Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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.

Too late.

[cherryTreez]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

He was on board each time. If someone doesn't want kids, then they need to use birth control.  It's on you not on your spouse to use birth control.  If you don't want a baby, then use birth control.  It's  pretty cheap and easy. 

I refused to even talk about another pregnancy at one point. I could not put myself through trying to get pregnant,  being pregnant and the idea of another loss. Women have more of a say in pregnancy because we are the ones doing all the heavy lifting.  I have spent months on bedrest, dealt with severe morning sickness (ruined my teeth), gestational diabetes,  preeclampsia,  high blood pressure, pre term labor, miscarriages  and my daughter being stillborn.  

So yes,  women by nature have more of a say with pregnancy because nature made it that way. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Too late.

I disagree. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, cherryTreez said:

He was on board each time. If someone doesn't want kids, then they need to use birth control.  It's on you not on your spouse to use birth control.  If you don't want a baby, then use birth control.  It's  pretty cheap and easy. 

I refused to even talk about another pregnancy at one point. I could not put myself through trying to get pregnant,  being pregnant and the idea of another loss. Women have more of a say in pregnancy because we are the ones doing all the heavy lifting.  I have spent months on bedrest, dealt with severe morning sickness (ruined my teeth), gestational diabetes,  preeclampsia,  high blood pressure, pre term labor, miscarriages  and my daughter being stillborn.  

. 

And a guy can go out and get a vasectomy these days or refuse to have sex with his wife. 

Both men and women are generally equally capable of saying "no" even if in your relationship you were the primary decisionmaker (which if that is what worked in your relationship is wonderful, hope I am not coming across as critical).

Quote

So yes,  women by nature have more of a say with pregnancy because nature made it that way

On the other hand, a man is generally more capable of insisting his wife take "no" for an answer than a woman is as he is generally stronger.  And not to be offensive because no loving husband would do this, a man can rape his wife...and in the past women didn't have the legal right to sexually refuse their husband.  There are plenty of women in the past who were pregnant when they didn't want to be, nature is unfortunately not that kind to make pregnancy dependent on the woman's desire biologically.  And there are women who are now pregnant without choosing to be So because their culture refuses them access to birth control and a man, possibly her husband, forced himself on her.

A woman could possibly get a man drunk or drug them and then have sex or rip a condom intentionally, so it is possible to remove choice from a man as well though I am unaware of any culture that approves of such behaviour.

So a woman's level of choice is very dependent on her culture and the respect of her husband, not nature imo.

------

Hopefully since the topic is temple marriage, when a couple has children, it is truly the couple having them as the gospel teaches ( family proc saying "equal partners").  

Edited December 30, 2018 by Calm

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

You can think that if you want, but you would be wrong.  I will not go into any details, but I was an endowed member prior to 1990, so I do know.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

You can think that if you want, but you would be wrong.  I will not go into any details, but I was an endowed member prior to 1990, so I do know.

Yep... roughly speaking, the “under 48 year old” crowd has a different perspective on the endowment ceremony. 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... roughly speaking, the “under 48 year old” crowd has a different perspective on the endowment ceremony. 

Unless you've studied all the variations of the endowment on record since the restoration.  The age isn't the only consideration.

1842, 1877, 1923, 1975, 1990, 2005

Just to name a few major milestone years for significant adjustments.

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Unless you've studied all the variations of the endowment on record since the restoration.  The age isn't the only consideration.

1842, 1877, 1923, 1975, 1990, 2005

Just to name a few major milestone years for significant adjustments.

Where is a good place to learn about these changes?

[Scott Lloyd]

22 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.

Nothing like that was said at my shift today. 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Where is a good place to learn about these changes?

Well the first thing is to remember what Joseph said about these things being understood by the spiritually minded and studying prayerfully.  A purely academic approach isn't the best ideas.

But for those who want to respectfully study the history of the temple there's a ton of good respectful material out there, along with other less savory places.

Good starting points include:

http://www.signaturebooks.com/product/the-mysteries-of-godliness/

http://www.signaturebooks.com/product/joseph-smiths-quorum-of-the-anointed/

http://www.signaturebooks.com/product/the-nauvoo-endowment-companies/

http://www.signaturebooks.com/product/the-development-of-lds-temple-worship/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://onewhoiswatching.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ehat-succession.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiWtLPM_sbfAhWosFQKHXMrA8YQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw20QejRxxxclZChHcEGTt0z

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/27/2018 at 10:31 AM, ksfisher said:

I do like this.  My feeling is that the ordinances run together to make one complete story.  Breaking it up as we do makes it difficult to see that.

 

For one going to the temple for his/her own endowment, it is "one complete story."

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nothing like that was said at my shift today. 

Thanks! Sounds local then. 

PS -- I just tried to PM you. Got this message: 'Scott Lloyd cannot receive messages.'

Edited December 30, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[ksfisher]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For one going to the temple for his/her own endowment, it is "one complete story."

Personally, I see it as starting with baptism and culminating with the sealing ordinance.

[esodije]

I wonder if a patron will be able to do multiple names in a single session, simply by making separate covenants, then doing multiple veil ceremonies at the end.  A lot of the changes in the last three decades seem to have been intended to reduce patron embarrassment or discomfort. At this point, the two most uncomfortable practices still extant are: (1) brother ordinance workers “receiving” sister patrons at the veil; and (2) one’s acting as a sealing proxy with a member of the opposite gender who isn’t one’s spouse. The latter, if it were changed, would exclude singles, and I can’t see that happening. However, the delegation of priesthood authority to sister ordinance workers to allow them to receive sister patrons at the veil doesn’t seem outrageous to me.

 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, esodije said:

most uncomfortable practices still extant are: (1) brother ordinance workers “receiving” sister patrons at the veil; 

However, the delegation of priesthood authority to sister ordinance workers to allow them to receive sister patrons at the veil doesn’t seem outrageous to me.

It would require a doctrinal change concerning resurrection and the temple name.  That would also have doctrinal ripples touching on related doctrine.

Or they could do it with no explanation and most people wouldn't notice or care.

[carbon dioxide]

I see no reason to change anything.  If members can't give up a couple of hours of their life for temple work every once and a while then we have far more problems than could ever be solved by shortening temple ordinances.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Personally, I see it as starting with baptism and culminating with the sealing ordinance.

Point well taken. 

But I specified going for one’s own endowment. The baptism for such a person has already transpired, and the sealing in that instance would be part of that person’s own marriage. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

3 hours ago, esodije said:

At this point, the two most uncomfortable practices still extant are: (1) brother ordinance workers “receiving” sister patrons at the veil; and (2) one’s acting as a sealing proxy with a member of the opposite gender who isn’t one’s spouse.

Is it that uncomfortable for very many?  I am pretty prudish in terms of relationships with men not my husband and neither has bothered me, so it surprises me that this is an issue.  (Not saying it is wrong to feel awkward in such things, but just surprised...I am naturally very shy and there are a number of things I have to push myself to do because they make me nervous like prayer circles, but the above never occurred to me).

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it that uncomfortable for very many?  I am pretty prudish in terms of relationships with men not my husband and neither has bothered me, so it surprises me that this is an issue.  (Not saying it is wrong to feel awkward in such things, but just surprised...I am naturally very shy and there are a number of things I have to push myself to do because they make me nervous like prayer circles, but the above never occurred to me).

I went to the temple before the 1990 changes and at the veil I was very uncomfortable with being the sister patron being introduced at the veil with the male temple worker. And remember my sister being told by someone in the know that it was a problem for the males as well and that is why it was changed.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks! Sounds local then. 

PS -- I just tried to PM you. Got this message: 'Scott Lloyd cannot receive messages.'

So sorry, Hamba. 

I’m afraid I don’t tend my PM inbox very well, and as a consequence, messages stack up until at any given time, it is at capacity and there is no room for new ones. I really do want to know what you have for me, and when I can get to a desktop computer, will go in and delete some old messages so as to clear some space. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I see no reason to change anything.  If members can't give up a couple of hours of their life for temple work every once and a while then we have far more problems than could ever be solved by shortening temple ordinances.

Well, the Brethren seem to feel the need to change something.  I guess we’ll find out in a few days. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/30/2018 at 12:52 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks! Sounds local then. 

PS -- I just tried to PM you. Got this message: 'Scott Lloyd cannot receive messages.'

Hamba, I have now deleted some conversations and thus freed up a small amount of space in case you are still inclined to PM me.

 

[esodije]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Is it that uncomfortable for very many?

Maybe I’m just projecting, since receiving sisters at the veil and acting as a sealing proxy with a woman not my wife are the two things that most make me feel uncomfortable.

[JAHS]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I see no reason to change anything.  If members can't give up a couple of hours of their life for temple work every once and a while then we have far more problems than could ever be solved by shortening temple ordinances.

Easy to say for members with a temple just around the corner, but what about members who want to do multiple names but live hundreds of miles away from the nearest temple?

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Easy to say for members with a temple just around the corner, but what about members who want to do multiple names but live hundreds of miles away from the nearest temple?

I don't think it was a well thought through reply from @carbon dioxide...

There are number of very valid reasons for potentially shortening the endowment session.  A few I can think of off the top of my head:  The ability to get more names done in less time.  Ease temple crowding in LDS-dense areas like Utah.  Reduce the burden on parents with kids at home (this has always been the toughest part of doing temple work for me... I hate leaving my kids for five hours to go do one session).  Allow for more sessions during the busiest times (like Friday evenings and Saturdays).