Mormon Coffee

Richard Packham’s video is also available on YouTube

Publicly exposing the Mormon temple ceremony takes away the superficial power of secretiveness and mystery and helps people face reality. The power of mystery is largely sapped with a simple YouTube video.

Obeying God’s commandments is a form of Christian worship. God’s word tells us:

“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, ‘Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.’” (Ephesians 5:11-14)

Even the LDS Articles of Faith say, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Since many Mormons use this verse to argue that the someone’s form and content of worship (especially their own) should never be criticized, I ask: Are Mormons going to criticize my form and content of worship when I obey God by exposing shameful things?

Trade in your green fig leaf apron for a cross. What God has revealed to the children of man, he has revealed to all the children of man. Find more private satisfaction in the public, personal word of God than in the shameful ceremonies of Joseph Smith.

Tips to Christians For Using (or Not Using) the LDS Temple Ceremony Content When Engaging Mormons

• Be led by the Spirit and be respectful and sensitive to people. The challenge here is immersing yourself in the Bible so that you adopt more biblical concepts of love and respect than worldly concepts. Being loving and sensitive will often require you to engage other issues of the heart and simply point people to the true nature of God and the gospel. But the Spirit may lead you to tear down false pretensions (cf. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5) and idolatry by exposing the ceremony. It is no more disrespectful to expose the shameful LDS temple ceremony than it is to expose pervasive mold to a prospective house buyer.
• Part of the whole question of whether to reveal the temple ceremony concerns strategic and loving engagement, but there is also a power struggle that is real. It cannot be ignored. People who feel like they have secrets often feel like they have a power over other people. Mormons will sometimes refer to the temple as the only appropriate place to discuss certain doctrines. Sometimes it helps to break this superficial facade of power and exclusivity by revealing your knowledge of the temple.
• Bringing up the ceremony will often end a conversation, so be wise about if and when you do it.
• That said, I suggest teaching Mormons who haven’t been through the ceremony, especially teenagers, the three secret hand clasps. Ask them if they think secret handshakes will help get them into Heavenly Father’s presence. Many will vehemently say, “No!” Express your agreement. Ask the same people, “If Satan told you to make a green fig leaf apron, what would you do?” The responses I hear are interesting. “I wouldn’t do it!” “I’d tell him to be quiet.” I like to advise people, “If Satan ever tells you to make a green fig leaf apron, rebuke him!” If they go through the temple ceremony, they will be reminded of these things. This will help them feel creeped out by the ceremony. They should feel that way, and you owe it to them in love to help them be sober about it.
• Break the news to them. The things you have just spoken of are actually in the LDS temple ceremony. If they don’t believe you, tell them to ask their parents. Or Google. The internet has more power to deliver knowledge than the Mormon “priesthood” ever will.
• Don’t over-sensationalize the role of Satan in the temple ceremony. I recommend a good article by Jerald and Sandra called, Obsession With Lucifer?.
• Expect opposition over this. Letting the cat out of the bag will drive some defenders of Mormonism in your community nuts. But keep a sober mind that this isn’t about them. It’s about the true seekers. The inherent shamefulness of the LDS temple ceremony really causes a crisis of conscience in people that causes them to leave the Mormon Church and take Christianity more seriously. Don’t want to see a close relationship severed? That’s OK. You can at least get the word out to people who haven’t been through the temple, who you can tolerate being upset at you. It’s worth it in the long run for their own sake.
• Remind your LDS friends that this isn’t a matter of trivial humor. It’s serious. It is a matter of informed consent. People have a right to know about this all before they join Mormonism.
• Ask, “Is the Book of Mormon is sacred?” “Of course.” “Is it public?” “Yes.” “So, if something is sacred, does it have to be secret and hidden from the public?” This helps when someone explains that simply because the ceremony is “sacred” it cannot be discussed publicly.
• Ask, “Why was the temple veil torn in two when Jesus was crucified?”
• Ask, “Can you think of any examples of people being married in the Old Testament temple?”
• Ask a Mormon if they are aware of the changes in the temple ceremony. Also ask, “Are the parts of the temple ceremony removed in 1990 still sacred?”
• Express your feelings about having your pastor mocked as a hirling of Satan in the pre-1990 LDS temple ceremony. Ask, “If Protestants had a secret ceremony where we called your bishops hirlings of Satan, what would you think if I said it was too ’sacred’ to talk about?”
• Point them to the sufficiency of Christ. Share Hebrews 7 and tell them you want them to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, our great high priest. Eternal life is all about knowing Jesus, receiving Jesus, and believing Jesus as he freely offers us the forgiveness of sins and fellowship with God forever. Christians now have the indwelling of the Spirit, and our level of intimacy and fellowship with God is not dependent on whether we are in a certain building.
• Be like Jesus: “And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.’” Mark 13:1-2

I’ll close with a letter from an ex-Mormon Christian written to Bill Mckeever:

“Good afternoon Mr. McKeever. This email is an apology to the nasty and derogatory remarks I sent you in the past. I do not know if you remember our conversations but it was obvious that I was so deep into Mormonism, I did not realize how uneducated I sounded for defending a false faith. It is my prayer that every member of the LDS church come to the realization that Joseph Smith is one of the false prophets that the Bible warns us about. I came to my realization shortly after finding out the details of Temple rituals. I was officially removed from the membership records as of May 2005… Realizing that accepting Christ as my personal savior and putting all of my trust in him instead of Gordon B. Hinckley has made a magnanimous impact upon my life as a Christian. I want to personally thank you for distributing websites like these to bring LDS members out of the dark and into the light. Thank you for being a bold servant of Christ and May God Bless you and your co-workers always. Please feel free to post this message on your site as a hopeful inspiration to all LDS who wish to leave.”

Comments (208)

We asked folks to guess what this is and where exactly it is from, offering a free DVD copy of The Gospel of John to the first non-evangelical who guessed correctly. After two days of waiting for people to guess, Peter Ould, our evangelical friend in Christ from the UK gave the answer: The above picture was taken in the children’s section of the LDS museum in downtown Salt Lake City. It is, as someone correctly guessed, a representation of what is on the Nauvoo temple. As I’m sure some Mormons want this conversation to cover historic iconography and symbolism, let me just say this: I know you can find some historic positive uses of the pentagram. I just find it disconcerting 1) that the symbol is, like many other things about the temple, so obviously of Smith’s masonic influence, and 2) that Mormons feel so much more comfortable with the pentagram than they do the symbol of the cross.

Here are some other pictures I took at the museum:

Comments (40)

On August 8th ABC’s Nightline posted a story about the Hill Cumorah Pageant, a Mormon drama enacted each year by LDS Church members for audiences in Palmyra, New York. The sub-title to the Nightline article reads, “In Upstate New York, Mormons Re-enact Their History and Answer Questions About the Scrutinized Faith.”

Journalists Dan Harris and Mary Marsh interviewed several people for their report. One was Latter-day Saint Boyd Tuttle, a cast member. When asked about the current media spotlight trained on the LDS Church due to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign Mr. Tuttle said,

“‘Personally, I think it’s a good thing because I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding about the church. And just with people, there’s a lot of misinformation … disseminated out there and a lot of people have, I think, very legitimate questions about the church.’”

The Nightline article noted that one of the most common questions people have is about “the Mormon secret temple rituals, which still exist today.” To this Mr. Tuttle replied,

“‘The temple is a very sacred place, and we hold it in special reverence. But we also tell everybody “anyone is welcome to come to the temple if they meet the requirements. …” So it’s not closed to Mormons, or closed to non-Mormons, but it’s closed to just people who are not prepared to enter therein.’”

Here a Mormon was given an opportunity to respond to a legitimate question about the LDS Church; the answer had the stunning potential to reach thousands. Mr. Tuttle bemoaned widespread misunderstandings and misinformation often disseminated about his church, yet his comments about the secret/sacred nature of LDS temples was thoroughly misleading to an uninformed public. He made LDS temple requirements sound similar to admission prerequisites for an institution of higher education — for those with sufficient GPAs (those “prepared” to attend), there will be no discrimination based on age, disability, national origin, race, religion, gender or sexual identity. This was a spurious impression to impart.

Mr. Tuttle said straight-up that the temple is not “closed to non-Mormons.” In truth, the first requirement that must be met for entrance into a dedicated LDS temple is membership in the LDS Church. I’m certain Mr. Tuttle knows this; evidently he didn’t want the general public to know this. In an apparent effort to make the reality of restricted LDS temples more palatable to non-Mormons, he’s resorted to disseminating his own misleading information about Mormonism.

One of the early comments posted to the ABC website by a reader of this story said this:

“Thank you DAN HARRIS, MARY MARSH, and ABC. It’s refreshing to have someone ask us about our religion instead of getting the often misperseption (sic) of others.”

You see what happened here when a Latter-day Saint was asked a sincere and legitimate question about his church. This is why Mormonism Research Ministry encourages people to learn about Mormonism from many sources: members, ex-members, and non-members alike.

Comments (31)

In April Mormon Coffee reported on a billboard campaign instituted in LDS areas by PostMormon.org, a group of former Mormons seeking to offer support to others who have left the LDS Church. Last Friday (22 June) the Idaho Falls’ Post Register reported on the “early termination” of the display of one of these billboards. Reproduced at the PostMormon.org web site, the article explains,

“The local advertising campaign for a Web site that caters to former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has ended prematurely.

“A billboard on U.S. Highway 20 promoting http://www.postmormon.org was taken down more than a week before its contract expired. The decision to yank the sign came at the behest of Dome Technology Inc., a local business that owns the land where the sign’s post is buried.

“Barry South, president of the monolithic dome company and an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said his sons expressed concern about the billboard to Lamar Outdoor Advertising, which owns the billboard space, after an article about postmormon.org was published two weeks ago in the Post Register.”

The executive director of PostMormon.org, Jeff Ricks, believes the actions of the South family were “a form of religious discrimination. At the very least, it’s religious intolerance.”

Dome Technology says it has a policy of neutrality that it believes the PostMormon.org billboard violates. The Post Register article states,

“Dome Technology interacts regularly with customers of diverse religious backgrounds throughout the world, the statement [provided by Dome Technologies] reads, and the company would have expressed the same concern for any advertisement with a negative or positive context toward any religious denomination.”

The PostMormon.org billboard consists of the web site’s URL and a smiley face graphic. Apparently, some people think the very idea of a happy life after Mormonism (as suggested by the billboard) places The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a “negative context.” But there must be more than this concern to justify Dome’s Technology’s willingness to prompt the breaking of a contract between PostMormon.org and Lamar Outdoor Advertising.

Commenting at the PostMormon.org web site, a reader took issue with the allegation that the billboard violates Dome Technology’s policy of religious neutrality. Noting PostMormon.org is not a religion and does not promote any single religious creed, dogzilla wrote,

“This equates, IMHO, to say asking Alcoholics Anonymous to take down a billboard that advertises the resources available for people who have stopped drinking.

“At the end of the day, though, we can all smile and chuckle quietly to ourselves because the bottom line: the action that Dome Technology took just reinforces our point and our reason for having this site in the first place.”

What is it in Mormonism that creates the sort of response against an ex-member support group as was expressed in Idaho? One possibility comes to my mind, though I’m sure there are others.

Since the owners of the land where the billboard stands are LDS, perhaps they are concerned over retaining or renewing their temple recommends. In the recommend interview where an applicant is deemed worthy to enter LDS temples (or not), one question members must answer is this:

“Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?”

The implication is that this sort of affiliation would be frowned upon and count against one’s worthiness. Hosting a billboard advertising a group which questions the claim that the LDS Church is God’s only true church might be understood to fall under the condemnation of the question cited above.

Before you dismiss this idea thinking it too far-fetched, I’ve talked with Mormons who tell me they’ve been warned by their bishops that they might not have their temple recommends renewed unless they stop attending family functions — because someone in the family is outspoken against Mormonism. If a Latter-day Saint’s temple recommend could be jeopardized by eating Thanksgiving dinner with a family member who speaks critically of the LDS Church, why wouldn’t a Mormon naturally fear his good-standing with the Church if his business indirectly supported apostates?

Comments (22)

A friend from the Las Vegas area sent me a copy of a local publication, Desert Saints Magazine. According to the “Letter from the Editor” in the March 2007 issue,

“This magazine is produced by three stay-at-home LDS mothers (with contributions from two talented husbands) who are trying to do a service for the LDS community in between mothering our combined total of fourteen children, serving in church callings and running busy lives. We are faithful, good women doing what we can to further the Lord’s kingdom. We’re not perfect.”

If you think this sounds a bit defensive, you’re right. Apparently, the February issue of Desert Saints Magazine ruffled some Latter-day Saint feathers. A publisher’s note in the March issue stated,

“Concerning our February 2007 Issue cover photo, we apologize for choosing a photo where the bride’s sleeve appeared to be not temple-appropriate. We did not mean to offend our readers or imply that weddings outside the temple are ‘the latest trend in LDS weddings.’”

According to editor Danielle Ellis, she spent the month following the publication of the Annual Bridal Issue fielding phone calls and emails from people upset by the magazine’s cover which featured “a lovely bride in a short sleeve dress.” Ms. Ellis wrote:

“We apologize for running a photo where the sleeve appeared too short to be appropriate.

“All of us who looked at it saw it as a cap sleeve. In fact, as you can see from a different photo of the same bride, it is. More to the point, this beautiful, temple-worthy bride was married in the Newport Beach Temple, in this dress.

“Still, to any who were offended, we apologize for our mistake and ask for forgiveness.

“However, the complaints have given me pause. There were some extremely un-Christ-like comments directed our way, which is ironic since they were coming from ‘good members of the Church.’”

Ms. Ellis’ letter explained that, in light of the readers’ “blistering condemnations in the name of righteousness,” the March issue of Desert Saints Magazine would be focused on “Christ-like love.”

The concern of upset readers might seem inconsequential to non-Mormons. After all, the dress was modest and the bride was temple-worthy. But to many Latter-day Saints the idea of a wedding dress that hints at being outside the bounds of “temple appropriate clothing” is a serious matter.

On the LDS.org web site I found the following regulation regarding temple wedding dresses:

“Sisters may wear their wedding dresses for their temple wedding, but the dress must be white, have long sleeves, be modest in design and fabric, have no train, and be free from elaborate ornamentation.” (”Lesson 6: Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple,” Endowed from on High: Temple Preparation Seminar Teacher’s Manual, 26)

Additionally, a Church magazine instructs:

“In the temple, brides’ dresses worn during the ceremony should be long sleeved, modest, white, and not elaborately ornamented. Dresses worn in the temple should also have high necklines. Dresses with trains are not permissible in the temple, unless the trains can be removed or bustled for the ceremony.” (Shanna Butler, “Planning Your Temple Wedding,” New Era, Oct 2004, 25)

I’m not certain, given these rules, how a dress with cap sleeves is any closer to being temple-appropriate than is a dress without sleeves. But apparently it makes enough of a difference to have allowed this bride to wear her cap-sleeved gown for her Newport Beach Temple wedding.

The LDS faith system is based on grace-plus-works. Grace alone will never do; perfect obedience to all commandments and rules is imperative to achieving forgiveness for sins and, ultimately, eternal life. Consequently, dressing appropriately in the temple is of significant concern. The choice one makes represents much more than mere observation of a preferred standard. Modesty is the grace-based principle, but conformity to the rule is the works-based reality.

Desert Saints Magazine experienced the repercussions of Mormonism’s legalism, a preoccupation with form at the expense of substance. In the wedding dress incident, had there been an inch and a half more fabric over each shoulder, all would have been well. But as the magazine’s LDS readers thought the dress was sleeveless, for them, much, much more than propriety hung in the balance.

Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith once wrote,

“SALVATION AND A CUP OF TEA. You cannot neglect little things. ‘Oh, a cup of tea is such a little thing. It is so little; surely it doesn’t amount to much; surely the Lord will forgive me if I drink a cup of tea.’ If you drink coffee or tea, or take tobacco, are you letting a cup of tea, or a little tobacco stand in the road and bar you from the celestial kingdom of God, where you might otherwise have received a fullness of glory?” (Doctrines of Salvation 2:16)

There is a similar danger for LDS brides wearing the wrong wedding gown. Or, at least, that’s what some Mormons fear. For in Mormonism members are taught to live by an incomplete portion of Paul’s words to the Romans:

For the wages of sin is death.

Tragically, they carry this burden through life without receiving the hope in the words that follow:

But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

While we’re on the subject of Mormon temples (see Mormon Coffee’s last article), the February issue of Ensign magazine includes an article about the symbolism found in Mormon temples. Quoting LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe, the article states:

“In the temples all are dressed alike in white. White is the symbol of purity. No unclean person has the right to enter God’s house. Besides, the uniform dress symbolizes that before God our Father in heaven, all men are equal. The beggar and the banker, the learned and the unlearned, the prince and the pauper sit side by side in the temple and are of equal importance if they live righteously before the Lord God.” (”Looking Toward the Temple”; the Ensign cites Improvement Era, October 1962, 710, but the same article can be found online in the Gospel Library section of the LDS web site under Ensign, January 1972, 56)

The idea that all men (and women) are equal before God is biblical. Paul states as much in Galatians (3:28) and Colossians (3:11) where he says those who are sons (and daughters) of God through faith “are all one in Christ Jesus.” But this isn’t the equality symbolized by the white clothing in LDS temples; for, regarding LDS temples, there is a significant distinction between classes.

I’m not saying there’s a distinction within the temple, but there’s a definite distinction which precedes temple attendance; and Mr. Widtsoe includes it in his statement. Again, he said:

“The beggar and the banker, the learned and the unlearned, the prince and the pauper sit side by side in the temple and are of equal importance if they live righteously before the Lord God, the Father of their spirits. It is spiritual fitness and understanding that one receives in the temple. All such have an equal place before the Lord.” (I have here completed the paragraph as it appeared in Mr. Widtsoe’s original statement from the 1972 Ensign article)

The implication is that those who do not live righteously before God, those who do not qualify to enter Mormon temples (which includes a good percentage of Mormons), are not of “equal importance” and do not have an “equal place before the Lord.”

As I see it, in Mormonism there may not be a distinction between the wealthy and the poor, the educated and uneducated, or the professionals and the non-professionals; instead, there is a distinction between the tithe-payers and the non-tithe-payers, the tea-abstainers and the tea-drinkers, the meeting-goers and the meeting-skippers.

This brings to mind Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:10-14).

Temple-worthy Mormons clothe themselves in white in LDS temples to symbolize their purity — their worthiness — to be in the house of God. The fact that they have been approved to enter the temple means that they are not like other people. They have passed their temple recommend interviews which indicates that they are full tithe payers. They attend their Church meetings. They sustain and follow all their Church leaders. They obey the Word of Wisdom. They live chaste lives that are in complete harmony with the teachings of their Church. They keep their temple covenants. They wear their garments day and night. They are honest in all things. They affirm and believe that they are worthy (see Temple Recommend Questions).

In telling the parable, Jesus didn’t have any praise for the one who was worthy, for the one who kept the law. Jesus said it was the sinful tax collector, not the law-abiding Pharisee, who went home justified. Jesus didn’t seem to care one whit that the Pharisee paid his tithe while the tax collector (as was typical in his profession) engaged in frequent dishonesty.

This is what Jesus cared about: The tax collector, recognizing his sinfulness, cried out for mercy — and he was granted mercy. The Pharisee, who set himself apart as one who was pure and worthy, who relied on his own impressive merits to please a perfectly Holy God; though righteous by the world’s standards, he did not please God and went home still guilty in his sins.

The Bible tells us that “none is righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). “If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10).

I’m not suggesting that Mormons think they’re sinless. I don’t think there are many people who do — we know ourselves too well for that. But our human tendency is to minimize and/or justify our sin. We grade the level of “righteousness” we’ve achieved on a curve. “I’m not perfect, but I’m a lot better than that guy,” we say.

And the Mormon temple, I think, plays right into that way of thinking: “I’m not perfect, but at least I’m temple worthy.” Mormons go to the temple and put on white clothes head to toe that symbolizes their purity. They would never say it — and I’m sure most would never think it — but this is what it really symbolizes: “God, thank you that I’m not like other men. I’m more righteous than those folks outside. I’m more important to You than they are. I’m worthy.”

The Pharisee boasted in his righteousness and was left spiritually bankrupt. His boasting — his self-promotion of his “worthiness” — was itself a display of his sin. Note that the Pharisee in this parable was not bragging to others. He was standing by himself, giving thanks to God.

But the tax collector did not even consider himself worthy enough to lift his eyes to heaven as he prayed. He beat his breast while pleading, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” He needed a Savior, and he knew it. He admitted it. He begged for it. And he got it. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

In the parable both the Pharisee and the tax collector were equally unworthy, but only one recognized his need for mercy.

Mormonism claims the purpose of LDS temples is to provide everything necessary for the exaltation of those deemed worthy enough to enter; the temple is for Mormons who affirm and believe in the value of their own righteousness.

Antithetically Jesus promises, “everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Jesus or the temple. The choice is yours.

Comments (7)