You didn't mention the depiction of the pre-1990 endowment film showing a Protestant minister in the employ of Satan. You also didn't mention the introduction of the Adam-God theory at the Lecture at the Veil, which was later removed. Were these both restored elements? If not, why did God allow the prophets to lead the church astray in this way?
Lets go back to Moses. Why did Moses dash the first Laws on his first descent from Mt Sainai and have to return back UP the mount Sinai to bring down the Lesser/10 Commandments. I think the Lord Jehovah changed His mind back then yes? And Why did He change His Mind? Bcos Israel was not ready for the Higher Laws? Maybe? Yes? Is this an example of the Lord changing His mind? I think so! Given that the Lord knew this was gonna happen? Did God make a mistake in sending Moses down with the first "Higher Law. Covenants"?? Or is ther a lesson being taught by the Lord. Even for us today? I think so!
@Jim Ferris I think the lord was also allowing scriptural proof further that the law would be altered later, it does us that there has always been the higher law, but it needed to come at the right time in order to be accepted by His people
Well done, David. This and the last Temple/Free Masonry video really explain things spot on. Thanks for helping us understand why there have been changes in the endowment. Keep up the good work!
Joe, my feelings on the subject go like this: the oath of vengeance was a product of intense persecution when the saints would pray in the Temple that God would take vengeance on those who persecute the Church. As the Church built roots in Utah and eventual persecution level went down it no longer made sense to keep the Oath of Vengeance going. Hope that helps I took my Endowment before the 1990 changes, I never swore any kind of "blood oath ". The penalties are what was dropped in the 90s. The penalties were never meant to imply the Endowed person would act out any kind of violence. Just the opposite, the penalties said, essentially, you the "endowed" person would rather suffer death than to ever reveal sacred rites from the temple. That's it. Nothing done in the temple before the 90s changes ever disturbed me.
@@gusburton2371say the things as they really were, slit your throat, have your chest torn open and have your bowels gush out. Not that whitewashed "cross my heart" bs. The BoM condemns blood oaths and secret combinations. Jesus said do not swear, anything more than yea and nay comes from evil. How do you explain that away?
Good points. However I must say that there’s a significant different between ADDING to a revelation (gaining additional knowledge) and CHANGING one. Changing a revelation, such as the changes listed here, fundamentally shift the values of the LDS faith. There are too many contradictions rather than additions for me to believe this is true.
Wow. I'm coming here from the second under the banner of heaven episodes. I loove the description of the restoration, and many types of revelation, are gradual. So the "changes" aren't even always really changes, just further instruction from God.
You are still making a blood oath when you take your endowment, you may not be making the motions associated with the penalties (i.e. slit your throat, having your chest torn open, or having your bowels gush out) but you are still making the signs and symbols associated with the penalty. When the sacrament wine was changed to water, the renewal of the covenant did not change just because the way the ordinance was performed changed. Same with the endowment, you may not be making an explicit oath to kill yourself, but you are still making the pre-1990 disgusting blood oaths unwillingly and without consent.
The original full endowment and initiatory took members over four hours to complete in the Nauvoo temple. It was also live. Today's is an abbreviated version, coming in at 1 hour, 35 minutes. In recent decades certain oaths and covenants have been removed and part of the film has been cut out. There have been most recent changes to the washing and anointing in 2005 and 2009, and changes to the endowment in 2019.
You are still making a blood oath when you take your endowment, you may not be making the motions associated with the penalties (i.e. slit your throat, having your chest torn open, or having your bowels gush out) but you are still making the signs and symbols associated with the penalty. When the sacrament wine was changed to water, the renewal of the Covenants did not change just because the way the ordinance was performed changed. Same with the endowment, you may not be making an explicit oath to kill yourself, but you are still making the pre-1990 disgusting blood oaths unwillingly and without consent.
the Temple Endowment has 2 parts: the covenants that are made (part 1), the presentation of the drama that the participants watch and learn from( part 2). The covenant making (part 1) does not change, but the presentation part has and will probably continue to change just as modern culture changes
@@stevehumble8865 like how the women no longer covenant to obey and harken unto their husbands. Wasn’t that changed? That sounds very much like the covenant part that isn’t supposed to change
@@jbitter5776 when I originally said that the covenants haven't changed I was talking about the covenants we make directly with God. When women made a covenant to obey their husband's as they, the husband's obey God, what they were doing was actually repetitive. A great deal of the recent changes reduces repetition. Once a person (male or female) makes the covenant to obey God there is no point to then do it again through saying, I'll obey my husband too.
If God can change the 10 commandments to what we know now due to people not being ready for a higher law of commandments to live by, then by all means God can authorize changes to the endowment to better help teach us. The real question is, can our current education system better teach all students.... I bet not. Some change is good as long as what is being taught is the same, the method however can change to better suit our needs.
*Shinning* if in fact GOD really did authorize the change. It is possible as the world got bigger and we started to become closer and knowledge more available to the masses that things were changes so that no one would get in trouble with the law. Such as putting hands through a curtain and feeling someone's tits because they were actually kinky but passed it off as a blessing ceremony.
Great video. If I'm allowed to add my 2 cents.. at 4:22, I'd be careful with assuming why the penalties were removed. Unless you have a source for your reasoning?
Isn’t it convenient to say on one hand that it’s direct prophecy from God and when it doesn’t suit anymore, say that it’s a process and will continue to change? The mental gymnastics is just incredible. Indoctrination is very strong here.
So God has not any problem in giving advice and revelation to the Prophets and Apostles about changing temples ceremonies, but He just decided not telling them anything at all about being deceive by murderer Mark Hoffman?
I dont believe in doctrines because thats not written in the holy bible. All i believe is when i call upon the name of the 3 in 1 Lord i am in peace. And im still blessed even i am totally poor.
Changes? Bug or feature? This is an essential that separates and defines the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, to me, as true. While God's character never changes, the people of our planet are gradually, even line upon line, learning better to understand God. And the Latter Day Saints, unique to my knowledge, are continuously improving our practices to conform to our better understanding.
John de Campenhout, a Christian theological scholar, recently made an extensive study of LDS temple work. He was [88] fascinated by it because he saw such close similarities to the ancient temple ordinances, including baptism for the dead. However, he was alarmed to learn that Mormons had also changed the ordinances. It became clear that many revisions had been made to it [the temple ceremony] over the years. . . . As a consequence of these changes, most of which consist of deletions, the contemporary ritual bears only a skeletal resemblance to that given at Nauvoo. These changes are so drastic that one could conclude that the very purpose of the endowment has been defeated and invalidated. (“The Mormon Temple Endowment,” p. 23)
At 2:23-ish the removed content says “Priesthood Ban (1975)” - is that a typo? (Since the ban was lifted in 1978). Or is it referencing something else? Thanks for the clarification.
Great question. if it is removed content it probably was said first then corrected to the lie that was suppose to have been said in the first place. it really doesn't matter.
@@grantarnold From the Church's website under the heading 'Removing the Restriction' 5th paragraph down is where it mentions the year 1975. www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng Other then that I believe your question that it was just a typo. I hope this helps.
Joseph declared, “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are NOT to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.” (TPJS pg. 308) apologizing is not respecting Gods word through Joseph Smith
I have a question. Is a woman who made a connveant prior to 2019 to"hearken to her husband" still under the conveant or not? I mean it was a convent made in "front God Angles and these witnesses" but in Jan 2019 they took that convent out...so are women in the church who were endowed prior 2019 still under that oath?
the Endowment is all about the individual....YOU!.... the Endowment has nothing to do with a husband and wife in the sense that it is taken. There is deep symbolism in the reference of Eve ( the woman) listening to her Husband at all, or in the sense of a woman lisnin to a man and yes the covenant and promise is still valid and in place....
@@jferristube I qouted the covenant directly. I mean don't play coy. the reason I asked the question above is I think no matter your answer you have a theological problem. If your answer is Yes imangie this scernio A woman endowed in 2018 is under a covenant to "hearken unto her husband as he hearkens to the Lord" and woman endowed in 2019 is not. This certainly makes no sense. If this is the case then an 18 year girl gets married in 2017 and has to hearken to her husband. Her sister waits for marriage goes on a mission and doesnt go through the temple until 2019. She comes and home and marries. She doesn't have to hearken to her husband. It seems a little arabity that by merely a concidence of birth order once has to follow that covenant or not. second option the answer is no and women endowed prior to change are not under covenant to hearken to thier husbands. in this scerino since God can revoke covenant any time he wants, it makes the who concept of covenants meanlingess. Could God revoke under promises made in the Temple? What's the point of making coveants if God can just wily nilly change them? Do you really beileve God just decided in 2019 he didn't want women to hearken to thier husbands anymore. I don't know the correct LDS answer to my question and no one will answer since no one talks of the Temple. But there are issues with ethier answer
@@jferristube At the beginning of 2019 the endowment was changed to take out where the wife had to harken herself unto her husband who in turn harkened himself unto the Lords words. So I call bull on the endowment being out the individual.
Fair question. I think it's important not to miss the forest for the trees. There are lots of difficult or confusing issues that we talk about and work through on this channel, but if the foundational claims of the Church are true, then a lot of these other issues become tangential and secondary. I've also come to accept that God doesn't need me to *know* that all of this is true at this point. Over and over again the scriptures emphasize *belief*. So I've grown to be more comfortable with some ambiguity. I don't expect God to force anyone to believe. I think He allows multiple reasonable options to exist, and then he lets us choose what we're going to believe. And what we choose tells God something about us that couldn't be expressed by sheer knowledge. I love this quote from Fiona and Terryl Givens: “The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true and which we have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true. There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, in order to render the choice more truly a choice, and therefore the more deliberate, and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads. The option to believe must appear on one’s personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension.” So, I choose to believe. I believe there is good evidence and plenty of logical arguments that support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, though not so much evidence as to remove the need to make a choice. Anyway, I could go on about this for hours but hopefully this helps! Have a great day, and thanks for the comment.
@@NameInsertedHere master of disguise. There are worse movies to watch than those two, well Firefly show and Serenity. Like....ssshhh Chewbacca's Christmas special.
No God does NOT get it wrong in the first place ! God does not imply anything He knows and He DeCrEES ! We do our best and hope for the best outcome? Even You know you’re talking tripe ! If God talks to your “prophet” He talks straight!!
If the Restoration is incomplete or in progress... then the "fullness of the gospel" cannot be claimed. You can't have fullness if part is still missing. Just some basic logic.
I don't believe that phrase is being used saying fullness of all knowledge because such an understanding is impossible in this lifetime more so it's the fullest available to us on this Earth at this time
full·ness /ˈfo͝olnəs/ noun 1. the state of being filled to capacity. Having the fullness of the Gospel does not mean we have all of it. Rather, it means that we have all that we can receive at this time; we are "filled to capacity." As we live true to what we currently have, our capacity grows (see 2 Nephi 28: 29-30), and we pretty much instantly receive more, whether through the living prophets, or directly from God as personal revelation. So, we do have a fullness of the Gospel, because we are always "filled to capacity" with it.
@@jasonsellers56 ca•pac•i•ty /kəˈpasədē/ noun 1. the maximum amount that something can contain. When something is at capacity or maximum level it cannot contain more. I understand that more knowledge can be obtained in the future. But, it clearly is not the "fullness" if more is to be added later. You cannot add-on to something that is already at capacity. For example... if you are cooking a recipe and fill a container to the rim (to capacity/fullness) and later determine that some ingredients were missing... you cannot just add on without there being a spill from overfill. Now, if your container is only partially filled and you later need to add missing ingredients to reach a level of fullness then that is logical. I am a member by the way and I don't disagree with progress or growth in knowledge. I just disagree with the overuse of the phrase "fullness of the gospel."
@@jasonsellers56 Facepalm indeed when there's a failure to understand the definition of capacity. Referencing the above recipe example that I gave... getting a larger container would solve the spillage/capacity issue, but it would also mean that the previous container was not the correct one to use. The solution for lack of space (capacity) in a gospel is not to obtain a different gospel (container). I understand the scripture and that it's basically saying that revelation is given in small quantities and at a time that we are ready to receive it. My argument is not against scripture and it never was. If you go back to my post I stated that there's a frequent overuse and misuse of the world fullness when referring to the gospel.
Interesting. I love your editing. I could see someone getting upset but we understand how sacred this covenants are ...but most of us understand that it's how each and every one of us makes them a priority.
Echo chamber explanation... On the one hand, you can witness a 16 year old kid recite the sacrament prayer over and over because he got one word wrong but it's okay to alter the Temple ceremony because... well... those parts were fluid and perhaps not correct anyway.... and modern Revelation and things and stuff...amazing... Mental gymnastics.
Nailed it. When the church changed the sacramental wine to water, the covenant didn't change. Same with the penalties, you may not be pantomime a gruesome suicide but if you pay attention you are still make the gestures. Members are still unknowingly making a blood oath to this day.
Good stuff. The essence of the covenants haven't changed, but the actions associated with learning them have... and that is ok. If it were like in ancient times, we would be "washed" topped to bottom in water and anointed with a whole lot of oil instead of one drop during the initiatory. Then again... it's all symbolic of what is literally happening spiritually, so who cares if some of the symbols are modified? Making symbols of the symbols.
The oath of vengeance reminded the saints that vengeance was to be had "only from the Lord"? The oath was referenced by John D. Lee in his confession of his involvement in the Mountain Meadows massacre (over 120 innocent people killed). Lee stated, "I believed then as I do now, that it was the will of every true Mormon in Utah, at that time, that the enemies of the Church should be killed as fast as possible, and that as this lot of people had men amongst them that were supposed to have helped kill the Prophets in the Carthage jail, the killing of all of them would be keeping our oaths and avenging the blood of the Prophets."
Also this raises serious questions. If the things that have been deleted were not essential to the endowment then 1. Why was it in the temple ceremony? And 2. What is definitively essential in the endowment?
I love your videos and appreciate how willing you are to address the controversial issues. My two cents: Why would we want to go to the temple knowing that there could be things there that aren't necessary for salvation, like the old throat cutting penalties and second, if Prophets can make mistakes and sometimes speak as just men, how much of the current endowment is of God and how much is from man? Did you intentionally not talk specifics about the latest gender related changes? I believe there was a video from Russel Nelson asking people to not talk about the fact there were changes. Curious if this influenced your video. Thanks.
Temple ordinances aren’t salvation ordinances. The atonement applies to everyone on the planet, everyone is saved, that doesn’t require any belief, prayer or work. Temple ordinances are related to exaltation, which is what you will inherit in Heaven, not whether you will go there or not.
@@phadrus I appreciate the clarification. That is a good distinction. To me, if some of the things they have members do in the temple aren't needed for exaltation or salvation (and in my opinion uninspired) then it feels like they're being misled by the private agenda of the leaders. This becomes another example of the ideas of man mingled with scripture.
The children of Israel stood condemned because they refused to enter into the rest of the Lord, and preferred Moses to be a go-between. See D&C 84. When Isaiah said "line upon line, precept upon precept", it was in a mocking tone. The vision of all, which their prophets SHOULD have received became as a sealed book to them. Jeremiah 23 condemned so-called "prophets" who claim to prophesy, but speak only their own words, but palm it off on the people as the word of God. Joseph Smith taught that all ordinances were revealed by Adam, and were only to be changed by revelation. The recent changes to the LDS endowment were not made by revelation, but by response to public opinion surveys. There were many innovations done to the endowment in 1990 which removed much of the rich symbolism. People will never know what they missed. We have never seen the revelations authorizing changes to the endowment. Also of note is that all changes to the endowment have been SUBTRACTIONS, nothing new has been added. Your weak apologetics don't hold any water.
Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. ~Joseph Smith
Here's another one: “It is this principle of consistent and unalterable requirements that gives true meaning to the performance of vicarious ordinances in the temple.” ~Elder Dennis B. Neuenschwander
@@floogin213 What the ordinance was meant to do hasn't been (and shouldn't be) changed. How it was executed, can be, and allows for more to be done during the operating hours.
@@johnwright2217 It feels like you are trying to change the wording to get an acceptable result. What he said was that the ordinances in Temple can never be changed, the ordinances in the temple then proceeded to be changed.
@@floogin213 I changed the wording, to get the intended meaning. They changed how the ordinances were completed, to get the intended progress. The quote you gave in response to the first quote (you also gave...), clarified it. The requirements for the ordinance has not changed.
Before I went through the Temple I had heard rumors about the penatiles. I remember telling my mom that the Book of Mormon says no blood oaths and I would refuse to take a blood Oath. So I went an no blood Oath. then I was happy that the blood Oath was just a silly anti Mormon lie. It wasn't until later that I found out it wasn't
yes there were the penalties etc. I remember them. The mistake most make is that the penalties were Metaphorical. Again. Different Levels (Layers) of understanding. As with all scriptures and especially Parables....deeper levels of understanding even many layers of understanding. Beautiful really. As the Lord often said. He taught in parables so that only those who were READY to understand? Could and would understand....Simple. As He has said.....liken the SCRIPTURES unto OURSELVES.... Thats the beauty of the scriptures :)
Marley Harrison For a really concise and well rounded answer I would suggest watching the above video, it definitely articulated the answer to that exact question really well! :) hope that’s helpful! It’s towards the end of the video
@@jamesoneil1388 Likely because they were no longer necessary. The purpose of symbolic penalties in Masonry are to illustrate the importance of integrity and honesty. In the Church's temple endowment ceremony, however, they were used to illustrate the importance of keeping what's sacred only in sacred places; by the time of the 1990s, it was already a cultural norm in the Church not to speak of such sacred things in mundane environments. That stated, penalties in and of themselves are not uniquely Masonic; there is Biblical precedent for them. "And the men who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant that they made before me, I will make them like the calf that they cut in two and passed between its parts. The officials of Judah, the officials of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf" (Jeremiah 34:18-19, NET). "The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out" (Proverbs 10:31, KJV).
@MyKidsKKD raises an excellent point. I should also point out that the term "blood oath" is defined as "a solemn, serious oath." Covenants, wedding vows, pledges of fealty, oaths of citizenship, etc. are therefore all blood oaths under this definition. Of course, it is also defined as a "ceremonial use or exchange of blood," but that does not happen in the Church's temples and is therefore inapplicable. ____ "Blood Oath," Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Inc. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blood%20oath.
Explain this away: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Sure but he still spins it to the white washed version and lies the church wants it's members to believe. There has been so many many changes throughout the church's history for me to believe it is true. When you grow up in the church being told for 30 years that the BOM translated using the gold plates. See so many illustrations of it that way, then in recent years no it was actually translated by JS using a rock in a hat. The church then tries to blame the artist for the gold plate depiction being why so many believe it to be the case. They are not admitting to they commissioned the artists and tell them what to draw then approve of the art to be used in the BOM, throughout the church buildings etc. How is that not straight up lying? It's like the New Church History volumes. What is wrong with the original history? Nothing. Except that it is being proven to be false left and right.
I'm sure it is just coincidence that Joseph Smith came up with all this after becoming a Mason. But, if we can make changes to the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, Church History etc I'm sure changes to this ceremony are only to be expected.
I would think that in the "House of the Lord" that his house really is a "House of order", and not a "God of confusion". If the Book of Mormon is the "Most Correct Book on Earth" you would think the temple endowment necessary to receive Exaltation, should at least be get it right. David, do you have time line of the changes made to the 2nd endowment? I would be interested to see that. There are many statements by church leaders indicating to members that Gods ordinances wouldn't change. This is why your discussing this topic because there is this contradiction. Here are two examples: “...God is unchangeable, the same yesterday, today and forever... The great mistake made down through the ages by teachers of Christianity, is that they have supposed they could place their own private interpretation upon scriptures, allow their own personal convenience to become a controlling factor, and change the basis of Christian law and practice to suit themselves. This is apostacy" • The Prophet's Message, Church News, June 5, 1965 “Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.... He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them." • The Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208
The Church works like the Liahona did for Moses leading the children of Israel and also for Lehi in the wilderness. It will change directions from time to time according to the instructions of the Almighty. How can such an Advanced being as God teach us to walk in His ways if he does not make constant corrections to our course along the way?
@@dirtbikeutah9615 DirtBikeUtah You are wasting your time trying to talk me out of the church by regurgitating church history that's over 100 years old looking for faults in the sand instead of building yourself up on the rock. For I have had far too many experiences with the Almighty to know that this work and this church is true and that this is the Lord's Kingdom here on this earth and that the Book of Mormon was delivered up by the angel of heaven as John the Revelator on the Isle of Patmos had prophesied would happen on the planet in the last days and that is why all nations, kindreds, tongues and people on the planet will come to know the Lord in the last days because of that angel that God had sent that had restored back the everlasting gospel again to the earth. That is why the plates the angel had were handed to Joseph Smith to translate them so the planet could come to the knowledge of the Lord and his covenants in the last days. Until as Isaiah prophesied the whole earth be full of the knowledge of the Lord and that the old things will be remembered no more because the Lord will make a new covenant in the last days with the House of Israel, a covenant of peace and gather the house of Israel to Zion.. All talked about by the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel of the Gathering of the House of Israel to Zion. The Prophet lately has been busy making tweaks and adjustments to Zion and turning all the floodlights on. And at first when you turn the floodlights on, they don't show all their power all at once, instead they start off very weak and dull, a dirty yellow or dirty dull orange color but over time the light steadily increases and changes color and gets more whiter as it increases in radiance and glory until they reach full power abt 15 minutes or so later.... So Zion will increase in her brightness and glory degree by degree like the Rising of the Sun in the morning.... The critics of the church only see a dirty yellow a dirty orange glow in the sky, but they haven';t realized that Zion is still steadily increasing her light. If that angel had been carrying a false gospel then John wouldn't say that this gospel the angle had was of the Lamb of God. But John said that this gospel the angel would bring down to the earth in the last days would be the everlasting gospel of the Lamb of God. So it would be the true Gospel..... Otherwise John would've given the same warning as Paul had given if this angel that would come in the last days with the gospel didn't have the true gospel. And we see that this angle that had the everlasting gospel to deliver up to a man on the earth was Joseph Smith that the angel delivered the everlasting gospel up for translation of the plates of that ancient record of God's other sheep was an important event in the history of the planet in the last days that it was mentioned in the Book of Revelations by John and Isaiah knew it as well (Isaiah Chapter 29) about the sealed book of Mormon.....
@@germanslice It is the problem of how many changes have been made. The problem to is that take for instance the translation of the BOM. For decades it was taught from pulpit, lesson manuals, in many art forms that the BOM was translated using the gold plates. Yet recently the church has come out with information it had all those years that the BOM was translated by JS putting a rock into a hat and reading one word at a time. No mention of the gold plates even being in the room. That was not new information. They had both yet taught the one that was prettier or disneyfied. Because it is the easiest to believe. The church is all about keeping its members believing no matter the mental hoops they have to jump through.
I personally don't know if he said that, but I don't see any reason why they would be reinstated. Some things, like plural marriage, were done anciently, and so were restored for a time, but they weren't part of the Law of Moses. Animal sacrifices, on the other hand, were part of that Law, and so were fulfilled by Jesus Christ's sacrifice. They were done to prepare the minds of the people for the atonement of Jesus Christ, but there's no point preparing us for an atonement that has already taken place! So I see no point in having animal sacrifices reinstated.
@R. Ben Madison I don't think it is just you. I think it goes along with being accepted cuz men with beards are being more community common. The church changes a lot with the way the times living in changes.
This...makes...no...sense. If the prophet claims to have a direct mouthpiece of god and policy is constantly changing....either god can’t make up his mind or the prophet can’t hear what he is saying. The bowling ball example bouncing all over is a spot on analogy...if your prophets are bumbling their way along...do they really deserve to be called prophets????
Matthew Fullmer -- This is Rachel, nice to meet you :) I just want to give my two cents on the topic, maybe it will help or maybe it will make things worse 😂 But when one says, "If the prophet claims to have a direct mouthpiece of god and policy is constantly changing, how can god also be 'unchanging?'" Well, think of a parent instructing a child about the 'rules' of life. At age 5, the child may receive direction that they shouldn't touch the stove when it is on. As the child grows, the instructions change based on a variety of factors (maturity levels, social know-how, time of life, etc). I believe that God works with us similarly. Things are going to change because the world changes (among a variety of factors). We won't have the same policies as 200 years ago -- the world was very different and God knew it would be! If you agree that this explanation could be true, then prophets could still be the mouthpiece of God. I don't know if that helps. But thanks for your comment :)
@Matthew Fullmer that is such a great point you make. Take example bishops. They are suppose to have the power of discernment. Yet why for so many many years have they been calling men, through the spirit, into positions over children that then harm them? Either the bishops do not have the power of discernment OR God knowing those men will sexually assault children, shame, ask inappropriate questions etc tells the bishops it is okay that those men hold power over children. If the latter is the case then God doesn't suffer the children as scriptures tell or else HE would not put men in those positions.
isnt ther a verse of scripture that says all scripture can be altered changed etcetc? Then theres the example where God gave Moses the 10 commandments and just days later told Moses to make a Graven image and to tell Israel that those who looked up to the graven image? Would be saved. Those who did not follow instruction? Died. Begs the question? Why did they not follow the simple instruction? It after all. Was from God thru His Prophet. Moses!
By the way, I see you guys are using the RUclips option to "shadowban" comments you don't like. I think that's a lame and shifty way to handle criticism because you're doing it to give the impression that everyone who posts to this forum agrees with you. If you can't handle any critical discussion whatsoever and quietly white-out people who disagree with you, then your attempt to portray yourself as open and honest is pretty much just a sham. What does that say about your religion, and how much you truly believe its teachings?
Have you even read through the comments section on any of their other videos? I've seen plenty of opposing views, criticisms, etc. Not sure what you're basing your evidence on.
"Sometimes we think of the restoration of the gospel as something that is complete" I wonder why Mormons might subscribe to such incorrect doctrine? Think goodness there are prophets like David Snell to help correct such dearly held errant beliefs regarding the fullness of the gospel.
Well considering the Mormons have been taught for so long that Joseph Smith did restore the gospel...it is like they forget what they have said in the past.
@@ethanf.237 Okay I watched it. It just kinda made 2 points. 1) it mayy be possible that the similarites come from old temple rituals. 2) god repurposes things. I dont see this doesnt mean Joseph Smith didnt take those things from the masons.
Or, it's just untrue. It seems the LDS church has been making changes on whether people will receive their own planets in the afterlife as gods and goddesses, which should reflect in the temple ceremony soon, but who knows? Maybe it will be explained as people finally receiving meat after an overdose of milk? Who knows anymore?
I was a true believing Mormon all my life. Then was inactive for a number of years, not because of disbelief but commitment to work. Then as work requirements changed went back to church and did what I need to do to get a temple recommend. Got my recommend, was very proud of myself. Then went to the temple for the very first time in my life. In that first visit I knew the church was false, and resigned my membership that very week. There is no way a God would ever condone or reveal such a stupid, outrageous, childish, insulting ceremony to anyone. Unless that god was mentally ill and out of his mind.
Yes of course God would teach a higher law in the temple than what is outside in the world. The Father's ways are more higher than the world's ways and his ways are revealed in the temple. And as the scriptures say the natural man receiveth not the things of God for they are but foolishness unto him....For the things of God are spiritually discerned.. You can't go in there without the Spirit to learn of the temple.
Our friend hasn't realized that Nobody else can worship for him in the temple, so if the service was a failure to him and he came away from the temple disappointed then he has failed the service. The temple and church did not fail him, the temple has always been there. either in sun, in snow, in rain in fog or whatever the weather may be For The temple is there so we can practice meaningful worship. Also he is not forced against his will to participate in the temple because those who are not ready to go through for the first time are given the opportunity to go through later on when they are good and ready to take upon themselves those covenants because we are told before the session starts that we can stay for the session or we can leave for whatever reason. So the Lord has this program of selfless service in the temple that respect the agency of his children. The thing I noticed about the temple that was different than the world is the respect of agency and also the quiet reverence and the great stillness and peace that is in the temple. We don't get that kind of peace anywhere else on the planet. So if he wasn't in tune with the Spirit that day all he had to do was get himself more in tune and return back again to the temple until he gets more in tune with the things that the Lord wants him to understand and learn because the temple takes time to learn, its like learning how to walk. But throwing the temple away out of your life just because you didn't understand it the first time will get you no closer to learning the things of God. But he wasn't willing to put in the spiritual work to learn the things of the temple because you have to be in tune otherwise you won't get those meaningful experiences that those who are converted to the Lord enjoy.. So yes temple worship requires some effort and sacrifice on our part.....
@@Queenjessa22 He has not understood that the ways of the Lord is not the same as the world's way. And if he thinks God's ways are going to be like the world's ways hes is mistaken. The temple represent his world and his ways. There's no reason to cast aside and pollute your eternal inheritances and cast them aside just because you don't understand the teachings. When you go to a university, you don't just quit and walk out of the university soon as you enroll in just because you don't like the looks of the teacher that's in the class or because the teacher gives you new curriculum to study...
Did the covenant change when the sacramental wine was changed to water? You may not pantomime slitting your throat but you still make the same gestures. You are unwillingly making a blood oath, which both Jesus and the BoM condemn. How do you explain that away?
Why? Is it because there are so many people on here that have taken past prophets words, see below, and investigated the truth of the Book of Mormon and found it can not stand up to criticism and is not authentic? They have found the information from the 2013 Gospel Topic Essays to be so vastly different then what the church taught about its history about Joseph Smith prior? Those people commenting have used facts as their evidence and not relied on feelings as proof? If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” - President J. Reuben Clark “The Book of Mormon can and should be tested. It invites criticism, and the best possible test for its authenticity is provided by its own oft-proclaimed provenance in the Old World.” - Hugh Nibley “Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.” - Joseph Fielding Smith “We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.” - Joseph F. Smith
@@Hanleia1 I am so proud of you for figuring this out! All you need is the New Testament Jesus, not the fraudulent LDS Jesus and godhead which they believe are three separate beings. What in the word? This doesn't mean I don't pick on other religions or cults either. Doing your own research, and critical thinking is always a must. I can tell you have done that and you are smart.
Both as a temple-endowed member of the Church and as a Freemason, I disagree with your claim here regarding the ritual. The ritual of the Church's temple endowment ceremony teaches doctrine concerning our divine origin and potential; it also acts as a vehicle whereby we can make covenants with Christ. The degree ceremonies of Masonry, however, promote moral self-improvement (from a secular point-of-view) and service to others; therein, we take obligations unto ourselves to implement such ideals. Now, I'll agree that the teaching method is similar; in fact, I believe that Joseph adopted this teaching method from Masonry and adapted it to teach the Church's already-existing doctrine. However, the subject matter, context, and purposes of the rituals differ so profoundly that the term "copied" is quite inapplicable.
Mixing the Scripture with the Book of Mormon is like mixing Gasoline and Mountain Dew together and expecting your car to start up and run smoothly. . .
I wish more people saw your videos. The world would be a better place.
You didn't mention the depiction of the pre-1990 endowment film showing a Protestant minister in the employ of Satan. You also didn't mention the introduction of the Adam-God theory at the Lecture at the Veil, which was later removed. Were these both restored elements? If not, why did God allow the prophets to lead the church astray in this way?
You don't understand.
Cult
Lets go back to Moses. Why did Moses dash the first Laws on his first descent from Mt Sainai and have to return back UP the mount Sinai to bring down the Lesser/10 Commandments. I think the Lord Jehovah changed His mind back then yes? And Why did He change His Mind? Bcos Israel was not ready for the Higher Laws? Maybe? Yes? Is this an example of the Lord changing His mind? I think so! Given that the Lord knew this was gonna happen? Did God make a mistake in sending Moses down with the first "Higher Law. Covenants"?? Or is ther a lesson being taught by the Lord. Even for us today? I think so!
@Jim Ferris I think the lord was also allowing scriptural proof further that the law would be altered later, it does us that there has always been the higher law, but it needed to come at the right time in order to be accepted by His people
Well done, David. This and the last Temple/Free Masonry video really explain things spot on. Thanks for helping us understand why there have been changes in the endowment. Keep up the good work!
Thank you for this! I am preparing to receive my endowments soon :)
Ooooo congrats!
Demonic oaths
@@alanam9103 congrats 🙄
and you won't even have to swear to obey your Husband
Why was the blood oath fazed out in 1990? And why was the take vengeance For Hyrum and Joseph’s murder fazed out in the 1920s?
Joe, my feelings on the subject go like this: the oath of vengeance was a product of intense persecution when the saints would pray in the Temple that God would take vengeance on those who persecute the Church. As the Church built roots in Utah and eventual persecution level went down it no longer made sense to keep the Oath of Vengeance going. Hope that helps
I took my Endowment before the 1990 changes, I never swore any kind of "blood oath ". The penalties are what was dropped in the 90s. The penalties were never meant to imply the Endowed person would act out any kind of violence. Just the opposite, the penalties said, essentially, you the "endowed" person would rather suffer death than to ever reveal sacred rites from the temple. That's it. Nothing done in the temple before the 90s changes ever disturbed me.
I agree, people like to make it a bigger deal than it actually was. To me, it was a kin to saying “cross my heart and Hope to die.”
@@gusburton2371say the things as they really were, slit your throat, have your chest torn open and have your bowels gush out. Not that whitewashed "cross my heart" bs.
The BoM condemns blood oaths and secret combinations. Jesus said do not swear, anything more than yea and nay comes from evil. How do you explain that away?
Good points. However I must say that there’s a significant different between ADDING to a revelation (gaining additional knowledge) and CHANGING one. Changing a revelation, such as the changes listed here, fundamentally shift the values of the LDS faith. There are too many contradictions rather than additions for me to believe this is true.
Wow. I'm coming here from the second under the banner of heaven episodes. I loove the description of the restoration, and many types of revelation, are gradual. So the "changes" aren't even always really changes, just further instruction from God.
Thank you, your comment made me laugh out loud.
You are still making a blood oath when you take your endowment, you may not be making the motions associated with the penalties (i.e. slit your throat, having your chest torn open, or having your bowels gush out) but you are still making the signs and symbols associated with the penalty.
When the sacrament wine was changed to water, the renewal of the covenant did not change just because the way the ordinance was performed changed. Same with the endowment, you may not be making an explicit oath to kill yourself, but you are still making the pre-1990 disgusting blood oaths unwillingly and without consent.
The original full endowment and initiatory took members over four hours to complete in the Nauvoo temple. It was also live. Today's is an abbreviated version, coming in at 1 hour, 35 minutes. In recent decades certain oaths and covenants have been removed and part of the film has been cut out. There have been most recent changes to the washing and anointing in 2005 and 2009, and changes to the endowment in 2019.
The truth is constantly changing.
You are still making a blood oath when you take your endowment, you may not be making the motions associated with the penalties (i.e. slit your throat, having your chest torn open, or having your bowels gush out) but you are still making the signs and symbols associated with the penalty.
When the sacrament wine was changed to water, the renewal of the Covenants did not change just because the way the ordinance was performed changed. Same with the endowment, you may not be making an explicit oath to kill yourself, but you are still making the pre-1990 disgusting blood oaths unwillingly and without consent.
My son has a hard time with this issue, so thanks.
Didn't Joseph Smith himself explicitly state that no ordinances are to be changed?
What was done shouldn't be changed. How it gets done can be.
the Temple Endowment has 2 parts: the covenants that are made (part 1), the presentation of the drama that the participants watch and learn from( part 2). The covenant making (part 1) does not change, but the presentation part has and will probably continue to change just as modern culture changes
@@stevehumble8865 like how the women no longer covenant to obey and harken unto their husbands. Wasn’t that changed? That sounds very much like the covenant part that isn’t supposed to change
@@jbitter5776 when I originally said that the covenants haven't changed I was talking about the covenants we make directly with God. When women made a covenant to obey their husband's as they, the husband's obey God, what they were doing was actually repetitive. A great deal of the recent changes reduces repetition. Once a person (male or female) makes the covenant to obey God there is no point to then do it again through saying, I'll obey my husband too.
Wow, this went into more detail than I expected.
i know right!
The professionals don't bowl the ball directly down the middle at the pins, but they curve it into the middle.
If God can change the 10 commandments to what we know now due to people not being ready for a higher law of commandments to live by, then by all means God can authorize changes to the endowment to better help teach us.
The real question is, can our current education system better teach all students.... I bet not. Some change is good as long as what is being taught is the same, the method however can change to better suit our needs.
*Shinning* if in fact GOD really did authorize the change. It is possible as the world got bigger and we started to become closer and knowledge more available to the masses that things were changes so that no one would get in trouble with the law. Such as putting hands through a curtain and feeling someone's tits because they were actually kinky but passed it off as a blessing ceremony.
Great video. If I'm allowed to add my 2 cents.. at 4:22, I'd be careful with assuming why the penalties were removed. Unless you have a source for your reasoning?
Awesome video! I think it would be pretty cool if the live costume drama were brought back.
Always amazed at the high quality of mental gymnastics on display! (Grabs popcorn...)
You got Smith'd son
Great job Snell!!!!
Thanks.
Isn’t it convenient to say on one hand that it’s direct prophecy from God and when it doesn’t suit anymore, say that it’s a process and will continue to change?
The mental gymnastics is just incredible. Indoctrination is very strong here.
So God has not any problem in giving advice and revelation to the Prophets and Apostles about changing temples ceremonies, but He just decided not telling them anything at all about being deceive by murderer Mark Hoffman?
Awesome video! Thanks for putting this together in a faith promoting way.
I dont believe in doctrines because thats not written in the holy bible. All i believe is when i call upon the name of the 3 in 1 Lord i am in peace. And im still blessed even i am totally poor.
Changes? Bug or feature? This is an essential that separates and defines the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, to me, as true. While God's character never changes, the people of our planet are gradually, even line upon line, learning better to understand God. And the Latter Day Saints, unique to my knowledge, are continuously improving our practices to conform to our better understanding.
John de Campenhout, a Christian theological scholar, recently made an extensive study of LDS temple work. He was [88] fascinated by it because he saw such close similarities to the ancient temple ordinances, including baptism for the dead. However, he was alarmed to learn that Mormons had also changed the ordinances. It became clear that many revisions had been made to it [the temple ceremony] over the years. . . . As a consequence of these changes, most of which consist of deletions, the contemporary ritual bears only a skeletal resemblance to that given at Nauvoo. These changes are so drastic that one could conclude that the very purpose of the endowment has been defeated and invalidated. (“The Mormon Temple Endowment,” p. 23)
Love the bowling ball analogy!
At 2:23-ish the removed content says “Priesthood Ban (1975)” - is that a typo? (Since the ban was lifted in 1978). Or is it referencing something else? Thanks for the clarification.
Great question. if it is removed content it probably was said first then corrected to the lie that was suppose to have been said in the first place. it really doesn't matter.
But seriously, does anyone know? I’m hoping to hear a response from an active member of the church. Thanks in advance.
@@grantarnold From the Church's website under the heading 'Removing the Restriction' 5th paragraph down is where it mentions the year 1975. www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng Other then that I believe your question that it was just a typo. I hope this helps.
The 1975 reference was for the first temple in sau paulo:)
Joseph declared, “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are NOT to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.” (TPJS pg. 308) apologizing is not respecting Gods word through Joseph Smith
I have a question. Is a woman who made a connveant prior to 2019 to"hearken to her husband" still under the conveant or not? I mean it was a convent made in "front God Angles and these witnesses" but in Jan 2019 they took that convent out...so are women in the church who were endowed prior 2019 still under that oath?
the Endowment is all about the individual....YOU!.... the Endowment has nothing to do with a husband and wife in the sense that it is taken. There is deep symbolism in the reference of Eve ( the woman) listening to her Husband at all, or in the sense of a woman lisnin to a man and yes the covenant and promise is still valid and in place....
@@jferristube only for girls who receive thier endowment prior to 2019 right ? Like the covenant isn't even in the temple any more
@@coalhouse1981what covenant are you referring to?
@@jferristube I qouted the covenant directly. I mean don't play coy. the reason I asked the question above is I think no matter your answer you have a theological problem.
If your answer is Yes imangie this scernio A woman endowed in 2018 is under a covenant to "hearken unto her husband as he hearkens to the Lord" and woman endowed in 2019 is not. This certainly makes no sense. If this is the case then an 18 year girl gets married in 2017 and has to hearken to her husband. Her sister waits for marriage goes on a mission and doesnt go through the temple until 2019. She comes and home and marries. She doesn't have to hearken to her husband. It seems a little arabity that by merely a concidence of birth order once has to follow that covenant or not.
second option the answer is no and women endowed prior to change are not under covenant to hearken to thier husbands. in this scerino since God can revoke covenant any time he wants, it makes the who concept of covenants meanlingess. Could God revoke under promises made in the Temple? What's the point of making coveants if God can just wily nilly change them? Do you really beileve God just decided in 2019 he didn't want women to hearken to thier husbands anymore.
I don't know the correct LDS answer to my question and no one will answer since no one talks of the Temple.
But there are issues with ethier answer
@@jferristube At the beginning of 2019 the endowment was changed to take out where the wife had to harken herself unto her husband who in turn harkened himself unto the Lords words. So I call bull on the endowment being out the individual.
David how do you remain so faithful in a church that has such a difficult past?
Fair question. I think it's important not to miss the forest for the trees. There are lots of difficult or confusing issues that we talk about and work through on this channel, but if the foundational claims of the Church are true, then a lot of these other issues become tangential and secondary. I've also come to accept that God doesn't need me to *know* that all of this is true at this point. Over and over again the scriptures emphasize *belief*. So I've grown to be more comfortable with some ambiguity. I don't expect God to force anyone to believe. I think He allows multiple reasonable options to exist, and then he lets us choose what we're going to believe. And what we choose tells God something about us that couldn't be expressed by sheer knowledge. I love this quote from Fiona and Terryl Givens:
“The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true and which we have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true. There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, in order to render the choice more truly a choice, and therefore the more deliberate, and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads. The option to believe must appear on one’s personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension.”
So, I choose to believe. I believe there is good evidence and plenty of logical arguments that support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, though not so much evidence as to remove the need to make a choice. Anyway, I could go on about this for hours but hopefully this helps! Have a great day, and thanks for the comment.
Back to the Future Part 3 is the best western film 😅😅😅
@Tyler Cobb, what about Firefly? That is a western film in space.
@@Hanleia1 comes close but idk it's the best 😅
@@NameInsertedHere but you could be related to Jayne Cobb. 😄. Both movies are very good in their own way.
@@Hanleia1 oh no you found out who I'm related too.. aaaaahh hahaha
@@NameInsertedHere master of disguise. There are worse movies to watch than those two, well Firefly show and Serenity. Like....ssshhh Chewbacca's Christmas special.
No God does NOT get it wrong in the first place ! God does not imply anything He knows and He DeCrEES ! We do our best and hope for the best outcome? Even You know you’re talking tripe ! If God talks to your “prophet” He talks straight!!
Either god is often wrong, or the prophet's words are not the words of god. Either way, this is a problem.
It seems to me that, the Mormon God, is a learning God.
Talking fast is not a substitute for talking facts…..
If the Restoration is incomplete or in progress... then the "fullness of the gospel" cannot be claimed. You can't have fullness if part is still missing. Just some basic logic.
I don't believe that phrase is being used saying fullness of all knowledge because such an understanding is impossible in this lifetime more so it's the fullest available to us on this Earth at this time
full·ness /ˈfo͝olnəs/ noun
1. the state of being filled to capacity.
Having the fullness of the Gospel does not mean we have all of it. Rather, it means that we have all that we can receive at this time; we are "filled to capacity." As we live true to what we currently have, our capacity grows (see 2 Nephi 28: 29-30), and we pretty much instantly receive more, whether through the living prophets, or directly from God as personal revelation. So, we do have a fullness of the Gospel, because we are always "filled to capacity" with it.
@@jasonsellers56
ca•pac•i•ty /kəˈpasədē/ noun
1. the maximum amount that something can contain.
When something is at capacity or maximum level it cannot contain more. I understand that more knowledge can be obtained in the future. But, it clearly is not the "fullness" if more is to be added later. You cannot add-on to something that is already at capacity.
For example... if you are cooking a recipe and fill a container to the rim (to capacity/fullness) and later determine that some ingredients were missing... you cannot just add on without there being a spill from overfill. Now, if your container is only partially filled and you later need to add missing ingredients to reach a level of fullness then that is logical.
I am a member by the way and I don't disagree with progress or growth in knowledge. I just disagree with the overuse of the phrase "fullness of the gospel."
@@adolfob3370
"As we live true to what we currently have, *our capacity grows* (see 2 Nephi 28: 29-30)"
🤦♂️
@@jasonsellers56
Facepalm indeed when there's a failure to understand the definition of capacity.
Referencing the above recipe example that I gave... getting a larger container would solve the spillage/capacity issue, but it would also mean that the previous container was not the correct one to use.
The solution for lack of space (capacity) in a gospel is not to obtain a different gospel (container).
I understand the scripture and that it's basically saying that revelation is given in small quantities and at a time that we are ready to receive it.
My argument is not against scripture and it never was. If you go back to my post I stated that there's a frequent overuse and misuse of the world fullness when referring to the gospel.
How about the Lord wanted to?
Interesting. I love your editing. I could see someone getting upset but we understand how sacred this covenants are ...but most of us understand that it's how each and every one of us makes them a priority.
The endowment has not changed. The teaching partof the endowmwnt has changed several times but the endowment has never changed.
Echo chamber explanation... On the one hand, you can witness a 16 year old kid recite the sacrament prayer over and over because he got one word wrong but it's okay to alter the Temple ceremony because... well... those parts were fluid and perhaps not correct anyway.... and modern Revelation and things and stuff...amazing... Mental gymnastics.
Nailed it. When the church changed the sacramental wine to water, the covenant didn't change. Same with the penalties, you may not be pantomime a gruesome suicide but if you pay attention you are still make the gestures. Members are still unknowingly making a blood oath to this day.
Good stuff. The essence of the covenants haven't changed, but the actions associated with learning them have... and that is ok. If it were like in ancient times, we would be "washed" topped to bottom in water and anointed with a whole lot of oil instead of one drop during the initiatory. Then again... it's all symbolic of what is literally happening spiritually, so who cares if some of the symbols are modified? Making symbols of the symbols.
Confirmation bias going full bore here.The church is responding to public opinion ! Thats it !
The Best Two Years reference!!!
Creed was a nice touch 😂
The oath of vengeance reminded the saints that vengeance was to be had "only from the Lord"? The oath was referenced by John D. Lee in his confession of his involvement in the Mountain Meadows massacre (over 120 innocent people killed). Lee stated, "I believed then as I do now, that it was the will of every true Mormon in Utah, at that time, that the enemies of the Church should be killed as fast as possible, and that as this lot of people had men amongst them that were supposed to have helped kill the Prophets in the Carthage jail, the killing of all of them would be keeping our oaths and avenging the blood of the Prophets."
Um I don’t know if anyone has ever stated that except maybe anti-Church of Jesus Christ people...
@@TBIhope by “anti” do you mean those that are willing to tell the truth and not say it with a “faithful “ perspective?
@@Sayheybrother8 no, I mean that no Mormon has ever expressed anything close to what Lee said. Also, this comment is like a year old.
Glossy!
I don't believe Mormonism is true anymore that's just me in my feelings
Also this raises serious questions. If the things that have been deleted were not essential to the endowment then 1. Why was it in the temple ceremony? And 2. What is definitively essential in the endowment?
FaorMormon answer thos
why do we no longer stone the Adulterer? That once was the Law?
The 4 covenants made are the essential part from my understanding.
I was not expecting that Monty Python reference 😂
Was that John Candy in the video?
Who can attend temple endowments? Is it only husband and wife?
I love your videos and appreciate how willing you are to address the controversial issues. My two cents: Why would we want to go to the temple knowing that there could be things there that aren't necessary for salvation, like the old throat cutting penalties and second, if Prophets can make mistakes and sometimes speak as just men, how much of the current endowment is of God and how much is from man? Did you intentionally not talk specifics about the latest gender related changes? I believe there was a video from Russel Nelson asking people to not talk about the fact there were changes. Curious if this influenced your video. Thanks.
You just gotta believe it then its always true and what you want it to be BAHAHAHA!
Temple ordinances aren’t salvation ordinances. The atonement applies to everyone on the planet, everyone is saved, that doesn’t require any belief, prayer or work. Temple ordinances are related to exaltation, which is what you will inherit in Heaven, not whether you will go there or not.
@@phadrus I appreciate the clarification. That is a good distinction. To me, if some of the things they have members do in the temple aren't needed for exaltation or salvation (and in my opinion uninspired) then it feels like they're being misled by the private agenda of the leaders. This becomes another example of the ideas of man mingled with scripture.
Chris basically all of this is incorrect
Ryan Johnson curious, are you saying my comment is incorrect or the video is incorrect? Cheers!
The children of Israel stood condemned because they refused to enter into the rest of the Lord, and preferred Moses to be a go-between. See D&C 84. When Isaiah said "line upon line, precept upon precept", it was in a mocking tone. The vision of all, which their prophets SHOULD have received became as a sealed book to them. Jeremiah 23 condemned so-called "prophets" who claim to prophesy, but speak only their own words, but palm it off on the people as the word of God.
Joseph Smith taught that all ordinances were revealed by Adam, and were only to be changed by revelation. The recent changes to the LDS endowment were not made by revelation, but by response to public opinion surveys. There were many innovations done to the endowment in 1990 which removed much of the rich symbolism. People will never know what they missed. We have never seen the revelations authorizing changes to the endowment. Also of note is that all changes to the endowment have been SUBTRACTIONS, nothing new has been added.
Your weak apologetics don't hold any water.
Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. ~Joseph Smith
I'm confused
Here's another one: “It is this principle of consistent and unalterable requirements that gives true meaning to the performance of vicarious ordinances in the temple.” ~Elder Dennis B. Neuenschwander
@@floogin213 What the ordinance was meant to do hasn't been (and shouldn't be) changed. How it was executed, can be, and allows for more to be done during the operating hours.
@@johnwright2217 It feels like you are trying to change the wording to get an acceptable result. What he said was that the ordinances in Temple can never be changed, the ordinances in the temple then proceeded to be changed.
@@floogin213 I changed the wording, to get the intended meaning. They changed how the ordinances were completed, to get the intended progress. The quote you gave in response to the first quote (you also gave...), clarified it. The requirements for the ordinance has not changed.
Before I went through the Temple I had heard rumors about the penatiles. I remember telling my mom that the Book of Mormon says no blood oaths and I would refuse to take a blood Oath. So I went an no blood Oath. then I was happy that the blood Oath was just a silly anti Mormon lie. It wasn't until later that I found out it wasn't
yes there were the penalties etc. I remember them. The mistake most make is that the penalties were Metaphorical. Again. Different Levels (Layers) of understanding. As with all scriptures and especially Parables....deeper levels of understanding even many layers of understanding. Beautiful really. As the Lord often said. He taught in parables so that only those who were READY to understand? Could and would understand....Simple. As He has said.....liken the SCRIPTURES unto OURSELVES.... Thats the beauty of the scriptures :)
Jim Ferris then why were they taken away?
Marley Harrison For a really concise and well rounded answer I would suggest watching the above video, it definitely articulated the answer to that exact question really well! :) hope that’s helpful! It’s towards the end of the video
@@jamesoneil1388
Likely because they were no longer necessary. The purpose of symbolic penalties in Masonry are to illustrate the importance of integrity and honesty. In the Church's temple endowment ceremony, however, they were used to illustrate the importance of keeping what's sacred only in sacred places; by the time of the 1990s, it was already a cultural norm in the Church not to speak of such sacred things in mundane environments.
That stated, penalties in and of themselves are not uniquely Masonic; there is Biblical precedent for them.
"And the men who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant that they made before me, I will make them like the calf that they cut in two and passed between its parts. The officials of Judah, the officials of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf" (Jeremiah 34:18-19, NET).
"The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out" (Proverbs 10:31, KJV).
@MyKidsKKD raises an excellent point.
I should also point out that the term "blood oath" is defined as "a solemn, serious oath." Covenants, wedding vows, pledges of fealty, oaths of citizenship, etc. are therefore all blood oaths under this definition.
Of course, it is also defined as a "ceremonial use or exchange of blood," but that does not happen in the Church's temples and is therefore inapplicable.
____
"Blood Oath," Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Inc. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blood%20oath.
Great job!
Explain this away:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Thoughts on the 2023 changes? Can't wait for the future gaslighting.
just so my comment doesn't get totally mistake. I like the guy in the video is willing to address difficult topics. most won't.
Sure but he still spins it to the white washed version and lies the church wants it's members to believe. There has been so many many changes throughout the church's history for me to believe it is true. When you grow up in the church being told for 30 years that the BOM translated using the gold plates. See so many illustrations of it that way, then in recent years no it was actually translated by JS using a rock in a hat. The church then tries to blame the artist for the gold plate depiction being why so many believe it to be the case. They are not admitting to they commissioned the artists and tell them what to draw then approve of the art to be used in the BOM, throughout the church buildings etc. How is that not straight up lying? It's like the New Church History volumes. What is wrong with the original history? Nothing. Except that it is being proven to be false left and right.
@@Hanleia1 oh I don't disagree but one thing I gauntree is you can't find the Oath of Vegencge in any correlated martieals
When a false prophet makes up a denomination they can change the rules whenever they want.
I'm sure it is just coincidence that Joseph Smith came up with all this after becoming a Mason. But, if we can make changes to the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, Church History etc I'm sure changes to this ceremony are only to be expected.
I would think that in the "House of the Lord" that his house really is a "House of order", and not a "God of confusion". If the Book of Mormon is the "Most Correct Book on Earth" you would think the temple endowment necessary to receive Exaltation, should at least be get it right. David, do you have time line of the changes made to the 2nd endowment? I would be interested to see that.
There are many statements by church leaders indicating to members that Gods ordinances wouldn't change. This is why your discussing this topic because there is this contradiction. Here are two examples:
“...God is unchangeable, the same yesterday, today and forever... The great mistake made down through the ages by teachers of Christianity, is that they have supposed they could place their own private interpretation upon scriptures, allow their own personal convenience to become a controlling factor, and change the basis of Christian law and practice to suit themselves. This is apostacy"
• The Prophet's Message, Church News, June 5, 1965
“Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.... He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them."
• The Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208
The Church works like the Liahona did for Moses leading the children of Israel and also for Lehi in the wilderness. It will change directions from time to time according to the instructions of the Almighty. How can such an Advanced being as God teach us to walk in His ways if he does not make constant corrections to our course along the way?
@@germanslice The quotes I give above would point out that your theory on "Constant Corrections" is not accurate.
@@dirtbikeutah9615 DirtBikeUtah You are wasting your time trying to talk me out of the church by regurgitating church history that's over 100 years old looking for faults in the sand instead of building yourself up on the rock. For I have had far too many experiences with the Almighty to know that this work and this church is true and that this is the Lord's Kingdom here on this earth and that the Book of Mormon was delivered up by the angel of heaven as John the Revelator on the Isle of Patmos had prophesied would happen on the planet in the last days and that is why all nations, kindreds, tongues and people on the planet will come to know the Lord in the last days because of that angel that God had sent that had restored back the everlasting gospel again to the earth. That is why the plates the angel had were handed to Joseph Smith to translate them so the planet could come to the knowledge of the Lord and his covenants in the last days. Until as Isaiah prophesied the whole earth be full of the knowledge of the Lord and that the old things will be remembered no more because the Lord will make a new covenant in the last days with the House of Israel, a covenant of peace and gather the house of Israel to Zion.. All talked about by the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel of the Gathering of the House of Israel to Zion. The Prophet lately has been busy making tweaks and adjustments to Zion and turning all the floodlights on. And at first when you turn the floodlights on, they don't show all their power all at once, instead they start off very weak and dull, a dirty yellow or dirty dull orange color but over time the light steadily increases and changes color and gets more whiter as it increases in radiance and glory until they reach full power abt 15 minutes or so later.... So Zion will increase in her brightness and glory degree by degree like the Rising of the Sun in the morning.... The critics of the church only see a dirty yellow a dirty orange glow in the sky, but they haven';t realized that Zion is still steadily increasing her light.
If that angel had been carrying a false gospel then John wouldn't say that this gospel the angle had was of the Lamb of God. But John said that this gospel the angel would bring down to the earth in the last days would be the everlasting gospel of the Lamb of God. So it would be the true Gospel..... Otherwise John would've given the same warning as Paul had given if this angel that would come in the last days with the gospel didn't have the true gospel. And we see that this angle that had the everlasting gospel to deliver up to a man on the earth was Joseph Smith that the angel delivered the everlasting gospel up for translation of the plates of that ancient record of God's other sheep was an important event in the history of the planet in the last days that it was mentioned in the Book of Revelations by John and Isaiah knew it as well (Isaiah Chapter 29) about the sealed book of Mormon.....
@@germanslice It is the problem of how many changes have been made. The problem to is that take for instance the translation of the BOM. For decades it was taught from pulpit, lesson manuals, in many art forms that the BOM was translated using the gold plates. Yet recently the church has come out with information it had all those years that the BOM was translated by JS putting a rock into a hat and reading one word at a time. No mention of the gold plates even being in the room. That was not new information. They had both yet taught the one that was prettier or disneyfied. Because it is the easiest to believe. The church is all about keeping its members believing no matter the mental hoops they have to jump through.
@@germanslice thanks for that
So Joseph told Brigham take stuff out?
@@mikkifrompreston4396 what are the changes?
@@mikkifrompreston4396 yes....changes. All Good! No problem. And more to come no doubt!?
Didn't JS claim that even animal sacrifices would eventually be reinstated?
I personally don't know if he said that, but I don't see any reason why they would be reinstated. Some things, like plural marriage, were done anciently, and so were restored for a time, but they weren't part of the Law of Moses. Animal sacrifices, on the other hand, were part of that Law, and so were fulfilled by Jesus Christ's sacrifice. They were done to prepare the minds of the people for the atonement of Jesus Christ, but there's no point preparing us for an atonement that has already taken place! So I see no point in having animal sacrifices reinstated.
@@jasonsellers56 I'll have to find those quotes for you...
Jason Sellers animal sacrifice predated the law of Moses...
@@Applest2oApples Bingoooooo
@@truthbebold4009 I heard this once but was quite young and didnt understand it clearly - would be interested
Is it just me or am I seeing way more Mormon men with beards than I ever did before (at least since the 19th century)?
@R. Ben Madison I don't think it is just you. I think it goes along with being accepted cuz men with beards are being more community common. The church changes a lot with the way the times living in changes.
This...makes...no...sense. If the prophet claims to have a direct mouthpiece of god and policy is constantly changing....either god can’t make up his mind or the prophet can’t hear what he is saying. The bowling ball example bouncing all over is a spot on analogy...if your prophets are bumbling their way along...do they really deserve to be called prophets????
Matthew Fullmer -- This is Rachel, nice to meet you :) I just want to give my two cents on the topic, maybe it will help or maybe it will make things worse 😂 But when one says, "If the prophet claims to have a direct mouthpiece of god and policy is constantly changing, how can god also be 'unchanging?'" Well, think of a parent instructing a child about the 'rules' of life. At age 5, the child may receive direction that they shouldn't touch the stove when it is on. As the child grows, the instructions change based on a variety of factors (maturity levels, social know-how, time of life, etc). I believe that God works with us similarly. Things are going to change because the world changes (among a variety of factors). We won't have the same policies as 200 years ago -- the world was very different and God knew it would be! If you agree that this explanation could be true, then prophets could still be the mouthpiece of God.
I don't know if that helps. But thanks for your comment :)
God already knows all things, hes already chartered the course and showing the prophet the way.
@Matthew Fullmer that is such a great point you make. Take example bishops. They are suppose to have the power of discernment. Yet why for so many many years have they been calling men, through the spirit, into positions over children that then harm them? Either the bishops do not have the power of discernment OR God knowing those men will sexually assault children, shame, ask inappropriate questions etc tells the bishops it is okay that those men hold power over children. If the latter is the case then God doesn't suffer the children as scriptures tell or else HE would not put men in those positions.
isnt ther a verse of scripture that says all scripture can be altered changed etcetc?
Then theres the example where God gave Moses the 10 commandments and just days later told Moses to make a Graven image and to tell Israel that those who looked up to the graven image? Would be saved. Those who did not follow instruction? Died. Begs the question? Why did they not follow the simple instruction? It after all. Was from God thru His Prophet. Moses!
This is crap, Joseph stated that this needed to be practiced exactly how it was done. Stop lying
Bryce Jones source please?
hahahahahaha! righhhhht
Bryce Jones I didn’t think Mormon fundamentalists were allowed to watch RUclips!
Boomskey you are right on with your doctrine
By the way, I see you guys are using the RUclips option to "shadowban" comments you don't like. I think that's a lame and shifty way to handle criticism because you're doing it to give the impression that everyone who posts to this forum agrees with you. If you can't handle any critical discussion whatsoever and quietly white-out people who disagree with you, then your attempt to portray yourself as open and honest is pretty much just a sham. What does that say about your religion, and how much you truly believe its teachings?
Have you even read through the comments section on any of their other videos? I've seen plenty of opposing views, criticisms, etc. Not sure what you're basing your evidence on.
@@_My_RUclips Agreed. I have no idea what he's talking about
3:15 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣😂
what a gibberish
"Sometimes we think of the restoration of the gospel as something that is complete"
I wonder why Mormons might subscribe to such incorrect doctrine? Think goodness there are prophets like David Snell to help correct such dearly held errant beliefs regarding the fullness of the gospel.
Well considering the Mormons have been taught for so long that Joseph Smith did restore the gospel...it is like they forget what they have said in the past.
"considering we believe we got it from revelation from God" but joseph smith got it from the masons. did he not
He did not.... Watch their previous video on this segment
@@ethanf.237 And for the record im not trying to fight about it. Literally Joseph Smith went into an organization and 'stole' information.
@@chile_en_nogada2090 Watch the video they made on the topic
@@ethanf.237 Okay I will right now. One second.
@@ethanf.237 Okay I watched it. It just kinda made 2 points. 1) it mayy be possible that the similarites come from old temple rituals. 2) god repurposes things.
I dont see this doesnt mean Joseph Smith didnt take those things from the masons.
Or, it's just untrue. It seems the LDS church has been making changes on whether people will receive their own planets in the afterlife as gods and goddesses, which should reflect in the temple ceremony soon, but who knows? Maybe it will be explained as people finally receiving meat after an overdose of milk? Who knows anymore?
I was a true believing Mormon all my life. Then was inactive for a number of years, not because of disbelief but commitment to work. Then as work requirements changed went back to church and did what I need to do to get a temple recommend. Got my recommend, was very proud of myself. Then went to the temple for the very first time in my life. In that first visit I knew the church was false, and resigned my membership that very week. There is no way a God would ever condone or reveal such a stupid, outrageous, childish, insulting ceremony to anyone. Unless that god was mentally ill and out of his mind.
william Bott interesting I don’t get that at all from the temple ordinances. In fact just the opposite. Wonder why?
Yes of course God would teach a higher law in the temple than what is outside in the world. The Father's ways are more higher than the world's ways and his ways are revealed in the temple. And as the scriptures say the natural man receiveth not the things of God for they are but foolishness unto him....For the things of God are spiritually discerned.. You can't go in there without the Spirit to learn of the temple.
germanslice that there has been my experience
Our friend hasn't realized that Nobody else can worship for him in the temple, so if the service was a failure to him and he came away from the temple disappointed then he has failed the service. The temple and church did not fail him, the temple has always been there. either in sun, in snow, in rain in fog or whatever the weather may be For The temple is there so we can practice meaningful worship. Also he is not forced against his will to participate in the temple because those who are not ready to go through for the first time are given the opportunity to go through later on when they are good and ready to take upon themselves those covenants because we are told before the session starts that we can stay for the session or we can leave for whatever reason. So the Lord has this program of selfless service in the temple that respect the agency of his children. The thing I noticed about the temple that was different than the world is the respect of agency and also the quiet reverence and the great stillness and peace that is in the temple. We don't get that kind of peace anywhere else on the planet.
So if he wasn't in tune with the Spirit that day all he had to do was get himself more in tune and return back again to the temple until he gets more in tune with the things that the Lord wants him to understand and learn because the temple takes time to learn, its like learning how to walk. But throwing the temple away out of your life just because you didn't understand it the first time will get you no closer to learning the things of God. But he wasn't willing to put in the spiritual work to learn the things of the temple because you have to be in tune otherwise you won't get those meaningful experiences that those who are converted to the Lord enjoy.. So yes temple worship requires some effort and sacrifice on our part.....
@@Queenjessa22 He has not understood that the ways of the Lord is not the same as the world's way. And if he thinks God's ways are going to be like the world's ways hes is mistaken. The temple represent his world and his ways.
There's no reason to cast aside and pollute your eternal inheritances and cast them aside just because you don't understand the teachings. When you go to a university, you don't just quit and walk out of the university soon as you enroll in just because you don't like the looks of the teacher that's in the class or because the teacher gives you new curriculum to study...
Pre 1990 members would pantomime suicides! it was a crazier time then so sometimes change is good🤣
Did the covenant change when the sacramental wine was changed to water? You may not pantomime slitting your throat but you still make the same gestures. You are unwillingly making a blood oath, which both Jesus and the BoM condemn. How do you explain that away?
i feel bad for the comment section
Why? Is it because there are so many people on here that have taken past prophets words, see below, and investigated the truth of the Book of Mormon and found it can not stand up to criticism and is not authentic? They have found the information from the 2013 Gospel Topic Essays to be so vastly different then what the church taught about its history about Joseph Smith prior? Those people commenting have used facts as their evidence and not relied on feelings as proof?
If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” - President J. Reuben Clark
“The Book of Mormon can and should be tested. It invites criticism, and the best possible test for its authenticity is provided by its own oft-proclaimed provenance in the Old World.” - Hugh Nibley
“Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.” - Joseph Fielding Smith
“We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.” - Joseph F. Smith
@@Hanleia1 I am so proud of you for figuring this out! All you need is the New Testament Jesus, not the fraudulent LDS Jesus and godhead which they believe are three separate beings. What in the word? This doesn't mean I don't pick on other religions or cults either. Doing your own research, and critical thinking is always a must. I can tell you have done that and you are smart.
Because Old Joe was a metal case, and copied masonic temple ritual and used that for LDS one. Old Joe never translated anything!
Both as a temple-endowed member of the Church and as a Freemason, I disagree with your claim here regarding the ritual.
The ritual of the Church's temple endowment ceremony teaches doctrine concerning our divine origin and potential; it also acts as a vehicle whereby we can make covenants with Christ. The degree ceremonies of Masonry, however, promote moral self-improvement (from a secular point-of-view) and service to others; therein, we take obligations unto ourselves to implement such ideals.
Now, I'll agree that the teaching method is similar; in fact, I believe that Joseph adopted this teaching method from Masonry and adapted it to teach the Church's already-existing doctrine. However, the subject matter, context, and purposes of the rituals differ so profoundly that the term "copied" is quite inapplicable.
This video is all mental gymnastics to edit the original text and beliefs to fit today. lol
Boooo boooo I'm Christian I go to his house CMU they have a worship band
Hopefully next year the prophet gets a revelation to change the hats. They don't stay put so well for us bald guys.
Mixing the Scripture with the Book of Mormon is like mixing Gasoline and Mountain Dew together and expecting your car to start up and run smoothly. . .