Temple changes

[shadow]

Could be, I suppose, although I haven't met even one yet (in real life, as opposed to on LDSFF). Is there any change the leaders could make to the temple and the work that happens inside that you can ever see yourself disagreeing with? Sincere question.

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

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

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

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

The interesting thing, for those who can't open their scriptures or understand them, is that Moses' experience on an exceedingly high mountain (Temple) varied from Nephi's experience on an exceedingly high mountain (Temple). Both experiences taught Obedience, Sacrifice, The Law of the Gospel, Chastity and Consecration. The presentations were completely different, even the order some of those things were taught varied, but it's all the same. Christ walked the Nephites through an endowment and it varied from the experience of Moses and Nephi. Other prophets have walked their people through endowments and their experiences are also recorded in scripture, and they vary. You just have to look for it. All vary and yet they're all the same. Joseph changed the endowment presentation many times. People here think the endowment is in the presentation. It isn't. The complainers will still complain, it's who they are. They know everything. I encourage all the nay-sayers to study the endowment and look for it in the scriptures. See how others experienced it. No two are the same. The presentation can change, that's the constant. The recent changes in the Temple didn't change anything.
There is a chasm and it's widening. I testify that President Nelson is God's Prophet on earth right now. The will of the Lord is being manifest in His church today. It's wonderful to be a witness to it.

[sandman45]

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.

You are not alone. I haven’t gone back since I heard of the changes. A friend went and told me about it and he was sorely disappointed as well. This IS changing doctrine which should be eternal.

[sandman45]

aha..., " truth is nobody knows why these changes are coming about", church hq does not explain the reason to general members....

dishonesty, thieves and usurpers tactics from this world standard view point.

I only know the impressions I have received... the changes were not made our of political pressure. Not at all. This was revelation, pure and simple.

Can you point me to the said revelation from the Lord to change the endowment? Would love to read it

[sandman45]

I also went just a few days ago. The endowment feels unfinished to me, above anything else. I am happy with the change in the way Eve does not covenant through Adam anymore, which always felt untrue to me. I did leave a bit deflated though. Not by far the darkness you described, but it feels rushed and unfinished. I have the feeling much, much more is going to be changed, and although I like changes normally, I do need to see where the changes will take us and seek personal revelation on them. I am curious and worried at the same time for what is in store for this church.

This is a major change and does not sit well with me. Changing of an ordinance and changing of the allegory like KoZ mentioned is down the road of apostasy among the saints. It happened in the past and Isaiah and Book of Mormon tell us that they have seen our day and that’s what the gentiles do.

[Robin Hood]

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

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

[Kingdom of ZION]

Cannot anyone see the real differences here of the spirit of discernment being experienced by some?

Some people went to the Temple with hopeful expectations, and out of the blue, they received a withdraw of the spirit or a feeling of darkness. These people usually are the ones who went to the Temple for the first time after the change and with no explanation being given as to why it was changed, they can see the scriptural teachings being deleted or replaced with non-doctrinal teachings, and this matches up with what the spirit manifested to them. Robin was the one who presented this in spades, and others have offered similar experiences.

Some people went to the Temple and they knew before hand the many changes, and they felt it was a good thing because they trust the men whom are leading them. However, the spiritual witnesses of suddenly coming upon them and bearing witness of the changes were of G_d almost never happened. If one ask, they felt they received what they were looking for, or expected. A few told stories of having talked with others who have more experience then themselves (temple workers and such), and they were comforted. They believe it is correct, because of their testimony of other witnesses they have had in the gospel.

One here needs to be able to see G_d's hand verses others personal desires or the reliance on men (the arm of flesh). Revelation can come from heaven or hell, or ourselves. It is not that we all cannot be deceived at one time or another, and I cannot always tell you for absolute correctness of another person's experience or witness... but when it is of G_d, the tall tale signs are always present!

Prophetic dreams and visions are vivid and clear, with impression given as to what was given or shown, and later a witness as to the interpretation is also many times given. Generic dreams are chaotic, without meaning, and no interpretation is given. Now listen close, visions or spiritual manifestations always come with intense sudden knowledge, powerful impressions, and precise wording. Generic impressions or ideas which usually can be traced back to ones self or other men, do not have the fruits of visions or its intensity.

In comparing the witnesses of these people here, the spirit of discernment is what is needed to have any hope of benefiting from other peoples experiences and witnesses. For without such, it is a total waste of time!

[Arganoil]

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

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

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

[EmmaLee]

Could be, I suppose, although I haven't met even one yet (in real life, as opposed to on LDSFF). Is there any change the leaders could make to the temple and the work that happens inside that you can ever see yourself disagreeing with? Sincere question.

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

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

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

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

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

[EmmaLee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robin Hood]

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

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

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

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

[EmmaLee]

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

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

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

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

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

[investigator]

Jedi Mind Trick

jedi.png (1.71 MiB) Viewed 313 times

[Fiannan]

I will not discuss what goes on in the temple except that the last time I went I noted to my wife that I was not impressed with the film, as opposed to all those in the past. Will not give specific reasons.

[Robin Hood]

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

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

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

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

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

[Fiannan]

Given that he was subject to discipline at the time, the church would have known about his past when he was commissioned to direct the films.
I think it's a case of the mathematically challenged SLTrib's attempt to add two and two together.

Call me harsh but I would never leave a child alone with anyone with a history of such behavior.

[ThePowerofEternity111]

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

[Robin Hood]

Given that he was subject to discipline at the time, the church would have known about his past when he was commissioned to direct the films.
I think it's a case of the mathematically challenged SLTrib's attempt to add two and two together.

Call me harsh but I would never leave a child alone with anyone with a history of such behavior.

Agreed.
But they asked him to direct a film, not a kindergarten.

[shadow]

Could be, I suppose, although I haven't met even one yet (in real life, as opposed to on LDSFF). Is there any change the leaders could make to the temple and the work that happens inside that you can ever see yourself disagreeing with? Sincere question.

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

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

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

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

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

Gays and feminists are all 'happy' about the atonement so I guess the atonement is wrong?? That's logical.

The Snuffers don't like the Temple change other than they, like you, think it's proof that the church is apostate. That's why they like it. So I guess you have that in common with the Snuff's. Have you thought about joining in with them other than to be accusers of the brethren?

The Temple ceremony isn't mine. It isn't yours. It isn't the feminists. Why would a feminist care anyway? The Temple endowment is there to show how to get into the Celestial Kingdom- the lowest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. Why would a single woman have need to covenant to obey her husband if she doesn't have one and might not ever have one? Can you answer that? You're probably aware that the lowest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom does NOT require a spouse. But if you want a husband, then look at the marriage sealing. Feminists are too shallow to notice the difference between the endowment and the marriage sealing and the requirements for the degrees of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. I could care less if feminists, gays or Snufferites are happy with the Temple change. That means nothing to me. I don't know why it would. Why would I pay attention to what pleases them?? They're also happy when it's sunny outside. Who cares? The church excom'd Snuffer. The church doesn't allow gay marriage. The church, as recently as last GC, spoke out against abortion, gay marriage etc. The church didn't give women the Priesthood. The doctrine hasn't changed.

High five for our snarkiness

[Robin Hood]

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

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

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

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

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

Gays and feminists are all 'happy' about the atonement so I guess the atonement is wrong?? That's logical.

The Snuffers don't like the Temple change other than they, like you, think it's proof that the church is apostate. That's why they like it. So I guess you have that in common with the Snuff's. Have you thought about joining in with them other than to be accusers of the brethren?

The Temple ceremony isn't mine. It isn't yours. It isn't the feminists. Why would a feminist care anyway? The Temple endowment is there to show how to get into the Celestial Kingdom- the lowest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. Why would a single woman have need to covenant to obey her husband if she doesn't have one and might not ever have one? Can you answer that? You're probably aware that the lowest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom does NOT require a spouse. But if you want a husband, then look at the marriage sealing. Feminists are too shallow to notice the difference between the endowment and the marriage sealing and the requirements for the degrees of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. I could care less if feminists, gays or Snufferites are happy with the Temple change. That means nothing to me. I don't know why it would. Why would I pay attention to what pleases them?? They're also happy when it's sunny outside. Who cares? The church excom'd Snuffer. The church doesn't allow gay marriage. The church, as recently as last GC, spoke out against abortion, gay marriage etc. The church didn't give women the Priesthood. The doctrine hasn't changed.

High five for our snarkiness

The endowment is part of the sealing ordinance, that is what many seem to have lost sight of.
They are not two separate things.

Also, it's "I couldn't care less". If you could care less then it means you care to a certain extent. Sorry, it's just one of those things that bothers me. I know, I know, it's petty and juvenile, and worse things happen at sea etc.

[shadow]

Also, it's "I couldn't care less". If you could care less then it means you care to a certain extent. Sorry, it's just one of those things that bothers me.

I could care less if it bothers you.

[Serragon]

Also, it's "I couldn't care less". If you could care less then it means you care to a certain extent. Sorry, it's just one of those things that bothers me.

I could care less if it bothers you.

If you insist on exposing your buttons, someone will surely come along and push them.

[shadow]

The endowment is part of the sealing ordinance, that is what many seem to have lost sight of.
They are not two separate things.

The marriage sealing is separate, it's different. You don't have to be married (sealed to a spouse) to cross the veil into the Celestial Kingdom. To gain the highest degree of glory within the celestial kingdom, yes, you have to be sealed to a spouse. But that's different. The proof is that the endowment ceremony does not require being sealed to a spouse whereas being sealed to a spouse requires both the husband and wife to be endowed.

[mike_rumble]

"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.

[Robin Hood]

The endowment is part of the sealing ordinance, that is what many seem to have lost sight of.
They are not two separate things.

The marriage sealing is separate, it's different. You don't have to be married (sealed to a spouse) to cross the veil into the Celestial Kingdom. To gain the highest degree of glory within the celestial kingdom, yes, you have to be sealed to a spouse. But that's different. The proof is that the endowment ceremony does not require being sealed to a spouse whereas being sealed to a spouse requires both the husband and wife to be endowed.

This is not true.
Next time you're in the temple ask the temple president.
He will tell you the endowment is part of the sealing, they are not seperate in reality.
That some people go through the endowment ceremony years before they are sealed is irrelevant.

[shadow]

The endowment is part of the sealing ordinance, that is what many seem to have lost sight of.
They are not two separate things.

The marriage sealing is separate, it's different. You don't have to be married (sealed to a spouse) to cross the veil into the Celestial Kingdom. To gain the highest degree of glory within the celestial kingdom, yes, you have to be sealed to a spouse. But that's different. The proof is that the endowment ceremony does not require being sealed to a spouse whereas being sealed to a spouse requires both the husband and wife to be endowed.

This is not true.
Next time you're in the temple ask the temple president.
He will tell you the endowment is part of the sealing, they are not seperate in reality.
That some people go through the endowment ceremony years before they are sealed is irrelevant.

What if someone never gets sealed to a spouse? Is their endowment void? To be sealed to a spouse, yes, you have to be endowed, and I made that point in my post. But to be endowed does NOT require one to be sealed to a spouse. (there are 2 different sealings, I've been referring to marriage)

I get what you mean tho, everything from baptism to having your calling and election are all one process made up of different events.