Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Here are the specifics that were mentioned in the OP:

 

That would be weird to give permission to start rumors.

In any case, I didn't start a rumor.  I confirmed that whatever truth might exist within the rumored changes would take place on the 2nd.

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

That would be weird to give permission to start rumors.

In any case, I didn't start a rumor.  I confirmed that whatever truth might exist within the rumored changes would take place on the 2nd.

Yes, it would be weird.....and inappropriate. Someone works in a position that entitles him to privileged information but takes it upon himself to reveal it. 

[juliann]

7 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.

Are you able to explain why this matters or makes a difference? Would you not have it with you because you were  pre-assigned to a duty that didn't require it before? (I know nothing about this kind of thing.)

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, it would be weird.....and inappropriate. Someone works in a position that entitles him to privileged information but takes it upon himself to reveal it. 

Again, you are making the baseless assumption that Jan 2 change date is somehow privileged information that can't be shared.

 

[juliann]

12 hours ago, 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.

I know this is difficult for those that have benefited from cultural limitations on women. Regardless of whether you consider yourself a white oppressive male or just a regular guy, you have no standing in any discussion about women. Now....you are well used to men not having to include women's voices in male situations (priesthood meetings, councils, etc.)  Women can either be equally represented in church decision making....or men have to step aside when things that are about women are discussed. 

The time has passed when men can dictate to women or tell us the status quo is enough for them. We know next to nothing about eternity so there is no excuse to slide limitations that only benefit males into heaven. The changes still being made that do benefit women should be enough caution. There is no fundamentalism in heaven. (Heavenly Mothers when we are just barely beginning to speak of one HM? Good grief.)

[mnn727]

9 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.

Wouldn't this be normal?

[Calm]

16 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?

This does not in any way explain avatar’s comment that implies men are called to greater service than women in the temple. Are you able to provide info about that?

18 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

This has not been explained as something significantly different than what women do (especially if one considers the risk of pregnancy and childbirth resulting in many women’s deaths over the centuries). 

20 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

Still not getting this apparent implication that men are called to serve women more in marriage than the reverse  Could this be explained, please. In what ways does this happen? (Examples, please, not just statements that men serve women, but examples of where they are required to serve women  more than women are required/called to serve men). 

This is not intended as a debate or challenge (at least not yet), but trying to understand your POV. 

Edited December 29, 2018 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

I know this is difficult for those that have benefited from cultural limitations on women. Regardless of whether you consider yourself a white oppressive male or just a regular guy, you have no standing in any discussion about women. Now....you are well used to men not having to include women's voices in male situations (priesthood meetings, councils, etc.)  Women can either be equally represented in church decision making....or men have to step aside when things that are about women are discussed. 

The time has passed when men can dictate to women or tell us the status quo is enough for them. We know next to nothing about eternity so there is no excuse to slide limitations that only benefit males into heaven. The changes still being made that do benefit women should be enough caution. There is no fundamentalism in heaven. (Heavenly Mothers when we are just barely beginning to speak of one HM? Good grief.)

It's ironic that man should have no voice in discussions about women when apparently the opposite does not seem to be an issue for you.

And the concept of Heavenly Mothers has existed in Mormonism since at least Brigham's day, possibly Joseph's.

As for "fundamentalism in heaven"...that's entirely down to definition.

Edited December 29, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's ironic that man should have no voice in discussions about women when apparently the opposite does not seem to be an issue for you

Do you have an example where Juliann has insisted on being part of a discussion about men’s experiences  between men where they have told her to withdraw?

Edited December 29, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's ironic that man should have no voice in discussions about women when apparently the opposite does not seem to be an issue for you.

And the concept of Heavenly Mothers has existed in Mormonism since at least Brigham's day, possibly Joseph's.

As for "fundamentalism in heaven"...that's entirely down to definition.

And here it goes, eh? I said male voices have no standing in discussions about women's needs and perceptions. You have slyly changed that to no voice, which means silent. Talk all you want, no one is silencing you,  but it is the women who have standing in topics that are about them and their experience as women.

If you truly believed that was unfair then you would be objecting to the male only decision making policies in the church. That is not having a voice, we aren't even there.  But you see nothing wrong with it as long as it is women who are silent, correct?

[Avatar4321]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Women are not told to serve to the point of laying down their life for their spouse 

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Women are not told to serve to the point of laying down their life for their spouse 

It is inherent in being the mother, even today there still is a risk of dying in childbirth or from pregnancy complications (ignoring the aging on the body even without death).

Quote

By 2017, the world maternal mortality rate had declined 44% since 1990, but still every day 830 women die from pregnancy or childbirth related causes.[4] According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) 2017 report, this is equivalent to "about one woman every two minutes and for every woman who dies, 20 or 30 encounter complications with serious or long-lasting consequences. Most of these deaths and injuries are entirely preventable."[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

Edited December 29, 2018 by Calm

[Avatar4321]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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.

 

  I highly doubt any misogyny was ever included in the temple Ceremony. That’s completely contrary to the gospel. 

[Avatar4321]

13 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.

Let us know what you can

Edited December 29, 2018 by Avatar4321

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Women are not told to serve to the point of laying down their life for their spouse 

But women are asked to walk through the shadow of the valley of death every time they obey the commandment to have children. 

[Avatar4321]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is inherent in being the mother, even today there still is a risk of dying in childbirth or from pregnancy complications.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

How is that laying down your life for your husband?

[Avatar4321]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But women are asked to walk through the shadow of the valley of death every time they obey the commandment to have children. 

I get that. But how is that for your husband rather than your children?

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said:

I get that. But how is that for your husband rather than your children?

Are you suggesting the husband has no desire for or part in producing children, it is solely the mother's choice?

[cherryTreez]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting the husband has no desire for or part in producing children, it is solely the mother's choice?

I controlled when we had children. I was the one to plan all of our kids. I did talk to my husband and we prayed, but in the end, it was my choice because I carried the babies. It was me that took the risk to have children.  

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

I controlled when we had children. I was the one to plan all of our kids. I did talk to my husband and we prayed, but in the end, it was my choice because I carried the babies. It was me that took the risk to have children.  

And if your husband had said "no", you would have drugged him or in some other fashion deceived him to impregnate you?  If not, then he participated in the choice imo.

I have always been taught in the church that having children should a joint decision of father, mother, and God and that men benefit greatly from being fathers.  Both parents need to be in agreement imo, not one insisting the other accept children whether or not they want them.  I have known marriages where that has occurred (both husbands insisting a wife not use birth control and wives refusing to use it to intentionally become pregnant while the father believes the already present children are being neglected and deprived and more can't be afforded...and I am talking about not having enough to afford beds for the kids, not luxury items).  Children suffer greatly and often divorce is the ultimate result.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

I get that. But how is that for your husband rather than your children?

Do you not benefit from being a father?

[Stargazer]

On 12/27/2018 at 5:49 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

An obvious alternative to allowing the rabble into a wedding/temple sealing would be to have the wedding and sealing separate. Get married outside the temple and sealed inside. This is done in many countries so it would not be a difficult change or even a novel one.

This is one of the few areas where I find myself in agreement with you.

As you imply, there is no doctrinal reason for someone to be married AND sealed in the temple.

[Stargazer]

On 12/27/2018 at 9:13 PM, strappinglad said:

As long as the film doesn't evolve into the modern practise ,of jiggly camera work and half second flashes of stills .😎

Or lens flares...

[Stargazer]

On 12/27/2018 at 9:42 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it could easily be cut in half. I think it could be cut down to 20 minutes.

 

Agreed.  Maybe not 20 minutes, but something around there.

There are certain absolute essentials, but I believe that a "quick" endowment, without the Creation story mixed into it, would take care of those essentials.  But I wonder if cutting too much of the non-essentials would take away something that should not be taken away.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I get that. But how is that for your husband rather than your children?

Rather ironic in a theology that emphasizes male posterity doncha think? What do you think polygamy was all about?