LDS worship

[Jerusha]

this version feels very familiar to me.

I like Judith. She was a strong woman. It sort of has a familiar feel to it if you are familiar with I Nephi.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, I understand your point about “Creator and created.” John Milbank calls it the “univocity of being.” Maybe he didn’t coin the term, but I like to read his “Radical Orthodoxy” because it’s plain brilliant. I don’t know how Catholics regard Radical Orthodoxy, and I suppose its a digression from the topic anyway… But, yeah.

Ha, what a fortunate meeting to have you here. You could say I was raised as a Radical Orthodox, if you take into account birth being the day I was baptized.

 

[LostChemist]

Since the subject was broached earlier I wanted to state that Freemasonry is in no way anti catholic OR a religion. Yes, Joseph Smith was a known mason and yes, these are symbols taken from freemasonry and used in LDS. One organization should not tarnish the other. Freemasonry is again… Not a religious organization and freely accepts catholics into the fraternity. However, it is the catholic doctrine that forbids Catholics from becoming masons for reasons that still escape me. I don’t mean to hijack the thread. I only wanted to clarify that one point

 

[TexanKnight]

Since the subject was broached earlier I wanted to state that Freemasonry is in no way anti catholic OR a religion. Yes, Joseph Smith was a known mason and yes, these are symbols taken from freemasonry and used in LDS. One organization should not tarnish the other. Freemasonry is again… Not a religious organization and freely accepts catholics into the fraternity. However, it is the catholic doctrine that forbids Catholics from becoming masons for reasons that still escape me. I don’t mean to hijack the thread. I only wanted to clarify that one point

Here is why:

Clement XII accurately indicates the principal reasons why Masonic associations from the Catholic, Christian, moral, political, and social points of view, should be condemned. These reasons are:

The peculiar, “unsectarian” (in truth, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian) naturalistic character of Freemasonry, by which theoretically and practically it undermines the Catholic and Christian faith, first in its members and through them in the rest of society, creating religious indifferentism and contempt for orthodoxy and ecclesiastical authority.
The inscrutable secrecy and fallacious ever-changing disguise of the Masonic association and of its “work”, by which “men of this sort break as thieves into the house and like foxes endeavour to root up the vineyard”, “perverting the hearts of the simple”, ruining their spiritual and temporal welfare.
The oaths of secrecy and of fidelity to Masonry and Masonic work, which cannot be justified in their scope, their object, or their form, and cannot, therefore, induce any obligation. The oaths are condemnable, because the scope and object of Masonry are “wicked” and condemnable, and the candidate in most cases is ignorant of the import or extent of the obligation which he takes upon himself. Moreover the ritualistic and doctrinal “secrets” which are the principal object of the obligation, according to the highest Masonic authorities, are either trifles or no longer exist. [212] In either case the oath is a condemnable abuse. Even the Masonic modes of recognition, which are represented as the principal and only essential “secret” of Masonry, are published in many printed books. Hence the real “secrets” of Masonry, if such there be, could only be political or anti-religious conspiracies like the plots of the Grand Lodges in Latin countries. But such secrets, condemned, at least theoretically, by Anglo-American Masons themselves, would render the oath or obligation only the more immoral and therefore null and void. Thus in every respect the Masonic oaths are not only sacrilegious but also an abuse contrary to public order which requires that solemn oaths and obligations as the principal means to maintain veracity and faithfulness in the State and in human society, should not be vilified or caricatured. In Masonry the oath is further degraded by its form which includes the most atrocious penalties, for the “violation of obligations” which do not even exist; a “violation” which, in truth may be and in many cases is an imperative duty.
The danger which such societies involve for the security and “tranquility of the State” and for “the spiritual health of souls”, and consequently their incompatibility with civil and canonical law. For even admitting that some Masonic associations pursued for themselves no purposes contrary to religion and to public order, they would be nevertheless contrary to public order, because by their very existence as secret societies based on the Masonic principles, they encourage and promote the foundation of other really dangerous secret societies and render difficult, if not impossible, efficacious action of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities against them.

 

[tarboy]

Since the subject was broached earlier I wanted to state that Freemasonry is in no way anti catholic OR a religion. Yes, Joseph Smith was a known mason and yes, these are symbols taken from freemasonry and used in LDS. One organization should not tarnish the other. Freemasonry is again… Not a religious organization and freely accepts catholics into the fraternity. However, it is the catholic doctrine that forbids Catholics from becoming masons for reasons that still escape me. I don’t mean to hijack the thread. I only wanted to clarify that one point

IMHO, Freemasonry was hijacking many good catholic men.
Being it was a Protestant dominated group, it made perfect sense to set up a Catholic fraternal goup (KofC) and forbid membership in the masons

 

[SpeSalvi]

Anyone wondering why Catholics have a problem with Freemasonry should read the Alta Vendita. I don’t have a lot of time to explain it, but google should be able to help you out.

 

[Imcatholic7]

I’m just curious. What is Mormon communal worship like? Is it liturgical? Are there formal, pre-written prayers and responses? Is there a communion service with anything like a Eucharistic Prayer? Are there similarities to the services of the more liturgical Protestant denominations? This could go for Temple services or the ordinary Sunday services (whatever the proper terms for these things are).

The Sacrament Meeting(communion service) is very different from a Mass. No responses. The congregation sits the whole time and sings when conducted. It is made up of different speakers every Sunday. The Priests (16-18) year old boys pray the prayer over the “sacrament” Then this is passed by 1-14 and 14-16 year old boys (1-14 is a deacon and 14-16 is a teacher). After that, everyone “splits” into their separate classes (usually by age group) for an hour. Then after that Priesthood class for boys and Relief Society for girls. The actual pastor (bishop) talks very little. I found the temple to be peaceful but I don’t feel it is very Christ-centered as they say. And the New and Everlasting Covenant in LDS beliefs is eternal (temple) marriage, NOT the sacrifice of Christ. (No pre-written prayers in Sacrament). I have been to the temple to do baptisms for the dead and it doesn’t seem very spiritual, atleast not to me, to be dunked under water 20-30 times. This is all coming from a former mormon.

 

[Marie5890]

IMHO, Freemasonry was hijacking many good catholic men.
Being it was a Protestant dominated group, it made perfect sense to set up a Catholic fraternal goup (KofC) and forbid membership in the masons

KoC wasnt really set up as an alternative to the Masons. Ven. Michael McGiveny (his Cause is overseen by my archdiocese) was trying to help with financial aid to it’s members.

kofc.org/en/about/index.html

 

[Imcatholic7]

The Sacrament Meeting(communion service) is very different from a Mass. No responses. The congregation sits the whole time and sings when conducted. It is made up of different speakers every Sunday. The Priests (16-18) year old boys pray the prayer over the “sacrament” Then this is passed by 1-14 and 14-16 year old boys (1-14 is a deacon and 14-16 is a teacher). After that, everyone “splits” into their separate classes (usually by age group) for an hour. Then after that Priesthood class for boys and Relief Society for girls. The actual pastor (bishop) talks very little. I found the temple to be peaceful but I don’t feel it is very Christ-centered as they say. And the New and Everlasting Covenant in LDS beliefs is eternal (temple) marriage, NOT the sacrifice of Christ. (No pre-written prayers in Sacrament). I have been to the temple to do baptisms for the dead and it doesn’t seem very spiritual, atleast not to me, to be dunked under water 20-30 times. This is all coming from a former mormon.

By the way, on the first Sunday of every month it is called fast and testimony meeting. This is where people choose (or in LDS words, “feel the spirit”) to go up and “bear” their testimony of how the “Church and gospel are true”.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

The Temple

Latter-day Saints not only have our meetinghouses/churches where we go for Sunday worship and various activities and classes throughout the week, but we also have temples, which we believe are Houses of the Lord, where His Spirit dwells and His presence can be felt. They are very beautiful, and I love going there (I’ll most likely go tomorrow). In the temple, all patrons wear white clothing.

In the temple, various sacred ordinances take place. One is baptism for the dead. In this ritual, a living person is immersed in the water for a deceased person. We believe that this then offers that deceased person the opportunity to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the next life if they didn’t have that opportunity in this life. Similar rituals also take place for Confirmation, Ordination, Sealing, etc.

Another ritual that takes place is Sealing, or Eternal Marriage. In this ordinance, the couple enters a sealing room, which also has an altar where they kneel (and typically there are large mirrors on opposite walls that look like they reflect into eternity). They hold hands and are sealed together for time and all eternity.

Finally there is the Endowment, or gift from God. Just prior to the Endowment, there is a ritual known as Washing and Anointing. During this, a patron is symbolically washed and anointed, and various blessings are pronounced on them, as they are faithful. They also put on the Garments of the Holy Priesthood, which we believe are sacred undergarments that remind the person wearing them of the covenants they have made with God. Following this begins the actual Endowment ordinance. During this ordinance, the Plan of Salvation is presented (mostly using film). We learn more about the Creation, the Fall, etc. We put on ceremonial clothing, and we enter into various covenants with God. It is very symbolic. After the Endowment, one passes through a veil into the Celestial Room, which symbolizes entering into the presence of God. In this beautiful room we quietly pray and meditate, and many believe that they receive personal revelations from God during this time.

I hope that helps.

Texan Knight alluded to the HORRIFIC BLOOD OATHS that are a complete affront to the 5TH Commandment “Thou shalt not kill (murder)” which is completely UNCHRISTLIKE is it not? God is NOT the author of such confusion.

(TK what is the Latin for the thing speaks for itself, a legal term is it not?, “Resipse Loquitor” - where is Latin spell check when you need it!)

There’s the “temple” skit that makes a MOCKERY of clergymen & one wears the “sacred” garb with the Masonic emblems, practices the Grips (handshakes also of Masonic origin), then practice discussion & handshake for when you hit the Veil after death & beckon your wife to get off her grave if you so desire to have her come & come have eternal sex with you & forever generate “spirit children”.

Funny, this clearly contradicts ST PAUL: There is NO MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN - Paul says point blank one lives as the Angels (do we not?) How do the LDS square these aspects of their “temple” ceremonies with the Bible?

One would think if you have a “temple”, the TABERNACLE is there also where the DIVINE PRESENCE dwells, but none to be found is there?

? to think about: How could GOD be the AUTHOR of different versions of “TRUTH” floating around? He could not be GOD in that case so evidently someone else is the author.

 

[aquabatix]

Texan Knight alluded to the HORRIFIC BLOOD OATHS that are a complete affront to the 5TH Commandment “Thou shalt not kill (murder)” which is completely UNCHRISTLIKE is it not? God is NOT the author of such confusion.

(TK what is the Latin for the thing speaks for itself, a legal term is it not?, “Resipse Loquitor” - where is Latin spell check when you need it!)

There’s the “temple” skit that makes a MOCKERY of clergymen & one wears the “sacred” garb with the Masonic emblems, practices the Grips (handshakes also of Masonic origin), then practice discussion & handshake for when you hit the Veil after death & beckon your wife to get off her grave if you so desire to have her come & come have eternal sex with you & forever generate “spirit children”.

Funny, this clearly contradicts ST PAUL: There is NO MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN - Paul says point blank one lives as the Angels (do we not?) How do the LDS square these aspects of their “temple” ceremonies with the Bible?

One would think if you have a “temple”, the TABERNACLE is there also where the DIVINE PRESENCE dwells, but none to be found is there?

? to think about: How could GOD be the AUTHOR of different versions of “TRUTH” floating around? He could not be GOD in that case so evidently someone else is the author.

Actually it was Jesus Himself who said that no one is given in marriage in heaven.

Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 12:18-27.

Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and put this question to him,
saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us, ‘If someone’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’
Now there were seven brothers. The first married a woman and died, leaving no descendants.
So the second married her and died, leaving no descendants, and the third likewise.
And the seven left no descendants. Last of all the woman also died.
At the resurrection (when they arise) whose wife will she be? For all seven had been married to her.”
Jesus said to them, “Are you not misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?
When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven.
As for the dead being raised, have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, (the) God of Isaac, and (the) God of Jacob’?
He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are greatly misled.”

Even better than St Paul.

 

[Jerusha]

However, Mormons question the Bible, because of “apostate Jews and Catholics” who distorted the scriptures to reflect their agendas.

Hmmmmnnn. That does not compute.

 

[Marie5890]

However, Mormons question the Bible, because of “apostate Jews and Catholics” who distorted the scriptures to reflect their agendas.

Hmmmmnnn. That does not compute.

A person has to do a great deal of mental hoop jumping and mental gymnastics to have Mormonism make any sense.

 

[aquabatix]

Also, they claim that the Bible is missing “many plain and precious things”, so since it is not in the BoM, they won’t take it seriously. Sad.

 

[pmccombs]

Texan Knight alluded to the HORRIFIC BLOOD OATHS that are a complete affront to the 5TH Commandment “Thou shalt not kill (murder)” which is completely UNCHRISTLIKE is it not? God is NOT the author of such confusion.

Mormon apologists point out that these so-called “blood oaths” were not oaths at all, but subjunctive declarations of the form: “Rather than [committing some grave sin] I would [suffer some horrific, bloody consequence].” Some apologists point to biblical exegesis and the original meaning of the Hebrew “covenant” to put the Mormon language into a biblical context. Although we aren’t without our violent episodes, these alleged “blood oaths” don’t seem to have shaped Mormon history into a particularly violent one. People seemed to understand these statements as meaning, “this stuff is really serious.” Our nineteenth century leaders were religious firebrands who were starting a brand new mass movement. They needed to stir people up and they spoke in hyperbole all the time.

Now that the mass movement has left its active phase, we no longer have use for that sort of language. It doesn’t fit in our culture anyway. We don’t have “blood oaths,” and arguably never did.

There’s the “temple” skit that makes a MOCKERY of clergymen & one wears the “sacred” garb with the Masonic emblems, practices the Grips (handshakes also of Masonic origin), then practice discussion & handshake for when you hit the Veil after death & beckon your wife to get off her grave if you so desire to have her come & come have eternal sex with you & forever generate “spirit children”.

Yes, I’ve seen that skit. It’s not in most temple ceremonies, however. Just the “live” ones. Mormons are convinced that Christianity entered apostasy, as foretold in prophecy (Amos 8:11), within the first century AD. Orthodox theologians freely admit the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian belief; Mormons have a problem with that (we have Satan himself describing it as, “the philosophy of men, mingled with scripture”).

As for freemasonry in Temple rites, yes, I’m convinced that Joseph Smith borrowed extensively from it. Freemasonry was very popular among the Mormons in the early days, and I suppose they put some stock in the legend that traces the practice back to Solomon’s time. Joseph likely found it useful as a vehicle for teaching the temple Endowment. That’s my opinion; freemasonry is looked at with suspicion among Mormons today, although you may still find the odd LDS grand master in the fraternity.

Funny, this clearly contradicts ST PAUL: There is NO MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN - Paul says point blank one lives as the Angels (do we not?) How do the LDS square these aspects of their “temple” ceremonies with the Bible?

Well, Mormons seal their ancestors vicariously, so I suppose in actuality even Mormons think there is no marriage in heaven. As for living as the angels, Mormons would like to live as the married ones, I guess. In any case, Mormons have no problems when their ideas seem to deviate from the Bible. In the first place, it’s a pretty easy thing to interpret the Bible however you like. You can find some intellectual or other to agree with you, or discover some data points to draw a bulls-eye around as all confirmation bias tends to do. Or, if you have an apostasy doctrine, you point to the corruption of scripture. And then you cherry-pick the doctrines from early Christian sects that seem to support you. That seems to be how apologists work, LDS or otherwise. They can all paint a picture of reality that looks pretty solid, and they generally have credentials to make them look plausible. We believe whomever we like, or as our tradition dictates.

One would think if you have a “temple”, the TABERNACLE is there also where the DIVINE PRESENCE dwells, but none to be found is there?

I don’t follow that. Plenty of Mormons believe there is a divine presence in the Temples. Many of them report profound spiritual experiences and sublime inspiration while attending the temple.

? to think about: How could GOD be the AUTHOR of different versions of “TRUTH” floating around? He could not be GOD in that case so evidently someone else is the author.

Excellent question! Some Ex-Catholic Mormons are convinced to complete certainty that they have found the truth in Mormonism. Some Ex-Mormon Catholics are convinced to complete certainty that they have found the truth in Catholicism. They all have their good reasons, from the intellectual to the spiritual to the outright miraculous. Their chosen religion speaks to their souls. They also seem to understand that their own experience is not comparable to the experience of the other; that only theirs is the genuine while the others’ must come from the devil. They must come up with stories about the quality of other believers. How could anyone believe anything so strange as [insert stuff you disagree with here]? And it’s not just Mormonism and Catholicism, either; but many other Religions to which one can be fully committed! Either we are dealing with a capricious deity who loves to sow confusion, or else we have to admit that religious sentiment is attributable to phenomena more psychological than divine. I tend to think that true religion exists only in the head, and that all religion for which one has developed a deep and abiding attachment is “true”.

 

[TexanKnight]

Actually it was Jesus Himself who said that no one is given in marriage in heaven.

Yes…the LDS response to that is that no one is GIVEN in marriage in heaven. That does not mean that people already married will not still be married in heaven.

:

 

[Jerusha]

Either we are dealing with a capricious deity who loves to sow confusion, or else we have to admit that religious sentiment is attributable to phenomena more psychological than divine. I tend to think that true religion exists only in the head, and that all religion for which one has developed a deep and abiding attachment is “true”.

You sound like you have listened to this:
mormonstories.org/339-342-the-psychology-of-religion-with-dr-james-nagel/

It is from the outer fringes of LDS culture, and presents some points very muc in line with what you say. I see Mormonism either morphing into a more modern form of Protestantism, or extinguishing itself because of its maladaptive culture. They seemed to think so, too.

 

[TexanKnight]

Mormon apologists point out that these so-called “blood oaths” were not oaths at all, but subjunctive declarations of the form: “Rather than [committing some grave sin] I would [suffer some horrific, bloody consequence].” Some apologists point to biblical exegesis and the original meaning of the Hebrew “covenant” to put the Mormon language into a biblical context. Although we aren’t without our violent episodes, these alleged “blood oaths” don’t seem to have shaped Mormon history into a particularly violent one. People seemed to understand these statements as meaning, “this stuff is really serious.” Our nineteenth century leaders were religious firebrands who were starting a brand new mass movement. They needed to stir people up and they spoke in hyperbole all the time.

That is very wrong. To allow yourself to be killed means someone will be doing the killing. It is a blood oath. BY himself said that you must be willing to spill the blood of bad sinners. Gary Gilmore, the Mormon killer chose a firing squad as his execution style in order to fulfill the blood oath.

Now that the mass movement has left its active phase, we no longer have use for that sort of language. It doesn’t fit in our culture anyway. We don’t have “blood oaths,” and arguably never did.

You may not have them now…but there is no “arguable” that you once did. And it shows your prophets were not from God.

Yes, I’ve seen that skit. It’s not in most temple ceremonies, however. Just the “live” ones. Mormons are convinced that Christianity entered apostasy, as foretold in prophecy (Amos 8:11), within the first century AD. Orthodox theologians freely admit the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian belief; Mormons have a problem with that (we have Satan himself describing it as, “the philosophy of men, mingled with scripture”).

I, too, have seen the skit. I received my endowments in the Idaho Falls Temple which, at that time, used live ceremonies. It portrayed a Catholic Priest as an agent of Satan. And no, Amos 8:11 does not say there will be an apostasy. It just says there will be a thirst for hearing the Name of the Lord. It is more likely it refers to people like the LDS Church corrupting the true Word, so that the true Word cannot be found.

As for freemasonry in Temple rites, yes, I’m convinced that Joseph Smith borrowed extensively from it. Freemasonry was very popular among the Mormons in the early days, and I suppose they put some stock in the legend that traces the practice back to Solomon’s time. Joseph likely found it useful as a vehicle for teaching the temple Endowment. That’s my opinion; freemasonry is looked at with suspicion among Mormons today, although you may still find the odd LDS grand master in the fraternity.

Borrowed? That means he intended to give it back and had permission to use it. He STOLE it like he stole from sources to make the Book of Mormon. It was his modus operandi

 

[pmccombs]

You sound like you have listened to this:
mormonstories.org/339-342-the-psychology-of-religion-with-dr-james-nagel/

It is from the outer fringes of LDS culture, and presents some points very muc in line with what you say. I see Mormonism either morphing into a more modern form of Protestantism, or extinguishing itself because of its maladaptive culture. They seemed to think so, too.

No, I haven’t seen that, but I’ll have to take some time and check it out. I’m always interested in fringes! But I think Mormonism is set to thrive since, if anything, it has a very adaptive culture indeed. Why, just this year we finished a new mega-mall in downtown SLC. Haha, OUR church managed to get God and Mammon to collaborate, and this is perfectly fine to most Mormons. Wow, how can you lose with that sort of flexibility?

 

[pmccombs]

That is very wrong. To allow yourself to be killed means someone will be doing the killing. It is a blood oath. BY himself said that you must be willing to spill the blood of bad sinners. Gary Gilmore, the Mormon killer chose a firing squad as his execution style in order to fulfill the blood oath.

In your view, I suppose it has to be very wrong. If you doubted that it was wrong, you might doubt your own conversion to Catholicism. But I, at least, am perfectly willing to believe that when someone says “I’d rather be dismembered than commit adultery,” they are making a certain kind of statement that is not meant to be taken literally. I’m sure there are nutjobs, like this Gary Gilmore, in every religion who take the hyperbole literally. But they aren’t to be set up as the stereotype for the whole program, unless of course your agenda is to tear it down.

You may not have them now…but there is no “arguable” that you once did. And it shows your prophets were not from God.

Haha, to say that it isn’t even “arguable,” you have to set up a story that all Mormons are deluded fools who can’t even speak rationally about their own faith. There can be no other interpretation of subjunctive mode language than the one you have put forth, which is to take it literally and call it “blood oath.” In my mind, there’s nothing remotely “oathy” about these subjunctives, and I’m hardly sympathetic to my own church. I believe it’s clearly a tactic of Mormon haters to point out “blood oaths.” And then you cherry pick some crazy Mormon who doesn’t represent the general population and paint a bulls-eye on him. See? Mormons were an evil and bloodthirsty lot.

I, too, have seen the skit. I received my endowments in the Idaho Falls Temple which, at that time, used live ceremonies. It portrayed a Catholic Priest as an agent of Satan. And no, Amos 8:11 does not say there will be an apostasy. It just says there will be a thirst for hearing the Name of the Lord. It is more likely it refers to people like the LDS Church corrupting the true Word, so that the true Word cannot be found.

Well, there you have another example of interpretation. You point out that the scripture only says there will be a thirst for hearing the name of the Lord. The LDS are pretty sure the scripture says that the Lord himself will send a famine, and that it will be a famine of hearing the words of the Lord. And that sounds like apostasy to the Mormon, and confirms his doctrine to him. Now, some people are convinced by your argument to the contrary, others are not. When it comes to the strivings of mens’ intellects, there is no sure way to establish universal truth. There will always be those skeptics who doubt the mind of men because their own minds see things differently.

Borrowed? That means he intended to give it back and had permission to use it. He STOLE it like he stole from sources to make the Book of Mormon. It was his modus operandi

Ideas are not things that can be taken and returned. Once an idea is spread, the one who first had it remains with it still. To “steal” the idea would mean that Joseph Smith deprived the Freemasons of their own stuff. When people appropriate the ideas of others (in music, literature, politics, religion, etc.), we often call it “borrowing” unless we despise the person or suspect their motives, in which case we turn to the language of Hate and say “steal.”