Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Going to the temple for the first time/handbook


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

My niece, a 21-year-old, was not going on a mission and was not engaged or dating anyone seriously went to the temple recently and got her endowment. She attended the temple a few times afterward and was very active and committed to finding a mate that would also go to the temple with her.  She found a great guy and has married him.  During their relatively short courtship (he is not a member) he talked to the missionaries and attended church with her.  

Now they are married and neither one has stepped foot inside the church.  

I don't care how wonderful a young, single person is or how committed they are to God they are still only half of life's puzzle. Once they get married is when the rubber meets the road. 

I would strongly counsel any single, young person who is not going on a mission to delay going to the temple until they are married or until they have gotten older. Just my opinion. 

I actually counseled my daughter to wait too until the Spirit let me know I was holding her back. So now, with this thread I have to wonder why we feel that way.

When she was 11 she fasted and prayed over getting a patriarchal blessing. She was far more ready than I was at 15. I would have counseled with her to wait, but the summer before I found out President Hinckley received his as well at age 11. So I talked with her about what she as expecting and then she made an appointment and saw the bishop. On the other hand my then 18 year old son who we expected to go on a mission soon told us he wanted to get one and I so desired that, but knew he wasn't anywhere close to ready.  

It has all really taught me there is much more to being ready than being a certain age.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if it is a matter of one's situation after going through the temple. A person who goes to the temple in order to get married will be in a marital relationship, and usually with someone who has previously been to the temple. So there will be a stabilizing element there. Someone who goes to the temple in anticipation of serving a mission will be spending the next 18 months to 2 years in a structured and stable spiritual environment, and hence also be in a position to better understand the temple. 

In contrast, the situation of a young person going through the temple not to serve a mission and not to get married is something of an unknown ( or, rather, their situation very much depends on the individuals family and personal circumstances). This is perhaps why the handbook requires Bishops and stake presidents to ensure that the individual is spiritually prepared to go to the temple, and also will be in a good stable environment after going to the temple.

Now that makes a little more sense to me. At least the mission part. She is living at home for the time being so maybe that would be part of the reason my daughter's bishop is ok with going through, but her friend lives on her own.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Rain said:

It has all really taught me there is much more to being ready than being a certain age.

This is certainly true. And I have found leaders generally are open to the exceptions. I personally was one, receiving my endowment at age 19 before a mission call had been issued. We also had an Elder in my mission who started his service at age 28, and a mate of mine who wandered far from the Church and then came back only after obtaining a postgraduate degree in Russian was also issued a mission call at age 28.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think that this is why they make such a point about preparation for the temple, instead of just tossing people in!

What changed wasn't all that important, in my opinion.  They removed some extraneous elements that were, in my opinion, subject to misunderstanding.

What changed was a HUGE part for me. Let's just say I am very sensitive to that kind of thing. Some may say it was misunderstood, but when my first experience was filled with such strong feelings then I may be able to logically think through things, but the feelings are much harder to overcome. 

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It is unfortunate that you are uncomfortable with something that is inherently deeply spiritual and beautiful.  If I had an idea on how to resolve this for you, I'd give it, but unfortunately my experience doesn't resemble yours at all, and thus I do not understand it well enough.  Have you considered speaking with a member of your local temple presidency, or even the matron?  I can't guarantee it, but perhaps they might be able to offer some guidance.  

No and honestly I don't think it would help at all.  It just takes time and trusting the Lord.

It's funny. I would love to be an RS teacher, but never get called. I have been able to sub a number of times over the years. Various topics, but I have been asked to teach about the temple 3 times. This last time as I was teaching the phrase repeated a number of times in the OT came to me, "his hand is stretched forth still". I understood from this that the Lord understood my feelings and to keep trying and one day I will reach his hand and feel comfortable.

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Two things.  Getting married in the temple doesn't necessarily make one more mature, but you can't be sealed in the temple without the endowment.  Temple sealing requires the endowment as the prerequisite.  The other thing is that the endowment is specifically preparatory and required for serving a mission.  There is no urgent need for the endowment for someone who is doing neither, and thus it is reasonable to be more circumspect with who receives it.  

I'm not sure it is actually true about serving a mission. It seems to me that there are missionaries that haven't been endowed though they may serve shorter missions in their own countries?  I may be wrong on that. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is exactly how I feel. I walked into the temple the very first time and felt, in every aspect, like I'd 'gone home'. Everything new felt immediately familiar and comforting. This leaves me completely incapable of knowing how to help others whose experiences haven't been like that, and I wish it didn't.

This is how my children felt. I specifically never told them about my feelings before they had been doing baptisms for awhile because I wanted them to have good feelings for the temple. We lived in Salt Lake when I took my youngest for the first time. He loved it so much we ended up going to 2 other temples in the valley and would have gone to the 4th that same day if we had time. It wasn't till later that I shared some of my feelings with them because I wanted them to get a better understanding. 

Quote

One of the things I am passionate about is good temple prep. My formal prep was a joke. I took a class offered by the stake where I was studying (in America). It claimed to be all six temple prep lessons rolled into one Sunday afternoon. Instead, it was little more than a Sunday school class on the Plan of Salvation. Thankfully, I'd been doing my own temple prep for a couple of years in eager anticipation.

That's exactly why my daughter is having a hard time going to temple prep again! - except it is spread out over the 6 weeks. 

Quote

I have taught temple prep (just one-on-one in my home) for nearly all of the young men who have left on missions in our ward the past six years. Every one of them has immediately loved the temple. The last one I taught was the most clueless of the lot. In the first lesson, I asked him to tell me what he knew about Adam and Eve. His response: 'I've heard of them, but I don't know who they are'. By his request, I then attended the temple with him for his endowment. He didn't want to leave. I actually stayed in the Celestial Room with him for about 45 minutes after his parents had left, and we just enjoyed the Spirit and a whispered conversation on sacred things. I was so glad.

One of his peers refused to have any temple prep lessons at all. His elder brother later told me the endowment left him in shock. So sad.

And this is why my husband and I have done much to prepare the kids and answered their questions.

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Rain said:

It seems to me that there are missionaries that haven't been endowed though they may serve shorter missions in their own countries?  I may be wrong on that. 

During the military dictatorship, we couldn't get our missionaries (all locals by presidential decree) out of the country to receive temple blessings before serving. The Church makes due in such circumstances, but it certainly wasn't ideal for either the missionaries or those they laboured with. Once the situation changed, we had a very different kind of missionary in Indonesia, based on my experience.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Rain said:

I may be wrong, but I think you may be misunderstanding BillyandJane. I think what is meant by "girls" is specifically my daughter and her friend, not a girls are picked on kind of thing.

You may be right, but it on this medium it comes off as if only "girls" suffer the whims of the evil priesthood.  I admit I am hypersensitive on this issue of trying to make females victim of the priesthood.

Thank you for the clarification.  

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Rain said:

I actually counseled my daughter to wait too until the Spirit let me know I was holding her back. So now, with this thread I have to wonder why we feel that way.

When she was 11 she fasted and prayed over getting a patriarchal blessing. She was far more ready than I was at 15. I would have counseled with her to wait, but the summer before I found out President Hinckley received his as well at age 11. So I talked with her about what she as expecting and then she made an appointment and saw the bishop. On the other hand my then 18 year old son who we expected to go on a mission soon told us he wanted to get one and I so desired that, but knew he wasn't anywhere close to ready.  

It has all really taught me there is much more to being ready than being a certain age.

5

Rain, fundamentally I agree with you that there should not be a specific age requirement.  I also agree that some individuals are more spiritually aware than others.  

When we are talking about the temple we must understand that the Endowment is not an end in itself. It is a stepping stone to the sealing ordinance. Simply having a desire to enter the temple does not equate to needing to satiate that desire.  I think it is okay to have the desire for a long period....as in when individuals are ready to be sealed to their spouse.  

I am not saying that single people should never get their Endowment.  However, I do think that there really does need to be a conscious delay in receiving temple covenants until individuals are mature and understand the gravity of their decision to obtain their Endowment.  Again, I don't think this is absolute and there can be exceptions.  It is certainly possible that your daughter is one of those individuals. 

I still think I need to underline that there are no absolutes in this area. It all depends on the individual. I understand the need for rules as guidance to leaders and I understand the need for exceptions. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Rain said:

I may be wrong, but I think you may be misunderstanding BillyandJane. I think what is meant by "girls" is specifically my daughter and her friend, not a girls are picked on kind of thing.

There is a lot going on outside this forum that causes a degree of hypersensitivity -- which is ironic, given that one of the things going on is this insane raising of hypersensitivity, referred to as "triggering".

BillyandJane saying "at the mercy of the the inspiration their leaders" seems to set up a victim/oppressor relationship between "the girls" and their priesthood leaders.  This may, as you suggest,  be directed at your daughter and her friend, and not girls in general as distinguished from boys. But B&J haven't been posting long here, and I am not at all sure which way they intended this to be understood.

 

Link to comment
On 5/14/2018 at 12:35 PM, MiserereNobis said:

This is how I feel about Tridentine High Mass. I've taken some Catholic friends who don't want to go back because of the Latin, or the vestments, or the detailed moving of things on the altar, etc. 

When it comes to any highly symbolic ritual, you've got to go through it multiple times with a mind and heart open to symbolism.

ETA: I say this directed mainly at Mark because he knows the Tridentine Mass.

I finally found the article I would love to suggest you read comparing the temple to the  mass and other features of Catholicism. I know you will not know the Mormon ceremonies but it will become clear that each thing Wellnitz cites directly parallels Mormon ceremonies.  He would not cite them if they did not, and I think that is clear even for those who do not know the ceremonies.  In fact much can be inferred about the Mormon ceremonies simply by the way he cites the Catholic ones.

Much in Orthodox liturgy is closer to our temple practices, than today's Roman rite, but this is a great article.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/catholic-liturgy-and-mormon-temple

For the Mormons, check this out

This is the Coptic Orthodox annointing for confirmation, confirming the child as a member of the church after baptism

The rest of the site is full of gems also for LDS looking for evidence of commonalities in early Christian ordinances paralleling Mormon ordinances

Joseph could not have known this stuff.

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/2_confirmation.html

 

Quote

 

THE ANOINTMENTS

The priest places his right thumb on top of the opening of the Myron bottle, and turns it downwards to wet his finger with the Myron. He then anoints the baptized as follows :

The first four anointments (eight crosses) are on the senses

Firstly, the top of the head, the nostrils, the mouth, and the right ear

Then, the right eye, the left eye, an finally the left ear

Whilst anointing, the priest says, �In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  The anointment of grace of the Holy Spirit, Amen.�

 

NOTES:

 

He anoints The Head to sanctify it. The head contains the brain, where thinking takes place. It is the brain which distinguishes humankind from other creatures. A good mind is of great use and benefit to oneself and to others also. King Solomon praises the mind saying, �When wisdom enters your heart and knowledge is pleasant to your soul, discretion will preserve you, understanding will keep you, to deliver from the way evil� (Proverbs 2: 10-12).

 

Also, the Lord Jesus praised the young man who answered wisely and said to him: �You are not far from the Kingdom of God�  (Mark 12:34). And St. Paul our teacher prays for us saying, �And the peace of God which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus� (Philippians 4:7).

 

The Nostrils contain the sense of smell, and it is an important sense, for if a person is not careful and alert, it is possible for impure thoughts to enter ones heart through this sense. Hence, the priest anoints it to protect it against all sin and lust.

 

The Mouth with the tongue is the most dangerous organ in a person...

 

�If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one�s religion is useless�  (James 1:26).

 

�If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body" (James 3:2).

 

�The tongue is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison, it defiles the whole body and sets on fire the course of nature, and it is set on fire by hell� (James 3:8,6), if it is not controlled.

 

The Psalmist prays, �Set a guard O Lord, over my mouth. Keep watch over the door of my lips.  Do not incline my heart to any evil thing� (Psalm 141:3,4)

And the wise King Solomon said: �Whoever guards his mouth and tongue keeps his soul from troubles� (Proverbs 21:23), and, �Put away from you a deceitful mouth, and put perverse lips far from you� (Proverbs 4:24.  We ought to keep our tongue from sins such as swearing, insulting, lying, judging, and gossiping. Our words should always be graceful.

The Ears provide us with the important sense of hearing, which should also be controlled, and the anointing of the Myron is a strong weapon in control what we hear. We protect our ears from hearing such things as gossip, and other conversations which may poison our hearts with revenge and hatred. We also protect our ears from hearing certain songs which may poison our hearts with lustful thoughts.

 

The Eyes are the most important sense, through which enters more than 80% of information which may affect our hearts. If the information is holy, it sanctifies the heart, and vice versa. For this reason, we should control what we see so that we may keep ourselves pure. The tenth commandment says, �Do not covet�. The Psalmist prays, �Turn away my eyes from looking at worthless things� (Psalm 119:37), and, �Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from Your law�  (Psalm 119:17).


 

The second group of four anointments are as follows :

 

The priest wets his right thumb with the Myron another time and anoints,

The heart (chest)

The navel

The back

The lower back

Whilst anointing the priest prays : �An anointment as a token for the kingdom of heaven," as this holy anointment makes the Holy Spirit works in us and prepares us for the inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven.

NOTES:

 

Anointing the heart is very important as it is the organ which  pumps blood to all the body.  A healthy heart is important for a healthy body, and its spiritual welfare is required, as the wise King Solomon advises us saying, �Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life� (Proverbs 4:23).

 

The Navel is the place to which was joined the umbilical cord when a person was a fetus in his mother�s womb. Through it the fetus is nourished and nurtured, and so by anointing it, the holy Myron is protecting it against Satan.

 

The Back supports the body and is the place of the spine.  If the spine is infected or damaged, severe pain may occur and even lead to paralysis. So it is important to protect it through the anointing of the Myron.

 

The Lower Back is the area of sexual lusts, and so the anointing of the Myron sanctifies it and protects it by the power of the living Cross.  This area also includes the kidneys.

This group of anointments include the anointing of the heart, which must be cared for and renewed, as the Psalmist prayed, �Create in me a pure heart O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me� (Psalm 51:10), and, �Examine me O Lord and prove me. Try my mind and my heart� (Psalm 26:2).

The third group of anointments are on the six joints of the arm:

The priest wets his thumb with the holy Myron, and anoints,

The right shoulder joint

The right underarm                              

The right elbow joint

The inner elbow joint

The right wrist joint

The back of the right wrist

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Rain said:

You seem quite talkative today.

I had a lengthy response to your OP, and it keeps saying I'm forbidden from posting it. Apparently, I can put in periods in this thread, and can comment on other threads. 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I finally found the article I would love to suggest you read comparing the temple to the  mass and other features of Catholicism. I know you will not know the Mormon ceremonies but it will become clear that each thing Wellnitz cites directly parallels Mormon ceremonies.  He would not cite them if they did not, and I think that is clear even for those who do not know the ceremonies.  In fact much can be inferred about the Mormon ceremonies simply by the way he cites the Catholic ones.

Much in Orthodox liturgy is closer to our temple practices, than today's Roman rite, but this is a great article.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/catholic-liturgy-and-mormon-temple

Thanks. I've downloaded it and will check it out.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I finally found the article I would love to suggest you read comparing the temple to the  mass and other features of Catholicism. I know you will not know the Mormon ceremonies but it will become clear that each thing Wellnitz cites directly parallels Mormon ceremonies.  He would not cite them if they did not, and I think that is clear even for those who do not know the ceremonies.  In fact much can be inferred about the Mormon ceremonies simply by the way he cites the Catholic ones.

Much in Orthodox liturgy is closer to our temple practices, than today's Roman rite, but this is a great article.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/catholic-liturgy-and-mormon-temple

I read it, but without knowledge of Mormon temple rites it didn't do much for me. The intended audience is obviously LDS and the article is explaining what I as a Catholic who loves the liturgy and has explored its origins and development already knows. It's nice that it was focused on the Tridentine mass because so much has been lost in the new mass. It's great that the old mass is having a slow but steady resurgence. 

I guess what it did for me is make me more curious about the LDS temple rituals, but I long ago vowed I wouldn't look them up because you don't want me to and I respect that. If the rituals were available, it sounds like there could be some interesting discussions between Catholics and Mormons about it.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I read it, but without knowledge of Mormon temple rites it didn't do much for me. The intended audience is obviously LDS and the article is explaining what I as a Catholic who loves the liturgy and has explored its origins and development already knows. It's nice that it was focused on the Tridentine mass because so much has been lost in the new mass. It's great that the old mass is having a slow but steady resurgence. 

I guess what it did for me is make me more curious about the LDS temple rituals, but I long ago vowed I wouldn't look them up because you don't want me to and I respect that. If the rituals were available, it sounds like there could be some interesting discussions between Catholics and Mormons about it.

What is available doesn't capture it anyway.

I guess you just have to become LDS ;)

Most LDS on the other hand ignore the Catholic sign of the cross never noticing the significance of the mere fact that it still exists.

Go figure. ;)

Literally ;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
22 hours ago, rongo said:

I had a lengthy response to your OP, and it keeps saying I'm forbidden from posting it. Apparently, I can put in periods in this thread, and can comment on other threads. 

This happened to me once, and I finally worked out that there was some kind of forbidden thing in my post, and in order to post it I had to filter the text through Notepad or something that would strip out whatever it was that was invisibly embedded in it.  Don't know if that's your problem, however. :) 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is available doesn't capture it anyway.

For sure. I'm guessing it would be like reading a missal rather than going to mass.

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I guess you just have to become LDS ;)

You Mormons, always sneaking in your proselytizing 🤡

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Most LDS on the other hand ignore the Catholic sign of the cross never noticing the significance of the mere fact that it still exists.

Is this referring to something in the temple rites?

You have said that there is no way that Joseph Smith could know about older Christian rites that have similarities with LDS temple rites, implying that the LDS temple rites pre-date mass. Couldn't another possible explanation (even if it is wrong, but possible) be that Joseph Smith knew the Masonic rites, which are similar to some Christian rites. For example, both you and the article mentioned anointings with oil. The masons do that, too. And the masons have vestments and other things that the article mentioned.

I'm not able to really argue on this topic since I don't know what's in the LDS temple and I'm not really interested in delving into masonic ceremonies. I'm just thinking there's another possible explanation than you guys are right and we're wrong :P 

 

Link to comment

Were there times when the church was more open about what goes on in temple cereminies? I'm just wondering if historically, say right after the ceremonies began or in the 1920s or 1950s or whatever, did the leaders talk more? 

If so I'm wondering what made it quiet again? I started thinking about the "loose lips sink ships" idea and if that has anything to do with it.

Or has it only been with the openess with the internet that we are starting to learn more outside, as in the church's temple clothing video?

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

For sure. I'm guessing it would be like reading a missal rather than going to mass.

You Mormons, always sneaking in your proselytizing 🤡

Is this referring to something in the temple rites?

You have said that there is no way that Joseph Smith could know about older Christian rites that have similarities with LDS temple rites, implying that the LDS temple rites pre-date mass. Couldn't another possible explanation (even if it is wrong, but possible) be that Joseph Smith knew the Masonic rites, which are similar to some Christian rites. For example, both you and the article mentioned anointings with oil. The masons do that, too. And the masons have vestments and other things that the article mentioned.

I'm not able to really argue on this topic since I don't know what's in the LDS temple and I'm not really interested in delving into masonic ceremonies. I'm just thinking there's another possible explanation than you guys are right and we're wrong :P 

 

Yes,I know, I get it. ;) And you are right.

More later!

 

Link to comment
On 5/17/2018 at 8:10 AM, MiserereNobis said:

For sure. I'm guessing it would be like reading a missal rather than going to mass.

You Mormons, always sneaking in your proselytizing 🤡

Is this referring to something in the temple rites?

You have said that there is no way that Joseph Smith could know about older Christian rites that have similarities with LDS temple rites, implying that the LDS temple rites pre-date mass. Couldn't another possible explanation (even if it is wrong, but possible) be that Joseph Smith knew the Masonic rites, which are similar to some Christian rites. For example, both you and the article mentioned anointings with oil. The masons do that, too. And the masons have vestments and other things that the article mentioned.

I'm not able to really argue on this topic since I don't know what's in the LDS temple and I'm not really interested in delving into masonic ceremonies. I'm just thinking there's another possible explanation than you guys are right and we're wrong :P 

 

Well I guess by this logic all the annointings done in say, the Coptic Orthodox church originated with the masons?  :P

All the early leaders of the church were masons and members of the same lodge(s) Joseph was and none of them suggested that Joseph "lifted" the endowment from masonry.

All these rites are ancient and the fact that they are similar does not show a direct causal relationship.  The fact is- I have done a fair amount of study in this area and there were several "Christianized" lodges in Western New York and we do find "elements" of their ceremonies in the endowment but the endowment contains theology nothing like the non-theology of masonry.  In other words the TEACHINGS derived from the endowment are completely different than those of masonry.

For example the Catholic concept of "felix culpa" is not found in masonry yet of course it is a vital part of LDS theology AND an early teaching of Christianity which is completely lost in the present church, at least as far as I know

Quote

 

The earliest known use of the term appears in the Catholic Paschal Vigil Mass Exsultet, which states that O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem, "O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer."[5] The Catholic saint Ambrose also speaks of the fortunate ruin of Adam in the Garden of Eden in that his sin brought more good to humanity than if he had stayed perfectly innocent.[6]

The Latin expression felix culpa derives from the writings of St. Augustine regarding the Fall of Man, the source of original sin: “For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist.” (in Latin: Melius enim iudicavit de malis benefacere, quam mala nulla esse permittere.)[7] The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas[8] cited this line when he explained how the principle that "God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom" underlies the causal relation between original sin and the Divine Redeemer's Incarnation, thus concluding that a higher state is not inhibited by sin.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa

To me, yet another evidence of a relic of doctrine found in our church and lost from Christianity in medieval times.

Symbols are found in the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham from Egyptian sources which can be seen as EXACT replicas of temple symbols having nothing to do with masonry.

There is a great book by a great LDS scholar which traces similarities between Egyptian ceremonies for the dead and the LDS temple.  https://www.amazon.com/Message-Joseph-Smith-Papyri-Endowment/dp/159038539X

I know you are not used to thinking in LDS terms but as "dispensationalists" we believe that throughout time there have been "Dispensations" of the gospel or Restorations and then subsequent apostasies.   So the "Great Apostasy" which Catholics know about from Mormons is only ONE of others.

On this thinking, many believe that the true endowment and gospel given to Adam in the first Dispensation may have come down in an apostate form to the Egyptians duplicating even more ancient rites, yet not getting it right.  The concept here is exactly parallel to the assertion that the Catholic mass derives from an earlier "true endowment" from our point of view.

So the fact of the matter is that to knowledgeable LDS folks, the similarities between masonic rituals and the endowment or that matter the Catholic mass, do not prove any kind one "source" for any of these ceremonies

One might argue that Judaism originated in Zoroastrianism or even Babylonain rites just as much as that the Mormon endowment derived from masonry.

The fact of the matter is that there is a great "stew" of ancient religious ideas which have come forward to this day in various forms and it is impossible to derive direct kinship between any of them, except where it is obvious in certain areas where synagogues became assemblages of Christians structured in "churches", or the Saturday Sabbath being moved to Sunday following the resurrection.   THOSE Christian practices are pretty clearly derivative from Judaism as well as others, but in the more ancient cases the exact derivations become pretty ambiguous and blurry and difficult to see the source.

I have always had an affinity for Zoroastrianism and actually due to my weirdness, could easily be persuaded that both Judaism and Christianity derived from Zoroastrianism.  I have no problem with that idea.   http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170406-this-obscure-religion-shaped-the-west

And then we have the cult of Mithras which originated in Zoroastrianism   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism

Quote

The Romans regarded the mysteries as having Persian or Zoroastrian sources. Since the early 1970s the dominant scholarship has noted dissimilarities between Persian Mithra-worship and the Roman Mithraic mysteries. In this context, Mithraism has sometimes been viewed as a rival of early Christianity.[9]

And again here we have "mysteries" paralleling all kinds of sources around the time of the beginnings of Christianity

Lest anyone call me an "apostate" which is the usual response when I post this stuff allow me to affirm I totally BELIEVE and PRACTICE FAITH in my life that the "Mormon Paradigm" which I regard as the true path for myself and indeed that this IS the "correct" church of Eloheim and Jehovah and the only true and living church on earth today.

On the other hand, I can never be disillusioned because I don't think I am now "illusioned" by all the rival views of our church. 

I am a mystic- I live by testimony and HERE is where my testimony indicates I MUST be!

But as also is well known hereabouts when it comes to historical justification of religion or saying that ANY historical evidence justifies a particular philosophy- that is just fantasy.

History does not justify a philosophical belief, period.  :)

So bottom line - and here is the whole post in one line:

"The Mormon Endowment came from Masonry"  ????   Fergitaboutit!! 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I guess by this logic all the annointings done in say, the Coptic Orthodox church originated with the masons?  :P

No, the other way around. The masons got their ideas of anointing from the traditional churches, and Joseph Smith got his from the Masons. I'm not saying this is true (I have no idea about the anointing in the LDS temple). I'm just saying that it's one possible explanation.

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

All the early leaders of the church were masons and members of the same lodge(s) Joseph was and none of them suggested that Joseph "lifted" the endowment from masonry.

Well, of course they didn't. They are early leaders of the LDS church. They are not going to call Joseph Smith a fraud.

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The fact is- I have done a fair amount of study in this area and there were several "Christianized" lodges in Western New York and we do find "elements" of their ceremonies in the endowment but the endowment contains theology nothing like the non-theology of masonry.  In other words the TEACHINGS derived from the endowment are completely different than those of masonry.

Ok. Again, it's hard for me to discuss the topic not knowing the LDS rites. The article you linked focused on aspects of Catholic mass, not the teachings given in the mass, so I'm focusing on the ritual.

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

For example the Catholic concept of "felix culpa" is not found in masonry yet of course it is a vital part of LDS theology AND an early teaching of Christianity which is completely lost in the present church, at least as far as I know

Felilx culpa is still in Catholicism today, as shown in your quoted section. I chanted that line during Easter Vigil :) As a side note, in college I wrote a paper about Milton's conflicting theodicies in "Paradise Lost." One was felix culpa.

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The fact of the matter is that there is a great "stew" of ancient religious ideas which have come forward to this day in various forms and it is impossible to derive direct kinship between any of them, except where it is obvious in certain areas where synagogues became assemblages of Christians structured in "churches", or the Saturday Sabbath being moved to Sunday following the resurrection.   THOSE Christian practices are pretty clearly derivative from Judaism as well as others, but in the more ancient cases the exact derivations become pretty ambiguous and blurry and difficult to see the source.

Ok, I hear ya.

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Lest anyone call me an "apostate" which is the usual response when I post this stuff allow me to affirm I totally BELIEVE and PRACTICE FAITH in my life that the "Mormon Paradigm" which I regard as the true path for myself and indeed that this IS the "correct" church of Eloheim and Jehovah and the only true and living church on earth today.

I'm guessing by you posting this that your views do not reflect a mainstream Mormon's view. Wouldn't be the first time, ha :P

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"The Mormon Endowment came from Masonry"  ????   Fergitaboutit!! 

Ha! Let me be clear that I was not claiming such a thing. I was tossing it out as a possible way to explain similarities between mass and the LDS temple. There is no way I could argue on this topic since I am not allowed to have the information necessary for such a discussion.

The similarities between religions, especially mystical experience, has always fascinated me. Huston Smith's book Forgotten Truth focuses on this aspect by connecting it to the great chain of being and different levels of consciousness/awareness/perception/what-have-you. It's a short and good read.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

No, the other way around. The masons got their ideas of anointing from the traditional churches, and Joseph Smith got his from the Masons. I'm not saying this is true (I have no idea about the anointing in the LDS temple). I'm just saying that it's one possible explanation.

That's what YOU say.  ;)  My point was what you finally say- that there are many explanations, all of which are irrelevant ultimately because of the history problem.  Even if derivation was perfectly clear and undebatable, we still have the problem of whether or not the doctrine is "true".  I make that point sometimes that if we had a video of the crucifixion that still would not prove that Christ died for MY SINS and therefore I am forgiven

Quote

Well, of course they didn't. They are early leaders of the LDS church. They are not going to call Joseph Smith a fraud.

So now that makes them part of the fraud as well.  Kind of like saying there was a "Passover Plot" involving the apostles in stealing Christ's body.  Sorry you may believe that but not me.

Quote

Ok. Again, it's hard for me to discuss the topic not knowing the LDS rites. The article you linked focused on aspects of Catholic mass, not the teachings given in the mass, so I'm focusing on the ritual.

Yes, which means you also are not in a position to criticize it since you don't know what you are talking about.  :)

Quote

 

Felilx culpa is still in Catholicism today, as shown in your quoted section. I chanted that line during Easter Vigil  As a side note, in college I wrote a paper about Milton's conflicting theodicies in "Paradise Lost." One was felix culpa.

 

Ah OK then in the modern church Original Sin is a good thing then, right?  It is for Mormons- that is the whole point.  And yet of course you still have infant baptism if original sin is not such a big deal and a good thing.

Quote

Ok, I hear ya.

OK and that is the  main point of the post, so we agree then on what was most important.  :)

Quote

I'm guessing by you posting this that your views do not reflect a mainstream Mormon's view. Wouldn't be the first time, ha

And what is a mainstream Catholic understanding of the trinity or transubstantiation or even birth control?  The other difference there is that Catholics are SUPPOSED to agree with  those ideas as taught but Mormons are not expected to believe our doctrines as taught- simply to pass a temple recommend interview sincerely.  We are encouraged to get our own testimonies not to follow the magisterium or an infallible pope.  We have fallible prophets- so I think we are talking apples and oranges here.  Good luck defining "mainstream" beliefs".

Quote

 

Ha! Let me be clear that I was not claiming such a thing. I was tossing it out as a possible way to explain similarities between mass and the LDS temple. There is no way I could argue on this topic since I am not allowed to have the information necessary for such a discussion.

 

NOT claiming such a thing???   You just said above "The masons got their ideas of anointing from the traditional churches, and Joseph Smith got his from the Masons."

 If  you were not claiming that there is no point to the whole discussion.  Why assert anything?  Seems fairly useless.  I was making a point- I did not expect to debate it with you.  :)  You wanna discuss, I discuss.  You wanna debate, I debate.  ;)   I say "I believe this" you say "Ok well I believe that".  No debate.   :)

Quote

The similarities between religions, especially mystical experience, has always fascinated me. Huston Smith's book Forgotten Truth focuses on this aspect by connecting it to the great chain of being and different levels of consciousness/awareness/perception/what-have-you. It's a short and good read.

Yes I know it well.  Why do you think I think this way?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, which means you also are not in a position to criticize it since you don't know what you are talking about.  :)

First of all, I am not criticizing. I plainly said: Let me be clear that I was not claiming such a thing. I was tossing it out as a possible way to explain similarities between mass and the LDS temple.

Second, it is kinda lame to have this tone with me when the reason I don't know what I am talking about is because I have chosen to respect your religion and not look up or watch the temple rites.

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

NOT claiming such a thing???   You just said above "The masons got their ideas of anointing from the traditional churches, and Joseph Smith got his from the Masons."

You forgot to quote what I said in the very next sentence: I'm not saying this is true (I have no idea about the anointing in the LDS temple). I'm just saying that it's one possible explanation.

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Mormons are not expected to believe our doctrines as taught- simply to pass a temple recommend interview sincerely. 

CFR that Mormons are not expected to believe Mormon doctrines. Is this in your scripture? Is this taught by your leaders? Pointing out the temple recommend questions or a quote about getting a testimony doesn't answer the CFR. You are claiming that a teaching in Mormonism is that Mormons do not have to believe Mormon doctrine. That is what the CFR is. Perhaps I'll start a thread on this so other Mormons can chime in.

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We are encouraged to get our own testimonies not to follow the magisterium or an infallible pope

Just to be clear, any quote about this will not answer my CFR. Getting your own testimony doesn't mean that Mormons do not have to believe Mormon doctrine. It simply means that you have had a personal confirmation of Mormon doctrine. I, too, have had many personal confirmation of Catholic doctrine. I do not blindly follow the magisterium. And, as a former Catholic, you should know better than to toss out a silly protestant straw man by calling the Pope infallible. You most certainly know that he is not infallible and that we do not believe he is infallible. He can declare an infallible dogma in the most rarest of occasions, the last of which occurred November 1, 1950.

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I know it well.  Why do you think I think this way?

I know it well, too. Why do you think I think this way?

Could it be that reasonable minds can differ in belief, because those beliefs are reasonable?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

First of all, I am not criticizing. I plainly said: Let me be clear that I was not claiming such a thing. I was tossing it out as a possible way to explain similarities between mass and the LDS temple.

Second, it is kinda lame to have this tone with me when the reason I don't know what I am talking about is because I have chosen to respect your religion and not look up or watch the temple rites.

You forgot to quote what I said in the very next sentence: I'm not saying this is true (I have no idea about the anointing in the LDS temple). I'm just saying that it's one possible explanation.

CFR that Mormons are not expected to believe Mormon doctrines. Is this in your scripture? Is this taught by your leaders? Pointing out the temple recommend questions or a quote about getting a testimony doesn't answer the CFR. You are claiming that a teaching in Mormonism is that Mormons do not have to believe Mormon doctrine. That is what the CFR is. Perhaps I'll start a thread on this so other Mormons can chime in.

Just to be clear, any quote about this will not answer my CFR. Getting your own testimony doesn't mean that Mormons do not have to believe Mormon doctrine. It simply means that you have had a personal confirmation of Mormon doctrine. I, too, have had many personal confirmation of Catholic doctrine. I do not blindly follow the magisterium. And, as a former Catholic, you should know better than to toss out a silly protestant straw man by calling the Pope infallible. You most certainly know that he is not infallible and that we do not believe he is infallible. He can declare an infallible dogma in the most rarest of occasions, the last of which occurred November 1, 1950.

I know it well, too. Why do you think I think this way?

Could it be that reasonable minds can differ in belief, because those beliefs are reasonable?

Go for it and I will respond as I have on many threads. It's all there for anybody to see.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...