No Love Lost Between Mormons and HBO’s “Big Love”
Have you heard about the next episode of HBO’s Big Love, set to air on Sunday (March 15, 2009)? It’s being widely reported that the television show will be depicting the LDS temple endowment ceremony as one of the main characters faces losing her LDS Church membership. Read more about it from The Associated Press.
As would be expected by anyone familiar with Mormon culture, the LDS community is up in arms over the proposition of a public viewing of the restricted temple ceremony. The Mormon Church has issued a formal statement encouraging members not to worry and to “conduct themselves with dignity and thoughtfulness” in the face of this new affront. Yet LDS members are quite upset, calling for boycotts and subscription cancellations of services associated with HBO and Time Warner. Joel Campbell at Mormon Times wrote some characteristically strong words about the issue:
“For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Time Warner’s Home Box Office network will cross a very bright ethical line when it airs an episode of ‘Big Love’ Sunday…
“What [Big Love producers] Olsen and Scheffer have created amounts to religious pornography. It takes something that is sacred and meant for personal reflection and commitment and throws it before the masses…
“Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe there should be any effort by government to censor HBO, but I do believe those who care about respect for religious ideals should enter the marketplace of ideas and make calm and reasoned arguments about why this show is offensive. The public should demand HBO observe higher ethical standards. HBO ought to make the ethical decision to pull the show based on its offense to members of the nation’s fourth largest religious denomination.”
The Mormon Curtain wrote that, in reporting the controversy, the Salt Lake Tribune originally published a story with an accompanying photo from the Big Love episode which portrayed the series’ character, Barb, wearing temple clothing complete with veil and fig leaf apron. The newspaper later replaced the photo with a more benign image of the Big Love cast and changed its headline from “‘Big Love’ Trampling the Sacred?” to “LDS Temple secrets? ‘Big Love’ TV episode angers Mormons.”
Mormons have long suggested that temple ceremonies should not be exposed to the public because the ceremonies are sacred. It could be that this phraseology has taken root as a natural response to the accusation from non-Mormons that temple ceremonies are secret. The typical Mormon answer to such an accusation is, “Temples are sacred, not secret.” But non-Mormons don’t understand that as a useful expression of the issue at hand.
We reason, the Book of Mormon is sacred, yet the LDS Church publishes and distributes it throughout the world without compunction. The so-called Sacred Grove, where Joseph Smith allegedly met and spoke with Heavenly Father and His Son in 1830, is today considered sacred ground; yet it is promoted by the LDS Church as a tourist attraction. Many people tramp through the spot each and every day. Both of these things (and others) are revered within the LDS community as “sacred and meant for personal reflection and commitment,” as Joel Campbell put it. Therefore, appealing to the sacred nature of the ceremony isn’t really an adequate explanation for why it is so important that the ceremony be kept hidden from the eyes of the public.
Is it unethical for HBO to portray the LDS temple ceremony on television? Is doing so “religious pornography”? Should HBO pull the show because it is offensive to some number of the nearly six million Mormons who live in the United States? What do you think?
See Also:
Comments (133)
How many evangelicals here think it was wrong for ancient Israel to include in its religion the practice of only allowing the High Priest into the Holy of Holies? Or only Levites to officiate in the sacrificial ordinances? The activities and ordinances of the temple were sacred and holy and not intended for the entire world to openly view to satisfy mere shallow curiosity.
Openly showing sacred and holy ceremonies against the wishes of the participating faithful is very well described as religious pornography. If a home movie of a married couple engaged in physical relations was openly shown to the public by a third party, would that not be considered pornography. In this sense, it is taking something that is good and wholesome and appropriate and opening it up to viewing by all. Showing the temple endowment is the same thing.
Our motivation for keeping such things sacred is simply to comply with what we believe is the Lord’s desires. He has commanded that these things be kept sacred. There really is nothing else that would keep me from sharing this with others whom I thought would be respectful.
I am sure many evangelical people here will be happy that LDS will be “exposed” by HBO in this manner. But I find this disrespectful in the highest order. These hollywood types have no decency or civility.
I believe it was said by John Adams that “You have the right to say whatever you want, but that doesn’t make saying whatever you want right.” Not everything that is legal is right or moral.
Personally, I don’t see why those not personally invovled with the religion would be so interested in the endowment. But I suppose there is no limit to the capacity of the degenerate to make a joke out of the sacred.
fof
Beautifully said, FOF.
Personally I would add one other point. The Endowment ceremony is intended to further a persons progression in eternity. It is reserved for those who are physically, mentally, and spiritually mature enough to comprehend its meaning and appreciate its purpose. For those who are not mature enough (either physically, mentally, or spiritually) it would only prove their damnation to see it. We are judged according to what we know, and to give a person more knowledge than they can handle is to condemn them (milk before meat – Line Upon Line). I believe that these ceremonies are kept from the world for this reason, so that the Justice of God does not way down quite as heavy on them.
The difference is we know what ceremonies went on in the temple. It wasn’t a you-can’t-tell-anyone-but-its-not-a-secret kind of thing.
I love the double standards. You guys are happy about HBO, freaking HBO which is a manufacturer and distributer of real pornography, doing something offensive to Mormons. Yeah, it doesn’t matter that this is the same channel that distributes Bill Maher’s trash against any and all religions, just as long as they take time to slander Mormons they’re ok in your book. And you guys wonder why we use [filtered profanity or slur] to describe people like you?
I am glad that someone has brought the temple ceremonies to the publics attention. I think that if this show prevents one more person from becoming part of the soul-sucking religion that is mormonism, than it has done humankind a favor.
FOF, non-mormons are curious to see what goes on in the temple because the LDS faith is a cult and cults do bizzare and interesting things. Why wouldn’t it be interesting to see people run around in bakers hats and green fig leaf aprons, women being made to veil their faces, the crazy pagan-like chanting, and lets not forget those stupid handshakes that are obviously stolen from the Masons.
Pay-Lay-Ale, Y’all!!!
“Openly showing sacred and holy ceremonies against the wishes of the participating faithful is very well described as religious pornography. If a home movie of a married couple engaged in physical relations was openly shown to the public by a third party, would that not be considered pornography. In this sense, it is taking something that is good and wholesome and appropriate and opening it up to viewing by all. Showing the temple endowment is the same thing.”
Why does it matter what non-Mormons do with your ceremony? It seems like Mormons do not like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Remember the thread about Mormons baptizing by proxy Jewish holocaust survivors?
Before anyone goes down the rabbit trail of “HBO is blurring the lines between LDS Mormons and Fundamentalist polygamists” let it be known that the character Barbara Hendrickson is the one character that is still technically LDS and a polygamist. The rest are either rank-and-file monogamous LDS Mormons or polygamist never-been-LDS Mormons. Barb is the one who will be shown doing the endowment. Anyone who watches the show knows that the distinction is made frequently and part of the drama of the show is the interaction between non-LDS polygamists and LDS Mormons and their church. When it says the lines are blurred, the LDS PR department is crying foul when no foul exist. The Salt Lake Mormon church does not like any talk of polygamy and their church in the same breath even if the discussion is accurate. It is obvious Big Love has theological consultants. In my estimation it is the most theologically oriented and astute show on the air.
The depiction of the endowment will have a context so the writers are not showing it for the sake of showing it. It that way the depiction is not gratuitous. The lines have not been blurred; that is a red herring. So, yeah take issue with Big Love for showing your ceremony but don’t cloud the issue.
From a practical standpoint, I wonder how this will affect LDS youth/teenagers who have never been through the endowment ceremony. Especially because it’s something they prepare for, but are not told what exactly will go on in the temple during the ceremony. I mean, will this completely ruin the whole experience for them? I guess what I mean is, there is so much power endowed (yes, that pun was intended) on things when they are secret (sacred, and yes, secret) and mysterious. If the secret aspect is removed, won’t it make the ceremony less powerful and have less of an impact later on? That being said, I seriously doubt that LDS families are going to sit down together and watch the episode all together, little Bobby and Susie looking on. But still, if teenagers or adults who have not yet been through the temple even see the HBO picture in a newspaper, won’t it lessen some of the LDS authorities’ spiritual power over its members lives?
“Brainwashedmormon”, let’s up the ante. If it was Playboy that had publicly exposed the LDS temple ceremony for purely commercial interests alongside its real pornographic filth, we should still be allowed some nuance: I am happy over part of the outcome (the general public gets better informed about Mormonism and inoculated), yet I wouldn’t approve of the motives behind the publication.
As for HBO being HBO, we of course don’t condone the kind of raunchy filth they distribute. Exposing the LDS temple ceremony doesn’t give them a free pass for that (and if we ever did give someone such a free pass, you’d be right to grill us for it).
But Mormons aren’t primarily complaining that it’s HBO who is exposing the embarrassing ceremony. The primary complaint is that they’re doing it at all. And that’s what we’re reporting and addressing, the kind of arguments Mormons are making against the exposure of the ceremony. Mormon arguments on this issue are self-defeating, as Sharon pointed out, and there needs to be more thoughtful and robust support for the assertion that exposure of the ceremony to non-Mormons is inherently wrong. We’re just not buying it.
Embarrassing ceremonies should be seen as embarrassing. Shameful rituals should be seen as shameful. Masonic borrowings should be seen as borrowings. And if such things are secretive, they should be publicly disseminated, especially if doing so will be a public service, no matter how sacred you feel they are. As Christians we often try to contextualize by accommodating social mores and taboos, but we are not always bound to, especially when being countercultural sheds light on the truth and is for the public good.
Neither Sharon nor I take delight in the mere fact that HBO is upsetting you Mormons. The enemies of our religious enemies are not automatically our friends. But in light of the good that God can work through the public exposure of cultic, secretive ceremonies, we are grateful.
Grace and peace in Christ,
Aaron
I have made my thoughts on these issues more clear here and here.
A Mormon friend told me today, and I quote, “The endowment serves to keep the weeds out, which is a great reason to bring back the throat slashing.”
He’s referring to the pre-1990 symbolic throat-slitting and disembowelment gestures.
I had expected this article sooner. Opportunists scavenging scraps of the news wire like vultures!
Let us make something clear. It is not up to Mormon Coffee to suggest what OUGHT to be sacred or ’secret’ to another religious group. What OUGHT to be- is an environment where religious people are not scorned for what they hold sacred–even if it advances your ‘theological’ or ‘entertainment’ purposes- this post breaks ranks with ethical considerations–forget HBO…you can expect that from Hollywood–you aren’t suppose to get that from ‘Christians’.
Sharon states,
“We reason, the Book of Mormon is sacred, yet the LDS Church publishes and distributes it throughout the world without compunction. The so-called Sacred Grove, where Joseph Smith allegedly met and spoke with Heavenly Father and His Son in 1830, is today considered sacred ground…”
We don’t expect you to agree with our beliefs, Sharon, we only request that you RESPECT THEM! It is so easy to question the sacredness of one’s belief-system when you do not hold it sacred. Any respectful person understands this!
“Is it unethical for HBO to portray the LDS temple ceremony on television?”
Would you appreciate HBO portraying YOUR beliefs OUT OF CONTEXT for ratings? Probably not. Hypocrisy is alive and well on Mormon Coffee.
More importantly, I doubt God appreciates this degrading of HIS purposes. I would fear God more than LDS on this one, folks.
To anyone who has this show scheduled on their DVR–shame on you!
So Amanda, you would be OK with a public show exposing the ceremony if it was in the context of a broader presentation on historic Mormonism?
I doubt that would satisfy Mormons. The watershed issue for Mormons doesn’t seem to be whether the ceremony is shown in instructional, educational, illuminating broader context for non-Mormons, but rather that the ceremony is being showing to non-Mormons at all.
In other words, no negative or critical spotlight allowed.
How is this not demanding an exemption from public scrutiny?
As I wrote before,
Megan,
“But still, if teenagers or adults who have not yet been through the temple even see the HBO picture in a newspaper, won’t it lessen some of the LDS authorities’ spiritual power over its members lives? ”
Any person baptized by proper priesthood authority has the gift of the Holy Ghost to discern truth and wickedness when they see it. I suspect many youth, including adults, who listen to the spirit will not be watching the program…I know I won’t.
I’m really disappointed in your main concern: freeing LDS youth from the spiritual stranglehold of the leaders–instead of how incredibly disrespectful this is to LDS people! Do you not get that? Do you honestly not get that? Our sacred practices are only for those who desire them, whether they grew up on the church or not. Consider the Mormon ‘adviser’…who sold their soul for respect they will never receive–no one had a strangle-hold on him/her.
The more adversity and scorn the church receives, the more I am convinced of its origin: Christ who suffered adversity and scorn at the hands of men. I am willing to endure all kinds of ridicule for His sake, and consider it a badge of honor.
I’m surprised any of you feel comfortable commenting on this thread this way, then pretend to desire friendships with LDS… so disingenuous…SO FAKE!
I think the issue is that Mormons believe JS was a prophet and, therefore, everything that came as a result of his leadership is the way it is supposed to be. The problem arises when changes are made by subsequent Church leaders that supersede the purported revelations of God to JS. The Mormon temple ritual is scrutinized by followers of Jesus Christ to show evidence that JS was not a prophet if indeed what he established needed to be changed. I know the temple ritual has changed so that it is more palatable. The reasons for change are usually so it’s easier for non-Mormons to accept as something “sacred” to the Mormon. Hey, if Mormons want to say it’s sacred to them, then what’s the big deal?: you see, it is sacred to Mormons. But, whether or not something is sacred or secret is not really the point: the point is whether or not the temple ritual is something that God has designed to help us reach the so-called “celestial kingdom,” where we will then become gods. Personally, after having been an active RM, temple-going member, I no longer believe in the temple ritual. I no longer believe in it, because there is nothing–ritual or act–that could ever be needed in addition to what Jesus Christ did for me on the cross before being raised from the dead. After being justified by faith, we become children of God–a change in relationship–and then starts the work of sanctification, or being made holy as God is holy. This process is the work of God, and He is faithful to complete it–it’s not a work that I could ever do. This life is Spirit-empowered living–NOT temple-empowered living. With that said, I hope that I have allowed the Mormons to the right of believing the temple is a “sacred” place for them, even though I don’t believe that. Jesus takes us all the way on His merits: there is no need for a temple endowment to complete the Work on the Cross. And, that’s why it’s important that we discuss this topic.
Peace and Blessings!
I haven’t seen the show at all but it sounds like it is full of all manner of offensive material. Having said that, the reason the mormon temple ceremony is so hush hush is because of how bizarre the events are that happen within the walls. Having been through it myself, I remember how “off” it seemed at the time. We had been built up to expect such a great blessing from it and instead the whole thing was just so incredibly profane. Little wonder that mormons make people wait a year and go through classes before they can “claim their blessings” in the temples. Give a new convert to Christianity any teaching that might ever come up, and while they may not get it totally, it won’t freak them out. Take a new mormon convert into a temple after a month, without all the buildup, and people would leave in droves.
There is plenty that is generally unethical about ‘Big Love’ from what I hear and HBO in general, but there is nothign inherently unethical about protraying a religious ceremony if done factually.
One thing the LDS church has to ‘face up to’ is the internet. In the past the only outside sources about the temple ceremony were disgruntled ex-LDS, books they had written or inspired someone else to write and seminars given by these people. Then the distribution logistics were difficult because they would then have to either advertise the book or seminar, or try and find out who is investigating the LDS church and then get the material to them somehow. This later predicament was done quite efficiently in Finland when the Lutheran priest heard about of of his congregation listening to the LDS missionaries he rang the head office who then sent literature out to the priest who then gave it to the person. The literature was from an ex-LDS member who was being paid by the Finnish Lutheran church to write disparraging things about the LDS church. He got most of his information and writting style from Ed Decker.
These days with the internet, all one has to do is write what they know about a topic and its then in the public domain generally uncersured and uncensurable. So the temple ceremony is out there whether the LDS like it or not. Yes its sacred and they are asked to keep it that way by not talking about it with people who would not understand it without the proper introduction. But its there and everyone who wants to can access it. Now its going into the big arena on TV. I myself would be interested in watching the show just to see how they portray it. They say it has context, etc, so it may just fit in with what they want to say. They will not be showing the whole ceremony (that would be more than the allotted time for the episode) and I wonder which ceremony they will show – the latest, one of the older ones, or an ‘apostate’ version that the FLDS use (if they have one – does anyone know if they do or not?).
I, myself, hold it sacred NOT secret and because of the internet domain would be willing to discuss the ceremony on a one on one basis if that person has a genuine interest to understand it and its context and they show a reasonable amount of respect towards the ceremony and my beliefs. In that way, the person would most likely walk away with a greater understanding of how sacred and important it is and what its meaning is. But that is my view.
But the internet is an issue for the LDS church and I think from the statement from the church referenced above is taking this into consideration as well as falling back on the statement by JS saying that this is the true church and no matter what happens it will go on until the Second Coming. This (ie the TV show) could be a small stumbling block, or it could be a good missionary tool.
Aaron,
You aren’t outsmarting anyone, “So Amanda, you would be OK with a public show exposing the ceremony if it as in the context of a broader presentation on historic Mormonism?”
The endowment is only in context when received by a worthy member earnestly desiring to enter into that covenant IN THE TEMPLE. Any other forum by any other individual with a less-than-wholesome agenda (such as HBO’s entertainment agenda, and your philosophical agenda) is OUT OF CONTEXT…this is reminiscent of those demanding to see the golden plates! You don’t make demands of God! You humble yourself, and God shows you His mysteries on His OWN terms.
“How is keeping this ceremony secret respectful of those who would appreciate making a more informed decision as to whether or not to join or stay in the Mormon Church?”
First of all, you can stay in the church and never go to the temple. So let’s eradicate that falsehood right away. As to the rest of your statement: circular logic. Missionaries don’t ask people to go to the temple–they ask them to be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
“Insisting that I comply to the demand of Mormons to keep the ceremony secret is essentially insisting that I treat the ceremony as more sacred than the people who would be positively affected by open exposure to the ceremony.”
Aaron, you are confusing. What is your need to know about a ceremony you do not want to participate in? Can you not let things alone, and respect the desire of LDS to keep their practices sacred? If you truly are curious about the endowment, you know the proper channels to learn more about it–and it isn’t from Hollywood or Mormon Coffee. So quit it with the victim hood role–you aren’t convincing anyone!
It will always remain a ’secret’ to those who refuse to humble themselves before God and acknowledge its’ sacredness. So in that way, I suppose it is a secret–to you, and others by your own choices. God is demanding this remain in a sacred context–not LDS. And all we are insisting is that you reasonably respect what is sacred to others. The things of God are for GOD to teach and instruct—not HBO or Aaron Shafavoloff, or the devil. So be honest…your intentions are FAR from humble curiosity and interest–and more along the lines of exploitation at the expense of others. You will not see the consequences of this show airing like the LDS community will. I’m truly disgusted.
Arthur,
So i guess there would be nothing wrong with portraying an intimate relationship with you and your wife (assuming you are married) so long as it is FACTUAL? Or teenage girls distributing nude pictures of their unaware classmates so long as it is FACTUAL?
Amanda,
Have you been to the temple to receive your endowment? If you have I would be interested in hearing your reaction to the process and if you would have preferred more detailed information about what will be required of you before going through with it. I think this can be done without discussing specifics.
Personally, I was a Mormon for 29 years and spent more time in the temple then I care to admit now. I think the desire to keep it away from the general public is more from the obscure, “Gadianton like” rituals, trying to protect the “we are Christian too” image the LDS church is pushing.
They chant “sacred not secret” but I don’t think they are fooling anyone. The only reason it is not secret is because some have already exposed it through various means so the secret is out. There is something inherently wrong with an organization that refuses to properly inform its member of a “special blessing” and what is required of them to receive it until they have already fully committed to it. I applaud anyone who has the strength and courage to stand up (in front of your family and leaders) and walk out of the endowment room when they ask if there is anyone not willing to go through the ceremony (not knowing what lies ahead of course).
Keep in mind that there is no way they will be able to show the entire temple experience so more then likely they will show a brief part of the endowment, possibly part of the washing and anointing and the celestial room (from the picture). I doubt all of your sacred signs and tokens will be on public display…just one or two.
I hope Google is ready for the swell in “Mormon temple” searches Sunday night.
Amanda, I will let the words of an ex-Mormon Christian speak to your comment:
Aaron…AMEN TO THAT
What a great letter…that could have been me writting those words.
Aaron,
That isn’t a response…that is propaganda. It doesn’t reflect faithful members’ perspective–and there are millions of us. I doubt your blog has the capacity to list all the testimony ever given over the pulpit in the church regarding temples- I remain unmoved and certain that your position is vacuous at best.
And winner number 2 of the Vacuous Position Award goes to….
Soy yo,
I don’t see how my being endowed or not is relevant to the topic. This is about respecting what other people find sacred–and not selling it for an agenda…no matter how much you disagree with those practices. Going down Tangent Lane and visiting every shop selling [filtered profanity or slur] propaganda is missing the point.
I’m sorry you are so ashamed of God. Make no mistake, I do not fear for myself…but I wonder if you fear for yourself given your blatant apostasy. You did make a promise of your own free will and choice to respect the proceedings–so just that alone would place you in an unworthy category as far as honesty and virtue are concerned.
authors,
(You have got to be kidding me! you are censoring [filtered profanity or slur] Give me a break!)
Moderator’s note: Don’t try to get around the filter or you’ll get a “card”. More on the a-word here.
I wonder how non-Mormon masons feel about their sacred rituals being lifted by Joseph Smith? I can honestly state that “Joseph started it”. He is the one who showed masonic rituals to non-masons which then became a standard part of Mormonism. Big Love is outing a Mormon ceremony that was stolen from free masonry. Seriously, how can Mormons claim to have dibs on a ceremony that they ‘incorporated’ from masonry? It seems like the Masons should be the ones to be ticked off.
SoYo wrote
There is something inherently wrong with an organization that refuses to properly inform its member of a “special blessing” and what is required of them to receive it until they have already fully committed to it.
that pretty much hits the nail right on the head…..as long as the LDS cling to the sacred=secret formula (against all biblical counsel), don’t expect this debate to cool at all
nice work Sharon, AARON, SoYo
GERMIT
Amanda: pound the table and shriek, but it’s hard to defend the kind of secrecy you hold up as respect…..you don’t have a biblical precedent, that I can see.
Amanda, I’m sorry that you feel angry towards me, this format, and others on here who are in favor of LDS temple ceremonies being exposed. Yes, I am in favor of the ceremonies being “made public”. I am far more concerned with people (teenagers among them) being freed from an untrue belief system. As far as respecting the temple ceremony, I don’t respect it because I believe it is unbiblical, and serves as a huge psychological power over Mormon’s lives. So much is tied to the temple. If you don’t wear your undergarments or follow the Wow, no temple for you. If you don’t get married in the temple, you don’t get to the CK. Do you see how this could serve to control people psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually, especially when there is such an element of secrecy until members are deemed “worthy” enough? Even worse, the ceremonies are tied to people’s salvation when the NT is clear that ceremonies do not save people. I will tell you how I do respect your temple ceremonies: I respect the fact that they are important and sacred to you, but that does not mean the topic should be off-limits to non-Mormons. I don’t like or watch HBO, but if some good can come out of this show exposing one of the temple ceremonies, then I am happy. As far as pretending to want friendships with LDS people, I actually have a few….in real life. I would never say to my LDS friends in person, “Tell me about those secret ceremonies of yours.” That conversation wouldn’t go very far. But, this blog is an open forum where Christian and Mormon issues can be discussed and everything is on the table, so I think this subject is appropriate to this blog. The fact that this subject is open for discussion should not lead to shock or or a sense of betrayal. Why shouldn’t we discuss an issue that so deeply affects Mormons’ salvation, and the biblical ramifications of such ceremonies? As far as comparing temple ceremonies to a husband and wife having sex, I think that is a real stretch. LDS ceremonies include many people, husband/wife relations include only two people.
Amanda, it actually has everything to do with it. You have not been there so you don’t really know what you are defending.
You said:
”I’m sorry you are so ashamed of God. Make no mistake, I do not fear for myself…but I wonder if you fear for yourself given your blatant apostasy. You did make a promise of your own free will and choice to respect the proceedings–so just that alone would place you in an unworthy category as far as honesty and virtue are concerned.”
Ashamed of God I am not. I love and worship God now more then ever. My relationship with Him has grown exponentially since leaving the LDS church and discovering the power and life available through His grace.
Did I promise to not reveal the secret (read sacred) goings on of the temple? Yes. Did I make that promise before actually being shown and going through the things I was supposed to keep secret? Yes.
It is like someone coming up to you and saying, “Don’t be offended but…” While you might say ok, you have no way of knowing what is going to come out of the person’s mouth next so your promise to not be offended is easily broken when you hear what comes next. Should you really be held to that if what happens next is so offensive that you cringe at just the though of what you experienced?
Talking about honesty and virtue and the LDS church is a can of worms I don’t think you want to open.
Until you go through the temple yourself, you will never understand. I’m ok with the “evil apostate” label. My family has actually called me worse.
Germit,
It is my turn to say nice post. You summed it all up, “you don’t have a biblical precedent.” End of story, shut out the lights, …”you don’t have a biblical precedent.” I can’t seem to be able to type that enough, “you don’t have a biblical precedent.” Wow it just rolls of my fingers, “you don’t have a biblical precedent.”
Wait, “you don’t have a biblical precedent” in case you missed it. There realy isn’t anything else to be said.
You don’t have a biblical precedent. Sorry, I coundn’t help myself.
Amanda: sorry for the ‘dog-pile”, but I’m sure you can get some lds friends to reply back with you
since you brought up the analogy: God does not mind talking about sex, it’s to be done privately, but IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT, we share that info with our kids just as soon as they are of age to hear it. Woe to the parents that hold back that education, or leave it to the schools to do it. There is nothing “shrouded” about it, even though the acts themselves are private. God does not mind people knowing what is going on, and this does not HAVE to lead to porn. God ordained and secretive just don’t mix. At least they shouldn’t.
you seem to be the flavor of the week here at MC
hoping you opt for openness in all your worship
GERMIT
PS to Gundek: I KNEW you could be naughty…….I’m still laughing at my boy Gun-dog snapping off…..
It amazes me that LDS are up in arms about this up coming episode when you can find all the temple ceremonies online. They have been there for all the world to see for many years now including actual audio.
We’ve had “Big Love” screen here in Australia.
I don’t watch it, but I’ve seen snippets, so I understand the plot scenario (one husband with three(?) wives and several adult children).
Are the characters presented as being part of a Mormon community?
Amanda wrote “Any person baptized by proper priesthood authority has the gift of the Holy Ghost to discern truth and wickedness when they see it.”
Seems to me that LDS teaching relies on water baptism in order to get the baptism of the Holy Ghost (in other words, faith in the system). If I understand correctly, Amanda’s logic is No Baptism = No Holy Ghost = Be vulnerable to the untruths of HBO.
So, what was going on in Acts 10:44-48? These folks got the baptism of the Holy Ghost before baptism by water; to quote;-
“44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
As Gundeck so delighted in MrGermit’s comment, “You’ve got no Biblical precedent”.
LDS can’t expect the world to be ethical and respectful just because they’re offended by HBO. Grow up. Life’s not fair. Deal with it. If HBO has a show about a Hindu wedding, that does not mean they’re mocking it. LDS is just upset because their public relations and marketing departments can’t control this. Seekers are not supposed to find out about the weird stuff until they’ve been “courted” for a while.
Biblical precedent for “secrecy” or a better term- selective access? How about there being in the temple a place where only one person can enter- once a year. Those who were not Israelite were not allowed in the temple. The sacred items- ark, menorah, staff, etc. were seen by very few. Just because we know now what happened in the ancient temple does not mean outside people of the day were allowed any access to such knowledge. I am actually stunned that people claim there is no precedent for this concept.
Aaron- there is nothing embarrassing or shameful about the endowment. It is God Himself that you shame in such statements.
A person immersed in the world will not recognize or appreciate that which God holds dear or which deserves reverence. Reminds me of the words of Nephi: “For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet.”
How about the Savior Himself: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.” Is there anything you would withhold from others due to its holiness? If not, yours is not the religion of which Christ spoke.
It is truly amazing how well people who call themselves Christians justify treating other people with such disrespect. The willingness to injure others is astonishing. Great efforts are exerted to define the theological criteria for being a “Christian.” Yet the same people turn around and think nothing about stomping on the religious feelings and dignity of their neighbor. Talk about straining at knats and swallowing camels.
What matters to God? Everything I read in scripture suggests that what matters most to God is how we treat those around us. This comes before all intellectual or theological considerations. Consider Christ’s response when asked which was the greatest commandments- “Love the Lord thy God and Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
But people choose to justify unchristian treatment of others because their “love” of their neighbor is of a “higher order.” “I know what is good for my neighbor.”
By the way, I find it fascinating that 99.9% of LDS critics never look into the actual text of the Book of Mormon, but are very eager to sit and watch demonstrations of the endowment. So very lazy and shallow. Juvenile. Weak minded.
fof
“By the way, I find it fascinating that 99.9% of LDS critics never look into the actual text of the Book of Mormon, but are very eager to sit and watch demonstrations of the endowment. So very lazy and shallow. Juvenile. Weak minded.”
By the way, I find it fascinating that 99.9% of LDS have never even watched the actual show Big Love, but are very eager to sit and pass judgment on the context of the show. So very lazy and shallow. Juvenile. Weak minded.
FOF,
Maybe I missed it but I don’t recall ever reading about LDS temple worship the way it is today in the Book of Mormon. Looking into the actual text of the BoM does no good if there is nothing there to support Mormon doctrines like the temple.
Wait, it does talk about Gadianton and the secret oaths and covenants.
Helaman 6:26
26 Now behold, those secret oaths and covenants did not come forth unto Gadianton from the records which were delivered unto Helaman; but behold, they were put into the heart of Gadianton by that same being who did entice our first parents to partake of the forbidden fruit—
Is that the reference to actual Book of Mormon text you were looking for?
Amanda,
You said the following:
“The more adversity and scorn the church receives, the more I am convinced of its origin: Christ who suffered adversity and scorn at the hands of men. I am willing to endure all kinds of ridicule for His sake, and consider it a badge of honor.”
If adversity and scorn is an indicator of correct teachings and divine origins, then it should follow that paganism is correct. Between 1480 to 1700, tens of thousands of people in europe lost their lives for holding onto pagan belief, and not converting to christianity. Even children as young as two years old were accused of witchcraft and burned alive.
The abrahamic religions have a long standing condemnation and persecution for gentile/pagan religion. From wikipedia:
“The Hebrew Bible condemns sorcery. Deuteronomy 18:11-12 calls it an “abomination” and Exodus 22:18 prescribes “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”[4], and tales like that of 1 Samuel 28, reporting how Saul “hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land”[5] suggesting that in practice, sorcery could at least lead to exile.
In later Jewish history, Rabbi Simeon ben Shetach – Pharisee scholar and Nasi of the Sanhedrin in the First Century B.C. – is reported to have on a single day sentenced to death eighty women in Ashkelon, who had been charged with witchcraft.”
The hebrew god had these instructions reguarding pagan objects
Deut 7: 4-5
“For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.”
Here is an example of scorn of pagan objects.
“Deuteronomy 7:25
The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therin: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.
7:26
Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.
Killing of entire gentile cities.
QUOTE FROM THE JEWISH TALMUD: Hilkkoth Akum X1: “Show no mercy to the Goyim.”
2:30
But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.
2:31
And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.
2:32
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.
2:33
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
2:34
And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: ”
I am sure there are other examples of adversity and scorn from one faith to another, some of which could have nothing to do with the LDS faith or any of the abrahamic religions.
From my own personal experience of being married to a TBM the “magic PJ” are a complete turn off and put up a HUGE barrier between husband and wife. I wish I go back in time and say NO when I was asked if I minded her doing the “temple” stuff. Now I get to live with the aftermath.
Philippians 1:21
For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain.
Arthur,
Apparently, having been a LDS does not make a person immune from naivite’ regarding church doctrine. Who ever said that every truth or doctrine was outlined in either the Bible or Book of Mormon? It is a goofy argument, in my opinion, that since the temple endowment is not identified and explained in the BOM that this somehow proves one of the two false- either the BOM or the ordinances. Why does the endowment have to be referenced in the BOM? Must God do things the way you want Him to?
The comparison that you and others make between Gadianton Robbers and the Temple is also quite goofy. They really are silly observations. What are the motives and intentions that the Gadianton robbers hide? Something about murdering innocent men, women, and children and something about plunder. The connection to the temple couldn’t be clearer. Ha Ha Ha!
The devil has counterfeits for almost everything sacred.
You misunderstood my point, or I didn’t make it clear. The fact that critics will spend significant time watching re-enactments of the endowment yet never read the Book of Mormon shows their true colors. They seek quick and cheap titillation, not real understanding.
fof
FoF,
I was the one who mentioned the Gadianton oaths. I brought them up because that was what ran through my mind over and over again the first time I went through the temple.
I never said I thought Gadianton was participating in temple worship. I look more at how the act of participating in secret oaths and covenants is not looked upon in a good light and actually said to have come from Satan. I found nothing in the current LDS temple endowment to make me thing the secret oaths and signs I made came from a different source then those of Gadianton. Do modern LDS go around killing and plundering? Of course not, but that does not mean there could not be another purpose to keeping them from the general public.
The idea of “the fullness of the Gospel” in the Book of Mormon has been kicked around enough so I don’t think we need to go down that path again. I think 29 years of activity in the Mormon church puts me in a pretty good place to see both sides and “understand” the issues at hand. For what it is worth, I stopped counting how many times I made it through the Book of Mormon but I would guess it is over 15.
I’m off to bed…
Enki,
your comment about not talking about the temple outside of it is not exactly true. Before I went to the temple my stake president sat down with me (actually, we took a walk down his street) and explained to me most of what happens in the temple including the initiatory work. I went through the temple in 1989 so it was before the changes to shorten the ceremony. He did leave a few things out, but what he explained to me is all found in the scriptures in one form or another – but not directly indicated as part of a temple ceremony.
As for your question about discussing it in the temple – most of it can be and is discussed within the temple, especially with those who are going through for the first time – if they had any questions about their experience.
At least that was and has been my experience. It is possibly different in other temples and for other people because of the people and their ‘inhibitions’ in that area.
Martin,
The characters in Big Love are a mixed bag. The main family, the Hendricksons, live in Utah (in or near Salt Lake City) and are non-LDS. They are “Mormon” in that they believe in the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith is a prophet. One of the wives (the one who will be doing the endowment) has an LDS background and is still technically a member though she is inactive. Much of the Hendrickson’s drama takes place with Mormon fundamentalists from “Juniper Creek” which parallels a real fundamentalist community by the name of Short Creek.
FoF,
The issue people have with temple ceremonies is not goofy. If temple ordinances are a big deal, necessary, and ancient then expecting to see a mere reference to them in at least one ancient witness (the Bible or the BoM) is not asking for too much. Furthermore, in the Bible, the role of the temple seems very different from the modern LDS use of it. No marriages, no handshakes, just a whole lot killing. It is all about death, (animal) sacrifice, and atonement (OK some of the offerings were grain offerings). So when the BoM comes along, and has temples in it, it would go along way to bolster Joseph Smith’s claim that the ceremonies are ancient if they are found in his ancient witness.
Still Furthermore, we do know the origin of Mormon temple practices (at least some of them) and they are not ancient. They are Masonic and are no more than 600 years old at the most. This further hurts the credibility of Mormonism’s claims. So, it is not a smoking gun to state that the temple ceremonies are not found in the Bible or the BoM. It is even a bit of a non-sequitur . It is all about building a case and for your temples it does not look good.
Enki said “About the word ’sacred’, from what I understand the word derives from the latin ’sacrum’, refering to the tail bone”
Enki,
I appreciate your etymology, and I find it quite fascinating.
However, you might agree that the modern use of words does not always agree with their origins. I don’t think (and I invite anyone to correct me), that anyone here is using the word ’sacred’ with an association to ‘tailbone’. Rather, we’re searching for a word to convey a sense of “special”, in particular “special to God and worthy of deference”.
There are some words in English that now have very different meanings to their ancestors; for example “silly” and “protest” (as in “Protestant”).
We digress a little, but the evolving use of language is one reason why there can never be an exact translation of the Bible; translators are always weighing transliteration against dynamic equivalence.
Again, I appreciate your exploration of the origins of some of the words used here. However, I trust that you will grant them the same understanding that is meant by the people who write them, and this will, on occasion, be different from their original meanings.
Tom Hanks puts this brouhaha into perspective (and waxes prophetic) at the 3rd season premiere of Big Love:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7JgK_mmEBk
“There’s gonna be lies, and secrets, and discoveries, and problems. Television!”
First let me apologize for repeatedly writing, “You don’t have a biblical precedent.” It was uncalled for and juvenile. Looking back I should have just complimented Germit for his keen observation and not made a spectacle.
FoF,
Your comparison of the exclusion of non-Hebrews from participating in the Temple or Tabernacle sacrifices to Mormon rituals in your temples does not hold water. The book of Leviticus prescribes the sacrifices to be preformed in the Tabernacle, these are not secrets. In fact Leviticus 10:1-2 show how serious God takes worship, when he reigned fire down on the sons of Aaron for using unauthorised fire before the Lord.
Your quoting of Matt 7:6 is, taken out of context. The pearls in this verse represent the value of the message of the kingdom of heaven, the Gospel. Jesus is telling his disciples to examine the people that they proclaim the Gospel to and to move on if they sinfully reject it. There is nothing about hiding secret ceremonies.
You go on to quote Jesus when he says “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10:27; cf. Matt. 22:37–38; Mark 12:28–31). Jesus is quoting from the Shema in Deut 6:4-9. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” Do you not see the irony in this? This verse alone undermines all of the claims of Joseph Smith when he created the endowment ceremony. In fact I would say that the clearest thing in all of the Bible is that there is but one God.
Fof: you wrote:
How about the Savior Himself: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.” Is there anything you would withhold from others due to its holiness? If not, yours is not the religion of which Christ spoke.
there is a difference between something “withheld” and something kept secret. Jesus was not into secrecy, and that is just not the biblical standard for anything holy. We know quite a bit about what the high priests did and didn’t do, what the ark was all about, etc. and this info is available TO ALL: GOD is not keeping that to HIMSELF, granted the info will not help those who choose to reject the giver of such marvelous channels of grace. Again, your reference falls flat: secret does not equal sacred, never has and never will. Granted, HBO might not handle the disclosure of the holy in the most sympathetic of manner, but you are barking up the wrong tree to have your temple ceremonies “off limits” to all inquiry or discussion.
You will get a big AMEN on this (we need our secrecy) from anyone from a GNOSTIC background or worldview….hmmmmm.
I do like this quote of yours.
The devil has counterfeits for almost everything sacred.
I also appreciate your reminding us that GOD very much cares how we treat each other. That needs to be said, and restated, and lived out. I sure need the reminder.
Blessings on you and yours
PS: working on James today, thanks for waiting
GERMIT
David wrote “[The temple is] all about death, (animal) sacrifice, and atonement (OK some of the offerings were grain offerings).”
David,
Thanks for the background on “Big Love”.
Regarding the Temple, I seriously think that our understanding of the Bible is inhibited because we have nothing like the Jerusalem Temple in operation today. BTW you’re right to assert that the LDS Temples are nothing like the Biblical Temple, but neither are any Christian churches (though they don’t pretend to be).
The way I read it, in the ancient near east the Temple’s functions were broadly;
1 The centre of the city, providing a common meeting place for the people for them to affirm their collective identity through various festivals and activities
2 The defining architecture of the city, in the sense that the city got its “character” and reputation from the deity that was celebrated in the temple
3 The place where animals would be slaughtered and where you’d get your food (literally, your “daily bread”)
4 The repository for important documents and national treasures
5 The place for common worship, with concentric rings of exclusion (note that the ‘outer’ courts were usually accessible to all and sundry)
I wonder if the Jerusalem Temple differed from the others because of the occasional public recital of scripture. Judging from the Gospel records, it was obviously a place where people would meet and discuss scripture (Luke 2:46). I understand that the centre of learning in Jerusalem revolved around the temple, and this would be where learned men would interpret the written law on behalf of the people. I imagine that this is where the Rabbis Shimei and Hillel would battle it out over what constituted legal divorce (which is important background for Jesus’ teachings on the subject).
Some things that did not happen in the Temples were;
1 Baptisms and marriages
2 Entombments for the dead
In some pagan temples, sex was used in secret rituals, much to the disgust of the Biblical prophets.
So, in order to ‘create’ a modern equivalent, you’d have to mix together elements of the White House, National Monuments, a Super-Bowl stadium, your local grocery store, a red-brick university and the modern TV and internet media. We could say that the national gross domestic product was focussed on the Temple, so perhaps we should throw in the central bank as well.
Its in this context, I believe, that we should start to read the NT statements that associate Jesus with the “true” or “heavenly” temple. In short, Jesus fulfills in himself all of the functions and purposes of the earthly temple. Our problem in understanding this is that we don’t see this temple system in operation today.
P.S.
Nowadays, we tend to gloss over the Biblical term “in Christ”. What’s revolutionary about this is that its saying “no longer in the Temple”.
As an experiment, try substituting “in the Temple” next time you read the NT, and see what you get.
I haven’t read all the new posts this morning, but I knew comparisons to LDS temple ceremonies and OT temple ceremonies were going to be made. I think when Mormons compare the OT temple to the LDS temple they are really missing the point. The whole purpose of the OT temple and its accompanying ceremonies was to provide a way for the Israelites to be purified from their sins. There were no chairs near the altar because the temple priests’ work was never done. The Israelites’ sin was constant and pervasive. Although they sought to live righteous lives, as sinful human beings (original sin), their need for purification was on-going. God never intended for the OT temple and its priests to be a permanent solution. It was supposed to be a template, pointing the way to the day when Christ would become our sacrificial lamb. Jesus is both our High Priest AND our sacrificial lamb. Heb. 1:3 tells us that “After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Sitting down signifying completion). Heb. 7:12 says, “For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.” Heb. 7:18 “The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.” Heb. 8:8-12 quotes Jer. 31:31-34, telling us that the old covenant (the temple and its accompanying rituals) will pass away. Just as background on the book of Hebrews, the temple was almost certainly still standing when it was written, and new, Jewish Christians felt insecure that they did not have a temple to go through. The whole point of Hebrews is that since Jesus is our great High Priest who completed the sacrifice to take away our sins once and for all, we have no need for a temple and its accompanying rituals. The temple was ordained and organized by God, but the need for one disappeared after Jesus died on the cross and exclaimed, “It is finished!” What then, is the point of the LDS temple? The Bible is clear that we do not need a temple and ceremonies to attain salvation. If Mormons want to put on their special outfits and do all their rituals, that is one thing, but when people’s salvation (ie, the LDS CK) are tied to the temple, that is a problem. For that reason, the more the rituals are exposed, the better. What a fiction that we need to go through a temple to make us right with God and help us attain salvation.
Gundek: nice work above
……since I laughed at your repetition for about 14 minutes, and don’t even feel bad about it, does this mean I’m worse than you ??
I guess I can confess in private..
GERMIT
There seems a certain inevitability in this story. It is inevitable that so-called Mormon “sacred ceremonies” will figure in the controversial HBO TV series Big Love, an every day tale of polygamists; inevitable that the Mormons would complain bitterly; inevitable that the officials of the church would not encourage a boycott of HBO but that their very public statement to that effect would trigger a “spontaneous” movement among grass roots Mormons to do just that; inevitable that the makers of the programme would be depicted as careless and inaccurate in their portrayal of Mormonism.
After all it is written somewhere – surely – that only Mormons can tell the Mormon story. of course, in that case you would never get to hear about this part of the story because it is all too “sacred” to talk about.
In an official statement church leaders have said:
“Certainly church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding,”
Now here is a conundrum. There is no indication that these leaders have actually viewed the scenes so how can they possibly know whether they misrepresent or take out of context Mormon “sacred” temple ceremonies? We are told that an expert in these ceremonies was on set to guide the directors and actors in achieving accuracy. Maybe they did just that?
Mormons take a vow not to talk about these ceremonies outside the temple. If these leaders have seen the scenes, how are they to correct them if they can’t discuss them? That’s the problem when you blur the line between “sacred” and secret. They blame you for getting it wrong, even though they probably haven’t viewed it, and will not tell you how to get it right because they won’t talk about it.
Mormons seem easily offended and one has to ask whether it is right to simply roll over every time they cry foul. What is the definition and nature of “offense” in every day life? Is there really an offense simply because someone “takes offense”? Or is offense proved as much by the intention of the assumed offender as the feelings of the one offended? Mormons really need to tell the difference between something that is offensive and something they simply don’t like or would prefer didn’t happen. They call my church apostate and that is offensive but I don’t feel the need to issue a press statement every day of the week; I get over it and get on with life. I surely wish they would with theirs.
In the real world, outside the rarified (stifling?) atmosphere of Mormondom people do shrug off so much in their every day lives and if they don’t they are considered touchy. But Mormons have always been good at playing the martyr, considering themselves “persecuted” if someone challenges their faith in Joe Smith, offended if someone tells their story for them in a way that they don’t like, victims because someone slams a door in their face. If they ever met real persecution – as millions of Christians do around the world every day – I don’t know what they would do.
Finally, there is the central issue of the series – polygamy.
“Despite earlier assurances from HBO, it once again blurs the distinction between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the show’s fictional non-Mormon characters and their practices,” the church statement said.
The problem is that the characters portrayed in the series are Mormons; just not Salt Lake Mormons. One of the greatest scandals of the Salt Lake Mormon Church is their stone-faced denial of any responsibility for polygamy. They keep insisting that other Mormons are not Mormons; that there is no such thing as Mormon fundamentalism; that they alone are permitted to tell this story. But the Mormons instigated polygamy, practiced it widely for the best part of a century and abandoned it only because the civil authorities made them.
It is simply shameful that the Salt Lake church should wash its hands of something that is integral to their faith and show not a jot of sympathy for or solidarity with those who consider themselves more faithful to the original vision of Mormonism. Then they have the brass neck to complain when someone else steps up to the plate to tell the story they have disowned. But Mormons have always been good at shrugging off responsibility for their own story, refusing to own problems of their own making and then blaming others for telling the truth.
Tribune has a great article today about this issue.
The purpose of this thread as I understand it is not to determine if the temple ordinances are founded in scripture or to argue their origins. Rather it is to discuss the appropriateness of taking something that is sacred to one religion and publically smearing it for entertainment purposes. And if you don’t think the intention of the makers of Big Love is to smear LDS, consider Tom Hanks’ (one of the producers) recent statement that Mormons are un-American for opposing gay marriage. Do you really think there is no connection? Maybe you think it is possible for a person with such an opinion of us to objectively portray something like the endowment in a fair manner. If you believe this, I have a bridge somewhere to sell.
By the way- arguing that the LDS temple is nothing like Solomon’s Temple is pointless. We would in large measure agree with that argument. The similarities are that it is God’s Holy House and that sacred ordinances are performed there. You are free to go into great detail about the Law of Moses and the temple, but such is a mute point.
We believe the Temple is the House of God and is sacred. You are free to believe otherwise. But those who seek to “expose” those sacred things, and those who cheer these crusaders on have absolutely no class. The godless who mock us today will openly ridicule your faith tomorrow.
For those hoping this little controversy will hinder the work of the Lord or His kingdom, I wouldn’t hold your breath. It will likely have NO effect on the church. These things have been happening for 180 years. The church will continue to grow and preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ despite all the predictable attempts by the father of lies to prevent it.
fof
FoF…you said
“Maybe you think it is possible for a person with such an opinion of us to objectively portray something like the endowment in a fair manner. If you believe this, I have a bridge somewhere to sell.”
Why don’t we hold judgment on how “objectively” the temple experience is portrayed until the episode is actually seen. To claim that it is not done accurately and in proper respect or context before watching it makes for ill-informed and shallow objections.
You could say it would be like a non-mormon not reading the Book of Mormon but objecting to its content. Now where have I heard that before?
But FoF, I think the real question is, do we NEED a temple to perform holy ordinances, such as the ones that link a Mormon to their salvation? I think this is such an important question. If people do not need a special temple, ceremonies, and ordinances to secure their salvation (from a biblical perspective), aren’t the LDS temples pointless? I don’t think it would be christlike to laugh at or mock the rituals/ordinances that Mormons hold dear. But questioning whether these ceremonies accomplish what they purport to accomplish (making one right with God, making it possible to go to heaven, ie the CK), and questioning whether they have a biblical precedent is worthwhile. These are deadly serious questions, and are so important in the grand scheme of things. Do we really need such temples/ordinances to be right with God? Do they really make one’s admittance to heaven more likely?
FoF; you wrote
Rather it is to discuss the appropriateness of taking something that is sacred to one religion and publically smearing it for entertainment purposes.
really more to the point, and I think AARON asked a question quite a bit like this already, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC PORTAYAL OF YOUR CEREMONIES THAT YOU’D SIGN OFF ON ?? I’m thinking probably “NO”…..and that is as much of an issue as “HBO this” or “HBO that”. I’m not trying to make HBO out to be the good guys, I’m stupid, but not that naive, but the elephant waking through the room, LOUDLY, is that there is no category of something that we as ev.’s would say “don’t show that……it’s much too holy……”
this is a categorical difference between us, and it matters because you guys claim to be “the real deal christianity”…..so excuse me , Amanda, but your exclusive truth claims about christianity make your secret thing-a-ma-jig GERMIT’s business. I’m not too interested in a secret Shaolin service, but something that presents itself as the restored gospel of JESUS CHRIST has my attention, whether you welcome it or not. And yes, I’ll use the differences on our respective views of what constitutes “holiness” or “sacredness” to my aplogetic advantage: not just to make LDS look bad, but so that the world would know what holiness really is….and isn’t. I think that’s pretty important.
sorry if that seems all up in your grill, but that’s how we roll
if it helps any, I’ll be watching to see HOW HBO handles the portrayal, because yes, that matters as well.
Thank GOD , the KEEPER of our souls
GERMIT
SoYO: very nice post, your last one
,
Sorry, the posts on this thread all seemed to be saying about the same thing, so I have not read them all. For this reason if I repeat anything I appologyze.
I would like to ask all non-members what their reaction would be if a person snuck into their home and filmed them making love and then aired it on national television so they could exploit the twisted desires of the public?
I can tell you that if I found any person trying to do such a thing to me they would be in serious danger of physical harm while my wife called the police.
This is the same feeling that the LDS have towards the temple ceremony. It is private, it is sacred, and it should onley be shared by those who are worthy to share it. The temple is the house of God, and to sneak in with hidden camera’s amounts to the rape of his privacey.
Just so you know, I have not been through these ceremonies as of yet, as I have made mistakes in the past. However, I hope with all my heart that I will participate in them very soon. I have never seen this show, and though my mind is curious I will avoid it for the rest of my life. If I did happen to see this particular episode, or the picture mentioned, it would have no effect on how I perceive the church our its leaders. They are prophets called of God, just like Moses or Peter or Paul or Abraham. They have the keys of his priesthood and I will follow them to hell if they ask.
It is not the secret of these ceremonies that carries the power, but the knowledge of what they are and what they are for.
FoF,
Claiming something as sacred does not make it so. The Bible is replete with references to false gods and temples and how they are to be handled. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal. The Chroniclers praise the Kings of Judah who rid the land of idolatry.
You warn us that, “The godless who mock us today will openly ridicule your faith tomorrow.” Get in line, Christianity has been openly ridiculed long before Joseph Smith and your temples. In fact some of the very “scholarly research” posted by the Mormons on this site comes from secular writers bent on ridicule of the faithful.
I use the M’Cheyne bible calendar every year as a devotional. In this plan you read from 4 separate parts of the Bible each day, covering the Old Testament once and the Psalms and New Testament twice. The wonderful thing about this plan is that you are never far from either having read or getting close to reading any part of the Bible. It keeps you grounded in the Word.
I say this because the reading for yesterday was John 2 where Jesus cleanses the Temple. Jesus tells his questioners in John 2:19 to destroy this temple and in three days he will raise it up. John admits in John 2:22 that Jesus’ disciples did not fully comprehend what Jesus meant until after he was raised on the third day. Only then did they remember his reference to the temple, made so much earlier in his ministry and they believed the Scripture and the words he had spoken.
Tomorrow the reading will include John 4 where Jesus will tell the Samaritan woman that the day is coming when there will be no worship in the Temple at Jerusalem much less the Samaritan center of worship (John 4:21-24). All true worship of God will be done in spirit and truth.
A couple of weeks ago I read Paul tell the Corinthians ” Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” (1 Cor 3:16, 17) It seems that Paul thinks the members of the Church are the temple and sacred. He makes this same point again in Ephesians 2:19-22. In fact in Ephesians 2:22, contrary to your position, Paul makes the bold claim that the Church is the dwelling place for God by the Spirit, not a man made temple. Despite claims to the contrary the temple is important in Christian theology and for any man or group of men to claim that they can build God’s house is not at all sacred.
What is CK?
Shematwater, I don’t always read the posts either but I wish you had read all the ones for this thread. I think the comparison between temple rituals and husband/wife relations has been discussed (not that more couldn’t be said by commenters), as well as the purpose of discussing the topic of this thread.
I guess what stands out to me in your comment is that you had to get yourself worthy/ready for the temple because of mistakes in your past. I know this is common practice for Mormons going to the temple, ie, if one commits sins they have a period where they do not go to the temple untl they have spent time proving their worthiness. It makes me sad that you have to prove your worthiness for the temple. Contrast that with the thief on the cross realizing his sin, and immediately asking Jesus’ forgiveness. At that moment he was covered in Christs’ cleansing blood and was right with God. If I have sin in my life, God is right here in my life for me to ask forgiveness. The forgiveness is instantaneous. I don’t have to spend time getting ready to become right with God. I ask God for help, and HE makes me right with Him, NEVER me. That’s one of the things that bothers me about the LDS premise that we need a temple. We can be right with God without one, the Bible tells us so, especially in Hebrews.
Linda, CK stands for “Celestial Kingdom”. Mormons believe that Christs’ sacrifice saved the whole world from hell (universal salvation), and it is not necessary for people to choose Jesus in this life to avoid it. In LDS teaching there are three levels in eternity: Telestial, Terrestrial, Celestial. Only Mormons who wear their garments, follow all Mormon teachings, go to the temple, are married in the temple, will go to the Celestial Kingdom to be with God (what we think of as heaven). Even doing all of these things does not guarantee a Mormon’s entrance to the Celestial Kingdom, but it does make it much more likely.
To All: well, if there is a benefit to a secular , thrill seeking enterprise like HBO meddling in Mormon affairs, then it’s the variety of discussions , some peripheral, that it will engender. This might seem just a bother, but I can see some good come out of it. Granted, the LDS will not be thrilled by anyone’s portrayal of what goes on in there except there own (and I’m not sure how MUCH of a portrayal that could be and not offend them……I’m thinking Ralph’s stance is a staunchly minority view).
Still, if a wider cross section of America becomes aware of LDS endowment, what it is and isn’t, I can see that as a positive. some of the “discussion” might not be of a quality and tone that GERMIT would prefer, but that’s how these passionate topics go.
Gundek: very nice intro line:
Claiming something as sacred does not make it so
blessings on all whose KING is the LORD
GERMIT
With such an emotionally charged topic it’s easy to lose sight of what’s really going on. HBO is not sneaking into a Mormon temple with a hidden camera and then airing the footage on television, as has been alluded to here by one of our LDS friends. Big Love is telling a story about fictional people. It is recreating an LDS temple scene as part of the story, much as Hollywood might recreate any other scene involving a character living out his or her fictional life. It is a false dichotomy to equate what HBO is doing with someone secretly filming and airing something from a married couple’s bedroom. Television regularly recreates bedroom scenes between husbands and wives, for which different people have varying levels of tolerance. These scenes may sometimes be in bad taste or morally questionable, but they are not “rape” of someone’s privacy.
Do you see the difference?
Shemawater,
“I would like to ask all non-members what their reaction would be if a person snuck into their home and filmed them making love and then aired it on national television so they could exploit the twisted desires of the public?”
Your appeal would not fall on deaf ears were not for the fact that your prophet showed secret handshakes to non-masons. Now, when non-Mormons are in the know about your private rituals you cry foul. You would not even have your (some) rituals if your prophet had not shared secrets he should not have shared to those non-mason Mormons who were “unworthy”.
“The temple is the house of God, and to sneak in with hidden camera’s amounts to the rape of his privacey.”
I cannot vouch for every instance but I think the primary way non-Mormons found out about your temple rituals is by members/ex-members revealing those rituals, much the same way Mormons did with Masonic rituals.
“They have the keys of his priesthood and I will follow them to hell if they ask.”
I am glad I am a Monergist that is why I can honestly state that God can change your mind and I hope that He does. If not, you may follow them to hell.
Megan,
Thanks for filling me in. I too think that it is sad that LDS have to work to be worthy of the temple. What is even more bothersome to me about that is they’re not waiting for God’s approval put the approval of other men, their leaders.
Gundeck,
You mention false god and temples, and the remainder of your comments assume that the LDS temple is just such a false temple.
Look at the purpose and goal of our temples. The whole purpose for these structures and everything that takes place in them is to help individuals draw closer to God and His only Begotten Son. We make promises and covenants with God to keep His commandments, accept His Son and serve our fellow man. Pretty controversial! And certainly worthy of mockery and attack.
One weakness common to many is the inability or refusal to judge righteously. If one chooses to spend their life criticizing and attacking people for following a life of discipline and dedication to Christ as is asked of temple-attending mormons, it is more a reflection of that critic than it is of those mormons.
“By their fruits ye shall know them.” Mormons who worship in their temples are by no means perfect, but as a group of people, look at their lives and ask yourself what fruits you see.
When I am in the temple, I feel overwhelming love for Heavenly Father and His perfect Son, Jesus Christ. I truly feel closer to my fellowman and desire to serve and help them. Each time I leave I am more motivated to do what is right and to love God. The temple makes me a better human being.
fof
Sharon,
I think the idea that someone took a hidden camera into the temple came from a mass email that was sent out the other day. My wife received it and it has the following quote.
“However, as if the polygamy weren’t bad enough, HBO has taken their unscrupulousness to new heights.
On Sunday, March 15, 2009, HBO will be airing a segment of their Big Love series titled Goin’ to the Chapel. In this segment, they will be showing individuals dressed in full temple clothing (you can see the picture right in the TV guideitself), and they are planning on sending secret cameras in to the temple to show the inside of the temple itself.”
More then likely, this has made the rounds but it does not seem to be consistent with what I have read from the Big Love producers.
Thanks, Soy Yo. I was not aware of the rumor floating around. Thanks for the info.
Amanda wrote:
“Let us make something clear. It is not up to Mormon Coffee to suggest what OUGHT to be sacred or ’secret’ to another religious group. What OUGHT to be- is an environment where religious people are not scorned for what they hold sacred–even if it advances your ‘theological’ or ‘entertainment’ purposes- this post breaks ranks with ethical considerations–forget HBO…you can expect that from Hollywood–you aren’t suppose to get that from ‘Christians’.”
Maybe someone should have told these guys:
“…join none of them for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;” Joseph Smith
“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense… Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol[sic]; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.” John Taylor
Until recently the Mormon temple endowment ceremony included a portrayal on film of the “typical” Christian clergyman. This man is in the pay of Satan and receives his instructions from him. He preaches for material gain, bartering with Satan for his wages. His message, “orthodox religion”, is ridiculous and incomprehensible, “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”.
The Mormon Church trades on the modern creed that every religion is of equal value, everyone’s right “in their own way” and we should all respect that. However, Christians know that there is right and wrong, truth and falsehood, righteousness and sin and a way that seems right to a man but that leads to destruction. Mormonism is founded on the claim that the ways of Christendom lead to destruction. Christians, in turn, warn others that there is no salvation in Mormonism. They teach that we are apostate, and we teach that they are a cult and in serious error. It’s a messy old place sometimes but welcome to the real world.
By all means let’s talk to and listen to each other but I wish Mormons would stop pretending that they “don’t tear down other people’s religion to build up theirs”. Their religion is founded on the denunciation and destruction of other people’s religions.
FoF,
You say: “The whole purpose for these structures and everything that takes place in them is to help individuals draw closer to God and His only Begotten Son.” Why do you need a temple to do that? And you not only need the temple, you need to work for your temple recommend. And to get that, you have to prove your faith to others and your leaders. You are ultimately only pleasing your leaders, not God.
Someone said that Tom Hanks is a producer of the show. I am just wondering how ‘impartial’ he is about the LDS church. He made that comment about the Prop8 thing a few weeks ago and then there is this show. He has a past with the LDS church – his mother married a member and joined the church when he was young (very early teens). He didn’t join himself at that time (in fact he never joined anyway). But maybe his experience with this has left him a little jaundiced against the LDS church.
But that aside, germit said that my stance is probably in the minority. Maybe, maybe not. The LDS in Utah and some places in America are crammed in closely and thus have little experience with the outside world. Here where I live, I was the only LDS in my grade. At school there were my sisters and 3 other members, something like 7 members in a school of between 850 and 900. I was beat up and tormented/teased almost everyday from 2nd grade (6 yrs old) to year 12 (18 yrs old) because I was different to the others. There were a couple of differences – I was smarter (not trying to boast here, just explain a difference) and I had my beliefs/religion. So I am used to a little sniping. As far as this episode goes, I do not like the idea of it being aired, but what can I really do about it? It is already on the internet, many people know about it, so why complain? Get out there and start answering questions is the best way to deal with it now – its no use closing the gate once the whole herd has left the paddock. But, if anyone has read the article that Aaron pointed to the writer states -
I like the part where he says that if you tell someone its not their business they will find a way to prove it is. That happens a lot. So we need to just deal with it.
I congratulate Ralph on his healthy nd robust attitude, i.e. its out there so stop bleating, grapple with the issues and give some answers. That said I was disappointed to read this:
“Someone said that Tom Hanks is a producer of the show. I am just wondering how ‘impartial’ he is about the LDS church. He made that comment about the Prop8 thing a few weeks ago and then there is this show. He has a past with the LDS church – his mother married a member and joined the church when he was young (very early teens). He didn’t join himself at that time (in fact he never joined anyway). But maybe his experience with this has left him a little jaundiced against the LDS church.”
Maybe, just maybe HBO are making this series because its a good story and will make a few dollars for them. Why do Mormons always want to ascribe the basest, most sinister of motives to those they don’t like? Why do they think they are the centre of the world, imagine that anyone who has ever had anything to do with them holds a grudge and that this explains everything? They want people to look at their religion and then complain when people find it interesting.
FoF,
I know that I am unable to judge righteously (Proverbs 12:15; 14:12; 16:25; 30:12; Gal 6:3; Eph 5:6; ). This is why I rely on the Word of God for that, “which is necessary unto salvation.” I must trust the Scriptures, if they are wrong there is no salvation. Paul tells us “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures; And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.” (1 Cor 15:3-5)
There is a fatal flaw in your argument. You ignore Scripture. Paul told the Greeks at the Areopagus, “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands…” (Acts 17:24) These Greeks had religion. The Greeks were convinced of their righteousness. They were convinced that their temples brought them closer to their God. They were wrong. I am convinced Paul was correct. I cannot find any reference in the New Testament requireing temple cerimonies for salvation. Am I missing something?
I have, in my last 2 posts, shown why I do not find Mormon temples or anything that goes on in them to be of God or to be prescribed in in the Bible. Your answer is to boast that Mormons are righteous so temples must be good? Christ’s true apostles have something to say about that too (Romans 3:27; 4:2; 1 Cor 1:29; 5:6; James 4:16). What is the difference between your position and people “following a life of discipline and dedication” to Allah or Buddha?
Aaron’s son’s Nadab and Abihu chose a path similar to yours and tried to worship in a manner they found pleasing (Lev 10:1-3). God did not accept it and told Moses, “Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.” Nadab and Abihu, unlike Mormons, were worshiping the true God and still had fire reigned down on them. We were discussing James 1:5 and praying for wisdom. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7).
Megan wrote “Just as background on the book of Hebrews, the temple was almost certainly still standing when it was written, and new, Jewish Christians felt insecure that they did not have a temple to go through.”
Megan,
I believe it goes further than that. The Book of Hebrews explores the subject at length. My reading is that its not just offering an alternative to “dis-entempled” Jewish Christians, the core of its message is that Christ is what the Temple was pointing to. In fact, “… you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God.” (Heb 12:22).
What was so revolutionary in first century Israel was that the early Christians were substituting Jesus Christ for the physical temple in Jerusalem. For example, to be clean before God you no longer went to the temple, you went to Christ. This message was vindicated by the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD70, and the early Christians, I believe, understood this to be God saying “the old system has done its purpose, and now begins the reign of God and His Christ”. The new order has been inaugurated by Christ, his death and resurrection “…for the old order of things has passed away.” (Rev 21:4).
Now, if Christianity has put Christ where the temple was, what, in heaven’s name, is Mormonism doing by putting a temple where Christ should be? I’ve posted it before, and I’ll post it again; Mormonism undoes the work of Christ.
Soy Yo,
I never said yea or nay to being endowed. Yet your entire comment towards me was based on the assumption that I haven’t…I do not cast pears before swine…It is inappropriate for me to divulge personal commitments with God so you can twist it in your holy war against Him. Won’t go there–and won’t allow you the opportunity to pervert what I hold sacred. Good luck in life–though I believe you will need more than luck.
Everyone,
I apologize that I cannot get to the entirety of your responses to me- I am vastly outnumbered. I did read most of them…and they are all easily summed up. You all basically ignore my original contention. I certainly believe HBO is using temple ceremonies held sacred by LDS for ratings…that is a no-brainer–and expected from Hollywood. My issue is with those on here who claim to be ‘Christian’ why they would employ the same exploitative tactics to garner support for their ideology of rejection. Do you not see that this cheap tactic is so deeply offensive to those you claim to minister to? I find this post objectionable on the basis of who you all claim to be- not my fears of the program airing–or something being ‘exposed’! God will take care of them–I just thought I could expect more from all of you who claim God in your lives. Why align yourselves with an industry that readily attacks the God you claim to love so much? Why distance yourselves with a community of believers who stood with you on prop 8?
The idea that any of you are entitled to satiate your curiosity at the behest of defiling the religion of millions–I implore you to reconsider your selfish position. It doesn’t harm me any–but a lack of character on your part will certainly harm your alleged ministry to the LDS. It has certainly questioned my perception of you.
This show is really a smorgasbord of gossip for those who wish ill-will on the restored gospel. Quit pretending to have the moral high-ground on ‘transparency’. You all know the temple ordinances are for EVERYONE who sincerely desires them–they are not designed to be thrust upon the unbeliever for the sake of ridicule.
1 Ne. 19: 7
7 For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words—they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels.
Ezek. 34: 19.
Jeremiah 1:19
D&C 124:46
But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.
Authors,
I really resent the censoring tool you use which suggests that I was using profanity or slurs….you believe it is a slur because you characterize your propaganda as ministry–your prerogative–but at least don’t brand me a profane individual–that is defamatory.
Gundeck wrote “I cannot find any reference in the New Testament requiring temple cerimonies for salvation. Am I missing something?”
No.
I’m also struggling to think of anything in the OT that requires ceremonies for salvation. Maybe someone else can post something.
There’s plenty of “calling on the Lord”(Psalm 120:1, 2 Chron 7:14), or “calling on the Name of the Lord”. This last quote, from Joel 2:32 gets repeated in Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13, and I like it a lot because it requires no pre-qualifications on the part of the person doing the calling.
The Biblical emphasis is always on the power of God to save, not the power of the ceremony or rite to save. For example, the first of the ten commandments opens with “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” Ex 20:2. You’ll notice that there’s nothing along the lines of “you’ve done the right ceremonies, so I responded by saving you from Egypt”
By contrast, there is plenty of Biblical precedent for censure when faith is placed in the ceremony or rite or sign. For example, the Bronze Serpent was used as a reminder that the people had sinned against God, and if they looked to it, it would heal the poison from the snakes that had been unleashed on them as a judgement (Numbers 21:4-9). However, by the time of Hezekiah, the people had begun to reverence the sign and they forgot the God to which the sign pointed. So Hezekiah “brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made” (2 Kings 18:4).
We could also say the same thing about the reliance the Jews placed on circumcision, and much of the NT addresses this issue.
There’s a very strong Biblical meme that these tangible signs are just that; signs that point to God. Putting faith in, or relying on (or worshipping) the ceremony or token or sign is actually a form of idolatry.
Amanda Says:
…why they would employ the same exploitative tactics to garner support for their ideology of rejection. Do you not see that this cheap tactic is so deeply offensive to those you claim to minister to?
Oh my, can’t you see LDS does the same thing? You are supposedly the only right religion. You’re the ones who have to revere your leader and view outsiders as evil.
Our self-righteousness is based on the Bible. Yours is based on what a man wrote, who gave himself supposed authority from God to start a new religion.
Amanda, I think you’re missing the point of this thread. You’re right, if the purpose of this thread would be to mock something that Mormons hold sacred, that would be absolutely wrong. No wonder you sound so shocked and disillusioned if that’s what you think we’re doing here. I have read all the comments and I’m happy to say that I have not seen any mocking or laughing going on (at least as far as I can tell).
I think the real point of this discussion is to question why Mormons believe that temple ceremonies (ie, endowments) are going to cement their eternal destiny. The question we need to answer is, can this be supported biblically? Another important discussion is, does the Bible say that we NEED temples/ceremonies to make us right with God? If you can find any place in the Bible that tells us we all need to head on down to the temple and perform rites to save us, I would really be interested in hearing it (not being sarcastic).
FOF said, “For those hoping this little controversy will hinder the work of the Lord or His kingdom, I wouldn’t hold your breath. It will likely have NO effect on the church.”
The presupposition that Mormonism is true Christianity doing the work of God’s Kingdom is self-imposed and not congruent with God’s Holy Word. In Mormonism the temple is “the place” for humans to learn what they need to know in order to continue eternal progression and become gods. This is the place where they not only perform the necessary functions for godhood, but have to have already earned a measure of worthiness based on their behavior in order to get there in the first place. Once again, the weight in gaining salvation is placed on human effort: if I don’t go through the temple process and all that the process entails, then I won’t gain entrance into God’s presence. That’s the nuts and bolts of this issue as I see it. The truth of what the Word of God reveals to me is that I am His Holy Temple, and that the work that happens in me (the temple) is the work of the Holy Spirit. My involvement in the synergistic equation is to acknowledge my sinfulness and sins, realize I am utterly helpless to save myself, see my need for repentance, and look to Jesus Christ for salvation. Then, I give consent for God to make me holy as He is holy, and He is faithful to complete it. This is how humans enter into God’s presence. This is the temple work of which the New Testament speaks. What JS brought into the world is not from God, but from his own thinking.
FOF also said, “The purpose of this thread as I understand it is not to determine if the temple ordinances are founded in scripture or to argue their origins. Rather it is to discuss the appropriateness of taking something that is sacred to one religion and publically smearing it for entertainment purposes.”
Naturally, the conversation will address the origins of LDS temple ritual in an effort by Christians to debunk the fallacies of JS teachings, which is what the temple ritual is: the product of JS teachings. And, this is what Christians are called to do. Fighting against heresies have been the work of the Church since the first century. Can Christians become overzealous and make errors in how they do this work of fighting against heresies? Absolutely. But, the focus should be on the heart of the Christian? Why do Christians even give any thought to heretical teachings, let alone try to debunk them? Because they are perfect in love. Yes, we love people. We hate lies and heresies. Now, sometimes the Christian comes off as being a Mormon-hater, and that is sad. And we do need to assess how we go about doing the work God has called us to do. Now, in all fairness, what I have just said about Christians can be said about Mormons. I believe we all have the motive of teaching what we believe to be Truth that saves souls. As I have said before, therein lies our dilemma. I understand this thread is not about exploring this comment any further, so I won’t. And, I have rambled too much, anyway. As for respecting others: absolutely, and I hope I have shown respect to Mormons and to their faith.
Peace and Blessings!
FOF
I’m a little disturbed that you give credit to the temple for making you a better person. This seems to me to be on the verge of idolatry. God makes us better people, not a place. I don’t think you quite realized how this comment might sound. I think I get what you’re trying to say, but it really came off as “temple worship” as opposed to “God worship.” Please believe I’m not attacking you, but merely trying to bring something to your attention that you might not have thought about. Also, I would like for you to try to understand that the feelings you described about loving God and having a desire to serve your fellowmen are not unique to a “temple experience,” as you seem to portray it. I feel all of that just by simply praising and worshiping God in my apartment. Just something for you to think about.
Peace and Grace!
Amanda,
This is my third post making this point about irony. Much of what goes on in your temple goes on because Joseph Smith and possibly other Mormons divulged masonic secrets to non-masons. Then Mormons/ex-Mormons turn around and tell/depict to others what they have learned about your religion. Mormons cry foul but in doing so they are drawing more attention to their secret/sacred ceremonies and the origins of those ceremonies.
Does anyone see the irony and the double standard here? Does anyone see the double standard in the attitude Mormons here have regarding the request of some rabbis to desist in by proxy baptisms for holocaust victims?
JackG and David. Your posts are amazing!!! Thank you for articulating the point so well without being negative.
Amanda,
I guess I fail to see how simply saying, “Yes, I’ve been through the temple endowment.” or “No, I have not been through the temple endowment.” is casting pearls before swine.
You are right, I need more then luck in life. I need God’s grace and Spirit to be poured over me each and every day. He is my portion and He gives me my daily bread. Withouth Him in my life, I would have no life.
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ – 1Cor. 1:3
Megan,
What do you think of these scriptures?
Luke 24: 49 (‘endued’, lds use the word endowed)
James 3: 13
Gen. 3: 21(lds hint that this is a type of priesthood garment)
1 Kgs. 7: 25, 44(the lds scripture guide states that this is a baptismal font)
Be careful, the media has had films and other critical review of christian belief which caused no small stir. Films which really distort the belief are pretty easy to ignore, but its my observation that when the criticism is right on it makes a lot of people upset.
Temples around the world have a revered object, a symbol, scripture, or images or imagery associated with them. It seems to some degree that christians are in a state of cognitive dissonance that they have don’t have temples. The use of crosses, cruxifixes, satutues, paintings, obelisks and the bible itself indicates that christians have temples. Its not necessarily for ’secret’ rituals, but it does appear to be a temple. The anciet jews had the arc of the covenant which was a revered object. Something to think about if you believe that christians don’t have temples.
Enki,
No, no, no. You misunderstand me. There is NOTHING wrong with religious symbolism,. rite, and ceremony. You are right, the Bible is rich with religious ceremony, etc. Before we moved to our current state (my husband is in the military), we attended a non-denominational church with a Baptist history. Most baptist churches are pretty plain inside, maybe some banners, stained glass windows. The one ceremonial object (or objects) it had was for communion (similar to LDS sacrament), silvery platters for communion crackers and silvery drink holders for the little plastic cups of grape juice that the ushers passed around once a month. In the state we live in now, we attend an Episcopal church. My favorite thing about attending a more liturgical, or “high” church, is all the ceremonies and ceremonial objects we use. I love the fact that we have a certain liturgy we say every Sunday according to the church calendar. Soon it will be Easter week, and for the past year I have been looking forward to the special service (actually, there are special services all week long) the night before Easter Sunday. We begin the service in complete darkness (symbolizing Christ’s death), and then mid-way through the service, the lights come on, we ring bells, and shout, “He is risen!” Then we all go to the altar for communion. This service never fails to move me. God has given we humans the gifts of expression and creativity, and I think He loves the different ways we worship Him. The problem with religious rites and ceremonies is when they are tied to our salvation, or promise unbiblical, blasphemous things, such as Mormons believing that certain rites will help them become gods in eternity. I disagree with you that Christian churches and cathedrals are really temples. The temple in the OT was to purify God’s people from their sins. Now that the old has passed away, as described in Hebrews, God does His purifying work in us, His temples, through the cleansing blood of Christ. 1 Cor. 3:16, 1 Cor.6:19, 2 Cor. 6:16..
I don’t feel like I adequately explained how we are now God’s temple, so if anyone else wants to add on, feel free!
Amanda
I am curious to know why you think it is so extremely offensive and unchristian for the Mormon temple endowment to be discussed and portrayed while it is fine for Mormon leaders to denegrate, revile and slander Christian churches, as I have illustrated. Why, as has already been pointed out, is it alright for Mormons to reveal secret Masonic rites while it is somehow damningly offensive for others to reveal secret Mormon rites? Why is it wrong to challenge and discuss Mormon temple rites but just fine for those same temple rites to include the portrayal of a Christian minister in the pay of Satan? Why the hysteria when it is clear to anyone who cares to know it that the Mormon Church does not extend to others the respect it demands for itself?
Finally, perhaps someone could explain this to me. Temple worthiness is the goal of every good Mormon but the requirements are strict. You have to have been a church member for at least a year. In two interviews, one with the bishop and one with the Stake President, you have to show yourself to be morally clean, unquestioningly loyal to the church, a full and honest tithe payer, and to be keeping the Mormon health law, the Word of Wisdom; to have dedicated your life to the building up of the church.
In contrast, the whole purpose of the temple in ancient Israel was to make those attending aware of their unworthiness before God. It was not their worthiness that qualified them to go, but rather their unworthiness that necessitated their attending and making the required sacrifices:
“When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.” (Lev.5: 5).
Did you get that? “When ayone is guilty”!
The same thing applies in the New Testament and we come to Christ because of our sin and not because we are worthy, i.e. “Christ died for our sins”. Every Christian can say, with confidence, “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness; no merit of my own I claim, but wholly trust in Jesus’ name.”
Every Christian stands before God in a righteousness not his own, every Mormon stands before God clothed in a righteousness that is gained by strenuous keeping of the Mormon laws. The level of righteousness required is unattainable; the Bible says so and every Mormon who has lived a little knows it. Every Mormon faces his inquisitors, the bishop and the Stake President, knowing that his own performance alone will determine whether he will be allowed to enter this next level of Mormon progression.
Comparing these two approaches reminds us of Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the publican who went to pray in the temple (Luke 18). The Pharisee was proud of his worthiness and was condemned by Jesus. The man who went away justified was the publican who bowed his head and said, “God be merciful to me, a sinner.”
I hope they show pre-1990 version. You know with the death oaths if you reveiled temple happening to anyone. Or maybe the pre 2005 version where you are bare naked (in the washing and anointing)with nothing covering you but a poncho with the sides open, and the temple worker reaching inside to bless parts. I found the temple cold and creepy. Let’s get real people, if you do not want to be called a cult, stop acting like one.
ex mormon
Enki,
I hope you do not mind me answering your questions about the verses you brought up.
Luke 24:49 you say that the Mormons see the word “endued” as endowed. The Greek word is ἐνδύω enduō (Strong’s 1746). The DBL shows its uses; clothe, dress (another), (Lk 15:22); dress oneself, wear clothes (Matt 6:25; Mark 1:6; Luke 8:27; 24:49; Acts 12:21; Rom 13:12; 1 Cor 15:53; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10; 1Thes 5:8; Rev 1:13; 2 Co 5:3).
In its context this verse is referring to the promise of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; Acts 1:4; [Acts 2:33; Eph. 1:13]; See Acts 2:16, 17) that was fulfilled in Acts 2:1-4. The term “endued” or “clothed”, used in more modern translations, has direct OT connotations (Job 29:14; Psalm. 132:9). I did a quick word search of the AV and didn’t find endowment; I did find endow in Exodus 22:16.
Gen 3:21 It seems odd that God would give temple garments to Adam an Eve after they had committed the first sin causing the fall of man. Other commentators have pointed out that Gen 3:21 may have been the institution of animal sacrifice and pointing to Leviticus 17:11 and Hebrews 9:22.
1 Kings 7:25, 44 While LDS scripture may claim that this was a baptismal font, the Chronicler in 2 Chronicles 4:6 tells us that this “was for the priests to wash in.”
jackg,
You are so right. Having something in this world that inspires you and makes you want to do better at keeping the commandments and love God is certainly on the “verge of idolatry.” How dare I. You are certainly helping me open my eyes to what a wretched person I am.
Honestly- I think I am done with this site. The smallness is sometimes beyond belief. I know you all think LDS are “pharisees” because we believe in doing good works, but I suggest a little look in the mirror and a review of why pharisees are rebuked by Christ in the New Testament.
To those who have nothing better to do with their time than mock and criticize the religious faith of others, I would say- get a life! I am more than a little embarrassed for you.
Every thread here is the same.
fof
Fof,
I’m glad you commented again. I think we have chased away all LDS at this point. I want to ask a personal question but I genuinely don’t want to come across as judging. I hope I can phrase this clearly.
You are blessed, obviously, by your temple experience. You feel closer to God and are fed spiritually by being there. For you personally, how do you distinguish between feeling close to God and also the sense of accomplishment (success) you must feel? Both are joyful experiences. Is there a difference in the two?
Maybe what I’m really asking or hoping is that you feel close to God in bad times too. Because when things go our way, don’t we thank God for giving us the ability to be successful? And when things are very sad, for me personally I just hang onto God’s hand with all my might to help me through.
From my understanding, it takes a lot of dedication and commitment to get to the endowment ceremony. So if you make it there, who gets the credit? and if you don’t make it, who is to blame? I’m just really concerned that bishops and stake presidents play too large a role in that success or failure.
LindaB.
The best way to describe the feeling in the temple (for me) is that it is the same feeling I get when I read of the last supper, the garden of Gethsemane, the arrest, the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ in the four Gospels. I read these chapters every week when I partake of the Sacrament. It is a feeling of awe, overwhelming gratitude, and love for God and His perfect Son. I feel reverent and peaceful. I feel close to God. I also feel desire to do all that I can to please Him. This is what I feel in the temple.
The idea of feeling “accomplishment” is simply out of place in the temple. I wouldn’t describe the temple experience as one of “success.” This suggests to me that many may not understand what the experience is about. Maybe this is a result of having so many voices saying so many things about the temple- I don’t know.
I do feel close to God in life’s low points. In fact, these have been some of the most refining times in my life- times of feeling God’s hand and support, and being reminded upon whom I depend.
As far as the dedication and commitment required to go to the temple, I think this may not be represented all that accurately in places like this. Yes, the bishop and Stake President conduct interviews with each member every 2 years to renew the temple recommend. But if people are living the basic standards of the church, it is a housekeeping matter. When I think about going to the temple, never do I also think of my bishop or Stake President. The stereotype promoted by critics is one of stern, condescending, and authoritative bishops judging members and making them feel guilty. The Lord gets all the credit for every person who goes to the temple. There are simply 2 different worlds- that of the LDS and that imaginary one in the creative mind of the critic.
And this is the frustration I feel along with other LDS- there are simply two different worlds respresented here. I have learned that I do not have the ability to convey my experience to non-LDS here. No matter how beautiful and inspiring something may be to me, be it the temple or Book of Mormon, others will find a reason to desecrate and criticize. They simply feel they have more authoritative sources of information on the matter. And that is fine. I am truly not offended by anything. We all must travel our own roads in life. I have no interest in employing force to get people to see anything. People will see what they want to.
Thanks for the questions and dialogue.
fof
Mike Tea,
I was just commenting on the last 2 times I have heard Tom Hanks’ name. The first time was when he criticised the LDS church about their stance on the Prop8 issue – he singled out the LDS church, none other that also supported the Prop8 thing. The second time was when someone mentioned him being producer of ‘Big Love’, which has become somewhat controversial about the LDS church and one of its splinter groups. From these 2 things, to me it seems that he may have something against the LDS church, which then if he does, needs to be taken into consideration as well. I do understand that he is thhe producer, not the director or writer and that there are other people involved in the making of this show.
I would like to further FoF’s comments about temple worthiness. The temple recommend interview is almost exactly the same as the baptismal interview with 2 extra questions. One is about keeping the covenants that you have previously made in the temple nd wearing of the garments – this question cannot be asked of a person about to be baptised because they have not been through the temple. The second is about affiliating with or supporting any group that teaches against our church. So why do most non-LDS here try and make it seem as if its a major thing to keep temple worthy? As FoF said – its just housekeeping. They commit to it before baptism, and they are usually committed to it for a period after baptism. But one thing that Mike tea forgot to mention that is in the temple recommend interview and is the first and foremost question which if answered in the negative would stop the interview right there ahd then – that is – Do you believe in Heavenly Father? and do you believe in Jesus Christ and accept Him as your Saviour? This is the most inportant question in the interview, the second most important is the last which inquires – Do you feel worthy to enter the temple? Its putting the judgment on you, yourself. If you lie with this question you are lying to God, not just your priesthood leader.
Megan,
It sounds like rituals and ceremonies do something important and uplifting for you. You did say the following, “The problem with religious rites and ceremonies is when they are tied to our salvation…” Of course there is a question related to what is an ‘expectation’ or promise relating to any ceremony. So, that could be a problem if you feel its not a correct understanding.
However, what is the correct view from the Non-LDS christian for the importance of these rituals? (given a correct promise relating to them)Such as baptism, confirmation, the lords supper, feet washing, there could be more. For the christian they don’t directly ’save’ only god can do that, I think LDS church members would probably agree with that, applying that to rituals in common, and rituals specific to the LDS faith.
About the word ‘temple’. Yes there may be a specific use of the word in various contexts, and a change in the understanding of temple from the O.T. to N.T. With people being the temple. However, its not incorrect to view a church or other dedicated facility as a temple.
Here are some definitions:
“place of worship consisting of an edifice for the worship of a deity ”
“an edifice devoted to special or exalted purposes”
“synagogue: (Judaism) the place of worship for a Jewish congregation”
I know of examples of non-LDS christians dedicating buildings for worship, and they do use the word ‘temple’, knowing that its not the same temple used in the O.T. Properly speaking LDS people can use the word temple, fully understanding that its not the same temple as the O.T. And its not, as far as I know the LDS church does not conduct animal sacrifices, make burnt offerings, wave offerings etc…
One scripture you quote is 2 Cor. 6:16.. “What agreement has the temple of God with idols? ” What I was trying to point out is that some christian churches do have things which suspiciously look like idols. The cross, crucifix, statues of saints, icons, paintings, and perhaps other objects or imagery. The ancient hebrew people condemned the use of idols, while posessing a venerated object, they didn’t call this an idol, but the arc of the covenant. I don’t think this is directly worshiped, as its only metal, the hebrew god was worshiped. But if you ask a hindu about hindu idols, they know its only wood or metal, or some other physical medium. There is also some visible manifestation associated with hebrew worship, the Shekhinah. I don’t fully understand that, but is stated in wikipedia,
“word that means the dwelling or settling, and is used to denote the dwelling or settling presence of God, especially in the Temple in Jerusalem.”
Some commentary about idols from a hindu webpage, “A Hindu Primer
by Shukavak N. Dasa”
“Hindus do worship idols, but so do Christians, Jews and even Muslims. In fact, it is impossible to conceive of God without some form of idol, for idol worship is the way of religion.
In Hinduism there are many words to describe the nature of God, and we will refer to them as the need arises, but in this regard, the most relevant word is acintya, which means “inconceivable,” “beyond thought.” The true nature of God is, therefore, beyond the ability of human beings to understand, yet we have a need to reach out in our mind and try to conceive of God. So we create an image of God in our minds. This mental image of God is an idol. Most people, including Hindus, think of an idol solely as a graven or carved image and, while this is true–an idol is a carved image–it is also a form that begins in the mind. It is a mental form. Consequently, mental forms are also idols.”
Gundeck,
I don’t mind at all that you commented on a post to megan. This is an open forum for discussion of multiple people, I feel that everyone can bring light and wisdom to each other using this medium.
Thats an interesting commentary about endowment.
“ἐνδύω enduō (Strong’s 1746). The DBL shows its uses; clothe, dress (another), (Lk 15:22); dress oneself, wear clothes ”
That doesn’t necessarily contradict the LDS understanding, as the ‘garment of the priesthood’ is associated with the endowment ceremony. But from you what stated this isn’t to be understood as literal clothing, but spiritually clothed in the holy spirit?
Yes, it does indeed seem odd to reference gen. 3:21 as support for a type of the temple garment. Especially given that LDS temple garments aren’t animal in origin, but probably cotton or a blend of some type, at least that is what it looks like. The clothing could reference the sacrifice made on their behalf, and they were clothed in a literal portion of that sacrifice. Its not too big of a leap for a mormon to feel that their garments reference the sacrifice of Jesus christ on their behalf.
Thats an interesting comment about the basin for priests to wash in. I never thought of that, but it makes sense. I can only imagine that conducting burnt offerings and animal sacrifices could make you covered head to toe in blood and ashes.
Ralph,
It seems to me that the LDS support of prop. 8 has really paid off! It seems like it was a means to advertise the faith, and get people to talk about it. Mormons however seem to dislike negative attention, but I think deep down mormons really like criticism as a way to start dialog.Tom Hanks connection to ‘Big love’ could possibly be a secondary effect of supporting prop. 8. I see it as purely a political and advertizing maneuver with many objectives, not all of which might be apparent yet.
I am not buying that its the people voting their conscience. Its over the word ‘marriage’, most people support domestic partner laws which are legal, but many people don’t want to call same sex partners ‘married’. Most religious legal battles over ‘conscience’ have to do with what an individual views as wrong, and people defending their right. Not defining what is right or wrong for someone else.
“Conscience is an ability or a faculty that distinguishes whether one’s actions are right or wrong. It leads to feelings of remorse when one does things that go against his/her moral values, and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when one’s actions conform to our moral values. It is also the attitude which informs one’s moral judgment before performing any action. ” (wikipedia, Conscience)
A few good examples might come from Jehovah’s Witnesses rejecting blood transfusions, and their children not participating in the pledge of allegence, and also their refusal to be enrolled in a draft. Jehovahs witnesses generally don’t vote.
“Why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses vote?Because of John 17:14 and other passages in the Bible. In that verse, Jesus says of his followers: “They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.” Jehovah’s Witnesses have interpreted that statement as a call to remain neutral in all political matters. (In some of the sect’s literature, members are described as “representatives of God’s heavenly kingdom”; they are thus obligated to stay out of local political affairs in keeping with the behavior of ambassadors.) Witnesses also refrain from serving in the military, running for public office, and pledging allegiance to the flag.” from
“Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Vote?Because they’re representatives of God’s heavenly kingdom.By Jacob Leibenluft”
The interview process for temple attendance by mormons is a method of control, and it does turn over a significant amount of power to human domain. It reminds me quite a bit of the catholic sacrament of confession, which could lend itself to abuse. There are spiritual paths which are not linked to organized religion, interviews, confession. You can view this as a limitation or a power of reorganized religion. On another level this whole phemona is related to your understanding of the world and level of ethical development.
Fof,
You said,
“There are simply 2 different worlds- that of the LDS and that imaginary one in the creative mind of the critic.”
Its entirely possible that everyone has their own individual religion. An active imagination is not limited to critics of the LDS faith. Does every LDS member have the same experience of god or their faith? Any LDS person can totally have a different take on any aspect of the faith.
There are plenty of misunderstandings everywhere you look. One culture may distain aspects of another culture, but its not always on purpose. Even when trying to remain objective one can have prejudice and misunderstanding, if you don’t your not human and not truthful.
“And this is the frustration I feel along with other LDS- there are simply two different worlds respresented here. I have learned that I do not have the ability to convey my experience to non-LDS here. No matter how beautiful and inspiring something may be to me, be it the temple or Book of Mormon, others will find a reason to desecrate and criticize. ”
I am not sure that people here want to desecrate. Perhaps they do want to criticize, but in their mind they aren’t motivated how you might think. Its also not personal. They may equally be judgemental of any other religion in the world. They may also have judgements about other sects of the christian faith. I think they are saying something like “This isn’t our understanding of the christian faith” or “that doesn’t fit with my understanding”.
I however am finding the discussion very enlightening, and I am starting to have more emphathy for LDS members than I had when I started this discussion. I am sure the HBO show is very painful, and at times this board can be very painful and frustrating. But at all times mormons are called upon to be patient and longsuffering. D&C 121: 41. I think you have demonstrated your willingness to do this the best you can. But I am more than willing to forgive any LDS person who doesn’t fulfill this at all times, its not humanly possible.
[...] ridiculous: HBO’s non-apology or the LDS Newsroom’s petulant response, see here, here, here, and here. Many waxed philosophical, asking why it’s a problem to portray the endowment, see [...]
Fof,
Thank you for your beautiful response. We do seem to have that in common, a great faith in God. To me, that’s God’s grace. I wish Joseph Smith hadn’t messed with it. I’m glad you have your faith, I just still don’t think you need Joseph Smith or any of his writings to enjoy it. I would hope that if neither of us had ever learned to read or never had access to the Bible or the Book of Mormon, we would still have that same faith in a higher power. (But that leads to a whole new discussion!) ha ha
But thank you too for the great dialogue.
Sincerely,
Linda
Enki,
You wrote: I know of examples of non-LDS christians dedicating buildings for worship, and they do use the word ‘temple’, knowing that its not the same temple used in the O.T. Properly speaking LDS people can use the word temple, fully understanding that its not the same temple as the O.T. And its not, as far as I know the LDS church does not conduct animal sacrifices, make burnt offerings, wave offerings etc…
But isn’t it the claim of LDS? That their restored gospel gives a model for current temples to represent OT temples? Maybe someone from LDS can clarify this.
Enki, one thing about your posts is they do help me view things from an angle I hadn’t thought of before. I’ll have to get back to you on the temple thing. As far as the God-ordained rituals (for lack of a better word) one finds in the NT, they serve different purposes and functions. The Lord’s Supper is a way to commune in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice, baptism is a way to publicly acknowledge how one has been inwardly cleansed by Jesus, and is a visual symbol of one’s sins being washed away, etc. I think those are the textbook answers. But it all comes down to the whole grace vs. works thing: do these ceremonies save us? No. Of course Mormons believe that it would be impossible to be saved without Christ, but they also believe in grace (Christ’s sacrifice) plus works (our own effort). If a Mormon didn’t go to the temple and do certain ceremonies, could they really go to the CK? No, right? I don’t think I’m expressing myself very well…..pregnancy hormones are in full swing and I can barely string two sentences together. Sorry.
Fof,
I do hope you will decide to stick around. I learn so much from you and Ralph, and your posts are always thoughtful and respectful. I’m sorry this is so emotionally charged, and feels so personal. I guess it’s impossible not to have it be that way. Sometimes I think it would be so relaxing and less tense if we were all the “many roads lead to heaven” kind of people, but we know it will never be like that. I could never believe that and I know you can’t either.
Megan
I do apologize to those who may have said this already. Right now I have little time as I am preparing for my families return from a long vacation so I cannot read everything in these posts. However, I will address a few things, and especially those directed at me.
To Megan
I never have to prove my worthiness to the leaders of my church, and i have never been asked to, nor has anyone else if teh regulations are followed. We are asked a serious of questions, to which we give answer. If we answer falsely we will be able to gain a recommend and enter the temple (unless someone who knows of our actions reports it to the High Counsel – and just so you know Joseph Smith himself was taken up on charges in the manner). However, to enter the temple unworthily is damn your own soul. I understand this. I also understand that certain acts cannot simply be forgiven by a simple prayer. I need to set myself right before God, and he has laid out a process that I must follow in order to do so. It is my own honesty that has prevented me from entering the temple, and I have no doubt that I will be blessed for it.
As to the theif on the cross, if you understand the doctrine of my faith you must know that I do not believe he gained a forgiveness while on the cross with Christ. Christ told him he would be in paradise, which is part of the spirit world where those who have died await the resurrection. Thus he did not gain a complete salvation, but was given a promise that he would be there to receive what was necessary when the time came.
I don’t want a God who does everything for me. Just as a parent destroys a child by spoiling them, preventing them from learning and growing, so a God who does everything for me would be destructive to my progression. I thank God that he requires me to work and earn my reward, for even though I could not do it without Christ I can still say that I did my best.
To MRGermit
One problem is that no non-member can ever truly show what the ceremony is or isn’t. Especially in a TV drama. They will have maybe 50 minutes for their entire episode. So unless they are going to fill it entirely with the ceremony they will not be able to show it all. Also it is almost garunteed that they will put their own personal spin on it. They cannot show the truth about the ceremony so they should show none of it.
And even if they could show the entire ceremony they cannot explain the meaning of it.
To David
When you speak of showing secret handshakes I assume you are refering to the often used theory that Joseph Smith took the endowment ceremony from Mason rights. I will admit that certain quotes from him make it believable, but still does not prove it.
Also, the way people get their information doesn’t matter. My first post was because I was told they were trying to actually film the ceremony, and I know it has been done before. But it doesn’t really matter. Taking the word of those who have broken their covenants doesn’t seem a very reliable way to do research.
And on a final note, I am glad that I can say with perfect honesty and confidence that God does not have the power to change my mind, nor would he if he could. I am thankful that I am a free agent and will except the consequences of my actions while praising the Lord for his Justice and Mercy.
Finally I close with this. I agree with Ralph that there is nothing that can be done now. While it pains me to see that so many hold the faith of others in such disregard and contempt I will always work to build peace between us. I pray that the Lord comes soon, but I know it we have a few years left to endure, and hope we will all endure them together in peace.
=== MODERATED ===
The moderator issued a level 1 yellow card on this comment.
=== MODERATED ===
David,
“Does anyone see the irony and the double standard here? Does anyone see the double standard in the attitude Mormons here have regarding the request of some rabbis to desist in by proxy baptisms for holocaust victims? ”
Uh…like when the church respected the request of the Jewish community by immediately halting those baptisms? The only work being done for ‘Jews’ is by their ancestors–the church does not allow them otherwise. So if HBO had honored its’ previous commitment to the church to avoid fictional commentary on its’ practices–then your comparison would be sound.
The irony lies in your willingness to defend Jews (by fictionalizing an issue that has been LONG ago settled) while simultaneously refusing to defend the church who is being blatantly disrespected by unapologetic HBO! In light of actual facts, what is so horrendous about how the LDS treat the Jewish community–and so appropriate about how HBO treats the LDS people? Your bias exposes your bigotry.
Enki,
I hope you don’t mind me responding to a comment you directed at Ralph, but something caught my eye. I have grown to respect your point of view and appreciate the perspective you added regarding ceremonies (it seems ev’s are more willing to listen to non-LDS on this matter, just so long as they listen is all that really matters).
you said, “I am not buying that its the people voting their conscience. Its over the word ‘marriage’, most people support domestic partner laws which are legal…”
It is important to point out that supporting marriage is not only a matter of eternal principle for LDS (I cannot speak for ev’s here), but practical in terms of cultural fallout and infringement upon the religious majority. For instance, we don’t want our children to live in a society that redefines an institution we BELIEVE (operative phrase) is ordained of God and meant for the well-being of His children (which is the whole of society). We actually believe that protecting marriage helps not only you, but everyone- most importantly children. It is not a rejection of gay people, it is a stand for principle. While I accept your right to reject this belief and do so at the ballot box…I want to point out that it is my right to support my belief at the ballot box…so voting my conscience is not bigotry based on what my belief is to me.
This is actually relevant to this post because a person with any belief ought to hold precedent in how that belief is perceived.
Enki,
Your comment “Its over the word ‘marriage’, most people support domestic partner laws which are legal, but many people don’t want to call same sex partners ‘married’.” I do not understand exactly what you mean by ‘domestic partner’. If you mean what I think you mean – de facto partner, or same sex couple (ie both homo and hetero relationships without marriage) – then you need to look at what our church has published in its proclamation about families, and all the articles in the Ensign and New Era about sex, marriage, families, etc. We do not support anything as a family other than marriage between man and woman. Cohabitation and de facto situations are taught against and not tolerated within the church. Do we put up with it when its in society? Of course we do, its not against the law these days. But that does not mean that we accept or support it, in fact we actively teach against such things in church. If given a vote today (or tomorrow if today is too short for you) to outlaw defacto and cohabitation rights I would say that the LDS leaders would urge the members to support it, because if we didn’t that would be going against our God’s will.
It is not against free agency to vote against someone else’s view (eg Prop8) for laws in society. The laws are made by society and everyone should have a say in what the majority deems acceptable. Yes, its majority rules, but that’s better than minority – because murderers, rapists, etc are in the minority and I don’t think anyone would want them to have control. When it comes to ‘marriage’ the same thing applies, because government ‘privelages’ can be based around marriage related matters and that needs to be determined by the people because the government should be run and selected by the people. I hope I am explaining myself OK, I just have a lot on my plate right now and I am finding it very hard to concentrate and think.
But if we want to look at things using your logic (at least my uinderstanding of your logic), any decision we make in our life is limiting/removing someone’s free agency. Because every decision we make has some impact on another person’s life for good or for bad. We just have to make sure we make our decisions according to our faith in God and what we believe are His ways.
Amanda,
The baptisms have not stopped and that is the point. While your church has told its members not to perform them they still go on. We here can all go to the archives and look at the comments that were made by Mormons to see how sensitive their comments were.
“The irony lies in your willingness to defend Jews (by fictionalizing an issue that has been LONG ago settled) while simultaneously refusing to defend the church who is being blatantly disrespected by unapologetic HBO”
Perhaps you have not read my other posts. I refuse to defend rituals that have elements that were stolen from another group (here the Masons). Nothing is horrendous on either side. But what does it matter what outsiders do with a ceremony that is not even entirely yours? That seems to be similar to the argument given to why it is not so bad if Mormons baptize holocaust victims by proxy (again check the archives).
I watched your youtube video (I thought youtube was a bad source of info concerning your church). I find it “interesting” that Mormons would air the words of raging liberal profs. Why would your church want to air the words of men who have a low view of scripture?
Restore means to bring back something that was lost. – Boyd K. Packard
Are you and your apostle asserting that Masonic handshakes were part of early Christian or ancient Hebrew religious practices?
David,
First of all, how do you know members are performing baptisms for Jewish people that are NOT their ancestors? Please, give me your source!! Regardless, even if a few of those non-ancestor Jewish baptisms have occurred–they would be against the will of the brethren (which is the important distinction that makes your observation lacking in the irony department)–and probably was done ignorant to that admonition.
In contrast, HBO did make a commitment to church leaders to stay away from the very thing they are doing as I type–so commitment, THEN a betrayal of that commitment….With baptisms…we performed them, then stopped when the Jewish community asked us to. Betrayal vs. Concession…they aren’t the same.
you said,
“Perhaps you have not read my other posts. I refuse to defend rituals that have elements that were stolen from another group (here the Masons).”
Straw man. If it is the restored gospel, then if anything was stolen, it was the Mason’s who stole from ancient temple ceremonies! What if masonic rituals are heretical versions of temple ceremonies? You can’t base the validity of temple ceremonies on the heresy of masonic rituals. Besides, Masonic temples are not ‘religious’..they are like an early European union of mason’s. I don’t know exactly where they came from–but there are striking similarities…so are there striking similarities between heretical Christianity and the restored gospel.
I’m glad you watched the video. YouTube is also a forum for material that originates from accurate sources…YouTube did not sponsor or create that video, the CHURCH DID!
“I find it “interesting” that Mormons would air the words of raging liberal profs. Why would your church want to air the words of men who have a low view of scripture?”
So it is okay for evangelicals to reference and promote the material of HOLLYWOOD?? They’re not only liberal..but preach absolute wickedness and perverted ideologies. These are the same people who awarded Kate Winslet for effectively legitimizing pedophilia –and you’re preaching philosophical alignment?
First of all, those men were scholars–I thought ev’s touted the scholarly process? Just not when it doesn’t fit into your ideology? Haven’t you and others on here claimed LDS guilty of this? Instead of calling their personal philosophy into question, what of the scripture they cite? Is it not biblical in nature? So whose interpretation of the bible is relevant, according to you? Based on a scholarly approach, why is their perspective more ‘lowly’ than yours?
Enki,
You commented earlier that Christians seem to be in a state of dissonance because they don’t have temples (or something like it?).
There’s a very good reason for this, which I tried to explain in some even earlier posts; Christ fulfils in himself all the purposes and intents of the Temple (Rev 21:22). It follows that re-instituting temple systems (as they operated in Biblical times) undoes the work of Christ.
Regarding your observations on religious paraphernalia, I’d fully agree that we have a natural tendency to generate tangible “things” or “rites” to express an intangible experience or truth. The trouble starts when the sign of religious faith becomes the object of religious faith. Much of the controversy of the reformation revolved around the use and abuse of these signs, the Mass/ Eucahrist/ Communion, in particular.
My understanding of the Biblical pattern is that ceremonies and rites are instituted with a strong element of remembrance. For example, the Passover (on which the Lord’s Supper is modelled) is an act of remembering God’s redemption of his people from Egypt. The rite has an element of bringing to mind this past and completed act, and an element of entering into a covenant to live in the reality that this act has brought about.
I also believe that Baptism has a strong element of remembrance (though this forum might not give me much support in this). My reading is that it remembers the crossing of the Red Sea, or even the Jordan and, as such, its a re-enactment of a border crossing. By being baptised, I am saying that I bring to mind the redemptive act of God and I covenant to live my life in accordance with the rules and laws of my new place of residence – in this case, the Kingdom of God.
The magic world view, by contrast uses rites and paraphernalia to manipulate the unseen realm. Unless someone can point out some Bible verses to the contrary, I think that there is no Biblical precedent to use rites and religious paraphernalia in this way.
Linda previously asked “What is CK? ”
Its a high level dungeon in the game “World of Warcraft”. You need to be level 70 to get in, with all the right gear and attunements.
…ooops. Soz, wrong forum…
…or is it? (Cue theme music from “The Twilight Zone”)…
(I couldn’t help myself)
oceanwoman,
Adultery is a betrayal of covenants. So basically, you can be an adulterer without it specifically referring to covenants in a marriage relationship–but covenants with God. Clearly, oceanwoman, you made covenants with God–why else would you make them unless you knew their origins? You make them of your own free will–and now you are blatantly breaking them.
The rejection of temple ordinances by heretical Christianity will not offset the reality of your adultery. The fate of those who ignorantly shun these practices is far better than the fate of one who knowingly betrays God. Isn’t that what Satan did? Yeah, that doesn’t bode well for you!
Megan,
Yes, I think your expressing yourself very well. I think you do have a correct understanding of LDS doctrines.
“If a Mormon didn’t go to the temple and do certain ceremonies, could they really go to the CK? No, right?”
I believe that is correct. They teach that if someone didn’t have the chance to accept the LDS faith, it would be taught to them in the afterlife, and they could be baptized by proxy. If they thought it was not essential, why bother? Every day they get more and more behind on temple work for the dead. I have heard some LDS elder state some stats on how many more non-lds people die everyday over the amount of people baptized by proxy, its a large amount. In theory if humanity continues and the LDS faith continues into the coming centuries, non-lds people dying today will eventually be baptized. This is at least a goal for LDS people.
There are also endowments for the dead, and marriage for the dead. Logically if these two are essential they must be made available for the dead as well. From what I understand these take significantly longer than baptism, so I can just imagine that the backlog for these ceremonies is that much greater. I don’t know what to think about marriage for the dead. A person may have had a partner in life which is undocumented, and without that a marriage ceremony by proxy could not be performed. Providing proof of marriage of dead people probably takes more work than proving that a person existed and was over the age of 8. (if someone died under the age of 8 baptism would not be necessary) So, there is a bit more of a problem for LDS people in reguards to their status in the afterlife. Do they have a right to claim the highest degree of the celestial kingdom without having the ceremony performed?
These are potential problems with the teaching that rituals are required for salvation. LDS people also have the problem of apologetics that christians have. Giving people the chance to hear the word and accept it. All christians have their work cut out for them. During the course of lifespan of the world, billions of people will die without ever hearing the word. In our current age, its quite a bit easier with film, media, internet, radio, t.v., etc… The main work and problem for christians is to keep it appealing and competitive with other philosophies.
Martin,
Thanks. That was great. I needed that.
Amanda,
You’re so angry in your posts. We get it already. We’re all going to hell in a hand basket.
=== MODERATED ===
The moderator issued a level 2 yellow card on this comment.
=== MODERATED ===
Amanda,
“So, I’m dying to know..IS ignorance bliss? I’ve heard all kinds of things about it but just wanted a firsthand opinion. ”
There’s a difference between discussing an issue and attacking commenters.
Amanda, wrote “The rejection of temple ordinances by heretical Christianity will not offset the reality of your adultery.”
Exactly which temple ordinances has heretical Christianity rejected?
I mean, which distinctive ordinances were around in First Century Jerusalem that got rejected by the heretical church?
Presumably, you mean circumcision.
P.S.
I nearly wrote “…which distinctive ordinances were around in First Century Jerusalem that got axed by the heretical church?”, but the pun was just a little too far over the line.
Enki: Glad to know I’m making some sense! Hopefully at least a small part of my brain will return in a few weeks. I’ll take anything at this point.
Amanda: How is that a straw man argument? Are the LDS temple ceremonies related to Masonic rituals or not? Did the first century Christians really have special handshakes, etc? Do you only believe this because of revelation, or is there any actual proof? I hope that doesn’t sound snide. I have to confess, when I first started coming on here over a year ago, there were times where I actually wanted to sound snide, but I really try not to now. Not saying you are, just describing my metamorphosis. (Stay on topic, Megan, stay on topic).
Amanda,
“In contrast, HBO did make a commitment to church leaders to stay away from the very thing they are doing as I type–so commitment, THEN a betrayal of that commitment”
When did HBO ever make the commitment to not show your temple ceremonies? Yes, your church has told its members to stop baptisms for holocaust victims – that is commendable – but there are those in your camp that go against that admonition, and then there are Mormons here who defended those who did that (again check the archives).
“Straw man. If it is the restored gospel, then if anything was stolen, it was the Mason’s who stole from ancient temple ceremonies! What if masonic rituals are heretical versions of temple ceremonies?”
Are you kidding me? All but the most die hard masons will tell you that their ceremonies originated from the stone mason guilds of the 14th to 16th centuries. Yes, there are Masonic legends that say their ceremonies are derived from Solomon’s Temple but they just that – legends. High ranking Mormons became Masons then incorporated (stole) elements from Masonic rituals into LDS Temple practices. It really is as simple as that.
“So it is okay for evangelicals to reference and promote the material of HOLLYWOOD??”
When have I or anyone else here done that? Besides not all things Hollywood are the same just as not all scholarship is the same.
“They’re not only liberal..but preach absolute wickedness and perverted ideologies.”
Are we talking about Hollywood here or Ivy League profs.?
“First of all, those men were scholars–I thought ev’s touted the scholarly process? Just not when it doesn’t fit into your ideology? Haven’t you and others on here claimed LDS guilty of this?”
Here is the thing – those scholars don’t fit your ideology either. I would say that LDS are guilty of this as well as Muslims and a whole host of other groups. Why would you borrow the words of men who have a low view of scripture in general? Why don’ t you ask those scholars where they stand on the deity of Christ or the resurrection?
“Instead of calling their personal philosophy into question, what of the scripture they cite? Is it not biblical in nature? So whose interpretation of the bible is relevant, according to you? Based on a scholarly approach, why is their perspective more ‘lowly’ than yours?”
Did you watch your own video? The only scripture referenced was I Cor 15. It was video about 3 minutes in length so there was not much theologically to go on. Based on a historic (which you might call “scholarly”) their interpretations are post-enlightenment novelties, and if you pressed them hard enough some might admit to that. Their “faith” differs greatly from that of the primitive Christians (and your church claims to be a restoration of the primitive church). Also, if your church wants to be consistent (which one might call “scholarly”) then it should not give a platform to men who deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
FOF,
I’m sorry you have become so offended. However, it does seem that temple worship is exactly that, and that the idea that a place can make you a better person as opposed to God through the Holy Spirit is something you want to defend. You seem to think that Mormons corner the market on doing good. In a sense, the attitude of superiority by Mormons because of their self-declared “better” behavior than others is coming out loud and clear from you. I know I’m getting into “ad hominem” here, but this has been a constant theme with you, especially when you discuss how “immoral” former LDS members must be, and that the standards of the Church are too high for them. I pray for you, FOF. Again, I didn’t mean to offend you. Perhaps it’s the work of the Spirit convicting you? Ah, but then you would have to respond. Grace and blessings to you, FOF, and I really mean that.
Amanda,
I have read your posts without commenting for quite a while. Even though you really tempt me to respond in the flesh, I won’t. I just want to comment on one thing you said about “marraige” and what Evangelicals believe about it. Yes, we believe in eternal marriage. However, the eternal marriage we believe in is between Jesus Christ and the Church, which is to be His bride. As a member of the Church, I look forward to this blissful event with eager anticipation. As for human marriage being eternal and all that the Mormon Church teaches about it (again, via JS teachings), it’s not biblical. Mormonism labels the covenant of marriage as “the new and everlasting covenant.” I have always found this to be curious. How could there be another “new” covenant in addition to the “new” covenant God made in Jesus Christ? The sign of the old covenant was circumcision of the flesh; the sign of the new covenant is circumcision of the heart. This new “new” covenant of marriage is the brainchild of JS. Anyway, that’s all I think I need to say about this. I hope this answers your question. Remember, YOU are the temple of God that He wants to indwell and make holy–not some building.
Grace and Peace!
FOF said: “To those who have nothing better to do with their time than mock and criticize the religious faith of others, I would say- get a life! I am more than a little embarrassed for you.”
I have read most of the comments on this thread, and it seems that this comment is not really fair. The use of “mock” and “criticize” seem to me to be nothing more than hyperbole, a fallacy in reasoning to cast the focus onto someone or something other than the topic at hand. When I think about Mormonism, after having been a member of the Church until about 12 years ago, I think of what the “temple” really means to them. It’s a medal of honor. “I’m a temple recommend holder,” and with it comes a sense of superiority in spirituality. It’s the same thing with being an “RM.” If you want to argue this point, let me tell you about how many parents encourage their daughters to marry only “RMs” because “they can take you to the temple.” All this is idolatrous. I say that with an understanding of what idolatry is: idolatry is merely focusing on someone or something other than the Triune God for salvation and living a life of holiness. When a person has to do x, y, and z in addition to believing in Jesus Christ in order to live eternally with God, then that is nothing more than man adding things to the equation in an attempt to champion the works of the individual. When this happens, the message is that the Work of Jesus Christ was not enough to save anyone on His merit alone. Now, we must understand that salvation is the same thing as living in God’s presence. So, when Mormons become upset when we say they believe in a different Jesus, it would be a lie to say otherwise. My Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible, is sufficient to save me. I don’t need to perform any ritual in order to be saved. For example, baptism is not a ritual that in and of itself saves me–it’s not regenerative; it’s an outward sign of inward grace. When I understand this, I can see that there is no need for the work of baptism for the dead. To be taught that I need to do the saving work of baptism for the dead or my ancestors won’t be saved is putting me in the position of being their savior, which I could never be. Don’t depend on me for your salvation, because I’m a mere mortal. Depend on Jesus Christ. But, what about those who never heard the gospel? Sounds like a question for God. We can’t “make up” answers in a human effort to show God as loving. He is loving, and I’m sure He has everything worked out regarding those who have never heard the gospel. Eisegeting Malachi 4:5-6 does not support a doctrine that really doesn’t make sense in light of the fact we are saved by faith and not by works.
Another thing regarding “eternal families.” Oh, it’s a beautiful thought, but it’s not biblical. We become the Family of God when we believe in Jesus Christ. It’s not about individual families. Our relationship with each other will be that of brothers and sisters–all of us in one beautiful family. The whole purpose of God is to unify us as a people, not as many peoples–but as a people. “Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (1 Peter 2:10). Does this mean that families are not important? Absolutely not. But, we need to see things from the truth of God’s word, and not from what we think sounds good. Ultimately, we don’t belong to each other, which is what the Mormon doctrine of eternal families teaches, but we belong to Jesus Christ.
It’s my prayer that the Mormons will be saved from the false teachings of JS, and come to the light and truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sure, Mormons will try to dismiss my words by saying it’s my interpretation of the Bible. That’s the standard MO, and I expect it. But, I know the power of my words because I am merely preaching God’s Word. I have done my part in God’s work of redemption, and I know the Spirit is doing His part. Ultimately, it’s up to the hearer (reader) to respond to the grace of God in his or her life. I have a blessed assurance of knowing that I am saved in the Kingdom of God because of faith in Jesus Christ, and that brings the Peace that only He can give.
Peace and Grace!
Hello Again
About the Mason rites related to the Temple Ceremonies: I do not have the quote in front of me, but I do know that Joseph Smith did say that they were a corrupted form of the Temple ceremonies. Thus, they did exist in Early Christiandom, and I beleive they began with Adam after he left the Garden. Elijah was the last Old Testiment prophet to have the authority to perform these ceremonies, so he appeared to Christ and Peter, James and John on the mount of Transfiguration to restore them to these three Apostles. It was also prophecied by Malachi that he would again return in the last days to restore them (Malachi chapter 4) which I believe he had.
Megan asks for proof of this. Can she show proof of the Resurrection? I know we agree on this so it is not necessary, but can anyone? What about the Rapture? Can anyone on these threads show proof of their belief beyond the revelations of the scriptures and the words of the prophets? You take the words of your prophets, and I will take the words of mine, and the faith we come to is our own business and should not mocked by the other.
Now, the last comment I wish to make on this point is concerning the reference made to Revelation 21: 22. I think people misunderstand this verse. This chapter is descibing the last days, after the destruction and the seven plagues when this city will be brought back to Earth (I think this is the city of Enoch but lets not get into that). In this city Christ and his Father will live. When this happens the Earth itself will be resurrected and receive a celetial glory and all those found worthy to be called the sons of God will be in heaven. Because of this there will be no need for a Temple, as all things will have come to the end and we will sit with God in glory. However, until that great day, while God is not living among us, we still need the Temples.
To ENKI about the work for the dead.
All that you say is true, but the church is not worried about the amount of work that needs to be done for those who have gone before us. In a few years the Lord will return and will reign personally on the Earth. Under his wisdom and power all things will be made known and the work will progress faster than it ever could have. We will have 1,000 years while Satan is bound to complete the work, which will be plenty of time.
Linda,
You reap what you sow, I guess. You haven’t extended an olive branch to me with your comments–why are you so surprised to get that response?
JackG,
You know, in person, I’m really not so scary. I’m not sure why you are so tempted to physically harm me–maybe you should discuss that with a professional.
“Yes, we believe in eternal marriage. However, the eternal marriage we believe in is between Jesus Christ and the Church, which is to be His bride.”
Yeah…and that is what temple sealings symbolize as well- The sealing is a covenant you enter into WITH GOD-first and foremost…but I don’t blame you for not understanding temple ordinances because you simply lack that knowledge–and that is nothing against you. The Lord invites you to learn, though.
“As for human marriage being eternal and all that the Mormon Church teaches about it (again, via JS teachings), it’s not biblical”
Again, another example of how Ev’s place the bible before God. The bible cannot limit God and His purposes. The bible is not omnipotent, God is. So whether it is biblical or not (which is an entirely different matter), does not limit the veracity of the teaching! When one accepts that God can and does speak to a modern prophet–revelation adds context to anything that has been written–when you accept that the gift of the Holy Ghost is given through baptism on HIS name (His authority)– you understand personal revelation and discernment of these teachings.
You rely on the flesh to interpret scripture –without a willingness to hear His gospel. I’m reading the bible with the entire picture in mind–using ALL of His tools–and you are limiting your understanding of the bible by rejecting further revelation and teaching. It’s the same mistake the Jews made by rejecting Christ. He came to fulfill laws, and they rejected him based on laws taught in the OT. Line upon line, remember?
Megan,
It is a straw man because it assumes that masonic rituals came before temple rituals–which is easily rejected given the knowledge of temples we have in OT and NT times. The case is EASILY made that masonic rituals are a perversion of restored temple rituals. You’re condemning truth by pointing to the perversion of that truth…doesn’t make much sense, with all due respect.
Amanda: I’d like some sources to back up your claim; this doesn’t have to become an involved dialogue, but I’d like you to cite something in support of the big fat statement
It is a straw man because it assumes that masonic rituals came before temple rituals–which is easily rejected given the knowledge of temples we have in OT and NT times. The case is EASILY made that masonic rituals are a perversion of restored temple rituals.
since the case is EASILY made, this shouldn’t be hard for you at all
thanks
GERMIT
PS: one part of your post above was kind of puzzling: you DO see a difference between the marriage of Jesus to HIS church and temple marriages as two separate events ??? It almost seemed as if you were blurring the two together… do you care to explain that a little ??
David,
I’m glad you are being more reasonable, just a few more kinks: You say there are people in ‘my camp’…ok, who? People in your camp sexually abuse children–and? Give me more than 10 names with first-hand sources. Archive comments don’t count as a first-hand source of baptisms ACTUALLY being done for Jews by those who are not their progeny.
“When did HBO ever make the commitment to not show your temple ceremonies?”
Read the statement put out by the church.
“… All but the most die hard masons will tell you that their ceremonies originated from the stone mason guilds of the 14th to 16th centuries.”
David, this isn’t proof. What die-hard masons are you speaking of? Besides, I actually stated that they originated before the Restoration- And? Temples are ancient…you even agree on this point…
“Yes, there are Masonic legends that say their ceremonies are derived from Solomon’s Temple but they just that – legends.”
And ‘die-hard’ masons alleging the originality of their rituals is ‘die-hard’ evidence, or legend?
“High ranking Mormons became Masons then incorporated (stole) elements from Masonic rituals into LDS Temple practices. It really is as simple as that. “
Where is your proof? The fact that they resemble each other can support my position as well. My belief of the veracity of the temple and everything else encompassing the restored gospel is not based on my limited secular knowledge…it is based on the witness of the Holy Ghost, which is far superior to the knowledge of men–and certainly your threshold of ‘proof’.
“Are we talking about Hollywood here or Ivy League profs.?”
Are you disagreeing with the premise that Hollywood is largely a perverted industry, HBO specifically? For the record, do you mind answering that question?
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of readily accepting HBO’s rendition of temple ceremonies but rejecting Ivy League professors with scholarly opinion- My position was not one of accepting ALL of their scholarly views–only the double standard you refuse to acknowledge.
Big Love isn’t a scholarly work– it represents the greed of the industry willing to pervert something sacred for ratings, and the adultery of an ex-mormon who broke covenants with God for the approval of men. And this compares with scholarly opinion? Agree or no? I’m trying to pin down your opinion here but I’m still wondering what it is about HBO that is more relevant than these scholars…?
“Why would you borrow the words of men who have a low view of scripture in general?”
*Insert Red Herring here* That video wasn’t about their ‘general’ views.
” Why don’ t you ask those scholars where they stand on the deity of Christ or the resurrection?”
Sure! And we can make a separate video about that and discuss the merits of their position on that subject. An individual being wrong on one thing, does not make them wrong on ALL things. Joseph Smith taught that we accept truth wherever the source. It doesn’t much matter who produces it. It’s about truth, not a resume.
“Also, if your church wants to be consistent (which one might call “scholarly”) then it should not give a platform to men who deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus. “
If scholarly opinion advances the will of God–it should be accepted, no matter the source- if it works against God, it should be rejected…’It really is as simple as that’.
JackG,
You said “When a person has to do x, y, and z in addition to believing in Jesus Christ in order to live eternally with God, then that is nothing more than man adding things to the equation in an attempt to champion the works of the individual. When this happens, the message is that the Work of Jesus Christ was not enough to save anyone on His merit alone. Now, we must understand that salvation is the same thing as living in God’s presence.”
If you are an ex-member then you must have misunderstood what the church actually teaches and you have not been paying attention to what we have been saying. So I’ll try again – We believe first and foremost that it is through faith Jesus ONLY that we are saved. But we believe that this faith has to be a ‘doing’ thing to be alive – ie faith without works is dead. What are these things we need to do? They are what Jesus has told us to do. The question is, if Jesus told you to do something and you didn’t do it, would you still be saved because you are knowingly going against your God’s will? To me I would think you were not saved, but that is my opinion – if you think differently then you will need to prove your point strongly. Now what has Jesus asked us to do? We LDS believe, as you know, that He has asked us to be baptised, enter the temple, etc. But we should only do these things out of faith in Jesus, otherwise they are of no benefit at all to our salvation. So you are misrepresenting our faith when you say we have added x, y, z onto Jesus Christ and His work for us. We have not, we are only doing what we believe He has asked us to do because we have faith in Him.
Amanda,
A few additional comments about prop 8. I heard someone say on national news that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, in all cultures and all religions, throughout history. He said it like every culture in the world has the same understanding and customs.
Someone of the LDS faith should know immediately that this isn’t true. The LDS people have done their own redefintions of marriage as stated in D&C 132. The revisions being the understanding of the potential for eternal marriage, and that under certain circumstances and periods of time plural marriage is acceptible to god. From an LDS point of view these were not redefinitions, but a restoration. However, it was news to alot of people. In like manner, John Boswell wrote a book which documented historical facts about same-sex marriage. Suggesting that current legal recognition would reconstruct an institution that once existed, not create anything new.
“Boswell was the author of the ground-breaking and controversial book Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (1980), which, according to Chauncey et al (1989), “offered a revolutionary interpretation of the Western tradition, arguing that the Roman Catholic Church had not condemned gay people throughout its history, but rather, at least until the twelfth century, had alternately evinced no special concern about homosexuality or actually celebrated love between men.” Wikipedia, John Boswell
Media coverage of the FLDS church highlighted its current involvement with plural marriage. Although its not the same church body as the Salt Lake church, the coverage was quite clear that plural marriage by its nature is abusive to women and CHILDREN. That it also increases the amount of chromosomal disorders, especially where there are strong founder effects, and bottle necking within a population. These were especially strong characteristics of the FLDS church. To a lesser degree the Salt Lake church population experienced these effects.
The discovery channel show “A Haunting” had an episode about a house haunted by ghosts of its former inhabitants, polygamous mormons. The show was clear in its message that plural marriage is dangerous and abusive to women and CHILDREN, and that mormonism is a source for very negative spiritual energy. The show was definately biased, thats for sure.
The endowment cermony is quite central to many aspects of the LDS faith. Its something which must be done before or in conjunction to marriage. It is also done prior to serving a mission. Its my observation that the temple garment is a physical device to assist in keeping certain vows. Its specifically created to deminish many temptations, especially sexual ones. As one poster mentioned earlier it also takes much of the sensual edge off of sex within marriage. He found this interfered with his sense of intimacy. This does not conflict with the O.T. idea that sex is an unclean act. Leviticus 15:18, Levicitus 15:32,33.
In all fairness, there are some indications that the Jewish people have suffered some genetic consequences from their ancient involvement with plural marriage, and their restrictions against marriage outside of the faith. Even the practice of monogamy potentially has some effect on genetics, as that is a directed method of generation. Strict monogamy is not natural, there is some commentary about that on the “Wai says” diet webpage. ( I have not included a link here, as part of link title might be offensive, even though its quite objective and clinical)The BOM agrees in the sense that the ‘natural man’ is an enemy of god.
Mosiah 3: 19
Amanda,
It seems you don’t understand what it means when someone refers to the “flesh.” To interpret it as a threat of physical harm reveals you are not accustomed to the term.
As for the rest of your response: I will not take the bait and respond to you from a human condition that is not Spirit-led (“in the flesh”; it’s a Christian term, Amanda). I hope you understand the meaning of the phrase, now. Have a blessed week. And, remember, the temple work being done today is in us. We are the temples of God, not a building, and He wants to send the Spirit into your life in such a way that you will be in such awe of His holiness and grace that you will truly hunger and thirst for the biblical Jesus Christ, not the JS version.
Grace and Blessings!
Ralph,
Thirty years ago Mormons were fighting for their ‘right’ to descriminate against gays and lesbians in employment and housing. Hindus have untouchables, Mormons have gays. LDS leaders appear to not be completely truthful about public dialog.
from http://www.affirmation.org “Gay Advocates Urge Americans To Stop the Hate ”
“And a 1996 editorial in the LDS Church-owned Deseret News identified “homosexual practices” as an “abomination,” but then warned against “vile language and physical violence often directed at homosexuals.”
Yet if Mormon leaders really love all the church’s sons and daughters, ask some of the faith’s homosexual members, why not issue a strong statement against anti-gay violence?
“So long as the church teaches its followers to ‘hate the sin,’ it bears a special responsibility to ensure that its followers do not end up hating the sinner along with the presumed sin,” wrote Scott MacKay, director of Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons, in a letter to Hinckley. “Is not [Shepard's murder] at least as immoral as homosexual activity . . . Does not this behavior make light of the sacred truth, that all humans are created in God’s image and of equal value and worth, regardless of beliefs or actions?”
Church spokesman Don Rascon said that is what Mormon leaders already have done. The First Presidency issued a statement this week condemning the attack on Shepard, and leaders abhor violence against anyone — gay or straight.
[Editorial note: In fact the First Presidency did not and has not made any public statements about the attack on Matthew Shepard. One Affirmation member spoke with Dan Rascon of LDS Public Affairs and reported that he said the death was "horrible and atrocious" but that there would be no statement because it "really doesn't involve us." In a call to the Office of the First Presidency, the telephone answerer said that she did not know if a statement might be forthcoming.]
“President Hinckley has made it clear that we are to love homosexuals as sons and daughters of God,” Rascon said. “Our teachings in no way create an atmosphere of hate. In no way do we promote violence or hate.”
Gay and lesbian activists, and others, say many of society’s institutions — churches, schools and the entertainment and news media — implicitly sanction violence against homosexuals through stereotyped portrayals.
And the effect is chilling. ”
Do you know if Church spokesman Don Rascon has told the truth or not? Has the first presidency ever produced any statement about the first presidency condemning the attack on Shepard?
Ralph,
Baptism is an outward sign of inward grace, Ralph. It does not save anyone. It is not regenerative. It is the sign of the new covenant, which is Jesus Christ. As for Jesus commanding us to enter the temple, you are introducing circular reasoning. Your conclusion is wrapped up in your presupposition that Jesus commanded that. Such a command would be incongruent with biblical teaching. Jesus gave us the ultimate commandments: love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus Christ doesn’t burden us with legalism, which is how you present going to the temple to be. It’s legalistic because if you don’t do it, then you’re not saved. Again, that is incongruent with biblical teaching. And, I have to disagree with you when you accuse me of misrepresenting your faith. Salvation for the Mormon equals Jesus Christ plus temple endowment. The problem is we do not agree on the definition of terms. Christians see salvation as entering God’s presence forever. Mormons see salvation as universal: everyone will be saved in a kingdom, but only those who did x,y, and z will enter the CK, live with God, and become gods, which Mormonism calls exaltation. That simply is not biblical, Ralph. But, therein lies the problem for Mormons: believing in nonbiblical teachings, because belief in JS as prophet trumps the Bible, relegating it to the bottom of the list of the LDS canon. So, Ralph, here’s a question for you: can you enter God’s presence simply because you believe in Jesus Christ, or do you need to go to the temple, take out your endowment, remember the signs and tokens of the “covenant,” and remember what you need to say at the veil in order to gain entrance into God’s presence? (Your wife is dependent on you to remember her new name so you can call her through the veil…unbiblical). If you say you only need to believe in Jesus Christ, then I would challenge your understanding of Mormonism. If you say that you need to do all the other stuff, then Mormonism has indeed added x,y, and z to the equation of salvation.
Here’s another question, Ralph: why is it so hard to accept the idea that we are justified by faith, saved by grace, and made holy through the Work of the Holy Spirit? Why do you have such a need to throw in “works”? What James is referring to is the evidence of our faith. I might say I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, but the evidence will be in how I live. This is my response to God’s grace in my life after I have responded to His saving grace. It has nothing to do with me earning anything through my works. Paul even teaches us: “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Eph. 2:10). Here, Paul is speaking about “saved Christians,” and their response to being new creations in Jesus Christ. These good works are not a prerequisite to salvation, but a result of being saved. Even the beatitudes teach this concept, but that’s for another day.
I’m praying for you, Ralph. The gospel has been presented to you, and it looks different from what JS taught. It’s burden-free and filled with God’s grace. I pray you won’t be afraid of God’s grace, Ralph. It is sweeter than you can ever imagine!
Grace and Peace!
Shematwater wrote”About the Mason rites related to the Temple Ceremonies: I do not have the quote in front of me, but I do know that Joseph Smith did say that they were a corrupted form of the Temple ceremonies. Thus, they did exist in Early Christiandom,”
…what? Because Joseph Smith said so? Judging from the mess he made of the Book of Abraham, he had less knowledge of ancient history than I have of American Major League basketball (its a corrupted form of Cricket, I understand).
“Elijah was the last Old Testiment prophet to have the authority to perform these ceremonies, so he appeared to Christ and Peter, James and John on the mount of Transfiguration to restore them to these three Apostles.”
…what a baffling interpretation! Why did Christ need Elijah to “restore” this “anointing” (I hope I’m using the right term). Does Elijah need to be present at any other restorations? Why doesn’t Matthew or Mark talk about this in their accounts (Matt 17:1-13, Mark 9:2-12)? Getting to the text itself, why does Jesus identify John the Baptist as Elijah? Couldn’t John have done the job before the trip up the mountain?
Surely a less forced interpretation is that in appearing with the major OT prophets, Jesus is identifying himself as a prophet. Also Jesus’ identifies John the Baptist as a type of Elijah. Getting back to Malachi, the story is that Elijah will appear to herald the Lord coming to his Temple. So, according to the story John heralds Jesus who comes to his Temple….
“Megan asks for proof of this. Can she show proof of the Resurrection?”
…well, Jesus rose from the dead. The logic is that if we are “in Christ”, we shall be raised too…
“You take the words of your prophets, and I will take the words of mine, and the faith we come to is our own business and should not mocked by the other.”
…weren’t we talking about the same prophets? Perhaps I was mistaken…
“Now, the last comment I wish to make on this point is concerning the reference made to Revelation 21: 22. I think people misunderstand this verse. This chapter is descibing the last days, after the destruction and the seven plagues when this city will be brought back to Earth (I think this is the city of Enoch but lets not get into that). In this city Christ and his Father will live. When this happens the Earth itself will be resurrected and receive a celetial glory and all those found worthy to be called the sons of God will be in heaven. Because of this there will be no need for a Temple, as all things will have come to the end and we will sit with God in glory. However, until that great day, while God is not living among us, we still need the Temples.”
…No, we don’t. “for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple”. This goes for the future temple after the resurrection and the present temple in this age. Christ has already fulfilled all the functions of the temple in himself.
…wait a sec, if “all things will have come to the end and we will sit with God in glory”, as you say, what happened to eternal progression?
Here’s a question for you. If God is bringing his kingdom, which will be perfectly expressed in the age to come, why would he do it by instituting a completely different system in this age? Why not bring in the future new order by bringing in the new order now? Why the discontinuity?
It occurs to me that much LDS rhetoric accuses orthodox scholarship of “over-complicating” theology, or making it too clever to be useful. LDS theology, by contrast is supposed to be clear and simple. The kinds of convolutions and distortions that Shem had to go through to join some very widely separated dots should answer that myth.
Amanda,
“I’m glad you are being more reasonable, just a few more kinks: You say there are people in ‘my camp’…ok, who? People in your camp sexually abuse children–and? Give me more than 10 names with first-hand sources. Archive comments don’t count as a first-hand source of baptisms ACTUALLY being done for Jews by those who are not their progeny. ”
If you remember the thread ,there were Mormons who frequent this blog that were defending the actions of Mormons who are still doing baptisms for holocaust victims. That is my point. If there are Christians who sexual abuse their children then they are going against Christian teaching. If Mormons go against your church byt performing these baptists, they are going against your churches admonition – However, they could simply be trying to advance themselves and their family inspiste of church teaching. They could be trying to “fall up” like Adama and Eve did. See the thread above this one for more on that.
“Read the statement put out by the church.”
I have and in it there is no promise to refrain from depicting temple ceremonies.
“David, this isn’t proof. What die-hard masons are you speaking of? Besides, I actually stated that they originated before the Restoration- And? Temples are ancient…you even agree on this point…”
Amanda, there are Masonic legends that predate your church that give Solomon’s temple as the source for their rituals. But they are legends, by and large masons do not believe them. Masons have stated publicaly (history channel) that their origins go back to somewhere around the 15th century. The point is early Mormon Masons divulged Masonic secrets to non-Masons. These secrets became part of your temple practices. These Masonic rituals are not ancient.
“Where is your proof?”
I could easily ask “Where is your proof”. Here is my “proof”. Masons pre-existed your church, and so did their (non-ancient) practices. High ranking members of your church became Masons. Shortly there after these practices started showing up in your temple rituals. I will leave it to the readers to decide if the above “proof” hurts or helps your church.
“it is based on the witness of the Holy Ghost”
And the Holy Ghost is telling me you are wrong.
“Are you disagreeing with the premise that Hollywood is largely a perverted industry, HBO specifically? For the record, do you mind answering that question?”
That was my attempt at humor. Hollywood is largely a perverted industry but that does not mean all of it is. In the same way, Ivy League universities are theologically perverted, but not everything in them is so.
“I was pointing out the hypocrisy of readily accepting HBO’s rendition of temple ceremonies but rejecting Ivy League professors with scholarly opinion- My position was not one of accepting ALL of their scholarly views–only the double standard you refuse to acknowledge.”
What double-standard? HBO showed your temple ceremony. I have not commented either way on the accuracy of the ceremony.
“I’m trying to pin down your opinion here but I’m still wondering what it is about HBO that is more relevant than these scholars…?”
For the record, I am not saying HBO is a great source for information. It is meant for entertainment. However, I am pointing out that if it is wrong for Mormons/ex-Mormons to leak this info, and for HBO to show it, it was even more wrong for Joseph Smith and company to divulge Masonic secrets/sacred to non-Masons.
” *Insert Red Herring here* That video wasn’t about their ‘general’ views.”
The video is a bit of a red herring as there was hardly anything in it. It was about 3 minutes long.
“An individual being wrong on one thing, does not make them wrong on ALL things. Joseph Smith taught that we accept truth wherever the source. It doesn’t much matter who produces it. It’s about truth, not a resume.”
Are you really asserting that underlying pre-suppostions do not matter in theological discussions? Are you asserting that the source does not matter at all?
“If scholarly opinion advances the will of God–it should be accepted, no matter the source- if it works against God, it should be rejected…’It really is as simple as that’.”
I got to disagree with you on this one. Honestly, I have been real tempted at times to do just what you advocate here. In debating Muslims, there have been instances where I could bring in liberal scholars (which Muslims do readily) to attack the Koran, Hadith, etc. I am not saying I have never done it, but I have not knowingly done it. The one exception I give myself is when I cite authorities from a person’s own religious group. I try to stay consistant in my apologetic. I do not try to bring in scholars who do not share my world view, in order to advance my position.
Amanda: I know you have been one popular lady here at MC, what IS that you’re wearing ???? But I’ll tag along David’s EXCELLENT post with (his ) quote and a repeat of my question
Amanda, there are Masonic legends that predate your church that give Solomon’s temple as the source for their rituals. But they are legends, by and large masons do not believe them. Masons have stated publicaly (history channel) that their origins go back to somewhere around the 15th century. The point is early Mormon Masons divulged Masonic secrets to non-Masons. These secrets became part of your temple practices.
THESE MASONIC RITUALS ARE NOT ANCIENT. emph. Germit’s
again: tag, you’re it…..you said the case is EASILY made that they are ancient, and have adequate (or better) OT and NT support. This does NOT have to become a 12post back-and-forth. Just cough up the sources…..please.
thanks, to the beleaguered Mormon Mom
GERmIT
This is in Response to Martin.
“Because Joseph Smith said so? ”
- Because a prophet of God has said so. I need no other reason. I will not get into a discussion of the Book of Abraham, because I know you would not listen, but just so you know, I have heard no argument that can stand up to simple logic.
“Why did Christ need Elijah to “restore” this “anointing” (I hope I’m using the right term). Does Elijah need to be present at any other restorations? Why doesn’t Matthew or Mark talk about this in their accounts (Matt 17:1-13, Mark 9:2-12)? Getting to the text itself, why does Jesus identify John the Baptist as Elijah? Couldn’t John have done the job before the trip up the mountain?”
- Elijah was called to restore these keys. It was his particular job. That is why he appeared. I do not know the reason it is not discussed in the Gospels, but I can see no other reason for it. As to John the Baptist being Elijah, Jesus never said this. He said that John the Baptist was Elias. While this is the Greek form of Elijah, it is not the same figure as the ancient prophet. Elias was to come a prepare the way for Christ, as Esaias prophecied (Matt 3: 3) which references Isaiah 40: 3, not the prophet Elijah.
Also, if you really understand the gospel you would know that Elijah did come to fulfill the prophecy of Malachi when the Kirtland Temple was dedicated, again restoring these keys to the Earth.
“Surely a less forced interpretation is that in appearing with the major OT prophets, Jesus is identifying himself as a prophet.”
- Using only the Bible I would agree. However, you asked me about what I believe. Using other resources what I have said is clearly true.
“Also Jesus’ identifies John the Baptist as a type of Elijah.”
- He identifies him as Elias who should come and prepare the way, not Elijah the prophet.
“Getting back to Malachi, the story is that Elijah will appear to herald the Lord coming to his Temple. So, according to the story John heralds Jesus who comes to his Temple….”
- When does it say that Elijah was to herald the Lord coming to his temple? It state in Malachi 4: 5-6 “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” This makes no mention of a temple or of heralding the Lord. This is a change in heart that Elijah is to cause, turning the children to their fathers.
“…well, Jesus rose from the dead. The logic is that if we are “in Christ”, we shall be raised too…”
- But this proves nothing, and that is my point.
“…weren’t we talking about the same prophets? Perhaps I was mistaken…”
- Many of the prophets are the same between our faiths, but I also take the words of modern prophets, which is the major difference.
“…No, we don’t. “for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple”. This goes for the future temple after the resurrection and the present temple in this age. Christ has already fulfilled all the functions of the temple in himself.”
- Never does it say that Christ fulfilled all the functions of the Temple. Again, this verse is speaking of after the World is renewed when God reigns personally, in the flesh on it. You are extending the meaning of this scripture beyond that of what it says.
“…wait a sec, if “all things will have come to the end and we will sit with God in glory”, as you say, what happened to eternal progression?”
- You have no understanding if you can seriously ask that question. When I say that all things will have come to an end I am speaking of the plan of salvation, the redemption of the human family, and culmination of all the plans of God respecting this Earth. When all this has been accomplished, and we lie in Glory with God the plan will have been finished, and then we can progress as gods.
“Here’s a question for you. If God is bringing his kingdom, which will be perfectly expressed in the age to come, why would he do it by instituting a completely different system in this age? Why not bring in the future new order by bringing in the new order now? Why the discontinuity?”
- Again you do not understand. When Christ reigns personally he will still have the organization that the church currently has. His kingdom is established on the Earth right now. When all things come together and he reigns there are things that will no longer be necessary (just as the sacrifice became unnecessary after the atonement) but the Kingdom will remain with all the authority.
“It occurs to me that much LDS rhetoric accuses orthodox scholarship of “over-complicating” theology, or making it too clever to be useful. LDS theology, by contrast is supposed to be clear and simple.”
- Let me say that complexities can actually make something simpler. The mainstream Christians are simpler on the surface. Believe and be saved can’t get much simpler. However, they do leave many questions unanswered. On the other hand, the LDS give a much longer and more detailed gospel. On the surface it seems much more complicated, but it leaves no question unanswered for those who desire to know and seek for them. So, the one is too simple, making it complex, while the other, through its complexities, makes it simple.
Shem,
Thanks for your reply. To respond briefly;
If you think that Joseph Smith is a reliable source of information on ancient near east history and culture, then you don’t really know him at all.
You commented that “When Christ reigns personally he will still have the organization that the church currently has.” I understand that the LDS position equates the Kingdom of God with the LDS Church, which is a kind of “rule through organisation”. This, I believe runs contrary to Luke 22:25-30. It also poses profound problems with Mark 1:15; how can Jesus call people to join a Kingdom when the organisation had not yet been set up? It also misses a large number of passages that talk about rule by the Holy Spirit.
In short, I believe that the Bible teaches that the Kingdom of God becomes a reality when people believe in Christ and behave in a way that aligns with the Holy Spirit (which are two sides of the same coin). They may or may not belong to a particular organisation, but such membership is not necessary to enter the Kingdom of God.
If I can put it another way, the Kingdom of God becomes visible when the character of God becomes visible in the lives of his children.. It does not become visible because there is a structured hierarchical organisation in operation on earth.
The continuity thing really is a big deal to me. I’m thinking of Hebrews 13:8 in particular. I think we can reasonably expand it, in context, to “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever; the way he relates to people is the same; his mode of operation is the same; he’s not going to turn around and invent new ways of relating to us” It seems reasonable to extend this to the age to come, hence my objection to the idea that we need things like temples now that we won’t need in future.
Regarding simplicity and clarity, I’d agree that the perception that something is simple really depends on the comprehension of the listener. To me, it appears abundantly simple that the Bible places Jesus in the same place as God, and it appears bafflingly complex to try to force the Bible to treat Jesus as a created being.
You characatured the Christian Gospel as an “easy-believe-ism”. I’d agree that such a summary is too small for our times, but it aligns closely with “simple” statements as Joel 2:32. My response is that the LDS “gospel” boils down to “subscribe to the LDS program”. It appears simple to start with, but requires an incredible number of contortions to get some internal consistency, let alone make it fit with the Bible.
Finally, judging from Shem’s remarks, it seems that LDS want to re-write scripture. For example, instead of Revelation 21:22 saying “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple “, LDS seem to want it to say “there will be a number of cities in the age to come, and in one of them will be a house where the Father and Son will live”. I hope I can afford to live in that neighbourhood!
MARTIN
“If you think that Joseph Smith is a reliable source of information on ancient near east history and culture, then you don’t really know him at all.”
-You really are missing the concept of a Prophet. Also, Joseph Smith was a seer, meaning he had the power to see past, present, and future events. How much knowledge did Daniel have of the last day before his visions? Or John before his? Yet you except their words because they speak in the name of God. I have the same faith in Joseph Smith as you do in the ancient prophets.
“How can Jesus call people to join a Kingdom when the organisation had not yet been set up? It also misses a large number of passages that talk about rule by the Holy Spirit.”
-How can you organize the kingdom when there is no one in it? you must bring in the people before you can set them in order. Also, I find it fits perfectly with Luke and the rule by the Holy Ghost. Those who are called to the position of leader in anyway aare not called to privilage, but to service, just as Luke said. The higher the position the greater the service that is required. As to the Holy Ghost, we are all counselled to follow his guidance. We have him with us at all times to tell us what we should do in our daily lives. We also recognize the Christ is the head of the church. The president is his spokesman on Earth, but Christ rules over it. I really see no problem.
In 1 Cor. 14: 40 we are told “Let all things be done decently and in order.” How can there be order without organization? How can their be order without clear authority? How can there be order when people are divided by denominations? We are to all things in order. We must must all come into the same organization, with the same authority. If we disagree on even one doctrine there is no longer order. This is why we need the prophets, and a heirarchy of authority; to settle such disputes. Just as the dispute over circumsision was settled by taking the matter to Peter and the Apostles, who were the highest Authority in the church at that time.
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever; the way he relates to people is the same; his mode of operation is the same; he’s not going to turn around and invent new ways of relating to us” It seems reasonable to extend this to the age to come, hence my objection to the idea that we need things like temples now that we won’t need in future.”
-So why do you not believe in modern Prophets? Can you show me a time in the Bible when there weren’t any prophets? Also, Temples existed throughout the Bible. If he doesn’t change why would he not use them now? You say you have a problem with him giving us things that we won’t need in the future, but you have agreed that he did just that. He gave the law of sacrifice to Adam, but that stopped being necessary after the Atonement. He commanded men to make a temples (alters) and Isreal to make a permanent temple in Jeruselem. Yet you say this is no longer necessary. You have basicly said that you follow a faith that you do not believe in.
“To me, it appears abundantly simple that the Bible places Jesus in the same place as God, and it appears bafflingly complex to try to force the Bible to treat Jesus as a created being.”
-The Bible does put Christ in the same place as God. This does not mean he started there, however. Aslo, if you actually learn the doctrine of the church you would know that nobody is created. The spirit cannot be created (let alone the intelligence). God formed the physical body but the being who is Christ was not created.
“the LDS “gospel” boils down to “subscribe to the LDS program”. It appears simple to start with, but requires an incredible number of contortions to get some internal consistency, let alone make it fit with the Bible.”
-It is God’s program as far as I’m concerned, and your faith is the program that you believe is God’s. I have seen no contortions, as this would hint at twists and misleads, which I have never seen. As far as the Bible is concerned, it would all depend on how you interpret the Bible. I can see every doctrine that is taught by the LDS church in the Bible, so I do not find it hard to reconsile the two.
“Finally, judging from Shem’s remarks, it seems that LDS want to re-write scripture. For example, instead of Revelation 21:22 saying “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple “, LDS seem to want it to say “there will be a number of cities in the age to come, and in one of them will be a house where the Father and Son will live”
-The verse actually states “And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.” This seems pretty clear that it is only this city that is being discussed. There was no temple inside the city, but he makes no mention of outside the city. God and Christ are the Temple, but as it says, they are the Temple of this city. It does not include any other area. It is not rewritten, simply interpreted differently.
Now, I will agree that you could say that we have rewritten scripture, as Joseph Smith did correct many mistranslated passages in the Bible, but this is not one of them.