LDS Freedom Forum

Trucker wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 1:39 am 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.

Sirius wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 3:06 pm

Trucker wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 1:39 am 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.

You're sorely mistaken in your "discovery". It wasn't Brigham who wrote what we find in the book of Genesis. Nor did he write the book of Moses. Yet, in both places we find the Lord putting a woman under covenant to her husband. Don't sit here and try to interweave your social constructs of today, into how God originally established His pattern. It's no wonder you'd have even more removed from the temple. The inner platter is being cleansed.

Trucker wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 1:39 am 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.

sandman45 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 4:59 pm

Trucker wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 1:39 am 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.

You discovered ? Ok where is your citation, quote, literature and links? Because Brigham Young’s endowment was the most pure. It’s what Joseph instructed him to proceed with

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 11:49 am

Thinker wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 11:39 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 11:24 am

Thinker wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 11:05 am 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.

abijah` wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 12:16 am

Alaris wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 12:11 am 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.

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 11:53 am

Thinker wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 11:46 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 11:27 am

Thinker wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 11:05 am 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.

• “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” - Ephesians 6:12