PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"MORMON TEMPLES".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
|
MORMON TEMPLES
Total Topics:
48
This topic is reserved for discussion, events and stories surrounding Mormon Temple participation, attendance or other. It is generally a collection of stories of Mormons who have attended Temples and their feelings.
|
-Click For More- | | List Of Questions About The Temple Endowment |  |
DATE POSTED: | Jan 21, 2005, at 12:58 PM |
|
Here was my list of questions about the temple endowment:
- Why are the days of creation different than those recorded in the Book of Moses and Genesis? The third and fourth days are backwards in the endowment ceremony.
- In the Mormon scripture Book of Moses 3:15-25 it says that God commanded the man (Adam) not to eat from the tree of good and evil. God didn't command the woman, because she had not been created yet. So why is the endowment film different than the Mormon scriptural account?
- How did Peter, James and John get bodies before they were born? Peter shakes Adam's hand, so we know they weren't spirits. According to Joseph Smith's handshake test for discerning evil spirits from good spirits, Peter should have refused to shake Adam's hand (unless he had been resurrected).
- Satan wears an apron that he says is a symbol of his power and priesthood. Why then does Adam, Eve and the temple congregation moments later obey Satan when he commands them to put on aprons?
- How could Jesus be on the right hand of God, in physical form looking like his identical twin, when Jesus had not been born or resurrected yet? Jesus says in the Bible and BoM that he wasn't perfected until AFTER the atonement.
- So was Lucifer a snake as it says in the scriptures, or a man like it shows in the temple?
- Lucifer picks the apple off the tree and gives it to Eve. But Lucifer doesn't have a body! What's up with that?
- Where did Lucifer get his preacher that was preaching to Adam and Eve? Was he for real or just a ghost? If just a ghost, why was he dressed as a protestant minister with the collar for Adam and Eve to see?
- The Book of Abraham as well as the modern prophets have taught us that the earth was created around the star Kolob. It orbited God's solar system until AFTER the fall, when it was hurled through space and placed in this solar system. This scriptural doctrine contradicts the endowment, where we see the creation of the moon and it mentions our sun and the other planets too. (See http://www.i4m.com/think/lists/mormon_science.htm)
- If the Kolob doctrine is true, why is this not included in the endowment, which is supposed to be the "Lord's University"?
- Why go through the creation story if it is not true and contradicts Mormon doctrine and the Book of Abraham?
- If the endowment is actual history, then why was it so radically changed in April 1990? Whole sections were altered and others deleted! If the endowment represented real history, how could it change? Was it not true to the actual events all along? Is the new version "more true to history?" (See: http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temple_changes.htm)
- In April 1990 the covenants and penalties of the endowment ceremony also changed dramatically. Didn't Jesus say in the scriptures that a sign of false churches is that they change his covenants?
- Where do you find a clear description of these "laws' mentioned in the temple?
1. Law of Obedience
2. Law of Sacrifice
3. Law of Elohim
4. Law of the Lord
5. Law of the Gospel
6. Law of Chastity
7. Law of Consecration
- Some of those laws that temple patrons covenant to obey are never mentioned or explained outside the temple. If they are literal laws of God that must be obeyed, why are they not all clearly identified and expounded upon in church discourse?
- What is the difference between "legally" and "lawfully" as said in the temple endowment covenant?
- Adam raises his arms in the "true order of prayer", and who answers his prayer? Satan. Does this mean Satan can answer even prayers given in the "true order" ordained by God? What prayer is safe from not being intercepted by Satan? (See: http://helpingmormons.org/compare.htm)
- Did God really send Peter, James and John down to earth and give Adam and Eve those silly temple clothes to wear? They didn't have a temple, so when did Adam and Eve wear them?
- How could Peter, James and John be involved in the whole thing when they hadn't been born yet, hadn't been baptized and had not been through the temple? They weren't wearing garments themselves, so how could they be worthy to participate in the endowment events?
- Temple workers stand is as proxys for Elohim and Jehovah during the ceremony, which makes it very sacred. But since someone also stands in as a literal proxy for Satan, doesn't that make the temple unholy?
- What is the purpose of learning the "true order of prayer" if it can never be practiced outside of the temple ceremony?
- Why does God require secret handshakes, names and passwords to pass through the veil and enter his presence? Can't God look into our hearts and know whether or not we are worthy?
- Why are temple patrons required to make death oaths, when they are expressly forbidden by God in Mormon scripture? (see: http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temple_oaths.htm)
- If the endowment is centered on Jesus Christ, why isn't Christ's two top commandments included in the endowment covenants - love God and love your neighbor? Why isn't there mention of Christ's sermon on the mount or other teachings on charity and compassion?
Did anyone else wonder about this stuff before you realized the whole thing was a fraud?
Credits: Deconstructor
|
-Click For More- | | Temples Cost Members More Than 10% | |
DATE POSTED: | Feb 24, 2005, at 07:41 AM |
|
In order for Mormons to be saved in Heaven, they have to know a secret handshake, a secret password, a secret new "name" and must be endowed and sealed. They do all of this in their temples. But in order for a Mormon to get into the temple, they have to pay the Mormon Church 10% of their gross income for one year and be completely obedient to church law such as no masturbation, no sex outside of marriage, no homosexual acts and more. Mormons must go through a lengthy interview in order to receive a Temple Recommend (TR) where they must profess that Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet of God and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
The cost, however, is more. Mormons must either rent or purchase temple clothes and garments.
The ceremonial clothing page at www.ldscatalog.com was accessible until late-2004. In "the good old days", the website asked for a TR number, and any random seven-digit number would work. Now, most likely in reaction to this board and the auction of temple clothing/garments on eBay, the site now requires your name, date of birth, and member number (for garments), and TR number (for ceremonial clothing). You cannot view the items or prices without this information (i.e. inactives could access at least the garments page; I don't know if someone with a valid member # has faked a TR# to access the temple clothing page).
I did view the ceremonial clothing page while it was still "public" (I would enter a random number for the TR) and these are the price ranges I recall:
1. Robe: $25-28 (higher for pleated model, lower for gathered model). I believe that the robe price included the sash, though they sold replacement sashes
2. Apron: $10-12 or so. There are square-cut and
3. Cap (men) about $5, veil (women) about $8.
4. Envelope (the "packet" in which the clothing is folded and packed): about $3-5.
All told, a round figure of roughly $60 seems to ring a bell. Of course, this does not include the cost of white temple clothing (white dress or skirt/blouse for women; white pants/tie/shirt or jumpsuit for men) which is worn underneath the ceremonial clothing.
So if any Mormon tells you there is no money changing going on at their temples, they are lying. You have to bring cash in order to rent clothes if you don't have your own. This is why all the little old men and little old ladies coming and going from the Mormon temples are carrying tiny suitcases.
Ask them that if they need to be pure in order to enter the temple, why are there lockers with locks on them in the temple?
Credits: Infymus, PtLoma
|
-Click For More- | | The Mormon Temple As A Lasting Relic Of Polygamy | |
DATE POSTED: | Mar 1, 2005, at 10:11 AM |
|
Ever wonder what today's Mormon Church would be like if Joseph Smith had never practiced polygamy?
Here's just a few of the lasting legacies due to Joseph Smith "restoring" the doctrine of Polygamy:
1. Creation of Temple Endowment
In order to keep Smith's Polygamy a secret, he came up with the temple endowment with its oaths of secrecy. For the first year, only a very select few men received the endowment and all were sworn to secrecy based on a death oath. By using a secret ceremony and oaths, Smith was able to keep his practice of polygamy a secret for years. History of the Church Volume 5:1 documents these first meetings and the participants. They were all in Smith's inner-circle of polygamy. Heber C. Kimball's journal (1840-45) also describes the introduction of the secret endowment as it relates to polygamy.
2. Closing of Temple Marriages
The practice of closed Temple marriages started with polygamy. Before polygamy in Nauvoo, mormon marriages were performed anywhere. In fact, those performed in the Kirtland Temple were open to non members! Joseph Smith's own diary lists marriages he performed in the temple, which included non-members as participants and as witnesses. See "The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 1835-1836." Today, mormons have the tradition of closed temple marriages as a direct legacy of Smith's attempt to keep polygamy a closely-guarded secret. When he was marrying other men's wives without their knowledge, he had to have the ceremonies closed and secret.
3. Concept of Eternal Marriage
Until Smith started secretly practicing polygamy, Smith taught that marriage was until death only. That's right - the doctrine of "together forever" started when he began proposing to other women. He told them that marrying him would "seal" their whole family to him "forever." But before these proposals, Smith believed and taught that marriage ended at death. In fact, before Nauvoo, his love letters to his first wife Emma reflect his beliefs. In a letter to Emma on May 18th, 1834, Smith signed "...your husband until death." Writing from Carthage Jail on 4 November 1838, Smith told his wife "If I do not meet you again in this life may God grant that we may somehow meet in heaven."
4. The term "Celestial Marriage"
Modern mormons think this means monogamous temple marriage. Actually, this term always referred exclusively to plural marriage until the 1890s. Until that time, faithful members married in the temple to only one spouse did not have a celestial marriage! According to ALL Church presidents until 1890, celestial marriage was achieved only by marriage to multiple wives. See 27 Rules of Celestial Marriage, by Apostle Orson Pratt. Also, William Clayton said: "From Joseph Smith I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle, no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in celestial glory." Historical Record, Vol. 6, pp. 225-227. Read even more historical references here:
http://www.mormons.org.uk/cpmr.htm
5. The Practice of "Sealings"
Once again, before polygamy, marriage was just that; marriage. But to take on a second wife, especially one that was already married, a new term needed to be used, so it wouldn't sound like adultery. Smith chose to call his plural marriages "sealings." Reference from Emma Hale Smith Biography, page 140: "Simultaneously with the endowment and plural marriage, Joseph formalized a third concept. He explained to Emma (for the first time) that husbands and wives could be married, 'sealed,' forever by proper priesthood authority. Understanding this new doctrine led to the next step, which was the marriage of a living husband to several living wives. This doctrine seemed to alleviate some of the repugnance to plural marriage." This allowed women that already had husbands to say they were married to their first husband, but sealed to Smith. Although women had sex with both Smith and their husbands, they perceived the marriage contract different.
6. Creation and Wearing of Secret Garments
These too, were a result of Smith's polygamous affairs. It started with the secret circle of men that accepted and practiced his plural wife doctrine. It was his way of setting them apart from monogamous men. It was originally the "uniform" required for men to perform spiritual wifery. Reference from Emma Hale Smith Biography, page 140: "After being involved in the construction and design of the garments, the building of the temple, and hearing about their place in the endowment in the Relief Society (by Smith), why had women not been admitted to the Endowment? Joseph taught that a man must obey God to be worthy of the endowment and that a wife must obey a righteous husband to merit the same reward. Until Emma could be obedient to Joseph (see D&C; Sec. 132) and give him plural wives, she could not participate in the endowment ceremonies, yet Smith taught her that the endowment was essential for exaltation."
Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith condemned Smith for taking off his garments before he went to Carthage Jail. Part of their reason was that it was a sign he had regretted his practice of polygamy. "Smith removed his own endowment "robe" or garment before he went to Carthage Jail and told those with him to do likewise. His nephew Joseph F. Smith later explained, "When Willard Richards was solicited [by Smith] to do the same, he declined, and it seems little less than marvelous that he was preserved without so much as a bullet piercing his garments."" (The Mormon Hierarchy : Origins of Power, page 146) Michael Quinn references Heber J. Grant journal sheets, 7 June 1907, LDS Archives.
7. Design of Modern Temples
Why was the Nauvoo temple so different than the Kirtland temple? Both came from the same unchanging God, right? The Kirtland Temple was actually an expensive church, not an endowment house like the Nauvoo temple. Modern temples with their closed doors, secret ceremonies and odd clothing started in the polygamy-inspired Navuoo temple. In fact, the whole concept of a "Celestial Room" was created to reinforce the doctrine that Smith would be with all of his wives in "heaven" as one big family. The touching experience today when mormon families reunite after the veil in the temple, started out as an experience Smith could use to show how polygamy worked in heaven.
Polygamy (one man married to two or more living wives) may not be practiced today in the church, but its influence on church doctrine and practices still haunts the lives of millions of active members. The temple endowment, garments and oaths of secrecy all have their origins in Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy.
Credits: Deconstructor | http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temple_legacy.htm
|
-Click For More- | | Why The Green Apron Over Temple Clothes? | |
DATE POSTED: | Mar 4, 2005, at 08:05 AM |
|
So what really is the symbolic meaning of the green apron in the temple?
Satan first tells Adam and Eve to put on the apron to cover their nakedness. So you'd think it would be a symbol of Satan or covering nakedness.
But then God kicks Adam and Eve out of the garden and gives them (and temple patrons) garments to cover their nakedness. So why do they still need the green apron?
Later, patrons add priesthood robes over their garments, as did adam and eve. But then they have to put put the green apron on again ontop of the other clothes.
This apron stays with you for the rest of the endowment, all the way to the Celestial Room. Why?
Even during temple marriages, couples have to wear the green apron as part of their clothing.
The temple is supposed to prepare you to become like God, yet God and Jesus don't wear the apron in the temple. The only one wearing an apron besides the temple patrons is Satan, who says his represents his power and "priesthoods."
Mormon folklore would have us believe the apron is a symbol of life, as explained on my web site:
http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temple_clothes.htm
But does this really make sense? What's the meaning of wearing the apron on top of all of the other temple clothing?
Credits: Deconstructor Click Here For Original Thread...
|
-Click For More- | | Temple Prayer Rolls | |
DATE POSTED: | Mar 4, 2005, at 05:23 PM |
|
Does this bother anyone else? I know that me, my brothers and sisters, my husband, and probably my children, and many of my cousins are most likely on the Temple Prayer Rolls of every temple in North America. LOL!
It is offensive to me that people who know me and supposedly love me, think that I have some problem that needs to be prayed about. It is one thing to ask for prayers and blessings, but to have people do it behind your back the way the Temple Prayer Rolls work is unbelievably stupid. Do mormons even realize that even this practice is offensive to others who do not wish for their prayers?
I do not believe in prayer, nor God, and I know it is not harming anyone, but sometimes it makes me want to call and put these "offenders" on the rolls of the local KKK or Satanic organization so they can know how it feels.
Credits: Jennyfoo Click Here For Original Thread...
|
-Click For More- | | Temple Building Is Slowing Down | |
DATE POSTED: | Mar 20, 2005, at 10:38 AM |
|
As you can see from this list, the church is building temples at a very slow pace again. In fact, if you check out the list of "Temples Announced or Under Construction", only 5 of the 10 temples on the list are even under construction, and only 1 out of those 10 has a date set for its dedication.
Some of the temples on the list appear to be completely stalled. For example, the Harrison New York temple was announced in 1995, and the Kiev Ukraine temple was announced in 1998, but neither project has actually broken ground.
2004 saw the opening of only 3 temples and 2003 saw 2. Given how long the other temples have taken to build, it is doubtful that more an 2 or 3 temples could be opened in 2005 (so far only San Antonio appears to be the only one for this year).
I know a few people who work at the Seattle Temple, and my father was an initiatory director there until 2001 (when he passed away). From all accounts I've been given, the Seattle Temple is highly underutilized. It is the church's 5th largest temple, and it receives fewer visitors than most of the smaller regional temples.
From what I have been told by Mormons and ex-Mormons in other parts of the United States, many other temples are faring just as poorly in attendance.
Simply factoring what we know about church activity, resignation rates, and waning conversion rates, I really think the church is doing the right thing in slowing its temple building. It seems unlikely that the flurry of temple openings in recent years (60 temples were opened between 1999 and 2002) was in response to demand; many Mormons are aware that numerous temples have cut their operating hours over the last decade. It looks like LDS Inc. has finally realized that their temple growth was unwarranted and not in step with actual membership.
Now that we see conversion rates declining and there seem to be more resignations every year, I wonder how long it will be before a temple is forced to close its doors on weekdays or shut down altogether.
Combining wards and stakes rarely results in the closure of a chapel. Closing a temple would be a black eye for the church because members have traditionally been expected to make "temple trips" that require them to drive several hours to the temple and stay overnight if necessary. A temple closure would signal that the members are no longer willing to make such sacrifices, whereas a chapel closure could merely signal a changing local demographic.
Temples must cost an enormous amount of money to maintain. Their laundry bills alone must have been enormous (I believe this was overcome by the recent requirement that members provide their own temple clothes- no more renting temple clothes). I wonder how long it will be until they ask members to perform janitorial and ground-keeping duties, or until a collection box is bolted in the entry vestibule.
Credits: Jarrod Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
|
-Click For More- | | Menstruation, Eve's Curse, And The Baptismal Font: A Question Of Origins | |
DATE POSTED: | Mar 31, 2005, at 10:37 AM |
|
Has anyone heard of the following: If a Young Woman is on her period, she may not do baptisms for the dead in the temple. I brought it up to my TBM husband last night and he thought this was the funniest thing. I had forgotten about it, but it came up last night when I was trying to explain to him how many doctrines are emotionally abusive to women. Then this memory came out of nowhere. Am I smoking crack, or was this once a policy? I remember when I was a young woman in the San Antonio East Stake (mid 80s early 90s) that we were not allowed to do baptisms for the dead if we were on our period. We were allowed to go to the temple and sit through the ordinances, but we were not allowed to go into the font and do baptisms by proxy. I distinctly remember being told this by my leaders. I remember that girls would freak out because they’d get their period on the ride up to the temple. They’d sit there in the temple crying because they couldn’t get the “blessings” that come from doing work for the dead.
At the time, my 12 year old brain thought it had something to do with getting blood in the water. That blood would get in the water and stain the white clothes or something. Yea, and I also thought I could get pregnant from swimming with boys, but that’s a post for another day. Now that I know better I know this had nothing to do with it. I know that many doctrines have misogynistic origins. Its all part of the paradox lip service “Heavenly Father loves his daughters so much (even more than his sons) and their bodies are sacred, but their bodies are also offensive to him.” I’m not a scriptorian and have always been bored by GA talks, past and present, so I don’t have a reference to give my wonderful husband. He thinks I just had psycho leaders and doesn’t believe that any GA or good priesthood leader would believe this because he doesn’t. What is the origin of menstruation being part of Eve’s curse and therefore unholy while also being sacred (paradox)? I know this had to have come from a prick holder, I mean, priesthood holder. Can anyone help me out? Something smells funny about this one (ha, ha).
- -
If things have changed, I'm glad.
I was baptized in the SLC and Logan temples. It was stressed before leaving and at the temples that girls having periods had to whisper the fact to a leader and be excused from participating.
That was embarrassing for some girls because everyone knew why they were being excluded, and the boys smirked about it.
Every girl also had to strip and be observed naked before they could put on their jumpsuit. This was to prove they weren't mensturating. It was also to prove that they didn't have underwear beneath their suits. An old lady told us that the a bit of colored stitching for days of the week (which we all wore then) on panties or a little gray elastic in the waistlines could invalidate the ritual. That would prevent the spirit women from ascending to the next kingdom of heaven.
- -
I remember going on a trip to Washington, D.C., and one of the girls who was with us wasn't allowed to participate. She cried the whole time, even though they gave her stuff to do (carry towels, check off names, etc.).
So, later, when *I* went, and was similarly, um, "impaired," I just used, uh, "internal protection," and didn't say anything. I recall being a little nervous, thinking that the temple worker might be able to 'discern' that I was pulling a fast one, but nothing happened.
The excuse WE were given was that it was not "hygenic" to go into the water, if you were menstruating. Now, I knew that this was a load of bunk, especially if you were using tampons, so that's why I was so ready to hold back the truth. Had I really been convinced that I was somehow spreading bacteria, I would have been less likely to fib.
Funny, though--being told this "policy" didn't change my idea that the temple was a holy place, and we were doing holy ordinances; I only thought that the temple worker was old & behind the times, to think that a menstruating girl was somehow going to contaminate the baptismal font.
- -
Women were asked to not even do endowment sessions if they were menstruating, for the "reason" that if one's dress were to become stained it caused too much commotion and would hold things up.
I was in a session when this occured. A sister was going through prior to her mission, and her lovely (bought/made for the occasion) dress was bloodstained on the back. The shame was that she had gone to the temple ON HER PERIOD, and look at what a problem she had caused by daring to LEAK so that the little old ladies had to help her clean things up while the session was delayed, and How Dare She.
It was SO scandalous that the blood was ascribed to a recent surgery rather than "the curse."
Nowadays, this Goddess celebrates moon-time by wearing red clothing and jewelry, nurturing herself, and yes, making love to a man who is not intimidated by a woman's power.
- -
But mens repulsion with period blood is there in black and white in the bible. I forget where but its somewhere in the first 5 books of the old testament. It talks about a woman being unclean during her cycle and unclean after she has had a baby (sheesh!!), and that she should be put away. Its really specific. And orthodox jews still practise the "law" to the full extent i believe. A man is not even allowed to touch his wife or have her pass something to him, as she is so dirty on her period.
You're speaking of tahor, which is often translated as "clean" but in fact has nothing to do with cleanliness. This is the problem with reading the Bible in translation. The word means "purity," not "cleanliness."
There is a big difference. For example, if I took a slab of bacon, cooked it in my frying pan, then washed the frying pan, the pan would be clean. It would not, however, be tahor.
Right now, I'm taking a break after preparing dinner, while it cooks. I won't clean the kitchen until after we've eaten and the plates are stacked in the kitchen sink. My kitchen right now is dirty. HOWEVER, it is also tahor and kasher, pure and kosher, because I follow the laws of kashrut. Kosher (KOH-shurr), also pronounced kasher (kah-SHARE), means "in accordance with the law." Tahor means ritually pure. My kitchen is both -- even when it is dirty -- because I obey the laws set down in the Hebrew Bible.
Women of Israel (Hebrews, Jews) are instructed to immerse themselves in a mikvah, a ritual bath, after they finish menstruating each month. Yes, you're right. Menstruating women are considered tamei, impure. The thing that you're not remembering about the Bible is that men, too, need to ritually immerse after every seminal emission. Neither menstrual blood nor semen is considered dirty. They do, however, render the person who issues them tamei. This is not about sexism, and it's not about dirty or clean. It's about a spiritual discipline.
Feel free to think that is stupid, but at least get your facts right, and scoff at the right thing.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
|
-Click For More- | | Mormon Temple Prayer List | |
DATE POSTED: | Apr 28, 2005, at 07:54 AM |
|
You can call the temple and have anyone put on the temple prayer list(or have a name put on the list when you are visiting the temple). People might do this because someone they know is sick, needs comfort, needs a special blessing, needs to come back to the fold, etc.
Once a list is compiled, it is then placed on the altar in a white bag. The temple endowment session attendees will circle around the altar in the patriarchal grip(boy girl, boy girl fashion) then enter into the "true order of prayer"(oh god hear the words of mouth...").
The endowment officiator is the voice for the prayer(in an unscripted prayer), he may kneel at the altar, and he makes the sign of the second token of the aaronic priesthood. Women all have their faces veiled in the circle, too. The circle of people then echo whatever the officiator says in the prayer.
Generally, the officiator and his wife(often a retired couple) ask people from the "audience" to be in the circle. I always hated being picked for that and my wife hated it because you had to stand the whole time(and the officiator can get windy there). Standing up there and in a veil was a sweaty experience my wife says. The veil was extremely hot.
I have never seen someone not go to the circle when chosen. Nearly as bad is when the officiator asks a couple to be the adam and eve up at the altar. I hated that, too, and it seems like my wife and I were always picked for that.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
|
-Click For More- | | Joe Blow Added To Temple Prayer Rolls | |
DATE POSTED: | May 3, 2005, at 08:56 AM |
|
My wife wanted to do sealings. We had never done sealings in this particular temple. To make a long story short, the guy at the front desk gave us some ambiguous instructions regarding what to do and where to go. With that said, my wife was already upstairs all the while I was waiting for her downstairs (just outside the dressing room by the escalators.) After waiting well beyond the start-time of the sealings session, I figured that I missed out on receiving my temple blessings for that day. Damn! I felt so bad. ;)
But I continued to wait because I had nothing else to do. I walked to and from the prayer-roll station a few times. I really wanted to add a [bogus] name to the prayer roll, but I was hesitant at first (i.e., up to this point in my life, I have never written any names to the prayer roll, so I was not quite sure what to do. Even whan I was a TBM, I thought the idea was stupid. Does the lord prioritize [vain repititious] prayer-circle prayers over sincere [non-prayer-circle] prayers? I think this is why I have never put names on the prayer roll.) Anyway, on with my story ...
It was apparent that an endowment session had just ended because a bunch of temple-garb-clad patrons came down the escalators. This one particular couple arrived at the prayer roll station and proceeded to add like 20 names each (completely disregarding the clear instructions of "making long lists is inappropriate.") They were there for 4 or 5 minutes writing names down with full faith that the prayer roll is actually effective. After they left, I proceeded to the prayer-roll station. Rather than adding to the long list, I took one of the small single-use papers (i.e., it's just big enough to write a single name on it.) For the very first time in my life I added a name to the prayer roll; ironically, as a non-believer. The name I added was none other than "Joe Blow" himself.
As an "active" non-believing member of the church, it was very theraputic for me to perform this deed of passive-deviance. However, I am surprised that none of the temple workers approached me and caught me in the act of my misdeed, they do have the gift of discernment afterall. Anyway, I sure hope that Joe Blow gets better and all goes well for him and his family (and I especially hope that the two-week time limit of being on the prayer roll is enough for him to receive adequate blessings.) There are plenty of anecdotal stories floating around regarding individuals who have gotten better because their name was on the prayer roll; surely Joe Blow will be fully healed of his disease and affliction.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
|
-Click For More- | | Were You Ever Told That You Had To Put Your Right Temple Shoe On First? | |
DATE POSTED: | May 27, 2005, at 09:36 AM |
|
I'll never forget my first temple session with my friend that converted me to the Church. As if I wasn't stressed enough as is trying to tie a sash in a bow and it had to be over top of the apron and the robe had to be from this side to this side.
I figure stepping into the shoes was simple enough. Just slide 'em on. Thank god something simple that I know how to do. Wrong!!!
I had made the god awful mistake of putting my left one on first. I got sternly tapped on the leg and my friend nudged me and said TAKE THAT ONE OFF AND PUT THE RIGHT ONE ON FIRST.
Talk about a look of bewilderment. I was even more confused. I hated that whole experience. I am just wondering if any of you were ever told such a silly thing.
Later when I asked her about it when we were allowed to talk. (AKA OUTSIDE THE TEMPLE), she said it was just like passing the sacrament -- that you were to use your right hand. Ha -- I had never paid attention to what hand I used to pass the sacrament to the next person. That bugged me for so long but I studied the ward minions and many of them indeed always passed it with their right hand. And once the friend mumbled something about "Right hand of God" having something to do with why to put the right shoe on first.
God what a freaking cult I was in.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
|
-Click For More- | | A Temple Dress Code Tale | |
DATE POSTED: | May 27, 2005, at 09:39 AM |
|
I was with a group of women who drove for an hour and a half to show up for ward-assigned duty at the Seattle temple. In our group was a woman who was very, very close to her due date with her first child.
Any woman who's been pregnant can back me up on this - there is NOTHING that will lift a waddling expectant mother's spirits like a new outfit!
Sister Due-any-minute had such an outfit on. Her husband had lovingly picked it out for her. She loved it and felt pretty for the first time in months. It was a most unusual outfit. It looked like a salwar kameez (an Indian long tunic & pants set), but it was actually all one piece. The dress part came down past mid-calf, and somehow the bottom folded over with two short "cuffs" attached at the bottom. It looked like a long dress over fitted trousers, with just a couple of inches of cuff showing at the ankles.
The temple worker at the front desk told her it was disrespectful to try and "sneak in" with pants on, and to go and "take those things off this minute!" Sister Due-any-minute explained that they weren't pants, they were just cuffs at the bottom of the dress. "I don't care what they are, either take them off or wait in the parking lot for your friends!"
Again, she explained that she couldn't take her feet out of the cuffs without taking off the whole dress. She was still refused entry.
She went back to the car, and in her terribly pregnant condition, somehow managed to get the outfit off and then get back into it with her ankles out. She took the two cuffs and tied them together so they wouldn't flop around as she walked.
"That's better!" sez the temple worker, "now, you ARE wearing pantyhose under there, aren't you?" She was wearing knee-his, but answered yes anyway. Thankfully, the temple worker didn't feel the need to check just how far up the nylons went, and Sister Due-any-minute was admitted to spend a grueling afternoon, sitting, standing, getting dressed and undressed and playing handshakes at the veil.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
|
-Click For More- | | African Temple: Church Leaders Prophesied That Temple Will Bring Prosperity To Nigeria | |
DATE POSTED: | Jun 14, 2005, at 07:32 AM |
|
Move over G8 Leaders! Forget about cancelling debt and trade justice for Africa!
The mormons have the answer to prosperity in Africa: Build a Temple!
National Public Affairs Council of the church, President Cornelius Tay comments in the article about the new temple in Africa.
Tay said: "President Hinckley, the prophet and several Apostles of the church have all prophesied concerning Nigeria that with the opening of Aba temple, our nation will be blessed and will witness prosperity and stability."
http://allafrica.com/stories/200506130908.html
Hmmmm...anybody see this "prophesy" from the Church leaders??
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
Editor Note: Of course the LDS Church leaders will blame the members for not being faithful enough, for not paying, praying and obeying enough when their country continues to NOT prosper.
|
-Click For More- | | Is That All There Is? | |
DATE POSTED: | Jun 15, 2005, at 09:26 AM |
|
Please tell me that, growing up in the church, I did not endure endless patronising comments of, "You'll understand everything better when you get to the temple."--when I just wanted to learn all the secrets RIGHT NOW. (I can't help it; I'm a naturally curious person. Huge secretive things like the temple kept me awake at night.)
Please tell me that I didn't sit through endless lectures about keeping myself morally clean--where they hedged around the issue of sex but never came right out and said anything for sure, leaving me to think that there was some unnameable force (most likely Satan) that would possess me and force me to do vile things with random boys (and which, by the way, took YEARS to undo the thinking that, because I'm a woman, my body was somehow an instrument of evil because of Eve).
When they passed out a "temple handkerchief" in Young Women's, I completely missed the point. It was a pretty little lace-edged hankie, with an accompanying poem, along the lines that this temple hankie was white and pure; it belonged to Heavenly Father, and if it got dirty, it could be washed again, but would never be quite as good as if it had never needed to be washed at all, blah blah blah. I failed to see this as a metaphor for keeping MYSELF morally clean; I worried about the HANKIE getting dirty; I was afraid to touch the thing. I thought God was going to be watching it all the time. I put it on a shelf in my room. Months later, I looked at it, AND IT WAS COVERED WITH DUST!! I was horrified; I quickly put it in my underwear drawer--and just as quickly took it out again, thinking God would REALLY be pissed that I put a temple hankie in with my underwear. I ended up tossing it in with my socks instead. I still have it to this day; it has the creases where it was folded nearly twenty years ago, and is just showing its age a bit. (Now that I think about it, I would very much like to burn that stupid hankie.)
I left the church when I was eighteen, and my only regret was that I had not gone through the temple, just to satisfy my curiosity. I'm sorry, but they tout it like it's the pinnacle of life here on Earth; if you can't make it there, you can't make it anywhere.
Well. I had read Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book, 'Mormonism, Shadow or Reality?' and enjoyed reading the bit about the temple ceremony. That went a little way to easing my curiosity, but to be honest, it gave me the creeps after only a few lines, and I only skimmed it a bit.
I wrote a post here the other day, for fun, saying that I was feeling really left out because other people had their temple names and experiences. Susan D. (thank you, btw) left a link to a web page with the entire temple ceremony, so I finally read the whole thing.
Let me get this straight: I endured pretty much constant guilt from the time I was twelve, all through my teens, about being morally clean--which I WAS, my parents never ever told me about sex (still haven't, lol) so I was afraid almost to kiss my *two* boyfriends, much less do any other nebulous thing I only half understood with them--and all this, so that I could go to the temple and WATCH A VIDEO???!!?!?! I thought there would be angels ascending and descending, like Jacob's ladder; I thought you could commune with God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, whenever you wanted. The secrets of the very universe would be spread at my feet. I. Did. Not. Think. You. Went. To. The. Temple. TO WATCH A VIDEO!!!
Yes, yes. You also get to wear stupid-looking clothes and practise idiotic handshakes. Watch out!! I know them now; I'll get through the veil, mormon or not!!
What a complete, disappointing, fucking FARCE.
Thank you, to Susan D., for the webpage; and thank you to Shakey, who gave me my favourite new temple name as a consolation prize, Jezabel. I'll wear it like a badge of honour; it fits.
And thank you most of all to EVE, the mother of all living people. Most likely you were an ape, but if you weren't, and instead were a woman created from the rib of a man, I want to say thank you. You did the right thing eating the fruit. Most likely, Satan was a lot more interesting person than that doofus Adam. If you hadn't eaten that fruit, the rest of us wouldn't be in this mad, bad, beautiful broken world. I don't blame you for eating the fruit; I would have done the same thing.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
Editor Note: Excellent post Cheeseburger! Excellent!
|
-Click For More- | | My True Story Of Walking Out Of My Endowment Session | |
DATE POSTED: | Jul 6, 2005, at 07:55 AM |
|
This is my first post to RFM after 13 years of inactivity. I'm thinking of removing my name now. I just didn't care for all these years.......
It is true that I completely removed myself from the endowment ceremony in 1991. I was called to Colombia Bogota mission while at BYU in "Deseret Towers - R Hall" to be exact.
I was leery of the mission, but hey colombia sounded like a great experience.
Speed up til May 1991 one month before the MTC. My parents and I were having discussions about the temple. I was very nervous and had many questions. I wondered why not much information was available to the virgin temple goers. Why was it so hush hush?.
My mom tried to explain it me and used words like gowns, annointing of the body and sacred rituals. My dad just told me it would be a new and exciting time in my life. Nevertheless (phrasing BOM) I was utterly confused.
I didn't have any resources available, but one friend who had gone through and had told me it was really weird and awkward. He wouldn't say anything else even after bugging him over and over. What was so secret? I kept thinking about it and why GOD would want to keep it so sacred. I was also studying the new testament and tried to find clues to temples and endowments, etc. I couldn't find my answer there either.
I spoke with my Bishop and he said I had common symptons of many first time temple goers. I felt some assurance with his answer, then again I was 19 and kind of moldable.
The day came and I went into the dressing room. I was handed a shawl like poncho gown. It was bizarre and was led into the initiatory phase. Man I was freaking out. What the F was going happen? My heart was racing. I got to the area and a couple of old brothers began their oil sponge bath. I was very uncomfortable and upset. Why wasn't I told about this?
I finally got dressed to go into the endowment. I had my "pink" tag on and was led from the chapel to the endowment room and was led to the front row.
Then it was quiet and I heard on the overhead speakers the uttering a few simple instructions and then the request if any would withdraw please raise your hands. I can't remember the exact words, but something like that.
I thought for a split second. I raised my hand and the usher came over. He whispered in my ear if I was requesting to be escorted out. I said "yes, I prefer to not participate". A blank look came across his face. He motioned for me to come with him and we went out of the room. My mom and dad were almost frozen.
Out in the hall, he asked me if I was uncomfortable or not felling well. I told him I would prefer not to participate in the ordinance until I understood what it was about.
He ushered my back to the dressing room, quiet as a church mouse. He probably was in disbelief about it all.
2 hours later, I was waiting for my parents in the foyer. They were devastated. My mom was crying and my dad was very perplexed.
They asked me what happened and I told them I felt uncomfortbale and unsure of the oridinance. I had a few weeks to re-decide my endowment and my mission, but each day I got further away from the mission plans. My MTC date came and passed and then a year and two and three.
I don't regret my decision. I didn't do it out of disbelief. I did it because I felt weird. Years later I stumbled across this site and have been a silent lurker ever since.
For 13 years I considered myself inactive. I drank a few beers, got a great career and lived life. I married a non-mormon and we are happy.
I made the right decision from some of the stories i have read.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
|
-Click For More- | | No More Painted Tonails In The Temple | |
DATE POSTED: | Jul 15, 2005, at 10:48 AM |
|
Sorry if this has already been posted.
This week a friend told me that they had been instructed to not have painted tonails when attending the temple. I'm not sure if this is church wide, or just her local temple that is issuing the directive.
At first I was trying to think why this mattered, as I couldn't remember ever seeing a woman's tonails in the temple. But I guess when doing initiatory work or baptisms, ones tonails might actually be showing. So now, they can't be painted.
I'm bewildered as I try to understand what the motivation is here. Are painted tonails a show of too much worldliness?
Things just keep getting stranger and stranger...
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
|
-Click For More- | | The Celestial Room Sucks! Aka 2 Star Hotel Lobby With Plastic Plants | |
DATE POSTED: | Jul 20, 2005, at 09:44 AM |
|
As I was growing up and preparing for my "wonderful, special, sacred-but-secret" temple experience I was told in glowing terms how wonderful one feels in the celestial room. In all actuality its just a big room with white furniture. GAG!
Before my exit from the morg I went to the temple for what was my final endowment. Upon exiting the sheet-like drapery with funny symbols I paused as we usually did in the celestial room of the Las Vegas temple. It was the same as it always was, except there was a cheapness to it all. It seemed, well, utterly trite and rather cheap. The plants were plastic - the kind that LOOK plastic and inexpensive, mold-extruded crappy plants from china. Although the furniture was decent it also had a worn-out look reminiscent of the eighties.
I had no "this place is awesome" feeling, thats for sure. I had a "whats the big deal" feeling. I have been through many temples many times. Upon reflection I have come to the same conclusion about all of the temples, and that is that the celestial room is akin to a 2 star hotel lobby.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
|
-Click For More- | | Married In The Temple, To Each Other, Are You Sure? Where's The Love? | |
DATE POSTED: | Sep 4, 2005, at 08:21 AM |
|
After passing two interviews to get the temple recommend-- (see Temple Recommend Questions here: http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/... either on the day of the marriage, or earlier, and going through the Endowment Ceremony: Washing and Anointing ceremony where the Holy Garment of the Priesthood (notice ladies, you wear the same garment of the Holy Priesthood!), is placed on you and covenanting to obey:
The Law of Obedience
The Law of Sacrifice
The Law of the Gospel
The Law of Chastity
The Law of Consecration --which is:(I am only including this particular one on this post as it has it directly applies to the marriage covenant.)
A couple will now come to the altar. We are instructed to give unto you the Law of Consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in connection with the Law of the Gospel and the Law of Sacrifice which you have already received.
It is that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.
All arise. Each of you bring your right arm to the square.
You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.
Each of you bow your head and say "yes."
Then and only then may you be sealed in the marriage ceremony.
Here is the ceremony.
Sometimes, the officiator will allow an exchange of rings at the end of the ceremony, and a kiss.
(I don't know the current policy on this practice. Maybe someone else does.)
Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] please join hands in the Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail.
Marriage Couple:
Joins hands in 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. No clothing should interfere with the contact of the forefinger upon the wrist.
Officiator: Brother ______, do you take Sister ______ by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?
Groom: Yes.
Officiator: Sister ______ do you take brother ______ by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawful and wedded wife, and for him to be your lawful and wedded husband, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?
Bride: Yes.
Officiator:
By virtue of the Holy Priesthood and the authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity, and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection clothed in glory, immortality and eternal lives, and I seal upon you the blessings of kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions and exaltations, with all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and say unto you: be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth that you may have joy and rejoicing in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
All these blessings, together with all the blessings appertaining unto the New and Everlasting Covenant, I seal upon you by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, through your faithfulness, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.
To make sure one understands exactly what the "New and Everlasting Covenant" is, see: D&C; 132
REFERENCE for easy reading: http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501—507.
Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.
[INSERT: compare introduction to the 1969 edition of the Book of Mormon.
Here's the 1969 version:
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives.
-------The Prophet’s inquiry of the Lord--He is told to prepare himself to receive the new and everlasting covenant--Conditions of this law--The power of the Holy Priesthood instituted by the Lord must be operative in ordinances to be in effect beyond the grave--
Marriage by secular authority is of effect during mortality only--Though the form of marriage should make it appear to be for time and eternity, the ordinance is not valid beyond the grave unless solemnized by the authority of the Holy Priesthood as the Lord directs--
Marriage duly authorized for time and eternity to be attended by surpassing blessings--E
ssentials for the attainment of the status of godhood -- The meaning of eternal lives--Plurality of wives acceptable only when commanded by the Lord--The sin of adultery--Commandment to Emma Smith, wife of the prophet.
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132
1981 edition:
1—6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant;
7—14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth;
15—20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods;
21—25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives;
26—27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost;
28—39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages;
40—47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven;
48—50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation;
51—57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true;
58—66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.
Did you catch it? Celestial Marriage is Plurality of Wives! The Mormon Church has never, ever stopped practicing their law that applies to polygamy or plurality of wives as that is what Celestial Marriage (The New and Everlasting Covenant) is!
Did you notice that the marriage sealing ceremony not only continues the practice of polygamy, and, because of the covenant of the Law of Consecration, married you to the church and it's commandments by covenant, not each other?
Investigators BEWARE:
Demand full disclosure for informed consent. You won't get it from the Mormon Church, so do your own research.
Know what you are doing, and what it really means!
Not one of us knew what we were going to promise by covenant before we went to the temple the first time. No one ever does. It is considered so sacred that it is not to be talked about.
The only part that meets the requirement of the law, that I can find is:
authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife
Without that wording, the ceremony would not be legally binding in the US.
What we will do in the name of pleasing a God!
It was not until I left Mormonism, a few years ago, that I finally found out what I had done, and the meaning of the covenants, where they came from, and that we all had commited our lives to the Mormon Church and to Celestial Marriage which is plurity of wives!
It is long past time the Mormon Church started telling the truth and give full disclosure for informed consent.
Because of this lack of integrity on their part, I won't ever trust them again. The Mormon Church is not worthy of my love, trust, time, or service.
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
|
-Click For More- | | Temple Ceremony --Slit Throat, Disembowel Gut Before Revealing Temple Secrets | |
DATE POSTED: | Sep 13, 2005, at 07:12 AM |
|
I went through the temple without having the slightest idea of what I was about to hear, see, do, or promise---as many of you have done.
I cannot imagine buying a car, a computer, heck even a toaster without knowing the specs on it.
Yet, the Morg expects people to make promises as they go through it the first time....not even knowing what you are promising.....hells bells, they don't tell you jack shit about the reality of the church even when you are deep into it.
Heck, most of us may not even have found out about the lies until around the time we left.
And back in the 70's you were supposed to make signs of slitting your throat or disemboweling yourself and making this huge promise before your even knew what you were doing?
Or...even worse scenario....you are getting married, and you need to get through the ceremony so you can go get hitched, pictures taken, a reception, etc. A young bride knows that if she balks at making the sign she is just being shown, that it will be one horrible day....so do what they say, even though you just got a new name, slit your throat, professed to keep secrets --which you are not sure of their meaning---Ahhhhhhhhh......
The insanity of the whole temple ceremony in the 70's freaked me out BAD. i don't have any idea what they do today, but what they did back then was awful.
imagine the early years of the church where they had to promise to avenge the blood of JS. good hell, I am surprised that anybody stayed in the Morg.
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
|
-Click For More- | | The Temple: Where All The Ills Of Mormonism Are Magnified And Amplified | |
DATE POSTED: | Oct 5, 2005, at 10:08 AM |
|
One of the greatest things about leaving the church is leaving the temple. Everything I dislike about the church is represented in the extreme at the temple. For example:
- Exclusion from God's favor. Church doctrine won't let you into heaven if you aren't a behaving mormon. Well the temple won't even let you in the building that gets you to heaven if you're not a behaving mormon.
- Literal acceptance of Adam and Eve and the creation story. In church, they might mention it, but in the temple, you get to watch a really long movie all about it!
- The belief in a hateful Satan who hates us all and wants to destroy us. In church he's an occasional subject; in the temple, he's one of the stars of the show! And he gets to threaten you directly!
- The desire that everyone be the same. In the church you at least get to pick the color of your pants and tie. In the temple, it's all white!
- Kooky space doctrines. You might hear a word or two in hushed tones in Elder's Quorum, but in the temple you actually get to see God hanging out on Kolob itself!
- Lack of variety. At church if you get bored you can just get up and go hang out in the foyer for a while or start doodling. In the temple, all you can do is stare at Eve, wonder again how much she was really wearing when they filmed it, and fight to stay awake.
- The viel of silence around those who doubt. There's little room for dissent or doubt at church, and few ever admit to doubting. At the temple those same doubts are even harder to ignore, yet you're even less welcome to behave as though you have doubt. This is probably the worst one for me.
I could go on. Anyone have any to add?
I can't say it enough: I'm so glad I'm never going back.
http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.c...
|
-Click For More- | | Temple Update Brought To You By "The Spirit" | |
DATE POSTED: | Oct 5, 2005, at 10:13 AM |
|
So seems like "The Spirit" is having a bit of a time communicating with the Temple Committee of late.
Apparently the crew that did the last 4 temples managed to screw things up all royal like. The gold leaf that is put in the celestial rooms & on some of the (godawful) furniture was put on incorrectly. I was told that when gold leaf is put on, it's not just glued on, but rather put on with an electrical charge that actually imbeds it into the material. The crew that has been marching around gilding these temples only used 1/2 of the charge that should have been used and the shit is falling off. The cult members tried to glue it back on, but it just turned green.
the temples that were mentioned were in Samoa & Newport Beach. The others were not mentioned by name, but i'd guess the last 4 that were dedicated. This info comes from a member of the Temple Committee back from meetings in SLC over the weekend. Of course you understand why anon today - not that i even post that often. The "church" is really pissed at this turn of events he said.
Sooooo, now TSCC will be shutting down these temples for about a week to re-leaf the offending portions to the tune of OVER A MILLION of their precious tithing dollars. HA! Stupid Spirit! could have saved a lot of work & a lot of money, but he was to busy working out (The Spirit is SOOO STRONG).
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
|
-Click For More- | | Cant Believe I Actually Took Part In That Hilarious Apron Ceremony In The Temple | |
DATE POSTED: | Dec 12, 2005, at 07:25 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | behindtheveilisthetoilet |
|
.....LUCIFER: Well, Adam, you have a new world here.
ADAM: A new world?
LUCIFER: Yes, a new world, patterned after the old one where we used to live.
ADAM: I know nothing about any other world.
LUCIFER: Oh, I see, your eyes are not yet opened. You have forgotten everything. You must eat some of the fruit of this tree.
(Lucifer plucks two pieces of fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and presents it to Adam.)
LUCIFER: Adam, here is some of the fruit of that tree. It will make you wise.
ADAM: I will not partake of that fruit. Father told me that in the day I should partake of it I should surely die.
LUCIFER: You shall not surely die but shall be as the Gods, knowing good and evil.
ADAM: I will not partake of it.
LUCIFER: Oh you will not? Well, we shall see.
(Adam leaves, and Lucifer walks over to Eve, who is tending flowers.)
LUCIFER: Eve, here is some of the fruit of that tree. It will make you wise. It is delicious to the taste and very desirable.
EVE: Who are you?
LUCIFER: I am your brother.
EVE: You, my brother, and come here to persuade me to disobey Father?
LUCIFER: I have said nothing about Father. I want you to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, that your eyes may be opened, for that is the way Father gained his knowledge. You must eat of this fruit so as to comprehend that everything has its opposite: good and evil, virtue and vice, light and darkness, health and sickness, pleasure and pain; and thus your eyes will be opened and you will have knowledge.
EVE: Is there no other way?
LUCIFER: There is no other way.
EVE: Then I will partake.
(Eve takes the fruit from Lucifer, and bites it. Lucifer approves and places the other piece in her hand, which he closes around it and pats gently.)
LUCIFER:; There, now go and get Adam to partake.
(Eve approaches Adam, fruit in hand, and presents it to him with a persuasive tone of voice.)
EVE: Adam, here is some of the fruit of that tree. It is delicious to the taste and very desirable.
ADAM: Eve, do you know what fruit that is?
EVE: Yes, it is the fruit if the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
ADAM: I cannot partake of it. Do you not know that Father commanded us not to partake of the fruit of that tree?
EVE: Do you intend to obey all of Father's commandments?
ADAM: Yes, all of them.
EVE: Do you not recollect that Father commanded us to multiply and replenish the earth? I have partaken of this fruit and by so doing shall be cast out, and you will be left a lone man in the garden of Eden.
ADAM: Eve, I see that this must be so. I will partake that man may be.
(Adam takes a bite, and Lucifer walks to their side with a look of approval.)
LUCIFER: That is right.
EVE: It is better for us to pass through sorrow that we may know the good from the evil.
EVE: I know thee now. Thou art Lucifer, he who was cast out of Father's presence for rebellion.
LUCIFER: Yes, you are beginning to see already.
ADAM: What is that apron you have on?
LUCIFER: It is an emblem of my power and Priesthoods.
ADAM: Priesthoods?
LUCIFER: Yes, Priesthoods.
ADAM: I am looking for Father to come down to give us further instructions.
LUCIFER: Oh, you are looking for Father to come down, are you?
(The Gods' voices are suddenly heard in the garden, reverberating through the air.)
ELOHIM: Jehovah, we promised Adam that we would visit him and give him further instructions. Come, let us go down.
JEHOVAH: We will go down, Elohim.
ADAM: I hear their voices, they are coming.
LUCIFER: See, you are naked. Take some fig leaves and make you aprons. Father will see your nakedness. Quick! Hide!
ADAM: Come, let us hide.
NARRATOR: Brethren and sisters, put on your aprons...."
OMG, cant believe I actually took part in that hilarious apron ceremony in the temple!!
|
-Click For More- | | My Top 20 Temple Doctrine Questions | |
DATE POSTED: | Dec 30, 2005, at 08:06 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Deconstructor |
|
Even as a True Believing Mormon, I often wondered about the temple endowment and how it could possibly make sense.
Here was my list of questions about the temple endowment:
1. Why are the days of creation different than those recorded in the Book of Moses and Genesis? The third and fourth days are backwards in the endowment ceremony.
2. In the Mormon scripture Book of Moses 3:15-25 it says that God commanded the man (Adam) not to eat from the tree of good and evil. God didn't command the woman, because she had not been created yet. So why is the endowment film different than the Mormon scriptural account?
3. How did Peter, James and John get bodies before they were born? Peter shakes Adam's hand, so we know they weren't spirits. According to Joseph Smith's handshake test for discerning evil spirits from good spirits, Peter should have refused to shake Adam's hand (unless he had been resurrected).
4. Satan wears an apron that he says is a symbol of his power and priesthood. Why then does Adam, Eve and the temple congregation moments later obey Satan when he commands them to put on aprons?
5. How could Jesus be on the right hand of God, in physical form looking like his identical twin, when Jesus had not been born or resurrected yet? Jesus says in the Bible and BoM that he wasn't perfected until AFTER the atonement.
6. So was Lucifer a snake as it says in the scriptures, or a man like it shows in the temple?
7. Lucifer picks the apple off the tree and gives it to Eve. But Lucifer doesn't have a body! What's up with that?
8. Where did Lucifer get his preacher that was preaching to Adam and Eve? Was he for real or just a ghost? If just a ghost, why was he dressed as a protestant minister with the collar for Adam and Eve to see?
9a. The Book of Abraham as well as the modern prophets have taught us that the earth was created around the star Kolob. It orbited God's solar system until AFTER the fall, when it was hurled through space and placed in this solar system. This scriptural doctrine contradicts the endowment, where we see the creation of the moon and it mentions our sun and the other planets too. (See http://www.i4m.com/think/lists/mormon...)
9b. If the Kolob doctrine is true, why is this not included in the endowment, which is supposed to be the "Lord's University"?
9c. Why go through the creation story if it is not true and contradicts Mormon doctrine and the Book of Abraham?
10. If the endowment is actual history, then why was it so radically changed in April 1990? Whole sections were altered and others deleted! If the endowment represented real history, how could it change? Was it not true to the actual events all along? Is the new version "more true to history?" (See: http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temp...)
11. In April 1990 the covenants and penalties of the endowment ceremony also changed dramatically. Didn't Jesus say in the scriptures that a sign of false churches is that they change his covenants?
12. Where do you find a clear description of these "laws' mentioned in the temple?
- Law of Obedience
- Law of Sacrifice
- Law of Elohim
- Law of the Lord
- Law of the Gospel
- Law of Chastity
- Law of Consecration
Some of those laws that temple patrons covenant to obey are never mentioned or explained outside the temple. If they are literal laws of God that must be obeyed, why are they not all clearly identified and expounded upon in church discourse?
13. What is the difference between "legally" and "lawfully" as said in the temple endowment covenant?
14. Adam raises his arms in the "true order of prayer", and who answers his prayer? Satan. Does this mean Satan can answer even prayers given in the "true order" ordained by God? What prayer is safe from not being intercepted by Satan? (See: http://helpingmormons.org/compare.htm)
15 Did God really send Peter, James and John down to earth and give Adam and Eve those silly temple clothes to wear? They didn't have a temple, so when did Adam and Eve wear them?
16. How could Peter, James and John be involved in the whole thing when they hadn't been born yet, hadn't been baptized and had not been through the temple? They weren't wearing garments themselves, so how could they be worthy to participate in the endowment events?
17. Temple workers stand is as proxys for Elohim and Jehovah during the ceremony, which makes it very sacred. But since someone also stands in as a literal proxy for Satan, doesn't that make the temple unholy?
18. What is the purpose of learning the "true order of prayer" if it can never be practiced outside of the temple ceremony?
19. Why does God require secret handshakes, names and passwords to pass through the veil and enter his presence? Can't God look into our hearts and know whether or not we are worthy?
20. Why are temple patrons required to make death oaths, when they are expressly forbidden by God in Mormon scripture? (see: http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temp...)
20. If the endowment is centered on Jesus Christ, why isn't Christ's two top commandments included in the endowment covenants - love God and love your neighbor? Why isn't there mention of Christ's sermon on the mount or other teachings on charity and compassion?
Did anyone else wonder about this stuff before you realized the whole thing was a fraud?
Did you have other temple questions as a TBM that I missed?
|
-Click For More- | | Anyone Heard Of A Rule Forbidding Certain People From Ever Being Sealed To Their Spouses? | |
DATE POSTED: | Jan 9, 2006, at 08:08 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Stupified |
|
A woman I know endured a horrible Mormon marriage for years that I won't elaborate on. On the outside, though, people thought they were the perfect TBM family and hubby was (and still is) the world's biggest hypocrite and people thought he was future GA material (but he boinked other women before, during and after their marriage--just lied about it).
When their first child was on a mission wife meets a non-mormon (call him Joe Blow) who was the first person who has paid her any attention in years and she has an affair. Because she felt so guilty, she left her husband and married Joe Blow the day after her divorce was final. Of course, she confessed the whole thing and was ex'd and the ward rallied around poor hubby (who you can't tell me wasn't thrilled that wife left him, but played the martyr card to the hilt).
So wife and Joe Blow are married a couple of years but it doesn't work. She moves on, moves to Utah, gets re-baptized and has her temple blessings restored, and is just doing the Utah singles scene and trying to be a good single TBM. She figures she can put her past behind her.
So she moves into a new ward and gets a call from the bishop asking to meet her and interview her. Early in the interview, the bishop says, "So tell me about Joe Blow." She didn't know where Bishop got Joe's name because he was never a member of the church. Well, the Bishop tells her that on her membership records there is a notation that says "do not allow member to be sealed to Joe Blow."
He said they make those notations because there is a rule that says if a person is ex'd for a moral sin, they can never be sealed in the temple to the person they sinned with (whether they marry that person, whether that person was a member of the church at the time of the sin or anything. It can never happen.) Apparently this is the only reason that a person is ever forbidden from being sealed to any other specific person.
So even though Joe Blow is history, it will always be on her record. Every time she moves into a new ward, the bishop will know she had an affair and was ex'd--even 50 years down the road. Bishops will feel they have a right to bring it up and grill her about her former sinful past. She can tell them until she's blue in the face that she doesn't know where Joe Blow is, doesn't have any contact with him, will never be married to him again, etc. But they will never take that notation off her records, they have to make sure she doesn't think she can ever get around the system.
In other words, she'll wear the scarlet A for the rest of her life.
Has anyone else ever heard of such a rule? Any former bishops know if this is common? Even if Joe Blow had joined the church and they'd lived happily ever after, would they not have been allowed to be sealed?
|
-Click For More- | | Did You Feel Like A "Priestess"In The Temple In That All White Outfit, Veil And Green Apron? | |
DATE POSTED: | Jan 9, 2006, at 08:16 AM |
|
I don't know about the rest of you, but I never felt comfortable in the temple in the required clothing, and especially not in that silly initiatory tunic rag.
Here we were, dressed up in awful clothing that we would never be caught in outside the temple, and somehow, this was sacred clothing and we were anointed to be a priestess to our husbands?
What was wrong with that picture?
I was so annoyed with the silliness of the clothing that I made my own dress with pull up sleeves that a were, at least, somewhat stylish for the times.
The temple garb has to be some of the most ridiculous outfits.
If you rented your clothing, you got a nurses uniform, usually a size too large, and white stockings that went over those long white garments that went to your ankles and wrists. We looked like orphans from a foreign country and nobody batted an eye!
The only thing that made it palatable was that everyone else looked as silly and ridiculous as I did!
I still look back and laugh at the goofy things I used to do as a Mormon thinking it was some kind of sacred special requirement for salvation.
All I have to say is that Eloheim - Heavenly Father didn't have any fashion sense with all that so called inspiration !
|
-Click For More- | | Present Generation Of Mormons Claim Removed Aspects Of The Temple Ceremony Are Just "Enemy Rumors" | |
DATE POSTED: | Jan 30, 2006, at 07:12 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Code name: 00Job |
|
It disturbs me a great deal to hear the present generation of TBMs claim that certain aspects of the temple ceremony that have now been removed are just "enemy rumors." They are not.
So for all you TBM lurkers, here's my "witness," for the record, in re: now deleted parts of the endowment. I was endowed in the SLC Temple in 1973; new name, Job. Washing and anointing was done completely nude, with the initiate covered only in a poncho-like "shield." The ordinance worker told me the completely nude aspect was key, because, not ever being comfortable barefoot, I proceeded to the washing and anointing stall in standard issue white slippers, after donning the shield. He sent me back to my locker to remove the white slippers before he would continue.
The oath and covenant of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd tokens of the Melchezidek Priesthood were made by drawing the extended thumb of the right hand quickly across my throat, chest, and abdomen, respectively. These actions were accompanied by the oath that rather than reveal the respective token, "I would suffer my life to be taken." The narration spoken by the leader of the endowment session (play-acting the role of the New Testament Apostle Peter) was that these actions represented ways "in which life could be taken."
In that period we wore the "old style" garment in the temple; it reached to the wrists and ankles, was finished with a wide, Eton type collar around the neck, and was tied with three sets of strings down the front. The crotch was fully open. Utah Mormons used to call these "ceremonial" or "session" garments, but they were actually the garments worn by all endowed members, at all times, prior to the modification made by Heber J. Grant in the 1930's. The so-called Fundamentalist Mormons still wear this style of garment.
Also, part of the endowment at that time, now removed, was a "preacher" coming out at a certain point, who represented the "teachings of men, mingled with scripture." The preacher was a buffoonish character who proceeded to give a clownish and mocking rendition of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. In a film version of the endowment used in the same era, the preacher was played by Spencer J. Palmer, a professor at BYU and later a friend and colleague of mine. This deliberate mocking of a central aspect of Christian Faith illustrated, and continues to illustrate, the non-Christian, and even anti-Christian, aspect of Mormonism. It also gives the lie to their constant claims of "innocent persecution," as well as their present "we're Christians too" posturing.
Those are things I know first hand. Second hand, much older TBMs at the time confirmed to me the Oath of Vengeance; an expanded, even more ridiculous role for the "preacher," including the singing of a Protestant-style hymn by all present; "Satan" wearing a top hat and masonic apron, both in the style of the presiding officer in a Master Mason's lodge; and a real "flaming sword" being used at the "let cherubim and flaming sword" order to protect the tree of life. The death oaths accompanying the signs and tokens of the Melchezidek priesthood were also even more graphic. They were, in fact, the words that are still used in the Blue Lodge Masonic ceremony today: briefly, "my tongue to be torn out," "my heart to be torn from my breast," "my entrails to be spilled."
There's a lot more, but you can see the pattern. TBM's, you've been lied to about your most recent history. What then, will you make of the whole Joe Smith history you've been told?
|
-Click For More- | | Weird Contradiction Between Mormon Pre-Existence Doctrine And Eternal Family Doctrine | |
DATE POSTED: | Mar 8, 2006, at 08:00 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Nigel King |
|
Am I the only one who thinks that the pre-existence doctrine (as illustrated by the Saturday's Warriors drama) is in conflict with the doctrine of eternal families (as embodied in the temple-based doctrine of sealings and eternal families)?
Pre-existence doctrine:
There were great spirits and lesser spirits in the pre-existence.
Many of the most valiant and top leaders in the pre-existence were saved for the "last days", when their superior spiritual strength would be badly needed.
"Friends" and loved ones in the pre-existence agreed to form family relationships as needed to help each other fulfill their special missions on earth. This implied that sometimes a higher-ranking spirit would come to earth as the child of a lower-ranking spirit--particularly since the most valiant are generally reserved for the last days.
Temple/Eternal Family Doctrine:
Family hierarchies are made permanent based upon family relationships in this life. This implies that a father will always be above son in the patriarchal/priesthood hierarchy, and so on all the way down the patriarchal line.
Although never stated (probably because the eternal family doctrine developed without careful consideration of the pre-existence doctrine), this would also imply that any of the super-valiant spirits ("generals in the war in heaven") must become eternally subordinate to less-valiant spirits (one's who came earlier, but have higher standing in the patriarchal order simply by virtue of the order of birth on earth).
Don't these two lines of doctrine seem to be out of whack and inconsistent with each other? Has this ever been discussed in a gospel doctrine class context? It just seems to me that the pre-existence doctrine contemplates family and other relationships, including birth order and time period of one's mission on earth, as arrangements designed primarily to serve earthly mission requirements.
This seems to be at odds with the eternal family doctrine, which is focused on eternally locking people into superior and inferior positions in a permanent patriarchal hierarchy, based solely on the order of their arrival on earth and getting sealed into the patriarchal order of whatever LDS family they born into.
Great grandpa Buddy Bilgebutt could have been only a seargant in the war in heaven, but thanks to the eternal family doctrine and patriarchal order, he will eternally outrank the super-valiant spirit who arrived in the last days as his great grandson, Freddy Bilgebutt, even though Freddy's spirt was a 5-star general in the war in heaven. Make much sense?
|
-Click For More- | | The Truth About Mormon Temple Divorce Rates | |
DATE POSTED: | Mar 10, 2006, at 07:37 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Deconstructor |
|
A well-known TBM lurker has claimed that "Mormon marriages solemnized in the temple enjoy a divorce rate significantly lower than the national average."
The same could probably be said for JWs, Seventh-Day adventists and many other churches compared to the national average.
But what is the divorce rate of temple marriages?
Here's a factoid from Michael Quinn's book Mormon The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of Power:
"26 Jan, 1942 - First Counselor J. Reuben Clark tells reporter for Look Magazine: "Our divorces are piling up." Church Historian's Office in 1968 compiles divorce statistics since 1910 for temple marriages, "church civil" marriages, and "other civil" marriages. Although temple marriages have lowest divorce rate of the three categories, in 1910 there was one "temple divorce" for every 66 temple marriages performed that year., 1:41 in 1915, 1:34 in 1920, 1:27 in 1925, 1:30 in 1930, 1:23 in 1935, 1:27 in 1939, 1:17 in 1945, 1:31 in 1950, 1:30 in 1955, 1:19 in 1960 and 1965. Last rate for temple divorce is almost ten times higher than Utah's civil divorce rate a century earlier."
Quinn lists the temple divorce rate up until 1965 (1 divorce in every 19 temple marriages).
In a 1975 General Conference address, church President Spencer W. Kimball complained again about the high rate of temple divorces:
"We note the great increase in divorces. ... Our study reveals the fact that all too often it is because of their immoralities and their idolatrous worship of the god of lust. It is hard indeed to justify in one small city not far from us 272 divorces in the same time that 341 marriage licenses were given."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, Spring 1975 General Conference, see also Ensign, May 1975, page 4
Michael Quinn also documents how bad temple marriages were in the late 1800's:
"27 Feb, 1889 - LDS political newspaper Salt Lake Herald's article titled, "FAILED MARRIAGES," regarding "the report of the Labor Commissioner Wright, presented last week, on the statistics of marriage and divorce in the United States from 1867 to 1886 inclusive," with following: In 1870 Utah had highest rate of divorce out of all states and territories. In 1870 Utah's rate was one divorce per 185 marriages. National averages was 1:664. States with lowest divorce rates are South Carolina at 1:4,938, Delaware at 1:123,672, New Mexico at 1:16,077, North Carolina at 1:4,938, and Louisiana at 1:4,579. In 1880 Utah had tenth highest rate of divorce out of all states and territories. In 1880 Utah's rate was one divorce per 219 marriages, which was more than twice the national average of 1:479. In twentieth century, divorce rates for LDS temple marriages starts out three times higher than this "divorce mill" rate for early Utah civil marriages.
Temple marriages were statistically a disaster for the early Saints who suffered under the "Celestial Marriage" doctrine of Mormonism. No surprise that by 1965 the temple divorce rate was 1 in 19.
Temple marriages contain a paradox. On one hand, you'd expect temple divorce rates to be lower than the national average - not because they are happier, but because the social pressure to stay in a temple marriage is much higher.
On the other hand, Mormons have a tendency to marry for the wrong reasons, to an incompatible spouse and with added church demands. Add to that the judgmental nature of the Mormon mentality and you get self-loathing and criticism of your spouse. When striving for "worthiness" doesn't make them happy, temple marriages end in divorce. This could explain the high rate of 1 in 19 temple marriages ending in divorce.
That rate may not be high compared to the national average, but it seems high for "eternal marriages" blessed with "priesthood power" and the "blessings" of the gospel. You'd think all that tithing and church activity would bless these marriages to stay together more.
So there seems to be a paradox in Mormon temple marriage. Theoretically it can make couples stay together, even when it's not working out. But at the same time, the temple marriage doctrine and the Mormon mindset can doom a marriage.
Look at the average TBM temple-marriage couple:
- They turn over 10% of their income to the church
- They turn over lots of family time over to church callings, meetings and study
- They, on average, have more kids and at an earlier time
- They turn over their adult lives to the church to give them direction, council and purpose
- They buy into rigid gender roles and unrealistic expectations
And what do couples get in return? How does any of that REALLY help a marriage? I would argue that the above things don't lead to blessings, but are actually burdens.
This was certainly the case in my marriage. It's been better than ever since we left the church. We have more family money, time and purpose. We have less marital strife from all those expectations and mindless obeying what the GAs say. The sex went from good to great.
On top of it all, when you learn that Smith stole the concept of a "Celestial Kingdom" from a 17th century writer, you realize the after-death payoff is make believe! If the church can't ultimately deliver on its promises of Godhood and celestial glory with infinite increase, then the whole thing is a scam to make someone else rich and powerful.
Temple marriage isn't about making people happier or even saving them. It's about serving the Mormon machine and making your family into a mini-cult that works just like the church.
No wonder it doesn't work out as well as advertised.
|
-Click For More- | | Patriarchial Death Grip: The Temple Recommend Interview | |
DATE POSTED: | Mar 16, 2006, at 07:27 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Darwin Girl |
|
It recently occured to me that some people visiting this board had a much different experience in the Mormon religion than me. Recently I learned, for instance, that Mormons sneak Cosmopolitan drinks and wear Victoria Secret lingerie.
I guess I really missed out.
Am I that unusual, however, when it comes to TBMs?
I took the WHOLE thing seriously. I mean I actually kept the word of wisdom (except for Diet Coke). I went to tithing settlement and felt awful if I paid 9% instead of 10%.
I faithfully attended the temple and submitted to the ULTIMATE mind control exercise: the annual temple recommend interview. Can you think of anything more cultish than the temple recommend interview?
When asked if I associated with enemies of the church, I sheepishly admitted to being a Democrat (Since leaving the church I've also changed my views).
I mean, I actually believed I had to wear the approved garment 24/7, and empowered some old codger to ask me if I wore the correct underwear!!!
Do you realize how psychologically damaging that actually is? To willingly give someone else the authority to dictate what goes on your body, especially what covers your intimate parts?
My never-Mo girlfriends have been very helpful in de-programming me from the LDS non-sense. I have to ask them the simplest things. It's like I'm a teenager again and learning how to be a real woman for the first time.
I thought I was over all the damage from LDS Inc. But sometimes there are layers we have to work through. I know I'm over the initial phase of anger toward the church. Now I'm just trying to mend some still-broken pieces, trying to reclaim my autonomy and sexuality.
The worst part of it all? I accepted the "patriarchial death grip" and all the other shit as if it were NORMAL!
It gives me the creeps just thinking about the questions that I willingly answered ... so truthfully.
|
-Click For More- | | My Shocking First Mormon Temple Experience | |
DATE POSTED: | Mar 20, 2006, at 07:45 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Deconstructor |
|
Before I went to the temple for the first time, I took those temple preparation classes. After the classes, I really thought the temple was all about Jesus Christ.
They don't give you any real details in those prep classes and none of my TBM family or friends would tell me either. All I knew was that the endowment included a play/movie "about Jesus" and people made covenants to "be more Christlike."
So I entered the temple all excited, expecting the endowment to be about the ministry of Jesus Christ. Perhaps they would enact the Sermon on the Mount, I thought. Or maybe they would show the Last Supper and have us participate as disciples. Or maybe they would portray other scenes in Christ's ministry that were lost to time that revealed deeper meanings.
Above all, I expected the covenants to be related to Christ's ministry - helping the poor and the sick, forgiving others, loving one another. I imagined that I'd see some of Christ's parables enacted, and then make a covenant to do as Jesus taught. For example, covenant to be a good samaritan or forgive the prodigal sons among us or something like that.
Yes, I was naive. I had just finished reading the four gospels and the image of Christ's life and his message were so vivid in my mind. I imagined the temple would be an extension of the main things Jesus wanted us to do.
My first time was through the Salt Lake Temple, where they still do "live" sessions. What a dissapointment! Not only was the endowment far removed from the New Testament Jesus Christ, it didn't even have anything to do with what Jesus taught the people in the Book of Mormon either.
Even worse, "Jehovah" hardly even had any real speaking parts. He's nothing more than a glorified messenger boy, shuttling messages between Peter, James and John and Elohim. Satan, on the other hand, is the star of the show. He tells the temple patrons to put on their aprons and everybody does it! Now that's power!
There's no way anyone could honestly argue that the Mormon Temple is a bastion of Christianity or Jesus Christ. Mormons get more Jesus Christ out of a 15-second canned sacrament blessing than they do in the two-hour temple endowment ceremony.
If you look into the origins of the temple ceremony, this all makes a lot more sense:
http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temple_legacy.htm
Am I the only one who felt disapointed by their first temple experience?
|
-Click For More- | | Walking Through The Veil | |
DATE POSTED: | Apr 25, 2006, at 07:12 AM |
|
I vividly recall the day that I went through the temple for the first time.
I was expecting some weirdness, because I had some friends that actually broke into tears after they received their endowments. (They told me that these were tears from being freaked out. Not tears of joy.)
Anyway, I don't want to turn this post into my memoirs, but I do want to say that I have NEVER felt such a let down as I did when I went through the veil for the first time.
As I sat through the entire ceremony, I kept thinking about how wonderful it would be finally sit in the celestial room and speak with my family about the mysteries of God. But by the time I went through the veil, I felt shell shocked. I didn't feel the spirit of anything but confusion and distress.
My family was waiting for me at the other side of the veil and they all hugged me like I had just done something great. I had to force a smile and wondered what I was missing. I felt empty.
To top it all off, we didn't have a chance to talk about God or ANYTHING for that matter after the session. We were ushered out of the celestial room so quickly, you would have thought that it was simply an overly decorated hallway.
Whatever happened to feeling peace, praying, meditating, etc...?
I believe I have felt more of the spirit meditating in nature than I have ever felt within the gilded walls of any LDS temple.
|
-Click For More- | | Wow, I Wore My Temple Clothing For My Kids To See! | |
DATE POSTED: | May 1, 2006, at 07:38 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Because it is secret, I mean sacred! |
|
So even though we have been out of the church for several months my kids continue to ask questions about the church.
The discussion yesterday was the temple and the freemasons. My older son is currently reading Dan Brown's "Angels & Demon's" and is very intrigued by the masonic symbols etc.. So he and my younger daughter began asking about the temple and what goes on in it.
Last year I found a freemason site with pictures of men in some of the freemason ceremonial clothing. My kids thought it was weird stuff. I explained then that the morg temple clothing was "similar".
So yesterday I decided to dress up in the complete temple clothing so they could see it. My daughter was floored and kept asking if I was lying about having to wear this crap. My boys thought it was totally funny. I told them that had they stayed in the church they would have been wearing that stuff in 4-5 years. They then gave me a hug and thanked me for helping them "out"!
I am sure some will be offended by me doing this but too bad. Should my kids EVER decide to rejoin as adults, they will be well informed on what to expect and not be coerced into it with false promises of "further light and knowledge" as most of us were.
PS My wife knows I did it, thinks I was goofy but agreed that our kids should be very informed.
|
-Click For More- | | How Many Have Participated In The "Hosanna Shout"? | |
DATE POSTED: | May 4, 2006, at 07:50 AM |
|
A mention on the seminary thread got me thinking.
I've participated in the Hosanna Shout on two occasions, The dedications of the Washington D.C. and Bountiful temples.
At Washington D.C. I was 17 years-old. I had heard that the "shout" was a joyous and enthusiastic "ordinance". Both times it was dull and boring. It sounded really morose with all the joy sucked out of it.
As you wave a white handkerchief the words are spoken in unison by the congregation, "Hosanna, Hosanna, Hosanna to God and The Lamb" (Repeated three times).
I watched part of the conference center dedication while I was living in SoCal and Hinckley led it in SLC. I had never heard of it being done outside a temple until then. It was televised on cable for anybody to see. Before it was performed he said that it was a tradition held as sacred by LDS members and asked that anybody else watching not to mock it.
Have you performed the Hosanna Shout?
|
-Click For More- | | Mormon God = Macabre God? | |
DATE POSTED: | May 15, 2006, at 08:42 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Grey Matter |
|
I wonder why the early mormons chose such a macabre god to worship.
When the mormon god revealed his temple ceremony to his mormon prophets seers and revelators, you'd think the alarm bells would have started ringing and that they would have looked for another kinder, gentler god. But they didn't. They were happy with this grim, gory, gruesome god of darkness. To each cult it's own, I suppose.
In the early god-given temple endowment, there were various blood and death oaths, gifts given from the grim mormon-god to his mormon subjects.
For example,
The mormon god's diabolist, death oaths:
# 1 - First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood
"... we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by our roots."
# 2 - Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood
"... we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn out from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field."
# 3 - First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood
"we agree that our bodies be cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out."
Now, it turns out that the mormon god is also a muddled god.
The macabre mormon-god told his mormon prophets seers and revelators that the endowment and temple cult-rituals would never change. In the words of Joseph Smith:
"Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed"
Well, it turns out that in his old years, the mormon once-man, now-god god is developing Alzheimer's or something like that. The macabre god, with his now muddled mind, has forgotten about his promises never to chop or change the cult-rituals. The gruesome mormon-god has wobbled on the weird wording and graphic gore, ordering his mormon prophets seers and revelators, and temple cult-ritual script writers to slaughter chunks of the solemn and sacred ceremony.
In fact, the original non-changing rituals have now been changed numerous times over the years, each time the change being a dilution in the demonic deliberations, and from 1990, all traces of the gruesome god-given death oaths were themselves gutted and destroyed.
Still, it fills us with love, peace and heart-filled gratitude that we were ever blessed to be part of that pietistic pantomime doesn't it?
Sources:
1. Reed Smoot Hearings, 1907, U.S. Senate Document 486
2. "Endowment Oaths and Ceremonies", Salt Lake Tribune, February 8, 1906
3. http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temp...
4. http://lds-mormon.com/veilworker/pena...
Yes folks, it's on all the public record.
|
-Click For More- | | My Temple Experience | |
DATE POSTED: | May 19, 2006, at 07:45 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | antishock8 |
|
As you know one thing you have to do before you can server a mission is to take out your endowments (where exactly does one take them, anyway?). So. I had to go to the temple. My friend, who would actually get the pleasure of serving in France, had gone through the temple a few months prior to me. All he had to say was that it took some getting used (in reference to the garments). I asked him if he felt different, and he said no, except for the garments. He actually seemed rather blasé about the whole thing. Like many others I received no formal instruction about the temple. My whole life I heard that it was the pinnacle of spiritual experiences, a place where sometimes the Lord and His hosts visit to bestow further light and knowledge on those do their work for the dead there. It was a literal bridge between this temporal existence, and the spiritual world to come. I was excited, a bit nervous, but like a naïve child, expecting only another Sunday worship service; just this time a little more spiritual. Remember, I was 19, totally uninformed about the temple... just wanting to do the right thing...
The first thing I had to do was get the packet of clothes. I peeked inside and was struck with curiosity about the green piece of silk. I asked my dad what it was, and he said don’t worry about it; I’d need it in the endowment session. I then went to a changing room, said a prayer, and changed into a white poncho thing. I felt extremely vulnerable as I went into this partition, and this old man mumbled some words, touched me on my thigh, rib cage, and somewhere else (I can’t remember the specifics, but to be sure I was not molested. In other words my genitalia were never groped, fondled, touched, or brushed by anyone.). I felt that this was a really strange situation that was unfolding before me, but I just went with it. I was sure things were going to get better. Well, they didn’t. In fact I became horrified rather quickly.
Much of my endowment session was a blur. I remember the film, I remember people changing into strange and slightly disturbing outfits (bakers with robes complimented by a green apron is the only way I can describe the way we looked). It was then that the question was asked. Something to the effect that if we didn’t want to go any further, we should then leave. My mom and dad looked at me. I knew they could see my stunned faced. They tried to look at me and smile, but I could tell that they knew I was about to bolt. My heart was racing. God I wanted to leave. Run Lance run! Run! GO NOW! But I didn’t. I crumbled under the peer pressure of having my parents’ friends there. I crumbled under the pressure of being the “last great hope” because my siblings had left the Church. I knew that if I were to leave, my mother’s heart would have been broken, and that I had failed her. I couldn’t bear to imagine her weeping at the thought that I too had rejected the gospel. No. I stayed. We made slashing gestures across our throats and abdomens. We made symbols, and promised to place the Kingdom of God before everything else in our lives. I met some man at the veil, we made the five points of contact, and he pulled me through the veil. I went to the Celestial Room. There was a mirror there, and the boy that was staring back at me was scared, in shock, and devastated. All I could think was, “But the Book of Mormon is true.” It’s true. I know it is. I can’t think about this right now. Put it away. Don’t think about the temple. The church is true. It’s true. It’s true. I know it is. God, why? Why?!
The Church isn't true. It's not, and the temple is a blessing in disguise because the feelings you have right now about that experience are the very feelings that are going to wake you up to reality. And reality is that the Church is just a goofy man-made organization that is bumbling along with no real meaning outside that which you attach to it. The temple was scary. Yes. But in reality the Church is silly. The whole thing is stupid, and you got a wake-up call from you.
|
-Click For More- | | "You Are Important!" Is The Flatery The Church Uses To Make The Sheep Feel Smug About Themselves | |
DATE POSTED: | May 31, 2006, at 07:48 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | 100% Tithing Free |
|
Joseph Stalin treated the average Soviet citizen like garbage but the public rail stations in Moscow were like palaces. The subways in Moscow were designed to be a form of control. The people had to depend on the state to go anywhere but the subway stations were palatial works of art. Stalin himself called them the People's Palaces. In truth, the people had no freedom and could only go when or where the state owned subway took them, but the beautiful chandeliars and fresco paintings made them feel like they were part of something special and they indeed were important just to be allowed in such a wonderful space.
The Mormon church plays the same tactic. It tells you that you are one of the few chosen ones. If you are a convert, well, you were one of the few who were smart enough and spiritual enough to get baptised. If you were born in the church, well, you were a choice spirit who was rewarded by being born in the church.
The temple is a private club that just drips of the "Aren't we special!" syndrome. Much like Stalin's palatial public train stations that made the Soviets smile with pride because they knew nobody else in the world had train stations that nice, Mormons sit in the Celesial room under the chandeliers and smuggly thing they are special and chosen.
The truth is, like the Soviets of the past, Mormons are stuck in a system that only takes and gives little back. Oh, there's all sorts of praise for being a good commarad or church member. Lot's of medals of honor but the pay is certainly lousey.
I personaly know members of the church who have no health insurance, but yet they pay 10% tithing and fast offerings. If these people go bankrupt because of medical costs, the church will just yell at them for not having medical insurance. It's the truth. The church takes and gives you nothing back but a chandelier to sit under and a non ending stream of praise telling you, "You are important!"
|
-Click For More- | | Disgusting Mormon "Ring Ceremony" | |
DATE POSTED: | Jun 6, 2006, at 09:03 AM |
|
I have a family member who got married in the temple over the weekend. In order to ensure that her single friends, nevermo family, and DH and I (the evil apostates) could taste a morsel of her glorious celestial sealing, she included a pre-reception ring ceremony in her schedule of events.
Before the reception, as I was helping some relatives prepare food, I asked one of the aunts if the couple would be doing something like exchanging vows at the ring ceremony. “No,” she said, “Saying vows is discouraged.”
“Discouraged by who?” I asked.
“The church.”
“Why?”
“Because they are not supposed to seem like they are mimicking a real wedding.”
“But isn’t that what they are doing?”
At this, DH cut in amiably, “I can see why they would do that.”
“So can I,” I said pointedly.
It never really hit me up until that moment how the church was ALL ABOUT CONTROL. The couple had already gotten married in the temple, and done everything they were supposed to do to get there, and now they weren’t allowed to say vows to each other in their own private backyard ceremony? I’m surprised the church even lets them have a ring ceremony at all.
The ceremony itself was one of the most offensive experiences I went through all weekend. It started out nice enough as the mothers got up and briefly expressed love for the couple and gave them some advice. But the main part of the ceremony was this horrible sermon by the bride’s uncle.
The sermon had absolutely nothing to do with the couple before him. It wasn’t even directed at them. Instead, it was directed at all of us who hadn’t been in the temple that morning. He lectured for what seemed like forever on the church’s eternal-families propaganda, asserting that no other church on the planet believed in eternal families, wow isn't the morg special. He said that even if we weren’t members, we should appreciate this wonderful doctrine. He said that those who were not members of the church also had no right to feel anything but happy that the new couple had gone into the mormon temple and thus would be together forever. He insinuated that if we felt any other way, we were terrible, unfeeling people.
After this preaching frenzy, the couple hurriedly put the rings on each other and rushed off to feed each other cake. The whole thing seemed tragic to me. Not only did the church cheat these newlyweds out of a nice customized wedding, but it also kept them from individualizing their own private backyard ring ceremony.
Nothing is ever about the members, is it? It’s always, always about the church and its rules, and its power and its control. Always.
|
-Click For More- | | Top 20 Temple Questions From TBMs | |
DATE POSTED: | Jun 26, 2006, at 07:13 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Deconstructor |
|
Many Mormons - both believers and non-believers - have a hard time understanding the Mormon temple endowment. Here's a list of questions I've compiled. Some are ones I had as a TBM and others come from e-mail I get as well as posts here.
True Believing Mormons wonder...
1. Why are the days of creation different than those recorded in the Book of Moses and Genesis? The third and fourth days are backwards in the endowment ceremony.
2. In the Mormon scripture Book of Moses 3:15-25 it says that God commanded the man (Adam) not to eat from the tree of good and evil. God didn't command the woman, because she had not been created yet. So why is the endowment film different than the Mormon scriptural account?
3. How did Peter, James and John get bodies before they were born? Peter shakes Adam's hand, so we know they weren't spirits. According to Joseph Smith's handshake test for discerning evil spirits from good spirits, Peter should have refused to shake Adam's hand (unless he had been resurrected).
4. Satan wears an apron that he says is a symbol of his power and priesthood. Why then does Adam, Eve and the temple congregation moments later obey Satan when he commands them to put on aprons?
5. How could Jesus be on the right hand of God, in physical form looking like his identical twin, when Jesus had not been born or resurrected yet? Jesus says in the Bible and BoM that he wasn't perfected until AFTER the atonement.
6. So was Lucifer a snake as it says in the scriptures, or a man like it shows in the temple?
7. Lucifer picks the apple off the tree and gives it to Eve. But Lucifer doesn't have a body! What's up with that?
8. Where did Lucifer get his preacher that was preaching to Adam and Eve? Was he for real or just a ghost? If just a ghost, why was he dressed as a protestant minister with the collar for Adam and Eve to see?
9a. The Book of Abraham as well as the modern prophets have taught us that the earth was created around the star Kolob. It orbited God's solar system until AFTER the fall, when it was hurled through space and placed in this solar system. This scriptural doctrine contradicts the endowment, where we see the creation of the moon and it mentions our sun and the other planets too. (See http://www.i4m.com/think/lists/mormon...)
9b. If the Kolob doctrine is true, why is this not included in the endowment, which is supposed to be the "Lord's University"?
9c. Why go through the creation story if it is not true and contradicts Mormon doctrine and the Book of Abraham?
10. If the endowment is actual history, then why was it so radically changed in April 1990? Whole sections were altered and others deleted! If the endowment represented real history, how could it change? Was it not true to the actual events all along? Is the new version "more true to history?" (See: http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temp...)
11. In April 1990 and January 2005 the covenants and penalties of the endowment ceremony also radically changed. Didn't Jesus say in the scriptures that a sign of false churches is that they change his covenants? (See: http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temp... )
12. Where do you find a clear description of these "laws' mentioned in the temple?
1. Law of Obedience
2. Law of Sacrifice
3. Law of Elohim
4. Law of the Lord
5. Law of the Gospel
6. Law of Chastity
7. Law of Consecration
Some of those laws that temple patrons covenant to obey are never mentioned or explained outside the temple. If they are literal laws of God that must be obeyed, why are they not all clearly identified and expounded upon in church discourse?
13. What is the difference between "legally" and "lawfully" as said in the temple endowment covenant?
14. Adam raises his arms in the "true order of prayer", and who answers his prayer? Satan. Does this mean Satan can answer even prayers given in the "true order" ordained by God? What prayer is safe from not being intercepted by Satan? (See: http://helpingmormons.org/compare.htm)
15 Did God really send Peter, James and John down to earth and give Adam and Eve those silly temple clothes to wear? They didn't have a temple, so when did Adam and Eve wear them?
16. How could Peter, James and John be involved in the whole thing when they hadn't been born yet, hadn't been baptized and had not been through the temple? They weren't wearing garments themselves, so how could they be worthy to participate in the endowment events?
17. Temple workers stand is as proxys for Elohim and Jehovah during the ceremony, which makes it very sacred. But since someone also stands in as a literal proxy for Satan, doesn't that make the temple unholy?
18. What is the purpose of learning the "true order of prayer" if it can never be practiced outside of the temple ceremony?
19. Why does God require secret handshakes, names and passwords to pass through the veil and enter his presence? Can't God look into our hearts and know whether or not we are worthy?
20. Why are temple patrons required to make death oaths, when they are expressly forbidden by God in Mormon scripture? (see: http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temp...)
20. If the endowment is centered on Jesus Christ, why isn't Christ's two top commandments included in the endowment covenants - love God and love your neighbor? Why isn't there mention of Christ's sermon on the mount or other teachings on charity and compassion?
Did anyone else wonder about this stuff before you realized the whole thing was a fraud?
|
-Click For More- | | Does Attending The Temple Make You A Better Person? | |
DATE POSTED: | Jul 24, 2006, at 08:22 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Searcher68 |
|
I thought about this question this weekend because of a talk I heard Sunday. The speaker quoted a GA (Faust, I think) who said that one of the reasons “saints” should attend the temple regularly is that temple attendance would make members of the church better people, better neighbors, better friends, better parents, better husbands and wives, and better Christians.
I thought about my experience attending the temple. I tried to be objective, something I couldn’t be when I was an active believer. I asked myself if attending the temple made me a better person and I came to the conclusion that I couldn’t honestly attribute any of my maturity to the temple. I was what I call an anal TBM. I live in the Midwest and attended the Washington, DC temple (a 12 hour drive) then the Chicago temple (a 4-5 hour drive) as often as time and expenses would allow. Then, miracles of miracles, we only had to drive 2 hours to the Louisville, Kentucky temple. There was a time when I loved to attend the temple. This weekend it dawned on my why. Those of you who only drove a block or two to the temple may not understand all these reasons.
First, attending the temple got you away from the pressures of work, home, and church for a few hours. Ironically, it was the church that caused the majority of these pressures. Second, you could sit quietly in the temple and “seek answers for your problems”. Interestingly, I NEVER got one answer to my problems in the temple – not one. No inspiration, no revelation, no voices, nothing. Did that stop me from believing that I would get an answer the next time? Talk about brainwashing. Third, and this one is, perhaps, the most important reason for going to the temple, was going out to dinner afterward with your husband/wife/friends. If you don’t think that it is very important, suggest that you NOT go out to dinner afterwards to you High Priest group and see their response.
Then I thought about what goes on in the temple and realized that there is nothing there calculated to improve people that you can’t find outside the temple. We make promises to consecrate our time and talents to God, rights? Wrong. We consecrate to the Church! How does that make me better? We promise to be faithful to our husband/wife. That concept is taught in so many other places that we don’t have to attend the temple to hear it and make those promises. Perhaps nowhere else do we promise “no evil-speaking of the Lord’s anointed” but that is so self-serving as to be transparent. OK, the one we don’t hear in many other places is the promise of “no loud laughter”. I wonder how many times that one has been violated during a GA’s talk.
The point is, the convents we made sure don’t seen to inspire mature improvement. The only maturity I see is the ability to endure mind-numbing repetition without falling asleep. Of course, many do fall asleep. I wonder how that affects the person for whom they are going though.
Another aspect of the temple is the symbols. We are promised that if we “give prayerful consideration to the things we see and hear”, their meaning will be revealed to us. Did any of you ever get such a revelation? I didn’t. In all my years of faithful attendance, I got zero revelations on the meaning of the temple symbols. I prayed for an understanding. I believed that the Lord would give me the promised understanding. Nothing – ever. I remember looking down the line as we gave the first or second tokens hoping that seeing all those arms and hands in those positions, I would see something that would make sense. Nothing – ever. Of course, there were times that a member of the temple presidency would answer questions in the celestial room and I learned some of the symbols that way. But those things were not by revelation and they certainly did not help make me a better person. For example, the idea that the cap is tied to those 3 loops on the robe represents revelation to our minds from the Godhead. We learn that in Sunday School (not about the temple clothing but about revelation) so what value is that sort of thing. It just seemed like silliness.
I ran all these thoughts by a TBM friend and she said that it wasn’t the tokens or words but the feelings in the temple that made her a better person. I said that I used to have those feelings sometimes but I also had those same feelings listing to Beethoven or Bach, looking a beautiful painting, walking in the woods, or looking at a sunset. She agreed. I asked, “Then why build these multimillion-dollar edifices just to get that kind of feeling when you can get it in so many other places?” She didn’t have an answer.
My conclusion is that good people are still good after attending the temple and bitchy people are still bitchy. I don’t see that temple attendance does anything to make people “better”. It’s just one more way that the church keeps the people under its control. It is an effective way to give them a break from the pressures of church assignments yet not let them off the leash. What a brilliant plan.
|
-Click For More- | | Doctrinal Question: Did You Marry Your Spouse And The Mormon Church In Your Sealing? | |
DATE POSTED: | Jul 25, 2006, at 08:21 AM |
|
Doctrinal Question: Did you marry your spouse and the Mormon church in your sealing?
The following is the sealing ceremony wording for those who can’t remember or who have never attended the temple:
Officiator: Will the Witnesses please take their seats at the head of the altar.
Witnesses: Take their seats as requested.
Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] will you please take your places and kneel opposite each other at the altar.
Marriage Couple: Kneels opposites each other as requested.
Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] please join hands in the Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail.
Marriage Couple: Joins hands in 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. No clothing should interfere with the contact of the forefinger upon the wrist.
Officiator: Brother ______, do you take Sister ______ by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?
Groom: Yes.
Officiator: Sister ______ [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead,] do you take brother ______ by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawful and wedded wife, and for him to be your lawful and wedded husband, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?
Bride: Yes.
Officiator: By virtue of the Holy Priesthood and the authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity, and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection clothed in glory, immortality and eternal lives, and I seal upon you the blessings of kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions and exaltations, with all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [if living, he adds: and say unto you: be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth] that you may have joy and rejoicing in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. All these blessings, together with all the blessings appertaining unto the New and Everlasting Covenant, I seal upon you by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, through your faithfulness, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.
As I have reviewed this “ceremony” I continue to try to understand just exactly what it was that we were doing there. I do acknowledge that the spouse is mentioned, but it would seem that our promises extended beyond our spouse to the Mormon church as well “will observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant” Is the sealing ceremony nothing more than an extension or cap stone to the endowment ceremony whereby we promised to give all to the church including our very lives. Does this also apply through the sealing that our marriage and spouse could be offered up as well? In short, did we marry the Mormon church?
I would argue, that yes, we did indeed marry Joseph’s cult along with our spouse, however I would like your thoughts and ideas on this issue.
|
-Click For More- | | Handshakes, Caps, And A Superhero Apron Cape | |
DATE POSTED: | Aug 2, 2006, at 09:35 AM |
|
Handshakes, Hats, and a Superhero Apron Cape.
Today I decided to clean out my closet. It has been a while since I did this, and my closet in particular was screaming for attention. As I removed my sweaters, shirts, shorts and a sundry of other apparel, I came across my black temple clothing bag. “Let’s have some fun with this,” I said to myself.
I called my ten-year-old son, as well as my seven, six and four-year-old daughters into the living room, “Come in here kids, I have something to show you!” I then proceeded to don my cap, robe, apron and sash all the while explaining to the kids that Mom and I dressed like this during our visits to the temple. My son began to laugh, exclaiming, “I am so glad we are out of the church and I won’t have to wear those stupid clothes!” I laughed and then my seven-year-old daughter said, “Dad, you look like a cooker man!” By now, we were all laughing and having a great time.
They were all fascinated with the slippers for some reason, and wanted to take turns wearing them around the house. My four year old took the apron and wore it in a Superman fashion while whisking too and fro throughout the house. My seven year old took the robe and wrapped herself in it while exclaiming, “Look Dad, I’m a mummy!” My son took a shine to the cap and asked if he could keep it and wear it around the neighborhood.
I then told them about some of the handshakes and things that we did while there. My seven-year-old daughter looked at me with a “you have got to be kidding me” expression, and my son just laughed. I then told them that at one time I looked forward to taking them to the temple, as I believed it was a special place, but now we know it’s a lie and made up by Joseph Smith. “It’s all a pile of crap!” exclaimed my ten-year-old son.
Part of me still had some reservations about doing this due to Morg programming. Nevertheless, I wanted my children to see the utter silliness of the whole dress up thing. My seven year old caught on how stupid it was ever to think that some handshakes would be necessary to get back to God. A sweet seven-year-old mind, uncluttered by the baggage of Mormonism could see right through the completely stupid mess, but I at one time could not.
I have to go now; Apron Girl and Cap Man are here to take me away to spirit prison.
|
-Click For More- | | Why Is Ditching Temple Covenants Based On Fraud And Not Binding In The First Place So Hard To Do? | |
DATE POSTED: | Aug 3, 2006, at 08:25 AM |
|
Did you really believe that you were going to be held to some temple covenant and your life would be taken in some gruesome manner (pre-1990)?
I know that people take these things seriously, they place a lot of importance making a covenant with God, but...
isn't it just pretend, figurative, play acting anyhow?
Mormons asked me how I could disappoint God and destroy my life by breaking my temple covenants. Easy. I said. They are not binding. Joseph Smith Jr lied about his claims and the temple rituals he set up are just silly, outrageous, goofy male Free Masonry adopted to his own idea of his religion.
And that goes for the regulation, official temple skivvies.
I asked a TBM recently if they would follow the prophet and obey if they were told to leave their apostate relatives, not have contact, kill them, or shun them.
Would they follow the prophet?
The answer was: no, not if was unreasonable.
Ah ha...the key is whether it is "unreasonable." I found a chink in the armor.
Well then, what about those undies they are afraid to take off? Is it reasonable to have a fear of taking them off or not wearing them to bed, etc?
So, the question becomes: is it reasonable to believe the temple covenants and rituals, handshakes, new names, are important to your life?
Is it reasonable to demand by covenant to give everything to the building up of the kingdom?
Is it reasonable to demand by covenant to pay tithing?
Is it reasonable to demand by covenant to: "avoid all light laughter, evil speaking of the Lord's anointed, taking the Lord's name in vain and every other impure practice"???
Is it reasonable to live the Word of Wisdom, when it it is full of inaccurate goofy health ideas for humans and animals, and has never ever been lived as written by the members?
Is it reasonable to not talk about what goes on in the temple? Why does sacred mean secret? Is that reasonable?
Is it reasonable to dress up in a goofy outfit, green apron, and (in the past) give total strangers access to our body under a sheet for "blessings"?
Is it reasonable to believe the BOM is inspired by God through Joseph Smith Jr.?
Is it reasonable to recognize the imaginary authority of th church leaders: prophets, bishops, presidents, elders, etc.?
I could go on and on.
The more I think about Mormonism, the more I see that it is unreasonable on all levels. But, that seems to be the beauty of it. Faith does not work well with reason! Looks like one can cancel out the other one!
I asked myself why I went along with this, knowing deep down that it was unreasonable, didn't make sense, but.... relied on faith and trusted people I thought would tell me the truth. I could not imagine that a huge church of millions of people would be that hoodwinked. But they are!
Probably one of the most difficult things to handle is knowing we placed our trust in an organization that was lying by omission and sanitizing it's history. The betrayal, is probably the hardest thing for humans to handle.
|
-Click For More- | | Why Temple Insanity Will Continue With Mormonism For The Duration Of Its Existence | |
DATE POSTED: | Aug 11, 2006, at 07:29 AM |
|
I've spent a lot of time pondering the inane and stupid that is the LDS temple worship, if that is what it is - worship. Just this moment it dawned on me why "temple work" is so important to LDS leaders starting with Joseph Smith. The reason for its design and the clue to its demise lies in Mormon history.
Forget that Mormonism started as a pentacostal folklore movement of a primitivistical form of Antebellum American mystical Christian zeal.
Realize that in Joseph Smith's boasting at his cohesive powers, he took all of his happiness. Mormonism today reflects that same 19th century zeal for being a "united people" that is beset by a flurry of differences of opinion and worship.
What does the LDS temple represent? It is the predominant symbol of religious unity in America - the land of religious liberality.
The "prophet" nor his councils care if you or anyone leave his church. Like Smith, he will always have a coterie of people bound to him more than their blood would ever bind them to others.
The "temple" is the way. It is the path to salvation in the Mormon prophet's terms. It proves not only loyalty, but a resolve in people to follow him.
Without the temple, Mormonism is just another denomination. With it, no matter how it dwindles, it is a force for proving people's resolve to follow one man and his many councils in what he and they determine the best for you.
Can any other religion lay claims to such a resolve in the people that profess its virtue?
Only a cult.
Mormonism is one its way to being a worldwide accepted, esteemed, and praised cult and the temple leads the way.
Get rid of the temple and you don't have Mormonism anymore. You just have another religious system of belief that holds both the ridiculousness and the righteousness of its adherents higher than the ridiculousness and the established cohesive power of its prophet's will.
Take the temple away from Mormonism and you might as well take the prophet with it.
|
-Click For More- | | Inside Of Each Mormon Is An Ex-Mormon Fighting To Get Out | |
DATE POSTED: | Nov 10, 2006, at 07:24 AM |
|
I had a nice visit with a TBM Mormon friend of mine. Him and his wife were invited to the Idaho Falls temple for what they thought was going to be a special endownment session for church leaders and their spouses. What it turned out to be was a chapel meeting with the temple president and it was all about guilt tripping the priesthood leadership and relief society leadership into making sure more church members go to the temple.
Apparently there is a major push in the Idaho Falls temple district to do this because of fear the Rexburg Temple is going to steal a lot of temple goers and workers.
My friend was discusted. He was saying they want us to put spirituality into quantifiable goals like we are selling cars or insurance of something. He says the best I can do to make sure people go to the temple in my quorum is to have good teachers teach the lessons so we have a spiritual priesthood meeting on Sunday and that we get as much home teaching done as possible.
As we talked more my friend just sighed and said, it's never enough. I've done everything the stake president and bishop have asked me to do. PPI's, increased the hometeaching percentage, have better lessons in priesthood. Now theres a huge push to be missionaries and live in the temple.
All I could say is it wasn't the old church we grew up in. He agreed. Since this guy is still a major TBM and his wife is too, he would be offended at my view of what's going on. What's encouraging is the church is becoming more and more burdonsome to these people.
The way I view the situation, is the temple is the main tool the top church leadership uses to rope in it's members. If they can keep you going to the temple they got you hook line and sinker. It doesn't matter if you lie in the interviews. Probably a good percentage do. It's that they still get some of your money and free labor and if you are a parent, they get your kids too so they can brainwash them into little Morgbots.
This is why the temple cerimony has been streamlined and the garmets changed over the years. If the members had to wear the one piece, trapdoor garmets, they would bolt from the church. Hinckley understands this and when the women don't like being subjected to their husbands, change that too.
What they want is to use the temple as a tool to get your assets, time, talents, and family. Being banned from family weddings and being treated like a second class citizen is the punishment for not having a temple reccommend. This is why the temple is pushed.
Step one is to get you going to church. Step two is to use social and family pressure to get you in the temple. The more the church herd into the temple the more money and power over the membership the church has.
It doesn't matter if garmets get shorter or if they streamline the temple cerimony more. That's filler for the most part. It's the temple reccommend proccess that locks your in.
|
-Click For More- | | The Money-Generating Ability Of Those "Appointment Only" Temples | |
DATE POSTED: | Jan 2, 2007, at 06:16 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Board Oldie |
|
I've posted this information before but it's been a few years. With all the threads lately about the McTemples that sit empty most of the time and speculation about whether TSCC is losing money on them, I thought I'd post it again.
A number of years ago, I worked with a guy who was a CPA and had worked for the finance dept. at COB. He'd been there a long time but finally had to force himself to leave in order to "preserve his testimony" because the everyday workings of church finance were taking its toll on it.
In particular, it was when they started building the mini temples and how it had nothing to do with inspiration, amount of temple work that could be done in that area, or anything other than how much money it would bring in that was the determining factor of where they built temples.
I was still in the church at the time, but very disillusioned and I think he felt safe confiding in me. But some of the things he told me really made sense. For instance:
It takes at the most, 9 months for a mini temple to pay for itself. You KNOW the one thing the Morg is good at, it's making money. Gordy Geezer can talk through his old saggy butt all day about what a "blessing" a temple in your area is, he knows darn well, the blessing is to the corporation.
They do extensive statistical research to figure out how much of a surge in tithing they will have when they first build the temple. This is usually enough to finance the whole thing. If you've been slacking on the tithing thinking it's too much trouble to drive 4 hours to the temple anyway and you'll start paying 100% again the next time you have to go to a wedding, you'll think twice when you see the temple every Sunday because it's right next to the chapel. There will be a big push on people to prepare themselves and sacrifice for "their" temple.
Once the temple is paid for, it costs very little in upkeep. There are no property taxes. Not only do they not have to pay for grounds upkeep, janitorial workers, temple workers, etc. because they "call" people to these enviable positions so they can work for free, but it also keeps lower-income people paying because there is a push to call people as temple workers who might have had trouble keeping up on their tithing before. No one is going to let their tithing lapse and has to go in and tell the bishop they can't do their temple job anymore because they can't get a recommend.
Even if your ward only has an assigned temple night one night a month or once a quarter, people still have to keep their recommends current (hence keep tithing current) so they aren't embarrassed and have to make excuses for why they can't go to ward temple night. In short, just that empty building sitting there is generating a lot of money just by virtue of its guilt-producing presence.
It can sit empty most of the time, all TSCC has to pay is a little overhead/upkeep and the utilities. In the meantime, the land is not only appreciating, but it is a valuable asset on the books. Where does the financing for malls come from? They can technically say they don't use "tithing money" for the malls, but they can use their great assets (such as monetary value of temples) to finance other projects that DO bring in a lot of money.
In short (or long) the temples are the Mormon Money Machines. And the best part is that the sheep easily fall for it and get all awe-struck when they get their own temples and as predicted, open their wallets. It will be a long, long, time before you start seeing any of these money machines shut down. We'll continue to see them built, maybe not on such a grand scale, because when this scheme was first figured out, they needed to populate the main money-generating areas of the church with them, but they'll figure out where there are enough members in other parts of the world to generate enough money and have a valuable money-producing asset.
|
-Click For More- | | New Changes To An Altready Aspiritual Cold Temple Ceremony | |
DATE POSTED: | Jan 26, 2007, at 07:47 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Active Apostate |
|
During the past month I went to a marriage and sealing ceremony in the Las Vegas Temple for the marriage of a brother in law. My wife (active, but a dwindling testimony) and her many active sisters asked for tissues as soon as they got into the room expecting a good cry for their little brother and his new wife. It did not happen.
The sealer, sat in the chair the entire time, with the exception of the moment he gave the sealing prayer. For about 5 minutes (no kidding), he spoke about how sealers had just been instructed not to give "advice" to newly married couples as a part of the sealing ceremony, and that he would not give advice. He said they had been instructed only to speak about the importance of the ordinance, and to focus on the ordinance and the priesthood. He went on and on about how these were new restrictions, and that he felt the changes were good because the church is focussing on the most important thing, the ordinance. During this entire speech, he remained seated. In a big room, it was very awkward.
It was the only ceremony I have been to where the sealer did not do the whole look into the mirror, and see eternity thing. He didn't do it.
At one point, while talking about the new changes, he said "I know it seems like I am doing too much talking about myself and the new restrictions" but it is important.
He then began to quiz, no kidding, the new bride, fresh through the temple about the different promises she made during the endowment. It was terrible because she was lost. Finally, my brother in law started answering for her. Very awkward.
Then he just got up, said the prayer, and waa-law, they were sealed. He then had everyone march past them to congratulate them, and when 1/2 of the poeple had already exited the room, the sealer remembered that they could exchange rings. The other temple workers called everyone back, even more akward, and they exchanged rings in a rushed moment. He was sure to remind everyone that the exchange of rings was not a part of the sealing ceremony and had no eternal significance. That is all he said. No comment on how nice the rings were, that the circle represented eternity, or anything kind.
I felt like telling him that he was a dumb-ass and had ruined the whole thing anyway. The whole ceremony became focussed on the rules rather than the love. It was cold.
I thought my view might have just been my personal bias agains the church (looking for flaws etc), but my observations were confirmed by everyone else after the ceremony. I have never heard so much "murmurring." My wife and her sisters were all complaining after it was over about the sealer, how he sat the whole time. How focussed on himself he was. My wife commented that he was so dry and impersonal that there was no place for her to even cry. They were upset.
A week later I was speaking to my brother in law, who is an active TBM, who was involved in another sealing a few days later in Utah. He was also present for the sealing in Las Vegas. Despite his utter TBM status, he complained that the Utah sealer did the same thing as the one in Vegas. The Utah sealer did not stand at all until the actual sealing prayer (this may be a cooincidence). Made the same comments about the new changes and the restriction on giving advice, and that he was instructed just to do the ordinance. My brother in law felt the new ceremony was cold.
The church is ever increasingly more corporate, and obsessed with rules. Rules for everything. The church is becoming so sterile. Even for active members. Of course its all a sham, so it shouldn't surprise me. But it is getting difficult for even believing members to endure.
|
-Click For More- | | General Authorties Are Completely Out Of Touch With Popular Culture And Weddings | |
DATE POSTED: | Jan 29, 2007, at 08:49 AM |
|
Some of you might be wondering why I even care what the mormon church does or says about anything. And you would probably be right since I haven't considered myself mormon for 15 years.
I was thinking the other day about how pervasive American mass media is about weddings. There are magazines devoted to weddings and receptions. There are conventions with wedding planners, hair stylists, florists, pastry chefs, photographers, etc. It is an enormous, billion dollar industry.
Whether or not it's empowering for women - the vast majority of little girls will be sucked into this culture. Bridal gowns are costumes for halloween. Music videos are filled with weddings and wedding imagery (Think a simple kind of life with Gwen Stefani). Many successful movies (Father of the Bride, both versions) are based around this pie in the sky wedding fantasy that many women have. In an episode of the sitcom Friends a few years ago, one of the characters brings out a binder filled with clips and cutouts for her wedding she had come up with at the age of 10. I saw a children's cartoon (Little Bear) with a fake wedding with an aisle the other day. These fantasies all have aisles and brides in gowns and veils. It's literally everywhere.
So - with this tremendous pressure on mormon women to marry and to marry a mormon, what kind of planning does a mormon woman get to do for her actual wedding ceremony? Nothing. She actually has no idea what the ceremony will be like. No one, not her mother, teachers or friends are allowed to talk about what happens. There is no beautiful strapless white gown in her future as she walks down the aisle.
There is no aisle.
In popular culture - people can choose to do lots of things. They can exchange vows in front of immediate family or just a justice of the peace. Getting married outdoors, on a beach, on a baseball diamond is trendy. She can wear pants. While a gay couple can't get married legally, there are plenty of gay weddings. In the end, who cares what a couple decides to do? It's what the couple wants. A mormon woman has no idea what she is in for.
As an adult, I've read more about the mormon ceremony - it's published lots of places on the net and in books. Of course it's seen as horribly offensive to active mormons - who feel the ceremony is sacred and should never be shown to outsiders. (Never mind the fact that it is directly lifted from the Masonic rituals). Many might argue that I should respect others' beliefs - yet this is one part that I find hard to respect. The sacred part of the ceremony should not be the knowledge of the ceremony itself - but the spiritual reaction. AND at this point - when anyone who looked could easily find what happens - why does the secrecy matter? What purpose does it serve?
I agree that some of the wedding culture (like prom culture) is just plain sexist and bullshit. Some women spend so much time planning for their weddings that actually being married seems like an afterthought. Others become depressed after the wedding is over in a "what now" type funk. And yes, at one point the wedding and dowry were an exchange of property (women) from their fathers to their husbands. Weddings and marriage have not always had a glorious tolerant history.
Yet Utah LDS/mormon leadership is (as usual) completely out of touch with popular culture. This isn't surprising since most of them are over 90, white, male and rarely leave Utah.
There is no cultural comparison for a mormon woman to look forward to her wedding ceremony.
I'm not suggesting that I would have stayed mormon if I had actually been able to look forward to my wedding. There are so many reasons why I left - this wasn't even a blip on my radar.
All I'm suggesting is - how can a wedding or marriage be an ideal for a young woman if she doesn't even know what she's in for? It's not an attractive prospect. It's terrifying. Not only does she not know what she's in for, she has to remain pure and chaste in order to get to that pinnacle. Again - she has to sacrifice, possibly lie to herself and others about something in which she is completely in the dark about what happens there.
I cannot imagine how I would have reacted at my wedding in the temple when I saw the men putting on green aprons and chef hats. Then - I would put on a veil - covering my face! Because there is a definite separation there of what the men do and what the women do.
Sure, the leadership does a phenomenal job of indoctrinating children into going to the temple. "I love to see the temple" is a common primary (young children) song - or "My body is a temple". Songs like this are sung by little mormons (as young as three) all the time. They never sing about how going to the temple requires 10% of your income to the mormon church. I guess that's not as important.
It's simply not fair to keep women (and men) out of the process. I'm sure by keeping everything secret that people don't think about how wacky everything really is. It's a method of control and manipulation. There's no question the mormon/LDS church is moving towards a more non-discript, not as separate religious order. If so, this ceremony will have to go - or at least, the secrecy will have to go.
|
-Click For More- | | My Last Temple Experience | |
DATE POSTED: | Feb 9, 2007, at 08:42 AM |
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: | Sister Mary Lisa |
|
It was time to go...the youth temple night for baptisms for the dead was that night, and since I was a counselor in the Young Women presidency, I needed to be there on time in order to help out.
I had recently received my "Limited Use" recommend for adults who were able/worthy to do baptisms for the dead, but were unable to have a full-use recommend to do adult things in the temple like take out the endowment or other things. My bishop had a little group of women in the ward who had not taken out their endowment like I hadn't, and he pushed us to go to the temple to at least do baptisms for the dead.
I arrived, and since we were unsure how many kids were actually going to show up, I checked out a white jumpsuit to wear just in case I was also needed to perform baptisms. I changed in the girls' dressing room, and the Young Women president and I helped the girls in there until we went out and sat on the benches overlooking the font where the kids waited to begin doing baptisms.
It looked like enough kids showed up, so soon I was in the dressing room helping the girls with getting ready (and helping them stay quiet and reverent) after they came out of the water. The YW president was in the little hallway that led from the font to the dressing room, and she was handing out towels to them as they came up out of the water. She went to get more towels, so I helped her by taking over handing out towels as the girls got done. I sat on a little stool holding dry towels next to the guy who was reading the names to the baptism performer, and across from me sat my bishop (and friend) and one of the Young Men presidency members. I'd hand a towel to those leaving the water as they got to the top of the steps, and then I'd get another towel and wait for the next kid to come out of the water.
Fast forward to the next Sunday. The Young Women president, a very sweet woman who also happened to be the stake president's wife, stopped me in the parking lot at church and said she needed to talk to me.
"Um, Lisa, I hope you're not offended by this, but I was asked to talk to you about helping out in the temple. Um....you can't help with the baptisms like that anymore...can't hand out towels. What you can do is stay in the girls' dressing room to help out, or sit in the chapel and help anyone who needs you, but you aren't able to go into the font area anymore. I hope this doesn't upset you....." I could tell she felt really uncomfortable doing this. I wondered who had put her up to it. Probably my bishop, who was there that night. She is a very sweet, very calm and unassuming woman, and we were both highly uncomfortable. I guess it's also possible she talked to her husband about it if SHE was the one who didn't like it, and he told her to talk to me. I don't know.
I stood there feeling pretty stupid. I had no idea that I was unworthy to HAND OUT TOWELS. Especially if I was worthy to actually step into the font and perform baptisms. I didn't quite know what to say.
I answered her, "No, that's fine, no problem. OK. I'll remember. I won't do that again, now that I know it's forbidden."
She said she was sorry again, and she hoped I wasn't offended, and I assured her I wasn't offended, and I said something to make her feel better, and we said goodbye.
I wish that wasn't my last temple experience to remember. Before that it had always been a very special place to me, a place where I felt a lot closer to God. Not so much anymore.
|
-Click For More- | | Here's The Effect A Small Local Temple Had On Me | |
DATE POSTED: | Mar 26, 2007, at 06:07 AM |
|
The closest temple when I was young was 1200 miles away. Then it went to 450 miles and now it's 15 miles.
The farther away it was the more "special" it was. You had to make a bigger sacrifice to get there. Also you didn't know the people in the temple so it was easier to mythologize the experience (familiarity can certainly breed contempt). It also made me think more about my own worthiness.
So in the local temple it's all with the local joes you see every week at Church. If the guy officiating at the endowment session is that bozo who makes the stupidest comments in EQ and hardly ever does his HTing, that makes the experience, well, less "speshul".
I think Gordo's "inspiration" was that it would be a unifying and strengthening factor, but I think it's had an opposite effect and makes it harder for the morg to perpetuate its myths.
Related to this I can remember my disappointment when Gordo explained his "inspiration" for the small temple initiative. He was being chauffeured around in a limo when the thought popped into his head. At that moment another issue went up on my shelf that later came tumbling down.
| |
