There's more endowment?

[Maidservant]

Has anyone else besides me ever considered that the further stories in Genesis (for example, Noah) are the framework for further portions of temple instruction? (That we do not now have, generally speaking.)

[Stargazer]

Interesting thought, but it doesn't seem likely.

I kind of think we have enough endowment, as it is. Living up to that is sufficient challenge, I think.

[Calm]

I don't know if it will be through an addition to the Endowment or something else, but it would seem there are many principles of the Gospel we have yet to learn given what Joseph Smith has said (quoting just in case I don't have the full quote in my sig, can't remember):

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 268)."

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

Edited August 17, 2017 by Calm

[The Nehor]

It is in the special extended edition with all the deleted scenes.

 

Seriously, no. I am sure the presentation has changed a lot since the dawn of time and other elements may have been in there in other dispensations but not now.

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is in the special extended edition with all the deleted scenes.

 

Seriously, no. I am sure the presentation has changed a lot since the dawn of time and other elements may have been in there in other dispensations but not now.

It used to be a few hours long, back in Brigham's day.  Since I was endowed back in 1972 there have been few changes.

[cdowis]

I believe it was Nibley who expressed the Creation account was indeed a temple drama, rather than a literal description of the creation.

[Maidservant]

29 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I believe it was Nibley who expressed the Creation account was indeed a temple drama, rather than a literal description of the creation.

Yes.  This is what I accept as well.  It's just that in my own reading, it has gotten stronger and stronger over the years that the same could be said of the remainder of the progression of the (Genesis) scenarios and why they are presented and what they present.  For example, they are not moral/ethical tales (in my understanding).  There is some other reason for the imagery and themes.

I even find it telling that the Bible entire begins in a Garden and ends in a Holy City (Revelation).  Sometimes I do not think that mirroring is an accident, and that the progression of the entire Bible speaks deeply of the progression required of mankind in ways that are not evident in a surface reading.

[HappyJackWagon]

For anyone interested in the development of temple worship (Spoiler alert: It has changed a LOT since 1840's) then Devery Anderson's Development of LDS Temple Worship is a must read.

https://www.amazon.com/Development-LDS-Temple-Worship-1846-2000/dp/1560852119

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Maidservant said:

Yes.  This is what I accept as well.  It's just that in my own reading, it has gotten stronger and stronger over the years that the same could be said of the remainder of the progression of the (Genesis) scenarios and why they are presented and what they present.  For example, they are not moral/ethical tales (in my understanding).  There is some other reason for the imagery and themes.

I even find it telling that the Bible entire begins in a Garden and ends in a Holy City (Revelation).  Sometimes I do not think that mirroring is an accident, and that the progression of the entire Bible speaks deeply of the progression required of mankind in ways that are not evident in a surface reading.

I tend to agree with the position you have stated yet do not think additions to the endowment would be required. I find the temple ordinances to be an opportunity to further or expand our covenants with our Father in Heaven.  In doing so, disciples of Christ choose to open their hearts further, wider to following God.  It is far more about our willingness to actively serve him and follow after him. 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

I believe it was Nibley who expressed the Creation account was indeed a temple drama, rather than a literal description of the creation.

Non-Mormon papers that makes this point:  

http://www.ocabs.org/journal/index.php/jocabs/article/viewFile/43/18

http://www.blackhawkchurch.org/archive/sermon_resources/walton.pdf

http://www.iscast.org/journal/opinion/Jacobs_G_2013-01_Temple_Theology.pdf

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/48/48-1/48-1-pp005-031_JETS.pdf

 

[Maidservant]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I tend to agree with the position you have stated yet do not think additions to the endowment would be required. I find the temple ordinances to be an opportunity to further or expand our covenants with our Father in Heaven.  In doing so, disciples of Christ choose to open their hearts further, wider to following God.  It is far more about our willingness to actively serve him and follow after him. 

This makes sense.  I guess my thinking is not necessarily about requirement.  I would say (as you seem to have as well) that it isn't as much of what we know, as who we are and what we choose to do.

I also ought to say that in my view the 'real' endowment is not in the (building) temple, but it is in the 'body' temple we each have, and in the 'earth' temple we have are now in.  That is, our endowment is unfolded to us in the course of our earth life, but the (building) temple endowment (among other things such as the scriptures) gives us keys to unlock that endowment.  So in that sense, it is not about doing 'enough', but to simply always be on the road that leads ever onward to our overcoming (D&C 76).  So I would then say that in Genesis there are specific steps in that opportunity to overcome, that might be nice to know. Not that people don't arrive at that knowledge by other means (experience, revelation, the endowment as it now is, etc) and thus the specific devices in Genesis aren't ultimately necessary. But . . . still thinking through it.  We'll see.

[mnn727]

13 hours ago, Maidservant said:

Has anyone else besides me ever considered that the further stories in Genesis (for example, Noah) are the framework for further portions of temple instruction? (That we do not now have, generally speaking.)

On my first trip to the Temple I thought that we would go through each of the dispensations one after the other, after about 45 minutes I was hoping each wouldn't take that long. (This was many years and many temple trips ago)

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

I believe it was Nibley who expressed the Creation account was indeed a temple drama, rather than a literal description of the creation.

There is no way it could be a literal description of the creation, at least beginning with last chapter, in the Garden of Eden. For example, one does not shake hands with unresurrected spirits.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For anyone interested in the development of temple worship (Spoiler alert: It has changed a LOT since 1840's) then Devery Anderson's Development of LDS Temple Worship is a must read.

https://www.amazon.com/Development-LDS-Temple-Worship-1846-2000/dp/1560852119

I was aware that there had been many changes, but reading the book's description on Amazon was in itself educational! I thought that I would not wish to read a book about the temple which was written to be antagonistic, but the description says "...historian Devery S. Anderson has brought together a comprehensive collection of official documents on temple ceremonies, limited only by what would be inappropriate to discuss publicly."  As the favorable comments on the book seem to be from faithful LDS, I decided to buy the Kindle edition.  I'll read it later when I get some time!

Thanks, HJW, for posting this!

[Maidservant]

4 hours ago, mnn727 said:

On my first trip to the Temple I thought that we would go through each of the dispensations one after the other, after about 45 minutes I was hoping each wouldn't take that long. (This was many years and many temple trips ago)

Very, very interesting, hmmm.

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There is no way it could be a literal description of the creation, at least beginning with last chapter, in the Garden of Eden. For example, one does not shake hands with unresurrected spirits.

There is nothing in the scriptural creation accounts about shaking hands. 

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, cdowis said:

I believe it was Nibley who expressed the Creation account was indeed a temple drama, rather than a literal description of the creation.

I agree with him.  Moses is taken onto a mount and shown a vision of the Creation.
Abraham is taken and shown a vision of the Creation.
 

Sounds like the Endowment to me...

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There is no way it could be a literal description of the creation, at least beginning with last chapter, in the Garden of Eden. For example, one does not shake hands with unresurrected spirits.

Yet somehow Jacob managed to physically "wrestle" with an angel before Christ's resurrection.
Somebody had a physical body and presence sufficient to put a hip out of joint.

Of course that depends on what we think wrestle means...

[Calm]

Or "angel".

[mfbukowski]

On 8/16/2017 at 8:24 PM, Maidservant said:

Has anyone else besides me ever considered that the further stories in Genesis (for example, Noah) are the framework for further portions of temple instruction? (That we do not now have, generally speaking.)

I have asked two temple presidents so far about a second endowment- if it exists, and both have said they know nothing about it.  I believe them.

Will more be revealed?  I think it is known that there WILL of necessity be more revelation because we do not have needed ordinances yet- like the keys to resurrection etc.

But I think you are not asking that question?  Like maybe we are to liken the story of Noah to us in the same way we relate the Adam and Eve story?

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have asked two temple presidents so far about a second endowment- if it exists, and both have said they know nothing about it.  I believe them.

Will more be revealed?  I think it is known that there WILL of necessity be more revelation because we do not have needed ordinances yet- like the keys to resurrection etc.

But I think you are not asking that question?  Like maybe we are to liken the story of Noah to us in the same way we relate the Adam and Eve story?

Jolhn Dehilin and others have spoken about these Second Anointings with great glee, but the notion that one cannot apostatize after receiving them is just nonsense.

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Or "angel".

Someone from the city of Zion, perhaps.

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jolhn Dehilin and others have spoken about these Second Anointings with great glee, but the notion that one cannot apostatize after receiving them is just nonsense.

The issue is obviously not apostasy but the consequences thereof.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have asked two temple presidents so far about a second endowment- if it exists, and both have said they know nothing about it.  I believe them.

Will more be revealed?  I think it is known that there WILL of necessity be more revelation because we do not have needed ordinances yet- like the keys to resurrection etc.

But I think you are not asking that question?  Like maybe we are to liken the story of Noah to us in the same way we relate the Adam and Eve story?

The 2nd anointing is sometimes called the 2nd endowment. Is that what you were asking about?

If so, there seems to be plenty of historical documentation to show that it does exist and was practiced regularly in the past. Knowledge of the current use of the 2nd anointing/endowment relies on less reliable sources yet it seems clear to me that it is a continuing practice, though on a much smaller scale.

I find it very hard to believe that a temple president wouldn't be aware of this. IIRC those who receive it covenant never to discuss it. If that is accurate, then it would be really hard to trust a temple president who likely had received it since he would likely be one of the officiators in the ordinance when it occurs in that particular temple.

[Maidservant]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have asked two temple presidents so far about a second endowment- if it exists, and both have said they know nothing about it.  I believe them.

Will more be revealed?  I think it is known that there WILL of necessity be more revelation because we do not have needed ordinances yet- like the keys to resurrection etc.

But I think you are not asking that question?  Like maybe we are to liken the story of Noah to us in the same way we relate the Adam and Eve story?

Well, yes, I guess I should be more clear.  I am not necessarily thinking that there needs to be something more produced here in the latter-days--although wouldn't that be super cool, although as someone mentioned we can't even live the first one.  I guess I have in the back of my mind the moment when the persons who put together the Old Testament (long about 600 bce?), what they understood and were thinking when they included Genesis, and I am saying, it is entirely temple drama, from the first word to the last.  Now, a second question would be, did they understand it that way at that point, or were they simply dealing with ancient records or ideas of which they did not.

But that's the back of the mind.

The front of the mind is--I consider that the Adam and Eve initiation (which we present currently in our temples as the only endowment) to be a MAP for PROGRESSION.  And I am saying, what if the rest of Genesis is the rest of the map?  There's more map!

 

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yet somehow Jacob managed to physically "wrestle" with an angel before Christ's resurrection.
Somebody had a physical body and presence sufficient to put a hip out of joint.

Of course that depends on what we think wrestle means...

This is a perfect example of a node on the map of progression as given in Genesis:  the wrestle with the angel before receiving the blessing.  It's something we all need to know, all pass through, and it is delivered in that template (now called Genesis).

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jolhn Dehilin and others have spoken about these Second Anointings with great glee, but the notion that one cannot apostatize after receiving them is just nonsense.

Yea, I am not speaking of the Second Anointing at all.  Also a super cool subject, but another one for another thread.  Not sure if it is to be characterized as part of the progression map, as I simply know nothing about its content at all.