Endowment changes yet again

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Rain said:

biases in their thinking

Having them called penalties is a massive bias.  I would love to know why it was chosen.

Edited August 30, 2024 by Calm

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

No. Just because people didn't catch it doesn't mean they didn't listen closely. They could have had every effort focused on listening and still not catch it because of problems with hearing, biases in their thinking, experiences they have had, experiences with the Spirit.

Think about the many times you have read the scriptures while "listening" closely. How many times have you caught something when you read the 2nd, or 3rd or 4th time? The same thing happens when we hear things. No one is set up to get it all the first time, or 2nd or even 20th.

So putting the blame on the person for not listening closely ignores the human body and experience. I'm not saying everyone always listens closely. I'm only saying it is not always the problem.

So are you saying you understood exactly what you were saying the first time you went through? That you never learned anything more from the words spoken? 

I understood that before I went to the temple.  I understand that the penalties helped you understand that.  They made it no stronger for me. 

My husband makes no promises.  Never has. His word is his bond. For other people promising something makes it stronger.  For my husband it would not.

From what you say it sounds like you needed something that made it more stongly serious for you. I did not. We are different and that's ok.  

Last night after I posted to you the memories came flying in. Memories of the few months before I went to the temple. I understood even more of why I felt the way I did when I went. I'm glad that the wording helps you. My experiences make the actual wording very disturbing for me (and similar things have done the same for others). 

As more members come from countries where they have experienced extreme violence* it makes sense to me to find a different way to help people come to God. 

*Recently I attended a 20 year memorial of 100s of Congolese people violently killed in a refugee camp and heard the stories of some of the survivors who were there. I wish that was all that happened as this continues today.  With 4 temples scheduled to be in the Congo I think it is wonderful that someone has heard the cries of those so disturbed by things which happened in the temple and have found a way to change it.

So I truly feel sorrow that some feel something important was lost for them, but I am ever so grateful that in the temple where people have taught of feeling God’s love it is more safe for those who would feel trauma with the penalties.  

And what people get out of the temple is not always because some of us listened closely or some of us didn't.  It's not always because some of us understood the words and some didn't.  Most often it's because we are each different people, with different spirits and different experiences. 

I became a member in 1992, so I never heard that version, but from what little I’ve heard about it, I just figured it was something that made sense back in the 1800s but not as much in our time. 
 

IMO, it is dismissive and arrogant for someone to tell you that you were just not listening because you did not understand it the way they did. Basically saying they are superior in their listening and comprehension skills, but I’m not surprised considering the source. 

 

Edited August 30, 2024 by Peacefully

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

No. Just because people didn't catch it doesn't mean they didn't listen closely. They could have had every effort focused on listening and still not catch it because of problems with hearing, biases in their thinking, experiences they have had, experiences with the Spirit.

Think about the many times you have read the scriptures while "listening" closely. How many times have you caught something when you read the 2nd, or 3rd or 4th time? The same thing happens when we hear things. No one is set up to get it all the first time, or 2nd or even 20th.

So putting the blame on the person for not listening closely ignores the human body and experience. I'm not saying everyone always listens closely. I'm only saying it is not always the problem.

So are you saying you understood exactly what you were saying the first time you went through? That you never learned anything more from the words spoken? 

I understood that before I went to the temple.  I understand that the penalties helped you understand that.  They made it no stronger for me. 

My husband makes no promises.  Never has. His word is his bond. For other people promising something makes it stronger.  For my husband it would not.

From what you say it sounds like you needed something that made it more stongly serious for you. I did not. We are different and that's ok.  

Last night after I posted to you the memories came flying in. Memories of the few months before I went to the temple. I understood even more of why I felt the way I did when I went. I'm glad that the wording helps you. My experiences make the actual wording very disturbing for me (and similar things have done the same for others). 

As more members come from countries where they have experienced extreme violence* it makes sense to me to find a different way to help people come to God. 

*Recently I attended a 20 year memorial of 100s of Congolese people violently killed in a refugee camp and heard the stories of some of the survivors who were there. I wish that was all that happened as this continues today.  With 4 temples scheduled to be in the Congo I think it is wonderful that someone has heard the cries of those so disturbed by things which happened in the temple and have found a way to change it.

So I truly feel sorrow that some feel something important was lost for them, but I am ever so grateful that in the temple where people have taught of feeling God’s love it is more safe for those who would feel trauma with the penalties.  

And what people get out of the temple is not always because some of us listened closely or some of us didn't.  It's not always because some of us understood the words and some didn't.  Most often it's because we are each different people, with different spirits and different experiences. 

The "listen closely" is in response to those that claimed that violating the penalties meant the Church would kill you. 

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Having them called penalties is a massive bias.  I would love to know why it was chosen.

Joseph and Brigham instituted them. Someday we will know.

[Rain]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The "listen closely" is in response to those that claimed that violating the penalties meant the Church would kill you. 

 Ok, I'm listening closely (not be sarcastic here). Are you saying they should be listening closely to you? Because if you are I did not catch that and I apologize. You may want to clarify that you are wanting them to catch what you are saying.

Or are you saying if they had listened closely when they went they would have caught that? This is what I strongly understood you to be saying.

Either way this still stands,

"Just because people didn't catch it doesn't mean they didn't listen closely. They could have had every effort focused on listening and still not catch it because of problems with hearing, biases in their thinking, experiences they have had, experiences with the Spirit."

 

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

 Ok, I'm listening closely (not be sarcastic here). Are you saying they should be listening closely to you? Because if you are I did not catch that and I apologize. You may want to clarify that you are wanting them to catch what you are saying.

Or are you saying if they had listened closely when they went they would have caught that? This is what I strongly understood you to be saying.

Either way this still stands,

"Just because people didn't catch it doesn't mean they didn't listen closely. They could have had every effort focused on listening and still not catch it because of problems with hearing, biases in their thinking, experiences they have had, experiences with the Spirit."

 I’m a nobody. Why would anyone listen to me? 

Making covenants is a step above just reading scriptures. Everyone heard exactly the same words no matter where they lived, the language they spoke, whatever their biases were, how well their hearing worked. Yet some apparently thought the Church was threatening them, while others correctly understand that they were promising not to reveal sacred things even under threat of death.

We should pay close attention to the precisely chosen wording of the covenants we make because eternity depends on our correct understanding both in mind and by the Spirit. The same goes for every other part of the Endowment that to some may seem “problematic.” 

In my opinion, of course. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I became a member in 1992, so I never heard that version, but from what little I’ve heard about it, I just figured it was something that made sense back in the 1800s but not as much in our time. 
 

IMO, it is dismissive and arrogant for someone to tell you that you were just not listening because you did not understand it the way they did. Basically saying they are superior in their listening and comprehension skills, but I’m not surprised considering the source. 

 

This is so disappointing and unfair. What source are you referring to? Why do you make this a personal slur? You don’t even know me, yet you leap to such a dismissive judgement?

In good faith I am suggesting that we pay attention to our most important saving covenants…how they are so meticulously worded each time they are given because we must know exactly what we are promising. Could you respond in good faith so that we can Peacefully communicate?
 

[Senator]

49 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 We should pay close attention to the precisely chosen wording of the covenants we make because eternity depends on our correct understanding both in mind and by the Spirit.

I highly doubt that.

[Peacefully]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is so disappointing and unfair. What source are you referring to? Why do you make this a personal slur? You don’t even know me, yet you leap to such a dismissive judgement?

In good faith I am suggesting that we pay attention to our most important saving covenants…how they are so meticulously worded each time they are given because we must know exactly what we are promising. Could you respond in good faith so that we can Peacefully communicate?
 

No thank you. 

[Rain]

56 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 I’m a nobody. Why would anyone listen to me? 

I wondered if you were saying to listen to you because the temple has been changed.  There is no longer anyway for people to listen to what it was before unless they hear it from other people.  You didn't seem to understand what I was saying so I thought maybe I was just not understanding you.  That's why I wanted to clarify.

56 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Making covenants is a step above just reading scriptures. Everyone heard exactly the same words no matter where they lived, the language they spoke, whatever their biases were, how well their hearing worked. Yet some apparently thought the Church was threatening them, while others correctly understand that they were promising not to reveal sacred things even under threat of death.

We should pay close attention to the precisely chosen wording of the covenants we make because eternity depends on our correct understanding both in mind and by the Spirit. The same goes for every other part of the Endowment that to some may seem “problematic.” 

In my opinion, of course. 

We may just have to disagree here, but to see if that's really the case would you please answer these questions? Note I'm not trying to argue here. I'm truly trying to understand your point of view. Here they are in a nutshell:

1. Did you catch every word said when you went to the temple for the first time when you were truly listening?

2. Do you catch every word said when you read the scriptures while truly concentrating?

If you caught every word said then I can see why you feel the way you do. I still disagree that it has to be that way for others, but I can see why this would be your opinion and I'll let it go.

3. If you didn't catch every word while clearly listening how is this different from what you are saying here? 

[manol]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The "listen closely" is in response to those that claimed that violating the penalties meant the Church would kill you. 

Who made the claim that "violating the penalties meant the Church would kill you"? 

Edited August 30, 2024 by manol

[Bernard Gui]

54 minutes ago, Rain said:

1. Did you catch every word said when you went to the temple for the first time when you were truly listening?

Of course not. That was 60 years ago, but I know I did not feel my life was in danger because of the covenants I made. 

54 minutes ago, Rain said:

2. Do you catch every word said when you read the scriptures while truly concentrating?

Of course not. It's not relevant to this discussion.

54 minutes ago, Rain said:

4. If you caught every word said then I can see why you feel the way you do. I still disagree that it has to be that way for others, but I can see why this would be your opinion and I'll let it go.

I have never insisted that anyone going to the temple for the first time would absorb everything that is there....but there is certainly much less now, for whatever reason the Brethren deem necessary.

54 minutes ago, Rain said:

5. If you didn't catch every word while clearly listening how is this different from what you are saying here? 

1. I did not run from the temple in terror because I thought I had given the Church permission to kill me, nor vowed never to return, nor used it as an excuse to dis the Church in public and convince

others to leave. To the best of my memory, from the start I realized that the Church was not threatening to kill me, but that I was taking serious, sacred, and consequential covenants the violation

of which would be mocking God. Recently Sister Gui and I have come to understand the ancient nature of such a sacred oath.

2. As far as I can remember, I understood from the start that the words were "rather than..." not "if I...."

3. I first became aware  this issue years and years ago on this very board when I objected to an virulent anti-Mormon participant's claim that we take a blood oath covenant that the Church could kill

us if we revealed the covenants.  I remember him calling me a liar and taking advantage of the covenant's very words to which I could not respond without violating the oath,

but I had been there and I knew precisely what the covenant was and that he was deeply in the wrong. Here is an example. It would be unfortunate if disaffected members perpetuated this lie.

Quote

Prior to April, 1990, everyone who participated in the Mormon Temple endowment ceremony was required to swear oaths of secrecy that were punishable by death.

4. I am saying here that if one listened to the words of the covenant they were making, perhaps they would have recognized that the above and similar slanders are demonic lies and they would not take offense.

 

Now that the sacred secrecy of the covenants have been breached, this all becomes moot, in my opinion. Perhaps the Lord in his wisdom and mercy takes away sacred things that have been profaned by evil people,

or perhaps given our circumstances where misunderstanding and misinformation abound and offenses are so easily taken, we have to adjust. 

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Everyone heard exactly the same words no matter where they lived, the language they spoke

Few words translate perfectly across languages so how could everyone have heard the same words no matter what language they spoke?

Quote

We should pay close attention to the precisely chosen wording of the covenants we make because eternity depends on our correct understanding both in mind and by the Spirit. 

Why?  And when is this required of us?

And how odd then that the Church insists the temple workers not instruct patrons on the interpretation and we are not allowed to discuss the precise temple wording of certain parts of the endowment outside the temple if we need a precise understanding of both in mind as well as Spirit.  What happens to those who are not able to attend the temple until they correctly understand?

Edited August 30, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

am saying here that if one listened to the words of the covenant they were making, perhaps they would have recognized that the above and similar slanders are demonic lies and they would not take offense.

You do not see any other reason that members were taking offense to the oath besides the misunderstanding that they were giving permission to the Church to kill them?

[MustardSeed]

I can understand why people accuse us of being culty now that I understand the “penalty” history and how present practices continue to reflect that symbolism in the ceremony.  
 

It remains deeply disturbing to me.  I also understand that it’s not disturbing to others.  I suppose I recognize that I’m probably one who will have to pay penalties (maybe not that one specifically but it represents to me an angry God, all that gore) so it feels personal.  

[The Nehor]

So am I under the covenants and promises I made or the ones currently extant? Asking for a friend. I am the friend.

[Mfbnew]

On 8/17/2024 at 6:40 PM, Peacefully said:

I was an ordinance worker so I memorized the initiatory, name and endowment and I didn’t want to forget it. It has been 10 years but it is still there for me whenever I need it:) Some phrases hit differently over the years similar to reading scripture or my patriarcal blessing. 

Absolutely agree.  Can't give you a "point" though as a newbie. 

I was in a similar situation and I would analyze every word and associate the words with the gestures and I saw that the gestures can be seen as something like a "semaphore code" which embellish the message even further.  We are all beggars before the Lord hoping to build our heavenly abodes, trying to build them straight and true.

 

[Mfbnew]

On 8/28/2024 at 4:15 PM, MiserereNobis said:

The Rosary  

Don't listen to the critics here- but of course you know that.

Forgive them- they know not what they are saying. 

The rosary can become a powerful "mantra" which keeps one tied to earth while one's mind can be in "heaven".

We criticize Catholics sometimes for repeated prayers while we have ordinance after ordinance which must be word perfect.  like our sacrament prayer.  That's totally inconsistent.  I have told a story here several times now about a priest who allowed me to give a talk from within the sanctuary, because I was at the time a "Mormon Bishop", on the occasion of my mother's funeral.  

He did a brief interview about how I felt about about Christ- and then approved it, saying that "it's all the same anyway" after our discussion of our beliefs of the savior.

I am beginning to think he was right.

[Rain]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So am I under the covenants and promises I made or the ones currently extant? Asking for a friend. I am the friend.

I asked the temple president after one of the changes in the last 10 years, I don't remember which.  He only said, "well, aren't they the same?".  I didn't really think so, but he wasn't willing to talk along those lines and basically just said the same thing over.

[Stargazer]

On 8/25/2024 at 10:15 PM, Mfbnew said:

Rabbit or duck?

Semiotics.  "Signs" all the way down in any utterance anyway!

Depends on how you want to give meaning or lack thereof in every utterance anyway.   Be good and not bad.

It's symbols all the way down anyway.  I remember the uproar in 1990 all for naught.  We don't need to get into the way-back machine.  I can still recite the penalties, and often my brain wants to do so at those particular times if I am not paying attention as I should be.

So is this "bad"?  Is it "good"?   Where is the sign "Welcome to Zarahemla" written in modified Egyptian ?

Either you accept the CORE BELIEFS or you don't.  One can express the "same thing" in different language games- the meaning is in the context.

Same paradigm expressed in modern language.   Finally the church is escaping the Protestant literalism, after all these years.  Alma 32.  What is "sweet" in your heart is "true".

I vote "yes"!

My heart tastes an entire gallon of honey.  At last!

You need to post some more, so I can give you upvotes.

What happened to your computer that you lost access to your original account @mfbukowski anyway?

It happens that I had an earlier account before Stargazer that used my primary email address, but I can't recover that account because the board software refuses to send me a password reset. It doesn't say it can't, it just doesn't. My original account isn't important, so I haven't bothered to ask @Nemesis to do anything about it, but surely there's something that can be done about yours? You have way too much history in there, my friend!

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

Absolutely agree.  Can't give you a "point" though as a newbie. 

I was in a similar situation and I would analyze every word and associate the words with the gestures and I saw that the gestures can be seen as something like a "semaphore code" which embellish the message even further.  We are all beggars before the Lord hoping to build our heavenly abodes, trying to build them straight and true.

 

Thank you and welcome back:) 

 

Edited August 31, 2024 by Peacefully

[Stargazer]

On 8/25/2024 at 10:53 PM, CV75 said:

I would say the non-theatrical part of the endowment, “the actual ordinance itself,” is the authorized conveyance of covenants, which are to wear the garment the law of obedience, the law of sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration. What are the specific covenants missing from this list? How have their conveyance changed, for example, as baptism by sprinkling replaced immersion? When the conveyance of covenants is integrated with the theatrical performance, where does the legitimate changing of one or the other begin and end, whether in words, actions, costuming, set design, etc.?

In my opinion, the Lord could change the ordinance of baptism and authorize sprinkling in lieu of immersion. If He wanted to, which I'm sure he doesn't. Well before the changes in the endowment that omitted the penalties, the initiatory was rather more hands-on, requiring a modesty shield. And even before that (like WAY before, see Exodus 40:12,13) washing and anointing involved immersion in water and pouring oil and not merely putting a drop of oil onto the head. The actions involved in administration of the endowment in the modern temple have always been symbolic and not literal.

As for loss of authority due to changing of ordinances, as I wrote before, the ordinances do not confer authority, but authority confers the ordinances. The Apostasy did not involve the changing of ordinances, but rather the loss of authority to validly perform them. This loss of authority occurred because keys in the form of men authorized to pass them on were lost. In the Primitive Church, only the members of the Twelve had authority to issue keys of authority (as far as we know). When they were no longer able to come together to keep themselves organized and to maintain that quorum, upon their deaths the authority fell into abeyance, and no further local authorities having local keys could be called. So the authority was lost, and without the guidance of the Twelve, the ordinances were changed and lost.

In our day every stake and mission president in the church holds the keys of authority to ordain other men to the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods within their own stakes or missions. But they do not have the authority to pass those keys along to other men. That authority resides with the higher authority as constituted in the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, and the First Quorum of the Seventy (see DC 107:22-26). If all members of those three bodies were to be taken from the earth, we'd be in the same predicament as the saints of the Primitive Church.

[Stargazer]

On 8/26/2024 at 5:16 PM, Tacenda said:

Well, I went in '84 and maybe it's the repercussions that if they don't what might happen.

Actually, it's a symbolic representation as to what you are willing to endure if you are threatened to reveal them, not a threat of punishment if you do. It was called a "penalty" only because English doesn't have a word for the concept. Or, I've not heard the word if one exists.

If you recall your childhood you may have heard your playmates certifying that what they were promising to do, or certifying that they were telling the truth, by using variations of the phraseology "Cross my heart; hope to die; stick a needle in my eye!" Sounds childish, doesn't it? But it was not uncommon in past centuries to strengthen a promise or swear to the truth of what one was saying by similar incantations. For example, in order to obtain their financial and moral support for his invasion of England, William the Conqueror promised the Fecamp Abbey in Normandy to restore their estates in England that the English king had taken away. He sealed his promise (actually a covenant) by swearing upon a knife, similar in mode to how a US president-elect will take the oath of office by placing his hand on the Bible. In the Conqueror's case, swearing upon a knife was symbolic of how serious he was about following through with his promise. The promise said, in effect, that only a knife (or his death in battle) would prevent his fulfilling of his oath. 

[Stargazer]

On 8/30/2024 at 6:19 AM, Calm said:

Having them called penalties is a massive bias.  I would love to know why it was chosen.

As far as I'm aware, English doesn't have a word for what they actually were. See my response to Tacenda.

[Stargazer]

On 8/27/2024 at 7:23 PM, manol said:

I've learned more about the history of the endowment from your posts than from whatever I encountered before; I didn't even know the history of the endowment was know-able to any extent.

For context, my experience with the endowment began in late 1979.  It always seemed to me that the penalties (which have since been omitted) were somewhat at odds with the spirit of this statement by Joseph Smith: 

"Pure friendship always becomes weakened the very moment you undertake to make it stronger by penal oaths and secrecy." 

How confident are you that the penalties Brigham incorporated into the endowment were what Joseph intended? 

I've written about this already in this thread, but as I know that not everyone reads every post in every thread, I'll explain again.

The penalties were not penal. In other words, they were not punishments to be applied upon violation of secrecy. They were promises to hold the tokens and signs sacred, and were not to be revealed except as authorized. The promise was that the promisor would refuse to reveal them even upon threat of death. In other words, "You can't make me tell you!" 

As I have written before, such oaths used to be common.

As for "penal oaths," let me repeat myself: Actually, it's a symbolic representation as to what you are willing to endure if you are threatened to reveal them, not a threat of punishment if you do. It was called a "penalty" only because English doesn't have a word for the concept. Or, I've not heard the word if one exists.

If you recall your childhood you may have heard your playmates certifying that what they were promising to do, or certifying that they were telling the truth, by using variations of the phraseology "Cross my heart; hope to die; stick a needle in my eye!" Sounds childish, doesn't it? But it was not uncommon in past centuries to strengthen a promise or swear to the truth of what one was saying by similar incantations. For example, in order to obtain their financial and moral support for his invasion of England, William the Conqueror promised the Fecamp Abbey in Normandy to restore their estates in England that the English king had taken away. He sealed his promise (actually a covenant) by swearing upon a knife, similar in mode to how a US president-elect will take the oath of office by placing his hand on the Bible. In the Conqueror's case, swearing upon a knife was symbolic of how serious he was about following through with his promise. The promise said, in effect, that only a knife (or his death in battle) would prevent his fulfilling of his oath. 

As for secrecy, we must not forget that the Lord Himself has, from time to time, ordered the keeping of secrets. It happened during the Lord's mortal ministry that after the Transfiguration he instructed Peter, James, and John to keep what happened on the mount a secret until after his resurrection. Paul reported that he had been taken into the "third heaven" where he heard things he was not allowed to tell anyone. Alma told Zeezrom "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." In DC 19:21 the Lord says "And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things [in Section 19] unto the world until it is wisdom in me."

The "secrecy" involved in the Endowment is because those who are not ready are to be spared that knowledge until they are ready. Again quoting from DC 19:22 "For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish." 

The Endowment is intended for everyone. Any secrecy is due to lack of preparation, not a general need for secrecy. We are also instructed not to share our patriarchal blessings with all and sundry -- not because they are secret, but because they are sacred and personal.