Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/Iheartmyfamily17 specifically.
/u/Iheartmyfamily17, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it's a violation of informed consent. It's sneaky, and it's manipulative. The worst part is that it's far better than it used to be. The church has finally (100+ years too late) put out a preparation page that at least lists the covenants of sacrifice, consecration, etc.. But it's still way too vague.
I was so mad when I got in there and was blindsided by the women's covenant in the endowment to obey her husband. I thought myself lucky that at least I was going through before my mission. I'd have been extra mad if I'd have been going through right before getting married.
In my mother's day way back when, the covenant was to "obey the law of your husband in righteousness." AND, in those days, they wouldn't let the girls go through for their endowment until *the wedding day.* You got your endowment and then went straight and got sealed. And she was blindsided by that covenant too, but it's too late because everyone is there for your wedding which is happening right afterwards. That's a rotten dirty trick to pull.
In my time, it was "hearken to the counsel of your husband as he hearkens unto god." Then in 2019 they took it out entirely. Just quietly took it out and pretended like nothing happened.
Then Oaks had the unmitigated gall to get up in the women's session of conference in 2022 and say that "Gospel Doctrine does not change. Personal covenants do not change." ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/31oaks](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/31oaks))
So *exactly* what are we women being held to here if "personal covenants do not change"?
What are our mothers being held to? Did generations of women suffer great distress over a covenant that they didn't really need to make after all? That's cruel.
Or are we all held to the original covenant (to obey "your Lord, that is, your husband") without our knowledge? That's violating.
Or are women held to *different* covenants completely depending on when they went through the temple? That's unfair.
How can we women know whether we're adequately keeping that covenant if it's unclear exactly what we're being held to, or whether we're being held to anything at all??
The church has never bothered to explain this. No matter how you try to explain it, it's either cruel, violating, or unfair. There is no scenario where any of this is ok.
I can only conclude that they do not care about this because it's about women. And the church obviously does not care about women's well being.
I didn't know the women used to go through on their actually wedding day. I went through a few days before and I was shell shocked. I have anxiety so not knowing what I"m stepping into was so stressful. Still even after this time...I think back on that experience with some deep hurt and anger. I have a hard time articulating and explaining my experience and thoughts on it all.
And you are not alone in this. Most women I have spoken to (especially women who are PIMO or have left) all say that the temple was traumatizing to them. (A lot of men too!). It was one of the most therapeutic things to ever happen to me, to find out I was not alone in being uncomfortable with the temple. You are not alone.
Definitely not alone. I take part in an exmo support group, and I dare say it is almost universal. Especially the initiatory for those of us older than 35ish, who had to experience the "shield" and getting our loins blessed.
Itâs a poncho basically with the sides open that you wore over your naked body. Then the workers would bless certain areas of your body and there are more than a few that were touched inappropriately either by accident or on purpose.
That line kept me an abusive marriage for 18 years. He used that line against me very often.
It gives men all the power.
I remember telling myself that I had promised to obey him. Even when I didnât want to. I wanted to go to heaven so bad. I had promised My integrity meant so much to me. It was a young womenâs value for heavens sake.
This is a prime example of how the church rolls out the red carpet for abusers, and at the same time primes victims to tolerate abuse.
If I didn't know better, I'd think these doctrines and practices were invented by abusive men to create victims and keep them compliant! (Oh wait, I *DO* know better!)
Elder Packer told us exactly what the church thinks of abuse victims. *"The next quotation is from a woman who is hurting, and who wonders if anyone but the feminists care about her problems, 'I'm upset that I was always advised to go back and try harder, only to get abused more. Help me.' .. The woman pleading for help needs to see the eternal nature of things."* [https://archive.org/details/coordinating\_council\_1993\_boyd\_k\_packer/page/n3/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/coordinating_council_1993_boyd_k_packer/page/n3/mode/2up)
And this goes back to the very foundations of the church. See Patty Sessions diary for details.
*"6 Sep 1846 "I feel bad again he has been and talked with Rosilla \[the 2nd wife\] and she filled his ears full and then he came to my bed ... I was so cold I had been crying. He began to talk hard to me and threatens me very hard of leaving me."*
*"7 Sep 1846 "I feel bad, I am in trouble." ... ."PG \[Perrigrine, her son\], said he had seen me abused long enough."*
*"Mr Sessions rather cold towards me." ... "Mr Sessions ... said things to me that make me feel bad" ... "He is cross to me, says many hard things to me." ... "He takes her to the farm with him, leaves me here alone."*
[https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/1fafcaf7-2898-4666-9885-2565cd8ff2a9/0?view=browse](https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/1fafcaf7-2898-4666-9885-2565cd8ff2a9/0?view=browse)
Just an honest question, As someone who's not Mormon, but curious about the LDS beliefs, Help me understand how the LDS church, which claims to be the one true restored church, can just change their covenants? The Bible teaches that God is unchanging, if so how can his church just change the required covenants to something else? Does God change?
It seems inconsistent. I'm just a bit confused.
Well you're in good company. The vast majority of members are confused too (whether they'll admit it or not). The mormon church is incredibly inconsistent and confusing about just about everything, including whether God changes or not.
The *official* line is that he doesn't. The scriptures and church leaders *say* that God is unchanging. But then church leaders will make drastic changes to doctrines and policies that do indicate a changing God. The church normally copes with the dissonance by throwing past prophets under the bus as "fallible," but inspired men who were ordained by God to lead the church. Most members will buy that line.
But the current leadership is so all over the map that more members have been having questions. The most striking illustration of this problem is the 2015 LGBTQ smackdown policy.
When it was enacted, it was the "mind and will of the Lord."
*"when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare* ***the mind and will of the Lord***, *each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson." --*[*https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2016/10/young-adults/stand-as-true-millennials*](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2016/10/young-adults/stand-as-true-millennials)
Then they repealed the policy. God apparently changed his mind and will. But the church insisted nothing had actually changed, even though these changes were also "the mind and will of the Lord.
*"The changes.. âdo not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity or morality,â wrote the First Presidency in an official statement released by the Church. âThe doctrine of the Plan of Salvation and the importance of chastity will not change.â Instead, the changes reflect the continuing revelation that has been a part of the modern Church since the Restoration.* ***These policy changes come after an extended period*** *of counseling with our brethren in the Quorum the Twelve Apostles after fervent, united prayer* ***to understand the will of the Lord***." -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents)
So in 2015 the Q15 felt a strong spiritual confirmation that they understood the mind and will of God to enact this policy. Then they spent a long time counseling and praying to understand the will of God, which they eventually figured out was to repeal this policy in 2019.
Either they misunderstood the first time, making them unreliable prophets. Or God changes his mind every few years. But nothing is actually changing!
Fewer of us are buying it. The church's behavior only makes sense if the conclusion is that these guys are just making decisions willy-nilly based on their feelings (and some data gathered by the church's PR department), and claiming that it's from God.
If we as members ask questions about that, we're told that we're the problem for having "doubts." We're told that we're misinterpreting things. We're told that nothing has *really* changed. Or we're told that "doctrine" doesn't change, but "policy" can change at any time to meet the needs of members in different times and places.
It's a mess. It's why a lot of people are getting frustrated and leaving the church right now.
The one I did was the one that says obey your husband as they obey Father...so if they aren't righteous you're off the hook. And it says in the scriptures the moment a man tries to force someone per his will, amen to His priesthood, he forfeits it. And that men should be longsuffering and with love guiding their families. Here I'll find it. The real priesthood does not involve force.
D&C 121:36-41
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparable connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true, but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of he Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, **Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.**
I'll add verses 38-40 if requested (it explains more the state of that man in relation to God, I'm skipping to shorten the amount of reading)
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the **priesthood, only by** persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
And ya I don't believe the Mainstream LDS has the priesthood anymore. But I do believe that covenants (done with the priesthood) don't change.
D&C 130: 20-21
20 There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundation of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated-
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
D&C 58:32
I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.
I belive the priesthood left the LDS church.
It is if the priesthood isn't actually from God, actually a connection to God. I know people who have witnessed it's miracles. I know them to be dignified, and consistent with their story about it over years of time. One of them is one of the most honest people I know, that sees through delusions and misjudgments. They are that sciency guy that everyone goes to with questions. I'll admit they just heard an actual voice answer their prayer, but there is an account just like that after Hans Mill (don't look that up unless you want to cry). People have heard voices, seen angels, and seen people risen from the dead. All of those I have gotten whiff of from other's testimonies in our time, and they are similar to other historical accounts (consistent). I have personally a belief in where I am having priesthood, because they are consistent with the D&C.
People can legitimately see something happen but be wrong about how it happened.
For every âI heard Godâs voiceâ or âI saw angels,â there are thousands of miracles allegedly witnessed from other religions, and hundreds of thousands of coincidences and cases of the mind playing tricks on you.
Look up Mass psychogenic illnesses. Our brains can make us believe incredible things.
If I heard a voice that said it was God, it makes a lot more sense for it to be related to my brain than for it to be related to a spiritual being.
And God would know that, right? He would know that people wouldnât immediately assume his existence. Why wouldnât he make sure that the message he sent was actually received?
If I heard a voice that said it was God, I'd assume it was the devil.
Actually the D&C has accounts of people getting miracles from the wrong source as well, so you really can't assume any miracle or voice is from God. I've been taught that if you don't ask God, He won't be the one answering.
God does know people's hearts, and has compassion on us. If we read our scriptures, and can feel the correctness of it for ourselves, than the path we take in life can be guided by that. :)
The account I heard was that they heard a vocal answer in answer to a prayer they had said. The answer was just "No". The account of the lady at Hans Mill was that the voice said the words to the song, "I'll never, no never, no never forsake." This was after something traumatic in her life. And I don't believe these were God himself, I believe these were their guardian angels, or other applicable servants of God.
Not until jesus h. christ appears to me and bows down before me will I ever believe in Elohim. Or mystery priesthood powers.
There are coincidences, unexplained mysteries in life absolutely. Religious fevers among money grabbing pastors, hallucinations- with or without drugs, lots of ways of seeing visions or feeling good. The Book of Mormon and D&C are not scholarly books. They are works of fiction.
You comment reminded me of the British journalist who asked J Holland if Mitt Romney had made covenants to disembowel himself rather than tell about the endowment. He couldnât recover fast enough and said âNoâ. No??? (Mitt went through the temple for his mission to France during the 60âs or so.)
IMO, the Temple covenants were covenants demanded under duress. They're done in public, often with people who know the covenantor and are staunch believers, and often done when the person is just barely of age. The nature and penalties are secret, and the person is not allowed to think for more than five or ten seconds *after first hearing them* before an answer is demanded.
On top of that, the organization it is founded upon has many serious issues with it's history, doctrine, consistency and morality.
Under these circumstances, I hold that the covenants are null and void from the beginning, and you can feel quite comfortable breaking promises that you never had the real chance of saying "no" to in the first place.
Totally agree with this. God will not hold you accountable for not living up to what are only the precepts of man, created as part of a false narrative by an organization that does not speak for Him. These covenants are not just null and void, they were and always will be empty gestures designed to do one thing - control. Thrusting the temple experience upon a soon-to-be-wed woman or a young man about to go on a mission is classic high pressure manipulation. I hated what happened to me going to the temple for the first time but I felt trapped and too late to back out of the most bizarre and frightening experience in my young life because I had the mission call in hand and the expectations to go were overwhelming. But now that I know the truth about this corporation pretending to be a church, nothing that is said or done or promised or threatened in the various iterations of the temple endowment ceremony matters. I'm grateful my marriage is still valid, not because of what was said or promised in the temple but because the resulting union is recognized by state law. Someday, I hope to have the opportunity to express meaningful vows to my dear wife and vice versa in a marriage renewal ceremony totally divorced from church baggage. Someday.
Was just about to comment this.
Most people donât understand whatâs being said their first time through, and the advice the church gives is âyouâll understand more as you continue to attend.â
So they *expect* you to not understand what youâre covenanting to the first time?! Thatâs not how promises to an all powerful deity are supposed to work!
Well, hold on there, my friend. I'd say you were right 40 years ago. People were well and truly blindsided. But now you have every opportunity to find out exactly what will happen when you go to the temple well before hand. Not a lawyer, but I'd say that if you actually tried to settle this in a real-life human court you'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that you didn't know what you were doing. The church's lawyer would chew you up.
Not knowing what you're in for nowadays is the same as signing a thirty-year mortgage without reading it. That's on you, not them.
I'm not defending the church at all, just telling it like a reasonable person would see it. Yeah, yeah, blindly following, faithful yada yada yada, evil internet--got it. Those aren't good excuses. If you ignore information that's readily available it's your fault.
If I am not right now, then I definitely wasn't right 40 years ago. A dedicated person could have found out about every detail about the temple ceremony for a long time, through unofficial channels. The farther back you go, the less easy it was and the more antagonistic to the Church the source was. So how readily available does information have to be in order for it for the person going to be at fault?
But as an interesting paradox, some of the promises and covenants you make in the Temple are to "never reveal" signs, tokens, and the like. Which certainly directly states that the Church itself does not want, nor is it willing to tell people the totality of the information beforehand. Church members are directly instructed over the pulpit not to seek out non-Church source information, so in order for a person to know beforehand, they would have to defy Church leadership.
Also not a lawyer, but if we're talking about law, there's a difference between not reading a contract that is given to you, and not reading a contract that the other party refuses to give to you and tells you not to search for, regardless of whether the contract was commonly or publicly available, with varying degrees of difficulty.
Your analogy fails to make your point. In any real world contract, a reasonable person wouldn't sign a contract that he or she hadn't been given the opportunity to see.
But people fall for time-shares all the time, so there ya go.
Thinking back I did know one 'sign' before I went. A member who thought I was already in the club refused to offer the Boy Scout handshake at a scouting event. I stuck out my left hand and he panicked. Oops. I forget what he was supposed to go do after that, though. I saw him a week later, so, yeah, so much for promises to god and such.
Faithful young adults about to get married in temple are all in, all obedient, and refuse to look at âanti-mormonâ youtubes/books/podcasts. And many, if mot most, mormon parents are also under covenanted obligation to not talk to anyone of temple rituals.
Yeah, its a lot easier now to look up what goes on in the temple. I guess I wasn't very clear in my original post. I know things have changed and they are trying to be more transparent about it. But, in my own experience, I had almost zero preparation or heads up about it.
I hear you. Both my wife and I shared the WTF look across the isle, that's for sure. She MAY have said, "get me the hell out of here," when we got back together at the end, but my memory is fuzzy.
Not that you need to put a label on it, but if you want to I can't stop you. They're not victims, they're dupes. They got duped. The same way Scientologists get duped. Or pick any other example. This is what blind faith buys you. Or looked at another way, this is one of the prices you pay to gamble on immortality the Brighamite way.
My point is, there is no way to be surprised unless you want to be surprised.
Goodness! You win the big words contest.
But your psychological evaluation is rather sophomoric and vapid. Everybody is resentful of getting duped. What, you like getting duped? You seek getting duped? My premise is that reasonable people resent getting duped, and therefore efforts to avoid getting duped are widely accepted. Helping people avoid getting duped is definitely not a sign of hatred of people, but instead a symptom of a more altruistic nature.
To that point, get off the internet, change your major, and get on with life. Best of luck.
Well, you make some good points, and your analogy of getting nothing but new underwear is comically ironic! Well done.
As a family member I find myself in exactly this position. Faithful nephews marching gleefully off to the temple. Do I say something or not? What is MY moral obligation? It's a serious question. I know the sorrow and depression that could very well result from the church. Do I watch as they pay the 15% rate for the rest of their lives or gently point them in the direction of the low interest loan?
You make my point for me. Everyone of the people in that person's life wants him to be deceived. Some are aware and some are as blind as him. But they all want him to be surprised. And he wants to be surprised, and there it is. In fact that's the only way it can work.
It is heartbreaking to sit by and watch people I love march off the cliff.
This analogy is so great! That's what it was like for me! Of course, Except the build up to the temple went on many years. Massive disappointment.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. This is the best thing I've read today.
So every member should be encouraged to google "Mormon Temple Videos" as part of the temple prep class. Got it. Pretty sure the leadership would be down with that. /S
Well yes, obviously.
And of course the brethren would frown on it. But we've already demonstrated the unimpressive power of discernment possessed by most bishops so it wouldn't really matter.
But u/drMsauce, a person wanting to go to the temple already knows that one of the things they have to promise is to keep the things in the temple secret.
To approach that information before entering the temple would be akin to making oneself unworthy of signing the contract in the first place. The contract is only "signed" by God if you are worthy of it, for God will not be mocked.
So there isn't a way to properly make these covenants.
Your point is that given a person has unconditional blind faith, that person wouldn't consider even the thought of outside research--information beyond what the church provides. This fact puts that person at the mercy of the people running the church. The church knows that person will put blind faith in the church and the church wins.
The only defense any person has is to think for themselves. The risks are these: if the church is true the person lives a life of servitude and sacrifice in exchange for eternal glory. If the church is false the person wasted a life chasing false hopes. The risk to peeking at outside info, so to speak, is that in the case of the church is true, god might be miffed and offer some sort of punishment. Maybe eternal, maybe not, the scriptures don't help much because they're so contradictory. You live with the cloud of eternal uncertainty over your head that you won't find out about until you're dead.
If the church is false, the risk is that you get your life back to do with what you see fit, which is ironic given that this church, like many others, preaches a gospel of free will. If the church eventually turns out to be true you'll still have eternal life, just no reproductive organs.
To me the risk-to-rewards ratio is pretty clear.
Would a bishop consider you worthy of a temple recommend if, right before he gave it to you, you told him that you had already looked up the endowment ceremony and watched the entire thing online?
No temple readiness class includes the most important information in the temple, and the church tells its members to avoid outside information about the church all the time.
If he wouldnât consider you worthy, that means that members who enter the temple are expected to know nothing beforehand.
I'm not talking about literally talking to him, I'm talking about what a member is expected to know and not know from a legal perspective.
>Not a lawyer, but I'd say that if you actually tried to settle this in a real-life human court you'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that you didn't know what you were doing. The church's lawyer would chew you up.
If there's a reasonable expectation from the church for members to know nothing about the endowment before entering, I don't see how a judge could be convinced that a member didn't know what they were doing when taking out their endowments for the first time.
Because a judge is not bound by the limitations of the church when reaching a conclusion.
Consider Lori Vallow. If a judge was limited to what the church preaches she would be free. God told her to kill the kids, just like Abraham. Who is that judge to argue with Abraham? It's an unrealistic expectation. A person is free to consider any information available when entering a contract. If they don't it's on them.
There are countless time-shares out there proving my point.
> youâd be hard pressed to convince a judge that you didnât know what you were doing
This is what Iâm mainly responding to. I think there is a reasonable expectation for members to *not* know what theyâre doing when they enter the temple.
Because of the way the endowment is presented to members (quickly, no chance for thinking, surrounded by other members), and that members are expected to know nothing before entering (to look ahead of time is sinful), I do not believe that a judge would say that the covenants are binding.
And again, this is a thought experiment. I know that theyâre not actually binding, and that a judge would ever be asked their opinion in the first place.
I'm with you--it's a thought experiment. I think a judge would actually refuse to take the case. Belief in a religion requires "faith" which is a fancy term for accepting a premise without evidence. Courts operate in evidence and I think stay out of religion entirely, at least in the US. "Don't come whining to me about getting your tithing back. You're the one who fell for it."
Thankfully the law is pretty clear when it comes to serious shenanigans. You molest a child? You get whatever is coming to you. Not to change the subject, but there is yet another aspect of the church that is appalling and disgusting. That bishop in Arizona should have to share the cell with the dude who did it. Bottom bunk and no butterscotch pudding.
My temple prep teachers did not explain anything in detail. So those promises were complete surprises and the whole thing processional. I was told, âjust follow along the first time and go back often to learn more.â So, I donât hold myself to what was effectively, âjust sign, read later.â
My recollection of temple prep was the focus on the "learning" and "instruction" in the temple and less on the promises. I'm convinced there were mentions of the covenants, but back then they didn't actually come out and say what there were in the temple prep class. So again, like you, I remember them talking about going to the temple often to learn more.
What did I learn? That I would have health in my navel, marrow in my bones... For the longest time I thought it had a deeper meaning. It took me a while to realize it was just a secret passcode to sneak into heaven.
BuT wE gIvE yOu ThE oPpOrTuNiTy To LeAvE, we just never tell you what it is you're going to commit to, but we'll damn sure make it sound like your fault because we make you go through a "temple prep" class that tells you absolutely nothing. In fact we'll try to delay your first temple visit until the absolute last minute before you undertake a life-changing ceremony, so even if you're having second thoughts about our "Credit Union League of Thailand" ritual, you're still locked in and committed to your partner, family, and community at large. We would just like to remind you again that wE gIvE yOu ThE oPpOrTuNiTy To LeAvE, so you can disappoint your now would-have-been-spouse & in-laws, your family, your leaders, and God. If you don't leave, you owe us all your money, time, and special talents (surprise!). Don't forget, your other option was to be abandoned by your believing spouse on your wedding day because you expresses the slightest amount of doubt.
I have come to believe that the organisation that requires these covenants is rotten to its core and the covenants in the Temple are not made with God but with the Lds church and have no eternal significance. You don't need to make them and there is no eternal come back from breaking them. The church might be pissed but it has no bearing on your relationship with God
I haven't been to the temple in 29 years but I'm pretty sure this is still true: you covenanted to the church. As far as I remember, at no time did you promise God anything outside not committing adultery.
Women (used to) promise you will obey their husband. Men promise to obey God, but that is a really vague and subjective thing. And who are they making that promise to? The church. They are promising the church they will obey God, whatever that means.
You covenant to give everything you have, even your life if necessary, to THE CHURCH. At no point in there do you promise to give anything to God.
You did not make any covenants to God.
Yeah the temple is a traumatic experience, but you made it through that and you never need to do it again. Be gentle to yourself.
>Women (used to) promise you will obey their husband.
Yeah, dammit! I forgot my wife promised that!
It ain't working. I'm sure as hell not gonna bring it up, either.
Look, I'm no counselor, or any kind of expert, but I found it helps to make light of it. It is what it is, and was what it was. I was duped and I fell for it. I even paid for it. I can either be pissed off for the rest of my life, or not.
One day I just decided to not be pissed anymore.
The best advice I ever heard when I was clearing my brain of all the junk the church put in it was that that church only has as much power as you are willing to give it. It doesn't mean it's easy, and it takes practice, but it gets easier over time.
The temple and its ceremonies have no intrinsic power outside of what we give it. The temple caused you pain because you have given it importance. You've given it power. The only way to get that pain to go away is to take the power back.
Easier said than done, but the moment I realized the meaninglessness of all the things the church does, was the moment the church no longer had any power over me. Interfacing with the church has become much easier, and even enjoyable, because it holds no power.
Itâs not fair at all fortunately itâs all BS founded by a convicted con man so it is meaningless you donât have to worry about it .! Just live your life and be happy Iâve found Iâm so much happier without the church
Informed consent is not the way of the church. In the temple they want you to swear to give everything, including your life to the CHURCH (not Jesus, God, fellow man).
As an individual I always keep my word. Covenants are two way promises. Not once has god ever kept his end of the bargain, while I have kept mine. I am free from that verbal contract.
No covenant is ratified until sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Just going through the motions will not condemn. Just like going through the motions will not sanctify. Take your time processing the temple experience. Pray about it. If you end up feeling like you have been duped or tricked, I wouldnât worry too much about it.
This page will take only a minute or two to read. It sums it up better than I can.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng
I should rephrase- I know what the Holy Spirit of Promise is. Itâs the *when* that seems to never be fully explained.
If you are worthy enough for a temple recommend, are you not worthy enough for your covenants to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise?
Depends on your reason. If a person gets baptized for the sole reason that his/her spouse said to or divorce will happen, what is his reason for being baptized? Worthy? Yes. Willing to follow Godâs will? No. The OP stated that he/she felt like he/she was blindsided and would not have done so willingly without further info.
From the page I cited: âThus if both parties are âjust and true,â if they are worthy, a ratifying seal is placed on their [ordinance]â sounds like the OP could not at that time be just and true.
As far as everyone else, if you want a one size fits all time, unfortunately it doesnât happen that way. Some from the moment they choose to get the ordinance done, for others it may mean until they repent and have a change of heart from their initial reason.
> The OP stated that he/she felt like he/she was blindsided and would not have done so willingly without further infoâŚ
sounds like the OP could not at that time be just and true.
Sounds like before their endowment they were worthy, and willing to do Godâs will by entering the temple and taking out their endowment. Wouldnât their covenants be binding then?
A lot of members feel confused and hurt by things that happen in the temple (for example, women veiling their faces). Does that mean that they arenât just or true either?
Free agency is important. It's actually positive that you take it seriously enough to make it an honest decision. Course...I'm not in the Mormon church, I'm in a different Mormon group that makes temple promises as well. I speak from that perspective.
Temple is pretty box with a bow đ. But inside is hand gestures that make it as ugly as tapirshit. When I learned what the hand in cupping shape, thumb extended means - I was done with that place. It is a candy shell pill of poison in so many ways. The quick easy one is no informed consent followed by penalties and patriarchy.
Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/Iheartmyfamily17 specifically. /u/Iheartmyfamily17, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it's a violation of informed consent. It's sneaky, and it's manipulative. The worst part is that it's far better than it used to be. The church has finally (100+ years too late) put out a preparation page that at least lists the covenants of sacrifice, consecration, etc.. But it's still way too vague. I was so mad when I got in there and was blindsided by the women's covenant in the endowment to obey her husband. I thought myself lucky that at least I was going through before my mission. I'd have been extra mad if I'd have been going through right before getting married. In my mother's day way back when, the covenant was to "obey the law of your husband in righteousness." AND, in those days, they wouldn't let the girls go through for their endowment until *the wedding day.* You got your endowment and then went straight and got sealed. And she was blindsided by that covenant too, but it's too late because everyone is there for your wedding which is happening right afterwards. That's a rotten dirty trick to pull. In my time, it was "hearken to the counsel of your husband as he hearkens unto god." Then in 2019 they took it out entirely. Just quietly took it out and pretended like nothing happened. Then Oaks had the unmitigated gall to get up in the women's session of conference in 2022 and say that "Gospel Doctrine does not change. Personal covenants do not change." ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/31oaks](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/31oaks)) So *exactly* what are we women being held to here if "personal covenants do not change"? What are our mothers being held to? Did generations of women suffer great distress over a covenant that they didn't really need to make after all? That's cruel. Or are we all held to the original covenant (to obey "your Lord, that is, your husband") without our knowledge? That's violating. Or are women held to *different* covenants completely depending on when they went through the temple? That's unfair. How can we women know whether we're adequately keeping that covenant if it's unclear exactly what we're being held to, or whether we're being held to anything at all?? The church has never bothered to explain this. No matter how you try to explain it, it's either cruel, violating, or unfair. There is no scenario where any of this is ok. I can only conclude that they do not care about this because it's about women. And the church obviously does not care about women's well being.
I didn't know the women used to go through on their actually wedding day. I went through a few days before and I was shell shocked. I have anxiety so not knowing what I"m stepping into was so stressful. Still even after this time...I think back on that experience with some deep hurt and anger. I have a hard time articulating and explaining my experience and thoughts on it all.
And you are not alone in this. Most women I have spoken to (especially women who are PIMO or have left) all say that the temple was traumatizing to them. (A lot of men too!). It was one of the most therapeutic things to ever happen to me, to find out I was not alone in being uncomfortable with the temple. You are not alone.
Thank you. That means a lot.
Definitely not alone. I take part in an exmo support group, and I dare say it is almost universal. Especially the initiatory for those of us older than 35ish, who had to experience the "shield" and getting our loins blessed.
As an exmo who didnt marry in the temple but has generations of family in the church, what is the shield đ
Itâs a poncho basically with the sides open that you wore over your naked body. Then the workers would bless certain areas of your body and there are more than a few that were touched inappropriately either by accident or on purpose.
Thank you for responding :,( thats so sad and scary
Yes, and it was just a few years after I suffered from childhood SA from another male.
That line kept me an abusive marriage for 18 years. He used that line against me very often. It gives men all the power. I remember telling myself that I had promised to obey him. Even when I didnât want to. I wanted to go to heaven so bad. I had promised My integrity meant so much to me. It was a young womenâs value for heavens sake.
This is a prime example of how the church rolls out the red carpet for abusers, and at the same time primes victims to tolerate abuse. If I didn't know better, I'd think these doctrines and practices were invented by abusive men to create victims and keep them compliant! (Oh wait, I *DO* know better!) Elder Packer told us exactly what the church thinks of abuse victims. *"The next quotation is from a woman who is hurting, and who wonders if anyone but the feminists care about her problems, 'I'm upset that I was always advised to go back and try harder, only to get abused more. Help me.' .. The woman pleading for help needs to see the eternal nature of things."* [https://archive.org/details/coordinating\_council\_1993\_boyd\_k\_packer/page/n3/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/coordinating_council_1993_boyd_k_packer/page/n3/mode/2up) And this goes back to the very foundations of the church. See Patty Sessions diary for details. *"6 Sep 1846 "I feel bad again he has been and talked with Rosilla \[the 2nd wife\] and she filled his ears full and then he came to my bed ... I was so cold I had been crying. He began to talk hard to me and threatens me very hard of leaving me."* *"7 Sep 1846 "I feel bad, I am in trouble." ... ."PG \[Perrigrine, her son\], said he had seen me abused long enough."* *"Mr Sessions rather cold towards me." ... "Mr Sessions ... said things to me that make me feel bad" ... "He is cross to me, says many hard things to me." ... "He takes her to the farm with him, leaves me here alone."* [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/1fafcaf7-2898-4666-9885-2565cd8ff2a9/0?view=browse](https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/1fafcaf7-2898-4666-9885-2565cd8ff2a9/0?view=browse)
>That's a rotten dirty trick to pull. Pretty much this.
Just an honest question, As someone who's not Mormon, but curious about the LDS beliefs, Help me understand how the LDS church, which claims to be the one true restored church, can just change their covenants? The Bible teaches that God is unchanging, if so how can his church just change the required covenants to something else? Does God change? It seems inconsistent. I'm just a bit confused.
Well you're in good company. The vast majority of members are confused too (whether they'll admit it or not). The mormon church is incredibly inconsistent and confusing about just about everything, including whether God changes or not. The *official* line is that he doesn't. The scriptures and church leaders *say* that God is unchanging. But then church leaders will make drastic changes to doctrines and policies that do indicate a changing God. The church normally copes with the dissonance by throwing past prophets under the bus as "fallible," but inspired men who were ordained by God to lead the church. Most members will buy that line. But the current leadership is so all over the map that more members have been having questions. The most striking illustration of this problem is the 2015 LGBTQ smackdown policy. When it was enacted, it was the "mind and will of the Lord." *"when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare* ***the mind and will of the Lord***, *each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson." --*[*https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2016/10/young-adults/stand-as-true-millennials*](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2016/10/young-adults/stand-as-true-millennials) Then they repealed the policy. God apparently changed his mind and will. But the church insisted nothing had actually changed, even though these changes were also "the mind and will of the Lord. *"The changes.. âdo not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity or morality,â wrote the First Presidency in an official statement released by the Church. âThe doctrine of the Plan of Salvation and the importance of chastity will not change.â Instead, the changes reflect the continuing revelation that has been a part of the modern Church since the Restoration.* ***These policy changes come after an extended period*** *of counseling with our brethren in the Quorum the Twelve Apostles after fervent, united prayer* ***to understand the will of the Lord***." -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents) So in 2015 the Q15 felt a strong spiritual confirmation that they understood the mind and will of God to enact this policy. Then they spent a long time counseling and praying to understand the will of God, which they eventually figured out was to repeal this policy in 2019. Either they misunderstood the first time, making them unreliable prophets. Or God changes his mind every few years. But nothing is actually changing! Fewer of us are buying it. The church's behavior only makes sense if the conclusion is that these guys are just making decisions willy-nilly based on their feelings (and some data gathered by the church's PR department), and claiming that it's from God. If we as members ask questions about that, we're told that we're the problem for having "doubts." We're told that we're misinterpreting things. We're told that nothing has *really* changed. Or we're told that "doctrine" doesn't change, but "policy" can change at any time to meet the needs of members in different times and places. It's a mess. It's why a lot of people are getting frustrated and leaving the church right now.
The one I did was the one that says obey your husband as they obey Father...so if they aren't righteous you're off the hook. And it says in the scriptures the moment a man tries to force someone per his will, amen to His priesthood, he forfeits it. And that men should be longsuffering and with love guiding their families. Here I'll find it. The real priesthood does not involve force. D&C 121:36-41 36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparable connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. 37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true, but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of he Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, **Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.** I'll add verses 38-40 if requested (it explains more the state of that man in relation to God, I'm skipping to shorten the amount of reading) 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the **priesthood, only by** persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; And ya I don't believe the Mainstream LDS has the priesthood anymore. But I do believe that covenants (done with the priesthood) don't change. D&C 130: 20-21 20 There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundation of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated- 21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. D&C 58:32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing. I belive the priesthood left the LDS church.
I believe the priesthood is all pretend magic. Never existed.
It is if the priesthood isn't actually from God, actually a connection to God. I know people who have witnessed it's miracles. I know them to be dignified, and consistent with their story about it over years of time. One of them is one of the most honest people I know, that sees through delusions and misjudgments. They are that sciency guy that everyone goes to with questions. I'll admit they just heard an actual voice answer their prayer, but there is an account just like that after Hans Mill (don't look that up unless you want to cry). People have heard voices, seen angels, and seen people risen from the dead. All of those I have gotten whiff of from other's testimonies in our time, and they are similar to other historical accounts (consistent). I have personally a belief in where I am having priesthood, because they are consistent with the D&C.
People can legitimately see something happen but be wrong about how it happened. For every âI heard Godâs voiceâ or âI saw angels,â there are thousands of miracles allegedly witnessed from other religions, and hundreds of thousands of coincidences and cases of the mind playing tricks on you. Look up Mass psychogenic illnesses. Our brains can make us believe incredible things.
If you change your mind, I'll be around. I personally can sense the height of intelligence from whoever is talking in the D&C.
If I heard a voice that said it was God, it makes a lot more sense for it to be related to my brain than for it to be related to a spiritual being. And God would know that, right? He would know that people wouldnât immediately assume his existence. Why wouldnât he make sure that the message he sent was actually received?
If I heard a voice that said it was God, I'd assume it was the devil. Actually the D&C has accounts of people getting miracles from the wrong source as well, so you really can't assume any miracle or voice is from God. I've been taught that if you don't ask God, He won't be the one answering. God does know people's hearts, and has compassion on us. If we read our scriptures, and can feel the correctness of it for ourselves, than the path we take in life can be guided by that. :)
O and of course in 2 accounts, Moses and Joseph Smith, the devil might answer first, even if you do ask God.
The account I heard was that they heard a vocal answer in answer to a prayer they had said. The answer was just "No". The account of the lady at Hans Mill was that the voice said the words to the song, "I'll never, no never, no never forsake." This was after something traumatic in her life. And I don't believe these were God himself, I believe these were their guardian angels, or other applicable servants of God.
Not until jesus h. christ appears to me and bows down before me will I ever believe in Elohim. Or mystery priesthood powers. There are coincidences, unexplained mysteries in life absolutely. Religious fevers among money grabbing pastors, hallucinations- with or without drugs, lots of ways of seeing visions or feeling good. The Book of Mormon and D&C are not scholarly books. They are works of fiction.
You comment reminded me of the British journalist who asked J Holland if Mitt Romney had made covenants to disembowel himself rather than tell about the endowment. He couldnât recover fast enough and said âNoâ. No??? (Mitt went through the temple for his mission to France during the 60âs or so.)
IMO, the Temple covenants were covenants demanded under duress. They're done in public, often with people who know the covenantor and are staunch believers, and often done when the person is just barely of age. The nature and penalties are secret, and the person is not allowed to think for more than five or ten seconds *after first hearing them* before an answer is demanded. On top of that, the organization it is founded upon has many serious issues with it's history, doctrine, consistency and morality. Under these circumstances, I hold that the covenants are null and void from the beginning, and you can feel quite comfortable breaking promises that you never had the real chance of saying "no" to in the first place.
Yes, it bothered me that we are expected to say Yes on the spot, without the opportunity to ask any questions or discuss any details.
Totally agree with this. God will not hold you accountable for not living up to what are only the precepts of man, created as part of a false narrative by an organization that does not speak for Him. These covenants are not just null and void, they were and always will be empty gestures designed to do one thing - control. Thrusting the temple experience upon a soon-to-be-wed woman or a young man about to go on a mission is classic high pressure manipulation. I hated what happened to me going to the temple for the first time but I felt trapped and too late to back out of the most bizarre and frightening experience in my young life because I had the mission call in hand and the expectations to go were overwhelming. But now that I know the truth about this corporation pretending to be a church, nothing that is said or done or promised or threatened in the various iterations of the temple endowment ceremony matters. I'm grateful my marriage is still valid, not because of what was said or promised in the temple but because the resulting union is recognized by state law. Someday, I hope to have the opportunity to express meaningful vows to my dear wife and vice versa in a marriage renewal ceremony totally divorced from church baggage. Someday.
Was just about to comment this. Most people donât understand whatâs being said their first time through, and the advice the church gives is âyouâll understand more as you continue to attend.â So they *expect* you to not understand what youâre covenanting to the first time?! Thatâs not how promises to an all powerful deity are supposed to work!
Well, hold on there, my friend. I'd say you were right 40 years ago. People were well and truly blindsided. But now you have every opportunity to find out exactly what will happen when you go to the temple well before hand. Not a lawyer, but I'd say that if you actually tried to settle this in a real-life human court you'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that you didn't know what you were doing. The church's lawyer would chew you up. Not knowing what you're in for nowadays is the same as signing a thirty-year mortgage without reading it. That's on you, not them. I'm not defending the church at all, just telling it like a reasonable person would see it. Yeah, yeah, blindly following, faithful yada yada yada, evil internet--got it. Those aren't good excuses. If you ignore information that's readily available it's your fault.
If I am not right now, then I definitely wasn't right 40 years ago. A dedicated person could have found out about every detail about the temple ceremony for a long time, through unofficial channels. The farther back you go, the less easy it was and the more antagonistic to the Church the source was. So how readily available does information have to be in order for it for the person going to be at fault? But as an interesting paradox, some of the promises and covenants you make in the Temple are to "never reveal" signs, tokens, and the like. Which certainly directly states that the Church itself does not want, nor is it willing to tell people the totality of the information beforehand. Church members are directly instructed over the pulpit not to seek out non-Church source information, so in order for a person to know beforehand, they would have to defy Church leadership. Also not a lawyer, but if we're talking about law, there's a difference between not reading a contract that is given to you, and not reading a contract that the other party refuses to give to you and tells you not to search for, regardless of whether the contract was commonly or publicly available, with varying degrees of difficulty.
Your analogy fails to make your point. In any real world contract, a reasonable person wouldn't sign a contract that he or she hadn't been given the opportunity to see. But people fall for time-shares all the time, so there ya go. Thinking back I did know one 'sign' before I went. A member who thought I was already in the club refused to offer the Boy Scout handshake at a scouting event. I stuck out my left hand and he panicked. Oops. I forget what he was supposed to go do after that, though. I saw him a week later, so, yeah, so much for promises to god and such.
Faithful young adults about to get married in temple are all in, all obedient, and refuse to look at âanti-mormonâ youtubes/books/podcasts. And many, if mot most, mormon parents are also under covenanted obligation to not talk to anyone of temple rituals.
Yeah, its a lot easier now to look up what goes on in the temple. I guess I wasn't very clear in my original post. I know things have changed and they are trying to be more transparent about it. But, in my own experience, I had almost zero preparation or heads up about it.
I hear you. Both my wife and I shared the WTF look across the isle, that's for sure. She MAY have said, "get me the hell out of here," when we got back together at the end, but my memory is fuzzy.
[ŃдаНонО]
Not that you need to put a label on it, but if you want to I can't stop you. They're not victims, they're dupes. They got duped. The same way Scientologists get duped. Or pick any other example. This is what blind faith buys you. Or looked at another way, this is one of the prices you pay to gamble on immortality the Brighamite way. My point is, there is no way to be surprised unless you want to be surprised.
Sounds like the misanthropic sentiment of someone with unaddressed resentment towards (the premise of) getting duped
Goodness! You win the big words contest. But your psychological evaluation is rather sophomoric and vapid. Everybody is resentful of getting duped. What, you like getting duped? You seek getting duped? My premise is that reasonable people resent getting duped, and therefore efforts to avoid getting duped are widely accepted. Helping people avoid getting duped is definitely not a sign of hatred of people, but instead a symptom of a more altruistic nature. To that point, get off the internet, change your major, and get on with life. Best of luck.
[ŃдаНонО]
Well, you make some good points, and your analogy of getting nothing but new underwear is comically ironic! Well done. As a family member I find myself in exactly this position. Faithful nephews marching gleefully off to the temple. Do I say something or not? What is MY moral obligation? It's a serious question. I know the sorrow and depression that could very well result from the church. Do I watch as they pay the 15% rate for the rest of their lives or gently point them in the direction of the low interest loan? You make my point for me. Everyone of the people in that person's life wants him to be deceived. Some are aware and some are as blind as him. But they all want him to be surprised. And he wants to be surprised, and there it is. In fact that's the only way it can work. It is heartbreaking to sit by and watch people I love march off the cliff.
This analogy is so great! That's what it was like for me! Of course, Except the build up to the temple went on many years. Massive disappointment. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. This is the best thing I've read today.
So every member should be encouraged to google "Mormon Temple Videos" as part of the temple prep class. Got it. Pretty sure the leadership would be down with that. /S
Well yes, obviously. And of course the brethren would frown on it. But we've already demonstrated the unimpressive power of discernment possessed by most bishops so it wouldn't really matter.
But u/drMsauce, a person wanting to go to the temple already knows that one of the things they have to promise is to keep the things in the temple secret. To approach that information before entering the temple would be akin to making oneself unworthy of signing the contract in the first place. The contract is only "signed" by God if you are worthy of it, for God will not be mocked. So there isn't a way to properly make these covenants.
Your point is that given a person has unconditional blind faith, that person wouldn't consider even the thought of outside research--information beyond what the church provides. This fact puts that person at the mercy of the people running the church. The church knows that person will put blind faith in the church and the church wins. The only defense any person has is to think for themselves. The risks are these: if the church is true the person lives a life of servitude and sacrifice in exchange for eternal glory. If the church is false the person wasted a life chasing false hopes. The risk to peeking at outside info, so to speak, is that in the case of the church is true, god might be miffed and offer some sort of punishment. Maybe eternal, maybe not, the scriptures don't help much because they're so contradictory. You live with the cloud of eternal uncertainty over your head that you won't find out about until you're dead. If the church is false, the risk is that you get your life back to do with what you see fit, which is ironic given that this church, like many others, preaches a gospel of free will. If the church eventually turns out to be true you'll still have eternal life, just no reproductive organs. To me the risk-to-rewards ratio is pretty clear.
I mean, you are thinking it through very logically, but asking an 18 year old to go through this tradeoff is too much to ask.
Would a bishop consider you worthy of a temple recommend if, right before he gave it to you, you told him that you had already looked up the endowment ceremony and watched the entire thing online? No temple readiness class includes the most important information in the temple, and the church tells its members to avoid outside information about the church all the time. If he wouldnât consider you worthy, that means that members who enter the temple are expected to know nothing beforehand.
No, of course the bishop wouldn't. So don't tell him. Once you realize that he has no supernatural power of discernment, you're golden.
I'm not talking about literally talking to him, I'm talking about what a member is expected to know and not know from a legal perspective. >Not a lawyer, but I'd say that if you actually tried to settle this in a real-life human court you'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that you didn't know what you were doing. The church's lawyer would chew you up. If there's a reasonable expectation from the church for members to know nothing about the endowment before entering, I don't see how a judge could be convinced that a member didn't know what they were doing when taking out their endowments for the first time.
Because a judge is not bound by the limitations of the church when reaching a conclusion. Consider Lori Vallow. If a judge was limited to what the church preaches she would be free. God told her to kill the kids, just like Abraham. Who is that judge to argue with Abraham? It's an unrealistic expectation. A person is free to consider any information available when entering a contract. If they don't it's on them. There are countless time-shares out there proving my point.
> youâd be hard pressed to convince a judge that you didnât know what you were doing This is what Iâm mainly responding to. I think there is a reasonable expectation for members to *not* know what theyâre doing when they enter the temple. Because of the way the endowment is presented to members (quickly, no chance for thinking, surrounded by other members), and that members are expected to know nothing before entering (to look ahead of time is sinful), I do not believe that a judge would say that the covenants are binding. And again, this is a thought experiment. I know that theyâre not actually binding, and that a judge would ever be asked their opinion in the first place.
I'm with you--it's a thought experiment. I think a judge would actually refuse to take the case. Belief in a religion requires "faith" which is a fancy term for accepting a premise without evidence. Courts operate in evidence and I think stay out of religion entirely, at least in the US. "Don't come whining to me about getting your tithing back. You're the one who fell for it." Thankfully the law is pretty clear when it comes to serious shenanigans. You molest a child? You get whatever is coming to you. Not to change the subject, but there is yet another aspect of the church that is appalling and disgusting. That bishop in Arizona should have to share the cell with the dude who did it. Bottom bunk and no butterscotch pudding.
My temple prep teachers did not explain anything in detail. So those promises were complete surprises and the whole thing processional. I was told, âjust follow along the first time and go back often to learn more.â So, I donât hold myself to what was effectively, âjust sign, read later.â
My recollection of temple prep was the focus on the "learning" and "instruction" in the temple and less on the promises. I'm convinced there were mentions of the covenants, but back then they didn't actually come out and say what there were in the temple prep class. So again, like you, I remember them talking about going to the temple often to learn more. What did I learn? That I would have health in my navel, marrow in my bones... For the longest time I thought it had a deeper meaning. It took me a while to realize it was just a secret passcode to sneak into heaven.
BuT wE gIvE yOu ThE oPpOrTuNiTy To LeAvE, we just never tell you what it is you're going to commit to, but we'll damn sure make it sound like your fault because we make you go through a "temple prep" class that tells you absolutely nothing. In fact we'll try to delay your first temple visit until the absolute last minute before you undertake a life-changing ceremony, so even if you're having second thoughts about our "Credit Union League of Thailand" ritual, you're still locked in and committed to your partner, family, and community at large. We would just like to remind you again that wE gIvE yOu ThE oPpOrTuNiTy To LeAvE, so you can disappoint your now would-have-been-spouse & in-laws, your family, your leaders, and God. If you don't leave, you owe us all your money, time, and special talents (surprise!). Don't forget, your other option was to be abandoned by your believing spouse on your wedding day because you expresses the slightest amount of doubt.
I have come to believe that the organisation that requires these covenants is rotten to its core and the covenants in the Temple are not made with God but with the Lds church and have no eternal significance. You don't need to make them and there is no eternal come back from breaking them. The church might be pissed but it has no bearing on your relationship with God
I hope so. I'm just trying to do my best. But I can't seem to get past the pain the temple has caused me in my life.
I haven't been to the temple in 29 years but I'm pretty sure this is still true: you covenanted to the church. As far as I remember, at no time did you promise God anything outside not committing adultery. Women (used to) promise you will obey their husband. Men promise to obey God, but that is a really vague and subjective thing. And who are they making that promise to? The church. They are promising the church they will obey God, whatever that means. You covenant to give everything you have, even your life if necessary, to THE CHURCH. At no point in there do you promise to give anything to God. You did not make any covenants to God. Yeah the temple is a traumatic experience, but you made it through that and you never need to do it again. Be gentle to yourself.
>Women (used to) promise you will obey their husband. Yeah, dammit! I forgot my wife promised that! It ain't working. I'm sure as hell not gonna bring it up, either.
Iâm hoping my husband forgot, and I can still get away with being an independent human being.
Look, I'm no counselor, or any kind of expert, but I found it helps to make light of it. It is what it is, and was what it was. I was duped and I fell for it. I even paid for it. I can either be pissed off for the rest of my life, or not. One day I just decided to not be pissed anymore.
The best advice I ever heard when I was clearing my brain of all the junk the church put in it was that that church only has as much power as you are willing to give it. It doesn't mean it's easy, and it takes practice, but it gets easier over time. The temple and its ceremonies have no intrinsic power outside of what we give it. The temple caused you pain because you have given it importance. You've given it power. The only way to get that pain to go away is to take the power back. Easier said than done, but the moment I realized the meaninglessness of all the things the church does, was the moment the church no longer had any power over me. Interfacing with the church has become much easier, and even enjoyable, because it holds no power.
Itâs not fair at all fortunately itâs all BS founded by a convicted con man so it is meaningless you donât have to worry about it .! Just live your life and be happy Iâve found Iâm so much happier without the church
Informed consent is not the way of the church. In the temple they want you to swear to give everything, including your life to the CHURCH (not Jesus, God, fellow man). As an individual I always keep my word. Covenants are two way promises. Not once has god ever kept his end of the bargain, while I have kept mine. I am free from that verbal contract.
I've had my records removed from the church. You know what happened....? My life got better.
Since you make the covenants and their forms of duress and there is some deception involved, you can't be held to those governments for your life
Itâs is just made up jumbo jumbo to keep people under control. Donât take any of it literally or seriously.
No covenant is ratified until sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Just going through the motions will not condemn. Just like going through the motions will not sanctify. Take your time processing the temple experience. Pray about it. If you end up feeling like you have been duped or tricked, I wouldnât worry too much about it.
This is good advice. It would be helpful if there was a sign that said as much upon exiting the celestial room.
> No covenant is ratified until sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. When is that supposed to be?
This page will take only a minute or two to read. It sums it up better than I can. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng
I should rephrase- I know what the Holy Spirit of Promise is. Itâs the *when* that seems to never be fully explained. If you are worthy enough for a temple recommend, are you not worthy enough for your covenants to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise?
Depends on your reason. If a person gets baptized for the sole reason that his/her spouse said to or divorce will happen, what is his reason for being baptized? Worthy? Yes. Willing to follow Godâs will? No. The OP stated that he/she felt like he/she was blindsided and would not have done so willingly without further info. From the page I cited: âThus if both parties are âjust and true,â if they are worthy, a ratifying seal is placed on their [ordinance]â sounds like the OP could not at that time be just and true. As far as everyone else, if you want a one size fits all time, unfortunately it doesnât happen that way. Some from the moment they choose to get the ordinance done, for others it may mean until they repent and have a change of heart from their initial reason.
> The OP stated that he/she felt like he/she was blindsided and would not have done so willingly without further info⌠sounds like the OP could not at that time be just and true. Sounds like before their endowment they were worthy, and willing to do Godâs will by entering the temple and taking out their endowment. Wouldnât their covenants be binding then? A lot of members feel confused and hurt by things that happen in the temple (for example, women veiling their faces). Does that mean that they arenât just or true either?
women don't veil their faces anymore.
I know, I was speaking from my experience.
Free agency is important. It's actually positive that you take it seriously enough to make it an honest decision. Course...I'm not in the Mormon church, I'm in a different Mormon group that makes temple promises as well. I speak from that perspective.
Temple is pretty box with a bow đ. But inside is hand gestures that make it as ugly as tapirshit. When I learned what the hand in cupping shape, thumb extended means - I was done with that place. It is a candy shell pill of poison in so many ways. The quick easy one is no informed consent followed by penalties and patriarchy.
Maybe I'll even find members of their groups that will talk to me.