NOM

Wow... not a fan. Some thoughts....

A few positives:
It is shorter, but not by much.
Don't have to move the robe.. I always hated having to do that.
The more egalitarian language was nice.
Not sure if this is with all temples, but the first room they painted up with a creation/garden mural. I'm in one of the small McTemples in the southeastern US.

Now for the negatives:
It wasn't really that noticeably shorter; by the time you get everyone in there, and then later through the veil.. well, I didn't get out of there any earlier.
The Powerpoint/filmstrip was HORRIBLE. I hated it so much. The overused Ken Burns effect was so distracting. They photoshopped out stills from the second of the "newer" temple films (the one with frat boy Satan and horn-dog Adam) and added new backgrounds, but the lighting was off, and the newly recorded voices didn't match. At least in the films you had CGI meteors crashing into stuff during the creation scene.
If they really want to set a new tone regarding women, they really need to revamp the whole thing. It just felt so forced, like they were checking boxes from a focus group and wedging the changes in.

If this is the best they can do to attempt to get millennials more engaged in the temple they've lost. I'm guessing the Powerpoint thing is a stopgap until they can make a new film, but even still the whole thing is just a slightly more palatable version of what we had.

Culper Jr. wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:24 am

If this is the best they can do to attempt to get millennials more engaged in the temple they've lost. I'm guessing the Powerpoint thing is a stopgap until they can make a new film, but even still the whole thing is just a slightly more palatable version of what we had.

Yeah so my thought here is that it's the same with "egalitarian". For example, they went from Eve covenanting to Obey Adam to covenenting to Hearken unto him, to covenanting to be in the New and Everlasting Covenant. Then in the sealing, the man promises to "preside" over his family. How is that any different?

When my boss asked me to carve out 2 days this week to do other responsibilities, she said I could say no. But can I really say no, when she is my boss? If husband is still the boss of the marriage, and wife is still covenanting to the marriage instead of to God, is that really any different? I say it's an attempt to keep it the same while using connotations that are different. Once you know that NEC actually refers to polygamy, it could be argued that it's worse instead of better.

Glad I'm out!

do we still have to covenant to give all we have to the COJCOLDS?

redjay wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:34 pm do we still have to covenant to give all we have to the COJCOLDS?

So they changed the endowment and I’m confused by this question. I always thought that my covenants were with God and they weren't subject to change. Are you saying that they are? If they are then I'm going to change mine. And when I do this who do I tell? Do I report to the Temple president, my Stake president, or my Bishop, or is okay just to tell God?

And if this is true that each time we go through we are re-covenanting then does mean we need to redo the temple work for everyone?

Or am I correct in my thinking that an endowment is like a baptism, in other words one and done?

Or does it mean that it doesn’t mean anything at all?

And one last question, who gets to decide what it means, me or some church leader?

redjay wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:34 pm do we still have to covenant to give all we have to the COJCOLDS?

I think we do, they changed a lot of the wording of things, but it was really subtle. That last part seemed the same... I know they changed the wording of the chastity one, and they really changed the first one completely. I remember them saying "the law of consecration as found in the D&C", but I was pretty zoned out by that point and had a raging headache from the slideshow effects. I used to be an ordinance worker and I heard the endowment what seemed like a million times some years ago, but it's been a while, and most of the wording changes were subtle enough that I recognized it was different but couldn't remember exactly what it was before.

I haven’t seen the new PowerPoint endowment yet, but my DW has been 4 times.
My wife used to come to me for spiritual counseling. It was a pretty good process and we grew together spiritually. Now she can just go directly to God and skip me. I’m feeling left out. I hope God can help her through her struggles as well as I could. I predict she won’t like God as much after a few months.

Coop wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:53 pm...I always thought that my covenants were with God...

If you think about the wording just a bit, you'll probably remember that there is never a covenant "with" god anywhere in the endowment.

Coop wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:53 pm
Or does it mean that it doesn’t mean anything at all?

Correct answer here.

And you get to decide what it all means if anything.....

But really, the entire endowment doesn't mean anything....

wtfluff wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:46 pm

Coop wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:53 pm...I always thought that my covenants were with God...

If you think about the wording just a bit, you'll probably remember that there is never a covenant "with" god anywhere in the endowment.

I did do some thinking about this lately and I actually remembered this verbiage:

"Elohim, I now covenant with thee that from this time forth I will obey thy law and keep thy commandments." (Sincerest apologies to any TBM lurkers out there)

Any church leader worth his calling, will affirm that this initial covenant covers all the rest and that members through Adam do make covenant with Elohim. Previously, I myself have taken the position that all of the covenants were made with or in the interest of the church. I am forced to re-evaluate that position as far as the ACCURACY of the intention of the ordinance. But it cannot be ignored that in conjunction with the highest aspect of the endowment, everything and all that the member presently or may possess is guaranteed to the church.

Regarding the validity of the ordinance, it is still as phony as a four dollar bill.

Fraudulent covenant=Zero obligation

This is a guilt free zone.

Palerider wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:35 pm

wtfluff wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:46 pm

Coop wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:53 pm...I always thought that my covenants were with God...

If you think about the wording just a bit, you'll probably remember that there is never a covenant "with" god anywhere in the endowment.

I did do some thinking about this lately and I actually remembered this verbiage:

"Elohim, I now covenant with thee that from this time forth I will obey thy law and keep thy commandments." (Sincerest apologies to any TBM lurkers out there)

Any church leader worth his calling, will affirm that this initial covenant covers all the rest and that members through Adam do make covenant with Elohim.

The actors in the film said the "I now covenant with" words, or "I covenant with" words. You, yourself never actually said those words. You were never actually asked to "think of " those words either in any of the "covenants."

Members can say anything they want about "making a covenant through Adam (or Eve,)" but that's now how "covenants" work. If the wording in the endowment is important enough that the old folks in Manti and Salt Lake have to get every word correct, then the words that the participants use / promise to / "think of" must be just as important. The "covenants" that participants agree to do not include the word "with" related to any toga-wearing being. The covenants that participants "think of" agreeing to do not include the word "with" related to any toga-being either.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:04 am

Palerider wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:35 pm

wtfluff wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:46 pm

If you think about the wording just a bit, you'll probably remember that there is never a covenant "with" god anywhere in the endowment.

I did do some thinking about this lately and I actually remembered this verbiage:

"Elohim, I now covenant with thee that from this time forth I will obey thy law and keep thy commandments." (Sincerest apologies to any TBM lurkers out there)

Any church leader worth his calling, will affirm that this initial covenant covers all the rest and that members through Adam do make covenant with Elohim.

The actors in the film said the "I now covenant with" words, or "I covenant with" words. You, yourself never actually said those words. You were never actually asked to "think of " those words either in any of the "covenants."

Members can say anything they want about "making a covenant through Adam (or Eve,)" but that's now how "covenants" work. If the wording in the endowment is important enough that the old folks in Manti and Salt Lake have to get every word correct, then the words that the participants use / promise to / "think of" must be just as important. The "covenants" that participants agree to do not include the word "with" related to any toga-wearing being. The covenants that participants "think of" agreeing to do not include the word "with" related to any toga-being either.

Again, from the actual endowment verbiage:

"Brethren, Arise.

ELOHIM SPEAKING: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will obey the law of God, and keep his commandants. Each of you bow your head and say "yes"."

I think you would have a difficult time convincing someone, especially a TBM, that they aren't making a covenant "with" Elohim. It is implicit, even moreso obvious, because he is the person speaking. The moment a member utters the word "yes" they have agreed to all of the verbiage regardless of how someone else thinks a covenant should be made.

The critical issue is that the "covenant" is made under false pretenses and is therefore non-binding. I think we can agree that the "brethren" have no authority to speak for God and what is called the "endowment" is really priestcraft designed to bind women to men and men to other men in an unholy way.

LDS leadership may try to create a phony picture of members recieving a great blessing from God but in reality the endowment is a glorified form of indentured servitude to the church masquerading as "God". That's why the ordinance falls so flat for so many members. It isn't because they don't understand it. It's because there's nothing there in the first place. It's just lipstick on a pig.

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:36 am Again, from the actual endowment verbiage:

"Brethren, Arise.

ELOHIM SPEAKING: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will obey the law of God, and keep his commandants. Each of you bow your head and say "yes"."

You just verified what I've been saying this entire time by copying the exact wording. The "covenant" is BEFORE god, not WITH god.

And again TBM's will say that the wording isn't important. Except when it is. They can't have both, except to justify it in their own minds.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:03 am

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:36 am Again, from the actual endowment verbiage:

"Brethren, Arise.

ELOHIM SPEAKING: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will obey the law of God, and keep his commandants. Each of you bow your head and say "yes"."

You just verified what I've been saying this entire time by copying the exact wording. The "covenant" is BEFORE god, not WITH god.

And again TBM's will say that the wording isn't important. Except when it is. They can't have both, except to justify it in their own minds.

But you're ignoring who's speaking...
God is merely or perhaps symbolically referencing himself in the verbiage. The member is in essence conversing with Elohim and that is who the member makes the covenant with.

For the sake of the presentation, Elohim at times doubles as both God and narrator. He explains to Adam (who comes to represent all men) that he needs to covenant with Him in order to be saved. Adam's response is:

"Elohim, I now covenant with thee that from this time forth I will obey thy law and keep thy commandments."

This concept of Adam and Eve representing all humanity is made clear in the following passage:

"Brethren and sisters, this couple at the altar represents all of you as if at the altar. You must consider yourselves as if you were respectively Adam and Eve."

It's actually kind of analogous to the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" where the audience becomes a participating part of the play. How else would you represent God to the individual when working with a large group?

In reality however, the verbiage does show a weakness in Joseph's/Brigham's writing of the endowment script. If they had continued more accurately with their early approach they would have written Elohim's lines to say something like:


"Brethren, Arise.

ELOHIM SPEAKING: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before Me, my angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will obey my law, and keep my commandants. Each of you bow your head and say "yes"."

But instead they (Joseph or Brigham) lose track of the train of logic and Elohim slips into narrator mode. A minor discrepancy that would be meaningless to TBMs and that most people would see as splitting hairs or picayune.

But that's the great thing about America. We can believe whatever we want because of or regardless of the facts.

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:36 pm [I'm not gonna quote the entire thing...]

Seriously Pale: It seems you're jumping through the same hoops as a believer to make this work.

It doesn't matter who says the words, or who is representing who, or how hard someone twists their brain into knots: The word BEFORE does not have the same meaning as the word WITH. All the mental gymnastics in the world don't change the meaning of words. The End.

Edit: spelling and coherence.

Culper Jr. wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:24 am They photoshopped out stills and added new backgrounds, but the lighting was off, and the newly recorded voices didn't match. At least in the films, you had CGI meteors crashing into stuff during the creation scene.

Can I tempt you into saying the words
Mormon and LDS?

I’m just finishing up Friedman’s book “Who Wrote the Bible”. Turns out Elohim and YHWH (Jehovah) are THE SAME PERSON! They are from different sources for the Torah (Pentateuch). The E source used Elohim for God, and the J source used Jehovah, which gets translated to LORD most of the time in the KJV. The “redactor”, who combined the E and J source with P and D sources, kind of meshed them together, creating what we have today. Then Talmadge came along and made a case that Jehovah was Christ. Not according to the documentary hypotheses!

A New Name wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:36 pm I’m just finishing up Friedman’s book “Who Wrote the Bible”. Turns out Elohim and YHWH (Jehovah) are THE SAME PERSON! They are from different sources for the Torah (Pentateuch). The E source used Elohim for God, and the J source used Jehovah, which gets translated to LORD most of the time in the KJV. The “redactor”, who combined the E and J source with P and D sources, kind of meshed them together, creating what we have today. Then Talmadge came along and made a case that Jehovah was Christ. Not according to the documentary hypotheses!

Those writings are *fascinating* because it shows how the Bible was mashed together, but shows how completely out of his league Joseph Smith was.

He didn't know that Elohim and Jehovah were the same person from different sources. He didn't know that Elias and Elijah are the same person when he claimed to see them both at the Kirtland temple. He didn't know that Isaiah had multiple authors and included Deutero-Isaiah in the BoM that couldn't have been on Lehi's plates...

Critics spend a lot of time focusing on the anachronisms in the BoM, but the problems that JS ran into by not knowing these things about Biblical scholarship are really the most damning anachronisms of all.

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.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 12:43 pm 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.

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.)

If it makes you feel any better, "technically" we all promised to give "everything" to: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints™" - a trademark owned by Intellectual Reserve Inc. You can't really give all that you own to a trademarked name. It's not a legal entity, or person, or anything else. It's just a name.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 12:43 pm 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