More temple ordinance changes

[Anonymous]

I personally believe that it is close to impossible for the church to admit that any person contained in scripture is fictional or symbolic.

If they did that then the general membership would be left to wonder, what else is in the same category?

Compared to prior generations, I have seen a lot of changes since I’ve joined the church (1970). They are too numerous to list.

I do wonder: what would prior generations think? would the recognize the church from their generation? I think specifically of

my in-laws. These are interesting times in so many ways.

[Anonymous]

It would require the first step of just acknowledging “SOME” characters in the Bible were not historical, but stuff of legends and lore from oral histories. Once they got that across and accepted, they would have a better chance of teaching more of the bible in terms of allegory and less about historicity.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for making me laugh too hard to be eligible to attend the temple, On Own Now. 😆

[Anonymous]

Not that my vote matters, but if I did have a vote and if it did matter, I would vote to either eliminate the new name or change it so that both spouses know each other’s new name. That would be a unifying factor in a marriage instead of a dividing one.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

It would require the first step of just acknowledging “SOME” characters in the Bible were not historical, but stuff of legends and lore from oral histories. Once they got that across and accepted, they would have a better chance of teaching more of the bible in terms of allegory and less about historicity.

Jews, for the most part,have achieved this because they’re willing to listen to the “so-called scholars” that are sometimes maligned by the LDS hierarchy (although there has been some shift in that respect of late). For instance, Jews recognize that Job was probably not an actual single individual but more an amalgam of different traditional stories combined into one with the moral of the story being the same. Most Jews also don’t believe what we call the Old Testament is historical, rather it makes reference to some historical timeframes and events that did actually occur (Cyrus the Great, for example). Maybe in 5500 years we’ll get there….

[Author]

Posts