Temple changes

[RocknRoll]

If the leaders teach ye my gospel which is about sacrifice, if they saith unto ye go now and gather things ye truly don't need and lower thyself, sell it and pray and follow guidance in spirit to give it to the poor and needy even as the Lord and his disciples have done. If they encourage ye not to seek after worldly success and wealth not to be focused on Mammon of this world, if they encourage ye to seek after the Kingdom of God and avoid Fame and fortune, if they teach ye to detach your heart from the things of this world and seek not happiness in this world but in the kingdom of God. If they teach ye to put others first over yourselves and to be willing to sacrifice and suffer for sake of others. And if they teach ye continuously to repent and not words of flattery, if they call ye to be humbled and strive to be worthy to be a child of God by adoption. Behold then they are speaking by mine spirit true revelation.

I see you haven’t done those things yourself, as you obviously have a computer.

[shadow]

"You're probably aware that the lowest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom does NOT require a spouse."

Can you expand on this? I'm a single member, and have always been told that the Celestial Kingdom is only for those married (in the Temple). Any references would be appreciated.

Section 131
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

[John Tavner]

"You're probably aware that the lowest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom does NOT require a spouse."

Can you expand on this? I'm a single member, and have always been told that the Celestial Kingdom is only for those married (in the Temple). Any references would be appreciated.

Section 131
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

Ahhh, a classic William Clayton addition to D&C after 1876.

[Zathura]

"You're probably aware that the lowest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom does NOT require a spouse."

Can you expand on this? I'm a single member, and have always been told that the Celestial Kingdom is only for those married (in the Temple). Any references would be appreciated.

Section 131
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

Ahhh, a classic William Clayton addition to D&C after 1876.

I never connected the dots that the origin of 131 is the same as 132. Makes sense to me, as this teaching seems iffy to me.

[Chip]

So, William Clayton wasn't just crossing the plains with three wives and a pregnant one left behind, but he was doctoring the church records, too, under Brigham's direction?

[Zathura]

"You're probably aware that the lowest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom does NOT require a spouse."

Can you expand on this? I'm a single member, and have always been told that the Celestial Kingdom is only for those married (in the Temple). Any references would be appreciated.

Shadow quoted the section for you.

Basically the idea is that if you are faithful and do everything you're supposed to do (Baptized in the Church, pay tithing, get take the sacrament every week etc.) you will enter the Celestial Kingdom. Then within the Celestial Kingdom there are supposed to be THREE levels. Yes, three levels within the Celestial Kingdom. To "attain" the highest level you must be sealed.
I don't know what is supposed to fit into the 2nd level.

Honestly, I personally think we misunderstand these things, some of them will only be revealed via personal revelation or some day we will all be shown these truths. I believe that single members should focus and learn the Doctrine of Christ ( The true Doctrine of Christ, not the watered down version that aims beyond the mark that we as a Church have embraced) , just like married members need to . I think that a single member needs to receive the Holy Ghost and be Born of God(See John Tavner, Finrock, my posts on this topic if you want more context) in the same way that a married member needs to be. If you are a single person throughout your life but you have received a remission of your sins, have been spiritually begotten by Christ/Born Again/Sanctified there is no reason you would receive any reward less than another simply because they were married. That's my belief. As far as everything else goes, I believe God has a plan for everything. I don't believe he will leave his faithful children hanging just because they didn't find a partner in this life.

The origin of D&C 132 is suspect and it was pointed out that 131 has the same origin. For this reason my personal belief differs from what Shadow quoted.

[shadow]

If you are a single person throughout your life but you have received a remission of your sins, have been spiritually begotten by Christ/Born Again/Sanctified there is no reason you would receive any reward less than another simply because they were married. That's my belief. As far as everything else goes, I believe God has a plan for everything. I don't believe he will leave his faithful children hanging just because they didn't find a partner in this life.

First of all, God doesn't leave anyone hanging.
Secondly- so you believe that married couples are no longer married in the eternities and become single? Or is it that you believe single people will be able to "have increase" without a spouse? Or do you not believe that there will be an increase in the eternities? Fringe mormons have different beliefs, I'm just trying to figure where you stand.

[kittycat51]

probably he was influenced/inspired/convinced by his wife and her friend... favored them over church matters... suits ecumenism way... no??

Sorry these changes were in the works before President Monson died.

[kittycat51]

(Interesting side note, these temple changes were in the works before President Monson died.)

That is clearly not the case.
It is very obvious the whole thing is cut & paste, put together in a great hurry.

Take it up with the source; one of the 12. I was going to write his name but felt impressed not to because sure enough many on this forum would start dragging his name through the mud.

[Zathura]

If you are a single person throughout your life but you have received a remission of your sins, have been spiritually begotten by Christ/Born Again/Sanctified there is no reason you would receive any reward less than another simply because they were married. That's my belief. As far as everything else goes, I believe God has a plan for everything. I don't believe he will leave his faithful children hanging just because they didn't find a partner in this life.

First of all, God doesn't leave anyone hanging.
Secondly- so you believe that married couples are no longer married in the eternities and become single? Or is it that you believe single people will be able to "have increase" without a spouse? Or do you not believe that there will be an increase in the eternities? Fringe mormons have different beliefs, I'm just trying to figure where you stand.

"Fringe Mormon" . Haven't seen this title before. Guess I'll accept it, although I honestly feel more "Mormon" I did before, as I believe my current spiritual mindset and understanding is more free of unbelief than it was before, and my personal beliefs align more with the scriptures than they used to, scriptures that I grew up studying as a child.

I've just accepted that there's a lot I don't know. I really don't know the answer to these questions.

The "Answer" to these questions comes from Sections that I wholeheartedly don't accept like I do the rest of our Canon (131, 132).
I don't know what will happen to the polygamous wives of men in the Church. I don't know what will happen to the wives of those who married after a previous spouse passed away (like President Nelson's wives) . I don't believe that Heavenly Father is a polygamist with many wives, as the origin of saying such teaching is a source that frankly doesn't hold much weight to me, as he(they) have been wrong about other things(All of this is subject to change if God were to tell me otherwise). I know this has kind of branched off into polygamy, but it's really about "Celestial Marriage". Just like Brigham Young's version of "Celestial Marriage" was once taught as being essential to entering the Celestial Kingdom and then later adjusted, I think our modern version of "Celestial Marriage" is off.

I believe we can have increase in the eternities. I don't think families and spouses will be separated(concerning traditional couples, I don't know what happens with the situations mentioned above). Whatever happens, God has already worked that out and I'm not really concerned about it. What I am really concerned about are single people who literally go decades sometimes thinking that there is no hope for them in the Eternities because they don't have a spouse. Sometimes these situations turn them to God and they end up better for it, but in most cases in my personal experience it's been the opposite, and they became depressed and worried throughout their lives wich has a real spiritual dampening effect. I want them to find Jesus Christ and feel that joy that I have felt because it'll give them an anchor and the assurance that God won't forsake them. It's not enough to go through the motions and have Bishops and friends tell you God won't forsake you, it' is enough for the power of the Holy Ghost to show you.

edit: I suppose I can add that I'm also concerned with Married people who think they have "secured" something simply because they were married. Instead of mourning for something they wish they can have, they can be eased into a sense of "All is well", "just don't do anything bad and go to church until I die" type of mindset. I'm not judging, I'm not pointing the finger, I'm just drawing from my own personal experience and I've personally spoken to enough people and read enough of other people's stories to find that many have had the same experiences . I can't imagine these types of experiences are unique to these individuals I've had contact with, or whose experiences I've read.

[Chip]

...I've just accepted that there's a lot I don't know. I really don't know the answer to these questions...

I don't either, but there's this:

Luke 20
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

And this:

1 Corinthians 2
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Less to chew on here than our extended doctrine, but no less hopeful. Nobody's ever seen, heard, or imagined how awesome God's eternal gifts are. We wouldn't know how to ask for more, anyway. And anything we could call out wouldn't even be 0.00001%.

[EmmaLee]

Why do you think they were in such a hurry? Normally they take their time to make the films and it is done with such love and detail. What is the hurry for you think? I have the feeling it is not finished. There must be more to come. Very curious what that would be.

I wondered about that too.
I suspect that President Nelson is in a hurry because he is in his 90's and wants to get things changed before he pops his clogs.
I further suspect that his wife is very influential.

Did you not see the article I posted just above? It is no mystery whatsoever as to why the Church popped out the current filmstrip in such a hurry - and it has nothing to do with Nelson's age.

I don't think that's the reason.
Given that he was subject to discipline at the time, the church would have known about his past when he was commissioned to direct the films.
I think it's a case of the mathematically challenged SLTrib's attempt to add two and two together.

Yes, of course the Church knew about his past, but the PUBLIC didn't. The fact that the director of the temple films is a pedophile, and that that information was going to be made PUBLIC is why they got rid of all the movies he directed (which they'd just spent millions of tithing dollars making a few years earlier), and replaced them with a filmstrip. Nothing to do with the Tribune. Do you think the Church-owned Deseret News is going to run the story?? So again, yes the Church knew about his past and they didn't care - UNTIL his past was going to be made public, THEN they cared, and THEN they rushed the filmstrip through.

[Zathura]

...I've just accepted that there's a lot I don't know. I really don't know the answer to these questions...

I don't either, but there's this:

Luke 20
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

And this:

1 Corinthians 2
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Less to chew on here than our extended doctrine, but no less hopeful. Nobody's ever seen, heard, or imagined how awesome God's eternal gifts are. We wouldn't know how to ask for more, anyway. And anything we could call out wouldn't even be 0.00001%.

I actually liked the Church response to this

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1986/0 ... l?lang=eng

But in the end, my ultimate thought is that whatever God has for us it's gonna be perfect for us and more than we can imagine

[Robin Hood]

I wondered about that too.
I suspect that President Nelson is in a hurry because he is in his 90's and wants to get things changed before he pops his clogs.
I further suspect that his wife is very influential.

Did you not see the article I posted just above? It is no mystery whatsoever as to why the Church popped out the current filmstrip in such a hurry - and it has nothing to do with Nelson's age.

I don't think that's the reason.
Given that he was subject to discipline at the time, the church would have known about his past when he was commissioned to direct the films.
I think it's a case of the mathematically challenged SLTrib's attempt to add two and two together.

Yes, of course the Church knew about his past, but the PUBLIC didn't. The fact that the director of the temple films is a pedophile, and that that information was going to be made PUBLIC is why they got rid of all the movies he directed (which they'd just spent millions of tithing dollars making a few years earlier), and replaced them with a filmstrip. Nothing to do with the Tribune. Do you think the Church-owned Deseret News is going to run the story?? So again, yes the Church knew about his past and they didn't care - UNTIL his past was going to be made public, THEN they cared, and THEN they rushed the filmstrip through.

If that is true, then so much for repentance and redemption.

[EmmaLee]

Anything is possible (that is not the same as probable.)

Are the current First Presidency and Q12 out of harmony with Heavenly Father? Serious question.

I haven't met an active member of the church in real life (as opposed to on LDSFF) who has an issue with the changes.

What's funny is it's the same old complainers who are complaining. It's predictable. The church never does things how they think things should be done so the church must be wrong. No pride there.

Need to add one more group to the community of people who are 'happy' with the recent temple changes. Along with the feminists, pro-same-sex-marriage people, Snufferites, and the-leaders-are-infallible camps - we should also add the self-righteous, condescending, sanctimonious, presumptuous, and smugly moralistic folks - of which, there are plenty on LDSFF.

Gays and feminists are all 'happy' about the atonement so I guess the atonement is wrong?? That's logical.
They are?? Where have you read/garnered this information? I've never heard that gays and feminists are all happy about the atonement, so please provide your sources so I may learn more about this.

The Snuffers don't like the Temple change other than they, like you, think it's proof that the church is apostate. That's why they like it. So I guess you have that in common with the Snuff's. Have you thought about joining in with them other than to be accusers of the brethren?
What, exactly, have I accused the brethren of doing? Be specific, and quote my actual words. If you cannot do this, retract your statement and quit lying about me. Also, the same applies to you accusing me of thinking the Church is apostate. Be specific, and quote my actual words where I've said this - if you cannot do that, it proves you to be a liar. Are you aware, Shadow, Mirkwood, and Natasha, that liars will dwell in the telestial kingdom with murderers, adulterers, and PeeWee Herman? You wouldn't want to end up there, would you?

The Temple ceremony isn't mine. It isn't yours. It isn't the feminists. Why would a feminist care anyway?
You'll have to ask them. I've wondered why they (and any other liberals) would care, but they seem to - maybe they look at it like a victory? I don't know.

The Temple endowment is there to show how to get into the Celestial Kingdom- the lowest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. Why would a single woman have need to covenant to obey her husband if she doesn't have one and might not ever have one? Can you answer that?
The Church has always taught me that only sealed couples can inherit the Celestial Kingdom (the top level anyway) - so with that in mind, maybe single women shouldn't be getting their endowment until they are getting married? I don't know - it's not my doctrine - you'll have to talk to SL about that. But assuming it is okay for single women (who are not about to be married) to get their endowment, why for the past 150+ years have single women been covenanting to obey their husbands as they obey the Lord? Can you answer that?

You're probably aware that the lowest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom does NOT require a spouse. But if you want a husband, then look at the marriage sealing. Feminists are too shallow to notice the difference between the endowment and the marriage sealing and the requirements for the degrees of glory in the Celestial Kingdom.
Yes I am aware of this. Makes you wonder why the Church got it wrong in the endowment for over 150 years - really strange that all those prophets for over a century were uninspired and unable to receive revelation to make the needed changes. Thank goodness we NOW FINALLY have a prophet who "gets it" and who at long last receives actual revelation from God, and is straightening all the messes in the Church out. Whew!

I could care less if feminists, gays or Snufferites are happy with the Temple change. That means nothing to me. I don't know why it would. Why would I pay attention to what pleases them?? They're also happy when it's sunny outside. Who cares? The church excom'd Snuffer. The church doesn't allow gay marriage. The church, as recently as last GC, spoke out against abortion, gay marriage etc. The church didn't give women the Priesthood. The doctrine hasn't changed.
As long as you say so, Shadow; because you've never been wrong about anything, right? I'm sorry your testimony is so shaken and threatened when others have different thoughts, experiences, and beliefs than you. If your testimony was based on what it should be based on, my guess is what other people think wouldn't bother you and others so much.

High five for our snarkiness

[EmmaLee]

Did you not see the article I posted just above? It is no mystery whatsoever as to why the Church popped out the current filmstrip in such a hurry - and it has nothing to do with Nelson's age.

I don't think that's the reason.
Given that he was subject to discipline at the time, the church would have known about his past when he was commissioned to direct the films.
I think it's a case of the mathematically challenged SLTrib's attempt to add two and two together.

Yes, of course the Church knew about his past, but the PUBLIC didn't. The fact that the director of the temple films is a pedophile, and that that information was going to be made PUBLIC is why they got rid of all the movies he directed (which they'd just spent millions of tithing dollars making a few years earlier), and replaced them with a filmstrip. Nothing to do with the Tribune. Do you think the Church-owned Deseret News is going to run the story?? So again, yes the Church knew about his past and they didn't care - UNTIL his past was going to be made public, THEN they cared, and THEN they rushed the filmstrip through.

If that is true, then so much for repentance and redemption.

Well, indeed. But public image is everything to the Church, and especially in our current society with "Me too", all the pedos being identified (just look at the Catholic church), lawsuits, etc. - the Church wants to avoid the inevitable mud slogging that would have certainly ensued as this became more known. They don't even allow men with beards into BYU, so they certainly are not going to be seen to allow even a repentant pedophile as having such an important task in the temples. It was fine as long as only the Church was aware of this information, but as soon as it was going to be made public, his movies were out like a flash.

[ThePowerofEternity111]

If the leaders teach ye my gospel which is about sacrifice, if they saith unto ye go now and gather things ye truly don't need and lower thyself, sell it and pray and follow guidance in spirit to give it to the poor and needy even as the Lord and his disciples have done. If they encourage ye not to seek after worldly success and wealth not to be focused on Mammon of this world, if they encourage ye to seek after the Kingdom of God and avoid Fame and fortune, if they teach ye to detach your heart from the things of this world and seek not happiness in this world but in the kingdom of God. If they teach ye to put others first over yourselves and to be willing to sacrifice and suffer for sake of others. And if they teach ye continuously to repent and not words of flattery, if they call ye to be humbled and strive to be worthy to be a child of God by adoption. Behold then they are speaking by mine spirit true revelation.

I see you haven’t done those things yourself, as you obviously have a computer.

Behold and beware in that which ye choose to judge, for what is spoken by the Son is how he has overcome the world, and thus beware in saying as ye do. For he alone shall be exalted and ye shall be upon the earth when it falls and the spirit of the Son shall be withdrawn from ye, and thou shall be as they who had no oil in their lamps, lest ye repent and humble yourselves. For the Son is not well pleased with the state of the church and it remaineth unto the condemnation as spoken in the past, for people have failed to properly live by the scriptures spoken, too many have and few will remain and thus saith the Lord of hosts, that which was warned about that I shall chastise my people shall come upon my house for it is decided for I have seen first hand the situation of my Zion, in it is not yet restored. His word and doctrines he is pleased in and in the things done that he has influenced through his servants, but he is not pleased with the membership of this time in many ways, though this apply not to all.

[Fishwalker]

Please be aware that at the beginning of the new year there was an accompanying message from the First Presidency requesting that we "should not discuss the fact nor the content of these changes outside the temple." I would politely request that we honor that. If you want to talk about the temple, go to the temple and talk about it. Take a trusted friend, a member from your stake presidency, or even ask to speak with a member of the temple presidency.

I loved the temple last year and I love the temple even more this year. The Lord is hastening His work.

[dezNatDefender]

Please be aware that at the beginning of the new year there was an accompanying message from the First Presidency requesting that we "should not discuss the fact nor the nature of these changes outside the temple." I would politely request that we honor that. If you want to talk about the temple, go to the temple and talk about it. Take a trusted friend, a member from your stake presidency, or even ask to speak with a member of the temple presidency.

I loved the temple last year and I love the temple even more this year. The Lord is hastening His work.

Or you can read the endowment in the Scriptures PoGP. There are only certain things that we are not to disclose and the actual allegory isn't one of them----it's directly from Scripture.

[Fishwalker]

Please be aware that at the beginning of the new year there was an accompanying message from the First Presidency requesting that we "should not discuss the fact nor the nature of these changes outside the temple." I would politely request that we honor that. If you want to talk about the temple, go to the temple and talk about it. Take a trusted friend, a member from your stake presidency, or even ask to speak with a member of the temple presidency.

I loved the temple last year and I love the temple even more this year. The Lord is hastening His work.

Or you can read the endowment in the Scriptures PoGP. There are only certain things that we are not to disclose and the actual allegory isn't one of them----it's directly from Scripture.

I am well aware of that. I'm just surprised that most people glossed over the request from the First Presidency.

[Fishwalker]

Just in case you didn't hear the message in the endowment session early in the year:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/first-p ... s?lang=eng

[mirkwood]

I am well aware of that. I'm just surprised that most people glossed over the request from the First Presidency.

Have you spent much time reading here? A great many posters don't care what the First Presidency has to say.

[Kingdom of ZION]

(Interesting side note, these temple changes were in the works before President Monson died.)

That is clearly not the case.
It is very obvious the whole thing is cut & paste, put together in a great hurry.

Why do you think they were in such a hurry? Normally they take their time to make the films and it is done with such love and detail. What is the hurry for you think? I have the feeling it is not finished. There must be more to come. Very curious what that would be.

This is why the Church, as RH put it "cut and pasted" the new temple slideshow - he is exactly right - it was put together in a great hurry - https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/02/05/ ... day-saint/

The Church can't be showing videos in their temples that were directed by a now known pedophile. So yes, it was a quick dash to get rid of the videos once this info became public, and throw something together super fast - the result being the slideshow we see in the temples today.

Here's the article for any not wanting to go to all the work of clicking on the link above -

Noted Latter-day Saint filmmaker admits to molesting boy in 1993; victim wonders why church never offered him help
By Jessica Miller
·
Published: February 4
Updated: February 07, 2019

David was 13 years old in 1993, enjoying a sleepover at a friend’s house, when he woke up in the middle of the night.

His friend’s father — Sterling Van Wagenen, a prominent Latter-day Saint filmmaker and co-founder of what would become the Sundance Film Festival — had his hand inside the boy’s pants, David said, and was touching him.

The teen leapt up and ran to a bathroom, locking himself there the rest of the night. He told his parents the next morning.

Van Wagenen admitted to the abuse back then to police and his lay leaders within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — and again, 25 years later, in a conversation that David secretly recorded and the Truth & Transparency Foundation released Monday.

Van Wagenen never faced criminal charges. He was disfellowshipped — a penalty short of excommunication — from the Utah-based faith.

“I went through the church disciplinary process and was disfellowshipped for about two years,” Van Wagenen told the foundation, the nonprofit group behind the MormonLeaks website. “I repented and there were no further incidents. I reported the abuse to the police, as I was instructed to by my stake president, and the parents elected not to press charges.”

Van Wagenen did not respond to The Salt Lake Tribune’s request for an interview.

The church also declined to comment for this story. It has previously emphasized that it has “zero tolerance” for abuse and has pointed to times it has offered counseling to victims.

But David said the church offered him little help, explaining that he has been haunted by the molestation — and questions surrounding it — for more than a quarter century.

What would have happened if he didn’t run into that bathroom? Was he the only one whom Van Wagenen had molested?

David first approached Van Wagenen’s adult children last year, asking if they were ever told about what had happened during that 1993 sleepover. Eventually, David said, they suggested he meet Van Wagenen to get some answers.

David is identified by a pseudonym in the recording. The Tribune generally does not name sexual assault victims and agreed to use the same pseudonym for this story.

He told the paper Monday that he decided to come forward because he worried about other possible victims and hopes to bring about change to how they are treated by law enforcement and the church.

It caused him to be distrustful and suspicious of men, he told Van Wagenen in the recording, particularly of male Latter-day Saint leaders.
....
A notable figure in film and especially Latter-day Saint cinema, Van Wagenen co-founded the Utah/U.S. Film Festival, the precursor to the headline-grabbing Sundance festival in 1978. Some three years later, Robert Redford — who at the time was married to Van Wagenen’s cousin, Lola Van Wagenen — selected him as the first executive director of the Sundance Institute.

He directed the second and third installments of “The Work and the Glory,” a trilogy based on author Gerald N. Lund’s fictionalized accounts of early Mormonism. Last year, he was executive producer of “Jane and Emma,” a drama chronicling the friendship between Emma Smith, wife of church founder Joseph Smith, and black convert Jane Manning James.

In 2013, the church picked Van Wagenen to direct three new films to be used in Latter-day Saint temple rituals, according to the Truth and Transparency release. Those rites are among the faith’s holiest ordinances, available only to devout members.

“Given the sacredness of these ceremonies,” the release said, “the selection of Van Wagenen implies good standing with the church.”
....
David said he felt he had no voice during the police inquiry or the church proceedings. While his religious leaders were aware of the abuse, he said, no one ever reached out to him.

David said he learned only last year of the two-year disfellowshipment, a punishment he views as “unbelievably lenient.”

“I’ve always wondered why I was not offered any support or counseling or therapy,” David said. “Nothing.”

They actually have to resort to a slideshow? How quaint! They have BYU grads working for them, and no one knows how to put a power point or sliders presentation together? What a sad state of affairs when they resort to such old technology. Maybe they need to ask Disney to do an animated version... no real actors or such to represent them badly

Then they can change whatever they want really easy, and a little at a time, so no one notices...

[Fishwalker]

I am well aware of that. I'm just surprised that most people glossed over the request from the First Presidency.

Have you spent much time reading here? A great many posters don't care what the First Presidency has to say.

Interesting you should mention that. I used to read and be engaged 1-2 years ago, but I can clearly see the change in tide. I know it shouldn't surprise me, but yeah, it still does a little bit.

[Robin Hood]

Please be aware that at the beginning of the new year there was an accompanying message from the First Presidency requesting that we "should not discuss the fact nor the content of these changes outside the temple." I would politely request that we honor that. If you want to talk about the temple, go to the temple and talk about it. Take a trusted friend, a member from your stake presidency, or even ask to speak with a member of the temple presidency.

I loved the temple last year and I love the temple even more this year. The Lord is hastening His work.

Unfortunately this is a bit of a cop-out.
I have asked questions many times in the temple, mostly of the temple president, and all I get is a shrug of the shoulders or a blank look, often both.
They have no more idea about what things mean or what's going on than you or I.
I find it very unsatisfactory and have given up asking them questions.