for a considerable time. Then we could talk about what you come up with. I would even love to discuss it with you in the celestial room some day.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's because despite appearances the endowment is about our individual journey, not the history of the earth.  Even the creation piece is as much for us to recognize our premortal observation of the creation as it is about the creation itself.

The endowment is about the journey of God's children from premortality to earth and back to him.  The individual dispensations aren't needed in that explanation.

Indeed! 

The Lehites may or may not have had the endowment, but they perfectly understood what you just said...as explained in numerous places, but most explicitly by Jacob in 2 Nephi 9, which is too long to quote here but well worth considering in the light of the Endowment.

Quote

And, in fine, wo unto all those who die in their sins; for they shall return to God, and behold his face, and remain in their sins.

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The only way this could be true is if you consider the church to have fallen into some level of apostasy regarding temple theology and practice. Is that the case?

Yes, albeit a temporary one.

Quote

IMO- what we call the "endowment" is bloated with personal opinion and preference of those who have had a hand in preparing it. I'm sure it's all been done with best of intentions but there's no way that the ideas of man haven't crept into the endowment. So it would be extremely hard to know what is actual endowment from God and what is the philosophy of men mingled with endowment.

Agreed, although I suspect we would disagree on which are which.  As far as I'm concerned only the presentation methodology changed for the first 80 years.  They started dropping pieces of the actual endowment after that, including the main purpose of the endowment.

Quote

Also, I've heard many people mention that as presentation changes we lose symbolism. So what? Symbolism isn't the end goal. Symbolism is merely a tool to share information. If that symbolism no longer teaches the proper information to the average member, then what's it's use. It's kind of like old testament symbolism. I'm sure that much of it was relatable to people back 2000 years ago, but is largely lost on people of today's world. So is it better to maintain the symbols people don't understand, with the expectation that they go into deep study to understand the daily practice and lives of the ancient people, or could it be more useful to update some of the symbolism or remove that which is unproductive in achieving the overarching purpose?

Sometimes I feel like I'm one of only a few members who believe anything we have is eternal in nature.  If a symbol is an eternal symbol, used on all worlds, then we have no right to change it or drop it.  If it is clearly temporal that could be different.

But we need to stop acting like our immediate conveniences or opinions carry any weight over things of eternity.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And they are a half-hour, not 15 minutes. At least mine are. 

Today at our monthly Men’s Illiterate Book Club Luncheon and Crafts Activity (also known as the OFC) at the South Hill Mall Food Court, I asked the members (six of whom are long-time temple workers) if there is any truth to the rumors we have heard posted here. They denied knowing anything, but of course that was to be expected. Their denial serves as the strongest possible evidence for the rumors.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And they are a half-hour, not 15 minutes. At least mine are. 

They are but realistically after song, prayer, and regular business announcements the lesson times run about 15 minutes. I typically miss most of mine anyway since I have other duties as well during that time, adjusting personnel due to shift changes etc, deciding who will cover what. But I am a newbie having started only in 2004.

 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

We are under covenant to obey the Lord. He has commanded us to love our wives as Christ loves the Church. We are asked to die for them if needs be. Christ is the Servant. He descended below all things and suffered all things for the Church. We are to do the same for our wives

How does this make a man any different? Wives would do the same.