Cult wrote:Its ordinances are sacred and are not discussed outside a holy temple
Because it's a cult. It's a secret.
But we shall proclaim those things on the INTERNET and shout it out on every housetop!
You can't stop us, Mormon church!
Cult wrote:Its ordinances are sacred and are not discussed outside a holy temple
Shulem wrote:Lemmie wrote:This could be the one reason that women might end up being ordained, also.
Once that happens we can pull out all those quotes from past apostles & prophets that were against women being ordained and have them rolled over by the ole Mormon bus. The Mormon bus loves to run over the dead prophets.
I think this part is the one that is interesting. I was taught that although you go through the temple as a proxy for others, most of the teaching is for you and the dead only need the covenants/ordinances. If that is the case then I don't really see how the covenant has changed for those that took out their endowments prior to Jan 2019. I know a few female saints that were always bothered by the covenant (one even stopped attending the temple), I'll be curious to see if this actually changes their opinion.I have a question wrote:Notwithstanding that little dichotomy, we now have a whole bunch of women who have covenanted to obey their husbands, acting as proxy for women who don't make that covenant. It's really rubbing their noses in it, and reinforcing the view that God had nothing to do with the endowment and associated covenants.
I have a question wrote:Women should either have always covenanted with God, in which case it's been incorrect up to now.
“No jot, iota, or tittle of the temple rites is otherwise than uplifting and sanctifying. In every detail the endowment ceremony contributes to covenants of morality of life, consecration of person to high ideals, devotion to truth, patriotism to nation, and allegiance to God. The blessings of the House of the Lord are restricted to no privileged class; every member of the Church may have admission to the temple with the right to participate in the ordinances thereof, if he comes duly accredited as of worthy life and conduct” (The House of the Lord, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1968, pp. 83–84).
You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation.
He didn't say that you had that right on this side of the veil.consiglieri wrote:My second question has to do with Talmage's claim that "every member of the Church may have admission to the temple with the right to participate in the ordinances thereof, if he comes duly accredited as of worthy life and conduct."
No mention whatsoever of a priesthood and temple ban on blacks.
Thoughts?
I have a question wrote:Notwithstanding that little dichotomy, we now have a whole bunch of women who have covenanted to obey their husbands, acting as proxy for women who don't make that covenant. It's really rubbing their noses in it, and reinforcing the view that God had nothing to do with the endowment and associated covenants.
xenophon wrote:I think this part is the one that is interesting. I was taught that although you go through the temple as a proxy for others, most of the teaching is for you and the dead only need the covenants/ordinances. If that is the case then I don't really see how the covenant has changed for those that took out their endowments prior to Jan 2019. I know a few female saints that were always bothered by the covenant (one even stopped attending the temple), I'll be curious to see if this actually changes their opinion.
Honestly it isn't unlike the previous temple ban, changing the policy doesn't actually mean "the old way was wrong". Until there is some further explanation or a denouncing of previous language I'm not sure how this is much of an improvement. Of course if they do denounce the previous language that then brings back up one of your earlier points:I have a question wrote:Women should either have always covenanted with God, in which case it's been incorrect up to now.
Lemmie wrote:What do you want to bet that after a while, the mantra will become:
"women have always covenanted with God" ?
Juliann At MAD wrote:What eternal principal has changed? Women have always thought they were covenanting with the Lord, despite the language we had to work around. Now it is much more clear and doesn’t require single women to have an imaginary husband. They only cleaned up the language for heaven’s sake. It’s not like they removed the law of chastity.