Endowment changes yet again

[ZealouslyStriving]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Too many changes and they'll lose their authority as has happened in every previous dispensation.

Loss of authority implies absence of keys. The keys will never be taken from the Church until Christ comes, even though the membership desires and receives less light through the Lord's servants.

The important thing is the work for the dead continues forward.

But I could be completely wrong, maybe when I get to the House of the Lord again after decades of absence, the changes will blow me away and inspire me. I would be down for that. 

👍

 

[Stargazer]

33 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I was mostly just giving you a hard time. I've watched your frustration on this matter grow over the years. Couple that with your previous statements on polygamy and I went there.

I love trolls!

[Stargazer]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sincere question because I'd love your thoughts on it:  At what point do you believe the changes to the endowment became too much?  Immediately after they changed from what JS directed, or at some other point?  

Do you believe that your endowment, for example, is one that will need to be done over during the millenium because of the many changes made to the ordinance before you were "endowed"?

Well, if he's right, I'm safe. I was endowed in 1972 before all this nonsense fiddling around with the one, true way of doing things happened.

Except that if you read up on the history of the endowment, nobody still alive is safe.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Too many changes and they'll lose their authority as has happened in every previous dispensation.

What is your take on the second anointing being so seldom administered? Is that part of the problem?

 

 

[edvantageous]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

My feelings seem to match the teachings of Joseph Smith.

On 8/15/2024 at 3:27 PM, JLHPROF said:

"Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles." Joseph Smith

“The order of the house of God has been, and ever will be, the same, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the thousand years it will be the same; and we shall finally enter into the celestial Kingdom of God, and enjoy it forever.” Joseph Smith

"The Priesthood is everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood.". Joseph Smith

It seems to me that you're basing your strong feelings on the initial quotes from Joseph Smith. Have the ordinances changed or their presentation? The endowment is the presentation of specific ordinances and I think it's okay for the endowment to change and if someone argues that the ordinances have also changed over time, I'm okay with that, too -- part of believing in a living/active faith.

In regards to the endowment, Joseph Smith is quoted as saying:

Quote

After giving these first endowments, the Prophet turned to Brigham Young and remarked: “Brother Brigham, this is not arranged perfectly; however we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed. I wish you to take this matter in hand: organize and systematize all these ceremonies.” [35]

https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-smith-doctrinal-restoration/joseph-smith-restoration-temple-service

This seems to imply that Joseph Smith knew the ceremonies (endowment/ordinances/principles/doctrines/etc.) needed to be perfected.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

And when and if such changes* are implemented by those with authority, and under inspiration, I am good with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

*Adjustments. 

Edited August 16, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, edvantageous said:

 

It seems to me that you're basing your strong feelings on the initial quotes from Joseph Smith. Have the ordinances changed or their presentation? The endowment is the presentation of specific ordinances and I think it's okay for the endowment to change and if someone argues that the ordinances have also changed over time, I'm okay with that, too -- part of believing in a living/active faith.

Depends on what one thinks is included in the ordinance. 
 

Other ordinances such as baptism, giving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the sacrament have not been changed. Some parts of the endowment that may have been included in  the ordinance have been deleted. 

7 hours ago, edvantageous said:

In regards to the endowment, Joseph Smith is quoted as saying:

https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-smith-doctrinal-restoration/joseph-smith-restoration-temple-service

This seems to imply that Joseph Smith knew the ceremonies (endowment/ordinances/principles/doctrines/etc.) needed to be perfected.

Brother Brigham’s organization and systemization have mostly been readjusted.  
 

I received the endowment in 1966 while in the SLC Mission Home (where the Conference Center is now located). I had had very little preparation, so it seemed quite odd to me. Other than BSA Order of the Arrow ceremonies, I had had minimal experience with instructional drama. After my mission when I was able to return to the temple, I read some Nibley and that opened my eyes to the rich possibilities of what was presented there. Much of that seems pointless now. Some things took years of attendance and thought to understand, but I believed that was intentional. I’m no doubt missing something with the adjustments, but the intimate personal involvements that once were engaging and integral (or so I thought) have been removed, and the ordinance feels passive and impersonal now. 

Edited August 17, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What is your take on the second anointing being so seldom administered? Is that part of the problem?

Yes.  It stops worthy members from fulfilling the promises made to them in the endowment and frankly limits the fulfillment of the restoration.  (How is Christ supposed to come as King of Kings if we have so few?)

But at the same time in our current culture I also see how there would be big problems if it became widespread among the members.

[PacMan]

On 8/15/2024 at 3:27 PM, JLHPROF said:

The endowment is changing yet again.  They're getting it down to under an hour (up next drive thru ordinances).

This reminds me of the reductionist 10 commandments given when Israel wasn't capable of the full gospel.

But the scriptures are always right:

Isaiah 24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

"Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles." Joseph Smith

“The order of the house of God has been, and ever will be, the same, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the thousand years it will be the same; and we shall finally enter into the celestial Kingdom of God, and enjoy it forever.” Joseph Smith

"The Priesthood is everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood.". Joseph Smith

I hope that I can provide some meaningful explanations.

First, to be clear, to the Twelve and First Presidency, “is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time.”  There will be no restoration of priesthood ever again, in any sense of the word.  D&C 112:30-32.

Second, if authority is taken away from the senior apostle it will be given to none other except as dictated by that senior apostle.  D&C 43:3-4.

Third, Joseph Smith said that “it is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church, or any one, to receive instructions for those in authority, higher than themselves.”  See D&C 28:6. 

Further, anyone that says the president of the Churcdh is out of the way has the spirit of apostasy.  “I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”  Joseph Smith.

Thus, your arguments that the temple change "isn't valid" and "represents a loss of priesthood authority" is, definitionally, apostasy.

Fourth, because power comes from keeping our covenants, a purported change to the temple ceremony cannot change that power.

Fifth, let’s address your quotes from Joseph Smith:

a.      "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles." Joseph Smith

Joseph is clearly saying that the ordinances cannot be changed, but what does it have to do with principles?  The word “ordinance” is the “authoritative decree or direction,” as in an order.  This is the same usage as in the ordinance of the moon and stars.  Jeremiah 31:35-37.  It is something that is ordained or decreed by God.  Thus, while we often refer to the temple endowment as an ordinance, that's not really true.  The ordinance is packed-in as part of the endowment ceremonies (plural)—and not the entire whole.  The ordinance is constituted by the covenants and the information needed to be able to comply with those covenants.  It is not in the waiting room, the time the ceremony begins, the lighting, the language, or even introductorily or otherwise superfluous material.  The ordinance is the covenantal binding that occurs between man and God.  And that hasn't changed.

This is precisely why Joseph uses the word “principles.”  Because it is upon the principles—namely, the atonement of Jesus Christ—on condition of their obedience to his commandments (i.e. covenants), upon which people are saved.

b.      “The order of the house of God has been, and ever will be, the same, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the thousand years it will be the same; and we shall finally enter into the celestial Kingdom of God, and enjoy it forever.” Joseph Smith

The word “order” goes right back to “ordinance.”  And as others have noted, Joseph Smith specifically told Brigham to standardize the ceremony, which means it wasn’t standard and thus, changing.  What that means is that the ceremonial portion has nothing to do with the “order” of the house of God.  Rather, the “order” are the things that happen (1) in order; namely, baptism, ordination (for men), initiatory, and what we (wrongly refer to as) the endowment.  Just because you change “one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten” to “1-10” doesn’t change the “order.”  And (2) decreed by God; i.e. the covenants that bind us to him.

c.      "The Priesthood is everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood."

This is actually really important.  Here, Joseph is referring to Hebrews 7.

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

. . .

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

By referring to “ordinances,” Joseph is making a direct link to “law.”  Now go back and make that substitution anytime Joseph used the word “ordinances.”  The law doesn’t change and hasn’t changed in 2000 years.  Obedience, sacrifice, the Law of the Gospel, chastity, and consecration….those are the laws, bound by covenant, with concomitant blessings, that we can receive in the temple through, and because of, Jesus Christ.

Sixth, to suggest that a change of ordinances (which is not happening) constitutes a change of the priesthood is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.  If the priesthood changes, the ordinances change.  That’s what Hebrews 7 says.  But just because the ordinances change, does not mean that the priesthood changes.  Otherwise, it's like saying that 'the changing age of a child necessitates a change of their clothes' is the same as 'a child's change of the clothes necessitates a change in their age.'

Seventh, the “Presidency of the High Priesthood” has been given the keys of the kingdom.  D&C 81:2.  And the keys of the kingdom consist in the key of knowledge.  D&C 128:14.  Thus, the keys of the kingdom—prophets and apostles--will administer saving knowledge.  And we should reject every Hiram Page (D&C 28) and Ms. Hubble (D&C 43) that says otherwise, along the way.

Eighth, if the President of the Church, apostle, stake president, bishop, or deacon's quorum president is doing the very best they can and acting in His name, and according to the law and word HE has given them, they will be justified.  D&C 132:59.  While this can be open to abuse, the good news is that it's between the individual and those that hold keys above him--and that's it.

Please rethink the path that you are on.

[PacMan]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  It stops worthy members from fulfilling the promises made to them in the endowment and frankly limits the fulfillment of the restoration.  (How is Christ supposed to come as King of Kings if we have so few?)

But at the same time in our current culture I also see how there would be big problems if it became widespread among the members.

This isn't true at all.  All blessings are given to the faithful.  Some blessings can be expedited in life.  Some people need a more sure promise, given what the Lord has asked them to do and what sacrifices he requires of them for His cause.  But there is absolutely nothing that suggests that all other faithful, covenant keeping members will not be entitled to the same blessings.  And to the extent that an ordinance is needed, that can and will be done.  Eternity is a wonderfully long time.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sincere question because I'd love your thoughts on it:  At what point do you believe the changes to the endowment became too much?  Immediately after they changed from what JS directed, or at some other point?  

Do you believe that your endowment, for example, is one that will need to be done over during the millenium because of the many changes made to the ordinance before you were "endowed"?

I believe the endowment has two principle elements -

1. The ordinance itself with the covenants, names, signs, tokens, penalties, key words, veil ceremony, true prayer, initiatories, sealings etc.

2. The theatrical presentation of the creation, fall, and journey back to the presence of God.

I have no issues with changes to the theatricals.  They can and have changed repeatedly in this dispensation and are undoubtedly different from previous dispensations (Books of Genesis/Moses and Abraham being records of endowments).  I even suspect Brigham would have used movies if he'd had the technology.

I don't believe God has EVER authorized changes to the actual ordinance itself as described in #1 and he 100% will require they be reinstated and ordinances repeated if not complete - even mine.

So while I am bothered by this latest batch of changes I also don't believe the current endowment is valid to God and will need to be redone in the Millennium.  So further changes are wrong and further diminish the sacredness but we haven't had the endowment in decades anyway.

What really boggles my mind is that members see no resemblance between what's happening today and what happened in the first century or two after Christ.  It's wild they can't see it's literally identical

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What really boggles my mind is that members see no resemblance between what's happening today and what happened in the first century or two after Christ.  It's wild they can't see it's literally identical

Changes that occurred then were not top down, accepted/approved of by central leadership, happening to all the Church at once.  They were as I understand more a result of local leaders adapting ceremonies and doctrine to their own taste.

Our church is very, very consistent worldwide, not at all like the first century or two after Christ.

This does not prevent the changes from being non God directed or accepted by God as a lesser law, just pointing out why many members probably don’t see the current state as “literally identical” to the former one.

Edited August 17, 2024 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Changes that occurred then were not top down, accepted/approved of by central leadership, happening to all the Church at once.  They were as I understand more a result of local leaders adapting ceremonies and doctrine to their own taste.

Our church is very, very consistent worldwide, not at all like the first century or two after Christ.

And McDonald's used to be quality food. Consistency isn't always good.

Quote

This does not prevent the changes from being non God directed or accepted by God as a lesser law, just pointing out why many members probably don’t see the current state as “literally identical” to the former one.

That is a very fair point and one of the reasons I love your contributions here.

[Ragerunner]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

My feelings seem to match the teachings of Joseph Smith.

I think you have a right to your opinion.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, if he's right, I'm safe. I was endowed in 1972 before all this nonsense fiddling around with the one, true way of doing things happened.

Except that if you read up on the history of the endowment, nobody still alive is safe.

Plenty of changes before 1972 that could invalidate your endowment as well.  

Joking aside though, I think this is an important part of the discussion.  If there is a claim that the prophets have gone off the rails with the endowment, then the next logical question is, when did this happen.

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And McDonald's used to be quality food.

I assume you are joking here. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe the endowment has two principle elements -

1. The ordinance itself with the covenants, names, signs, tokens, penalties, key words, veil ceremony, true prayer, initiatories, sealings etc.

2. The theatrical presentation of the creation, fall, and journey back to the presence of God.

I have no issues with changes to the theatricals.  They can and have changed repeatedly in this dispensation and are undoubtedly different from previous dispensations (Books of Genesis/Moses and Abraham being records of endowments).  I even suspect Brigham would have used movies if he'd had the technology.

I don't believe God has EVER authorized changes to the actual ordinance itself as described in #1 and he 100% will require they be reinstated and ordinances repeated if not complete - even mine.

So while I am bothered by this latest batch of changes I also don't believe the current endowment is valid to God and will need to be redone in the Millennium.  So further changes are wrong and further diminish the sacredness but we haven't had the endowment in decades anyway.

 

Interesting.  At what point do you believe the changes invalidated the endowment?  I'm guessing that you see yourself as endowed but not people in the last few decades?

Quote

What really boggles my mind is that members see no resemblance between what's happening today and what happened in the first century or two after Christ.  It's wild they can't see it's literally identical

It's definitely interesting that none of the men ordained to lead the church and receive revelation for it agree with you.  I know that could come across as snarky but I don't mean it like that.  It's a real quandary.

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Plenty of changes before 1972 that could invalidate your endowment as well.  

Joking aside though, I think this is an important part of the discussion.  If there is a claim that the prophets have gone off the rails with the endowment, then the next logical question is, when did this happen.

If you want my honest opinion when changes were first questionable that would be 1923.

Prior to that changed were almost entirely cosmetic, theatrical, etc.  That was the first removal of anything that could be said to be part of the ordinance itself.

The actual ordinance proper was virtually consistent from 1842-1923, over 80 years.  In the past century they've probably removed 70% of the actual ordinance and adjacent temple related ordinances.

Imagine if we did that to baptism or the sacrament or any other key truths restored.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I assume you are joking here. 

My point is that the push to efficiency and consistency inevitably has an effect of decreasing quality and workmanship.

Cookie cutter, factory made, assembly line.  Pick your term.

Being able to blitz through the endowment in under an hour isn't a reason to celebrate if you look at scriptural precedent for communing with God.

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If you want my honest opinion when changes were first questionable that would be 1923.

Prior to that changed were almost entirely cosmetic, theatrical, etc.  That was the first removal of anything that could be said to be part of the ordinance itself.

The actual ordinance proper was virtually consistent from 1842-1923, over 80 years.  In the past century they've probably removed 70% of the actual ordinance and adjacent temple related ordinances.

Imagine if we did that to baptism or the sacrament or any other key truths restored.

If the Brethren saw it as you did, I'm assuming they would 100% agree with you.  So I'm thinking, they must not believe that 70% of the ordinance has been removed.  I don't know how to deal with the discrepancy between the two positions because they are dealing with things we can't even really discuss.  

Even though I don't feel it myself, I can appreciate how frustrating it must be to feel like you (and the rest of us) actually haven't been endowed with anything when the leadership of the church claims you have.

Especially if you believe that your sealing isn't valid since the validity of your endowment is in question.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the Brethren saw it as you did, I'm assuming they would 100% agree with you.  So I'm thinking, they must not believe that 70% of the ordinance has been removed.  I don't know how to deal with the discrepancy between the two positions because they are dealing with things we can't even really discuss.  

Even though I don't feel it myself, I can appreciate how frustrating it must be to feel like you (and the rest of us) actually haven't been endowed with anything when the leadership of the church claims you have.

Especially if you believe that your sealing isn't valid since the validity of your endowment is in question.

They, like most members, believe nothing has been lost. 🤷🏻

It's demonstrable that many elements are no longer part of the ordinance so what they're really saying is nothing important or of value or necessary was lost.

If God cared enough to reveal something to the prophet Joseph I would have a hard time believing that think to be unimportant or unnecessary.

And I think the fact that we don't discuss the temple makes it extremely easy for leadership to change it and membership to not care.  Everyone sees things are missing but nobody talks about it so nobody cares or asks why.

Again, I believe that's exactly what happened in the early Christian Church.  The people didn't know any better and the clergy changed whatever they wanted.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The people didn't know any better and the clergy changed whatever they wanted.

Like Cal said, I think the difference is that with this, it's not the clergy changing things, it's a prophet of God (many of them, I guess).  I think that's a major point in any discussion about apostasy or the loss of priesthood authority.

A bishop changing something and the prophet changing something, are not the same thing.

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like Cal said, I think the difference is that with this, it's not the clergy changing things, it's a prophet of God (many of them, I guess).  I think that's a major point in any discussion about apostasy or the loss of priesthood authority.

A bishop changing something and the prophet changing something, are not the same thing.

And again back to the doctrinal principle - there is direct correlation between priesthood authority and changing ordinances according to the Prophet Joseph.

A change in ordinances literally results in a change in priesthood authority.  And vice versa - a change in priesthood authority will result in changes to ordinances.

Any way you slice it because they changed the actual ordinances and covenants their priesthood authority is also changed.

We see this with the loss of priesthood by the children of Israel (the laymembers) and the limitation of the lesser priesthood for their leadership even though Moses (and Jethro) held more. The same with the early Christians who found themselves led by the Bishop of Rome.

We aren't there yet.  God may never let us get there but we're headed that way.

[webbles]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They, like most members, believe nothing has been lost. 🤷🏻

It's demonstrable that many elements are no longer part of the ordinance so what they're really saying is nothing important or of value or necessary was lost.

If God cared enough to reveal something to the prophet Joseph I would have a hard time believing that think to be unimportant or unnecessary.

And I think the fact that we don't discuss the temple makes it extremely easy for leadership to change it and membership to not care.  Everyone sees things are missing but nobody talks about it so nobody cares or asks why.

Again, I believe that's exactly what happened in the early Christian Church.  The people didn't know any better and the clergy changed whatever they wanted.

Are you ok with the removal of things in the endowment that Brigham Young added?  Because there are things we know that Brigham added and then were later removed.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, webbles said:

Are you ok with the removal of things in the endowment that Brigham Young added?  Because there are things we know that Brigham added and then were later removed.

I don't know of anything that Brigham added to the actual ordinance as described earlier in this thread. He added to the theatrical by systemizing its presentation including a lecture near the end.  But I know of no addition to the elements of the ordinance.

ETA - you must mean the oath of vengeance which while give during the endowment had absolutely no connection to the ordinance itself but put members under an additional covenant that logically ended when all those involved in the martyrdom had passed away.

It was never related to the ability to enter God's presence which is the entire purpose of the endowment.

 

Edited August 17, 2024 by JLHPROF