NOM

I recently started reading The Lost Symbol... This may be an old subject on this board but I found this in one of the beginning chapters:

Tonight, however, he sensed a foreboding solemnity in the Temple Room, and his mind began replaying all the dire warnings he had been given on his journey, threats of terrible consequences if he ever shared the ancient [Masonic] secrets he was about to learn: Throat cut from ear to ear... tongue torn out by its roots... bowels taken out and burned... scattered to the four winds of heaven... heart plucked out and given to the beasts of the field—

Just for context, I was pre-1990 Endowment.

Uh-oh. New Name Noah is screwed .

I have a good friend who really enjoys Dan Brown novels. He is also a devout LDS believer but never saw the pre-1990 endowment. I will have to ask him if this section resonated with him in any way.

It sure resonated with me! I put up with several years of that penalty BS before they yanked it out. Freaked me the crap out the first time through. But what the crap does a dumb young kid do, sitting there with family and friends? They are all acting normal, like it ain't no thing. I guess this is how it is and I just go along with it. For all I knew they would castrate me with a flaming sword on the way out if I chose to leave. Scared, scarred, confused and bewildered, wondering if this was really the church I had grown up in. Eventually I did enough gymnastics to get around all that, but I'm glad I don't have to attend those Olympics anymore, either with my mind or my body.

One of the early Mormon Stories Podcasts was an episode with Greg Kearney, an active Mason and active Mormon. I have ridden the wave of his explanations for Masonry in the Endowment for a long time. In essence, he indicated that the "ritual" of the endowment (signs, tokens, etc.) is NOT the Endowment. That the ritual is just the teaching mechanism that used the masonic ritual to deliver the Endowment to uneducated people of the time. (Farmers etc.) The Endowment, he indicates, is the covenants and knowledge of the eternal nature and salvation of man.

Okay, I can go there. I can understand why the ritual is important as a teaching tool.

But then, how can you reconcile this Brigham Young's definition of the Endowment? - Insights are appreciated.

"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." (Journal of Discourses 2:31).


If you missed the podcast, it is a very good listen for the faithful or doubter.
http://www.mormonstories.org/mormon-sto ... g-kearney/

JENuWIN wrote:"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." (Journal of Discourses 2:31).

LDS culture and the beliefs of LDS people only exists in the ambiguity between metaphor and literal. LDS leadership and culture prefer that adherents quietly struggle between the stories and covenants being literal or metaphorical. It's the paradox that could be described as Schrödinger's doctrine. A belief can be both literal and metaphorical as long as you don't publicly come down hard on one side or the other which will inevitably cause strife in your local ward.

We can hold any level of belief in a historical Adam and Eve or Noah's Flood, but if we push either Young Earth Creationism or Bible as Myth to loudly then there will be trouble. Any time the level of literal/metaphorical was firmly defined by an apostle or prophet it inevitably leads to some segment of the membership going into rebellion. The days of apostles writing books like Bruce McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" are over. As a result, the stories don't get updated including Balaam and the talking donkey making all lessons inevitably about "follow the prophet".

Pardon the interruption...

I'm extremely disappointed now as an unbeliever that I can't say I was a pre-1990 throat slashing disembowler. It's like I missed the best part of living in this cult... cult... culture. However I can fortunately say I was a pre-2005 naked poncho and shaky over oiled hand survivor (and victim).

But I still envy you naked poncho pantomiming polyester polygamy panty wearing people who went through pre-1990!

Mormonism just keeps getting less weird by the decade. What's going to be left by 2050?

Red Ryder wrote:Pardon the interruption...

I'm extremely disappointed now as an unbeliever that I can't say I was a pre-1990 throat slashing disembowler. It's like I missed the best part of living in this cult... cult... culture. However I can fortunately say I was a pre-2005 naked poncho and shaky over oiled hand survivor (and victim).

But I still envy you naked poncho pantomiming polyester polygamy panty wearing people who went through pre-1990!

Mormonism just keeps getting less weird by the decade. What's going to be left by 2050?

I didn't realize the naked poncho wasn't taken out in 1990 with the other stuff. I had no idea there was a 2005 change. (I went through in 2008.)

Red Ryder wrote:But I still envy you naked poncho pantomiming polyester polygamy panty wearing people who went through pre-1990!

Mormonism just keeps getting less weird by the decade. What's going to be left by 2050?

By the 2050s you will still be encouraged to complain about religious freedom and encourage LGBT members to live a single, celibate life of quiet desperation.

Like Corsair said, the way the church would like you to reconcile it would be to discount the journal of discourses because that is not official church approved material. Then go read some approved material on lds.org and adopt that as your belief. Problem solved, but remember that Young was still a prophet.
The way I reconcile it would be to recognize that Joseph made it up. The question at that point becomes, should you still hold it valuable and sacred? That becomes a personal question.

Emower wrote:The way I reconcile it would be to recognize that Joseph made it up. The question at that point becomes, should you still hold it valuable and sacred? That becomes a personal question.

My personal answer is no. Now I just find the whole thing to be silly. The costumes aren't even cool. This is the pinnacle of our religious foundation on earth and we have to wear polyester robes, green aprons, and a hat? Handshakes, code words, three distinct taps?

I love the idea of the temple in terms of eternal family and a place to worship. But come on! It doesn't feel right at all. It's just plain stupid.

What if we got rid of the ritual and opened the doors for all members of the church? We sit through a nice 15 minute video that starts with the earth creation, a human birth sequence or two, progression through a happy childhood, leaving home, an eventual wedding, and then a happy feel good ending. An ending where participants watch their lifespan get shorter and they feel like the church prepared them to meet their maker.

Leave out Satan and his fear, leave out stupid covenants to obey husbands, leave out promises to give your life and all your money to the church.

Open the doors so all can worship God and see the marriage of their children, brothers, sisters, neighbors, aunts, uncles, and loved ones. Not just the people who can pass the interview and certify they wear garments to mow the lawn.

The temple has so much potential for real worship that many religious people of other faiths may find beneficial enough to actually join the church. Instead we just repeat the same weird stuff until the attendance stats and complaints cause the unchanging ceremonies to change.

Ugggg! Why don't the leadership see how obvious this stuff is?

Ugggg! Why don't the leadership see how obvious this stuff is?

Because...they wouldn't want to lead you astray?