Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/10/2009 6:50:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2009 6:51:01 AM EDT by brasilia]
This Sunday, March 15, HBO's episode of "Big Love" will include scenes depicting the temple endowment and excommunication. Apparently the show's producers hired an ex-Mormon to provide all the detail they need for the scenes.

I never watch the show, but this is disgusting and disrespectful no matter how you look at it.

If this were the muslim faith there would be riots in the streets with people burning the US flag.

Please call HBO's customer affairs number and in a Christlike manner tell of you disgust at this episode. The lady I spoke to was very nice and said they had received many calls about this and they take them all seriously.

HBO 212-512-1000

Thanks
Link Posted: 3/10/2009 9:59:13 AM EDT
Not much of an issue to me. We don't watch HBO anyway at my house.

The biggest caution I would suggest is making a big deal out of this. The controversy is exactly what the producers of the show are trying to inspire. Let the entire thing roll off your back like water off a duck's.
Link Posted: 3/10/2009 11:05:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Not much of an issue to me. We don't watch HBO anyway at my house.

The biggest caution I would suggest is making a big deal out of this. The controversy is exactly what the producers of the show are trying to inspire. Let the entire thing roll off your back like water off a duck's.


I agree. This type of junk has been done before. It only excites those who enjoy controversy. I can guarantee that no matter the "qualifications" of those providing the information, it will not be factual. ...but like Shane333, I won't know because I don't watch HBO.
Link Posted: 3/10/2009 11:12:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/10/2009 1:51:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Not much of an issue to me. We don't watch HBO anyway at my house.

The biggest caution I would suggest is making a big deal out of this. The controversy is exactly what the producers of the show are trying to inspire. Let the entire thing roll off your back like water off a duck's.


I agree. This type of junk has been done before. It only excites those who enjoy controversy. I can guarantee that no matter the "qualifications" of those providing the information, it will not be factual. ...but like Shane333, I won't know because I don't watch HBO.


Just curious, but how how can you guarantee such a thing?
Link Posted: 3/10/2009 2:00:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2009 2:00:39 PM EDT by Shane333]
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Not much of an issue to me. We don't watch HBO anyway at my house.

The biggest caution I would suggest is making a big deal out of this. The controversy is exactly what the producers of the show are trying to inspire. Let the entire thing roll off your back like water off a duck's.


I agree. This type of junk has been done before. It only excites those who enjoy controversy. I can guarantee that no matter the "qualifications" of those providing the information, it will not be factual. ...but like Shane333, I won't know because I don't watch HBO.


Just curious, but how how can you guarantee such a thing?


Not sure about the guarantee part, but considering that the technical adviser is an ex member (no believer or even ex member on friendly terms with the church would participate in this) doing this by memory, the probability of misrepresentation is very high. Add to this the fact that there have been some changes made recently to temple ordinances, and the probability of misrepresentation goes through the roof unless this ex member (who has a chip on his shoulder or else he wouldn't do this) just left the church this last year.
Link Posted: 3/10/2009 3:40:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Not much of an issue to me. We don't watch HBO anyway at my house.

The biggest caution I would suggest is making a big deal out of this. The controversy is exactly what the producers of the show are trying to inspire. Let the entire thing roll off your back like water off a duck's.


I agree. This type of junk has been done before. It only excites those who enjoy controversy. I can guarantee that no matter the "qualifications" of those providing the information, it will not be factual. ...but like Shane333, I won't know because I don't watch HBO.


Just curious, but how how can you guarantee such a thing?


Not sure about the guarantee part, but considering that the technical adviser is an ex member (no believer or even ex member on friendly terms with the church would participate in this) doing this by memory, the probability of misrepresentation is very high.


Pure speculation. If part of the temple ceremony is reproduced, it may or may not be word for word perfect. If it is not word for word perfect, it still isn't necessarily misrepresentation.

I haven't been in a mormon temple since 1989, but I can still give a very accurate account of the temple ceremony as it was at that time. While I may not be "word for word" perfect, it will still be accurate, and it won't contain any misrepresentation.

Add to this the fact that there have been some changes made recently to temple ordinances, and the probability of misrepresentation goes through the roof unless this ex member (who has a chip on his shoulder or else he wouldn't do this) just left the church this last year.


The probability of not being word for word perfect increases. That is very different from "the probability of misrepresentation goes through the roof."

It is entirely possible for people with HUGE chips on their shoulders to give accurate representations about what goes on in the temples.

I haven't seen the episode in question, so I can't comment on it specifically, but it is quite unfair for any portrayal of the mormon temple and it's ceremonies to be rejected out of hand.

I won't form my opinion ahead of time. I will wait until I have seen the episode to comment on it.
Link Posted: 3/10/2009 3:44:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2009 5:11:16 PM EDT by juni4ling]
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Not much of an issue to me. We don't watch HBO anyway at my house.

The biggest caution I would suggest is making a big deal out of this. The controversy is exactly what the producers of the show are trying to inspire. Let the entire thing roll off your back like water off a duck's.


I agree. This type of junk has been done before. It only excites those who enjoy controversy. I can guarantee that no matter the "qualifications" of those providing the information, it will not be factual. ...but like Shane333, I won't know because I don't watch HBO.


Just curious, but how how can you guarantee such a thing?


Not sure about the guarantee part, but considering that the technical adviser is an ex member (no believer or even ex member on friendly terms with the church would participate in this) doing this by memory, the probability of misrepresentation is very high. Add to this the fact that there have been some changes made recently to temple ordinances, and the probability of misrepresentation goes through the roof unless this ex member (who has a chip on his shoulder or else he wouldn't do this) just left the church this last year.


The way I would explain it....

Who would you like to learn about Jesus from? And you could choose between two Apostles who knew Christ personally....Judas "the betrayer," or Peter "the Rock"...

That is pretty much what it boils down to...

Yeah, I would pretty much agree with the "guarantee" statement...Since it is all about ratings and making a buck for these people, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that it is not accurate...

Yeah, Judas has a story about Jesus that put some dimes in his pocket...It seems that Hollywood likes the "Judas" angle on Mormon stories lately.

That is how I look at this "ex" Mormon. He went selling his story to put some dimes in his pocket...

You can find a lot of "ex" members of the church willing to "sell" the inside story on the church...But it usually does not match what a member in good standing has to say...So yeah, there are plenty of people with chips on their shoulder...

And the temple as a place of worship has been a sacred and holy place from the beginning of time...If folks want to turn this into a discussion of temple ordinances, they will leave out those of us who take them seriously...So the only people willing to talk about it will be "ex" Mormons, or people with chips on their shoulders...
Link Posted: 3/12/2009 2:16:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Not much of an issue to me. We don't watch HBO anyway at my house.

The biggest caution I would suggest is making a big deal out of this. The controversy is exactly what the producers of the show are trying to inspire. Let the entire thing roll off your back like water off a duck's.


I agree. This type of junk has been done before. It only excites those who enjoy controversy. I can guarantee that no matter the "qualifications" of those providing the information, it will not be factual. ...but like Shane333, I won't know because I don't watch HBO.


Just curious, but how how can you guarantee such a thing?


Easy. If I'm wrong (and you won't know it but I will), you can have your money back!

Link Posted: 3/12/2009 6:17:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Not much of an issue to me. We don't watch HBO anyway at my house.

The biggest caution I would suggest is making a big deal out of this. The controversy is exactly what the producers of the show are trying to inspire. Let the entire thing roll off your back like water off a duck's.


I agree. This type of junk has been done before. It only excites those who enjoy controversy. I can guarantee that no matter the "qualifications" of those providing the information, it will not be factual. ...but like Shane333, I won't know because I don't watch HBO.


Just curious, but how how can you guarantee such a thing?



Easy. If I'm wrong (and you won't know it but I will), you can have your money back!



I will absolutely know if you're wrong.
Link Posted: 3/13/2009 7:25:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Not much of an issue to me. We don't watch HBO anyway at my house.

The biggest caution I would suggest is making a big deal out of this. The controversy is exactly what the producers of the show are trying to inspire. Let the entire thing roll off your back like water off a duck's.


I agree. This type of junk has been done before. It only excites those who enjoy controversy. I can guarantee that no matter the "qualifications" of those providing the information, it will not be factual. ...but like Shane333, I won't know because I don't watch HBO.


Just curious, but how how can you guarantee such a thing?



Easy. If I'm wrong (and you won't know it but I will), you can have your money back!



I will absolutely know if you're wrong.


Unless you're active and currently going to the on a somewhat regular basis, that is doubtful. Oh, you may be familiar with the temple and remember a lot of things, but that won't qualify for an "absolutely".
Link Posted: 3/13/2009 9:11:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Not much of an issue to me. We don't watch HBO anyway at my house.

The biggest caution I would suggest is making a big deal out of this. The controversy is exactly what the producers of the show are trying to inspire. Let the entire thing roll off your back like water off a duck's.


I agree. This type of junk has been done before. It only excites those who enjoy controversy. I can guarantee that no matter the "qualifications" of those providing the information, it will not be factual. ...but like Shane333, I won't know because I don't watch HBO.


Just curious, but how how can you guarantee such a thing?



Easy. If I'm wrong (and you won't know it but I will), you can have your money back!



I will absolutely know if you're wrong.


Unless you're active and currently going to the on a somewhat regular basis, that is doubtful. Oh, you may be familiar with the temple and remember a lot of things, but that won't qualify for an "absolutely".


As far as I know (and I am probably as well informed as any non-mormon about what goes on in mormon temples), the changes that have taken place since 1989 are pretty much public knowledge. If you would like, we can compare notes on the changes that have taken place, assuming that you would be willing to discuss the issue (and I certainly understand your reluctance to discuss the details).

Barring such a discussion, all that will happen is you or other mormons simply stating that something is incorrect, or misleading, or taken out of context, but no evidence in support of that position will be put forth. It kind of makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion when one side's argument falls along the lines of, "You're wrong, but I can't/won't tell you why you're wrong, because it is sacred, and I refuse to discuss it."
Link Posted: 3/13/2009 9:24:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Not much of an issue to me. We don't watch HBO anyway at my house.

The biggest caution I would suggest is making a big deal out of this. The controversy is exactly what the producers of the show are trying to inspire. Let the entire thing roll off your back like water off a duck's.


I agree. This type of junk has been done before. It only excites those who enjoy controversy. I can guarantee that no matter the "qualifications" of those providing the information, it will not be factual. ...but like Shane333, I won't know because I don't watch HBO.


Just curious, but how how can you guarantee such a thing?



Easy. If I'm wrong (and you won't know it but I will), you can have your money back!



I will absolutely know if you're wrong.


Unless you're active and currently going to the on a somewhat regular basis, that is doubtful. Oh, you may be familiar with the temple and remember a lot of things, but that won't qualify for an "absolutely".


As far as I know (and I am probably as well informed as any non-mormon about what goes on in mormon temples), the changes that have taken place since 1989 are pretty much public knowledge. If you would like, we can compare notes on the changes that have taken place, assuming that you would be willing to discuss the issue (and I certainly understand your reluctance to discuss the details).

Barring such a discussion, all that will happen is you or other mormons simply stating that something is incorrect, or misleading, or taken out of context, but no evidence in support of that position will be put forth. It kind of makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion when one side's argument falls along the lines of, "You're wrong, but I can't/won't tell you why you're wrong, because it is sacred, and I refuse to discuss it."


You know darn well why I'm not going to discuss details. I have no desire to attempt mocking God.

Link Posted: 3/13/2009 9:39:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By support_six:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Not much of an issue to me. We don't watch HBO anyway at my house.

The biggest caution I would suggest is making a big deal out of this. The controversy is exactly what the producers of the show are trying to inspire. Let the entire thing roll off your back like water off a duck's.


I agree. This type of junk has been done before. It only excites those who enjoy controversy. I can guarantee that no matter the "qualifications" of those providing the information, it will not be factual. ...but like Shane333, I won't know because I don't watch HBO.


Just curious, but how how can you guarantee such a thing?



Easy. If I'm wrong (and you won't know it but I will), you can have your money back!



I will absolutely know if you're wrong.


Unless you're active and currently going to the on a somewhat regular basis, that is doubtful. Oh, you may be familiar with the temple and remember a lot of things, but that won't qualify for an "absolutely".


As far as I know (and I am probably as well informed as any non-mormon about what goes on in mormon temples), the changes that have taken place since 1989 are pretty much public knowledge. If you would like, we can compare notes on the changes that have taken place, assuming that you would be willing to discuss the issue (and I certainly understand your reluctance to discuss the details).

Barring such a discussion, all that will happen is you or other mormons simply stating that something is incorrect, or misleading, or taken out of context, but no evidence in support of that position will be put forth. It kind of makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion when one side's argument falls along the lines of, "You're wrong, but I can't/won't tell you why you're wrong, because it is sacred, and I refuse to discuss it."


You know darn well why I'm not going to discuss details. I have no desire to attempt mocking God.



Of course I know why. Was there any question about that?

(and I certainly understand your reluctance to discuss the details)


I'm just pointing out that these discussions can be rather difficult, due to the one-sided nature of them. However, if someone is going to claim that my knowledge and understanding are incorrect, the burden is on that person to demonstrate why.
Link Posted: 3/13/2009 10:34:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/13/2009 3:39:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By Shane333:

You know darn well why I'm not going to discuss details. I have no desire to attempt mocking God.



+1 to Shane...

As far as us Mormons being protective of the Temple...Just look back on the New Testament to see what upset Jesus...

Adultry...Nope, just a reminder to "go and sin no more..."

Breaking the Sabbath...Nope, You can get the "Ox out of the mire" if you need to...

The only thing that got Jesus excited enough to go to blows were those people who were defiling the Temple...

Think about that for a minute.

Perhaps that might give a little perspective on why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints gets a little uptight when we see people getting a rise out of the sacred Temple...

Yeah, the Temple has always been a sacred place...It was a sacred place in the Old Testament...It was a sacred place in the New Testament...And it is a sacred place today...
Link Posted: 3/14/2009 2:21:20 AM EDT
This happens occasionally in our church. No use getting uptight about it. Might even stir a little missionary interest :D
Link Posted: 3/14/2009 7:48:17 AM EDT
It's not about being protective of the temple- it's about (and I don't mean this to offend) pearls before swine.

Link Posted: 3/14/2009 5:28:01 PM EDT
Look, this is not the first time the media has attempted to "expose" Temple ceremonies or other “Mormon Secrecy” for less than well intentioned purposes. It won't be the last. I know we are a missionary church but it harkens back to the old showbiz adage, any publicity is good publicity. None of the previous attempts at demoralizing us have worked, none of the sad attempts at demonizing us have worked. This won't either. It will as was stated earlier stir some to search harder. It will urge those investigating to look deeper and will turn those who are against us to..... well do nothing they weren't already doing. If someone decides they don't want to be a member anymore because some ignorant Hollywood film mogul takes a cheap shot towards SLC in the hope of filthy lucre then I say good riddance. I know I know, I am not the silky tongued Saint that I should be but I won’t be pushed pulled or swayed by HBO and neither will any Saint or non-saint worth worrying about.

Bring it on HBO!
Link Posted: 3/15/2009 8:34:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2009 8:36:41 PM EDT by Bed_Head]
Can't say I'm surprised given Tom Hanks' recent comments about Mormons being 'unAmerican' and that he's the executive producer of Big Love. His true colors (and those of the folks involved in the show) are shining through, but it doesn't effect my beliefs at all.

eta: Honestly, I think this is just Hollyweird's attempt to 'get at' the LDS because of the whole Prop 8 thing. They're going to be vindictive towards the LDS church for a long time over it. Let 'em. We all know how much credence to give Hollywood, right?
Link Posted: 3/16/2009 5:04:59 PM EDT
It will backfire, it always does, it's like Obama attacking Rush Limbaugh it just cause more people to get curios about what the truth really is concerning what they have seen /heard and opens the dorr to more people listening to find out what the problem is...

All i see coming out of this is doors that would not have opened to missionaries and church members will all of a sudden open as people want to find out the truth or lack of in what they saw/heard about church and it's practices. I have had people who have heard things about church before asking me questions before, one was a retired minister of the methodist faith who tried to put me on the spot in front of 3 generations of his family ...

Him: "We methodist believe homosexuality is a sin and an abomination against god! What do the mormons believe on the matter?"

Me: "The same thing! The old testament clearly states it is."

Him: "Polygamy is practiced by your church..Do you deny it?"

Me: "Yes it was once practiced but hasn't been since 1890!'

Him: "Uh so you changed your doctrine?"

Me: "No, we didn't, polygamy was practiced because their is NOTHING in the scriptures disallowing it, you should know that having been a biblical scholar, the church leadership just made a proclamation it would no longer be practiced or acceptable as part of our faith.At the most only 1% of our church actually ever practiced it to begin with."

Him: "So in theory you still believe in it?"

Me: "Not any more than you do since you would have to admit that there is no scriptural basis for not allowing it! Basically we believe to be a faithful member of our church you are subject to the laws of the country, and the law forbids polygamy so then so does our church. Polygamy as practiced was never about the perverted notion of it was for sexual reasons."

The discussion ended because i answered his questions and he had nowehre to go with his arguements because he could not think of any scritpure that forbid having more than one wife. He even looked to try to find one and the best he could do was Pauls admonishions about marriage and how a wife should be treated NOT how many you could have.
Link Posted: 3/16/2009 5:10:29 PM EDT
My faith doesn't have secrets and I wouldn't trust any that does.
Link Posted: 3/16/2009 8:14:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By texas_mustang_01:
My faith doesn't have secrets and I wouldn't trust any that does.


It's not a secret, it's just sacred. There's a difference.

I'll give you an example.

Sex between a married couple. Does the man kiss and tell about what goes on with him and his wife? Does this woman kiss and tell what goes on with her and her husband?

Some feel the need to share with the world but some feel that, that act is so sacred, that it should be kept between husband and wife behind closed doors of their bedroom.

What goes on in the temple is so sacred that it should be kept behind the closed doors of the temple. Not for the world to see and discuss.

Link Posted: 3/16/2009 8:17:18 PM EDT
If you have nothing to hide....
Link Posted: 3/16/2009 8:25:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2009 8:25:32 PM EDT by sterling18]
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
If you have nothing to hide....


Do you discuss with the world what you do behind closed door during those intimate moments with your spouse (if your married)? You know, if you have nothing to hide?

Does your folks discuss with you what or how they did it? You know, if they have nothing to hide?
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 1:46:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2009 1:47:26 AM EDT by GeorgiaBII]
Originally Posted By sterling18:
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
If you have nothing to hide....


Do you discuss with the world what you do behind closed door during those intimate moments with your spouse (if your married)? You know, if you have nothing to hide?

Does your folks discuss with you what or how they did it? You know, if they have nothing to hide?


Well I'll tell you. edit for the religion forum... argh didn't notice that first. But yes I have no problem telling you what the wife and I do in the bedroom. In detail.

But to equate sex to religion? dude your reaching.

Now if you want to know how my folks do it I can tell you that too. If you don't believe me should I have my brother come in here and confirm things?
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 5:25:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
Originally Posted By sterling18:
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:


Does your folks discuss with you what or how they did it? You know, if they have nothing to hide?


Well I'll tell you. edit for the religion forum... argh didn't notice that first. But yes I have no problem telling you what the wife and I do in the bedroom. In detail.

But to equate sex to religion? dude your reaching.

Now if you want to know how my folks do it I can tell you that too. If you don't believe me should I have my brother come in here and confirm things?


He was not equating sex to religion...You did.

He was equating things people keep to themselves to why the Temple is a sacred place.

Obviously, you like to share things that a lot of people prefer to keep to themselves...That is your choice...

But many people can relate to the sacred nature of the Temple, because they know certain things are best kept sacred...Marraige for instance.

I think marraige was a good example to use to show the sacred nature of the Temple. And many people can relate because they keep many things in marraige a secret. If my wife were to turn around and tell everyone all of my flaws (and she knows about all of them) I would be upset. In the same way, the Temple is a sacred place, and Mormons don't talk about it outside the Temple.

Secret...sure. Sacred...Yep.

Temples existed in the Old Testament, Jesus visited them in the New Testament. And we have Temples on the earth here today. I am proud that I am worthy to go to the Temple.

But don't write off Mormons, because we believe (as has "the church" from the beginning of time) in worship in the Temple.

But yeah, many people can relate to why we keep our promise to keep the temple sacred. Because many people in society have kept their marraige vows sacred...The example was a good example.

You were the one who tried to twist the sacred nature of intamacy into the "equating sex to religion" statement. He was just using a simple example that many people can relate to...
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 6:05:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2009 6:08:09 AM EDT by Bed_Head]
Ever heard the phrase "Nothing is sacred anymore"? Some of these posts bring it home, eh? There are people in this world who really hold nothing sacred- nothing is 'off-limits' for casual discussion, even mockery. There was a time when it was considered very poor form to discuss sacred matters in flippant ways, not to mention discussing intimate details about you and your spouse in public. Too bad those days are gone, because personally, I'd be pretty pissed if my husband 'kissed and told.' It's pretty disrespectful to me.

Well as for me and mine (as well as most LDS members), there are some things we respect far too much to be flippant about. If you're really that interested about it, the information is around for you to get, so it's not 'secret.' Just understand when Mormons shake their heads about things that they hold very sacred being discussed casually or mocked. Is it going to effect their beliefs? No. But instead of accusing the LDS of having 'secrets,' why don't you all try to understand that it's not so much 'secret' as 'sacred and not meant for casual discussion with those who will exploit it.'


Like I said, as far as the show goes, don't let it get under your skin. It's just Hollyweird and a few anti's trying to get under our skin, probably in pathetic retaliation for the Prop 8 fiasco. Don't let 'em get to ya.
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 6:06:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Fireguy3:

<SNIP>


Him: "We methodist believe homosexuality is a sin and an abomination against god! What do the mormons believe on the matter?"

Me: "The same thing! The old testament clearly states it is."

Him: "Polygamy is practiced by your church..Do you deny it?"

Me: "Yes it was once practiced but hasn't been since 1890!'


If that was true, there would have been no need for the second manifesto.

Him: "Uh so you changed your doctrine?"

Me: "No, we didn't, polygamy was practiced because their is NOTHING in the scriptures disallowing it, you should know that having been a biblical scholar, the church leadership just made a proclamation it would no longer be practiced or acceptable as part of our faith.At the most only 1% of our church actually ever practiced it to begin with."


No longer practiced and no longer acceptable are two different things.

There is nothing in the manifesto that removes polygamy as a true teaching/doctrine or as a necessary condition for exaltation. It was simply a statement of policy that it was no longer going to be practiced.

The claim that it is no longer practiced would carry more weight, were it not for the church's common, continued practice of spiritual polygamy, as well as the less common, but certainly not rare practice of living polygamy (with caveats).

Him: "So in theory you still believe in it?"

Me: "Not any more than you do since you would have to admit that there is no scriptural basis for not allowing it!


The teachings of the early prophets were quite clear - polygamy was necessary for exaltation. There is nothing in the manifesto that eliminates the necessity of polygamy.



Scott
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 6:09:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sterling18:
Originally Posted By texas_mustang_01:
My faith doesn't have secrets and I wouldn't trust any that does.


It's not a secret, it's just sacred. There's a difference.



That's strange. When I was going through the temple (1985-1989), we swore blood oaths of secrecy. The temple ceremony was certainly to be considered sacred, but the fact that was also secret was quite clear. It is common knowledge that the blood oaths have been removed from the temple ceremony (I wonder why God would do that?), the the secrecy seems to still be the same.



Scott
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 7:02:28 AM EDT
Pearls, folks, pearls. Some people aren't going to appreciate precious things. Some aren't going to keep their sacred covenants. And some have no understanding of sacredness to begin with. Don't waste the pearls.

I read up a bit on what the controversial episode was about: A woman living a polygamous relationship, but coming from an active LDS family, risks being excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Makes sense up to that point. A member engaging in a polygamous relationship would be excommunicated. But then the show goes right off the deep end. Supposedly this polygamous woman's "active" mom and sister conspire to get her into the temple since they know she doesn't qualify for a temple recommend herself. So they loan her one of their recommends. Then they both meet her in a supposed Celestial Room of the temple (apparently one of them did this without a recommend as well since they loaned it to the polygamist).

"Active" members of the church wouldn't be doing any such thing, considering excommunication is the probable outcome for loaning out recommends.

In short, despite their claims for authenticity the producers of the show went right off the deep end and showed how little they actually understand about the church. I don't even need to see how they attempted to portray the temple itself.
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 7:38:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2009 7:53:38 AM EDT by juni4ling]
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By sterling18:
Originally Posted By texas_mustang_01:
My faith doesn't have secrets and I wouldn't trust any that does.


It's not a secret, it's just sacred. There's a difference.



That's strange. When I was going through the temple (1985-1989), we swore blood oaths of secrecy. The temple ceremony was certainly to be considered sacred, but the fact that was also secret was quite clear. It is common knowledge that the blood oaths have been removed from the temple ceremony (I wonder why God would do that?), the the secrecy seems to still be the same.

Scott


This guy was holding what he thought was the Ace of Spades...Since his first post in this discussion, he has been dying to put his cards on the table.

But like I said from my first respons to the post...When you want to try discussing the sacred Temple, you will leave out of the discussion those of us who take it seriously.

"We swore blood oaths of secrecy..." That is awesome... Sounds like you have done real well in keeping your promises...

Don't mock those of us who are indeed the kind of people who keep our promises... "I wonder why God would do that?..."

Yeah, the temple is certainly a sacred place. It was a sacred place in the Old Testament, and the New Testament, and nothing has changed about it being sacred today. And those who mock those who go to the Temple have not changed since, either, obviously.

You are certainly trying to blurr the lines between sacred and secret.

When Mary discovered that she would be the mother of Jesus, she was instructed (by an Angel of God) to keep the things in her heart. Secret..Sure. Sacred...You better believe it!!!!

So when people get all clammy about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and all its "secrets" keep in mind that keeping things sacred is nothing new to the followers of Christ. In fact keeping things sacred, and holding things in our hearts has been a fundamental aspect of the gospel of Christ. Some things are best kept "in our hearts."

And Mary...She kept her promise!! And those who truly follow Christ know what it means to keep things sacred. They don't need it defined to them that Christ warned about not throwing pearls to the swine...

But don't ever forget Mary. She kept the things in her heart.

"My faith doesn't have secrets and I wouldn't trust any that does." You must have forgotten Mary, my friend. Because she kept her promise!!!

Think about that for a minute. It calls for serious contemplation...Mary kept her promise!!! Secret...To the mockers. Sacred...To the true believers!!!

Link Posted: 3/17/2009 11:07:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
Originally Posted By sterling18:
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
If you have nothing to hide....


Do you discuss with the world what you do behind closed door during those intimate moments with your spouse (if your married)? You know, if you have nothing to hide?

Does your folks discuss with you what or how they did it? You know, if they have nothing to hide?


Well I'll tell you. edit for the religion forum... argh didn't notice that first. But yes I have no problem telling you what the wife and I do in the bedroom. In detail.

But to equate sex to religion? dude your reaching.

Now if you want to know how my folks do it I can tell you that too. If you don't believe me should I have my brother come in here and confirm things?


Dude! Is your bulb so dim you can't see a "parable" on a religion forum? It's you who wants to equate sex to religion (your words). If I said I wouldn't tell you how much money I make, would you assume I was equating religion with money? Get a grip, buddy. If you want information about the LDS Temples buy and read the book "The Holy Temple" by Boyd K. Packer, then ask the local missionaries to teach you. If you don't want to do that, then you aren't really interested in the Temple, you're just interested in controversy. A person who foments controversy is a troll.
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 11:33:14 AM EDT
Not a Mormon. After reading through this, I'm siding with the Mormons on this. The Jews wouldn't have wanted TV crews in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. Some things are considered sacred and intimate between worshippers and their God.
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 1:01:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By juni4ling:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By sterling18:
Originally Posted By texas_mustang_01:
My faith doesn't have secrets and I wouldn't trust any that does.


It's not a secret, it's just sacred. There's a difference.



That's strange. When I was going through the temple (1985-1989), we swore blood oaths of secrecy. The temple ceremony was certainly to be considered sacred, but the fact that was also secret was quite clear. It is common knowledge that the blood oaths have been removed from the temple ceremony (I wonder why God would do that?), the the secrecy seems to still be the same.

Scott


This guy was holding what he thought was the Ace of Spades...Since his first post in this discussion, he has been dying to put his cards on the table.


Not dying to put anything on the table. When someone brought up the worn out "sacred, not secret" phrase, a discussion of the very secret nature of mormon temple ceremonies became germane to the discussion.

But like I said from my first respons to the post...When you want to try discussing the sacred Temple, you will leave out of the discussion those of us who take it seriously.


Please feel free not to participate. No problem at all.

"We swore blood oaths of secrecy..." That is awesome... Sounds like you have done real well in keeping your promises...


The oaths and covenants of the temple can hardly be considered valid, especially considering the nature of those oaths, and the corresponding pressure/coercion to enter into them.

“'The validity and binding nature of an oath or any promise depends, both legally and morally, upon the validity of the mutually accepted facts underlying the demanding and the giving of the oath. The oath of secrecy given by a Mormon in the temple is based on the assurance and sacred promise by the church that the oath is required by God, and that the secrets one will receive are given by God. If those assurances are in fact false, then one cannot be bound either legally or morally by any such oath, since it was obtained by a lie."

Richard Packham



Don't mock those of us who are indeed the kind of people who keep our promises... "I wonder why God would do that?..."


Perhaps I wasn't clear. Why did God see fit to eliminate the blood oaths from the temple ceremony (as well as making all of the other changes that have occured)?

Yeah, the temple is certainly a sacred place. It was a sacred place in the Old Testament, and the New Testament, and nothing has changed about it being sacred today. And those who mock those who go to the Temple have not changed since, either, obviously.


Are you trying to equate modern mormon temples with temples in the old and new testaments? If so, could you provide evidence that initiatories, endowments, and sealing's occurred in the ancient temples?

You are certainly trying to blurr the lines between sacred and secret.


I'm not trying to blur anything. The blood oaths of secrecy were very real. Complete with symbolic throat slitting and disembowelment. If that in someway is "sacred, not secret," I welcome your explanation.




Scott
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 1:39:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:

<snip>the corresponding pressure/coercion to enter into them.<snip>

<snip>If so, could you provide evidence that initiatories, endowments, and sealing's occurred in the ancient temples?<snip>



Scott


By all means, tell us how you were coerced to go to the temple. A temple recommend requires that you state whether or not you have a testimony. If you stated that you have a testimony of Jesus Christ, His restored church, and its leaders (all part of the recommend interview) then I have a hard time believing that you were coerced. Nobody else could give those answers for you. Didn't you go through that interview twice? Once with the Bishop and once with the Stake President? On the other hand, if you lied to get a temple recommend it's a reflection of your own character, not a condemnation of anyone else. Same thing goes for making covenants of any kind. If you did so without real intent it is a reflection of your character. So there are multiple times, getting the recommend and then going and making covenants, when you had the opportunity to say yes or no.

Didn't you also serve a mission? Wasn't that yet another committment you made? Last I checked the prospective missionary himself had to sign the papers which were sent in to receive a mission call.

As for evidence of temple ordinances in ancient times, try the last part of Exodus 28 and the first part of Exodus 29.
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 2:05:14 PM EDT
I need to get myself right and get a temple recommend.
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 5:11:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M4builder:
I need to get myself right and get a temple recommend.


Good luck, bro.

Nobody is perfect...Once your heart is in the right place, everything will follow...

I/M if you need any help with anything, bro...

"...I never said it would be easy...I only said it would be worth it..."
Link Posted: 3/17/2009 5:35:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Please feel free not to participate. No problem at all.


We will participate, my friend.... And try to defend what we hold dear. But we won't be participating in a discussion of specifics...

Thats where you will leave those of us who take these things seriously.

That being said, temple worship is clearly a part of Old Testament, and New Testament worship...Specifics, you want...? Something about throwing pearls before swine comes to mind...Again.

As far as the validity of any covenant made to God...I honor all the covenants and promises I make to God...Even when I have been sworn to tell the truth by a non-Mormon Judge (as has happened on several occasions, since I work in LE). So for someone to come along and say that Mormons cannot make promises to God certainly strikes of a tilted point of view.

The truth is, we do worship God, and the Temple is "The House of God." And has been since the Old Testament. And the promises and covenants in the Mormon church are to God. And they are important, and they are serious.

No, the question of secret vs. sacred was clearly defined in the Bible. And those who challenge God...And the promises made to God...Were never numbered among the true believers. A true believer would never need to question the difference between sacred and secret...

The goal of creating a "secret vs. sacret" in this type of argument is to mock what is sacred.

I really believe that the best Biblical example of what is sacred to Jesus was his casting out the unworthy from the Temple. The one thing in all his ministry on this earth that he was willing to physically fight over was the sacred nature of the Temple, and preserving the sacredness of Temple worhsip.

Yeah, Mormons certainly worship God. We believe in Jesus Christ. And we follow the example of Christ, and worship in Temples. And we seek, as Christ did, to keep Temples sacred.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 10:04:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:

<snip>the corresponding pressure/coercion to enter into them.<snip>

<snip>If so, could you provide evidence that initiatories, endowments, and sealing's occurred in the ancient temples?<snip>



Scott


By all means, tell us how you were coerced to go to the temple. A temple recommend requires that you state whether or not you have a testimony. If you stated that you have a testimony of Jesus Christ, His restored church, and its leaders (all part of the recommend interview) then I have a hard time believing that you were coerced. Nobody else could give those answers for you. Didn't you go through that interview twice? Once with the Bishop and once with the Stake President? On the other hand, if you lied to get a temple recommend it's a reflection of your own character, not a condemnation of anyone else. Same thing goes for making covenants of any kind. If you did so without real intent it is a reflection of your character. So there are multiple times, getting the recommend and then going and making covenants, when you had the opportunity to say yes or no.

Didn't you also serve a mission? Wasn't that yet another committment you made? Last I checked the prospective missionary himself had to sign the papers which were sent in to receive a mission call.


Shane, try to stay focused here. The discussion is about Big Love, the depiction of certain aspects of the mormon temple ceremony on Big Love, my contention that there is pressure and coercion on mormons to attend the temple, and the similarity (or lack thereof) between modern mormon temples and ancient temples as described in the bible.

Whenever I get involved in a mormon thread, and dare to say something that you don't like, you start in with the ad hominem arguments, and personal attacks against me. Case in point, your unfounded, baseless, and incorrect assumption that I lied my way through the temple recommend process. Please, provide whatever evidence you may have that supports that conclusion. Otherwise, try to stick to the current discussion. Remember, it's not about me, as much as you would like to try to make it so.



Scott
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 10:10:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:

<snip>the corresponding pressure/coercion to enter into them.<snip>

<snip>If so, could you provide evidence that initiatories, endowments, and sealing's occurred in the ancient temples?<snip>



Scott


By all means, tell us how you were coerced to go to the temple. A temple recommend requires that you state whether or not you have a testimony. If you stated that you have a testimony of Jesus Christ, His restored church, and its leaders (all part of the recommend interview) then I have a hard time believing that you were coerced. Nobody else could give those answers for you. Didn't you go through that interview twice? Once with the Bishop and once with the Stake President? On the other hand, if you lied to get a temple recommend it's a reflection of your own character, not a condemnation of anyone else. Same thing goes for making covenants of any kind. If you did so without real intent it is a reflection of your character. So there are multiple times, getting the recommend and then going and making covenants, when you had the opportunity to say yes or no.

Didn't you also serve a mission? Wasn't that yet another committment you made? Last I checked the prospective missionary himself had to sign the papers which were sent in to receive a mission call.


Shane, try to stay focused here. The discussion is about Big Love, the depiction of certain aspects of the mormon temple ceremony on Big Love, my contention that there is pressure and coercion on mormons to attend the temple, and the similarity (or lack thereof) between modern mormon temples and ancient temples as described in the bible.

Whenever I get involved in a mormon thread, and dare to say something that you don't like, you start in with the ad hominem arguments, and personal attacks against me. Case in point, your unfounded, baseless, and incorrect assumption that I lied my way through the temple recommend process. Please, provide whatever evidence you may have that supports that conclusion. Otherwise, try to stick to the current discussion. Remember, it's not about me, as much as you would like to try to make it so.



Scott




So you suggest that you were coerced into the temple (a jab you took at the church) and then cry "woe is me" when you get called out on it.

Here's a clue. Don't want to be called out, quit picking fights.

Unless you want to retract your remarks about being coerced, please answer my question about how you were coerced into lieing at multiple personal interviews with your bishop and stake president. If you didn't lie then going to multiple interviews requesting a recommend can't be called coersion.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 10:23:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:

<snip>If so, could you provide evidence that initiatories, endowments, and sealing's occurred in the ancient temples?<snip>

Scott


As for evidence of temple ordinances in ancient times, try the last part of Exodus 28 and the first part of Exodus 29.


Yes, I've read it. Many times. Is that really the best you can come up with? Yes, it mentions garments, and anointing.

Let's see. . .

28, 4 And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.

5 And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen.

6 And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work.

7 It shall have the two shoulderpieces thereof joined at the two edges thereof; and so it shall be joined together.

8 And the curious girdle of the ephod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen.


It doesn't sound at all like mormon garments, but please - show us the similarities.

OK, what else?

29, 7 Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head, and anoint him.


Oo! Oo! Is that it? The bible mentions the word "anoint" and there is anointing in the mormon initiatory, therefore, they must be the same.

10 And thou shalt cause a bullock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock.

11 And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.


If you are going to use the Old Testament to support mormonism, you really shouldn't pick and choose. Don't do it by halfs. It is either the same as the what was practiced, or it isn't. Why no killing of bullocks now?

And then what happens?

20 Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.

21 And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him.

22 Also thou shalt take of the ram the fat and the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and the right shoulder; for it is a ram of consecration:

23 And one loaf of bread, and one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer out of the basket of the unleavened bread that is before the LORD:

24 And thou shalt put all in the hands of Aaron, and in the hands of his sons; and shalt wave them for a wave offering before the LORD.

25 And thou shalt receive them of their hands, and burn them upon the altar for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour before the LORD: it is an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

26 And thou shalt take the breast of the ram of Aaron's consecration, and wave it for a wave offering before the LORD: and it shall be thy part.


Now, we all know that the mormon church has made any number of changes in the temple ceremony, but what is described in Exodus is certainly not what was practiced when I was going through the temple. Is it your contention that it is now being practiced now in the temple? I didn't think so.

So what you have are a few scriptures mentioning garments and anointing, and the unsupported leap is made that modern temples are the same as the ancient ones.

I'm still waiting to hear about how initiatories (not just a mention of garments and annointing, specifically for Aaron and his sons), endowments, and temple marriages/sealings were performed in the ancient temples.



Scott
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 10:28:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:

<snip>the corresponding pressure/coercion to enter into them.<snip>

<snip>If so, could you provide evidence that initiatories, endowments, and sealing's occurred in the ancient temples?<snip>



Scott


By all means, tell us how you were coerced to go to the temple. A temple recommend requires that you state whether or not you have a testimony. If you stated that you have a testimony of Jesus Christ, His restored church, and its leaders (all part of the recommend interview) then I have a hard time believing that you were coerced. Nobody else could give those answers for you. Didn't you go through that interview twice? Once with the Bishop and once with the Stake President? On the other hand, if you lied to get a temple recommend it's a reflection of your own character, not a condemnation of anyone else. Same thing goes for making covenants of any kind. If you did so without real intent it is a reflection of your character. So there are multiple times, getting the recommend and then going and making covenants, when you had the opportunity to say yes or no.

Didn't you also serve a mission? Wasn't that yet another committment you made? Last I checked the prospective missionary himself had to sign the papers which were sent in to receive a mission call.


Shane, try to stay focused here. The discussion is about Big Love, the depiction of certain aspects of the mormon temple ceremony on Big Love, my contention that there is pressure and coercion on mormons to attend the temple, and the similarity (or lack thereof) between modern mormon temples and ancient temples as described in the bible.

Whenever I get involved in a mormon thread, and dare to say something that you don't like, you start in with the ad hominem arguments, and personal attacks against me. Case in point, your unfounded, baseless, and incorrect assumption that I lied my way through the temple recommend process. Please, provide whatever evidence you may have that supports that conclusion. Otherwise, try to stick to the current discussion. Remember, it's not about me, as much as you would like to try to make it so.



Scott




So you suggest that you were coerced into the temple (a jab you took at the church) and then cry "woe is me" when you get called out on it.

Here's a clue. Don't want to be called out, quit picking fights.

Unless you want to retract your remarks about being coerced, please answer my question about how you were coerced into lieing at multiple personal interviews with your bishop and stake president. If you didn't lie then going to multiple interviews requesting a recommend can't be called coersion.


Here is my original statement:

The oaths and covenants of the temple can hardly be considered valid, especially considering the nature of those oaths, and the corresponding pressure/coercion to enter into them.


I made no claim about being coerced, or pressured. We can start a new thread to discuss that, if you wish.

There is nothing there (or anywhere) to support your conclusion that I lied through the temple recommend process. If there is, bring it.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 10:32:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:

<snip>the corresponding pressure/coercion to enter into them.<snip>

<snip>If so, could you provide evidence that initiatories, endowments, and sealing's occurred in the ancient temples?<snip>



Scott


By all means, tell us how you were coerced to go to the temple. A temple recommend requires that you state whether or not you have a testimony. If you stated that you have a testimony of Jesus Christ, His restored church, and its leaders (all part of the recommend interview) then I have a hard time believing that you were coerced. Nobody else could give those answers for you. Didn't you go through that interview twice? Once with the Bishop and once with the Stake President? On the other hand, if you lied to get a temple recommend it's a reflection of your own character, not a condemnation of anyone else. Same thing goes for making covenants of any kind. If you did so without real intent it is a reflection of your character. So there are multiple times, getting the recommend and then going and making covenants, when you had the opportunity to say yes or no.

Didn't you also serve a mission? Wasn't that yet another committment you made? Last I checked the prospective missionary himself had to sign the papers which were sent in to receive a mission call.


Shane, try to stay focused here. The discussion is about Big Love, the depiction of certain aspects of the mormon temple ceremony on Big Love, my contention that there is pressure and coercion on mormons to attend the temple, and the similarity (or lack thereof) between modern mormon temples and ancient temples as described in the bible.

Whenever I get involved in a mormon thread, and dare to say something that you don't like, you start in with the ad hominem arguments, and personal attacks against me. Case in point, your unfounded, baseless, and incorrect assumption that I lied my way through the temple recommend process. Please, provide whatever evidence you may have that supports that conclusion. Otherwise, try to stick to the current discussion. Remember, it's not about me, as much as you would like to try to make it so.



Scott




So you suggest that you were coerced into the temple (a jab you took at the church) and then cry "woe is me" when you get called out on it.

Here's a clue. Don't want to be called out, quit picking fights.

Unless you want to retract your remarks about being coerced, please answer my question about how you were coerced into lieing at multiple personal interviews with your bishop and stake president. If you didn't lie then going to multiple interviews requesting a recommend can't be called coersion.


Here is my original statement:

The oaths and covenants of the temple can hardly be considered valid, especially considering the nature of those oaths, and the corresponding pressure/coercion to enter into them.


I made no claim about being coerced, or pressured. We can start a new thread to discuss that, if you wish.

There is nothing there (or anywhere) to support your conclusion that I lied through the temple recommend process. If there is, bring it.


So you claim that there is "coercion to enter into them" and then claim that you aren't suggesting you were coerced? If you weren't then why throw that punch?

I rest my case. You are the classic example of why pearls shouldn't be cast before swine. Even when presented with biblical examples you refuse to accept them anyway. I'm done with you.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 1:13:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TaxPhd:

I'm still waiting to hear about how ... were performed in the ancient temples.

Scott


I think you will be waiting...

And waiting...

And waiting to get your specifics, my friend...

To be clear, Temple worship is held up to Old Testament and New Testament scrutiny...

Link Posted: 3/27/2009 6:39:14 PM EDT
TaxPhd to answer your comment that "Polygamy is essential for Celestial salvation.

Was just reading Bruce R. MCConkie, you know the apostle? The one WHO WROTE THE BOOK EXPLAINING MORMON DOCTRINE.

Under Polygamy in his book "Mormon Doctrine he CLEARLY states..."Polygamy was forbidden to anyone the lord did not expressly order to enter the practice." and "While marriage is essential for eternal salvation. Ploygamy is NOT required for Salvation." also "This practice is not acceptable in the modern church due to the proclamation of 1890 and any member found to be practicing it does not have the authority or right to do this and will be excomunicated from the church if they insist on doing so."

I politely encourage anyone who wants to play the "I'm an apsotate mormon and I'm still bitter and want to attack my former beliefs!" To at least take the time to be honest about the beliefs.

For those who are thinking about the whole "Warren Jeffs" thing, that is an apostate slinter group and not affiliated with the main Mormon church in any way. The MAIN "Mormon Church" is actually known as the "THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS"

The group Warren Jeffs had were called "Fundamentalists" They call themselves that we don't, most of them have never even been members of the actual LDS church in any way.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 8:59:26 PM EDT
This all reminds me of the part in "Dark Knight" when the weasel accountant guy threatens to blackmail Bruce Wayne and the Morgan Freeman character put what he is doing into perspective.

If these clowns don't believe God exists or that what goes on in the LDS temples is a fairy tale, why do they spend so much time, money, and effort on it? I mean, that would be like me making a movie about how Snow White was a fraud and that the whole story was an effort to disenfrachise the dwarfs.

The clarity of their intentions is matched only by their failure to grasp the gravity of them.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:17:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fireguy3:
It will backfire, it always does, it's like Obama attacking Rush Limbaugh it just cause more people to get curios about what the truth really is concerning what they have seen /heard and opens the dorr to more people listening to find out what the problem is...

All i see coming out of this is doors that would not have opened to missionaries and church members will all of a sudden open as people want to find out the truth or lack of in what they saw/heard about church and it's practices. I have had people who have heard things about church before asking me questions before, one was a retired minister of the methodist faith who tried to put me on the spot in front of 3 generations of his family ...

Him: "We methodist believe homosexuality is a sin and an abomination against god! What do the mormons believe on the matter?"

Me: "The same thing! The old testament clearly states it is."

Him: "Polygamy is practiced by your church..Do you deny it?"

Me: "Yes it was once practiced but hasn't been since 1890!'

Him: "Uh so you changed your doctrine?"

Me: "No, we didn't, polygamy was practiced because their is NOTHING in the scriptures disallowing it, you should know that having been a biblical scholar, the church leadership just made a proclamation it would no longer be practiced or acceptable as part of our faith.At the most only 1% of our church actually ever practiced it to begin with."

Him: "So in theory you still believe in it?"

Me: "Not any more than you do since you would have to admit that there is no scriptural basis for not allowing it! Basically we believe to be a faithful member of our church you are subject to the laws of the country, and the law forbids polygamy so then so does our church. Polygamy as practiced was never about the perverted notion of it was for sexual reasons."

The discussion ended because i answered his questions and he had nowehre to go with his arguements because he could not think of any scritpure that forbid having more than one wife. He even looked to try to find one and the best he could do was Pauls admonishions about marriage and how a wife should be treated NOT how many you could have.


the bible does not outright prohibit polygamy. it also doesn't prohibit me cutting myself in a self punishment mindset, or eating food and then causing myself to throw up because i have a concern about my weight.


what the bible does say is pretty clear- a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the TWO shall become one flesh.
mark 10
doesn't talk about "the three (or however many) shall become one flesh.

I cor 7 also discusses marriage in much the same manner, "each man have his own wife, each wife have her own husband" same with eph 6

paul specifically says elders should have ONE wife in titus 1:6. Very strange if God would say what is good for an elder is not good for a layperson.

mormons excuses for polygamy lead to some very poor bible interpretation, or deliberate ignorance of the plain meaning.

the plain meaning is for one man to marry one woman. not one man one man, not one man two (or more) wives, not one man and one dog
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:20:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sterling18:
Originally Posted By texas_mustang_01:
My faith doesn't have secrets and I wouldn't trust any that does.


It's not a secret, it's just sacred. There's a difference.

I'll give you an example.

Sex between a married couple. Does the man kiss and tell about what goes on with him and his wife? Does this woman kiss and tell what goes on with her and her husband?

Some feel the need to share with the world but some feel that, that act is so sacred, that it should be kept between husband and wife behind closed doors of their bedroom.

What goes on in the temple is so sacred that it should be kept behind the closed doors of the temple. Not for the world to see and discuss.




what is most sacred is what Christ has done for us, and His relationship with me. I have no qualms about it being to sacred for public consumption. there is nothing so sacred in a building it cannot be shared with Everyone.

when Christ died the curtain was torn. Is there no meaning for that in the mormon beliefs?




Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:37:32 PM EDT
So I take it the Mormon faith doesn't take kindly to outsiders? Do you need to prove your membership to access the temple?
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 9:17:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SirSqueeboo:
So I take it the Mormon faith doesn't take kindly to outsiders? Do you need to prove your membership to access the temple?


Question one: So I take it the Mormon faith doesn't take kindly to outsiders? There is a "visitors welcome" sign in front of every LDS chapel . I served a two-year LDS mission in Australia, and there are missionaries worldwide working to teach about the church. So I don't know so much about not taking kindly to outsiders...It seems to me that the goal of the church is to get the message to "outsiders." I am sure that you have had Mormon missionaries "knock" on your door...

Question two: Do you need to prove your membership to access the temple? Pretty much. Temple worship is for those worthy. Every church member is encouraged to attend the Temple. In order to attend the temple, church members confess sins, and vow to live in accordance to the gospel of Christ. Only LDS church members who have done this are allowed to enter the Temple. When a Temple is built, before it is officially "dedicated" the church will hold an "open house" and hold tours for non-LDS visitors, and the media. If you are interested in touring a Temple, you can find on the LDS.org website when a tour will take place. If you are not a member of the LDS church, or if you are not in good standing, this is the only time you will be able to enter the Temple.

Yeah, we take kindly to "outsiders" I went and spent 2 years teaching "outsiders" about the church...And had a very positive experience in Australia...And Temple worship is for every worthy member of the LDS church.

If you are sincerely interested in learning about the LDS church, find a local LDS chapel, and attend worship service...Everyone is welcome.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top