Yesterday I had lunch with a pair of Mormon missionaries and the topic of the Temple came up. I mentioned that over the years there had been changes in the Temple rituals and that attendees in the Temple used to act out penalties related to revealing secrets from the rituals. The Elders said they weren't aware that there were ever any changes and that they'd never heard of any such thing as penalties. The whole notion of penalties appeared to be completely off their maps.

I thought it was interesting how quickly the rising generation in the Church can be completely unaware of certain important changes made not all that many years ago.

You're not allowed to talk about what goes on in the temple, so most people wouldn't know about the changes. I knew nothing about what happened in the temple (I went in pre-changes) before I went. No-one would tell me. Not my parents, not my bishop. You go in blind.

Heidi GWOTR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're not allowed to talk about what goes on in
> the temple, so most people wouldn't know about the
> changes. I knew nothing about what happened in
> the temple (I went in pre-changes) before I went.
> No-one would tell me. Not my parents, not my
> bishop. You go in blind.


Yes you can talk about it. From what I understand every ceremony, act, and ritual that goes on in the temple is in the Library of Congress. If a Mormon tells you they can't talk about it, they are blatantly lying!

But it's SACRED!!!! And everything outside the Temples and the Library of Congress is profane!

Will anyone ever win against the Mormon cult?

It's on YouTube. But TBMs will not talk about it outside of the temple, and inside the temple the opportunity is rare.

That's all by design. Learning about the changes will raise far too many troublesome questions.

Martha Beck had the best spot-on description of it. She called it pantomiming our own violent demise. That's what it was.

And I know I can't be the only one who was thinking to myself, "oh, hell no. I will not allow somebody to slit my throat before I'd tell them these little passwords." But we all vowed that we would. It was so creepy and then we had such bad feelings about ourselves because we thought that when apparently everybody else just thought it was super sperchul and sacred. Years later, we're all here admitting that EVERYONE was creeped out by it.

And keep in mind that the church blames its own members for not talking about the temple (Bednar 2019).

Well duh!

Any member talking about the temple to another member was rebuked (quick and rude) or told "Hey! Careful!!!"

We were told never to talk about it, so how could members express their concerns about feeling uncomfortable inside the temple?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2019 05:18PM by messygoop.

Would Bednar want us pre-change Mormons to tell our kids about the penalties in the temple? I doubt it. Maybe he better write a book to explain what can and cannot be taught about the temple so he doesn't have to blame members for everything.

Oh,no. That would require him, as a leader, to take some responsibility for the horrible things members are taught by LDS,Inc.

Another change to the temple ceremony was the removal of the Oath of Vengeance in the early 1930s. From Wikipedia:



"The oath of vengeance was an addition made to the Nauvoo endowment under the direction of Brigham Young by 1845 in the Nauvoo Temple, soon after the 1844 death of Joseph Smith.[2] Participants agreed to be bound by the following oath:


You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation.[1]"


I never heard anything about it until it was mentioned on RfM years ago.

This got me thinking about the temple ceremony... If I remember correctly - and it's been at least 35 years since I was last there - we were instructed to pantomime slicing our throats and then disemboweling ourselves. How is it possible to disembowel yourself after slicing your throat? Once the throat is slit it's all over. And why would it be necessary - and possible - to slice the throat after disembowelment? More importantly, why would a loving God require that of us?

It's really sad that young people have no idea of what used to transpire in the temple. I never talked about it. I still don't talk about it - even with my ex/nevermo friends.

The fear of being out of step.

Rank upon rank of the youth, the flower of Zion, marching in perfect step, and you're out there in the middle of the formation and everyone is watching... Most of us 'been there, done that.'
We were marching along, often not understanding why, but knowing we did not want to lose the cadence and be seen as different.

Look at how many of us were slaves to fashion... My junior and senior years in high school there was only ONE way to dress!

heartbroken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This got me thinking about the temple ceremony...
> If I remember correctly - and it's been at least
> 35 years since I was last there - we were
> instructed to pantomime slicing our throats and
> then disemboweling ourselves. How is it possible
> to disembowel yourself after slicing your throat?
> Once the throat is slit it's all over. And why
> would it be necessary - and possible - to slice
> the throat after disembowelment? More importantly,
> why would a loving God require that of us?

The penalties were specific to the sign/token: if you revealed the First Sign of the Aaronic Priesthood, you throat would be cut. But if you revealed the Second Sign, you would get your chest ripped open. Maybe it was only the First Sign/Token of the Milkydissik that you revealed (but none of the Aaronic secret stuff), then you agreed to be disemboweled.

Most Mormons who were endowed between the early 1930s and 1990 (when the whole penalty thing was done away with) are unaware that the early penalties (before the 1930s) were really penalties: "If I reveal... then I agree to have my throat slit/chest opened/bowels cut out [as penalty for my sin]" But in the early 30s the wording was changed: "Rather than [reveal this sign and token], I would suffer my life to be taken." That is not the proper wording for a penalty for revealing the secret. It is merely a statement of the extent you would go to PREVENT revealing it. But it was still called a "penalty," even though it wasn't.

The whole penalty idea was a holdover from the Masonic ritual, which had precisely the same penalties. (The Masons abolished the penalties in 1955 - it took the Mormons another 35 years.)

Thanks. I was too freaked out during the temple ceremony to comprehend what it all meant.

I wonder if that’s how blood atonement was carried out in the days of Brigham Young.

The penalties are one thing, but even worse those kids don't even know who Doris Day is!

It doesn't take long for facts and things that really happened to become myth or forgotten which is code for unimportant. Just a couple of generations will do the trick. The Mormon leaders count on it.

Don't apologize. Don't Deny. Just wait. Cuz, just like the Rolling Stones, time is on their side.

Time doesn't actually heal as some say, but it does obfuscate and blur awfully well.

Missionaries really are some of the most ill-informed when it comes to topics such as church history and changes within the church. Even many TBMs are not any better than the teenagers. It is easy to accept the status quo. Ive had a family member (who went to the Temple in the Late 90s) tell me I was misinformed when I informed her that the Temple endowment used to consist of penalties.

To this day my family (mostly all extremely TBM) still do not know the difference between FLDS and RLDS (CoC) or when/why each of those split-offs occurred. They don't teach that type of information in church and missionaries aren't expected to know any of that.

I was on a mission in 2012/2013 all we were expected to know was the lessons in "Preach My Gospel" So I could spout of about Faith, the restoration, repentance, Joseph Smith, Plan of Salvation, etc.. but if I was asked about the differences in Kirtland Vs. Navuoo Mormonism, I would have been lost. I mean, you would expect a "representative" of an organization, who has undergone special training, to be more informed; but researching was never really an option for me until after my mission was over with.

I've learned so much more about mormonism and the LDS movement since leaving than I did in my whole 24 years of activity. Learning more of true parts of church history and not just the spin has helped me in analyzing the church more honestly. I don't believe I would have done so as a believer.

As a missionary I would tell people that, the best way to learn about the LDS church was by talking to us missionaries. I now see how biased and misguided I was.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 10:06PM by nonsequiter.

Most mormons (members) are ignorant of their history - that's why it works for them - Missionaries being among the most ignorant.

It's how it is perpetuated.

Nobody knows anything.
Nobody believes anything.
Nobody remembers anything.
Nobody believes anything.
Nobody knows anything.

Missionaries aren't taught to teach, just to repeat liNes. If they knew their past they wouldn't believe it. The investigators wouldn't like it.

But you remembered your chiasmus.

If they ask their parents or grandparents about penalties, they will not get an answer or will be lied to. The missionaries did not do those blood oaths so they have no experience in the matter. The only way they could know about it is through anti-Mormon sources that they are supposed to avoid.

I never made the death oaths in the temple. I went for the first time about ten years after the change to the ceremony, shortly before my mission. This was still in the days of naked touching during the initiatory, though.

I first learned about the death oaths from my mother. She and my dad (but mostly she) had always been regular temple goers. They were especially strict about not revealing any of the secrets or talking about what goes on inside.

But after I went through on my own, my married sister and I went to a session with my mom in the Salt Lake temple. After the session, the three of us sat together in the celestial room. She was very glad to finally have us inside the temple--the one place in the whole world where you can talk about the temple. She told us about the penalties and additional oaths that used to be part of the ceremony, the preacher, etc. before they changed the ceremony in 1990. Then she said something that still makes me sick to think about.

She said that even though the ceremony has been changed for new initiates, those who took out their endowments before the change are still bound to honor the covenants they made at that time--including the death oaths. Even now, during the endowment ceremony, when they get to the places where they used to talk about and pantomime the penalties, she still recites the old language in her mind and recommits to them.

Fanny Stenhouse gives an account of blood atonement being carried out in her book "Tell It All", page 319-20. I don't believe it had anything to do with revealing the signs or tokens but rather for speaking against the leaders.

https://archive.org/details/tellitallstoryof00sten/page/318


My wife's grandmother who is a Leavitt once told us that her grandparents knew of someone who was dealt with in this way also.

The practice must have been effective in preventing apostasy.