Mormon temples compared to Catholic Basilicas and Cathedrals

[twopekinguys]

I don’t know, but maybe she is saying so because of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Smoot_hearings ,
where a lot of information about the endowment was divulged. but the LDS church did not do it.

Yes, she seems to be more mellow, and, if anything, tired than she used to be. I would like to know, too, what is going on with Diana the person.

Not exactly entered into the “congressional record” voluntarily is it?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Let us be clear here, so as we can see the sidestepping:

You (dianaiad) originally stated:

Yet y’all have an entire thread devoted to criticizing the architecture of someone ELSE’S belief system, as if it has to be different for them: that of course a building that 'looks like a hotel lobby" must therefore be inferior for worship, and somehow evidence of the falsity of that worship.

I and others have repeatedly asked you to substantiate your claim that others in this thread have stated or implied that a building that looks like a hotel lobby is inferior for worship, and evidence of the falsity of that worship. We asked you to cite the specific posts. You ignored those requests for some time, until now.

Twopekingguys then responded to the above quote of yours by stating/asking:

You’re building quite a strawman here. Nobody has said anything even remotely close to it being inferior for worship, or evidence of the falsity of worship.

Please provide a reference for this. Just give us the post number. One is all we need. If you can’t, I suggest you retract your statement.

So, we see the actual issue that everyone on this thread has been asking you to substantiate-that the so-called “hotel lobby” look of the LDS temple, specifically perhaps the Celestial Room and/or the actual waiting area of the temple, is inferior for worship (because of that purported look), and that that look is evidence of the falsity of the worship that goes on there.

You respond to this with:

Let us begin with post #3, then 10, then 11…on the first page before I posted a single thing.

So finally you respond with post numbers. Let us keep in mind the actual, specific issue that I and others were asking you to substantiate-your post quoted above.

Post number 3 nowhere says anything about the temple looking like a hotel lobby, let alone any comment on the architecture/furnishing of the LDS temples. So no, it does not substantiate your specific claim.

Post number 10 also does not comment on the architecture/furnishing of LDS temples. So once again, no, it does not substantiate your specific claim, as documented above in your own words (and to which twopekingguys, whom you were responding to, was asking for substantiation).

Post number 11 does indeed state that LDS temples look like “nice hotel lobbies with a few paintings of Jesus. Nice, but nothing special.” But again, let us remember your specific claim. No, this post does not substantiate your claim either. It does not state, nor imply, that the look of the temple (in the poster’s view) makes the temple inferior for worship. As to the second point, yes, the post does mention the ordinances (at least one, the Endowment) that go on in the temple, however your specific claim was that we have an entire thread going on about how the alleged hotel lobby look of the temple points to the inferiority of the worship that goes on there. Once again, no, this post does not make that connection.

So as we can see, you made a false claim about what others were claiming about the look of the LDS temples (or at least parts of them). Yes, others have commented that the Celestial Room looks like a nice hotel lobby. I have seen this stated in many other places, not just on this forum. I can see why people would say that, it’s not that hard to see it (and yes, as I formerly endowed LDS, I have been in a number of Celestial Rooms physically). But I have yet to see you provide evidence that anyone in this thread was making the claims that you said we were, as documented above. The posts you mentioned neither say nor imply what you said they did, as we can all see.

And to conclude, as I mentioned before, I do find LDS temples beautiful. I always enjoyed going, and participated in all of the ordinances performed therein (though I wasn’t sealed, I did participate in proxy sealings, and attended a live one as well). I did miss some of the “trappings” common in liturgical churches (i.e. candles, lamps, incense, statues, colorful robes, and other things that remind me of ancient Jewish temple and tabernacle worship), however I still enjoyed the temple, and can still say so today. But what I now realize is that however beautiful the temple is (just like the sacred edifices of other religions), the ordinances that go on there simply are not “restored”. The Masonic connection to the Endowment is quite clear, and well documented. I find no evidence that the New Testament and early Christians were participating in any such ordinance necessary for eternal life (let alone a sealing ordinance). So we can talk on and on about what the temple looks like, but the important thing is what is going on in there.

 

[Jerusha]

Just contemplating the corporate structure of the CoJCoLDS. Diverging from architecture-- does the LDS church use the same interior designers as the Marriot corp?

 

[One_point]

Diana,

I think your temples from the pictures are very beautiful. I love the room with the paintings of nature all round the walls. I always thought Mormon churches were neatest compunds I ever saw.

I disagree with your beliefs but I do not think they are evil. for example the ceremonies for the dead. I as a catholic pray for dead people all the time. it doesn’t matter if they were not catholics. I have given the name of a dead acquaintance to the church for prayer at mass to be said for him. he committed suicide. he wasn’t catholic. Its obviously very different from what you do. from my perspective as a catholic, I see that as truth mixed with error. just like I do with many other religions. the truth here is the belief that we can help the dead with our services while on earth. the error from our perspective would be the rest. however, my point is that I see your practies as wrong but not evil. there is a difference.

the secret temple. its not comparable to catholic churches but it is comparable to the old jewish temple. only some people could enter some places. again, I see this as wrong but not evil.

the lack of belief in one God makes me believe you cannot be a mainstream Christian.

I however am uncomfortable picking on you in the way my fellow catholics seem to be doing. not all of them but some comments are delivered in a manner tht I think catholics should not because we are the target of too much hatred. its important for catholics to draw the distinction between saying we believe certain beliefs are wrong from an attitude of contempt. first and foremost respect someones religion. point out the differences. look for the good things too don’t just concentrate on the bad. I guess after experiencing so much anticatholicism lately I am senstitive maybe too sensitive. but I would urge the catholics to reconsider their approach. I never separate myself from the church either. if someone attacks the church I defend the church. those who say Mormons should divorce themselves from their church are not being fair. at least for me, that’s not possible with the catholic church. we may disagree and debate but let us not demand unfairly that others unnaturally detach themselves from their church. that is possible for religions who don’t believe in an institutional religion but catholics do.

 

[LivingWaters7]

You are quite right. I won’t.

…and Paul knows why, even if you don’t.

And why is that? I see nothing in his post that goes into things that LDS specifically promise not to reveal. Further, all of the things mentioned can be found in actual LDS-related sources (whether on LDS.org, statements by various leaders in books and other places, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (which provides quite a bit of detail on the Endowment, beyond “we learn about God’s plan for our happiness and make covenants”), etc). Unless you mean something else.

 

[LivingWaters7]

**the DIFFERENCE here is that this site did not make any comparisons between the beauty (or lack of same) of the buildings and the truth/style/worthiness of the worshipers therein. **

Whereas in here that’s all y’all are talking about. Comparing LDS Temples to Catholic Cathedrals to the obvious detriment of LDS Temples, from aesthetics to purpose, with a dismissive sort of ‘not our sort’ approach.

Now, if you had just come out and SAID that the Provo Temple looked like a high school woodworking salad bowl, I really couldn’t have argued…but that’s not what happened, is it?

**The whole attitude has been a sort of “ewwww, what else can you expect from these people, and doesn’t that just show you how stupid/wrong they are, their most sacred buildings look like hotel lobbies…” **

Sorry, but it has been rather obvious.

I have already demonstrated that this is only occurring in your mind. No one at all in this thread has done any of the above. I have reviewed the entire thread, and it’s not there. Sorry, it is not obvious.

 

[iepuras]

Thank you, LW7.

Diana, I had made it very clear in previous posts that my observation that celestial rooms look like nice hotel lobbies is merely descriptive in nature and has nothing to do with my opinion of LDS temple ordinances. Why did you impose your own negative assumptions on what I said when I clearly made no such claim? I can make my own assumption as to why you do this, but I would like to hear it straight from you.

 

[dianaiad]

Context.

That website that we were sent to which had that extensive list of ‘ugly churches’ was first and foremost about the architecture. There was no mention of the beliefs of the builders of any of those churches, and everybody got nailed: Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons…the emphasis was on the building…and there were no comparisons.

This thread is like a car sales site, like comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Honda Civic, with the prize going to the truest church.

One does not, unless one is a complete naif, figure that a thread in a 'non-Catholic religions" subforum in a Catholic debate forum, begun and participated in by people who are very critical of Mormonism, that compares LDS Temples to Catholic Basilicas and Cathedrals is NOT about 'look how wonderful Catholic Cathedrals are, in which the proper worship is done, compared to the plebeian Mormon Temples in which all sorts of secret and mysterious cultish things are done; why, they have so little imagination that their most sacred buildings look like hotel lobbies."

Had this conversation taken place in a different venue, by people whose purpose in posting and in presence was NOT to destroy Mormonism and Mormons, some of your protests might be justified.

As it is?

No.

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t know, but maybe she is saying so because of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Smoot_hearings ,
where a lot of information about the endowment was divulged. but the LDS church did not do it.

Yes, she seems to be more mellow, and, if anything, tired than she used to be. I would like to know, too, what is going on with Diana the person.

More 'mellow?"

I don’t think so.

I’ll grant you ‘tired.’

I was hoping for…I don’t honestly know what I was hoping for when I came back.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Thank you, LW7.

Diana, I had made it very clear in previous posts that my observation that celestial rooms look like nice hotel lobbies is merely descriptive in nature and has nothing to do with my opinion of LDS temple ordinances. Why did you impose your own negative assumptions on what I said when I clearly made no such claim? I can make my own assumption as to why you do this, but I would like to hear it straight from you.

No problem. From what I have gathered reading her posts, she isn’t concerned with what you claim about how you, or any of us, intend our words (indeed, she very rarely will address the actual topic of the thread, and if she does, it always ends up in some off-topic tangent involving logical fallacies and persecutory allegations). She will insert her own (false) interpretations of those words, and will ignore any clarifications you make about what you yourself intended. Instead, it’s all about the persecution of Mormons (the latest we see is that the purpose of people here is to “destroy Mormonism and Mormons”…).

Fortunately, I and others have already demonstrated that her allegations about what people were claiming on this thread were false and unsubstantiated.

 

[twopekinguys]

No problem. From what I have gathered reading her posts, she isn’t concerned with what you claim about how you, or any of us, intend our words (indeed, she very rarely will address the actual topic of the thread, and if she does, it always ends up in some off-topic tangent involving logical fallacies and persecutory allegations). She will insert her own (false) interpretations of those words, and will ignore any clarifications you make about what you yourself intended. Instead, it’s all about the persecution of Mormons (the latest we see is that the purpose of people here is to “destroy Mormonism and Mormons”…).

Fortunately, I and others have already demonstrated that her allegations about what people were claiming on this thread were false and unsubstantiated.

And the Acadamy Award for best fiction goes to…

 

[iepuras]

No problem. From what I have gathered reading her posts, she isn’t concerned with what you claim about how you, or any of us, intend our words (indeed, she very rarely will address the actual topic of the thread, and if she does, it always ends up in some off-topic tangent involving logical fallacies and persecutory allegations). She will insert her own (false) interpretations of those words, and will ignore any clarifications you make about what you yourself intended. Instead, it’s all about the persecution of Mormons (the latest we see is that the purpose of people here is to “destroy Mormonism and Mormons”…).

Fortunately, I and others have already demonstrated that her allegations about what people were claiming on this thread were false and unsubstantiated.

You are absolutely correct. The funny thing is that the one person who is saying the worst things about Mormons and Mormonism in this thread is Diana herself. Of course, she is projecting those statements onto people like myself.

 

[Jerusha]

You are absolutely correct. The funny thing is that the one person who is saying the worst things about Mormons and Mormonism in this thread is Diana herself. Of course, she is projecting those statements onto people like myself.

Nearly all Mormon Apologists serve as a good argument against Mormonism. I know that a few years ago her antics only fueled my anger. Since backing off of this board and the other one, and getting deeper into Catholic doctrine and history, I have mellowed out.

Maybe Abe Lincoln was right. Just let the old log rot-- so long as it doesn’t bother us.

 

[dianaiad]

Nearly all Mormon Apologists serve as a good argument against Mormonism. I know that a few years ago her antics only fueled my anger. Since backing off of this board and the other one, and getting deeper into Catholic doctrine and history, I have mellowed out.

Maybe Abe Lincoln was right. Just let the old log rot-- so long as it doesn’t bother us.

Goodness. Erm… I’m RIGHT HERE.

Indeed, I haven’t felt quite this…something…since I was in high school and the ‘in’ clique decided that I wasn’t ‘hip’ enough to sit in the cafeteria with them.

 

[Jerusha]

Well, maybe if you would let us know who Diana is, other than a Mormon, it would help.

So what was so unhip about you? I mean, other than being Mormon?

 

[dianaiad]

nevermind.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, maybe if you would let us know who Diana is, other than a Mormon, it would help.

Who are you, Jerusha, other than a Catholic?

Isn’t that a little like 'other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" to you folks?

I rather doubt that anything I am, other than Mormon, would matter to y’all.

So what was so unhip about you? I mean, other than being Mormon?

I’ve never been ‘hip’ a day in my life. I’m rather proud of that. I’ve never done the ‘hip’ things that the cool people felt were important. I have done, all my life, the things I think are important.

I’m a retired English teacher who would rather read than dance.
I’m a choir director who would rather sing than get drunk.
Indeed, I"ve never been drunk…or had a drink of alcohol for that matter, in my life.
I’m old.

I’m from the ‘hippy’ generation and I never wore leather head bands or flowers in my hair…and I’ve always thought bell bottoms were one of the nastier tricks perpetuated upon women. I’ve seen platform shoes come, and go, and come, and go, and come again…and I wore them, or not, as I pleased, not as fashion dictated.

No, Jerusha, I’ve never been ‘hip.’
Probably couldn’t have been if I wanted to, and seeing what people had to go through in order to BE ‘hip,’ I sure didn’t want to. Too lazy, I suppose.

But for some reason…I get the feeling that you were.

 

[zaffiroborant]

"

Had this conversation taken place in a different venue, by people whose purpose in posting and in presence was NOT to destroy Mormonism and Mormons, some of your protests might be justified.

As it is?

No.

Oh come on, people here are out to destroy individual Mormons. Are you clutching your hands to your chest or throwing you arm over your head while fanning yourself.

 

[Stephen168]

Goodness. Erm… I’m RIGHT HERE.

Placing people, who challenge you, on ignore has been a habit of yours in the past, so we really don’t know if you are RIGHT HERE.

 

[Stephen168]

Oh come on, people here are out to destroy individual Mormons. Are you clutching your hands to your chest or throwing your arm over your head while fanning yourself.

If you can’t defend your faith with reason, dramatic hyperventilating is another option.