Imagine, if you will, that the First Vision contained everything Joseph, nay, every prophet, needed to know about everything from Area Authority Seventies to Guidelines for Roadshows. I think God’s practice of esotericism (and our modeling of it) is justified on pedagogical reasons alone.

Sure it complicates matters if the temple ceremony is available on the internet (tho I hope to never see it there myself — it’s upsetting enough just to hear about it), but I don’t see it fundamentally changing the dynamic of temple seclusion. The temple structures our community and our lives. Anything that goes on on the internet is clearly extraneous to the structure the temple establishes. It’s really not a simple matter of information; if it were, there would be no need for temple seclusion in the first place.

On the one hand, I consider myself under covenenant not to post such information myself. On the other hand, having received my endowment under a different, earlier version of the ceremony, I’ve found it extremely valuable to be able to compare promises I made and instruction I received initially with what is found in the current version of the endowment. I don’t think that’s what the purveyors of the temple ceremony websites had in mind, but it’s a highly useful side benefit.

So — two cheers for transparency, I suppose.

re: Abinadi. I don’t know if his example has much value. While it says he “entered” the city in disguise…his very first words identified him explicitly. just a thought. :)

Yes, the changes were significant and material. I consider the redacted portions to be extremely important to my understanding of the endowment, and often wonder what more recent initiates understand of the ceremony without those portions.

Since I have participated in the more recent endowment version only for vicarious ordinances on behalf of the dead, I consider myself responsible for the initial version that was conducted for me, although your question of superceding ordinances has occurred to me.

Regarding Abinadi’s “disguise,” see Alan Goff’s discussion of the disguise motif in OT Hebrew narrative, “Uncritical Theory and Thin Description: The Resistance to History” (Review of Metcalf), FARMS Rev. of Books on The BOM, vol. 7 no.1 170 -207 (1995).

So perhaps the value in “official” Church esotericism is to co-opt the trend for the Lord’s purposes before it gets going on its own.

Lots of things are turning up on the Internet that expose some of our more esoteric teachings. I’ve found most of it to be gross misreresentations of doctrine. Many people (members and non) take a few isolated comments from church authorities and synthesize them in an effort to create their own pseudo-doctrines. I don’t really take that stuff seriously, but a lot of stuff is posted that is real. The danger is that people will become cognizant of doctrine that they’re not prepared to live, and thus bring upon themselves damnation. Is this possible from mere exposure to the doctrine, or do they have to understand it comprehensively? I’d like to think that God is much more merciful than that.

I once asked the president of a temple about the meaning of the endowment, and he shared some statements that Joseph Smith made. He said the meaning is too complex for even him to try to explain. He also said it is different for everyone. We are all individuals, and God helps us along according to our capacities and our desires. In the end, desires will play as big a part (if not bigger) in our salvation than our actual worthiness.

I noticed an interesting trend while I was on my mission. I was looking through old copies of the church publications and I noticed that they used to address deep doctrinal issues. It came to my attention that the church is slowly withdrawing itself from providing black and white answers to these principles. Why? I believe it’s to separate the wheat from the rocks. Those that have the ability to recognize and follow the promptings of the Spirit will learn to find answers. Others will slowly drift away. I think this will purge the church of those that aren’t really in it for the long haul. Once the Law of Consecration is reinstated the church should have the riff-raff filtered out.

I think we need to worry about living up to the principles we understand best before we start worrying about more esoteric stuff. How many of us can say we live the law Christ sets forth in Luke 6:27-36? That’s not esoteric at all, but I’d wager (if I were a wagering man) that it’s one of the more difficult principles that exists in the church. I worry about living that law more than understanding the Adam-God theory.