Endowment changes yet again

[Nevo]

I attended an endowment session last Wednesday. I couldn't identify all the places where the ceremony changed, but I did notice that participants no longer personally covenant (in their minds) to never reveal the tokens of the priesthood with their names and signs. That's not an insignificant change, in my view, and it's something that I will miss. When I went through the temple for the first time back in 1992, that was one of the most meaningful parts of the ceremony for me. In hindsight, I'm sure it helped that the ordinance worker behind the altar looked every bit the part (especially when holding up white scriptures), but I really felt as though I was making promises in the presence of God and angels. Now, all of that wording is gone. And the actions. And no one is behind the altar any more. This isn't an upgrade, in my opinion.

  

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

I attended an endowment session last Wednesday. I couldn't identify all the places where the ceremony changed, but I did notice that participants no longer personally covenant (in their minds) to never reveal the tokens of the priesthood with their names and signs. That's not an insignificant change, in my view, and it's something that I will miss. When I went through the temple for the first time back in 1992, that was one of the most meaningful parts of the ceremony for me. In hindsight, I'm sure it helped that the ordinance worker behind the altar looked every bit the part (especially when holding up white scriptures), but I really felt as though I was making promises in the presence of God and angels. Now, all of that wording is gone. And the actions. And no one is behind the altar any more. This isn't an upgrade, in my opinion.

  

It does feel a little less personal now. 

[Malc]

On 8/24/2024 at 5:36 PM, 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

Props for "iff" - Mbfnew. Your logic is showing 🙃

[Tacenda]

17 hours ago, Nevo said:

I attended an endowment session last Wednesday. I couldn't identify all the places where the ceremony changed, but I did notice that participants no longer personally covenant (in their minds) to never reveal the tokens of the priesthood with their names and signs. That's not an insignificant change, in my view, and it's something that I will miss. When I went through the temple for the first time back in 1992, that was one of the most meaningful parts of the ceremony for me. In hindsight, I'm sure it helped that the ordinance worker behind the altar looked every bit the part (especially when holding up white scriptures), but I really felt as though I was making promises in the presence of God and angels. Now, all of that wording is gone. And the actions. And no one is behind the altar any more. This isn't an upgrade, in my opinion.

  

Well, I went in '84 and maybe it's the repercussions that if they don't what might happen.

[Mfbnew]

7 hours ago, Malc said:

Props for "iff" - Mbfnew. Your logic is showing 🙃

LOL! That's fine with me!!  

 

[JLHPROF]

On 8/25/2024 at 5:13 PM, Nevo said:

, but I did notice that participants no longer personally covenant (in their minds) to never reveal the tokens of the priesthood with their names and signs. That's not an insignificant change

  

But we never change the covenants right?  It's just presentation. 

Quote

I really felt as though I was making promises in the presence of God and angels. Now, all of that wording is gone. And the actions. And no one is behind the altar any more. This isn't an upgrade, in my opinion.

How, as Joseph so clearly explained, are people saved on the same principles if they aren't even under the same covenants?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But we never change the covenants right?  It's just presentation. 

How, as Joseph so clearly explained, are people saved on the same principles if they aren't even under the same covenants?

They experience the same covenants differently and by grace become aligned with the mind of God as to the meaning, practice and expression (fruit) of those covenants over time. 

The difference comes in two ways: 1. Everyone has an individual, personal experience and interpretation of the same words. 2. The words do not constitute the covenant, the experience does, so when the words change under proper authority, the experience of theosis does not.

Thus, the saints of all dispensations receive the same theosis regardless of the words used to prompt the covenant experience under their respective dispensations and High Priesthood presidents and presidencies.

[Nofear]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But we never change the covenants right?  It's just presentation. 

How, as Joseph so clearly explained, are people saved on the same principles if they aren't even under the same covenants?

How similar do you think the endowment received by members of the Church in Peter's time is to the endowment presented by Joseph Smith?

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

How similar do you think the endowment received by members of the Church in Peter's time is to the endowment presented by Joseph Smith?

This is a good question, and I have asked myself the same question as I have read this thread, and it reminded me again of a 1993 BYU Studies article about Christian burial excavations in Egypt:  Evidences of a Christian Population in the Egyptian Fayum and Genetic and Textile Studies of the Akhmim Noble Mummies, by C. Wilfred Griggs, Marvin C. Kuchar, Scott R. Woodward, Mark J. Rowe, R. Paul Evans, Naguib Kanawati, and Nasry Iskander,  in BYU Studies, Volume 33, Number 2 (1993), p. 214-243, found here:   https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-332-1993

I posted about the article in a Masonry thread in 2019:

The article includes the following image and caption:

Can we not expect that the endowment will be applied in different ways at different times, and according to how it can be best received by the people?

Edited August 27, 2024 by InCognitus

[Rain]

49 minutes ago, Nofear said:

How similar do you think the endowment received by members of the Church in Peter's time is to the endowment presented by Joseph Smith?

Well, we know the law of sacrifice is (or was depending how it was in 2019) is not the same thing because of how it is (in 2019) worded.  I don't know anything about Peter's day so I couldn't answer how similar. I know how I thought it was worded, but I caught more of the endowment as I went along and how I thought it was worded was very (in my opinion) different than what it actually was). The specific wording would not have worked in Peter's time.

[manol]

On 8/25/2024 at 9:10 AM, JLHPROF said:

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.

I've learned more about the history of the endowment from your posts than from whatever I encountered before; I didn't even know the history of the endowment was know-able to any extent.

For context, my experience with the endowment began in late 1979.  It always seemed to me that the penalties (which have since been omitted) were somewhat at odds with the spirit of this statement by Joseph Smith: 

"Pure friendship always becomes weakened the very moment you undertake to make it stronger by penal oaths and secrecy." 

How confident are you that the penalties Brigham incorporated into the endowment were what Joseph intended? 

Edited August 27, 2024 by manol

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/23/2024 at 2:22 PM, manol said:

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. 

The Rosary  

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Rosary  

Holy Envy there…

[Nevo]

On 8/27/2024 at 12:23 PM, manol said:

How confident are you that the penalties Brigham incorporated into the endowment were what Joseph intended? 

L. John Nuttall recorded the following in his diary in 1877:

"Prest Young was filled with the spirit of God & revelation & said when we got our washings and anointings under the hand of the Prophet Joseph at Nauvoo we had only one room to work in with the exception of a little side room or office where we were washed and anointed had our garments placed upon us and received our New Name. and after he [Joseph Smith] had performed these ceremonies he gave the Key Words signs, [tokens] and penalties. then after we went into the large room over the store in Nauvoo. Joseph divided up the room the best he could hung up the veil, marked it gave us our instructions as we passed along from one department to another giving us signs, tokens, penalties with Key words pertaining to those signs and after we had got through Bro Joseph turned to me and said Bro Brigham this is not arranged right but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs tokens penalties and Key words I did so and each time I got something more so that when we went through the Temple at Nauvoo I understood and Knew how to place them there. we had our ceremonies pretty correct."

If Brigham was lying about the penalties part, it was bold of him to do so in front of Wilford Woodruff, who also received his endowment from Joseph Smith (in 1843).

Another member of the Anointed Quorum, Bathsheba W. Smith (wife of George A. Smith), told an audience in 1903:

"I know that the endowments are given now the same as they were given by Joseph Smith the Prophet. He was present with us and lectured and talked with us after we received our first ordinances, and I have met him many times at councils which were held and he told us many things and explained them to us, showed us how to pray, and how to detect them when true or false angels come to us, and many other true things he taught us, and he instituted the endowments through the Lord, and it was not Brigham Young or anyone else." (Bathsheba W. Smith, Remarks, Weber [Utah] Stake Reunion, June 12, 1903, in the Deseret Evening News, June 23, 1903)

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/27/2024 at 2:23 PM, manol said:

I've learned more about the history of the endowment from your posts than from whatever I encountered before; I didn't even know the history of the endowment was know-able to any extent.

For context, my experience with the endowment began in late 1979.  It always seemed to me that the penalties (which have since been omitted) were somewhat at odds with the spirit of this statement by Joseph Smith: 

"Pure friendship always becomes weakened the very moment you undertake to make it stronger by penal oaths and secrecy." 

How confident are you that the penalties Brigham incorporated into the endowment were what Joseph intended? 

On 8/26/2024 at 12:16 PM, Tacenda said:

Well, I went in '84 and maybe it's the repercussions that if they don't what might happen.

It appears that you both (and many others) misunderstood the wording of the penalties. It said,  “rather than…”, not “if I ...” Huge difference, but easily misunderstood if one didn’t listen closely. That part helped me comprehend the serious and sacred nature of what I was personally committing to, but now that everything is readily viewable to the unbelievers, it’s moot. 

Edited August 29, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/27/2024 at 2:23 PM, manol said:

For context, my experience with the endowment began in late 1979.  It always seemed to me that the penalties (which have since been omitted) were somewhat at odds with the spirit of this statement by Joseph Smith: 

"Pure friendship always becomes weakened the very moment you undertake to make it stronger by penal oaths and secrecy." 

That statement (1839) had nothing to do with the Nauvoo temple endowment (1842). 

It is from this letter to Edward Partridge and the Church…https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-edward-partridge-and-the-church-circa-22-march-1839/7#full-transcript
 

Quote

And again I would further suggest the impropriety of the organization of bands or companies by covenant or oaths by penalties < or secrecysecrecies > but let the time past of our experiance and sufferings by the wickedness of Doctor [Sampson] Avard suffise and let our covenant be that of the everlasting covenant as is contained in the Holy writ and the things that God hath revealed unto us. Pure friendship always becomes weakened the verry moment you undertake to make it stronger by penal oaths and secrecy. Your humble servant or servants intend from henceforth to disapprobate every thing that is not in accordance with the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and is not of a bold and frank and an upright nature they will not hold their peace as in times past when they see iniquity begining to rear its head for fear of traitors or the concequences that shall flow < follow  by reproving those who creap in unawares that they may get something to distroy the flock. We believe that the experiance of the saints in times past has been sufficient that they will from henceforth be always ready to obey the truth without having mens persons in admiration because of advantage it is expediant that we should be aware of such things.

Quote

Footnote: In June 1838, the Society of the Daughter of Zion (later known as the Danite band) was organized in Caldwell County in response to internal and external opposition to the church. Former Danite leader Sampson Avard claimed in his testimony before Judge Austin A. King in November 1838 that JS suggested the “band should be bound together by a covenant.” However, it remains unclear what role—if any—JS played in formulating the oath that Avard recited in court: “In the name of Jesus Christ the son of God, I do solemnly obligate myself, ever to conceal & never to reveal the secret purposes of this society called the daughter of Zion; Should I ever do the same I hold my life as the forfeiture.” John Corrill, who was critical of the society, believed that the Danites swore additional oaths to support each other whether “right or wrong,” to correct wrongs internally rather than relying on the law, to uphold the First Presidency without question, and to eliminate dissent in the church.

 

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It appears that you both (and many others) misunderstood the wording of the penalties. <rain editing temple content to make sure I follow the rules of the board> Huge difference, but easily misunderstood if one didn’t listen closely. That part helped me comprehend the serious and sacred nature of what I was personally committing to, but now that everything is readily viewable to the unbelievers, it’s moot. 

It's not fair to say "if one didn’t listen closely". Just because someone didn't catch the wording doesn't mean that they didn't listen closely.  When no one really trains you for what is said in the temple there is a lot you will miss for quite awhile.

It is easy to miss that wording.  After all, even back to the beginning, from what I'm reading here, it was called a penalty.  That doesn't denote the meaning you are trying to convey here., but the understanding some people felt. Does that mean the leaders of the church didn't listen closely?  Or is this one of the wording changes from back then?  Either way, it is tied to the connotation.

It wasn't a huge difference to me. Honestly, in some ways, the actual wording has always bothered me more.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It appears that you both (and many others) misunderstood the wording of the penalties. It said,  “rather than…”, not “if I ...” Huge difference, but easily misunderstood if one didn’t listen closely. That part helped me comprehend the serious and sacred nature of what I was personally committing to, but now that everything is readily viewable to the unbelievers, it’s moot. 

It’s not like anyone is pinning us down, torturing us to reveal the secrets or even tempted to these days. We know that they can be had for a few clicks of a button.  There is no actual preservation or protection of the hidden, powerful for the initiate, destructive for those not prepared knowledge.  The reality is too distant from the ideal in my opinion to make the acceptance of the penalties a communal experience, a feeling that ‘here I am, standing with others who are willing to do all that is needed to protect that which is sacred before God’. As you say “it’s moot”.

So it’s hasn’t been about actual protection of the knowledge of the temple rite likely from even before I was born (temple exposes were not that hard to find with libraries carrying antimormon books), but just whether or not the individual sees theirselves as someone who is willing to be trustworthy and faithful…and if it’s trying to teach the individual to be the kind of person who can trusted to treat the things of God as worthy of respect and protection whether it’s his people or his principles we take into ourselves, then it’s best to be in language (symbolic or verbal) that inspires the person to desire to be that trustworthy rather than makes the person feel rather repulsed by the whole thing and wanting to run from it.

Plus the purpose of having them so severe that it gives the individual a chance to reflect on are they truly ready for this type of commitment is diminished when people are confused by what the penalties meant and how they fit and instead of withdrawing, our culture is more ‘yeah, it’s awkward and doesn’t make sense, but it isn’t supposed to as we learn line upon line and it will make sense in time, so stick around’ which is likely the opposite purpose it once had.  Though I suppose there is a similar result when people are so disturbed by that part that they just don’t go back.  Memories fade and the hidden knowledge stays hidden in the only way that means anything these days, which is unable to be understood.

Edited August 29, 2024 by Calm

[manol]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It appears that you both (and many others) misunderstood the wording of the penalties. It said,  “rather than…”, not “if I ...” Huge difference, but easily misunderstood if one didn’t listen closely. That part helped me comprehend the serious and sacred nature of what I was personally committing to, but now that everything is readily viewable to the unbelievers, it’s moot. 

Excellent point!  I had forgotten the specific wording, but even if I'd remembered I probably would not have caught the significance of that critical detail.  Thank you!

Edited August 30, 2024 by manol

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

It’s not like anyone is pinning us down, torturing us to reveal the secrets or even tempted to these days. We know that they can be had for a few clicks of a button.  There is no actual preservation or protection of the hidden, powerful for the initiate, destructive for those not prepared knowledge.  The reality is too distant from the ideal in my opinion to make the acceptance of the penalties a communal experience, a feeling that ‘here I am, standing with others who are willing to do all that is needed to protect that which is sacred before God’. As you say “it’s moot”.

So it’s hasn’t been about actual protection of the knowledge of the temple rite likely from even before I was born (temple exposes were not that hard to find with libraries carrying antimormon books), but just whether or not the individual sees theirselves as someone who is willing to be trustworthy and faithful…and if it’s trying to teach the individual to be the kind of person who can trusted to treat the things of God as worthy of respect and protection whether it’s his people or his principles we take into ourselves, then it’s best to be in language (symbolic or verbal) that inspires the person to desire to be that trustworthy rather than makes the person feel rather repulsed by the whole thing and wanting to run from it.

Plus the purpose of having them so severe that it gives the individual a chance to reflect on are they truly ready for this type of commitment is diminished when people are confused by what the penalties meant and how they fit and instead of withdrawing, our culture is more ‘yeah, it’s awkward and doesn’t make sense, but it isn’t supposed to as we learn line upon line and it will make sense in time, so stick around’ which is likely the opposite purpose it once had.  Though I suppose there is a similar result when people are so disturbed by that part that they just don’t go back.  Memories fade and the hidden knowledge stays hidden in the only way that means anything these days, which is unable to be understood.

Interesting. I had had very little preparation for the endowment. My parents had only been to temple once and didn’t talk about it. So I was somewhat at sea. I came to understand it with more exposure. Nibley's The Joseph Smith Papyri: A Egyptian Endowment opened up new worlds. The penalties did not repulse or disturb because I understood that “rather than” is clearly different than “if I.” It was a commitment to keep the endowment sacred at all costs. This made sense to me considering the gravity of what is at stake. Just recently Sister Gui did a lot of reading about ancient sacred oaths. We discussed that part of the endowment and came to understood it quite differently. 

When the Cane Creek Massacre happened in Tennessee, malcreants hunting down Mormon missionaries in Tennessee would detain unrecognized young men whom they encountered and ripped open their shirts to see if they were wearing temple garments. Sure sign of a Mormon missionary. If they saw garments, they beat the missionary and warned them not to ever come back. Actually, missionaries did not go back to that area for decades and decades.

Understandably, elders removed and hid their garments until they could get to safety. I don’t know if any continued to wear them despite the threats of personal harm. That would take great faith and courage. Great-grandfather James DePriest and his brothers Thomas and Pleasant were members of the Cane Creek branch. James was the branch president, but because of persecution he had taken his family west just before the massacre. After the massacre the entire branch relocated in Manassa, Colorado. 

I have often wondered if I would have had the faith and courage to keep the 
“rather than…..” promise. 

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, Rain said:

It's not fair to say "if one didn’t listen closely". Just because someone didn't catch the wording doesn't mean that they didn't listen closely.  When no one really trains you for what is said in the temple there is a lot you will miss for quite awhile.

It is easy to miss that wording.  After all, even back to the beginning, from what I'm reading here, it was called a penalty.  That doesn't denote the meaning you are trying to convey here., but the understanding some people felt. Does that mean the leaders of the church didn't listen closely?  Or is this one of the wording changes from back then?  Either way, it is tied to the connotation.

It wasn't a huge difference to me. Honestly, in some ways, the actual wording has always bothered me more.

I mean no disrespect, but It is fair to say “if one listened closely.” It’s the truth. The words of all the covenants have to be spoken with exactness so those making them understand exactly what they are promising. We must pay attention to the words.  In my understanding, the penalties were descriptive of the ways a life could be taken, and we promised not to reveal the sacred endowment even if our lives were in peril. 
 

Quote

Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation” (Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith,6:7).

Making covenants is serious business. In other times, an oath and a cvenenat were taken seriously even if it meant giving one’s life rather than breaking them. It’s daunting, but we still make that promise; however, the rewards are great. 

Edited August 30, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

The penalties did not repulse or disturb because I understood that “rather than” is clearly different than “if I.”

I caught the “rather than” immediately, I don’t know why, maybe just because my brain fusses about details.  

But it isn’t just if it’s a punishment or self inflicted or a promise to protect sacredness unto death.  It was also a rather brutal, violent symbol and I am not surprised that even some who bought fully into the need of protection of the sacredness of the event were repulsed by the imagery.  Didn’t bother me, it felt oddly fitting as a contrast to the refined purity and perfection the temple was decorated in, perfect stillness and order confronted by something blatantly unorderly, the temple so very clean and this very unclean bit of ceremony, made especially odd by it being done by quiet, peaceful, harmless individuals with much not change of expression…like eating something to clear one’s palate so one could go on and enjoy the subtle flavors of the next dish, but it is very easy for me to understand why others had a harder time making it fit and instead it just felt wrong to them, not fitting in a worship of a loving and merciful Father.

An analogy…I was not troubled in one sense by the details of my father’s last illness either.  When I came in he was delirious and writhing in agony from dehydration and the lack of medication that controlled his restless legs.  I was horrified by his suffering, angry because it wasn’t necessary, but went to work immediately as needed and I had no problem describing it clinically later on.  It made my sister sick to hear, she was furious I had told it in such graphic detail when I just assumed it was necessary info to hear.  For her it was a loss of dignity for my dad and a lack of respect to repeat it.  I am much better in nitty gritty situations, my mind can shift that way, hers has a sense of what is right and wrong for people and doesn’t adapt as easily.  In a way, pain is not part of her worldview and she pushes it away. (She’s better in the long haul though, call me for the quick and dirty jobs, her for long term commitment and fun.)   My dad’s death hit her much, much harder than me.  Violence is like that for many in my experience. 

Edited August 30, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

the penalties were descriptive of the ways a life could be taken,

Violent, disgusting, demeaning to many people’s view ways a life could be taken…not something that is the least present in the way we teach the gospel in anything else, not even the crucifixion in my experience as we tend to focus on the emotional and spiritual pain and rarely get down to the offensive details of physical torture Jesus experienced.

I can’t view violence, but oddly I can read about it even though my mind clearly paints a picture of it, I guess there is still enough realization it’s not actually happening to someone in that moment that isn’t there if I am viewing it.  I have read extremely detailed descriptions of the results of similar actions.  

What was described was in one case a quick death, though would be very messy.  The other might take more time to die from and involve some very troubling details.  People in Joseph’s time had likely seen animals slaughtered and were likely there less shocked by the description.  

Hardly surprising to me it feels so wrong for many people in our day.

I don’t think we should just point to the purpose and somehow think that should make everyone okay with them.  For many it wouldn’t matter who would inflict it on us, ourselves or others or even that it was a symbol of commitment, not intended to actually happen or however it gets interpreted by the individual (since no interpretation is provided), it was simply not being okay with the idea that it was seen as appropriate in any case.

Edited August 30, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting. I had had very little preparation for the endowment. My parents had only been to temple once and didn’t talk about it. So I was somewhat at sea. I came to understand it with more exposure. Nibley's The Joseph Smith Papyri: A Egyptian Endowment opened up new worlds. The penalties did not repulse or disturb because I understood that “rather than” is clearly different than “if I.”

I understood that as well and I had a very different experience than you. Clearly, understanding of the words is not the only thing that makes one be ok with it or be disturbed by it.

This is the reason it bothers me when people assume that because people view things differently it must be because the other person didn't understand it. 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

It was a commitment to keep the endowment sacred at all costs. This made sense to me considering the gravity of what is at stake. Just recently Sister Gui did a lot of reading about ancient sacred oaths. We discussed that part of the endowment and came to understood it quite differently. 

When the Cane Creek Massacre happened in Tennessee, malcreants hunting down Mormon missionaries in Tennessee would detain unrecognized young men whom they encountered and ripped open their shirts to see if they were wearing temple garments. Sure sign of a Mormon missionary. If they saw garments, they beat the missionary and warned them not to ever come back. Actually, missionaries did not go back to that area for decades and decades.

Understandably, elders removed and hid their garments until they could get to safety. I don’t know if any continued to wear them despite the threats of personal harm. That would take great faith and courage. Great-grandfather James DePriest and his brothers Thomas and Pleasant were members of the Cane Creek branch. James was the branch president, but because of persecution he had taken his family west just before the massacre. After the massacre the entire branch relocated in Manassa, Colorado. 

I have often wondered if I would have had the faith and courage to keep the 
“rather than…..” promise. 

 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I mean no disrespect, but It is fair to say “if one listened closely.”

No. Just because people didn't catch it doesn't mean they didn't listen closely. They could have had every effort focused on listening and still not catch it because of problems with hearing, biases in their thinking, experiences they have had, experiences with the Spirit.

Think about the many times you have read the scriptures while "listening" closely. How many times have you caught something when you read the 2nd, or 3rd or 4th time? The same thing happens when we hear things. No one is set up to get it all the first time, or 2nd or even 20th.

So putting the blame on the person for not listening closely ignores the human body and experience. I'm not saying everyone always listens closely. I'm only saying it is not always the problem.

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It’s the truth. The words of all the covenants have to be spoken with exactness so those making them understand exactly what they are promising.

So are you saying you understood exactly what you were saying the first time you went through? That you never learned anything more from the words spoken? 

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We must pay attention to the words.  In my understanding, the penalties were descriptive of the ways a life could be taken, and we promised not to reveal the sacred endowment even if our lives were in peril. 
 

Making covenants is serious business.

I understood that before I went to the temple.  I understand that the penalties helped you understand that.  They made it no stronger for me. 

My husband makes no promises.  Never has. His word is his bond. For other people promising something makes it stronger.  For my husband it would not.

From what you say it sounds like you needed something that made it more stongly serious for you. I did not. We are different and that's ok.  

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In other times, an oath and a cvenenat were taken seriously even if it meant giving one’s life rather than breaking them. It’s daunting, but we still make that promise; however, the rewards are great. 

Last night after I posted to you the memories came flying in. Memories of the few months before I went to the temple. I understood even more of why I felt the way I did when I went. I'm glad that the wording helps you. My experiences make the actual wording very disturbing for me (and similar things have done the same for others). 

As more members come from countries where they have experienced extreme violence* it makes sense to me to find a different way to help people come to God. 

*Recently I attended a 20 year memorial of 100s of Congolese people violently killed in a refugee camp and heard the stories of some of the survivors who were there. I wish that was all that happened as this continues today.  With 4 temples scheduled to be in the Congo I think it is wonderful that someone has heard the cries of those so disturbed by things which happened in the temple and have found a way to change it.

So I truly feel sorrow that some feel something important was lost for them, but I am ever so grateful that in the temple where people have taught of feeling God’s love it is more safe for those who would feel trauma with the penalties.  

And what people get out of the temple is not always because some of us listened closely or some of us didn't.  It's not always because some of us understood the words and some didn't.  Most often it's because we are each different people, with different spirits and different experiences. 

Edited August 30, 2024 by Rain