What was the one issue that resulted in you KNOWING the church wasn't true?

[silverfox]

I am curious. If you had to pick ONE issue with the church that moved you from being a believer to becoming a non believer, what was it?

My disbelief began with the whole DNA thing in which my research enabled me to stumble on many more lies. It's hard to choose just ONE thing but I think I would have to say the DNA issue. It got the ball rolling for me.

[peter_mary]

I am curious. If you had to pick ONE issue with the church that moved you from being a believer to becoming a non believer, what was it?


What tipped the scales for me was D. Michael Quinn's book, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." I was slipping pretty fast by that time, but when I read about the extensive nature of Joseph's money-digging and peep-stoning, that did me in. It was while reading that book that I understood Joseph's own evolution from "not findinding regular gold using his seer stone," to "not finding ancient gold plates using his seer stone," but of course CLAIMING that he could, and had, done both. :mad:

And then when you couple that with the realization that Joseph was not translating, but dictating with his face in a HAT for hell's sake, often claiming that the plates were buried out in the woods, juxtaposed with the famous painting of Oliver and Joseph working away at the table with Joseph's fingers scanning the lines on the golden plates...I finally understood the latter-day deception. :mad:

It was while reading that book that I came to understand that Joseph may have been a savant, but he was not speaking on behalf of God. Everything I've read since then just confirms it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

Paul

[nate]

Although there was much reading, researching and pondering that led me to the ultimate realization that the church was not true, there was definitely one issue, one incident that I can look back on and say, "that was when I knew". I now realize that all the reading and researching just made me quite lying to myself, and admit it, but was not what made me see the truth.

I now see that it is actually things taught to me by the church (things that I do believe in) that keep me away from the church. The main thing being what Mormon's call the "Holy Ghost".

I was taught from birth to listen to the "still, small voice", and taught that this voice would never lead me astray; and it hasn't. It led me away from the church, but it has kept me on the right path.

The one, main incident where this happened, that resulted in me knowing the church wasn't true, was the dedication of the Bountiful, Utah Temple in 1995. Before the dedication I had the chance to go tour the entire temple, and it was beautiful, but I was shocked at the extravagance of it all. While doing the walk-through (I was 16 at the time), I asked my father why it needed to be so gaudy, so rich-looking, so prideful. His answer was one I'm sure you're all familiar with; "This is God's house. Wouldn't God want the best for his house?". As I nodded and kept walking, however, my stomach felt uneasy. As I pondered the question for the next few days, the only answer that kept coming to me was: NO, he probably wouldn't. Not the God that I've been brought up to love. The God that I know wouldn't care if he was worshipped in a grass hut. The God that I know would probably frown on such a thing, as is told and re-told thoughout all the scriptures; pride comes before the fall.

Shortly thereafter, I was getting dressed in my Sunday best, preparing to go with my family to the tabernacle to see the satellite broadcast of the temple dedication by Howard Hunter. My father came up to me and told me that I needed to bring a pure white handkerchief. It seemed odd, and I asked why, but he just said that I would need it, and offered no other explanation. So, with kerchief in my pocket, and questions floating through my head, I attended the temple dedication ceremony.

I don't know what I was expecting; probably just some hymns, speeches, and a dedication prayer. And most of the ceremony was just that; but sometime during the ceremony, my father nudged me and told me to get my kerchief ready. The next thing I know, every person in this huge building (including me) was standing up and waving a handkerchief around our heads in circles, and repeating words, over and over. That was the point when I knew. My stomach started churning, and I realized that we were all chanting. We're CHANTING!!! WHY AM I CHANTING? This was something I had never heard of in the church. I had been faithfully studying the church, reading the scriptures over and over again, and never had I been told of any ceremony like this. I felt ill. I felt wrong. I felt the "Holy Ghost". However, this was not the burning buzom, this was not a feeling of comfort; this was the still, small voice screaming at me to leave.

And so I did. Only later to find out that this was the tip of the iceberg of weird ceremonies, irrational explanations, contradictions, and outright lies.

[wescape]

For me it was a bit different. I was born into the church but always had doubts about it from a very early age. My first doubt arose after finding out about polygamy around age 5 or 6. It just seemed wrong and I wasn't satisfied with my my dad's explanation of "that's something the church did a long time ago for a reason but you too young to understand that right now. You'll understand when you're older."

Then in my teens I learned about the church's views on race. This time my dad's explanation about the war in the pre-existence and how a peron's valiance in that war determined their skin color seemed just plain ridiculous to me.

At that point I was already in slight rebellion and it only got more extreme after that. I went full force into drugs, alcohol, etc. and finally got my name removed after the home teachers wouldn't leave me alone. But eventually I got burned out on the self-destructive lifestyle I chose in response to Mormonism and started searching for meaning. I decided to research the church in-depth by going to the public library just to see why the heck my parents joined and that's when I really discovered what a sham it all was. Quinn's book on Mormonism and the Magic Worldview was an eye-opener along with Wife No. 19 by one of Brigham Young's wives also blew my mind.

It still grieves and angers me profoundly that millions of people are willingly living under the bondage of a system built on deception through manipulation all in the name of God. I know that my parents joined because the church appeared to offer them the family environment they never had. It is my theory that many initially join for this reason or for something similar (i.e. relationship, belonging, etc.). After that I believe it is fear and guilt that keeps a person in.

Anyway, I guess that went a bit longer than I had intended. My original point was that there wasn't just one thing that solidified my doubt.

Wes

[dianat05]

the one thing that tipped the scale for me was that was are all going to become Gods and Goddesses and that God lives on a planet called Kolob. I decided to boo that notion and realize that that concept was just ridiculous.

a close second was definately "the translation of the book of mormom" seer stones out of a hat? and many key witnesses stating that it was done out of a hat. :eek: i didn't like that either.

[Unregistered]

the one thing that tipped the scale for me was that was are all going to become Gods and Goddesses and that God lives on a planet called Kolob. I decided to boo that notion and realize that that concept was just ridiculous.



This made me laugh. Because I have always had BIG issues with this whole we get to be rewarded by being gods ourselves. Like who the hell would want THAT job????? Wow....we get to have our own worlds and watch helplessly as people suffer, etc. Yeah, riiiiiiiiight. Some reward. What is amazing is how so few question this. I don't get it. It's one of quite a few things I've always questioned.

I have a very long list of issues but it was the DNA that got the ball rolling me right out of the church because it is what started me to research all this crap. (I am so gratefuly for Mr. Murphy for that. I owe him big time)

[silverfox]

Ooops that was me that posted above. I forgot to sign in. I find it interesting that with most of us it's difficult to pinpoint one solid issue because there are so many. I think that once one issue comes to light it's not hard to recognize the rest. Then there comes a time that being told, "it's not for us to understand in this lifetime" just doesn't cut it. At all.

[nikki]

I am curious. If you had to pick ONE issue with the church that moved you from being a believer to becoming a non believer, what was it?

My disbelief began with the whole DNA thing in which my research enabled me to stumble on many more lies. It's hard to choose just ONE thing but I think I would have to say the DNA issue. It got the ball rolling for me.

It was the drip, drip, drip and the tick, tick, tick of the clock, that kept repeating, You? You? You? Who? You? :rolleyes:

Could it be true J.S. had so many wives and lovers and obeyed God? Could it be true, that Brother Dunn could have lied to badly, and for so many years?

The spinning world in the emptyness of space, spinning, whirling, and the church saying " We will govern the earth", it is our mission! Members run for office.

Was it the dark skinned people became more rightous than the TBM. Yep, that is it for sure! ;)

Like sandpaper, the wearing away. The lies.

Long before DNA, the fruit of the vine was spoiled.

[Jeff_Ricks]

I am curious. If you had to pick ONE issue with the church that moved you from being a believer to becoming a non believer, what was it?

My disbelief began with the whole DNA thing in which my research enabled me to stumble on many more lies. It's hard to choose just ONE thing but I think I would have to say the DNA issue. It got the ball rolling for me.

I think what finally did me in was the run around I got when I asked difficult questions, but what got me started asking was realizing that the tithing promise is completely bogus.

I was taught all my life that if you pay tithing you’ll be blessed so when I was trying to get a new business off the ground in Idaho Falls (back when I lived there) I was paying a little more than a full tithing and had paid a full tithing all my life. It was a business where we were setting up to manufacture and market an electronic device I had patented and previously licensed to other companies to manufacturer, including Speed Queen, a major appliance manufacturer. It was a device that tracks money in vending machines; simple vending machines like gumball machines as well as co-op laundry machines. In order to get our manufacturing plans off the ground we formed a joint venture with a vending manufacturer in Salt Lake. We put all our investment capital and efforts toward that venture, but when we started shipping product and everything looked great the Salt Lake company suddenly and unexpectedly went out of business. It completely caught us by surprise and took us under as well. We had no money and time to regroup.

So, my point is, we did everything right and I was paying about a 12% tithing, but completely beyond our control and totally in the hands of The Lord™ (echo, echo, echo…) we had the rug pulled our from under us. That’s when I started wondering what happened. Where were those promised blessings? Even a tiny smidgen of them? That’s when I realized that something was amiss and I swore I’d find out what, and began studying Mormonism to find out what went wrong. Well, what went wrong was that Mormonism was/is bogus, from top to bottom! As we all know, once a person begins studying -- looking behind the curtain – it all falls apart. The final straw for me was the run around I got when I was studying. No organization representing itself as the Truth™ would have to hide behind such runaround tactics.

That’s my story in a nutshell.

Jeff

P.S. I am so glad I found out!! Life has been so much better for me since. :D

[jmkm]

As a convert, I always knew not everything was "100%true", I just wanted so badly to be part of the group. Also, they don't tell you all the weird stuff right away. For my husband who was born into it, he was taking a class on modern myths (1996), and they talked about the mound builders and how early Americans had created different theories on what they were. There was no reference to Mormonism in the class, but when he was researching it at the college library for a report, he came across the Spaulding Manuscript, and found out it was written before the BOM. After that everything started to crumble. It was just the straw that broke the camel's back. We hated the temple ceremony always, because it was so creepy. I think that was the beginning of the end for me. I was so disturbed, I wish I had walked out when they asked me to take off all my clothes and put that sheet on. EEEEEWWWW. I'm so embarassed that I did that!!! I mean, I'm a rational, normal person and yet I didn't walk out when I KNEW something was VERY wrong. I feel like I will never recover from my experience with Mormonism.........

[b_hedshiz]

The main issue for me was The Book of Abraham. It's just such an obvious fraud, but I never heard a peep about it at church, which let me know that they were hiding the truth about it.

[silverfox]

As a convert, I always knew not everything was "100%true", I just wanted so badly to be part of the group. Also, they don't tell you all the weird stuff right away. For my husband who was born into it, he was taking a class on modern myths (1996), and they talked about the mound builders and how early Americans had created different theories on what they were. There was no reference to Mormonism in the class, but when he was researching it at the college library for a report, he came across the Spaulding Manuscript, and found out it was written before the BOM. After that everything started to crumble. It was just the straw that broke the camel's back. We hated the temple ceremony always, because it was so creepy. I think that was the beginning of the end for me. I was so disturbed, I wish I had walked out when they asked me to take off all my clothes and put that sheet on. EEEEEWWWW. I'm so embarassed that I did that!!! I mean, I'm a rational, normal person and yet I didn't walk out when I KNEW something was VERY wrong. I feel like I will never recover from my experience with Mormonism.........

I was a convert, too, and I was shocked at what I learned AFTER I joined that they don't include in the missionary lessons. My experience with the temple rituals was pre 1990 when all the gory stuff was used to make us comply. That creeped me out big time. I never was one to attend the temple on a regular basis. I never saw the point in it all. It was too weird and is so very unnecessary. And of course I carried a lot of guilt because of my lack of desire to pray, pay and obey. sigh Hubby is BIC and it's all very different for him as a life member. He is on the verge of being ex-mo like me. But it took him longer...it's all so very engrained when one is raised in the church.

[peter_mary]

I was a convert, too, and I was shocked at what I learned AFTER I joined that they don't include in the missionary lessons.

Yup, me too. I was thinking about this on the way to work this morning. I'm sure that as a system for organizing one's spiritual life, there are a lot of people, a LOT of people, for whom the Church works just fine, same as any other Church. Other than a few glaring things I struggle with (patriarchy and polygamous afterlife head the list), the real problems for the Church abound in it's early history and doctrines that Joseph et al sort of trapped them with. They CAN'T tell us some of that stuff, because we'd never join! And frankly, I'm not sure the Church really knows what to do with it...like Gordon B. Hinkley telling Time Magazine "I'm not sure we really teach that" referencing the doctrine of God as an exalted man. And the whole multiple first visions thing can't really be discussed now, can it? The rock in the hat? Don't think so... Money digging? Sending Oliver Cowdery back to New York to find a treasure buried in a house that will save the Church from it's financial difficulties (oops!)? Nope, can't talk about that. And on and on. Really, like the DNA issue, the complete lack of archeological evidence, the Joseph Smith papyri accidentally showing up in a Museum in New York AFTER we were able to interpret the hyeroglyphs...all of these are actually embarassments to the Church that they have to hide or we wouldn't join. Frankly, they have to hide them or we wouldn't stay...right gang? Because we are all a testament to that little miscalculation on Joseph's part.

On the other hand, the Church can't throw it away, either, because that undermines the prophetic calling of the annointed leaders. Well, they do it on occassion, like tossing Brigham's Adam/God theory right out the window as soon as he's dead (which Brigham was VERY clear regarding the FACT that he knew that doctrine by revelation, thus sayeth the Lord, and yet the Church STILL just brushes it aside and says, "ain't so.") But for the most part, they have to find a rationale or at least a way to hide the embarassements. That's why FARMS exists...to argue insanely in a scientifically sounding manner that the ridiculous and ludicrous are actually factual. Ol' Joe set 'em up for failure time and time again, and STILL, the sheep won't leave the fold. Amazing, isn't it?


My experience with the temple rituals was pre 1990 when all the gory stuff was used to make us comply. That creeped me out big time.

No kidding! That was BIZARRE! And I remember that as uncomfortable as it made me feel, my brain kept saying, "See? This MUST be of God, because man could never dream this up! God's ways are not man's ways." Did you notice how that just went away? And nobody bothered to ask the question, "If Joseph was restoring the temple rituals, which he said were preserved in an adulterated form by the Masons, and he corrected them and restored them to their original form according to revelation...then how come we can just cut a bunch of stuff out when there's a little negative press? Doesn't that make the case for Joseph not knowing what he was doing?" :confused: Never heard anyone make that case...they just went and thought silently to themselves, "Man, I'm glad I don't have to slit my throat or belly anymore..." Yeah, well, me too. Weird stuff. Really weird. :eek:

Paul

[free thinker]

I joined the church as a sixteen year old young man. It was all so amazing back then. I was raised catholic, and so the dogmatic aspect of it was not new. Served a mission, came home, went inactive at 26 for about five years. This was life on the wild side. Got burned out, and came back to church, and of course was involved in a " court of love". I was very sincere though, and all I did was heartfelt. I thought I was back home in the fold forever!! Then , well, after ten years of being single, and hanging out in the singles program, I began to become very weary. All of it began to be so very hum drum and relentlessly stifleing. I was sick of the church, plain and simple. Never the less, I was active and going full speed ahead.

Then I made a move to another city and found myself only going to sacrament. Still very burned out. I just kept feeling that there had to be something more to life than this. Where was all the happiness and joy?

I decided to do a little reading. Just happened to check out ex-mormon.com. Well you can guess the rest. I was absolutely stunned at the things I found out. I read about the book of abraham. A member for thirty years, and never once heard a thing about it. I was flabergasted, and frankly, mad as hell!!! Then I read Grant Palmer's book " An Insiders View of Mormon Origins" Man what a great book!! I knew I was onto something I never imagined. That the church is a facade, and a ruse!! Now I realized why I was so tired . I was mentally exhausted from trying to live a life of meaningless absorption, in endless church activity. Then I read " In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton. Found out that Joseph Smith was an adulterer, a sexual manipulator, and a liar!! It was clear to me that he used his position, and influence, to marry , and have sex with young women. All in the name of God! That was it for me. I never went back to church after that. I knew all I would ever need to know. :(

Thank you all for these very intelligent , heartfelt responses!! I am so so glad I am not alone in this discovery of what can only be called a massive deception. Where is the integrity that we hear from the pulpit at general conference, over and over and over?

Thank you for asking this question , and starting this new thread. Thank you from the bottom of my heart!!

Free Thinker

[silverfox]

Then I made a move to another city and found myself only going to sacrament. Still very burned out. I just kept feeling that there had to be something more to life than this. Where was all the happiness and joy?

Free Thinker

I spent over 30 years as a convert member. I have NEVER in all those years felt the joy that I now feel for my life, my family and MYSELF. It's an amazing feeling. I find it funny that TBMs (true blue mormons) think it's impossible to be happy and find true joy without the church. I am a new person! Looking back I was in depression for most of those 30 years. Gosh, I wish I could get those years back. sigh. The church really doesn't offer much joy. If you are a member and you are depressed, unhappy, etc you're told you aren't praying enough or obeying, etc. Like that's supposed to make one feel better. I just can't express how much happier me and my family are OUT of the church. I'm glad you got out, too.

[silverfox]

No kidding! That was BIZARRE! And I remember that as uncomfortable as it made me feel, my brain kept saying, "See? This MUST be of God, because man could never dream this up! God's ways are not man's ways." Did you notice how that just went away? And nobody bothered to ask the question, "If Joseph was restoring the temple rituals, which he said were preserved in an adulterated form by the Masons, and he corrected them and restored them to their original form according to revelation...then how come we can just cut a bunch of stuff out when there's a little negative press? Doesn't that make the case for Joseph not knowing what he was doing?" :confused: Never heard anyone make that case...they just went and thought silently to themselves, "Man, I'm glad I don't have to slit my throat or belly anymore..." Yeah, well, me too. Weird stuff. Really weird. :eek:

Paul

To enlighten those who may be unaware of these pre 1990 rituals......we were commanded to draw our thumbs across our neck in a slashing motion and something to do with disembowlment, (is it a good sign I can't remember the details?) something about "suffer my life to be taken". Very gory and very disturbing. I remember telling a friend who I attended a temple session with once the "secret" name of the day because she forgot hers. I still remember the name after 25 years..."Louise". Of course only a temple worker is supposed to speak that name but I told her anyway. I remember feeling guilty like I was going to be disemboweled or something. LOL Okay, okay, I was quite a bit younger, okay??? Of course it's all ridiculous and WE create our own fear to give this crap creedence. It took me a long time to realize that we create our own guilt and fear based on the persuasive techniques of an organization.

For the record, I have spoken openly about temple rituals, etc and my life has not been taken, my throat has never been slashed and as far as I know I still have all my bowels and they seem to be working just fine. :)

When you study the history of the church it's not surprising that these rituals were used to scare members into obedience. This REALLY ticks me off. Using fear tactics like that to ensure a 10% tithe.

[miss taken]

I don't know the church is not true, anymore than I knew that the church was true.

Maybe that isn't the point.

Maybe it doesn't matter whether it is true or not, only whether being in or out of it will make you a better or worse person, or just plain won't make any difference at all.

Personally I came to a point when the church was visibly not doing me any good. It was like always being on the first rung of a ladder, and no matter how good I tried to be, no matter how much I fasted and read the scriptures, I still felt like a disjointed, confused, manequin doll. I didn't feel like an authentic person.

And interstingly enough, once I had left, I became whole again, happy, full of hope for the future, and full of hope for the world. I came to realise that the world was full of good people, that the LDS did not have any type of monopoly on goodness or correct thinking.

[infiltrator]

My disbelief began with the whole DNA thing in which my research enabled me to stumble on many more lies. It's hard to choose just ONE thing but I think I would have to say the DNA issue. It got the ball rolling for me.[/QUOTE]

Try reading about the DNA issue here
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

I know I'm using Jeffs web alot but I'm starting out with the easiest answers first. I've read many articles on the DNA issue and found that DNA is not the way to diisprove the B o M. I definetly wouldn't base my salvation on it. :)

[infiltrator]

I hear what you're saying Miss Taken
However, your statement is vague to me. How would leaving the church make you feel whole or have more hope?
I found that being outside of the church left me only the hope of getting older, watching my body slowly fall apart and then die...if I lived that long. A life without an eternal purpose or reason seems like a very scary place to me. The world has many great people and also many sick and evil people. The church has never claimed to have a monopoly on good people...so why do you make it sound as though they did?
I lived in the UK for over five years and found the people very warm and sociable. I would be having a party, and people would just walk in off the streets. We're all children of God. I'm sure you feel like you fit in a little better (now that you're not a minority)but it won't be a lasting peace like when you're following your heavenly father's plan. It took me about 10 years to figure that out. Hopefully, it won't take you that long.
:o

[infiltrator]

"[QUOTE=silverfox]To enlighten those who may be unaware of these pre 1990 rituals......we were commanded to draw our thumbs across our neck in a slashing motion and something to do with disembowlment, (is it a good sign I can't remember the details?) something about "suffer my life to be taken". Very gory and very disturbing. "

Infiltrator:It's a misconception to think that every word and action of the Temple is cast in stone. It's a place of instruction where symbols and other things have been used to convey key concepts, and where the manner of teaching can be adjusted over time. The ancient-style oaths (like those of Bible times) referring to penalties for broken covenants were not essential - the concept of keeping covenants is still taught without them. There was never any teaching that the references to penalties were essential - they were instructional. There are several parts of the Temple ceremonies that could be recast into different forms or presented in different ways without loss of the revealed core.

Revelation, like scripture, is cast in the language and cultural perspective of the recipient. A revelation given to Isaiah will be written much differently than a similar one given to Abraham or Paul. Don't confuse the form of a revelation with its origin or content. The same applies to the Temple.

As Brigham Young said, "Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father." He then made reference to "key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood," but made no mention of oaths. Thus, there are a few core elements to the Endowment which do not include the oaths. Apart from the core elements, the rest may be just means of presentation and educational tools, subject to change.

However, you should understand that ancient Jewish and Middle Eastern covenants often involved oaths associated with the concept of a severe penalty for violating the oath. This is explained in Thomas R. Valletta's article, "The Captain and the Covenant," in Alma, the Testimony of the Word (Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1992, pp. 226-227):

Oaths and "Cutting a Covenant"
The texts of both Old Testament covenants and covenant renewals and Ancient Near Eastern treaties support the notion of the serious binding nature of covenants. Considerable scholarly effort has been expended detailing the comparisons between their structural similarities (see Baltzer; McCarthy). In 1954, George E. Mendenhall compared the structure of the Sinai Covenant with that of the Hittite treaties of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. (p. 54). The Hittite treaties, in his estimation, have an identical structural typology with that of the biblical covenant. He also suggests that initially there was a formal oath which was "a conditional self cursing, an appeal to the gods to punish the promiser if he defaults" (p. 52). There was, according to Mendenhall, "some solemn ceremony which accompanied the oath" (p. 61). Weinfeld agrees that the covenant had to be "confirmed by an oath (eg Gen 21:22-24; 26:26-31; Deut 29:9-29; Josh 9:15-20; 2 Kgs. 11:4; Ezek 16:8; 17:13-19); which included most probably a conditional imprecation: "May thus and thus happen to me if I violate the obligation" (p. 256). "Sacrifices accompanied the oath in connection with a covenant," according to M. H. Pope, which may be the origin of the Hebrew idiom "to cut a covenant with" someone. He explains:

In the sacrifices of the covenant the animals were cut in two, and one or both parties passed between the pieces (Gen. 15:10, 17). In Jeremiah 34:18 those who break the covenant with the Lord are told that they will be made like the calf which they cut in two and passed between its parts. This suggests that the oath which bound the parties to a covenant may have stipulated in the conditional curse that the violator should be treated like the sacrificial animal. (p. 576)

This imagery illuminates the divine warnings of an impending sword to come down upon a covenant-breaking Israel. For example, in Leviticus 26:25, we read: "And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy" (compare Deut 32:41; Jer 46:10). Metaphorically and historically, a covenant-breaking Israel faced the terrible prospect of a punishing sword.

References Cited
Baltzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary, in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings. Trans. David E. Green. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971.

McCarthy, Dennis J. Old Testament Covenant. Richmond, VA: Knox, 1972.

Mendenhall, G. E. "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition." The Biblical Archaeologist (Sept 1954) 17:50-75.

Pope, M. H. "Oaths." The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Ed. George A. Buttrick. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962. 3:575-76.

Weinfeld, M. "Berith." Trans. John T. Willis. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 4 vols. Ed. G. J. Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975. 2:253-79.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has an article, "Covenant, the New" by Archibald McCaig, which also explains that "the ancient Semitic method of making a covenant" involved a reference to death for failure to keep the covenant:

the sacrificial animals being divided, and the parties passing between the pieces, implying that they deserved death if they broke the engagement. The technical Hebrew phrase for making a covenant is "to cut a covenant."

Further insight comes from the journal Biblica has an interesting article related to this topic by Paul Sanders, "So May God Do To Me!," Vol. 85, No. 1, 2004, pp. 91-98. (The link is for a PDF file. There is also an HTML version, but if you don't have Greek and Hebrew fonts installed, some parts will not look right.) From the summary:

In the Hebrew Bible we find the self-imprecation "So may God do to me and more also!" (2 Sam 3,35, 1 Kgs 2,23, etc.). In many cases, the phrase is immediately conditioned: "So may God do to me and more also, if you will not be the commander of the army" (2 Sam 19,14). God may punish the speaker, if the latter fails his promise. Ancient Mesopotamian sources suggest that the word "So" in the Hebrew expression originally referred to a gesture in use when taking an oath: the touching of the throat.

In light of this information about ancient oaths, the early and presumably optional inclusion of symbolic penalties with oaths made in the Temple is remarkably consistent with ancient Semitic covenants. Such penalties should not be viewed as recent innovations from Masonry, but as legitimate concepts from the ancient covenant-making patterns. (See also "Simile Curses in the Ancient Near East, Old Testament, and Book of Mormon" by Mark J. Morrise.)

[helemon]

For me it was the Blacks and the Priesthood issue. The whole "one drop" test to me was laughable. There is no way that anyone on the planet can say with 100% certainty that none of their ancestors were from Africa given the history of Egypt both from its conquests and being conquered. It is ridiculous to think that with the mixing of races and people that occurs during wars and conquest that the races of the world remained "pure."

I also recalled the vision of Peter and how there were no unclean beasts. How then could you have a race that was still unworthy of the priesthood?

It didn't sit well with me that God would instate a law that forced us to judge our fellow man by their outward appearance.

When I learned of the problems the church had with baptizing and giving the priesthood to people of mixed heritage in Brazil it further vindicated my position that the priesthood ban was an ill conceived, and untenable position that was not of God.

This led me to conclude that here was a doctrine that was clearly based on the philosophies of men and not God, which is exactly what the temple says the prophet and apostle are meant to protect us against. Therefore if the leaders are not immune to preaching the philosophies of men how are they any different than the leaders of other religions whom they disparage and what reason is there to trust their other teachings?

[Born Free]

"[QUOTE=silverfox]To enlighten those who may be unaware of these pre 1990 rituals......

Infiltrator:It's a misconception to think that every word and action of the Temple is cast in stone. It's a place of instruction where symbols and other things have been used to convey key concepts, and where the manner of teaching can be adjusted over time. The ancient-style oaths (like those of Bible times) referring to penalties for broken covenants were not essential - the concept of keeping covenants is still taught without them. There was never any teaching that the references to penalties were essential - they were instructional. There are several parts of the Temple ceremonies that could be recast into different forms or presented in different ways without loss of the revealed core.

Revelation, like scripture, is cast in the language and cultural perspective of the recipient. A revelation given to Isaiah will be written much differently than a similar one given to Abraham or Paul. Don't confuse the form of a revelation with its origin or content. The same applies to the Temple.


Tom,

Re: "Revelation, like scripture, is cast in the language and cultural perspective of the recipient."

Jospeh Smith "revealed" the Temple Ordinances to American Mormons living in the early 1800s, some 1800 years after the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, which brought a new law to replace the "eye for an eye" mentality of the OT.

Yet, it is widely agreed that the Temple Covenants are OT in flavour, heavy on punitive thinking.

So, if I correctly follow your reasoning, Joseph Smith gave them to the Mormon population in the "cultural perspective of the recipient". Have I missed something in your argument, or does that mean that Mormons were absolutely OT (or pre-Christian) in their mindset?

Tom, there was an impressive array of sources cited in your posting, but the simple, fundamental thrust of the issue appears to have eluded you, IMHO.

Most post-Mos have the opinion that after some market research, Mo leaders concluded that the baby-boomers just were not prepared to cop the punitive OT flavour of the Ordinances and were for the most part in shock as they exited the temple for the first time.

The first law of marketing is that the client should have a consistent experience as they come into contact with the various elements of the customer experience. In marketing parlance, the Temple Ordinance lacked congruity with the "sweetness, truth and light" message offered in other forums.

Daryl

[noodle]

I think that I was always questioning, even during the missionary lessons before I converted. I bought the typical response that my understanding would come with time, that I would learn as I continued to progress. I also went to the temple pre-1990, and I jokingly tell people that the ceremony is what "did me in." There is a good bit of truth to that statement. I found it disturbing and offensive as a convert. I would go back thinking that I missed something, but I continued to have the same uneasy feeling. I guess that I just kept missing the "big picture" because it never got better for me. Funny, I mentioned this at work just the other day, and the response I got from a TBM was "well, people take the ceremony literally, and it shouldn't be." WTF? So... while it is hard to nail down just one thing, I'd have to call it a tie between the temple stuff and the whole missionary program. I have always been uncomfortable with projecting my beliefs on others, and the "selling" of religion.

mamajama

[helemon]

As Brigham Young said, "Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father." He then made reference to "key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood," but made no mention of oaths. Thus, there are a few core elements to the Endowment which do not include the oaths. Apart from the core elements, the rest may be just means of presentation and educational tools, subject to change.


If God knows the most inner and private thoughts of men and every sin they ever committed why would anyone need key words, signs and tokens to show the angles in order to get into heaven? I can understand how these would be useful for guilds in the middle ages but God is omniscient. He is not going to be fooled by secret handshakes and pass codes. Furthermore, recent archelogical research suggests that Romans did not nail people through the wrist but used wooden washers to prevent the nail in the palm from tearing out. So the "sure sign of the nail" does not in fact symbolize a wound Christ received.

[miss taken]

For me it was the Blacks and the Priesthood issue. The whole "one drop" test to me was laughable. There is no way that anyone on the planet can say with 100% certainty that none of their ancestors were from Africa given the history of Egypt both from its conquests and being conquered. It is ridiculous to think that with the mixing of races and people that occurs during wars and conquest that the races of the world remained "pure."

I also recalled the vision of Peter and how there were no unclean beasts. How then could you have a race that was still unworthy of the priesthood?

It didn't sit well with me that God would instate a law that forced us to judge our fellow man by their outward appearance.

When I learned of the problems the church had with baptizing and giving the priesthood to people of mixed heritage in Brazil it further vindicated my position that the priesthood ban was an ill conceived, and untenable position that was not of God.

This led me to conclude that here was a doctrine that was clearly based on the philosophies of men and not God, which is exactly what the temple says the prophet and apostle are meant to protect us against. Therefore if the leaders are not immune to preaching the philosophies of men how are they any different than the leaders of other religions whom they disparage and what reason is there to trust their other teachings?


I'll agree with you on this one 200% Helemon. I had a mighty big issue with this one. I always shelved it. Always heard OT justifications for it and always thought of Peter with the White Sheet, as a NT way of discounting it.

I was watching my hubby and son in the swimming pool yesterday. It was full of people. Black, white, Asian, Chinese. I couldn't help feel that anyone who feels that any of these people are either superior or inferior on the basis of something as superficial as skin colour has a big problem.

And I totally reject the OT where it seems to favour only one group of people over all others. God whoever and whatever he is, is and always has been a God of the whole world. Love was and is the fundamental principal that keeps us humans going safely without anialating ourselves into the bargain (to kind of quote Spong).

Infiltrator, what part of England did you live in?

Mary

[miss taken]

I hear what you're saying Miss Taken
However, your statement is vague to me. How would leaving the church make you feel whole or have more hope?
I found that being outside of the church left me only the hope of getting older, watching my body slowly fall apart and then die...if I lived that long. A life without an eternal purpose or reason seems like a very scary place to me. The world has many great people and also many sick and evil people. The church has never claimed to have a monopoly on good people...so why do you make it sound as though they did?
I lived in the UK for over five years and found the people very warm and sociable. I would be having a party, and people would just walk in off the streets. We're all children of God. I'm sure you feel like you fit in a little better (now that you're not a minority)but it won't be a lasting peace like when you're following your heavenly father's plan. It took me about 10 years to figure that out. Hopefully, it won't take you that long.
:o

It's not a matter of fitting in Infiltrator, If my motive had been to fit in then I wouldn't have joined or become active in the church in the first place. There is much good in the church I do not deny or doubt that. There are many good people in the church also.

I cannot call myself an honest authentic person and stick with it. That is the truth Infiltrator. I left because I had issues with doctrine, issues with history, and actually issues with honesty.

Can I prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the church is false. No. Could I prove it was true. No. God has given me a brain and a conscience, and I must follow that to the best of my ability. It tells me something different than your god tells you. That's okay. We are all on different paths. The church may be the best thing that has happened to you, it may be good for you, you may be getting good feelings to go with it because at a sub-conscious level your psyche knows that. That's great for you infiltrator. I wish you well. Neither would I try to discourage you from your path. But please understand that we ALL do our best with the intellect (or lack thereof :rolleyes: ) that we have to make decisions in our lives.
Mary

[miss taken]

[QUOTE=infiltrator]I hear what you're saying Miss Taken
However, your statement is vague to me. How would leaving the church make you feel whole or have more hope?

Because I realised that God wasn't the elitist that I thought he was as a member of the church. He loves everyone. You know Tom. You are the elect, the called of God. I never ever bought it. I absolutely don't think, and never did think that I personally was elect.

I found that being outside of the church left me only the hope of getting older, watching my body slowly fall apart and then die...if I lived that long. A life without an eternal purpose or reason seems like a very scary place to me.

I dont have that same experience of you living out of the church Tom. I still believe in Eternal Progression, and that I have a place in that.

The world has many great people and also many sick and evil people. The church has never claimed to have a monopoly on good people...so why do you make it sound as though they did?

I apologise if I said anything that made it sound like people in the church think that they have a monopoly on goodness. My experience has been that some do, and some don't. Depends who you are talking to.


Mary

[stuckasamo]

First I'd like to say to everyone, about this Infiltraitor, don't get all riled up. Obviously this guy is a hypocrite, just being on this site in the first place tells us this, and still under the brainwashing of his religion. So in other words, we can't really give his words much weight.

Back to the original topic: The MAIN reason I know the church isn't true is because I lie to my Bishop, out-right, bold-faced lying. He askes if I keep the WoW? I say Oh, yes, even though I drink coffee quite frequently. Oops! What ever happened to the "power of discernment?" Hmmm? It NEVER EXISTED! They tell us this lie to scare us into telling the truth! Power of discernment, my ass.

On a related note, I took my last religion quiz for the semester today. We take a bunch of them and are allowed to drop our lowest grade. Today's quiz consisted of just one question, true/false question. The question was: Is the Book of Mormon true? You all know the right answer, according to the teacher.

I dropped the quiz.

[keene maverick]

For me, it's always been Evolution that threw me over the edge. As I studied evolution, and realized how it worked, and how stupid creationist arguments were, I went through a long period of looking into somehow changing my Mormon beleifs to fit in Evolution.

But no matter how I looked at it, all the church leaders said that without a literal fall of Adam, the entire doctrines of the church was pointless. Without the Fall of Adam, then there is no need for Jesus' atonement. There could have been no death before roughly 6k years ago.

When I see people continuing in ignorance, or spreading ignorant arguments (I.E. Jeff Lindsay's DNA article), it really upsets me.

In response to Jeff Lindsay's DNA article that Infiltrator posted:

The position that Jeff takes on is one of not proving that the LDS church is true, but one of poking holes in the DNA evidences against it.

The conclusions from that article leave a statement of "Well, it may or may not be true. Kinda."

The problems in his arguments are large as well. His interpretation of DNA evidence completely spits in the face of current biological and anthropological theory. It pretty much makes no sense.

Jeff Lindsay is a con-artist.

[helemon]

For me, it's always been Evolution that threw me over the edge. As I studied evolution, and realized how it worked, and how stupid creationist arguments were, I went through a long period of looking into somehow changing my Mormon beleifs to fit in Evolution.

I agree. I still cannot understand how a group of individuals who come from agricultural roots, intimately familiar with animal and plant husbandry, who practice selective breeding to improve their crops and livestock, can then turn around and say with a straight face that evolution is completely false! If humans can modify the physical characteristics of living organisms through selective breeding, and now genetic engineering, why couldn't this have occurred in nature? Yet the creation myth is the center piece of the temple endowment??

I think that the church is going to be forced to revisit this issue as more members who were taught about evolution in school begin to reject the creation position. I am suprised with Vernal being so close to SLC that the whole evolution issue hasn't been adressed more.

[darkslider]

<snip>A Rambling, Nonsensical, Illogical Load of Tripe (Quite possibly copied directly from Jeff Lindsay)Sorry, I have to disagree with your stance on this matter. Why? Because Joseph Smith said so, that's why.

Scattered throughout the United States and in many countries around the world stand the majestic Mormon temples. These huge structures are believed by many to be similar to church buildings common to Bible-believing Christians; however, what goes on inside does not even closely resemble a Christian worship service.

Mormon temples are used for baptisms for the dead and what is known as "endowment ceremonies" for both the living and the dead. Vicarious baptisms for the dead comprise a great majority of the activity behind temple doors. Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie explained the endowment ceremony as "certain special, spiritual blessings given worthy and faithful saints in the temples...because in and through them the recipients are endowed with power from on high" (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 226-227). Also performed in the temple are marriages which Mormons feel will last for "time and eternity." Mormon families can also be "sealed" together with the hope that, following this life, they will be reunited as a family unit in eternity.

CHANGES MADE IN 1990

The ceremony includes a type of melodrama which explains the LDS view of the creation and fall of man. In the past these dramas were acted out by Mormon temple workers playing such parts as that of Elohim (God the Father) , Jehovah (Jesus), Lucifer, etc. Today, most temples utilize video, making live actors no longer necessary.

Mormon Apostle John Widtsoe stated, "Joseph Smith received the temple endowment and its ritual, as all else he promulgated, by revelation from God" (Joseph Smith -Seeker After Truth, pg. 249). Because of this, Mormons have been told that it can never change. Royden Derrick, a Mormon Seventy, wrote, "Temple ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world are for the salvation and exaltation of God's children. It is important that the saving ordinances not be altered or changed, because all of those who will be exalted, from the first man, Adam, to the last, must be saved on the same principles" (Temples in the Last Days, 1987, pg. 36). However, in April of 1990, the ceremony did go through some dramatic revisions, including the portion where Lucifer hires a minister to preach what Mormons view as false doctrine (termed "the orthodox religion" in the ceremony). The pastor is first interviewed by Lucifer who asks him if he has "been to college and received training for the ministry." Lucifer tells the pastor that if he is able to convert people to his "orthodox religion," he will pay him well. Lucifer then takes the preacher to two characters portraying "Adam and Eve" and tells him they "desire religion." The preacher tries to convince Adam to believe in a God who fills the universe, yet is so small that he can dwell in a person's heart, and a God that is surrounded by a myriad of beings who have been saved by grace. He also tries to convince Adam of the perils of hell, "a lake of fire and brimstone where the wicked are cast." Adam, the "good guy" in the scenario, rejects his teachings. Of course this is intended to make Christian pastors to look like hirelings of Satan bent on convincing God's children to believe in a false gospel. Such a scene was highly offensive to Christians as well as to many Mormons. Today, all mention of this minister has been dropped entirely from the ceremony.

The ceremony also included what was known as the "five points of fellowship" which was similar to Freemasonry's "Five Points of Fellowship." Patrons would stand in front of a veil which was marked with a square, compass, a "navel mark," and a "knee mark," (similar to the marks on the temple garment). The temple worker stood behind the veil and placed his hand through one of the "marks." He then asked the patron for a token (handshake). After giving the required handshake, the temple worker and patron were to embrace in a way that the inside of their right feet was touching. They would also be "knee to knee, breast to breast, hand to back, and mouth to ear." Mormons were led to believe that this is how "the Lord" will communicate with them through the veil. Though temple workers still require a "token," the five points of fellowship is no longer a part of the ceremony.

Also removed from the post-1990 ceremony is the "Lecture at the Veil." This lecture was given as a verbal summary of the ordinances, covenants, tokens, and key-words in the Endowment. In this lecture they were again warned "never to speak outside of the temples of the Lord of the things you see and hear in this sacred place."

TEMPLE RECOMMEND

No one is admitted into a Mormon temple without a "Temple Recommend." The recommend is an identification card which verifies that the member is in good standing (i.e. paid a full tithe, is morally clean, doctrinally pure, has kept the "Word of Wisdom," etc.). In other words, the temple recommend-carrying Mormon has been approved and deemed "worthy" of entering the sacred temple. The only time a non-Mormon (Gentile) can enter a temple is during an open house held shortly before it is dedicated or after a renovation.

WASHING AND ANOINTING

The first time patrons go through the temple, they go through an ordinance called "washing and anointing." The temple participant enters a locker room where they change from their street clothes put on a poncho-like "shield" (men are separated from the women). It is curious to note that each locker comes equipped with a lock and key. The shield is open on both sides. Wearing nothing but the shield, the patron enters an area of the temple which contains the washing and anointing rooms.

The temple participant enters one of several small booths where a temple worker ceremonially touches or "washes" various parts of the patron's body. Men are still separated from the women at this point. Wetting his/her fingers, the temple worker places his/her hand under the shield and recites the following words: "...I wash your head, that your brain and your intellect may be clear and active; your ears, that you may hear the word of the Lord; your eyes, that you may see clearly and discern between truth and error; your nose, that you may smell; your lips, that you may never speak guile; your neck, that it may bear up your head properly; your shoulders, that they may bear the burdens that shall be placed thereon; your back, that there may be marrow in the bones and in the spine; your breast, that it may be the receptacle of pure and virtuous principles; your vitals and bowels, that they may be healthy and strong and perform their proper functions; your arms and your hands, that they may be strong and wield the sword of justice in defense of truth and virtue; your loins, that you may be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, that you may have joy and rejoicing in your posterity; your legs and feet, that you may run and not be weary, and walk and not faint."

The member then has hands laid upon his head by two temple workers, one of whom prayerfully "confirms" the washing. The patron is then ceremoniously anointed with olive oil. A similar invocation is recited followed again by a "confirmation."

The patron is then assisted in putting on a special piece of clothing known as the "Garment of the Holy Priesthood." Over the garment patrons wear white clothes. The women wear white dresses and shoes. The men wear white suits, shirts and ties, pants, and shoes.

NEW NAMES

Members are given new names as part of the ceremony. This name is to be considered sacred and never to be revealed except at a certain time later in the ceremony. All men entering the temple on the same day are given the same name; the same occurs with the women. These names are usually taken from either the Bible or the Book of Mormon. Mormon doctrine has taught that on the Resurrection Day, the husband must call his wife from the grave by using her temple name. According to Charles W. Penrose (Penrose would become a First Counselor to Heber J. Grant): "In the resurrection, they stand side by side and hold dominion together. Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof" (Mormon Doctrine Plain and Simple, 1888, pg. 51).

PRE-ENDOWMENT INSTRUCTIONS

Patrons are then welcomed to the temple and then reminded to be "alert, attentive and reverent during the presentation of the Endowment." Patrons are told that if they "are true and faithful," the day will come when they will be called up and anointed "Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses."

Before April of 1990, patrons were told, "The endowment is to prepare you for exaltation in the celestial kingdom." These words have since been replaced with, "Your Endowment is to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you to enable you to walk back into the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them key words, the signs, and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation." The newly added portion is interesting for the reason that Brigham Young used almost the same exact wording in a speech he gave on April 6, 1853. (See Journal of Discourses 2:31.)

This reminder is followed by a warning that if anyone were to violate his sacred obligations, it "will bring upon you the judgment of God; for God will not be mocked. If any of you desire to withdraw rather than accept these obligations of your own free will and choice, you may now make it known by raising your hand."

THE CREATION AND FALL OF MAN

Older temples came complete with various rooms representing different times and places. In the early days when temple workers would act out the various parts of the drama, it was necessary to move from room to room.

The film depicts the Mormon "Elohim" sending "Jehovah" and "Michael" on a mission to organize unorganized matter into a world "like unto the other worlds" that have been previously formed. In Mormonism, Elohim and Jehovah are separate beings who represent God the Father and Jesus. The Bible however, never implies this and often uses these names together. (It is often translated "Lord God." See Genesis 2:4-22; Psalm 100:3; Isaiah 3:15.)

Following six days of creation, "Michael" is shown to be in a deep sleep. A narrator explains to the patrons, "Brethren and sisters, this is Michael, who helped form the earth. When he awakens from the sleep which Elohim and Jehovah have caused to come upon him, he will be known as Adam, and having forgotten all, will have become like a little child." He is later given "Eve" to be his wife.

Later, another character enters the drama. His name is Lucifer and he claims to be the brother of Eve (and Adam). In Mormonism, Lucifer is one of the literal sons of Elohim as is Jehovah and Michael (Adam). Lucifer succeeds in persuading Adam and Eve to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After partaking, Adam asks Lucifer about the unique apron he is wearing. Lucifer states "it is an emblem of his power and priesthoods." Patrons participating in the Endowment Ceremony have also brought with them a similar apron. Embroidered on the apron are fig leaves. When the film shows Adam and Eve hiding from Elohim, the narrator then instructs the patrons to "put on your aprons."

Because of Lucifer's part in Adam's fall, Elohim rebukes him and says, "because thou hast done this, thou shalt be cursed above all the beasts of the field. Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust thou shalt eat all the days of thy life." It is interesting to note that, regardless of Elohim's curse, Lucifer is always seen standing upright, apparently unaffected by God's judgment.

Lucifer is cast out of the Garden and Elohim instructs Jehovah to have cherubim and "a flaming sword be placed to guard the way of the Tree of Life."

LAW OF OBEDIENCE AND LAW OF SACRIFICE

Patrons are then made to make two vows. The women are first asked to follow the "Law of Obedience" whereby they covenant to "obey the law of the Lord" and hearken unto their husband's counsel as he hearkens to the Lord's (pre-1990 ceremonies compelled the women to "obey the law of their husbands"). The women are then instructed to raise their "right arm to the square" and covenant that they will observe "the law of the Lord." Following this, the men are instructed to raise their arm "to the square" and make a similar promise to follow the law of God.

Patrons then covenant to keep the Law of Sacrifice. In doing so, participants "covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the kingdom of God." According to Mormon thought, the "kingdom of God on earth" is the LDS Church (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 415).

The drama later depicts Adam praying to his heavenly Father. Three times he utters the prayer, "Oh God, hear the words of my mouth." This may not seem important except for the fact that the one who answers his prayer is Lucifer! Mormons often make an issue out of the fact that God will always answer a sincere prayer; yet the temple ceremony itself shows Lucifer answering what appears to be a sincere prayer offered up by Adam. If the devil can answer sincere prayer, how is the Mormon to honestly know whether or not it was God or the devil who answered his prayers regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, or the Mormon Church as a whole?

When Lucifer is later rebuked by the character representing the Apostle Peter, he looks into the camera and says, "I have a word to say concerning these people. If they do not walk up to every covenant they make at these altars in this temple this day, they will be in my power!" This is no doubt disconcerting for the honest Mormon who knows he will not live up to "every" covenant he makes in the temple that day.

Continued in NEXT POST

[darkslider]

THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL AND THE LAW OF CHASTITY

Patrons also must raise their arm "to the square" and covenant to observe the "Law of the Gospel." This includes promising to avoid "all lightmindedness, loud laughter, evil speaking of the Lord's anointed, the taking of the name of the Lord in vain, and every other unholy and impure practice." Later in the ceremony, they again raise their arm "to the square" and promise to observe the "Law of Chastity" whereby couples make a vow of faithfulness to their spouse.

TOKENS OF THE PRIESTHOOD

An important aspect of the endowment ceremony is learning several "tokens" or handshakes. These handshakes were alluded to earlier in the ceremony when they were told of angelic sentinels who would block the path of the patron when he attempts to return to Elohim after death. Participants are compelled to "covenant before God, angels and these witnesses" never to reveal these tokens. This following explains how the tokens are to be given.

First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood: "The First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood is given by clasping the right hands and placing the joint of the thumb directly over the first knuckle of the hand."

Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood: "This token is given by clasping the right hands and placing the joint of the thumb between the first and second knuckles of the hand."

First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood or Sign of the Nail: "This token is received by bringing the right hand into this position: the hand vertical, the fingers close together, and the thumb extended; and the person giving the token placing the tip of the forefinger of his right hand in the center of the palm, and the thumb opposite on the back of the hand of the one receiving it."

Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, The Patriarchal Grip, or Sure Sign of the Nail: "This token is given by clasping the right hands, interlocking the little fingers, and placing the tip of the forefinger upon the center of the wrist."

SIGNS AND PENALTIES

Before April of 1990, patrons made certain oaths along with signs showing the "penalty" for divulging the aforementioned tokens. For instance, after the patron was given the "First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood," he was instructed to place his right "thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by drawing the thumb quickly across the throat to the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side." A promise was then made that the person would suffer his "life to be taken" rather than reveal the token. In the earlier days, members had to be more specific with their oaths. They had to promise that, if the secret was ever revealed, their throats would be "cut from ear to ear" and their "tongues torn out by their roots" (Temple Mormonism, pg.18).

Members were also compelled to make another oath accompanied by a sign representing the penalty for divulging the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood. By promising that they would rather die than divulge the secret, they would draw their right hands (in cupping shape) across their chests. Again, this oath has been toned down. Earlier Mormons agreed to "have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field" (Temple Mormonism, pg.20).

A third oath was given when the patron received the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood. This penalty was represented by drawing the right thumb (palm downward) quickly across the stomach area. Earlier oaths made members promise that their "bodies be cut asunder in the midst of all and the bowels gush out" should they divulge the secret given them (Temple Mormonism, pg. 20). The penalties were completely removed in 1990 although patrons still vow not to discuss the ceremony.

By making these various promises or oaths, the Mormon is actually violating his own scripture found in the Book of Mormon. Throughout the Book of Mormon, secret oaths are considered to be an abomination (Alma 37:27, Helaman 6:22-26, 4 Nephi 42, Ether 8:15-16, 3 Nephi 12:34-36).

BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD

The most often practiced ritual in the Mormon temple is baptism for the dead. In a font resembling King Solomon's "brazen sea," participants are baptized on behalf of those who died not having embraced Mormonism. To say that early Christians were baptized in a similar font is without historical merit. There was no brazen sea during this time period. According to 2 Kings 25:13 the brazen sea was destroyed by the Chaldean's and its pieces carried off to Babylon after the fall of Jerusalem. It was never again replicated.

Mormons claim the Apostle Paul participated in this practice since he mentions baptism for the dead in I Corinthians 15:29. While scholars have debated as to what the apostle was actually referring too, one thing is certain: Paul actually separated himself from such a practice when he said, "Else what shall THEY do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are THEY then baptized for the dead?" If baptism for the dead was in fact the "most glorious of all subjects belonging to the everlasting gospel" (D&C 128:17), it seems odd that Paul would not include himself as a participant.

Biblical scholars have noted that heretical groups such as the Cerinthians and Marcionites practiced a form of baptism for the dead. Still, there is no evidence to suggest that such a practice was the Christian norm.

CONCLUSION

While the Mormon Church leaders insist temple ceremonies resemble those of the ancient temple in Jerusalem, the fact of the matter is nothing could be further from the truth. There is not one shred of evidence to support the notion that the participants in Jerusalem ever made blood-oaths vowing to keep the ceremony a secret or performed marriages or baptisms for the dead in the temple. Nor were participants compelled to wear sacred garments 24 hours a day. Clearly this is further proof that the Mormon Church is not at all a restoration of true Christianity as it claims.

The Bible teaches temple buildings are no longer necessary since the individual believer is himself a "temple of the living God" (2 Cor. 6:16).

Jesus predicted that temple worship would come to an end when he told the Samaritan woman, "Believe Me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father...But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship Him" (John 4:21,23).

This came to pass during Jesus' crucifixion when the temple veil was ripped from top to bottom (Matthew 27:50,51). This signified that there is now free access to God by the blood of Christ and that Christ Himself is our High Priest and advocate (Hebrews 10:19-21). A temple was no longer essential.

It is because of these teachings from the Bible that Christians have never been, nor ever will be, a temple building people. The fact that Mormons do, shows a lack of understanding of the biblical message.

This article does not comment about the changes made to the Washing and Annointing Ceremony. These changes were implimented earlier this year.

[maleficent]

for me it was the fact that so many things were off limits.

for instance, i had questions about the temple. what did they do there? why couldn't i know? i was a member of the church, i was EXPECTED to go, but no one would answer my questions.

what i have learned of temple activity since then is bizzare, but not nearly as bad as what my 14, 15, 16 year old brain had come up with to fill in the blanks.

it bothered me that i was not allowed a full knowledge of a religion i had claimed to believe with all my heart and soul. why hide things from your own members?

i got the whole "when you're worthy" bag of crap and it just wasn't good enough for me.

since leaving i relize the temple rituals we're just a small part of what i was not being told. lying by omission is as bad as an out right lie as far as i'm concerned. i felt cheated on.

i cannot and will not be part of an organization which i'm not permitted full access to their history, present, and future. it's illogical and unsafe.

[papa]

All the reasons posted are meaningfull to me, and I have slowly been coming to a fuller understanding for a long time. But my spouse is TBM, and she always says that the church is a better way to live than any other lifestyle she knows of. So I kept attending, even as I knew something was very wrong, and I continued to study and discover the wrongs.

But what really forced me out, was GBH's support for Bush and his wars. As a new convert in the sixties, I was anti-Vietnam war. Altho I knew the church authorities were favorable to the war, they at least seemed to refrain from openly endorsing it, so I cut them some slack on that count. But in Oct. '01 GC, GBH openly endorsed Bush and his war of invasion. That got my attention big time. Then in May '03 GC, he gushed his support for Bush, and gave doctrinal reasons why we must fight the evil Iraqis. That was the last straw. If a prophet of God cannot see that the Bush crime family is one of the greatest forces for evil on the planet, and joins with them in committing mass murder, then he is disqualified.

Of course, all the info coming out in print and on the web about Mormon history has been eye-opening as well. I agree with maleficent about the history. If I had known in 1969 what I know now about the truth of church history, I would never have joined the church. I was deceived by the MO hierarchy. No MOre!

I especially loathe and despise all things Masonic. I had read many times McGavin's "Mormonism and Masonry", and had bought the LDS apologetics and deceptions on the subject. To finally discover on the web that the LDS temple service is exactly the same as the Masons---eeeewww, yuchhhh!

And to think, for over 30 years I was a TBM, and actually believed this crap, auwe! I am so grateful to be out.