Back in 1967 I went through temple and I made a covenant that "I would not have sexual intercourse.......... unless it was someone to who I was married to." The words "sexual intercourse" were very clear. I thought I knew what that means. Sexual intercourse. I understood you could have other types of intercourse, etc. but in God's temple it was clear. So when I left the temple in 1967 I thought I understood the covenants I had made there.

I go back about 10 year later and the wording was changed to "Sexual Relations." I found the temple President in the Alberta temple and asked his why the change. He said it still means the same thing. Sexual intercourse and sexual relations are the same but with sexual relations it includes other things. I asked him am I bound or limited to sexual intercourse as in the covenant I had made or am I bound by this new wording, He said you are bound by the new wording as it means the same thing that you covenanted to do. I left scratching my head.

Talking to some TBM in last few days I was informed we must follow the covenant of the the new wording.

I must have missed something in my law classes at university but if someone changes the contract and you do not agree then there is no contract anymore. My friends said to me that if why we are encouraged to go to the temple so we update ourselves on the covenants. I said wait I am make those covenants for a dead or deceased person. "You are not anymore!! they said. That wording has been removed.

What am I missing? I only made a covenant at baptism. That never changes. I made a covenant in 1967 as as far as I know I have not changed the conditions, God did. You can understand why the Church is watering things down. No thinking required!!!!

It’s their tea party. You have to hold the teacup the way they tell you to hold it, even when they change what they tell you.

Except they won't allow tea in your cup in order to adhere to the injunction against "hot drinks".

Except herbal tea. That is OK, although it too is hot.

So there's not much consistency there with that hot drink clause in their temple contract. Or baptism covenant. Or whichever heading the hot drink prohibition comes under.

The biggest problem for me is honesty. There is no principle more basic; and it is taught to children from nursery onward, then required as a prerequisite for baptism, missions, temple marriage, and more. Stepping back a bit, it is also a morally valuable principle.

Yet the church violates it all the damn time not only institutionally but personally, with virtually all the GAs prevaricating constantly. Moreover, the Second Anointing provides cover for such dishonesty; it makes it excusable, even honorable.

The fact that no GA could honestly pass an eight-year-old's baptismal interview is all I need to know.

Wait, is urine therapy a hot drink?

I have been thinking a lot about the covenants I made in 1982 and the current changes. At an ex-mo conference several years ago Richard Packham led anyone who wanted through an early covenant session. I come from pioneer roots and wanted to hear it so I attended. It was so gruesome. I have been thinking since that time any of the covenants would be considered war crimes if done to another person during war time.

Don't forget that Abu Ghraib torture instructions for prisoners were developed by two MORMONS. Yup. I wonder if those guys are hiding.

Thank you Richard for those teaching moments. You gave us so much honest information.

Church leaders learned for the first time about oral sex. They eventually became so alarmed by it that they sent a letter out condemning the practice. They got so much blow (pardon the pun) back they had to rescind the letter.

This is true. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when all of them learned that oral sex wasn't about kissing a woman's breast.

Everybody knows oral sex was doing it over the phone!

I arrived at the same conclusion you did. Intercourse was one thing. Everything else was fair game.

Also....you went through for yourself. End of story.

The next time you went for and behalf of someone who is dead. Hence anything said or done was for them not you.

Splitting hairs of course, the ceremony on a who means nothing, but it can be interesting to think about.

When was the Temple Ceremony revealed to Joseph Smith?
Where is it written?
If this is he same as Adam and all dispensations have done - WHY all the changes?

This is one of those pillar things that will forever keep me from going back. I have tons of issues and sub issues with the cult, it's doctrine, and how it has conducted itself. But there's really about 5 or 6 solid pillar issues that cannot be denied, even if several of my sub issues or concerns get proved away or reframed. The temple and BoM being altered/edited over time is one of those pillar issues.

• Joseph Smith was conducting a restoration of Christ's church.
• The true church.
• Because over time the authority was lost, the rituals tainted/altered by men and the Adversary.
• So everything that was brought back to us by JS was THE original ritual and doctrine of the one true church.
• The church leaders have at this point changed and removed so much, the ritual is barely recognizable from how it used to be.


Even if you could somehow prove JS was telling the absolute 100% truth and the LDS cult is the true church of Christ it cannot be denied what has happened. The true church, according to the logic of their own narrative, has fallen to the Adversary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2023 10:26AM by blackcoatsdaughter.

One could also argue that even your original covenants were made under duress. There was no notice, no chance to reflect. Agree now, or leave the session in shame, perhaps under the gaze of your family and fellow ward members. Why aren't the covenants shared with members during the temple prep classes?

Personally, I would not consider any agreement valid that is made under such circumstances.

When I went through for myself, the Temple President in a pre-meeting told us missionaries, the ceremony was pre-Masonic, revealed by inspiration, and quoting J Smith something like, "God appointed Adam to make certain the ceremony would not be changed."

In the Celestial Room, my father told me they used to say the Devil had a black skin. Also, the minister led the congregation in a Protestant hymn. Also, the Endowment used to be an 8-hour lecture in the Nauvoo version.

Three changes, told me by my own father on the same day as the Temple President assured us "no changes!"

Later, after my "shelf" collapsed, talking to my Bishop, I asked, "If the Five Points of Fellowship were part of the original inspired ceremony and pre-Masonic, why were they dropped, and now they exclusivey ARE Masonic corruption of the inspired ceremony?" "I will [reveal ... name of the token] upon thr Five Points of Fellowship through the veil."
He asked me to leave his office!