Who Knows wrote:While you're looking through this stuff, check out 'pay lay ale'.
I saw that - looked like the "Adamic lanuage" for the normal stuff I already knew about and didn't think twice about. Am I missing something?
Well, you were asking about temple changes. Pay lay ale was something i never knew about, but found strange.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Who Knows wrote:What's this shield thing you guys are referring to?
You know, the thin, poncho-like thingy you wore when they did the washing and anointing. It's called a shield.
Ah, ok. When did they change that?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Who Knows wrote:What's this shield thing you guys are referring to?
You know, the thin, poncho-like thingy you wore when they did the washing and anointing. It's called a shield.
Ah, ok. When did they change that?
It's been since I left, which was 2 years ago. From what I hear, it's now a thicker material and stitched up the sides so they can't touch you quite so intimately.
I am totally floored by all of this. I feel like I got the kick in the pants I was wanting to help me move on from the church - but wow. I can see why some of you don't have the love of the temple that I still have/had. Ehhh... I don't know how I feel about it now. Part of me doesn't want to believe it - but I know you guys aren't lying either. :(
Who Knows wrote:Well, you were asking about temple changes. Pay lay ale was something I never knew about, but found strange.
I once attended a session for the deaf, so they had the script in subtitles. It read something like p'eh le el. But it always came out 'pay lay ale.' Maybe that's why they got rid of it.
Selah wrote:Part of me doesn't want to believe it - but I know you guys aren't lying either. :(
Yeah, i actually asked my mom and my brother (both of whom went through pre-1990) about these things. They are indeed legit.
Now you know why Mormons don't want to discuss the temple publically.
I saw a youtube video on masonry (although it was kind of about the LDS temple as well) a while ago, that was set to some eery music, and it re-enacted the penalties (from a masonic point of view). Very creepy. Reading about them is one thing. Watching them is on another level.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Selah wrote:Part of me doesn't want to believe it - but I know you guys aren't lying either. :(
Yeah, I actually asked my mom and my brother (both of whom went through pre-1990) about these things. They are indeed legit.
Now you know why Mormons don't want to discuss the temple publically.
I saw a youtube video on masonry (although it was kind of about the LDS temple as well) a while ago, that was set to some eery music, and it re-enacted the penalties (from a masonic point of view). Very creepy. Reading about them is one thing. Watching them is on another level.
Selah wrote:I can see why some of you don't have the love of the temple that I still have/had.
Just wondering, but what, exactly, did you "love" about the temple?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Selah wrote:I am totally floored by all of this. I feel like I got the kick in the pants I was wanting to help me move on from the church - but wow. I can see why some of you don't have the love of the temple that I still have/had. Ehhh... I don't know how I feel about it now. Part of me doesn't want to believe it - but I know you guys aren't lying either. :(
Believe me, I understand. I was a regular temple-goer, and for years after 1990, my mind still wanted to do the penalty stuff, it was so ingrained into me.
Who Knows wrote:And yes. When people refer to 'temple polygamy', they're referring to the fact that men can be sealed to multiple women (although only 1 currently living).
Hi Selah, If you were to listen as proxy, or read on the internet, the wording of the temple sealing, (which I won't post here) you can find language for a man to enter plural marriage in the future but not for the woman to have multiple husbands. Most couples probably miss it during the ritual but if you listen carefully, you will notice it. I am unsure if the wording was stronger or more obvious during the time plural marriage was practiced.
Sexist wording from the endowment was changed toward women once we had equal rights and it became a sensitive issue in the church. You can also find those changes on the internet.
Like some of the other posters said, you will never find any website that discusses temple content which a TBM will endorse. Any person to post the wording would be considered "anti." You could however ask the older TBMs questions about the changes to see if what you read is false. Maybe they will give an honest answer. If they are silent, you can take it to mean it's true. Although there may be some Mormons out there who will lie to protect the church, I personally have spoken with faithful TBMs that admitted the death penalty signs/oaths were true.
There are some posts from apologists on MAD that discuss the temple sealing/polygny portion that still exists today:
No Touch Yesterday, 07:08 AM Post #36
Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark
Group: Members Posts: 501 Joined: 1-March 07 Member No.: 4754
<- voted #1
Read D&C 132. Either you believe that Joseph Smith who received this revelation and the subsequent Prophets whom to this day uphold and sustain it are true or false Prophets. If you are a TBM, I don't see how you can deny that plural marriage is principle from God. I could argue the brilliance of it from a purely secular PoV (the same way we do with the WoW), but that is a different discussionn. The institution of plural marriage came about by revelation from God. If you believe otherwise I don't see how you can be a TBM.
The end of the practice of it was a result of the Prophets responsibility for the temporal well being of the Church. The Government essentially forced the Church leaders' hands by not respecting our liberties and the Lord sustained the leaders in doing what is/was necessary for the work to go forward.
As far as what non-members think or stupid comments about polygamy, that should be the last thing you ever allow to influence your opinions on this subject. If you have doubts about this matter, please actually read the relevant scriptures and actually pray (even fast & pray) on the subject.
As to the whole issue of sealings, those who think that women will/can remain sealed to multiple men should pay attention to the bride's vows next time they do a proxy sealing session at the Temple, and take note of the differences between the Bride & Groom's vows. One makes multiple spouses impossible.
If there should come the impetus to seek further revelation from God on this matter, I wouldn't be surprised to see the principle return. The case for it in the courts would stand a better chance today.
Polygamy required for godhood (Pages 1 2 3 ...6 )
stn9 Posted on: Sep 5 2005, 09:20 AM
Replies: 81 Views: 909 Following programmer's logic one does not need to live the law of consecrationin order to inherit the celestial kingdom but needs only to pay tithing. Again, using the same logic, one could argue that it is possible for the Lord to revoke the law of chastity (or some provision or degree of it) or any other law and thus allow some people into the celestial kingdom on different grounds than others.
I realize that programmer and most TBMs can't fathom that plural marriage could be required for exaltation. They don't see how that can be. It doesn't, however, make their "defenses" of the doctrine true. Programmer is simply wrong. ANyone who takes his angle is wrong. If one understood D&C 132:1-6 one would respond differently; if one were sealed in the temple to a spouse or had participated in proxy sealings and paid attention to and asked about certain words in the ordinance one would certainly respond differently or remain silent while waiting for further instruction.
Forum: LDS Dialogue & Discussion · Post Preview: #266861
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence... That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith