What is your perception of the man Adam?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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.

Perhaps. But if members are able to get in and out of the temple in about two hours, there's no compelling need to change things.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by All-American

Perhaps. But if members are able to get in and out of the temple in about two hours, there's no compelling need to change things.

What's so sacred about two hours? Why not cut it down to thirty minutes? Then you cold do four sessions in the same amount of time.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

What's so sacred about two hours? Why not cut it down to thirty minutes? Then you cold do four sessions in the same amount of time.

Why not ten, then? Or even five? That way, we could do multiple names per session, as with baptisms, and be done with the work for the dead in no time.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by All-American

Why not ten, then? Or even five? That way, we could do multiple names per session, as with baptisms, and be done with the work for the dead in no time.

Now you're talking!

Seriously, there is no simple answer. But the past shows that the tendency is is to shorten. Perhaps the edits are done. I am of the opinion that we would be well-served with some more editing.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by All-American

Why not ten, then? Or even five? That way, we could do multiple names per session, as with baptisms, and be done with the work for the dead in no time.

I agree that the "hey, it's been cut down before" line isn't a compelling argument that it will be reduced again.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Adam

Oh I agree that the parts I want cut are doctrinally packed. But you would do better to get that doctrine reading the scriptures on point then listening to the endowment. That is not to say you can't get good insight into doctrine from the endowment--just that it might not be the best place.

Usually people get some doctrinal point out of the endowment because they are trapped there and are listening to the doctrine without interruption. I'd bet if they spent the same 2 hours studying their scriptures and praying in a quiet place they would have greater insights.

I view the endowment as a place to make covenants and gospel learning should be better learned in another setting. Especially since the endowment isn't scripture, but something derivative from scripture, something less.

But maybe we need the forced reflection.

And of course Hugh said he never went to the temple without learning something that blew his socks off (in the video Faith of an Observer). Not that I really believe that literally.

Well, yeah, I'm sure his socks were never removed. But I won't argue that he didn't learn something he thought was hugely significant every time he went.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

And of course Hugh said he never went to the temple without learning something that blew his socks off (in the video Faith of an Observer). Not that I really believe that literally.

I'm reminded of a Seinfeld episode .....


KRAMER: (looking at picture) Yeah, it's 3-D art. Computers generate 'em. BIG computers.

MR. PITT: Yes, I've heard about these. How do they work?

KRAMER: Well, you blur your eyes like you're starin' straight through the picture. And you keep your eyes unfocused. And then... (Kramer and Pitt stare at picture) Oh, oh, oh, YEAH!

MR. PITT: I don't see it.

KRAMER: Yeah, it's a spaceship, surrounded by planets, asteroids...

MR. PITT: I still don't see it.

ELAINE: Okay, Kramer, that's enough. Mr. Pitt has got work to do.

KRAMER: Ya' ever dream in 3-D? It's like the boogeyman is comin' right at you.

MR. PITT: A spaceship, where?

KRAMER: (pointing) Right in here. Just keep your eyes unfocused. (convulses in pain) Waahh! Oh, mama!

ELAINE: Kramer, what's wrong?

KRAMER: Mama!

ELAINE: Kramer, Kramer, are you okay?

KRAMER: I think I gotta go to the doctor! (exits) Oh, mama!

MR. PITT: (still staring at picture) How long does it usually take?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Adam

Hey, no need for the hostility, here. I am trying to understand you.

If I get it now (and if not please do correct me) you are saying that the communal ritual is powerful communally to bind us together as a community.

OK, I buy that. Just as is the ubiquitous youth handcart trek or rooting for BYU football or eating green jello with grated carrots in the cultural hall or the pinewood derby (each in varying degrees of course--with the Temple probably being at the top).

But this is a different question/answer then the one I was talking about. For the individual, it seems that the endowment is not typically a powerful individual experience. Both things could be true. No?

Yes, both things could be true. My point was to get you to consider the power of enacted ritual in maintaining a community. But while the Endowment-as-theater has some relation to other cultural performances (such as those you mention), it is extraordinarily significant in that it preserves the theatrical mode of revelation. The Word, in the sense of John 1, is not merely trapped in the letter, but is also alive in gesture and voice. It draws our attention in a broad way to the fact that a medium like writing is always accompanied by DANCE--the movement of the pencil on the paper. The Endowment has much to do with coordinated movement--with logistics, if one likes the military term--with shared performance.

I agree that the society of the spectacle that we live in can make the endowment seem boring and duty-like for the less-than-reflective, but much of it's communicative power comes in that it calls our attention to the fact that media are not only blueprints OF reality, of spaces, subjects, and objects for the exchange of impressions, but also FOR reality. The Endowment (and other ordinances and acts) are not only representations of reality that bear impressions, they are representations for reality that contribute to its perpetual reconstruction. To use the example of TV, I'm trying to draw attention to the TV set itself--to the cathode ray tube, the dials, the housing, the remote control, the fact that it has certain abilities to project images and sounds, the fact that it's part of a network that runs on electricity and is connected to video tapes, cameras, studios, lighting rigs, sound stages, actors, etc., and to how we interact with it (are we a passive audience? An active audience? More than an audience?)--and not just to TV programming. I'm trying to emphasize that the endowment is not merely a particular "show," (and a dull one) a content, in a society that would make everything a glossy, chocolatey, now-whiter-and-brighter show.

We make our tools and our tools then make us. The Endowment is a powerful tool for making Mormons.

Hostility retracted.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Interesting approach, and I respect your opinion. The temple to me is pretty boring, but one of the reasons I go is that it definitely has roots in the ancient world (whether JS got it from Jesus, aliens, or the Masons doesn't really matter on this point). The repetition, IMO, is a holdover from preliterate oral tradition, where certain phrases - often dozens of lines long - were repeated by memory. There are comparable phrases (called oral formulaic, as coined by the Homeric scholar Millman Parry in the 1930s) in ancient Greek epic poetry, as well as other oral traditions. The repetition is boring, but also a relic (or imitation) of a distant past where things weren't written down because either people didn't write all that much, or the rites were too sacred to commit to script, or both.

As for the names, tokens, signs, etc. . . in Greek religion, at least, popular religion and mystery cults seem to have used similar components in their initiations in order to verify initiates, and to prepare them for the treacherous trip to the afterlife. Relief sculptures from Eleusis, where the most popular mystery religion of ancient Greece (the Eleusinian mysteries) was held seem to indicate that tokens and signs were an important part of the rites.

As for the prayer circle, I like for once that people don't pray kneeling down, with arms folded and head bowed. This is not how ancient people prayed, but the medieval European method of a vassal swearing homage to a lord. Greeks, Romans, Jews prayed standing up. After all, the gods (for the most part) were in the sky somewhere. Might as well look them in the eye.

So, even though I find it tedious, and I'm not sure I believe all of its teachings and doctrine, let alone the only true path to salvation, I like going to the temple because it lets me pretend I'm in the ancient past. Yeah, I'm a geek.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

I agree that the "hey, it's been cut down before" line isn't a compelling argument that it will be reduced again.

While we're at it, what about seven minute abs?