Columns Jana Riess: Flunking Sainthood Opinion

Major changes to Mormon temple ceremony, especially for women

The angel Moroni statue, silhouetted against the sky, sits atop the Salt Lake Temple, at Temple Square, on Jan. 3, 2018, in Salt Lake City. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

On Wednesday, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced—but did not quite actually announce—important changes to its temple rituals.

In other words, the Internet was awash with rumors about unprecedented changes, especially concerning gender roles in the endowment ceremony. But other than confirming that something unspecified has indeed been updated and urging Mormons not to talk about those changes publicly, the church has been tight-lipped about what actually happened.

The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting from a witness who went through the temple Wednesday that important elements have indeed been altered, including:

  • GONE: women’s promise to hearken to their husbands, as the husbands hearken directly to the Lord. Men are no longer intermediaries between women and God in the temple.
  • EXPANDED: the role of Eve, who previously had no dialogue after the expulsion from Eden, and is now purportedly more loquacious than Satan.
  • UNITED: women and men covenanting together to serve God, with the same promises, rather than covenanting separately with slightly different wording.

Over the last day I have also heard other attendees reporting about their experiences, and the changes sound far-reaching. This is not just window dressing, but a full overhaul of many aspects of the temple. Without going into detail, I understand that these changes include:

  • A simplification of ritual clothing and how it is used
  • A shorter overall length to the ceremony, with some repetitive language eliminated or changed
  • A different temple movie that is primarily composed of still shots with narration rather than a live action film
  • Gender equality in the language of the sealing ceremony, where the bride and groom now apparently make the same promises to each other

I’m thrilled about the changes, particularly for women. When I was conducting oral history interviews for The Next Mormons, I encountered a number of women who had difficult experiences with the temple. Here is what I wrote, much of which is now happily out of date two months before publication:

The issue of gender inequality came up with surprising frequency in my conversations, as women (and it was almost always women) commented on how uncomfortable they felt with the same elements Miranda disliked: promising to hearken to their husbands while their husbands, in turn, promised to hearken directly to God; hearing they would be queens and priestesses unto their husbands while those husbands would be kings and priests directly to God; having to veil their faces during prayer; seeing Eve portrayed as subordinate to Adam; and having to reveal their sacred names to their husbands without receiving their husbands’ sacred names in return. . . .

Some women said the temple’s emphasis on women serving men who in turn serve God just doesn’t jibe with the marriages they have (or, in the case of several single interviewees, hope to have). Nor is it consistent with their own previously unmediated, direct, loving relationships with God—relationships they were taught to cultivate in Mormon classes, camps, and programs. The language of the temple, mostly unchanged in this respect since the endowment was settled in the nineteenth century, feels like a relic from another age.

Well, the “relic from another age” has been revised to more fully reflect women’s equal standing before God, and did I mention that I’m thrilled?

But here’s the part that does not please me: I am hearing that the revised endowment ceremony actually opens with a statement from church leaders that advises members not to discuss the fact that changes have been made at all.

If this is true, it takes the secrecy that has rightly surrounded three aspects of the endowment—the signs, tokens, and sacred name that Mormons covenant not to discuss outside the temple—and applies it universally to the temple as a whole.

What’s strange is that at least to my understanding, nothing has been altered about signs, tokens, or sacred names. (Correct me if I am wrong about this, as I haven’t been this week myself to experience the modified ceremony.) The changes have happened to other aspects of the ritual that were not part of that holy triumvirate.

The ritual’s preface would seem to render us unable to talk about the important ways the revision is an example of continuing revelation. I can understand leaders’ desire to keep the changes out of the news if possible (though that is surely a losing battle in 2019), and I can also appreciate a reticence to explain the ineffable. One of the gifts of the temple has always been that we are free to exercise our own agency through prayer to determine what it means; no one in authority dictates its interpretation.

But complete radio silence is inadequate in this case. As Emily Jensen pointed out in an important blog post yesterday, it’s particularly damaging to women if we don’t talk about the changes. Emily’s post was removed from its host site after a First Presidency statement Wednesday reiterated that temple “ordinances are sacred and are not discussed outside the temple,” so she has given me permission to republish a large portion of it here. I think her argument is vital:

For as long as there have been temple ordinances, women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have borne the brunt of covenanting and acting in a way that seemed contrary to much of what they were taught outside of the temple about their relationship with the divine and the eternities.

This has now changed. If you attend the temple starting today you will find that the endowment has been shortened. There are portions regarding women, including the wording of a covenant, that are no longer included.

We have to acknowledge the change. Because if we do not, we as a Church will continue to force women to bear the burden of wondering if they were wrong.

Some women may wonder if they were wrong when they received strong testimonies about the specific way the temple, until today, taught them about their divinity. Or, if they questioned the temple but stamped these doubts down in honor of being obedient so they could receive future blessings for themselves and their posterity, some women may now feel the whiplash of their decades of unnecessary, soul-rending sacrifice.

Women for generations have told their daughters and granddaughters, who looked at them with questioning eyes as they first went through the temple, that the specific form of the ordinance was necessary for their salvation. That it was worth doing something that felt wrong to ultimately gain something right, in a similar way it was worth it for Eve and the choice she made in the Garden of Eden. These women will now wonder whether they were wrong.

In a way, the Church’s request that Mormons simply accept the change and not ask questions about it is par for the course; there has been a benignly intended pattern of Newspeak to previous changes, where it seems that leaders optimistically hope that the past will simply be forgotten if we don’t dwell on it. It’s wonderful to want to focus on a rosy future, but not at the expense of denying any pain has been caused in the past, whether we’re talking about polygamy, race, or now gender and the temple.

As Emily puts it:

I refuse to just be grateful that these changes were made. I refuse to be told by men in the Church that they always understood the temple to be symbolic when it comes to gender issues so of course this change is welcome and we should just blithely move along. So many times women and concerned members have been told, “If only you understood the true meaning of the temple, you wouldn’t have these doubts and questions.”

So in honor of the women I interviewed who had rough experiences with the language and ritual of the temple, I’m going to talk about these new changes—in fact, I’m going to herald them. I hope they will be a catalyst for many young women to have positive sacred experiences in the future, where they will feel equally valued to men in the temple. I also hope that some previous attendees who had made the aching decision that the temple was “not for them” will hear of these changes and dare to give it another try.

Related posts on Mormon temples:




About the author

Jana Riess

Senior columnist Jana Riess is the author of many books, including "The Prayer Wheel" (Random House/Convergent, 2018) and "The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church" (Oxford University Press, 2019). She has a PhD in American religious history from Columbia University.


Click here to post a comment

  • Simple question–If this ceremony came from direct revelation,why were these things not in the first temple ceremony? The church is now run by a corporation that operates by sending out surveys. Nothing wrong with that if they were honest.

  • I’m linking an article that does a pretty good job of answering this question. Continuing revelation is an essential part of Latter-day Saint doctrine. Revelation corrects previous errors, provides further insight needed for the current time, and adapts organizational structures and messaging to adapting to changing contexts. Revelation is extraordinarily rarely received as dictation from God and is almost always filtered through the experiences, perspectives, and context of the person receiving it.

  • I have a real problem with this. If the brethren interpret revelation incorrectly, and maybe even to their advantage, then what good is it? Especially when people have had to endure the consequences of incorrect interpretations – sometimes over decades.

  • Simple answer: God reveals teachings, principles, doctrines, and practices that are best suited to his people at the time they need them. If you believe in the Abrahamic God at all, then you can see this throughout written scripture. The evolution of beliefs and practices within Mormonism is nothing new. And if you don’t believe in God then, well, *anything* religious is going to seem like a sham…

  • Your response misses the point. Why have “living prophets” when they clearly get one thing after another wrong and yet tell us to trust them, they never lead us astray. Clearly they do. This is just another example. Don’t get me wrong, I think the changes are positive for people going through the temple but there was no reason these changes could not have been there from the start if in fact the temple ceremony was revelation. The Law of Moses was bat shit crazy and sexist yet we do not see one change after another. When Jesus appeared on the scene, the Jews were still living it.
    This is problematic based on prior statements from church leaders. The church always wants it both ways. Eat the cake and have it as well.

  • Zampona, in the past I have tried explaining that your responses are far too simplistic and miss the mark. Same here.

  • Mike, in the past I have tried explaining that your responses are far too removed from reality. Same here.

  • What good is the scientific method if it sometimes produces bad or incomplete results?

    Something need not be perfect to be good or useful.

  • Jana,

    I happened to go through the temple yesterday & was there with other family members who had gone through or who had worked at the temple just last week & were also totally unaware that there would be any changes to the endowment eremony at all. We were all there to worship and to support another relative who was going through the temple for the first time and will never know the difference.

    It’s interesting to me that you focus so much on how the ordinance at any point would have offended anybody’s overly fragile sensibilities. There have been numerous dramatic changes made to the endowment ever since it was first introduced, and many of those changes have been much more substantial than yesterday’s mostly language-related adjustments. I’m not sure why some feminist thinkers or leaders strive so hard to confirm some of the stereotypes that some people believe in when it comes to females. I believe in strong females & whining about how certain language at some point may have hurt someone’s feelings is counter productive because it just confirms biases.

    There were better questions about the changes than: do they suffice to help women feel better about themselves? Better questions would be, “Which, if any, parts of the ceremony are unchangeable?” “Are any remaining parts of the ceremony superfluous?” “And are there any other changes to the structure or language othe the endowment ritual or ordinance that we should expect in the near future?” Why everything has to be about the quest for gender equality for you doesn’t get to the deeper spiritual and religious significance of anything.

  • Just responding to stuff you say in a public forum. If you don’t want an answer, don’t ask a question.

  • I’m not quite sure what the reference to the law of Moses is supposed to accomplish. If it’s crazy, as you say, wasn’t Jesus changing it a good thing? And if so, why didn’t God just give us Jesus’ teachings to begin with?

    As I pointed out earlier, the concept of continuing revelation has always been a fundamental part of Latter-day Saint teaching and practice.

  • The fact that it was changed doesn’t mean it was wrong. What was right for my parents may be different for what is right for me. Does that make sense?

    Also, for what it’s worth, I’m perfectly ok with the idea that prophets are human and fallible, as are most church members that I know.

  • Not all women are raised to be strong headed/self-assured. Some were raised to be very submissive. Some were taught that they were sinning if they did not obey their husbands. Wording does change meaning. Especially for a person who is trying to live life to exactness. If the words are twisted and shame is given for not understanding what wasn’t fully explained…well, that could just be rubbing salt on a wound for some. It is ok for people to feel different about this. For we don’t all share the same experiences.

  • The Mormon church LOVES to claim that “God’s laws don’t change!” and that church teachings/practices aren’t swayed by the opinions of “the world.” Lord knows I heard that argument enough times during the whole gay marriage/Prop 8 fight. And yet now I’m supposed to believe that doctrine DOES change in response to people’s needs “evolving”? But that the church still follows “God” and not public opinion? I’m going to have to call BS on that.

    The sexism in the temple was NEVER acceptable. It was NEVER “right.” Generations of women suffered in silence because they didn’t have any other option. Anybody who spoke up got excommunicated. What’s different now is that the culture has changed. Women have more power. They’re done tolerating sexism. There are more people speaking up now, and more people leaving the church altogether because the temple ceremony was such a slap in the face. The church leaders aren’t stupid. Neither are they suddenly “inspired.” They’re simply protecting their bottom line. They’ve dragged their heels on gender equality for as long as they could, just like they did with racial equality, but they’re finally starting to accept that it’s a losing battle. So now they’re going to spin this decision into proof of continual revelation and how the Mormon God was never really sexist, promise! He was just waiting patiently until sexism was no longer “best suited” to his people’s needs (and completing ignoring women’s needs in the process)! What a swell guy, huh?

    A church that claims to be led directly by a “living” prophet following the commands of a perfect, all-loving God should be advocating for justice even, dare I say ESPECIALLY, when it’s unpopular to do so. They should be leading the charge towards greater equality and pushing the rest of the world to be better. You know, just like they do with that evil coffee and such. They shouldn’t have to be poked and prodded to finally get with the program. If prophets are human and fallible (which they very much are), then the whole “Follow the prophet; he won’t lead you astray” thing is an outright lie.

  • Dr. Reiss, isn’t it just conceivable that when the prophet says “this isn’t for public discussion,” someone who turns that direction into a blog post may be the one who’s in the wrong?

  • “Revelation is extraordinarily rarely received as dictation from God and is almost always filtered through the experiences, perspectives, and context of the person receiving it.”

    Well, that sounds like God doesn’t really have much to do with it, doesn’t it? It’s almost as if men make these decisions all by themselves based on their own experiences, perspectives, ideas, etc., and then attribute those ideas to “God” ad hoc. Incidentally, ad hoc explanations are a perfect example of the scientific method going off the rails. They’re something that should be avoided as much as possible.

  • I understand your perspective and respect it. I’m not new to this argument at all, and it’s not an easy answer. For me, I don’t think of the wording of a temple covenant as one of God’s unchangeable laws, so this doesn’t trouble me like it would if suddenly adultery were no longer a sin or it was OK to rob from my neighbor.

    But that’s me, and I’m a man, and have only experienced the sense of oppression you’re talking about vicariously, so I know my view is limited.

    Let me leave one final thought, knowing it won’t change your opinion: Nobody said the restoration was done at any point. Maybe the old covenant *was* wrong, at all times. I presume we could all agree that, whatever the motivation, this was a step in the right direction. For me, that’s cause to rejoice.

    All done posting here. I hope all your paths lead to peace.

  • In what universe is repositioning women from being subordinate and subservient to men to being equal partners not a substantial change? But then again, I guess you think that “strong” women should be content to suffer in silence and never demand better for themselves. Strength obviously means letting others mistreat you, rather than having the courage to speak up for your own worth. You must also think the Founding Fathers were “overly sensitive” for whining about unfair taxation, right? I mean, why did they have to go and make everything about the quest for colonial equality? Dang SJWs, the lot of them.

  • In the past not talking about “it” was in reference to signs, tokens, penaltys and keywords? I guess that is up for interpretation…the movie language is all or part of that? I would say part…however I realize it could be different to different people…However in this case it does sound like some wording of covenants has changed. So technically, yes? But then again… I think some people are trying to make sense of the past so they can move forward? It’s not about right or wrong…it is about growth and understanding. And when no one talks, it doesn’t help much with understanding.

  • If the old covenant was always wrong (which it was), why did it ever exist in the first place? All those covenants are supposed to come from God, right? And they’re supposed to be super important to a person’s salvation, right? And God’s supposed to be perfect, isn’t he? So why the glaring mistakes? This isn’t some trivial mistake like spelling “their” as “there.” This is a covenant that assigned half of God’s children a definite second-class status. I’m sorry you don’t find that troubling. Hopefully with time you can learn to condemn the oppression, even oppression not directed at you, with the same surety that you would condemn theft. Oppression is, after all, the theft of another person’s humanity.

    I’m not going to rejoice in a bunch of old men finally getting around to deciding that maybe women get to be people, too. Certainly not until they issue a sincere and contrite apology for all the pain they’ve inflicted. Why should church leaders be exempt from going through the same repentance process they require of members? Changing the temple ceremony is absolutely necessary, but it does nothing to atone for all the harm the church’s teachings have already caused, just like promising to quit stealing things in the future does nothing to make things right with the people you’ve already robbed.

  • Mormonism no matter what procedural changes it makes will still be a business cult fronting as religion.

  • The very notion of “sexism” is man-made based on its creators’ own experiences, perspectives, ideas, etc., and then attributing those ideas to “sexism”.

    It is very much a Western 20th century construct which has almost no purchase in the East, Africa, Eastern Europe.

    Its foundation is a Marxist analysis of the relationship between the sexes in terms of power.

    If you subscribe to it, you can hardly complain about “a bunch of old men finally getting around to deciding that maybe women get to be people, too.”

  • You need to read a single entry in a blog in context.

    The context if you read a couple of years of the blog is of someone unhappy with the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, who favors individuals who wind up excommunicated, and chafes under the “sexist” regime she sees.

    It does not take Nostradamus to know where it’s heading.

  • It sounds very much like you’d be happier as an Episcopalian since issues of “power” and “sexism” seem to be your main focus in a religious experience.

  • No,it does not make sense. God used to be sexist and it was ok for previous versions of the endowment to be sexist but god has now seen the light and understands that sexist ideas are not ok for the current group of members?As for most members are ok with fallible prophets. Not true. They only mouth the words but can only give sparse examples in the past. I bet this current revelation is not a mistake? How about the sexist idea of only women taking a 10 day social fast and not men?It only applies to very specific examples that have taken place in the past. It is ok to kind of throw a dead prophet under the bus but never the living one.

  • This change is completely out of line with the Bible on the relationship between husbands and wives. So are they going to throw out the 5th Article of Faith: “We Believe the Bible to be the word of God”?

    Ephesians 5:
    22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
    23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
    24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
    25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

    1 Timothy 2:
    11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
    14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
    15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

    1 Peter 3
    5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
    6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
    7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

  • The greatest women ever were meek. Sarah, Ruth, Mary, Mary Magdalene, the woman at the well, Sariah. The greatest example of all: our Heavenly Mother who hasn’t said a single word since the beginning of time.

  • You are so far off the mark, it is insane. Your idea of “sexism” has been around since the beginning of time. A woman submitting to her husband is written all throughout the Bible.

    Take a minute to think what you’re saying. You’re saying that 6,000 years of Prophets and Apostles got it wrong and they were all sexists. Are you crazy?

  • If the wife no longer needs to “hearken” to her husband then what is the point of him presiding in the home? Do we say that when the Bishop or Stake President Presides we don’t need to listen and follow their counsel?

    If the wife doesn’t hearken to her husband than he is not the “patriarch” of his home any longer. That means that he no longer is the only person that receives revelation for his family. Do people have any idea how much this changes the Church? This is the CORE of his Priesthood duties; to receive inspiration for his family. And the family is the core of the Gospel – not the church, not even the Temple, THE FAMILY. This has essentially removed a major component of Priesthood authority.

    How does this even work in the eternal scheme? Are their some Eternal families that now have the husband as the head and some that do not because some took the covenant after Jan 1, 2019? Or are the old covenants now invalid?

    This is not some minor change. This has deep, far reaching doctrinal problems that changes many, many concepts in the Church. Many sections of the Doctrine and Covenants where men are blessed as revelators for their homes are now called into question. Section 132 is now in question. This is insanity!

  • For women, the original purpose of the Endowment was for marriage. There was really no reason for a woman to go through the Temple for any other reason. Females didn’t serve missions until the 1890s. This is why they make this covenant to their husbands, because they were planning to be married to him.

    Now you have lots of single women going through and they wonder why such language exists…

  • That answer makes sense to those who see no space between the credulous and the faithful. But Reiss claims to believe in a God whose modus operandi is to speak through human prophets.

  • Yes, there’s a real need there. That need could be met without public discussion on the internet.

  • One can talk in the temple. The Church’s statement reads, temple “ordinances are sacred and are not discussed outside a holy temple.” That should be a major part of any discussion about interpretation.

  • And some men are raised to be weaklings who are submissive too. Not all men “are raised to be strong headed/self assured”… This can even happen within the Church and often does as well. This isn’t a gender specific problem. Any kind of domineering is wrong, but there are also different personality types that tend toward leadership or traits that tend toward making people better followers. Sometimes women fall into one of these categories. Other times men do. Just tell me that there aren’t any wives who are domineering over their husbands. And while I might feel bad for these men, logic tells me that they can choose to stand up for themselves too, and any level of whining from “repressed” men falls off deaf ears to me.

    Obviously, abusive situations are different too & even in those situations, more and more men are the reported victims.

  • True religion is intended to make everyone feel better about themselves, as they grow closer to God.

  • Feeling better about yourself can be either temporary or permanent, based on psychological issues or actually being closer to God.

  • I think you are missing the whole point. The church believes in the latter days and last dispensation, everything has to be united in Jesus Christ; therefore, it is your responsibility to learn about the scriptures individually and personally, praying, pondering about them, to face the challenges of the latter days. Those scriptures that you mentioned has to be studied now at home individually/personally and as family and will change the hearts of husbands and wives directly unto them. The church will not be in the middle to tell the wife what to do, it will be between a faithful husband and a faithful wife unto God and therefore Jesus Christ. Remember husbands should love their wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. But all those conclusions are now taken personally between man and woman unto God directly. Have a nice day!

  • I think you are missing the whole point. The church believes in the latter days, last dispensation, and continue revelation, stating that, everything has to be united in Jesus Christ; therefore, it is your responsibility to learn about the scriptures individually and personally, praying, pondering about them, to face the challenges of the latter days, because these, the latter days will be hard, will be in commotion, it is time to be self-reliance to prepare our family for the second comin. The church will not be in the middle to tell you what to do in every challenge that the world will face, it will be between a faithful husband and a faithful wife unto God and therefore Jesus Christ. Remember husbands should love their wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. But all those conclusions should be taken personally between man and woman and the center of the creation – the family. Have a nice day!

  • No. We follow God’s word in His Scriptures and we keep our covenants. That means that wives submit to their husband and husband’s love their wives. This temple change is a direct contradiction to this commandment.

    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 principle”.

    Now you have people who are making different eternal covenants in the Temple. That is open apostasy to God’s word and his eternal plan.

  • I would be interested in an example of her defying authority, particularly in her church.

    Perhaps you’re confusing submissive with shy, reticent, or something else.

  • This first thing I did when I heard this was to re-read the Scriptures and revelation on this topic, meditate, and pray. I received one of the most powerful answers in prayer in my entire life. Like a bolt of lightning I received a spiritual witness that this is as wrong as wrong can be. I was shaking after my prayer was over.

    This is blasphemy to 6,000 years of God’s law.

    Eve, along with Adam, was given everything she needed in the garden of Eden. They were commanded not to partake of the fruit. Her breaking this law was symbolism for female hypergamy and God instituted a plan for her husband to take direct responsibility for her as he is obedient to the Commandments. This is why Adam was given the Priesthood authority and to be the revelatory source in his family. He was commanded to love his wife, but she was commanded to submit to Adam as the Church submits to Christ.

    This is what is meant by the “order of the Priesthood” outlined in D&C 131 and 132. God commands us that “he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord”.

    This order has been the greatest strength in the world for thousands of years. It has created strong families. Now, Satan through the evils of feminism has infiltrated the most holy and fundamental commandment of all time, and it has happened inside our Temples. Those saying this blasphemy is okay and acceptable will be damned. I will be witness to that at the last day.

  • of course for you. So follow your answers between you and your wife. you get the point, very personally and individually and as a center for your own family, that’s why you and your wife has to be one in the Lord. Remember the latter days.

  • I think a point is still missing, this is now as it is, the latter days and the last dispensation of times, to unite all in Christ. Man and woman before God. The principle still there covenant with God, and at Home receive your own inspiration how to manage your own home, that’s why read the scriptures and learn about your own salvation.

  • I am very grateful that people are recognizing the deep doctrinal implications of these changes. And I am SO glad they are happening!

    You are so right about what these changes mean, yet so wrong when you say they are blasphemy. The LDS people are being called to live a higher way.

    Did you honestly think that women covenanting to their husbands and hearkening to their husbands was something that would last after this life?

  • Sexism will never be acceptable, no matter how long it’s been around. Murder is written all throughout the Bible, too, even though it violates Commandment #6. Plus, the gender inequality present in the Bible is largely a result of Roman (mis)translations of the Greek translations of the original Hebrew texts. Your religious belief in the inferiority of women is built on a 2,000 year-old cross-cultural error. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  • Like a bolt of lightning I received a spiritual witness that this is as wrong as wrong can be. I was shaking after my prayer was over.

    This is blasphemy to 6,000 years of God’s law.

    Are you a pantywaist or do you feel the courage of your convictions. You need to oppose the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve publicly with their heresy and misleading the LDS Church as a whole.

    I see another excommunication and a schism in the near future. The Righteously Correct, God Told Me So, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

  • Perhaps you are unaware that you made different covenants in the Temple to the LDS of 100 years ago.

  • There was nothing meek about that woman. She had the will of steel. Just ask the folks who survived her AIDS care houses.

    Oh, wait, no one survived her AIDS care houses!

  • I have been to numerous temples over many years and have never felt subordinate at any time. After reading this, I do appreciate that there are some that have felt differently than me, but I also would like to express that it’s unlikely that I’m the only woman with my views.
    The changes that have been made over the past several years indicate to me that the prophet is leading our faith, under direction of the Savior, into the future. We have a purpose, and we have a destination. We will get there in the end. I feel that it’s an exciting time to stand for what we believe.

  • The verb “submit” is actually added to Ephesians 5:22–the Greek omits the verb, making it a continuation of the “subject yourselves to one another” that precedes it. That makes it a “Yep, this applies to wives, too,” which probably would have needed specification in Ephesus due to the local pagan temple / fertility cult. This read is only strengthened by the potential reference to paterfamilias in v.24.

    I am on phone, so I won’t dig into the others, but I just got that by glancing at the Greek. Seriously, if you’re going to cherry-pick “proof” texts, it’s helpful to at least know what they actually say vs. what you assume in your interpretation.

    Case in point:

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (KJV) Galatians 3:28

    The common “counter” to this verse, claiming it only applies to how we are in Christ, ignores that “for” (“γὰρ”) that states outright that Christ is the reason there is no male or female.

  • It’s basically stating that the apostle Paul was wrong when he stated that man was head of his wife, etc. Correct?

  • The LDS Church is constantly knuckling under to the genderless White liberal elitists. It is pathetic.

  • You’re opposing the Prophet of the Restoration, Joseph Smith, and all the prophets since the beginning of time.

    Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

    “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

    You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

    Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.”

    You are DUTY BOUND as a member to reject this false doctrine. D&C 121 teaches that Priesthood authority is only in effect when we are righteous. Our leaders lose their authority and keys by introducing satanic principles of egalitarianism into our temples.

    You disobey all of the prophets ancient and modern by allowing such evil into the temples.

  • The Latter Days started with Joseph Smith when he restored these patriarchal principles. They are needed more then ever at this time.

    You deliberately ignore his words saying that they cannot be changed. Repent.

  • Only a Prophet can interpret Scripture. Joseph did NOT re-translate these verses. You have no authority or right to change their meaning.

  • No you are missing the point. God has instituted the husband as the head of the home before this world was made. His eternal laws never change.

  • How could it last after this life? They weren’t doing it even through this life either. I could only imagine the pain I would have suffered if I ever reminded my wife that she had made the pledge to hearken to unto me.

  • I haven’t changed anything. Your quote abused the context, which is obvious if you look at the original. I pointed that out. The Mormon missionaries I chat with regularly have said outright that the original language is “more perfect” than the translation, and that individual Mormons can have personal revelation. A Prophet, from what they’ve told me, just speaks to/for the LDS church in its entirety.

    So it looks as if you’re violating your own premise yourself, interpreting things contrary to what revelation your Prophet has received.

  • Absolutely. Paul literally saw and spoke with the Resurrected Jesus. Joseph Smith was given the keys to restore the same church that Paul received revelation for. If some THINK they ARE allowed under those restorative keys to be able to restore some other doctrine, they are sadly mistaken.

  • You think covenants made in the temple DON’T last for eternity? You have no understanding of the Gospel. None.

  • I have no idea what you’re talking about. Read the plain English verses I’ve posted WORD FOR WORD. There is nothing difficult to understand. They are as plain as can be. Either you obey God’s word or you don’t.

  • I did not. I wasn’t even born.

    I am not familiar with those changes. But if they contradict the Scriptures those changes would also be wrong. Get it?

  • The LDS Temple endowment used to have songs and an additional covenant, To Avenge the Prophets Blood.

    So the first 2 to 3 generations of Utah Mormons covenanted in the Temples to avenge the blood of Joseph Smith, but modern Mormons don’t.

    BTW, it’s very apparent from your responses, that you don’t read and comprehend what others folks write.

  • I have no idea what you’re talking about

    That is very obvious to us all. You have these childish, primitive concepts and have no idea of what others tell you. Did you finish high school? Did you actually graduate or did your teachers just pass you along to get rid of you?

    Read the plain English verses I’ve posted WORD FOR WORD.

    Jesus and his disciples didn’t speak English. The New Testament wasn’t written in English. It was written in Koine Greek, a Jewish dialect of Greek. There are errors in the plain English and Misti pointed that out in the English verse that you offer as proof, the original Koine Greek doesn’t say what your English says. So the translation into English is incorrect and NOT the word of God.

  • In order for you to critique my comments, YOU must be an expert.

    Is there no faith, sect, or denomination of which you don’t believe YOU are an expert?

    Btw, I am not sure why you’ve decided to keep tackling me, but if you read the comment that set you off in context, it was completely non-denominational.

  • I’m sorry that my comment went over your head.

    An aspect of the life of the un-saintly Teresa.

  • No, the comment did not go over my head.

    I’ve heard these slurs before.

    And that is what they are.

    BiO brings them up from time-to-time as well.

  • Eye witness accounts at the time, patients and care takers.

    You can believe them or not.

    It is to your advantage, for some reason, to not.

    Have a blessed new year.

  • Provide urls to these debunked “eye witness accounts”.

    You must have really had miserable holidays to take on Mother Teresa.

    Got dumped?

  • I had no opinion of the Nun until the testimonies started leaking out at the time. I was surprised at her eventual canonization. The researchers obviously weren’t interested in what folks who had worked for her had to say. But I’m sure that she isn’t the first person canonized by the RCC that didn’t actually merit such status and she won’t be the last. Besides, I don’t subscribe to the dogma of saints. I don’t feel the need for an intermediary to my intermediary.

    Sorry, your evil spite falls on deaf ears. No one by whom to have been dumped. I’ve been celibate since the passing of my late partner, of blessed memory, in 2006 and live the life of an Anglican solitary, having made vows before my bishop of the time el Revmo German Martinez Marquez, deposed diocesan bishop of the Diocesis del Norte, Iglesia Mexicana de Mexico.

  • Your quotes are incomplete and misleading. That’s not hard to understand. I provided a clear case example for you (to reiterate, it’s misleading to separate Ephesians 5:22ff from what precedes it—it’s a continuation of what precedes it, not something that can stand alone). Plucking something out of context bears false witness about that something. If you want to cite Ephesians 5 as alleged “proof”, you need to be aware of what you’re skipping.

    As for your insistence that I stick to English, you’re claiming a translation trumps the original text.

  • “I had no opinion of the Nun until the testimonies started leaking out at the time.”


    Oh, you mean the back-biting stories by people with axes to grind.

    “I was surprised at her eventual canonization. The researchers obviously weren’t interested in what folks who had worked for her had to say.”

    They were. They found that the folks you refer to were not credible, were contradicted by more reliable witnesses, were unable to support their accusations, and so on.

    Of course you picked up what you read in sources with axes to grind, just as BiO did, and never read the resolution by objective investigators since they weren’t reported in the sorts of things you read.

    “But I’m sure that she isn’t the first person canonized by the RCC that didn’t actually merit such status and she won’t be the last.”

    Internally the Catholic Church considers canonization an exercise of its charism of infallibility. I am rather sure that given the sorts of sources you rely on the notion that someone “didn’t actually merit such status” is idiosyncratic rather than a considered fair objective evaluation.

    BiO also likes to bring up the “dirt” on this, that, or the other individual. He is also remarkably unable to support it.

    “Sorry, your evil spite falls on deaf ears.”

    There is no evil spite.

    After busting my chops about “stalking” you’ve shown up in my inbox rather frequently, and usually rather nitpickingly.

    Given the hissy content, I merely speculated.

  • Keep in mind God did try to give the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Israelites to begin with but they were not ready for it (golden calf, etc.) so God gave them the Mosaic Law. (D&C 84:23-27)

  • Meek doesn’t mean weak. She was giving, full of compassion. She showed strength and endurance, trying to help others. As far as I have heard…She humbly did what she could and was not loud about it.

  • And that was the press that was needful for her canonization.

    There are other accounts of a woman very different that that, in spite of those with an axe to grind in her favor, such as Legion.

  • I agree that some men are also too submissive. It is not always gender specific… It is one person taking advantage of another, using whatever means available. Good point.
    Faith traditions that praise submissiveness…and I am talking about blind submission to another person, spouse, leader or prophet. Actually it goes beyond simply praising submission. If you are not submissive in all things, you are the one at fault, to blame and sinning. That is not healthy for anybody. Choices should be made without coersion, threats or fear.

  • I was thinking meek, as in strong, in endurance of compassion, giving of self, without being loud about it.

  • I understand. You are correct. Some of the things mentioned here were too much information, perhaps. However, in most areas of the temple it is asked that communications are kept to a minimum. So, where would one talk? There is not a place, that I know of, that allows sitting down and talking with one another. Every place is hushed. The chapel is hushed. The celestial room is a place for quiet contemplation, hushed. Not all temples have cafeterias…so…where in the temple do you discuss?

  • Speaking the truth in the face of deceit and false doctrine is our duty.

    “Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil.” D&C 18:20.

    When you push such blasphemy, you are working for the devil’s church. Abinadi did this before Noah who had filled the Lord’s church with false doctrine.

  • The LDS Church uses and accepts the English King James version of the Bible as the Word of God. If Joseph or any other modern prophet saw those English words as mistranslated, they would have corrected it, just as they corrected verses in other places.

    You saying that those words are mistranslated is not authorized. You’re pushing false doctrine because you haven’t the authority to reject the English words that have been ACCEPTED as the word of God.

    Paul discusses that the Patriarchal order has been in effect since Adam and Abraham. Its reiterated throughout the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants through sections 131, 132 and elsewhere.

    You are liars and beholden to the devil. You pervert Scripture to fit your modern, feminist philosophies of the world. You have partaken of the fruit, the living waters, but now you are ashamed because the world mocks you.

    Come back to the truth.

  • “13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

    14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.”

    1 Corinthians 2

    You read and interpret the Scriptures with the wisdom of the natural man, that’s why you believe it foolishness. I invite you to listen to the Holy Ghost and accept Paul’s words as true. I have received a witness of its truth.

  • Ironically, those verses you cite are actually condemning your own argument. (Ex. You’re injecting your own belief onto the text and prioritizing that belief even when someone points out the text says otherwise.)

    But Romans 14:4 applies. (“Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.”)

    God’s the one who’ll judge between me and you. Human opinion or belief—whether from you or me—ultimately doesn’t matter.

    I’m content that I see the the fruits of the Spirit (cf. Galatians 5:22–23) in my life. I hope you have that peace, too.

  • To me this demonstrates that water is only as clean as the vessel that pours it out.

    An individual that is enlightened produces enlightened works. What happens when an enlightened individual also happens to be sexist and racist?

    Some members will defend the position that the leaders are always perfect and everything they every said was perfect.

    I am not going to defend this position as I do not agree with it.

    The polluted vessel produces polluted water.

    I am of the opinion (I could be wrong) that prophets seek God and to the degree that they are successful in receiving God, they gain light and truth.
    Then in some instances they are tasked with the responsibility and stewardship of managing the affairs of the church
    (including the inspired composition of temple ceremonies and ordinances).
    To the degree that they are inspired, will be the degree to which the ceremonies will be inspired– likewise– to the degree that they are sexist or racist, will also be the degree to which the ceremonies will be sexist or racist.

    “for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding;
    for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.”

    that scripture doesnt perfectly fit the point I am trying to make, but it is in the same genre

    If their their language is impure, the impurity manifests in the products. If their “understanding” is impure, it also makes impure the water that comes from it.
    Reiterating the point: “The water is only as clean as the vessel that pours it out.”

    So why doesnt Jesus Just sit down and tell them exactly how to conduct every aspect of the church perfectly the first time or slap them on the wrist whenever they do something wrong?

    Here are a few ideas or explanations which make sense to me:
    1). Time
    To us, being very temporal and mortal beings and impatient beings, its seems like we have an idea of exactly how God should do things and when God should do them.
    To an eternal being, time does not exist. Doing something all within a 10 year period is no different than doing it all in a 10,000 year period.
    To God, fixing an error 2 seconds after it was made is not any different in the long run than fixing 200 years after it was made.
    There is not really of any significant difference– people still have an opportunity to follow their conscience and they learn from the lessons of earth life regardless of small or big errors being present. If God used evolution to create life, it took billions of years. Perhaps a simliar method is done with all of Gods works… including working through a group of people like a church.

    2). Line upon line, precept upon precept. Here a little and there a little. All sin is alike unto God.
    God only seems to reveal things as the specific subject is specifically inquired about.
    This just seems to be the way God does things. He doesnt seem to be in a big hurry if we (and church leaders) arent in a big hurry.
    A church leader did a “less than ideal” job of something that was their responsibility in the past.
    Is this a fault of the church leaders? I dont know who elses fault it would be, but I dont find myself in a position to condemn them because I dont feel I could do a better job.

    3). All sin is alike unto God and prevents us from being the Body of Christ.
    Sexism is terrible and I hate it. All sin inhibits our ability to recieve light and truth. The sins of the church are many and ongoing and will continue to be ongoing. Overcoming all of these sins will be a long process. God doesnt typically zap people (including leaders) whose sins seep into aspects of the church. The church is Gods church inasmuch the hands of its members (and leaders) are Gods hands; as much as the voice of its members is Gods voice. Then the church becomes the Body of Christ.

    4). God doesnt sit down in a weekly meeting with the church leaders. Its just not how God does things, except like once every few thousand years or so. I dont know why. The church leaders pray and fast and study and ponder in order to be able to become receptacles of the Holy Spirit of God. They can only recieve revelation when they are successful at getting their own egos and pride and sins out of the way.
    Likewise, their revelation is inspired to the degree that they are able to get their own egos, pride and sins out of the way.
    They have a daunting responsibility to receive revelation for the church. I might condemn them for not doing a better job of recieving continual revelation on everything, but I dont feel that I could do any better, so I will abstain from my condemnation and instead show appreciation for their efforts and rejoice when they are successful.

    I personally rejoice at this change.

  • It always seemed to me that the endowment ceremony portrayed Eve as a wise, astute woman that eventually understood the true potential of God’s children during their mortal state. The LDS church does not regard Eve as traditional Christianity does. We do not regard her as a dupe, and we do not believe in original sin. When Eve is introduced to Adam, all the men in the endowment ceremony stand out of respect for her. We Proclaim her as the mother of all living. We are honored to be in her presence. Having women Veil their faces should not automatically be interpreted as a negative. Perhaps to our Western way of thinking, we consider a veil to be diminishing to a woman, when in fact the opposite is true. While I applaud these changes to the endowment ceremony because they are from our heavenly father, I still do not understand how women in the church felt like second-class citizens in the church. The priesthood power that has been confirmed upon on me is only operational in as much as I treat my wife as Christ treated the church. I’m sorry so many women felt confused by the former endowment ceremony, but I want my sisters in the church to know that you have always been valued, respected, and cherished more than words can express. Sincerely.

  • Too little, too late. I still remember how alarming the ceremony and the film were back in 1977 when I first went through before starting my LDS mission. Little improvements as big changes to the persistent misogyny, racism and homophobia of the Church won’t bring me back.

  • At one point, in some of the smaller temples, they tried using mirrors and only six oxen under the temple baptismal font. No one was impressed and they had to fix it.

  • “Isaiah’s Job” by Albert Jay Nock. Read it.

    Whenever you try placate the fickle masses (the feminists in this case), you always alienate your fervent supporters. This change will make absolutely NOBODY Happy.

  • ” Having women Veil their faces should not automatically be interpreted as a negative. Perhaps to our Western way of thinking, we consider a veil to be diminishing to a woman, when in fact the opposite is true. ”
    So let’s start veiling the men.

  • If the wife no longer needs to “hearken” to her husband then what is the point of him presiding in the home?

    Indeed. Just because a man is a man doesn’t mean he is more qualified than a woman for anything.

  • “”It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.”

    Funny. st Paul said that if any man presented a gospel different than his, that man was to be accursed. Galatians: “7which is not even a gospel. Evidently some people are troubling you and trying to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a divine curse! 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you embraced, let him be under a divine curse!…

  • It’s interesting to me that you focus so much on how the ordinance at any point would have offended anybody’s overly fragile feminine sensibilities.”

    It’s interesting to me that you focus so much on how the ordinance at any point would have offended anybody’s overly fragile MASCULINE sensibilities.
    As a man, I simply don’t understand how and why so many men are so worried about women being treated the same as them, with exactly the same rights, obligations, benefits, and responsibilities.

  • He sure seems to have an obsession with me, doesn’t he?
    It’s adorable, in a stalky sort of a way.

  • For some reason Legion has been inserting himself often into the LDS topics. He feels a need to warn folks about Jana. I guess he thinks that they are new and might be mislead that she’s a regular Mormon.

  • I think it is even simpler than that. You asked him if there weren’t ANY denomination or faith he wasn’t an expert on. There is nothing on earth that he isn’t an expert on, except perhaps his own psyche.
    BTW, I’m pretty sure that our secret conversation was correct.

  • Let’s have the woman stand when Adam is introduced to Eve. Let’s proclaim Adam as the father of all living. Let’s portray Lucifer as a female. Let’s change the 2nd article of faith to, all men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Eve’s transgressions.
    As a man, I would gladly veil my face if it was part of the endowment ceremony. I find it to be a thing of beauty, signifying humility, grace, and virtue. It is not intrinsically diminishing, or humiliating to a female. I don’t believe heavenly father would shame his daughters in such a fashion.

  • 34,637 comments later on politics, religion (all of them), psychology, law, sociology, history, and on and on and on in atheist, LGBT, religious fora the Pot BiO calls the Kettle black.

  • “Sexism” is a secular construct based on a Marxist analysis of male-female relations in terms only of power which rejects revelation and the complementary nature of the sexes.

    Sorry to bust your bubble.

  • Yet you skip over the section of your link about Biblical Koine, used to translate the Septuagint and used in the New Testament, a Jewish dialect of Koine.

    Moving on.

  • I didn’t skip anything. I provided a url to the entire entry.

    The section you mention makes clear that it is not even certain that there was a “Biblical Koine”, and certainly DOES NOT conclude that were there was one, it was a Jewish dialect.

    The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible was made by Jewish scholars (traditionally 70, thus the Greek for 70 – “Septuagint”) for Greek-speaking Jews in the Diaspora

    The translation contains some Semitic substratum features. The consensus is that may have occurred through translating closely the Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic originals, preserving some of “flavor” of the originals in vocabulary and grammar, a practice we see in English for example in Mark Twain’s writing preserving the flavor of the southern-midwestern and black dialects rather than standard English.

    As with English also, people who spoke or speak other languages as natives who also speak English often preserve characteristics of their native language, thus “Spanglish”


    and so on.

    Whether the result is a dialect, pidgin, creole, or just improper English – or Koine – is another discussion.

    The consistency of the usage, however, in the Septuagint leads most scholars to believe it was done on purpose rather than by poorly educated scholars , which is why I did not expound on the topic. However, I just have.

  • I’m not sure how a woman covenanting to follow God alters the design of the family as outlined in The Family: A Proclamation To The World.

    “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

    Whether she receives personal revelation that her husband is acting in accordance to Gods will and should therefore follow him (because she said she would hearken unto him as he hearkens to God) or she receives personal revelation that her husband is acting in accordance to Gods will and should therefore follow him (because she has covenanted to hearken to God, and God told her to follow him). I fail to see the difference.

    If anything, it puts the onus more so on women to ensure they are following Gods will. Before, I suppose they could just say they were blindly following their husband.

  • You’re putting your belief about what the text means over evidence of what the text actually says. That’s putting the wisdom of yourself (a human) over God’s wisdom in what He had the author write down.

    So if those verses are pertinent to this discussion—which is itself debatable—you’re ironically citing verses that counter your own position.

  • I remember going through in 1982 and being appalled at the disembowling, throat-slitting, etc. In retrospect, I realize how manipulative and disingenuous the warning was about if anybody doesn’t want to enter these covenants they should leave now. Hell, I’d just driven 14 hours or so to the Washington DC temple with my parents for my first endowment prior to leaving on a mission.

    I was a hero at my home ward. Getting love-bombed by all the proud members of my ward. Sure, like I was going to back out while not exactly knowing what I was backing out of. And then I had to endure the washing and anointing. Some old dude literally touched my junk (accidentally, but still) while I’m standing in this weird-ass sort of poncho and they’re dripping olive oil on my head, and various body parts. Then on to the throat-slitting and perpetual loyalty oaths to the church, etc. Such crap.

    I’d love to be able to sit down with my 19-year old self and counsel with him. I could have spared him years of spiritual abuse and extortion and brightened his life immeasurably by eschewing the so-called church right that moment.

  • Going through the temple for the first time with my mom acting like all the weird stuff was something “special and holy” sort of numbed me to it. I remember when we went through the original Provo Temple at the MTC for the first time as a group and had our “frank discussion” with the mission president and temple president. They basically dodged every real question that they got about the weird stuff. BTW, after my mission, gay friends at BYU told me that they used the weird parts of the Washing-and-Anointing ceremony for some personal fun right under the noses of temple officials. I’m sure that part of the reason that the Church modified the ceremony was to avoid their ceremony being used for LGBTQ “date night” activities. Lots of other weird practices at Church schools and other facilities appeared to have strong anti-LGBTQ elements to them, making Mormonism the “gospel of homophobia.”

  • You can never understand the ways of God. He is more infinite, knowledgable and more powerful than all of us. His ways make no sense to us sometimes and especially at this moment. Soon His ways will make perfect sense when we meet Him again.

    I was confused for a time. But because I can’t go talk to a prophet and ask him questions, I have to rely on my own personal revelation as I study the scriptures, pray, and go to the temple. So I went to the Book of Mormon and found who God has always been and always will be. He is absolutely magnificent and infinitely loving. I will never believe in the contrary.

    If you read the Book fo Mormon – searching for His love, you will find it. It’s something you have to want to believe. And if you go into the scriptures, trying and desiring to find a belief – you will find it.

    God bless you dear, with a feeling and knowledge of God’s deep love for you. Because I know He does love you.

  • No, it couldn’t. I’ve attempted numerous times to have some sort of substantive discussion about the temple within the temple and it usually goes nowhere. People don’t go there to have deep conversations.

  • Just because a man is a man, it doesn’t mean he has more authority than a woman for anything.

  • 1 Peter 3:3 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

    Ephesians 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    Jesus was subject to the Father.

    It has to do with authority.

    Those who have been steeped in the secular power analyses, be it feminism or Marxism, simply cannot hear that.

  • I hope what I am about to write will help you. The name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ. It’s not The Church of Joseph Smith, or The Church of Brigham Young, or The Church of Russell M. Nelson. The Lord has promised that we will be tried in all things and one way we are tried is through fallible, uninspired church leaders. Nine of the original 12 apostles were excommunicated, the three witnesses were excommunicated, a member of the first presidency plotted to kill Joseph Smith, and since then an apostle and two members of the quorum of the seventy have been excommunicated. The list of church leaders at lower levels who have lost their membership goes on indefinitely. Within my own stake I know seven church leaders – including a stake president – who have been excommunicated and who hurt a lot of people, including me and my family.

    President George Q. Cannon said that the most dangerous people in the church… are church leaders, both male and female. I know what he said is true; so very true. Yet I continue as a member of the church, trying to FOLLOW THE SAVIOR.

    And maybe the reason we have so many problems with church leaders is to teach us the extremely important lesson that we must be able to receive revelation from our Father in Heaven and our Savior to guide us and our families, especially in these dangerous times.

    Remember, Christine, the verse says “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart” not “Trust in church leaders with all thine heart.”

    I hope this helps you, and you are in my prayers.

    Your friend in Texas.

  • Christine, WORD, this author Believes it is OK to Continue the Ban of BLACK men in the Quorum of 12 !!! Its not Just Woman & Gays. They are Horrific when it comes to Integrity towards ali people !!!

  • As a former Mormon who went to the temple many times, I’m glad to hear of this change. I found the ceremonies baffling and confusing, so if this helps women feel better about it, that’s a good thing. The temple to me always represented another religion entirely from public Mormonism. I remember the first time I went I thought I had changed religions! I struggled to make sense of any of it/all of it. My bishop suggested I talk about it with the temple president while in the temple. So I did just that and he told me that there were no inherent meanings to the temple ceremonies and rituals – their only meaning was what I could give them. Nice, but this form of spiritual solipsism doesn’t fit well with a religion that claims to be about community. And that’s not how community ritual and symbolism work. They ought to have some shared meanings that arise out of and inform the experience of the people who share values, beliefs, and traditions. But these temple symbols and rituals exist in a vacuum of silence, and ultimately, at least for me, are so abstract and disconnected from Mormon life, that they manifest as empty and arbitrary actions performed out of duty rather than out of any sense of meaning. It doesn’t even matter if I think there’s any “revealed truth” in them (which I don’t). They left me cold and disconnected on a personal level and, based on my discussions with other current and ex-members, I suspect I was not alone.

  • Science doesn’t dictate to people that its current answer is the only one true answer and that failure to follow it endangers one’s eternal well-being.

  • Like i have been saying all along men are as dumb as sticks if they werent I would probably still be a Mormon but i left when my Mormon husbands acted so entitled and so abusive to myself and my childten. I was telling the mormon god where to go also i love the God of my understanding now He is a champion to woman and never leaves my side. I was saying if the church is true please send me to hell

  • The bible is written by sexist men who think God hates women and blacks and Gays a man wrote that not God And by the way without women none of you guys would be here so get on your knees to your creator who laid down her life to get you here and dont think you did a big thing to have sex to help heryou didnt

  • I read it untilI the author said that the church didn’t want publish the sacred things within the temple and the author went ahead and did it anyways. I guess if our priorities are the Lord and his prophet over our worldviews but if our worldviews are far more important now when life is easier how will we be obedient when life becomes hard and the world is in a lot worse shape?

  • Membership numbers are growing inithe church. Millennials are falling away from almost every Church in the planet right now. Society is moving as a whole away from Jesus Christ. Elder Soares recently gave a speech about Remembering the Savior which leads to happiness and mentioned that secularism has changed the way people see God’s hand in their lives.

  • The sad part about the mormon religion is that once you engage you can no longer even consider an alternative point of view for fear of blasphemy. Going through the Temple was a very bad idea for me, I wished I had never gone because what I don’t know won’t hurt me.

  • My wife and I both found the new slideshow-style format of the endowment to be stilted, and both emotionally and spiritually detracting from the ceremony. The videos were better–well, one of them was. The other two had distracting elements in them that I also found detracting from the spirit.

    The feminization/gender equality of the temple ceremonies is also a double-edged sword that will have long-lasting second- and third- orders of effect. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there is the emasculation of some of the priesthood authority that was inherent to the Church. It was obvious that the changes that were made were due to pressures from feminist groups. Personally, I don’t have much of an issue with them, as my wife was raised in a culture where women are naturally submissive. But the overall and lasting effects on the church worldwide will be interesting. Hopefully it will be good.