The Mormon Temple Ceremony

  • Thread starter Thread starter SirThomasMore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SirThomasMore

Guest
I came across this website that shows the script to the current LDS Temple Ceremony with comparisons to the Pre-1990 (when I attended the temple) ceremony. I find the changes very interesting.
  1. Women no longer have to pledge to obey their husbands.
  2. When Michael (who is Adam) and Jehova are sent to create the world, they no are told as they did in other worlds they created.
  3. Satan no longer says he will ruin the world by buying Popes and Priests.
  4. They change the priest-looking person, who is the agent of the devil
  5. They no longer have to pledge to kill themselves and have blood oaths.
These are just a few. It makes me wonder, if the ceremony I used to attend was give by God, why did God change? Is it to appear more mainstream? Is it because, in the age of technologu, the temple ceremony became to widespread and people began Mormons for what they were?

It seems the LDS God changes when he finds himself in trouble.

lds-mormon.com/compare.shtml
 
SirThomasMore said:
I came across this website that shows the script to the current LDS Temple Ceremony with comparisons to the Pre-1990 (when I attended the temple) ceremony. I find the changes very interesting.
  1. Women no longer have to pledge to obey their husbands.
  2. When Michael (who is Adam) and Jehova are sent to create the world, they no are told as they did in other worlds they created.
  3. Satan no longer says he will ruin the world by buying Popes and Priests.
  4. They change the priest-looking person, who is the agent of the devil
  5. They no longer have to pledge to kill themselves and have blood oaths.
These are just a few. It makes me wonder, if the ceremony I used to attend was give by God, why did God change? Is it to appear more mainstream? Is it because, in the age of technologu, the temple ceremony became to widespread and people began Mormons for what they were?

It seems the LDS God changes when he finds himself in trouble.

lds-mormon.com/compare.shtml
Click to expand...
I know there have been several changes to this over the years. Many people have discussed/admitted to that.

What I am wondering is…Prior to 1978, was there anything in it about blacks and the curse of Cain?

I would love to see what it looked like prior to that revelation.
 
There have also been changes to the washing and anointing ceremony, as recently as 2005. This site and this one talk about the changes. I would have been totally freaked out by the old washing and anointing ceremony.
 
I doubt you will have any LDS explain or refute your questions. They are not allowed to discuss the contents of the secre…I mean sacred ceremony.

Unfortunately, it is not something that is open for debate, to them.
 
scipio337 said:
I doubt you will have any LDS explain or refute your questions. They are not allowed to discuss the contents of the secre…I mean sacred ceremony.

Unfortunately, it is not something that is open for debate, to them.
Click to expand...
That is true. But they can discuss certain things like changes without specifcally mentioning the ceremony.
 
Here is one mormon explanation:

Question

Latter-day Saints believe that the Temple endowment is an eternal ordinance that Joseph Smith received by revelation from God. Why, then, have changes been made to it several times since it was first revealed?

See also: Source(s) of the criticism
Response

God’s directives and how He deals with His people may vary according to His people’s understanding and needs. God doesn’t tell everyone to build an ark and wait for a flood. Changes sometimes occur as a result of God dealing with His children according to their changing circumstances.

We know that major changes in practices took place during Jesus Christ’s ministry. Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and practices associated with that law were no longer necessary. Changes also took place after Christ’s earthly ministry. For example, Christ originally taught the gospel only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Matt. 15:24) and forbade His apostles from going to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5–6). After Jesus’ death Peter was commanded by an angel to take the gospel to all people (Acts 10, Acts 11; Matt 28:19). Following Jesus Christ’s mortal ministry the practice of circumcision also became unnecessary (Acts 15, Galatians 6:15). Changes in the Church are sometimes necessary. Such changes, however, must be done by inspiration or revelation from the head of the Church, who is Jesus Christ.

There are absolute truths and relative truths. Absolute truths (such as: God lives and Jesus is the Christ) do not change. Relative truths or practices (such as: circumcision, plural marriage, and age of priesthood ordination) do change. Many relative truths deal with procedural issues, and how absolute truths are presented, rather than the absolute truths themselves. As additional truths are revealed, our understanding of previous revelation is modified to accommodate additional light.

That the temple ceremonies have undergone ocassional changes, improvements, and refinements, should cause no concern since – as Joseph Fielding Smith noted – the “work of salvation for the dead came to the Prophet [Joseph Smith] like every other doctrine — piecemeal. It was not revealed all at once.”[1]

President Brigham Young gave a brief definition of the endowment and thereby identified some of its essential elements. He said,
Code: 
"Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." [2]
On 4 May 1842, after President Joseph Smith gave the first Nauvoo-era endowment to a small group of Latter-day Saints he told apostle Brigham Young that because of their limited spacial circumstances the overall experience was “not arranged perfectly” and he wanted Brigham to “organize and systematize” the ceremonies. This indicates there were some presentational modifications allowable in the rites while still preserving the core elements of the experience.

Harold B. Lee emphasized that the means by which the endowment and its message are presented are subject to modification
Code: 
Now, you think for a moment—in the upper office over [Joseph Smith's] store, with no equipment like we have in our temples today, the endowment had to be given by lecture. The Prophet Joseph Smith through these, his counselors, and others as you heard their names, attended to the matters that we now have given in various ways. Sometimes our people who go through the temples are a bit startled because of the varied ways in which the endowment is presented. Perhaps, as under inspiration they studied the nature of the endowment, they thought to make it a little more meaningful to the patrons who would come: part by dramatization, part by question and answer, part by lecture, part by picturization on the walls of some of the temples. We have artists who have tried to put those who go through the temple in the mood of the lesson to be taught as they proceed through the temple. 
....But it is the same message that was given by lecture by the Prophet Joseph Smith in his office over [his] store. Now, when we have that in mind, we will see why the Prophet, in the beginning of this dispensation, gave certain instructions to have the brethren stimulated in their thinking.[3]
en.fairmormon.org/Temples/Endowment/Changes

For momons it is no big deal that changes ocur. And it has nothing to do with what TomMore suggested at the end of his post. 🙂
 
Can you tell us what the source of the Endowment Ceremony is? Is it part of the BoM, PoGP, Revelation?
 
why_me said:
Here is one mormon explanation:

Question

Latter-day Saints believe that the Temple endowment is an eternal ordinance that Joseph Smith received by revelation from God. Why, then, have changes been made to it several times since it was first revealed?

See also: Source(s) of the criticism
Response

God’s directives and how He deals with His people may vary according to His people’s understanding and needs. God doesn’t tell everyone to build an ark and wait for a flood. Changes sometimes occur as a result of God dealing with His children according to their changing circumstances.

We know that major changes in practices took place during Jesus Christ’s ministry. Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and practices associated with that law were no longer necessary. Changes also took place after Christ’s earthly ministry. For example, Christ originally taught the gospel only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Matt. 15:24) and forbade His apostles from going to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5–6). After Jesus’ death Peter was commanded by an angel to take the gospel to all people (Acts 10, Acts 11; Matt 28:19). Following Jesus Christ’s mortal ministry the practice of circumcision also became unnecessary (Acts 15, Galatians 6:15). Changes in the Church are sometimes necessary. Such changes, however, must be done by inspiration or revelation from the head of the Church, who is Jesus Christ.

There are absolute truths and relative truths. Absolute truths (such as: God lives and Jesus is the Christ) do not change. Relative truths or practices (such as: circumcision, plural marriage, and age of priesthood ordination) do change. Many relative truths deal with procedural issues, and how absolute truths are presented, rather than the absolute truths themselves. As additional truths are revealed, our understanding of previous revelation is modified to accommodate additional light.

That the temple ceremonies have undergone ocassional changes, improvements, and refinements, should cause no concern since – as Joseph Fielding Smith noted – the “work of salvation for the dead came to the Prophet [Joseph Smith] like every other doctrine — piecemeal. It was not revealed all at once.”[1]

President Brigham Young gave a brief definition of the endowment and thereby identified some of its essential elements. He said,
Code: 
"Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." [2]
On 4 May 1842, after President Joseph Smith gave the first Nauvoo-era endowment to a small group of Latter-day Saints he told apostle Brigham Young that because of their limited spacial circumstances the overall experience was “not arranged perfectly” and he wanted Brigham to “organize and systematize” the ceremonies. This indicates there were some presentational modifications allowable in the rites while still preserving the core elements of the experience.

Harold B. Lee emphasized that the means by which the endowment and its message are presented are subject to modification
Code: 
Now, you think for a moment—in the upper office over [Joseph Smith's] store, with no equipment like we have in our temples today, the endowment had to be given by lecture. The Prophet Joseph Smith through these, his counselors, and others as you heard their names, attended to the matters that we now have given in various ways. Sometimes our people who go through the temples are a bit startled because of the varied ways in which the endowment is presented. Perhaps, as under inspiration they studied the nature of the endowment, they thought to make it a little more meaningful to the patrons who would come: part by dramatization, part by question and answer, part by lecture, part by picturization on the walls of some of the temples. We have artists who have tried to put those who go through the temple in the mood of the lesson to be taught as they proceed through the temple. 
....But it is the same message that was given by lecture by the Prophet Joseph Smith in his office over [his] store. Now, when we have that in mind, we will see why the Prophet, in the beginning of this dispensation, gave certain instructions to have the brethren stimulated in their thinking.[3]
en.fairmormon.org/Temples/Endowment/Changes

For momons it is no big deal that changes ocur. And it has nothing to do with what TomMore suggested at the end of his post. 🙂
Click to expand...
Actually, it does. It is funny that the changes made were to the things that non-mormons found the most distasteful and disturbing…ie: Popes and Priests being from Satan, women pledging to obey thjeir husbands, blood oaths and how you were willing to be killed…

It is not coincidence that the most awful parts that non Mormons hated were the very parts God backed off of
 
SirThomasMore said:
The Masonic Temple Ceremony
Click to expand...
Okay, I meant “The stated LDS source”. 🙂

As much as I’ve read about the ceremony, I still have no idea where the LDS faithful place it in view of their faith. I don’t believe it was taken from the LDS Standard Works, D&C, etc.
 
SirThomasMore said:
Yes. he came up with the LDS ceremony after going thru the Masonic one
Click to expand...
How do they intelligetly defend the changes? I have found these quotes.

*"From the church’s official publication, August 2001 Ensign (page 22), in big bold print above a large colorful portrait of Joseph Smith:

“The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, ‘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.’”*

and

*“Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations… He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them.”
  • The Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208"*
They make changes to their unchanging endowments, and yet say this.

“Has the holy Catholic Church the ordinance of baptism? So they say. What do you say Latter-day Saints? We say they have not. There is but one mode of baptism and that is by being immersed in the water that the subject may come forth out of the water, in comparison like a child at its birth—struggling for breath—emerging into another element. This is the figure that Jesus gave us. Jesus and others were baptized of John, and the disciples of Jesus baptized more; but none of them were baptized by pouring, sprinkling, kneeling, or face foremost, but they were immersed in the water and came forth out of the water.” - Brigham Young, The Essential Brigham Young, p.196

To me, they are trying to have it both ways. Everyone else is wrong for any type of change, but theirs are OK.

Kind of strange don’t you think?
 
St. Paul also teaches we have been crucified with Christ.

We take neither of these to their literal point and there is no evidence that we need to.
 
What I have found interesting is that Mormons claim that the Mayan ruins are evidence of a BOM civilization and furthermore Mayan temples are evidence of an ancient temple ceremony; however, we know from archeology that the Mayans sacrificed humans in their temples. I don’t recall sacrificing humans when I went through; maybe it changed before 1995:shrug:

The only response, and it is a true LDS boiler plate response “it was corrupted”.

So my question is this: how is it that we have evidence of all of these corrupted things like the Mayan temple ceremony, Jewish temple rituals, and even the Catholic church yet no evidence of any of the things that JS restored? Where were they restored from? (It’s rhetorical, I already know the answer;))
 
The temple ceremony is further proof that the LDS is not led by God
 
Once again going back to the issue of “restoration”, there’s no evidence of an “Endowment” ordinance in early Christianity.
 
twopekinguys said:
How do they intelligetly defend the changes? I have found these quotes.

*"From the church’s official publication, August 2001 Ensign (page 22), in big bold print above a large colorful portrait of Joseph Smith:

“The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, ‘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.’”*

and

*“Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations… He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them.”
  • The Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208"*
They make changes to their unchanging endowments, and yet say this.

“Has the holy Catholic Church the ordinance of baptism? So they say. What do you say Latter-day Saints? We say they have not. There is but one mode of baptism and that is by being immersed in the water that the subject may come forth out of the water, in comparison like a child at its birth—struggling for breath—emerging into another element. This is the figure that Jesus gave us. Jesus and others were baptized of John, and the disciples of Jesus baptized more; but none of them were baptized by pouring, sprinkling, kneeling, or face foremost, but they were immersed in the water and came forth out of the water.” - Brigham Young, The Essential Brigham Young, p.196

To me, they are trying to have it both ways. Everyone else is wrong for any type of change, but theirs are OK.

Kind of strange don’t you think?
Click to expand...
Bravo Sir! You have hit the nail of my inevitable conversion out of Mormonism into Catholicism square on its causal head! Or you’ve at least identified that initial epiphany that got the ball rolling. You see, I grew up with pretty open Mormon parents. They never really sugar coated our history; never tried to give silly apologies for certain LDS teachings that were unpopular in larger society and/or completely disavowed by the church later on. I was taught at a young age how there was once a priesthood ban against those of African ancestry and that was changed at the whim of a revelation. My mother confided in me that it was her personal opinion that Brigham Young let his racism get in the way of some of his pronouncements. I was told about Mountain Meadows, that my own family’s practice of polygamy caused some pretty deep emotional issues for female ancestors of mine, and that some of our prophets held some pretty whacky cosmological views of the universe. I was freely taught about Heavenly Mother prior to my baptism, even. So all in all I was actually far better equipped than most of my Mormon friends my age to deal with criticism and to assuage any bit of cognitive dissonance that would arise from learning about the less flattering parts of Mormonism and Mormon history.

The one exception was temple ordinance alterations. I like so many others was taught that the ordinances were not to be monkeyed around with and (most importantly) that the prime cause (or was it effect?) of the loss of priesthood authority indicative of the alleged Great Apostasy was that them evil Catholics “changed the unchangeable ordinances of God”. So naturally when I learned that the Endowment I had taken out in 2004 was different than the Endowment that my father had taken out in 1972, and in turn was starkly different than the one taken out by my grandfather in 1940, it really got me to not only rethink my testimony, but to also finally give traditional Christianity an unbiased look without my Mormon rose-colored spectacles. You see, with the LDS claim that ordinances are completely inviolable now tossed into the garbage I could no longer justify my disdain for Catholics/Orthodox allegedly “changing the ordinances” by baptizing infants, demanding celibacy of clerics, or changing the manner and means by which the sacraments are administered. In turn, with these canards gone with the wind, belief in the Great Apostasy was, too, pretty tenuous.

I have sometimes wondered if I would still be a “True Believing Mormon” had it not been for the evolution of LDS temple ordinances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top