Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[SettingDogStar]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What makes you think today's teachings contain no false doctrine?

Forget different religions. We have two centuries worth of Mormon generations all convinced they have the truth.  Until the next generation says they didn't.  Imagine which of our deeply held beliefs in the Church today will be called false doctrine by our grandchildren.

Yes, researching history and a lot of speeches by past prophets/leaders is a very interesting endeavor. It just goes to show how much our religion has changed concerning certain (major and minor) doctrines. The core stays more or less the same, but there is a lot of big stuff that has been altered or erased.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I must be daft because in the verses you shared with me, only 2 Nephi 31:11&15 seem to be the voice of God the father.  And those verses - those words of God the Father - don’t indicate that authority is needed (as you claim the words of Elohim do). They underline the importance of being baptized in the name of Christ.

The other verses are filled in by Christ’s words and Nephi’s.

Check out verse 20 for more words of the Father.

This is what I claimed...

Quote

The Book of Mormon clearly spells out in the words of the Father and the Son exactly what is required for salvation and that authority is needed to administer the parts that require ordinances.

2 Nephi 31 and 3 Nephi 11 and 12 make that crystal clear, and they are the words of the Father and the Son.

Who gave the Son the doctrines and words He taught?

Edited January 5, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That means it wasn't true at that time then right?  That's apparently how gospel truth works.

Whatever the current combination of the 15 prophets agree on in the only gospel truth.  Until a few of them pass on and the next 15 disagree.

Truth is always relative, situational, and progressive.  Nothing is absolutely unalterably true.

I think I'm getting it now...

Let's ordain women, do away with garments, decanonize D&C 132 and the Book of Abraham, stop honoring dead prophets, eliminate offices in the priesthood and make them church callings, end recommend interviews, make tithing an optional donation only for helping the poor, anything goes.  All we need is for the 15 to agree on it.

Onwards to Zion!

Getting grumpy in our old age, are we?  

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Getting grumpy in our old age, are we?  

Yep!  Or just excited to pass on and get the final answer on at least one gospel truth that doesn't change on a whim.

Edited January 5, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

What I see is a few, who might be described as conservative, that are upset that we are changing the temple covenants.  And I see others (the larger group), who might be described as liberals, that are happy for the changes but upset by the lack of explanation and prohibition on discussion.

The lack (so far) of any authoritative explanation of the changes and/or sharing of the revelation from which they were derived seems to set the church up for more gaslighting of members in the future.

We silently change things (like the horrific penalties from pre-1990) and those, like me, who still struggle through the temple because of them can't really have any meaningful discussion.  The same will happen with this if it isn't addressed in a more meaningful way.

For some reason, I didn't struggle about not having this "meaningful discussion."  I loved it that I was left free to wonder, and free to experience enlightenment through the spirit of the Lord.  And it came, little by little. 

With a sobriquet like "Mormon Libertarian" I would have thought that leaving things free for inspiration would be preferred to having a top-down specification of some kind.

Line upon line, precept upon precept.  I have actually benefitted from, for example, a less than complete explication of the Atonement, in that it has led to considerable growth in understanding that may not have occurred if there had been a detailed catechism about it.

By the way, I didn't think they were horrific.  I understood them to be what we should be willing to endure before revealing them inappropriately, rather than something to be done as punishment for revealing them.  When I was in the military and in possession of secrets I was not supposed to reveal to the enemy, it was expected that I should resist revealing them to a rather extreme degree.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yep!  Or just excited to pass on and get the final answer on at least one gospel truth that doesn't change on a whim.

Have patience, my friend.  

And I don't think "whims" is what is going on here.  I think we're moving from incomplete understandings to more complete ones, over time.  

[Tacenda]

59 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm sure that's part of it.

But wouldn't the Lord be directing His church towards a greater end than merely keeping up with technology?  We live in a world of turmoil, and it's getting more and more in upheaval every day.  I think we're heading towards something quite amazing.

I'm talking about the things that reflect badly on the church and is all over the internet. And the need to innoculate the young members so that they won't come upon something they weren't aware of. The church today is nowhere near the church it was when JS began it. But like everyone says on here, our church is in a constant evolvement.

But I'd love to be proven wrong and the Lord really is directing these changes. And if so, I'll get my act together, but only need help in the belief department. You see it's very difficult for me to believe because of the fallible leaders and things done and said in the past that would today land someone in jail or be regarded as not suitable to lead a church. 

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That means it wasn't true at that time then right?  That's apparently how gospel truth works.

Whatever the current combination of the 15 prophets agree on in the only gospel truth.  Until a few of them pass on and the next 15 disagree.

Truth is always relative, situational, and progressive.  Nothing is absolutely unalterably true.

I think I'm getting it now...

Let's ordain women, do away with garments, decanonize D&C 132 and the Book of Abraham, stop honoring dead prophets, eliminate offices in the priesthood and make them church callings, end recommend interviews, make tithing an optional donation only for helping the poor, anything goes.  All we need is for the 15 to agree on it.

Onwards to Zion!

I may not always agree with your POV in regards to the church, but I feel your pain here.

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What makes you think today's teachings contain no false doctrine?

Forget different religions. We have two centuries worth of Mormon generations all convinced they have the truth.  Until the next generation says they didn't.  Imagine which of our deeply held beliefs in the Church today will be called false doctrine by our grandchildren.

The first time I participated in the significantly altered temple endowment ceremony of the late 1980s and 1990 I was very disappointed with the changes that had been made. After going through two endowment sessions with the new ceremony, I went downstairs and asked someone in the Temple administrative office if it was possible to have an unscheduled meeting with the Temple President. Soon thereafter the then Washington DC Temple President (I don’t remember his name) graciously greeted me and asked me to step inside his office so that we could talk. After introductions, I expressed my deep disappointment with the changes to the endowment that had been made, informing him that because I had previously been enabled to spiritually discern the profound spiritual meaning underlying the portions of the endowment that had been been removed, I felt a very real sense of sadness that some of the more wonderfully meaningful portions of the endowment had been deleted. He expressed his great surprise at my comment, informing me that of the hundreds of positive comments from others who were abslolutely delighted with the changes, I was the only one who had anything negative to say.

I went on to explain it seemed obvious to me the reason why the deleted portions had been removed is because it was likely the Church at large was no longer knowledgeable and spiritually mature enough to enjoy participating in the more meaningful and impactful temple endowment I had previously come to know and love. Further, I thought it odd that so many members of the Church were thrilled with the deletions because it seemed rather odd that for some strange reason they wanted less sacred symbolism in the endowment rather than more.

Anyway, you likely see where I’m going with this: It seems clear that the endowment has once again been truncated, at least in part, because a world that is so rapidly ripening in iniquity is no longer prepared and able to receive a fuller manifestation of the sacred truths once revealed in the fuller endowment presentations of the past. Rather than the previous iterations of the endowment being in error, the truth is we are no longer prepared and able to receive the fuller and deeper knowledge revealed through the endowments of the past. So in accord with the prophet Alma’s dictum that there are times when circumstances demand that sacred things have to be withdrawn from view, once again sacred things have been wisely withdrawn until the day when we as a people stop fighting and reviling against the truth of God and learn to appreciate and delight in the harder to digest meat of the gospel, even the mysteries of godliness. 

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart, only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full... Alma 12:9-10

 

Edited January 5, 2019 by teddyaware

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

For some reason, I didn't struggle about not having this "meaningful discussion."  I loved it that I was left free to wonder, and free to experience enlightenment through the spirit of the Lord.  And it came, little by little. 

With a sobriquet like "Mormon Libertarian" I would have thought that leaving things free for inspiration would be preferred to having a top-down specification of some kind.

Line upon line, precept upon precept.  I have actually benefitted from, for example, a less than complete explication of the Atonement, in that it has led to considerable growth in understanding that may not have occurred if there had been a detailed catechism about it.

By the way, I didn't think they were horrific.  I understood them to be what we should be willing to endure before revealing them inappropriately, rather than something to be done as punishment for revealing them.  When I was in the military and in possession of secrets I was not supposed to reveal to the enemy, it was expected that I should resist revealing them to a rather extreme degree.

They were rather graphic and, for me, quite out of place in the temple. And I still am forced to remember them every time I go. 

As for these changes, I don’t need top down specification.  But when our prophet receives a revelation changing one of our covenants, that seems important enough to share with us.  And I don’t like the attempts to prohibit discussion of it. 

But it’s okay.  I believe the temple ceremony is man-made and this latest development only serves to reinforce that. 

[CMZ]

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The first time I participated in the significantly altered temple endowment ceremony of the late 1980s and 1990 I was very disappointed with the changes that had been made. After going through two endowment sessions with the new ceremony, I went downstairs and asked someone in the Temple administrative office if it was possible to have an unscheduled meeting with the Temple President. Soon thereafter the then Washington DC Temple President (I don’t remember his name) graciously greeted me and asked me to step inside his office so that we could talk. After introductions, I expressed my deep disappointment with the changes to the endowment that had been made, informing him that because I had previously been enabled to spiritually discern the profound spiritual meaning underlying the portions of the endowment that had been been removed, I felt a very real sense of sadness that some of the more wonderfully meaningful portions of the endowment had been deleted. He expressed his great surprise at my comment, informing me that of the hundreds of positive comments from others who were abslolutely delighted with the changes, I was the only one who had anything negative to say.

I went on to explain it seemed obvious to me the reason why the deleted portions had been removed is because it was likely the Church at large was no longer knowledgeable and spiritually mature enough to enjoy participating in the more meaningful and impactful temple endowment I had previously come to know and love. Further, I thought it odd that so many members of the Church were thrilled with the deletions because it seemed rather odd that, for some strange reason, they wanted less sacred symbolism in the endowment rather than more.

Anyway, you likely see where I’m going with this: It once again seems clear that, the endowment has once again been truncated, at least in part, because a world that is so rapidly ripening in iniquity is no longer prepared to receive a fuller manifestation of the sacred truths once revealed in the fuller endowment presentations of the past. Rather than the previous iterations of the endowment being in error, the truth is we are no longer prepared and able to receive the fuller and deeper knowledge revealed through the endowments of the past. So in accord with the prophet Alma’s dictum that there are times when circumstances demand sacred things have to be withdrawn from view, once again sacred things have been wisely withdrawn until the day when we as a people stop fighting and reviling  against the truth and learn to appreciate and delight in the harder to digest meat of the gospel, even the mysteries of godliness. 

I have mixed feelings about it too but go along with it because I have no power to change it and because I still remember it from the 80's. It also doesn't prevent an individual from attaining exaltation and each person can eventually learn all the necessary principles. Plus, the core part of the endowment is learning the keywords, signs and tokens. But, yeah, it's odd how people get scared of the symbolism. They don't want Moses showing his face when he comes down from the mountain and beg him to hide it. And the Lord in effect goes, "Well, that's not what I was intending. But if you insist on having less... " Then again, I may not be personally privy to all the motivation behind the very recent changes. I do know our temple was unusually busy yesterday. So, hey, that's a good thing.

[teddyaware]

5 minutes ago, CMZ said:

I have mixed feelings about it too but go along with it because I have no power to change it and because I still remember it from the 80's. It also doesn't prevent an individual from attaining exaltation and each person can eventually learn all the necessary principles. Plus, the core part of the endowment is learning the keywords, signs and tokens. But, yeah, it's odd how people get scared of the symbolism. They don't want Moses showing his face when he comes down from the mountain and beg him to hide it. And the Lord in effect goes, "Well, that's not what I was intending. But if you insist on having less... " Then again, I may not be personally privy to all the motivation behind the very recent changes. I do know our temple was unusually busy yesterday. So, hey, that's a good thing.

I agree with you. My point is it should come as no surprise to anyone that a Church that now has so many members who constantly complain and speak negatively of the Lord’s anointed should end up receiving the lesser portion of the word of God.

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I agree with you. My point is it should come as no surprise to anyone that a Church that now has so many members who constantly complain and speak negatively of the Lord’s anointed should end up receiving the lesser portion of the word of God.

There ya go... lower your expectations people!  Then, you’ll be happy. 

 

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, CMZ said:

. Plus, the core part of the endowment is learning the keywords, signs and tokens

Funny how different people see things.  I see the core part being the doctrine and actual covenants.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But I'd love to be proven wrong and the Lord really is directing these changes.

Where do you think you need to be, and what do you think you need to be doing, in order to obtain this proof?

I was asked in our preparation meeting this morning to officiate the first endowment session of our shift. That means that it was my duty to stand at the altar as a message from the First Presidency was read out. Maybe it should have been, but this was not a big deal for me. I was already familiar with the content of the message from the evening before, and I have zero issues (pro or con) regarding the content or intent of the message. As a result, I was neither seeking nor expecting anything from this experience in any way.

Moreover, as I've noted several times before on this board, I'm not a terribly 'spiritual' man in the way that word is often defined in Latter-day Saint circles. My knowledge of spiritual things tends heavily to arise from repeated practical experience, not 'manifestations' of any kind. When I do feel prompted spiritually, it nearly always requires acting on that prompting before I'm even certain the prompting was real. As a result, I have never in my entire Church life prayed about the Book of Mormon, nor have I ever received a 'spiritual witness' of that book that matches what I've heard other people report.

I say all that as background context for what happened as I stood at the temple altar this morning as a short, simple message from the First Presidency was read out. Without my even thinking about such a thing, I was filled head to toe with a spiritual witness so strong that I was overcome and reduced to weeping. I don't quite know how to explain it, but the light was so brilliant and the rejoicing so heady and the gratitude so intense, all at once, that my body couldn't contain it all, and my eyes seemed to be the best release valve. It was completely unexpected, but I am a witness today that the Lord God is directing His Church through living, authorised prophets, seers and revelators.

Now, that's my experience, and like the proverbial lamp oil, I have no capacity to transform it into your experience. But you get yourself into the right places and doing the necessary things so that you might have your own experience, please!

Edited January 5, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[SouthernMo]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Who gave the Son the doctrines and words He taught?

This argument can be used to claim god the father said something if a prophet says it. A loyal Mormon would ask - who gave the prophet the doctrines and words he taught?

Suddenly, all words come from God...

But maybe that’s your point?  Then why phrase it the way you did “the words of the father and the son...”?

[SouthernMo]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That means it wasn't true at that time then right?  That's apparently how gospel truth works.

Whatever the current combination of the 15 prophets agree on in the only gospel truth.  Until a few of them pass on and the next 15 disagree.

Truth is always relative, situational, and progressive.  Nothing is absolutely unalterably true.

I think I'm getting it now...

Let's ordain women, do away with garments, decanonize D&C 132 and the Book of Abraham, stop honoring dead prophets, eliminate offices in the priesthood and make them church callings, end recommend interviews, make tithing an optional donation only for helping the poor, anything goes.  All we need is for the 15 to agree on it.

Onwards to Zion!

You clearly don’t understand. It’s very simple:

Joseph Smith restored the truth.  Except the truth wasn’t quite true, and needs to be changed from time to time.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever!  Except when changes are made to his church - then he is a living god!

[busybee]

On 1/2/2019 at 5:44 PM, rockpond said:

What about baptism?  It's done by just one priesthood holder but is done in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost.

With two witnesses. 

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

They were rather graphic and, for me, quite out of place in the temple. And I still am forced to remember them every time I go. 

As for these changes, I don’t need top down specification.  But when our prophet receives a revelation changing one of our covenants, that seems important enough to share with us.  And I don’t like the attempts to prohibit discussion of it. 

But it’s okay.  I believe the temple ceremony is man-made and this latest development only serves to reinforce that. 

I should probably check to see if you've commented on his post already, but just in case you haven't, please check @teddyaware's response to the removal of the elements that bother(ed) you.  

I understand that they bothered a lot of people, and I sympathize with those people.  But they didn't bother me.  When I received my endowment just before setting out on my mission, I had only been a member of the church for coming up on 6 years.  As the only member of my family and having been tossed out of my family home for defying my father's insistence that I go to university instead of serve a mission, I understood the deadly importance of the Gospel.  The "penalties" underscored the life and death nature of what we do here upon earth, and were very meaningful, to me at least.  I would suffer my life to be taken rather than betray the Lord Jesus Christ.  It is my fond hope that at the end of my days it might be found that I loved as He loved, am counted as a "good and faithful servant", having kept the faith and finished the race.  The Lord suffered unspeakable pain beginning at the Garden of Gethsemane all the way until the moment he uttered the words "It is finished" -- it just seems to me that we might endure some harsh-seeming but meaningful words, which, by seeking understanding rather than quailing in discomfort, might be understood through the Spirit in their true light.  Removing them took away something -- something that I guess we mollycoddled moderns can't deal with.  How many of us can't deal with killing our own supper, yet dig into a juicy steak without a thought in our heads for the life which was taken for our benefit?

I am not sure I believe the temple ceremony is man-made, but be that as it may, it was inspired by God, and was intended for our education at many levels.  When it is cut back our education is cut back.  I'm not saying that cutting back on it is against the Lord's desire; I trust that the changes being made are being made by inspiration, and I trust the inspiration comes from God.  But I still remember what went before, and treasure the memory and what I learned from it.

In the end, the Endowment consists of the covenants and their associated tokens and signs.  Its presentation could be cut all the way back to just those and still be efficacious. However, it is not always the case that removing window-dressing improves the view through the window.

 

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I should probably check to see if you've commented on his post already, but just in case you haven't, please check @teddyaware's response to the removal of the elements that bother(ed) you.  

I understand that they bothered a lot of people, and I sympathize with those people.  But they didn't bother me.  When I received my endowment just before setting out on my mission, I had only been a member of the church for coming up on 6 years.  As the only member of my family and having been tossed out of my family home for defying my father's insistence that I go to university instead of serve a mission, I understood the deadly importance of the Gospel.  The "penalties" underscored the life and death nature of what we do here upon earth, and were very meaningful, to me at least.  I would suffer my life to be taken rather than betray the Lord Jesus Christ.  It is my fond hope that at the end of my days it might be found that I loved as He loved, am counted as a "good and faithful servant", having kept the faith and finished the race.  The Lord suffered unspeakable pain beginning at the Garden of Gethsemane all the way until the moment he uttered the words "It is finished" -- it just seems to me that we might endure some harsh-seeming but meaningful words, which, by seeking understanding rather than quailing in discomfort, might be understood through the Spirit in their true light.  Removing them took away something -- something that I guess we mollycoddled moderns can't deal with.  How many of us can't deal with killing our own supper, yet dig into a juicy steak without a thought in our heads for the life which was taken for our benefit?

I am not sure I believe the temple ceremony is man-made, but be that as it may, it was inspired by God, and was intended for our education at many levels.  When it is cut back our education is cut back.  I'm not saying that cutting back on it is against the Lord's desire; I trust that the changes being made are being made by inspiration, and I trust the inspiration comes from God.  But I still remember what went before, and treasure the memory and what I learned from it.

In the end, the Endowment consists of the covenants and their associated tokens and signs.  Its presentation could be cut all the way back to just those and still be efficacious. However, it is not always the case that removing window-dressing improves the view through the window.

 

It wouldn’t make me so anxious if all that was changed was a wording of a covenant to clarify or the media presentation. One of my main difficulties is the (and I haven’t been yet so I guess this is just me speaking off the list of changes) change in the clothing of robes, the shoes not being a part of the clothing, and no veiling. 

The covenant could be chalked up to simple clarification and the media presentation could be to just keep to fresh..but when the symbolism is altered...makes me anxious. 

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The first time I participated in the significantly altered temple endowment ceremony of the late 1980s and 1990 I was very disappointed with the changes that had been made. After going through two endowment sessions with the new ceremony, I went downstairs and asked someone in the Temple administrative office if it was possible to have an unscheduled meeting with the Temple President. Soon thereafter the then Washington DC Temple President (I don’t remember his name) graciously greeted me and asked me to step inside his office so that we could talk. After introductions, I expressed my deep disappointment with the changes to the endowment that had been made, informing him that because I had previously been enabled to spiritually discern the profound spiritual meaning underlying the portions of the endowment that had been been removed, I felt a very real sense of sadness that some of the more wonderfully meaningful portions of the endowment had been deleted. He expressed his great surprise at my comment, informing me that of the hundreds of positive comments from others who were abslolutely delighted with the changes, I was the only one who had anything negative to say.

I went on to explain it seemed obvious to me the reason why the deleted portions had been removed is because it was likely the Church at large was no longer knowledgeable and spiritually mature enough to enjoy participating in the more meaningful and impactful temple endowment I had previously come to know and love. Further, I thought it odd that so many members of the Church were thrilled with the deletions because it seemed rather odd that for some strange reason they wanted less sacred symbolism in the endowment rather than more.

Anyway, you likely see where I’m going with this: It seems clear that the endowment has once again been truncated, at least in part, because a world that is so rapidly ripening in iniquity is no longer prepared and able to receive a fuller manifestation of the sacred truths once revealed in the fuller endowment presentations of the past. Rather than the previous iterations of the endowment being in error, the truth is we are no longer prepared and able to receive the fuller and deeper knowledge revealed through the endowments of the past. So in accord with the prophet Alma’s dictum that there are times when circumstances demand that sacred things have to be withdrawn from view, once again sacred things have been wisely withdrawn until the day when we as a people stop fighting and reviling against the truth of God and learn to appreciate and delight in the harder to digest meat of the gospel, even the mysteries of godliness. 

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart, only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full... Alma 12:9-10

 

Nice to see you Teddy!

And I agree completely.  It seems undeniable that each time these changes are made (even if God directs them) they have come because members have desired them or have hardened there hearts  against some portion of the endowment.

Sadly, the results of changes to ordinance or removal of gospel principles are clearly spelled out in scripture.  But we get what we want.  The lesson of the 116 pages seems forgotten.

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, CMZ said:

I have mixed feelings about it too but go along with it because I have no power to change it and because I still remember it from the 80's. It also doesn't prevent an individual from attaining exaltation and each person can eventually learn all the necessary principles. Plus, the core part of the endowment is learning the keywords, signs and tokens. But, yeah, it's odd how people get scared of the symbolism. They don't want Moses showing his face when he comes down from the mountain and beg him to hide it. And the Lord in effect goes, "Well, that's not what I was intending. But if you insist on having less... " Then again, I may not be personally privy to all the motivation behind the very recent changes. I do know our temple was unusually busy yesterday. So, hey, that's a good thing.

Just like Moses on the mount it has always been the goal of the endowment to allow us into God's presence in the life and the next.

The 1990 changes removed the pieces that taught us to do that.  We very literally led God to hide his face.  We are the children of Israel.  Maybe God did direct these changes.  And we should look closely at ourselves for the reason.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The first time I participated in the significantly altered temple endowment ceremony of the late 1980s and 1990 I was very disappointed with the changes that had been made. After going through two endowment sessions with the new ceremony, I went downstairs and asked someone in the Temple administrative office if it was possible to have an unscheduled meeting with the Temple President. Soon thereafter the then Washington DC Temple President (I don’t remember his name) graciously greeted me and asked me to step inside his office so that we could talk. After introductions, I expressed my deep disappointment with the changes to the endowment that had been made, informing him that because I had previously been enabled to spiritually discern the profound spiritual meaning underlying the portions of the endowment that had been been removed, I felt a very real sense of sadness that some of the more wonderfully meaningful portions of the endowment had been deleted. He expressed his great surprise at my comment, informing me that of the hundreds of positive comments from others who were abslolutely delighted with the changes, I was the only one who had anything negative to say.

I went on to explain it seemed obvious to me the reason why the deleted portions had been removed is because it was likely the Church at large was no longer knowledgeable and spiritually mature enough to enjoy participating in the more meaningful and impactful temple endowment I had previously come to know and love. Further, I thought it odd that so many members of the Church were thrilled with the deletions because it seemed rather odd that for some strange reason they wanted less sacred symbolism in the endowment rather than more.

Anyway, you likely see where I’m going with this: It seems clear that the endowment has once again been truncated, at least in part, because a world that is so rapidly ripening in iniquity is no longer prepared and able to receive a fuller manifestation of the sacred truths once revealed in the fuller endowment presentations of the past. Rather than the previous iterations of the endowment being in error, the truth is we are no longer prepared and able to receive the fuller and deeper knowledge revealed through the endowments of the past. So in accord with the prophet Alma’s dictum that there are times when circumstances demand that sacred things have to be withdrawn from view, once again sacred things have been wisely withdrawn until the day when we as a people stop fighting and reviling against the truth of God and learn to appreciate and delight in the harder to digest meat of the gospel, even the mysteries of godliness. 

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart, only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full... Alma 12:9-10

 

But there are many temple attendees that found great spiritual insights in the older variations of the temple ceremony (as you've illustrated).  If God only gives a lesser portion to those who "harden their hearts" (as it says in Alma)--and the changes have been a fulfillment of these scriptures in Alma--why would God grant changes that removes the fuller portion from them as well?

 

Edited January 5, 2019 by bluebell

[SouthernMo]

4 hours ago, busybee said:

With two witnesses. 

Not in every case. 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But there are many temple attendees that found great spiritual insights in the older variations of the temple ceremony (as you've illustrated).  If God only gives a lesser portion to those who "harden their hearts" (as it says in Alma), why would God grant changes that removes the fuller portion from them as well?

 

Because the Church as a body of members also has its agency as demonstrated by the law of common consent.  

Those who don't harden their hearts but diligently seek truth, no matter how uncomfortable it makes them receive further light.  Sometimes separately from the body as a whole.  Eternal truths don't change, but when rejected by common consent the individual is left to ask, seek, and knock.  All the while waiting patiently on the Lord.

Much like that Catholic  priest who finds the Book of Mormon in the Church film.