A few months ago, folks here at Mormon Coffee were discussing LDS temple weddings and the difficulties that can arise when the bride and/or groom come from part-member families. Non-Mormons, as well as Mormons who do not possess temple recommends, are not allowed to enter LDS temples; therefore, they are not allowed to attend the temple weddings of their loved ones.
A Mormon participating in the discussion chided the others:
“Many people here used the word ‘unworthy’ to describe everybody who cannot enter the temple. The implication is that we think we are better than everybody else. And that really isn’t accurate at all. Are the LDS who are not old enough to go to the temple ‘unworthy?’ No.
“And yes- I venture to say that there are a lot of people who live their lives in a manner that they would qualify, if members of the church, to go to the temple.
“For these reasons, I make the point that it is not accurate to us[e] the word ‘worthy’ or ‘unworthy’ to describe everybody who cannot enter the temple.”
I understand that some are not allowed to enter Mormon temples because of being younger than the minimum age requirement. Yet the mild rebuke advanced by this Mormon commenter is really undeserved.
The What We Believe section of the August 2010 issue of the official LDS Ensign Magazine is titled, “Being Worthy to Enter the Temple.” This article is only four paragraphs long, yet uses the words “worthy” or “worthiness” seven times (not including the title):
- “We must, however, be worthy to enter.”
- “A temple recommend signifies that we have been found worthy through an interview with a member of our bishopric…”
- “Temple recommend interviews are opportunities for us to examine our worthiness.”
- “If our priesthood leaders find that we are worthy to enter the temple,…”
- “We sign our recommend to confirm our worthiness to enter the temple.”
- “Our priesthood leaders also sign our recommend as additional witnesses of our worthiness.”
- “This recommend allows us to enter the temple for the next two years, provided we remain worthy.” (Ensign, 8/2010, p.8)
Whether Mormons “think they are better than everybody else” or not, I cannot say. But I do believe that applying the words “worthy” or “unworthy” in the context of describing someone’s general eligibility regarding entrance to LDS temples is indeed accurate.
It is a common thing here at Mormon Coffee for Mormons to accuse non-Mormons of purposely misrepresenting Mormonism, of not understanding the LDS religion, or of ignoring contemporary official statements. In this case, I fail to see where we have gone wrong. We have merely used the same terms used by LDS leadership in official publications and temple recommend interviews, and those commonly used in Mormon circles.
The reason I bring this up is not in an effort to defend the Christian community here. The reason I bring this up is to demonstrate, with one real-life example, that things are not always as they seem. Here, critics of Mormonism were accused of misrepresenting Mormon doctrine while accurately employing the very words and ideas utilized by the LDS Church itself.
The next time you come across an accusation like this, readers, I challenge you to remember this example and recognize that the accusation may be unwarranted. If Mormons raise objections–and cast aspersions–over simple and verifiable issues like this, it begs the question–what sort of basis is there for the other objections and accusations Mormons frequently bandy about online? Think about it and check it out because, when Mormons tell you that you are reading lies, the information you’re reading just might turn out to be the honest truth.
I have been accused of not knowing what Im talking about. I blog, and a woman commented on a subject about Prop 8. I came back with this: http://www.idreamloudly.com/2010/09/feedback-on-p…
I refuse to be walked on by Mormons that chide me for being "uninformed in their ways". I wouldnt write about material if I was completely ignorant about it.
Kate http://www.idreamloudly.com
The tactic of accusing non-mormons of "purposely misrepresenting" mormonism is a common defense by mormons. It is practiced everywhere mormons are engaged in their beliefs by Christians.
It gets even more interesting if one considers that Mormon literature has used the "don't throw your pearls before swine" passage in Matthew 7 to describe the worthy/unworthy demarcation regarding temple access. Those who are not temple worthy Mormons are implicitly considered swine. I know many Mormons gasp at this and object, "but we don't think of you as swine!", but still, that's the implication. The temple is withheld from us committed believers in Jesus because we just aren't worthy enough. The pearls of the endowment ceremony are withheld from us because we are… like swine.
PS. It's quite OK. My feelings are not hurt. I have EVERYthing I need in Jesus. 🙂 It's sad to think people think they even need to get bar code access to a temple anymore. While Mormons think outside Christians are missing out on their temples, Christians think Mormons are missing out on Jesus. While they are feeling sorry for us, we are feeling sorry for them.
We have very clear details of who can enter the temples and when, why and how. Only the temples were for the Jews given by God. God did not give the practice of temples and how to perform certain ordinances in them to the gentiles. Mormons are gentiles unless they were Jews by birth and converted, to mormonism.
So explain how according to the Bible you get your view of the temples and what goes on in them, it is vastly different that the Bible.
^ and it's sadly a really accurate characterization of what one encounters. Anybody I have ever even mentioned a negative characterization of Mormonism to likes to assume that I have been told lies and that I can only have read "anti" lit, that the only negative representations come from people who are lying because they're bitter, bad people.
Isn't it commonplace to call a meeting to obtain a Temple Recommend a "worthiness interview?" And isn't the term "temple worthy" common as well?
Additionally, if the term "worthy" is inaccurate, the LDS poster should promptly contact the church authorities. Because on the LDS.ORG website in the Frequently Asked Questions part of the Temples section is this sentence: "After the open house, the temple will be dedicated to the Lord and open only to worthy Church members." Source: http://lds.org/temples/faq/0,11264,1904-1,00.html
That is a web page with what I presume is the objective of communicating information to non-members. So the church is not afraid of using that terminology at all.
This "worthiness" trip that the Mormon leaders lay on their members is a great way to keep the Mormon people beaten down and under the thumb of the religious establishment. It's really a form of spiritual abuse. In Mormonism, as in all cults, it's all about control, it's certainly not about freedom. It doesn't matter if the member is being shaken down for 10% of their income or being required to be part of the temple janitorial service, it's all a setup to serve the Mormon masters. Another thing the "worthiness" label contributes to is pride as the "in group" people and the "out group" people can be readily identified. One of the things that exMormons talk about is how much time they have to devote to personal interests and their families once they escape the clutches of the Mormon machine. Of course while in Mormonism these things would be labeled as being "selfish".
Let's face it, it's all a works related system and designed to keep control of the individuals and the group.
"The temple is withheld from us committed believers in Jesus because we just aren't worthy enough."
And according to this statement:
"“And yes- I venture to say that there are a lot of people who live their lives in a manner that they would qualify, if members of the church, to go to the temple."
Then the dividing line is the mormon priesthood. You either submit to the mormon authorities or even though you lead a good life, you aren´t considered worthy.
So, it doesn´t matter if you keep the word of wisdom, if you keep the law of chastity, if you go to church every sunday and supposedly keep the sabbath day holy, if you pray and study your scriptures with your family – in other words, it doesn´t matter if you live the mormon standards and commandments to the best of your abilities, without submitting to their authority you´re still unworthy.
What a huge difference between Christianity and Mormonism! Great post and great comments!
"So explain how according to the Bible you get your view of the temples and what goes on in them, it is vastly different that the Bible."
Rick, that whole idea was taught by Brigham Young, who was a high-ranked freemason. I can´t remember where i read this right now, but it is in one book published by the church that contained some of his teachings on several subjects. In the temple section he teaches what is known as the masonic legend of Hiram Abiff(he teaches it without naming it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Abiff
As soon as i find the reference, i´ll post it here.
"Let's face it, it's all a works related system and designed to keep control of the individuals and the group"
And that´s getting creepy – every temple recommend now comes with a bar-code(i think they implemented that about a year or two ago). That means more accurate information on who really are their worthy members(since they can now tell how often they attend the temple, without depending on their local leaders to do that), and even more control.
That´s what i think – but let me know if i´m off.
Thanks F_melo,
I guess I should re-word it. I know that their "Prophets" said and taught a lot of things that are not taught in the Bible. So How can LDS say God told them, This is how the temples work and what needs to be done in them.
This temple work does not line up with the Bible. Here is a break down for all the LDS who never read this.
We read in the Bible, When God created Adam and Eve and they were kicked out of the Garden, their was no laws and no temples and only humans, No Jews or Gentiles. After the Flood took place, it was years later the tower of Babel took place, Even at this time their was no Temples or laws or Jews or Gentiles.
Then God took a Pagan man who worshiped false gods and said he would be a great nation. Can any LDS tell me why from the Bible God took Abram and called Him Abraham. LDS, Do you know why?
Next, came the laws of God and temples, The laws were for Jews only, the laws of God and the temples of God did not apply to the gentiles. The Jews were Told if you obey the law God will bless you, if you do not obey you will be cursed. This was not said to the gentiles only the Jews. Know why?
Now The temples had a very specif purpose and very strict details as to who could enter and when they could and why. The gentiles were not allowed, and they were not the only ones denied. LDS care to answer why? Now all of this is vastly different than the LDS temples. do you really believe God changed the way temples work and who enters and why and how? I dont think so.
Let me add to the temple issue with the LDS. After Jesus was crucified and died, the veil to the temple was torn in two. Do you guys understand why this was done? Did you know from History that after the veil was torn in two the religious leaders of the day tried having it fixed and put back up? Why would that be?
Mormonism really is a religion of the have's and the have nots. If you don't have, you are not worthy. It's a matter of being willing to come up with enough cash to be able to pay the 10% entrance fee to a temple and then, if the believer isn't within close proximity of (a temple), being able to come up with the cash to travel, lodge and feed yourself.
I'd love to take a look at the demographics to learn how many Mormons are worthy. Remember, getting worthy is step one in being able to be on the god track. So looking at what we do know, two-thirds of Mormons on the rolls of the church are inactive. I've seen a figure that reports that 50% of returning missionaries go inactive. So, of the active Mormons, what percent are we talking about being in the worthy category?
Here's what I know. There isn't a Christian that is worthy of salvation. Not one! It doesn't matter what a Christian does to get worthy, it can't be done. As hopeless, miserable sinners we are all in the same boat. It's only through the blood of Jesus Christ that any Christian can hope to achieve the worthiness to enter the presence of God. But as I point out endlessly, Mormonism is a closed system that has zero resemblance to Christianity. Mormonism has a different god the father, a different Jesus, a different Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, a different scripture and a dual track salvation program, the second of which a Mormon male hopes to become a god himself………if he is worthy.
Amen, Falcon. Well said!
f_melo
Thanks for posting that.
So, its not even a person's self-righteousness that gets him or her into the Temple (and hence access to the Highest Heaven) – it's loyalty to the organisation.
That's not just works-righteousness, that's a cult. Its also diabolical.
OK, so let's re-write Hebrews 10:19-23 to fit with this 'continuing revelation'
OK, I made the last insertion up, but if LDS.Org owns a shopping mall, why not?
No thanks, I'd rather stick with the original
Actually I don't care how Mormons run their program. I do have a problem however when 1) they call it original first century Christianity and 2) they're not up front with people as to what their beliefs and practices are.
Reading testimonies by exMormons indicates to me that women fare quite poorly in the Mormon system; much worse than do men. I remember reading an account by a woman who'd work her fingers to the bone at home and for the Mormon church and at the end of the day was asking, "have I done enough today?" The bottom line was that she had no assurance that she was "Mormon worthy". What a sad commentary on Mormonism.
Mormonism is not really on the radar screen where I live but I did have an opportunity to meet with a young Mormon couple recently. It was obvious to me that these people would take a financial step-up in life if they were on welfare (which they very well may be). The husband has zero chance of becoming a god. He seemed a moral enough fellow to me but he does not have the financial resources or personal horsepower to be "worthy".
Now if this young man became a Christian, he would be "worthy" regardless of his resources, talent, ability or opportunity. He would be declared "worthy" by God based on his faith in Jesus Christ, not on his works of righteousness or his ability to follow a religious system.
"After Jesus was crucified and died, the veil to the temple was torn in two. Do you guys understand why this was done?"
I have discussed this in detail in a blog post here: http://visionsofthekingdom.com/?p=201
Do you read your Bible? Really you do? I doubt it. Do you make stuff up because it sounds good? I believe you do.
The Veil is not the flesh of Christ, it was/is a real veil made of cloth. Notice it says the Veil was rent in twain from Top to bottom. That is not speaking of Jesus. Jesus was not ripped in half from top to bottom. Also many people saw the veil ripped in two, and history tells us that the Jews tried sewing the veil and putting it back up. They did not sew up (Stitch) Jesus up. You really do not know your bible and you clearly have both another gospel and misrepresent God. And like God told Job about his friends doing the same, I truly feel sorry for you and all the people you will be held in account for, for leading them down the path to eternal destruction with this false gospel.
While Josephus´ work is useful for us to know the understanding of first century jews it is in no wise authoritative, specially because many commentaries make it clear that many of Josephus statements were done in order to explain judaism to the "greeks", or gentiles, and some interpretation of scriptures were done in that perspective as well.
"He removed the symbol of the material creation – mortality – or his earthly, preparatory Priesthood"
Mormon talk. The Bible says nothing of a preparatory priesthood.
" and entered into Eternity in the white garments of an Heavenly High Priest, or an Angel."
What about a green apron? I mean, if temples today resemble the ancient temples, shouldn´t the mormon temple clothes be fully white.
Do you know what the apron truly means, in light of the Bible? It means trying to hide our sinfulness from God. Think about that next time you go to one of your temples – how they keep the symbolism of hiding sins from God.
"The symbolism was complete when, upon the tearing of his flesh and death through the Crucifixion, the veil of the Temple was rent in twain, signifying both that the mortal Body of the Great High Priest had, too, been torn, but also that the Great High Priest had entered into the Holy of Holies."
If you read the entire book of Hebrews you will come across passages that make things clear:
Heb 10:18 "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."
Therefore no more need for a temple, or another High Priest other than Jesus.
Heb 9:2 "For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. "
Heb 9:3 "And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;"
Heb 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, (…)
Now the holiest was made manifest, and there´s no more need for a temple – there´s no more need for a High Priest because Jesus stands as our High Priest (making intercession for us until judgement) forever.
As Jesus said right before he "gave up the ghost" – "It is finished"!!!
"I have discussed this in detail in a blog post here"
Your entire post is almost all substantiated by non-canonical books, as the protoevangelion of James, Josephus, etc. Even the mormon church doesn´t take those works to be authoritative. While Josephus is a historian(and was a pharisee) his works have to be taken on that light, but the protoevangelion of James?!? Who uses that as historically accurate or authoritative?
", a tradition is perpetuated that has Mary weaving the veil of the temple at the time of the Annunciation of Christ’s birth through the angel Gabriel."
Why isn´t that tradition in any of the four gospels, since the apostles should have known about it and would have included it in the account of Jesus´ birth? If that was truly a tradition, the ones that were closest to Christ should have pointed out, or there should be some trace of it in one of the gospels and epistles. When one considers the book of Hebrews it would have been of great advantage to have used that tradition to reinforce the point that was being made, but the author( i believe it was Paul, but nobody is really sure), just passed through it.
The smart thing to do is to stick to the canonical works. It´s a risky thing to rely on those kind of works if they can´t be verified because many Jesus myths were created during that time, that made up stuff about Jesus´ childhood and such.
"The earthly veil now, in the view of the Christians, was replaced by a splendid white and glorious, incorruptible, spiritual Heavenly veil. It is this veil, the Resurrected and glorified Flesh of Christ, which the Christian writers knew needed to be passed to enter into the Presence of God. " Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" "I am the gate: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved" – this gate was to be the Resurrected Veil of the Temple of God – Jesus Christ himself."
No, the veil was rent – all that Hebrews says is that the death of Christ meant the destruction of the veil forever – because of Jesus there was no longer a separation of men from God, that´s what atonement means. No veil was to be resurrected since all now have access to the Most Holy place through the blood of Jesus. There´s no more veil at all.
–"The Veil is not the flesh of Christ, it was/is a real veil made of cloth. "–
I believe the associated symbolism of the author of the Letter to the Hebrews:
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Hebrews 10:19-20
Yes, the author of hebrews uses that symbolism but what Rick is pointing out is that the physical veil, the actual temple veil was ripped apart – not just the body of Christ. So the physical rending of the veil is then associated symbolically to the death of Jesus.
To take that happening as fully symbolic, is to take it out of context and miss the whole point the author of Hebrews made.
"The smart thing to do is to stick to the canonical works. "
An unwise thing to do is ignore the contemporary literature which indeed offers insight to the contemporary understanding of symbolism, and the traditions held by the earliest Christians. This is something I regularly consult. I am very familiar with the strengths and faults of Josephus. Not only do I read the biblical texts daily, I also am involved in study of the contemporary literature.
Some of the best compilation of contemporary material surrounding the traditions of the Temple have been produced by a Methodist minister/scholar named Margaret Barker, whose specific expertise is the pre-exilic Temple, and the traditions that continued throughout the exile, and were utilized by the Christians.
She documents very clearly the sources, and the many ways these were alluded to or quoted in the New Testament. Works such as the dated-to-the-exilic 1 Enoch (which was a part of the original canon of the Early Church, along with the Shepherd of Hermas and others) contains an amazing amount of insight – through symbolism – of the understanding of contemporary Temple ritual and interpretation.
Her work is highly respected all around the board for her scholarship. This is her website: http://www.margaretbarker.com/ – it contains many of her papers available to read, as well as information about her books.
While I don't agree with every conclusion she draws, the scholarship is absolutely impressive, and exhaustive, and fully documented, and is recognized as the best work to date on opening up the full understanding of the ancient Temple – it also completely opens up the Temple Imagery of Apocalyptic works such as Ezekiel, Daniel and the Revelation of John.
I highly suggest anyone interested in exploring the most exhaustive scholastic information that has yet been compiled concerning the ancient temple to explore this woman's work.
That study must be a lot of fun – it´s a study i´m going to make someday. Just can´t manage to do it right now, though.
" the traditions that continued throughout the exile, and were utilized by the Christians. "
My opinion about that is that, just because it was their tradition it doesn´t necessarily mean they were right. You have to dig deeper, because unless you do that you could be influenced to take ideas of groups such as the nazarenes, the essenes, the gnostics, etc., as being part of the original Christian faith, mistake that some people have made in the past.
"I highly suggest anyone interested in exploring the most exhaustive scholastic information that has yet been compiled concerning the ancient temple to explore this woman's work."
You have studied a lot, and apparently many extra-biblical sources – how come you are still a mormon? I just finished reading some of the rejected books of the New Testament and none of them have the smallest trace of mormonism at all. Mormons will argue that the Biblical canon was tampered with, but then the non-canonical books must have contained mormonism some how, with stuff like baptism for the dead, priesthood, etc. None of them have any trace of any doctrine unique to mormonism.
I´ve also heard some people try to argue that Israel actually had a polytheistic religion, while ignoring that the jewish nation many times departed from the true God to worship false, man-made gods. The fact they find evidence for that doesn´t mean that judaism was actually polytheistic .
Anyways – that study fascinates me, i´ll keep that author in mind next time i get some time to research on it.
dltayman,
According to the Bible, How many people were allowed to enter the holiest of holies? After the person(s) entered, what did they do? Who was the person/people who were allowed to enter? I ask these questions because it will help to answer the question of why the veil was torn in to, and no it was not a symbol for the death of Christ, It was a real veil. As I said, History clearly states the veil that was torn was a real cloth veil, not a symbol. the Jews tried showing it back up, also history states that the veil was so strong and thick that no mere human could rip it.
It is said that it would take something like 60 teams of oxen pulling in both directions in order to rip it in half. God ripped it in half from top to bottom, not man, and again it was no a symbol.
Did any of you know about this question and answer between fox news and the mormon church?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.htm…
See their answers – how deceitful they are!
f_melo
I had a quick look. For example…
Q:Does the Mormon Church believe that women must serve men on both Earth and in heaven?
A: (Mitt Romney) Absolutely not. Mormons believe that women and men are complete equals before God and in relation to the blessings available in the Church.
Contrast this to Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 11:269, 1866.
Note the gender divide. What happens to the women who support their husbands in this paradigm? In this scenario, wives don't become 'gods', and there's no hope that females can become 'sons' of God, given Mormonism's insistence that the Son of God is such because he's a 'he' and he has a physical father.
(PS In contrast, my reading of the Bible is that females do become 'sons' of God in the sense that they enter into the full inheritance of Jesus Christ, just as men do, though I should add that in terms of roles and gifts, I tend to be a complimentarian).
(PPS I recently read Pliny's deprecating account of the 'new' Christians in about AD105, I think, in which he records torturing '…two female slaves who were called "deaconesses"…'. The 'role' of "deaconesses" might be moot, but its interesting to note that the primitive church employed women in some kind of official church role.)
Modern Mormons don't like what Brigham said (at face value – they attempt to reconstruct it) and nor do I. However, either Brigham Young or Mitt Romney is getting it wrong. Mormons will not admit to the friction between the two in order to maintain the illusion that Mitt Romney is somehow maintaining the doctrines and traditions of Brigham Young, which is naive and dishonest.
I've noticed that Mormons have a real peculiar process of reasoning when it comes to their religion. They will absolutely insist they are saved by grace and deny that they are under any form of bondage or burden regarding their religion. Then they will agree to each point on a worthiness list of what it takes to be a worthy Mormon. These folks are either liars or seriously diluted. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and going with the latter since the process of brainwashing in Mormonism turns these folks into religious robots.
I observed this phenomenon last night as I watched a broadcast of a TV call in show that is focused on Christian apologetics to Mormons. It was as strange as it gets. I don't know, maybe the Mormon who called in didn't feel he was burdened by the long list of requirements he had to do in order to be worthy. Maybe it all simply felt normal to him. Kind of like a physical disability that a person eventually adapts to. It kind of reminded me of a woman who insists that her husband loves her even though he beats and abuses her and cheats continually by going out with other women. "……but he loves me she insists." She says this through a jaw that is wired shut because of the injuries he's inflicted on her.
Spiritual abuse can be either covert or overt but the end result is the same. It's immaterial whether the abused recognizes what damage is being inflicted on them.
" is'nt it commonplace to call a meeting to obtain a Temple Recommend a worthiness interview ?"In the book, " I visited the Temple" by John L.Smith , a pastor ministering among the Mormonpeople in Utah , someone gave him a look at a Temple recommend cuurent in use at the time ( mid 1960's ). He reproduced it in his book. The instructions to Bishops and Presidentsof Stakes, found on the inside of the pad of the current Recommend stated , among other things:" Therefore, in your careful interrogation of the applicant,you will please keep in mind the following standards and principles of the Church, and others which are equally essential to go through the Temple of the Most High……" There was then 9 questions listed.
In the article it said
Wow, No real surprise here, To me this is the biggest and best chance to set everyone straight on what the LDS church believes. They can go public and national and get the information right from the horses mouth, but nope, they know that they lie and will screw something up and be exposed for the frauds they are. That is why they said that, they contradict themselves so much they fear it will happen again. Better to dodge the question than answer it.
"That study must be a lot of fun"
Oh, it's a blast. I especially enjoy reading the intertestamental apocalyptic literature whose imagery and ideas were clearly influential on the language of the writers of the New Testament, from the gospels through the epistles, most clearly of Peter and Jude, both of which cite directly from material in 1 Enoch – Jude even tells us where he's quoting from. It interesting that the material was mostly preserved by the earliest Christian communities, and is cited often in the writings of the earliest Church Fathers.
"Non-canonical books must have contained mormonism some how, with stuff like baptism for the dead, priesthood, etc. None of them have any trace of any doctrine unique to mormonism. "
Have you read the Shepherd of Hermas? The Ascension of Isaiah? The writings of the ante-nicene Church Fathers? The Clementine Recognitions? Those are some of the most fascinating writings that greatly assist in comparing and contrasting beliefs and understandings of the 'Orthodox' 1st Century Christian Church, and how the earliest post-New Testament Christians on record understood the scriptures – especially since the writings of the ante-nicene fathers include writings of individuals specifically tutored and ordained to their offices by members of the Original 12 Apostles, such as Peter and John. These are generally referred to as the Apostolic Father ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers for a brief overview).
It's a fascinating study to compare and contrast one's own current Church with these understandings of the scriptures. It's actually something I began doing before I was baptized LDS.
"I´ve also heard some people try to argue that Israel actually had a polytheistic religion"
More correct would be the term 'monolatry', which means the acknowledgement of other divine beings, but worshipping and being subject to one, recognized as their sovereign king. The religion of Israel was in quite a bit of a flux throughout the entire Old Testament period, and it shows in the different levels of editing and redaction in the OT texts (made very clear in the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the text – the oldest we have – which agrees in more ways with the significant textual differences in the Septuagint than the much later Masoretic Text).
I have another blog post outlining elements that are understood concerning an early form of Israelite Religion: http://visionsofthekingdom.com/?p=448
And no, I'm not claiming that the early Israelite religion was equivalent to modern day Mormonism 😉 I'm most interested in the imagery used in the existing Biblical literature that gets lost on most modern readers. Although there are definitely some fascinating parallels in thematic material 😉
–"Anyways – that study fascinates me, i´ll keep that author in mind next time i get some time to research on it.–"
Awesome. Seriously – it completely changed the way I saw the Old Testament – and even many New Testament passages! Even if you don't agree with all the conclusions (I certainly don't) it presents a lot of branch-off-points for further study and comprehension of the OT world.
Falcon, that last paragraph is right on the money !
ww
Aaron, I remember how you clearly put into perspective the whole idea of anyone being
worthy to enter God's presence , His "house" : JESUS IS OUR TEMPLE RECOMMEND !
" ….therefore brethren , we have confidence TO ENTER the holy place BY THE BLOOD OF
JESUS." [ Heb.10:19 ].
ww
Amen!
"Have you read the Shepherd of Hermas? The Ascension of Isaiah? The writings of the ante-nicene Church Fathers? The Clementine Recognitions?"
Shepherd of Hermas is next in my list – í´m finishing the epistle of Barnabas. I´ve also read a little bit of the church father(ante-nicene) and i´m almost through Church History by Eusebius – it´s interesting how Eusebius points out that John(the apostle who wouldn´t die until the coming of the Lord), died at Ephesus.
That totally turned me to learn more about orthodox preterism – it has turned my world upside down since i was brought up to expect certain events will precede a second coming, but many of those already happened in 70 A.D. Not to say that Christ won´t return and judge the living and the dead, but my view of the "last days" has never been the same.
"most clearly of Peter and Jude, both of which cite directly from material in 1 Enoch"
You´re right – specially Jude, he talks about it as being authoritative. I´ve read a good chunk of 1 Enoch and it is fascinating and disturbing at the same time. After reading that i could easily see the origins of ancient mythologies and religions. How fallen angels work to deceive humans, etc.
"More correct would be the term 'monolatry', which means the acknowledgement of other divine beings, but worshipping and being subject to one"
Of course, as usual, there´s a very heated debate about it, and of course i don´t agree with that – i´m not a scholar and haven´t studied it in depth but i understand that the Bible makes clear that men calls many things that aren´t real gods, gods, so – even if they acknowledged the false gods of the religions around them, it doesn´t mean they were real.
Great stuff! Thanks for all that info!
" As I said, History clearly states the veil that was torn was a real cloth veil, not a symbol. "
Is it your position that God doesn't have literal acts happen on earth to serve as signs/symbols?
Like how in the Old Testament we have a prophet renting a king's (literal, real) garment, and then stating that it was symbol of how the kingdom of Israel would be rent in two by God.
I have provided plenty of historical information showing how the symbols that were attatched to the Veil in the temple were understood by the contemporaries. Everything in the temple, while being literal objects, were highly symbolic of the Creation, and concerned the Atonement and Renewal of the world by the Anointed Priest and King: see http://visionsofthekingdom.com/?p=151 for a visual example and introductory outline.
btw, dltayman, i appreciate you being straightforward with your beliefs and perspectives on those subjects. keep the dialogue on that level, and i will always be respectful.
Mormonism and Christianity are alien to one another. Mormons have their version of Christianity and there´s no point in trying to say they are the same, or that they come from the same place. Unfortunately though, the missionaries and the church try to portray it as the same – even though Gordon B. Hinckley made it clear:
"The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the dispensation of the fullness of times"
What upsets me is when mormons forget that, and try to make them the same, through twisting of words and meanings.
" i´m almost through Church History by Eusebius "
That was actually the first book I read when I began studying the early Church. It's interesting to compare and contrast his understanding and abridgment of events in connection with the other documents we have. Eusebius, like Josephus, while not perfect, do give us an indispensable resource.
–"That totally turned me to learn more about orthodox preterism – it has turned my world upside down since i was brought up to expect certain events will precede a second coming, but many of those already happened in 70 A.D. Not to say that Christ won´t return and judge the living and the dead, but my view of the "last days" has never been the same. –"
In that case, I think you would LOVE Barker's book "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" – you certainly won't agree with everything in it (neither do I), but it does a fascinating and convincing job of showing how temple symbolism was combined with interpreting apocalyptic imagery in the terms of what had just literally happened among them in the past few decades, and explaining it as a fulfillment of a key part of the ancient temple liturgy/mythology for their day.
That book gave me a new perspective on how prophets throughout the ages are given the same imagery in vision, but interpret it in light of their current national struggles and opponents. While Ezekiel, Zephaniah, and Daniel record similar imagery (John in fact uses their words to describe what He saw), their understanding of and explanation of it differed according to their experiences and situations.
–"I´ve read a good chunk of 1 Enoch and it is fascinating and disturbing at the same time.–"
That's exactly how I felt the first few times I read it. Then I learned more of the history and context of it, and saw that the existing version of 1 Enoch was a post-exilic cautionary tale of hope told in symbol to conceal it's blatant and offensive message to the corrupt religionists of the day: Read it again with the concept in mind that the angels represent priests/servants of God, and that the fallen angels in particular represented the corrupt and wicked Jerusalem priesthood. 😉 – and that following the destruction and devastation that they caused, they would be punished, and the righteous would be redeemed by the Son of Man. As on other things on this subject, I wrote a blog post introducing 1 Enoch, summarizing it, and explaining its contemporary symbolism: http://visionsofthekingdom.com/?p=233
–"Great stuff! Thanks for all that info!"–
My pleasure! I think it's clear that this is something I enjoy far more than I probably should 😉
On the off chance that the article gets removed or people cannot read it, here are three questions that were asked of the Church and the answers they gave.
The Church should be ashamed of themselves. The answers are lies. They know better tahn this and wonder why we say what we do and no one trusts them. If the church no longer believes this, than be honest and admit it once was taught but you no longer believe this to be true, Dont lie about it. People like me will point it out for the lie it is.
If your GOD asks you to lie in his name, then it is not the God I serve and it is like the Bible says, the father of lies, Satan
Martin, the point you brought out is very controversial, because at times the grounds by which mormons defend the subjection of women is similar to that of Christians.
"In contrast, my reading of the Bible is that females do become 'sons' of God"
I agree 100% with you on that. According to the Bible man isn´t superior to women before God, and won´t be lesser in their salvation.
I do struggle do with some Bible passages, for example:
"1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. "
It almost seems Paul is saying that women is saved by bearing children – but that would mean barren women couldn´t go to Heaven. Obviously that doesn´t make sense, but it is clear in the Bible that women have to be subject to men, not in an authoritative way, but as it is said: Eph 5:22 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." and Eph 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"
After reading Genesis again and seeing how the wives of the prophets Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would tell them what to do all the time, putting to rest that stereotype that women were considered inferior in Old Testament times. Much of the abuse that happened, happened because of culture, not because of religion.
In the mormon church though, even though they can stand on that ground claiming the women to be scripturally subject to men, they go much, much farther than that – to the point that the men have to raise the women in the resurrection. Now, that´s absurd and denotes that women is a second-class citizen in the mormon kingdom.
I also always wondered, why wasn´t heavenly mother more involved with god´s affairs on the earth. Women are usually a million times more caring and sensitive than man. I´ve seen a lady attempt to pray to heavenly mother because she couldn´t get her blessings from heavenly father – once. I laughed real hard.
That´s my opinion but i´m a young Christian – feel free to correct me if i´m wrong.
You cannot make up the facts as you go, and you cannot be changing Gods word to say what you want. Yes God does use symbols, but in this case it was not a symbol.
Where are all the LDS at? How come they avoid subjects? I know why they do so I dont know why I ask, they avoid subjects they cannot give honest answers to. They dont understand the Bible and cannot give an answer based upon Scripture as to why the temples they enter are not the temples based in Scripture, and that is why my questions have gone ignored.
" The 'role' of "deaconesses" might be moot, but its interesting to note that the primitive church employed women in some kind of official church role"
They always had:
Php 4:3 "And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. "
We can´t know though what the specific role women had in that "laboring in the gospel", but given them being mentioned with Clement, i guess one could say they were preaching the gospel to non-believers…
what do you think?
Rick,
This is why Mormons can claim that they don't believe this or that, they just ignore what their prophets and leaders have taught and practiced because it's a form of religion they are not comfortable with. That's why you have to stay with them and keeping asking questions and probing because the first question gets a blue smoke answer.
It really is a make it up as you go along religion when talking about beliefs. HOWEVER, look at what they do, not what they say. The bottom line is that they can say what ever they want but at the end of the day they must subscribe to the Mormon church's procedures for being "worthy". There is a list of things a Mormon must do just to get to level one of Mormon salvation. Then, after that, it's pony up the money, do your callings, live the Word of Wisdom, and participate in Temple rituals in order become a god. And yet they will claim they don't have to do anything to have Mormon salvation.
It's really a mind snapping experience to be a Mormon.
Martin, i think you could just be the next prophet of the next restoration, only prophets can write scripture, right?
lol! Funny post!
My favorite part: " and since we have a great priest (not sure who, since Jesus was supposed to do this job but he's somewhere else with his wives) "
I noticed those questions as well – i found very disturbing how they can´t give a straight answer. So simple… if they were really concerned in proclaiming truth instead of being accepted by the public in general, they would have had no problem in stating their beliefs straightforwardly.
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would be ashamed of the church today. They were wrong in their teachings but they were bold and unapologetic. They proclaimed their teachings as truth. Today, not so much.
Falcon, great points!
"HOWEVER, look at what they do, not what they say" – That´s the best approach!
Also, to clear all up, just record the audio of a church meeting in secret. Specially if it is a fast and testimony meeting. I´ve heard plenty of times people saying from the pulpit that their hope is to become gods.
"That's not just works-righteousness, that's a cult. Its also diabolical. "
I second that.
My mother is kind of sick, and she can´t get a break from callings. I knew she wasn´t feeling well, but she was called to a stake calling, and i knew she wouldn´t say no. Those leaders put the person in second place – the job to be done is more important.
In mormonism it isn´t faith without works, it is works without faith. Their doctrine is set up to convince people they have to first do the works to then receive the faith, the "witness" of the spirit. First comes the sacrifices and then the blessings. What a lie!
It´s indeed very, very diabolical to use people´s beliefs to manipulate them, to make them do stuff that will only benefit the few who control the whole scheme, while the very people they claim to bless get destroyed in the process, both spiritually and physically.
dltayman, Have you ever once stopped and thought, These guys are correct and I am wrong. What I mean is, we have proven your prophets, the modern ones of today are liars. Your church taught all these things that your prophets deny.
As I said before your leaders would be honest in saying, yes are church or past leaders taught these things, yet we no longer believe them. How can you honestly believe your church when we can prove these things have been said? Its one thing to say, yes they were taught as doctrine, it's another thing to simply blow it off and say, well God changes and He changed the way He is doing things.
F_melo, I see no problems with women not being allowed to be pastors or having lower positions. I know it really bother people, but we all are under authority in some way. Children under their parents, Women under the Husband, but the husband is under Christ. In the end we will be held accountable to Christ for our family, not the wives but the husbands. Then even in the work place we have positions of authority and in government. Yet when it comes to all these examples people seem fine with that, it's only when it comes to women in the Church. The women can do everything according to the Bible except be the pastor. The one thing they are not allowed to do is that, but everyone seems to cry about that the most.