Mormon temples compared to Catholic Basilicas and Cathedrals

[juliamajor]

It is in here, and when the posts and the posters connect the buildings with the believers who worship in them.

Context.

You are, seriously, saying that to a MORMON? Really? Now I’m not about to downplay the idea that Catholics are subject to insults. You are.

But goodness gracious. That’s sort of like the guy in a walking boot telling the guy in the walking cast to 'try wearing an orthopedic boot and see how hard it is to walk then."

I mean…c’mon.

that’s fine…but you won’t see me going into a non-Catholic forum dedicated to criticizing Catholicism and carping at the architecture.

Carping about architecture - so what. It’s a dang building.It’s a facade-superfluous.

I said nothing about persecution. The Church in the Middle east is persecuted. People are dying. That’s not what I said , so saying I played a persecution card is demeaning. you assume that and you know what that makes you and me.
Am I paranoid? Not so. I know my scripture well. I know my religion well. I can defend my belief system .

Connect people to the architecture? who?
context with what -ugly buildings. ?So any one saying that a building is ugly is saying that the people inside are also ugly? I didn’t read anything like that . The connection between the decor of a building and sacraments or beliefs-you are the one who made that connection. Not me. And not anyone I’ve read
. A building is, wood ,bricks- mortar- nothing else…If a Catholic church burns we save the Eucharist…That’s It. that is what is important.That’s where are hearts truly are. The building may burn but another one can always be built. The Presence is what make a church sacred-nothing else. When the Eucharist isn’t present- it’s just an empty building.
To become angry because a building or decor is ugly is just beyond me.

 

[twopekinguys]

I hate to say it, but, unfortunately, there are some people in this world that look for ways to be offended.

Just sayin…

 

[Rasoleil]

The same folks who are ‘out to get’ you.

“Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they’re aren’t after you.”

…

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t think anyone is ‘out to get’ me. Please, tell me who they are so I can watch out for them too.

I didn’t disregard your personal experiences. Those are your experiences.

So which store kicked out your children simply for being Mormon? I’ll make sure I don’t shop there since I don’t want to support a store that throws people out purely on the basis of religion. Which companies refused to hire you simply because of your religion? I’ll make sure I don’t go work there.

Throwing rocks at anyone is terrible. When did this happen exactly and where? I’ll make sure to avoid that place.

Again, who, exactly, is out to get you?

In order of the questions: 'The Sign of the Fish" bookstore…which has since either moved or gone out of business…and that particular store had all books about Catholicism in the same ‘cult’ section as it had the books on Mormonism.

Two private Christian schools who would not hire me because I am LDS. The local parochial school would have, though, had I taught math rather than English.

England. I was a missionary, simply walking down the street from one meeting to another (invited, not solicited). Rocks and dogs. The rocks got me. The dogs didn’t.

As for who is out to 'get me?" Well, not me personally; these people don’t know me any more than they know you, individually. However, Walter Martin, Jack Chick, all those guys…CARM…and, quite frankly, many of the folks right here in this forum are ‘out to get’ Mormons and Mormonism. They will use any rhetorical device, any method, to destroy Mormonism. Many of them will lie about the beliefs, and when confronted, will back down without comment only to return in awhile and simply repeat the lies. Walter Martin was famous for that.

And do NOT tell me that you, as a Catholic, haven’t experienced the same sort of thing.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Back to the topic of the thread:

I think it is pointless to compare LDS temples to Catholic Basilicas and Cathedrals. The futility of it seems to have played out thoroughly in this thread.

They have completely different purposes, so comparing them will get us nowhere.

An LDS temple is where temple-worthy LDS (those who have passed a temple recommend interview with their bishop) go to make solemn promises and sacred covenants with the being they think is God.

There are several aspects to LDS temple work:

Receiving one’s own washing, anointing, endowment and sealing (marriage or perhaps the sealing of non-BIC children of converts or both). This includes several sacred promises made including the promise to keep the law of chastity and to give all of one’s earthly time, talents and possessions to the LDS church.

The work of baptism, confirmation, and the ordinances listed above is also performed on behalf of people who have died without receiving these ordinances. Mormons believe that they can effect the salvation of the dead through these ordinances - that is, any dead person who, in the spirit prison, accepts the LDS gospel can avail themselves of the ordinances performed on their behalf by living LDS in the temples. After that, they can be released from spirit prison and enter paradise, where they await the resurrection in joy with the others who have accepted the LDS gospel.

In LDS temple work, the operative word is “work”. They are engaged in what they believe to be serious business that has eternal consequences. They sometimes spend a whole day going through theses ordinances over and over for dead people whose names have been submitted to the temple by other LDS. These may include past popes, priests, nuns, Catholic martyrs and saints and other faithful Christians, Jewish holocaust survivors, or the LDS’s own ancestors - all gleaned from genealogical records collected by the LDS church and its members. Adolph Hitler and Eva Braun have been baptized, washed, anointed, endowed and married many, many times (according to LDS temple records, which are kept very diligently).

There is little to none of what a Christian would recognize as worship in an LDS temple.

There is education, such as the endowment film which teaches LDS about the LDS take on the creation of earth and the fall of Adam and Eve. There is also the teaching of the signs and tokens (handshakes and secret passwords) that they are taught are necessary to pass by the angels that stand as sentinels before the entrance to the celestial kingdom.

But apart from the prayer circle, which is a prayer that is a part of the endowment and includes praying for those whose misfortunes have put them on the temple prayer rolls due to the concern of their relatives and friends who attend the temple, there is really nothing of praise, prayer, supplication, asking for mercy, or sacrifice to God.

Faithful LDS surely see it differently than I do. They probably see their promise to be chaste and to give all they have to the LDS church as a covenantal sacrifice. I won’t disagree with them. But even when I was a TBM, the temple left me cold and a little disgusted.

…

In a Catholic church, basilica or cathedral, by contrast, it is all about the mass.

There are two parts to the mass: The liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist.

The liturgy of the word is two (on regular weekdays) or three (on the Lord’s day or a feast day) readings from the bible along with the singing of one of the psalms. It also includes a short homily by the priest or deacon which reflects on the theme of the bible readings for the day.

The liturgy of the eucharist is one long Todah prayer to the Father in the name of Jesus, and an offering to the Father of the one thing that pleases Him and lifts us into His presence - the once-for-all sacrifice of His Son Jesus the Christ (He who is perfect obedience to perfect love) made spiritually present to us again during every mass.

I think of it as a form of spiritual time-travel in which we are transported to the crucifixion of Jesus, or perhaps the crucifixion is transported to us and made present in our day - it is hard to tell which it is. We are privileged to witness and participate in the worship of Him who shed His blood for us, and we remember His perfect sacrifice on the cross and lay our fallen selves and our sufferings and our sins at its feet.

We proclaim His death and profess His resurrection until He comes again in glory.

That is the essence of the mass.

So it is useless to compare the LDS temple to a Catholic basilica or cathedral, since they have entirely different objectives and entirely different activities.

Aside from the fact that they are all buildings, there is no resemblance whatsoever.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

P.S. I hate to be a thread-klller, but

 

[twopekinguys]

Back to the topic of the thread:

I think it is pointless to compare LDS temples to Catholic Basilicas and Cathedrals. The futility of it seems to have played out thoroughly in this thread.

They have completely different purposes, so comparing them will get us nowhere.

An LDS temple is where temple-worthy LDS (those who have passed a temple recommend interview with their bishop) go to make solemn promises and sacred covenants with the being they think is God.

There are several aspects to LDS temple work:

Receiving one’s own washing, anointing, endowment and sealing (marriage or perhaps the sealing of non-BIC children of converts or both). This includes several sacred promises made including the promise to keep the law of chastity and to give all of one’s earthly time, talents and possessions to the LDS church.

The work of baptism, confirmation, and the ordinances listed above is also performed on behalf of people who have died without receiving these ordinances. Mormons believe that they can effect the salvation of the dead through these ordinances - that is, any dead person who, in the spirit prison, accepts the LDS gospel can avail themselves of the ordinances performed on their behalf by living LDS in the temples. After that, they can be released from spirit prison and enter paradise, where they await the resurrection in joy with the others who have accepted the LDS gospel.

In LDS temple work, the operative word is “work”. They are engaged in what they believe to be serious business that has eternal consequences. They sometimes spend a whole day going through theses ordinances over and over for dead people whose names have been submitted to the temple by other LDS. These may include past popes, priests, nuns, Catholic martyrs and saints and other faithful Christians, Jewish holocaust survivors, or the LDS’s own ancestors - all gleaned from genealogical records collected by the LDS church and its members. Adolph Hitler and Eva Braun have been baptized, washed, anointed, endowed and married many, many times (according to LDS temple records, which are kept very diligently).

There is little to none of what a Christian would recognize as worship in an LDS temple.

There is education, such as the endowment film which teaches LDS about the LDS take on the creation of earth and the fall of Adam and Eve. There is also the teaching of the signs and tokens (handshakes and secret passwords) that they are taught are necessary to pass by the angels that stand as sentinels before the entrance to the celestial kingdom.

But apart from the prayer circle, which is a prayer that is a part of the endowment and includes praying for those whose misfortunes have put them on the temple prayer rolls due to the concern of their relatives and friends who attend the temple, there is really nothing of praise, prayer, supplication, asking for mercy, or sacrifice to God.

Faithful LDS surely see it differently than I do. They probably see their promise to be chaste and to give all they have to the LDS church as a covenantal sacrifice. I won’t disagree with them. But even when I was a TBM, the temple left me cold and a little disgusted.

…

In a Catholic church, basilica or cathedral, by contrast, it is all about the mass.

There are two parts to the mass: The liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist.

The liturgy of the word is two (on regular weekdays) or three (on the Lord’s day or a feast day) readings from the bible along with the singing of one of the psalms. It also includes a short homily by the priest or deacon which reflects on the theme of the bible readings for the day.

The liturgy of the eucharist is one long Todah prayer to the Father in the name of Jesus, and an offering to the Father of the one thing that pleases Him and lifts us into His presence - the once-for-all sacrifice of His Son Jesus the Christ (He who is perfect obedience to perfect love) made spiritually present to us again during every mass.

I think of it as a form of spiritual time-travel in which we are transported to the crucifixion of Jesus, or perhaps the crucifixion is transported to us and made present in our day - it is hard to tell which it is. We are privileged to witness and participate in the worship of Him who shed His blood for us, and we remember His perfect sacrifice on the cross and lay our fallen selves and our sufferings and our sins at its feet.

We proclaim His death and profess His resurrection until He comes again in glory.

That is the essence of the mass.

So it is useless to compare the LDS temple to a Catholic basilica or cathedral, since they have entirely different objectives and entirely different activities.

Aside from the fact that they are all buildings, there is no resemblance whatsoever.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

P.S. I hate to be a thread-klller, but

Buzz Killer!!

(Great post)

 

[KjetilK]

And neither does Mormonism. They may claim that it is, but it isn’t. Mormonism is a polytheistic religion where ‘god’ is a created being and where we can all become ‘gods.’

John 10:34.

Look it up.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that exegesis isn’t your strongest subject.

Where, in John 10:34, does it say that the Father used to be man, but became ‘god,’ then birthed two sons, Jesus and Lucifer, then later went to earth to impregnate a woman so that one day we might also become ‘gods’ in the same way as he, and be rulers of our own planet (granted, of course, that our skin is white).

 

[KathleenGee]

Paul…that is the essence of truth.

It is best Mormons let go of their continual obsession with the Catholic Church.

I always have the impression the Mormons are in some sort of competition and ‘class envy’ They don’t realize the Eastern Orthodox Church is the other lung

I remember reading how the Mormons want the same admiration from the world for their new temple they are building in Rome as the Vatican receives.

It is best to go forward with their own beliefs and accomplishments and stay within their own peripheries. I never hear any mention within the Catholic Church about any ongoing attention on the Mormon Church.

 

[ajcstr]

Interestingly, in Philadelphia, a Mormon temple is currently being built directly across the street from the Cathedral Basilica of St Peter and Paul. Not that one has anything to do with the other, just a strange sight when coming out of the chapel.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Paul…that is the essence of truth.

It is best Mormons let go of their continual obsession with the Catholic Church.

I always have the impression the Mormons are in some sort of competition and ‘class envy’ They don’t realize the Eastern Orthodox Church is the other lung

I remember reading how the Mormons want the same admiration from the world for their new temple they are building in Rome as the Vatican receives.

It is best to go forward with their own beliefs and accomplishments and stay within their own peripheries. I never hear any mention within the Catholic Church about any ongoing attention on the Mormon Church.

Agreed

 

[PaulDupre1]

John 10:34.

Look it up.

Dianaiad,

In John 10:34, Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82:6. “gods” in this context means “rulers” as you see from the text itself. In ancient Israel, rulers were considered to be in their roles by the will of God, and therefore act in His stead as “gods”.

Read the entire psalm and you will see the meaning. God is upbraiding the rulers for not ruling fairly and impartially. He says they “know nothing” and that though they are “gods” they will fall like men, the same as every other ruler.

The psalmist is using the word “gods” very tongue-in-cheek here, in order to contrast their haughty view of themselves as important with God’s view of them as evil, ordinary and doomed to die like everyone else.

Psalm 82

A psalm of Asaph.

1 God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:

2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?**
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”

8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
**

Even though you were taught this as a proof text for being “gods in embryo” in scripture chase, it serves very poorly as a proof text, unless you of course you pull the one line out of context and ignore the rest of the passage and its allusion to the psalm.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Dianaiad,

In John 10:34, Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82:6. “gods” in this context means “rulers” as you see from the text itself. In ancient Israel, rulers were considered to be in their roles by the will of God, and therefore act in His stead as “gods”.

Read the entire psalm and you will see the meaning. God is upbraiding the rulers for not ruling fairly and impartially. He says they “know nothing” and that though they are “gods” they will fall like men, the same as every other ruler.

The psalmist is using the word “gods” very tongue-in-cheek here, in order to contrast their haughty view of themselves as important with God’s view of them as evil, ordinary and doomed to die like everyone else.

Even though you were taught this as a proof text for being “gods in embryo” in scripture chase, it serves very poorly as a proof text, unless you of course you pull the one line out of context and ignore the rest of the passage and its allusion to the psalm.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

at scripture chase.

Side diversion, the Mormon seminary program announced that graduation from seminary was actually going to require a student meet measurable educational goals and attendance. My daughter, who is an atheist, asked me why the program would have not done that in the first place. I told her that the only people in my class who took seminary seriously were those who tried to win at scripture chase. That was about five people who would have graduated if they were actually being measured for something and had to show up every day. To which she replied, what the h&@# is scripture chase?

 

[Telstar]

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.

The Cardinals are sequestered in a conclave to elect a new pope.DEFINITION: con·clave ˈkänˌklāv/noun

**a private meeting.**
synonyms:	(private) meeting, gathering, assembly, conference, council, summit; More
informal parley, powwow, get-together
"a conclave of American and Japanese business leaders"
    **(in the Roman Catholic Church) the assembly of cardinals for the election of a pope.
 the meeting place for a conclave.**Is the new Mormon president elected by popular vote in front of the entire LDS membership, or is it done in private by a select few elders? Neither of those functions are public forms of worship, but are necessary functions of the hierarchy, that only take place in the event of the death of the leader. There is no real connection to them being an actual practice of 'worship' in either religion. So, they are completely unrelated to what goes on in Temples, Basilicas or Cathedrals. Apples to oranges.

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?

The reason some monastery chapels are private (or have a private section), is because the nuns or monks that live and attend Mass there, have taken a vow that requires that they have no contact with the outside world. They are ‘cloistered’.clois·tered
ˈkloistərd: adjective: cloistered

1. **kept away from the outside world; sheltered.**
"a cloistered upbringing"
synonyms:	secluded, sequestered, sheltered, protected, insulated; More
shut off, isolated, confined, incommunicado;
solitary, monastic, reclusive
"the cloistered life of a writer"
2. having or enclosed by a cloister, as in a monastery.
"a cloistered walkway bordered the courtyard"

It’s not done to keep the public out, but to keep the members of that religious order separated from the public. Many of them take special vows, like a vow of silence, where they are not allowed to speak except in certain circumstances. It’s a bit hard to maintain a vow of silence if people from the outside world walk up to you and ask questions. Their whole life is literally dedicated to serving God. In order to do that, some of them give up all contact with ‘outsiders’, even family (for the most part).

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.

Those ‘attendees’, as you so irreverently refer to them, are among the most holy and dedicated people on earth. They give up the whole world to dedicate themselves to worshiping God, and constantly praying for the rest of us pitiful souls, that don’t have the guts to do what they willingly do, out of pure love of God and all mankind. They pray for you and me every day of their lives, and I for one admire them, greatly, and am very grateful for their sacrifices and prayers.

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.

The Holy Spirit is always with them, whether the Cardinals are in private, or in public. But, it’s hard to openly discuss such difficult holy matters with the entire world watching and listening, not to mention questioning and second guessing.

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.

I have not seen anyone ‘make fun of’ Mormons, or what goes on in LDS Temples. Catholics might not agree with most of LDS doctrine, but that doesn’t mean we’re belittling the people who believe in it. If that’s what you choose to believe, then there isn’t much any of us can do about it, nor would we. That’s your choice. But, we come here to discuss differences in many religions. If it bothers you that much to hear people discuss your beliefs and disagree with them, then why would you come here? Apparently, you feel the need to respond, or you wouldn’t be here, either. It would be much more helpful if you could respond with comments that support your own beliefs, and stop playing the “Johnny does it, too!” card, or the persecution card. As others have already said, it really doesn’t help make your own point sound any better, to anyone.

 

[dianaiad]

at scripture chase.

Side diversion, the Mormon seminary program announced that graduation from seminary was actually going to require a student meet measurable educational goals and attendance. My daughter, who is an atheist, asked me why the program would have not done that in the first place. I told her that the only people in my class who took seminary seriously were those who tried to win at scripture chase. That was about five people who would have graduated if they were actually being measured for something and had to show up every day. To which she replied, what the h&@# is scripture chase?

For those who read this and automatically think that it is something else to mock Mormons for, it is indeed a competition, and is engaged in only by those who actually read the scriptures.

It is amazing to me how many Christians I know of (including Catholics) have never actually read the bible.

As to the snark about the 'measurable educational goals and attendance," Why, Rebecca, we have always had those. I know. I too attended Seminary in high school and had to meet those measurable goals and attendance percentage in order to graduate. That was in the mid 60’s.

Perhaps, if you had actually paid attention to what went on in class, you would know that, and understand that a 'scripture chase" is simply a teaching tool, such as is common for teachers in all manner of classes in order to get students interested in, and conversant with, the topic being studied. In this case, that would be…given that Seminary is a religious class…the books we consider to be scriptures.

OK, here’s the deal: so far in the last few weeks I have seen the following on this sub forum from Catholics who are ‘discussing’ Mormonism: Snarky comments about our buildings; equally snarky comments about scripture chases in Seminary (when I happen to know that a scripture chase type activity is used in the local parochial high school, and is a popular teaching tool there, too.) Indeed, this thread, specifically, reminds me of a high school clique where the members criticize the ‘out group’ for the color of the belts they wear, or whether they have the correct brand of blue jeans, or tie their shoes in the ‘correct’ way.

Is there NOTHING about Mormonism or Mormons that is admirable, good, ethical, noble or sincere?

nevermind. I already know your answers.

 

[Jerusha]

Is there NOTHING about Mormonism or Mormons that is admirable, good, ethical, noble or sincere?

Off the top of my head: Women working together. Conservative sexual ethics (although a bit excessive). One evening a week set aside for family members to bond. The concept of Bishop’s storehouse. Evangelism (although grossly excessive). Setting food aside for emergencies (again, excessive). Close-knit community (again, excessive). Program of religious education. Belief in something like Purgatory. System of church discipline (although grossly excessive). Controls on alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and drug abuse (grossly excessive)

Odd-- it seems like whatever they do well, they explode it into excessive levels.

Welcome back, Diana.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Still waiting:

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.

 

[twopekinguys]

Is there NOTHING about Mormonism or Mormons that is admirable, good, ethical, noble or sincere?

nevermind. I already know your answers.

Nobody is saying that rank and file mormons are bad as a whole. Just like any other faith, city, county, state, etc., there are good and bad.

The discussion/debate has to do with the institution of mormonism itself. You really should be able to distinguish between the two.

With that being said, do you realize how many people don’t like the architecture of many Catholic and non Catholic church structures?(see some great pictures of architectural fails here.) My former parish had a church building that was built in the late 1960’s and 70’s. Outside, I loved the structure itself, but, the inside was always less than appealing to my taste.(I’m not sure why they didn’t consult me first ) Did the interior affect my worship? Absolutely not. I was not there to worship architecture, I was there to worship God.

For me personally, if you’re going to get wound up about the aesthetics of a building, you’re focus is not in the right spot.

 

[dianaiad]

Nobody is saying that rank and file mormons are bad as a whole. Just like any other faith, city, county, state, etc., there are good and bad.

The discussion/debate has to do with the institution of mormonism itself. You really should be able to distinguish between the two.

With that being said, do you realize how many people don’t like the architecture of many Catholic and non Catholic church structures?(see some great pictures of architectural fails here.) My former parish had a church building that was built in the late 1960’s and 70’s. Outside, I loved the structure itself, but, the inside was always less than appealing to my taste.(I’m not sure why they didn’t consult me first ) Did the interior affect my worship? Absolutely not. I was not there to worship architecture, I was there to worship God.

For me personally, if you’re going to get wound up about the aesthetics of a building, you’re focus is not in the right spot.

You are Catholic. You are allowed to criticize your own buildings…and nobody is going to give you grief.

However, should I…or any other non-Catholic…do so, and the ranks would close very quickly indeed.

I am not 'wound up in the aesthetics of a building." I didn’t begin this thread, after all. I am ‘wound up,’ if anything, in the idea that even though y’all might CLAIM that there are ‘epic fails’ in Catholic architecture, you also are quite adamant that, as you have just stated, you are ‘there to worship God,’ not architecture. That architecture isn’t the focus of your beliefs.

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.

Indeed, that comparison in and of itself is a statement of disdain, one that I would not return, even if I were plunked down in the middle of one of the very interesting designs mentioned in the site to which you sent me.

BTW, I got curious…I don’t agree with all the choices of “Ugly churches” mentioned on either of the two articles about ‘ugly churches’ on that site, but I do have to agree with one of 'em…and yes, it IS the only LDS Temple mentioned, but I’ll admit to never having liked it, or its sister Temple in Ogden. The Provo Temple.

They have, however, just finished renovating, and fixing, aesthetically, the Ogden Temple. Perhaps someday they will do the same for Provo.

One can hope, anyway.

 

[LivingWaters7]

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. **

Again, cite the actual post(s) where this (the bold/underlined) is being expressed. You continue to ignore repeated requests for substantiation, and you have again brought up the same unsubstantiated claim. Cite the post(s).

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]

Back to the topic of the thread:

I think it is pointless to compare LDS temples to Catholic Basilicas and Cathedrals. The futility of it seems to have played out thoroughly in this thread.

They have completely different purposes, so comparing them will get us nowhere.

An LDS temple is where temple-worthy LDS (those who have passed a temple recommend interview with their bishop) go to make solemn promises and sacred covenants with the being they think is God.

There are several aspects to LDS temple work:

Receiving one’s own washing, anointing, endowment and sealing (marriage or perhaps the sealing of non-BIC children of converts or both). This includes several sacred promises made including the promise to keep the law of chastity and to give all of one’s earthly time, talents and possessions to the LDS church.

The work of baptism, confirmation, and the ordinances listed above is also performed on behalf of people who have died without receiving these ordinances. Mormons believe that they can effect the salvation of the dead through these ordinances - that is, any dead person who, in the spirit prison, accepts the LDS gospel can avail themselves of the ordinances performed on their behalf by living LDS in the temples. After that, they can be released from spirit prison and enter paradise, where they await the resurrection in joy with the others who have accepted the LDS gospel.

In LDS temple work, the operative word is “work”. They are engaged in what they believe to be serious business that has eternal consequences. They sometimes spend a whole day going through theses ordinances over and over for dead people whose names have been submitted to the temple by other LDS. These may include past popes, priests, nuns, Catholic martyrs and saints and other faithful Christians, Jewish holocaust survivors, or the LDS’s own ancestors - all gleaned from genealogical records collected by the LDS church and its members. Adolph Hitler and Eva Braun have been baptized, washed, anointed, endowed and married many, many times (according to LDS temple records, which are kept very diligently).

There is little to none of what a Christian would recognize as worship in an LDS temple.

There is education, such as the endowment film which teaches LDS about the LDS take on the creation of earth and the fall of Adam and Eve. There is also the teaching of the signs and tokens (handshakes and secret passwords) that they are taught are necessary to pass by the angels that stand as sentinels before the entrance to the celestial kingdom.

But apart from the prayer circle, which is a prayer that is a part of the endowment and includes praying for those whose misfortunes have put them on the temple prayer rolls due to the concern of their relatives and friends who attend the temple, there is really nothing of praise, prayer, supplication, asking for mercy, or sacrifice to God.

Faithful LDS surely see it differently than I do. They probably see their promise to be chaste and to give all they have to the LDS church as a covenantal sacrifice. I won’t disagree with them. But even when I was a TBM, the temple left me cold and a little disgusted.

…

In a Catholic church, basilica or cathedral, by contrast, it is all about the mass.

There are two parts to the mass: The liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist.

The liturgy of the word is two (on regular weekdays) or three (on the Lord’s day or a feast day) readings from the bible along with the singing of one of the psalms. It also includes a short homily by the priest or deacon which reflects on the theme of the bible readings for the day.

The liturgy of the eucharist is one long Todah prayer to the Father in the name of Jesus, and an offering to the Father of the one thing that pleases Him and lifts us into His presence - the once-for-all sacrifice of His Son Jesus the Christ (He who is perfect obedience to perfect love) made spiritually present to us again during every mass.

I think of it as a form of spiritual time-travel in which we are transported to the crucifixion of Jesus, or perhaps the crucifixion is transported to us and made present in our day - it is hard to tell which it is. We are privileged to witness and participate in the worship of Him who shed His blood for us, and we remember His perfect sacrifice on the cross and lay our fallen selves and our sufferings and our sins at its feet.

We proclaim His death and profess His resurrection until He comes again in glory.

That is the essence of the mass.

So it is useless to compare the LDS temple to a Catholic basilica or cathedral, since they have entirely different objectives and entirely different activities.

Aside from the fact that they are all buildings, there is no resemblance whatsoever.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

P.S. I hate to be a thread-klller, but

She won’t even touch this.