New subtle temple changes
-
- captain of 50
- Posts: 79
- Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil
New subtle temple changes
I recently went to temple and noticed some changes I hadn't seen before. Maybe it already existed and I didn't realize it.
1 - When Eve try persuades Adam to eat the fruit, she said: "Do you intend to obey all of the Father's commandments?"
Now she says: "Do we intend to obey...?"
Just one more inclusive change (feminist)
2 - The Law of Obedience is now named the Law of the Lord
3 - Law of Chastity: Before the covenant was made separately by men and women. Now, it's done together. The text goes something like this:
"No one of you will have sexual relations except with those to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded, according to His Law."
Before, the text was specific about sexual relations with husband and wife.
Is the law of chastity last change a preparation to gay sealings?
1 - When Eve try persuades Adam to eat the fruit, she said: "Do you intend to obey all of the Father's commandments?"
Now she says: "Do we intend to obey...?"
Just one more inclusive change (feminist)
2 - The Law of Obedience is now named the Law of the Lord
3 - Law of Chastity: Before the covenant was made separately by men and women. Now, it's done together. The text goes something like this:
"No one of you will have sexual relations except with those to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded, according to His Law."
Before, the text was specific about sexual relations with husband and wife.
Is the law of chastity last change a preparation to gay sealings?
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 228
Re: New subtle temple changes
Wow. I think you have a very good point. And that is bad news! Not sure there is any good news ...
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6621
Re: New subtle temple changes
AugutoBR,AugustoBR wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 7:46 am I recently went to temple and noticed some changes I hadn't seen before. Maybe it already existed and I didn't realize it.
1 - When Eve try persuades Adam to eat the fruit, she said: "Do you intend to obey all of the Father's commandments?"
Now she says: "Do we intend to obey...?"
Just one more inclusive change (feminist)
2 - The Law of Obedience is now named the Law of the Lord
3 - Law of Chastity: Before the covenant was made separately by men and women. Now, it's done together. The text goes something like this:
"No one of you will have sexual relations except with those to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded, according to His Law."
Before, the text was specific about sexual relations with husband and wife.
Is the law of chastity last change a preparation to gay sealings?
This is a very timely post, in that we are learning who may have been one of the major drivers of these temple changes (obviously the priesthood authority responsible is President Nelson).
That first change, from "you" to "we" isn't insignificant, especially once you understand how different the endowment's presentation of events is from the scriptures presentation of the same purported events.
Like we've been taught, deviating by even one degree can take us to a completely different destination than we intend to go to.
I think we're off by far more than one degree at this point.
But that's just my opinion.
-
- captain of 50
- Posts: 79
- Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil
Re: New subtle temple changes
I hadn't noticed that. By changing the text of the endowment, the church also changed the scriptures somehow.endlessQuestions wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 8:43 amThat first change, from "you" to "we" isn't insignificant, especially once you understand how different the endowment's presentation of events is from the scriptures presentation of the same purported events.AugustoBR wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 7:46 am I recently went to temple and noticed some changes I hadn't seen before. Maybe it already existed and I didn't realize it.
1 - When Eve try persuades Adam to eat the fruit, she said: "Do you intend to obey all of the Father's commandments?"
Now she says: "Do we intend to obey...?"
Just one more inclusive change (feminist)
2 - The Law of Obedience is now named the Law of the Lord
3 - Law of Chastity: Before the covenant was made separately by men and women. Now, it's done together. The text goes something like this:
"No one of you will have sexual relations except with those to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded, according to His Law."
Before, the text was specific about sexual relations with husband and wife.
Is the law of chastity last change a preparation to gay sealings?
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1109
Re: New subtle temple changes
I think the "according to God's law" part actually strengthens the law of chastity taught in the temple, because prior to that, some had argued that "legally and lawfully married" included gay marriage. Adding that clause makes it clear that whatever secular changes to marriage happen, it isn't accepted in the Church unless God agrees with it as well.
It's theoretically possible that the Church formally accepts that in the future (though I highly doubt it), but it hasn't, so this particular clause actually clarifies and protects the traditional understanding of the law of chastity.
It's theoretically possible that the Church formally accepts that in the future (though I highly doubt it), but it hasn't, so this particular clause actually clarifies and protects the traditional understanding of the law of chastity.
- Reluctant Watchman
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 15689
- Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
- Contact:
- BuriedTartaria
- Captain of Tartary
- Posts: 1936
Re: New subtle temple changes
I am speechless. This is subtle, slowly boiling the frog alive. Rome wasn’t built in a day, as they say.AugustoBR wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 7:46 am
3 - Law of Chastity: Before the covenant was made separately by men and women. Now, it's done together. The text goes something like this:
"No one of you will have sexual relations except with those to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded, according to His Law."
Before, the text was specific about sexual relations with husband and wife.
Is the law of chastity last change a preparation to gay sealings?
Another attack on the identity of a husband and a wife.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2719
- Location: Canada
Re: New subtle temple changes
These changes seem more like wording for polygamy and being sealed to multiple wives rather than gay sealings as the cause "according to His Law" would nullify that. Remember, President Nelson and Oaks are both sealed to multiple wives.
The church will just completely get out of the marriage business worldwide, and require a marriage certificate for sealings.
- Subcomandante
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4428
Re: New subtle temple changes
What is God's law re sealings?AugustoBR wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 7:46 am I recently went to temple and noticed some changes I hadn't seen before. Maybe it already existed and I didn't realize it.
1 - When Eve try persuades Adam to eat the fruit, she said: "Do you intend to obey all of the Father's commandments?"
Now she says: "Do we intend to obey...?"
Just one more inclusive change (feminist)
2 - The Law of Obedience is now named the Law of the Lord
3 - Law of Chastity: Before the covenant was made separately by men and women. Now, it's done together. The text goes something like this:
"No one of you will have sexual relations except with those to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded, according to His Law."
Before, the text was specific about sexual relations with husband and wife.
Is the law of chastity last change a preparation to gay sealings?
Only between a man and a woman.
That's not going to change, ever.
For that reason, the statement, according to His law, was added.
Before it was just "legally and lawfully wedded." According to man's laws, that could mean that gay marriages are included. According to God's laws, that is simply not the case.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1109
Re: New subtle temple changes
I think you're right about that. I don't want to just concede and give up, but when push comes to shove, the Church will just perform sealings after secular marriages. Isn't the United States the only country where church marriages are considered valid, anyway? All other countries require people to be married by a government office, and then they can go and do whatever other ritual or ceremony they want. If this changes in the United States, it will just make it like everywhere else.Sunain wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 11:05 am
These changes seem more like wording for polygamy and being sealed to multiple wives rather than gay sealings as the cause "according to His Law" would nullify that. Remember, President Nelson and Oaks are both sealed to multiple wives.
The church will just completely get out of the marriage business worldwide, and require a marriage certificate for sealings.
- Reluctant Watchman
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 15689
- Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
- Contact:
Re: New subtle temple changes
Oaks: "Hold my mild barley drink. I'll see what I can do about that."Subcomandante wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 11:11 am What is God's law re sealings?
Only between a man and a woman.
That's not going to change, ever.
For that reason, the statement, according to His law, was added.
Before it was just "legally and lawfully wedded." According to man's laws, that could mean that gay marriages are included. According to God's laws, that is simply not the case.
Have we learned nothing about how the LDS corp capitulates to the government... I mean, receive revelation?
- Luke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10811
- Location: England
Re: New subtle temple changes
Yes, God’s law will never change. But the LDS Church has repeatedly shown that they are ready to make changes which fly in the face of God’s laws, at the request of Babylon.Subcomandante wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 11:11 amWhat is God's law re sealings?AugustoBR wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 7:46 am I recently went to temple and noticed some changes I hadn't seen before. Maybe it already existed and I didn't realize it.
1 - When Eve try persuades Adam to eat the fruit, she said: "Do you intend to obey all of the Father's commandments?"
Now she says: "Do we intend to obey...?"
Just one more inclusive change (feminist)
2 - The Law of Obedience is now named the Law of the Lord
3 - Law of Chastity: Before the covenant was made separately by men and women. Now, it's done together. The text goes something like this:
"No one of you will have sexual relations except with those to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded, according to His Law."
Before, the text was specific about sexual relations with husband and wife.
Is the law of chastity last change a preparation to gay sealings?
Only between a man and a woman.
That's not going to change, ever.
For that reason, the statement, according to His law, was added.
Before it was just "legally and lawfully wedded." According to man's laws, that could mean that gay marriages are included. According to God's laws, that is simply not the case.
- Robin Hood
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 13157
- Location: England
Re: New subtle temple changes
God's law re. sealing isn't exclusively between man and woman. Many men were sealed to Joseph Smith, including Brigham.Subcomandante wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 11:11 amWhat is God's law re sealings?AugustoBR wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 7:46 am I recently went to temple and noticed some changes I hadn't seen before. Maybe it already existed and I didn't realize it.
1 - When Eve try persuades Adam to eat the fruit, she said: "Do you intend to obey all of the Father's commandments?"
Now she says: "Do we intend to obey...?"
Just one more inclusive change (feminist)
2 - The Law of Obedience is now named the Law of the Lord
3 - Law of Chastity: Before the covenant was made separately by men and women. Now, it's done together. The text goes something like this:
"No one of you will have sexual relations except with those to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded, according to His Law."
Before, the text was specific about sexual relations with husband and wife.
Is the law of chastity last change a preparation to gay sealings?
Only between a man and a woman.
That's not going to change, ever.
For that reason, the statement, according to His law, was added.
Before it was just "legally and lawfully wedded." According to man's laws, that could mean that gay marriages are included. According to God's laws, that is simply not the case.
- TheDuke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5911
- Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs
Re: New subtle temple changes
Again, I will repeat my observation that the law of chastity is taught in the endowment, when it seems we really need it during celestial marriage covenants. Initially, when created, I think only married people got their endowments, at least in Nauvoo. Not sure but likely in early years in Utah as well. It seems the endowment and marriage (plural marriage in those days) were more tightly linked. When I was very young, women didn't get endowed unless married. Then for missions. Pretty much same for men, get endowed if you go on a mission, else wait until near marriage. Now things are different as it seems marriage is not assumed in ones life.
Not as to its meaning, which also seems conflated as well, like considering adultery the same as fornication. Both may be sins, but not nearly equal. Not much in bible about fornication BTW, perhaps a quote by Paul and the scribes threw it in places where adultery is used. BTW I'm not condoning it, I'm trying to point out some things that seem conflated into a simple one word covenant/law for many meanings.
It would seem it means something different to a single person. They don't have an authorized partner. So, it has been interpreted abstinence, not saying that is wrong BTW, just pointing it out. And, unless they were with a married person, even then it wouldn't be adultery. While for married couples it means with their authorized partner(s) (plural if/where polygamy is allowed but not now of course) and for them the sin is adultery.
Note in D&C 132 it talks about adultery relative to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and never mentions anything of fornication or other sins.
So, I simply ask. Was the law in the temple intended to be all encompassing or intended to be for eternal couples to cleave only to their partners? We interpret it now as all encompassing, then go back and read that into the ancient scriptures. I don't personally feel that is the path. Don't go &!@$# slapping me here about accepting fornication, etc.... either. I make no such statements. It is a sin, but there are literally hundreds of sins, and none of them are called out specifically as being key to exaltation, given the point of celestial marriage and eventual celestial offspring.
Not as to its meaning, which also seems conflated as well, like considering adultery the same as fornication. Both may be sins, but not nearly equal. Not much in bible about fornication BTW, perhaps a quote by Paul and the scribes threw it in places where adultery is used. BTW I'm not condoning it, I'm trying to point out some things that seem conflated into a simple one word covenant/law for many meanings.
It would seem it means something different to a single person. They don't have an authorized partner. So, it has been interpreted abstinence, not saying that is wrong BTW, just pointing it out. And, unless they were with a married person, even then it wouldn't be adultery. While for married couples it means with their authorized partner(s) (plural if/where polygamy is allowed but not now of course) and for them the sin is adultery.
Note in D&C 132 it talks about adultery relative to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and never mentions anything of fornication or other sins.
So, I simply ask. Was the law in the temple intended to be all encompassing or intended to be for eternal couples to cleave only to their partners? We interpret it now as all encompassing, then go back and read that into the ancient scriptures. I don't personally feel that is the path. Don't go &!@$# slapping me here about accepting fornication, etc.... either. I make no such statements. It is a sin, but there are literally hundreds of sins, and none of them are called out specifically as being key to exaltation, given the point of celestial marriage and eventual celestial offspring.
- TheDuke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5911
- Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs
Re: New subtle temple changes
The endowment says nothing about sealing outside of marriage. You're correct but in this context you are conflating topics that use overloaded terminology. The only sealing that normal members get is celestial marriage. Few that know the right people may get second anointing. But, all other sealings are not practiced in the temple today, and haven't been since true records have been kept. Go far enough and prophets have the power to seal anything.......................... not the focus of this thread however a nice topic somewhere.Robin Hood wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 11:38 am God's law re. sealing isn't exclusively between man and woman. Many men were sealed to Joseph Smith, including Brigham.
- Reluctant Watchman
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 15689
- Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
- Contact:
- Luke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10811
- Location: England
Re: New subtle temple changes
Actually, no member gets that nowadays, unless they go outside the Church for it.
- Luke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10811
- Location: England
Re: New subtle temple changes
I understand that we have been told this, but I highly question this assertion.Robin Hood wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 11:38 am God's law re. sealing isn't exclusively between man and woman. Many men were sealed to Joseph Smith, including Brigham.
Unlike Plural Marriage (which actually was introduced by Joseph Smith), there is no record of him ever teaching, preaching, or practising this concept of sealing men to men.
- Reluctant Watchman
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 15689
- Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
- Contact:
Re: New subtle temple changes
I guess Joseph was prepping the temple for gay marriage after all...
*Please read that with a heavy dose of sarcasm*
*Please read that with a heavy dose of sarcasm*
- Robin Hood
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 13157
- Location: England
Re: New subtle temple changes
When I was 14 I went to the temple with my parents and was sealed to them. So was my sister.TheDuke wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 11:54 amThe endowment says nothing about sealing outside of marriage. You're correct but in this context you are conflating topics that use overloaded terminology. The only sealing that normal members get is celestial marriage. Few that know the right people may get second anointing. But, all other sealings are not practiced in the temple today, and haven't been since true records have been kept. Go far enough and prophets have the power to seal anything.......................... not the focus of this thread however a nice topic somewhere.Robin Hood wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 11:38 am God's law re. sealing isn't exclusively between man and woman. Many men were sealed to Joseph Smith, including Brigham.
Marriage sealings are not the only ones practiced today.
- Robin Hood
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 13157
- Location: England
Re: New subtle temple changes
It was called adoption.Luke wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 12:19 pmI understand that we have been told this, but I highly question this assertion.Robin Hood wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 11:38 am God's law re. sealing isn't exclusively between man and woman. Many men were sealed to Joseph Smith, including Brigham.
Unlike Plural Marriage (which actually was introduced by Joseph Smith), there is no record of him ever teaching, preaching, or practising this concept of sealing men to men.
- Luke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10811
- Location: England
Re: New subtle temple changes
I know what it was called. But I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence (possibly any evidence) to suggest that Joseph introduced it.Robin Hood wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 12:27 pmIt was called adoption.Luke wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 12:19 pmI understand that we have been told this, but I highly question this assertion.Robin Hood wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 11:38 am God's law re. sealing isn't exclusively between man and woman. Many men were sealed to Joseph Smith, including Brigham.
Unlike Plural Marriage (which actually was introduced by Joseph Smith), there is no record of him ever teaching, preaching, or practising this concept of sealing men to men.
- TheDuke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5911
- Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs
Re: New subtle temple changes
Sorry Luke but god has told me otherwise (July 2020) after I had deeply questioned its validity. Plus, how would you know? You're neither LDS nor endowed or celestially married.. Seems like "teachings of men, mingled with Lorin Wooley"
You may have found some truths, but be very careful making claims against teachings the spirit has confirmed directly to others.
- Luke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10811
- Location: England
Re: New subtle temple changes
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I didn’t say that the eternal marriages performed in the Church aren’t valid.TheDuke wrote: ↑January 6th, 2023, 12:29 pmSorry Luke but god has told me otherwise (July 2020) after I had deeply questioned its validity. Plus, how would you know? You're neither LDS nor endowed or celestially married.. Seems like "teachings of men, mingled with Lorin Wooley"
You may have found some truths, but be very careful making claims against teachings the spirit has confirmed directly to others.
Eternal Marriage and Celestial Marriage are not the same thing. Eternal Marriage simply means a marriage which lasts for eternity.
Celestial Marriage means Plural Marriage.