[ARCHIVED THREAD] - LDS Temples (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/2/2010 7:03:08 AM EDT
|
I just thought this video is really good so I decided to share. It describes why we as LDS have temples. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Enjoy!
Temple Video |
|
Watch the video and discuss the video if you wish. The next remotely off-topic, disrespectful, or trollish post in this thread will receive a formal warning and, if there is a history of such, I will ask Staff to remove the poster from this forum. You guys know better than this.  |
|
Russell Nelson (Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) said in the video that the temple is a "sacred step toward eternal glory."
So the temple is necessary to obtain eternal glory..... I wanted to know what this meant so I searched. From the Mormon Research Ministry: Eternal Increase: The LDS Doctrine of Celestial Procreation By Bill McKeever Closely associated with the LDS doctrine of temple marriage is the doctrine of eternal increase. LDS leaders have defined this teaching as the ability for Mormon couples who have achieved celestial exaltation to procreate throughout eternity. Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876-1972), in volume 4 of his book, Answers to Gospel Questions, (p.197), stated: "Those who are married in the temple for all time and eternity obtain the blessing of eternal lives. I put stress on eternal lives. Eternal life is God's life, that is, to be like him. Eternal lives means eternal increase––the continuation, as the revelation says, of the seeds forever. To be married outside of the temple is for time only." He also wrote, the ability to procreate was limited only to those who receive a celestial body, "Some will gain celestial bodies with all the powers of exaltation and eternal increase" (Doctrines of Salvation 2:287). LDS Apostle Melvin J. Ballard (1873-1939) wrote, "What do we mean by endless or eternal increase? We mean that through the righteousness and faithfulness of men and women who keep the commandments of God they will come forth with celestial bodies, fitted and prepared to enter into their great, high and eternal glory in the celestial kingdom of God; and unto them, through their preparation, there will come children, who will be spirit children. I don't think that is very difficult to comprehend and understand" (Three Degrees of Glory, p.10). In essence, the Mormon couple hopes to continue a process that began well into eternity past. Just as the Mormon Elohim had to produce spirit children who would eventually come to earth to inhabit a mortal tabernacle, so too, Mormon couples hope to be able to produce spirit children that will eventually take on human flesh and inhabit the world they will rule. Brigham Young [1801-1877] taught, "God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." (Journal of Discourses 11:122-123). So, according to the video and the teachings of the church, a temple marriage is necessary for one of the children of Mormonism's gods to become, through their own "righteousness and faithfulness", gods themselves. As the Journal of Discourses states, it is a "process that began well into eternity past." So..... Mormon temples are built with human hands. Mormon temples are necessary so that the necessary ordinances can be completed, which lead to a man becoming a Mormon god. So, since a temple is a necessary component to achieving the status of a god, how did the first Mormon god come into existence? |
|
Quoted:
I just thought this video is really good so I decided to share. It describes why we as LDS have temples. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Enjoy! Temple Video From the video: "I always feel a sense of peace..." Temples have always been built by the people of God. From the earliest followers of God, until now, with the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ worshipped in the Temple, and I feel that it is a blessing from God that I can follow the example of our Savior and also worship in a Temple of God. |
|
Quoted:
Russell Nelson (Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) said in the video that the temple is a "sacred step toward eternal glory." So the temple is necessary to obtain eternal glory..... I wanted to know what this meant so I searched. From the Mormon Research Ministry: Eternal Increase: The LDS Doctrine of Celestial Procreation By Bill McKeever Closely associated with the LDS doctrine of temple marriage is the doctrine of eternal increase. LDS leaders have defined this teaching as the ability for Mormon couples who have achieved celestial exaltation to procreate throughout eternity. Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876-1972), in volume 4 of his book, Answers to Gospel Questions, (p.197), stated: "Those who are married in the temple for all time and eternity obtain the blessing of eternal lives. I put stress on eternal lives. Eternal life is God's life, that is, to be like him. Eternal lives means eternal increase––the continuation, as the revelation says, of the seeds forever. To be married outside of the temple is for time only." He also wrote, the ability to procreate was limited only to those who receive a celestial body, "Some will gain celestial bodies with all the powers of exaltation and eternal increase" (Doctrines of Salvation 2:287). LDS Apostle Melvin J. Ballard (1873-1939) wrote, "What do we mean by endless or eternal increase? We mean that through the righteousness and faithfulness of men and women who keep the commandments of God they will come forth with celestial bodies, fitted and prepared to enter into their great, high and eternal glory in the celestial kingdom of God; and unto them, through their preparation, there will come children, who will be spirit children. I don't think that is very difficult to comprehend and understand" (Three Degrees of Glory, p.10). In essence, the Mormon couple hopes to continue a process that began well into eternity past. Just as the Mormon Elohim had to produce spirit children who would eventually come to earth to inhabit a mortal tabernacle, so too, Mormon couples hope to be able to produce spirit children that will eventually take on human flesh and inhabit the world they will rule. Brigham Young [1801-1877] taught, "God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." (Journal of Discourses 11:122-123). So, according to the video and the teachings of the church, a temple marriage is necessary for one of the children of Mormonism's gods to become, through their own "righteousness and faithfulness", gods themselves. As the Journal of Discourses states, it is a "process that began well into eternity past." So..... Mormon temples are built with human hands. Mormon temples are necessary so that the necessary ordinances can be completed, which lead to a man becoming a Mormon god. So, since a temple is a necessary component to achieving the status of a god, how did the first Mormon god come into existence? Using quotes from a site that is anti-Mormon to describe Mormon beliefs is like asking the Democrats their opinion of President Bush's legacy. If you truly want to know what is meant I suggest looking at the LDS church website where all of our beliefs are laid out and all of our Scripture is available to anyone for free. |
|
Quoted:
Using quotes from a site that is anti-Mormon to describe Mormon beliefs is like asking the Democrats their opinion of President Bush's legacy. If you truly want to know what is meant I suggest looking at the LDS church website where all of our beliefs are laid out and all of our Scripture is available to anyone for free. If the quotes from Mormon sources that were used in that article are wrong, please point them out. If not, then it doesn't matter where they come from. My question is on topic and remains unanswered. |
|
Quoted:
If the quotes from Mormon sources that were used in that article are wrong, please point them out. Michael Moore also quoted Charlton Heston multiple times, but that doesn't mean it was anything within context as he quoted different phrases from different years and speeches. Likewise with the copy/paste of excerpts above. Joseph Fielding Smith's book was talking about a specific topic in his book. And yes, that excerpt is on page 197. http://www.ror1.com/pb3/10/ans2ques_02.jpg The remaining copy/paste from Bill McKeever looks to take a colloquial phrase in the LDS community and attempt to apply it literal way that the LDS community itself does not. To take your attempted repurposing of McKeever's article (as he was attempting to make a different point), one doesn't have to extrapolate the concept back to before time on Earth as the question could simply be asked of Adam & Eve as LDS theology follows that they were "married for eternity"...which is talked about by Joseph Fielding Smith in Volume 2 of that same book series. But at the same time, I don't know of writings, LDS or otherwise, that place Adam & Even within a temple for it. Nevertheless, as you may or may not know, the phrase "married in the temple" as spoken by Smith (and also McKonkie in McKeever's original article), is a common phrase with the LDS community that refers to a specific ceremony/ordinance that LDS practice of being married for eternity. While the structure is mentioned in the colloquial phrase, the concept itself is the ceremony/ordinance. In the video people talk about "going to the temple" repeatedly, but again, that's a colloquial phrase and the part that is the root concept is the ceremonies/ordinances themselves. Just going to the temple and wandering around is different from the acts of practicing the ceremonies/ordinances. However, as to whether the temple structure was required for people of "other worlds" (that LDS theology teaches), or even for Adam & Eve, I'm not aware of LDS theology that follows your assumption of the temple structure in the way you describe. LDS theology follows that: God has taught his children on the Earth to build temples in order for specific ceremonies or ordinances. To assume that the mechanics of surrounding structure of a ceremony or ordinance on previous worlds of other eons or millenia follow the exact same ingredients is a logical fallacy of composition. I'm not seeing such an assumption in the video or McKeever's article. Likewise, I'm not aware of LDS theology that gives such. To state that LDS theology does hold that phrase in a way it does not appears to be a straw man logical fallacy. As such, the premise of your question does not have a common base with LDS theology and therefore the answer to your question does not have the constraint of your premise. Having said all that... In watching the video again, I'm reminded of an article about organizational culture in which an organization can have common terms that have a common meaning within the organization. But if they were taken outside of the organization's context, then they might not be understood in the same way. And the social side of LDS-dom, like many organizations, definitely has a number of such phrases. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: That's an awful lot of typing but still no answer. Mormon theology requires a temple for men to become gods. Isn't that statement correct? So my question remains. I'll answer you. I have no idea. There has been no revelation pertaining to that exact subject. This is because it is not pertinent to our salvation. Not knowing the answer to a question does not make the belief untrue. |
|
Regarding temples and exaltation.
LDS members do believe that temple ordinances, including a marriage sealed in the temple, is necessary for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. Without temple marriage, a person can reach the Celestial Kingdom but won't receive exaltation. For more reading on exaltation I submit a link to the Church's own explanation with corresponding scriptural references: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/e/42 Hopefully this answers some folks' questions on the matter. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's an awful lot of typing but still no answer. Mormon theology requires a temple for men to become gods. Isn't that statement correct? So my question remains. I think you are confusing some things. Latter-day Saint teaching is that we become heirs of all that the father hath. That does not take place in the Temple. The things we covenant and the ordinances we receive in the Temple help us, surely, but they do not make us gods. I've honestly never met a single Latter-day Saint who believed that. We believe men have the potential to become like Heavenly Father. Again, I would direct your attention to the Church's official website, where all of our Scriptures are open for anyone to see. If you go to the website, click on Gospel Library near the top, then click on Scriptures you can find a section under all of the Titles of Scripture themselves (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, etc.) titled Study Helps. If one looks in the Study helps, one would find something called the Topical Guide. Clicking on that brings up hyperlinked letters with gospel topics alphabetized under each letter. Clicking on M and searching for "man" one finds several topics. The one you want is, "man, potential to become like Heavenly Father." That is the doctrine. Those are the scriptures. Heavenly Father is God. We shall never have another god before Him. Here is the list of Biblical scriptures you may find yourself by clicking on that link. Gen. 1: 26 (Moses 2: 26) let them have dominion. Gen. 3: 22(Moses 4: 28) man is become as one of us. Lev. 19: 2(1 Pet. 1: 16) be holy: for I . . . am holy. Ps. 8: 5thou hast made him a little lower than the angels. Ps. 8: 6madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands. Ps. 82: 6ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High. Matt. 5: 48(3 Ne. 12: 48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father. Luke 24: 39spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. John 10: 34(Ps. 82: 1-8; D&C 76: 58) Is it not written in your law . . . Ye are gods. Acts 17: 29we are the offspring of God. Rom. 8: 17heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. 2 Cor. 3: 18changed into the same image from glory to glory. Gal. 4: 7if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Eph. 4: 13Till we all come . . . unto a perfect man. Heb. 12: 9be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live. 1 Jn. 3: 2when he shall appear, we shall be like him. Rev. 3: 21him that overcometh will . . . sit with me in my throne. As always, the doctrine speaks for itself. LDS detractors will try and confuse points of doctrine (like the purpose and nature of Temples) by twisting words and applying false logic to things. In the end, it does no one any good. Anyway, to answer your question directly, Mormon theology requires many things for men to become like Heavenly Father. Faith, Repentance, Baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end are the main things we stress in our teaching. Your question is flawed from a Latter-day Saint perspective and is not able to be answered with a yes or no directly. |
|
Quoted:
In watching the video again, I'm reminded of an article about organizational culture in which an organization can have common terms that have a common meaning within the organization. But if they were taken outside of the organization's context, then they might not be understood in the same way. And the social side of LDS-dom, like many organizations, definitely has a number of such phrases. I understand the point about terminology... And you are correct... But there is a point where assumptions are made without clarification... And when clarification is made, it is ignored in favor of more *far-fetched* points of view... And the fantasitc and unbelievable points of view always seem to pigeon-hole the LDS doctrines to make it an easy target for ridicule... I don't know... But that seems to go a little deeper than simply failing to understanding terminology... |
|
Quoted:
Your question is flawed from a Latter-day Saint perspective and is not able to be answered with a yes or no directly. My question wasn't meant to be answered "yes or no." And my question is not flawed. Mormon theology requires temple ordinances to be performed so that a man may one day become a god LIKE Heavenly Father, just as Heavenly Father was once a man himself and had to perform temple ordinances to become a god just LIKE his father/god before him. As the Journal of Discourses states as I quoted above, this process goes back into eternity past. From what I have seen, no Mormon has any idea how either the first Mormon god came into existence, or the first man, for that matter. At least one fellow just honestly stated, "I don't know." If he doesn't know, and doesn't care that he doesn't know, that is his business. But at least he didn't dance around the question. Christians do not have that problem to deal with. The God of the Bible was never a man who had to become a god by going through ordinances in a temple built with men's hands. The God of the Bible is the only God in existence. And the God of the Bible is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. Now the Bible certainly does mention "gods." And in fact, Satan is the "god" of this world. But there is only one God. And he was never a man who became a god by performing rituals in a man-made temple. |
|
Quoted:
Regarding temples and exaltation. LDS members do believe that temple ordinances, including a marriage sealed in the temple, is necessary for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. Without temple marriage, a person can reach the Celestial Kingdom but won't receive exaltation. For more reading on exaltation I submit a link to the Church's own explanation with corresponding scriptural references: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/e/42 Hopefully this answers some folks' questions on the matter. But all that did was acknowledge that the information that I posted was correct. The question of how the first Mormon god (or man for that matter) came into existence remains. Since in Mormon theology, men become gods.... since they progress into godness, or godhood or however one would phrase it... men must predate gods. Where did the first man come from since there was no god to create him? Or else, as I asked before, how did the first Mormon god come into existence if he could somehow predate man? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your question is flawed from a Latter-day Saint perspective and is not able to be answered with a yes or no directly. My question wasn't meant to be answered "yes or no." And my question is not flawed. Mormon theology requires temple ordinances to be performed so that a man may one day become a god LIKE Heavenly Father, just as Heavenly Father was once a man himself and had to perform temple ordinances to become a god just LIKE his father/god before him. As the Journal of Discourses states as I quoted above, this process goes back into eternity past. From what I have seen, no Mormon has any idea how either the first Mormon god came into existence, or the first man, for that matter. At least one fellow just honestly stated, "I don't know." If he doesn't know, and doesn't care that he doesn't know, that is his business. But at least he didn't dance around the question. Christians do not have that problem to deal with. The God of the Bible was never a man who had to become a god by going through ordinances in a temple built with men's hands. The God of the Bible is the only God in existence. And the God of the Bible is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. Now the Bible certainly does mention "gods." And in fact, Satan is the "god" of this world. But there is only one God. And he was never a man who became a god by performing rituals in a man-made temple. The Journal of Discourses isn't Scripture. Some of it may not be doctrinally correct. We do not know for certain what God did or did not do before the Scriptures introduce Him to us. He is eternal. As far as we are concerned, He has no beginning or end. I've said this and our Scriptures, even the Doctrine and Covenants, refer to the Lord as Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. No matter how many times you say you understand more about Mormon beliefs than a Mormon because you read an excerpt from the Journal of Discourses, it doesn't make it a true statement. I have a question for you now, if you don't mind answering one, as I've been kind enough to answer this same question now for you twice: do you believe a man has to be baptized to (for lack of a better phrase here) get to Heaven? Quoted:
Christians do not have that problem to deal with. Mormons are Christians. We accept Jesus Christ as our Savior at baptism. Only in and through Him may we hope to be perfected. |
|
Quoted:
The Journal of Discourses isn't Scripture. Some of it may not be doctrinally correct. Whether the Journal of Discourses is scripture or not is beside the point. We do not know for certain what God did or did not do before the Scriptures introduce Him to us. What your god did or did not before the scriptures introduce him to you has nothing to do with my question. He is eternal. As far as we are concerned, He has no beginning or end. I've said this and our Scriptures, even the Doctrine and Covenants, refer to the Lord as Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. So your Heavenly Father has no beginning or end? But your Heavenly Father was once a man as you are. Did this man, before he became a god.... before he was born in a physical body.... before he was born a spirit child.... was he eternal? Also, assuming you have performed all the required ordinances in the temple .... if you were to become like your Heavenly Father - you progress to godhood and produce spirit children..... then your children would say YOU would have no beginning or end? Your children would call YOU eternal? Your children would call YOU the alpha and omega? If not, why not? If so, and that would certainly seem to be consistent with Mormon theology, then the terms "eternal," "have no beginning or end," and "alpha and omega" have been totally redefined by Mormonism to mean something entirely different than they mean to the rest of the world and especially Christians. No matter how many times you say you know more about Mormon beliefs than a Mormon because you read an excerpt from the Journal of Discourses, it doesn't make it a true statement. I have a question for you now, if you don't mind answering one, as I've been kind enough to answer this same question now for you twice: do you believe a man has to be baptized to (for lack of a better phrase here) get to Heaven? Just where did I say I knew more about Mormon beliefs than a Mormon does? This thread is about the temple and readers were invited to ask questions relating to the temple. I have done nothing more than ask related questions, and discuss the replies. You have not answered my question at all, much less answer it twice. Mormons are Christians. We accept Jesus Christ as our Savior at baptism. Only in and through Him may we hope to be perfected. And Christians who know and believe their Bibles would say you have redefined "Christianity" just like you have redefined "eternal," "have no beginning or end," and "alpha and omega." |
|
My apologies if my post came off as dancing around the question as there was no intention of doing such. I'll repost more directly, in hopes that we can continue a good discussion of ideas.
Mormon theology requires a temple for men to become gods.
Isn't that statement correct?
And my question is not flawed.
I believe the question was flawed based upon the following:
As the Journal of Discourses states as I quoted above, this process goes back into eternity past.
The excerpt from the Journal of Discourses is out of context from what you are talking about.
|
|
Quoted:
My apologies if my post came off as dancing around the question as there was no intention of doing such. I'll repost more directly, in hopes that we can continue a good discussion of ideas. Mormon theology requires a temple for men to become gods.
Isn't that statement correct?
And my question is not flawed.
I believe the question was flawed based upon the following:
As the Journal of Discourses states as I quoted above, this process goes back into eternity past.
The excerpt from the Journal of Discourses is out of context from what you are talking about.
You state that my question has a flawed premise, when in actuality, you have no idea if it is a flawed premise or not. You simply don't know whether "all people of all time of all worlds" are required to perform temple ordinances or not. Perhaps they have been. You can't say that they haven't been required. Your statement that my question is flawed, is .... flawed. Since that is unknown, so be it. From this discussion I am left to conclude that: Mormonism does not know how the first man or the first god came into existence. And along those lines, Mormonism has no idea how many gods actually exist. Yet, Mormons refer to their god as eternal, without beginning or end, and the alpha and omega. And this is done without any knowledge of how many other gods existed before your god of this planet. Your god might have been the tenth god, the ten thousandth god, or the ten trillionth god. In any event, for the inhabitants of planet Earth, a Mormon man who pays his tithe and does other required things may gain entrance into a Mormon temple and perform certain ordinances, and possibly become one of a few, one of many or one of an innumerable number of gods. |
|
Thanks for your summary. The idea of communication based upon reason vs logical fallacies is not new. If the desire is to have a constructive discussion, please practice communication based upon reason.
Making a declaration of what I do or do not know is not constructive communication. The practice of projecting with an unsupported statement is not constructive communication. ...when in actuality, you have no idea if it is a flawed premise or not.
False, I'm very comfortable with knowing that it is a false premise based upon the following:
The remainder of your declarations of what mormons do or do not know are based upon the begging the question logical fallacy and straw man logical fallacy. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks for your summary. The idea of communication based upon reason vs logical fallacies is not new. If the desire is to have a constructive discussion, please practice communication based upon reason. Making a declaration of what I do or do not know is not constructive communication. The practice of projecting with an unsupported statement is not constructive communication. ...when in actuality, you have no idea if it is a flawed premise or not.
False, I'm very comfortable with knowing that it is a false premise based upon the following:
The remainder of your declarations of what mormons do or do not know are based upon the begging the question logical fallacy and straw man logical fallacy. You remain wrong. My question is based on WHAT IS KNOWN about Mormon theology. Your criticism and rejection of my question is based on what is UNKNOWN about Mormon theology. You DON"T KNOW whether or not Mormon gods in the past all had to have a temple to become gods or not. But WE DO KNOW that any Mormon today DOES require a temple to become a god, and therefor my question is based on what IS KNOWN about Mormonism. |
|
The responses are interesting.
Apparently there is no stated consistency in Mormon theology. By that I mean, there is no understanding about how the first man came into being, and how that man became a god. There is no understanding about how other countless gods reached their status. Did they need temples like inhabitants of this planet? No one knows. Perhaps they had to go though the same process, but maybe not. Perhaps it was a much easier process and other gods aren't quite as good as the god of this planet. Or, perhaps the process was much more stringent and other gods are far superior to the god of this planet. No one knows. Since there is no stated consistency the conclusion seems to be that each god of each planet gets to determine how his spirit children can become gods themselves. The god of planet earth requires men to build something with their own hands - the temple. The god of this planet requires, among other things, payment (tithing) to gain entrance into this temple. My initial question has been criticized, but my question was based on consistency. I would think that the process to become a god would be the same for every man to become a god. If the inhabitants of planet Earth have to have a temple to become gods themselves, a consistent approach would require that all previous gods had to have temples as well. |
| Yes i was wondering if man according to LDS wirttings does actually become a God=to the God of Aberham, Issac and Jacob? I posted the The King Follett Sermon,(which i got of the LDS web site) Noting where Joseph Smith says that we become Gods and God was once man like us. then i was edited and cited as a troll but that was not my intention i am sorry if it was taken that way. |
|
Quoted:
\Whether the Journal of Discourses is scripture or not is beside the point. Well, no actually, it's a point that needs to be made since you brought up the journal of Discourses. If it isn't Scripture that means it isn't Doctrine. If it isn't doctrine it means it is not taught as such. It's a theory, someone's guess, someone's attempt to wrestle with scriptures to make sense of something. Just as Max Lucado may write a book about evangelical beliefs and his thoughts on things is not scripture. As I said before: We do not know for certain what God did or did not do before the Scriptures introduce Him to us. Quoted:
What your god did or did not before the scriptures introduce him to you has nothing to do with my question. I'm sorry. I must have made a mistake. I thought you had written something about Mormons believing God was once a man, so I was merely correcting that incorrect statement. If you did not say that and bring it into the conversation, my sincere apologies. But, since I apparently brought it up, I stand by what I said before: He is eternal. As far as we are concerned, He has no beginning or end. I've said this and our Scriptures, even the Doctrine and Covenants, refer to the Lord as Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Quoted:
So your Heavenly Father has no beginning or end? Ah, so you do want to discuss it. Ok then. As I said above, and have now said again, our Scriptures (aside from the even the same in Bible you believe) quote Him as saying, "I am Alpha and Omega." God is eternal. That is the doctrine taught in LDS churches 'round the world. The first Article of Faith even says, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." That's a paraphrase, not going to look it up. Just for grins, here is a list of Sciptural references about the eternal nature of God from the LDS website Topical Guide to the Scriptures: Deut. 33: 27 eternal God is thy refuge. Ps. 90: 2 from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Ps. 93: 2 established of old: thou art from everlasting. Ps. 102: 27 thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. Ps. 146: 10 Lord shall reign for ever, even thy God. Isa. 57: 15 lofty One that inhabiteth eternity. Isa. 63: 16 thy name is from everlasting. Mal. 3: 6 I am the Lord, I change not. Rom. 1: 20being understood by . . . his eternal power and Godhead. 1 Tim. 1: 17King eternal, immortal, invisible. Heb. 13: 8(Morm. 9: 9; Moro. 10: 7, 19; D&C 20: 11-12) Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Rev. 22: 13Alpha and Omega . . . the first and the last. 1 Ne. 10: 19(Alma 37: 12; D&C 3: 2; D&C 35: 1) course of the Lord is one eternal round. Alma 11: 44one Eternal God. Moro. 7: 22God . . . being from everlasting to everlasting. D&C 19: 10I am endless. D&C 20: 17God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal. D&C 38: 1 Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. D&C 76: 4 From eternity to eternity he is the same. D&C 121: 32Eternal God of all other gods. Moses 1: 3Endless is my name, for I am without beginning of days or end. Moses 7: 35Endless and Eternal is my name. Quoted:
But your Heavenly Father was once a man as you are. You keep saying that, not the Latter-day Saints in this thread. There is no, for lack of a better term, canon Scripture in the LDS Church that states that. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Zero. Quoted:
Did this man, before he became a god.... before he was born in a physical body.... before he was born a spirit child.... was he eternal? You have the Scriptures listed above. You'll see no mention from Himself saying anything other than He is eternal. Quoted:
Also, assuming you have performed all the required ordinances in the temple .... if you were to become like your Heavenly Father - you progress to godhood and produce spirit children..... then your children would say YOU would have no beginning or end? Your children would call YOU eternal? Your children would call YOU the alpha and omega? If not, why not? That's above my pay grade. And you are starting from a flawed premise. You do not understand the Temple nor its purpose. I know you really believe that you do, but take it from me, you do not. I do not mean that as an insult. It's merely a statement of fact. If you don't mind, let's take a look at Baptism as an example. You never answered the one question I asked you about it, but I hope you believe in it so this makes sense. If someone who had never heard of or seen a baptism asked you to describe what it is, do you think you could fully explain it? Sure, you could give them the reasons why. You could read with them Scripture that talks about the importance of it and show that to be baptized is to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Then you explain to them the process. You explain that one goes into the water (or is sprinkled or poured with water, however you do it in your faith) and they are cleansed from sin. It signifies death and burial and rebirth anew. They take upon them the name of Jesus Christ and as such are a Christian. Do you think for even a moment that a description of a physical act like Baptism at all conveys the depth and breadth of the spirituality of the ordinance? It might even seem a little odd to someone at first. Do you remember how you felt at baptism? Are there any words adequate enough to describe the love, the peace and the joy you felt as you came out of the water knowing you were forgiven and were His? For me, nothing can come close to encapsulating the doctrine of the ordinance of baptism. I think it has to be felt to be believed. I still do not comprehend all of the blessings that come from it, because I am still receiving them. Membership in and the fellowship of the Saints is ongoing for me. Everyday I learn something new about just how much God loves me and about the depths of the agony of the Savior on my behalf. And that is how the Temple is for us. There we perform other ordinances. One can read about them. One can think they understand them. One can probably watch them. But one can never understand them and what they mean to those who participate in them worthily unless they too decide to partake of the blessings of those ordinances themselves. Quoted:
If so, and that would certainly seem to be consistent with Mormon theology, then the terms "eternal," "have no beginning or end," and "alpha and omega" have been totally redefined by Mormonism to mean something entirely different than they mean to the rest of the world and especially Christians. I think the Scriptures I quoted above straight from the "Topical Guide: God, Eternal Nature of" section of the LDS Scriptures speak for themselves. If you want to still claim they are redefined, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Quoted:
Just where did I say I knew more about Mormon beliefs than a Mormon does? Actions speak louder than words. You keep insisting we believe things that are not LDS doctrine. It would certainly indicate that you believe you know more about LDS beliefs and doctrine than the people actually attending the LDS Church when you keep insisting such. Quoted:
This thread is about the temple and readers were invited to ask questions relating to the temple. I have done nothing more than ask related questions, and discuss the replies. Perhaps if your questions were separated from your critique and (often incorrect) criticism of LDS doctrines they would not only be easier to see, but easier to answer. Quoted:
You have not answered my question at all, much less answer it twice. I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps, as I suggested above, asking a straight up question would suit your noble purposes of learning more about the Temple rather than getting lost in what would appear to be argument. Quoted:
And Christians who know and believe their Bibles would say you have redefined "Christianity" just like you have redefined "eternal," "have no beginning or end," and "alpha and omega." That's simply untrue. Recent studies have indicated that more "mainstream" Christians than not now believe that Latter-day Saints are indeed Christian. We are finding more and more that other Christian faiths are reaching out to us. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (emphasis added) That sure is an interesting line of Scripture. So much beauty and mercy encapsulated in it. I believe in Christ. I accept Him as my Savior. I love Him like I love nothing else. Most every member of the LDS Church I have ever met feels this way too, and shows it in the devotion, their service, by living their faith, by keeping the commandments God has given them. If you do not believe Latter-day Saints are Christian, then your motives for asking sincere questions about Temple worship are fairly plain to see. If you are sincere, please allow me to suggest going to Mormon.org and inviting the missionaries to come to your home and learn more about it. I promise you that the Holy Ghost will testify to you and bear witness that what those missionaries teach you is true. |
|
The funny thing about arguing religion is.... It all comes down to beliefs. I can Skewer any religion with their many inconsistencies and leaps of faith.
So, arguing over minutiae is kind of like punching a kitten... Yeah, it's easy, but not really fulfilling. I am LDS and have had questions about my religion, but it is what it is.. As to where our God came from and was he a man at one time. Etc etc.. and where did he come from etc, etc.... Well, lets just turn that around and toss it back. Where did God come from in the Catholic, or any other religion? Was he there from before the universe? Was he created with the Universe? What did he do before creating the Universe? Playing Parcheesi with Cthulhu? So, Who knows when he came into existence. But it is a valid question for any religion, not just Mormonism. So, you can believe that he has been around forever and a day or you can believe that he was a person at one time, achieved Godhood and created our universe. Neither can be proven, so coming up with arcane arguments trying to prove it one way or another is just a study in futility. So, on one side, we have a guy who wants to argue over imponderables.... using statements made by a human being... vs a person arguing religious logic... If you don't like Mormonism, there is a simple remedy... Don't join us. And we will do the same. But, who really cares if you seem to have found a (GASP) inconsistency in a religion! Why, that is about as tough as finding a liberal in a free cheese line. As to the temples, well, they serve their purpose for Baptisms for the dead, Temple marriages, etc. If you don't want to believe in that, then don't. |
|
Quoted:
By that I mean, there is no understanding about how the first man came into being, and how that man became a god. And this is where your premise is flawed, as has been stated time and again. You are assuming something that is not doctrine and is not discussed in the Scriptures. And, contrary to your statement that you are simply asking sincere questions about the temple, you are not. A sincere seeker of light and knowledge does not try and put words in peoples' mouths, make pronouncements of what their doctrine is and is not and what their scriptures say and do not say. People who do that are not seeking understanding, they are trying to confound the issue. Let me clarify this since the discussion of the Temple has been sidetracked by insincerity. The purpose of the Temple is to perform ordinances, like baptism, and make covenants with God. Latter-day Saints believe these ordinances and covenants are necessary to gain exaltation and live with God and Jesus for eternity. It really is as simple as that. |
|
Quoted:
If you don't like Mormonism, there is a simple remedy... Don't join us. And we will do the same. But, who really cares if you seem to have found a (GASP) inconsistency in a religion! Why, that is about as tough as finding a liberal in a free cheese line. That right there... That is kind of funny... |
|
Quoted:
The funny thing about arguing religion is.... It all comes down to beliefs. I can Skewer any religion with their many inconsistencies and leaps of faith. So, arguing over minutiae is kind of like punching a kitten... Yeah, it's easy, but not really fulfilling. I am LDS and have had questions about my religion, but it is what it is.. As to where our God came from and was he a man at one time. Etc etc.. and where did he come from etc, etc.... Well, lets just turn that around and toss it back. Where did God come from in the Catholic, or any other religion? Was he there from before the universe? Was he created with the Universe? What did he do before creating the Universe? Playing Parcheesi with Cthulhu? So, Who knows when he came into existence. But it is a valid question for any religion, not just Mormonism. So, you can believe that he has been around forever and a day or you can believe that he was a person at one time, achieved Godhood and created our universe. Neither can be proven, so coming up with arcane arguments trying to prove it one way or another is just a study in futility. So, on one side, we have a guy who wants to argue over imponderables.... using statements made by a human being... vs a person arguing religious logic... If you don't like Mormonism, there is a simple remedy... Don't join us. And we will do the same. But, who really cares if you seem to have found a (GASP) inconsistency in a religion! Why, that is about as tough as finding a liberal in a free cheese line. As to the temples, well, they serve their purpose for Baptisms for the dead, Temple marriages, etc. If you don't want to believe in that, then don't. Wow, I have been unable to keep up with this thread after I started it. I just got time to look at it all. I could not agree more with this last post. The temple is a place of peace. I encourage those who have problems or curiosity about the temple to visit a visitors center near a temple. Also, another good option is to find a temple that is completed but not yet dedicated. You can go inside and see everything. Its a great experience. I took a co-worker and her boyfriend through when the temple by my house was completed but not yet dedicated. They enjoyed the experience very much. Have they converted to being a Mormon? No. That wasn't the point. The point was to let them see and feel the peace that comes from the temple. |
|
Your criticism and rejection of my question is based on what is UNKNOWN about Mormon theology.
As consistently stated, my criticism of the communication is based upon accepted practices of reason-based thought which have not been exhibited in your statements. On the contrary, your statements still attempt to impose logical fallacies. I see that the conversation has degenerated to the use of the caps-lock key and repeated attempts to describe what I do or do not know. You are definitely welcome to your opinion, however your statements have not been supported nor do they exhibit accepted practices of reason. May you have a good evening and hope your next day at the range the weather's good, the ammo plentiful, and your shots true. |
|
Quoted:
The funny thing about arguing religion is.... It all comes down to beliefs. I can Skewer any religion with their many inconsistencies and leaps of faith. So, arguing over minutiae is kind of like punching a kitten... Yeah, it's easy, but not really fulfilling. I am LDS and have had questions about my religion, but it is what it is.. As to where our God came from and was he a man at one time. Etc etc.. and where did he come from etc, etc.... Well, lets just turn that around and toss it back. Where did God come from in the Catholic, or any other religion? Was he there from before the universe? Was he created with the Universe? What did he do before creating the Universe? Playing Parcheesi with Cthulhu? So, Who knows when he came into existence. But it is a valid question for any religion, not just Mormonism. So, you can believe that he has been around forever and a day or you can believe that he was a person at one time, achieved Godhood and created our universe. Neither can be proven, so coming up with arcane arguments trying to prove it one way or another is just a study in futility. So, on one side, we have a guy who wants to argue over imponderables.... using statements made by a human being... vs a person arguing religious logic... If you don't like Mormonism, there is a simple remedy... Don't join us. And we will do the same. But, who really cares if you seem to have found a (GASP) inconsistency in a religion! Why, that is about as tough as finding a liberal in a free cheese line. As to the temples, well, they serve their purpose for Baptisms for the dead, Temple marriages, etc. If you don't want to believe in that, then don't. I was invited to ask questions regarding the video about the temple. And that is exactly what I have done. Rather than address my questions, you attempt to belittle me for asking them. My questions remain, nonetheless. |
|
Quoted:
Your criticism and rejection of my question is based on what is UNKNOWN about Mormon theology.
As consistently stated, my criticism of the communication is based upon accepted practices of reason-based thought which have not been exhibited in your statements. On the contrary, your statements still attempt to impose logical fallacies. I see that the conversation has degenerated to the use of the caps-lock key and repeated attempts to describe what I do or do not know. You are definitely welcome to your opinion, however your statements have not been supported nor do they exhibit accepted practices of reason. May you have a good evening and hope your next day at the range the weather's good, the ammo plentiful, and your shots true. You most certainly criticized my questions instead of answering them. Many people respond in like manner when they do not wish to answer a question. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's an awful lot of typing but still no answer. Mormon theology requires a temple for men to become gods. Isn't that statement correct? So my question remains. I'll answer you. I have no idea. There has been no revelation pertaining to that exact subject. This is because it is not pertinent to our salvation. Not knowing the answer to a question does not make the belief untrue. Thanks for just trying to answer my question. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
\Whether the Journal of Discourses is scripture or not is beside the point. Well, no actually, it's a point that needs to be made since you brought up the journal of Discourses. If it isn't Scripture that means it isn't Doctrine. If it isn't doctrine it means it is not taught as such. It's a theory, someone's guess, someone's attempt to wrestle with scriptures to make sense of something. Just as Max Lucado may write a book about evangelical beliefs and his thoughts on things is not scripture. As I said before: We do not know for certain what God did or did not do before the Scriptures introduce Him to us. Quoted:
What your god did or did not before the scriptures introduce him to you has nothing to do with my question. I'm sorry. I must have made a mistake. I thought you had written something about Mormons believing God was once a man, so I was merely correcting that incorrect statement. If you did not say that and bring it into the conversation, my sincere apologies. But, since I apparently brought it up, I stand by what I said before: He is eternal. As far as we are concerned, He has no beginning or end. I've said this and our Scriptures, even the Doctrine and Covenants, refer to the Lord as Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Quoted:
So your Heavenly Father has no beginning or end? Ah, so you do want to discuss it. Ok then. As I said above, and have now said again, our Scriptures (aside from the even the same in Bible you believe) quote Him as saying, "I am Alpha and Omega." God is eternal. That is the doctrine taught in LDS churches 'round the world. The first Article of Faith even says, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." That's a paraphrase, not going to look it up. Just for grins, here is a list of Sciptural references about the eternal nature of God from the LDS website Topical Guide to the Scriptures: Deut. 33: 27 eternal God is thy refuge. Ps. 90: 2 from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Ps. 93: 2 established of old: thou art from everlasting. Ps. 102: 27 thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. Ps. 146: 10 Lord shall reign for ever, even thy God. Isa. 57: 15 lofty One that inhabiteth eternity. Isa. 63: 16 thy name is from everlasting. Mal. 3: 6 I am the Lord, I change not. Rom. 1: 20being understood by . . . his eternal power and Godhead. 1 Tim. 1: 17King eternal, immortal, invisible. Heb. 13: 8(Morm. 9: 9; Moro. 10: 7, 19; D&C 20: 11-12) Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Rev. 22: 13Alpha and Omega . . . the first and the last. 1 Ne. 10: 19(Alma 37: 12; D&C 3: 2; D&C 35: 1) course of the Lord is one eternal round. Alma 11: 44one Eternal God. Moro. 7: 22God . . . being from everlasting to everlasting. D&C 19: 10I am endless. D&C 20: 17God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal. D&C 38: 1 Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. D&C 76: 4 From eternity to eternity he is the same. D&C 121: 32Eternal God of all other gods. Moses 1: 3Endless is my name, for I am without beginning of days or end. Moses 7: 35Endless and Eternal is my name. Quoted:
But your Heavenly Father was once a man as you are. You keep saying that, not the Latter-day Saints in this thread. There is no, for lack of a better term, canon Scripture in the LDS Church that states that. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Zero. Quoted:
Did this man, before he became a god.... before he was born in a physical body.... before he was born a spirit child.... was he eternal? You have the Scriptures listed above. You'll see no mention from Himself saying anything other than He is eternal. Quoted:
Also, assuming you have performed all the required ordinances in the temple .... if you were to become like your Heavenly Father - you progress to godhood and produce spirit children..... then your children would say YOU would have no beginning or end? Your children would call YOU eternal? Your children would call YOU the alpha and omega? If not, why not? That's above my pay grade. And you are starting from a flawed premise. You do not understand the Temple nor its purpose. I know you really believe that you do, but take it from me, you do not. I do not mean that as an insult. It's merely a statement of fact. If you don't mind, let's take a look at Baptism as an example. You never answered the one question I asked you about it, but I hope you believe in it so this makes sense. If someone who had never heard of or seen a baptism asked you to describe what it is, do you think you could fully explain it? Sure, you could give them the reasons why. You could read with them Scripture that talks about the importance of it and show that to be baptized is to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Then you explain to them the process. You explain that one goes into the water (or is sprinkled or poured with water, however you do it in your faith) and they are cleansed from sin. It signifies death and burial and rebirth anew. They take upon them the name of Jesus Christ and as such are a Christian. Do you think for even a moment that a description of a physical act like Baptism at all conveys the depth and breadth of the spirituality of the ordinance? It might even seem a little odd to someone at first. Do you remember how you felt at baptism? Are there any words adequate enough to describe the love, the peace and the joy you felt as you came out of the water knowing you were forgiven and were His? For me, nothing can come close to encapsulating the doctrine of the ordinance of baptism. I think it has to be felt to be believed. I still do not comprehend all of the blessings that come from it, because I am still receiving them. Membership in and the fellowship of the Saints is ongoing for me. Everyday I learn something new about just how much God loves me and about the depths of the agony of the Savior on my behalf. And that is how the Temple is for us. There we perform other ordinances. One can read about them. One can think they understand them. One can probably watch them. But one can never understand them and what they mean to those who participate in them worthily unless they too decide to partake of the blessings of those ordinances themselves. Quoted:
If so, and that would certainly seem to be consistent with Mormon theology, then the terms "eternal," "have no beginning or end," and "alpha and omega" have been totally redefined by Mormonism to mean something entirely different than they mean to the rest of the world and especially Christians. I think the Scriptures I quoted above straight from the "Topical Guide: God, Eternal Nature of" section of the LDS Scriptures speak for themselves. If you want to still claim they are redefined, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Quoted:
Just where did I say I knew more about Mormon beliefs than a Mormon does? Actions speak louder than words. You keep insisting we believe things that are not LDS doctrine. It would certainly indicate that you believe you know more about LDS beliefs and doctrine than the people actually attending the LDS Church when you keep insisting such. Quoted:
This thread is about the temple and readers were invited to ask questions relating to the temple. I have done nothing more than ask related questions, and discuss the replies. Perhaps if your questions were separated from your critique and (often incorrect) criticism of LDS doctrines they would not only be easier to see, but easier to answer. Quoted:
You have not answered my question at all, much less answer it twice. I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps, as I suggested above, asking a straight up question would suit your noble purposes of learning more about the Temple rather than getting lost in what would appear to be argument. Quoted:
And Christians who know and believe their Bibles would say you have redefined "Christianity" just like you have redefined "eternal," "have no beginning or end," and "alpha and omega." That's simply untrue. Recent studies have indicated that more "mainstream" Christians than not now believe that Latter-day Saints are indeed Christian. We are finding more and more that other Christian faiths are reaching out to us. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (emphasis added) That sure is an interesting line of Scripture. So much beauty and mercy encapsulated in it. I believe in Christ. I accept Him as my Savior. I love Him like I love nothing else. Most every member of the LDS Church I have ever met feels this way too, and shows it in the devotion, their service, by living their faith, by keeping the commandments God has given them. If you do not believe Latter-day Saints are Christian, then your motives for asking sincere questions about Temple worship are fairly plain to see. If you are sincere, please allow me to suggest going to Mormon.org and inviting the missionaries to come to your home and learn more about it. I promise you that the Holy Ghost will testify to you and bear witness that what those missionaries teach you is true. I want to respond to this point by point, but I don't want HardShell upset with me for going off topic. I will start a new thread. |
|
Quoted:
I want to respond to this point by point, but I don't want HardShell upset with me for going off topic. I will start a new thread. Don't be surprised if the Latter-day Saints on this forum don't exactly flock to it. You want to contend with the Scriptures and you've proven that your mind is made up, as is ours. It would be a monumental waste of time on my part to participate in such a thread. It seems many people do not understand just what Mormon Doctrine and Scripture truly are, and that saddens me. Just because Brigham Young, Joseph Smith or our current prophet Thomas S. Monson say something, or write something in a book, it is not considered doctrine nor is it Scripture. Also, prophets are merely men. Yes, they are prophets, but as men they make mistakes. Just as did Moses. Just as did Jonah. Just as did King David. Mormons do not believe in some prophetic infallibility. When you argue with a Mormon about what is and is not doctrine or scripture, it would save a lot of time to skip the anti-Mormon websites and books that tell you quoted from non-doctrinal sources and look at what we actually teach, rather than what you think is taught in our chapels. The LDS website is free, easy to use, and has all of our scripture and scripture helps laid bare for all to see. Here's a hint: we read the King James version of the Bible. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your criticism and rejection of my question is based on what is UNKNOWN about Mormon theology.
As consistently stated, my criticism of the communication is based upon accepted practices of reason-based thought which have not been exhibited in your statements. On the contrary, your statements still attempt to impose logical fallacies. I see that the conversation has degenerated to the use of the caps-lock key and repeated attempts to describe what I do or do not know. You are definitely welcome to your opinion, however your statements have not been supported nor do they exhibit accepted practices of reason. May you have a good evening and hope your next day at the range the weather's good, the ammo plentiful, and your shots true. You most certainly criticized my questions instead of answering them. Many people respond in like manner when they do not wish to answer a question. having read this thread i feel he has attempted to answer your question you simply chose to ignore them becuase you do not agree. At this point i consider this to be trolling a member and this thread. Your other thread is now locked. Consider this the final warning for such conduct in this forum. |
|
my question is, why is something made by man not available to all mankind. does this temple not create a different "class" of people or, don't take this the wrong way, a holier than thou persona?
for example, i disagree with catholic people who pray to the pope or to saints. they were or are man just as i am. i believe that the pope,or LDS temple goers are no different than any other man. all men are sinners, some may sin less than others. i believe that to have a place of worship where any and all are not welcome,(without preconditions, i.e. being a LDS member and working your way to acceptance into the temple) is just wrong. after all, its just a building built by man for man. that video did not answer any direct questions. this was not meant to bash the LDS or catholics, but to have someone shed some light on this for me. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your criticism and rejection of my question is based on what is UNKNOWN about Mormon theology.
As consistently stated, my criticism of the communication is based upon accepted practices of reason-based thought which have not been exhibited in your statements. On the contrary, your statements still attempt to impose logical fallacies. I see that the conversation has degenerated to the use of the caps-lock key and repeated attempts to describe what I do or do not know. You are definitely welcome to your opinion, however your statements have not been supported nor do they exhibit accepted practices of reason. May you have a good evening and hope your next day at the range the weather's good, the ammo plentiful, and your shots true. You most certainly criticized my questions instead of answering them. Many people respond in like manner when they do not wish to answer a question. having read this thread i feel he has attempted to answer your question you simply chose to ignore them becuase you do not agree. At this point i consider this to be trolling a member and this thread. Your other thread is now locked. Consider this the final warning for such conduct in this forum. Good call, Beer Slayer. Good call indeed. Thanks, bro. |
|
Quoted:
my question is, why is something made by man not available to all mankind. does this temple not create a different "class" of people or, don't take this the wrong way, a holier than thou persona? for example, i disagree with catholic people who pray to the pope or to saints. they were or are man just as i am. i believe that the pope,or LDS temple goers are no different than any other man. all men are sinners, some may sin less than others. i believe that to have a place of worship where any and all are not welcome,(without preconditions, i.e. being a LDS member and working your way to acceptance into the temple) is just wrong. after all, its just a building built by man for man. that video did not answer any direct questions. this was not meant to bash the LDS or catholics, but to have someone shed some light on this for me. the FBI building down the street nor my house open to everyone. Private property has rights and privleges. if they want privacy they are entitled to it |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
my question is, why is something made by man not available to all mankind. does this temple not create a different "class" of people or, don't take this the wrong way, a holier than thou persona? for example, i disagree with catholic people who pray to the pope or to saints. they were or are man just as i am. i believe that the pope,or LDS temple goers are no different than any other man. all men are sinners, some may sin less than others. i believe that to have a place of worship where any and all are not welcome,(without preconditions, i.e. being a LDS member and working your way to acceptance into the temple) is just wrong. after all, its just a building built by man for man. that video did not answer any direct questions. this was not meant to bash the LDS or catholics, but to have someone shed some light on this for me. the FBI building down the street nor my house open to everyone. Private property has rights and privileges. if they want privacy they are entitled to it straw man argument that does not address the point i was trying to make. i could turn my own private property into a temple and restrict who enters into it based on my sole interpretation of scripture. it won't put me any closer to god than any other man. are the masons any more special than any other mens group because they have private buildings and secret cerimonies? should they preferential treat before God b/c they have a big temple? eta: i used the masons as a non religious example b/c my intent is truly not to offend any specific group. i was going to use islam and imams but i don't want to open that can of worms. my question is what makes one man or group any more special than any other. why is a non follower of a certin belief not allowed where that belief is held to its highest standards. this can be said about religion, government, politics, social groups, etc. pelosi is no more special than the pope and vice versa, for example.(two people of the "same" faith in a position of power) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
my question is, why is something made by man not available to all mankind. does this temple not create a different "class" of people or, don't take this the wrong way, a holier than thou persona? for example, i disagree with catholic people who pray to the pope or to saints. they were or are man just as i am. i believe that the pope,or LDS temple goers are no different than any other man. all men are sinners, some may sin less than others. i believe that to have a place of worship where any and all are not welcome,(without preconditions, i.e. being a LDS member and working your way to acceptance into the temple) is just wrong. after all, its just a building built by man for man. that video did not answer any direct questions. this was not meant to bash the LDS or catholics, but to have someone shed some light on this for me. the FBI building down the street nor my house open to everyone. Private property has rights and privileges. if they want privacy they are entitled to it straw man argument that does not address the point i was trying to make. i could turn my own private property into a temple and restrict who enters into it based on my sole interpretation of scripture. it won't put me any closer to god than any other man. are the masons any more special than any other mens group because they have private buildings and secret cerimonies? should they preferential treat before God b/c they have a big temple? masons do not offer salvation and are not a religion. they/we are a private fraternity, nothing more. We tell men to follow THEIR religion and beliefs to find salvation. however they define it. if YOUR beliefs and religion dictates that, then yes in your beliefs. If the LDS believes that is the case i see no problem with it, it does not affect me nor my relatioship with god. it's really simple.... they want their privacy for their members. Their choice, their property, their rules. Want inside.. join them. Otherwise it's non of our or anyones elses business. |
|
Quoted:
my question is, why is something made by man not available to all mankind. does this temple not create a different "class" of people or, don't take this the wrong way, a holier than thou persona? for example, i disagree with catholic people who pray to the pope or to saints. they were or are man just as i am. i believe that the pope,or LDS temple goers are no different than any other man. all men are sinners, some may sin less than others. i believe that to have a place of worship where any and all are not welcome,(without preconditions, i.e. being a LDS member and working your way to acceptance into the temple) is just wrong. after all, its just a building built by man for man. that video did not answer any direct questions. this was not meant to bash the LDS or catholics, but to have someone shed some light on this for me. There are enough people in the world who are determined to tear down the LDS church, that if they were allowed to enter our temples, they would make it impossible to worship. Restricting admittance to the temple is not to suggest that the person entering is of more importance, but that the temple is of high importance. The ordnances performed in the temple are symbolic of man's journey back into the presense of God. No unclean thing can enter his presence. Accordingly, it is incumbant on us to become as clean as we can before entering. This is not unique in God's dealings with men. The ancient temples were likewise restricted according to the station and purpose of the person entering. If you have never attended temple ceremonies, it may not be abundantly obvious why this must be so. The only purpose in going into the temple is to take part in the sacred ordnances. If a person has no beilef in the efficacy of the ordnances or desire to take part in them or demonstrated willingness to prepare oneself for participation, it would be wrong to enter. A person entering for the wrong reasons would only detract from the sacred nature of the ordnace. |
|
I quess everthing in balance here. This is what the scriptures have to say about what is a temple today.
1 Corinthians 3:16-20 16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's. This is what is the Lord thinks about temples made with human hands. Acts 17:23-25 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
my question is, why is something made by man not available to all mankind. does this temple not create a different "class" of people or, don't take this the wrong way, a holier than thou persona? for example, i disagree with catholic people who pray to the pope or to saints. they were or are man just as i am. i believe that the pope,or LDS temple goers are no different than any other man. all men are sinners, some may sin less than others. i believe that to have a place of worship where any and all are not welcome,(without preconditions, i.e. being a LDS member and working your way to acceptance into the temple) is just wrong. after all, its just a building built by man for man. that video did not answer any direct questions. this was not meant to bash the LDS or catholics, but to have someone shed some light on this for me. There are enough people in the world who are determined to tear down the LDS church, that if they were allowed to enter our temples, they would make it impossible to worship. Restricting admittance to the temple is not to suggest that the person entering is of more importance, but that the temple is of high importance. The ordnances performed in the temple are symbolic of man's journey back into the presense of God. No unclean thing can enter his presence. Accordingly, it is incumbant on us to become as clean as we can before entering. This is not unique in God's dealings with men. The ancient temples were likewise restricted according to the station and purpose of the person entering. If you have never attended temple ceremonies, it may not be abundantly obvious why this must be so. The only purpose in going into the temple is to take part in the sacred ordnances. If a person has no beilef in the efficacy of the ordnances or desire to take part in them or willingness to prepare oneself for participation, it would be wrong to enter. A person entering for the wrong reasons would only detract from the sacred nature of the ordnace. case in point.... the new temple in our town was protested by the local Baptist church. the temple open to the public for a short time right after the grand opening. the idiot protests felt it was a good thing to move their protest inside the temple and scream all sorts of nice things at the members that invited them inside. The only saving grace is after a few hours the LDS folks actually called the police to have them removed. After refusing to leave several were arrested for tresspassing. Now i don't view this as a slight on the entire baptists denomination <i was raised as one> but it was not only rude and inappropriate, it shows just how far some idiots will go to push "their" version of religion. The only saving grace is after a few hours the LDS folks actually called the police to have them removed. After refusing to leave several were arrested for tresspassing. Imagine the baptists reaction if a group of LDS members showed up disrupting their church. |
|
Quoted:
my question is, why is something made by man not available to all mankind. does this temple not create a different "class" of people or, don't take this the wrong way, a holier than thou persona? for example, i disagree with catholic people who pray to the pope or to saints. they were or are man just as i am. i believe that the pope,or LDS temple goers are no different than any other man. all men are sinners, some may sin less than others. i believe that to have a place of worship where any and all are not welcome,(without preconditions, i.e. being a LDS member and working your way to acceptance into the temple) is just wrong. after all, its just a building built by man for man. that video did not answer any direct questions. this was not meant to bash the LDS or catholics, but to have someone shed some light on this for me. A fair enough question. Besides the answers that have already been given, I would ask you to also consider the Biblical pattern on the matter. In the days of Moses, there were restricted parts of the Tabernacle (a portable temple) and the same was true of the Temple at Jerusalem. The general public was only allowed so far, and beyond that men of age were allowed so far, and beyond that only priests were allowed, and the Holy of Holies was only accessable to the high priests. God put these restrictions in place. Part of the restrictions has to do with personal preparation, and others are for other pragmatic reasons as TBS mentioned. The LDS have plenty of other places of worship that you are very much invited to come and participate at.
|
|
Quoted:
my question is, why is something made by man not available to all mankind. does this temple not create a different "class" of people or, don't take this the wrong way, a holier than thou persona? . Temples have been an important aspect of worship since the beginning. From Old Testament times to Christ casting out folks from the Temple in New Testament times to today. It is the way it is. Does that create a "holier than thou persona?" I don't think it does. Quoted:
i believe that to have a place of worship where any and all are not welcome,(without preconditions, i.e. being a LDS member and working your way to acceptance into the temple) is just wrong. We welcome everyone into our church, and we have a *huge* missionary program to get the message out... I don't think we restrict anyone from enjoying the full Gospel of Jesus Christ. And the "requirements" are clear-cut and available to everyone. The followers of God have always had sacred promises and covenants that they were to obey and follow. That will always be the case... Either you choose to follow, or you choose not to... Everyone is invited to come to our church, partake of the Gospel, and attend the temple... But even back in New Testament times, the Temple was a sacred and special (read: exclusive) place. And Jesus came to blows with folks at one point to protect the sanctity of who should be at the Temple, and who should not... Quoted:
after all, its just a building built by man for man. I believe that it is a sacred place built for sacred reasons... Same as the Temples in the Old and New Testament... The Temple was a sacred place to Jesus, and we can follow His example, and worship in Temples today. |