Endowment changes yet again

[JLHPROF]

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

[Amulek]

Well, when the endowment was first introduced it would take upwards of 8 hours.

I would say something closer to the 1-hour mark is an improvement for those of us who are engaged in proxy work for our ancestors.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, when the endowment was first introduced it would take upwards of 8 hours.

I would say something closer to the 1-hour mark is an improvement for those of us who are engaged in proxy work for our ancestors.

It's not an improvement if any of the following apply:

1. It isn't complete.

2. It isn't valid.

3. It represents a loss of priesthood authority.

4. It's the same situation as Israel and the lesser law or the early Christian Church and the Apostasy.

5. It no longer bestows the same eternal knowledge and keys of power.

[let’s roll]

I’ve enjoyed the most recent changes in the presentation of the endowment which IMO provide much improved context and clarity regarding the purpose and content of the endowment with an emphasis on its basis in Divine love.

[bluebell]

I don't remember who made the point (I'm thinking maybe S. Michael Wilcox?) but they talked about how the church is called the only "true and living church" in the Doctrine and Covenants and how living implies change and growth.  That really stood out to me.

Press releases are saying that they shortened it by removing redundant wording.  It'll be interesting to attend a session and see how that manifests.

 

 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not an improvement if any of the following apply:

1. It isn't complete.

2. It isn't valid.

3. It represents a loss of priesthood authority.

4. It's the same situation as Israel and the lesser law or the early Christian Church and the Apostasy.

5. It no longer bestows the same eternal knowledge and keys of power.

Agreed.  Have you been able to attend an endowment session lately?

[Stargazer]

52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not an improvement if any of the following apply:

1. It isn't complete.

2. It isn't valid.

3. It represents a loss of priesthood authority.

4. It's the same situation as Israel and the lesser law or the early Christian Church and the Apostasy.

5. It no longer bestows the same eternal knowledge and keys of power.

Perhaps you are wrong.

Perhaps the following will be familiar to you in connection with one thing we used to do in the endowment, that we stopped doing a decade or so ago:

When William the Conqueror was soliciting the support of the Fécamp Abbey in Normandy for his invasion of England in 1066, he promised to restore to them the English manors which an earlier king of England had given to them, but which Earl Godwin and his son, King Harold II, had taken away. He made his promise to the Abbot by swearing his oath upon a knife. In another instance in England after the Conquest, the Lord of Bramber forced his son Phillip to swear upon a knife that he would confirm his father's gifts to the Abbey of St. Florent after his father's death. As a child I remember certifying a promise by saying the words "Cross my heart; hope to die; stick a needle in my eye!" A less furious oath is the "pinkie promise." This means if you break the oath, your pinkie gets cut off. 

When they did away with that part of the endowment I am referring to, they did away with something that was no longer understood. It was misunderstood like a house afire. Plenty of active and faithful members just couldn't wrap their heads around it. In my opinion, it was well done away because it was no longer understood, was a burden, and didn't matter in the end.

I am looking forward to visiting the temple soon to see what has been changed.

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, 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

It seems to me that would include you, me, everyone on this thread.

What specifically can you do to become more capable of living the gospel so that we can have the original presentation?

[SkyRock]

I haven't liked all of the changes over the years.   Too much explanation and not enough "allowing for the Holy Ghost to enlighten minds and hearts".  Plus moving away from video and active participation throughout the Endowment losses something as well. 

I won't be surprised if everything changes again in a few years and restores certain aspects.   

Then again I won't be at all surprised if a future president of the church dumps a lot of the policy and procedure changes of the last decade. 

[Duncan]

I went today and yes, they have revised things, it's just about an hour. I think it's fantastic! The officiators have a bit more to do now than mostly just sit there and press the buttons and prayer circle, among other revisions.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

I haven't liked all of the changes over the years.   Too much explanation and not enough "allowing for the Holy Ghost to enlighten minds and hearts".  Plus moving away from video and active participation throughout the Endowment losses something as well. 

I won't be surprised if everything changes again in a few years and restores certain aspects.   

Then again I won't be at all surprised if a future president of the church dumps a lot of the policy and procedure changes of the last decade. 

I miss the live actors but I can see why they had to go with the slide-esque option since they have to accomodate so many different languages now.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I went today and yes, they have revised things, it's just about an hour. I think it's fantastic! The officiators have a bit more to do now than mostly just sit there and press the buttons and prayer circle, among other revisions.

I bet they appreciate that.  I would be hard to just sit for so long.

[JLHPROF]

I actually foresee the day when our temples become a lot like the Catholic cathedrals.

Beautiful buildings used for ceremonies like weddings and baptisms but also more open to the public.

I think the idea of them being reserved for the initiated, like the holy places in the Tabernacles and Temple of the Israelites, is going to disappear eventually.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Plenty of active and faithful members just couldn't wrap their heads around it.

I think this is key.  Even if they/we could be intellectually taught the meaning of taking oaths of that type just as you talk about them here, the emotional meaning is lost because it is no longer a part of our culture.  The fulfillment, the satisfaction of participating in that action is missing.  It is simply repetition of what they were taught, not living it.  I don’t believe God wants us participating in vain (as in useless) repetition in our worship. 

Foreign swear words are rarely as gut satisfying as the ones you come across as forbidden as a child I am guessing.

I have never been that fluent in a second language, I wonder if phrases can be emotion inducing when learned as an adult and not picked up while growing up, connecting actual experiences with the words and symbols one uses.

I think the effect of hymns is another great example as I have heard late converts often find our LDS music boring and not joyful and not that spiritual while many raised LDS find the band type of Christian music almost offensive in a worship setting from what I have heard (they are not actually offended, they just can’t understand how someone can feel close to the spirit in such a setting).  If one immerses oneself in a new form of music, I think one can learn to greatly appreciate it, but I wonder if it can reach out and get to you deep down without even trying as some hymns do to me whether I want them to or not, lol.

My father in law was a good and loving man, but his father died before he was born and he was brought up by a very strict woman.  What he learned about expressing love, he first learned in a textbook as he never saw it in his home (he was a psychologist).  I did not know this when I was first hugged by him, learned it years later, but his hugs were so uncomfortable to me and I like hugging.  I was actually freaked out a bit (not creeped out as it wasn’t that type of wrongness).  It took a bit to name the issue for me, eventually I just called his hugs hollow or empty, somehow though he was doing everything right, his hugs lacked soul, depth, meaning.  I suspect there were micro movements that communicated he was holding back somehow or was otherwise uncomfortable, but I never figured out what it was consciously, I only knew what I felt when he hugged me (which wasn’t often as I tried to avoid it to be honest).  I felt guilty about this, thought it was a hang up I had until I talked with one of his daughters who knew instantly what I was talking about and explained the cause to me as I explain it above.

I think us continuing to make the oaths would be similar; hollow, lacking soul because it is no longer our language and we will never be so fluent in oathmaking that it becomes meaningful in our hearts as well as our heads.  

Have we lost something because our culture has moved away from making literal oaths and treating them as concrete and literal as anything we can pick up, eat, or kill?  Yes, we have lost something as we do every time culture changes, but if culture never changed we would be losing out of all the potential good that comes to us through change.  We don’t have room in our head for all good things, at least not yet.  God made us as limited in what we could comprehend and pay attention to. He also instructed us to expect and accept continuing revelation.  We can’t be good disciples if we only hold on to past good and refuse to receive the new good he gives us.

Seems to me he is okay with church members in different times and places focusing on different aspects.  I doubt he sees one era as inherently better than the next as each likely has advantages and disadvantages…often because of the same thing.  Each individual has the chance to make the most of his own discipleship and be the best disciple they can.

Edited August 16 by Calm

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I actually foresee the day when our temples become a lot like the Catholic cathedrals.

Beautiful buildings used for ceremonies like weddings and baptisms but also more open to the public.

I think the idea of them being reserved for the initiated, like the holy places in the Tabernacles and Temple of the Israelites, is going to disappear eventually.

That seems like a massive jump from changes in the endowment given there haven’t been changes in temple worthiness, except to be more strict overtime.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

When they did away with that part of the endowment I am referring to, they did away with something that was no longer understood. It was misunderstood like a house afire. Plenty of active and faithful members just couldn't wrap their heads around it. In my opinion, it was well done away because it was no longer understood, was a burden, and didn't matter in the end.

An effort should've been made to educate the members on the scriptural precedents for, er, PO'S. I would love for them to be brought back, even though they ended before my time- they make clear the serious nature of the covenants being entered into.

You can find a scriptural precedent in this week's "Come, Follow Me" reading:

Alma 46:19-22

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

An effort should've been made to educate the members on the scriptural precedents for, er, PO'S.

A problem with using lay members who are neighbours with those they teach is it is hard to teach something that may be very outside of their culture.

There may be many members where such oaths are only associated with criminal or secret societies.

You can teach people the meaning, not sure you can teach the ‘vibe’.  That is the value of using symbols, creating the right kind of vibe.  If it’s not already attached to the symbol, how will they pick it up in a ritual learning?  My guess is those who do pick up the vi e are those who have enough flexible thinking to make a connection with something in their own upbringing that is deeply meaningful to them, but not everyone has developed that skill.

Edited August 16 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

A problem with using lay members who are neighbours with those they teach is it is hard to teach something that may be very outside of their culture.

There may be many members where such oaths are only associated with criminal or secret societies.

You can teach people the meaning, not sure you can teach the ‘vibe’.  My guess is those who do pick up the vi e are those who have enough flexible thinking to make a connection with something in their own upbringing that is deeply meaningful to them, but not everyone has developed that skill.

Maybe an education campaign for first time attendees within the House of the Lord conducted by a member of the Temple Presidency or even within the video (ie..."During the Endowment presentation you will participate in... These things have scriptural precedent and are symbolic of the seriousness of the covenants. They should never be interpreted as a call to physical action.")?

Edited August 16 by ZealouslyStriving

[Duncan]

I am a temple worker and was talking to the Temple President awhile back. He says the Temple Dept. sometimes sends him surveys to know what can be done to enhance the temple patron experience. I wonder if this came out of surveys given to Temple Presidents?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I am a temple worker and was talking to the Temple President awhile back. He says the Temple Dept. sometimes sends him surveys to know what can be done to enhance the temple patron experience. I wonder if this came out of surveys given to Temple Presidents?

I wouldn't be surprised.  The endowment is the most time-consuming aspect of temple work and that can make it difficult to do family names quickly.  Plus, where you can go and do initiatories in about an hour, hour and a half total, it could be a three hour commitment to do an endowment for people who lived even 30 minutes from a temple.  

[smac97]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't remember who made the point (I'm thinking maybe S. Michael Wilcox?) but they talked about how the church is called the only "true and living church" in the Doctrine and Covenants and how living implies change and growth.  That really stood out to me.

Press releases are saying that they shortened it by removing redundant wording.  It'll be interesting to attend a session and see how that manifests.

 

 

From the Tribune:

Quote

The sacred Latter-day Saint temple ceremony known as the “endowment” has once again undergone revisions, this time removing repetition from the script.

...

All told, roughly 15 minutes have been cut, bringing the experience closer to an hour flat.

Thanks,

-Smac

[OGHoosier]

Reminds me of this Wayfare article I read recently: https://open.substack.com/pub/wayfare/p/a-developing-church?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4am3j

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Maybe an education campaign for first time attendees within the House of the Lord conducted by a member of the Temple Presidency or even within the video (ie..."During the Endowment presentation you will participate in... These things have scriptural precedent and are symbolic of the seriousness of the covenants. They should never be interpreted as a call to physical action.")?

Can we learn how to love something through a lecture?  Or do we need to experience it, not just going through the motions, but actually do it and live with the consequences, good or bad?

To truly learn the gospel we have to be out there living it. Outside of the temple, where could we be living something similar to oath making in order for it to be more than just a curiosity in our ritual?  
 

I think there is already a lot we take on trust not understanding what they point to (why the shape of the caps and the veils for example), if there are too many unknowns when it comes to the symbols, I think the temple ceremony risks being emotionless and meaningless to many in and of itself, just something they do to be eligible for something else, not a growth experience in and of itself. It is a balancing act of mystery and familiarity imo. 

[Dario_M]

Things change. That's just how it is. Give it another 10 years and look how much the endowment will have changed again.

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps you are wrong.

Perhaps the following will be familiar to you in connection with one thing we used to do in the endowment, that we stopped doing a decade or so ago:

When William the Conqueror was soliciting the support of the Fécamp Abbey in Normandy for his invasion of England in 1066, he promised to restore to them the English manors which an earlier king of England had given to them, but which Earl Godwin and his son, King Harold II, had taken away. He made his promise to the Abbot by swearing his oath upon a knife. In another instance in England after the Conquest, the Lord of Bramber forced his son Phillip to swear upon a knife that he would confirm his father's gifts to the Abbey of St. Florent after his father's death. As a child I remember certifying a promise by saying the words "Cross my heart; hope to die; stick a needle in my eye!" A less furious oath is the "pinkie promise." This means if you break the oath, your pinkie gets cut off. 

When they did away with that part of the endowment I am referring to, they did away with something that was no longer understood. It was misunderstood like a house afire. Plenty of active and faithful members just couldn't wrap their heads around it. In my opinion, it was well done away because it was no longer understood, was a burden, and didn't matter in the end.

I am looking forward to visiting the temple soon to see what has been changed.

 

 

I understood the idea.  I just don't think that Heavenly Father, whose love I greatly feel, works that way. I'm grateful that my children could go without having the experience I did because it was removed.