The original 1840s temple endowment

[CuriousThinker]

In order for there to be a counterfeit there has to be an original that looks similar, even virtually identical to counterfeit.

Notice how you typically only respond to one of my points as if you don't have a response for the others?

Let me ask again. How do you account for the known falsehoods in the endowment and how do you account for the Nephites not receiving the endowment as evidenced by Mormon writing against secret signs and oaths?

That's called replying on my phone - not the easiest for in depth debate.

As with most of our discussions I simply reject your interpretation as being in error. There are NO known falsehoods in the endowment. Secret signs and oaths aren't always wrong or evil. And the handshakes in the temple are symbolic of specific scriptural verses.
They are no more evil than the upside down stars Joseph put on the Nauvoo temple plans are pentagrams.
Symbols mean what we choose.
Is wearing the cross always wrong or faithful? Is the swastika Nazi or Hindu?
I happen to believe the covenants, signs, tokens are eternal and have existed on earth since the Garden.

What do you mean by "no known falsehoods"? That there may be some, we just don't know it? What about Adam God Theory that Brigham taught and was in the temple? Was that false? If not, then was it false to remove it?
These are sincere questions, not arguments.

[Shawn Henry]

Completely disagree. As usual.

Completely disagree or conveniently disagree? Interesting how your logic always sides with the church's position and not the scriptures.

If we didn't have the endowment and its secret signs and tokens, you would probably be the first to condemn it, pointing right to the BoM for justification.

[JLHPROF]

“He (Joseph Smith) spoke of delivering the Keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them with their husbands, and the Saints whose integrity has been tried and proved faithful, might know how to ask and receive an answer.”

George A. Smith and Wilford Woodruff used this as missionary companions:

"Our garments should be properly marked and we should understand those marks and we should wear those garments continually, by night and by day, in prison or free and if the devils in hell cut us up, let them cut the garments to pieces also, if we have the garments upon us at all times we can at any time offer up the signs. He then related an instance of some children being healed and cured of the whooping cough in one night, through the prayers of himself and Elder Woodruff, in Michigan, while they were there on a mission. Said that whenever they could get an opportunity they retired to the wilderness or to an upper room, they did so and offered up the signs, and were always answered."

And I'll conclude with one of my favorite Joseph Smith quotes - "I want every man that goes to be a king and a priest. When he gets on the mountain, he may want to talk with his God."

[LDS Watchman]

In order for there to be a counterfeit there has to be an original that looks similar, even virtually identical to counterfeit.

Notice how you typically only respond to one of my points as if you don't have a response for the others?

Let me ask again. How do you account for the known falsehoods in the endowment and how do you account for the Nephites not receiving the endowment as evidenced by Mormon writing against secret signs and oaths?

That's called replying on my phone - not the easiest for in depth debate.

As with most of our discussions I simply reject your interpretation as being in error. There are NO known falsehoods in the endowment. Secret signs and oaths aren't always wrong or evil. And the handshakes in the temple are symbolic of specific scriptural verses.
They are no more evil than the upside down stars Joseph put on the Nauvoo temple plans are pentagrams.
Symbols mean what we choose.
Is wearing the cross always wrong or faithful? Is the swastika Nazi or Hindu?
I happen to believe the covenants, signs, tokens are eternal and have existed on earth since the Garden.

What do you mean by "no known falsehoods"? That there may be some, we just don't know it? What about Adam God Theory that Brigham taught and was in the temple? Was that false? If not, then was it false to remove it?
These are sincere questions, not arguments.

Adam-God is true doctrine. It was removed because the Saints couldn't handle this mystery being taught openly. Teaching this openly was doing way more harm than good.

The Adam-God doctrine is not essential for anyone's salvation. As Wilford Woodruff, who believed in Adam-God once said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Stop worrying about it. God is God, Christ is Christ.That's what matters for us in the here and now."

Whether Adam is Jesus' Father and our Heavenly Father or not doesn't effect us one bit right now.

[CuriousThinker]

Notice how you typically only respond to one of my points as if you don't have a response for the others?

Let me ask again. How do you account for the known falsehoods in the endowment and how do you account for the Nephites not receiving the endowment as evidenced by Mormon writing against secret signs and oaths?

That's called replying on my phone - not the easiest for in depth debate.

As with most of our discussions I simply reject your interpretation as being in error. There are NO known falsehoods in the endowment. Secret signs and oaths aren't always wrong or evil. And the handshakes in the temple are symbolic of specific scriptural verses.
They are no more evil than the upside down stars Joseph put on the Nauvoo temple plans are pentagrams.
Symbols mean what we choose.
Is wearing the cross always wrong or faithful? Is the swastika Nazi or Hindu?
I happen to believe the covenants, signs, tokens are eternal and have existed on earth since the Garden.

What do you mean by "no known falsehoods"? That there may be some, we just don't know it? What about Adam God Theory that Brigham taught and was in the temple? Was that false? If not, then was it false to remove it?
These are sincere questions, not arguments.

Adam-God is true doctrine. It was removed because the Saints couldn't handle this mystery being taught openly. Teaching this openly was doing way more harm than good.

The Adam-God doctrine is not essential for anyone's salvation. As Wilford Woodruff, who believed in Adam-God once said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Stop worrying about it. God is God, Christ is Christ.That's what matters for us in the here and now."

Whether Adam is Jesus' Father and our Heavenly Father or not doesn't effect us one bit right now.

Prophets since have disavowed Adam God and said it is false. So, they're wrong?

[LDS Watchman]

That's called replying on my phone - not the easiest for in depth debate.

As with most of our discussions I simply reject your interpretation as being in error. There are NO known falsehoods in the endowment. Secret signs and oaths aren't always wrong or evil. And the handshakes in the temple are symbolic of specific scriptural verses.
They are no more evil than the upside down stars Joseph put on the Nauvoo temple plans are pentagrams.
Symbols mean what we choose.
Is wearing the cross always wrong or faithful? Is the swastika Nazi or Hindu?
I happen to believe the covenants, signs, tokens are eternal and have existed on earth since the Garden.

What do you mean by "no known falsehoods"? That there may be some, we just don't know it? What about Adam God Theory that Brigham taught and was in the temple? Was that false? If not, then was it false to remove it?
These are sincere questions, not arguments.

Adam-God is true doctrine. It was removed because the Saints couldn't handle this mystery being taught openly. Teaching this openly was doing way more harm than good.

The Adam-God doctrine is not essential for anyone's salvation. As Wilford Woodruff, who believed in Adam-God once said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Stop worrying about it. God is God, Christ is Christ.That's what matters for us in the here and now."

Whether Adam is Jesus' Father and our Heavenly Father or not doesn't effect us one bit right now.

Prophets since have disavowed Adam God and said it is false. So, they're wrong?

Maybe. Maybe not.

If God told them not to teach it openly anymore, then they really didn't have much choice but to deny it when the Fundamentalists kept trying to attack the church over it. There would be no wrong in that.

But I think at least some of them genuinely believed that Adam-God was false doctrine. But like I said. Adam-God is really irrelevant to us in the here and now. It's a mystery that isn't important to our salvation right now.

[JLHPROF]

That's called replying on my phone - not the easiest for in depth debate.

As with most of our discussions I simply reject your interpretation as being in error. There are NO known falsehoods in the endowment. Secret signs and oaths aren't always wrong or evil. And the handshakes in the temple are symbolic of specific scriptural verses.
They are no more evil than the upside down stars Joseph put on the Nauvoo temple plans are pentagrams.
Symbols mean what we choose.
Is wearing the cross always wrong or faithful? Is the swastika Nazi or Hindu?
I happen to believe the covenants, signs, tokens are eternal and have existed on earth since the Garden.

What do you mean by "no known falsehoods"? That there may be some, we just don't know it? What about Adam God Theory that Brigham taught and was in the temple? Was that false? If not, then was it false to remove it?
These are sincere questions, not arguments.

Adam-God is true doctrine. It was removed because the Saints couldn't handle this mystery being taught openly. Teaching this openly was doing way more harm than good.

The Adam-God doctrine is not essential for anyone's salvation. As Wilford Woodruff, who believed in Adam-God once said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Stop worrying about it. God is God, Christ is Christ.That's what matters for us in the here and now."

Whether Adam is Jesus' Father and our Heavenly Father or not doesn't effect us one bit right now.

Prophets since have disavowed Adam God and said it is false. So, they're wrong?

Some believed it. Some didn't.
Some claimed revelation for their beliefs, some didn't.
More often than not the teachings are based on 10% revelation and 90% speculation.
It's a true doctrine, but most of what's said about it goes far beyond what has actually been revealed.

[hedgehog]

Does anyone know where I can find this transcript? I've been searching and can find 1930s but not this early. I feel like it's truly very different than what we have now. I wanted to know about the washing of feet as well. I think this is a very sacred ordinance and I don't know why they got rid of it for the general public. Anyway, thanks!

RE the washing of the feet portion, the new testament account of Jesus is the best version.

We all have heard fantastical rumor's. I am curious person, and had ignored the prompting to stop digging. When I finally dug up the specifics that I had long wondered about, I wish I had waited and learned it live as intended. I decided not to tell my wife what I found, so as not to distract from her experience.

Matthew 26
Mark 14
Luke 7
John 12

In Johns account we find out it was Mary. Who we know was married to him. In Mathews account he says this after she is done:

Mathew 26:
"13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her."

There is also the second instance of feet washing when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples including (iirc) Judas.

[SJR3t2]

Notice how you typically only respond to one of my points as if you don't have a response for the others?

Let me ask again. How do you account for the known falsehoods in the endowment and how do you account for the Nephites not receiving the endowment as evidenced by Mormon writing against secret signs and oaths?

That's called replying on my phone - not the easiest for in depth debate.

As with most of our discussions I simply reject your interpretation as being in error. There are NO known falsehoods in the endowment. Secret signs and oaths aren't always wrong or evil. And the handshakes in the temple are symbolic of specific scriptural verses.
They are no more evil than the upside down stars Joseph put on the Nauvoo temple plans are pentagrams.
Symbols mean what we choose.
Is wearing the cross always wrong or faithful? Is the swastika Nazi or Hindu?
I happen to believe the covenants, signs, tokens are eternal and have existed on earth since the Garden.

What do you mean by "no known falsehoods"? That there may be some, we just don't know it? What about Adam God Theory that Brigham taught and was in the temple? Was that false? If not, then was it false to remove it?
These are sincere questions, not arguments.

Adam-God is true doctrine. It was removed because the Saints couldn't handle this mystery being taught openly. Teaching this openly was doing way more harm than good.

The Adam-God doctrine is not essential for anyone's salvation. As Wilford Woodruff, who believed in Adam-God once said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Stop worrying about it. God is God, Christ is Christ.That's what matters for us in the here and now."

Whether Adam is Jesus' Father and our Heavenly Father or not doesn't effect us one bit right now.

YHWH doesn't remove doctrine because people don't like it, men do that. BY disagrees about needing to believe it.

2 Nephi (LDS 2:14-15) (RLDS 1:94-98)
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon. 15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

Alma (LDS 18:36) (RLDS 2:114-115) Now when Ammon had said these words, he began at the CREATION OF THE WORLD, and also the CREATION OF ADAM, and told him all the things concerning the fall of man, and rehearsed and laid before him the records and the holy scriptures of the people, which had been spoken by the prophets, even down to the time that their father, Lehi, left Jerusalem.

Mormon (LDS 9:12) (RLDS 4:71) Behold, he [God] created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man.

Moroni (LDS 10:3) (RLDS 10:3) Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the CREATION OF ADAM even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

[LDS Watchman]

YHWH doesn't remove doctrine because people don't like it, men do that. BY disagrees about needing to believe it.

Yes, he does. The whole milk before meet thing.

[JLHPROF]

That's called replying on my phone - not the easiest for in depth debate.

As with most of our discussions I simply reject your interpretation as being in error. There are NO known falsehoods in the endowment. Secret signs and oaths aren't always wrong or evil. And the handshakes in the temple are symbolic of specific scriptural verses.
They are no more evil than the upside down stars Joseph put on the Nauvoo temple plans are pentagrams.
Symbols mean what we choose.
Is wearing the cross always wrong or faithful? Is the swastika Nazi or Hindu?
I happen to believe the covenants, signs, tokens are eternal and have existed on earth since the Garden.

What do you mean by "no known falsehoods"? That there may be some, we just don't know it? What about Adam God Theory that Brigham taught and was in the temple? Was that false? If not, then was it false to remove it?
These are sincere questions, not arguments.

Adam-God is true doctrine. It was removed because the Saints couldn't handle this mystery being taught openly. Teaching this openly was doing way more harm than good.

The Adam-God doctrine is not essential for anyone's salvation. As Wilford Woodruff, who believed in Adam-God once said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Stop worrying about it. God is God, Christ is Christ.That's what matters for us in the here and now."

Whether Adam is Jesus' Father and our Heavenly Father or not doesn't effect us one bit right now.

YHWH doesn't remove doctrine because people don't like it, men do that.

That's exactly what he did with Moses on the mount when Israel worshipped the golden calf.
He gave them a lower law instead to replace the full gospel.

[SJR3t2]

YHWH doesn't remove doctrine because people don't like it, men do that. BY disagrees about needing to believe it.

Yes, he does. The whole milk before meet thing.

Please show that by using scriptures, not just I say so.

[SJR3t2]

What do you mean by "no known falsehoods"? That there may be some, we just don't know it? What about Adam God Theory that Brigham taught and was in the temple? Was that false? If not, then was it false to remove it?
These are sincere questions, not arguments.

Adam-God is true doctrine. It was removed because the Saints couldn't handle this mystery being taught openly. Teaching this openly was doing way more harm than good.

The Adam-God doctrine is not essential for anyone's salvation. As Wilford Woodruff, who believed in Adam-God once said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Stop worrying about it. God is God, Christ is Christ.That's what matters for us in the here and now."

Whether Adam is Jesus' Father and our Heavenly Father or not doesn't effect us one bit right now.

YHWH doesn't remove doctrine because people don't like it, men do that.

That's exactly what he did with Moses on the mount when Israel worshipped the golden calf.
He gave them a lower law instead to replace the full gospel.

Torah states what was on the original tablets was on the second set.

[LDS Watchman]

YHWH doesn't remove doctrine because people don't like it, men do that. BY disagrees about needing to believe it.

Yes, he does. The whole milk before meet thing.

Please show that by using scriptures, not just I say so.

Moses and the transition from a higher law to a lower one.

[JLHPROF]

Adam-God is true doctrine. It was removed because the Saints couldn't handle this mystery being taught openly. Teaching this openly was doing way more harm than good.

The Adam-God doctrine is not essential for anyone's salvation. As Wilford Woodruff, who believed in Adam-God once said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Stop worrying about it. God is God, Christ is Christ.That's what matters for us in the here and now."

Whether Adam is Jesus' Father and our Heavenly Father or not doesn't effect us one bit right now.

YHWH doesn't remove doctrine because people don't like it, men do that.

That's exactly what he did with Moses on the mount when Israel worshipped the golden calf.
He gave them a lower law instead to replace the full gospel.

Torah states what was on the original tablets was on the second set.

The prophet Joseph said otherwise:

JST Exodus 34:1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.
2 But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me, in the top of the mount.

[SJR3t2]

YHWH doesn't remove doctrine because people don't like it, men do that. BY disagrees about needing to believe it.

Yes, he does. The whole milk before meet thing.

Please show that by using scriptures, not just I say so.

Moses and the transition from a higher law to a lower one.

Hmm, where is higher and lower law in the scriptures? I know Christians use these phrases, but I don't know where they are in scriptures. And if you think you can keep a supposed higher law with out keeping the lower law, doesn't understand how you build things upon each other, and is pushing a technique cults do.

[SJR3t2]

YHWH doesn't remove doctrine because people don't like it, men do that.

That's exactly what he did with Moses on the mount when Israel worshipped the golden calf.
He gave them a lower law instead to replace the full gospel.

Torah states what was on the original tablets was on the second set.

The prophet Joseph said otherwise:

JST Exodus 34:1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.
2 But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me, in the top of the mount.

Taking a priesthood away because of sin is different than taking away commandments. FYI Nephi tells us you can't separate the spiritual and the temporal.

[Artaxerxes]

Yes, he does. The whole milk before meet thing.

Please show that by using scriptures, not just I say so.

Moses and the transition from a higher law to a lower one.

Hmm, where is higher and lower law in the scriptures? I know Christians use these phrases, but I don't know where they are in scriptures. And if you think you can keep a supposed higher law with out keeping the lower law, doesn't understand how you build things upon each other, and is pushing a technique cults do.

D&C 88
22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.
24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.

[LDS Watchman]

Yes, he does. The whole milk before meet thing.

Please show that by using scriptures, not just I say so.

Moses and the transition from a higher law to a lower one.

Hmm, where is higher and lower law in the scriptures? I know Christians use these phrases, but I don't know where they are in scriptures. And if you think you can keep a supposed higher law with out keeping the lower law, doesn't understand how you build things upon each other, and is pushing a technique cults do.

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

Alma 12

[SJR3t2]

Please show that by using scriptures, not just I say so.

Moses and the transition from a higher law to a lower one.

Hmm, where is higher and lower law in the scriptures? I know Christians use these phrases, but I don't know where they are in scriptures. And if you think you can keep a supposed higher law with out keeping the lower law, doesn't understand how you build things upon each other, and is pushing a technique cults do.

D&C 88
22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.
24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.

Those verses are about why we obey Torah. Do we do it because we love Elohim, or because we love others, or if we love ourselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj_X5Q_ ... n&index=30

[SJR3t2]

Please show that by using scriptures, not just I say so.

Moses and the transition from a higher law to a lower one.

Hmm, where is higher and lower law in the scriptures? I know Christians use these phrases, but I don't know where they are in scriptures. And if you think you can keep a supposed higher law with out keeping the lower law, doesn't understand how you build things upon each other, and is pushing a technique cults do.

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

Alma 12

This is talking about mysteries not the commandments. And FYI the mysteries are found within the commandments. As the Book of Mormon teaches and I bring out some examples of that here https://seekingyhwh.org/2022/10/05/all- ... o-chiasmi/.

[Seeker144k]

I feel the core laws should be openly taught to our children from the time they are young. Little to nothing should be "secret" in the temple. The only worthiness questions should be, "Do you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior?" and "Now that you have been taught the laws and ordinances (in great detail I might add), are you willing to make a covenant to follow them?" The washing/anointing takes place, and then all the Laws and Ordinances are rehearsed again, questions are asked, clarity is sought, and the Spirit of God is invited to witness to truth. And, I would add the caveat that the laws and ordinances need to be taught in their purity. There is much lacking in the current endowment.

Yeah, that would make sense to a reasonable person, but it would mess up the endowment that is designed to be unreasonable and teach true principles without hiding things.. Jesus taught in parables because he didn't want people who were not ready to hear and see what he was saying.

Matt. 13
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

The Endowment is teaching the mysteries of the kingdom. It is given in the way of the ancients which allows truths to be passed down but only to those who are ready to receive them and those who aren't think that they got something but they are confused or hear a nice story and not what was really said. If the Endowment was made clear, then the leaders of the Church would have tossed it out long ago because it preaches against them and what they do and teach openly.

It teaches how to breach through the veil and talk to Christ and enter into his presence. If every member could do that, do you think the leaders of the church could teach, "follow the prophets and promise they won't lead you astray"? Or could they teach the various doctrines and principles that are false and not be recognized and discovered because people would be getting the truth directly from Christ? Imagine if all the members were talking to God like Joseph Smith was. How many revelations would be given and received like Joseph received? Could you imagine the lack of control that would follow? They already snuff out revelations that contradict their view points and teachings. If the lessons presented in the Endowment were pure, forthright and uncluttered by nonsense, then the endowment would have been stopped with BY.

Jesus' parables are still intact because the leaders who decided what to include in the Bible and what the people could hear and see didn't realize the meanings behind the parables. They saw, but could not perceive the deeper truths that Jesus was intentionally hiding in them. Those with eye to see and ear to hear will perceive and understand while those who do not will not. Those who do not will not realize that they are the ones being taught the doctrines of men mingled with scripture each week in church from the pulpit. They will not realize that they are the ones who are praying with the words of their mouths, vainly repeating themselves thinking that God will be pleased by their alters, sacrifices and ordinances not realizing that God rejects the prayer and remains silent. (God also wasn't pleased with the alters sacrifices and ordinances offered by the children of Israel and the only sacrifice He is willing to accept is a broken heart and the only offering He wants is a contrite spirit.) So we in ignorance repeat Adam's mistakes in our prayer circle and daily as we pray over our food and meals speaking the words of our mouths in vain repetition as if doing so will somehow please God or call down the blessings of heaven to magically make "this food that it will be strengthening and nourishing to our bodies" or that God will "bless the hands that prepared it".

The point of the endowment is to show us what we are doing wrong. When Adam is talking to Christ through the veil, there is only one thing which He says, "THAT is right." Nothing else does He confirm to be "right". Only that which is learned from the Lord through the veil is "right".

D&C 88
66 Behold, that which you hear is as the voice of one crying in the wilderness—in the wilderness, because you cannot see him (He's behind the Veil) —my voice, because my voice is Spirit; my Spirit is truth; truth abideth and hath no end; and if it be in you it shall abound.

and

D&C 50
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

Nothing Adam received before talking to the Lord through the veil was of God because it was received in some other way than by his spirit through the veil. Everything Adam received before the veil, we ourselves already do and have covenanted to do before we qualify to come to the temple. None of it amounts to a hill of beans if we can't speak to the Lord through the veil. This one point determines who is righteous and who is wicked. The righteous can hear the Lord's voice and the wicked cannot. That is the line. Here are the scriptures:

D&C 84:52-53
52 And whoso receiveth not my voice is not acquainted with my voice, and is not of me.
53 And by this you may know the righteous from the wicked...

Mosiah 26:21 & 28
21 And he that will hear my voice shall be my sheep; and him shall ye receive into the church, and him will I also receive.
…
28 Therefore I say unto you, that he that will not hear my voice, the same shall ye not receive into my church, for him I will not receive at the last day.

D&C 38:6
6 And even so will I cause the wicked to be kept, that will not hear my voice but harden their hearts, and wo, wo, wo, is their doom…

Mosiah 16:2
2 And then shall the wicked be cast out, and they shall have cause to howl, and weep, and wail, and gnash their teeth; and this because they would not hearken unto the voice of the Lord; therefore the Lord redeemeth them not.
In the endowment, Adam was wicked until he approached the veil because he would not hear the voice of the Lord. He was wicked when he prayed at the alter using the words of his mouth. He was wicked when he listened to the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. He was wicked when he recognized and followed "true messengers from the Lord". He was wicked when he made each and every covenant. He was wicked when he received each and every sign and token. He was wicked when he "prayed in the true order of prayer".

He became righteous when he left the group and by himself approached the veil in secret prayer and spoke to the Lord through the veil. He could have done that right in the beginning. There was nothing stopping him accept himself. If he had not prayed a dead insincere prayer vainly repeating the words of his mouth and prayed the way Jesus taught in the scriptures, he could have communed with God through the veil in the first 5 minutes and skipped to the end. But, he was demonstrating the path we all take wandering around in the darkness doing thinks that we think are important, etc.

What about the Signs and tokens? Do you remember that you were told you must NEVER reveal them accept at a certain place that will be shown you hereafter? Not in "THE Hererafter", but "hereafter" which means "after this in sequence or in time". When is the one and only time that we are ever allowed to reveal them? It happens in the endowment. It was the only place and time that we are shown to do so. If you think that you will be using those signs and tokens to get into heaven, then you are planning to reveal them outside of the bounds given in the endowment. Also, the idea that signs and tokens are known by non-members and ex-members and all the breakoff groups. God is not going to use them to determine who gets into heaven and who doesn't.

The signs and tokens are symbols. You don't sell your signs and tokens for money, do you? That would be priest craft. What are the real signs and tokens of the priesthood that symbolically qualify you to pass the angels that stand as sentinels into heaven?

Both signs and tokens are manifestations or demonstrations used to provide evidence of something else. A gift for example is a token of appreciation. An ordinance is a token of a covenant.

Genesis 17:11
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Baptism for example is a sign and token of a covenant to follow Christ. It is a physical manifestation or demonstration that stands as a witness and a testimony of a spiritual conversion. For example:

Mosiah 21
35 They were desirous to be baptized as a witness and a testimony that they were willing to serve God with all their hearts; nevertheless they did prolong the time; and an account of their baptism shall be given hereafter.

Repentance and Baptism are the signs and tokens of the true inward mighty change of heart and conversion to Christ. The signs and tokens cannot get you into heaven since they are not the real and valuable things. They are only signs and tokens of the real and valuable things. To sell the signs and tokens is to sell the ordinances or priest craft. The Catholic church sells the token of repentance when they tell people to pay the Church for forgiveness when instructing them on how to repent of their sins. Churches sell the sign of Baptism by saying if you pay me, I will baptize you and baptism is required to get into heaven. Or, if you pay me, I will give you the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Of course since the ordinances are only signs and tokens they have no true power and are not really selling what was promised.

God and angels cannot be fooled by physical signs and tokens and they do not recognize the physical signs and tokens (ordinances) as valid. They only recognize the true spiritual ordinances ratified and sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Only true converts who have received the spiritual ordinances can walk by God and the Angels into heaven. And it will not be done by silly hand gestures and symbolic signs, tokens and names that anyone can repeat.

Anyway, the temple Endowment is deep and rich with meaning and is supposed to be messed up so that we question it and what we are doing. If you fix it, and make it right, then you break it and the rich meaning and hints it is riddled with that are supposed to cause the adherents to question what is happening. The last few changes have done exactly that. Messed stuff up.

For example, Satan says that what is being taught is the philosophies of men mingled with scripture and that it is very well accepted... Before you left the Church, didn't you wonder if that is what was being taught every week in the LDS church? Sacrament meeting and all the classes as well as General Conference? It is impossible for any man to teach anything except the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. I can't do it, you can't do it, no one can do it. Even angels can teach their own ideas at times. God knew this and so gave us the Holy Ghost and said IT will teach you all things, D&C 50:19-20. We listen to the false preachers but we listen for the Holy Ghost to teach us, even when the teachers are "true messengers from Father."

Again, Adam could hear the Lord's voice which is the spirit. No matter what covenant you make or ordinance you receive or idea you believe, if you cannot hear the Lord's voice for yourself, you are considered wicked. Even if you attend church and pay tithing and don't have sex outside of marriage and... even if you live the Law of Consecration. If you cannot hear the Lord's voice, you are wicked and not redeemed.(Scripture supporting this point quoted above.)

This goes back to the conversation we are having on the other thread about what is the doctrine of Christ. Nothing matters and all is in vain unless you have the Holy Ghost and can hear the voice of the Lord. If you have the Holy Ghost or voice of the Lord, then you do what it says and only what it says. Nothing else amounts to a hill of beans as far as our righteousness is concerned.

~Seeker

[Reluctant Watchman]

I feel the core laws should be openly taught to our children from the time they are young. Little to nothing should be "secret" in the temple. The only worthiness questions should be, "Do you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior?" and "Now that you have been taught the laws and ordinances (in great detail I might add), are you willing to make a covenant to follow them?" The washing/anointing takes place, and then all the Laws and Ordinances are rehearsed again, questions are asked, clarity is sought, and the Spirit of God is invited to witness to truth. And, I would add the caveat that the laws and ordinances need to be taught in their purity. There is much lacking in the current endowment.

Yeah, that would make sense to a reasonable person, but it would mess up the endowment that is designed to be unreasonable and teach true principles without hiding things.. Jesus taught in parables because he didn't want people who were not ready to hear and see what he was saying.

Matt. 13
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

The Endowment is teaching the mysteries of the kingdom. It is given in the way of the ancients which allows truths to be passed down but only to those who are ready to receive them and those who aren't think that they got something but they are confused or hear a nice story and not what was really said. If the Endowment was made clear, then the leaders of the Church would have tossed it out long ago because it preaches against them and what they do and teach openly.

It teaches how to breach through the veil and talk to Christ and enter into his presence. If every member could do that, do you think the leaders of the church could teach, "follow the prophets and promise they won't lead you astray"? Or could they teach the various doctrines and principles that are false and not be recognized and discovered because people would be getting the truth directly from Christ? Imagine if all the members were talking to God like Joseph Smith was. How many revelations would be given and received like Joseph received? Could you imagine the lack of control that would follow? They already snuff out revelations that contradict their view points and teachings. If the lessons presented in the Endowment were pure, forthright and uncluttered by nonsense, then the endowment would have been stopped with BY.

Jesus' parables are still intact because the leaders who decided what to include in the Bible and what the people could hear and see didn't realize the meanings behind the parables. They saw, but could not perceive the deeper truths that Jesus was intentionally hiding in them. Those with eye to see and ear to hear will perceive and understand while those who do not will not. Those who do not will not realize that they are the ones being taught the doctrines of men mingled with scripture each week in church from the pulpit. They will not realize that they are the ones who are praying with the words of their mouths, vainly repeating themselves thinking that God will be pleased by their alters, sacrifices and ordinances not realizing that God rejects the prayer and remains silent. (God also wasn't pleased with the alters sacrifices and ordinances offered by the children of Israel and the only sacrifice He is willing to accept is a broken heart and the only offering He wants is a contrite spirit.) So we in ignorance repeat Adam's mistakes in our prayer circle and daily as we pray over our food and meals speaking the words of our mouths in vain repetition as if doing so will somehow please God or call down the blessings of heaven to magically make "this food that it will be strengthening and nourishing to our bodies" or that God will "bless the hands that prepared it".

The point of the endowment is to show us what we are doing wrong. When Adam is talking to Christ through the veil, there is only one thing which He says, "THAT is right." Nothing else does He confirm to be "right". Only that which is learned from the Lord through the veil is "right".

D&C 88
66 Behold, that which you hear is as the voice of one crying in the wilderness—in the wilderness, because you cannot see him (He's behind the Veil) —my voice, because my voice is Spirit; my Spirit is truth; truth abideth and hath no end; and if it be in you it shall abound.

and

D&C 50
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

Nothing Adam received before talking to the Lord through the veil was of God because it was received in some other way than by his spirit through the veil. Everything Adam received before the veil, we ourselves already do and have covenanted to do before we qualify to come to the temple. None of it amounts to a hill of beans if we can't speak to the Lord through the veil. This one point determines who is righteous and who is wicked. The righteous can hear the Lord's voice and the wicked cannot. That is the line. Here are the scriptures:

D&C 84:52-53
52 And whoso receiveth not my voice is not acquainted with my voice, and is not of me.
53 And by this you may know the righteous from the wicked...

Mosiah 26:21 & 28
21 And he that will hear my voice shall be my sheep; and him shall ye receive into the church, and him will I also receive.
…
28 Therefore I say unto you, that he that will not hear my voice, the same shall ye not receive into my church, for him I will not receive at the last day.

D&C 38:6
6 And even so will I cause the wicked to be kept, that will not hear my voice but harden their hearts, and wo, wo, wo, is their doom…

Mosiah 16:2
2 And then shall the wicked be cast out, and they shall have cause to howl, and weep, and wail, and gnash their teeth; and this because they would not hearken unto the voice of the Lord; therefore the Lord redeemeth them not.
In the endowment, Adam was wicked until he approached the veil because he would not hear the voice of the Lord. He was wicked when he prayed at the alter using the words of his mouth. He was wicked when he listened to the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. He was wicked when he recognized and followed "true messengers from the Lord". He was wicked when he made each and every covenant. He was wicked when he received each and every sign and token. He was wicked when he "prayed in the true order of prayer".

He became righteous when he left the group and by himself approached the veil in secret prayer and spoke to the Lord through the veil. He could have done that right in the beginning. There was nothing stopping him accept himself. If he had not prayed a dead insincere prayer vainly repeating the words of his mouth and prayed the way Jesus taught in the scriptures, he could have communed with God through the veil in the first 5 minutes and skipped to the end. But, he was demonstrating the path we all take wandering around in the darkness doing thinks that we think are important, etc.

What about the Signs and tokens? Do you remember that you were told you must NEVER reveal them accept at a certain place that will be shown you hereafter? Not in "THE Hererafter", but "hereafter" which means "after this in sequence or in time". When is the one and only time that we are ever allowed to reveal them? It happens in the endowment. It was the only place and time that we are shown to do so. If you think that you will be using those signs and tokens to get into heaven, then you are planning to reveal them outside of the bounds given in the endowment. Also, the idea that signs and tokens are known by non-members and ex-members and all the breakoff groups. God is not going to use them to determine who gets into heaven and who doesn't.

The signs and tokens are symbols. You don't sell your signs and tokens for money, do you? That would be priest craft. What are the real signs and tokens of the priesthood that symbolically qualify you to pass the angels that stand as sentinels into heaven?

Both signs and tokens are manifestations or demonstrations used to provide evidence of something else. A gift for example is a token of appreciation. An ordinance is a token of a covenant.

Genesis 17:11
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Baptism for example is a sign and token of a covenant to follow Christ. It is a physical manifestation or demonstration that stands as a witness and a testimony of a spiritual conversion. For example:

Mosiah 21
35 They were desirous to be baptized as a witness and a testimony that they were willing to serve God with all their hearts; nevertheless they did prolong the time; and an account of their baptism shall be given hereafter.

Repentance and Baptism are the signs and tokens of the true inward mighty change of heart and conversion to Christ. The signs and tokens cannot get you into heaven since they are not the real and valuable things. They are only signs and tokens of the real and valuable things. To sell the signs and tokens is to sell the ordinances or priest craft. The Catholic church sells the token of repentance when they tell people to pay the Church for forgiveness when instructing them on how to repent of their sins. Churches sell the sign of Baptism by saying if you pay me, I will baptize you and baptism is required to get into heaven. Or, if you pay me, I will give you the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Of course since the ordinances are only signs and tokens they have no true power and are not really selling what was promised.

God and angels cannot be fooled by physical signs and tokens and they do not recognize the physical signs and tokens (ordinances) as valid. They only recognize the true spiritual ordinances ratified and sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Only true converts who have received the spiritual ordinances can walk by God and the Angels into heaven. And it will not be done by silly hand gestures and symbolic signs, tokens and names that anyone can repeat.

Anyway, the temple Endowment is deep and rich with meaning and is supposed to be messed up so that we question it and what we are doing. If you fix it, and make it right, then you break it and the rich meaning and hints it is riddled with that are supposed to cause the adherents to question what is happening. The last few changes have done exactly that. Messed stuff up.

For example, Satan says that what is being taught is the philosophies of men mingled with scripture and that it is very well accepted... Before you left the Church, didn't you wonder if that is what was being taught every week in the LDS church? Sacrament meeting and all the classes as well as General Conference? It is impossible for any man to teach anything except the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. I can't do it, you can't do it, no one can do it. Even angels can teach their own ideas at times. God knew this and so gave us the Holy Ghost and said IT will teach you all things, D&C 50:19-20. We listen to the false preachers but we listen for the Holy Ghost to teach us, even when the teachers are "true messengers from Father."

Again, Adam could hear the Lord's voice which is the spirit. No matter what covenant you make or ordinance you receive or idea you believe, if you cannot hear the Lord's voice for yourself, you are considered wicked. Even if you attend church and pay tithing and don't have sex outside of marriage and... even if you live the Law of Consecration. If you cannot hear the Lord's voice, you are wicked and not redeemed.(Scripture supporting this point quoted above.)

This goes back to the conversation we are having on the other thread about what is the doctrine of Christ. Nothing matters and all is in vain unless you have the Holy Ghost and can hear the voice of the Lord. If you have the Holy Ghost or voice of the Lord, then you do what it says and only what it says. Nothing else amounts to a hill of beans as far as our righteousness is concerned.

~Seeker

Oh, you think the LDS temple experience/endowment is actually valid... I guess we diverge on a lot more than I thought.

BTW, the point of a true endowment is not to point out "what we are doing wrong." I do believe that a version of a true endowment does exist, just not w/in the LDS church. This endowment is recorded in the Nemenhah record and was taught freely and openly to anyone who would listen, but especially within families from the time children could learn. I do believe in various mysteries of the kingdom, but those have very little to do w/ the LDS version of the endowment. Truth should be taught openly. Heck, ask most of the members if they know what the "law of the gospel as contained in the scriptures" means, and you'll most likely get a deer in the headlight look.

[Luke]

Truth should be taught openly.

Not always. Casting pearls before swine is not wise.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Truth should be taught openly.

Not always. Casting pearls before swine is not wise.

Open to anyone who is willing to listen, yes. Teaching the precepts of the core laws and ordinances is not some secret hidden away thing that we have to be "hush hush" about. Casting pearls before swine has nothing to do with teaching any and all who have a heart that is willing to listen.

My issues w/ the endowment start before you even step in the front door.