DiscussMormonism.com

This topic doesn't need much intro really - I'm sure everyone posting on this forum knows what I'm talking about. In the pre-April 1990 endowment, there were "penalties" associated with the signs and tokens of the priesthood, which penalties consisted of making certain motions representing various ways in which a person might be killed, while stating that one would rather endure their life being taken, than reveal what one promised not to reveal. For those TBMs endowed after that time, who haven't risked hellfire by looking it up on the Internet, well, sorry you may have to sit this one out.

We've seen discussions of these penalties before, and the TBM response is invariably that they were merely there to represent how seriously endowed members take the oath of secrecy associated with the signs and tokens of the priesthood. No actual punishment was intended - it was merely symbolic.

At some parts during the endowment, a member promised not to reveal the [Nth] token of [whichever] priesthood, with it's accompanying name, sign, and penalty. Ok. So why were they called "penalties"? Which definition of the word "penalty" underpins the current TBM defense of these penalties? How is a "penalty" not really a "penalty"?

That's a good observation, Sethbag. To my shame, I'm afraid I never made the connection, but you're absolutely right.

There's something else I've been thinking about lately: For all the talk about what you covenant to go through rather than reveal what you learn in the temple, has anyone ever been in that situation?

I mean, where are all these violent non-members who are roving the landscape, so desperate to learn the secrets of the endowment that they're willing to kill Mormons in order to learn them? Has anyone met any of these people yet?