Temple changes

[drtanner]

I see two groups that are happy or content with the changes. The feminists, both men and women, along with the pro-gay-marriage people, are happy. Some of them are actually thrilled. They perceive that women's status has been elevated, and that there is room in the chastity covenant and sealing language for gay marriage to be implemented.

Those who are content, broadly speaking, are those who will never find fault with anything that comes from the top leadership, and will not allow themselves any doubt or cognitive dissonance.

A man in my ward gave a talk recently and told of a spiritual experience he had as a teenager attending the Provo temple dedication (early 1970's). He then said that because of the witness he received that Spencer Kimball was a Prophet, he has never doubted anything that comes from the President of the Church. This is similar to the view that if you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, then you must believe that every jot and tittle that comes from SLC is also true. The leaders are therefore infallible, and can never lead the church astray in any area. No cognitive dissonance allowed.

This doesn't cover everyone of course, and it's very possible that if one prays about the temple changes, and gets the feeling that they should attend the temple, then it's very likely true that the Lord still wants them there. It's also true that if receiving revelation that the changes are not from God would damage one's marriage, one's family, or one's overall testimony, God may withhold that information for the time being. We are children, and just babies compared to God. He will not give us more (individually) than we are ready to receive.

If anyone in those two groups are applauding the changes then they don’t understand them nor the temple in general.

[Lizzy60]

https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/01/02/ ... -possible/

The feminists rejoice!

The post linked above, and the comments that follow, are by members who lobbied for changes (get rid of patriarchy) and are rejoicing that they were heard by the Brethren. They also hold out hope that LGBT issues will be addressed in the same way, and soon.

[drtanner]

https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/01/02/ ... -possible/

The feminists rejoice!

Right, they don’t understand them.

[e-eye2.0]

I have a sister about 5 years ago talks about an experience where she had a really dark feeling in the church. Now that sister has her tattoos, drinks all the time but that's not the bad part, the bad part is she has completely denounced her Savior. She has gone down a very difficult path and is ever searching for joy.

I'm not sure why one feels a darkness in the temple as I think the only time I have not felt a great spirit is when my life was out of balance. I am not sure if it is Satan doing all that he can even to the lengths of influencing in the temple or if it's the individual's life that may be out of balance spiritually but it happens.

My testimony is that I have felt a great spirit before and after the changes.

In my mind we are going through the prophesy that we were warned we would face when we were told we would face a test, a test, a Test!

I think we are just starting the test.

[kirtland r.m.]

https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/01/02/ ... -possible/

The feminists rejoice!

The post linked above, and the comments that follow, are by members who lobbied for changes (get rid of patriarchy) and are rejoicing that they were heard by the Brethren. They also hold out hope that LGBT issues will be addressed in the same way, and soon.

Thanks Lizzy60, this is exactly what I’m talking about. The very last people on earth that should be influencing the endowment, seem to have the upper hand.
,

[JK4Woods]

Well... my natural curiosity won out the first time I went after the changes. Then the second time to re-fresh my memory of the changes.

Biggest thing I was surprised about was how the the consequences for wandering away from the covenant are only for those who have belonged to the Kingdom.

Seems like the endowment is now saying that a human born on the earth who doesn't join the Kingdom, and stays on a path which does not lead to our Savior, they then cannot be condemned or punished by not complying with God's laws.

Anyone else grasp this?
I'm curious because aren't we all Adam & Eve's posterity? But only those who actually join the Kingdom (by Baptism) are to be condemned if we stray?

Guess I'll have to go several more times to see if my first impressions were right.

Hopefully they are shooting a new movie right now, because the jilted slide show is a bit discomfitting.

[Kingdom of ZION]

I see two groups that are happy or content with the changes. The feminists, both men and women, along with the pro-gay-marriage people, are happy. Some of them are actually thrilled. They perceive that women's status has been elevated, and that there is room in the chastity covenant and sealing language for gay marriage to be implemented.

Those who are content, broadly speaking, are those who will never find fault with anything that comes from the top leadership, and will not allow themselves any doubt or cognitive dissonance.

A man in my ward gave a talk recently and told of a spiritual experience he had as a teenager attending the Provo temple dedication (early 1970's). He then said that because of the witness he received that Spencer Kimball was a Prophet, he has never doubted anything that comes from the President of the Church. This is similar to the view that if you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, then you must believe that every jot and tittle that comes from SLC is also true. The leaders are therefore infallible, and can never lead the church astray in any area. No cognitive dissonance allowed.

This doesn't cover everyone of course, and it's very possible that if one prays about the temple changes, and gets the feeling that they should attend the temple, then it's very likely true that the Lord still wants them there. It's also true that if receiving revelation that the changes are not from God would damage one's marriage, one's family, or one's overall testimony, God may withhold that information for the time being. We are children, and just babies compared to God. He will not give us more (individually) than we are ready to receive.

If anyone in those two groups are applauding the changes then they don’t understand them nor the temple in general.

Brother, what you fail to understand is... they do not see it as in they have got everything they wanted! They see it as a victory that they got concessions, and their going to be looking for a whole lot more changes real soon! When you change the Ordinance (and they have and will again), you change the priesthood!

[drtanner]

I see two groups that are happy or content with the changes. The feminists, both men and women, along with the pro-gay-marriage people, are happy. Some of them are actually thrilled. They perceive that women's status has been elevated, and that there is room in the chastity covenant and sealing language for gay marriage to be implemented.

Those who are content, broadly speaking, are those who will never find fault with anything that comes from the top leadership, and will not allow themselves any doubt or cognitive dissonance.

A man in my ward gave a talk recently and told of a spiritual experience he had as a teenager attending the Provo temple dedication (early 1970's). He then said that because of the witness he received that Spencer Kimball was a Prophet, he has never doubted anything that comes from the President of the Church. This is similar to the view that if you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, then you must believe that every jot and tittle that comes from SLC is also true. The leaders are therefore infallible, and can never lead the church astray in any area. No cognitive dissonance allowed.

This doesn't cover everyone of course, and it's very possible that if one prays about the temple changes, and gets the feeling that they should attend the temple, then it's very likely true that the Lord still wants them there. It's also true that if receiving revelation that the changes are not from God would damage one's marriage, one's family, or one's overall testimony, God may withhold that information for the time being. We are children, and just babies compared to God. He will not give us more (individually) than we are ready to receive.

If anyone in those two groups are applauding the changes then they don’t understand them nor the temple in general.

Brother, what you fail to understand is... they do not see it as they have got everything they wanted! They see it as a victory that they got concessions, and their going to be looking for a whole lot more changes real soon! When you change the Ordinance, and they have and will again, you change the priesthood!

People can interpret changes however they want. When changes are made they don’t agree with (or actually interpret correctly) they will sadly and unfortunately leave.

Elder Corbridge puts it nicely:

People say, “You should be true to your beliefs.” While that is true, you cannot be better than what you know. Most of us act based on our beliefs, especially what we believe to be in our self-­interest. The problem is, we are sometimes wrong.

The challenge is not so much closing the gap between our actions and our beliefs; rather, the challenge is closing the gap between our beliefs and the truth. That is the challenge.

[Contemplator]

This isn't about change feeling a little unsettling or different. Robin Hood is not a child who can't handle a bit of change to his routine. This goes much deeper than that.

Essential doctrine has been removed from the temple endowment. The true relationship between Adam, Eve, and God is no longer taught in the temple. The Law of obedience has been changed. And we have seen no revelation to indicate why this has happened. Nothing to explain how every prophet from Adam to Monson got this wrong. It really appears to have been done for reasons of political correctness and convenience.

I have not heard anyone voice this opinion out loud. Everyone I have spoken with has either been positive about the changes, or have been indifferent to them. Yet all of the positive comments have been of the superficial variety. It is shorter. You don't have to change as much. It is easier. I never liked having to veil my face. My step mother even said that she is glad she no longer has to obey her husband (in a joking way).

This change flies in the face of scripture and past revelation. It cannot be explained as a "line upon line" change as I have seen many try and do. It is removing lines, not building upon them. And it is replacing those lines with something false. Something that is rooted in modern feminist ideaology and not God. The world has long taught that Eve does not need Adam, and here we are now implementing that same idea into our temple covenants.

It is regrettable to me that this has happened. I understand Robin Hood's feelings. I will continue to attend the temple as I believe in essential nature of those covenants. But it is with much sadness and regret that I see us as a Church and people moving farther from God and closer to the World. My children will never be able to covenant to keep the true Law of obedience.

I really appreciate most of the changes the Church has made w/ regards to organization. Putting the Melchizedek priesthood quorums together under the person with keys was long overdue. We are getting much more in line with the scriptures and past revelation in an organizational sense. But, in my opinion, we are continuing to move away from God and closer to the world in matters of doctrine.

I am sympathetic to what you are saying. A new idea occurred to me, though. We used to have a version of obedience that was consistent with Ephesians 5:

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Implicit in these verses are two ideas:
1. A man should obey God
2. A woman should submit to her husband when he is like Christ.

Christ did nothing but what the father asked. Why are we willing to submit to Christ? Because we can learn from experience that He asks of us nothing but what the father asks. If he ever deviated, we would be under no obligation to follow Jesus any longer. Thus, implicit in the two aspects of obedience in Ephesians 5 is that the wife needs to know God's will well enough to be able to know if her husband is speaking the Father's words. If her husband speaks anything other than the Father's words, then the wife is under no obligation.

So, we actually have 3 items in the previous version (again, based upon Ephesians 5):
1. A man should obey God
2. A woman should obey God well enough to know when her husband is like Christ.
3. A woman should submit to her husband when he is like Christ.

Notice that item 3 in this list was not explicit, but it was logically necessary for a woman to keep her part of the agreement. A correct idea does not have to be explicitly stated in the temple ceremony to be a correct idea. I recently wondered if there is actually fourth part of this that had not yet been explicitly included in the temple ceremony. Maybe I am expected to give head to my wife when she is like Christ (that is, hearing the words of the Father and speaking them). A good example would be the wife of the mission president who had the dream that kept the missionaries safe. Her husband was wise to hearken to her counsel.

So, maybe there are actually four parts to a married couple being obedient:
1. A man should obey God
2. A woman should obey God well enough to know when her husband is like Christ.
3. A woman should submit to her husband when he is like Christ.
4. A man should submit to his wife when she is like Christ.

It turns out that numbers 1 and 2 are now in the endowment and 3 and 4 are in the sealing. It is possible that no doctrine has been changed or lost. It has merely been improved in its presentation.

[Col. Flagg]

Or maybe the endowment never came from God and is a ritual that dates back to the 1400's through the Masons.

[shadow]

Or maybe the endowment never came from God and is a ritual that dates back to the 1400's through the Masons.

Is that what you believe?

[Col. Flagg]

Or maybe the endowment never came from God and is a ritual that dates back to the 1400's through the Masons.

Is that what you believe?

It's a fact, there's nothing to believe. Don't make me post a pic from a 1930's Masonic temple ritual. Joseph Smith hadn't been a 33rd degree Mason 3 months before instituting the temple endowment. His Father, Joseph Smith, Sr. was a Mason too. This is stuff you're never gonna hear or be taught at church, that's for sure. The truth hurts sometimes and I'm just the messenger. But don't take my word for it, research it for yourself.

[mirkwood]

I see two groups that are happy or content with the changes. The feminists, both men and women, along with the pro-gay-marriage people, are happy. Some of them are actually thrilled. They perceive that women's status has been elevated, and that there is room in the chastity covenant and sealing language for gay marriage to be implemented.

Those who are content, broadly speaking, are those who will never find fault with anything that comes from the top leadership, and will not allow themselves any doubt or cognitive dissonance.

roflmao

[kittycat51]

I am neither a feminist nor do I sympathize with LGTBQ. I could care less what either groups opinions are.

I don't doubt or question people's concerns. I believe they are real and troubling to them. It's not wrong to question. Remember a very wise person once said,

"Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith"

Sometimes we just need to put our doubts into a box until further light and knowledge comes. And I believe it will. To get on a forum such as this and be critical about changes in the Church saddens me though. Those who constantly question and complain in the Church will always continue to do so until they either fall out of the boat or willing climb out. You can ask and get a myriad amount of advice here at LDSFF, and it will differ as the whims and fancies of the world that constantly changes. And although there may be tidbits of brilliant advice here and there, the only ONE that you can get true answers from is GOD and Prayer.

I may be one that is accused of blindly following the brethren. That's okay with me. The Church is just a vehicle for the true gospel of Jesus Christ. And although it is led by imperfect men, I get revelation again and again that we are led by true prophets of God. And that is why I can be accused of being a blind follower is because I cannot doubt those impressions/revelations that come again and again. President Nelson himself stated recently;

"In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost....The privilege of receiving revelation is one of the greatest gifts of God to His children. Through the manifestations of the Holy Ghost, the Lord will assist us in all our righteous pursuits."

To say you don't agree with the endowment changes so you decide to just do other ordinances, I think is strange. (I think it's hypocritical) Do we get to pick and choose which saving ordinances our ancestors receive? We are doing them a disservice in doing so.

So again, my 2 cents worth, and it may not be worth to many but is the one true answer to all of this. Ask in HUMBLE faith believing that you will get an answer.

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

[kittycat51]

Or maybe the endowment never came from God and is a ritual that dates back to the 1400's through the Masons.

Is that what you believe?

It's a fact, there's nothing to believe. Don't make me post a pic from a 1930's Masonic temple ritual. Joseph Smith hadn't been a 33rd degree Mason 3 months before instituting the temple endowment. His Father, Joseph Smith, Sr. was a Mason too. This is stuff you're never gonna hear or be taught at church, that's for sure. The truth hurts sometimes and I'm just the messenger. But don't take my word for it, research it for yourself.

Just curious did you read this thread? viewtopic.php?f=2&t=50971&p=919628#p919628

[Sarah]

This isn't about change feeling a little unsettling or different. Robin Hood is not a child who can't handle a bit of change to his routine. This goes much deeper than that.

Essential doctrine has been removed from the temple endowment. The true relationship between Adam, Eve, and God is no longer taught in the temple. The Law of obedience has been changed. And we have seen no revelation to indicate why this has happened. Nothing to explain how every prophet from Adam to Monson got this wrong. It really appears to have been done for reasons of political correctness and convenience.

I have not heard anyone voice this opinion out loud. Everyone I have spoken with has either been positive about the changes, or have been indifferent to them. Yet all of the positive comments have been of the superficial variety. It is shorter. You don't have to change as much. It is easier. I never liked having to veil my face. My step mother even said that she is glad she no longer has to obey her husband (in a joking way).

This change flies in the face of scripture and past revelation. It cannot be explained as a "line upon line" change as I have seen many try and do. It is removing lines, not building upon them. And it is replacing those lines with something false. Something that is rooted in modern feminist ideaology and not God. The world has long taught that Eve does not need Adam, and here we are now implementing that same idea into our temple covenants.

It is regrettable to me that this has happened. I understand Robin Hood's feelings. I will continue to attend the temple as I believe in essential nature of those covenants. But it is with much sadness and regret that I see us as a Church and people moving farther from God and closer to the World. My children will never be able to covenant to keep the true Law of obedience.

I really appreciate most of the changes the Church has made w/ regards to organization. Putting the Melchizedek priesthood quorums together under the person with keys was long overdue. We are getting much more in line with the scriptures and past revelation in an organizational sense. But, in my opinion, we are continuing to move away from God and closer to the world in matters of doctrine.

I am sympathetic to what you are saying. A new idea occurred to me, though. We used to have a version of obedience that was consistent with Ephesians 5:

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Implicit in these verses are two ideas:
1. A man should obey God
2. A woman should submit to her husband when he is like Christ.

Christ did nothing but what the father asked. Why are we willing to submit to Christ? Because we can learn from experience that He asks of us nothing but what the father asks. If he ever deviated, we would be under no obligation to follow Jesus any longer. Thus, implicit in the two aspects of obedience in Ephesians 5 is that the wife needs to know God's will well enough to be able to know if her husband is speaking the Father's words. If her husband speaks anything other than the Father's words, then the wife is under no obligation.

So, we actually have 3 items in the previous version (again, based upon Ephesians 5):
1. A man should obey God
2. A woman should obey God well enough to know when her husband is like Christ.
3. A woman should submit to her husband when he is like Christ.

Notice that item 3 in this list was not explicit, but it was logically necessary for a woman to keep her part of the agreement. A correct idea does not have to be explicitly stated in the temple ceremony to be a correct idea. I recently wondered if there is actually fourth part of this that had not yet been explicitly included in the temple ceremony. Maybe I am expected to give head to my wife when she is like Christ (that is, hearing the words of the Father and speaking them). A good example would be the wife of the mission president who had the dream that kept the missionaries safe. Her husband was wise to hearken to her counsel.

So, maybe there are actually four parts to a married couple being obedient:
1. A man should obey God
2. A woman should obey God well enough to know when her husband is like Christ.
3. A woman should submit to her husband when he is like Christ.
4. A man should submit to his wife when she is like Christ.

It turns out that numbers 1 and 2 are now in the endowment and 3 and 4 are in the sealing. It is possible that no doctrine has been changed or lost. It has merely been improved in its presentation.

Exactly right! Thank you for pointing out how obedience SHOULD work.

Although this is a little unrelated, I found this article written about slavery in the Bible:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... l-slavery/

What I thought was interesting which the author pointed out, was that the laws regarding slavery changed over the course of the Israelites' progression. The progression led to laws that acknowledged that all were servants to God and not each other. Slaves were released at the Jubilee for example. The other good point made was that the laws took into account the "realities of life." The realities of life are that some are weak, some are strong. Some are poor, some are rich, and everyone is essentially looking out for their own self-interest. Point being that laws can be adapted to the state in which the people are in. When the people are ready to accept the changes, then they are introduced.

[tdj]

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.

Our temple here is being renovated. It's been closed down for a year and a half now. The nearest one to us is in Dallas, which is about a 3 hr drive. So I don't know anything about the new system until ours opens back up in May.

[tdj]

Change always feels a little uncomfortable or unsettling. Its like when you've been singing a certain song your whole life, and you hear a different version of it. Inside you tell yourself, "this is wrong" when it's just different. You get used to the new version of a new song over time and then it feels familiar. Even though I love the changes and feel the wisdom in them, when I sit through I find myself wanting to finish the sentences differently because they are so familiar, and it sparks a feeling of loss, but it's simply me not being familiar enough with the changes.
It comes down to the question of trust. I trust God is leading Pres. Nelson and the Church in the right direction. I have spiritual confirmation that these temples will be used in the millenium and that the Lord himself will visit the temples.

Yeah, I feel that way about the Christmas song, "Away in the manger". The LDS church sings it to a completely different tune, and even after five years, it irks me.

[mtm411]

That's how I felt with the old one. I could never shake the feeling that it wasn't complete or quite right. Now, I feel joy in the temple for the first time in decades.

Before, I would just go for sealings, unless forced by social obligation to do endowments. That might help you.

[Zathura]

Strange how everyone consistently is getting directly opposite "Revelation" on this topic. (Strange, this happens on every topic now that I think about it)

It's almost as if there is an incorrect understand of what Revelation is, how it's received, what it "feels" like. Hmmm.

All is well.. all is well.

[Zathura]

I see two groups that are happy or content with the changes. The feminists, both men and women, along with the pro-gay-marriage people, are happy. Some of them are actually thrilled. They perceive that women's status has been elevated, and that there is room in the chastity covenant and sealing language for gay marriage to be implemented.

Those who are content, broadly speaking, are those who will never find fault with anything that comes from the top leadership, and will not allow themselves any doubt or cognitive dissonance.

A man in my ward gave a talk recently and told of a spiritual experience he had as a teenager attending the Provo temple dedication (early 1970's). He then said that because of the witness he received that Spencer Kimball was a Prophet, he has never doubted anything that comes from the President of the Church. This is similar to the view that if you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, then you must believe that every jot and tittle that comes from SLC is also true. The leaders are therefore infallible, and can never lead the church astray in any area. No cognitive dissonance allowed.

This doesn't cover everyone of course, and it's very possible that if one prays about the temple changes, and gets the feeling that they should attend the temple, then it's very likely true that the Lord still wants them there. It's also true that if receiving revelation that the changes are not from God would damage one's marriage, one's family, or one's overall testimony, God may withhold that information for the time being. We are children, and just babies compared to God. He will not give us more (individually) than we are ready to receive.

If anyone in those two groups are applauding the changes then they don’t understand them nor the temple in general.

You know those libs out there that are still POSITIVE that Trump still somehow colluded with Russians after the summary of the Report says he did not?

Kinda seems the same here. The Temple walls and clothing could be changed to black and the actual tokens changed to something completely different and I think your(Both you specifically and those with similar thoughts) posts would look identical to the ones you have made in this thread.

Technically something something, so therefore it's ACTUALLY just the same thing if you look at this or that way.. It just simply cannot be, there must be an explanation, they can't be wrong no way.. it must be revelation.. it must be us that just doesn't properly understand the message, we aren't ready for the understanding yet, God is testin us etc etc etc.

(That's not to say you are right or wrong here.. I don't know *shrug*)

[Serragon]

This isn't about change feeling a little unsettling or different. Robin Hood is not a child who can't handle a bit of change to his routine. This goes much deeper than that.

Essential doctrine has been removed from the temple endowment. The true relationship between Adam, Eve, and God is no longer taught in the temple. The Law of obedience has been changed. And we have seen no revelation to indicate why this has happened. Nothing to explain how every prophet from Adam to Monson got this wrong. It really appears to have been done for reasons of political correctness and convenience.

I have not heard anyone voice this opinion out loud. Everyone I have spoken with has either been positive about the changes, or have been indifferent to them. Yet all of the positive comments have been of the superficial variety. It is shorter. You don't have to change as much. It is easier. I never liked having to veil my face. My step mother even said that she is glad she no longer has to obey her husband (in a joking way).

This change flies in the face of scripture and past revelation. It cannot be explained as a "line upon line" change as I have seen many try and do. It is removing lines, not building upon them. And it is replacing those lines with something false. Something that is rooted in modern feminist ideaology and not God. The world has long taught that Eve does not need Adam, and here we are now implementing that same idea into our temple covenants.

It is regrettable to me that this has happened. I understand Robin Hood's feelings. I will continue to attend the temple as I believe in essential nature of those covenants. But it is with much sadness and regret that I see us as a Church and people moving farther from God and closer to the World. My children will never be able to covenant to keep the true Law of obedience.

I really appreciate most of the changes the Church has made w/ regards to organization. Putting the Melchizedek priesthood quorums together under the person with keys was long overdue. We are getting much more in line with the scriptures and past revelation in an organizational sense. But, in my opinion, we are continuing to move away from God and closer to the world in matters of doctrine.

I am sympathetic to what you are saying. A new idea occurred to me, though. We used to have a version of obedience that was consistent with Ephesians 5:

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Implicit in these verses are two ideas:
1. A man should obey God
2. A woman should submit to her husband when he is like Christ.

Christ did nothing but what the father asked. Why are we willing to submit to Christ? Because we can learn from experience that He asks of us nothing but what the father asks. If he ever deviated, we would be under no obligation to follow Jesus any longer. Thus, implicit in the two aspects of obedience in Ephesians 5 is that the wife needs to know God's will well enough to be able to know if her husband is speaking the Father's words. If her husband speaks anything other than the Father's words, then the wife is under no obligation.

So, we actually have 3 items in the previous version (again, based upon Ephesians 5):
1. A man should obey God
2. A woman should obey God well enough to know when her husband is like Christ.
3. A woman should submit to her husband when he is like Christ.

Notice that item 3 in this list was not explicit, but it was logically necessary for a woman to keep her part of the agreement. A correct idea does not have to be explicitly stated in the temple ceremony to be a correct idea. I recently wondered if there is actually fourth part of this that had not yet been explicitly included in the temple ceremony. Maybe I am expected to give head to my wife when she is like Christ (that is, hearing the words of the Father and speaking them). A good example would be the wife of the mission president who had the dream that kept the missionaries safe. Her husband was wise to hearken to her counsel.

So, maybe there are actually four parts to a married couple being obedient:
1. A man should obey God
2. A woman should obey God well enough to know when her husband is like Christ.
3. A woman should submit to her husband when he is like Christ.
4. A man should submit to his wife when she is like Christ.

It turns out that numbers 1 and 2 are now in the endowment and 3 and 4 are in the sealing. It is possible that no doctrine has been changed or lost. It has merely been improved in its presentation.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. You are attempting to look at the changes as though directed from heaven and assessing what we might be needing to learn from them. To me, this is a very valid enterprise and position to explore. it is possible that this is the correct path and I am in the wrong.

But I look at your addition of #4 and see the fruits of changing doctrine already appearing. Because there is no scriptural justification or actual revelation, we are left with speculation and begin adding things to our doctrine that simply aren't true. We are rapidly losing our knowledge of the true relationship between Man/Woman/God as taught through the creation. And that knowledge is being replaced with a worldly knowledge that untrue. Your 4 parts above could be simply stated as "A Person should obey God". There are deeper truths being lost because some people are uncomfortable with them.

It seems to me that we are becoming the church of self-esteem instead of the church of truth. Which will bring people closer to God in the end?

[mtm411]

Strange how everyone consistently is getting directly opposite "Revelation" on this topic. (Strange, this happens on every topic now that I think about it)

It's almost as if there is an incorrect understand of what Revelation is, how it's received, what it "feels" like. Hmmm.

All is well.. all is well.

I don't think it's strange we get different personal revelation. Not everyone who prays to know the truth about which religion to join, joins ours.

I also think that even when something is right, it can trigger an emotional reaction in us. Did I think the temple was "wrong" before? No. But I do think some cultural traditions had made their way in, and they weren't necessary and were even getting in the way of understanding the will of God. So our Heavenly father asked our prophet to remove them so they weren't a stumbling block to learning his true will for us.

The church doesn't cave to social pressure, or it would be a whole lot different than it is now. Feminists and homosexuals aren't exactly running to join us.

[oneClimbs]

The endowment consists of a series of covenants encapsulated in a ceremony between washing and anointing and sealing. The endowment ceremony reflects the overall story of the fall and our return into the presence of God and serves to orient a person to their overall part in the plan.

I think that in the past, many prophets experienced a form of this in a vision and perhaps others did through a ritual form in now lost unwritten mysteries. I don't think there is a fixed "version" that is "true" but the overall architecture of it is true.

While I've only been once and it was in a Spanish session (I did have a translator but we were also the witness couple so that made it hard to focus), there were some things I liked and others I wasn't too fond of. Personally, I liked the slideshow version better because it allowed you to focus more on the text of the endowment and less on the actors and their vocal cadence, etc. I thought the person who did the editing overused that particular effect on the photos.

I'm going to have to think more about each of the changes. Some things I will miss, but maybe those things were more distracting than helpful.

[Zathura]

Strange how everyone consistently is getting directly opposite "Revelation" on this topic. (Strange, this happens on every topic now that I think about it)

It's almost as if there is an incorrect understand of what Revelation is, how it's received, what it "feels" like. Hmmm.

All is well.. all is well.

I don't think it's strange we get different personal revelation. Not everyone who prays to know the truth about which religion to join, joins ours.

I also think that even when something is right, it can trigger an emotional reaction in us. Did I think the temple was "wrong" before? No. But I do think some cultural traditions had made their way in, and they weren't necessary and were even getting in the way of understanding the will of God. So our Heavenly father asked our prophet to remove them so they weren't a stumbling block to learning his true will for us.

The church doesn't cave to social pressure, or it would be a whole lot different than it is now. Feminists and homosexuals aren't exactly running to join us.

I don't think that the actual Power of the Holy Ghost will ever give 2 individuals contradicting answers to a simple question regarding TRUTH. Either one of them is wrong, or they are both wrong. They cannot both be right.

Jesus Christ cannot be both the Savior of the world and NOT the Savior of the world.
The Restoration of the Church can't have happened and NOT happened.
The book of Mormon can't be true and NOT true.
The changes to the temple(And the temple ceremony itself) can't be of God and NOT of God.

It's one or the other.

As far as Investigators looking into the church, that's different. I'm talking about Church members who claim they received the Holy Ghost and believe they have that companionship constantly.

There is a misunderstanding of the Doctrine of Christ(Exactly what the adversary wants) which lead to a misunderstanding of the Holy Ghost, what it means to receive it, and therefore a misunderstanding of revelation and a severe watering down of what we should expect when it comes to the gifts of the Spirit.