The new year brought new changes in LDS temple ceremonies. I have not been yet personally, so I am reporting this based on what I have read from reliable sources while avoiding talking about the changes directly, as LDS Church leaders requested.
I highly suggest you hear what LDS females are saying about these changes and the long back story behind them. A great article from Jana Reiss and Emily Jensen here. And another post here at BCC.
This post is going to be focused on a tangential issue, related to a recurring subject for me: change in the Church generally, revelation, how prophets work, religious fundamentalism, etc. On facebook yesterday, I posted this:
I’m happy to hear about the temple changes. They might seem like small changes, but for women who have suffered due to some of the inequality and apparent sexism of the language in the endowment ceremony, it’s a big deal. This is a great example of “trickle up” revelation. The LDS Body of Christ spoke up in various forums over the years that this was hurtful. The prophet prayed to seek revelation about it and change was made.
I was somewhat surprised over the controversy among some traditional Mormons that this created. A couple comments for example:
Yeah, it’s a good thing God has these little old men to advise Him how He should change things so people won’t be offended. Trickle up revelation? Really? That’s insane. Why would you even want to stay with an organization led by such a maleable God that He needs mortals to inspire HIM to inspire US?! Silly liberals. You aren’t deep thinkers, are you?
I don’t understand how you can believe in the restoration and agree with the temple changes. Joseph Smith wasn’t much of a prophet if he didn’t give us the right teachings or ceremonies.
I was attacked in a right wing LDS Facebook group for trying to hijack the Church from the prophet. If you’re only loosely connected to Mormonism right now, don’t judge us by those comments. My posts sometimes attract extremes on both sides. But this got me thinking about what a difficult job the LDS prophet and apostles have. Let’s start with a few assumptions.
- Change/revelation in the LDS Church is needed.
- God doesn’t micromanage the Church. Some change/revelation might happen in a very powerful, God-breathed sort of way, but that is the exception not the rule.
- There is great strength and value in the LDS Body of Christ and the Church as a large organization is something Church leaders should and do take care to preserve.
Can we agree on those?
So, given this, how does the prophet act? First, when God does choose to micromanage the Church and give direct revelation, the prophet should follow, and the members should support it, no matter how popular it is. Next, absent of that kind of strong direction, the prophet probably should wisely take into consideration the opinion of the members of the church. This is the basis for the concept of “trickle up revelation”.
I think most people are really happy about these temple changes. As a male who is a late comer to feminism, I hadn’t really noticed how serious the problem was. But with the help of my daughters and others in the thoughtful Mormon community, I’ve come to understand how hurtful some of this language was. It’s fantastic they’re making it right. Seems like it’s a no brainer. WHY DIDN’T YOU DO THIS 20 or 50 YEARS AGO?? Is the question on the mind of some people this week.
I have some real compassion for the brethren making these decisions when I think about it this way. This is a great church. Part of what makes it great are (gulp for all you Progressive Mormons) the conservative-literal-traditional Mormons that are the backbone of the Church. The brethren have to balance making the right change (which is usually progressive) without upsetting the traditional members. And not just upset them, politically, but more seriously upset them in a way that damages their testimonies and activity. The Church is trying to stop people from becoming dissatisfied on the liberal side to secularism and on the fundamentalistic side to the Denver Snuffers of the world.
This brings me back to a message I’ve been harping recently. If you want change in the Church, don’t write letters to the General Authorities. Interact, discuss, converse, and attempt to influence your friends and family and fellow LDS who need to be educated to understand the importance of change in key areas. If you win enough of those, the ideas will trickle up.
Wheat & Tares 
“If you want change in the Church, don’t write letters to the General Authorities. Interact, discuss, converse, and attempt to influence your friends and family and fellow LDS who need to be educated to understand the importance of change in key areas. If you win enough of those, the ideas will trickle up.” This sounds a lot like what we probably need to do as a nation to prevent another Trump presidency. If we don’t get the bigotry and misogyny out of the hearts of voters, we won’t keep it out of high office.
I agree the changes are positive. That said, I disagree with some of your basic points in the post. God DOES seem to be a micromanager. Read the Law of Moses for proof or look at the life of Joseph Smith. I find myself falling on the liberal side of the quote you gave. While these changes are positive, they could have been given right off the bat if we were really run by revelation as it is interpreted by the general authorities. It always seems revelation is fixing mistakes God made in the past. Go figure!
Far too little and far to late if you ask me.
How many women have been excommunicated, disillusioned or felt they needed to leave what they had been taught their whole lives to love and respect before these largely superficial changes were finally made? How many have been or will continue to be dominated by male members of their families or even physically assaulted because of the patriarchy which will not release its hold on the church and the church community? How many, like McKenna Denson, have been abused, disregarded and then worked over again rather than acknowledge the abuses and seek pardon and rehabilitation?
This was truly a heads you fail/tails you lose situation so long as the fundamental unresponsive authoritarian patriarchy remains and fails to own up to and apologize for the excesses and abuses of its historical and recent past. Any institution that was truly guided by communication with HF and the Spirit would be aware of something so fundamentally flawed and misused.
If you have access to Twitter, I recommend you read the thread by @BenjaminEPark who puts the temple changes in historical context (the thread was posted at 1/2/19 at 5:41 PM Mountain Time). Benjamin Park is LDS, and a history professor at Sam Houston State in Texas. Lots of things I did not know, and I considered my self pretty informed. Key take-away “”… temple rituals, as well as their changes over the years, reflect the contexts in which they were first introduced.”
I am also sometimes surprised by the reactions of a number of purportedly religiously conservative members. Then I remember that our curriculum has for decades not attempted to educate our members about the nature of scriptures (including the KJV and the BoM in English) or revelation (as in the D&C with subsequent substantial changes by JS himself) as something other than direct stenographic records of God’s words. Its not that those things were entirely hidden. Some were published in the Ensign (see Ben Spackman on the OT Seminary materials for easy reference). Some could be found, but only with a bit of difficulty prior to the internet (J. Reuben Clark, Jr.’s 1954 speech including comments on how the Church will know when the prophet is NOT inspired by the Holy Ghost, which he asserts has happened (not that he gave examples, but BY’s Adam-God teaching and his and others’ teaching that Blacks would never have the priesthood in this life are merely obvious examples — but also not taught and sometimes outright falsely denied)).
The comments quoted in the post above are not so surprising when I remember that Primary, Mutual, YMYW, SS, RS and PH manuals have for decades NOT presented a realistic, historically sound concept of scripture or revelation and have NOT presented a tenable understanding of the processes of “translation” (the Bible and BoM, if they were stenographic reports of God’s word were not in English). While the history and nuances may legitimately have no place in Primary, I wonder at what stage members’ understanding ought to or could be expanded/corrected rather than leaving them at the elementary school level.
The common mantra “the doctrine never changes” is also a culprit here. Historically, if “doctrine” means what is taught in Church then it has changed multiple times (e.g. Emma Smith’s first compiled LDS hymnal included hymns asserting that Jesus Christ was the son of Jehovah, since James Talmadge’s “Jesus the Christ” — and I believe earlier — those hymns have been contrary to Church doctrine). If the common mantra is a definition of “doctrine” then it is close to reduced to what the Book of Mormon reports Christ saying is His doctrine. But that is not the most common understanding among the rank and file.
The Church has also done little or nothing until yesterday’s first presidency statement to educate members on the fact that the temple endowment and initiatory words and procedures and items not to be disclosed elsewhere have also changed a number of times over the years. Clearly, the form of the endowment is subject to the same issues on the nature of human perception and wording of divine inspiration as the D&C revelations substantially altered by JS himself.
So, I try not to be surprised and to do what little I can to help people grow up without coming unmoored from Christ and such matters of which they may actually have a divinely inspired testimony. It’s not much.
Perhaps if we used General Conference terminology to explain this process of revelatory experience it would be more acceptable to those who protest your idea.. Rather than trickle up revelation, I might name it revelation received as a result of “counseling together” on a mega church-wide scale. Counseling together to receive revelation is a Handbook 2/General Conference talks supported and encouraged practice based on gospel principles. The principles upon which these recent changes rest have certainly been discussed by members in a myriad of church counsels on every level as well as non-church settings and heard all over the church. There has been a lot of “counseling together”, much of it public, much of it private, some of it quite strident and difficult and some of it not. Using that church recognized terminology may be helpful to those who, when they read “trickle up” fear that you are a undermining the role of the Lord and the prophets in the decision making.
In my opinion what we have seen happen over the past years is a very good example of disciples, church-wide, counseling together and stuggling to inform each other and understand each other and in that process increase all (both leaders’ and non-leaders’) ability to receive divine revelation.
Counseling together is not always smooth or easy, and it can be painful and confusing at times. But my experience is that it is powerful in its ability to inform, try, and divinely enlighten us all in our discussions when we practice it and open our minds to revelation.
The problem for me is this type of revelation, whether you want to call it “trickle up” or “counseling together,” is virtually indistinguishable from the man-made changes you’d expect from any institution. The fact that such changes generally tend to follow cultural expectations as well as outside social pressures (although often admittedly decades late to the game) lends more credence to them being man-made than God-breathed. After all, in a church truly run by God, wouldn’t we expect the church to be at the forefront of such social progressiveness and egalitarian ideas rather than dragging its feet until social pressures and wounded members demand such changes?
If I can’t distinguish the two, then I must go with what has more evidence and for me, man-made wins hands down. It’s not even close. And I don’t believe God to be racist or sexist, either now or a century ago.
Furthermore, the backwards stance of the church on LGBTQ issues is yet one more example where the church had a true chance to shine and demonstrate true revelation, if it existed… a decade ago. Unfortunately, when the time inevitably comes where they change their tune on this topic, it will yet be another example of man-made changes finally catching up to where society has already been for decades.
So these changes to the temple are good, sure. But revelation? Not so much for me. I applaud them nevertheless. For future generations, any changes resulting in less damage and trauma are to be encouraged. Unfortunately for many of today’s members the damage has already been done and there will be no recognition of the harm inflicted, at least not in any official capacity.
The second comment seems to come from and ex-Mormon perspective, which holds that Joseph Smith repeatedly gets thrown under the bus by today’s leaders and apologists who seem to be compromising what he taught as God’s words for the purpose of appearing less fringe and more in vogue. In this case, why should the temple ceremony ever change? Aren’t these words revealed by God? Wouldn’t it be like the prophet deciding to change what’s written in the scriptures because it doesn’t fit with today’s cultural norms? And aren’t the LDS leaders all about decrying the norms of the so-called world and defending what God revealed to past prophets? It is a perfectly valid point. I wouldn’t call it extreme at all. Both extremes smacks a little of bothsidesism too.
Alice I think these are about the furthest you can get from “superficial changes”. This is a major, major change and a huge blessing.
In my opinion the corporation known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, has simply made changes as a direct result of membership losses, huge public embarrassments, Temple Endowment Videos on YouTube – thanks much to New Name Noah – and a massive loss of confidence; from even many of the most faithful. I smell “blood in the water” here and a sense of deep desperation to retain whatever they have left!
Change comes too slow for many in the church and too fast for others. I agree that I don’t envy the task of the Brethren, even though I’m in the progressive camp. I posted one of the first lds.org essays on my facebook page and was told later by a high school friend that the essay was what caused his faith crisis. So yeah, it’s complicated.
Lefthandloafer,
There is no corporation known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (not in the United States, anyway). But then, I doubt you’re interested in accuracy, since you probably don’t call the city or town you live in a corporation, even though it is, and I doubt you call other churches corporations, even though most are.
Banal comments like yours don’t contribute anything valuable to the conversation.
I believe in trickle up revelation. That is the main purpose I decided to get involved in these blogs. The church might be creating a problem for itself because they seem to change when enough people get upset. That only encourages more people to raise their voice.
I can also see how the members scoff at the idea. Many of my fellow ward members are in awe of all the “revelations”, but they are also completely aloof of all the “counseling” that is happening on places like Wheat and Tares. I am trying to do my part to discuss these issues with my friends and family, but it is a delicate balance. People are terrified to question tradition and long-held belief. I am hopeful that as more of these changes take place, people will open their minds to the possibility of more change and speak their minds of what change they would like to see on a ward, stake, and church wide level. The more ideas the better, and then we happily sustain the people called to lead. It is clear to me that the mother ship of Zion is sailing away from the crazy island of Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R McConkie.
I took my wife to the temple today and all the changes I noticed in the endowment were great. I loved the still frames too. The acting in the movies had become a distraction and also a trigger for me. I think they missed a big opportunity in the first presidency statement. It would have been great if the last sentence would have been, “Oh, and by the way, this whole Adam and Eve thing is just symbolic, you know that right?”
It is time for the church, with the Q-15 taking the lead, to banish the term “revelation”and the surety that comes with it when it just isn’t so. The term has been misused to the point where the church has routinely boxed itself in corners that take far too long to correct. Frankly, if the Lord does not directly dictate His will to a leader, the appropriate term to use is “inspiration”” That term comes with the sense that course corrections will be a given. It is practically fraudulent to otherwise use the word “revelation” to imply the Lord has spoken when He hasn’t.
Interesting thought…that difference between revelation and inspiration. So, if there is a difference, and revelation is not subject to course correction and inspiration does that mean that the Word of Wisdom, which came after the urging of a woman and would very likely have been fully supported by the majority of women in the church at that time, should be considered inspiration and not revelation?
My opinion is there is no difference between an inspiration that comes after discussion and prayer and a revelation that you had never considered before that comes from a prophet in terms of subjectivity to later change due to further divine interaction.
As a woman who has not been able to attend the temple since the previous changes due to sickness, I have no idea what anyone is talking about. But change has to start somewhere.
It does seem a lot of temple liturgy has been an effort to explain transcendent ideas using cultural tropes of the time and environment, and for people like me that has always been problematic and confusing. To this day I don’t understand what is literal and what is symbolic, and I think if you and I had a conversation about it we would find we had very different ideas.
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a little like the attitude that is beginning to be taken in relation to scripture study now ie that it is whatever you can usefully make of it.
I’m hoping that these changes will lead to greater respect for women and a growing ability to become one as we connect, and I see that being more possible in a rising generation. I’m interested that we may exclude ourselves from opportunities for growth.
Experience has taught me that it’s important to recognise the limits of the institution and individual leaders, and choose your battles. Church isn’t everything, and as an institution I think it is retreating from that role.
Mary Bliss. I like what you say about “world wide counciling” rather than trickle up revelation to make it sound more palatable to LDS. I have seen a lot of people averse to that term trickle up revelation. Sigh. Language is so hard.
Direct communication from God to man is Revelation. Guidance and insight from the Holy Ghost is Inspiration. The process to obtain consensus among a group of men is Deliberation. Religious leaders claiming to receive revelation without hearing God’s voice will bring condemnation.
To this day I don’t understand what is literal and what is symbolic>/i>
A direct quote from the 2003 temple preparation manual answers the question:
“The characters depicted, the physical setting, the clothing worn, the signs given, and all the events covered in the temple are symbolic.” (Emphasis mine)
Jenny Harrison – You’ve encapsulated the differences very well. I’ll note that the condemnation you refer to can be directly tied to the commandment not to use the Lord’s name in vain. Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man that does so.
I had to look it up lastlemming. It is still there in chapter 5 of the temple prep manual.
The Most Sacred Symbolic Teachings Are Received in the Temple
Explain that the most sacred symbolic teachings on earth are received in the temple. In a symbolic way, the teachings and rituals of the temple take us on an upward journey toward eternal life, ending with a symbolic entrance into the presence of God. The characters depicted, the physical setting, the clothing worn, the signs given, and all the events covered in the temple are symbolic. When they are understood, they will help each person recognize truth and grow spiritually.
The belief that God reveals everything perfect the first time is based on something other than fact. Joseph Smith and other prophets have repeatedly changed doctrines in an attempt to “get them right.” Looking at LDS doctrines chronologically is quite enlightening. What this says about revelation and the infallibility of prophets is significant.
Last Lemming and Jack, thankyou. Wow.
Does that mean that nothing is what it seems, I wonder? In which case, I can make of this what I will?
Everything is mutable according to the eye of the beholder, or a great parable, or perhaps as Jung saw it, a metaphor for the development of human consciousness? In which case, who can tell me what to believe about creation? And does it matter?
I’ll stop now.
Kristine—good point about how the pace of change is a balance. Made me think of reading Paul in the New Testament on meat sacrificed to idols (ie butchered at a pagan temple rather than a kosher butcher).
Do we bear with each other’s weaknesses or do we discard them?
I have found, personally, that the Lord meets me where I am and inspiration/revelation given to me are appropriate for me at that time. As I change and grow, especially in spiritual matters, He gives me updated instructions that build on what I was given previously. So, I imagine it is the same for the “The Church”. In pioneer days they had certain beliefs about the roles of men and women and the temple ceremonies reflected those beliefs. Now, years later, we have grown in our understandings and beliefs about men and women, so it is appropriate for changes in the wordings of the ceremonies (at least, I think so).
I’m paraphrasing, but Joseph Smith said something like, …I can’t tell you all I know because people come apart like glass when their traditions are challenged… Which I take to mean that we were given milk and less than milk early on and we are blessed with changes as we are able to handle them. Too bad our pioneer ancestors needed to believe that women needed to be ruled by men, but that was the tradition at the time.
One other thought. My understanding is that revelation is based on asking questions so answers can be given. (Joseph’s revelations typically came as he asked questions.) As long as people are content, questions regarding changes won’t be asked, so no new revelation. I don’t mind the term “trickle up revelation”, but I see it as the process by which the brethren are motivated to start asking questions. And, I think this is a good thing. Actually, a necessary thing.
E-
Of course it’s superficial. This is merely language and gestures that are confined to a small and private part of Mormon life.
They havn’t rescinded any of the excommunications of people involved in the Ordain Women movement. And anyone who’s waiting for that is a fool. I doubt they’ve removed restrictions they’ve placed on any of the women they didn’t ex. They haven’t extended women’s role beyond handing out towels at baptisms. Do you know anyone who’s expecting to hear anything different than be modest/get married/have babies any time soon?
This is all still just talk aimed at taking some pressure off adult women who are getting increasingly fed up. In other words, it’s a bandaid.
We can focus tpon the nature of revelation all we want We can discuss the pace of change all we want but in the meantime the church becomes increasingly irrelevant to its members who vote with their feet and leave And who can blame them. The purpose of true religion is to connect with the Devine If it no longer does so why brother You want to change the downward trajectory ? Have a prophet public ally proclaim that he has been in the presence of God and deliver the message God gave him Dedicate a temple and have multiple people testify that they saw the Savior there What have we lost since Kirtland? Where are the visions and blessing we sing about ? The answer is they aren’t here We can pretend all we want but when visitation of angels cease and miracles no longer happen we are in downward path to destruction. Complain about Denvev Snuffer all you want but he at least offers hope to who many seek a connection to heaven. If we can’t have that what’s the use. We might as well sit home on Subday drink beer and watch the Telly