What is your perception of the man Adam?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

I pass a clipboard around in each of my sessions and ask them to rate . . . .

I don't know of course. I am surprised you think most people find the endowment to be powerful. Most might say that because they think they are supposed to say that, but I doubt most really find it a powerful experience.

Most 1st timers find it very odd and slightly disturbing. Most veterans find it usually boring and repetitive--with the occasional spiritual revelation/insight to reward the faithful endurance/attendance. At least I think this is true.

Of course no data exist.

Who found the temple disappointing the first time?

I know I did. There are times when it's quite meaningful after reviewing Nibley and other works, but it requires significant attention and work. It is NOT naturally interesting. It's relation to masonic rituals makes it unapproachable for many of us.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Adam

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it. . . .

If it is powerful in a way that doesn't make an impression, does it matter?

If it is powerful to those who study ancient Egypt and those who study theater/communications, but boring for the vast majority of others, you can blame the others or admit that your show is out of date.

What arrogance, Adam.

Someone does not have to be well read to experience the power of ritual performance.

You haven't the slightest idea of how I'm defining "impression," yet you don't hesitate to throw together some half baked assumptions and make some sweeping pronouncements.

You assume a model where media and technologies have "effects." They do have effects, but this is not all that they have, and moreover, their effects cannot be wholly circumscribed within spectacle or some sort of crudely articulated technological determinism (which is what your funny hats versus video games claim implies). Communication, and communion, such as happens with the endowment, are powerful ritual acts. The "mass" of mass media has more than a little to learn from the mass of Catholic worship, as it were.

Communication, if it is to be understood, is not sepearble from community, communities are intertwined with communicative acts (such as signifying, acting, speaking, and so on), and therefore with performance itself.

I have given your response more thought than it deserves.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Adam

I pass a clipboard around in each of my sessions and ask them to rate . . . .

I don't know of course. I am surprised you think most people find the endowment to be powerful. Most might say that because they think they are supposed to say that, but I doubt most really find it a powerful experience.

Most 1st timers find it very odd and slightly disturbing. Most veterans find it usually boring and repetitive--with the occasional spiritual revelation/insight to reward the faithful endurance/attendance. At least I think this is true.

Of course no data exist.

"Because they're supposed to say it." I don't buy it. I have as much disrespect for the rank and file numbnut Mormon as anybody, but among the list of things for which I vehemently criticize them, their sincerity is not under question. Mormon zeal has always been impressive-- even if it is so often without knowledge to accompany it. Do you really mean to tell me that those hundreds and thousands of people cramming the Provo/Jordan River temple are just there out of duty's sake, or because they care THAT MUCH about the dead person whose work they are doing?

1st timers may find it odd, but I have found it more common for those who have been in recently to be so excited that they try to go once a week. I do think there needs to be more open education about what the temple is, so they can appreciate the presentation more, but I don't think everybody who claims to love the temple ceremony is simply towing the party line.

But like you say, no data exists.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Who found the temple disappointing the first time?

I know I did. There are times when it's quite meaningful after reviewing Nibley and other works, but it requires significant attention and work. It is NOT naturally interesting. It's relation to masonic rituals makes it unapproachable for many of us.

I found it intellectually overwhelming. I was up all night trying to figure it out and I couldn't rest until I had been back to start putting the pieces together.

Most of my friends tell me (maybe because they were "supposed to") that it was incredibly peaceful for them the first time through. Who am I to doubt them?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think the only things we aren't supposed to discuss are the things we specifically covenant not to discuss. I think everything else is fair game to discuss. Of course any gospel topic can be degraded by base discussion and it should be done reverently--just as the atonement should be discussed reverently.

I would revise it to take out the creation stuff--that serves no purpose. Then cut out all the tokens and signs--relics of ancient group protection mechanisms. Then do away with the prayer circle--there is no doctrinal reason for doing it every session--if there is a doctrinal reason for doing it at all. And get rid of the repetitive going back and forth of Jehovah to the Father over and over again.

So you are left with the Adam/Eve fall and redemption story line--you make covenants along with them as they progress in understanding. After making the covenants, you go through the veil by giving the names of the covenants (omitting the signs).

More powerful because the focus is more on personal covenant making and personal covenant keeping. And more time in the celestial room for more personal reflection and prayer.

Amen, brother.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think the only things we aren't supposed to discuss are the things we specifically covenant not to discuss. I think everything else is fair game to discuss. Of course any gospel topic can be degraded by base discussion and it should be done reverently--just as the atonement should be discussed reverently.

I would revise it to take out the creation stuff--that serves no purpose. Then cut out all the tokens and signs--relics of ancient group protection mechanisms. Then do away with the prayer circle--there is no doctrinal reason for doing it every session--if there is a doctrinal reason for doing it at all. And get rid of the repetitive going back and forth of Jehovah to the Father over and over again.

So you are left with the Adam/Eve fall and redemption story line--you make covenants along with them as they progress in understanding. After making the covenants, you go through the veil by giving the names of the covenants (omitting the signs).

More powerful because the focus is more on personal covenant making and personal covenant keeping. And more time in the celestial room for more personal reflection and prayer.

I can assure you that all of the bits you recommended cutting out are doctrinally packed. I've asked myself why they include them, when it seems so repetitive, and as I've asked and explored, I've found some real gems. They're there. If those parts were cut out or reduced, I would mourn their departure.

[Indy Coug]

I'm not going to get drawn into a line item discussion of the Endowment, but I agree with All-American's comments regarding the parts that Adam wants to jettison.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

I found it intellectually overwhelming. I was up all night trying to figure it out and I couldn't rest until I had been back to start putting the pieces together.

Most of my friends tell me (maybe because they were "supposed to") that it was incredibly peaceful for them the first time through. Who am I to doubt them?

I was worried about the mechanics; of course I went to a live session as well.

Putting on all the stuff takes time, and you're wondering, "Am I doing this right?"

I wasn't at a lack of peace, but I didn't find it peaceful until the celestial room.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by All-American

I can assure you that all of the bits you recommended cutting out are doctrinally packed. I've asked myself why they include them, when it seems so repetitive, and as I've asked and explored, I've found some real gems. They're there. If those parts were cut out or reduced, I would mourn their departure.

The original ceremony was about eight hours long. I suppose there was mourning by members each and every time bits were cut. If the past is any indication, you can bet the farm that more parts will eventually be dropped.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I was worried about the mechanics; of course I went to a live session as well.

Putting on all the stuff takes time, and you're wondering, "Am I doing this right?"

I wasn't at a lack of peace, but I didn't find it peaceful until the celestial room.

The "am I doing this right" sensation is probably the only negative aspect of the first time I went through the temple. I think more explanation beforehand would have been beneficial. We had a ten minute talk with the temple President before the session started, when a thirty or even sixty minute talk would have been appreciated.

Then again, maybe the confusion is unavoidable. It certainly only pertained to my first time. The second time through, it made perfect sense, and I've never struggled with the manner of presentation since.