From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 2 of 2)
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:07:22 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

All of the material relevant to Mormon tradition and ceremonies came from
the mentioned source, which I do not have reason to doubt.  The attempt of
the program was (and I sincerely believe the people were honest in their
belief) to show the side of Mormonism which is not commonly known.  They
express that they are not merely trying to ridicule Mormon doctrine, but
rather give an accurate acount of their experience in the Mormon Church.
The things which are refuted by Mr. Windley (and others) _were_ part of the
"Mormon tradition" while Chuck and Dolly Sacket were members, at least as far
as they were made to understand them over a ten year span of time.  If they
are not in fact Mormon doctrine, then how could the COJCOLDS let such grave
misunderstandings occur?  In fact how could all 24 members of their immediate
family come to the same independent conclusions?

Mail me if you want a copy of the tapes of this show.  I will supply them as
long as it does not get too expensive.

In article <1992Apr14.043408.8216@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>|The Christian Hell is merely a separation from God.
>
>Outer darkness is the complete and permanent separation from God.
>
>This is interesting since you previously defined God as being
>everywhere.  Where would a soul then be sent in order to be isolated
>from an omnipresent God?

He merely chooses to keep himself "away".  He certainly has the power to be
in "hell", but the very fact that it exists is a result of His deciding to
remove his presence.  Keep in mind that a God who can be everywhere doesn't
mean he is everywhere. Hell is simply where He isn't.

>|Concept of Creation
>|-------------------
>|
>|The following scenery and dialogue is from part of the Endowment ceremony.
>
>It can also be found in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham in
>the Pearl of Great Price, with some variation.
>
>|Nevertheless Lucifer answers this call in the 
>|movie: "I hear you, what is it you want" (Adam thinks its Elohim).
>
>No he does not.

Has this been changed?  Or did Chuck and Dolly imagine it for ten years...

>|Adam says he is looking for a messenger from Elohim.  Lucifer brings what
>|is _obviously_ a 20th century Christian minister.
>
>This was a problem with the film, which is why it was replaced.  The
>individual was not supposed to resemble a functionary of any religion.
>In the live-action version, the evangelist is not so represented, nor
>is he so dressed in the newer version of the film.
>
>It should be noted that the new temple film (and the dialogue of the
>live action version) have been changed here to emphasize that the
>evangelist is not supposed to be identifiable with any religion.

You deleted a pivotal part and did not comment on its accuracy:

Preacher: (to Adam) "Do you believe in a God who is without body parts and 
          passions? who sits on the top of a topless throne? whose center 
          is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere? who fills the 
          universe and yet is so small that he can dwell in your heart? who 
          is surrounded by myriads of beings who have been saved by grace?  
          Not by any act of theirs, but by His good pleasure? Do you believe 
          in this great being?"

Please respond directly to the accuracy of this.  If it was the dialogue at
one time but has since been changed please state this.  Chuck and Dolly
were reading word-for-word scripts.

>|Adam:     "No, I cannot comprehend such a being." (Direct attack on
>|          Christianity because preacher is of Satan)
>
>The evangelist does not know he was talking to Satan.  It is not LDS
>doctrine that other religions' beliefs are of Satan.  Satan did not
>instruct the evangelist in doctrine of any sort.  The evangelist is
>preaching what he believes to be the truth.

But it is portrayed as false, which can only come from Satan, right?
Or is all evil not of Satan in Mormonism.

>|Preacher: "Perhaps you do not believe in the Devil and in that great hell 
>|          the bottomless pit where there is a lake of fire and brimstone
>|          into which the wicked are cast, and where they are continually 
>|          burning but are never consummed."  (Inaccurate description anyway)
>
>Yes it is inaccurate, because it isn't supposed to be the doctrine of
>any particular religion.  In one breath you assert that the evangelist
>must be a traditional Christian minister, then in the next breath you
>say he misrepresents traditional Christian doctrine.

I merely assert that he was _intended_ to be a traditional Christian
minister, and yes he does represent Christian "tradition".  You will find
though that in Christianity tradition carries next to no weight, and the
Bible is the _only_ authority.  This is merely one aspect of "traditonal"
Christianity that was bogus in Joseph Smith's day.  In fact, if you
substitute the Bible for the Preacher and Joseph Smith for Adam you have the
reason I believe Mormonism exists.

>As I've been saying all along: though many Mormons initially
>misinterpret this scene, it is not intended to ridicule or belittle
>traditional Christians or anyone else.  Mormons who participate in
>question-and-answer sessions frequently offered by temple officiators
>are told this.

It was not told to the Sackets.

>|The major consequence of this is that the Christian God is portrayed as
>|incomprehensible and therefore ridiculous.
>
>The "Christian God" is not characterized.  There is no insinuation
>that an incomprehensible God is ridiculous.

This depends on your reply to the first part of the scene.  Is or was this
the wording?

>|Concept of Salvation(s)
>|-----------------------
>|
>|Mormons are saved by being good Mormons.
>
>Beyond this is exaltation, the glorification of one's resurrected body
>to one of many possible degrees.  Mormons are also exalted by the
>grace of Christ, since no earthly action results in our glorification.
>Our actions in the flesh are the criteria by which we will be judged,
>and determine the degree to which we will be glorified, but in LDS
>teachings the actions themselves have no saving power.

Depends on what you mean by "saved".  I am refering to highest heaven, or
being in the presence of God.  It is clear that you need to be a fine
upstanding Mormon to get this, and even then it is not guaranteed.

>|Mormons must
>|also act as savior to the dead in order to receive salvation.
>
>Not true.

I only stated what the Sackets were led to believe.

>|It boils down to being saved by works.
>
>It boils down to doing what Christ said: feed the poor, clothe the
>naked, teach all nations, etc.

Yes!  _But_ this has no bearing on getting into the presence of God!  He
brings us to Him by his own grace period.  Our best is as the worst evil to
Him, since we cannot be perfect.  Everyone who believes that Jesus who _is_
God died for their sins and accepts it for their life _will_ be taken into
the presence of God, for He will view them through the perfect life of Jesus.
Was the Mormon Jesus and imperfect savior such that we still _need_ to do
things?  Because we are _perfect_ in Jesus we have salvation, and then our
rewards are based on how we spent our time on earth.

>|Spirit encounters are often reported at the baptism of the dead
>
>"Often?"  In the many baptisms for the dead I have performed or in
>which I have acted as proxy, I have not had any such spirit
>encounters.  True, such experiences are reported, but very rarely --
>not "often."
>
>|but these may be conditioned responses or, more likely, familiar spirits as
>|warned against in Isaiah.
>
>Or they may be legitimate encounters from beyond the veil, as occurred
>on the Mount of Transfiguration.  I don't claim to be able judge them,
>and I don't think John is in any position to judge them either.  Your
>opinion is duly noted.

Dolly is now firmly convinced that who she thought was her grandmother was a
demonic influence.

>|The whole Mormon experience is just that: an
>|experience.  Truths are known by experience and the followers are not
>|to question anything.
>
>Followers are expected to question everything.  Mormons are constantly
>urged to avoid so-called "blind obedience," and ask for personal
>guidance from the Holy Spirit.

I worked one summer with almost all Mormons, and all of them were willing to
_tell_ me about Mormonism, but _none_ would _discuss_ Mormonism.  Never would
they talk about things which could cause them to question Mormonism in any
way.  It was so obvious it was ridiculous.  Regardless of Mormon doctrine,
this _is_ happening in the LDS Church.  I have pretty well-formed ideas about
Christianity, but they are always subject to revision, as was the case
(though mildly) with the homosexuality debate.

>|In the early days of Mormonism cuts were made while the garment was still
>|on the individual, actually drawing blood, which sealed the blood oaths
>|taken later on.
>
>Not true.

Once again the assertion of the Sackets.

>|The Mormon must be buried in it, as
>|we shall soon see.
>
>Not true, for obvious reasons.  Inasmuch as burial is not under the
>deceased's control this can hardly be believable.

Dolly and Chuck understood it to be Mormon doctrine.

>|>From here the patron watches the movie above and then goes to receive the
>|covenants (blood oaths).
>
>Absolute and utter trash.  There are no "blood oaths" anywhere in any
>temple ceremony.  Participants promise not to divulge certain parts of
>the temple ceremony, even at peril of loss of life.
>
>EVERYBODY GET THIS LOUD AND CLEAR:  THERE IS NO MENTION ANYWHERE IN
>ANY VERSION OF THE LDS TEMPLE CEREMONY OF ANY PENALTY, EARTHLY OR
>OTHERWISE, FOR THOSE WHO BREAK THESE COVENANTS.
>
>Thank you.
>
>|1) Having your throat slit ear to ear and your tongue torn out by the roots.
>|2) Having your chest cut open and your innards removed and fed to beasts.
>|3) Having your body cut asunder such that your guts flow out onto the ground.

Gestures representative of these signs _are_, or at least _were_ carried out
as part of the Endowment ceremony.  This is second hand from the Sackets.
They claim that although the wording is as Jay describes above, it originated
from my 1,2,3, and the gestures still portray these acts.

>|There was a time in early
>|Mormonism where these punishments were actually carried out.
>
>Absolutely untrue.  Since there is no documentation for this
>statement, I assume your authority here is "just because somebody told
>me so."

True - I am relying on the Sackets research.

>|In fact, Joseph Smith himself must sign each person's "papers" in order to
>|get into highest heaven!
>
>Absolutely untrue.  Joseph Smith has nothing to do with anyone's
>salvation. 

>Well, let me congratulate you on presenting one of the most inaccurate
>portrayals of LDS faith I've seen in recent memory.  I understand that
>you may have little personal knowledge of these items and are relying
>upon your sources to be accurate, so I don't consider necessarily at
>fault. 
>
>Your sources are accurate in a few details, but wrong (blatantly so)
>in many others, as well as incorrect in their interpretation.  Much of
>what you present as doctrine is simply speculation.  A lot is simply
>rumor.  As a Mormon for twenty years, a participant and officiator in
>temple ceremonies of various kinds, and a Book of Mormon researcher, I
>have to say that only in such infamous epics as _The God Makers_ have
>I seen a greater density of misinformation than here.

I will try to dig up some more reliable information.

>Given the general level of misinformation here, it should be obvious
>to the reader that any temple secrets which might have been revealed
>here would have been so badly distorted as to be worthless.  Again, I
>do not confirm or deny the presence of any such information.

This is not obvious at all.


John M.