New Temple Ceremony Doctrinal Flaws

[Reluctant Watchman]

I believe the scriptures over the philosophies of men.

I’m curious, what do you consider scripture? How many books/writings are there? I mean, come one, your own church history is full of the “philosophies of men, mingled w/ scripture.” Even your own “prophets” can’t agree w/ each other.

I can cite “scripture” to reinforce my position, but you’d probably just use the same excuse: “that’s the philosophies of men. Those aren’t scripture.”

Go ahead and cite your “scripture.” And while you’re at it address what Paul said about the husband being the head of the wife and God telling Eve that her husband was to rule over her.

Paul can say all he wants. If you think what Paul said means that women covenant to obey their husband, then he was wrong.

And as far as Genesis is concerned, again, if this had anything to do with a woman covenanting to obey a man, then something is wrong w/ either the historical translation or people’s interpretation of it.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

I’m curious, what do you consider scripture? How many books/writings are there? I mean, come one, your own church history is full of the “philosophies of men, mingled w/ scripture.” Even your own “prophets” can’t agree w/ each other.

I can cite “scripture” to reinforce my position, but you’d probably just use the same excuse: “that’s the philosophies of men. Those aren’t scripture.”

Go ahead and cite your “scripture.” And while you’re at it address what Paul said about the husband being the head of the wife and God telling Eve that her husband was to rule over her.

Paul can say all he wants. If you think what Paul said means that women covenant to obey their husband, then he was wrong.

And as far as Genesis is concerned, again, if this had anything to do with a woman covenanting to obey a man, then something is wrong w/ either the historical translation or people’s interpretation of it.

Like I said, I believe the scriptures over the philosophies of men.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Go ahead and cite your “scripture.” And while you’re at it address what Paul said about the husband being the head of the wife and God telling Eve that her husband was to rule over her.

Paul can say all he wants. If you think what Paul said means that women covenant to obey their husband, then he was wrong.

And as far as Genesis is concerned, again, if this had anything to do with a woman covenanting to obey a man, then something is wrong w/ either the historical translation or people’s interpretation of it.

Like I said, I believe the scriptures over the philosophies of men.

You believe your interpretation of a book.

[skylight]

Whoever put out the evidence about Albert Pike clearly did not do the research as to when he was born- 1809!! Not in the 1700s!!

So when the church was organized he was only 21. In Nauvoo period he would have been in early 30s. He didn't take over the Freemasonry until the mid 1840s after Joseph passed. Also, the charters where much more separated than they are now. For obvious reasons.

Was it a corrupted ceremony, yes, but did it teach some truths that helped people understand natural law and some eternal (albeit incomplete and some corrupted) truths. Yes.

You will see the same ceremony repeated in Egyptian, Hopi ceremonies, and many others. Read Hugh Nibleys, Temple and the Cosmos for comprehensive research. Not lazy research like people tend to do now.

[Hogmeister]

Whoever put out the evidence about Albert Pike clearly did not do the research as to when he was born- 1809!! Not in the 1700s!!

So when the church was organized he was only 21. In Nauvoo period he would have been in early 30s. He didn't take over the Freemasonry until the mid 1840s after Joseph passed. Also, the charters where much more separated than they are now. For obvious reasons.

Was it a corrupted ceremony, yes, but did it teach some truths that helped people understand natural law and some eternal (albeit incomplete and some corrupted) truths. Yes.

You will see the same ceremony repeated in Egyptian, Hopi ceremonies, and many others. Read Hugh Nibleys, Temple and the Cosmos for comprehensive research. Not lazy research like people tend to do now.

There is a lot of the ceremony in corrupted early christianity (gnosticism) too.

[Free_Man]

One more question. RMN received all the changes/adjustments to the endowment and the sealing ceremony during the same period that he declared to the world that the clot shot as a "godsend" and "an answer to our prayers" and that the only way to combat the scourge of COVID was to take the shot, wear the mask, social distance, and close down the church. This direction has gotten some people killed and permanently negatively effected their health--myocarditis anyone. These things are not separate. How can anyone be so intune with the revelations of God and have made so many adjustments (over 100 announced changes/adjustments) to the church, yet not see the COVID plandemic for what it was/is? It is enough to make your head spin. They church must have been totally off course to need so many adjustments. (But I thought that the PSR could never lead you astray!) Why the need for so many adjustments?

So may even say, well he didn't make the changes/adjustments to the endowment and all the other stuff, it was a committee of specially selected brethren/sisters. If he is not receive revelation to make the changes, why isn't he receiving revelation on such? The changes/adjustments smell of committee and special interest polling data. Why else would the church invite a gay choir to sing at the Washington D.C. Temple Christmas celebration or send representatives to the signing legislation in support of gay marriage? RMN licks his finger and to find out which way the wind is blowing and moves/adjusts in that direction.

[Teancum1]

One more question. RMN received all the changes/adjustments to the endowment and the sealing ceremony during the same period that he declared to the world that the clot shot as a "godsend" and "an answer to our prayers" and that the only way to combat the scourge of COVID was to take the shot, wear the mask, social distance, and close down the church. This direction has gotten some people killed and permanently negatively effected their health--myocarditis anyone. These things are not separate. How can anyone be so intune with the revelations of God and have made so many adjustments (over 100 announced changes/adjustments) to the church, yet not see the COVID plandemic for what it was/is? It is enough to make your head spin. They church must have been totally off course to need so many adjustments. (But I thought that the PSR could never lead you astray!) Why the need for so many adjustments?

So may even say, well he didn't make the changes/adjustments to the endowment and all the other stuff, it was a committee of specially selected brethren/sisters. If he is not receive revelation to make the changes, why isn't he receiving revelation on such? The changes/adjustments smell of committee and special interest polling data. Why else would the church invite a gay choir to sing at the Washington D.C. Temple Christmas celebration or send representatives to the signing legislation in support of gay marriage? RMN licks his finger and to find out which way the wind is blowing and moves/adjusts in that direction.

The adjustments are similar to boiling a frog. One adjustment at a time and in the long run you have created a new god with new commandments. Idol worship does the same thing. Attribute your adjustments to “revelation” and the faithful are slowly wrapped in flaxen cords.

[jack]

And even though presentation changes, the essential covenants and eternal principles do not change.

This is clearly not the case. Just 4 years ago a covenant, which had been part of the temple endowment since it's inception, was dropped.

Which one? The woman obeying the husband? That was moved into sealing ceremony under "preside" responsibility.

Same idea, different location.

Sum total -- unchanged.

This is non-sensical.

1. There is a significant portion of endowed women who will never marry.
2. These single women made this "covenant" under prior revisions.

You end up with a large group of people who unnecessarily took upon themselves a covenant that they could never keep during a "saving ordinance". By moving it to the sealing ceremony what you are really saying is that it never meant anything in the first place.

Or it meant something entirely different and most LDS miss it because they don't understand symbolism.

**As an aside, nobody seems to have noticed that the law of chastity isn't given until AFTER one has arrived in the Terrestrial world. If we are to believe D&C 76, adulterers don't make it out of the Telestial kingdom. So obviously, that covenant must be symbolic of something else as well.

[Obeone]

This is clearly not the case. Just 4 years ago a covenant, which had been part of the temple endowment since it's inception, was dropped.

Which one? The woman obeying the husband? That was moved into sealing ceremony under "preside" responsibility.

Same idea, different location.

Sum total -- unchanged.

This is non-sensical.

1. There is a significant portion of endowed women who will never marry.
2. These single women made this "covenant" under prior revisions.

You end up with a large group of people who unnecessarily took upon themselves a covenant that they could never keep during a "saving ordinance". By moving it to the sealing ceremony what you are really saying is that it never meant anything in the first place.

It did mean the same thing, no matter where it appears. But it becomes applicable only in marriage. Therefore it was moved to the marriage ceremony.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I have a question. For those of you who did make blood oaths (pre-1990 endowed), which version of the covenant/endowment do you keep? Do your covenants keep changing like the winds of doctrine the LDS org is currently huffing and puffing?

[Obeone]

I have a question. For those of you who did make blood oaths (pre-1990 endowed), which version of the covenant/endowment do you keep? Do your covenants keep changing like the winds of doctrine the LDS org is currently huffing and puffing?

The substance of the covenant is unchanged.
The penalties are not spelled out anymore.
But the substance is the same.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I have a question. For those of you who did make blood oaths (pre-1990 endowed), which version of the covenant/endowment do you keep? Do your covenants keep changing like the winds of doctrine the LDS org is currently huffing and puffing?

The substance of the covenant is unchanged.
The penalties are not spelled out anymore.
But the substance is the same.

No. If you are a pre-1990 endowed member, are you under the blood oaths? You answered w/ a non-answer. A yes or no will suffice.

[jack]

As Reluctant Watchman points out, there is an incoherent doctrine surrounding the temple endowment where certain things matter and then they don't. Despite being watered down repeatedly over the years, there is still enough information in the endowment to get its intended point across so long as people will see it. But sadly, probably not for much longer.

[Reluctant Watchman]

As Reluctant Watchman points out, there is an incoherent doctrine surrounding the temple endowment where certain things matter and then they don't. Despite being watered down repeatedly over the years, there is still enough information in the endowment to get its intended point across so long as people will see it. But sadly, probably not for much longer.

Do you really think that? Does holding up the scriptures and telling members the Law of the Gospel is in there somewhere, sufficient to enable a person to make such a covenant? And what of the other covenants... the Law of Consecration in particular? The church does not live nor do they teach this law.

[jack]

As Reluctant Watchman points out, there is an incoherent doctrine surrounding the temple endowment where certain things matter and then they don't. Despite being watered down repeatedly over the years, there is still enough information in the endowment to get its intended point across so long as people will see it. But sadly, probably not for much longer.

Do you really think that? Does holding up the scriptures and telling members the Law of the Gospel is in there somewhere, sufficient to enable a person to make such a covenant? And what of the other covenants... the Law of Consecration in particular? The church does not live nor do they teach this law.

I think so, yes. The endowment is an interesting beast. The endowment is completely unnecessary on one level and vitally important on another. The one practiced in the LDS temple is merely an invitation to go get the real thing. In that respect, yes, there is still enough information there to get the invitation across. Not that anyone but a few have noticed.

[Reluctant Watchman]

As Reluctant Watchman points out, there is an incoherent doctrine surrounding the temple endowment where certain things matter and then they don't. Despite being watered down repeatedly over the years, there is still enough information in the endowment to get its intended point across so long as people will see it. But sadly, probably not for much longer.

Do you really think that? Does holding up the scriptures and telling members the Law of the Gospel is in there somewhere, sufficient to enable a person to make such a covenant? And what of the other covenants... the Law of Consecration in particular? The church does not live nor do they teach this law.

I think so, yes. The endowment is an interesting beast. The endowment is completely unnecessary on one level and vitally important on another. The one practiced in the LDS temple is merely an invitation to go get the real thing. In that respect, yes, there is still enough information there to get the invitation across. Not that anyone but a few have noticed.

Are you ok w/ the 15 questions required to enter the doors?

I, obviously, don't think the laws are taught very well at all. I mean, you can't talk with anyone about the endowment, nor the laws, nor... anything, really. That is not a house of learning.

And, come on, the law of consecration was set forth and tried by the early saints. We don't even come close to teaching that law correctly. The Lord does not want you to consecrate to a Church.

[jack]

Do you really think that? Does holding up the scriptures and telling members the Law of the Gospel is in there somewhere, sufficient to enable a person to make such a covenant? And what of the other covenants... the Law of Consecration in particular? The church does not live nor do they teach this law.

I think so, yes. The endowment is an interesting beast. The endowment is completely unnecessary on one level and vitally important on another. The one practiced in the LDS temple is merely an invitation to go get the real thing. In that respect, yes, there is still enough information there to get the invitation across. Not that anyone but a few have noticed.

Are you ok w/ the 15 questions required to enter the doors?

I, obviously, don't think the laws are taught very well at all. I mean, you can't talk with anyone about the endowment, nor the laws, nor... anything, really. That is not a house of learning.

And, come on, the law of consecration was set forth and tried by the early saints. We don't even come close to teaching that law correctly. The Lord does not want you to consecrate to a Church.

Of course the laws aren't taught well in the temple. They are given mere minutes. Any average Sunday School class could do a better job. Indeed, there have been entire books written on the subject. But that's my point, the endowment as practiced in the LDS temples isn't an end in itself. Its merely an invitation to go get the real thing.

As for the temple recommend questions. I dunno. All I can say is "woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

[Reluctant Watchman]

Of course the laws aren't taught well in the temple. They are given mere minutes. Any average Sunday School class could do a better job. Indeed, there have been entire books written on the subject. But that's my point, the endowment as practiced in the LDS temples isn't an end in itself. Its merely an invitation to go get the real thing.

As for the temple recommend questions. I dunno. All I can say is "woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

So what's the point if you don't talk about them outside, nor inside, and discourage people from talking about them at all?

I think many of the 15 questions are an abomination. Especially when you peel the layers back and begin to understand how awful this practice is. The "sustaining" questions alone are straight-up idolatry, especially considering Nelson has taught that to sustain is an "oath-like covenant" to obey them. And the tithing question, and what they've done to the doctrine, is one of the most egregious and blatant forms of leadership corruption I've ever seen in a religion.

[jack]

Of course the laws aren't taught well in the temple. They are given mere minutes. Any average Sunday School class could do a better job. Indeed, there have been entire books written on the subject. But that's my point, the endowment as practiced in the LDS temples isn't an end in itself. Its merely an invitation to go get the real thing.

As for the temple recommend questions. I dunno. All I can say is "woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

So what's the point if you don't talk about them outside, nor inside, and discourage people from talking about them at all?

I think many of the 15 questions are an abomination. Especially when you peel the layers back and begin to understand how awful this practice is. The "sustaining" questions alone are straight-up idolatry, especially considering Nelson has taught that to sustain is an "oath-like covenant" to obey them. And the tithing question, and what they've done to the doctrine, is one of the most egregious and blatant forms of leadership corruption I've ever seen in a religion.

Your points are all valid and I don't disagree with them. My original point was that despite being watered down through multiple changes over time there is still enough there, for those who desire it, to take the invitation and then go get the real thing from God Himself. Just like so many individuals in the scriptures.

Edit to add: I personally don't see any reason to participate in the endowment any more. I had almost the exact same reaction as cab did in the very first post in this thread when I last attended.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Your points are all valid and I don't disagree with them. My original point was that despite being watered down through multiple changes over time there is still enough there, for those who desire it, to take the invitation and then go get the real thing from God Himself. Just like so many individuals in the scriptures.

Edit to add: I personally don't see any reason to participate in the endowment any more. I had almost the exact same reaction as cab did in the very first post in this thread when I last attended.

Where I get with all of this is that there should be truth there. I've read the endowment ceremony from the Nemenhah Record and it is beautiful. No penalties, it was taught to their children from the time they were young, no list of questions to enter, simply a willingness, and the temple was a true house of learning (tri-directional learning > you, spiritual leader, and God). By having such a beautiful and unified theology and actually living the precepts brought them together as a true Zion-like society.

[TwochurchesOnly]

I have a question. For those of you who did make blood oaths (pre-1990 endowed), which version of the covenant/endowment do you keep? Do your covenants keep changing like the winds of doctrine the LDS org is currently huffing and puffing?

I had written a long, thoughtful answer to your question - then lost it all when computer shut down/power off
it was good to get me thinking
the short answer is
I was "endowed" pre 1990
I was very young, naive, gullible
absolutely stunned -- no informed consent !
WTH ?? why wasnt I warned ? why did my family (for generations) and friends go along with this?!
of course there was the whole gag order/secret oath crap -- no talking about any of it, anywhere.
so I buried it all deep and went ahead with my life. It still bothered me. This was no gift/endowment !! no thanks
It took many years and life of waking up to learn that the lds temple endowment is nothing I need in my life and a colossal waste of time and resources. these fine sanctuaries take away focus and resources$$$$$$ and TRUTH from what I really need to be doing in this life and the only covenants that matter/needed are with God
I disavowed/"uncovenanted" all these false oaths (starting with the new name bs)
I strive to keep my baptismal covenant and endure (remain) in state of worthiness by doing the very things Christ commanded in BoM- and NT
and by which I will be judged -- seeking His image in my countenance, serving others, praying for Charity...
being worthy to have His spirit with me, IN me, as a Temple

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

Paul can say all he wants. If you think what Paul said means that women covenant to obey their husband, then he was wrong.

And as far as Genesis is concerned, again, if this had anything to do with a woman covenanting to obey a man, then something is wrong w/ either the historical translation or people’s interpretation of it.

Like I said, I believe the scriptures over the philosophies of men.

You believe your interpretation of a book.

Let’s test this theory.

Do you agree that when God joins a man and woman together in marriage that they enter a covenant relationship?

[Teancum1]

I have a question. For those of you who did make blood oaths (pre-1990 endowed), which version of the covenant/endowment do you keep? Do your covenants keep changing like the winds of doctrine the LDS org is currently huffing and puffing?

Pre 1990 here. I keep my baptismal covenant and am also seeking to have the Father baptized me with fire and the Holy Ghost- the real endowment of power. Purity in heart and mind and offering a broken heart and contrite spirit is what I’m attempting to do- with Gods grace and forgiveness.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Like I said, I believe the scriptures over the philosophies of men.

You believe your interpretation of a book.

Let’s test this theory.

Do you agree that when God joins a man and woman together in marriage that they enter a covenant relationship?

I’m sorry, I’m not interested in the philosophies of men.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

You believe your interpretation of a book.

Let’s test this theory.

Do you agree that when God joins a man and woman together in marriage that they enter a covenant relationship?

I’m sorry, I’m not interested in the philosophies of men.

You consider God joining a man and woman into a covenant relationship when they are married to be a philosophy of man?

That doesn’t surprise me.