Talk:Endowment (Latter Day Saints)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Scope of article 2 Verifiability of article 3 Nuetrality of article 4 Controversial issues 5 Legal issues (intellectual property, privacy) 5.1 Archives 5.2 New issues 5.2.1 Copyright Law 5.2.2 Trade Secret Law 6 Reverted material, Jan 29. 7 Punctuation 8 4/22/05 Edits 9 Disclaimer? 10 Bible Reference Error 11 Covenants 11.1 The modern temple endowment experience 11.1.1 Introduction 11.1.2 Initiatory 11.1.3 Main portion 11.1.3.1 Introduction 11.1.3.2 Narrative drama 11.1.3.3 Covenant making 11.1.3.3.1 Obedience 11.1.3.3.2 Sacrifice 11.1.3.3.3 Law of the Gospel, etc. 11.1.3.3.4 Chastity 11.1.3.3.5 Consecration 11.1.3.3.6 Non-disclosure 11.1.3.4 Ceremonial placement of robes 12 Discussion on proposed addition 13 I made a change 14 ISBN 15 Attempt at explaining the Endowment

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Nuetrality of article

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Legal issues (intellectual property, privacy)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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):

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 4/22/05 Edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The modern temple endowment experience

[edit] 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.

[edit] Initiatory

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

[edit] Main portion

[edit] Introduction

The main portion of the endowment is an interwoven array of narrative drama, covenant making, ceremonial placement of robes, and ritual handclasps, signs, words, and actions.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Sacrifice

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] Chastity

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] ISBN

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

[edit] 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)