New Nauvoo Forum

General Category => News of the Church => Topic started by: Taalcon on January 02, 2019, 08:47:51 am

Title: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 02, 2019, 08:47:51 am
So... it appears substantial new changes in the presentation of the Temple Ordinances were launched in Nauvoo yesterday, and are apparantly rolling out this week everywhere else.

Just a heads up.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Curelom on January 02, 2019, 09:02:05 am
Hmmm. 

By "presentation," it doesn't sound so much like changes in the substance of the ordinances, but perhaps sequence, wording, actions by participants? (Like a few years ago when patrons were not directed to stand as often as previously, or some of the changes in the initiatory from past years).

I am due for a temple visit & will have to go to Sacramento again, or maybe in Fresno if I happen to be farther south in my travels. From parts of the Bay Area south of San Francisco proper, it can be just as easy to go to Fresno & not go through the central Bay Area traffic, The Oakland Temple has been closed since February for major renovation, & the rededication will be in June with several weeks of open house in May.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 02, 2019, 09:22:31 am
That was my choice of wording. What I've heard goes beyond that, and would very much change the take-away messaging of key parts. And it's not just the Endowment.

I don't want to say anything more specific lest it turn out to be incorrect and have people give hopes up.

I can't make it today, but wanted to give those who might a heads up.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: libertygranny on January 02, 2019, 10:23:37 am
Hubby and I are subbing a shift today. He heard about the change coming last week so we are very curious to 'see' what happens. We have seen many changes in the past 40+ years and all for the good, so any changes now will also be for the good.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 02, 2019, 12:00:59 pm
The two being most mentioned are change to the obedience covenant for sisters to make it the same as for brethren. And no more veiling.

The LDS Feminists will be rejoicing at another win for them. If they can manage to kill off Oaks they may get the priesthood next.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: cook on January 02, 2019, 12:21:33 pm
Please do tell what you can when you've verified changes by being present. I fear they come a little bit later to our corner of the world. (Attending temple tomorrow).

With all the changes about so many things, I hope people can take them the right way. That we are not changing because people want this and that, or because things have been wrong in the past, but because the church is supposed to be practical and does see doctrine and culture and practises as different things. Sometimes change is slower than in the prevailing culture for various reasons and some things don't change.

I personally like many of the "old" things about the temple, the ancient things, for I feel they in a way connects me more to everything that hasbeen before me and in a way to the eternal perspective, but I understand it is me - the same way I just loved my parents telling me over and over about the times of their childhood and their grandparents and loved watching very old movies. I understand for many clinging to ancient becomes an obstacle.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 02, 2019, 12:26:44 pm
I have seen a post by a member in Tonga noting they were surprised and excited by new changes when they went to the Temple this morning, not having heard about anything beforehand.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 02, 2019, 02:02:20 pm
I've seen trustworthy individuals affirming that these are accurate representations of the changes.

This is huge. VERY theologically/doctrinally significant.

The history of scripture and revelation is moving the story forward and helping us to get closer, and closer to a more accurate view of God, and our Heavenly Parents' relationship to us. It's a restoration of knowledge of the Heavenly Ideal, not just a single point we can pinpoint that existed in our mortal history. It seems with every big burst of story-changing new revelation, a few bits of interpretive tradition get mixed in, and survive for a while until they too get pared away by the progress of further Light and Knowledge not leaving room for them anymore. We're getting closer and closer, and the future is bright. And we should absolutely expect more missteps along the way, because that's how this all works. Because God is God, but humanity is stubborn.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 02, 2019, 02:36:39 pm
https://www.thechurchnews.com/temples/2019-01-02/church-releases-statement-on-temples-48702

tl;dr: "Things change in the Temple from time to time. We're not going to talk about it."
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 02, 2019, 04:34:22 pm
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/01/02/lds-church-releases/
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Jen on January 02, 2019, 05:11:58 pm
(Why give the Trib the benefit of anyone's attention? Glorified tabloid.)

I'm no feminist, and would welcome the changes. I'd also welcome no change. I figure if something doesn't sit right, either it will eventually change, or I will.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 02, 2019, 05:37:17 pm
I think we simply have different views of the value of the volume of Peggy Fletcher Stack's contributions.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: curlybat on January 02, 2019, 08:36:00 pm
Quote
VERY theologically/doctrinally significant.

From what has been leaked so far, I would have to say no, the changes are not theologically/doctrinally significant and don't appear to be theological/doctrinal changes at all.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 02, 2019, 09:37:16 pm
I respectfully, but very strongly disagree.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: dyany on January 02, 2019, 11:39:20 pm
I find the timing of this interesting, because my husband and I had a discussion about this scripture in Matthew 19 just earlier this week:
Quote
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Basically saying that there are aspects of the law that exist not because they are doctrinal, but because we are weak and naughty and can't handle the pure doctrine at the time.  Generally I think this would be because of cultural mores and taboos so deeply ingrained in us that we see deviation from them--even given from God--as bad, so God lets his prophets make adjustments to policies to ease people along (or because the prophet himself is weak).  That doesn't necessarily make a specific policy, nor the people who gave the policy, bad (though they sometimes are), just as it doesn't make current policies that may not be doctrinal (such as no tattoos) BAD.  I personally see policies like that like training wheels.  They aren't core to the bicycle nor necessary for the bike to function, and in fact can hinder full and proper functionality of the bicycle at top performance.  But they are very useful for getting used to the bike and helping the rider through new or difficult circumstances. 

All this being said, if I understand what the changes are, I am weeping for joy.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 03, 2019, 02:55:16 am
Whether this is theologically or doctrinally significant depends on how theologically one saw the previous covenant women made as significant.

I think that when the 1990 change was made it was significant. It changed the covenant to one made entirely to/with God acknowledging that counsel from a spiritually in tune husband should be followed. I think the brethren thought that was enough to imply the change that has now happened.

I struggle to understand how so many women found this hard - my wife made the initial covenant and can not understand the fuss at all.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: dyany on January 03, 2019, 03:54:21 am
I didn't understand or think it remotely significant either.

Until I got married and started to experience unrighteous dominion, and began to understand better what seemingly insignificant things either were subtle signs of unrighteous dominion or unwittingly supported it.

You and your wife have been very blessed not to have been forced to learn that.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 03, 2019, 04:16:45 am
Dyany,

Whilst I appreciate that there may have been a few husbands who used the temple covenant situation as a means to unrighteous dominion I do not see this change as something that will eradicate that. The unfortunate truth is that it will continue. It will continue because that is something men, of that mindset, do. They will not be able to use the temple (though I think that the 1990 changes should have taken care of that) but they will do it, if it is in their nature and they do not want to change the natural man. Sad.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 03, 2019, 07:44:02 am
Whether this is theologically or doctrinally significant depends on how theologically one saw the previous covenant women made as significant.

I think that when the 1990 change was made it was significant. It changed the covenant to one made entirely to/with God

As modeled by the 1990-2018 presentations, Eve covenanted directly to Adam. Who then in turned covenanted with God. This is a pattern, as men were declared in more than one place to be  Priests unto God, and women were described in more than one place as priestesses unto their Husbands. In sealings, men received their wives, but women did not receive their husbands.

It is true this disparity isn't taught outside the Temple, and hasn't been publicly taught in a very long time.

But there is an important history as to why and how it was that way, and it has remained a part of the doctrine and structure as taught in the Temple for a very long time. Two conflicting ideas, taught side by side, without an ability to comment on each other.

If anything, the whole package of new adjustments which changes the narrative described above aligns the doctrine as taught in the Temple with the doctrine as taught in General Conference. And, also most likely, aligns the teaching in the Temple with what most members already believed, but had struggled to reconcile with what was presented in some form in each of the Higher Ordinances.

When my wife, her mother (and Father) and sister (all faithful, and Temple Recommend holding members) heard these changes, there was a burst of joy. "FINALLY." they all said. "This had ALWAYS bothered me. Every time." (And these are not individuals who ever feared their own spouses would even consider to try to take advantage in some way of previous wording).

This is significant.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 03, 2019, 11:11:47 am
What Eve does, and what the sisters do is different. The sisters make a covenant with the officiator acting for Elohim. The covenant is with God - many sisters are not even married. And hearkening to counsel is not the same as obeying.

I agree is it significant, and do not agree it is doctrinally or theologically significant. It is significant because is has the church doing what has been lobbied for.

I say we do something really useful and lobby for 2% tithing. The church could still survive, and members would be more likely to be full tithe payers.

Change can be good, change can also be damaging. All these changes will also have an adverse effect on those trying to believe, or looking to not believe. One more nail in the coffin for some. My mother with think this is just another move away from the church she joined 50 years ago - and how do I tell her otherwise?

Not my mother, not my sister, not my mother-in-law, not my sisters-in-law, not my daughters have ever worried about the wording of the endowment - including for those who received it the prior to 1990 version.

Do I accept the changes? Of course. There are really only two changes that would course me to leave the church as the doctrinal change would be, in my mind, too great.


There are changes I would welcome, though I could see them being problematic. Like making SSP, ExSec, Ward Clerk callings that any endowed sister could hold, or maybe TR worthy.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 03, 2019, 11:28:03 am
Quote
What Eve does, and what the sisters do is different. The sisters make a covenant with the officiator acting for Elohim.
Respectfully, the sisters and brothers were asked to consider themselves as if they were Adam and Eve. Adam addressed Elohim by name as the subject of his covenant. Eve addressed her Husband by name.

Your understanding was the common one ("It COULDN'T be the other way!"), but was not supported by the actual drama, and everything else related to that.

The new changes appear to very specifically substantially adjust the actual drama and events to be in line with the common understanding, as well as other ordinances that were affected by that connection.

Quote
My mother with think this is just another move away from the church she joined 50 years ago - and how do I tell her otherwise?
You might quote the line of the hymn that joyfully exclaims that "The Lord is extending the Saints' Understanding". 

And then, perhaps, use the words President Hinckley so often used when asked about something unique but challenging about our faith, "Isn't it wonderful?"
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: dyany on January 03, 2019, 11:57:49 am
I received my endowment 5 years before I was married. I thought little of it, though I heard many others did.

After marriage, however, I realized the way it trapped and separated me from God. I wasn't even allowed to make a covenant directly with God myself. Not even talk to him. Everything had to be through this man who was unkind, thoughtless, disrespectful, and not always super in tune. Even though I was only told I had to hearken him when he hearkened to God (which, as a single person, 'fixed everything" to me), the bottom line was, I was never allowed to covenant directly with God, so I had this horrible doorway I was forced to go through to get yhe succor I so desperately needed... from the horrible door.

Andrew, respectfully, I understand where you are coming from, but you clearly don't understand our position. I feel it's like visiting a foreign culture, full of language quirks and interesting customs. You are not going to understand their idioms and customs. Some will seem, since you can only see them literally and in translation, stupid. Which is understandable, since they are cultural things that require living in that culture a long time and truly getting to know and live it. But it would be extremely rude to come to a country and tell them that their sayings or traditions are stupid or wrong. Even if they violate some of your deeply held beliefs, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE WRONG. They have experienced different things than you have. They have developed different ways and perceptions because of that. Please respect that. Even if you still choose to believe we are all wrong, the fact that the brethren recognized and acknowledged the issue enough to change the ceremony, which is a very significant action, should be enough to prompt you that there have been issues there, even if you don't understand them.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: curlybat on January 03, 2019, 02:39:27 pm
I respectfully, but very strongly disagree.

Maybe if you uncouple theological/doctrinal.  I don't see a doctrinal change but a theological change but still find it insignificant below the surface, greater significance being mostly cosmetic.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: cook on January 03, 2019, 03:07:20 pm
I didn't see any doctrinal change. I saw and heard quite a few changes that clarify the doctrine and makes it harder to interpret it wrong. That is a good thing. In my opinion it did not change any of the doctrines.

Of course we all have and always will feel and interpret things in different ways due to our circumstances, upbringing and personalities. Those things don't make things doctrinal.

For me that covenant part was one of my favourites. I've always been 'the good kid'. I've always seen how much of the spiritual and church related stuff on families have been the responsibility of the women and many of the men have shied from it. I've heard it said (by men) how the wife is the one to drag the man into the celestial kingdom, how they could never do it themselves.

So I loved the idea that I could hold a man responsible for his relationship with God, I could say 'see, you're not only supposed to get there by yourself but to show me the example'.

I understand it has been a problem for many. But it doesn't mean the doctrine has been a problem (and I see the doctrine only as making covenants to obey God, the rest is something else and that doctrine has not changed). It doesn't mean my feelings and interpretation of it is any more right or wrong than someone elses. It's just feelings and interpretations.

I was glad about the practical changes - I see other than wordings as that. I liked the format but wonder if it is to stay or just until they get fixed to suit the new system. One wording after covenanting felt silly though I think I may see the point.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 03, 2019, 03:24:52 pm
Quote
Maybe if you uncouple theological/doctrinal.  I don't see a doctrinal change but a theological change
Quote
I didn't see any doctrinal change.

We've gotten to a point where the actual definition of 'Doctrine' (a teaching), must now be given a Special Unique Definition by the Church to mean absolutely nothing but "A Teaching That Doesn't Change", so that if a teaching does change, therefore, it must not have really been a doctrine. See? Testimonies that are predicated on the idea that nothing changes in God's Church remain intact.

It's maddeningly cyclical, and gives the word zero value, except to allow a member to stand up and affirm, in a way meaningless to everyone else, "Our doctrines never change!"

A Doctrine is a Doctrine until suddenly it never was one to begin with. Eurasia has always been at war with Eastasia.

We do revelation, scripture, and the ongoing work of God with us throughout history disservice by going this approach.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Jen on January 03, 2019, 05:03:43 pm
I wonder if this is a clarification in doctrine, rather than a shift.

I do see that it's making it much harder for those who use their priesthood authority to exercise unrighteous dominion. They're running out of justifications. However, I seem to know at least as many WOMEN who exercise unrighteous dominion (or whatever you could call it) over their husbands, and wonder how much worse they might get with a little wind in their sails.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Curelom on January 03, 2019, 05:26:22 pm
I'm female & single, but I didn't have a problem with the way it has been worded all this time (without knowing anything yet about the changes, so can't compare side by side).

There was always that condition of "will hearken to … as he hearkens to …" Without that, yeah, I would have reservations. With it, the relationship has always been between me & my Father.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 03, 2019, 07:25:29 pm
In reality it is the men that are in the better position. No woman EVER covenanted to follow an unrighteous husband. Only one that obeyed the law of the Lord. So the onus was on the husband to be the better person. Now, not so much.

Quote
Your understanding was the common one ("It COULDN'T be the other way!"), but was not supported by the actual drama, and everything else related to that.

Thanks for pointing out my idiocy. However, since I understood it exactly the way it is now laid out, I suspect I had it right.

Since my wife and I received the endowment prior to 1990 I believe we are bound by the covenants we made. Or, does the substance of our covenants change with a change to the endowment?

We covenants I made not to reveal certain information came with penalties - I am still bound by the covenants I made?

This is to me a far more interested line of thought than what these changes mean.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: dyany on January 03, 2019, 07:43:29 pm
I understand that, and I know it won't change my husband or the thousands of other not-so-nice husbands out there.  HOWEVER, that wasn't so much the point.  The point is that NOW, I can feel more connected to God DIRECTLY, without having to go through that husband.  Does that make sense?  I mean, we've always been told we can and should have a personal relationship with God and our Savior as women.  However, we've ALSO been told by many that we can't have a full, 100% connection to God without having a husband.  As I said, when I was single, that didn't bother me.  I knew that there was a backup plan for me and that I didn't need to worry.  However, in an unpleasant marriage, it chafed that throughout the endowment I was never, ever allowed direct communion or communication with God.  It had to go through this person who was now real.  Yes, I didn't have to obey him if he didn't listen to God.  But since I couldn't have a direct connection with God myself, how could I know?  What gave me the right to circumvent him when the covenants I had made very specifically directed everything through him and gave me no direct connection to God whatsoever?  Does this make sense? 

Curelom, I'm not sure if you read my posts in their entirety.  I know I am long winded, so I'll try to sum up: I felt the exact same way before I was married.  EXACTLY.  It was marriage that enlightened me to the shortcomings.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 03, 2019, 08:28:30 pm
Quote
Thanks for pointing out my idiocy.
*sigh*
Quote
However, since I understood it exactly the way it is now laid out, I suspect I had it right.

Many, including yourself, seemed to have understood the correct principle in spite of, not because of, the way the drama previously presented it.

I actually think this is how a lot of revelation works. Much of the body of the Church is prepared to understand and accept a new understanding and authoritative correction of principles in spite of persisting old teachings, so when when it becomes official by Proper Authority, the response is so very often, "Well, of course. I already believed that."

That's why we have past scriptures that state things that at face value we have a different understanding of today. And I'm positive that people who sought inspiration and understanding on those topics had a more correct understanding of the principle before corrections became canonized/official.

I absolutely believe God can and does give individuals understanding/preparation on principles before they are revealed and authorized to be taught as the Church as a whole. '

That's why I think sometimes there is a disconnect. I see this pattern:

1) There exists a teaching/scripture.
2) Individuals have come to an understanding of a principle that contradicts or goes substantially beyond the plain reading of a teaching/scripture.
3) Through inspiration, The Prophet presents a new teaching/scripture that teaches the same understanding as #2 had come to.
4) "Since Doctrine doesn't change, this confirms my understanding of the original version must have been what it always meant."

Another way of putting it:

Every written down and expressed scripture/revelation is a translation into our own language and experience. Each prophet/apostle/scripture writer has a spiritual experience that they then had to translate into their own language, using the materials they already had on hand to build that translation. Sometimes, extra stuff (tradition, prejudices, innocent ignorance, artifacts of 'sins of their generation', etc gets stuck on.)

I believe as we study the scriptures/revelations, and diligently seek answers, at times we can be allowed to tap into the original source that inspired the written scripture/teaching.

Which is why we can understand and discover a True Core Principle hidden under some Extra Stuff that happened to cling on the way out from the earlier revelator's attempts to make sense of it.

Nephi didn't just want to hear Lehi's account of his vision again, he wanted to experience the vision itself. And I think that's instructive, and that we don't always recognize that this is what we're doing when we get an insight on something that upon further investigation, really doesn't bear out with what the text itself is saying.

So sometimes we have a dissonance. "I know this principle is true." "I know this scripture I got this principle from does not say what I know about the truth of this principle, and in facts suggests something very different."

It doesn't make one an idiot. It can show one is encountering revelation and wrestling with it. I don't think that's a bad thing.

But I think once the new revelation has come that confirms the previous understanding, it can be helpful to acknowledge where the former expression was a less accurate presentation of the underlying divine principle, and be grateful for the principle of continuing revelation that allows for the authoritative new presentation to take its place.

This is the principle of an Open Canon at work. This is what it looks like.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Roper on January 03, 2019, 09:03:17 pm
A few thoughts:

Like Andrew, I received my endowment when penalties were specifically identified. I'm not sure why they were spelled out. I believe I am under the same obligation to keep covenants sacred, but that those specific penalties no longer apply. As I try to understand the meaning of the New and Everlasting covenant, I accept that "new" means continually renewed. Otherwise, it becomes old  ;)

I consider my Patriarchal Blessing to be scripture, doctrine if you will, specifically for me. My understanding of many parts of it are significantly different now, 35 years after the blessing, than it was when I first got it. I suspect that in 35 years, my understanding will be radically different than it is now.  That doesn't mean any part of past understanding is less true. It means that I, much like the body of saints, I suppose, am expanding in my capacity to receive new revelation.

In response to Andrew about women receiving priesthood ordination:  We understand that in the eternities, women are priestesses just as men are priests. Why should mortality be the same for one gender but different for the other? Is that doctrine or tradition? Will that change as soon as God's people are ready to accept it? Is the change in the Temple presentation a step in that direction? I claim no inspiration on the matter. I believe that God is no respecter of persons. I believe that with God, nothing is impossible. I believe that prophets seek revelation from God and deliver it to His children. It follows, then, that I accept the idea as possible. My own hope is that I will live to see it for my daughters and granddaughters (a third one is on the way. WooHoo!)
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: JLM on January 03, 2019, 09:22:56 pm
Andrew, why would these be deal breakers?

1. Priesthood extended to sisters.
2. Sealing same sex couples.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Jen on January 03, 2019, 09:34:33 pm
it chafed that throughout the endowment I was never, ever allowed direct communion or communication with God.  It had to go through this person who was now real.  Yes, I didn't have to obey him if he didn't listen to God.  But since I couldn't have a direct connection with God myself, how could I know?  What gave me the right to circumvent him when the covenants I had made very specifically directed everything through him and gave me no direct connection to God whatsoever?  Does this make sense? 


I'm really sorry and sad that you have felt this way, and for any reasons that amplified those feelings.

Granted, this isn't a challenge I've had in my marriage (though we've had ours to be sure)... my husband has had to teach ME that we are equal partners... but it just never occurred to me to feel the way that you did.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 03, 2019, 10:15:59 pm
JLM

If sisters were to have the priesthood, and they were denied it, this is not the true church.

This is not, in my opinion, the same as - or even similar to - the ban on black African men receiving the priesthood, and men and women temple ordinances.

In that case it was done in a way that was open and would have an end. At the end all would be able to receive these ordinances, and for the dead.

Now, take sisters and the priesthood. Never been considered a ban.

Further to this men have to hold the Aaronic Priesthood to receive the ordinances of Baptism and Confirmation for the dead. Men also have to hold the Melchizedek priesthood to receive for themselves, and the dead, the endowment. Sisters do not.

We specifically confer the Melchizedek priesthood and ordain elders the dead, prior to receiving the initiatory ordinances, and the endowment.

So, if sisters should always have had the priesthood then their endowments are faulty, wrong, whatever.

It becomes a mess too much. A stretch in the wrong direction that just does not sit right with me, and I don't believe could without significant explanation. More than "this is a more holier way to extend the priesthood".

And if we seal same sex couples then the entire Plan of Salvation as we know it just turns on its head.

I have enough struggles as it is. 20 and more years ago I had no doubts, the church was true and it could not not be. Now I have more doubts than ever. I continue in Hope and Faith. I believe a lot, I am sure about little. These would surely tip me over as the illogicality (in my mind) would be too much.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Jason on January 03, 2019, 11:41:02 pm
I have wondered if a female priesthood were to be revealed if it might be a different, but co-equal priesthood. Different names, different responsibilities, but possibly with some overlapping duties, too. Imagine that thus far a bishop has only been half of his potential, because the full bishopric was really supposed to consist of a husband and wife serving together. Or even a man and woman who are not married serving as the presiding authorities in a ward.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: cook on January 04, 2019, 12:38:42 am
Quote
   can be helpful to acknowledge where the former expression was a less accurate presentation of the underlying divine principle, and be grateful for the principle of continuing revelation that allows for the authoritative new presentation to take its place.
 

I believe all agree with this. What I and seems some others feel that this 'underlying divine principle' has always been the doctrine but people have misunderstood and added their own thoughts and feelings to it. And now it has bee clarified so that people would be less inclined to do so. Not a change, a clarification.

I think the clarification - again, not a change- in another covenant is actually more important than that.

I understand your feelings Dyany. I just feel they have not been what has been taught at the temple, that I as a woman would not be able make covenants or communicate with God personally but through a man.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 04, 2019, 09:33:21 am
Quote
What I and seems some others feel that this 'underlying divine principle' has always been the doctrine

Here's where I am (and MANY others will be) confused by the use of the word. If something is not actually taught, is it still a doctrine? Doctrine literally means, 'a teaching'. A doctrine is a doctrine because it is taught. That's what the word means.

I think when we substitute 'Doctrine' for REALLY meaning 'Eternal Truth', it REALLY muddies the waters. Of course Truth doesn't change. But Teachings in regards to those truths absolutely change, sometimes in very strong contrasts.

There is a very clear line of where and when the former teaching (that was just finally abolished in the Temple) started (it was after Joseph Smith died, FWIW). We know exactly when and where, by whom, and under what specific circumstances. To say the present understanding was always what was really taught and understood is demonstrably incorrect.

But if what you're saying, "Yes, the teaching has been incorrect, but the TRUE nature behind it (as made clearer today) has always existed", then, I guess, sure I agree with you, but what really is the point of such an affirmation?

One of the biggest deals behind this, is that one of the rationales behind leadership in the past not considering that women could hold a Priesthood office in this life has been tied in with the idea taught in the Temple of whom an individual is a priest TO, and the source of that power. Men are Priests unto God, and can thus access and exercise his Exalted Power. Who were women declared Priestesses to formerly?

As it was formerly:
1) God
2) Men, Receive Authority from God
3) Women, Receive Authority from Men, who received it from God

Consider this in light of Elder Oaks' talk in the Women's Session of conference about Priesthood Power and authority.
Quote
But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.

He went on to expand on this.

Quote
I come now to the subject of priesthood authority. I begin with the three principles just discussed: (1) priesthood is the power of God delegated to man to act for the salvation of the human family, (2) priesthood authority is governed by priesthood holders who hold priesthood keys, and (3) since the scriptures state that “all other authorities [and] offices in the church are appendages to this [Melchizedek] priesthood” (D&C 107:5), all that is done under the direction of those priesthood keys is done with priesthood authority.

How does this apply to women? In an address to the Relief Society, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said this: “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.”7

Shifting the understanding of this structure/hierarchy (IE, evening it out) IN THE TEMPLE changes the game and opens up A LOT more options for the Apostles and Prophet to even CONSIDER to authorize. I don't think many realize that a key reason many historically believed women would not (nor could) receive Priesthood office in this life was due to this teaching.

If, in the Temple, men are not presented as the essential mediary between God and Women, this fundamentally changes the assumptions that have been understood and taught for a while. In light of President Oaks' talk, this change might be seen as an indication of recognition of the power behind 'A Key Being Turned'. And of course the first place this would be implemented would be in the Temple, which sets the structural pattern for everything else.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: cook on January 04, 2019, 09:53:25 am
see, that's the thing when church is world wide with so many different languages.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines doctrine as
a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA
Catholic doctrine
c law : a principle of law established through past decisions

For me doctrine means definition b.

The meaning of the word we use in Finnish is "what one needs to learn". It is used in everyday vocabulary, like in school sucjects are literally "the matter that needs to be learnt":

I don't think English is God's language. Thus I don't think too much attention can be based on words used in English.

What I'm saying the teaching has been correct, the doctrine behind it not always so clear to everyone in that specific issue due to culture, circumstances, personalities and feelings. I feel it is about doctrine and then interpreting the things according to the doctrine and not forming the doctrine based on interpretations of that event/example...

Jason, you mean the bishop's wives already don't share much of the load of the bishop and work with him?
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: dyany on January 04, 2019, 11:28:46 am
Cook said:
Quote
I understand your feelings Dyany. I just feel they have not been what has been taught at the temple, that I as a woman would not be able make covenants or communicate with God personally but through a man.

Except that isn't true.  Does the Church in general teach that women can have direct covenants with God?  Absolutely.  But the endowment absolutely did not.  The ONLY time Eve ever even talks to God in the old ceremony is when explaining why she ate of the fruit.  She actually says very little throughout the entire video, and the covenant she makes is 100% to and with Adam.  Period. 

It's impossible at this point to give proof of this, since that video no longer is presented and we don't have written or other sources to share.  But that was most definitely what happened.  I even attended a sealing of a niece a few months back where the sealer went on and on and on about how wonderful it was that Eve only covenanted with Adam, and how important and somehow good that was.  It was the worst wedding I have ever attended.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 04, 2019, 12:58:00 pm
Quote
It's impossible at this point to give proof of this, since that video no longer is presented and we don't have written or other sources to share.
This kind of thing is unfortunate. Yes, the last few videos have been recorded and uploaded in full to YouTube, and audio is available of pre-1990.  The scripts can be found online. It's all unauthorized of course.

It's not impossible to find accurate copies of what has happened before. But accessing it would understandably be very ... squicky.

But having an authorized record of past scripts endowed members would be authorized to study and explore would be very helpful. Even it was just a special bound booklet only available to read in the Temple proper, with notes for context and help. To study the development, and to help one learn ... more. When we add new scripture, we don't just replace the old one. We leave it in continuity, and append it to the end - to help us to SEE the flow of Revelation. Help us see how it helps us enter a new world, patterned after the old one.

Otherwise, to help someone understand how much something has changed, they either have to take one's memory over another, or resort to a 'bootleg'.

Honestly, I would not be offended by, and would actually love an official publication of the current version of the Temple Drama, as well as the Initiatory/Sealing ordinances, leaving out key specific descriptions that are uniquely asked not to be revealed. This would help with the 'Sacred Not Secret' narrative. And just as we have the words of Baptism and the Sacrament in public scripture, available for all to read, it does not automatically transfer the experience of participating in the Ordinance to anyone who happens to read them.

The Temple would still be unique Sacred Space where those things could only truly be experienced as they were meant to.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 04, 2019, 02:43:28 pm
Taalcon,

I agree it would be useful. However, there are a couple of things that I see as problematic with this.

Title: Re: Temple
Post by: JLM on January 04, 2019, 06:13:04 pm
"If sisters were to have the priesthood, and they were denied it, this is not the true church"

I don't make the same conclusion you do.  In fact, expansion of priesthood keys would be completely in line with continuing revelation.  Much of what we regard as eternal truths or essential ordinances are relatively recent.  For example, the 3 kingdoms of glory isn't in the BOM, at all, anywhere, because it was not a part of Nephite theology.  JSJ explained that the ancients weren't ready for the doctrine, so they didn't receive it.  Many members led
ft the church agter that revelation because it was too big of a a stretch in a different direction from tradition.

Perhaps the only reason we don't ordain women yet is because we we aren't ready for it yet.  Too many incorrect traditions of our fathers, perhaps. 

I have a similar opinion regarding same sex relationships.  Perhaps our current understanding of gender roles is wrong.  If there is a revelation that updates our understanding, I will accept it.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 04, 2019, 06:17:14 pm
Some additional context for the development of the ideas relating to women, obedience, hierarchy and the Temple can be found in this quick and easy-to-read twitter thread from an LDS Historian here (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1080625258984546305.html).

It gives good explanation for why some of the forward progress that began with the Relief Society while Joseph Smith was living (which was envisioned as developing into an order of Priestesses parallel to the development of the Temple Ordinances) was VERY suddenly halted, and not expanded upon.

That will also provide the context for something that was said by Brigham Young, while President of the Presiding Quorum of Twelve Apostles, expressing his strong emotions and thoughts on the subject following the death of Joseph and Hyrum (which he blamed partly on Emma) at a time that was ALSO prior to the structure/obey material finding its way into the formalized presentation of Temple ordinances (from  High Priest Quorum Record on March 9, 1845 (https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE6158773)).

Quote
Relief Society—is going to meet again—I say I will curse every man that lets his wife or daughters meet again—until I tell them—What are relief societies for? To relieve us of our best men—They relieved us of Joseph and Hyrum—that is what they will lead to—I don’t  want  the advice or counsel of any woman—they would lead us down to hell—there is no woman on the face of the earth that  can  save herself—but if she ever comes into the celestial kingdom, she must be led in by some man—God knew what Eve was, He was acquainted with woman thousands and millions of years before.
(http://www.mormondialogue.org/uploads/monthly_2019_01/999246380_CR10001_f0001_00096.thumb.jpg.3019ec3e6d88d5c1faf45ad0432e4ab3.jpg)

I'd been familiar with this sentiment and general history, but I just now was made aware of this specific quote.

President Nelson has said, "I know that good inspiration is based upon good information,". And research, combined with seeking out the impact on how members were reacting and feeling from how things currently were, and a willingness to ask about it, likely led to Good Inspiration. This pattern on seeking and obtaining revelation has happened before and been well documented in the Church on other topics.

"We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?" - Elder Uchtdorf.

I'm grateful we have had leaders who have been willing to humble themselves to ask hard questions of the past, even though they may have thought they knew the answers already.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 04, 2019, 07:41:47 pm
The Endowment came about because the Prophet merged Masonry with Abraham to create a Fraternity?  Where is that in LDS doctrine or official history?
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 04, 2019, 07:48:47 pm
Never mind.  I just delved deeper.  Seems like a lot of progressive nonsense.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 04, 2019, 08:00:55 pm
Quote
Where is that in LDS doctrine or official history?
Quote
Never mind.  I just delved deeper.  Seems like a lot of progressive nonsense.

Saints, Chapter 37 sets the stage, and gives the broad context (https://www.lds.org/study/history/saints-v1/37-we-will-prove-them?lang=eng). I suggest reading the entire chapter. The footnotes give suggested readings for much more detailed discussions on those topics.

Quote
Emma liked the idea of starting a society for women in Nauvoo. Lately, Joseph and other men in town had entered into a centuries-old fraternal society called Freemasonry, after longtime Masons like Hyrum Smith and John Bennett had helped to organize a Masonic lodge in the city. But the women in Nauvoo would have a different kind of society.

Quote
The new ordinance God revealed to Joseph taught exalting truths. It drew upon scriptural accounts of the Creation and the Garden of Eden, including the new account found in the Abraham translation, to guide the men step-by-step through the plan of salvation. Like Abraham and other ancient prophets, they received knowledge that would enable them to return to the presence of God. Along the way, the men made covenants to live righteous, chaste lives and dedicate themselves to serving the Lord.
         
Joseph called the ordinance the endowment and trusted the men not to reveal the special knowledge they learned that day. Like the endowment of power in Kirtland, the ordinance was sacred and meant for the spiritually minded. Yet it was more than an outpouring of spiritual gifts and divine power on the elders of the church. As soon as the temple was finished, both men and women would be able to receive the ordinance, strengthen their covenant relationship to God, and find greater power and protection in consecrating their lives to the kingdom of God.

When the ceremony was finished, Joseph gave some instructions to Brigham. “This is not arranged right,” he told the apostle, “but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies.”

As they left the store that day, the men were in awe of the truths they had learned from the endowment. Some aspects of the ordinance reminded Heber Kimball of Masonic ceremonies. In Freemasonry meetings, men acted out an allegorical story about the architect of Solomon’s temple. Masons learned gestures and words they pledged to keep secret, all of which symbolized that they were building a solid foundation and adding light and knowledge to it by degrees.

Yet the endowment was a priesthood ordinance meant for men and women, and it taught sacred truths not contained in Masonry, which Heber was eager for others to learn.

These were all catalysts and structures that helped lend a framework to something new. It didn't come out of nowhere. You could say Joseph took it, and, with additional insight and inspiration, translated aspects of it to be used for a higher purpose.

The suggestion that specific aspects of Masonic ritual were used and adapted by Joseph for the Endowment really isn't something up for debate (http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/dun/dun02.htm).
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 04, 2019, 08:20:52 pm
I'm familiar with the history.  Your citation and church history don't support the twitter "historian's" claims.  One of which being that the endowment is merely a merger of Abraham and Masonry to create a replacement fraternity. 
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 04, 2019, 08:33:48 pm
Nobody claimed it was 'merely' those thing, although those things absolutely did contribute to its development

I mean, one of the Temple themes is that God creates something new out of pre-existing material. The Endowment itself is a great example of that.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 04, 2019, 09:35:52 pm
Nobody claimed it was 'merely' those thing, although those things absolutely did contribute to its development

I mean, one of the Temple themes is that God creates something new out of pre-existing material. The Endowment itself is a great example of that.

The Twitter "historian" certainly did.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 04, 2019, 09:49:53 pm
No, That's not what he said.
Quote
Then, in May, JS found a way to merge the Abrahamic teachings and the masonic rituals. The end result was the endowment, a vehicle through which he could demonstrate priesthood order over humanity and the cosmos. /9
At first, only men were introduced into this order, as it served a fraternal function just like the Relief Society served a sororal one. However, that changed over the next 18 months, in ways both radical and unexpected.
.

Joseph did merge them, as even the Officiall Church History Saints recognized, as quoted above. And it did serve a Fraternal fuction. Members were known as part of the 'Quorum of the Anointed'.  Park is not saying that's where it ended, nor that it was the sole makeup of the experience.

And also, he was being concise for a quick-read Twitter thread. I know that this historian, and myself, have much respect and take benefit from the Temple and its ordinances.

Acknowledging aspects of its inspirations and origins does not need to detract from that.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Roper on January 04, 2019, 10:10:24 pm
For all that we have in common with other Christian religions, this is the most significant point that absolutely defines the difference:  We believe that God gives continuing revelation and guidance to His children through prophets. Having lived most of my adult life in Texas, where my closest friends are Baptists, this is where we agree to disagree. For them, revelation ended with the Bible, and the Bible is the only authoritative word of God. Full stop. That difference has actually strengthened my own conviction of continuing revelation. If it becomes too much for me to swallow, I might as well join my friends.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Jason on January 04, 2019, 10:59:33 pm
I read some thoughts from others who suggested that the changes in the temple were taking away truths that we had previously had, because we were not living up to our previous covenants. They thought the same thing about the pre-1990s version, that it contained more truth than the current version.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 05, 2019, 08:24:30 am
I think that is ... a very sad and incorrect perspective.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 05, 2019, 08:54:45 am
No, That's not what he said.
Quote
Then, in May, JS found a way to merge the Abrahamic teachings and the masonic rituals. The end result was the endowment, a vehicle through which he could demonstrate priesthood order over humanity and the cosmos. /9
At first, only men were introduced into this order, as it served a fraternal function just like the Relief Society served a sororal one. However, that changed over the next 18 months, in ways both radical and unexpected.
.

Joseph did merge them, as even the Officiall Church History Saints recognized, as quoted above. And it did serve a Fraternal fuction. Members were known as part of the 'Quorum of the Anointed'.  Park is not saying that's where it ended, nor that it was the sole makeup of the experience.

And also, he was being concise for a quick-read Twitter thread. I know that this historian, and myself, have much respect and take benefit from the Temple and its ordinances.

Acknowledging aspects of its inspirations and origins does not need to detract from that.

That IS what he said, as your quote clearly confirms.  Additionally, Official Church History does NOT say that anywhere that I've been able to find, including Saints.  Acknowledging similarities between two religiously founded rituals doesn't state that the Prophet determined to create a church fraternity as opposed to establishing a necessary ordinance revealed by Heavenly Father.

As I stated previously.  Progressive nonsense.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 05, 2019, 08:58:02 am
Ok, Grunt.
(Fraternity means a fellowship of brotherhood. Elder's Quorum is literally a Fraternity. As is High Priest Quorum. The ordinances along with elements from the Masonic Fraternity helped make those bonds closer, and more Sacred in creating a new  Quorum of the Anointed)
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 05, 2019, 09:56:34 am
You keep repeating that.  There is just no evidence to support it.  Elders Quorum isn't the Endowment.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 05, 2019, 10:02:07 am
That's .... not ....oh, nevermind.

You keep trying to redefine what has been said with an inaccurate strawman version of it.  I'm not sure I've seen evidence to support that you're particularly interested in understanding what the claim actually is. So continuing discussion at this point doesn't seem productive.

If you ever do have interest reading a thorough documentary history on this subject, made up of relevant excerpts from JS's journal and other contemporary documents that provide a thorough-line in tracings its development,  check Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845: A Documentary History https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078WFQWQ7/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_WMmmCbG5ZCR9P - Kindle version is a steal for $9.99 right now.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51t7-6K1l-L._SY177_.jpg)

It came out before the JSPP, so there's even more relevant information available now, but it's a great place to start, and has it all collected in one place for convenience.

Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Roper on January 05, 2019, 10:48:58 am
I read some thoughts from others who suggested that the changes in the temple were taking away truths that we had previously had, because we were not living up to our previous covenants. They thought the same thing about the pre-1990s version, that it contained more truth than the current version.
My observation is that as wickedness becomes more widespread in the world, strong disciples of Christ become ever stronger. It follows, then, that God would reveal further light and knowledge to further strengthen His children, instead of taking away the strength we so desperately need.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 05, 2019, 11:01:05 am
There's been a big focus in Correcting Errors which have crept in, especially concerning misconceptions and errors about Modern Church History in the past decade.


I believe that having a clearer picture and understanding and utility of what actually has been given paves way for an ability to understand and appreciate and accept more.

Someone once said, "I'm not ashamed of the Gospel. It's the other stuff." - I think there's a diligent attempt to figure out what 'other stuff' has gotten mixed in through the years, and determine, with tools of history, the feedback of inspired members of the Church, and the guidance of revelation, how to untangle it. Understanding what God has or has not done in the past makes clearer what he is or is not doing now, and may or may not do in the future.

Confronting difficult answers and being willing to acknowledge them shows our strength.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 05, 2019, 11:23:13 am
That's .... not ....oh, nevermind.

You keep trying to redefine what has been said with an inaccurate strawman version of it.

That is blatantly untrue.  Why?  I used the words of the Twitter "historian" himself.

Like I said, progressive nonsense.  Are you progressive?
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 05, 2019, 12:19:16 pm
Quote
  I used the words of the Twitter "historian" himself.

Like I said, progressive nonsense.  Are you progressive?

I don't even know what your question means.
And while you took some of Park's words, and added your own to suggest he said something he didn't,  I then actually quoted them to show the difference, and then added additiinal context and clarification.

Friend, you just seem intent on dismissing ideas over a percieved... what, political ideology? (Not even one I label myself with, irrelevent as that would be to the discussion?)

 I'm not up for that. I do hope you have a good day, though.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 05, 2019, 01:06:47 pm
Quote
Absolutely.  But the endowment absolutely did not.

It absolutely did. Even if one views the first covenant as being made with a husband (even though one doesn't exist for many being endowed). ALL subsequent covenants are made with God.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 05, 2019, 01:13:34 pm
Quote
Perhaps our current understanding of gender roles is wrong.  If there is a revelation that updates our understanding, I will accept it.

And that is great for you. I am not sure I could. Thus far I can still keep a thread of faith that this is the restored Church. But if it is decided that gender is no longer eternal then that is a massive change. It's not a progression, it's a change. If two women can have Spirit Children in the eternities EVERYTHING I have ever believed is destroyed for me.

There is currently more pain that joy in the LDS Feminist groups because the changes are great but there has been no apology for the sisters' who have suffered (despite not personally knowing a single sister who has expressed such pain) over the many years.

Imagine the men who married in the temple, forsaking a man they might have loved. Or those who left the church, or were excommunicated, for giving in to same sex attraction.

I'm afraid it would be too much of a stretch for me to believe this is the Church of Christ.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Roper on January 05, 2019, 01:21:04 pm
Like I said, progressive nonsense.  Are you progressive?

Does it matter? From a recent letter from the First Presidency: "...principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of each of the various political parties." That specific principle has been stated by the First Presidency several times over the last decade. Followers of Christ, including church members throughout the world, can be found all along the political continuum from liberal to conservative.  We have on this forum a brother who describes himself as a pinko commie subversive. He is a bishop in his ward in the U.K. His wisdom and example as a disciple of Christ serves as a light to many.

There is more than enough political drama and tribalism in the world. At least on this thread about the temple, lets proceed as brothers and sisters who walk together and help each other on the path back to our Father.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 05, 2019, 01:23:05 pm
Just to be sure I am understood. I have no problem with sisters having priesthood authority - and I often teach that they do. The stake RSP, YWP and PP all have the exact same authority to act in their callings that I do in mine as SSP. Although (currently) an SSP is required to hold the priesthood, he does not function by virtue of that priesthood power - but rather the priesthood authority granted by the Stake President's priesthood Keys.

Sisters also come away from the temple Endowed with Priesthood Power.

However, the Church leaders still insist upon some strange things. For instance, the recent change that has all RS callings now being sustained in RS (with the exception of the presidency). It still requires a member of the Bishopric to go in and ask - whereas in the EQ a member of the presidency does it.

This is consistent with the policy that the sustaining vote must be asked for by the same authority that extends the call and sets the person apart. However, what would it matter if a member of the RS presidency asked for the sustaining vote? It wouldn't. So there is a way to go.

None of this however is the same as what LDS Feminists call for, which is the same priesthood, and female bishops, apostles, etc.

Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 05, 2019, 01:27:05 pm
Quote
a pinko commie subversive. He is a bishop in his ward in the U.K.

And I am practically a far right extremist and have never been a Bishop in any of my wards in the U.K.

So the Lord loves commie subversives more. Or, maybe He doesn't and that's why they have to be bishops.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Roper on January 05, 2019, 01:29:37 pm
Andrew, I'm with you on gender and temple sealings of same sex couples. In my understanding, that would require complete disavowal of the Proclamation on the Family. It would also contradict everything I know about child development. I don't think my faith could withstand that particular change.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Roper on January 05, 2019, 01:32:53 pm
Or, maybe He doesn't and that's why they have to be bishops.
Having served in bishoprics, I can relate to that sentiment.  ;)

My point was not that the Lord loves progressives (or conservatives) any more or less, but that the Lord has faithful servants of many political affiliations.

edit: My own thoughts are that the Lord doesn't much care about our politics. His kingdom is not of this world. I believe that many of our own political convictions influence the way we treat others, and the way we treat others is at the core of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 05, 2019, 01:42:20 pm
Andrew, I'm with you on gender and temple sealings of same sex couples. In my understanding, that would require complete disavowal of the Proclamation on the Family. It would also contradict everything I know about child development. I don't think my faith could withstand that particular change.

I actually don't think it would require a disavowal (because one type of marriage is ordained of God doesn't preclude another, and affirming Gender is eternal doesn't mean we fully understand gender), and think an allowance for the understanding that God found us as co-eternal intelligences and adopted us (as JS taught) opens lots of doors.

But we've been down this road here, and it's clear many don't see those as considerable. And so it goes.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 05, 2019, 01:54:42 pm

I don't even know what your question means.
And while you took some of Park's words, and added your own to suggest he said something he didn't,  I then actually quoted them to show the difference, and then added additiinal context and clarification.

Friend, you just seem intent on dismissing ideas over a percieved... what, political ideology? (Not even one I label myself with, irrelevent as that would be to the discussion?)

 I'm not up for that. I do hope you have a good day, though.

It was a fairly straightforward question.  I assume you feign ignorance because the answer is yes.  It's the most probable explanation for your false or broad statements to support something that is progressive and on its face completely false.  Nobody mentioned politics.  I'm not sure why you brought that into the discussion.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 05, 2019, 02:01:04 pm
I only understand the word 'progressive' in turns of a particular vaguely defined self-styled name claimed by some on the left-wing of the US political spectrum. I have no idea what you could mean in this context. And I already claimed I do not identify with that political label.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: cook on January 05, 2019, 02:07:02 pm
Andrew, I'm with you on gender and temple sealings of same sex couples. In my understanding, that would require complete disavowal of the Proclamation on the Family. It would also contradict everything I know about child development. I don't think my faith could withstand that particular change.

And if one have attended the temple this week, I think it is quite clear that we are not going towards that.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 05, 2019, 02:16:55 pm
Quote
And if one have attended the temple this week

I wish I could have, but time did not allow. And now our temple is closed for 2 weeks shutdown. So, unless I go to the London temple, which I probably won't, it will be a little while.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 05, 2019, 02:25:44 pm
Quote
And if one have attended the temple this week, I think it is quite clear that we are not going towards that.

I actually think this is probably the least surprising of all that has happened.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Roper on January 05, 2019, 03:49:53 pm
I assume you feign ignorance because the answer is yes.  It's the most probable explanation for your false or broad statements to support something that is progressive and on its face completely false. 

Grunt, you're new here. I'm going to ask you to please dial down the accusations. We don't accuse each other of feigning anything. We don't accuse forum members of making false statements. We all participate here in good faith. I don't agree with Taalcon's interpretation of everything, but I know him to be an intellectually honest brother and a sincere disciple of Christ. We extend the same trust to you. Assuming dishonesty in another member of this forum erodes that trust.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Roper on January 05, 2019, 04:08:38 pm
I actually don't think it would require a disavowal (because one type of marriage is ordained of God doesn't preclude another, and affirming Gender is eternal doesn't mean we fully understand gender), and think an allowance for the understanding that God found us as co-eternal intelligences and adopted us (as JS taught) opens lots of doors.

But we've been down this road here, and it's clear many don't see those as considerable. And so it goes.
Fair enough. I imagine there's the possibility of someone having an eternal gender but receiving a physical body with a different gender; although, I'm not convinced that actually happens. I imagine there's the possibility of some kind of same sex marriage ordained by God which would not preclude or lessen Celestial Marriage as we know it. However, I really don't see a way around the declaration, "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." Maybe same-gender couples could be divinely sealed but would be childless throughout eternity. That seems extremely speculative, however, and doesn't fit with my understanding of Heavenly Father's plan.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 05, 2019, 04:47:46 pm
I assume you feign ignorance because the answer is yes.  It's the most probable explanation for your false or broad statements to support something that is progressive and on its face completely false. 

Grunt, you're new here. I'm going to ask you to please dial down the accusations. We don't accuse each other of feigning anything. We don't accuse forum members of making false statements. We all participate here in good faith. I don't agree with Taalcon's interpretation of everything, but I know him to be an intellectually honest brother and a sincere disciple of Christ. We extend the same trust to you. Assuming dishonesty in another member of this forum erodes that trust.

Point made and apology presented without explanation.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: dyany on January 05, 2019, 06:10:50 pm
I like the way JLM put things, though there are parts I don't agree with.  But I will say what I have said for a while: we see through a glass darkly.  There are many things which we consider so basic to HUMAN understanding (not just gospel) that it taints our perceptions and interpretations of many things, so God withholds or allows some teachings to be slightly altered to deal with our current weaknesses (as mentioned in the scripture in Matthew which I cited on the 1st page). 

Title: Re: Temple
Post by: JLM on January 05, 2019, 11:24:36 pm
Quote
I'm with you on gender and temple sealings of same sex couples. In my understanding, that would require complete disavowal of the Proclamation on the Family. It would also contradict everything I know about child development. I don't think my faith could withstand that particular change. 

Yet, Joseph Smith originally taught a heaven/hell afterlife until universalists made him question that truth, opening the door for the 3 degrees revelation.  Polygomy was taught as essential to exaltation, but is now considered something only a small number of saints once participated in.  It was once doctrinal that a woman could only access God through her husband.  Not anymore.  The Church is still in restoration and eternal truths are still being revealed.  I don't rule out any possibilities, including a major revision to the proclamation on the family.  Line upon line is still actice.  The only constant is change.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Jason on January 06, 2019, 12:28:57 am
The continual revelations makes the semi annual general conferences more fun, especially our speculations.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 06, 2019, 10:09:13 am
Quote
It was once doctrinal that a woman could only access God through her husband.

I keep reading this, but I confess 50 years in the church I have NEVER heard anything like this being taught. I have been taught that it happens together.

So, please, apart from misunderstanding, where can I read this being taught. And if it was true, why did women bother to pray?
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Palmon on January 06, 2019, 04:43:34 pm
I never heard it either. Ever.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 07, 2019, 02:53:46 pm
A few points and context to take into consideration in all of this, is that it's important to take a step back and recognize that it is only relatively recently in Church history that young single women (not presently engaged) were beginning to be a much larger balance of the Church population of those permitted to receive their Temple ordinances. You either received it when you served a mission, or when you were engaged. As late as the 60s, women had to be 23 to be eligible (for a mission), and, especially considering the size of the total Church membership,  relatively very few sisters went. The age only changed to 21 later than that.  It was only after 1981 that the percentage of the breakdown of missionaries serving in the field being sisters made it to 20%.

In fact, even afterwards, mature women who were married - but to nonmembers - were still specifically excluded from allowance to make their covenants (until 1986!). There was even a period where women who were endowed, and remarried to a non-member could not have their recommends renewed(!).

The long-standing presentation of the ceremony pre-1990 assumed such policies and culture in place, so the premise of sisters covenanting to a non-existent husband (that you bring up often, Andrew) would have been the minority, and not encountered all that much by your regular Church leader. They would have been the 'put it on the shelf' minority. It followed with the direction in place in the early part of the 20th century, where Bishops were instructed that women were not permitted to receive their endowment unless they had a prospective perspective husband had already received his!

It was a far more pressing question when we have had bursts of teenage single sisters going for missions, as well as the recent counsel that a mission nor marriage is considered a pre-requisite for an adult woman to seek her Temple ordinances.

Because the expectation had changed, the pov of many more people experiencing those ordinances have also changed, making the question (always relevant) more PRESENT and VISIBLE than it ever had been.
(http://www.fullerconsideration.com/images/rev6_Figure2_Missionaries.png)

These are all things to consider when thinking about the relevance of these changes, and the culture and policies and expectations (and implications therein) that surrounded them. It's not uncomplicated, and not also without mixed messages.

With the size of Church membership being much larger than it was decades ago, PLUS the percentage of Sisters eligible for Temple Recommends skyrocketing up, PLUS the wider availability of temples in general, PLUS the wider availability of platforms for concerns and questions being made known  - I'm sure the volume of unresolved questions and concerns was louder than it had ever been before.

While, as has been noted, on their own, this issue and the issue of the Priesthood/Temple restriction with those of Black African Descent are very different, I really do believe that the escalating and weight of the issue presented leading to conclusions made by the President of the Church and calling for a revelation to ratify a studied conclusion followed a very similar trajectory.

For the record, I DO think the statement made above that it was taught women could only access God through their husbands is overly broad, and inaccurate.

BUT the idea that a woman had no reason to seek and obtain further Covenants with God without a Husband there to take them through (hence, the phrase I've heard often since becoming lds, "Sisters, find a worthy man to take you through the Temple", without ever hearing the flipside, "Brothers, find a worthy sister to take you to the Temple") DOES have substantial weight in history, policy, and culture. And the history of the text and presentation of the Temple ordinances themselves would have absolutely supported, if not explicitly prompted those ideas.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Jen on January 07, 2019, 03:09:01 pm
Incidentally, I received my Endowment 21 years ago on my 19th birthday, with no mission or prospective husband in sight.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 07, 2019, 03:15:13 pm
A few points and context to take into consideration in all of this, is that it's important to take a step back and recognize that it is only relatively recently in Church history that young single women (not presently engaged) were beginning to be a much larger balance of the Church population of those permitted to receive their Temple ordinances. You either received it when you served a mission, or when you were engaged. As late as the 60s, women had to be 23 to be eligible (for a mission), and, especially considering the size of the total Church membership,  relatively very few sisters went. The age only changed to 21 later than that.  It was only after 1981 that the percentage of the breakdown of missionaries serving in the field being sisters made it to 20%.

In fact, even afterwards, mature women who were married - but to nonmembers - were still specifically excluded from allowance to make their covenants (until 1986!). There was even a period where women who were endowed, and remarried to a non-member could not have their recommends renewed(!).

The long-standing presentation of the ceremony pre-1990 assumed such policies and culture in place, so the premise of sisters covenanting to a non-existent husband (that you bring up often, Andrew) would have been the minority, and not encountered all that much by your regular Church leader. They would have been the 'put it on the shelf' minority. It followed with the direction in place in the early part of the 20th century, where Bishops were instructed that women were not permitted to receive their endowment unless they had a prospective perspective husband had already received his!

It was a far more pressing question when we have had bursts of teenage single sisters going for missions, as well as the recent counsel that a mission nor marriage is considered a pre-requisite for an adult woman to seek her Temple ordinances.

Because the expectation had changed, the pov of many more people experiencing those ordinances have also changed, making the question (always relevant) more PRESENT and VISIBLE than it ever had been.
(http://www.fullerconsideration.com/images/rev6_Figure2_Missionaries.png)

These are all things to consider when thinking about the relevance of these changes, and the culture and policies and expectations (and implications therein) that surrounded them. It's not uncomplicated, and not also without mixed messages.

With the size of Church membership being much larger than it was decades ago, PLUS the percentage of Sisters eligible for Temple Recommends skyrocketing up, PLUS the wider availability of temples in general, PLUS the wider availability of platforms for concerns and questions being made known  - I'm sure the volume of unresolved questions and concerns was louder than it had ever been before.

While, as has been noted, on their own, this issue and the issue of the Priesthood/Temple restriction with those of Black African Descent are very different, I really do believe that the escalating and weight of the issue presented leading to conclusions made by the President of the Church and calling for a revelation to ratify a studied conclusion followed a very similar trajectory.

For the record, I DO think the statement made above that it was taught women could only access God through their husbands is overly broad, and inaccurate.

BUT the idea that a woman had no reason to seek and obtain further Covenants with God without a Husband there to take them through (hence, the phrase I've heard often since becoming lds, "Sisters, find a worthy man to take you through the Temple", without ever hearing the flipside, "Brothers, find a worthy sister to take you to the Temple") DOES have substantial weight in history, policy, and culture. And the history of the text and presentation of the Temple ordinances themselves would have absolutely supported, if not explicitly prompted those ideas.

Your entire premise is that the temple ordinances are shaped by society and culture, not Heavenly Father.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 07, 2019, 03:16:29 pm
Incidentally, I received my Endowment 21 years ago on my 19th birthday, with no mission or prospective husband in sight.

Wise leaders were clearly inspired to go against the general written policy for you :)
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 07, 2019, 03:20:39 pm
Your entire premise is that the temple ordinances are shaped by society and culture, not Heavenly Father.

My premise is that we're more likely to get answers to questions that are weighing upon our leaders' minds, and that people are prompted to ask about. And that, as President Nelson has said, "Good information leads to good inspiration."

There are many wrong facts that I believed growing up that I never had a reason to question until I was confronted with an experience that made that fact not make sense. I don't believe I'm alone in this experience.

And I also believe history shows that not all new revelation comes out in its final form, fully explained at once. God often allows us to fill in gaps ourselves, and sometimes we do better job than at others. And it can sometimes be a while before we're willing to humble ourselves to question our own part of the work, and let God step in to fix it.

"Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"  - Elder Uchtdorf.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Iggy on January 07, 2019, 03:23:25 pm
My two single sisters received their endowment 32 years ago with no mission or husband in sight for either of them.
Taalcon, could you please link to where you got that information. Thanks.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 07, 2019, 03:50:51 pm
My two single sisters received their endowment 32 years ago with no mission or husband in sight for either of them.
Taalcon, could you please link to where you got that information. Thanks.

In 2002, there was a letter by President Hinckley that reinforced the policy, and it was a part of the Handbook. It's hard to find a linkable copy (I have it referenced in papers and books of scholarship).

The direct language of that is, however, quoted in this Liahona article here (https://www.lds.org/liahona/2010/10/commonly-asked-questions?lang=eng).

Quote
"Single members in their late teens or early twenties who have not received a mission call and are not engaged to be married in the temple are generally not recommended to receive their own endowment."

I know this was in play (for men and women at this point), because, in my mid 20s, and a convert, my Bishop held out on permitting me to receive my endowment until I had submitted papers, or gotten engaged. He read the above from the handbook. I was a college-convert. In debt. A mission didn't seem at all possible, and I was definitely not getting married. He held VERY strictly to the guidelines, and read them to me many times.

Long story short, my circumstances were unique. Within a year I was miraculously engaged AND with a Mission call, AND the woman I was engaged with had felt called to serve a mission as well. We served, and then we got married. Happily Ever After.

BUT ... I realized with my experience, I was an outlier - most LDS Mormon men went on Missions at 19, because it was Their Duty. I was in my twenties before I was baptized. I had not planned for a Mission. Marriage was not then a top priority (Getting out of debt was!). But I wanted deeply to have my Temple Covenants. I came to understand my experience was most similar to women of my age who had not felt prompted (or necessarily encouraged) to serve a mission, and for whom marriage did not seem to be in the immediate cards. I honestly felt trapped. Yes, it worked out for me. But I know how my story ended is not how the story ends with everyone.

Anyway, with reference to those decades older experiences, I have reference to the 1983 edition of the General Handbook of Instructions, which includes these guidelines:

Quote
"A worthy man whose wife is not endowed may receive a temple recommend for his own endowment.
A wife whose husband is not endowed may not receive a recommend for her own endowment."
Quote
Young, single adults normally receive their temple endowments when they are called to serve full-time missions or when they are to be married in the temple. The temple endowment includes sacred covenants that the member is obligated to observe throughout life.  Those who go to the temple should be both worthy and mature enough to keep these covenants by righteous living, though unmarried.  Single members who are qualified by worthiness and maturity may receive a recommend for their own endowments. Generally, such unmarried members could be recommended when they become established in their vocations and professions, and want to be strengthened further in righteous living."

- it looks like the 2002 update added the specific language about generally excluding those in 'late teens early twenties'. (That's where the Bishop got me!)

This 1983 version itself was a relaxed form of the earlier policy, from the 1976 Handbook, which read:
Quote
"Young unmarried male or female members should not be recommended by Church leaders to obtain their endowments unless they are to be married in the temple or until they have received their mission call in a letter from the First Presidency."

There's a ton of these official letters and quotes from other official sources in the book "Development of LDS Temple Worship: 1846 - 2000, A Documentary History" (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560852119?pf_rd_p=c2945051-950f-485c-b4df-15aac5223b10&pf_rd_r=JZ0FMMKK9C4EM38RK95J). (It only includes such documents and correspondence as relates to policies, and specifically, out of respect, does NOT include the text or a description of the ordinances themselves, FWIW.)
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: JLM on January 07, 2019, 04:40:58 pm
Perhaps my statement regarding gender hierarchy was a scosh overbroad, but the. old temple language strongly implied such teaching.  Whe. my oldest met with the temple president before his own endowment, the TP talked about how when he got married, he would be able learn his fiance's new name, but not vice versa explaining that he would learn about "the order of things" in the session.  I had to explain to my son that I did not agree with what the TP implied to my son and felt that certain details of the temple ceremonies were in error or incomplete.

So while the gender order thing hasn't been explicitly taught in public for many decades, many members held such belief based on the plain meaning of the language of the temple rituals.

In any case, the Church and everything associated with it has been and will continue to be a work in progress.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 07, 2019, 04:47:38 pm
I had to explain to my son that I did not agree with what the TP implied to my son and felt that certain details of the temple ceremonies were in error or incomplete.


Annnnnnd on that note......
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: JLM on January 07, 2019, 05:00:28 pm
What else should I think?  The gender inequalities in the temple were in direct conflict with the the most teachings by the Q15 regarding spousal relationships, and in direct conflict with ny sense of right and wrong, my light of Christ you might say.  It never sat well with me that husband and wife covenants to each other weren't equal and reciprocal.  These revealed changes largely correct the previous errors of men.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 07, 2019, 05:16:14 pm
These revealed changes largely correct the previous errors of men.

Where was that put out?
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Iggy on January 07, 2019, 08:03:21 pm
What else should I think?  The gender inequalities in the temple were in direct conflict with the the most teachings by the Q15 regarding spousal relationships, and in direct conflict with ny sense of right and wrong, my light of Christ you might say.  It never sat well with me that husband and wife covenants to each other weren't equal and reciprocal.  These revealed changes largely correct the previous errors of men.
Ya got a big mouth - revealed way too much already.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Roper on January 07, 2019, 10:08:48 pm
The temple ceremony has continually evolved. Washings and annointings changed significantly a few years back. Specific penalties were eliminated from the endwoment before that. My mother tells of a time when they used to sing a hymn at a certain place in the presentation of the endowment. My grandmother told of garments that went to the wrists and ankles. I expect it will continue to evolve as time progresses.  I don't think I would characterize past temple practices "wrong." Maybe a better way to understand is that they were appropriate for the light and knowledge at the time. We have received additional light and knowledge, and it's appropriate our most sacred forms of worship reflect that. I hope that future generations will look back at the way we currently do things and be merciful, knowing that we did the best with what we had.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: cook on January 07, 2019, 11:25:39 pm
Talcoon, with the 'rules of the temple', in most I think you missed the vital 'late teens, early twenties'. It has not been about not allowing single people, just vety young of them.

When I was preparing to go on a mission, I struggled a bit because I left right before I turned 22. Up until then it had been that without mission or marriage you'd have to be 21 to get ypur endowments. It was juzt raised 23. And my bishop wanted to obey that, even if there was the word generally. Why was it hard? Because I had just associated with a group of young Utahns in Russia, where most of the girls, 18 and 19 had received their endowments - to be a protection in the scary world now that they travelled. Heard it was vety common. And most of those girls had no idea about what they'd done, the covenant keeping wasn't the best. I think there is a point in not doing the covenants too early (generally), when you're not going on a mission or getting married, which we kind of get you more rooted in the gospel. The latter not necessarily, or less so than the mission, but can't have a sealing without the endowment.

I'm not sure about the married sisters never getting their recommends renewed if married to a non member. I was too young to remember them talk about it 86, but I think I've heard stories about it being ok if the nonmember husband gave a permission. (Another issue itself of course)

But at least in the 90' single members certainly could get their endowments without mission or marriage. Some if us just faced bishops who wanted to be on the very safe side considering the phrase young.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: JLM on January 07, 2019, 11:44:56 pm
So I share my personal feelings and experience on a matter and I get two personal attacks.  Nice. 
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Jacaré on January 08, 2019, 12:02:08 am
I, for one, appreciate your insights, JLM.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 08, 2019, 04:15:08 am
Quote
BUT the idea that a woman had no reason to seek and obtain further Covenants with God without a Husband there to take them through (hence, the phrase I've heard often since becoming lds, "Sisters, find a worthy man to take you through the Temple", without ever hearing the flipside, "Brothers, find a worthy sister to take you to the Temple") DOES have substantial weight in history, policy, and culture. And the history of the text and presentation of the Temple ordinances themselves would have absolutely supported, if not explicitly prompted those ideas.

However, the onus to get a spouse has always been, and in part continues to be, on the man. I lived through the period when a woman was not able to receive her endowment. It started to change about 32 years ago. And I am sure that precipitated the 1990 change. The thinking was, and it is correct really, that the endowment is not of any benefit unless one is sealed. The blessings of the endowment are accessed through the sealing - eternal life.

There are, of course, other reasons for receiving the endowment, and so the change took place.

These are all policies, not doctrine. At present a person in high school can not receive their endowment, even with a mission call. But if they did, it would still be valid.

I still maintain that nothing that has happened has changed doctrine (in the accepted LDS sense).
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR_admin on January 08, 2019, 04:27:03 am
I just feel the need to step in here with my other moniker.

As an admin here, and as a Temple Ordinance worker of 25 years, and as a priesthood leader of 30+ years, and as someone who has taught temple preparation for almost that entire time.

I do not believe that anyone has overstepped the mark on what may be discussed in terms of the sacred nature of the endowment. No specific wording, no signs, tokens or names.

For me, or at least the real Andrew R., being able to discuss these matters with different people that I have come to respect as much as, and possibly more than, the members of my own ward, is of great worth in my spiritual journey. Be assured that if someone does overstep one of the Admins will take steps.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 08, 2019, 07:03:57 am
So I share my personal feelings and experience on a matter and I get two personal attacks.  Nice.


Not a personal attack at all, sorry if you took it that way.  I was surprised you taught your children that the Church was wrong.  I then asked you to provide information that supports a statement you made.  I don't know much about anything, so when something is new to me and/or goes against something I believe I like to see the source so I can study it myself.   After all, that's how we convert.  Can you provide it?
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 08, 2019, 07:45:29 am
Quote
The thinking was, and it is correct really, that the endowment is not of any benefit unless one is sealed. The blessings of the endowment are accessed through the sealing - eternal life.

Here's a key point where we may differ. I think each ordinance/covenant has a practical benefit for us here apart from whatever it might mean after we die. I don't even necessarily mean in a metaphysical way. Covenants as anchor points in our lives and as catalysts for revelation absolutely serve a benefit.

I actually have pondered that the ability to perform vicarious ordinances is more about asking us to act in charity and forgiveness and mercy, and those departed witnessing and recieving acts of charity (forgiveness?) towards them that has the most eternal significance.

In ancient Israel, the Israelites only had benefit of whatever Temple Ordinances were available to them as they were performed by the High Priest vicariously performing it for the nation, literally taking the names of the Tribes with him. Everyone in Israel needed to humble themselves to accept vicarious work on their behalf. Vicarious work isn't what's new, the subject of the vicarious work (the dead) and the participants in it (you and me!) is.

For me, in the Temple, men AND women take on the duties of the ancient Israelite High Priest , who himself we can see as representing the Savior. We all go to the Temple to reinact the Life of Christ (in many particulars), and learn in the process to extend mercy  to all - even those who may not have accepted it yet.

After all, Christ has already 'done the work' for all of us, we just need to learn to accept it. I think serving in the Temple helps this perpective.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 08, 2019, 08:50:33 am
Quote
Here's a key point where we may differ.

We don't differ. I was saying what was the prevailing thinking. "No point taking on yourself covenants that without the sealing are not going to get you anywhere."

It is/was flawed as it didn't allow sisters who were not married, or married out of the covenant, to progress at all. To bind themselves more fully to Christ, to become Saviours on Mount Zion, to have the power that the endowment gives. So the policy has changed.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: dyany on January 08, 2019, 09:29:01 pm
I received my endowments at age 23, in late 1993, with no marriage or mission in sight, either.  I know that this was a RECENT CHANGE in policy at the time, both because I had looked into it before (and been told NO because I was not going on a mission nor engaged), AND because the bishop who suggested this told me the policy had RECENTLY CHANGED.  There was some dithering over the next few years, with women being allowed to get them for a time and then not (w/o mission/marriage prep), then allowed to again.  Whether or not you were allowed to do so depended on what window of time you tried to do it as well as how strictly your priesthood leader adhered to the policy.

We know from Christ's own words in Matthew 19 that there are aspects of the law (small L) through Moses that were not completely doctrinal, but were allowed to be adjusted because of the hardness of people's hearts.  Yet throughout the scriptures, the Lord repeatedly says listen to Moses, do what he told you, follow the law he gave you.  I feel there are a lot of reasons for this, none of which violate what I know about the Lord. 
1. If our hearts are hard, the Lord won't give us as much.  Not just because we are not worthy of it, but also (possibly more) because it would hold us accountable for things we don't have the capability of properly keeping.
2. The Lord speaks to man in his own language.  This doesn't just mean the words used, but the understanding that comes from culture and society as well.  There are things we are not currently capable of understanding because it is so vastly different from how we see the world on a very basic level.  The Lord doesn't fault us for that, he works with us where we are and helps us move forward as we are ready.
3. Sometimes, extra rules are there not because of the core rule, but because of our unwillingness to understand or work with a rule to meet the end goal.  For a real-world example, while working with an intellectually disabled client today, she asked me why they didn't allow food in the library, and said she thought it was a stupid rule.  I explained that the reason for the rule wasn't as much that food in the library was inherently bad, but that the library's primary role was to provide books and resources for the public, and food, when misused, could both cause problems with the primary role (by damaging books or equipment), and distract/take resources from the primary role (by requiring extra work to clean up after sloppy patrons and possibly pest control for food waste). 

Did I think that the endowments as they stood were wrong and evil?  No, even though they made me sad in my situation.  Can I understand and sympathize with those who never saw a problem with them?  Yes, especially because I saw them that way myself for a number of years.  Do I feel that the endowment ceremony as it stands now is 100% without error?  I can't answer that yes or no, because I feel it's far less concrete of a thing than many of us believe.  I do know that I am more comfortable with the changes.  But there may be others who still struggle with other aspects...and that may be indicative of a need for them to align a little better, or the ceremony details to align a little better; I don't know.  I am not in a position to judge that at all, either way.

All I know is that I believe that the church, because it is living, grows line upon line and precept upon precept and more perfect with effort, just like we do.  Because, while it's led by the Lord, it is made up of people.  And we are neither perfect nor ready for complete perfection, and that's why the Lord has the long, complicated process of life set up, rather than a 90 minute oral exam.  If there's stuff I don't understand now, I work on understanding.  Lots of understanding comes from obeying until you understand (it is through the doing that we learn most). Sometimes what we come to understand is that certain procedures may not be perfect, but we work to obey as our conscience allows and learn anyway.  I have found that if I am patient, diligent, careful, and as obedient as I can be, that one of 2 things usually happens: either I come to understand the reason behind the uncomfortable rule, or the uncomfortable rule is changed.  In this case, it was the latter.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Roper on January 08, 2019, 10:25:10 pm
Joseph Smith taught, "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." While that foundation remains constant, I expect all the appendages will change to continue to anchor people to the foundation.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: JLM on January 08, 2019, 11:03:29 pm
Thank you for your comments, Dyany.  I like your perspective.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Jana at Jade House on January 09, 2019, 09:47:40 am
Just to add my individual experience.  I became a member as a divorced mother of two at 26.  It was not until I was 40 that temple attendance in any form was encouraged for me.  There were various explanations why, and I myself felt unworthy to be endowed so it was not a priority.  My endowment present from God was my beloved companion. I firmly believe that. Who knows if we will ever be sealed.  Until Dyany put it into words, the access and obedience issue was not on my mind, but now as I think of it the phrase priestess to your husband probably bothered me a bit, but only because Himself is stiffnecked and inflexible....even though a sterling person in every other way.  I grieve that sealed people have not been completely satisfied with the covenant language.  Because I have never been sealed to a spouse, I possibly was oblivious.  The longer I live the more I know I do not know.  I expect to attend in March with the Crow family for our annual visit.  I think hearing the changes in English first will be helpful.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 09, 2019, 03:17:35 pm
So I found this interestingly relevant quote from what happens to be the diary of one of my wife's ancestors:

"Prest Snow informed me he had not been able to obtain information why women were required to vail their faces when at prayer in the Temple." - Samuel W. Richards diary, Sept 12 1894

It's somewhat amazing to me with all the descriptions and explanations given to so many other details at the time, the leadership of the Church - including those of the First Generation who would have been with Joseph and Brigham Young - did not even have an explanation of why this was being done while still in the 19th Century.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Grunt on January 09, 2019, 05:23:08 pm
So I found this interestingly relevant quote from what happens to be the diary of one of my wife's ancestors:

"Prest Snow informed me he had not been able to obtain information why women were required to vail their faces when at prayer in the Temple." - Samuel W. Richards diary, Sept 12 1894

It's somewhat amazing to me with all the descriptions and explanations given to so many other details at the time, the leadership of the Church - including those of the First Generation who would have been with Joseph and Brigham Young - did not even have an explanation of why this was being done while still in the 19th Century.

Why is that amazing?  There are numerous things that haven't been revealed to us.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: GoodyScrivener on January 09, 2019, 05:41:39 pm
My two single sisters received their endowment 32 years ago with no mission or husband in sight for either of them.
Taalcon, could you please link to where you got that information. Thanks.

Replying without catching up to the thread.

As recently as three years ago, my daughter was being told no recommend without mission or marriage. In Rexburg.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Iggy on January 09, 2019, 07:45:09 pm
My two single sisters received their endowment 32 years ago with no mission or husband in sight for either of them.
Taalcon, could you please link to where you got that information. Thanks.

Replying without catching up to the thread.

As recently as three years ago, my daughter was being told no recommend without mission or marriage. In Rexburg.
Different Bishops/Branch Presidents and Stake Presidents, different mind sets.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 16, 2019, 04:50:06 pm
Just got back from the Temple.

Yeah, go check it out. The opening FP introduction leaves no confusion for the reason and intent behind the revisions.

It was a very uplifting experience, and was heightened by listening so intently for the many subtle (and not so subtle) changes in wording all throughout. Definitely gave me some new things to think about.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Jacaré on January 16, 2019, 11:41:36 pm
I understand the endowment ceremony has been significantly shortened. Do I understand correctly?
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: cook on January 17, 2019, 12:24:18 am
I think it's about back to what it used to be before the longered version. Didn't time it specifically, but got home about the same time as before the new versions. Of course there are variations in did we start on time and how many people there. But yes, shorter than the longer versions.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on January 17, 2019, 07:47:09 am
Only robing once will decrease the time by a few minutes.

Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 17, 2019, 09:19:51 am
One more thing: I came away very happy for non-English speakers, because the new format allows them to have the EXACT same experience English speakers have, and not have to deal with mismatched lips and words.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: cook on January 17, 2019, 10:18:05 am
It's never the exactly same experience because the words have different meanings and feelings attached to them in different languages, no matter how well they are translated. And in most countries where things are dubbed, people are used to that. (We use subtitles in tv and movies)

But guess what. It's actually better (that neanings nay differ) because it helps one understand that the understanding doesn't come from the words and analyzing them, but from the Holy Ghost.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on January 17, 2019, 11:11:45 am
That's always going to be true, and its true to each individual within a given language (even English) to a degree.

Along those lines, one thing that was apparent to me - a little bit of the wording in the English version was adjusted not as much to change intended meaning, but to make it easier to more clearly and consistently translate the idiom. It's clear international accessibility has been a big concern in recent versions of the presentation, and I believe this next iteration (aside from the substantial teaching elements adjusted) really pushes forward in this regard.

An individual who works in the Church translation department (and specifically worked on localization of the new endowment presentation) has said that when they translate, they historically are free to try to maintain, as much as possible, any ambiguity in the English to the target language. That there were only a few key areas where very specific direction and meaning were asked to be maintained.

That said, there were several places where new language was added to more firmly clarify a common idea that had previously left some ambiguity, and in other areas to clearly correct ideas that no longer are seen as correct.

There's quite a bit to take in when considering the many adjustments that were made, throughout several of the ordinances in the Temple, and how they relate.
Apart from the Well Publicized Ones, there are some others that were surprising/curious to me that I'm still processing.

If there's going to be substantial readjustments in the paradigm of Church teaching, I can't think of a better place for it to be manifest and internalized than in the Temple. I expect as soon as these are processed and become seen as standard and not 'new', we'll be pushed forward again with new adjustments in Temple teachings to ponder.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: beefche on February 02, 2019, 03:37:51 pm
I was finally able to attend an endowment session. I'm curious, the introduction in the beginning by the First Presidency, was there something similar when the new endowment films were introduced (sometime in the 1990's I think)?
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on February 04, 2019, 12:56:20 pm
Because it was relevant to something brought up before, this is a cool new essay up on lds.org on the topic of Masonry (https://www.lds.org/study/history/topics/masonry?lang=eng). Relevence to the discussion of the development of the Temple.

The whole essay is good, but I like the concluding paragraph:
Quote
There are different ways of understanding the relationship between Masonry and the temple. Some Latter-day Saints point to similarities between the format and symbols of both the endowment and Masonic rituals and those of many ancient religious ceremonies as evidence that the endowment was a restoration of an ancient ordinance. Others note that the ideas and institutions in the culture that surrounded Joseph Smith frequently contributed to the process by which he obtained revelation. In any event, the endowment did not simply imitate the rituals of Freemasonry. Rather, Joseph’s encounter with Masonry evidently served as a catalyst for revelation. The Lord restored the temple ordinances through Joseph Smith to teach profound truths about the plan of salvation and introduce covenants that would allow God’s children to enter His presence.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Redd on February 08, 2019, 05:34:30 pm
I want to go on record as saying that I truly and deeply hated the new movies. Between the acting , the voices and some of the set designs I just  cringed and grit my teeth when I went through them. That being said I also want to State emphatically that I love this new format. I think they actually fixed some of the voice overs to make the characters sound better.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Roper on February 09, 2019, 03:01:57 pm
Went this morning for the first time since the recent changes.  Here are my impressions.

Video: The illustrations and photos during the creation narrative are stunning. The transitions beautifully portray spiritual and physical creation. I really like the use of still photography vs. video for the garden narrative. For me, it helps to moves the focus from drama to symbolism. Plus, I imagine it makes localization for a hundred languages much easier.

Audio: Loved the music. Language has become much more inclusive and will be easier to standardize across translations. The inclusion of Moses 5 is absolutely inspired and indescribably moving at the end of the narrative.

Probably because of recent deaths in my extended family, I had an overwhelming impression, almost a vision, of God's children returning home when the company headed to the veil.

I love the changes.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on February 09, 2019, 05:03:23 pm
The nerdy side of me was also very happy to hear it finally properly pronounced Elo-heem :)
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: cook on February 10, 2019, 12:36:44 am
Roper, don't you think you were a bit too specific in describing when the ask in the beginning the changes not to be discussed?
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Roper on February 10, 2019, 01:15:59 am
Cook, I suspect you're referring to my examples of specific words. While I don't feel I have revealed anything I have covenanted not to reveal, I have removed them.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: AndrewR on March 01, 2019, 04:49:27 am
I hate when this happens. I didn't read this thread quick enough, and am left wondering what Roper wrote that I missed.  :-\
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on March 01, 2019, 03:55:13 pm
More new Temple policy changes. (https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/03/01/women-with-minor-children-can-now-serve-as-temple-ordinance-workers/)

Women with young dependents are now permitted to be ordinance workers.

Title: Re: Temple
Post by: cook on March 02, 2019, 01:19:17 am
It's interesting always to hear about these changes when they have been the norm in some parts of the world. With a permission. Here in Finland we have always had slso young mothers serving as ordinance workers. When the temple was opened, we were also asked. We told no. DH was at the time a bishop, and we had three children, oldest had just turned 4, youngest was about 8 months. The main reason for no though was that with that limited time, when we did go to the temple, I wanted to do the ordinances on behalf of my own andectors.

The temple would not operate if also mothers of young children would not be allowed to serve in all capacities. Same with men, no chance of calling someone to do just one thing, once called, you do everything (except sealings of course).

Glad they've seen it as a good system.
Title: Re: Temple
Post by: Taalcon on March 07, 2019, 11:12:53 am
Really well done tour of the Rome Italy Temple that will serve as a general instruction and explanation of Temples:
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/virtual-tour-rome-italy-temple