The Long and Winding Road (To Ruin) or Eight Days a Week (Of Woe): Mormon Apostle Blames the Beatles for Society's Ills

[I Have Questions]

But until the preparation includes the clear warning that the initiates will essentially be vowing to become slaves to the church leaders, it will simply not be fair. How many people have gone through the endowment - even with the caveat at the beginning of the session that they are free to bail out (who ever does that?) only to be shocked and freaked out about the whole thing. Covenants are perfectly okay with me. Sell yourself into slavery for all I care, but the contextual psychological pressure to continue without the benefit of full disclosure is a wicked affair. It's abuse clear and simple. I can hardly imagine the True Jesus (if he exists) would go along with such a set up.

I suppose we differ on the point of becoming "slaves" to church leaders. I think that when people are preparing to go to the temple they are doing so in order to make covenants with God and learn to follow the Savior. It makes a difference, between you and I, as to what the focus is in all of this.

I won't argue with you about your beliefs that the temple is a 'slave making' warehouse of sorts. If you want to believe that, that is your prerogative.

As it is, the people I know that regularly attend the temple do so in order to grow closer to God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ. And to serve those that have gone before.

That mindset makes a huge difference.

Regards,
MG

Bill makes a good point. People attending the temple for themselves do so only once. And they are coerced into committing to all the covenants BEFORE they are told what they are, and in a situation where it would be exceptionally uncomfortable to insist on hearing the details before agreeing to honour them. It’s coercive control.

[Shulem]

As it is, the people I know that regularly attend the temple do so in order to grow closer to God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ. And to serve those that have gone before.

I spent countless hours in the temple, perhaps more than you can imagine. There were periods in my life when I practically lived in the temple from sunup to closure, Eight days a Week. I know *all* about the temple, inside and out. Been there done that. And, it was a pleasure to break those covenants! I have since found something far better than Mormon cult rituals: Myself & God!

PS. I've known people who refused to go back after the first endowment due to the penalties that freaked them out. You know by what I speak, MG. That's probably why the Church got rid of those horrible covenants in 1990. Terrible they were. Evil.

[Shulem]

Bill makes a good point. People attending the temple for themselves do so only once. And they are coerced into committing to all the covenants BEFORE they are told what they are, and in a situation where it would be exceptionally uncomfortable to insist on hearing the details before agreeing to honour them. It’s coercive control.

I don't recall anyone ever getting up and walking out. Once vested, admitted, and seated -- you just go with it and get it over with. Then later, dump it all for the garbage it is.

The Mormon temple is all above enslaving souls to a religious system that keeps you stupid.

[I Have Questions]

As it is, the people I know that regularly attend the temple do so in order to grow closer to God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ. And to serve those that have gone before.

That mindset makes a huge difference.

Regards,
MG

It’s interesting that the pinnacle of Mormon God worship is hiding away in a “pay to play” freemasonry cosplay event, doing cultish incantations for dead people. And then claim that’s how to draw closer to God.

I reckon God might be drawn closer to those volunteering down the homeless shelter, rather than those people sat in the plush chairs staring up at fancy chandeliers in a room resembling a Trump hotel lobby, mentally thinking that they’re getting a little glimpse of heaven.

[bill4long]

I suppose we differ on the point of becoming "slaves" to church leaders. I think that when people are preparing to go to the temple they are doing so in order to make covenants with God and learn to follow the Savior. It makes a difference, between you and I, as to what the focus is in all of this.

I won't argue with you about your beliefs that the temple is a 'slave making' warehouse of sorts. If you want to believe that, that is your prerogative.

As it is, the people I know that regularly attend the temple do so in order to grow closer to God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ. And to serve those that have gone before.

That mindset makes a huge difference.

Regards,
MG

Bill makes a good point. People attending the temple for themselves do so only once. And they are coerced into committing to all the covenants BEFORE they are told what they are, and in a situation where it would be exceptionally uncomfortable to insist on hearing the details before agreeing to honour them. It’s coercive control.

I think it's simply unfair. Who, especially in the modern age, would be against full disclosure and transparency? How could providing the basic demands in advance of the rituals possibly be a foil to someone's "spirituality" in the temple?

But consider the origin: Joe had started the whole polygamy racket, which was illegal and fraught with danger. The fire was hot and getting hotter. Joe was becoming more and more paranoid. Its easy to demonstrate this from the historical evidence. He was far from being an idiot, and having joined Freemasonry himself in Nauvoo himself, no doubt saw the benefit of Freemasonry when it came to loyalty and secrecy. He got the bright idea of outdoing the Masons and creating a system - as a prerequisite to Godhood, by golly! - that swore people to secrecy, and to total submission - not to Jesus, mind you - that already occurs at baptism - but to the church, which meant (and still means) to the very mortal human leaders.

I'll say this to MG: if you get benefit from your temple experience, I'm all for it. Personally, I didn't get any spiritual noursishment from any LDS temple experience. I'm more of a out-in-nature kind of guy. But do try to understand why some of us see the Mormon temple initiation as injurious to some - a lot from what I can tell - as it is managed, particularly with regard to lack of full disclouse and transparency before the first encounter.

I will, for those interested in personal anecdotes, say that, I personally, was not traumatized by my first temple experience. I even did some veil work at the Los Angeles temple for a while after my mission before I transitioned to non-TBM status. My best TBM friend "warned" me a bit that "you may notice some similarities to Freemasony." I knew nothing about Freemasonry except that there was a Lodge across the street from my high school, knew they were a "private club", and always wondered what the hell they were up to in there. After my friend "warned" me, I made a bee-line to the public library and dived into what Freemasony was all about. (The public library in the town had huge shelf of All Things Masonic. All the Masonic rituals had been exposed long ago.)

About a month later, to the L.A. temple we went on a Saturday night. I was taken aback by how much "similarity" there was regarding the form, such as the signs, token, penalties, aprons, hand gestures around the altar, square and compress, five points of fellowship, etc. But the motif was different. Freemasonry is not a religion, but rather a morals-based fraternity that teaches lessons through symbols and dramatic ritual. The Mormon temple rites are about making covenants to God and eventually achieving godhood. (Why isn't the total covenant at baptism to Jesus enough? Well...) Originally it was about achieving godhood via polygamy. What they have in common is oaths, and covenants and secrecy. (The term "secrecy" was actually used in the Mormon endowment prior to 1990.) All very handy for controlling people and managing risk in Nauvoo. Especially true believers.

Joe was no dummy. And I find it wickedly delicious that the last words on Joe's lips was the Masonic Call of Distress: Oh Lord, My God... He didn't quite finish it due to being shot and falling out the window after having squeezed off a couple of shots of his own.

MG. There's no way to know, but I suspect that you and every other modern TBM, if you had the chance to transport back in time to Nauvoo and really know what the hell was going on, you would have run like hell away from there.

[Shulem]

Bill makes a good point. People attending the temple for themselves do so only once. And they are coerced into committing to all the covenants BEFORE they are told what they are, and in a situation where it would be exceptionally uncomfortable to insist on hearing the details before agreeing to honour them. It’s coercive control.

I think it's simply unfair. Who, especially in the modern age, would be against full disclosure and transparency? How would providing the basic demands of the rituals possibly be a foil to someone's "spirituality" in the temple in the Internet age?

By today's standard it's bad practice at best and immoral at worst. Temple preparation classes didn't say anything about the penalties or that making blood oaths was required. The temple system sucks people into it and then runs them through the grinder like cattle in a barn who can do nothing but watch the process -- they are like slaves who have no say about anything other than to repeat what they are told to repeat and think what they are told to think.

1. Do this.
2. Don't do that.
3. Think this.
4. Don't think that.
5. Be this.
6. Don't be that.

Being a Mormon is an assignment and a duty that nullifies personal freedom and expression to be who you are and what you want to be. Individuality is not allowed when it goes against the grain or is counter to the established rules.

Oh God, I really hate Mormonism! Truly I do.

[Shulem]

MG. There's no way to know, but I suspect that you and every other modern TBM, if you had the chance to transport back in time to Nauvoo and really know what the hell was going on, you would have run like hell away from there.

Imagine poor/pitiful MG enquiring about the king's name in Facsimile No. 3 when the prophet looks him in the eyes with that certain jovial sparkle and mumbles a name which MG knows is not in the writing wherein there is no royal Cartouche. Holy hell, that would be like Jesus being crucified without a wooden cross and set of nails! But what would the apologists say? The cross is simply figurative and the nails represent his pain he endured.

[bill4long]

I think it's simply unfair. Who, especially in the modern age, would be against full disclosure and transparency? How would providing the basic demands of the rituals possibly be a foil to someone's "spirituality" in the temple in the Internet age?

By today's standard it's bad practice at best and immoral at worst. Temple preparation classes didn't say anything about the penalties or that making blood oaths was required. The temple system sucks people into it and then runs them through the grinder like cattle in a barn who can do nothing but watch the process -- they are like slaves who have no say about anything other than to repeat what they are told to repeat and think what they are told to think.

1. Do this.
2. Don't do that.
3. Think this.
4. Don't think that.
5. Be this.
6. Don't be that.

Being a Mormon is an assignment and a duty that nullifies personal freedom and expression to be who you are and what you want to be. Individuality is not allowed when it goes against the grain or is counter to the established rules.

Oh God, I really hate Mormonism! Truly I do.

One sidebar question I have for MG and other apologists is this: why is the Law of Consecration in the temple necessary if one already did that in effect at baptism, where one makes a covenant to follow God, follow Jesus and obey all the commandments?

The only answer I can conceive is what I have covered: Joe. Nauvoo. Polygamy. Joe getting paranoid. The loyalty/secrecy model of Freemasonry.

So..., you made a covenant with God and Jesus to obey all the commandments at baptism? Well.... turns out that ain't good enough anymore.

Oh, and lest you forget, it ain't part of the teachings of the Book of Mormon Jesus. (3 Nephi 11:40) (My favorite verse in the Book of Mormon.)

Again, I hasten to say that people can do whatever gets them through their lives. The only thing I care about with regard to this subject is full disclosure and transparancy about what will be required of the initiate prior to contexual social pressure to not leave the ceremony.

It's only fair.