Church More Open About Endowment

[Anonymous]

I’m sure many of you are already aware of this… but, FYI… The Church General Handbook was updated in December, 2020, and includes new and much more specific language regarding the endowment:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/27-temple-ordinances-for-the-living?lang=eng#p1

Quote:

The Endowment

The word endowment means “a gift.” The temple endowment is literally a gift from God through which He blesses His children. The endowment can be received only in holy temples. Some of the gifts that members receive through the temple endowment include:

[Anonymous]

That’s good. I know a common complaint is that people are put on the spot (hearing for the first time) when asked to make covenants in the temple.

The publication does something else, it draws elements of the temple experience out into more open conversation. Not sure how to put this, but it trims back a portion of the hedge we’ve built up around the temple experience.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

The publication does something else, it draws elements of the temple experience out into more open conversation. Not sure how to put this, but it trims back a portion of the hedge we’ve built up around the temple experience.

Yes! Exactly. And there’s this other paragraph in the same General Handbook chapter:

Quote:

Temple covenants and ordinances are sacred. The symbols associated with temple covenants should not be discussed outside the temple. Nor should we discuss the holy information we promise in the temple not to reveal. However, we may discuss the basic purposes and doctrine of temple covenants and ordinances and the spiritual feelings we have in the temple.

This is interesting because it only prescribes two rules for what “should not be discussed” outside the temple:

– “The symbols associated with temple covenants”. Think about what those are. Don’t discuss those, other than that they exist, as stated in the GH.

– “The holy information we promise in the temple not to reveal”. Holy information is pretty broad, but it is narrowed down here. It’s stuff that you specifically “promise in the temple not to reveal.”

[Anonymous]

Yes, this is great and probably like many other things has gone unnoticed by the general membership. The church website has for at least a couple years contained some pretty open info about the temple – far more than what some “very righteous” members were ever willing to say (out of fear). The first link can be accessed from the church homepage near the bottom. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples?lang=eng This second one is a link on that page which I like. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng It’s pretty clearly spelled out in the second article. There are only a couple things I remember promising not to reveal outside the temple – the covenants are not included in those promises.

I remember when I first went to the temple and nobody dared say anything except how wonderful it is. I came out thinking “This is what all the hullbaloo is about?” Weird was more correct. Therefore when it was my own kids’ time to go through I was not shy about sharing all I felt comfortable with – which are the things I specifically promised not to.

So kudos to the church on one more thing to be more open about. I likewise appreciated when the temple recommend questions were changed and published. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

I think this is great. I think we get more criticism for the “secret” parts of the temple even though we consider them sacred, not secret.

I think this gives church leaders a way of preparing people for the temple. I would assume the temple preparation class addresses these items too?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I would assume the temple preparation class addresses these items too?

I would assume that the manual hasn’t changed in 20 years.

[checks]

The manual has a copyright of 1995 with another copyright in 2003 for a second edition. It’s the same one that was used when I taught the class a long time ago. :crazy: There’s a section in the manual on covenants but it speaks more in general terms; what’s a covenant, why we covenant, and the importance of covenants.

There’s a paragraph quoting James E. Faust that isn’t as specific about the temple covenants, only speaking to covenanting to Christlike principles.

But that’s just the manual. I’d like to think that the handbook changes and the video released years ago that shows temple clothing are being used by people that teach the temple prep lessons.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

I would assume the temple preparation class addresses these items too?

I would assume that the manual hasn’t changed in 20 years.

[checks]

The manual has a copyright of 1995 with another copyright in 2003 for a second edition. It’s the same one that was used when I taught the class a long time ago. :crazy: There’s a section in the manual on covenants but it speaks more in general terms; what’s a covenant, why we covenant, and the importance of covenants.

There’s a paragraph quoting James E. Faust that isn’t as specific about the temple covenants, only speaking to covenanting to Christlike principles.

But that’s just the manual. I’d like to think that the handbook changes and the video released years ago that shows temple clothing are being used by people that teach the temple prep lessons.

Hopefully they’re working on an update.

[Anonymous]

My temple prep class (at BYU, around 2015, taught by member of the bishopric) was really weird. Like they didn’t think they could tell us anything, so instead they made up their own parable about the prodigal son trying to relate it to the Big Bang and the expanding universe…. And it had absolutely nothing to do with what I actually saw in the temple. The only thing they told us that actually had something to do with the endowment was that they mentioned “movies” a few times.

It was always interesting that people just would not talk about the temple. There’s a ton of confusing stuff, and if you ask about it, people tell you it’s “symbolic”. But you can’t ask what it’s symbolic of, since it’s too sacred. Makes you wonder what the point of symbols is if nobody knows what they’re supposed to mean.

[Anonymous]

Arrakeen wrote:

It was always interesting that people just would not talk about the temple. There’s a ton of confusing stuff, and if you ask about it, people tell you it’s “symbolic”. But you can’t ask what it’s symbolic of, since it’s too sacred. Makes you wonder what the point of symbols is if nobody knows what they’re supposed to mean.

It’s because in the “dark age of the church” (my term, approximately late 60s to early 2000s) people were frightened into not talking about it. There are plenty of people who, even if informed about this change in the handbook and shown what’s available on the church site, will not say a word about anything in there. I am old enough to remember the penalties associated with the things you promise not to reveal (which were also symbolic) – scary stuff, even though I was promising not to reveal the same stuff as now. I’ve kind of wondered about that (but not really) – since I got my own endowment when the penalties were part of it, am I still under that obligation? (That’s why I said not really – I would not have done those penalties then or now.)

[Anonymous]

Joni had a good thread on those themes.

Women and Obeying/Hearkening Covenants

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I think we get more criticism for the “secret” parts of the temple even though we consider them sacred, not secret.

I’ve always hated the phrase, “sacred, not secret.” Of course they’re sacred, but they are also most definitely secret. The phrase, “sacred, not secret” makes it sound as if the words “sacred” and “secret” are mutually exclusive. Obviously, they’re not. “The Book of Mormon,” for example is “sacred” to us, but it’s certainly not “secret.” We want everybody in the world to read it, for crying out loud. I think we need to stop using that phrase, and just admit that there are certain things about the temple endowment that we have been told not to discuss. If that makes them “secret,” then we need to acknowledge that instead of just dancing around it.

[Anonymous]

Katzpur wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

I think we get more criticism for the “secret” parts of the temple even though we consider them sacred, not secret.

I’ve always hated the phrase, “sacred, not secret.” Of course they’re sacred, but they are also most definitely secret. The phrase, “sacred, not secret” makes it sound as if the words “sacred” and “secret” are mutually exclusive. Obviously, they’re not. “The Book of Mormon,” for example is “sacred” to us, but it’s certainly not “secret.” We want everybody in the world to read it, for crying out loud. I think we need to stop using that phrase, and just admit that there are certain things about the temple endowment that we have been told not to discuss. If that makes them “secret,” then we need to acknowledge that instead of just dancing around it.

Agreed. There certainly are parts that are secret, and in the same sense as the BoM the temple is also sacred. I’m don’t think I’m stepping out of bounds here, but the “new name” I was given in the temple is secret. I promised not to reveal it, and I never have. I don’t consider it to be all that sacred (it’s really kind of silly if I’m being honest), just secret.

[Anonymous]

Katzpur wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

I think we get more criticism for the “secret” parts of the temple even though we consider them sacred, not secret.

I’ve always hated the phrase, “sacred, not secret.” Of course they’re sacred, but they are also most definitely secret. The phrase, “sacred, not secret” makes it sound as if the words “sacred” and “secret” are mutually exclusive. Obviously, they’re not. “The Book of Mormon,” for example is “sacred” to us, but it’s certainly not “secret.” We want everybody in the world to read it, for crying out loud. I think we need to stop using that phrase, and just admit that there are certain things about the temple endowment that we have been told not to discuss. If that makes them “secret,” then we need to acknowledge that instead of just dancing around it.

I’ve always despised that phrase as well. All it is, is a play on words. I agree with your BoM analogy. Something can also be secret but not sacred, like a criminal act.

I think we throw people at the deep end when it comes to the endowment. I made the mistake of looking up temple stuff online before I went. I say “mistake” because the info I found was misleading and a mixture of fact and fiction. Then there’s the garbage Ed Dekker has come out with, like we’re all worshipping Satan in the temple (we’re not, despite the pentagrams on the outside).

To be honest, I’m not a fan of the Endowment. It’s my least favorite thing in the temple. I like the Celestial Room and the Baptistry, and I even like the film, but the Endowment. Hmm…

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

To be honest, I’m not a fan of the Endowment. It’s my least favorite thing in the temple. I like the Celestial Room and the Baptistry, and I even like the film, but the Endowment. Hmm…

Yeah, I’m with you. I really don’t particularly like the endowment. Back in the day, I used to absolutely refuse to participate in initiatories. With the changes of a few years back, I now quite like it. Baptisms, though, are my favorite, but it seems that adults are kind of discouraged from doing them.

[Anonymous]

On the topic of the endowment itself, I will say that I would probably be more OK with it now than I was for a long time. I used to like it fine, but then FC happened and I fell out of respect for the ceremony. I don’t remember the last time I was in the temple, but guessing around ’95/’96-ish.

But over the long and strange road of my Faith Transition, I have come to believe in the spiritual meaning of symbolism as something much more abstract and compelling on its own than I did as an all-in member or in the decades after my FC.

Taking the sacrament as a close corollary in symbolic depth, I don’t believe that the bread or wine or water are actually the body and blood of Christ, nor do I think of them as even really “in remembrance” of the body and blood. Instead, what I have come to is more of a call to the body and blood of Christ. In remembrance? Yes, but not in the sense of a reminder, more in the sense of a connection to those things. Jesus is portrayed as a part human, part divine being who was as close to ‘good’ as we can attain and in spite of that he was judged, condemned and died for his goodness. I will also someday die, and along the way, I’ll have plenty to suffer, and even more so if I really eschew convenience in the name of doing as much good in the world as I can. But, in recognition of that, I can join with him through the symbolic taking in of his suffering and make it my own; to join with him in the good-centered life. I’m not saying that I’m a good person, but the invitation to strive to be like him is there present in the sacrament and it is compelling. To me, this is many steps beyond the “in remembrance” clause.

Now, turning to the endowment. If we look at it as an arguably goofy ritual with weird and mysterious symbols, then yeah, it’s not very uplifting. But, instead, we can view it as a symbolic trip through our life journey in which we fall short, find a way to become more like God, are given the tools to do it (the attire and symbolic gestures). Then at the end of our lives if we are true to the things that we were taught, as demonstrated at our moment of reckoning for ourselves, then we can enter into the presence of God. To arrive at that perspective, we have to view the symbols as very abstract, not at all concrete, and no actual keywords, signs or tokens that we will show to the sentinels of the gates of heaven, as BY said. But, if we abstract it that far and keep the larger view in mind, I actually think it’s quite a bit more palatable.

I sort of wish I could return to the believing days with my new-found views rather than the more concrete views of my past.

[Author]

Posts