blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) double post Edited February 8, 2012 by blueadept
KevinG Posted February 8, 2012 Author Posted February 8, 2012 I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.I wasn't saying that OD1 or OD2 were in any way brought about, hastened or otherwise affected by "critiscism". I was only citing two examples of things that people may have criticized, and were later changed. This is relevant only to point out that it is okay to not like the way the Church does certain things (even big things), and to hope that it will be changed in the future.Obviously, there are different ways to deal with that dissatisfaction (and varying degrees of visibility we could give to our criticism). For example, it would be prudent for a critic who felt the Church should start practicing polygamy again to be more tactful (and quiet) than a critic who felt the 3-hour block meeting schedule should be shortened by 30 minutes.Tact and going through official channels is something that many critics don't seem to grasp. I had to counsel a man who I was working on a volunteer activity recently. He was upset we couln't use Church facilities for his activity since he was asking for dues. Instead of asking why he immediately set about badmouthing the Bishops and Stake President housed in that building.It took me a while to help him understand the legal liability his actions would cause the church and that no one was questioning his inspiration for doing the activity, just trying to get him to do it in a more appropriate venue. I walked a fine line getting him to see the issues without alienating him from church activity.In a microcosm this is the key difference between loyal criticism and being a critic. Unfortunately those who are looking for reasons to be offended and blame the church don't seem to grasp this difference.
KevinG Posted February 8, 2012 Author Posted February 8, 2012 Don't follow this at all! Sounds like all it is then is policy. And what is the policy driven from? Divinity or control?You are late to this thread but in a nutshell.Temple covenants come with promises, blessings and eternal consequences for breaking covenants. We don't even allow new members to go until they have become strong in being able to live the gospel principles. To commit someone to covenants with serious eternal consequences without them being steadfast in being able to keep them would be a cruelty.The recommend process is voluntary. My Bishop does not read my tax receipts to check my tithing or rummage through my garbage to find if I have been drinking. My own signature on the recommend is the final and most important one.Anyone not able to attend the Temple has either not attended church or has voluntarily confessed a sin or weakness they need to work on in order to keep their covenants fully.Even being a witness to a sealing is an active part of the ceremony and commits those in attendance to covenant with God. There is no such thing as a passive audience in a sealing. There is no neutral audience.
Calm Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 While I appreciate the policy that only Temple-worthy people should be in the TempleIt is more than just being temple-worthy. All those who are witnesses to the sealing have undergone the endowment process themselves, which involves among other things being anointed to the priesthood.
Calm Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 it comes at a high cost in separating couples with parents that cannot witness the short but meaningful occasion.Is anything truly a "high cost" if it comes at the commandment of the Lord?
blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Is anything truly a "high cost" if it comes at the commandment of the Lord?Since I'm honoring my marital covenants I've made with the Lord where others wouldn't in my circumstances, I guess I can relate.There's no need to stamp my ticket to hell just yet.
KevinG Posted February 8, 2012 Author Posted February 8, 2012 Since I'm honoring my marital covenants I've made with the Lord where others wouldn't in my circumstances, I guess I can relate.There's no need to stamp my ticket to hell just yet.Don't worry about hell - we will baptize you after you are dead and force you to go to Mormon heaven.
DH Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 You should change no doctrines to please critics. You should only change doctrines as you come to realize the ones you have been teaching are false. Then, you should forthrightly acknowledge the change.Do I hear an 'AMEN'?
blueadept Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Don't worry about hell - we will baptize you after you are dead and force you to go to Mormon heaven. Since I've denied the LDS Gospel in this life, I've been told that wouldn't happen...
DH Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 You should change no doctrines to please critics. You should only change doctrines as you come to realize the ones you have been teaching are false. Then, you should forthrightly acknowledge the change.Do I hear an 'AMEN'?
KevinG Posted February 8, 2012 Author Posted February 8, 2012 Since I've denied the LDS Gospel in this life, I've been told that wouldn't happen... False notion there... you would have to have denied the Holy Ghost to be eternally damned. Sounds like some of your inlaws, friends or former spouse needs to chill on the hellfire and damnation a bit.Denying the Holy Ghost is a whole separate topic which would involve a rather substancial witness of God (ex. Moses or Isaiah) then rejecting Him with full knowledge of who He is. I don't think disagreement over the authorized church on this earth would be something we couldn't be corrected on or repent of. I certianly believe if I were wrong but earnest in trying to do the right thing I'd be saved. I extend that charity to others and believe God is infinately more charitable and understanding than I.
Calm Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 There's no need to stamp my ticket to hell just yet.Haven't even issued it yet.
selek1 Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Haven't even issued it yet. Wait....I thought this was the "express" basket.Does that mean there'll be no wine service on this flight?
Cobalt-70 Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 cinepro:Please show where any critic has been right as concerning LDS doctrine.I can do that. In the 1960s and 70s, critics of Mormonism complained about the LDS doctrine that blacks were less valiant than whites in the pre-existence. In the 19th century, lots of critics complained about the Adam-God doctrine, and about blood atonement. In each of these cases, the critics were proven right. 1
selek1 Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) I can do that. In the 1960s and 70s, critics of Mormonism complained about the LDS doctrine that blacks were less valiant than whites in the pre-existence. In the 19th century, lots of critics complained about the Adam-God doctrine, and about blood atonement. In each of these cases, the critics were proven right.Not just fail, but Epic fail.None of these matters were doctrine, despite their prurient appeal to demagogues, race-baiters, and rabble-rousers. Edited February 8, 2012 by selek1 1
Cobalt-70 Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Let us now decode Cobalt's boilerplate anti-Mormon falsehood.In 1879, two old men who were distantly related to Emma came forward with a wonderful story: that Joseph's first vision was a dream in which he saw the bleeding ghost of a murdered Spaniard. Nobody had ever heard of this story before Joseph and Hiel Lewis came forward to tell it. They subsequently claimed that Joseph had tried to join the local Methodist Church, but that one of them had objected on the grounds of Joseph's "bleeding ghost" story.The problem is that their father, the Reverend Nathaniel C. Lewis, had given an affidavit about Joseph more than forty years earlier. He knew nothing of the "bleeding ghost" story, or of any other "necromancy" Joseph practiced. He reluctantly admitted that he had no firsthand knowledge of Joseph doing anything wrong, but assumed that Joseph must have been being careful when he was around the Reverend.To sum up: the "bleeding ghost" story is a complete fabrication that has been utterly discredited.That said, people are still free to believe it if they really, really want to.Like Cobalt does.Dude, did I even mention the bleeding ghost story? I was talking about Smith's voluntary withdrawal from the Methodist church class in the Harmony area. Regardless of whether or not Smith actually described Moroni as a "bleeding ghost," nobody seriously doubts that Smith's in-laws thought he was a necromancer circa 1828. Smith's in-laws despised him, and they knew about his treasure quests and his aptitude with the magic stone. They didn't oppose Smith's membership in the class because of one "bleeding ghost" story. They questioned his character because he was a magician who claimed to speak with dead people.
cinepro Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Not just fail, but Epic fail.None of these matters were doctrine, despite their prurient appeal to demagogues, race-baiters, and rabble-rousers.Uh, I think you just made his point for him. Each of those points had defenders who, at the time, thought they were doctrine. Now we can say "none of these matters were doctrine". That's progress, and the critics at the time who thought these points weren't doctrine were right.So now the question is which things do we currently believe are "doctrines" for which future generations will classify us as demagogues, race-baiters or rabble-rousers for believing they are? I can't wait to find out. Edited February 9, 2012 by cinepro
selek1 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Uh, I think you just made his point for him. Each of those points had defenders who, at the time, thought they were doctrine.While I am- as always- open to correction, I don't believe these issues were ever presented to or represented by the Church as doctrine, despite the heartfelt revisionism practiced by the critics.
Cobalt-70 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Not just fail, but Epic fail.None of these matters were doctrine, despite their prurient appeal to demagogues, race-baiters, and rabble-rousers.They were indeed doctrines. False doctrines.
Cobalt-70 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 While I am- as always- open to correction, I don't believe these issues were ever presented to or represented by the Church as doctrine, despite the heartfelt revisionism practiced by the critics.Depends on at it means for the church to present something as doctrine. Does it count if Brigham Young is speaking over the pulpit in General Conference and declares it to be a crucial principle? Does it count if the doctrine makes it into the temple ceremony? Does it count if the "less valiant" idea is presented in an official First Presidency statement?
Pahoran Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Dude, did I even mention the bleeding ghost story?No. You weren't that honest.But, as you perfectly well know, your one and only source for this rooster-and-bull story used the "bleeding ghost" fabrication as the centrepiece of his tale. As you perfectly well know, his entire story depends upon the "bleeding ghost." As you perfectly well know, if that doesn't hold up, none of it does.Tell the truth, Cobalt: that's why you didn't mention it, isn't it?I was talking about Smith's voluntary withdrawal from the Methodist church class in the Harmony area. Regardless of whether or not Smith actually described Moroni as a "bleeding ghost," nobody seriously doubts that Smith's in-laws thought he was a necromancer circa 1828.Wrong, sorry. There are a great many informed people who reject this anti-Mormon hatchet job. The reality is that nobody seriously believes that Joseph was a "necromancer" circa 1828.Smith's in-laws despised him, and they knew about his treasure quests and his aptitude with the magic stone. They didn't oppose Smith's membership in the class because of one "bleeding ghost" story. They questioned his character because he was a magician who claimed to speak with dead people.I regret that I am unable to accept that you have a good faith basis on which to claim to believe what you assert.Regards,Pahoran 2
Bob Oliverio Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Anyone not able to attend the Temple has either not attended church or has voluntarily confessed a sin or weakness they need to work on in order to keep their covenants fully.I went through the temple. And it is a beautiful experience. But we should should not use an unsupported "guilt trip" to support truth. If we truly believe we are the Church of truth, should we ever be afraid such truths that set us apart?And with all my diligence, I can find nothing in scriptural truth nor revelatory truth that dictates the exclusionary requirements that we practice. I fully understand the emotions of tradition and respect them.But can anyone here reference Official Church Doctrine that sets forth the worthiness requirement we ask of anyone who can enter or witness the temple ceremonies? I am not trying to demean the Temple, but I have often wondered where our HF instructed us to exclude others or asked US to determine the worthiness of others and by what means. Where is it's truth? Where is our doctrine which supports such?I've often been asked if such is an ancient ceremony why we find no evidence of it in ancient Hebrew/Judaism practice. It's a good and fair question. If it was introduces by revelation - when and where? And if it is merely a policy, then why don't we just admit such as opposed to trying to hide behind Christian doctrine, or Mormon Doctrine. that simply does not exist. Can anyone here point to any doctrine or revelation on such practice, respectfully?? Should we be afraid of the question?
Jeff K. Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 The prophet and apostles have authority to dictate who may or may not enter the House of the Lord, they hold the keys.Doctrine and Covenants 95 and 109 and 110. You may want to lead the chapters to understand the context.
KevinG Posted February 9, 2012 Author Posted February 9, 2012 And with all my diligence, I can find nothing in scriptural truth nor revelatory truth that dictates the exclusionary requirements that we practice. I fully understand the emotions of tradition and respect them.But can anyone here reference Official Church Doctrine that sets forth the worthiness requirement we ask of anyone who can enter or witness the temple ceremonies? I am neither afraid or embarassed to admit we consider chastity, sobriety, tithing, a belief in God the Father and Jesus Christ, honesty and church attendance as requrements to participate in the Sacred ordinances of our church. I am not convinced that asking someone to voluntarily get their life in order and voluntarily seek out the Bishop for counsel and blessings when they fall short is imposing a guilt trip.http://www.lds.org/temples/purpose/holy/0,11707,2028-1,00.html A good primer on the Holy Temple and Worthiness.2 Chronicles 23:19 And he set the porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in.D&C 97:15 And inasmuch as my people abuild a bhouse unto me in the cname of the Lord, and do not suffer any dunclean thing to come into it, that it be not defiled, my eglory shall rest upon it; 16 Yea, and my apresence shall be there, for I will come into it, and all the bpure in heart that shall come into it shall see God. 17 But if it be defiled I will not come into it, and my glory shall not be there; for I will not come into aunholy temples.Note that these verses don't say unlcean people, they say unclean thing. The Lord (and His earthly servants) want everyone to come unto Christ in the Holy Temple. We just need to have faith in Him, covenant with Him and eschew our sins to be able to abide with Him.That took me all of 5 minutes to research. Your dilligence may want to include lds.org the next time you exercise it and don't find an answer.
Recommended Posts