Radio Free Mormon: 052: The More Things Change – IN THE TEMPLE – The More They Stay The Same

RFM and Bill Reel take on the recent Temple changes and dissect the historical context of these changes, why these changes indicate regardless of how Leaders want them portrayed, and tackle the blatant lying in the First Presidency Statement.


2019 Temple Changes
Historical Overview of Temple Changes
Oath to Avenge the Blood of the Prophet
Temple Cursings of Government Leaders (Start on Page 15)
First Presidency Statement


9 thoughts on “Radio Free Mormon: 052: The More Things Change – IN THE TEMPLE – The More They Stay The Same

  1. Bill, you mentioned that Reed Smoot was not general authority when he made statements about his understanding of the unchangeable nature of the endowment. I believe that Reed Smoot was an apostle at the same time as being elected as a Senator. Very unique. So he knew what he was talking about.

  2. Another purpose of the last sentance is its use for outing, disciplining, and excomminicating progressive members.

  3. Just a quick point, since you did ask if anyone knew any different about baptism witnesses. As well as Melchizedek Priesthood holders, two priests can also be witnesses. Not sure in the current CHI, but Book 2, 20.3.7 p171.

    Great podcast as ever!!! Love you both.

  4. RFM and Bill, I have really been enjoying your podcasts that I recently discovered. Learned a lot from the Book of Abraham discussion. I listened to your entire disciplinary council, Bill, and was amazed by the logic of your arguments. You nearly persuaded them all! I was a bishop in my past life, too, and have faced a disciplinary council three times since. I would never have had the composure and focus that you had.

    I still have a temple recommend, but I have stopped going since I have recently been married to another man, who is also a gay member of the Church. I have always been encouraged by the fact that the endowment language around the law of chastity did not specifically exclude same-sex marriage, and only required it to be legal and lawful marriage. Now that same-sex marriage is legal and lawful in the US and many other countries, the endowment wording leaves it wide open to same-sex marriage.

    I’m curious if they have now changed the wording to specifically exclude same-sex marriage, whether legal and lawful or not. If they have somehow left this “loophole” open after making major changes to the endowment, it might hint at the possibility the Q15 are considering accepting same-sex marriage at some point in the future.

  5. GayMormonBishop, yes the wording of the law of chastity changed to definitively exclude same sex married couples. As close as I can get the wording exactly it says: “legally and lawfully married in accordance to God’s law.” There is also a phrase at the beginning about marriage being between a man and a woman. This is the big news of the temple changes because it’s not a softening or a rewording, or changing a non-doctrinal practice, it’s a retrenchment of exclusion. I partly suspect that the purpose of the changes was to mask the cruelty of this new version of the law of chastity.

  6. My recollection is that, under the former pre-1991 wording, the covenant of non-disclosure extended to the penalty as well, ie covenanting not to disclose the token, “with its associated name, sign and penalty”. No offence taken.
    By the way, does it matter that I haven’t made the current covenant on my own behalf, because I only got the one chance to do that, and that happened under an old wording?

  7. Bill being proved wrong again, what a surprise. You can’t pay your debt to Kevin Owens and had to ask online for the money😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 what a loser move!!!! don’t make bets that you can’t pay yourself, you fell into your own trap.Why should anyone pay for your stupid mistake? Bill, you are a complete joke!!!!!! What a POS!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *