Endowment changes yet again

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

I went and I was quite surprised by how short it is now. Direct and straight to the point. I think the changes and the much shortened time are both great. 

This change in the endowment is what enticed me to finally get off my duff and hit the temple for the first time in months. I have such a huge backlog of family endowments and sealings that it is definitely not funny.

Anyway, my wife and I went and didn't think badly of the shortened format. I am saddened slightly that one part was skipped, which of course I won't describe, but in general I don't have an issue with the change. As to the part that was left out, the final step actually covers it, so no problem. 

[Rain]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Weird.  I've got questions.  

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

I'm not sure, but I didn't know of any changes till my outgoing/temple interview. At the time I told my MP  of my temple struggles and that's when he told me there were changes.

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

I didn't know of any missions who could go except if at the MTC. I had one companion who was transfered to temple square for health reason and they weren't even allowed to go except once just before they went home. Yes, missions are for the living, not the dead was heard often. I don't know if that was always the case or just around that time.  My husband started his in 88 and it was the rules then and there as well 

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And full-time missionaries in our ward have talked about temple attendance as an occasional treat.

Does someone know the rules?  What qualifies as “occasional”?
 

I assume some could be called to serve in the temple if tracting was frowned on in their area (or even if it wasn’t) and they had limited appointments.  Seems like a very good use of their time.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I'm not sure, but I didn't know of any changes till my outgoing/temple interview. At the time I told my MP  of my temple struggles and that's when he told me there were changes.

I didn't know of any missions who could go except if at the MTC. I had one companion who was transfered to temple square for health reason and they weren't even allowed to go except once just before they went home. Yes, missions are for the living, not the dead was heard often. I don't know if that was always the case or just around that time.  My husband started his in 88 and it was the rules then and there as well 

 

Very interesting.  I wonder what lead to the reversal of the policy.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I'm not sure, but I didn't know of any changes till my outgoing/temple interview. At the time I told my MP  of my temple struggles and that's when he told me there were changes.

I didn't know of any missions who could go except if at the MTC. I had one companion who was transfered to temple square for health reason and they weren't even allowed to go except once just before they went home. Yes, missions are for the living, not the dead was heard often. I don't know if that was always the case or just around that time.  My husband started his in 88 and it was the rules then and there as well 

 

my bro. in 1991-1993 could go to the temple only with people they baptized and got endowed and their last day and that was how my mission was as well, you could go with folks you baptized and got endowed and then last day event. The more people you baptized and got endowed the more often you got to go. Our mission also went every 6 months as a whole mission, so we went at least 5 times-if you served 2 years. I was out 98-2000

Edited August 21, 2024 by Duncan

[manol]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Very interesting.  I wonder what lead to the reversal of the policy.

This is just speculation on my part:

I would guess that missionaries whose spiritual batteries are more fully charged from a recent temple session are more effective at converting today's more challenging investigators than missionaries who spent that same amount of time proselytizing.  In other words, it's like spending some time sharpening the axe, instead of only chopping away at the trees. 

Edited August 21, 2024 by manol

[webbles]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Very interesting.  I wonder what lead to the reversal of the policy.

I wonder if it is related to the number of temples.  In 1996, there were only 50 temples.  By 2000, there were over 100.

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, manol said:

This is just speculation on my part:

I would guess that missionaries whose spiritual batteries are more fully charged from a recent temple session are more effective at converting today's more challenging investigators than missionaries who spent that same amount of time proselytizing.  In other words, it's like spending some time sharpening the axe, instead of only chopping away at the trees. 

 

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

I wonder if it is related to the number of temples.  In 1996, there were only 50 temples.  By 2000, there were over 100.

Both good reasons.

I don't remember who said it (I feel like I heard it in sacrament meeting but it might have been somewhere else) but someone made the point that too often, we go to the temple for the express purpose of doing ordinances for the dead, and hope that we might have an experience with Christ on the side.  This person said that that's backwards.  We need to go to the temple to specifically seek out experiences with Christ, while doing ordinances for the dead on the side.

I'm wondering if this idea is a reflection of our changing attitudes about temple worship.  It sounds like (from what people are saying about it not being for the living) that in the past temple attendance after a person's own endowment was seen more as being something done for the dead than done for personal worship.  Today we have many lessons and talks on worshipping in the temple for ourselves, seeking out the power that comes from the endowment to personally help us, and utilizing the temple to help us have a more personal relationship with the Savior.

Anyone who was an adult in the 70s and 80s remember if temple work was seen differently back then than it is today?  I might be way off base.  

[MiserereNobis]

Hey, thanks @3DOP and @Saint Bonaventure for replying! I've been peeking in now and again here, but I am in one of the ebbs where I read more than post.

It is very interesting reading about this without knowing the specific details (what things were, what was changed, etc.).

I'm also pretty sure that @JLHPROF would attend an FSSP parish if he were Catholic. Here's the FSSP parish I attend: https://fssp.com/apostolate/fssp-el-paso/

The traditional Latin mass and sacraments can be found in groups in full communion with the Pope (FSSP), in irregular status (FSSPX), and in apostasy. Based on his statements, he wants full communion with the First Presidency, but the traditional ordinances. In our world, that would be FSSP.

Since your resident Catholics lean on the traditional side of things, we understand the difficulty in reconciling apparently fundamental changes with years (centuries in our case) of precedent.

Shouldn't there be some consistency beyond what the current leaders say? Within the time-frame of Catholicism, that question may seem super important in the moment, but it also ebbs and flows across the centuries, so maybe it's not as pressing as our small minds think it is.

Anyways, I always love to read the thoughts of my friends here, even if I don't always respond.

+PAX+

Jesse

 

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

nyone who was an adult in the 70s and 80s remember if temple work was seen differently back then than it is today?  I might be way off base.  

I was a young adult. My memory is it was seen as something retired people would do for the most part when I lived in California (went to BYU in 76, came home for summers). I never did a youth temple trip (the temple was in Oakland across the Bay about an hour and an half from my house) and I think I would have as I did them when I went to BYU.  My parents never went on their own while I lived at home, only when invited for marriages or missionaries. And I think Mom would have if she could have talked Dad into doing it and if it was something expected, he would have done it.  

My grandparents did attend on occasion, but I think the attitude was more it was something for those who felt called to do it like genealogy. People who did it frequently were admired and others would say ‘if only I had the time’.  The four generation program was going at least by the 70s…though there appear to be more mentions of it in the Ensign in the second half of the 70s than in the first half.  I assume if you were an adult the idea was to get the names and then do the work, but I don’t know. 

Then technology really opened genealogy up and they got started with indexing in 1979 and interest boomed.  And iirc they started pushing temple attendance to do all the new names they were getting.  
 

There are 21 mentions of “temple attendance” in on the church website for magazines from the 70s.  In the 80s 30, 90s 85, 00s 104, 10s are at 128.  So the big jump was in the 90s.
 

It does seem like temple attendance became a big thing while I was at BYU (late 70s, early 80s), but that might be  because I wasn’t long enough at home to notice a real difference between California and Utah. And it could be simply because I wasn’t married and so pretty much ignored it in California. After I got married, the only time I was in California as long as a week I had a new baby and no one volunteering to babysit long enough for a date, so going to the temple was not an option get, so I wasn’t paying attention.  

I should talk to my husband, born and bred Utahn (specifically Orem) with devout, very active parents (she was always in the RS or YW presidencies for the first 15+ years I knew her) so if the temple was expected, they would do it and with 8 kids, if the temple wasn’t expected my guess is they would have been grateful for one less thing to do, lol.

As long as I knew his parents they were regular temple goers, long before he retired.  I met them in 1980. His dad went out of duty mostly though I have no doubt he cared deeply about those he saw himself as serving…the rituals didn’t resonate with him, the purpose of saving the dead did. I never talked to his mom about it that I remember (she had a severe brain and body injury from a car accident in the mid90s, so that removed a lot of opportunity to chat about anything meaningful), but I got the vibe she looked forward it when I saw her caring for her clothing.

[Calm]

This is from 1975, Mirthright in the Ensign…the story was submitted from Idaho.

Quote

A young father, speaking about temple attendance, related the following experience in our sacrament meeting:

“My wife and I were packing to leave for the temple when our four-year-old daughter came to us. She asked if we were going to the temple again. When my wife assured her that we were, she replied, ‘Boy, you and Daddy sure have to get married a lot, don’t you?’”

I really need to talk to my husband as I am now thinking there was likely a big difference between mission field  views and Mormon Corridor view.

Edited August 21, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

This is from 1972 Ensign.

Quote

Temple, Family Files for Ordinance Work. “Except for deceased close relatives, members of the Church are encouraged to submit genealogical data for temple work to be placed in the temple file. This means that the cleared names will be sent to the various temples as needed and that the temple work will be done by anyone going to the temple to do work for the dead. The procedure for designating names for the temple file is simply not to mark them for family file.

“Members of the Church may request that names of (1) their direct-line ancestors, (2) immediate families of such ancestors, and (3) descendants of great-grandparents of the individual submitting the names be placed in the family file at a specified temple. Members of the family are allowed sixty days to do temple work for these deceased relatives, after which time temple personnel are authorized to transfer family-file names to the temple file. Names not in the three categories specified in this paragraph should not be designated for family-file procedure.”—PB

From January 1971…so maybe genealogy started getting the push in 1965.  I think I got my own Book of Remembrance for my 8th birthday in 66, but no one was helping me to fill it up that I can remember.  I loved the feel of the book, always looking at the charts and the empty spaces wanting to fill them up and was looking forward to working on it, but by the time I got to college and could do research in the library, they were using regular notebook size iirc and my precious book was useless.

Quote

Genealogy Seminar. Advance notice of the sixth annual priesthood genealogical seminar at the Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 2–6, 1971, will allow priesthood leaders who intend to participate to plan their vacations accordingly. Especially invited are all stake presidents and bishops and other priesthood leaders who wish to attend this training session.

And…

Quote

Family Name File. Names submitted to the Genealogical Society for temple ordinance work that members wish to do themselves should be entered on separate forms and reserved in the family file. If names for family file and temple file are not submitted on separate forms, family name files receive no priority, and the large number of temple file names waiting to be processed will cause an unavoidable delay in processing family file names. Increased temple attendance will reduce the backlog of temple names considerably. The Provo Temple is now accepting names for the file.

I have a sudden urge to get back into the game….it’s been 30+ years (my daughter didn’t allow me much free time till I was too limited to use it, alas).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/01/programs-and-policies-newsletter?lang=eng

Quote

Whatever your approach, your overall goals should help maintain balance in your life and really represent what is most important to you, and I believe you should seek the guidance of the Spirit in setting them. After we had selected our categories, we listed some general objectives: for example, under “Spiritual Living” we listed, “Increase familiarity with scriptures; keep the Sabbath; improve personal relationship with Heavenly Father; do work for the dead.”…

Often one goal can meet more than one general objective: inviting a new family in the ward to go to the temple with us helps us improve in Spiritual Living—and also helps with our Social Relations goal to fellowship new ward members.

I wonder if they saw temple attendance as fulfilling the last goal or the last two goals.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1978/01/i-have-a-question/how-can-i-not-feel-guilty-about-all-the-things-i-didnt-do?lang=eng

 

Edited August 21, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1974/08/a-time-for-preparation?lang=eng
 

Looks like Mormon corridor had a different view if the kids were frequently going to do baptisms as it seems from here they were.

Quote

One of the spiritual highlights in the lives of many children is the opportunity to go to the temple to perform baptisms for the dead. Children remember for a long time the feeling of the Spirit in the house of the Lord.

As young children grow into teenagers, the goal of temple marriage should be discussed both in the home and in church. The best way to promote this goal is to teach, by precept and example, the beauty of an eternal relationship. Young men and women should be able to see the blessings of the temple at work in their own homes.

Quote

Concentrate on feeling the spirit that exists within the temple. There is a feeling of timelessness and peace found there that exists nowhere else. Some couples are so concerned about remembering every word and action that they miss the Spirit. Familiarity with the temple ceremonies will come with time and experience, but the spirit of the work can be felt the very first time….

The temple is a serene and beautiful place. It is designed to inspire and uplift those who attend. Spend time absorbing its special atmosphere.

The only real way to prepare for the temple is to prepare your spiritual self. You should go to the temple in a spiritual frame of mind and be ready to learn spiritually. That kind of preparation should continue throughout life, not just the first time you go to the temple.

Achieving this spirituality comes with studying the scriptures, praying diligently, serving your fellowmen, fulfilling your Church callings, and applying gospel principles in your life.

It takes a lifetime to learn the lessons that are taught in the house of the Lord. Each time a person goes he can learn something new about the gospel that he has not fully understood before. When we are in the temple our ability to understand and learn depends in large part on the quality of our spirituality. What we take home from the temple depends a great deal on what we take into it.

 

[Calm]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/03/i-have-a-question/what-is-my-responsibility-to-find-my-ancestors-and-prepare-names-for-temple-work?lang=eng
 

Quote

With the dedication of the Washington Temple, the Church now has 16 temples in operation. During the year which closed August 31, 1974, there were 2,564,037 endowments for the dead performed. The Brethren would like to see this number doubled, for temple attendance is one of the best methods of increasing our spirituality. It is for this reason that the First Presidency has charged the Genealogical Society to provide enough names to keep the temples in operation. The system we developed in response to the request is called the controlled extraction program. As can be seen from the accompanying graph, the members of the Church today are producing only 34 percent of the names used in temple ordinance work. The remainder are supplied by controlled extraction.

It would appear in the 70s the focus was on finding names more to save the living than the dead.

Another article…

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/05/salvation-for-the-dead-a-missionary-activity?lang=eng

1978:

Quote

There is an urgency to engage more fully in the redeeming of our kindred dead through more frequent temple attendance. All those who possess temple recommends should use them as often as possible to engage in baptisms, endowments, and sealings for the dead. Other members of the Church should concern themselves seriously with preparations to qualify for temple recommends that they, too, might enjoy these eternal blessings and also act as saviors on Mount Zion. There is an ever-increasing burden of temple work to be done by the Saints, and we should rise to meet this challenge.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1978/11/hold-fast-to-the-iron-rod?lang=eng

Whether it was the extraction program giving reason to attend or something else, at least in Utah, temple attendance really increased in the 70s.  Would be interesting to see if it increased outside of Utah…would like to know about Manti, Logan, and St George and Mesa and Idaho Falls as well.

Quote

Because of tremendous growth in temple attendance in the three temples along the Wasatch Front (Ogden, Salt Lake, and Provo temples), the First Presidency decided that an additional temple in that area is necessary. All temple work in the area served by the three temples has increased 293 percent since 1971, and approximately one half of all endowments done in the Church take place in these three temples.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1978/07/fyi-for-your-information?lang=eng

There were 17 temples total in 1978.

 

Edited August 21, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

On 8/19/2024 at 10:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

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).

 

Just so you don’t feel gaslighted on this, what you are saying reminds me of this quote by Spencer W. Kimball, which is quoted in the Church’s Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual.

• “This is not a continuous church, nor is it one that has been reformed or redeemed. It has been restored after it was lost. It was lost—the gospel with its powers and blessings—sometime after the Savior’s crucifixion and the loss of his apostles. The laws were changed, the ordinances were changed, and the everlasting covenant was broken that the Lord Jesus Christ gave to his people in those days. There was a long period of centuries when the gospel was not available to people on this earth, because it had been changed” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 423).

The phrase “the ordinances were changed” comes, of course, from Isaiah 24:5 (The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant). 

In the words of Russell M. Nelson,

• After Christ and His Apostles passed away, men changed the ordinances and doctrine. The original Church and the priesthood were lost.  

Edited August 21, 2024 by Analytics

[Saint Bonaventure]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey, thanks @3DOP and @Saint Bonaventure for replying! I've been peeking in now and again here, but I am in one of the ebbs where I read more than post.

It is very interesting reading about this without knowing the specific details (what things were, what was changed, etc.).

I'm also pretty sure that @JLHPROF would attend an FSSP parish if he were Catholic. Here's the FSSP parish I attend: https://fssp.com/apostolate/fssp-el-paso/

The traditional Latin mass and sacraments can be found in groups in full communion with the Pope (FSSP), in irregular status (FSSPX), and in apostasy. Based on his statements, he wants full communion with the First Presidency, but the traditional ordinances. In our world, that would be FSSP.

Since your resident Catholics lean on the traditional side of things, we understand the difficulty in reconciling apparently fundamental changes with years (centuries in our case) of precedent.

Shouldn't there be some consistency beyond what the current leaders say? Within the time-frame of Catholicism, that question may seem super important in the moment, but it also ebbs and flows across the centuries, so maybe it's not as pressing as our small minds think it is.

Anyways, I always love to read the thoughts of my friends here, even if I don't always respond.

+PAX+

Jesse

 

 

My parish has been moving even more in a traditional direction, and with the support of the diocese. My diocese has some very traditional parishes, some liberal ones, and even some Trentecostal ones. My parish has added a Vatican II Mass in the early morning on Sundays. It's Novus Ordo, with the ordinaries in Latin. Also, with our renovation we're adding a Communion rail--that's a serious marker of a traditional parish. 

 

I should add that there's definitely something happening in Protestantism that is sending people in a Catholic direction. The RCIA class at my little parish this fall will have 12 people in it, and more than a few of those are disenchanted Protestants. 

Edited August 21, 2024 by Saint Bonaventure

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Just so you don’t feel gaslighted on this, what you are saying reminds me of this quote by Spencer W. Kimball, which is quoted in the Church’s Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual.

• “This is not a continuous church, nor is it one that has been reformed or redeemed. It has been restored after it was lost. It was lost—the gospel with its powers and blessings—sometime after the Savior’s crucifixion and the loss of his apostles. The laws were changed, the ordinances were changed, and the everlasting covenant was broken that the Lord Jesus Christ gave to his people in those days. There was a long period of centuries when the gospel was not available to people on this earth, because it had been changed” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 423).

The phrase “the ordinances were changed” comes, of course, from Isaiah 24:5 (The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant). 

In the words of Russell M. Nelson,

• After Christ and His Apostles passed away, men changed the ordinances and doctrine. The original Church and the priesthood were lost.  

No one is doubting or claiming this isn't our doctrine.  What is being discussed is what constitutes a change in an ordinance that causes it to lose its power. 

JLH has said himself that the ordinance of baptism, for example, has changed a little over the centuries but none of those changes meant that the baptism wasn't valid. If I understand him correctly (and maybe I don't), he contends that the change in the ordinances was due to a difference in priesthood authority but not a loss of priesthood authority, and that's why they remained valid.

I contend that they remained valid despite some minor changes because those changes are not significant enough to affect the efficacy of the ordinance.  

[Analytics]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No one is doubting or claiming this isn't our doctrine.  What is being discussed is what constitutes a change in an ordinance that causes it to lose its power. 

JLH has said himself that the ordinance of baptism, for example, has changed a little over the centuries but none of those changes meant that the baptism wasn't valid. If I understand him correctly (and maybe I don't), he contends that the change in the ordinances was due to a difference in priesthood authority but not a loss of priesthood authority, and that's why they remained valid.

I contend that they remained valid despite some minor changes because those changes are not significant enough to affect the efficacy of the ordinance.  

As another data point to consider, I went through the live ceremony in the Salt Lake temple in early 1989. One of the characters was apparently new in this role, and on multiple occasions he slipped up his lines. Each time he did, the whole thing came to a halt, somebody whispered in his ear, and he had to keep on doing it again and again until every word was exactly correct.

Based on that experience, one would have thought that every word of the endowment was just as sacredly immutable as the words of the baptismal ordinance or the sacrament prayers.

One more memory. In early 1991 I was done with my mission and back at Utah State. I went with a group of fellow students to the Logan temple, and afterwards one of the sisters there with us sensed I was disturbed about something. She (mostly incorrectly) assumed I was struggling with the changes in the ceremony, and suggested that it changed because different generations needed to hear different things, implying that now that we were more enlightened people in the 1990’s, we no longer needed the parts that had been conspicuously removed.

Perhaps. But presumably the first-century Christians who changed the ordinances back then had their reasons for doing so, too.

Anyway, I don’t blame them for changing it--I’m sure they are great changes. But I can’t help but think that if I hadn’t then taken so seriously all the details that have since been changed or removed, I wouldn’t now be as down on the Church as I am.

One final memory. When I was 16, my best-friend’s dad was the bishop, and he knew me pretty well. One day I was in his office for some sort of interview, and he chastised me for taking things too seriously. This guy loved the Church and took it seriously, and went on to be a very successful mission president. But he sensed that I, personally, took it too seriously.

Looking back at it, I think he was right.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

As another data point to consider, I went through the live ceremony in the Salt Lake temple in early 1989. One of the characters was apparently new in this role, and on multiple occasions he slipped up his lines. Each time he did, the whole thing came to a halt, somebody whispered in his ear, and he had to keep on doing it again and again until every word was exactly correct.

Based on that experience, one would have thought that every word of the endowment was just as sacredly immutable as the words of the baptismal ordinance or the sacrament prayers.

One might think that, if they were unaware that when ordinances are done incorrectly but it is not caught until much later, they can be ratified by the First Presidency without needing to be redone.  People with disabilities that don't allow an ordinance to be performed in the correct way, can also still receive those ordinances and the blessings that come with them, despite the ordinance needing to be changed to accommodate them.

If the ordinances were immutable in the way that it appears you are using the term, neither "loophole" could exist, as any change would instantly and irrevocable invalidate the ordinance.  But the loopholes do exist.

When it comes to ordinances, we are asked to do them the way we have been taught to the very best of our ability and to correct mistakes when possible, but rigid perfection is not a requirement for their efficacy.

Quote

 

One more memory. In early 1991 I was done with my mission and back at Utah State. I went with a group of fellow students to the Logan temple, and afterwards one of the sisters there with us sensed I was disturbed about something. She (mostly incorrectly) assumed I was struggling with the changes in the ceremony, and suggested that it changed because different generations needed to hear different things, implying that now that we were more enlightened people in the 1990’s, we no longer needed the parts that had been conspicuously removed.

Perhaps. But presumably the first-century Christians who changed the ordinances back then had their reasons for doing so, too.

Anyway, I don’t blame them for changing it--I’m sure they are great changes. But I can’t help but think that if I hadn’t then taken so seriously all the details that have since been changed or removed, I wouldn’t now be as down on the Church as I am.

One final memory. When I was 16, my best-friend’s dad was the bishop, and he knew me pretty well. One day I was in his office for some sort of interview, and he chastised me for taking things too seriously. This guy loved the Church and took it seriously, and went on to be a very successful mission president. But he sensed that I, personally, took it too seriously.

Looking back at it, I think he was right.

 

I tend to agree partly with that sister, though not because we are more enlightened and don't need those parts anymore.  I just think that the endowment is meant to use symbolism to teach us, but that the symbols have to mean something to us to work appropriately.  As cultures change, symbols and analogies tend to change as well.  What worked for one culture will likely not work for every culture that has ever existed and will ever exist.

But I can see why the changes in 1990 were a big deal to members.  I just have no experience with them so I can't really comment.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

implying that now that we were more enlightened people in the 1990’s, we no longer needed the parts that had been conspicuously removed.

Or maybe she just meant we were different because our lives were different and therefore we struggled with and focused on different things than those who came before. 

They may have had great struggles in the early church because of the physical challenges they were asked to overcome and we gave that so easy, but they never had to deal with kids struggling with porn because of easy access through the tech or obsessions to social media, etc. 

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Does someone know the rules?  What qualifies as “occasional”?

Can't say. It hasn't been something that came up much, but now that it has, I shall ask the missionaries at my next opportunity.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

I assume some could be called to serve in the temple if tracting was frowned on in their area (or even if it wasn’t) and they had limited appointments.  Seems like a very good use of their time.

Yes

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

When it comes to ordinances, we are asked to do them the way we have been taught to the very best of our ability and to correct mistakes when possible, but rigid perfection is not a requirement for their efficacy.

I believe you are correct about this.

Last Sunday a new convert was to receive the Aaronic priesthood and be ordained a priest. As a bishopric member I was detailed to assist in the ordinance, and the elders quorum president was "mouth" for it, with two other brothers in the circle. He did a very good job with the ordination, with a nice blessing, but inexplicably he ordained him to the office of teacher, not priest. It was a mistake that he didn't catch, and only I heard the error. When he was done, I said "That was very good, except that you ordained him to the office of teacher, not priest." He was rather perplexed by this! But no harm, since we then ordained him to the office of priest. I'm still wondering if the brother's record should include the teacher as well as the priest ordination. 

Anyway, I bring this up only to say, in connection with your post above, that if none of us had caught the error, and his record was updated to show an ordination to priest, I'm certain the Spirit would have ratified it, since that was the intent of the ordination.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I just think that the endowment is meant to use symbolism to teach us, but that the symbols have to mean something to us to work appropriately.

Which is why I was glad that that particular element of the endowment was removed, because I knew darn good and well that there were many members who just didn't understand it, and many got the wrong idea from it. As it happened, I did understand what was being taught. And one would think that after some pondering and prayer one would stumble upon the principle that was being taught, and be enlightened thereby, but as it is said, horses can be led to water but cannot be forced to drink. 

[Rain]

36 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Which is why I was glad that that particular element of the endowment was removed, because I knew darn good and well that there were many members who just didn't understand it, and many got the wrong idea from it. As it happened, I did understand what was being taught. And one would think that after some pondering and prayer one would stumble upon the principle that was being taught, and be enlightened thereby, but as it is said, horses can be led to water but cannot be forced to drink. 

You can understand it without agreeing it came fro God.  I think that some people think that because others don't agree it it comes from God means they don't understand it.  I get that some didn't understand it, just I don't agree that all misunderstood it.

[Stargazer]

31 minutes ago, Rain said:

You can understand it without agreeing it came fro God.  I think that some people think that because others don't agree it it comes from God means they don't understand it.  I get that some didn't understand it, just I don't agree that all misunderstood it.

I agree that not all misunderstood it. Did I indicate otherwise? I certainly didn't feel I was the only person on earth who understood it!  

Did you feel it didn't come from God? 

 

Edited August 22, 2024 by Stargazer