Thoughts on the temple changes?

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

SamBee wrote:

Regarding the hidden matriarchal structures in the church, it’s always seemed to me, locally at least that Relief Society looks after members better than the Elders’ Quorum… They also have far more activities on the go than we do. Oh and less pressure to serve a mission although many do.

Slightly off topic (hope that’s ok), but I think what a lot of feminism doesn’t realize, is that by nature, men are competitive and historically women are the prize. Kudos to feminism, because in most places things were really sucky for them for a very long time. No one likes to be treated as a prize. But as far as the “patriarchy” is concerned… men don’t look out for other men. If anything, they are more apt to look out for and take care of women. It’s still that competitive mindset, with the subconscious end-goal of winning the favor of the ladies. Which is why men, while in some cases being the bigger earners, are much more prevalent than women in the low-wage, dangerous, demeaning positions. It’s nothing new… the overlords have always been sending the young men off to war, while taking their lion’s-share of the wives. It’s men taking advantage of men to (ultimately) increase their standing with women. By contrast, women tend to take care of their own.

In order for something to change, you’re going to need to get a good group of women and some pretty powerful men to be on the side of the disenfranchised men. I don’t see that happening anytime soon. But going back to the OP, I still think the changes are a wonderful blessing to women. I don’t think men are harmed in any, and will likely be better for it.

It cuts both ways. For many women, men are the prize. Many still expect to be approached, rather than to approach, and have everything paid for and to meet a breadwinner, even if they are making good money themselves. And men still predominately do the most dangerous jobs. To some.extent the LDS perpetuates this behavior but still…

In many western countries, women still get the better deal in divorce settlements and child access. I know several church members who have been stung by this. We might have had that sexist covenant where women pledge to obey husbands, but divorced women who had temple sealings still happily take their husbands to the cleaners.

Also regarding domestic abuse – women suffer horrific injuries at the hands of men, but men are also less likely to report being abused by women (again I know several men who were physically assaulted by wives) which happens on a frequent basis.

But here’s another thing… Will the church change the rule about multiple sealings? A man can still be sealed to multiple women but not vice versa.

[Anonymous]

Re: simplifying the robes, they are put on only once now. The first time has been eliminated completely. Also, the slippers are not removed now. They are not considered part of the ceremonial clothing.

[Anonymous]

QuestionAbound wrote:

If the endowment itself is what does not change… Then what is the actual endowment if the script can change and if the gestures can change?

The endowment is not a collection of unchangeable text and signs, IMO. It is a ceremony in which we make commitments and receive as part of our commitment to God certain signs that we carry with us and wear with us as part of our lives and then when we come before God, we can show (by demonstrating that we have kept the signs) that we have been true to our commitments to live a godly life, whereupon we are become part of God’s Kingdom. The wording, progression, film, filmstrip, live presentation, signs, tokens, penalties… these are all part of the ceremony and ceremonies can be altered. When we are married in the present day, we might say vows that have been written long ago, or we may say vows that we have written ourselves, or we may just simply say ‘I do’ or ‘yes’. But in the end, we have the same outcome: we are married to our spouse and committed to each other.

[Anonymous]

Given the nature of the ceremony / ordinance, I would say the endowment is a promise that attempting to live faithfully (“enduring until the end”) will result in admission to the Celstial Kingdom.

To me, the real power of that promise is that, when all is said and done, it will be given to everyone. Period.

Whether any of the ceremonial elements have literal significance or not, the central promise is deeply profound and important to me. It says that no matter how our culture might impact our views at any point in time and be more or less restrictive, our theology is astoundingly liberal and grace-focused.

[Anonymous]

So…back to what the endowment is…if it’s promises that we make…then my parents promised different things than I did…and my children will promise with another set of promises.

Technically, I am still bound to hearken unto my husband and my parents are still under the blood oath (or whatever it was).

Am I missing something here?

It’s not like we are all suddenly bound by different promises. When I go to the temple now, I’ll be going for someone else, not for myself.

The Church statement about changing things to accommodate the times made me smile.

Regarding gender balance…does that mean that there wasn’t a need for balance 15 years ago? 😄

But “now” there is a need?

Not looking for answers to those questions, just thinking out loud (through a keyboard).

To me, I feel like his is what has happened over the last generation…

Church: men, be a leader in your home. Wives, listen to your men. We expect them to be leaders. We’ll make you promise to that in the temple. Can’t argue with THAT!

*Women grew louder and men grew quieter*

Church: well, let’s release the family proclamation…ahem, men, do you see it in print here? You have a lot of work to do. Women, take care of the kids. That’s all you need to be worried with.

*women grew louder, we discovered that women can actually do some pretty amazing things, men sit back to watch, many men lose their “manly role” in the home..*

Church: well, that didn’t work. Men, now your job is different. We have a new home study curriculum. We’ve seen that men can’t take charge, so we will put the women in charge of this. Men, all you have to do is sit back and watch. And just in case the women want to get even louder, we better reflect this change of power balance in the home through the temple.

Just saying.

FWIW, I love gendered roles. I love being a mom and taking care of the house. I love that my husband is the breadwinner. I don’t want to see women doing priesthood things like blessing the sacrament. I love the idea of our men protecting our women. I’m just old fashioned enough that some things don’t need to change. 🙂

Regarding the sealings that was mentioned above:

I still think that polyandry is the better way to go if we want to talk about plural marriage.

If women are now almost equals in the temple…

Anyway, I’ll stop now. 😆

[Anonymous]

QuestionAbound wrote:

So…back to what the endowment is…if it’s promises that we make…then my parents promised different things than I did…and my children will promise with another set of promises.

…

Am I missing something here?

No, you nailed it. However, I think there is no special meaning in the specific promises we make. Jesus didn’t eat pork, but he drank wine. I don’t drink wine, but I eat pork. We are both trying to find ways, within our time and culture, to remain committed to something (God, church, family). If we generalize the endowment, we are making a commitment to be with God. To me, this is one of the important elements to come out of changes like this in the Church. It can help believers to let go of the boat (the Old Ship Zion) and swim a little on their own; something that we here have been able to do with some degree of success. The point is to stay committed to God and not whether your shirt is white.

[Anonymous]

I have recently learned some stuff about the history of the endowment that’s probably relevant. The info comes from Terryl Givens in Wrestling the Angel and People of Paradox. From our point of view looking backward and in our current context we see the endowment as something pretty linear. I believed, and think most people probably understand it this way as well, that the endowment was given as a chunk and then has been revised over time (the initial ceremonies were much longer). According to Givens, that’s not the case and it was not given in the linear way we see it. That is, what we now do first may not have been revealed until much later, and the order of things has changed over time even early on. In a nutshell, what we consider the endowment rite today is not just a shortened version of what JS and BY taught and the first endowments did not include all the stuff we now do (and may have included other stuff). FWIW, Givens asserts that almost all of our theology that came from early church leaders, particularly JS, was like this and has been mashed together to form the more coherent and familiar doctrine/theology we understand today. Givens also asserts that the Pratts, particularly Parley, were responsible for much of making it more coherent and linear looking.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, I believe when we go to the temple, for ourselves or for someone else, the symbolic elements that apply to us are the current ones at that time. I do NOT believe I am bound to older versions, even the one that was in place when I first attended for myself. That is way too Calvinistic for me.

[Anonymous]

QuestionAbound wrote:

So…back to what the endowment is…if it’s promises that we make…then my parents promised different things than I did…and my children will promise with another set of promises.

Technically, I am still bound to hearken unto my husband and my parents are still under the blood oath (or whatever it was).

Am I missing something here?

I believe that the good news of the Gospel is that we are no longer “bound” but free. We are free to grow and change and evolve. We are free to hope and dream and make some of those dreams into reality. We are not beholden to our past selves – we can be better than that. We can be new creatures through Jesus Christ. I believe this concept applies to individuals as well as the church collectively.

(Yes, I know that this concept is not taught or understood very well in LDS meetings)

[Anonymous]

QuestionAbound wrote:

So…back to what the endowment is…if it’s promises that we make…then my parents promised different things than I did…and my children will promise with another set of promises.

Technically, I am still bound to hearken unto my husband and my parents are still under the blood oath (or whatever it was).

Am I missing something here?

It’s not like we are all suddenly bound by different promises. When I go to the temple now, I’ll be going for someone else, not for myself.

I ponder how interesting this compares to the stories of Moses, for example. Those early prophets had different sets of laws or commandments given to the people to follow. We often hear the joke of how grateful we are to not have to worry about how far from our home we travel on Sundays, or the exact kind and weight of meat we consume. We now have a higher law, of love one another and love God. Sure, we have extras such as the word of wisdom, law of chastity and sabbath day observance. Yet, I have found joy and peace in interpreting these “extra” commandments to work with my own life. To where I can feel I am worshiping the Lord the way I feel is appropriate for my circumstances.

WIth that in mind, it would almost suggest the idea that these extra commandments are almost just “faith testers”. We are willing to do anything, even if it makes no sense or has no relation to the gospel besides “obedience”. Because we love the Lord God so much we are willing to abstain from coffee or attend a (previous) three hour and extra for meetings Sunday. While Sunday school, a YSA FHE and refusing to enter a store on Sunday are good ways to show that we love and worship the Lord, I don’t know if on final judgement day He will point at the one time we drank coffee after baptism and say, I’m sorry son/daughter, but you blew it. No eternal progression for you.

So with this introduction to my thought process, perhaps these extra covenants and promises our previous generations have made in the temple are less for the purpose of filtering through all the righteous in that timeframe and more to see how obedient and faithful they were. In other words, perhaps most of these specific covenants and promises are nothing more than faith and love fluff? So it wouldn’t matter if someone you take a name for was born in the 1950s, they won’t be required to do blood oaths and who knows what else because you live in 2019 and are doing the 2019 endowment for them. Or perhaps I am wrong and in the spirit world they correct the ordinances? Just thoughts.

[Author]

Posts