Endowment changes yet again

[Bernard Gui]

Whenever this or other such topics come up, I am reminded of Elder Maxwell’s 1972 observation that the time would come when members would have to decide whether or not to stand with the First Presidency. There are a number of issues today that are providing us that opportunity. 

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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

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

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

 

Yes, the oath of vengeance is the one thing we know he added but it is possible he added other things to the actual elements.  We have limited knowledge of what Joseph revealed and we know that Brigham added stuff to it and he said he was authorized to clean it up, so I find it possible he added stuff that you would consider an actual element.

[blackstrap]

50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

blitz through

An unfortunate choice of words. That said, if you have participated in baptisms and confirmations in the temple you understand speed and efficiency. 

Let's do the math.

Assume 100 people per session and 16 sessions per day ,300 days per year in 500 temples. = 24 million names done per year. 

 That means it would take 333 years just to do the current world population.  Hopefully there will be ways to streamline the process.

( Sorry Calm, I nerded out )🤕

 

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

An unfortunate choice of words. That said, if you have participated in baptisms and confirmations in the temple you understand speed and efficiency. 

Let's do the math.

Assume 100 people per session and 16 sessions per day ,300 days per year in 500 temples. = 24 million names done per year. 

 That means it would take 333 years just to do the current world population.  Hopefully there will be ways to streamline the process.

( Sorry Calm, I nerded out )🤕

 

333 years?

What about the other 2/3 of the Millennium?

[blackstrap]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What about the other 2/3 of the Millennium?

The world's current population is about 8 billion. It is estimated that about 100 billion people have lived on the earth so far. That more than chews up the other 2/3 s. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, blackstrap said:

An unfortunate choice of words. That said, if you have participated in baptisms and confirmations in the temple you understand speed and efficiency. 

Let's do the math.

Assume 100 people per session and 16 sessions per day ,300 days per year in 500 temples. = 24 million names done per year. 

 That means it would take 333 years just to do the current world population.  Hopefully there will be ways to streamline the process.

( Sorry Calm, I nerded out )🤕

 

You know I have to check when I see math!

You are short a zero…240,000,000…so closer to 34 years  😛 

It’s the record finding and keeping that is going to take a lot of time imo, even if people just show up and let the workers know their names (I can imagine there will be more visiting going on if people come to watch their own proxy rituals and we are aware of them unlike now….and visiting takes time, I would love someone I am doing proxy work for to tell me about their life…what a much more meaningful journey then instead of just having a name).

But I keep returning to what Joseph said about us taking a long time after death to comprehend the endowment. I just don’t see the endowment as we’ve had it from the beginning as far as I’m familiar with being that hard to understand. So I’m thinking there’s a lot more to the endowment than we have ever had in this life and the full endowment maybe be even more of a process than just one time event for everyone and yes, that means we will be going through our own endowments as well as others who have passed on for more than just an hour per endowment.

And even if the endowment that we have is all there is, my guess is if we don’t really understand it in the here now and they definitely didn’t understand it back in Joseph’s day according to him, then we will be repeating it when we do have full understanding because it will mean so much more and therefore have so much more power. So yeah again, repeating all the ordinances in the millennium makes sense to me when we will finally do so with understanding.

So us doing them right now, it’s practice for everyone to help us all get closer to full understanding over time and if the ritual changes to help give more views to understand, why not?

We have an eternity to fill with meaning and purpose. I don’t see why anyone should be troubled if we have to repeat our lessons over and over (as long as it isn’t done by reincarnation, I don’t think I will mind as it is a beautiful lesson for me).  So it’s not a crisis in my view if we have lost most of the endowment that we had when Joseph shared it back in his day anymore than it’s a crisis because we don’t really understand what ancient scripture means are are guessing for much of it.   Or that the Church doesn’t look the same as it did 200 years ago or even 100. I would be more concerned if it did, wondering why God has so little to teach us instead of the lessons being constantly added to.

Edited August 17, 2024 by Calm

[PacMan]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

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

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

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

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

This is demonstrably not true. See my previous post as to why. I look forward to your response. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

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

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

 

Part of the lecture at the veil Brigham added seemed to teach Adam-God. So by removing it they could've removed a doctrinal element.

Not opining, just saying.

Edited August 17, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I assume you are joking here. 

The funny thing here is that McDonald's may not be as bad one thinks. 

You've no doubt seen or heard about the "Super Size Me" film. The film's producer, Morgan Spurlock, ate nothing but McDonald's for a month, and reported at the end of the experiment that he had gained 24.5 pounds, increased his cholesterol to 230, and experienced mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and fat accumulation in his liver. Pretty bad, right? Well, Spurlock had his thumb on the scale. He claimed to have consumed an average of 5,000 kcal per day during the experiment. Which is about twice the recommended calorie intake for a man of his initial size and age to maintain his weight. In other words, he pigged out for a month. What's surprising is that he didn't weigh much more at the end of his experiment. In fact, if he had eaten like that from normal food prepared at home he would have gotten similar results, in my opinion at least. Anyway, it later turned out that Spurlock, who claimed to be a non-drinker, had drunk large quantities of alcohol during his McDonald's month. 

In a reply documentary, another guy, Tom Naughton, followed up on Spurlock. His documentary is called "Fat Head," and of course didn't get the publicity that "Super Size Me" got. Naughton showed that Spurlock's numbers didn't add up, and that a lot of his claims were very questionable. I recommend you watch it -- free on YouTube HERE. I found that it's somewhat amusing and very informative. His own results were remarkably different.

Other articles I found include one, about a woman named Soso Whaley, ate exclusively at McDonald's for a month, but she exercised regularly and did not insist on consuming more food than she otherwise would. She logged her consumption, which averaged out to 2,000 calories per day. Her results? she lost 10 pounds (going from 175 to 165) and lowered her cholesterol from 237 to 197. And another, a high school science teacher named John Cisna indicated he lost 60 pounds while eating exclusively at McDonald's for 180 days!

I think I might like to start eating at McDonalds exclusively. I have a 100 pounds to lose. Incidentally, McDonalds is a lot less expensive in the UK than in the US (I discovered in my recent visit to my home in Washington state). 

Edited August 17, 2024 by Stargazer
corrected a couple of incorrect facts

[Peacefully]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

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

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

I can see where you are coming from. I always find that my time in the celestial room, on my own with time for contemplation, is where I commune best with God. Everything else is so full of talking and movement and do this and that. I know it all has deep meaning and every ordinance is special and sacred its own way. Sometimes when I can’t get to sleep I still go through the initiatory and endowment in my head. Of course it has changed, but the way I learned it still brings peace and the spirit so not sure how any version can be “wrong.” I think it is ok for us to agree to disagree:) 

[ZealouslyStriving]

I just go back to the scriptural precedent that I've used several times before:

Even when the Temple Priests weren't doing things properly the children of Israel still had to take their sacrificial offerings to those priests at the Temple in Jerusalem, they still had to bring their tithe and first fruit offerings also.

If we are in any situation similar to that of scripture I think it would be closer to that than the great apostasy. So our obligation to God and our ancestors remains the same: worship in the House of the Lord and let Him sort out leadership issues.

[Nofear]

On 8/16/2024 at 9:01 AM, smac97 said:

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

My position as well. In general, I think this is the majority position of the temple attending membership.

[Rain]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

While we have very different feelings and beliefs I appreciate that you are willing to share in a nonconfrontational manner

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

While we have very different feelings and beliefs I appreciate that you are willing to share in a nonconfrontational manner

My goal has never been to sow doubt or lead away from the restored Church.

I only want faithful members to be aware that there's more to the restored gospel and its ordinances, that Joseph restored so much more truth and light than what is currently provided and permitted.

I want them to long for the day the Church allows some of the beautiful ordinances to be complete and available again.  This includes baptisms for health, mother's blessings, family and ward prayer circles.  So many blessings prohibited.

Don't ever leave the Church - pray for the Church.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

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

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

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

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

I've been thinking about this in regards to baptism. 

The ordinance of baptism does not seem to have been the exact same throughout our recorded history.  According to our scriptural record, John didn't baptize the Savior exactly how we baptize today for example, and we have differences in the Book of Mormon record as well.  

Why have those changes not resulted in a loss of priesthood authority?

Also, can you provide a reference for the bolded above?  I don't know if I've ever heard it before.

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Same actually. I remember when I was young we poked fun at the Catholic church using councils to determine doctrine.

Edited August 17, 2024 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, PacMan said:

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

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.

[Stargazer]

On 8/15/2024 at 10:44 PM, 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.

I disagree that those five points apply in this case. 

There was a time when the endowment was presented by live actors, and lasted for many many hours, and participants moved from room to room. When I was endowed, the LA Temple was still set up for live actors, and moving from room to room. But the presentation had been converted to film. We moved from the Creation Room, which was audio only, to the Garden Room where the film was presented. Then we moved through the Terrestrial (or was it Telestial?) Room, without stopping there, directly to the Veil Room, where it was audio only again. Temples with the live performance were eventually converted to the film presentation and we stayed in one room for the whole time, with just a lighting adjustment to represent moving to a new stage of the endowment. And then that lighting adjustment was eliminated. 

My question is this: at which stage did it go from complete to incomplete, valid to invalid, authoritative to unauthoritative, pristine to apostate, and when did it stop bestowing the requisite eternal knowledge and keys of power? Can you give me a year?

In the Endowment as it was administered to us in the modern temple of say, 20 years ago, how much of it was mere presentation, and how much was essential, or sine qua non? As a former temple ordinance worker, I am aware that some ordinances in the temple are somewhat different for those receiving them for themselves versus those receiving them for the deceased. The living get a somewhat more filled-out version of the sealing ordinance, for example. This is because it is adapted for the sake of better teaching the uninitiated who are still in meatware. But the difference doesn't make a difference in its efficacy. It seems to be a distinction that does not make a difference. 

In the case of the endowment, there was a strong teaching component, and thus the presentation used a framing story involving Adam and Eve, first in the Garden, and than after they are expelled, in order to introduce the essentials of the endowment. After that framing story part of presentation was done, however, it got much more streamlined. Our focus on that presentation helped us connect the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the endowment, and, more to the point, remember what we needed to remember. But the presentation story was not the endowment. If the endowment were a picture, the frame story would just be the frame of the picture.  

For any picture, replacing an elaborate picture frame with a simpler version does not affect the picture itself. And might even lead to less distraction and more focus on the picture itself.

What is the endowment, anyway? Is it the ordinances and the covenants that are presented and agreed to by the recipient? Or the framing story? Some people get them mixed up together.

As we know, an important part of the Millennium will be the construction of thousands of temples in order to perform saving and exalting ordinances for the deceased who could not receive them previously, for one reason or another. Do the deceased, who are in spirit and not in body, need that presentation story to receive the endowment? My answer is no; they have never needed it. The story is for us, so that we are better able to remain engaged in the process of receiving it on behalf of the deceased. If a given deceased person is present in spirit during the presentation (and I have sometimes felt this to be case while receiving it for someone), are they being shortchanged if I fall asleep during it? Does the presentation need to be repeated if I fall asleep during part or all of it? No, and no. We are asked to stay awake and to pay attention in order to maintain decorum, and not distract from the experience of others who are participating. As for those deceased who are not present in spirit, because they are not ready at that time, they will be instructed in the Spirit World when they are ready, regardless of when the proxy ordinances are performed.

I repeat: the deceased who are receiving the endowment via our proxy work do not need the frame story. If the Brethren have adjusted the endowment yet again (and I suspect that the Sistren were involved, too), I suspect that this is because the Lord has directed them that we need to pare down the presentation closer to essentials, possibly in order to prepare us for the work of the Millennium. And this is being done in stages so as not to upset people too much by doing too much at once. Obviously some people are going to be upset anyway. That's the way of it.

Well, that's my theory anyway.

To summarize, I happen to believe that if we left the framing story out entirely, i.e. if we cut everything out of the endowment except for (1) those things that are presented at the veil, and (2) the covenants we are asked to agree to, then we have received the full endowment. Those things are the sine qua non. Not the details of the framing story. 

[PacMan]

31 minutes ago, 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.

We can actually pin it down pretty good. Remember, the power that comes from the temple has a dual purpose. The first is for qualifying for eternal life. That’s available here and in the eternities. The other purpose is to provide power here on earth, to gather Israel and do the Lord’s work. This is why the Elders in D&C 42 and elsewhere needed the endowment of power before leaving on their missions. That seems a bit fluffy but it’s not. It’s living (and changing) to be able to have the Holy Ghost reveal and witness to the persuasion of men. If you think about it, that’s the only thing that’s difficult for God. He can move mountains and cure disease, easily. But he cannot force agency. While people need to choose, the conversion needs to be done by persuasion and the testimony of the Holy Ghost.  That is done through angels and man. 

If you think about it, a mountain removed is temporary. They say Zion National Park was created, in part, from winds eroding the Appalachian Mountains and depositing at Zion (the ranger told us that a few months ago).  Sure, it’s pretty amazing and takes a long time. But it’s temporary.  The leading of people to conversion, however, can heal hearts, change lives, and link families into eternities. That is true power. 

Edited August 17, 2024 by PacMan

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, 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.

I wonder about this too.

I think it must be related to that principle about how no blessing will be withheld from anyone who isn't able to obey the law it's attached to through no fault of their own.  I'm just not sure if the relationship is one that has been extrapolated by our leaders from other known doctrine, or was revealed to them.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 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.

It is imo like any other learning experiences. If the goal is to get a Ph.D (be exalted), then as long as you get there in the end, it doesn’t matter how long it takes, the Ph.D received after 20 years of off and on classes isn’t less of a Ph.D than one received in 4 years. 

But the knowledge and skills one receives from taking the classes for the Ph.D can benefit one in one’s daily life (how much is obviously dependent on the degree; I found my psych classes very helpful in relationships and health matters, my physics and math probably helped by teaching analytical skills) and so there is additional benefit to taking the classes earlier rather than later to the individual in that moment. The lessons we learn in the temple are spiritual and bring us closer to God, which can be a great benefit for many in the here and now, so yes, blessings will all be available down the line to all, so no one should fear losing out in the eternities, but why wait if you desire closeness to God now (assuming you find the temple providing you with such).

Edited August 17, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The funny thing here is that McDonald's may not be as bad one thinks. 

You've no doubt seen or heard about the "Super Size Me" film. The film's producer, Morgan Spurlock, ate nothing but McDonald's for a month, and reported at the end of the experiment that he had gained 24.5 pounds, increased his cholesterol to 230, and experienced mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and fat accumulation in his liver. Pretty bad, right? Well, Spurlock had his thumb on the scale. He claimed to have consumed an average of 5,000 kcal per day during the experiment. Which is about twice the recommended calorie intake for a man of his initial size and age to maintain his weight. In other words, he pigged out for a month. What's surprising is that he didn't weigh much more at the end of his experiment. In fact, if he had eaten like that from normal food prepared at home he would have gotten similar results, in my opinion at least. Anyway, it later turned out that Spurlock, who claimed to be a non-drinker, had drunk large quantities of alcohol during his McDonald's month. 

In a reply documentary, another guy, Tom Naughton, followed up on Spurlock. His documentary is called "Fat Head," and of course didn't get the publicity that "Super Size Me" got. Naughton showed that Spurlock's numbers didn't add up, and that a lot of his claims were very questionable. I recommend you watch it -- free on YouTube HERE. I found that it's somewhat amusing and very informative. His own results were remarkably different.

Other articles I found include one, about a woman named Soso Whaley, ate exclusively at McDonald's for a month, but she exercised regularly and did not insist on consuming more food than she otherwise would. She logged her consumption, which averaged out to 2,000 calories per day. Her results? she lost 10 pounds (going from 175 to 165) and lowered her cholesterol from 237 to 197. And another, a high school science teacher named John Cisna indicated he lost 60 pounds while eating exclusively at McDonald's for 180 days!

I think I might like to start eating at McDonalds exclusively. I have a 100 pounds to lose. Incidentally, McDonalds is a lot less expensive in the UK than in the US (I discovered in my recent visit to my home in Washington state). 

After reading this article you may not. I think they put in chemicals that make you addicted. For a while I was addicted to their cheeseburgers and fries. Here's the article:

https://www.news18.com/viral/how-this-mcdonalds-burger-bought-in-1995-in-adelaide-is-still-perfectly-intact-8906105.html

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

After reading this article you may not. I think they put in chemicals that make you addicted. For a while I was addicted to their cheeseburgers and fries. Here's the article:

https://www.news18.com/viral/how-this-mcdonalds-burger-bought-in-1995-in-adelaide-is-still-perfectly-intact-8906105.html

I don't believe it, actually. About the addiction part, anyway. As for a 1995 burger, every packaged food we buy these days has preservatives. And you can dry meat so it lasts for years, as long as it is kept dry.

[2BizE]

Are there any temples that still do the live endowment? Will the SL temple still do them after renovations?

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The funny thing here is that McDonald's may not be as bad one thinks. 

You've no doubt seen or heard about the "Super Size Me" film. The film's producer, Morgan Spurlock, ate nothing but McDonald's for a month, and reported at the end of the experiment that he had gained 24.5 pounds, increased his cholesterol to 230, and experienced mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and fat accumulation in his liver. Pretty bad, right? Well, Spurlock had his thumb on the scale. He claimed to have consumed an average of 5,000 kcal per day during the experiment. Which is about twice the recommended calorie intake for a man of his initial size and age to maintain his weight. In other words, he pigged out for a month. What's surprising is that he didn't weigh much more at the end of his experiment. In fact, if he had eaten like that from normal food prepared at home he would have gotten similar results, in my opinion at least. Anyway, it later turned out that Spurlock, who claimed to be a non-drinker, had drunk large quantities of alcohol during his McDonald's month. 

In a reply documentary, another guy, Tom Naughton, followed up on Spurlock. His documentary is called "Fat Head," and of course didn't get the publicity that "Super Size Me" got. Naughton showed that Spurlock's numbers didn't add up, and that a lot of his claims were very questionable. I recommend you watch it -- free on YouTube HERE. I found that it's somewhat amusing and very informative. His own results were remarkably different.

Other articles I found include one, about a woman named Soso Whaley, ate exclusively at McDonald's for a month, but she exercised regularly and did not insist on consuming more food than she otherwise would. She logged her consumption, which averaged out to 2,000 calories per day. Her results? she lost 10 pounds (going from 175 to 165) and lowered her cholesterol from 237 to 197. And another, a high school science teacher named John Cisna indicated he lost 60 pounds while eating exclusively at McDonald's for 180 days!

I think I might like to start eating at McDonalds exclusively. I have a 100 pounds to lose. Incidentally, McDonalds is a lot less expensive in the UK than in the US (I discovered in my recent visit to my home in Washington state). 

If it is like it was in the late 90s the serving sizes in the UK at McDonalds were also smaller. That may have changed.

The film was a dumb publicity stunt but US food regulations are incredibly lax compared to most of the industrialized world. Also the corn lobby keeps growing too much corn so we guzzle down that corn syrup garbage endlessly. It is also starting to cause some soil problems that could lead to interesting times.