Another Big Batch Of Temple Ordinance Changes

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

One man’s apostasy and removal of plain and precious truths are another man’s continuing revelation. 

The sole difference between the two being, by definition, the involvement of God.

[Chum]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thank you, but I can't read the SLT without paying for it. $$$, I mean  !!!

Add the uBlock Origin extension to your browser and in the filter list, check the box for AdGuard Annoyances.

Browsing the internet without uBO is like driving in the rural south without seatbelts, airbags, bumpers, a windshield, doors and while sporting a giant ORANGE LOSER flag.

[Chum]

2 hours ago, Lemuel said:

If your mother had to covenant to obey her husband, but you don't, you aren't really saved on the same principles.

An awesome thing about the true gospel is it doesn't demand women become less than they are.

My mom's generation grew up in a time where women were ceaselessly pressured to be subservient, obedient, etc to men. Mom and her sisters all bore scars (many physical) of that abominable mindset.

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, Chum said:

Add the uBlock Origin extension to your browser and in the filter list, check the box for AdGuard Annoyances.

Browsing the internet without uBO is like driving in the rural south without seatbelts, airbags, bumpers, a windshield, doors and while sporting a giant ORANGE LOSER flag.

I will have try that out (the uBO, I mean)  

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Here's a non-Salt Lake Tribune article about it
More Jesus, less touching: 14 changes to the Mormon temple endowment ceremony

One item I haven't seen mentioned in any article but mentioned in online discussion is the removal of "who is dead" from all vicarious ordinance wording.

Perhaps that isn't considered a significant change...🤷🏻

[Hamba Tuhan]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

One item I haven't seen mentioned in any article but mentioned in online discussion is the removal of "who is dead" from all vicarious ordinance wording.

Perhaps that isn't considered a significant change...🤷🏻

Have we ever performed ordinances for and in behalf of someone who is living? My guess is no, but I'm not sure.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Buckeye said:

The eternal principle is obedience to God. That is consistent. Previously the ordinance placed a husband as an intermediary between his wife and God, but ultimately her obedience was always to God.

Prior to the 1990 changes the wife only covenanted obedience to her husband. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Have we ever performed ordinances for and in behalf of someone who is living? My guess is no, but I'm not sure.

Zina Young was the proxy for Jane Manning James when she was sealed to Joseph as a servant because Jane was not allowed to participate in sealings (she had been able to do baptisms for her dead relatives).  As far as known it was a one time ordinance.  And it didn’t stop Jane from trying to be sealed as a family member to Joseph either.  She knew what she wanted and wasn’t going to be stopped.

https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/s/century-of-black-mormons/page/james-jane-elizabeth-manning#?

Edited February 11, 2023 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

One item I haven't seen mentioned in any article but mentioned in online discussion is the removal of "who is dead" from all vicarious ordinance wording.

Perhaps that isn't considered a significant change...🤷🏻

It is a "change" from something that simply stated the obvious.  If the person is not dead, they would be doing the ordinance themselves.

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Prior to the 1990 changes the wife only covenanted obedience to her husband. 

But that covenant accompanied the husband’s covenant to obey God. I don’t see the two covenants as separable. The wife only covenanted to the husband in the context of his covenant to God. 

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

One item I haven't seen mentioned in any article but mentioned in online discussion is the removal of "who is dead" from all vicarious ordinance wording.

Perhaps that isn't considered a significant change...🤷🏻

Interesting. I hadn’t heard that change. 

[JLHPROF]

53 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is a "change" from something that simply stated the obvious.  If the person is not dead, they would be doing the ordinance themselves.

True enough.

Are the only ordinances we aren't permitted to alter wording on the ones stated in scripture (baptism, sacrament)?

If so, did the original wording for the other ordinances not come by revelation that never happened to be canonized?

Basically we can choose to change the words in every ordinance unless the words are specified in a revelation that we also chose to canonize?  It's entirely up to us?

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The sole difference between the two being, by definition, the involvement of God.

Well, the assumed involvement anyway.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Prior to the 1990 changes the wife only covenanted obedience to her husband. 

It went later than that.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

True enough.

Are the only ordinances we aren't permitted to alter wording on the ones stated in scripture (baptism, sacrament)?

If so, did the original wording for the other ordinances not come by revelation that never happened to be canonized?

Basically we can choose to change the words in every ordinance unless the words are specified in a revelation that we also chose to canonize?  It's entirely up to us?

Who do you think received the first revelations of the wording of ordinances?

Prophets

Who can change it by further revelations?

Prophets.

What's the use of even having modern prophets if they are not here for the times in which they live?

Who received the scriptures by revelation?

Prophets

Who can change and modify them?

Follow the logic here....

Edited February 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Basically we can choose to change the words in every ordinance unless the words are specified in a revelation that we also chose to canonize?  It's entirely up to us?

With an open canon....

Who's job is it to change it?

We are not sola scriptura 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Are the only ordinances we aren't permitted to alter wording on the ones stated in scripture (baptism, sacrament)?

Which canonised baptismal prayer is the one you think we cannot alter the wording of? This one:

Quote

I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world.

This one:

Quote

Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Or this one:

Quote

Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Should we still be saying 'wine' when we bless the sacrament even though it's water that we're blessing? The word water certainly never appears in either canonised version of the prayer.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, the assumed involvement anyway.

No, the literal difference between apostasy and continuing revelation is the involvement of God.

Most of the Jews thought that Jesus was in apostasy. Unless God was involved, they were right.

Most 19th-century American Protestants thought that Joseph Smith was in apostasy (and many of their spiritual descendants and cousins still do). Unless God was involved, they were right.

A significant number of Saints thought that Joseph Smith was in apostasy when he introduced plural marriage (and some today still do). Unless God was involved, they were right.

A number of Saints thought that Brigham Young was in apostasy when he asserted that the Twelve had the priesthood keys necessary to lead the Church. Unless God was involved, they were right.

At the same time, apostasy is a real thing.

Distinguishing between when God is involved and when He is not is therefore essential. One can assume wrong in either scenario. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Lemuel]

11 hours ago, Chum said:

An awesome thing about the true gospel is it doesn't demand women become less than they are.

My mom's generation grew up in a time where women were ceaselessly pressured to be subservient, obedient, etc to men. Mom and her sisters all bore scars (many physical) of that abominable mindset.

Oh, yes, it was most likely wrong for women to covenant to obey their husbands, or if it was right, there was some symbolism in it that we lost or never knew.  The endowment has had all sorts of false doctrine in it, and probably still does.

[Peacefully]

This is from the FB page of a pastor named Benjamin Cremer. My friend, who is a life-long, dyed-in-the-wool  member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and all around great person, posted it. I think it is relevant to this conversation:

Dear absolutist, 

Please know that we all don’t have the same extreme either/or, cut and dry, “black and white” view of the world as you do. It makes conversations with you nearly impossible when you assume this to be true about everyone.

For example, simply because we disagree with you about one particular thing does not immediately mean that we hold the exact opposite belief to be true. It only means that we disagree with that one particular thing.

Likewise, simply because you find one of our beliefs disagreeable does not automatically mean that we also align with everything else with which you also disagree. It simply means that you have just discovered one single area with which you do not agree with us.

Simply because we don’t hold extreme either/or perspectives about religion or politics or what have you, this does not mean we are not “convicted” people, or that we don’t believe in “absolute truth.” It means we are convicted about navigating our beliefs in a way that is different from the way you navigate yours. 

We have discovered that life is deeply nuanced and complex. We have found that wisdom takes time to cultivate and requires a lot of humility. Truth is deeply profound and infinite. We have discovered a lot of things we hold to be true, but we are also very aware that there is always something we don’t know. 

There are always things yet to discover and yet to be understood. We have discovered that great harm comes when we assume to know all there is to know. In fact, we have really been hurt by others who have assumed they know it all.

Within our framework of belief, we have become very comfortable with mystery, nuance, and complexity. We deeply value curiosity and we like to take time before coming to a conclusion about things. 

We work really hard to be patient with not knowing what we believe about something for a long while. We take our time to make up our minds about something, but we also leave room for those beliefs to develop, mature, expand, and yes, even change when we discover and understand more. 

It also isn't just about knowledge for us either. We want our knowledge to also be shaped by love, kindness, and compassion.

All this to say, the next time you encounter someone who doesn’t see the world in the same cut and dry, extreme either/or metrics that you do and you are tempted to condemn them as “wishy washy,” “lacking conviction,” or “not believing in absolute truth,” perhaps take a moment to consider that not everyone sees the world the same way you do. 

This doesn’t make them “wrong” and it certainly doesn’t make you “right.” It just means that you think you’ve somehow achieved absolute truth and there is now nothing left for you to discover, learn, or understand about the world and you are just talking to someone who refuses to think they already know it all. 

We don’t deserve to be condemned simply because we are comfortable with mystery and the reality that there are things we don’t yet know and you are not.

We hope you remember that in your future conversations.

Sincerely, 

The Curious.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Peacefully

[MiserereNobis]

This thread is interesting to me, because I can see a blurry parallel with this and Catholicism: the changes to liturgy after the second Vatican council. I also see connections to the idea of continuing revelation and how it manifests in the Catholic Church, which is one area I like to post about here.

Unfortunately, as I do not know the contents of your temple ceremonies, I have no idea how close the parallel is (hence "blurry"). Catholic liturgy underwent some pretty massive changes beyond the option of using the vernacular language instead of Latin (note: Latin is still the official language of the liturgy -- the liturgy is promulgated in Latin then translated, and the documents of Vatican II state that Latin is the preferred language for the celebration of the sacraments. Good luck finding the new mass celebrated in Latin, though). (another note: ATMs in Vatican City have Latin as a language option, obviously proving that God and/or mammon love Latin...).

Briefly, Catholic belief states that while all doctrine was available at the time of the Apostles, that doctrine will continue to be expanded and clarified, included the adding of "new" dogma. "New" means that it wasn't official dogma previously, but has been added because God has increased our understanding of the doctrine that was already given. Sounds like continuing revelation, eh? (another note: I don't think our churches are all that far apart when it comes to the idea of continuing revelation, though we use different words and obviously some of the details are different). (Another another note: I'm feeling rather parenthetical (and colonic!) this morning, so apologies in advance for all the, well, parenthesis and colons).

Here's an example I've used before to illustrate this: the definition of the dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven given in November 1950 by Pope Pius XII. It is the most recent example of a pope speaking ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter), which means that the declaration is infallible. Here are some interesting excerpts from the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus that declared this dogma:

(Pope Pius XII had just written about the previous infallible declaration: the Immaculate Conception)

Quote

6. Thus, when it was solemnly proclaimed that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, was from the very beginning free from the taint of original sin, the minds of the faithful were filled with a stronger hope that the day might soon come when the dogma of the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven would also be defined by the Church's supreme teaching authority.

7. Actually it was seen that not only individual Catholics, but also those who could speak for nations or ecclesiastical provinces, and even a considerable number of the Fathers of the Vatican Council, urgently petitioned the Apostolic See to this effect.

8. During the course of time such postulations and petitions did not decrease but rather grew continually in number and in urgency. In this cause there were pious crusades of prayer. Many outstanding theologians eagerly and zealously carried out investigations on this subject either privately or in public ecclesiastical institutions and in other schools where the sacred disciplines are taught. Marian Congresses, both national and international in scope, have been held in many parts of the Catholic world. These studies and investigations have brought out into even clearer light the fact that the dogma of the Virgin Mary's Assumption into heaven is contained in the deposit of Christian faith entrusted to the Church. They have resulted in many more petitions, begging and urging the Apostolic See that this truth be solemnly defined.

9. In this pious striving, the faithful have been associated in a wonderful way with their own holy bishops, who have sent petitions of this kind, truly remarkable in number, to this See of the Blessed Peter. Consequently, when we were elevated to the throne of the supreme pontificate, petitions of this sort had already been addressed by the thousands from every part of the world and from every class of people, from our beloved sons the Cardinals of the Sacred College, from our venerable brethren, archbishops and bishops, from dioceses and from parishes.

It's intriguing that it was the faithful, from individual Catholics in the pews to theologians to bishops and cardinals, that asked the Holy Father to investigate and define this dogma. It was grassroots, so to speak. This reminds me of the various threads here that have discussed how to deliver questions, concerns, ideas, etc. to the first presidency and apostles, such as the ordination of women and, in previous times, the priesthood ban.

Continuing on:

Quote

10. (...) we sent up earnest prayers to God that he might grant to our mind the light of the Holy Spirit

The Pope prayed fervently about this to receive what LDS would call revelation. I'm not quoting it but he also asked for the thoughts of all the bishops. He then pointed out quite clearly with specific examples that the new dogma he was about to define was not in contradiction with tradition (including the liturgy) and scripture.

And here's the actual declaration of the dogma:

Quote

44. (...) by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Note that the declaration is made under the authority of Christ and by the apostolic authority given by Him to the pope. It is "divinely revealed."

Not so different from the LDS view of continuing revelation, right?

Both of our churches claim to be led by God through "continuing revelation" (in quotes because Catholicism wouldn't really use those terms, but the ideas are quite similar, as seen above).

[MiserereNobis]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

16 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

One man’s apostasy and removal of plain and precious truths are another man’s continuing revelation. 

The sole difference between the two being, by definition, the involvement of God.

Agreed. I will point out that this undercuts those LDS arguments for the apostasy that lean on showing the differences between early Christendom and current Catholicism, such as: "1st century Christians believed X, Catholicism does not believe X, therefore Catholicism is in apostasy." All that argument has shown is that there have been changes. Changes, however, do not equal apostasy, unless the changes were made (as you say) without the involvement of God. Catholicism believes that any differences between early Christianity and the Christianity of today has happened because of greater understanding and further clarification given by the authoritative magisterium under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. See my previous post about the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

So, for all you arguers of the apostasy, stop trying to show we are wrong because of changes that have occurred over the time span of our 2000 year history. That argument is easily turned back on you based on the changes that have occurred over your 200 year history  

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So, for all you arguers of the apostasy, stop trying to show we are wrong because of changes that have occurred over the time span of our 2000 year history. That argument is easily turned back on you based on the changes that have occurred over your 200 year history

I wonder how much these types of arguments have influenced people who have broken away from the Utah LDS church. I don't know for sure, but I'm thinking of polygamous groups and that Snuffer guy. I'm sure there's others.

If LDS point to change and removal of doctrine/practice as proof of apostasy, then it would make sense that some LDS would see change and removal in the current LDS church also as a sign of apostasy. Perhaps moving the focus away from change and removal of doctrine/practice would deflate future LDS from claiming the Utah LDS church has gone apostate?

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I can say the changes a few years ago were significant enough that I began attending the ceremony again. I had stopped for a few years because I could not in good conscience join an ordinance that placed my wife in obedience to me.  Those changes were a miracle in timing as my oldest son was preparing for a mission and I was torn about not being part of his endowment.

Yet you likely made that covenant as did she because i assume when you took your own endowments out that was the covenant you both made.  After that is is not for you or her at all. Yours is done. After that you are doing it for someone else.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

@Lemuel or maybe Joseph Smith got further light and knowledge that ordinances aren't some sort of alchemical incantation that must be performed uniformly lest one get turned into a spiritual newt.

If they are meant to teach things, then they will have to flex based on the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.

Nice dodge.