Sunday a former temple President and now Temple Sealer gave a priesthood lesson on the history of the endowment, so I attended. It was nothing that I did not already know except I was amazed how this person sees all the changes as being guided by the prophet. He gave the presentation that the endowment is always changing to make it better for the people so they will not be offended. He felt that the changes are very positive. Now this guy is about 85 so he knows his history and has been in temple since he went on a mission. So he has seen the changes.

So after lesson I went up and asked him if I was under the oaths and covenants I made in 1967, or am I under the ones we make to-day. He said they are the same today as back then. They are no different. I then said "no the wording is different, what we did then is different from today. Therefore what people do in temple today is different. I said the wording is important especially if we understand covenants from a legal view point." I said what I agreed to then back then is different from what people agree to today. And it was also different than what my dad agreed when he attended temple in 1936.

I kid you not, his eyes glazed over. He looked confused. He sorta smiled and then he said "you may be right and maybe there is no answer," and that was the end of the discussion. I walked away thinking to myself, this is so made up and even the long term older Mormons have really not clearly thought the endowment through. I was taught the Temple Endowment is an eternal ordinance back in 1960's. It was revealed to JS. I would have thought as a Temple President and now Sealer he would have had a better answer. He had no answer except to say in his presentation that the temple endowment is much better today than at the time of BY. He talked about things we don't do today like we did 50 years ago and that was an improvement.

It was his eyes glazing over and the confused look that told me this guy had no clue what he was doing or believing as a Temple President.

One thing I learned is if you are a witness to a sealing today, you can sit anywhere in the room. You don't have to sit is one of the two chairs by the sealer. I guess we have been doing the witnessing wrong for a lot of years!!!!

We were told our ward has 17 family consultants now called to assist members prepare names for temple. And we have about 100 people attend sacrament meeting.

Watching members in my ward and stake has lead me to this conclusion. Mormons relate better to their dead ancestors than they do to the living members in their wards. That is sad.

Thoughts

" . . . maybe there is no answer." What a cop-out.

There is an answer. The facts are all there. They will do anything to hang onto their treasured belief and self imposed ignorance is their friend.

I was taught the same as you. The temple ordinance was eternal and unchanging.

So God adapts himself to the whims of Mormons to make them comfortable? Proof that man makes god and not vice versa.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> So God adapts himself to the whims of Mormons to
> make them comfortable?


And also to the preferences of the Federal Government. If the U.S. government/congress had decided "you know what, let's just let Mormons be Mormons" back in the 19th century. Utah would probably still be chock full of polygamist Mormon families in good standing in the main church (the one that owns Temple Square) and the current prophet would be showing up at general conference with a half a dozen or more wives in tow. They might even still have long beards, because we know that to Elohim the ZZ Top look is how priesthood holders should look (just ask Lorenzo and Joseph F.).

Pretty much. The church does what it has to in order to survive. It will always have to adapt and change or it goes bye bye. It can change slowly. Changing too fast upsets the membership too much. The church has been mainstreaming for awhile.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the temples in another 50 years. I doubt we will recognize anything happening in them then.

"The necessity for inventions is a real mother-..."

--Judic West, at the 1968 Pine Wood Derby, in Lakeview Ward, where he finished runner-up to last place

I like your ridiculousness

the more they change, but continue to suck like something that suck so much you can't even fathom the suckage."

~~ D. R. Acula, High Councilman, Transylvania East Stake.

Other quotes from D.R. Acula:

"I can't help it. Stake meetings always make me nervous. Every time I go to the Stake Center, I get an uneasy feeling like I may not make it back home."

"We should never misunderestimate the importance of doing work for the dead...especially the living dead...and that reminds me.
I need someone to do my laundry."

Funny thing is that I actually used to know a Transylvanian convert. Seriously! Transylvania is a real place, a kind of ethnic Hungarian enclave in Romania. Very beautiful by many accounts.

(He's the great(x16) grandson of Vlad The Impaler.)

https://travelmakertours.com/why-prince-charles-considers-transylvania-his-second-home/

That's probably why Prince Charles has decided that his next car is going to be an Impala.

Is this what you are looking for?

https://www.ifunny.com/pictures/vlad-impala/

He's been spotted recently driving the Impala in Windsor, California (a bit north of Santa Rosa).

Hats off to D.R.Acula. Very insightful.

Thank you for shining the light on him.

He's an up and comer and has produced a body of work that you can really sink your teeth into.

One of my friends, however, believes that D. Ray may be passed over due to his stance on the doctrine of blood atonement. D. Ray Acula has on several occasions admonished congregations that they shouldn't be too hasty to dismiss the doctrine as being outdated.

He's also been criticized for suggesting that God wanted garlic to be included as a prohibited item in the Word of Wisdom.

Friends have vouched for his character, though, saying that if you ever find yourself in trouble, feeling like you've been backed into a dark corner and have nowhere to turn, D. Ray can be counted on to go to bat for you. They didn't go into much detail though and their other comments about D. Ray were quite cryptic.

Is he a dentist?

sustained as such. IIRC.

But word on the street is that he sucks at that job.

I assume he has no interest in being Stake President then?

getting rid of stakes altogether.

He seems to harbor a heartfelt hate for the whole stake concept...just as much as Nelson hates the Mormon label. But until D. Ray Acula becomes the prophet, he's probably not going to have much success getting the church aligned with his preferences.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The necessity for inventions is a real
> mother-..."
>
> --Judic West, at the 1968 Pine Wood Derby, in
> Lakeview Ward, where he finished runner-up to last
> place

Who is Judic West?

My ghawd! What's the point of going to school if no one is teaching the classics!!!


Judic West, among other great and wonderful things, is a fig newton of our emerging nation. While he may not deserve your respect, he is entitled to his just desserts.

Judic West is as Judic West does.

He was Judic West when Judic West wasn't cool.

Answer: In a westinghouse....

....And now you know the west of the stowy.

(This fun fact was submitted by Elmer Fudd, a frequent visitor to RFM.)

Elder Fudd is a wheelie wrested guy.

Master Mahan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> elderolddog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "The necessity for inventions is a real
> > mother-..."
> >
> > --Judic West, at the 1968 Pine Wood Derby, in
> > Lakeview Ward, where he finished runner-up to
> last
> > place
>
> Who is Judic West?


You may be sorry you asked: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ycybUhOaVAHE4t9huMJDs92Y6Rc9Ztd_L2uC9V2LhqA/edit?usp=sharing

*Poof*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2019 10:08PM by Lot's Wife.

You can't trust Judic with the truth. He can't handle it.

"Sometimes great swaths of truth reveal themselves to me, but I turn away, so as to respect their privacy. All I need to know is that they love me."
--Judic West, on the eve of his execution, London, 1736

Several months ago a dear cousin of ours surmised that Judic West is one of EOD's many nefarious personalities.

I, however, believe that is wrong. I think that EOD is one of Judic West's multiple personalities rather than the other way around.


--Adam West, Judic's brother and Marquis of Wayne Manor



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2019 10:10PM by Lot's Wife.

they actually only do their own endowment ONE TIME in their lifetime. Every time after that, they are doing it for a dead person.

So, by the logic of the temple and, well, just logic pure and simple, they're stuck with the endowment they did when they were doing it in their own name.

If you did your own endowment in 1989, for example, you're stuck with the bloody penalty oaths. It's done. No take-backs. If you reveal any of the handshakes to an outsider, just remember that you "agreed" to suffer your life to be taken from you by way of some gruesome, bloody execution.

The kinder, gentler endowment that you did for dead people after 1990 is only for the dead people. It was "for and on behalf of" whatever dead person's name you were assigned to be a proxy for that day. AFAIK, the wording has not been changed so as to make it also work as a do-over for the person standing as proxy at the same time.

Similarly, if you're a woman who did her endowment in 1987, you're stuck with the oath of submission (vow of obedience) to your husband. The more equal "better" endowment in 2019 that you do IS FOR THE DEAD PERSON IN WHOSE NAME IT IS PERFORMED. So Esmerelda Googenzhlotz, born in 1784, did not have to take an oath of submission to her husband, when you did her endowment for her in 2019. But thanks to your own 1987 endowment, you're still under that oath. (AFAIK, they haven't introduced any "I take it back" revised endowment that you do to cancel out the "vow of obedience" oath you made when you did your own endowment.)

Of course, it's all nonsense. But the fact that they keep trying to sell it as a real thing, while simultaneously not even bothering to maintain any kind of internal logic or consistency in it is very telling about where their minds are at. It is the Emperor's New Clothes redux. They're all playing along because they don't want to be cast out of their community, ostracized or looked down on as being a trouble maker.

You can do it more than once. You just have to be excommunicated and accepted back to do it.

Or to take on a fake identity.

Master Mahan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can do it more than once. You just have to be
> excommunicated and accepted back to do it.

But then, like the proverbial couple who didn't get married in the temple, thinking they'd get around to it later, you find yourself finally heading toward the temple, heart full of joy and rejoicing in anticipation of getting back on track to Celestial glory...and then a Russian satellite put into orbit in 1971 falls out of its orbit and crashes into your car just as you're entering the temple parking lot. Game over. Do not collect $200, do not get re-endowed and do not ever go to the Celestial Kingdom. You just can't take those chances, man.

> Or to take on a fake identity.

But then you'd be doing proxy work for your fake identity. Just imagine your horror when you find yourself at the gates of the Celestial Kingdom, being turned away because you did not live up to the original covenants and oaths from your first endowment under your real name, and then you watch a cartoon image of you, that is not you, separate out of your body and get into the kingdom no problem.

Angel: "What is wanted?"

FIG: "Hi, I'm, uh, Mahan's Fake Identity Guy. I want in. Here's the handshakes. My new name is Altar Eggo...yes, like the waffle and the platform on which waffles are sacrificed."

Angel: "Ohhh. Okaay. Let's take a gander at your record. I see here you were endowed in 2035 under the new 'EZ Duzit' endowment, where all you had to do was promise to "mostly be nice'...and it I don't see any record of you being mostly not nice. So welcome to the Celestial Kingdom. The cartoon characters are living in the big building off to the left."

FIG: "Cool! See ya later, Mahan. See ya later...or maybe never. Ima finna go say hi to Jessica Rabbit. She's here in the CK, you know."

Actually, you can't do it more than once. If you are excommunicated and rebaptized, baptism is the only ordinance that is redone (and maybe confirmation, not sure about that). All other ordinances are "restored". And in fact they are only suspended when you are exed, so getting excommunicated or resigning is technically not an automatic "temple divorce". Of course, technically a temple marriage is fictional, except for its civil marriage component.

This sounds like Scientology. Sort of open season on the recruits.

"He gave the presentation that the endowment is always changing to make it better for the people so they will not be offended."

They're worried about offending people. God is worrying about offending people???? No they aren't. They don't give a damn if they offend us.

The changes are all about getting more people to attend the temple, so they keep taking out things that make people uncomfortable like 5 points of fellowship or the nakedness for the W&A.

The endowment is just plain BORING and HIDEOUS. My dad said it was bizarre.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2019 09:17PM by cl2.

One thing deleted was the preacher and all the rhetoric about all other religions being of Lucifer.

My understanding is it was pulled because new converts found it offensive.

So did old members.

Heartless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing deleted was the preacher and all the
> rhetoric about all other religions being of
> Lucifer.
>
> My understanding is it was pulled because new
> converts found it offensive.

Lucifer's role in the temple is curious. If you slip up on your covenants, even just a little bit, apparently you will be in his power. So, you potentially hand yourself over to Lucifer.

(Just don't mention the Pink Room)

After I saw the light about Mormon temple oaths and realized that I'd pretty much sold my soul to a corporation by saying the words giving "all the Lord has blessed me with and will EVER bless me with in the future to tcojcolds" I just had to take back the oath officially.

I went to the nearest temple and took back my oaths "before God, angels, and those witnesses present".

The temple president was NOT pleased. He asked for my recommend back and I refused to give it to him. He was pretty mad at me until he asked why I did it. I explained that I did not agree with the temple oath but did not want to resign from the church. He realized that there was no way to take back the oaths of giving your whole life to the church. I explained that I wanted to give my life to God but not a corporation. That made him think and he was a changed man. He said he got what I was trying to do and wished me well.

Later, after realizing the whole church was a scam, I left the whole church and not just the temple parts.

To this day I wonder if I had any effect on the temple patrons who heard me take back my oath.

Fraudulent inducement, statute of frauds, failure of consideration, duress, undue influence, unconscionability, legal capacity, unequal bargaining power, abuse of power, impermissible vagueness....... My understanding is that Mormon God won't have a legal leg to stand on in court.

Rumpelstiltskin would have a better chance of enforcing his contract with Rapunzel.

Of course God can always smite people with his mighty smitey thing until they give him what he wants. But that's just straight-up gangster-like thuggery.

Secular Priest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He had
> no answer except to say in his presentation that
> the temple endowment is much better today than at
> the time of BY.

Pretty much EVERYTHING is much better today than at the time of BY....which is a backhanded way of acknowledging that BY was a false prophet and they've all just been making stuff up as they go.

How firm a foundation...can jello be?

No one who needs bizarre rituals cares where they come from or whether it’s all baloney. It makes them feel better about themselves. I feel sorry for young people who think it’s something special, pay good money to go there and even make bad life decisions based on wanting to go to that oh-so-special place. Only to find out the joke’s on them.

I also feel sorry for so many who are in miserable marriages so they go to the temple a lot because it reminds them that if they keep enduring it, they will be rewarded for it. When instead they could have possibly done something to change their situation before spending the only life they are guaranteed to have, being miserable.

But I don’t feel sorry for those who just keep going, keep throwing away their money and stay imprisoned in the ugly undies just because they’re too scared to do some quick and easy research into where it came from and why. They like their bubbles and want to stay in them and that’s fine. I just want them to quit acting like it makes them better than other people when all it does is show their ignorance and gullibility.

I went to the temple hoping to learn an eternal truth or two,
But after the handshaking & costuming was through,
An old temple president said "..maybe there's no answer for you".

"I said the wording is important especially if we understand covenants from a legal view point."

Isn't that impossible? How can there be a legal point of view on temple covenants unless they are converge with actual laws? Or are you talking "spiritual laws" like their law of consecration?

My eyes are glazing over...

The reason so many of us put up with uncomfortable experiences was because we were indoctrinated that it was the LORDS way. It was supposedly his church and that's the way it was. I was taught that the church wouldn't change due to outward pressure, but it's painfully obvious that LDS Corp will change if it's losing money.

Most of us that went to the temple (both pre-post penalty phase) were shocked beyond belief. Weird doesn't even begin to describe your first time experience and I took a year long temple prep class that was supposed to make it a "wonderful" experience. I felt uncomfortable and nothing special nor spiritual. I racked my brain trying to figure out what the hell was wrong with me. As a young man preparing myself to serve a 2 year mission, surely the lord would indeed support and love ANYBODY who was making such a commitment.

It wasn't until coming here to RFM that I realized hundreds of others experienced similar uncomfortable and misery at the temple. It's been beyond therapeutic to learn that I wasn't alone.

she came to visit me and told me that the temple almost forced her out of the church and that she still had issues with it. Haven't seen her in years, but I'd be surprised if she is still mormon.

Then I did have the "opportunity" to find out from my older sister about the W&A because a coworker heard from friends that there was nakedness in the temple and she and I were in shock. My older sister told me about it and so I was "prepared."

I hated it anyway. I told my daughter everything and she still told her father that it was bizarre and she told him the things she absolutely thought were ridiculous, but he hasn't said anything about it. She would NEVER dare tell me.

I had many thoughts that first time and many in the few times I attended after that--and one was "this isn't the church I was raised in." The men's hat. I about laughed out loud.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2019 08:12PM by cl2.

So I was already predisposed to not like the temple before I even got there.

But I didn't know that until I got there. I was expecting real "light and knowledge" of a very substantial, profound, edifying nature...because that's what the hype always implied.

When I got there and found out that it was about ponchos, oil dabbings on my groin area, jumpsuits, long underwear, funny hats, sashes and aprons and standing around in a circle saying silly made-up words (pay, lay, ale), I was just barely tolerating it...still optimistically hoping that there would be something yet to come to make it all worthwhile.

But deep down, I knew that my optimism wasn't justified because the bloody penalty oaths had already made it perfectly clear to me that the whole thing was a dark farce...a bloody joke, and the joke was on everyone who went along with it. It was a candid camera episode minus the camera and Allen Funt.

As a missionary, I only went to the temple an additional two times. After my mission, maybe one or two times more and then I avoided it like the plague. I knew it was a sick joke from the first time I went through it. But it took me a few years before I could bring myself to fully admit it. There was just so much riding on playing along--family, friends, social community, etc., etc.

The temple wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back for me, but it was the first 400 lbs of straw that set things up for the final straws to have their full effect.

So why wasn't the washing and annointing a symbolic gesture in the first place?

Everything else done in the temple was by proxy anyways. It made no sense to demand people to be naked, save for a shield that may or may not (in my case) fit properly.

The entire ceremony could have completely revamped: Drop the film, robes and silly hats. Just have everyone agree to obey the church.

I can't tell you all the humiliation that I felt for failing to take off my temple slippers/shoes when changing the robes from one shoulder to another. The workers would wait until the last moment after everyone was finished; only to embarrass you and have you "change" all over again.

Why weren't are socks (men) and stockings (women) required to be dragged on/off as part of the ceremony as well?

listen to this, it really can clear things up for the mormons : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4ueqSbriu8

Until this issue can be debated openly in a Sunday School class, there is no hope of moral redemption for the Mormon church. People need to be able to raise their hands in mormon Sunday School class in front of whoever is there that day and say something like "what value did the penalties such as a vow of having your throat slashed open if you ever reveal the secret handshakes, have in the temple ceremony before 1990?". Then there need to be answers given in that case, not the person leaving the room feeling like a leper for having asked the question. Just because you were treated with abuse in the temple doesn't mean that the church shouldn't have to be accountable for their actions. If it wasn't abuse, let the class debate the issue openly. If it actually was sacred, then why did they stop doing it?

His eyes glazed over after a shred of doubt entered his mind.

Doubts don't glaze, they coagulate.

Now those truthiness truths have a double coat of the stuff.

It never bothered me when the Church would edit their Scriptures or the temple ceremonies if the changes were designed to better communicate the concepts that they were trying to teach.

I remember in the sealing room of the temple (before 1990, if that's relevant) being told, "Your wife just promised to 'obey her husband' - but that does not mean that she must 'obey you.'" Now that's confusing?!?

If the Church must provide qualifiers to what they are teaching because of perceived problems with how members receive their teachings, I would prefer that they eliminate the teachings causing confusion in the first place.

The problem with the temple is that it was never instituted for any Christian purpose. The temple was created as a place where Joseph Smith could seduce women and girls without worrying that Emma would discover him in any "compromising positions." The institution of the Church became complicit as an "adultery machine."

When the Church finally realizes this, they can forget about the endowment and ordinances for the dead. They can accept that everyone will be judged according to their desires in the circumstances in which they lived. Marriage will be eternal (or not) if the couple accepts each other in eternity.

If they can change the all important endowment ritual to not offend anyone how come they don't rewrite the Book of Mormon to make it not racist. If you are a person with dark skin the BofM is pretty offensive.

The church has constantly reinvented itself. That is the reason David Whitmore had a falling out. The church had changed and he called Joseph Smith out saying this is not what I originally signed onto.

The bottom line is the temple recommend generates a lot of money for the church. The temple is just an illusion. A show. A reason to have a temple recommend. I think most members find the temple strange and boring even if they parrot how great it is.

Mormonism is group think. It's about doing stupid shit to be accepted by the group because you either need to be in the group and want to be in the group.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The temple is just
> an illusion.

Great now I have something Styx in my brain. Thanks for the Eternal Allusion.