My Sister is Mormon....

[RebeccaJ]

Yes. For the Church Handbook of Instructions. But not for the Temple Ceremony Script.

Depends on what they ask. If they want the script, or the ‘signs and symbols,’ you are quite right. I won’t. I brought up the sanctity of the confessional earlier…if I asked a priest to tell me all about it, he could tell me what the purpose is, and what ordinance is performed there, and what both he and the penitent gets out of it.

This is ridiculous. Before I was baptized and went to my first confession, it was explained to me very clearly, both orally, and written, what exactly was going to happen, exactly.

When I was a Mormon, NOTHING of the temple ceremony was ever taught to me. EVER.

But that same priest will never tell you what was actually spoken of there. One who is honorable won’t speak of it even if he later leaves the priesthood or becomes a complete non-believer.

What the priest does not divulge is what was confessed. And what he tells the confessor, in forms of, advice or acts of penance. I am not bound by oaths to keep what the priest said as secret. You can ask me any time you like what a priest has said to me, I’ll tell you.

You can ask me anytime you like, what exactly happens in the confessional, what the rite is, what the words are we say, I’ll tell you.

One can tell what the motive is for asking by the way the question is asked;

YOu believe this is why a person who is inquiring about Mormonism would like to know? Maybe, they would like to understand what is practiced and believed by Mormons and what would be expected of them as participants in your temple BEFORE they are baptized. What an idea!!

There was still the congressional record, which you could find in any library.

Ummm, hi, my bishop didn’t say, I’m not telling, go to the library and look up the congressional record. You are living in a dream world.

What you are saying is that to find these teachings I should have gone to the internet or the library. I hope you realize how incredibly OFF it is that you have to go OUTSIDE of your own church to read what that church’s MAIN most IMPORTANT ceremony is.

“We don’t talk about these things. But you can read all about it at the library.”

What exactly did you ask, anyway? When I was 16, probably a whole lot earlier than you were sixteen, my entire family went to Temple preparation classes. My parents, after 18 years of marriage and four kids, were finally ready to go and get ‘sealed.’ It was a wonderful experience.

He was bugging me about my boyfriend, who was not active Mormon. going to the temple, etc, etc. I had been to the temple once, before then, for baptism for the dead. It was a creepy, horrible experience that I had no desire to repeat.

So I asked my bishop, what exactly, was going to happen. I asked him about temple garments, why, what, where. I got NOTHING. I have this great aversion to things being done to me without my permission. I would no more enter into a secret ceremony that I knew nothing about, than I would get into a car with a complete stranger.

Now that I have read and heard of the endowment (the prior to 1990 version , which is the case) I am very glad I listened to what my insides were telling me. Which was, run like hell.

Everything was explained to me; what I was going for, what would happen. I wasn’t prepared for the sheer richness of the symbolism used, since in daily life and even in Sunday meetings we are a fairly prosaic people, but there wasn’t anything taught in the Temple that I didn’t already know about.

Well, your experience was that of a child being prepared for a sealing. You know very well this is not done for the endowment. And again, are these things explained to potential converts before there baptism?

 

[RebeccaJ]

continued…

I’ve only attended one High Mass–associated with a wedding. I wasn’t prepared for the amount of ritual and symbolism THERE, either. However, in the case of the High Mass, I also didn’t have a clue what any of that symbolism meant. Still don’t. I asked the very devout Catholic next to me what this was about, or that–and she didn’t know either.

Yes, there you were, at Mass. Tell me, may I go with you to your temple? Can I just enter any time I like?

So tell me the difference here: attending a ceremony replete with symbols that are explained to you, and that you know the meaning of going in–

First, I don’t believe for ONE minute that the symbols of the temple were explained to you. If it is all that open, tell me, what the symbols on your garments mean. I have no intention of ridiculing you. Just, for the sake this openness that you are asserting, you should be able to freely share what these symbols mean. How were these explained to you outside of the temple walls? Same question I asked my bishop. I imagine I’ll get the same answer. Blank stare.

but that you are asked not to talk about outside the building walls–or attending a more public ceremony equally rich with symbols, the nature of which are not known even to the believers?

One individual does not represent the entire Catholic church. And I highly doubt that you got to know a complete stranger well enough to know that they were devout Catholic.

The difference is, you just showed up. Guess what, I had the entire Mass explained to me before my baptism into the Catholic Church. Tell me, do you explain your entire temple ceremony to new converts before their baptism?

The mass is not secretive. Your temple ceremony is. The Mass is explained, in detail, PRIOR to conversion. You do not explain your temple ceremony to converts PRIOR to their baptism. You can go to any priest, now, and ask the Mass to be explained to you. He will. You can buy entire books, volumes, on the meaning of the Mass, now. Today. Tell me where these books are, tell me what bishop to go to, who will tell me these things about your temple ceremony.

The meaning of the Mass is taught to children, in its entirety, before they are Confirmed and receive first communion. Your temple ceremony is not explained in its entirety to your children before their baptism and confirmation.

You withhold beliefs and practices.

You keep saying that, and you are wrong. You ask me what planet I’m from because the church sued to get the Church Handbook of Instructions removed from the Internet–when I claimed that the church did not sue for copyright infringement for the TEMPLE CEREMONY SCRIPT.

I said, they have sued to have the youtube audio removed. It was removed by youtube for a short time, now it is back up.

The fact is, the church has not, and probably will not, EVER sue for copyright infringement with the Temple Ceremony script. We are not Scientologists.

You are close enough.

the church DID sue over the Church Handbook of Instructions. Why?

Because it is a working operations handbook for an organization, and like any other organization, the church needs to be in control of the copyright. If it allows someone else to publish it, for any reason, it loses that control–and the ability to freely update and change it.

What do they fear losing control of? No one is going to take the manual, modify it and distribute it to your bishops. Your church does not want people discussing what it contains.

But the lawsuit you are referring to was against a group that published the whole thing, without commentary. The most forgiving judge on the planet can’t call THAT ‘fair use.’

What commentary did you want them to include? At any rate the 1999 version is still online, on a domain that is hosted outside of the US.

So now I get to ask you; what planet are you on, that you think it is acceptable to break all the laws of confidentiality and copyright law simply because YOU don’t like the people who are having their copyrights stolen?

Whatever. You keep the manual closely guarded, with instructions to not let it out of your keeping. People can ask specific questions, which will be given to them out of your manual, but no one can just peruse it at their leisure.

You wanna find out what the church handbook has to say about something? Fine–no problem. There is no law against, and no lack of, sites that examine the thing complete with commentary, using proper fair use quotes, so that the church can keep the copyright.

Exactly, I can ask a specific question, but if I went to whoever in the world is the bishop in these parts, and said, let me borrow your CHI for a few days to read (no intent to publish any part of it), you know he would say no.

 

[Stephen168]

Rebecca,
Would you say the comparing Confession to a temple ceremony is a false analogy?

 

[dianaiad]

This is ridiculous. Before I was baptized and went to my first confession, it was explained to me very clearly, both orally, and written, what exactly was going to happen, exactly.

When I was a Mormon, NOTHING of the temple ceremony was ever taught to me. EVER.

Honest question: did you attend Temple preparation classes?

What the priest does not divulge is what was confessed. And what he tells the confessor, in forms of, advice or acts of penance. I am not bound by oaths to keep what the priest said as secret. You can ask me any time you like what a priest has said to me, I’ll tell you.

Thank you. Yes. YOU can tell me, because YOU didn’t promise not to tell me. The priest, however, can not, because he made that promise.

I made that promise. I keep the Temple ceremony sacred, just as priest keeps the confessional sacred. Now, I can’t remember whether you said you had attended the Temple or not, but if you have not, then you haven’t made any promises to respect the sacred nature of what goes on in there. So go, look at the Congressional record, gaze around the internet, find it, examine it, have fun. Just don’t try to get a Mormon who actually keeps his or her promises to discuss it with you, because we won’t.

Sacred, not secret.

What you are saying is that to find these teachings I should have gone to the internet or the library. I hope you realize how incredibly OFF it is that you have to go OUTSIDE of your own church to read what that church’s MAIN most IMPORTANT ceremony is

No. What I am saying is that you COULD have. You claimed that we kept it so secret that it was nowhere to be found. I just told you that it is a matter of public record.

By the way, our ‘main, most important ceremonies’ happen to be baptism and the sacrament (communion). Nothing that happens in the Temple is more important than this, and a Mormon can go his or her entire life without going to the Temple–many have.

“We don’t talk about these things. But you can read all about it at the library.”

He was bugging me about my boyfriend, who was not active Mormon. going to the temple, etc, etc. I had been to the temple once, before then, for baptism for the dead. It was a creepy, horrible experience that I had no desire to repeat.

What was so creepy and horrible about being baptized? Ok, being baptized a LOT? Cold, I’ll grant you…after awhile the water gets a little chilly. But ‘creepy and horrible?’ Aren’t you exaggerating a tad bit? Laying the drama on a little thick here, aren’t you?

(by the way, in case anybody reading is wondering, she is describing the following: when Mormons are baptised, we wear white, and so does the priest doing the baptizing. The priest stands next to the person about to be baptized provides an arm to grab and raises the other one. He then calls the name of the person being baptized and says “Having been commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Then the priest puts his hands on the back of the baptizee and lays him or her back until he or she is completely immersed in the water.

The only difference between that baptism and the ones performed in the Temple is that the font is bigger, a LOT prettier, the name used is that of someone else in whose stead you are being baptized, and the fact that you will probably get dunked fifteen or more times in a session.

If you think that’s creepy and horrible, that’s your choice, but most people would use milder language to describe the experience. Since they would, I thought I should describe what it is you actually DID, so that they could decide whether ‘creepy and horrible’ were the appropriate terms.

So I asked my bishop, what exactly, was going to happen. I asked him about temple garments, why, what, where. I got NOTHING. I have this great aversion to things being done to me without my permission. I would no more enter into a secret ceremony that I knew nothing about, than I would get into a car with a complete stranger.

He should have sent you to Temple preparation lessons. However, given that you thought your previous experience was ‘creepy and horrible,’ I am not surprised at your Bishops hesitance.

Now that I have read and heard of the endowment (the prior to 1990 version , which is the case) I am very glad I listened to what my insides were telling me. Which was, run like hell.

Well, your experience was that of a child being prepared for a sealing. You know very well this is not done for the endowment. And again, are these things explained to potential converts before there baptism?

I know very well that it IS. I served a mission. Before I went, I needed to go to the Temple, and believe me, I attended Temple Prep classes.

By your own admission you have not attended these classes. Your experience is colored by your teenaged resentment toward a Bishop who was counseling you about your choice of boyfriends.

In other words, you are claiming things that you have no experience with–and illustrating the reason why it is such a bad idea to get information about a belief system from people who have LEFT it.

As to converts…I was asked many times about what went on in the Temple by people who were investigating the church. I was honest with them about what ordinances are performed. They asked about garments, I told them why we wear them. They asked about the purpose of Temples, I told them.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
Would you say the comparing Confession to a temple ceremony is a false analogy?

Yes.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Honest question: did you attend Temple preparation classes?

Thank you. Yes. YOU can tell me, because YOU didn’t promise not to tell me. The priest, however, can not, because he made that promise.

I made that promise. I keep the Temple ceremony sacred, just as priest keeps the confessional sacred. Now, I can’t remember whether you said you had attended the Temple or not, but if you have not, then you haven’t made any promises to respect the sacred nature of what goes on in there. So go, look at the Congressional record, gaze around the internet, find it, examine it, have fun. Just don’t try to get a Mormon who actually keeps his or her promises to discuss it with you, because we won’t.

Sacred, not secret.

The priest made no such vow about the RITE. He makes a vow about what I tell him and he tells me.

Your SECRET if about the RITES in your temple.

No. What I am saying is that you COULD have. You claimed that we kept it so secret that it was nowhere to be found. I just told you that it is a matter of public record.

By the way, our ‘main, most important ceremonies’ happen to be baptism and the sacrament (communion). Nothing that happens in the Temple is more important than this, and a Mormon can go his or her entire life without going to the Temple–many have.

dodging what I said…you are still saying I should have, could have gone outside of my own church to know what my own church’s practices are. If you think this is OK, well, I can see why you remain morrmon.

What was so creepy and horrible about being baptized?

I never said I was baptized. I went to the temple to participate, because of other events that are frankly, none of your business, I didn’t participate.

He should have sent you to Temple preparation lessons. However, given that you thought your previous experience was ‘creepy and horrible,’ I am not surprised at your Bishops hesitance.

You think I told my bishop what I thought about the temple. You are living in a dream world.

I know very well that it IS. I served a mission. Before I went, I needed to go to the Temple, and believe me, I attended Temple Prep classes.

By your own admission you have not attended these classes. Your experience is colored by your teenaged resentment toward a Bishop who was counseling you about your choice of boyfriends.

No, I was there asking his advice. I asked to talk to him. He brought up the temple. I asked questions. He didn’t answer.

In other words, you are claiming things that you have no experience with–and illustrating the reason why it is such a bad idea to get information about a belief system from people who have LEFT it.

My experiences are not diminished because they are not the same as yours.

As to converts…I was asked many times about what went on in the Temple by people who were investigating the church. I was honest with them about what ordinances are performed. They asked about garments, I told them why we wear them. They asked about the purpose of Temples, I told them.

You do not teach the RITES. You do not teach the symbolism. You did not answer my question. What do the symbols on your garments mean?

In the pre-1990 version, no one outside of the temple was taught that they were going to take vows where you mimicked slitting your own throat, slicing your own bowels, as the result for revealing your temple SECRETS.

No one was told before hand that you would stand there wearing nothing but a poncho while people touched your naked body, including private areas.

Shall I say more. Do you need help understanding what it is that you don’t tell people.

 

[dianaiad]

continued…

Yes, there you were, at Mass. Tell me, may I go with you to your temple? Can I just enter any time I like?.

Sure. Join the church, get a recommend, come in.

Oh, by the way, can I go take communion with you? May I enter the confessional and be absolved of my sins by a priest who listens?

Or do I also have to do a couple of things first?

First, I don’t believe for ONE minute that the symbols of the temple were explained to you. If it is all that open, tell me, what the symbols on your garments mean. I have no intention of ridiculing you.

Antagonism doesn’t count?

Just, for the sake this openness that you are asserting, you should be able to freely share what these symbols mean. How were these explained to you outside of the temple walls? Same question I asked my bishop. I imagine I’ll get the same answer. Blank stare.

You can’t get a blank stare from me. I can’t see you. But no, you are correct. I have no intention of explaining precisely what those symbols mean, except to say that they are there to remind me to keep Christ always in my heart and to bow my knee to Him.

I made this promise, you see.

One individual does not represent the entire Catholic church. And I highly doubt that you got to know a complete stranger well enough to know that they were devout Catholic.

A; where did you get the idea that she was a complete stranger?
B: think about it; I’m a Mormon at a Catholic wedding…you think I would be LIKELY to be sitting by a complete stranger?

The reason I know that she is a devout Catholic is because she has been my friend for about seven years, and has been arguing with me about religion for longer than that. She’s devout–and has ALMOST given up on converting me. She’s the one who took me to her priest to explain the difference between ‘dulia’ and ‘hyperdulia’ and what it is that you do when you ask Mary to intercede for you.

The difference is, you just showed up. Guess what, I had the entire Mass explained to me before my baptism into the Catholic Church. Tell me, do you explain your entire temple ceremony to new converts before their baptism?

The mass is not secretive. Your temple ceremony is. The Mass is explained, in detail, PRIOR to conversion. You do not explain your temple ceremony to converts PRIOR to their baptism. You can go to any priest, now, and ask the Mass to be explained to you. He will. You can buy entire books, volumes, on the meaning of the Mass, now. Today. Tell me where these books are, tell me what bishop to go to, who will tell me these things about your temple ceremony.

The meaning of the Mass is taught to children, in its entirety, before they are Confirmed and receive first communion. Your temple ceremony is not explained in its entirety to your children before their baptism and confirmation.

You withhold beliefs and practices

Really? OK, here is a link to the Temple Preparation text that we use. Have a ball.

.tinyurl.com/9b4l2y

I said, they have sued to have the youtube audio removed. It was removed by youtube for a short time, now it is back up.

I’m sorry, you seem to be confused. The church a group for posting the Church handbook. There hasn’t been a lawsuit filed against anybody posting the Temple Ceremony.

However, feel free to prove your claim that there has been.I can find no reference to one.

What do they fear losing control of? No one is going to take the manual, modify it and distribute it to your bishops. Your church does not want people discussing what it contains.

That’s silly. “Fair use” means that it’s perfectly OK to publish parts of the book…as long as you DO talk about it. It’s when you simply post the thing wholesale without talking about it that the problem happens.

…and the fear is real; not that the content will be altered and redistributed as authoritative, though that could happen under the law if the church let this go. What would happen, if the church allowed this without protest, is that the CHURCH could no longer use the title, or most of the content, themselves.

It is a very different situation from the Temple Ceremony which, as I have repeatedly told you, THE CHURCH put in the public domain (kinda/sorta) by placing it in the Congressional Record. It’s a trade off: the church can’t really stop the reproduction of the ceremony, but on the other hand, nobody else can stop the church from using and adapting it, either.

The same can’t be said about the Handbook, hence the lawsuit.

What commentary did you want them to include? At any rate the 1999 version is still online, on a domain that is hosted outside of the US.

Whatever. You keep the manual closely guarded, with instructions to not let it out of your keeping.

That’s right. It’s an organizational operations manual. That’s the way those things work as a general rule, no matter what the organization is.

People can ask specific questions, which will be given to them out of your manual, but no one can just peruse it at their leisure.

Exactly, I can ask a specific question, but if I went to whoever in the world is the bishop in these parts, and said, let me borrow your CHI for a few days to read (no intent to publish any part of it), you know he would say no.

Of course he would say no.

Tell you what: you go to Microsoft and ask one of the top level people there to borrow his or her copy of the company safety/operations manual for a few days to read, and see what THAT answer will be.

I am glad to note that you admit that any questions you might have, the answers to which might be found in the manual, would be answered.

 

[dianaiad]

The priest made no such vow about the RITE. He makes a vow about what I tell him and he tells me.

Your SECRET if about the RITES in your temple.

No. There is no secret about what rites are performed, The sacred nature of them is not discussed by us outside Temple walls. I brought up the confessional as an example of something that you would understand as too sacred to talk about.

dodging what I said…you are still saying I should have, could have gone outside of my own church to know what my own church’s practices are. If you think this is OK, well, I can see why you remain morrmon.

I never said I was baptized. I went to the temple to participate, because of other events that are frankly, none of your business, I didn’t participate…

Rebecca, I didn’t ask you.

Assuming that you actually did participate is a great deal more logical than your assumption that I simply barged into a Catholic wedding and pestered a complete stranger during the Mass.

In fact, it makes your claim that it was ‘creepy and horrible’ somewhat deceitful; you claimed that you went to the Temple to participate. Anybody reading would assume that you actually DID so, and rightly so; and that in fact this is what you found to be 'creepy and horrible." Actually, you were being dishonest, allowing readers to make a false conclusion–one that you intended for them to make.

You think I told my bishop what I thought about the temple. You are living in a dream world.

Ok. You go to the Bishop demanding information but don’t give him the information he needs to judge your reason. You have a bad experience with a religious Temple trip, but don’t tell your religious leader about it so that he can help you with it…you are fooling around with someone you shouldn’t be, and he is concerned enough about it to talk to you…and suddenly all this is HIS fault? You are now here presenting that same trip as ‘creepy and horrible’ but are quite willing to let everybody here believe that it was the baptisms you participated in that made you feel that way, even though you didn’t actually participate?

And you wonder why we don’t want to discuss sacred things in places that would demean them?

Shall I say more. Do you need help understanding what it is that you don’t tell people.

I think you are being very disrespectful of my beliefs, Rebecca. You know that I will not discuss this outside Temple walls. You are criticizing me for doing so…and yet you are here attempting to force me to do so. If you don’t find that…disturbing…you should.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Really? OK, here is a link to the Temple Preparation text that we use. Have a ball.

Wow, is all I have to say. LDS church has come a long ways. Nothing like this existed “back then”. Not that I knew of or was ever told about.

The temple to me was a gaping black hole with nothing but bad memories.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, the LDS church runs itself like a corporation, so it is an appropriate analogy for them.

 

[dianaiad]

It would be, if the Church Handbook actually contained any DOCTRINE.

It doesn’t. It is a handbook of operations and procedures, JUST like the ones you would find in any other organization; profit, non-profit or religious.

 

[dianaiad]

Wow, is all I have to say. LDS church has come a long ways. Nothing like this existed “back then”. Not that I knew of or was ever told about.

Rebecca, I’m 59 years old. This course that I sent you to has the same information as the one I took in the seventies, and the same as the one my parents took in the 60’s. It has been around for a very long time. So unless you are in your very spry nineties, it was available to you.

The temple to me was a gaping black hole with nothing but bad memories.

I’m sorry for that, Rebecca.

 

[dianaiad]

IS it? Really?

You can walk into the Vatican and demand that some Cardinal hand you a copy of the procedural manual?

 

[dianaiad]

The catachism is not the same as the handbook of instructions. the Catachism contains doctrinal questions, not procedural ones.
The chatachism, I’ll bet you anything, doesn’t have a word in it about how to organize a youth camp, how to handle budget issues, and what the responsibilities of the music director are–and how she gets the money to buy new music for the choir.

THAT is what the Church handbook of instructions contains. Doctrine you will find in all sorts of other publications, like the Bible, the book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Discussions of doctrine will be found in the Ensign magazine, conference talks and a whole lot of other publications that are freely available to the public.

But you do NOT need to know the form that Sister Mayweather has to fill out in order to get reimbursed for 30 copies of “Come, Come Ye Saints,” and you do NOT need to know the access codes for the program the ward clerk uses to handle the welfare fund.

…and I will guarantee you that if you ask your priest, he won’t let you have those access codes to his operating account, either.

However, if by some chance you do need to get that form for Sis. Mayweather, then by all means go to the bishop (or the ward clerk) and he will look it up for you and hand you the form.

and no, he won’t let you have the book. He needs it.

 

[dianaiad]

That’s exactly what’s in the handbook. Instructions on how to hold meetings; procedures for handling finances. Job descriptions (we call them ‘callings’ and ‘church jobs’) Procedures for welfare disbursements. How to do whatever job you are called to do. That’s why it is called the Church Handbook of Instructions

It is a procedural manual. There is no doctrine in it. I believe that it’s upon the web somewhere; go refresh your memory.

 

[Stephen168]

Rebecca,

Would you say the comparing Confession to a temple ceremony is a false analogy?

No. There is no secret about what rites are performed, The sacred nature of them is not discussed by us outside Temple walls. I brought up the confessional as an example of something that you would understand as too sacred to talk about.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is sacred but not a secret. Even though you insist a temple ceremony is not a secret it seems it is by definition.* Secret - not open or public; kept private or not revealed; “a secret formula”; “secret ingredients”; “secret talks”. *In Catholicism, I can’t think of anything sacred that is kept secret for that reason.
I have been involved with initiations where I promised to keep the script and symbols a secret. The initiation was not sacred by a long shot. Sacredness may be the reason given for a temple ceremony being secret but it doesn’t make sense.

 

[Stephen168]

The cross is the symbol of Christianity.

However, symbols mean what the people who use them think they mean. The swastika is a classic case in point; until Hitler got hold of it, it was a symbol of life, peace and abundance. I have a quilt with that symbol all over it–that I do not dare use. My great grandmother would be aghast at the meaning it has aquired since her time!

This is why the mormon rejection of the cross doesn’t make sense either. I believe rejecting the cross is rejecting Christianity.

 

[RebeccaJ]

IS it? Really?

You can walk into the Vatican and demand that some Cardinal hand you a copy of the procedural manual?

It’s online, at the Vatican website, in multiple languages. It is called the Code of Canon Law.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, I’m 59 years old. This course that I sent you to has the same information as the one I took in the seventies, and the same as the one my parents took in the 60’s. It has been around for a very long time. So unless you are in your very spry nineties, it was available to you.

Perhaps it was only given to those who were actually preparing to go to the temple. I wasn’t doing, I was asking. The reasons why I was asking have nothing to do with the questions I was asking. If I ask, is the sky blue, you don’t sit and contemplate the reasons why I am asking before you answer.

At any rate, reading through the link you posted, there is nothing there that isn’t taught in LDS classrooms from 3 yrs old to end of life.

What ISN’T there is actually WHAT HAPPENS IN THE TEMPLE. What the rite is.

There is no comparison in Mormonism, or Protestantism or any other Christian religion. We have no secret ceremonies.

I’m sorry for that, Rebecca.

I’m not sorry. It has been a long road but it led me here to the Church that Jesus established. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[majick275]

Interesting. Would you care to share with us the exact ceremonies, complete with the scripts, including what was done (and SAID) by the high priest in the Holy of Holy’s?"

sure. exodus, leviticus…come on. haven’t you read this? there were no “scripts”. since the high priest prayed FOR the people back then he said different prayers at different times. he did NOT marry people in the temple nor was there an endowment. they did not perform rites for the dead either. they brought offerings for their sins and asked the priests to make those offerings on their behalf. this is why there is no need for temples anymore. Jesus was sacrificed once for all and is now the high priest forever. that means everyone prays directly to god now and sins can be forgiven by Jesus apostolic successors.

the bible is really good reading