Another Big Batch Of Temple Ordinance Changes

[Bernard Gui]

41 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don’t think the covenant not to reveal certain things from the endowment and the associated penalties have been rendered moot by the exposés of apostates. 

There have been detailed exposés of the endowment, since the 1840s, when the endowment was first administered to the body of the church in the Nauvoo temple. I don’t think it was ever really about keeping things hidden from the world, but rather about testing the fidelity of the endowed individual to keep their covenant not to reveal certain sacred things. 

I think it had both purposes. Given that they are far more readily seen now, the latter purpose holds sway. I see a comparison with the Pueblo Indian kiva ceremonies that are sacred and kept secret. AFAIK no one has yet taken it upon themselves to reveal them to the world.

As a side thought, not much surprises me any more.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

Thanks for sharing, I wasn’t aware of the wording.  The word “penalties” has a different connotation for me which implies a punishment for breaking a rule or oath - as in “if I…”.  Seems like “pledge” or “troth” (or something like it) rather than “penalty” would have been a more accurate word to describe it if that is the case.  May have cleared up some confusion.

Oath is a good label for it imo.  And people are generally familiar with that in the Church (in some parts) at least for a few more years due to exposure of the young men to the Scout Oath.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Perhaps there is something that you can learn from the prophets about the fluidity of it.  That might be part of the teaching process and symbolize the nature of progression and enlightenment in and of itself.  It has been explained that revelation and enlightenment happens in gradation over time, like a sunrise. 

Interesting. I was going to make the exact point using “fluidity” in a much longer post, but decided I had reached my quota of epic posts for the day. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It could be a sign that the church itself (like revelation and enlightenment) is like a rough stone rolling, removing jagged edges of the endowment as it rolls along and becomes more and more smooth as the core salvific principles of spiritual progression are revealed without the cultural baggage. 

I disagree.

If your theory were true that would mean that the original endowment, as revealed by God to Joseph Smith, contained incorrect teachings. It would also mean that literally any teaching, practice, or principle in the church could be changed  or completely eliminated under the name of “removing jagged edges." And of course every change would conveniently correspond with the cultural norms of the so called "enlightened" people of the present. 

[ttribe]

32 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree.

If your theory were true that would mean that the original endowment, as revealed by God to Joseph Smith, contained incorrect teachings. It would also mean that literally any teaching, practice, or principle in the church could be changed  or completely eliminated under the name of “removing jagged edges." And of course every change would conveniently correspond with the cultural norms of the so called "enlightened" people of the present. 

You do know that the endowment once contained teachings regarding Adam-God back in Brigham Young's day, right? Aren't those teachings that were later disavowed?

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree.

If your theory were true that would mean that the original endowment, as revealed by God to Joseph Smith, contained incorrect teachings. 

It wasn't wrong if it is intended to be "fluid" and relative.  If your theory were true, that would that would mean the current endowment as revealed by God to President Nelson is incorrect.  I prefer to see the fluidity of it as correct so as to not throw Joseph Smith or multiple more modern prophets under the bus as defilers of the most sacred temple ordinances.  No thanks! 

Edited February 20, 2023 by pogi

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

You do know that the endowment once contained teachings regarding Adam-God back in Brigham Young's day, right?

Yes, and still does to a small extent in my opinion.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Aren't those teachings that were later disavowed?

Yes, but this doesn’t mean that Adam-God is false and a rough edge that needed to be removed. It could just as easily mean that people were deeply troubled by this deeper true doctrine and rejected it. 

[Dario_M]

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

 

Yes, but this doesn’t mean that Adam-God is false and a rough edge that needed to be removed. It could just as easily mean that people were deeply troubled by this deeper true doctrine and rejected it. 

I doubt that. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It wasn't wrong if it is intended to be "fluid".

By fluid you mean that any teaching can be changed or removed and that any teaching that is removed or changed is a rough edge that needed to be removed?

That’s a very dangerous position in my opinion. Especially considering that things that were removed and changed are also taught in the scriptures.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

that would mean the current endowment as revealed by God to President Nelson is incorrect.

No, it would mean that the endowment has become corrupted or that God suffered church leaders to remove and change true teachings and symbols because the members have digressed to a point that they can no longer bear the strong doctrines.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

so as to not throw Joseph Smith or multiple more modern prophets under the bus as defilers of the most sacred temple ordinances.

And yet that’s exactly what you’re doing in my opinion.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

Just now, Dario_M said:

I doubt that. 

Why?

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And yet that’s exactly what you’re doing in my opinion.

An absolutist and more fundamentalist leaning individual wouldn't understand relativity.   Take care.  We are not going to see eye to eye.   

Edited February 20, 2023 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There is evidence that originally the penalties may have been worded as a reprisal for revealing them.

No, it was not "worded" at all, it was suggested by gesture.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

An absolutist and more fundamentalist leaning individual wouldn't understand relativity.

In understand relativity, but truth is not ultimately relative. 

A few examples to illustrate the point:

It wasn’t true that Michael/Adam is our Heavenly Father and the father of Jesus Christ up to around 1900 and then suddenly false after that. 

It wasn’t true doctrine that wives are to obey their husbands as their husbands obey God up until 2019 and then all of sudden this was false. 

Orthodox sectarian Christian preachers weren’t unwittingly working for Satan to blind people with false teachings prior to 1990 and then all of sudden they weren’t anymore. 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, and still does to a small extent in my opinion.

Yes, but this doesn’t mean that Adam-God is false and a rough edge that needed to be removed. It could just as easily mean that people were deeply troubled by this deeper true doctrine and rejected it. 

I believe Spencer W. Kimball would disagree with you.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng

[Dario_M]

What would Russel M Nelson thinks about all of this? 🤡

[bluebell]

Honestly, I think both sides make some good points.  For me though, it comes down to who did Christ put in charge of the temple endowment?  The prophet and apostles.  Whether they are misunderstanding His direction or not (and I know there are arguments on both sides), that doesn't change what Christ has asked me to do, which in my belief is to trust them and to worship Him and follow Him within the framework that they--even in their imperfection--feel compelled by the Spirit to lay out for Christ's disciples.

All the other arguments (though fun to debate and discuss) are moot because they mean nothing to anyone but the individual people people making them, and impact nothing except the individual people making them.

I'm not saying that to shut down the current debate or to try to shame anyone on the thread (because I love a good back and forth, here's why I think you are wrong, as much as the next person!).  I'm just explaining how I personally keep these kinds of changes in perspective.

And for me that perspective is, Christ is in charge, and He's purposefully left me out of the loop of decisions on this topic and purposefully included the prophet in the loop of decisions on this topic.  That reality says something to me about what my opinions about the temple changes should mean to everyone else. 

(Nothing.  My opinions about the changes should mean nothing to you all.  And your opinions carry equal weight. )

My beliefs and opinions only matter in the sense that they impact my relationship with Christ, His apostles, and the church.  My beliefs about the temple changes can either A) set myself apart from His prophet and apostles, or B) they can be used to unify myself with them.  I believe that this is true even when I don't like/agree with some of the changes.

I don't see any other options other than A and B, so I choose the one that believe Christ wants me to choose.  This is how I am ok with women no longer veiling their faces, for example, even though I feel a real loss during that part of the endowment and mourn not being able to veil every time that I go.

 

**Saying that, I'm ok that other members believe that Christ wants them to choose differently.  That's between them and Him, and since we are all different it could be that what I need is not what someone else needs.    

 

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by bluebell

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I believe Spencer W. Kimball would disagree with you.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng

What would Brigham Young think? Or Joseph Smith? And ultimately God? 

The church can disavow any past teaching it wants to, but that doesn’t actually mean that the disavowed teachings are false. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

It could just as easily mean that people were deeply troubled by this deeper true doctrine and rejected it. 

When God has removed a rejected higher law to allow a lesser law to be his people’s teacher, hasn’t he told his people he is doing so?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84?lang=eng

Quote

23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;

24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.

25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;

26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;

 

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

In understand relativity, but truth is not ultimately relative. 

A few examples to illustrate the point:

It wasn’t true that Michael/Adam is our Heavenly Father and the father of Jesus Christ up to around 1900 and then suddenly false after that. 

It wasn’t true doctrine that wives are to obey their husbands as their husbands obey God up until 2019 and then all of sudden this was false. 

Orthodox sectarian Christian preachers weren’t unwittingly working for Satan to blind people with false teachings prior to 1990 and then all of sudden they weren’t anymore. 

Thanks for proving the thesis you are opposing.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

When God has removed a rejected higher law to allow a lesser law to be his people’s teacher, hasn’t he told his people he is doing so?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84?lang=eng

 

I doubt it.
 

It’s not like these verses from D&C 84 were read to the rebellious children of Israel in the Sinai wilderness. These verses in D&C 84 were given to Joseph Smith to tell us what God did thousands of years ago. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for proving the thesis you are opposing.

That there is no actual truth or error and that all "truth" is relative to what people in the present think is true?

I’m not proving that thesis at all. 

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

What would Brigham Young think? Or Joseph Smith? And ultimately God? 

The church can disavow any past teaching it wants to, but that doesn’t actually mean that the disavowed teachings are false. 

Define "truth"

Define "false"

Define "actually mean"

You can't.

"To me, it is a mass of confusion"

Where did THAT quote come from?

You sound just like the Preacher.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

That there is no actual truth or error and that all "truth" is relative to what people in the present think is true?

I’m not proving that thesis at all. 

I didn't ask you to. Read what I actually said 

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

In understand relativity, but truth is not ultimately relative. 

A few examples to illustrate the point:

It wasn’t true that Michael/Adam is our Heavenly Father and the father of Jesus Christ up to around 1900 and then suddenly false after that. 

It wasn’t true doctrine that wives are to obey their husbands as their husbands obey God up until 2019 and then all of sudden this was false. 

Orthodox sectarian Christian preachers weren’t unwittingly working for Satan to blind people with false teachings prior to 1990 and then all of sudden they weren’t anymore. 

Thanks for your absolutist interpretation of things you don't understand.  Again, we are not going to see eye to eye, but holism doesn't allow for knowing absolute truth in mortality.  We all have a relative perspective of the elephant - we are all blind men, even prophets.   It is all partial gradients of truth - an approximation that evolves over time.  NOTHING you believe - no corruptible words will correspond with ultimate reality according to my perspective.  You are free to have your own, but I disagree. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree.

If your theory were true that would mean that the original endowment, as revealed by God to Joseph Smith, contained incorrect teachings. It would also mean that literally any teaching, practice, or principle in the church could be changed  or completely eliminated under the name of “removing jagged edges." And of course every change would conveniently correspond with the cultural norms of the so called "enlightened" people of the present. 

Well you just encapsulated the church in a nutshell, IMO.