It has been said that the purpose of LDS temples is to make men into Gods. Many Mormons dispute this, complaining about the insensitive way this sacred information is presented. Whether such a statement seems sensationalized or not, the question is: Is it true?
In the October 2009 Ensign LDS Apostle Robert D. Hales wrote about the “Blessings of the Temple.” Some excerpts from the article:
“The temple endowment blessings are as essential for each of us as was our baptism…
“The temple’s saving ordinances are essential to–and even the central focus of–the eternal plan of happiness…
“The primary purpose of the temple is to provide the ordinances necessary for our exaltation in the celestial kingdom…
“…know the importance of the saving temple ordinances and temple covenants and their necessity in achieving eternal goals…
“The temple is a sacred edifice, a holy place, where essential saving ceremonies and ordinances are performed to prepare us for exaltation…
“Our objective is…to be worthy to stand and live in the presence of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, for all eternity–to achieve what is called eternal life.” (Ensign, October 2009, 46-49).
In Mormonism then, temples and the covenants and ordinances accomplished therein, are essential, necessary, and the central focus of God’s plan for saving people and preparing them to achieve their eternal goal of exaltation (aka eternal life). This is, in fact, the primary purpose of LDS temples.
Neither of the official LDS websites (lds.org and mormon.org) include a glossary entry for the term “exaltation,” but lds.org directs inquiries to the section on “eternal life.” Though a bit ambiguous, the definition reads in part,
“Eternal life, or exaltation, is to live in God’s presence and to continue as families (see D&C 131:1–4).”
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a little more informative:
“To Latter-day Saints, exaltation is a state that persons can attain in becoming like God–salvation in the ultimate sense (D&C 132:17)…This exalted status, called eternal life, is available to be received by a man and wife. It means not only living in God’s presence, but receiving the power to do as God does, including the power to bear children after the resurrection (TPJS, pp. 300-301; D&C 132:19).” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “Exaltation”)
The “Eternal Life” entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism speaks more about how to achieve it than what it is, but the reader is directed to the entry titled “Godhood” for more information. That says in part,
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all resurrected and perfected mortals become gods (cf. Gen. 3:22; Matt. 5:48). They will dwell again with God the Father, and live and act like him in endless worlds of happiness, power, love, glory, and knowledge; above all, they will have the power of procreating endless lives…
“…while the faithful worship only one God in spirit and in truth, there exist other beings who have attained the necessary intelligence and righteousness to qualify for the title ‘god.’ Jesus Christ is a god and is a separate personage, distinct from God the Father…
“Latter-day Saints believe that God achieved his exalted rank by progressing much as man must progress and that God is a perfected and exalted man…” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “Godhood”)
LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie provided a concise and articulate explanation of exaltation:
“Celestial marriage is the gate to exaltation, and exaltation consists in the continuation of the family unit in eternity. Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life which God lives…they have spirit children in the resurrection, in relation to which offspring they stand in the same position that God our Father stands to us. They inherit in due course the fulness of the glory of the Father, meaning that they have all power in heaven and on earth. (D.&C. 76:50-60; 93:1-40.) ‘Then shall they be gods,…'” (Mormon Doctrine, “Exaltation,” 257)
If, as LDS Apostle Hales said, the primary purpose of the temple is to provide the ordinances necessary for our exaltation; and if, as LDS Apostle McConkie has said, exaltation is procreating spirit children in the resurrection to whom we are then Gods; then it seems entirely reasonable to conclude, though perhaps a bit simplistically, the purpose of LDS temples is to make men into Gods.
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
The funny thing about this is that I can’t find any of it in the Bible. Is this the part that got left out by the great conspiracy that omitted Mormonism from God’s Word? Must be. As Christians, of course, we are taught that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit and that’s what the Bible says.
So really, we’re back to the fact that Mormonism was created by Joseph Smith and has no connection to the Biblical faith revealed once and for all by Jesus to the apostles. Mormons claim that the Masonic rituals that they lifted were all apart of this ancient wisdom revealed to Smith. Hogwash! Smith was an occultist and Free Masonry appealed to his dark side spiritual roots.
This is the great sin of Mormonism; reducing God to a glorified man, replacing God with a god of their own choosing and declaring that they will become gods. The pride of the Mormons knows no bounds.
Is this in the BoM, BTW. No, I didn’t think so. Just a small adjustment Smith made as he received more “light”.
“the purpose of LDS temples is to make men into Gods.”
How can the LDS temple do something that would require the personal efforts of the individual. Amazing bit of simplicity.
The article hits on all the things the Temple promises, but a promise or covenant is a two way street, God can covenant with us and promise us certain blessings, it allows for us to full fill those covenants by living them to the best of our ability and having them enacted on us as we go through the different stages of progression we find in the Temple ordinances.
Janet
Temple Worker – “If you proceed and receive your full endowment, you will be required to take upon yourselves sacred obligations, the violation of which will bring upon you the judgment of God”
Janet, Ralph, Jim, did you proceed and receive your endowment? So you took upon yourself sacred obligations? have you violated them at all?
Lucifer: “I have a word to say concerning these people. If they do not walk up to every covenant they make at these altars in this temple this day, they will be in my power!”
Janet, Ralph, Jim, have you guys walked up to every covenant you made at the temple altars?
No? Whose power have you willingly put yourselves under then.
You all talk like the most important witness you can have is a Holy Spirit witness. It’s okay if there’s no evidence, it’s ok if the BoM has problems, etc etc. The “Holy Ghost” has told you the church is true.
And yet…
you are under the power of Satan.
I wish you guys could see. I really, really do.
There is no one whispering “the church is true” in your ear but the god of your church. Lucifer.
Elohim: “Lucifer, because thou hast done this, thou shalt be cursed above all the beasts of the field. Upon thy belly thou shalt go, and dust thou shalt eat all the days of thy life”
Lucifer: “If thou cursest me for doing the same thing which has been done in other worlds, I will take the spirits that follow me, and they shall possess the bodies thou createst for Adam and Eve.
“Brethren and sisters, this couple (at the altar) represents all of you as if at the altar. You must consider yourselves as if you were respectively Adam and Eve.”
possessed. that’s you guys. willingly possessed by those who followed Lucifer, under his power, and under the condemnation of God.
Don’t care? I didn’t think so.
I understand your concerns, truly. I wish I could discuss the ordinances, but since they are SACRED, I will politely decline any further discussion. I know it’s printed for all to see, and the internet, groups, and apostates have done their best to expose what they say goes on, but unless someone actually experiences the Endowment, and other scared ordinances they are just words without any spiritual meaning.
Janet.
I’ve experienced it. It’s Masonic mumbo-jumbo. No one is missing anything here. Funny how when I went through the SLC Temple, the endowments were much different than they are today. So much for the Mormons ‘unchangable’ god. They change their doctrine as often (i hope) as they change their underwear. (or garments, which they also changed – caving in again to modernism)
Sarcasm noted 🙂 Ever wonder where the Mason’s got their rituals?
That could be a very interesting topic that you or Sharon could start. What say you?
J.
“unless someone actually experiences the Endowment”, they will not already have put themselves under demonic covenant, and will be able to see the darkness in full light.
Sacred? It’s a good point.
But sacred to whom? the church, or God?
Does God need a secret handshake system to know who is worthy to go into heaven? Doesn’t He know if someone qualifies or not?
What if a son of perdition gets a hold of the special tokens grips signs and names? Then what? He can sneak into heaven?
If he can’t, then why do you need those things?
Is God all-knowing, or not?
Think about it, please!!!
If God is all-knowing, then He doesn’t need secret handshakes. If He’s not, then he’s a weak god, and sons of perdition can sneak into heaven.
Sacred is just the special word for “secret” in Mormonism. And it’s secret so that you don’t know before you’ve already done it that you will be asked to make the curse-covenants that you have to make in there. And so that people will keep coming in on the most exciting day of their lives (for many – i.e. their wedding or their first trip to distant lands), expecting something different, and getting handed a load of crap while they are looking forward to something else. And then it’s a done deal.
I DEFINITELY think we should talk about where the FreeMasons got their stuff!
The Book of Mormon says:
Ebenezer Robinson, who had been the editor of the Times and Seasons, made this statement concerning the original endowment ritual:
These oaths have been greatly modified since Joseph Smith’s time. The changes were probably made within the last sixty years. Below are comparisons of the oaths as they were published in Temple Mormonism in 1931 with the way they are given today. The first oath we will deal with was printed as follows in 1931:
“We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so; we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots” (Temple Mormonism, p.18).
This oath has been changed to:
“I, —– (think of the new name) do covenant and promise that I will never reveal the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, together with its accompanying name, sign and penalty. Rather than do so I would suffer my life to be taken”
The second oath goes like this:
“We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood,
with its accompanying name, sign, grip or penalty. Should we do so, we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field” (Temple Mormonism, p.20).
It was also changed recently to ‘soften it’ like the first one.
The third oath, as printed in Temple Mormonism, p.20, read: “We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our bodies be cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out.” (ibid, p.20)
This also was changed and softened to ‘suffer my life to be taken’.
Perhaps Smith forgot what he wrote in the Book of Mormon? Where oh where in the Bible do we find it acceptable to belong to secret combinations that threaten death by such horrible means? How does labeling this ‘sacred’ make it any less than what it is: a blood oath?
Early Mormons thought these oaths were a very serious matter. In a discourse delivered December 13, 1857, Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, declared: “Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him…. they actually kicked him until his bowels came out.
.
“‘I will suffer my bowels to be taken out, [screams Kimball in the Tabernacle] before I will forfeit the covenant I have made with Him and my brethren.’ Do you understand me? … I know the day is right at hand when men will forfeit their Priesthood and turn against the covenants they have made, and they will be destroyed as Judas was” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pp.125-26).
We all know how the Mormons practiced Blood Atonement in Utah. They are still supporting and advocating the doctrine in their Temples TO THIS DAY.
One of the oaths which was formerly taken in the temple ritual was the source of so much trouble that the Mormon leaders finally removed it entirely from the ceremony. This oath was printed in Temple Mormonism, page 21, as follows:
What a far cry from Jesus simple teaching of loving our enemies! Who is the author of all secret combinations and blood oaths? The BOM says:
Setfree,
You are trying to make a point (which have tried in the past) which doesn’t make sense.
You are quoting Lucifer, and assuming he is telling the truth or has the authority to say what he is saying. I remind you that throughout the endowment, he repeatedly tries to assume authority for which he has no claim. Same is true of your quotation. There is no basis for what he is saying. Do you need a reminder of who he is and his character? Do you believe the things he says?
Right after his statement you mention, he is cast out. How in the world do you get from there to the concept that we somehow enter a covenent with him?
He could just as easily say to all people “accept Christ into your lives and I will have power over you.”
It is pure B.S. And you have no basis on which to claim otherwise.
You need to look at your logic again.
It’s in your ceremony, Jim, not mine. Why, pray tell, is it there? Do you know why he has any part at all in the lds super – sacred ceremony?
The lucifer stuff in the Mormon temple ceremony is very subtle, no doubt. And that’s why you don’t care.
What, Jim, of the temple worker that warns you before you ever get to hear what the covenants will be that you have to promise to keep them?
What of the secret-code that your god employs to get people past the heaven security guards. Why does he need them?
Why do you put on an apron that signify lucifer’s power and PRIESTHOODS?
Why does Adam pray and Lucifer show up claiming to be god of this world. Your religion claims Elohim is god of this world, right? but “elohim” just means “mighty ones” and is used for any god, true or fake. Isn’t lucifer an elohim? That explains how they are both “the god of this world”, in contrast with gods of other worlds.
My logic, Jim, is not blurred by accepting the curse upon myself, by using lucifers priesthoods, or by wanting to be a god.
I know you don’t want to, can’t even, want to believe that your church would be built on evil, shifting sand. I don’t blame you for just brushing it off like it’s some problem I’m having.
It’s your soul at stake here though. Which one of us “wins” this argument is not important, other than for that one reason.
Setfree,
It has obviously been a long time since you have been through the endowment ceremony, if you ever did at all.
Honestly- your argument is easy to “shrug off” because it makes absolutely no sense.
I really don’t care to discuss details of the ceremony. But I will say you do not have it right whatsoever.
The only responses to lucifer in the cermony are rejection and condemnation. Using your logic, which is that his mere presence in the endowment proves we follow him, his presence in Genesis and the bible should result in the same conclusion- those who read and believe in the Bible are following satan.
You gotta do better than that.
I have to second Jim, you really have forgotten so much. I take it you went through for you own endowments, right? Lucifer and the apron have no connection. I won’t argue with you about this since you will do all you can to provide evidence that will seem to fit your agenda of misinformation. If you want to continue to deceive, feel free and know that you do it at your own risk.
J.
Janet, Jim, can you explain the apron then?
Go here: http://www.irr.org/mit/endowment-ceremony.html
“ADAM: What is that apron you have on?
(Lucifer draws his cloak up to reveal a black apron.)
LUCIFER: It is an emblem of my power and Priesthoods.
ADAM: I am looking for Father to come down to give us further instructions.
LUCIFER: Oh, you are looking for Father to come down, are you?
(The Gods’ voices are suddenly heard in the garden.)
ELOHIM: Jehovah, we promised Adam and Eve that we would visit them and give them further instructions. Come, let us go down.
JEHOVAH: We will go down, Elohim.
ADAM: I hear their voices, they are coming.
LUCIFER: See, you are naked. Take some fig leaves and make you aprons. Father will see your nakedness. Quick! Hide!
ADAM: Come, let us hide.
NARRATOR: Brethren and sisters, put on your aprons.
(The film pauses temporarily and the lights are turned up while the patrons remove their fig-leave aprons from the bundles. All patrons tie the aprons on around their waists…)”
Question 1: who suggested the apron?
Question 2: what else in the whole ceremony is the apron about?
If you guys knew ANYTHING REAL about the Bible, you’d see the temple drama for what it is. Oh, it’s so dang sad I can hardly stand it. 🙁
Jim, your argument that “his mere presence in the endowment proves we follow him, his presence in Genesis and the bible should result in the same conclusion- those who read and believe in the Bible are following satan.” is silly, and this is why. We are not asked, in the Bible, to wear Lucifer’s apron, or to keep covenants we and God know we CANNOT keep.
Janet… so, if these things have been removed from the ceremony as it is in 2010, still some earlier mormons were subjected to them. So, question 1: what about them? (poor guys) and 2: how can your ceremony be the truth any more if all the “plain and precious” parts have been removed?
I must remind my fellow Christian posters here that this is all Mormon mumbo jumbo. Smith becomes a Mason and he introduces the secret societies rituals into his little created religion. Smith was borrowing all of the time. Where did he get his views of the levels of heaven and the Celestial kingdom and plural marriage? It was all a rip-off from someone else.
The Masonic rituals fit in well with Smith’s magical world view and his conjuring of spirits, second sight vision and scrying with his magic rock.
It’s just one big Mormon seance. And Mormons will search high and low to find some sort of justification for glass looking and nacromancy. These folks are into the occult up to their eyeballs and they groove on it. They’ve given themselves over to the dark side and the demons provide them with feelings and special “spiritual” experiences like the spirits of dead people showing-up at their costume parties.
Talk about duped!
Can Mormons explain (once again) how inconsistent, confusing, ever-changing (when told it would NEVER change)their Church & Doctrine & Ordinances really are? I DOUBT IT.
“…God is unchangeable, the same yesterday, today and forever… The great mistake made down through the ages by teachers of Christianity, is that they have supposed they could place their own private interpretation upon scriptures, allow their own personal convenience to become a controlling factor, and change the basis of Christian law and practice to suit themselves. This is apostasy.” – Prophet’s Message, Church News, June 5, 1965
“…the endowments have never changed and can never change; as I understand it; it has been so testified, and that Joseph Smith Jr., himself was the founder of the endowments.” – Senator & (Apostle)Reed Smoot, Reed Smoot Case, vol. 3, p. 185
Changes in the Endowment:
1) The chanting of the words, PAY LAY ALE, which temple patrons are told are from the ancient “Adamic language” and mean “Oh God, hear the words of my mouth.”
2) A portion of the ceremony in which a Protestant preacher is a hireling of Lucifer, who is paid to preach the gospel of salvation by grace and the omnipresence and omnipotence of God the Father to “Adam and his posterity.”
3) Several temple covenants which require temple patrons to have their throats slit, their hearts ripped out, or their bellies torn open for revealing the secrets of the temple rite.
4) Women in the temple having to veil their faces in prayer.
5) Women in the temple swearing a covenant to obey their husbands as God.
6) The Masonic “Five Points of Fellowship” embrace with “the Lord” through the veil in order to gain admittance to the Celestial Room and the presence of Heavenly Father.
7) The use of female Veil Workers at the veil, representing mother goddesses, to embrace the women temple patrons and bring them through to the Celestial Room.
Why change it? Too embarrassing? Mainstreaming Mormonism strikes again.
This is beyond funny. Mormons, with their restored Christianity, believe that the first century Christians dressed-up in Free Masonry costumes, went to Christian temples and did rituals that were just like the ones the Masons did, married multiple women and believed they would become gods and that god was a former man. Not only this, but because Christianity sprung from the Jewish religion, the Jews were also doing these Masonic rituals and believed that men could become gods and that god was a man.
This was all left out of the Bible of course by a great conspiracy and Mormons know the “truth” of the matter because they got a special spiritual feeling when they prayed about it.
Is there anything that Mormons won’t believe?
Falcon and Grindael,
If you are going to base your arguments about the temple being inspired of the Devil because of the ‘borrowing’ of Masonic rituals then using your logic we can say that John the Baptist was inspired of the Devil because of his propensity to baptise. Baptism was in mainstream Pagan religions long before John the Baptist and Christianity came into being. Even some of the early Christian fathers like Ignatious agrees with this. So did John the Baptist and Christianity ‘borrow’ baptism from Paganism? If so, then why is it said to be ‘from God’? One website (and there are others) is here – http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pagan_origins_baptism.html
There are 2 very plausible explanations (whether you like them or not) as to why the LDS temple ceremony is similar to the Mason rituals, and yes we have been through these before.
1) They are an apostate version of the original ceremonies in the Tabernacle and Temple of Solomon. In which case Joseph may have been inspired of God to go and see what they were doing, then ‘reformat’ it to bring the truth back into the ceremony.
2) Satan mimics/mirrors God’s powers, etc to deceive people into thinking they have the truth (see modern Christianity for proof of this concept 🙂 ). The argument about baptism and Paganism vs Christianity on one website refuting the above website, is that Satan ‘inspired’ baptism to make this confusion. The same argument can be said in this circumstance about the temple ceremony and Masonic rituals, that Satan, knowing God’s plan, ‘inspired’ men to create the Mason rituals so that when the true temple ceremony came about, uninspired, non-spiritual people would try and tell others that it is also from the Devil.
Hello,
Question to non-LDS christians. If God does not promise godhood, eternal marriage, family life, reproduction for eternity, what are the actual promises?
Ralph,
Try again. One thing I know after following your posts after all this time is that your information and logic are typical Mormon and therefore wrong. You just don’t get it and you never will. I’ve found responding to this type of thing is like chasing down empty rabbit trails. You’ve been walked through volumes of information point-by-point both on and off line and have had to admit that the Mormon church perpetuates falsehoods and misinformation. We’ve found it’s a waste of time and energy playing fetch with the hardcore TBMs. Toss the ball for someone else.
My gosh Ralph, Falcon proclaims you to be wrong, so logic becomes more of a proclamation then actual substance of hard facts and evidence, amazing bit of debating skill.
I said I would not discuss any thing done in the Temple and so my statement stands, Aprons and Lucifer do not in any way connect.
But then again, our poster has supposedly been through the Temple or at least he thinks he has the Endowment figured out.
Hope we get to debate Masons and Masonic rituals, and the what, how and why.
Janet.
Issue 37 of Christian History is devoted to the topic, “Worship in the Early Church”. The subtitle reads: Eyewitness Accounts, Where Christians Met, Did They Worship Like the Pagans?, High-Drama Baptism, From the Last Supper to Holy Communion, Plus: Early Hymns, Sermons, and Prayers.
Now the interesting thing about this is that there’s nothing regarding Christian Temples, “Sacred” Free Masonry type rituals, and no mention of multiple wifery, or men becoming gods.
The reason is quite plain, the religious inventor Joseph Smith borrowed all of these things from occult and aberrant sources.
Mormonism does not hold-up to the light of day. Mormons have to stretch credulity to the point where it’s easier to believe in Humpty Dumpty.
Early Christians worshiped in homes. They had no formal buildings. The earliest known church building was in c. 240 built in the Roman city of Dura-Europos near today’s Syria-Iraq border. It stood near the Jewish synagogue and temples dedicated to Zeus, Aphlad, and Mithras. A wall was knocked out where 60-70 people could gather.
No Christian temples where Masonic rituals were carried out. No plural wifery. No secret handshakes or passwords. No secret names. And certainly no Masonic costumes.
If Mormons want to play dress-up and do rituals that they think will morph them into gods, that’s their little playground. However, don’t be so disingenuous and naive to believe this is what early Christianity was all about.
Mormons would do better to get some magic rocks and divination rods and run around by the light of the moon looking for buried treasure. It’s a closer description of what the foundation of Mormonism is.
Sorry, I said Ignatious but I meant Tertullian (at work and running around busy). The article I reference also says that Father Justin Martyr acknowledges that Paganism had baptism before Christianity.
But for Falcon’s sake (in reply to his comment) which part were you brushing off? The baptism from Pagan background? Or the 2 plausible explanations I gave for why the LDS temple ceremony is similar to the Masonic rituals?
Did you also know that there are at least 2 other religions that predate Christianity by a few centuries that believed that their god became incarnate to this earth via virgin birth to save His people. These are Mithras and Krishna. The question stands as to why is Christianity so similar to these religions? Is it because 1 – Christianity borrowed from these religions; or 2 – is it because these religions were from a truth known from Adam and Eve’s time but they had mutated it; or 3 – because Satan knew about what was going to happen that he inspired people to bring these religions into being to confuse people? If it was No 1 then by your logic it means that Christianity is wrong because they borrowed from a Pagan religion. If No 2 or No 3 then by your logic, the LDS temple ceremony can also be from God and the supposed Masonic relationship is because the Masons developed it from the truth.
So there’s 2 things you need to answer about Christianity and if it borrowed from Pagan religions. If you want to dismiss this as neither here nor there then I can dismiss your comments about the LDS temple and Masons as neither here nor there.
Falcon,
If the myth about where the Masonic rituals came from is true (ie the stone masons building the temple of Solomon), then what we perform in our temple is akin to what was performed in the temple of Solomon, and by inference, the Tabernacle. That there was a temple in the OT is not in doubt – what was performed in it besides the sacrifices (if anything else) is unknown. However because Jesus had not yet died and been resurrected, no work for the dead could be performed during the OT times.
In the NT, any temple ordinances would only have been performed after Jesus’ ascension. This also means that work for the dead could be started. There is reference in the NT about baptisms for the dead and this reference does not condemn nor condone the practice. It also does not state about whom it was referring to (ie Christians or Pagans) – all in all it remains neutral. So there is a possibility that baptisms for the dead were being performed in NT times. As far as the other temple ordinances, we have been told that if there is no temple structure available then the ordinances need to be performed on mountain tops. With Christianity being hunted as much as it was, it would be difficult to perform these sacred ordinances without being interrupted if they were done on mountain tops. So there is a possibility that these ordinances were performed very few and far between if at all.
And the apparent lack of writings about these ordinances in the early church could be from a number of different reasons. We do not write much about them, so why should we expect the NT church to do the same. The church leaders (the 12 apostles) were continually hunted and murdered so very few ordinances would be able to be performed by them – as they would be the ones with authority to perform them at that time with the church being so small.
Grindael,
The ceremony has been shortened not changed. Most of the things you say have been removed are still in there, just referenced in a different way (except for the minister). If you read what you wrote above, the tokens AND PENALTIES are still referred to. I went through the temple before the changes made in 1990 so I do know what happened in the earlier version to the current one so I do know what I am talking about. All the covenants made in the ceremony can be found in the scriptures (including the Bible) including the one about the wives obeying their husbands. But look more carefully at what the wife promises to do – she promises to obey her husband as long as he hearkens to the commandments of God. Thus meaning that if her husband decided to do something he knew God did not want him to do and it had repercussions on the family, the wife was allowed to counteract him and do the right thing in order to spiritually protect her family. This covenant is still made, just written/said a little differently and subtly.
Setfree,
The Bible teaches that if one does not live the life God wants us to they will be subject to the power of the Devil. That is all that is meant here in the temple when Satan makes his statement – if we do not live our life according to how God wants us, we will belong to the Devil. As the Bible says, where much is given much is required (Luke 12:48). Those that go through the temple are given more spiritual knowledge, thus more is required of them – however it is still the same responsibility as everyone else – do as God wants you to do according to the knowledge He has given you. The apron is a symbol of the Fall, not Satan’s power. For the majority of the ceremony Adam and Eve are representative of the human race, they are not The Adam and Eve. As far as Satan being ‘god of this world’, that is straight from the Bible – do you have a problem with the Bible saying that?
Enki asked
Long story short, union with God. For example…
, the concluding statement in Matthew (Matt 28:20).
The core of the Christian Gospel, which underpins and permeates both Old and New Testaments, is that God promises us HIMSELF. This intimate, exclusive union between God Himself and His people is the ultimate destination of all the promises, all the law, and all the prophets.
Ezekiel concludes his oracle by saying
Ezekiel 48:35
John concludes his oracle by describing the wedding of the Lamb
Rev 21:2-3
Again, why CHANGE them? That is a question you have not answered Ralph.
After 150 years, their god finally told one of the mormon prophets that they better listen to the PR guys. People just aren’t going to like being told they must agree to having their bowels torn out, or that (if you’re a woman) you must obey your man like he is god, and doesn’t that line of the ‘adamic language’ just sound so silly when we all chant it like that….if you want to get anywhere with the world at all these days … that stuff is gonna need to go.
I’m tellin’ ya, prez. (or should I call you prophet?) – says the PR executive:
“the MILLIONS you spend every year on our FIRM, is money well spent. We’ll have em jumpin’ into the baptismal fonts like little lemmings, and then, when they go to the temple, they won’t have to get uncomfortable with all that washing, and touching, and throat slitting and geez, (I can’t believe you left this in there so long) the women obeying men like they are god’s, thing. So smile, prez., in a few more years, no one will think you’re a cult.”
IF the myth is true…
by INFERENCE
IF it was no. 1
The APPARENT lack…
there is a POSSIBILITY…
Too bad one of those ‘prophets’ can’t weigh in here, but all you have are just ‘veiled’ statements and conjecture. As for the Masons, it is a lie & has been debunked by the Masons themselves for many years. And what about Brigham Young adding to the Temple ritual to make Adam the Father god, later removed? As usual Mormons concentrate on CONJECTURE and ignore the FACTS, because as Falcon says, ‘any rabbit hole will do’.
Mormons & Masonry has been addressed much better than I could do it on this blog. Go here to see how Ralph’s premise is nothing but that, conjecture based on the lie’s of Smith.
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/mormonkingdomvol1ch13masonicinfluence.htm
P.S. I can’t help but get excited about the promise to be (re)united with God. Maybe its because I have some idea of what it is to be separated from God.
Separation from God, to me, means being exiled in a foreign land, that I can’t escape from, that wants me dead (see Romans 6:23).
Reconciliation to God means bringing me into my true home, in His Kingdom. Its an odd place, this new kingdom, where the boss sets the tone by offering Himself as a sacrifice for us all. But it brings life and freedom, not just to me, but it flows out and blesses all those around me (see Rev 22:1-2).
Its something that is both now, and not yet.
“On 1 February 1877, when Young’s lecture was first given, Woodruff wrote in his journal: “W Woodruff Presided and Officiated as El[ohim]. I dressed in pure white Doe skin from head to foot to officiate in the Priest Office, white pants vest & C[oat?] the first Example in any Temple of the Lord in this last dispensation. Sister Lucy B Young also dressed in white in officiating as Eve. Pr[e]sident [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts.” The copy of the veil lecture which Nuttall describes is not presently available. But on 7 February Nuttall summarized in his diary additions to the lecture which Young made at his residence in Nuttall’s presence:
“In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus, made while in jerusalem, “This is life eternal that they might know thee, the ony true God and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” We were once acquainted with the Gods and lived with them, but we had the privilege of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc. Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read “from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.” Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality
and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child. It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve—This should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses’ dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life—Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit; this was necessary that they might be together, that man might be. The woman was found in transgression not the man—Now in the law of Sacrifice we have the promise of a Savior and Man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks; this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood….
Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam’s first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.)”
Brigham Young died August 29, 1877, shortly after introducing this version of the veil lecture. The evidence is indeterminate as to whether the St. George lecture with its Adam-God teaching was included in all temples or that it continued to the turn of the twentieth century.
Conclusion:
The endowment was and is a ceremony that can be adapted to the needs of its audience. [according to who?] Brigham Young attempted [He did!] to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it. He was not able to fully resolve the teaching [No, the Church rejected it] and integrate it into LDS doctrine. After his death, Adam-God was not continued by his successors in the Presidency, [& they declared it ‘false doctrine’] and the idea was dropped from the endowment ceremony and from LDS doctrine. http://en.fairmormon.org/Temples/Endowment/Adam-God_and_the_“Lecture_at_the_Veil” (this link is faulty, click on search for the page after you get to wiki)
Wow! Looks like it’s a pretty COMPLETE teaching to me! So, what was the problem?
grindael,
Kudos to you for continuing your in-depth and well documented posts. Unfortunately our TBMs can make anything work when it comes to maintaining their belief in Smith’s myth thus their minds can’t be penetrated with factual evidence. As I’ve said often here, the strong emotions involved in wanting desperately to believe something, overrides any type of facts or evidence. Now couple that with folks thinking they’re hearing from God and that they are having spiritual experiences…….suffice to say that there’s a brain-lock here.
I talked to an ex-Mormon who related to me the story of he and his wife going through the Mormon temple for the first time. He said after the event they drove along in silence for quite a ways when suddenly, as if on cue, they looked at each other and said, “Wasn’t that weird!”
Some folks get it instinctively. I don’t know why. They just do. They don’t even have to be presented the facts behind the occult rituals. Others get sucked into the black vortex of Mormonism from which escape is nearly impossible.
In the world of the hardcore TBM, nacromancy becomes a wonderful experience. Their world is up-side-down but their brain flips it to make it look right side up.
John 6:43-44
This is such a good quote, (that Martin posted on the Capstone Thread) that I have to repost it here. It shows the wavering line that Mormons constantly try to pin down (if it’s good about the Mormons, believe it, if it’s bad discount it) in relation to Emma, his wife:
“To my certain knowledge Emma Smith is one of the damdest (sic) liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness. Not six months before the death of Joseph, he called his wife Emma into a secret council, and there he told her the truth, and called upon her to deny it if she could. He told her that the judgments of God would come upon her forthwith if she did not repent. He told her of the time she undertook to poison him, and he told her that she was a child of hell, and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked then she. He told her where she got the poison, and how she put it in a cup of coffee; said he, ‘You got that poison so and so, and I drank it, but you could not kill me.’ When it entered his stomach he went to the door and threw it off. He spoke to her in that council in a very severe manner, and she never said one word in reply. I have witnesses of this scene all around, who can testify that I am now telling the truth. Twice she undertook to kill him” (Brigham Young, The Essential Brigham Young, pp.188-189).
Emma was by no means ‘down’ with Smith’s indiscretions, they totally pissed her off as seen by this quote. She hated Smith and what he was doing, and like I said before, had a vested interest in the BOM: her sons & their Church. She saw Smith for what he was, an adulterer and liar. The endowment is a farce, Emma knew it and knew WHY Smith was inventing it, to justify his lecherous actions.
I have always felt that the Adam/God doctrine has merit. It will be eventually explained sooner or later and our eyes will be opened to the truth about, Joseph Smith wrote, “In the beginning, the head of the gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and (the) people in it.”. If we are to follow along the lines of Mormon teachings, then it does not at all surprise me that Adam, our Father was born like any other man, and that this earth was not where he first lived.
Problem is that I can only teach from our approved standard works, but to believe as I do is not a abandonment or renunciation of my faith or testimony of all other truths taught.
What I believe or do not believe, (Adam/God), does not in any way affect my salvation since belief in God/Adam has nothing to do with my testimony that Jesus is the Christ. Very little is known about the creation by either Christians or Mormons, but I feel the LDS have better answers to the why and how of it.
To state the God has always existed and not even know where or how that can be, versus knowing that we were with God in the preexistence and shown the plan of Salvation wherein we all rejoiced. How self centered to believe we are Gods only creation, and the Universe is vacant except for us.
Janet.
Again,
Accepting on blind faith, when your own prophet Kimball & apostle McConkie call it false doctrine. So, who are you going to believe? That is the dilemma here, and you can’t have it both ways. It WAS taught by Young, but if Adam-god is true than what is taught now, is false, that Adam can’t be the Father of Jesus. Since God is not the author of confusion, than WHO is the author of Adam-god? I think we know…
McConkie said all who believed it would be damned…so does it still have ‘merit’? No, these men were not inspired, they made it up as they went along…
In regards to Emma, I repeat, some people get it and others don’t. Emma saw her husband for what he was, a lying, conniving adulterer who wasn’t above using whatever means possible to get want he wanted. If the guy wasn’t a sociopath, he had his toes right up to the line. He would use his religious power over people to get what he wanted including telling at least one woman that an angel with a sword appeared to him and threatened his life unless he started taking on more wives.
The temple and it’s rituals was just one more way for Smith to manipulate people and secure their buy-in to his club. If you can get people to swear oaths that include the taking of their lives, you’ve pretty much secured their loyalty.
The fact that Smith’s acts were so blatant and outrageous is, I believe, at least part of the attraction for some people. They are so naive not to believe that someone can be this evil and diabolical that there must be another explanation. So they declare the guy and his acts righteous, holy and ordained by God. Talk about a spirit of delusion.
John 6:44
I want to first thank Martin for doing such a good job answering Enki’s question.
Ralph,
The Bible says that there is only one God. His name is YHWH. Every other thing that people worship can fall under the category “god” (elohim), but that does not make them REAL gods. Merely things that people WRONGLY worship as if they had power, etc. This includes, yes, Satan.
There is not one place in the endowment ceremony where “Lucifer”s words about the apron being an emblem of his priesthoods and power is rebuked. I would challenge you to carefully go through the ceremony again and see. I printed out the entire thing and scoured it. The Lucifer parts are subtle, but they are nonetheless there. The subtlety only makes them more truly satanic, not less.
you said: “if we do not live our life according to how God wants us, we will belong to the Devil.”
however, you have admitted in the past that you are, as yet, unable to live according to what you believe God wants from you. This means that you are under the power of Satan, doesn’t it? Now, according to YOUR belief, it means I am too. So let me tell you about MY belief.
It comes from the Bible.
In the Bible, Jesus is the Savior. The Bible tells me that Jesus has provided the penalty payment for my sin-debt with God, and made it possible for me to be INDWELT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. I am thus MARKED by God, as His. I AM NOT UNDER THE POWER OF SATAN, no matter what mistakes I made. I BELONG TO JESUS, and no one, including Satan, can TAKE ME OUT OF HIS HAND.
See how terrific it is to actually become Biblically saved? I don’t have to worry about Satanic power over me. I have rejected the “god of this world”, which is a false god, a god-wannabe (like you?), and have accepted and claimed the ONE AND ONLY GOD that there is. And like Aaron said so appropriately before, my God eats gods for breakfast.
continued
The people who built the tower of Babel, what were they trying to do? Get up to God. They probably figured they could say how things go, have more power over their world, if they could get up to God. They could help Him make decisions, use His God-controls or whatever He had up there that gave Him all the authority.
The LDS who go to the temples (and/or high places), what are they trying to do? Get up by God. The temples are where you get ‘endued’ with more divinity. One day in the far future you’ll be so divine, you’ll get to be an authority figure JUST LIKE GOD.
Seems pretty darn similar to me.
In the first century Christian church, there were no (Christian)temples, no Christian temple rituals, on multiple gods, no men morphing to gods, no men/gods procreating spirit beings with their goddess wives, no plural wives as a means to achieve the highest level of the Celestial kingdom (which wasn’t part of first century Christianity) and no magic underwear. “Prophets” didn’t run around with magic rocks looking for buried treasure.
No prophets, who changed their minds on a continuous basis, claiming it was a result of receiving more spiritual light. No demand that Christians turn over ten percent of their income to the church corporation to build shopping malls and cattle ranches.
However, in the minds of the hardcore TBMs, the church is true, regardless of the evidence that proves it’s false. Why is that? A couple of reasons. There is a certain segment of the population that would join a cult claiming the moon is made out of green cheese. Satan is more than happy to give those who are challenging god, all kinds of “spiritual” experiences including, as in the case of Mormons, the spirits of dead people floating around their temples. Mix-in some positive touchy feelys and bingo, these folks are locked in.
The one thing that Mormons don’t seem to grasp is that “spiritual” experiences can come from all sorts of sources. They can come right out of the flesh, the soul, the spirit of darkness or the Spirit of God. A person has to exercise at least a modicum of discernment and evaluate what’s going on when they feel they are having a “spiritual” experience. These feelings can be produced at a motivational rally with a gifted speaker and control of the environment. That’s the flesh. The soul of man is very powerful and can mimic something that is very spiritual in nature. Satan of course can counterfeit signs and wonders and all sorts of manifestations that are arranged to draw people away from God. And finally the true experience or manifestation comes from the Holy Spirit.
With Mormonism, with it’s basis in the occult, it’s seeking after familiar spirits and its incorporation of occult rituals, the source is obvious. Mormonism also denies the One, true and everlasting God and has substituted a god of their own making. It’s paganism.
We may wonder why, when something is so obviously Satanic in origin, that people would follow after it. It’s very simple. This is a spiritual war. The spirits of the dark side are more than willing to play along with Mormons and give them what they seek. Now Mormons, with their pride seeking to become gods, and their spiritual lust, are prime candidates for seduction. God will put up with a lot of things in His patience, mercy and love, but one thing He won’t put up with is people who reject Him and embrace the worship of a false god.
Ralph said:
“If the myth about where the Masonic rituals came from is true (ie the stone masons building the temple of Solomon), then what we perform in our temple is akin to what was performed in the temple of Solomon, and by inference, the Tabernacle. That there was a temple in the OT is not in doubt – what was performed in it besides the sacrifices (if anything else) is unknown.”
Read here, Ralph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Abiff. Hiram Abiff is a made-up character, that someone wanted someone else to believe is Bible based.
From the most public-relational to the least, one thing the freemasonry commentaries agree on is that Freemasons must believe in a higher power, but it doesn’t matter what that power is.
This ought to (but won’t) set off warning bells in your head, guys. Jesus said He was the only way. Freemasons basically say “any god is fine”. (Here we see connection one: Mormonism promotes belief in “elohim”, which, as we have seen, means any god, real or not.)
Have you ever noticed how BORING it is to read through much of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers? Have you stopped to consider why? How about THE DETAIL?
Every possible conceivable detail is given about how to build the temple, what to put in it, what Aaron and sons are supposed to wear, what exactly to kill, and when, and what to do with the parts. Meticulous detail, enough to make you skim over the chapters and leave it for someone else to worry about.
And yet, somehow, in all of that meticulous detail, they just what, forgot? to mention the other stuff that is supposed to be done in the temple?
And what about this Hiram character? Why doesn’t the Bible go into specific, precise, meticulous detail about him, if he’s a character that we need to follow in some way? And what makes him central to any temple program, being just a builder? Super secret builder codes?
Freemasonry began no earlier than the 1200’s btw.
Don’t trust me, look it up.
One poster stated the following: “Prophets” didn’t run around with magic rocks looking for buried treasure.”
URIM AND THUMMIM
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=U
Objects connected with the breastplate of the high priest, and used as a kind of divine oracle. Since the days of the Alexandrian translators of the Old Testament it has been asserted that mean “revelation and truth” (δήλωσις καὶ ἀλήθεια), or “lights and perfections”
“But as to those stones, which we told you before, the high priest bare on his shoulders . . . the one of them shined out when God was present at their sacrifices . . . bright rays darting out thence; and being seen even by those that were most remote; which splendor yet was not before natural to the stone. . . . Yet will I mention what is still more wonderful than this; for God declared beforehand, by those twelve stones which the high priest bare on his breast, and which were inserted into his breastplate, when they should be victorious in battle; for so great a splendor shone forth from them before the army began to march, that all the people were sensible of God’s being present for their assistance. Whence it came to pass that those Greeks who had a veneration for our laws, because they could not possibly contradict this, called that breastplate the Oracle”
The Talmudic concept seems to have been identical with the view of Josephus, holding that the reply of the Urim and Thummim was conveyed by rays of light. Two scholars of the third century, however, who had lost the vividness of the earlier concept, gave the explanation that those stones of the breastplate which contained the answer of the oracle either stood out from the others or formed themselves into groups (Yoma 73b).
The division of the country was made according to the Urim and Thummim, since the high priest, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” proclaimed the tribe to which each division should belong. After this, lots were drawn from two urns, one containing the name of the tribe and the other that of the territory, and these were found to harmonize with the high priest’s announcement (B. B. 122a; Sanh. 16a; comp. Yer. Yoma 41b, below). To enlarge the Holy City or the Temple court the orders of the king, of a prophet, and of the Urim and Thummim were necessary (Sheb. 2, 3, 16a; Yer. Sheb. 33d, below). In Yer. Sanh. 19b the question is propounded why the Urim and Thummim are needed when a prophet is present.
Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=U#ixzz0iO44ClFc
Janet
There’s a real disconnect and misunderstanding with Mormons regarding what is real spirituality and spirituality that comes from other sources. With Mormonism it starts with the rejection of God and from there moves very rapidly into a spiritual realm that provides a form of spirituality but lacks the substance which is God.
It can be seen with Joseph Smith who couldn’t “settle” on God but could settle on treapsing about in the meadow of the occult. He wasn’t above ripping up his previous work and starting over, modifying a previous held belief and practice or outright stealing ideas and notions from others.
But the bottom line is that he was drawn to the magic world and the “mystical” world of Free Masonry. He melded all of this into a religion that found its groove in the Satanic world of nacromancy and false religious ritualism. The “cover” for Mormonism is its use of terms like “Heavenly Father”, “Jesus” and “Holy Ghost”. The Mormons talk about repentance, redemption, and eternal life but it’s a smoke screen.
As I’ve said before, some Mormons get it instinctively other are blinded but most simply fade away from this troubling religious system.
John 6:44
First, what is the purpose of the LDS seminaries? There’s one in my town along with 2 temples….
Second, having not read the thread yet, the conclusion in the article seems very reasonable. But I wonder why LDS would object to the conclusion, as it seems some do not think that is the purpose. I view a church as a place to be closer to God, a place where people gather to be one body in worship of our Father.
If LDS believe they become quite literally like God, then a temple should be a place for that.
Hi MJP, what you most likely mean is the one can become literally like God. The Temple is like a University, in fact Nibley states the following:
In the temple we are taught by symbols and examples; but that is not the fullness of the gospel. One very popular argument today says, “Look, you say the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel, but it doesn’t contain any of the temple ordinances in it, does it?” Ordinances are not the fullness of the gospel. Going to the temple is like entering into a laboratory to confirm what you have already learned in the classroom and from the text. The fullness of the gospel is the understanding of what the plan is all about—the knowledge necessary to salvation. You know the whys and wherefores; for the fullness of the gospel you go to Nephi, to Alma, to Moroni. Then you will enter into the lab, but not in total ignorance. The ordinances are mere forms. They do not exalt us; they merely prepare us to be ready in case we ever become eligible.
Janet
Janet, then explain why this article by Sharon is not accurate?
She wrote: “It has been said that the purpose of LDS temples is to make men into Gods. Many Mormons dispute this, complaining about the insensitive way this sacred information is presented. Whether such a statement seems sensationalized or not, the question is: Is it true?”
I’d like to know why it is insensitive to suggest the purpose of the temple is to make men into gods. Even Nibley wrote: “They do not exalt us; they merely prepare us to be ready in case we ever become eligible.” And, he suggested that the temple is the forum where you put all you learn into action by comparing it to a lab where you put into practice the theories you’ve learned elsewhere.
I’d have to say, unless you or someone can show otherwise, the temple is to make men into Gods, as a laboratory to put into practice the theories leaned elsewhere.
ANOTHER MORMON MYTH:
It is notable that the term “Urim and Thummim” is not found in the Book of Mormon and was never used by Smith with reference to producing the Book of Mormon until after 1833. In that year, a close associate of Smith, W.W. Phelps, speculated that the ancient Nephite interpreters mentioned in the Book of Mormon and by Smith might be the Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament. Phelps wrote in the LDS publication The Evening and Morning Star (Jan. 1833) that the Book of Mormon had been translated, “through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles — (known perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim) …” -W.W. Phelps, Evening and Morning Star, vol. 1, no. 8, (Independence, Missouri, January 1833) p. 2.
Phelps words, “known perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim” show that it was merely speculation on his part that associated Smith’s magic seer stone with the biblical Urim and Thummim. Phelps’ speculation gained quick popularity to the point where LDS writers used the term Urim and Thummim to refer to both the mystical interpreters Smith said were with the gold plates, and to the seer stone Smith placed in his hat while dictating the Book of Mormon. As a result, many LDS writings used the term Urim and Thummim synonymously for seer stone. An example of this confusion of the terms is provided by the tenth President of the LDS church, Joseph Fielding Smith: