Forever and Ever


Recommended Posts

"Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.... He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them."

- The Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208

"As temple work progresses, some members wonder if the ordinances can be changed or adjusted. These ordinances have been provided by revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency. Thus, the temple is protected from tampering."

- W. Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, Deseret News, Church Section, January 16, 1982

However, we know that there have been some changes made in temple endowment. Some say they are minor, I disagree. These changes are being made by the first presidency. First they are not supposed to change it. Second, how do we know the changes are correct? Even Brigham Young taught false doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.... He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them."

- The Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208

"As temple work progresses, some members wonder if the ordinances can be changed or adjusted. These ordinances have been provided by revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency. Thus, the temple is protected from tampering."

- W. Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, Deseret News, Church Section, January 16, 1982

However, we know that there have been some changes made in temple endowment. Some say they are minor, I disagree. These changes are being made by the first presidency. First they are not supposed to change it. Second, how do we know the changes are correct? Even Brigham Young taught false doctrine.

Brigham Young gave his opinion as times, which got him into trouble. When any man teaches opinion and private interpretations, they are not teaching the word of God. Most people don't understand that distinction. We can't change what the scriptures say or what the Lord says. It is what it is, and it stands on its own. People can help others to understand by expounding on it. You rarely hear opinions from leaders today, because they will get taken for the revealed word from the Lord, when it is really not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the temple I have not been, but if the Lord revealed to them to remove something, then they have full authority to do so. As President Woodruff said,

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man that attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and their duty."(61 semi-annual general conference)

[Edit: source is the back of the Doctrine and Covenants after Official Declaration number 1]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me say that I think your true colors are showing. It took a bit, but, there it is.

However, we know that there have been some changes made in temple endowment.

Yes, we do. How YOU know it, I'd like to know, myself. How do you know this?

Some say they are minor, I disagree.

On what basis do you disagree? Can you give examples? How do you judge this?

These changes are being made by the first presidency.

I believe that is true.

First they are not supposed to change it.

That is not true, no doubt about it.

Second, how do we know the changes are correct?

You obviously don't. I do, because they don't change the endowment. If you think they do, then you don't know what the endowment is. Ignorance won't help.

Even Brigham Young taught false doctrine.

Yup. The endowment prepares and protects us from this, if we give heed. As you should know.

The real question is, did Brother Brigham lead the Church astray? I think (from my own lengthy study on the subject) that the answer is "no". The evidence is clear, IMO.

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest User-Removed

However, we know that there have been some changes made in temple endowment. Some say they are minor, I disagree. These changes are being made by the first presidency. First they are not supposed to change it. Second, how do we know the changes are correct? Even Brigham Young taught false doctrine.

Hmmmmm...On another thread, you claim to be having problems accepting that the Church is true...yet, now you start a new thread where you seemingly claim to know more about the Endowment, than say the First Presidency?

What gives????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest User-Removed

First, let me say that I think your true colors are showing. It took a bit, HiJolly

Amen...and Amen...Thanks Hi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tomk

Questions like this become moot when you begin to experience a relationship with the "Giver of the Gift" and stop trying to pick-apart His Gospel.

All things, including the apparent flaws, are given for a reason. To help us realize what has always been true -- perfection is not to be had "in the arm of flesh" but in the person and presence of Christ.

Quit focusing on the fly in the soup, and instead focus on the flavor.

Quit telling the faithful "you missed a spot." There is a beautiful window giving you a view of eternity, via the LDS Faith. Don't focus on the smudge left by a human fingerprint. By doing so, you are missing the spectacular view!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Seraphim

"Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.... He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them."

- The Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208

"As temple work progresses, some members wonder if the ordinances can be changed or adjusted. These ordinances have been provided by revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency. Thus, the temple is protected from tampering."

- W. Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, Deseret News, Church Section, January 16, 1982

However, we know that there have been some changes made in temple endowment. Some say they are minor, I disagree. These changes are being made by the first presidency. First they are not supposed to change it. Second, how do we know the changes are correct? Even Brigham Young taught false doctrine.

This sounds more like an accusation than a question. There is a fine line between questioning and attempting to prove the church false here.

Site Rules

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is contrary to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do not post anything that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

Seraphim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quit telling the faithful "you missed a spot." There is a beautiful window giving you a view of eternity, via the LDS Faith. Don't focus on the smudge left by a human fingerprint. By doing so, you are missing the spectacular view!

That is just beautiful, Tomk. Thanks.

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.... He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them."

- The Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208

"As temple work progresses, some members wonder if the ordinances can be changed or adjusted. These ordinances have been provided by revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency. Thus, the temple is protected from tampering."

- W. Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, Deseret News, Church Section, January 16, 1982

However, we know that there have been some changes made in temple endowment. Some say they are minor, I disagree. These changes are being made by the first presidency. First they are not supposed to change it. Second, how do we know the changes are correct? Even Brigham Young taught false doctrine.

Good afternoon Yellowlight!

I have read your introduction in your first thread. From it, I understand that you have seriously and sincerely been studying and trying to understand your concerns. I would speculate also from your introduction, that you have tried to remain objective and consider the facts as they stand. Given that these assumptions are true, I would invite you to consider, first in a general sense, if all change is always change of substance?

Consider a simple example. I assume that we both agree that loving and serving others is an eternal principle. Now, suppose I understood this principle and wanted to apply it in my life. Suppose that I decided that I would cut my neighbors lawn, free of charge. Now, further suppose that I did this for 15 years. However, one day, I decided that a change would be good. I decided that instead of cutting the lawn for my neighbor, it would be more beneficial for my neighbor if I brought them cookies. And, thus I change 15 years of presidence. The question to you, then, is this: Was my change in action a change in substance? Did I change the principle by which I had been living under for 15 years? I think the answer is obvious and that is no. The principle of loving and serving my neighbor remained the same, however, how I implemented that principle in actuality changed to accomodate changes in reality (ie., cookies were now more beneficial for my neighbor).

This same type of change has taken place with the Temple ordinances. There has been no change in substance, only a change in how the eternal principles are taught. This has been done to accomodate the conditions, mind set, and understanding of the generation of mankind involved. But, the principles taught are still being taught and they have not changed.

I think that it is important that any claims of change must be properly segregated between change of substance or change of application. It seems transparent that any objective observer would have to make that distinction if their questioning is to remain relevant and fair.

I appreciate your questions and I hope that my post was not too long. If you got this far, I thank you for your time.

Regards,

Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me say that I think your true colors are showing. It took a bit, but, there it is.

OK, so true colors means asking questions that we should never ask. We should just let this roll right off our backs, close our eyes, and blindly follow, right?

Yes, we do. How YOU know it, I'd like to know, myself. How do you know this?

Well let's see, what was the most recent change in the temple ceremony? Was this something that was done for convenience and to speed up the process? Absolutely, there is no other reason for it. And, you should know what I am talking about.

On what basis do you disagree? Can you give examples? How do you judge this?

OK, seriously...is this a trap. You want examples? You are trying to get me to tell you what some of the changes are in the temple endowment ceremony. Are you sure you want to go down that route?

I believe that is true.

Good. I'm glad we agree that only the first presidency can make changes to the endowment and other ordinances. :)

That is not true, no doubt about it.

What would be the reason for omitting certain parts of the endowment session? It's not like it made it any clearer. I think you know what I'm talking about. Maybe it was changed so it wouldn't scare people away. I don't know.

You obviously don't. I do, because they don't change the endowment. If you think they do, then you don't know what the endowment is. Ignorance won't help.

You are right...overall the endowment meaning is still the same. So, why the changes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Seraphim

Your opening post in this thread wasn't a question, it was a statement. You bear the responsibility here of behaving like a questioner vs. an attacker. I have encountered too many people who claim to be a doubter and switch gears into one who wants to discredit the church. Please be sensitive in the way you approach your issues.

Seraphim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YellowLight, thank you for giving me the opportunity to converse with you, and the opportunity to examine my beliefs and to share my understandings.

Doctrine is repentence, faith in Jesus Christ, baptism by immersion and the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost (and similar core salvation principles). The Savior himself reminded us: "I will declare unto you my doctrine. And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me . . . and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God . . . I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the father . . ." 3 Nephhi 11:31-35 (all of chapter 11 is very good). My point being, and my view being, that what you brought up in your original post regarding Brigham Young -- that he taught false doctrine -- is very wrong and incorrect to assert, as it is my understanding that Brigham Young thoroughly endorsed the teachings of repentance, faith, baptism and the Holy Ghost.

(Please be very careful as you initiate and participate in discussion that you do not violate Site Rule 1. . . . . Do not post anything that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, . . . . leaders. Thank you.)

I encourage you to spend some time on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you use the Gospel Library and under 'T', Temples, you will find so much that may clarify things for you. There is no dearth of material there. Also, I typed 'the endowment' in the search bar at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and, again, mucho! materials -- could spend weeks studying it all and seeing what one can come up with. :)

I just selected one of the articles near the top of that (search) list.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Come to the Temple

I also provide that article because in it Elder Packer reminds us of some familiar and favorite quotes: "To endow is to enrich, to give to another something long lasting and of much worth. In the temple endowment ordinances, 'recipients are endowed with power from on high,' and 'they receive an education relative to the Lord’s purposes and plans.'2 "

Has it changed that one can no longer receive power on high? No it has not changed. Thus, the endowment has not changed, for that power IS the endowment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so true colors means asking questions that we should never ask. We should just let this roll right off our backs, close our eyes, and blindly follow, right?

I don't mean to shock you, but, I don't agree with your view on this. I ask LOTS of questions. And, amazingly enough, I get answers.

Well let's see, what was the most recent change in the temple ceremony? Was this something that was done for convenience and to speed up the process? Absolutely, there is no other reason for it. And, you should know what I am talking about.

I don't know if you noticed, but you didn't answer my question. Aren't you interested in my questions?

OK, seriously...is this a trap. You want examples? You are trying to get me to tell you what some of the changes are in the temple endowment ceremony. Are you sure you want to go down that route?

Um... let me think.

still thinking...

BTW, this reminds me of something Curly once said: "I'm trying to think, but nothing happens!" :lol:

Good. I'm glad we agree that only the first presidency can make changes to the endowment and other ordinances. :)

Oh, I don't think I'd go THAT far. :huh:

What would be the reason for omitting certain parts of the endowment session? It's not like it made it any clearer. I think you know what I'm talking about. Maybe it was changed so it wouldn't scare people away. I don't know.

If you don't know, then what's all this about?

You are right...overall the endowment meaning is still the same. So, why the changes?

Why not? Relax, no worries. What was the point?

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could we please stop accusing YellowLight of being anti, or an attacker? True, his initial post may have/did violate some forum rules, but please don't use that asa reflection of his character. When we start attacking questioners we only help to push them away from the best source for their answers (the Lord) and give the anti's reason to glee.

I'm reminded of the billboard I see every day "If you don't talk to your kids about drinking, someone else will". Likewise, if we as members don't *loveingly* care for the concerns of those who are questioning, there are plenty of people outside of the church willing to provide them with "answers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Seraphim

Could we please stop accusing YellowLight of being anti, or an attacker? True, his initial post may have/did violate some forum rules, but please don't use that asa reflection of his character. When we start attacking questioners we only help to push them away from the best source for their answers (the Lord) and give the anti's reason to glee.

I'm reminded of the billboard I see every day "If you don't talk to your kids about drinking, someone else will". Likewise, if we as members don't *loveingly* care for the concerns of those who are questioning, there are plenty of people outside of the church willing to provide them with "answers".

I'm not accusing him of being an attacker, but asking him to take a lot of care not to sound like one.

Seraphim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OUTSIDERS PERSPECTIVE: Without going into the sacred elements of temple ceremonies, the OP seems to be concerned about changes in what we might call the liturgy of the ceremony. The contention is that there should not be any changes, that they were not allowed. And yet, apparently the First Presidency can change the liturgy, so the question becomes: why the changes?

Now, if I understand the discussion correctly, there did not have to be a need for skepticism, but that "red flags" were triggered, and the issue of the OP's sincerity has drowned out his original question.

I'm I reading this right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I'm out of bounds if I mention that the most recent change in the temple endowment has been a reduction in the number of times one stands up. Does this change have any bearing on the meaning and content of the endowment ceremony? Absolutely not. In fact there have been members participating in temple ceremonies who have been unable to stand at all. Did that ever negate their endowment? Certainly not. Some of what we do in the temple is vital, some of what we do is not. In some temples people remain in one room, in some they move through two, in some through three. That is unimportant. It's just a different way of representing the same thing.

Maybe some of us who were around in 'the old days' needed a little bit more telling than people do now - with a little more emphasis, who knows. The main point remains the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Seraphim

OUTSIDERS PERSPECTIVE: Without going into the sacred elements of temple ceremonies, the OP seems to be concerned about changes in what we might call the liturgy of the ceremony. The contention is that there should not be any changes, that they were not allowed. And yet, apparently the First Presidency can change the liturgy, so the question becomes: why the changes?

Now, if I understand the discussion correctly, there did not have to be a need for skepticism, but that "red flags" were triggered, and the issue of the OP's sincerity has drowned out his original question.

I'm I reading this right?

One problem is that he isn't siting his sources. I just located the second quote on exmormon.org which is a rabid anti-Mormon site. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when they say they have sincere questions, but we need honesty. There are too many people out there trying to harm the testimonies of our members and it is difficult to tell the difference between doubters and them.

Yellow Light: References from exmormon.org and the like cannot be trusted and are not an acceptable source as context is removed with the use of ellipsis. Ellipsis can be helpful for the sake of length, but is often used to mislead in anti-Mormon propaganda.

With that, I am closing this thread. There isn't much we can discuss here regarding temple changes as the changes themselves aren't to be mentioned.

Seraphim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share