Endowment changes yet again

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/30/2024 at 2:24 PM, Senator said:

I highly doubt that.

I don't, but  you are free to do as you wish.

Edited August 31, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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

Yes, there is consequence and ‘unto death’ but not both precise and concise that I can think of. 

Edited August 31, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 8/29/2024 at 12:27 AM, Calm said:

Holy Envy there…

You don't need a rosary, per se. You could get some stainless steel Buddha Beads, like mine here:

This set of 108 buddha beads (on very sturdy steel wire) has supposedly been blessed by eminent Buddhist monks, and can be worn as a necklace. In the hoplophobic country of England, one might legally carry this for supposed religious reasons, but it's sturdy enough to serve as a self-defense weapon if needed -- as long as you don't tell police that's what you carry it for, self-defense being effectively outlawed here.

I don't actually carry them around; they're just for my amusement. But it seems that if one could figure out a way to use them for one's personal religious observance, well... I suppose one could also say the Rosary with them, if one were so inclined.

[Calm]

I prefer the rosary, one actually made with rose petals so that it releases that scent as the beads are counted. Seems a more appropriate thought to be had for my purposes at least than a rosary as a weapon. 

[Stargazer]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

I prefer the rosary, one actually made with rose petals so that it releases that scent as the beads are counted. Seems a more appropriate thought to be had for my purposes at least than a rosary as a weapon. 

Of course, we all carry weapons everywhere we go, and we fold those weapons sometimes in prayer. 

[Mfbnew]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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!

Thanks!  My experience was the same as yours, but I usually cut and paste the replies I write that I think are "good" into a special folder. It was a malware problem, essentially, but my final problem was the password reset as well.  It would be nice if there was a mod available to help with such stuff, but they all have busy lives too!

It would be great if they could fix the password change problem though!   I don't see any way that they are making money here so as I see it, they have to be pretty dedicated here to keep it all going at all.   But yeah there was a lot of stuff that is just gone I think.

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Mfbnew said:

It would be nice if there was a mod available to help with such stuff, but they all have busy lives too!

That's why I invoked @Nemesis

[sheilauk]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In the hoplophobic country of England, one might legally carry this for supposed religious reasons, but it's sturdy enough to serve as a self-defense weapon if needed -- as long as you don't tell police that's what you carry it for, self-defense being effectively outlawed here.

Given you are a guest in the UK this is quite insulting.  Self defence is not outlawed and is a perfectly valid legal defence.  And banning the carrying of offensive weapons and bladed articles to reduce harm to the inhabitants of the UK is hardly an irrational fear of weapons.  Just because our culture isn’t yours doesn’t make it irrational.  Gosh, some of our police officers even carry guns!  There have been some serious armed attacks in the past and as a result various weapons have been banned, by public demand.  And we can choose to act differently to your culture if we wish. It may even be why the US murder rate is 4x that of the UK.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, sheilauk said:

It may even be why the US murder rate is 4x that of the UK.

I am jealous.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/01/1102239642/school-shooting-dunblane-massacre-uvalde-texas-gun-control

Quote

As Americans continue to reel from the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas that left 19 students and 2 teachers dead, headlines and commentators repeat a common refrain: The U.S is the only country where this happens.

Nowadays that may be true, but 26 years ago, it happened in Scotland. In March 1996, a gunman entered Dunblane Primary School, killing 16 students, a teacher, and injuring 15 others. To this day, it is the deadliest mass shooting in UK history.

But that's where the similarities end. In the aftermath of the shooting, parents in Dunblane were able to mobilize with the kind of effectiveness that has eluded American gun control activists. By the following year, Parliament had banned private ownership of most handguns, as well as semi-automatic weapons, and required mandatory registration for shotgun owners. There have been no school shootings in the U.K since then.

It’s an island and therefore easier to control import, so I wouldn’t expect such a dramatic change in the US if we did the same.  I would, however, expect significant change.

[sheilauk]

I remember the Dunblane shooting, it was horrific and the whole country wanted to make sure it never happened again.

[Calm]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
 

Quote

Only shootings that have Wikipedia articles of their own are included in this list. Detailed lists of mass shootings can be found per year at their respective pages.

Quote

This article is a list of mass shootings in the United Kingdom. Mass shootings are firearm-related violence with at least four casualties. This list does not include violence during the Troubles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
 

The US uses a table of incidents per year, the UK uses one per decade for a list of its mass shootings, though some may be missing as it admits to being incomplete.  The US tables of only notable mass shootings tend to be twice as long.

Yes, this is pure politics and it is way off topic too…feel free to report me and get me banned from the thread.

Edited August 31, 2024 by Calm

[Nevo]

On 8/30/2024 at 4:53 PM, MustardSeed said:

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.  

I certainly understand why the penalties don't sit well with a modern audience, but they had an important meaning that is now lost.

As the Catholic scholar Scott Hahn points out in his book Kinship by Covenant, in the Old Testament, covenants were ratified or made binding by oaths that included "a conditional self-maledictory pledge." He quotes another scholar who comments: "In its basic form, the oath is a conditional self-curse calling upon God . . . to judge in the case of a breached promise or to stand as witness to a person's veracity. Therefore the effectiveness of an oath is dependent upon the oathmaker's view of the sovereign and his ability to enact the prescribed judgment upon one who disregards the oath."

Hahn notes that covenant oaths had two parts: verba solemnia (the actual words of the oath) and a ritual enactment ("oath-sign"), which often concealed a self-maledictory element. Many covenant oaths were accompanied by an animal sacrifice (hence the expression "cutting a covenant"), which carried evident "self-maledictory symbolism" (see, e.g., Jer. 34:18).  

The temple penalties carried on this largely forgotten tradition from ancient covenant-making practices. Taking an oath before God is a serious business, and the penalties used to underscore that.

 

Edited August 31, 2024 by Nevo

[Tacenda]

On 8/27/2024 at 12:23 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 wonder if the original temple penalties were for use against anyone talking about living polygamy since it was against the law? I know that won't come off well with many on this thread though. 

But now, no one has to live polygamy like back then as it was a commandment to live it. Or you wouldn't reach the celestial kingdom. I thought back then, at least maybe coming from Brigham Young if I'm remembering right. 

Edited August 31, 2024 by Tacenda

[manol]

On 8/17/2024 at 1:08 PM, The Nehor said:

I wish we could pin this down. On one hand temples and temple work are absolutely vital and not receiving temple blessings weakens the saints and the blessings gained from making and keeping temple covenants are lost. On the other hand if for any reason you can’t get the temple blessings it doesn’t really matter at all and God will work it all out in the end.

Imo one conclusion which could be drawn from the situation you describe is this:

Nobody gets screwed. 

I think The Good Shepherd will always find way. 

Edited August 31, 2024 by manol

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

wonder if the original temple penalties were for use against anyone talking about living polygamy since it was against the law? I know that won't come off well with many on this thread though. 

Well, the oaths were more about preventing, as in ‘I would rather die than expose this’, imo…so I suppose it could be taken to mean by some if they knew of someone who were going to talk, that it would be better for the potential oath breaker to be killed, but they sounded less like that to me and more of a challenge to anyone who would think they could get an endowed member to spill whatever by any sort of pressure, including torture.  The oaths I remember didn’t sound like they were giving permission to others that if I changed my mind, lost faith and became an apostate, that the old me wanted the fallen me to be killed before I broke my oath, but I can also understand why others might interpret the oaths that way.

@Stargazer, it occurs to me that when most people talk about the penalties in the temple, they aren’t talking about the potential event of resistance to death, but simply referring to the oaths that describe what type of resistance the person was willing to undergo or at least what they said they were willing to undergo.  If so, surely oaths would work as well as penalties in most cases.  But am willing to be corrected here…

And Tacenda, as long as you mean accept the Principle as revelation from God and being willing to live it if commanded and not actually married polygamously for living polygamy, I won’t disagree it was required for the Celestial Kingdom.   

Edited August 31, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

I am curious if anyone knows what happened if anything to the nonleaders who did not seek permission from their bishop or other leaders to marry polygamously and didn’t bother to be sealed to their polygamous wives, but had a marriage ceremony of some sort?  Were they viewed as committing adultery even if the original wife (wives) agreed to it?  Did one have to be endowed and sealed for the polygamous marriage to be viewed as legitimate?

[webbles]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if the original temple penalties were for use against anyone talking about living polygamy since it was against the law? I know that won't come off well with many on this thread though. 

Interesting idea but I don't think so.  The first endowment was in 1842.  By the time of Joseph's death, there were about 50 who had been endowed.  Many of those were polygamous, but not all.  And a few of the polygamous men and women were not endowed.  By the time the church was in Utah, they practiced polygamy openly.

 

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, webbles said:

Interesting idea but I don't think so.  The first endowment was in 1842.  By the time of Joseph's death, there were about 50 who had been endowed.  Many of those were polygamous, but not all.  And a few of the polygamous men and women were not endowed.  By the time the church was in Utah, they practiced polygamy openly.

 

There were around 6000 endowments in Nauvoo before going west.  Would these have mostly been tied to sealings as well, both monogamous and polygamous? (So around 2500, 3000 sealings?)***

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/museum/museum-treasures-nauvoo-temple-in-ruins-lithograph?lang=eng#

Quote

Their narratives begin with the lighting of fires and hauling of water each morning at 3:00 a.m. (many ordinance workers slept overnight in the temple) to late-night celebratory dancing (“We danced unto the Lord,” Brigham Young explained)…when evening came, Young himself led in dancing to live music in the Celestial Room 

https://www.signaturebooks.com/books/p/the-nauvoo-endowment-companies-1845-1846
 

I like this version of temple worship…conveys such joyfulness rather than a sense of duty, obligation.  The author in the above link appears to see it as a contradiction, I see it quite differently, a natural outpouring of communal joy and sense of oneness.  Few things are as good as dancing as a group to bond as a group imo.  And likely the attic area that served for ordinance work at that time was more flexible in changing its character than anything we have now, so not as absurd as it might seem to some.

https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/NJ11.2_Crockett.pdf

***Found the answer, about 1200 marriage sealings, some polygamous, most monogamous, for the living with some proxy for deceased spouses.

Edited August 31, 2024 by Calm

[webbles]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

There were around 6000 endowments in Nauvoo before going west.  Would these have mostly been tied to sealings as well, both monogamous and polygamous? (So around 2500, 3000 sealings?)***

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

***Found the answer, about 1200 marriage sealings, some polygamous, most monogamous, for the living with some proxy for deceased spouses.

I think https://archive.org/details/nauvoo-sealings-adoptions-and-anointings/mode/2up?view=theater is the best source for all the ordinances that were performed in the Nauvoo Temple.  Page 361 has the statistics: 5583 endowments, 1097 sealings between living spouses, 206 sealings with a proxy.

[Stargazer]

On 8/31/2024 at 6:57 PM, sheilauk said:

Given you are a guest in the UK this is quite insulting.  

My apologies! I didn't intend to insult anyone. I was just expressing my opinion about an aspect of living here. And I'm not quite a guest these days. As a legal permanent resident I feel I have a small amount of privilege in voicing my opinions. And my application for citizenship is currently pending. In a few months I may be almost as British as you. Almost. Whom shall I vote for in the next election? 

Have you seen any of my Yank in Sussex videos? Here's my video about Elizabeth II: On the Passing of Elizabeth II

On 8/31/2024 at 6:57 PM, sheilauk said:

Self defence is not outlawed and is a perfectly valid legal defence.  

In expressing my opinion about self-defense (<- still spelling it in American), I am not alone. My son-in-law (a Scot living in England) had this to say: "Whatever you do, if you get mugged don't insult the person mugging you. You'll find yourself brought up on a public order charge." In saying "self-defense being effectively outlawed here" you should note a strong degree of exaggeration for effect. Of course it is a perfectly valid legal defense, but it is not as strong as one might assume. 

I tend to follow the information I have gotten from The Blackbelt Barrister, such as: 

• SELF-DEFENCE: Common Myths and Misunderstandings
• Can You REALLY Defend Yourself in the UK?
• How does self-defence apply when defending your home?

One point he raised in that first video is that you are not allowed to carry any object at all if its intent is self-defence. 

On 8/31/2024 at 6:57 PM, sheilauk said:

And banning the carrying of offensive weapons and bladed articles to reduce harm to the inhabitants of the UK is hardly an irrational fear of weapons.  Just because our culture isn’t yours doesn’t make it irrational.  Gosh, some of our police officers even carry guns!  

Yes, some of our police officers do carry guns, but they are many minutes away when seconds count. One of my brothers-in-law (and a member of my ward) is a retired police officer who was certified to carry a gun. Another friend here was a member of the Royalty Protection Branch when Princess Diana was a member of the Royal Family -- and of course he carried guns while on duty. Here's a video from a US YouTube channel interviewing a former British police officer about guns in the UK: Former British COP Exposes The Truth About Guns In The UK

It is a fact that any object, no matter how innocent it might seem, can be considered here to be an offensive weapon, depending upon circumstances. If I were carrying a Bible, and used it to beat someone who attacked me, I could potentially be charged with a carrying an offensive weapon, if I got too enthusiastic with my Bible bashing.

I'm not entirely sure about the irrational fear of weapons. There may be some of that going on. And to be fair, there are people in the US that seem to have the same irrational fear. My wife cautioned me against admitting that I was a gun owner to people that I ran into over here. Because apparently that might provoke fear. I'm serious. As it happens, I can no longer admit I am a gun owner because recently I gave away my arsenal (all nine rifles, shotguns, and pistols) to family members. It was very traumatic for me. Some of those firearms I had owned for decades.

On 8/31/2024 at 6:57 PM, sheilauk said:

There have been some serious armed attacks in the past and as a result various weapons have been banned, by public demand.  And we can choose to act differently to your culture if we wish. It may even be why the US murder rate is 4x that of the UK.

I'm well aware of the history of the gun laws here. As a (now former) gun owner it was of interest. I've studied up on the process of becoming a firearms owner here, and I may follow through and get both a shotgun and rifle licence. We'll see.

Actually, the US "intentional homicide" rate in the US is 5.6x that of the UK. Worse than you thought.

Various weapons have been banned here, yes, all due to serious incidents. However, one shouldn't boast about one's low gun crime rate being due to weapons laws when the gun crime rate was never significant in the first place. Those incidents you mention (e.g. Dunblane) were notorious because of their extreme rarity. They caused an extreme reaction, and in my opinion an unjustified one, but that's just me. The lack of gun crime is one of the reasons UK police never routinely carried guns. And as I understand it, there was even a loose tacit agreement between criminals and the police that the crims wouldn't routinely carry guns either. Claiming one's gun laws result in fewer crimes is like claiming the lack of elephants is due to the use of elephant repellent, when both guns and elephants were rare to start with. 

In any case, the presence or absence of guns does not strongly correlate with the murder rate of a particular place. The citizens of Switzerland and Sweden, for example, are among the most armed in the world, and yet their murder rates are lower than the UK's. Jamaica, on the other hand, is one of the least armed people in the world (only slightly more than the UK), but Jamaica's murder rate is nearly 10x that of the US. 

As you point out, culture plays a large part of this particular equation. You indicate that there was public demand for more restrictions on gun ownership in the UK. Well, there is insufficient public demand for more restrictions in the US, and so gun ownership remains high -- kind of an understatement, since the US is #1 in civilian gun ownership, with 120 guns per 100 citizens. Oddly enough, in my home state of Washington gun ownership is very prevalent, and 1 in every 20 citizens holds a concealed pistol license (including myself). Utah is "worse", with 1 in every 7 citizens being permitted to carry concealed pistols. And yet both states have much lower crime rates than states that have greater restrictions and lower gun ownership. Things are not always what they seem.

Well, anyway, I apologize for causing offense. I was being hyperbolic for a reason. 

Edited September 1, 2024 by Stargazer
added a video link that might be of interest

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

@Stargazer, it occurs to me that when most people talk about the penalties in the temple, they aren’t talking about the potential event of resistance to death, but simply referring to the oaths that describe what type of resistance the person was willing to undergo or at least what they said they were willing to undergo.  If so, surely oaths would work as well as penalties in most cases.  But am willing to be corrected here…

I suppose it varied. There were a couple of people with whom I spoke who seemed to think that if they talked, the Danites were supposed come for them. Not literally, but they seemed to think it meant an actual penalty. 

And "oath" is a better word for it, but it seems that it would hard to fit into the wording as it was given. And then some people have aversion to the idea of an oath.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, sheilauk said:

Given you are a guest in the UK this is quite insulting.  Self defence is not outlawed and is a perfectly valid legal defence.  And banning the carrying of offensive weapons and bladed articles to reduce harm to the inhabitants of the UK is hardly an irrational fear of weapons.  Just because our culture isn’t yours doesn’t make it irrational.  Gosh, some of our police officers even carry guns!  There have been some serious armed attacks in the past and as a result various weapons have been banned, by public demand.  And we can choose to act differently to your culture if we wish. It may even be why the US murder rate is 4x that of the UK.

Yes, but it all evens out. We don’t have to play cricket. 

Edited August 31, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Mfbnew]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That's why I invoked @Nemesis

Thanks- face palm.  Will do! I must be getting old after all these years. 

 

......Unfortunately it seems that does not work due to my underclass newbie status.   Catch 22. 

"You are only allowed to send 0 messages per day. Please try again later."

 

• OK

[Mfbnew]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if the original temple penalties were for use against anyone talking about living polygamy since it was against the law? I know that won't come off well with many on this thread though. 

But now, no one has to live polygamy like back then as it was a commandment to live it. Or you wouldn't reach the celestial kingdom. I thought back then, at least maybe coming from Brigham Young if I'm remembering right. 

First of all, the "penalties" had nothing to do with polygamy, or implying in any way that one MUST live polygamy, or have some kind of punishment.

I would like to see a source for that if you have one.  In such a case, that would mean that all the dead could not be exalted because they never had an opportunity to live polygamy .  It would be a little difficult to execute the penalty on someone already dead.

Essentially what was prohibited was only part of the language said ultimately in the veil ceremony, including some names for symbolic gestures; and what WAS included was very clearly described for each item.   "I will never reveal THE xyz (specific name etc.)" or the penalty may be enforced.

I think I am ok for saying the above because to this day, we ought not to mention that specific wording, but now there are no "penalties" and we are free to some degree to talk about the rituals outside of the temple walls, omitting those three or four specific phrases.

 

 

 

 

e

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Thanks- face palm.  Will do! I must be getting old after all these years. 

 

......Unfortunately it seems that does not work due to my underclass newbie status.   Catch 22. 

"You are only allowed to send 0 messages per day. Please try again later."

 

• OK

I sent a report off your post in Social Hall describing your problem