Why the temple ceremony was changed in 1990 - LDS-Mormon

Mormonism and the LDS Church ^ | unknown | anonymous

[delacoert]

Why in 1987 was it necessary to send out a 92 question survey to help make the decision to change the temple ceremony so it would be more palatable to new converts in April of 1990?

• Survey question 28: For a person who had been through the endowment ritual, "did you feel spiritually uplifted by the experience?" and "was the experience unpleasant?" and "were you confused by what happened?"

• Survey question 29: "Briefly describe how you felt after receiving your own endowment."

• Survey question 37-k: "Did you find it hard to go to the temple?"

• Survey question 39-b: "have you ever fallen asleep during sessions?"

• Survey questions 70-a and 70-b: "Do you believe the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a prophet of God?" "Do you believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church on the earth?"

• Survey question 77-g: "Do you have any doubts about specific LDS doctrines and teachings?"

[colorcountry]

We took a poll and concluded that there was no rock in the hat. All those in favor say, “aye.”

[MHGinTN]

Oh my, I don’t have near enough popcorn for this thread! You might ask the same question about the ‘pre-existence council of gods who decdied that the plan Jesus offered was better than the plan his borther Lucifer offered’ ... a notion fundamental to Mormonism, that the leadership has only recently begun trying to hide from public scrutiny.

[vivalaoink]

Wow - part of that sounds very similar to the rituals of a certain fraternal organization I have heard a lot about.

[vivalaoink]

Did they just steal all of the rituals from the Freemasons and adopt them as their own?

[Godzilla]

Since most Mormon converts in the 1970's and 1980's were coming from a Christian background, it was becoming apparent to LDS leaders in the 1980's that ridiculing the Protestant minister in the temple film was offensive to many new converts.
. . . Protestant minister paid by Lucifer to preach false doctrine was eliminated.

I thought you said mormons didn't do that to Christians DU? Or is this a case where it is ok because mormons do (did) it in the temple and since they are the only true church (all others being false) they were permitted to get away with it.

[Jim W N]

The Mormons use a book with a title written on it that says, "Another Gospel". It's the Book of Mormon.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:6-9.

They apparently unwittingly advertise they are scripturally an accursed cult.

[MHGinTN]

Momron use of the name 'Lucifer' is far more damning than even most Momrons realize.

So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying the King James Version of the Bible. Another book of LDS scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants, furthers this problem in 76:26 when it affirms the false Christian doctrine that "Lucifer" means Satan. This incorrect doctrine also spread into a third set of Mormon scriptures, the Pearl of Great Price, which describes a war in heaven based, in part, on Joseph Smith's incorrect interpretation of the word "Lucifer" which only appears in Isaiah.

[ http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml ]

[MHGinTN]

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml
Lucifer: Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language?
In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah 14:12 is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference.
Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").
The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell.
So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

[delacoert]

… unwittingly …

I would say that "unwitting" is a hallmark of Mormanity.

Mormon apologists, theologians and "scholars" are at the least intellectually … malformed.

[colorcountry]

The Mormons use a book with a title written on it that says, "Another Gospel". It's the Book of Mormon....They apparently unwittingly advertise they are scripturally an accursed cult.

That's it in a nutshell. Thanks for posting

[Jim W N]

You're welcome.

BTW, what stopped them cold at my door - they did not have an answer for this - was that those that separate from and do not hear the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ have a spirit of error.

We are of God: he that knows God hears us; he that is not of God does not hear us. Hereby we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. I John 4:6.

May God use use us to be a blessing to these people and by love and wisdom, win them.

[Secret Agent Man]

What I think is interesting is that we have so many people here on this site who cannot handle Christians being critical of Mormon theology, wanting real answers for the problems we note in their own writings and practices, and claim this is being mean or picking on Mormons.

Yet in their own temple ceremonies, that they keep secret from non-Mormons, have a huge section devoted to ridiculing a Christian minister. Because they believe all Christian denominations are corrupted. They can be all nice and sweet but look what THEY believe and what THEY say in their secret ceremonies. Would the KKK be acceptable if they kept their racism in private but were all smiles and grins to blacks when in public?

Talk about rank hypocrisy and deliberate deceitfulness.

Also I am talking about the Mormon leadership and those that support and believe and teach these things. Obviously not all Mormons feel this way, as the article points out.

[Godzilla]

What I think is interesting is that we have so many people here on this site who cannot handle Christians being critical of Mormon theology, wanting real answers for the problems we note in their own writings and practices, and claim this is being mean or picking on Mormons. Yet in their own temple ceremonies, that they keep secret from non-Mormons, have a huge section devoted to ridiculing a Christian minister.

Very valid point. In the past this 'victimization' card could be played because information was limited to non-mormons as to the more secret/sacred portions of mormonism. Now with the advent of the internet these things are more readily available - but old mormon habits die hard. So the same old tactics continue to rear their heads even today.

[SZonian]

Did someone say “whittingly”? Oh, "unwittingly". Close enough. Here’s another one for you…

Alma 42: 25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. “

"...whit..."????

Origin:

1470–80; perh[aps] an alter[ation] of ME wiht

wiht origin:

From Germanic *wextiz. Cognate with Old Saxon wiht (Dutch wicht), Old High German wiht (German Wicht), Old Norse vættr (exceptional creature), vætr, véttr, or vétr (Danish vætte, Swedish vätte), Gothic (waihts).(ca. 12th c.)

[edit] Noun - wiht (plural wihtu)

creature, person, thing, being

Descendants: English: wight; whit

So here we have another example of a word used in the BoM whose origins can be traced as far back as the 12th century, but I can't trace it back any further.

How did such a word come to be used in a book supposedly written hundreds of years earlier and never be known in another language until the Norse, Germanic and Scandinavian cultures came onto the scene?

[delacoert]

… people here on this site who cannot handle Christians being critical of Mormon theology …

Agreed.

What it indicates is a failure to understand the danger, or even have a care about the danger of apostasy, and the soul-threatening intention of wolves in the flock.

In his rebuke that the Judaizers were "false believers," the Apostle Paul did not chose polite words even though that rebuke presumably included the Apostle Peter and other Christians of the Jerusalem Council.

The excessive phony niceness of holier-than-thou, weak-kneed Christians may play well in public, but there is a serious battle for the truth that must be waged at times within the framework of the visible church.

The enemy is within, the enemy has infiltrated the church.

Just sayin'.

[delacoert]

Did someone say “whittingly”? Oh, "unwittingly".

Yeah, I'm with ya' here.

Pardon me if I pull no punches, and use your post to go farther than you would wish, but I have no problem directly impugning some Mormon leaders and apologists (right up to the level of the Quorum of the Twelve and Joseph Smith).

I have no problem believing that there are those who are entirely "whitting" in their deception.

[Secret Agent Man]

WHen I think about this, it just reminds me of ‘the guy’ who shakes your hand and gives you a big smile, acting like your best friend, but unknown to you, is screwing you right in front of your face.

[MHGinTN]

Also FYI ping

[reaganaut]

Forget the survey. I remember when the changes took place. The real impetus for the changes was an investiagaton by their leaders into Satanic Ritual Abuse and flashbacks during the temple Endowment as shown by this memo (verified by news outlets at the time to the LDS church). The silence on this matter and the changing of the supposedly ‘eternal’ temple ceremonies was a huge discussion in Utah in the early 1990’s.

The Glen Pace Memo:

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no80.htm