Do LDS openly acknowledge that their religion teaches the belief of multiple gods?

[ParkerD]

Thanks for the response and explanations, what I am having trouble with is if my brother and sister were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Trinitarian baptism), why was there a need for another baptism? I do not understand the concept of a second baptism and by proxy for the dead. Thanks for your patience.

WM Scott,
I can certainly see why you would have that question. LDS baptisms are done “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” by a man who has been authorized and holds the priesthood. The baptism is closely followed by another ordinance of receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, also by the authority of the priesthood.

For persons who have died such as your brother and sister (if over age 8 when they died), there is another ordinance, then another, then if they were married there would eventually be an ordinance called a “sealing” of their marriage. The first two have to do with having their body that they will eventually receive in the resurrection, receive a special “washing” and “anointing” as described in Exodus 40:

12 And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.
13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.
14 And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats:
15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

Solomon’s temple replaced the tabernacle that Moses was talking about in Exodus 40. Washing and anointing took place in Solomon’s temple, and are sacred and holy ordinances that are recognized as being very important by God, as evidenced in the above passage.

Each of these ordinances done in LDS temples in the name of a person who died, provides that person the option of accepting the ordinance, but if they didn’t accept the proxy baptism then they wouldn’t even know about the other ordinances and those others would not be in effect at all. It would be as though nothing had been done.

 

[dianaiad]

Whoa…are you saying that someone who has left the Mormon Church cannot faithfully represent the true teaching of the LDS, and then turn around and make a convincing case against it based upon his or her new beliefs?

That is precisely what I am saying. I am also saying that about ex-Baptists, ex-Catholics, and ex- you name it’s. Oh, they can do that if they are addressing members of their former faiths, because of course the members of their former faiths know what their beliefs really are, but with anybody ELSE? No. I do. not. get, my. information. about. any. faith. from. ex. members. of. that. faith.
Period. I do not recommend that anyone else do that, either.

One caveat…if ONLY the ex-members of a faith are willing to talk about that faith, it’s not a faith I want anything to do with anyway. (Scientologists come to mind there.)

Again, are former members of the Church not able to quote or reproduce photocopies of Church documents to prove that the Apostles in Utah have said THIS or THAT in the past even when newer Church documents have expunged these passages?

Do not trust a former member of ANY faith to be honest, truthful or fair in their treatment of that faith. They have no motive to do that, and every motive in the world to attempt to justify their leaving.

That seems a bit of a stretch, Dianaiad.

It is what I have found to be true for over half a century. I’ve VERY seldom seen an ex-member present my beliefs accurately, never mind fairly…and before I came to CAF, I could honestly say I NEVER had.

Just out of curiosity, is there any reference to or representation of a Protestant or Catholic clergyman in any of your ceremonies?

You are getting close to a topic that I will not discuss with you outside Temple walls. If you want to know this, the Temple script IS online. You can find it and read it. I just can’t discuss it with you. It is sacred to me, y’see, and I promised. It’s NOT secret though…it’s easy to find. We don’t sue people for publishing it or anything.

Dianaiad-

Your posts are always thoughtful and I appreciate learning from them…

Are you saying that you are baptized for these dead people but they have a choice as to whether they accept this baptism or not?

Absolutely. That’s the whole point. Since we are so firmly about freedom of choice; free agency…free will…if we thought for one second that there was any element of force in it, we wouldn’t do it. It is ALL about their choice. Our offer, their choice. Always.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for the articles of faith. Just an observation, it would make research a little easier if mormon.org would make the articles visible without having to have someone call on you. However, I do thank you for posting them.

Well…y’see, we ARE a very evangelical type church; missionary work is important to us…so yeah, they are going to try to get you to allow the missionaries to come to see you.

 

[why_me]

That is precisely what I am saying. I am also saying that about ex-Baptists, ex-Catholics, and ex- you name it’s. Oh, they can do that if they are addressing members of their former faiths, because of course the members of their former faiths know what their beliefs really are, but with anybody ELSE? No. I do. not. get, my. information. about. any. faith. from. ex. members. of. that. faith.
Period. I do not recommend that anyone else do that, either.

One caveat…if ONLY the ex-members of a faith are willing to talk about that faith, it’s not a faith I want anything to do with anyway. (Scientologists come to mind there.)

Do not trust a former member of ANY faith to be honest, truthful or fair in their treatment of that faith. They have no motive to do that, and every motive in the world to attempt to justify their leaving.

This is sort of a blanket statement that may just not be true. Now of course, on the internet this may be true. The exers who post on the internet usually have an axe to grind. And their posts are usually colored with anger, bitterness and exageration. But there are many exers who never post on the internet and feel no hatred, bitterness or anger toward their exfaith. They can see the former faith as good but not for them and never say a negative word about it. But they do not post on the internet usually. They have no reason to. They just live quiet lives.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, although I am still clueless of LDS beliefs, I have been able to learn a few new things today. I would like to ask another question, I have heard that not anyone can walk into an LDS service at a temple. I am not sure if this is phrased correct. I am wondering if there are services that are closed or forbidden to outsiders, if so what is the reasons? Thanks

As I mentioned, Temple services are VERY different from regular Sunday services in our meeting houses. So much so, in fact, that people new to the faith who enter the Temple for the first time wonder if they are in the right place; it can be a shock.

Our ‘regular services’ on Sundays are very familiar…business like, with very little symbolism or ceremony aside from the 'Sacrament" (communion.) We do that first, and they are about the only ‘set’ prayers we actually say–those that bless the bread and the water, which is then disbributed to the congregation by deacons (generally 12-14 year old boys) who take the bread and the water to the members in the pews.

After that, there are three or four ‘talks’ from members of the congregation who have been assigned to speak (Mormons do NOT share that universal phobia of speaking in front of others, since we all have to do that fairly often), a couple of congregational hymns, a musical number (perhaps, mostly not…) and that’s it. After that (sometimes before Sacrament meeting) we all go to Sunday School, or Primary (for the kids under 12) and “MIA” or “priesthood meeting” or Relief Society. It’s a two hour block of scripture study, basically.

Very …what was the word someone used…prosaic.

…and everybody is welcome, member and non-member alike.

Temple attendence, though, is very, very different. In order to attend a Temple ceremony, you have to be LDS and hold a Temple recommend. That means you need to be a full tithe payer, be attending all your meetings, live the Word of Wisdom, and be behaving yourself generally.

So no, not just anyone can go. That can cause problems, but…that’s how it is.

 

[dianaiad]

This is sort of a blanket statement that may just not be true. Now of course, on the internet this may be true. The exers who post on the internet usually have an axe to grind. And their posts are usually colored with anger, bitterness and exageration. But there are many exers who never post on the internet and feel no hatred, bitterness or anger toward their exfaith. They can see the former faith as good but not for them and never say a negative word about it. But they do not post on the internet usually. They have no reason to. They just live quiet lives.

Ah, but the sort of ex-member you speak of, as you say, does NOT attempt to educate others about what their former faith ‘really’ believes…and that’s the point. In fact, you see the point quite well. The only sort of ex-member that feels impelled to do this is ALSO impelled to present his or her old faith in the most negative light possible.

I’ve been around the amateur apologetics circuit for quite a long time now…40 odd years, and in all those years I have never once come across a publication, internet article, program or anything else by an ex-Mormon or non-Mormon that claims to teach people ABOUT Mormonism that got our doctrines RIGHT (that is accurately) never mind made any attempt to be objective or unbiased. Not one. In fact, I’ve never seen one that hasn’t made it’s entire point to disprove, warn against, or vilify Mormonism.

Now, I’m not an idiot…most of those people also write about other belief systems and faiths. I don’t think that ‘they’ are out to get Mormons more than they are out to get the other faiths and systems they vilify–so I don’t think they are more likely to be accurate about Catholics or Anglicans or Jehovah’s Witnesses or…whoever…than they are about us.

Given that…and given that proper research protocol rather demands that secondary sources be confirmed by primary ones…why bother with the ex’s and the anti’s at all? Go to the primary source and make your own decision.

Diana

 

[wmscott]

As I mentioned, Temple services are VERY different from regular Sunday services in our meeting houses. So much so, in fact, that people new to the faith who enter the Temple for the first time wonder if they are in the right place; it can be a shock.

Our ‘regular services’ on Sundays are very familiar…business like, with very little symbolism or ceremony aside from the 'Sacrament" (communion.) We do that first, and they are about the only ‘set’ prayers we actually say–those that bless the bread and the water, which is then disbributed to the congregation by deacons (generally 12-14 year old boys) who take the bread and the water to the members in the pews.

After that, there are three or four ‘talks’ from members of the congregation who have been assigned to speak (Mormons do NOT share that universal phobia of speaking in front of others, since we all have to do that fairly often), a couple of congregational hymns, a musical number (perhaps, mostly not…) and that’s it. After that (sometimes before Sacrament meeting) we all go to Sunday School, or Primary (for the kids under 12) and “MIA” or “priesthood meeting” or Relief Society. It’s a two hour block of scripture study, basically.

Very …what was the word someone used…prosaic.

…and everybody is welcome, member and non-member alike.

Temple attendence, though, is very, very different. In order to attend a Temple ceremony, you have to be LDS and hold a Temple recommend. That means you need to be a full tithe payer, be attending all your meetings, live the Word of Wisdom, and be behaving yourself generally.

So no, not just anyone can go. That can cause problems, but…that’s how it is.

Thanks for continuing to be patient with me and my questions. I am not trying to be intentionally dense here, but why can not a non LDS witness as to what goes on during a Temple ceremony? I am just trying to understand.

 

[why_me]

Given that…and given that proper research protocol rather demands that secondary sources be confirmed by primary ones…why bother with the ex’s and the anti’s at all? Go to the primary source and make your own decision.

Diana

You are right. Quite often an ex member of the lds church on this board presents information as truth as if the lds church or its apologists have not addressed the issue already. Quite often I have responded to these exmembers of the lds faith with an explanation from FAIRlds wiki or FAIRlds. What is interesting is that the fairwiki even states the criticism which is quite often exactly as stated by the exmember.

I have this feeling that the exmember searches high and low from antimormon sites and posts the information in their own words to discredit the lds church. And yet, FAIRlds does address the criticism since the criticim has been around for over 100 years sometimes.

 

[why_me]

Thanks for continuing to be patient with me and my questions. I am not trying to be intentionally dense here, but why can not a non LDS witness as to what goes on during a Temple ceremony? I am just trying to understand.

Mormons consider the temple to be sacred and one must be worthy to enter the temple. There are questions that an lds person is asked to consider worthiness. Usually this is done during the temple interview process when the recommendation needs to be renewed. Or when a member is seeking their temple recommend for the first time. There are lds members who can not enter the temple because they are not worthy to do so.

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks for continuing to be patient with me and my questions. I am not trying to be intentionally dense here, but why can not a non LDS witness as to what goes on during a Temple ceremony? I am just trying to understand.

WM Scott,
In addition to what “Why Me” explained, if you think about Solomon’s temple and about the ark of the covenant and about the “holy of holies” associated with temples and tabernacles in the Old Testament, then it seems reasonable that attendance inside of a dedicated temple would not be for everyone in the world. It would be for people who had prepared themselves to enter, and who would be very careful because of knowing that they were on “sacred ground” in a “sacred and holy place” and making sacred, solemn and eternally binding covenants.

The temple rooms can be entered by non LDS during temple open houses before each temple is dedicated as the “House of the Lord.”

 

[wmscott]

Mormons consider the temple to be sacred and one must be worthy to enter the temple. There are questions that an lds person is asked to consider worthiness. Usually this is done during the temple interview process when the recommendation needs to be renewed. Or when a member is seeking their temple recommend for the first time. There are lds members who can not enter the temple because they are not worthy to do so.

Thanks for the response and explanation. In the Catholic religion I see the Mass as we are approaching the throne of God and this is very sacred. However we would not think of keeping a sinner away and possibly denying the prospect of forgiveness and salvation because we were not worthy. To me it seems that an LDS is denied the fullness of his faith if someone in the LDS hierarchy feels he is not worthy. Shouldn’t access to God be open to all, and not reserved for someone considered to be worthy. Lastly shouldn’t God judge who is worth or not? No disrespect intended just curious.

 

[jakasaki]

Sounds like a “secret society” to me!

 

[wmscott]

WM Scott,
In addition to what “Why Me” explained, if you think about Solomon’s temple and about the ark of the covenant and about the “holy of holies” associated with temples and tabernacles in the Old Testament, then it seems reasonable that attendance inside of a dedicated temple would not be for everyone in the world. It would be for people who had prepared themselves to enter, and who would be very careful because of knowing that they were on “sacred ground” in a “sacred and holy place” and making sacred, solemn and eternally binding covenants.

The temple rooms can be entered by non LDS during temple open houses before each temple is dedicated as the “House of the Lord.”

I think I can see how you may have come by this in light of the explanation you have provided. However after Christs crucifixion was not the temple curtains torn in two:

Matthew 27:51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent.

Haydocks Catholic Bible Commentary

Ver. 51. The veil of the temple was rent. As there were in the temple two parts of the sanctuary, so there were two veils, or partition walls. The first sanctuary, called the holy, was separated by a veil from that part of the temple called the court of the Israelites. Into this outward sanctuary, called the holy, entered every day the priests that were in office. The second interior sanctuary, called the holy of holies, was also separated from the outward sanctuary by another veil. And into this holy of holies, no one was to enter except the high priest, and he but once a-year. Both these veils seem to have been rent at Christ’s death: and by their being broken down, was signified first, that the ceremonies of the ancient law were to be abolished by the law of Christ; and also that heaven should be open to all.

In light of this, it makes me wonder about the explanation. I am not challenging the right for the LDS to practice this, I am not just understanding from my point of reference, the catholic faith. I do appreciate all that you and others have shared with me and being patient with my uninformed questions.

 

[Stephen168]

Whoa…are you saying that someone who has left the Mormon Church cannot faithfully represent the true teaching of the LDS, and then turn around and make a convincing case against it based upon his or her new beliefs?

Once a Catholic claimed the Book of Mormon contained some verses which an active Mormon denied. An ex-Mormon quickly showed several references proving the active Mormon wrong. So it appeared the Active Mormon was not as knowledgeable as the ex-Mormon was OR the active Mormon lied.

 

[ParkerD]

I think I can see how you may have come by this in light of the explanation you have provided. However after Christs crucifixion was not the temple curtains torn in two:

Matthew 27:51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent.

Haydocks Catholic Bible Commentary

Ver. 51. The veil of the temple was rent. As there were in the temple two parts of the sanctuary, so there were two veils, or partition walls. The first sanctuary, called the holy, was separated by a veil from that part of the temple called the court of the Israelites. Into this outward sanctuary, called the holy, entered every day the priests that were in office. The second interior sanctuary, called the holy of holies, was also separated from the outward sanctuary by another veil. And into this holy of holies, no one was to enter except the high priest, and he but once a-year. Both these veils seem to have been rent at Christ’s death: and by their being broken down, was signified first, that the ceremonies of the ancient law were to be abolished by the law of Christ; and also that heaven should be open to all.

In light of this, it makes me wonder about the explanation. I am not challenging the right for the LDS to practice this, I am not just understanding from my point of reference, the catholic faith. I do appreciate all that you and others have shared with me and being patient with my uninformed questions.

WM Scott,
I can see why you would be confused about this based on the background you have explained. I certainly agree that “heaven should be open to all,” but I don’t agree that temples and their veils were to be “abolished by the law of Christ.” That explanation was someone’s presumed guesswork. I do agree that the law of sacrifice was fulfilled in Christ, but not the need for temples.

If you look up Malachi 3:1-4 you will find reference to the Lord coming to His temple and that He will be “like a refiner’s fire.” That is clearly a Second Coming scripture, which would mean that temples are on earth before the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

Once a Catholic claimed the Book of Mormon contained some verses which an active Mormon denied. An ex-Mormon quickly showed several references proving the active Mormon wrong. So it appeared the Active Mormon was not as knowledgeable as the ex-Mormon was OR the active Mormon lied.

Stephen,
I suppose you would be referring to the discussion I had with PaulDupre about the words “great city.” The connotation he was using is what I disagreed with, and still do, and have explained that in this forum on another thread that happened later.

The connotation of words is essential to understanding the meaning conveyed by a writer. “Great city” can mean different things to different people, but in my mind I would not consider a city of 5,000 - 10,000 people with homes made of wood, a “great city.” Maybe you would, but not me.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

I’m rather a stickler for precise language, which is why I have finally come down on the idea that **Mormons are henotheists **leaning over the monotheist fence, Orthodox Christians are polytheists calling themselves monotheists but not really coming all THAT close, Jews and Muslims really ARE monotheists, and Hindus are polytheists, henotheists and monotheists, depending on who (or Who) they are talking about at the time.

It is really false to say that orthodox Christians are polytheists. This is not precise language. In terms of philosophy and theology, we confess that there exists only a single divine substance. This means there is only one divine being, albeit there are Three Blessed Persons who are fully of this self-same substance.

Philosophically, theologically speaking, this is monotheism. You might say it amounts to a kind of ‘practical’ polytheism, and for all appearances, seems to be polytheistic, but then we would just be dealing with superficial appearances, and not the content of the Christian belief itself.

Polytheism requires that we would confess multiple divine beings, as the LDS church clearly does, though it only worships one of them.

If LDS Christians want to escape the problem of being called henotheists or polytheists then they would be required to admit, and not neccessarily in the orthodox way, the singularity of the divine substance.

 

[zerinus]

Thanks for the response and explanations, what I am having trouble with is if my brother and sister were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Trinitarian baptism), why was there a need for another baptism? I do not understand the concept of a second baptism and by proxy for the dead. Thanks for your patience.

We believe that baptism is a sacrament that requires the priesthood to be performed acceptably in the sight of God, otherwise it is not a valid sacrament. We also believe that the early Christian Church apostatized and lost the priesthood, which has been restored in the LDS Church, hence there is no other church that can perform a valid sacrament except for the LDS Church. That is true for the living or the dead. If a living person wanted to join our Church, they would have to be baptized, even though they may have been baptized in their original church. The same principle applies equally to vicarious baptisms for the dead.

Thanks for the articles of faith. Just an observation, it would make research a little easier if mormon.org would make the articles visible without having to have someone call on you. However, I do thank you for posting them.

The Articles of Faith is a part of the canonized scriptures of the LDS Church, which are available online from the Church’s website. Here is a link that takes you to the Articles of Faith.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, although I am still clueless of LDS beliefs, I have been able to learn a few new things today. I would like to ask another question, I have heard that not anyone can walk into an LDS service at a temple. I am not sure if this is phrased correct. I am wondering if there are services that are closed or forbidden to outsiders, if so what is the reasons? Thanks

Mormon temples are not like ordinary houses of worship. Our regular houses of worship are like ordinary churches which anybody can attend. Temples serve entirely different purposes. Mormons are the only people who build such temples. Baptisms for the dead for example are exclusively performed in the temples. Because of the sacred nature of the purpose they serve, they are not open to the general public, and are only worthy members of the Church may enter into them.

Thanks for the response and explanation. In the Catholic religion I see the Mass as we are approaching the throne of God and this is very sacred. However we would not think of keeping a sinner away and possibly denying the prospect of forgiveness and salvation because we were not worthy. To me it seems that an LDS is denied the fullness of his faith if someone in the LDS hierarchy feels he is not worthy. Shouldn’t access to God be open to all, and not reserved for someone considered to be worthy. Lastly shouldn’t God judge who is worth or not? No disrespect intended just curious.

Although a sinner may attend the Mass, my understanding is that if he has committed serious sins he is denied the communion by the Catholic Church. That is certainly true of the LDS Church. So your example actually works against you. Some activities are too sacred for an unworthy person to be allowed to participate in. Mormon temples are like that.

I think I can see how you may have come by this in light of the explanation you have provided. However after Christs crucifixion was not the temple curtains torn in two:

Matthew 27:51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent.

---

In light of this, it makes me wonder about the explanation. I am not challenging the right for the LDS to practice this, I am not just understanding from my point of reference, the catholic faith. I do appreciate all that you and others have shared with me and being patient with my uninformed questions.

The rending of the veil of the temple was symbolic of the ending of the Old Covenant, and start of the new. It did not mean that temples were no longer sacred places, and therefore anybody should enter into them.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for continuing to be patient with me and my questions. I am not trying to be intentionally dense here, but why can not a non LDS witness as to what goes on during a Temple ceremony? I am just trying to understand.

We hold our Temple ceremonies to be sacred. They are very special to us; they are full of symbolism, from the building, to the paintings and the rooms inside, to every word and gesture. These are as full of liturgical ritual and symbolism as our Sunday services are not. Even the clothing we wear is symbolic, on several levels. It’s a celebration, a dance, a ceremony, ritual, meditation…anything you want to assign to it, you may. it is utterly sacred to us, and we reserve it to those who have committed themselves to our faith.

We are quite aware that those who do not share our beliefs can, will, and DO hold it up to mockery. We don’t want to participate in that mockery, or deal with it. So we promise not to discuss it with anyone outside Temple walls.

On the other hand, as I said, it’s not secret. Unlike some other organizations that go to great lengths to keep stuff secret, we do not attempt to stop, nor sue, when others post the script for that ceremony. You can find that script fairly easily.

Basically, though, it’s ours. It’s about the only place we CAN go that is free from mockery or attack, and many times we have to run a gauntlet of just such mockery to get TO the Temple doors. I’ve had to pass people waving Temple garments at me, waving incredibly offensive signs at me, singers with their speakers cranked up really loud singing truly offensive lyrics, street preachers shouting about how I’m going to hell…just to get from my car to the Temple doors.

But when I walk in there, they can’t follow. They can’t ever follow…and that is very nice. It’s the only place we have where that is true.

It is private. It is peaceful. We don’t mind at all telling you what the purpose of Temples are, and what ordinances are performed there, or even what promises we make. Just…not how we do it, and frankly, I don’t think it is too much to ask that there be one place we can go that the anti’s can’t follow.

 

[dianaiad]

Once a Catholic claimed the Book of Mormon contained some verses which an active Mormon denied. An ex-Mormon quickly showed several references proving the active Mormon wrong. So it appeared the Active Mormon was not as knowledgeable as the ex-Mormon was OR the active Mormon lied.

And both went to the primary source, which was the Book of Mormon.