I'm arguing religion with a fellow, and he's brought up Krakauer's book Under the Banner of Heaven. He's claiming that violence was an integral part of the early Mormon Church, particularly mentioning the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Now, I know enough about MMM to debate that point, but he also insists that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were very involved in violent work in the early days of the Church. Does anyone know what he might be referring to, and the veracity of those statements?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Probably the same rumors that have been floating around since those days, mostly completely unfounded.
There was a militia. They had a right to one, same as any other town. The fact that they were well-drilled and trained got people around them nervous, though.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
The Mormons were persecuted pretty badly in Missouri. They'd get run out of towns and have their homes burned and were generally treated like crap. The Mormons would sometimes retalliate and do the same things back. It was a lose-lose situation of escalating violence, hence the Mormons moving West to start over. [edited to add: Before moving West, they moved to Illinois where similar events occured.]
[ February 21, 2006, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Amanecer ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: He's claiming that violence was an integral part of the early Mormon Church, particularly mentioning the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Hmmn. I have read Under the Banner of Heaven, and I quite liked it. I would dispute that the book contends that violence was an integral part of early Mormon Church.
If I remember correctly, the book says there was less violence from the Mormon towns then in contemporary towns of the time. What was different was the type of violence. Castrations and throat slitting were mentioned.
There were some quotes from Brigham Young. The early temple ceremony (until the 1980s or 1990s) had signs, tokens, AND punishments. If you look up the punishments (you may be uncomfortable if you are a temple card holder) it will shed light on your discussion.
Under the Banner of Heaven focuses more on why there will always be extremist groups in the LDS faith. The author notes that the extremists do not represent accepted doctrine, tho the roots are in doctrine--ie polygamy.
Mormon violence is often attributed to the Danites.
If you want a good debate, have your friend read D&C and as much of the Church Encyclopedia that is relevant. If you do the same and then add Under the Banner of Heaven and The Mormon Hierarchy to your reading list, then you will both be more informed.
Apparently OSC did a review of the Mormon Hierarchy that refutes it's contentions. Here is a book review that refutes OSC review and sheds some light on early violence.
quote:Contrary to the review published by Orson Scott Card, Quinn does not conclude that "church leaders ordered and rewarded the murder and mutilation of dissidents". He shows evidence that it may have happened based on the statements, locations and other evidence available, but he never states that murder or mutilation was in fact ordered and rewarded. Also contrary to Card's review, Quinn does not, "reach the definite conclusion that Joseph Smith originated and sanctioned the worst of the Danite violence in Missouri and that because of Danite violence Mormons pretty much deserved the persecution they got" as Card emphatically states. At best, Quinn states that Joseph Smith knew about the Danites and he provides ample evidence for this assertion. Quinn also provides an abundance of evidence regarding other Danite issues. Card discounts any usage by Quinn of apostate Mormon testimony--yet most of the quotes and sources Quinn uses are from Mormons who were faithful to the Utah church until death. He doesn't say anything close to Card's comments regarding Mormons deserving the persecution they received. Quinn actually says just the opposite in several places--especially with regard to the most violent actions taken at Haun's Mill and Carthage. Quinn states on page 99, "Mormon marauding against non-Mormon Missourians in 1838 was mild by comparison with the brutality of the anti-Mormon militias."
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Krakauer is a journalist, not a historian. That is, he's read some flawed books - Fawn Brodie's, in particular - and sensationalized their conclusions. Even when he cites good books, like Juanita Brooks's Mountain Meadows Massacre, he distorts their conclusions: he argues that Brigham Young ordered the massacre, while Brooks, whom he references, argues otherwise. Indeed, Will Bagley, a guy who actually _knows_ Mormon history, wrote an entire book trying to pin the blame on Young and failed.
Kraukauer's argument is that 1)The Mormon church is totalitarian, and 2)Religion like this makes people crazy. He perfunctorily notes the difference between mainstream Mormonism and fundamentalists, but in practice, he's constantly spinning to the mainstream church look dictatorial. For example, he states that Nathan Tanner, an apostle in the mid-twentieth century, "famously declared" that "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over." In actuality, Tanner _quoted_ somebody else saying this to make a different point entirely. In addition, several years before, the president of the church sent an open letter specifically refuting this statement. (I cringe to link to FARMS, but this one is primarily to primary sources.)
He argues that Church president John Taylor gave a man named Lorin Woolley authority to seal polygamous marriages as polygamy in the mainstream church was fading; amusingly, the only source for this is Woolley himself; and mainstream historians - Marty Bradley, Mike Quinn, Tom Alexander - all cast a dubious eye onto Woolley's mental stability, let alone authority (Woolley once claimed to be a spy for the Secret Service). Krakauer, however, spins this to make it seem as though the LDS leadership is covering something up.
As for violence in the early church: the Danites existed. They were not founded by Joseph Smith; Sampson Avard organized them to retaliate against the Missourians who were feuding with the Mormons. In fact, it's uncertain to what extent Joseph Smith was involved with them. Richard Bushman's _Rough Stone Rolling_ carefully examines this evidence and concludes that he cannot make a conclusion. (Bushman is a believing Mormon; though in other areas he tends to spin in Joseph Smith's favor, here, he's very reliable).
There were oaths of punishment in the temple ceremony until 1990; Brigham Young occasionally spoke of 'blood atonement;' however, an examination of the Journals of Discourses reveals that Young believed that one's death to atone for sin had to be done of one's free will; that is, the murders that Krakauer speculates about could not have been doctrinally correct. In addition, his primary source for his major story is John D. Lee, the man convicted for murder in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, who wrote an expose after being convicted. He felt rather betrayed by Young. Naturally, Krakauer does not make this disclaimer.
I'll second the Mormon Heirarchy recommendation; it's a good book, though Quinn tends not to use his primary sources as carefully as he should. Amusingly, Krakauer uses Quinn's _Early Mormonism and the Magic World View_ in a way disgraceful for trained historians; he mines it for lurid stories while ignoring Quinn's fundamental argument.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I'm not LDS, but I don't think violence is a fundamental element of the foundation of the LDS church. Every religion/nation/Kennedy has some violence in their closet. It doesn't mean they are fundamentally violent.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryan Hart: I'm not LDS, but I don't think violence is a fundamental element of the foundation of the LDS church.
If you aren't LDS, how would you know that? Just curious.
Btw, a friend of mine just read that Banner of Heaven book for a book club. I tried to get some explanations from her on how it changed her perspective on the lds religion, but she couldn't tell me anything specific except there was a lot of violence in lds history. Oh, and she insists that there was a rule that marital sex was only to take place when the wife was fertile. If they knew they couldn't get pregnant, then they weren't supposed to do it. I thought that was interesting.
Her book club meeting ended up heavily criticizing both Mormons and Catholics (she's Catholic, and wasn't happy about parts of the discussion) so now I'm kind of interested in reading the book.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It doesn't sound like Krakauer is anyting like a credible source, and he clearly has an agenda for which he will twist sources out of context to support.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I recommend Under the Banner of Heaven. Not because it is anti-Mormon. I do agree he is just a journalist who is trying (and succeeding) in sensationalizing a violent act in 1980.
However, he made it quite clear that he was dealing with fundamentalism. He gives a good definition of fundamentalism and establishes that the modern LDS church is NOT a fundamentalist religion.
His snarky attitude to the LDS church is more about how they try to distance themselves from the "polygs."
The book was interesting to me mostly because I was reading about John Wesley at the time and I was following the headline news on Muslim Extremists. The book does a really good job of exploring what causes extremism and fundamentalism and how violence is tied to it.
He is "tongue and cheek" about the church, but his focus and agenda is not about the mainstream LDS religion. His analysis can generally be applied to all extremists in all religions. The author's contentions are much more general then reviewers give him credit for.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
quote: Oh, and she insists that there was a rule that marital sex was only to take place when the wife was fertile. If they knew they couldn't get pregnant, then they weren't supposed to do it. I thought that was interesting.
Not true.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Oh, and she insists that there was a rule that marital sex was only to take place when the wife was fertile. If they knew they couldn't get pregnant, then they weren't supposed to do it. I thought that was interesting.
I don't even think that is in the book. If it is, then he is referring to one individual.
The author spends some time on individual apostates of the polygamist sect, and they had some strange beliefs/practices. At that point Krakauer is talking about apostates of fundamentalist sects--very far removed from the mainstream LDS faith.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I've studied Mormon theology and history. In my studies I've found most violence was against the Mormons. This isn't to say Mormon history is without its trouble spots, but it isn't as militaristic in background as say Islam or Sikhism.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Oh, and she insists that there was a rule that marital sex was only to take place when the wife was fertile. If they knew they couldn't get pregnant, then they weren't supposed to do it. I thought that was interesting.
Nobody told that to me and my wife when we got married!
In reality, the sexual relationship in marriage has always been viewed as a sanctifying, unifying, noble, and procreative part of God's plan. My great-great-great grandfather, Parley P. Pratt, was among the first apostles of the church. He wrote:
quote:The object of the union of the sexes is the propagation of their species, or procreation; also for mutual affection, and the cultivation of those eternal principles of never ending charity and benevolence, which are inspired by the Eternal Spirit; also for mutual comfort and assistance in this world of toil and sorrow, and for mutual duties toward their offspring. (Key to the Science of Theology, ISBN 0766104567, p 173. Google Book Search Results )
quote:Her book club meeting ended up heavily criticizing both Mormons and Catholics (she's Catholic, and wasn't happy about parts of the discussion) so now I'm kind of interested in reading the book.
Enjoy the book, just be aware that it seems to be more about sensationalism than history.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Sensational books like this are nothing new. Since this is a "bookish" forum, some may be interested in the trivia that Shirlock Holmse was concieved as a sensational "anti-mormon" character and the first Shirlock Holmes book was an expose of the Danites. If my failing memory still serves, it was called Lady In Scarlet.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote: some may be interested in the trivia that Shirlock Holmse was concieved as a sensational "anti-mormon" character and the first Shirlock Holmes book was an expose of the Danites. If my failing memory still serves, it was called Lady In Scarlet.
"A Study in Scarlet," in which Holmes hunts down a guy who murdered two Mormons who hounded his wife to death.
It's very amusing to watch Doyle make stuff up with such enthusiastic abandon.
quote:What is the thirteenth rule in the code of the sainted Joseph Smith? `Let every maiden of the true faith marry one of the elect; for if she wed a Gentile, she commits a grievous sin.
?
quote:the orders of the Holy Council of Four
?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
This may be streaching my capacity, but wasn't the first Zane Grey also an anti-Mormon Danite expose? I almost remembered the A.C. Doyle title. I think the Zane Grey might have been called Riders of the Purple Sage.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Artemisia:
You are correct. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
This thread inspired me to check the book out of the library and read it. I thought it was an exceptional read and I highly recommend it. I agree with lem that the contentions Krakauer makes are much broader than the FLDS. He explores the vast power that faith has in the lives of those that hold it. I disagree with Matt that the book concludes that "religion like this makes people crazy." Part of what I found so compelling about the book is that the Laffertys were not crazy. To me, the book was a break down of how they could sanely come to embrace a seemingly insane view.
For those who haven't read it, the book goes through a detailed exploration of how the Lafferty brothers' faith evolved and how it led them to commit the murder of their sister-in-law and niece. The case is made interesting by the intensity with which Dan Laffery believes in his cause. I especially enjoyed the chapter that summarizes the testimonies of different psychiatrists' opinions of Ron Lafferty. I appreciated the psychiatrist who stated that Ron could not be considered crazy for his beliefs, because faith based beliefs of all types (religious, political, etc) are all radical to a degree.
While the book did explore Mormon history, that was not the primary focus of the book. A background was given to aid in understanding the faith of the Laffertys. This background information seemed to contradict itself in one point and I would be very grateful if somebody could explain it to me. On page 201, Krakauer states that in 1846 "the Saints paused to regroup at Sugar Creek, Iowa, before continuing their trek to the Rocky Mountains. And there, in that snowbound camp, the sacred secret of polygamy was first sharead openly with the rank and file." Yet on the next page, it states that 1851 marked Young's first public admission of the practice of polygamy. And then that it was only revealed to the entire church in 1852. My question is when did it become common knowledge: in 1846 at Sugar Creek or in 1852 in Utah?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hmm...
Well, polygamy was instituted back before Joseph Smith was martyred. I believe it was known among the enemies of the church, who had this habit of publishing the fact that Mormons were engaging in plural marriages.
I'm not sure how the rank-and-file would be able to miss the fact that some men had more wives then others.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I was under the impression that it was kept secret for a while. Rumors flourished but the leadership of the Church denied it. This impression was given to me not only by Under the Banner of Heaven , but also by OSC's Saints, as well as other material that I have read. In response to your post I did a search on fairlds.org to see what Mormon scholars say about this issue. I found this. It compares lying about polygamy to lying to the SS about hiding a Jewish family. It says that it was justified because the majority of the church was not yet ready to accept it. I take this article to mean that for the most part it was kept secret.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I only have a vague idea about how polygamy was revealed.
It was my impression that Joseph Smith asked about it in prayer after reading the Old Testament. He was challenged by the commandment and obeyed it. He only revealed it to his future wives and elect leaders.
After Jospeh was murdered, Brigham refused to denounce polygamy and Emma refused to follow the Saints (tho there were several reasons she did not like Brigham Young and refused his authority). Brigham embraced it and shared it with more members in leadership positions.
I imagine at some point he admitted to the church that they practiced polygamy. Probably at another point he started to preach polygamy. After polygamy was accepted, he started teaching that it was essential to practice polygamy to get into the Celestial Kingdom.
After the church dropped polygamy, many members were confused and splintered off of the LDS church. Under the Banner of Heaven does a good job of showing how fundamentalist thinking (the thought process) can lead to extreme actions.
The revelation of the practice and importance of polygamy probably came to the early Saints in stages.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Sort of on this topic, did anyone see the program on tv last night about a fundamentalist woman who tried to escape the polygamist lifestyle? I think it was on PrimeTime (which I don't usually watch, just happened upon it).
It was interesting in that she escaped from her husband (who was also married to her sister), confronted her father (she was sexually abused as a pre-teen), gained legal custody of her children (5) and moved to Phoenix (I think). In the end she went back to her husband who was ex-communicated from the church and had his first wife/and her children taken away.
I thought of this thread as I watched thinking of all the violence in this poor woman's life all in the name of her religion.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The fact that there were some who left because of the polygamy issue before any official announcements, so few that left when it was finally officially announced, and then some that left when it was discontinued for this life, only shows that it was a poorly kept secret at best. My guess is that the secret status, although it had its political reasons, was also ceremonial.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: The fact that there were some who left because of the polygamy issue before any official announcements, so few that left when it was finally officially announced, and then some that left when it was discontinued for this life, only shows that it was a poorly kept secret at best.
I think the biggest split came after Joseph died and there was the succession crisis. More then just a few members left at that time.
Granted, part of the crises had to do with who had authority to lead the church, but I cannot believe that polygamy did not play a big role in defining the lines of which leaders people supported.
Since it was an open secret (or even no longer a secret at the time of the crisis), the members who opposed polygamy would not have followed Young.
There was a significant division in the church when Young became president and polygamy played a key role in determining which member supported which leader.
quote:My guess is that the secret status, although it had its political reasons, was also ceremonial.
That sounds interesting. Can you elaborate?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I can only elaborate by saying it had something to do with its relationship to the Temple. It was not something you simply talked about. Now, the political and legal reasons made secrecy become practical.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I was reading up on Emma and it went into a lot of historical details. I guess I'm really shocked that God would have his people basically lie over and over about the existence of polygamy. I thought there was a difference between secrets and lies.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Considering what the U.S. Government eventually did to the LDS Church leading up to the polygamous ban, I am not surprised God allowed or commanded such lies for the early protection of the Saints. Keeping it a secret, even if through lies, was a life or death situation. It wasn't just a matter of bad PR as much as self-preservation.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
You're saying God knew it would be life or death, so he just told them to lie about it from the beginning?
I can probably get used to that idea, although the polygamy idea itself sounds like it was such a terrible plan historically that I'll never be able to accept that part. Seems like it would have been so much better to not to practice it at the time than to lie about it and get into so much trouble anyway.
But it's not my religion, and nobody can second guess God anyway. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There was a point when the Reorganized LDS church tried very hard to say that Joseph Smith never practiced or taught polygamy, that it was solely the invention of Brigham Young.
At that point it became important to the church to be very non-secretive about it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That wasn't the point at which it became nonsecretive nor the impetus for it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What was the impetus, and what was the time, Kat?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mormons also do not practice Forum Necromancy! Damn your black arts!
Ohhhh....I like that BlackBlade. Already saved to hard drive for future use! Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There were oaths of punishment in the temple ceremony until 1990.
I attended the temple in the 1980's and 1990's and can attest that this is a very gross distortion of what was done in the ceremonies. Members made a covenant that they would not reveal the secrets of the temple even under threat of death. Which is completely and underly different than saying that they would be killed if they revealed the secret.
If you doubt my word, take a look at the apostates who have revealed these secrets and even made mockery of the things we hold sacred in movies. Have they been killed?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If you doubt my word, take a look at the apostates who have revealed these secrets and even made mockery of the things we hold sacred in movies. Have they been killed?
The threat of death is distinct from the promise of death.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Not revealing even under threat of death is distinct from a threat of death if they do reveal.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The Rabbit: the discussions I've seen talk about that both 1) being part of the priesthood ceremonies, not the general temple ceremonies and 2) state that well before the 90s it had been reduced to hand gestures, without any of the words previously spoken with those hand gestures. I think the words are said to have been removed in the 70s, but I might be recalling that incorrectly. All this would easily explain why you heard no such thing in the 80s or 90s.
Because of the hatrack TOS and preferences of the Cards, I am not comfortable discussing this further on hatrack.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm just wondering, but...was there ever a big outcry when Mason secrets started being revealed in Hollywood and the like? I've been wondering that since the thread on the Temple garments in that tv show. Because the Masons are supposed to be pretty secretive, I think.
-pH
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
PH, I asked a Mason about something like that. The answer I got was the secretive nature of the Masons continues out of respect for tradition. The secrets of the Masons remains (no matter how much info one can get; and one can get all the info they want anywhere they want and no one is killing or dying because of it) part of the ceremony. It represents a a personal commitment to your membership rather than a threat against revealing
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But they put huge chunks of Masonic ceremonies into movies, like From Hell, didn't they? When did the secrecy go from being required to being suggested?
-pH
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
About the time that Masonry started getting considered a conspiracy group by large segments of the American public. That stigma still hasn't disappeared. Even then it was more functional than literal, but Americans have always had a distaste for secrets - other than to keep them. Mind, I am not a Mason so some of this is studied speculation.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Yeah, I should probably be asking a Mason. I guess I'm really wondering if Masons became more visible in the media before or after the secrecy transformed into a respect issue. And if the Masons as a whole have ever responded to things like that movie.
-pH
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
You have to understand PH, that Masons are not one big group. They are faternity orders that are self governing. Some are larger than others, but they are loosly organized. Therefore it would be hard for the Masons to respond as a whole. There is no "whole" to respond. Perhaps some have responded, but I haven't known of any. It seems to me they mostly shrug their shoulders and say "whatever."
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
First I want to clarify that I do not think of fraternity or sorority rituals as being religious in nature, although I believe that some rituals or oaths may involve references to Christianity.
I joined a sorority in college, and the Ritual we went through to join is secret, as are a few other things. It's secret not because anything terrible would happen or because there's anything to hide - it's just because it wouldn't mean much to anyone who hadn't been told what the heck was going on. I wouldn't like to see it bandied about because it was about a bond of sisterhood for me, and something bigger than myself, and I think if someone just printed off the Ritual or videotaped it wouldn't have any meaning for those reading or watching it beyond academic interest or amusement.
Anyway, I've always figured other fraternal rituals, or Masonic rituals, or Temple sealings, or Catholic bishop investures are pretty similiar. Not secret for any aggressive reason, just because they're private and shouldn't be taken lightly.
Unless you all ARE sacrificing goats and chickens . . . hmm . . . Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Rabbit - I apologize and assure you that I didn't mean to offend. I didn't want to use the exact phrasing, and was probably too hasty in picking an alternative phrase.
Fugu - I'm afraid you're rather off, but also am uncomfortable going any further.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Samarkand, I don't know that the Masons are a fraternity in that way. I was under the impression that their rituals were at least somewhat religious.
The only secret sorority rituals I know of are secret because they involve things that are both illegal and probably morally repugnant to the general population. But that's why that sorority got kicked out of the school.
Sororities which belong to PHC (PanHellenic Council) or fraternities which belong to IFC (Inter-Fraternity Council) are national Greek organizations. There are also local Greek houses at some schools which are not affiliated with any other houses anywhere. Typically the latter type are more prone to abuses or misbehavior because there is no authority standing over them waiting to pull their charter.
National Greek houses exist on campus both because the school allows them to and because their national office has authorized a charter. Nationals pulls charters faster than you can blink if they get a whiff of liability, especially hazing and/or anything alcohol related that is being associated with the house.
National Greek houses have Rituals which are mandated by Nationals (the people who do stuff like deciding what the minimum GPA to join is, what the Greek house's philanthropy will be (muscular dystrophy, domestic violence, literacy), what the structure of officers will be (president, VP of finance, member development, whatever). Anyway, Rituals for national houses really cannot be in any way offensive or scary or illegal, because the organization as a whole would be morally and financially culpable. After all, the people going through Ritual are new members, and some of them will later decide that they don't want to continue with the organization for some reason. If they found anything so much as upsetting, much less illegal, as some women at the house you describe must have, there's absolutely nothing to stop them from informing Res Life or the police or whoever, and also seeking legal redress.
People do stupid things all the time, but the Greek system as a whole works hard to prevent abuses and illegal activity - it's the only way for it to continue to exist.
Don't want to derail, but hope that answers some questions. My main point was just that sometimes things are secret not because they're worth hiding, but because they're private and special.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I wonder why some schools don't have frat houses.
We only had one frat house, no sorority houses, even though we had more of those around that were recognized by the school. In fact, I remember when one of the other frats did all start living together, they went way out of their way to say WE DO NOT HAVE A HOUSE. THIS IS NOT OUR HOUSE. I remember this because they threw a party, and I said something to one of my friends there like, "I never knew you guys had a house." Weird.
-pH
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Probably because if they had a house, there would be some kind of additional dues, or liability/permission for the national organization which they hadn't gotten in line.
And katharina, when are you saying the secrecy... what? I don't know if we are talking about the same things. Of course polygamy was known, or the church wouldn't have been prosecuted over it. So during the prosecution, there was a second period of secrecy. Later they started having people who had been sealed to Joseph Smith swearing affadavits to that effect. I was puzzled why anyone would do that, and was told it had to do with the RLDS trying to rewrite history.
The errant polygamy that occured after the church forbid it is another matter altogether. At that point it was both illegal and forbidden to the church, but there were some apostles who for various reasons wouldn't quit. They were purged from authority, and in some cases from the church.
But the secrecy of polygamy is a different matter from the secrecy of the Temple ceremony.
P.S. Samarkand, I think your discussion of sorority rituals is salient. The new discussion is that these things are sacred, not secret. Kind of like videos of childbirth. It doesn't mean the same if it's not yours. Not that I've had videos of having a baby, and I think people who are eager to watch them, other than for purposes of preparing to have a baby themselves, are suspect. I have feelings I probably need to repent of for anyone who wants to watch them merely because I don't want them to.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The Rabbit: the discussions I've seen talk about that both 1) being part of the priesthood ceremonies, not the general temple ceremonies and 2) state that well before the 90s it had been reduced to hand gestures, without any of the words previously spoken with those hand gestures. I think the words are said to have been removed in the 70s, but I might be recalling that incorrectly. All this would easily explain why you heard no such thing in the 80s or 90s.
Because of the hatrack TOS and preferences of the Cards, I am not comfortable discussing this further on hatrack.
The priesthood ceremonies are the ceremonies that both men and women attend together in the temple. I attended them during the period in question and I know what I am talking about. This is something which has been grossly distorted by anti-mormon groups.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
This is for Fugu13. I am very comfortable talking about the temple and ceremonies without fear of crossing any lines. I will try to be respectful to the LDS church in this post, as temple ceremonies are considered very personal and spiritual at a core level for many believers.
If anyone feels I have crossed a line, let me know or flag this for deletion. I will try and answer address Fugu13 with information I believe is available to the public. Let me know if you feel otherwise. I have gone to pre-temple classes, seminary, institute, a mission, and have been married in the temple.
Even tho I stopped believing, I know the depth of sacredness others find in the temple.
Fugu...there really is no such thing as "priesthood ceremonies." All ceremonies, ordinances, callings, et cetera are done by the power of the priesthood--making them all priesthood ordinances. Both genders get the blessings of the ordinances. Woman can be healed by the power of priesthood. Being sealed for time and all eternity is done by the priesthood and benefits both couples equally. Both genders can enjoy the benefits of baptism.
The temple has 4 common priesthood ceremonies (or blessings). Baptisms for the Dead (done in proxy), Washing and Anointing (where Mormons prepare to get the garments which are sacred LDS undergarments used both as a protection and a reminder of temple promises. The Washing and Anointing is similar to the cleansing metaphor of baptism), Endowments (where Mormons witness the creation and take oaths with promises and blessings), and Sealings (like temple marriage where families are sealed for eternities).
Anti Mormon literature usually refers to the endowments. The endowments are where there are signs, tokens, promises, blessings, et cetera. They are very simple and can be very spiritual.
Most Mormons I have talked to are either initially disappointed at how...un-mysterious the ordinances are or freaked out by how much ceremony is involved in the temple. The LDS faith doesn't have a lot of ceremony like the Catholic Church. That all changes in the temple.
It doesn't take long for people to get spiritual nourishment in the ceremony. It is faith promoting and peaceful. Not all Mormons have one of those two initial reactions--but I would guess most do.
The changes you are talking about happened in the endowments. There used to be signs, tokens, promises, blessings, AND warnings and consequences--punishments. It is all metaphor for spiritual consequences, but it is easy for anti-Mormons (the kind I disagree with) to read to the words and sensationalize what was removed. Some of the text of the endowment ceremony was altered and characters were taken out of the play. This is what anti-Mormons refer to as changes in the temple.
The Rabbit actually is referring to this process when s/he wrote
quote: Members made a covenant that they would not reveal the secrets of the temple even under threat of death. Which is completely and underly different than saying that they would be killed if they revealed the secret.
S/he is very aware of the changes and is very correct when s/he points out that no-one has been punished for revealing the sacred aspects of the temple. I do disagree that calling them "oaths of punishments is a gross distortion."
They were threats with threatening gestures to accompany them; HOWEVER, Rabbit is correct in pointing out that apostates have not been killed. Their fate is much more eternal.
In the early days of the Church when Young was taming the Frontier, it is possible individuals took the oaths of punishments too seriously. Like I said in a previous post,
quote: If I remember correctly, the book says there was less violence from the Mormon towns then in contemporary towns of the time. What was different was the type of violence.
Edit Grammer.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:They were threats with threatening gestures to accompany them.
I continue to disagree with this statement. There were gestures which went along with oaths, but there were not threats. A threat is an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage (Webster). This was never done or implied in the temple ceremony. Participants in the endowment were asked to promise that they would allow themselves to be killed rather than reveal the temple secrets. That is in no way an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury or damage. Telling someone you will them if they reveal a secret and asking them to promise that they would not reveal something even if they are threatened are utterly different. The first is a threat, the second is absolutely not a threat and to call this a threat is a gross distortion.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I think we're moving a bit too close to specifics about the temple ceremonies, and we've been asked not to discuss them here. If people still wish to discuss various aspects of the ceremonies, I'd appreciate it if you would do so off the forum. Thank you.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)