M
majick275
Guest
you shouldn’t. this is more to others than you but it is the common definition that until recent times was accepted by mormons as well.
- Status
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well, you certainly knew how to ambush a nineteen year old.
Care to ask me those questions?
Care to ask me those questions?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Define ‘recent.’
I’ve been around for over half a century, my folks have been around for three quarters of one, and my grandfather covered the century very handily.
We all considered ourselves to be “Christian.”
D
dianaiad
Guest
Then why won’t a priest speak of what a parishioner says to him there?
The analogy isn’t about whether the confessional is like Temple ceremonies. Of course they are not. The analogy is to what the priest promises to do about it: that is, not talk about it. He promised. He made vows. He honors them.
YOU have not made those promises, so you are not bound…but he is, no matter how much YOU tell people.
That’s the same thing with me. I made promises.
You haven’t. The ceremony script is out there; go, look. read. Discuss–there’s no harm in you doing it. Just don’t insist that I break MY promise, OK?
Does to me.
…and stuff like this is one of the reasons why.
Y’know, if you respect something, and honor it, you don’t expose it to ridicule. You don’t walk on the flag. You don’t dress a statue of Mary in prostitutes’ garb.
And I don’t discuss the Temple Ceremony outside Temple walls, because in there I feel nothing but peace and a closeness to the Lord. Bringing that experience out and exposing it to the sort of…stuff…I get from antis might foul that experience for me.
That may be weird to you, but hey…works for me.
There is nothing at all strange about that.
D
dianaiad
Guest
It doesn’t?
Would YOU display the swastika now that the meaning of it has so drastically changed…now that the meaning it has for you is so very different from the meaning it has had for over a thousand years?
Well, I don’t display the cross because of the meaning it has for me. That’s not a rejection of Christianity. It’s rejection of the idea that hauling around a representation of the torture device that was used to murder Him is a proper way to honor Him.
It is an acceptance of the fact that it WAS used to murder Him, so that when I see it, whenever I see it, that comes instantly to my mind. It will never be just a piece of jewelry to me.
In a way, it COULD be said that we honor it more than most Christians who wear it–and seldom think about it; like the kid who was arrested for shoplifting at Wal-Mart the other day. I saw him being ‘helped’ into the police car.
Was he thinking about the cross he wore in one ear and had tattooed on his wrist?
Well, I doubt it. I sure thought about it, though.
Stephen168
New member
If I wanted to start a group that claimed to be the ‘restoration’ of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, I would.
But being member of the historical Church started by Christ, I prefer the cross.
M
majick275
Guest
read BY and his contemporaries. in catholic terms that is recent. i would also claim Joseph Fielding Smith held that view (mormonism being distinc from christianity) as well
D
dianaiad
Guest
And so you should.
Just because the cross, as a symbol, means something slightly different to you than to me does not invalidate the meaning you give it.
…nor does the meaning and reverence you have for it invalidate my own feelings about it.
We both should stay true to what we feel about the symbols of our faith.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well, in CATHOLIC terms that may be ‘recent,’ but in relative terms, and in terms of mortal lifetimes, I’d say that such quotes were a tad outdated.
Of course, if you are going to insist upon Catholic time, then this notion that a 'Catholic would never…" has to be revisited.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Most Christians? I look forward to hearing how much better you all are than “most Christians” I’m sure you’ve asked all of them about their thoughtfulness on the cross.
Reminds me of other LDS posters waxing on about how wonderful and spiritual the members are in comparison.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Y’know, it’s generally a good idea to keep things in context. I didn’t claim that I was 'much better than most Christians."
I said that it " COULD be said that we honor it more than most Christians who wear it–and seldom think about it; "
Please note; there isn’t anything about being 'better than most Christians" in there. I said that it MIGHT be said (and I’m about to emphasize all the stuff that you conveniently snipped) that we HONOR [THE CROSS] more than most Christians WHO WEAR IT–AND SELDOM THINK ABOUT IT.
Are you telling me, then, that most Christians don’t think about the cross that they wear? Because that’s the only way that you can construe this as a claim that I am somehow ‘better’ than ‘most Christians.’
Of course, if you actually mean THAT, then you are arguing for the LDS position on the cross better than I ever could.
Stephen168
New member
Which seems consistent with rejecting the cross.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
No I’m saying you claim that you “could” honor it more since **most **Christians wear a cross and they think nothing of it. This is the second time you said cross wearing Christians think nothing of it. When I commented last time you implied you had asked them about it and so knew they thought nothing of it.
M
majick275
Guest
no but REAL prophets don’t make doctrinal pronouncements that fade away into irrelevance. so how exactly do direct revelations become “outdated”? and how would that apply to BoM prophets? Joseph Smith?Well, in CATHOLIC terms that may be ‘recent,’ but in relative terms, and in terms of mortal lifetimes, I’d say that such quotes were a tad outdated.
Of course, if you are going to insist upon Catholic time, then this notion that a 'Catholic would never…" has to be revisited.
i thought so
D
dianaiad
Guest
Excuse me, but you are deliberately changing the meaning of the words by changing the actual words I wrote.
I did NOT write that “most Christians wear a cross and they think nothing of it.”
I wrote “'most Christians who wear the cross…and think nothing of it.”
The use of the word “who” lets you know that I am classifying here: first class: “Christians” and then “who wear a cross” and finally, those Christians who wear a cross AND think nothing of it…and not even all of those. Just most of those.
So we have the set “Christians”, that contain the subset “who wear a cross” (not all Christians do), that contains the further subset “and think nothing of it”…and not all of those.
Again, if you keep insisting that the entire set “Christians” wear crosses and think nothing of them, you are arguing my point better than i can.
Now, do I think that there are a great many Christians who wear crosses and don’t think much about them?
Yep. I run into them all the time. Teach them. Work with them.Suspend them for fighting, and drug use, and profanity. Turn them in for brandishing weapons in class.
If they are thinking about the crosses they wear, their thoughts need to be better aimed.
Of course your definition of “Christian” may exclude people who wear crosses and don’t think about them. I’ve heard stranger requirements for Christianity.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
How is that relevant? We get to think for ourselves.
D
dianaiad
Guest
:Hmmm:.no but REAL prophets don’t make doctrinal pronouncements that fade away into irrelevance. so how exactly do direct revelations become “outdated”? and how would that apply to BoM prophets? Joseph Smith?
i thought so
Y’know, Patting oneself on the back for winning a conversation with oneself seems a little…off.
Doing it in public can be downright embarrassing. After all, what if the other guy actually won the point? :doh2:
Let me help you out here: er…
Was that a question? Pretty squishy question, if it was.
“outdated prophecies,” Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith…er, what exactly is it that you are asking here?
Would you care to be a little more specific? I mean, there are a great many prophecies; there’s the one to Moses about using lambs blood on door sills. That could be considered ‘outdated,’ I suppose. Or the one to Lot telling him to get the heck out of Dodge–er, Sodom–
Or my favorite prophet, Jonah, who told Nineveh that it was about to be toast–and who sulked mightily when the Ninevites actually repented and averted the lightning strikes. I suppose that one could be 'outdated."
How about the one to Paul, telling him to go to Annanias to get cured of blindness? Isn’t that a bit ‘outdated?’
Or perhaps a better word would be 'fulfilled?"
Or “for the people of that time, not this one?”
Something along those lines?
However, since I really don’t know what it is you were “I thought so” ing over, I’m just guessing. You are going to have to fill in the blanks here.
Diana
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I have been an ordinance worker and have taught temple prep many times, and I always explain in detail everything that will happen omitting the portions we promise not to reveal, which are not really very interesting. My students have a very good idea of what to expect. There are no mysteries, but they don’t have all the details either.
Let me give you an analogy. When I was an altar boy and served mass, we could take the “book or the bells”. (anybody remember that?) which involved different duties at mass. If you took “the book” one of your responsibilities would be to move the large missal from one side of the altar to the other, and there was a specific way to do it. Were I to describe this in the same way I would describe the temple ordinances I would say something like “the altar boy then takes the missal from one side of the altar to the other”
But the detailed answer would be “The two altar boys approach the center of the altar, and genuflect. The altar boy on the right walks diagonally up the three stairs toward the altar from the center to the right side, takes the missal in his hands, turns toward the center of the altar, bows, and returns down the three stairs. He genuflects, and then re-ascends the altar, and places the missal on the left side of the altar. He then places his hands in a prayer like fashon, bows toward the center of the altar, descends the three stairs to the center of the floor, genuflects, and then returns to the left side of the altar and kneels on the first stair.” (wow- if they still did mass that way, I think I could serve it today!- good preparation for an ordinance worker)
Anyway, I explain in a general way what occurrs. As you can see above, the details are rather boring anyway, but that is what we don’t reveal.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Yes this is because Catholicism has changed. In the old days the catechumens were not even allowed into the cathedral either. That is what the separate baptistries were for, where they conducted the mass of the catechumens.
Even in your present ceremonies to become catholic, aren’t catechumens supposed to technically leave mass ceremonially at some point? (I know anyone can attend a full mass- I am talking ceremony here)
And even that practice was a relic of the original practice, which is what we practice. Ever been to Florence or another european cathedral where the baptistry is a separate building? That’s why.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Lies. I have PERFORMED these ordinances thousands of times and these are lies. You have yourself said that you were never endowed-- you are dreaming this up
- Status