Temple Covenants - Still Bound?

[itsmerich]

hi all

So in the early 90s some of the oaths and covenants were done away with. Then recently some more. Are members who took those oaths STILL obliged to follow them?

If so, its interesting that newer members going through the temple are under less stringent covenants.

thoughts?

edit

AND... why cant the prophet/apostles come out and CLEARLY explain if you still are bound or not. The lack of clarity on basic doctrine questions really stumps me - part of their job is clarifying doctrine

[Robin Hood]

hi all

So in the early 90s some of the oaths and covenants were done away with. Then recently some more. Are members who took those oaths STILL obliged to follow them?

If so, its interesting that newer members going through the temple are under less stringent covenants.

thoughts?

I have often wondered this myself.
Joseph Smith said that all must be saved on the same basis, so it's a problem in my view.

For example, am I still under an obligation never to reveal the signs and tokens, even on pain of death? Because if I am, and my sons are not, then I think in the light of Joseph's statement that's a problem.

[PickleRick]

I feel if you have made a covenant, you should follow it.

I did not make my covenants to an institution, but to God.

If God let's me know I don't need to observe a covenant that has become obsolete to the institution, then fine.

Until that happens, I consider it in force.

[itsmerich]

I feel if you have made a covenant, you should follow it.

I did not make my covenants to an institution, but to God.

If God let's me know I don't need to observe a covenant that has become obsolete to the institution, then fine.

Until that happens, I consider it in force.

but isnt the institution the one that gave you these covenants? and changes it

[mahalanobis]

I feel if you have made a covenant, you should follow it.

I did not make my covenants to an institution, but to God.

If God let's me know I don't need to observe a covenant that has become obsolete to the institution, then fine.

Until that happens, I consider it in force.

I actually agree with this. I care about what I agreed to in the name of the Lord. I care about the perspective of "God, angels, and [those] witnesses, in the temple [that] day".

I believe that it's conceivably possible for the covenant to be "loosed on Earth" and re-bound (replaced) with a new covenant... but I think authorized keys would need to make that clear, along with my consent. If it hasn't been made clear as a specific action/ordinance by a key holder, then I stick with what I was bound to originally.

I think the "presentation of the endowment" can be nominally changed without much issue. But I agree that it's troubling when the actual covenants themselves change. But when they change for new initiates, I stick to mine.

[Rick Grimes]

Still in force. Oath was made to the Lord, not to the Church.

I believe all the taken out parts will eventually be restored when we have become less a people who are of the world, and more attuned to the promptings of the spirit.

[MMbelieve]

hi all

So in the early 90s some of the oaths and covenants were done away with. Then recently some more. Are members who took those oaths STILL obliged to follow them?

If so, its interesting that newer members going through the temple are under less stringent covenants.

thoughts?

edit

AND... why cant the prophet/apostles come out and CLEARLY explain if you still are bound or not. The lack of clarity on basic doctrine questions really stumps me - part of their job is clarifying doctrine

I believe we all have the same basic requirements we need to meet to go back home.

[MMbelieve]

Still in force. Oath was made to the Lord, not to the Church.

I believe all the taken out parts will eventually be restored when we have become less a people who are of the world, and more attuned to the promptings of the spirit.

I expect a lot to change when this occurs!
We have tons of room to grow and improve and learn.

It’s my contention though that those who are of the world will just be cut off and those who strive to live the laws and become the laws now will only be happy with what comes. The weak can not withstand the day but the strong will welcome it (this day you speak of when truth is the law we all agree upon and live).

[Rick Grimes]

Still in force. Oath was made to the Lord, not to the Church.

I believe all the taken out parts will eventually be restored when we have become less a people who are of the world, and more attuned to the promptings of the spirit.

I expect a lot to change when this occurs!
We have tons of room to grow and improve and learn.

It’s my contention though that those who are of the world will just be cut off and those who strive to live the laws and become the laws now will only be happy with what comes. The weak can not withstand the day but the strong will welcome it (this day you speak of when truth is the law we all agree upon and live).

Yes, I believe there will be a cleansing of the church, the wheat and the tares, if you will. I think it will be a welcome time for those that love the Lord and seek after His truths, and not the lies of this world. Those that prefer the lies and are of the world will fall away, like in Lehi's dream with the tree of life.

[Sarah]

hi all

So in the early 90s some of the oaths and covenants were done away with. Then recently some more. Are members who took those oaths STILL obliged to follow them?

If so, its interesting that newer members going through the temple are under less stringent covenants.

thoughts?

edit

AND... why cant the prophet/apostles come out and CLEARLY explain if you still are bound or not. The lack of clarity on basic doctrine questions really stumps me - part of their job is clarifying doctrine

If you think about it, all the covenants we make are up for a lot of interpretation as how you actually live that covenant day to day. It's all about where your heart is, and if you are striving to do the Lord's will in your life, which includes counseling with your spouse if you are married, and being open to listening and trusting when your spouse is inspired of the Lord.

[Rick Grimes]

hi all

So in the early 90s some of the oaths and covenants were done away with. Then recently some more. Are members who took those oaths STILL obliged to follow them?

If so, its interesting that newer members going through the temple are under less stringent covenants.

thoughts?

edit

AND... why cant the prophet/apostles come out and CLEARLY explain if you still are bound or not. The lack of clarity on basic doctrine questions really stumps me - part of their job is clarifying doctrine

If you think about it, all the covenants we make are up for a lot of interpretation as how you actually live that covenant day to day. It's all about where your heart is, and if you are striving to do the Lord's will in your life, which includes counseling with your spouse if you are married, and being open to listening and trusting when your spouse is inspired of the Lord.

I actually like that because it does make sense. I still dont like the revisions, but this does hold truth to it.

[Alaris]

The changing times and seasons

[abijah`]

The changing times and seasons

yeah, and the mandela effect caused by dancing shiva at cern.

they've already began changing the scriptures!

isaiah 11:6

6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

i guess we should just change the hymn too now. goodbye lion, hello wolf.

[Trucker]

Still in force. Oath was made to the Lord, not to the Church.

I believe all the taken out parts will eventually be restored when we have become less a people who are of the world, and more attuned to the promptings of the spirit.

But it has to be accepted by the Lord to begin with. I think Brigham Young introduced too much into the temple that is not sanctioned by the Lord, and we are removing a lot of that. So I don't think it is binding, or ever was, or ever will be introduced again. In fact, I think there's more to get rid of.

[Trucker]

I discovered recently that the change of women covenanting to hearken/obey her husband was introduced by Brigham Young, and previously it was covenanting to obey God. So the church now has changed it back to how it should have been. Lots of things were changed by Brigham Young in order to reinforce the idea of polygamy, and where women have to be attached to men for salvation and that men can and should have more than one wife. DC 132 came out about the same time and was declared to have been received by Jospeh Smith, but most likely had lots of interpolations by Brigham Young.

There was so much error introduced in the church with polygamy I'm surprised the Lord didn't reject the church. And it's a crafty plan of the devil to introduce error and then have wicked people be the ones who argue to remove the errors. So Brigham Young introduces gender imbalances in the church, and rabid feminists today argue to remove those imbalances, and erase gender differences entirely. So who's in the right exactly? Neither, or both partially. But people want to "pick a side". But's there no side that's got it right, and regardless of which side a person takes there will be some truth, but also some error. That's how the devil works.

[Kingdom of ZION]

Still in force. Oath was made to the Lord, not to the Church.

I believe all the taken out parts will eventually be restored when we have become less a people who are of the world, and more attuned to the promptings of the spirit.

But it has to be accepted by the Lord to begin with. I think Brigham Young introduced too much into the temple that is not sanctioned by the Lord, and we are removing a lot of that. So I don't think it is binding, or ever was, or ever will be introduced again. In fact, I think there's more to get rid of.

Yeh, maybe the Catholics are on to something, we could get rid of those old funny garments that get in the way and just wear Saint Christopher Pendants.

[Thinker]

If the endowment was still as it was - even more taken from Freemasonry with swearing to slit your throat if... I might have been traumatized as many were.

And if I didn’t realize how in many ways, Joseph borrowed from various sources, like Freemasonry, I might be more bothered by the changes in rituals. Truth that was hard to take. But really, it was a blessing - helping me not trust in men and trust more in the firmer foundation of God.

[MMbelieve]

If the endowment was still as it was - even more taken from Freemasonry with swearing to slit your throat if... I might have been traumatized as many were.

And if I didn’t realize how in many ways, Joseph borrowed from various sources, like Freemasonry, I might be more bothered by the changes in rituals. Truth that was hard to take. But really, it was a blessing - helping me not trust in men and trust more in the firmer foundation of God.

I didn’t go through to participate in the throat thing but I agree, it would have been very disturbing. It would make me regret doing it and bother me.

All women should be having faith in and trusting God. Having men as the middle man could serve to add confusion. A man cannot save a woman so following a husband and obeying him still leaves a woman to work out her own salvation with God. Taking out obedience to a husband seems like it would allow for a couple to work better together without removing either of their individual requirement to work out their salvation.

The only thing I remember having a stupor about in my sealing was that my husband had no responsibility to me and I did feel during the ceremony that he was superior to me and that I was entering an arrangement that just felt bad because of the words. So if that is how women felt in general then I’m glad it changed. Even though it doesn’t change that men are responsible towards a wife and are the head of the house and women will still desire him to be.

[Rick Grimes]

If the endowment was still as it was - even more taken from Freemasonry with swearing to slit your throat if... I might have been traumatized as many were.

And if I didn’t realize how in many ways, Joseph borrowed from various sources, like Freemasonry, I might be more bothered by the changes in rituals. Truth that was hard to take. But really, it was a blessing - helping me not trust in men and trust more in the firmer foundation of God.

I have been through all the freemasonry rituals up to Knights Templar/York Rite. And I felt the spirit with the oaths I was taking. Why? Because they are heartfelt as we swear our lives to defend Christ and the women, children, and those weaker than us, even if it costs us our life. I understand that these oaths are not for the faint of heart, and that's why we keep watering them down. I worry that maybe we are apostatizing from sacred truths at too great a rate before the Savior returns?

[MMbelieve]

I discovered recently that the change of women covenanting to hearken/obey her husband was introduced by Brigham Young, and previously it was covenanting to obey God. So the church now has changed it back to how it should have been. Lots of things were changed by Brigham Young in order to reinforce the idea of polygamy, and where women have to be attached to men for salvation and that men can and should have more than one wife. DC 132 came out about the same time and was declared to have been received by Jospeh Smith, but most likely had lots of interpolations by Brigham Young.

There was so much error introduced in the church with polygamy I'm surprised the Lord didn't reject the church. And it's a crafty plan of the devil to introduce error and then have wicked people be the ones who argue to remove the errors. So Brigham Young introduces gender imbalances in the church, and rabid feminists today argue to remove those imbalances, and erase gender differences entirely. So who's in the right exactly? Neither, or both partially. But people want to "pick a side". But's there no side that's got it right, and regardless of which side a person takes there will be some truth, but also some error. That's how the devil works.

It has worked!
It’s why we need to live the basics of the plan of salvation and become as little children. This over analyzing and pursuit of personal or group power or status is distracting.

It’s not surprising to hear that BY added stuff to cater towards polygamy being law. A lot of the sermons and preaching and statements back then were completely tailored to polygamy. IMO, WE should remove everything that is a residue of a lifestyle they lived and we do not live. The church cultural stuff if you will.

If we keep it to the basics then we would have many more people living up to the requirements and having more joy in doing so,

[MMbelieve]

If the endowment was still as it was - even more taken from Freemasonry with swearing to slit your throat if... I might have been traumatized as many were.

And if I didn’t realize how in many ways, Joseph borrowed from various sources, like Freemasonry, I might be more bothered by the changes in rituals. Truth that was hard to take. But really, it was a blessing - helping me not trust in men and trust more in the firmer foundation of God.

I have been through all the freemasonry rituals up to Knights Templar/York Rite. And I felt the spirit with the oaths I was taking. Why? Because they are heartfelt as we swear our lives to defend Christ and the women, children, and those weaker than us, even if it costs us our life. I understand that these oaths are not for the faint of heart, and that's why we keep watering them down. I worry that maybe we are apostatizing from sacred truths at too great a rate before the Savior returns?

Hey, I’m all for men going through a male ceremony that is tailored to them being men and leaving the women alone on it.
But as it is, both men and women do the exact same things in the endowment session. So if men want more responsibility than women are given then maybe they ought to seek that out. Maybe women shouldn’t even be asked to participate like they don’t in freemasonry.

[Thinker]

If the endowment was still as it was - even more taken from Freemasonry with swearing to slit your throat if... I might have been traumatized as many were.

And if I didn’t realize how in many ways, Joseph borrowed from various sources, like Freemasonry, I might be more bothered by the changes in rituals. Truth that was hard to take. But really, it was a blessing - helping me not trust in men and trust more in the firmer foundation of God.

I didn’t go through to participate in the throat thing but I agree, it would have been very disturbing. It would make me regret doing it and bother me.

All women should be having faith in and trusting God. Having men as the middle man could serve to add confusion. A man cannot save a woman so following a husband and obeying him still leaves a woman to work out her own salvation with God. Taking out obedience to a husband seems like it would allow for a couple to work better together without removing either of their individual requirement to work out their salvation.

The only thing I remember having a stupor about in my sealing was that my husband had no responsibility to me and I did feel during the ceremony that he was superior to me and that I was entering an arrangement that just felt bad because of the words. So if that is how women felt in general then I’m glad it changed. Even though it doesn’t change that men are responsible towards a wife and are the head of the house and women will still desire him to be.

I can relate; I felt similarly.
The 1st time I went to the temple was when I wasn’t little to be sealed as a family (adoption). I LOVED it - so simple yet beautiful.

Then several years later, I went through for endowments and was shocked in a bad way. It felt wrong.

[Thinker]

If the endowment was still as it was - even more taken from Freemasonry with swearing to slit your throat if... I might have been traumatized as many were.

And if I didn’t realize how in many ways, Joseph borrowed from various sources, like Freemasonry, I might be more bothered by the changes in rituals. Truth that was hard to take. But really, it was a blessing - helping me not trust in men and trust more in the firmer foundation of God.

I have been through all the freemasonry rituals up to Knights Templar/York Rite. And I felt the spirit with the oaths I was taking. Why? Because they are heartfelt as we swear our lives to defend Christ and the women, children, and those weaker than us, even if it costs us our life. I understand that these oaths are not for the faint of heart, and that's why we keep watering them down. I worry that maybe we are apostatizing from sacred truths at too great a rate before the Savior returns?

I don’t like secret societies, especially when...

[MMbelieve]

If the endowment was still as it was - even more taken from Freemasonry with swearing to slit your throat if... I might have been traumatized as many were.

And if I didn’t realize how in many ways, Joseph borrowed from various sources, like Freemasonry, I might be more bothered by the changes in rituals. Truth that was hard to take. But really, it was a blessing - helping me not trust in men and trust more in the firmer foundation of God.

I didn’t go through to participate in the throat thing but I agree, it would have been very disturbing. It would make me regret doing it and bother me.

All women should be having faith in and trusting God. Having men as the middle man could serve to add confusion. A man cannot save a woman so following a husband and obeying him still leaves a woman to work out her own salvation with God. Taking out obedience to a husband seems like it would allow for a couple to work better together without removing either of their individual requirement to work out their salvation.

The only thing I remember having a stupor about in my sealing was that my husband had no responsibility to me and I did feel during the ceremony that he was superior to me and that I was entering an arrangement that just felt bad because of the words. So if that is how women felt in general then I’m glad it changed. Even though it doesn’t change that men are responsible towards a wife and are the head of the house and women will still desire him to be.

I can relate; I felt similarly.
The 1st time I went to the temple was when I wasn’t little to be sealed as a family (adoption). I LOVED it - so simple yet beautiful.

Then several years later, I went through for endowments and was shocked in a bad way. It felt wrong.

I went in at 13 for my family being sealed and it was spiritual and nice and simple but I did think my parents looked funny, lol.

[Rick Grimes]

If the endowment was still as it was - even more taken from Freemasonry with swearing to slit your throat if... I might have been traumatized as many were.

And if I didn’t realize how in many ways, Joseph borrowed from various sources, like Freemasonry, I might be more bothered by the changes in rituals. Truth that was hard to take. But really, it was a blessing - helping me not trust in men and trust more in the firmer foundation of God.

I have been through all the freemasonry rituals up to Knights Templar/York Rite. And I felt the spirit with the oaths I was taking. Why? Because they are heartfelt as we swear our lives to defend Christ and the women, children, and those weaker than us, even if it costs us our life. I understand that these oaths are not for the faint of heart, and that's why we keep watering them down. I worry that maybe we are apostatizing from sacred truths at too great a rate before the Savior returns?

I don’t like secret societies, especially when...

Lies. Same type of lies spread about Mormons. This really isnt very original in that these attacks are almost a carbon copy of each other. "Mormons worship 'Another Jesus'" "Mormons worship Joseph Smith", "Mormons think that God is having sex with women making spirit babies".

It gets so boring reading the same type of hysteria, lies, exaggerations, and things taken out of context. Spare me.