Endowment changes yet again

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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. 

Oaths are a promise to another person with a divine figure being the guarantor of the oath. Vows are promises to God. You can be released from oaths by the other person. There is usually no release from a vow.

We still have oaths but we have altered them. Swearing on a Bible to tell the truth in court was originally understood to be putting your salvation as the guarantor of your truthfulness. Frodo making Gollum swear an oath was done correctly. In some interpretations the reason Gollum fell to his death once he reclaimed the ring was because of the oath he swore on the ring and thus the ring had to punish Gollum and was also compelled to destroy itself.  Also the Oath of the armies of the Dead bound them beyond death until they fulfilled their oath.  The Oath of Feanor and his sons in The Silmarillon was a terrible oath with strict penalties and led to the deaths of all the oath-takers.

Jesus went beyond the oaths laid out in the Torah and said that oaths shouldn’t be needed and you should just be honest and keep your word without them. Some Christians hold that this makes oaths something God does not approve of. Most of Christendom kept using them.

In polytheistic cultures you had to be very specific with oaths and vows as to who was guarantor and what was being offered or traded.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Oaths are a promise to another person with a divine figure being the guarantor of the oath. Vows are promises to God. You can be released from oaths by the other person. There is usually no release from a vow.

We still have oaths but we have altered them. Swearing on a Bible to tell the truth in court was originally understood to be putting your salvation as the guarantor of your truthfulness. Frodo making Gollum swear an oath was done correctly. In some interpretations the reason Gollum fell to his death once he reclaimed the ring was because of the oath he swore on the ring and thus the ring had to punish Gollum and was also compelled to destroy itself.  Also the Oath of the armies of the Dead bound them beyond death until they fulfilled their oath.  The Oath of Feanor and his sons in The Silmarillon was a terrible oath with strict penalties and led to the deaths of all the oath-takers.

Jesus went beyond the oaths laid out in the Torah and said that oaths shouldn’t be needed and you should just be honest and keep your word without them. Some Christians hold that this makes oaths something God does not approve of. Most of Christendom kept using them.

In polytheistic cultures you had to be very specific with oaths and vows as to who was guarantor and what was being offered or traded.

It definitely has varied over the ages. And across cultures.

I mentioned William the Conqueror swearing upon a knife, and that wasn't the only instance of that I was aware of. Another William, the first Lord of Bramber, William de Braose, forced his son Phillip to swear upon a knife that he would continue to support the Benedictine Abbey of Saint-Florent de Saumur in Normandy. I tell about this in my book about de Braose and his castle at Bramber in England (see my sig below - shameless plug)!

Edited September 1, 2024 by Stargazer

[JLHPROF]

On 8/31/2024 at 12:52 AM, 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.

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/30/2024 at 2:42 PM, Peacefully said:

No thank you. 
 

I don’t understand. Would you please explain what “consider the source” means and why you made this personal attack in a discussion about the temple?

Edited September 1, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Nevo said:

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 evidenct "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.

 

This is what Sister Gui learned a while back and shared with me which has led to some interesting discussions about our temple oaths.  I am reminded of this statement by Karl G. Maiser, considered to be the founder of BYU, showing how seriously oaths were taken by previous generations. 
 

Quote

I have been asked what I mean by my word of honor. I will tell you. Place me behind prison walls - walls of stone ever so high, ever so thick, reaching ever so far into the ground - there is the possibility that in some way or another I may escape; but stand me on the floor and draw a chalk line around me and have me give my word of honor never to cross it. Can I get out of the circle? No. Never! I'd die first!

Karl G. Maeser

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/30/2024 at 5:58 PM, Calm said:

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

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?

Line upon line.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It definitely has varied over the ages. And across cultures.

I mentioned William the Conqueror swearing upon a knife, and that wasn't the only instance of that I was aware of. Another William, the first Lord of Bramber, William de Braose, forced his son Phillip to swear upon a knife that he would continue to support the Benedictine Abbey of Saint-Florent de Saumur in Normandy. I tell about this in my book about de Braose and his castle at Bramber in England (see my sig below - shameless plug)!

Before Christianity took over the sword or dagger oath usually invoked a war god as the guarantor of the oath. With Christianity this shifted a little but the dagger or sword could be sworn on because a hilt up blade looks like a crucifix. I checked briefly and at least one source says they got the dagger from a monk cementing the religious implications. They were swearing an oath with God as the guarantor on the cross of Jesus and forfeiting their salvation if they broke it. Christian oaths assumed a lot more than polytheistic ones. You could make what you were staking on your oath more implicit. In a polytheistic religion without such an obvious ‘stake’ and no obvious guarantor (got to be clear which god or gods are involved) you had to be really specific.

This is why Christian and Islamic oaths tend to be shorter.

Whereas with polytheists they got more specific. Here is an approximation of the oath jurors took in Athens:

"I will vote according to the laws and the votes of the Demos of Athenians and the Council of the Five Hundred, and concerning matters about which there are no laws by the most just understanding, and for the sake of neither favour nor enmity. And I will vote concerning the very matters about which the prosecution is, and I will listen to both the accusers and defendants, both of them equally. I swear these things by Zeus, Apollo, and Demeter, and may I have many good things if I swear well, but destruction for me and my family if I forswear."

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is what Sister Gui learned a while back and shared with me which has led to some interesting discussions about our temple oaths.  I am reminded of this statement by Karl G. Maiser, considered to be the founder of BYU, showing how seriously oaths were taken by previous generations. 
 

 

That is how highly some valued it but practice did not always match precept. There was more social pressure in previous generations on this point. I would like to go back to this to at least a degree. I am tired of the toleration of predatory liars.

[Mfbnew]

On 8/31/2024 at 5:28 PM, Calm said:

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

Thanks

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Thanks

I believe that's the first time I have seen a thanks for someone else reporting them. 😁

[Stargazer]

On 9/1/2024 at 1:28 AM, Calm said:

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

Very good! Why didn't I think of that? 

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/30/2024 at 8:34 AM, 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. 

 

I’ve asked you without success to explain your unwarranted animus. I’ve asked the mods to decide if this is the kind of conversations that we are now going to have on this board. 

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/31/2024 at 7:48 AM, Stargazer said:

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. 

This statement has always rather irked me. They are secret (or at least meant to be). Just stick with that. No need to say, "they're not secret, they're sacred" when they are clearly secret. Now, they certainly can be sacred, too, at the same time, but you cannot say they are not secret unless you twist the definition of the word secret beyond recognition. It seems an attempt to avoid the possible negative connotation of the word "secret."

 

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/31/2024 at 8:13 AM, Stargazer said:

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.

There must be a reason that the majority of traditional religions contain some sort of repetitive mantra like prayer, often using beads to count the prayers...

Could there be something actually efficacious to the practice?

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/31/2024 at 8:50 PM, The Nehor said:

The Oath of Feanor and his sons in The Silmarillon was a terrible oath with strict penalties and led to the deaths of all the oath-takers.

Ok, now you're just trying to seduce me with your sexy Silmarillion talk, aren't you.

Yeah, Tolkien took oaths VERY seriously. The Oath of Feanor had some major, well, consequences.

Don't swear an oath if you're not going to keep it! And that means... don't swear bad oaths.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

This statement has always rather irked me. They are secret (or at least meant to be). Just stick with that. No need to say, "they're not secret, they're sacred" when they are clearly secret. Now, they certainly can be sacred, too, at the same time, but you cannot say they are not secret unless you twist the definition of the word secret beyond recognition. It seems an attempt to avoid the possible negative connotation of the word "secret."

 

I get what you were saying, and it’s reasonable. At the same time though, I don’t think the label of “secret” is a great fit given the typical definition of the word.

If you want everybody to be able to know the information (just under specific circumstances), are you trying to keep that information secret?

And, considering that you can go online and find the entire temple ceremony, if someone knows that the information is already published all over the Internet, and yet still believes they cannot speak about it except in certain places, does describing the motivation to not speak of it as a desire to “keep it a secret“ make a lot of sense? 

Also, if two people who both know the information still cannot talk about it with each other except under very specific circumstances (or maybe can’t ever talk about it with each other, despite both knowing the same information) can that information accurately accurately be called a secret?

I think it’s those questions that muddy the waters when it comes to trying to describe why certain parts of the temple endowment are not shared openly.  Maybe describing the motivation as “keeping something sacred“ isn’t perfectly accurate, but “keeping something secret“ doesn’t seem to be any more accurate. From my perspective, it is even less accurate actually. But I recognize that other peoples perspectives differ.

[MiserereNobis]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get what you were saying, and it’s reasonable. At the same time though, I don’t think the label of “secret” is a great fit given the typical definition of the word.

If you want everybody to be able to know the information (just under specific circumstances), are you trying to keep that information secret?

Yes, because you are keeping a secret from those who do not fit the special circumstance. I can say, "only my best friends will know this information about me." I cannot claim it is not secret because everyone else is not my best friend.

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And, considering that you can go online and find the entire temple ceremony, if someone knows that the information is already published all over the Internet, and yet still believes they cannot speak about it except in certain places, does describing the motivation to not speak of it as a desire to “keep it a secret“ make a lot of sense? 

This is new. As far as I understand, the temple ceremonies have not been allowed to be public since their inception, which pre-dates the internet.

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Also, if two people who both know the information still cannot talk about it with each other except under very specific circumstances (or maybe can’t ever talk about it with each other, despite both knowing the same information) can that information accurately accurately be called a secret?

I think so, yes. If you can't talk about it, it's secret.

 

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it’s those questions that muddy the waters when it comes to trying to describe why certain parts of the temple endowment are not shared openly.  Maybe describing the motivation as “keeping something sacred“ isn’t perfectly accurate, but “keeping something secret“ doesn’t seem to be any more accurate. From my perspective, it is even less accurate actually. But I recognize that other peoples perspectives differ.

Perhaps saying, "it is secret because it is sacred" might be more accurate? It just feels like saying, "it is not secret, it is sacred," isn't accurate.

On the other hand, the Vatican Archives were known as the "Vatican Secret Archives" until a few years ago when Pope Francis renamed them (why does he have to change everything?). Check out Wikipedia's explanation of the word 'secret': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Apostolic_Archive

 

Edited September 4, 2024 by MiserereNobis

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ok, now you're just trying to seduce me with your sexy Silmarillion talk, aren't you.

Is it working? 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

. It seems an attempt to avoid the possible negative connotation of the word "secret."

I think the “secret combinations” label used in the Book of Mormon has given “secret” an especially bad connotation in the Church. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is new. As far as I understand, the temple ceremonies have not been allowed to be public since their inception, which pre-dates the internet.

Yes, but exposes about the temple ceremonies were written about them almost immediately by disaffected. And some of these authors made a decent living if I read their bios correctly for at least a time going around giving lectures about Mormon ceremonies and other scandals. And such continued till now (though now they film videos).  The first released pictures of the inside of a temple happened iirc because someone had leaked photos to a newspaper (I think they snuck in after hours, I need to refresh my memory) and leaders decided to get ahead of the leak.  

Then there are the anti Mormon books I would come across at all the libraries I went to, even in Utah, lol, since I was a kid.  Sometimes I even read them.

As far as I know this info being out there has always been pretty well known among members, it is one of our claims to persecution that gets brought up a lot in my experience, but maybe I am wrong on the extent of awareness. 

Edited September 4, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

erhaps saying, "it is secret because it is sacred" might be more accurate? It just feels like saying, "it is not secret, it is sacred," isn't accurate.

It’s restricted because it’s sacred or it’s off limits feels more accurate to me than secret.  Taboo actually feels the closest now I am thinking about it, but like cult carries some negative connotations that may make it less than useful. 
 

Maybe we should invent a new term…conditional secrecy. Or from the member’s POV conditional openness.  

Edited September 4, 2024 by Calm

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

It’s restricted because it’s sacred or it’s off limits feels more accurate to me than secret.  Taboo actually feels the closest now I am thinking about it, but like cult carries some negative connotations that may make it less than useful. 
 

Maybe we should invent a new term…conditional secrecy. Or from the member’s POV conditional openness.  

How about a mashup - “sacret” or “secred”

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

It’s restricted because it’s sacred or it’s off limits feels more accurate to me than secret.  Taboo actually feels the closest now I am thinking about it, but like cult carries some negative connotations that may make it less than useful. 
 

Maybe we should invent a new term…conditional secrecy. Or from the member’s POV conditional openness.  

Is the rite of baptism sacred? Is your home a sacred place of refuge from the world? Is the sacrament sacred? Is your marriage sacred? Your marriage vows? Why are these not taboo / secret?

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is the rite of baptism sacred? Is your home a sacred place of refuge from the world? Is the sacrament sacred? Is your marriage sacred? Your marriage vows? Why are these not taboo / secret?

Maybe it has something to do with different levels (or types) of sacredness? Some sacred things are for public display and others are not. We see this probably best illustrated with sexual relations between husbands and wives.  

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

It’s restricted because it’s sacred or it’s off limits feels more accurate to me than secret.  Taboo actually feels the closest now I am thinking about it, but like cult carries some negative connotations that may make it less than useful. 
 

Maybe we should invent a new term…conditional secrecy. Or from the member’s POV conditional openness.  

I think restricted is probably a good term. We would probably say that it’s restricted because of its sacredness, because that is our view of what happens in the temple.