|Subject:||Can temple ordinances change, and have they?|
|Date:||Jan 18 12:55|
|Can temple ordinances be changed?
Here's a quote from a recent Ensign Magazine article on temples.
From August 2001 Ensign (page 22), in big bold print above a large colorful portrait of Joseph Smith:
"The Prophet Jospeph Smith taught, 'Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.'"
This is from an article specifically on the temple ordinances. The author of the
article is a General Authority, so he must know that the temple ordinances have gone
through MAJOR revisions over the last 160 years.
|Subject:||Re: Can temple ordinances change, and have they?|
|Date:||Jan 18 13:10|
|One of many things that led to my severe doubting of the church was the change in the temple ceremony in 1990. For the record I left in 1991. As my ex-wife and I drove from the Seattle temple with another couple who went with us (also recently divorced, ironically), I started expressing my shock and surprise at the changes in the ceremony. I was severely chastised by the other three occupants in my vehicle for discussing sacred temple things outside the temple. I said that since we were all recommend holders we ought to be able to discuss in in a vehicle going down I-90 at 70 mph! Your post are always excellent and mind compelling Deconstructor, but your question may be technically flawed. The ceremony did change indeed, but as far as ordinances changing that is debatable.|
|Subject:||Ceremony AND ordinances changed..|
|Date:||Jan 18 13:49|
|What part of the temple rituals are ceremony and which are
I'd like to see someone take a shot at that and create a list of what TBMs classify as temple ceremony and temple ordinance.
Aren't the covenants made in the temple considered ordinances?
Aren't temple sealings considered ordinances?
Isn't the temple washing and annointing an ordinance?
If so, they have all undergone multiple changes, the most recent in 1990. If the above are not ordinances, then what are they? And what is left to be considered as unchangeable ordinances?
What was Joseph Smith referring to when he said the temple ordinances are not to be altered or changed?
I'm not sure ceremonies are in a special "can be changed" category anyway. Who in authority ever said temple cermonies can change?
|Subject:||Yes, and yes.|
|Date:||Jan 18 13:16|
|Political and social pressure can bring about many changes.
|Subject:||the morgbots are so clueless, if they would just....|
|Date:||Jan 18 13:38|
|if the so-called leaders would quit crediting GOD and REVELATION and EVERLASTING to all the hokey things they come up with, then changes would not be a problem. But these so-called leaders box themselves in every time, with these outlandish claims of direct revelation. it's entertaining to watch now that I'm ex-tbm|
|Subject:||Yeah, that's a good question...|
|Date:||Jan 18 13:59|
|Why do Mormon leaders, especially early Mormon leaders, make such a
big deal out of the everlasting, unchangeable nature of God and their revelations?
For example, Brigham Young didn't just say blacks wouldn't have the priesthood for a dozen or so decades. He said they would never get it until after the millenium. Other church leaders said they would never get it.
Early church leaders said the "law" of plural marriage would always be a requirement for exaltation. They said the church would never reject polygamy as long as it was true.
Even now, church leaders and their "Proclamation on the Family" make eternal and unchangeable declarations.
All of these "never" "forever" and "unalterable" laws and claims by church leaders just get them into trouble. SO WHY DO THEY DO IT?
What value is there in declaring their teachings and doctrines to be eternal and unchangeable?
|Subject:||hey decon - not only that by BY said.............|
|Date:||Jan 18 14:19|
|if a white person married a black person they would die on the spot.
That's god's law and it will alway be that way and never change. I know this is not
"verbatium" but it's basically what he said.
This is one of many BY quotes that helped me to say "that's it, I want out" after only a few years of being mormon.
BTW - keep it up, as usual your posts are great !!
|Subject:||Is it possible that...|
|Date:||Jan 18 15:00|
|some of the leaders, being the strong willed individuals that they
typically are, just want to have things 'their way' while they're here? Maybe they're not
really very concerned about what happens to the church after they pass on, they just want
to keep things the way they like them and consider it to be their right to do so.
More or less like the typical dictator, not that I'm saying that LDS prez's are dictators. I would guess that Saddam Hussein for example, isn't very concerned about what happens to anyone or anything after he's gone, but he sure wants to keep things going the way he wants them while he's here.
I dunno, just a thought, maybe I should quit JusThinkin now.
|Subject:||Re: Yeah, that's a good question...|
|Date:||Jan 18 15:18|
|That's a good point about ever lasting. A few years ago the SP spent
the entire hour telling us the "Brethren" were very concern that we teach
"correct principles" so that nothing will change for the next generation or
I thought, "Gee, it has been less than 100 years that some of the 'Brethren' had several wives." Let along all the other changes.
If they really want to teach "correct principles" they should teach that many things will change over time. And I hope it does. There are many injustices in this world. Plus who wants to live in a world that doesn't change.
|Subject:||It still says that!|
|Date:||Jan 18 15:52|
> Early church leaders said the "law" of plural marriage would always be a requirement for exaltation.
You can't read D&C 132 in context and not say that Mormons don't believe that plural marriage is not the new and ***everlasting*** covenant. That they now claim celestial marriage to be temple, rather than plural, marriage just means they can't comprehend, or don't want to comprehend, their own scriptures.
|Subject:||Regarding D&C: 132|
|Date:||Jan 18 16:32|
|The way I read verse 61 and 62 if you want to enter into plural
marriage you (1) have to have permission from your first wife and (2) every woman you
marry must be a virgin.
I really wonder how many of the plural wives of the leaders of the church were virgins?
This is another thing that I had problems with and made me say - that's it I'm out of here !!
|Subject:||All the statements regarding the non-changing nature of the|
|Date:||Jan 18 15:13|
|ordinances were of course made by individuals who were speaking as a
man. When those words were uttered, the spirit was grieved and withdrew itself.
Hey, this sounds like a good excuse as any, doesn't it?
"So let's keep changing this sh*t!!" Thus saith the Lord.