Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SettingDogStar

Sources for Josephs Temple Revelations

Recommended Posts

Joseph Smith's main source for the temple ceremony was the Freemason ceremony. When you look into it, there isn't that much room for revelation after you separate what isn't Masonic in the temple. All the tokens, the apron, the new name, the garment symbols, the mallet, etc are all purely Masonic. 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎10‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 1:15 PM, SettingDogStar said:

The first temple ritual videos were created in the 1950s for the Swiss and New Zealand Temples. It was simply to shrink temple designs from fives rooms to two for convenience. It wasn't very complicated or dramatic like we have now, it was literally just a film of a "live" endowment in the Salt Lake Temple rooms. The more dramatic ones with sets and such started to be filmed in the 1960s.

Not exactly. Although it was filmed in the temple, it wasn't filmed in the regular endowment rooms. It was filmed in the big assembly hall in top section of the Salt Lake Temple. Sets were built for it. Interestingly, Gordon B. Hinckley is credited with both the idea of it being done this way and with the details of how it was done.

One day in the fall of 1953 President McKay invited [Gordon B. Hinckley] to his office for a private interview, and there he outlined some of the unique challenges posed by the new European temple. “Brother Hinckley,” he began, “as you know, we are building a temple in Switzerland, and it will be different from our other temples in that it must serve members who speak many languages. I want you to find a way to present the temple instruction in the various languages of Europe while using a minimum number of temple workers.” President McKay indicated that President Joseph Fielding Smith of the Quorum of the Twelve and Elders Harold B. Lee and Richard L. Evans had been assigned to a committee overseeing the project, but that he would have responsibility for completing it in time for the dedication, scheduled just two years hence in the fall of 1955....

After much study, reflection, and discussion with President McKay, Gordon made a recommendation: It appeared that the most effective way to conduct large numbers of temple patrons through the sacred service in a variety of languages and with a minimal number of temple workers was to put it on film. Such a conversion would allow temple sessions to accommodate more people in less time and space...
 
They set to work. The ornate, three-story room in which President Wilford Woodruff had dedicated the temple in the first of thirty-one sessions seemed ideal. Gordon and his associates began by converting the large area between the stands on the east and west ends into a makeshift movie set. They hung a huge, floor-to-ceiling scrim as a backdrop for the cameras, used heavy-duty pulleys to lift various props through the room’s large windows, and installed a power line capable of handling the increased voltage requirements of lights and cameras. The temple elevators inside the back door made it possible to carry smaller materials directly to the fifth floor without attracting the attention of the temple workers.
 
Dew, Sheri L.. Go Forward With Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley (Kindle Locations 2095-3016). Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Not exactly. Although it was filmed in the temple, it wasn't filmed in the regular endowment rooms. It was filmed in the big assembly hall in top section of the Salt Lake Temple. Sets were built for it. Interestingly, Gordon B. Hinckley is credited with both the idea of it being done this way and with the details of how it was done.

Aye, makes sense! I assumed that when it said “upper room” in the description for where it was filmed it meant all the rooms. That makes more sense though. I wonder if a copy of those original ones exist? 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

Joseph Smith's main source for the temple ceremony was the Freemason ceremony. When you look into it, there isn't that much room for revelation after you separate what isn't Masonic in the temple. All the tokens, the apron, the new name, the garment symbols, the mallet, etc are all purely Masonic. 

That’s a whole other discussion haha but I can sorta agree with you. Other then the fact that very few things are “purely” Masonic, if you go back far enough the masons adopted a lot of their symbols from various pagan/Christian sources.

I was more on the hunt for what others had reported on where Joseph at least claimed he had gotten it from. Visions/angels type stuff.

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

Joseph Smith's main source for the temple ceremony was the Freemason ceremony. When you look into it, there isn't that much room for revelation after you separate what isn't Masonic in the temple. All the tokens, the apron, the new name, the garment symbols, the mallet, etc are all purely Masonic. 

That's not entirely true. The Bible is probably a bigger source than Masonry, although clearly basic Masonry and then Royal Arch Masonry and possibly Adoptive Masonry are big influences as well. Even the apron is quite different and clearly much more dependent upon Genesis 2-3 than basic Masonry. The meaning in particular is radically different. In Masonry it's tied to a working mason's apron and tool holder combined with white lambskin symbolism out of pagan heremeticism such as the golden fleece. To be fair of course Masons did eventually tie the apron to Genesis 3 even though the use in the Hiram Abiff story is different. By the 19th century all sorts of allegorical meanings develop. I'd have to check to see which ones were around in the 1840's though. 

34 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

That’s a whole other discussion haha but I can sorta agree with you. Other then the fact that very few things are “purely” Masonic, if you go back far enough the masons adopted a lot of their symbols from various pagan/Christian sources.

Also out of Judaism. Particularly in the Renaissance various Christians were picking up things out of Jewish Kabbalism. When you look at the Kabbalistic and Merkevah traditions you find a lot that's pretty similar. A lot of all these Renaissance ideas get injected into speculative Masonry in the early 17th century. I'd say there's more paganism than necessarily Christian or Jewish influences. That's partially because the pagan was more mysterious but also due to the influence of Giordano Bruno on the development of speculative Masonry. 

34 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I was more on the hunt for what others had reported on where Joseph at least claimed he had gotten it from. Visions/angels type stuff.

Smith and others are pretty forthright it's tied to Masonry. Also note that the endowment in practice was as much a product of Brigham Young as Joseph. Young also had an extensive background in Masonry although I don't think there are any good books outlining the myriad of parallels and sources.

It's fair to say that a lot of the early members bought into the fanciful history of masonry. That in turn goes into the hermetic tradition and tends to attribute everything to Egypt and the rise of Masonry to a contemporary of Moses or Abraham. There was also a view that the origins go back to the Temple of Solomon which was what Joseph and others appear to have believed. That's almost certainly not true, but as I said when you look at the obvious Renaissance traditions that got adopted into speculative Masonry they largely come out of the hermetic tradition, Kabbalism/Merkavah traditions, the Art of Memory, and a bit of remnants of gnosticism. That's all pretty much standard 1st - 4th century quasi-mystic traditions about deification and heavenly ascents. Those tended to get blurred between the quasi-Egyptian, Jewish, Christian, gnostic and pagan (Greek) traditions. Often the traditions have mantras, sacred names or magic chants that tend to get shared between the traditions.

So some of Joseph's beliefs which arise out of a naive acceptance of Masonic traditions are wrong. However it's pretty clear that the traditions do go back to 1st century traditions that have more in common with Mormonism than Masonry. (IMO - although my Masonic friends obviously disagree. A lot depends upon how one takes the allegories and whether one accepts a mystic conceptions. I don't.)

All that said though it seems clear that some elements go back pretty early to at least the translation of the Book of Mormon. So it's not all Nauvoo era innovation or appropriation by Joseph. How much of that earlier influence is tied to masonry isn't clear. Likewise the question of angels is somewhat complex too. There are hints in the Book of Mormon and second hand representations of the lost book of Lehi that Lehi had a portable tabernacle that in some ways was more akin to our conception of temple work. Nephi's vision has clear temple overtones as well as ties to the Merkabah traditions of the later Hellenistic tradition. The work on the Book of Abraham has tons of both Masonic and temple elements to it. Even elements of the translation in Abr 3 has some parallels to Hermeticism and the idea of mystic ascents. By 1843 Joseph is talking about heavenly ascents tied to Paul's comments in the New Testament. Did Joseph have such an ascent? He hints at it but never states it.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I’ve found a couple quotes after searching, one from Elizabeth Allred  “It was while they were living in Nauvoo that the Prophet came to my mother, who was a seamstress by trade, and told her that he had seen the Angel Moroni with the garments on, and asked her to assist him in cutting out the garments.”

and one from John Taylor’s journal “..He said it was the pattern of the garment given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and it all had a sacred meaning....This pattern was given to Joseph Smith by TWO heavenly beings.”

 

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, DispensatorMysteriorum said:

I disagree. Please see a paper I wrote on this topic published here: https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/FMPapers_2.pdf

Hi Andrew, 

I enjoyed your paper, but unfortunately we are still short on substance. I of course don't know, but I suspect that the mysteries Christ taught were pertaining to the Father, rather than a covenant intended for the whole church like our endowment ceremony. How does the Church lose something all the members are expected to do? But, even saying that I feel a little silly given that so many modern Christians deny the importance of baptism. However, clearly Paul/the apostles understood that some truths would be lost, because He said the heavens must receive Christ until the restoration of all things in The Acts. Clearly, baptism for the dead was one of those things. However, trying to say something specific about our own endowment rite here I think is misguided. I don't believe the Church understands the full ramifications of this rite yet, so I really doubt anything like it was done 2000 years ago. It is really intended for our modern restored Church to be guided into the millennium.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Discussing the Endowment:
 
 
Quote
 

"Bro[ther] Joseph [Smith] turned to me [Brigham Young] and said: “Brother Brigham this is not arranged right, but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this mat[t]er in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.” I did so and each time I got something more; so that when we went through the Temple at Nauvoo, I understood and knew how to place them there. We had our ceremonies pretty correct."

 

The whole article might be useful to your study:

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N04_35.pdf

 
Edit: formatting on mobile isn’t my friend! The quote should end after “...correct.”
Edited by canard78
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/25/2018 at 12:53 PM, 10THAmendment said:

Joseph Smith's main source for the temple ceremony was the Freemason ceremony. When you look into it, there isn't that much room for revelation after you separate what isn't Masonic in the temple. All the tokens, the apron, the new name, the garment symbols, the mallet, etc are all purely Masonic. 

That is like saying temple chairs and tables are the same as masonic chairs and tables.

The meanings are entirely different.  All of life is made from carbon hydrogen oxygen and nitrogen, but amoebae are not elephants.

Same elements, different everything else.

There is the PRESENTATION  of the endowment and then the endowment itself.

Yes there are similarities in the PRESENTATION.  Yes essentially it is in the language of masonry but it does not say the same things in that language any more than French is English because we use the same alphabet.

All the early Brethren were masons and none left the church because the endowment presentation was like Masonry.

If they didn't care why should we??  It would have been totally obvious to them of course!!

We treat this as some kind of secret that Joseph stole it from Masonry!  How ridiculous!!

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm particularly impressed by John Welch's presentation here, on the Temple in the Sermon on the Mount.

http://www.templestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/MormonismAndTheTemple.pdf

As he mentions, this study began with 3 Nephi.  His book on Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount is essential reading, I think, even though the 2012 study takes many things much much further.  And it is always neglected by those who try to portray the LDS temple as deriving from Masony.  If 3 Nephi 8-29 is a very complete Endowment, then the Masonic ties are cosmetic rather than central, and developments in Nauvoo are catching up to 1829 rather than a reconstruction that departs from LDS beginnings.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/25/2018 at 1:53 PM, 10THAmendment said:

Joseph Smith's main source for the temple ceremony was the Freemason ceremony. When you look into it, there isn't that much room for revelation after you separate what isn't Masonic in the temple. All the tokens, the apron, the new name, the garment symbols, the mallet, etc are all purely Masonic. 

John chapter 21 tells the story of how the apostles spent the night fishing, but caught nothing.  Then Christ appears to them and tells them where to cast the net.  The catch was so great that they were "not able to draw it for the multitude of the fishes." 

Same boat.  Same fisherman. Same net. Different result.  The difference was that direction given by the Savior.

We can think of the temple ceremony in the same way.  You can find everything in the temple somewhere else if you look hard enough.  The difference is the purpose, the priesthood authority, and the direction given by the Lord, through revelation, in establishing His temples.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/25/2018 at 12:53 PM, 10THAmendment said:

Joseph Smith's main source for the temple ceremony was the Freemason ceremony. When you look into it, there isn't that much room for revelation after you separate what isn't Masonic in the temple. All the tokens, the apron, the new name, the garment symbols, the mallet, etc are all purely Masonic. 

Although several have responded to this, I thought I would add a few more thoughts.

What you are doing is like saying the Satanic Church is really Christian because it adopted the Christian symbol of the upside down pentagram, and added a goat to it. Does that really make Satanism Christian?

I think clearly what happened is that Joseph Smith went to a Masonic Lodge, and felt inspired about certain things they did as being part of covenant the Lord wished for His Church. I have been inspired by certain things in the world. Is something wrong with that? Maybe he thought that Masons would make good Church members.

Lastly, I think out of the 4 different rites performed in the Church temples, only one, the endowment, has any connection with masonry whatsoever. I will join with the comments of several others that the endowment ceremony is not Masonic. The apron has a clear gospel purpose, which is to teach things of Genesis - and Adam and Eve. The new name is not Masonic either, but is a symbolic thing for Revelation 3:12. I am not a Mason, but I don't think but maybe 5% of the words come from a masonic background. Almost everything is scriptural, and can be found in the Bible. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Lastly, I think out of the 4 different rites performed in the Church temples, only one, the endowment, has any connection with masonry whatsoever. I will join with the comments of several others that the endowment ceremony is not Masonic. The apron has a clear gospel purpose, which is to teach things of Genesis - and Adam and Eve. The new name is not Masonic either, but is a symbolic thing for Revelation 3:12. I am not a Mason, but I don't think but maybe 5% of the words come from a masonic background. Almost everything is scriptural, and can be found in the Bible. 

The meanings are quite as divorced from masonry as some suggest. But the reason it's seen as masonic is because the key elements/symbols of the rite (as opposed to the narrative and teaching) pretty well are exactly as in masonry.

Now I'd say that's because they're primarily placeholders for the real thing. We're endowed to become something but not endowed as something. So the endowment is purely preparatory. The symbols and names just are not the real symbols and names.

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

If 3 Nephi 8-29 is a very complete Endowment, then the Masonic ties are cosmetic rather than central, and developments in Nauvoo are catching up to 1829 rather than a reconstruction that departs from LDS beginnings.

I'm not sure we can say the ties are merely cosmetic and not central. Part of that is missing a lot of the overall masonic thought. Again though the signs and tokens are pretty much standard masonry. i.e. not part of the further royal arch although that plays a bigger part into the endowment.

I don't deny it hews closer to the Old Testament in some ways. But I think if you think of it as giving certain "passwords" then one can't downplay the masonic connection. If one thinks of it primarily as ethical teaching, akin to a medieval everyman play, then one sees the significance quite differently. So it's hard to say how significant the parallels are without first asking what's significant to a person in the endowment as opposed to what's in general scripture.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/25/2018 at 2:53 PM, 10THAmendment said:

Joseph Smith's main source for the temple ceremony was the Freemason ceremony. When you look into it, there isn't that much room for revelation after you separate what isn't Masonic in the temple. All the tokens, the apron, the new name, the garment symbols, the mallet, etc are all purely Masonic. 

Yes, that's true. Even the idea of putting Masonry back into the Garden of Eden is an idea that comes from Masons contemporary to Joseph Smith. But, I don't think it's JUST that. It's also a vehicle for teaching Mormon theology.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/29/2018 at 12:07 PM, RevTestament said:

Although several have responded to this, I thought I would add a few more thoughts.

What you are doing is like saying the Satanic Church is really Christian because it adopted the Christian symbol of the upside down pentagram, and added a goat to it. Does that really make Satanism Christian?

I think clearly what happened is that Joseph Smith went to a Masonic Lodge, and felt inspired about certain things they did as being part of covenant the Lord wished for His Church. I have been inspired by certain things in the world. Is something wrong with that? Maybe he thought that Masons would make good Church members.

Lastly, I think out of the 4 different rites performed in the Church temples, only one, the endowment, has any connection with masonry whatsoever. I will join with the comments of several others that the endowment ceremony is not Masonic. The apron has a clear gospel purpose, which is to teach things of Genesis - and Adam and Eve. The new name is not Masonic either, but is a symbolic thing for Revelation 3:12. I am not a Mason, but I don't think but maybe 5% of the words come from a masonic background. Almost everything is scriptural, and can be found in the Bible. 

 

There are elements of the temple ceremony in almost every culture, scattered all over the world, in places Joseph wouldn't have had access to.

The skeptic says Joseph formulated the endowment using these as a jumping off point. 

The  believer says these shared elements were disseminated throughout the earth from the original form which Joseph did his best to restore.

Where someone lands on the origin depends on where they start.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

There are elements of the temple ceremony in almost every culture, scattered all over the world, in places Joseph wouldn't have had access to.

The skeptic says Joseph formulated the endowment using these as a jumping off point. 

The  believer says these shared elements were disseminated throughout the earth from the original form which Joseph did his best to restore.

Where someone lands on the origin depends on where they start.

I don't view the endowment as something gathered from all over the world. Nor do I view the initial endowment as perfect. Someone I think on a different thread quoted Brigham Young as reporting that Joseph Smith told him the endowment was not perfect, but that the pieces still needed to be fit together. This tells me it was not the result of some word for word revelation. It was something Joseph Smith realized the Lord wanted, but he didn't know exactly how to put together. I believe Brigham Young did a decent job, of framing that work, but I don't believe he did it perfectly either. Nevertheless, I agree with the elements he added which are still in the endowment, and feel the Church has largely departed from the teaching. The Church does not seem to believe that Adam nor anyone else came from a different world to this one. That is some kind of sacrilege for Pete's sake to believe what has happened here happened before. Oh, no. We only do this once, and from here on out our progression is morphed into having some kind of spirit babies, which will go to worlds to learn that Christ died for them only on this world in the history of the Universe, and their gospel has to be taught from prophets on our world. This is the state to which the mysteries of God are reduced. 

I see the mysteries of God in our endowment, but not in Church teaching. I don't call for a return to the original form of endowment, but I do call for a return to the original teachings of Joseph Smith. I see the Lord as moving the endowment to where He wants it - even if Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young, nor even the present Church fully understands it. I have no doubt it will change more in the future. Nevertheless, you may be happy to know that I do not outright reject BY. I think the Church should take his insights more seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, that's true. Even the idea of putting Masonry back into the Garden of Eden is an idea that comes from Masons contemporary to Joseph Smith. But, I don't think it's JUST that. It's also a vehicle for teaching Mormon theology.

Yup. The tyler in the 19th century was already seen as equivalent to the angel guarding the way to the Garden of Eden. While the tyler was also seen as originating out of practical masonry as a person who literally applies tiles in construction this angelic overtone was also part of things. In the early endowment in Nauvoo during the endowment there was a tyler figure guarding the endowment. (Without checking I think Wilford Woodruff played that role at times but I could be misremembering) That became less essential to the Utah endowment to the point that the role of the tyler is now basically the guy who checks you before you get on the escalator to ensure you've done the preliminary steps.

This shift to seeing the tyler as supernatural is well in place by the 18th century. If the tyler has this angelic tie to the Garden of Eden then their role guarding the masonic temple draws an obvious connection. 

Around the time of Joseph Smith there were numerous books on masonry claiming that its origins went to the Garden of Eden or before. Further they also associated masonic clothing with the story of Adam getting his garments. There were also common claims of it originating in the temple of Solomon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I don't view the endowment as something gathered from all over the world. Nor do I view the initial endowment as perfect. Someone I think on a different thread quoted Brigham Young as reporting that Joseph Smith told him the endowment was not perfect, but that the pieces still needed to be fit together. This tells me it was not the result of some word for word revelation. It was something Joseph Smith realized the Lord wanted, but he didn't know exactly how to put together. I believe Brigham Young did a decent job, of framing that work, but I don't believe he did it perfectly either. Nevertheless, I agree with the elements he added which are still in the endowment, and feel the Church has largely departed from the teaching. The Church does not seem to believe that Adam nor anyone else came from a different world to this one. That is some kind of sacrilege for Pete's sake to believe what has happened here happened before. Oh, no. We only do this once, and from here on out our progression is morphed into having some kind of spirit babies, which will go to worlds to learn that Christ died for them only on this world in the history of the Universe, and their gospel has to be taught from prophets on our world. This is the state to which the mysteries of God are reduced. 

I see the mysteries of God in our endowment, but not in Church teaching. I don't call for a return to the original form of endowment, but I do call for a return to the original teachings of Joseph Smith. I see the Lord as moving the endowment to where He wants it - even if Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young, nor even the present Church fully understands it. I have no doubt it will change more in the future. Nevertheless, you may be happy to know that I do not outright reject BY. I think the Church should take his insights more seriously. 

So...if the endowment isn't perfect...or pieces missing..how is it relevant in covenant and sealings??  Why would God not reveal to Joseph and again to Brigham those pieces of a full endowment?  I sound crazy I know...but I don't understand how this works even if I was still a member.  Why is there still so much guess work for all of you in the church?

Edited by Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

So...if the endowment isn't perfect...or pieces missing..how is it relevant in covenant and sealings??  Why would God not reveal to Joseph and again to Brigham those pieces of a full endowment?  I sound crazy I know...but I don't understand how this works even if I was still a member.  Why is there still so much guess work for all of you in the church?

What am I guessing about Jeanne? All I'm saying is that the endowment contains secrets which the Church has not fully appreciated nor understood. How do you create something you do not understand? I don't think the Church at the time was meant to fully understand it - just like I don't believe it has fully understood the scriptures it does have. Does that mean the scriptures were not given by the Lord? That He has not repeated His teachings over and over again waiting for us dummies to finally get it?

Do you claim to fully understand God? or do you confess a little guess work has been involved?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

What am I guessing about Jeanne? All I'm saying is that the endowment contains secrets which the Church has not fully appreciated nor understood. How do you create something you do not understand? I don't think the Church at the time was meant to fully understand it - just like I don't believe it has fully understood the scriptures it does have. Does that mean the scriptures were not given by the Lord? That He has not repeated His teachings over and over again waiting for us dummies to finally get it?

Do you claim to fully understand God? or do you confess a little guess work has been involved?

You are right.  Like, I shouldn't haven't even asked when I have only been in the Temple twice.  I sure don't claim anything...I am just a peon with a question.  Sorry I asked..and I shouldn't have.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

So...if the endowment isn't perfect...or pieces missing..how is it relevant in covenant and sealings??  Why would God not reveal to Joseph and again to Brigham those pieces of a full endowment?  I sound crazy I know...but I don't understand how this works even if I was still a member.  Why is there still so much guess work for all of you in the church?

I'm not guessing.

We have two (at least) scriptural records of God giving endowments to prophets through vision: Abraham and Moses/Genesis.

Those records have subtle differences because they were the written records of men describing visionary experiences.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that Joseph  (and later delegated to Brigham) had to determine the best way to present these things to the general membership.  I AM very bothered by many of the changes to sacred elements by the Church in the past century, but the changes simply in presentation are completely understandable.

Unless God gives every individual a Genesis/Moses/Abraham experience then presentation is going to have its flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/25/2018 at 10:17 AM, clarkgoble said:

 the actual realization of the endowment

What I have come to understand at this time (thus far), is that the keys we receive in the temple allow us to unlock, unfold, and realize our real endowment, which is what we are being given in this lifetime.  This lifetime IS the 'real' endowment.  But what we receive in the temple helps us engage with this experience in a way that we can transform (to become).

Edited by Maidservant
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

What I have come to understand at this time (thus far), is that the keys we receive in the temple allow us to unlock, unfold, and realize are real endowment, which is what we are being given in this lifetime.  This lifetime IS the 'real' endowment.  But what we receive in the temple helps us engage with this experience in a way that we can transform (to become).

This is more true than you may realize.  And not in some esoteric way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

You are right.  Like, I shouldn't haven't even asked when I have only been in the Temple twice.  I sure don't claim anything...I am just a peon with a question.  Sorry I asked..and I shouldn't have.

Sorry Jeanne, I realize I was I was being a little defensive. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Maidservant said:

What I have come to understand at this time (thus far), is that the keys we receive in the temple allow us to unlock, unfold, and realize are real endowment, which is what we are being given in this lifetime.  This lifetime IS the 'real' endowment.  But what we receive in the temple helps us engage with this experience in a way that we can transform (to become).

I think more or less what I'm saying is that there are two classes of keys. So I agree with you but those weren't the keys I was addressing. I'm not really willing to get more explicit than that given the nature of the endowment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...