Mormon temple ceremonies

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

whyme, you know very well that mormons have the directive from their leaders to proselyte, at all times, and specifically have been given instructions to do so on the internet. Perhaps you can pretend otherwise but don’t expect that I’m going to play along.

Do they really tell them to proselyte on the internet?

 

[Mike_Reed]

Do they really tell them to proselyte on the internet?

Yes. See a recently published Ensign article at the following link: lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=72443645a2cba110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

 

[PaulDupre]

The cross pentagrams (together) represent the LDS temple endowment, where the initiate receives the symbolic wounds of Christ’s crucifixion…

Having been to the temple many times (all prior to 1986), I do not recall ever receiving “the symbolic wounds of Christ’s crucifixion”. What part of the endowment (or preparatory ordinances) is that? Is it something new since I left?

All I recall is a lot of throat-slitting and disembowelment. There is the “sure sign of the nail”, but that’s the only reference to the crucifixion I recall from the temple.

Paul (a fellow ex-Mormon)

 

[zerinus]

Well I didn’t know yall believed that. I must say I am really surprised at the belief that the atonement was the sweating of blood. So what was the purpose of Him dying on the cross? Also, the bible says that Jesus said “The Son of Man must DIE so that sins may be forgiven”. How do you reconcile your belief with what the bible says?

Online dictionary
A·tone·ment reconciliation between God and people: in Christian belief, the reconciliation between God and people brought about by the death of Jesus Christ

We believe that the Atonement took place on the cross and in Gethsemane. His death on the cross was a necessary part of the Atonement. The “shedding of His blood” refers to His death on the cross, not to sweating blood in Gethsemane.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Hmmmm, I wonder why God would have destroyed it like that! He does control our earth and has the power to destroy anything. You know, where I live it was devastated completely by hurricane Katrina. Not one house left standing on our beaches, or anywhere! It was complete devastation! We have casinos, big and beautiful casinos on our beach, and they washed up on the shores taking any house in its way, out! 4 casinos that did that! You want to know what was left standing, statues of Jesus, Mary, Saints!! Everyone at the time was talking about how those things survived; it was in the news all over. Not to mention all the coffins that were washed up from grave yards, some dating back to the 1800’s!! Even in those graveyards the statues were ok! I don’t think it was just a coincidence either! I think Mary was trying to open our eyes.

The Nauvoo temple was at first burned down by an arsonist. That took place as the saints were being driven out by a mob. Later, after most of the saints had been driven out, what was left of the structure was destroyed by a tornado.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I would still love to know why LDS would rather have statues of weird looking sunstones, pentagrams, beehives, carpenters square, compass, Maroni, moonstone, and an allseeing eye, instead of Jesus statues, or statues of Saints, or Doves…It does not make a bit of sense to me at all. If people didn’t know better, you wouldn’t be able to tell from the inside or outside, that is a place where people worship God, or Jesus, or anything pertaining to Christianity!

We have a very famous statute of Jesus, known as the Christus, situated in the visitors center at the temple site in Salt Lake City. This is what it looks like:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Yes. See a recently published Ensign article at the following link: lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=72443645a2cba110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

People are going to converse about Mormonism on the Internet whether we join in the conversation or not. The difference is that if we don’t join in, our religion is going to be defined by others, many of whom are either ignorant of, or hostile towards it. We are recommended to join in the conversation so that we can define our religion ourselves, rather than let it be defined by others who are not of our faith; and provide people with correct information about it when required. I don’t call that proselytizing—unless you define any kind of conversation about Mormonism by a Mormon as proselytizing.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I kinda had that discussion already with a Mormon about the cross. I didn’t find the answer totally satisfying but accepted it anyway.

The question about the cross was adequately answered by former LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley here.

That leaves all the other images unanswered. Thanks

The images are symbolic. Symbolic images can’t always be given concrete answers. The ancient Jewish Tabernacle, and later Temple, had many symbolic images attached to them. Many old Catholic cathedrals have symbolic images carved on them. There is nothing strange about that. Do you have any other questions that LDS have not answered?

zerinus

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

The question about the cross was adequately answered by former LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley here.

The images are symbolic. Symbolic images can’t always be given concrete answers. The ancient Jewish Tabernacle, and later Temple, had many symbolic images attached to them. Many old Catholic cathedrals have symbolic images carved on them. There is nothing strange about that. Do you have any other questions that LDS have not answered?

zerinus

Yes, what does all this mean?

What is the Millennium all about if it is not simply a period when earthly civilization will be brought under the government of superior beings from another world who will visit earth frequently to direct affairs on earth! Indeed, when looked at in perspective, the gospel becomes enormously exciting and sophisticated.

But these beings from outer space, or another world, will not be aliens. They will be our brethren who have lived upon this earth in mortality. All of us in the Church are expending our energies in the gospel partly because of the assignment from the Lord to inform the world of this coming visitation by him and other people from outer space, or from the heavens

.

the prophet joseph smith taught: “god himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man. … he was once a man like us … god himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth. …”

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js…v=1#footnote17

---

 

[Mike_Reed]

People are going to converse about Mormonism on the Internet whether we join in the conversation or not. The difference is that if we don’t join in, our religion is going to be defined by others, many of whom are either ignorant of, or hostile towards it. We are recommended to join in the conversation so that we can define our religion ourselves, rather than let it be defined by others who are not of our faith; and provide people with correct information about it when required. I don’t call that proselytizing—unless you define any kind of conversation about Mormonism by a Mormon as proselytizing.

zerinus

The article I cited doesn’t merely instruct Mormons to define and explain their religion to others. Elder Ballard says, “All of you know that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are reminded and encouraged continually to share the gospel with others. The Church is always looking for the most effective ways to declare its message. Preaching the gospel of the Restoration has always been special to me… This is the most important work that we can participate in.” Ballard then suggests that Latter-day Saints bear their testimonies, and share their conversion stories online.

I point this out, not to criticize Mormons for their missionary efforts in Cyberspace. Nor do I point this out because I am in agreement with the claim that the videos previously posted on this thread necessarily qualify as proselytizing. I was merely stating a fact, in answer to LAMBOFGODGIRLY’s question. Mormons have indeed been instructed and encouraged by their leaders to proselyte online.

 

[Mike_Reed]

The question about the cross was adequately answered by former LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley here.

I don’t think this explanation is adequate, nor do several active Mormons. Although it may be better (and less sensational) than the apologetics promoted by Joseph Feilding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, Hinckey’s fails to explain why other symbols of death are acceptable in Mormonism. Hinckey’s explanation (however unintended it may be) also carries the insulting implication that mainstream Christianity has somehow lost focus of the tenet that Jesus has been resurrected.

But not to worry. My thesis will be done soon, which will finally illuminate how and why the cross aversion developed in the LDS Church.

 

[zerinus]

The article I cited doesn’t merely instruct Mormons to define and explain their religion to others. Elder Ballard says, “All of you know that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are reminded and encouraged continually to share the gospel with others. The Church is always looking for the most effective ways to declare its message. Preaching the gospel of the Restoration has always been special to me… This is the most important work that we can participate in.” Ballard then suggests that Latter-day Saints bear their testimonies, and share their conversion stories online.

I think you overlooked the next paragraph. This is what it says:

Now, may I ask that you join the conversation by participating on the Internet to share the gospel and to explain in simple and clear terms the message of the Restoration. Most of you already know that if you have access to the Internet you can start a blog in minutes and begin sharing what you know to be true. You can download videos from Church and other appropriate sites, including newsroom.lds.org, and send them to your friends. You can write to media sites on the Internet that report on the Church and voice your views as to the accuracy of the reports.

Your presence on the Internet can take many different forms. If you start a blog, that is your blog, and you can do what you like with it, including using it to advertize the Church or proselytize. I note that elder Ballard didn’t mention anything about participating in discussion boards such as this one, where there may be rules against it.

It is also the case that any kind of discussion about religion between people of different faiths will inevitably include an element of proselytizing, because each will be arguing from the position that his own religion is most correct and the others are not. But I am convinced that it is not a policy of the LDS Church to encourage its members to go to Christian discussion boards and engage in aggressive proselytizing. If anything, my guess is that the Church would not recommend its members to participate in such discussion boards, because they can be too contentious and negative to be spiritually edifying to most Church members.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I don’t think this explanation is adequate, nor do several active Mormons. Although it may be better (and less sensational) than the apologetics promoted by Joseph Feilding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, Hinckey’s fails to explain why other symbols of death are acceptable in Mormonism.

That comment is too general and vague for me to be able to respond to in specifically. What other “symbols of death” are you referring to? And who are those “several active Mormons” who consider Hinckley’s explanation inadequate? I don’t know of any.

Hinckey’s explanation (however unintended it may be) also carries the insulting implication that mainstream Christianity has somehow lost focus of the tenet that Jesus has been resurrected.

I am afraid I don’t agree with that. Hinckley gave that explanation in front of a group of Christians (and ministers) of other faiths; and they didn’t find that insulting. I don’t see why you should.

But not to worry. My thesis will be done soon, which will finally illuminate how and why the cross aversion developed in the LDS Church.

I don’t know about that; but I wouldn’t say that Mormons have an “aversion” towards the cross. They just don’t use it (generally). But in my lifetime I have seen one or two LDS using it, and nobody cared.

zerinus

 

[Mike_Reed]

I think you overlooked the next paragraph. This is what it says:

Nope. I didn’t overlook it at all. The problem you see is your own invention, as you are arguing against an argument that I never made. I never denied that Ballard encouraged the publication of blogs. Nor did I assert that Ballard told the Saints to specifically target message boards. The question asked by LAMBOFGODGIRLY was, “Do they really tell them to proselyte on the internet?” My answer to this question is “Yes,” and I proved it with the article I gave a link to.

 

[zerinus]

Nope. I didn’t overlook it at all. The problem you see is your own invention, as you are arguing against an argument that I never made. I never denied that Ballard encouraged the publication of blogs. Nor did I assert that Ballard told the Saints to specifically target message boards. The question asked by LAMBOFGODGIRLY was, “Do they really tell them to proselyte on the internet?” My answer to this question is “Yes,” and I proved it with the article I gave a link to.

I am afraid you do have a tendency to overlook an awful lot. That particular exchange did not begin with LAMBOFGODGIRLY. It began with Rebecca J accusing why me of proselytizing on this board. When he objected to that accusation, she reminded him that LDS leaders had specifically advised Church members to actively proselytize on the Internet (implying message boards). At that point LAMBOFGODGIRLY asked her question, to which you responded. Thus the underlying assumption throughout the exchanges was proselytizing on message boards. Your response was feeding positive (name removed by moderator)ut into that false assumption.

zerinus

 

[alejo]

Please, dont go after any teaching that doesent come form the Holly Church. You don’t have to be anti mormon or ani protestant …is not a matter of being anti… its a matter of love for the truth, of being zealous in Christ and His teachings like the apostels were; how God teaches us to be.

This is how the Holly Catholic Church sees it 2 Jn 2, 7-11

2 because of the truth that remains in us and will be with us for ever.
7 There are many deceivers at large in the world, refusing to acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in human nature. They are the Deceiver; they are the Antichrist.
8 Watch yourselves, or all our work will be lost and you will forfeit your full reward.
9 If anybody does not remain in the teaching of Christ but goes beyond it, he does not have God with him: only those who remain in what he taught can have the Father and the Son with them.
10 If anyone comes to you bringing a different doctrine, you must not receive him into your house or even give him a greeting.
11 Whoever greets him has a share in his wicked activities

 

[Stephen168]

What is the purpose of an endowment ceremony?

 

[Mike_Reed]

I am afraid you do have a tendency to overlook an awful lot. That particular exchange did not begin with LAMBOFGODGIRLY.
You are still jousting at windmills, Don Quixote. MY post that you took issue with was my response to LAMBOFGODGIRLY.

It began with Rebecca J accusing why me of proselytizing on this

 

[Mike_Reed]

That comment is too general and vague for me to be able to respond to in specifically. What other “symbols of death” are you referring to?

Sacrament/communion? The “sign of the nail” and “sure sign of the nail” in the LDS temple ceremony? The use of the word “cross” as a literary symbol?

And who are those “several active Mormons” who consider Hinckley’s explanation inadequate? I don’t know of any.

I am not surprised. I have never judged you to be the most observant of fellows. I could direct you to Alter Idem (from MADb), or Robert Rees (who spoke about Mormons and the cross at the Sunstone West symposium last year). But maybe it would be better to simply suggest that you get out more.

I am afraid I don’t agree with that. Hinckley gave that explanation in front of a group of Christians (and ministers) of other faiths; and they didn’t find that insulting. I don’t see why you should.

How do you know that they didn’t find it insulting? Did you ask them? Did Hinckley say that they weren’t? Or are you once again displaying your amazing ability to pull things out of your… cough… I mean… out of thin air? Hinckey understood the potential for insult, which is why he prepped his statement with “I do not wish to give offense to my Christian colleagues… but…”

I don’t know about that; but I wouldn’t say that Mormons have an “aversion” towards the cross. They just don’t use it (generally). But in my lifetime I have seen one or two LDS using it, and nobody cared.

Like I said, you need to get out more. You should also read up on the topic. Although there are exceptions, there is a general view held among mormons that the symbol of the cross is an apostate and repugnant symbol, and for this reason the symbol is avoided. Yes… it is called an “aversion.”

 

[zerinus]

You are still jousting at windmills, Don Quixote. MY post that you took issue with was my response to LAMBOFGODGIRLY.

Which still overlooks the context of the exchange, which was about proselytizing on message boards (i.e. this board).

Notice in post 80 that I DEFENDED LDSguy and WhyMe against Rebecca’s accusation. . . .

You did, which indicates some fair-mindedness on your part, which is appreciated. But that does not alter the fact that the underlying assumption in the exchanges was Mormons proselytizing on message boards (i.e. CAF), which was a false assumption. It seems to me that you might have some grievance against the leadership of the Church; and although you would like to “play it fair” with the Mormons generally, you are not averse to throwing a jibe or two at the General Authorities if you get your chance! Well, if that is how you feel, it will show in what you say, and it is going to be noticed—especially by someone as observant as me!

I responded after I had already stated that I thought the links did not necessarily qualify as proselyting. I even reposted the links myself, since nobody in their right mind could accuse me (an exmormon agnostic) to be proselyting the LDS gospel.

Yes you did, and I appreciate that. But we are talking about two different things here.

No it wasn’t. I answered the question truthfully after I had already stated my view that the links did not necessarily qualify as proselyting.

Well that is not correct. Your post did have a tendency to feed a positive (name removed by moderator)ut into that false assumption, no matter how ostensibly it was a truthful reply to the question asked.

zerinus