LDS Freedom Forum

The adjustments include a simpler design for the veil and robe, removing the plastic insert from the cap and the tie from the cap and veil, and using a more durable fabric for the robe, cap, and sash so that they last longer and are easier to care for. The robe, cap, sash, and envelope will be made of the same material. The apron will not be changed.

Interesting. These doesn't sound like drastic changes. However, I haven't yet seen the new design.

This letter was send well in advance. The new design is available for purchase in the end of March and the accompanied Liahona article is in the April issue.

I think in the name of equality we should get rid of the veil and cap, we should all wear a crown of thorns.

Women wearing dressing in the Temple-blah that's so 2010-we have need to get with it! Men and women are equal-so let's make it all equal.

Better yet we should just have some short purple haired "woman" represent Eve-there now we can really get with the times! A veil for women is certainly not fair-it's not equal, and because it's not equal we MUST get rid of it.

What a disaster this religion is turning into . . . .

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 12:32 pm What a disaster this religion is turning into . . .

Is there something specific in this change that bugs you? Looking at the images in the online store, this change doesn't change much.

inho wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 12:38 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 12:32 pm What a disaster this religion is turning into . . .

Is there something specific in this change that bugs you? Looking at the images in the online store, this change doesn't change much.

No it's not this change; I was being hyperbolic in this instance.

The disaster I'm referring to is the changing doctrines (oops-things that once were doctrines that are now "policy"), changing of covenants, changing of ordinances which change tremendously the meaning with no corresponding common consent or change in Scripture, the idea that simply anything that comes into someone's mind is from God.

We never talk about being deceived anymore-I mean really talk about it as in there was this one time blah happened and come to find out that was not of God.

We give meaningless platitudes to not being deceived-but when was the last time you ever heard someone actually say that they had not followed the right Spirit from the pulpit? A Bishop, SP, GA, Apostle? Are all these men perfect, such that they have never followed a false Spirit once in their life? If they are not willing to even admit to at some point following a false spirit (or even acknowledge it's possible), how can they possibly teach others how to avoid it.

I'm a member of this religion and will be unless someone decides to kick me out-but it sure ain't easy sometimes.

Although the changes to the endowment to be more PC Feminist absolutely turn my stomach and make me hold my nose, this latest change to the way the clothing is made doesn't bother me at all. If it cuts costs, improves affordability for all, while still not changing the endowment, who cares? Some people need to calm down on these. We shouldn't care if the little plastic thing in the hat is no longer included. It always looked terrible anyways. Also I will not miss the little string used to attach the hat to the robe. That thing was always annoying. We need to stop nit picking ANYTHING the church does in the name of improvement. Some things really are an improvement. That little string on the hats isn't going to make the experience any less rewarding. The changing of the covenants, that's a different story though.....

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:45 pm Although the changes to the endowment to be more PC Feminist absolutely turn my stomach and make me hold my nose, this latest change to the way the clothing is made doesn't bother me at all. If it cuts costs, improves affordability for all, while still not changing the endowment, who cares? Some people need to calm down on these. We shouldn't care if the little plastic thing in the hat is no longer included. It always looked terrible anyways. Also I will not miss the little string used to attach the hat to the robe. That thing was always annoying. We need to stop nit picking ANYTHING the church does in the name of improvement. Some things really are an improvement. That little string on the hats isn't going to make the experience any less rewarding. The changing of the covenants, that's a different story though.....

In some ways yes, I agree a lot with what you state. In some ways no-and some things we'll never know.

For example the tying of the hat to the robe. The hat isn't a hat-it's a crown. A crown of glory, the crown of glory is tied to the Melchizedek Priesthood. You can't receive the crown without the Priesthood as they are tied together.

The crown of glory is also like the crown of thorns which Christ had placed on His head before crucifixion, which is also tied to (physically and metaphysically) the thorns which Adam was told would hedge him up which is also tied to the wall of thorns (in ancient customs) around the Garden of Eden.

The plastic thing in the hat-I don't know if that represents anything or not.

The biggest problem is Mormonism (or as JS restored it) is not meant for the modern world. It was a bridge between the ancient world and the modern world. A joining of the two, and an attempt to help the modern materialistic world reclaim it's ancient heritage.

We've gone completely modern and materialistic now-we have no concept or understanding of symbols-which is what the Temple is all about.

Because we don't understand symbols-it doesn't matter one bit if it's all changed up or put inside out backwards forewards, it doesn't matter anymore because the structure upon which it was built is gone.

We seem to have a very materialistic view of the Temple that by actually receiving garments we receive some metaphysical magical powers, that our prayers will be answer more, that God will shower down on us more blessings, more power.

We miss the deep meanings of the Temple b/c we live in such a materialistic world, we can't even conceptualize what it actually means anymore. So it doesn't matter if the covenants are changed or it's gone PC because people didn't pay attention to the deeper meanings before they won't pay attention to the deeper meanings of it being changed . . . but there are some serious deep meanings as to what has been changed and it's not just a "blah it's not good"-we've changed the nature of reality into a fake reality built upon sand-it's not good.

The biggest change I see with the new clothing is the removal of the string from the cap to the shoulder. I'm sure that there was something significant about that being there, but with symbolism, there are no absolutes. With symbols, things can have multiple meanings. What is important is that those meanings are being conveyed. When God used the symbols of the Tabernacle, they were geared toward the understanding of the people at the time. When Nephi saw the vision of the tree of life, the symbols were presented as things that he could understand.

For much of human history, people were farmers, raised animals, and generally had the same kinds of experiences. Nothing changed much over hundreds and hundreds of years. If you were dropping into the Middle East in 2000BC and then in 400BC would you notice much difference in people and their behaviors?

Look at the last 10, 50, 100, and 200 years. There has been a massive advance in just about everything in society. This means that the symbols of 200 years ago may not be sufficient for the people of today to interact with. God speaks to us in our weakness, according to our language. If people are attending the temple and the messages that God wants to teach them are not getting through because our culture and thinking has shifted, then I don't see a problem with reorienting things so that we can get what we need to out of them.

When Jesus came to earth to minister, he preached some dramatic shifts in ideas to the people. People got pretty ticked off about it and thought he was way off base because "this is how we have always done things." But it was time to move the people forward. His ministry was about to reach the Gentiles, people that were unaccustomed to the practices of the Jews, and it took a lot of work on the part of the apostles to translate things to them. Paul sought to become like the Jew, or the Greek, or whatever that he might "gain" them.

I don't see these changes as departures, but perhaps a tightening of focus and a translation to our generation. As Rick Grimes said, perhaps the string on the hat is gone because, although there is meaning there, it is detracting from a greater meaning that may be missed because we are too focused on the string. I don't think that anything that has been removed was done so because it was bad or useless, but maybe it was detracting from the main points. Maybe we are being invited to seeing more of what we should be seeing.

The purpose of the endowment is "instruction" anyway. The covenants we make are still the same and the essence of the entire thing. The ceremony and the aspects of it are there to point to something greater and all of those aspects must be successful at doing the pointing otherwise they are nothing more than stumbling blocks.

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:45 pm Although the changes to the endowment to be more PC Feminist absolutely turn my stomach and make me hold my nose, this latest change to the way the clothing is made doesn't bother me at all. If it cuts costs, improves affordability for all, while still not changing the endowment, who cares? Some people need to calm down on these. We shouldn't care if the little plastic thing in the hat is no longer included. It always looked terrible anyways. Also I will not miss the little string used to attach the hat to the robe. That thing was always annoying. We need to stop nit picking ANYTHING the church does in the name of improvement. Some things really are an improvement. That little string on the hats isn't going to make the experience any less rewarding. The changing of the covenants, that's a different story though.....

The feminist changes in our society was the adversary's response to what he knew was coming and not the other way around.

D&C 113:9 What are we to understand by Zion loosing herself from the bands of her neck; 2d verse?
10 We are to understand that the scattered remnants are exhorted to return to the Lord from whence they have fallen; which if they do, the promise of the Lord is that he will speak to them, or give them revelation. See the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses. The bands of her neck are the curses of God upon her, or the remnants of Israel in their scattered condition among the Gentiles.

All curses must be removed before the Millennium can begin including Eve's curses. There's a lot more to it, but just a little seed for you to consider.

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:56 pm We seem to have a very materialistic view of the Temple that by actually receiving garments we receive some metaphysical magical powers, that our prayers will be answer more, that God will shower down on us more blessings, more power.

We miss the deep meanings of the Temple b/c we live in such a materialistic world, we can't even conceptualize what it actually means anymore. So it doesn't matter if the covenants are changed or it's gone PC because people didn't pay attention to the deeper meanings before they won't pay attention to the deeper meanings of it being changed . . . but there are some serious deep meanings as to what has been changed and it's not just a "blah it's not good"-we've changed the nature of reality into a fake reality built upon sand-it's not good.

I agree that the people have changed, the culture and way of thinking has changed. Someways it is bad but other ways it is good. How do we reach the modern people with the depth and significance of symbols and how to understand them? I don't know, I'm very passionate about the subject of symbols and have studied the subject and published some things in this area.

How can the temple at all be relevant to the people of this day and age? If Spanish became the official language in America and 80% of the people spoke Spanish, it would be foolish to continue trying to do everything in English and just saying that all is lost because the people are not willing to go back to English, you'd have to adapt. I think the same kind of thing can be said for symbols, and the temple. You have to reach people somehow and I suspect that some of these adjustments were made along these lines. I don't believe that they are capitulations to the Leftists or the Woke crowd.

Women used to give blessings and anoint with oil in Joseph Smith's time. Joseph Fielding Smith said that there was no issue with a husband and wife laying their hands on their children to give blessings. We've actually gone the opposite way and have removed those privileges women used to have. So returning to any of that may look like capitulation to the Left, but we were there a long time ago anyway.

Alaris wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:08 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:45 pm Although the changes to the endowment to be more PC Feminist absolutely turn my stomach and make me hold my nose, this latest change to the way the clothing is made doesn't bother me at all. If it cuts costs, improves affordability for all, while still not changing the endowment, who cares? Some people need to calm down on these. We shouldn't care if the little plastic thing in the hat is no longer included. It always looked terrible anyways. Also I will not miss the little string used to attach the hat to the robe. That thing was always annoying. We need to stop nit picking ANYTHING the church does in the name of improvement. Some things really are an improvement. That little string on the hats isn't going to make the experience any less rewarding. The changing of the covenants, that's a different story though.....

The feminist changes in our society was the adversary's response to what he knew was coming and not the other way around.

D&C 113:9 What are we to understand by Zion loosing herself from the bands of her neck; 2d verse?
10 We are to understand that the scattered remnants are exhorted to return to the Lord from whence they have fallen; which if they do, the promise of the Lord is that he will speak to them, or give them revelation. See the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses. The bands of her neck are the curses of God upon her, or the remnants of Israel in their scattered condition among the Gentiles.

All curses must be removed before the Millennium can begin including Eve's curses. There's a lot more to it, but just a little seed for you to consider.

"All curses must be removed" That's just feminists blather and justification in order to justify the Temple changes.

It has no basis in Doctrine or in Scripture that before the 2nd Coming, this will happen. The world hasn't changed simply because we live in 2020-men are still men and women are still women.

But you are more than free to believe some new age feminists tripe that "all curses" will be removed prior to the 2nd Coming.

oneClimbs wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:11 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:56 pm We seem to have a very materialistic view of the Temple that by actually receiving garments we receive some metaphysical magical powers, that our prayers will be answer more, that God will shower down on us more blessings, more power.

We miss the deep meanings of the Temple b/c we live in such a materialistic world, we can't even conceptualize what it actually means anymore. So it doesn't matter if the covenants are changed or it's gone PC because people didn't pay attention to the deeper meanings before they won't pay attention to the deeper meanings of it being changed . . . but there are some serious deep meanings as to what has been changed and it's not just a "blah it's not good"-we've changed the nature of reality into a fake reality built upon sand-it's not good.

I agree that the people have changed, the culture and way of thinking has changed. Someways it is bad but other ways it is good. How do we reach the modern people with the depth and significance of symbols and how to understand them? I don't know, I'm very passionate about the subject of symbols and have studied the subject and published some things in this area.

How can the temple at all be relevant to the people of this day and age? If Spanish became the official language in America and 80% of the people spoke Spanish, it would be foolish to continue trying to do everything in English and just saying that all is lost because the people are not willing to go back to English, you'd have to adapt. I think the same kind of thing can be said for symbols, and the temple. You have to reach people somehow and I suspect that some of these adjustments were made along these lines. I don't believe that they are capitulations to the Leftists or the Woke crowd.

Women used to give blessings and anoint with oil in Joseph Smith's time. Joseph Fielding Smith said that there was no issue with a husband and wife laying their hands on their children to give blessings. We've actually gone the opposite way and have removed those privileges women used to have. So returning to any of that may look like capitulation to the Left, but we were there a long time ago anyway.

It's very simple-you go the reverse by saying women can give faith blessings. That's doctrinal sound.

You don't change temple covenants into some fictitious story that has absolutely NO bearing upon Scripture.

You can believe all you want the Church isn't capitulating . . .except when was the last time God actually spoke to the Church through the Prophet? I mean actually speaking as in the Prophet spoke "I the Lord am . . . ."

Been a long, long time. So excuse me if I don't jump right in line with everyone skipping through the roses make believing our President is speaking the Words of God to us when he changes Temple rites into something that can not be backed up by Scripture.

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:14 pm

oneClimbs wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:11 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:56 pm We seem to have a very materialistic view of the Temple that by actually receiving garments we receive some metaphysical magical powers, that our prayers will be answer more, that God will shower down on us more blessings, more power.

We miss the deep meanings of the Temple b/c we live in such a materialistic world, we can't even conceptualize what it actually means anymore. So it doesn't matter if the covenants are changed or it's gone PC because people didn't pay attention to the deeper meanings before they won't pay attention to the deeper meanings of it being changed . . . but there are some serious deep meanings as to what has been changed and it's not just a "blah it's not good"-we've changed the nature of reality into a fake reality built upon sand-it's not good.

I agree that the people have changed, the culture and way of thinking has changed. Someways it is bad but other ways it is good. How do we reach the modern people with the depth and significance of symbols and how to understand them? I don't know, I'm very passionate about the subject of symbols and have studied the subject and published some things in this area.

How can the temple at all be relevant to the people of this day and age? If Spanish became the official language in America and 80% of the people spoke Spanish, it would be foolish to continue trying to do everything in English and just saying that all is lost because the people are not willing to go back to English, you'd have to adapt. I think the same kind of thing can be said for symbols, and the temple. You have to reach people somehow and I suspect that some of these adjustments were made along these lines. I don't believe that they are capitulations to the Leftists or the Woke crowd.

Women used to give blessings and anoint with oil in Joseph Smith's time. Joseph Fielding Smith said that there was no issue with a husband and wife laying their hands on their children to give blessings. We've actually gone the opposite way and have removed those privileges women used to have. So returning to any of that may look like capitulation to the Left, but we were there a long time ago anyway.

It's very simple-you go the reverse by saying women can give faith blessings. That's doctrinal sound.

You don't change temple covenants into some fictitious story that has absolutely NO bearing upon Scripture.

You can believe all you want the Church isn't capitulating . . .except when was the last time God actually spoke to the Church through the Prophet? I mean actually speaking as in the Prophet spoke "I the Lord am . . . ."

Been a long, long time. So excuse me if I don't jump right in line with everyone skipping through the roses make believing our President is speaking the Words of God to us when he changes Temple rites into something that can not be backed up by Scripture.

When has the endowment ever lined up exactly with scripture?

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:45 pm Although the changes to the endowment to be more PC Feminist absolutely turn my stomach and make me hold my nose, this latest change to the way the clothing is made doesn't bother me at all. If it cuts costs, improves affordability for all, while still not changing the endowment, who cares? Some people need to calm down on these. We shouldn't care if the little plastic thing in the hat is no longer included. It always looked terrible anyways. Also I will not miss the little string used to attach the hat to the robe. That thing was always annoying. We need to stop nit picking ANYTHING the church does in the name of improvement. Some things really are an improvement. That little string on the hats isn't going to make the experience any less rewarding. The changing of the covenants, that's a different story though.....

But what was the purpose of the string in the first place? It had a meaning or else it wouldn’t have been there.

Some could say that because men have complained they now are allowing them to change how they show (virtually eliminated) this previously instituted symbol of the string on their cap. Cultural pressures?

Seriously need a word equal to feminism for men who advocate for men’s rights and men’s power to choose. It would make it much easier to refer to the sentiment in reverse which seems to be ramping up these days.

I don’t like women being blamed for changes made and when changes come for men it’s a “hey, everyone relax it’s a non-issue”.

oneClimbs wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:11 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:56 pm We seem to have a very materialistic view of the Temple that by actually receiving garments we receive some metaphysical magical powers, that our prayers will be answer more, that God will shower down on us more blessings, more power.

We miss the deep meanings of the Temple b/c we live in such a materialistic world, we can't even conceptualize what it actually means anymore. So it doesn't matter if the covenants are changed or it's gone PC because people didn't pay attention to the deeper meanings before they won't pay attention to the deeper meanings of it being changed . . . but there are some serious deep meanings as to what has been changed and it's not just a "blah it's not good"-we've changed the nature of reality into a fake reality built upon sand-it's not good.

How can the temple at all be relevant to the people of this day and age?

I get that- the problem is the Temple or the entire foundation of the World is built upon the Adam and Eve story. It is the building block upon which everything is built.

The building block-or the proper structure in how it is built has been blown to bits. It's destroyed. The Patriarchal Order is dead.

Now everything thinks this is a great and wonderful thing-not me. I sure don't see Christ coming in His glory. I don't see men and women working in harmony building families and multiplying to replenish the Earth. All I see is death, death, and more death. Death of marriage, death of children, death of society, everything is upside down and inside out.

So how to you make it relevant to the people of this day and age?

You can't. You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, you are trying to change the very nature of reality so that it's "relevant". That's impossible to do.

I'll blow away any concept of "equality" or this idea of men and women as currently given in the Temple by a very simple statement.

God created Adam out of the dust and Eve from Adam's rib.

You want to make men and women equal-then the story should be God created Adam and Eve at the same time from the dust of the Earth.

If you do that-you have fundamentally changed everything upon which JudeoChristianity is built upon.

Good luck with that!

Sarah wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:23 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:14 pm

oneClimbs wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:11 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:56 pm We seem to have a very materialistic view of the Temple that by actually receiving garments we receive some metaphysical magical powers, that our prayers will be answer more, that God will shower down on us more blessings, more power.

We miss the deep meanings of the Temple b/c we live in such a materialistic world, we can't even conceptualize what it actually means anymore. So it doesn't matter if the covenants are changed or it's gone PC because people didn't pay attention to the deeper meanings before they won't pay attention to the deeper meanings of it being changed . . . but there are some serious deep meanings as to what has been changed and it's not just a "blah it's not good"-we've changed the nature of reality into a fake reality built upon sand-it's not good.

I agree that the people have changed, the culture and way of thinking has changed. Someways it is bad but other ways it is good. How do we reach the modern people with the depth and significance of symbols and how to understand them? I don't know, I'm very passionate about the subject of symbols and have studied the subject and published some things in this area.

How can the temple at all be relevant to the people of this day and age? If Spanish became the official language in America and 80% of the people spoke Spanish, it would be foolish to continue trying to do everything in English and just saying that all is lost because the people are not willing to go back to English, you'd have to adapt. I think the same kind of thing can be said for symbols, and the temple. You have to reach people somehow and I suspect that some of these adjustments were made along these lines. I don't believe that they are capitulations to the Leftists or the Woke crowd.

Women used to give blessings and anoint with oil in Joseph Smith's time. Joseph Fielding Smith said that there was no issue with a husband and wife laying their hands on their children to give blessings. We've actually gone the opposite way and have removed those privileges women used to have. So returning to any of that may look like capitulation to the Left, but we were there a long time ago anyway.

It's very simple-you go the reverse by saying women can give faith blessings. That's doctrinal sound.

You don't change temple covenants into some fictitious story that has absolutely NO bearing upon Scripture.

You can believe all you want the Church isn't capitulating . . .except when was the last time God actually spoke to the Church through the Prophet? I mean actually speaking as in the Prophet spoke "I the Lord am . . . ."

Been a long, long time. So excuse me if I don't jump right in line with everyone skipping through the roses make believing our President is speaking the Words of God to us when he changes Temple rites into something that can not be backed up by Scripture.

When has the endowment ever lined up exactly with scripture?

PoGP-that's the endowment . . .

But again people don't read Scriptures . . .

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:14 pm

oneClimbs wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:11 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:56 pm We seem to have a very materialistic view of the Temple that by actually receiving garments we receive some metaphysical magical powers, that our prayers will be answer more, that God will shower down on us more blessings, more power.

We miss the deep meanings of the Temple b/c we live in such a materialistic world, we can't even conceptualize what it actually means anymore. So it doesn't matter if the covenants are changed or it's gone PC because people didn't pay attention to the deeper meanings before they won't pay attention to the deeper meanings of it being changed . . . but there are some serious deep meanings as to what has been changed and it's not just a "blah it's not good"-we've changed the nature of reality into a fake reality built upon sand-it's not good.

I agree that the people have changed, the culture and way of thinking has changed. Someways it is bad but other ways it is good. How do we reach the modern people with the depth and significance of symbols and how to understand them? I don't know, I'm very passionate about the subject of symbols and have studied the subject and published some things in this area.

How can the temple at all be relevant to the people of this day and age? If Spanish became the official language in America and 80% of the people spoke Spanish, it would be foolish to continue trying to do everything in English and just saying that all is lost because the people are not willing to go back to English, you'd have to adapt. I think the same kind of thing can be said for symbols, and the temple. You have to reach people somehow and I suspect that some of these adjustments were made along these lines. I don't believe that they are capitulations to the Leftists or the Woke crowd.

Women used to give blessings and anoint with oil in Joseph Smith's time. Joseph Fielding Smith said that there was no issue with a husband and wife laying their hands on their children to give blessings. We've actually gone the opposite way and have removed those privileges women used to have. So returning to any of that may look like capitulation to the Left, but we were there a long time ago anyway.

It's very simple-you go the reverse by saying women can give faith blessings. That's doctrinal sound.

You don't change temple covenants into some fictitious story that has absolutely NO bearing upon Scripture.

You can believe all you want the Church isn't capitulating . . .except when was the last time God actually spoke to the Church through the Prophet? I mean actually speaking as in the Prophet spoke "I the Lord am . . . ."

Been a long, long time. So excuse me if I don't jump right in line with everyone skipping through the roses make believing our President is speaking the Words of God to us when he changes Temple rites into something that can not be backed up by Scripture.

Believe it or not, scripture is not the end all. Plus, we actually have how many sets of records out of the vast amount that is out there? Very very very little of the records are at our disposal. And even then....there will continue to be more revealed in other records not yet written.

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:12 pm

Alaris wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:08 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:45 pm Although the changes to the endowment to be more PC Feminist absolutely turn my stomach and make me hold my nose, this latest change to the way the clothing is made doesn't bother me at all. If it cuts costs, improves affordability for all, while still not changing the endowment, who cares? Some people need to calm down on these. We shouldn't care if the little plastic thing in the hat is no longer included. It always looked terrible anyways. Also I will not miss the little string used to attach the hat to the robe. That thing was always annoying. We need to stop nit picking ANYTHING the church does in the name of improvement. Some things really are an improvement. That little string on the hats isn't going to make the experience any less rewarding. The changing of the covenants, that's a different story though.....

The feminist changes in our society was the adversary's response to what he knew was coming and not the other way around.

D&C 113:9 What are we to understand by Zion loosing herself from the bands of her neck; 2d verse?
10 We are to understand that the scattered remnants are exhorted to return to the Lord from whence they have fallen; which if they do, the promise of the Lord is that he will speak to them, or give them revelation. See the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses. The bands of her neck are the curses of God upon her, or the remnants of Israel in their scattered condition among the Gentiles.

All curses must be removed before the Millennium can begin including Eve's curses. There's a lot more to it, but just a little seed for you to consider.

"All curses must be removed" That's just feminists blather and justification in order to justify the Temple changes.

It has no basis in Doctrine or in Scripture that before the 2nd Coming, this will happen. The world hasn't changed simply because we live in 2020-men are still men and women are still women.

But you are more than free to believe some new age feminists tripe that "all curses" will be removed prior to the 2nd Coming.

lol is this meant as satire or ... I'm guessing not.

Firstly, I never said anything about the Second Coming. I am beginning to feel like lately folks are debating with someone else and accidentally quoting me lol

OK sorry *ahem*

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

What will that look like when woman is no longer subject to man ruling over her? Now, that doesn't mean he won't still preside. Sarah posted some amazing quotes - which should really be their own thread - about our church leaders discussing these aspects of the curse that absolutely be lifted. We're talking about the vast majority of history where woman must be subject to her husband for shelter and basic needs. We take this for granted because it's been gone here in our country - but it is still present all over the world. My in laws are on a mission to India. My father in law was asked by an investigator how often he beats his wife.

The changes in the endowment reflect these changes. Naturally, men who use any degree of compulsion in their marriage will not be happy about this change - not saying anything about you here JohnBob as it seems you didn't even chew before spitting this out.

Secondly - Brigham Young taught the women of his day will one day become Eves of their own worlds. Now, will those Eves fall first because they're less than men? Will they fall first because they are less wise or less advanced or will they fall at all (there's another thread on that. The answer is yes. They will fall so that man may be.)

They will fall first. This isn't a contest between the genders but all about roles. And when they near the end of their telestial probation, the Lord will plant little seeds to prepare his people for what's coming. Some will melt. Some will endure. Some will see.

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:26 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:23 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:14 pm

oneClimbs wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:11 pm

I agree that the people have changed, the culture and way of thinking has changed. Someways it is bad but other ways it is good. How do we reach the modern people with the depth and significance of symbols and how to understand them? I don't know, I'm very passionate about the subject of symbols and have studied the subject and published some things in this area.

How can the temple at all be relevant to the people of this day and age? If Spanish became the official language in America and 80% of the people spoke Spanish, it would be foolish to continue trying to do everything in English and just saying that all is lost because the people are not willing to go back to English, you'd have to adapt. I think the same kind of thing can be said for symbols, and the temple. You have to reach people somehow and I suspect that some of these adjustments were made along these lines. I don't believe that they are capitulations to the Leftists or the Woke crowd.

Women used to give blessings and anoint with oil in Joseph Smith's time. Joseph Fielding Smith said that there was no issue with a husband and wife laying their hands on their children to give blessings. We've actually gone the opposite way and have removed those privileges women used to have. So returning to any of that may look like capitulation to the Left, but we were there a long time ago anyway.

It's very simple-you go the reverse by saying women can give faith blessings. That's doctrinal sound.

You don't change temple covenants into some fictitious story that has absolutely NO bearing upon Scripture.

You can believe all you want the Church isn't capitulating . . .except when was the last time God actually spoke to the Church through the Prophet? I mean actually speaking as in the Prophet spoke "I the Lord am . . . ."

Been a long, long time. So excuse me if I don't jump right in line with everyone skipping through the roses make believing our President is speaking the Words of God to us when he changes Temple rites into something that can not be backed up by Scripture.

When has the endowment ever lined up exactly with scripture?

PoGP-that's the endowment . . .

But again people don't read Scriptures . . .

The version in Moses is a lot different than the ceremony.

Alaris wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:27 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:12 pm

Alaris wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:08 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:45 pm Although the changes to the endowment to be more PC Feminist absolutely turn my stomach and make me hold my nose, this latest change to the way the clothing is made doesn't bother me at all. If it cuts costs, improves affordability for all, while still not changing the endowment, who cares? Some people need to calm down on these. We shouldn't care if the little plastic thing in the hat is no longer included. It always looked terrible anyways. Also I will not miss the little string used to attach the hat to the robe. That thing was always annoying. We need to stop nit picking ANYTHING the church does in the name of improvement. Some things really are an improvement. That little string on the hats isn't going to make the experience any less rewarding. The changing of the covenants, that's a different story though.....

The feminist changes in our society was the adversary's response to what he knew was coming and not the other way around.

D&C 113:9 What are we to understand by Zion loosing herself from the bands of her neck; 2d verse?
10 We are to understand that the scattered remnants are exhorted to return to the Lord from whence they have fallen; which if they do, the promise of the Lord is that he will speak to them, or give them revelation. See the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses. The bands of her neck are the curses of God upon her, or the remnants of Israel in their scattered condition among the Gentiles.

All curses must be removed before the Millennium can begin including Eve's curses. There's a lot more to it, but just a little seed for you to consider.

"All curses must be removed" That's just feminists blather and justification in order to justify the Temple changes.

It has no basis in Doctrine or in Scripture that before the 2nd Coming, this will happen. The world hasn't changed simply because we live in 2020-men are still men and women are still women.

But you are more than free to believe some new age feminists tripe that "all curses" will be removed prior to the 2nd Coming.

lol is this meant as satire or ... I'm guessing not.

Firstly, I never said anything about the Second Coming. I am beginning to feel like lately folks are debating with someone else and accidentally quoting me lol

OK sorry *ahem*

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

What will that look like when woman is no longer subject to man ruling over her? Now, that doesn't mean he won't still preside. Sarah posted some amazing quotes - which should really be their own thread - about our church leaders discussing these aspects of the curse that absolutely be lifted.

The changes in the endowment reflect these changes. Naturally, men who use any degree of compulsion in their marriage will not be happy about this change - not saying anything about you here JohnBob as it seems you didn't even chew before spitting this out.

Secondly - Brigham Young taught the women of his day will one day become Eves of their own worlds. Now, will those Eves fall first because they're less than men? Will they fall first because they are less wise or less advanced or will they fall at all (there's another thread on that. The answer is yes. They will fall so that man may be.)

They will fall first. This isn't a contest between the genders but all about roles. And when they near the end of their telestial probation, the Lord will plant little seeds to prepare his people for what's coming. Some will melt. Some will endure. Some will see.

Man hasn’t ruled over woman for a while now. Once women have their desire towards their husband (men please don’t misunderstand this thing you do not understand) removed then the curse will be lifted.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:24 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:45 pm Although the changes to the endowment to be more PC Feminist absolutely turn my stomach and make me hold my nose, this latest change to the way the clothing is made doesn't bother me at all. If it cuts costs, improves affordability for all, while still not changing the endowment, who cares? Some people need to calm down on these. We shouldn't care if the little plastic thing in the hat is no longer included. It always looked terrible anyways. Also I will not miss the little string used to attach the hat to the robe. That thing was always annoying. We need to stop nit picking ANYTHING the church does in the name of improvement. Some things really are an improvement. That little string on the hats isn't going to make the experience any less rewarding. The changing of the covenants, that's a different story though.....

Seriously need a word equal to feminism for men who advocate for men’s rights and men’s power to choose. It would make it much easier to refer to the sentiment in reverse which seems to be ramping up these days.

I don’t like women being blamed for changes made and when changes come for men it’s a “hey, everyone relax it’s a non-issue”.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think you understand what is really happening.

Equality is a myth-it is an impossibility. There is always someone who is above and someone who is below-it is the nature of things.

The reason why there isn't a corresponding word is because there can't be a corresponding word. Feminism (when you look up modern feminist) encompasses this idea of "men's rights". It's the reverse of Patriarchy, Patriarchy encompassed women's rights. Women didn't agree with the idea and then flipped it on it's head.

Now men's rights are encompassed in Feminism.

Just like there is no use of toxic feminimity in modernity but there is toxic masculinity. The order is flipped.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:31 pm

Alaris wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:27 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:12 pm

Alaris wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:08 pm

The feminist changes in our society was the adversary's response to what he knew was coming and not the other way around.

D&C 113:9 What are we to understand by Zion loosing herself from the bands of her neck; 2d verse?
10 We are to understand that the scattered remnants are exhorted to return to the Lord from whence they have fallen; which if they do, the promise of the Lord is that he will speak to them, or give them revelation. See the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses. The bands of her neck are the curses of God upon her, or the remnants of Israel in their scattered condition among the Gentiles.

All curses must be removed before the Millennium can begin including Eve's curses. There's a lot more to it, but just a little seed for you to consider.

"All curses must be removed" That's just feminists blather and justification in order to justify the Temple changes.

It has no basis in Doctrine or in Scripture that before the 2nd Coming, this will happen. The world hasn't changed simply because we live in 2020-men are still men and women are still women.

But you are more than free to believe some new age feminists tripe that "all curses" will be removed prior to the 2nd Coming.

lol is this meant as satire or ... I'm guessing not.

Firstly, I never said anything about the Second Coming. I am beginning to feel like lately folks are debating with someone else and accidentally quoting me lol

OK sorry *ahem*

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

What will that look like when woman is no longer subject to man ruling over her? Now, that doesn't mean he won't still preside. Sarah posted some amazing quotes - which should really be their own thread - about our church leaders discussing these aspects of the curse that absolutely be lifted.

The changes in the endowment reflect these changes. Naturally, men who use any degree of compulsion in their marriage will not be happy about this change - not saying anything about you here JohnBob as it seems you didn't even chew before spitting this out.

Secondly - Brigham Young taught the women of his day will one day become Eves of their own worlds. Now, will those Eves fall first because they're less than men? Will they fall first because they are less wise or less advanced or will they fall at all (there's another thread on that. The answer is yes. They will fall so that man may be.)

They will fall first. This isn't a contest between the genders but all about roles. And when they near the end of their telestial probation, the Lord will plant little seeds to prepare his people for what's coming. Some will melt. Some will endure. Some will see.

Man hasn’t ruled over woman for a while now. Once women have their desire towards their husband (men please don’t misunderstand this thing you do not understand) removed then the curse will be lifted.

Again you don't understand what you are advocating for.

We have and will have a Matriarchy, it has nothing to do with "the curse being lifted". The Adam and Eve story is telling us how the very nature of reality is to be ordered.

It is telling us you can't have equality, you either have Patriarchy or Matriarchy, someone must lead and someone must follow.

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:31 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:24 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 1:45 pm Although the changes to the endowment to be more PC Feminist absolutely turn my stomach and make me hold my nose, this latest change to the way the clothing is made doesn't bother me at all. If it cuts costs, improves affordability for all, while still not changing the endowment, who cares? Some people need to calm down on these. We shouldn't care if the little plastic thing in the hat is no longer included. It always looked terrible anyways. Also I will not miss the little string used to attach the hat to the robe. That thing was always annoying. We need to stop nit picking ANYTHING the church does in the name of improvement. Some things really are an improvement. That little string on the hats isn't going to make the experience any less rewarding. The changing of the covenants, that's a different story though.....

Seriously need a word equal to feminism for men who advocate for men’s rights and men’s power to choose. It would make it much easier to refer to the sentiment in reverse which seems to be ramping up these days.

I don’t like women being blamed for changes made and when changes come for men it’s a “hey, everyone relax it’s a non-issue”.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think you understand what is really happening.

Equality is a myth-it is an impossibility. There is always someone who is above and someone who is below-it is the nature of things.

The reason why there isn't a corresponding word is because there can't be a corresponding word. Feminism (when you look up modern feminist) encompasses this idea of "men's rights". It's the reverse of Patriarchy, Patriarchy encompassed women's rights. Women didn't agree with the idea and then flipped it on it's head.

Now men's rights are encompassed in Feminism.

Just like there is no use of toxic feminimity in modernity but there is toxic masculinity. The order is flipped.

I understand just fine. To me it’s all simply immature distractions from the reality of Gods ways. But for sake of chit chat a word to convey what I was intending would help to get the intent across.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:31 pm

Alaris wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:27 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:12 pm

Alaris wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:08 pm

The feminist changes in our society was the adversary's response to what he knew was coming and not the other way around.

D&C 113:9 What are we to understand by Zion loosing herself from the bands of her neck; 2d verse?
10 We are to understand that the scattered remnants are exhorted to return to the Lord from whence they have fallen; which if they do, the promise of the Lord is that he will speak to them, or give them revelation. See the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses. The bands of her neck are the curses of God upon her, or the remnants of Israel in their scattered condition among the Gentiles.

All curses must be removed before the Millennium can begin including Eve's curses. There's a lot more to it, but just a little seed for you to consider.

"All curses must be removed" That's just feminists blather and justification in order to justify the Temple changes.

It has no basis in Doctrine or in Scripture that before the 2nd Coming, this will happen. The world hasn't changed simply because we live in 2020-men are still men and women are still women.

But you are more than free to believe some new age feminists tripe that "all curses" will be removed prior to the 2nd Coming.

lol is this meant as satire or ... I'm guessing not.

Firstly, I never said anything about the Second Coming. I am beginning to feel like lately folks are debating with someone else and accidentally quoting me lol

OK sorry *ahem*

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

What will that look like when woman is no longer subject to man ruling over her? Now, that doesn't mean he won't still preside. Sarah posted some amazing quotes - which should really be their own thread - about our church leaders discussing these aspects of the curse that absolutely be lifted.

The changes in the endowment reflect these changes. Naturally, men who use any degree of compulsion in their marriage will not be happy about this change - not saying anything about you here JohnBob as it seems you didn't even chew before spitting this out.

Secondly - Brigham Young taught the women of his day will one day become Eves of their own worlds. Now, will those Eves fall first because they're less than men? Will they fall first because they are less wise or less advanced or will they fall at all (there's another thread on that. The answer is yes. They will fall so that man may be.)

They will fall first. This isn't a contest between the genders but all about roles. And when they near the end of their telestial probation, the Lord will plant little seeds to prepare his people for what's coming. Some will melt. Some will endure. Some will see.

Man hasn’t ruled over woman for a while now. Once women have their desire towards their husband (men please don’t misunderstand this thing you do not understand) removed then the curse will be lifted.

Maybe not in western nations, but in pretty much all of Asia and Africa, women have very few rights protected.

Sarah wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:29 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:26 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:23 pm

johnBob wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 2:14 pm

It's very simple-you go the reverse by saying women can give faith blessings. That's doctrinal sound.

You don't change temple covenants into some fictitious story that has absolutely NO bearing upon Scripture.

You can believe all you want the Church isn't capitulating . . .except when was the last time God actually spoke to the Church through the Prophet? I mean actually speaking as in the Prophet spoke "I the Lord am . . . ."

Been a long, long time. So excuse me if I don't jump right in line with everyone skipping through the roses make believing our President is speaking the Words of God to us when he changes Temple rites into something that can not be backed up by Scripture.

When has the endowment ever lined up exactly with scripture?

PoGP-that's the endowment . . .

But again people don't read Scriptures . . .

The version in Moses is a lot different than the ceremony.

No the ceremony is much shorter-it's the same story, the only thing not in the scriptures is the 3 angels.