The long rumored temple changes are happening now?

[Not Buying It]

I've had this argument with my husband several times in the past: I've claimed that the temple has changed many times. I've told him to ask his parents. He won't do it. This will make for some interesting conversations moving forward.

I really hate how the TBM answer they give to all this is "continuing revelation" or "the church changes for our times."

These are completely unsatisfactory responses, because they completely ignore the question of why a Church led by revelation straight from God always makes changes after society does, rather than before. Yeah parts of the temple ceremony were sexist - and God should have realized that when he "revealed" them in the first place, he shouldn't have needed 150 years of societal change to help him figure out those parts needed to be revised. For a Church that prides itself on not following worldly trends, it's telling that it needs feedback from the world to let it know it is doing something wrong.

It's ironic, but what believing members see as continuing revelation merely demonstrates there was no revelation in the first place.

[Palerider]

Why the hell would I want to worship a God who can't ever seem to get anything right the first time?

Especially since the major selling point for joining the LDS church was this:

"WE HAVE A DIRECT LINE TO GOD. We've restored the simple truths and the uncorrupted Gospel. We've got this nailed. No more confusion."

Who would have guessed that the church would use (abuse?) the "we believe that He (God) will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." clause of the 9th Article of Faith to go backwards and fix all the false doctrine and screwed up crap that was taught earlier?

This isn't "advancing" the church. It's an attempt at retrofitting and trying to dig themselves out of a deep, nasty hole.

As the saying goes, wouldn't it be better to just stop digging? To those who have stopped drinking the koolaid it's embarrassing....

[Palerider]

Church statement on temple changes:

"Whenever the Lord has had a people on the earth who will obey His word, they have been commanded to build temples."

The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome in 70 a.d.

I wonder why the existing Christian church wasn't commanded to build another, smaller temple somewhere else?

Was it because they knew there was only to be one temple in the world and Jerusalem was to be it's place?

Why didn't the obedient Jews in Babylon build a small temple there instead of waiting for the return to Jerusalem? Was it because there is only supposed to be one temple of God and that Jerusalem was where He had promised it should be established?

In Solomon's dedicatory prayer over the first temple, he prophesies that when Israel is led or driven to the ends of the Earth, no matter how far they are scattered, even to the isles of the sea, they will always turn and pray towards the temple in Jerusalem. They will always want to return there, for that place and only that place is their promised land. So what does that tell us about the supposed Lehite/Israelites who sailed to America? Why would they build temples against the prophecies of the Old Testament on the brass plates? Why would God go against his own word that all Israelites would return to Jerusalem, their true promised land and tell the "Nephites" that America was their promised land?

What does this all tell us about the Mormon's penchant for building temples all over the place and their Masonic based ordinances?

Edited for grammar.

[Kishkumen]

One other morsel of food for thought.

This is a major update to the temple endowment. The last time there was a major update was 1990. A few years ago, the movies were updated with new actors and voice/tone inflexion, but there was no change to the actual wording and process.

So if you didn't get the changes/corrections/updates you were hoping for this time around, it will likely be a long time (30+/- years) before another overhaul.

I suspect the only changes at this point are the endowment. The sealing, initiatory, proxy baptism, etc likely weren't updated in this round.

I'm not sure who is copying who - but it seems Apple and LD$ use the same playbook. Minor incremental updates semi-frequently with major updates every few years. Moderation in all things, including progress.

[Anon70]

These are completely unsatisfactory responses, because they completely ignore the question of why a Church led by revelation straight from God always makes changes after society does, rather than before. Yeah parts of the temple ceremony were sexist - and God should have realized that when he "revealed" them in the first place, he shouldn't have needed 150 years of societal change to help him figure out those parts needed to be revised. For a Church that prides itself on not following worldly trends, it's telling that it needs feedback from the world to let it know it is doing something wrong.

It's ironic, but what believing members see as continuing revelation merely demonstrates there was no revelation in the first place.

This! And the blame on the members for “not being ready for it”. Lots of gaslighting going on about this stuff as well.

My dear friend said “well if women heard those old covenants as subjugation to their husbands that’s their fault.” And this is “just clarifying that women aren’t and isn’t a change.” It’s “always” been this way for those of us that know god, etc etc.

I quoted the covenants and said this is literally what was said and she told me she’s never just taken anything from the church at face value but always evaluated it against her own beliefs in god and truth and the gospel.

To me this is a classic Mormon conversation. Two months ago she told me she had no problem getting to god through her husband and that it’s obviously how god wants it. Now it’s, duh you just misunderstood it’s never been about going through your husband and all the crazy feminists are so literal and making so much drama that’s why the prophet had to get clarifying revelation.

[Anon70]

One other morsel of food for thought.

This is a major update to the temple endowment. The last time there was a major update was 1990. A few years ago, the movies were updated with new actors and voice/tone inflexion, but there was no change to the actual wording and process.

So if you didn't get the changes/corrections/updates you were hoping for this time around, it will likely be a long time (30+/- years) before another overhaul.

I suspect the only changes at this point are the endowment. The sealing, initiatory, proxy baptism, etc likely weren't updated in this round.

I'm not sure who is copying who - but it seems Apple and LD$ use the same playbook. Minor incremental updates semi-frequently with major updates every few years. Moderation in all things, including progress.

Haven’t seen anything yet on the initiatory but the sealing was changed.

[Kishkumen]

... but the sealing was changed.

Didn't know that, what was it?

[wtfluff]

I suspect the only changes at this point are the endowment. The sealing, initiatory, proxy baptism, etc likely weren't updated in this round.

Rumored changes to initiatory (for females):

-They were "anointed as a queen and a priestess in the new and everlasting covenant to rule and reign in the house of Israel with your husband." And then it is sealed with similar wording.

-The old way said they were "anointed to be a queen and a priestess to your husband."

-Also when they go through the body parts, they changed "hear the word of the lord and the council of your husband" to "hear the word of the Lord" I hope that helps.



Sealing:

- Instead of women giving themselves and the men not, they both just to receive each other, and there’s talk of them counseling with each other and laboring together to raise a family and men are given a charge to be gentle etc - it’s very beautiful

[slavereeno]

I really hate how the TBM answer they give to all this is "continuing revelation" or "the church changes for our times."

Yeah I got this line from one of my TBM sisters (who knows I have "some doubts") She said it makes sense that things change because culture changes and the Lard needs to present religion in a way that the culture can accept.

[nibbler]

Church statement on temple changes:

"Whenever the Lord has had a people on the earth who will obey His word, they have been commanded to build temples."

The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome in 70 a.d.

I wonder why the existing Christian church wasn't commanded to build another, smaller temple somewhere else?

Was it because they knew there was only to be one temple in the world and Jerusalem was to be it's place?

Why didn't the obedient Jews in Babylon build a small temple there instead of waiting for the return to Jerusalem? Was it because there is only supposed to be one temple of God and that Jerusalem was where He had promised it should be established?

In Solomon's dedicatory prayer over the first temple, he prophesies that when Israel is led or driven to the ends of the Earth, no matter how far they are scattered, even to the isles of the sea, they will always turn and pray towards the temple in Jerusalem. They will always want to return there, for that place and only that place is their promised land. So what does that tell us about the supposed Lehite/Israelites who sailed to America? Why would they build temples against the prophecies of the Old Testament on the brass plates? Why would God go against his own word that all Israelites would return to Jerusalem, their true promised land and tell the "Nephites" that America was their promised land?

What does this all tell us about the Mormon's penchant for building temples all over the place and their Masonic based ordinances?

Edited for grammar.

There's certainly symbolism in only having one temple for a community that struggled to convert from polytheism to monotheism. Maybe all our temples today is a hint that we'll all get our own planet some day.

[Reuben]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[MerrieMiss]

I've had this argument with my husband several times in the past: I've claimed that the temple has changed many times. I've told him to ask his parents. He won't do it. This will make for some interesting conversations moving forward.

I really hate how the TBM answer they give to all this is "continuing revelation" or "the church changes for our times."

These are completely unsatisfactory responses, because they completely ignore the question of why a Church led by revelation straight from God always makes changes after society does, rather than before. Yeah parts of the temple ceremony were sexist - and God should have realized that when he "revealed" them in the first place, he shouldn't have needed 150 years of societal change to help him figure out those parts needed to be revised. For a Church that prides itself on not following worldly trends, it's telling that it needs feedback from the world to let it know it is doing something wrong.

Because the people just weren't ready for the higher law! God had to wait for the members of the church to be better.

Hmmm. So why did I recognize the need for a "higher law" before the church did? Answer: You didn't. You didn't have faith god would take care of it, and you expressed your opinion the wrong way. Sorry, you still lose.

It's ironic, but what believing members see as continuing revelation merely demonstrates there was no revelation in the first place.

I completely agree.

[GoodBoy]

Sealings:
We are awaiting any report as to if the Sealing has changed."

I doubt this will change.

I understand the woman no longer gives herself to the man.

So glad I was wrong!

[MoPag]

4. God no longer speaks just to the man, but to both Adam and Eve equally.

5. The separate covenants of obedience for man and woman are integrated into a single covenant for all, with new language to obey god, which this temple worker found to be very uplifting.

Despite silence from the Q15, the feminists have definitely had an impact on them. Mormon feminist activism has made the world a slightly better place for Mormon women and I applaud them!

^^
This is what is so crazy to me. Why listen to us (MoFems)? Why listen to us now, and why listen to us about all this? We've always been pariahs to them. It just seems weird that it happened so quickly. They didn't even wait to refilm it. This whole thing just has me weirded out.

It's all problematic. Lots of pain.

It really is. I'm glad my primary girls and DD (if she choses to go) won't be subjected to all that sexist bullsh!t. But damn...the damage that did to so many women. FMH has a whole sereis on this: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org ... ts-series/

[Brent]

TBM: isn't it great the Church gets revelation and changes with the culture?

NOM: i know, I am so looking forward to same sex sealings!

[Red Ryder]

Is the women’s veil even necessary to wear now?

What’s the point of wearing it if it’s not going to be used to veil the face?

[Fifi de la Vergne]

Is the women’s veil even necessary to wear now?

What’s the point of wearing it if it’s not going to be used to veil the face?

Are they still going to cover her face with it before they close her coffin?

[Mormorrisey]

It's all problematic. Lots of pain.

It really is. I'm glad my primary girls and DD (if she choses to go) won't be subjected to all that sexist bullsh!t. But damn...the damage that did to so many women. FMH has a whole sereis on this: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org ... ts-series/

I've read that series at FMH, it was very poignant and heartbreaking to read those stories. In fact, one of my own married daughters did not like the temple very much because of what was just changed, and it caused her some very real pain. So I absolutely get it. But here's why the changes are significant for my family.

I have married daughters, and unmarried daughters. I feel very fortunate that my sons in law are good dudes, and respect my daughters' abilities and see them as equal partners, not just as "mothers in Zion." Now, all of my kids are feminists, they grew up with me spouting this stuff, so they weren't going to marry Neanderthals, but I still feel very lucky. And frankly, my SIL's hold these attitudes IN SPITE OF, not because of, the Mormon patriarchy. And now, my unmarried daughters don't have to deal with this crap.

Despite my best efforts, my kids and Sis. M simply DO NOT wish to think critically about why these changes needed to be made, or to ponder what the significance is to an organization that claims temple ordinances from an ancient date, and how much gaslighting needs to be done to celebrate these changes. That's just my life. So if the church makes changes that makes my kids' lives less sh*tty, and justifies my SIL's to keep their enlightened attitudes, I'm all for it, and it's about damn time.

I'm hoping it leads to exchanges like last night, when my married daughter who disliked the temple before, and who has the most problem with my apostasy, told me that I just needed to wait and the church will change. That I didn't need to be angry, and that I don't need to be so forceful on why the church needs to change. I patiently explained to her that changes don't come in a vacuum, and clearly a lot of people were complaining, and making their views known, and that's why the church changed it. So in fact, this whole experience has galvanized me to be MORE proactive in stating what needs to be changed in the church. In the course of that conversation, she understood me a little better - and hopefully planted some seeds.

Given the fact that I'm still in the long game, this was a win for my family. But I'm also sorry for those who are triggered by this, and I feel for your pain, particularly to the women of the board who had to deal with these issues for years, and how it led to abuse in the lives of many of you. I'm so sorry for that. Boy, how simple would it be for someone, like a prophet or somebody, to come out and say "we made these changes because of the pain they caused, and we're so sorry about that." It's not rocket science.

[wtfluff]

Is the women’s veil even necessary to wear now?

What’s the point of wearing it if it’s not going to be used to veil the face?

The vestigial veil. It's kinda like how they still make the hand-signals that represent the "knife," but don't use the "knife" to pretend to kill themselves any more.

And what Fifi said...

[deacon blues]

I get a feeling of temple changes as baby steps that are being promoted as giant steps. The prophets who have instituted giant steps, such as President Kimball, deserve recognition for actually making a difference. Imagine how Heber J. Grant or David O. MacKay would be remembered if they had made the changes that had to wait for Pres. Kimball. Picture how the church might be different if it had lifted the ban in 1938 or 1958 instead of 1978.