Talk:Endowment (Mormonism)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Scope of article

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

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

Verifiability of article

Much of what appears in this article fails a main pillar of Wikipedia in that it is unsupported by reliable third-party sources. As such, it does not belong on Wikipedia. jastcy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.239.164.235 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly --Trödel 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a verifiability problem here. As we know (and whether or not we like this is not the issue here), the endowment ceremony has been tape recorded and transcribed several times, and eyewitnesses have been interviewed, and their statements published. As long as we can potentially cite to a published source, verifiability is not a problem. COGDEN 17:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Are the sources reliable though? Lots of people have written books about political leaders, celebretities, controversial events, etc. The fact that books are written about it does not ensure an unbiased, accurate and reliabile source. I agree with the third party statement above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryancormack (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If the ceremony has in fact "been tape recorded and transcribed several times," then it would stand to reason that there would be a reliable source out there to support the tenets of this artible. I don't see any cites to a published source, which seems to indicate, at least according to COGDEN, that the verifiability of the article is a problem. User:Linus Hawk9 February, 2008 (UTC)

THe recordings themselves are online, as well as typed transcripts. We could link to the audio files. I know they're available in mp3 on the net. I understand the concerns some have over the potential for spin, but the audio is of complete sessions - if you're patient enough to listen to the entire recording, you can interpret the commentary, pro or con, any way you like, much as you could with a controversial political topic, say, Bush's Iraq War speeches available at the White House website.

Is there any etiquette on linking to audio files? Alienburrito (talk) 13:39, 8

October 2008 (UTC)alienburrito

The audio:

http://www.archive.org/details/LdsTempleEndowmentCeremony1984

and

http://www.archive.org/details/LdsTempleEndowmentCeremony1990

Neutrality of article

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

The very presence of much of the material in this article negates its neutrality, as much of the material could only be obtained from sources that are aimed specifically to antagonize the Latter-Day Saints' faith. Due to the Latter-Day Saints' view of sacredness of temple rites, such information can only have been brought to this article by either, one who obtained it by means of deceit, aiming to antagonize their faith, or by one who was once a Latter-Day Saint and then broke promises, providing this information with the intent of attacking the LDS religion. However, despite the lack of neutrality which Wikipedia claims to pursue as a community, it has been suggested that full information be presented for all. In light of that, this article should contain an advisory note notifying viewers that the page contains information whose nature and purpose is to attack a religious group.

---

Interesting point - but from what I;ve read of the endowment, the account is definitely extended from the account most people are familiar with from the book of Genesis. So maybe we should make that clear - that its an extended version of the more familiar Genesis account or perhaps make it clear that the LDS believe the Genesis account of the Textus Receptus has been shortened?

13:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)alienburrito —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienburrito (talk • contribs)

Alienburrito, there is way too much room for diversity and interpretation based on the differing recordings across differing bibles on the subject of Adam and Eve to suggest there is any "account people are familiar with." Some view the recorded text as literal, some view it as metaphorical. Some view it as a mixture between the two. To say the LDS account is an extension of anything will only show bias and create a lot of disagreement because there is no common consensus of what it means in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversial issues

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

Legal issues (intellectual property, privacy)

Archives

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

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

New issues

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

Copyright Law

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

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

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

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

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

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

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

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

• If an author takes a public domain work and makes changes or additions to that work, the resulting copyright "extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material." 35 U.S.C. § 103(b). 17 U.S.C. § 103(b). (35 U.S.C. § 103(b) deals with the threshold of non-obviousness for biotech patents. But a patent attorney can get in the habit of writing Title 35 at the beginning of every U.S. code citation... Now back to COGDEN. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 06:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Yep. Force of habit. Sorry. COGDEN 17:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Trade Secret Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can debate the copyright issue all day, but when push comes to shove, the LDS church has a policy of not perusing legal action against publishers of critical material. TO my knowledge, they've only ever filed one such lawsuit, in 2000 - over a then-current version of an internal church administration manual. Endowment related material has been published numerous times over the last 100+ years, with Zero legal action on the part of the Church. Without the church perusing a court ruling on the copyright issues we're debating here, such as registration requirements pre-bern convention, fair use, etc, is kind of pointless. Ultimately, wether or not the church as a legitimate copyright claim, they will not enforce it. Alienburrito (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)alienburrito

I am not sure that our practice should only demand observance if the offended party will take legal action. As a reputable organization, we observe and honor laws regardless of the threat of legal action. Alien, your position is to ignore laws, take advantage of others, until the point that legal action is threatened and then begin to observe civil behavior. That is simply not a feasible choice for Wikipedia or any other individual who seeks to be honorable; I also think you know better. --^StormRider 21:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree (minus the impugning of Alienburrito's honor). The LDS Church likely does not sue for copyright infingement because if it were to do so, it would have to subject the ceremony and its history to full litigation discovery. But that doesn't mean that it has no copyright claim. An unenforced copyright still exists, and I don't know of any exception to a Wikipedia policy that allows copyright infringement simply because the copyright will not be enforced. However, I don't think that for this article we should be worryign about copyright, because any citation to the ceremony included here for purposes of commentary is almost certainly fair use. (There is no trade secret issue, either, as explained above.) At Wikisource, however, somebody just attempted to copy a transcript of the entire ceremony, which would not be fair use, and it was rightfully taken down. COGDEN 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

They are still up, though they are tagged for COPYVIO and you have to go through the history to find the full text. Incidentally, those pages are linked from this very article in the external links section (I moved them to the proper spot a few days ago). Perhaps they should not be. (PS I agree with the overarching point on copyright. Lack of enforcement has never made an illegal act legal (you can question whether it changes it's moral status, but not it's legality).) Good Ol’factory ^(talk)

Good, I checked the 2 links in question and it appears that they are under discussion for possible deletion, but no final decision has been made. If the two sources are deleted from Wikisource, then it becomes obvious to delete them here. I think this is more a function of being overly eager than anything else. I am familiar with Alien; he is a good editor, but has been away for a while. It may be wise to allow him the opportunity to remove them himself. --^StormRider 00:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Storm - frankly - your accusation of my ignoring the law is bogus. Not that I'm surprised by that.

There are a lot of issues surrounding the copyright issue as it relates to the Endowment. 1 - It was introduced in the 1840s - (possibly late 1830s - don't have references handy) - IF memory serves me right there was a limit of 30 years back then on the term of copy right. 2 - Have the revisions done since then qualify for a new copyright? 3 - Dropping the registration requirement is a relatively recent event - I believe it dates to the 1978 Bern Convention - definatly no earlier. Again, are the revisions enough to qalifly for a new copyright to come into being? Good question. 4. The "fixed form" requirement of copyright law makes this a bit tricky ( http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc ) - can it be demonstrated that the church has ever put the endowment into a fixed form? 5. I also believe it was the 1978 Bern convention that dropped the copyright notice requirement. Of course properly i guess i should say U.S law passed to bring our law into agreement with the treaty is what I;m talking about. THe 1984 Account thats been going around the net dates to at least the early 70s - when there were still registration and copyright notice requirements, and the account going around the net labeled as the 1990 account is just a reader's digest version of the previous account, literally just sections removed, with an occasional "he" or "she" changed to "they" and such minor changes. Whether such is enough for a new copyright is definitely open to debate.

Until there's a court ruling on the endowment - I think you know what MY answers are to those questions.

That being said - looks like for now at least, the transcripts are down at wikisource, so i'm removing the links.

And THAT being said, I'm pondering replacing them with links to the audio files at archive.org. THOSE are still there, and given archive.org's having fought, (successfully I might add) actual legal action from the federal government, are likely to stay there without actual legal action on the part of the church, considering the questions surrounding the copyright of the endowment.

Alienburrito (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)alienburrito

Stormrider - howzit :-)

Ya - i been gone for a while. Things have finally settled down after it all hit the fan last august when my uncle died. But that's another story. I must admit i do appreciate you saying I am a good editor. I do go out of my way - sometimes i think maybe into overkill, when trying to write and reference LDS related stuff. My last expereince with you makes me want to say you are a mixed bag as far as an editor goes, that you cover both ends pretty well - sometimes you're very good - sometimes you're extremely biased. OF course, the fact that this article exists, and is fairly straight forward on the subject, apparently without much grief from you, is a good sign though. Just remember - I'm going to push for being straight forward on LDS topics - it seems too much of the LDS stuff posted here at wikipedia is phrased so it sounds like an Church pamphlet.

I;m also going to do some editing on some unrelated topics. Been uploading some photos for some pages dealing with some local places, like the Newport Pier - one of my favorite spots. Gonna spend time working on that and other local stuff. Anyway - catch ya soon

Alienburrito (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)alienburrito

~alienburrito

Alienburrito, you wrote, "sometimes you're extremely biased..." and "...it seems too much of the LDS stuff posted here at wikipedia is phrased so it sounds like an [sic] Church pamphlet." I detect both a breach of Wikipedia etiquette and an anti-LDS bias here. It seems to me things are quite the contrary. In fact, judging by the discussion on copyright and religious tolerance, this article itself is perhaps the least likely to be published by the LDS Church you will ever find. Please keep bias and personal attacks in check. 99.199.147.225 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Reverted material, Jan 29.

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

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

"Likewise for women."

Huh.

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

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

(deleted) "Heber C. Kimball seemed to support this position, writing that Masonry had "degenerated." [1]"

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

Punctuation

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

4/22/05 Edits

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

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

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

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

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

Vegasbright. Please tone down the negative name-calling. sarcasm. ("play secret clubhouse handshakes , patterning the "Kolob rangers", AKA Peter, James and John?"). Please remember that belittling religious beliefs and practices is highly inflammatory and leads to a mere war of words rather than rational dialogue. Please see Wikipedia etiquette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, didht he make the point that they;re encouraged to do BAPTISMS FOR THE DEAD? not ENDOWMENT? Separate rituals. Doing the baptisms for the dead does not require being endowed. Only the Marriage does. (Im not clear on the Ordination for the Dead. Im guessing a 12 year old could do at least aaronic orditation for the dead, without endowment)

Alienburrito (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)alienburrito

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

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

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

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

User:68.229.4.242|68.229.4.242. Your statement that the above contributor is "interpreting Genesis thorough the eyes of mormonism" is unfair. Wikipedia etiquette suggest we assume non-bias from members. Please discuss the article and refrain from criticism of those whose views you disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first two paragraphs under "The 1831 Kirtland Endowment" have an inconsitency. The first one says that Joseph Smith first recognized the need in 1831 and the second says that he started having revelations related to it in 1830. Did Joseph Smith know about the endowment in 1831 or 1830? 67.177.47.145 01:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem fixed. 1831 is the correct year. COGDEN 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

Oh, and I deleted the entry about not being allowed to speak in the Celestial Room. The first time I ever went into the Celestial Room, my grandfather came up to me and said "See, it has nothing to do with Masonry." Also, I love to go to the Celestial Room to talk with my wife about her thoughts and have even had the chance to go with grandfather again to figure out what he meant by his first words. As for ushers not allowing you to talk, my wife was a Temple Worker and she doesn't remember being told that. All she was told was to make sure the members were reverent, and whispering is perfectly allowed. 67.177.47.145 01:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer?

I removed an anon edit which added a disclaimer to the effect of "This article is questionable since some of the information comes from sources other than the Mormon church". Clearly the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources should apply here. If we apply the standard suggested by this editor, this article would be empty as this is presumably a secret ceremony, much like our information on Freemasonry. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bible Reference Error

According to my version of the Bible (New American, St. Joseph Edition)the scriptural reference of Luke 24:28 is actually erroneous; it's supposed to be Luke 24:49. If this is wrong, please correct me, but for now, I'm changing it. Secos5 02:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Covenants

Is there any chance that this article could possibly give more information about LDS temple covenants that aren't expressly forbidden that the faithful should disclose? Agape bright 21:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm thnking something like this (though this is probably both too long and fragmentary). Agape bright 23:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The covenants have been discussed and revealed several times by LDS Apostles outside of the temple, so I don't see why not. By quoting them you shouldn't offend Mormons (myself included) and you have a source, and you should be able to enlighten those who are curious about what the covenants are.--Jlc46 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open forum for all people of all religions, races, nationalities and persuasions. Though some might view some ideas to be offensive, they should not be censored at Wikipedia for these reasons. I suggest you go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored to get a better idea on the Wikipedia philosophy. (Alex71va 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)alex71va)

The modern temple endowment experience

Introduction

Native members typically receive the endowment on their own behalf as part of the final preparation for missionary service or a temple marriage. Converts may receive the endowment at any time after they have been a member in good standing for a year. A standardized bishop's interview is required to obtain a written recommendation (called a "recommend") to receive the endowment.

The endowment is typically divided into two parts for the purposes of proxy work. These two parts are:

• the initiatory ordinances of washing, anointing, and clothing
• the main duration of the endowment including instruction, participation, and covenant making

When a member receives the endowment on his own behalf, it is experienced in one session. Later when he or she returns on behalf of the deceased, it is experienced as either the initiatory repeated for multiple individuals or the main duration repeated once for a single individual. In most modern temples the recorded presentation of the main portion takes just over 1 1/2 hours including pauses for live participation. The repetition of proxy initiatories is generally adjusted to take about the same amount of time.

Initiatory

The initiatory portion of the endowment is already discussed in the article.

Main portion

Narrative drama

The narrative of the endowment opens with the creation story in which Elohim (voice only) instructs Jehovah and Michael (voices only) in the creation of the earth, with the six "creative periods" represented in audiovisual form similar to their presentation in Genesis or the LDS sacred text of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price.

With the earth created, Elohim asks if man is found on the earth, and being answered in the negative, invites Jehovah to go down and create a man. Elohim foretells the transgression and redemption of man, saying "if they yield to temptation we will provide a Savior for them that by the power of the redemption and the resurrection they may be brought back into our presence and with us partake of eternal life and exaltation." They say they are creating Adam from the dust of the earth and putting into him his spirit to bring him to life. The member sees Adam arise, filled with wonder as he gazes at the earth around him.

Elohim then asks if it is good for the man to be alone, and being answered in the negative, instructs Jehovah to cause Adam to sleep so that a rib may be taken from his side and a woman formed to be an approriate companion and help for him. At this point the brethren are asked to close their eyes, then follow the command that Adam awake and arise.

Elohim introduces the woman to Adam and asks what he will call her, to which he answers he will call her Eve "because she is the mother of all living", which pronouncement Elohim validates and repeats.

Elohim then instructs Jehovah (still voices only) to introduce Adam and Eve into the Garden of Eden. A narrator indicates the narrative will follow them and instructs the brethren to be seated.

In the garden of Eden, Elohim and Jehovah bodily appear, introduce Adam and Eve to the earth and garden, and tell them not to eat the fruit of the treee of knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve amuse themselves with the innocent delights of nature until Lucifer approaches Adam, tells him he has a new world like the world they came from, about which Adam confesses ignorance. Lucifer declares that he sees Adam's eyes are not open, that he has forgotten everything, and informs him he must eat some fruit that will make him wise. Adam tersely refuses. Lucifers questions Adam's certainty and goes in search of Eve.

Finding Eve, Lucifer calls her and tells here she must eat of the fruit. Eve asks him who he is. He says he is her brother, and she asks why then he wants her to disobey Father. He says he has said nothing about Father, and tells her partaking of the fruit is necessary so her eyes may be opened and she may become wise. She says she will partake, and she does so.

The two find Adam, get him to partake of the fruit also, and exchange some dialogue about the effect of the fruit and about a priesthood apron Lucifer is wearing. Suddenly Adam declares that he is looking for Father to come down, which Lucifer questions amusedly until he is nearly cut off by the voice of Elohim inviting Jehovah to visit Adam and Eve. Lucifer ugently tells Adam and Eve to note their nakedness, make some fig leaf aprons to hide such from Father, and to hide quickly.

Elohim and Jehovah appear bodily, and Elohim calls vocally for Adam. Adam and Eve sheepishly appear in turn and confess to Elohim they have eaten the fruit. Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent.

Elohim demands an accounting of Lucifer, and Lucifer unapologetically gives one. Elohim then pronounces a Biblical curse, and Lucifer pronounces a retaliation, saying he will use earthly treasures to buy influence and reign with terror. Elohim commands him to depart, which he does hotly.

With Lucifer gone, Elohim pronouces the biblical curses on Adam and Eve, then offers a covenant of obedience which Adam and Eve partake, followed by the members of the congregation.

Adam and Eve are then driven out of the Garden of Eden into the lone and dreary world so that they may learn by their own experience to know good from evil. The first thing Adam does there is build an altar of stones and call on God. Lucifer/Satan interrupts Adams prayer, presenting himself as the God of this world and asking what Adam wants.

Adam says he is looking for messengers. Lucifer/Satan says there will be many willing to teach Adam the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. But Adam says he is looking for messengers from the Father to teach him.

Covenant making

During the endowment, the member accepts five religious covenants or vows. He or she also accepts the obligation never to reveal the ritual handclasps, signs, words, and actions associated with the four priesthood "tokens".

In addition to covenant making, the member is admonished that he or she is never to reveal his or her new name except at a certain place in the temple.

Obedience

The brethren covenant to obey the law of God and keep his commandents. The sisters covenant to obey the law of God and to hearken to the counsel of their husbands as their husbands hearken to the counsel of the Father.

Sacrifice

The members covenant to sacrifice all that they possess, even their own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the kingdom of God.

Law of the Gospel, etc.

The members covenants to obey the law of the gospel as found in the Book of Mormon and the Bible, and to accept a charge to avoid all light mindedness, loud laughter, evil speaking of the Lord's Anointed, the taking of the name of God in vain, and every other unholy and impure practice.

Chastity

The members covenant to avoid all sexual relations except with their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded.

Consecration

The members covenant to consecrate themselves, their time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed them, or with which he may bless them, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

Non-disclosure

The members covenant for each of the 4 tokens of the priesthood that they will never reveal them with their associated names and signs.

Ceremonial placement of robes

In preparation for the main portion of the endowment, members dress in a locker booth in plain white clothes. Brothers put on white pants, shirt, tie, optional suit coat, socks, and slippers. Sisters put on a white dress, stockings, and slippers. They take in hand to the endowment room a bundle of ceremonial robes, either rented in the temple or brought from home.

During main portion of the endowment, members put on and adjust their ceremonial robes over their plain white clothes. The ceremonial robes include:

• a white robe that drapes over one shoulder, ties at the waist, and hangs to the knees or below
• a white chef's or baker's style (approximately) cap for the brothers or veil for the sisters
• a green waist apron reminiscent of fig leaves
• a long, narrow white sash, belt, or girdle for tying around the waist

Discussion on proposed addition

You are right - this proposal is too long. There are links in the see also section that give more detail. Generally describing each step, as you have tried to do above, including what one experiences and the dress only elongates the article and makes it unreadable in my opinion - and I believe links to this information should be a "see also" type of thing (which they are). I do like your section about the various covenants however. That one section would be a good addition to the article. The article contains the same information already but more succint. It says that the story of the creation is told - your proposal actually walks through the story. It says that members dress in temple clothes (and links to more information), you describe them (which may or may not be a good addition, i'm undecided on that one - you should probably add it in and see what becomes of it). The rest just seems repetitive to already written material in the article. -Visorstuff 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage you to make new edits as you feel necessary without causing repetition. Some of your edits above will be tweaked; for example, white coats are only worn by male ordinance workers and not by those going through the temple for the first time or for those going through in proxy. I had not heard previously the simile like "a baker's cap". I would probably suggest quoting the attire of a temple priest in the Old Testament. Also, this is such a sacred topic to LDS that I suspect the article will continue to see deletions in the future. I suspect it is one of the reasons "see also" was recommended above. In reality LDS would prefer not to see specific information about the temple anywhere except in the temple. However, there are plethora of websites with entire ordinance language presented; it is very difficult to make the term "secret" have any meaning. Treating the subject reverently, sacredly, and with respect will go a long way. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Visorstuff, the above proposal seems to go into more detail than is really appropriate (from a descriptive and encyclopaedic POV, never mind for LDS preference). I think it would be better to summarise the nature of the narrative, and describe the manner in which it's delivered, rather than doing the whole script-and-stage-directions bit. Also bear in mind the need to provide reliable sources for this account: if the plethora of websites don't amount to actual verifiability, we have to trim back to what is. Alai 03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to create a "me too" edit, but that is basically what this is. ;^) As for the need for verifiable sources, the fact that the only verifiable source would be the LDS church, it might be difficult to produce. Enough of the LDS editors know what really is true or not (ignoring POV issues for now), so we could delete any inappropriate additions, but I'm not sure what authority we could appeal to. As Storm Rider says, I would prefer a lot of stuff not be in the article, but I would also rather have a NPOV description in wikipedia that people could read rather than some of the POV web sites out there. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys are really nice. I'm just really excited to hear how well you received the proposal. To be honest, I agree with everything said. Wow.  :) Especially I agree that the covenants are probably the most useful part to add, and that the baker's hat may not be very descriptive. I've seen the temple robe cap and I looked at Google images for something that looks reminiscent, and bakers and chef's were pretty close. Is there any better or more respectful way to describe it? I want to be perfectly respectful to the members of the LDS, while still giving the appropriate amount of encyclopedic knowledge and avoiding innuendo. Is there a technical term for that kind of hat? Thanks again for your wonderful kindness and hospitality. Agape bright 15:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The "baker's hat" is called a "cap" or a mitre within the temple (think a white version of a typical drivers cap [2], but that attaches to the robe). It is typically called a mitre in the scriptures and other places. I would call it both - "patrons wear a cap somethimes called a mitre (or miter)." You can read more about this in "symbols and stone" and "the holy temple". -Visorstuff 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've never heard "non-disclosure" stated as a covenant. Other editors have thoughts about this? -Visorstuff 17:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to be respectful, and I didn't know what to put. I think the members covenant to never reveal the tokens and associated features. Is that a "non-reveal" covenant? What would be best. By the way, I think "members wear a cap somethimes called a mitre (or miter)" is great wording instead of chef's or baker's, which regardless of intent appear to make fun. Thanks again for your help with this. I really think it will be useful information that will help resolve a lot of innuendo that tends to get heaped on the LDS members. Agape bright 23:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of enhancing the article, but rather than containing a long summary of the ceremony's text, I think it would be much better to cite the main ideas and major changes through the years, and to cite reputable, as-neutral-as-possible outside sources. If we need citations, I'd recommend Buerger, David John (1994). The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah. The best neutral website I know about is [[3]], but I've corresponded with the webmaster (who is an endowed Latter-day Saint) and he says the information is taken mainly from Buerger's book. COGDEN 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That is a great resource. I had no idea. Give me some time to digest. I agree with your sentiments. Agape bright 23:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a change

The elimination of the one phrase referring to Elohim's wife does not suggest any doctrinal change-subsequently I deleted the part suggesting that this action does mean the doctrine has shifted. The elimination of this phrase only means that it is not specifically talked about in the endowment, it is however, a doctrinal belief still held by all mormons. russw9@yahoo.com

ISBN

Can anyone check the ISBN for "Endowed from on High:" Rich Farmbrough, 19:44 16 January 2007 (GMT).

Attempt at explaining the Endowment

An ANON added significant language today regarding the Endowment; unfortunately it was not correct. Please before editing again, make sure you have references for what you add and ensure that the information is correct. Wikipedia does not accept censorship; however, we do have standard of having correct information, and if not correct, then referenced so that it can be appropriately rebutted. Happy Editing. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That was me, obviously. You were just talking to me about this. Discussion is on Talk:Mormonism. There are some references there and you didn't say any were bad. And, being a Mormon yourself, no one is preventing you from adding your own description of the endowment. What I added is what is described as the endowment in numerous places, and I find it strange you would claim all these accounts are inaccurate, then only demand references instead of correcting it yourself. --24.57.157.81 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For reference, this [4] is what I added. --24.57.157.81 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oath wordings

See some examples here on how important wordings and oaths are treated on Wikipedia pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Annotated_text_of_the_Declaration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Articles_of_the_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Office#Oath_of_Allegiance_and_Official_Oath

The rules of Wikipedia do not say that this article gets any special treatment over other articles. If you object to some WP:AGF text then its up to you to put a FACT tag in place with sufficient time before deleting. There are plenty of affidavits, info in the National Archives and audiorecordings of the Endowment ceremony out there. And the church has no copyright on the film. It hasn't even submitted a copy to the Library of Congress for the purpose of its protection. (Alex71va 11:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)alex71va)

I understand there are some authors who believe that the contents of the endowment ceremony ought to not be discussed outside the temple. But I've noticed some efforts in the history of this page to violate the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored policy on this. I hope that we have seen the last of this kind of censorship. (Alex71va 14:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)alex71va)

Please do not use history, particularly one where you were not involved, as a method to explain your edits or to attack others. You are gaining a reputation for attacking other editors and that is unacceptable and is strongly looked down upon. Established editors that happen to be LDS have contributed heavily to this article and have been a source for maintaining the informative position of this article.

If you are quoting something, which you admit to doing, then provide a reference. You may find reviewing Wikipedia:Quotations helpful. Quotations not sourced can be immediately deleted. Following policy is not censorship; please do not wave that flag because it demeans those times when it is accurate. If you don't understand policy, then you might try bringing your ideas to talk pages and asking what other editors think first. It will lead to both instructive and positive editing experiences.

Additionally, you want to attack Mormons. That is an unfortunate predilection, but frankly I could not care less. Yes, LDS that keep covenants do not talk openly about temple ordinances. Some LDS editors, often new ones or casual readers, are so offended by this article that they delete parts of this article that they feel go too far. Do not confuse their actions with mine. I deleted your edits because you quoted without providing any attribution and I do not think your edits improved the article. If you had read my edit comment I requested that you link to a site that had the entire endowment words. Instead of replying to that request you began to attack by innuendo; stop it.

In closing, Wikipedia is not a proper avenue for your personal issues and for venting your obvious painful life experiences. I again recommend using a blog should that be your objective. However, if you seek to be a contributing editor that seeks to improve this encyclopedia, then you are welcome and I look forward to more constructive edits and exchanges with you. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please lets stay on topic and focus on the policies and norms on Wikipedia. I've pointed out how the text of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are treated. I'd also like to suggest we look at how the text of the creeds of various religions are treated. And yes I intend to include herein a discussion of elements of the LDS temple endowment. If anyone has a concern over a reference being false then they should put a FACT tag in so we can properly reference things.(Alex71va 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)alex71va)

Prohibition is rejected

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Prohibition_on_LDS_Endowment_details_on_Wikipedia

It appears that the Wikipedia community has spoken.(Alex71va 21:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)alex71va)

Not really. It's been tagged as having "failed to gain consensus." --WikiWes77 (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The details can, of course, go in, but Wikipedia is not the place for a wholesale copy of the Endowment ceremony. See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. If you'd like, that material can be put in Wikisource. Wikipedia is the place for commentary on the ceremony. COGDEN 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We've also had a number of discussion about copyright issues with a post-1990 ceremony, where even academic institutions have been sued for infringement of copyright for posting the deleted text and handbook of instructions information - for example the Tanner's infamous lawsuit.

Regardless, this is not wikibooks or wikiquotes. We have links to the text for interested parties. What other articles tell every word of such a rite? Chrism? No. Freemasonry? No. Baptism? No. Ratehr they are described in detail. Every Latter Day Saint church that practices the endowment does so differently. And you use the modern LDS version. Doing so unbalances the article which already goes into descriptions that are true of all Latter Day Saint denominations.

In addition, Alex71va, I don't think any of us here have any objection to certain things being included from an academic perspective. But from an encyclopedic perspective does it make sense? When does such cause a forking in the article? We cause readers to become disinterested to learn more once we over-populate the pages. If it helps give an encyclopedic view, lets include it. How you did, did not improve the artcile from an encyclopedic tone. -Visorstuff 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Very sorry for the trouble I caused here with that "Wikipedia is not censored" comment. I assumed that he actually supported the proposal, not that he was deliberately trying to get it rejected so he had leverage to include the information. -Amarkov moo! 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this proposal was to find out if the general Wikipedia community supports what has been happening here on the LDS Endowment article. Frankly this article is very different in how it handles the subject matter than I've seen the subject matter handled for other topics such as the US Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Magna Carta, Apostles' Creed, etc. If Wikipedia is going to allow people to delete important facts left/right in order to support just one POV then I'd like to know. Don't take my word for it. Just read the history to see what I mean.(Alex71va 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)alex71va)

This is a difficult case; this new editor has a big axe to grind. In this particular situation, he feels compelled not to improve an article, but attempt to offensive. He has been encouraged not to quote without references and proper atribution, not to quote wholesale passages of anything, and much effort has been made to help him understand Wikipedia policy. The objective is to improve the article and not have a personal soap box. There is a lesson to learn and that is not to so quickly make judgements without getting to understand potential motivations. It takes more time, but it ensures this kind of silliness is stopped. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I request that you stop your personal attacks on me and focus on the content.(Alex71va 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)alex71va)

Alex, please do not request for something I have not done. You will know when I seek to make a personal attack; I am a blunt individual. I also will call a spade a spade. You have insisted on accusing all editors of censoring the majority of your edits, when there as been no censorship. There has been repeated requests to simply make a link which you have chosen to ignore. If I have said anything that is not factual or supported by your actions, please share them with me (probably best on my personal page, but that is your choice). I am more than happy to be corrected. Also, none of my edits are personal and everything has to do with the content of this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Table of Contents and the 21st century Salt Lake based LDS Church

Looking at the outline of the article in its present format one could suppose that the LDS Endowment is just a relic from Kirtland/Nauvoo that has nothing or much to do with the present-day main LDS church. Haven't the super-majority of LDS endowment sessions been done in the past 50 years? Aren't the supermajority of endowment sessions performed done by the main LDS church? This article almost seems like a "Jackson Five" article would be if the table of contents just focused on Michael Jackson's great-great-great grandparents with just casual mention of any of the brothers (not by name) in a low outline sublevel. I don't mean to be critical of all the hard work and collaborative efforts done here. But I do think the article could definitely be improved with weightings that reflect the real life weightings. Thus I adjusted the indentations to give respect to a weighting more appropriate to the significance of the LDS church in practicing this ritual.(Alex71va 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)alex71va)

Is the Endowment as practiced in the LDS church now referred to commonly as the "Nauvoo Endowment"? Or is it just referred to commonly as the "Endowment" without using the word Nauvoo? (Alex71va 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)alex71va)

Adding the term Nauvoo is not done and has not been used for generations. You will hear "the" Endowment, temple Endowment, or more generally temple work, which is applied to all of the service done in the LDS temple. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Leading section tag

Any idea what the leading section tag is about? I think the introduction is more comprehensive than most articles. Maybe the problem is that it's too comprehensive? I don't know. I'm thinking of taking it down. COGDEN 22:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a little long and wordy - the main thrust of the article is about the endowment ceremony, not the other uses of the word endowment. I am going to attempt a simpler re-write. If you guys don't think it looks good, feel free to revert. Descartes1979 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your re-written intro looks to me. COGDEN 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

to 12.159.66.24

I restored the section you keep attempting to censor. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to provide verifiable, referenced information. It is not desirable to censor the page to suit LDS sensibilities.Kww (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No one is claiming the information is not verifiable. The point being made, which you routinely ignore, is that the specificity is too great. There is no purpose for the information you insist on including. Encyclopedic entries are, by definition, broad overviews of a topic. Your continued attempts to include such specificity seem to indicate some sort of religious bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.107.116 (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The only justification for the deletion is religious bias. The information still fits well within the scope of "broad overviews". Kww (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to those watching: 12.159.66.24 and 68.4.107.116 are the same person. Look at the edits to RealGM and it's more obvious.Kww (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one is a work computer, the other is a home computer. What exactly is your point? Does this in some way justify your vandalism? You don't seem to have any problem masking your religious bias behind the pretext of objective editing. The fact of the matter is, this information is overly specific, and not appropriate in an encyclopedic article. And you can stop threatening to "ban" my IP address. Your bully tactics won't work here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.107.116 (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I just didn't want anyone to believe that there was some kind of consensus behind your actions. I don't have a particular religious bias against the LDS. This is a secular encyclopedia. The detail level only makes you uncomfortable because the LDS don't think it is appropriate to discuss the endowment ceremony. That simply doesn't matter, because religious beliefs don't matter.Kww (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Kww, you may wish to edit your grammar, unless you actually mean what you wrote. The juxtaposition of the term, "I don't have a particular religious bias against the LDS" alludes the likelihood of a general bias against the LDS or perhaps all religions. Did you mean to say you have no bias against the LDS? Also, do you really mean to say, "...religious beliefs don't matter"? Do you mean to say in academic discussion religious belief does not prove fact of itself"? Or do you literally mean religious belief does not matter as though freedom of belief has no value whatsoever. Please clarify your position on these.99.199.147.225 (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Anon 68 and 21, I understand your objective and desire to limit the specific information regarding the endowment. As a LDS, we find dicussion of the endowment outside of temples ignores the sacredness with which we hold the endowment. Though it is sacred to LDS, it is meaningless to everyone outside of the church. More importantly, our specific concerns are in conflict with Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia is secular source of information; all information without regard for the sacred. I recommend that you review some of Wikipedia policies. It might also be useful to review the history of this article; your position, along with several others, has been thoroughly discussed in the past. The present article is the result of those discussions. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

to KWW

I'm holding a copy of "A Mormon Odyssey" in my hand, and it does not contain the information for which you're providing it as a source. I'm afraid you have you sources mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linus Hawk (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been attempting for the better part of an hour to determine the reliability of the website you've linked to as a source of the information you want included in this article. After much thought, I've concluded your source is unreliable. For information on what is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards consider reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It might not be mentioned in any reliable sources which would indicate that this these statements are inherently false. If true, and noteworthy, surely they could be substantiated with a source which Wikipedia's sources consider to be "reliable." Also remember that Wikipedia isn't always about saying everything that is true about a topic, or to quote Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". User:Linus Hawk 9, February, 2008(UTC)

Your edits of today went way to far ... three trivial mentions of gestures I could deal with as unsupported. Removing all information about the ceremony itself seems to have been done because of the LDS concept of sacredness, a concept which has no place in Wikipedia. Reverting to your earlier version.Kww (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Kww, instead of reverting wholesale, could you possibly just revert those things that you most strongly disagree with? My motivation is strictly compromise. Thanks. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's really what I tried to do. Linus Hawk made an earlier edit, striking only those things that he stated were not actually reflected in the source material. He stated that he had a copy in hand, and was referring to it. My reversion today was to that version that Linus Hawk produced.Kww (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint vs. Latter-day Saint

Using the term Latter Day Saint can be a little tricky depending upon the time frame being used. It applies to all of the groups that have their genesis in the church believed restored by Joseph Smith. However, after his death the churches split and Latter Day Saint applies to the groups that stayed behind and did not go west with Brigham Young.

There was some editing back and forth today about this and I did not check the time period; however, the Latter Day Saints have no endowment or temple ceremonies of which I am aware. Their temples are houses of worship and are not comparable to what Latter-day Saints perceive of a temple. Latter Day Saints believe the temple ceremonies at the time of Joseph Smith are either false or are denied as truth. Is anyone aware of any of Latter Day Saint groups that practice any form of endowment?

See "Divergent Paths of the Restoration" by Stephen Shields. There are about 200 groups mentioned in the book that hold the Book of Mormon to be scripture, and several of them practice a variation of the "Endowment." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.52.18 (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole introduction needs to be changed to reflect this reality. An exception are the FLDS groups which appear now to be practicing some form of temple ceremonies, but I have no knowledge of what they are like or their form. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The article uses Latter Day Saint consistently now. The change last night introduced Latter-day Saint into the lead sentence, but retained Latter Day Saint throughout the body. I was pretty confident the inconsistency was wrong, but don't claim knowledge of the practices of the different groups.Kww (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

When speaking of the early church, during the life time of Joseph Smith, Latter Day Saint is used. It is inclusive and does infers all groups. Latter-day Saint only refers the LDS church. In the context of this article it would be appropriate to refer to the temple endowment used during the life time of Joseph Smith as being done by Latter Day Saints. However, after the time of Joseph Smith, but prior to the acknowledged leadership of Brigham Young, there is a period of a few years when temple work was done in Nauvoo presumably by most saints. With the movement west by the saints that followed Brigham Young new temples began to be built. Today there are the LDS and now the FLDS who have temples, but I don't know anything about the FLDS and what their endowment ceremonies are like. I suspect they follow closely the LDS endowment, but that is speculation only.

I will look at the article later to review appropriate usage. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rigdon and Endowment

I just deleted the following sentence from the article:

Rigdon believed the teachings of the early Mormon missionaries who converted him, but thought the missionaries were lacking in heavenly power—a lack which the Endowment was designed to remedy .

This is a confusing sentence. The topic is the Endowment, but this endowment is the ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood. The following is the quote from the reference provided, Priest states: "This revelation linked for the first time the endowment of "power from on high" to ordination, though not yet specifying the "order" of priesthood which gave Melchizedek tangible power."

The introduction primarily focuses on the Endowment performed in the temple, but this section is confusing. It compounds the confusion because it also mixes the ordinance of the Endowment is mixed up with priesthood ordination. I think we can cover this topic, but we need to rewrite the section.--^StormRider 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises because circa 1831, the concept of "Endowment" was one and the same as the institution of the High Priesthood. (Prior to 1831, the Endowment had its normal Christian meaning as the gift of the Holy Spirit) By the mid 1830s, Smith came to understand that the Endowment required more than just ordination of high priests--it also required a temple. Then later, he realized that the Endowment also required an initiation and symbolic ceremony. COGDEN 09:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)