An Interesting Fact about the Evolution of the Endowment

A sensible choice for practical reasons, but I would love to see a live endowment. Every theatrical performance is unique.

Have you ever discussed endowment with someone who was endowed pre-1990? Always wonder what people think of the changes.

A sensible choice for practical reasons, but I would love to see a live endowment. Every theatrical performance is unique.

Have you ever discussed endowment with someone who was endowed pre-1990? Always wonder what people think of the changes.

I was endowed in 1983 and I have been to a couple live sessions in Salt Lake.

Pre-1990s: The only significant differences are the elimination of the blood oaths (they symbolically detailed what type of death one would suffer for divulging the different signs and tokens, and I hope I’m not saying too much here, if so mods feel free to edit) and that the movies have improved a bit each time. I agree with Cadence, the blood oaths were a bit bizarre.

Live session: Again, Cadence hit it on the head – they really aren’t acting, they are just saying the lines (and not very well IMO) and they’re dressed in white. I do like the symbolism of moving from room to room (instead of the light just getting brighter) and I do like the art work. I also like picturing the thing in my own mind as opposed to the movie, although the movie has influenced my mind’s picture – sort of like reading Harry Potter after seeing the movies. I do think live sessions help me focus more on the symbolism, so I sometimes close my eyes during a regular session. Where I live there are no opportunities for live sessions anyway.

I was also endowed pre1990s. My first experiences were with live sessions. They generally were not particularly interesting to watch and thus I don’t miss them much. I did like moving from room to room as we used to. I guess I didn’t give the blood oaths that much thought but I do like the streamlined version of the endowment they have now.

I used to see both of the earlier movies which, in my opinion, were only one small step above watching the live session. The movies that came out in the 1990s were much more engaging. And for what it’s worth, I don’t like the new movie as well as the 1990s films but it’s still better than the pre1990s films.

As I thought about this more, there was one more change I remembered. When I was endowed there was some direct reference to other Christian beliefs and criticism in the film, which are now gone. The role of the minister teaching people was larger and he had more interaction with Peter, James, and John.

The current set up at least suggests “false priests” which distinguishes them from well meaning ones. There are, and have been, evil ministers of religion – the Torquemadas, Jim Jones, pedophiles and the less obvious ones – who oppress.

This guy wasn’t presented as all that evil, today’s version is just watered down a bit. We were clearly meant to believe, however, that his teachings were false and we needed the truths the heavenly messengers were bringing. I think the point is still made, just with less veiled mockery of Catholicism and Protestantism.

One thing I find fascinating about the LDS endowment ceremony is that it resembles the ancient Christian rite of initiation. We know from various early Christian sources that the ceremony included being anointed on parts of your body and raising your arm to the square, and that it was reserved for members who were deemed ready and worthy to receive it because it conveyed knowledge that was not shared with the general public.

Apparently the rite of initiation was a combination of the ordinance of baptism and the endowment ceremony. Initially, from what we find in scripture and in early Christian texts, baptism was a single, simple rite that was performed in public. But, in later centuries baptism was combined with another rite (the endowment) and because a private initiation rite.

Catholic scholar Marcus von Wellnitz recognized the parallels between early Christian initiation rites and the Mormon temple, and wrote an article about it that was published in BYU Studies.

Apparently the rite of initiation was a combination of the ordinance of baptism and the endowment ceremony. Initially, from what we find in scripture and in early Christian texts, baptism was a single, simple rite that was performed in public. But, in later centuries baptism was combined with another rite (the endowment) and because a private initiation rite.

Striking similarities. Would you suppose that these early christians received these “initiation ceremonies” through revelation as part of an eternal gospel or that they were guilty of adding pomp and circumstance to the simple and pure rite of baptism?

Either is possible depending upon your perspective.