Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

My Friendly Friday Questions


Recommended Posts

Ok here it is, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 493:

 

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
"Let it be done to me according to your word. .word.

 

I stand corrected.

 

Link to comment
On 12/11/2022 at 4:46 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Perhaps you mean that there is more than one Divine Being, that The Father is a Divine Being, that The Son is a separate Divine Being, and that The Holy Spirit is yet another Divine Being (Three separate and distinct "Divine Beings," which for Trinitarians would be heresies every which way).

I appreciate that for a Latter-day Saint you're just laying things out the way you understand them. For Trinitarians what you've written is going to be a series of category errors/heresies, which is just a fancy way of saying that I don't think we have compatible understandings of God, or that when we're talking about God, we're using the same word, i.e., "God," but have incompatible definitions.

Yes, this is exactly correct.

And we see category errors on your side; Wittgenstein would say we are mixing different language games.

And yes, we also believe that you and I could one day be Gods.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Very interesting, I was unaware of that view.

I would like to see something with an imprimatur/ nihil obstat on it though.

So then Mary might BE the incarnation of Heavenly Mother ! 😱

Maybe I am a Mormolic or Cathmon after all! ;)

 

Oh, please. I hope not. All we need is new sect....

I assure you Catholicism does teach of a sinless Mary...  she had to be sinless to deliver a pure birth don't ya know... I won't bother to take up the subject further here. Suffice it to say I brought it  up because I do believe in original sin, but not in the doctrine that teaches we are under it, and babies are damned without baptism, and Mary had to  be somehow exempt from it, etc. In Catholicism Mary was so pure, she can intercede for us... Anyway, I do not wish to be unduly critical here. I was just bringing up some points about the  calendar... Of course we know when the restored Church was founded. Maybe arrival in the SLV would be appropriate to memorialize. Anyone have opinions on other dates?

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

In Catholicism Mary was so pure, she can intercede for us

Intercession for me was always a stumbling block as well, but no need to go there on this topic.  

Link to comment

I've thought the union of Mary and the Feminine Holy Spirit of Wisdom purified her as though she were a sinless virgin, like other miraculous conceptions, like John the Baptist. Jesus says, John and He are children of the Divine Spirit of Wisdom as a mother, "Wisdom is justified of Her children" (Matthew 11:19) and in Gospel to the Hebrews in Origen on John, ii. 12 Jesus says, "Even now did my mother the Holy Spirit take me by one of mine hairs, and carried me away unto the great mountain Thabor', (also On Isa. xi. 9, My mother the Holy Spirit.” and On Ezek. xvi.13. My mother, the Holy Spirit). I think these two mothers fused or are confused. For one of Lady Wisdom's epitaphs is "The Virgin", such as the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, The Immanuel Prophesy originally said for King Ahaz to ask for as sign from a divine figure, the "Mother of the Lord", and the sign would be "The Virgin" will conceive. Echoing the Canaanite theology Wisdom Goddess Asherah, the Mother of all 70 patron gods, including Yhwh, and is also called "The Virgin" (Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit 1.15.ii.26-28) who conceives many royal and divine children. Somehow the inhuman winged Goddess depicted in Revelations 12, the Mother of the Christ-child, became interpreted as Mary when it's his other Mother. Sorry to interrupt with a rabbit hole, it just where my mind went.

Link to comment
On 12/11/2022 at 12:35 PM, BlueDreams said:

There likely is, there's more timelines for when the changes are made, since the vast majority of them happened very early by JS. Translations I would usually hear historical stories as to how it was first translated into a different language less so than the nitty gritties. But this is also not an area of big interest for me, so I'm likely just ignorant of the body of work that may be done around this.

Thank you for your kind, thoughtful, and clarifying response. I apologize for my own tardy response; between deep thinking, necessary travelling, and a little sickness it has, at last, taken a snow-in to summon me from mundane matters. I am grateful for both your response and for the unexpected blessing of too much snow in my driveway.

JustAnAustralian is recommending a book by a Dr. Skousen. It appears to be an excellent resource for my questions related to textual revisions and word choices. I won't be shy about additional questions, but I'll hold off on textual stuff until I've had a look at the Dr. Skousen book.  

On 12/11/2022 at 12:35 PM, BlueDreams said:

 

I don't know if this will help or not, but in your first set of questions, I thought it would be also important to look at this passage in mosiah 15: 1-9.... though the whole chapter holds merit. It doesn't mention Mary directly, but it explains a bit of how we view the titles "Father" and "Son" not just as specific beings, but as innate descriptors of what They do and are to us/each other. Mary isn't as venerated in our faith as catholic or eastern orthodox traditions. This doesn't mean she's not important, just that some of the grander claims and relationship with her isn't there for us. I, personally, am one who deeply values and seeks HM in study/understanding. I see Mary as a type of Her, filling a sacred role by taking on Her nature here in a very sacred call. That's why this passage directly parallels her to the Tree of Life, an ancient symbol of HM. Of course you don't have to go that esoteric to understand, that Mary was chosen of a very sacred role to bring Christ here and give Christ the nature/state of all humankind needed to accomplish His work. 

The Mosiah 15 passage is very interesting; I have vague memories of it from my reading of the Book of Mormon. With some clarifying phrases, particularly of the sort that would differentiate Persons and Being, it could be very Trinitarian in an orthodox sense. As it is, it seems to be consistent with Sabellianism, that is, with the Father incarnating as the Son and then becoming the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. A quick flip through one of my books on Fathers of the Early Church indicates that Saint Hippolytus declared Sabellianism heretical. However, I'm pretty sure that some very charismatic American Protestants picked it up in the 19th century and that it is the belief of at least a few Pentecostals today. There might be some interesting side trails....

Regardless, I must be disconnected from LDS thinking on this as Joseph Smith's vision in the woods presents the Father and the Son as two separate beings, and so  Sabellianism wouldn't be consistent with LDS belief. Maybe LDS folks see passages like this one as early understandings that are unfolded with greater clarity/precision later in the Book of Mormon and/or in the belief of Latter-day Saints over time.

Also, thanks for sharing your heartwarming affirmation of Mary's sacred call. As Advent moves into Christmas, I am meditating on how her soul "magnifies the Lord" (Luke 1:46). 

On 12/11/2022 at 12:35 PM, BlueDreams said:

I do think there is definitely a more blurred distinction in what is sacred, what is God, and how we humans relate to both. This doesn't mean there isn't any distinction....this distinction is in the full realization of God's divine nature. We are better described as divine potential. Potential that can be realized through Christ if we subject our will to the order of Christ to be healed and redeemed. As that happens we are incorporated into the order of God and partake in Their fullness. It's like saying a seed is a tree. It's not, but it has the potential to become one if cared for properly.

The seed-tree analogy is bringing clarity, I think. 

Somehow, discussions with Latter-day Saints frequently bring the "Christian Call and Election" passage in 2 Peter to mind (2 Peter 1:1-15).

 

On 12/11/2022 at 12:35 PM, BlueDreams said:

  

I can imagine why this would be a hard one to wrap one's head around. IMO, I think the trinity and our view on God is one of the more profound and understated differences out there. I went on a deep study of it recently, wanting to understand it better since my brother has fairly recently adopted a trinitarian view....but I also wanted to understand the general evolution of understanding the nature of God in general over the millenia. It gave me some sense of understanding about what's people, though it ironically made me less caring about who we lds defined God as seen as heresy or not. The Trinity to me was a means to maintain doctrinal stability and thread the hole between a monotheistic inheritance in Judaism and a divine trio overtly explained by Christ in a time when doctrine was very recently extremely diverse and loose in interpretation, including several that were flat out wrong. But I don't recognize the authority of the counsels that determined this interpretation and it's not explicitly laid out in the Bible without a presumption that it's there. Not that it flat out contradicts the bible, it's just not obvious or plainly laid out. (Funny side story, the same bro tried to prove that trinitarianism was plainly taught in the bible and not a godhead of three distinct beings who were one in purpose....only to choose 2 verses in a bible version that pointed to the reverse).

I can't recommend Edmund Hill's translation of St. Augustine's The Trinity (De Trinitate) enough. I think anyone interested in all of this would greatly benefit from St. Augustine's work, and even if they disagree with it. Lately I've been reviewing The Trinity for my Sunday afternoon reading--I embrace the cliche and curl up in a comfy chair by a fireplace.

On 12/11/2022 at 12:35 PM, BlueDreams said:

Prior, I remember feeling a sense of needing an absolute definition of God that fit the categorizations we generally have available. But after the study, I stopped caring. We're not exactly polytheistic, henotheistic, monotheistic, or any other clearly defined -ist out there....and neither is the history. We believe in a God that is basically Family....in holy oneness in relating/counsel and that we are both from and can return in full oneness with Them. God is both One and Them...Gods and God. And likewise our definition of sacred/holy can be both specific and expansive. Our definition from a trinitarian orthodoxy, is flatly not orthodox, even at its most basic construct. That's not really our aim anyways. Nor do we recognize the process that led to the codifying of the trinity doctrine as authoritative. You're not wrong on that. Not that I see that distinction as meaning we don't worship the same God. We just don't understand God in the same way.  I would also not that the same research paradoxically gave me more respect for the trinity view. I personally see it as a means that clipped at some really outlandish views that could have meant losing more truth in the process of maintaining strange ideologies. Just because I don't view the trinity as fully right doesn't mean that I think it was wholly wrong either. 

On 12/11/2022 at 12:35 PM, BlueDreams said:

Also in my studies, I found that the biggest fundamental difference for me when exploring how I relate to these doctrinal differences, was less in the how and what....but the why. As in the purpose and deeper meaning as to why God is the way God is and what it means for/to us. For me, God's nature has a fundamentally personal aspect to this. Knowing the nature of God is key to knowing the nature of me, those around me, our purposes, and all that there is. I still have struggled to understand the why of the trinity. As in why is it important both generally but personally as well? And I'm not sure if my focus on why is a personality/cultural difference in religious focus or just something I'm not getting. If you have a why I would love to hear it. I respect your perspectives and questions and would really like to more deeply understand what makes a trinitarian view so fundamental. 

 

Spirit is described in D+c 131 as a more purified/refined matter, that we can't see because we are not fully purified enough to see it. We don't believe in the immaterial. Offspring, spirits, children of God, intelligences, etc can be used fairly interchangeably. Though they may hold specific use or meaning depending the context of the use. So for example, we are all children/offspring of Heavenly Parents. But we are not all born again as children of Christ (eg God). Intelligence can also increase....it's not a fixed state.

Hopefully this adds more clarity than mud. But I can try to explain more clearly if this is just as confusing.

With luv,

BD  

Labels certainly have their limits. I could see how an LDS person might consider themself henotheistic, but within an Abrahamic framework, etc., but then want to qualify the label further, and at some point the labels just fail. The General Councils have their uses, and also their limits. They're always about settling disputes and answering questions, and so some folks always wound up with beliefs that weren't orthodox. One rhetorical evidence that relationships between LDS and Catholics are changing is that some folks on both sides are interested in "where the lines are" and "what the similarities are." That's a positive development, I feel.

As for your thoughtful musing about the Trinity and "why"-- I'm pulling my thoughts together as I re-read Saint Augustine's The Trinity, and will post about it the near future. There's just more than I can squeeze into this post.

I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas!

SB

Link to comment
On 12/13/2022 at 1:26 PM, Calm said:

I don’t know if it is official…why would she need to be immaculately conceived if she then went on to sin?

If I understand the reasoning, Mary has to be pure from sin from the moment of her conception to her death to be a fit new Ark of the Lord, just as the old Ark was untainted by anything impure in its construction and care.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-scripture-support-marys-sinlessness

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

 

I agree with all of this. The marian.org website quotes the following passages from the CCC:

 

Quote

 

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."[132] The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace." In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,[134] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.[135]

492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son."[136] The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love."[137]

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature."[138] By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

 

 

Link to comment

I'm reading Theology in Stone by Richard Kieckhefer. He's examining the connections between theology, community, and architecture, and describes three "traditions of church building" that are grouped around shared strengths and weaknesses. I'll post some examples; I hope to discuss how architecture impacts our experience of church spaces. On my part, this Friendly Friday question is prompted by my preference for classic sacramental churches for prayer, adoration, and Mass. The cathedral down the road from me is in the classic sacramental style. It is open from before dawn until the priests lock it up, and it is common to find people in it praying on most any day, and during any time of the day. The beautiful Catholic churches that always pop up in movies are of the classic sacramental type. I've had some experience with Catholic churches in the modern communal type. They're alright, although I've noticed that the attached parishes are usually less traditional; I feel less drawn to Adoration and daily prayer in those spaces, but I do feel strongly "gathered." Kieckhefer and I think that the differences in experience may be, in part, an effect of the architecture.

LDS churches seem to be in the classic evangelical mode, built with the lectern/pulpit as the architectural focus. 

Here are the three traditions:

Classic Sacramental

  • Liturgical use
    • Spatial dynamism: Longitudinal space for procession and return (kinetic dynamism)
    • Centering focus: Altar for sacrifice
  • Response elicited
    • Aesthetic impact (immediate): Dramatic setting for interplay of transcendence and immanence
    • Symbolic resonance (cumulative): High
  • Description: "The first tradition, that of the classic sacramental church, stretches back to the earliest generations of public church building and claims a rich and venerable history. One of its most familiar forms is sometimes called the basilican plan, a long structure with lower aisles on either side and an apse at the end. Variations can be found in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican parishes, and often in other traditions as well. Its standard features include a longitudinal nave (mainly for the congregation) and chancel (chiefly for the clergy), allowing for processions of various kinds from one end to another. The chancel is traditionally at the east end, the nave at the west. Layout and terminology vary, but one standard arrangement is for the chancel to be subdivided into the sanctuary (with the altar) and the choir (with choir stalls). The focal point of a classic sacramental church is the altar, the place of sacrament to which the longitudinal space leads. If a church of this type is based on a coherent aesthetic vision, it is usually one meant to evoke the immanence of God and the possibility among worshippers for transcendence of ordinary consciousness. Such churches often abound with symbolic forms and decorations, making them rich in symbolic resonance." (Kieckhefer, 2004, 11) 

Classic Evangelical

  • Liturgical use
    • Spatial dynamism: Auditorium space for proclamation and response (verbal dynamism)
    • Centering focus: Pulpit for preaching
  • Response elicited
    • Aesthetic impact (immediate): Dignified setting for edification
    • Symbolic resonance (cumulative): Low
  • Description: "The second tradition, the classic evangelical church, is meant chiefly for preaching the gospel. The interior is an auditorium, with the pulpit at its focal point. Its space is often relatively small, encouraging spontaneous interaction between preacher and congregation. The main aesthetic goal is to create a space for edification of individuals and of the congregation. The building itself may be relatively plain; in any case it will usually be less adorned with symbolic decorations than a classic sacramental church. Variations on this form were built by sixteenth-century Huguenots and Dutch reformers. The design was taken over and transformed at the hands of nineteenth-century urban revival preachers and again by modern evangelicals with the latest technology at their command." (Kieckhefer, 2004, 11-12)

Modern Communal

  • Liturgical use
    • Spatial dynamism: Transitional space for movement from gathering to worship area
    • Centering focus: Multiple and movable
  • Response elicited
    • Aesthetic impact (immediate): Hospitable setting for celebration
    • Symbolic resonance (cumulative): Moderate
  • Description: "The third tradition, more recent in origin than the others, might be called the modern communal church. Built for both Protestant and Catholic Congregations, this kind of church is meant to emphasize the importance of gathering people for worship, often around an altar or pulpit. Such a church is usually built with ample space for social mingling at the entry; the importance of gathering people is highlighted by this provision of social space. More often than in other designs, the modern communal church is built for a congregation that is not already formed as a community in everyday life and that thus needs to be constituted as a social community en route to the place where it becomes a worshipping community. Seating is often wrapped around three sides of the interior, heightening a sense of group identity. The assembly itself thus may become the focus of attention. The atmosphere is meant to be warm and inviting, to create a hospitable environment for celebration. And while symbolic resonance is not usually as dense as in a classic sacramental church, symbolic reference is often richer than in a classic evangelical setting." (Kieckhefer, 2004, 12)
Link to comment

The inside of the old Provo Tabernacle:

image.jpeg.beb9eb2af7a622ccba64e35a39799d57.jpeg

I can’t find a good non copyrighted photo of the Tabernacle in Salt Lake that is not a performance setup and still gives the almost full sense of being there, which is quite cool.  I remember being at a couple of Sunday meetings, taken by my great aunts or grandmother.  There was a cry room, glassed in area under the back balcony if my memory is accurate.  A number of older churches had them in my youth, possibly added in an older renovation, but I think most have been removed in later renovations.  So pretend the stage isn’t there and pews are and there’s no fancy lighting.  And the sound tech box…either much smaller (leaning towards this as I remember it blocking my view a bit) or not there at all (I am trying to remember 50 years ago and not get confused with pictures I have seen and visits just walking around since then…impossible, but hopefully I am close).  The dark richness of the wood everywhere contrasting with the white arched ceiling left me somewhat uncomfortable, but it was a place of great beauty to me.

image.jpeg.62779a44b9788c66e002efacdb630613.jpeg

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

The inside of the old Provo Tabernacle:

image.jpeg.beb9eb2af7a622ccba64e35a39799d57.jpeg

I can’t find a good non copyrighted photo of the Tabernacle in Salt Lake that is not a performance setup and still gives the almost full sense of being there, which is quite cool.  I remember being at a couple of Sunday meetings, taken by my great aunts or grandmother.  There was a cry room, glassed in area under the back balcony if my memory is accurate.  A number of older churches had them in my youth, possibly added in an older renovation, but I think most have been removed in later renovations.  So pretend the stage isn’t there and pews are and there’s no fancy lighting.  And the sound tech box…either much smaller (leaning towards this as I remember it blocking my view a bit) or not there at all (I am trying to remember 50 years ago and not get confused with pictures I have seen and visits just walking around since then…impossible, but hopefully I am close).  The dark richness of the wood everywhere contrasting with the white arched ceiling left me somewhat uncomfortable, but it was a place of great beauty to me.

image.jpeg.62779a44b9788c66e002efacdb630613.jpeg

The Tabernacle is just beautiful--so very beautiful. I think that one blessing of a church building can be its beauty.

In terms of the current discussion, the Tabernacle appears to be a fantastic example of the classic evangelical style, with attention directed at the pulpit/lectern and the walls and ceiling built to magnify voices (auditorium style).

I've seen the pipe organ somewhere; maybe on the front of a CD for the Tabernacle Choir. The organ pipes seem like a gesture to the City of God (from Revelation and St. Augustine).

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

An example of the modern communal type:

See the source image

And a great shot of a beautiful space, emphasizing those strong diagonals, causing the crucifix to pop out with its contrasting square corners, and softer curves of floor and the half circle above the crucifix. Wow.  Just wow!

You have the hard and sharp diagonals of earth contrasting with the soft curves of heaven above.

What a space, and what an image!!

Amazing!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

The organ pipes seem like a gesture to the City of God (from Revelation and St. Augustine).

Yes, the skyline of the City with the blue sky above, perhaps at twilight?!

Never noticed that before.

You would love our temples, and many interior shots are available 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm reading Theology in Stone by Richard Kieckhefer. He's examining the connections between theology, community, and architecture, and describes three "traditions of church building" that are grouped around shared strengths and weaknesses. I'll post some examples; I hope to discuss how architecture impacts our experience of church spaces. On my part, this Friendly Friday question is prompted by my preference for classic sacramental churches for prayer, adoration, and Mass. The cathedral down the road from me is in the classic sacramental style. It is open from before dawn until the priests lock it up, and it is common to find people in it praying on most any day, and during any time of the day. The beautiful Catholic churches that always pop up in movies are of the classic sacramental type. I've had some experience with Catholic churches in the modern communal type. They're alright, although I've noticed that the attached parishes are usually less traditional; I feel less drawn to Adoration and daily prayer in those spaces, but I do feel strongly "gathered." Kieckhefer and I think that the differences in experience may be, in part, an effect of the architecture.

LDS churches seem to be in the classic evangelical mode, built with the lectern/pulpit as the architectural focus. 

Here are the three traditions:

Classic Sacramental

  • Liturgical use
    • Spatial dynamism: Longitudinal space for procession and return (kinetic dynamism)
    • Centering focus: Altar for sacrifice
  • Response elicited
    • Aesthetic impact (immediate): Dramatic setting for interplay of transcendence and immanence
    • Symbolic resonance (cumulative): High
  • Description: "The first tradition, that of the classic sacramental church, stretches back to the earliest generations of public church building and claims a rich and venerable history. One of its most familiar forms is sometimes called the basilican plan, a long structure with lower aisles on either side and an apse at the end. Variations can be found in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican parishes, and often in other traditions as well. Its standard features include a longitudinal nave (mainly for the congregation) and chancel (chiefly for the clergy), allowing for processions of various kinds from one end to another. The chancel is traditionally at the east end, the nave at the west. Layout and terminology vary, but one standard arrangement is for the chancel to be subdivided into the sanctuary (with the altar) and the choir (with choir stalls). The focal point of a classic sacramental church is the altar, the place of sacrament to which the longitudinal space leads. If a church of this type is based on a coherent aesthetic vision, it is usually one meant to evoke the immanence of God and the possibility among worshippers for transcendence of ordinary consciousness. Such churches often abound with symbolic forms and decorations, making them rich in symbolic resonance." (Kieckhefer, 2004, 11) 

Classic Evangelical

  • Liturgical use
    • Spatial dynamism: Auditorium space for proclamation and response (verbal dynamism)
    • Centering focus: Pulpit for preaching
  • Response elicited
    • Aesthetic impact (immediate): Dignified setting for edification
    • Symbolic resonance (cumulative): Low
  • Description: "The second tradition, the classic evangelical church, is meant chiefly for preaching the gospel. The interior is an auditorium, with the pulpit at its focal point. Its space is often relatively small, encouraging spontaneous interaction between preacher and congregation. The main aesthetic goal is to create a space for edification of individuals and of the congregation. The building itself may be relatively plain; in any case it will usually be less adorned with symbolic decorations than a classic sacramental church. Variations on this form were built by sixteenth-century Huguenots and Dutch reformers. The design was taken over and transformed at the hands of nineteenth-century urban revival preachers and again by modern evangelicals with the latest technology at their command." (Kieckhefer, 2004, 11-12)

Modern Communal

  • Liturgical use
    • Spatial dynamism: Transitional space for movement from gathering to worship area
    • Centering focus: Multiple and movable
  • Response elicited
    • Aesthetic impact (immediate): Hospitable setting for celebration
    • Symbolic resonance (cumulative): Moderate
  • Description: "The third tradition, more recent in origin than the others, might be called the modern communal church. Built for both Protestant and Catholic Congregations, this kind of church is meant to emphasize the importance of gathering people for worship, often around an altar or pulpit. Such a church is usually built with ample space for social mingling at the entry; the importance of gathering people is highlighted by this provision of social space. More often than in other designs, the modern communal church is built for a congregation that is not already formed as a community in everyday life and that thus needs to be constituted as a social community en route to the place where it becomes a worshipping community. Seating is often wrapped around three sides of the interior, heightening a sense of group identity. The assembly itself thus may become the focus of attention. The atmosphere is meant to be warm and inviting, to create a hospitable environment for celebration. And while symbolic resonance is not usually as dense as in a classic sacramental church, symbolic reference is often richer than in a classic evangelical setting." (Kieckhefer, 2004, 12)

It is my understanding that Early Christian Churches were designed to get away from Synagogues and rather, be like Temples. After all, it wasn't a mere meeting house, it was the venue of Ordinances, Temple Ordinances, and the expense and designs were appropriate as a Temple. The grounds were sacred, the chapel was a large, most interior room was like a Holy of Holies where ordinances took place, the Eucharist was Temple Bread and Libations placed on the Alter as a replacement for animal sacrifice. The Protestants don't seem to know or appreciate sacred structures and the power and importance of ordinances to know why they should abide the traditions. Modernizing things, shifting the focus... as a fan of Temple worship, I wish they try to retain some of the older ways though they don't know they are temple traditions. Like the church porters at the doors that shakes hands as people enter, the church bride who wears a veil to her wedding and call it "tying the knot". After a solid priesthood claim, sacred grounds are my next reason why I'd stick with Catholics as my second favorite. Its more than the sake of beauty, it has functionality for respecting God, to invite God's presence with our best offerings for His pleasure and ours as we are invited to the house we built for him to dwell among His people. 

Creation Rooms

Image result for lds temple creation roomImage result for lds temple creation room

Image result for lds temple creation roomImage result for lds temple creation room

Celestial Rooms

Image result for temple lds rooms differentImage result for LDS Temple Celestial Room

Image result for LDS Temple Celestial RoomImage result for LDS Temple Celestial Room

Sealing Rooms

Image result for temple lds rooms differentImage result for LDS Sealing Room

Image result for LDS Sealing RoomImage result for LDS Sealing Room

Baptismal Fonts

Image result for LDS Temple Celestial RoomImage result for temple lds pews

Image result for LDS Temple Celestial RoomImage result for LDS Temple Celestial Room

Hope you had a Merry Christmas

Image result for lds temple cathedrals altersImage result for lds tabernacle christmas interior

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Is there such a thing as a charismatic Latter-day Saint? Might someone break out with the gift of tongues during an LDS meeting?

I've done a little searching, and while I've found official references to gifts of the spirit, I haven't found any examples of them being deployed in a large meeting. The photographs of narrow spaces between the pews in LDS meeting houses suggest the answer to my question is "no," but I thought I'd ask just the same.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Is there such a thing as a charismatic Latter-day Saint? Might someone break out with the gift of tongues during an LDS meeting?

I've done a little searching, and while I've found official references to gifts of the spirit, I haven't found any examples of them being deployed in a large meeting. The photographs of narrow spaces between the pews in LDS meeting houses suggest the answer to my question is "no," but I thought I'd ask just the same.

It’s very unlikely.  I have to say I’d probably get very uncomfortable and might have to “take an important call in the parking lot.”  

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Is there such a thing as a charismatic Latter-day Saint? Might someone break out with the gift of tongues during an LDS meeting?

I've done a little searching, and while I've found official references to gifts of the spirit, I haven't found any examples of them being deployed in a large meeting. The photographs of narrow spaces between the pews in LDS meeting houses suggest the answer to my question is "no," but I thought I'd ask just the same.

In the early church, yes it was a regular practice to speak in tongues, but that sort of thing has pretty much been replaced by  Fast and testimony meeting. Once a month we have a Sacrament meeting, usually on the 1st Sunday of the month, which we have fasted 24 hours to attend.  Fasting is optional.

 We then have an open mic in which people get up and testify about their experiences and their testimonies.  Sometimes the spirit is very strong. There can be a lot of emotion expressed. 

But typically there is a spirit of dignity retained.

 There may not be a dry eye in the house but there is no jumping around or loud expressions.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

There are times missionaries speak of having a much better command of their new language when speaking in meetings or teaching someone than they do either before or after that event.  We see this as a variation of the gift of tongues.  Also even learning a new language for the purpose of teaching the gospel may be seen as a special gift, as could any talent so used.

But as said above, what most people think of is highly unlikely to occur in our meetings, at least those in the countries I have been in.  I don’t know if it might occur in places that are more comfortable with the practice, allowing the Spirit greater influence in this way on the individual and the congregation (assuming it is an actual expression of the Spirit which I believe it can be, but also at times is not; we believe anytime it happens there is someone available to interpret what is being said for the edification of those present, whether the same person or someone else).

I believe some assumed when glossolalia occurred, it was believed that they were speaking in the language of Adam, but that is a vague memory and I may be wrong.

This is a good summary:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/gift-of-tongues?lang=eng

Quote

The Lord answered that even though some false spiritual displays had entered into the Church, Latter-day Saints could discern true from false manifestations, including instances of glossolalia, so long as they followed the Holy Spirit and the patterns set forth by the Lord.8 Joseph later warned the Saints that Satan could manipulate tongue-speaking and that the Lord would never reveal Church doctrine by this practice.9 He further clarified, “Tongues were given for the purpose of preaching among those whose language is not understood,” adding that anyone “that has the Holy Ghost can speak of the things of God in his own tongue, as well as to speak in another.”10

Some more detail:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-33?lang=eng

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 12/31/2022 at 8:26 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Some religious traditions place a high value on sacred space, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Catholic Church are certainly two of those traditions. Thanks for sharing the photos of LDS' sacred spaces and your thoughts; it's always a pleasure to find another person who "gets it" regarding sacred spaces, symbols, and rituals. My understanding is that LDS regard entering the Temple as entering a space of holy refuge, and that's an experience with which I identify. 

Regarding my Protestant friends, I think there's a connection between sola scriptura and church spaces that focus on the lectern and the edification of preaching (Kieckhefer also seems to see this connection). Lecterns and skillful preaching are certainly great things; at the same time, I don't believe that Truth is limited to spoken and written language. Gesture, posture, texture, clothing, architecture, icons, symbols, interior design, stained glass, statues, frescoes, gardens, and so many others are also receptacles of Truth. So, I'm not a fan of the iconoclasts and respectfully disagree with an exclusive focus on words, and even as words can be beautiful and Truthful.

Regarding early Christian church buildings, the era of meeting outside and in house churches and so on, I have read Jeanne Halgren Kilde's book, Sacred Power, Sacred Space. She has a chapter on early Christian meeting spaces, and also material on how those spaces evolved over time. I don't know how her discussion would intersect LDS thinking on these things, but I've found her perspective helpful. Maybe I'll say a little about it in another post.  

I hope that you and yours are having a Merry Christmas too!

 

The temple endowment is the experience of traveling through the life and death and exaltation of "everyman" symbolically while more ostensibly also moving through a Hebrew temple, ending in the Celestial room, representing the celestial Kingdom, "Heaven".

You'd love it. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Found one reference to the Adamic language, there may be more, but stopping my search.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5990&context=etd

 

image.png

Great stuff.

I take this as teaching in a metaphor that language is confounded by ambiguity and cannot represent the reality of spiritual experience, which is ineffable and that now we see through a glass darkly.

This whole board demonstrates the ambiguity of language and resultant confusion with virtually every thread

Link to comment
17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s very unlikely.  I have to say I’d probably get very uncomfortable and might have to “take an important call in the parking lot.”  

I can relate to this. My parish offers a reverent, traditional, but still Novus Ordo (mostly in vernacular language) Mass. When I travel, I sometimes need to find a Mass and a couple of times the Mass I could attend was more on the "Trentecostal" side, that is, more charismatically expressive. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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