What are the new changes to the Endowments?

[_Shulem]

We represent God. Obey us!

[_Lemmie]

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

Well crap. I hate it when I'm right.

Women have always thought they were covenanting with the Lord, despite the language we had to work around.

No. No, we haven't, Juliann. That's gullible nonsense. "We always knew A equaled B, even though we were told that A doesn't equal B. Even when we recited it out loud, we knew it wasn't true."

Wait, maybe we're onto something here. So, Juliann has believed all along that the temple ceremony was NOT TRUE? Juliann, you subversive minx, you. Mata Hari should have kept secrets so well.

[_I have a question]

• The movie is new, consisting of little live action at all, mostly still pictures, even of Adam and Eve, with voice-over narration.
• There is new music, beautiful and appropriate.
• Much of the repetitive "return and report" was eliminated.
• God no longer speaks just to the man, but to both Adam and Eve equally.
• The separate covenants of obedience for man and woman are integrated into a single covenant for all, with new language to obey god, which this temple worker found to be very uplifting.
• The robes are no longer applied for the Aaronic Priesthood, but rather, only done once for the Melchizedek/Terrestrial Kingdom. Slippers are no longer considered part of the robes and thus are not removed.
• Instead of "That will do" after covenants, the text now says 'Thank you'.
• The Law of the Gospel is now referred to as the "Higher Law".
• The Law of Chastity is expressed with more equality.
• At the end of the dramatic / movie section, BOTH Adam and Eve direct comments to the audience, and Eve has the last word.
• No veiling of women.

A new movie, a mere 4/5 years after the last set of new movies?

A year after the LDS Church began using a new film for temple instruction for the first time in 20 years, and six months after introducing a second, a third new film is in rotation.

The latest film presentation began showing Tuesday in 30 of the 143 operating temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a church spokesman confirmed.

The new film is only in English for now. Like the others, its use will expand to other temples around the world over time and as translations are prepared.

The script in each of the films is the same. The films are shown in a rotation to provide variety to temple instruction.

The church released the first of the three new films in July 2013. That version also was released on a smaller scale, but it is now widely used in temples around the world in multiple languages.

The second new film entered the temple rotation in January.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... -film.html

I wonder what they spent on filming and producing those new movies 4 or 5 years ago?
I wonder what the actors and actresses think of their work being discarded?
Were any of the actors and actresses in those new-but-now-discarded movies no longer faithful I wonder?

It's as if God keeps changing His mind...

[_I have a question]

I hadn't considered that prior to these latest changes to the restored endowment (whatever that was) single women who took it out would be covenanting to obey a husband they didn't have. The implications of that are, in hindsight, quite staggering.
1. It reinforces to the single woman that they are only worth something to God if they are married.
2. It tells the single woman their status as a person is dependant on their husband.
3. It tells them that they are subservient to their husband, and if they didn't have one of those they'd better get on quick.
4. It told single adult women they were second class Saints.

Like I say, I hadn't considered it before. But it is an awful rite to have put single women through. One that could only have been designed by a man.

[_I have a question]

http://www.ldsendowment.org/timeline.html

This^ needs updating...

[_Meadowchik]

I hadn't considered that prior to these latest changes to the restored endowment (whatever that was) single women who took it out would be covenanting to obey a husband they didn't have. The implications of that are, in hindsight, quite staggering.
1. It reinforces to the single woman that they are only worth something to God if they are married.
2. It tells the single woman their status as a person is dependant on their husband.
3. It tells them that they are subservient to their husband, and if they didn't have one of those they'd better get on quick.
4. It told single adult women they were second class Saints.

Like I say, I hadn't considered it before. But it is an awful rite to have put single women through. One that could only have been designed by a man.

And it can be interpreted that if she marries outside the temple, she's preventing herself from rewards of her covenants. So she may just decide to stay single her whole life even if she is miserably lonely.

[_Lemmie]

I hadn't considered that prior to these latest changes to the restored endowment (whatever that was) single women who took it out would be covenanting to obey a husband they didn't have. The implications of that are, in hindsight, quite staggering.
1. It reinforces to the single woman that they are only worth something to God if they are married.
2. It tells the single woman their status as a person is dependant on their husband.
3. It tells them that they are subservient to their husband, and if they didn't have one of those they'd better get on quick.
4. It told single adult women they were second class Saints.

Like I say, I hadn't considered it before. But it is an awful rite to have put single women through. One that could only have been designed by a man.

I know you know this, but it's an awful rite to put a married woman through also. It's an awful rite to put any person through, and it sends a terrible message to all parties about how relationships should function.

But I agree, telling a single woman her life is meaningless without a husband is particularly brutal.

[_I have a question]

I hadn't considered that prior to these latest changes to the restored endowment (whatever that was) single women who took it out would be covenanting to obey a husband they didn't have. The implications of that are, in hindsight, quite staggering.
1. It reinforces to the single woman that they are only worth something to God if they are married.
2. It tells the single woman their status as a person is dependant on their husband.
3. It tells them that they are subservient to their husband, and if they didn't have one of those they'd better get on quick.
4. It told single adult women they were second class Saints.

Like I say, I hadn't considered it before. But it is an awful rite to have put single women through. One that could only have been designed by a man.

I know you know this, but it's an awful rite to put a married woman through also. It's an awful rite to put any person through, and it sends a terrible message to all parties about how relationships should function.

But I agree, telling a single woman her life is meaningless without a husband is particularly brutal.

There is a part of the temple marriage sealing process where the man symbolically facilitates the woman's entry into the Celestial Kingdom. They can't do it jointly, the woman cannot facilitate the man entering the CK. I'm guessing that's still the case. Which is yet another slap around the head of the idea that the Church treats man and women as equal partners.

[_Xenophon]

Women have always thought they were covenanting with the Lord, despite the language we had to work around.

No. No, we haven't, Juliann. That's gullible nonsense. "We always knew A equaled B, even though we were told that A doesn't equal B. Even when we recited it out loud, we knew it wasn't true."

Wait, maybe we're onto something here. So, Juliann has believed all along that the temple ceremony was NOT TRUE? Juliann, you subversive minx, you. Mata Hari should have kept secrets so well.

I'm familiar with plenty of TBM women that saw it that way (or justified it any number of other ways), although I personally don't think it to be a very honest take. I've also seen it setup as something like this:

• Man is just speaking the part for both people when he covenants with God
• Woman is just speaking the part for both people when covenanting with "each other"

It doesn't pass my smell test, as I think the pronouns and patriarchal structure of the church belie the idea. It also doesn't solve the whole "single woman covenanting to someone she isn't married to" bit.

I really try not to have to strong an opinion, as I think the outrage here should belong to women but even my wife wasn't buying that bit. Not before and definitely not now.

[_Lemmie]

I'm familiar with plenty of TBM women that saw it that way (or justified it any number of other ways), although I personally don't think it to be a very honest take. I've also seen it setup as something like this:

• Man is just speaking the part for both people when he covenants with God
• Woman is just speaking the part for both people when covenanting with "each other"

It doesn't pass my smell test, as I think the pronouns and patriarchal structure of the church belie the idea. It also doesn't solve the whole "single woman covenanting to someone she isn't married to" bit.

I really try not to have to strong an opinion, as I think the outrage here should belong to women but even my wife wasn't buying that bit. Not before and definitely not now.

I'm not as familiar with how younger TBM women approach it now, but the ones that I knew when I was in the church (decades ago) believed it.

People either left the church or stayed in and justified the statement as it stood, but no one I knew ever expressed that it really meant something other than what it said and therefore the statement on its face could be dismissed or not believed.

That's a step in the right direction to start by not accepting its meaning, I suppose, but I agree it's still not an honest approach to work around it as you said.