Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think Brigham did as well as he could. Condemning things he got wrong probably isn't that helpful. And many elements as I said really do reflect ancient rites even if we don't use them now. It's worth noting that Joseph, according to Brigham, told him things weren't correct.

  • "Bro[ther] Joseph [Smith] turned to me [Brigham Young] and said: “Brother Brigham this is not arranged right, but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this mat[t]er in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.” I did so and each time I got something more; so that when we went through the Temple at Nauvoo, I understood and knew how to place them there. We had our ceremonies pretty correct."  (Nuttall Journal, 7 Feb. 1877)

While some read that to mean Joseph hadn't yet made the changes Brigham did, I think that a better way of reading this is both feeling that you're trying to capture something but always fall somewhat short. That's especially true given that meaning of any performance or speech is always tied to culture. As culture shifts, sometimes we have to shift the text. I think we see that with the problems of members using the KJV of the Bible for instance. (Something I also suspect will change in my lifetime - and perhaps under Nelson)

Hopefully I didn't come off as condemning Brigham Young. I hold him in high esteem.

I was merely saying that Brigham Young defined the endowment as receiving all the ordinances which enable someone to pass by the sentinels which stand along the way to eternal life. He then further defined that as a set of components which must be given to them. I was just stating that to the best of my knowledge those components could be given by an endowed Latter-day Saint of any era.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can see how this would be true, because being consistent in our language is almost always important.  But, I think you might be confusing being consistent with your language and believing that everyone's experience with the gospel is consistent with your experience.  You might not have ever had the experience of knowing that your sins have been forgiven.  However, if ksfisher actually does know that his sins have been forgiven, then it would be inconsistent for him to say that he only has faith or believes that they are.

You suggest that your manner of speaking about the gospel is the only way to be consistent but that seems more like your personal bias than actual fact.

I’ll re-read my words, but I thought I was clear that this is how I personally use my language (call that my bias if you’d like). Anyone can say anything they want however they want.

But, I’ll stick by my belief that it is easier to communicate when words have as consistent meanings as possible (although perfect consistency is nearly impossible).

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

But, I’ll stick by my belief that it is easier to communicate when words have as consistent meanings as possible (although perfect consistency is nearly impossible).

You need to find a different language than English then.

"know" has at least 10 different variations:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/know

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, blueglass said:

I'm not placing limitations on experiential possibilities of spirit matter, God is.  Hence the need for all this proxy temple work right?  Notwithstanding Hebrews 9:24-26?  

That the Messiah atoned for all and replaced the Mosaic temple practices of atonement is not really in dispute is it.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

And please drop the accusation that those of us using "I know" do so to avoid looking weak.  It is very offensive.  We have our own reasons for choosing language just as you do.

Weak may have been a strong, hasty word in that context.

But my point that in the Mormon culture, we use the word “know” in faith settings where we usually don’t “know” to the same degree that we know physical/earthly facts. We use the word it because that it what we have been raised to say, or how we learn to state our faith after baptism.  It’s our language.

I’ve spoken with countless others about their faith and belief set. Mormons are the only ones I’ve met who use the word “know” where others use “believe.”

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I seek complete consistency in my language as well. When I know something through personal experience, I say, 'I know ...' When I believe something but don't know it yet, I say, 'I believe ...' or even 'I hope ...' No one has ever told me I look weak, but I do take offence at some anonymous internet poster suggesting that I don't actually know what I in fact do.

Why take offense?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

You need to find a different language than English then.

"know" has at least 10 different variations:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/know

And yet none of those ten are synonymous with “faith” or “believe.”  It’s a linguistic discussion, but clearly the Mormon culture has its own unique definition of “know” that I personally do not find useful.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Weak may have been a strong, hasty word in that context.

But my point that in the Mormon culture, we use the word “know” in faith settings where we usually don’t “know” to the same degree that we know physical/earthly facts. We use the word it because that it what we have been raised to say, or how we learn to state our faith after baptism.  It’s our language.

I’ve spoken with countless others about their faith and belief set. Mormons are the only ones I’ve met who use the word “know” where others use “believe.”

But “believe” is too weak a word. I do not just believe there is a God. I know it. I am convinced of it.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Why take offense?

Because at the base of the statement, you're implicitly claiming that I'm not being 100 per cent truthful.

You do it again in your most recent post:

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

But my point that in the Mormon culture, we use the word “know” in faith settings where we usually don’t “know” to the same degree that we know physical/earthly facts.

The things I know, I know to the same degree that I know literally anything else. When I say, 'I know', I mean it.

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I’ll re-read my words, but I thought I was clear that this is how I personally use my language (call that my bias if you’d like). Anyone can say anything they want however they want.

But, I’ll stick by my belief that it is easier to communicate when words have as consistent meanings as possible (although perfect consistency is nearly impossible).

I realize you were speaking about how you use words, but when you said "i get it. I used to talk like you do. It’s the vocabulary Mormons are raised on. Faith isn’t enough at F&T meetings.  You have to say “I know” in our culture, or you look weak" you were making a judgement on how other people use words at the same time.  You were implying that you use words to be consistent and other people use words so they don't look weak.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Brant speculates that it may connect to some infant washing rituals.

Which is seemingly possible considering some of rituals we know the Native Americans practice. I doubt they used the word baptism, but the Lord/Joseph used the best words they had for us to understand the point. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But “believe” is too weak a word. I do not just believe there is a God. I know it. I am convinced of it.

I fully respect that. But that’s you. If you really know.  Do you “know” the same way you “know” that you have a leg?  Or do you have another definition of “know” to describe that knowledge?

 

 

 

 

 

 

my deepest apologies if you’re a paraplegic...

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Because at the base of the statement, you're implicitly claiming that I'm not being 100 per cent truthful.

You do it again in your most recent post:

The things I know, I know to the same degree that I know literally anything else. When I say, 'I know', I mean it.

 

That’s awesome that you know!  But, kfisher indicated that he uses the same word for two meanings, which I think is a poor choice of words.

You seem to know that god exists just as much as you know you have blood inside you. If that’s your level of knowledge, then I think that’s 100% genuine.  Good for you!

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I realize you were speaking about how you use words, but when you said "i get it. I used to talk like you do. It’s the vocabulary Mormons are raised on. Faith isn’t enough at F&T meetings.  You have to say “I know” in our culture, or you look weak" you were making a judgement on how other people use words at the same time.  You were implying that you use words to be consistent and other people use words so they don't look weak.

You bring up a good point. To anyone who took offense, I apologize for generalizing my experience.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Weak may have been a strong, hasty word in that context.

But my point that in the Mormon culture, we use the word “know” in faith settings where we usually don’t “know” to the same degree that we know physical/earthly facts. We use the word it because that it what we have been raised to say, or how we learn to state our faith after baptism.  It’s our language.

I’ve spoken with countless others about their faith and belief set. Mormons are the only ones I’ve met who use the word “know” where others use “believe.”

Isn't what you are doing (judging the quality of a member's spiritual experiences) what you don't like seeing members do of nonmembers?

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I fully respect that. But that’s you. If you really know.  Do you “know” the same way you “know” that you have a leg?  Or do you have another definition of “know” to describe that knowledge?

 

 

 

 

 

 

my deepest apologies if you’re a paraplegic...

That's what I'm saying about the context informing the meaning of words. 

When I say that my daughter is practicing her violin and you say your doctor is practicing medicine, the context of the two statements defines what we understand the meaning of the word practice to be.  

Religion also uses words that are used in other walks of life, but within the context of that religion. 

No, I don't know that God exists in the same way that I know that I have a leg.  One I can see while the other I have to gather knowledge of through my spiritual experiences and the experiences of others. 

I both cases I feel honest in using the word know and I expect that others would understand the context of each statement just as you and I understand that practicing the violin and practicing medicine have different contextual meanings.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn't what you are doing (judging the quality of a member's spiritual experiences) what you don't like seeing members do of nonmembers?

 

I’m not trying to judge the quality of anyone’s own personal experience. I’m advocating for a more clear explanation and understanding of the experiences they choose to share.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

And yet none of those ten are synonymous with “faith” or “believe.”  It’s a linguistic discussion, but clearly the Mormon culture has its own unique definition of “know” that I personally do not find useful.

And if you personally don't find it useful, makes sense not to use it.

But you shouldn't be judging most others who use it, imo, unless they have explained to you how they understand "know" and it is not consistent with their usage.

Communities develop their own jargon and languages changes over time.  Would you have argued against using "gay" as a term for homosexual among the gay community back in the day it wasn't in common usage as inconsistent or just seen it as them adapting the greater language for their community needs?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...