Question about changes in temple

[Saguaro]

I went to the temple for the first time in 1990 and then for a few times when I was in the MTC, I believe some changes occurred while I was on my mission. One change that was already mentioned was 'intercourse' to 'sexual relations', the poster said it was 30 years ago but I believe it was in the early 90s as I remember hearing 'intercourse' in the temple and thinking, wow, did they just say that here?

Another change was the elimination of the penalties. Associated with each covenant was a penalty, I won't go into specifics but it involved actually doing hand and arm motions that mimicked inflicting bodily injury which would result if you broke the the covenant. I think it was a good thing to eliminate that as it evoked feelings of fear and violence rather than focusing on the positive aspect of the endowment.

Another change, and I'm not sure when it happened, involved the part where the women covenants with their husband, I believe the word 'obey' was replaced with 'hearken'. A good change also in my opinion.

The most recent changes involve less standing up and sitting back down.

As others have said the temple ceremonies are largely symbolic, the words and procedures may change over time, usually for the better, but the overall purpose and message remains the same.

[rameumptom]

The endowment's principle purpose is to prepare us to enter into God's presence and be like Him. It is done with symbolism. Pre-1990 endowment had lots of symbolism that is very specific to American knowledge. As the Church has become international, there were many things represented that a Buddhist or African convert may not have understood.

These symbolic teachings were not required, and were simplified. For example, the endowment once had a preacher explaining his own understanding of God and the devil. These descriptions were understood by most Americans, but many outside the country would not have easily understood them. The endowment now handles it briefly by mentioning false teachings in general.

The key components: covenants, oaths, important symbols, and the symbolic entrance into God's presence are still present.

[MarginOfError]

I went to the temple for the first time in 1990 and then for a few times when I was in the MTC, I believe some changes occurred while I was on my mission. One change that was already mentioned was 'intercourse' to 'sexual relations', the poster said it was 30 years ago but I believe it was in the early 90s as I remember hearing 'intercourse' in the temple and thinking, wow, did they just say that here?

It was I who made the comment about the change from intercourse to relations 30 years ago. The change was made long before I was able to go to the temple. My statement was based on a conversation with my parents who, somewhat casually, said it happened "sometime around 1980." It was clearly one of those things they remembered happening, but they really couldn't put a specific date on it and were guessing. My apologies for presenting such information as fact. I'll take your time frame more seriously if you remember hearing the transition.

Another change, and I'm not sure when it happened, involved the part where the women covenants with their husband, I believe the word 'obey' was replaced with 'hearken'. A good change also in my opinion.

The last time I did an endowment session I didn't notice this part at all. The whole covenant was cut out. Either that or I had fallen asleep. That's happened more times than I can count.

[HiJolly]

I went to the temple for the first time in 1990 and then for a few times when I was in the MTC, I believe some changes occurred while I was on my mission. One change that was already mentioned was 'intercourse' to 'sexual relations', the poster said it was 30 years ago but I believe it was in the early 90s as I remember hearing 'intercourse' in the temple and thinking, wow, did they just say that here?

You are correct, it was early 1990s. My, how time flies...

Another change was the elimination of the penalties. Associated with each covenant was a penalty, I won't go into specifics but it involved actually doing hand and arm motions that mimicked inflicting bodily injury which would result if you broke the the covenant.

Augh!! I think this is one reason the penalties were removed. They did not at all have to do with what "would result if you broke the covenant". Not at all. Too many were not spiritually in tune enough to understand the whole point of it. The point was, your WILLINGNESS to receive the described penalty, rather than reveal the name, sign and/or token to someone outside the temple. The actions themselves were never threatened, not in any way. It was a specific usage of a meaningful concept, to engender faith and heart-felt devotion, NOT FEAR.

I think it was a good thing to eliminate that as it evoked feelings of fear and violence rather than focusing on the positive aspect of the endowment.

Yes, but it was the underdeveloped and those not already born of the Spirit that felt those negative things. They received what they were prepared to receive, and were not worthy of higher blessings. So it is for SO MUCH of the temple teachings.

As others have said the temple ceremonies are largely symbolic, the words and procedures may change over time, usually for the better, but the overall purpose and message remains the same.

I am really grateful that I learned the 'key words' of the last sign, before they were changed. Having both the old and the new is tremendously helpful to me, personally.

HiJolly

[Saguaro]

You are correct, it was early 1990s. My, how time flies...

Augh!! I think this is one reason the penalties were removed. They did not at all have to do with what "would result if you broke the covenant". Not at all. Too many were not spiritually in tune enough to understand the whole point of it. The point was, your WILLINGNESS to receive the described penalty, rather than reveal the name, sign and/or token to someone outside the temple. The actions themselves were never threatened, not in any way. It was a specific usage of a meaningful concept, to engender faith and heart-felt devotion, NOT FEAR.

Yes, but it was the underdeveloped and those not already born of the Spirit that felt those negative things. They received what they were prepared to receive, and were not worthy of higher blessings. So it is for SO MUCH of the temple teachings.

HiJolly

I'm not sure how to respond to your post. I will admit that you are right about the penalties being associated with revealing then name/sign/token rather than breaking the covenant, my memory is fuzzy as I only attended the endowment a few times before the change, and it was nearly 19 years ago.

I find the tone of your post to be rather condescending. You are assuming that I, and many others who felt the same way about the penalties were not "spiritually in tune enough", "not born of the spirit", and (this one's my favorite) "not worthy of higher blessings". I understand that each person learns different things in the temple based on where they're at in their spiritual progression, but to bring their worthiness into question is offensive. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, I hope that is the case.

[HiJolly]

I'm not sure how to respond to your post. I will admit that you are right about the penalties being associated with revealing then name/sign/token rather than breaking the covenant, my memory is fuzzy as I only attended the endowment a few times before the change, and it was nearly 19 years ago.

No problem. I first received my endowment in the 1970s. In AZ, speaking of 'saguaro'... I worked on the AZ temple expansion, too. What an amazing building!

I find the tone of your post to be rather condescending. You are assuming that I, and many others who felt the same way about the penalties were not "spiritually in tune enough", "not born of the spirit", and (this one's my favorite) "not worthy of higher blessings".

Ok. I'm glad you have a favorite, and it's a really meaningful one. I did not say "not worthy of being there" or "not worthy of receiving temple instruction", please note. I know that when I went to the temple, I did not receive the endowment from on high until I'd been attending over twenty years. I really am amazed at those who receive the fullfillment of the endowment their first time through. It's like walking on water, to me. Just amazing. And humbling.

I understand that each person learns different things in the temple based on where they're at in their spiritual progression,

Absolutely. :)

but to bring their worthiness into question is offensive. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, I hope that is the case.

Yes, and in deference to your feelings I will not pull out my fav. Brigham Young quote at this time. Sorry to have ruffled your feathers --- I mean, scorched your needles....

HiJolly

[Maya]

You are correct, it was early 1990s. My, how time flies...

Augh!! I think this is one reason the penalties were removed. They did not at all have to do with what "would result if you broke the covenant". Not at all. Too many were not spiritually in tune enough to understand the whole point of it. The point was, your WILLINGNESS to receive the described penalty, rather than reveal the name, sign and/or token to someone outside the temple. The actions themselves were never threatened, not in any way. It was a specific usage of a meaningful concept, to engender faith and heart-felt devotion, NOT FEAR.

Yes, but it was the underdeveloped and those not already born of the Spirit that felt those negative things. They received what they were prepared to receive, and were not worthy of higher blessings. So it is for SO MUCH of the temple teachings.

I am really grateful that I learned the 'key words' of the last sign, before they were changed. Having both the old and the new is tremendously helpful to me, personally.

HiJolly

This is about what I ment when i said I HOPE we have advanced and not the other way round....

[rameumptom]

The Church's endowment HAS advanced. Much of the stuff taken out were Masonic teachings and symbols that Joseph Smith used as a catalyst for the endowment.

The original endowment Joseph made lasted over a day! He shortened it some to about 16 hours. Later, before his death, he gave Brigham Young the charge of shortening it even more. Why? Because they knew it could be improved upon, and that there was a lot of extraneous stuff that didn't need to be in it necessarily.

For example, the early endowment included several "preachers" who would describe their beliefs to Adam, trying to convert him. They would then start arguing with one another over their differences of opinion. This was obviously influenced by Joseph's own experience as a boy with the various ministers in Palmyra. Brigham Young reduced it to one preacher who would briefly describe his understanding of God and Satan. The same concepts were expressed, but not dragged out.

Today, with a global Church and temples in many countries, the views expressed by the preacher would not necessarily be understood by many saints. So, now it is expressed in a shorter statement of the philosophies of man, mingled with scripture. Now it is in a shortened version that each individual can apply to his/her own experience, whether it was growing up in a Protestant home, or in a Hindu home, it can all be applicable.

The richness of the endowment is still there. It is just more applicable to a global community, rather than just a Utah community. Even then, most Mormons no longer practice Masonry, and so many of the old symbols were wasted on them, anyway.

The important symbols are there. The covenants are all there, just in modern language, because many people today need to understand things better, such as any sexual relation outside of marriage is bad, and not just intercourse. I recall a bishop telling me a couple years ago the difficulty he had in convincing the youth of the ward that oral sex is still sex and against God's command! And so it goes today.

The current endowment is better in many ways, because it is less distracting. All of the Masonic symbols had their place, but often distracted from the most important symbolisms of all. While many focused on what each penalty was, we should have been, and should now be focusing on the key point of the endowment: it is a theophany, where we practice returning back into the presence of God!

With fewer Masonic distractions, I find it easier to focus on more relevant issues, and open my mind more to receiving personal revelation in the temple. The experience was fantastic before, but even more wonderful now.

[gomspal]

gomspal....what color was the skirt?

I think it was brown, over the knee skirt she wore that time.

[miztrniceguy]

ahh...i guess the problem was it wasn't white

[Hemidakota]

A lot of the recent changes that have taken place in the Temple Ordinances have more to do with comfort and privacy than anything else. I know this is kind of cliche to say now, but people in our society are living longer than ever. It is getting harder for them to do the ups and downs that were required previously.

Some changes were prompted by privacy. Yes, in today's political climate, privacy is a big issue and I imagine the Church didn't want to put itself in a position where it would be vulnerable to claims of violation of privacy. Also, people are more likely not to attend the Temple at all if they feel that their privacy is not going to be maintained, and there's no point in having a Temple if people aren't comfortable attending.

The primary thing to remember is this: the teachings of the Temple are symbolic. The form and procedure of the ordinances are intended to reflect the symbolism. Sometimes, changes may need to be made to accommodate social tolerances, but when these changes are made, the symbolism of the ordinance will be untouched, and the lessons taught will be no different than before.

Ditto...

[MarginOfError]

Still shouldn't have been an issue. I can't imagine negating an ordinance because a pregnant woman forgot to take off a brown skirt and put a white dress on over it. A classic case of looking beyond the mark (Jacob 4:14). To me, that feels like negating a baptism because the person wore red underwear beneath the baptismal suit--it's just silly.

[MarginOfError]

ahh...i guess the problem was it wasn't white

Still shouldn't have been an issue. I can't imagine negating an ordinance because a pregnant woman forgot to take off a brown skirt and put a white dress on over it. A classic case of looking beyond the mark (Jacob 4:14). To me, that feels like negating a baptism because the person wore red underwear beneath the baptismal suit--it's just silly.

[MarginOfError]

The Church's endowment HAS advanced. Much of the stuff taken out were Masonic teachings and symbols that Joseph Smith used as a catalyst for the endowment.

The original endowment Joseph made lasted over a day! He shortened it some to about 16 hours. Later, before his death, he gave Brigham Young the charge of shortening it even more. Why? Because they knew it could be improved upon, and that there was a lot of extraneous stuff that didn't need to be in it necessarily.

For example, the early endowment included several "preachers" who would describe their beliefs to Adam, trying to convert him. They would then start arguing with one another over their differences of opinion. This was obviously influenced by Joseph's own experience as a boy with the various ministers in Palmyra. Brigham Young reduced it to one preacher who would briefly describe his understanding of God and Satan. The same concepts were expressed, but not dragged out.

Today, with a global Church and temples in many countries, the views expressed by the preacher would not necessarily be understood by many saints. So, now it is expressed in a shorter statement of the philosophies of man, mingled with scripture. Now it is in a shortened version that each individual can apply to his/her own experience, whether it was growing up in a Protestant home, or in a Hindu home, it can all be applicable.

The richness of the endowment is still there. It is just more applicable to a global community, rather than just a Utah community. Even then, most Mormons no longer practice Masonry, and so many of the old symbols were wasted on them, anyway.

The important symbols are there. The covenants are all there, just in modern language, because many people today need to understand things better, such as any sexual relation outside of marriage is bad, and not just intercourse. I recall a bishop telling me a couple years ago the difficulty he had in convincing the youth of the ward that oral sex is still sex and against God's command! And so it goes today.

The current endowment is better in many ways, because it is less distracting. All of the Masonic symbols had their place, but often distracted from the most important symbolisms of all. While many focused on what each penalty was, we should have been, and should now be focusing on the key point of the endowment: it is a theophany, where we practice returning back into the presence of God!

With fewer Masonic distractions, I find it easier to focus on more relevant issues, and open my mind more to receiving personal revelation in the temple. The experience was fantastic before, but even more wonderful now.

You make some great points...let's pile it on some more. I know somewhere I've talked about the symbolism of the tabernacle. Namely, some Jewish tradition indicates that Adam and Eve journeyed further and further east as they were placed in the Garden and subsequently expelled. The wording in the scriptures is that they were placed 'eastward in Eden' (Genesis 2:8, Moses 3:8, Abr. 5:8). Then, according to tradition, when they were expelled, they traveled further east. Thus, God would have been to the west of Adam and Eve's position.

When the tabernacle was built, it was constructed with the door facing east, and each part of the tabernacle brought you further and further west until you reached the western most point of the tabernacle, the Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies is where God would appear and direct contact with Him could be made. Thus, the movement through the tabernacle was a physical symbol of returning to God.

Somewhere in history, this symbolism was lost to our society. The symbolism changed when Paul was teaching the Gentiles. Remember, the Romans, and hence their empire, were heavily influenced by the Greeks, as is our society. The whole notion of returning to 'heaven'--a word that denotes the skies--comes from Greek mythology and the Greek understanding of God.

When Paul began teaching the Gentiles, he realized that their culture was unfamiliar with the East/West reference of returning to God. So he changed the symbols to accommodate what they could understand. That's when the concept of celestial, terrestrial and telestial worlds come into play.

The telestial world--literally the distant world, or perhaps better described as the 'netherworld' would be understood by the Greeks to be the underworld, or Hades. The place where all men go upon their death, regardless of their acts.

The terrestrial world would have been the earthly world, residing between the other two worlds. It most certainly had to be better than Hades.

The celestial (or heavenly) world, by Greek understanding, would be where the Gods lived. So to return to the celestial world would be to return to the presence of God.

We utilize the Greek symbolism in our temples today, but the message is no different than the Hebrew symbolism. So, even before the endowment was established in this dispensation, it was experiencing changes in symbolism to accommodate the people who would be participating. You can't even really claim that Joseph Smith introduced the endowment in its original form. Certainly the ancients saw this ordinance entirely differently.

[Hemidakota]

I've been in a temple to do baptism work. I will probably get my endowments done this coming July. I want to make this as general as possible, due to the sacred nature of temple work. Over the years certain temple ordinances OR parts of them have been changed or removed. The church publicly said changes took place in 1990. Why has there been a need to change what goes on in a temple? The 1990 change has not been the only time. Based on the changes I'm aware of, it seems like the church is trying to become more streamlined and politically correct. That kind of bothers me. Why would Heavenly Father want ANYTHING changed or taken out in the work done in his house. Does is not say somewhere in scriptures that Heavenly Father is not a changing god? I'm sorry if I have offended anyone by this topic. I will understand if this thread gets closed or deleted .

There have been four major changes for Temple Endowements: 1879, 1931, 1984, and 1990. Even with our current designed garments, theres has been many changes to our Tempe Garments since the first issued in the 1800s. Noting the latest added was the neoprene version for the Military.

[lilered]

Wow! The Military members now wear CAMEO? Do the temple workers have to have a special blessing in order that they may see them?

[Moksha]

Wow! The Military members now wear CAMEO? Do the temple workers have to have a special blessing in order that they may see them?

If Mitt had won the Presidential election, I suspect they would retrofit Airforce One and the crew uniforms in all white.

[Palerider]

With all these changes.....it takes absolutely nothing away from the endowment....the Spirit is still there....the message is the same...:)

[applepansy]

I've been attending the temple since 1976. There have never been any penalty signs in all these 32 years.

This thread had gone too far with a sacred subject. Making light of sacred ordinances is never a good idea. If more information is needed contact your bishop or prepare yourself to attend the temple more often.

I think this thread needs to be closed.

[rockwoodchev]

I don't know about your memory. I went through for the first time in 81 and there were all kinds of penalties mentioned. That occured all during the 80's. The previous poster mentioning that the ceremony changed in about 90 is correct. The thing has changed many times over the years in response to ???? This was one of the things that bothered me at first. Still does. If it is right.. and in the temple... why would it change??? Doesn't make sense to have it change if the thing is from God. Never felt right about that one.

Also... I don't think this thread needs to be locked. Good topic. If we don't discuss these things here, people will just go find another location on the net where these topics are more openly discussed. The whole ceremony is located on the internet.

One thing that I wonder about is not know what you are committing to, until it is really to late to change your mind. I mean there is all this family pressure to go, everyone is there for the big day, but no one will tell you what you are committing to. Then... the big day finally arrives and it is BRAIN OVERLOAD. There is no way you can even grasp 1-2% of what is going on that day, and then it is Promise this, promise that, promise another thing.... with major commitments. I wonder how many people get in there and would actually say "Excuse me.....!!! No. I don't promise to do #2. Can I leave now?"

Makes things very hard.

[pam]

Thread closed.