This is a guest post from Cory….
This past week significant changes were made to the temple ceremonies. These changes are probably the most extensive since those made in 1990. Which raises an interesting question: do changes to these ordinances matter?
Members familiar with the history might answer this question in a variety of ways, and the answer may not be as simple as it first appears.[i] The issue is complicated by a statement made by Joseph Smith. He instructed: “ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.”[ii] If the temple ordinances are salvific, this charge does not seem to leave any room for modification. On the other hand, if the temple ordinances are meant to instruct and help bring us unto Christ, like the ordinances under the law of Moses, then changes may be permissible, unless they dilute or lose part of what the original ordinances was able to teach.
Church leaders are aware of this caution by Joseph. It is used in the current training videos for temple workers to encourage strict adherence to temple policies and to avoid “temple drift.”[iii] Temple drift is a term coined to refer to minor variations in performance of the ordinances. Great care is taken to ensure that temple workers do not innovate. The concern over temple drift is understandable. Minor modifications over time led to changes of ordinances in historic Christianity. As an example, the difference between baptism by immersion and baptism of infants by sprinkling can be traced to small steps taken over time and for seemingly good reasons.
God is not bound to honor that which varies from His word or what He has established. Isaiah testified of the last days: “The earth also is defiled unto the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore, hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left” (Isaiah 24:5). This dire prediction is reminiscent of the warning Moroni gave Joseph Smith recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 2, which is a foundation of our modern temple work: “If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming” (D&C 2:3).
It is clear that covenants and ordinances are a serious matter with the Lord and not something to trifle with. Some view the cumulative changes to the endowment and initiatory as significant enough to render the current versions corrupted and in direct violation of Joseph’s warning. One the other hand, Joseph left Brigham a charge to finish up and refine the original ceremony. Joseph also never had the completed Nauvoo Temple to work with. He began the work but did not seem to complete it. (From the description of Facsimile No. 2 in the Book of Abraham, it appears that there was and is yet more to come. Whether that would have been given by Joseph in the Nauvoo Temple is unknown.) In any case, it appears that the endowment we have today is not fully complete or finished (see, for example, Figures 8 – 11, Facsimile No. 2). Brigham completed the charge received from Joseph and felt that things were “pretty correct” but not perfect, even towards the end of his life. Future leaders continued to make refinements to the ceremonies in the same spirit.
Some members believe or assume that these changes were all made by direct revelation and therefore in full accordance with the Lord’s will. This could provide a nice solution to the dilemma. However, a potential problem with this approach is that, with only one exception, none of those responsible ever claimed a revelation dictating the changes.[iv] (However, there is a brief statement read before the current endowment that the current changes were made as a result of revelation and authorization from the Lord. This is a departure from past practices.) Even in the case of the 1990 changes, a letter was read explaining that changes were made by those who held the keys to do so but no mention was made of any revelation or direction from the Lord. It therefore requires an assumption to take the position that all of these changes were all dictated by the Lord.
If everything was given by direct revelation, then why did Brigham Young add things that were later denounced and removed? Why was there need for ongoing revision, if it was all by revelation from the start? One could argue the Lord reveals things line upon line, but that process is usually additive in nature. We are given more over time. In this case, many things have been eliminated. We have less than earlier generations, not more. And with all of these changes, corrections, additions, and subtractions, we might yet ask: is the endowment perfect today? Or will more be corrected or changed in the future?
On one occasion, I heard a temple president express his opinion that these changes do not matter. I agree and disagree with him. In some respects, the endowment has not ever been and is probably still not perfect or complete. Removing some things, such as the oath of vengeance which never belonged in the first place, seems completely appropriate. Likewise, some feel that there are still vestiges of patriarchy and polygamy that similarly do not belong and should be changed. Viewing the endowment ceremony as an imperfect work in progress certainly might help resolve these concerns.
On the other hand, some of the changes seem to more directly alter the ordinances as established by Joseph Smith. For instance, the original penalties of the endowment were later modified and then completely removed. In the process, we may have lost something of importance that the endowment could teach us. As another example, the initiatory ordinances have been significantly altered. Personally, I prefer administering them in the new manner and am happy to see the vastly increased participation in these beautiful ordinances as patrons are more comfortable now. But I am also grateful that I received the initiatory for myself in the old manner. I do not know if I would have understood it as well if I had only experienced it after 2005.
The question as to whether these changes matter is one you should ponder for yourself and take to the Lord. I do not feel, or wish to seem, critical of those who have had stewardship of these things in the past or the decisions they made. I raise these questions because the answers may not be as cut and dried as we might assume. The Lord’s feelings and views may be different from our own. And I think these things are worth careful thought and consideration.
Regardless of how you see these issues, great value can be obtained in the temple ordinances and in temple worship today. The Lord’s Spirit is there and those who attend regularly can attest to the blessing the temple is in their lives. We cannot change and are not responsible for the past, but we are responsible for how we receive the things that are made available to us. We need to accept in faith all that we have been left by Joseph Smith. We cannot expect to receive anything more from the Lord if we are unwilling to receive what is already here. The present temple ceremonies may not be perfect, but they are what is offered us today. Our faith in receiving them matters. For many years, I have attended the temple weekly. That experience changed my life and my heart, made me a better person, blessed my marriage, and brought me closer to my Savior. It will similarly bless all who come to worship there regularly and sincerely.
I would also remind you of the situation the Lord’s apostles at Jerusalem found themselves in after His death. At that point in time, the existing church hierarchy and priesthood leadership had become so corrupt that they opposed Christ. Caiaphas was serving as the High Priest, and he and his father-in-law, Annas, had been active participants in the events culminating in the Lord’s death. The temple itself had become defiled and corrupted. Twice during the Lord’s ministry, He had personally cleansed it. He lamented over Jerusalem and declared that their house was left desolate (see Matthew 23:27). And in less than 40 years, their temple would be completely destroyed by the Romans.
Yet, in the midst of this awful condition, in the days following the Lord’s death, his disciples were “continually in the temple, praising and blessing God” (Luke 24:53). Despite the corruption and apostasy, for these disciples the temple remained a holy place where they could worship God. The situation is reminiscent of the Lord’s parable concerning the Pharisee and the publican who went up to the temple to pray (see Luke 18:10-14). One was accepted and the other was not. Our individual faith and sincerity in seeking God matters greatly. Perhaps the same temple can be a holy place for one, while being profaned by another as the Lord deals with us individually.
Whichever version of the ordinances you received and are familiar with may ultimately be far less important than how you receive and act upon what you are offered in the temple. Our individual attitude and response matters. To some, the temple rites are meaningless. This is more a reflection of their own spiritual preparedness or lack thereof than it is of the inherent value of the endowment. Others may view the endowment as imparting some authoritative hall-pass for the afterlife and give little thought to further effort beyond learning things well enough to pass through the ceremony. A few may feel that some superior status is bestowed by temple ordinances. They see themselves as being chosen or better than others by virtue of being endowed and are thus lead to pride and arrogance. That attitude separates us from God and from light and truth. It potentially turns the rites into a tragic misstep rather than a divine blessing.
On the other hand, if you understand that the temple rites communicate information through symbols and are designed to instruct us in the things of God, and if you approach the temple in a spirit of humility and a desire to learn, then the endowment is a great blessing. Once we grasp the meaning, however, we must actually live the endowment in our daily lives in order to receive the promised blessings. Seeking further light and knowledge is essential in this process. So is actually conversing with the Lord, not just through ritual but in reality. The endowment is to give us faith and confidence to make the journey.
While being respectful of the temple, and not discussing things that would be inappropriate, what do you think of changing the temple ordinances? Do the changes matter? Why or why not?
Please discuss, but again with appropriate respect for the
sacred nature of the topic.
[i] For a brief review of these past changes see Chapter 8 “Historical Context” of the author’s latest book, Completing Your Endowment. You can download a free copy at www.templeendowment.com.
[ii] TPJS, 308.
[iii] The current Church training video for temple workers attributes the statement that ordinances are not to be altered or changed to President James E. Faust; however, he was quoting the original statement from Joseph Smith.
[iv] The one exception was when Wilford Woodruff discontinued the law of adoption, which organized families according to priesthood and instead replaced it with the practice of sealing to one’s progenitors. He claimed this change was a result of revelation.
Wheat & Tares 
We have records on Brigham Young, at least. He argued from logic rather than revelation on the matters currently changed (something Maxine Hanks and others have pointed out).
It is refreshing to read Brigham Young openly discussions on how many things were logic based and had no revelation. Or his discussion about how if you wanted to set an appointment to ask him if he was wrong about things he had preached, don’t waste your time—he probably was and was admitting that now to save the saints the trouble.
Or how he would speculate on a doctrine publicly to learn from the feedback he felt, from the audience and the Spirit, before speculating again (which leaves us with public addresses that aren’t consistent on the same point).
We need a reminder of the complexity of the process.
We focus on:
◄ Exodus 33:11 ►
New International Version
The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.
New Living Translation
Inside the Tent of Meeting, the LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Afterward Moses would return to the camp, but the young man who assisted him, Joshua son of Nun, would remain behind in the Tent of Meeting.
English Standard Version
Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
But we don’t focus on the verses that discuss how God spoke to other prophets or how unusual Moses was or those on how God gave the people what they were willing to receive rather than the complete substance.
The endowment is a gift — it is and always has been. We should accept it as a gift, with appreciation, graciousness, and thanksgiving.
Some would make a distinction between the “ordinances” and the instructional content of LDS temple ceremonies. They are not sure anything in the 2019 changes changed the “ordinances”. How such a distinction applies to the covenants, some of which are reported to be changed, may be more difficult. But the former presence of the oath of vengeance (which my faithful grandparents would have taken — requiring to teach such vengeance on the United States to the 3d and 4th generation, which they did not do) and its removal in the 1930s is clear and appropriate evidence that the specific covenant language is not sacrosanct forever. Indeed, the argument goes that some covenants are so unexplained or 19th century culture based (no loud laughter) that their words are not to be taken over-seriously in 21st century American English. If there is anything to that argument, then it would seem that changes to the language of the covenants is not a change to any eternal aspect of the “ordinances.” I’m not sure what to think of those arguments.
We have such a vast body of knowledge and scripture on the process but we seem to want to ignore it all.
[that said, the new endowment is better than anything I could have written].
But to quote Nibley:
“The ordinances are mere forms. They do not exalt us; they merely prepare us to be ready in case we ever become eligible.”
Cory, thank you for your post. Count me as one who isn’t in love with the endowment ceremony as it symbolizes to me the most cultic features of the Church. I disliked it when I received my endowment two decades ago and I’m still no big fan as a current temple recommend holder. I see it mainly as Joseph’s attempt to coopt Masonic ritual as a vehicle for binding the insider Saints in Nauvoo more closely to himself (whether that was primarily to allow for an expansion of polygamy, I leave to those with a deeper understanding of the Nauvoo period). I’m also sure that wasn’t his only motive, but I find the endowment to be a bit of a Rorschach test when it comes to the use of symbolism in the ceremony. Each part, feature, or item in the endowment can mean practically anything the endowee can imagine, especially because we don’t discuss the symbolism in any depth outside the temple. I’m not denying that symbolism isn’t important, but I’ve heard people come to radically different conclusions about the symbolism of the same feature of the endowment.
As to additional changes, I would recommend removing the remaining ceremonial clothing as it doesn’t appear to serve a crucial function (some may disagree). I would also set up “presentation only” sessions that would cut out the instruction and allow for more of the deceased to receive their endowment more quickly (a layup line so to speak to borrow a basketball term). I have to imagine the endowment is a huge bottleneck for the dead to be sealed to their families.
“To some, the temple rites are meaningless. This is more a reflection of their own spiritual preparedness or lack thereof than it is of the inherent value of the endowment.”
My wife was never comfortable with the temple ceremonies – over time I came to understand her view after she pointed out to me how those ceremonies came across as decreasing a women’s worth in the sight of God. It became much better to regard those parts as an artifact of uninspired 19th century thinking, in other words “meaningless”. This conflicted, however, with prevailing views that she was unrighteous for her thinking. People could say it was a reflection of her lack of spiritual preparedness. In fact they did.
Now the church has eliminated virtually every issue she had with the ceremony. That’s nice. But she endured a lot of angst trying to reconcile her views of what she felt was right with what leaders told her she should believe. Considering the changes in the endowment over time, I think it is a bit much to continue gas-lighting people as spiritually unprepared if they don’t see the same “inherent” value of the endowment as others.
I think we generally underestimate the importance of priesthood keys. My thoughts about keys changed after reading Turner’s biography of Brigham Young actually.. what I think now is that basically the Key holder can change whatever he wants, and God honors that. It is power & authority given by God to an individual to direct & govern the work.. a bit like to Nephi in Helaman 10. God in many ways steps back, and allows the prophet / SP / Bishop to direct (within their sphere), because of the trust that He has in that servant.
Not a Cougar – have you ever read Nibley’s books about the temple? Egyptian endowment, or Temple and Cosmos? curious.
It’s interesting to think about what it means to be a have an ordinance, or ceremony, that is supposed to be unchanging eternally when the language that is used to perform the ordinance is constantly in flux.
Case in point: a few years back, the Oxford English Dictionary added a definition for “literally” that was literally the opposite of its other former definitions. When language is in such a state of linguistic flux, what does it mean to have an unchanging ordinance?
On the other hand, this is a rather tangential comment because the changes recently made appear to not be driven by changes in language. They might be a result of changes in culture.
I want to get this, I really, really do. I’ve been praying about it for thirty years, and the only answers revealed to me are ‘ be kind ‘, and ‘ be good to your brothers and sisters ‘.
I do gain a greater sense of perspective from the temple, but the work of life is pretty practical to me, and all my searching out of Nibley and others just tells me that other civilisations found their own ways of imagining the infinite journey, often similarly to our own current temple experience. I’m not sure what knowledge that gives me.
The bits that bugged me have changed, and I guess that is a vindication of where my head comes from, but other than that, like Not a Cougar, it seems to largely be in the eye of the beholder .
I’m open to any education anyone may wish to give me, but I’m not sure that anything has actually changed other than an opportunity for us to change our own hearts.
Perhaps that has always been the point, but it would help if that were made more explicit.
I think it’s very hard to make sense of this change (and many other changes) from a fundamentalistic mindset. Meaning, what we had before was God breathed. And now the changes are God breathed. Now we have to figure out what kind of a God operates like this. I much prefer to look at it in the sense that Joseph might have had a flash of revelation/inspiration in coming up with the original concept, but it also included all kinds of time and place cultural nonsense that humans always do. Over time, smarter and more evolved humans are coming by to identify what needs to be fixed. God is in there. But not pulling the strings like a puppet master.
I’m not sure we are necessarily “smarter and more evolved”.. Maybe we just have different customs and culture. The meanings of various symbols, like veil, change over time. How much might presentism play a role? What offends us today might be totally different from what offended a person in another age. I wonder if someone from another time in history might be put off by these recent changes. The ceremony is periodically updated to better fit within it’s time and place.
what about the covenants we have previously made, as they change, to what are we still bound? sealings, for instance, with the new changes–we all need vow renewals? (asked tongue in cheek but something i’m pondering)
Sadly, those women who went through before these changes still need to obey their husbands as they hearken to the Lord. They still have not gained equality.
I had a professor at BYU who had a hypothesis that the ancient version of the endowment used a war metaphor as it’s organizing theme, rather than creation. He had good reasons for this theory, but he either didn’t explain them or I don’t remember. But the interesting point to me was that, while they were the same ordinances in that they involved the aecond covenants and blessings, but the expression of those were conveyed through symbolism that made sense to people in their historical context.
There are a lot of ritual aspects of the ordinances that are not essential, but help convey the truths connected to the covenant. We baptize people dressed in white, but this aspect isn’t essential. Immersion in water is a pretty universal symbol across time and culture, so the symbolism in that is unlikely to change. But we’ve seen ordinances fundamentally change in form before. Animal sacrifice was replaced by the Holy Supper, but the covenants of the sacrifices continued in the new form.
I see the modern Temple ordinances in a similar way. Earlier prophets of the restoration received the essential elements and put them in a form the best they could for their time. Over time, the form changes to both correct imperfections and adapt to a changing context.
We don’t know, or have any idea what Joseph actually did in his ceremonial rituals. We only have Brigham’s formal “refinements”
There is no written text of Joseph’s ritual. Descriptions, but nothing verbatim. Everything I’ve studied- and it’s been a lifetime of study- indicates that Brigham formalized everything from his (and others) memory after the martyrdom. And grief and trauma have impact on the memory and interpretation.
Are covenants and ordinances mechanically bound in performance, or founded in priniciple? I would venture that they are more fliexible than we imagine, provided that the symbolism, principles, and authority are consistent. Remove one of those three legs and issues occur. But metaphorically, you can design many 3 legged stools that serve the same function.
Ancient version of the endowment? I missed that part in the Bible. I can see how Israel covenanted with God throughout the Old Testament, I can also see Jesus instituting the sacrament, the higher law and formally making baptism and the Holy Ghost a part of conversion. I guess I could buy that God has always required some version of the things we currently covenant to ( sacrifice, obedience, higher law or the law of the gospels, law of chastity, law of consecration), and how keeping those covenants one would be endowed with power from on high and promised temporal and eternal blessings. However, if you expect me to believe that they had a temple ceremony that was anything remotely similar to what we do today in temples, I am going to have to see some evidence of that claim.
The biggest evidence against your claim is simply looking at the ceremony that took place in the Kirtland temple. It is nothing like what was introduced in Nauvoo, but contained many of the same covenants that Joseph thought God wanted his people to make in this dispensation.
Of course, I could be wrong about all of this too and if I am wrong, please correct me.
I have a hard time believing that baptism was even a requirement to ancient Israel. Obviously a group of them had started doing it some time prior to Jesus coming on the scene. I am pretty sure modern Jews don’t get baptized as part of the covenant today. So to say that Isaiah was baptized 800 BC and then received the Holy Ghost and then got ordained a deacon, teacher, priest, and Elder prior to going to the temple to receive his own endowment is a bit hilarious. I think the word restoration screws a lot of people up in trying to understand the Bible.
Trying this again as my prior comment is held up in moderation. So please delete my prior comment.
Thanks for the post. Some good points. I don’t think the changes to the endowment that have been made now, or in the past (and that certainly will be made in the future), are problematic. The procedural aspects of the endowment have always been in a constant flux. The endowment, in my opinion, is not a required ordinance to reach “heaven” but rather a gift. More on that below. The Prophet Joseph seems to have received revelation on the endowment with no instructional manual on how to teach the gift or doctrine. So he came up with his teaching methods, including borrowing from other organizations to which he was a member. The gift, or the knowledge taught in the temple, has not changed. The procedural aspects of teaching it certainly have. If there is one thing that never changes in our church, it is that things are always changing.
For ordinances, the scriptures teach that, as far as “required ordinances” goes, to reach “heaven,” or the Celestial Kingdom in our speak, one must only accept Christ by having faith, exercising that faith unto repentance, being baptized, and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost. For exaltation, or to maintain marital relationships etc. in “heaven,” the sealing is also performed. As far as the endowment (including washings/anointing), that ordinance is a gift. Certainly a powerful gift. One that can help us in our coming to Christ. But not necessary to reach the Celestial Kingdom.
And of course the overlying principle on top of all ordinances is that in all reality the only thing that saves us is Christ, His grace, and his atonement. No other name, including the name “baptism,” “endowment,” etc. The ordinances don’t “save us,” only Christ does. So why are the ordinances required? I tend to think along the lines of Givens that the ordinances are our acting in faith to demonstrate our forming a partnership with Christ, and accepting Him etc. That makes sense to me after reading the New Testament accounts of baptisms, including in Acts, and the baptisms in the Book of Mormon. Clearly an ordinance that the Apostles/prophets in both the New Testament taught and the Book of Mormon. And Christ himself. I may be wrong. Glad we can all share.
I welcome the changes. For years, the Church has been publicly preaching the value of husbands and wives being equal partners. It’s in the Family Proclamation, which has been around for almost 25 years. However, the narrative of some temple covenants did not match that message, at least not until a few days ago. The change may have happened quickly and without warning, but it will still take some time to get over the years of cognitive dissonance, even if it is an overwhelmingly positive change.
Zach,
You’re reading a lot more into my comment than I said, and you even seem to agree with my assertion that the form of ordinances can change somewhat drastically with time. I’m also not sure how the Kirtland/Nauvoo comparison proves your point.
As for evidence of an ancient endowment, see below. It’s super speculative, but it’s something. I don’t pretend to know much on the topic; I was just passing on what someone who has thought about it said and my own related observations.
https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2016/05/25/case-ancient-temple-ordinances
I welcome the changes but it does raise the question of prophetic revelation. It appears to be a very flawed process since they have to keep making changes. This would be ok if they had not said many times they will never lead us astray. Clearly, they are more than capable of leading people astray if they only see through the glass darkly when getting revelation. I just think the church would be a more positive and welcoming place if leaders could be more honest.
“to say that Isaiah was baptized 800 BC and then received the Holy Ghost and then got ordained a deacon, teacher, priest, and Elder prior to going to the temple to receive his own endowment is a bit hilarious.”
Who said this?
Sorry Dsc, I didn’t mean to read too much into your comment. I had this same argument with a member of my stake presidency because of a comment I made in GD that the I believe temple ceremony is not history and Peter James and John most likely did not appear to Adam and Eve and give them tokens and signs. I think I was taking my frustrations out and didn’t mean to direct it towards you. I did not down vote you, but I did read the article you linked and find it very unconvincing. The author calls me out as anti-Mormon because I don’t believe the temple ceremony is ancient. I realize that in the last conference president Nelson said he does believe they are ancient, so it is probably wise to side with him. I’m just a dumb farmer.
MH, I probably got rambling a bit. In the Pearl of Great Price, Moses chapter 6 verses 51-68 claims that Adam was baptized and ordained after the order of God. Most members consider this scripture to be literal. That would mean that the ordinance of baptism was taught to father Adam and presumably passed down to Noah and then Abraham and the house of Israel would have been practicing baptism from Moses down to the birth of Christ. I just don’t think that jives with what I have read in the Old Testament. I randomly picked Isaiah to use as my example, because I believe I read that a sect started baptizing 600 BC as part of a ritual cleaning and annointing and Isaiah lived before that time.
I personally don’t think the rituals matter that much. I value the covenants that I have made. They have protected me and have been some pretty valuable guidelines in my life. If I found out that anciently, they did the exact some rituals that we do, or if they did different rituals to bind themselves to God, it is the same to me. I just think it is easier to study and learn the Old Testament if we don’t try to see them as Mormons. At least we should recognize when we talk to people of other religions that these beliefs of Adam getting baptized and our beliefs of what was going on the temples anciently because it has been restored to us, is going to sound foreign to them and cannot be backed up using the Bible.
I think that scripture, liturgy, revelation is all bound up in cultural context. It always has been. God would be a poor communicator if he tried to communicate with ancient Israelites the way he communicates with us today, and vise versa. Just look at Genesis 1, which is clearly informed by an ancient worldview of how the cosmos was ordered. It’s very different than our understanding. So why didn’t God just give them the truth? Because it would have meant nothing to them- it would have been unrecognizable.
Like the Sabbath, the liturgy is made for us, not us for the liturgy, and so it needs to speak in a semiotic system that we understand. Joseph’s contemporaries fully understood how the Masonic symbols we’re functioning- they were also Mason’s! This was part of their symbolic language. But as we move away from those symbols having resonance to modern temple patrons it makes perfect sense that they would be phased out.
As far as scripture is concerned, the ancient interpreters were continually repurposing the past to serve the needs of the present: the author of Chronicles did it, the authors of Deuteronomy did it, Matthew did it, Paul did it, Joseph Smith did it, and we do it now. This is one of the reasons why scripture is still so powerful and important. I don’t have a problem with scripture and liturgy getting overhauled and updated. It always has and it always will.
Zach,
Yikes, it’s weird that a) a member of your stake presidency thinks of the temple ceremony as history and b) that he would make a big fuss over the fact that you disagree. I guess I’ve never asked, but I always assumed that most people believed the temple drama to be allegorical. There are some lines in there that are so clearly anachronistic that I never even considered that it could be literal.
Dsc, Zach,
I’ve encountered a number of members who think the presentation of the endowment is a literal history. It is quite beyond me how they can possibly reconcile the portrayed actions of Peter with D&C 129 or the temple preparation manual: “The characters depicted, the physical setting, the clothing worn, the signs given, and all the events covered in the temple are symbolic.” It seems likely, they’ve never tried. With some of them, I have discovered that discussion is futile.
Dsc, Zach, JR–
The example of Peter is perhaps an interesting example. Prior to 1990, when Peter appeared on the scene there was also a Christian minister which clearly moved the drama to a more modern world setting and out of Adam and Eve’s time. Does the removal of the minister then lead to the confusion of the endowment as portraying ancient history? Do well intended changes sometimes have unintended consequences? And does our almost complete lack of discussion of the ordinances (even the parts we can discuss) add to the problem? The issue of Peter, James and John is such a common point of confusion that I spent a portion of my book on it.
The other very interesting point to consider is the difference between the temple ordinances at Kirtland and later at Nauvoo. If you are interested in that topic I spent two chapters on it. Again see the link above in footnote 1 for a free download.
How could we better prepare people for their temple experience (especially young men and young women)?
Cory, if we’re not open to more changes to the ordinance and accompanying clothing, I would like us to explicitly tell the young man or young woman what covenants will be made, the ceremonial clothing that will be worn, and a general explanation of tokens and signs, their significance, and why this type of ritual is completely absent from our non-temple worship. When I first heard the word “token,” I had no idea what was being referenced. Explanation would have helped greatly.
I would also like to see leaders push to make 100% clear that all things in the temple are symbols only and not a reflection of historical events. Yes, there is language to that effect in the temple prep manual, but it was certainly skipped over during my class (and I didn’t have access to a manual at the time).
Cory, for some the confusion as to ancient history preceded the removal of the non-LDS preacher from the script. His presence should have made it clear to them that the presentation was not historical, but did not, I suppose for the same reason discussion with them proved futile.
” And does our almost complete lack of discussion of the ordinances (even the parts we can discuss) add to the problem?” Yes it does. And there are many who think there are no parts or what goes on in the temple that we can discuss. See, e.g., Clark’s comments on the subject over at Times and Seasons. See also the recent First Presidency statement on the 2019 changes. Part of that confusion may lie in the unanswered question what is meant by “ordinance” in that statement. It seems that even the title to your post here presumes that changes to covenants and, I suppose, changes to the language and manner of presentation of instruction are changes to the “ordinances.” I remain unconvinced either way.
“of” not “or” — more autocorrect sabotage not timely corrected by me!
Incidentally, gone with the non-LDS preacher is the hymn singing as part of a 19th century American revival congregation listening to him. I only ever heard/participated in 2 hymns used that way — “Onward Christian Soldiers” and, I think, “Brethren, we have met to worship” (Holy Manna). The first was always confusing as it seemed the intent was to ridicule non-LDS revivals by using a hymn still widely sung by the LDS. The second, an old text to an early American folk hymntune, was always confusing, at least from the time of the 1948/1950 LDS hymnal, because without familiarity from participating at the temple, those raised LDS has no idea of the text or tune, but were somehow expected to participate in the singing. Good riddance — I prefer Mack Wilberg’s version..
Note: my memory may be wrong as to the identity of the second of the two hymn choices, but it is clear as to the nature and effect of its use. In his effort to use early American hymns, Mack Wilberg has done an arrangement of Holy Manna for the men of the Tabernacle Choir and the Orchestra at Temple Square. You can find it on youtube. His tempo is about twice the usual tempo and about 3 times as fast as the mournful attempts to sing it in the temple. I’m guessing from my incomplete research that it never appeared in an LDS hymnal, but the tune, with a different text, did appear in the Reorganized LDS hymnal.
Not only does the ritual depict the apostles and (formerly) the preacher in the Garden with Adam and Eve, but it still depicts the entire posterity of Adam and Eve (ie, the company of temple patrons, including you and me and everyone represented by proxy) in the Garden with them also, although our presence in the Garden is less obvious in the filmed version of the endowment. I don’t think we were all there historically.
A few years ago, my wife and I made a commitment (which we earnestly kept) to go to the Temple twice a week for the entire year. At the end of the year – we were quite proud of that accomplishment.
About 2/3 of the way through the performance of this I became intensely curious as to where the endowment had come from. Consequently, I approached two (of what I perceived to be) senior Temple workers: just outside the Celestial Room – and asked them if they could tell me where and when the “endowment ceremony” was revealed to Joseph Smith. The looked at me “like I had crabs crawling out of my ears”.
After exchanging a nervous glance between themselves, they both turned to me and said “We have no idea!”. I was stunned. How could they not know where this ceremony of all ceremonies came from?!
Well, this response (of course) did nothing but inflame my curiosity – and I’ve spent the last few years doing a deep dive into this question.
It has been most helpful to gain an appreciation for how deeply, and multi-generationallly, Joseph and his family were tied, and schooled in Masonry: and Masonic rituals. This study lead me to a book titled “Illustrations of Masonry” : published in 1826 – and which had caused a great stir throughout upper New York and New England for years in the early 1800s. It is entirely logical to assume that Joseph and his family had access to this book.
Anyway, I found a copy and contained therein (to a large degree) is the core of the Temple Endowment which so many of us have historically been exposed to. (Of course names and nomenclature has been changed – but the tokens, signs and penalties – are all there.
There’s no question in my mind that the entire endowment is symbolic in nature: and it’s core purpose has been to “tie people together – through promises made there” and to provide a sense of “uniqueness to the group participating”.
As for being Heaven sent….well, I personally no longer think it was.
Lefthandloafer,
You’ve told false stories here before. I don’t believe your Temple worker story now. I think it’s a story you made up or embellished to make yourself look enlightened and the temple worker look ignorant.
As for a book on Masonry, you appear to argue too much. Joseph Smith was was initiated as a Mason before the implementation of the Endowment. Latter-day Saint historians have long acknowledged an influence. You don’t need to pretend you know something others don’t by pointing to an 1826 publication that is now widely available on the Internet and points to the same superficial similarities between the endowment and Masonic ritual as has been discussed in academic circles for decades.
You can read all about it here: https://www.lds.org/study/history/topics/masonry?l=eng
“If everything was given by direct revelation, then why did Brigham Young add things that were later denounced and removed?” I have to think that if Joseph had a Urim & Thummim, Brigham had a bad idea generator, and he kept it cranking day & night: the Deseret Alphabet, sugar production from beets, cohabitational polygamy, the priesthood ban, the prediction we’d have missionaries on the moon, etc, etc. I appreciate that he seemed to (in many instances) admit that he was no prophet (although being an apostle was more powerful anyway–prophet wasn’t an office, after all, just president was). And yet, here we are, still shoveling out the muck he left behind.
DSC: you act like a petulant little child: when anyone expresses an opinion different than yours. This really is a childish and immature behavior. – which you really should grow out of. Express your opinions as you will – and at least have the maturity to allow others to do the same.
As for the truth of my story – I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I’m just narrating my own life story: not anyone else’s.
Please stop being a dick.
Cory, out of curiosity, are you an attorney?
Truckers Atlas, no I am not an attorney.
Lefthandloafer, I found your account about
Illustrations of Masonry (1826) interesting, so looked it up and found some additional information.
Turns out the author, Captain Willam Morgan, was an anti-Mason when he wrote it. He disappeared shortly after and was presumed murdered. Three Masons were later convicted of kidnapping him.
His widow, Lucinda Pendleton, married George Washington Harris in 1830. They joined the church in 1834 and were living in Far West in 1838. Joseph Smith and his family stayed with the Harris’s for two months when they arrived in Far West. Both families later moved to Nauvoo.
Records show Lucinda was sealed to Joseph Smith by proxy in the Nauvoo Temple on January 22, 1846.
Jesus never said one iota about temple ordinances. Baptism is sufficient to show to yourself that you sincerely desire to have God in your life. Temple is just mumbo jumbo magic talk. You can find sacredness almost anywhere. I felt greatest ever sitting on my back porch Diet Coke in hand and the psalms in the other, basking in the shade of my trees while knowing I was sluffing Sunday school and missing the idiotic comments, God and I communed. Each time I went to the temple over the years I felt all self-righteous once I walked out. Colossal waste of time and resources to the earth. How much better if all that the temple consumes could be put to betterment of the downtrodden of “living” on the earth. Sorry if this is insensitive to what others find sacred but my experience I feel should be part of the discussion.
Found this week to be somewhat frustrating as information dribbled out painfully slowly on this side of the Atlantic. We haven’t had access to the SLT, amongst other US newspapers, for a very long time now, though they’re still promising they’ll be back (something to do with now old EU legislation), and I’m wondering if that’ll actually be this century, as I haven’t been able to read any PFS for an age, and I loved her articles.
I think I now picked up enough clues to work it out from the various posts, but those initial posts that were either celebrating, or not celebrating without explaining the context, because apparently we were all supposed to know somehow, were very frustrating.
So my thanks go to Geoff-Aus for his very clear comment on the first Sisters Quorum post.
Lefthandloafer,
I act like a petulant child? Because I said I don’t believe you? Is expressing disagreement now petulance? Isn’t that practically all you do here?
You previously lied that the Church did “literally nothing” to help you when you were out of work, despite there being multiple programs from the Church that were available to you. Your personal stories are unverifiable, but they always seem to cast you as a Mary Sue; a heroic victim with no flaws.
You constantly post hackneyed, mean-spirited and factually deficient comments, but I’m the one that needs to stop being a dick? Sure.
Confirmation: DSC = Petulant Child
pet·u·lant
/ˈpeCHələnt/Submit
adjective
(of a person or their manner) childishly sulky or bad-tempered.
“he was moody and petulant”
synonyms: peevish, bad-tempered, querulous, pettish, fretful, cross, irritable, sulky, snappish, crotchety, touchy, tetchy, testy, fractious, grumpy, disgruntled, crabby; informalgrouchy, cranky
“he’s as petulant as a spoiled child”
Lefthandloafer,
Pots and kettles and the like.
“Sadly, those women who went through before these changes still need to obey their husbands as they hearken to the Lord. “
My household would be vastly better off financially had this oath been obeyed.
I would like to hear what you all think about the changes now in 2021