Friday, December 07, 2007

"We're the same!"

Mitt Romney gave a speech yesterday emphasizing how much his Mormon faith has in common with mainstream Christianity.

Not surprisingly, he didn't mention the Endowment ceremony.


The endowment ritual has undergone a number of major revisions in the 150 years since it was first introduced by Joseph Smith. The most drastic revision was in 1990, when major parts of the earlier forms of the endowment were removed, perhaps because even Mormons found them too offensive. The following description is based on the version as this writer experienced it, before the 1990 revisions, with comments about the 1990 revisions.

This article will merely summarize very briefly the essentials of the endowment ceremony. To read the entire liturgy, either in its present version or in older versions, click here for links.

The ritual is a dramatization of the Mormon interpretation of the creation and history of the world, emphasizing the Creation, the Fall of Adam, the expulsion from the Garden, and God's sending to humanity the message of salvation by means of the messengers Peter, James and John. The main characters in this ritual drama are God the Father (Elohim), Jehovah, and Michael (who later appears as Adam), Eve, Lucifer, Peter, James and John. Until 1990 a Christian Minister also appeared in a derogatory role, as a paid servant of Lucifer. Jesus does not appear in the drama, except as Jehovah, one of the creators of the world. No principles of doctrine are presented that an attentive Mormon has not already learned from his pre-endowment studies of Mormonism, other than perhaps the doctrine that his ultimate celestial exaltation will depend on his knowing the signs, tokens (handclasps) and passwords which he will learn during the endowment ritual.

Since the 1960s much of the dramatic part of the presentation has been presented by using motion pictures. In other words, temples nowadays are movie theaters, showing the same film, over and over. Prior to the introduction of the use of film, the dramatization was performed by temple workers. The dramatic presentations were not theatrical, but ritual. No attempt was made at verisimilitude or real acting. All characters wore white suits or dresses (except for Lucifer, who wore a black suit and a Masonic ceremonial apron, and the Christian minister, who wore ordinary street clothes)."

Uh huh. Christian ministers are paid servants of Lucifer (who is a Mason) and getting into Heaven requires secret handshakes and passwords.

Don't even get me started on sacred underwear and the Garden of Eden being right here in Independence, MO.

Beliefs that ALL Christians share. Right?

"Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here"


emawkc said...

The fact that you're so opposed to Romney makes me want to srsly consider voting for him.

Faith said...

I'm with emaw...I often wonder (usually late, late at night, when I wake up and realize that 2008 is right around the corner) what will happen to this blog if a dem is voted into office instead of someone entertaining like Guiliani or Romney. What will you dooooo???

Heather said...

I know I'm not the most active member in my church, but you keep attacking my faith like won't be getting a Christmas card.

You're starting to sound like Tony.

Xavier Onassis said...

WHOA now! Hold on just a minute. Ain't no need to go calling people "Tony"! That is viciousness of the most vile sort! LOL!

OK, I know I can be tedious sometimes. And Romney was just the target du jour. Everybody is pandering to the religious right, not just Romney.

When it comes right down to it, there ain't a bit of difference between sacred underwear, resurrected carpenters or burning bushes. It's all a crock of shit.

Quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me that the most powerful man in the world and all of those who want his job will so gleefully admit to believing in a bunch of old fairy tales.

Fact of the matter is, I would prefer a secular humanist for President. But there aren't any candidates who will admit that they don't believe in god.

I want a rational, FACT based, grounded-in-reality President who has the intellectual capacity to assimilate large quantities of complex data and use that information to make decisions that have the best interests of ALL AMERICANS as the guiding principal.

I don't want a President who views his office as a 4-8 year opportunity to forward the agenda of his political party.

And I SURE AS HELL don't want a President who thinks he is being guided and led by some supernatural Sky Daddy.

As Bill Maher once said, "Maybe if the President didn't believe in life after death he wouldn't be so gung ho to send Americans to Iraq to get blown up." Or something like that.

Now, if you were paying special attention, you will notice that I never used the terms liberal, democrat, mormon, neocon, or republican.

The criteria I just outlined trumps ALL of that other shit.

I just want a President who isn't bat-shit crazy.

Is that too much to ask?

travelingal said...

Face it XO, could be worse. A Baptist preacher might be heading to the oval office. Heh heh. I don't care for the guy myself but the very thought of the reaction on the KC blog circuit would be worth it. It would make the Funkhouser controversy look like a love fest.

satyavati said...

OK. You pushed a button here.

If I was running for president people all over would be denigrating me as a member of a crazy cult.

I look at it this way: when I was hiring people to work, I really didn't care what religion they were. I was hiring them to WORK. I don't care if they screw dobermans and parakeets on their own time... I don't care if they go to church and handle snakes or roll on the floor speaking in tongues. Do what you want. What I'm concerned about is what you do on MY time.

Why is being President so different? He's basically applying for a job. Neither the freaky sex (see your post above) nor the pot he smoked or the dope he shot or the time he shaved his crotch on a bet, all back in the day when he was young and stupid.. should have an impact. (I made all that stuff up, for you gullibles.)

I think it's entirely wrong that people would base their vote on someone's personal beliefs.

On the other hand, I also think it's wrong to be discriminatory of others' beliefs in the execution of your duty. A la GWB.

But at the same time, I think that this kind of thing just fuels more religious discrimination, of which we already have enough in this country.

Trust me, I know.

At least the Mormons are into having quality family time and eating healthy.

And besides, we could do worse. Phelps could be running.

Xavier Onassis said...

satyavati - if Romney and the other candidates said that their religion would have no influence on the execution of their job as president, I would agree with you and I would feel better about them.

But Romney flat out said that he disagrees with the secularists who want to remove God from the political world. He said we cannot have freedom without religion.

I have a huge, HUGE fucking problem with an attitude like that.

Huckleberry, and several others raised their hands and said they believe in creationism.

Again, fairy tales and nonsense.

Someone who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality should not be allowed to hold the office of the president. IMHO.

dianne said...

I'm voting for Mitt if he wins the nomination. I don't care if he's a Mormon. He's an A-1 businessman and will be the strongest leader when it comes to the economy. Nothing talks like money. Look what he did for Massachusetts and health care. He doesn't spend 10 years talking about a health care policy, he does it. I also like his stance on family values and I don't care that he changed his position on abortion. I changed mine too. He's a good man.

Unfortunately, I don't think he'll get the nomination. I still think it will be Guiliani because most Republicans think he's the only one that can beat any of the Democrats and that's probably right, slim chance at that.