The VERY Respectful Temple Poll

[Rain]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

There wasn't an option that the temple sealing of families is eternal, though not necessarily the ceremonies.   That is what I would have said.

Yes, I noticed that sealing may differ in form from all the others. If we are talking about sealing itself we are talking about the result. If we are talking about how the ceremony is performed it is the how - which matches the other things. 

Some might say temple robes are the same, but considering the description of heavenly visitors it would seem that it isn't.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Rain

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Why can only anti-Mormons read temple transcripts?

Because the Church has never publicly published authorized ones.  Which apparently makes all written records of the endowment "anti" and something only an anti would read.

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because the Church has never publicly published authorized ones.  Which apparently makes all written records of the endowment "anti" and something only an anti would read.

This is a bridge too far for me.

Because the church hasn’t authorized publication of something doesn’t make it anti-Mormon.

This line of thinking - the labeling of published historical records about the LDS traditions that don’t have approval from “up top” - supports the position of those who see LDS leadership as unwilling to candidly address its own history.

[Maidservant]

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Why can only anti-Mormons read temple transcripts?

[Not to say that I agree completely with the way JLHPROF stated it but ] Because the offering of scripts to the public from those faithful to covenants would seem to necessitate the breaking of covenant; thus to read them also would support the breaking of covenant.  As well, although perhaps not on the level of breaking covenant, the material is meant to be delivered whole body, kinetic, and in a revelatory (i.e. altered) state; and when delivered only as read, it is, of necessity, only a partial delivery.

Having said this, I have out of curiosity read some previous transcripts and would like to at some point study that more.  Also the point could be made that the endowment transcript is already in the Bible in Genesis.  So I'd like to think there is a faithful way to make a study out of it, but there is the former bit to consider.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Maidservant

[SouthernMo]

25 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

[Not to say that I agree completely with the way JLHPROF stated it but ] Because the offering of scripts to the public from those faithful to covenants would seem to necessitate the breaking of covenant; thus to read them also would support the breaking of covenant.  As well, although perhaps not on the level of breaking covenant, the material is meant to be delivered whole body, kinetic, and in a revelatory (i.e. altered) state; and when delivered only as read, it is, of necessity, only a partial delivery.

Having said this, I have out of curiosity read some previous transcripts and would like to at some point study that more.  Also the point could be made that the endowment transcript is already in the Bible in Genesis.  So I'd like to think there is a faithful way to make a study out of it, but there is the former bit to consider.

I guess the way I see it is that my temple covenants are that I will never reveal certain signs and tokens.  I don’t take that to mean that I break covenants when others reveal what they have covenanted not to.

Somehow, most endowed members (that I’ve spoken with) seem to have the belief that their covenants go further than what is explicitly stated in the temple liturgy.

[hope_for_things]

LDS temple rituals are a blending of traditional religious ideas with modern sensibilities.  It’s both a creation and an adaptation.  

[mnn727]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

  I respectfully disagree.

Why?

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Why?

Well I agree with the principle she espoused concerning different methods of teaching eternal principles.

I disagree that that's what the elements listed on the poll are - symbolic representation of eternal principles, learning tools.

I believe they ARE the eternal principles because that's what the prophets of God that established them in this dispensation taught.  And I don't think we know more than they do.

Edited December 29, 2018 by JLHPROF

[SouthernMo]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well I agree with the principle she espoused concerning different methods of teaching eternal principles.

I disagree that that's what the elements listed on the poll are - symbolic representation of eternal principles, learning tools.

I believe they ARE the eternal principles because that's what the prophets of God that established them in this dispensation taught.  And I don't think we know more than they do.

The weakness in your position is that the elements of the endowment have been changed over time.  BUT - If I understand your position correctly, you believe that the elements are in apostasy today. So, perhaps you believe that the elements are supposed to be eternal and more than symbolic, but their form today is incorrect?

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

The weakness in your position is that the elements of the endowment have been changed over time.  BUT - If I understand your position correctly, you believe that the elements are in apostasy today. So, perhaps you believe that the elements are supposed to be eternal and more than symbolic, but their form today is incorrect?

Correct.  The first changes to presentation happened right away. I have no problem with that.  (Did you know some candidates used to have to eat raisins?)

However the first changes to things I and the early prophets call eternal and unchanging happened in the 1920s.

[JLHPROF]

It's interesting how many people are responding that certain poll elements are eternal parts of the endowment practiced on every earth AND say that these can be changed.

I am curious how that would work.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But there's also quite a bit of secondary literature on all this. No anti-Mormonism necessary.

Hard to say much without knowing what you're referring to. I think I know what you're referring to, but if it is what I think it is then it simply doesn't make the claim you're taking it as. (Here assuming you're referring to Young's comments on the heavenly ascent in JD 2)

 

Your first quoted sentence here makes my point that you deny in the next paragraph.

My advice then to you for your question in the second quoted paragraph is to consult the secondary literature. 

See my point? 

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's interesting how many people are responding that certain poll elements are eternal parts of the endowment practiced on every earth AND say that these can be changed.

I am curious how that would work.

There also seems to be some sort of contradiction in the whole idea that they are "eternal" yet were "lost" "for thousands of years and then could be "restored" without them losing their "eternal" nature- which no one knew for a few thousand years, and therefore no one could live by these "eternally revealed" principles which were NOT "eternally revealed"

I think this is the core of the problem here- it depends on how you define "eternal".

If a new earth comes to be, are the truths revealed on that earth "eternal" or are they just "eternal" for that culture?  If humans on a different world have only three fingers can they do the patriarchal grip?  What if they have seven fingers?

Then they are "cultural"

Are they all told about the Savior's sacrifice which happened on a distant planet in a different galaxy called "Earth"?  What would that be like??  Can you imagine this being taught about an extra-terrestrial culture?

Could we believe that the sacrifice of Zorg on the planet Gumbaskovith  8 thousand years ago saved our sins in another galaxy far far away?

Or are there different saviors on different planets and so what we know about our Jesus doesn't apply or does apply to what the other saviors said and did - when perhaps their savior preached on the internet because their time line in development was different from ours?

Or perhaps their deaths were different- electric chair or being thrown from a cliff- who knows?

Or perhaps every detail is perfectly mimicked on each world- and if so why even have "different" worlds when all they are is essentially showing the same movie on each one?

In a context of other planets and worlds what does "eternal" even mean??

And so it goes.  At some point everything collapses into semantic confusion and no discussion is possible because everyone uses their own definitions of "eternal" or any other term.

And that is why I did not answer the poll.  

Edited December 29, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

For some reason I don't feel comfortable answering this poll.  So, I'm not.

[JLHPROF]

44 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

For some reason I don't feel comfortable answering this poll.  So, I'm not.

That's your right.  How about this question:

Do you consider any of the endowment part of an eternal order unchanging from world to world and therefore something we should never alter?

[Hamba Tuhan]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

How about this question:

How about this question?

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So which of the following is the correct set of words to speak when baptising someone?

• I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world.
• Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
• Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

 

Edited December 30, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

How about this question?

 

Since they all say the same thing it doesn't matter.

However baptism  (immersion in water) by someone holding the correct authority  (having authority/been commissioned) in order that we enter the covenant with Christ - that all matters.

Otherwise sprinkling by any person off the street for any reason regardless of Christ would qualify.  Ordinances cannot be changed and still be valid.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's your right.  How about this question:

Do you consider any of the endowment part of an eternal order unchanging from world to world and therefore something we should never alter?

Can't be so for the language unless you think English is eternal.  If the language ( which are word symbols) vary from culture to culture, why not the nonverbal symbols as well?  Even an identical in shape symbol changes meaning from culture to culture.  Even white can have different meanings in different cultures.

 

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Since they all say the same thing it doesn't matter.

However baptism  (immersion in water) by someone holding the correct authority  (having authority/been commissioned) in order that we enter the covenant with Christ - that all matters.

Otherwise sprinkling by any person off the street for any reason regardless of Christ would qualify.  Ordinances cannot be changed and still be valid.

What about children who die before they are 8 though?  

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What about children who die before they are 8 though?  

Sinless, therefore able to return to the Father's presence without a Savior.  No mystery there.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That's your right.  How about this question:

Do you consider any of the endowment part of an eternal order unchanging from world to world and therefore something we should never alter?

Yes.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Sinless, therefore able to return to the Father's presence without a Savior.  No mystery there.

I agree it’s not a mystery, but it does disagree with your statement that baptism by immersion being required for salvation is eternal and unchanging. 

We don’t have to look around very long before we find exceptions to eternal and unchanging doctrine. If such exceptions exist, then maybe God’s definition of “eternal and unchanging” is different than yours. 

Edited December 30, 2018 by bluebell

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Sinless, therefore able to return to the Father's presence without a Savior.  No mystery there.

Christ’s atonement made two things possible.  Salvation from spiritual death as well as from physical death.  Without His atoning sacrifice, His death and resurrection, none would be redeemed from either physical or spiritual death.  He was the firsts fruits of the resurection making it possible for all to be saved from physical death.  

[3DOP]

21 hours ago, strappinglad said:

OK but would it be alright to use water vapor or heavy water or wine or...?

If a man is missing a limb or two he can still be baptised , no? Yet we worry if a few strands of hair don't quite go under. Circumstances dictate exemptions. Again , a person without a right arm can still be endowed. What part is eternal and what part symbol ? 

Circumstances dictate exemptions? Like ill health, emergencies where someone near death needs submerged beneath a hole in the ice, or where there is not enough water available for immersion? Do you guys really get concerned that the baptism is invalidated if someone's hair stays dry?

Circumstances dictating exemptions is how the Catholic Church reasoned its way to allowing that immersion CAN NOT be absolutely necessary for a merely valid baptism, even if immersion more perfectly symbolizes the event.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree it’s not a mystery, but it does disagree with your statement that baptism by immersion being required for salvation is eternal and unchanging. 

We don’t have to look around very long before we find exceptions to eternal and unchanging doctrine. If such exceptions exist, then maybe God’s definition of “eternal and unchanging” is different than yours. 

In the end the endowment was revealed by revelations to Joseph who taught it to Brigham and the apostles and had them systematize the presentation.

I consider them the authority and they stated clearly which portions were eternal, unchanging and necessary.  They were so clear the Church still uses those teachings despite not following them.

We have changed them and are clearly fulfilling Isaiah 24:5.  I don't expect everyone to agree but I'd like a better explanation than "we have more light now" because I don't believe for a second anyone has more light on the subject than the one that restored it.