A question: Has there ever been any explanation from any of the Apologist organizations concerning the ongoing changes in the Endowment ceremony and how they are even theoretically "spiritually enforceable"? (for want of a better term).

I went for first time pre-1990, when there were huge changes made.

This brings up something which to me is huge. How can "endowed members" be subject to a "sacred promise/covenant" made in the past, when the terms, penalties, promises, etc are unilaterally changed by the Church without notice to those "under covenant" later on?!

That's like getting a letter from your finance company that since you agreed and covenanted to pay back a loan, they can hike the interest, change other terms, etc without notice and you must abide by the modifications!

This makes no sense, and would be unlawful in a secular setting. It is not fair, equitable or "christian" in the least.It certainly isn't forseeable!

Has this been addressed before?

Not only that, but what about all those oaths we took on behalf of "the dead"? are their covenants and sealings and endowments now abridged?

I also was shocked at how much was taken away from the endowment and felt it totally unfair that the next generations wouldn't have to face the same penalty threats or know how to pass through the veil without knowing the 5 points. How many of them will never know how the true order of prayer to call God was Pay-Lay-El (since God only responds to the Adamic language).

It was addressed (a bit) on an apologist website I read a couple years ago; they insisted that the covenant hadn't changed, only a bit of the ceremony to make it more clear and understandable.

That's total BS of course, because it seems to me that Mormons are led to believe that all "sacred ordinances" are dictated, letter by letter, from the Holy Ghost, or God, or Jesus, or whoever is in charge "up there" to retore them on Earth as they were in the Old Days.

Same sort of apologist crap that lets them say God didn't give "specific instructions" on polygamy, and that's why it was so effed up--hmmm, reading D&C 132 seems pretty specific to me....

CNB:

Not only BS, but it is false on its face. Changing penalties, duties, wording, obligations, etc at least in the civil sense
generally will lead to repudiation, and nonenforceability of a formal agreement. This is really only common sense, isn't it?

Bringing this up with TBMs is pointless of course, but I am surprsed that maybe Sunstone or Dialogue never examined this closer?

Good Points, Dydimus!

As BIC members, we (especially the boys) were taught that there were very few prayers and rites that had to be specific, but some could not be changed one jot or iota. This was a Jesus specific commandment in Matthew 5:18 where he was explaining that he didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.--"
For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled.

We as young deacons are taught to always offer the sacrament with our right hands, as Priests we are taught that not one word can be changed or lost when blessing the sacrament. We are taught how to baptize, by right hand in the sign of the square, and the person must totally be under the water. We are taught how to bless. One annoints and then the blessing is sealed.

Now they took what was supposed to be one of the most "sacred rites" and turn it into a farce by doing a readers digest version of the dialogue, take out 1/3- 1/2 of the masonic sacred penalties and positions. Wow, this is what made me start to realize that maybe the GAs aren't inspired and what was the purpose of me performing all of those rituals and positions if they were never "necessary".

UTLM.org then in the search box at the bottom of the page put in temple changes