No Crosses on Mormon Temples...

[majick275]

mormon fool:

A thought on canonization. If majick is so worried about reversals in the LDS canon, why isn’t he worried about reversals in the canon under ECF’s? The canon in the first few centuries was much more in flux than the LDS canon has been. Whole books in, whole books out.

The didn’t have a canon yet. They read what they believed were writings of the Apostles. After a while they realized that some items may not have been genuine and not everyone was rading the same things. So they held a council and determined that they needed a canon and then determine dwhat it should be. It hasn’t changed since. The Catholic edition of the Bible in American English is vey straightforward in informing the reader of what is known about each book. I think you would find it interesting at least from a historical perspective.
mormon fool:

In a very practical sense every man is responsible for seeking through praying, reading, studying, and weighing sources of doctrine for himself. Having a prophet facilitates finding the truth in a quicker manner and is more conducive to a community of believers staying unified than every man for himself.

How so if we can’t trust the prophet to accurately lead?
mormon fool:

In a very limited sense that disapoints some who sees prophets and apostles who could dispense public, normative, revelation in the Bible and wonders where they all went.

Yet many see it as Biblical. Many Catholics are quite happy with the spiritual gifts that have been received within the RCC. In a practical sense the Catholic church does continue (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to offer guidance on how to apply scripture in the current world. The Bible in Hevrews tells us where the temples and prophets “went”.
mormon fool:

astray: wide: far from the intended target;

In the context of LDS theology “far from” would be a big mistake. Not a mistake as small as delayed housekeeping on publishing a new edition of scriptures. Or doing what God commanded them to when Jacob 2:30 already allows for exceptions. Joshua didn’t lead his people astray after carrying out a command to kill Canaanites despite Moses’s decalogue. Come up with a test that doesn’t invalidate a Biblical people.

Let’s be careful with the translation of Moses law. Thou shalt not murder is more accurate in my opinion. Common sense tells us that some living things have to die so that we may live. (plants as a minimum) “Just war” is a catholic teaching as is self defense. Had the “commandment” that proof texts Jaqcob 2:30 been “put to a vote” and canonized then it would meet your test of “binding doctrine”. However it did not. In fact it diametrically opposed was canonized. (The D&C polygamy prohibition that existed from 1835 to 1876) If you want to go so far as to say only that which removes preisthood keys is “astray” then you might want to read what Brigham Young said about race and polygamy both. I disagree though and claim that directing and enforcing practices that are contradictory to scripture is “astray”.
mormon fool:

The prophet will put it to a vote and if it passes it’s binding otherwise it isn’t.

–fool

As you yourself have pointed out, the prophet doesn’t put everyhting to a vote. There is no “passing” in these votes either. The Prohet has decided and they members are only voting on wether or not they will support it individually. Those who do not are free to leave.

 

[majick275]

From the LDS Articles of Faith:

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Note the caveat that basically invalidates the Bible, It is not applied to the BoM. It is claimed to just be the word of God. I don’t see the D&C or PoGP listed here…so are they not the word of God? and why then would the BoM need to be changed?

 

[Mike_D30]

majick275:

From the LDS Articles of Faith:

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Note the caveat that basically invalidates the Bible, It is not applied to the BoM. It is claimed to just be the word of God. I don’t see the D&C or PoGP listed here…so are they not the word of God? and why then would the BoM need to be changed?

The problem I have with this, is the Catholic Church essentially came up with the Canon that is in use today. The Catholic’s and Protestants differ on the Old Testament with the Apocrypha but the New Testament is exactly the same.

If a Catholic Saint put the Bible Canon together in the year ~300 A.D. (long after the Great Apostasy), why use it? Even the KJV used the catholic Latin Vulgate Bible for a huge portion of its tranlations. And the Hebrew the KJV used to translate from was no doubt in the apostates possession for hundreds of years. And of course the Proptestants were apostate too, so an apostate King put the KJV together. So if the apostates had God’s word for centuries, why even use it at all? Wouldn’t the Bible be completely corrupt and devoid of any value from being handled and Canonized by Apostates?

 

[majick275]

Which is very close to the actual position of the LDS church. They encourage members to read the BoM all the time. The Bible is optional. They use it when it suits them but claim mistranslation when it doesn’t. (even though the JST exists) They want a very simple conversion and retention process that is centered around you accepting that Apostasy ocurred globally, Joseph Smith Jr. restored priesthood authority to “operate” Gods one true church, The BoM is the most correct word of God on earth, the curent LDS prophet has been selected by God to lead his church through divine revelation, you should do all you can to support and sustain the various curch leaders and you should convince yourself and others that you KNOW all of that is absolute truth from God because the Holy Ghost revealed it to you. Many people don’t study it, many people buy into subjective emotional experiences as spiritual manifestations and are duped into joining. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

 

[majick275]

here’s some food for thought:

Brigham Young’s Speech on
Slavery, Blacks, and the Priesthood
(Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852,
located in the LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah)
We know there is a portion of inhabitants of the earth who dwell in Asia that are negroes, and said to be jews. The blood of Judah has not only mingled almost with all nations, but also with the blood of Cain, and they have mingled there seeds together; These negro Jewes may keep up all the outer ordinenances of the jewish releigeon, they may have there sacrifices, and they may perform all the releigeous seremonies any people on earth could perform, but let me tell you, that the day they consented to mingle their seed with Cannan, the preisthood was taken away from Judah, and that portion of Judahs seed will never get any rule, or blessings of the preisthood until Cain gets it. Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to apear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the preisthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to desstruction, – we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood untill that curse be removed.

and lest we get caught up in “tiers” of sources let’s look at what this “prophet” said of his various teachings:

“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture” (Journal of Discourses (vol 13, page 95),1870)

and I think more importantly:

“I am here to give this people, called Latter-day Saints, counsel to direct them in the path of life…If there is any elder here, or any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason.” (Brigham Young -Journal of Discourses, 16:161).

He seems convinced that all of his doctrines, teachings, practices, etc. were exactly what the Lord wanted.
Now is this really a prophet of God saying these things?

(I don’t think so)

 

[Brad_Haas]

Interesting quotes.

 

[majick275]

Hey Brad, How are things going with the girlfriend? My wife’s RCIA is progressing nicely and she seems ready to be confirmed at Easter. Still struggling a bit with the formal name removal from the LDS church as she hates confrontation and fears they will harass her.

 

[mormon_fool]

quote=majick275
I see common consent as a rubber stamp, a comitment by the individual to support what the church has already decided.
[/quote]

Even if common consent is a rubber stamp, we see that it both has (name removed by moderator)ut into the church’s decision making process and creates a public event for to recognize what is binding. If a prophet isn’t willing to push their teachings or revelations through such a process, then it just doesn’t have the same status. There is such thing as personal revelation, incomplete revelation that when recorded the prophet draws his own (possible errant) rational conclusions from, and self-generated thoughts or feelings that can be mistaken as inspiration. But whatever the underlying experience for receiving a revelation and then recording it (using the studying it out in the mind of D&C 9) it needs reach decision points where it gets approved or not by revelation on the prophet level and the common consent on the church wide level.

As an analogy consider the difference between writing on a message board and publishing in a peer reviewed journal. One can write a brilliant post in a meesage board, but probably knows it isn’t good enough to make it past the stringent requirements of a a peer review. Some attempt needs to be made to rationally scrutinize ones revelation from all angles, anticipate how to communicate it to a certain audience, analyze it for language ambiguities, see how it fits with previous revelation, etc. In other words, I suspect the revelatory experience is 10% inspiration and 90% preparation and perspiration.

I would also claim that in my experience most protestant denominations (baptists, methodists, presbyterians) are far more democratic.

I have no problem with this observation.

We gonna decide by numbers? I see proof - texting on your part.

I have commented on everyone of your passages and demonstrated that all the passages as a whole create a complicated network of ideas. Your proof-texting way, way oversimplifies things. We see more attempts below with your BY quotes. BY’s quotes that emphasize one facet over others in one place should be tempered by what he has said in others to be able to extract his overall complex methodology.

I agree though that my doctrinal classification scheme relies on the sum of all or most currently compiled quotes relevant to it. Hence if we go back in time, before the correlation committee, before the canon and canonization process stabilized, we can see developments in how doctrine is weighted. Brigham had to create a space in LDS members hearts to learn to treat non-canonized doctrine with a great amount of respect. They needed quit thinking in dichotomous terms, where teachings and leaders are treated for naught because their words weren’t canonized. You on the other hand, misuse Brigham to treat all doctrine as binding, so you can continue to misrepresent current LDS beliefs.

The message I get from Brigham: It is wrong to treat non-canonical teachings from a prophet lightly because 1) there is some similarity between the process he goes in forming his teachings to what he would do if he to seek canonization, for instance sermons inspired in part by the Holy Ghost should be considered scripture, 2) he is confident that he hasn’t made mistakes because he is unaware of any, and 3) none of his contemporaries in the church really has the authority or the leverage they would need to establish that Brigham made any mistakes (we have plenty of such leverage now to do so). The only anomaly Brigham creates in my scheme is the elevation of polygamy while not doing housekeeping on the printed canon until the end of his life. Brigham looks at things from the perspective that a modern day prophet can trump previous canon. He is not completely dismissive of the principles that things should be done by common consent or that prophet’s teachings should be in accordance with existing scripture. His passages talk about the need for sermons to be reviewed by himself, approved by himself, and “sent out”. Which to me is a nod to the formalities behind canonization to make teachings binding. There are times when Brigham notes that his teachings (like Adam-God) should not be made binding on church. There is another quote that Brigham complains that he knows too little about disputed items, while Orson Pratt knows too much. So when he couldn’t get some of his councils (a nod to common consent) to accept some of those his teachings, he essentially quit publically promoting them. So we also have grounds to reject majick’s carefully selcted proof-quotes that oversimplify Brigham’s position as a dichotomous one where majick can put every controversial doctrine into the same bin as the formally accepted ones.

 

[mormon_fool]

I don’t think LDS prophets have taken that stance either [that records of revelation are fallible]

They most certainly have. This is extremely easy to proof-text. It is much harder to proof-text the other way, IMO.

In LDS history the “test” has been if the remarks were revelation or not. some assume this means canonized or not but as we have seen the changing canon makes that a weak argumument.

For being a “weak argument” the public test of canonization as an effective means of deciding which records of revelations should have the highest weight in belief formation hasn’t been rebutted yet.

Individual discernment seems to elevate the personal revelations and dilute the importance of the “prophet”.

They are on the same team. One is an extension of the other.

Once again, if we have to have the Holy Ghost tells us every time if we should trust any of his words then I don’t see much value in this prophet

This isn’t my position. As I said in other post, I try to develop a general trust for the most trusted LDS sources of doctrine. The Holy Ghost helps me look at the big picture and what to expect from each source. My general trust in the current prophet, scriptures, and curriculum makes my acceptance of individual teachings something that requires little thought. Here and there on some current teachings that I choose to pursue further knowledge on I pursue vigorously through both study and prayer to determine my own belief formations. I realize that if I find truth in teachings that haven’t past the public standard that my understanding on these secondary matters might be different then somebody elses. The prophet and a person each needs revelation for them to function within their sphere of influence. The current prophet largely handles things on the church-wide sphere, making sure the teachings most needed for our times are getting emphasized and that the church is unified on doctrines of primary importance. My personal (name removed by moderator)iration acts as a limited check and balance on how I emphasize and accept the prophet’s teachings in my own life (but I shouldn’t force my beliefs outside of my sphere). It also takes center stage when I evaluate items of secondary importance to supplement my understanding of those things of primary importance.

and disagree with the claim that he won’t lead the church astray.

You don’t ever think the church was on the right path to begin with.

Yet Lof WAS accepted into the D&C by common consent. Now you are saying that you don’t need common consent to decanonize scripture?

Yes. Sometimes the canon contains things that aren’t considered scripture in the sense that they are records of a revelation. In that case I see no need to vote on things that get removed with such a rationale.

That’s an awful long time for a curch claiming to be led by divine revelation to have “false doctrine” in their scriptures.

I don’t know why you quote “false doctrine”, because the LoF has never been identified as such in a statement by any authority. Rather the LoF contains “incomplete doctrine” on the Godhead. I don’t argue that it was treated as doctrine before 1921, but it is clear that the doctrines of the Godhead that were emphasized and quoted most often in public discourse were found in the revelation section of the Doctrine and Covenants and those in the LoF were lightly regarded. This is especially true given the weight LDS place on being able to individually discern truth and authorities pointing out the interpretation they wanted to emphasize. So once again both prophets and personal inspiration worked harmoniously to get the truth accepted into individual’s belief systems.

 

[Jesus_Freak]

This is my first post. I’m a new born-again christian. Maried to an LDS. My post probably don’t have anything to do with what you are talking about but check out these websites anyway.

www.josephlied.com
www.http://www.mormoninfo.org/index.php?id=1

Jesus Lives

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

Even if common consent is a rubber stamp, we see that it both has (name removed by moderator)ut into the church’s decision making process and creates a public event for to recognize what is binding. If a prophet isn’t willing to push their teachings or revelations through such a process, then it just doesn’t have the same status. There is such thing as personal revelation, incomplete revelation that when recorded the prophet draws his own (possible errant) rational conclusions from, and self-generated thoughts or feelings that can be mistaken as inspiration. But whatever the underlying experience for receiving a revelation and then recording it (using the studying it out in the mind of D&C 9) it needs reach decision points where it gets approved or not by revelation on the prophet level and the common consent on the church wide level.

I’m almost with you on this. I think that LDS prophets (especially nowadays) do consider what the members might think and sometimes use that in determining what they will direct. I think polygamy “stopping” and race discrimination in the priesthood are possible examples. I still say rubber stamp though.
mormon fool:

The message I get from Brigham: It is wrong to treat non-canonical teachings from a prophet lightly because 1) there is some similarity between the process he goes in forming his teachings to what he would do if he to seek canonization, for instance sermons inspired in part by the Holy Ghost should be considered scripture, 2) he is confident that he hasn’t made mistakes because he is unaware of any, and 3) none of his contemporaries in the church really has the authority or the leverage they would need to establish that Brigham made any mistakes (we have plenty of such leverage now to do so). The only anomaly Brigham creates in my scheme is the elevation of polygamy while not doing housekeeping on the printed canon until the end of his life. Brigham looks at things from the perspective that a modern day prophet can trump previous canon. He is not completely dismissive of the principles that things should be done by common consent or that prophet’s teachings should be in accordance with existing scripture. His passages talk about the need for sermons to be reviewed by himself, approved by himself, and “sent out”. Which to me is a nod to the formalities behind canonization to make teachings binding. There are times when Brigham notes that his teachings (like Adam-God) should not be made binding on church. There is another quote that Brigham complains that he knows too little about disputed items, while Orson Pratt knows too much. So when he couldn’t get some of his councils (a nod to common consent) to accept some of those his teachings, he essentially quit publically promoting them. So we also have grounds to reject majick’s carefully selcted proof-quotes that oversimplify Brigham’s position as a dichotomous one where majick can put every controversial doctrine into the same bin as the formally accepted ones.

Once again we are pretty close in this view. I think we see the same thing here,It just has a different “impact” on me than you.

 

[donbjc]

majick275:

Which is very close to the actual position of the LDS church. They encourage members to read the BoM all the time. The Bible is optional. They use it when it suits them but claim mistranslation when it doesn’t. (even though the JST exists) They want a very simple conversion and retention process that is centered around you accepting that Apostasy ocurred globally, Joseph Smith Jr. restored priesthood authority to “operate” Gods one true church, The BoM is the most correct word of God on earth, the curent LDS prophet has been selected by God to lead his church through divine revelation, you should do all you can to support and sustain the various curch leaders and you should convince yourself and others that you KNOW all of that is absolute truth from God because the Holy Ghost revealed it to you. Many people don’t study it, many people buy into subjective emotional experiences as spiritual manifestations and are duped into joining. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

Just a comment here, as a person who has an LDS wife. Her Sunday School class is studying the Old Testament every week this year and they seem to study the Bible on an almost equal basis as they study the Book of Mormon.(last year it was the BoM). Probably next year it is the New Testament. They rotate every year and study in depth verse by verse, chapter by chapter. In fact I have gone to this class with her and they definitely are studying the Bible and do not say anything about it not being the word of God. As far as I can see they treat it with the same respect as God’s word and on an equal level as they treat the BoM. Just my observances.
Don

 

[Jesus_Freak]

I don’t think cross is that big of issue once you realize that LDS church believes that God once was a man just like us and through good work he received this Glory , thus, Works and Glory.
Anyways, if you don’t agree with the true deity of our Lord Jesus, as Alph and Omega, Beginning and the end, the it doesn’t matter what the LDS church say about Jesus. They are not even talking about the same God as the one in the Bible.

This is just what I’ve learned through different resources. Correct me please…

Jesus Saves

 

[donbjc]

Just looking at the subject of this thread about no crosses on Temples. I asked this question of a missionary who came to our home for dinner. He explained it like this: If your loved one was stabbed to death or shot to death would you wear the weapon of their murder around your neck or venerate it as a holy symbol? I thought that was a very interesting explanation as to why Mormons do not use crosses on their buildings.
My wife had not heard it explained that way before, but we both thought it was an interesting precept.

Don

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

They most certainly have. This is extremely easy to proof-text. It is much harder to proof-text the other way, IMO.

well I think it’s semantic quibbling. Joseph Smith Jr.s remarks especially.
mormon fool:

For being a “weak argument” the public test of canonization as an effective means of deciding which records of revelations should have the highest weight in belief formation hasn’t been rebutted yet.

Except when you can just change the canon. I submit polygamy as contradiction to this as well since actual practice trumped canonized scripture until the canon was changed.
mormon fool:

They are on the same team. One is an extension of the other.

I disagree
mormon fool:

This isn’t my position. As I said in other post, I try to develop a general trust for the most trusted LDS sources of doctrine. The Holy Ghost helps me look at the big picture and what to expect from each source. My general trust in the current prophet, scriptures, and curriculum makes my acceptance of individual teachings something that requires little thought. Here and there on some current teachings that I choose to pursue further knowledge on I pursue vigorously through both study and prayer to determine my own belief formations. I realize that if I find truth in teachings that haven’t past the public standard that my understanding on these secondary matters might be different then somebody elses. The prophet and a person each needs revelation for them to function within their sphere of influence. (/snip).

Okay but this what led me to leave the LDS church.
mormon fool:

You don’t ever think the church was on the right path to begin with.

well you got me there.
mormon fool:

Yes. Sometimes the canon contains things that aren’t considered scripture in the sense that they are records of a revelation. In that case I see no need to vote on things that get removed with such a rationale.

Yet in that particular case it required a vote to place it IN the canon. (Just curious, would you place the articles of faith in this category?)
mormon fool:

I don’t know why you quote “false doctrine”, because the LoF has never been identified as such in a statement by any authority. Rather the LoF contains “incomplete doctrine” on the Godhead. I don’t argue that it was treated as doctrine before 1921, but it is clear that the doctrines of the Godhead that were emphasized and quoted most often in public discourse were found in the revelation section of the Doctrine and Covenants and those in the LoF were lightly regarded. This is especially true given the weight LDS place on being able to individually discern truth and authorities pointing out the interpretation they wanted to emphasize. So once again both prophets and personal inspiration worked harmoniously to get the truth accepted into individual’s belief systems.

My brain is sore from the mental gymnastics here. You take emphasis(subjective) and what was quoted in public discourse over what was canonized in this case but you have spent so much time telling me how those are 5th and 6th tier sources and how that doesn’t overcome canonized scripture. The D&C owes it very name (as opposed to the book of commandments) to the LoF:

“Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book [the “covenants”] were true, and that the lectures [Lectures on Faith] were judiciously arranged and compiled and were profitable for doctrine; whereupon the High Council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote” (Messenger and Advocate, 1:161; RDC 108A:4d-e.

LoF taught (as canonized scripture accepted by common consent) that God the Father was a personage of Spirit and the Holy Ghost was not a personage but rather the “shared mind” of the Father and Son. Now if we view this in context with the first vision and other existing revelation on the nature of God we see a distinct contradiction that was kept in the canon for a long period of time. (of course the current “faith promoting” account of the first vision hadn’t been invented yet in 1835) What other LDS scriptures will later be considered “Nephi’s opinion” or “Moroni’s translation error” and thus discarded to make way for doctrinal changes? I see it as yet another example that LDS scriptures are as slippery as “nephite treasure” and can’t be trusted.

 

[Jesus_Freak]

But if that weapon was meant to be for you and your family, to kill and destroy, but that person got between you, your family and the weapon. How would you choose to remember the person?

Jesus took the cross for me, my sins and sins for this fallen world. I’m proud of the weapon.

Jesus Saves

 

[majick275]

donbjc:

Just a comment here, as a person who has an LDS wife. Her Sunday School class is studying the Old Testament every week this year and they seem to study the Bible on an almost equal basis as they study the Book of Mormon.(last year it was the BoM). Probably next year it is the New Testament. They rotate every year and study in depth verse by verse, chapter by chapter. In fact I have gone to this class with her and they definitely are studying the Bible and do not say anything about it not being the word of God. As far as I can see they treat it with the same respect as God’s word and on an equal level as they treat the BoM. Just my observances.
Don

Yeah I used to teach Gospel Doctrine. The do rotate OT(plus Abraham and Moses)/ NT (plus JS-Matthew)/BoM/D&C (plus church history) This is done in the lesson manuals for older kids, seminary and institute classes as well. My observation though is that in conference and sacrament meeting members are constantly encouraged to read the BoM. I never heard this emphasis on reading other scriptures. I point to the Articles of Faith as further evidence of this. They give much greater weight to BoM.

 

[majick275]

Jesus_Freak:

I don’t think cross is that big of issue once you realize that LDS church believes that God once was a man just like us and through good work he received this Glory , thus, Works and Glory.
Anyways, if you don’t agree with the true deity of our Lord Jesus, as Alph and Omega, Beginning and the end, the it doesn’t matter what the LDS church say about Jesus. They are not even talking about the same God as the one in the Bible.

This is just what I’ve learned through different resources. Correct me please…

Jesus Saves

I agree with you on this.

 

[majick275]

donbjc:

Just looking at the subject of this thread about no crosses on Temples. I asked this question of a missionary who came to our home for dinner. He explained it like this: If your loved one was stabbed to death or shot to death would you wear the weapon of their murder around your neck or venerate it as a holy symbol? I thought that was a very interesting explanation as to why Mormons do not use crosses on their buildings.
My wife had not heard it explained that way before, but we both thought it was an interesting precept.

Don

it is interesting. Think about this though…what if your loved one who was stabbed to death rose from the dead and because of the stabbing was able to take you to heaven when you died…might you now view the knife as a symbol of hope and victory?

 

[donbjc]

I like your explanation. Thanks Don