uniderth
-
Posts
41 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by uniderth
-
-
Yes, dances were held in both the Kirtland and Nauvoo Temples. Endowment ordinances were only carried out on the attic floor. Usually these were office spaces but during endowment the office things were moved out of the way and curtains put up for the endowment. The Nauvoo Endowment was also done in the upper floor of the Red Brick store. This was also divided by curtains.
-
Also of not in relation to being endowed as more of a calling. Most of those who received their endowment entered what was called the Anointed Quorum. This was an actual quorum with Joseph Smith as the president. They discussed gospel related topics and received revelations and mysteries.
-
Yes, they have. Admission into the Kirtland temple was open to anyone. Regular worship services were done in the Kirtland temple. Participation in the Kirtland endowment was done by invitation.
The Nauvoo Temple had a similar structure with regular worship services being done within. The Nauvoo endowment was was done only in the attic portion of the Nauvoo Temple. Participation in the Nauvoo Endowment was done by being personally invited by a leader of the church. Also during Joseph Smith's time one must have been previously initiated into Freemasonry before participating in the Nauvoo Endowment.
I'm not sure the exact date as to when temple recommend interviews with specific questions began. But this practiced evolved later.
-
I would point out that the point of the Book of Mormon is not to correct the Bible but to support it. The Bible also contains the fulness of the Gospel. The Book of Mormon witnesses to the truthfulness of the Bible and also contains the fulness of the Gospel.
Additionally the Bible is not as "corrupt" as many assume. We find by comparing the text with the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, the Old Testament is remarkably well translated. The things that are missing from the bible are those texts that were not included. These books(i.e. Book of Enoch, Gospel of Thomas, etc.) contain great truth but were left out of the Bible when it was compiled over time.
mordorbund mentioned the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. However this translation was not always about restoring corrupted teachings. While some clarifications are made in the Old and New Testament. The great majority of additions to Genesis came from Antiquities of Freemasonry and were providing additional information rather than restoring something that was lost in translation.
As far as the burning in the bosom I think we also overlook that true teaching can be known to be true because of the truth they possess. If a teaching is true then it will stand up against all scrutiny. For example the principle of love is true because we can observe the correctness of this teaching in the real world.
-
I think we often make the mistake of looking at the apostasy as an on/off event. It wasn't. The apostasy is based on the individual beliefs and practices of every member in the entire church. It is a fluid and dynamic event. We can point to certain teachings and recognize it as an apostate teaching but there is no exact date when everything suddenly went dark. Even today many churches descended from the ancient Christian Church contain truth.
-
This is a good post I've found. I don't know if we're allowed to post links to blogs. So if the link gets removed just PM me and I'll send it to you.
Best Evidence for the Book of Mormon
The Nephite civilization was not in Mesoamerica but was in north America.
One of the reasons I believe for a "lack" of physical evidence is that the Book of Mormon is a trial of our faith. That is it's purpose. If we will be faithful to the things we read in the Book of Mormon then we will receive a record of the Greater Things.
-
I remember my mother's reaction to seeing ginger beer sold in the London temple cafeteria. I think the word beer can cause a negative reaction in many people. While I don't know enough about Near Beer. I think it's possible that the simple fact it has "beer" in it's name may put some people off.
-
I don't meant start anything but I haven't been able to find anything against drinking beer in the Church Handbook. Where is the official policy against beer listed?
-
Vort, I PM'd you the link.
I think I understand your point here, but I am not sure I agree. Obviously, our actions should be informed by the Spirit at all times, but the reality of life is that few if any of us manage to reach that standard. Yet despite that, we are Saints and have taken upon ourselves Christ's name. We are instructed -- commanded -- to do all we do and offer all our offerings in the name of Christ.
It is an interesting situation. We have scriptures commanding us to do all our offerings in the name of Christ but we are also told to use the name of Christ carefully by the Spirit or we are taking it in vain. That brings some further questions into my mind.
If we pray according to our own desires, and not according to the Spirit, and invoke the name of Christ, are we truly using his name in vain? In other words, is it acceptable to tag our own will with Christ name?
If we are not able to reach the level where our will aligns with Christ's should we use his name as a way to get to that level?
Can we truly be called disciples of Christ if our will does not align with His?
On the other hand in our imperfect sinful state can anyone really ever have their will in perfect alignment with Christ?
If since we can never be fully in line with Christ because of our sinful state, and if having such an alignment is not required to invoke the name of the Lord, is it then even possible to take His name in vain(invoking it upon actions which are not in line with his will)?
Hmmm...
I don't really expect an answer to those questions, I don't want it to go off topic. They were mainly for my own benefit.
I cannot imagine that it would be appropriate for us to pray at any time for any thing and intentionally fail to do so in Christ's name. Thus, even our less-inspired-seeming prayers, private or public, are and ought to be given in Jesus' name.
Would it be appropriate to invoke Christ's name were someone to pray for the opportunity to rape and murder someone?
Are there ever times when it is inappropriate to invoke Christ's sacred name and if so where is the line drawn? If not then why does D&C 63 warn us to be careful how we use Christ's name?
I hope I'm not coming across as negative.
-
I believe this is false. My mother, a generation younger than Elder McConkie, was taught as a girl to end her prayers like that. I believe that my grandparents, who were a bit older than Elder McConkie, were brought up the same way. This is by no means a recent innovation.
I never said that the term was never used before Bruce McConkie. And now that I look at the research again the use of "In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen" in prayers spikes about during the 1920's so a bit before Bruce McConkie. So I stand corrected on that point. However, it was in the time of Bruce McConkie that it became popular to close testimonies and talks with that phrase.
If you would like a link to the research I can send it to you.
Results:
I found that the vast majority of 19th century Mormon discourses were not terminated by invoking the name of Jesus Christ. Normally a discourse would be terminated by the utterance of “amen,” without the qualifying appellation (e.g., “God bless you all. Amen.” JD 10:32), or without any amen at all. However, invoking the Lords name became more popular with time and by the 1940’s all talks were closed in supplication. Below is time-line of notable occurrences in the history of this usage.
1853 – (2) Parley P. Pratt issues a discourse at the temple grounds in which he terminates in the orphan usage. As this is the only usage for the next 67 years, I tend to think this was a transcription error.
1857 – (3) Heber C. Kimball curses the leaders of the US government in the name of the lord. This is the only instance of “cursing” I found in my query.
1858? – (4) Orson Hyde has the first recorded concluding testimony. This does not happen again until the turn of the century.
1900 – (5) William H. Smart delivers the next closing testimony.
1920 – two uses of the orphan (only one other in the next 33 years).
1953 – (6) Bruce R. McConkie is the first to consistently use it as the orphan, but in doing so, he uses, “In the name of Jesus Christ.” as a sentence in and of itself. He continues to be the only one for the next five years to use it as the orphan (however, from there it grows in popularity until the end of the observed period).
- J. Stapley; "Invoking the name of the Lord, a quantitative history"
The prayers were offered in the name of Jesus Christ. Whether that proclamation came at the end or somewhere else seems irrelevant.
I agree. the placement of an invocation of the Lord's name is irrelevant. What is relevant is the invocation of the Lord's name upon something that the Spirit has not inspired or in a casual manner.
I don't find it sad. I find it inspiring, especially when it is clear that the speaker really is testifying or praying or otherwise speaking in Jesus' name.
I agree that when someone is speaking as inspired by the Spirit and invokes Christ's name it is inspiring. But for me I don't find it inspiring at all when someone invokes the name of Christ in a casual manner, out of repetitious habit, or without inspiration.
I think we all should examine ourselves and our motives for invoking the name of Christ.
D&C 63:61-64
61 Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips—
62 For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority.
63 Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off.
64 Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation.
For me I want to be sure that what I have spoken has actually come from the Spirit before I use Christ's name.
I find it odd, and more than a little disturbing, that someone would complain and criticize the manner in which the Saints offer prayers to God.
We need to be careful. If someone wishes to use "In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen." to end their talk/testimony/prayer etc I am not going to complain about, criticize, or belittle them. It is my personal views that I need to be extremely careful how I use Christ's sacred name. I would hope there is nothing wrong with me sharing my personal feelings so long as I am doing so in a loving and respectful manner. I certainly don't believe that I am somehow better than anyone else or that I have the answers. All I have are personal experiences that might inspire thoughts in others so that they will turn to the Lord for answers.
-
Actually using "in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen" is a fairly recent innovation. It became common usage during the time of Bruce McConkie. Most prayers before this simply ended with, "Amen." Look at the sacrament prayer for example, or baptism.
I think we over use Christ's name a bit. It is so sad to hear a testimony/talk/prayer ended with "Inthenameofjesuschristamen." I prefer to close everything by simply saying, Amen.
-
We all sin. Our inherent nature is sinful. In other words, it is impossible for us to NOT SIN. If it was possible for us to not sin then we would not need Christ. It is not a matter of, "Ok I'm not going to do these certain things. And if I don't do them I wont be sinning." Even if a person was able to follow every law they would still be sinful and need the atonement of Christ. We are all sinners and we all need Christ.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I see in many people's attitudes they are so worried about what actions they take are sinful or not. As if there is a path through life where we can avoid sin. But the truth is that any action we take is tainted by our sinful nature. Is shaving pubic hair against to set of laws, rules, or policies? Probably not. But that doesn't mean we can shave our pubic hair and not need the atonement because we are not sinning.
The very question "Did I sin?" is inherently flawed because the answer will always be, "Yes." There is nothing we can do to merit salvation on our own.
This is why we must allow Christ's atonement to take effect in our lives. We must realize that the answer to the struggle is to let go. We make an effort to obey the laws and things not so that we can be worthy of salvation; but so that we can change ourselves into a person who is compatible with the Celestial Kingdom. As we work to change ourselves to be like the Saviour we do not let our inherent nature(sin) hold us down. Christ has freed us from sin.
The question is not, “Oh, crap, what specific actions did I do in my life, either through commission or omission, that was a sin?” The question is, “Yep, I've screwed up, and it's inevitable that I'll screw up, but what have I done to bring my nature more into line with that of the Saviour?”
I hope that makes sense and I don't just sound condescending. My intention is to convey the hope of the atonement the frees us from sin.
-
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned these links yet. George Miller has done some AMAZING research into Freemasonry and Mormonism. I can't recommend this podcast series enough. George Miller as an active member of the Church and an active Freemason.
The first two links discuss the history of Freemasonry. The last four cover Masonry in relation to Mormonism. It covers from Joseph Smith, Jr.'s youth to the modern Church.
George Miller takes his covenants in the temple seriously and also his Masonic oaths. He discusses masonry in relation to Mormonism while at the same time maintain the sacredness of the temple endowments.
This is revolutionary research into Masonry and Mormonism.
Episode 144a: Mormonism and Masonry: The Background Part 1
Episode 144b: Mormonism and Masonry: The Background Part 2
Episode 145a: Mormonism and Masonry: Into the Restoration Part 1
Episode 145b: Mormonism and Masonry: Into the Restoration Part 2
Episode 149: Mormonism and Masonry part 3: The Book of Abraham and Nauvoo
Episode 152: Mormonism and Masonry part 4: Joseph Smith and Beyond
-
(1) why would 2/3 of the spirits of heaven choose to go to earth, gain a body, be subjected to the trials and pains of life, have a next to zero chance of exposure to the gospel and, hence, a (what would seem to be) miniscule chance of attaining the highest glory? I understand the experience argument, but so many, it would seem, will never return to Heavenly Father's presence and, therefore, the Plan appears gloomy on the whole.
Those who did not have a chance to accept the gospel in this life will have a chance to accept it in the Spirit World.
(2) What is the purpose of the "plan" whereby we come to, with small possibility of exposure, relearn the gospel that we essentially already had previously accepted by way of choosing to gain a body on Earth,especially when originally we had clear knowledge of the gospel and accepted it but now have a veil to shield us from what we once knew? It would seem that it would be to weed out the not-so-ardent or luke-warm followers...?
We also came to the earth to gain a physical body. We were also given gifts that we are expected to magnify and improve. As part of gaining a physical body we need to do the best we can to develop our bodies into the type that will be comfortable in the kingdom of our choice: Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial.
(3) Did the spirits in heaven really have a "choice," per se as to whether to accept God's Plan. Take God's plan, or go to outer darkness. Was this actually a Hobson's choice?
I believe that God respects our agency. Even in the premortal life God values agency. I believe that if Satan and his forces could have gathered enough people God would have respected their agency and allowed their choice to be carried out. However the majority of the spirits used their agency to choose God's plan and He respected that agency.
(4) On the topic of our post-mortal life rewards or punishments: why punish (see my meaning of punishment in 6) a spirit who, in clear and full disclosure, essentially accepted the gospel in the pre-existence, then here on Earth either rejected it fully or partially based on a less than clear and full disclosure?
Punishment in the Spirit prison is only temporary. It will be ended when a person accepts the atonement of Jesus Christ. We will all have opportunities to increase in knowledge and understanding after this life.
(5) In light of (4), it is often said that a spirit chooses his/her own fate as a matter of free agency. BUT, if that's the case, why after the fact would there be "weeping" "wailing" and "gnashing of teeth?". If there is regret, as those emotions and demeanors would strongly suggest, would those same spirits, at that time, choose a different path if they had the same degree of knowledge of the rewards and punishments. It would seem their present situation pained them. It would seem the level of disclosure we have here on earth would be partly the issue due to the described reactions of those cast out... ??? Isn't knowledge of your range of options an essential component to free agency? (see below as well)
The weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth occurs in the Spirit Prison where we have a perfect memory of our mortal lives restored. That perfect memory includes a perfect remembrance of all our sins. For those who have not accepted the atonement of Christ they will be consumed with guilt. This unquenchable guilt will be the cause of the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. It is not necessarily a result of choosing a different path but that our inherent human nature(that of a sinner) without the atonement of Christ will experience the guilt.
(6) Does it make sense to any of you to punish a spirit eternally? (I use punish because many in the lesser degrees of glory I can only imagine wouldn't feel quite as good as those in the higher degrees).
As loudmouth says eternal punishment demotes God's punishment. You assessment of the lesser degrees of glory in relation to the Celestial is accurate IF the person has a body compatible with the Celestial kingdom. However if a person's body is compatible with the Terrestrial kingdom then the Celestial Kingdom would be unbearable. It would be extremely uncomfortable and undesirable. The same goes for the Telestial. A Telestial body would find the terrestrial and Celestial a horrible place.
Each kingdom with be the perfect place for each of the respective body types. No matter which kingdom a person goes to it will be heaven to them. They will have no regret for being there nor any longing to be in another kingdom.
I ask because so many at fast/testiminy meeting get choked up over how beautiful they say the plan is and it seems incredibly, incredibly harsh to me. in my mortal brain, punishment serves to promote justice and deterrance, but how can eternity serve as justice for sand in time acts of indiscretion, especially committed with less than clear and full knowledge? If we could fathom, as mortals are incapable of, the concept of eternity and to further comprehend the full range of possibilities in our afterlife, I would dare say that would be a would be a gamechanger.
You are right the Plan of Salvation would be extremely harsh were it not for the atoning sacrifice of Christ. It is the atonement of Christ that allows the mistakes we make in these speed bump in eternity(horrible analogy) to be overcome. Our destination in the end(metaphorically speaking) will be the culmination of our entire history and the level to which we have attuned ourselves. It is not just the sole result of this mortal blip. However if it were not for Christ our tiniest imperfection would immediately halt our progression and we would be lost eternally.
Some would say, the bad would be bad no matter what, but
I consider these examples: I speed sometimes. Some of us LDS folks watched the Superbowl on Sundays. Some LDS folks drink tea. If any of those acts, were by State law, outlawed to the extent that if we did them, we would have our hands chopped off, we wouldn't do it. possibly EVER. No doubt that the occurrence of these acts would, at least, go way down. One of the reasons many fall astray, in my humble opinion, is their inability to comprehend the magnitude of the consequences to their decisions. Now chopping a hand off, as insiginificant as that is in comparison to the eternities, now that's something we can picture. Some would say that rewards or dire consequences are not what motivates them, but merely pleasing G-d, but that's just not how we're wired, IMHO. For example, the act of charitable giving/service gives our reward center one of the strongest feelings of satisfaction. It feels good to do it.
You analogy is interesting but a bit flawed. We can make a choice to not speed, or not watch the superbowl or not drink tea. But there is no possible way to avoid sinning in this life. It is actually the law that condemns us because it is impossible for us to obey the law 100%. Therefor anyone who reaches the age of accountability is immediately accountable for all their sins. And it is impossible to not sin. Therefor we are all guilty and the punishment is death.
However, Christ has opened the way for all of us wicked sinners to avoid the punishment through Christ's mercy.
I am very sorry for the rambling... I have jotted these questions out over the past 12 months amd I'm hoping to get some good insight into areas I feel are not addressed on Sundays. Thanks so much, in advance.
I hope you can read through my ramblings and that maybe I presented something of interest to you.
Temple Recommends
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
The Plat of Nauvoo shows a circular canvas covered tabernacle in front of the Nauvoo Temple. The Canvas for this tabernacle was purchased but later used to make wagon covers. This layout probably influenced the location of the tabernacle in relation to the Salt lake Temple.
As far as the dances are concerned it's important the remember that originally worship included the physical element. Dancing, shouting Hallelujahs, raising arms give the sacrament prayer etc. Today this has been lost and we associate worship and spirituality with focusing inward, eliminating the physical from the equation. We sit silently in the Celestial room. We also sit silently in sacrament. This si completely different than early church history and even ancient Christianity.
I'm not saying that such a transition is inherently good or bad, that would depend on your beliefs about the church. It's just history.