Another Big Batch Of Temple Ordinance Changes

[Nofear]

Went through this morning (scheduled the appointment before I knew the change went live Tuesday, or that one was even coming, so I was pleasantly surprised).

Changes not mentioned by Riess but which (I think) I noticed:

• The "heavenly abode" of God is never depicted as it was in previous versions. The endowment is fine fading to black with just voices.
• Some scenes that were probably originally shot by the actors but not used have been reinserted (e.g. consistent with no witness couple).
  • I suspect the terrestrial room scenes brought back the actors, I may have been imaging things, and I am far from a reliable witness, but a few seemed to have aged a few years.... /shrug
• Again, not a reliable witness, but it also seemed that many of the voice lines were redone... they seemed slightly less deadpan and more natural
• It seemed to me there was a subtle painterly effect added to the live scenes, especially with the background foliage but even with the foreground, slight but present
• When transitioning from the telestial to the terrestrial room, it removes "sisters first, followed by the brethren"
• Some better astronomy images were used in the expository introduction than have been used in the past

 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

Which is a huge assumption based only on faith.

[Ginger Snaps]

30 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Went through this morning (scheduled the appointment before I knew the change went live Tuesday, or that one was even coming, so I was pleasantly surprised).

Changes not mentioned by Riess but which (I think) I noticed:

• The "heavenly abode" of God is never depicted as it was in previous versions. The endowment is fine fading to black with just voices.
• Some scenes that were probably originally shot by the actors but not used have been reinserted (e.g. consistent with no witness couple).
  • I suspect the terrestrial room scenes brought back the actors, I may have been imaging things, and I am far from a reliable witness, but a few seemed to have aged a few years.... /shrug
• Again, not a reliable witness, but it also seemed that many of the voice lines were redone... they seemed slightly less deadpan and more natural
• It seemed to me there was a subtle painterly effect added to the live scenes, especially with the background foliage but even with the foreground, slight but present
• When transitioning from the telestial to the terrestrial room, it removes "sisters first, followed by the brethren"
• Some better astronomy images were used in the expository introduction than have been used in the past

 

I don’t think the actors were brought back. I think it’s CGI — probably faces put on stand-ins. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Ginger Snaps

[mfbukowski]

On 2/9/2023 at 3:14 PM, JLHPROF said:

AND here we go again.  As of February 7th the ordinances instituted at the foundation of the world not to be altered or changed got changed yet again.

Oops, sorry, the "presentation" got changed.  🤷🏻

At some point they're no longer presenting the same material.

☆FACEPALM ☆

So the Covenants are different???

Did you do initiatories before, as has been recommended, or was your preparation done for you by the Trib?

And then you get rep points?

Grrrrr.  😡

Edited February 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[OGHoosier]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Did you do initiatories before, as has been recommended, or was your preparation done for you by the Trib?

I'm planning to do my next session on Wednesday, I didn't see anything about doing initiatories before. Is that recommended? 

Might have to shift my reservations around.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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  

Mormonism has changed substantially over the past almost 200 years.  But most Latter-day Saints don't realize that. Just study the teaching on the Godhead from 1830 and the Book of Mormon, Lectures on Faith and 1840s teaching.  Dramatic changes over a few short years.  Then there is Brigham Young's Adam God Doctrine and other disputations about the Godhead in up till 1921 or so when the First Presidency issues a statement on the Godhead which was pretty much written by Apostle James Talmadge.  I think it has been more or less consistent since then.  But for the last 20 years there has been an increased emphasis on Jesus Christ and a personal relationship with Him that was not there before and even criticized by apostle Bruce McConkie.  There has also been a demphasis on God once being a man, an infinite regression of Gods, even becoming gods had been watered down.  The new endowment changes seem to emphasize Jesus Christ more.  So yea there has been a lot of changes in a short time.

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Mormonism has changed substantially over the past almost 200 years.  But most Latter-day Saints don't realize that. Just study the teaching on the Godhead from 1830 and the Book of Mormon, Lectures on Faith and 1840s teaching.  Dramatic changes over a few short years.  Then there is Brigham Young's Adam God Doctrine and other disputations about the Godhead in up till 1921 or so when the First Presidency issues a statement on the Godhead which was pretty much written by Apostle James Talmadge.  I think it has been more or less consistent since then.  But for the last 20 years there has been an increased emphasis on Jesus Christ and a personal relationship with Him that was not there before and even criticized by apostle Bruce McConkie.  There has also been a demphasis on God once being a man, an infinite regression of Gods, even becoming gods had been watered down.  The new endowment changes seem to emphasize Jesus Christ more.  So yea there has been a lot of changes in a short time.

Yes indeed.

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

When transitioning from the telestial to the terrestrial room, it removes "sisters first, followed by the brethren"

I've only done sessions in single room temples, so there being a comment related to that in there at all is new to me. 

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Some better astronomy images were used in the expository introduction than have been used in the past

I gotta say, not knowing your temple ceremonies (a deliberate choice I made years ago) makes for fascinating reading here. Astronomical images?

I wonder if Neil deGrasse Tyson would think the images are scientifically correct. He famously wrote to James Cameron about the star scene in Titanic:

Quote

“Neil deGrasse Tyson sent me quite a snarky e-mail saying that, at that time of year, in that position in the Atlantic in 1912, when Rose (Kate Winslet) is lying on the piece of driftwood and staring up at the stars, that is not the star field she would have seen,” Cameron told to Discovery.

“And with my reputation as a perfectionist, I should have known that and I should have put the right star field in. So I said ‘All right, send me the right stars for that exact time and I'll put it in the movie.’ 

Consider this my challenge to the missionaries assigned to wherever Tyson lives. Go convert the dude, get him to the temple, and make sure all is good astronomically!

@Stargazer, want to weigh in?  

Edited February 11, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Astronomical images? I wonder if Neil deGrasse Tyson would think the images are scientifically correct.

Knowing my astronomy well above the average person, many of the new images were actual images I recognized. Some of the older ones or "artistic" ones... well, they are artistic, but the concepts they endeavored to convey were reasonably accurate in my opinion.

A better question, were the use of the images theologically accurate, but that's a different topic for another day, another thread.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Nofear

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

☆FACEPALM ☆

So the Covenants are different???

Did you do initiatories before, as has been recommended, or was your preparation done for you by the Trib?

And then you get rep points?

Grrrrr.  😡

My grumbling is all a moot point anyway.  I don't believe we've given the actual endowment in decades, and even less so now.  We stopped giving patrons many things they used to be given.  It's like trying to ordain to priesthood or give the gift of the Holy Ghost without actually conferring or laying on hands.

I don't believe the current endowment is valid and fully expect all ordinances to be redone in the Millennium.  And luckily we'll have all the records to work from.

So honestly any of my grumbling about new changes really doesn't mean anything.  It's not like there are degrees of validity. 

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe the current endowment is valid

Hey JLHPROF. For a long time now I've known you were wary of changes in LDS liturgy, especially in the temple. I think this is the first time I've heard you say that the ordinance isn't valid. Is that correct, or have you held this position longer than I've thought? I remember you at some point writing that the LDS church is the only church to have priesthood authority and that's why you remain, despite the changes. Is my memory accurate?

In Catholicism, if an ordinance (sacrament) isn't valid, that means that it is the same as if it hadn't been performed at all. Is this the same in the LDS world?

Please, don't feel any obligation to respond.

As far as I can tell, you are the LDS equivalent of a traditional Catholic, probably more on the side of the spectrum where the SSPX is than the FSSP (where I attend). The SSPX are probably the group that is closest among the traditional Catholic groups to the line across which is the belief that there is no pope currently (a rejection of Pope Francis's papacy).

I'm glad you're here -- the more diverse the beliefs on this board, the better. Thanks!

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey JLHPROF. For a long time now I've known you were wary of changes in LDS liturgy, especially in the temple. I think this is the first time I've heard you say that the ordinance isn't valid. Is that correct, or have you held this position longer than I've thought? I remember you at some point writing that the LDS church is the only church to have priesthood authority and that's why you remain, despite the changes. Is my memory accurate?

Correct on all counts.

I'm occasionally falsely accused of being fundamentalist, but the Church is the only place with legitimate authority to perform ordinances (no offense meant to your beliefs.)

But just as I would reject baptism by sprinkling as an invalid baptism or a fundamentalist polygamist marriage as non binding so I am forced to conclude that our current endowment ceremony is not valid.  The majority of the elements that constituted the endowment ordinance have been removed from the ceremony.  The presentation of the ceremony can and has changed.  But what we do now is like baptism without water.

Quote

In Catholicism, if an ordinance (sacrament) isn't valid, that means that it is the same as if it hadn't been performed at all. Is this the same in the LDS world?

That would be the conclusion, yes.

Quote

Please, don't feel any obligation to respond.

As far as I can tell, you are the LDS equivalent of a traditional Catholic, probably more on the side of the spectrum where the SSPX is than the FSSP (where I attend). The SSPX are probably the group that is closest among the traditional Catholic groups to the line across which is the belief that there is no pope currently (a rejection of Pope Francis's papacy).

I'm glad you're here -- the more diverse the beliefs on this board, the better. Thanks!

I'm not sure everyone agrees but thank you anyway.

You as well.

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I gotta say, not knowing your temple ceremonies (a deliberate choice I made years ago) makes for fascinating reading here. Astronomical images?

Thank you, @MiserereNobis. Your respect and restraint is really appreciated, at least by me. 

As for astronomical images, the video presentations go over the Creation of the world, and there's usually at least a few images of galaxies, nebulas, etc. Photogenic images which you would expect to see plastered on the walls of planetariums. I'm pretty sure the famous pictures of the Crab Nebula and showed up in one of the videos. 

[Buckeye]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

That’s not how I view it. Covenants aren’t one and done. Mine isn’t a God of trickery. Continued attendance and repetition of the ordinance renews the covenants and is critical for them to take effect in one’s life. It also provides an invitation for someone deceased to join the covenant through proxy work, but I’ve always viewed my temple attendance as firstly a renewal of my own covenants.
 

I chose to step away when I came to a conviction that the covenant of obedience for my wife was contrary to the nature of the eternal marriage we were (and still are) building. I continued with the covenants that I found to be edifying - baptism, initiatories, and proxy baptisms with my kids and youth groups. I missed much of the endowment that was good and holy. But concluded I couldn’t continue renewing a covenant I did not believe in. 
 

Others certainly can view their covenants differently. But for me, when the wording changes so do my existing covenants. The new replaces the old. My wife is not under a covenant of obedience to me any more. 

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Mormonism has changed substantially over the past almost 200 years.  But most Latter-day Saints don't realize that. Just study the teaching on the Godhead from 1830 and the Book of Mormon, Lectures on Faith and 1840s teaching.  Dramatic changes over a few short years.  Then there is Brigham Young's Adam God Doctrine and other disputations about the Godhead in up till 1921 or so when the First Presidency issues a statement on the Godhead which was pretty much written by Apostle James Talmadge.  I think it has been more or less consistent since then.  But for the last 20 years there has been an increased emphasis on Jesus Christ and a personal relationship with Him that was not there before and even criticized by apostle Bruce McConkie.  There has also been a demphasis on God once being a man, an infinite regression of Gods, even becoming gods had been watered down.  The new endowment changes seem to emphasize Jesus Christ more.  So yea there has been a lot of changes in a short time.

Emphasizing Christ more does not mean one rejects ideas of God once being a man or becoming Gods, ect.  The truth is knowledge is useless if one does not not come to the savior and follow him.  There are some issues that have never been established as doctrines of the Church like what you said "Brigham Young's Adam God Doctrine."  Not Joseph Smith's Adam God doctrine.   The views of one prophet does not automatically mean it becomes doctrine for everyone.  Brigham Young himself admitted that he sometimes taught false things.  If God wanted Brigham Young's views regarding the Adam God issue being canonized, he would do it. Until God pulls the trigger, no LDS member is required to accept it or prevents someone like me who has his own view of the issue.  It is true that doctrines and teachings do change from time to time as more knowledge and understanding occurs.   That is what progress is and that is a good thing.  If God gave us all the answers at the beginning, there is nothing left for us to do or work towards.  

[Peacefully]

My husband went to the temple today and I queried him on changes. Everything pretty much lined up with all of the comments except he said there was a witness couple. They didn’t do the demo but they did kneel at the altar. Maybe our temple didn’t get the memo? 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Buckeye said:

That’s not how I view it. Covenants aren’t one and done. Mine isn’t a God of trickery. Continued attendance and repetition of the ordinance renews the covenants and is critical for them to take effect in one’s life. It also provides an invitation for someone deceased to join the covenant through proxy work, but I’ve always viewed my temple attendance as firstly a renewal of my own covenants.
 

I chose to step away when I came to a conviction that the covenant of obedience for my wife was contrary to the nature of the eternal marriage we were (and still are) building. I continued with the covenants that I found to be edifying - baptism, initiatories, and proxy baptisms with my kids and youth groups. I missed much of the endowment that was good and holy. But concluded I couldn’t continue renewing a covenant I did not believe in. 
 

Others certainly can view their covenants differently. But for me, when the wording changes so do my existing covenants. The new replaces the old. My wife is not under a covenant of obedience to me any more. 

Come back, things are quite different 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm planning to do my next session on Wednesday, I didn't see anything about doing initiatories before. Is that recommended? 

Might have to shift my reservations around.

Some whom I highly respect have said it was important. Not sure how official that was.

Women have stronger blessings than men in the initiatories.

 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's like trying to ordain to priesthood or give the gift of the Holy Ghost without actually conferring or laying on hands.

This will be cryptic for some, but that happens anyway at the end for everyone, not just 2 in front of everyone during a presentation.  I see that as no change; it is as it always has been.

Symbolically, it is at the end where the Lord certifies the correctness of each individual ordinance, anything before that is practice.

Edited February 12, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Thinking]

On 2/9/2023 at 6:07 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Personally, I enjoy being a member of a living Church

When other churches change the ordinances they are in apostasy, when the LDS Church changes the ordinances it is a living church.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey JLHPROF. For a long time now I've known you were wary of changes in LDS liturgy, especially in the temple. I think this is the first time I've heard you say that the ordinance isn't valid. Is that correct, or have you held this position longer than I've thought? I remember you at some point writing that the LDS church is the only church to have priesthood authority and that's why you remain, despite the changes. Is my memory accurate?

In Catholicism, if an ordinance (sacrament) isn't valid, that means that it is the same as if it hadn't been performed at all. Is this the same in the LDS world?

Please, don't feel any obligation to respond.

As far as I can tell, you are the LDS equivalent of a traditional Catholic, probably more on the side of the spectrum where the SSPX is than the FSSP (where I attend). The SSPX are probably the group that is closest among the traditional Catholic groups to the line across which is the belief that there is no pope currently (a rejection of Pope Francis's papacy).

I'm glad you're here -- the more diverse the beliefs on this board, the better. Thanks!

Just fyi, his objection in my opinion is procedural, to me, it makes no difference.

Analogy imo: suppose in Catholic liturgy there was a demonstration of how to correctly receive tha Eucharist, then later, they actually receive it.  Imo he is confounding the demonstration with the event.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Thinking said:

When other churches change the ordinances they are in apostasy, when the LDS Church changes the ordinances it is a living church.

No, strawman.

To correct your analogy, other churches, it is believed,  never had it right anyway and changed what never was valid to begin with.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

When other churches change the ordinances they are in apostasy, when the LDS Church changes the ordinances it is a living church.

When tithing isn't really needed, it's obedience.

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

When other churches change the ordinances they are in apostasy, when the LDS Church changes the ordinances it is a living church.

Isaiah 24:5 "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant."

Who does this prophecy apply to?  In order to change an ordinance you have to be the ones who have it to begin with.  In order to break a covenant you have to have first entered into it.

The only people this prophetic warning can possibly apply to are those who have the gospel.  It doesn't apply to those who never had it.