Another Big Batch Of Temple Ordinance Changes

[manol]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

[Elder Bednar] has spoken about it in conference, but went into more depth and explaining in one of his books, Increase in Learning.  This article summarizes some of his ideas.

Thank you very much for that link, as it clears up something for me:

I had seen you use the terms "doctrine" and "principle" differently from the way I would, and now I see why:  You were using Elder Bednar's model of doctrine = "unchangeable fundamental revealed truth" (my paraphrase), with the ensuing pattern being "doctrine -> principle -> application".  So... if I understand correctly, by Elder Bednar's definition the term "false doctrine" would be an oxymoron.  The way he uses the term "principle" is consistent with LDS usage in the term "Gospel Principles".  

I'm probably in the minority here, but I use the term "principle" to indicate a fundamental underlying unchanging truth, with "doctrine" being a core teaching theoretically arising from underlying fundamental truth.  I include the word "theoretically" in that last sentence because a "false doctrine" would be a core teaching which is not aligned with the applicable fundamental underlying truth(s). 

By way of example, imo "God is good and God is fair and God is no respecter of persons" is a principle, or a fundamental underlying unchanging truth, with "Baptism for the Dead" being a doctrine which arises (in part) from this principle.

Not that nomenclature is what matters most, and I certainly don't expect you to remember mine!  

Edited February 15, 2023 by manol

[pogi]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And when these elements are removed piece by piece?

What then of the instruction?
""A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth."  - Joseph Smith

The more we remove the less remains.  There are fewer and fewer saints remaining who know the penalties, the key words, the correct veil ceremony, the true temple prayer, and I would say soon enough the signs and tokens.
The knowledge is being lost more and more with each generation.  There will be few who will be able to "give them the key words, the signs, and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation."

Or, perhaps they are just being refined to hone in on what really matters. 

For me, it is a rough stone rolling, knocking of edges and getting polished along the river bed.  For you it started as a smooth stone, getting dinged and tarnished as it rolls along.  I think it is probably a combination of those two in different ways to some degree, but overall I see it as progressive rather than regressive changes. 

What are the penalties other than an attempt to motivate out of fear.  Perhaps we are progressing as a people to obey out of duty, and eventually to the higher levels of love. 

[Peacefully]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Need? Desire? It all depends on perspective.

Personally, I'll be fine either way. Some of the sweetest experiences I've had in mortality so far have involved being blessed with Christlike leaders who have loved me, inspired me, motivated me, and empowered me as I have served 'under' them. I literally wouldn't be who I am right now without their guidance.

Will I outgrow that desire at some point? Maybe ... though certainly never in relation to my Saviour!

I agree with your last sentence and I’ve also had great leaders but my hope is I’ll outgrow the church hierarchy, at least after I’ve been there a few thousand years. I would rather report directly to Christ or Heavenly Father:)

[Rain]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Thank you very much for that link, as it clears up something for me:

I had seen you use the terms "doctrine" and "principle" differently from the way I would, and now I see why:  You were using Elder Bednar's model of doctrine = "unchangeable fundamental revealed truth" (my paraphrase), with the ensuing pattern being "doctrine -> principle -> application".  So... if I understand correctly, by Elder Bednar's definition the term "false doctrine" would be an oxymoron.  The way he uses the term "principle" is consistent with LDS usage in the term "Gospel Principles".  

I'm probably in the minority here, but I use the term "principle" to indicate a fundamental underlying unchanging truth, with "doctrine" being a core teaching theoretically arising from underlying fundamental truth.  I include the word "theoretically" in that last sentence because a "false doctrine" would be a core teaching which is not aligned with the applicable fundamental underlying truth(s). 

By way of example, imo "God is good and God is fair and God is no respecter of persons" is a principle, or a fundamental underlying unchanging truth, with "Baptism for the Dead" being a doctrine which arises (in part) from this principle.

Not that nomenclature is what matters most, and I certainly don't expect you to remember mine!  

  

If you listen to conference you will find that many think of it all in different ways than he does as well so you're in good company.

For me it has been helpful in 2 ways.

1. I first came across it in an education week class.  She taught how if you were having a concern with behavior to look at what the doctrine is that you don't understand well enough that is connected to that behavior.  So if my daughter is wearing scantily clad clothes what principle might she not understand?  Maybe your body is a gift from God.  And what doctrine would that principle fall under?  Maybe God is our Father.  Then help my daughter to understand her relationship to God and God's love for her rather than get after her for ever item that might not be "modest".

2. It helps me to see what is only an application and that I don't need to worry about every single application like we in the church sometimes feel we need to do.  Rather when we understand the principle and the doctrine then the applications come much more naturally and not a to do list.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Thank you very much for that link, as it clears up something for me:

I had seen you use the terms "doctrine" and "principle" differently from the way I would, and now I see why:  You were using Elder Bednar's model of doctrine = "unchangeable fundamental revealed truth" (my paraphrase), with the ensuing pattern being "doctrine -> principle -> application".  So... if I understand correctly, by Elder Bednar's definition the term "false doctrine" would be an oxymoron.  The way he uses the term "principle" is consistent with LDS usage in the term "Gospel Principles".  

I'm probably in the minority here, but I use the term "principle" to indicate a fundamental underlying unchanging truth, with "doctrine" being a core teaching theoretically arising from underlying fundamental truth.  I include the word "theoretically" in that last sentence because a "false doctrine" would be a core teaching which is not aligned with the applicable fundamental underlying truth(s). 

By way of example, imo "God is good and God is fair and God is no respecter of persons" is a principle, or a fundamental underlying unchanging truth, with "Baptism for the Dead" being a doctrine which arises (in part) from this principle.

Not that nomenclature is what matters most, and I certainly don't expect you to remember mine!  

This is how I think about it as well.  Doctrine is what is taught about a truth, correctly or incorrectly.

[Rain]

Just now, Calm said:

This is how I think about it as well.  Doctrine is what is taught about a truth, correctly or incorrectly.

The base of this comes from Elder Packer's "True doctrine understood" changes behavior better than the study of behavior changes behavior.  False doctrine won't have us changing in the right ways. So all of this is in the context of Elder Packer's quote. 

[Calm]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

What are the penalties other than an attempt to motivate out of fear.

Were similar oaths in the past only kept because of fear?  When people said of a person “their word is their bond”, could you trust that person to keep their word because you knew they were motivated by fear?

I think the oaths we took (I am old enough to have done so) came from a different culture that connected them more with honour or a sense of obligation than with fear.

I think they were removed in part because they became associated with fear for several reasons, one being culture and language change, two being the stories told of apostates being slain for breaking of temple covenants (though the covenant wasn’t in the sense to be killed if one broke it, but to die before dishonor), and some others I thought of before but can’t remember now, lol.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 2/14/2023 at 4:52 AM, mfbukowski said:

Ordinances are not magic words.

Indeed. As I explained to one of my Young Men once when he claimed he couldn't really tell the difference between 'magic' and priesthood authority, if the sacrament prayers were magic, then anyone who came across blessed bread in the bin could eat a piece and obtain forgiveness of sins.

Clearly, it doesn't work that way.

Speaking of the sacrament prayers, when I lived in Indonesia, I memorised them. A few years ago, a new Triple Combination was released in Indonesian, and the words of the sacrament prayers in both Moroni and D&C 20 have been changed. Far better/clearer, in my opinion, but issues of translation (and re-translation) undermine the very notion that ordinances are somehow like incantations.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Chum]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Scars....abominable.......expectations....linked...... In fact, those men would be in violation of their covenants. 

Subservience means obedience without question. That is not a temple covenant.

What covenants? They were all multi-generational Catholics. I joined the Church years after my mother passed.

We could say mistreatment violated their civil marriage vows but those are so ubiquitous, I suspect people breeze by them like a EULA.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Chum said:

What covenants? They were all multi-generational Catholics. I joined the Church years after my mother passed.

We could say mistreatment violated their civil marriage vows but those are so ubiquitous, I suspect people breeze by them like a EULA.

Your were responding to this…

Quote

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

I assumed you were referring to the previous generational understanding of the temple covenant that wives obey their husbands. I did not know she was Catholic.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

What are the penalties other than an attempt to motivate out of fear.  Perhaps we are progressing as a people to obey out of duty, and eventually to the higher levels of love. 

There is a world of difference between “rather” and “if.”

Edited February 16, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

On 2/11/2023 at 11:32 PM, mfbukowski said:

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.

And besides that, you get help in "correctness".   No one ever gets it wrong.

What does that tell us about salvation?  And more importantly imo, what does that do to the concept of "correctness"?   You would have to be deliberately motivated to "fail" the exam, looking directly at the sun and refusing to see its brightness.  

Who does that remind us of?   

[Maestrophil]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Were similar oaths in the past only kept because of fear?  When people said of a person “their word is their bond”, could you trust that person to keep their word because you knew they were motivated by fear?

I think the oaths we took (I am old enough to have done so) came from a different culture that connected them more with honour or a sense of obligation than with fear.

I think they were removed in part because they became associated with fear for several reasons, one being culture and language change, two being the stories told of apostates being slain for breaking of temple covenants (though the covenant wasn’t in the sense to be killed if one broke it, but to die before dishonor), and some others I thought of before but can’t remember now, lol.

I agree with this - I am a Gen-X dude, and I still have recollections of the feeling of patriotism I had when I would talk to my WWII veteran Grandfather, or the pride I would feel when church leaders talked about how my male friends in my ward were part of God's Priethood 'army'.  Belonging and loyalty felt right and 'cool' to me, and promising to be willing to die ratehr than corrupt holy things felt good and honorable to me and was a sense of pride, not fear.  

That obviously did not translate well to all and over subsequent generations - so as meaning changed, the endowmwnt presentation did too so as not to be a stumbling block IMO.

[JLHPROF]

56 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

That obviously did not translate well to all and over subsequent generations - so as meaning changed, the endowmwnt presentation did too so as not to be a stumbling block IMO.

When did this become such a key consideration?  Keeping everyone comfortable I mean.
It's been expressed several times on this thread by multiple posters.

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

When did this become such a key consideration?  Keeping everyone comfortable I mean.
It's been expressed several times on this thread by multiple posters.

I’m not reading other posters as suggesting that the temple changes are an aspect of keeping members comfortable. I am reading their posts more as saying that the changes keep the temple experience relevant and useful to members.

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

When did this become such a key consideration?  Keeping everyone comfortable I mean.
It's been expressed several times on this thread by multiple posters.

I love what the Lord says in the first section of the Doctrine and Covenants:  

Quote

24:  Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

I believe that when the Lord says he speaks to us "after the manner of [our] language," He means far more than that He speaks to us in English, or in Spanish, or what have you.  The manner of our language encompasses how the language is filtered through our cultural understanding and biases.  As those cultural filters change and evolve, the Lord changes the manner of the language with which He communicates to us.  

It's not so much about "keeping everyone comfortable," but rather trying to ensure that our ever-evolving cultural filters don't alter the Lord's message too much beyond what He intends.  

[MustardSeed]

I believe we are in a place where many of us are welcoming change.  Bring it on.  The changes so far make a ton of sense to me logically. 
 

As for comfortable, that’s not happening until we get snacks and everyone is required to brush their teeth before every session. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

It's not so much about "keeping everyone comfortable," but rather trying to ensure that our ever-evolving cultural filters don't alter the Lord's message too much beyond what He intends.  

This is it. The Lord is outcomes-focused, and we should be as well. Being more wed to process than outcomes is deadly to things of the Spirit.

Elder Bednar to our regional priesthood leadership meeting: Brethren, there is far, far too much tradition in this room. Too many of you are doing what has always been done instead of doing what the Lord is telling you to do now through His living prophets.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Maestrophil]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’m not reading other posters as suggesting that the temple changes are an aspect of keeping members comfortable. I am reading their posts more as saying that the changes keep the temple experience relevant and useful to members.

 

Correct - it's changing my shirt befroe I go out with my wife so she isn't embarrased.  😛

 

[OGHoosier]

38 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is it. The Lord is outcomes-focused, and we should be as well. Being more wed to process than outcomes is deadly to things of the Spirit.

Elder Bednar to our regional priesthood leadership meeting: Brethren, there is far, far too much tradition in this room. Too many of you are doing what has always been done instead of doing what the Lord is telling you to do now through His living prophets.

BASED.

Honestly, realizing that the Lord cares more about outcomes than procedure has been very important in helping me deal with a lot of things, from the problem of evil to the translation of the Book of Mormon. Heaven is not a bureaucracy.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

BASED.

Honestly, realizing that the Lord cares more about outcomes than procedure has been very important in helping me deal with a lot of things, from the problem of evil to the translation of the Book of Mormon. Heaven is not a bureaucracy.

They call being based on outcomes "Pragmatism"

Funny how that works out.

[manol]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They call being based on outcomes "Pragmatism"

Funny how that works out.

Yes.  "Wisdom is justified of her children".  See D&C 19:6-12 for a real-world example.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, manol said:

Yes.  "Wisdom is justified of her children".  See D&C 19:6-12 for a real-world example.

Ooooo! Good one!

[Durangout]

On 2/15/2023 at 12:58 PM, pogi said:

What are the penalties other than an attempt to motivate out of fear.  Perhaps we are progressing as a people to obey out of duty, and eventually to the higher levels of love. 

(Gasp).
 

That’s not at all what the penalties meant, and judging by how well received this post was, that is the common understanding of them by members—how sad.  Is this why every time they make changes the endowment is dumbed down even further?  Every time they makes changes, important and beautiful symbolism is removed.  With said removal, doctrine, principles and truths     are removed as well.  

EVERYTHING in the temple can easily be understood through a study of the scriptures with just a little effort.  If I can come to a much deeper understanding of the temple anybody can.

 For example the penalties that were mentioned:  has no one read Lehi’s amazing discourse on the Fall?  The answer is there.  It’s also in multiple places in the OT (hint Elijah and the priests of Baal).  Another example is Adam and Eve…you mean people really didn’t know that A&E represented each of you before these most recent changes?  Really?   It explicitly stated it at the beginning of the endowment and people still didn’t get it? In reality, A&E have at least 4 levels of symbolism / meaning and the Church as a whole couldn’t get to level 2 w/o revisions.

Why?

1.  People are lazy and would rather spend time golfing, watching sports, having lunch w girlfriends, getting their nails done…

2. The Church leadership doesn’t teach the concepts of the temple—probably bc they don’t understand them as well as they should.  I know for a fact that temple presidents don’t.  When I was a temple ordinance worker they couldn’t answer any question that I had.  I remember at BYU, Jospeh McConkie ( BRM’s son) said and I quote “I give Nephi a C for his explanation of the Tree of Life vision”  what a nincompoop!  No, it was JM that didn’t understand the vision (and how it relates to the temple).
 

Instead of teaching an understanding of the beautiful, uplifting symbolism of the temple, they, via surveys,  remove the parts that cause concern.  For example, instead of placating feminist by having the women’s veil be essentially taken out of the ceremony, why didn’t they teach what it meant, why it is important, what we learn by it’s use…?  Had they taught instead of removed, women would have felt uplifted, peace, enriched and holier by the wearing of the veil.  It’s the same with everything that has been removed.
 

Again it’s just sad.

 

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, Durangout said:

For example, instead of placating feminist by having the women’s veil be essentially taken out of the ceremony, why didn’t they teach what it meant, why it is important, what we learn by it’s use…?  Had they taught instead of removed, women would have felt uplifted, peace, enriched and holier by the wearing of the veil.

This is insulting to me personally.  I’m a woman .  I’m not a feminist.  I understand the veil.  I’m also glad it’s gone.  
 

But thank you for the male opinion.