Just got back from the new endowment Powerpoint presentation

[slavereeno]

Were you bothered by the promise when you made it, or only after you figured out LDS-Inc. was based on a bunch of lies and half-truths? (Not trying to call you out or be condescending, I'm legitimately curious.)

The first time I went though I did NOT have a good experience. The only tolerable part was seeing my family in the C-Room at the end. I was confused, blindsided, dazed, I thought I had messed up some of the stuff I was supposed to say in my head. All that after I had faithfully attended every single temple "prep" class as it was constituted in my ward, (useless).

But that thought came to me much later, a few years into my marriage. I was very conservative politically as a teenager, and the law of consecration bothered me deeply when it was presented in high school seminary. I didn't think the communist ideology was right, and even if it did work, I don't think it was God's idea. I couldn't see how the law of consecration was different than communism. I suppose it was kind of a shelf item going way back. So, over the years, as I attended the temple and weirdness turned to boredom, I picked that one apart, and yes it bugged.

[alas]

Was I the only one that was bothered by the fact that I was consecrating everything I possessed or would posses to the church and not to God?

Because then later they tell me that the church isn't perfect because its run by imperfect men, so they are going to screw up and really badly.

Wait, you just made me covenant before God to give those "imperfect" men everything, and to give them everything like, forever. I want take-backs.

Yeah, that one bothered me as a 19 year old kid

When I went through at 19, I mentally made the caveat that it really MUST be the church of Jesus Christ, and not just so named, or the promise wasn’t good. So, I had strong enough doubts and it bothered me enough that I kind of voided the covenant in my head. On our honeymoon a few day later, I asked my husband what the difference between that and communism was. He explained that Communism was forced and the United order was fully voluntary. I replied that the covenant in the temple didn’t feel voluntary and he got mad. But then I figured that the sexist things and the very concept of a God who needs his children to have secret handshakes to even recognize them bothered me more than promising everything to the church, because if it REALLY was the church of Christ, then I didn’t mind because he would not ask me to pay tithing first and then if there was money left over, to feed my kids. But if it was only NAMED that, then I was under no obligation, because the contract was void, based on deception. (Yeah, my Dad was a lawyer)

[moksha]

It would be fun if during some part of the endowment ceremony the men could make an exclamation in the Adamic language and the women would give the proper counter-response in the Eveic language.

Men - Zip-a-dee-doo-dah.

Women - Zip-a-dee-ay!

[wtfluff]

The first time I went though I did NOT have a good experience. The only tolerable part was seeing my family in the C-Room at the end. I was confused, blindsided, dazed, I thought I had messed up some of the stuff I was supposed to say in my head. All that after I had faithfully attended every single temple "prep" class as it was constituted in my ward, (useless).

But that thought came to me much later, a few years into my marriage. I was very conservative politically as a teenager, and the law of consecration bothered me deeply when it was presented in high school seminary. I didn't think the communist ideology was right, and even if it did work, I don't think it was God's idea. I couldn't see how the law of consecration was different than communism. I suppose it was kind of a shelf item going way back. So, over the years, as I attended the temple and weirdness turned to boredom, I picked that one apart, and yes it bugged.

I can't say my first time plagiarized masonic induction was a great experience, or awful, so I guess it was just meh. I remember at some point thinking I was legitimately in a cult, and also thinking "That was it? Really? That's the PINNACLE of mormon worship???" A few weeks later I was in the MTC, hearing everyone else tell me how awesome the temple was, and about all the super-secret cool stuff I'd learn if I went back over and over. I bought into it, and went back over and over. Never figured out anything super-secret or cool though.

As far as celestial communism is concerned, I bought into that too. In my head I was fully willing to give everything to the church. I kind of also thought that it was never gonna happen, so I guess that was my "out." I remember thinking that communism really didn't work in the real world, but didn't think about it too much (put it on the shelf,) and of course "knew" that it would work in mormonism; "Something would change" and it would work. As my shelf slowly eroded, my willingness to give everything to "the church" eroded too. After my shelf completely disintegrated, I realized: They tried the celestial communism thing in mormonsim more than once, and it didn't work. Just like pretty much everything in mormonsim: It doesn't really work, and it can't live up to any of it's promises.

[Random]

Was I the only one that was bothered by the fact that I was consecrating everything I possessed or would posses to the church and not to God?

This was a real jolt to me the first time I went through (and bothered me other times, as well). I was promising to give everything I own, everything I will own, and everything I am to a church and not to God?

I got complete peace of mind about it when I decided that man had put that in the endowment and not God, and that God would not hold me to a covenant he had not authored.

[Random]

I, personally, think that there ought to be real temple prep classes where the students are told what they will be promising, and the class discusses what it means. The covenants are not secret. They are not part of what one promises to keep secret, and to spring them on unprepared people is wrong, in my opinion.

I mean, if you see God in person and you know it is God, I can see trusting him/them enough to say, "I'll believe what you're going to tell me," but I think even God is open to a person saying, "Whoa! What does this mean? Can I have some time to think about this agreement?"

The "snufferite" movement, when the covenant was made in Boise, is a case in point. The people making the covenant had the covenant available to read beforehand and could make a real choice as to whether they wanted to do it or not. Nothing was suddenly sprung on them, with a ton of peer pressure and eternal damnation resting over their heads if they had second thoughts. (Neither did they have to give 10% of their income to Denver for the privilege of making a covenant to give him everything we have and are. Both parts are absent in that covenant.)