The bare minimum.

[Chum]

14 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

He used to also command blacks couldn't enter the temple. 

And He didn't say why. And it sucked. And then he rescinded it. And that unsucked. And He didn't explain why He rescinded either. And that's it.

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Chum said:

What I'm going to say here is entirely meant to broaden perspective.

We often care about what we're forced to care about.

One group that we won't see at church (as with most churches) are those with impactful social anxieties. It's people who can't do crowded spaces. It's a LOT of people and they're all under the radar because who would they tell? If we bring up the issue, we'll all forget in a few minutes because we have no idea how to help them.

I only care because my psyche is changed and I feel that anxiety now - just not as strongly as they do. However, if I'm asked to pointlessly crowd-in for a lesson, I'm not going to.

That describes my oldest son who is on the autism spectrum and has dealt with serious social anxiety. I didn’t understand any of that and just he was being rebellious and didn’t want to go to church. When he was about 15, he somehow agreed to give a talk in sacrament meeting. He got increasingly stressed as it drew closer, so I helped him write it and practice it. That Sunday he gave us all kinds of reasons why he couldn’t go to church. I of course thought this would a chance for him to get over what I saw as shyness. He actually gave the talk but then went straight home and stayed in his room. I still feel terrible that we pretty much made him go through with it. He has forgiven us. 

[MiserereNobis]

30 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

The temple is no different compared to how my children handled entry into their tree fort. Dont forget, just a few years ago we wouldn't allow certain people in the temple because of what they look like. Right now we exclude most of Heavenly Father's righteous children because we're scared we might lose or mishandle the authority we've been entrusted with. I think that comes from being persecuted for so so  many years. We need to stop looking at other religions as less than. 

What would I, as a Catholic, do if I were admitted to your temple? This is a sincere question. I know rituals are performed there, but I know very little about them. What purpose, from your point-of-view, would it serve me? I guess I'd just watch the ritual?

[Jerry Atric]

11 minutes ago, Chum said:

And He didn't say why. And it sucked. And then he rescinded it. And that unsucked. And He didn't explain why He rescinded either. And that's it.

Could he rescind the exclusion of nonmembers? Because that's my point. Could you see a day when nonmembers can enter the temple to be baptized for their deceased loved ones?

[ksfisher]

Just now, Jerry Atric said:

Could he rescind the exclusion of nonmembers? Because that's my point. Could you see a day when nonmembers can enter the temple to be baptized for their deceased loved ones?

His house, His rules.

I'm not sure why someone who doesn't want to be baptized themselves would want one of their ancestors to be baptized though.

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Christ walked with sinners, but he never threw open the temple doors for all to enter for whatever reason they cared to.

In fact, he could get picky about who was even on the temple grounds. Forgetting the episode with the whip perhaps?

Christ identitied the temple as a house of prayer.

I think you are confusing the purpose of temples which are about receiving ordinances, not conversion,  with chapels. I don’t see watching endowments as being all that convincing if one is not prepared for it, more likely confused at best and disdainful at worst.   Being in the temple is not a spectator sport. It is the act of doing the act of covenant yourself for yourself or for someone else that can be life changing, not watching others…just as making a shot fall into the basket from half court at the last second is a very different feeling than watching someone else do it.  One could be life changing, the other forgotten by the time one got home.

And given the changes the spectators would need to make to become participants, seems like we would be seen by many as doing our prayers in public for bragging rights and as almost rubbing it in their noses that we have something  they don’t and can’t have unless they become like us.  

We need to do better in welcoming all in our chapels and maybe we should put more effort into making our chapels be a place of beauty as well as of function so that they better convey peace and God’s loving attention, including places for contemplation (I would love that) , but temples are a place for those ready and willing to align their wills with God, to accept his covenants.  Suggesting the nonmembers or nonrecommend holders just stand around and watch turns the actual participants into performers rather than having a chance at having an intimate moment with God.

Thanks for your always excellent replies. Perhaps it is a question for another place and time, but I wonder what my LDS friends believe about the distinctions and differences between the first and second Jerusalem temple as far as being a place for worship and the presence of God? I also would like to ask Christ some day in the eternities what it was exactly that made Him so mad at the temple during his life. Was it the actual buying and selling, or the hypocrisy in so doing? Perhaps I would simply ask if anyone knows of any writings by LDS scholars on the difference as they perceive them between the first and second temple, especially with regards to God's presence there. Thanks.

[Chum]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That describes my oldest son who is on the autism spectrum and has dealt with serious social anxiety. I didn’t understand any of that and just he was being rebellious and didn’t want to go to church. When he was about 15, he somehow agreed to give a talk in sacrament meeting. He got increasingly stressed as it drew closer, so I helped him write it and practice it. That Sunday he gave us all kinds of reasons why he couldn’t go to church. I of course thought this would a chance for him to get over what I saw as shyness. He actually gave the talk but then went straight home and stayed in his room. I still feel terrible that we pretty much made him go through with it. He has forgiven us. 

I have plenty of those anecdotes. One of my sons brings them up occasionally to example of my bad parenting. I tend to agree with him because objectively he's right.

I feel some regret but I set most of it aside*. My duty now is to set right what I can and improve all of our lives. To do that I can't be crippled by the full weight of my mistakes.

* I have that guy-quality where I forget about things that I probably should pay attention to. I no longer see it as a fault but a gift of incalculable value, one to be used with wisdom.

[Jerry Atric]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

What would I, as a Catholic, do if I were admitted to your temple? This is a sincere question. I know rituals are performed there, but I know very little about them. What purpose, from your point-of-view, would it serve me? I guess I'd just watch the ritual?

Never said you would have to partake in any mormon rituals. Let me ask you, let's say we allowed nonmembers to enter the temple one day a week,  would you be interested to see what the inside a mormon temple looked like?  Would you go inside? What if you could eat at the cafeteria for cheap or possibly free? The celestial room in a mormon temple is one of the most beautiful rooms you'll ever walk in. Would you enter just to see the celestial room? 

I've been in many beautiful catholic cathedrals. I'm very glad the catholic church allows nonmembers to enjoy their most precious buildings and art work.

[Chum]

11 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

Could he rescind the exclusion of nonmembers? Because that's my point.

Sure. He's God. He can do whatever He wants. Will He? I have no idea but if He does, I doubt we'll know why.

However, one day I expect to have an accounting. If God isn't explainy about some of this stuff then I'll just evolve until I can force an explanation from Him. Respectfully, that is.

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

Never said you would have to partake in any mormon rituals. Let me ask you, let's say we allowed nonmembers to enter the temple one day a week,  would you be interested to see what the inside a mormon temple looked like?  Would you go inside? What if you could eat at the cafeteria for cheap or possibly free? The celestial room in a mormon temple is one of the most beautiful rooms you'll ever walk in. Would you enter just to see the celestial room? 

I've been in many beautiful catholic cathedrals. I'm very glad the catholic church allows nonmembers to enjoy their most precious buildings and art work.

Sure, I'd go check things out if it was a possibility, but I wouldn't be agitating for a change so I could. I was just wondering what I would do (because obviously I wouldn't get involved in any ritual). I'm not sure about eating at a cafeteria, sounds rather mundane, ha. I didn't know there were cafeterias in temples. Checking out beautiful architecture is fine with me.

[Jerry Atric]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

His house, His rules.

I'm not sure why someone who doesn't want to be baptized themselves would want one of their ancestors to be baptized though.

Really? What about a nonmember daughter entering the temple so she can be baptized for her excommunicated mom just incase her mom changes her mind about the gospel in spirit heaven? Maybe the nonmember daughter promised her mormon dad she would do that for him. You couldn't see that happening?

[Jerry Atric]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Sure, I'd go check things out if it was a possibility, but I wouldn't be agitating for a change so I could. I was just wondering what I would do (because obviously I wouldn't get involved in any ritual). I'm not sure about eating at a cafeteria, sounds rather mundane, ha. I didn't know there were cafeterias in temples. Checking out beautiful architecture is fine with me.

Thank you for answering. Was there ever a time only catholics were allowed in catholic cathedrals? Because I've never researched that. 

Do you think the beauty of catholic cathedrals play a part in converting some people to Catholicism? 

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

Really? What about a nonmember daughter entering the temple so she can be baptized for her excommunicated mom just incase her mom changes her mind about the gospel in spirit heaven? Maybe the nonmember daughter promised her mormon dad she would do that for him. You couldn't see that happening?

No.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Jerry Atric said:

Her passages do not refute the point I'm making.

They absolutely are refuting 'a' point you are making.  One that you are refusing to acknowledge.  I quoted your post where you claimed the temple should not be viewed as a refuge.  The scriptures clearly refute that.  Are you going to continue to side-step that point?

1 hour ago, Jerry Atric said:

Are Christians God's covenant people? If so, are you able to define a Christian?

No, not all Christians are his covenant people.  Only those who have been adopted into the Abrahamic covenant through baptism.   This is derail from my line of questioning though.

1 hour ago, Jerry Atric said:

Of course! Are we not all missionaries? Are we not here to convert as many people as possible to the Gospel? We should be using the temples to promote the gospel. Why do you want to deny entry to the people who would benefit the most?

Yes, we should all act as missionaries.  Yes, we are here to help convert to the gospel.  No, we should not be using temple attendance (and thus covenant making) with non members to promote the gospel.  I want to deny entry because they are not prepared to enter into the covenants of the temple - nor would they want to enter into those covenants if they don't believe in the gospel.  We would be doing them a disservice.   The gospel of Jesus Christ leads us along a progressive path of covenants.  We don't start at the end or take meat before milk. 

1 hour ago, Jerry Atric said:

This made me laugh. You do realize why the church was restored? We're a "in the last days" religion. Everything we believe in is based on an apostasy. Do you not believe that? Are you telling me you don't think we're heading for an apostasy? 

No, we have been promised that the priesthood will never be taken from the earth again.  No great apostasy.  Are you a new convert?  I only ask because this is basic doctrine. 

1 hour ago, Jerry Atric said:

Why would you ask this question?

Because people have come on here before claiming that the church is in apostacy or heading towards apostacy who fancied themselves a prophet.  They knew better than everyone, including those called by God to lead his church.  Same kind of vibe here with you. 

I did edit it out before you posted because I felt I was being a little harsh.  But I do get the same vibe. 

1 hour ago, Jerry Atric said:

Why would you ask this question? Is it because I believe God wants more than .1% of his children to enjoy the blessings of the temple? .1%, are you OK with that percentage? 

 I ask the question because you seem to think the church is off the tracks and is completely misguided.  You seem to think that you know the purpose of life better than our prophets.  So, it makes sense to me that you would not want to be part of such a church that was so off tracks and may want to start some reformed version of it.  They all start with people who sound just like you. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by pogi

[Navidad]

34 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

His house, His rules.

I'm not sure why someone who doesn't want to be baptized themselves would want one of their ancestors to be baptized though.

Might I offer a bit of a different perspective? It isn't that I don't want to be baptized. It is that I don't want to be baptized again. Again is the operative word there. My baptism was very important to me. To be fair, I don't see myself ever joining another church that required me to be baptized again, especially if the rationale for that was that my baptism wasn't pleasing to God or valid in his eyes. I can't imagine my hardshell ancestor Lutherans, Presbyterians, Mennonites, and Baptists being too thrilled about it either. Of course I can't, won't and don't speak for those who have never been baptized.

I can't fathom in my final interview before Christ on judgment day, Him asking me where, when, and how I was baptized as a criterion for eternal life with Him forever. Take care.

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I want to deny entry because they are not prepared to enter into the covenants of the temple - nor would they want to enter into those covenants if they don't believe in the gospel.

Hi my friend. I am intrigued by this statement. Let me try and word a question carefully. Please feel free not to answer it if that is your best judgment. Do you believe there are covenants made (without disclosing any of them) in the temple that faithful non-LDS Christians would not, do not, or have not made themselves in their faith's journey? A simple yes or no would be fine. Oh, and an "I am going to ignore this question would be fine too!

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I am intrigued by this statement. Let me try and word a question carefully. Please feel free not to answer it if that is your best judgment. Do you believe there are covenants made (without disclosing any of them) in the temple that faithful non-LDS Christians would not, do not, or have not made themselves in their faith's journey? A simple yes or no would be fine. Oh, and an "I am going to ignore this question would be fine too!

Yes, there are temple covenants that non-LDS Christians have not made and would not make.

Edited August 24, 2022 by pogi

[Vanguard]

18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Might I offer a bit of a different perspective? It isn't that I don't want to be baptized. It is that I don't want to be baptized again. Again is the operative word there. My baptism was very important to me. To be fair, I don't see myself ever joining another church that required me to be baptized again, especially if the rationale for that was that my baptism wasn't pleasing to God or valid in his eyes. I can't imagine my hardshell ancestor Lutherans, Presbyterians, Mennonites, and Baptists being too thrilled about it either. Of course I can't, won't and don't speak for those who have never been baptized.

I can't fathom in my final interview before Christ on judgment day, Him asking me where, when, and how I was baptized as a criterion for eternal life with Him forever. Take care.

All totally understandable. I look at it as a question of whether or not said individual (you?) believed that indeed the message the LDS faith carries is the message our Father-in-Heaven wanted the individual to have. If that were the case, then getting baptized again would be a no brainer, correct? It wouldn't make sense to claim a conversion to the message but then resist the baptism that goes with it.

As for what conversation may be had with Deity in the hereafter, again, if aspects of the LDS message (including covenants such as baptism) is what the Savior wants for everyone and if you haven't by that point had the opportunity (who knows what that looks like?!) to accept said message until after you've died, it will all be a no-brainer since the LDS believe everyone will receive the ordinance of baptism through priesthood authority and will be given the opportunity to accept or not.

I have always believed that once I am brought to a more full knowledge of my Savior after I die, all other considerations will become secondary to accepting him. If he tells me we (the LDS) should have done this or that differently in this mortality, I believe it will be a no-brainer for me to accept this. 

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, there are temple covenants that non-LDS Christians have not made and would not make.

Thanks. That is helpful. The reason I asked is because I found the LDS baptismal covenants to be remarkably similar to baptismal covenants I made and asked folks to make prior to baptizing them. I have also met some Saints who had no idea that non-LDS Christians ever make covenants with the Lord. They seemed to think that covenants and the making of covenants is strictly an LDS phenomenon. Take care and thanks.

[webbles]

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Might I offer a bit of a different perspective? It isn't that I don't want to be baptized. It is that I don't want to be baptized again. Again is the operative word there. My baptism was very important to me. To be fair, I don't see myself ever joining another church that required me to be baptized again, especially if the rationale for that was that my baptism wasn't pleasing to God or valid in his eyes. I can't imagine my hardshell ancestor Lutherans, Presbyterians, Mennonites, and Baptists being too thrilled about it either. Of course I can't, won't and don't speak for those who have never been baptized.

I can't fathom in my final interview before Christ on judgment day, Him asking me where, when, and how I was baptized as a criterion for eternal life with Him forever. Take care.

I've talked about this idea (being baptized again) with others and I think, for me, the best example I can give is Acts 18:24-28 and Acts 19:1-6.  In that story, Apollos (a believer of Christ) was preaching and baptizing people.  Interestingly, the writer of Acts says that he knew "only the baptism of John".  Then Paul comes a long and meets people who were baptized by Apollos.  He then asks them which baptism they had received and they say "Unto John's baptism".  He then proceeds to rebaptize them.

Was their former baptism displeasing to God?  I would say no.  By being baptized by Apollos, did they sin or do anything wrong?  I would say no as well.  Did Apollos sin by baptizing them "incorrectly"?  I would say no.  But for some reason, Paul felt that they needed to be rebaptized.  For us, Paul had the correct authority to baptize while Apollos didn't.  Apollos was trying to do his best with what he knew and there is no wrong in that.  He was preaching, teaching, and baptizing.  He was converting people to Christ.  God was pleased with his actions.  But all of Apollos baptisms need to be redone as they were performed without proper authority.  Paul had that authority and so he could do the baptisms.

I don't think Christ will ask us where, when, or how I was baptized either.  I believe that every single person will be baptized by then as well (through proxy baptisms in the temples).  So it isn't going to be whether the person was baptized or not (as everyone will be baptized), it will be whether they accept the commitment that baptism entails (taking upon us the name of Christ and believing in Him).

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks. That is helpful. The reason I asked is because I found the LDS baptismal covenants to be remarkably similar to baptismal covenants I made and asked folks to make prior to baptizing them. I have also met some Saints who had no idea that non-LDS Christians ever make covenants with the Lord. They seemed to think that covenants and the making of covenants is strictly an LDS phenomenon. Take care and thanks.

The church has published a general explanation of the covenants, so I think it is safe to discuss here.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng

The specific one that came to mind that non-members would refuse is this one:

• Quote

  Law of Consecration, which means dedicating our time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed us to building up Jesus Christ’s Church on the earth.

  I know you have a broader understanding of "Jesus Christ's Church" than we do, but the covenant specifies "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".   Correct me if I am wrong, but I think even you would probably not enter into such a covenant.    

Also, Jerry is talking about letting all people in to the temple.  No atheists or non-Christian would want to enter into a single one of the covenants we enter.  This idea that the temple would be helpful for these people is really misguided.  Without the covenants and rituals, it is just another building of no benefit. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by pogi

[Navidad]

1 minute ago, Vanguard said:

All totally understandable. I look at it as a question of whether or not said individual (you?) believed that indeed the message the LDS faith carries is the message our Father-in-Heaven wanted the individual to have. If that were the case, then getting baptized again would be a no brainer, correct? It wouldn't make sense to claim a conversion to the message but then resist the baptism that goes with it.

As for what conversation may be had with Deity in the hereafter, again, if aspects of the LDS message (including covenants such as baptism) is what the Savior wants for everyone and if you haven't by that point had the opportunity (who knows what that looks like?!) to accept said message until after you've died, it will all be a no-brainer since the LDS believe everyone will receive the ordinance of baptism through priesthood authority and will be given the opportunity to accept or not.

I have always believed that once I am brought to a more full knowledge of my Savior after I die, all other considerations will become secondary to accepting him. If he tells me we (the LDS) should have done this or that differently in this mortality, I believe it will be a no-brainer for me to accept this. 

Thanks for the reply. I really like your last paragraph. I could not disagree with that. Having said that, I can only add that to my current knowledge, I don't think denominations, sects, or groups from earth or any of their specific practices will continue in the heavenlies. I see no Biblical evidence of that, nor can my mind fathom that. I think Christ is the way, truth, the life and that no man will literally come before the Father but by Him (through His judgment). I don't see Him having denominational preferences. I say that acknowledging that I believe there will be many who never heard, who He will judge positively, and show them the "way" to His Father. In my own brand of provisional certitude I don't think any individual or group expression of Christianity will be the way, the truth, or the life. Methinks we all might have some surprises in heaven; what I wonder is if we will have regrets when we learn those things? So many questions! Take care!

[Navidad]

47 minutes ago, webbles said:

I've talked about this idea (being baptized again) with others and I think, for me, the best example I can give is Acts 18:24-28 and Acts 19:1-6.  In that story, Apollos (a believer of Christ) was preaching and baptizing people.  Interestingly, the writer of Acts says that he knew "only the baptism of John".  Then Paul comes a long and meets people who were baptized by Apollos.  He then asks them which baptism they had received and they say "Unto John's baptism".  He then proceeds to rebaptize them.

Was their former baptism displeasing to God?  I would say no.  By being baptized by Apollos, did they sin or do anything wrong?  I would say no as well.  Did Apollos sin by baptizing them "incorrectly"?  I would say no.  But for some reason, Paul felt that they needed to be rebaptized.  For us, Paul had the correct authority to baptize while Apollos didn't.  Apollos was trying to do his best with what he knew and there is no wrong in that.  He was preaching, teaching, and baptizing.  He was converting people to Christ.  God was pleased with his actions.  But all of Apollos baptisms need to be redone as they were performed without proper authority.  Paul had that authority and so he could do the baptisms.

I don't think Christ will ask us where, when, or how I was baptized either.  I believe that every single person will be baptized by then as well (through proxy baptisms in the temples).  So it isn't going to be whether the person was baptized or not (as everyone will be baptized), it will be whether they accept the commitment that baptism entails (taking upon us the name of Christ and believing in Him).

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I've talked about this idea (being baptized again) with others and I think, for me, the best example I can give is Acts 18:24-28 and Acts 19:1-6.  In that story, Apollos (a believer of Christ) was preaching and baptizing people.  Interestingly, the writer of Acts says that he knew "only the baptism of John".  Then Paul comes a long and meets people who were baptized by Apollos.  He then asks them which baptism they had received and they say "Unto John's baptism".  He then proceeds to rebaptize them.

Was their former baptism displeasing to God?  I would say no.  By being baptized by Apollos, did they sin or do anything wrong?  I would say no as well.  Did Apollos sin by baptizing them "incorrectly"?  I would say no.  But for some reason, Paul felt that they needed to be rebaptized.  For us, Paul had the correct authority to baptize while Apollos didn't.  Apollos was trying to do his best with what he knew and there is no wrong in that.  He was preaching, teaching, and baptizing.  He was converting people to Christ.  God was pleased with his actions.  But all of Apollos baptisms need to be redone as they were performed without proper authority.  Paul had that authority and so he could do the baptisms.

I don't think Christ will ask us where, when, or how I was baptized either.  I believe that every single person will be baptized by then as well (through proxy baptisms in the temples).  So it isn't going to be whether the person was baptized or not (as everyone will be baptized), it will be whether they accept the commitment that baptism entails (taking upon us the name of Christ and believing in Him).

Thanks for this. I believe John's and New Testament baptisms were baptisms of a different kind. They were simply different. I believe baptisms for the remission of sins and baptisms to testify of an apriori faith and commitment to Christ as a testimony of the same, are baptisms of a different kind. I have never received John's baptism as probably neither have you. I have never received water baptism for the remission of sins, but have received water baptism to witness as a testimony of my commitment and fidelity to Christ. These are three different baptisms. There is also a fourth in the Christian church - baptism for receipt of the Holy Spirit as practiced by Pentecostal groups. My LDS friends believe they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit after baptism and via confirmation by the laying on of hands by elders. I believe I received the gift of the Holy Spirit at the point in time (aorist) my salvation was made complete by my repentance, turning from sin, and acknowledging the atonement of Christ. That happened at a point of time. The finishing of my faith in sanctification happens over the rest of my life and probably into the eternities. There are still others who receive the gift of the Holy Spirit by the very act of baptism itself. Some see baptism as entry into membership in a specific church, group, sect, or denomination. Other see no connection in that regard to membership in a specific denomination. Others don't baptize with water at all. There are those who believe being baptized makes us a Christian. Others believe baptism is in no way salvific.

So can all these folks be right? Can all their baptisms and receipt of the Holy Spirit be pleasing to Christ? I think so. I am not certain. But someday in the next life we will find out, won't we? In the mean time as the old Christian hymn goes, "But until then my heart will go on singing, until then with joy I'll carry on. Until that day my eyes behold the City, until the day God calls me home"  I will strive to be faithful and will maintain my provisional certainty about all these many issues and questions. I do not know the degree to which Christ prefers this or that . . . I do believe He is deeply hurt when we as believers in Him fight and bicker amongst ourselves about things we cannot possibly be sure of in this life. Best.

[Jerry Atric]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

They absolutely are refuting 'a' point you are making.  One that you are refusing to acknowledge.  I quoted your post where you claimed the temple should not be viewed as a refuge.  The scriptures clearly refute that.  Are you going to continue to side-step that point?

 Temples should be viewed as a tool for converting or brothers and sisters. Mormon temples are some of the most beautiful buildings in the world. I really doubt a potential convert has walked into a mormon ward building and been impressed with the itchy burlap on the walls. You're not thinking big enough. 

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

not all Christians are his covenant people.  Only those who have been adopted into the Abrahamic covenant through baptism.   This is derail from my line of questioning though.

Wow! You said not all Christians are his covenant people. Could you explain what makes someone a real covenant Christian compared to an ordinary lackadaisical Christian?

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

, we should all act as missionaries.  Yes, we are here to help convert to the gospel.  No, we should not be using temple attendance (and thus covenant making) with non members to promote the gospel.  I want to deny entry because they are not prepared to enter into the covenants of the temple - nor would they want to enter into those covenants if they don't believe in the gospel.  We would be doing them a disservice.   The gospel of Jesus Christ leads us along a progressive path of covenants.  We don't start at the end or take meat before milk. 

I never said letting nonmembers enter the temple meant they have to do covenants. We could open the temple one day a week for nonmembers to enjoy the beauty found inside. Why are you opposed to allowing every day sinners like you and me in the temple?

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

We have been promised that the priesthood will never be taken from the earth again.  No great apostasy.  Are you a new convert?  I only ask because this is basic doctrine. 

Yes,insults are awesome, thank you.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Paul makes it clear that the day of the lord, a time of worldwide judgment will not transpire until two things happen. First the falling away, or great apostasy, must occur. Second, the "man of lawlessness" must be revealed, he who is called the "son of perdition" also known as the antichrist. Once this person makes himself known, the end times will indeed have come.

 Also, many will apostatize from the church before the second coming, even the very elect. You know this to be true if you're a mormon. 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Because people have come on here before claiming that the church is in apostacy or heading towards apostacy who fancied themselves a prophet.  They knew better than everyone, including those called by God to lead his church.  Same kind of vibe here with you. 

I did edit it out before you posted because I felt I was being a little harsh.  But I do get the same vibe.

Correct me if I'm wrong,  but isn't this board called mormon dialogue and discussion board? Are you telling me the name should be changed to Mormon confirmation bias and discussion board? Because that's the vibe I'm getting from you.

 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

ask the question because you seem to think the church is off the tracks and is completely misguided.  You seem to think that you know the purpose of life better than our prophets.  So, it makes sense to me that you would not want to be part of such a church that was so off tracks and may want to start some reformed version of it.  They all start with people who sound just like you. 

I gotta laugh again at what you just said. For one, I never said I know better than the prophets. But I will say the prophets are wrong often. Do you not agree? They're just men, they make mistakes. Unless you believe excluding blacks from the temple was actually part of God's plan? What about in 2015 when they decided to exclude children of same sex couples from getting baptized, did you agree with that? You should be grateful the prophets of our church are man enough to admit mistakes.