New Temple Ceremony Doctrinal Flaws

[Obeone]

If you select the Bible, you are not admitted to the luciferian higher order of masonry and remain and 33rd degree mason.

Well, you said it yourself. Which book do you think Joseph Smith chose?

[Reluctant Watchman]

Is partnering with the NWO and Satan a sin? How about teaching false doctrine? How about breaking the first commandment and making lesser gods of men? What about changing the ordinances and corrupting the law?

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

This whole situation is so reminiscent of the government. They realize there are big problems. They commit to solving said problems. In the process, making things worse. Not realizing that THEY are the problem.

TRUE prophets could have quickly and easily corrected the temple dialogue. (Or wouldn't have messed it up to begin with.) This is a classic case of the blind leading the blind.

This is a bit too simplistic and cynical for me.

When it comes to the changes over the years, the driving force behind the majority of them has clearly been the general membership. This was obviously the case back in 1990, when the huge overhaul of the endowment immediately followed a survey about members concerns about the ordinance. Recent changes have all generally been in alignment with concerns the general membership has raised.

This is obviously a case of the church giving the members what they want. It’s possible that God authorized changes to the temple ordinances due to the hardness of the people’s hearts. Or the leaders gave the people what they wanted against God’s will, like Aaron and the golden calf.

If it’s an “Aaron and the golden calf" situation, the Lord put the majority of the blame on the people, not Aaron for giving them what they asked for.

What members wanted back in 1990 was no masonic blood oaths, no masonic hugs, no masonic dialogue. There's nothing un-Godly or hard hearted in that. Not that I can see.

I disagree with your characterization of these elements of the endowment. Most of the elements that have similarities to masonry were not removed in 1990 and are still part of the endowment today. The majority of the changes in 1990 had nothing to do with eliminating similarities to masonry.

The removal of Lucifer’s preacher, the modification to the covenant women made to obey their husbands, and the removal of the Adamic language are all examples of things that were changed that have no similarities to masonry.

[Free_Man]

Question 1: If temple covenants are so important why didn't Jesus teach that explicitly while he was here during is ministry? Why didn't he mention the "Covenant Path" and teach about the necessary ordinances to obtain the highest degree of heaven? Jesus said he was the way and that who ever did more or less than his teachings were leading men astray. Why didn't he teach about essential temple ordinances?

Question 2: Why are the eternal, essential, and saving temple ordinances always changing? The church teaches that these ordinances were eternal and unchanging. We are taught that every must have these ordinances or they cannot be saved. But, Isaiah condemns those that "change the ordinances." Honest question, why do the dead need these ordinances that are changing all the time? If 99% of the work is for the dead, why do they need the ordinances to change? We are told about "adjustments." (In my mind this is sly, crafty, cunning lawyer language--like it seemed good to the Holy Ghost). Maybe we need a "Book of Adjustments" added to the end of the D&C just so we can keep track of the bouncing ball. Did RMN receive a revelation or an adjustment? An "Adjustment" is not the same as receiving revelation. Adjustments are "almost revelations." He almost had a revelation, but he had an adjustment instead. Better luck next time! Remember that Dallin Oakes said that none of the brethren have talked to angelic visitors. Where are the directions coming from?

Question 3: Where is the declaration of revelation about temple ordinances? The BofM clearly gives the baptismal prayer and sacrament prayer. Where is the temple revelation? We are taught that our exaltation depends on these temple ordinances. If they are all that important, why didn't the Lord give a revelation to the prophet and then he writes it down?

I'm sorry to sound so disgruntled, but adjustments come from committees and consumer surveys. We are told these adjustments are part of the on going "Restoration." (This is sneaky lawyer language. They can change their supposed gospel into anything they want and claim it to "part of the Restoration". Kind of like lawyers and judges turn the Constitution on its head.) But, we are never told about actual revelation. We are told they are PSRs and asked to sustain them as such. But, there is no prophesying, seeing, or revealing. There are currently 15 claiming to be PSR. Where is their prophesying, seeing, or revealing?

[Obeone]

Is partnering with the NWO and Satan a sin? How about teaching false doctrine? How about breaking the first commandment and making lesser gods of men? What about changing the ordinances and corrupting the law?

What about bearing false witness against the Lord's anointed?
What about becoming the accuser according to this pattern:

 Revelation 12:10 
10 ... for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Question 1: If temple covenants are so important why didn't Jesus teach that explicitly while he was here during is ministry?

I know some people find this source to be questionable, but in the Nemenhah Record the Savior taught the people a temple and endowment ceremony. There were covenants, etc. Sometimes people think that just because something wasn't noted in the Bible or BoM, that it never happened. The BoM isn't a full compendium of all doctrines taught and lived by the Nephites, nor taught by the Savior. The Nephites themselves built temples and worshipped in them. And yes, there is no mention in that record of what was taught, but that doesn't mean it was just a place to hang out.

[Obeone]

Question 1: ... Why didn't he mention the "Covenant Path" and teach about the necessary ordinances to obtain the highest degree of heaven? Jesus said he was the way and that who ever did more or less than his teachings were leading men astray. Why didn't he teach about essential temple ordinances?

Jesus did teach about necessary ordinance, even the gate by which all must enter:

 John 3:5 
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 Alma 7:15 
15 Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.°

And after they enter by the gate, He will teach them more.

 2 Nephi 31:
19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

Should you complain that He has more words, covenants, and commandments for you after you enter by the gate? If so you will damn yourself.

 2 Nephi 28:
29 Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!
30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

If God is unchanging, and He worked by covenants from the beginning, why should He not continue using his EVERLASTING covenant?

 Genesis 17:7 
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

 Genesis 17:19 
19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

 Numbers 25:13 
13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

 Deuteronomy 29
12 That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day:
13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;
15 But with him that standeth here with us this day before the LORD our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day:
....
24 Even all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger?
25 Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt:
26 For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them:
27 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book:
28 And the LORD rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.
29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

 1 Chronicles 16:15 
15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,

 Isaiah 55:3 
3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.


 Isaiah 61:8 
8 For I the LORD love judgment, ... and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
9 And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed.


 Jeremiah 32:40 
40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
41 Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul.D hath blessed.

 Ezekiel 16:59 
59 For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even deal with thee as thou hast done, which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant.
60 ¶ Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.
61 Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger: and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant.
62 And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD:

[Obeone]

Question 2: Why are the eternal, essential, and saving temple ordinances always changing? The church teaches that these ordinances were eternal and unchanging. We are taught that every must have these ordinances or they cannot be saved. But, Isaiah condemns those that "change the ordinances." Honest question, why do the dead need these ordinances that are changing all the time? If 99% of the work is for the dead, why do they need the ordinances to change? We are told about "adjustments." (In my mind this is sly, crafty, cunning lawyer language--like it seemed good to the Holy Ghost). Maybe we need a "Book of Adjustments" added to the end of the D&C just so we can keep track of the bouncing ball. Did RMN receive a revelation or an adjustment? An "Adjustment" is not the same as receiving revelation. Adjustments are "almost revelations." He almost had a revelation, but he had an adjustment instead. Better luck next time! Remember that Dallin Oakes said that none of the brethren have talked to angelic visitors. Where are the directions coming from?

Directions come from the Spirit.

Revelation is an adjustment every time. Adjustment to your previous, limited knowledge.

Why do the dead need the adjustments? You forget that the ordinances for the dead, are also meant to bless the living. And if presentation of the ordinance needs to be adjusted according to the circumstances in which God's people find themselves and according to their knowledge, it is His prerogative to do so.

And even though presentation changes, the essential covenants and eternal principles do not change.

Look, the law of Moses was necessary at some time in the past. Then it was fulfilled. God has the right to adjust the presentation. But the eternal covenants and eternal principles are unchanging, whether in the time of Moses or now.

Question 3: Where is the declaration of revelation about temple ordinances? The BofM clearly gives the baptismal prayer and sacrament prayer. Where is the temple revelation? We are taught that our exaltation depends on these temple ordinances. If they are all that important, why didn't the Lord give a revelation to the prophet and then he writes it down?

He did give revelation to the prophet. He did write it down. But the difference is that baptism is given as invitation to the whole world. Ordinances of the temple are only for those who have already been baptized.

If people reject baptism, they will be cursed even more if they are presented with further covenants of the temple.

This is why it is withheld from them, until after they are baptized.

[Free_Man]

I don't buy it. The current PSR never declare, "Thus saith the Lord....." Why haven't we had "adjustments" in the baptismal ordinance? If the endowment was given by revelation, then why the need for correction? They even call these "adjustments." I was taught that the signs, tokens, and penalties where vital for my salvation. Magically, the penalties are all gone. Why were they essential and now they are not. They had to be shown to the angels standing as sentinels are you could not enter heaven.

You said that he wrote down the revelation. Where is it?

Is the presentation a revelation? Or can that just change any time the current public sentiment changes? Will we have Adam and Steve at some future adjustment to be inclusive? How far can these adjustments go?

[Luke]

And even though presentation changes, the essential covenants and eternal principles do not change.

This is a lie and you know it. The methods of administration, the clothing, the wording, the covenants, the doctrine presented therein, etc. have all changed time and time again in the last 100 years. You know this, and if you didn’t, then you might want to stop impersonating an ostrich.

[Robin Hood]

And even though presentation changes, the essential covenants and eternal principles do not change.

This is clearly not the case. Just 4 years ago a covenant, which had been part of the temple endowment since it's inception, was dropped.

[Obeone]

And even though presentation changes, the essential covenants and eternal principles do not change.

This is a lie and you know it. The methods of administration, the clothing, the wording, the covenants, the doctrine presented therein, etc. have all changed time and time again in the last 100 years. You know this, and if you didn’t, then you might want to stop impersonating an ostrich.

What essential covenants have changed? (The law of obedience to God, The Law of the Gospel, The Law of Consecration, The Law of Chastity? No. The same as always were.)

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

And even though presentation changes, the essential covenants and eternal principles do not change.

This is a lie and you know it. The methods of administration, the clothing, the wording, the covenants, the doctrine presented therein, etc. have all changed time and time again in the last 100 years. You know this, and if you didn’t, then you might want to stop impersonating an ostrich.

What essential covenants have changed? (The law of obedience to God, The Law of the Gospel, The Law of Consecration, The Law of Chastity? No. The same as always were.)

How about women covenanting to obey their husbands?

[Obeone]

I don't buy it. The current PSR never declare, "Thus saith the Lord....." Why haven't we had "adjustments" in the baptismal ordinance? If the endowment was given by revelation, then why the need for correction? They even call these "adjustments." I was taught that the signs, tokens, and penalties where vital for my salvation. Magically, the penalties are all gone. Why were they essential and now they are not. They had to be shown to the angels standing as sentinels are you could not enter heaven.

You said that he wrote down the revelation. Where is it?

Is the presentation a revelation? Or can that just change any time the current public sentiment changes? Will we have Adam and Steve at some future adjustment to be inclusive? How far can these adjustments go?

The signs and the tokens are the same. Nothing has changed for thousands of years.

Explicitly mentioning the penalties is no longer necessary, and is not essential.

So nothing of substance has changed.

[Obeone]

And even though presentation changes, the essential covenants and eternal principles do not change.

This is clearly not the case. Just 4 years ago a covenant, which had been part of the temple endowment since it's inception, was dropped.

Which one? The woman obeying the husband? That was moved into sealing ceremony under "preside" responsibility.

Same idea, different location.

Sum total -- unchanged.

[Obeone]

This is a lie and you know it. The methods of administration, the clothing, the wording, the covenants, the doctrine presented therein, etc. have all changed time and time again in the last 100 years. You know this, and if you didn’t, then you might want to stop impersonating an ostrich.

What essential covenants have changed? (The law of obedience to God, The Law of the Gospel, The Law of Consecration, The Law of Chastity? No. The same as always were.)

How about women covenanting to obey their husbands?

viewtopic.php?p=1419226#p1419226

[Reluctant Watchman]

This is a lie and you know it. The methods of administration, the clothing, the wording, the covenants, the doctrine presented therein, etc. have all changed time and time again in the last 100 years. You know this, and if you didn’t, then you might want to stop impersonating an ostrich.

What essential covenants have changed? (The law of obedience to God, The Law of the Gospel, The Law of Consecration, The Law of Chastity? No. The same as always were.)

How about women covenanting to obey their husbands?

That was a false doctrine passed on from Brigham. See, even I can agree that the LDS corp has made some positive changes.

To suggest that a woman must be obedient to her husband, even covenanting to do so, breaks all kinds of doctrines taught by Christ.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

To suggest that a woman must be obedient to her husband, even covenanting to do so, breaks all kinds of doctrines taught by Christ.

The apostle Paul would disagree.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

What essential covenants have changed? (The law of obedience to God, The Law of the Gospel, The Law of Consecration, The Law of Chastity? No. The same as always were.)

How about women covenanting to obey their husbands?

viewtopic.php?p=1419226#p1419226

I disagree with your conclusion on this.

[Reluctant Watchman]

To suggest that a woman must be obedient to her husband, even covenanting to do so, breaks all kinds of doctrines taught by Christ.

The apostle Paul would disagree.

I bet our Mother would also disagree. (Paper > Rock)

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

To suggest that a woman must be obedient to her husband, even covenanting to do so, breaks all kinds of doctrines taught by Christ.

The apostle Paul would disagree.

I bet our Mother would also disagree. (Paper > Rock)

I highly doubt that.

[Reluctant Watchman]

The apostle Paul would disagree.

I bet our Mother would also disagree. (Paper > Rock)

I highly doubt that.

I think Father is a better Being than that. Their respect is mutual. I’ll ask next time I see Them.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

I bet our Mother would also disagree. (Paper > Rock)

I highly doubt that.

I think Father is a better Being than that. Their respect is mutual. I’ll ask next time I see Them.

I believe the scriptures over the philosophies of men.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I highly doubt that.

I think Father is a better Being than that. Their respect is mutual. I’ll ask next time I see Them.

I believe the scriptures over the philosophies of men.

I’m curious, what do you consider scripture? How many books/writings are there? I mean, come one, your own church history is full of the “philosophies of men, mingled w/ scripture.” Even your own “prophets” can’t agree w/ each other.

I can cite “scripture” to reinforce my position, but you’d probably just use the same excuse: “that’s the philosophies of men. Those aren’t scripture.”

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

I think Father is a better Being than that. Their respect is mutual. I’ll ask next time I see Them.

I believe the scriptures over the philosophies of men.

I’m curious, what do you consider scripture? How many books/writings are there? I mean, come one, your own church history is full of the “philosophies of men, mingled w/ scripture.” Even your own “prophets” can’t agree w/ each other.

I can cite “scripture” to reinforce my position, but you’d probably just use the same excuse: “that’s the philosophies of men. Those aren’t scripture.”

Go ahead and cite your “scripture.” And while you’re at it address what Paul said about the husband being the head of the wife and God telling Eve that her husband was to rule over her.