Deprecated: Hook site-logo is deprecated since version 13.4! Use custom-logo instead. Jetpack no longer supports site-logo feature. Add custom-logo support to your theme instead: https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/functionality/custom-logo/ in /home2/hotpeppe/public_html/ourthoughts/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6078 Do you think the endowment ceremony is literal?Skip to content
Queer Mormon poet with radical political views. I have been married 27 years, and we have 6 children. Sunday school president. Served in the Utah Provo Mission.
View all posts by Kim Siever
120 thoughts on “Do you think the endowment ceremony is literal?”
Wow.
The spread on this is pretty telling.
Well, we are talking about only 7 people, rick. How telling can that be?
The fact that there is a spread tells me that there is no conclusive church position on the literalness of the ceremony (or at the very least is is not taught to members).
If there were an absolute position, I would expect the first few votes to come in decidedly on one of the answers. I make the assumption that the first few people to answer the poll would be the regulars; the regulars who are mostly members.
Well, now it’s 17 people. What was the spread like at 7?
I’m curious if Kim is amused by who votes for how much literalness.
signed, your very symbolic friend,
The poll is entirely anonymous. I have no idea who voted for what. I am surprised at how few responses there are who think it’s literal. Given my interactions with other members (especially those who like to quote the ceremony as if it is scripture), I would have expected it to have turned out much differently.
Count me for one who thinks it’s mostly symbolic. I’d love to see a little more discussion on this topic.
I had a thought on the symbolic nature of the endowment a while back. I’m not sure to what degree I believe this, but I think it might have a shot at being somewhat correct.
I have thought that the real purpose of the ceremony was to teach us how to learn, not what to learn.
For instance, it’s not the specific signs or tokens that we need to learn (because really, with the advent of the internet and other modern communication tools, there is really no secret. Any of the specifics can be learned anywhere, not just in the temple.) but rather from whom and how they will be shown to us when it really matters.
Is the new name I received really my own unique new name? No, I’m sure a thousand other people got the same name that day when they went through for the first time. But, there will come a time when I will be given a new name, and I should be able to recognize the proper source from which it will come, etc…
Are the signs really the ones we will present at the veil? Perhaps we just learn to recognize who will teach us the real ones in the hereafter.
There are aspects that I think are literal. For instance, the covenants and laws I feel are real and for the here and now and hereafter. But the rest I think is just to prepare us for what to suspect when it really counts.
$0.02
I think you bring up some good points, JM. I’ve done a little delving into the background behind the temple ceremony. I can only believe, given Joseph Smith’s experience with Masonry, that he instituted the ceremony as a way for us to learn certain principles.
When it comes down to it, beyond learning the principle of returning and reporting, I think the importance of the ceremony lies in the covenants we make.
When it comes down to it, beyond learning the principle of returning and reporting, I think the importance of the ceremony lies in the covenants we make.
Which, to me, brings into question the need for repeat visits.
Same reason we go to church each week to hear the baptismal covenants during the Sacrament.
Actually, rick, I think the repeat visits are a technicality for the dead.
For instance (and this will probably be a very bad analogy)…
The punishment for speeding in a car is usually a fine and the law doesn’t stipulate who needs to pay the fine.
Person A gets a ticket and person B pays the fine, the government doesn’t care, the fine has been paid.
The same would go for the endowment. The ‘law’ stupulates that the ceremony needs to happen for every person, for those who cannot perform it themselves, a proxy can do it for them. Some people like being proxy so they choose to go over and over.
Good point, JM. In addition, not only do some people go because they like being proxy, some go because they feel that everyone going once is not enough for all the dead to have proxy work done.
Regardless of the act by proxy, if the primary goal of the ceremony is learning, then repeat visits are pointless.
The person being proxied is not learning anything.
Well, that’s not the primary goal, which is probably why you’re confused.
How is it possible for you to make covenants for someone not present?
I can’t make promises for you in this life. What makes you so sure that you can make promises for people who have passed?
We dont.
Then how are you defining covenant?
This quote:
“When it comes down to it, beyond learning the principle of returning and reporting, I think the importance of the ceremony lies in the covenants we make”
When you remove learning and covenants there is no reason for repeat ceremony at all.
I didn’t say that.
How covenant is defined has nothing do to with it. The word that needs defining is proxy.
also, by removing learning and covenants, there are still reasons…
Kim Siever said: “I can only believe, given Joseph Smith’s experience with Masonry, that he instituted the ceremony as a way for us to learn certain principles.”
The internet that Al Gore created “JOKE” has been a blessing and a curse for the Church. It has been a blessing for sharing information such lesson manuals. It has also been a curse since it allows the mysteries such as the Mason rites to be examined by free thinkers.
If attending the Temple makes you feel special and closer to God then it does not matter what the rites are. If you believe the Mason Rites have some special power then it would be important to attend often and make sure you know the secrets of the Temple.
New Name – The scriptures have very few female names in them. If all Temples in the world use the same new name each day, is the new name really that important in the hereafter? Many females with few new names might make it tough for someone with a common name such as Jane Smith or Mary Parker.
In the past 10 years it seems they have been using scriptural names, but I’m old enough to know that it wasn’t always so. My own new name doesn’t come from the scriptures.
I received mine 15 years ago, and it is scriptural. I know of at least one person who received a non-scriptural name.
I should clarify that when I said that the importance of the ceremony lies in the covenants made, I was referring to a per ordinance basis.
For example, when I received my own endowment, the most important thing was the covenants I made. When I did the work for my great great grandfather on Saturday, the most important thing for him was the covenant I made on his behalf; the most important thing for me was doing the work for someone who cannot.
The temple ceremony is absolutely literal. This is fundamental to our beliefs.
There’s a reason why the verbage of the endowment is so exact (and has to be)…. this is an ordinance. There are only three ‘prayers’ or instances in Church that need to be word-for-word. One, the sacrament prayers; two, certain portions of dedicatory prayers for temples; and three, ALL temple ordinances.
When He comes, He will come to His temples. We will gain entry to the celestial kingdom in the same way as we gain entry to the celestial room.
Dallas,
Why would the endowment ceremony’s being literal be fundamental to our beliefs? I can see why principles within it are fundamental to our beliefs, but why the literalness of it?
Kim…
The ceremony’s ‘literalness’ and our knowledge of it, the ability that we have had to see it, is the culmination of the plan of happiness, which is at the core of our beliefs.
Without knowledge of the endowment ceremony, whether we learn it here or during the millenial reign, we cannot gain exaltation. We need the knowledge to converse with the Lord through the veil. We need to offer the S&T to the Lord at our judgment to prove our righteousness.
Given that the ceremony is literal, Dallas, what prevents apostates and gentiles such as myself who have read it online from going through the motions when the time comes?
The culmination of the plan of happiness is the atonement — or rather the eternal life the atonement affords us — which is not mentioned in the endowment ceremony.
Kim:
I agree partially: the plan of happiness is us returning to live with Heavenly Father. The vehicle by which that becomes possible is the atonement.
Sure the eternal life is mentioned in the endowment…. in many places it is mentioned, and its nature is revealed in others.
Of course a conversation in the celestial room would be most appropriate about the specifics….;)
Rick…. just because I read all about Chemistry on the internet or from a textbook does not necessarily a chemist make me. I cannot earn a degree without receiving it from an authority authorized to grant me one…. like a University for example.
The same type of logic applies to the endowment… it is an ordinance that needs to be performed by one with the proper authority. You are being “endowed” with not only the content of the ceremony, but also with the ability to enter the celestial kingdom.
Ummm… I’m going to assume that was just a very bad example of what you’re trying to get across.(Many, many great men of science did not earn degrees and were leading figures in their areas of expertise; they could do it because they understood the processes – not because they had a piece of paper.)
So how does your argument apply to apostates?
Lack of membership in the temple club obviously eliminates informed gentiles from eternal bliss, but the former believers have both the endowment AND the keys to the kingdom.
Dallas is pulling our legs. I’m sure he knows the temple liturgy is symbolic, has changed a number of times, and will likely change with each generation so the members can better grasp what’s being conveyed. It’s that, or he’s a plant trying to undermine members testimonies by presenting a false principle of conservation of temple liturgy that has never been the case.
Steve.
Doctrine, just as anything, is flexible and fluid, the Lord has every intention of making sure that we have understanding.
That being said, the requirements of our entering the CK would change accordingly, no?
I suppose that we literally have no obligation to wear our garments or attend sacrament and priesthood meetings either? They are just symbols and therefore can be put aside?
Of course. Do you know of a source that states either are required for our salvation?
Are you referring to the garment or the meetings?
The garment, yes… in the endowment we covenant to wear them always.
I cannot (and will not go searching) recall scriptural reference to church meetings, but it is a question asked both in the Temple recommend interview and PPI’s.
Covenanting to wear them always is not the same thing as being a requirement for exaltation. Likewise, just because something is a requirement for a temple recommend does not mean it’s a requirement for salvation.
After all, if either of them were requirements, think of all the biblical prophets who won’t be getting exalted.
Of course keeping our covenants is a requirement for salvation.
If we do not live up to the things we covenant to do in the temple, we become the Sons of Perdition. It states it black and white in the endowment ceremony… this includes wearing the garments.
As for the temple recommend interview, this is a list of things that we have already covenanted to do. If we don’t live up to our end of the bargain, we don’t attain celestial glory.
As for the biblical prophets, those who were translated were not required to make those covenants (obviously). The others will make those covenants, and wear the garments, before they are judged.
Man, I’m opinionated today.
“Of course keeping our covenants is a requirement for salvation.”
He wasn’t saying otherwise.
“The others will make those covenants, and wear the garments, before they are judged.”
Just curious (not saying you are wrong or right) but how do you know they will be required to wear garments before they are judged?
I suppose I don’t know, per se, but wouldn’t they receive garments in the millennium en route to the celestial kingdom.
I could very possibly be mistaken here. I don’t know if there’s any scriptural/doctrinal background to this.
“but wouldn’t they receive garments in the millenium en route to the celestial kingdom.”
I don’t see why. Or why not. Why would they receive them? I can’t say either way. Perhaps it isn’t the garment itself that is important. I would be willing to say not. However, yes, we covenant to wear them all the time and that is important for us, right now. I don’t know if it will be necessary for us to wear them in the celestial kingdom since, if we get there, we have kept the covenants that we made and it is complete.
We have a tendency, as modern day Latter Day Saints to judge all people, past, present and future by the standards and practises of our day. The covenants we make are important, the method by which those covenants are made are not necessarily important for our exaltation, and perhaps will be changed (the method by which they are performed). Does this make them incorrect? Of course not.
Dallas is having fun with us. He knows perfectly well we don’t covenant to wear the Gs, although we are told to wear them.
I’ll add in comment 37 he’s quoting a warning from a character in the liturgy that only a moron would think is professing some gospel truth. The character tells lie after lie, but we’re supposed to believe his exit line? Give me a ____ing break!
Yes, yes, Steve EM. You are very clever, and I am very impressed by you.
I’m quite sorry I ever got involved in here thinking that a simple conversation could take place without name calling and sarcasm.
But, then again, I’m just a moron I guess.
Steve EM
I don’t see anything wrong with Dallas’ opinions. He is certainly entitled to them (and he may be right!). This is a normal debate and shouldn’t be a name calling session. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean you need to get nasty with him.
Dallas, you most certainly aren’t a moron.
Since Joseph Smith “borrowed” his signs and tokens from the Masons, then the Masons would also be able to pass into the Celestial Kingdom. Makes the exculsive club not so exculsive.
The “movie” mentions God made Adam and Eve coats of animal skin. In order to get coats of skin, animals had to die; so is the “movie” implying God was the first one to kill on the earth?
If Adam and Eve got to wear fur, it only makes sense we should wear fur also.
What say the Masons “borrowed” their signs and tokens from the prophets of old?
That’s a popular theory, Dallas, which many people believe. Unfortunately, there is not a single shred of evidence to support it.
There’s not an awful lot of “evidence” for any of it, now is there?
Wow.
The spread on this is pretty telling.
Well, we are talking about only 7 people, rick. How telling can that be?
The fact that there is a spread tells me that there is no conclusive church position on the literalness of the ceremony (or at the very least is is not taught to members).
If there were an absolute position, I would expect the first few votes to come in decidedly on one of the answers. I make the assumption that the first few people to answer the poll would be the regulars; the regulars who are mostly members.
Well, now it’s 17 people. What was the spread like at 7?
I’m curious if Kim is amused by who votes for how much literalness.
signed, your very symbolic friend,
The poll is entirely anonymous. I have no idea who voted for what. I am surprised at how few responses there are who think it’s literal. Given my interactions with other members (especially those who like to quote the ceremony as if it is scripture), I would have expected it to have turned out much differently.
Count me for one who thinks it’s mostly symbolic. I’d love to see a little more discussion on this topic.
I had a thought on the symbolic nature of the endowment a while back. I’m not sure to what degree I believe this, but I think it might have a shot at being somewhat correct.
I have thought that the real purpose of the ceremony was to teach us how to learn, not what to learn.
For instance, it’s not the specific signs or tokens that we need to learn (because really, with the advent of the internet and other modern communication tools, there is really no secret. Any of the specifics can be learned anywhere, not just in the temple.) but rather from whom and how they will be shown to us when it really matters.
Is the new name I received really my own unique new name? No, I’m sure a thousand other people got the same name that day when they went through for the first time. But, there will come a time when I will be given a new name, and I should be able to recognize the proper source from which it will come, etc…
Are the signs really the ones we will present at the veil? Perhaps we just learn to recognize who will teach us the real ones in the hereafter.
There are aspects that I think are literal. For instance, the covenants and laws I feel are real and for the here and now and hereafter. But the rest I think is just to prepare us for what to suspect when it really counts.
$0.02
I think you bring up some good points, JM. I’ve done a little delving into the background behind the temple ceremony. I can only believe, given Joseph Smith’s experience with Masonry, that he instituted the ceremony as a way for us to learn certain principles.
When it comes down to it, beyond learning the principle of returning and reporting, I think the importance of the ceremony lies in the covenants we make.
Which, to me, brings into question the need for repeat visits.
Same reason we go to church each week to hear the baptismal covenants during the Sacrament.
Actually, rick, I think the repeat visits are a technicality for the dead.
For instance (and this will probably be a very bad analogy)…
The punishment for speeding in a car is usually a fine and the law doesn’t stipulate who needs to pay the fine.
Person A gets a ticket and person B pays the fine, the government doesn’t care, the fine has been paid.
The same would go for the endowment. The ‘law’ stupulates that the ceremony needs to happen for every person, for those who cannot perform it themselves, a proxy can do it for them. Some people like being proxy so they choose to go over and over.
Good point, JM. In addition, not only do some people go because they like being proxy, some go because they feel that everyone going once is not enough for all the dead to have proxy work done.
Regardless of the act by proxy, if the primary goal of the ceremony is learning, then repeat visits are pointless.
The person being proxied is not learning anything.
Well, that’s not the primary goal, which is probably why you’re confused.
How is it possible for you to make covenants for someone not present?
I can’t make promises for you in this life. What makes you so sure that you can make promises for people who have passed?
We dont.
Then how are you defining covenant?
This quote:
“When it comes down to it, beyond learning the principle of returning and reporting, I think the importance of the ceremony lies in the covenants we make”
When you remove learning and covenants there is no reason for repeat ceremony at all.
I didn’t say that.
How covenant is defined has nothing do to with it. The word that needs defining is proxy.
also, by removing learning and covenants, there are still reasons…
Kim Siever said: “I can only believe, given Joseph Smith’s experience with Masonry, that he instituted the ceremony as a way for us to learn certain principles.”
The internet that Al Gore created “JOKE” has been a blessing and a curse for the Church. It has been a blessing for sharing information such lesson manuals. It has also been a curse since it allows the mysteries such as the Mason rites to be examined by free thinkers.
If attending the Temple makes you feel special and closer to God then it does not matter what the rites are. If you believe the Mason Rites have some special power then it would be important to attend often and make sure you know the secrets of the Temple.
New Name – The scriptures have very few female names in them. If all Temples in the world use the same new name each day, is the new name really that important in the hereafter? Many females with few new names might make it tough for someone with a common name such as Jane Smith or Mary Parker.
In the past 10 years it seems they have been using scriptural names, but I’m old enough to know that it wasn’t always so. My own new name doesn’t come from the scriptures.
I received mine 15 years ago, and it is scriptural. I know of at least one person who received a non-scriptural name.
I should clarify that when I said that the importance of the ceremony lies in the covenants made, I was referring to a per ordinance basis.
For example, when I received my own endowment, the most important thing was the covenants I made. When I did the work for my great great grandfather on Saturday, the most important thing for him was the covenant I made on his behalf; the most important thing for me was doing the work for someone who cannot.
The temple ceremony is absolutely literal. This is fundamental to our beliefs.
There’s a reason why the verbage of the endowment is so exact (and has to be)…. this is an ordinance. There are only three ‘prayers’ or instances in Church that need to be word-for-word. One, the sacrament prayers; two, certain portions of dedicatory prayers for temples; and three, ALL temple ordinances.
When He comes, He will come to His temples. We will gain entry to the celestial kingdom in the same way as we gain entry to the celestial room.
Dallas,
Why would the endowment ceremony’s being literal be fundamental to our beliefs? I can see why principles within it are fundamental to our beliefs, but why the literalness of it?
Kim…
The ceremony’s ‘literalness’ and our knowledge of it, the ability that we have had to see it, is the culmination of the plan of happiness, which is at the core of our beliefs.
Without knowledge of the endowment ceremony, whether we learn it here or during the millenial reign, we cannot gain exaltation. We need the knowledge to converse with the Lord through the veil. We need to offer the S&T to the Lord at our judgment to prove our righteousness.
Given that the ceremony is literal, Dallas, what prevents apostates and gentiles such as myself who have read it online from going through the motions when the time comes?
The culmination of the plan of happiness is the atonement — or rather the eternal life the atonement affords us — which is not mentioned in the endowment ceremony.
Kim:
I agree partially: the plan of happiness is us returning to live with Heavenly Father. The vehicle by which that becomes possible is the atonement.
Sure the eternal life is mentioned in the endowment…. in many places it is mentioned, and its nature is revealed in others.
Of course a conversation in the celestial room would be most appropriate about the specifics….;)
Rick…. just because I read all about Chemistry on the internet or from a textbook does not necessarily a chemist make me. I cannot earn a degree without receiving it from an authority authorized to grant me one…. like a University for example.
The same type of logic applies to the endowment… it is an ordinance that needs to be performed by one with the proper authority. You are being “endowed” with not only the content of the ceremony, but also with the ability to enter the celestial kingdom.
Ummm… I’m going to assume that was just a very bad example of what you’re trying to get across.(Many, many great men of science did not earn degrees and were leading figures in their areas of expertise; they could do it because they understood the processes – not because they had a piece of paper.)
So how does your argument apply to apostates?
Lack of membership in the temple club obviously eliminates informed gentiles from eternal bliss, but the former believers have both the endowment AND the keys to the kingdom.
Dallas is pulling our legs. I’m sure he knows the temple liturgy is symbolic, has changed a number of times, and will likely change with each generation so the members can better grasp what’s being conveyed. It’s that, or he’s a plant trying to undermine members testimonies by presenting a false principle of conservation of temple liturgy that has never been the case.
Steve.
Doctrine, just as anything, is flexible and fluid, the Lord has every intention of making sure that we have understanding.
That being said, the requirements of our entering the CK would change accordingly, no?
I suppose that we literally have no obligation to wear our garments or attend sacrament and priesthood meetings either? They are just symbols and therefore can be put aside?
Of course. Do you know of a source that states either are required for our salvation?
Are you referring to the garment or the meetings?
The garment, yes… in the endowment we covenant to wear them always.
I cannot (and will not go searching) recall scriptural reference to church meetings, but it is a question asked both in the Temple recommend interview and PPI’s.
Covenanting to wear them always is not the same thing as being a requirement for exaltation. Likewise, just because something is a requirement for a temple recommend does not mean it’s a requirement for salvation.
After all, if either of them were requirements, think of all the biblical prophets who won’t be getting exalted.
Of course keeping our covenants is a requirement for salvation.
If we do not live up to the things we covenant to do in the temple, we become the Sons of Perdition. It states it black and white in the endowment ceremony… this includes wearing the garments.
As for the temple recommend interview, this is a list of things that we have already covenanted to do. If we don’t live up to our end of the bargain, we don’t attain celestial glory.
As for the biblical prophets, those who were translated were not required to make those covenants (obviously). The others will make those covenants, and wear the garments, before they are judged.
Man, I’m opinionated today.
“Of course keeping our covenants is a requirement for salvation.”
He wasn’t saying otherwise.
“The others will make those covenants, and wear the garments, before they are judged.”
Just curious (not saying you are wrong or right) but how do you know they will be required to wear garments before they are judged?
I suppose I don’t know, per se, but wouldn’t they receive garments in the millennium en route to the celestial kingdom.
I could very possibly be mistaken here. I don’t know if there’s any scriptural/doctrinal background to this.
“but wouldn’t they receive garments in the millenium en route to the celestial kingdom.”
I don’t see why. Or why not. Why would they receive them? I can’t say either way. Perhaps it isn’t the garment itself that is important. I would be willing to say not. However, yes, we covenant to wear them all the time and that is important for us, right now. I don’t know if it will be necessary for us to wear them in the celestial kingdom since, if we get there, we have kept the covenants that we made and it is complete.
We have a tendency, as modern day Latter Day Saints to judge all people, past, present and future by the standards and practises of our day. The covenants we make are important, the method by which those covenants are made are not necessarily important for our exaltation, and perhaps will be changed (the method by which they are performed). Does this make them incorrect? Of course not.
Dallas is having fun with us. He knows perfectly well we don’t covenant to wear the Gs, although we are told to wear them.
I’ll add in comment 37 he’s quoting a warning from a character in the liturgy that only a moron would think is professing some gospel truth. The character tells lie after lie, but we’re supposed to believe his exit line? Give me a ____ing break!
Yes, yes, Steve EM. You are very clever, and I am very impressed by you.
I’m quite sorry I ever got involved in here thinking that a simple conversation could take place without name calling and sarcasm.
But, then again, I’m just a moron I guess.
Steve EM
I don’t see anything wrong with Dallas’ opinions. He is certainly entitled to them (and he may be right!). This is a normal debate and shouldn’t be a name calling session. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean you need to get nasty with him.
Dallas, you most certainly aren’t a moron.
Since Joseph Smith “borrowed” his signs and tokens from the Masons, then the Masons would also be able to pass into the Celestial Kingdom. Makes the exculsive club not so exculsive.
The “movie” mentions God made Adam and Eve coats of animal skin. In order to get coats of skin, animals had to die; so is the “movie” implying God was the first one to kill on the earth?
If Adam and Eve got to wear fur, it only makes sense we should wear fur also.
What say the Masons “borrowed” their signs and tokens from the prophets of old?
That’s a popular theory, Dallas, which many people believe. Unfortunately, there is not a single shred of evidence to support it.
There’s not an awful lot of “evidence” for any of it, now is there?
Any of what?