Licked Cupcakes

LDS Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857:

Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? "What!—my husband to be my lord?" I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)

This doctrine is found no where else in all of Mormon doctrine. The Bible never preached it, and the Book of Mormon is silent. Not even Joseph Smith taught that women could not enter into the CK without her husband. At the time of Joseph's leadership, women were given equal priesthood authority with their husbands, they could heal, bless, and teach as well as the men. It was only after Joseph's murder, and the subsequent move to Utah that the men of the church decided to wipe this equality away, and make the women dependent upon their obedience to their husbands in order to obtain passage to heaven.

From another BB: (Thanks in advance to KA for sharing it).


Remember the parable of the licked cupcake? A youth leader would bring to church enough cupcakes so that everyone in class could have just one. Then, they would lick the frosting from one of the cupcakes, put it back on the tray and pass the cupcakes around so everybody could take one. Of course, the last person in class was stuck with the licked cupcake, and of course, they wouldn’t eat it.


The licked cupcakes in the chastity lesson always represented females. In Young Women's, the cupcakes represented us - we didn't want to be a licked cupcake. No one wants a cupcake licked by someone else.


In Young Men's, the cupcakes also represented girls. You boys were taught not to lick cupcakes that weren't yours. No one else wants a licked cupcake, and neither do you.


Never once was I told that boys could be licked cupcakes. Never. What boys did was, I guess, none of our business. All we girls knew was not to let boys lick our cupcakes, or no one would want us. The burden of chastity was ours to bear, and the prospects of forgiveness for failure were grim.


Some active, yet non-believing men say they don't defend sexism in the LDS church. But they don't need to defend it. They support it every week as they walk through the doors of that church bringing their wives and children with them. Your children will no doubt get the same tired cupcake lesson we all got as youth. And try as you might to counter the misogyny pounded into their little heads, the fact that you keep taking them back for more teaches them what your words never will.


Your boys will learn they're superior to women. One day, if they are faithful Mormons, they will go to the Celestial Kingdom, where they can, at their leisure, take on dozens and dozens of wives, whom they will maintain in a constant state of pregnancy, until they have enough spirit progeny to populate their own planetary domain! Is that not sexist? And the girls are taught the same bullshit! From my own experience, I can tell you they believe it, too.


I can't express how heavily that weighed on my heart as a Mormon. The thought of becoming one of possibly dozens of women sealed to my husband was sickening to me, and it was reality to me as well. I truly believed it. It seemed so wrong and unfair; more like punishment than reward. I mean, as a woman, I was to put my own needs and wants last throughout my entire life, and as a reward, I would share my husband with other women and have baby after baby for eternity? Not only did I dread "heaven", I felt guilty for not wanting it! When my heart was so heavy I couldn't take it anymore, I talked to my Bishop, who said I was prideful. A prideful, selfish woman who didn't want other women to reach the Celestial Kingdom.


Most wives probably feel the same way. I never told my husband how I felt; I didn't want him to know how selfish I was. Women are terrified of their husbands leaving the fold because they believe they can't get into heaven without them. They’re women, and not good enough on their own. Without husbands, they’ll end up assigned to other men and become the sister wives to women who despise them. The woman-hating Mormon religion has brainwashed wives to believe that. It will brainwash your daughters and sons to believe the same thing.


And as for the pompous pricks in Salt Lake City, "The Brethren", they don't respect women. They're misogynistic assholes. Men who respect women don't tell them how many earrings they can wear! They don't shame men for marrying women more educated than themselves. They don't seal themselves to other women after their long-suffering wives die, becoming eternal polygamists. They don't tell young girls, contrary to the best interest of their families, to have babies before they're finished with school…


There may be other areas of Mormonism where one can find middle ground. But there's no middle ground on the issue of sexism in Mormonism. Mormonism is doctrinally, historically, and presently sexist, and there's no getting around that fact and there's no changing it. All the disagreeing in Gospel Doctrine, liberal Sacrament meeting talks, Sunstone magazine articles or enlightened Family Home Evening lessons in the world aren’t going to change the fact that Mormon doctrine, at it unchangeable core, is misogynistic. Throw out all the other problems with Mormonism if you'd like, but this issue alone renders keeping your mouth shut, attending church, dragging your kids there, and holding callings while claiming to be a feminist an act of cowardice and hypocrisy.


Men, if you really won't defend sexism in the Mormon church, then stop condoning it with your attendance and membership. Most of you love your wives. You love them enough to let them write a check for ten percent of your income and give it to an organization that teaches them they’re worthless other than as breeders and cooks. Love them more by telling them that's bullshit. Tell them you love them too much to let them waste another minute in a cult that's abusing them. Love your boys enough to save them from becoming assholes like those … running the church from downtown Salt Lake City. Love your daughters enough to free them from the patriarchal prison of the Mormon priesthood. Just do it.


I've heard from more than a few fellows that it brings a man great satisfaction to be a hero. Be heroes by getting your wives and kids out of Mormonism. At least give it a valiant effort, guys. Maybe you'll go down in flames, I don't know. But I'd rather go down in flames after a long hard fight for what's good and right than sit by watching in complacency as Mormonism sucks the life and soul out of my loved ones.

***My Thoughts***

All throughout my early adult years, I had this idea floating around in my head that I needed to find a husband who would convert, be baptized, take me to the temple, and then we could get sealed as a family together, just so I could have that assurance that someone would be around to call me forth from the grave, and I wouldn't be left behind. After two divorces, I finally found a man who was willing to do all of these things, and once we were sealed together in the LORD'S TEMPLE, we found out that there was no way for us to have our children from previous marriages sealed to us without the former spouse's permissions. Well, that wasn't going to happen in this lifetime. So all we accomplished was having the ability to pass through the Mormon version of 'resurrection' but we couldn't count on having our children secured to us in the afterlife because of 'technicalities'. And I know perfectly well why nobody told us all of this beforehand--we wouldn't have gone through all of the other steps if we knew it was all for nothing.

Even Joseph Smith claimed that his dead brother Alvin was able to skip all of this and still make it to the CK, even without a wife:

Doctrine and Covenants 137

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

Missionary work seems to thwart the will of God, by proclaiming the gospel to those who have no knowledge, and then when they reject it, they have NO chance of being saved in the afterlife. It seems to me that it would be better for everyone if they could be judged by God after they die, instead of by men while they are alive. Thanks to Erastus Snow, women cannot be saved in the here-after unless a MAN is there to bring them through the veil.

So, what happens if she dies first? Does she get to wait around in the Spirit World until he goes to fetch her? Does God withhold judgment on her heart until her husband is there too?

Why is this doctrine believed and taught as necessary to fulfill God's eternal plan, yet things like blood atonement (Journal of Discourses 4:215), Adam as our Father God (same reference), How Jesus was begotten (same), and why whites should never intermarry with blacks (Journal of Discourses 10:110 can be cast aside as "one man's opinion"?

Either the Journal of Discourses and the doctrines contained within it are God's revealed doctrine, or it is not. No picking and choosing. Just like the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or the history of Joseph Smith. Either it's true or not.

The Holy Spirit Guides...

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


It's not unusual to find that staunch Mormons will often turn to the power of prayer whenever faced with major decisions in their life. I have observed that this is quite often used INSTEAD of logic and reason. When taught to believe that the 'spirit' will guide each baptized member in every choice they have, and all they have to do is pray for guidance, it is rather easy to forget how to use the old fashioned tools of pen and paper and a lot of thought when making life decisions. Most people talk with others who have had similar experiences, get advice from their peers, their family members, or professionals. But being Mormon means already having the power to direct their lives from start to finish...all they need is 'confirmation'.

I know a lady who was asked by a returned missionary to be his wife, after knowing him for just over 3 months....instead of putting off marriage for a long enough period of time to discover all of his personality quirks and past history, she simply prayed for guidance and used her gift of the Holy Ghost as a tool for making choices. When she got her warm feeling, burning in the bosom confirmation, she took that to mean she was making a good choice and that is where her life should go. So, she married him in the SLC temple, like she had always dreamed, and their life was perfect.....until 4 years later when she had to file for divorce while he was sitting in prison for child molestation. Did God really want her life to go down this painful path of torment and heartache? Did God intend for two children to grow up without their natural father and cause all kinds of sadness and family tension? What does this say about 'confirmation'?

I know another lady who was a single mom, lonely, depressed, and full of hope that she could find a worthy priesthood holder to become a righteous leader in her home. She thought she found that in a former boyfriend who had recently come back into her life, and proposed marriage after only 5 months. He promised all kinds of things to her, and she simply prayed for guidance and used her gift of the Holy Ghost as a tool for making choices. When she got her warm feeling, burning in the bosom confirmation, she took that to mean she was making a good choice and that this is where her life should go. So, she packed up her kids, and moved 800 miles away from all of her friends and family, and married him there, with none of her family present. She was hoping to make it to the temple with him and be sealed to him with her children, because that's what she had prayed for, and she had received her sign that this was the correct course. Three years and many abusive episodes later, involving a spiteful ex-wife and a handful of accusations against her through DCF, she moved back home, kids in tow, and a second divorce under her belt. Where was God in this decision? Did she used the same system to determine to leave as she utilized to determine to go with him? Is God just f--king around with her? What does this say about 'confirmation'?

I know another lady who met a man online and decided to meet with him after only 4 months of communication via phone and email. When they met for the first time, she "knew" he was the one for her because she simply prayed for guidance and used her gift of the Holy Ghost as a tool for making choices. When she got her warm feeling, burning in the bosom confirmation, she took that to mean she was making a good choice and that this is where her life should go. They married 6 months later, and thankfully are married still today. I suspect that if, at any time, he were to reveal his secret, private reservations about the church, and let her in on some of the disturbing facts he was learning about the church's history, and Joseph Smith's polygamy, she would use that gift of the Holy Ghost again, and make the decision to leave him based on warm feelings and a burning in the bosom confirmation. She would probably forget all that he has done for her, his true passion and love for her, and his complete devotion to her children that he adopted as his own, simply for the fact that he would no longer be able to sustain belief in the church. Where is God in all of this? Did he really mean to bring these two people together only to have them later divided simply on the basis of what church they attend? Can he give opposing answers to two people in the same situation, one confirming to stay in, and the other confirming to leave? What does this say about 'confirmation'?

I know a guy who was struggling to make ends meet in his hometown, couldn't get the bills paid, and couldn't keep his kids from having to attend substandard educational schools in the area, so he and his wife were trying to decide if they should move to her home town 200 miles away. Instead of weighing pros and cons, using financial analysis, calculating the risks, they simply prayed for guidance and used their gift of the Holy Ghost as a tool for making choices. When they got their warm feeling, burning in the bosom confirmation, they took that to mean they was making a good choice and that this is where their life should go. Now, two years later, they are in financial distress, having trouble making ends meet, and facing a health crisis of mammoth proportions. What would God have them do? Should they pray again to figure out what course to take? Can they figure out on their own what they should do, or are they so dependent upon God that they can't make a move without 'confirmation'?

It seems completely crazy to choose to spend $60 for gas to travel 3 1/2 hours to the nearest temple when making life decisions, when that money could be better spent digging yourself OUT of the trouble in the first place. I've already saved over $500 this year by not paying 10% of my income to the church, that's just based on my one-day-a-week part-time job. That's one month's rent here. That's the equivalent of 3 weeks of groceries. But to submit this money to the church, and then pay an additional $60-$80 for a trip to the temple so I can dress up and act out rituals, and then sit in a pretty room with a nice chandelier for 15 minutes, trying to get an answer from God on how to get the money to pay off my debts and continue eating is completely NUTS!!! The answer is right in front of you---quit paying tithing and quit going to the temple, and you get a 10% raise in pay + bonus cash!!! God is NOT listening, or you wouldn't be running around in circles trying to get further light and knowledge every time a "confirmation of truth" doesn't pan out the way it was supposed to. The answer is NOT pay more, travel more, spend more, give more. The answer is cut off the drain on your income, and get your priorities in order!!

I find the trend disturbing---Mormons turn to their leaders for help and guidance, and are often being counseled by people who have had no training in this area (My former bishop was a librarian in real life!) When they unburden all of their problems and ask for guidance, the standard reply becomes, "read, study and pray". Mormons are taught that this special power of discernment is theirs just for the asking, because they have the power and gift of the Holy Ghost and can use that to assist them in making choices. Determining truth from lies becomes a matter of 'what makes you feel good inside'. So, on your knees praying for an answer, you really just start out with the idea of what you want to have happen, and then wait for 'confirmation'. Maybe it will take some time and effort, but eventually you get the warm fuzzies and you can go about your business knowing that you have been heard, and God is with you because you feel the burning confirmation in you. Well, I get a burning in the bosom every time I hear the national anthem!!! I feel it when I watch my children perform in music or drama. I get a 'confirmation' when I come to the end of a good movie! Does this make the movie 'true'? Does this mean that the national anthem is part of God's plan for me? Or is it just a good feeling that some are mistakenly interpreting as God's will?

Let's suppose I had to choose between two houses. Do you suppose I could make a correct choice without ever seeing the inside? Do you think it would be wise to base my decision on outside appearance? The smell of the grass? The price?

A rational, logical approach would be to thoroughly examine the house, top to bottom, inside and out, looking for hidden surprises, damage, repair work, sloping floors, rotten beams, leaking pipes, and cracks in the foundation. Why is the Mormon religion so different? Why can't a thorough examination be done to find out if it is an imposition, and if it is found to be based on a fraud, why shouldn't we work to expose that fact to anyone and everyone who would have ears to hear?

Death Penalties in the Temple Ordinances

Original Link Here

One of the most visible characteristics of the Mormon church (officially "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", also called the "LDS Church") is its temples. These imposing structures, situated on beautifully landscaped sites, attract attention; they are often local landmarks. The first Mormon temple to be built, in the 1830s, is still standing in Kirtland, Ohio, but is no longer owned by the church, and was not designed or used for the same rituals as the later temples.

Temples are closed to the public and also to Mormons who do not qualify as sufficiently "worthy." The rituals in the temples - especially the "endowment" - are considered so sacred that Mormons are forbidden to discuss them outside the temple itself.

Even non-Mormons sometimes object to articles such as the one you are now reading, since such articles reveal Mormons' religious secrets to a curious - and perhaps unworthy and even mocking - world. Many people, not only devout Mormons, feel that it is wrong to do this. Usually two reasons for the objection are given:
1) things that anyone holds sacred should not be profaned, mocked or ridiculed by anyone else, even by one who does not consider them sacred; and
2) the person who is revealing the secrets usually is someone who obtained the secrets only by swearing an oath of secrecy, and thus is breaking an oath.

As to the first objection, this article does not "mock" or "ridicule" the secrets of the Mormon temple; it merely reveals them. Also, it seems rather odd to refuse to discuss objectively and openly any subject just because someone else feels that subject is taboo. It is doubtful that many Mormons would refuse to discuss the sacred initiation rituals of some primitive African tribe or some Satanist cult on the grounds that the tribe or cult considered those rites sacred.

As to the second objection, the validity and binding nature of an oath or any promise depends, both legally and morally, upon the validity of the mutually accepted facts underlying the demanding and the giving of the oath. The oath of secrecy given by a Mormon in the temple is based on the assurance and sacred promise by the church that the oath is required by God, and that the secrets one will receive are given by God. If those assurances are in fact false, then one cannot be bound either legally or morally by any such oath, since it was obtained by a lie.

The endowment ritual has undergone a number of major revisions in the 150 years since it was first introduced by Joseph Smith. The most drastic revision was in 1990, when major parts of the earlier forms of the endowment were removed, perhaps because even Mormons found them too offensive.

At various points during the course of the dramatization, the patrons are required to stand and covenant to obey five all-inclusive laws. These are the Laws of Obedience, Sacrifice, The Gospel, Chastity, and Consecration.

As an example, here is how the Law of Obedience was presented in the version from the 1980s:

ELOHIM: We will put the sisters under covenant to obey the law of Obedience to their husbands. Sisters, arise. (Female patrons stand as instructed.)
ELOHIM: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will each observe and keep the law of your husbands, and abide by his counsel in righteousness. Each of you bow your head and say "Yes."
WOMEN: Yes.
ELOHIM: That will do.
(The female patrons now resume their seats.)
ELOHIM: Brethren, Arise.
(Male patrons stand as instructed.)
ELOHIM: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will obey the law of God, and keep his commandments. Each of you bow your head and say "yes".
MEN: Yes.

In the 1990 revisions this Law was changed so that the woman is not required to "obey" the husband, but to "obey the Law of the Lord, and to hearken unto the counsel of her husband, as her husband hearkens unto the counsel of the Father."

The patrons move through the steps pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek (higher) Priesthood. Each priesthood has two "tokens, signs and penalties" (only three penalties were actually stated, and in 1990 even those three were eliminated), which the patrons are given in sequence as part of their initiation. Each token also has a name which must be learned.

The tokens are special handclasps, with one person "giving" the token and the other person "receiving" it. The signs are positions in which the arms and hands must be held. These tokens and signs are methods of identifying oneself as endowed. Although no Mormon would use this means of identifying himself outside the temple, the implication is that one will be asked to show these signs and tokens for admission to the Celestial Kingdom.

The penalties, which were completely deleted from the ceremony in 1990, are stylized indications of various ways of being killed. It was understood that anyone revealing these signs or tokens was expressing willingness to suffer the corresponding penalty and lose his life. As each token and sign is presented to the company, each patron receives the token from an officiator and the company makes the sign (and, formerly, enacted the execution of the penalty) in unison.

FIRST TOKEN OF THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD:

The First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood is given by clasping the right hands and placing the joint of the thumb directly over the first knuckle of the other person's hand.

The name of this token is the New Name that was received in the washing and anointing ceremony.

The sign 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.

The execution of the Penalty was represented by placing the right thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by drawing the thumb quickly across the throat to the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side.

The officiator in the pre-1990 version, after demonstrating the sign and execution of the penalty, said:

"I will now explain the covenant and obligation of secrecy which are associated with this token, its name, sign and penalty, and which you will be required to take upon yourselves. If I were receiving my own Endowment today, and had been given the name of "John" as my New Name, I would repeat in my mind these words, after making the sign, at the same time representing the execution of the penalty: I, John, covenant that I will never reveal the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken."

The Officiator demonstrated the execution of the penalty while saying the last sentence. The company was then instructed to stand, and while making the sign, recite the oath in unison while executing the penalty. The present-day version is similar, but without stating or demonstrating the penalty.

SECOND TOKEN OF THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD (received with robe on left shoulder):

This Token is given by clasping the right hands and placing the joint of the thumb between the first and second knuckles of the hand.

The name of this token is one's own first given name if going through the temple for one's own endowment, or, if going through for the dead, it is the first given name of the dead person.

The sign is made by bringing the right hand in front, with the hand in cupping shape, the right arm forming a square, and the left arm being raised to the square.

The Execution of the Penalty was represented by placing the right hand on the left breast, drawing the hand quickly across the body, and dropping the hands to the sides. The oath was similar to the previous penalty oath.

FIRST TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD, OR SIGN OF THE NAIL (with the robe on the right shoulder):

This token is received by bringing the right hand into this position: the hand vertical, the fingers close together, and the thumb extended; and the person giving the token placing the tip of the forefinger of his right hand in the center of the palm, and the thumb opposite on the back of the hand of the one receiving it. As indicated by its nickname, it represents the nails in Jesus' palm when he was crucified.

The sign 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 palm down, the fingers close together, the thumb extended, and the thumb is placed over the left hip. (For a photograph of two Mormon men in their temple robes making the "first sign of the Melchizedek priesthood, click here.)

The penalty was represented by drawing the thumb quickly across the body and dropping the hands to the sides. The oath is similar to the previous oaths.

The name of this token is "the Son", meaning the Son of God.

SECOND TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD, THE PATRIARCHAL GRIP, OR SURE SIGN OF THE NAIL

This token is given by clasping the right hands, interlocking the little fingers, and placing the tip of the forefinger upon the center of the wrist. The thumbs should be parallel with the fingers.

The sign is made by raising both hands high above the head, and while lowering the hands three times repeating aloud the words: "Pay Lay Ale; Pay Lay Ale; Pay Lay Ale." The hands are lowered in three distinct movements, one move for each word. [1] Pay--hands above head, [2] Lay--both arms dropped to the square, [3] Ale--both hands lowered to the height of chest.

The words spoken when giving the sign of this token are said to mean "Oh God, hear the words of my mouth!" Since 1990, the original name has been abandoned in favor of the translation. The reason for the change may be that too many people heard the name as "Pale Ale Ale," and, since alcoholic beverages are strictly forbidden in Mormonism, there was confusion.
[I always found it interesting that, when Adam is portrayed saying these words while praying to "God" for further light and knowledge, Satan appears instead, saying "What is it that you want?" Then, he goes on to say that he IS the God of this World. ]

The name is not given at the time the token is given, but is withheld until the patron is at the veil, at the very end of the endowment (see below).

No specific penalty was given to accompany this sign, but the obligation of secrecy was said to be the same as for the other signs and tokens which had specifically stated penalties.

[Contrast this with the ‘death penalties’ associated with Freemasonry]

THE ENDOWMENT: THE CEREMONY AT THE VEIL OF THE TEMPLE:

The end of the endowment ceremony comes when the veil of the temple is uncovered and each member of the company is presented individually at the veil to be examined and passed through into the Celestial Room, representing the Celestial Kingdom.

Each patron is presented by a temple worker at one of the segments of the veil. Other workers, representing "the Lord," stands unseen on the other side of the veil. The worker standing with the patron taps three times with the mallet, and the following dialogue occurs.

LORD: What is wanted?
WORKER: Adam [Eve], having been true and faithful in all things, desires further light and knowledge, by conversing with the Lord, through the Veil [for and in behalf of N. N., who is dead].
LORD: Present him [her] at the Veil, and his [her] request shall be granted.
(The Lord reaches his hand through the veil and gives the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood through the opening.)
LORD: What is that?
PATRON: The First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood.
LORD: Has it a name?
PATRON: It has.
LORD: Will you give it to me?
PATRON: I will, through the Veil. (The patron gives the New Name).

The Lord continues similarly, through the other tokens, until the last one, for which the patron has not received the name:

(The Lord gives the Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood.)
LORD: What is that?
PATRON: The Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the Patriarchal Grip, or Sure sign of the Nail.
LORD: Has it a name?
PATRON: It has.
LORD: Will you give it to me?
PATRON: I cannot. I have not yet received it. For this purpose I have come to converse with the Lord through the Veil.
LORD: You shall receive it upon the Five Points of Fellowship through the Veil.

The Lord and the patron, still holding the grip, embrace upon the Five points of Fellowship by placing their left arms through the marks of the compass and square, which are cut through the Veil. The patron's left arm goes through the mark of the compass, and the Lord's left arm goes through the mark of the square. The Five Points of Fellowship are: 1) inside of right foot by the side of right foot, 2) knee to knee, 3) breast to breast, 4) hand to back, and 5) mouth to ear.

[Contrast this with the “Five Points of Fellowship” in Freemasonry]

One of the major changes made in 1990 was the elimination of the "Five Points of Fellowship," probably because many women objected that they felt uncomfortable embracing "The Lord" so intimately.

LORD: This is the name of the Token--"Health in the navel, marrow in the bones, strength in the loins and in the sinews, power in the Priesthood be upon me, and upon my posterity through all generations of time, and throughout all eternity."

(The Lord then asks the patron to give him the name of the token. If the patron has difficulty remembering it correctly, the temple worker will prompt him.)

(The Lord and patron break the ceremonial embrace, and the temple worker gives another three taps with the mallet.)
LORD: What is wanted?
WORKER: Adam, having conversed with the Lord through the Veil, desires now to enter his presence.
LORD: Let him enter.

(The Veil is now parted and the Lord takes the patron by the right hand, and pulls him gently through the Veil into the Celestial Room.)

[In an earlier portion, Satan points out his apron and calls it a symbol of his priesthoods and authority on Earth. Why then, are patrons to the temple asked to wear a similar apron, and continue to wear it throughout the ritual, even through the veil into the Celestial Room, which represents their eternal reward in the afterlife? Whose clothing are they wearing and who are they honoring?]



[Contrast this with the Freemasonry Initiation Ritual]

SECOND ANOINTING or SECOND ENDOWMENT

This ordinance is so rare that many good Mormons do not even know that it exists. It is done only by invitation from the president of the church, to one married couple at a time. It is performed in the Holy of Holies room of the temple by one of the apostles of the church. Those who receive this ordinance are guaranteed of their salvation and exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. The man is anointed as "priest and king" (the wife is anointed "priestess and queen") and their "calling and election [to exaltation] is made sure." Part of the ceremony is performed by the couple in private in their own home, following instructions given during the temple ceremony, and includes the ceremonial washing of feet. One implication of the ceremony is that the recipients will have a personal visitation of Christ. In earlier days many devout Mormons received this ordinance, but since the 1920s it is extremely rare, and probably only given to those in high leadership positions in the church.

Since first introduced by Joseph Smith in the 1840s, the endowment rituals have undergone numerous changes, many of them being the removal of parts of the ceremony. In the early 20th century the "Oath of Vengeance" was removed. About 1920 the garment was modified. In the late 1930s the wording of the penalties was softened. In the 1960s the endowment was presented using motion pictures. About that time the patrons were allowed to remain partially covered with the shield during the washing and anointing, and patrons were allowed to wear the regular street garment during the ceremony rather than the older temple garment. In 1990 the penalties were completely deleted, the "Five Points of Fellowship" was deleted, the sectarian minister was removed from the drama, the wording of the "Oath of Obedience" was changed for the women. And in 2005 the washing and anointing rituals were made completely "symbolic," with the patron being touched only on the head.

Such changes seem to belie the Mormon claims that the endowment is in the pure and unchanged form in which Joseph Smith is supposed to have received it by divine revelation. In fact, in the words of Mormon leaders, such changes are actually a sign of apostasy:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, 'Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.'" - Ensign Magazine (official church publication), August 2002, p 22

"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 temple 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." - Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208

"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." - W. Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, Deseret News, Church Section, January 16, 1982

"We explained briefly the Apostasy and the Restoration: that there is vast evidence and history of an apostasy from the doctrine taught by Jesus and his Apostles, that the organization of the original Church became corrupted, and sacred ordinances were changed to suit the convenience of men..." - Apostle David B. Haight, “Joseph Smith the Prophet,” Ensign, Nov. 1979, p. 22

Masonic Influence. Even knowledgeable Mormons admit that the endowment ceremony (especially in its earlier versions) contains many details that are similar to the Masonic initiation rites of Joseph Smith's day. The symbols, oaths, handclasps, and terminology resemble the Masonic ritual in hundreds of ways. Smith's introduction of the endowment ceremony came two months after he had been initiated into Freemasonry.

Baptism for the dead: The Book of Mormon seems to indicate clearly that after one dies, there is no chance of salvation. Alma 34:34 says (see also 2 Nephi 9:38):

"Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis [death], that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world."

Joseph Smith claimed to have had a revelation in 1836 in which he saw his older brother Alvin, who died in 1823, in the Celestial Kingdom, even though the temple work for the dead had not yet begun. Doctrine and Covenants, Section 137. That revelation also says that those who would have accepted the gospel if they had had a chance to hear it will inherit the Celestial Kingdom automatically. This seems to make the work for the dead unnecessary.

Sealing. There is no biblical reference to sealing except by God (Rom. 4:11, 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13, 4:30; Rev. 13:16-18). The Book of Mormon also uses "seal" in this sense Mosiah 5:15 (by God) and Alma 34:35 (by the devil). The word translated as "bind" in Matt 16:19 means to "tie up [like a captive]." The Book of Mormon has the same passage, at Helaman 10:7, but changes "bind" to "seal."

Marriage for Eternity. Jesus criticized the Sadducees for asking him, referring to a woman who had had several husbands in this life, which husband she would be married to in heaven. He said that the question was irrelevant, since there is no marriage in heaven. (Matt 22:23-30, Mark 12:18-25, Luke 20:27-36).

Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was claimed by Joseph Smith to be the "fulness of the Gospel" (D&C 20:9, 135:3, and many others) and yet it contains no mention of anything resembling the modern temple ceremonies or work for the dead.

Secrecy. The Book of Mormon repeatedly condemns "secret combinations," "secret works" and the taking of "oaths." (Mormon 8:27, 40, 2 Nephi 26:22, Hel 6:22, and many others.) Most non-Mormons who have studied the origin of the Book of Mormon have concluded that these passages reflect the strong anti-Masonic sentiments common in New York in the 1820s.

The Mormons claim that the secret temple ceremonies have been taught to the faithful in all dispensations, and were known to the first Christians. However, Jesus insisted, "...in secret have I said nothing." (John 18:20; see also Matt 10:26, Mark 4:22, Luke 8:17, 12:2)

God is not "in the secret chambers" (Matt 24:26). But Mormon temples bear the inscription inside the main door "The Lord is in his holy temple - let all the earth keep silence before him" (Habakkuk 2:20).

Tithing, Worthiness. One of the requirements for a temple recommend is the payment to the church of a full tithe (that is, ten percent of one's income). If one has not paid, one is denied admission to the temple. This seems contrary to the Book of Mormon, Mormon 8:32: "Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be [false] churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins."

Duplication. Apparently the posthumous work for some deceased persons has been done again and again. The well-known Protestant apologist and scholar C. S. Lewis, for example, has been baptized into the Mormon church posthumously five times, has been endowed four times, has been sealed to his parents six times, and sealed to his wife four times (twice under two different names - the Mormons seem to think that Lewis was married to two different women). This is apparently not a unique example.

For some personal accounts by Mormons of their experiences in the temple go here

The following links contain the actual text of the ceremony in the various forms it has had since the early days of the church.
1931 Version: http://home.teleport.com/~packham/endow31.htm
1984 Version: http://home.teleport.com/~packham/endow84.htm
1990 Version: http://home.teleport.com/~packham/endow90.htm
2005 Version: http://home.teleport.com/~packham/endow05.htm (the changes in the washing and anointing ceremony)
http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/endowment.shtml

A short video showing the pre-1990 "penalties" and the temple robes is here (offsite).
Close-up photos of the grips are here. (offsite)

A very thorough and sympathetic treatment of all aspects of Mormon temple ritual, by a Mormon, is LDS Endowment (www.ldsendowment.org). The only items not revealed there are the actual names and descriptions of the signs, tokens and penalties.

Photo of two Mormon men in temple robes - the women wear the same robes except they have a long veil instead of the cap.
Photo of a couple in temple robes, with close-up photos of other temple clothing (offsite)
http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/garments.html A description of the sacred undergarment which Mormons are required to wear after receiving the endowment.
Photo of a man and woman in garments
http://www.nowscape.com/mormon/undrwrmo.htm More on "garments"
http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/mormon-garments.htm - a history of the development of the garment
http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/temple-ceremony.html
http://www.nowscape.com/mormon/mormcr1.htm
http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/recommend.shtml The questions that are asked in the "worthiness interview" to determine whether a member is worthy to receive admission to the temple.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/new_temple_questions.shtml The revised set of questions (1999 version)

***My Thoughts***

For my readers who are NOT Mormon, but wanted to know what the temple is all about, I have provided the links for your education.

For my readers who ARE Mormon, (and you know who you are), don't just disregard the information presented as 'hate-filled Anti-Mormon crap". Consider for a moment that there may be a valid reason for arguing AGAINST the claims of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as 'restorers of the original Christian church', as set forth by Jesus Christ. If there was sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus Christ had nothing to do with the development of the temple rituals, WOULD YOU WANT TO KNOW IT? Are you content knowing that you have to AVOID certain sources of information in order to maintain your testimony?

If someone tells me that I can't read certain literature or try to get answers from sources other than the "right" ones, usually it means that they have something to hide, something they know is detrimental to their cause. I'm not content anymore with a steady diet of 'milk', never receiving the 'meat'. I am a grown adult, I did my own research, I quit limiting myself in order to gain approval of my peers.

The only thing I have lost by leaving the church is the approval of other Mormons....