LDS Freedom Forum

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 9:12 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 7:22 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 4:27 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:58 am

In most cases, no they dont matter all that much.

So when someone accuses you of a hate crime, it doesn't matter what the definition of the word means?
If someone says all we need to do to follow Jesus is just to "love"-it doesn't matter what the definition of word love means?

To say words don't matter is reductio ad absurdum and you make religion into whatever you want it to be with no guiding star.

And even more beyond that when you say words don't matter, what you are saying in effect is that proper communication doesn't matter. Words, language is the mechanism by which we can functionally communicate with each other across time and across individuals.

To say that words don't matter in something as important as the endowment is to effectively say that properly communicating what the endowment means doesn't matter. It renders the endowment utterly meaningless across multiple people, because there is no common or shared value system of what it means. If the words don't matter, it means the common understanding of communicating the endowment doesn't matter.

It makes a mockery of any idea that there is such a thing as truth.

Which is unfortunately, exactly the path the Church is going. Truth is simply at an individual level-whatever you believe your own truth is, there is no such thing as a common truth, or an underlying truth by which multiple people can guide their lives. It becomes a free-for-all with individuals picking and choosing whatever "truth" they "feel" is their own.

It devolves into lawless, because without a common understanding of truth there is no mechanism to have a law, and if there is no law it means there is no such thing as sin, which means there is no such thing as a God and each individual becomes their own God.

The fruits of this ideology (which is plentiful in today's society), will ultimately destroy societies and nations . . .and it will destroy religion.

There are many who digest every single word for some hidden or higher meaning in the temple and the scriptures. The message is whats important. The ordinance is whats important.

There is a universal truth but how that truth is said in words can differ greatly to which ever audience and culture and era its being expressed to. Think of the parables given, could the exact same idea been given with different words and different types of parables? Absolutely. We need to put more weight on personal revelation and the spirit while in the temple than on particular words or we run the risk of becoming prideful and missing the whole point.

This is all I meant.

I don't think we are even talking at the same level. Yes the message is what's important, but words are what communicate the message. Change the words and you change the message.

Yes parables can be given in different formats, but the endowment isn't a parable (unless you believe there was no Adam and Eve). It is a story which conveys the literal creation of this world, our bodies, and the fundamental relationship between men and women and then to God.

If you want to make a new/modern parable to convey a similar message that is fine. But let's take the parable of the sower. Seeds fall on the wayside, some on rocky ground, and some on good soil, and some on soil with thorns. You could use a different framework to convey the same message-absolutely. But if you modify the parable and instead of having 4 classes of seeds have 3 classes of seeds, you've fundamentally changed the message. Let's say you remove the part about some falling on rocky ground.

One can claim . . .well it's the same parable, you haven't changed anything. It's the same meta-parable (as in a story about those who hear the word of God), but the parable HAS changed. You've fundamentally lost something by removing one class of seeds.

Now, if one wants to claim that the true interpretation of the parable of the sower really only had three classes, instead of four. For some reason, in Christ's time He really meant 3 classes, not four and that somehow over time those 3 classes morphed into 4 classes and now by removing one class we are getting closer to the actual truth, that's a legitimate claim to investigate.

I have no problem with that type of a claim-but that is all it is "a claim". In order to make that claim, reality, and not just something that you thought up-you need to have significant weight of evident explaining why your new supercedes the old, common interpretation. And just saying "well we're more enlightened" now is not good enough-that's an extreme amount of hubris based on nothing except a modern cultural viewpoint with no actual evidence or weight of evidence to show. Now, if you had a manuscript that had a different version of the sower, went back to the original translation, or had some new Scripture, then other can weight the evidence and make a conclusion. Without it, all you have is the power of belief-and not a belief in God . . .but a belief in your ability to accurately correct the supposed "errors" of the past.

"We need to put more weight on personal revelation and the spirit while in the temple than on particular words or we run the risk of becoming prideful and missing the whole point."

No, what you claim here actually has the opposite effect. More weight on "personal revelation", means more importance on self, rather than on discovering the actual message. "Personal revelation" these days just means, look I "prayed" (i.e. I said words in my head), I felt something that I interpret as "the Spirit" telling me that this specific idea I have is a "good idea". Never mind that the personal revelation goes contrary to what was once a very common understanding of Gospel principles.

Because in the Church we have lost and I do mean lost, the actual Scriptural knowledge of reading the Scriptures, all anyone ever does is rely upon "personal revelation", which more often than not just ends up being a "gut feeling" rather than actual Revelation from God. Everyone thinks they are a Nephi slaying Laban, except you can't be a Nephi slaying Laban, unless you know the True Doctrine. You can't understand "personal revelation" until you fundamentally understand what are the basic rules that God has laid out-which are found in the Scriptures.

Which brings me back to the endowment. We have three separate, distinct, individual records of the Creation. Each and every one of them re-iterates the exact same thing; which is Adam was created first, Eve was created to be a helpmet, Satin beguiled Eve and she partook first, Adam partook next, God cursed Satan, God cursed Eve, God cursed Adam. Eve's seed (Christ) crushes Satan, Eve submits to her husband Adam, Adam submits to God.

Three records, three testimonies . . .and now, a man (who has not produced a single new scripture which has been ratified by the Body of the Church, who has not produced a single Revelation which has been demonstrated and proved to be true revelation), changes the Endowment session to rip out the section where Eve submits to her husband, thereby changing the parable, and you think that is approved by God?

I think it just shows the sad, sad state of affairs of the members of the Church. They are so starved for something, anything to demonstrate Revelation that they will soak up anything and everything without seriously contemplating if it is true or not. They won't know a true or a false prophet if he came and smacked them upside the head.

Like I said, I'm all for a change, if the evidence can be shown that the new changes are an actual restoration of the true meaning. Which in the case of the endowment should mean that Pres. Nelson better get busy re-translating the PGP and Genesis.

Otherwise, it's just a socio-political stunt.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 29th, 2019, 2:41 am

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 9:12 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 7:22 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 4:27 pm
So when someone accuses you of a hate crime, it doesn't matter what the definition of the word means?
If someone says all we need to do to follow Jesus is just to "love"-it doesn't matter what the definition of word love means?

To say words don't matter is reductio ad absurdum and you make religion into whatever you want it to be with no guiding star.

And even more beyond that when you say words don't matter, what you are saying in effect is that proper communication doesn't matter. Words, language is the mechanism by which we can functionally communicate with each other across time and across individuals.

To say that words don't matter in something as important as the endowment is to effectively say that properly communicating what the endowment means doesn't matter. It renders the endowment utterly meaningless across multiple people, because there is no common or shared value system of what it means. If the words don't matter, it means the common understanding of communicating the endowment doesn't matter.

It makes a mockery of any idea that there is such a thing as truth.

Which is unfortunately, exactly the path the Church is going. Truth is simply at an individual level-whatever you believe your own truth is, there is no such thing as a common truth, or an underlying truth by which multiple people can guide their lives. It becomes a free-for-all with individuals picking and choosing whatever "truth" they "feel" is their own.

It devolves into lawless, because without a common understanding of truth there is no mechanism to have a law, and if there is no law it means there is no such thing as sin, which means there is no such thing as a God and each individual becomes their own God.

The fruits of this ideology (which is plentiful in today's society), will ultimately destroy societies and nations . . .and it will destroy religion.

There are many who digest every single word for some hidden or higher meaning in the temple and the scriptures. The message is whats important. The ordinance is whats important.

There is a universal truth but how that truth is said in words can differ greatly to which ever audience and culture and era its being expressed to. Think of the parables given, could the exact same idea been given with different words and different types of parables? Absolutely. We need to put more weight on personal revelation and the spirit while in the temple than on particular words or we run the risk of becoming prideful and missing the whole point.

This is all I meant.

I don't think we are even talking at the same level. Yes the message is what's important, but words are what communicate the message. Change the words and you change the message.

Yes parables can be given in different formats, but the endowment isn't a parable (unless you believe there was no Adam and Eve). It is a story which conveys the literal creation of this world, our bodies, and the fundamental relationship between men and women and then to God.

If you want to make a new/modern parable to convey a similar message that is fine. But let's take the parable of the sower. Seeds fall on the wayside, some on rocky ground, and some on good soil, and some on soil with thorns. You could use a different framework to convey the same message-absolutely. But if you modify the parable and instead of having 4 classes of seeds have 3 classes of seeds, you've fundamentally changed the message. Let's say you remove the part about some falling on rocky ground.

One can claim . . .well it's the same parable, you haven't changed anything. It's the same meta-parable (as in a story about those who hear the word of God), but the parable HAS changed. You've fundamentally lost something by removing one class of seeds.

Now, if one wants to claim that the true interpretation of the parable of the sower really only had three classes, instead of four. For some reason, in Christ's time He really meant 3 classes, not four and that somehow over time those 3 classes morphed into 4 classes and now by removing one class we are getting closer to the actual truth, that's a legitimate claim to investigate.

I have no problem with that type of a claim-but that is all it is "a claim". In order to make that claim, reality, and not just something that you thought up-you need to have significant weight of evident explaining why your new supercedes the old, common interpretation. And just saying "well we're more enlightened" now is not good enough-that's an extreme amount of hubris based on nothing except a modern cultural viewpoint with no actual evidence or weight of evidence to show. Now, if you had a manuscript that had a different version of the sower, went back to the original translation, or had some new Scripture, then other can weight the evidence and make a conclusion. Without it, all you have is the power of belief-and not a belief in God . . .but a belief in your ability to accurately correct the supposed "errors" of the past.

"We need to put more weight on personal revelation and the spirit while in the temple than on particular words or we run the risk of becoming prideful and missing the whole point."

No, what you claim here actually has the opposite effect. More weight on "personal revelation", means more importance on self, rather than on discovering the actual message. "Personal revelation" these days just means, look I "prayed" (i.e. I said words in my head), I felt something that I interpret as "the Spirit" telling me that this specific idea I have is a "good idea". Never mind that the personal revelation goes contrary to what was once a very common understanding of Gospel principles.

Because in the Church we have lost and I do mean lost, the actual Scriptural knowledge of reading the Scriptures, all anyone ever does is rely upon "personal revelation", which more often than not just ends up being a "gut feeling" rather than actual Revelation from God. Everyone thinks they are a Nephi slaying Laban, except you can't be a Nephi slaying Laban, unless you know the True Doctrine. You can't understand "personal revelation" until you fundamentally understand what are the basic rules that God has laid out-which are found in the Scriptures.

Which brings me back to the endowment. We have three separate, distinct, individual records of the Creation. Each and every one of them re-iterates the exact same thing; which is Adam was created first, Eve was created to be a helpmet, Satin beguiled Eve and she partook first, Adam partook next, God cursed Satan, God cursed Eve, God cursed Adam. Eve's seed (Christ) crushes Satan, Eve submits to her husband Adam, Adam submits to God.

Three records, three testimonies . . .and now, a man (who has not produced a single new scripture which has been ratified by the Body of the Church, who has not produced a single Revelation which has been demonstrated and proved to be true revelation), changes the Endowment session to rip out the section where Eve submits to her husband, thereby changing the parable, and you think that is approved by God?

I think it just shows the sad, sad state of affairs of the members of the Church. They are so starved for something, anything to demonstrate Revelation that they will soak up anything and everything without seriously contemplating if it is true or not. They won't know a true or a false prophet if he came and smacked them upside the head.

Like I said, I'm all for a change, if the evidence can be shown that the new changes are an actual restoration of the true meaning. Which in the case of the endowment should mean that Pres. Nelson better get busy re-translating the PGP and Genesis.

Otherwise, it's just a socio-political stunt.

We have been told that we need to rely on personal revelation to help us navigate the times we live in, and you call personal revelation a focus on self setting oneself then up for missing the message??

Personal revelation is not supposed to be a “feeling” or even a “gut feeling”...personal revelation is to receive insight, understanding, and knowledge to your mind from God.

Personal revelation is not trivial nor should it be discouraged. Personal revelation is not the typical “confirmation” type of feeling or understanding that we express when we experience the Holy Ghost in our bosom. This is a literal windows of heaven opening experience that cannot be confused with a burning bosom experience.

THIS IS what we should be experiencing in the temple if we desire to. Sure we could focus on the words and the words alone and we can be great at regurgitating them, but where is the understanding? The REAL message? Where is the inspiration and impression on our souls without receiving from Heaven truth beyond our imperfect human words?

It seems the entire word focus for you is that women dont covenant to their husband but to God. Why is this so concerning?
Sure you believe the leaders have now gone and changed some fundamental aspect of the gospel but have they really? What did they really change? Where is the scripture that says a woman doesnt covenant with God but only to her husband?

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 10:57 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 4:53 pm Since the endowment is allegorical and we are all to consider ourselves to be Adam and Eve respectively, the endowment is a re-enactment of the Fall of Mankind.

So which is more likely? That 3 records which testify to the truthfulness of the way things were before they changed it. Or the one "Prophet" who claims God told Him to change it (well even that is a stretch, I don't recall Pres. Nelson claiming that it was changed due to a commandment of God). Or, is it more likely that the Church bent to social-political pressure because no one reads their scriptures anymore and can't handle the actual truth of things.

Adam was meant to rule over Eve, but like king Benjamin and Jesus, not king Noah or Herod. In the gospel a ruler is a servant, he works with his own hands, he washes feet, he lays down his life. I wish THAT could be emphasized somehow but that doesn't seem to be the main point of the endowment.

It is a very individual journey anyhow, men and women sit on opposite sides of the room, it is a personal journey and the covenants made reflect that. Look, it wouldn't have been how I would have done it, I think we all have our own opinions on how stuff should be done but we are not the ones in the position to change those things.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 29th, 2019, 10:51 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 10:57 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 4:53 pm Since the endowment is allegorical and we are all to consider ourselves to be Adam and Eve respectively, the endowment is a re-enactment of the Fall of Mankind.

So which is more likely? That 3 records which testify to the truthfulness of the way things were before they changed it. Or the one "Prophet" who claims God told Him to change it (well even that is a stretch, I don't recall Pres. Nelson claiming that it was changed due to a commandment of God). Or, is it more likely that the Church bent to social-political pressure because no one reads their scriptures anymore and can't handle the actual truth of things.

Adam was meant to rule over Eve, but like king Benjamin and Jesus, not king Noah or Herod. In the gospel a ruler is a servant, he works with his own hands, he washes feet, he lays down his life. I wish THAT could be emphasized somehow but that doesn't seem to be the main point of the endowment.

It is a very individual journey anyhow, men and women sit on opposite sides of the room, it is a personal journey and the covenants made reflect that. Look, it wouldn't have been how I would have done it, I think we all have our own opinions on how stuff should be done but we are not the ones in the position to change those things.

You mean like Ephasians describes? Yes I agree, that would be great, but that reinforces the Patriarchal order, it doesn't equalize men and women.

Salvation is individual, exaltation is joint. That is (or was) the point of the endowment. In order to obtain the highest glory it must be man + woman. In the endowment, Adam and Eve no longer need each other, they are each on their own separate journey, which means they can never obtain the fullest measure.

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 8:45 am

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 29th, 2019, 10:51 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 10:57 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 4:53 pm Since the endowment is allegorical and we are all to consider ourselves to be Adam and Eve respectively, the endowment is a re-enactment of the Fall of Mankind.

So which is more likely? That 3 records which testify to the truthfulness of the way things were before they changed it. Or the one "Prophet" who claims God told Him to change it (well even that is a stretch, I don't recall Pres. Nelson claiming that it was changed due to a commandment of God). Or, is it more likely that the Church bent to social-political pressure because no one reads their scriptures anymore and can't handle the actual truth of things.

Adam was meant to rule over Eve, but like king Benjamin and Jesus, not king Noah or Herod. In the gospel a ruler is a servant, he works with his own hands, he washes feet, he lays down his life. I wish THAT could be emphasized somehow but that doesn't seem to be the main point of the endowment.

It is a very individual journey anyhow, men and women sit on opposite sides of the room, it is a personal journey and the covenants made reflect that. Look, it wouldn't have been how I would have done it, I think we all have our own opinions on how stuff should be done but we are not the ones in the position to change those things.

You mean like Ephasians describes? Yes I agree, that would be great, but that reinforces the Patriarchal order, it doesn't equalize men and women.

Salvation is individual, exaltation is joint. That is (or was) the point of the endowment. In order to obtain the highest glory it must be man + woman. In the endowment, Adam and Eve no longer need each other, they are each on their own separate journey, which means they can never obtain the fullest measure.

My point is that maybe those aspects are not central to the endowment, it isn't that they aren't important, just not central to the endowment.

The endowment doesn't exalt people anyway, you must be married and sealed. The endowment can be received by single people, but a sealing requires a couple. Doesn't it seem a bit odd for single women making a kind of joint covenant when all the other covenants are made as individuals? Yes, that is an important part of Adam and Eve's specific journey AND our journey when we get sealed but the endowment is more about principles that lead us to the presence of God. That doesn't nullify the doctrine of the Patriarchal order, it isn't being scrubbed from our doctrine, and Eve covenanting with Adam doesn't appear anywhere in the scriptures anyway so I don't think anything is lost. When Adam and Eve were married they became "one flesh" and we both even called "Adam."

Maybe their intent was to make that clearer, by making the washing/anointing, endowment, and sealing feel more like three parts of a whole rather than three different ordinances.

If you only focus on the endowment alone, I can see your point, but as I have pointed out before there are many things missing from the temple Adam and Eve story and many things added that are not in scripture. The fact that men and women, husbands and wives, sit separately from each other indicates that this IS an individual journey for the people there, just like the washing/anointing. After we pass through the veil and complete the ordinance for ourselves, we continue on to sealing where are joined as one.

The whole "hearken to the counsel as..." doesn't make much sense anyway. Shouldn't a husband and wife listen to each other anyway? Should a wife never seek inspiration on her own and should a husband never trust the Spiritual impressions of his wife? If anything it was vague and I don't think anything is lost on its removal.

Henry B. Eyring said this last conference in the women's session:

"Part of the Lord’s current sharing of knowledge relates to accelerating His pouring out eternal truth on the heads and into the hearts of His people. He has made clear that the daughters of Heavenly Father will play a primary role in that miraculous acceleration. One evidence of the miracle is His leading His living prophet to put far greater emphasis on gospel instruction in the home and within the family."

It may be that this part of the endowment was making too many women feel like they could not get their own revelation. But here, Eyring is pointing out that women's revelation is going to be key in the pouring out of eternal truth. Not that the church per se will be the one doing this, but that the women will have a primary role here.

One way to think of it is the allegory of the olive tree. Just like in the tree of life vision, the olive tree is female and great effort is made by the Lord of the vineyard and his servants to help the tree bear good fruit. In that same light, it seems that this is a more accurate depiction of how husbands and wives should operate. The wive is not a sidekick, she is the source of light and life, the menorah of the temple, the tree of life. Husbands (note the term "husbandry: the care, cultivation, and breeding of plants and animals") must ensure the tree flourishes. Just like in Ephesians, husbands should lay down their lives for their wives and Christ did for the church. This is the kind of "ruling" they were called for, not a worldly king, but a heavenly one.

I think some really interesting things are being revealed here if we have ears to hear and eyes to see. I just really hope we are not like the Pharisees and resist further light because we are too stuck on "how we've done things." In reading the New Testament this year it is sobering to consider how difficult it must have been for the Jews at the time to accept what Christ was teaching.

He did miracles and had some wild teachings but they had been warned against false prophets. When you've been doing things one way for centuries and some guy comes along and says that actually, you need to eat his flesh and drink his blood that is hard to process.

I'm not saying that I was 100% on board with all these changes myself, but I am trying to think through this fairly with others here. If there is a way to see any of this as a sign we are moving in the right direction vs apostasy, I want to be open-mined enough to consider that as well.

[email protected] wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 11:07 am Young men, who they are and what they should rightously become, are being attacked spritually, emotionally, and physically by the adversary. I know that many good and praise worthy things are under attack today and recently I've wondered why young men and traditionally masculine men specifically are quickly being marginalized and diminished? The answer I've concluded is because this demographic is the most serious threat to the corrupt greedy men that run this fallen world and to Satan and the plans he has made.

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 8:45 am

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 29th, 2019, 10:51 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 10:57 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 4:53 pm Since the endowment is allegorical and we are all to consider ourselves to be Adam and Eve respectively, the endowment is a re-enactment of the Fall of Mankind.

So which is more likely? That 3 records which testify to the truthfulness of the way things were before they changed it. Or the one "Prophet" who claims God told Him to change it (well even that is a stretch, I don't recall Pres. Nelson claiming that it was changed due to a commandment of God). Or, is it more likely that the Church bent to social-political pressure because no one reads their scriptures anymore and can't handle the actual truth of things.

Adam was meant to rule over Eve, but like king Benjamin and Jesus, not king Noah or Herod. In the gospel a ruler is a servant, he works with his own hands, he washes feet, he lays down his life. I wish THAT could be emphasized somehow but that doesn't seem to be the main point of the endowment.

It is a very individual journey anyhow, men and women sit on opposite sides of the room, it is a personal journey and the covenants made reflect that. Look, it wouldn't have been how I would have done it, I think we all have our own opinions on how stuff should be done but we are not the ones in the position to change those things.

You mean like Ephasians describes? Yes I agree, that would be great, but that reinforces the Patriarchal order, it doesn't equalize men and women.

Salvation is individual, exaltation is joint. That is (or was) the point of the endowment. In order to obtain the highest glory it must be man + woman. In the endowment, Adam and Eve no longer need each other, they are each on their own separate journey, which means they can never obtain the fullest measure.

My point is that maybe those aspects are not central to the endowment, it isn't that they aren't important, just not central to the endowment.

The endowment doesn't exalt people anyway, you must be married and sealed. The endowment can be received by single people, but a sealing requires a couple. Doesn't it seem a bit odd for single women making a kind of joint covenant when all the other covenants are made as individuals? Yes, that is an important part of Adam and Eve's specific journey AND our journey when we get sealed but the endowment is more about principles that lead us to the presence of God. That doesn't nullify the doctrine of the Patriarchal order, it isn't being scrubbed from our doctrine, and Eve covenanting with Adam doesn't appear anywhere in the scriptures anyway so I don't think anything is lost. When Adam and Eve were married they became "one flesh" and we both even called "Adam."

Maybe their intent was to make that clearer, by making the washing/anointing, endowment, and sealing feel more like three parts of a whole rather than three different ordinances.

If you only focus on the endowment alone, I can see your point, but as I have pointed out before there are many things missing from the temple Adam and Eve story and many things added that are not in scripture. The fact that men and women, husbands and wives, sit separately from each other indicates that this IS an individual journey for the people there, just like the washing/anointing. After we pass through the veil and complete the ordinance for ourselves, we continue on to sealing where are joined as one.

The whole "hearken to the counsel as..." doesn't make much sense anyway. Shouldn't a husband and wife listen to each other anyway? Should a wife never seek inspiration on her own and should a husband never trust the Spiritual impressions of his wife? If anything it was vague and I don't think anything is lost on its removal.

Henry B. Eyring said this last conference in the women's session:

"Part of the Lord’s current sharing of knowledge relates to accelerating His pouring out eternal truth on the heads and into the hearts of His people. He has made clear that the daughters of Heavenly Father will play a primary role in that miraculous acceleration. One evidence of the miracle is His leading His living prophet to put far greater emphasis on gospel instruction in the home and within the family."

It may be that this part of the endowment was making too many women feel like they could not get their own revelation. But here, Eyring is pointing out that women's revelation is going to be key in the pouring out of eternal truth. Not that the church per se will be the one doing this, but that the women will have a primary role here.

One way to think of it is the allegory of the olive tree. Just like in the tree of life vision, the olive tree is female and great effort is made by the Lord of the vineyard and his servants to help the tree bear good fruit. In that same light, it seems that this is a more accurate depiction of how husbands and wives should operate. The wive is not a sidekick, she is the source of light and life, the menorah of the temple, the tree of life. Husbands (note the term "husbandry: the care, cultivation, and breeding of plants and animals") must ensure the tree flourishes. Just like in Ephesians, husbands should lay down their lives for their wives and Christ did for the church. This is the kind of "ruling" they were called for, not a worldly king, but a heavenly one.

I think some really interesting things are being revealed here if we have ears to hear and eyes to see. I just really hope we are not like the Pharisees and resist further light because we are too stuck on "how we've done things." In reading the New Testament this year it is sobering to consider how difficult it must have been for the Jews at the time to accept what Christ was teaching.

He did miracles and had some wild teachings but they had been warned against false prophets. When you've been doing things one way for centuries and some guy comes along and says that actually, you need to eat his flesh and drink his blood that is hard to process.

I'm not saying that I was 100% on board with all these changes myself, but I am trying to think through this fairly with others here. If there is a way to see any of this as a sign we are moving in the right direction vs apostasy, I want to be open-mined enough to consider that as well.

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 8:45 am

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 29th, 2019, 10:51 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 10:57 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 4:53 pm Since the endowment is allegorical and we are all to consider ourselves to be Adam and Eve respectively, the endowment is a re-enactment of the Fall of Mankind.

So which is more likely? That 3 records which testify to the truthfulness of the way things were before they changed it. Or the one "Prophet" who claims God told Him to change it (well even that is a stretch, I don't recall Pres. Nelson claiming that it was changed due to a commandment of God). Or, is it more likely that the Church bent to social-political pressure because no one reads their scriptures anymore and can't handle the actual truth of things.

Adam was meant to rule over Eve, but like king Benjamin and Jesus, not king Noah or Herod. In the gospel a ruler is a servant, he works with his own hands, he washes feet, he lays down his life. I wish THAT could be emphasized somehow but that doesn't seem to be the main point of the endowment.

It is a very individual journey anyhow, men and women sit on opposite sides of the room, it is a personal journey and the covenants made reflect that. Look, it wouldn't have been how I would have done it, I think we all have our own opinions on how stuff should be done but we are not the ones in the position to change those things.

You mean like Ephasians describes? Yes I agree, that would be great, but that reinforces the Patriarchal order, it doesn't equalize men and women.

Salvation is individual, exaltation is joint. That is (or was) the point of the endowment. In order to obtain the highest glory it must be man + woman. In the endowment, Adam and Eve no longer need each other, they are each on their own separate journey, which means they can never obtain the fullest measure.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd for single women making a kind of joint covenant when all the other covenants are made as individuals?

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 29th, 2019, 10:31 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 29th, 2019, 2:41 am

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 9:12 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 7:22 pm

There are many who digest every single word for some hidden or higher meaning in the temple and the scriptures. The message is whats important. The ordinance is whats important.

There is a universal truth but how that truth is said in words can differ greatly to which ever audience and culture and era its being expressed to. Think of the parables given, could the exact same idea been given with different words and different types of parables? Absolutely. We need to put more weight on personal revelation and the spirit while in the temple than on particular words or we run the risk of becoming prideful and missing the whole point.

This is all I meant.

I don't think we are even talking at the same level. Yes the message is what's important, but words are what communicate the message. Change the words and you change the message.

Yes parables can be given in different formats, but the endowment isn't a parable (unless you believe there was no Adam and Eve). It is a story which conveys the literal creation of this world, our bodies, and the fundamental relationship between men and women and then to God.

If you want to make a new/modern parable to convey a similar message that is fine. But let's take the parable of the sower. Seeds fall on the wayside, some on rocky ground, and some on good soil, and some on soil with thorns. You could use a different framework to convey the same message-absolutely. But if you modify the parable and instead of having 4 classes of seeds have 3 classes of seeds, you've fundamentally changed the message. Let's say you remove the part about some falling on rocky ground.

One can claim . . .well it's the same parable, you haven't changed anything. It's the same meta-parable (as in a story about those who hear the word of God), but the parable HAS changed. You've fundamentally lost something by removing one class of seeds.

Now, if one wants to claim that the true interpretation of the parable of the sower really only had three classes, instead of four. For some reason, in Christ's time He really meant 3 classes, not four and that somehow over time those 3 classes morphed into 4 classes and now by removing one class we are getting closer to the actual truth, that's a legitimate claim to investigate.

I have no problem with that type of a claim-but that is all it is "a claim". In order to make that claim, reality, and not just something that you thought up-you need to have significant weight of evident explaining why your new supercedes the old, common interpretation. And just saying "well we're more enlightened" now is not good enough-that's an extreme amount of hubris based on nothing except a modern cultural viewpoint with no actual evidence or weight of evidence to show. Now, if you had a manuscript that had a different version of the sower, went back to the original translation, or had some new Scripture, then other can weight the evidence and make a conclusion. Without it, all you have is the power of belief-and not a belief in God . . .but a belief in your ability to accurately correct the supposed "errors" of the past.

"We need to put more weight on personal revelation and the spirit while in the temple than on particular words or we run the risk of becoming prideful and missing the whole point."

No, what you claim here actually has the opposite effect. More weight on "personal revelation", means more importance on self, rather than on discovering the actual message. "Personal revelation" these days just means, look I "prayed" (i.e. I said words in my head), I felt something that I interpret as "the Spirit" telling me that this specific idea I have is a "good idea". Never mind that the personal revelation goes contrary to what was once a very common understanding of Gospel principles.

Because in the Church we have lost and I do mean lost, the actual Scriptural knowledge of reading the Scriptures, all anyone ever does is rely upon "personal revelation", which more often than not just ends up being a "gut feeling" rather than actual Revelation from God. Everyone thinks they are a Nephi slaying Laban, except you can't be a Nephi slaying Laban, unless you know the True Doctrine. You can't understand "personal revelation" until you fundamentally understand what are the basic rules that God has laid out-which are found in the Scriptures.

Which brings me back to the endowment. We have three separate, distinct, individual records of the Creation. Each and every one of them re-iterates the exact same thing; which is Adam was created first, Eve was created to be a helpmet, Satin beguiled Eve and she partook first, Adam partook next, God cursed Satan, God cursed Eve, God cursed Adam. Eve's seed (Christ) crushes Satan, Eve submits to her husband Adam, Adam submits to God.

Three records, three testimonies . . .and now, a man (who has not produced a single new scripture which has been ratified by the Body of the Church, who has not produced a single Revelation which has been demonstrated and proved to be true revelation), changes the Endowment session to rip out the section where Eve submits to her husband, thereby changing the parable, and you think that is approved by God?

I think it just shows the sad, sad state of affairs of the members of the Church. They are so starved for something, anything to demonstrate Revelation that they will soak up anything and everything without seriously contemplating if it is true or not. They won't know a true or a false prophet if he came and smacked them upside the head.

Like I said, I'm all for a change, if the evidence can be shown that the new changes are an actual restoration of the true meaning. Which in the case of the endowment should mean that Pres. Nelson better get busy re-translating the PGP and Genesis.

Otherwise, it's just a socio-political stunt.

We have been told that we need to rely on personal revelation to help us navigate the times we live in, and you call personal revelation a focus on self setting oneself then up for missing the message??

I said "personal revelation", not revelation given by the Holy Spirit (which is actually what Pres. Nelson said). And there is a difference between "personal revelation" and revelation given by the Holy Ghost.

"Personal revelation" means that your revelation can be different than my revelation; now this is perfectly fine in many instances. Now actual individual revelation is good in many cases. Should I move here or there, should I take this job or that job? Those are things in general which are indeed personal. As in your decision to move to Iowa, or Utah, does not conflict with the shared meta-values of the religious community. Neither does your choice of profession (in general).

However, if you claim "personal revelation" that God tells you that engaging in the line of work of a hooker is perfectly acceptable, something more is going on. Because now your "personal revelation" is in conflict with the value system of the religious system. One has a choice, either one can say your "personal revelation" is false and not of God, or it is of God and the underlying value system (which is nothing more than a set of rules) has changed, or you develop cognitive dissonance.

So yes if one is getting "personal revelation" that is in direct conflict with Scripture, one is setting oneself up as their own God. There are absolutely times where God commands people to do things contrary to the laws, but that is the exception not the rule and before you think you are the exception, you better be darn well sure you are living a life where you are not deceived by false Spirits.

Personal revelation is not supposed to be a “feeling” or even a “gut feeling”...personal revelation is to receive insight, understanding, and knowledge to your mind from God.

Yes, I agree, but that's not how many (or maybe even most) members of the Church use it as. Many homosexual members claim they have heard God's voice telling them "they are not broken"-which is utter rubbish. They are hearing a voice alright-but it's not God's voice. Why do I know it is rubbish? Because it conflicts with Scriptures which state "man is nothing", that the children of men are "lower than the dust of the earth", that we are all fallen, i.e. broken individuals. If I'm not broken, if you're not broken then neither you nor I need Christ to redeem us. That's not the voice of God, it's Lucifer.

Personal revelation is not trivial nor should it be discouraged. Personal revelation is not the typical “confirmation” type of feeling or understanding that we express when we experience the Holy Ghost in our bosom. This is a literal windows of heaven opening experience that cannot be confused with a burning bosom experience.

I agree, I'm not trivializing it-others have already done that. I'm merely expressing how they have trivialized it by them claiming to have received something from God, which directly conflicts with His Word. Others trivialize it by not taking seriously God's Word. By conflating their own thoughts/feelings/emotions and then passing those things off as "personal revelation", when it is in direct conflict with Scripture is trivializing it.

THIS IS what we should be experiencing in the temple if we desire to. Sure we could focus on the words and the words alone and we can be great at regurgitating them, but where is the understanding? The REAL message? Where is the inspiration and impression on our souls without receiving from Heaven truth beyond our imperfect human words?

The President of the Church has changed the covenant; certainly within his right to do so, but he did change it. You can't claim it's the same . .. if it's the same then why change it?

It seems the entire word focus for you is that women dont covenant to their husband but to God. Why is this so concerning?
Sure you believe the leaders have now gone and changed some fundamental aspect of the gospel but have they really? What did they really change? Where is the scripture that says a woman doesnt covenant with God but only to her husband?

The REAL message-it is now whatever you want it to be. The family order is destroyed, if you want to live the Patriarchal Order, great, if you don't want to live the Patriarchal Order, great. Neither one is of higher value than the other now (in fact, not living the Patriarchal Order is now of higher value).

The REAL message is the following . . .it doesn't matter!!!! If either one is good, then why choose one over the other? The real message is we don't actually have prophets, we have figureheads who hold the office of a Prophet or an Apostle which are telling the people . . .do whatever you think is best. Just because one hold the office of an Apostle or Prophet does not make one an actual prophet. Pres. Nelson is giving it a good try, no doubt about that. He is trying to be a prophet moreso than probably any Prophet in 20 years-which is why many people are so excited. But whether or not he actually is a prophet . . .that's manifested in his works. Which right now, do not lead me to believe so, especially when he changes the Patriarchal Order when it is written in scripture thrice!

Ultimately, I thank God, I'm not at that level, the Scriptures are pretty damning to leaders and prophets who fail to teach correct principles-the blood of the people is upon their heads. I pray for them.

Of course they have fundamentally changed the Gospel; they have fundamentally changed the Patriarchal Order-it is no longer taught. Sure you can find it in the Scriptures, but so what? It's not taught. Now, if they just eliminated both covenants to God, I would say you have some reason to your argument. If they eliminated the man's portion and the woman's portion, I'd say okay that's a removal. But they didn't do that. They kept the man's the same and changed the woman's. That's a problem.

Ultimately what this means is that the LDS Church must in the future give women the Priesthood (or an equivalent). There is no longer any theological underpinning for this not to happen.

Mark my words, women will get a Priesthood.

Mind you, I have absolutely no problem with a change in Doctrine such as no more Patriarchal Order or women having the priesthood . . .if and that's a massive if, it's a true representation of how things originally were.

However, to make that claim-one has to claim that a whole mess of Scriptures spanning 1000s of years were wrong. That's a really tall order.

And when women get the Priesthood (b/c now they must get the priesthood), there will be other things accepted into the Church which directly conflict with Scripture. But that's not as large of a logical leap, b/c as soon as you start disregarding Scriptures (in which the same structure is repeated multiple times), without new Scripture to supercede it . . .it is very easy to disregard other Scriptures and to make God in whatever image the socio-political environment wants him to be.

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 8:45 am The whole "hearken to the counsel as..." doesn't make much sense anyway. Shouldn't a husband and wife listen to each other anyway? Should a wife never seek inspiration on her own and should a husband never trust the Spiritual impressions of his wife? If anything it was vague and I don't think anything is lost on its removal.

Henry B. Eyring said this last conference in the women's session:

"Part of the Lord’s current sharing of knowledge relates to accelerating His pouring out eternal truth on the heads and into the hearts of His people. He has made clear that the daughters of Heavenly Father will play a primary role in that miraculous acceleration. One evidence of the miracle is His leading His living prophet to put far greater emphasis on gospel instruction in the home and within the family."

It may be that this part of the endowment was making too many women feel like they could not get their own revelation. But here, Eyring is pointing out that women's revelation is going to be key in the pouring out of eternal truth. Not that the church per se will be the one doing this, but that the women will have a primary role here.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 12:20 pm

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 8:45 am

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 29th, 2019, 10:51 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 10:57 pm
Adam was meant to rule over Eve, but like king Benjamin and Jesus, not king Noah or Herod. In the gospel a ruler is a servant, he works with his own hands, he washes feet, he lays down his life. I wish THAT could be emphasized somehow but that doesn't seem to be the main point of the endowment.

It is a very individual journey anyhow, men and women sit on opposite sides of the room, it is a personal journey and the covenants made reflect that. Look, it wouldn't have been how I would have done it, I think we all have our own opinions on how stuff should be done but we are not the ones in the position to change those things.

You mean like Ephasians describes? Yes I agree, that would be great, but that reinforces the Patriarchal order, it doesn't equalize men and women.

Salvation is individual, exaltation is joint. That is (or was) the point of the endowment. In order to obtain the highest glory it must be man + woman. In the endowment, Adam and Eve no longer need each other, they are each on their own separate journey, which means they can never obtain the fullest measure.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd for single women making a kind of joint covenant when all the other covenants are made as individuals?

No it doesn't. Because women are ultimately exalted through their husband. Men are exalted through the Patriarchal Priesthood. It's so sad how much has been lost. When you get married, men bring their wives through the veil, women do not bring men through the veil.

But I'm sure that will eventually be thrown out too . . . as we travel down this path. And we will travel down this path. The Priesthood won't be lost until Christ comes, but we can sure enter into quite a bit of apostasy.

Christ is going to have to come to clean up His Church

capctr wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 12:32 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 29th, 2019, 10:31 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 29th, 2019, 2:41 am

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 9:12 pm
I don't think we are even talking at the same level. Yes the message is what's important, but words are what communicate the message. Change the words and you change the message.

Yes parables can be given in different formats, but the endowment isn't a parable (unless you believe there was no Adam and Eve). It is a story which conveys the literal creation of this world, our bodies, and the fundamental relationship between men and women and then to God.

If you want to make a new/modern parable to convey a similar message that is fine. But let's take the parable of the sower. Seeds fall on the wayside, some on rocky ground, and some on good soil, and some on soil with thorns. You could use a different framework to convey the same message-absolutely. But if you modify the parable and instead of having 4 classes of seeds have 3 classes of seeds, you've fundamentally changed the message. Let's say you remove the part about some falling on rocky ground.

One can claim . . .well it's the same parable, you haven't changed anything. It's the same meta-parable (as in a story about those who hear the word of God), but the parable HAS changed. You've fundamentally lost something by removing one class of seeds.

Now, if one wants to claim that the true interpretation of the parable of the sower really only had three classes, instead of four. For some reason, in Christ's time He really meant 3 classes, not four and that somehow over time those 3 classes morphed into 4 classes and now by removing one class we are getting closer to the actual truth, that's a legitimate claim to investigate.

I have no problem with that type of a claim-but that is all it is "a claim". In order to make that claim, reality, and not just something that you thought up-you need to have significant weight of evident explaining why your new supercedes the old, common interpretation. And just saying "well we're more enlightened" now is not good enough-that's an extreme amount of hubris based on nothing except a modern cultural viewpoint with no actual evidence or weight of evidence to show. Now, if you had a manuscript that had a different version of the sower, went back to the original translation, or had some new Scripture, then other can weight the evidence and make a conclusion. Without it, all you have is the power of belief-and not a belief in God . . .but a belief in your ability to accurately correct the supposed "errors" of the past.

"We need to put more weight on personal revelation and the spirit while in the temple than on particular words or we run the risk of becoming prideful and missing the whole point."

No, what you claim here actually has the opposite effect. More weight on "personal revelation", means more importance on self, rather than on discovering the actual message. "Personal revelation" these days just means, look I "prayed" (i.e. I said words in my head), I felt something that I interpret as "the Spirit" telling me that this specific idea I have is a "good idea". Never mind that the personal revelation goes contrary to what was once a very common understanding of Gospel principles.

Because in the Church we have lost and I do mean lost, the actual Scriptural knowledge of reading the Scriptures, all anyone ever does is rely upon "personal revelation", which more often than not just ends up being a "gut feeling" rather than actual Revelation from God. Everyone thinks they are a Nephi slaying Laban, except you can't be a Nephi slaying Laban, unless you know the True Doctrine. You can't understand "personal revelation" until you fundamentally understand what are the basic rules that God has laid out-which are found in the Scriptures.

Which brings me back to the endowment. We have three separate, distinct, individual records of the Creation. Each and every one of them re-iterates the exact same thing; which is Adam was created first, Eve was created to be a helpmet, Satin beguiled Eve and she partook first, Adam partook next, God cursed Satan, God cursed Eve, God cursed Adam. Eve's seed (Christ) crushes Satan, Eve submits to her husband Adam, Adam submits to God.

Three records, three testimonies . . .and now, a man (who has not produced a single new scripture which has been ratified by the Body of the Church, who has not produced a single Revelation which has been demonstrated and proved to be true revelation), changes the Endowment session to rip out the section where Eve submits to her husband, thereby changing the parable, and you think that is approved by God?

I think it just shows the sad, sad state of affairs of the members of the Church. They are so starved for something, anything to demonstrate Revelation that they will soak up anything and everything without seriously contemplating if it is true or not. They won't know a true or a false prophet if he came and smacked them upside the head.

Like I said, I'm all for a change, if the evidence can be shown that the new changes are an actual restoration of the true meaning. Which in the case of the endowment should mean that Pres. Nelson better get busy re-translating the PGP and Genesis.

Otherwise, it's just a socio-political stunt.

We have been told that we need to rely on personal revelation to help us navigate the times we live in, and you call personal revelation a focus on self setting oneself then up for missing the message??

I said "personal revelation", not revelation given by the Holy Spirit (which is actually what Pres. Nelson said). And there is a difference between "personal revelation" and revelation given by the Holy Ghost.

"Personal revelation" means that your revelation can be different than my revelation; now this is perfectly fine in many instances. Now actual individual revelation is good in many cases. Should I move here or there, should I take this job or that job? Those are things in general which are indeed personal. As in your decision to move to Iowa, or Utah, does not conflict with the shared meta-values of the religious community. Neither does your choice of profession (in general).

However, if you claim "personal revelation" that God tells you that engaging in the line of work of a hooker is perfectly acceptable, something more is going on. Because now your "personal revelation" is in conflict with the value system of the religious system. One has a choice, either one can say your "personal revelation" is false and not of God, or it is of God and the underlying value system (which is nothing more than a set of rules) has changed, or you develop cognitive dissonance.

So yes if one is getting "personal revelation" that is in direct conflict with Scripture, one is setting oneself up as their own God. There are absolutely times where God commands people to do things contrary to the laws, but that is the exception not the rule and before you think you are the exception, you better be darn well sure you are living a life where you are not deceived by false Spirits.

Personal revelation is not supposed to be a “feeling” or even a “gut feeling”...personal revelation is to receive insight, understanding, and knowledge to your mind from God.

Yes, I agree, but that's not how many (or maybe even most) members of the Church use it as. Many homosexual members claim they have heard God's voice telling them "they are not broken"-which is utter rubbish. They are hearing a voice alright-but it's not God's voice. Why do I know it is rubbish? Because it conflicts with Scriptures which state "man is nothing", that the children of men are "lower than the dust of the earth", that we are all fallen, i.e. broken individuals. If I'm not broken, if you're not broken then neither you nor I need Christ to redeem us. That's not the voice of God, it's Lucifer.

Personal revelation is not trivial nor should it be discouraged. Personal revelation is not the typical “confirmation” type of feeling or understanding that we express when we experience the Holy Ghost in our bosom. This is a literal windows of heaven opening experience that cannot be confused with a burning bosom experience.

I agree, I'm not trivializing it-others have already done that. I'm merely expressing how they have trivialized it by them claiming to have received something from God, which directly conflicts with His Word. Others trivialize it by not taking seriously God's Word. By conflating their own thoughts/feelings/emotions and then passing those things off as "personal revelation", when it is in direct conflict with Scripture is trivializing it.

THIS IS what we should be experiencing in the temple if we desire to. Sure we could focus on the words and the words alone and we can be great at regurgitating them, but where is the understanding? The REAL message? Where is the inspiration and impression on our souls without receiving from Heaven truth beyond our imperfect human words?

The President of the Church has changed the covenant; certainly within his right to do so, but he did change it. You can't claim it's the same . .. if it's the same then why change it?

It seems the entire word focus for you is that women dont covenant to their husband but to God. Why is this so concerning?
Sure you believe the leaders have now gone and changed some fundamental aspect of the gospel but have they really? What did they really change? Where is the scripture that says a woman doesnt covenant with God but only to her husband?

The REAL message-it is now whatever you want it to be. The family order is destroyed, if you want to live the Patriarchal Order, great, if you don't want to live the Patriarchal Order, great. Neither one is of higher value than the other now (in fact, not living the Patriarchal Order is now of higher value).

The REAL message is the following . . .it doesn't matter!!!! If either one is good, then why choose one over the other? The real message is we don't actually have prophets, we have figureheads who hold the office of a Prophet or an Apostle which are telling the people . . .do whatever you think is best. Just because one hold the office of an Apostle or Prophet does not make one an actual prophet. Pres. Nelson is giving it a good try, no doubt about that. He is trying to be a prophet moreso than probably any Prophet in 20 years-which is why many people are so excited. But whether or not he actually is a prophet . . .that's manifested in his works. Which right now, do not lead me to believe so, especially when he changes the Patriarchal Order when it is written in scripture thrice!

Ultimately, I thank God, I'm not at that level, the Scriptures are pretty damning to leaders and prophets who fail to teach correct principles-the blood of the people is upon their heads. I pray for them.

Of course they have fundamentally changed the Gospel; they have fundamentally changed the Patriarchal Order-it is no longer taught. Sure you can find it in the Scriptures, but so what? It's not taught. Now, if they just eliminated both covenants to God, I would say you have some reason to your argument. If they eliminated the man's portion and the woman's portion, I'd say okay that's a removal. But they didn't do that. They kept the man's the same and changed the woman's. That's a problem.

Ultimately what this means is that the LDS Church must in the future give women the Priesthood (or an equivalent). There is no longer any theological underpinning for this not to happen.

Mark my words, women will get a Priesthood.

Mind you, I have absolutely no problem with a change in Doctrine such as no more Patriarchal Order or women having the priesthood . . .if and that's a massive if, it's a true representation of how things originally were.

However, to make that claim-one has to claim that a whole mess of Scriptures spanning 1000s of years were wrong. That's a really tall order.

And when women get the Priesthood (b/c now they must get the priesthood), there will be other things accepted into the Church which directly conflict with Scripture. But that's not as large of a logical leap, b/c as soon as you start disregarding Scriptures (in which the same structure is repeated multiple times), without new Scripture to supercede it . . .it is very easy to disregard other Scriptures and to make God in whatever image the socio-political environment wants him to be.

Here is a thought(and it is only a thought, which more than likely is neither wise nor profound, and considering g the source[me] not inspired):
What if all the feminists have been stirred up against the patriarchy due to the adversary recognizing that a revelation about the Queen of heaven may be forthcoming, therefor he is attempting to muddy the water, and make the Lord's servants look reactionary? Remember, this is just the remotest of possibilities, but the notion of ol'scratch acting up before new revelation is hardly a new idea...might also explain why feminism strikes me as a perversion of the true value and strength of women, and just REALLY makes me cross.

[email protected] wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 12:51 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 12:20 pm

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 8:45 am

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 29th, 2019, 10:51 am
You mean like Ephasians describes? Yes I agree, that would be great, but that reinforces the Patriarchal order, it doesn't equalize men and women.

Salvation is individual, exaltation is joint. That is (or was) the point of the endowment. In order to obtain the highest glory it must be man + woman. In the endowment, Adam and Eve no longer need each other, they are each on their own separate journey, which means they can never obtain the fullest measure.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd for single women making a kind of joint covenant when all the other covenants are made as individuals?

No it doesn't. Because women are ultimately exalted through their husband. Men are exalted through the Patriarchal Priesthood. It's so sad how much has been lost. When you get married, men bring their wives through the veil, women do not bring men through the veil.

But I'm sure that will eventually be thrown out too . . . as we travel down this path. And we will travel down this path. The Priesthood won't be lost until Christ comes, but we can sure enter into quite a bit of apostasy.

Christ is going to have to come to clean up His Church

It's comforting to know I'm not alone in my feelings towards these recent changes within the Church and that I'm not the only noticing the negative effect it's having on young men. So thank you for that. My fear (and believe me I hope I'm wrong on this) is that Church leadership will not properly address these problems and instead basically take a hardline towards men who feel the way you and I do and essentially just say "take it or leave it we're inspired please do as we ask" if that happens then there will be a schism in the Church and the organization will struggle to survive. Just my feeling.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 25th, 2019, 1:04 am I went to the temple a few days ago, the first time for an endowment session since the changes at the beginning of the year.
I went with a positive attitude and was determined to look for insights and additional light and truth.
I regret to report I was thoroughly disappointed.

If I had to sum up the "new" endowment in simple words, the likes of butchered, brutalised, spirit-less, dis-jointed, manipulated, contrived etc come to mind.
I came away deflated and actually a little annoyed.

It has affected me considerably since though I have attempted to put these negative thoughts and feelings away, but have as yet been successful.

In fact, I would go as far as to say I have no desire to return and participate in endowment sessions. We have planned a few trips this year but I have pretty much decided to concentrate my efforts in the baptistry from now on.

Am I alone in these feelings?
Can anyone report positives to counter-balance my negative observations?
Can anyone offer some insight I may have missed?

I don't want to feel so negative, so any thoughts and observations would be helpful, especially from those who have experience the new regime themselves.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 1:10 pm

[email protected] wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 12:51 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 12:20 pm

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 30th, 2019, 8:45 am
Doesn't it seem a bit odd for single women making a kind of joint covenant when all the other covenants are made as individuals?

No it doesn't. Because women are ultimately exalted through their husband. Men are exalted through the Patriarchal Priesthood. It's so sad how much has been lost. When you get married, men bring their wives through the veil, women do not bring men through the veil.

But I'm sure that will eventually be thrown out too . . . as we travel down this path. And we will travel down this path. The Priesthood won't be lost until Christ comes, but we can sure enter into quite a bit of apostasy.

Christ is going to have to come to clean up His Church

It's comforting to know I'm not alone in my feelings towards these recent changes within the Church and that I'm not the only noticing the negative effect it's having on young men. So thank you for that. My fear (and believe me I hope I'm wrong on this) is that Church leadership will not properly address these problems and instead basically take a hardline towards men who feel the way you and I do and essentially just say "take it or leave it we're inspired please do as we ask" if that happens then there will be a schism in the Church and the organization will struggle to survive. Just my feeling.

I'm already resigned to the way this is going to go in the future; I'll still be disappointed when it happens. Learning how to stand alone in a world of chaos is very challenging. Yes there are plenty of other people who recognize and see what is going on-but they don't dare speak up and say anything, especially not in Church.

If we actually did things the way the Church was originally restored, we'd be able to better sort these things out. Ward/Stake/General Conferences were originally done to conduct business. Which meant the primary tasks were to call people into positions, sustain them, vote on them and discuss if need be.

Joseph Smith at the end didn't want Signey Ridgeon to be his counselor . . .but the Church body overruled him and kept him as a counselor anyways. People would vote opposed, they'd get up and publicly from the pulpit express their reason why they voted opposed, sometimes the person would be sustained regardless, sometimes they would find someone else.

When you have the freedom to oppose like that without any serious social consequences-you can openly discuss issues and problems; you can get a better gauge on the temperature of the actual body of the Saints.

For all we know, we could be in the majority, or we could be 1% . . .I have no clue but at least when things are open and available for discussion it can be worked out. There is way, way too much unchecked hierarchy inside the Church and reliance that if God didn't want soandso in suchandsuch position, He wouldn't have inspired the higher leader to call soandso into suchandsuch position.

Michelle wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:25 pm Reading many of the comments just before mine, I can't help but think that maybe the emphasis on women and leading, is that most of the men will be gone or dead soon.

........I hope I am wrong.

kittycat51 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2019, 10:39 am

Michelle wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 9:25 pm Reading many of the comments just before mine, I can't help but think that maybe the emphasis on women and leading, is that most of the men will be gone or dead soon.

........I hope I am wrong.

I hope you're wrong too! I only had boys. I would be greatly lost without my best friend and companion (husband) and sons.

evejaa wrote: ↑April 1st, 2019, 4:21 pm First of all we should not be sharing "any" details about the endowment and the sacredness of the Temple, period.

Second, the film portion does not matter, it is only to give us a glimpse of God's dealings with all of mankind, meaning from the beginning of time.

Third, the covenants are the same, our commitment should be the same. If you have received "personal revelation" that the church is true , then nothing should take our testimony from us.

evejaa wrote: ↑April 1st, 2019, 4:21 pm First of all we should not be sharing "any" details about the endowment and the sacredness of the Temple, period.

Second, the film portion does not matter, it is only to give us a glimpse of God's dealings with all of mankind, meaning from the beginning of time.

Third, the covenants are the same, our commitment should be the same. If you have received "personal revelation" that the church is true , then nothing should take our testimony from us.

Sirius wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 11:53 am

mike_rumble wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 11:40 am "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.

Orson Pratt JOD vo15 http://jod.mrm.org/15/312

What will become of the old bachelor who refuses to obey the ordinance of marriage? We have preached to the young men of this Territory, and laid before them the sacredness of the marriage covenant. We have told them and the young women that it is their duty to enter into this covenant as much as it is their duty to be baptized for the remission of their sins. The same God that commanded the latter gave the revelation concerning the marriage
page 321
covenant, yet there are some who will give heed to one ordinance—baptism—but will be careless and indifferent about the other. By taking this course they do not altogether forfeit their right and title to enter that kingdom, but they do forfeit their right and title to be kings therein. What will be their condition there? They will be Angels.

There are many different classes of beings in the eternal worlds, and among them are angels. Who are these angels? Some of them have never yet come to take upon them bodies of flesh and bones, but they will come in their times, seasons and generations and receive their tabernacles, the same as we have done. Then there are others who were resurrected when Jesus was, when the graves of the Saints were opened and many came forth and showed themselves to those who were then living in the flesh. Besides these there are angels who have been to this world and have never yet received a resurrection, whose spirits have gone hence into celestial paradise, and there await the resurrection. We have now mentioned three classes of angels. There are others, among them some redeemed from former creations before this world was made, one of whom administered to our first parents after they were cast out of the garden as they were offering sacrifices and burnt offerings, according to the commandments which they received from God when they were driven from the garden. After they had done this many days an Angel came and ministered to them and inquired of them why they offered sacrifices and burnt offerings unto the Lord. The answer was, "I know not, save it be that the Lord commanded me." Then this angel went on to explain to our first parents why these offerings were made and why they were commanded to shed the blood of beasts, telling them that all these things were typical of the great and last sacrifice that should be offered up for all mankind, namely the Son of the living God. These angels that came to Adam were not men who had been redeemed from this earth—not men who had been translated from this earth—but they pertained to former worlds. They understood about the coming of Jesus, the nature of these sacrifices, &c.

Some of these angels have received their exaltation, and still are called angels. For instance Michael has received his exaltation. He is not without his kingdom and crown, wife or wives and posterity, because he lived faithful to the end. Who is he? Our first, great progenitor, Adam, is called Michael, the Prince. I am mentioning now things that the Latter-day Saints are acquainted with. Many of these things I have just been quoting are revelations given to us, as those who are readers will recollect. Some of these angels have received their exaltation. They are kings, they are priests, they have entered into their glory and sit upon thrones—they hold the sceptre over their posterity. Those other classes I have mentioned have neglected the new and everlasting covenant of marriage: They can not inherit this glory and these kingdoms—they can not be crowned in the celestial world. What purpose will they serve? They will be sent on errands—be sent to other worlds as missionaries to minister, they will be sent on whatever business the Lord sees proper; in other words, they will be servants. To whom will they be servants? To those who have obeyed and remained faithful to the new and everlasting covenant, and have been exalted to thrones; to those who have cove-
page 322
nanted before God with wives so that they may raise up and multiply immortal intelligent beings through all the ages of eternity. Here is the distinction of classes, but all of the same glory, called celestial glory.

Fishwalker wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 8:21 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 8:20 pm

Fishwalker wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 8:14 pm 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.

sandman45 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2019, 10:40 pm

Fishwalker wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 8:21 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 8:20 pm

Fishwalker wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 8:14 pm 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.

Probably because it was a “Request” and not a “ Revelation”. Been a while since we’ve had a legit one.