No Crosses on Mormon Temples...

[mormon_fool]

My brain is sore from the mental gymnastics here.

Be prepared for another workout.

You take emphasis(subjective) and what was quoted in public discourse over what was canonized

I think emphasis can be objectified. For example how often concepts are cited in public discourse or curricula is one indicator of emphasis. I had a category in my DSI analysis that attempted to objectify emphasis by the frequency someone would encounter a source or concept.

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.

They don’t overcome canonized scripture, but they do influence the assumptions one brings to the text. Stuff about God having a physical body and the Holy Ghost being a personage was already out in the open by 1841 (ish). There was window between when those remarks were made and the 1876 edition where those remarks were (then) 3rd tier (general conference doctrine). My remarks in my earlier post are applicable to when 130 and LoF were in the canon. Section 130 was emphasized more as a quick Gospelink survey showed me. If one reads LoF 5 in with a assumptions supplied by 130, the LOF can be awkwardly reconciled. Bruce R. McConkie and Robert Millett do just that. The LoF’s lack of mentioning a physical body for the Father doesn’t mean there isn’t one. To argue that no mention equals no physical body is an argument from silence.The “two personage” problem goes away if one defines personage in such a way to match the context, ie. personage means a corporeal (not merely spiritual) personage. Hence the LoF isn’t necessarily “false doctrine” in this interpretation, but “incomplete” and awkward because it doesn’t use a later, standardized definition.

The only reason I appealed to lower tier doctrine was to show how it affected how seemingly conflicting canon was interpretted and harmonized. I am not trying to elevate the lower tiers to binding status. Obviously there is an intricate interplay between the different tiers of doctine. I judge the reliability of lower tiers by how well they can be derived or harmonized with higher tiers. At the same time I realize that the lower tiers affect the way I read the texts in the higher tiers. I scrutinize this backwards flow much more critically when I represent LDS doctrine.

The D&C owes it very name (as opposed to the book of commandments) to the LoF:

I don’t dispute this.

later
fool

 

[majick275]

Be prepared for another workout.

I think emphasis can be objectified. For example how often concepts are cited in public discourse or curricula is one indicator of emphasis. I had a category in my DSI analysis that attempted to objectify emphasis by the frequency someone would encounter a source or concept.

Oh no, not the dreaded DSI again…
anyway…I see flip-flopping here.
mormon fool:

They don’t overcome canonized scripture, but they do influence the assumptions one brings to the text. Stuff about God having a physical body and the Holy Ghost being a personage was already out in the open by 1841 (ish). There was window between when those remarks were made and the 1876 edition where those remarks were (then) 3rd tier (general conference doctrine). My remarks in my earlier post are applicable to when 130 and LoF were in the canon. Section 130 was emphasized more as a quick Gospelink survey showed me. If one reads LoF 5 in with a assumptions supplied by 130, the LOF can be awkwardly reconciled. Bruce R. McConkie and Robert Millett do just that. The LoF’s lack of mentioning a physical body for the Father doesn’t mean there isn’t one. To argue that no mention equals no physical body is an argument from silence.The “two personage” problem goes away if one defines personage in such a way to match the context, ie. personage means a corporeal (not merely spiritual) personage. Hence the LoF isn’t necessarily “false doctrine” in this interpretation, but “incomplete” and awkward because it doesn’t use a later, standardized definition.

There is goes…I pulled a neuron. Out in the open but in contradicition to canonized scripture…just like polygamy…I think that’s a bad thing. I don’t buy the silence. LoF says specifically personage of spirit. (and contextually makes a differentiation between that and Jesus as a personage of teabernacle) Can anyone trust Mconkie since after 1978 he said to disregard his previous teachings? anyway, looking at what he said, I don’t see a solution. This redefining of the term personage seems Clintonian at best. I could give you a ridiculous number od quotes form LDS leaders specifically calling the Holy Ghost a personage. Once again I go back to the position that if Joseph Smith Jr. really saw The Father and Son in person and really was a prophet leading Gods church we wouldn’t have had this “confusion” in canonized scripture for all of those years.
mormon fool:

The only reason I appealed to lower tier doctrine was to show how it affected how seemingly conflicting canon was interpretted and harmonized. I am not trying to elevate the lower tiers to binding status. Obviously there is an intricate interplay between the different tiers of doctine. I judge the reliability of lower tiers by how well they can be derived or harmonized with higher tiers. At the same time I realize that the lower tiers affect the way I read the texts in the higher tiers. I scrutinize this backwards flow much more critically when I represent LDS doctrine.

That did it, my medulla is now completely oblongated! OUCH!! I see a convenient cafeteria style pick and choose what supports, disregard the rest and somehow still make the blanket testimony that it’s all true. I don’t buy it.

 

[donbjc]

This probably sounds very dumb, but it seems to me you are just like any person writing their own opinion and thoughts on a subject and then someone reading it puts it under a microscope and gives the topic their personal spin.
We each understand in our own way the things we are taught by the church. Some of us study deeply and others just skim the surface and take everybody elses word for the truth of it.
The ones who take the time to study each and every sentence written, and do not allow that an individual’s thoughts and opinions on a subject may change over time and with more enlightenment on the subject are not being fair. God is perfect, but man is not always in tune to receive perfect information from God, or may not fully understand the information until much later in life. After all man is man whether he be Pope or Prophet, he is still a man and subject to human understanding of the things of God.
It has taken me a lifetime to understand things that God has given me, and I have changed my mind many times over these years according to new understanding based on experiences that I did not have in my youth.
Just because man does not always put the right spin on the information God gives him does not mean God didn’t try. God is patient and trys again and again until man gets it right.
I have not read any of McConkie, but seems to me, from your discussion, he could have changed his views as he grew in knowlege.
Don

 

[majick275]

No it does not sound dumb. I pretty much agree with your post Don.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Oh no, not the dreaded DSI again…
anyway…I see flip-flopping here.

Hey, now DSI asks a lot of the relevant questions when it come to thinking about what the status of any articulation of LDS belief is. Questions I see you consistently avoiding as you pull up the least authorative, oldest, obscure, contradicted quotes and pass them off as doctrine as good as the most trusted sources are. The flaw of DSI is that doctrinal sources in one category or tier lose their sense of categorization as all the factors are considered. Now I am just exploring how factors like emphasis help us weigh seemingly conflicting items that have equal status due to their category. I am not flip-flopping, I am just repackaging ideas so they can be more easly applied and defended.

There is goes…I pulled a neuron. Out in the open but in contradicition to canonized scripture…

Not according to those that take the Millet and McConkie approach. This isn’t about what majick believes but what LDS believed, so what majick doesn’t buy or can’t understand is irrelevant.

just like polygamy

I disagree. See Jacob 2:30 where God can command polygamy as an exception in the face of a general rule.

The following is meant to be a parody of your responses to me, so try not to get too upset. I think it is good to hold up a mirror once in while. To resume from above:

See also Joshua and the Judges murdering Canaanites because of a direct command that violated a definitive commandment. Your “Clintonesque” treatment on the word “kill” show that you are consistent with the cafeteria style for both faiths. You consistently load the poorest quality food on the tray and represents it as coming from the best chefs on the LDS side and load up on desert and avoid other dishes for your preferred side.

LoF says specifically personage of spirit. (and contextually makes a differentiation between that and Jesus as a personage of teabernacle)

When the someone approaches a text with firm assumptions i.e. the Father has a physical body they would see these descriptions as under-developed and their assumptions would fill in the gaps of silence. While your’s is a reasonable interpretation, it is not the only one possible. But so what? There are a lot of apparent contradictions in the Bible that take more “Clintonesque” approaches to resolve.

Can anyone trust Mconkie since after 1978 he said to disregard his previous teachings?

As much as one should trust any 5th or 6th tier teaching.

Once again I go back to the position that if Joseph Smith Jr. really saw The Father and Son in person and really was a prophet leading Gods church we wouldn’t have had this “confusion” in canonized scripture for all of those years.

The confusion for the issue was inherited from developments in Christianity in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

–fool

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

Hey, now DSI asks a lot of the relevant questions when it come to thinking about what the status of any articulation of LDS belief is. Questions I see you consistently avoiding as you pull up the least authorative, oldest, obscure, contradicted quotes and pass them off as doctrine as good as the most trusted sources are. The flaw of DSI is that doctrinal sources in one category or tier lose their sense of categorization as all the factors are considered. Now I am just exploring how factors like emphasis help us weigh seemingly conflicting items that have equal status due to their category. I am not flip-flopping, I am just repackaging ideas so they can be more easly applied and defended.

First of all let’s remember that DSI is a mormon fool invention that is unknown in the LDS church as a whole. conceptually I’m sure that a lot of LDS place different weight on different teachings but I submit that it’s more due to being a “cafeteria” mormon (just like there are cafeteria catholics, methodists, etc.) rather than a true weighting based on analysis. I still say in your case on this thread at least, that it’s flip-flop as you seem to change weights of sources not based on category as originally implied but rather on what supports your point.
mormon fool:

Not according to those that take the Millet and McConkie approach. This isn’t about what majick believes but what LDS believed, so what majick doesn’t buy or can’t understand is irrelevant.

and what “tier” is Millet and Mconkie? I agree with you that we really want to establish is what LDS believed but I think I have just as much perspective on that as any LDS. In any case I think you have a tendency to wave off anything that isn’t currently “emphasized” as being of little importance. If we were talking about doctrinal development by theologians I might even agree with that but we are dealing with self proclaimed “oracles of the Lord” who would have us believe that their direction has been made known by divine revelation. In the case of the earlier LDS leaders actual conversations with God are alleged to be what is recorded.
mormon fool:

I disagree. See Jacob 2:30 where God can command polygamy as an exception in the face of a general rule.

I sure see that as twisting scripture. At best it means that you could have put in D&C 132 instead of the prohibition or even have it replace the prohibition IF you did it when th eLord commnded the practice. To wave this off as a “record keeping” procrastination type error seems dishonest to me. It also would appear to contradict the “sola scriptura” stance that you and amgid keep trying to establish. I never believed as an active LDS that only what was in the standard works was binding on the members. I think this is good example of that being true. You can’t eat your cake and still have it.

 

[majick275]

(continued)
mormon fool:

The following is meant to be a parody of your responses to me, so try not to get too upset. I think it is good to hold up a mirror once in while. To resume from above:

See also Joshua and the Judges murdering Canaanites because of a direct command that violated a definitive commandment. Your “Clintonesque” treatment on the word “kill” show that you are consistent with the cafeteria style for both faiths. You consistently load the poorest quality food on the tray and represents it as coming from the best chefs on the LDS side and load up on desert and avoid other dishes for your preferred side.

I can take a joke. seriously though, We all agree (LDS and Catholic) that there IS sometimes a nuance that is lost in translation and thus we have to establish intent through context. My understanding is that the original hebrew meant thou shalt not murder. I submit that the doctrines of the LDS church AND the RCC agree with that. Both agree that murder is wrong and both agree that not all killing is murder. What I have done is present statements by the authorized leaders of the LDS church that THEY thought were binding in the members and you would discard it because it isn’t talked about so much anymore. Not denounced just allowed to “slip out of use”. I can’t accept that from people who claimed to have received their instructions for the church directly from conversation with the almighty.
mormon fool:

When the someone approaches a text with firm assumptions i.e. the Father has a physical body they would see these descriptions as under-developed and their assumptions would fill in the gaps of silence. While your’s is a reasonable interpretation, it is not the only one possible. But so what? There are a lot of apparent contradictions in the Bible that take more “Clintonesque” approaches to resolve.

We all can admit to the errors translation errors in the Bible. (which is why the RCC places such importance on sacred traditon as a companion to scripture) The BoM has claimed a higher standard for itself. The D&C and the directives of modern “prophets” logically assume an even higher standard. (direct question followed by direct answer) In this particular case we have a man who claimed to have met the Father and Son in person and then later tells us the Father is a pesonage of Spirit and the Son of tabernacle and you want to call this “under-developed”? I don’t buy it.
mormon fool:

As much as one should trust any 5th or 6th tier teaching.

once again the notion of “tiers” is an invention of your own. It may be valid but let’s not think it’s an “LDS” teaching.
mormon fool:

The confusion for the issue was inherited from developments in Christianity in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

–fool

nice try. The confusion in the true church was solved by councils just like those described in the Bible and carried out by the apostolic successors the Biblical councils. They gave us a canon that Joseph Smith Jr. didn’t seem to disagree with. I think this sidesteps the issue I presented. IF He saw God (Father and Son) in person as described in JS-History and IF he really was a true prophet THEN we shouldn’t have any confusion. But we do and I think it is just another in a vast load of evidence that he was false.

 

[majick275]

I wanted to adress the importance of using the cross as a symbol even now. Why it is of value in our lives and to make the case that we should display it prominently. I offer these scriptures:

1 corinthians 1:17-18

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Ephesians 2:15-16

*by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. *

I think is of special value on this topic since it also appears to remind us that Jesus death on cross renders the temple ordinances obsolete.

Philippians 3:18

For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ

I see this as counsel to not be swayed by the emotional appeals of those who oppose the cross.

Colossians 1:20

and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

This is why the cross is such an important symbol of victory.

1Peter 2:24

and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Lest anyone still think there was an atonement in gethsemane, here Peter reminds us of the words of the great propeht Isaiah. The cross is where sin was defeated. The wounds of Christ, his blood shed for us is what has freed us from bondage. The cross is our sign to throw back in Satan’s face. The very tool used by the evil ones to kill our Lord is what brought about his victory. It is what he used to save us.

 

[IAMLDS]

I have a few words to say about symbols. Symbols change meaning, or can be hijacked by other groups and the meaning changed. A great example is the symbol of the Serpent.

The serpent first shows up in the Bible representing Satan in the Garden of Eden. It would appear that the serpent is a satanic symbol.

Later the serpent shows up on the end of a pole saving the Isrealites from venemous serpents. In Numbers 21:8-9 Moses is commanded to make a brass serpent and set it on the end of a pole. Now, whenever an Isrealite is bit by a venemous serpent he need only look on the serpent of brass and live.

Did the Isrealites suddenly become Satan worshippers? No, the serpent represented Christ lifted up on the cross. Just as the Irealites had to raise their eyes to the serpent to be saved, so must we raise our eyes to Christ to be saved from sin. I don’t think this symbolism was lost on the Isrealites. They knew of Christ and awaited his arrival in the Meridian of Times.

I believe that the serpent was a symbol of Christ first. Satan tried to hijack this symbol in the Garden. Satan couterfeits that which is good for his purposes.

As an LDS member I feel an affinity for the symbols on the temple. They have special meanings to me, none of which touch upon the occult.

In my travels in Mexico and South America I am impressed by the sheer number of symbols carved into the Catholic Cathedrals. One of my favorites is the skull and cross bones. Though I don’t know what this symbol means to a Catholic, I would never accuse them of being a pirate.

 

[majick275]

So holding up a symbol of Christ on the cross (Moses and brazen serpent) is consistent biblically. I don’t see you in disagreement here. Are there LDS Temple symbols that you think are associated with Satanism but only because they have been “hijacked”?

 

[Chris-WA]

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

That’s a silly comparison because the result of a loved one being murdered does not bring about salvation for the whole world–Christ’s death on the cross, however, did open heaven up for all. It had a definite purpose in the plan of salvation–it was the price paid for all past and future sin. It was the defining moment of all of human history. Quite different than the example the missionaries gave you. They were trying to evoke an emotional response, and it sounds like they were successful.

 

[Brad_Haas]

Haha, Chris, I agree. If they ever ask me that rhetorical question, I’m going to ask, “Is my relative or loved one the King of Glory, the eternal Son of the Father, who became man to set us free? Did he rise from the dead, making his death into our promise of eternal life?”

 

[donbjc]

I like IAMLDS’s response and explanation. That pretty much explains why an object of torture and death can turn into an object of divinity and hope.
I believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ turns the cruicifix into a symbol of triumph over death and a symbol of the resurrection and man’s deliverance from spiritual death, by Christ’s atonement for the sins of the world.
I am not copying any words from any book, I am just saying how I feel. Am I wrong? I am learning a lot from this forum and the discussions here.
Don

 

[Mom_of_5]

Unless I missed it, i did not see an explaination of why The Angel Moroni adorns the Mormon Temples. I think this is really more relevant than why not a cross.

Love and peace,

Mom of 5

 

[donbjc]

I asked my wife that one, and she said it is because Moroni is the one who delivered the Golden Plates with the history of his people on them to Joseph Smith, and thus started the restoration of the gospel in it’s original form upon the earth. So they show him trumpeting the good news from the top of the temple.
Don

 

[Mike_D30]

donbjc:

I asked my wife that one, and she said it is because Moroni is the one who delivered the Golden Plates with the history of his people on them to Joseph Smith, and thus started the restoration of the gospel in it’s original form upon the earth. So they show him trumpeting the good news from the top of the temple.
Don

This is off topic a bit but it’s become the all inclusive Mormon thread.

Why is Moroni even an Angel? If he was a faithful Mormon he should be an exalted man, since Moroni was once a man. Angels are created beings, men do not become Angels, and Angels do not become men. Why was Moroni (who was once a man) appearing to Joseph Smith as an Angel, and not a god running his own planet somewhere?

 

[Mom_of_5]

I was told that if Moroni was a single male, he could no be a “god” when he died. The LDS believe that those who have had endowments, ( good and faithful never married LDS) can become “angels”.

Love and peace,

Mom of 5

 

[donbjc]

OK now my wife says that spirits are not resurrected and reunited with their bodies until after the second coming, so now they are all spirits until then…There is a judgement day and resurrection before anyone goes further in progression.
Don

 

[Chris-WA]

Mike_D30:

This is off topic a bit but it’s become the all inclusive Mormon thread.

Why is Moroni even an Angel? If he was a faithful Mormon he should be an exalted man, since Moroni was once a man. Angels are created beings, men do not become Angels, and Angels do not become men. Why was Moroni (who was once a man) appearing to Joseph Smith as an Angel, and not a god running his own planet somewhere?

Angels are not the same beings in Mormonism and Catholicism. In Catholicism, angels are a separate race of beings altogether. They are not humans, nor are they resurrected men. In Mormonism, angels are resurrected men.

 

[donbjc]

My wife again says no one gets resurrected and reunited with their bodies until after Jesus Christ comes again and after the judgement day and after the resurrection. Right now those who die are only spirits. So when and if they appear they are only spirits. No one knows if Moroni was married, in any case he is only a spiritual being, I guess.
No one knows who will qualify to be a “god”(similar to our Saints), that is just what the goal is, but very few if any reach that goal. I told her they will all be Catholic, won’t the Mormons be surprised ha ha…
Don