Does anyone else have concerns about the current state of the church?

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, Derl Sanderson said:

I do think it's worth asking what Joseph had in mind when he made the statement you have bolded. He said this in a discourse delivered in Nauvoo in 1844. He had already introduced the latest version of the endowment to associates in Nauvoo two years earlier in 1842, and certainly would have understood that that version of the endowment differed substantially from the one he introduced in Kirtland nearly a decade earlier. He also seemed aware that further changes would be made as Brigham Young reportedly said that Joseph told him: "Brother Brigham this is not arranged right but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.’ I did so, and each time I got something more, so that when we went through the temple at Nauvoo I understood and knew how to place them there. We had our ceremonies pretty correct."

So though it's not clear to me exactly what Joseph may have meant in your bolded statement, it appears he didn't intend for it to be interpreted in an unyielding, wooden manner.

Joseph Smith had no problem with additional truth being added to the endowment as God revealed it line upon line. He said as much on several occasions.

Taking away from the truth or changing teachings in the endowment to make them more comfortable for the members is a whole different story in my opinion. 

 

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I share many of your concerns, and like you, am an active and believing member.

One thing you might consider is what the scriptures teach about the time of the Gentiles being fulfilled. I think the decline in the Church in a lot of areas can be ascribed to this --- not loss of authority, or corporate unworthiness. 

I think we're seeing new phases in the Restoration, and it's hard for us Gentiles (Book of Mormon definition, Israelites descended from Gentile nations, not the conventional definition of "non-Jew") because everything in the Restoration has been the Gentiles. Decline, loss of vitality, etc. are hard to take because it's sad and it means so much to us. 

I agree that we are witnessing the times of the gentiles being fulfilled, which at least partially explains what's happening in the church. 

I also agree with your definition of "gentile." We "gentiles" are Israelites who came out from the nations of the earth. As Christ prophesied to the Nephites, the day would come when the gentiles would sin against the fulness of his gospel. 

It would seem to me that as we decline and lose our vitality, that we also lose power and authority, to what extent is difficult to say. Something is definitely missing in my opinion. 

[InCognitus]

30 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Joseph Smith had no problem with additional truth being added to the endowment as God revealed it line upon line. He said as much on several occasions.

Taking away from the truth or changing teachings in the endowment to make them more comfortable for the members is a whole different story in my opinion. 

I believe Joseph Smith recognized a difference between the presentation of an ordinance and the important essential elements and symbols of an ordinance.  Take Doctrine and Covenants section 27 for example, where the Lord told Joseph that he could use water instead of wine for the sacrament:   "For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins." (Doctrine and Covenants 27:2)

There are symbolic elements to all ordinances, and the presentation may be changed from time to time (as in the wine or water aspect to the sacrament, noted above) or it may be represented differently in various periods of history or in other cultures, even though the meaning of the symbol does not change.  As an example, take a look at this post (here) regarding the burial clothing recovered in ancient Christian burial grounds, and compare that with your experiences in the temple today.  What you may see as "changes in the ordinances" may in reality be adjustments to the presentation that don't impact the essential ordinances at all.

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I'm not trying to get any body riled up.

Well, I will admit to getting a bit hostile about what you've said here. I apologize, but I've been around the block some, and these are the kind of things that others have started out asking, and then eventually decided they knew better and began their own alternative movements (such as the Reorganites/Community of Christ and Denver Snuffer), to either go back to an older version of restorationism that they are more comfortable with, or even come out with their own more advanced version that they think is better. And have led many others away from the true Church of Jesus Christ. I'm not saying that's what you're doing. It just has a similar flavor.

9 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Just expressing some concerns and wondering if anyone else has similar ones. If a moderator wants to move this thread to the general discussion area that's perfectly fine with me as long as I can still participate in the discussion.

It's really not a matter of how far back I want things, it's a matter of what the Lord wants and what pleases him. I'm concerned that we've made changes that he is not pleased with. I don't have the quotes handy at the moment, but know that Joseph Smith and other early leaders of the church said that the garment was not to be changed. Perhaps the changes to the garment are not substantial and their purpose remains the same and perhaps not. The garment has been shortened substantially and endowed women (and men) can now wear much more revealing clothing than they originally could. Modern garments don't even cover the knee cap anymore and for women they allow for very low cut tops. Maybe that's okay with the Lord and maybe it isn't. Again, I'm just expressing my concerns, not taking a hard line stance.

Re: the bolded part, then I highly suggest you stop grousing about it in an online forum and go ask the Lord what He thinks. Asking about it here seems to me to be asking for validation from those who you hope might agree with you -- more relying upon the arm of flesh than you really ought to be doing -- and is suspiciously close to a trial balloon for starting your own movement.

9 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Here's the quote by Joseph Smith regarding changing the temple ordinances:

The main object was to build unto the Lord a house whereby He could reveal unto His people the ordinances of His house and the glories of His kingdom, and teach the people the way of salvation; for there are certain ordinances and principles that, when they are taught and practiced, must be done in a place or house built for that purpose.

It was the design of the councils of heaven before the world was, that the principles and laws of the priesthood should be predicated upon the gathering of the people in every age of the world. Jesus did everything to gather the people, and they would not be gathered, and He therefore poured out curses upon them. Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.

It is for the same purpose that God gathers together His people in the last days, to build unto the Lord a house to prepare them for the ordinances and endowments, washings and anointings, etc... If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.

(TPJS, p.308)

And so, what are the ordinances that you think are changing? More specifically, in dealing with the endowment, what constitutes ordinances, and what constitutes presentation?

9 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

There's no question the endowment has been changed substantially, especially since 1990. Like the changes to the garment, the question is whether or not the essense has been changed and whether or not the Lord is pleased with the changes.

It used to be that there was an apparent Protestant clergyman. It used to be that the endowment was live action (in the SLC temple it still is live action). It used to be that there were "penalties". It used to be that we stood for certain parts of the endowment presentation, but now we remain seated. What is presentation and what is ordinance?

More to the point, is the salvation of men endangered if that clergyman is no longer there, if the penalties are done away with, or we stay seated when once we stood?

We had a discussion in this forum in which the elimination of the penalties was discussed -- very gingerly, since discussion containing explicit temple content is severely disallowed here -- and there were a few of us (myself included) who were not particularly pleased by this. But that was because we knew what it meant, and that it was an ancient form of covenant-making to offer a penalty in exchange for a promise, and that in this particular case we were promising to remain silent about certain signs and tokens even if we were threatened with harm or death to get us to reveal them.  In case anyone reading this doesn't understand, do they remember how when they were children sometimes promises were made using the old formula "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye"? As an aficionado of English history, I am aware that when a nobleman wanted to make a promise or covenant more binding, he would swear it upon a knife! What does a knife have to do with a promise? Simply this: if he didn't fulfill the promise, may that knife pierce him! But it was a symbol of amplification, to underscore the seriousness of the promise -- nobody actually intended or expected to get stabbed.

But who today commonly understands the symbology of a penalty? It is seen as bizarre and weird, and some even thought that it meant we were to be revenged upon by the Church if we said anything to anyone we weren't supposed to (watch out for those "Danites"!). If the meaning of a symbol is no longer understood, and is even misunderstood, what value does the symbol have? None! Thus we no longer use it, because it is meaningless. Some of us "old codgers" understood it, but the culture has changed too much.

Were the penalties ordinances, or were they presentation? The answer is, they were presentation. Now, we are simply admonished to not reveal the tokens and signs except where they are supposed to be. The essence is preserved. The ordinances, namely the issuance of the covenants, signs and tokens, remain as they were. You may be aware that the wording of the husband and wife sealing ordinance changed a few years ago. Did that change invalidate the ordinance? Of course not. All the wording did was make more explicit the responsibilities of the two parties and how they should treat each other. All of this was clearly done in order to meet the needs of the current time. The ordinances remain intact as to their purpose.

The same is with sitting instead of standing. The same is with live actors, film, and filmstrip. The same is whether the endowment is done in English, German, Spanish or Tagalog.

Remember when Alma first baptized after being driven out of King Noah's court? He didn't hold the subjects hand and arm in a particular way while he immersed him or her. He plunged himself and the baptizee into the water from a standing position -- because he had to be baptized himself, but he had never been. Did this invalidate the ordinance? Apparently not.  The Lord's direction for baptism for the dead was that such baptisms were to be done in the basement of a temple. Yet he allowed them to be done in the open in a river until a temple was available.  The endowment was supposed to be done in a temple, but when the Saints arrived in the Salt Lake Valley there was no temple available, and wasn't for quite some time. Did that stop endowments and sealings from being performed? Only temporarily, because Brigham Young had a temple substitute built (the old Endowment house), and these ordinances were performed there until a temple was available. 

Now, if you want to know what constitutes a change to an ordinance, try what the early Christian church did to baptism. They started baptizing infants, and since infants can't be immersed (well, actually they can be, since there's a reflex of breath-holding which is a legacy of being in the womb), they sprinkled water on them instead. As for the ordinance of confirmation, it went from giving the Holy Ghost to a kind of graduation exercise performed much later in life. Now THAT's changing an ordinance.

9 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

As for blacks and the priesthood and women giving opening and closing prayers in church, it again is not about what I want, it's about what the Lord wants.

So, did the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve receive revelation about the subject in 1978, or didn't they?  Assuming the Lord gave them that revelation, did something happen in the meantime that caused the FP&Q12 to be rejected by the Lord as Prophets, Seers and Revelators? Or is it that disgruntled souls who either love old tradition too much or are explicit racists, and can't stand that the Lord might continue to lead His church the way He wants, without reference to their hard hearts?

There have been modifications to practices from the days of Adam all the way to our day. Baptism was at one time only required of Gentile converts to Judaism; then John the Baptist came along and it became required of all Christians, whether born into a Church family or not.  Early Jewish Christians continued to celebrate the Passover and kept Kosher, and even wanted Gentile converts to Christianity to be circumcised. Then by revelation this was done away.  

9 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

What do the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith say on these subjects? 
 

Is what Joseph said to be taken as the absolute last word on everything?  More to the point, is the Lord bound by what Joseph said or wrote?

I hope not, because Joseph was not the originator of anything at all. If he was a prophet, then God originated it, and God can change what He likes.

I have a testimony that those fifteen men at the earthly head of this church are prophets, seers, and revelators, and that they are in communication with the Savior in respect of how He wants things to be done. You may feel differently. It's your right. 

[Kenngo1969]

On 12/2/2020 at 7:11 AM, LDS Watchman said:

I think the brethren are trying to get us to take baby steps in the right direction rather than telling us we need to repent in sackcloth and ashes.

I don't know if you need to repent in sackcloth and ashes.  How could I?  I don't know you.  You don't know if I need to repent in sackcloth and ashes.  How could you?  You don't know me.  President Nelson, or someone else among the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, can't very well stand at a pulpit preaching to an in-person audience of a couple tens of thousands, and to a worldwide watching or listening audience of millions more and tell me I need to repent in sackcloth and ashes.  How, exactly, would that come about?  Would the speaker say, "I know I have a general message here, and I do want to finish delivering it to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at large, but if you'll pardon me for a second, I have a specific message for Brother Ken K. Gourdin ..."

True, the Secretary to the First Presidency could ring me up and say, "Brother Gourdin, this is Elder Hales*, Secretary to the First Presidency.  Would you be available to meet with President Nelson next Tuesday at 7 p.m.?"  And I'm quite sure that if such a meeting were arranged, if we were sitting across from one another face-to-face, President Nelson could see into my very soul, might not like what he saw there, and would indeed call me to repentance.

Otherwise, the way it happens is when I am face-to-face (probably via Zoom in these strange times) with my Bishop or with my Stake President.  Do you think, for some reason, that my Bishop or my Stake President won't understand his stewardship?  Will "chicken out"?  Will say, "Gawrsh, I know Brother Gourdin needs to be called to repentance, but, dang it, I just don't know if I'm the man for the job or if I have the guts to do it"?  Or maybe it doesn't even take that: Maybe it happens with absolutely no one else noticing, when I'm down on my knees talking to my Heavenly Father, or sitting quietly in the Temple.  What would be wrong with that?

 

Quote

The idea may be to get us to figure out what we need to repent of on our own as we are pricked by the Spirit.

You seem to think that there's something wrong with, or at least insufficient about, that.  Why?

Quote

If they gave it to us straight and boldly told of us of our sins, many would be offended.

Probably.  That's happened relatively recently on both an institutional basis and on an individual basis with self-appointed high-profile individuals who have boldly declared that they know better than the Brethren.  I sorrow when it does, because usually, it means that someone has removed himself from full fellowship with the Saints and from regular communion with the Holy Spirit.  I can only pray that such individuals will humble themselves and repent, but it's not my job to call them to repentance, because I have no stewardship that impels me to do so.  Their standing before God is between God and them (and no one else), my standing before God is between God and me (and no one else), and your standing is between you and God (and no one else).  Perhaps you should ponder whether your professed concern for the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole is well-placed, and whether, indeed, your garden is as well-kept and immaculate as you might think it is.

Quote

There are also many members who struggle with self esteem and think they'll never be able to measure up, even with the current bar being set as low as it is.

Who says the bar is set low?  How do you know where my bar is set?  Since I don't know you, how am I supposed to know where your bar is set?  I don't know what God has told you in quiet moments as you've retreated "to your closet" or to the Temple, as it were, to pray.  Perhaps one's bar is set low because he needs to focus, for the time being, on the basics.  Perhaps it is set high because "where much is given, much is expected."  But that's an individual thing, not an institutional thing.

Quote

As for Black Lives Matter, that's another issue. I wish our leaders would denounce this marxist organization in no uncertain terms. But considering our corporate status and the absolutely bonkers political climate in our country, they're hands may be tied on this one.

For those with ears to hear, they have done so.

To make a too-long-story short, the answer to your question is, I have more than enough concern for myself and for those under my stewardship.  I'll let those whose stewardship is over the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole worry about that.

*If memory serves, Elder Hales is a member of the Seventy.

 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[juliann]

On 12/2/2020 at 10:34 AM, LDS Watchman said:

I have mostly felt prompted kept my concerns to myself and have only hinted at things. 

I have invited others to search the scriptures more deeply, stop participating in worldly entertainment, and so forth.

The problem I see is that because the church does not speak out against most of our worldliness, that people don't think there's anything wrong with it. 

I think the church is doing everything in its power to make people take responsibility for themselves. That is the only way we will survive. Not all are lucky enough to be living in 1st world wards with a church on every corner to even make what you are wanting relevant. 

[mfbukowski]

No, Utah's a fine state, and at least they understand Mormons there.

[LDS Watchman]

Just now, InCognitus said:

I believe Joseph Smith recognized a difference between the presentation of an ordinance and the important essential elements and symbols of an ordinance.  Take Doctrine and Covenants section 27 for example, where the Lord told Joseph that he could use water instead of wine for the sacrament:   "For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins." (Doctrine and Covenants 27:2)

There are symbolic elements to all ordinances, and the presentation may be changed from time to time (as in the wine or water aspect to the sacrament, noted above) or it may be represented differently in various periods of history or in other cultures, even though the meaning of the symbol does not change.  As an example, take a look at this post (here) regarding the burial clothing recovered in ancient Christian burial grounds, and compare that with your experiences in the temple today.  What you may see as "changes in the ordinances" may in reality be adjustments to the presentation that don't impact the essential ordinances at all.

That's the crux of the issue. Do the many changes to the temple ordinances merely constitute a difference in presentation or are they changes to the ordinances themselves? Could go either way. Without question a great deal of truth has been removed over the years and symbolism has been lost. Covenants have been changed or altogether removed. That's something everyone who knows about the many changes will have to determine for themselves. I'll just say that I'm sure a Catholic would ask if there's really anything wrong with changing baptism from immersion to sprinkling. The symbolism of being washed clean with water is still there after all. Is changing baptism from immersion to sprinkling just a change in presentation? Hard to say isn't it.

I'm not taking a hard line stance on this, but I do feel that it's not a good sign that so much has been removed and changed from how the endowment was originally given. Either we can no longer handle the deeper truths and God had to take them away and give us the endowment in a watered down form so we members don't choke on the meat, or the brethren steadied the arc on their own to accomodate us because so many members were turned off by the strong doctrines taught in the original endowment. 

I will say that in spite of my concerns, I still have a good experience when I go through an endowment session. It does help that I know about the changes. I sort of plug them in mentally myself as I watch and listen and it makes the experience more meaningful. 

[LDS Watchman]

Just now, juliann said:

I think the church is doing everything in its power to make people take responsibility for themselves. That is the only way we will survive. Not all are lucky enough to be living in 1st world wards with a church on every corner to even make what you are wanting relevant. 

What is that you think I'm wanting?

I served my mission in an area were the church is very small. I actually think the members are generally stronger and more faithful in areas were the church is small because they have sort of an us against the world mentality. They have to sacrifice a lot more for the gospel's sake and sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven.

[LDS Watchman]

Just now, Stargazer said:

Well, I will admit to getting a bit hostile about what you've said here. I apologize, but I've been around the block some, and these are the kind of things that others have started out asking, and then eventually decided they knew better and began their own alternative movements (such as the Reorganites/Community of Christ and Denver Snuffer), to either go back to an older version of restorationism that they are more comfortable with, or even come out with their own more advanced version that they think is better. And have led many others away from the true Church of Jesus Christ. I'm not saying that's what you're doing. It just has a similar flavor.

I understand why you are are on the defensive, as I asked some uncomfortable questions and suggested that something is not right with the current state of the church, but there's no reason to get hostitle. Even though I believe something is amiss in the church today, I have no intention of steadying the arc and starting my own movement. That is not my place. As you correctly pointed out, look what that did to Denver Snuffer. He started believing he was someone special who had a calling to steady the arc, but he was simply a deluded false prophet who led a bunch of people astray. I know I'm a nobody. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what's going on and trying to see things for what they really are.

Just now, Stargazer said:

I highly suggest you stop grousing about it in an online forum and go ask the Lord what He thinks. Asking about it here seems to me to be asking for validation from those who you hope might agree with you -- more relying upon the arm of flesh than you really ought to be doing -- and is suspiciously close to a trial balloon for starting your own movement.

Again, I'm not trying to start my own movement. I'm a nobody. Believe it or not I have asked the Lord about what he thinks about our current situation in the church and the answer I got from him was that we have become corrupted to a certain extent and that errors have crept in. I don't profess to know the mind of the Lord as to the details of what exactly is wrong. I have been studying that out for myself by looking at what the scriptures and original teachings of the church say and comparing them to what is being taught and practiced in the church today. The more I search the scriptures and original teachings of the church and compare them to our current situation, the more troubled I become. I am looking to see if others have reached a similar conclusion. If you want to call that "asking for validation from those I hope might agree with me," so be it.

Just now, Stargazer said:

And so, what are the ordinances that you think are changing? More specifically, in dealing with the endowment, what constitutes ordinances, and what constitutes presentation?

That's the question isn't it? I consider changing the nature of certain covenants or removing them altogether to be changing the ordinances. The endowment is very symbolic as is baptism. I think it's pretty obvious that changing baptism from immersion to sprinkling is changing the ordinance and not just the presentation. In a similar manner I think changing or removing key elements from the endowment constitutes changing the ordinances. If God is behind the changes because the membership can no longer handle the stronger doctrines, this is still a bad sign, but I can at least make my peace with that. If the brethren have made the changes on their own, that's a tough pill to swallow. In my opinion it could go either way or be a comnbination of the two.

Just now, Stargazer said:

It used to be that there was an apparent Protestant clergyman. It used to be that the endowment was live action (in the SLC temple it still is live action). It used to be that there were "penalties". It used to be that we stood for certain parts of the endowment presentation, but now we remain seated. What is presentation and what is ordinance?

More to the point, is the salvation of men endangered if that clergyman is no longer there, if the penalties are done away with, or we stay seated when once we stood?

I do think that it's a problem that the protestant clergyman was removed and that a line was changed to no longer say that the Pope is in the employ of Satan. I think it gives members the wrong idea about who the Pope is and who the leaders of this apostate Christian churches are really working for. They have good intentions and think they are working for God, but really Satan is their leader and they are in darkness. The members today have forgotten this. I don't think any members even believe this anymore.

The issue of remaining seated now really bothers me to be honest. This might bother me more than anything else. Why in the world was this change made? Previously anyone who had difficulty standing was permitted to remain seated. There was no reason to have everyone remain seated. It shows a lack of respect before God to lounge back in our chairs while making sacred covenants with him and receiving the signs and tokens of the Holy Priesthood. 

So I think it is possible that these two changes could endanger the salvation of some. 

Just now, Stargazer said:

Were the penalties ordinances, or were they presentation? The answer is, they were presentation. Now, we are simply admonished to not reveal the tokens and signs except where they are supposed to be. The essence is preserved. The ordinances, namely the issuance of the covenants, signs and tokens, remain as they were.

I don't know whether or not the penalities were part of the ordinance or not. Could go either way I suppose. Either way, I think it's a problem that they were removed. People are less likley to take their covenants seriously without the penality being attached to it. If people didn't understand the meaning behind them, why couldn't a brief explanantion have been added to the lecture at the veil, which was also removed, instead of just eliminating them?

I think there was something deeper being taught with the penalties, too. The reality is that the under the highest and strictest Celestial law, the penality for breaking one's covenants and turning away from God and committing certain sins is in fact death. Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and other early church leaders taught about this. It is often referred to as "blood atonement." This truth is also contained in the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith, but it isn't spelled out as plainly. Brigham Young did teach that because the members of the church were just "babes" in the gospel that the penality of death for covenant breaking and other serious sins was not in effect at that time, except in the case of murder. 

While the signs and tokens pretty much stayed the same, one sign was changed. The covenants have also been changed and one was recently removed altogether.

Just now, Stargazer said:

So, did the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve receive revelation about the subject in 1978, or didn't they?  Assuming the Lord gave them that revelation, did something happen in the meantime that caused the FP&Q12 to be rejected by the Lord as Prophets, Seers and Revelators?

I never said that the Lord rejected the brethren, please don't put words in my mouth.

When it come to the lifting of the priesthood ban in 1978 there's a lot to consider. To me it's not as simple as whether or not the brethren received a revelation about this or not. For one thing the church was under tremendous political, social, and economic pressure to lift the ban. BYU athletics was being shunned over "racism." There's evidence that Jimmy Carter was threatening to remove the church's tax exempt status if the ban wasn't lifted. In light of the recent civil rights movement, by the 1970s many members were embarrased by the ban and wanted it lifted. There was also the issue of what to do with all these mixed race members in Brazil once the temple down there was completed.

There's also the fact the President Kimball wanted the change. He prayed about it for over a year (perhaps several years) without receiving an answer. Even though he hadn't received an answer he moved forward with planning to make the change. He talked to the members of the 12 and his councilors about it. They were all on board. He even told a black member to prepare to receive the priesthood all before the revelation was received. In fact from what I recall they had already prepared a statement lifting the ban before the revelation was received. In regards to the revelation, President Kimball prayed and told the Lord that he was going to make the change and if it was wrong to let him know. Then he and the rest of the brethren received the revelation to move forward. The revelation was not by an audible voice nor by vision. It was a feeling in their hearts and minds. Now this doesn't mean it wasn't a true revelation from God, but it doesn't mean it was either. It could have been what they wanted and the Lord finally relented like he did when he finally gave Joseph Smith permission to let Martin Harris take the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon home to his wife. I don't know. I find the whole thing troubling.

Another fact is that Brigham Young taught that blacks wouldn't receive the priesthood until after the millennium. Who was right? Was it Brigham Young or Spencer W KImball? 

There's also this scripture in Zechariah 14 which is troubling:

20 ¶ In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the Lord’s house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts.
(Zechariah 14:20–21)

This is speaking the millennium. During that time the Canaanite will no longer be in the house of the Lord of hosts. I think you know who the Canaanites are. 

Anyway, so to me it's all quite troubling, but like I said it's not place to steady the arc or change anything. I'm just watching and studying and praying to know what's going on.

Just now, Stargazer said:

Is what Joseph said to be taken as the absolute last word on everything?  More to the point, is the Lord bound by what Joseph said or wrote?

If Joseph Smith was speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost and delivering the word of the Lord, then yes the Lord is bound by what he said through the mouth of his prophet Joseph Smith, just like he's bound by the words he delivered through the mouths of any of his prophets.

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
(Doctrine and Covenants 1:38)
 

 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

That's the crux of the issue. Do the many changes to the temple ordinances merely constitute a difference in presentation or are they changes to the ordinances themselves? Could go either way. Without question a great deal of truth has been removed over the years and symbolism has been lost. Covenants have been changed or altogether removed. That's something everyone who knows about the many changes will have to determine for themselves. I'll just say that I'm sure a Catholic would ask if there's really anything wrong with changing baptism from immersion to sprinkling. The symbolism of being washed clean with water is still there after all. Is changing baptism from immersion to sprinkling just a change in presentation? Hard to say isn't it.

I'm not taking a hard line stance on this, but I do feel that it's not a good sign that so much has been removed and changed from how the endowment was originally given. Either we can no longer handle the deeper truths and God had to take them away and give us the endowment in a watered down form so we members don't choke on the meat, or the brethren steadied the arc on their own to accomodate us because so many members were turned off by the strong doctrines taught in the original endowment. 

Or 3. we have progressed enough as a whole that we were ready for it this way.  

If this were the case would you be willing to embrace it as what the Lord wants?  When you studied and prayed did you do so with that in mind? 

Because I know of some who have prayed, asked for the Lord's help in feeling right about the temple, never thinking of changing it, but hoping for understanding, and after years and decades of trying to feel good with the temple felt this was an answer to prayers.  

Quote

I will say that in spite of my concerns, I still have a good experience when I go through an endowment session. It does help that I know about the changes. I sort of plug them in mentally myself as I watch and listen and it makes the experience more meaningful. 

Is it possible you are missing something because instead of trying to hear what the Lord wants now you put yourself back to what the Lord had then?  Have you gone with the idea that maybe the Lord really wanted this?

I'm not trying to say you are wrong here.  I'm not making a point.  I'm truly asking if you are willing to embrace the new if that is what the Lord wants.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Rain

[LDS Watchman]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

Or 3. we have progressed enough as a whole that we were ready for it this way.  

If this were the case would you be willing to embrace it as what the Lord wants?  When you studied and prayed did you do so with that in mind? 

When I studied and prayed about what was going on my heart was pure and my sincere desire was simply to know the truth. The answer I got was that something is seriously wrong with these changes and other issues in the church today.

I totally get your perspective though. I just don't think we've graduated as a people and become more spiritual and more righteous to the point that we no longer need certain covenants and teachings. I think we've fallen backwards as a people.

In fact I think this scripture in Isaiah is talking about us and it's not good.

2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the *** his master’s crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.
4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.
5 ¶ Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.
6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

(Isaiah 1:2-5)

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

When I studied and prayed about what was going on my heart was pure and my sincere desire was simply to know the truth.

That isn't what I asked. I asked if you were willing to embrace the changes if that is what the Lord wanted. That is a very different question 

2 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

The answer I got was that something is seriously wrong with these changes and other issues in the church today.

I totally get your perspective though.

 

I didn't share my perspective.  

2 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I just don't think we've graduated as a people and become more spiritual and more righteous to the point that we no longer need certain covenants and teachings. I think we've fallen backwards as a people.

In fact I think this scripture in Isaiah is talking about us and it's not good.

2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the *** his master’s crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.
4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.
5 ¶ Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.
6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

(Isaiah 1:2-5)

 

[LDS Watchman]

17 minutes ago, Rain said:

That isn't what I asked. I asked if you were willing to embrace the changes if that is what the Lord wanted. That is a very different question 

 

I didn't share my perspective.  

 

Guess I misunderstood what you were asking and saying. It sounded like you were advocating for option 3 and that you were asking about the nature of my prayer.

I have no problem with the concept of continuing revelation and more light and knowledge being added. None whatsoever. 

The problem I have is with light and knowledge being taken away or obscured, which is what has happened in the temple. 

While studying the changes several years ago I had a really strong feeling come over me that these changes were wrong. Then I prayed about it and the answer I received was clear that errors have crept into the church. This was one of the most powerful answers to prayer I have ever received in my life. I can't deny it.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the point in looking at hypotheticals. I believe it's possible that God is behind these changes, but not because we have progressed as a people. Rather I believe the changes are because we have digressed. I can accept truths being taken away because we can no longer collectively handle them. I don't like it, but I can accept it.

 

[LDS Watchman]

20 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

President Nelson, or someone else among the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, can't very well stand at a pulpit preaching to an in-person audience of a couple tens of thousands, and to a worldwide watching or listening audience of millions more and tell me I need to repent in sackcloth and ashes.

Sure they could. 

There are many sins that are common to the general church membership. Not to everyone, but tothe majority. 

An example of this would be watching worldly television programs and movies which glorify immorality and violence and drive away the spirit. It would not be difficult to address this over the pulpit and tell the general membership to stop doing this. 

Another common vice among members is having our wives work outside the home so we can have nicer worldly possessions, not because it's absolutely neccessary. Another one is limiting the sizes of our families, which use to be strongly denounced by the brethren but no longer is. The brethren could tell us to repent of these things.

The prophets in the scriptures would boldly call out specific sins common to the people, even though not every single person was guilty of them. 

Yet our prophets do not directly address most of our sins. Because of this many members don't even realize that what they are doing is a problem and wonder why they feel lousy inside and aren't experiencing the fruits of the gospel like the Saints of old did. 

There's no more explicit warning of the consequences of sin. 

Here's an exercise for you. Do a key word search of sin and hell in general conference. Those two terms which are mentioned all throughout the scriptures, are barely mentioned in conference, if they are mentioned at all. Yet the Book of Mormon says that the only way to get people to repent and keep the commandments was to warn of hell fire and damnnation. 

This is why I think it's not enough for the brethren to simply try and get us to figure out what we need to fix on our own. I think it's great that they are pushing for home centered worship and a deeper connection to heaven, but in my opinion more needs to be done.

How much will a common follow me lesson really change someone if they watch a sex filled sitcom right after the lesson and keep sending their wife off to work every day because their hearts are set on the vain things of this world?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 12/1/2020 at 10:52 PM, LDS Watchman said:

I'm a lifelong active member of the church. I served a full time mission, sealed in the temple, and have had multiple local leadership callings in the church. 

I love the church and have a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel and prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. 

Several years ago I began to become troubled over what I consider to be problems in the church today. Notably I'm concerned about changed teachings and practices since the days of Joseph Smith and worldliness in the church. 

For several years now I have grappled over what is really going on in the church today and what to do about it. 

Does anyone else have similar concerns?

 

The Church was never meant to stay the same, as evidenced by the changes from the day the Church was organized, until the day Joseph Smith was murdered, that he made. Many Prophets have changed things, long before the “Church today”, that you gained a “strong testimony”. You worry about the wrong thing, due to COVID-19, serious changes to everything, will have long time effects, and not good ones. It will be almost impossible to bring all back, as so many are both isolated and alone (that may be redundant). So returning to normal meeting schedules, and congregations, will be very, very, difficult. Many, many Wards have changed boundaries, during a time when we were not meeting. When and if things we get back to “normal”, we will have members who know few if any, and chances are, many will not know them. Also, home teaching, or “ministering teachers”, and not getting assignments, and if they are, due to caution, not visiting anyone. Maybe, it would help (in this thread) if you point out, what changes you think have made The Church, “more worldly”? This way, we could all address your concerns and comments. Oh, and welcome to the board. Where are you from, how old, do you have children, etc? 

[Derl Sanderson]

On 12/2/2020 at 9:15 PM, LDS Watchman said:

Joseph Smith had no problem with additional truth being added to the endowment as God revealed it line upon line. He said as much on several occasions.

Taking away from the truth or changing teachings in the endowment to make them more comfortable for the members is a whole different story in my opinion. 

 

You started by arguing that Joseph said there should be no changes made to the endowment. When I showed you from the historical record that Joseph himself made changes to the endowment and personally instructed Brigham to do the same, your argument morphed into the idea that it was OK for Joseph to add truth as God revealed it. Absolutely. But that's still change. It seems to me you are making a distinction without a difference.

The often referred to "three pillars of eternity" are still there. The aspect of it being a ritual of ascension remains. All the covenants are still there. The signs and tokens are still there. Procedural changes in presentation are simply that -- nothing more. They haven't affected the doctrines nor the covenants. And your assumption that they were/are made for no other reason than to make patrons "more comfortable" seems dubious to me.

Then there's the central question: Do those we currently sustain as prophets, seers, revelators, and key holders have the right under God's direction to make any change He wishes -- or don't they? I really do think you have plenty of "squirm room" to nuance your view on these things and not become too hide-bound. As far as I know, we have yet to jettison the ninth Article of Faith. 😉

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

The Church was never meant to stay the same, as evidenced by the changes from the day the Church was organized, until the day Joseph Smith was murdered, that he made. Many Prophets have changed things, long before the “Church today”, that you gained a “strong testimony”. You worry about the wrong thing, due to COVID-19, serious changes to everything, will have long time effects, and not good ones. It will be almost impossible to bring all back, as so many are both isolated and alone (that may be redundant). So returning to normal meeting schedules, and congregations, will be very, very, difficult. Many, many Wards have changed boundaries, during a time when we were not meeting. When and if things we get back to “normal”, we will have members who know few if any, and chances are, many will not know them. Also, home teaching, or “ministering teachers”, and not getting assignments, and if they are, due to caution, not visiting anyone. Maybe, it would help (in this thread) if you point out, what changes you think have made The Church, “more worldly”? This way, we could all address your concerns and comments. Oh, and welcome to the board. Where are you from, how old, do you have children, etc? 

Thanks for the welcome.

Aittle about me. I'm in my late 30s, I'm married, and my wife and I have 4 kids. We live in Arizona.

As for the changes in the church, I wasn't referring to the recent changes due to Covid-19. Those temporary changes are understandable. 

I'm referring to the changed temple ordinances, changed teachings, and general worldiness in the church.

In regards to worldliness I listed several concerns in this thread already. Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about.

- Watching worldly TV programs and movies and listening to worldly music which glorify immortality and violence.

-Obsession with sports and other forms of worldly entertainment (including on the Sabbath)

-Inmodesty and wearing of costly apparel

-Love of riches and worldly possessions

-Wives working and limiting  the size of our families in order to obtain vain things of this world.

 

 

 

 

[LDS Watchman]

55 minutes ago, Derl Sanderson said:

You started by arguing that Joseph said there should be no changes made to the endowment. When I showed you from the historical record that Joseph himself made changes to the endowment and personally instructed Brigham to do the same, your argument morphed into the idea that it was OK for Joseph to add truth as God revealed it. Absolutely. But that's still change. It seems to me you are making a distinction without a difference.

The often referred to "three pillars of eternity" are still there. The aspect of it being a ritual of ascension remains. All the covenants are still there. The signs and tokens are still there. Procedural changes in presentation are simply that -- nothing more. They haven't affected the doctrines nor the covenants. And your assumption that they were/are made for no other reason than to make patrons "more comfortable" seems dubious to me.

Then there's the central question: Do those we currently sustain as prophets, seers, revelators, and key holders have the right under God's direction to make any change He wishes -- or don't they? I really do think you have plenty of "squirm room" to nuance your view on these things and not become too hide-bound. As far as I know, we have yet to jettison the ninth Article of Faith. 😉

Since this is a public forum it is of course inappropriate to get into specific changes that were made in the temple. I've probably said to much already.

The scriptures specifically state that destruction is coming because the ordinances have been changed.

5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

(Isaiah 24:5-6)

There's no question that during the great apostasy the ordinances were changed and broken. This is why they had to be restored. This is what Joseph Smith was talking about when he spoke of not changing the ordinances.

I cannot with certainty say that the changes to the endowment over the years is equivalent to changing the ordinances as referred to by Isaiah. I have concerns that it is at the very least a step in that direction, but I agree that there certainly is wiggle room to look at it differently.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

Since this is a public forum it is of course inappropriate to get into specific changes that were made in the temple. I've probably said to much already.

The scriptures specifically state that destruction is coming because the ordinances have been changed.

5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

(Isaiah 24:5-6)

There's no question that during the great apostasy the ordinances were changed and broken. This is why they had to be restored. This is what Joseph Smith was talking about when he spoke of not changing the ordinances.

I cannot with certainty say that the changes to the endowment over the years is equivalent to changing the ordinances as referred to by Isaiah. I have concerns that it is at the very least a step in that direction, but I agree that there certainly is wiggle room to look at it differently.

You suggest issues over change, on this public forum, knowing you can’t discuss them. Not sure how to respond, or how anyone else can, to help you with what seems to be a crisis of Faith. ETA: Changes in the Temple have changed, through many Prophets, including Joseph Smith, and not just in recent years. 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Back when this happened my sister who is stalwart LDS, got some information that the close proximity at the veil with male workers got a little too close and the men were having trouble with not becoming aroused. I hope I haven't crossed the line here in stating that, it's most likely that very few had that happened. And I'm sure women felt uncomfortable about the closeness, to a stranger. So that's a good change I believe.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There was a problem with a portion of the endowment making people uncomfortable, so that portion was eliminated or changed. 

Maybe it was a good change and neccessary, maybe not. Either way something was changed because members were uncomfortable and now they are more comfortable. 

I'm sure there was a reason why this was in the endowment for 150 years and that reason is now gone. 

I guess the question is at what point the changes cross the line. Is there anything that absolutely cannot be changed or can anything and everything be changed?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 12/2/2020 at 11:38 AM, Tacenda said:

This!

I believe you're right, the changes people make are because of being told like little children what to do, what to wear, or not wear or do. But if people govern themselves, it's going to go further. Such as following the two first commandments as you mentioned. That is the ideal, the change comes from themselves, not of being told to do something, and doing it half hearted. 

Did I miss a memo, on being told “what to do, and what to wear”? I hate when that happens, the “missing the memo” part. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 12/2/2020 at 10:40 AM, Tacenda said:

I've been navigating my way in unbelief, ever since discovering church history I hadn't known for 40 years of being an active member.

My dear sister, every Church has a history, and it is not always “sunshine and roses”. But the way to navigate “doubt”, or to use your tern, “unbelief”, is to understand that Church History, is rarely doctrine. Also, to stop looking through the prism of doubt, as all colors are dark ones, and are gray and black. But instead look through the prism of “scripture, light, Faith and obedience, through which are all the colors of God’s are illuminated, more brightly and beautiful than a million rainbows. 

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Did I miss a memo, on being told “what to do, and what to wear”? I hate when that happens, the “missing the memo” part. 

Yes, haha! I was told several years ago not to wear dresses that have jeans material in them on Sunday, do you remember those? My Relief Society president was told to tell the women in our ward. Another time someone said we need to not wear flip flops, that was mainly toward the young women.

I was told to always wear shoes when my home teachers came to visit, no bare feet, maybe too sexual I'm thinking? I'm not lying, this was really told to us. Maybe from the stake president not sure, but he might have got the memo to tell us that.

And we were all told to only have one pair of earrings, that was in general conference.

But nowadays, we don't hear much about earrings or tattoo's thank goodness.

ETA: Papa, if you need me to respond to any of your posts about this, I ran out of my allotment of posts for the day.

Edited December 5, 2020 by Tacenda

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, haha! I was told several years ago not to wear dresses that have jeans material in them, do you remember those? My Relief Society was told to tell the women in our ward. I was told to always wear shoes when my home teachers came to visit, no bare feet, maybe too sexual, I'm not lying this was really told to us. Maybe the stake president, but he might have go the memo to tell us that. We were all told to only have one pair of earrings, that was in general conference.

Those things are not from our Church leadership, as in our GA’s, and I don’t understand why bare feet is “too sexual”. Maybe you “disbelief” has to do with local leadership, trying to impose their own views upon you. But, thank you, that “barefoot thing”, gave me a laugh. Maybe I am missing something about bare feet being too sexual, living here in the sunny South, in the summer, bare feet are the norm.