Stephen168
New member
Why did Dianaiad not answer the question? Can she ever defend Mormonism?
Which was Marie’s point. ‘nough said.
- Status
T
TheosisM
Guest
Something interesting about early Christianity is that the Eucharist was “guarded”. Catechumens would depart after the Liturgy of the Word (the scripture readings essentially) and would not be present at the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Those not initiated would not be allowed. From Orthodoxwiki:
“After the priest blesses the faithful, the deacon exclaims, “The doors! The doors!” This famous exclamation once marked the point in the service at which the doors to the temple were locked, with only faithful Christians remaining. Over the centuries, visitors have been allowed to stay, though the solemnity of what follows is still recalled with this phrase.”
From the Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Cross’s website:
"Before reciting the Nicene Creed, the deacon or priest says, “The doors, the doors; in wisdom let us attend.” At this point in the service any unbelievers or remaining catechumens were removed and the Doorkeeper closed the church. "
From the Orthodox Church in America’s website:
“The doors, the doors! In wisdom let us attend!” (The Divine Liturgy)
Initially this was an order to the doorkeepers to be certain that all who were not baptized had gone from the church, and only the faithful were welcome to remain for the Holy Communion. Doors closed and doors open provide powerful symbols to ponder.
Now, there were a number of reasons for this, such as the ancient persecution of Christians, as well as the sacred nature of the Eucharist. However it is important to see this as one example of the ancient practice of “secrecy” (or whatever you want to call it). Today non-Orthodox are allowed to stay for the entirety of the Divine Liturgy, as I have done a number of times.
T
TheosisM
Guest
The Journal of Discourses is not scriptural for Mormons.
Stephen168
New member
I have also heard that from a Jewish convert.
But there is a well thought out, reasoned, argument from a Mormon:
I would love to hear the answer to this question and it would give a Mormon a change to expand on their well thought out, reasoned, argument.
-OR-
She can use it as a springboard to launch an anti-catholic rant which has the scholastic acumen of a sixth grader; any thing but having to defend her position.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Then you tell all potential converts, upfront, about the temple ceremony, the hand symbols, the special clothing, etc.?
Those couple of ‘mouseclicks’ has led me to many websites, mainly ex-Mormons, who speak vehemently against the temple ceremony. Is that where you want people to get their information? Seems Mormons will quickly state ‘it’s sacred to me and I will not discuss it, but it’s not secret’. When you are unwilling to discuss something, it’s the same as a ‘secret’.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Yea, pretty much.
Catholicism and EO’s liturgies definitely have obvious echos of their Hebrew roots, Christ being Hebrew and all.
Mormonism? Not so much.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
This is rather disingenuous. Prior to the internet, there was no access to what went on inside a mormon temple. The internet sites you refer to are non-LDS, and most LDS would consider them anti-mormon…so…where on the are internet sites that explain from a LDS POV the LDS temple ceremony?
It is after all one of things you say often. “go to LDS sites”…now you are telling people to go to non-LDS sites to get the information about the thing you consider most sacred? Have you read them yourself? Are you sure they are correct?
P
PaulDupre
Guest
It doesn’t matter that the Journal of Discourses and the many books written by the prophets and apostles of the LDS org are not canonized scripture. These sources indicate what the LDS leadership believed and taught during the time these documents were produced. If all of the LDS prophets and apostles believe and teach something for 180 years, it is Mormon doctrine, whether modern Mormons are ashamed to admit it or not.
Since the very beginnings of Mormonism, their prophets and apostles have believed and taught that the wedding feast at Cana was Jesus’ wedding and that Jesus was polygamously married to Mary Magdalene and to Mary and Martha (the sisters of Lazarus) and others.
How can their prophets and apostles believe it and teach it and write about it, and all of the members believe and teach it for all that time and it not be Mormon doctrine?
The Mormons can spin it all they want, but it is Mormon doctrine.
Paul (a former Mormon, now happily Catholic)
P.S.: Here’s another quote, from the Mormon newspaper "The Millenial Star (1835):
L
lax16
Guest
Please explain how documents written by the apostles are not relevant or binding.
Stephen168
New member
I outlined what an ex-Mormon said about why he did not believe there was an Apostasy:
I bolded what I think applies to your post. This whole prophet/continuing revelation/new scripture thing; just seems so odd. I always wonder how can Mormons have confidence in this guy, when his new revelations can be completely countered by the next guy.
L
lax16
Guest
Thanks Stephen - I can see why LDS would say it is not binding if each new prophet can change what the church had been teaching…but do the teachings lose relevance?
This is so hard to grasp…
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Nothing has ever been kept from the baptized.
Mormons keep their temple ceremony secret from their baptized members.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Theosis and Rebecca,
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You discussed: ** Now, there were a number of reasons for this, such as the ancient persecution of Christians, as well as the sacred nature of the Eucharist. However it is important to see this as one example of the ancient practice of “secrecy” (or whatever you want to call it). Today non-Orthodox are allowed to stay for the entirety of the Divine Liturgy, as I have done a number of times.
The primary reason to exclude catechumens from the part of the Liturgy following their dismissal was not a matter of secrecy, but rather came from the Orthodox’s concept that holy things are for those whom God has made holy by their Baptism and Confirmation. Holy things are not for those who have not yet undergone the sanctifying wash of Baptism and the annointment of Confirmation. This is not to conceal anything, but rather to keep catechumens and other non-Orthodox from blaspheming the sacraments by their presence and thus from compromising their own spiritual well-being.Pax, Jerry Parker
T
TheosisM
Guest
Thanks Jerry. I think that both Rebecca and I agree with this.
What would be interesting is to see how Mormons view this in comparison and contrast with their own reasons for their Temple “secrecy”.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Of course. As is mine. Which gets you nowhere in a discussion.
mfb:
Well, not exactly. The ECF’s had an understanding of the “heavens” as did their contemporaries, i.e. extending from the natural level - the heaven inhabited by the birds of the air, the heaven of the stars and other “heavenly” bodies like the stars and planets and comets, etc., to the spiritual heaven - of God’s temple. This is not descriptive of a spiritual heaven structured as a caste system like that described in Mormonism, where the top levels are restricted to those who know the esoteric secrets of the Mormon temple ceremonies. Such a notion is simply not in the scriptures. Indeed, what we know of heaven is simply limited to allegory and other comparative language. This is probably because what heaven is far exceeds what we can see with our limited imaginations.
When 1 Cor is comparing resurrected bodies to the stars and the moon, etc, this does not support the complex LDS version of heaven. The simpler answer, that is clear to the ECFs is that individuals will have differing levels of grace, but all will be filled to capacity. Think of it this way… One person lived a life filled with holiness and charity. They are like a gallon jar filled to the brim. Another lived a less holy life, but died in a state of grace. They are like a teacup but also filled to the brim. Both are complete. This does not mean the “cup” sized person is relegated to a lesser heaven. They are experiencing heaven to the fullest, just as the “gallon” sized person is. The gallon-sized person is not somehow “promoted” to godhood, while the “cup” sized person is relegated to a lesser eternal fate. Such a concept is not in scripture, or the writings of the ECFs.
The ECF quotations you provided only prove my point. I do not see how any of it supports the LDS version of Heaven being divided into a tiered caste system, with divine exhaltation limited to those who know the mysteries of the temple ceremony.
But, then I guess that really doesn’t concern you, since your belief is based solely upon what your spirit is teaching you. While I except your sincerity, it is hard to have a serious discussion with someone when they even ignore (or remain blind to) what the scriptures state and simply believe what they want to believe. You cannot support your LDS position with anything except an unsubstantiated personal spiritual experience. It may be enough for you, but your experience, together with all the sincerity you can muster, is simply not persuasive.mfb:
No hives. Just a deeper appreciation for my Catholic faith - and for reason.
Peace,
Robert
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Yes, this is my understanding. Also, in the first 300 or so years Christians were under the death penalty for being Christian. Christians met in secret, and as such, there was not a trust of people who were not yet baptized.Thanks Jerry. I think that both Rebecca and I agree with this.
What would be interesting is to see how Mormons view this in comparison and contrast with their own reasons for their Temple “secrecy”.
LDS have not incorporated any of the same practices. If they are going to claim that their temple secrecy is a restoration, well then, we ought to see some sort of comparison to what was held secret. It certainly wasn’t for anything that goes on in their temples, as this ritual did not exist until Joseph Smith & Co. invented it. Ever.
The Our Father was not taught to a catechumen until right before their baptism. LDS hold no such holiness for this prayer of the Church, that was taught to us by Christ Himself, that we say together at every Mass. They never pray this prayer together, in their temples or anywhere else.
What was, and still held to us, as the center of our faith is the Eucharist, which the LDS reject entirely as nothing more than a symbol.
What they hold as secret, is based on Smith’s invention of plural marriage as ordained by God, and so he made up a ceremony in order to make something that is profane, appear to be holy. It is anything but holy.
It is beyond ridiculous, this notion of LDS pulling quotes out of context from our Church Fathers. People who absolutely believed in the Body and Blood of Christ. These same people where they learn of the Liturgy of the Eucharist being held as so holy as to be denied access to non-catholics. There is nothing there for them to use, only to twist and turn into a lie, and try to compare the ultimate truth to the ultimate lie.
They have a lot of nerve coming here for this purpose. This attempt to try to sway the communion of saints into a lie…“we’re just like you”…don’t believe it.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Prodigal Son1,Then you tell all potential converts, upfront, about the temple ceremony, the hand symbols, the special clothing, etc.?
Those couple of ‘mouseclicks’ has led me to many websites, mainly ex-Mormons, who speak vehemently against the temple ceremony. Is that where you want people to get their information? Seems Mormons will quickly state ‘it’s sacred to me and I will not discuss it, but it’s not secret’. When you are unwilling to discuss something, it’s the same as a ‘secret’.
So I would assume from these questions, that you think that Ruth, for example, knew about all of the ceremonies that went on in the Holy of Holies before she became a Jew through her marriage, and that those ceremonies were taught to her openly before she had demonstrated the sincerity of her covenant making and the sincerity of her faith, and that all the “covenant people” (the descendants of the house of Israel at any time in Old Testament history) knew exactly and completely all the ceremonies that went on in the tabernacle of Moses or in the temple of Solomon and the rebuilt temple thereafter?
L
lax16
Guest
I have noticed that you (Mormons) focus on, and often quote, the OT.
All things have been fulfilled by Jesus in the NT, so why constantly go there to prove you are right?
I could say “an eye for an eye” but I, as a Christian, would be wrong.
If all of this about the OT is true, the way you (Mormons) interpret it, why aren’t the Jews of today and Mormons the same?
Also, you guys seem a bit “obsessed” about male/female relations. (I’ve read posts about Adam/Eve too)
What’s up with that?
D
dianaiad
Guest
The Journal of Discourses is valuable for what it is; a collection of speeches given by notable leaders of the church. What they are NOT is what people like you keep claiming they are: scriptures that define our doctrine. They do not. They never have and they will not. They are, and remain, the personal opinions of those who spoke, and in some cases not even that. None of the men whose words are contained in the Journal of Discourses had the opportunity to proofread those speeches before publication, and in most cases, were not even aware that they were going to BE published. They were taken down by hand by listeners, transcribed and sent to England where they were published. The first time many of those men even visited their speeches was after they had the copies of the bound journals in their hands.
I will remind you of what has to be one of YOUR favorite JoD quotes…where Brigham Young said something about anything he said being as good as scripture? Well, if you are like all the other anti-s out there, you probably don’t know that he also said, in the sentence previous to that, that this was true only AFTER he had a chance to go over it, proofread it, and pray about it to make sure he wasn’t off the rails. None of the men who gave those speeches had that opportunity, not one of them.
So no, I’m not going to downplay the importance of the JoD…However, they give us the personal opinions of the men speaking. They do NOT give us official doctrine; that we get from officially canonized scripture.
Which, in spite of the way anti’s love to quote it over and above anything else including the bible, the BoM, the PoGP or the D&C, do not trump any of those–and if there is any contradiction at all, the scriptures are the ones that count.
Period. In fact, any living MORMON in good standing with the church out trumps the JoD.
I do, when it comes to telling people what “Mormons believe,” and why. Why? Because I’m the Mormon. I believe what I believe and I’m a Mormon because I believe it.
So when someone asks for a “DOCTRINAL’ source of LDS beliefs, and you give us JoD quotes, it is an instant turn off; what it is, is a bright crimson flag; here is an anti-Mormon with an agenda who isn’t a bit interested in understanding or decent discourse.”
L
lax16
Guest
Uh, Dianaiad, do you have me confused with someone else?
The quotes I listed came off of an LDS website when I googled Journal of Discourses.
I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the JoD is, and was asking for an explanation as to its relevance.
If the average person is going to read those quotes when they look up Journal of Discourses, maybe your church wants to revise the homepage?
- Status