The July 2009 issue of A Shield & Refuge Ministry Newsletter mentioned an interesting facet of LDS temple ordinances — that of proxy work done on behalf of excommunicated fundamentalist polygamists.
On June 2nd (2009) the Salt Lake Tribune ran a story about recent findings discovered by non-Mormon genealogical researcher Helen Radkey. The Salt Lake Tribune reported,
“Prominent fundamentalist Mormons, most of whom were excommunicated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for practicing polygamy while they were alive, have been posthumously re-baptized in LDS temples, a Salt Lake City researcher says.
“Helen Radkey said in a new report that she obtained church records on 20 fundamentalists — from murderer Ervil LeBaron to Joseph Musser to Rulon Jeffs — showing that they’ve been baptized and have had their plural marriages ‘sealed’ for time and eternity by proxy LDS members, one as recently as this year.” (The article, “Polygamous fundamentalists baptized by proxy into LDS Church, researcher says,” is in the Salt Lake Tribune archives and can be downloaded for a fee. However, the entire article can also be found at the ICSA website.)
On Mormon Curtain Ms. Radkey has detailed her research findings, including names, dates and historical background information on many of the fundamentalists for whom LDS temple work has been performed. For example,
“Rulon Clark Allred was born into a polygamous family in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Allred’s decision to take plural wives came in his twenties following what he described as a vision. That decision resulted in the estrangement of his first wife, Katherine Lucy Handy, whom he had been sealed to in the Salt Lake (LDS) Temple in 1926. Allred was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1940 for practicing polygamy. In 1941, his plural wives were also cut off from the Church… Allred was murdered in his office in Murray, Utah, on May 10, 1977, on the orders of Ervil LeBaron, the head of a rival polygamous group. At the time of his death, Allred was the husband of at least seven wives, the father of forty-eight children, and the spiritual leader of thousands of Mormon fundamentalists. Although the 1926 marriage sealing between Allred and Handy was annulled in 1942–Handy remarried in 1940–online IGI records still display the original 1926 sealing. Several of these records also list Mabel Finlayson, a plural wife of Allred, as an additional spouse. …Allred was posthumously baptized as recently as January 29, 2009 in the Ogden Utah Temple. He was previously baptized in 2001, 2002, and 2008. He was endowed and sealed to his parents in 2002 and 2008. Mormons gave plural marriage for Rulon Allred a recent thumbs up-when he was sealed by proxy to two of his wives, Ruth Rachel Barlow, and Ethel Jessop, on December 16, 2008 in the Ogden Utah Temple…”
A Shield & Refuge Ministry asks, “Why does the LDS Church condemn the practice of polygamy by Mormon fundamentalists, while at the same time, their temple system accepts deceased Mormon fundamentalists and many of their plural marriages?” That’s a good question.
It has long been understood within Mormonism that polygamy will be practiced to some degree in eternity. Three current Mormon apostles have been eternally sealed in the temple to two women each (Dallin Oaks, L. Tom Perry, and Russell M. Nelson are all widowers who have been remarried for time and eternity). But the polygamy of Mormon fundamentalists is quite different. Unlike the Mormon apostles who have but one living wife at a time, the fundamentalists have multiple living wives, and that in defiance of the laws of the Church and the land.
The polygamy of Rulon Allred (and so many others) was a sin requiring excommunication from the LDS Church. These men never repented in life. If they do so in death, according to Mormonism, their forfeited Church-membership blessings may be returned to them. Additionally, because of vicarious temple ordinances their (illegal) plural wives will be theirs for all eternity as well. They will (perhaps) become Gods and reign forever with their wives in their polygamous kingdoms.
Joseph Smith reportedly taught that the “dominion and powr” of a man’s eternal glory was directly tied to the number of wives and children he gained in mortality (see Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 99; Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 10-11). LDS author Todd Compton summarized,
“Thus in Smith’s Nauvoo ideology, a fullness of salvation depended on the quantity of family members sealed to a person in this life” (In Sacred Loneliness, 11, emphasis in the original).
How does all this fit together for the excommunicated Mormon fundamentalists and their wives? It appears they may gain a greater eternal glory than those faithful Mormons who obeyed the prophet and lived monogamously.
Tertullian and Crysostom knew of the practice and spoke out AGAINST it. They DID NOT acknowled it as a practice that Christians should engage in. The early church Father’s wrote a lot about the heretics and what those heretics believed. Does that mean they decided to join camps with them? NO! I speak out against Mormonism for heresy that it is. That doesn’t mean I intend to now start refraining from drinking coffee and start storing up water & rice or swear my allegiance to Joseph Smith. Big difference!
Crispin, your charge against the early church Fathers needs to be substantiated with facts. List out the references with quotes where any known accepted early church Father condoned this practice and encouraged Christians to be implementing it in their sacraments. You have nothing. Your scholarship is pathetic – again.
Your charges of the Coptic & Ethiopian Churches practicing this heresy in the past or present is baseless. I have read through their beliefs and all of their sacraments. They do not practice this and you are wrong – dead wrong. I’m not going to let you slide on your pathetic research on this one. I’ve contacted the representatives of their churches in Jersey City, N.J. and Los Angeles, CA. and have asked for an official statement from them on this matter to be declared to the Mormon Church. You either retract your statement against these Christians or be prepared to be made a fool.
The Mandaeans? Not Christian!
“A small religious sect in Iran and S. Iraq, who maintain an ancient belief resembling that of Gnosticism and that of the Parsis. Their system of astrology resembles those of ancient Babylonia and the cults of Magi in the last centuries BC. Their emanation system and their dualism suggests Gnostic origin, but unlike Gnostics, they abhor asceticism and emphasize fertility. Although some of their practices were influenced by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, they reject all three.” (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition 2008)
Crispin,
I see in you we have another over the top Mormon who will not attempt to understand the other side.
Discussing these matters with someone like you is difficult, because a) you don’t take the conversation seriously and b) it is then hard to take you seriously.
Now, why do I say you don’t take it seriously? Because you are so quick to jump to conclusions and you forget steps in logic and common sense. I know you’ll object to this characterization, but if you calm down a bit you might just make a bit more sense.
You use faulty logic to reach your conclusions, like saying “One man’s heretic is another’s evangelist.” See, one thing that is ignored is that there is a right answer in there. It is possible that Luther, Calvin, Graham and others were right, and that Marcion was wrong. Maybe you have more to offer than the one liner there, but without that substance, you just sound angry.
Same thing with Corinthians and pretty much every topic you discuss.
One thing I will agree with you on is that many “Christian” leaders and churches are very self serving, and as such should be called out. But even there you make a mistake in assuming all are like these corrupt men and women. I, for one, used to go to a ‘mega’ church and I can tell you nothing was abused there. I’d be happy to expand if you wish.
A lesson learned from this church, though, is that appearance is huge, and if a non-believer sees a ‘Christian’ acting badly, what will they conclude? Just as you have! To be fair, the conclusion makes sense, but it again is faulty.
The Cataphrygians (Montanists), a second century heretical sect, baptized actual corpses because of their misunderstanding of 1 Cor 15:29. The context of chapter 15 is the resurrection. False teachers had come into the church at Corinth teaching that there was no resurrection (v.12). Paul explains in the chapter the many reasons why that was a false teaching. Paul points out the inconsistencies of the false teachers in v.29 by stating that if the dead don’r rise, then why do they baptize for the dead? He’s showing them their contradiction.
Paul didn’t say, “Why are we (followers of Christ) then baptized for the dead?” He didn’t say, “Why then am I (Paul) then baptized for the dead?”
V.12 – “You”: Corinth church
V.29 – “They”: False teachers
V.30 – “We”: Corinth church
If Paul actually performend the ritual himself, he would include himself when talking about it. Jesus & the Apostles never mentioned this practice. Paul never commanded believers to do baptisms for the dead.
If Mormons want to run wild with one verse and make doctrines out of it, I want to know when the LDS Church is going to make a temple ordinance out of Mark 16:18? When will snake handling and poison drinking to prove individual worthiness before entering the temple be an ordinance that is commanded to take place at the temple recommend? They do this silliness in the Appalachian mountains and the graves up there are full of hillbillies that were foolish enough to go “out of bounds” with a Bible verse.
Mormons, you ready for the rattle snakes/copperheads and strychnine jars at the ward house? Prove you are worthy…ridiculous, but this is what you get with 1 Cor 15:29 with your twist and doctrine stretching.
crispin,
Read more carefully. I was quoting an article written by someone who is an exMormon and had a friend who worked in the finance dept. of the LDS. I was supplying some information regarding this to Ralph. If we’re going to fast for you, perhaps you need a break.
Ralph,
I have no idea why folks in churches don’t get the hall for free. I will say this regarding paying the pastor for his services: most mainline pastors have invested a lot of time and money in obtaining an advanced degree in theology, most often an M.Div. While Mormons don’t have a professional clergy, their leaders don’t have any training except, I guess, in interrogation techniques. (I just had to throw that in for fun)
Michael,
As I said one man’s heretic is another’s evangelist. Martin Luther and John Calvin were certainly considered heretics by the established religious order of the time – namely the Roman Catholic Church.
Falcon,
1. LDS Temple’s are cost centers and do not generate a profit. Your statements (regardless of the source) are false and misleading.
2. Contrary to your statement, Mormon leaders have a lifetime of theological training.
Andy,
1. Tertullian and Chrysostom were certainly aware that the practice of baptism for the dead was being carried out by many early Christians. They may have been against this practice, but then again they themselves were apostate heretics. My point is that baptism for the dead was a widespread and common practice amongst the early Christians.
2. LDS temple ordinances are based on modern revelation.
1 Corinthians 15:29 merely confirms that such practice was carried on by early Christians as attested to by Tertullian and Chrysostom.
3. The snake handling sect is an evangelical group.
4. A castrated God and denying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is what you get with your evangelical twisting of Biblical doctrine.
Why is it that getting a degree, a advanced degree to say the least seem so important compared to the Mormons who have a Clergy that are called to a positions and yet have full time jobs to support there families? What does the degree that to do with Preaching the Gospel of Christ,
“it is vain for anyone to minister without it. No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a prophet. No man can be a minister of Jesus Christ except he has a testimony of Jesus; and this is the spirit of prophecy. Whenever salvation has been administered, it has been by testimony. Men of the present time testify of heaven and hell, and have never seen either; and I will say that no man knows these things without this.” (Teachings, p. 160.)
Let me ask a question, how does one go to School to get a degree in revelations? Or becoming a Prophet? What school did Peter, James and John attend, where they not just lowly Fishermen?
Falcon, I LOL at your simplicity of knowledge concerning the Government of God and Gods Authority and Power.
Andy, you ignorantly imply there is only on scripture concerning baptism for the dead, Oh how wrong you are.
Malachi 4:5-6
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 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.
In April of 1836, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery declared that Elijah, in fulfillment of prophecy, visited them in the Kirtland Temple and gave them priesthood keys (authority) for the work of turning the hearts of the children to the father, including sacred temple work such as the sealing of families for eternity and baptism for the dead . These keys would initiate the turning of the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers. That includes genealogical research, in which the children seek out the names and his
I would just like to comment on the cost for building use, etc. The LDS Church does not charge its members for the use of any building for any occasion. Anyone performing a marriage ceremony (bishop or higher) does not get paid. Generally, the organist/pianist, vocalist, whatever, are not paid. The question, I believe, is whether or not this is the mark of the true church. I think Mormons will use it to support their position the Church is true. This does not mean that every Christian denomination charges for building and pastor. In fact, most pastors happily receive whatever they are offered if anything–there is no set price in most cases. Some denominations have the marriage ceremony on Sunday in church for the entire congregation to share in the celebration of marriage–usually at no cost. One thing to remember is that pastors have to report ANY income, and they fall under the dual category of employee/self-employed. Oh, yes, they have fun at tax time. I will say that I was disappointed in the fees for building use Christian churches in the area charged. I asked about this in class on Church Administration and Finance, and the professor said that churches have to be very careful as a nonprofit organization that they do not offer something a for-profit organization offers at a rate that undercuts them. I have to admit this is all very confusing to me, but it is something to consider before using this topic as a catalyst to promote the uniqueness of a church organization. In the end, I believe it falls into the category of non-essential to salvation, and steers us away from the valid topics of discussion such as the ontology of God, etc.
Blessings…
St. Crispin,
“it is not surprising that evangelical theology rejects the Christian priesthood ordinance of baptism for the dead along with all other Christian priesthood ordinances such as baptism for the living.”
FYI, a sacer-dotal priesthood was a later development and did not exist for the first century and a half of Christianity. You can’t get a Christian priesthood through Hebrews. Presbytoi (elders)are/is not hiereus (priest). Many a Jesuit priest will tell you the same thing. Presbytoi did and still do perform baptisms.
I would like to point everyone to the attempt by a Mormon here to hijack early church writings (and early heretical writings) to put some historical roots to a religion that did not emerge until the 19th century. Crispin you draw from writers who come from the time frame that the great apostasy was to take place in. Mormons cherry pick the early church (and early heretics) only when it serves their purposes. When it doesn’t, which is like 99% of the time, their writings are chocked up to apostasy.
St Crispin-
Like I and others have pointed out to you. Paul is talking to the converts about the pagans. He does not say we or you, but THEY. How could he be referring to the people he was talking to as they? When you talk to a group of people do you address them as they or you? Now there probably were some people in the church of Corinth that had adopted this practice, but that is the point. Paul refutes it.
HankSaint-
Malachi 4:5-6 is prophesying John th Baptist coming. It is a huge stretch to say that this verse implies baptism for the dead in anyway. Unless you believe in what your prophets have construed no one would ever read these verses that way.
I think the post that Falcon redistributed is very accurate and concise. I will try to explain, I have worked in and have studied finance for many years; how you appropriate funds and calculate revenue streams in accordance with spending is a very lengthy calculation, if you are interested I can show you multiple calculations that very successful organizations use to determine cost to increase revenue and arbitrage.
I am going to use the game of golf as an example, a country club that requires membership, inclusive. At said country club you pay for membership which gives you the privilege to play golf on their property, you are not paying for golfing on the course, you do not put money in the cup on each green, and those fees are already taken care of. In TSCC, you pay Tithing, which gives you a recommend card (if you met other requirements also), in turn that gives you the privilege to attend the Temple which TSCC owns, you do not pay at the temple, and those fees are already taken care of.
So how does a Country Club and TSCC determine where and when to build their devices that generate revenue? The practices are very much the same in regards to demographics and population. It is a little harder for the Country club to gather data in the surrounding community that supports the proposal of building a golf course. First they need to gather demographic data which includes how many golfers live in the area, how far are they willing to travel, what price point to we start memberships at, what’s our target age group and income level, what skill level are the target demographic. In TSCC they have a built in system that records the needed data to make an educated analysis which helps them determine where and when to build a Temple. That system is called tithing settlement. Each year, in December, members get to proclaim to their Bishop whether or not they are Full, half, quarter, or zero tithing payers. cont…
Cont…
This data, along with attendance records and membership population creates a great cross section of a regional area that is under consideration to building a temple.
In both cases, if they have done the appropriate work, each organization will be able to make the right decision on whether or not to build the facility.
I remember in Minnesota, a few years after the temple was in operation, during stake conference the Stake President announced that temple attendance was increasing by over 200% each year. So that’s an increase in tithing funds also, if you have an increase in one you must have an increase in the other, especially when the high (temple attendance) is dependent on the lower (Tithing). When you look at an isolated regain, like Minnesota, and for example the average months income is, say, $1000 a month, after the Temple is built the average income is now $2000 a month, then as an organization they realize the income stream was increase due to the new variable that was introduced to the calculation. This is capitalism at its finest folks.
Roxanne,
When it comes to Biblical interpretation, we Christians are playing by a different set of rules than Mormons. The false religion of Mormonism survives on ignorance. Besides being totally ignorant of any type of systematic theology or basic concepts of Biblical interpretation, these folks don’t understand church history or church tradition. They have a make believe religion that builds on a foundation of Joseph Smith’s second sight visions (his imagination) and his bogus revelations. They’ve bought it emotionally and now they are stuck trying to support it with rational evidence. They get conditioned to think in a certain way that keeps them in a perpetual immature state.
So when we provide them with some solid information that unravels their LDS sweaters we get the equivalent of “Why don’t you go home and tell your mother to shut-up.”
Andy Watson dropped a hundred pounds of information on our Mormon friends and the problem is they have a one pound of capacity. Michael P. provided a blue print of how to process information but I’m sure it flew right on by our friends without even arousing a cogant thought. It’s the nature of what we are dealing with.
Kevin,
Thank you very much. Isn’t amazing how cold facts create havoc for our Mormon posters who have to defend their emotional committment to Mormon Inc. I can see where this is all a very “spiritual” decision regarding the building of the minitemples. If the boys who sit in the big tall buildings at Mormon Inc. in SLC, can keep the little people scruying around like trained gerbals, they can keep the cash flow-up and the empire flush with green backs.
I wonder how much money they make selling the costumes at the temples? I’m sure that’s all factored in when they are doing their calculations on whether or not to build a temple. One of the things that the article I cited mentioned, was the number of temples that are sitting empty without much activity. I’m sure that has something to do with the zero growth of the Mormon church, the two-thirds inactive Mormons and the fact that half of the missionaries go inactive.
Besides, my guess is that there’s enough people freaked out by the temple experience that they don’t want to go back any way. The folks who catch on to this scam either fade away from the program or become militant as a reaction to having been hoodwinked by the lies and deception which is part of the DNA of Mormonism.
Kevin,
1. What does the acronym TSCC stand for?
2. You are fabricating your data on tithing payments. Faithful members were paying their tithes long before the construction of a LDS temple in their area.
3. Your “Country Club” analogy to LDS temples is really inane. Why would the LDS Church be building so many temples in poverty-stricken third world countries if raising revenue through a supposed increased tithing was their aim? What capitalist would build a “country club” in a desperately poor country in Africa, South America, or Asia? Very little tithing cash flows there even if all the members are full the payers.
4. The construction, operation, and maintenance of a LDS temple constitutes a huge Cost Center for the Church. It is not a Profit Center as you falsely assert. Your knowledge of finance and financial terms is rather dubious at best.
Really, your argument is full of holes.
Falcon,
Your ignorance of the LDS Church never ceases to amaze me. [Trimmed by moderator.]
How old are you – 12?
Crispin–
OK, but the claim lacks any appeal to truth. One man’s heretic may be another’s savior, but does that make either one correct? If there is one truth, and one of them holds the truth they both cannot be right. So, your claim is an empty slogan, and the evidence is against you.
Also, saying it (baptism for the dead) was widely spread through Christianity does not resolve the issue, does it? Given the existence various cults and outside influences of other faiths into some early churches muddies the waters. As has been discussed, Paul was saying those who practice it are in error and was not talking about himself. So no matter how widespread it was (and I don’t think it was as widespread as you say) does not mean it was correct.
That is what you must prove– that it was correct, not that it was widespread, which is irrelevant.
st. crispin,
You are a naughty little boy. I can always tell when I’m getting under our LDS folks skin by their temper tantrum backlashes. I’m hitting right on the truth and, as they say in “A Few Good Men”; “You can’t handle the truth.” Your childish rants reveal a lot about the immaturity we see in many Mormons. You’ve been getting your clock cleaned on a regular basis out here by me and every other adult poster. Andy Watson pummeled you but your capacity to understand what he and the rest of us say is limited by your conditioning within Mormonism. I think Michael P. hit it on the head with you, but I know you couldn’t process the information. I chuckled as I imagined what he wrote flying right over your head.
Michael,
Throughout recorded history new religions that have sprouted up were considered as being heretical by the established religious order. The Jews thought that Jesus and His disciples were dangerous, blaspheming cultists. Similarly the Roman Catholic Church viewed reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin as heretics. Likewise, Mohammed was considered a heretic by many of his contemporaries. We all know what ev’s think about Joseph Smith. My point is that perceived heresy in a new religion does not invalidate that religion’s claims.
Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:29:
“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?”
Paul is referring to Christians – not pagans – who are practicing baptism for the dead. The context of the passage and the chapter is that Paul is writing about the reality of the resurrection of the dead and is using the example of the practice of baptism for the dead as a line of evidence supporting the doctrine of resurrection. There is absolutely no evidence that Paul is condemning or refuting this practice. On the contrary Paul’s remarks demonstrate his support of the ordinance.
The historical facts are clear, the practice of baptism for the dead was common and widespread in the early church. That this ordinance is correct can be readily verified through its duly authorized practice.
MICHEAL
if it turns out that you are right I don’t think I have much to worry about, and that is really my point.
By your belief I need only have faith in Christ to be guarunteed salvation. This I have. I may think of him differently, but I believe in the same figure who died on the Cross. Thus, as that is your only requirement, I am good either way.
As to it being accepted by the leaders, as I said they are far to busy to keep track of all this, and it is not that important to speak out about such things.
As I said, it is an acceptance that people love their families and want to give them the best chance at salvation they can. Why tell people not to do this? What would be the purpose? I do not think that it is going to do much good (though it might raise them from the Tellestial to the Terrestial Kingdom), but as it really doesn’t matter why bring it up?
Now, while you can have the work done for you, I do not think it will do a whole lot of good. The spirit you pocess when you die is the spirit that you will pocess in the next life. Thus, if you reject the church now the odds are you will reject such work being done for you later. It is also true that you have had the truth taught to you and know the church. Thus you have had all the opportunity you needed,and will not get another chance in the world to come.
Of course I cannot say any of this is exactly true. This is only my personal opinion as concerns the teachings and doctrine of the church. It may be that you would be given that chance, and if you are I will rejoice with you.
GUNDECK
I gave my understanding because I have not been able to participate in the ordinances myself, and so have no first hand knowledge of it.
Now, I have searched it out, and found a great paper detailing it all out. It is found here http://www.richmondancestry.org/pdf_files/Temple_Submission_Guidelines.pdf
Now, if you read this you will actually realize that everything I said is true, and that I was not in error. I was in error in that special permission is required for Excommunicated members to receive their ordinances.
However, the personal worthiness thing you mention is not a requirement, and we are told not to even consider it as this will be handled beyond the veil.
Now, I will still say that the required approval for excommunicated members still does not make this story anything more than a slight interest. How many people have had their names removed from the church records? Out of those, how many have family members who want to do the work for them? Thus, I still stand by the simple fact that the First presidency doesn’t have time to go through each name individually.
This does not bother me, nor does it really bother me that they are sealing plural marriages for anyone, as all this will be cleared up at the judgement.
Crispy, TSCC (The So Called Church)
It’s obvious that you are incapable of understanding Adam Smiths insight on how economies move. Go educate yourself so we can have an appropriate discussion regarding economic development and future cost of spending vs. monetary inflow approximantion.
But I am bored at the moment so I will entertain your Mormon goggles. 🙂
“You are fabricating your data on tithing payment”
How is this fabrication? It is a simple law of economics, go reread me statment. If, after a few years of operation, the St. Paul Temple is seeing an increase in Attendance of 100% – 200% – 300%, or whatever… that is in direct relation to an increase in Tithing. The reason this holds true is that the “new” membership, or growth of the area was not that much over the same time frame. The increase is coming from already existing members starting to pay tithing so they can be part of the “In” group that goes to the Temple once a month for ward temple night. If anything is fabricated it is this quote, “Faithful members were paying their tithes long before the construction of a LDS temple in their area.”
I agree their are a certain number of members who are throwing their money down the Vacuous LDS hole, this is what put the Minneapolis area on the radar for a new build. But the increase after years of operation is due to a whole new environmental factor. Peer pressure to go to the temple, in turn, more tithing payers.
“Your “Country Club” analogy to LDS temples is really inane” Your idea of TSCC is insane. Again I am bored. Why does the LDS org do anything? Why did they do Sports Baptisms in 3rd world countries? I agree TSCC is an ODD duck. But then again Read about Wal-Marts mistakes in Germany, China, and Brazil, whenever you try to export American Capitalism it often fails, TSCC is no different, they failed; epic fail.
Cont…
“Your knowledge of finance and financial terms is rather dubious at best.” Really you are not disagreeing with me, which makes this so funny. You are disagreeing with people like, Greg Mankiw, Adam Smith, Anita McGrawn, Ram Cassumer… shall I go on?
It seems that we have hit a nerve, why do you care if the Temple is a profit center? A duck is a duck is a goose I guess. LOL
For the most part TSCC biggest revenue stream is from donations, tithing, correct? In order to go to the temple you need to have a current recommend, correct? In order to have a current recommend you must be a full tithing payer correct? In order to increase temple attendance you must increase recommend holders and you must increase full tithing payers… Correct? So at the root of it all… where do you focus your time and energy when trying to build more revenue? This idea is not unique to religious affiliation. This is economics Doah!
FALCON
As I said, it is most likely that they never truly understood the doctrine. There are many who join the church for simple reason. Many like the emphasis on families, and the idea of eternity. For some it is one thing, for some another. However, for many this does not lead to true faith in the doctrine of the church. No, I do not think all were offended or fell into sin. Many simply just never had real faith inthe church. If they were members out of fear I would guess that this is what happened.
I have known a person personally who loved teh church and was very active, until they learned the concept of the Plurality of Gods and all it implies, at which point they fell away. Did any individual offend them? No. Did they fall into sin? No (at least not until after they left). However, the doctrine offended them, and they had not faith enough to get past this.
Truth be told, some doctrine even offended Joseph Smith. Evidence would show that Joseph knew the concept of Plural Marriage in the early 1830’s, but was so disgusted by it that he put off teaching it until he was told he would lose his salvation if he didn’t.
As to my hypothetical, I appreciate your answer, but you seem to be confusing what I believe. I have never thought the way to the Father was through Joseph Smith. It is through Christ Jesus and no one else.
As to not speaking in hypotheticals, I appreciate what you say, but the example of abortion doesn’t really make your point very well (at least not to me). I have concidered this and would allow her the abbortion, and I believe God would as well. He is not unfeeling. Most everything of this nature is appropriate at times, even though it should be avoided in general.
Shem, you said, ” I have never thought the way to the Father was through Joseph Smith” I think that is great.
If a Prophet speaks today, or yesterday on a topic, especially one that is regarding eternal salvation, would that teaching not hold true for every generation because salvation is eternal and the way to it does not change?
If you can agree with the above statement then how do you understands Brigham’s statement is Journal of Discourses about J.S. having to give his consent on who enters the CK. B.Y. was pretty explicit in saying that it was through J.S. that man reaches eternal salvation.
So how do you rationalize between the two. One being your feelings and ideas that you reach the father through Jesus, and the other, that it is thought J.S. that you get into the CK. Do you white wash B.Y.? Do you try and explain away B.Y.’s teaching? How do you connect the two opposing approaches. I know you are going to say they are not opposing, granted, but it seems like there could be some conflict in the central cohesiveness.
Kevin,
It is clear that you do not even know what the term “profit center” means given that you erroneously apply that term to LDS temples. Really, your lack of understanding of basic economic principles is as pathetic as your lack of understanding of basic LDS doctrine.
Your argument is full of holes and without merit or substance. The fact that the LDS Church is constructing many temples at great cost throughout third world countries where there is little chance of financial recovery from local tithes clearly refutes the notion that the building of temples is based on supposed revenue projections.
In Catholic tradition who stands as keeper of the Pearly gates of Heaven? Is it not the Apostle Peter? As Peter was the head of his dispensation in the meridian of time so too is Joseph Smith the head of our dispensation. What Brigham Young was writing about is that Joseph Smith holds the same position of “gate keeper” for all people in our time as does Peter for those living in his time.
shem,
Why don’t they truly understand the Mormon doctrine? I understand it. I’ve studied it, dug through it, held it up to the light and found it to be false. It’s really not that difficult. I would guess that’s the case. It has nothing to do with not understanding it, but understanding it very well and what it means.
The first thing that a Mormon convert has to do, is reject Biblical Christianity and along with it God. A convert must dismiss who Jesus is and what His atoning sacrifice on the Cross means. I don’t have any hard core numbers but I’d guess that what causes people to flee Mormonism are such things as the Mormon repudiation of the One, eternal, everlasting God; the temple ceremonies, the legalistic structure of Mormonism and the Mormon culture itself. Also what happens is that people start to learn about the real history of the Mormon church and realize that there has been a whitewash of some of the most fundamental aspects. People feel like they have been made fools of.
I appreciate your honesty in recognizing why folks leave. Mormonism is a religion that needs it’s own personal reformation. I think the Mormon faithful are fooling themselves if they think they are going to get a big influx of converts within North America in particular. The doctrine, especially as it pertains to the nature of God, is just too repulsive for the average person raised even in a nominal Christian faith. In the 19th century people didn’t have the information that is available today.
Sandra Tanner talks about her interactions with historians who are Mormons. They admit to her what we all know about Mormonism but stay in it because the church does some good. My response is, what does that matter? It’s not true. I couldn’t support something I didn’t believe in. John Dehlin over on his website is trying to get those who don’t believe it any longer to stay.
They even talk about how to get around the bishop during the temple recommend interview.
Crispy, did you not read my posts at all, I will not further address your Mor(m)on goggles regarding economics until you have something intelligent to say. Read from the authors who I listed, and not just the bullet points, get into the “Meat” of what they are talking about. Maybe someday you will learn the idea of Rebounding Ratio’s.
So the way to Heaven (CK) is threw Joseph'(S)myth.
I always through of Peter as the Gate Keeper FOR Jesus, maybe a list from Jesus was given to Peter. This is my own personal thoughts, and I represent only myself.
BUT, B.Y. stated it was Joe’s CONSENT that a person must have to get to the CK. Consent would indicate that it is Joe’s decision on who passes and who does not. Joe cannot give HIS consent for someone else, let alone Jesus! Consent can only be given by the individual making the JUDGMENT. I agree, this is how TSCC sees it, I disagree the idea of Joe having any position to give Consent, thats for the Clarfo Crispo.
Kevin,
It is readily apparent that you got an “F” on your finance exam.
Here are some definitions which you need to know:
Profit Center: A business unit or department which is treated as a distinct entity enabling revenues and expenses to be determined so that profitability can be measured.
Cost Center: A cost center is part of an organization that does not produce direct profit and adds to the cost of running a company. Examples of cost centers include research and development departments, marketing departments, help desks and customer service/contact centers.
So here is the big question, under which category does a LDS temple fall?
Clearly the LDS temple is a cost center. No revenues or cash flow is generated at the door of the temple. There are no entrance fees. The temple does not send a big bag of money to Salt Lake City every month. On the contrary the operating costs of an LDS temple are quite high.
One can argue that the presence of an LDS temple increases the spirituality of local members which in turn may or may not result in increased tithe paying but that does not alter the fact that the temple is still a cost center for the Church and not a profit center.
That is basic finance – Duh.
St. Crispin & All,
“As Peter was the head of his dispensation in the meridian of time so too is Joseph Smith the head of our dispensation.”
Where are you getting your history from?
We have seen Mormons here try to tell us that, “The historical facts are clear, the practice of baptism for the dead was common and widespread in the early church” and in other threads that polygamy was widespread in the early church. All of this with a some cherry picked quotes from the ancient world at best, and ideas pulled out of thin air at worst.
I challenge any Mormon to show me where baptism for the dead was a widespread practice in the early church especially the primitive church. I challenge Mormons to show me that polygamy was widespread in Christian communities. I challenge Mormons to demonstrate that the early church held to a monarchial episcopate. I believe that many Mormons here are preaching to
themselves . . . if they say something enough times (like a total apostasy) it must be true – regardless of the facts.
Once again, it’s the Mormon equation of Jesus plus this and this and this and this equals salvation, which we as Christians know is not a biblical understanding of salvation. Nothing new regardless of the thread…
Peace…
Yeah, nothing new in some ways. But I have enjoyed Ralph and Crispy on this thread, because they bring up new stuff to me, and then I get to wait and see what Andy comes up with in response. This is way better than all that junk on facebook…Thanks for all of this, guys (and gals). I continue to learn…
However, my arroganometer, Stuart, is has really gone up since you have come back from wherever you went. No worries, tho, mate. Keep at it. We’ll figure this out. Blessings to all.
David,
Our Mormon friends have zero knowledge of Christian history. They are beyond hapless. They just make it up as they go along. Anything to maintain the good old Mormon testimony. Sometimes it’s difficult to even take their pitiful comments about Church history seriously. Mormonism is a manufactured religion from a guy who took some from column A, some from column B, a bit from column C, mixed in with a lot of outrageous claims and confident speech and none of the faithful ever ventured (then or today) to check it out. But it proves that if someone wants to believe something bad enough, they’ll swallow anything to maintain the fantasy.
Do temples make money? Do they lose money? It is hard to say because TSCC stopped releasing financial data. They used to announce all of it, but decided to change that policy when people started to realize how high on the hog the church was.
Brigham Young died with around $900,000. That would be quite a bit more than the average American today, and a huge fortune at the time.
How can we REALLY say that temples aren’t making money if the church hides the data? It is my experience that if data is being hidden, the organization doing the hiding would be hurt if the info got out. The research I found claims that increased tithing after a temple is dedicated pays for the temple within 2 years, and it is a cash cow after that.
Does anyone have any statistics for the temple losing money? How much is being lost?
MeganH,
What do you mean when you say that “tithing after a temple is dedicated pays for the temple within 2 years”? Temples are not dedicated unless they have been paid off in full. This payment happens before construction is finished so the temple can be dedicated ASAP after open houses are finished. I am not saying that your observations are wrong or right, I just want to know your definition of the temple being ‘paid off in 2 years’, if it’s already been paid in full before construction is finished.
Here though is where I disagree with you. I was the financial clerk in the ward when the temple near me was built. As far as I can remember there was no increase in tithing or the number of members paying it. But that was a long time ago, I could be remembering wrong.
Kevin,
The increase in number of people going to the temple does not have to be related to an increase in people paying tithing. This would have some contribution, but there are a couple of other factors. I know of many members who pay a full tithing but do not go to the temple for various reasons – child minding problems, chronic illness/disabilities, travel problems, work conditions, etc. Even with the temple on their back doorstep some people have problems getting there – I know because I lived with the temple about 2 minute drive from my place and only about a third of the ward regularly attended. I went when I could but because of problems at home and work related stresses I got there about 4 times a year. Now if I started going 12 times a year that would be a 300% increase in attendance for me. Now imagine if the whole stake had similar problems but found a way around to attend more often – that would increase attendance dramatically wouldn’t it? So the 200% increase would not all be about tithing, but people overcoming problems/obstacles and attending the temple more often.
All,
Crispin wrote, “Your comparison of the LDS Church to pre-Reformation Catholicism is weak and without substance.”
1 The Pope/A living prophet
2 The question of the authority of the Bible in determining Church doctrine
3 Reliance on the church to get forgiveness/redemption/salvation
4 The question of salvation outside the Church
5 Heirarchical arrangement of priests, saints, ordinary worshippers
6 Elaborate esoteric schemes as the basis of church rites
7 Emphasis on ‘doing’ stuff (which can’t be properly credited to you without the preisthood)
8 Interaction with and on behalf of the dead
9 Culturally self-serving and inward looking
The last point is most remarkable because the end-product is that I should get the best deal for me (and my family, if I’m feeling generous) when I get to heaven. Its all about me. Jesus appears as someone who enables me to get my rewards – he is there to serve my interests.
haha… not only that, but from what I’ve read, Crispin regularly uses the Roman Catholic Church to validate his own religion. I thought they were supposed to be Mormonism’s “great whore” of a church, Satan’s very own…
MeganH wrote “Do temples make money?”
Perhaps is a reflection of North American capitalistic thinking that when I suggested that LDS use Temples to ‘earn’ credit, the discussion quickly turned to money.
There are other ways to ‘earn’ credit – particurly by partaking of Temple rites and other LDS religious duties. This is like pre-reformation Roman Catholicism before the introduction of Indulgences.
Its not all about money, though the money side of it seems to be high on the discussion agenda. BY died with $900K? By the American value system, he must have been a huge success, then.
By the way, I don’t have a problem with Churches raising money to run themselves, and this audience should note that the tax rules about profits/non-profits do vary around the world.
Further, I agree that mega-buck mega-churches look ugly, and the guys in charge really need to be transparent if they don’t want to look like crooks (apparantly, some mega-churches do manage to do this).
Also, I’d support any scheme that brought down the cost of weddings, principally because I think that the modern habit of delaying marriage to save the money to pay for the wedding is not beneficial. However, before LDS here get too excited about their ‘special offer’, I would not recommend an LDS wedding because of the baggage that comes with the LDS agenda.
I truly believe that our LDS readers who visit here, read the thread topics and don’t post are probably very intelligent people. I believe any honest person with reasonable intelligence and sound mental faculties can read the interchange, do comparisons on the information provided by posters and make a conclusion on the evidence.
Crispin stated that “the Church Fathers knew of and acknowledged the practice of baptism is attested to in many of their writings.” He goes on to reference Tertullian as a source, but provides no reference work attributing Tertullian to this pagan practice. Crispin does cite Chrysostom as a source and references Homily XL on 1 Cor 15. I have read some of Tertullian’s work (notably on the Trinity) and have never read him to “acknowledge the practice of baptism for the dead”. I have read Chrysostom’s Homily Book 40 on 1 Cor 15:29 and I quoted what Chrysostom really said about this pagan practice. The facts are that Chrysostom said the exact opposite of what Crispin tried to put to his charge. This is dishonest, malicious, sloppy scholarship and a lie. If Crispin was to pull this stunt in any school of higher learning he would be bounced out or given a big, fat “F” for a grade.
Crispin goes on to just repeat the same old “dribble” about the early Church Fathers giving support and practicing this pagan proxy work, but again, provides no detailed references to prove his claims. That’s called “hot air” in my world. I believe LDS visitors reading this can see right through this maze of terrible scholarship and rank amateur attempt of posting here with meaningless one sentence responses.
I am amazed at the level of arrogance and lack of personal pride that Mormons like Crispin have. He and others like him that engage in elementary school level scholarship on here have no shame. Mormons like him are shown to be in error and pushing information on here that is not factual for their cause. I would be embarrassed and ashamed, but he is not.
How much credibility would I have if I came on here and decided to put forth some idea or practice and then reference someone from the past supposedly giving approval of it, but when checked, it proved that the source I listed said no such thing? That’s right – no credibility. Let me give an example. (Purely ficticious)
A restored church has just been brought back today. It’s called the Science Unification Church Keeping Eternal Restored Sacraments (SUCKERS). Modern day Prophet Bozo the Clown has a revelation that ancient practices of a group in the past are to be practiced today to attain worthiness and acceptance by a god who lives on the star Cotton Candy. Bozo teaches that Pluto is very hot instead of cold and very close to the sun. Also, the fishing on Pluto is great so followers must have lots of fish swimming in their baptismal fonts at the SUCKERS temples. The prophet today wants members to prove their worthiness to the god on Cotton Candy by following the example of castrating one’s self as stated in Matthew 19:12 – “there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
New male members are to do this “or be square” and the females are just “beans out of luck” on being married to a male. Bozo doesn’t realize that the group will not grow without procreation. Bozo cites Galileo in his work “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” [actual work] as proof that Galileo did “acknowledge the practice of self-castration and collecting fish in baptismal fonts”.
You, an informed and attentive reader read the above and realize that this is a load of crap. You’ve read Galileo’s work and know that Galileo actually spoke AGAINST this nutcase theory by false science teachers surrounding him. You quote Galileo speaking against it, but Bozo the prophet keeps repeating that Galileo was in favor of it even though he wasn’t. What conclusion do you come away with? Reliable?
Professor Crispin then makes the statement that the Ethiopian and Coptic Churches have and still do practice baptism for the dead. He offers again no proof in reference from any of their church doctrines, practices and sacraments which are readily available to read to any interested reader inclined to do so. The professor also states that the Mandaean Church continues to practice this pagan practice of baptisms for the dead.
The Mandaean church is not Christian. It never was and it is not now. As I cited in my earlier reference, they wholly reject Christianity. The Ethiopian and Coptic Orthodox Church are Christian in their belief on the nature of God, deity of Christ and the Trinity. Uninformed Mormons such as Crispin make the blunderous mistake of referencing supposed supportive sources all the while “shooting themseleves in the foot” in those references not supporting anything held dear to Mormons. Ethiopian and Coptic Orthodox Christians would spit in hearing of what Joseph Smith said about the nature of God.
What Professor Crispin has said about the Ethiopian and Coptic Orthodox Church is a flat-out lie. They don’t engage in this practice now nor in the past. Crispin fails to give any sources) that can be checked by anyone willing to do the research. (Let me know if you’d like the sources This is slander, pathetic and sloppy scholarship not worthy of kindergarten scholastics.
Anyone can talk and run their mouth without anything to back it up. It’s garbage and it should be embarrassing to the LDS Church for supposedly educated Mormons like Crispin to throw this kind of rhetoric around with nothing to back it up. What’s next? The “Dorothy method” from the Wizard of Oz routine? Just stand in place, click the heels three times and say it over and over and dream it to be reality? Somehow I don’t think this is what Mormon apostle Russell Ballard had in mind when he encouraged Mormons to hit the internet and push the Mormon gospel (Ensign, July 2008, p.58).
Ralph,
I appreciate your taking a “stab” at Alma 34:31-36. However, I don’t see how you can state this only applies to Nephite apostates and them not having a second chance in the Mormon spirit world, but the apostate polygamists of today get all the opportunities they want via perks from their relatives doing proxy work. Why would the Mormon god be the god of second chances for everybody else (apostates supposedly) but not the Nephites? It just doesn’t add up. Please explain D&C 76:32-34.
All,
Mormons bash Christianity for our alleged apathy in not being a works-focused religion, but I wonder why over 60% of the LDS Church is inactive with most just “camped out” at home? Is it possible that many of them know that they will have plenty of time in the next life to get it done so why bother now? With relatives on this side of the veil to do proxy work for them, opportunities in the spirit world and then the Millennium to work toward their personal godhood, who are the lazy ones? I say it’s the Mormons. If I were Mormon I would be inactive like most and be procrastinating.
If Mormonism were true, and it’s not, I’d still come out pretty good. According to D&C 76:71-80 I’ve got the terrestrial right now and I could tell Joseph Smith to kiss my rear. Mormons don’t know what kingdom they will get and if they want the celestial, they will have to “kiss the rear” of Joseph Smith because they need his approval to get in (according to Brigham Young).
The Bible doesn’t fit into the Mormon agenda because there are no second chances after death (Heb 9:27). It’s eternity with the Lord or outer darkness. The rich man in Luke 16:19-31 found out the eternal hard way. Read it! It’s not a parable! Parables do not use the real names of people. Mormons believing in continuing chances after death have believed one of the greatest lies of Satan – spiritual procrastination. God says NOW is the time – 2 Cor 6:2. Mormons can’t blame it on Joseh Smith or Brigham Young.
Andy, I think the point is simply that the concept, the idea of performing ordinances for those that have passed on is a valid one and that other religions or systems of belief outside of the LDS faith do similar..
“..for Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient…”
Proxy baptism makes perfect sense for those that were taught by Christ in spirit prison at least if one believes that baptism is necessary for a higher more glorious salvation. And we do.
Reference was made to Matthew 1:1-16 on the genealogy of Jesus Christ to somehow support what the Mormons are doing in their genealogy efforts. This is an amazing stretch and leap, but it has come to be expected in attempts to using scripture to justify what they want. People and false religions/cults all over the world could reference the Bible to justify anything.
The text in Matthew 1:1-16 gives us the genealogy list of how Jesus came here via a human birth lineage. There is a reason for this. Namely, to support prophecy from the Old Testament in what line Christ would follow after. What I DO NOT see anywhere listed in any of the Bible texts are these points:
1. Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist (Aaronic priesthood, correct LDS?) by proxy for anyone listed in that chart in Matthew 1:1-16. Why wouldn’t Jesus take care of this fundamental task on behalf of all his earthly family going back to Abraham with John the Baptist right there?
2. Jesus or any of the disciples doing genealogy work in the temple or synagogue for their past family lineage.
3. Jesus teaching the disciples or followers this important principle to start implementing for their deceased Jewish relatives who had died.
4. The disciples/apostles participating in this practice, teaching it or actually performing it.
Jesus Christ and the disciples talked a lot about baptism – but nothing about baptism for the dead. It’s an LDS argument based on scriptural silence and is “dead in the water” when it comes to doctrine. Who was Jesus talking to in Matthew 28:19? He was referring to live human beings in nations – not those PLUS dead people in the tombs! Scripture interprets scripture: one more reason we know that 1 Cor 15:29 doesn’t mean or condone what the Mormons practice.
Every non-Christian cult has their identity to get attention. LDS have baptism for the dead. Jehovah’s Witnesses have bans on blood transfusions & destroying the cross. Prov 14:12.
Well Andy, that was quiet a journey you just embarked on. All this coming from a Creedal Christian who has been so wrapped up in his own self importance, that he wants everyone else to applaud what is amazingly a study in miscredulity. In case your not sure of my description then apply the opposite of the below.
“If two things don’t fit, but you believe both of them, thinking that somewhere, hidden, there must be a third thing that connects them, that’s credulity.” Author unknown.
What is credulous is your rambling on about what you don’t think Crispin is capable of stating, resulting in your own inept babbling, inappropriate condescending remarks, all for wanting to take center stage, while you unwittingly come across as nothing more then a pseudo-intellectual and when asked a serious intellectual question we are usually left with just a blank stare. I have seen many of your kind that come here and other Forums preaching to the Choir, when in fact it is evident to most guest and visitors you have little to offer and even less personal research to share, as you offer up your plagiarized talking points you borrow from you favorite Books or Copy and paste data banks. So the old saying, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”, so for the sake of your choir, I suggest —acta est fabula plaudite. Please one and all, applaud Andy, he has performed well for all his minions.
Regards, Richard.
For all those arguing about who practiced baptisms for the dead, on a Roman Catholic page (http://www.catholic.com/library/Mormonism_Baptism_for_the_Dead.asp) It says –
So what they are saying basically is that no one knows for sure who Paul is referring to – pagans or aberrant Christian groups outside orthodox Christian groups.
Another website (http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pagan_origins_baptism.html) gives the history of baptism and states that pagan religions used it before the Christian religion did. Justin Martyr suggested that this was because the devils knew Jesus would come and bring baptism with Him and so they copied His plan to confuse people – sounds like a similar argument to LDS temple vs Free Masonry! 🙂
Andy,
You are forgetting the verse in Alma 34 that I highlighted stating that our spirit will be the same after death. So if the person is lazy now, they will be then and thus will not do anything including accepting the truth. There is no second chance, they had it on this earth.
HankSaint,
Are you really trying to tell us your remarks to Andy were not “condescending”? Why don’t you answer the questions I ask earlier? Or, you can try these.
If baptism is necessary, then would not the prior baptisms (LDS baptisms) of Mormon fundamentalists count? How big does a sin have to be before it invalidates a baptism, and another baptism must be performed?
Hank/Richard,
Thank you for reading my posts. I’m happy that you enjoyed them. Don’t give me any applause. I don’t want any nor do I deserve any. I give Jesus Christ all the praise, glory and adoration for everything I do at every waking moment because if it wasn’t for what He did for me on the cross by paying my sin debt in full I would be headed for hell/outer darkness where the Mormons are headed. I don’t want Mormons going there. I could easily sit on my rear like most of Christendom that has “written off” the LDS Church as “lost causes” and “hopeless”, but I won’t.
You need to learn the difference between someone doing their homework, research and contending for the faith and somebody coming on here being a “wise guy” running their mouth with nothing to back it up, slandering other Christian churches or the early Church Fathers. Militant Mormons come here and attempt to “steam roll” over Christians with their scripture-empty “horsepower” thinking they can dupe the uninformed. Like I said, I received my LDS education from the Mormons. Again, attend LDS Institute. I’m happy that non-LDS members can attend as well. The LDS Church Distribution Center gives me whatever I want. Take it up with them if you don’t like it. They like my money.
I’m sorry, but did you have a question for me somewhere in this thread? When you do – ask it. I answered your question on the Trinity on the last thread completely and fully. By the way, I left you one more with a special message from God in the Bible.
Lastly, I’m not a creedal Christian. I’m Southern Baptist by denomination. We are the largest Christian denomination in North America and outnumber the Mormon Church in their active and inactive status (over 16 million). We don’t have creeds and don’t recognize them as being authoritative. The Bible is the Word of God – period.
You could do what other Mormons do and have done. You could click on this email and ask anything you want. Thanks!
[email protected]
I ran out of postings yesterday, so sorry for the lagged response.
Crispin, Why do you care if the temple is a revenue generator?
Ralph, read Quinn, hierarchy of power to understand you own origination approach to building temples, the motivational purposes, and the end result.
The LDS org. lives off of donations, along with a lot of other entities around the world.
By your definition, the temple is a profit center. Profitability is measured by attendance, which means full tithe payers. I can see to the undereducated mind that the temple would look like a cost center, and thats fine if thats the way you want to look at it because it makes you comfortable that TSCC is not financially motivated. Read Anita McGrawn especially her part on Core activities and Core Assets, she would suggest that the temples are in fact Revenue generating entities.
Crispin has said a few times that their are temples in third world countries, a friend sent me the following links-
Heres a list of third world countries, which ones have temples? http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm
Here is a list of LDS temples, I don’t see any third world’s on the list..
http://www.lds.org/temples/chronological/0,11206,1900-1,00.html
So what was your claim again?
Also if you mean third world as “outside” the U.S. please reread my statements about exporting American economics to foreign countries, I.E. Wal-Mart.
As a kicker, why did TSCC do sports baptisms outside the U.S.? It was all about the money!
Well, well, you can tone it down, that I applaud. You say you’re not a Creedal Christian, but as I can point out you believe the following Creeds.
The God of classical Christian theism is at least
1) personal and incorporeal (without physical parts),
2) the Creator and Sustainer of everything else that exists,
3) omnipotent (all-powerful),
4) omniscient (all-knowing),
5) omnipresent (everywhere present),
6) immutable (unchanging) and eternal,
7) necessary and the only God, and
8) triune: one God, three Persons.
Please enlighten me if none of the above are correct?
Debating 1-8
1). You refuse to acknowledge that, since man was created in the image of God, Genesis 1:26—27, the concept of personality in God must be the same in him as it is in man. The Bible teaches that Christ has all these attributes, but Baptists as well as Latter-day Saints understand that he has a human as well as a divine nature. If Christ can have a human nature and still be omnipotent, immutable, omnipresent, and the creator of heaven and earth, certainly God the Father could be likewise. Indeed, that is exactly what the New Testament teaches in Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:13—15; and 2 Corinthians 4:4. Thus your claiming that God is incorporeal lacks biblical support.
2). You have no basis for assuming that he is the sole cause of the universe. The only account of creation man possesses—namely that contained in the scriptures—specifically identifies preexisting matter as an essential element in the process. LDS scripture teaches that the “power of God” is that “which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed” (D&C 88:13). That idea is consistent with Acts 17:25.
25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
continued.
Hebrew word for Create or created is bara, or actually the translations is to “carve out”. Does this not imply that God created the heavens and the earth of preexistent materials? That material, in fact, is carefully described in Genesis 1:2, the second verse of the Bible.
3) 4) and 5), I agree with.
6). When you claim that God is immutable and eternal, you are stating that God is unchanging and has always existed as God throughout all eternity. There never was a time when God was not God, His nature remains the same. Proverbs 8:22 reads that the Messiah, God the Son, obtained “wisdom” before he participated in the creation of the earth. The everlasting God, Psalm 90:2 is incorrectly translated, Hebrew word “a lam” means “hidden time, long”.
7). In context, “object of worship.” Necessary and Only God. There is no doubt that the Bible teaches that God is a necessary being.
8). Triune? Trinity, is merely the term employed by theologians and church historians in order to describe the phenomenon of God they find in the Bible. Trinity is not biblical in itself but is merely one attempt to understand what is taught in the Bible about God.
John 17:20—23 shows that even man need to become one with God and Christ.
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Latter-day Saints do not teach that God is not spirit or that he is not omnipresent. There is no such thing as a nonphysical reality. All the Bible says about the physical aspects of spirits is that they do not have “flesh and bones” Luke 24:39
This will be my last post for several days, so I will try and answer what was said to me, but I will not be posting on this thread again.
FALCON
In truth you do not truly understand LDS doctrine. I am not going to get into a great discussion on where you are in error, but the fact remains that you do not truly know what we teach. Few people on these threads really seem to grasp the true doctrine of the church (not including the actual members).
The reason for this is simple, and has been said by many Christians, though they will never admit it. To understand the LDS doctrine you must learn it without first comparing it to other beliefs, which no one here seems willing to do. You learn LDS doctrine only in comparing it to your doctrine to see if it agrees.
A good example is this false logic is the argument over the Father being a sinner. One person acyual posted that LDS doctrine has to support the idea because Christians doctrine states that sin is collective. This is rediculous and in thinking in this way you will never really understand LDS doctrine.
KEVIN
What Brigham Young said is true, but that does not change the fact that it is Christ that is teh way to salvation. We need the approval of Joseph Smith, as well as all the leaders of the church in all ages. We receive their approval by doing what the Lord has commanded, and we are able to do as He commands because his grace gives us this power. Thus, while Joseph Smith is a judge in Israel, he judges how we used the grace of Christ in our life. Also, even after he has approved us we still must stand before Christ and be approved of him. Joseph Smtih may approve us, but Christ has the final say. Like teh court system. Joseph Smith is a lower judge, and if he lets us pass we still must go before the Supreme Court.
Anyway, in Matthew 19: 28 Christ tells the Twelve that they will sit as judges in Israel, so why not Joseph Smith?