What is a Mormon service like. Just click on the video.

[kikkichan]

LDSGuy,

thanks

…
I assume by “Restored LDS” you mean the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, currently known as the Community of Christ. There are many differences between the Community of Christ and the Church of JC of LDS. The Community of Christ can be seen as a mainstream Protestant church, which also uses the Book of Mormon and has their own version of the Doctrine and Covenants. They do not practice any of the temple ordinances that we do. Their temples are open to all. They believe in the Trinity. They only have one temple. We both believe in continuing revelation from God.

“… their own version of the Doctrine and Covenants…” Interesting, Just how different is the CoC (RDLS) version? Do you know? I also was under the impression that the CoC doesn’t except the “Pearl of Great Price”. Do you know if that’s true? and why?

And is the CoC and CoJC of LDS have any interaction?

thanks,
–kc

 

[Robert_in_SD]

For those interested in seeing what a Mormon service is like, please click on the video. I do not do this for Missionary work but rather for understanding a mormon service. I think that there are many posters who post on the mormon threads who have never had an explanation of a mormon service:

realmormonism.com/category/is-mormonism-true/

Enjoy!!!

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Finrock]

I am however wondering, the Mormons I know and the missionaries I have spoken with tell me that shortly after the founding of the Church by Jesus after His resurrection, the Church fell into Apostasy, (contrary to the promise of Jesus that He would remain with the Church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.) At what point did this occur according to Mormanism? Was it prior to the time of St. Cyril of Jerusalem? who from my reading leaves me with a more Catholic than Mormon understanding of the early Church. If it was, then can Mormonism trust what St. Cyril writes? The books I have published by Desert Press, mention that the Apostasy took place during and immediatly after the time of the Apostles. Some say that it started then. Has the Mormon Church been able to narrow down when Jesus promise to the Church lapsed, and the world went into Apostasy? Just wondering.

Filioque, thank you for your questions. Hopefully I can be helpful in answering them. I will do that directly, but first, let me make a comment on my post.

Just in case, let me clarify my post by saying that I did not mean to imply that the LDS church used the lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem as a sort of “blueprint” of LDS temple ordinances. I mentioned his lectures to help illustrate the ordinances in question. I wanted to try and find something that you might be familiar with to help explain what we do in the temple. Although I definitely see much truth in the writings of St. Cyril, particularly in his mystigogic lectures. It was very interesting for me the first time to read some of his writings. I would say to myself, “Wow, that sounds just like what we do in the temple!”

Now, to try and answer your questions. There is no particular time where we can p(name removed by moderator)oint and say, “At AD xx, the apostasy occurred.” The LDS church does believe that the apostasy began soon after the ascension of Jesus. This is evidenced by the many epistles, which were primarily written to address various dissensions and false notions cropping up within the various churches in Palestine and Rome.

This next part of my post I bring up only because the last question you asked implies that a promise Jesus made to Peter was broken. Obviously the Mormon church doesn’t believe Jesus broke his promise (if some promise is ever not fulfilled, it is always because man didn’t keep his part of the promise). So, the following is just to explain the LDS perspective, and not as an attempt to convince you that it is right. As far as what Jesus said to Peter in Matthew, I don’t believe that anything ever has prevailed against the Church of God. Even when people apostatize and the church is taken from the earth, God’s church continues to exist. From our perspective, Jesus stated that his church would be built on revelation, just as it was revelation, and not flesh and blood, that allowed Peter to know that Jesus was the Christ. Furthermore, Jesus stated to Peter that His church would never fall, because it wasn’t a flesh and blood organization, it is a heavenly organization. His church never has failed, even when it didn’t exist on earth. And, we believe, it was eventually through revelation that it was again restored to earth and continues to exist on revelation to this day. Without revelation, it could not be the true and living church of Jesus Christ.

Now, I imagine that after all of the Apostles were killed, there probably were many priesthood holders left, however there was none left who had all the keys of the priesthood, which were given to the presiding Apostle, Peter. Again, I believe that overtime, as the last of the priesthood holders were either martyred or passed away, the priesthood was eventually lost completely. I don’t know of any particular time when this happened. I am certain that at least by AD 200 or so, the apostasy was complete. This doesn’t mean that no one had any truth or that all people were evil and wicked. It just means that there was no priesthood authority and no priesthood keys and no authorized spokesman to speak for God and keep the doctrine straight. It was now done by councils. And, as you’ve probably heard before, we believe that overtime the church as Jesus left it ceased to exist and many truths were lost in the shuffle, so to speak.

I think I answered all your questions. If I didn’t, or if I misunderstood some part of what you were asking, please let me know. Thank you for taking the time to have this conversation with me.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Filioque]

Finrock:

Thanks, I don’t buy it for a minute, but I am glad to get a better understanding of what the Mormonism teaches.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Endowment
The Endowment is a ritual, I would say, most similar to an Eastern Orthodox liturgy. It is very liturgical in nature and is really a symbolic representation of mankind’s life. It is a way of teaching an individual how they can consecrate their lives to the Savior. It incorporates the retelling of the Creation, the Fall of man, the Atonement, and how we can be saved from the grasps of physical and spiritual death. Because it is all symbolic in nature, it really needs to be experienced before it can be truly understood or even appreciated. What you find on the internet about the Endowment really doesn’t come close to representing the feel and spirit of this sacred ordinance, even on those parts that are technically true. I am sure you can appreciate this sentiment if you consider the mass. You can see it performed and hear all about it, but someone from the outside probably will not understand or appreciate it until they have experienced it.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

To begin, I must commend you for your candidness. Even when I was a Latter-day Saint, I rarely ever came across another LDS who’d be willing to even vaguely speak about the temple even when in only fellow LDS company! I wish more LDS could understand that the temple oaths do not call for strict, 100% secrecy; only that the particular manners of particular ordinances are not to be revealed (you know which parts I’m talking about). You did a great job in keeping true to your oath and at the same time opening up the unneeded mystery of the Temple to non-LDS.

I however must ask you how you justify comparing the LDS Endowment and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and further implying that one is a vestige of the other. I’ve both attended a few Orthodox Divine Liturgies and taken out Endowments not only for myself but on behalf of others by proxy. I fail to see any relationship.

I understand the sensitivity necessary in discussing the Temple, but I do think you owe it to those in the forum (and to the honest nature that you exemplify in other threads) to elaborate on exactly what you meant by the comparison.

Thanks!

 

[why_me]

Thanks for sharing.

You are welcome. I thought that perhaps some catholics who would never step inside a lds service may like a simple explanation. When seen from a cartoon explanation a lds service is not that bad at all. Now much depends on the individual members since individual members more or less make the meetings interesting or dull. But one thing is for sure, without the dedication of its members the lds service would stop. No paid clergy to conduct a near empty chapel as a person may find in some churches. And because of this with age demographics some branches in the lds church do close.

 

[why_me]

Here’s a more entertaining video.

youtube.com/watch?v=0ulRnhZnkeM

I think that you mean this one…

youtube.com/watch?v=NxwpV80wQII&feature=related

 

[zerinus]

I am however wondering, the Mormons I know and the missionaries I have spoken with tell me that shortly after the founding of the Church by Jesus after His resurrection, the Church fell into Apostasy, (contrary to the promise of Jesus that He would remain with the Church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.) At what point did this occur according to Mormanism? Was it prior to the time of St. Cyril of Jerusalem? who from my reading leaves me with a more Catholic than Mormon understanding of the early Church. If it was, then can Mormonism trust what St. Cyril writes? The books I have published by Desert Press, mention that the Apostasy took place during and immediatly after the time of the Apostles. Some say that it started then. Has the Mormon Church been able to narrow down when Jesus promise to the Church lapsed, and the world went into Apostasy? Just wondering.

Hi, This is a question, as you might imagine, that is asked of LDS quite often, especially by Catholics. Almost every Catholic whom I encounter for the first time, here or elsewhere, inevitably seems to ask me that question. For this reason I have created a Blog post that gives a prepared answer to all the issues that I have encountred relating to that question. So I hope that you don’t think that by referring you to that article, I am trying to find an easy way out of answering it here. It is just that I have had to answer that question so many times that I decided the best way of answering it in the future is to create a prepared answser that addresses all the issues that I have so far encountered. You can read it here. Unless you can come up with a new question that I hadn’t heard of before, this should answer all of your questions.

zerinus

 

[LDSGuy]

LDSGuy,

thanks

“… their own version of the Doctrine and Covenants…” Interesting, Just how different is the CoC (RDLS) version? Do you know? I also was under the impression that the CoC doesn’t except the “Pearl of Great Price”. Do you know if that’s true? and why?

And is the CoC and CoJC of LDS have any interaction?

thanks,
–kc

I’m not sure exactly what’s in the CoC’s Doctrine and Covenants, but it’s safe to assume that it doesn’t have the revelations on polygamy or opening the priesthood to all worthy males, because they never practiced polygamy and I assume that they did not restrict the priesthood. Also, CoC’s Doctrine and Covenants would most likely have their revelations on opening the priesthood to women. Also, it would not have passages on baptism for the dead or any temple ordinances. And yes, they do not have the Pearl of Great Price. Not sure (probably because they saw it as an innovation not from God, which also is related to their rejection of doctrine that ties to the Pearl of Great Price, such as the premortal existence, or the plurality of gods.

Not sure if the CoC and the CoJCoLDS have any interaction.

 

[Finrock]

I however must ask you how you justify comparing the LDS Endowment and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and further implying that one is a vestige of the other. I’ve both attended a few Orthodox Divine Liturgies and taken out Endowments not only for myself but on behalf of others by proxy. I fail to see any relationship.

I understand the sensitivity necessary in discussing the Temple, but I do think you owe it to those in the forum (and to the honest nature that you exemplify in other threads) to elaborate on exactly what you meant by the comparison.

Thanks!

Good afternoon xixxvmcm85! I’m glad to meet you. Thank you for your compliment.

Thank you, as well, for giving me an opportunity to clarify my comparison. When I was writing that post, I wanted to use things that I felt would be familiar to a Catholic audience to help them understand the temple ordinances a little bit better. In order to answer your question, I need to quote from an article about the Orthodox liturgy. I apologize for the long quote in advance, but I think it will be helpful in getting my point across.

With comparing the Endowment to the Eastern Orthodox liturgy, it wasn’t my intent to imply that there is an exact comparison. My phrasing could have been better. What I was trying to say is that the closest thing that I can think of to compare the Endowment to would be the Eastern Orthodox liturgy. Even though the Endowment ritual and EO liturgy ritual is very different, the essence of what the Eastern Orthodox liturgy [and probably Catholic Eucharist too) is all about is very close to what the essence of the Endowment is all about:

“As the whole Divine liturgy of the [Eastern Orthodox] Church consists of the proclamation of the death and resurrection of Christ until He comes, so also the life of the faithful in Christ consists of the co-crucifixion end dying with Christ, and in resurrecting with Him (See Rom. 6, 4-14). And as in each Liturgy the whole economy of the God-man Christ the Saviour is repeated and given, i.e. is actualized liturgically hic et hunc, so also the whole life of Christ is again experienced in the Christian spiritual life of the Orthodox man…St. Gregory of Sinai says: Everyone who is baptized into Christ should pass through and achieve all of the heights of Christ (πάσας τὰς μεθηλικιώσεις). For to these Heights (man) has in advance been given the power, and he could attain and know (these heights) through the observance of the commandments (Philokalia IV, 53)…Therefore, the liturgical –spiritual life and experience of Orthodoxy reveals to mankind and to the world that fundamental mystery of Christianity, according to which, on the one band, in the Liturgy all the faithful as the Church, as the Body of Christ, are identified with Christ and all become ‘one in Christ’ as St. Paul says (Gal. 3:28), or as St. John Chrysostom say, all become ‘one Christ’ (Homily 8,2 on Colossians, PG 62:353). On the other hand, thanks to the incorporation (ἐνσωμάτωσις) into Christ through baptism and eucharist, the faithful, in their greater ascetic life according to Christ, become annointed (κεχρισμένοι, χριστοί), they become christs-as says St. Methodius of Olympus, as well as many other Fathers: ‘become christs through the fellowship of the Spirit’” (Source).

In the same sense, the Endowment is a symbolic representation of how fallen man can become united with Christ. We are taught how we can become “christ-as” so that we can be joint-heirs with Christ. This is why I felt the comparison was meaningful. Also, a liturgy by definition, is a well defined ceremony. The Endowment is also a well defined ceremony. Lastly, much of the ceremony involved in the EO liturgy is symbolic just as the ceremony involved in the Endowment is symbolic.

I know that the EO liturgy isn’t a “vestige of the other”, as you put it. But, the essence and the mode of the ceremonies were similar enough that I thought it might be a useful way in helping others to understand the Endowment; That although the Endowment is different, it is in the same vein as the EO liturgy.

You make a good point and I can see why you would want me to clarify. Thanks, again, for letting me do that. Hopefully I didn’t muck things up even more. It would not be a surprise if I did.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[PaulDupre]

Your quote from EO could just have well been quoted from Latin Rite Catholicism. Neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy have any similarity to the LDS endowment. The EO and RC mass is completely Christ-centered, an extended prayer to the Father with and through Jesus. The endowment is all about man - how man can gain the knowledge, tokens, signs and keywords to ascend to godhood.

No comparison whatsoever, and your comparison is frankly an insult to Catholics and Orthodox, especially those of us who are former endowed LDS. We know better.

 

[Religio71]

why do Mormon temples look more like hotels than like…temples? And there is much comparison of modern LDS temples with Solomon’s temple, for example. The purposes of Biblical temples and LDS temples are completely different. Where is the sacrificial offering or even sacrificial nature of temple ordinances? I would say that Catholic and Orthodox churches and cathedrals are more similar to the ancient temples than the LDS temples are.

 

[Finrock]

Your quote from EO could just have well been quoted from Latin Rite Catholicism. Neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy have any similarity to the LDS endowment. The EO and RC mass is completely Christ-centered, an extended prayer to the Father with and through Jesus. The endowment is all about man - how man can gain the knowledge, tokens, signs and keywords to ascend to godhood.

No comparison whatsoever, and your comparison is frankly an insult to Catholics and Orthodox, especially those of us who are former endowed LDS. We know better.

Hello PaulDupre! I’m glad to meet you. You didn’t seem to happy with my post, but hopefully the rest of your day has been great!

You may be right that there is no comparison. Although with my understanding of both ceremonies, I certainly see a comparison, which I tried to illustrate in my earlier post. I’ve always felt the the Endowment as well as all the temple ordinances are Christ centered. Obviously, I can’t speak for you.

I’m sorry you were insulted by my post. I’m a fallible human being and although I had no desire whatsoever to insult or malign, I don’t put it past my fallible nature that somehow I still accomplished such a thing with my post. May I be so bold as to ask you to realize my weaknesses and to please forgive me now and in the future of any insults that may be a result of my weakness. I will certainly extend the same grace to you.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Religio71]

Hello PaulDupre! I’m glad to meet you. You didn’t seem to happy with my post, but hopefully the rest of your day has been great!

You may be right that there is no comparison. Although with my understanding of both ceremonies, I certainly see a comparison, which I tried to illustrate in my earlier post. I’ve always felt the the Endowment as well as all the temple ordinances are Christ centered. Obviously, I can’t speak for you.

I’m sorry you were insulted by my post. I’m a fallible human being and although I had no desire whatsoever to insult or malign, I don’t put it past my fallible nature that somehow I still accomplished such a thing with my post. May I be so bold as to ask you to realize my weaknesses and to please forgive me now and in the future of any insults that may be a result of my weakness. I will certainly extend the same grace to you.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I agree with Paul in that the Eastern Divine Liturgy (as well as the Latin/Western Mass) does not really have any correlation with the LDS Endowment ceremony. The goal of the Endowment is to learn the necessary signs and tokens to gain exaltation, entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. The goal of the Divine Liturgy is to literally be unified with Christ by partaking of His Body and Blood, the Real Presence. The Divine Liturgy and Mass are Christ centered because they focus on the one time sacrifice of Christ, that is re-presented on the altar. We worship and pray to God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in the Liturgy, then are unified with Him through the Body and Blood of Christ.

In the Endowment, one watches the drama of the LDS “plan of salvation”, which begins with Creation (though I think it would be more appropriate to be termed the Organization if using LDS genesis theology). It ends with one being pulled through the veil into the Celestial Kingdom, represented by the Celestial Room. To go back to the Celestial Kingdom, to be in the presence of the Heavenly Father and to be exalted, one needs the correct signs and tokens for this to be possible. These are learned in the Endowment.

As we see, the Divine Liturgy and the Endowment have different purposes, and really are not similar (I think that’s the first time I’ve seen them being compared).

 

[Religio71]

why are the websites for stakes and wards so hidden? You need an LDS Account to simply look at the calendar of a ward! The calendars, information, lessons, etc. for Catholic dioceses and parishes are not hidden under username and password. curious.

 

[Finrock]

I agree with Paul in that the Eastern Divine Liturgy (as well as the Latin/Western Mass) does not really have any correlation with the LDS Endowment ceremony. The goal of the Endowment is to learn the necessary signs and tokens to gain exaltation, entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. The goal of the Divine Liturgy is to literally be unified with Christ by partaking of His Body and Blood, the Real Presence. The Divine Liturgy and Mass are Christ centered because they focus on the one time sacrifice of Christ, that is re-presented on the altar. We worship and pray to God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in the Liturgy, then are unified with Him through the Body and Blood of Christ.

In the Endowment, one watches the drama of the LDS “plan of salvation”, which begins with Creation (though I think it would be more appropriate to be termed the Organization if using LDS genesis theology). It ends with one being pulled through the veil into the Celestial Kingdom, represented by the Celestial Room. To go back to the Celestial Kingdom, to be in the presence of the Heavenly Father and to be exalted, one needs the correct signs and tokens for this to be possible. These are learned in the Endowment.

As we see, the Divine Liturgy and the Endowment have different purposes, and really are not similar (I think that’s the first time I’ve seen them being compared).

Religio71, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this matter. I appreciate what you are saying, particularly if what you presented is your understanding of the Endowment. Based on my understanding of the Endowment and the EO liturgy, I see the common elements of: ceremony, individual participation in the ceremony and not just as an observer, a desire to be united with Deity through spiritual works and gifts, and the use of symbolism to convey truth. Those are the common elements that I see and that is why I used it as a means to illustrate the Endowment. I personally feel that my comparisons are accurate. Of course if you understand the Endowment differently, you are going to have a different opinion on this matter and I completely respect that.

Take care and be safe.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Religio71]

Religio71, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this matter. I appreciate what you are saying, particularly if what you presented is your understanding of the Endowment. Based on my understanding of the Endowment and the EO liturgy, I see the common elements of: ceremony, individual participation in the ceremony and not just as an observer, a desire to be united with Deity through spiritual works and gifts, and the use of symbolism to convey truth. Those are the common elements that I see and that is why I used it as a means to illustrate the Endowment. I personally feel that my comparisons are accurate. Of course if you understand the Endowment differently, you are going to have a different opinion on this matter and I completely respect that.

Take care and be safe.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

The prime difference I see between the Divine Liturgy/Mass and the Endowment, using your statement, is that the union with the Divine occurs literally during the Liturgy. The point of the Endowment is not to be literally united with Christ during the ordinance. Also, there really isn’t any worship involved in the Endowment. Instead there is a dramatization of various stories, as well as the teaching of signs and tokens needed to be exalted. Thus the relationship between the Divine Liturgy and the Endowment is more superficial than anything, and really could be applied to many ceremonies, Christian and non-Christian.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

why are the websites for stakes and wards so hidden? You need an LDS Account to simply look at the calendar of a ward! The calendars, information, lessons, etc. for Catholic dioceses and parishes are not hidden under username and password. curious.

I asked one of my LDS friends about this and he said at least part of the reason is because a lot of personal info is on the sites, like the Ward directory with phone numbers and stuff. I’m sure if our parishes had an entire parish directory online, we’d probably restrict it a bit too. I’m sure there are more reasons too.

To the OP, thanks for posting the video and the Endowment explanation. And I’d say to a lot of the Catholics here, if you do choose to read any LDS temple ceremonies online, they honestly are not that weird.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Thanks Finrock for your clarification.

I agree that the Endowment is liturgical in nature, but I feel I must disagree in that the content is all that similar to an EO Divine Liturgy or an RC Mass.

Granted, any distinction made (or claims of similarity) will ultimately be judged by each individual by a subjective standard. You might claim that the similarities between an apple and an orange are striking as they’re both fruits whereas I might point out that the differences outweigh as the color varies, the tastes, the textures, etc.

In my opinion, the most important distinction between the Temple Endowment and the Mass (or Divine Liturgy) is the position the subject takes and the central object. The Mass has God as the object and the subjects (us parishioners) take a passive role of worship. The Endowment has God as an indirect object and the temple patrons as the direct object (as the Endowment’s central focus is the exaltation of the patrons). Again, this distinction though obvious to me might be subtle to you or somebody else and ultimately reflects only the experience of the beholder.

Thanks again for your opinion!

 

[Religio71]

I asked one of my LDS friends about this and he said at least part of the reason is because a lot of personal info is on the sites, like the Ward directory with phone numbers and stuff. I’m sure if our parishes had an entire parish directory online, we’d probably restrict it a bit too. I’m sure there are more reasons too.

I was LDS before I became Catholic The ward and stake websites restrict most content, and the membership directory is completely separate. Parishes that have membership directories restrict that part of the website, not everything else. Just an observation.