New Revelations in the Last Days and Restored Truths

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like you believe in religious evolution.  However, Mandaeans do have marriage sealing ceremonies for men & women, and the Coptic Orthodox seal with Myrrh oil for Confirmation.  The Gospel of Philip has a complete initiation, including (1) baptism by  immersion, (2) chrism-anointing, (3)  eucharist-thanks, (4) sote-ransom-redemption-salvation, and (5) bridal chamber/koiton = Holy of Holies.  Such rites of passage were normal throughout the ancient world -- see H. Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment (SLC: Deseret, 1975).  Even in the Bible we find similar rites:  washing, anointing, clothing, entering Temple proper (2 Sam 12:20, Ruth 3:3, Ex 29:4-11).  Cf. the three-level initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries at Eleusis, about 14 miles west of Athens,^[1] and which, according to Plato, entailed the “proper rituals and sacrifices by means of which one obtained absolution from one’s own and one’s ancestors sins.”^[2]

These are very interesting, thanks for providing.  I do think evolution of religious ideas is the best explanation for most teachings, that makes the most sense to me based on my reading of history and observations of human nature.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  Just the opposite is the case.  There is superabundant evidence of Mormon claims being ancient, but you need to articulate which items you take issue with -- since you are so vague about it here.  For example, non-Mormon scholar Ernst Benz has said of the Mormon doctrine of apotheosis:

The biggest example would be the temple rituals which I haven’t seen any compelling evidence were part of the early Christian tradition.  

For every Mormon doctrine that has some ancient parallel, however closely or loosely it seems to mirror a current teaching, there are a multitude of other ancient practices that haven’t been restored.  If Mormonism wants to claim restoration of ancient practices shouldn’t it restore every ancient practice?  It seems like proponents of the ancient parallels just have to keep searching until they find some evidence somewhere in some civilization in the history of the world that practiced something similar and this is proof that the restoration of that teaching is valid.  I don’t buy it.  

 

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m just saying that when the church makes a claim such as, Adam & Eve practiced a religious ritual in the same manner as how it’s practiced in Mormonism, then their ought to be some actual evidence to support a claim of ancient practice that mirrors the modern one.  

 

Read this link: https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2016/05/25/case-ancient-temple-ordinances

I don’t think the church claims a carbon-copy.

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m just saying that when the church makes a claim such as, Adam & Eve practiced a religious ritual in the same manner as how it’s practiced in Mormonism, then their ought to be some actual evidence to support a claim of ancient practice that mirrors the modern one.  

 

Where would be the fun in that? When Enoch summoned Leviathan to consume his enemies and the keys to control Leviathan have been restored why do we have to prove that Enoch also used it to devour an entire continent?

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Read this link: https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2016/05/25/case-ancient-temple-ordinances

I don’t think the church claims a carbon-copy.

This is an example of the loose parallel comparisons I was talking about earlier.  

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Where would be the fun in that? When Enoch summoned Leviathan to consume his enemies and the keys to control Leviathan have been restored why do we have to prove that Enoch also used it to devour an entire continent?

I hope I see the day that those keys are restored, sounds like a blockbuster summer movie in the making.  

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The biggest example would be the temple rituals which I haven’t seen any compelling evidence were part of the early Christian tradition.

I gave you several examples, and there are many more in Nibley's Message book, which I cited (see his appendix for a bunch of them), but you had no comment in response.  There are many more online at http://fortydayministry.com/ , which I had a hand in creating.  You might want to read Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures, which provides just such rites of initiation (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm ).  Of course, if you have an apriori disbelief in any of that, you will simply wave it aside without even considering the evidence.  See especially non-Mormon scholar Hugh M. Riley, Christian Initiation: A Comparative Study in the Mystagogical Writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ambrose of Milan, Catholic University of America Studies in Christian Antiquity 17 (Wash., DC: Consortium, 1974).

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For every Mormon doctrine that has some ancient parallel, however closely or loosely it seems to mirror a current teaching, there are a multitude of other ancient practices that haven’t been restored.  If Mormonism wants to claim restoration of ancient practices shouldn’t it restore every ancient practice?  It seems like proponents of the ancient parallels just have to keep searching until they find some evidence somewhere in some civilization in the history of the world that practiced something similar and this is proof that the restoration of that teaching is valid.  I don’t buy it.  

You sound like someone who believes in the call to perfection fallacy, and would soon claim that we must obey the prophet Noah and build us an ark today, even though many such divine commands are time-bound or condition-bound and no longer apply today.  Next you will also demand that we restore physical circumcision, instead of circumcision of the heart (Jer 4:4, Col 2:11-12).  Not knowing or believing the Gospel, you can't fathom what the Restoration is.  You think very much like the Sadducees and Pharisees, who demanded that Jesus obey this or that commandment, yet missed the point entirely. 

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I gave you several examples, and there are many more in Nibley's Message book, which I cited (see his appendix for a bunch of them), but you had no comment in response.  There are many more online at http://fortydayministry.com/ , which I had a hand in creating.  You might want to read Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures, which provides just such rites of initiation (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm ).  Of course, if you have an apriori disbelief in any of that, you will simply wave it aside without even considering the evidence.  See especially non-Mormon scholar Hugh M. Riley, Christian Initiation: A Comparative Study in the Mystagogical Writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ambrose of Milan, Catholic University of America Studies in Christian Antiquity 17 (Wash., DC: Consortium, 1974).

It’s not an a priori disbelief on my part, I’ll follow evidence if I find it compelling and substantive.   Nibley’s work hasn’t persuaded me.  I could look through those other links too, and in fairness I probably should, I just don’t expect to find anything new or paradigm shifting, I expect to find more loose parallels and stretching of evidence to try and fit a particular construct.  These things tire me, and go against the paradigms that I’m currently operating under for how religions evolve.  

You could say ahah, see that’s exactly the kind of a priori belief I’m talking about.  But I would say this is precisely how the scientists who are now accepting a new paradigm about ancient American populations are operating under.  They shifted their paradigm when the weight of actual strong evidence compelled them to.   If strong evidence for ancient origins of modern Mormon rituals actually emerges then I will be forced to reconsider and shift my paradigm along with the evidence.  

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You sound like someone who believes in the call to perfection fallacy, and would soon claim that we must obey the prophet Noah and build us an ark today, even though many such divine commands are time-bound or condition-bound and no longer apply today.  Next you will also demand that we restore physical circumcision, instead of circumcision of the heart (Jer 4:4, Col 2:11-12).  Not knowing or believing the Gospel, you can't fathom what the Restoration is.  You think very much like the Sadducees and Pharisees, who demanded that Jesus obey this or that commandment, yet missed the point entirely. 

You misunderstand me completely, I’m not calling for perfection or anything like that and I wouldn’t ever promote the ideas of restoring these ancient practices and beliefs, that’s nonsense.  I think that Joseph was influenced by contemporaries like Rigdon on this whole idea of restoration.  It was an idea that supported his claims for authority and legitimacy.  I personally don’t find it a persuasive theological construct either in the early Christian movement or in early Mormonism and I certainly don’t think it’s central to the gospel message that I find inspirational.  

I don’t find the evidence for actual ancient restoration compelling historically or theologically.  That’s why earlier I suggested a better and more accurate construct would be a restitution of inspired principles.  It’s an important distinction to me, and it removes the need for actual evidence (even if something is ancient that doesn’t make it moral or inspirational).  

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You misunderstand me completely, I’m not calling for perfection or anything like that and I wouldn’t ever promote the ideas of restoring these ancient practices and beliefs, that’s nonsense.  I think that Joseph was influenced by contemporaries like Rigdon on this whole idea of restoration.  It was an idea that supported his claims for authority and legitimacy.  I personally don’t find it a persuasive theological construct either in the early Christian movement or in early Mormonism and I certainly don’t think it’s central to the gospel message that I find inspirational.  

I don’t find the evidence for actual ancient restoration compelling historically or theologically.  That’s why earlier I suggested a better and more accurate construct would be a restitution of inspired principles.  It’s an important distinction to me, and it removes the need for actual evidence (even if something is ancient that doesn’t make it moral or inspirational).  

I wasn't suggesting that you wanted to Restore all things in the absolute sense, but I was holding up a mirror to you of your ridiculous suggestion that, if a Restoration occurred as claimed by the Mormons, then wny did it not include real historical items en banc?  I reduced your claim to the absurd (reductio ad absurdum) by discussing the actual nature of the LDS restoration -- and placing it in a biblical context.

However, you are certainly correct that Rigdon came from a restorationist background and organization (headed by Alexander Campbell and others).  However, the true nature of Mormon Restorationism was wholly different, including priesthood authority and a liturgical -sacramental depth which is completely foreign to any other American Restoration group or ideal.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s not an a priori disbelief on my part, I’ll follow evidence if I find it compelling and substantive.   Nibley’s work hasn’t persuaded me.  I could look through those other links too, and in fairness I probably should, I just don’t expect to find anything new or paradigm shifting, I expect to find more loose parallels and stretching of evidence to try and fit a particular construct.  These things tire me, and go against the paradigms that I’m currently operating under for how religions evolve.  

There are a range of theories of religion -- what it is, how it originates and develops, etc.  These various explanations of religion are really beliefs masquerading as science (which is the gist of the penetrating comments of Prof. Bennetta Jules-Rosette, whose astonishing 1978 article I cited for you -- I have never been quite the same since reading it in 1978).  I think that the most successful way to deal with religion is to study it phenomenologically, which is what non-Mormon scholar Jan Shipps did with Mormonism.  Yes, that might endanger your extant paradigm, but scholarship by its nature is dangerous.

Quote

You could say ahah, see that’s exactly the kind of a priori belief I’m talking about.  But I would say this is precisely how the scientists who are now accepting a new paradigm about ancient American populations are operating under.  They shifted their paradigm when the weight of actual strong evidence compelled them to.   If strong evidence for ancient origins of modern Mormon rituals actually emerges then I will be forced to reconsider and shift my paradigm along with the evidence.  

When I was young, most astrophysicists accepted Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory, geologists were in the midst of adopting the theory of Plate Tectonics, and Quantum physics was replacing Einsteinian physics.  In those days, J. Eric S. Thompson's could still reject the new theories of the decipherment of Maya hieroglyphs (Thompson was wrong, but the new paradigm would not take full effect until he was dead). Only the specialists have any idea what any of that means, so that your recognition of any such necessary paradigm shift would be delayed by a generation or so -- if it was ever recognized at all.  All such shifts are decades in the making.  So don't expect them to come up and bite you on the rump.  

Edited November 7, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem you'll run into in Mormonism is there are claims that all of these ideas existed anciently without any actual evidence to support those claims.  Just because Joseph or some other modern leader claimed a teaching is a restoration of something ancient doesn't make it so.  They were making these claims as part of a theological articulation of what Mormonism was doing. 

Its like claiming that the modern church is just a carbon copy of how Jesus organized a church during his life, unfortunately there isn't any evidence to show that Jesus did anything of that sort.   

It's worth noting that while I think these things most definitely ancient (and I don't think it's particularly hard to establish ancient parallels) that doesn't mean they were carbon copies. I think much of the endowment takes it's form due to Brigham Young. We know the endowment as done by Joseph prior to Brigham was different. We know that since Brigham various elements have been removed (the Anglican priest with his appeals to platonic claims from the Book of Common Prayer, various masonic elements seen as non-essential such as the five points of fellowship, etc.) Yet we see it as the same endowment.

So when we ask whether these ideas existed anciently it's worth asking what counts as ancient in timeline, and how similar they must be. I rather suspect that like the sacramental prayer in Moroni 5 is different from that in Palestine recorded in the Didiche, that a Nephite endowment would also differ from a Palestinian endowment and likely would differ from our own with it's artifacts of masonry tied to it. In other words the question is what counts as accidental to the rite and what counts as essential?

As I mentioned in the other thread, if the question is just the idea of ascending through degrees of glory where one has to "pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads" by "passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation" then of course there's tons of examples in gnostic, hekhalot, merkabah and apocalyptic texts ranging from 1 & 2 Jeu, the Pistis Sophia, The Gospel of Philips, 3 Enoch, the Sefer Yetziriah, and more.

The idea of sentinels guarding chambers/heavens tied to the seven heavens with symbolic actions along with ritual clothing as a priest is fairly ubiquitous in the old world. We can debate its origins and how much it owes to pagan platonism, to Egyptian religion, to apocalyptic texts and even to traditions from mesopotamia. But that it exists in full form from around the time of Christ up through the 6th century seems pretty uncontroversial.

Of course that doesn't make it authentic Christianity. But it seems "authenticity" isn't something scholars can really answer. Elements of it pre-date Jesus and may well have contributed to his and Paul's environment. Certainly elements are in the Dead Sea Scrolls going back to the time of the oldest strata of 1 Enoch and the book of Daniel. Does it go back earlier? We can't really say - at least with scholarly certainty.

Is it a carbon copy of the contemporary endowment? Almost certainly not. Is it essentially the same? I think so.

Edited November 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

The Church claims that this is a restored truth.

https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

That one is not widely accepted as a legitimate revelation.  For those who do believe in it, I think it is accepted as a restored truth as well.  Certainly it would have been known in the dispensation of Adam anyway 

We teach that the dispensation of the fullness of times was understood in the ancient world and taught by Paul in Ephesians 1:10:

 http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Dispensation_of_the_Fulness_of_Times

I agree.  But that is centered around "restored" truths instead of new light and knowledge reserved for this dispensation only. 

Doesn't restoration make the object of restoration as good as new, or virtually new? It does when we speak in terms of resurrection and divine forgiveness; the same principle can apply to restored truths. And "truth" is "new " only to the recipient receiving it for the first time or with new understanding. The more we come to know, the more we realize we don't yet know, but also realize that others knew it already, or even in retrospect that we knew it at a more basic level.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm unsure what, if any, relevance this might have to the discussion ("Duh!   Then why are you posting it, Ken?"  Touche!)  However, it's from the incomparable Elder Neal A. Maxwell, and no matter what the subject matter or (ir)relevance to the discussion at hand, one cannot go wrong with Elder Maxwell.  So here you go.  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/god-will-yet-reveal?lang=eng.  There's the sealed two-thirds of the Book of Mormon.  There's the Brass Plates.  Books not currently in our canon are quoted or excerpted tantalizingly in books which are currently in our canon.  I don't have a reference, but one/some of the early Brethren was/were shown rooms full of records in visions relating to the Book of Mormon.  President Benson said that the condemnation in the Doctrine & Covenants of the early Saints for "treating lightly the things which [they] had received" (i.e., the Book of Mormon) is still in effect.  We can only expect more when we respond most appropriately to what we have been given.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's worth noting that while I think these things most definitely ancient (and I don't think it's particularly hard to establish ancient parallels) that doesn't mean they were carbon copies. I think much of the endowment takes it's form due to Brigham Young. We know the endowment as done by Joseph prior to Brigham was different. We know that since Brigham various elements have been removed (the Anglican priest with his appeals to platonic claims from the Book of Common Prayer, various masonic elements seen as non-essential such as the five points of fellowship, etc.) Yet we see it as the same endowment.

So when we ask whether these ideas existed anciently it's worth asking what counts as ancient in timeline, and how similar they must be. I rather suspect that like the sacramental prayer in Moroni 5 is different from that in Palestine recorded in the Didiche, that a Nephite endowment would also differ from a Palestinian endowment and likely would differ from our own with it's artifacts of masonry tied to it. In other words the question is what counts as accidental to the rite and what counts as essential?

As I mentioned in the other thread, if the question is just the idea of ascending through degrees of glory where one has to "pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads" by "passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation" then of course there's tons of examples in gnostic, hekhalot, merkabah and apocalyptic texts ranging from 1 & 2 Jeu, the Pistis Sophia, The Gospel of Philips, 3 Enoch, the Sefer Yetziriah, and more.

The idea of sentinels guarding chambers/heavens tied to the seven heavens with symbolic actions along with ritual clothing as a priest is fairly ubiquitous in the old world. We can debate its origins and how much it owes to pagan platonism, to Egyptian religion, to apocalyptic texts and even to traditions from mesopotamia. But that it exists in full form from around the time of Christ up through the 6th century seems pretty uncontroversial.

Of course that doesn't make it authentic Christianity. But it seems "authenticity" isn't something scholars can really answer. Elements of it pre-date Jesus and may well have contributed to his and Paul's environment. Certainly elements are in the Dead Sea Scrolls going back to the time of the oldest strata of 1 Enoch and the book of Daniel. Does it go back earlier? We can't really say - at least with scholarly certainty.

Is it a carbon copy of the contemporary endowment? Almost certainly not. Is it essentially the same? I think so.

The perception based on the rhetoric from church leaders and on the traditional conservative interpretation of what Joseph was doing during the restoration is that very specific ordinances with very specific language was being revealed.  So specific that if any words are uttered incorrectly, they have to be repeated.  Yet, like you mention, major changes to the rituals have happened over time.  Joseph also criticized other Christian groups for making changes to the baptism ritual.  The history of events shows conflicting examples.  

You say this requires us to evaluate what is essential, and I completely agree.  I would also argue that this idea of what is essential will evolve with time, just as it has in the past.  What I would hope is that we could proactively evaluate what is essential, rather than to just do so in response to events.  For example, removing the 5 points of fellowship and the penalties were likely in response to the God Makers, and while I'm glad those things were changed, I just wish the process for why and how they were changed would have been more thoughtful and intentional in a proactive way.  

Lastly, if you want to say that roughly similar parallels satisfies the claim for ancient restoration then you can find similar parallels for just about any religious ritual that someone could possibly imagine.  This seems to be a different standard for calling something a restoration of an ancient practice.  

 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Doesn't restoration make the object of restoration as good as new, or virtually new? It does when we speak in terms of resurrection and divine forgiveness; the same principle can apply to restored truths. And "truth" is "new " only to the recipient receiving it for the first time or with new understanding. The more we come to know, the more we realize we don't yet know, but also realize that others knew it already, or even in retrospect that we knew it at a more basic level.

I think that is a proper understanding of the use of the word "new" in certain cases, such as with the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage".  

However, after doing a little research, I did find some instances where Joseph made it clear that there would be new things that had never been revealed before in any previous dispensation, that would be revealed in this dispensation of the fullness of times.  If we accept these words, then I would be interested in finding out what these new truths are.  Or, are we still waiting for these new truths to be revealed?  Just something to think about, but here are the quotes by Joseph:

Quote

 

On September 6, 1842, the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote the following to the Saints, later recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 128:18: “It is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.”4

“Truly this is a day long to be remembered by the Saints of the last days,—a day in which the God of heaven has begun to restore the ancient order of His kingdom unto His servants and His people,—a day in which all things are concurring to bring about the completion of the fullness of the Gospel, a fullness of the dispensation of dispensations, even the fullness of times; a day in which God has begun to make manifest and set in order in His Church those things which have been, and those things which the ancient prophets and wise men desired to see but died without beholding them; a day in which those things begin to be made manifest, which have been hid from before the foundation of the world, and which Jehovah has promised should be made known in His own due time unto His servants, to prepare the earth for the return of His glory, even a celestial glory, and a kingdom of Priests and kings to God and the Lamb, forever, on Mount Zion.”5

“The dispensation of the fullness of times will bring to light the things that have been revealed in all former dispensations; also other things that have not been before revealed. He shall send Elijah, the Prophet, etc., and restore all things in Christ.”6

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-44?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The perception based on the rhetoric from church leaders and on the traditional conservative interpretation of what Joseph was doing during the restoration is that very specific ordinances with very specific language was being revealed.  So specific that if any words are uttered incorrectly, they have to be repeated.  Yet, like you mention, major changes to the rituals have happened over time.  Joseph also criticized other Christian groups for making changes to the baptism ritual.  The history of events shows conflicting examples. 

I don't think that's correct. Some may have said that but the reason for care on repeating things exactly is to prevent schisms or uninspired innovation. Remember Brigham's comments that were he to have translated the Book of Mormon it would have read differently. Yet the D&C just quotes the Book of Mormon for the sacrament. So I think you're drawing an inference that isn't supported by the data. (Which is not to deny some have arrived at similar conclusions - just that I think such conclusions even if made by a past GA are wrong)

The mere fact that Pres. Hinkley rather openly changed the endowment significantly really argues strongly against what you say. And that's not the only change if you go back to the copies of the endowment we have from the beginning of the 20th century. It simply has changed over the years - in my view by authority and inspiration. Just in my life there have been three major forms of the endowment with slight variations during each phase. (In the 90's the live sessions at SLC varied from the movie version in some key ways keeping some older masonic elements)

 

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You say this requires us to evaluate what is essential, and I completely agree.  I would also argue that this idea of what is essential will evolve with time, just as it has in the past.  What I would hope is that we could proactively evaluate what is essential, rather than to just do so in response to events.  For example, removing the 5 points of fellowship and the penalties were likely in response to the God Makers, and while I'm glad those things were changed, I just wish the process for why and how they were changed would have been more thoughtful and intentional in a proactive way.  

Since we have limited data our conclusions about what is essential may well be incorrect. Further you have different views about the endowment. So even among faithful members you get very different ideas. My own view is that the endowment is an endowment to become a priest and king. It's preparatory to show you what to expect for a future real heavenly ascent where you get the real names and signs. So from my position, while there a ton taught in the endowment and it's an essential rite, most of the signs and tokens are place holders for when we learn the real name of God. But others of course disagree with my view over what is essential and think these are the real elements.

The five points of fellowship were removed because they made women uncomfortable. While I think it's completely understandable I also think it something ancient that the masons had picked up. The masonic meaning was wrong (IMO) but I think it a valuable symbol of the resurrection. The curses I suspect were being misinterpreted although again they are pretty ancient. I don't think it's the Godmakers so much as faithful members not reacting the way older members would have to such things due to cultural changes in the post-war west.

To your final point, again my question is how close something has to be in order to be a parallel? The basic elements of the endowment are ubiquitous in ancient rites. But as you say if you make parallels too broad then anything goes. So I'm asking you what counts as close enough - especially for those of us who think there's still lots of non-essential masonic and other elements in the endowment. After all if on the one hand too broad parallels allow too much, too narrow of a criteria means it's hard to provide any evidence that you'd accept. Indeed you might even say the contemporary endowment with its movies isn't the same endowment from Nauvoo.

But the key elements (signs, tokens, guardians you present to, an ascension to heaven, passing through a veil) all seem present in ancient Jewish and Christian texts. Most intriguing some scholars think the Enochian elements at Qumran were brought there by disgruntled priests from the second temple period when others took over the temple. (Remember the Greek conquest of the temple and the corruption of it) That's rather interesting from a Mormon perspective although not all scholars agree on it.

Edited November 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's correct. Some may have said that but the reason for care on repeating things exactly is to prevent schisms or uninspired innovation. Remember Brigham's comments that were he to have translated the Book of Mormon it would have read differently. Yet the D&C just quotes the Book of Mormon for the sacrament. So I think you're drawing an inference that isn't supported by the data. (Which is not to deny some have arrived at similar conclusions - just that I think such conclusions even if made by a past GA are wrong)

The mere fact that Pres. Hinkley rather openly changed the endowment significantly really argues strongly against what you say. And that's not the only change if you go back to the copies of the endowment we have from the beginning of the 20th century. It simply has changed over the years - in my view by authority and inspiration. Just in my life there have been three major forms of the endowment with slight variations during each phase. (In the 90's the live sessions at SLC varied from the movie version in some key ways keeping some older masonic elements)

I'm talking about how in practice the traditional conservative member interprets the instructions from the church.  Bishop's correct sacrament prayers, witnesses in the temple correcting the words of the ordinance.  What are the reasons for this strict adherence to language, could be the history of schisms plays a part in this idea, but the perception I think is that the words are so important that using the wrong language will somehow invalidate the ordinance.  I think I'm articulating the mainstream member approach.  

I think you're right in saying that most would view the changes to temple rituals as inspired.  Where this comes into conflict is with theological teachings that ancient truths have been restored, and the baptism example I gave seems applicable because Joseph taught that immersion was essential, so the idea that some essentials can't be altered without ever articulating what those essentials are leaves a large gray area, and this has been a point of contention for break away Mormon groups.

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Since we have limited data our conclusions about what is essential may well be incorrect. Further you have different views about the endowment. So even among faithful members you get very different ideas. My own view is that the endowment is an endowment to become a priest and king. It's preparatory to show you what to expect for a future real heavenly ascent where you get the real names and signs. So from my position, while there a ton taught in the endowment and it's an essential rite, most of the signs and tokens are place holders for when we learn the real name of God. But others of course disagree with my view over what is essential and think these are the real elements.

The five points of fellowship were removed because they made women uncomfortable. While I think it's completely understandable I also think it something ancient that the masons had picked up. The masonic meaning was wrong (IMO) but I think it a valuable symbol of the resurrection. The curses I suspect were being misinterpreted although again they are pretty ancient. I don't think it's the Godmakers so much as faithful members not reacting the way older members would have to such things due to cultural changes in the post-war west.

I think what is essential is a subjective question that will be contextual to time and place and we ought to explore it as a religious community and learn to articulate it.  So when you say what is essential may well be incorrect, I would agree with you, and that is why we need to constantly be evaluating the essential in light of new circumstances, information and experiences.  

I don't like the priest and king language, but I can get on board with becoming a more complete person or a more elevated and transformed person.  A lot of the old monarchy language is very patriarchal and I would like to see us move away from it.  I don't take any of this literally, but metaphorically speaking I think there are some real possibilities to work with.  

You seem to be tied to more of a traditionalist approach than I am, but honestly I think if we got together and explored possibilities for changes to the rituals I think we could find much to agree on.  Its just sad to me that church leaders aren't actively having these conversations and including regular members in the process, at least not that I'm aware of.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think that is a proper understanding of the use of the word "new" in certain cases, such as with the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage".  

However, after doing a little research, I did find some instances where Joseph made it clear that there would be new things that had never been revealed before in any previous dispensation, that would be revealed in this dispensation of the fullness of times.  If we accept these words, then I would be interested in finding out what these new truths are.  Or, are we still waiting for these new truths to be revealed?  Just something to think about, but here are the quotes by Joseph:

I think both -- I think the inhabitants of Zion which will join with the new Jerusalem, will have a lot of brand new knowledge to share in the future. But I also think the scientific, economic, educational and other fields in which we see tremendous progress since 1830 are those things "Jehovah has promised should be made known in His own due time... to prepare the earth for the return of His glory." So I consider advancing scientific knowledge and its application as "new truths," in the right hands of course. As to what will be revealed to the prophets in this regard, earlier I mentioned D&C 89 as a good example of a servant of God taking such light that is poured out upon all flesh and taking it to a new level.

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, the true nature of Mormon Restorationism was wholly different, including priesthood authority and a liturgical -sacramental depth which is completely foreign to any other American Restoration group or ideal.

The priesthood authority idea also was influence by Rigdon.  The temple rituals were influenced by Masonry and Old Testament practice.  I agree with you that what developed in Mormonism is uniquely different though, but I'd also point to these other influencing factors as being part of the process.  

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What are the reasons for this strict adherence to language, could be the history of schisms plays a part in this idea, but the perception I think is that the words are so important that using the wrong language will somehow invalidate the ordinance.  I think I'm articulating the mainstream member approach.  

To the degree the ordinance is under the keys of those with authority and they authorize it only to the degree it follows texts exactly then they're right. I don't think that invalidates in the least the idea that the text of the ordinance could be different. (Which you seem to agree to later when you acknowledge people accept ordinance changes as inspired) So I'm not quite sure what you're arguing now. 

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you're right in saying that most would view the changes to temple rituals as inspired.  Where this comes into conflict is with theological teachings that ancient truths have been restored, and the baptism example I gave seems applicable because Joseph taught that immersion was essential, so the idea that some essentials can't be altered without ever articulating what those essentials are leaves a large gray area, and this has been a point of contention for break away Mormon groups.

I'm not following your argument here. Take the Didiche which seems to have different types of baptism purely based upon the practical reality of water in the desert. So ideally you have fresh running water for baptism. If you don't have that you use stagnant water. If you don't have that then dripping water over a person is permitted (which is probably how the Catholic practice evolved). But how is that different from Mormons as a practical matter use potatoes for sacrament when bread wasn't available or how we switched from using wine in the early church to water? From a Mormon perspective all that matters is that someone with authority make the change and there be a good reason.

But you are right that what's essential isn't clarified since of course we can only say what's essential to the degree there is an explicit revelation saying what's essential. Which brings me back to my question to you about ancient parallels.

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't like the priest and king language, but I can get on board with becoming a more complete person or a more elevated and transformed person.  A lot of the old monarchy language is very patriarchal and I would like to see us move away from it.  I don't take any of this literally, but metaphorically speaking I think there are some real possibilities to work with.  

You seem to be tied to more of a traditionalist approach than I am, but honestly I think if we got together and explored possibilities for changes to the rituals I think we could find much to agree on.  Its just sad to me that church leaders aren't actively having these conversations and including regular members in the process, at least not that I'm aware of.  

GAs often talk about these things in smaller groups. GAs are completely understandable worried about what they say in such settings ended up on Facebook in garbled fashions. So almost always in such settings they saying don't post on the internet.

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are a range of theories of religion -- what it is, how it originates and develops, etc.  These various explanations of religion are really beliefs masquerading as science (which is the gist of the penetrating comments of Prof. Bennetta Jules-Rosette, whose astonishing 1978 article I cited for you -- I have never been quite the same since reading it in 1978).  I think that the most successful way to deal with religion is to study it phenomenologically, which is what non-Mormon scholar Jan Shipps did with Mormonism.  Yes, that might endanger your extant paradigm, but scholarship by its nature is dangerous.

Robert, 

I'm interested in learning more about what you're talking about.  Can you provide a link to this Jules-Rosette article again for me.  I went back to all your posts on this thread and I couldn't find any links to this article that you're speaking about.  I respect Jan Shipps and I think the idea of phenomenological study of religion makes sense to me, even if I don't fully understand the word or how that is a different way of studying than what I'm doing today, I am open to learning more and not afraid of it endangering my paradigm.  My paradigms have shifted significantly in recent years, and I expect those kinds of shifts to continue as I digest more knowledge.  

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When I was young, most astrophysicists accepted Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory, geologists were in the midst of adopting the theory of Plate Tectonics, and Quantum physics was replacing Einsteinian physics.  In those days, J. Eric S. Thompson's could still reject the new theories of the decipherment of Maya hieroglyphs (Thompson was wrong, but the new paradigm would not take take full effect until he was dead). Only the specialists have any idea what any of that means, so that your recognition of any such necessary paradigm shift would be delayed by a generation or so -- if it was ever recognized at all.  All such shifts are decades in the making.  So don't expect them to come up and bite you on the rump.  

This is wonderful and shows the beauty of the human endeavor of learning and I don't see this as a weakness at all, but rather a strength of science to change and follow the evidence.  It does take time as you mention though.  I'm confident that if we had a crystal ball and could look into the future a couple hundred years there will be many of our sacred cows of scientific knowledge today in 2017 that will look absurd through a future lens of understanding.  

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

To the degree the ordinance is under the keys of those with authority and they authorize it only to the degree it follows texts exactly then they're right. I don't think that invalidates in the least the idea that the text of the ordinance could be different. (Which you seem to agree to later when you acknowledge people accept ordinance changes as inspired) So I'm not quite sure what you're arguing now. 

I'm just trying to point out competing beliefs that contradict.  The idea that language must be very specific to be valid, coupled with the concept that ordinances have important mechanistic components (baptism by immersion) that can't be changed is all on one hand.  On the other hand members trust that church leaders who make significant changes to temple ordinances must have been inspired to make those changes with God's blessing. 

To me, this shows a tension in ideas, but perhaps you can boil this all down to whether a person believes in the authority of leaders to make changes.  Of course you could contrast this idea of authority to make changes with the history of now acknowledged mistakes (priesthood ban, Adam God, blood atonement) that these same leaders have made and it creates a complicated scenario.  How would a person know that the temple ritual changes weren't also a mistake?  How can we discern between the mistakes of leaders and the inspired changes of leaders?  

27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But you are right that what's essential isn't clarified since of course we can only say what's essential to the degree there is an explicit revelation saying what's essential. Which brings me back to my question to you about ancient parallels.

I would argue that there are few if any objectively essential things.  I also don't see much value in finding ancient parallels either theologically or practically.  The restoration of things past in the 19th century I see as a fad that had some purchase at that time, but that doesn't work well in the 21st century. 

I would prefer a theology that focuses on broadly defined gospel principles and that is constantly engaging in the world with the contemporary issues of our day and putting those principles to work in real scenarios and trying to negotiate the complex situations in a living and active way.  

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The priesthood authority idea also was influence by Rigdon.  The temple rituals were influenced by Masonry and Old Testament practice.  I agree with you that what developed in Mormonism is uniquely different though, but I'd also point to these other influencing factors as being part of the process.  

I'm not sure I understand your concern here.  Influencing factors are not the same as original source. Rigdon certainly cannot take credit for the idea of Priesthood authority.  He may have primed the well of inquisition and revelation, but not even he would claim that it was his idea. 

[cinepro]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

 for example by replacing the warnings, rationale and fear of the health reform movement with invitation, promise and religious principle.

 

...which subsequent Church leaders handily replaced with warnings, rationale, and fear.