The Mormon Temple Ceremony

[SirThomasMore]

The above website is highly suspect as I have pointed out before. Since when is a public university encouraging people to leave a particular faith? And should tax payers money go into such an university where mormons also attend? And where is the separation of church and state?

Conclusion: the website link is highly suspect. And it certainly is not unbiased.

Conclusion: Since it tells the truth about Mormons, let’s call it highly suspect

 

[SirThomasMore]

Emma did not follow sid. In fact, she just wanted to be left alone in her grieving. It was not until much later that she was approached by former members to allow her son to become leader of what became known as the Reorganized lds church.

And there was no clash of power between sid and joe. At any moment, sid could have spilled the beans, but didn’t. In fact, on his deathbed infront of his family, he claimed again that he did not write the book of mormon. And even his wife denied that sid wrote the book of mormon.

Such is life…

That is horribly incorrect. She was not left behind to grieve. She was left behind because she did not agree with BY. She knew he was not from God. And how did BY respond?

“The sympathies of the Latterday Saints are with the family of the martyred prophet. I never saw a day in the world that I would not almost worship that woman, Emma Smith, if she would be a saint instead of being a devil… [We] would have been exceeding glad if the prophet’s family had come with us when we left Nauvoo… We would have made cradles for them… and would have fed them on milk and honey. Emma is naturally a very smart woman; she is subtle and ingenious… she has made her children inherit lies. To my certain knowledge Emma Smith is one of the damnest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman.”

• Prophet Brigham Young, October 1, 1866, as quoted in Newell and Avery, “The Lion and the Lady: Brigham Young and Emma Smith,” Utah Historical Quarterly, v. 48, Winter 1980, p. 82

No wonder she stayed behind

 

[twopekinguys]

Conclusion: Since it tells the truth about Mormons, let’s call it highly suspect

BINGO!!! We have a winner!!!

Give the man a Cigar!!

Did you notice that out of all the different references, the UNC one was the only one he could say was “suspect”? Nothing on it was wrong evidently, but it is still “suspect”.

I also like how he totally ignored how wrong he was on everything else he suggested/implied about our posting history.

Must have been difficult to get the word out with that foot in his mouth.

 

[NewSeeker]

The best interview that I came across about mormons and masons is the interview with greg kearney a mormon and a master mason. He goes into the history and the similiarites and the unsimiliarities.

mormonstories.org/?p=14

As I have said before, many of the early mormons were masons and they would have recognized it if Joe stole from the mason ceremony. But…no one to my knowledge left the lds church because of the temple ceremony being ‘stolen’ from the masons. Conclusion: equating the mason ceremony with the lds ceremony is a red herring.

No one left after recognizing the obvious similarities between the LDS endowment rite and the masonic rite since Joseph Smith told the first recipients of the endowment that the masonic ceremonies were a corruption of the original Jewish temple rites, which he claimed his rites restored to their original, pristine state. The fact is the LDS rite Joseph created and the masonic rites were very similar - the same hand shakes, oaths, tokens, and similar ritual clothing. Joseph explained the similarities by claiming that both derive from Solomon’s temple, a claim the masons also make. But we know what went on in Solomon’s temple. See Barker’s and her colleagues work on the issue. It was not a place where anything remotely resembling the LDS endowment ceremony or masonic rites occurred, apart from the wearing of special temple robes and the plan of the temple building. But even there, LDS temples get it wrong. There is no similarity between LDS temple clothing and the robes worn by the priests and high priests in the Jewish temple anciently. Signs, token, handshakes, etc. were not part of the rites in ancient times. The ancient temple was a place of atonement, where annual rites to heal the cosmos and reconcile the people to God were conducted by the high priest, who wore the name of God on his forehead and represented the Lord making the sacrifice Himself. This is nothing like LDS temples, where nothing occurs that can be construed as atonement rites. As well, the Holy of Holies behind the veil in Jerusalem contained an altar. LDS temples place the altar before the veil, outside the Holy of Holies. The similarities between LDS temples and the ancient Jewish temple (veil, altar, temple robes) are superficial and are explained by Joseph Smith borrowing descriptions contained in his KJV. But the content and meaning of the rites, and the theology behind them, are radically different. The Jewish temple was a place of atonement, with bloody rites performed by the high priest, who stood in for God, going in and out from the Holy of Holies and had the name of God written on his forehead (he wore a gold plate with the sacred name YHWH inscribed). With the coming of Jesus, everything was transferred out of the temple to the Christian churches. The atonement rite of the Jewish temple was replaced by atonement rites conducted during the Mass and the Divine Liturgy of Orthodoxy, with the priest standing in for Jesus, the Great High Priest who is in heaven before the Father making eternal atonement to heal the cosmos. Instead of the bread and wine placed on the altar before the holy of holies, which only the Jewish priests consumed, Jesus gives sanctified bread and wine, his own flesh and blood to every baptized christian, making every christian a priest to God. In the Jerusalem temple anciently, only the Jewish priests could consume the holy things (the sanctified bread and wine offered on the altar before the Holy of Holies). But now, baptized Christians are considered priests to God and can and do consume the holy things standing before the altar (God’s throne on earth) in the Holy of Holies: the space with the altar behind the rail in a Catholic church and the space behind the iconostasis in an Orthodox temple (yes, they’re called temples). The atonement sacrifices in the modern temple (the Christian church building) are no longer bloody, as Jesus, the Lamb of God, the Great High Priest, shed his own precious blood once and for all to make a final atonement and he presents that atonement eternally before the throne of God. That’s why there are no more high priests. There’s no need. High priests, priests after the order of Melchizedek, had only one function in the ancient temple: to stand in for God making atonement for the people. Jesus, the eternal high priest, the Great High Priest, was the last one of this order. This makes Mormon high priests usurpers. Catholicism and Orthodoxy preserve the the true meaning of the ancient temple, which foreshadowed Jesus and the eternal atonement he would make, and which is celebrated and re-presented at every Catholic Mass and Orthodoxy Divine Liturgy.

NS

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

No one left after recognizing the obvious similarities between the LDS endowment rite and the masonic rite since Joseph Smith told the first recipients of the endowment that the masonic ceremonies were a corruption of the original Jewish temple rites, which he claimed his rites restored to their original, pristine state. The fact is the LDS rite Joseph created and the masonic rites were very similar - the same hand shakes, oaths, tokens, and similar ritual clothing. Joseph explained the similarities by claiming that both derive from Solomon’s temple, a claim the masons also make. But we know what went on in Solomon’s temple. See Barker’s and her colleagues work on the issue. It was not a place where anything remotely resembling the LDS endowment ceremony or masonic rites occurred, apart from the wearing of special temple robes and the plan of the temple building. But even there, LDS temples get it wrong. There is no similarity between LDS temple clothing and the robes worn by the priests and high priests in the Jewish temple anciently. Signs, token, handshakes, etc. were not part of the rites in ancient times. The ancient temple was a place of atonement, where annual rites to heal the cosmos and reconcile the people to God were conducted by the high priest, who wore the name of God on his forehead and represented the Lord making the sacrifice Himself. This is nothing like LDS temples, where nothing occurs that can be construed as atonement rites. As well, the Holy of Holies behind the veil in Jerusalem contained an altar. LDS temples place the altar before the veil, outside the Holy of Holies. The similarities between LDS temples and the ancient Jewish temple (veil, altar, temple robes) are superficial and are explained by Joseph Smith borrowing descriptions contained in his KJV. But the content and meaning of the rites, and the theology behind them, are radically different. The Jewish temple was a place of atonement, with bloody rites performed by the high priest, who stood in for God, going in and out from the Holy of Holies and had the name of God written on his forehead (he wore a gold plate with the sacred name YHWH inscribed). With the coming of Jesus, everything was transferred out of the temple to the Christian churches. The atonement rite of the Jewish temple was replaced by atonement rites conducted during the Mass and the Divine Liturgy of Orthodoxy, with the priest standing in for Jesus, the Great High Priest who is in heaven before the Father making eternal atonement to heal the cosmos. Instead of the bread and wine placed on the altar before the holy of holies, which only the Jewish priests consumed, Jesus gives sanctified bread and wine, his own flesh and blood to every baptized christian, making every christian a priest to God. In the Jerusalem temple anciently, only the Jewish priests could consume the holy things (the sanctified bread and wine offered on the altar before the Holy of Holies). But now, baptized Christians are considered priests to God and can and do consume the holy things standing before the altar (God’s throne on earth) in the Holy of Holies: the space with the altar behind the rail in a Catholic church and the space behind the iconostasis in an Orthodox temple (yes, they’re called temples). The atonement sacrifices in the modern temple (the Christian church building) are no longer bloody, as Jesus, the Lamb of God, the Great High Priest, shed his own precious blood once and for all to make a final atonement and he presents that atonement eternally before the throne of God. That’s why there are no more high priests. There’s no need. High priests, priests after the order of Melchizedek, had only one function in the ancient temple: to stand in for God making atonement for the people. Jesus, the eternal high priest, the Great High Priest, was the last one of this order. This makes Mormon high priests usurpers. Catholicism and Orthodoxy preserve the the true meaning of the ancient temple, which foreshadowed Jesus and the eternal atonement he would make, and which is celebrated and re-presented at every Catholic Mass and Orthodoxy Divine Liturgy.

NS

Thank you. It is clear that Catholic/Orthodox liturgies have a much greater continuity with the OT temple rituals and architecture than the Mormon temple and Endowment.

 

[NewSeeker]

Thank you. It is clear that Catholic/Orthodox liturgies have a much greater continuity with the OT temple rituals and architecture than the Mormon temple and Endowment.

Indeed. If greater continuity and a higher number of parallels with the liturgy of the OT temple indicates true succession, then Catholic/Orthodoxy liturgies win by a landslide. Interestingly, Margaret Barker had already made a name for herself as the preeminent scholar of the theology and rites of the ancient (first) Jewish temple before acquainting herself with the early Christian liturgies (Barker is a Methodist lay preacher). But when she first attended an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, everything changed in her research. She was amazed and instantly recognized that she was witnessing ancient Jewish Day of Atonement rituals from the first temple in Jerusalem. As a non-mormon, she has never attended LDS temple rites. But as a former mormon, I have. I’ve also attended Mass and the Divine Liturgy. If, as Barker demonstrates in her research, and which I believe, Orthodox and Catholic liturgies derive from and are patterned after the ancient Jewish temple and Day of Atonement rituals (not a surprise given that the first Christians were temple-going Jews who believed Jesus was their Great High Priest), then LDS temple rites have nothing in common with the ancient Jewish temple. As you say, Catholic/Orthodox liturgies have greater continuity with the ancient temple, contrary to LDS claims. The LDS temple has greater continuity with the mason lodge, even though the masons claim continuity with the ancient temple too. This, of course, is poppycock. Neither the Masonic lodge rites nor LDS temple rites derive from the Jewish temple. Both mormons and masons are wrong about this.

NS

 

[SirThomasMore]

BINGO!!! We have a winner!!!

Give the man a Cigar!!

Did you notice that out of all the different references, the UNC one was the only one he could say was “suspect”? Nothing on it was wrong evidently, but it is still “suspect”.

I also like how he totally ignored how wrong he was on everything else he suggested/implied about our posting history.

Must have been difficult to get the word out with that foot in his mouth.

lol

 

[SirThomasMore]

That is horribly incorrect. She was not left behind to grieve. She was left behind because she did not agree with BY. She knew he was not from God. And how did BY respond?

“The sympathies of the Latterday Saints are with the family of the martyred prophet. I never saw a day in the world that I would not almost worship that woman, Emma Smith, if she would be a saint instead of being a devil… [We] would have been exceeding glad if the prophet’s family had come with us when we left Nauvoo… We would have made cradles for them… and would have fed them on milk and honey. Emma is naturally a very smart woman; she is subtle and ingenious… she has made her children inherit lies. To my certain knowledge Emma Smith is one of the damnest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman.”

• Prophet Brigham Young, October 1, 1866, as quoted in Newell and Avery, “The Lion and the Lady: Brigham Young and Emma Smith,” Utah Historical Quarterly, v. 48, Winter 1980, p. 82

No wonder she stayed behind

Guess Why could not respond to this. Facts sure are pesky creatures

 

[twopekinguys]

The above website is highly suspect as I have pointed out before. Since when is a public university encouraging people to leave a particular faith? And should tax payers money go into such an university where mormons also attend? And where is the separation of church and state?

Conclusion: the website link is highly suspect. And it certainly is not unbiased.

Show me where that website is encourgaging people to leave a particular faith.

Why do you continually try to equate presenting facts with bias? They have merely presented the facts without any spin. Any reasonably intelligent person can read the information there, and make a determination for themselves. That is not something that can be said of the sources you use however.

You are merely trying to use your standard tactic that if it doesn’t show mormonism or JS in a glowing light, it must be anti. You really should try something different because that line isn’t working.

Also, how do you know any tax dollars went into their research? It very well could have been done by independent study. One of the nice things about public education is there isn’t nearly the amount of censorship that you would find at a private school like BYU.

Don’t you have anything else to say about your other accusations? You did see where I defended mormonism right? You also saw where I used mormon sources right?

What I see is your failure to admit to your errors and attempted distortion.

BTW, “suspect” does not equal “biased”. But good try.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.

Please show where this site is encouraging anyone to leave their faith.