Endowment changes yet again

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

I understood the idea.  I just don't think that Heavenly Father, whose love I greatly feel, works that way. I'm grateful that my children could go without having the experience I did because it was removed. 

As for me, I was curious about it, but it didn't bother me. After reflection I came to an understanding of why it was there, and what it meant. I know its removal did bother some people besides @JLHPROF, but I know more who were relieved to see it gone. I still do the no-longer-performed action in my mind, just because it's an old habit that is engraved in my mind. As an old guy, some of my ways are set.

As it happens, Heavenly Father's ways are far above us: 

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa. 55:8,9)

But He must deal with us, who because of the Fall and the Veil are shackled by worldly ways and long-standing traditions, and our cultures are in most cases far from ideal. So He must deal with us where we are -- not necessarily where we ought to be. So I feel He uses some of the features in our cultures to deal with us as best He can. But our cultures change over time, so what was completely normal and comfortable at one time, later becomes odd or even unacceptable. So adjustments may be made. Or so I believe.

[Ragerunner]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The endowment is changing yet again.  They're getting it down to under an hour (up next drive thru ordinances).

This reminds me of the reductionist 10 commandments given when Israel wasn't capable of the full gospel.

But the scriptures are always right:

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.

"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." Joseph Smith

“The order of the house of God has been, and ever will be, the same, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the thousand years it will be the same; and we shall finally enter into the celestial Kingdom of God, and enjoy it forever.” Joseph Smith

"The Priesthood is everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood.". Joseph Smith

I am sorry you feel this way. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

As for me, I was curious about it, but it didn't bother me. After reflection I came to an understanding of why it was there, and what it meant. I know its removal did bother some people besides @JLHPROF, but I know more who were relieved to see it gone. I still do the no-longer-performed action in my mind, just because it's an old habit that is engraved in my mind. As an old guy, some of my ways are set.

As it happens, Heavenly Father's ways are far above us: 

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa. 55:8,9)

But He must deal with us, who because of the Fall and the Veil are shackled by worldly ways and long-standing traditions, and our cultures are in most cases far from ideal. So He must deal with us where we are -- not necessarily where we ought to be. So I feel He uses some of the features in our cultures to deal with us as best He can. But our cultures change over time, so what was completely normal and comfortable at one time, later becomes odd or even unacceptable. So adjustments may be made. Or so I believe.

Yes, that's what it has to come down to - what we believe. I don't believe these are his ways.  Some people believe they are.  I have been very sincere in trying to listen to God and follow his ways.  I assume other people who believe differently are trying to do the same thing and yet we come to different conclusions. So I'm not so big on defending my ways by saying God’s ways are not our ways because in the end without more from God there is no way to tell what ways those actually are. 

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Things change. That's just how it is. Give it another 10 years and look how much the endowment will have changed again.

And when and if such changes are implemented by those with authority, and under inspiration, I am good with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

When they did away with that part of the endowment I am referring to, they did away with something that was no longer understood. It was misunderstood like a house afire. Plenty of active and faithful members just couldn't wrap their heads around it. In my opinion, it was well done away because it was no longer understood, was a burden, and didn't matter in the end.

Some interesting commentary. I'm not sure I agree will all of their symbolic connections but I thought it was worth listening to.

 

Edited August 16, 2024 by Nofear

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The endowment is changing yet again.  They're getting it down to under an hour (up next drive thru ordinances).

This reminds me of the reductionist 10 commandments given when Israel wasn't capable of the full gospel.

But the scriptures are always right:

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.

"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." Joseph Smith

“The order of the house of God has been, and ever will be, the same, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the thousand years it will be the same; and we shall finally enter into the celestial Kingdom of God, and enjoy it forever.” Joseph Smith

"The Priesthood is everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood.". Joseph Smith

I have not been through the temple for at least ten years. But from what I hear the current endowment is pretty much the readers digest version of what it used to me.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have not been through the temple for at least ten years. But from what I hear the current endowment is pretty much the readers digest version of what it used to me.

Especially if you take into account when it used to be 8 hours long.

[InCognitus]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

I went today and yes, they have revised things, it's just about an hour. I think it's fantastic! The officiators have a bit more to do now than mostly just sit there and press the buttons and prayer circle, among other revisions.

I found out about the changes on Wednesday literally an hour before I was scheduled to officiate for an endowment ceremony.  I had a lot going through my mind to make sure everything went smoothly on top of all the other normal things I stress out about when officiating.  But all in all it was a very good experience, and I like the changes. 

[smac97]

On 8/16/2024 at 9:32 AM, bluebell said:

Quote

I have not been through the temple for at least ten years. But from what I hear the current endowment is pretty much the readers digest version of what it used to me.

Especially if you take into account when it used to be 8 hours long.

I wonder if we are somewhat mired in an America-centric perspective on temple worship.  Many (most?) of us work five days, 40 hours a week.  Busy, to be sure, but still better than what we see in many other countries.  Perhaps the Brethren are looking to accommodate Latter-day Saints who lack the amount of free time which many American Saints have to more readily and frequently attend the temple.

For example, I served my mission in Taiwan 30 years ago.  Many people in that wonderful country worked six days a week, with only Sunday off.  This was standard fare for many people up and down the economic strata.  They were (and, I presume, still are) very busy people.  For many Latter-day Saints, temple worship was difficult to fit into their schedules because the temple was closed on their only day off, there was only one temple on the island (making travel time an additional consideration), and so on.

The Church has, for many years now, been doing all it can to build temples so as to make them more geospatially accessible to Latter-day Saints throughout the world.  Shortening the length of the Endowment will, I think, likewise facilitate more temple worship for Latter-day Saints who, like the Taiwanese noted above, experience difficulty in fitting temple worship into their busy lives.

I am grateful that the Church is doing these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 27, 2024 by smac97

[teddyaware]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The endowment is changing yet again.  They're getting it down to under an hour (up next drive thru ordinances).

This reminds me of the reductionist 10 commandments given when Israel wasn't capable of the full gospel.

But the scriptures are always right:

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.

"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." Joseph Smith

“The order of the house of God has been, and ever will be, the same, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the thousand years it will be the same; and we shall finally enter into the celestial Kingdom of God, and enjoy it forever.” Joseph Smith

"The Priesthood is everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood.". Joseph Smith

Here’s the problem: All the prophecies pertaining to the last days and the return of Christ set forth in the scriptures indicate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is going to succeed and triumph over all its enemies in marvelous, miraculous fashion. This means that your overwrought lament is at odds with reality. If the Church has to curtail and make adjustments to the endowment to prevent pearls from being cast before swine while the wheat and the tares in the church grow to maturity prior to the church’s prophesied cleansing, so be it.

The promises of the Lord are sure and unstoppable, and it’s time for all faithful members of the church to stop fretting and move forward with faith and confidence because the sure and certain promise is that restored church of Christ is going to continue to move forward to its eventual victory, and no unhallowed hand is going to be able to prevent it from happening.

Just remember, when the prophesied tribulation the last days begins in earnest it will start when the Lord pours out his fiery indignation on the wicked members of the church, and he will do this that the members who remain true and faithful will be purified and armed with the righteousness of God in great power and glory. After that time of purging and purification, in all likelihood the Lord will present  the endowment in all its fullness and purity. Stop worrying and believe!

Edited August 16, 2024 by teddyaware

[Rain]

31 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I found out about the changes on Wednesday literally an hour before I was scheduled to officiate for an endowment ceremony.  I had a lot going through my mind to make sure everything went smoothly on top of all the other normal things I stress out about when officiating.  But all in all it was a very good experience, and I like the changes. 

I'm glad it went well for you!

[Dario_M]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And when and if such changes are implemented by those with authority, and under inspiration, I am good with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Me too Smac. 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if we are somewhat mired in an America-centric perspective on temple worship.  Many (most?) of us work five days, 40 hours a week.  Busy, to be sure, but still better than what we see in many other countries.  Perhaps the Brethren are looking to accommodate Latter-day Saints who lack the amount of free time which many American Saints have to more readily and frequently attend the temple.

For example, I served my mission in Taiwan 30 years ago.  Many people in that wonderful country worked six days a week, with only Sunday off.  This was was standard fare for many people up and down the economic strata.  They were (and, I presume, still are) very busy people.  For many Latter-day Saints, temple worship was difficult to fit into their schedules because the temple was closed on their only day off, there was only one temple on the island (making travel time an additional consideration), and so on.

The Church has, for many years now, been doing all it can to build temples so as to make them more geospatially accessible to Latter-day Saints throughout the world.  Shortening the length of the Endowment will, I think, likewise facilitate more temple worship for Latter-day Saints who, like the Taiwanese noted above, experience difficulty in fitting temple worship into their busy lives.

I am grateful that the Church is doing these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

I thought a lot about the reasons for the change before, during, and after my experience with the new changes on Wednesday.  The impression I got is that even though this will in fact help those who have busy schedules, I think the main goal is to hasten the Lord's work for doing temple work for our ancestors.  There's a lot of work to do.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

And when and if such changes are implemented by those with authority, and under inspiration, I am good with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Too many changes and they'll lose their authority as has happened in every previous dispensation.

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I am sorry you feel this way. 

My feelings seem to match the teachings of Joseph Smith.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Too many changes and they'll lose their authority as has happened in every previous dispensation.

You're about 3 inches away from going full fundamentalist, aren't you?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I thought a lot about the reasons for the change before, during, and after my experience with the new changes on Wednesday.  The impression I got is that even though this will in fact help those who have busy schedules, I think the main goal is to hasten the Lord's work for doing temple work for our ancestors.  There's a lot of work to do.

You mean they aren’t repeating names because of not having enough? Something I read on the Internet isn’t true?!!!?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You're about 3 inches away from going full fundamentalist, aren't you?

Personal…

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Too many changes and they'll lose their authority as has happened in every previous dispensation.

What do you think of Teddy’s position?  What is the error in his analysis?

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You're about 3 inches away from going full fundamentalist, aren't you?

No, but I can read scripture and the teachings of Joseph who was given the ordinances from heaven.

You need to bury your head pretty deep to think everything the Church does is God's ever changing will.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

And when and if such changes are implemented by those with authority, and under inspiration, I am good with that.

Too many changes and they'll lose their authority as has happened in every previous dispensation.

I think the cycle of apostasy is stopped in this, the final dispensation.  I have previously commented on this here:

Quote

I think I'm in the Church, come what may.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostatized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  As Pres. Woodruff put it:

Quote

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted, particularly v. 44 (see also D&C 65).  See, e.g., Elder Christofferson's comments here:

Quote

When Daniel interpreted the dream of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, making known to the king “what shall be in the latter days,” he declared that “the God of heaven [shall] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all [other] kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” The Church is that prophesied latter-day kingdom, not created by man but set up by the God of heaven and rolling forth as a stone “cut out of the mountain without hands” to fill the earth.

And Chapter 15 from Teachings of George Albert Smith:

Quote

I know that there are many problems and there will be greater problems as the days come and go, but the same Father in heaven that led the Children of Israel, that saved Daniel and the three Hebrew children from destruction, the same Heavenly Father that preserved our forebears that came into [the Salt Lake Valley] and established them here, and blessed them and made it possible in the poverty of the people to have this great [Salt Lake] temple and other great temples, … that same Father, your Father and mine, is ready to pour out his blessings upon us today.

There is no occasion for discouragement. The gospel of Jesus Christ continues to roll forth. We have the promise from our Heavenly Father that it will continue to roll forth. No other dispensation has had the assurance that we have. In the dispensations of the past the Gospel has been taken from the earth. When it was restored in our day it was with the promise that it will never again be taken from the earth or given to another people. So I beg of you who have put your hand to the plow, do not turn back. Serve God and keep his commandments.

And these 1974 remarks from Ezra Taft Benson:

Quote

God has assured us that the Church will never again be taken from the earth because of apostasy. He has said that he is pleased with the Church, speaking collectively and not individually (D&C 1:30). This means that certain individuals within the Church may go astray and even fall away. This may happen even to a person in the Church who is in a position of some influence and authority. It has happened in the past. It will happen in the future. If our faith is in Jesus Christ and not in the arm of flesh, then we will know that we are members of the church of Jesus Christ and not the church of men.

And Chapter 17 from the Gospel Principles manual:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ Will Never Be Destroyed

• What is the mission of the Church?

Since its restoration in 1830, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has grown rapidly in membership. There are members in nearly every country in the world. The Church will continue to grow. As Christ said, “This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations” (Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:31). The Church will never again be taken from the earth. Its mission is to take the truth to every person. Thousands of years ago, the Lord said He would “set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, … and it shall stand for ever” (Daniel 2:44).

I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us.

I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."

And here

Quote

We should also attune ourselves to the checks and balances that are built in to the Restored Gospel:

Quote

An all-powerful judge is not much different than a king. Therefore, Mosiah wisely sets up a system of checks and balances. He does this not with three branches of government but with a system of accountability by which judges can be tried for not performing according to the law which has been given. In this system, the lower judge may be judged of a higher judge and the higher judge may be judged by a group of lower judges.

An analogous system has been set up in latter-day church government. When a priesthood leader transgresses, he is judged by a higher authority. When a president of the high priesthood (member of the First Presidency) transgresses, he is judged by a group of lower authorities:

And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by the twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

…Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness. (DC 107:82-4).

See also here:

Quote

Suppose that Gordon B. Hinckley really started misbehaving, sinning left and right, and generally leading the church astray. Some might find this unlikely on theological grounds, after all President Woodruff said:

• The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

The implication seems to be that the Lord will “call home” any prophet who strays too far from the divine “programme.” Looking at the scriptures, however, suggests another possibility: Excommunicating the President of the Church.

According to D&C 107:82-84:

• And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the Church who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood; And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and solemnity before Him, according to truth and righteousness.

The procedure from this passage is a little cryptic. The “common council of the Church” referred to is the Presiding Bishopric (See D&C 107: 74-76). In his book Priesthood and Church Government, Elder John A Widstoe had this to say about the judicial authority of the Presiding Bishopric:

• Should occasion ever arise that one of the First Presidency must be tried for crime or neglect of duty, his case would come before the Presiding Bishop with his counselors, and twelve High Priests especially chosen for the purpose. This would be a tribunal extraordinary – from which there is no appeal.

A couple of interesting points about the procedure. First, the twelve high priests who sit in council with the Presiding Bishopric are not the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, although presumably despite their ordination as Apostles they could serve. (Although the First Presidency is made up of “high priests,” Apostles regularly serve as members.) Indeed, as far as I know, the only times that this judicial machinery has been used – to excommunicate various counselors of Joseph Smith – the twelve high priests were not the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but rather the local high council. However, as Widstoe suggests, there is no reason that they need to be high councilors, and the Presiding Bishop seems to have the authority to select any twelve high priests, regardless of their current office. The second interesting point is that the First Presidency is afforded fewer procedural protections than are other members of the Church. There is no appeal from the Presiding Bishopric, furthermore it is not clear if the procedural requirements that apply to other church proceedings apply here. For example, would President Hinckley have a right to have his bishop speak on his behalf?

Interesting stuff.  More:

Quote

Finally, the procedure sets up the possibility of a “constitutional crisis” within the Church. Suppose that the President of the Church were called before the Presiding Bishopric and excommunicated. Simultaneously, the First Presidency took jurisdiction over the Presiding Bishopric and excommunicated them. There is not right of appeal from either tribunal, and hence no “legal” way to resolve the controversy. There is, however, a pragmatic solution to the issue. This situation would force the Quorum of the Twelve to take sides. If they deem Presiding Bishopric’s action to be legitimate, then the Twelve become the presiding quorum of the Church, with the authority to select and ordain a new President of the Church. If, however, they deem the action of the First Presidency to be legitimate, then they would simply continue to follow the authority of the First Presidency and refuse to ordain a new President of the Church. Because the Presiding Bishopric has no authority over the Twelve, there is nothing that it can do to gain say the Twelve’s decision. The really difficult scenario would be one in which the Twelve sided with the Presiding Bishopric against the First Presidency, which refused to accept their combined decision. The First Presidency has the authority to excommunicate any member of the Twelve, and its decision to do so in unreviewable. Suppose, however, that the Twelve had already ordained a new President of the Church. We would now have the situation of two rival claimants to the Presidency, both with the unreviewable authority to excommunicate the other. One suspects that such a conflict would have to be resolved by the membership of the Church itself in general conference, much the way that the competing claims of Rigdon and the Twelve were resolved in 1844.

As far as I know, there has only been one attempt to institute an action against the President of the Church himself before the Presiding Bishopric. As I understand it, in the 1950s there were plans to shut down Rick’s College in Idaho (or at least there were rumors of such plans). Some of the local leaders in Rexburg were so infuriated that they tried to instigate an court to try President McKay. If this story is true, nothing ever came of it. Ricks still exists (albeit under a new name), and as far as I know, President McKay was never excommunicated.

Just as well. Things could get messy.

I'm curious about this "constitutional crisis" bit, but I suspect A) it will never actually arise, or B) the Lord will take care of things.

In any event, nobody is "above the law," including Steven Seagal and the First Presidency. 

And here:

Quote

From the Church's OT manual:

Quote

Numbers 20:12. Mistakes made by members and Church leaders

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the First Presidency taught:

“There have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

“I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. …

“It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed” (“Come, Join with Us,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2013, 22).

Even though the Church is led by imperfect people who can make mistakes, the Lord’s prophet will never lead us astray. President Wilford Woodruff explained:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God” (Official Declaration 1, “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”).

 

I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostatized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  As noted above, I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2, and in how it has been interpreted.  I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I think that's right.

I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us.  I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."  The Church is not perfect.  But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  I love it a lot.  

And I think the Brethren are, cumulatively, doing a great job.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I think the cycle of apostasy is stopped in this, the final dispensation. 

Long story short I believe that too.

But I also believe that the restored Church will be progressively more and more out of order prior to the return of our Savior and at some point God will put back the ordinances to their restored form.

And we will spend a thousand years redoing all these ordinances correctly.  I don't believe for a single second God directed any of these changes and I think many of our leaders will have some serious explaining to do.

But complete apostasy of priesthood from the earth - I agree never again.  But we're NOT doing God's will right now.

 

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, but I can read scripture and the teachings of Joseph who was given the ordinances from heaven.

You need to bury your head pretty deep to think everything the Church does is God's ever changing will.

I was mostly just giving you a hard time. I've watched your frustration on this matter grow over the years. Couple that with your previous statements on polygamy and I went there.

[blackstrap]

It's a conspiracy I tell you, all in an attempt to get the members to live the Law of Christ instead of the rule defined Law of Moses. It may have started with the fazing out of the Seventies and making every member a missionary.

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Long story short I believe that too.

But I also believe that the restored Church will be progressively more and more out of order prior to the return of our Savior and at some point God will put back the ordinances to their restored form.

And we will spend a thousand years redoing all these ordinances correctly.  I don't believe for a single second God directed any of these changes and I think many of our leaders will have some serious explaining to do.

But complete apostasy of priesthood from the earth - I agree never again.  But we're NOT doing God's will right now.

 

Sincere question because I'd love your thoughts on it:  At what point do you believe the changes to the endowment became too much?  Immediately after they changed from what JS directed, or at some other point?  

Do you believe that your endowment, for example, is one that will need to be done over during the millenium because of the many changes made to the ordinance before you were "endowed"?

Edited August 16, 2024 by bluebell