Talk:Endowment (Mormonism)

Contents

1 Scope of article 2 Nuetrality of article 3 Controversial issues 1 Legal issues (intellectual property, privacy) 1.1 Archives 1.2 New issues 1.2.1 Copyright Law 1.2.2 Trade Secret Law 2 Reverted material, Jan 29. 3 Punctuation 4 4/22/05 Edits

Scope of article

Should this article include information about washings and anointings, or should that be included in a separate article?COGDEN 17:49, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Let's keep as is. Because it is technically part of the Endowment, let's include in this article and not confuse everyone. We can make sure to word it properly pointing out the historical differences in the article.Visorstuff 21:09, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nuetrality of article

I do not think it neutral to say that the story of Adam and Eve presented in the Endowment is "modified and extended"; Mormons regard the enactment as reflective of "the real story" as given by revelation and would say any other version of the story could be or is modified. I think to just say "a re-enactment" is neutral and have so changed it.

Controversial issues

This page should contain a fair and accurate description and explanation of the Mormon Endowment ceremony. It should be sensitive, however, to the fact that most Mormons consider some of this material to be highly sacred and confidential.COGDEN 20:21, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Legal issues (intellectual property, privacy)

Archives

Please visit the archive and discussion on Talk:Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding controversies of posting illegal or non-public information, and other issues about inaccurate Internet accounts of the Endowment. Visorstuff 07:32, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• Archive1: main discussion
• Archive2: NPOV & origin of accounts of temple ceremonies
• Archive3: discussion from the village pump

New issues

There has been a lot of discussion in the above archives concerning the legality of discussing the Endowment ceremony. I can't give legal advice on the subject in this forum, but I thought I'd list some laws which might or might not be relevant to this determination. (If you want to know how the law stated below applies to any particular question concerning the Endowment ceremony, you should seek advice from a lawyer):

Copyright Law

• In U.S. copyright law, there is a "fair use" exception that covers most uses of copyrighted material for purposes of pure commentary or criticism. (This is one of the reasons why Ebert and Roeper can legally include brief copyrighted movie clips on their show, even if they are giving the movie "two thumbs down".) 35 U.S.C. § 107 states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement in copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include---

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

• Under U.S. copyright law, works published before 1923 are now in the public domain. If a work was created before January 1, 1978, but not published before January 1, 2003, there is no federal copyright protection. However, there may be "common law" (state law) copyright protection.

• If an author takes a public domain work and makes changes or additions to that work, the resulting copyright "extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material." 35 U.S.C. § 103(b).

Trade Secret Law

• All states in the U.S. have laws concerning unfair trade practices, and in most jurisdictions there is a tort called "misappropriation of trade secrets". Each state is different, but a typical definition of a trade secret is information that is both valuable and secret. Many states define trade secrets as follows:

A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it. It may be a formula for a chemical compound, a process of manufacturing, treating or preserving materials, a pattern for a machine or other device, or a list of customers. 4 Restatement of Torts § 757, comment b (1939).

In addition, in most jurisdictions, in order to be afforded protection, the secret must actually be secret. Speaking of Ohio law, the U.S. Supreme Court stated:

The subject of a trade secret must be secret, and must not be of public knowledge or of a general knowledge in the trade or business. This necessary element of secrecy is not lost, however, if the holder of the trade secret reveals the trade secret to another "in confidence, and under an implied obligation not to use or disclose it. These others may include those of the holder's 'employees to whom it is necessary to confide it, in order to apply it to the uses for which it is intended.' Often the recipient of confidential knowledge of the subject of a trade secret is a licensee of its holder. Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 475 (1974).

• In Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim, 796 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1986), the Church of Scientology sued the Church of the New Civilization (a splinter group), claiming that the New Civilization church misappropriated sacred scientology materials. These materials were kept in secure places, and made available only to adherents who agree in writing to maintain their confidentiality. However, the Ninth Circuit found against the Church of Scientology, holding that "the California courts would conclude that sacred scriptures do not meet the definition of a trade secret under California law," because the secrets did not convey upon the church "any form of commercial advantage" over competitors.

--COGDEN 18:11, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Reverted material, Jan 29.

"However, it should not ne inferred that the new names given to an initiate are inspired. All male initiates going through the temple on a given day are given the same name."

'd need a source, basis in fact, or a recontextualisation.

"Likewise for women."

Huh.

"They are given various "key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood" which are sacred passwords and associated sacred handshakes that will identify them and allow them entry into the highest heaven known as the Celestial Kingdom."

Our anon friend seems extremely keen to get something in to this effect. In assorted articles, even. Anything we can do beyond declare it 'serial vandalism'?

(deleted) "Heber C. Kimball seemed to support this position, writing that Masonry had "degenerated." [1] (http://www.lds-mormon.com/mormmaso.shtml)"

The link is indeed to an anti-Mormon site, but it's sourcing a quote, not an "opinion". Is there a more authorative source anyone can verify? Alai 18:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Punctuation

As odd as it may seem punctuation belongs inside of "quotes." It looks wierd and seems counter intuitive, but that is the rule. Salzgitter 13:06, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

4/22/05 Edits

Regarding the oath of vengence. The version I edited stated that this was included as late as 1990. I was endowed in 1973 and there was no oath of vengence at that time nor since. I understand that there was one earlier, but it was not 1990.

The text: "As mormonism contans many sacred behaviors, doctrines and beliefs such as baptism, blessings, etc this ritual remains hidden from investigators of the faith. Instead it is elluded to but not discussed but only after questions from the investigator. If asked one is told that one must have milk before the meat and nothing more. Mentioning of the ceremony, its subsequent obligations of garments, covenants, and specialized information is excluded from initial instructions. Children in the church are taught to idealize the temple without knowing the processes and procedure of what occurs in the mormon temple ceremonies."

is so full of inaccuracies as to be hopeless. The existence of the temple is hardly hidden from investigators, and is in fact one of the main points of the missionary discussions in which the sealing ordinance and its ability to seal families for eternity is emphasized. The "milk before meat" may have been something one person said to another, but is hardly standard procedure and in my opinion very POV. Regarding "inital instructions" I'm not sure what is meant here. Temple preparation classes do include information about what is expected. Regarding the teaching of children in the LDS Church, they are taught concerning the temple, its meaning, and are encouraged, once they are twelve, to participate in the baptism for the dead ceremony. Salzgitter 19:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Really? How many eight yoear olds can present you with all signs and tokens? How many investigators know about what the garment symbols mean or more specifically, how many teenagers realize that prior to last january you run around with a sheet covering half of your body while a temple worker smears oil on the points of fellowship, washing you and annointing you in order to become priests and priestesses, kings and queens, subjugated to Elohim amd play secret clubhouse handshakes , patterning the "Kolob rangers", AKA Peter, James and John?

As for your assertion to no blood oaths, there were, assuredly "penalties" made in the temple prior to 1990. Specifically, the penalty of drawing your thumb over your throat, your stomach and chest while suffering to never reveal the signs and tokens "given to you in the temple this day"? Yes, this did happen, it was taken out after 1990 and there are plenty of individuals that have affirmed this fact. Please do not lock into a line of logic that states that it did not occur. --Vegasbright 19:47, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, the Oath of Vengence was removed during the Smoot Hearning process. The well-meaning author was referring, as you know, to "penalties." I also agree, I knew what I was going in for - i had helped my parents iron their temple clothes, had read the suggested readings about the various covenants, and associated scriptures. It is unfortunate that some do not take going to the temple the first time as seriously as others. I felt quite prepared to enter the temple, and can't say I was very suprised. The books they gave you for temple prep covered the "garments, covenants, and specialized information is excluded from initial instructions." Yes the presentation was different than I expected (I expected more movie and more with the robes), but how can you read the statement from Young about "passing by the angels" and not understand or expect the ceremony to be as it is. But to read about the temple in Exodus, Numbers and in the church manuals, I don't see how you can say you don't understand at least in generalities the "processes and procedure of what occurs in the mormon temple ceremonies."

A couple points - You are interpreting Genesis thorough the eyes of mormonism, assuming a LDS interpretation with a post-temple worldview. I find absolutely no commonality between the bible and the idea that the temple is evident in the Bible.

As for drawing the conclusion that you know what to expect via Youngs statements, I find this reaching. If my temple prep class were to say that you watch a movie, play dress up, shake hands and say passphrases then that would have been an accurate description. Instead I was told "uh, its...um...sacred-Not Secret! Dont ask questions." Why must mormons constantly have to say that it is not secret, having to deny constantly that its a secret ceremony. It is a secret ceremony.

Thanks for the confirmation of the vengance oaths. --68.229.4.242 22:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may not find a commonality of the Bible (You said Genesis above, I said Exodus and Numbers) and the Temple, however, I did at the time I was 18 - prior to going - I spent a lot of time preparing - just as my bishop and parents counseled me to. Did You? You went through post-Internet - you have less of an excuse than I did when I went through pre-Internet. Perhaps i am the only one in the world who was not suprised, however I very much doubt it. Your experience was yours. It may be typical of many, but it was not my experience. Maybe things really are different in Utah, but I felt completely at home. When a prophet says something, I tend to try to understand it. I don't consider a statement that is quotes a million times to seminary students, temple prep classes and in Gen Conference a stretch or "reaching" I understood at the time I would learn "signs and tokens." Duh. It says I would in the endowment. No suprise to me. But then I think I paid attention more than some others apparently do. I don't know. I may be alone in this. And if you didn't think you'd dress in different clothes - what were you thinking when you bought your temple clothes? When you saw your parents? That you'd leave them in your locker? C'mon. You can't say you had no idea. I find that completely hard to believe. It is utterly amazing to me that you can buy or see temple clothes and not realize that you'd dress in them. That is the funniest thing in the world to me. Even my two year old realizes that you wear temple clothes at the temple - I really hope you are joking with me. If not, if this really was a suprise, then I am truly sorry about your Mormon experience, as I don't think it was typical for me and my friends and family. As for the movie, again, in many places it refers to this - and most know the SL Temple is the only "live session" left - this should have been discussed with you numerous times prior to attending in my opinion. If not, I'm truly sorry again. I do feel it sacred - I do not discuss it, not because I am under obligation, but because I feel it should be presented in a certain order in a certain way in a certain place wiht the proper environment to properly understand - that is how revelation is recieved. Not in some seminar detailing the "Secrets" of the temple. -Visorstuff 00:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It may be common to feel unprepared, but I totally feel that is the responsibility of the endowment "candidate" to have some level of comprehension. I believe that some people who grew up in the church think that it takes no mental effort to be a Mormon. No, my two-year old daughter doesnt' know all about the initiatory, but she understands that the temple will cleanse you just as baptism. She knows that you make promises and dress in ceremonial clothes. She knows she will feel the Spirit if she is worthy of it while there. She knows she must study about it and prepare herself. Perhaps this is what is meant by "raising the bar" - better teaching and better preparation for entering the temple and comprehending what is taught to you - bringing all the pieces into one great whole - so you are not "caught off guard."

The temple is not supposed to cleanse you, it binds you to covenants. To the contrary, the temple sets you into oaths and spiritual promises. Now bow your head and say yes, hehe. --68.229.4.242 22:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, maybe I misunderstand the words of the initiatory. There are no "ifs" mentioned. They are promises that God makes with you during the initiatory. You do not promise anything at that stage of the temple rites. Rather you are told that you being cleansed and then promised wonderful blessings. Yes, during the endowment portion you make covenents, but again, I found it remarkably "cleansing" just as the terminology states. Did you miss those words? That is one of the major purposes - as stated in the introduction and throughout the ceremonies. Perhaps you should re-read the ceremony on some exmo site again. It says it multiple times. Let alone the multiple references to Christ's atonement making one whole and clean. I have found it remarkable that most ex-mormons I speak with see no correlation between the temple ceremony and the atonement, but never heard that it was not supposed to a cleansing experience. Isn't that what most sacraments in the LDS Church are to do? Again, maybe I'm missing something or reading too much into what I'm taught... -Visorstuff 00:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, rather that deleting the entry, can you take a stab at cleaning it up and placing it in context? Lets see what is salvageable. The more open we are about how ex-Mormons feel, the less people will feel like this in the future as we have yet another place where it is explained to them, and they'll end up with no excuse to feign: "I was completely shocked" because I didn't connect the dots or attention.

yet another declaration of Wikipedia beng used as a prostelyting tool, this time to doubting mormons. Sigh. --68.229.4.242 22:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't win here on that point. If we delete, we are accused of censorship. If we leave in, the wording makes you look stupid as it is not accurate. If we edit and put in context that this is how some feel then we are accused as prostelyting (as you state above). If we state my experience and millions of others we are told we are being idealistic and not typical or that we are being "secretive" (although I found plenty of details that prepared me). I am trying to be as open as I can. Let's put it out there. My point is that we have nothing to hide, and if you feel you were completely shocked by the temple because of whatever reason, lets be open. Less people will feel the same shock because we won't be doing "secrets" as you claim we were above. Can win with you there. -Visorstuff 00:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for your comment about "how many eight yoear olds can present you with all signs and tokens." How many eight year olds understand the meaning of the sacrament? How many of them understand that Baptism is a symbol of the Death burial and ressurecction? How many of them know the procedure used to hold he baptismal candidate (on the wrist, etc.) before being baptized? There are certain things that must be taught before hand and the rest is why one goes to learn at the temple. We go there to learn the things you discuss. How many of us know what it is like to participate in the sacrament of death? (yes this is a sacrament in our theology, just as birth and procreation) in your reasoning mortality must not be true and is seretive - what does Fate or God have to hide? the reasoning is mind-blowing. Just because they don't experience it, doens't mean they cannot understand portions of it. I don't see any issue. Plus, one is more than welcome to leave at any time during the ceremony.

How many temple going mormons understand the principals mentioned? It does not matter. What I am getting at, and what I think you know what I am saying is that they do not see it, the ceremony. I remember telling people on my mission that no, we arent weird, no we dont wear funny underwear (even though I did wear funny underwear), no we dont hold clubhouse-like secret handshakes as qualifications to enter heaven, and no we dont play dress up in the building you cant enter fully until youve been in the church for at least a year or two. Oh, and mr and mrs investigator = its secret, not sacred - Dont ask questions!!!

I was told to tell my investigators this by my senior missionaries, I told my subordinate missionaries to do it, and my mission president spread the laughable symantec dodge known as "secret, not sacred". The fact is that you are mixing words, spinning this into a discussion about relativism applied to secret, not sacred among other things. --68.229.4.242 22:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was not instructed the same as you. I was open and honest and shared my experience, compelte with the brigham young quote. I let people know i wore garments. I told them why - itis a symbol of my covenants and a protection to me (among other things). I even arranged meetings with my mission president and investigators when they had questions I felt I should not answer. The temple is highly symbolic - it is ritualistic. It is not secret. you can read that stuff in the scriptures, the internet etc. However, when it is referred to a sacred is not meant we should not discuss it- what is meant by that is that it is personal. It is individual. It is a one-on-one learing experience direct from God. If I had a vision I would not share with others unless commanded to. It is too personal, not secret, but sacred. What we gain from the temple depends on what level we are spiritually. I felt I got a lot out of it, but I don't think I should always share my "one way" of interpreting it with others as it is a personal learing experience. It is for me. It is my revelation from God. I share with someone else, they may see it as a Movie and dress up or as a re-telling of hte creation or as a ritual or rite that is solely symbolic. Not me. I felt it was as close to a theophany as I could have received without seeing God. It was the greatest event of my life aside from the sacraments of getting married and having children. I felt and understood many things in the gospel that completed the circle of understanding of life, and placed the atonement in the forefront of my life. But again, maybe I'm atypical. -Visorstuff 00:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your comment about oil being on the "points of fellowship" is incorret. You should study out on you own ex-Mormon boards what the "points of fellowship" is in Mormon theology. Besides, did you witness that these portions of the ceremony were there? You rely on the statements of others to verify your claims if you didn't go throught the temple prior to 1990 (which you couldn't have based on your age). While it is true, you cannot have understood the context without having experienced, just as I cannot understand all the reasons you left the church or I understand death. I didn't experience them, but I accept that you did (the leaving) and that we all will (death). -Visorstuff 20:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK the points of fellowship were removed awhile ago. But I still ran around half naked in initiatory while some guy repeated incantations and smeared oil on me. --68.229.4.242 22:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"What is wanted?" a good article detailing the endowment.

Again, your perception. Not mine. Be glad you weren't Aaron and his sons being washed by Moses in front of the hosts of Israel (that would be nerve-racking), David being anointed King or the folks who did endowments in Nauvoo when they were put in a basin/tub and washed by someone else. Or folks in other religions when they become priests and similar things are done. It may seem strange to some, but again, that is your perception. I didn't feel as uncomfortable as you apparently did. I found it cleansing and crowning. But again, maybe I'm atypical. Maybe I'm the one who misunderstands what I experienced in the temple. But by the millions who have experienced and stay faithful to the LDS Churhc, I don't think I am. -Visorstuff 00:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)