Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Endowment changes yet again


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is both and ethanol and high fructose corn syrup use are pushed by the corn lobby.

Ethanol is a niche product. For some things it is very good but we use a lot of it in places it isn’t optimal. There are tax incentives to use it pushed by (shocked face) the corn lobby.

I agree with you that there is a "corn lobby". But it is much broader than that. There is cronyism rampant between various government agencies, the legislators, and private interests. There is an ever increasing unwarranted interference by government against the agriculture business that is driving too many small farms and family businesses out. We see this in multiplying protests by farmers in many countries around the world. Shades of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is bad for mileage and older cars. Really high ethanol percentages can make for good race fuel.

Originally the idea was that adding ethanol or other oxygenates to fuel it would cut pollution. It didn’t work. Well, it did but the effect is marginal and is easily eclipsed by the pollution that the ethanol plants processing the stuff put out. It is also a massive pain to deal with and transport (generally cannot use pipelines).

Yes.  It's a failed experiment that we are still having to deal with.

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

manol, hey!

I am glad to be remembered, even for the sake of trivia! It seems like a long time with no reason to chime in. In Catholic thought, we must deny that God would ever want anybody to fall away from Him through temptation. But the wording, of the Lord's Prayer, or Our Father can be misleading. I tend to think personally that it is hard to think that the passage has been wrongly translated for so many centuries. I would rather have a good explanation than a bad translation.

But to your question about the adoption of the recent change of translation, I think it is limited to the Mass in Italian. I know we said it the old way at our English Mass today.

Rory

 

Well I figure the Catholic Church has had longer to think about the wording of the Our Father than anyone else.   Therefore if, after two thousand years (give or take), the Pope has reached the conclusion that there's room for improvement in the wording, GREAT!  I always stumbled over the original wording's implication that God might "lead us into temptation."

I wouldn't be surprised if the original idea was more like "lead us away from temptation".  Maybe someone coughed at the wrong time or Matthew's ink got smudged.

Edited by manol
Link to comment
1 hour ago, manol said:

the Pope has reached the conclusion that there's room for improvement in the wording

Shouldn’t we first compare various languages to see how they compare to the earliest forms?  Maybe the issue is more stricter to a particular language than the original phrasing?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Shouldn’t we first compare various languages to see how they compare to the earliest forms?  Maybe the issue is more stricter to a particular language than the original phrasing?

An interesting discussion on the Greek:

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/44953/does-the-greek-text-allow-the-pope-to-change-the-lord-s-prayer-from-and-lead-us

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Shouldn’t we first compare various languages to see how they compare to the earliest forms?  Maybe the issue is more stricter to a particular language than the original phrasing?

Of course we could just go with the Joseph Smith Translation of that passage and leave it at that :) :  "And suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil."   Maybe the Pope got the idea for this from Joseph Smith?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, longview said:

I agree with you that there is a "corn lobby". But it is much broader than that. There is cronyism rampant between various government agencies, the legislators, and private interests. There is an ever increasing unwarranted interference by government against the agriculture business that is driving too many small farms and family businesses out. We see this in multiplying protests by farmers in many countries around the world. Shades of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum?

While there is a ton of cronyism that is not what is driving the small farmers out of business. It is economies of scale and globalization. The cronyism is just accelerating the process a little.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Calm said:

Interesting! Do you contribute to the various communities of Stack Exchange?

I have been a member of the original community, Stack Overflow (for software developers), from the very beginning, 2008. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Que said:

Perhaps I am confused, or perhaps others are misunderstanding what the actual endowment is (and isn't)? Brigham Young is quoted as saying “Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.” I see references to "all of those ordinances" which I interpret to mean baptism, confirmation, ordination of males, sealings, and "the endowment." I am not going to delineate too much of what the endowment is, but I would definitely say that anything in the presentation that is not "the key words, the signs and tokens" that happens in the instruction room is exactly that - instruction, not the endowment. All of that teaching is (useful!) instruction, but it is not the endowment. So tweeking that is not changing "the endowment" but rather tweeking the method that the endowment is taught and delivered. Am I wrong? If not, can we stop saying that the endowment was changed?

With this you’ve likely hit the bullseye dead center! Which means that all the carping about the changes that are occasionally made to how temple endowment is presented and framed is the product of a failure to understand what the essential, indispensable elements of the endowment actually are. I’m imagining what it would be like to attend an “endowment session” where the actual ordinances have been totally removed, but with all instruction portion remaining. Could such a travesty without the ordinances be rightly called an endowment? The answer goes without saying. But I can indeed imagine an endowment in which all the ordinance particulars are included, without any instruction, and still have it legitimately called receiving one’s endowment. If you are correct, and I believe you are, it means the church leaders can expand, contract and otherwise modify the endowment instructions under inspiration to suit the current needs and degree of general worthiness of the saints to receive either more or less instruction. In other words, all the outrage and handwringing ends up being a tempest in a teapot instigated by ignorance.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
On 8/17/2024 at 3:54 PM, JLHPROF said:

It's interesting you bring this up.  The Book of Mormon actually demonstrates that changes to priesthood authority results in a change to the ordinance:

3 Nephi 11:25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen

Why are the words of this ordinance different than the ones used today?  Simply because the priesthood authority they received was different.  Priesthood authority and ordinances are inseparably connected.  They were entitled to use this alternate wording.

3 Nephi 11:21 And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven. 22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you.

They were given the priesthood by Christ himself and that literally changed the ordinance wording.  They weren't commissioned of Christ as we are, they were given authority by Christ himself.  If any man were to be ordained by Christ personally he would use this wording instead of the current one.  I don't think anyone can actually claim that today - not even the Apostles.

“The Priesthood is everlasting. The Savior, Moses, and Elias [Elijah], gave the keys to Peter, James, and John, on the mount, when they were transfigured before him. The Priesthood is everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood." Joseph Smith

Based on Heb 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

We see in the 3 Nephi quote above and the Hebrews quote that if priesthood authority changes so do the laws and ordinances.  We see in the Joseph teaching that if ordinances don't change neither does priesthood authority (and logically then if the ordinances change so does authority).  It's a reciprocal relationship.

There's also a connection to the second anointing brought up by someone earlier in this thread - both Joseph and Brigham taught a fullness of priesthood (the highest priesthood authority on earth) can't be received without that ordinance.

D&C 84:20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

I've been meaning to get back to this for a couple of days but haven't had the chance for any lengthy posts.  I'll try to find time to discuss it tonight.  Thanks for answering!

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Interesting! Do you contribute to the various communities of Stack Exchange?

I have been a member of the original community, Stack Overflow (for software developers), from the very beginning, 2008. 

No, .i limit myself to here and FAIR and one game or I would never be off my tech.  I hyperfocus too easily.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Similar to the doctrine-principle-policy layers that are often discussed when topics like this arise, I view adjustments to ordinances as existing in a set of covenant-ritual-presentation layers.  And then I try to analogize changes in the endowment to a hypothetical change to baptism in that same layer, as kind of a gut-check. 

At its heart, an ordinance is simply the making of a covenant.  On top of that covenant, there is usually a ritual or ceremony that goes along with it.  And that ritual is then wrapped in and surrounded by some type of presentation that provides access to the covenant and ritual within.  With baptism, for example, the covenant is taking the name of Christ upon us.  The ritual is the immersion in water.  And the presentation is the talks about baptism that precede it and the welcoming by the Bishop afterwards.  

The covenants shouldn't change, the ritual should only change marginally and with very good reason, and the presentation OUGHT to change as often as need be to ensure that the entire package is being accurately delivered to the particular time, place, and culture in which the ordinance is being conducted. The covenant of baptism, as far as I know, hasn't changed much (or at all) since the days of Adam.  The ritual itself, though, does sometimes get tweaked.  Scripturally, we have the example of Alma, who immersed himself as part of the baptismal ritual.  A more modern example, though, comes the supposed commandment that a baptismal font be at ground level so that immersion can be beneath ground level (see D&C 128:13, where this requirement is described as a commandment).  But on my mission, in the branches that didn't have a permanent meeting hall, we utilized an above-ground porta-font and there were no issues with it at all.  And then finally, changes to the format of a baptismal service happen all the time, and nobody seems to get bent out of shape about it.  

The five covenants we make as part of the endowment are, as far as I know, the same five that have been part of the endowment from the beginning (though I could be wrong; I'm no scholar on the topic).  The covenantal layer of this ordinance, then, remains intact.  Changes to the ritual include the removal of the penalties and the elimination of all the standing-up and sitting down (and more specifically, removal of the REASON for all the standing-up and sitting-down).  Those changes are likely within the purview of one having the keys of those ordinances.  Changes in this layer of the ordinance are rare, but they do happen.  However, the most recent round of changes are, I think, firmly rooted in the presentation layer.  We're just talking about streamlining of language and removing repetitious bits of verbiage.  

Too verbose, perhaps to be just 2 cents.  So let's call that my three-and-a-half cents worth.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The five covenants we make as part of the endowment are, as far as I know, the same five that have been part of the endowment from the beginning (though I could be wrong; I'm no scholar on the topic).  

They aren't.

What we promise in them has changed from time to time, meaning all are not saved on the same principles.  For at least two there were definitely changes.  The covenant of Chastity has been reworked several times.  So has the covenant of Obedience.

Additionally far more than 5 covenants are entered into during the endowment and they all changed when parts of the ordinance were removed.

(Ironically the so called Oath of Vengeance later removed was never a covenant but simply a promise).

 

Link to comment

In 1990 the temple ceremony had a pretty significant change, and the details of it were described in a newspaper article published in, as I recall, The Arizona Republic. The Arizona missionaries were in a terrible situation: the Church didn’t tell the missionaries the details of the ceremony changes, didn’t let them go through the temple to find out, and didn’t let them read The Arizona Republic. Meanwhile many potential investigators did read the article and wanted to talk to the missionaries about it.

The missionaries were dismayed. One of them sarcastically told me that he couldn’t wait for his mission to end so that he could go to the temple and find out what his covenants now are.

Link to comment
On 8/17/2024 at 3:54 PM, JLHPROF said:

It's interesting you bring this up.  The Book of Mormon actually demonstrates that changes to priesthood authority results in a change to the ordinance:

3 Nephi 11:25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen

Why are the words of this ordinance different than the ones used today?  Simply because the priesthood authority they received was different.  Priesthood authority and ordinances are inseparably connected.  They were entitled to use this alternate wording.

3 Nephi 11:21 And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven. 22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you.

They were given the priesthood by Christ himself and that literally changed the ordinance wording.  They weren't commissioned of Christ as we are, they were given authority by Christ himself.  If any man were to be ordained by Christ personally he would use this wording instead of the current one.  I don't think anyone can actually claim that today - not even the Apostles.

I'm not sure I'm following you on the bold.  Our baptismal ordinance remains the same regardless of the priesthood authority of the person performing it.  Why would it be different in the past?

With the example of Christ at the temple in Bountiful, I'm especially confused by your conclusions.  The apostles in the NT were given direct authority by Christ but they were also commissioned of Him, weren't they? I'm not seeing the difference.  Especially since the scriptures teach that whether it's done by Christ or through one of His servants, it's the same.

Quote

 

“The Priesthood is everlasting. The Savior, Moses, and Elias [Elijah], gave the keys to Peter, James, and John, on the mount, when they were transfigured before him. The Priesthood is everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood." Joseph Smith

Based on Heb 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

We see in the 3 Nephi quote above and the Hebrews quote that if priesthood authority changes so do the laws and ordinances.  We see in the Joseph teaching that if ordinances don't change neither does priesthood authority (and logically then if the ordinances change so does authority).  It's a reciprocal relationship.

There's also a connection to the second anointing brought up by someone earlier in this thread - both Joseph and Brigham taught a fullness of priesthood (the highest priesthood authority on earth) can't be received without that ordinance.

D&C 84:20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

 

Ok, I see some of where your conclusions are coming from.  We just disagree on interpretation.  I read JS as saying that when priesthood authority is lost, the authority of ordinances is lost. I don't read him as saying anything more than that.  

I'm especially not seeing the connection between priesthood types and ordinance validity that you are.  For example, an excommunicated member could perform the baptismal ordinance perfectly, without any changes, and yet, his priesthood authority has definitely changed.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

In 1990 the temple ceremony had a pretty significant change, and the details of it were described in a newspaper article published in, as I recall, The Arizona Republic. The Arizona missionaries were in a terrible situation: the Church didn’t tell the missionaries the details of the ceremony changes, didn’t let them go through the temple to find out, and didn’t let them read The Arizona Republic. Meanwhile many potential investigators did read the article and wanted to talk to the missionaries about it.

The missionaries were dismayed. One of them sarcastically told me that he couldn’t wait for his mission to end so that he could go to the temple and find out what his covenants now are.

Weird.  I've got questions.  

First, was this a church decision or a mission president decision?  

Second, did the missionaries' ability to go to the temple suddenly stop after the 1990 changes, or had they never been able to go to the temple?

Third, were all missionaries in every mission not allowed to go to the temple after the 1990 change?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Weird.  I've got questions.  

First, was this a church decision or a mission president decision?  

Second, did the missionaries' ability to go to the temple suddenly stop after the 1990 changes, or had they never been able to go to the temple?

Third, were all missionaries in every mission not allowed to go to the temple after the 1990 change?

We went to the Provo temple every week while in the MTC, but after that missionaries never went to the temple--our mission was among the living, not the dead. When your temple recommend from before your mission expired, that was that and you wouldn’t get a new one until the end of your mission, when your mission president would sign a new temple recommend in your exit interview.

In the Argentina Buenos Aires South mission at the time, there was one exception to this. After honorably finishing your mission, everybody went to the Buenos Aires temple on your last day in the country.

Are missionaries now allowed to go to the temple?

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

We went to the Provo temple every week while in the MTC, but after that missionaries never went to the temple--our mission was among the living, not the dead. When your temple recommend from before your mission expired, that was that and you wouldn’t get a new one until the end of your mission, when your mission president would sign a new temple recommend in your exit interview.

In the Argentina Buenos Aires South mission at the time, there was one exception to this. After honorably finishing your mission, everybody went to the Buenos Aires temple on your last day in the country.

Are missionaries now allowed to go to the temple?

If there is a temple in their area, then very much so (but it probably still sometimes depends on their mission president.  I don't want to speak for all missions). 

If there's not, sometimes they can still get permission depending on the reason.  My son was able to go through with a few people that he taught and who were baptized, when they received their endowment.  He also went sometimes with members who were reactivating to do baptisms.  And occasionally he went with active members if they were already planning on going.  I think once or twice he went with other missionaries. 

Temple clothing was included in the list of things he was supposed to bring with him.

Here is what it says in the Missionary Conduct section of Standards for Missionaries--

Quote

 

If a temple is nearby, you are encouraged to attend the temple as a patron throughout your mission. This attendance may also be one of your assigned service opportunities.

Temple attendance should not interfere with your other missionary assignments. When you are serving in the temple, fulfill your assignment with dignity, respect, and reverence.

 

I wonder when that changed?  I served in 1998 and wasn't able to go to the temple during that time because we didn't have one close to us, but from what I heard from other missionaries, even back then if you had one in your area you could go.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If there is a temple in their area, then very much so (but it probably still sometimes depends on their mission president.  I don't want to speak for all missions). 

If there's not, sometimes they can still get permission depending on the reason.  My son was able to go through with a few people that he taught and who were baptized, when they received their endowment.  He also went sometimes with members who were reactivating to do baptisms.  And occasionally he went with active members if they were already planning on going.  I think once or twice he went with other missionaries. 

Temple clothing was included in the list of things he was supposed to bring with him.

Here is what it says in the Missionary Conduct section of Standards for Missionaries--

I wonder when that changed?  I served in 1998 and wasn't able to go to the temple during that time because we didn't have one close to us, but from what I heard from other missionaries, even back then if you had one in your area you could go.

I could be wrong, but I'm somewhat confident that when I was a missionary, not going was a church-wide thing. Based on our respective experiences, I’m guessing the rules changed sometime between 1991 and 1997. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If there is a temple in their area, then very much so (but it probably still sometimes depends on their mission president.  I don't want to speak for all missions). 

If there's not, sometimes they can still get permission depending on the reason.  My son was able to go through with a few people that he taught and who were baptized, when they received their endowment.  He also went sometimes with members who were reactivating to do baptisms.  And occasionally he went with active members if they were already planning on going.  I think once or twice he went with other missionaries. 

Temple clothing was included in the list of things he was supposed to bring with him.

Here is what it says in the Missionary Conduct section of Standards for Missionaries--

I wonder when that changed?  I served in 1998 and wasn't able to go to the temple during that time because we didn't have one close to us, but from what I heard from other missionaries, even back then if you had one in your area you could go.

I served in Taiwan from 1993-1995.  We had a temple in our mission (in the capital city, Taipei).  My recollection is that missionaries in Taipei County could go to the temple once a month.  It was quite a treat and respite.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I could be wrong, but I'm somewhat confident that when I was a missionary, not going was a church-wide thing. Based on our respective experiences, I’m guessing the rules changed sometime between 1991 and 1997. 

It (“your mission is with the living”) sounds very familiar to me (my husband went in the 70s), but we have never really lived near a temple till we moved back to Utah where it would be an easy thing for missionaries to attend. 

I don’t know if when we first moved to Canada the temple was outside the mission, but it may have been as the city was divided into two or even three by the time we left.  Even if it was. travel time came close to 6 hours total, so not really a PDay activity as I understood what they should be (which may be way off of reality).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Analytics said:

We went to the Provo temple every week while in the MTC, but after that missionaries never went to the temple--our mission was among the living, not the dead. When your temple recommend from before your mission expired, that was that and you wouldn’t get a new one until the end of your mission, when your mission president would sign a new temple recommend in your exit interview.

In the Argentina Buenos Aires South mission at the time, there was one exception to this. After honorably finishing your mission, everybody went to the Buenos Aires temple on your last day in the country.

Are missionaries now allowed to go to the temple?

My wife and I were in the London Temple today, and there were two full-time missionaries there seeming to be trained to be ordinance workers. I'm talking about young missionaries, not older couples. We saw them studying ordinance cards. And full-time missionaries in our ward have talked about temple attendance as an occasional treat.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...