Endowment changes yet again

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've been thinking about this in regards to baptism. 

The ordinance of baptism does not seem to have been the exact same throughout our recorded history.  According to our scriptural record, John didn't baptize the Savior exactly how we baptize today for example, and we have differences in the Book of Mormon record as well. 

It's interesting you bring this up.  The Book of Mormon actually demonstrates that changes to priesthood authority results in a change to the ordinance:

3 Nephi 11:25 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

Why are the words of this ordinance different than the ones used today?  Simply because the priesthood authority they received was different.  Priesthood authority and ordinances are inseparably connected.  They were entitled to use this alternate wording.

3 Nephi 11:21 And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven. 22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you.

They were given the priesthood by Christ himself and that literally changed the ordinance wording.  They weren't commissioned of Christ as we are, they were given authority by Christ himself.  If any man were to be ordained by Christ personally he would use this wording instead of the current one.  I don't think anyone can actually claim that today - not even the Apostles.

Quote

A change in ordinances literally results in a change in priesthood authority.

Also, can you provide a reference for the bolded above?  I don't know if I've ever heard it before.

“The Priesthood is everlasting. The Savior, Moses, and Elias [Elijah], gave the keys to Peter, James, and John, on the mount, when they were transfigured before him. 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. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood." Joseph Smith

Based on Heb 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

We see in the 3 Nephi quote above and the Hebrews quote that if priesthood authority changes so do the laws and ordinances.  We see in the Joseph teaching that if ordinances don't change neither does priesthood authority (and logically then if the ordinances change so does authority).  It's a reciprocal relationship.

There's also a connection to the second anointing brought up by someone earlier in this thread - both Joseph and Brigham taught a fullness of priesthood (the highest priesthood authority on earth) can't be received without that ordinance.

D&C 84:20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood." Joseph Smith

Based on Heb 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

We see in the 3 Nephi quote above and the Hebrews quote that if priesthood authority changes so do the laws and ordinances

I am trying to figure out if this is logically valid. 
 

P implies Q = Not Q implies Not P, but is not equivalent to Q implies P (priesthood changing means the law changes is not equivalent to law changing means priesthood changing).

Ordinances not changing implying priesthood not changing…I think that might be equivalent to Priesthood changing means ordinances changing, but not ordinances changing means priesthood changing.

I am not sure how the sentences reduce to symbols though today.  Someone needs to double check my work. 

Edited August 17, 2024 by Calm

[manol]

8 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I can see where you are coming from. I always find that my time in the celestial room, on my own with time for contemplation, is where I commune best with God. Everything else is so full of talking and movement and do this and that. I know it all has deep meaning and every ordinance is special and sacred its own way. Sometimes when I can’t get to sleep I still go through the initiatory and endowment in my head. Of course it has changed, but the way I learned it still brings peace and the spirit so not sure how any version can be “wrong.” I think it is ok for us to agree to disagree:)  [emphasis manol's]

I think this is brilliant.  You can go into the state of mind and spirit corresponding to the Celestial Room by deliberately choosing to go through the process in your head (and presumably in your heart).  So for you, that aspect of the Celestial Room is never as far away as geography would imply. 

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, manol said:

I think this is brilliant.  You can go into the state of mind and spirit corresponding to the Celestial Room by deliberately choosing to go through the process in your head (and presumably in your heart).  So for you, that aspect of the Celestial Room is never as far away as geography would imply. 

I was an ordinance worker so I memorized the initiatory, name and endowment and I didn’t want to forget it. It has been 10 years but it is still there for me whenever I need it:) Some phrases hit differently over the years similar to reading scripture or my patriarcal blessing. 

[PacMan]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I am trying to figure out if this is logically valid. 
 

P implies Q = Not Q implies Not P, but is not equivalent to Q implies P (priesthood changing means the law changes is not equivalent to law changing means priesthood changing).

Ordinances not changing implying priesthood not changing…I think that might be equivalent to Priesthood changing means ordinances changing, but not ordinances changing means priesthood changing.

I am not sure how the sentences reduce to symbols though today.  Someone needs to double check my work. 

I’ve explained to JLHPROF why he’s incorrect. He refuses to address it. He’s committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's interesting you bring this up.  The Book of Mormon actually demonstrates that changes to priesthood authority results in a change to the ordinance:

3 Nephi 11:25 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

Why are the words of this ordinance different than the ones used today?  Simply because the priesthood authority they received was different.  Priesthood authority and ordinances are inseparably connected.  They were entitled to use this alternate wording.

3 Nephi 11:21 And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven. 22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you.

They were given the priesthood by Christ himself and that literally changed the ordinance wording.  They weren't commissioned of Christ as we are, they were given authority by Christ himself.  If any man were to be ordained by Christ personally he would use this wording instead of the current one.  I don't think anyone can actually claim that today - not even the Apostles.

They didn’t speak English at all. It is quite possible that if you translated the Book of Mormon version and our current version into another language they would come out the same on the other end.

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They didn’t speak English at all. It is quite possible that if you translated the Book of Mormon version and our current version into another language they would come out the same on the other end.

Considering Joseph used the KJV in the Book of Mormon I'm not sure translation is a good explanation.

[Duncan]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Considering Joseph used the KJV in the Book of Mormon I'm not sure translation is a good explanation.

you had mentioned in 1923, paraphrasing here, that God had determined the endowment ceremony had gone katywampus and I was wondering what revelation or whatever God told Pres. Heber J. Grant that?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you had mentioned in 1923, paraphrasing here, that God had determined the endowment ceremony had gone katywampus and I was wondering what revelation or whatever God told Pres. Heber J. Grant that?

Not sure what you're saying here.

1923 is when the first actual changes to the elements of the ordinance were made.  Prior to that all changes were to the theatrical presentation and how the ordinance was presented.  But the actual endowment ordinance remained intact for the first 80 years before chunks started to be removed and changed.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If it is like it was in the late 90s the serving sizes in the UK at McDonalds were also smaller. That may have changed.

I think it did. I was in the US for 3 weeks in July, and ate at McD's a couple times. Within a few days after getting back home in the UK had the same meal at McD's here. I didn't detect a difference. 

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If it is like it was in the late 90s the serving sizes in the UK at McDonalds were also smaller. That may have changed.

The film was a dumb publicity stunt but US food regulations are incredibly lax compared to most of the industrialized world. Also the corn lobby keeps growing too much corn so we guzzle down that corn syrup garbage endlessly. It is also starting to cause some soil problems that could lead to interesting times.

I thought Ethanol was using up a lot of our corn supply?

[longview]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

A change in ordinances literally results in a change in priesthood authority.

Also, can you provide a reference for the bolded above?  I don't know if I've ever heard it before.

“The Priesthood is everlasting. The Savior, Moses, and Elias [Elijah], gave the keys to Peter, James, and John, on the mount, when they were transfigured before him. 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. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood." Joseph Smith

Based on Heb 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

We see in the 3 Nephi quote above and the Hebrews quote that if priesthood authority changes so do the laws and ordinances.  We see in the Joseph teaching that if ordinances don't change neither does priesthood authority (and logically then if the ordinances change so does authority).  It's a reciprocal relationship.

There's also a connection to the second anointing brought up by someone earlier in this thread - both Joseph and Brigham taught a fullness of priesthood (the highest priesthood authority on earth) can't be received without that ordinance.

D&C 84:20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

This can be broken down as follows:

1- ask yourself why Moses, Elijah and others were taken back to Heaven "without tasting death" ? To bring back the SAME priesthood authority to later dispensations? A restoration? What occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration? A  LOT more happened there than is recorded in the New Testament and Latter Day scriptures. It is interesting that Moses and Elijah officiated in both the Mount of Transfiguration AND the Kirtland temple. Peter, James and John came BEFORE the Kirtland temple to confer the Melchizedek priesthood to Joseph and Oliver. 

2- Heb 7:12 is only referring to the Law of Moses being fulfilled by the Savior at His first coming in the Meridian of Times. In the Book of Exodus God first presented the Higher Law to the escapees from Egyptian bondage. The Hebrew former slaves did not prove faithful. Apostle Paul said in Galatians 3:24 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." 25 "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." John 1:18 (JST) further clarifies: "For the law was after a carnal commandment, to the administration of death; but the gospel was after the power of an endless life, through Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father." The Law of Moses was the lower law administered by the tribe of Levi with just the Aaronic priesthood. The Gospel is the higher law administered by Melchizedek priesthood.

3- Your third paragraph above is misleading. You are implying that the Melchizedek priesthood has several different sets of ordinances conflicting with each other. Joseph Smith did not speak of reciprocals. It only came from you.

4- Second Anointing is done by God's will. We just need to stay on the covenant path and draw ever closer to Him.

5- D&C 84:20 is very straight forward. Do not wrest with it. Do not - - -

 

The idiom "jumping the shark" or "jump the shark" is a term that is used to argue that a creative work or entity has reached a point in which it has exhausted its core intent and is introducing new ideas that are discordant with, or an extreme exaggeration of, its original purpose. The phrase was coined in 1985 by radio personality Jon Hein in response to a 1977 episode from the fifth season of the American sitcom Happy Days, in which the character of Fonzie (Henry Winkler) jumps over a live shark while on water-skis. Fonzie (Henry Winkler) on water skis, in a scene from the 1977 Happy Days episode "Hollywood, Part 3", after jumpi

 

[webbles]

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not sure what you're saying here.

1923 is when the first actual changes to the elements of the ordinance were made.  Prior to that all changes were to the theatrical presentation and how the ordinance was presented.  But the actual endowment ordinance remained intact for the first 80 years before chunks started to be removed and changed.

I don't see how you can say the ordinance remained intact for the first 80 years.  The ordinances didn't get written down until the late 1800s.  They could have been making tweaks to the ordinance (such as to the covenants) and we wouldn't know about it.  We also do know of ordinances that have changed in that time period.  The sealing ordinance changed between Nauvoo period and the early 1900s.  We have record of what Joseph told someone to use for the wording, we have Orson Pratt's newspaper that specified the ordinance, and we have the Smoot hearings.  All three are different and I think they are substantially different (even after ignoring the polygamy aspects).

[longview]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought Ethanol was using up a lot of our corn supply?

Actually there is TOO much of High Fructose Corn Syrup in manufactured food products. Ethanol is an extreme annoyance mandated by the government that has been documented as causing deterioration of various engine components.

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's interesting you bring this up.  The Book of Mormon actually demonstrates that changes to priesthood authority results in a change to the ordinance:

3 Nephi 11:25 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

Why are the words of this ordinance different than the ones used today?  Simply because the priesthood authority they received was different.  Priesthood authority and ordinances are inseparably connected.  They were entitled to use this alternate wording.

3 Nephi 11:21 And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven. 22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you.

They were given the priesthood by Christ himself and that literally changed the ordinance wording.  They weren't commissioned of Christ as we are, they were given authority by Christ himself.  If any man were to be ordained by Christ personally he would use this wording instead of the current one.  I don't think anyone can actually claim that today - not even the Apostles.

“The Priesthood is everlasting. The Savior, Moses, and Elias [Elijah], gave the keys to Peter, James, and John, on the mount, when they were transfigured before him. 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. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood." Joseph Smith

Based on Heb 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

We see in the 3 Nephi quote above and the Hebrews quote that if priesthood authority changes so do the laws and ordinances.  We see in the Joseph teaching that if ordinances don't change neither does priesthood authority (and logically then if the ordinances change so does authority).  It's a reciprocal relationship.

There's also a connection to the second anointing brought up by someone earlier in this thread - both Joseph and Brigham taught a fullness of priesthood (the highest priesthood authority on earth) can't be received without that ordinance.

D&C 84:20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

I am afraid that you are putting the cart before the horse. The priesthood drives the ordinance; the ordinance does not drive the priesthood. A change in wording made under the authority of the priesthood is authoritative, valid, and efficacious. 

If what you claim were true, then the German-speaking saints are not getting a valid sacrament ordinance every week. I served my mission in Germany from 1972-74. During that time, I had many opportunities to bless the sacrament. I am no longer as conversant with the exact wording of the prayers in that language, but I remember very well the first portion of the prayer on the bread. Today, for an unrelated reason I happened to look up the German language version of the prayer. It was no longer as I remember it. I was a bit surprised, actually. The old prayer seemed to be perfectly serviceable. Why change it? Here it is in English, then the prayer in German as it used to be said (German 1), then how it is said today (German 2), and finally, how the new translation would differ if reverse translated into English (reverse translated):

English -> O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it...
German 1 -> O Gott, der ewige Vater, wir bitten dich im namen deines Sohnes, Jesus Christus, dieses Brot zu segnen und zu Heiligen für die Seelen all derer die davon nehmen...
German 2 -> O Gott, ewiger Vater, wir bitten dich im Namen deines Sohnes, Jesus Christus, segne und heilige dieses Brot für die Seele all derer, die davon nehmen...
English (reverse translated) -> O God, Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those, who partake of it...

The old prayer is a word-for-word translation from English to German. The current prayer means the same thing as the old one, but with improved and more natural German syntax.  

If what you say were true, that a change to the ordinance invalidates it, then the German saints haven't received the true sacrament since the new 2003 translation was issued. Actually, there was a 1979 translation of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that might have contained yet another version -- I don't have that version in my bookshelf, so can't verify this.

I find it somewhat disconcerting that someone with your knowledge and testimony of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ would be so locked into what amounts to an intermediate version of the endowment, when the version you consider valid and authoritative is such a far cry from the one that Joseph Smith introduced as to make the recent changes comparable to a spelling correction.

Again I ask you: do you feel we need to go back to the 8 hour endowment? Your contention seems to suggest that that was the last valid endowment ordinance.

 

Edited August 18, 2024 by Stargazer

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Actually there is TOO much of High Fructose Corn Syrup in manufactured food products. Ethanol is an extreme annoyance mandated by the government that has been documented as causing deterioration of various engine components.

Yes I agree. But I’ve heard that it is the production of ethanol that is keeping our corn production high. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not sure what you're saying here.

1923 is when the first actual changes to the elements of the ordinance were made.  Prior to that all changes were to the theatrical presentation and how the ordinance was presented.  But the actual endowment ordinance remained intact for the first 80 years before chunks started to be removed and changed.

What do you think of the changes to the sealing ordinances moving to allowing sealing by proxy to those who had not been already converted?

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not sure what you're saying here.

1923 is when the first actual changes to the elements of the ordinance were made.  Prior to that all changes were to the theatrical presentation and how the ordinance was presented.  But the actual endowment ordinance remained intact for the first 80 years before chunks started to be removed and changed.

well, if God abandoned or disapproved of the 1923 changes how did he manifest that to Pres. Grant, is there some record of a revelation, or how do you know God disapproved of the 1923 changes

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If what you claim were true, then the German-speaking saints are not getting a valid sacrament ordinance every week. I served my mission in Germany from 1972-74. During that time, I had many opportunities to bless the sacrament. I am no longer as conversant with the exact wording of the prayers in that language, but I remember very well the first portion of the prayer on the bread. Today, for an unrelated reason I happened to look up the German language version of the prayer. It was no longer as I remember it. I was a bit surprised, actually. The old prayer seemed to be perfectly serviceable. Why change it? Here it is in English, then the prayer in German as it used to be said (German 1), then how it is said today (German 2), and finally, how the new translation would differ if reverse translated into English (reverse translated):

English -> O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it...
German 1 -> O Gott, der ewige Vater, wir bitten dich im namen deines Sohnes, Jesus Christus, dieses Brot zu segnen und zu Heiligen für die Seelen all derer die davon nehmen...
German 2 -> O Gott, ewiger Vater, wir bitten dich im Namen deines Sohnes, Jesus Christus, segne und heilige dieses Brot für die Seele all derer, die davon nehmen...
English (reverse translated) -> O God, Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those, who partake of it...

The old prayer is a word-for-word translation from English to German. The current prayer means the same thing as the old one, but with improved and more natural German syntax.  

If what you say were true, that a change to the ordinance invalidates it, then the German saints haven't received the true sacrament since the new 2003 translation was issued. Actually, there was a 1979 translation of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that might have contained yet another version -- I don't have that version in my bookshelf, so can't verify this.

I served my mission in Taiwan from 1993 to 1995.  A few years later, the Church changed its translated Chinese name, and the name of The Book of Mormon, see here:

Quote

{T}he LDS Church’s Chinese name and the Book of Mormon’s Chinese title underwent a translation makeover in 2001 and 2007, respectively. So why the name changes? What was the problem with the original titles? For the Church’s name, the key issue resides in how to properly translate the phrase “Latter-day.” In English, dictionaries define that phrase as “modern,” “recent,” “current,” or “contemporary.” It refers to “a modern version of someone or something from the past.” The original Chinese translation was 末世 (mò shì). 末 (mò) literally means “end,” “final stage,” or “latter part.” 世 (shì) means “world,” “generation,” “era,” or “lifetime.” Together the phrase is often understood as “the last phase” or “the final period.” It connotes “end times” or “the end of the world” and therefore has an apocalyptic feel to it. Some say it reminds people of radical Christian groups who hold signs warning about the coming end of days on downtown street corners.

The new translation is 後期 (hòu qí). 後 (hòu) means “back,” “behind,” “after,” or “later.” 期 (qí) means “a period of time,” “phase,” “stage,” “later times,” or “to hope.” The phrase is therefore often used for “late stage,” “later period,” or “post period.” Proponents of this new translation argue that this term reflects more closely the meaning of “Latter-day” in English, with a restorationist tilt to it.
...
In the case of the Book of Mormon, the original Chinese title 摩門經 (mó mén jīng) can be considered a phono-semantic translation. The phrase 摩門 (mó mén) has no intrinsic meaning in Chinese; it is used simply for its phonetic association with “Mormon” in Mandarin. 經 (jīng) has a definite meaning, referring to “classics,” “sutra,” or “scriptures.” Together 摩門經 reads “Mormon scripture,” like Bible as 聖經 (shèng jīng), meaning “holy scripture.” Unfortunately, 摩門 not only sounds exactly the same as but also looks very similar to the different term 魔門 (mó mén, meaning “the devil’s gate/door”). It does not take much imagination for people to connect the two together, particularly in the context of religion. The term also sounds like 無/沒門 (muo meng, meaning “without/no door”) in the Taiwanese dialect.

The new 2007 translation pronounces the “r” in Mormon, which was omitted in the original translation. The new title thus becomes 摩爾門經 (mó ěr mén jīng). The “ěr” breaks up “mó” and “mén” and thus softens the “devil’s gate” implication to a degree. 爾 (ěr) literally can mean “you” or “thus,” but it is not a common word in everyday life. Instead, it is often used in translated foreign names such as 查爾斯 (chá ěr sī, for Charles) or 希爾頓 (xī ěr dùn, for Hilton).32 The inclusion of the word in a proper noun, as with the Book of Mormon, almost always carries a sense of foreignness. The change, however, does not totally solve the problem the original name had because 爾 (ěr) sounds very much like 兒 (ér, meaning “child” or “son”) in Mandarin, with only a tone difference. The new translation merely shifts the sound from “the devil’s gate” to “the devil’s son’s gate” or “evil child’s gate.” Thus, the new translation has not made things more difficult for mockers.

All of this was done with the approval of the First Presidency.  I think this is an appropriate use of their priesthood authority and office.

It appears that JLHPROF is concerned that the First Presidency is acting outside the scope of their authority in making changes to the presentation of the Endowment.  There is a concept in the law called "ultra vires."  Latin for "outside/beyond the powers."  More:

Quote

Ultra vires ('beyond the powers') is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act which requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is intra vires ('within the powers'). Acts that are intra vires may equivalently be termed "valid", and those that are ultra vires termed "invalid".

Legal issues relating to ultra vires can arise in a variety of contexts:

• Companies and other legal persons sometimes have limited legal capacity to act, and attempts to engage in activities beyond their legal capacities may be ultra vires.^[3] Most countries have restricted the doctrine of ultra vires in relation to companies by statute.
• Similarly, statutory and governmental bodies may have limits upon the acts and activities which they legally engage in.^[4]
• Subordinate legislation which is purported passed without the proper legal authority may be invalid as beyond the powers of the authority which issued it.

Part and parcel of being a faithful Latter-day Saint is sustaining and following the leaders of the Church.  My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Joseph Fielding Smith, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it.  

Are the Brethren authorized to change the form of temple ordinances?  I believe so.  I am curious if JLHPROF disagrees, and if so I'd like to see the basis for his disagreement.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes I agree. But I’ve heard that it is the production of ethanol that is keeping our corn production high. 

It is both and ethanol and high fructose corn syrup use are pushed by the corn lobby.

Ethanol is a niche product. For some things it is very good but we use a lot of it in places it isn’t optimal. There are tax incentives to use it pushed by (shocked face) the corn lobby.

[bluebell]

Just now, The Nehor said:

It is both and ethanol and high fructose corn syrup use are pushed by the corn lobby.

Ethanol is a niche product. For some things it is very good but we use a lot of it in places it isn’t optimal. There are tax incentives to use it pushed by (shocked face) the corn lobby.

It's so hard on vehicles (wears them out more quickly) and is horrible for mileage.  It's such a scam that was sold as 'green' energy.

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's so hard on vehicles (wears them out more quickly) and is horrible for mileage.  It's such a scam that was sold as 'green' energy.

It is bad for mileage and older cars. Really high ethanol percentages can make for good race fuel.

Originally the idea was that adding ethanol or other oxygenates to fuel it would cut pollution. It didn’t work. Well, it did but the effect is marginal and is easily eclipsed by the pollution that the ethanol plants processing the stuff put out. It is also a massive pain to deal with and transport (generally cannot use pipelines).

Edited August 18, 2024 by The Nehor

[manol]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is quite possible that if you translated the Book of Mormon version and our current version into another language they would come out the same on the other end.

The baptismal prayer in French is, or was 44 years ago, pretty much the same as the Nephite baptismal prayer.  My translation back into English, from memory (I didn't actually get to use it very often): "Having received authority from Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."  (They don't say "Holy Ghost" in French; that would be "Holy Phantom". The words for "spirit" and "mind" are the same word in French.  Maybe they're onto something.) 

A bit of trivia:  Pope Francis changed the wording in the Lord's Prayer from "lead us not into temptation" to "do not let us fall into temptation".  I think that's a worthwhile improvement, but don't know whether it has been officially adopted and is being used by the Catholic Church.  @MiserereNobis?  @3DOP? @Saint Bonaventure? 

Another bit of trivia:  A few years ago the LDS Church changed the French wording for the Sacrament prayer blessing the bread.  It used to say "they want to...", and it was changed to "they are disposed to...", which is closer to the English wording "they are willing to...".  An alternative might have been "they are ready to...".  

 

On 8/17/2024 at 11:50 AM, JLHPROF said:

My goal has never been to sow doubt or lead away from the restored Church.

I only want faithful members to be aware that there's more to the restored gospel and its ordinances, that Joseph restored so much more truth and light than what is currently provided and permitted.

I want them to long for the day the Church allows some of the beautiful ordinances to be complete and available again.  This includes baptisms for health, mother's blessings, family and ward prayer circles.  So many blessings prohibited.

Don't ever leave the Church - pray for the Church.

I agree with you here, and I think your intentions are only the highest and your wording superb.  There are opinions I arrived at decades ago which track some of the warnings you've made in this thread, but imo the LDS Church is too much a force for good in too many people's lives for me to see utility in promoting those opinions.

 

On 8/16/2024 at 3:28 PM, JLHPROF said:

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

For me, the most real part of my religion was giving priesthood blessings.  There was something I could feel (not always, but most of the time), and the person blessed could feel (not always, but most of the time), that imo could not be faked. 

A priesthood blessing is considered an ordinance, and the approved format was given in the back of the priesthood manual.  The exact wording of the instructions sometimes changed a bit from one version of the manual to the next, but the substance was unchanged. 

I noticed that in the Gospels, Christ did not seem to follow any particular format when he blessed and healed people.  He would merely speak a few words, sometimes in the person's presence and sometimes not.  Or someone might touch him in a crowd, or he might spit in the dirt and make mud and rub it on the person's eyes.  So it seemed that the format itself was not what mattered.  I started to wonder whether the approved format was like training wheels on a bike, which could get you safely up and running until you reached the point of no longer needing them to keep you from being afraid.

So I started quietly conducting an experiment.  When I thought I could get away with it, I'd deliberately depart from the approved format.  I won't bore you with the details, but the conclusion I came away with was that the format didn't matter and the wording didn't matter; rather, the spiritual energy present was what mattered.

I am NOT saying that there is a one-to-one correspondence between my little experience with formats and blessings, and Temple ordinances and their efficacy.  Maybe the same underlying principle (that the spiritual energy present is what really matters) applies, and maybe not.  And maybe I am completely mistaken.  Anyway in the long run imo the MOST that would be lost if the Temple ordinances have or do change too much is, time.  And in the long run, I'm not sure that time really matters.

But I absolutely understand your longing "for the day the Church allows some of the beautiful ordinances to be complete and available again.  This includes baptisms for health, mother's blessings, family and ward prayer circles."  I really hope you get to see that day.

Edited August 18, 2024 by manol

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, manol said:

The baptismal prayer in French is, or was 44 years ago, pretty much the same as the Nephite baptismal prayer.  My translation back into English, from memory (I didn't actually get to use it very often): "Having received authority from Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."  (They don't say "Holy Ghost" in French; that would be "Holy Phantom". The words for "spirit" and "mind" are the same word in French.  Maybe they're onto something.) 

A bit of trivia:  Pope Francis changed the wording in the Lord's Prayer from "lead us not into temptation" to "do not let us fall into temptation".  I think that's a worthwhile improvement, but don't know whether it has been officially adopted and is being used by the Catholic Church.  @MiserereNobis?  @3DOP? @Saint Bonaventure? 

Another bit of trivia:  A few years ago the LDS Church changed the French wording for the Sacrament prayer blessing the bread.  It used to say "they want to...", and it was changed to "they are disposed to...", which is closer to the English wording "they are willing to...".  An alternative might have been "they are ready to...".  

 

I agree with you here, and I think your intentions are only the highest and your wording superb.  There are opinions I arrived at decades ago which track some of the warnings you've made in this thread, but imo the LDS Church is too much a force for good in too many people's lives for me to see utility in promoting those opinions.

 

For me, the most real part of my religion was giving priesthood blessings.  There was something I could feel (not always, but most of the time), and the person blessed could feel (not always, but most of the time), that imo could not be faked. 

A priesthood blessing is considered an ordinance, and the approved format was given in the back of the priesthood manual.  The exact wording of the instructions sometimes changed a bit from one version of the manual to the next, but the substance was unchanged. 

I noticed that in the Gospels, Christ did not seem to follow any particular format when he blessed and healed people.  He would merely speak a few words, sometimes in the person's presence and sometimes not.  Or someone might touch him in a crowd, or he might spit in the dirt and make mud and rub it on the person's eyes.  So it seemed that the format itself was not what mattered.  I started to wonder whether the approved format was like training wheels on a bike, which could get you safely up and running until you reached the point of no longer needing them to keep you from being afraid.

So I started quietly conducting an experiment.  When I thought I could get away with it, I'd deliberately depart from the approved format.  I won't bore you with the details, but the conclusion I came away with was that the format didn't matter and the wording didn't matter; rather, the spiritual energy present was what mattered.

I am NOT saying that there is a one-to-one correspondence between my little experience with formats and blessings, and Temple ordinances and their efficacy.  Maybe the same underlying principle (that the spiritual energy present is what really matters) applies, and maybe not.  And maybe I am completely mistaken.  Anyway in the long run imo the MOST that would be lost if the Temple ordinances have or do change too much is, time.  And in the long run, I'm not sure that time really matters.

But I absolutely understand your longing "for the day the Church allows some of the beautiful ordinances to be complete and available again.  This includes baptisms for health, mother's blessings, family and ward prayer circles."  I really hope you get to see that day.

manol, hey!

I am glad to be remembered, even for the sake of trivia! It seems like a long time with no reason to chime in. In Catholic thought, we must deny that God would ever want anybody to fall away from Him through temptation. But the wording, of the Lord's Prayer, or Our Father can be misleading. I tend to think personally that it is hard to think that the passage has been wrongly translated for so many centuries. I would rather have a good explanation than a bad translation.

But to your question about the adoption of the recent change of translation, I think it is limited to the Mass in Italian. I know we said it the old way at our English Mass today.

Rory

Edited August 18, 2024 by 3DOP

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

making changes to the presentation of the Endowment.

I am pretty sure he said he was okay with changing the presentation. He may differ from you and others, including myself about what the presentation entails. 
 

See this post to confirm the above:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76026-endowment-changes-yet-again/?do=findComment&comment=1210193314

 

Edited August 18, 2024 by Calm