Philadelphia acceptance of LDS temple

  • Thread starter Thread starter gazelam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They can keep building temples all they want, but nothing that goes on in them has anything to do with Jesus Christ or His church. The temple ceremonies come from free masonry, not revelation. Joseph Smith borrowed masonic symbols and ceremonies and created his own versions for Mormonism. There is no such thing as sealing, eternal marriage, endowments, or baptism for the dead. Though the LDS call these bulidings temples, they have little to do with the the concept of the temple from the Old Testament. And by the way, though they publicly deny polygamy, the mainstream LDS church still practices it in their temples in the following manner–a Mormon man can be sealed in the temple to multiple women over the course of his life, with the idea that they will be his plural wives in the celestial kingdom. A Mormon woman, on the other hand, can only be sealed to one man.
 
jane_doe said:
Campeador, why do you spend your time mocking other people?
Click to expand...
Wow… Sorry that you feel that way Jane.

My questions weren’t targeted toward anyone in particular, so I don’t know why you would accuse me of mocking anyone. I was really hoping to get a legitimate explanation to my questions.

Maybe this is one of those ‘touchy’ LDS issues?
 
campeador said:
Wow… Sorry that you feel that way Jane.

My questions weren’t targeted toward anyone in particular, so I don’t know why you would accuse me of mocking anyone.
Click to expand...
Mocking a group of people is still mocking. And yes, by doing so, you are mocking me and another half dozen posters on this forum, plus any lurkers.

Anyway, I do appreciate the apology.
campeador said:
Maybe this is one of those ‘touchy’ LDS issues?
Click to expand...
No. I just don’t appreciate mockery addressed at me or any other person/group.
campeador said:
I was really hoping to get a legitimate explanation to my questions.
Click to expand...
You asked: “Why no Temple in Salem? That would be the logical choice for a new LDS Temple in the area.”
Me: As I explained earlier, it is not a logical choice for a temple, as there is one <1 hr away in Boston.

You asked: "Have LDS simply given up on Joseph Smith having ‘power’ over the city? Or ‘wealth pertaining to gold and silver’? Or gathering out ‘many people’ because of Joseph Smith’s ‘instrumentality’? "
Me: You are going to have to provide a reference for what you are talking about and how this has any relationship to Salem.

You asked: “Maybe the plan is to eventually remove this particular prophecy from the D&C’s? Or are there plans to eventually build a Temple in Salem in an attempt to fulfill this prophecy?”
Me: You are mistaken. There is no reference to Salem in D&C or any other LDS scripture.
 
jane_doe said:
Me: You are mistaken. There is no reference to Salem in D&C or any other LDS scripture.
Click to expand...
Wow… Jane. I don’t want to accuse you of deliberately trying to deceive people, but I will say you are obviously unfamiliar with LDS scripture.
 
campeador said:
Wow… Jane. I don’t want to accuse you of deliberately trying to deceive people, but I will say you are obviously unfamiliar with LDS scripture.
Click to expand...
:roll eyes: Please provide a reference to back up your claims.
 
jane_doe said:
I’m not interested in Google. You claimed something out of D&C: please provide the citation from D&C to support your claim.
Click to expand...
I Googled it, and perhaps he is talking about this:

**The
Doctrine and Covenants
Section 111
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Salem, Massachusetts, August 6, 1836. At this time the leaders of the Church were heavily in debt due to their labors in the ministry. Hearing that a large amount of money would be available to them in Salem, the Prophet, Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, and Oliver Cowdery traveled there from Kirtland, Ohio, to investigate this claim, along with preaching the gospel. The brethren transacted several items of Church business and did some preaching. When it became apparent that no money was to be forthcoming, they returned to Kirtland. Several of the factors prominent in the background are reflected in the wording of this revelation.
1–5, The Lord looks to the temporal needs of His servants; 6–11, He will deal mercifully with Zion and arrange all things for the good of His servants.

1 I, the Lord your God, am not displeased with your coming this journey, notwithstanding your follies.

2 I have much treasure in this city for you, for the benefit of Zion, and many people in this city, whom I will gather out in due time for the benefit of Zion, through your instrumentality.

3 Therefore, it is expedient that you should form acquaintance with men in this city, as you shall be led, and as it shall be given you.

4 And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours.

5 Concern not yourselves about your debts, for I will give you power to pay them.

6 Concern not yourselves about Zion, for I will deal mercifully with her.

7 Tarry in this place, and in the regions round about;

8 And the place where it is my will that you should tarry, for the main, shall be signalized unto you by the peace and power of my Spirit, that shall flow unto you.

9 This place you may obtain by hire. And inquire diligently concerning the more ancient inhabitants and founders of this city;

10 For there are more treasures than one for you in this city.

11 Therefore, be ye as wise as serpents and yet without sin; and I will order all things for your good, as fast as ye are able to receive them. Amen.**

lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/111
 
What the heck does verse 4 mean, by not discovering secret parts.
 
RebeccaJ said:
What the heck does verse 4 mean, by not discovering secret parts.
Click to expand...
That was my thought too, I found it so distracting that it was my primary thought after reading the whole thing. What does it mean?
 
campeador said:
And you claim you didn’t know about this LDS scripture?

:tsktsk:
Click to expand...
Remember what I said about mocking? If you refuse to treat me and my beliefs with respect I have no interest in this conversation.
 
Chris-WA said:
They can keep building temples all they want, but nothing that goes on in them has anything to do with Jesus Christ or His church. The temple ceremonies come from free masonry, not revelation. Joseph Smith borrowed masonic symbols and ceremonies and created his own versions for Mormonism. There is no such thing as sealing, eternal marriage, endowments, or baptism for the dead. Though the LDS call these bulidings temples, they have little to do with the the concept of the temple from the Old Testament. And by the way, though they publicly deny polygamy, the mainstream LDS church still practices it in their temples in the following manner–a Mormon man can be sealed in the temple to multiple women over the course of his life, with the idea that they will be his plural wives in the celestial kingdom. A Mormon woman, on the other hand, can only be sealed to one man.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, when I had gone to my stake president for my temple recommend interview, he mentioned, in passing and very briefly, that the endowment has elements of freemasonry in it. Of course he didn’t get into anything specific, but it is interesting that the masonic connection isn’t necessarily rejected, at least not by all Mormons.

Also interestingly, when you go through the Initiatory (the washing and anointing ordinance done before the endowment, which is now only done symbolically), the temple worker will say that the ordinance was indeed done anciently, says a verse from Exodus, and then goes on to say that the same is done today, only symbolically. 🤷
 
Mormons contradict their own teachings. They claim Catholics had this apostasy and churches are supposed to be simple in nature, yet here they are throwing up temples and such. Not to mention Non Mormons are generally not even aloud in them, which is pretty strange. They can deceive as many people with their false prophet as they want, the gates of hell shall never prevail against Christ’s true church.
 
jane_doe said:
Remember what I said about mocking? If you refuse to treat me and my beliefs with respect I have no interest in this conversation.
Click to expand...
Please don’t misrepresent the truth. You and your beliefs will be much more respected.
 
campeador said:
Please don’t misrepresent the truth. You and your beliefs will be much more respected.
Click to expand...
Failing to know the complete historical background of one seldom quoted chapter-- a background which is not mentioned in the text itself-- does not equate to misrepresenting the truth.

Your disrespectful and uncalled for accusation is noted though.
 
LivingWaters7 said:
Interestingly, when I had gone to my stake president for my temple recommend interview, he mentioned, in passing and very briefly, that the endowment has elements of freemasonry in it. Of course he didn’t get into anything specific, but it is interesting that the masonic connection isn’t necessarily rejected, at least not by all Mormons.

Also interestingly, when you go through the Initiatory (the washing and anointing ordinance done before the endowment, which is now only done symbolically), the temple worker will say that the ordinance was indeed done anciently, says a verse from Exodus, and then goes on to say that the same is done today, only symbolically. 🤷
Click to expand...
Did you find the temple ceremonies bizarre? And what led you out of Mormonism back to the Catholic Church?
 
Chris-WA said:
Did you find the temple ceremonies bizarre? And what led you out of Mormonism back to the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
No, it wasn’t really bizarre to me necessarily. It’s interesting, I think that when you’re coming from a Catholic background, you go to Sacrament Meeting on Sundays, you think, wow, this is definitely nothing like Mass (it is “low liturgy”). I’ve heard of converts from Catholicism being told to wait until they go to the temple, that’s where they’ll find something similar to Catholic liturgies.

When I went, although it was more…liturgical in a sense, it still didn’t give me that sense of awe that you get going to Mass or Divine Liturgy. I liked the washing and anointing, as I liked how they say that it was done anciently and now is being done (except symbolically). The only things I really found odd were the signs and tokens. That to me was clearly from Masonry (there are a number of books on the matter, such as Joseph’s Temples: The Dynamic Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism and The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship.

I liked the temple concept, liked going, didn’t find it bizarre, maybe a little odd in relation to the signs and tokens and the ideas behind that.

As for why I left and returned to the Church, what started it were the nagging thoughts about the priesthood/temple ban of blacks, which quite simply did not, and does not make sense to me. The explanations about the leaders being products of their time didn’t sit well with me, because they inserted this into the religion itself, and taught ideas about it to the members. As well, the more I researched ancient Christianity, the more I realized that Mormonism really is not a restoration, and that Catholicism is the most Biblical and ancient Christian faith. Also, the prophets didn’t seem like Biblical prophets. Indeed, they seemed no different than the non-prophet leaders of other churches. They even seemed different from what Joseph Smith claimed to be experiencing and doing (there are of course numerous ways to explain all this away). I enjoyed my time being Mormon, don’t get me wrong, but a lot of things just didn’t make sense, and I couldn’t ignore that feeling. I ultimately left (I was Elders Quorum President at the time) and returned to the Church, after much prayer (I firmly believe that God guided me out of Mormonism, from the experiences I had at that time, as I really wanted to remain) and thought.
 
Jane, failing to know the historical background of the LDS church-- a background which even seasoned followers like yourself admit to not being familiar with-- and out of curiosity asking questions about this history-- does not equate to spending my time mocking other people.

Your disrespectful and uncalled for accusation is noted though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top