Temple changes

[gkearney]

The one sure way to get people talking about the temple and the endowment is to tell everyone not to talk about it.

[Cheetos]

I do find it interesting that we have a different view and doctrine of the plan of salvation as taught in the endowment which is indeed different than what we teach in Sunday school at church. But, because we aren't supposed to discuss the temple endowment outside the temple, we continue to have two distinctly different plans of salvation. And BTW, no one is really interested in discussing the endowment and the plan of salvation inside the temple either.

[sushi_chef]

kinda creative writing gifted man-made revelation... early stage gender free type law of chastity. no??

[Robin Hood]

I do find it interesting that we have a different view and doctrine of the plan of salvation as taught in the endowment which is indeed different than what we teach in Sunday school at church. But, because we aren't supposed to discuss the temple endowment outside the temple, we continue to have two distinctly different plans of salvation. And BTW, no one is really interested in discussing the endowment and the plan of salvation inside the temple either.

I agree.
When I think about it, we only promise to never reveal the signs and tokens.
Nothing is said about the covenants, clothing, or presentation.

[RocknRoll]

Behold and beware in that which ye choose to judge, for what is spoken by the Son is how he has overcome the world, and thus beware in saying as ye do. For he alone shall be exalted and ye shall be upon the earth when it falls and the spirit of the Son shall be withdrawn from ye, and thou shall be as they who had no oil in their lamps, lest ye repent and humble yourselves. For the Son is not well pleased with the state of the church and it remaineth unto the condemnation as spoken in the past, for people have failed to properly live by the scriptures spoken, too many have and few will remain and thus saith the Lord of hosts, that which was warned about that I shall chastise my people shall come upon my house for it is decided for I have seen first hand the situation of my Zion, in it is not yet restored. His word and doctrines he is pleased in and in the things done that he has influenced through his servants, but he is not pleased with the membership of this time in many ways, though this apply not to all.

Behold I say unto you, judge not lest ye be judged thine own self. For he that pretendeth to be the Son shall suffer all manor of temptations as did Job of old. For verily he that thinketh that he receiveth revelation for RocknRoll, but has not the authority to receive such revelation, has been deemed a liar set forth to deceive the Lord’s church

[Sirius]

"You're probably aware that the lowest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom does NOT require a spouse."

Can you expand on this? I'm a single member, and have always been told that the Celestial Kingdom is only for those married (in the Temple). Any references would be appreciated.

Orson Pratt JOD vo15 http://jod.mrm.org/15/312

What will become of the old bachelor who refuses to obey the ordinance of marriage? We have preached to the young men of this Territory, and laid before them the sacredness of the marriage covenant. We have told them and the young women that it is their duty to enter into this covenant as much as it is their duty to be baptized for the remission of their sins. The same God that commanded the latter gave the revelation concerning the marriage
page 321
covenant, yet there are some who will give heed to one ordinance—baptism—but will be careless and indifferent about the other. By taking this course they do not altogether forfeit their right and title to enter that kingdom, but they do forfeit their right and title to be kings therein. What will be their condition there? They will be Angels.

There are many different classes of beings in the eternal worlds, and among them are angels. Who are these angels? Some of them have never yet come to take upon them bodies of flesh and bones, but they will come in their times, seasons and generations and receive their tabernacles, the same as we have done. Then there are others who were resurrected when Jesus was, when the graves of the Saints were opened and many came forth and showed themselves to those who were then living in the flesh. Besides these there are angels who have been to this world and have never yet received a resurrection, whose spirits have gone hence into celestial paradise, and there await the resurrection. We have now mentioned three classes of angels. There are others, among them some redeemed from former creations before this world was made, one of whom administered to our first parents after they were cast out of the garden as they were offering sacrifices and burnt offerings, according to the commandments which they received from God when they were driven from the garden. After they had done this many days an Angel came and ministered to them and inquired of them why they offered sacrifices and burnt offerings unto the Lord. The answer was, "I know not, save it be that the Lord commanded me." Then this angel went on to explain to our first parents why these offerings were made and why they were commanded to shed the blood of beasts, telling them that all these things were typical of the great and last sacrifice that should be offered up for all mankind, namely the Son of the living God. These angels that came to Adam were not men who had been redeemed from this earth—not men who had been translated from this earth—but they pertained to former worlds. They understood about the coming of Jesus, the nature of these sacrifices, &c.

Some of these angels have received their exaltation, and still are called angels. For instance Michael has received his exaltation. He is not without his kingdom and crown, wife or wives and posterity, because he lived faithful to the end. Who is he? Our first, great progenitor, Adam, is called Michael, the Prince. I am mentioning now things that the Latter-day Saints are acquainted with. Many of these things I have just been quoting are revelations given to us, as those who are readers will recollect. Some of these angels have received their exaltation. They are kings, they are priests, they have entered into their glory and sit upon thrones—they hold the sceptre over their posterity. Those other classes I have mentioned have neglected the new and everlasting covenant of marriage: They can not inherit this glory and these kingdoms—they can not be crowned in the celestial world. What purpose will they serve? They will be sent on errands—be sent to other worlds as missionaries to minister, they will be sent on whatever business the Lord sees proper; in other words, they will be servants. To whom will they be servants? To those who have obeyed and remained faithful to the new and everlasting covenant, and have been exalted to thrones; to those who have cove-
page 322
nanted before God with wives so that they may raise up and multiply immortal intelligent beings through all the ages of eternity. Here is the distinction of classes, but all of the same glory, called celestial glory.

[LukeAir2008]

The Church tells the world on its website that covenants are made in the Temple to obey and to sacrifice. Unless the leaders of the Church are clinically insane this cannot be what they are referring to.

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2012/0 ... ith-god?l=

[Cheetos]

I do find it interesting that we have a different view and doctrine of the plan of salvation as taught in the endowment which is indeed different than what we teach in Sunday school at church. But, because we aren't supposed to discuss the temple endowment outside the temple, we continue to have two distinctly different plans of salvation. And BTW, no one is really interested in discussing the endowment and the plan of salvation inside the temple either.

I agree.
When I think about it, we only promise to never reveal the signs and tokens.
Nothing is said about the covenants, clothing, or presentation.

I have been told a thousand times that I shouldnt discuss anything relating to the endowment outside the temple. You can bring it up in Sunday school, forums, blogs etc, and almost immediately get shut down or told not to speak of such things. And yet, we speak of doing baptisms for the dead by proxy and sealings and covenants associated with them and no one minds. I thus find it rather intriguing then that there isnt really a place in the temple to discuss the endowment in any real length. And so it remains a mystery to the general masses. Outside the temple our plan of salvation is presented as inheriting one of 4 separate places in eternity, each one as a separate place than the rest. But inside the temple no such plan exists. Instead we are presented with a model of progression from kingdom and glory, from one to the next, to the next until we arrive in the Celestial kingdom.

If we have no way to reconcile or correlate the doctrines because of a mysterious hush protocol we will just continue in confusion.

[Robin Hood]

I do find it interesting that we have a different view and doctrine of the plan of salvation as taught in the endowment which is indeed different than what we teach in Sunday school at church. But, because we aren't supposed to discuss the temple endowment outside the temple, we continue to have two distinctly different plans of salvation. And BTW, no one is really interested in discussing the endowment and the plan of salvation inside the temple either.

I agree.
When I think about it, we only promise to never reveal the signs and tokens.
Nothing is said about the covenants, clothing, or presentation.

I have been told a thousand times that I shouldnt discuss anything relating to the endowment outside the temple. You can bring it up in Sunday school, forums, blogs etc, and almost immediately get shut down or told not to speak of such things. And yet, we speak of doing baptisms for the dead by proxy and sealings and covenants associated with them and no one minds. I thus find it rather intriguing then that there isnt really a place in the temple to discuss the endowment in any real length. And so it remains a mystery to the general masses. Outside the temple our plan of salvation is presented as inheriting one of 4 separate places in eternity, each one as a separate place than the rest. But inside the temple no such plan exists. Instead we are presented with a model of progression from kingdom and glory, from one to the next, to the next until we arrive in the Celestial kingdom.

If we have no way to reconcile or correlate the doctrines because of a mysterious hush protocol we will just continue in confusion.

Absolutely!
Progression from one kingdom to another is clearly taught in the temple endowment.

[oneClimbs]

They actually have to resort to a slideshow? How quaint! They have BYU grads working for them, and no one knows how to put a power point or sliders presentation together? What a sad state of affairs when they resort to such old technology. Maybe they need to ask Disney to do an animated version... no real actors or such to represent them badly

Then they can change whatever they want really easy, and a little at a time, so no one notices...

"Slideshow" is a bit of an oversimplification. There is still quite a bit of animation and effects but no live action from the actors. As I watched it, having done video production and animation myself, I noticed the potential for more easily making translations available and potentially swapping out photos of Adam and Eve to represent the people of the culture the temple resides in. After all, the temples themselves have begun to take on the local architecture and even cultural symbols that are appropriated into the context of the temple itself. It's pretty cool stuff.

The one thing I noticed about the new presentation is that I focused much more on the words rather than the nuances of the actors. I also noticed a beautiful field of bluebonnets which surprised me as I live in Texas and wondered if they put indigenous scenery in all of the new presentations.

People no doubt complained when the endowment went from live people to a film and people will always find something to be critical about when changes occur. Personally, the recent changes open up some interesting opportunities for the endowment to be engaging in ways that we may only be seeing the beginnings of.

The temple as a whole can be thought of as scripture that you experience. The entire endowment ceremony and story is not a history lesson, it is a vehicle to communicate to us certain principles, but also as something for us to meditate on, something to challenge us.

I have an old set of scriptures that are heavily marked. It was hard for me to study out of anything but those scriptures for a long time. I had invested who knows how many thousand hours into them and they felt comfortable. Then I realized the benefit from studying from a blank set because I was able to see new things that my old markings had prevented me from seeing.

I also read from many different translations of the Bible to further allow myself to see things fresh. I think that periodic updates to the endowment can serve the same purpose. I don't think it is wise to get too caught up in a single version of it because we can also get comfortable. That sense of loss we may feel is similar to maybe losing a valued set of marked scriptures because we value all of those markings.

There were a lot of things I liked about the new endowment presentations they came out with, but as I have been thinking about it, I'm interested in new challenges and pondering these changes to see what new things there might be to learn.

[Yahtzee]

There's been so many changes before this. It used to be 7 hours long!
I wouldn't be surprised if it changed again in my lifetime.

[Kingdom of ZION]

They actually have to resort to a slideshow? How quaint! They have BYU grads working for them, and no one knows how to put a power point or sliders presentation together? What a sad state of affairs when they resort to such old technology. Maybe they need to ask Disney to do an animated version... no real actors or such to represent them badly

Then they can change whatever they want really easy, and a little at a time, so no one notices...

"Slideshow" is a bit of an oversimplification. There is still quite a bit of animation and effects but no live action from the actors. As I watched it, having done video production and animation myself, I noticed the potential for more easily making translations available and potentially swapping out photos of Adam and Eve to represent the people of the culture the temple resides in. After all, the temples themselves have begun to take on the local architecture and even cultural symbols that are appropriated into the context of the temple itself. It's pretty cool stuff.

The one thing I noticed about the new presentation is that I focused much more on the words rather than the nuances of the actors. I also noticed a beautiful field of bluebonnets which surprised me as I live in Texas and wondered if they put indigenous scenery in all of the new presentations.

People no doubt complained when the endowment went from live people to a film and people will always find something to be critical about when changes occur. Personally, the recent changes open up some interesting opportunities for the endowment to be engaging in ways that we may only be seeing the beginnings of.

The temple as a whole can be thought of as scripture that you experience. The entire endowment ceremony and story is not a history lesson, it is a vehicle to communicate to us certain principles, but also as something for us to meditate on, something to challenge us.

I have an old set of scriptures that are heavily marked. It was hard for me to study out of anything but those scriptures for a long time. I had invested who knows how many thousand hours into them and they felt comfortable. Then I realized the benefit from studying from a blank set because I was able to see new things that my old markings had prevented me from seeing.

I also read from many different translations of the Bible to further allow myself to see things fresh. I think that periodic updates to the endowment can serve the same purpose. I don't think it is wise to get too caught up in a single version of it because we can also get comfortable. That sense of loss we may feel is similar to maybe losing a valued set of marked scriptures because we value all of those markings.

There were a lot of things I liked about the new endowment presentations they came out with, but as I have been thinking about it, I'm interested in new challenges and pondering these changes to see what new things there might be to learn.

You paint a much more vivid picture than others have. I would have hoped they did better, and expected it.

However, when changing fundamental doctrinal covenants, it does change the priesthood to priestcraft. It might allow people to look at things they have never considered and learn new things, but I have sadly seen it over and over again... it brings not what they expected, for it brings Cursings! Darkness! Lack of Knowledge, which also becomes generational! And Apostasy!

[oneClimbs]

They actually have to resort to a slideshow? How quaint! They have BYU grads working for them, and no one knows how to put a power point or sliders presentation together? What a sad state of affairs when they resort to such old technology. Maybe they need to ask Disney to do an animated version... no real actors or such to represent them badly

Then they can change whatever they want really easy, and a little at a time, so no one notices...

"Slideshow" is a bit of an oversimplification. There is still quite a bit of animation and effects but no live action from the actors. As I watched it, having done video production and animation myself, I noticed the potential for more easily making translations available and potentially swapping out photos of Adam and Eve to represent the people of the culture the temple resides in. After all, the temples themselves have begun to take on the local architecture and even cultural symbols that are appropriated into the context of the temple itself. It's pretty cool stuff.

The one thing I noticed about the new presentation is that I focused much more on the words rather than the nuances of the actors. I also noticed a beautiful field of bluebonnets which surprised me as I live in Texas and wondered if they put indigenous scenery in all of the new presentations.

People no doubt complained when the endowment went from live people to a film and people will always find something to be critical about when changes occur. Personally, the recent changes open up some interesting opportunities for the endowment to be engaging in ways that we may only be seeing the beginnings of.

The temple as a whole can be thought of as scripture that you experience. The entire endowment ceremony and story is not a history lesson, it is a vehicle to communicate to us certain principles, but also as something for us to meditate on, something to challenge us.

I have an old set of scriptures that are heavily marked. It was hard for me to study out of anything but those scriptures for a long time. I had invested who knows how many thousand hours into them and they felt comfortable. Then I realized the benefit from studying from a blank set because I was able to see new things that my old markings had prevented me from seeing.

I also read from many different translations of the Bible to further allow myself to see things fresh. I think that periodic updates to the endowment can serve the same purpose. I don't think it is wise to get too caught up in a single version of it because we can also get comfortable. That sense of loss we may feel is similar to maybe losing a valued set of marked scriptures because we value all of those markings.

There were a lot of things I liked about the new endowment presentations they came out with, but as I have been thinking about it, I'm interested in new challenges and pondering these changes to see what new things there might be to learn.

You paint a much more vivid picture than others have. I would have hoped they did better, and expected it.

However, when changing fundamental doctrinal covenants, it does change the priesthood to priestcraft. It might allow people to look at things they have never considered and learn new things, but I have sadly seen it over and over again... it brings not what they expected, for it brings Cursings! Darkness! Lack of Knowledge, which also becomes generational! And Apostasy!

At the core nothing has really changed. You have baptism which is related to redemption to the fall. And sealing which is related to our exaltation and the washing, anointing and endowment which are preparatory to sealing. The core themes of those covenants are essentially the same even though the language has changed. Consider this address given by David O. McKay decades ago and look how he describes the covenants, it isn’t that different that what we see in the endowment today:

http://oneclimbs.com/2015/02/16/david-o ... e-address/

Snippet:

“For example: You will first be asked if you are willing to obey the law of Elohim; are you willing to take upon yourself the responsibility of making God the center of your lives? That is what it means. Then you will be asked if you will obey the law of sacrifice? Nature’s law demands us to do everything with self in view. The first law of mortal life– self-preservation, selfishness–would claim the most luscious fruit, the most tender meat, the softest down on which to lie.”

The whole thing is worth the read and good to share with people before entering the temple. I found this a few years ago on the BYUI site.

[dezNatDefender]

They actually have to resort to a slideshow? How quaint! They have BYU grads working for them, and no one knows how to put a power point or sliders presentation together? What a sad state of affairs when they resort to such old technology. Maybe they need to ask Disney to do an animated version... no real actors or such to represent them badly

Then they can change whatever they want really easy, and a little at a time, so no one notices...

"Slideshow" is a bit of an oversimplification. There is still quite a bit of animation and effects but no live action from the actors. As I watched it, having done video production and animation myself, I noticed the potential for more easily making translations available and potentially swapping out photos of Adam and Eve to represent the people of the culture the temple resides in. After all, the temples themselves have begun to take on the local architecture and even cultural symbols that are appropriated into the context of the temple itself. It's pretty cool stuff.

The one thing I noticed about the new presentation is that I focused much more on the words rather than the nuances of the actors. I also noticed a beautiful field of bluebonnets which surprised me as I live in Texas and wondered if they put indigenous scenery in all of the new presentations.

People no doubt complained when the endowment went from live people to a film and people will always find something to be critical about when changes occur. Personally, the recent changes open up some interesting opportunities for the endowment to be engaging in ways that we may only be seeing the beginnings of.

The temple as a whole can be thought of as scripture that you experience. The entire endowment ceremony and story is not a history lesson, it is a vehicle to communicate to us certain principles, but also as something for us to meditate on, something to challenge us.

I have an old set of scriptures that are heavily marked. It was hard for me to study out of anything but those scriptures for a long time. I had invested who knows how many thousand hours into them and they felt comfortable. Then I realized the benefit from studying from a blank set because I was able to see new things that my old markings had prevented me from seeing.

I also read from many different translations of the Bible to further allow myself to see things fresh. I think that periodic updates to the endowment can serve the same purpose. I don't think it is wise to get too caught up in a single version of it because we can also get comfortable. That sense of loss we may feel is similar to maybe losing a valued set of marked scriptures because we value all of those markings.

There were a lot of things I liked about the new endowment presentations they came out with, but as I have been thinking about it, I'm interested in new challenges and pondering these changes to see what new things there might be to learn.

You paint a much more vivid picture than others have. I would have hoped they did better, and expected it.

However, when changing fundamental doctrinal covenants, it does change the priesthood to priestcraft. It might allow people to look at things they have never considered and learn new things, but I have sadly seen it over and over again... it brings not what they expected, for it brings Cursings! Darkness! Lack of Knowledge, which also becomes generational! And Apostasy!

At the core nothing has really changed.

If that is the case, then words don't matter.

[MMbelieve]

"Slideshow" is a bit of an oversimplification. There is still quite a bit of animation and effects but no live action from the actors. As I watched it, having done video production and animation myself, I noticed the potential for more easily making translations available and potentially swapping out photos of Adam and Eve to represent the people of the culture the temple resides in. After all, the temples themselves have begun to take on the local architecture and even cultural symbols that are appropriated into the context of the temple itself. It's pretty cool stuff.

The one thing I noticed about the new presentation is that I focused much more on the words rather than the nuances of the actors. I also noticed a beautiful field of bluebonnets which surprised me as I live in Texas and wondered if they put indigenous scenery in all of the new presentations.

People no doubt complained when the endowment went from live people to a film and people will always find something to be critical about when changes occur. Personally, the recent changes open up some interesting opportunities for the endowment to be engaging in ways that we may only be seeing the beginnings of.

The temple as a whole can be thought of as scripture that you experience. The entire endowment ceremony and story is not a history lesson, it is a vehicle to communicate to us certain principles, but also as something for us to meditate on, something to challenge us.

I have an old set of scriptures that are heavily marked. It was hard for me to study out of anything but those scriptures for a long time. I had invested who knows how many thousand hours into them and they felt comfortable. Then I realized the benefit from studying from a blank set because I was able to see new things that my old markings had prevented me from seeing.

I also read from many different translations of the Bible to further allow myself to see things fresh. I think that periodic updates to the endowment can serve the same purpose. I don't think it is wise to get too caught up in a single version of it because we can also get comfortable. That sense of loss we may feel is similar to maybe losing a valued set of marked scriptures because we value all of those markings.

There were a lot of things I liked about the new endowment presentations they came out with, but as I have been thinking about it, I'm interested in new challenges and pondering these changes to see what new things there might be to learn.

You paint a much more vivid picture than others have. I would have hoped they did better, and expected it.

However, when changing fundamental doctrinal covenants, it does change the priesthood to priestcraft. It might allow people to look at things they have never considered and learn new things, but I have sadly seen it over and over again... it brings not what they expected, for it brings Cursings! Darkness! Lack of Knowledge, which also becomes generational! And Apostasy!

At the core nothing has really changed.

If that is the case, then words don't matter.

In most cases, no they dont matter all that much.

[oneClimbs]

"Slideshow" is a bit of an oversimplification. There is still quite a bit of animation and effects but no live action from the actors. As I watched it, having done video production and animation myself, I noticed the potential for more easily making translations available and potentially swapping out photos of Adam and Eve to represent the people of the culture the temple resides in. After all, the temples themselves have begun to take on the local architecture and even cultural symbols that are appropriated into the context of the temple itself. It's pretty cool stuff.

The one thing I noticed about the new presentation is that I focused much more on the words rather than the nuances of the actors. I also noticed a beautiful field of bluebonnets which surprised me as I live in Texas and wondered if they put indigenous scenery in all of the new presentations.

People no doubt complained when the endowment went from live people to a film and people will always find something to be critical about when changes occur. Personally, the recent changes open up some interesting opportunities for the endowment to be engaging in ways that we may only be seeing the beginnings of.

The temple as a whole can be thought of as scripture that you experience. The entire endowment ceremony and story is not a history lesson, it is a vehicle to communicate to us certain principles, but also as something for us to meditate on, something to challenge us.

I have an old set of scriptures that are heavily marked. It was hard for me to study out of anything but those scriptures for a long time. I had invested who knows how many thousand hours into them and they felt comfortable. Then I realized the benefit from studying from a blank set because I was able to see new things that my old markings had prevented me from seeing.

I also read from many different translations of the Bible to further allow myself to see things fresh. I think that periodic updates to the endowment can serve the same purpose. I don't think it is wise to get too caught up in a single version of it because we can also get comfortable. That sense of loss we may feel is similar to maybe losing a valued set of marked scriptures because we value all of those markings.

There were a lot of things I liked about the new endowment presentations they came out with, but as I have been thinking about it, I'm interested in new challenges and pondering these changes to see what new things there might be to learn.

You paint a much more vivid picture than others have. I would have hoped they did better, and expected it.

However, when changing fundamental doctrinal covenants, it does change the priesthood to priestcraft. It might allow people to look at things they have never considered and learn new things, but I have sadly seen it over and over again... it brings not what they expected, for it brings Cursings! Darkness! Lack of Knowledge, which also becomes generational! And Apostasy!

At the core nothing has really changed.

If that is the case, then words don't matter.

It depends on the words. Our modern sacrament prayer on the bread has the word “has“ instead of the word “hath” like in the Book of Mormon In certain prophets like Alma and even Jesus modify the language of scriptures in significant ways.

Here’s an example: http://oneclimbs.com/2015/11/16/fluidity-of-scripture/

Then there are those instances where Jesus would say “ye have heard it said, but I say unto you...” and that he is the Lord of the Sabbath.

If God blessed the changes...I wouldn’t be so quick to write things off as apostasy. The temple ordinances have morphed over time in many ways but the core apsects of them are the same.

Washing and anointing to become kings/queens, priests/priestesses to God, fall and redemption, passing theought the veil and sealing of husband and wife.

Were versions of the endowment always word for word exactly how Joseph Smith initially created them? The Nephites and Israelites did them the exact same way? They may have had something similar but I doubt it was exact.

I think there is kind of a template, certain elements that will be present but it is maleable.

Another consideration is this. In the olden days of yore, the believers were of the same culture and language. Today, the believers are from many nations, languages and cultures. The endowment has to be translated in many languages and needs to be accessible by various peoples. So even our English translations may not have been the most correct to begin with. Perhaps we have learned in preparing these things in other tongues which have different words and ways of communicating things better ways of saying things in English.

Bottom line is that none of us were involved in those decisions but there are certainly other possibilities other than this is apostasy. I mean, that’s what the Pharisees went around accusing for everything Jesus did. Who is to say that these changes aren’t actually more in line with what God intended instead of less?

I think it is fair to consider this.

[dezNatDefender]

You paint a much more vivid picture than others have. I would have hoped they did better, and expected it.

However, when changing fundamental doctrinal covenants, it does change the priesthood to priestcraft. It might allow people to look at things they have never considered and learn new things, but I have sadly seen it over and over again... it brings not what they expected, for it brings Cursings! Darkness! Lack of Knowledge, which also becomes generational! And Apostasy!

At the core nothing has really changed.

If that is the case, then words don't matter.

In most cases, no they dont matter all that much.

So when someone accuses you of a hate crime, it doesn't matter what the definition of the word means?
If someone says all we need to do to follow Jesus is just to "love"-it doesn't matter what the definition of word love means?

To say words don't matter is reductio ad absurdum and you make religion into whatever you want it to be with no guiding star.

And even more beyond that when you say words don't matter, what you are saying in effect is that proper communication doesn't matter. Words, language is the mechanism by which we can functionally communicate with each other across time and across individuals.

To say that words don't matter in something as important as the endowment is to effectively say that properly communicating what the endowment means doesn't matter. It renders the endowment utterly meaningless across multiple people, because there is no common or shared value system of what it means. If the words don't matter, it means the common understanding of communicating the endowment doesn't matter.

It makes a mockery of any idea that there is such a thing as truth.

Which is unfortunately, exactly the path the Church is going. Truth is simply at an individual level-whatever you believe your own truth is, there is no such thing as a common truth, or an underlying truth by which multiple people can guide their lives. It becomes a free-for-all with individuals picking and choosing whatever "truth" they "feel" is their own.

It devolves into lawless, because without a common understanding of truth there is no mechanism to have a law, and if there is no law it means there is no such thing as sin, which means there is no such thing as a God and each individual becomes their own God.

The fruits of this ideology (which is plentiful in today's society), will ultimately destroy societies and nations . . .and it will destroy religion.

[dezNatDefender]

You paint a much more vivid picture than others have. I would have hoped they did better, and expected it.

However, when changing fundamental doctrinal covenants, it does change the priesthood to priestcraft. It might allow people to look at things they have never considered and learn new things, but I have sadly seen it over and over again... it brings not what they expected, for it brings Cursings! Darkness! Lack of Knowledge, which also becomes generational! And Apostasy!

At the core nothing has really changed.

If that is the case, then words don't matter.

Who is to say that these changes aren’t actually more in line with what God intended instead of less?

I think it is fair to consider this.

That is a valid question. But to follow this to it's conclusion, we have 3 records of the Fall of Adam and Eve. We have Genesis, We have Moses and we have Abraham. All three records testify to the truth that in the Garden of Eden, God told Eve that Adam should "rule over her". All three records testify to the truth that Adam is the head of household.

Since the endowment is allegorical and we are all to consider ourselves to be Adam and Eve respectively, the endowment is a re-enactment of the Fall of Mankind.

So which is more likely? That 3 records which testify to the truthfulness of the way things were before they changed it. Or the one "Prophet" who claims God told Him to change it (well even that is a stretch, I don't recall Pres. Nelson claiming that it was changed due to a commandment of God). Or, is it more likely that the Church bent to social-political pressure because no one reads their scriptures anymore and can't handle the actual truth of things.

By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. We have three witnesses, which proclaim the opposite of what the endowment now states. So if these changes are actually more in line with what God intends, then President Nelson better get to re-translating the three Scriptural records which testify against this change.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit, it is entirely possible that the three records are wrong. But if they are and we now have further light and knowledge . . .shouldn't they be re-translated?

And this becomes a much larger question. If as a Church, we can't even get the very foundational aspects of the Creation of mankind correct (or in agreement-because as of now the temple teaches one thing and the Scriptures teach another)-which describe the very fundamentals of life itself and how to properly orient oneself in respect the very basics of the propagation of the species.

What else as a Church can they not get right?

[MMbelieve]

At the core nothing has really changed.

If that is the case, then words don't matter.

In most cases, no they dont matter all that much.

So when someone accuses you of a hate crime, it doesn't matter what the definition of the word means?
If someone says all we need to do to follow Jesus is just to "love"-it doesn't matter what the definition of word love means?

To say words don't matter is reductio ad absurdum and you make religion into whatever you want it to be with no guiding star.

And even more beyond that when you say words don't matter, what you are saying in effect is that proper communication doesn't matter. Words, language is the mechanism by which we can functionally communicate with each other across time and across individuals.

To say that words don't matter in something as important as the endowment is to effectively say that properly communicating what the endowment means doesn't matter. It renders the endowment utterly meaningless across multiple people, because there is no common or shared value system of what it means. If the words don't matter, it means the common understanding of communicating the endowment doesn't matter.

It makes a mockery of any idea that there is such a thing as truth.

Which is unfortunately, exactly the path the Church is going. Truth is simply at an individual level-whatever you believe your own truth is, there is no such thing as a common truth, or an underlying truth by which multiple people can guide their lives. It becomes a free-for-all with individuals picking and choosing whatever "truth" they "feel" is their own.

It devolves into lawless, because without a common understanding of truth there is no mechanism to have a law, and if there is no law it means there is no such thing as sin, which means there is no such thing as a God and each individual becomes their own God.

The fruits of this ideology (which is plentiful in today's society), will ultimately destroy societies and nations . . .and it will destroy religion.

There are many who digest every single word for some hidden or higher meaning in the temple and the scriptures. The message is whats important. The ordinance is whats important.

There is a universal truth but how that truth is said in words can differ greatly to which ever audience and culture and era its being expressed to. Think of the parables given, could the exact same idea been given with different words and different types of parables? Absolutely. We need to put more weight on personal revelation and the spirit while in the temple than on particular words or we run the risk of becoming prideful and missing the whole point.

This is all I meant.

[dezNatDefender]

If that is the case, then words don't matter.

In most cases, no they dont matter all that much.

So when someone accuses you of a hate crime, it doesn't matter what the definition of the word means?
If someone says all we need to do to follow Jesus is just to "love"-it doesn't matter what the definition of word love means?

To say words don't matter is reductio ad absurdum and you make religion into whatever you want it to be with no guiding star.

And even more beyond that when you say words don't matter, what you are saying in effect is that proper communication doesn't matter. Words, language is the mechanism by which we can functionally communicate with each other across time and across individuals.

To say that words don't matter in something as important as the endowment is to effectively say that properly communicating what the endowment means doesn't matter. It renders the endowment utterly meaningless across multiple people, because there is no common or shared value system of what it means. If the words don't matter, it means the common understanding of communicating the endowment doesn't matter.

It makes a mockery of any idea that there is such a thing as truth.

Which is unfortunately, exactly the path the Church is going. Truth is simply at an individual level-whatever you believe your own truth is, there is no such thing as a common truth, or an underlying truth by which multiple people can guide their lives. It becomes a free-for-all with individuals picking and choosing whatever "truth" they "feel" is their own.

It devolves into lawless, because without a common understanding of truth there is no mechanism to have a law, and if there is no law it means there is no such thing as sin, which means there is no such thing as a God and each individual becomes their own God.

The fruits of this ideology (which is plentiful in today's society), will ultimately destroy societies and nations . . .and it will destroy religion.

There are many who digest every single word for some hidden or higher meaning in the temple and the scriptures. The message is whats important. The ordinance is whats important.

There is a universal truth but how that truth is said in words can differ greatly to which ever audience and culture and era its being expressed to. Think of the parables given, could the exact same idea been given with different words and different types of parables? Absolutely. We need to put more weight on personal revelation and the spirit while in the temple than on particular words or we run the risk of becoming prideful and missing the whole point.

This is all I meant.

I don't think we are even talking at the same level. Yes the message is what's important, but words are what communicate the message. Change the words and you change the message.

Yes parables can be given in different formats, but the endowment isn't a parable (unless you believe there was no Adam and Eve). It is a story which conveys the literal creation of this world, our bodies, and the fundamental relationship between men and women and then to God.

If you want to make a new/modern parable to convey a similar message that is fine. But let's take the parable of the sower. Seeds fall on the wayside, some on rocky ground, and some on good soil, and some on soil with thorns. You could use a different framework to convey the same message-absolutely. But if you modify the parable and instead of having 4 classes of seeds have 3 classes of seeds, you've fundamentally changed the message. Let's say you remove the part about some falling on rocky ground.

One can claim . . .well it's the same parable, you haven't changed anything. It's the same meta-parable (as in a story about those who hear the word of God), but the parable HAS changed. You've fundamentally lost something by removing one class of seeds.

Now, if one wants to claim that the true interpretation of the parable of the sower really only had three classes, instead of four. For some reason, in Christ's time He really meant 3 classes, not four and that somehow over time those 3 classes morphed into 4 classes and now by removing one class we are getting closer to the actual truth, that's a legitimate claim to investigate.

I have no problem with that type of a claim-but that is all it is "a claim". In order to make that claim, reality, and not just something that you thought up-you need to have significant weight of evident explaining why your new supercedes the old, common interpretation. And just saying "well we're more enlightened" now is not good enough-that's an extreme amount of hubris based on nothing except a modern cultural viewpoint with no actual evidence or weight of evidence to show. Now, if you had a manuscript that had a different version of the sower, went back to the original translation, or had some new Scripture, then other can weight the evidence and make a conclusion. Without it, all you have is the power of belief-and not a belief in God . . .but a belief in your ability to accurately correct the supposed "errors" of the past.

"We need to put more weight on personal revelation and the spirit while in the temple than on particular words or we run the risk of becoming prideful and missing the whole point."

No, what you claim here actually has the opposite effect. More weight on "personal revelation", means more importance on self, rather than on discovering the actual message. "Personal revelation" these days just means, look I "prayed" (i.e. I said words in my head), I felt something that I interpret as "the Spirit" telling me that this specific idea I have is a "good idea". Never mind that the personal revelation goes contrary to what was once a very common understanding of Gospel principles.

Because in the Church we have lost and I do mean lost, the actual Scriptural knowledge of reading the Scriptures, all anyone ever does is rely upon "personal revelation", which more often than not just ends up being a "gut feeling" rather than actual Revelation from God. Everyone thinks they are a Nephi slaying Laban, except you can't be a Nephi slaying Laban, unless you know the True Doctrine. You can't understand "personal revelation" until you fundamentally understand what are the basic rules that God has laid out-which are found in the Scriptures.

Which brings me back to the endowment. We have three separate, distinct, individual records of the Creation. Each and every one of them re-iterates the exact same thing; which is Adam was created first, Eve was created to be a helpmet, Satin beguiled Eve and she partook first, Adam partook next, God cursed Satan, God cursed Eve, God cursed Adam. Eve's seed (Christ) crushes Satan, Eve submits to her husband Adam, Adam submits to God.

Three records, three testimonies . . .and now, a man (who has not produced a single new scripture which has been ratified by the Body of the Church, who has not produced a single Revelation which has been demonstrated and proved to be true revelation), changes the Endowment session to rip out the section where Eve submits to her husband, thereby changing the parable, and you think that is approved by God?

I think it just shows the sad, sad state of affairs of the members of the Church. They are so starved for something, anything to demonstrate Revelation that they will soak up anything and everything without seriously contemplating if it is true or not. They won't know a true or a false prophet if he came and smacked them upside the head.

Like I said, I'm all for a change, if the evidence can be shown that the new changes are an actual restoration of the true meaning. Which in the case of the endowment should mean that Pres. Nelson better get busy re-translating the PGP and Genesis.

Otherwise, it's just a socio-political stunt.

[Cimorene]

In most cases, no they dont matter all that much.

So when someone accuses you of a hate crime, it doesn't matter what the definition of the word means?
If someone says all we need to do to follow Jesus is just to "love"-it doesn't matter what the definition of word love means?

To say words don't matter is reductio ad absurdum and you make religion into whatever you want it to be with no guiding star.

And even more beyond that when you say words don't matter, what you are saying in effect is that proper communication doesn't matter. Words, language is the mechanism by which we can functionally communicate with each other across time and across individuals.

To say that words don't matter in something as important as the endowment is to effectively say that properly communicating what the endowment means doesn't matter. It renders the endowment utterly meaningless across multiple people, because there is no common or shared value system of what it means. If the words don't matter, it means the common understanding of communicating the endowment doesn't matter.

It makes a mockery of any idea that there is such a thing as truth.

Which is unfortunately, exactly the path the Church is going. Truth is simply at an individual level-whatever you believe your own truth is, there is no such thing as a common truth, or an underlying truth by which multiple people can guide their lives. It becomes a free-for-all with individuals picking and choosing whatever "truth" they "feel" is their own.

It devolves into lawless, because without a common understanding of truth there is no mechanism to have a law, and if there is no law it means there is no such thing as sin, which means there is no such thing as a God and each individual becomes their own God.

The fruits of this ideology (which is plentiful in today's society), will ultimately destroy societies and nations . . .and it will destroy religion.

There are many who digest every single word for some hidden or higher meaning in the temple and the scriptures. The message is whats important. The ordinance is whats important.

There is a universal truth but how that truth is said in words can differ greatly to which ever audience and culture and era its being expressed to. Think of the parables given, could the exact same idea been given with different words and different types of parables? Absolutely. We need to put more weight on personal revelation and the spirit while in the temple than on particular words or we run the risk of becoming prideful and missing the whole point.

This is all I meant.

I don't think we are even talking at the same level. Yes the message is what's important, but words are what communicate the message. Change the words and you change the message.

Yes parables can be given in different formats, but the endowment isn't a parable (unless you believe there was no Adam and Eve). It is a story which conveys the literal creation of this world, our bodies, and the fundamental relationship between men and women and then to God.

If you want to make a new/modern parable to convey a similar message that is fine. But let's take the parable of the sower. Seeds fall on the wayside, some on rocky ground, and some on good soil, and some on soil with thorns. You could use a different framework to convey the same message-absolutely. But if you modify the parable and instead of having 4 classes of seeds have 3 classes of seeds, you've fundamentally changed the message. Let's say you remove the part about some falling on rocky ground.

One can claim . . .well it's the same parable, you haven't changed anything. It's the same meta-parable (as in a story about those who hear the word of God), but the parable HAS changed. You've fundamentally lost something by removing one class of seeds.

Now, if one wants to claim that the true interpretation of the parable of the sower really only had three classes, instead of four. For some reason, in Christ's time He really meant 3 classes, not four and that somehow over time those 3 classes morphed into 4 classes and now by removing one class we are getting closer to the actual truth, that's a legitimate claim to investigate.

I have no problem with that type of a claim-but that is all it is "a claim". In order to make that claim, reality, and not just something that you thought up-you need to have significant weight of evident explaining why your new supercedes the old, common interpretation. And just saying "well we're more enlightened" now is not good enough-that's an extreme amount of hubris based on nothing except a modern cultural viewpoint with no actual evidence or weight of evidence to show. Now, if you had a manuscript that had a different version of the sower, went back to the original translation, or had some new Scripture, then other can weight the evidence and make a conclusion. Without it, all you have is the power of belief-and not a belief in God . . .but a belief in your ability to accurately correct the supposed "errors" of the past.

"We need to put more weight on personal revelation and the spirit while in the temple than on particular words or we run the risk of becoming prideful and missing the whole point."

No, what you claim here actually has the opposite effect. More weight on "personal revelation", means more importance on self, rather than on discovering the actual message. "Personal revelation" these days just means, look I "prayed" (i.e. I said words in my head), I felt something that I interpret as "the Spirit" telling me that this specific idea I have is a "good idea". Never mind that the personal revelation goes contrary to what was once a very common understanding of Gospel principles.

Because in the Church we have lost and I do mean lost, the actual Scriptural knowledge of reading the Scriptures, all anyone ever does is rely upon "personal revelation", which more often than not just ends up being a "gut feeling" rather than actual Revelation from God. Everyone thinks they are a Nephi slaying Laban, except you can't be a Nephi slaying Laban, unless you know the True Doctrine. You can't understand "personal revelation" until you fundamentally understand what are the basic rules that God has laid out-which are found in the Scriptures.

Which brings me back to the endowment. We have three separate, distinct, individual records of the Creation. Each and every one of them re-iterates the exact same thing; which is Adam was created first, Eve was created to be a helpmet, Satin beguiled Eve and she partook first, Adam partook next, God cursed Satan, God cursed Eve, God cursed Adam. Eve's seed (Christ) crushes Satan, Eve submits to her husband Adam, Adam submits to God.

Three records, three testimonies . . .and now, a man (who has not produced a single new scripture which has been ratified by the Body of the Church, who has not produced a single Revelation which has been demonstrated and proved to be true revelation), changes the Endowment session to rip out the section where Eve submits to her husband, thereby changing the parable, and you think that is approved by God?

I think it just shows the sad, sad state of affairs of the members of the Church. They are so starved for something, anything to demonstrate Revelation that they will soak up anything and everything without seriously contemplating if it is true or not. They won't know a true or a false prophet if he came and smacked them upside the head.

Like I said, I'm all for a change, if the evidence can be shown that the new changes are an actual restoration of the true meaning. Which in the case of the endowment should mean that Pres. Nelson better get busy re-translating the PGP and Genesis.

Otherwise, it's just a socio-political stunt.

Hi, just thought I'd chime in. I've been following this for a while. I went a few weeks ago to do a session and I was a little apprehensive because of what people had been saying. One thing though is that just because that language isn't in the endowment doesn't mean that it negates the doctrine taught in the scriptures. I did initiatories this morning then went back tonight and did sealings with my husband and I really think we need to do all three to get the full picture. Just because Eve now makes her covenants directly to HF doesn't mean that the husband has lost his place as the head of the family. That is still in the scriptures, in the Family proclamation and in the marriage sealing specifically.
I know a lot of people have been worried the endowment changes have pandered to the LGBT community and feminists but after attending the sealing session there is no way it leaves room for reinterpretations of marriage or roles being changed.

Oh and one other thought I had; no where else do we make covenants to anyone or through anyone except to God. Think baptism, girls and boys don't make their covenants through their dad even though they are subject unto him. We all have our own relationship to Christ and learn to follow the Spirit ourselves instead of going through someone else for inspiration so it makes sense that Eve would covenant to obey HF directly to him since that is how we witness the sacrament as well.
Marriage is about being one, working and progressing as a union together. The endowment and what is represents is a very personal journey in life that can happen at very different times for husband or wife and can't be made through someone else.

[ori]

I haven’t done an endowment since the change was made (I’ve only done baptisms and sealings since then). I didn’t like all of the changes to the sealing, but the fact that I didn’t like them doesn’t bother me that much. You see, I have a firm testimony that The Church is God’s church, and that Jesus leads His church through His prophet, President Nelson. Whether I like the changes doesn’t really matter. Do I have some cognitive dissonance? Sure. Do I doubt His authorized servants? Not in any meaningful way (only in the sense that His servants are still human and therefore susceptible to making mistakes). I admit to having a negative thought or two about the sealing changes, but it stops there. I try, and continue to try, to bring my beliefs in line with Truth. I admit to God that I am nothing before Him, so what do I know about how His Church and ordinances should be managed? Nothing, really. I put my full trust in His care.

Robin Hood, I appreciate your honesty and empathize with you. I sincerely hope you can come to a place of peace regarding the changes.

[oneClimbs]

Since the endowment is allegorical and we are all to consider ourselves to be Adam and Eve respectively, the endowment is a re-enactment of the Fall of Mankind.

So which is more likely? That 3 records which testify to the truthfulness of the way things were before they changed it. Or the one "Prophet" who claims God told Him to change it (well even that is a stretch, I don't recall Pres. Nelson claiming that it was changed due to a commandment of God). Or, is it more likely that the Church bent to social-political pressure because no one reads their scriptures anymore and can't handle the actual truth of things.

Are we also to believe that Peter, James, and John came to visit Adam and Eve? Are we also to believe that everything depicted in the endowment is the actual version of how things went down? I don't think so. Like you said, we already have three accounts of the creation so why a fourth?

The endowment is not a history lesson. Yes, there is a lot of the creation depicted there, but there is no evidence that Adam and Eve made those specific covenants we make. The endowment is a mix of events, allegory, and latter-day covenants built upon a teaching framework appropriated from the Masons. It is what I would call an inspired construction that was created for us. The core covenants are all still there.

The most controversial change is the relationship between men and women. There is a lot to unpack there, it is certainly the most controversial change I think. However, I don't think that it is the most important part of the endowment. The endowment does not cover the entire creation story, only certain parts are used and then there are many other parts that don't appear in the scriptures at all.

Note that in the scriptures, Eve does not covenant with Adam anyway. If anything, that aspect of the previous endowment is less like the scriptures than it is now.

I think some of these changes were to adjust our focus. Perhaps what we think is important, may not be as important as we think. That isn't to say that what is missing isn't important, but it may not be important for the purposes of the endowment. I think there are a lot of assumptions made about what the endowment is and isn't.

There could be other things coming as well. More will be revealed about the relationship between our Heavenly Father and Mother. We will understand it better in the future and I feel like that is going to be strongly needed sooner than later.

I don't see this as a bend to political pressure, but I do think that potential rampant misinterpretation of that portion of the endowment was causing more problems than it was helping. Now you could say that maybe we should explain it all better for people, but the endowment is never explained so that's a problem. Perhaps men were thinking they could "rule" their wives and wives were thinking they had to just do whatever their husbands said. Both of those conclusions are wrong, but maybe after years, maybe decades of struggling to figure out how to educate the saints and that distracting from the main core point of the endowment as a whole they decided to modify it so that it conveys the equality that should exist between men and women (which is what should happen anyway under the original order).

Adam was meant to rule over Eve, but like king Benjamin and Jesus, not king Noah or Herod. In the gospel a ruler is a servant, he works with his own hands, he washes feet, he lays down his life. I wish THAT could be emphasized somehow but that doesn't seem to be the main point of the endowment.

It is a very individual journey anyhow, men and women sit on opposite sides of the room, it is a personal journey and the covenants made reflect that. Look, it wouldn't have been how I would have done it, I think we all have our own opinions on how stuff should be done but we are not the ones in the position to change those things.

As I have gotten older, I'm a little slower to jump to wild conclusions. I like to wait and see, think about things, ponder them and observe the fruits. Still way too early to definitively tell but overall, I am not bothered, the endowment still fulfills its purpose. Plus, I love the final addition to the end of the presentation where Adam and Eve speak one last time. I've always wanted that to be in there.

[Robin Hood]

Are we also to believe that Peter, James, and John came to visit Adam and Eve?

According to Nibley, yes we are.

[abijah]

The changes disturb me. No one can hope to argue that they don’t challenge doctrine. And deep, fundamental doctrine.

We talk all about Israel, who’s glory in the endtime is supposed to be reflective of the glory of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Israel, Jerusalem, His wayward-yet-eventually-repentant Wife who submits to Him.

Cities and nations are symbolised by the mothers who bore them in eastern cultures. I had a muslim girlfriend once. She would always refer to cities and countries in feminine pronouns without even thinking about it.

There is beautiful, eternal and powerful imagery in the picture of the heavenly-endowed people of Jerusalem, kneeling in submission before their LORD upon the hope of Messianic deliverance at the hands of Babylon and Assyria. The “damsel in distress” archetype is very real. “Baal” means “possessor.”

God has always dealt with women through the man. Don’t believe me? Why would Satan ask “has God actually commanded you are not to eat that fruit”? If Eve did not hear this divine commandment via Adam, then Satan’s temptation would have been empty. Eve doubted Adam, and therefore doubted God.