My Sister is Mormon....

[RebeccaJ]

Gospel Principles Manual, Chapter 47

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel–you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348)…[quoting the King Follet Sermon]

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . ** He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did**” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).

 

[majick275]

I am fascinated by this because the King Follet discourse is not doctrinal. It is not canonized scripture, and is therefore not doctrinal. It is a speculative discussion of what might have been. I have wondered what Catholics believe about why God made us, and what he was doing floating around for eternity before he created us. All the King Follett discourse is, is a speculation on what God was doing “before” he created the world. It is a speculative answer to a question Catholics don’t even ask or think about. How can you be a thinking person and not ask that question? It’s the old “why is there something rather than nothing?” King Follett fills that gap. But it is not doctrine. I don’t know why everybody gets so hung up on this. I know I will get a lot of standard replies, but please think it through before you respond reflexively about how rotten Mormons are.

so when a prophet addresses general conference it’s just “speculation”? that seem to contradict D&C 68 (as well as a few other sections) the fact that this has been consistently taught from that point on (and still is) sure makes it seem an integral point.this one of the reasons why people don’t trust mormons to tell the truth about what they believe.

 

[BartBurk]

I am fascinated by this because the King Follet discourse is not doctrinal. It is not canonized scripture, and is therefore not doctrinal. It is a speculative discussion of what might have been. I have wondered what Catholics believe about why God made us, and what he was doing floating around for eternity before he created us. All the King Follett discourse is, is a speculation on what God was doing “before” he created the world. It is a speculative answer to a question Catholics don’t even ask or think about. How can you be a thinking person and not ask that question? It’s the old “why is there something rather than nothing?” King Follett fills that gap. But it is not doctrine. I don’t know why everybody gets so hung up on this. I know I will get a lot of standard replies, but please think it through before you respond reflexively about how rotten Mormons are.

I tried very hard before leaving Mormonism to believe that King Follet wasn’t doctrinal. Unfortunately, I found that Mormons still very much believed in King Follet. You will find it taught in the Gospel Principles manual they use to teach new members. Until the Mormon leaders specifically renounce it, I’m afraid it is useless to claim it is not doctrinal.

Catholics believe that time and space did not exist prior to the creation. God just is. He wasn’t floating around anywhere because He is pure spirit which does not take up any space. It is not a question of what he was doing before the creation – he just existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in an eternal relationship. The old Baltimore Catechism gives the best answer as to why God made us:

1. Q. Why did God make you?
   A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.

There are of course a lot of unanswered questions about God and eternity. Catholics do not feel a need to create an answer – sometimes we just have to say we don’t know everything. I think Joseph Smith sometimes got himself into trouble when he tried to prove he knew more than the rest of Christendom – King Follet is a good example of this.

I think Mormonism has all the seeds within its scriptures to reclaim its Trinitarian heritage as found in its first 10 years of existence. Some good Mormon theologian might do a great service to the LDS Church by reclaiming that heritage. Blake Ostler certainly comes close.

 

[mfbukowski]

Still performed by the bishop, ordinarily, he can give permission (there is a more official term) for a priest to perform the confirmation. The bishop who confirmed me spent weeks on the road, after Easter, traveling through UT, to perform confirmations.

No face slaps any longer. But other Catholics have told me the same.

There are many sites that document the similarities of the Masonic ritual to the Mormon ritual. The original, before they both were changed. Here is one site. It discusses in detail both the secret Mason ritual and the secret Mormon ritual.

This site is ridiculous. Not even slightly credible. It totally quotes everything out of context from different stages of the ceremonies. It is like saying that the Mormon sacrament and Catholic eucharist are exactly the same because we both use bread.

And we both believe in confession, so those are the same, and the priesthood of both is the same because they both involve laying on of hands. Ridiculous. We all live in houses too, so we are all one religion I guess.

I suspect no one here will even know what we are talking about now RebeccaJ, this thread has run so long, but let me tell you personally that there are exactly 3 instances of similarity between the endowment and masonic symbols. That’s all. Out of probably 50 pages of typed material, there are perhaps and I am not exaggerating, 20 words and 3 gestures that are similar, and even these are in totally different contexts. And as I have said, looking at the Coptic material, well you can look yourself at those anti sites and see for yourself how close the parallels are. There is no way Joseph got the endowment from masonry. Some gestures maybe, but eveything is different.

You have dodged and changed what you originally said, that the anointing was copied from Masonry. No way. Then you said that the masons copied it from catholicism and Joseph copied it from the Masons. By now you know that this is not the case. The masons may have well copied their ritual from Roman Catholicism, but the Mormon ceremony is not at all like the masonic, but is much closer to the coptic.

RebeccaJ, there is no evidence of your assertions whatsoever. This last site is a joke. Really it is. Research it yourself, you know the sources – this site is a joke. If you actually believe this is right, don’t believe it. Believe what you want, but not this site.

 

[mfbukowski]

No face slaps any longer. But other Catholics have told me the same.

I wonder why they changed that.

 

[BartBurk]

This site is ridiculous. Not even slightly credible. It totally quotes everything out of context from different stages of the ceremonies. It is like saying that the Mormon sacrament and Catholic eucharist are exactly the same because we both use bread.

And we both believe in confession, so those are the same, and the priesthood of both is the same because they both involve laying on of hands. Ridiculous. We all live in houses too, so we are all one religion I guess.

I suspect no one here will even know what we are talking about now RebeccaJ, this thread has run so long, but let me tell you personally that there are exactly 3 instances of similarity between the endowment and masonic symbols. That’s all. Out of probably 50 pages of typed material, there are perhaps and I am not exaggerating, 20 words and 3 gestures that are similar, and even these are in totally different contexts. And as I have said, looking at the Coptic material, well you can look yourself at those anti sites and see for yourself how close the parallels are. There is no way Joseph got the endowment from masonry. Some gestures maybe, but eveything is different.

You have dodged and changed what you originally said, that the anointing was copied from Masonry. No way. Then you said that the masons copied it from catholicism and Joseph copied it from the Masons. By now you know that this is not the case. The masons may have well copied their ritual from Roman Catholicism, but the Mormon ceremony is not at all like the masonic, but is much closer to the coptic.

RebeccaJ, there is no evidence of your assertions whatsoever. This last site is a joke. Really it is. Research it yourself, you know the sources – this site is a joke. If you actually believe this is right, don’t believe it. Believe what you want, but not this site.

Have you looked at the pre-1990 temple ceremonies? The gestures and penalties are practically the same as Masonry. I’ve known Masons who had gone through the Mormon temple ceremony pre-1990 and been shocked at the similarities between the rites. And the further back you go in Mormon history the closer the endowment ceremony is to Masonry. In my opinion these similarities are not simply coincidences. But I don’t much focus on the temple ceremony when I consider Mormonism – I’m much more concerned about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. It really does take a leap of faith to accept the story of Nephites and Lamanites with what we now know about Ancient America.

 

[mfbukowski]

Mormons or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don’t have crosses because they focus more on that fact that he was ressurrected three days later and lives still today. They believe Christ to be the head of their church today and that he leads and guides it through a prophets just as He did in earlier dispensations. I guess one way you could look at it is for example my father died in a horrible accident. I can still see the horrible images in my mind today, but I don’t put up a picture in my home of what he looked like in that accident, instead I have wonderful pictures of him with my family. Don’t get the wrong idea that mormons don’t recognize that great sacrifice that Christ paid for all man kind on the cross because they do. They also recognize the sacrifice he paid for all man kind in the garden of gethsemane the night before and actually look at that as probably being harder if not just as hard as the crucifixion.

I think you would be surprize how open mormons are I got this info from my neighbor.

And apparantly pretty consistent too. Sounds just like what has been said on this forum from someone with no “axe to grind” and from someone who has not been following the thread.

 

[mfbukowski]

I never said you have. But you have used the “true christian” thing.

And you sure attribute a lot to me that I never said, like in this post. I say one, you say I said 5 million 4 hundred thousand and fifty-one.

I don’t make stuff up. Everything you demanded you got, spoiled as you are.

I think it was 5,400,52. I don’t recall saying we are true christians and you are not, but I certainly never debated that Catholics are Christians. But the anointing thing does not wash. Give it up.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I wonder why they changed that.

Part of the Vatican II reforms.

 

[mfbukowski]

Dang.

It is so depressing to look at someone who is forty three and think “this younger generation…”

…and in fact, remember that a friend of mine, who is my age, has a daughter yours.

'scuse me.

I need chocolate.

Watch that caffeine High Blood Pressure and all-- I just turned 60. I am still able to sit up and take nutrition. But RebeccaJ has me on a clock and is waiting. We have a bet. Whoever is right gets to haunt the other one. But I know once I make sure her work is done, she will go away.

 

[mfbukowski]

So you are saying Mormons don’t believe a word of it and never have?

It is what I said it is. Do Catholics believe in Limbo? Or in self crucifixion? Or in aparitions on cheese sandwiches?

 

[mfbukowski]

Gospel Principles Manual, Chapter 47

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel–you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348)…[quoting the King Follet Sermon]

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . ** He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did**” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).

And your point is?

 

[mfbukowski]

so when a prophet addresses general conference it’s just “speculation”? that seem to contradict D&C 68 (as well as a few other sections) the fact that this has been consistently taught from that point on (and still is) sure makes it seem an integral point.this one of the reasons why people don’t trust mormons to tell the truth about what they believe.

Is everything the Pope says, or all the cardinals say, church doctrine?

 

[mfbukowski]

I tried very hard before leaving Mormonism to believe that King Follet wasn’t doctrinal. Unfortunately, I found that Mormons still very much believed in King Follet. You will find it taught in the Gospel Principles manual they use to teach new members. Until the Mormon leaders specifically renounce it, I’m afraid it is useless to claim it is not doctrinal.

Catholics believe that time and space did not exist prior to the creation. God just is. He wasn’t floating around anywhere because He is pure spirit which does not take up any space. It is not a question of what he was doing before the creation – he just existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in an eternal relationship. The old Baltimore Catechism gives the best answer as to why God made us:

There are of course a lot of unanswered questions about God and eternity. Catholics do not feel a need to create an answer – sometimes we just have to say we don’t know everything. I think Joseph Smith sometimes got himself into trouble when he tried to prove he knew more than the rest of Christendom – King Follet is a good example of this.

I think Mormonism has all the seeds within its scriptures to reclaim its Trinitarian heritage as found in its first 10 years of existence. Some good Mormon theologian might do a great service to the LDS Church by reclaiming that heritage. Blake Ostler certainly comes close.

Ostler has some good stuff. He doesn’t take it far enough though.

One of the reasons I felt Catholicism was inadequate was that very baltimore catechism quote you quoted.

Just existing forever as a spirit, making no difference to anyone, not interacting just — being. Forever. Nothing else. For an eternity in the past. An ETERNITY. And this earth’s existence is a blink of the eye in eternity.

I don’t buy it. Makes no sense.

King Follett fills that gap. But it is not canonized doctrine. Period.

 

[mfbukowski]

Catholics do not feel a need to create an answer – .

I would say “find an answer”. Why not? To me this is a core need of my being to know why I exist. This is what religion MUST tell us. Or me anyway. No good answer to this, I’m outa there. It is what makes life worth living. How can you have a satisfying life without knowing why you are here???

If you don’t ask, I guess it is not important to you. I envy you. Must be nice to not think about it.
nebula? are you lurking?

 

[dianaballein]

Dang.

It is so depressing to look at someone who is forty three and think “this younger generation…”

…and in fact, remember that a friend of mine, who is my age, has a daughter yours.

'scuse me.

I need chocolate.

YIKES! pass that chocolate!! LOL

 

[RebeccaJ]

Watch that caffeine High Blood Pressure and all-- I just turned 60. I am still able to sit up and take nutrition. But RebeccaJ has me on a clock and is waiting. We have a bet. Whoever is right gets to haunt the other one. But I know once I make sure her work is done, she will go away.

When I ask Fr. to do a exorcism…bye, bye…

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ostler has some good stuff. He doesn’t take it far enough though.

One of the reasons I felt Catholicism was inadequate was that very baltimore catechism quote you quoted.

Just existing forever as a spirit, making no difference to anyone, not interacting just — being. Forever. Nothing else. For an eternity in the past. An ETERNITY. And this earth’s existence is a blink of the eye in eternity.

I don’t buy it. Makes no sense.

King Follett fills that gap. But it is not canonized doctrine. Period.

Mormonism just makes it exponential. What were all those human spirits doing, floating around, for God knows how long?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Have you looked at the pre-1990 temple ceremonies? The gestures and penalties are practically the same as Masonry. I’ve known Masons who had gone through the Mormon temple ceremony pre-1990 and been shocked at the similarities between the rites. And the further back you go in Mormon history the closer the endowment ceremony is to Masonry. In my opinion these similarities are not simply coincidences. But I don’t much focus on the temple ceremony when I consider Mormonism – I’m much more concerned about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. It really does take a leap of faith to accept the story of Nephites and Lamanites with what we now know about Ancient America.

Yes, this is the comparison, which I said. The JS temple rite to the Mason rite, at that time. I have read more than this one site as reference. At one time I found documentation of both, from beginning to end, and they were 99% exact. Word for word, top to bottom.

Today, both have changed, and no, they cannot be compared today.

 

[dianaballein]

Wow. I feel old.

Why? Because someone referred to June Cleaver as Mrs. Beaver? LOL