LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 12:39 pm**

I think that there were a lot of things that were misinterpreted in the endowment for too long so they were simply removed. Since there isn't a place for a breakdown and discussion of the endowment, we are each left to our own interpretations. I think for far too long, people were getting the wrong messages so they have simplified it over the course of the years. All of the doctrinal pieces are still in scripture. The endowment ceremony is primarily for instruction and there are some major overarching themes that seem to be ignored because too many people are worried about little pieces that are not being understood correctly or explained properly.

Seems like many women hear, "Listen and obey your husbands no matter what they say" instead of the conditional "hearken to his counsel AS he hearkens to the Lord". I don't know any man, ever, who used that part of the endowment to command or control his wife. I've never even heard someone joke about it. The vast majority of men I know view their spouses as equal partners and even the leadership invites and values the input from the women.

Now, I'm sure that there are exceptions to this, enough that a change was warranted which I think is just too bad. That said, I think this is a reminder that most of the problems we have are in our own interpretations and limited views. The endowment is a covenant-making ritual wrapped in a story about the fall and is very individualistic. Women are separated from men and each person is meant to view themselves as Adam or Eve and consider the aspects of the fall and what redemption is and means. It's important that what is most important gets through to us and that the experience is beneficial and doesn't distract from the Spirit.

If our perverted culture is causing people to misinterpret aspects of that experience, then adjustments ought to be made if no clarifications are offered. Ultimately the leadership with all the information, feedback, and inspiration they have at their hands are making the tough calls to ensure that we are having the experiences that we should be having or that nothing is distracting us from the experiences we should be having.

I do think that these changes were made because of how corrupt cultural influences have influenced our thinking, but I don't think that they were made to agree with those corrupt cultural changes. Corrupt culture says that certain parts of the endowment belittle women and are sexist. They aren't, but we aren't going to allow them to make that argument by maintaining parts of the ceremony that are being misconstrued. You have to weight the value of what the ceremony is provding and what is most important to focus on.

I don't think that this is a black and white situation, everyone is going to have an opinion pro and con. I don't think any of these changes were made lightly and without a lot of counsel and prayer. I'm just as cynical and critical as the next person, but I think the changes are a good thing.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 12:41 pm**

Jesef wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 12:26 pm Do you have a source for Brigham professing that? Hadn’t heard that one before.

It's probably from the JOD, volume 8 page 178:

Brother Cannon remarked that people wondered how many wives and children I had. He may inform them that I shall have wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and kingdom after kingdom, and reign triumphantly.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 12:42 pm**

Alaris wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 12:38 pm
Serragon wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 10:59 am Enlightening posts in this thread. It is becoming clearer to me why the change was made. It seems that many sisters posting in this thread are not interested in true doctrine, but want instead a version that is more palatable to their modern sensibilities. I expect this from the feminists, but am sad to see it from the mainstream.

It seems that the propensity for Eve to be soothed by the tongue of the serpent is no less true today than it was in the garden.
The adversary has been laying the pc foundation since the last temple change in 1990 to this very end.

Are you saying the Brethren are corrupt & being inspired by the adversary?

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 12:46 pm**

Emma understood that she and all women were under a curse. Towards the end of Joseph's life, she requested a blessing from him, and he invited her to write her own blessing and he would sign it when he returned. This is part of what she wrote:
https://www.the-exponent.com/emmas-blessing/

“I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side, and I ask my Heavenly Father that through humility, I may be enabled to overcome that curse which was pronounced upon the daughters of Eve. I desire to see that I may rejoice with them in the blessings which God has in store for all who are willing to be obedient to his requirements. Finally, I desire that whatever may be my lot through life I may be enabled to acknowledge the hand of God in all things.” (Peterson and Gaunt, Faith, Hope and Charity, pp 18-19)

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 12:47 pm**

Jesef wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 12:42 pm
Alaris wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 12:38 pm
Serragon wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 10:59 am Enlightening posts in this thread. It is becoming clearer to me why the change was made. It seems that many sisters posting in this thread are not interested in true doctrine, but want instead a version that is more palatable to their modern sensibilities. I expect this from the feminists, but am sad to see it from the mainstream.

It seems that the propensity for Eve to be soothed by the tongue of the serpent is no less true today than it was in the garden.
The adversary has been laying the pc foundation since the last temple change in 1990 to this very end.
Are you saying the Brethren are corrupt & being inspired by the adversary?

Uh no... I'm saying the adversary has "inspired" this modern feminist garbage deliberately to cloud this inevitable change that has nothing to do with the world. I've seen this struggle in our church and in my family where women want a strong man but constantly attempt to dominate. This idea that a husband cannot give his wife an "order" is a modern construct of the devil.

Serragon is spot on that some women feel this is a justification of their modern sensibilities....just as the devil planned.

The last significant change in the endowment was 1990. That's right when the modern pc language / thought control efforts began.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 12:48 pm**

Sarah wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 12:46 pm Emma understood that she and all women were under a curse. Towards the end of Joseph's life, she requested a blessing from him, and he invited her to write her own blessing and he would sign it when he returned. This is part of what she wrote:
https://www.the-exponent.com/emmas-blessing/

“I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side, and I ask my Heavenly Father that through humility, I may be enabled to overcome that curse which was pronounced upon the daughters of Eve. I desire to see that I may rejoice with them in the blessings which God has in store for all who are willing to be obedient to his requirements. Finally, I desire that whatever may be my lot through life I may be enabled to acknowledge the hand of God in all things.” (Peterson and Gaunt, Faith, Hope and Charity, pp 18-19)

Awesome, thank you!

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 1:01 pm**

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 11:59 am
Sarah wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 10:33 pm Do you think Heavenly Father is concerned about Heavenly Mother obeying him? When Adam and Eve were married in the GofE, did HF tell Eve her role was to obey Adam?
Well that assume one Heavenly Father and one Heavenly Mother. According to Prophets there are many more than one Heavenly Mother. Brigham professed that he himself would have millions of wives in the eternities. This likely makes meaningful collaboration difficult.

Yes, and according to our beliefs, there is more than one Heavenly Father in the Universe. We only worship one, but by any logic, he must have peers. Brigham never said that a woman could never have millions of husbands as well. The only logical way to help with all those millions of wives and children is to combine efforts with your brothers!

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 1:02 pm**

5tev3 wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 12:39 pm I think that there were a lot of things that were misinterpreted in the endowment for too long so they were simply removed. Since there isn't a place for a breakdown and discussion of the endowment, we are each left to our own interpretations. I think for far too long, people were getting the wrong messages so they have simplified it over the course of the years. All of the doctrinal pieces are still in scripture. The endowment ceremony is primarily for instruction and there are some major overarching themes that seem to be ignored because too many people are worried about little pieces that are not being understood correctly or explained properly.

Seems like many women hear, "Listen and obey your husbands no matter what they say" instead of the conditional "hearken to his counsel AS he hearkens to the Lord". I don't know any man, ever, who used that part of the endowment to command or control his wife. I've never even heard someone joke about it. The vast majority of men I know view their spouses as equal partners and even the leadership invites and values the input from the women.

Now, I'm sure that there are exceptions to this, enough that a change was warranted which I think is just too bad. That said, I think this is a reminder that most of the problems we have are in our own interpretations and limited views. The endowment is a covenant-making ritual wrapped in a story about the fall and is very individualistic. Women are separated from men and each person is meant to view themselves as Adam or Eve and consider the aspects of the fall and what redemption is and means. It's important that what is most important gets through to us and that the experience is beneficial and doesn't distract from the Spirit.

If our perverted culture is causing people to misinterpret aspects of that experience, then adjustments ought to be made if no clarifications are offered. Ultimately the leadership with all the information, feedback, and inspiration they have at their hands are making the tough calls to ensure that we are having the experiences that we should be having or that nothing is distracting us from the experiences we should be having.

I do think that these changes were made because of how corrupt cultural influences have influenced our thinking, but I don't think that they were made to agree with those corrupt cultural changes. Corrupt culture says that certain parts of the endowment belittle women and are sexist. They aren't, but we aren't going to allow them to make that argument by maintaining parts of the ceremony that are being misconstrued. You have to weight the value of what the ceremony is provding and what is most important to focus on.

I don't think that this is a black and white situation, everyone is going to have an opinion pro and con. I don't think any of these changes were made lightly and without a lot of counsel and prayer. I'm just as cynical and critical as the next person, but I think the changes are a good thing.

This is partially inaccurate. One of the 1990 temple endowment ordinance/covenant changes was that women no longer covenanted to "obey the law of your husband and abide by his council in righteousness" - the language was changed in the covenant at that point to: "you will each observe and keep the law of the Lord, and hearken to the counsel of your husband as he hearkens to the counsel of the Father". Now everyone makes the same covenant, directly with God. The sealing ordinance still uses the word "preside" in relation to the man. There's all kinds of connotations with that word, but it still means "in charge" so maybe we haven't come that far after all.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 1:02 pm**

Serragon wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 10:59 am Enlightening posts in this thread. It is becoming clearer to me why the change was made. It seems that many sisters posting in this thread are not interested in true doctrine, but want instead a version that is more palatable to their modern sensibilities. I expect this from the feminists, but am sad to see it from the mainstream.

It seems that the propensity for Eve to be soothed by the tongue of the serpent is no less true today than it was in the garden.

If only loud laughter were allowed. I would laugh loudly.

(Wait—maybe it is? I haven't been since the changes. Are we allowed to laugh loudly?)

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 1:03 pm**

Sarah wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 1:01 pm
Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 11:59 am
Sarah wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 10:33 pm Do you think Heavenly Father is concerned about Heavenly Mother obeying him? When Adam and Eve were married in the GofE, did HF tell Eve her role was to obey Adam?
Well that assume one Heavenly Father and one Heavenly Mother. According to Prophets there are many more than one Heavenly Mother. Brigham professed that he himself would have millions of wives in the eternities. This likely makes meaningful collaboration difficult.
Yes, and according to our beliefs, there is more than one Heavenly Father in the Universe. We only worship one, but by any logic, he must have peers. Brigham never said that a woman could never have millions of husbands as well. The only logical way to help with all those millions of wives and children is to combine efforts with your brothers!

Yep, it's just one giant celestial orgie. That doesn't sound like we're a bizarre sex-cult!

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 1:15 pm**

Jesef wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 1:03 pm
Sarah wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 1:01 pm
Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 11:59 am
Sarah wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 10:33 pm Do you think Heavenly Father is concerned about Heavenly Mother obeying him? When Adam and Eve were married in the GofE, did HF tell Eve her role was to obey Adam?
Well that assume one Heavenly Father and one Heavenly Mother. According to Prophets there are many more than one Heavenly Mother. Brigham professed that he himself would have millions of wives in the eternities. This likely makes meaningful collaboration difficult.
Yes, and according to our beliefs, there is more than one Heavenly Father in the Universe. We only worship one, but by any logic, he must have peers. Brigham never said that a woman could never have millions of husbands as well. The only logical way to help with all those millions of wives and children is to combine efforts with your brothers!
Yep, it's just one giant celestial orgie. That doesn't sound like we're a bizarre sex-cult!

Was Brigham having an orgie with all his wives? Come on...think outside of the box.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 1:19 pm**

Sarah wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 1:15 pm
Jesef wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 1:03 pm
Sarah wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 1:01 pm
Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 11:59 am

Well that assume one Heavenly Father and one Heavenly Mother. According to Prophets there are many more than one Heavenly Mother. Brigham professed that he himself would have millions of wives in the eternities. This likely makes meaningful collaboration difficult.
Yes, and according to our beliefs, there is more than one Heavenly Father in the Universe. We only worship one, but by any logic, he must have peers. Brigham never said that a woman could never have millions of husbands as well. The only logical way to help with all those millions of wives and children is to combine efforts with your brothers!
Yep, it's just one giant celestial orgie. That doesn't sound like we're a bizarre sex-cult!
Was Brigham having an orgie with all his wives? Come on...think outside of the box.

I don't just try to think outside the box, I sort of live there. You postulated Celestial Polyandry - one-to-many intimate/sexual (or heavenly equivalent) relationships - wives with many husbands & husbands with many wives. I made a satirical comparison. It's like Free Love in the Heavenly Family. Could be true. But it is like a sex-cult, a heavenly ZION sex-cult.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 1:23 pm**

Jesef wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 1:02 pm This is partially inaccurate. One of the 1990 temple endowment ordinance/covenant changes was that women no longer covenanted to "obey the law of your husband and abide by his council in righteousness" - the language was changed in the covenant at that point to: "you will each observe and keep the law of the Lord, and hearken to the counsel of your husband as he hearkens to the counsel of the Father". Now everyone makes the same covenant, directly with God. The sealing ordinance still uses the word "preside" in relation to the man. There's all kinds of connotations with that word, but it still means "in charge" so maybe we haven't come that far after all.

This is a good point to bring up. It's too long to go into here but this part of the endowment comes to us from the Adam and Eve account. It's a little different but the pre-90s verbiage meshes with the creation accounts. Now, I imagine that the change in the 90s was to emphasize the point that obeying the husband doesn't mean just do whatever he says because that would mean going along with abuse or stupid, even evil, ideas. The prior wording should have been clear enough, "in righteousness" but apparently this was misunderstood. So the language was changed to reflect the idea of hearkening AS he hearkens to the counsel of the Father. This is even clearer, the net effect is the same but it is explained better, less of an excuse for unrighteous dominion. But apparently, this clarification has not had the desired effect or has lost that initial effect due to the degradation in our understanding as influenced by our corrupt culture.

The word "preside" doesn't quite equate to "in charge" in the sense that someone not acquainted with our theology might suspect. You could say that Jesus is "in charge" but juxtapose that with him washing the feet of his disciples. Is that what "in charge" looks like? How about his bloody body nailed to a cross, how "in charge" did he look then? How about when Paul taught that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it? How about the expectation that men are expected to put their bodies on the line and provide for their families with the "sweat of their brows"? Essentially to become a slave to provide for their families.

Read D&C 121 and look at the body of scripture as a whole. Specifically, look at the example of King Benjamin for a pattern of what a real man should be.

I wrote up a piece where I try and break down the meaning of the relationship between Adam and Eve and what that means for us here: http://oneclimbs.com/2015/01/09/the-ris ... er-to-men/

We have to stop seeing our theology through the eyes of the world and thinking that we need to satisfy their ideologies which change constantly while trending toward evil. We have the right model and when understood and practiced in righteousness, peace and prosperity abound.

It's true because that is how it is in my home. No, my wife and I are not somehow stronger or more skilled than anyone else, we certainly have our weaknesses but we practice the Lord's teachings to the degree that unity and love exist strongly between us in almost every aspect of our lives. We sacrifice for each other and that binds us together. God's teaching on this is true and the doctrine we have is correct and the world's twisted views about it are wrong.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 1:30 pm**

Preside does mean in charge and D&C 121 applies. Both are true.

Any attempts to minimize a man being the head of the house in every sense makes the devil smile.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 1:37 pm**

Durzan wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 11:32 am
justme wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 11:20 am
Serragon wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 10:59 am Enlightening posts in this thread. It is becoming clearer to me why the change was made. It seems that many sisters posting in this thread are not interested in true doctrine, but want instead a version that is more palatable to their modern sensibilities. I expect this from the feminists, but am sad to see it from the mainstream.

It seems that the propensity for Eve to be soothed by the tongue of the serpent is no less true today than it was in the garden.
I completely disagree. Dangerous post. These changes were made by those who hold the priesthood keys. It represents a new line upon our old line and takes us closer to an understanding of true doctrine. I am grateful for it and look forward to more light and knowledge.
*shrug* I simply see it as yet another policy change. It has little doctrinal implications in my book, beyond a possible loss of additional symbolism.

Are symbols needed once the concept is understood? Or are symbols used for us mere mortals to try to teach us something the symbol stands for. Human nature has always looked for something beyond themselves, symbols are and can be used to fulfil the human need of searching for something greater. Too many symbols or improper symbols and you then get idols and false gods.
Ideally, the only “symbols” needed would be the actions and behaviors of true believers pointing to the integrity of Gods plan.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 1:43 pm**

Alaris wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 1:30 pm Preside does mean in charge and D&C 121 applies. Both are true.

Any attempts to minimize a man being the head of the house in every sense makes the devil smile.

True, and does a woman swearing to obey her husband GIVE him the headship or does he already posess it and needs to realize this independant of her.
If men really want to rise above the confusion and tactics of the devil then they need to realize who they are. They do not need to have others give them their stewardship. They need to grab it and take it. Not by force but by example and living an honest good life embodying the natural traits of manhood coupled with the enabling power and refinement the priesthood offers.
Its only then that a man will ever truly have his wife and children “follow” him!

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 1:49 pm**

I wonder how members in other countries who have very different cultures view this change. I would like to hear from them. Maybe someone from Africa.
Do their men feel less “powerful” as men if their wife doesnt covenant to obey him? Youd think a man would be happy with a wife and a good wife who covenants with him to obey the laws of God.
We NEED a new perspective from other members of this worldwide church.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 2:01 pm**

Anyone who wishes to be followed needs to deserve it. They need to earn it the same way God earns our love and trust, not by belittling or controlling us but by longsuffering, patience, persuasion, etc. God is not selfish, he weeps over us, he does more for us than we realize or credit him for because we are blind to most of it. He is rejected and looked upon with disdain by the world like an unruly teenager views their parents or worse.

We as men, do need to arise and be men. We should be full of love and sacrifice, we should lead by example and be worthy to stand. MMbelieve reminded me of something that I think is worth mentioning. When I was participating in the endowment and saw my wife raise her hand covenanting to hearken to my counsel as I hearkened to the Lord, I didn't think, "heh heh, now she'll do whatever I say." (Yeah right). Actually my thoughts were always on the tremendous burden that this entails. I'm not just responsible for me but for "US" and that idea did so much to shatter the desire to be selfish because it was a reminder that my life was more than just me, I was one with HER. Just as Eve was taken from Adam, hence, being a part OF him, she was part of me, we are an US, and everything I do affects her.

That means I need more than anything to hearken to the Father and when my wife looks to me to stand up and be that man, it only further encourages me. There is no sense of unrighteous dominion, superiority, or misogyny, none of that has a place there when you understand it.

That aspect of the endowment is now gone, but perhaps that is so other lofty ideas can take stage and these other critical ideas are better suited to a discussion in home study or church meetings where they can be directly discussed and addressed. I think that is a much better arrangement.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 2:06 pm**

MMbelieve wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 1:43 pm
Alaris wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 1:30 pm Preside does mean in charge and D&C 121 applies. Both are true.

Any attempts to minimize a man being the head of the house in every sense makes the devil smile.
True, and does a woman swearing to obey her husband GIVE him the headship or does he already posess it and needs to realize this independant of her.
If men really want to rise above the confusion and tactics of the devil then they need to realize who they are. They do not need to have others give them their stewardship. They need to grab it and take it. Not by force but by example and living an honest good life embodying the natural traits of manhood coupled with the enabling power and refinement the priesthood offers.
Its only then that a man will ever truly have his wife and children “follow” him!

Agreed on everything you said in principle, however what you're saying sounds like it could be used as a justification to undermine and poke at a husband as an attempt to get him to stand up and take control.

For example, my ex wife used to test me all the time to see if I would leave her by making a big stink about this and that to see what my limits are. My mother helped me understand what was happening because she used to do the same thing to my father. My ex wife admitted that's what she was doing as well. They both felt insecure due to their childhoods which led to their need to test their husbands repeatedly.

Meanwhile there's me and my poor dad clueless. Why are you driving me NUTS to just see what my limits are and to see IF I would leave you (spoiler alert in the word "ex") - anyway ... I've seen this happen as well as a justification for attempts to dominate hubbies to see if they'll stand up for themselves and take charge. Sort of a poke and prod. This is also wrong. Men are stupidly simple creatures. If you want to know the circumstances where we'd leave you, ask us. If you want to know the circumstances where I'll get angry at attempts at domination ... well, what are we really getting at? You want me to take charge and fix the dishwasher? I mean, what is this really about?

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 2:22 pm**

Sarah wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 10:33 pm Do you think Heavenly Father is concerned about Heavenly Mother obeying him? When Adam and Eve were married in the GofE, did HF tell Eve her role was to obey Adam?

Really? Do you need the difference explained to you how things changed from before the fall verses after?

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 3:15 pm**

This might be out of place but I wanted to say this:

When we were praying to Heavenly Father the women were veiled. I think if we were praying to heavenly mother the men would be veiled.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 3:28 pm**

There are lot's of assumptions being asserted in this thread. Here are two scriptures that may be relevant. In Moses 4: 22, "Unto the woman, I, the Lord God, said: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This is a statement of how the fallen world will be for Eve. Remember that Adam has fallen, too. Thus, when the Lord says, "he shall rule over thee," the Lord is describing what Adam will do TO Eve. This is not a statement of what Eve will do (as in Eve will willingly being ruled by her husband). This is not the true eternal relationship between man and woman. It is the relationship that occurs in a fallen world.

Why will Adam assume the rule over Eve? Consider D&C 121:39, "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

As I read this thread I perceive some men trying to justify their "rule" or "presiding" over their wife. I also perceive some very faithful women and men trying to make sense of what just feels wrong. Maybe these temple changes are a reflection of the Lord trying to help us learn what the eternal relationship between man and woman looks like and get us to let go of the relationships we have had in our fallen world.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 3:40 pm**

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 2:22 pm
Sarah wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 10:33 pm Do you think Heavenly Father is concerned about Heavenly Mother obeying him? When Adam and Eve were married in the GofE, did HF tell Eve her role was to obey Adam?
Really? Do you need the difference explained to you how things changed from before the fall verses after?

They were rhetorical questions.

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 3:52 pm**

investigator wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 9:46 am Changing the temple ordinance, specifically the covenant in which the women covenant to "keep the law of her husband and abide by his counsel in righteousness", to the woman directly covenanting with God, attempts to change the original order of things established by God for the man and the woman and how they are to interact.

Genesis 3: 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
This is the way God ordered things. It is the way it has been established in the church for over 170 years. Now we are changing it? Just how long should and everlasting covenant last?

Paul admonished us to keep the ordinances as they were delivered to us and for the man to be the head of the woman. So it appears that the order that God established has been in place from the beginning as evidenced in Genesis, reestablished in the meridian of time and ordered again in the restoration by Joseph Smith in the endowment and in the Lectures on Faith.

1 Cor 11: 1“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman, the man, and the head of Christ, God.”

LOF 2: 16 And again, the Lord said unto the woman, I will greatly multiply your sorrow, and your conception: in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.
Reason would hold that if you received a revelation to change the covenant and ordinance that has been established from the beginning of time, you would also receive a revelation to correct our errant scriptures.

It is obvious that Joseph didn't deem it necessary to change Genesis or Corinthians in the Joseph Smith Translation. Not only that, he added the same order of things in the endowment and the Lectures on Faith.

I recognize that men have failed to cherish their wives as Christ has cherished the Church. But the answer is not to change the order of things established by God. The answer is for husbands to repent.

The result of changing the ordinance is to break the everlasting covenant and to further defile the earth.

Isaiah 24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

--------------
Amen Amen Amen !
thank you
someone had to say it RIGHT ! ! !

Posted: **February 11th, 2019, 4:03 pm**

Joseph Smith, June 11, 1843:
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... y-1843/217

It was the design of the Councils of heaven before the world was, that the principles and Laws of the Priesthood were predicated upon the gathering of the people in every age of the world. Jesus did everything possible to gather the people and they would not be gathered and he therefore poured out curses upon them. Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the World in the Priesthood for the Salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed, all must be saved on the same principles. [HC 5:423]

If a man gets a fulness of the Priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.
Where there is no change of Priesthood there is no change of ordinances <says Paul> if God has not changed the ordinances and Priesthood.

LDS Freedom Forum

I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.

Re: I am bothered by recent Temple Endowment changes.