Mormon temples compared to Catholic Basilicas and Cathedrals

[zaffiroborant]

Patty, the Catholic Church also has places to which the general membership is not allowed, specifically for the priesthood and priesthood functions. Just off the top of my head, I can think of, oh…the convocations of Cardinals who meet when a new Pope is decided?

The private chapels of monasteries and convents?

Yes, those places are accessible by the general public at other times…but then, so are LDS Temples.

So it’s not all that odd. Really.

Neither of these is in anyway analogous to the LDS temple. The LDS apostles don’t open up the selection of a new president to the public, this is analogous to the selection of the the Pope.

And the private chapels of monasteries and convents are on private property, owed by the monasteries and convents. People have no more right to access of private chapels than they do to my bathroom.

 

[juliamajor]

I haven’t read the other posts on this thread. The LDS temples serve a different purpose than a Catholic cathedral. I think they actually are very simple and beautiful inside and the ceremonies are meant to draw people closer to God and closer to each other. They go there to help save the dead who in their understanding may not have heard the gospel of Christ as they teach it. So their purpose is to bring people closer to God through the temple and it extends to everyone who has ever lived. Even those who don’t believe in the LDS Church would have to admit that at least from their point of view they are trying to bless everyone else. I’ve been through the temple. I don’t see anything wrong with what they are trying to do.

Personally, I don’t like the idea that Lds wants to baptize my unsaved(non Mormon) Catholic , Orthodox ancestors because LDS see them part of an heterodox Christendom. Such hubris!

 

[iepuras]

Personally, I don’t like the idea that Lds wants to baptize my unsaved(non Mormon) Catholic , Orthodox ancestors because LDS see them part of an heterodox Christendom. Such hubris!

I don’t like it either. Alas, I participated in it when I was LDS. However, for the most part proxy baptisms and other temple work performed on behalf of deceased ancestors are done out of love, not malice. Misguided love, but love nonetheless.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Patty, the Catholic Church also has places to which the general membership is not allowed, specifically for the priesthood and priesthood functions. Just off the top of my head, I can think of, oh…the convocations of Cardinals who meet when a new Pope is decided?

The private chapels of monasteries and convents?

Yes, those places are accessible by the general public at other times…but then, so are LDS Temples.

So it’s not all that odd. Really.

Your constant attempts at tu quoque are growing tedious, and as they’re so often built on nonexistent similarities they’re also quite embarrassing.

The Papal Conclave is a clerical matter of the Catholic Church, where the vetting of individuals occurs and a new Pontiff is selected. The public has no more right to be present than they would at an LDS Disciplinary Council or a Stake Priesthood Meeting. Notice that no one complains about not being able to be present at a Mormon’s excommunication hearing. There is no analogy between a Papal Conclave and an LDS Temple Ordinance.

Private chapels are private. This comparison would be valid if some LDS Temples allowed the public to be present for Sealings while others didn’t. Fact of the matter is there exist exactly zero LDS Temples that allow any member of the public to view any of the Ordinances performed therein. While there may be private Masses at a monastery, there are public Masses everywhere else throughout the world. The general statement that LDS Temple Ordinances are private while Catholic Sacraments within the context of Mass are public is therefore a true statement.

You would do well to defend the LDS against criticisms on your own terms and not use every opportunity to compare LDS practices and belief to those of Catholicism. There’s nothing wrong with admitting that certain LDS practices are unique, such as the exclusivity of the Temple, and defending such as they stand.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Your constant attempts at tu quoque are growing tedious, and as they’re so often built on nonexistent similarities they’re also quite embarrassing.

The Papal Conclave is a clerical matter of the Catholic Church, where the vetting of individuals occurs and a new Pontiff is selected. The public has no more right to be present than they would at an LDS Disciplinary Council or a Stake Priesthood Meeting. Notice that no one complains about not being able to be present at a Mormon’s excommunication hearing. There is no analogy between a Papal Conclave and an LDS Temple Ordinance.

Private chapels are private. This comparison would be valid if some LDS Temples allowed the public to be present for Sealings while others didn’t. Fact of the matter is there exist exactly zero LDS Temples that allow any member of the public to view any of the Ordinances performed therein. While there may be private Masses at a monastery, there are public Masses everywhere else throughout the world. The general statement that LDS Temple Ordinances are private while Catholic Sacraments within the context of Mass are public is therefore a true statement.

You would do well to defend the LDS against criticisms on your own terms and not use every opportunity to compare LDS practices and belief to those of Catholicism. There’s nothing wrong with admitting that certain LDS practices are unique, such as the exclusivity of the Temple, and defending such as they stand.

:clapping:

When I read her response, I thought, please just don’t mention Catholicism anymore, it isn’t helping.

 

[dianaiad]

Neither of these is in anyway analogous to the LDS temple. The LDS apostles don’t open up the selection of a new president to the public, this is analogous to the selection of the the Pope.

Wait.

When the Cardinals meet to decide who the new Pope will be…they allow anybody else in the room?

I wasn’t aware of that. In fact, according to every Catholic source I’ve seen, including this one, The Cardinal electors enter a room, all non-Cardinals leave, and the doors are actually sealed. The ballots are secret…and nobody but those who vote may enter.

And the private chapels of monasteries and convents are on private property, owed by the monasteries and convents. People have no more right to access of private chapels than they do to my bathroom.

And LDS Temples are private property owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. They are not chapels and meeting houses, stake centers or tabernacles or visitor’s centers, to which any and everybody is welcome. It seems to me, then, that if Catholics have those places to which only the approved may attend in order to do specific things (like vote for a new Pope, or have private chapels that are used only by the monks, priests and nuns allowed) then it’s a bit, oh…

odd?

for you to criticize anybody else for also having places that are private, sacred, and restricted to specific people for specific things. The BIGGEST difference, as I see it, (at least when seen from the outside here) between temples and Papal conclaves and privately owned chapels that are used only by priests, nuns and monks is that temples actually allow more people in than your folks do, and perhaps don’t require QUITE the same level of commitment/price from the attendees that your folks do.

Please note: I am in no way critical of sealed Papal conclaves (I can’t imagine doing that with a public audience and having any hope whatsoever of having the Holy Spirit there, with all the distractions that would involve) or private chapels for monasteries and convents. They should be private.

I’m saying that it is illogical for those who DO have private worship services and private meetings for the purpose of religious ordinances and important decisions to make fun of/criticize Mormons because we keep our temples private and sacred.

 

[dianaiad]

:clapping:

When I read her response, I thought, please just don’t mention Catholicism anymore, it isn’t helping.

And when I read the response to my response, I thought…we are in a Catholic forum, where Catholics are engaged in criticizing Mormonism and attacking our beliefs and our practices, demeaning the symbols we hold dear and insinuating that because our aesthetic sense doesn’t appeal to you, that our beliefs are wrong? I wonder just how well it would go over in here if I started making fun of the architecture and artistic renderings of Jesus, Mary or various saints, insinuating that a lack of esthetic beauty meant that your beliefs are wrong?

Since I don’t happen to believe that the beauty of a building has anything to do with the truth of the beliefs held by those who use it, I would never do that. I would especially never do that when I know the history behind so many of the Catholic Cathedrals…the sheer faith, perseverance and sacrifices made by the folks who actually built them. Their faith is in the very stones.

…and believe it or not, so is the faith ‘in the stones’ of LDS Temples. You may not agree with that faith…but making fun and criticizing the buildings in order to belittle the FAITH is, well…

It’s beneath you all.

 

[Stephen168]

You would do well to defend the LDS against criticisms on your own terms and not use every opportunity to compare LDS practices and belief to those of Catholicism. There’s nothing wrong with admitting that certain LDS practices are unique, such as the exclusivity of the Temple, and defending such as they stand.

:clapping:

When I read her response, I thought, please just don’t mention Catholicism anymore, it isn’t helping.

I am convinced there is no defense for Mormonism. Every time she attempts a * tu quoque * defense it reinforces my conviction.

Therefore, I have to agree with you both. If there really is a way to defend Mormonism then it should be able to be defended without trying to compare it to the Catholic Church.

 

[LivingWaters7]

And when I read the response to my response, I thought…we are in a Catholic forum, where Catholics are engaged in criticizing Mormonism and attacking our beliefs and our practices, demeaning the symbols we hold dear and insinuating that because our aesthetic sense doesn’t appeal to you, that our beliefs are wrong? I wonder just how well it would go over in here if I started making fun of the architecture and artistic renderings of Jesus, Mary or various saints, insinuating that a lack of esthetic beauty meant that your beliefs are wrong?

Since I don’t happen to believe that the beauty of a building has anything to do with the truth of the beliefs held by those who use it, I would never do that. I would especially never do that when I know the history behind so many of the Catholic Cathedrals…the sheer faith, perseverance and sacrifices made by the folks who actually built them. Their faith is in the very stones.

…and believe it or not, so is the faith ‘in the stones’ of LDS Temples. You may not agree with that faith…but making fun and criticizing the buildings in order to belittle the FAITH is, well…

It’s beneath you all.

Please cite the specific post(s) where someone claimed or implied that the beauty, or lack thereof, of a building has anything to do with the truth of a belief system. Link to the actual post(s) in question.

As for me, while I do understand the observations presented on what the interior of certain parts of the LDS temples look like, including as compared to nice hotel lobbies (an observation not unique to this board), I personally don’t find that relevant to the truth claims of the LDS church (and I have yet to find someone who does). What I do find relevant are the rituals that go on inside. Specifically, we find no evidence of the Endowment as a ritual that occurred in the ancient tabernacle and temple(s), and we find no evidence that the ancient Christians performed an Endowment ordinance as necessary for eternal life. We further find no evidence for sealings being performed either.

So for me, while LDS temples are certainly beautiful, peaceful places (I have said as much many times, and mentioned that it is one aspect that I miss), and I find the religious structures of various other faiths similarly beautiful and peaceful, I find no evidence for the rituals that go on there being an actual restoration of lost ancient Christian practices.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I am convinced there is no defense for Mormonism. Every time she attempts a * tu quoque * defense it reinforces my conviction.

Therefore, I have to agree with you both. If there really is a way to defend Mormonism then it should be able to be defended without trying to compare it to the Catholic Church.

She really can’t help it, is what I am seeing. I have come to expect it now. That, and the veiled implying of persecution in practically every post (such as in the last one with words like “attacking”, “demeaning”, “insinuating”, “belittle”, etc.

 

[Stephen168]

Wait.

When the Cardinals meet to decide who the new Pope will be…they allow anybody else in the room?

I wasn’t aware of that. In fact, according to every Catholic source I’ve seen, including this one, The Cardinal electors enter a room, all non-Cardinals leave, and the doors are actually sealed. The ballots are secret…and nobody but those who vote may enter.

And LDS Temples are private property owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. They are not chapels and meeting houses, stake centers or tabernacles or visitor’s centers, to which any and everybody is welcome. It seems to me, then, that if Catholics have those places to which only the approved may attend in order to do specific things (like vote for a new Pope, or have private chapels that are used only by the monks, priests and nuns allowed) then it’s a bit, oh…

odd?

for you to criticize anybody else for also having places that are private, sacred, and restricted to specific people for specific things. The BIGGEST difference, as I see it, (at least when seen from the outside here) between temples and Papal conclaves and privately owned chapels that are used only by priests, nuns and monks is that temples actually allow more people in than your folks do, and perhaps don’t require QUITE the same level of commitment/price from the attendees that your folks do.

Please note: I am in no way critical of sealed Papal conclaves (I can’t imagine doing that with a public audience and having any hope whatsoever of having the Holy Spirit there, with all the distractions that would involve) or private chapels for monasteries and convents. They should be private.

I’m saying that it is illogical for those who DO have private worship services and private meetings for the purpose of religious ordinances and important decisions to make fun of/criticize Mormons because we keep our temples private and sacred.

There is no comparison to the Mormon Church never allowing the public to enter a temple, and a private meeting of Catholics or a Catholic’s home.

You are not able to defend Mormonism on its own terms, because there is no defense.

 

[iepuras]

Please cite the specific post(s) where someone claimed or implied that the beauty, or lack thereof, of a building has anything to do with the truth of a belief system. Link to the actual post(s) in question.

As for me, while I do understand the observations presented on what the interior of certain parts of the LDS temples look like, including as compared to nice hotel lobbies (an observation not unique to this board), I personally don’t find that relevant to the truth claims of the LDS church (and I have yet to find someone who does). What I do find relevant are the rituals that go on inside. Specifically, we find no evidence of the Endowment as a ritual that occurred in the ancient tabernacle and temple(s), and we find no evidence that the ancient Christians performed an Endowment ordinance as necessary for eternal life. We further find no evidence for sealings being performed either.

So for me, while LDS temples are certainly beautiful, peaceful places (I have said as much many times, and mentioned that it is one aspect that I miss), and I find the religious structures of various other faiths similarly beautiful and peaceful, I find no evidence for the rituals that go on there being an actual restoration of lost ancient Christian practices.

Thank you for posting this, and I agree. I was about to ask which post claimed that beautiful building = true belief system as I don’t recall anyone even remotely insinuating such a claim.

 

[Stephen168]

She really can’t help it, is what I am seeing. I have come to expect it now. That, and the veiled implying of persecution in practically every post (such as in the last one with words like “attacking”, “demeaning”, “insinuating”, “belittle”, etc.

I was once told because Mormonism is faith only based and almost relies on the rejection of history, science, reason that the Mormon Church becomes one with the individual Mormon. The slightest questioning or ever lack of praise for anything Mormon is a personal attack. Not sure how true that is but I do see it from time to time.

 

[RebeccaJ]

A) All LDS temples are closed to the public during worship services.
B) Some official Catholic functions held in churches are closed to the public

therefore

A = B?

 

[iepuras]

I was once told because Mormonism is faith only based and almost relies on the rejection of history, science, reason that the Mormon Church becomes one with the individual Mormon. The slightest questioning or ever lack of praise for anything Mormon is a personal attack. Not sure how true that is but I do see it from time to time.

In my experience this observation is often true. My LDS family think that because I rejected Joseph Smith as a prophet that I also reject them. My parents think they are failures as parents because I am not a faithful Mormon. Well, I still think they did a pretty good job as parents. I have a graduate degree, a good career, a good husband, cute kids and I am not in jail. Shouldn’t that be enough to please my parents? But I am not LDS, so apparently not.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Patty, the Catholic Church also has places to which the general membership is not allowed, specifically for the priesthood and priesthood functions. Just off the top of my head, I can think of, oh…the convocations of Cardinals who meet when a new Pope is decided?

The private chapels of monasteries and convents?

Yes, those places are accessible by the general public at other times…but then, so are LDS Temples.

So it’s not all that odd. Really.

Catholic churches exist for liturgy, and liturgy is a public work. The word liturgy is itself rooted in a Greek word that means “public work for the people”. When the Sistine Chapel is closed for a conclave, it is analogous to a portion of a public garden being closed off for a private event.

Private chapels and churches have permission to be closed to the public, but whether it is on an estate or a monastery, there isn’t a secret liturgy. Liturgy is liturgy. Go to Mass at a parish, you don’t need to wonder what’s going on inside of a monastery chapel. If you’re really curious you can mail (or some have email) monasteries and ask them. They’ll tell you as much as you want to know.

LDS temples are a private work for select individuals. When LDS temples are open for the public, it is analogous to a private individual opening their home for a public tour. What goes on in an LDS temple is held tightly, no one Mormon is going to answer questions, openly, as much as anyone wants to know, about what goes on inside of a LDS temple.

I don’t think the two can be compared because Mormon and Catholics approach these things differently. Catholics view religion as an open and public, the Church and churches, existing for the people (all people).

Mormons view religion as closed and private, and its Temples existing for the select, or elect.

 

[KjetilK]

Well, that’s better than being a ‘cult,’ I suppose.

According to Miriam Webster,

*sect
noun \ˈsekt\

: a religious group that is a smaller part of a larger group and whose members all share similar beliefs

: a religious or political group that is connected to a larger group but that has beliefs that differ greatly from those of the main group*

Now, I’ll go with definition 1, if we are referring to “Christianity” as a whole, and I might even agree to 2…if you are referring to Christianity as a whole.

Mind you, given our claimed membership in the 'Restorationist" classification of Christian thought, I would object to being seen as a ‘sect’ of Catholicism. I think that Catholics would object to that one, too.

But yeah, ‘sect’ works for me.

Mormonism is as ‘Christian’ as the Church of Scientology.

 

[KathleenGee]

Our liturgy is indeed public as witness of Jesus Christ to the world, the full effects of His death and resurrection the same presence and power and grace as 2000 years ago.

Our two points of being evangelical Catholics are that we 1) work to make the Church a refuge of sinners…we all are sinners…to grow in grace and redemption, and 2) – as Catholics continue to make present to the world Jesus Christ’s mission of shedding His blood for mankind.

The Mass is the greatest power of goodness on earth. It is meant for all mankind, not a select or exclusive few.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Mormonism is as ‘Christian’ as the Church of Scientology.

Actually no. Mormonism is much closer to orthodox Christianity than Scientology is. Scientology has nothing to do with the Bible or any Christian ideas and concepts.

 

[juliamajor]

And when I read the response to my response, I thought…we are in a Catholic forum, where Catholics are engaged in criticizing Mormonism and attacking our beliefs and our practices, demeaning the symbols we hold dear and insinuating that because our aesthetic sense doesn’t appeal to you, that our beliefs are wrong? I wonder just how well it would go over in here if I started making fun of the architecture and artistic renderings of Jesus, Mary or various saints, insinuating that a lack of esthetic beauty meant that your beliefs are wrong?

Since I don’t happen to believe that the beauty of a building has anything to do with the truth of the beliefs held by those who use it, I would never do that. I would especially never do that when I know the history behind so many of the Catholic Cathedrals…the sheer faith, perseverance and sacrifices made by the folks who actually built them. Their faith is in the very stones.

…and believe it or not, so is the faith ‘in the stones’ of LDS Temples. You may not agree with that faith…but making fun and criticizing the buildings in order to belittle the FAITH is, well…

It’s beneath you all.

Criticism of a building is not tantamount to insulting a faith. There are plenty of ugly churches out there with ugly architecture and interiors of questionable taste. So what.
That is unimportant…If you get insulted over the aesthetics of a building then you are hyper sensitive. try being a catholic and be subjected to all kinds of insults.
Like I said before the kind of building and what it looks like is immaterial .Jesus is there in the Eucharist. That is why many Catholics, even if the structure is beautiful,find many churches empty.