Our Mormon Brothers?

Reformed Evangelist ^ | May 14th, 2007 | Jeff Fuller

[Gamecock]

The following draws from the book Is the Mormon My Brother by apologist James White. Earlier this year, Paul Kaiser reprinted a Worldview article titled 10 Mormonism Facts which generated a myriad of responses from visitors who stated that Mormons were being misrepresented and are simply our brothers & sisters in the Body of Christ. Let’s look at what Dr. White presents using LDS resources:

The First Vision

Without question the key revelation in Mormon Scripture regarding the nature of God is to be found in what is known as the First Vision of Joseph Smith. The vision itself is fundamental to all of LDS theology. Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie described the vision:

That glorious theophany which took place in the spring of 1820 and which marked the opening of the dispensation of the fullness of times is called the First Vision. It is rated as first both from the standpoint of time and of pre-eminent importance. In it Joseph Smith saw and conversed with the Father and the Son, both of which exalted personages were personally present before him as he lay enwrapped in the Spirit and overshadowed by the Holy Ghost.

This transcendent vision was the beginning of latter day revelation; it marked the opening of the heavens after the long night of apostate darkness; with it was ushered in the great era of restoration, the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:21.) Through it the creeds of Christendom were shattered to smithereens, and because of it the truth about those Beings whom it is life eternal to know began again to be taught among men. (John 17:3.) With this vision came the call of that Prophet who, save Jesus only, was destined to do more for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. (D. & C. 135:3.) This vision was the most important event that had taken place in all world history from the day of Christ’s ministry to the glorious hour when it occurred.(1)

And Mormon Prophet Ezra Taft Benson said,

Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, restored the knowledge of God. Joseph’s first vision clearly revealed that the Father and Son are separate personages, having bodies as tangible as mans. Later it was also revealed that the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, separate and distinct from the personalities of the Father and the Son. (See D&C 130:22.) This all-important truth shocked the world even though sustained by the Bible. (2)

How is it that the creeds of Christendom were shattered to smithereens and the knowledge of God was restored by this one vision? While the story is as familiar to Mormons as John 3:16 is to Christians, we present Joseph Smith’s own recounting of the story in full, taken from the LDS Scriptures (and hence carrying canonical authority). However, we note that the account that appears in the LDS Scriptures was written in 1838, eighteen years after the events described:

14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon bysome power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)–and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong;(3) and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, Never mind, all is well I am well enough off. I then said to my mother, I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true. It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy? (Joseph Smith History 1:14-20).

What does this vision, recorded in LDS Scripture, teach concerning God? First and foremost, it presents to us the concept of a plurality of gods. This arises from the fact that God the Father is a separate and distinct physical entity from Jesus Christ, His Son. God the Father is possessed of a physical body, as is the Son. This is why McConkie can claim the creeds of Christendom were smashed to smithereens, for the vision has always been interpreted by the LDS leadership to teach that God the Father is a separate and distinct person and being from the Son. The unity of Being that is central to Christian theology is completely denied by Joseph Smith in the First Vision. Hence, you have one God, the Father, directing Smith to another God, the Son.

While it is not our intention to critique these teachings at this point, it should be noted that there are a number of problems with the First Vision, and with the entire development of the LDS concept of God as well. As we noted, this version of the First Vision was not written until 1838. Previous versions, however, differed in substantial details from this final and official account. Most significantly, the presence of both the Father and the Son as separate and distinct gods is not a part of the earlier accounts.(4)

————————————————-

(1) Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine,2nd ed., rev. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), pp. 284-285, LDSCL.

(2) Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), p. 4, LDSCL. On page 101 of the same book, we read this strong statement:

The first vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith is bedrock theology to the Church. The adversary knows this and has attacked Joseph Smith’s credibility from the day he announced the visitation of the Father and the Son. You should always bear testimony to thetruth of the First Vision. Joseph Smith did see the Father and the Son. They conversed with him as he said they did. Any leader who, without reservation, cannot declare his testimony that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith can never be a true leader, a true shepherd. If we do not accept this truth if we have not received a witness about this great revelationwe cannot inspire faith in those whom we lead.

(3) One of Mormonism’s leading scholars, James Talmage (and a General Authority), said the following in the General Conference of April, 1920:

This Church, therefore, from its beginning, has been unique, for the organization of the Church was forecasted in this declaration that at the time of Joseph Smiths first vision there was no Church of Jesus Christ upon the earth; and I do not see why people should take issue with us for making that statement (CR1920Apr:103).

(4) I noted a number of the historical problems with Mormonism in Letters to a Mormon Elder, pp. 88-106. For a fuller treatment of this issue, see H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism (Salt Lake: Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp.1-41, and Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1982), pp. 143-162.

[Elsie]

Again, this is the LDS's privledge. I see reasons for it, I understand now this is believed to be commanded by God.

Everything that Christians have been 'commanded' to do, is written in a book for all the world to see.

Apparently this is NOT the case with the LDS organization.

[Elsie]

[it keeps them from knocking on doors...]

[DelphiUser]

thanks for your reply. I want to make it clear that I'm talking about the problems incurred in discussing your religion when aspects are secret; and not at this point anything particular to the LDS.

There is a big difference between secret, and Sacred, sorry to be a nit picker, but it's an important nit.

Using the freemasonry discussion, I was told that nothing there violates the Christian religion. I asked about a reported ceremony, what the candidate said during intitiation to a certain level. This, IMHO, violated Christian doctrine. The person I was discussing with could not confirm or deny what was said by the candidate, or say anything about this ceremony. Similar to your case.

Not even remotly similar to our case. We have additional scriptures (I keep talking about them) which discuss the doctrine covered in detail, so you can learn without having the "Exact words" what we are talking about, and have a platform to discuss it with us.

I can, but that's not a discussion or debate. These are prevented when one side cannot discuss.

Debate all you want, the Doctrines are all in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&anp;C) and the Book of Abraham, which are published, so you have free access to all the information, just not the rites themselves. Unless you are wanting to critique the rites, and not the Doctrine you don't need them, and discussing Doctrine was your premise here was it not?

Let me give you an example, if you want to discuss the sexual nature of man, even getting into the medical aspects, and procedures, we can have a meaningful discussion, if however, you want to discuss my activities with my wife behind the doors of our bedroom, you will be disappointed.

This discussing of our rites in minute detail feels a lot like a discussion of me and my wife's sex life, and it makes me wonder why you and Elsie find it so important that I have no secrets, nothing I hold sacred. So why do you think you need to know?

I understand. However we still can't discuss what is actually done and said.

You are quite right, I am not going to discuss my intimate moments with my wife either, neither should prohibit a philosophical, or factual discussion.

Let me use the fremason example again.

No, because it's not apples to apples, we have published all the doctrine.

If you were a lawyer, and the facts are available through a public venue, the judge will not allow you to subpoena sensitive records to get this information that is easily available from another source.

Debate and discussion stops at the point the secret begins.

That depends on what you are debating, the secret is not in the doctrines you claim to want to talk about, for they are publicly available to you through another source.

Again, this is the LDS's privledge. I see reasons for it, I understand now this is believed to be commanded by God. I disagree and see the value of not having these kinds of secrets.

When you find yourself in disagreement with God......Repent (grin).

We each includes these factors in our choice of religion and should respect each other for defending them.

Thank you, I do respect the logical way in which you present your argument. The presentation however, does not preclude me from disagreeing with either your premise, or your conclusions.

Have a really great day! and God bless.

[Elsie]

Unless you are wanting to critique the rites, and not the Doctrine you don't need them, and discussing Doctrine was your premise here was it not?

No; it was not.

Where do you get the AUTHORITY to keep your temple rites sacred/secret.

I could care less WHAT you say in your sacred/secret rites.

All I want is to shown the AUTHORITY.

It should be simple: cut & paste.

[DelphiUser]

There we have it, then. I believe that we can therefore agree that the Nicene Creed irrevocably separates the LDS from mainstream Christianity, since the Nicene Creed is required belief for us.

I have never, to my knowledge, said that Mormons were Orthodox Christians.

Orthodoxy being a big word for Consensus, we are not interested in the councils, counsel, or the consultation of Men, we are interested in God and Truth.

You may argue that I am wrong, you amy even prove your point, but you may not as has been done so often this forum misrepresent my position, for I believe in Christ and thus, I am a Christian.

I do not dispute the influence of the Greeks.

That is wise for it is well documented. The Hellinists also. IMHO the Nicene Creed was borne out of this influence. You views, differ. I can live with that without calling you names.

I will say, however, that I believe that the Church Fathers, who were left in charge, made the decisions that they were authorized to make; they guided the Church to the point where it is today; they did what they were supposed to do. On this, we will have to agree to disagree.

I’d like to know the truth;

I'll take you at your word.

John wrote in his Gospel, Written after revelations, it was his last work, in John 17:22 he writes a simile of God and Jesus's oneness.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Justin Martyr Who preached that God the Father and Jesus Christ were separate corporeal beings lived 100-165 AD

On the other hand, Justin sees the Logos as a separate being from God and subordinate to him:

"For next to God, we worship and love the Logos who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing" (Second Apology, 13).

"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

Justin speaks of the divine Logos as "another God" beside the Father, qualified by the gloss: ‘other, I mean, in number, not in will’. Justin actually finds fault with the view of hellenized Jews who held that the divine Logos is no more distinct from God than sunlight is from the sun and suggested, instead, that the Logos is more like a torch lit from another. He wanted to do justice to the independence of the Logos.

Hippolytus is supposed to be the Great Grandson of John the beloved, although I have never found proof. Hippolytus wrote a set of books called "A refutation of all heresies" of which many books still survive (I consider this to be nothing short of a miracle, since they were not written in Latin and after Constantine, only things written in, or translated to Latin were actively being preserved by the church.

In his book "Against one Noetus" Hippolytus specifically denounces the doctrine of God and Jesus being of one essence. In his Book X of the series, he has a conclusion that I find most familiar:

"Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature, O you men, Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts, and you Latins, who lead armies, and all you that inhabit Europe, and Asia, and Libya.6 And to you I am become an adviser, inasmuch as I am a disciple of the benevolent Logos, and hence humane, in order that you may hasten and by us may be taught who the true God is, and what is His well-ordered creation. Do not devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial discourses, nor the vain promises of plagiarizing heretics,6 but to the venerable simplicity of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the rayless scenery of gloomy Tartarus, where never shines a beam from the irradiating voice of the Word!

You shall escape the boiling flood of hell's6 eternal lake of fire and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm that ceaselessly coils for food around the body whose scum6 has bred it. Now such (torments) as these shall you avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And you shall possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And you shall receive the kingdom of heaven, you who, while you sojourned in this life, knew the Celestial King. And you shall be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For you have become God:7 for whatever sufferings you underwent while being a man, these He gave to you, because you were of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon you, because you have been deified, and begotten unto immortality.7 This constitutes the import of the proverb, "Know yourself; "i.e., discover God within yourself, for He has formed you after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God's knowledge, for you are called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O you men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace7 with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings,7 rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards you. And provided you obey His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, you shall resemble Him, inasmuch as you shall have honour conferred upon you by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish anything of the divinity of His divine7 perfection; having made you even God unto His glory!7"

This conclusion speech, except for the flowery phrases could easily be taught in Mormon sunday school today.

Arianism Arius the man after whom Arianism was named lived in 250-336 AD.

Arius taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. Further, Arius taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and possibly inferior to) the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist. In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a "creature"; in this context, the word is being used in its original sense of "created being".

Of all the various disagreements within the Christian Church, the Arian controversy has held the greatest force and power of theological and political conflict, with the possible exception of the Protestant Reformation. The conflict between Arianism and Trinitarian beliefs was the first major doctrinal confrontation in the Church after the legalization of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine I.

Interestingly, the conflict was solved by Constantine, basically pulling all the bishops together and ordering them to define God in such a way that all Rome could accept this definition. This was ( The First Council of Nicea later (on his deathbed) Constantine was baptized an Arian. If you read the account in the Catholic encyclopedia online, it is clear that he wanted a political solution to his recently conquered empire, and did not care about "Truth" yet this is where the Nicene creed came from.

Let me show you how these facts and documents look to a Mormon.

• you have John the beloved, Giving a simile about God and Jesus Being one in heart might mind and strength.
• You have Justin Martyr Teaching that God and Christ are separate beings
• You have Hippolytus roundly excoriating Heretics for saying God is Jesus and th s like, and closing with a wonderful treatise on the Deification of Man.
• You have Arius who was again still teaching God was separate from Jesus Christ.
• Then you have Constantine, a politician, who convenes a council of all the Bishops in the Roman empire, eh calls this meeting while they are all under the sentence of death, and opens the meeting, participates in the meeting and directs the meeting. He tells them what he wants, and poof, the definition of God changes.

I don't expect you to believe me.

I don't expect you to join my church.

I do however take you at your word that you are after truth. This happened, the Documents I am quoting and linking not one of them is controlled by the Mormon Church. This is why Mormons believe a restoration is needed, this is what sets Mormons apart in the Christian world, this and the claim of Apostolic authority returned again tot he earth, this fulfills the prophecy in 2 Thes. 2: 3

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

This is why Mormons the world over believe they are part of a restoration of the Gospel, for the Foundation of the church is not Peter, a man, but he revelation that Peter had that Jesus is the Christ. That revelation echoes forward and backward through time as the preeminent even in all of history, and we are mocked and made fun of in this day for affirming it. So be it, for i would suffer anything for my lord, my God, for he has truly suffered everything for me.

I bear witness that Jesus Christ is my savior that he bled and died for me, a sinner, on the cross at Calvary that all men (me included) can be saved if they will just harken to the words of the prophets and believe on him, brining forth works fit for them that believe to strengthen their faith, and continuing in faith until the brighter day.

Amen.

I really had no intention of writing this tome, but just of replying, but you said you wanted truth, I give such as I have, please do not take my admittedly long post as an attack, for it is not meant as such.

Go with God brother, may he teach you his truths until you know him face to face.

[D-fendr]

There is a big difference between secret, and Sacred

Yes, however, in this case the rite is both.

Unless you are wanting to critique the rites, and not the Doctrine you don't need them, and discussing Doctrine was your premise here was it not?

A rite is a ceremony or act, a customary observance or religious practice. Holy Communion is a rite for example. If the Eucharist rite was secret, for example, this would be a big deal for those considering Catholicism or discussing its theology. Rites and doctrines are inseparable.

If however, you want to discuss my activities with my wife behind the doors of our bedroom

If you compare a church rite to a marital sex act.. I can't imagine that. Church rites are before the whole church - marriage, confirmation, baptism, ordination, etc. So, you might see how this idea of a rite would cause some concern or suspicion. Those are too strong a words. It's just not what others would consider a rite - one held in secret, you should understand some eyebrows would be raised. And, again, we can't discuss how these rites are or are not coherent with what doctrine - other than taking someone's word for it.

Now if the rite were actually some form of confession, that would be in secret - what is confessed in confession would be kept secret. However the rite of reconciliation (confession) is not secret, what is said and done follows a formula and this is known, discussed, published, part of doctrine - an important part of doctrine.

…the judge will not allow you to subpoena sensitive records to get this information that is easily available from another source.

What is the source for what is said and done during the rite?

I can look up the forms, formula and specifics of rites for every other mainstream Christian Church. It doesn't fit in the same category as those rites. So, I don't think your "rite" defense is right - but as I've said, that's still your church's right..

{^_^}

Thanks very much for your reply.

[DelphiUser]

The selection of the Pope from amongst the ranks of the Cardinals is, well, a selection. Discussion and praying. Hardly secret rites.

Yes, but I want to be there and participate in the selection... /illustration

The Masons’ rites go back to the building of King Solomon’s Temple, and the events and ceremonies that ensued. Joseph Smith’s rites developed over the years; he got his information from tablets that he translated into English via the Thurim and Ummim which were then removed.

a) Joseph Smith received the revelation all at once, not over time. Changes have been made when so directed by God.
B) The Urim and Thummim were not removed.

I need to read up a whole lot more on the history (and thank you all for the website references).

No problem, click on my name at the bottom of this post. my Home page here is lousy with links (no puns off of lousy please, Grin)

But the seeing stones deal still bothers me. Moses got his tablets directly from God. JS had to dig his up. Moses had the words written directly and plainly. JS had to translate his - and then had to give them back.

The plates were returned because part of them was still sealed until we are righteous enough to receive them, and that was 2/3 of the plates!. The Urim and Thummim are still here. Did you know that the pentatarch (five books of Moses) were given to him by his father in law? The fun stuff you can learn. Oh, I also recommend the Book of Jasher, it explains a lot about Jacob and Esaw (chapter 27) and has a lot of other interesting stuff in it as well.

I need to keep reading. Thank you for your encouragement.

I for one love to learn, I love to read the books that teach me more about the history of the Gospel in the world, and we live in an age when more and more formerly lost books are appearing, it is a wonderful thing.

[DelphiUser]

I said: Your obsession with the exact wording of a ceremony is really starting to look bizarre.
You Said: Oh??--You guys who say that words mean things, now decide that they don't?

Words always mean things, Sacred for example is one you apear not to understand.

You Said: The way your apologists spin things on the turn of a phrase and you have the nerve to type what you just did?

Yes, for it is your perspective that is the problem, my church makes perfect sense from my perspective. You keep trying to crumple my church into your existisng perspective and it does not fit, then you complain to me that my chuch is getting wrinkled. Well, you are the one obsessing on something that tyou simply will not be told by a reliable source, for the only reliable souce (meaning someone not breaking an oath to tell you) is if you join, and go to the temple in a year.

We both know how likeley that is to happen, so, you won't know for sure what we say and what we do.

[DelphiUser]

A, you were included in the post because you were mentioned (it’s not polite to just point, my mom taught me that).
B GOD

Any questions............ No? Good.

[DelphiUser]

I said: There is a big difference between secret, and Sacred
You said: Yes, however, in this case the rite is both.

Show me something that is sacred but not secret and I'll show you something that is not Sacred for long.

You said: A rite is a ceremony or act, a customary observance or religious practice. Holy Communion is a rite for example. If the Eucharist rite was secret, for example, this would be a big deal for those considering Catholicism or discussing its theology. Rites and doctrines are inseparable.

Ever see a couple of Guys with a complicated handshake? It's a rite, there is no doctrie to it.

If you take the discussions, we explain evertying that goes on, but there is no "Dry Run" before you go to the temple, it's sacred. However, when you go for the first time, they give you a class, and it's before you commit to anything more than keep what they say in the class to yourself.

You said: If you compare a church rite to a marital sex act.. I can't imagine that.

Good!

You said: Church rites are before the whole church - marriage, confirmation, baptism, ordination, etc. So, you might see how this idea of a rite would cause some concern or suspicion. Those are too strong a words. It's just not what others would consider a rite - one held in secret, you should understand some eyebrows would be raised. And, again, we can't discuss how these rites are or are not coherent with what doctrine - other than taking someone's word for it.

Some parts of the Rite are very personal, and you'll just have to take my word for it. (grin)

BTW, comparing the church to marriage was not an origional idea, the Bride groom of the church gave it to me.

You said: Now if the rite were actually some form of confession, that would be in secret - what is confessed in confession would be kept secret. However the rite of reconciliation (confession) is not secret, what is said and done follows a formula and this is known, discussed, published, part of doctrine - an important part of doctrine.

And the Doctrines ataught in the Temple are published in the D&C, and book of Abraham. There are rites performed in the temple that are not to be spoken of anywhere else. They are not doctrine, they are rites.

Tell me, do you know every thing that goes on in a nunnery? Are you concerned about it? Why?

I said: The judge will not allow you to subpoena sensitive records to get this information that is easily available from another source.

What is the source for what is said and done during the rite?

The doctrines taught are all contained in the D&C, and book of Abraham.

Done? That is the rite, and I will not discuss it. You asserted rites and Doctrine are one and the same. I challenge your assertion, they are not one and the same. I have given examples here in this post. I will give one more example, the doctrine that Baptisem is the gateway into the church is accepted by most if not all Crhistian Chutrches. Do they all share the same form and prayer for baptisem?

In a word No.

You said: I can look up the forms, formula and specifics of rites for every other mainstream Christian Church. It doesn't fit in the same category as those rites. So, I don't think your "rite" defense is right - but as I've said, that's still your church's right..

We never said we were orthodox, from our perspective, if you have lost all your authority and most of your knowledge why wouldn't you print all your rites publicly, at least then you will not lose more of them. (Not menant to be a barb, just a point of view refrence about your "every other church argument").

God be with you and have a great day.

[DelphiUser]

L 8 R

[D-fendr]

Show me something that is sacred but not secret

The sacraments: Baptism, Penance/Reconciliation, Eucharist (The Blessed Sacrament), Confirmation,Matrimony, Holy Orders, Extremunction or Anointing of the Sick.

Sacred and secret are not interdependent.

If you take the discussions, we explain evertying that goes on…

Can you provide a link to this explanation?

when you go for the first time, they give you a class, and it's before you commit to anything more than keep what they say in the class to yourself.

I can provide you with materials for the classes preparing for the rite of Christian Initiation (for confirmation in my Church), with the study materials, manuals, as well as the creeds required.

it's sacred.

So is Confirmation.

Some parts of the Rite are very personal..

That's ok. Parts of Confession are extremely personal. I can give you information on what specific types of personal information this involves. Perhaps you could do the same?

And the Doctrines ataught in the Temple are published in the D&C, and book of Abraham. There are rites performed in the temple that are not to be spoken of anywhere else. They are not doctrine, they are rites.

I understand that, believe me. Perhaps you could reveal whether it involves oaths and/or whether it involves the invoking of special words?

Tell me, do you know every thing that goes on in a nunnery?

Bordering on non-sequitor. I know the rites; I'm not privy to the privy.

We never said we were orthodox

I understand. In our discussion, I'm avoiding arguments over Christianity and trying to communicate the problem of comparative religious discussions which involve secret rites.

Let me end with an example, an outrageous one to prove a point: Say there was a religion that held a sacred secret rite. Call it "The Rite of Initiation of the Bear". This religion says the rite follows its doctrine of the sanctity of animal life and that in this rite a bear is specially blessed before God to show the church's reverance for God's gift of all animals.

You know the punchline: The bear is bathed and annointed, incensed, blessed and... sacraficed.

Please know I mean nothing of the sort goes on in the LDS; it's only to illustrate that rites and doctrine do go together - they are key aspects of what a chuch believes and how it illustrates and further defines its beliefs.

Now there are benefits to secrets, beside the obvious of keeping something one wishes others not to know from them. Secrets also build unity and loyalty. So I see their advantage.

In religion, I believe their dangers and disadvantages outweigh their usefulness. You, of course, have another view and other reasons why LDS must keep them secret. We may just have to disagree as I think I have run out of arguments for my position.

Thank you again, very much for your courtesy and thoughtful replies..

[DelphiUser]

I Said: Show me something that is sacred but not secret
You Said: The sacrament: Baptism, Penance/Reconciliation, Eucharist (The Blessed Sacrament), Confirmation,Matrimony, Holy Orders, Extremunction or Anointing of the Sick.
People make light of these things all the time, thus they are not held sacred.

You Said: Sacred and secret are not interdependent.
Matt. 7:6

I Said: If you take the discussions, we explain everything that goes on…
You Said: Can you provide a link to this explanation?
No, the discussions are interactive, and the missionaries answer YOUR questions, it's not a list. For the full doctrine of what is in the Endowment ceremony see Doctrine and Covenants And The Book of Abraham (Abr.)

I know you won't be satisfied by that, but there is so much there, and you agree to abide by the laws set forth in the Bible, and the D&C, so they are completely coved there. IF I left something out you'd say I was hiding it, so read the whole D&C and the book of Abraham and ask away, all the doctrine we teach in the temple is there, I just am no0t allowed to point it out to you as such.

I Said: when you go for the first time, they give you a class, and it's before you commit to anything more than keep what they say in the class to yourself.

You Said: I can provide you with materials for the classes preparing for the rite of Christian Initiation (for confirmation in my Church), with the study materials, manuals, as well as the creeds required.

Neat, I can direct you to Endowed from on High: Temple Preparation Seminar Teacher’s Manual
It's the hand book for the class the church recommends you take before you enter the temple, it was up on our web site, (I searched for Temple preparation). I Said: it's sacred.

You Said: So is Confirmation.

You are perfectly welcome to come to a Mormon Baptism, and Confirmation, no recommend required. You can even attend a Sacrament meeting without a recommend (you will not be expected / allowed to partake of the sacrament, or Eucharist)

I Said: Some parts of the Rite are very personal..

You Said: That's ok. Parts of Confession are extremely personal. I can give you information on what specific types of personal information this involves. Perhaps you could do the same?

I already have,, but lets go over it again, you covent to God to keep his commandments, the covenants cover the Bible, the D&C, and the Covenant with Abraham in the Book of Abraham. We covenant with God not to reveal the sacred things he teaches us there outside the temple, we are instructed in ways to recognize revelation from God tell true messengers from fakers, we are taught about our potential, and all this is in the D&C and the book of Abraham, so go and read them if you want to know what we do in the temple.

I Said: And the Doctrines taught in the Temple are published in the D&C, and book of Abraham. There are rites performed in the temple that are not to be spoken of anywhere else. They are not doctrine, they are rites.

You Said: I understand that, believe me. Perhaps you could reveal whether it involves oaths and/or whether it involves the invoking of special words?

LOL! It's a ritual, of course you say the same phrases every time, if it changed all the time it'd be a conversation, but not a ritual.

Special Words, you mean like God Elohem, angels Adam Michael and stuff? yes we use words not in normal every day use on the streets, but then, I don't usually talk about creation or to God on the street.

I Said: Tell me, do you know every thing that goes on in a nunnery?

You Said: Bordering on non-sequitor. I know the rites; I'm not privy to the privy.

Yes, but you did not answer if it bothered you, and your refusal to answer is an interesting development.

I Said: We never said we were orthodox

You Said: I understand. In our discussion, I'm avoiding arguments over Christianity and trying to communicate the problem of comparative religious discussions which involve secret rites.

Then why not instead read the D&C and th book of Abraham and discuss those, you will cover the same territory, but not be trying to get a Mormons to confirm or deny if they use the word God in the temple (yes we do, but it's in addressing him, not swearing by his name)

You Said: Let me end with an example, an outrageous one to prove a point: Say there was a religion that held a sacred secret rite. Call it "The Rite of Initiation of the Bear". This religion says the rite follows its doctrine of the sanctity of animal life and that in this rite a bear is specially blessed before God to show the church's reverence for God's gift of all animals.

You know the punch line: The bear is bathed and annointed, incensed, blessed and... sacraficed.

There is no blood spilt in the temple, the only sacrifice is a broken heart and a contrite spirit, Jesus has fulfilled the law of sacrifice in the Bible by the shedding of his own blood.

You Said: Please know I mean nothing of the sort goes on in the LDS; it's only to illustrate that rites and doctrine do go together - they are key aspects of what a church believes and how it illustrates and further defines its beliefs.

So it would be OK if the bear was not sacrificed? What if there was on anointing?
And what in the name of mike does a bear have to do with Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation (which is the focus of the Temple ceremony), but that's in the D&C, so you knew that, right?

You Said: Now there are benefits to secrets, beside the obvious of keeping something one wishes others not to know from them. Secrets also build unity and loyalty. So I see their advantage.

Not to mention God commanded it (you guys are missing the only point here BTW)

You Said: In religion, I believe their dangers and disadvantages outweigh their usefulness.

I'll relay your misgivings to God the next time I'm in the temple, come to think of it, just tell him yourself in a prayer, then he'll know better than I do who you are and what you need.

You Said: You, of course, have another view and other reasons why LDS must keep them secret. We may just have to disagree as I think I have run out of arguments for my position.

Yep, well let's talk about my perspective for a moment, if you believe (as I do) that God commanded you not to tell the ceremonies outside the temple, what could make you do it? I have tried to be as forthcoming as I can be, but what you want is for me to disclose that which I promised God I would not reveal and simply put well, no.

I really have tried to be helpful, the information is there on our web site, you don't have to wonder, go read.

May God be with you, FRiend

[D-fendr]

I understand your perspective. I've tried to stick to the point: secret rites prohibit discussion of comparative religious topics. If that's unavoidable in LDS then so be it.

I think we may well be misunderstanding each other. At least I feel misunderstood in some of my answers. And I think I may be misunderstanding you as well.

I read the manual and it was helpful, thank you. Can you help me out with this part of our discussion?

What exactly are we talking about that is a secret rite? You said baptism, Eucharist, etc are not secret, so what is it exactly we are talking about here?

Is the secret part in the Ordinances and Covenants? These seem to be spelled out in the manual - are they basically the same only with different presentation and wording?

Or, alternatively, is the secret part found here:

In a symbolic way, the teachings and rituals of the temple take us on an upward journey toward eternal life, ending with a symbolic entrance into the presence of God. The characters depicted, the physical setting, the clothing worn, the signs given, and all the events covered in the temple are symbolic. When they are understood, they will help each person recognize truth and grow spiritually.

You say:

all this is in the D&C and the book of Abraham, so go and read them if you want to know what we do in the temple.

... but preface it with:

We covenant with God not to reveal the sacred things he teaches us there outside the temple..

Which, I hope you can imagine confuses me quite a bit.

So, if you could clarify for me what exactly the nature of the secret rite is. By this I mean what's it called, is it like a church service for members only? Is it a regular rite? Who presides? Is it a group meeting. Is what must be kept secret comprised of special teachings by a church leader or a ritual that is repeated? Is this a one time initiation, learning or an ongoing thing.

I'm afraid I'm thoroughly confused what we're talking about and apologize for not clearing it up sooner.

[D-fendr]

One other thing I wonder if you help me figure out. Could you say whether this teaching falls under the covenant with God which you are not to reveal:

we are taught about our potential

thanks again for your patience..

[Elsie]

 

  No; it was not.

Where do you get the AUTHORITY to keep your temple rites sacred/secret?

I could care less WHAT you say in your sacred/secret rites.

All I want is to shown the AUTHORITY.

It should be simple: cut & paste.

1,284 posted on 07/23/2007 6:26:22 PM CDT by Elsie  

 

 

A, you were included in the post because you were mentioned (it’s not polite to just point, my mom taught me that).
B GOD

Any questions............ No? Good.

 

 

You must have MISSED the 'question' the first time.

Please; try one more time, to present, from the LDS organizations public writings, the AUTHORITY to do what you do in your temples.

[Elsie]

Show me something that is sacred but not secret and I'll show you something that is not Sacred for long.

Oh? Like WHAT?

[Elsie]

Show me something that is sacred but not secret and I'll show you something that is not Sacred for long.

Oh? Like WHAT?

[restornu]

Again, this is the LDS's privledge. I see reasons for it, I understand now this is believed to be commanded by God. I disagree and see the value of not having these kinds of secrets. We each includes these factors in our choice of religion and should respect each other for defending them.

To you it seems this is a LDS privilege but to the LDS it is a sacred covenant from the Lord!

Unless you are wanting to critique the rites, and not the Doctrine you don't need them, and discussing Doctrine was your premise here was it not? No; it was not.

Where do you get the AUTHORITY to keep your temple rites sacred/secret.

I could care less WHAT you say in your sacred/secret rites.

All I want is to shown the AUTHORITY.

It should be simple: cut & paste.

I think the two of you are overlooking your need to know is in conflict with a commandment that the Lord gave his Children and you are asking us to break our vows for your self satisfying pleasure.

It seems the Lord had his reasons for his children do not always know to whom they are speaking to and what they will do with the knowledge or their intent so the Lord is in charge of what goes on in his house!

Matt 7
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Prov. 23:
9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

Matt. 15: 26 (
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

D&C 6: 12
12 Make not thy gift known unto any save it be those who are of thy faith. Trifle not with sacred things.

D&C 10: 37 (36-37)
37 But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter.

D&C 41:
6 For it is not meet that the things which belong to the children of the kingdom should be given to them that are not worthy, or to dogs, or the pearls to be cast before swine.

[Saundra Duffy]

“Trifle not with sacred things.”

Good morning! Say, I don’t get it. If they think our faith is a bunch of hooey (which they do), why do they care what goes on in our Temples?

Attended Oakland Temple pageant Friday night. It was so wonderful. The best part for me was touring the Visitor’s Center before the pageant. Our guides were two Sister Missionaries - one from Tonga and the other from Idaho (Idaho?!) You could feel their sweet Spirit. There was a beautiful video production of the healing ministry of our Savior Jesus Christ. I love the huge sculpture of the Savior - the “Christus”:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/597525

I was shocked the first time I saw that sculpture! Most images of Jesus are of Him suffering and dying on the cross. I like it that our Church focuses on His resurrection, ministry, and authority. Have a great day all!