DiscussMormonism.com

Today the church officially announce significant changes not only to the endowment but also to the covenants and promises. Throughout my life as a Mormon I was taught that a major sign of apostasy in the ancient church was when they changed the ordinance of baptism from full emersion to sprinkling. Now for the sake of changing expectations and changes in social norms the church has significantly changed its ordinances and covenants. If this is not apostacy, I don’t know what is.

Joseph Smith taught: “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.”. And yet no longer can that be the case since different generations of Mormons will covenant to different promises

Well, apostasy is a flexible concept. BY said the endowment needed refinement, so maybe the new covenants are refined.

The Church has always been apostate because it’s based on lies.

Kishkumen wrote:Well, apostasy is a flexible concept. BY said the endowment needed refinement, so maybe the new covenants are refined.

If the covenants I promised to keep are different from the covenants both my parents made and still different from those my children made and now different from those my grandchildren might make...which of us swore to keep the correct covenants? What does this say about the Mormon God who despite claiming to have never changing covenants keeps changing his covenants. *

* yeah it’s all BS, but I’m playing as if it were actually from a God.

Craig Paxton wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:Well, apostasy is a flexible concept. BY said the endowment needed refinement, so maybe the new covenants are refined.

If the covenants I promised to keep are different from the covenants both my parents made and still different from those my children made and now different from those my grandchildren might make...which of us swore to keep the correct covenants? What does this say about the Mormon God who despite claiming to have never changing covenants keeps changing his covenants. *

* yeah it’s all ____, but I’m playing as if it were actually from a God.

The very fact it is changing is demonstration of being man made instead of from an eternal God. They can't grasp that yet, and I admit, it took me a while to see the point of view, but once seen, with conjunction with the CLAIMS made concerning what God is, what God wants, and what God knows, the gig is over. There is precious little to match from a god-view because it's always only been from a finite man made view.

I like to feel encouraged with the Church, even sitting on the outside. I'm glad they are trying to address the issue of women's roles in some sense, and I see some of these changes reflecting that. Maybe in this refinement they are moving out of apostasy and we'll see a true restoration take place some day in the future. Ok...too hopeful, but still I feel encouraged when the church changes to accommodate. I don't get the point in trying to get it to go back to awful traditions.

I feel like Shulem would've really, really, REALLY enjoyed the part back in the day where you got a nice oil bath and participants were naked.

- Doc

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I feel like Shulem would've really, really, REALLY enjoyed the part back in the day where you got a nice oil bath and participants were naked.

- Doc

I've heard about that but know very little about those old procedures. I don't think I would have cared for it. I'll bet the bath was cold and drafty. However, the initiatory work that I participated in while doing temple service, was for me, rather pleasant. I didn't mind all that touching and rubbing. It felt kind of good. Ha ha. A little tactile action can be pleasant when you don't mind people touching you. It was the bad breath that offended me.

Thanks for thinking of me. It's interesting to know that there are various perspectives in life.

Hypocritical Mormons love to rant about how the Catholics changed the ordinance of baptism from emersion to sprinkling and how unlawful it is for man to change prescribed ordinances for the sake of convenience. But isn't that what the LDS church is doing today with its constant changing and tampering of the endowment? The endowment has certainly changed since the days Joseph Smith first administered it to his cult clan in Nauvoo. Mormonism today is nothing like Mormonism of yesterday. It's not even the same religion anymore. Polygamy was once a staple -- a doctrine -- a requirement for exaltation. Now, it's just a thing of the past they sweep under the rug.

Temple changes today are no revelation any more than the original temple ordinances were revelation. it's just a cult doing its thing and trying to make its members happy.

Philo Sofee wrote:The very fact it is changing is demonstration of being man made instead of from an eternal God. They can't grasp that yet, and I admit, it took me a while to see the point of view, but once seen, with conjunction with the CLAIMS made concerning what God is, what God wants, and what God knows, the gig is over. There is precious little to match from a god-view because it's always only been from a finite man made view.

While I completely agree that these changes are evidence that the church is completely made up, man made Bull Sh*t. How does one, assuming belief, square the revelation vs apostacy conundrum? Why was it apostasy for those in power during the ancient church to make changes during the first and second century that were subtle, nuanced and due to meeting societal needs and yet changes in our so called modern era that are subtle, nuanced and obviously motivated by societal shifts are considered Modern Revelation ® ?

While I get the argument of claimed authority, the death of the apostles etc... does that argument hold up under scrutiny? If the Apostle Paul ordained a bishop in say Rome, wouldn't that bishop retain the right to ordain others despite Paul's death? And was it only due to the death of the ancient apostles that the so called apostacy took place?

Every generation of Mormon has made different promises to their God in the temple...is the Mormon god this fickle, malleable and so influenced by societal shifts?

And while claiming that these changes represent modern revelation ® why are they not actually signs of apostacy in the very fact that they are actually evidence of societal expediency?