New Temple Ceremony Doctrinal Flaws

[cab]

Last week I went to my first temple endowment ceremony since the changes.
It will perhaps be my last.
At a passing glance, it SEEMED to focus much more on Jesus. However, I fear this is a trojan horse. I’m saddened by the way this will lull many members into a deeper spiritual sleep.

I have long maintained that the more we talk ABOUT Jesus in the church, the worse off we are. Why? Because the more we talk about Jesus, the more it reveals the fact that we don’t know Him. The more it reveals we don’t have a covenant relationship with Him and we don’t have direct experience with His loving and saving grace which makes a temple out of EACH OF US.

The new temple ceremony is a prime example of this. It adds at least 30 minutes of doctrinal dialogue that is just plain false, in my opinion.

The prime example of this, and most glaring, is the constant and repetitive banging on the “making and keeping covenants” drum. This goes hand in hand with the “covenant path” idea and is CLEARLY Russell M Nelson’s legacy. And it is false. It is an Old Testament works based system of salvation. This is capped off with a direct invocation in the ceremony of 2 Nephi 25:23, saying that we are saved by the atonement of Jesus AFTER ALL WE CAN DO, with the direct context being that God saves those who make and keep covenants in the temple.

No. No. No. God saves the meek and lowly in heart who submit their lives to God and trust Him. Full stop. ALL WE CAN DO is givenGos our heart. That is what He requires. THEN He reveals Hiself to us in a way that confounds all the wisdom of the wise and the religious… This is the message of the Book of Mormon and the message of the Holy Ghost to the heart of one who has been born again. This I know.

My friends, I bear witness that the kingdom of God is within you. Jesus has being revealing Himself to me. There truly is freedom in His name and in His spirit. His love is the pearl of great price and the fruit that is sweet above all that is sweet. His love will save and redeem you and it is MEANT FOR THIS LIFE!!!! His magnificent character and love will explode within your hearts as soon as you come to Him and give up your religious traditions. Give Him your heart. Truly. I bear witness that our Pharisaical traditions literally keep us from God. They shut the gate up from us. Our Lord can and will make you new and will make you into a new creature and make YOU His holy house. YOU ARE TO BE HIS HABITATION, NOT THESE BUILDINGS WHICH WE IDOLIZE. Just give Him your heart and the rest will be history. You can do 1000 endowment ceremonies, but it will do you no good if you don’t learn this. Please stop worshiping the surrogate idols of the church covenant path. Worship the Lord and seek His loving spirit.

There were many more doctrinal mistakes in the new ceremony, such as the garment being a representation of taking upon ourselves the name of Christ. Nope. The flesh of skins represents our flesh. It represents our separation from God’s presence and our current awful state, and it is in this state wherein we must prepare ourselves of meet and interact with God…. And the first step is learning our true identity as little children, and submitting to Father, AND taking upon ourselves the name of “the Son” through His loving grace and mercy, which is what clothes us with His righteousness and which ushers us into a new state of glory where we begin to interact with Him via angels and His spirit. AND IT IS ONLY THROUGH THESE HEAVENLY COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE ARE CLOTHED WITH POWER AND WITH SALVATION…. Not some dead religious ceremony.

Our church, in my opinion, has lost it. We have broken the very covenant we think we are keeping.

[Niemand]

He wants the LDS to be quasi-Protestant but is not doing a good job of it. He seems to have started taking on the worst aspects of modern Protestantism (blind ecumenicalism, worldy language, sucking up to the Pope) without the best (defiance of central authority, personal responsibility, grace etc)

[cab]

He wants the LDS to be quasi-Protestant but is not doing a good job of it. He seems to have started taking on the worst aspects of modern Protestantism (blind ecumenicalism, worldy language, sucking up to the Pope) without the best (defiance of central authority, personal responsibility, grace etc)

It’s sad. I don’t see how this thing can be fixed. We are just one of many dead religions. The only way to find God is in the wilderness. And boy, it is a mine bending journey!!!

[Luke]

I have long maintained that the more we talk ABOUT Jesus in the church, the worse off we are. Why? Because the more we talk about Jesus, the more it reveals the fact that we don’t know Him. The more it reveals we don’t have a covenant relationship with Him and we don’t have direct experience with His loving and saving grace which makes a temple out of EACH OF US.

Good point.

[cab]

I have long maintained that the more we talk ABOUT Jesus in the church, the worse off we are. Why? Because the more we talk about Jesus, the more it reveals the fact that we don’t know Him. The more it reveals we don’t have a covenant relationship with Him and we don’t have direct experience with His loving and saving grace which makes a temple out of EACH OF US.

Good point.

Love ya man. You have a good heart.

[Niemand]

For the baptism of the Holy Spirit to occur, you need to have a personal conversion experience which is sincere. You don't get it by someone else brow-beating you into getting it or going through the motions. This is definitely one case in which faith and grace are paramount, not works.

[Chip]

Last week I went to my first temple endowment ceremony since the changes.
It will perhaps be my last.
At a passing glance, it SEEMED to focus much more on Jesus. However, I fear this is a trojan horse. I’m saddened by the way this will lull many members into a deeper spiritual sleep.

I have long maintained that the more we talk ABOUT Jesus in the church, the worse off we are. Why? Because the more we talk about Jesus, the more it reveals the fact that we don’t know Him. The more it reveals we don’t have a covenant relationship with Him and we don’t have direct experience with His loving and saving grace which makes a temple out of EACH OF US.

The new temple ceremony is a prime example of this. It adds at least 30 minutes of doctrinal dialogue that is just plain false, in my opinion.

The prime example of this, and most glaring, is the constant and repetitive banging on the “making and keeping covenants” drum. This goes hand in hand with the “covenant path” idea and is CLEARLY Russell M Nelson’s legacy. And it is false. It is an Old Testament works based system of salvation. This is capped off with a direct invocation in the ceremony of 2 Nephi 25:23, saying that we are saved by the atonement of Jesus AFTER ALL WE CAN DO, with the direct context being that God saves those who make and keep covenants in the temple.

No. No. No. God saves the meek and lowly in heart who submit their lives to God and trust Him. Full stop. ALL WE CAN DO is givenGos our heart. That is what He requires. THEN He reveals Hiself to us in a way that confounds all the wisdom of the wise and the religious… This is the message of the Book of Mormon and the message of the Holy Ghost to the heart of one who has been born again. This I know.

My friends, I bear witness that the kingdom of God is within you. Jesus has being revealing Himself to me. There truly is freedom in His name and in His spirit. His love is the pearl of great price and the fruit that is sweet above all that is sweet. His love will save and redeem you and it is MEANT FOR THIS LIFE!!!! His magnificent character and love will explode within your hearts as soon as you come to Him and give up your religious traditions. Give Him your heart. Truly. I bear witness that our Pharisaical traditions literally keep us from God. They shut the gate up from us. Our Lord can and will make you new and will make you into a new creature and make YOU His holy house. YOU ARE TO BE HIS HABITATION, NOT THESE BUILDINGS WHICH WE IDOLIZE. Just give Him your heart and the rest will be history. You can do 1000 endowment ceremonies, but it will do you no good if you don’t learn this. Please stop worshiping the surrogate idols of the church covenant path. Worship the Lord and seek His loving spirit.

There were many more doctrinal mistakes in the new ceremony, such as the garment being a representation of taking upon ourselves the name of Christ. Nope. The flesh of skins represents our flesh. It represents our separation from God’s presence and our current awful state, and it is in this state wherein we must prepare ourselves of meet and interact with God…. And the first step is learning our true identity as little children, and submitting to Father, AND taking upon ourselves the name of “the Son” through His loving grace and mercy, which is what clothes us with His righteousness and which ushers us into a new state of glory where we begin to interact with Him via angels and His spirit. AND IT IS ONLY THROUGH THESE HEAVENLY COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE ARE CLOTHED WITH POWER AND WITH SALVATION…. Not some dead religious ceremony.

Our church, in my opinion, has lost it. We have broken the very covenant we think we are keeping.

Man, Cab!! This is right on!

This is exactly what this lady on YouTube has been witnessing to people, encouraging us to enter into a true covenant relationship with God, directly, so that he can live in us and we will be his temple. Infinitely richer than going to a building governed by Pharisees:


https://m.youtube.com/@NoTimeLikeThePRESENCE/videos

[Reluctant Watchman]

For me, the 15 questions required to enter are a deal beaker. The challenges begin way before you enter the doors.

[Blue Marble]

Exaltation is bestowed only on the servants who multiply their talents (ie “all we can do”).

[Niemand]

Exaltation is bestowed only on the servants who multiply their talents (ie “all we can do”).

Who does all they can do? We're told we're saved in spite of all we can do and all our righteousness is as filthy rags to the Lord. God gives us a step up... we need faith, and good works are the fruits of faith, but on their own are not good enough and we stumble every day.

[Blue Marble]

Exaltation is bestowed only on the servants who multiply their talents (ie “all we can do”).

Who does all they can do? We're told we're saved in spite of all we can do and all our righteousness is as filthy rags to the Lord. God gives us a step up... we need faith, and good works are the fruits of faith, but on their own are not good enough and we stumble every day.

Obviously.

[ithink]

Last week I went to my first temple endowment ceremony since the changes.
It will perhaps be my last.
At a passing glance, it SEEMED to focus much more on Jesus. However, I fear this is a trojan horse. I’m saddened by the way this will lull many members into a deeper spiritual sleep.

I have long maintained that the more we talk ABOUT Jesus in the church, the worse off we are. Why? Because the more we talk about Jesus, the more it reveals the fact that we don’t know Him. The more it reveals we don’t have a covenant relationship with Him and we don’t have direct experience with His loving and saving grace which makes a temple out of EACH OF US.

The new temple ceremony is a prime example of this. It adds at least 30 minutes of doctrinal dialogue that is just plain false, in my opinion.

The prime example of this, and most glaring, is the constant and repetitive banging on the “making and keeping covenants” drum. This goes hand in hand with the “covenant path” idea and is CLEARLY Russell M Nelson’s legacy. And it is false. It is an Old Testament works based system of salvation. This is capped off with a direct invocation in the ceremony of 2 Nephi 25:23, saying that we are saved by the atonement of Jesus AFTER ALL WE CAN DO, with the direct context being that God saves those who make and keep covenants in the temple.

No. No. No. God saves the meek and lowly in heart who submit their lives to God and trust Him. Full stop. ALL WE CAN DO is givenGos our heart. That is what He requires. THEN He reveals Hiself to us in a way that confounds all the wisdom of the wise and the religious… This is the message of the Book of Mormon and the message of the Holy Ghost to the heart of one who has been born again. This I know.

My friends, I bear witness that the kingdom of God is within you. Jesus has being revealing Himself to me. There truly is freedom in His name and in His spirit. His love is the pearl of great price and the fruit that is sweet above all that is sweet. His love will save and redeem you and it is MEANT FOR THIS LIFE!!!! His magnificent character and love will explode within your hearts as soon as you come to Him and give up your religious traditions. Give Him your heart. Truly. I bear witness that our Pharisaical traditions literally keep us from God. They shut the gate up from us. Our Lord can and will make you new and will make you into a new creature and make YOU His holy house. YOU ARE TO BE HIS HABITATION, NOT THESE BUILDINGS WHICH WE IDOLIZE. Just give Him your heart and the rest will be history. You can do 1000 endowment ceremonies, but it will do you no good if you don’t learn this. Please stop worshiping the surrogate idols of the church covenant path. Worship the Lord and seek His loving spirit.

There were many more doctrinal mistakes in the new ceremony, such as the garment being a representation of taking upon ourselves the name of Christ. Nope. The flesh of skins represents our flesh. It represents our separation from God’s presence and our current awful state, and it is in this state wherein we must prepare ourselves of meet and interact with God…. And the first step is learning our true identity as little children, and submitting to Father, AND taking upon ourselves the name of “the Son” through His loving grace and mercy, which is what clothes us with His righteousness and which ushers us into a new state of glory where we begin to interact with Him via angels and His spirit. AND IT IS ONLY THROUGH THESE HEAVENLY COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE ARE CLOTHED WITH POWER AND WITH SALVATION…. Not some dead religious ceremony.

Our church, in my opinion, has lost it. We have broken the very covenant we think we are keeping.

Good commentary.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

The church is in a no win situation with all these temple changes.

The church has long received backlash that certain elements and teachings from the endowment make people uncomfortable and that Christ’s role in the plan of salvation isn’t emphasized enough. The church has taken measures to address these concerns, hence all of the changes, especially since 1990, and the latest major overhaul this year.

Many people are very happy with the changes and others are very upset with them. Others fall somewhere in between.

In my opinion the best thing would have been not to change anything, ever, but I also don’t know the will of the Lord on the matter.

[BringerOfJoy]

The church is in a no win situation with all these temple changes.
.. .

I tend to agree with you on this. And this isn't the only subject where this is now the case. They have sort of backed themselves into a corner on a number of issues, and now get to deal with the consequences. I couldn't even begin to advise them on how to dig themselves out of this hole. I am sure there is One with the answers though. But they might be very hard answers indeed.

You'll notice the "What would you change about the church," thread now has 197 answers. And I imagine some are 180 degrees at odds with each other, so that would be a fun challenge. Not.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

The church is in a no win situation with all these temple changes.
.. .

I tend to agree with you on this. And this isn't the only subject where this is now the case. They have sort of backed themselves into a corner on a number of issues, and now get to deal with the consequences. I couldn't even begin to advise them on how to dig themselves out of this hole. I am sure there is One with the answers though. But they might be very hard answers indeed.

You'll notice the "What would you change about the church," thread now has 197 answers. And I imagine some are 180 degrees at odds with each other, so that would be a fun challenge. Not.

You are right that there would be no consensus on what should be corrected. In regards to the ordinances of the temple specifically, if the church were to revert back to the endowment prior to the major changes in 1990, I think the majority of the members would have a very hard time with this.

Most member today would be very uncomfortable with the content of the pre-1990 version, including many who were endowed prior to 1990. And then there’s the issue of why we are reverting back to this version at all if all the changes were directed by God, as the church as consistently maintained up to this point.

[Juliet]

Jeremiah 31: 30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the Lord.

31 For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face,

32 Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction.

34 But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it.

35 And they built the high places of Baal

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

Jeremiah 31: 30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the Lord.

31 For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face,

32 Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction.

34 But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it.

35 And they built the high places of Baal

Do you know what a high place of Baal is?

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

The church is in a no win situation with all these temple changes.
.. .

I tend to agree with you on this. And this isn't the only subject where this is now the case. They have sort of backed themselves into a corner on a number of issues, and now get to deal with the consequences. I couldn't even begin to advise them on how to dig themselves out of this hole. I am sure there is One with the answers though. But they might be very hard answers indeed.

You'll notice the "What would you change about the church," thread now has 197 answers. And I imagine some are 180 degrees at odds with each other, so that would be a fun challenge. Not.

You are right that there would be no consensus on what should be corrected. In regards to the ordinances of the temple specifically, if the church were to revert back to the endowment prior to the major changes in 1990, I think the majority of the members would have a very hard time with this.

Most member today would be very uncomfortable with the content of the pre-1990 version, including many who were endowed prior to 1990. And then there’s the issue of why we are reverting back to this version at all if all the changes were directed by God, as the church as consistently maintained up to this point.

To be blunt. In 1990 the church removed the blood oaths which were nearly identical to the blood oaths in the Masonic lodge rite.

Fabian socialists (some of earth's most detestable globalists) and anyone interested in societal transformation realizes that abrupt and drastic changes are nearly impossible to achieve. But if you make incremental changes over many years two things happen:

1. People forget and just move on and accept the new normal.

2. The rising generation never knew the "other way of doing things" so they have no basis for comparison and accept the new normal as the old normal.

The church is following the Fabian Socialists playbook by incrementally evolving the endowment in order to cleanse if of its masonic roots. Over time, the older generations will forget the old endowment and accept the new endowment. The rising generation, on the other hand, never knew the old endowment so they have no basis for comparison and accept the new endowment as the old endowment.

The endowment was borrowed from the masons because the central tenant of the masonic rite was secrecy. It was enforced by fear of blood oaths that describe your painful death should you reveal any of the masonic secrets of the brotherhood.

Joseph Smith realized the importance of keeping secrets with regard to polygamy. He publicly denied the practice going so far as to write monogamy into the 1835 and 1844 editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, while privately kicking off his adulterous affairs with Fanny Alger (a live in maid in the Smith Home at the time) then later marrying upwards of 40 women---12 of whom were already married to other men living in Nauvoo, and three who were under age (by today's standards) live-in help at the Smith home,

Joseph created the endowment to keep secret the new and everlasting covenant on pain of death (at least up until 1990 when the blood oaths were removed from the temple rite). The new and everlasting covenant, still today, is the basis for the endowment. Temple goers are instructed that everything in the endowment pertains to the new and everlasting covenant. If we were honest about the new and everlasting covenant we would recognize it as polygamy. "Celestial marriage" and the term "new and everlasting covenant" were code phrases for polygamy because, well, back in the Nauvoo era using the proper name "polygamy" was just one big word-salad mess too far.

Today, in the church. we've sanitized the New and Everlasting polygamy covenant and call it eternal marriage with all its Hollywood feel-good we-live-forever with our families happy days. But that's not how it started in Nauvoo. Back in the day, the endowment was about keeping polygamy secret, including offering exaltation rewards for those who kept the secret, and death by blood oaths for those who didn't. It was never about families can be together forever. It was about hiding the sin of adultery in plain sight. The endowment began as a cover for adultery, but has incrementally become a Bastian of hope for "families can be forever". The Fabian Socialists would be proud of that kind of doctrinal evolution---rebranding adultery as polygamy, changing the name to celestial marriage by virtue of a new and everlasting temple covenant and finally monogamizing it all for sale in the 20th century with a happy forever family face.

It's pretty much that simple.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

I tend to agree with you on this. And this isn't the only subject where this is now the case. They have sort of backed themselves into a corner on a number of issues, and now get to deal with the consequences. I couldn't even begin to advise them on how to dig themselves out of this hole. I am sure there is One with the answers though. But they might be very hard answers indeed.

You'll notice the "What would you change about the church," thread now has 197 answers. And I imagine some are 180 degrees at odds with each other, so that would be a fun challenge. Not.

You are right that there would be no consensus on what should be corrected. In regards to the ordinances of the temple specifically, if the church were to revert back to the endowment prior to the major changes in 1990, I think the majority of the members would have a very hard time with this.

Most member today would be very uncomfortable with the content of the pre-1990 version, including many who were endowed prior to 1990. And then there’s the issue of why we are reverting back to this version at all if all the changes were directed by God, as the church as consistently maintained up to this point.

To be blunt. In 1990 the church removed the blood oaths which were nearly identical to the blood oaths in the Masonic lodge rite.

Fabian socialists (some of earth's most detestable globalists) and anyone interested in societal transformation realizes that sudden abrupt changes are nearly impossible to achieve. But if you make incremental changes over many years two things happen:

1. People forget and just move on and accept the new normal.

2. The rising generation never knew the "other way of doing things" so they have no basis for comparison and accept the new normal as the old normal.

The church is following the Fabian Socialists playbook by incrementally evolving the endowment in order to cleanse if of its masonic roots. Over time, the older generations will forget the old endowment and accept the new endowment. The rising generation, on the other hand, never knew the old endowment so they have no basis for comparison and accept the new endowment as the old endowment.

The endowment was borrowed from the masons because the central tenant of the masonic rite was secrecy. It was enforced by fear of blood oaths that describe your painful death should you reveal any of the masonic secrets of the brotherhood.

Joseph Smith realized the importance of keeping secrets with regard to polygamy. He publicly denied the practice going so far as to write monogamy into the 1835 and 1844 editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, while privately kicking off his adulterous affairs with Fanny Alger (a live in maid in the Smith Home at the time) then later marrying upwards of 40 women---12 of whom were already married to other men living in Nauvoo, and three who were under age (by today's standards) live-in help at the Smith home,

Joseph created the endowment to keep secret the new and everlasting covenant on pain of death (at least up until 1990 when the blood oaths were removed from the temple rite). The new and everlasting covenant, still today, is the basis for the endowment. Temple goers are instructed that everything in the endowment pertains to the new and everlasting covenant. If we were honest about the new and everlasting covenant we would recognize it as polygamy. "Celestial marriage" and the term "new and everlasting covenant" were code phrases for polygamy because, well, back in the Nauvoo era using the proper name "polygamy" was just one big word-salad mess too far.

Today, in the church. we've sanitized the New and Everlasting polygamy covenant and call it eternal marriage with all its Hollywood feel-good we-live-forever with our families happy days. But that's not how it started in Nauvoo. Back in the day, the endowment was about keeping polygamy secret, including offering exaltation rewards for those who kept the secret, and death by blood oaths for those who didn't. It was never about families can be together forever. It was about hiding the sin of adultery in plain sight. The endowment began as a cover for adultery, but has incrementally become a Bastian of hope for "families can be forever". The Fabian Socialists would be proud of that kind of doctrinal evolution---rebranding polygamy with a happy forever family face.

It's pretty much that simple.

I disagree with your take on the blood oaths, masonry, and polygamy, but you make a good point about incremental changes and how the current generation forgets and the next generation has little to no knowledge of how things once were.

[Juliet]

Jeremiah 31: 30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the Lord.

31 For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face,

32 Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction.

34 But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it.

35 And they built the high places of Baal

Do you know what a high place of Baal is?

I believe it is associated with human sacrifice. The defiling of the temple is not new. It happened all throughout the Old Testament.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

Jeremiah 31: 30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the Lord.

31 For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face,

32 Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction.

34 But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it.

35 And they built the high places of Baal

Do you know what a high place of Baal is?

I believe it is associated with human sacrifice. The defiling of the temple is not new. It happened all throughout the Old Testament.

So, what point we’re trying to make by quoting the verse about the high place of Baal?

[ransomme]

I tend to agree with you on this. And this isn't the only subject where this is now the case. They have sort of backed themselves into a corner on a number of issues, and now get to deal with the consequences. I couldn't even begin to advise them on how to dig themselves out of this hole. I am sure there is One with the answers though. But they might be very hard answers indeed.

You'll notice the "What would you change about the church," thread now has 197 answers. And I imagine some are 180 degrees at odds with each other, so that would be a fun challenge. Not.

You are right that there would be no consensus on what should be corrected. In regards to the ordinances of the temple specifically, if the church were to revert back to the endowment prior to the major changes in 1990, I think the majority of the members would have a very hard time with this.

Most member today would be very uncomfortable with the content of the pre-1990 version, including many who were endowed prior to 1990. And then there’s the issue of why we are reverting back to this version at all if all the changes were directed by God, as the church as consistently maintained up to this point.

To be blunt. In 1990 the church removed the blood oaths which were nearly identical to the blood oaths in the Masonic lodge rite.

Fabian socialists (some of earth's most detestable globalists) and anyone interested in societal transformation realizes that abrupt and drastic changes are nearly impossible to achieve. But if you make incremental changes over many years two things happen:

1. People forget and just move on and accept the new normal.

2. The rising generation never knew the "other way of doing things" so they have no basis for comparison and accept the new normal as the old normal.

The church is following the Fabian Socialists playbook by incrementally evolving the endowment in order to cleanse if of its masonic roots. Over time, the older generations will forget the old endowment and accept the new endowment. The rising generation, on the other hand, never knew the old endowment so they have no basis for comparison and accept the new endowment as the old endowment.

The endowment was borrowed from the masons because the central tenant of the masonic rite was secrecy. It was enforced by fear of blood oaths that describe your painful death should you reveal any of the masonic secrets of the brotherhood.

Joseph Smith realized the importance of keeping secrets with regard to polygamy. He publicly denied the practice going so far as to write monogamy into the 1835 and 1844 editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, while privately kicking off his adulterous affairs with Fanny Alger (a live in maid in the Smith Home at the time) then later marrying upwards of 40 women---12 of whom were already married to other men living in Nauvoo, and three who were under age (by today's standards) live-in help at the Smith home,

Joseph created the endowment to keep secret the new and everlasting covenant on pain of death (at least up until 1990 when the blood oaths were removed from the temple rite). The new and everlasting covenant, still today, is the basis for the endowment. Temple goers are instructed that everything in the endowment pertains to the new and everlasting covenant. If we were honest about the new and everlasting covenant we would recognize it as polygamy. "Celestial marriage" and the term "new and everlasting covenant" were code phrases for polygamy because, well, back in the Nauvoo era using the proper name "polygamy" was just one big word-salad mess too far.

Today, in the church. we've sanitized the New and Everlasting polygamy covenant and call it eternal marriage with all its Hollywood feel-good we-live-forever with our families happy days. But that's not how it started in Nauvoo. Back in the day, the endowment was about keeping polygamy secret, including offering exaltation rewards for those who kept the secret, and death by blood oaths for those who didn't. It was never about families can be together forever. It was about hiding the sin of adultery in plain sight. The endowment began as a cover for adultery, but has incrementally become a Bastian of hope for "families can be forever". The Fabian Socialists would be proud of that kind of doctrinal evolution---rebranding adultery as polygamy, changing the name to celestial marriage by virtue of a new and everlasting temple covenant and finally monogamizing it all for sale in the 20th century with a happy forever family face.

It's pretty much that simple.

Ummm, other than the incrementalism, that's highly inaccurate.

Firstly, the idea and pattern of the endowment had been in Joseph's theology since the beginning. It can be seen in the BoM, then of course later his work on the Bible and PoGP furthered it. It was all there way before 1842 when he became a Mason. At most only small details from masonry could, or would have been added.

Speaking of changes, I'd bet that BY added the blood oaths. It matches his theology.

Also, the polygamy motive is silly. The supposed timeline alone makes no sense. Supposedly it started in 1835, yet he needed to ensure secrecy in 1842? That is really late to the game. What's more, the spiritual wifery system at the time already had its own "secret chamber".

[Juliet]

Do you know what a high place of Baal is?

I believe it is associated with human sacrifice. The defiling of the temple is not new. It happened all throughout the Old Testament.

So, what point we’re trying to make by quoting the verse about the high place of Baal?

That there are records of the temple being defiled in the Old Testament. That is my point. What if you lived during the time of King Solomon. He was regarded by God so well that God blessed him to be the wisest man on earth. And then he married women of the Canaan religion and because of that God allowed the kingdom to be destroyed; except for the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; which God left to Solomon's descendants not because of Solomon; but in honor of his father David.

If you were attending the temple in King Solomon's time, how would you have known the temple was changing from being honorable and worthy of the ark of the covenant vs being defiled?

Also, legend says that the ark of the covenant was stolen from King Solomon.

[Ymarsakar]

There is a curious difference between how one god wants his temples to be in the low lands, like valleys, and other gods like the high places like mountains.

This is a peculiarity. Because I know of many altars to Baal that are in the low places. And the high places tend to be higher frequency, and places like Mount Hermon where the good and the bad can descend.

For example, Jekyl island, is not a high place. I doubt that island is even above a hill.

Baal means Lord. THat means the high placeof the lord, but who is the lord? People back then were confused and those who edited the text intended for that to remain true.

[ransomme]

The biggest flaw for me is still the veil and who is receiving at the veil.