For the Mormon woman…you better be nice to your man…

23 05 2009

I was surfing UTLM and came across this piece.

Since LDS folks tend to keep things like this quiet and not announce them, I thought that it would be valuable to post it. Some of this may shock you…some of it may surprise you but it’s true.

Read on:

The LDS Church teaches that at the end of the world everyone will be resurrected. They also believe that almost everyone will go to heaven, which is divided up into three main levels. Bad people go to the lowest, the Telestial Kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 76:81-86). Good people, who were not Mormons, will go to the middle level, the Terrestrial Kingdom (D&C 76:71-79). Mormons will go to the highest level, the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 76:50-70). However, only those who merit the highest part of the Celestial Kingdom will have Eternal Life [the ability to live in a marriage relationship and continue to beget children—see D&C 132:20-24, also see Mormons Hope to Become Gods of Their Own Worlds]. All others have immortality [which is defined as the ability to live forever in a single condition, not married and no future children] but do not have Eternal Life. One must be married in the LDS temple and then obey all of the Mormon regulations to get to the highest degree of heaven. The first time a Mormon attends the temple endowment ceremony he/she will be given a new name [usually a Bible name like Peter or Mary or the name of European royalty]. These will supposedly be their names in eternity. The wife must tell her husband her new name, and no one else, as he is supposed to call her up in the resurrection. If he does not call her up she would still resurrect, but not as his wife. When a Mormon returns to the temple, on various occasions, to go through the endowment ceremony, he/she will stand in by proxy for a dead person. For instance, a man may be going through the ritual in behalf of his dead uncle. A new temple name would be assigned to the dead person, which could be Joseph, David, Paul, etc. In the case of a dead woman, a Mormon woman would stand in by proxy for her, and the dead woman would be given a new temple name, like Rachael, Eve, Rebecca, etc.

LDS Apostle Charles W. Penrose wrote:

In the divine economy, as in nature, the man “is the head of the woman,” and it is written that “he is the savior of the body.” But “the man is not without the woman” any more than the woman is without the man, in the Lord. Adam was first formed, then Eve. In the resurrection, they stand side by side and hold dominion together. Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof.

In the case of a man marrying a wife in the everlasting covenant who dies while he continues in the flesh and marries another by the same divine law, each wife will come forth in her order and enter with him into his glory. (“Mormon” Doctrine Plain and Simple, or Leaves from the Tree of Life, by Charles W. Penrose, p.66, 1897, Salt Lake City, UT.)

LDS Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857:

Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?… Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? “What!—my husband to be my lord?” I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)

William Clayton, secretary to Joseph Smith, also discussed some of the temple work in his journals. In the Introduction to An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton we read:

Clayton described the temple endowment, a ritualized drama of the creation, fall, and redemption of Adam, during which its participants promise obedience and loyalty to the church, and repeat passwords and signs they believe will enable them to enter into the celestial or highest kingdom of heaven. He wrote about washings and anointings, preparatory rituals for the endowment ceremony, and described dramatic role-playing in which church members act out the Garden of Eden story of Adam, Eve, and the serpent.

As church members rehearsed this celestial drama, they wore special clothing and volunteered the necessary words and signs to enter the highest heaven, the Celestial Kingdom. Clayton recorded that “The tokens and covenants are. . . the key by which you approach God and be recognized.” In this ceremony, each husband escorted his wife through a veil, calling her by a “new temple name.” The woman’s salvation would depend upon her husband’s priesthood authority. Clayton reported Brigham Young saying that “the man must love his God and the woman must love her husband,” adding that “woman will never get back, unless she follows the man back.” (Introduction to An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, edited by George D. Smith, Signature Books, p. xxxvi-xxxvii; see also p. 204-240.)

Writing in 1870, former Mormon Mary Ettie Smith related her experience with the LDS Church and the temple ritual:

My husband,…and myself, were called to the [Nauvoo] Temple to receive our “Endowments.” . . .

The room I had entered was nearly filled with women; no men were in this room; and no women were in the room at the right, where Wallace had entered. Here we were undressed and washed in a large tub of warm water . . . and then anointed with “consecrated oil,” . . . we were then dressed with a white night-gown and skirt, and shoes of bleached drilling, and with our hair loose and dripping with consecrated oil, each received a new name, and were instructed that we were never to pronounce this name on earth but once: and that, when we came to enter within the “Veil,” hereafter described.

The same process is gone through with in the men’s washing-room . . . and when all was ready in both rooms, each party was piloted by one of their own sex into a common room, fitted up to represent, and called the Garden of Eden. . . . “We . . . each put on the “garment,” [Special LDS underwear. An abbreviated version is still worn by faithful Mormons today.] which is so arranged as to form a whole suit at once; and the “robe,” which is a strip of white muslin [cotton], say three-fourths of a yard wide, and long enough to reach to the feet, gathered in the middle, and tied by a bow, to the left shoulder, and brought across the body, and the edges fastened together on the right side, with a belt around the waist of the same. Over this was put the apron we had received in the “first glory;” and the women wore what is called a veil . . .

We were next led into what is called the Terrestrial Glory; where Brigham Young received us, . . . he gave each a pass-word and grip necessary, he said, to admit us into the “Celestial Glory;” . . . there are many gods, and they do not acknowledge the one Triune God of the Bible, but that every man will sometime be a “god;” and that women are to be the ornaments of his kingdom, and dependent upon him for resurrection and salvation; and that our salvation is dependent upon the recollection of these passwords; . . .” (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition. Embracing the Narrative of Mrs. Mary Ettie V. Smith, of Her Residence and Experience of Fifteen Years with the Mormons…, by N. W. Green, Hartford, 1870, p. 42-48)

After Mrs. Smith and her first husband, Wallace Henderson, left Nauvoo and headed west, their marriage began to fall apart. Among other indiscretions, Mr. Henderson took another wife and Ettie left him. When she later explained to Apostle Orson Hyde why she had left her husband, Mr. Hyde replied:

“The reasons you have given do not constitute a lawful excuse for leaving your husband, according to the laws of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.”

I then rose up to go, as I did not propose to discuss the matter with him. But he stopped me, and said, “You may, if you wish, be ‘sealed’ to me, and then you know there would be no risk to run, in case you should die. Otherwise, if by chance you should drop away, having no husband to raise you at the last day, you could not be ‘resurrected’ as a saint, and would only be raised like any Gentile, as a servant for the Saints, i.e., for the Mormons.’ ”

I was so much disgusted with this proposition, that I left him in the most unceremonious manner, in the midst of his disinterested effort for my salvation. Orson Hyde was, at this time, forty years of age, and had at least three wives and one daughter about my own age. I was then nineteen years old. (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition, p. 132)

Later in her book, Mrs. Smith discussed the LDS concept of priesthood and salvation:

The priesthood, in some form, is understood to be necessary to the salvation of a male, or at least, to his exaltation; and a female cannot be saved without being “sealed” to some male who is a Priest. Hence all true Mormons are Priests, and women really do not amount to much in themselves, . . . Hence women are often “sealed,” that is married to men, when they do not intend to live with them as an earthly wife, but merely that they may be saved by them: in that case they are “sealed” for eternity, as it termed. But when they are married for the natural purposes of a wife, i.e. to have children, they are then said to be “sealed” for time; and they may be “sealed” for one alone, or for both [Thus they can be married for time only, for time and eternity or for just eternity.] If a woman’s husband is dead, she need not be sealed again, unless she chooses, and when she does marry again, she is “sealed” only for time, as when she dies, her first husband will “resurrect,” i.e. save her; and she will be his in the next world. (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition, p. 154 )

The following is a summary of the early Utah temple ceremony as found in History of Utah, 1540-1886, by H. H. Bancroft:

[During the washing and anointing ceremony] The eyes are touched, that they may be quick to see; the ears, that the hearing may be sharp; the mouth, to bestow wisdom upon speech; and the feet, that they be swift to run in the ways of the Lord. Then a new name, which is rarely to be mentioned, is whispered into the ear, and all are marched into room No. 2, where they are seated, the sexes on opposite sides of the room, and facing each other. Here they are told by a priest that any person not strong enough to proceed may retire; but if any portion of the ceremony is disclosed, the throat of the person so offending will be cut from ear to ear. [In 1990 the Mormon Church removed the signs of the death penalties from the ceremony. See Salt Lake City Messenger #75 TEMPLE RITUAL ALTERED.] Those faltering, if any, having retired, the remainder are taken into room No. 3, where a representation of the creation, the temptation, and fall is given.

Each candidate then puts on over his robe an apron of white linen, upon which are sewn pieces of green silk representing fig-leaves, and also the cap or veil. All good Mormons are buried in their endowment robes, and the veil worn by the women covers their faces when they are consigned to the grave. In the morning of the resurrection, this veil is to be lifted by the husband; otherwise no woman can see the face of the almighty in the next world. This ends the first degree; and the initiated are now driven out of Eden into room No. 4, which represents the world, where they encounter many temptations, the chief of which is the false gospel preached by methodists, baptists, etc.

Finally St James and St John appear and proclaim the true gospel of Mormonism, which all gladly embrace. After this they receive certain grips and pass-words, and all are arranged in a circle, kneel, and the women lower their veils. Then, with the right hand uplifted, an oath is taken to avenge the death of Joseph Smith, jun., upon the gentiles who had caused his murder, to teach the children of the church to do likewise, [The oath against the murderers of the Smiths has since been removed.] to obey implicitly and without murmur or question all commands of the priesthood, to refrain from adultery, and finally, eternal secrecy concerning all that transpired in the endowment house is promised.

Then comes an address, after which another room is entered, leading from which is a door with a hole in it, covered with a piece of muslin [cotton]. The men approach this door in turn and ask to enter. Then a person behind the door reaches through the opening, and with knife in hand cuts a certain mark on the left breast of the shirt, another over the abdomen, and one over the right knee, which marks are faithfully copied by the women in their own garments after returning to their homes. [These markings are already sewn on the garments today.] The man then mentions his new name, gives the grip of the third degree, and is permitted to pass in. This is called going behind the veil.

When the men are all in, each woman is passed through by her husband, or having none, by one of the brethren. This concludes the ceremony, with the exception of marriage, which will be noticed elsewhere. Of these ceremonies Mrs Stenhouse, from whose account the foregoing is partly taken, says: “About what was done in Nauvoo, I can only speak by hearsay, but have been told many strange and revolting stories about the ceremonies which were there performed. Of the endowments in Utah, everything was beautifully neat and clean, and I wish to say most distinctly that, although the initiation appears now to my mind as a piece of the most ridiculous absurdity, there was, nevertheless, nothing in it indecent or immoral. . . .” (History of Utah, 1540-1886, by H. H. Bancroft, 1889, ch. 15, no. 17, p. 357-358)

For more information see the Topical Index: Temple Ceremony.




23 responses

23 05 2009

Thanks for the background. I’d heard a little of this but nothing so thorough.

23 05 2009

No problem…actually thank Sandra Tanner, she and her husband have devoted their lives to making this information available.

It’s a pretty twisted theology isn’t it?

27 05 2009
Roundup « 4Simpsons Blog – Eternity Matters

[…] Mormon women sure seem to get a raw deal — a summary of some lesser known teachings about marriage and how Mormon women supposedly get into Heaven.  […]

29 05 2009
Clean Cut

“Twisted”. Yeah, I suppose it’s interesting how anything can be twisted to appear crazy. I’ve seen some pretty twisted summaries of Calvinism’s theology too. But then again, I’d beg to differ that Calvinism is true, biblical theology.

30 05 2009

Clean cut,
Yes, anything can be twisted…but when I used the term “twisted” what I meant was “really really different than Orthodox Christian theology.” It’s interesting that up until about 30 years ago, the LDS church wasn’t even interested trying to align itself as “just another Christian sect” as they do today…they were happy to be “different.”

I have also seen some twisted (unorthodox) summaries of Calvinism but that sheds no light on what actual Calvinism teaches does it?

Curious though; what tenent of Calvinism do you think isn’t biblical?

Please do this if you’d like to respond:

1.) Be specific.
2.) Site sources
3.) Any bible passage must be pertinent to the subject; and in context. Please do not use the old tired passages that have been refuted for two centuries or better (2nd Peter 3:9, 1st Tim 2:4, Mat 13:37, etc…)

If what you really mean is: I just have a preference that Calvinism is not what I like…

Then fine…no argument here.

30 05 2009
Clean Cut

My point is not to argue Calvinism, nor to say that Calvinists cannot trace their beliefs to the Bible. What I meant is really just what I said. Any “theology” can be twisted–even beyond recognition by those who adhere to it. I see this often with counter-cultists who just can’t stand Mormonism.

So, no, I have no desire to argue hardcore Calvinism. As you suggest, it’s just not my preference nor how I interpret the Bible. I suppose I would have more in common with an Arminian Christian than yourself in terms of free will and God’s foreknowledge. On the nature and attributes of God, Calvinists and Arminians would have much more agreement with each other than they do Mormonism.

Ironically, I just wrote about how Calvinism seems to me to contrast with my perspective as a Mormon: “Mormon Misgivings Concerning Calvinism”

30 05 2009

Clean cut,
I didn’t want to argue either.

You made a statement about Calvinism you said it wasn’t biblical…I assumed that you had SOME BASIS for that belief other than “I like vanilla more than chocolate” sort of level…my mistake.

I did understand your point about twisting theology but Mormons cry foul but never seem to address the actual CONTENT that they object to with facts and things.

For example; in all of your comments have you EVER addressed a FACTUAL ERROR found in one of the videos that I’ve posted?

Respectfully, Mormon folks don’t seem to do a lot of that…

Before you cry persecution; Yes, I’ve spoken with many many Mormons, and YES….I was a Mormon myself.

And NO that doesn’t mean that I “couldn’t hack it” and “wanted to sin” or “have an axe to grind” because of my former status.

1 06 2009

Unbelievable, just unbelievable, what secret creeds this sect embraces. Most members probably don’t even know about all this. It’s scandalous. And the entire religion rests only on feelings!!? Incredible!!

31 07 2009

It is obvious to me that she misunderstood the temple rites and the religion as a whole. This is not the way it is and I am sad that you published a lie.

31 07 2009

To what “she” are you referring to? Mary Ettie Smith?
If there is a fact that is incorrect SPECIFICALLY then by all means; let me know.

But be specific and site sources.

1 08 2009

I recently read an amzing story about Rauni and Dennis Higley, former Mormons, now Christians. Rauni worked in the translation dept of the church in Utah for over 14 years, had access to some of the most important and secretive documents in the church. She soon discovered she had been decieved and realized Mormonism was a man made fradulent organization. These folks were not your “typical” mormons (Dennis was on the the Stake High Council) – they were sixth generation mormons and leaving the church cost them dearly.

Bottom line they realized: Jesus really is God, and God is with us. Mormons purposely use words that sound “Christian” – but their errors are easily exposed by the Bible. One 45 minute tape, explained Rauni, on John 1:1, verse by verse explained just who God is, who the “Word” is – forty years of their life, this had never been explained to them. The awesome power of God’s word can indeed lead anyone to Christ and true salvation.

I read their story in The Unexpected Journey by Thom Rainer, PhD, Southern Baptist Seminary. I pray other mormons will be open to examine the object of their faith – Jesus is God, not your brother.

2 08 2009

that sounds like a great book. I too pray that the LDS folks who read this stuff see the light and surrender to the real Son of God.

26 08 2009
Is it general knowledge that Monte is now married? - Page 5 - Netphoria Message Board

[…] decision whether the wife gets resurrected and whether she gets into Heaven or not. Check this page for more information, but here are some choice quotes: "[E]very man will sometime be a 'god;' and […]

2 09 2009
Women’s Names, Traditions, and Statistics Oh My! « Atticannie's Blog

[…] Mormons still teach that women are dependent upon their husbands to get into heaven. […]

24 08 2010


I’m afraid that while some ordinances have been cut, this is no lie. Buried in your veil, being called through by a worthy male who may be sealed to an additional woman, etc. It’s all true, and documented.

8 09 2010

Mormons cannot believe that they will be Gods someday…. that is just plain sad.
It is also sad how the mormons have sliced and diced the Bible to create their own bible with a fairy tale to go along with it. The world was not corrupted by the woman, it was corrupted by the man giving in to the woman. If Adam had told Eve that she messed up and refused to eat the forbidden fruit, no doubt God would have just allowed her to die and Adam would have been given a new wife. Mankind would have been continued as God created it but Adam gave into Eve and dragged man down the drain. Mormons believe that the woman dragged mankind down the drain but she did not, the man did it therefore he is the one who is held accountable. Morman men going to heaven and only then calling back to the earth to their wifes to get them into heaven, is a fairy tale written by a man to make a woman do what he wants. I am a man and the whole mormon fariy tale is a very large and very selfish way to get what they want from women.

8 09 2010
Clean Cut

Obamo, your recent comment is one of the most unintelligent comments I’ve perhaps ever read. I don’t know what’s more sad–that you wasted the time writing it or that I invested the time to read it.

8 09 2010

Clean cut….
I’m not LDS but I gotta agree with you there….

20 03 2011
Brandy Miller

I’m curious clean cut and rpavich – what part of Obamo’s statement didn’t make sense to you? Do you disagree that Adam sinned and that had he not sinned God would have created a wife to replace Eve? Do you disagree that Adam was as much to blame as Eve? Do you disagree that the Mormons have manipulated the Bible?

20 03 2011


The part where he said “if….” and then all the rest.

his comment was not only pure speculation, but it doesn’t track with the actual account in Genesis.

I do not disagree that Mormons have butchered the word to suit their twisted theology.

20 03 2011
Brandy Miller

rpavich: What part of what he said doesn’t track with what we know about God and how God behaves? That God does not condemn the just, we know to be true. God told them both that if they didn’t eat of the tree they would live. If one ate and the other didn’t, God wouldn’t punish them both. He would only punish the one who ate. That’s what Obamo is saying. He is applying his knowledge of the Bible to draw a logical conclusion. Or do you disagree that it is a logical statement?

20 03 2011

Let me go through it line by line:

Mormons cannot believe that they will be Gods someday…. that is just plain sad.


It is also sad how the mormons have sliced and diced the Bible to create their own bible with a fairy tale to go along with it.


The world was not corrupted by the woman, it was corrupted by the man giving in to the woman. If Adam had told Eve that she messed up and refused to eat the forbidden fruit, no doubt God would have just allowed her to die and Adam would have been given a new wife. <

Adam disobeyed God direct command. God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree before Eve was created:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Anything about what “might” have happened is just conjecture.
The fact is; Adam disobeyed God…So did Eve.

I could just as easily suppose “if Eve had not eaten the fruit, surely Adam would have because the serpent was very crafty”

See how that needs nothing to support it? It’s just conjecture.

Mankind would have been continued as God created it but Adam gave into Eve and dragged man down the drain.

So, Jesus, who was the “lamb slain before the foundation of the world” by an “Omniscient, Eternal being” was an “after thought” ?

We could have gone on and nobody would sin, and no need for Jesus to give himself?


Mormons believe that the woman dragged mankind down the drain but she did not, the man did it therefore he is the one who is held accountable.

Actually, I agree with this statement.

Morman men going to heaven and only then calling back to the earth to their wifes to get them into heaven, is a fairy tale written by a man to make a woman do what he wants. I am a man and the whole mormon fariy tale is a very large and very selfish way to get what they want from women.

I actually agree with this so you might be right…I don’t disagree with ALL of it…just some.

9 08 2012
A Message to Girls About Religious Men Who Fear You. by Soraya Chemaly « uuclhuumanistblog

[…] they must be right. But they are not. They demonstrate their own hypocrisy over and over and over again. They say they know what is best. They do not. You do. Don’t believe them when they […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: