The original 1840s temple endowment

[Shawn Henry]

We disagree as there is much in the Brighamite temple ceremony that contradicts Torah and even the Sermon on the Mount / at the Temple.

Contradictions don't seem to bother Brighamites, they call the 180 reversal the next line upon line, the new higher law.

[Shawn Henry]

What constitutes correct doctrine is what we should be focusing on.

Looking for truth within secret works done in the dark is largely a waste of time. There is plenty of truth brought forth in the light.

[JLHPROF]

We disagree as there is much in the Brighamite temple ceremony that contradicts Torah and even the Sermon on the Mount / at the Temple.

Contradictions don't seem to bother Brighamites, they call the 180 reversal the next line upon line, the new higher law.

No, everyone just picks a different stopping point.
For Jews it was the Law of Moses
For evangelicals it's the last verse of the Book of Revelation.
For some it was the Book of Mormon pre-Consecration.
For some it's Kirtland and the pre-1838 doctrines.
For some it's Nauvoo and the martyrdom.
For some it's 1890 and the manifesto.
For some it's 1978 and OD2.
For some it's 1990 and the temple endowment overhaul.
For many recently it was the baptism ban for SSM children.

Everyone draws the line somewhere and is only willing to believe up to that point.
Your stopping point is no more special than anyone else's.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Uh, you need to study your church history and changes to the temple. And no, there are aspects that are not scriptural.

I am aware of every change to the temple in Church history. And I've studied it in depth.
And yes, it's all scriptural.

You can’t be aware of “every” change since there is not a single record ever recorded of what Joseph taught.

You know what I meant.

That’s like saying the dude who is missing an arm, a leg, half and ear, and one eye from a major vehicle accident has a “minor flesh wound.”

[Reluctant Watchman]

What constitutes correct doctrine is what we should be focusing on.

Looking for truth within secret works done in the dark is largely a waste of time. There is plenty of truth brought forth in the light.

I don’t look in the dark. I also don’t look to the church for clarity and understanding. There is a lot outside of the LDS church that teaches these principles in great detail.

[Shawn Henry]

Every element is found in scripture.

Was it hard to type this with two fingers crossed behind your back?

Or did you mean, it is found and condemned in scripture? Because then your statement would be truthful.

The Saviour commanding us to not make blood oaths and to not swear by our heads? is it opposite day in the temple?

The Savior says there is no employed servant at the gate, but somehow there are sentinels there.

What about the oath of vengeance? Who authored that one?

What of the BoM condemning secret signs and handshakes?

Isn't it odd that after Mormon learned everything the Savior taught the Nephites, that he still wrote what the earlier prophets has said in condemnation of secret signs and handshakes?

[Shawn Henry]

Your stopping point is no more special than anyone else's.

My stopping point coincides with scripture.

Scripture decides the stopping point. Once scripture says no, you can't keep undressing her.

[Shawn Henry]

There is a lot outside of the LDS church that teaches these principles in great detail.

I'm not referencing that, I'm simply referencing what scripture has already condemned. Once scripture is violated, doesn't it really matter where else a concept can be found.

[JLHPROF]

Every element is found in scripture.

Was it hard to type this with two fingers crossed behind your back?

Or did you mean, it is found and condemned in scripture? Because then your statement would be truthful.

The Saviour commanding us to not make blood oaths and to not swear by our heads? is it opposite day in the temple?

The Savior says there is no employed servant at the gate, but somehow there are sentinels there.

What about the oath of vengeance? Who authored that one?

What of the BoM condemning secret signs and handshakes?

Isn't it odd that after Mormon learned everything the Savior taught the Nephites, that he still wrote what the earlier prophets has said in condemnation of secret signs and handshakes?

Apparently you don't understand the meanings, history, and symbolism of these elements.
Nibley's Temple and Cosmos, Mormonism and Early Christianity, and Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri are a good starting point.
Mysteries of Godliness or The Development of Mormon Temple Worship are two great books studying the temple in this dispensation.
Plenty of information for open minds.

[JLHPROF]

Your stopping point is no more special than anyone else's.

My stopping point coincides with scripture.

Scripture decides the stopping point. Once scripture says no, you can't keep undressing her.

The scripture you choose to accept and stop at. Not ALL scripture. Again, your personal stopping point. Plenty of scripture you reject. No different than the Jews rejecting the New Testament, the evangelicals rejecting the Book of Mormon.
Not EVERY word that comes from God. Just the ones up to the place you're stuck.

[Shawn Henry]

Apparently you don't understand the meanings, history, and symbolism of these elements.

Supposing there is a lot of truth in the endowment, how does one get past the inclusion of false truths therein. The falsehoods undermine the rest.

The reason there are so many ties of the endowment to the past is because Satan has been using that counterfeit for a long time.

If the secret signs and handshakes are from God, then the BoM was wrong to condemn them. You can't have it both ways.

[Shawn Henry]

Plenty of scripture you reject.

That's a pretty hypocritical thing to say, considering I accept everything that Joseph Smith canonized all the way up to his death with the 1844 edition of the D&C and you do not by rejecting the LoF.

Besides, the scriptures already gave us a standard for what the word is when they declare that every word is established by the mouth of two or three witnesses. No one was called by God to witness the 1876 additions, were they.

[SJR3t2]

I disagree with the Brighamite temple and it's source. You put words into my mouth to try to make me look bad.

And I said that if these principles were actually taught correctly, they are good. To which you disagreed.

I'm not trying to make you look bad. I think we should have a robust conversation (another thread maybe) about what actually constitutes the four core laws.

You put words in my mouth that I never said. We disagree about the source of the Brighamite temple and where if it teaches good or not. That is what I have focused on, you put words in my mouth I never said. Good day.

I have no idea where you are going with this. I addressed a completely different idea that you repeatedly choose to ignore.

I keep talking about it because you kept bringing it up.

[SJR3t2]

We disagree as there is much in the Brighamite temple ceremony that contradicts Torah and even the Sermon on the Mount / at the Temple.

Contradictions don't seem to bother Brighamites, they call the 180 reversal the next line upon line, the new higher law.

Many seem to think that YHWH's ways are constantly changing.

[SJR3t2]

Apparently you don't understand the meanings, history, and symbolism of these elements.

Supposing there is a lot of truth in the endowment, how does one get past the inclusion of false truths therein. The falsehoods undermine the rest.

The reason there are so many ties of the endowment to the past is because Satan has been using that counterfeit for a long time.

If the secret signs and handshakes are from God, then the BoM was wrong to condemn them. You can't have it both ways.

Exactly Satan will teach you truths while teaching you lies.

[JLHPROF]

Apparently you don't understand the meanings, history, and symbolism of these elements.

Supposing there is a lot of truth in the endowment, how does one get past the inclusion of false truths therein. The falsehoods undermine the rest.

The reason there are so many ties of the endowment to the past is because Satan has been using that counterfeit for a long time.

If the secret signs and handshakes are from God, then the BoM was wrong to condemn them. You can't have it both ways.

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

[Shawn Henry]

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

Yes, secret handshakes are a counterfeit to real handshakes and pledging secret oaths are a counterfeit to openly declaring allegiance to God alone.

[Shawn Henry]

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

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

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

[JLHPROF]

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

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

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

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

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

[Shawn Henry]

There are NO known falsehoods in the endowment.

So, no known falsehood? None at all? You honestly believe BY was inspired when he added the Oath of Vengeance?

Perhaps when you are not on your phone you can answer why Mormon included speaking against secret signs, handshakes, and names.

What happens when Mormon and Moroni meet those angels standing as sentinels? Did the 3 Nephites hide the endowment session from Mormon?

[JLHPROF]

There are NO known falsehoods in the endowment.

So, no known falsehood? None at all? You honestly believe BY was inspired when he added the Oath of Vengeance?

Perhaps when you are not on your phone you can answer why Mormon included speaking against secret signs, handshakes, and names.

What happens when Mormon and Moroni meet those angels standing as sentinels? Did the 3 Nephites hide the endowment session from Mormon?

Oh, I guarantee they received their endowments and their second anointing too.

[Shawn Henry]

Oh, I guarantee they received their endowments and their second anointing too.

Seriously?!!!

You really think Mormon would have written against secret signs and handshakes after a traditional endowment session? You don't see the hypocrisy there?

[JLHPROF]

Oh, I guarantee they received their endowments and their second anointing too.

Seriously?!!!

You really think Mormon would have written against secret signs and handshakes after a traditional endowment session? You don't see the hypocrisy there?

No more than a married couple with an active sex life condemning adulterous unmarried couples for their sex lives.
Apples and oranges.

[Shawn Henry]

No more than a married couple with an active sex life condemning adulterous unmarried couples for their sex lives.
Apples and oranges.

No that doesn't fly! Mormon categorically condemned it all!

[JLHPROF]

No more than a married couple with an active sex life condemning adulterous unmarried couples for their sex lives.
Apples and oranges.

No that doesn't fly! Mormon categorically condemned it all!

Completely disagree. As usual.