Posted on 07/08/2007 5:15:15 PM PDT by Reaganesque
I didn’t realize that JFK had spoken in the Tabernacle. Good article. Let the games begin. :)
“now you do”
I don’t see having more than one account here as inherently dishonest. If resty used multiple account to mislead someone, that is another matter, but you should keep in mind that we believe in repentance and forgiveness too and you are in no position to judge someone’s temple worthiness. Even if you know of their flaws, you don’t know if they have sought and recieved forgiveness.
“you are now an “affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, as there are individuals who would persecute you for your faith, malign the BOM, and / or Joseph Smith.”
No, because I am opposing them, not joining with them. If I was taking their side, THEN I would be affiliating myself with them and there would be an issue about temple worthiness. My kids attend a Catholic school, so do many others in my ward, including one of the Bishop’s counselors, and the kids of a previous Bishop. You do not understand the question, it isn’t about avoiding contact, it’s about where your allegiance lies.
“I was asking legitimate questions - perhaps youd like to address them ?”
Scanning the thread, it seems the gist of your questions is asking why access to temples is restricted. We consider them to be sacred places, literal houses of God, and God has set a standard for those who want to enter into his house to meet, just as God has a standard for those who wish to enter heaven to meet before they can enter there.
When Moses was called to come talk with God on top of Sinai, the children of Israel had to wait down below and were not permitted to go up. Same principle.
“When Moses was called to come talk with God on top of Sinai, the children of Israel had to wait down below and were not permitted to go up. Same principle.” Um, by your standard, how do you reconcile the veil in the Temple being ripped from the top down at the giving up the Ghost on the Cross? Once God ended the separation between man and God through the Atonement, how is it that Joseph Smith re-established it thus setting aside the Atonement?
Having a standard for temple attendance is not putting aside the Atonement, in fact accepting Christ as your Savior and believing he atoned for our sins is a requirement for entering the temple. Attributing motives like that says more about you than about the subject matter.
As for the veil, it was rent, not removed. Because of the atonement there is repentance and forgiveness such that we can still pass to the other side of the veil.
The principle of holding some things sacred and apart from the world is found in both the OT and the NT, Christ put it rather bluntly as not casing pearls before swine at one time. IMHO I think it would be a sad thing if your faith has nothing sacred enough to treat with the same kind of respect we give to temples, but if a religion without pearls is what you want that’s your business.
I’m not sure how taboo it is to actually post something that is actually on topic, but here are some things the article missed:
Bo Gritz converted to Mormonism before his presidential run for the Populist Party in ‘92 and ended his relationship with the church after that. It probably got him some votes in Utah and Idaho, but not enough to keep form being barely a footnote.
Parley Christensen was another LDS Presidential candidate. He ran for the lefty Farmer-Labor Party after leaving the GOP. He also got more votes for president than any other LDS presidential candidate to date (but only he and Bo ever made it onto the ticket)
Morris Udall was raised LDS, but that was about it. He was Mormon in name only.
Eldridge Cleaver became a Mormon years after his run for President, quite a turnaround for a former Black Panther spokesperson.
What version of the Haun's Mill massacre have you been reading? Here is the information from a website (the Church of Christ owns Haun's Mill now.) (Some of this information is from the Church of Christ's website, formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Some of it came from my great-great-great grandfather's journal.) Story of Haun's Mill A Tragic Episode in American Religious History
230 Missourians against 35 men in a mill? 17 died, 19 escaped, and of those 19, only four weren't shot. Three boys were hiding and shot.Haun's Mill Massacre3 Missourians were injured. The mob looted the mill and tossed 14 dead bodies into a well. (3 of the wounded Mormons later died.) Within days, the survivors of the Haun's Mill Massacre were driven out of the state of Missouri.
The saddest part about the whole affair was that it could have been avoided. The Mormons who lived around Haun's Mill were urged to go to Far West where there would be safety in numbers. However, most wanted to stay and guard their property and Haun wanted to guard his mill. So they asked the captain of the Mormon Militia for his advice. He told them to go to Far West and abandon their homes and businesses. They didn't like that answer and so the captain told them to go ask Joseph Smith. They did so and received the same answer (go to Far West.) Sad to say, they did not follow Joseph Smith's advice, returned to Haun's Mill and were slaughtered.
Certain deaths were particularly offensive to the Saints. Seventy-eight-year-old Thomas McBride surrendered his musket to militiaman Jacob Rogers, who shot him, then hacked his body with a corn knife. William Reynolds discovered ten-year-old Sardius Smith hiding under the bellows and blew the top of the child's head off.An estimated three hundred Church members lost their lives during these troubled times in Missouri when the Missouri settlers drove them out of the state at gunpoint. After a century and a half of study and reflection, it can be seen that some of their sorrows could have been avoided by the use of more discretion and meekness. The native Missourians were frightened by the talk of the Mormons saying that the 2nd Coming of Christ would be in Jackson County.
Three boys were hiding and shot.
How old were these boys and were they combatants?
As I'm sure you know, there were atrocities committed by both sides in Missouri. The Missourians committed more, but that was because they had far greater numbers, and had greater opportunity to do so.
It is notable that Mormons make great play out of the "extermination order" issued by the Gov, but seldom mention that his order was in direct response to an inflammatory Mormon sermon threatening extermination of the Missourians. It is also notable that the Mormons were NOT exterminated, despite losing the war and being at the mercy of the Missourians.
It appears to me that the gentile women and children murdered at Mountain Meadows, in the most atrocious and treacherous way imaginable, are a multiple of the Mormon women and children intentionally murdered by their gentile opponents in all the years of conflict in MO and IL.
As stated earlier, I agree that many women and children doubtless died as a result of hardships induced by being expelled from their homes, and that some may have died as collateral damage. But that is quite different from intentionally shooting down women and children, as I'm sure you agree.
An estimated three hundred Church members lost their lives during these troubled times in Missouri when the Missouri settlers drove them out of the state at gunpoint.
I've been looking for years for a documented compilation of these deaths: who, when, where and the circumstances of each. Do you have a source for such a compilation? Surely somebody has compiled one.
So it was OK for the Missourians to ride into Haun’s Mill (I’ve read accounts of the numbers being 230-250 men) and start shooting at the families? There had been a truce negotiated on Sunday, Oct 28th. The militia sent a representative who negotiated with the Mormons. The Mormon settlers also decided upon a defense and 28 men were armed and ready for anything that might happen.
The militia rode into Haun’s Mill at about 4 pm (there were about 30-40 LDS families.) Remember, the families thought there was a truce. David Evans, a leader in the community ran towards the militia, waving his hat and calling for peace. Alerted to the militia’s approach, most of the Latter-day Saint women and children fled into the woods to the south—while most of the men stayed behind to fight, entrenching themselves in the blacksmith shop. There were about 36 men in the blacksmith shop, which had large spaces in between the logs. The Missouri militia shot the men inside the blacksmith shop (kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.) Those wounded or who had surrendered were shot at point blank range. Several women were chased, beaten, and raped. One 12 year old girl was shot in the hand as she held up her hands. She started running and hid behind a log and the men kept shooting at her. She survived, but there were at least 20 bullet holes in the log.
The three boys were found hiding in the blacksmith shop. So they were part of the defense, however, one militia man noted that most of the Mormons were unable to even get to their guns, or get them into a position to fire them.
Many historians have concluded that the extermination order given by Governor Lilburn Boggs was not the cause of the Haun’s Mill Massacre. It had been issued 3 days earlier, so there was probably no way for the militia to hear about it. However, I find it disturbing that some people find it OK that the order was issued and no one was killed because of it. And the order was issued because of a speech? That was the only time in American history that such an order was issued by a governor.
And yes, Sidney Rigdon gave the infamous Salt Sermon after he had been tarred and feathered. It was not a good thing to do. However, there is no record of any Mormons going out and killing anyone after that sermon. There was a battle at a creek (the name escapes me right now) that was instigated by the Mormons. However the leader was killed and I think a couple of Missourians were also.
It is eerie to read of the coincidences of the Haun’s Mill Massacre and the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Both were despicable tragedies, perpetrated by fear and misunderstandings.
And I do agree deliberately shooting the women and children at Mountain Meadows was cowardly and those men will pay for their actions in the hereafter.
Thousands of Mormons were driven from their homes in Kirtland Ohio, Missouri (twice), and from Nauvoo. They would lose their homes and businesses. My great-great-great grandfather was born in Missouri and was one of the first converts in that area. He and his family were driven out of Missouri and in his journal he records watching many of the poorer Saints trudging out of Missouri, leaving bloody footprints behind.
After the Mormons were driven out of Nauvoo, Illinois (early than planned), many died crossing the Mississippi river. Many died at Winter Quarters.
I can contact a church history professor I know about the numbers and if there is anything published. However, for me personally, I try to forgive those who were persecuted and killed on both sides.
I specifically said that Haun’s Mill was a great tragedy. How do you get from that that I think it was OK?
Part of the cause of the Mountain Meadows massacre were rumors passing among Mormons that the emigrants were poisoning wells and cattle, planned to return from CA and kill all the Mormons, etc. I would be very surprised if similar rumors of Mormon actions and intentions didn’t play a role at Haun’s Mill. The men were also reacting to a skirmish a few days before, won by the Mormons, in which wounded Missourians were killed and mutilated.
The large number of deaths among the Mormon men at Haun’s Mill was a result of their decision to fight despite being greatly outnumbered and in a horrible tactical position. (The logs of the blacksmith shop were widely spaced for ventilation, making the position more of a deathtrap than a fort.)
However, Haun’s Mill and Mountain Meadows are not really comparable.
Haun’s Mill was an episode in mob violence. Other incidents in American history have produced similar or even greater losses of life caused by mobs, albeit with racial or economic motivations rather than religious ones.
Mountain Meadows stands quite alone in American history for its cold-blooded and planned nature, high death toll, intentional targetting of women and children, treachery and generally successful coverup.
I find it disturbing that a good many Mormons try to partially or completely justify such a despicable act by comparing it to the persecution suffered by Mormons 20 years earlier and over a thousand miles away. As if this persecution could possibly in any way justify murder of children who weren’t even born when it took place.
I am not including you in this group, but I did run across a particularly revolting website posted by a Mormon in which he essentially claimed that Mountain Meadows was fully justified as an act of self-defense.
I also find it interesting that there was never any revenge taken on the Mormons for Mountain Meadows. J.D. Lee was scapegoated, and everybody just sort of dropped the issue.
To all of Israel, the holy of holies represented the very presence of God among men. The barrier which kept the high priest from entering this place was the veil of the temple. For a human hand to remove the veil and reveal the holy of holies would have been considered a sacrilegious desecration punishable by death. But the temple was not rent by a mortal hand:
Bruce R. McConkie “Christ is now sacrificed; the law is fulfilled; the Mosaic dispensation is dead; the fulness of the gospel has come with all its light and power; and so—to dramatize, in a way which all Jewry would recognize, that the kingdom had been taken from them and given to others—Deity rent the veil of the temple ‘from the top to the bottom.’ The Holy of Holies is now open to all, and all, through the atoning blood of the Lamb, can now enter into the highest and holiest of all places, that kingdom where eternal life is found. Paul, in expressive language (Heb. 9 and 10), shows how the ordinances performed through the veil of the ancient temple were in similitude of what Christ was to do, which he now having done, all men become eligible to pass through the veil into the presence of the Lord to inherit full exaltation.” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:830.)
What is the symbolic meaning of the veil being rent? Undoubtedly, it marked the end to a system of temples designed to commemorate the bloody sacrifice of the firstborn Son of God. The Great Sacrifice had been offered; the temples of the Aaronic Priesthood would no longer be necessary. Furthermore, to the wicked chief priests, the torn veil represented God’s displeasure with their apostate disbelief. They had daily offered lamb after lamb on the altars of the temple, and yet rejected the Lamb of God. He was, therefore, rejecting them.
To the righteous, the rent veil meant the final barrier had been broken. While before, only the high priest could approach the veil; now, the way into the very presence of God had been prepared by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Don't forget, Paul and the others continued to worship at the temple after the crucification and renting of the veil. Why would they do this if the temple didn't mean anything to them after that?
It is astonishing that you and other Mormonism Apologists can pick out points of the Church Age yet ignore the whole picture as taught throughout the New Testament. Your religion is based in temple ordinances and worship ... for what purpose? To give yourselves the form of godliness while denying the power thereof to set you free from the Law which saves no man! The Book of Romans makes plain the state of those in Christ, righteousified by faith not of works of the law! [Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.] Yet your false prophet set up an entire system of temple ordinances and worship which is required in order to step onto some fantasy road to higher heavens and belonging to the Mormonism church is to worship restored Christianity! What a clear heresy! Wherefore did Christianity take a 1400+ year break?
Your own Hinckley preaches the end of priesthood enslavements yet your religion is based entirely upon the reestablishment of this Christ-cancelled ordinance system. The irrational aspects of believing lies on top of lies never seems to awaken some of you. Many leave Mormonism when they realize how contradictory and downright heresy laden Mormonism is.
When Paul when to Temple and even went through ritual washings and cleansings for such, he did so to reach Jews still stuck in the ordinance religion which Christ ended! If Paul had not gone through the rituals of cleansing, etc. he would not have been received into their midst and could not have met them where they were in order to bring them to the freedom in Christ Jesus! That you refuse to understand that tells me you most likely are pridefully building up your righteousness with your ordinances rather than placing your immortal spirit at God's mercy and Grace in Christ Jesus.
Te veil was in place prior to Jesus coming amongst us to prevent God's shakinah glory from destroying the outer not to prevent the people from coming in. Death awaited any Priest who entered in to the Holy of Holies without the proper blood offering and cleansing. Was this to prevent God from being sullied? No, His Righteousness would consume the entire universe if exposed directly to It!
Just being in God's presence caused Moses's face to glow, and he wasn't allowed to see the face of God because the eyes of God would have instantly consumed him in his unrighteous state. I'm currently doing a study which will discuss the point of Whose body was Moses allowed to see the backside of on the Mountain? It was Christ, I'm convinced! And had Moses seen His face, the Glory of the Risen Lord walking to/in Moses's time would have burned up Moses instantly. But that's grist for another discussion. The point is that Paul went to the Jewish Temples at each city he visited, first, before preaching to the Gentiles, because of what Christ taught about the children's food (look that one up) and the necessity to not step on Jewish toes everywhere he went because Jesus of Whom Paul preached was a Jewish Rabbi! And if you will read Paul's letters you will see that he explained exactly that as his reason for entering the Jewish Temples.
You Apologists have to twist nearly every aspect of Christianity and Christian learning for the past 2000 years in order to fit it speciously into your cult. It gets tiring always having to correct your duplicitous, irrational, contradictory doctrines and ordinances and mischaracterizations of Scripture passages. Christ has freed us from the Law for the Law made no man righteous. And once saved, there isn't a work of any sort that can compare to what Christ in you portends as The Hope Of Glory. You cannot do a work to add even a speck to what Christ has already accomplished for you. To imagine you can insults God's Grace toward you.
You post this nonsense then get upset and spew 'anti-mormon' epithets when someone points out the foolishness of the teaching: "... all men become eligible to pass through the veil into the presence of the Lord to inherit full exaltation." sevebak, the priest went into the Holy of Holies with the blood to be sprinkled for an atonement, not for any exaltation or pact of goodness to allow exaltation of the mortal, but to obtain the Mercy of God! PERIOD!
You and your Mormonism Apologist friends and apparently your presidents and 'prophets' do not divide the Word of God correctly but twist it to fabricate lies not there but ones you and the spirit of your cult want to be there. Exaltation indeed! Just how blasphemous do you want to get? How much do you think you can do to bring God into an 'God owes you' relationship? And that's you cue to deny your ordinances and doctrines aren't designed for that purpose, but your own false prophet says they are and that has been reinforced ever since the establishment of Mormonism.
Take a lesson from the first Church Council at Jerusalem and the final decision issued from them to be carried by paul and Barnabas on their missionary journeys. Stop trying to judaize the Grace of God in Christ which has the power to make one a new creation, not for that one's exaltation but to just enter into the family of God. Take a lesson fromt he Book of Ruth, that once in the family, gleaning is no longer needed because all that is in the barn is yours as a member of the family. Take a lesson from Esther, that you enter in to seek God's mercy, and if you perish you perish, but you can expect only Mercy through His Grace and not exaltation from your efforts.
MHGinTN, while I appreciate what you are trying to do (save my soul from your definition of my “ordinance based religion”) I should point out that what the Apostles did following the resurrection of Christ was not strictly for outward principles to be accepted by nonbelievers. Quite the contrary:
Acts 2:
41 ¶ Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
If you think your techniques will turn me off to the point of walking away from this exercise, well, you might be right. The spirit who holds you is beyond my abilities to oppose, so in Christ's name I bid you warning of the force you cannot control. This exchange is not hidden from readers, sevenbak. Take care.
Oh, I left off another reference as well. This one from the last book of the OT, the book of Malachi. This is a last days prophecy leading up to the second coming. It’s important in it’s context.
1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap:
3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.
6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
7 ¶ Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?
I left off the reference, Malachi 3
John The Baptist was the messenger. Next question.
Wrong messenger. This is pre second coming, not pre first coming. Read the stuff between what I bolded.
Do you presume to keep changing the focus until the essence of your dissembling is forgotten? Very well, I will put this on ignore for your benefit, if that's what you need. I'm not obligated to respond to every specious post or foolish assertion you make.
These are Johns words:
"Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."
Now, compare that with Malachi 3:3
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.