Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Mormon Rituals ULM 1/4
Message-ID: <1993Apr28.233616.4464@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 23:35:16 GMT
Lines: 507

[This contains all 4 parts, concatenated.]

The following is was printed by Jerald and Sandra Tanner.
It is posted to provide more information on the LDS cult ritual
of temple ceremonies. For further information on this subject,
or other subjects relating to the LDS, please call 801-485-8894
and ask for a catalog of materials.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue no. 75, July 1990

Salt Lake City Messenger
Utah Lighthouse Ministry
PO Box, 1884, Salt lake City, Utah 84110 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Temple Ritual Altered
Mormon Leaders Delete Some of the 'Most Sacred' Parts of the Ceremony



In response to Fawn M. Brodie's book, _No Man Knows My History_,
the noted Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley declared: "Yet of all churches in
the world only this one has not found it necessary to readjust any part
of its doctrine in the last hundred years.... How does Brodie explain
the fact that the doctrine which she claims was the haphazard outgrowth
of complete opportunism remains the most stable on earth?" (_No Ma'am
That's Not History_, 1946, pp. 4647)

Although most Mormons have always placed a great deal of weight
in Dr. Nibley's arguments, recent developments within the church itself
will undoubtedly cause many to wonder about his claims concerning
doctrinal stability. The New York Times gave this startling report in an article which begins on the first page of the issue dated May 3, 1990:

"The Mormon Church has changed some of its most sacred
rituals, eliminating parts of the largely secret ceremonies that have
been viewed as offensive to women and to members of some other
faiths.
"Last month the church... quietly dropped from its
temple rituals a vow in which women pledged obedience to their
husbands... and a portrayal of non-Mormon clergy as hirelings of
Satan.
"Church officials have confirmed that changes went into
effect in mid-April, but the ceremonies are considered to be too
sacred, they say, for them to comment further.... More specific
information on the changes has been provided to the news media by
Mormons participating in the rituals at the church's 43 temples
around the world and by former Mormons who are critical of the
rituals. A number of Mormons who would not discuss details of the
rituals verified that these reports were 'pretty factual' or 'not
inaccurate.'...
"'Because the temple ceremony is sacred to us, we don't
speak about it except in the most general terms,' said Beverly
Campbell, the East Coast director for public communications for the
Church... she said 'the ceremony itself needs to meet the needs of
the people.' The revised ritual is 'more in keeping with the
sensitivities we have as a society,' she added.
"Lavina Fielding Anderson, who will soon become an
editor of the _Journal of Mormon History_, said she 'greeted the
changes with a great deal of joy,' and added, 'The temple ceremony in
the past has given me a message that could be interpreted as
subservient and exclusionary.'
"In the place of an oath of obedience that men took to
God and the church, the previous ceremony required women to vow
obedience to their husbands...
"Although Ms. Anderson would not describe any of the
changes, she said the revision 'gives me hope and renewed faith that
changes will occur in the future as they have in the past.'...
"The ceremony also contains elements resembling the
Masonic rituals current in 1830, when Joseph Smith founded the
church...
"The latest revisions diminish these elements, including
gestures symbolizing the participant's pledge to undergo a gruesome
death rather than reveal the rituals. Also dropped is a scene in
which Satan hires a non-Mormon 'preacher' to spread false
teachings....
"Ross Peterson, the editor of _Dialogue_, an independent
Mormon quarterly, said the unfamiliar elements of the ritual
frequently 'catches young Mormons cold' and disturbs them. 'I've
known an awful lot of people who went once and it was years before
they'd go back, especially women,' he said....
"Bruce L. Olsen, managing director of the church's
communications office in Salt Lake City, denied that the changes were
made in response to criticism or social pressure. The Mormon Church
believes 'in continued and modern revelation,' Mr. Olsen said, so
that practices might be changed when 'the Lord clarified' church
teaching....
"But some Mormons see the church as responding, without
admitting it, both to critics and to the church's growth overseas....
"Among the critics are many conservative Christians who
complain that Mormonism features occult practices."

The Arizona Republic (April 28, 1990) referred to the
modifications in the ceremony as "Revolutionary changes." The same
article went on to state:

"The changes in the Temple Endowment Ceremony are seen
as a move to bring the secret ceremony closer to mainstream
Christianity. The changes are the most drastic revisions of the
century...
"Church officials in Salt Lake City refused to discuss
the ceremony, which is shrouded in secrecy. In fact the church has
issued a directive to temple members telling them to refrain from
talking about the changes in the ceremony....
"Another prominent Mormon, who asked not to be
identified, confirmed that portions of the ceremony have been
removed.
"'The temple ceremony has been significantly abridged,'
he said....
"Changes in the ceremony include:... A modified version
of the woman's vow of obedience to the husband....
"I think this is in response to the feminist movement in
the Mormon Church," said Sandra Tanner, a former Mormon who now heads
Utah Lighthouse Ministries in Salt Lake City. 'Many of the women
objected to the obedience.' "

An article by Associated Press writer Vem Anderson also noted
that the ceremony has "undergone what some view as their most
significant changes this century." He went on to say:

"The revisions, effective April 10 in the faith's 43
temples, are being greeted with enthusiasm by church members who say
they reflect a greater sensitivity toward women and other religions.
"'The temple is an important part of my spiritual life
and the changes have allowed me to go to the temple with renewed
joy,' said Lavina Fielding Anderson...
"'The general consensus is that it's a breath of fresh
air,' said Ross Peterson, co-editor of _Dialogue_, an independent
Mormon journal....
"Peterson said many Mormons who never had expressed a
negative word about the endowment ceremony are thrilled with the
changes, indicating there had been elements that 'were silently
upsetting them.'
"'I think we're gradually moving away from the
subjugation of women,' Peterson said....
"Rebecca England... said the changes may boost temple
attendance.
"'I know quite a number of Mormons who stopped going to
the temple because they found it demeaning. And I think this revised
ceremony addresses many of the concerns...
"The changes were not announced to the membership at
large, but temple attendees are being read a statement from the
governing First Presidency which says the revisions, following long
and prayerful review, were unanimously approved by that three-member
body and the advisory Quorum of the Twelve Apostles." (Salt Lake
Tribune, April 29, 1990)

On May 5, 1990, the Los Angeles Times printed an article by John
Dart. In this article we find the following:

"The central temple ceremony in the Mormon Church has
been changed to eliminate the woman's vow to obey her husband... In
the new version of the rites, women now pledge to obey God and to
merely listen to the advice of their husbands.
"'That's the most significant change in the church since
blacks received the priesthood in 1978,' said Ron Priddis, vice
president of Signature Books...
"The new version 'reflects greater sensitivity and
awareness of women and women's role in the Christian church,' said
Robert Rees, a Mormon bishop... Although unwilling to disclose
elements of the ritual, Rees nevertheless said that some parts
eliminated 'were historical and cultural anachronisms.' "

On June 2, 1990, The Salt Lake Tribune ran an article by Los
Angeles Times writer John Dart. In that article, Mr. Dart reported that,
"Most Mormon Church members quoted last month in news stories about
revisions in the church's confidential temple ceremony have been
summoned for interviews by church officials... One man said he was
reprimanded for talking to the press and another was asked to surrender
his 'temple recommend'... The public communications office of the
Church... issued a statement Thursday, defending the questioning of
members and reemphasizing the sacred confidentiality of the temples."

REVEALED BY GOD

Mormon leaders have always proclaimed that the temple ritual--
often referred to as the "temple endowment" because the recipients are
supposed to be "endowed with power from on high"--was given to Joseph
Smith, the first Mormon prophet, by revelation. The ordinances in this
ritual, which are performed for both the living and the dead (by proxy),
are considered to be "most sacred." A person has to go through these
ceremonies before becoming a missionary and those who desire to be
married in the temple for "time and eternity" must first have their
"temple endowments."

Mormon theology teaches that those who are married in the temple
can eventually become Gods and rule over their own creations. Apostle
Bruce R. McConkie affirmed that the righteous who are married in the
temple "for time and eternity" have "gained eternal life (exaltation),
the greatest of all the gifts of God... Those so inheriting are the sons
and daughters of God... They are joint-heirs with Christ... becoming
gods in their own right.'- (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pp. 117-18) President
Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th prophet of the church, made the matter
very clear:

"It fills my heart with sadness when I see in the paper
the name of a daughter or a son of members of this Church, and
discover that she or he is going to have a ceremony and be married
outside of the temple of the Lord, because I realize what it means,
that they are cutting themselves off from exaltation in the kingdom
of God.... These young people who seem to be so happy now, when they
rise in the resurrection--and find themselves in the condition in
which they will find themselves -- then there will be weeping, and
wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and bitterness of soul...
"Civil Marriage Makes Servants In Eternity.... Celestial
Marriage Makes Gods In Eternity.... it is open to us; it is a free
gift; it doesn't cost us anything: only righteousness, faith,
obedience; and surely we can pay that price." (Doctrines of
Salvation, vol. 2, p. 60-63)

Mormons who go through the temple ceremony and are sealed in
marriage for eternity believe that they will not only become Gods, but
will also continue to have children throughout all eternity. They will
people other worlds with their spiritual children and these children
will worship and pray to the husband as God. Mormons feel that the God
of the Bible was not always God and that he also had to pass through the
same endowments to achieve deity. Wilford Woodruff, who became the 4th
prophet of the Mormon Church, proclaimed that "the Lord had His
endowments long ago; it is thousands and millions of years since He
received His blessings... He is far in advance of us." (Journal of
Discourses, vol. 4, p. 192)

According to a revelation given by Joseph Smith, those who will
not submit to Celestial Marriage are "appointed angels in heaven, which
angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of
a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory... these
angels... remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their
saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not Gods, but
are angels of God forever and ever." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:16-17)

Although faithful Mormons have written many articles and books
on temples, they have been very careful not to tell what actually goes
on in the endowment ritual. One of the most revealing and concise
statements, however, comes from comments President Brigham Young made in
1877. These comments were recorded in the diary of L. John Nuttall. The
2nd prophet of the church remarked:

"When we got our washings and anointings under the hands
of the Prophet Joseph at Nauvoo, we had only one room to work in,
with the exception of a little side room or office where we were
washed and anointed, had our garment placed upon us and received our
new name; and after he had performed these ceremonies, he gave the
key-words, signs, tokens, and penalties. Then after, we went into the
large room... Joseph Smith divided up the room the best that he
could, hung up the veil, marked it, gave us our instructions as we
passed along from one department to another, giving us signs, tokens,
penalties, with the key-words pertaining to those signs." (Statement
of Brigham Young, recorded in the diary of L. John Nuttall, Feb. 7,
1877, as cited in _God, Man, And The Universe_, by Hyrum L. Andrus,
1968, p. 334)

The reader will notice that President Young mentioned washings, anointings, garments, the new name, the key-words, signs, tokens and
penalties. He also stated that there was a "veil" with certain marks on
it. On another occasion, Brigham Young made it clear that the endowment contains secret information that the initiated need to get into heaven:
"Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the
Lord... to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father,
passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them
the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood,
and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." (Journal
of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 31) Those who have actually been through the
ceremony affirm that secret grips, signs and key-words are learned
during the ceremony which will be needed after death for a person to
gain entrance into God's presence. It is at the "veil" that the Lord
himself questions the candidate who desires to enter into his presence.

The fact that the temple ritual was changed by the present
leaders of the church will undoubtedly cause serious problems for many
devout members of the church who feel that these ceremonies cannot be
tampered with. They will probably have a difficult time understanding
how the General Authorities can meddle with a sacred ceremony which was supposed to have been given by revelation to Joseph Smith.

The inspired nature of the ritual has been impressed on the
minds of the Mormon people since the 1840's. Even before the Nauvoo
temple was built, Joseph Smith gave a revelation foretelling that God
himself was about to restore the ancient mysteries that had been lost
from the earth: "...build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein. For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away,
even the fulness of the priesthood.... And verily I say unto you, let
this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances
therein... For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been
kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to
the dispensation of the fulness of times. And I will show unto my
servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood
thereof, and the place whereon it shall be built." (Doctrine and
Covenants 124:27-28, 40-42)

After Joseph Smith received the endowment ceremony, it was
accepted as a divine revelation from God. Since that time church leaders
have continued to stress that the endowment came from heaven. Apostle
John A. Widtsoe, for instance, wrote the following: "Joseph Smith
received the temple endowment and its ritual, as all else that he
promulgated, by revelation from God. " (Joseph Smith -- Seeker After
Truth, Prophet Of God, 1951, p. 249) Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote the following under the title "Temple Ordinances": "Certain gospel
ordinances are of such a sacred and holy nature that the Lord authorizes
their performance only in holy sanctuaries prepared and dedicated for
that very purpose.... They were given in modern times to the Prophet
Joseph Smith by revelation, many things connected with them being
translated by the Prophet from the papyrus on which the Book of Abraham
was recorded." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 779) The current prophet of the
church, Ezra Taft Benson, does not hesitate to affirm that the endowment
ritual came by revelation:

"The endowment was revealed by revelation and can be
understood only by revelation....
"This temple... is a place of revelation.... The laws
and ordinances which cause men and women to come out of the world and
become sanctified are administered only in these holy places. They
were given by revelation and are comprehended by revelation." (The
Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 1988, pp. 250, 252)
+++
In the past, Mormon leaders have not only taught that the
endowment came by revelation, but also that it was not changed since the
time of Joseph Smith. Just after the church passed into the 20th
century, there was an attempt to remove Mormon Senator Reed Smoot from
his seat. These lengthy hearings are usually referred to as the Reed
Smoot Case. Although Senator Smoot retained his seat, the hearings
proved to be very embarrassing for the church because of the testimony
given concerning polygamy after the Manifesto and charges of Mormon
Church interference in politics. In any case, when Senator Smoot, who
was also an apostle in the church, was questioned about the endowment
ceremony, he responded: "...the endowments have never changed; as I
understand it; it has been so testified, and that Joseph Smith, jr.,
himself was the founder of the endowments." (Reed Smoot Case, vol. 3, p.
185)

On page 140 of the same volume, the following statements by
President Joseph F. Smith, the 6th prophet of the church, were entered
into the record:

"It [the Nauvoo temple] was finished... and was
dedicated unto the Lord. The ordinances of the house of God were
administered therein as they had been taught to the leading
authorities of the church by the Prophet Joseph Smith himself. The
same gospel, the same ordinances, the same authority and blessings
that were administered by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and taught by him
to his associates, are now being enjoyed by and taught to the
Latter-Day Saints in the four temples... When you hear anybody say we
have changed the ordinances, that we have transgressed the laws, or
broken the everlasting covenants which were entered into under the
personal administration of the Prophet Joseph Smith, tell them for
me... and for all those who are living today who received blessings
and ordinances under the hands of the Prophet Joseph Smith, that they
are in error. The same gospel prevails to-day, and the same
ordinances are administered today, both for the living and for the
dead, as were administered by the prophet himself and delivered by
him to the church."

These statements by President Smith were originally printed in
the church's newspaper, _Deseret Evening News_, Dec. 1, 1900. President
Smith's son, Joseph Fielding Smith, who served as the 10th prophet of
the church in the early 1970's, printed an affidavit by Bathsheba W.
Smith which contained the following: "Near the close of the year 1843,
or in the beginning of the year 1844, I received the ordinance of
anointing... the same day... I received my endowment... The endowments
were given under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith... there has
been no change, to my certain knowledge, in these ceremonies, They are
the same today as they were then." (Blood Atonement and the Origin of
Plural Marriage, p. 87)

Mormon leaders have not only taught that their church has not
changed its doctrines and ordinances, but they have pointed to changes
by other churches as evidence of apostacy. In an editorial published in
the Church Section of the _Deseret News_, June 5, 1965, we find the
following: "...God is unchangeable, the same yesterday, today and
forever.... The great mistake made down through the ages by teachers of Christianity, is that they have supposed they could place their own
private interpretation upon scriptures, allow their own personal
convenience to become a controlling factor, and change the basis of
[C]hristian law and practice to suit themselves. This is apostacy.

"The Gospel can not possibly be changed... the saving principles
must ever be the same. They can never change.... the Gospel must always
be the same in all of its parts.... no one can change the Gospel... if
they attempt to do so, they only set up a man-made system which is not
the Gospel, but is merely a reflection of their own views.... if we
substitute 'any other Gospel,' there is no salvation in it.... the Lord
and His Gospel remain the same --always."

In 1982, W. Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, made it very
clear that the temple ceremony could not be changed:

"'As temple work progresses, some members wonder if the
ordinances can be changed or adjusted. These ordinances have been
provided by revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency.
Thus, the temple is protected from tampering." (Deseret News, Church
Section, January 16, 1982)

It would appear that instead of protecting the ordinances, the
current First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles have
themselves been "tampering" with them. It is interesting to note that
the first Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, proclaimed that the ordinances
could never be changed:

"Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of
the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that
dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the
preceding dispensations.... He set the ordinances to be the same
forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them
from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them." (History of
the Church, vol. 4, p. 208)

The Book of Mormon itself accuses the Catholics of conspiring to
alter the Bible. It bluntly states that "many plain and precious things"
have been deliberately removed:

"...thou seest the formation of that great and
abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches;
for behold they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many
parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of
the Lord have they taken away.... this they have done that they might
pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes
and harden the hearts of the children of men.... thou seest that
after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and
abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things
taken away from the book... because of the many plain and precious
things which have been taken out of the book... an exceedingly great
many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over
them." (Book of Mormon, I Nephi 13:26-30)

Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., the son of the 10th prophet of the
church, charged: "The Bible alone is an insufficient guide because the 'plainness of the gospel' has been removed.... The early 'apostate
fathers' did not think it was wrong to tamper with inspired scripture.
If any scripture seemed to endanger their viewpoint, it was altered, transplanted or completely removed from the biblical text. All this was
done that they might keep their traditions. Such mutilation was
considered justifiable to preserve the so-called 'purity' of their
doctrines." (Religious Truths Defined, 1959, pp. 175-76)

Mormon Apostle Mark E. Petersen bluntly stated: "Many insertions
were made [in the Bible], some of them 'slanted' for selfish purposes,
while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were
perpetrated." (As Translated Correctly, 1966, p. 4)

The current prophet of the church, President Ezra Taft Benson, emphatically proclaimed: "The Book of Mormon is the keystone in our
witness of Jesus Christ... Unlike the Bible, which passed through
generations of copyists, translators and corrupt religionists who
tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in
just one inspired step of translation." (The Teachings of Ezra Taft
Benson, 1988, page 53)

Since Mormon leaders and apologists have freely criticized other churches for making changes and have claimed that their doctrines are
"the most stable on earth," the General Authorities of the church must
have approached the question of changing the temple ceremony with a great
deal of caution. David John Buerger informs us that when some procedural changes were suggested in the temple ceremony some years ago, "initial opposition came from Elder Harold B. Lee due to what he perceived as
'doctrinal tampering.' " (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter
1987, p. 63) Harold B. Lee later became the 11th prophet of the church.
While minor changes have been made in the ceremony during the last few
decades, they appear insignificant when compared with those made on
April 10, 1990.

We would suspect that the Mormon leaders must have decided to
make the present changes many months ago. Since "motion pictures have
replaced some of the live actors" in most of the temples, it follows
that it would take time to make new films containing the changes. The
Salt Lake Tribune, April 29, 1990, reported that the "new endowment
film, the fifth since the 1950s, incorporates the most recent
revisions." (The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 1976, p. 574) It should
also be noted that it would take time to make new translations of the
changes for the foreign temples.

We may never know for certain whether George P. Lee, who was a
member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, knew of the proposed changes
in the temple ceremony before his excommunication was announced in the September 2, 1989, issue of the Salt Lake Tribune. It is interesting to
note, however, that in a letter "To the First Presidency and the
Twelve," Lee did mention his concern that other church leaders felt they
could change the gospel:

"7. I have heard a few of you declare that you are
greater than ancient apostles such as Moses, Abraham, Noah[,]
Is[a]iah, Isaac, Jacob and etc. This reflects the attitude of all of
you.
"8. I have heard one of [or?] more of you declare that
you can change anything Jesus had said or taught. This also reflects
the attitude of all of you." (Letter by George P. Lee,
photographically printed in Excommunication of a Mormon Church
Leader, page 54)

Less than two weeks before the changes were made in the temple, President Gordon B. Hinckley, First Counselor in the First Presidency, expressed concern about members of the church talking about the temple ceremony: "I remind you of the absolute obligation to not discuss
outside the temple that which occurs wi @hin the temple. Sacred matters
deserve sacred consideration. We are under obligation, binding and
serious, to not use temple language or speak of temple matters
outside... do not discuss outside of the temple that which occurs in the temple.... when you leave the doors of the House of the Lord, be true to
a sacred trust to speak not of that which is holy and sanctified." (The
Ensign, May 1990, p. 52) It seems obvious that President Hinckley gave
this warning in an attempt to keep members from talking about the
changes which were to be made in the ceremony ten days later. It is
obvious, of course, that Hinckley's admonition was not followed by many
members of the church and therefore accounts of the changes in the
ritual made their way to the news media. We had been told that changes
would be made some time before they actually took place, and members of
the church discussed them with us after they were made.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Mormon Rituals ULM 2/4
Message-ID: <1993Apr28.233708.4526@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 23:36:18 GMT
Lines: 493

It is interesting to note that the changes in the temple
ceremony were put into effect immediately after the church's general
conference had ended (the conference ended April 1st and the changes
were made on April 10th). The temple presidents were apparently given instructions about the changes before they returned from conference to
their work in the various temples throughout the world. The general
membership of the church, however, left the conference completely in the
dark with regard to what was about to happen to their sacred ritual.
Since it would be six months before another general conference would
take place, any dissenting opinions or discussion of the changes would
have to take place on a local level.

Church leader Joseph Fielding Smith declared that "One of the
greatest blessings given to mankind is the gift of free agency."
(Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 3, p. 46) As far as we can determine, faithful Latter-day Saints were given no chance to exercise their free
agency with regard to the changes made in the endowment ceremony. The
method of handling this whole matter, however, was in accord with a
statement which appeared in the official Mormon publication Improvement
Era, June 1945 (p. 354): "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been
done. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the
way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it
should mark the end of controversy."

Although it is often ignored, the church actually has a doctrine
of "common consent" which should have applied to the alterations made in
the temple ritual. In a revelation given by Joseph Smith in July 1830 we
find the following: "And all things shall be done by common consent in
the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive
by faith. Amen." (Doctrine and Covenants 26:2) Section 28:13 reaffirms
that "all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the
church..."

Joseph F. Smith, the 6th prophet of the church, testified as
follows in the Reed Smoot investigation: "Mr. Smith-: I will say this,
Mr. Chairman, that no revelation given through the head of the church
ever becomes binding and authoritative upon the members of the church
until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them." (Reed
Smoot Case, vol. 1, p. 96) Apostle John Henry Smith gave this testimony
in vol. 2, p. 321:

"Mr. Smith-: Yes, sir; he [the prophet] receives
revelations; but the revelations must be accepted by his church by
vote.
"Mr. Tayler-: So that what the Almighty orders depends
on whether the people who are ordered want to do it or not?
"Mr. Smith. Yes, sir, there is no force on the Mormon
people."

Apostle James E. Talmage likewise testified: "If it is a
revelation it is a revelation, and amounts to just so much; but as to
being a binding law upon the church--a law of practice and action -- it
would have to be first adopted by the church to become such." (vol. 3,
p. 80)

From the testimony given by the Mormon leaders, a person would certainly be led to believe that a major revision of the temple ritual
(a ceremony which was supposed to have been given by revelation) would
have to be approved by church members before it would be binding on the
Mormon people and used in the church's 43 temples. For the General
Authorities to drop out important portions of a ceremony they claim came
from God himself, seems far worse than what they have charged the
Catholics with doing. After all, the Book of Mormon's accusation that
the "great and abominable church" removed "many plain and precious
things" from the Bible (a charge which the Mormon leaders cannot prove)
relates to portions that would have been available at one time to
everyone that had access to the Biblical text. The items which were
removed from the temple ceremony were supposed to have been so sacred
that they were never revealed to the world. These secret ceremonies
could only be found in the temples of the Lord. These rituals, in fact,
purport to give the information on how men may become Gods!

Mormon leaders who have now passed away would have been shocked
at what the present leaders altered or removed from the temple ceremony. Apostle James E. Talmage emphasized: "No jot, iota, or tittle of the
temple rites is otherwise than uplifting and sanctifying. In every
detail the endowment ceremony contributes to covenants of morality of
life, consecration of person to high ideals, devotion to truth,
patriotism to nation, and allegiance to God." (The House of the Lord
1968, p. 84)
+++
As the newspaper accounts have stated, the Mormon leaders have
removed the "penalties" which were previously held to be extremely
important and sacred. The reader will remember that we have quoted
President Brigham Young as saying that Joseph Smith himself "gave the key-words, signs, tokens, and penalties." Before the recent changes in
the ceremony, it was stressed in the ceremony itself that the penalties
were sacred: "We are required to give you the First Tokens of the
Aaronic Priesthood. Before doing this, however, we desire to impress
upon your minds the sacred character of the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign and penalty, together with
that of all the other Tokens of the Holy Priesthood, with their
accompanying names, signs and penalties, which you will receive in the
temple this day. They are most sacred and are guarded by solemn
covenants and obligations of secrecy to the effect that under no
condition, even at the peril of your life, will you ever divulge them...
The representation of the penalties indicates different ways in which
life may be taken." (Mormonism-- Shadow or Reality? p. 468)

From this it is very clear that the penalties, which have now
been removed from the temple ritual, were previously considered to be
"most sacred."

Harold B. Lee, who later became the 12th prophet of the church, compared the things found in the temple ritual to the "pearls" that
Jesus mentioned in Matthew 7:6: "'But we say the ordinances are sacred
as contrasted with just being secret.... the Master said, 'Give not that
which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you....
in temples like this, there could be revealed that which couldn't be had otherwise.'" (Improvement Era Feb. 1965, p. 123, as cited in _Achieving
a Celestial Marriage_ p. 202) Other Mormon leaders have also identified
the elements of the temple ceremony with the pearls mentioned by Christ.
If this were the case, it would appear that the Mormon leaders have now
thrown away some of their "most sacred" pearls!

SECRETS LEAK OUT

Joseph Smith swore those who took part in the endowments to
secrecy, but because of his practice of plural marriage and other
doctrines he taught, many of his followers became alienated from the
Mormon Church and some of them revealed the contents of the ritual. An
account was published as early as April 15, 1846, in the Warsaw Signal. Increase McGee Van Dusen and his wife exposed the temple ceremony in
1847, and their account was reprinted several times. Many other exposes
were printed in the 19th century. As we noted earlier, the Reed Smoot investigation took place just after the turn of the century. At that
time many people who had been through the ritual were questioned
regarding its contents. While a number refused to talk about it, others
spoke concerning what went on in the temples. Their testimony was
printed by the United States Government in four volumes.

In 1889 John Moore and W.J. Edgar were denied citizenship
because it was believed that they had taken "an oath or obligation
incompatible with the oath of citizenship..." As in the Reed Smoot investigation, Mormons or those who had formerly been Mormons were
called upon to give testimony concerning the temple ceremony. In the
"Temple Lot Case," a dispute over the property on which a temple was to
be built, additional testimony was given concerning the ritual. Much of
this testimony appears in a large volume entitled, The Temple Lot Case.

On February 12, 1906, the Salt Lake Tribune printed the temple
ritual, and in 1931, W. M. Paden published an account of the endowment
ceremony in Temple Mormonism --Its Evolution, Ritual and Meaning. In
1964, William J. Whalen printed the ceremony (see Latter-Day Saints in
the Modern Day World), and two years later John L. Smith, a Baptist
minister, published the ritual in _I Visited the Temple_.

In 1964, we reprinted Paden's 1931 publication concerning the
temple ceremony. We suspected, however, that there had been some changes
in the ceremony over the years. Since we wanted to publish the most
accurate account possible, we had a couple who had been through the
ritual about fifty times revise Paden's work. Later, however, a man who
had been through the temple approximately 120 times heard that we were preparing to publish the ritual and felt that it was important that the
most accurate account possible should be given to the world. He,
therefore, volunteered to bring the ceremony right up to date. We
published this account in vol. 1 of _The Mormon Kingdom_ in 1969, and
later we incorporated this same account into our book,
_Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ Tens of thousands of copies have been distributed throughout the world since that time. It was our feeling
that Mormons should have the right to know what they were getting into
before they were sworn to secrecy and had to take part in the
demonstration of the penalties. Although we felt that we were performing
an important service for the Mormon people, many people were horrified
that we would dare to print the ritual. Nevertheless, a number of Mormon scholars verified that we had produced an extremely accurate account of
the ceremony. Many Mormons had a difficult time believing that God would
allow anyone to reproduce the ritual and found it hard to believe that a printed copy actually existed. Writing in the Los Angeles Times, May 5,
1990, John Dart commented: "Some candid Mormon officials have
acknowledged in interviews that the whole secret ritual was published
years ago by church critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Salt Lake City."

The Salt Lake City Public Library obtained a number of copies of _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ Unfortunately, however, there was a
continual problem with people ripping or cutting out pages which related
to the temple endowment. Some people wondered if the church would allow
us to continue to publish the ritual. We shared the same concern, but,
as it turned out, the Mormons allowed us to continue exercising our
freedom of religion and of the press.

In any case, as far as the Mormon Church was concerned, the
situation turned from bad to worse. About eleven years after our
publication of the ceremony, Bob Whitte and Gordon H. Fraser printed the
ritual in a pamphlet entitled, _What's Going on in Here?_ Later, Chuck
and Dolly Sackett published a pamphlet with a similar title, _What's
Going on in There?_ The Sackett's pamphlet was unique in that on page 4
of the booklet they claimed that their printing "was transcribed from a
tape recording made inside the temple during the actual Endowment
ceremony." While Mormons questioned the ethics of someone secretly
recording the ceremony, no one seemed to doubt that the tape recording
had actually been made. The Sacketts, who had previously been deeply
involved in genealogy and temple work for the church, went a step
further and began duplicating copies of the tape recording so that
others could actually hear what went on inside the temple. These tapes
were extensively circulated and even played on radio stations.

Another member of the Mormon Church secretly recorded the temple
ritual in the Provo temple and a good number of copies of this tape have
also been circulated. Many others have published material or made films concerning the endowment ritual. Still others have given lectures about
it. The cumulative effect of all the audio and video tapes, lectures,
radio programs, films and printed copies of the ceremony being available
to the general public has placed the Mormon leaders in a very awkward predicament. They had previously maintained that the temple ritual was
so holy that God kept the knowledge of it from the world. Apostle Bruce
R. McConkie declared: "So sacred and holy are the administrations
performed that in every age when they have been revealed, the Lord has
withheld them from the knowledge of the world and disclosed them only to
the faithful saints in houses and places dedicated and selected for that purpose." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 227)

To an outsider, it would almost appear that the Mormon leaders
and the God they worship have lost all control over the dissemination of
the ceremony. The contents of the ritual have been scattered to the ends
of the world. Many non-Mormons now know far more about the endowments
than the average Mormon. Only adults are permitted to go through the
temple, and, according to the Church Section of the Mormon newspaper,
Deseret News, Jan. 16, 1982, "two-thirds of the adult members have yet
to go through the temple for the first time, said Elder W. Grant
Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department..." The same
issue of the church's newspaper also noted that Bangerter said that
"Through the history of the Church... only a fourth of the members have received endowments..." It is certainly ironic that a person can now
easily obtain a non-Mormon publication such as _Mormonism--Shadow or
Reality?_ or _What's Going On In There?_ and find out more about the
temple ceremony in a few minutes than most of the Mormons learn in a
lifetime! Furthermore, the material available to the public seems to be proliferating as the Mormon Church grows larger.

Mormon leaders are not only faced with trying to explain the availability of a ceremony which they previously asserted was "withheld"
from the "knowledge of the world," but they also will find it very
difficult to explain why God did not protect his sacred temple from
those who brought in tape recorders to expose the ceremony. It has been
a common belief among the Mormons that God's hand protects the temple
and its rituals. Ezra Taft Benson, who is currently the prophet of the
church, stated: "I think the temple is the most sacred spot on earth...
Temples are places of personal revelation." (The Teachings of Ezra Taft
Benson, pp. 250- 51) One would think that if the spirit of the Lord
flows freely in the temple, deceivers would be detected. In the Old
Testament, II Chronicles 26:17-21, we read the story of a wicked king
named Uzziah who "went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon
the altar of incense." He was warned that only the priests who were "consecrated to burn incense" were allowed to do so. When he persisted
he was "smitten" by the Lord with "leprosy" and was "a leper unto the
day of his death."

Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie maintained that "the discerning
of spirits is poured out upon presiding officials in God's kingdom; they
have it given to them to discern all gifts and all spirits, lest any
come among the saints and practice deception.... There is no perfect
operation of the power of discernment without revelation. Thereby even
'the thoughts and intents of the heart' are made known." Apostle Mathias
F. Cowley told how the gift of discernment protected the temple: "On one
of the three days during which the Dedicatory Services of the Logan
Temple was held, President John Taylor... sighted a woman in the crowd
whom he did not know but indicated her to President Card and said:
'Don't let that woman come into the assembly; she is not worthy.'...
Brother Card said to President Taylor: 'She couldn't pass the door
keeper without a recommend.' President Taylor replied, 'That matters
not; she is not worthy.'... Brother Card turned her back and later on he
went to see her... she said there was a man in the ward who was not
worthy of a recommend, but the Bishop gave him one... This woman
happened to meet the man on the street and he asked her how she would
like to go to the dedication... She said she would like to but could not
get a recommend. He said: 'I have a recommend and will give it to you
for one dollar.' And so she got her recommend by paying this amount"
(Temples of the Most High, p. 100)

One would think that if the temples were protected by God and
the current Mormon officials were really led by revelation, those who
used deception to obtain tape recordings to expose the endowment
ceremony would have encountered judgment from God or at least been
thwarted in their nefarious plans to discredit the church. The Sacketts, however, report the following: "The tape recording of the Mormon temple Endowment... was recorded in the Los Angeles Mormon Temple, and was made
using a personal pocket-size tape recorder carried by one of the
patrons... The patron... entered the temple using his own personal
temple recommend... He was greeted by several temple worker
acquaintances who obviously did not know of his excommunication from the
Mormon Church, which had been at his own request several months earlier.
One of the objectives of this foray was to test the well-known Mormon
claim of divinely-assisted temple security.... Contrary to popular
Mormon belief, not one person in the temple appeared the slightest bit spiritually or supernaturally alerted to the presence among them of one
whom they classify as an 'apostate' and a 'son of perdition.' As he
departed, the patron was encouraged by a member of the temple Presidency
to return again soon." (What's Going On In There? p. 4)

When we think of this incident with the tape recorder, we cannot
help but remember a picture of Mark Hofmann, the man who forged Mormon documents, standing in the presence of the 12th prophet of the church,
Spencer W. Kimball, and four of the apostles. In this photograph, which
we have reproduced in our book, _Tracking the White Salamander_, p. 73,
the prophet and the apostles appear to be carefully examining what
purports to be the prophet Joseph Smith's copy of characters found on
the gold plates of the Book of Mormon. This document, of course, was a
forgery, but the Mormon leaders were completely oblivious to that fact.
Mr. Hofmann continued meeting with church leaders for about four years
for the express purpose of deceiving them so that they would give him
large amounts of money in exchange for his fraudulent documents. Church leaders, however, could not discern the wicked plan that Hofmann had in
his heart. While the Mormon leaders claim to have the same powers as the ancient apostles in the Bible, their performance with regard to Mark
Hofmann certainly does not match up to that of the Apostle Peter when he
caught Ananias and Sapphira red-handed in their attempt to deceive the
church with regard to a financial transaction: "But Peter said, Ananias,
why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep
back part of the price of the land?" (Acts 5:3)

From the time the endowment ritual was first revealed in Nauvoo,
Mormon leaders have feared that the contents of the ceremony would
become known. It now seems that all of their efforts to stop the spread
of knowledge concerning the endowment ceremony have been completely in
vain.
+++
NO MORE PENALTIES

We have already noted that the Mormon leaders have now removed
the "most sacred" penalties which have been in the temple ceremony since
the days of Joseph Smith. We feel that this is a real vindication of our
work and of that of the many other ministries laboring with the Mormons.

We have always felt that these penalties were not compatible
with Christian teachings and have strongly opposed them in print for
over twenty years. We have continually expressed our belief that Joseph
Smith borrowed the penalties from Masonry after he joined that secret organization. Although Masonry had been very unpopular since the late
1820's, Smith was not ashamed of his association with the lodge in 1842.
The following appears in Joseph Smith's _History_ under the date of
March 15, 1842: "In the evening I received the first degree in Free
Masonry in the Nauvoo Lodge..." (History of the Church, vol 4, p. 551)
The entry for the following day contains this statement: "Wednesday,
March 16.--I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree."
(p. 552)

The Masons had some very bloody oaths in their ritual. Capt.
William Morgan, who had been a Mason for thirty years, exposed these
oaths in a book printed in 1827. After publishing his book, _Freemasonry Exposed_, Morgan disappeared and this set off the great controversy over Masonry which was still raging when Joseph Smith wrote the Book of
Mormon. In any case, on pages 21-22 of his book, Morgan revealed the
oath that Masons took in the "First Degree" of their ritual: "...I
will... never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of
the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasonry... binding myself
under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn
out by the roots..." On page 23, Morgan went on to show that the Masons
who went through the first degree were also taught to draw "your right
hand across your throat, the thumb next to your throat, your arm as high
as the elbow in a horizontal position."

In the past, Mormon leaders have argued against the charge by
critics that changes have been made in the temple ceremony. Our
examination of the evidence, however, reveals that their statements were
not correct. Serious changes have been made in the ritual, and these
changes have tended to obscure the fact that the penalties were derived
from Masonry. For example, it is clear from many early sources that the
promise given when one received "The First token of the Aaronic
Priesthood" was derived from the oath given in the "First Degree" of the Masonic ritual. In Temple Mormonism, published in 1931, p. 18, we find
this information concerning the Mormon ritual:

"The left arm is here placed at the square, palm to the
front the right hand and arm raised to the neck, holding the palm
downwards and thumb under the right ear.
"Adam--'We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we
will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the
Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty.
Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and
our tongues torn out by their roots.'...
"Sign--In executing the sign of the penalty, the right
hand palm down, is drawn sharply across the throat.. then dropped
from the square to the side."

The bloody nature of this oath in the temple endowment was
verified by an abundance of testimony given in the Reed Smoot Case. For example, in vol. 2, page 78, J. H. Wallis, Sr., testified: "...I agree
that my throat be cut from ear to ear and my tongue torn out by its
roots from my mouth."

A very important letter has come to light which also confirms
the gory wording of this oath in earlier times. It was written by the
First Presidency of the Mormon Church (President Wilford Woodruff and
his counselors George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith) to Lorenzo Snow,
President of the Salt Lake Temple. Some months prior to the time the
letter was written, President Woodruff recorded in his journal that he
had met with George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow and other
church officials--including representatives who presided over four
temples--and "spent three hours in harmanizing the Different M[ode?]s of Ceremonies in giving Endowments." (Wilford Woodruffs Journal, Oct. 17,
1893, vol. 9, p. 267) The letter was written about ten months after the
entry in Woodruff's journal and contains this revealing information:

"As a result of the conference of the brethren engaged
as ordinance workers in the several Temples, held at Salt Lake
Temple, some time ago, the following slight corrections have been
adopted by us...
"In the creation on the fifth day a grammatical error
occurs. The word 'their' is used instead of 'its,' the word their,
therefore, is changes [sic] to its....
"The words 'that my tongue be torn from its roots in my
mouth,' were substituted for 'from the roof of my mouth.'" (Letter
from the First Presidency, August 31, 1894, LDS Historical
Department, CR 100, 14, #2, Volume 8:16-17, typed copy)

Some time in the first half of the 20th century, a major change
was made concerning the penalties in the endowment ceremony. The bloody
wording of the oath mentioned above was entirely removed. Nevertheless,
Mormons were still instructed to draw their thumbs across their throats
to show the penalty. In the account of the ritual which we published in _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ p. 468, the reader can see how the
wording was modified to remove the harsh language regarding the cutting
of the throat and the tearing out of the tongue:

"...we desire to impress upon your minds the sacred
character of the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its
accompanying name, sign and penalty, together with that of all the
other Tokens of the Holy Priesthood, with their accompanying names,
signs and penalties,... They are most sacred and are guarded by
solemn covenants and obligations of secrecy to the effect that under
no condition, even at the peril of your life, will you ever divulge
them, except at a certain place that will be shown you hereafter. The
representations of the penalties indicates different ways in which
life may be taken....
"Adam, we give unto you the First Token of the Aaronic
Priesthood...
"The sign of the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood
is made by bringing the right arm to the square the palm of the hand
to the front, the fingers close together and the thumb extended. This
is the sign. The execution of the penalty is represented by placing
the thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by
drawing the thumb quickly across the throat, to the right ear, and
dropping the hand to the side....
"Now repeat in your minds after me the words of the
covenant, at the same time representing the execution of the penalty.
"I,_____(think of the new name) do covenant and promise
that I will never reveal the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood,
together with its accompanying name, sign and penalty. Rather than do
so I would suffer my life to be taken."

This revised version, which remained in effect for a number of
decades, seemed to be more confused than inspired. The Mormon leaders apparently desired to get rid of the most offensive wording but still
wanted to retain the idea that there was a death penalty involved if the secrets were revealed. That the penalty for divulging the "First Token"
was still the cutting of the throat would of course still be very clear
to those who had taken the oath before it was changed but those who
received their endowments after the alteration of the ceremony must have
found the whole thing somewhat confusing. While they were still
instructed that the penalty was to draw "the thumb quickly across the
throat" and that the penalties represented "ways in which life may be
taken," they did not have to agree that their "throats be cut from ear
to ear and our tongues tom out by their roots." All they had to do was
promise not to "reveal the First Token... Rather than do so I would
suffer my life to be taken."

While some Mormons may not have realized exactly what they were
doing when they took the penalties upon themselves, the more astute who
paid careful attention to the ritual realized what they were doing and
many of them were very offended. John Dart gives this information:

"In pledging to never reveal the ritual, Mormons
formerly made three motions--drawing one's hand quickly across the
throat, another indicating one's heart would be cut out and the third
suggesting disembowelment.
"'That's why I stopped going to the temple because [the
ritual] was so offensive,' said a former woman member in Salt Lake
City.
"'The so-called penalty gestures were criticized as
'outgrowing their usefulness' in a talk before a Mormon audience
about a month ago by Keith Normon... 'I had no idea this change was
about to take place,' Norman said after the modifications were
introduced." (Los Angeles Tunes, May 5, 1990)

The recent removal of the penalties from the endowment ceremony
by the Mormon leaders has been hailed by liberal Mormons as a step in
the right direction. In his article published in the Salt Lake Tribune,
April 29, 1990, Vern Anderson told of Ross Peterson's response to the
removal of the penalties: "It [the endowment] also includes sacred
covenants... Graphic depictions of penalties for breaking them,
considered gruesome by some, were among the recent deletions. 'It's not
as harsh,' Peterson said of the new version. 'It's more uplifting. It's
softer and gentler.'"

In completely removing the penalties from the endowment
ceremony, the Mormon leaders have taken out some important vestiges of
Masonry which Joseph Smith had borrowed from the Masonic ritual.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Mormon Rituals 3/4
Message-ID: <1993Apr28.233810.4590@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 23:37:26 GMT
Lines: 509

The reader will remember that the article in the Los Angeles
Times mentioned two other penalties that have been removed from the
Mormon temple endowment. These were also derived from Masonry. In the
"Second or Fellow Craft Degree," Masons bound themselves "under no less
penalty than to have my left breast torn open and my heart and vitals
taken from thence and thrown over my left shoulder and carried into the
valley of Jehosaphat there to become a prey to the wild beasts of the
field, and vulture of the air... The sign is given by drawing your right
hand flat, with the palm of it next to your breast across your breast
from the left to the right side with some quickness, and dropping it
down by your side..." (Freemasonry Exposed, pp. 52-53)

This oath and the penalty was incorporated into the temple
endowment in the "Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood." In the 1931
printing of _Temple Mormonism_, p. 20, we find the following:

"'We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will
not reveal the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic
Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, grip or penalty. Should
we do so, we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and
vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the
beasts of the field'...
"The Sign is made by placing the left arm on the square
placing the right hand across the chest with the thumb extended and
then drawing it rapidly from left to right and dropping it to the
side."

As in the case of the "First Token of the Aaronic
Priesthood," the offensive wording was deleted from the Mormon ceremony
a number of decades ago (see Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? p. 470). The "execution of the penalty," however, was still retained in the ritual
until April, 1990.

In the "Third, or Master Mason's Degree," Masons bound
themselves "under no less penalty than to have my body severed in two in
the midst, and divided to the north and south, my bowels burnt to ashes
in the center... The Penal Sign is given by putting the right hand to
the left side of the bowels, the hand open, with the thumb next to the
belly, and drawing it across the belly, and letting it fall; this is
done tolerably quick. This alludes to the penalty of the obligation
'Having my body severed in twain,' etc." (Freemasonry Exposed, pp.
75-77)

Joseph Smith included this Masonic oath in the "First Token of
the Melchizedek Priesthood." Mormons who went through the endowment were instructed to say that if they revealed "any of the secrets of this, the
First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood... we agree that our bodies be
cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out." (Temple
Mormonism, p. 20.) These offensive words were removed from the temple
ceremony many years ago, but Mormons continued to execute the sign of
the penalty until just recently: "The sign of the first token of the Melchizedek Priesthood or sign of the nail is made by bringing the left
hand in front of you with the hand in cupping shape, the left arm
forming a square, the right hand is also brought forward the fingers
close together, and the thumb is placed over the left hip. This is the
sign. The execution of the penalty is represented by drawing the thumb
quickly across the body and dropping the hand to the side."
(Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? p. 471) Finally, in April 1990, this
penalty was entirely removed from the temple ceremony.

As we have shown, Joseph Smith received the first three degrees
of Masonry on March 15th and 16th of 1842. Less than two months later
(May 4, 1842) he gave the endowment ceremonies (see History of the
Church, vol. 5 pp. 1-2). The fact that the bloody oaths appeared in the
temple ceremony in exactly the same order as in Masonry seems very
suspicious. In both cases the first oath mentioned the slitting of the
throat and tearing out of the tongue. The second spoke of the cutting
open of the breast so that the heart and vitals could be removed, and
the third mentioned disembowelment. Moreover, in all three cases the
same penalties were demonstrated. This all appears to be too similar to
be a coincidence.

Since many of those who took part in the endowment ceremonies
were already Masons, Joseph Smith had some explaining to do. He,
therefore, maintained that he was restoring the original temple rites
which had been lost from the earth. Smith further explained that
Masonry, which claimed to go back to King Solomon's temple, originally
had the same ritual but that it had become corrupted. Heber C. Kimball,
who later became a member of the First Presidency of the Mormon Church,
could not help but see the resemblance between the two ceremonies. In
the book, _Heber C. Kimball_, p. 85, Stanley B. Kimball gives this
valuable information: "Heber thought he saw similarities between Masonic
and Mormon ritual. In a letter to Parley Pratt, June 17, 1842, Heber
revealed: 'We have received some pressious things through the Prophet...
thare is a similarity of preas[t] Hood in Masonry. Bro. Joseph Ses
[says?] Masonry was taken from preasthood but has become degenerated.
But menny things are perfect.' Later at a special conference... Heber
explained further: 'We have the true Masonry. The Masonry of today is
received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon and
David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the
real thing'"

Mormon apologist E. Cecil McGavin wrote: "If we manifested the belligerent spirit that many of the Masons display, we might say that
Masonry is a spurious system descending from Solomon's Temple. Numerous
changes and corruptions have crept in, yet enough of the original
remains to bear a few humble resemblances to the true endowment.... In
the diary of Benjamin F. Johnson, an intimate friend and associate of
Joseph Smith, it is recorded that 'Joseph told me that Freemasonry was
the apostate endowment, as sectarian religion was the apostate
religion.'" (Mormonism and Masonry, 1947, p. 199)

Dr. Reed C. Durham, a Mormon historian who has served as
president of the Mormon History Association, was forced by the evidence
to admit that Masonry had a powerful influence on Joseph Smith: "...I am convinced that in the study of Masonry lies a pivotal key to further understanding Joseph Smith and the Church.... The many parallels found
between early Mormonism and the Masonry of that day are substantial... I believe that there are few significant developments in the Church, that occurred after March 15, 1842 [the day Smith became a Mason], which did
not have some Masonic interdependence.... There is absolutely no
question in my mind that the Mormon ceremony which came to be known as
the Endowment, introduced by Joseph Smith to Mormon Masons, had an
immediate inspiration from Masonry. This is not to suggest that no other
source of inspiration could have been involved, but the similarities
between the two ceremonies are so apparent and overwhelming that some
dependent relationship cannot be denied. They are so similar, in fact,
that one writer was led to refer to the Endowment as Celestial Masonry." (Mormon Miscellaneous, October 1975, pp. 13-14)

Some Mormon apologists who are aware of the devastating
parallels between Masonry and the Mormon temple endowment believe that
when Joseph Smith went through the Masonic ritual, God gave him the
spirit of revelation so that he would discern which portions really went
back to Solomon's temple and which parts had been corrupted by later
Masons. The prophet, therefore, only incorporated the genuine God-given elements into the Mormon "endowment ceremony."

Now that the Mormon leaders have completely removed both the
gruesome wording and the penalties from the temple ritual, it places
these apologists on the horns of a dilemma. If God really instructed
Joseph Smith to lift the bloody oaths and penalties from the Masonic
ritual and insert them into the endowment ceremony, how can the present
leaders of the church, who are supposed to be guided by revelation, tear
them out of the temple ritual without offending God? It would appear
that either the present leaders of the church feel that they know more
than the God who was supposed to have spoken to Joseph Smith, or else
they realize that Smith made a serious mistake when he borrowed this embarrassing material from the Masons.

The action of church authorities in dropping out some of the
elements which were once believed to be "most sacred" will undoubtedly
raise some serious questions in the minds of many faithful LDS people.
If Joseph Smith was in error when he included these things, then it is
obvious that we have no assurance that the other material he took from
the Masons is really inspired. If a portion of the Masonic material he plagiarized is found to be defective, it throws suspicion on all the
rest of the Masonic ritual which was incorporated into the endowment,
and since there is so much Masonry in the ceremony, it would lead one to
the suspicion that the entire ceremony is man-made. In _Mormonism-Shadow
or Reality?_ pp. 484-492, we presented devastating evidence linking the
Mormon temple ceremony to Masonry. The parallels are too close to be
swept aside. This same information will be included in our new book,
_Evolution of the Mormon Temple Ceremony_, 1842-1990.

Those who maintain that the recent changes were really made
because of revelation given to church authorities, should consider
another interesting aspect with regard to this question. On Feb. 18,
1987, the church's own newspaper, _Deseret News_, reported that British Freemasons removed the bloody oaths from their own ceremonies:
"Beheading and ripping out the tongue have been abolished by the British Freemasons as penalties for violating the solemn code of the secret
society, it was reported. Such punishments have been on the books of Freemasonry for centuries to enforce solemn obligations that inductees
to Masonic lodges swear on the Bible to uphold. But, the _Daily
Telegraph_ said this week, it's the sort of thing that scares people
away from the secret society."

Now, if British Freemasons realized that their gruesome oaths
had a tendency to scare "people away from their secret society" and
decided to make a change to accommodate themselves to current thinking,
it seems very likely that the leaders of the Mormon Church could also
see "the handwriting on the wall." If this process is termed
"revelation," then it is obvious that the British Freemasons had the
revelation first.
+++
IMPORTANT OMISSION

The Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1990, gave this information
concerning the removal of the "Five Points of Fellowship" from the
temple ceremony:

"Also dropped is an 'embrace' of a man representing God,
who stands behind a ceiling-to-floor veil. Reaching through a slit in
the veil, the church member puts his or her hand to the back of the
deity and presses against him at the cheek, shoulders, knees and feet
with the veil between them. The contact at 'five points of
fellowship,' including the hand to his back, has been omitted,
although the member must still give a secret handshake and repeat a
lengthy password."

There can be no question that the "five points of fellowship"
were derived from Masonry. The reader can clearly see this from the
comparison which follows:

MASONS: "He (the candidate) is raised on what is called
the five points of fellowship... This is done by putting the inside
of your right foot to the inside of the right foot of the person to
whom you are going to give the word, the inside of your knee to his,
laying your right breast against his, your left hands on the back of
each other, and your mouths to each other's right ear (in which
position alone you are permitted to give the word), and whisper the
word Mahhah-bone... He is also told that Mahhah-bone signifies marrow
in the bone." (Freemasonry Exposed, pp. 84-85)

MORMONS: "The five points of fellowship are given by
putting the inside of the right foot to the inside of the Lord's, the
inside of your knee to his, laying your breast close to his, your
left hands on each other's backs, and each one putting his mouth to
the other's ear, in which position the Lord whispers:
"Lord--'This is the sign of the token:
"'Health to the navel, marrow in the bones...'"
(Temple Mormonism, page 22)

That the "five points of fellowship" were in the temple ceremony
while the Mormons were still in Nauvoo, Illinois is verified by a
reference H. Michael Marquardt pointed out in _Heber C. Kimball's
Journal_, Nov. 21, 1845 to Jan. 7, 1846. Under the date of Dec. 11,
1845, a scribe wrote of the "second token of the Melchizedek Priesthood
and also the key word on the five points of fellowship."

The Five Points of Fellowship remained a very important part of
the temple ceremony until the ritual was revised in April 1990. In the
ceremony as we published it in Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? pp. 472-73,
the reader will find that when those receiving their endowments arrive
at the "veil" and seek entrance into heaven, they are lacking one
extremely important key--i. e., the name of the Second Token of the
Melchizedek Priesthood, The Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail.
When the Lord asks the recipient to "give it [the name] to me?" the
response is: "I cannot. I have not yet received it. For this purpose I
have come to converse with the Lord through the veil." The Lord then
responds: "You shall receive it upon the five points of fellowship,
through the veil." The Lord gives the vital information and then asks
for the name again: "Will you give it to me?" This time the recipient
says, "I will, upon the five points of fellowship through the veil..."
After the secret words are given, the Lord says "That is correct."
Shortly after this, the recipient is allowed to enter into the presence
of the Lord in the "Celestial Room."

In Duncan's _Masonic Ritual and Monitor_, p 120, we read that in Masonry the candidate can only receive "the grand Masonic word on the
five points of fellowship." The reader will remember that _Heber C.
Kimball's journal_ for 1845 made it clear that in the Mormon endowment
this important key to the Celestial Kingdom was only given "on the five
points of fellowship." We have also shown that up until the revision of
the ceremony in April 1990, the Lord would only give this important
information "upon the five points of fellowship, through the veil." Furthermore, the recipient had to give it back to the Lord "upon the
five points of fellowship, through the veil." For almost a century and a
half, therefore, the Mormon leaders taught that these secret words could
only be whispered in the ear while the Lord and the recipient were
touching on all "five points of fellowship." From what we can learn,
those who participate in the ritual still put their "left hands on each
other's backs and whisper the words of the sign," but they do not put
their feet and knees together and all the wording concerning the "five
points of fellowship" has been completely deleted. These words
previously appeared in four different places--the "Lord" spoke of the
"five points of fellowship" twice; "Peter" referred to the "five points
of fellowship" once and the recipient mentioned them once.

While it is good that the Mormon leaders removed this Masonic
element from the endowment ceremony, some people who have been involved
in temple work feel that the reason it was dropped was because some of
the women felt the five points of contact (especially the placing of the "inside of your knee to his") were too intimate. There were complaints
that the men playing the role of the Lord sometimes took advantage of
the situation. We were also told that even some of the men felt they had
a problem with the "Lord" behind the veil. Since a large number of men
have played the role of the Lord in the various temples throughout the
world, it is certainly possible that complaints could have been made at
various times. The performance of this type of ceremony in any group of
people would probably result in some complaints. In any case, it is very possible that the "five points of fellowship" were removed because this
part of the ritual seemed awkward or embarrassing to some members of the
Mormon Church.

Regardless of the reason for the change, it raises serious
questions concerning the inspiration of church officials. If a person
was previously compelled to receive the secret information necessary to
enter heaven on the five points of fellowship, how can the church
leaders now by-pass God's revealed way which was given by the prophet
Joseph Smith. Kim Sue Lia Perkes revealed that: "...a former Mormon
familiar with the changes said the ceremony's climax has been
eliminated. Removal of that part of the ritual, he said, is the
equivalent of taking the Eucharist out of the Roman Catholic Mass. "Not
all Mormons are happy with the ceremony changes. "'I certainly have
Mormon friends who will see it as a step toward apostasy and an
accommodation to the world,' said one practicing Mormon in Utah."
(Arizona Republic, April 28,1990)

DEVIL'S MINISTER GONE

When we first printed the temple ceremony in 1969, we commented
on the fact that in the 1906 printing of the endowment, the Devil
offered a preacher four thousand dollars a year to work for him. We said
that in 1906 this was a great deal of money, but that the Mormons had
neglected to give the preacher much of a raise. Therefore, when we
printed the ceremony in 1969, and subsequently in Mormonism-Shadow or
Reality? p. 468, the preacher was still only receiving five thousand
dollars a year. In any case, this portion of the ceremony makes it
perfectly clear that in the eyes of the Mormon leaders the orthodox
Christian religion is the Devil's religion:

"LUCIFER: Well, if you'll preach your orthodox religion
to this people and convert them, I'll give you--let me see--five
thousand a year."

In Mormonism, Magic and Masonry, p. 66, we wrote: "...the temple
ritual tries to link Christians and ministers of other churches to the
Devil's work. We feel that this is one of the most objectionable things
about the ceremony, and we do not feel that a Christian would want to
give any support to this type of thing."

Many other Christians protested against this part of the
ceremony, and a great deal of pressure has been put on the Mormon
leaders to change this part of the endowment. We understand, in fact,
that a petition signed by thousands of people demanded that this portion
of the endowment be changed.

After this portion of the ceremony was deleted, Vern Anderson
wrote the following: "Among the changes... a portion of the ceremony
with an actor portraying a non-Mormon 'preacher' paid by Satan to spread
false doctrine has been eliminated. 'The general consensus is that it's
a breath of fresh air,' said Ross Peterson... 'You don't put down other churches, or imply that they are Satan's children.'" (Salt Lake Tribune,
April 29, 1990) We have been told that all the material making fun of
both Protestants and Catholics has now been eliminated. The ceremony as
it was previously given, not only implied that Protestant ministers were working for the Devil, but also had Lucifer claiming he would buy up
"Popes" to help him in his evil work.

Unfortunately, the removal of the portion of the temple ceremony
which implies that Christian ministers are working for the Devil does
not really solve the problem. The Mormon Church still retains Joseph
Smith's story of the First Vision in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith--History, verses 18-19. In this account, Joseph Smith asserted
that Jesus himself told him that all other churches were wrong: "My
object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the
sects was right... I was answered that I must join none of them, for
they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all
their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors
were all corrupt..."

OTHER CHANGES

In the version of the temple ceremony which we published in _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ p. 467, the men "covenant and promise"
that they will "obey the law of God." The women, however, agree to obey
the law of their husbands:

"ELOHIM: We will now put the sisters under covenant to
obey the law of their husbands. Sisters, arise, raise your right hand
to the square. Each of you do covenant and promise that you will obey
the law of your husband and abide by his council in righteousness.
Each of you bow your head and say yes.
"SISTERS: Yes."

We have already shown that since the church leaders revised the endowment ceremony on April 10, 1990, there has been some kind of a
change in the covenant women are required to make. It has been stated
that they "no longer must vow to obey their husbands." (Salt Lake
Tribune, April 29, 1990) While we do not know the wording of the new
version, it appears that some of the women are pleased with the changes
in the ritual. In the Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1990, we find this:
"Lavina Fielding Anderson... said she received the revisions 'with joy.'
'I anticipate further changes with hope and faith,' she said... 'Some
portions of the temple ceremony have been painful to some Mormon women
and, in some respects, still are,' she added, without identifying what
elements may still be objectionable. Women, for example, still cover
their faces with veils at certain points in the ritual, sources said."

Another important change seems to have been made in the sign for
the Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood. In the ceremony, as
printed in _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ p. 471, we find this:

"The sign is made by raising both hands high above the
head and by lowering your hands to the side, saying:
Pay lay ale
Pay lay ale
Pay lay ale"

As early as 1969 we pointed out a problem with this: "...there
seems to have been a change made in this part of the ceremony, for the
Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 12, 1906, gave the words as 'Pale, Ale, Ale,'
and _Temple Mormonism_ used the words 'Pale, Hale, Hale.' " (The Mormon Kingdom, vol. 1, p. 138)

However this may be, in another portion of the ceremony
(Mormonism Shadow or Reality? p. 468), it is explained that "Pay lay
ale" means "O God, hear the words of my mouth!" In the early 1980's some critics of the church began to proclaim that in Hebrew these words
really mean, "Wonderful Lucifer." If this were true, this would mean
that the Mormons were praying to the Devil in this part of the ceremony.
We took very strong exception to this claim and pointed out that there
is no way that these words can be translated "Wonderful Lucifer." We
still stand by this research which we presented in detail in our book,
The Lucifer-God Doctrine, pp. 11-15, 85-86.

In any case, many Mormons must have been bothered when they had
to raise and lower their hands repeating the strange words "Pay lay ale"
three times during the ritual. According to what we can learn, the
Mormon leaders have now replaced the mysterious words with the English
words which were mentioned earlier in the ceremony: "O God, hear the
words of my mouth!" The fact that four different versions of the sign of
the Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood have been given over the
years certainly raises a question concerning the claim that the
endowment was revealed by revelation.

We have been informed by two different sources that the Lecture
Before The Veil has been removed. This lecture was previously given to
all those who were going through the ritual for the first time. It was
not deemed necessary, however, for those who were going through the
endowment ceremony for the dead. The words "penalty" or "penalties" were
used six times in this lecture, and it referred to the "sectarian
minister" who preached false doctrine (i.e., the minister who was
employed by Lucifer).

There probably were many other changes made in the temple
ceremony which have not been reported yet. There have been different
reports regarding how much material was actually removed from the
ceremony or changed in some way. _The Salt Lake Tribune_, April 29,
1990, referred to the rituals "current length of about 90 minutes." One
man noted that just after the changes were made, temple workers were
having a very difficult time with the new wording and felt that when
they become proficient in the use of the new script, the ceremony might
be somewhat shorter than when he went through.
+++
Revelation Or Accommodation?

Although the Mormon leaders have been extremely quiet about the
changes in the temple ceremony, John Dart reported that the following
appeared in a statement by church leaders: "'We are a church that
believes in modern and continuous revelation, and the changes that were recently made in our temple ceremony are reflective of that process...'"
(Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1990)

An increasing number of Mormons are beginning to believe that
what is called "revelation" by church leaders is not really revelation
from God, but rather "accommodation" to the views of the world. A number
of things which have happened since 1890 lead to that conclusion. The
changes concerning polygamy, the blacks and the temple endowment all
point in this direction. The process of "modern and continuous
revelation" could probably be summed up in the following formula:
Criticism of a specific doctrine or practice from without the church + acceptance of that criticism by Mormon scholars and prominent people = "Revelation."

Take, for example, the practice of polygamy. Joseph Smith
claimed to receive a revelation from God on July 12, 1843, stating that
plural marriage was to be practiced by the Mormon Church. This
revelation is still published in the church's Doctrine and Covenants as
Section 132. Interestingly, this system of marriage was an extremely
important part of the sealing ceremonies which are still performed in
the temple for "time and all eternity." For many years the Mormon
leaders taught that temple marriage and plural marriage stand or fall
together. Apostle Orson Pratt, for instance, emphasized that: "...if
plurality of marriage is not true, or in other words, if a man has no
divine right to marry two wives or more in this world, then marriage for eternity is not true, and your faith is all vain, and all the sealing ordinanc[e]s and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the other also
must be true. Amen." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, p. 296)

Non-Mormons, of course, vigorously opposed the practice of
polygamy. In addition, the United States Government prosecuted Mormons
who were engaged in the practice. On Jan. 16, 1886, Lorenzo Snow, who
later became the fifth prophet of the Mormon Church, was sentenced to
six months in prison. When the prosecuting attorney predicted that if
Apostle Snow was convicted, "a new revelation would soon follow,
changing the divine law of celestial marriage," Lorenzo Snow
emphatically replied: "The severest prosecutions have never been
followed by revelations changing a divine law, obedience to which
brought imprisonment or martyrdom. Though I go to prison God will not
change his law of celestial marriage.'" (Historical Record, 1887, vol.
6, p. 144)

Things went from bad to worse for the Mormon leaders. Pressure
not only increased from the outside, but members of the church were
swayed by the opposition. John Taylor, who was the third prophet of the
church, strongly denounced those who would give up the practice: "God
has given us a revelation in regard to celestial marriage.... they
would like us to tone that principle down and change it and make it
applicable to the views of the day. This we cannot do... I cannot do it,
and will not do it. I find some men try to twist round the principle in
any way and every way they can. They want to sneak out of it in some
way. Now God don't want any kind of sycophancy like that.... If God has introduced something for our glory and exaltation, we are not going to
have that kicked over by any improper influence, either inside or
outside of the Church of the living God." (Journal of Discourses, vol.
25, pp. 309- 310)

Apostle Orson Pratt argued: "God has told us Latter-day Saints
that we shall be condemned if we do not enter into that principle; and
yet I have heard now and then... a brother or a sister say, 'I am a
Latter-day Saint, but I do not believe in polygamy.' Oh, what an absurd expression!... If the doctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the
Latter-day Saints, is not true, I would not give a fig for all your
other revelations that came through Joseph Smith the Prophet; I would
renounce the whole of them.... The Lord has said, that those who reject
this principle reject their salvation, they shall be damned, saith the
Lord... I want to prophecy that all men and women who oppose the
revelation which God has given in relation to polygamy will find
themselves in darkness... they will finally go down to hell and be
damned if they do not repent." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, pp.
224-25)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Mormon Rituals ULM 4/4
Message-ID: <1993Apr28.233903.4655@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 23:38:13 GMT
Lines: 430

Notwithstanding all of the strong rhetoric used by Mormon
leaders, in 1890, Wilford Woodruff, the fourth prophet of the church,
suspended the practice of polygamy when he issued the Manifesto (see
Doctrine and Covenants Official Declaration--1). President Woodruff
proclaimed that the Manifesto was given by revelation from God: "...the
Lord... is giving us revelation... The Lord showed me by vision and
revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this
practice. If we had not stopped it... all ordinances would be stopped...
and many men would be made prisoners.... the God of Heaven commanded me
to do what I did do... I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord
told me to write...." (Evidences and Reconciliations, 3 volumes in 1,
pp. 105-106) It is obvious from the evidence we present in
_Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?_ pp. 231-34, that President Woodruff
yielded to pressures from both non-Mormons and members of his own church
and issued the Manifesto which eventually ended the practice of plural
marriage within the church.

Prior to June 9, 1978, the Mormon Church had a doctrine which
was referred to by outsiders as the "anti-black doctrine" because blacks
were forbidden the priesthood. The basis for this doctrine was Joseph
Smith's Book of Abraham (published in the Pearl of Great Price, one of
the four standard works of the church). Joseph Smith wrote that "from
Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land." Blacks
were identified as descendants of Ham and were "cursed... as pertaining
to the Priesthood." (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham, 1:21-26) It
was taught that even "one drop of Negro blood" would prevent a person
from holding the priesthood, marrying for eternity in the temple, or
even going though the endowment ceremony (see Race Problems--as They
Affect The Church, by Mark E. Petersen, August 27, 1954). Bruce R.
McConkie, who later became an apostle, bluntly stated: "Negroes in this
life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold
this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of
salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... Negroes are not equal
with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned..." (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p. 477)

There was a great deal of discussion regarding civil rights in
the 1950's. In 1959 we printed our first criticism of the Mormon
doctrine concerning blacks. As early as 1963, we believed that it was
likely that the Mormon leaders would have a new "revelation" regarding
blacks and printed a sheet entitled, "Will There Be a Revelation
Regarding the Negro?" At the bottom of this sheet we predicted: "If the pressure continues to increase on the Negro question, the leaders of the
Mormon Church will probably have another revelation which will allow the
Negro to hold the priesthood." Over the years we continued to print a
great deal of material on the subject of blacks and the priesthood.
Although there were some Mormons who had doubts about the anti-black
doctrine, at that time very few were willing to publicly criticize the
church. We were ridiculed for the stand which we took, but we persisted
in challenging this doctrine and a number of Mormons began to take our
work seriously.

Pressure for a change in the doctrine concerning blacks
continued to mount both without and within the church. Finally, on June
9, 1978, the Mormon church's Deseret News carried a startling
announcement by the First Presidency which said that a new revelation
had been given and that blacks would be allowed to hold the priesthood:
"...we have pleaded long and earnestly... supplicating the Lord for
divine guidance. He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has
confirmed that the long-promised day has come... all worthy male members
of the church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race
or color." Shortly after this revelation was received, it became clear
that the church's ban on marriage to blacks had been lifted. On June 24,
1978, the church's newspaper announced that "the first black man to gain
the priesthood" was allowed to go through the temple endowment and was
sealed to his wife for time and eternity.

Like the polygamy revelation, the revelation by President
Spencer W. Kimball granting blacks the priesthood was given only after tremendous pressure was exerted by non-Mormon critics and members of the
church itself. With regard to the recent revision of the temple
ceremony, it is clear that the "revelation" came in the same way as the
changes on polygamy and the black doctrine. In the Introduction to our
1964 reprint of _Temple Mormonism_, we pointed out that "there have been
quite a number of changes made since the Temple ceremony was first
introduced." We went on to predict that there would "probably be other
changes made in the Temple ceremony as time goes on."

As we have already shown, after printing _Temple Mormonism_ in
1964, we published an updated version of the endowment ceremony in 1969
in _The Mormon Kingdom_, vol. 1. This same version was printed in _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ in 1972 and is still found in that book.
In addition, in our book, _The Changing World of Mormonism_, published
by Moody Press in 1980, we included portions of the endowment ceremony.
We have mentioned also that Chuck and Dolly Sackett published the
ceremony in a pamphlet and distributed tapes of the actual ceremony.
Others also disseminated the ceremony or portions of it in books,
pamphlets, tracts, films and tapes.

Although the Mormon Church completely lost control of the
situation and had no way to stop the tens of thousands of copies of the endowment which were being distributed throughout the world, most
members of the church who felt there was something wrong with the ritual
did not dare to openly protest. They feared that they would be strongly reprimanded or even excommunicated if they raised their voices on the
issue. In 1987, however, a remarkably frank article by David John
Buerger was printed in _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought_, a
liberal Mormon publication which is not controlled by the church. In
this article, Buerger acknowledged that there were "strong indications
that Joseph Smith drew on the Masonic rites in shaping the temple
endowment, and specifically borrowed the tokens, signs, and penalties." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1987, p. 45)

Mr. Buerger went even further by suggesting that church leaders
needed to seriously consider making changes in the ceremony to counter declining rates of attendance at endowment ceremonies:

"The number of operating temples has increased
dramatically... An analysis of ordinance data, however, suggests that
rates of temple work have remained relatively constant over the last
fifteen years.... Members of my own stake made 2,671 visits to the
Oakland Temple in 1985, versus 3,340 visits in 1981 a 20 percent drop
in activity.... Without comparing the policies of stakes in other
temple districts, it is impossible to say how characteristic my stake
might be.
"These declining rates suggest that many Latter-day
Saints apparently do not participate extensively in either vicarious
or living endowments. The need for reevaluation can at least be
discussed. As the history of the endowment shows, specific content
and procedural alterations were made in 1845, 1877, 1883, 1893,
1919-27, the early 1960s, and 1968-72....
"The feelings contemporary Saints have for the temple
certainly merit a careful quantitative analysis by professional
social scientists. I have heard a number of themes from people who
feel discomfort in one degree or another with elements of the temple
ceremony.... Probably in no other settings except college
organizations, with their attendant associations of youthfulness and
possibly immaturity, do most Mormons encounter 'secret' ceremonies
with code handshakes, clothing that has particular significance, and,
perhaps most disturbing to some, the implied violence of the
penalties. Various individuals have commented on their difficulty in
seeing these elements as 'religious' or 'inspirational,' originating
in the desires of a loving Father for his children.... some are also
uncomfortable at the portrayal of a Christian minister as the
hireling of Satan...
"Sixth, the endowment ceremony still depicts women as
subservient to men, not as equals in relating to God. For example,
women covenant to obey their husbands in righteousness, while he is
the one who acts as intermediary to God... Some find the temple
irrelevant to the deeper currents of their Christian service and
worship of God. Some admit to boredom. Others describe their
motivations for continued and regular temple attendance as feelings
of hope and patience--the faith that by continuing to participate
they will develop more positive feelings... Often they feel unworthy
or guilty because of these feelings since the temple is so
unanimously presented as the pinnacle of spiritual experience for
sincere Latter-day Saints.... The endowment has changed a great deal
in response to community needs over time. Obviously it has the
capability of changing still further if the need arises.... From a
strictly functional perspective, the amount of time required to
complete a vicarious endowment seems excessive." (Dialogue: A Journal
of Mormon Thought Winter 1987, pp. 63, 66-69)

The reader will notice that David John Buerger felt there should
be a "careful quantitative analysis by professional social scientists"
to find out why attendance at temples has been declining. Although it
could have been just a coincidence, it is interesting to note that
within months of the publication of Buerger's article, the Mormon Church
made its own survey of the opinions of members concerning temple work.
In the Instructions for the _Survey of Adult Members in the United
States and Canada_, the following appears: "...we have developed this
survey to help us understand your thoughts, feelings, and experiences
relating to temple and genealogy activities.... along with you,
approximately 3,400 other members in the United States and Canada are
being asked to participate in this project.... We hope that you will
feel you can be candid and open in your answers.... what you write will
be anonymous. We will not be able to associate your name with the
questionnaire you complete." This survey was to be returned in the mail
"by MARCH 30th," 1988.

Although Question 28 asked the person who had been through the endowment ritual if he or she "felt spiritually uplifted by the
experience," it also probed to find out if the "experience was
unpleasant" or if the person "was confused by what happened". Q. 29 is
worded, "Briefly describe how you felt after receiving your own
endowment." On the photocopy we have in our possession, the respondent
has written: "Wierd [sic]." Q. 37-k inquired as to whether the person
found "it hard to go to the temple." Q. 39-b asked if the individual
fell "asleep during sessions." Questions were also asked concerning
whether the person really believed "The president of the LDS Church is a prophet of God," or if "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
is the only true church on the earth." (Q. 70a-b) There was also a
question with regard to whether there were any "doubts about specific
LDS doctrines and teachings." (Q. 77-g) A page at the end of the Survey
was left blank in case the person had "any additional things to write
about your feelings or activities in temple or genealogical work..."

Although our photocopy of the page containing the "Comments" is
faded out and difficult to read, it appears that the woman who filled
out the _Survey_ admitted she had lost faith in the church. This is
supported by her answers to Questions 77 and 78. The "main reason for
not attending LDS church services" was listed as: "I have some doubts
about specific LDS doctrines and teachings." From all appearances it
appears that the Mormon Church's Survey was a feeler to find out what
changes should be made in the ceremony and how they would be received by members of the church.

While many Mormons will undoubtedly stand firm in their faith
that the decision to change the ceremonies came by direct revelation
from God, the evidence seems to indicate that the publication of the
temple ceremony and objections to it by non-Mormons combined with
criticism from within the church (as evidenced by David John Buerger's
article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought) forced the Mormon
leaders to issue a survey to find out why temple attendance had fallen
off and what members of the church actually felt about the endowment
ceremony. The results of that survey must have indicated that a
significant number of people were offended by parts of the ceremony. Consequently, a new "revelation" was given to make the ritual more
appealing to the Mormon people. This tends to verify the formula that
the criticism of a specific doctrine or practice from without the church
+ acceptance of that criticism by Mormon scholars and prominent people = "Revelation."

In the early days of the Mormon Church, the word "revelation"
had a very different meaning than it does today. Joseph Smith often used
the word to refer to some new doctrine or teaching which he claimed God
himself had revealed to him. Some of his "revelations" were extremely unpopular, but this usually did not bother him very much. Take, for
instance, his "revelation" concerning polygamy. In spite of the fact
that many members of the church were violently opposed to the doctrine,
he continued to secretly advocate the practice and to take plural wives himself. Unlike the current leaders of the church, he did not feel that
it was necessary to take a survey and modify the doctrine to fit the
opinions of others. While we do not believe that the "revelation" on
polygamy came from God and are very opposed to the practice, we must
admit that Smith was not easily swayed by public opinion.

While Joseph Smith used the word "revelation" to refer to
controversial new doctrines he brought forth to the church, later
prophets have used the same word in an attempt to destroy the very
teachings which Joseph Smith claimed were divinely inspired. When
President Wilford Woodruff claimed he had a "revelation" to stop the
practice of plural marriage in the church, he was not adding any new
doctrine. Instead, he was throwing overboard a doctrine Smith taught was essential for salvation. If the information that polygamy should not be practiced was a "revelation," then Christians actually received it
first. Long before Mormonism began, they were condemning the practice.

Some people now point to the "revelation" which Spencer W.
Kimball, the 12th prophet of the church, gave concerning the blacks as
evidence that the church is still led by revelation. Nothing could be
further from the truth. President Kimball did not reveal any new truth
to the world. Instead, he destroyed a doctrine that came from Joseph
Smith's own "Book of Abraham"--a doctrine which the prophets of the
church had stubbornly clung to until pressure from within and without
the church was so strong that he was forced to yield on the issue.
Millions of Christians and even a large number of Mormons had received
this "revelation" many years before President Kimball received his
answer.

As far as we know, the recent "revelation" that the temple
ceremony should be altered has not produced any new or important
material. Instead, it is a mutilation of what was supposed to have been revealed by "revelation" to the prophet Joseph Smith. Things that were
formerly considered to be "most sacred" were stripped from the ritual.
For many years Christians have spoken against the very things which have
now been removed. Why did it take so long for Mormon leaders to obtain
their "revelation" on the subject? The liberal Mormon David John Buerger
seems to have had the "revelation" some time before church leaders
changed the ceremony.

It seems that it is very difficult for most faithful Mormons to
grasp the significance of what is really going on within the church. The implications are just too devastating for them to face. The following hypothetical illustration may help the Mormon reader put the matter into perspective: If we were to say that God had given us a "revelation" that baptism should no longer be practiced, members of the church would
protest that this could not be a true revelation. They would undoubtedly
claim that we were merely feigning a "revelation" as a pretext to remove
an important ordinance from the teachings of Christ and might even
suggest that we were embarrassed about getting wet in front of a crowd.

To those who are paying close attention, it is obvious that the
word "revelation" is really being used as a cover-up for what is going
on. Church leaders are really destroying the original teachings of
Joseph Smith in a very sneaky way. Each time they remove some part that
Smith considered vital, they clothe the action by saying it is a new "revelation" from God. When will the people wake up and realize what is
going on? We, of course, agree that Joseph Smith's teachings are filled
with errors. We feel, in fact, that sweeping changes need to be made,
but we do not believe it is being honest to do it under the guise of "revelation." Instead, the General Authorities of the church should
openly admit that they feel Joseph Smith departed from Christian
teachings and then propose a plan to effect the changes that need to be
made. It seems obvious, however, that they will not do this because they
know they will lose power with the people. It is much easier to say that
the prophet has had a new "revelation" and that, of course, marks "the
end of controversy." O. Kendall White has pointed out that the Mormon
leaders' claim of "continuing revelation" is really a mechanism which
they use to side-step acknowledging the "errors of the past." This, of
course, leads to the impression that "the church is never wrong."

Although they would never admit it, it would appear from the
changes they made in the temple endowment ritual that the current
leaders of the church realize that portions of the ceremony were not
from God--at least we assume that they never would have changed these
parts if they truly believed they came from God. They must agree,
therefore, that we were correct in our assertion that the penalties
which they themselves removed from the ceremony were really derived from Masonry. It is certainly sad that with all the evidence they have in
their possession that the endowment ritual is man-made, they still
choose to remain silent.

A BAD EXPERIENCE?

Many people who have been through the Mormon temple endowment
later admit that they were shocked by the ceremony because it was so
different from anything they had previously encountered in Mormonism. A prominent Mormon educator who served at Brigham Young University told us
that when his wife first went to the temple to receive her endowments,
she became so upset with the ritual that she refused to go any further
and the entire session was delayed while temple workers tried to
convince her to go on. Over the years a surprising number of people have
told us that they had a very bad experience when they went through the
temple ritual. Many of them said that their first serious doubts
concerning the authenticity of Mormonism arose when they went through
the endowment ceremony. Couples have told us that they both had very
negative feelings during the ceremony but at the time did not dare
confide these doubts with each other. We recently received a letter in
which the following appears:

"We converted to Mormonism 16 years ago when two
delightful young missionaries knocked on our door.... I had been
raised in a Christian household... We subsequently married in the
Temple in New Zealand; an experience we found to be very confusing
and frightening and we both wanted to leave, but did not mention this
to each other... I became a Christian in October last year and my
husband followed shortly after.... We feel so full of the spirit of
God and we love Jesus with all our hearts." (Letter from Australia,
dated Jan. 11, 1990)

Many people who enter the temple are puzzled as to why they
should have to wear specially marked garments for the rest of their
lives and learn secret passwords, signs and handshakes to enter into the presence of God. They feel that this is rather childish. As we have
shown, David John Buerger has pointed out that these types of things are
found in secret lodges and also in "college organizations, with their
attendant associations of youthfulness and possibly immaturity." The
endowment ceremony actually gives the impression that God is like a
youngster who only allows those who know the secret passwords and signs
into his heavenly clubhouse. This is entirely different from anything we
find in the New Testament. In John 10:14, 27-28, the following appears:
"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.... My
sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give
unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any
man pluck them out of my hand." Those who really know Christ do not have
to worry about remembering any secret words or handshakes. As the
Apostle Paul expresses it, those who are alive at his coming will be
"caught up together with them [i.e., those who are raised from the dead]
in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with
the Lord."(I Thessalonians 4:17) This hardly allows any time for
questions and answers and a ceremony of passing through the veil. In I Corinthians 15:51-52, Paul wrote that "we shall all be changed, In a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump..." Apostle John
added this comforting thought: "...when he shall appear, we shall be
like him; for we shall see him as he is." (I John 3:2) While the temple
ritual leads Mormons to believe that God is going to put them through
the type of test a Mason has to go through to get into the lodge,
Christians believe that at death they will be received immediately into
God's presence. We find great encouragement in this promise. We feel
that God is like the father of the prodigal son; he did not make his son
pass through some type of test upon his return home. Instead, he "ran"
out to meet him, and "fell on his neck, and kissed him." (Luke 15:20)

As we have already stated, Mormonism teaches that only Mormons
who receive their endowments and are married for eternity can obtain the highest exaltation in the hereafter. While the Bible clearly proclaims
that "whosoever believeth in him [Jesus] should not perish, but have
eternal life." (John 3:15), Mormon leaders have taught that "eternal
life" only comes through temple marriage. For example, President Spencer
W. Kimball, the 12th prophet of the church, emphasized: "Only through
celestial marriage can one find the strait way, the narrow path. Eternal
life cannot be had in any other way. The Lord was very specific and very definite in the matter of marriage." (Deseret News, Church Section, Nov.
12, 1977) On another occasion, Spencer W. Kimball bluntly stated that
"the ordinance of sealing is an absolute, and that without it there can
be no salvation in the eternal world, no eternal life." ("The Ordinances
of the Gospel," as cited in Achieving a Celestial Marriage, page 204) As
we have noted earlier, Mormon theology teaches that those who have been
married in the temple can become Gods, whereas those who refuse to go
through the endowment ritual become servants for all eternity. These
teachings are, of course, very objectionable to orthodox Christians.

The fact that so many changes have been made in the temple
ceremony over the years provides powerful evidence against the claim
that it came to Joseph Smith by divine revelation. While it is true that
these changes have made the endowment more palatable to the Mormon
people, they do not bring the ceremony into conformity to Christian
beliefs. In Mark 2:21, Jesus said that "No man also seweth a piece of
new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh
away from the old, and the rent is made worse." The endowment ritual not
only has many patches in it, but it also has patches on top of patches.
Even though there have been improvements in the temple ceremony, it is
still filled with material taken from the Masonic ritual and concepts
that are not Biblical. Sewing new patches on the many rents in this old
garment will not really solve the problem. The entire ceremony and the
idea of men becoming Gods needs to be abandoned.

While we do not know what the future holds for Mormonism, we are
very encouraged by recent developments. More and more Mormons are
beginning to reject the concept that "when the leaders speak, the
thinking has been done," and many of them are turning to the Lord for
help. We feel that the recent changes in the endowment ritual will serve
as a catalyst in bringing LDS people to the truth. While the discussion
of the temple ceremony used to be almost completely taboo, active
Mormons are now coming into our bookstore and discussing the matter with
us. A number of them, who have recently gone through the temple, have
provided important details concerning the changes. We have also received
word that they are discussing these matters among themselves. Those of
us who have labored for years to bring the truth to the Mormons are
excited about the future. We have been ridiculed in the past by those
who did not believe our work could have any affect on the leadership of
the church. It is our belief that a large number of Mormons are growing
tired of blindly following their leaders and that we will see tens of
thousands of them turning to the Lord.

For those who are interested in learning more about the
endowment ceremony, we recommend our new book _Evolution of the Mormon
Temple Ceremony_, 1842- 1990. This book will normally sell for $4.00,
but if it is ordered before August 15, 1990, on our special
pre-publication sale, the price will be only $3.00 (mail orders add
$1.00 for postage and handling).

<Reprints available from
Utah Lighthouse Ministry
PO Box, 1884, Salt lake City, Utah 84110

Issue no. 75, July 1990>


Eddie,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23