Temple Endowment

  • Thread starter Thread starter GoLatin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
what is faith if not an emotion. our souls the spirit of truth witness the truth of things. we are not basing our faith on others views we learn of our selves. perhaps has you said being born into the church you never truly had the chance to have the full impact of the attonement in your life. in a dark world i was and into a light clean world i entered. unless you come from a filthy state into a clean one you can not recognize the impact of our churchs teachings. pity you missed the chance.
 
…continued…

One reason that I keep coming back here - to the LDS subjects, primarily, is because I am fascinated by the unique history and doctrines of the church. I have been able to begin sorting out my ‘Mormon prejudices’ (most of which I didn’t even know were there) and replace them with more fact-based ‘Mormon objections’ and even - SHOCK! - areas where I see some doctrinal similarities cloaked in differing terminology. I’ve also come to have some respect for Joseph Smith - I’ve not yet read a biography and I HAVEN’T come to believe that he is a prophet, but the image that I had of him as a dull country hick who plagiarized some book are gone. If you asked me today who Joseph Smith was I would say he was a BRILLIANT man. A much different answer than I would have given six months ago and not as complete as I hope to give six months from now.

Oh, and maj isn’t saying that he’s talking to himself - he’s talking to ALL of us and he has a perspective that’s unique. I know that you believe that our religion is not only a false religion but, perhaps, THE great false religion - that’s fine as long as you realize that we don’t share that belief! You should also know that, in Catholicism, we believe that there is some truth in all religions - that man’s journey to find God, no matter the path, has some truth to it - just one of the reasons why you find similarities in, for instance, Christianity and Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching (some people go overboard in finding similarities but that’s definitely not ‘on topic’ here).

One more quick thing and then I’m going to go have a nice sliced apple and some Stilton… I don’t think you can assume that people have ‘lost faith’ if they convert from LDS to Catholic (or vice-versa). In my experience, the knowledgeable converts faith is much more powerful than my own and, to put it in LDS terminology, I would attribute that to having a “stronger testimony”. And when someone, as an adult, comes into the Catholic faith, they will have had so much instruction that there is virtually no chance at all of, as you write, “find(ing) something you don’t agree with” so that they would have to “renounce your views and repent of them a second and a third time”…there’s simply too much ‘material covered’ for that to be likely (you’re not going to hear, "the wine and bread turns into - what!!!).

Lately I have also been reading the LDS “Gospel Principles” - not a weighty tome like the Catechism of the Catholic Church but it does fill in some very basic ‘gaps’ in my knowledge of some portions of LDS doctrine. Although the CCC is online in a variety of places, I don’t think it’s available anywhere for download in pdf format - which is a shame, because I would ‘give’ you that as an early Christmas present if I could find it!

Good to see you back again…
 
paul barlow:
what is faith if not an emotion. our souls the spirit of truth witness the truth of things. we are not basing our faith on others views we learn of our selves. perhaps has you said being born into the church you never truly had the chance to have the full impact of the attonement in your life. in a dark world i was and into a light clean world i entered. unless you come from a filthy state into a clean one you can not recognize the impact of our churchs teachings. pity you missed the chance.
Click to expand...
I certainly didn’t base my faith on the views of others. I still dismiss as blatant lies the “anti-mormon” rants of Ed Decker and others of his ilk. I base my opinion of LDS beliefs on the actual writings of LDS leaders and LDS scriptures. Obviously I see something different in them than you do. I definitely got the full impact of the atonement when I received the Catholic sacraments and still do every time I take communion. I certainly feel like I came form a dark world into the light of Christ. I truly believe I did come form a filthy state into a clean one. I believe I fully recognize the impact of the LDS church teachings… That Is why I feel compelled to speak out against them. Nothing to pity here. “And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”
 
Ben,
Your post seems very reasonable. Incidentally, I just finished reading, The History of Joseph Smith by His Mother Lucy Mack Smith and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was interesting to see things from his mother’s point of view.
 
40.png
Casen:
Ben,
Your post seems very reasonable. Incidentally, I just finished reading, The History of Joseph Smith by His Mother Lucy Mack Smith and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was interesting to see things from his mother’s point of view.
Click to expand...
Casen,

Now that may be a good place for me to start in reading a biography of Joseph Smith: I’ve been reluctant to pick one as I assume anything written by an LDS believer would contain too much hagiography and anything written by a non-believer is likely to be a hatchet job but - coming from his own mother - I would expect it to be just as unbalanced as any mother’s biography would be so it might well be enlightening with the subjectivity being that which is to be expected. I would like to believe that there is - somewhere - a biography written by a historian which would concentrate on facts and not wander into psychoanalysis, religious analysis, motivational analysis, etc, - something factual and ‘dry’ that simply presents the life of Smith with as few possibly’s, perhaps’s, etc. as possible. I might take a look at the University of Illinois backlist - they seem to ‘specialize’ in finding and publishing factual biographies that don’t attempt to overly analyze the subject.

I do know one thing - I am going to have to create a slightly larger budget for books in FY 2006 and find a way to cut some of my other ‘entertainment’ budgets!
 
be aware that the original biography of Joseph Smith by his mother (published in England) was denounced by Brigham Young as incorrect. He not only spoke against it but worked hard to see as many copies as possible destroyed. It was “corrected” (a lot) by other LDS writers later. The version available today is very different and much more “faith promoting” than what was first published.
 
40.png
majick275:
be aware that the original biography of Joseph Smith by his mother (published in England) was denounced by Brigham Young as incorrect. He not only spoke against it but worked hard to see as many copies as possible destroyed. It was “corrected” (a lot) by other LDS writers later. The version available today is very different and much more “faith promoting” than what was first published.
Click to expand...
I’ll email (after the first of the year!) some of my Brit book hounds and see if it’s possible to get a copy of the original edition published. With any luck it won’t be as difficult to find as an original Book of Commandments. I understand, I suppose, why JS’s History of the Church would be ‘cleaned up’ and completed and rewritten, but I can’t imagine that his own Mother would have had many bad things to say about him. This is one of those reasons why I much prefer to read an ‘unvarnished’ biography of a saint rather than an idealized hagiography - the more ‘human’ a saint, the more ‘saintly’ his or her sanctity. This is what I do not care for in some (not all) of the FARMS reviews - the securing of blinders before approaching some subjects and the damning of those who do not care to wear the blinders themselves.

Thanks for the tip - I’ll put out feelers after the 1st and see if I can come up with something affordable!
 
40.png
ben_dy:
I’ll email (after the first of the year!) some of my Brit book hounds and see if it’s possible to get a copy of the original edition published. With any luck it won’t be as difficult to find as an original Book of Commandments. I understand, I suppose, why JS’s History of the Church would be ‘cleaned up’ and completed and rewritten, but I can’t imagine that his own Mother would have had many bad things to say about him. This is one of those reasons why I much prefer to read an ‘unvarnished’ biography of a saint rather than an idealized hagiography - the more ‘human’ a saint, the more ‘saintly’ his or her sanctity. This is what I do not care for in some (not all) of the FARMS reviews - the securing of blinders before approaching some subjects and the damning of those who do not care to wear the blinders themselves.
Click to expand...
Actually, you might be wasting your time as well as your money. I don’t claim to have read the original edition; but my understanding is that there isn’t that much difference between them. What Brigham Young was upset about was that Orson Pratt had published the book without consultation with and authorization from him and the rest of the leadership. Orson Pratt was a bit of a loose cannon, and tended to follow his own counsel rather than the leaderships’, and that is what had upset Brigham Young.

If there were such differences between the first edition of the book and later editions, which could in any way be used in a derogatory sense against LDS, you can bet your bottom dollar that anti-Mormons would have dug it up by now and published it on the Internet. I did a search, and couldn’t find nothing. That means more than likely there aren’t any.

amgid
 
40.png
majick275:
I beg to differ. Here is a pro-LDS site with a bit of detail on the changes:
meridianmagazine.com/churchhistory/010102lucy2.html

My searched have found quite a bit on this.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I had done a quick search and hadn’t found anything. So far, however, I haven’t noticed anything sinister. I would like to see the detailed changes before I can make an assessment. I still doubt if the “changes” are anything to shout about, otherwise anti-Mormons would have made plenty of use of it by now.

amgid
 
I don’t claim anything “sinister” just a “spin” to make things “fit” the “official” LDs view better. Just for the record many “anti” folks have in fact used these changes particularly the changing “first vision” account. Joseph Smith Senior’s vision also has been used to support the theory that Lehi’s vision in the BoM was autobiogrpahical. I chose not to post any of those links as the ones I have found are all from sources I consider so “anti” that they distort the truth (in my opinion) in order to make Mormonism seem worse than it already is. I thought the link I gave (while biased in favor of the LDS position) was sufficiently objective to be of benefit for those studying Joseph Smith. My only claim was that the book had been revised at the direction of BY and so you should view it with some degree of skepticism.
 
40.png
majick275:
I don’t claim anything “sinister” just a “spin” to make things “fit” the “official” LDs view better.
Click to expand...
That is what I mean by sinister. You are suggesting possible dishonest on the part of the LDS leadership. I am expressing confidence in their integrity.
Just for the record many “anti” folks have in fact used these changes particularly the changing “first vision” account. Joseph Smith Senior’s vision also has been used to support the theory that Lehi’s vision in the BoM was autobiogrpahical.
Click to expand...
I can’t comment on these without have the sources.
I chose not to post any of those links as the ones I have found are all from sources I consider so “anti” that they distort the truth (in my opinion) in order to make Mormonism seem worse than it already is. I thought the link I gave (while biased in favor of the LDS position) …
Click to expand...
I didn’t notice such bias “in favor of LDS” in the article you linked to.
…was sufficiently objective to be of benefit for those studying Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...
That remains to be seen.
My only claim was that the book had been revised at the direction of BY and so you should view it with some degree of skepticism.
Click to expand...
Why scepticism? Perhaps they were right, and there were genuine inaccuracies in the text. After all, Joseph’s mother was old when the book was written. I would like to see the changes before I can make a judgement.

amgid
 
Well in general I think there is sufficient historical evidence to cast doubt on the integrity of many LDS leaders. Joseph Smith first revealed this in his denouncements of many of the leaders that he had called. Boyd Packers exing of historians certainly indicates a problem to me. Gordon Hinkley dissembling in public on LDS doctrine is but sauce for the goose.

In any case I wonder if we might go the topic of the thread and discuss the Mormon Temple Endowment. Are there any questions about this that the Catholics here have on this subject?
 
You just want to divert the subject of any thread into Mormon bashing. I don’t think that will wash with a lot of people.
40.png
majick275:
Well in general I think there is sufficient historical evidence to cast doubt on the integrity of many LDS leaders.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is any such evidence. LDS leadership have generally been recognized throughout their history by all but the most staunch apostates and anti-Mormons as being men of impeccable integrity. President Hinckley is recognized today by all sections of American society, with the exception of apostates and anti-Mormons, as being a man of immense integrity.
Joseph Smith first revealed this in his denouncements of many of the leaders that he had called.
Click to expand...
Quotes please. There have been apostates from the LDS Church then as there are now, and they have usually turned out to be a corrupt and evil bunch, and it does not hurt to tell them so.
Boyd Packers exing of historians certainly indicates a problem to me. Gordon Hinkley dissembling in public on LDS doctrine is but sauce for the goose.
Click to expand...
I justify Elder Packer and Godron B Hinckley in their remarks.
In any case I wonder if we might go the topic of the thread and discuss the Mormon Temple Endowment.
Click to expand...
What about “Mormon Temple Endowments”?
Are there any questions about this that the Catholics here have on this subject?
Click to expand...
Be my guest!
 
40.png
amgid:
Actually, you might be wasting your time as well as your money. I don’t claim to have read the original edition; but my understanding is that there isn’t that much difference between them. What Brigham Young was upset about was that Orson Pratt had published the book without consultation with and authorization from him and the rest of the leadership. Orson Pratt was a bit of a loose cannon, and tended to follow his own counsel rather than the leaderships’, and that is what had upset Brigham Young.

If there were such differences between the first edition of the book and later editions, which could in any way be used in a derogatory sense against LDS, you can bet your bottom dollar that anti-Mormons would have dug it up by now and published it on the Internet. I did a search, and couldn’t find nothing. That means more than likely there aren’t any.

amgid
Click to expand...
Ah, and you know how much I love reading Orson Pratt! (which reminds me - have you seen this - journalofdiscourses.org/ ? I only found it last night and haven’t read what all is included exactly but if it’s the entire JoD for $10, I can make that fit in my last day’s monthly budget).

But you do think it’s a worthwhile read? I believe you’d be correct in your assumption that had Joseph’s Mother had anything truly bad to say of him, it would be on the anti-Mormon boards. I read some of the reviews of Brodie’s book and it seems that she was interested more in psycho-analyzing the man. Biography with conjecture has it’s place but that calls for a very skilled biographer who has as much knowledge of the times and society as he/she has of the singular subject… I know I’m unlikely to find a perfectly objective biography of JS but I just want SOMETHING between hagiography and demonization.
 
Josephs mother didn’t say anything bad about Joseph in her bio of him. What she said though was different than the party line and thus called into question some LDS accounts of their church history.

here is an intersting albeit brief look into the smith family history with documented refernces. :

freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/840079/posts

Read with caution as it has many brief quotes from multiple sources and thus risks some being taken out of context.

The JoD is must for those studying LDS doctrinal development. It is still quoted in LDS sunday school and priesthood lesson manuals. It contains many general conference talks by BY era LDS leaders on Mormon doctrine and practices.
 
40.png
majick275:
This link may be of interest as well:

signaturebooks.com/excerpts/inside.htm

Once again this is pro-LDS but still of value in studying Joseph Smith. (IMO)
Click to expand...
Hmm - I just don’t think I want to dive right into a “psychobiography”… I’m looking for a Sergeant Joe Friday biography: “Just the facts, Ma’am”! Um, I guess you guys weren’t around when Dragnet was at the top, were you? Not even for the 1960’s version? The '51 version was better - much more realistic!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top