What are the new changes to the Endowments?

[_Shulem]

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!

[_Lemmie]

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.

Yes, I know. Why care about losing the people who aren't, or have no interest in being 'peculiar' enough. But, if it keeps the tithing coming...

[_fetchface]

I had a conversation with a TBM woman last year where she said that she no longer complied with the directive to veil her face in the temple. She just simply had too much self-respect to go along with it anymore. Imagine that for a second: when the request to veil faces goes out, she just sits there with her face showing. What does the church do? Make a scene and kick her out? Apparently not. She just did it and got away with it. This is what the church is facing now. When I told my TBM wife about this conversation, she responded with admiration for this woman. This is not the church that I grew up in. These are not the TBMs that I grew up with.

The reason they are making these changes, I think, is that they are ever so slowly losing control. There is a big difference between my parents' generation (boomers) and mine (X). I can't tell you how often I see TBM Gen Xers doing things my parents would consider sacrilege. And the millennials are a step further even.

The church either has to evolve or face respectful open defiance of younger TBMs on matters of conscience like this. Open defiance on the part of respected believers in the community actually has the power to kill the church in short order. The leaders should be afraid of that and do everything they can to short-circuit it, like they just did.

Now the warning not to talk about it is just clumsy in my opinion. I'm toying with the idea of (politely) congratulating my LDS friends in a Facebook post on the theological improvements to the temple ceremony just to poke the bear.

[_I have a question]

The difference between a covenant where a woman agrees to obey her husband so long that he is in line with obeying God, and one where a woman covenants directly with God is both a massive doctrinal change, and also a reaction to how the modern human world views male and female standing. This change is a reaction to modern society. In that respect it utterly destroys any divine credibility of the endowment. If the endowment was restored by God for eternal ordinances, then its covenants would stand the test of time on this earth. That it hasn't, that the Church has amended its sacred core to reflect modern societal views, is very damning in my opinion. Women should either have always covenanted with God, in which case it's been incorrect up to now. Or women should always covenant to obey their husbands, in which case the change is institutional apostasy.

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 think I can see why the Church wants to pretend nothing has gone on behind the curtain, so to speak.

[_Xenophon]

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 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:

Women should either have always covenanted with God, in which case it's been incorrect up to now.

[_consiglieri]

Here is an interesting quote from Talmage regarding the temple endowment.

“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).

This quote was cited as recently as 1995 in The Ensign.

https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1995/02/endo ... g=eng&_r=1

My first question has to do with how the temple rites "contribute" to "patriotism to nation."

I don't have the time to dig into this right now, but it sounds like Talmage was writing things that were simply not true in describing to the outside world what really goes on inside the temple.

Or he was misquoted to that effect.

The part about "patriotism to nation" I can understand his putting in there; not because it was true; but as a response to the fact the oath of vengeance was beginning to become public knowledge.

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.

I believe this would still have been practiced in 1912 when Talmage's book, The House of the Lord, was originally published. So again, I can understand why this was put in there to try and throw the Gentiles off the scent, was it were.

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?

[_Xenophon]

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?

He didn't say that you had that right on this side of the veil.

More seriously I assume he would just say that the "duly accredited" line covers those that are banned and there was nothing inaccurate in his statement.

[_Lemmie]

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 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:

Women should either have always covenanted with God, in which case it's been incorrect up to now.

What do you want to bet that after a while, the mantra will become:
"women have always covenanted with God" ?

[_Fence Sitter]

What do you want to bet that after a while, the mantra will become:
"women have always covenanted with God" ?

It won't be "after a while". The gaslighting has already begun.

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.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71421-rumors-of-changes-to-temple-worship/?do=findComment&comment=1209879833

[_Grudunza]

My take on this: https://weirdalma.bandcamp.com/track/temple-changes