Endowment changes yet again

[Rain]

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I agree that not all misunderstood it. Did I indicate otherwise?

It's not that people misuderstand or don't.  It's the idea that if people don't agree with your feelings about it that they misundertand. Like when you say, "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."

Now admittedly I am infering that you mean if someone prays and ponders, and allows themselves to drink they they will understand and agree and there is no way for me to say you are implying that, but you don't give room in the wording to allow for someone to understand, but disagree.   

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I certainly didn't feel I was the only person on earth who understood it!  

Did you feel it didn't come from God? 

 

I do not. Why you get the answer it comes from God and I get the answer it does not I do not know. If it gave you peace and understanding I am ok with that, but I would appreciate you understanding that it gave me repelling of the spirit without assuming, if you do, it's because I do not understand or have not prayed and pondered over it. If you say that you don't assume that I will trust you.

[Maestrophil]

On 8/20/2024 at 4:49 PM, Calm said:

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).

Served in 89 and it was definitely not allowed to go to the temple because we were serving the living not the dead

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

It's not that people misuderstand or don't.  It's the idea that if people don't agree with your feelings about it that they misundertand. Like when you say, "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."

Now admittedly I am infering that you mean if someone prays and ponders, and allows themselves to drink they they will understand and agree and there is no way for me to say you are implying that, but you don't give room in the wording to allow for someone to understand, but disagree.   

I do not. Why you get the answer it comes from God and I get the answer it does not I do not know. If it gave you peace and understanding I am ok with that, but I would appreciate you understanding that it gave me repelling of the spirit without assuming, if you do, it's because I do not understand or have not prayed and pondered over it. If you say that you don't assume that I will trust you.

I don't assume that those who do understand but disagree have not pondered and prayed over it. The Spirit works with all us in different ways, and does not usually force us to a conclusion we are not prepared for. If the "penalties" repelled your spirit, I understand. For another example, although I am not personally comfortable with plural marriage, I am reconciled to it being a divine principle that has occasionally been actively prescribed by the Lord, but other times has been proscribed. I know that others feel differently, however, and I don't assume they are rebelling against the Lord's will.

It's entirely possible that the "penalties" were something added by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young and were not revealed. That they were done away with suggests that they were not. Regardless, I understood them to be there as part of the presentation in order to strengthen the obligation of secrecy spoken of in the presentation. Such expressions were common in days past. For example, when Duke William of Normandy (later known as William the Conqueror) was preparing to invade England in 1066, he secured the financial and spiritual support of the Abbey of Fecamp by covenanting to restore their manors in England that had been confiscated by the new English king, Harold II. William strengthened his covenant by swearing upon a knife. Likewise, in 1093, when the Norman Lord William de Braose wished to strengthen his promise to support the Abbey of Saint Florent after his death, he obliged his son Phillip to swear upon a knife that he would do his father's will in the matter. Even in our own day, children might strengthen a promise by saying "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye," should the promise be broken. This is the same principle as in the cases of those two Norman lords. The knife was the "penalty" should either fail to follow through on the oath/covenant. Not that anyone took that seriously, of course. In the case of the Conqueror, for example, he withheld one of the promised manors for twenty years until he finally gave Fecamp a substitute instead, and no knife came into question. My point is that the "penalties" in the endowment were nothing more than a strengthening of the promise to keep sacred that which had been vouchsafed to us. In the case of the endowment it was a promise to endure death rather than reveal what we had been given. Not that anyone expected that one should literally fulfill the promise if there was a literal threat. In any case, there shouldn't be a literal threat, there having been enough traitors among the Saints so that the entire endowment is available to the public if one looks in the right places.

Ultimately, were the "penalties" a sine qua non of the endowment? Some say yes, others say no. In the end, I trust the Lord's anointed that they were appropriately omitted.

 

Edited August 22, 2024 by Stargazer

[manol]

On 8/17/2024 at 8:40 PM, Peacefully said:

I was an ordinance worker so I memorized the initiatory, name and endowment and I didn’t want to forget it. It has been 10 years but it is still there for me whenever I need it

The more I think about this, the more brilliant I think it is. 

Having a memorized way to reliably go internally into the presence of God is imo extremely useful. "Memorized" so that you don't have to focus your attention on figuring it out on the fly each and every time, freeing you up to place your attention on the wordless Presence.  The well-chosen memorized words invoke the wordless "music" of the Presence of the Divine. 

Perhaps the new shortened endowment session will make it easier for temple patrons to memorize enough of the ceremony to do what you have done, enabling them to internally access a spiritual energy level corresponding to (or at least reminiscent of) the Celestial Room, whenever they so choose.

I think that would be fantastic.

Edited August 23, 2024 by manol

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, manol said:

The more I think about this, the more brilliant I think it is. 

Having a memorized way to reliably go internally into the presence of God is imo extremely useful. "Memorized" so that you don't have to focus your attention on figuring it out on the fly each and every time, freeing you up to place your attention on the wordless Presence.  The well-chosen memorized words invoke the wordless "music" of the Presence of the Divine. 

Perhaps the new shortened endowment session will make it easier for temple patrons to memorize enough of the ceremony to do what you have done, enabling them to internally access a spiritual energy level corresponding to (or at least reminiscent of) the Celestial Room, whenever they so choose.

I think that would be fantastic.

I went last night and experienced the changes first hand.  I'm still not sure how I feel about them.  My friend (who was with me) mentioned how much harder it will probably be to memorize stuff now, because before there was a lot of physical and mental repetition involved, and now there's not.  I think she had a point.

Edited August 23, 2024 by bluebell

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I went last night and experienced the changes first hand.  I'm still not sure how I feel about them.  My friend (who was with me) mentioned how much harder it will probably be to memorize stuff now, because before there was a lot of physical and mental repetition involved, and now there's not.  I think she had a point.

I had my second experience with it as an officiator on Wednesday.  I think the new version is perfect for those who go to the temple regularly to do ordinances for family names and are experienced temple goers.  And, I think this new version sets us up for doing temple work during the Millennium (or we may have an even shorter version when that time comes), so maybe we are closer than we think .   

But I do wish we could have an extended edition (not the Peter Jackson kind, but like one of the prior versions) for those who are taking out their own endowments.  When I experienced the new changes for the first time (the Wednesday before last) there was one person in the group who came for their own endowment, and I was sensitive to how it might be understood from a first timer's point of view.  I think the new version may be harder for the first time attenders, but then again they also don't know the difference.  But, that's also all the more reason to keep coming back, even for the experienced temple goers, so that we can all understand it better.  So I think the new version is good all the way around.

[Stargazer]

On 8/18/2024 at 2:40 AM, Peacefully said:

I was an ordinance worker so I memorized the initiatory, name and endowment and I didn’t want to forget it. It has been 10 years but it is still there for me whenever I need it:) Some phrases hit differently over the years similar to reading scripture or my patriarcal blessing. 

Years and years ago I went through a rough patch in my life and hadn't been able to attend the temple for about a five year period (not so much a worthiness issue, but my circumstances). I really missed it. And then the day came when I was able to go back, and the circumstances were such that I spent an entire day, about 16 hours at the Washington DC temple and did about 7 or 8 endowments. By the end of that I had memorized the veil. And for a time I used that to start my nightly prayer, as if I were entering into the Lord's presence to speak with Him personally. I stopped doing it when I occurred to me that it should be reserved for the actual event, but at the time it was as if I had been the prodigal son who was now back. 

I was recently released from being a temple ordinance worker, and the initiatory and the veil were my favorite places to work.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Years and years ago I went through a rough patch in my life and hadn't been able to attend the temple for about a five year period (not so much a worthiness issue, but my circumstances). I really missed it. And then the day came when I was able to go back, and the circumstances were such that I spent an entire day, about 16 hours at the Washington DC temple and did about 7 or 8 endowments. By the end of that I had memorized the veil. And for a time I used that to start my nightly prayer, as if I were entering into the Lord's presence to speak with Him personally. I stopped doing it when I occurred to me that it should be reserved for the actual event, but at the time it was as if I had been the prodigal son who was now back. 

I was recently released from being a temple ordinance worker, and the initiatory and the veil were my favorite places to work.

@Peacefully You two make me wonder if you have only done this with the temple words or if you have also done it with other words? It comes accross as a meditative process and makes me wonder how different it is or is not for those who have done both.

[Stargazer]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

@Peacefully You two make me wonder if you have only done this with the temple words or if you have also done it with other words? It comes accross as a meditative process and makes me wonder how different it is or is not for those who have done both.

Only with temple words, and only for a short time before I decided that it was inappropriate.

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

@Peacefully You two make me wonder if you have only done this with the temple words or if you have also done it with other words? It comes accross as a meditative process and makes me wonder how different it is or is not for those who have done both.

Only with temple words but not really a meditation. It started as a way to not forget what I had learned as an ordinance worker and ended up being a way to help me sleep. Sometimes I forget bits and pieces and they come back at other times. 

Edited August 24, 2024 by Peacefully

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I was recently released from being a temple ordinance worker, and the initiatory and the veil were my favorite places to work.

Some of my most cherished experiences in the temple have been serving at the veil after one of the Spanish endowment session.  I'm not a Spanish speaker, but I took Spanish classes in high school and at BYU decades ago.  Those classes gave me at least some training on vocabulary and pronunciation, and there was a need for more people to help with the Spanish session at our temple, so I studied and memorized the veil language in Spanish.  Doing that had a profound influence on my understanding of the meaning of those words.  And during the time I was trying to learn it, I found myself waking up in the middle of the night with the words flowing through my mind as if to reinforce the meaning to me.  I'm sure my pronunciation isn't perfect, but participating in that session has deeply changed my temple experience.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Some of my most cherished experiences in the temple have been serving at the veil after one of the Spanish endowment session.  I'm not a Spanish speaker, but I took Spanish classes in high school and at BYU decades ago.  Those classes gave me at least some training on vocabulary and pronunciation, and there was a need for more people to help with the Spanish session at our temple, so I studied and memorized the veil language in Spanish.  Doing that had a profound influence on my understanding of the meaning of those words.  And during the time I was trying to learn it, I found myself waking up in the middle of the night with the words flowing through my mind as if to reinforce the meaning to me.  I'm sure my pronunciation isn't perfect, but participating in that session has deeply changed my temple experience.

I was trying to do the same in German (which I speak), but the London temple doesn't get German-only speakers, so it was merely enjoyable, not useful.

[manol]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

By the end of that I had memorized the veil. And for a time I used that to start my nightly prayer, as if I were entering into the Lord's presence to speak with Him personally. I stopped doing it when I occurred to me that it should be reserved for the actual event, but at the time it was as if I had been the prodigal son who was now back.

It's been about twenty-five years and I still remember them.

If Christ's teaching that "the kingdom of God is WITHIN you" is literally true, then those words might not be inappropriate at all, spoken in your heart and in your mind before entering the Presence of the Divine.  That being said, I respect your choice to stop using them. 

In your opinion might there be other words one could use, words not drawn from a temple setting, assuming the format of using something memorized to facilitate aligning oneself to God is not considered inappropriate?

Edited August 24, 2024 by manol

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, manol said:

In your opinion might there be other words one could use, words not drawn from a temple setting, assuming the format of using something memorized to facilitate aligning oneself to God is not considered inappropriate?

To each his or her own, but I now find that I need only talk to Father to feel I am in His presence. 

[Mfbnew]

On 8/15/2024 at 2:27 PM, JLHPROF said:

The endowment is changing yet again.  They're getting it down to under an hour (up next drive thru ordinances).

This reminds me of the reductionist 10 commandments given when Israel wasn't capable of the full gospel.

But the scriptures are always right:

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.

"Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles." Joseph Smith

“The order of the house of God has been, and ever will be, the same, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the thousand years it will be the same; and we shall finally enter into the celestial Kingdom of God, and enjoy it forever.” Joseph Smith

"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.". Joseph Smith

One must distinguish between "The Endowment" and the PRESENTATION OF the endowment.

The endowment is a set of blessing given to us IFF we follow the covenants we accept.

These are displayed symbolically for those who are equipped to understand their symbolism.

The "Presentation" is just that- it is a DESCRIPTION in changeable language of what is "really happening".

It's the words that change- the explanation- NOT the covenants or the symbols

[manol]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

To each his or her own, but I now find that I need only talk to Father to feel I am in His presence. 

Well said! 

I haven't been able to get "there" with zero words yet, but if short on time I can get there with two words:

"Thank you"

Edited August 24, 2024 by manol

[JLHPROF]

 

4 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

One must distinguish between "The Endowment" and the PRESENTATION OF the endowment.

The endowment is a set of blessing given to us IFF we follow the covenants we accept.

These are displayed symbolically for those who are equipped to understand their symbolism.

The "Presentation" is just that- it is a DESCRIPTION in changeable language of what is "really happening".

It's the words that change- the explanation- NOT the covenants or the symbols

I specifically laid out the difference between these.

It's very clear that the covenants and ordinances have changed, not just the theatrical presentation.

Edited August 25, 2024 by JLHPROF

[Duncan]

On 8/16/2024 at 7:02 PM, JLHPROF said:

I believe the endowment has two principle elements -

1. The ordinance itself with the covenants, names, signs, tokens, penalties, key words, veil ceremony, true prayer, initiatories, sealings etc.

2. The theatrical presentation of the creation, fall, and journey back to the presence of God.

I have no issues with changes to the theatricals.  They can and have changed repeatedly in this dispensation and are undoubtedly different from previous dispensations (Books of Genesis/Moses and Abraham being records of endowments).  I even suspect Brigham would have used movies if he'd had the technology.

I don't believe God has EVER authorized changes to the actual ordinance itself as described in #1 and he 100% will require they be reinstated and ordinances repeated if not complete - even mine.

So while I am bothered by this latest batch of changes I also don't believe the current endowment is valid to God and will need to be redone in the Millennium.  So further changes are wrong and further diminish the sacredness but we haven't had the endowment in decades anyway.

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

what is your proof that God had ever not "authorized changes"? you mentioned that the endowment was the same until 1923, I ask you what proof you have that the President of the Church then, Heber J. Grant, was not authorized to make changes to the endowment

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

what is your proof that God had ever not "authorized changes"? you mentioned that the endowment was the same until 1923, I ask you what proof you have that the President of the Church then, Heber J. Grant, was not authorized to make changes to the endowment

We've circled back around 🙄.

Joseph Smith, the Prophet that was given the endowment by revelation, taught specifically that the ordinances were never to be altered or changed.

He gave Brigham charge to arrange the presentation and organization of the elements of the ordinance but eternal ordinances don't change.  Period.

If we change them they're no longer effectual, valid, or binding.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We've circled back around 🙄.

Joseph Smith, the Prophet that was given the endowment by revelation, taught specifically that the ordinances were never to be altered or changed.

He gave Brigham charge to arrange the presentation and organization of the elements of the ordinance but eternal ordinances don't change.  Period.

If we change them they're no longer effectual, valid, or binding.

According to these links (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/ordinances?lang=eng or https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/covenant-study-guide?lang=eng ), what sacred, formal temple act or ceremony has been changed? How are eternal ordinances eternal other than being related to eternal life?

I ask because the quotes you provided from Joseph Smith do not use the term, “eternal ordinances.” He said they were instituted for our salvation; that the Priesthood order of the house of God does not change; and -- the second missing part of that third quote – “Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood.”

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_6/The_Priesthood,_etc.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We've circled back around 🙄.

Joseph Smith, the Prophet that was given the endowment by revelation, taught specifically that the ordinances were never to be altered or changed.

He gave Brigham charge to arrange the presentation and organization of the elements of the ordinance but eternal ordinances don't change.  Period.

If we change them they're no longer effectual, valid, or binding.

 

13 hours ago, Duncan said:

what is your proof that God had ever not "authorized changes"? you mentioned that the endowment was the same until 1923, I ask you what proof you have that the President of the Church then, Heber J. Grant, was not authorized to make changes to the endowment

I think the difference between the positions is that JLH believes that Joseph Smith meant that the ordinances are unalterable while others might argue that JS meant that men cannot change the ordinances, but that God can.

I think you make a good point Duncan about our knowledge of the endowment as it was performed in JS's day.  If sources are accurate, the endowment was not written down until 1877, and before that it was performed off of memory (and that probably went as uniformly as we can all imagine).  It was before the dedication of the St. George temple that BY worked with others to write the endowment down for the first time, but even after then it was sometimes performed differently at different temples until "sometime in the early 20th century" when the First President required all temple presidents to conform to the written standard.

I don't think the idea that JS gave us the eternal and perfect endowment ordinance before his death but then from that time forward the church has been slowly apostatizing away from that endowment holds water.  I think that God is able and will change the way the ordinance is presented, the instruction surrounding it, and even the wording and understanding of the covenants when needed, to enable us to continue to be endowed with His power, light, and authority in our present circumstances and understanding.

BUT, I can understand why you disagree JLH.  I think you're wrong in some things (and you think the same of me) but I don't think your conclusions and feelings are unreasonable at all.  I can see where you're coming from and your interpretation of JS's words make sense.  I can imagine that this is a hard and probably painful subject and I'm sorry you are feeling alienated from the endowment (and maybe from the temple completely).  I admire your faith and integrity that keeps you chugging along in the gospel when others have jumped ship for less.

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We've circled back around 🙄.

Joseph Smith, the Prophet that was given the endowment by revelation, taught specifically that the ordinances were never to be altered or changed.

He gave Brigham charge to arrange the presentation and organization of the elements of the ordinance but eternal ordinances don't change.  Period.

If we change them they're no longer effectual, valid, or binding.

but you giving us examples of how they change not whether or not God inspired them to change. You're saying "we change" but then give no evidence of God being displeased and saying so in 1923, as you claim, to President Heber J. Grant. I want evidence that God is displeased with the changes in 1923 via a revelation to Pres. Grant. How do you know God didn't give revelation to Pres. Grant to change them, is what I am also asking

[Mfbnew]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

I specifically laid out the difference between these.

It's very clear that the covenants and ordinances have changed, not just the theatrical presentation.

Rabbit or duck?

Semiotics.  "Signs" all the way down in any utterance anyway!

Depends on how you want to give meaning or lack thereof in every utterance anyway.   Be good and not bad.

It's symbols all the way down anyway.  I remember the uproar in 1990 all for naught.  We don't need to get into the way-back machine.  I can still recite the penalties, and often my brain wants to do so at those particular times if I am not paying attention as I should be.

So is this "bad"?  Is it "good"?   Where is the sign "Welcome to Zarahemla" written in modified Egyptian ?

Either you accept the CORE BELIEFS or you don't.  One can express the "same thing" in different language games- the meaning is in the context.

Same paradigm expressed in modern language.   Finally the church is escaping the Protestant literalism, after all these years.  Alma 32.  What is "sweet" in your heart is "true".

I vote "yes"!

My heart tastes an entire gallon of honey.  At last!

[Mfbnew]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

I think the difference between the positions is that JLH believes that Joseph Smith meant that the ordinances are unalterable while others might argue that JS meant that men cannot change the ordinances, but that God can.

 

Excellent point in my opinion.

And how WOULD God EXPRESS any changes he wanted?   By writing the words he wanted on the moon so everyone could see them?  Or heck just align some stars spelling his words in the heavens of what he wanted to say?

Obviously God, an exalted human must express himself to an un-exalted human prophet!!!

Again it's religious experience that dictates the first version, then the second version,... and eventually version one-hundred fifty two!

[CV75]

On 8/16/2024 at 8:02 PM, JLHPROF said:

I believe the endowment has two principle elements -

1. The ordinance itself with the covenants, names, signs, tokens, penalties, key words, veil ceremony, true prayer, initiatories, sealings etc.

2. The theatrical presentation of the creation, fall, and journey back to the presence of God.

I have no issues with changes to the theatricals.  They can and have changed repeatedly in this dispensation and are undoubtedly different from previous dispensations (Books of Genesis/Moses and Abraham being records of endowments).  I even suspect Brigham would have used movies if he'd had the technology.

I don't believe God has EVER authorized changes to the actual ordinance itself as described in #1 and he 100% will require they be reinstated and ordinances repeated if not complete - even mine.

So while I am bothered by this latest batch of changes I also don't believe the current endowment is valid to God and will need to be redone in the Millennium.  So further changes are wrong and further diminish the sacredness but we haven't had the endowment in decades anyway.

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

I would say the non-theatrical part of the endowment, “the actual ordinance itself,” is the authorized conveyance of covenants, which are to wear the garment the law of obedience, the law of sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration. What are the specific covenants missing from this list? How have their conveyance changed, for example, as baptism by sprinkling replaced immersion? When the conveyance of covenants is integrated with the theatrical performance, where does the legitimate changing of one or the other begin and end, whether in words, actions, costuming, set design, etc.?