Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

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."

So women are stronger than men because they can manipulate them? Seriously? 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

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

Is it so inconceivable to you that what is deemed inequality in the temple might actually be a true representation of the eternal order of things?

I'm willing to believe that gender inequality on earth is a natural consequence of the fall and that gender equality may or may not be the eternal pattern.  We know so little about eternity.  Could you conceive of eternity as the  temple portrays it?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

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

 

I agree, but when talking about the neck forcing the head which is usually meant in an imo unrighteous manipulative sense rather than supportive (though could be coercion), I paralleled that to unrighteousness in dominion, dominating not presiding.

[Calm]

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

And how is this different from what is required of women?

[Thinking]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

So women are stronger than men because they can manipulate them? Seriously? 

Just a little humor.

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it so inconceivable to you that what is deemed inequality in the temple might actually be a true representation of the eternal order of things?

I'm willing to believe that gender inequality on earth is a natural consequence of the fall and that gender equality may or may not be the eternal pattern.  We know so little about eternity.  Could you conceive of eternity as the  temple portrays it?

Yes, it is inconcievable to me that inequality and discrimination no matter where it is is the eternal order. Don't you think it is a little convenient for the beneficiary of that inequality to be advocating that others line up for the unequal positions? 

[juliann]

Just now, Thinking said:

Just a little humor.

It's not funny anymore. How many times does that have to be said? Sexism is not funny. Racism is not funny. Anything that requires someone else to be less so you can be more isn't funny.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

I'm willing to believe that gender inequality on earth is a natural consequence of the fall and that gender equality may or may not be the eternal pattern. 

Why would women be eternally unequal for something Eve chose to do when it is stated men are not punished for Adam's transgression (which seems likely to mean Adam and Eve's transgression)?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why would women be eternally unequal for something Eve chose to do when it is stated men are not punished for Adam's transgression (which seems likely to mean Adam and Eve's transgression)?

Good question.  Heavenly Father clearly has a different relationship with his children than our Heavenly Mother(s).  Doesn't mean inequality obviously, but it also clearly doesn't represent an identical role.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Yes, it is inconcievable to me that inequality and discrimination no matter where it is is the eternal order. Don't you think it is a little convenient for the beneficiary of that inequality to be advocating that others line up for the unequal positions? 

I'm not up for debating the supposed evil oppressive white male.  

I'm speaking of eternity and what little has been revealed of heavenly society.  And if what is revealed is accurate.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

If the changes are only to the film/narration it doesn’t take long to inform temple workers that the film has changed and they’ll hear it along with everyone else.  Even if the film is shorter, changes to endowment scheduling would probably take place later, when temple presidencies have more time to plan for it. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

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

From someone who is in a position who would be told of such a change. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 12/28/2018 at 7:18 PM, JLHPROF said:

Good question.  Heavenly Father clearly has a different relationship with his children than our Heavenly Mother(s).  Doesn't mean inequality obviously, but it also clearly doesn't represent an identical role.

I'm not up for debating the supposed evil oppressive white male.  

I'm speaking of eternity and what little has been revealed of heavenly society.  And if what is revealed is accurate.

Also, there may be something to the fact that Heavenly Father is, well, a Father, and Jehovah is, well, a Son, who becomes the Father of all those who believe in Him.  Perhaps it's our current notion of equality that is inadequate.

Quote

Those who have been born unto God through obedience to the gospel may by valiant devotion to righteousness obtain exaltation and even reach the status of godhood. Of such we read: “Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God” (D&C 76:58; compare D&C 132:20, and contrast D&C 132:17 in same section; see also D&C 132:37). Yet though they be gods, they are still subject to Jesus Christ as their Father in this exalted relationship; and so we read in the paragraph following the above quotation: “And they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”

By the new birth—that of water and the Spirit—mankind may become children of Jesus Christ, being through the means by Him provided “begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:24). This solemn truth is further emphasized in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ given through Joseph Smith in 1833:

“And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;

“And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn” (D&C 93:21–22).

For such figurative use of the term “begotten” in application to those who are born unto God, see Paul’s explanation: “For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). An analogous instance of sonship attained by righteous service is found in the revelation relating to the order and functions of priesthood, given in 1832:

“For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies:

“They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God” (D&C 84:33–34).

If it be proper to speak of those who accept and abide in the gospel as Christ’s sons and daughters—and upon this matter the scriptures are explicit and cannot be gainsaid nor denied—it is consistently proper to speak of Jesus Christ as the Father of the righteous, they having become His children and He having been made their Father through the second birth—the baptismal regeneration.

 https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

 

Edited December 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From someone who is in a position who would be told of such a change. 

But revealing such privileged information is a betrayal of trust that perhaps should not be rewarded with a position of trust, no?

Edited December 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it so inconceivable to you that what is deemed inequality in the temple might actually be a true representation of the eternal order of things?

I'm willing to believe that gender inequality on earth is a natural consequence of the fall and that gender equality may or may not be the eternal pattern.  We know so little about eternity.  Could you conceive of eternity as the  temple portrays it?

Assuming that the temple rituals were revealed, they were revealed to men who, like all of us, have biases. We all filter things.  I personally believe that any temple rights and any teachings that suggest, advocate or support gender inequality were put into place by privileged, biased men.  These things need to be removed or modified.  Much of the in-your-face misogyny has been removed from the temple ceremony,  which is a good thing.

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by sunstoned

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Assuming that the temple rituals were revealed, they were revealed to men who, like all of us, have biases.  I personally believe that any temple rights and any teachings that suggest, advocate or support gender inequality were put into place by privileged, biased men.  These things need to be removed or modified.  Much of the in-your-face misogyny has been removed from the temple ceremony,  which is a good start.

See that is partly my question.  I can accept that you may well be right.  But other than your bias (a bias shared by many) is there any evidence to support that belief.

I've said before that the "God wouldn't do that" or "that's not a God I could worship" arguments carry no weight for me.

Is there any actual evidence that our bias in one direction is any closer to the eternal reality of God than the above mentioned biases in the other direction.

Personally I'd like to get past bias and find God's truth, no matter the subject or whether it's what I want.  It's not about me, you, or any biased men.  It's about God.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I just got home from working my shift in the temple today. We were told that from 2 January, we all need to have our ordinance clothing with us when we show up for our next shift. No further clarification. I’m posting this in light of my previous post.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I just got home from working my shift in the temple today. We were told that from 2 January, we all need to have our ordinance clothing with us when we show up for our next shift. No further clarification. I’m posting this in light of my previous post.

This is something I have done anyway as a matter of course, though I admit it has not been mandatory. Perhaps a change is indeed imminent.

[Hamba Tuhan]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is something I have done anyway as a matter of course, though I admit it has not been mandatory.

Same.

Quote

Perhaps a change is indeed imminent.

Perhaps. It was an interesting and unexpected direction. I wouldn't have taken much notice if a reason had been given. After all, we often need to dress to assist with a part of the endowment or with sealings. It was the lack of reason and the note that it should be our first shift on or after 2 January that stood out.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Same.

Perhaps. It was an interesting and unexpected direction. I wouldn't have taken much notice if a reason had been given. After all, we often need to dress to assist with a part of the endowment or with sealings. It was the lack of reason and the note that it should be our first shift on or after 2 January that stood out.

I go for my shift this morning and am curious to see whether we will receive any comparable instruction. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I go for my shift this morning and am curious to see whether we will receive any comparable instruction. 

Please report if you feel it's appropriate. It may turn out to be something completely local. My shifts are monthly, but I'll be there next weekend because that's what suits my work schedule.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Please report if you feel it's appropriate. It may turn out to be something completely local. My shifts are monthly, but I'll be there next weekend because that's what suits my work schedule.

I might do that, although I am very hesitant about discussing outside the temple the things that occur therein. If  you don't hear back from me, it will be for that reason.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I might do that, although I am very hesitant about discussing outside the temple the things that occur therein. If  you don't hear back from me, it will be for that reason.

Understood. I shared only because I didn't want to leave my previous statement alone and therefore possibly misleading. Hence my 'if you feel it's appropriate'.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Understood. I shared only because I didn't want to leave my previous statement alone and therefore possibly misleading. Hence my 'if you feel it's appropriate'.

Understood.

 

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

But revealing such privileged information is a betrayal of trust that perhaps should not be rewarded with a position of trust, no?

You're assuming that revealing that a change was occurring on Jan 2 is something that needed to be kept a secret.  (Remember that no details of the change were revealed.  And, the fact that a change was coming was already known/rumored.)

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You're assuming that revealing that a change was occurring on Jan 2 is something that needed to be kept a secret.  (Remember that no details of the change were revealed.  And, the fact that a change was coming was already known/rumored.)

You are assuming that permission was given to start rumors about changes.

Here are the specifics that were mentioned in the OP:

Quote

I've been hearing rumors since the last conference that there will be some significant changes to the ways we experience and worship in the temple. Most significantly I'm hearing that there is an effort afoot to shorten the endowment to help reduce the logjam of names. As we know, a person (or group) can go to the temple and be baptized for 150 people within the same time it takes a person to do 1 endowment. I've long wondered about this discrepancy and how it could easily cause an imbalance in temple work. I've seen temples limit the number of baptisms one person could do. For a while on youth trips each youth was limited to just 5 names even though we had time to do more. So it would make sense to me to somehow shorten the endowment. Changes have been made before so I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done.

 With that general background, I'm also hearing that Pres. Nelson wants temple worship to be his legacy. For that to be the case I would suspect some significant changes would be needed, else why would it be "his" legacy. He is definitely a mover and a shaker, making things happen quickly so I think it fits his personality to move with changes he may have been considering for many years. In general I enjoy his ambition and determination to make things happen.

 I'm also hearing about mandatory meetings in early January for all temple workers where supposedly they will be informed of these changes so they can be prepared. Perhaps January meetings for all temple workers is a totally normal thing (I don't know as I've only ever served as a veil worker).

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui