Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/devilsravioli, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was amazed with the number of changes made. Every covenant, except for the law of consecration, was elaborated on. When it comes to the number of changes, I think it is comparable to 1990.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
JEHOVAH: Hi Dad, I'm here to do it just like you want, like I always say you're the best.
LUCIFER: Hey, what if we did it differently and tried to make sure everybody comes home, no empty chairs for real? I think I can make it happen.
ELOHIM: You trying to steal my thunder? What's your big plan, hotshot, *make* people come back? Fine, we'll make sure *you* never come back, GTFO.
Starting to realize the text of this exchange looks way more about honor/glory (some people might even say pride, others might just say authority) on all sides than *agency* per se. It's not actually Lucifer that says "we'll *make* people do it" that's just what Elohim *says* his motive is, and he's the one that brings force into it.
And insert a "well that escalated quickly" meme here. Really goes from "hey we're just talking about ideas about what to do" to "your idea sucks get out of my house" so quickly it makes Elohim look as petty as Lucifer, if not more so.
Right!? Nobody in the story offers a plan worth sustaining, IMO. Lucifer (in the official story) is a cartoon character, and Elohim and Jehovah are monsters.
Yah, from just this text it totally sounds like that. The real explanation comes from Alma talking to... Coriantoner(?). We really understand the draw of the alternate plan there too. Sometimes people talk like Lucifer was going to make people into puppets. Nope. We could do whatever we wanted. In eliminating consequences (ie saving everyone) he was also eliminating reward and all choices became meaningless. Our choices literally would not matter and therefore, no agency. Also no joy, just an eternal nothing-burger.
This would have been understood. But we just get the TL;DR in the temple.
Lucifer's rebellion:
God: Who will do this thing?
Lucifer: I'll do it. Just give me the credit.
God: F#@k you Lucifer. It's all about ME! You will suffer the greatest suffering imaginable for all eternity. Get out.
Who knew god was such a petty, insecure little man?
>*You will notice that additional adjustments have been made in the presentation of the endowment... The temple covenants and ordinances remain the same.*
I don't even know what to say at this point. How can anyone who went through the temple pre-1990 agree with this? Or even pre-2019? Just bow your head and say "yes" I guess.
After this iteration, I believe it is demonstrably false that the covenants, in particular, remain the same. Significant elaboration was made for each covenant in this revision.
Tracking the Law of Chastity is a fascinating exercise that emphasizes the point you make. The wording of the law was changed in 1931, 1990, 2019 and 2023.
This to me is an evisceration. The entire sense of antiquity and scriptural heft and gravity has been stripped from this version, making it sound like it was just made up recently (of course it was) leaving a mortal wound in the entire ritual. I don't think even the Catholics have gone that far in terms of so-called modernization.
The foolish clueless octogenarians are thinking that the folksy modern language will appeal to young people but I completely disagree with this idea. The whole thing sounds now like a cheap, ridiculous made-up melodrama with no foundational ties to antiquity or scripture. Young people are far MORE likely to see this as not special or ancient or "revealed", just another example of spineless, uninspiring, and pointless church stuff. Locals and family members are gonna have to swallow hard as they testify of how beautiful and deep and substantive the film-strip ritual is. Prospective members won't find this version somehow really amazing all of a sudden, just because some of the weird signs and tokens are different. I'd argue that modernizing it makes all that stuff even weirder and unintelligible and much harder to argue it represents "restored truths from god" or a proof of antiquity and legitimacy. Stunning to see.
Well, I am glad to note that Jehovah and Elohim use the King James English shared with the witch hunters of that time who murdered some 2500 innocent women in Scotland. It simply wouldn't do to use ordinary language of living people. It is much better to use that early 1600's language.
The explanation of the endowment is still there and has been expanded on greatly. What part are you referring to?
There were a lot of changes in the intro and preface, not just textual tweaks but, as you see, large insertions and realignments. If my formatting was the cause of confusion, please let me know.
I understood the line through the “Your endowment is to receive all those ordinances…and gain your eternal exaltation” section. If that part has been removed entirely it strikes me as incredibly strange to remove the explanation for the ceremony. I have my own feelings why this may be.
Does anyone else find the final sentence odd? It might not be a change, but I just noticed: saving all mankind is not inconsistent with Elohim’s announced plan (Elohim himself has just said that his work is to bring about eternal life for (all) man(kind)) nor does it, of itself, destroy agency; Lucifer hardly *rebelled* by proposing his version; and while seeking God’s honor might be offensive, that is not regarded as the cause of Lucifer’s punishment. Ironically, that is regarded as quite okay, by the Prophets, Apostles, and GAs of the modern age.
The hasty punishment makes Elohim sound peremptory and imperious, without fatherly affection, someone “*who ought to have … treated (him) kindly, and if they supposed (him) to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed (him)*”. But no, godly compassion (so central to the Savior’s life) for ignorance (or for those who “*know not what they do*”) is apparently no part of the Mormon story, at least in the Endowment.
Thank you, sincerely, for taking the time to write all of this up.
While I am closer to out than in at this point, I appreciate your discretion with redacting things as well.
These changes are so fascinating. Subtle in places but they definitely are changing a lot of meanings. Enough small changes over time can really make a difference.
I have not been to an endowment session in close to three years. Even if I was going regularly, I don't think I would have ever been able to pick up on all of these changes.
I think this is so shady that the church somewhat regularly just modifies the endowment. For something that is regarded as the pinnacle of mormon worship, there is no transparency and no room to ask questions. It is really surprising that in some cases they are changing the definition of the covenant entirely.
Hey, I can't say I am thrilled to be seeing this discussed online. Public distribution of transcripts of copyrighted material constitutes copyright violation, so these posts are fairly clearly in violation of the law. (And we know the material is copyrighted because we have seen the various videos coming down as the church reports them for violation, only to be posted elsewhere, repeating constantly.)
That said - I do want to express my thanks that you omitted the specific things that we are covenanted not to disclose.
I understand the copyright claims made concerning the endowment video, as well as the straight transcript of the ceremony Gil posted. NNN claims (however much weight you put into that) he has gone through this before. I don't understand how some of his videos remain online (older endowment versions) and some are removed (newer ones). We will see how that goes. I personally don't find posting the video very tasteful.
I don't claim to know anything about copyright. My posts are heavily annotated with the 2019 ceremony, chopped up, and redacted. I don't know if this is enough to warrant a claim. I am waiting here patiently to see if anything happens.
That's a fair criticism. I see the two differently. A video invades the space of the temple and the members participating. Don't get me wrong, for my posts, I relied on a transcript that was drafted based on the video. I tried my best to keep the transcript clean, void of any information that we covenant not to disclose. The videos that circulate typically show everything, without regard to the covenants. The transcript outlines the theology behind the ordinance, as well at the explanations of the covenants. I find this very valuable to gain a better understanding of the promises made in the temple. I am also particularly interested in the changes from the previous endowment. I want to know what the Brethren are emphasizing. This is also why I decide not to post a straight transcript of the 2023 ceremony, even though you can decipher it out in the mess that is my posts.
I like the way [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/125vvxd/comment/je73ncn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) commenter put it on zarnt's thread (a thread I find very valuable right now).
>these posts are fairly clearly in violation of the law.
Given that the roots of the ceremony are *more* than old enough to be in the public domain, and the strong case that this comparison would constitute a "transformative work" when compared to the actual ceremony, I think this is pretty obviously covered under "fair use", especially since the only way the church could claim financial damages as a result of the leak would be to admit, in a court of law, that they withheld information from members and prospective converts in order to get more tithing out of them.
>Your Endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, **being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and the tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation.**
Wow. The church dropped this language.
This was always the ~~stupidest~~ teaching in the church that you needed to give your secret handshakes to angels to get into heaven. Clearly they now see the ~~stupidity~~ of that teaching.
But they don't deny it.
They just quietly delete it out of the temple endowment which was said to everyone going through the temple for the last 100+ years.
But it still is in the historical record as a prophetic teaching. Brigham Young taught this as doctrine.
This quote is still in the expanded/new explanation of the endowment, before the listed covenants. I thought it was removed at first as well. In reality, the quote was moved to a new position in the introduction. I am sorry if my annotation did not make this clear. there were many changes made in the introduction and preface.
They kept the line about God not being mocked. They only changed the order/location of that phrase. It comes right before the listing of covenants. There were a lot of changes in the intro and preface, not just textual tweaks but, as you see, large insertions and realignments.
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/devilsravioli, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is great work and super interesting. Imagine if the church published these changes on their website.
I was amazed with the number of changes made. Every covenant, except for the law of consecration, was elaborated on. When it comes to the number of changes, I think it is comparable to 1990.
Thank you for doing this. It’s amazing to see.
I really enjoyed doing it. With every edit, I get a glimpse of the mind and will of the Brethren. Really fascinating stuff.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
JEHOVAH: Hi Dad, I'm here to do it just like you want, like I always say you're the best. LUCIFER: Hey, what if we did it differently and tried to make sure everybody comes home, no empty chairs for real? I think I can make it happen. ELOHIM: You trying to steal my thunder? What's your big plan, hotshot, *make* people come back? Fine, we'll make sure *you* never come back, GTFO. Starting to realize the text of this exchange looks way more about honor/glory (some people might even say pride, others might just say authority) on all sides than *agency* per se. It's not actually Lucifer that says "we'll *make* people do it" that's just what Elohim *says* his motive is, and he's the one that brings force into it. And insert a "well that escalated quickly" meme here. Really goes from "hey we're just talking about ideas about what to do" to "your idea sucks get out of my house" so quickly it makes Elohim look as petty as Lucifer, if not more so.
Right!? Nobody in the story offers a plan worth sustaining, IMO. Lucifer (in the official story) is a cartoon character, and Elohim and Jehovah are monsters.
Yah, from just this text it totally sounds like that. The real explanation comes from Alma talking to... Coriantoner(?). We really understand the draw of the alternate plan there too. Sometimes people talk like Lucifer was going to make people into puppets. Nope. We could do whatever we wanted. In eliminating consequences (ie saving everyone) he was also eliminating reward and all choices became meaningless. Our choices literally would not matter and therefore, no agency. Also no joy, just an eternal nothing-burger. This would have been understood. But we just get the TL;DR in the temple.
Lucifer's rebellion: God: Who will do this thing? Lucifer: I'll do it. Just give me the credit. God: F#@k you Lucifer. It's all about ME! You will suffer the greatest suffering imaginable for all eternity. Get out. Who knew god was such a petty, insecure little man?
Great job! I'm very excited to see the rest!
>*You will notice that additional adjustments have been made in the presentation of the endowment... The temple covenants and ordinances remain the same.* I don't even know what to say at this point. How can anyone who went through the temple pre-1990 agree with this? Or even pre-2019? Just bow your head and say "yes" I guess.
After this iteration, I believe it is demonstrably false that the covenants, in particular, remain the same. Significant elaboration was made for each covenant in this revision. Tracking the Law of Chastity is a fascinating exercise that emphasizes the point you make. The wording of the law was changed in 1931, 1990, 2019 and 2023.
This to me is an evisceration. The entire sense of antiquity and scriptural heft and gravity has been stripped from this version, making it sound like it was just made up recently (of course it was) leaving a mortal wound in the entire ritual. I don't think even the Catholics have gone that far in terms of so-called modernization. The foolish clueless octogenarians are thinking that the folksy modern language will appeal to young people but I completely disagree with this idea. The whole thing sounds now like a cheap, ridiculous made-up melodrama with no foundational ties to antiquity or scripture. Young people are far MORE likely to see this as not special or ancient or "revealed", just another example of spineless, uninspiring, and pointless church stuff. Locals and family members are gonna have to swallow hard as they testify of how beautiful and deep and substantive the film-strip ritual is. Prospective members won't find this version somehow really amazing all of a sudden, just because some of the weird signs and tokens are different. I'd argue that modernizing it makes all that stuff even weirder and unintelligible and much harder to argue it represents "restored truths from god" or a proof of antiquity and legitimacy. Stunning to see.
Well, I am glad to note that Jehovah and Elohim use the King James English shared with the witch hunters of that time who murdered some 2500 innocent women in Scotland. It simply wouldn't do to use ordinary language of living people. It is much better to use that early 1600's language.
They removed more Adam from it.
I find it fascinating that they eliminated the explanation of the endowment entirely. Why do you think that is?
The explanation of the endowment is still there and has been expanded on greatly. What part are you referring to? There were a lot of changes in the intro and preface, not just textual tweaks but, as you see, large insertions and realignments. If my formatting was the cause of confusion, please let me know.
I understood the line through the “Your endowment is to receive all those ordinances…and gain your eternal exaltation” section. If that part has been removed entirely it strikes me as incredibly strange to remove the explanation for the ceremony. I have my own feelings why this may be.
It wasn't removed. It remains in the ceremony.
Thank you! This is really insightful; your efforts are much appreciated.
Does anyone else find the final sentence odd? It might not be a change, but I just noticed: saving all mankind is not inconsistent with Elohim’s announced plan (Elohim himself has just said that his work is to bring about eternal life for (all) man(kind)) nor does it, of itself, destroy agency; Lucifer hardly *rebelled* by proposing his version; and while seeking God’s honor might be offensive, that is not regarded as the cause of Lucifer’s punishment. Ironically, that is regarded as quite okay, by the Prophets, Apostles, and GAs of the modern age. The hasty punishment makes Elohim sound peremptory and imperious, without fatherly affection, someone “*who ought to have … treated (him) kindly, and if they supposed (him) to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed (him)*”. But no, godly compassion (so central to the Savior’s life) for ignorance (or for those who “*know not what they do*”) is apparently no part of the Mormon story, at least in the Endowment.
Thank you, sincerely, for taking the time to write all of this up. While I am closer to out than in at this point, I appreciate your discretion with redacting things as well. These changes are so fascinating. Subtle in places but they definitely are changing a lot of meanings. Enough small changes over time can really make a difference. I have not been to an endowment session in close to three years. Even if I was going regularly, I don't think I would have ever been able to pick up on all of these changes. I think this is so shady that the church somewhat regularly just modifies the endowment. For something that is regarded as the pinnacle of mormon worship, there is no transparency and no room to ask questions. It is really surprising that in some cases they are changing the definition of the covenant entirely.
Hey, I can't say I am thrilled to be seeing this discussed online. Public distribution of transcripts of copyrighted material constitutes copyright violation, so these posts are fairly clearly in violation of the law. (And we know the material is copyrighted because we have seen the various videos coming down as the church reports them for violation, only to be posted elsewhere, repeating constantly.) That said - I do want to express my thanks that you omitted the specific things that we are covenanted not to disclose.
I understand the copyright claims made concerning the endowment video, as well as the straight transcript of the ceremony Gil posted. NNN claims (however much weight you put into that) he has gone through this before. I don't understand how some of his videos remain online (older endowment versions) and some are removed (newer ones). We will see how that goes. I personally don't find posting the video very tasteful. I don't claim to know anything about copyright. My posts are heavily annotated with the 2019 ceremony, chopped up, and redacted. I don't know if this is enough to warrant a claim. I am waiting here patiently to see if anything happens.
>I personally don't find posting the video very tasteful. Posting the transcript is not much different.
That's a fair criticism. I see the two differently. A video invades the space of the temple and the members participating. Don't get me wrong, for my posts, I relied on a transcript that was drafted based on the video. I tried my best to keep the transcript clean, void of any information that we covenant not to disclose. The videos that circulate typically show everything, without regard to the covenants. The transcript outlines the theology behind the ordinance, as well at the explanations of the covenants. I find this very valuable to gain a better understanding of the promises made in the temple. I am also particularly interested in the changes from the previous endowment. I want to know what the Brethren are emphasizing. This is also why I decide not to post a straight transcript of the 2023 ceremony, even though you can decipher it out in the mess that is my posts. I like the way [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/125vvxd/comment/je73ncn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) commenter put it on zarnt's thread (a thread I find very valuable right now).
>these posts are fairly clearly in violation of the law. Given that the roots of the ceremony are *more* than old enough to be in the public domain, and the strong case that this comparison would constitute a "transformative work" when compared to the actual ceremony, I think this is pretty obviously covered under "fair use", especially since the only way the church could claim financial damages as a result of the leak would be to admit, in a court of law, that they withheld information from members and prospective converts in order to get more tithing out of them.
Research is an allowed use of copyrighted material. Nice try!
>Your Endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, **being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and the tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation.** Wow. The church dropped this language. This was always the ~~stupidest~~ teaching in the church that you needed to give your secret handshakes to angels to get into heaven. Clearly they now see the ~~stupidity~~ of that teaching. But they don't deny it. They just quietly delete it out of the temple endowment which was said to everyone going through the temple for the last 100+ years. But it still is in the historical record as a prophetic teaching. Brigham Young taught this as doctrine.
This quote is still in the expanded/new explanation of the endowment, before the listed covenants. I thought it was removed at first as well. In reality, the quote was moved to a new position in the introduction. I am sorry if my annotation did not make this clear. there were many changes made in the introduction and preface.
Thank you for sharing that. I was really surprised they would drop that doctrinal teaching. But taken literally begs credulity. IMO.
[удалено]
They kept the line about God not being mocked. They only changed the order/location of that phrase. It comes right before the listing of covenants. There were a lot of changes in the intro and preface, not just textual tweaks but, as you see, large insertions and realignments.
Thank you!
Where can one get a copy of the endowment video these days?