New subtle temple changes

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
AugustoBR
captain of 50
Posts: 79
Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil

New subtle temple changes

Post by AugustoBR »

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?

mtmom
captain of 100
Posts: 228

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by mtmom »

Wow. I think you have a very good point. And that is bad news! Not sure there is any good news ...

User avatar
BigT
captain of 100
Posts: 737

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by BigT »

“Those” is plural, so polygamy?

endlessQuestions
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6426

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by endlessQuestions »

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?
AugutoBR,

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.

AugustoBR
captain of 50
Posts: 79
Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by AugustoBR »

endlessQuestions wrote: January 6th, 2023, 8:43 am
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?
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.
I hadn't noticed that. By changing the text of the endowment, the church also changed the scriptures somehow.

Rubicon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1103

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Rubicon »

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.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

BigT wrote: January 6th, 2023, 8:19 am “Those” is plural, so polygamy?
Or gay marriage. Polyamory anyone?

User avatar
BuriedTartaria
Captain of Tartary
Posts: 1904

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by BuriedTartaria »

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?
I am speechless. This is subtle, slowly boiling the frog alive. Rome wasn’t built in a day, as they say.

Another attack on the identity of a husband and a wife.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Sunain »

AugustoBR wrote: January 6th, 2023, 7:46 am Is the law of chastity last change a preparation to gay sealings?
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.

User avatar
Subcomandante
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4410

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Subcomandante »

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?
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.

Rubicon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1103

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Rubicon »

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.
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.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

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.
Oaks: "Hold my mild barley drink. I'll see what I can do about that."

Have we learned nothing about how the LDS corp capitulates to the government... I mean, receive revelation?

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Luke »

Subcomandante wrote: January 6th, 2023, 11:11 am
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?
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.
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.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Robin Hood »

Subcomandante wrote: January 6th, 2023, 11:11 am
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?
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.
God's law re. sealing isn't exclusively between man and woman. Many men were sealed to Joseph Smith, including Brigham.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5862
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by TheDuke »

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.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5862
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by TheDuke »

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.
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.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Image

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Luke »

TheDuke wrote: January 6th, 2023, 11:54 am The only sealing that normal members get is celestial marriage.
Actually, no member gets that nowadays, unless they go outside the Church for it.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Luke »

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.
I understand that we have been told this, but I highly question this assertion.

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.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

I guess Joseph was prepping the temple for gay marriage after all...

*Please read that with a heavy dose of sarcasm*

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Robin Hood »

TheDuke wrote: January 6th, 2023, 11:54 am
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.
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.
When I was 14 I went to the temple with my parents and was sealed to them. So was my sister.
Marriage sealings are not the only ones practiced today.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Robin Hood »

Luke wrote: January 6th, 2023, 12:19 pm
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.
I understand that we have been told this, but I highly question this assertion.

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.
It was called adoption.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Luke »

Robin Hood wrote: January 6th, 2023, 12:27 pm
Luke wrote: January 6th, 2023, 12:19 pm
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.
I understand that we have been told this, but I highly question this assertion.

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.
It was called adoption.
I know what it was called. But I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence (possibly any evidence) to suggest that Joseph introduced it.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5862
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by TheDuke »

Luke wrote: January 6th, 2023, 12:02 pm
Actually, no member gets that nowadays, unless they go outside the Church for it.
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.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: New subtle temple changes

Post by Luke »

TheDuke wrote: January 6th, 2023, 12:29 pm
Luke wrote: January 6th, 2023, 12:02 pm
Actually, no member gets that nowadays, unless they go outside the Church for it.
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.
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I didn’t say that the eternal marriages performed in the Church aren’t valid.

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.

Post Reply