Ed Decker

[Jason]

Broadway,

"This is interesting, then. How could these guys grow up in the chruch (for most of them did, wouldn't you say? Not all, but the majority.) and not know more about their own chruch than the six discussions?'

How many teenage boys do you know pay attention in sunday school? Honestly though, even if they did pay attention, they're not likely to really know much beyond a few simple doctrines.

"The ones that I have talk to know quite a bit about the gospel despite the fact that they aren't supposed to read anything but the scriptures and the Missionary Library stuff (you know what that is, right? Just making sure. I do not want to assume anything)"

Yep. I was one of the few missionaries who ignored the mission prez and read everything I could find.

"I do not live near any LDS colleges, so I can't really refer anyone to a professor. Perhaps the original lady does and can. I know that the missionaries wouldn't say anything but church sanctioned things rather than opinions and theories. This is important. Once you get into theories, things can get sketchy and possibly even more argumentive."

You make a good point. Yet may I also point out that much of what was once "doctrinal" has been, even recently, relegated to "theory".

"As this is a long list and I doubt that there would be anything about this on lds.org"

Probably true. But if you can purchase one of the Gospel CD's through Deseret Book, you'll have an invaluable reference to research with.

"how about an overview? You could even start a new thread. I would like that very much so that I can see both sides to it. I would very much appreciate this. And thank you for doing even as much as you did."

Well, that's no small task you've asked of me. But since you seem so nice, and I don't think you'll take me to task for exact sources, perhaps I can give a brief summary of the topic, okay?

Blessing the Water before Baptism - This was probably a roll-over practice from Christian practices. Basically it was believed that the water must be made holy to make the ordinance holy. Many Mormon Fundamentalists still practice this. (It's a kin to blessing holy oil.) I don't recall when the practice was discontinued officially, but it should be in the Messages of the First Presidency.

Re-baptism - this was a common practice in the nineteenth century. Since baptism is for remission of sins, why not clean the slate as often as necessary. This was usually done before a wedding ceremony, one's first endowment, or when one had rededicated oneself to god.

Baptism for the dead - The biggest change that I know of here (or can remember at least) was that there was a much more selective process before performing this proxy service. If one was found to have been a great sinner, they didn't receive the ordinance. Much prayer and 'personal revelation' was also involved before taking a name to the temple. Oh, and you were only supposed to be baptised for your own relatives. Other's were not allowed to do this. (Same went for all temple ordinances...)

Baptism for Health - One of my favorites. You would get a recommend from the bishop to go to the temple and be baptized for health. Since it was thought that sickness came from sin, this makes sense why so many thought it would help. (Placebo effect probably played a big part.)

The Law of Adoption - We've touched on this one a bit. Sealing oneself to a greater priesthood holder gave oneself a better standing in the afterlife. Hence the reason why so many sought to be sealed to Smith, Young, etc..

The Marriage Ordinance - The wording has changed. Originally fulfilling all the laws of matrimony in the sealing ceremony included taking a plural wife (as I recall, the wording still says the same, though few understand what the heck the sealer is saying. They probably think he's talking about having kids or something.) Also the "law of obedience" was more implied that wives were to obey their husbands in all things without question. The rise of feminism probably helped change that one. Furthermore, the ceremony originally stated that the ceremony was performed by virtue of the priesthood alone, not by virtue of the state.

The True Order of Prayer - touchy one. Older LDS probably remember prayer circles in their local meetinghouses and stake centers. Back when they were two-stories high, an upper room was selected, and worthy members were invited to a weekly prayer circle where all would dress in temple clothing, and offer up the prayers around an alter. This was discontinued in the 1970's as I recall.

The Sacrament - well D&C 20 tells it all. While many would dispute it today, originally only elders were to administer the sacrament. Priests could if no elder was present. Teachers and deacons are expressly forbiddden to administer the sacrament. But during the administration of Heber Grant, that began to change. Also raised hands in the air was part of the blessing. Then it was one arm to the square, now its arms down.

The duties of a Bishop - there used to be general bishops over larger areas, also they were restricted to temporal matters, while the presiding High priest was over spiritual matters. Now bishops act over both areas. (There's probably much more that I've forgotten. Sorry)

The office and duties of a Stake or General Bishop -discontinued by early 20th century. see above.

The duties of a Deacon - Other than passing sacrament and collecting fast offerings, deacons do little that resembles their duties as described in the D&C.

The duties of a Teacher - Similar to Deacons.

The duties of a Priest - Similar to teachers and deacons.

The duties of an Elder - again, duties as described in D&C differ from D&C. (Look up the priesthood duties in the D&C for a better understanding.)

The duties of a Seventy - Wow, where to start. Since you're a relatively new convert, you don't know that up until the 1980's the seventies were a local priesthood office like high priests and elders. There was the first council of seventy with seven presidents of seventy over them. they were the ga's, while everyone else was local. The duties of seventies were to be the missionaries of the church, not the elders. (Can you imagine the missionaries saying: "Hey, Seventy Smith, what's up?") This is in your D&C.

The duties of an High Priest - Similar to above duty changes. See D&C.

The Office of Patriarch to the Church - This one's a bit more complicated than the other priesthood office changes. Bates & Smith's book: "Lost Legacy" really sums up the controversy. In short, the office was once equal with the president of the first presidency. It has never actually had that much power, and the awkardness of it all was finally ended in 1978. (Eldred Smith still has an office in the JS Memorial Building if you’re ever in SLC.)

The Doctrine of Gathering - you know, move to zion. Then it was move to utah. Then it was stay where you are. There’ s much more to it than that, but I don’t really have time, sorry.

The Law of Tithing - This was meant to be a temporary solution until the mormons could get the law of consecration right. It turned out to be a more practical solution to the $$$ situation.

The Law of Consecration - an “eternal” law that wasn’t. Failed in Missiouri, failed in utah (know as the order of enoch, a handful of co-ops, but with a few alterations). Lot’s of interesting history on this. But I’ll let you discover that on your own.

The Law of Sacrifice - had some significance with the temple ceremonies. Research the changes to the temple ceremonies and you’ll figure it out.

The Law of Chastity - Actually, I don’t remember why I included this. If I remember, I ‘ll get back to you.

The Doctrine of Calling and Election - has to do with second anointings. You can find out more about this with a Gospel CD, or possibly an internet search.

The Holy Embrace - deals with the embrace at the veil in the temple ceremony. It’s changed. That’s all I can say on this forum. (If you want more detail, send me an email.)

The Fullness of the Priesthood - Deals with the idea of having multiple wives, everyone being ordained high priests, receiving the second anointings, etc...

The Church of the Firstborn and The Holy Order - the “elect” of mormonism belong to this “heavenly” church. Also considered the name of the church in the afterlife. Lots’ of fun history on this, enjoy your search.

The Kingdom of God - a literal new jerusalem ruled by the hierarchy of the priesthood on earth. This government was to take over the us government (not just an ed decker exaggeration, honest) and then eventually all governments of the world. (Wilford Woodruff even made up a nifty flag for it. Some even speculate that the flag unfurled on Ensign peak (hence the hymn ‘high on a mountain top, a ‘banner’ is unfurled...’) in SLC was not “old glory” but the flag of the kingdom of God which looked similar. Except the number of stripes was different and their was twelve stars in a circle with one star in the center.)

The Council of Fifty - the priesthood council that was to rule the governments of the world. It was established by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. There were a few irregular meetings. No new members were added, and the last member died in the early twentieth century. (Benajamin F. Johnson was the last surviving member as I recall)

The Holy Ghost - Many early LDS believed that Joseph Smith was the Holy Ghost incarnate. (Hence his saying: “would to God, brethren, I could tell you who I am” and similar statements like that..)

The Women’s Resurrection Claim - um, I believe it had to do with a priesthood issue, but I don’t remember anymore.

The Washing of Feet Ordinance - performed commonly among the general lds population. Now it’s an exclusive rite of the first presidency and 12.

Women’s Confinement Blessing - women were once allowed to give priesthood blessings before child birth. I’ll give you the reference from the “Messages of the First Presidency” if you’d like. (I still remember that one...)

Ordinances for Childbirth by Women for Women - similar to above.

The Doctrine of Eternal Lives - as I recall, several prominent early lds leaders (including Eliza R. Snow) believed in reincarnation. This deals with the idea that in order to be perfect, you must live all the laws revealed by J. Smith. If you don’t, you’ll have to start over again. Wilford Woodruff, at the dedication of the Manti temple, refuted this early belief. (He changed quite a few things really...)

The Mysteries of Godliness - I don’t remember what this was for. Sorry.

Personal Revelation - I don’t recall right now.

Parents Responsibility to Teach Their Children - Probably some diatribe I was on at the time. I don’t remember.

Homosexuality - this was probably due to the churches increasingly lenient stance on the issue.

Abortion and Murder - the murder I don’t know about anymore, but abortion is now allowed if it will endanger mother’s life, or incest, or rape. That was not always the case.

“I can certainly see why, can't you? There weren't many members. If one's ansestors weren't LDS, how could he be sealed to them? I think it sounds like a pretty good make-do solution until there are more members.”

More a change in philosophy than anything, I’d say. But many of the changes were for practical reasons.

“At least when I am lost now-a-days, I can blame it on my pregnancy... “

CONGRATULATIONS! How many weeks are you? My wife’s twenty weeks now. She will be our third child.

“Am I that invisible?”

Probably not. Im not a regular around here anymore. That’s all.

Jason

[broadway]

Many of the things you mentioned I am familiar with and am content with. Some of the things I have NO clue what you are talking about.

I would like any links you may have that would go to support your claims. I accept your word as the truth so far as you understand it. For my own, though, I would like to form my own opinions on. You mentioned having a link for one of the things for certain. Go ahead and start me out on that.

Also, if you would...start a thread on these things. Especially the ones you felt you could not remember or whatnot.

I appreciate your respect in not saying things you shouldn't say outside of the temple. You are a very kind person, indeed, to have this respect even though you do not believe in it. Your respect is for other people, I am sure, rather than for this forum or for our church. Whatever the reason for your respect, it is appreciated. You do not have to explain it any further. You can just take the credit for it and leave it at that.

Gosh....there were some toher things you said I wanted to comment on...what were they???

Ah yes, You made the comment that many changes were made for practical reasons. Yes. Many. I agree. This would account for many of your issues. I cannot see that thse particular issues were theones that changed your mind about my church. Which ones specifically did it? Also, a little back ground would be nice as well. Did you have a run-in with a leader about your differing beliefs that started you on your quest for truth that lead you outside of the church? Some other situation, perhaps??

I am 36 weeks and 4 days. In other words, I have a little over three weeks left. Your wife is twenty weeks? Wow! That is an exciting time of pregnancy. Things are now starting to change. The baby's gender can be seen. Baby can be measured . All kinds of fun stuff...and if memory serves me correctly, twenty weeks is the beginning of the fun for the daddy too since the blood flow is much stronger in certain places, and makes it easier for mommy to be ...frisky. Yes, 20 weeks is a fun time.

3 kids? Wow...this is my second. My son is 3. I will be having a girl this time. I am elated that things worked out that way. I always assumed that I would have a house full of boys the way my mom did and my husband's parents did. Good luck. She has a long road ahead of her, but it will end quicker than she thinks. (At least I am hoping, for my own sake!!!)

broadway

[Guest Starsky]

Many of the changes mentioned in the list are valid. Knowing why they were changed is just as important as knowing about the changes.

I know the one about what you call the Holy embrace.....many women were being groped....so after many years of complaints...they felt they had to change it. Same with many of the changes....the wickedness of the people has forced the leaders to lower the standards and take away sacred priveledges.....sad huh?

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Starsky@May 13 2004, 09:36 AM

Many of the changes mentioned in the list are valid. Knowing why they were changed is just as important as knowing about the changes.

I know the one about what you call the Holy embrace.....many women were being groped....so after many years of complaints...they felt they had to change it. Same with many of the changes....the wickedness of the people has forced the leaders to lower the standards and take away sacred priveledges.....sad huh?

That could be true for a couple, but there are many listed. I'm curious to know about the others. I've never even heard of a lot of those!

[Jenda]

The washing of feet was always an exclusive ordinance reserved for the president of the church. The directions for it are given in the D&C. It was reserved for the president of the church to perform to those who attended the School of the Prophets.

D&C 85:44b-46 RLDS (88:136-141 LDS)

44b And ye are called to do this by prayer and thanksgiving, as the Spirit shall give utterance, in all your doings in the house of the Lord, in the school of the prophets, that it may become a sanctuary, a tabernacle, of the Holy Spirit to your edification.

45 And ye shall not receive any among you into this school, save he is clean from the blood of this generation; and he shall be received by the ordinance of the washing of feet, for unto this end was the ordinance of the washing of feet instituted.

46a And again, the ordinance of washing feet is to be administered by the president, or presiding elder of the church.

46b It is to be commenced with prayer; and after partaking of bread and wine, he is to gird himself, according to the pattern given in the thirteenth chapter of John's testimony concerning me. Amen.

And I don't understand why the LDS have departed from the scriptural commandment regarding serving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The RLDS still hold fast to this commandment.

And we still have a presiding patriarch. Well, I take that back. We don't have patriarchs anymore since women started being ordained into the higher quorums. But we have a presiding evangelist (a rose by any other name (or so they say)), and he acts as the minor prophet of the church. In fact, the presiding evangelist is more of a prophet than the prophet (if you get my drift.) (I am not happy with this whole scenario, but don't get me started. )

[Tr2]

I have never read the book but have thoroughly reviewed the movie numerous times. I have come up with the following conclusions.

The movie probably has about 70-100, or so, different points to it. The 7 minute cartoon is probably the most controversial. Many of the controversial points are called lies but I don't think I have ever seen a mormon actively show how they are lies. In fact the vast majority of what the video accuses the mormon church of, is more than somewhat accurate. I have not thoroughly reviewed every aspect of the film with mormons, but all the points that I have reviewed i have found to have a large degree of truth to it.

The portions I have found to be inaccurate are where the narrorator says "mormons believe......". Often it actually is in a situation where a mormon prophet has stated something that they want others to believe as the word of God. Such examples are the Adam-God theory, and Joseph Smith being more important than Jesus. Many mormons act like because a certain theory or practice isn't held today, then that means it wasn't true at some point in time.

I think the real reason that "The Godmakers" is hated so much by mormons is because the light that is paints the LDS church in. It destroys the public image of mormonism that many have worked so hard to try and attain. Though I must say that I have seen what many mormons are really like when they discuss the Godmakers. I have seen the bitterness, anger, and resentfulness that some are walking with that they seem to be able to hide most of the time.

The Godmakers is more accurate than most mormons will ever want to admit.

[Guest Starsky]

All the changes are...because of wickedness....have any of you understood the scripture found in 3rd Nephi 16:10?3 Ne. 16: 10

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

[broadway]

Originally posted by Jenda@May 13 2004, 10:08 AM

..., but don't get me started. )

*pushes start button*

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Starsky@May 13 2004, 10:34 AM

All the changes are...because of wickedness....have any of you understood the scripture found in 3rd Nephi 16:10?3 Ne. 16: 10

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

How is this the case with the church's stance on abortion? How has wickedness of the people changed whether it's right or not?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Jenda@May 13 2004, 09:08 AM

And I don't understand why the LDS have departed from the scriptural commandment regarding serving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The RLDS still hold fast to this commandment.

Hey Jenda - I'm curious. Can you be more specific with this statement. What do you mean?

M.

[Maureen]

I'm like Trident. I've never read the book, just saw the video. It was probably in the early '80's. The only thing that really stands out that I remember is the actors that were doing these temple scenes had such horrified looks on their faces. I found that unbelievable. I suspect true temple goers could have confused looks, especially if you're going for the first time. But I can't imagine there are going to be many looking scared to death.

M.

[Jason]

Broadway,

"Many of the things you mentioned I am familiar with and am content with. Some of the things I have NO clue what you are talking about."

The nice thing about life, we can all learn...

"I would like any links you may have that would go to support your claims. I accept your word as the truth so far as you understand it. For my own, though, I would like to form my own opinions on. You mentioned having a link for one of the things for certain. Go ahead and start me out on that."

No valuable links exist that I'd recommend. Primary sources are the only things that should concern you. I think $70.00 is a worthwhile investment when your salvation is on the line. Don't you agree?

"Also, if you would...start a thread on these things. Especially the ones you felt you could not remember or whatnot."

It's all about time. I've still got some of my old paper's I could email you, but they may be censored on this forum. If you're interested, let me know.

"I appreciate your respect in not saying things you shouldn't say outside of the temple. You are a very kind person, indeed, to have this respect even though you do not believe in it. Your respect is for other people, I am sure, rather than for this forum or for our church. Whatever the reason for your respect, it is appreciated. You do not have to explain it any further. You can just take the credit for it and leave it at that."

Well, I wouldn't say that. I don't hesitate to discuss temple ceremonies with those who ask. But nobody here asked...

"Ah yes, You made the comment that many changes were made for practical reasons. Yes. Many. I agree. This would account for many of your issues."

And for the better, I would add.

"I cannot see that thse particular issues were theones that changed your mind about my church. Which ones specifically did it?"

I was raised to believe that God was the same yestereday, today and forever. Changing "essential" doctrines made God look like a liar. That would be a big part of it.

"Also, a little back ground would be nice as well. Did you have a run-in with a leader about your differing beliefs that started you on your quest for truth that lead you outside of the church? Some other situation, perhaps??"

I had an Institute Professor ask for my assistance on researching plural marriage. I read primary sources where lds prophets taught that if you didn't live plural marriage while on this earth, you would never be a god. That started the whole thing back in '98.

"I am 36 weeks and 4 days. In other words, I have a little over three weeks left. Your wife is twenty weeks? Wow! That is an exciting time of pregnancy. Things are now starting to change. The baby's gender can be seen. Baby can be measured . All kinds of fun stuff...and if memory serves me correctly, twenty weeks is the beginning of the fun for the daddy too since the blood flow is much stronger in certain places, and makes it easier for mommy to be ...frisky. Yes, 20 weeks is a fun time."

Ah yes, a fun time indeed.

"3 kids? Wow...this is my second. My son is 3. I will be having a girl this time. I am elated that things worked out that way. I always assumed that I would have a house full of boys the way my mom did and my husband's parents did. Good luck. She has a long road ahead of her, but it will end quicker than she thinks. (At least I am hoping, for my own sake!!!)"

Sounds fun.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Tr2@May 13 2004, 10:27 AM

The Godmakers is more accurate than most mormons will ever want to admit.

Sometimes he's wrong, and sometimes he's really wrong......

HERE is a brief article discussing the problems in the movie.

Here is a link to the online version of the book which analyzes the movie, to contrast the comment that no one actually addressed it.

[srm]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 12 2004, 12:04 PM

Well, since srm thinks I was backed into a corner....

"Much of Eddie's antipathy toward the Church seems to flow from his inability to keep his pants zipped up outside of marraige."

We can't prove this. He may just not like Mormonism. Or maybe he finds mormonism too unforgiving with adultery, while protestants are more forgiving?

"As an immoral lout, he blames the Church for the breakup of his marriage instead of his love of sin; he then attacks the Church on this account as part of his antiMormon jihad."

Perhaps "local" church authorities encouraged his wife to leave him, in stead of forgive??? Who knows.

"He, by virtue of his utter lack of virtue, is the the issue. He lies about his adultery. He lies about Mormonism. Lying is part and parcel of his persona. In his case it is impossible to seperate the lies from the liar."

Lying is a strong word. I'd say gross exaggeration is more accurate.

"LDS Missionaries are better informed on LDS doctrine than 99.9 percent of the worlds population. They are a good start."

Point taken.

"Besides, salvation isn't a matter of doctrine. It is a matter of finding Christ. That doesn't require a scholar."

I disagree. If one is misinfomed about core dogma, one cannot be saved. We should start a new post perhaps?

"Why is that a problem?"

Mormons baptise entirely too easily. Early christianity did not give away baptism like it was a copy of AOL 9.0. One had to earn the trust of the Saints, then undergo a serious study of the dogmas and doctrines of the church, then one could be baptised. (this could take as little as a few months to years.)

If mormons applied the same standards of time and study to baptism as they do to temple attendance, you'd see a different kind of convert.

"Do you believe salvation to be a matter of historical literacy?"

It's a big part. If you don't know what your getting into, are you truly converted?

"Besides which, I think that is a relatively untrue statement. I think it is easily demonstrable that Mormons are more historical literate on Mormon history than general Christians are on general Christianity. Do you think I am wrong?"

You must admit that we're talking about a history of less than 200 years, verses a history of 2000 years. It's a lot easier to learn less, agreed?

Not on this issue my friend. On the one just before you got nice.

[srm]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 12 2004, 08:41 PM

Broadway,

"This is interesting, then. How could these guys grow up in the chruch (for most of them did, wouldn't you say? Not all, but the majority.) and not know more about their own chruch than the six discussions?'

How many teenage boys do you know pay attention in sunday school? Honestly though, even if they did pay attention, they're not likely to really know much beyond a few simple doctrines.

"The ones that I have talk to know quite a bit about the gospel despite the fact that they aren't supposed to read anything but the scriptures and the Missionary Library stuff (you know what that is, right? Just making sure. I do not want to assume anything)"

Yep. I was one of the few missionaries who ignored the mission prez and read everything I could find.

"I do not live near any LDS colleges, so I can't really refer anyone to a professor. Perhaps the original lady does and can. I know that the missionaries wouldn't say anything but church sanctioned things rather than opinions and theories. This is important. Once you get into theories, things can get sketchy and possibly even more argumentive."

You make a good point. Yet may I also point out that much of what was once "doctrinal" has been, even recently, relegated to "theory".

"As this is a long list and I doubt that there would be anything about this on lds.org"

Probably true. But if you can purchase one of the Gospel CD's through Deseret Book, you'll have an invaluable reference to research with.

"how about an overview? You could even start a new thread. I would like that very much so that I can see both sides to it. I would very much appreciate this. And thank you for doing even as much as you did."

Well, that's no small task you've asked of me. But since you seem so nice, and I don't think you'll take me to task for exact sources, perhaps I can give a brief summary of the topic, okay?

Blessing the Water before Baptism - This was probably a roll-over practice from Christian practices. Basically it was believed that the water must be made holy to make the ordinance holy. Many Mormon Fundamentalists still practice this. (It's a kin to blessing holy oil.) I don't recall when the practice was discontinued officially, but it should be in the Messages of the First Presidency.

Re-baptism - this was a common practice in the nineteenth century. Since baptism is for remission of sins, why not clean the slate as often as necessary. This was usually done before a wedding ceremony, one's first endowment, or when one had rededicated oneself to god.

Baptism for the dead - The biggest change that I know of here (or can remember at least) was that there was a much more selective process before performing this proxy service. If one was found to have been a great sinner, they didn't receive the ordinance. Much prayer and 'personal revelation' was also involved before taking a name to the temple. Oh, and you were only supposed to be baptised for your own relatives. Other's were not allowed to do this. (Same went for all temple ordinances...)

Baptism for Health - One of my favorites. You would get a recommend from the bishop to go to the temple and be baptized for health. Since it was thought that sickness came from sin, this makes sense why so many thought it would help. (Placebo effect probably played a big part.)

The Law of Adoption - We've touched on this one a bit. Sealing oneself to a greater priesthood holder gave oneself a better standing in the afterlife. Hence the reason why so many sought to be sealed to Smith, Young, etc..

The Marriage Ordinance - The wording has changed. Originally fulfilling all the laws of matrimony in the sealing ceremony included taking a plural wife (as I recall, the wording still says the same, though few understand what the heck the sealer is saying. They probably think he's talking about having kids or something.) Also the "law of obedience" was more implied that wives were to obey their husbands in all things without question. The rise of feminism probably helped change that one. Furthermore, the ceremony originally stated that the ceremony was performed by virtue of the priesthood alone, not by virtue of the state.

The True Order of Prayer - touchy one. Older LDS probably remember prayer circles in their local meetinghouses and stake centers. Back when they were two-stories high, an upper room was selected, and worthy members were invited to a weekly prayer circle where all would dress in temple clothing, and offer up the prayers around an alter. This was discontinued in the 1970's as I recall.

The Sacrament - well D&C 20 tells it all. While many would dispute it today, originally only elders were to administer the sacrament. Priests could if no elder was present. Teachers and deacons are expressly forbiddden to administer the sacrament. But during the administration of Heber Grant, that began to change. Also raised hands in the air was part of the blessing. Then it was one arm to the square, now its arms down.

The duties of a Bishop - there used to be general bishops over larger areas, also they were restricted to temporal matters, while the presiding High priest was over spiritual matters. Now bishops act over both areas. (There's probably much more that I've forgotten. Sorry)

The office and duties of a Stake or General Bishop -discontinued by early 20th century. see above.

The duties of a Deacon - Other than passing sacrament and collecting fast offerings, deacons do little that resembles their duties as described in the D&C.

The duties of a Teacher - Similar to Deacons.

The duties of a Priest - Similar to teachers and deacons.

The duties of an Elder - again, duties as described in D&C differ from D&C. (Look up the priesthood duties in the D&C for a better understanding.)

The duties of a Seventy - Wow, where to start. Since you're a relatively new convert, you don't know that up until the 1980's the seventies were a local priesthood office like high priests and elders. There was the first council of seventy with seven presidents of seventy over them. they were the ga's, while everyone else was local. The duties of seventies were to be the missionaries of the church, not the elders. (Can you imagine the missionaries saying: "Hey, Seventy Smith, what's up?") This is in your D&C.

The duties of an High Priest - Similar to above duty changes. See D&C.

The Office of Patriarch to the Church - This one's a bit more complicated than the other priesthood office changes. Bates & Smith's book: "Lost Legacy" really sums up the controversy. In short, the office was once equal with the president of the first presidency. It has never actually had that much power, and the awkardness of it all was finally ended in 1978. (Eldred Smith still has an office in the JS Memorial Building if you’re ever in SLC.)

The Doctrine of Gathering - you know, move to zion. Then it was move to utah. Then it was stay where you are. There’ s much more to it than that, but I don’t really have time, sorry.

The Law of Tithing - This was meant to be a temporary solution until the mormons could get the law of consecration right. It turned out to be a more practical solution to the $$$ situation.

The Law of Consecration - an “eternal” law that wasn’t. Failed in Missiouri, failed in utah (know as the order of enoch, a handful of co-ops, but with a few alterations). Lot’s of interesting history on this. But I’ll let you discover that on your own.

The Law of Sacrifice - had some significance with the temple ceremonies. Research the changes to the temple ceremonies and you’ll figure it out.

The Law of Chastity - Actually, I don’t remember why I included this. If I remember, I ‘ll get back to you.

The Doctrine of Calling and Election - has to do with second anointings. You can find out more about this with a Gospel CD, or possibly an internet search.

The Holy Embrace - deals with the embrace at the veil in the temple ceremony. It’s changed. That’s all I can say on this forum. (If you want more detail, send me an email.)

The Fullness of the Priesthood - Deals with the idea of having multiple wives, everyone being ordained high priests, receiving the second anointings, etc...

The Church of the Firstborn and The Holy Order - the “elect” of mormonism belong to this “heavenly” church. Also considered the name of the church in the afterlife. Lots’ of fun history on this, enjoy your search.

The Kingdom of God - a literal new jerusalem ruled by the hierarchy of the priesthood on earth. This government was to take over the us government (not just an ed decker exaggeration, honest) and then eventually all governments of the world. (Wilford Woodruff even made up a nifty flag for it. Some even speculate that the flag unfurled on Ensign peak (hence the hymn ‘high on a mountain top, a ‘banner’ is unfurled...’) in SLC was not “old glory” but the flag of the kingdom of God which looked similar. Except the number of stripes was different and their was twelve stars in a circle with one star in the center.)

The Council of Fifty - the priesthood council that was to rule the governments of the world. It was established by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. There were a few irregular meetings. No new members were added, and the last member died in the early twentieth century. (Benajamin F. Johnson was the last surviving member as I recall)

The Holy Ghost - Many early LDS believed that Joseph Smith was the Holy Ghost incarnate. (Hence his saying: “would to God, brethren, I could tell you who I am” and similar statements like that..)

The Women’s Resurrection Claim - um, I believe it had to do with a priesthood issue, but I don’t remember anymore.

The Washing of Feet Ordinance - performed commonly among the general lds population. Now it’s an exclusive rite of the first presidency and 12.

Women’s Confinement Blessing - women were once allowed to give priesthood blessings before child birth. I’ll give you the reference from the “Messages of the First Presidency” if you’d like. (I still remember that one...)

Ordinances for Childbirth by Women for Women - similar to above.

The Doctrine of Eternal Lives - as I recall, several prominent early lds leaders (including Eliza R. Snow) believed in reincarnation. This deals with the idea that in order to be perfect, you must live all the laws revealed by J. Smith. If you don’t, you’ll have to start over again. Wilford Woodruff, at the dedication of the Manti temple, refuted this early belief. (He changed quite a few things really...)

The Mysteries of Godliness - I don’t remember what this was for. Sorry.

Personal Revelation - I don’t recall right now.

Parents Responsibility to Teach Their Children - Probably some diatribe I was on at the time. I don’t remember.

Homosexuality - this was probably due to the churches increasingly lenient stance on the issue.

Abortion and Murder - the murder I don’t know about anymore, but abortion is now allowed if it will endanger mother’s life, or incest, or rape. That was not always the case.

“I can certainly see why, can't you? There weren't many members. If one's ansestors weren't LDS, how could he be sealed to them? I think it sounds like a pretty good make-do solution until there are more members.”

More a change in philosophy than anything, I’d say. But many of the changes were for practical reasons.

“At least when I am lost now-a-days, I can blame it on my pregnancy... “

CONGRATULATIONS! How many weeks are you? My wife’s twenty weeks now. She will be our third child.

“Am I that invisible?”

Probably not. Im not a regular around here anymore. That’s all.

Jason

could you please provide sources?

[srm]

Originally posted by Tr2@May 13 2004, 09:27 AM

I have never read the book but have thoroughly reviewed the movie numerous times. I have come up with the following conclusions.

The movie probably has about 70-100, or so, different points to it. The 7 minute cartoon is probably the most controversial. Many of the controversial points are called lies but I don't think I have ever seen a mormon actively show how they are lies. In fact the vast majority of what the video accuses the mormon church of, is more than somewhat accurate. I have not thoroughly reviewed every aspect of the film with mormons, but all the points that I have reviewed i have found to have a large degree of truth to it.

The portions I have found to be inaccurate are where the narrorator says "mormons believe......". Often it actually is in a situation where a mormon prophet has stated something that they want others to believe as the word of God. Such examples are the Adam-God theory, and Joseph Smith being more important than Jesus. Many mormons act like because a certain theory or practice isn't held today, then that means it wasn't true at some point in time.

I think the real reason that "The Godmakers" is hated so much by mormons is because the light that is paints the LDS church in. It destroys the public image of mormonism that many have worked so hard to try and attain. Though I must say that I have seen what many mormons are really like when they discuss the Godmakers. I have seen the bitterness, anger, and resentfulness that some are walking with that they seem to be able to hide most of the time.

The Godmakers is more accurate than most mormons will ever want to admit.

I have not seen the video but I have listened to the soundtrack and read the book. i would dissagree. Maybe it would be interesting to discuss a few of the issues here.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[srm]

It's all about time. I've still got some of my old paper's I could email you, but they may be censored on this forum. If you're interested, let me know.

I'd love to read them...can you send them to me?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Maureen+May 13 2004, 11:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ May 13 2004, 11:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@May 13 2004, 09:08 AM

And I don't understand why the LDS have departed from the scriptural commandment regarding serving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  The RLDS still hold fast to this commandment.

Hey Jenda - I'm curious. Can you be more specific with this statement. What do you mean?

M.

These are the duties of the priesthood members. From Section 17:8a-11f RLDS (20:38-59 LDS)

8a The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the church of Christ:

8b An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize, and to ordain other elders, priests, teachers, and deacons, and to administer bread and wine--the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ--

8c and to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, according to the Scriptures;

8d and to teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church;

8e and to confirm the church by the laying on of the hands, and the giving of the Holy Ghost,

8f and to take the lead of all meetings.

9 The elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy Ghost, according to the commandments and revelations of God.

10a The priest's duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament.

10b and visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret, and attend to all family duties:

10c and he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons;

10d and he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder present, but when there is an elder present he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret, and attend to all family duties.

10e In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion requires.

11a The teacher's duty is to watch over the church always, and be with, and strengthen them, and see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other; neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;

11b and see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the members do their duty,

11c and he is to take the lead of meetings in the absence of the elder or priest,

11d and is to be assisted always, in all his duties in the church, by the deacons, if occasion requires;

11e but neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;

11f they are, however, to warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ.

It is the elders and priests responsibility to bless and administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The teachers and deacons are not authorized to participate in any way in any of the ordinances/sacraments.

I used to frequently attend an LDS church, and after the emblems were blessed, they were then served by any of the priesthood. In fact, the trays were passed down the row of people seated in the sanctuary. In our church, the plate does not leave the hand of the priest or elder serving the emblems.

[srm]

11d and is to be assisted always, in all his duties in the church, by the deacons, if occasion requires;

11e but neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;

11f they are, however, to warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ.

Doesn't it say that they can be assisted in ALL their duties by the deacon? In the CofC can a deacon bless the sacrament if occasion requires?

Now, the real issue here is how one interprets the word administer. We see it as offering the prayer. The preparation and passing of the sacrament isn't the administration. the prayer is.

[Jason]

A couple of references:

Kingdom of God -

"We are asked, is the Church of God, and the Kingdom of God the same organization? and we are informed that some of the brethren hold that they are separate. This is the correct view to take. The Kingdom of God is a separate organization from the Church of God. There may be men acting as officers in the Kingdom of God who will not be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On this point the Prophet Joseph gave particular instructions before his death, and gave an example, which he asked the younger elders who were present to always remember. It was to the effect that men might be chosen to officiate as members of the Kingdom of God who had no standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Kingdom of God when established will not be for the protection of the Church of Jesus Christ alone, but for the protection of all men, whatever their religious views or opinions may be. Under its rule, no one will be permitted to overstep the proper bounds or to interfere with the rights of others." (George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor Vol. 31:140)

"So here I will leave this subject for your further interogations [sic] and proceed to give you, so far as I can remember the Prophet Joseph’s last charge to the Quorum of twelve apostles. It was at Nauvoo early in 1844 in an assembly room common to the meeting of a Council or Select Circle of the Prophet’s most trusted Friends including all the Twelve, but not all of the constituted authorities of the Church, for Presidents Rigdon, Law or Marks – The High Council nor Presidents of Quorums were not members of that Council, which at times would exceed Fifty in number. Its sittings were always strictly private, and all its rules were carefully and promptly observed. . . . And now returning to the Council and the “last charge” – let us remember that by revelation he had reorganized the Holy Priesthood and by command of the Lord D&C 124:123 – had taken from the first presidency his brother Hyrum to hold as Patriarch the sealing power, the first and highest honor due to Priesthood. That he had turned the Keys of Endowments to the last Anointing and Sealing together with keys of Salvation for the dead, with the eternity of the Marriage Covenant and the power of Endless Lives – All these Keys he held and under these then existing conditions, he stood before that association of his select friends including all the Twelve. And with great feeling and animation he graphically reviewed his life and persecution, labor and sacrifice for the Church and Kingdom of God – Both of which he declared were now organized upon the earth; The burden of which had become too great for him longer to carry. That he was weary and tired with the weight he so long had borne. And he then said with great vehemence “And in the name of the Lord I now shake from my shoulders the responsibilities of bearing off the Kingdom of God to all the world – And here and now I place that responsibility with all the Keys power and privilege pertaining there too upon the shoulders of you the Twelve Apostles in connection with this Council [Council of Fifty]. And if you will accept this to do it God shall bless you mightily and shall open your way and if you do it not you will be damned – I am henceforth free from this responsibility and I now shake my garments clean and free from the blood of this generation and of all men – And shaking his shirt with great vehemence he raised himself from the floor while the spirit that accompanied his word thrilled every heart as with a feeling that boded bereavement and sorrow. . . . There were dear brother other things to that Council of which I am not at full liberty to write; But if I had your ear I would remember that the Prophet once said to me “Benjamin in regard to those things I have taught you privately that are not yet for the public, I give you the right, when you are so led to commit them to others for you will not be led wrong in discerning those worthy of your confidence.” (Benjamin F. Johnson wrote about this last charge to George P. Gibbs, the secretary to the First Presidency. As quoted in Collier, Unpublished Revelations 1:61. Note: The letter is published elsewhere with only slight wording differences.)

Law of Adoption:

The Law of Adoption was discontinued by President Wilford Woodruff in 1894. See Messages of the First Presidency Vol. 3:251-260.

Various purposes of baptism:

"There was a font erected in the basement story of the Temple, for the baptism of the dead, the healing of the sick and other purposes; this font was made of wood, and was only intended for the present use; but it is now removed, and as soon as the stone cutters get through with the cutting of the stone for the walls of the Temple, they will immediately proceed to cut the stone for and erect a font of hewn stone." (Brigham Young, MFP 1:247)

“Pres’t. J. Smith spoke upon the subject of . . . . Baptisms for the dead, and for the healing of the body must be in the font, those coming into the church and those rebaptized may be done in the river.” (Ehat, The Words of Joseph Smith p. 111).

“Sister E[mma Smith] is worse, many fears are entertained that she will not recover. She was baptised twice in the river which evidently did her much good.” Jessee, The Papers Of Joseph Smith, Vol. 2. P 486).

This is the letter that ended all of that:

"January 18, 1923. Dear Brethren: The following paragraph is part of a letter dated December 15th, 1922, from the First Presidency to Presidents of Temples: ‘We feel constrained to call your attention to the custom prevailing to some extent in our temples of baptizing for health, and to remind you that baptism for health is no part of our temple work, and therefore to permit it to become a practice would be an innovation detrimental to temple work, and a departure as well from the provision instituted of the Lord for the care and healing of the sick of His Church. And in this connection we desire to say that the practice of Church members going to temples to be administered to is a departure from the way instituted of the Lord, and we are desirous that these things should be corrected and receive attention of the proper authorities in the branches, Wards, and Stakes of the Church where they belong, and it will be for you to so inform your temple workers and those who may come to you from time to time for baptism for health and to be administered to.’ The Presidency would thank you to convey the information contained in the foregoing paragraph to your Bishops with the request that they issue no more recommends for baptisms for health or administrations to the sick." (MFP 5:224-225.)

More later....

[Jenda]

Originally posted by srm@May 13 2004, 08:02 PM

11d and is to be assisted always, in all his duties in the church, by the deacons, if occasion requires;

11e but neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;

11f they are, however, to warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ.

Doesn't it say that they can be assisted in ALL their duties by the deacon? In the CofC can a deacon bless the sacrament if occasion requires?

Now, the real issue here is how one interprets the word administer. We see it as offering the prayer. The preparation and passing of the sacrament isn't the administration. the prayer is.

No, a teacher or deacon cannot assist in the sacraments/ordinances (any of them) in any way. If there is no priest or elder available, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not served. Neither are marriages performed, or people baptized, etc.

It says that the elders and priests can be assisted in all duties except in the performance of the sacraments.

In the CoC, administer means to prepare, bless and pass out the emblems. It is all considered part of the sacrament and therefore must be performed by the person responsible for the service (elder or priest). Depending on how large the congregation is, and how many priesthood members there are available to do it, we often have 2-4 priesthood administering the sacrament. And as I said earlier, they do not pass the trays down the row, they serve each person personally. There is a lot of theology involved in the sacraments, and it should not be watered down. IMO.

[Tr2]

A few obvious lies I found in it about Mormon doctrine...

1. Black people are shown in the pre-existence being given black skin because they were neutral in the war against Satan. I've heard that story before, but it is not doctrine.

2. God had sex with Mary...literally. Again...not doctrine.

3. Jesus had 3 wives. Not doctrine.

4. Joseph Smith claimed to be descended from Jesus Christ. I never heard that one before! Um...I'm guessing its not doctrine.

5. We are judged by Joseph Smith, Elohim, and Jesus on Judgement Day. The cartoon shows Joseph Smith in the middle of the two, as if he is most important.

6. The cartoon also says Mormons believe JS shed his blood for us so we could become Gods. He is more important than Jesus Christ.

Exaggerations and lies

They may not be doctrine, but it would be different if various LDS prophets had their way. Each of those 6 were taught by various LDS prophets as though they were the word of God. They may not be doctrine but each of these examples were taught by people that mormons honor as a prophet who speaks for God.

[srm]

Originally posted by Tr2@May 14 2004, 06:10 AM

A few obvious lies I found in it about Mormon doctrine...

1. Black people are shown in the pre-existence being given black skin because they were neutral in the war against Satan. I've heard that story before, but it is not doctrine.

2. God had sex with Mary...literally. Again...not doctrine.

3. Jesus had 3 wives. Not doctrine.

4. Joseph Smith claimed to be descended from Jesus Christ. I never heard that one before! Um...I'm guessing its not doctrine.

5. We are judged by Joseph Smith, Elohim, and Jesus on Judgement Day. The cartoon shows Joseph Smith in the middle of the two, as if he is most important.

6. The cartoon also says Mormons believe JS shed his blood for us so we could become Gods. He is more important than Jesus Christ.

Exaggerations and lies

They may not be doctrine, but it would be different if various LDS prophets had their way. Each of those 6 were taught by various LDS prophets as though they were the word of God. They may not be doctrine but each of these examples were taught by people that mormons honor as a prophet who speaks for God.

Let's define terms here. When you say taught by prophets, what do you mean? the president of the Church...one of the First Presidency or the Twelve. What do you mean? Secondly, if it were taught would that make it doctrine or binding upon the members?