LDS Freedom Forum

Cheetos wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 7:36 am 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.

ThePowerofEternity111 wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 9:58 am

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 For he alone shall be exalted and ye shall be upon the earth when it falls and the spirit of the Son shall be withdrawn from ye, and thou shall be as they who had no oil in their lamps, lest ye repent and humble yourselves.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.

mike_rumble wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 11:40 am "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.

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.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 9:13 am

Cheetos wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 7:36 am 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.

Cheetos wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 12:45 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 9:13 am

Cheetos wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 7:36 am 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.

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 9:52 pm
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...

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 3:20 pm

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 9:52 pm
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.

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 2:49 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 3:20 pm

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 9:52 pm
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!

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:08 am

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 2:49 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 3:20 pm

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 9:52 pm
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.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:20 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:08 am

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 2:49 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 3:20 pm

"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.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:20 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:08 am

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 2:49 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2019, 3:20 pm

"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 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:58 am

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:20 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:08 am

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 2:49 am

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.

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:59 am

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:20 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:08 am

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 2:49 am

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.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 4:27 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:58 am

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:20 am

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:08 am
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.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 7:22 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 4:27 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:58 am

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:20 am
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 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 9:12 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 7:22 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 4:27 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 6:58 am

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.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 4:53 pm 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.

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 28th, 2019, 10:57 pm

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