About the endowment ceremony, why have there been major changes throughout history? Why did the temple ceremony used to teach that those who revealed temple secrets would be killed? I hope you can answer me. Thanks.
One Response to “Why has the endowment ceremony changed?”
Francisco Paz
2012-10-15 01:29:51
Why Mormons build temples
Hi friend. I would be surprised if there had not been major changes in the temple ceremonies. Our church believes in modern revelation, meaning God can modify ceremonies and even teachings as he sees fit in order to accommodate changes in our modern society. Symbols and ideas that were helpful and acceptable in the 19th century are not necessarily helpful and acceptable in our modern era. What's the purpose of having modern prophets and apostles if one rejects the idea that God can intercede in the course, practices, and teachings of his church?
Furthermore, you clearly do not fully understand the symbols that were used formerly in the temple ceremony. No one ever promised that they would be killed if they revealed the sacred things taught in the temple. There is no recorded instance in Mormon history when someone was killed for revealing these teachings. The statement made was that the temple ceremonies would be held in such high esteem that someone would prefer, by choice, to suffer physically rather than reveal the sacred ordinances. In our modern context, both of these ideas seem strange, but the distinction is very important. According to your incorrect interpretation, Mormons agreed to be killed. In reality, Mormons agreed to assert their faith even when faced with great challenges, hyperbolically described in the ceremony itself. Actually, perhaps "hiperbolically" is not the right word, given that many Mormons did have their lives threatened because of their faith by enemies of our church in the 19th century. For them, this aspect of the old ceremony was no academic exercise!
It's important to note also that Mormons were not the only group using these kinds of symbols in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the culture of the time, these kinds of symbols were more appropriate. Obviously because of reluctance to alter the ceremony, antiquated symbols were retained for some decades after cultural sensibilities had changed. Nevertheless, we should not judge people of the past by our own modern standards. I hope this helps.
Furthermore, you clearly do not fully understand the symbols that were used formerly in the temple ceremony. No one ever promised that they would be killed if they revealed the sacred things taught in the temple. There is no recorded instance in Mormon history when someone was killed for revealing these teachings. The statement made was that the temple ceremonies would be held in such high esteem that someone would prefer, by choice, to suffer physically rather than reveal the sacred ordinances. In our modern context, both of these ideas seem strange, but the distinction is very important. According to your incorrect interpretation, Mormons agreed to be killed. In reality, Mormons agreed to assert their faith even when faced with great challenges, hyperbolically described in the ceremony itself. Actually, perhaps "hiperbolically" is not the right word, given that many Mormons did have their lives threatened because of their faith by enemies of our church in the 19th century. For them, this aspect of the old ceremony was no academic exercise!
It's important to note also that Mormons were not the only group using these kinds of symbols in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the culture of the time, these kinds of symbols were more appropriate. Obviously because of reluctance to alter the ceremony, antiquated symbols were retained for some decades after cultural sensibilities had changed. Nevertheless, we should not judge people of the past by our own modern standards. I hope this helps.