From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: MORMONISM ??????
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:42:10 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

Remember what I wrote about this group not being a good place to get
answers?  Case in point:

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>There is a couple (can't remember names)

Good citation.  Wouldn't by any chance be Jerald and Sandra Tanner,
would it?  (Hi, Barry:-)  Or Ed Decker and Dave Hunt?  It would be
nice to know what book(s) you have read.

>who used to be Temple workers (a
>special church in the Mormon faith)

"Special church in the Mormon faith?"  Anyone who is eligible to
attend the temple is also eligible to work there.  I have done so on
numerous occasions.  It isn't a separate church, nor a separate elite
group.  These are regular Mormons.

>who publish a booklet and tapes on what
>goes on inside the Temple.

Well, here's a problem.  Those who go to the temple make covenants not
to reveal certain details about some of the temple ceremonies.  These
promises are renewed every time one attends.  Someone who is a temple
worker must have attended the temple often enough to be familiar with
the rite, and so must have made this promise dozens of times.

Now these authors are promulgating information which they had
previously promised not to divulge.  Either they are deliberately
going back on their word, or they were never serious about the
promises they made.  However you look at it, these individuals are
clearly dishonest.  Can they be trusted to tell the truth about
Mormonism?  Hardly.

Now why do you suppose they have this burning need to tell everybody
about the "secrets of Mormonism?"  If they were disillusioned with the
Church (as some are) they could just leave.  But instead they feel the
need to turn against the Church.  Why do you suppose they can't just
"live and let live?"

As former temple patrons they know the seriousness with which bona
fide Mormons view the temple ordinances.  By deliberately spreading
information they have promised not to reveal, they embarrass
the Church.  And they know this.  So if their motives were the simple
concern for the souls of their fellow men, why can't they just offer
something better?  Why do they need to "tear down the opposition?"  If
orthodox Christianity is so much better than Mormonism, why does
Mormonism need to be dragged out into the street in its underwear (pun
intended)?  Why can't you just point to what you think is the right
way and let people make up their minds?

No, this isn't enough.  The most cherished and sacred beliefs of
millions MUST be dragged out into the open where those with no
propriety can dash them to pieces.  It's not enough to offer a better
way, the authors MUST make others look bad.  Why?

Because the concern of these people is not for the welfare of their
fellow men.  They're showmen, just like P. T. Barnum.  They thrive on
the sensationalism, on the thrill of having people hang on their every
word.  Face it, don't we all look at _The National Enquirer_ when
we're in line at the supermarket?  People will listen to this sort of
presentation, and if the truth isn't shocking enough, there's no
hesitation to embellish it or conceal part of it.

I think it's safe to characterize these authors as dishonest and
antagonistic.  Such folks rarely make reliable witnesses.

>Most Mormons don't even know this stuff.

Obviously you're not a Mormon, so I wonder how you know this.  Did
your eminent and unnamed source tell you?

I am a Mormon.  I'd estimate that eighty percent or so of my
congregation who are of eligible age to attend the temple have done so
and know "this stuff."  Most Mormons DO know about it.

>It is
>clear though that Mormonism and Christianity are two _totally_ separate
>animals.

Interesting.  How would you define Christianity?  Some Christians say
you must be baptized, some say you don't.  Some pray to saints, some
don't.  Some claim you need authority from God, some don't.  Some
believe in the ongoing gifts of the Spirit, some don't.

It soon becomes clear that defining Christianity in terms of beliefs
which must be held or rejected is artificial.  Consultation of most
any dictionary shows that a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ.
Since dictionaries describe (not prescribe) usage, it seems adequate
to say that anyone who claims to follow Jesus Christ can be called
Christian -- that's how the world at large uses the term.

Mormons are most definitely Christians.  True, we do not hold some of
the beliefs of other Christian groups, but in a heterogeneous world of
Christianity uniformity of belief as a criterion for inclusion is
absurd.

What you mean to say is that Mormons don't believe what YOU believe
about Christ.  That's true.  But who gave you or your source the right
to determine who can and cannot be called Christians based on what you
(they) believe?

>If you should decide to become a Mormon (which I do not recommend)
>and you are deemed worthy to go through the Temple ceremonies you will
>undoubtedly watch a film that has the Protestant playing as Satan's helper in
>deceiving the masses.

It is not always a film, sometimes it is live action.

The minister portrayed preaches "the orthodox religion."  No mention
of any actual religion is ever made.  In older versions of the film,
the minister was dressed so as to resemble an orthodox Christian
minister.  This was never so in the live action version.  A couple of
years ago, the Church remade the film to correct this and other
implications which confused some Mormons.  The minister was never
intended to portray an actual minister in any denomination, Christian
or otherwise.  The version of the film used for many years gave that
impression. 

The minister is portrayed as a sincere seeker after truth.  He does
not realize he is being deceived by Satan, nor does he consider
himself in the occupation of "deceiving the masses."  He honesly
believes he is helping and teaching them the truth.  When he realizes
that he has been deceived, he forsakes Satan and joins those portrayed
as righteous.

>Most of the ceremonial garb (including required
>underwear) is directly stolen from masonry and several ancient babylonian
>religions.

Hm, your authors (or you) seem to be pretty well versed on Free
Masonry and "ancient Babylonian religions."  Care to substantiate
this?  In conversations with Free Masons about the aspects of the
respective rites which can be freely discussed, I am surprised at the
differences.  There are some superficial similarities (e.g., the
well-known compass and square emblem of Masonry has significance in
the Mormon ceremony as well), but the meaning of these shared emblems
is much, much different in the two rites.

Further, I have in my possession (but not in hand) a pamphlet written
by a Mormon who has also been a Mason for fifty years, discussing the
alleged similarities between the temple ordinances and the Masonic
rites.  He is quite certain of himself when he writes that the
purposes of the two practices are so divergent that equating them in
any but the most trivial way is ludicrous.

Of course there are the superficial similarities.  Where did those
come from?  Critics assume that because Joseph Smith was a Mason he
just borrowed Masonic principles for his temple ceremony.  But what
about the fact that the temple ceremonies were in place in Mormonism
YEARS before Smith ever became involved with Masonry?  In fact, some
historians think that Smith became interested in Masonry because it
resembled the temple ceremony he already knew about.

Some Masons with whom I have conversed theorize that perhaps Smith
learned some of Masonry's secrets from his older brother Hyrum, who
was a Mason.  This is unlikely because Hyrum would have similarly
obligated himself not to reveal Masonry's secrets.  Others propose
that Smith learned of Masonry through a touring "burlesque" show which
performed the Masonic ritual for an audience, such as existed at the
time.  This seems more likely, but still remains unproved.  History
cannot show that Smith ever saw one of these shows.

So how do Mormons explain the similarities?  We claim that a version
of the temple endowment ceremony was revealed to and practiced by the
faithful in all epochs of time, from Adam on down to the early
Christians.  Masonry claims to trace its roots back to Old Testament
times.  It seems likely that Free Masonry is a descendent of these
early endowment ceremonies, which have been restored in their current
form by revelation.

Now we have another problem with our source: How do our authors know
so much about Free Masonry?  Clearly they claim know enough to equate
it to the Mormon ceremony.  The inner workings of Masonry are kept
from the curious public by obligations of secrecy analogous to those
Mormons assume.  Either our authors are also former Masons who have
disregarded their word of honor in that context as well, they have
consorted with Masons who are less than honest themselves, or they are
guessing.  In any case, I see little reason to trust their assessment
in view of testimony of better character.

In terms of "ancient Babylonian religions," I wonder where our authors
got their expertise.  Which ancient Babylonian religions?  In what way
are they similar?  More importantly: how would Joseph Smith, a farmer
who lived in New York state in the mid-1800s, be able to find out
anything at all about "ancient Babylonian religions" which weren't
even well understood by the experts until the 1920s?

I find the assertion that the LDS endowment ceremony borrows from
Masonry and from some nebulous reference to ancient religions to be
unsubstantiated, unthought-out, and just plain naive.

>The goal of a Mormon is to become a god and rule his celestial
>family (and his own "earth")

Deification of man was a belief of some early Christians.  The
doctrine seemed to have died out in about the third century.

>Also, the language which the book of Mormon was translated from does not and
>never did exist to the best of our knowledge.

Maybe to the best of YOUR knowlege.  I happen to have some experience
in Semitic languages.

The Book of Mormon refers to the language in which it is written as
"reformed Egyptian."  Many would-be critics rush to Egyptian textbooks
and jump up and down with glee when they can't find "reformed
Egyptian" in the index.  They don't stop to think the situation
through, they just say "See, it doesn't exist."

Egyptian comes in three major flavors: hieroglyphic, hieratic, and
demotic.

Hieroglyphic, or "palace hand" was used for what we would use
calligraphy or printed text for today.  If you write on a temple wall
you use hieroglyphics.  These are the fully-formed snakes, reeds,
feet, and so forth -- the pictograms we've all seen.

The next step down was hieratic.  This is analogous to printed
handwriting.  It's what most people would write in.  These are
disjoint characters which resemble hieroglyphics; they just aren't
drawn as precisely and are somewhat abstracted (for example, a leaf in
hieroglyphic is a vertical stroke in hieratic).

For centuries these were the only two forms in use (with minor
variations) in Egypt.  These appear on the Rosetta stone, the key to
Egyptian decryption discovered by Champollion in 1799.

But in the 8th century BCE there began a radical shift in the common
script.  The hieratic characters were smoothed, combined, stylized,
and in some cases drastically altered.  The new handwriting was
concise and less time-consuming, most pictograms consisted of no more
than two or three abstract pen strokes.  Scholars today call it
demotic ("The people's writing").  For everyday use it was the norm,
and it gradually came into use in more rigid circles.  In short, the
Egyptian writing system was largely made-over.  Or "reformed" as most
scholars say.

This is an interesting period of time, for the Book of Mormon begins
shortly after this took place.  So what of a language which might be
called "reformed Egyptian?"  It most certainly did exist, and we have
a solid idea what it was: the Egyptian script that was "reformed" from
the hieroglyphic/hieratic tradition into an efficient, usable system.

But why Egyptian?  Weren't Lehi and his family Jewish and living in
Jerusalem?  Wouldn't they characteristically despise anything that
was "Gentile?"  That is the opinion of the anti-Mormon writers whose
knowlege of the Near East comes from the textbook indexes.

In fact, Judah and Egypt were major trading partners in the 8th and
7th centuries BCE.  We even have fragments of Old Testament texts
(psalms) written in "reformed Egyptian" given as presents to prominent
Egyptians.  And we look at Judah of the period in question and we find
Egyptian baubles in Jewish houses, Egyptian names for Jewish children,
and contracts and treaties galore.  Albright writes that Judah before
the Exile was fairly infatuated with Egypt and "all things Egyptian."

When you look at the politics of the time as described in the Bible,
you see that Judah intended to rely on Egypt to save them from the
marauders of the northern kingdoms.  So a strong tie between Judah and
Egypt in other milieux is hardly out of place.

Why is this important?  Lehi, the central figure in the first part of
the Book of Mormon, was a man of means.  He was a wealthy merchant who
most certainly did business with Egypt.  Then as now, the successful
merchant knows the customs and language of his customer.  We have
ample archaeological evidence that even prominent Jews did not
hesitate to adopt Egyptian customs, dress, and language, contrary to
the naive view of Jewish separatism.  So Lehi had his sons educated at
Egyptian schools, and versed them in the language which would probably
guarantee their livelihood.

The authors of the Book of Mormon comment on more than a few occasions
that the metal plates on which they wrote were small, and had they
been sufficiently large they would have written in their native
Hebrew.  Hebrew, written as it was without vowels, is already a very
concise language.  Demotic Egyptian is even more concise, since it
represents whole words and ideas with a few strokes.  So if you're
short of space and you know a language that is efficient in its use of
space (and you already think it's a pretty neat language), you use it.
Plain and simple.

And the parts written by Lehi and his son Nephi (those who had direct
Egyptian tutelage) are Egyptian documents in style.  Egyptian
documents routinely begin with the author's declaration of his name,
his parentage, his authority, and his purpose for writing.  The first
few sentences of the Book of Mormon are unmistakably such colophons in
the Egyptian style.  And sections of Egyptian documents routinely end
with the formula "and thus it is."  Several sections of the Book of
Mormon end with "and thus it is."

Now you have to assume that SOME inkling of Egyptian would have
trickled over to Mesoamerica, where we think the Book of Mormon
migration landed.  Sure enough, some forms of Maya, the family of
languages spoken in parts of Mesoamerica, have the same six classes of
hieroglyphics used in the same six ways as Egyptian.

Now I've done a lot of exposition here on Egyptian.  It's important
because none of the information I've presented here was available to
Joseph Smith.

He used the term "reformed Egyptian" without any inkling that the
world's finest classicists were struggling to decipher a "reformed"
Egyptian script.  He had no way of knowing that Egyptian was more
concise than Hebrew, or that Hebrew was more concise than English, or
in fact anything at all about the Egyptian language and its various
forms.  Such information was being passed privately among the world's
eminent scholars and not disseminated to the public, much as is the
situation today with a few of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Joseph Smith would have known nothing about Egyptian colophons and
formulaic endings.  Those weren't even characterized by the experts
until the turn of the century, 70 years after the Book of Mormon was
published.

And he wouldn't have known anything about Judah's relationship with
Egypt.  Albright didn't drop that bombshell until the 1940s.  Until
then, everyone -- including archaeologists -- assumed the Jews just
basically stayed away from everyone else.

But one event stands out in the Book of Mormon's history.  Martin
Harris, who was to fund the publication of the Book of Mormon, wanted
a professional opinion on the nature of this language.  He obtained
from Smith a handwritten copy of some of the original text from the
gold plates and took them to Dr. Charles Anthon of Columbia College.

Anthon was among the more eminent of scholars of his time, and his
expertise was well known.  According to Harris, Anthon said the
characters were genuine and offered to certify this in writing until
he learned of the divine origin of the plates, whereupon he withdrew
his certification.  Anthon later vehemently denied having certified
the plates in any form.

But Harris was satisfied.  He returned home and put up the money.
What is important about this story is that before Harris' trip to New
York the language of the Book of Mormon had been referred to by Mormon
leaders as "reformed Egyptian," the self-referential term.  But after
Harris got back, Mormon leaders started using new terminology.  In a
letter to a friend, Mormon leader Parley Pratt explicitly said that
Anthon had called the language "short hand Egyptian," as reported
(ironically) in _Mormonism Unvailed_, the first anti-Mormon book.

What's so special about this?  The English term "demotic" comes from a
word coined by German Egyptologists, "Demotische," to describe the
reformed Egyptian script, and this wasn't used in English literature
on Egypt until the turn of the century.  In the French literature they
were using the word "tachygraphie."  And what were they using in
English before "demotic?"  They were using "short hand Egyptian."

This literature was not the sort of thing that you could just run down
to the library and pick up.  This material was only in the hands of
classicists, linguists, and men such as Charles Anthon.  In fact,
Anthon's library has a treatise on "short hand Egyptian" which he
would have read just months before Harris' visit.

So it seems likely that when Pratt said Anthon used the words "short
hand Egyptian" to describe the Book of Mormon language, that Anthod
really did use the words "short hand Egyptian" to describe the Book of
Mormon language.  Pratt simply had no way of making this up without
seeing the material only Anthon had read.  And an assessment of the
language as demotic, or "short hand" Egyptian is entirely consistent
with the state of Egyptian at the time and place in question, and of
the sociology of the time.

The charge that reformed Egyptian does not exist is one of the least
founded of all criticisms against the Book of Mormon.  Anyone who
claims this clearly hasn't done his homework.

>Also Joseph Smith was a shady
>character much of his life.

So then why did _Time_ magazine describe him as one of the ten most
outstanding leaders in United States history?

I'm sorry, but this sounds like a sour grapes story.  Character
assassinations out of the blue with no evidence or even an attempt to
substantiate make a poor substitute for fact, or even educated
speculation. 

>Mormons focus on good works and do not believe
>in salvation through Christ Jesus.

We do teach the need for doing good and for keeping the commandments
of God.

How can you claim we do not believe in salvation through Jesus Christ?
This shows quite clearly and most eloquently that you have no knowlege
of what you profess to criticize, and are blindly quoting.  When
Joseph Smith was asked what the most important teaching of Mormonism
was, he replied "Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  All other teachings
and doctrines are appendages thereto."  Anyone who has read the Book
of Mormon cannot help but see that Mormons believe that there is no
other way besides the atonement of Jesus Christ than man can be saved.
Your statement is ignorant and untrue.

By the way, the real name of the Church is "The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints."

>(You can tell I am coming from a
>Christian perspective.)

If you claim to be a Christian, why do you greet an honest request for
information with a slam on Mormonism?  Isn't this a bit hostile on
your part?  Do you consider it part of Christianity to be able to
offend your fellow man?  You might make it a point to be more informed
on a subject before you set yourself up as an authority on it.

I can't tell at all that you're coming from a Christian perspective.
It sounds more to me like you come from a perspective which plays on
sensationalism, a Geraldo Rivera approach that relies on the words
"shocking expose'" and "what Mormons REALLY believe" under the
pretense of enlightening the ignorant masses.  I have read literature
of the kind you describe.

Why do you have such a problem leaving alone people who are honestly
seeking to live a life that Jesus Christ would want them to and not
hurting you one bit in the process?

>Galations 1:6 is a good verse as they claim the
>angel Moroni communicated a lot of stuff.

Nice "cut and paste" reference.  What if the angel isn't preaching a
different gospel, but the same one that Christ preached?  The one that
was lost during the first few centuries after Jesus apostles died?
It's fairly obvious that the Christianity of the 3rd and 4th centuries
CE is not the same Christianity that the apostles and those who came
immediately after them taught.  Most Christian historians call this a
natural evolution of the theology.  I call it "a different gospel."

>From talking with "everyday" Mormons they seem to think that Mormonism is
>based on Christianity and "the more the better".  Wrong answer.

If you're talking to everyday Mormons and they're giving you answers
which don't jive with your little book, you might consider believing
the honest, everyday Mormons.  It just might be (gasp!) that your
little book is wrong.

Ed Decker uses this same argument in _The God Makers_.  He says, in
effect, if you talk to a Mormon he'll appear perfectly normal, but
he's really a deluded, satanistic wretch.  Sorry, doesn't wash.


Those of you who have persevered to the end of this tortuous journey
through a study in religious intolerance should be painfully aware by
now that when a non-Mormon raises his hand and says he's going to tell
you the "truth" about Mormonism, this person is almost assuredly NOT
in possession of the truth, though his intentions may be honest.  But
how someone who has read a pamphlet on the subject can profess to be
better able to exposit the beliefs of Mormonism than those of use who
have lived and practiced it for years is quite beyond my ability to
comprehend.

I don't fault John for his opinion.  He is making the best go of it he
can with the information he's been given, and he's caught up in the
mood of that material.  I call into question the information itself.
It's patently misleading, misinformed, and not more than a little
hostile.  I hope his conscience persuades him to look further into
this subject.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc