New Video Format of Temple Endowment

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

Your poor sister and her kids. I am so sorry to know they have to go through that – and that it might rub off on any boys they might have.

Or that it might rub off on the YM he is working with. In this case the release of YM presidents may truly be a Godsend.

Like Old-Timer, I do feel for your sister and the children.

[Anonymous]

“Privilege” is a term that those who can afford to loll around in tertiary education have coined to justify their position.

I am sick to death of the wealthy and powerful telling us how oppressed they are. Whenever a woman lectures me about it, it is a woman with money and a job that pays more than most people’s. It is a form of Adlerian compensation for the fact that they themselves are privileged in reality.

A local literary non-profit had a job ad out recently, saying they particularly wanted women in the role. I was speaking to a friend of mine about this, and he said he wasn’t aware of any men who worked for that group which has several dozen employees. I said I knew of one man who did. None of the people who work for it seem to come from blue collar backgrounds though. It seems curious that their “diversity” consists of people from the same socio-economic group as themselves.

Seems like they are LARPing as victims when in fact they make decent pay, and have safer jobs than half the people in this country.

I’ve said for years that mainstream US politics does not have a true left wing. (Possibly Bernie but that’s it). The people who go on about “privilege” in one breath and then go on about “trailer trash” in the next are not left wing.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow wrote:

My brother-in-law is an extremist when it comes to church stuff. He’s the young men’s president and his wife is a primary teacher, and he claims that he has a calling with more responsibility because he is living a ‘more worthy’ life, and unfortunately he sincerely believes that.

Interesting…because I bet he doesn’t have a calling now and his wife still does…amIright? Which was more important that the church kept one and got rid of one :think:

Curt wrote:

I don’t want to turn this into a debate about privilege

I agree…it feels the thread got a little off track based on one example of one person’s ideas that I think all of us disagree with.

…back to the point of the thread…

jamison wrote:

Is is just me or did others find this disturbing?

I wonder if any change is difficult for us to accept?

Is it better to never make changes? Or would we get too bored without changes?

I feel like the restoration of the gospel is a process that is ever changing…and will always be so. And the idea these ordinances or ceremonies go back to Adam’s day like we have them now is unrealistic in any way.

Each change has a fingerprint on it.

I prefer change to no change…mostly because then I have hope that what I don’t like about this change can be temporary, and either the church will change it again or I will change myself…and it will get better in time.

Our church, and the temple ceremony, is better than it was 50 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Interesting…because I bet he doesn’t have a calling now and his wife still does…amIright? Which was more important that the church kept one and got rid of one :think:

Haa!!! Good point! I haven’t talked to him since they made that change.

You guys bring up a lot of great points. Change can be hard for anybody. Typically, when the church comes out with an announcement or a statement that I don’t like, he loves it. And when the church makes a change that I love, he doesn’t like it at all. When the POX came out, he couldn’t stop raving about how brave and stalwart the church leaders are for drawing a line in the sand and for standing up to protect God’s commandments without worrying about what the world thinks. When they revoked the POX, he said that it was because the general membership of the church isn’t living worthy enough to be ready for it yet, so the leaders had to revoke it, similar to how we’re not ready to live the law of consecration. 🙄

It does make me wonder, though. Are there a lot of people out there like him (as far as resisting changes, not the misogynistic nonsense that he holds onto), who want to hold onto the old traditions and secretly aren’t that excited to see the changes that have been made. I wonder if that has anything to do with why it takes so long for changes to be made. Could progressing too quickly shock the more zealous members to the extent that it would cause them to leave, similar to the split that occurred after JS dies, and the split that occurred when the church stopped practicing polygamy? :think: I often feel like the changes aren’t coming nearly fast enough, but could the slow pace of the changes actually be strategic?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I prefer change to no change…mostly because then I have hope that what I don’t like about this change can be temporary, and either the church will change it again or I will change myself…and it will get better in time.

I agree. In the long history of civilization the arc of change has bent towards progress.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow wrote:

It does make me wonder, though. Are there a lot of people out there like him (as far as resisting changes, not the misogynistic nonsense that he holds onto), who want to hold onto the old traditions and secretly aren’t that excited to see the changes that have been made. I wonder if that has anything to do with why it takes so long for changes to be made. Could progressing too quickly shock the more zealous members to the extent that it would cause them to leave, similar to the split that occurred after JS dies, and the split that occurred when the church stopped practicing polygamy? :think: I often feel like the changes aren’t coming nearly fast enough, but could the slow pace of the changes actually be strategic?

There definitely are people who don’t like the changes and maybe more than just because they are changes. Most people, I think, resist change at some level because change isn’t necessarily comfortable. I know people in my own ward who are still bemoaning the change to ministering and the two hour block and who don’t like Come Follow Me. I have a friend serving in the bishopric who is absolutely up in arms about the changes to YM – and a big part of that is because he has to work harder (and I do get that, it wasn’t necessarily what he “signed on for’). And I do think that’s why changes have tend to come slowly in the church – some of us embrace them (and some are less averse to change anyway) but some just like the way things are. Some perhaps have been so ingrained with the idea that the way things were was all inspired that changing it is wrong (and then have the associated cognitive dissonance when the new stuff is presented as inspiration).

There have been many changes to the temple ceremony over the course of time – it’s relatively constantly in flux. There have also been big course corrections in the church in the past (later 1800s, mid 1900s). I think 20 years or so from now we might be looking back and saying this time was another of those course corrections (at least I hope that’s the case, and I hope we continue to correct).

[Author]

Posts