LDS worship

[Jack_Mormon]

Ignoring those who shine the light about the LDS Church is an odd way to learn

Calling someone a liar about their heartfelt beliefs is an odd way to teach, Tex. But you haven’t called *me *a liar yet, so I haven’t ignored you. I haven’t called you a liar either: I think you horribly misunderstood the old “Penalties,” but I know good LDS folks that made the same mistake. The term “penalties” was itself misleading. That’s probably why they removed them.

The key word was “rather.” Look it up, and think about it.

 

[TexanKnight]

"swear to allow themsewlves to be killed "

Nope. That is a false representation of the old oath that I originally made back in 1986. I no longer have a temple recommend, haven’t for years, but I remember what it was, and what it used to be, and it wasn’t what you said.

Can others please explain to Mormon_Cultist and Tex the difference between

A. swearing that you would SOONER ALLOW YOUR LIFE TO BE TAKEN rather than giving up the information (just as Catholic martyrs suffered torture unto death rather than renouncing the faith!) Because that’s what I signed up for.

and

B. swearing that you WILL allow yourself to be killed if you do divulge? THAT would be a blood oath, and such oaths were never part of the ceremony. Blood oaths are forbidden in the Book of Mormon.

I do concede that there are some, a small minority of silly and confused LDS folks, who have thought that they were making some sort of blood oath. Honest Catholics here will no doubt concede that there are some Catholics who have some warped and unfortunate misunderstandings about your doctrine.

To my knowledge, the only self-proclaimed “mormons” who held to blood oaths belonged to apostate cults which the LDS church has denounced. Membership in such organization is grounds for immediate excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

You can twist the words all you want…you were swearing that, under certain circumstances, you were suffering your life to be taken. While you made the promise, you dragged your thumb across across your neck and then across your bowels to indicate how your life would taken: by slicing the neck or by cutting the bowels. Can;t be any plainer than that.

When you couple that with the words of Joseph and Brigham that I have posted previoulsy about killing those who sin, then it all makes sense.

You can;t whitewash the truth on this particular site.

 

[TexanKnight]

Calling someone a liar about their heartfelt beliefs is an odd way to teach, Tex. But you haven’t called *me *a liar yet, so I haven’t ignored you. I haven’t called you a liar either: I think you horribly misunderstood the old “Penalties,” but I know good LDS folks that made the same mistake. The term “penalties” was itself misleading. That’s probably why they removed them.

The key word was “rather.” Look it up, and think about it.

Trust me…I know the words. And I know what actions we made with our hands. I know what Joseph said and what BY said about killing those who sin. Look up the word “kill” and think about it.

I will never call you a liar. I will only say you should be honest about the topic at hand.

I served a mission. I served in the Bishopric and EQ Presidency. I attended at least 10 temples for endowments around this Hemisphere. I know what I am talking about.

 

[TexanKnight]

I love Jeff and Pat Holland. Even if I leave the church, I’ll still listen to Elder Holland’s wonderful General Conference talks. They still inspire me.

I try, even now, to watch GC. I look forward to Holland’s talks more than anyone.

I also look forward to Perry’s talks. But that is because he was my pen pal on my mission.

 

[Jack_Mormon]

I will never call you a liar. I will only say you should be honest about the topic at hand.

So should you. So should we all.

I’ve read more of what you’ve said than what I’ve responded to. You strike me as interesting and sincere. But I’m here for my own edification and amusement, and if you strike me as unable to trust me to honestly describe my own beliefs, personal experiences, and feelings, I will not wish to continue the conversation. I don’t need that kind of added unpleasantness in my life right now.

“You can twist the words all you want.”

Sigh. [contemplates ignore.] Last chance, Tex.

“To my knowledge, the only self-proclaimed “mormons” who held to blood oaths belonged to apostate cults which the LDS church has denounced. Membership in such organization is grounds for immediate excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”

“While you made the promise, you dragged your thumb across across your neck and then across your bowels to indicate how your life -]would /-]taken: by slicing the neck or by cutting the bowels. Can;t be any plainer than that.”

That’s almost true. Hence the strikeout.

…you were swearing that, under certain circumstances, you were suffering your life to be taken.

That statement seems to blur the distinction that I made, and it’s an important distinction, Tex. Here it is again:

Can others please explain to Mormon_Cultist and Tex the difference between

A. swearing that you would SOONER ALLOW YOUR LIFE TO BE TAKEN **rather **than giving up the information (just as Catholic martyrs suffered torture unto death rather than renouncing the faith!) Because that’s what I signed up for.

and

B. swearing that you WILL allow yourself to be killed if you do divulge? THAT would be a blood oath, and such oaths were never part of the ceremony. Blood oaths are forbidden in the Book of Mormon. And that’s what you’re mistakenly implying that we did.

I think that you’ve misunderstood the old temple vows; you think I’ve misunderstood them; can we agree to disagree?

 

[TexanKnight]

So should you. So should we all.

And I will.

I’ve read more of what you’ve said than what I’ve responded to. You strike me as interesting and sincere. But I’m here for my own edification and amusement, and if you strike me as unable to trust me to honestly describe my own beliefs, personal experiences, and feelings, I will not wish to continue the conversation. I don’t need that kind of added unpleasantness in my life right now.

I believe there are two kind of Mormons…those who truly do not know the past LDS History and Doctrines, and those who either hide it, ignore it, whitewash it, or bury it. You are free to express your own feelings…but if you post things about LDS past doctrines etc. I will correct you when you are wrong.

“You can twist the words all you want.”

Sigh. [contemplates ignore.] Last chance, Tex.

That is totally your call. Whether you ignore me or not is up to you. Most Mormons do have it in them to deal with me, so you would not be alone. I will never stop proclaiming truth

“To my knowledge, the only self-proclaimed “mormons” who held to blood oaths belonged to apostate cults which the LDS church has denounced. Membership in such organization is grounds for immediate excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”

Since it was Joseph and BY who declared the blood oaths, I am not sure how you can call them apostates. I can post their quotes again, if you would like.

That’s almost true. Hence the strikeout.

Actually, it was all true. I performed that oath hundreds of times in a dozen temples…Actually, I am not sure how many…but they include IF, DC, Chicago, Salt Lake, Jordon River, Provo, Guatemala, St. George, among others.

That statement seems to blur the distinction that I made, and it’s an important distinction, Tex. Here it is again:

I think that you’ve misunderstood the old temple vows; you think I’ve misunderstood them; can we agree to disagree?

You can disagree with me. But it does not change the truth. You are claiming that, if certain conditions are met, you will allow yourself to be (as we graphically show in the temple) your neck to be sliced or you bowels to cut open.

 

[Jack_Mormon]

You are claiming that, if certain conditions are met, you will allow yourself to be

Is that really what you think, Tex?

By definition of any contract (of which a covenant is by extension) you cannot agree to anything without both parties realizing that is the agreement.

Maybe you thought you were agreeing to have your innards sliced and diced. I certainly never would have made such an agreement. Beats me why you agreed to such a thing. Did you miss the part where they said if you’re not comfortable with the covenants you’re making, walk out now? Did you think that if you stood up that they’d slice and dice you? Really?

Really?

Do you know anyone that’s talked about their temple experiences despite their covenant not to discuss it? To your knowledge, have any of them been sliced and diced by packs of feral mormons?

 

[Jack_Mormon]

I served a mission. I served in the Bishopric and EQ Presidency. I attended at least 10 temples for endowments around this Hemisphere. I know what I am talking about.

Well I’ve been more templed and traveled within the church than just 10 temples, but your leadership experience is clearly far more extensive than mine. I never did anything beyond Elder’s Quorum instructor. So you’ve got the leadership chops. Tell me, Tex, in your leadership experience, were you ever part of a plot to murder folks that had disclosed temple secrets? Or are you willing to concede that you’d never even heard of any mormon ninja slice and dice enforcers outside anti-mormon pulp fiction?

Whether you ignore me or not is up to you. Most Mormons do have it in them to deal with me, so you would not be alone. I will never stop proclaiming truth

Please proclaim what you think to be truth to your heart’s content. But please don’t equivocate the proclamation of facts and truths with your false accusation against me for “twisting” facts. I don’t appreciate that. I haven’t lied to you or to anyone here. If I’m in error, then show me my error. But don’t impugn my honesty again if you care about my soul.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

Actually, yes. People had to “suffer their lives to be taken”. They had to vow to koll or be killed. I was there.

Christ instructed his disciples to give up everything and follow Him. He did not make any proviso about everything except your life. Many of His early followers truly took this to heart and did, indeed, die for His cause - you yourselves revere many good and devout men and women throughout history as martyrs for Jesus Christ.
The covenants we make in the temple are to do all that is in our power to follow Him, and to do his will, whatever that may be

I still remember the handshakes and signs and penalties. So…YES

Well perhaps you will find use for them one day.

Yes. The Devil used a man dressed as a Catholic Priest to do his bidding. So…YES

Acts 20:29 and Matthew 7:15 both prophecy and warn about false teachers and leaders entering in amongst the early church, but who are really ‘wolves in sweeps clothing’. I don’t expect I need to explain the analogy. These men appeared to be true and proper men of sound authority, but in fact were doing the bidding of Satan, while dressed in Catholic Priests vestments.
Due to its long and colourful history, a Catholic Priests apparel would be the most recognisable outfit for a ‘generic’ religious preacher, or one who wanted to appear as such.
This, of course, is assumption as this is not in our temples. I’ve been, many times.

Ah…really? The problem is, when faced with truth about the LDS past, Mormons call it lies. So, my comment is VERY valid.
Ignoring those who shine the light about the LDS Church is an odd way to learn, but it is an easy way to never have to look at the truth

There are many who peddle lies as truth, and persuade others to believe them.
Popular opinion does not create truth. The Catholic church’s history hasn’t always been so rosy either, but is this a reflection on Christ: was it His will that such terrible things are committed in His name, or is it individuals who choose to do things. I feel there is sometimes a misunderstanding where we LDS are not in a hurry to decry things as heresy and make a fuss about it. We prefer private correction and teaching and a public statement if necessary. It seems to me that the Catholic church makes a much bigger deal about those who step out of line (when this is done in the public eye, at least). Hence there being things that you can call “the … Heresy” and everyone understands what you mean. If an LDS leader says something incorrect or that is simply not understood fully enough (Adam-God for example, as you brought up), unless it is publicly endorsed as doctrine by the First Presidency & Quorum of the Twelve, it is generally little remembered by members as being of little or no consequence to our salvation, but becomes a big target for this outside of the church. This seems strange to us.

 

[TexanKnight]

Christ instructed his disciples to give up everything and follow Him. He did not make any proviso about everything except your life. Many of His early followers truly took this to heart and did, indeed, die for His cause - you yourselves revere many good and devout men and women throughout history as martyrs for Jesus Christ.
The covenants we make in the temple are to do all that is in our power to follow Him, and to do his will, whatever that may be

The difference is, we do not make vows to kill each other or be killed. Your analogy is horribly incorrect.

Well perhaps you will find use for them one day.

Geez, I hope not. The idea of killing each other truly makes me sad.

Acts 20:29 and Matthew 7:15 both prophecy and warn about false teachers and leaders entering in amongst the early church, but who are really ‘wolves in sweeps clothing’. I don’t expect I need to explain the analogy. These men appeared to be true and proper men of sound authority, but in fact were doing the bidding of Satan, while dressed in Catholic Priests vestments.
Due to its long and colourful history, a Catholic Priests apparel would be the most recognisable outfit for a ‘generic’ religious preacher, or one who wanted to appear as such.
This, of course, is assumption as this is not in our temples. I’ve been, many times.

Yes…thank you for proving my point. However, the wolves in sheep’s clothing are false prophets like Joseph. You know, the guy who was a convicted con man and said there Quakers on the moon…

There are many who peddle lies as truth, and persuade others to believe them.

So that justifies when the LDS Prophets do it??

Popular opinion does not create truth.

No, but just because it is popular does not make it a lie.

The Catholic church’s history hasn’t always been so rosy either, but is this a reflection on Christ: was it His will that such terrible things are committed in His name, or is it individuals who choose to do things.

Red Herring argument. First, Catholics have never run away from their past or justified it or whitewashed it. Second, Catholics have NEVER claimed to be led by a guy who constantly talks to God. So, your comparison is flawed.

I feel there is sometimes a misunderstanding where we LDS are not in a hurry to decry things as heresy and make a fuss about it. We prefer private correction and teaching and a public statement if necessary.

That is a nice way to say you hide the truth. Like BY teaching Adam is God. Like teaching God was once a sinful man. And the list can go on for days of what horrible doctrines came from guys who allegedly talked to God on a regular basis.

It seems to me that the Catholic church makes a much bigger deal about those who step out of line (when this is done in the public eye, at least). Hence there being things that you can call “the … Heresy” and everyone understands what you mean. If an LDS leader says something incorrect or that is simply not understood fully enough (Adam-God for example, as you brought up), unless it is publicly endorsed as doctrine by the First Presidency & Quorum of the Twelve, it is generally little remembered by members as being of little or no consequence to our salvation, but becomes a big target for this outside of the church. This seems strange to us.

No mere “leader” said that. An Alleged Prophet said that. The guy who claimed he talked directly to God. And it was accepted as doctrine because BY called it doctrine. See? Even now, you tried to whitewash it by saying some vague “leader” espoused the doctrine.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

The difference is, we do not make vows to kill each other or be killed. Your analogy is horribly incorrect.

Incorrect? You mean you wouldn’t do anything if Christ asked it of you? Because that was my only point.

Geez, I hope not. The idea of killing each other truly makes me sad.

What I really hope is that you, and others like you (not just Catholic, and even some LDS), are not so closed minded and/or blinkered that when you die, and the real truth about God, Christ, our eternal nature, potential etc. become apparent, they you are able and willing to accept it.
And honestly, I don’t mean that in any derogatory way, because I know that you hold your beliefs with equal conviction as I do mine; in fact I hope the same for myself too.

Yes…thank you for proving my point. However, the wolves in sheep’s clothing are false prophets like Joseph. You know, the guy who was a convicted con man and said there Quakers on the moon…

Actually those two scriptures quite specifically point to the wolves coming from within the flock, excluding Joseph Smith.
Again, you miss my point. You complained that something you have seen appeared to use a Catholic Priest as doing the work of the devil, I merely pointed out three things:

1. A Catholic Priest’s garb would probably be the most recognisable clothing to use to make it obvious someone was supposed to be a generic religious leader/preacher without having to directly point this out.
2. There have been those throughout history who would have dressed up to look like a priest (Catholic or otherwise, but consider that religious leaders wearing more everyday clothing is very much modern), but we’re not really what they claimed.
3. Whatever you have seen is not in our temples.

No, but just because it is popular does not make it a lie.

Agreed, Fulton J. Sheen’s quote is a favourite of mine:
“The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

Red Herring argument. First, Catholics have never run away from their past or justified it or whitewashed it. Second, Catholics have NEVER claimed to be led by a guy who constantly talks to God. So, your comparison is flawed.

Not really my point, again.
Simply, it is unfair to judge Christ based on people who profess to do His will, when their actions directly contravene what He has said. It’s also not fair to use the words of one individual against a whole church, when the church has never endorsed them.

No mere “leader” said that. An Alleged Prophet said that. The guy who claimed he talked directly to God. And it was accepted as doctrine because BY called it doctrine. See? Even now, you tried to whitewash it by saying some vague “leader” espoused the doctrine.

Which would be true if our doctrines were decided by a single person speaking ‘ex cathedra’. You know full well that they are not, so no amount of Brigham Young saying something was doctrine makes it an accepted and taught doctrine of the church.

 

[TexanKnight]

Incorrect? You mean you wouldn’t do anything if Christ asked it of you? Because that was my only point.

You are trying to shift the issue from Mormons vowing to kill and be killed.

What I really hope is that you, and others like you (not just Catholic, and even some LDS), are not so closed minded and/or blinkered that when you die, and the real truth about God, Christ, our eternal nature, potential etc. become apparent, they you are able and willing to accept it.
And honestly, I don’t mean that in any derogatory way, because I know that you hold your beliefs with equal conviction as I do mine; in fact I hope the same for myself too.

My beliefs do not include vows to kill and be killed.

Actually those two scriptures quite specifically point to the wolves coming from within the flock, excluding Joseph Smith.

not true. Joseph came from with Christianity. Remember he joined a church even after God said not to…depending on which version of the nine first visions you accept.

Again, you miss my point. You complained that something you have seen appeared to use a Catholic Priest as doing the work of the devil, I merely pointed out three things:

1. A Catholic Priest’s garb would probably be the most recognisable clothing to use to make it obvious someone was supposed to be a generic religious leader/preacher without having to directly point this out.

That does not mean he was not a Catholic Priest. This should be no surprise since the original McKonkie Book “Mormon Doctrine” called the Catholic Church the “Great and Abominable Church”

1. Whatever you have seen is not in our temples.

Not sure to what you are referring. I have seen the temples. I have been in them many times.

Agreed, Fulton J. Sheen’s quote is a favourite of mine:
“The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

Yep.

Not really my point, again.
Simply, it is unfair to judge Christ based on people who profess to do His will, when their actions directly contravene what He has said. It’s also not fair to use the words of one individual against a whole church, when the church has never endorsed them.

Perhaps. But it is harder to accept horrible behavior from people who allegedly talk to God frequently than from people who don’t

Which would be true if our doctrines were decided by a single person speaking ‘ex cathedra’. You know full well that they are not, so no amount of Brigham Young saying something was doctrine makes it an accepted and taught doctrine of the church.

Not true. Go back to when BY said those things. He A PROPHET said it was doctrine and it was accepted as such. Are you now saying BY was a false prophet?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Incorrect? You mean you wouldn’t do anything if Christ asked it of you? Because that was my only point.

It is a moral question. Christian morality is based on the ten commandments. “Thou shalt not kill”. It is kind of hard to imagine a ritual where one vows to kill at least two people, oneself and whoever these secret ritual are exposed, comes from God.

As to your “do anything Christ asks of you”…one should discern whether or not instruction is coming from God, or not. Jesus commands us to love one another, to lay down our lives for others with love…so, what do you think a ritual that defies this commandments can possibly mean for a Christian?

 

[CleverUserName]

“Downright unchristian?” Wow. What an uncharitable thing to say! I’m sorry; I thought you were Catholic. I *do *believe in the necessity of the cleansing fire. The fire is God’s love. It’s the same fire that is in Heaven and in hell. Whether that fire burns one in eternal pain, purgation, or ecstasy has to do with the person who is experiencing the fire. God loves us all; even those in hell.

Those in Purgatory can be helped with our prayers. This is the Catholic position. This is what the Church teaches and has always taught. You might want to read St. Faustina’s diary - she speaks of what happened to one of the Sisters in her convent who ended up in Purgatory.

It makes no difference what I personally believe. What matters is what the Church teaches. I know she is infallible and I know I am not.

 

[CleverUserName]

Exactly what happens inside the temple… and the Freemasonry practiced therein:

youtu.be/jv5cMKp8tkI

 

[Lochias]

You know full well that they are not, so no amount of Brigham Young saying something was doctrine makes it an accepted and taught doctrine of the church.

Then what use is Brigham Young or any other “leader” of the Mormon Church? Seems to be an odd sort of hierarchy, at best…

“Yeah, they’re prophets of our church, but it doesn’t matter how many times they say something, doesn’t make it taught or accepted doctrine…”

Very odd, indeed.

 

[TexanKnight]

Then what use is Brigham Young or any other “leader” of the Mormon Church? Seems to be an odd sort of hierarchy, at best…

“Yeah, they’re prophets of our church, but it doesn’t matter how many times they say something, doesn’t make it taught or accepted doctrine…”

Very odd, indeed.

Especially when Brigham himself claimed it doctrine. Seems Mormon Cultist (and mot other Mormons) consider BY a false prophet.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Then what use is Brigham Young or any other “leader” of the Mormon Church? Seems to be an odd sort of hierarchy, at best…

“Yeah, they’re prophets of our church, but it doesn’t matter how many times they say something, doesn’t make it taught or accepted doctrine…”

Very odd, indeed.

I haven’t met a Mormon yet who can tell me what is being taught by their current leaders, which they are choosing to ignore because it isn’t doctrine. Someone 50 years from now will say, that was Monson’s opinion! Just ignore it.

Mormons who lived at the time of BY, didn’t view his teachings as opinion. As BY himself did not either.

 

[Lochias]

Especially when Brigham himself claimed it doctrine. Seems Mormon Cultist (and mot other Mormons) consider BY a false prophet.

So it would seem.

 

[Lochias]

I haven’t met a Mormon yet who can tell me what is being taught by their current leaders, which they are choosing to ignore because it isn’t doctrine. Someone 50 years from now will say, that was Monson’s opinion! Just ignore it.

Mormons who lived at the time of BY, didn’t view his teachings as opinion. As BY himself did not either.

Indeed. And, going further to its natural conclusion, why trust the Book of Mormon? After all, it if doesn’t matter how many times a Mormon leader says something, one can only assume that it doesn’t matter how many times a Mormon leader writes something down.