L
LivingWaters7
Guest
I didn’t detect any mocking at all from you, FWIW.
- Status
C
campeador
Guest
Thanks LW.I didn’t detect any mocking at all from you, FWIW.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
Thanks for your story. From my research it seems the number one reason so many LDS are leaving are due to historical problems. They find out the rosy stories they were told all of their lives about Joseph Smith and the early LDS church are simply untrue. It’s not one or two stories but one after another after another like dominos. They can’t get good answers from their leaders and eventually the whole thing collapses (if you haven’t heard Jeremy Runnells story about his Letter to a CES Director I’m sure you would find it very informative). Then they are faced with the choice of do I stay for cultural reasons (friends, job, family) and just put all the problems on the shelf or do I face the music? Not an easy thing to go through for anyone.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Just curious did you go through the washing and anointing before 2005?
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
No, a couple years ago.
H
Horton
Guest
This temple recommend is a strange thing in itself. I recently did a bit of traveling and posting pictures and comments on FB. An old co-worker of mine, who is LDS, made a comment of seeing pictures of these historical sites and he relayed a story which had happened recently in his family. A child or grandchild was getting sealed in their local temple and he noticed his temple recommend had expired and he would not be able to attend the sealing which was a few hours away. He was able to get in touch with someone who was able to rush him through the process and he was able to attend. As I read that it occurred to me that I spent the previous three weeks in not only the most important church of the Catholic faith, St Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City but some of the most historical Catholic Basilicas in Italy, St Mary Major, St John Lateran, St Paul Outside the Walls, St Anthony in Padua, St Francis in Asissi and many others and all I had to do was go through a security check (like at airports). No asked me if I had a card. No one asked me if I was worthy, no one asked me if I was Catholic, no one had to scramble to make sure I was good enough to go in. It made me sad that this good man may have been denied access to an important family event (important to them) just because of a card.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.
H
Horton
Guest
It is outside Rome proper as new construction is not allowed within the ancient city walls so it’s not as though it across the street from St Peter’s in the Vatican.
C
CourtingTex
Guest
The temple of the Old Testament period did not permit everyone either ---- just making note of that.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Marriages were never performed in a Jewish temple.
A (as in one person) entered an ancient Jewish temple on behalf of all the people for one, singular, purpose, which was of benefit to all the people.
It is not a relative comparison to make.
G
gazelam
Guest
As you probably know better than I, the Catholic Mass is divided into the “Liturgy of the Word” and the “Liturgy of the Eucharist”. There was a time early on when only the faithful were allowed to remain for the Liturgy of the Eucharist portion and visitors were dismissed once the Liturgy of the Word finished. (See Woolley, Liturgy of the Primitive Church, pp. 35ff)
H
Horton
Guest
Yes I do know that. In my post I wasn’t talking about the Mass specifically but thanks for you google search results. I was speaking about the ability to enter St Peter’s Basilica and other basilicas and churches in Rome and other Italian cities without some man interviewing me to judge whether I was “worthy” enough to enter these wonderful, amazing, spectacular buildings to celebrate the glory to God.
There are no secret ceremonies that only the chosen few may attend. I was able to not only enter but stay while the Pope celebrated Mass. I went to different basilicas and Cathedrals to participate in Mass. The Catholic Church is a welcoming and open Church who does not say you must be worthy to come to our most special Churches.
H
Horton
Guest
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Hello, the word liturgy means roughly, a public work. I.e. a work done publicly. Once in a while I read a Mormon misusing the word liturgy in reference to Mormon temple ceremonies.
The discipline of the secret is a practice in a historical context. That of the Roman persecutions and Christians desiring to keep themselves and catechumens safe. Throwing pearls before swine, is cited in the ECF…the swine being their Roman persecutors. Simultaneously the Liturgy of the Eucharist is described in detail, in letters and apologies. Look for that in Mormonism, and you won’t find it.
The Liturgy of the Eucharist is where we proclaim the death, resurrection and future coming of Jesus, and we receive Him, Body, Blood and Divinity. It was one of the most defining things of being a Christian, and is what was looked for by Roman spies. BTW it is a little ironic for a Mormon to cite a early Christian practice that is denied, by Mormonism.
Anyway, once the Roman persecutions ended, and Christianity spread to the known world, the discipline was no longer a practice. There was no longer a need to hide from Roman persecutions.
I’ve wondered, what ifs, such as, if Mormonism would continue its secrecy if they were ever a major religion in the world.
C
CourtingTex
Guest
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
One person entered on behalf of a people.
People getting married in secret is not on behalf of a people. They aren’t doing anything for the people standing outside. It is a disgrace to leave your own family, your people, out of what you are doing. Compared to ancient temples it is a selfish act. Not comparable to the selfless act of an ancient high priest.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
I would say that the LDS church doesn’t really understand what the temple was or what is was for, nor do they understand its context in salvation history. I know they have many temples today of their own, but just because they call these buildings ‘temples’ doesn’t make them so.
What LDS believe about their temples and what they use them for are not at all what the Jews believed about the real temple in Jerusalem. It would be a worth while exercise for Mormons to research the Jerusalem temple in greater depth without first looking at it through the lens of the modern-day LDS temples. You will find it to bear little resemblance to their modern-day notions.
A couple notes about the Jerusalem temple to explain my points–
First of all, the Jerusalem temple was built to house the Ark of the Covenant because it was so holy it had to be set apart from the sinfulness of the people. Why was the Ark so holy? Because of what it contained–the original tablets of the Ten Commandments, God’s law for Israel inscribed by His own hand. Also contained in the Ark was Aaron’s priestly staff signifying the priesthood authority of the Levites over Israel, and the manna God used to sustain His people during their 40 years of wandering in the desert. Now these items all appear again in a new form with the coming of Christ, but that is another story. God’s own presence was there in the form of the Shekinah (sp?) glory cloud, which accompanied the Ark as the Israelites marched through the desert in their conquest of the promised land. All these things were put in the most important part of the temple, the Holy of Holies, which was so holy only the High Priest could enter once a year with a rope tied around his waist so in case he died he could be pulled out since no one else could go in. This room and its contents made the Jerusalem temple what is was–the house of God.
LDS temples have no Ark, no manna, no priestly staff, and no Holy of Holies.
Secondly, one of the chief purposes of the Jerusalem temple was a place to offer animal sacrifices as sin offerings. After Christ came, animal sacrifices were no longer necessary, and at the moment of Christ’s death, the veil separating the Holy of Holies from the outside was torn in two, signifying that Christ destroyed the separation of man from God. No longer would man be separated from God’s holy presence by the walls of a temple. Christ’s sacrifice for the sin of all mankind made us all worthy to be in God’s presence as Adam and Eve had before the Fall.
I could go into a lot more detail, but in short Christ’s death and resurrection made the temple no longer necessary because it’s purpose no longer existed. You don’t find any evidence that the early church felt the need for a temple after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. That world had passed. The Church had the new Ark, the new manna, and the new priestly staff which perfected and fulfilled the old. Again, another story.
So 2000 years later Joseph Smith decides that he thinks we need modern temples, but they have no resemblance to the original. Jews didn’t do sealing or eternal marriages or endowments or baptisms for the dead. All of these things have nothing to do whatsover with Christ or His Church.
So to sum it all up, LDS ‘temples’ are not temples at all. They are the invention of Joseph Smith–buildings where Masonic ceremonies are performed with no real meaning or spiritual consequence of any kind. Christ’s death and resurrection restored the covenant family bond between man and God. The veil is torn. No cards required.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Hello Chris.
You seem quite confident that all you say in your post simply must be true.
I thought I would point out that it is not, but before I do let me agree with you… SOME.
There is no collection of “Temple Worship” things present in the records we have from the ancient church. If the uniquely Christian temple was central to early Christian worship, we cannot see such today. My best guess is that there was no uniquely Christian temple where things analogous to modern LDS practice occurred.
I believe LDS should recognize that some of the Temple content that is important to us is a modern production inspired by God. I think if we could time travel back to 50AD, or things that led to apostasy had been different, or … we could find SOME familiar things, but we would not find the modern LDS temple worship. I think it is possible I am wrong, but this is my best guess now.
Chris, we live in the age of the printing press. LDS apostates and critics have ALWAYS lived in the age of the printing press. Still, the existence of the “holy of holies” in LDS temples (certainly SLC and in others) is less well known such that you say it is not there. Why is there a lack of knowledge about LDS temples? Well, faithful members do not share all the knowledge they know about the temple because we are counseled to view this as sacred. I would suggest the mocking of LDS beliefs especially with respect to the temple provides a clear reason why this council might exist (note, I am saying you were mocking, I don’t see that, just that mocking occurs).
With this modern “absence of knowledge” what can we hope to find anciently? I have many times commented on things I truly believe should be recorded clearly in ancient “Catholic” records if Catholic self-conceptions are true, but they are not there. I am assured that these things are absent, but not untrue. That being said, sacred and secret practices of the early church would be far more likely to be lost than the “things” I mention.
What do we have? We have two categories of things. We have “esoteric teachings” that are mentioned but not described in the surviving literature. The “heretical” Gnostics are known for their secret knowledge, but we do not know what that was and the “orthodox” have made it clear they are not genuine Christians. Still Clement of Alexandria, who is not criticized as a Gnostic by anyone (to my knowledge) says that “the mysteries of the faith are not to be divulged to all” and specifically claims this is because we are not “to cast pearls before swine.” Most Catholic commentator I have seen claim these “mysteries” are generally referring to the Eucharist, but Clement is not clear and there is no secret teachings about the Eucharist today so if that was ALL, then someone change this. If the “Secret Gospel of Mark” is authentic (and many non-LDS believe it to be), this too comes from Clement of Alexandria.
The second category is actual uniquely LDS temple content that exists from ancient sources. The most prevalent is the “prayer circle.” Even in the convocation of the prayer circle, LDS will recognize very similar language. Other things exist too. The faithful LDS (and the interested non-LDS with “knowledge” of the LDS temple) can look for these things in the ancient literature or in LDS writings that sometimes do not draw specific and clear parallels.
Anyway, my point is that it is true we cannot find LDS temple practices anciently. I think this is true for two reasons. The first is that the LDS temple ceremony exists to teach 19th, 20th, and 21st century men and woman truths about God through symbolism and ritual. I believe inspired men developed (and changed through LDS history) these teaching vehicles for the needs of the intended audience. The ancient Christians were not the same audience. Second, while there may be some divine-sourced and esoteric sacramental parallels between ancient and modern Christian practice (LDS Christian practice), such would not likely be preserved in the writings of ancient Christianity because they are esoteric/sacred/secret (and such writings do not exist from FAITHFUL LDS today either).
BTW, I went to the LDS temple open house, toured the temple, and had a great time. It is a beautiful building. I also talked to the anti-Mormon’s protesting and read their multi-page newspaper thing. Awesome!
On the whole then I conclude as follows:—if there is a form of Christianity now in the world which is accused of gross superstition, of borrowing its rites and customs from the heathen, and of ascribing to forms and ceremonies an occult virtue;—a religion which is considered to burden and enslave the mind by its requisitions, to address itself to the weak-minded and ignorant, to be supported by sophistry and imposture, and to contradict reason and exalt mere irrational faith … if there be such a religion now in the world, it is not unlike Christianity as that same world viewed it, when first it came forth from its Divine Author.
Charity, TOm
C
Chris-WA
Guest
You don’t have to guess. There was no ‘Christian temple.’ If there was there would be evidence of it. There isn’t. The temple belonged to the Jews. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and that was the end of it.
If you could go back to 50 A.D., you would find Jews worshipping in the temple, doing animal sacrices, etc. You would also probably find some Jewish-Christians going as well as I’m sure recent converts to Christianity still went there for some time. What you would not find is a ‘Christian temple.’ Christians were hiding from the Jews and the Romans for fear of persecution for many decades to come.
I think it’s safe to say everything that goes on in LDS temples has already been spilled numerous times by ex-Mos. There are no more secrets, no matter what council has been given to the faithful. The word has been out for a long time.
Let’s stick to what we know and stop speculating about your notion of secret Christian temple worship in the early Church. That is fantasy and has no basis in reality.
Tom, I’ve read your posts for a long time and I usually don’t respond because though you sound intellectual in your writing, your arguments just aren’t persuasive. You spent an entire page saying (1) the early Christians had some secrets so maybe those could have been LDS practices (pure speculation); and (2) LDS temples today are for a modern audience so things are bound to be different (that only supports my argument that the concept of modern temples seems disconnected to the ancient Jerusalem temple, having almost nothing in common.
I responded to another LDS post because it was asked why there are objections to LDS temples. Bottom line, though, the historical evidence overwhelmingly supports that Joseph Smith was a fraud who invented his own religion. I do not respect him because I think he was a con-man who wrote a fake book full of fake revelations and did a lot of terrible things to other people in the midst of the scam. I also think the LDS church as an institution has been terribly dishonest about its own historical origins and only recently under pressure has tried, though falling terribly short, to answer some important controversies. Many LDS are suffering greatly as a result of these controversies and the church owes a huge apology for all the members it excommunicated for telling truths that the church now finally admits to.
A
AnimaQuaerenti
Guest
As a former Mormon, let me say you knocked this one out of the park
Stephen168
New member
In 19th century America there seemed to be an obsession with the Jews and the Lost Tribes. Lewis and Clark (1804) were asked to see if the American Indians exhibited any Jewish traits during their exploration west. A number of religions invented in 19th century America seemed to have an Old Testament orientation. Seventh Day Adventist worship on Saturday for example. Mormons have temples, and the Book of Mormon; and they had polygamy.
- Status