From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 2 of 2)
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:34:07 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

This is a response to the article posted by John Meulhausen on the LDS
temple endowment ceremony and LDS doctrine in general.  Since it
exceeds 900 lines in length, I am posting it in two parts.  This is
the second part.

|Concept of Hell
|---------------
|
|In Mormonism, Satan and his minions reside in Hell.

Actually, Mormons believe Satan and his minions reside on earth where
they circulate unseen.  Eventually they will be cast into a kingdom
referred to in LDS doctrine as "outer darkness."  This, we believe, is
the complete absence of glory.

|No people go to hell
|unless they screw up bad in heaven

Incorrect.  We believe that Satan and his followers will be sent to
outer darkness.  In addition, those who commit the unpardonable sin of
denying the Holy Spirit while on earth will also go there.  The exact
description of the unpardonable sin is not definitive in LDS theology.
In a certain interpretation those who have real, personal, undeniable
knowledge of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior, and who then
turn against him are called Sons of Perdition and will reside in outer
darkness.

Inasmuch as this knowledge is had by very few individuals (this
knowledge is not the same as a personal witness that Christians in
general enjoy), very few are even candidates for this distinction.
Some Mormon leaders have speculated that Judas Iscariot falls into
this category, but others disagree.

|(some say that Satan worshipers go to
|hell - or were demons to start with).

You seem to have ignored this point when I brought it up before.  It
is not the LDS position, doctrinal or otherwise, that Satanists are
sent to outer darkness.

|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?

|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.

|It is from a film that patrons must view.

Not all temples use the film.  The live action version (which your
source has apparently never seen nor participated in) has slightly
different staging.

|I am sorry if this is a touchy
|issue as far as secrecy is concerned, but it is _very_ relevant.

This apology is the unkindest cut of all.  I wish you'd either justify
yourself as you did in the beginning of your post and stand by it, or
leave the whole thing alone.  You've said that you're doing this for a
good cause.  Your apology leaves this assertion in doubt.

|In the lone and dreary world, Adam prays "Oh God hear the words of my mouth" 
|(x3).  The language that this prayer used to be spoken in could be
|translated as above or as "Wonderful Lucifer..." or "Oh false-god..." so it
|is now spoken in english.

Utter trash.

The English words Adam now speaks were formerly IN HEBREW.  Having
taught Hebrew for a number of years and considering myself more an
authority on the subject than you or your sources, I can say with
absolute one-hundred-percent certainty that the Hebrew words spoken in
the previous version of the temple endowment ceremony are accurately
spoken in English in the current version.

In Hebrew there is no way within reason that the phrase formerly used
could have been so interpreted or translated.

|Nevertheless Lucifer answers this call in the 
|movie: "I hear you, what is it you want" (Adam thinks its Elohim).

No he does not.

|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.

|(BTW Lucifer wears higher
|masonic garb w/emblems of power.)

Satan is clothed differently in each of the older films, differently
in the new film, and differently in the live-action version.  How you
can assert this is a bit difficult to understand under these
circumstances.  I assume you say this just because someone told you
this.

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.

|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.

|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.

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.

John's source omits the end of this scene.  The evangelist discovers
who Satan is and shuns him, joining the faithful.  It is to be
understood that the evangelist is a sincere seeker after truth.

|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.

|For the Christian account read the first part of Genesis.

Mormons read and believe this, too.

|Concept of Salvation(s)
|-----------------------
|
|Mormons are saved by being good Mormons.

Mormons are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ.  Salvation, in LDS
theology, means the freedom from Original Sin and eventual power over
physical death.  This is given freely to all.

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.

|Mormons must
|also act as savior to the dead in order to receive salvation.

Not true.

|An interesting note is that millions and millions of ceremonies are
|performed for the dead, costing mega-bucks, while not nearly as much effort
|is put into saving the living.

The LDS church supports more than 40,000 full-time missionaries
throughout the world.  It distributes printed material and scriptures
to non-Mormonsusually at no cost to the reader.  It has purchased a
share of a communication satellite used to transmit inspirational and
educational material to the Western Hemisphere.  It has engaged in
humanitarian efforts worldwide to relieve hunger and enhance the
standards of living.  It produces public service advertisements on
such topics as drug abuse and environmental consciousness in several
languages and purchases time on radio and television stations
worldwide to air them.

Monetarily, these are much more intensive activities than performing
ordinances for the dead.  Redeeming the dead involves genealogical
research (usually performed by Mormons on a volunteer basis) and
ordinances performed by proxy (always done on a volunteer basis).

|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.

|Jesus is not in the picture.

Jesus is firmly and prominently placed at the center of the picture.

|BTW, tracing genealogies is specifically 
|discouraged in the Bible.

The counsel to avoid "endless genealogies" has a specific cause,
irrelevant to the LDS activity.  Since Jewish genealogical records had
been destroyed, it was not an uncommon practice to claim to belong to
a prominent family or to the priestly line and to fabricate a
genealogy as evidence.  Christians at that time were warned not to pay
attention to those whose claims to prominence were based on
genealogies.

Your interpretation of these passages certainly seems to be at odds
with two of the New Testament gospels, which begin with Jesus'
genealogy.

|The baptisms for the dead are performed in a font supported by 12 lifesize 
|oxen which is very beautiful.

Those who visit Temple Square in Salt Lake City can see one at the
South Visitor Center.

|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.

|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.

|The "holy underwear" has a masonic square and compass over each breast:

A Mason who contacted me personally today and authorized my use of his
opinion said that there was little resemblance to Masonry in your
description of LDS ceremonies.

|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.

|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.

|There is "power and magic" in the priesthood markings.

Not true.  Your quote obviously does not come from any LDS source,
since "magic" is not in LDS parlance except to denote activities from
which Mormons should abstain.

|The connection to Babylonian religions is simply that they wore similar
|underwear oftentimes to guard against similar things.  They also had secret
|markings on them.

Okay, we're getting closer here, but there's still no reference.  I
happen to be somewhat familiar with various ancient religions, and I
have yet to see anything which might be so construed.

I don't take your word for this.

|>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.

Quite imaginative and gory.  And untrue.  Spare us, John.  Most of us
expect not to have to hurl when we read talk.religion.misc.

|So much for anyone revealing the secret signs!

From "justified" to "sorry" to "sarcastic" in a single article.  Not
only are some people justified in tearing down Mormonism (though of
course -- being good people -- they wouldn't normally do this), they
are also apparently justified in enjoying it.

|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."

|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. 

|The veil ceremony is supposed to be very close to
|the ceremony for getting into heaven, so one must be buried in the holy
|underwear.

Why does this follow?  This is not LDS doctrine.

|Christians are saved by accepting Jesus Christ, the son of God, as Savior
|and Lord of their lives.

As Christians, Mormons also believe this.  Accepting Jesus means
taking his name upon us and doing all he commanded us to do.

|Books
|-----
|
|The Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith from reformed Egyptian
|plates written by Mormon (and communicated by Moroni?).  Do these plates
|still exist, or were they conveniently destroyed.

This is a pretty loaded question.  Of course we cannot produce the
plates today.  They were not conveniently destroyed, they were given
back to the angel Moroni (the resurrected prophet who in mortality was
the last to write in the book), "who has them until this day,"
according to Smith.

But before they were given back, eleven persons were permitted to view
them.  Three of them were handed the plates by Moroni himself, while
the other eight examined the plates in Smith's home.  Ironically, all
three of the first set of witnesses left the Mormon Church and had
specific motive and opportunity to deny this testimony, but each
AFFIRMED it instead.

Whether or not they were the source for the Book of Mormon, it's a
hard to to do to say that Smith didn't have them.

|If they do, has an
|independant translation been done?

Since they don't: no, an independent translation has not been done.

|Have they been dated?

Directly, no.  Indirectly, yes (in much the same way that biblical
books are dated as to their original authorship).

This happens to be a research topic of mine.

For example, people often balk at the strange sounding names in the
early parts of the Book of Mormon.  Some have obvious Hebrew
derivations (e.g., Lemuel), but some cannot be traced to Hebrew names.
In fact we find that these names have Egyptian derivations.  Not only
are these derivations fairly straightforward, they date from the
seventh century BCE, when Egyptian names were popular in Judah.
Considering names further, we find a conspicuous absence of Baal
derivatives, which pop up all over in the Old Testament ("-bel").
Turns out that shortly before the Book of Mormon takes place, the use
of Baal names ceased abruptly and inexplicably in Judah.

Looking at the text, we find that a lot of it exhibits elements of
both Hebrew and Egyptian style.  But these styles didn't show up in
Hebrew until Moses' time.  The parts of the Book of Mormon which
purportedly predate Moses are quite absent of any such style.

I could go on ad nauseam, but this is also beyond the scope of the
current article.  It is, however, within the scope of a book-length
manuscript I am preparing.

|Could the
|Book of Mormon have been inspired, but by the wrong side?

Yes, but so could have the Bible, "The Cat in the Hat," or any other
book you'd care to mention.

|The statements
|about Joseph Smith's early life were from a booklet that I cannot find at
|the moment.  Scratch those statements if you want.

Consider them scratched.

|Simply put, there is much more behind the Bible than any other historical
|writing as far as credibility is concerned.

Truly humorous.  Many early Christians didn't believe the book of
Revelation.  A lot of Old Testament history is simply not supported.

For example, Exodus tells us that the Israelites were in captivity in
the land of Goshen in Egypt.  After the LORD visited Egypt with
plagues, Pharaoh let them go.

The problem is that no one bothered to tell the Egyptians any of this.

|We can be sure that we have
|at least a _very_ close translation of the original scriptures.

In terms of the New Testament this may be so.  We'll ignore the fact
that the story of the woman taken in adultery (cf. John 8) didn't show
up until hundreds of years after Christ, and the manuscripts can't
decide whether it belongs in Luke or in John.  Other than these little
problems, the transmission of the New Testament is actually remarkably
invariant.

However, we can't say the same for the Old Testament.  We don't have
manuscripts any earlier than about the first century BCE.  Since it
was the job of the Hebrew scribe in the times of Moses and Joshua not
only to copy the text, but to comment upon it, enhance it, edit it,
etc., we cannot be sure that any of our OT books are exactly as the
authors penned them.  To be sure, the scribal tradition settled down
about the time of Isaiah and Jeremiah (and did an about-face in 90
CE), but we cannot assume an invariant transmission from author to
reader.

|The
|Christian God is capable of preserving His word...

...in many forms and in many books, including (but not limited to) the
Bible.

|Hope this gets some good discussion going!

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.

Not to say that there was no truth presented, but the amount of
speculation, opinion, and falsity far exceed it.

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 post merely confirms my statement made earlier that a non-Mormon
who claims to possess the "truth about Mormonism" actually possess
very little of it.

In case it isn't obvious: the material presented herein is not
endorsed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and
reflects the author's knowledge of LDS doctrine.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
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