Questions about the LDS (Mormon) faith

[snipsnsnailsx5]

I don't know the details of why she and her siblings were in the temple, but I do know they were teenagers and there wasn't any "alone" aspect to it, but a group thing.

The group thing sounds like they were doing baptisms. The youth (over 12) commonly go as groups to do baptisms. But there really isn't anything secret about it. Its just a baptism.

 

What percentage of Mormons actually participate in Temple ceremonies? I am just curious if the people who talk about what happens there are people that have actually participated in one of the secret/sacred cermonies or is it just hearsay?

The great majority do. Temple attendance is highly encouraged. And if someone isn't ready to go yet, then every effort is made to get them ready. I am speaking on personal experience and not just hearsay. I have been to the temple. :) As I said in an earlier post, we just joined the church two years ago.

 

I just wanted to add that most of what I "know" about Mormonism is from my MIL or books she has given me. Honestly, before my MIL I didn't have an opinion on the LDS church one way or the other, but with all I have heard from her I haven't had a favorable view. I know there may be some out there who have written books that may have financial motivations or want revenge on someone so what they say could be suspect. With regards to my MIL though, she has nothing to gain by sharing her experience with me or being untruthful. In fact, she is now pretty much an atheist and her big reason for discussing religion with me is because she thinks it is all dangerous. She is especially vehement against LDS because of her personal experience and one thing that makes her really angry is when current LDS people say that people like her are lying or they "don't understand how that could have happened." Do you chalk these stories up to being not true or is it something you deal with much like Catholics have to deal with the reputation of many priests being sexual abusers?

 

I wouldn't say your MIL is lying, but some of the details just don't add up. My guess is that going on these youth baptism trips in groups like she said, that there was an adult in charge who was doing these bad things. :( I'm very sorry she had to go through that. Its definitely not indicative of what goes on in temples though.

I can say though that people are not perfect, in our church, or anywhere. Bad things happen sometimes.

[TXMary2]

The temple ordinances and receiving the garments can't happen until 19 and preparing to go on a mission or if the person is married. (right fellow LDS'ers?) So she couldn't have been part of that unless she was preparing to go on a mission, already married, or an adult.

And there is nothing even remotely s*xual about it?

 

Honestly, I don't know if she personally wore the undergarments, but she has talked of them on numerous ocassions. I just asked DH and he said when he was a kid his mother actually burned hers so I guess she did! I will have to ask her about that. When she met FIL (the way she tells it) he whisked her away from the "cult" and to this day the only family member she even talks to (and it is rare) is her mother who is still a church member. Again she is 70 so times were different. I am glad to hear that this kind of thing is virtually unheard of today and I feel like I know a lot more since thise thread started!

[MamaSheep]

The great majority do. Temple attendance is highly encouraged. And if someone isn't ready to go yet, then every effort is made to get them ready. I am speaking on personal experience and not just hearsay. I have been to the temple. :) As I said in an earlier post, we just joined the church two years ago.

 

 

This is very true. The goal of the church is to get EVERYONE to the temple, not to keep people out. But they have a responsibility to make sure people are prepared to make the commitments that will be asked of them there and not let them get in too far over their heads.

[MamaSheep]

Honestly, I don't know if she personally wore the undergarments, but she has talked of them on numerous ocassions. I just asked DH and he said when he was a kid his mother actually burned hers so I guess she did! I will have to ask her about that. When she met FIL (the way she tells it) he whisked her away from the "cult" and to this day the only family member she even talks to (and it is rare) is her mother who is still a church member. Again she is 70 so times were different. I am glad to hear that this kind of thing is virtually unheard of today and I feel like I know a lot more since thise thread started!

 

I am glad to hear this thread has been informative. And I am definitely NOT saying your mom was making things up, she was there and I wasn't. But my mom is almost 70 too. My dad just turned 70. It's not something that was common back then either. I am so sorry it happened to your mom.

[TXMary2]

I am glad to hear this thread has been informative. And I am definitely NOT saying your mom was making things up, she was there and I wasn't. But my mom is almost 70 too. My dad just turned 70. It's not something that was common back then either. I am so sorry it happened to your mom.

 

Just FYI, it is my MIL not my mother. :)

[MamaSheep]

I think we would agree on that part of baptism then. And we do have some exception to actually being baptized for those who, through no fault of their own, were not baptized.

 

So does that offering of blessings FOR the dead extend both ways? Would you ask for the prayers of those who have died and who you believe are in Heaven? I guess I am trying to figure out that relationship.

 

I don't think I saw an answer to this one so here goes.

 

We don't believe we can communicate directly with people who have passed away, but we do believed they are interested in what is going on here, and would be able to pray for us, watch over us, and possibly visit us, though we wouldn't necessarily know they were there. (There was one time I could have SWORN my grandmother was in the room after she passed.)

 

We pray only to the Father in the name of the Son because that's what we believe Jesus taught when on the Earth.

[MamaSheep]

Just FYI, it is my MIL not my mother. :)

 

DOH! Sorry. I was reading too fast. Your MIL. I'm sorry it happened to anybody. :)

[asta]

I'm wracking my brain to try to think of ANYTHING in the temple that could even be misconstrued as sexual. There is only one thing I can think of. There is a point in one of the ceremonies where a person is anointed with consecrated oil, and the person performing the ceremony (who is always of the same sex as the person receiving) touches various body parts (not 'private' ones) with the oil, VERY briefly, and in a COMPLETELY non-sexual way. Could that be an underlying source of what you're hearing about? But yeah, this would only be adults, unless someone is getting married when they're still a teenager. It's not something that a group of teens would go do. I dunno, I've been through all the temple ceremonies myself, and that's the only, only thing I can think of (and I don't think I'm saying too much here because this much is described in temple prep classes that pretty much anyone can go to). My mom's almost 70, has been through the temple gajillions of times in every possible manner, and serves now as a temple worker helping other people through the ceremonies. She would never in a million years be involved in anything even remotely resembling sexual abuse. She was a guardian ad-litem for abused kids for years. It's not something she would stand for. It's not something I would stand for. My dad is also a temple worker, and my husband has been too, though he isn't currently.

 

Perhaps not now. In the 60s (and prior, as far as I know), however, the aforementioned anointing was preceded by a bathing (nude), and the anointing was nude.

 

It is reasonable to believe that, in a church as large as the LDS church, abuses have occurred. They have occurred in smaller ones; people are human, and as such have human failings.

 

(My BIL has left the church, but he is not "anti-LDS" or "bitter"; his entire family (parents, siblings) are still in the church.)

[Sara in AZ]

There is a point in one of the ceremonies where a person is anointed with consecrated oil, and the person performing the ceremony (who is always of the same sex as the person receiving) touches various body parts (not 'private' ones) with the oil, VERY briefly, and in a COMPLETELY non-sexual way. Could that be an underlying source of what you're hearing about? But yeah, this would only be adults, unless someone is getting married when they're still a teenager. It's not something that a group of teens would go do.

 

Just in the interest of clarification, as of a year or two ago the administration of this ordinance no longer involves what was rightly stated as completely non-sexual touching. Simply hands layed on the head is all.

[Amira]

Perhaps not now. In the 60s (and prior, as far as I know), however, the aforementioned anointing was preceded by a bathing (nude), and the anointing was nude.

 

It is reasonable to believe that, in a church as large as the LDS church, abuses have occurred. They have occurred in smaller ones; people are human, and as such have human failings.

 

(My BIL has left the church, but he is not "anti-LDS" or "bitter"; his entire family (parents, siblings) are still in the church.)

 

I believe that a large cloth shield has been worn during this part of the ceremony for approximately 100 years. Actually, it's more than a shield now and completely covers you. As others have mentioned, there was and is nothing sexual about it, although nudity makes some people very uncomfortable, and I unfortunately wouldn't be surprised is this was abused at times.

 

Editing to add that it is entirely possible that things were done differently for men and women. I have no idea if the use of the shield has always been the same for men and women.

[Love2Smile]

Do Mormons truly believe they are the "true Church" and that all other Religions go to Hell? This is what I was told

[Veritaserum]

Do Mormons truly believe they are the "true Church" and that all other Religions go to Hell? This is what I was told

 

We do believe our Church has a fulness of truth (which makes it the "true church"), but we emphatically do NOT believe that members of other religions go to hell. In fact, we believe that pieces of truth are found in many different belief systems and we don't really believe in a traditional concept of "hell". We believe that everyone will get a chance to hear the fullness of Christ's message and will then get to choose whether or not to believe and follow Him or not. For most of the Earth's population, this won't happen until after death.

[Amira]

Do Mormons truly believe they are the "true Church" and that all other Religions go to Hell? This is what I was told

 

No, we don't, but this does get a little into how you define things. We believe that everyone will be resurrected. We also believe that everyone will be resurrected to a state of glory (except those who knowingly deny Christ, but that is a very small number). So in those ways, we actually are one of the most liberal Christian churches because we believe everyone will be saved, if saving to you means being resurrected.

 

But we also believe there are different levels of glory. There are certain ordinances, like baptism and sealing, that must be performed for a person to receive the highest level of glory.

[Love2Smile]

No, we don't, but this does get a little into how you define things. We believe that everyone will be resurrected. We also believe that everyone will be resurrected to a state of glory (except those who knowingly deny Christ, but that is a very small number). So in those ways, we actually are one of the most liberal Christian churches because we believe everyone will be saved, if saving to you means being resurrected.

 

But we also believe there are different levels of glory. There are certain ordinances, like baptism and sealing, that must be performed for a person to receive the highest level of glory.

So unlike Christianity which specifies one must come to Christ before they die, LDS, get a "second chance" after death? Very interesting and thanks!

[Amira]

So unlike Christianity which specifies one must come to Christ before they die, LDS, get a "second chance" after death? Very interesting and thanks!

 

Yes, there is unquestionably a second chance. So many people have died with no chance to learn about Christ. That is why we do temple work.

[dangermom]

Honestly, I don't know if she personally wore the undergarments, but she has talked of them on numerous ocassions. I just asked DH and he said when he was a kid his mother actually burned hers so I guess she did!

I think I don't have anything helpful to add about the abuse topic (except that I feel similarly to the others here, and I have been to the temple many times). But I think I could usefully address this. The undergarments are only worn by adults who have made the covenants that adults make--as above, you don't do it until you're about to go on a mission or get married (or if neither of those things has happened and you feel ready--if you're like 25 or so). So the only teenagers who get them are going on missions or getting married really young.

 

The burning part--we treat the undergarments with reverence, and when they're worn out, we don't just throw them out. There are a couple of ways to dispose of them, and burning is one, though I don't think many people do it that way. I never have. So you don't need to think of it like bra-burning, or flag-burning at a protest. She most likely was disposing of old ones and was not venting ill feelings. Hope that clarifies things?

[Veritaserum]

Hmmm....well, teens can go to the temple to do baptisms for the dead. They don't go to the other parts of the temple then. Maybe it could have been a youth group trip to do baptisms? If that's the case, I find the idea that a sexual predator could have taken advantage of them there horrific beyond words. Honestly, it makes me sick on a number of levels just thinking about such a thing. It would be hard for it to happen, there are individual changing stalls in the changing rooms, boys are separate from girls, the actual baptisms are required to have a certain number of witnesses, and both adult men and women are present. I can't imagine that it could happen, but I know that sexual predators can be rather clever and find ways. But oh to think of something that horrible happening in a TEMPLE of all places! How AWFUL! I sincerely hope they reported what happened and had the perpetrator prosecuted and excommunicated. How dreadful!

:iagree: Any kind of sexual behavior is absolutely NOT part of anything that happens within the temple (nor has it ever been, TTBOMK). Your MIL's experience is certainly not the norm and I'm very sorry it happened. If such behavior were discovered it would be prosecuted criminally and the predator(s) would also be excommunicated.

[Love2Smile]

Yes, there is unquestionably a second chance. So many people have died with no chance to learn about Christ. That is why we do temple work.

And I have always wondered this about Christianity, what about people who have never heard of Jesus? I guess this is the reason for missionaries, but still some people living in other 3rd world countries may have never heard the Word.

[Veritaserum]

And I have always wondered this about Christianity, what about people who have never heard of Jesus? I guess this is the reason for missionaries, but still some people living in other 3rd world countries may have never heard the Word.

 

Honestly, that is one of the main reasons that I stay in the LDS church (and it's the main reason my MIL converted from Catholicism). I cannot reconcile Christ's invitation for all to come follow Him with the idea of condemning anyone who died without hearing of Him. Billions of souls have died without hearing Christ's message. Since I believe that we are all the literal spirit sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father it just seems unfathomable that He wouldn't provide a way for ALL of His children to return to Him. LDS theology teaches that He HAS provided a way that all MAY return, based on their individual choices. It is comforting to me. :)

[MamaSheep]

Perhaps not now. In the 60s (and prior, as far as I know), however, the aforementioned anointing was preceded by a bathing (nude), and the anointing was nude.

 

It is reasonable to believe that, in a church as large as the LDS church, abuses have occurred. They have occurred in smaller ones; people are human, and as such have human failings.

 

(My BIL has left the church, but he is not "anti-LDS" or "bitter"; his entire family (parents, siblings) are still in the church.)

 

Just in the interest of clarification, as of a year or two ago the administration of this ordinance no longer involves what was rightly stated as completely non-sexual touching. Simply hands layed on the head is all.

 

I believe that a large cloth shield has been worn during this part of the ceremony for approximately 100 years. Actually, it's more than a shield now and completely covers you. As others have mentioned, there was and is nothing sexual about it, although nudity makes some people very uncomfortable, and I unfortunately wouldn't be surprised is this was abused at times.

 

Editing to add that it is entirely possible that things were done differently for men and women. I have no idea if the use of the shield has always been the same for men and women.

 

Sorry, I ran off to throw some sandwiches together for lunch and then got to talking on the phone. To my mom as it happens. So I brought this up and we chatted a little about it.

 

She pointed out that back in pioneer times the social mores were a bit different, and the idea of what is, and is not "appropriate" has shifted over time in society. It wasn't so long ago that many families lived all together in one room, often more than one generation together. This is still the case in some parts of the world. Nowadays, in our society, many people consider it inappropriate, or even shocking, for brothers and sisters to share a bedroom, and the idea of "co-sleeping", children with parents, is appalling to many people. At one time in society people thought nothing at all of bathing nude in front of family members of the same sex, or in front of their servants. Times have changed. As ideas of propriety have shifted in society, some of the procedures in the temple have also shifted--such as the recent change in what part of the body is touched, as Sarah was so kind to clarify (thank you). Mom says that depending on how things were explained to a woman in advance, she can see how a woman of her generation, on the cusp of such a societal shift, with a corresponding procedural change, might have been uncomfortable with the way it was done then. She assures me, however, that even then there was nothing of a sexual nature in the ceremony or how it was administered at the time. The content of the ceremony hasn't really changed, and the changes in the manner of administration are really quite minor, and were made partly because of the anxiety some participants were experiencing as societal standards shifted. I don't think I want to go into more specifics on that, but I hope this helps some.

 

I do want to be clear that I definitely acknowledge the possibility of abuse happening anywhere, and among any group of people and that my church is not an exception to that.

 

To me, if there is one place on the face of the planet that feels entirely safe and peaceful, it is in the temple. Really, I have not experienced that depth of peace anywhere else. It breaks my heart to think of that being defiled with abuse. But yes, I do acknowledge that it could happen.

[MamaSheep]

And I have always wondered this about Christianity, what about people who have never heard of Jesus? I guess this is the reason for missionaries, but still some people living in other 3rd world countries may have never heard the Word.

 

Me too. A baptist friend once exlplained to me that he believed Christians had a responsibility to go preach the gospel to people who have never heard it, but that if they don't, it's still the person they were supposed to tell and didn't that goes to hell, not the person who failed to do the telling. That seemed a bit unjust to me. But I don't operate under the assumption that this is necessarily THE baptist position on the subject. Belief varies so much amongst baptists.

[MamaSheep]

Do Mormons truly believe they are the "true Church" and that all other Religions go to Hell? This is what I was told

 

When an LDS person says it's "the true church" we often mean something along the lines of believing it to be the only church currently on the Earth that was established by revelation from God and is currently authorized by God as His church. We believe Jesus is literally the head of the church and directs its affairs by revelation. We don't believe people of all other religions go to hell. No.

[GESTEP]

Wow, I have another 10 pages to catch up since last night. But I have a question regarding the afterlife/Celestial Kingdom that has been on my mind all day. I hesitate to post this since it may seem as if I am trying to debate, which I am NOT going to do. I simply would like to hear an explanation. So here goes...If I understand correctly, LDS believe that you can receive Christ after you are dead and move from "prison" (I don't recall what kingdom it was called) into the Celestial Kingdom or at least one of the better places where you are with God, Jesus, and/or the Holy Ghost. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding this or anything else.

So my question is when I read Luke 16:19-31 about Lazarus and the rich man who were both dead in the flesh, the rich man was unable to pass over to the "bosom of Abraham" which I would assume is equivalent to the Celestial or one of the other good Kingdoms. He was in a place of torment at the time so I would also assume that is the same as "prison". The passage further states that the rich man wanted someone to return from the dead to tell his family so that they might repent. If one is able to repent after death why would the rich man be so concerned for his family? Also it would seem that he wished to repent but there was no crossing over to where Lazarus was. While I think that being able to accept Christ after death would be a comfort, this passage seems to state otherwise. Can you please explain your belief on being able to be accept Christ after death based on what is happening in this passage?

If it is based on baptism then the thief on the cross next to Jesus would not be able to enter the Kingdom of God, which we know according to Christ that "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" in reply to the thief.

Thank you for taking the time to answer all of our questions and I hope it does not come across as an attack. As I said earlier I will not debate this or comment further on this question but would like to hear a clear explanation. From what I have read so far I see LDS as actually being closer to what I believe in many ways, specifically the stand on salvation through faith and grace with works being the by-product; more so than many other denominations today. It seems to produce loving people trying to live for God. :001_smile:

 

Respectfully,

Gina

[Forget-Me-Not]

 

Edited to add: The book was called Out of Mormonism.

 

Just FYI--I haven't read this book in it's entirety. But I have thumbed through it and I'll just say that there were A LOT of distortions and half-truths in the pieces I read. That book is not in any way a reliable view of Mormonism.

 

So unlike Christianity which specifies one must come to Christ before they die, LDS, get a "second chance" after death? Very interesting and thanks!

 

Not exactly a second chance. EVERYONE will have the opportunity to hear the fullness of the gospel and decide whether or not they will accept it. However, those who had a chance to accept it during their mortal lives, rejected it, and then go on embrace it after death will inherit a lower kingdom. What constitutes a chance? We don't know. That will be between that person and the Lord at judgment.

 

Perhaps not now. In the 60s (and prior, as far as I know), however, the aforementioned anointing was preceded by a bathing (nude), and the anointing was nude.

 

 

Still, a group of teenage kids wouldn't have been going through that particular ceremony. As many of my fellow LDS posters have said, there is nothing remotely s*xual in the temple. I've been through many times since my marriage nearly 13 yrs ago, in addition to participating in proxy baptisms. Modesty is observed at all times.

 

You'll hear rumors of things that supposedly go on, and sadly some LDS members think it's funny to scare members who are preparing to go through for the first time by telling them wild tales, which is a practice I find appalling and disrespectful (and completely in opposition to what actually happens).The majority of stories I've ever heard where outright falsehoods, with a few twistings and distortions thrown in.

Edited January 1, 2011 by LemonPie

[Amira]

Wow, I have another 10 pages to catch up since last night. But I have a question regarding the afterlife/Celestial Kingdom that has been on my mind all day. I hesitate to post this since it may seem as if I am trying to debate, which I am NOT going to do. I simply would like to hear an explanation. So here goes...If I understand correctly, LDS believe that you can receive Christ after you are dead and move from "prison" (I don't recall what kingdom it was called) into the Celestial Kingdom or at least one of the better places where you are with God, Jesus, and/or the Holy Ghost. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding this or anything else.

So my question is when I read Luke 16:19-31 about Lazarus and the rich man who were both dead in the flesh, the rich man was unable to pass over to the "bosom of Abraham" which I would assume is equivalent to the Celestial or one of the other good Kingdoms. He was in a place of torment at the time so I would also assume that is the same as "prison". The passage further states that the rich man wanted someone to return from the dead to tell his family so that they might repent. If one is able to repent after death why would the rich man be so concerned for his family? Also it would seem that he wished to repent but there was no crossing over to where Lazarus was. While I think that being able to accept Christ after death would be a comfort, this passage seems to state otherwise. Can you please explain your belief on being able to be accept Christ after death based on what is happening in this passage?

If it is based on baptism then the thief on the cross next to Jesus would not be able to enter the Kingdom of God, which we know according to Christ that "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" in reply to the thief.

Thank you for taking the time to answer all of our questions and I hope it does not come across as an attack. As I said earlier I will not debate this or comment further on this question but would like to hear a clear explanation. From what I have read so far I see LDS as actually being closer to what I believe in many ways, specifically the stand on salvation through faith and grace with works being the by-product; more so than many other denominations today. It seems to produce loving people trying to live for God. :001_smile:

 

Respectfully,

Gina

 

I know there are others here, like Julie in Austin who knows a great deal about the New Testament, who could give you a better answer to this than I can, but I'll still take a stab at this.

 

Yes, you are correct about being able to accept Christ and move on from spirit prison to spirit paradise. However, just to be clear, spirit prison and spirit paradise are where we are before we are resurrected. When we are resurrected, and we all will be, we go to the kingdom of glory we are ready for. Everyone, except those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, will go to one of those kingdoms.

 

So the way I read this passage is that the rich man was not able to pass from spirit prison to spirit paradise *at that time.* We believe no one was able to make that switch until Jesus's resurrection, because He Himself organized the process of teaching the spirits in prison about the gospel. The rich man wished to be in paradise and wanted to warn his family, because at that time you couldn't move on.

 

This interpretation applies to the thief since that was nearly the time of Jesus' resurrection. He would have been able to accept Jesus and go to spirit paradise.

 

I hope this made sense; it's how I understand it.

[wormbuy]

Near my home is a "Remanent" (I think that is the spelling, like a remainder, is my impression) Church of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ. Does this have anything to do with the "regular" LDS church? I asked a LDS friend of mine once, but she had not heard the term.

[Xuzi]

A diagram that might be helpful here, laying out the Plan of Salvation, and the order we believe things go in, like how Paradise and the Spirit Prison (which are both included in the green "Spirit World" circle) are temporary states, where we live only until the Ressurection, and then we will be judged and be judged and placed in our final state of Glory.

[Xuzi]

Near my home is a "Remanent" (I think that is the spelling, like a remainder, is my impression) Church of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ. Does this have anything to do with the "regular" LDS church? I asked a LDS friend of mine once, but she had not heard the term.

If the name of the church has anything other than just "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" in the name, then it is an off-shoot of the church, and has nothing to do with mainstream Mormonism. (So Remnent, Fundamentalist, Temple Lot, Re-Organized, etc. are seperate entities from the mainstream LDS church)

[meggie]

I tried going back to find the person who originally asked about becoming Gods afterward and I think someone (LDS) said they couldn't. I apologize if I got the meaning entirely wrong, it was not my intent. I wanted to wait and read through the whole 39 pages to make sure no one else answered it already and in so waiting, lost the original quote.

 

Now, I'm not really here to change anyone's mind, but here is a quote on having the potential to reach Godhood in the afterlife:

 

"Here then is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have for to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation...They shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before... (emphasis added is my own, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-347)

 

Again, if I'm wrong about the original conversation, please let me know.

[Amira]

Near my home is a "Remanent" (I think that is the spelling, like a remainder, is my impression) Church of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ. Does this have anything to do with the "regular" LDS church? I asked a LDS friend of mine once, but she had not heard the term.

 

It was formed after differences arose with the Community of Christ, which used to be known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. An earlier poster wrote about her experiences growing up in that church (the Reorganized, not the Remnant) and some of its history.

[Xuzi]

I tried going back to find the person who originally asked about becoming Gods afterward and I think someone (LDS) said they couldn't. I apologize if I got the meaning entirely wrong, it was not my intent. I wanted to wait and read through the whole 39 pages to make sure no one else answered it already and in so waiting, lost the original quote.

 

Now, I'm not really here to change anyone's mind, but here is a quote on having the potential to reach Godhood in the afterlife:

 

"Here then is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have for to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation...They shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before... (emphasis added is my own, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-347)

 

Again, if I'm wrong about the original conversation, please let me know.

Something to keep in mind in regards to this doctrine, is that we do not become GOD (as in God the Father). The way I look at this doctrine is that I, as a child of God, have it inherently in me to "grow up", like all children do, to become LIKE my father. Just like I've grown up and become like my own mother. I have my own home, I raise children, I cook meals, etc. But I am not My Mother. She is, and always will be, My Mother. My becoming like her, and being able to do the things she is able to do, does not put me in any position of authority over her. At. All. I am only who I am because of her, and I will always and forever look UP to her as my Mother. The same is true of our relationship with our Father in Heaven. We will never, CAN NEVER, usurp Him or become greater than Him. But we are still His children. He has infinate love for us, and wants us to experience the same everlasting joy which He, as a Divine Being, experiences, and has provided a way for us to eventually experience it, if we're willing to follow Him.

[Forget-Me-Not]

Wow, I have another 10 pages to catch up since last night. But I have a question regarding the afterlife/Celestial Kingdom that has been on my mind all day. I hesitate to post this since it may seem as if I am trying to debate, which I am NOT going to do. I simply would like to hear an explanation. So here goes...If I understand correctly, LDS believe that you can receive Christ after you are dead and move from "prison" (I don't recall what kingdom it was called) into the Celestial Kingdom or at least one of the better places where you are with God, Jesus, and/or the Holy Ghost. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding this or anything else.

So my question is when I read Luke 16:19-31 about Lazarus and the rich man who were both dead in the flesh, the rich man was unable to pass over to the "bosom of Abraham" which I would assume is equivalent to the Celestial or one of the other good Kingdoms. He was in a place of torment at the time so I would also assume that is the same as "prison". The passage further states that the rich man wanted someone to return from the dead to tell his family so that they might repent. If one is able to repent after death why would the rich man be so concerned for his family? Also it would seem that he wished to repent but there was no crossing over to where Lazarus was. While I think that being able to accept Christ after death would be a comfort, this passage seems to state otherwise. Can you please explain your belief on being able to be accept Christ after death based on what is happening in this passage?

If it is based on baptism then the thief on the cross next to Jesus would not be able to enter the Kingdom of God, which we know according to Christ that "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" in reply to the thief.

Thank you for taking the time to answer all of our questions and I hope it does not come across as an attack. As I said earlier I will not debate this or comment further on this question but would like to hear a clear explanation. From what I have read so far I see LDS as actually being closer to what I believe in many ways, specifically the stand on salvation through faith and grace with works being the by-product; more so than many other denominations today. It seems to produce loving people trying to live for God. :001_smile:

 

Respectfully,

Gina

 

Okay, I hope I'm answering your question, but if I missed the point, holler and we'll talk further :D

 

To start with, the LDS belief is that when a person dies, they go to the Spirit world, which is made up Paradise and Spirit Prison. Paradise contains those people who basically accepted the gospel and lived righteous lives. Spirit Prison is made up of those who didn't, or were never given the opportunity to, accept the gospel. The spirits in Paradise minister to those in Spirit Prison, teach them the gospel, etc. (and those of us on earth do Proxy work in the temples, which the spirits in Spirit Prison have the opportunity accept or reject).

 

In LDS theology Paradise is a different place than the Celestial Kingdom or 'Heaven'. After the Second Coming of Christ (which has not yet taken place), a number of things will happen--among them the Final Judgment where each person is assigned to one of the three Kingdoms

 

So going from there, we also believe that during the three days between His death and resurrection, Jesus visited the spirits of the Spirit World and freed those who were in bondage. So when we believe the thief on the cross went to Paradise as Jesus promised, rather than to Spirit Prison.

 

As for the parable in Luke 16. The parable makes it pretty clear that the Rich Man and his family had access to the truth--through Moses and the Prophets, Abraham said. As I stated in my last post, those who had access to the truth and rejected it in this life won't attain as high of a Kingdom. We also believe that it's easier to repent in this life than it is in the next. The Rich Man wants his family to wake up and make better use of their mortal period, and he wants to send somebody back from the dead to warn them. Abraham tells him it's no use, as they have already rejected Moses and the Prophets.

[GESTEP]

I really should be doing other things, but.....

 

Thanks for the answer to my last question, here is my next one:

 

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: ...

 

Wouldn't the Book of Mormon which had the added teaching from Joseph Smith be considered in violation of this?

 

Respectfully,

Gina

[Amira]

I really should be doing other things, but.....

 

Thanks for the answer to my last question, here is my next one:

 

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: ...

 

Wouldn't the Book of Mormon which had the added teaching from Joseph Smith be considered in violation of this?

 

Respectfully,

Gina

 

I know there is a difference of opinion on this, but we consider that statement to refer specifically to Revelation, not to the entire Bible.

[Veritaserum]

I really should be doing other things, but.....

 

Thanks for the answer to my last question, here is my next one:

 

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: ...

 

Wouldn't the Book of Mormon which had the added teaching from Joseph Smith be considered in violation of this?

 

Respectfully,

Gina

 

If Joseph Smith had added to the Book of Revelation, then that would be violating that warning. The Book of Mormon is a separate work of scripture, comprised of many smaller books written by different authors at different points in time (like the Bible). Anyone who actually reads The Book of Mormon will see that it repeats many teachings that are found within the Bible. :)

[Forget-Me-Not]

Also a similar warning is found in the Old Testament. Also, the books in the New Testament are not in chronological order. It's my understanding that if you were to apply that warning to everything written AFTER Revelations, some of the NT books would have to be omitted.

Edited January 1, 2011 by LemonPie

[Mekanamom]

I know others have answered this, but I just wanted to reassure you that proxy baptisms are only supposed to be done for your own ancestors and relatives. We have plenty of work just doing the work for our own relatives. There are some instances where members have done baptisms for people to whom they are not related, but it's rare and discouraged. If you have no Mormon relatives, your family should not be on anyone's list.

 

Wait, what? Really? That's very interesting.

 

As a youth in the church, they sent us by the busload to do baptisms for the dead. I was baptized for people they didn't even have the complete names for that had lived somewhere in South America.

 

I see by many of the responses here that the LDS church has changed what they teach quite a bit over the past 20+ years. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing. :). Some of the irritating questions and rumors some current LDS come across can be traced to practices and teachings that really were part of the church 30 or more years ago. (I attended as a child/youth in the 70s and 80s) Because it appears the church no longer teaches these things, there is no need to bring them up in this discussion. I'm glad to be learning a lot about the current teachings along with everyone else. :)

[Amira]

Wait, what? Really? That's very interesting.

 

As a youth in the church, they sent us by the busload to do baptisms for the dead. I was baptized for people they didn't even have the complete names for that had lived somewhere in South America.

 

I see by many of the responses here that the LDS church has changed what they teach quite a bit over the past 20+ years. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing. :). Some of the irritating questions and rumors some current LDS come across can be traced to practices and teachings that really were part of the church 30 or more years ago. (I attended as a child/youth in the 70s and 80s) Because it appears the church no longer teaches these things, there is no need to bring them up in this discussion. I'm glad to be learning a lot about the current teachings along with everyone else. :)

 

Teenagers going on temple trips will often do baptisms that aren't for their own relatives, but instead are helping others who can't do all the baptisms for their many relatives. So you might not always be doing work for your own family, but the names that are submitted are supposed to be of members' relatives.

 

I agree about of the irritating questions and rumors. Most have some basis in truth. Sometimes it's something distorted, sometimes it's something we used to do, and sometimes it's something that many members thought was right, but actually wasn't or wasn't necessary. There were significant changes in straightening a lot of those things out starting in the 60s and 70s and the effects are still noticeable today.

[DianeW88]

You may perform ordinances for those not of your own family, but the names were submitted by the family of those you are doing the work for. Did that make any sense? LOL I may do the geneaology of family members and then turn the names into the temple, but not actually go and do the work myself. Whatever youth group shows up will take care of it. Now, if you choose to do the work for your own family member yourself, you have that option as well.

[MamaSheep]

I really should be doing other things, but.....

 

Thanks for the answer to my last question, here is my next one:

 

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: ...

 

Wouldn't the Book of Mormon which had the added teaching from Joseph Smith be considered in violation of this?

 

Respectfully,

Gina

 

I agree with what some others have said regarding this referring to the book of Revelation rather than to the Bible as it is now compiled. Sometimes it's easy to operate with kind of an underlying assumption that God handed Moses a nice leatherbound book and a pen, and Moses passed that on down to Joshua, who passed it on down, and each writer added some entries until John came to the last page and finished it off. I thin kit helps to keep in mind that each book in the Bible really is a separate BOOK, not just a chapter. They were documents that were written separately, and later collected into a sort of anthology. The books that now comprise the Bible were not assembled as such until quite a long time after John wrote this verse, so it doesn't make sense to me that by "this book" he meant the Bible, as such. There was written scripture at that time, but there was no "Bible". Also, one could ask whether he meant the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, or the Orthodox Bible, since each has a slightly different collection of books. And a number of Bible scholars believe that John's epistles were written after Revelation.

 

Even if we accepted the idea that God was saying in that verse that there would never be any more scripture after the book of Revelation was written, there's still the problem that if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, almost all of it was written earlier in history than the book of Revelation.

 

But really, there's more to it than that. The verse you quoted is a warning against MAN altering scripture. It doesn't say anything about GOD never speaking to us again. The Bible also says, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7 ) He will do NOTHING without telling us by revelation through prophets. And scripture is the written form of this revelation. He doesn't say 'until...such and such a time, and then you're on your own," he says he will do nothing without telling his prophets. This is just how he operates. And I don't see anything in Rev. 22:18 that says he's changing that. He definitely says man should not add to the book. And I understand that to apply to all of scripture. Man shouldn't mess around with what God says and make alterations--if they do, they're risking God's wrath.

 

Like you, I don't want to seem disrespectful, so I am going to try to say this gently. To me (and I understand that others view this differently) when a person 'adds' to this verse by saying it covers the whole, compliled Bible which didn't exist when it was written, and 'adds' to it by saying that it means God can't speak to us anymore, then that interpretation itself is doing exactly what the verse is warning against and 'adding' to that book.

Edited January 2, 2011 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

Teenagers going on temple trips will often do baptisms that aren't for their own relatives, but instead are helping others who can't do all the baptisms for their many relatives. So you might not always be doing work for your own family, but the names that are submitted are supposed to be of members' relatives.

 

I agree about of the irritating questions and rumors. Most have some basis in truth. Sometimes it's something distorted, sometimes it's something we used to do, and sometimes it's something that many members thought was right, but actually wasn't or wasn't necessary. There were significant changes in straightening a lot of those things out starting in the 60s and 70s and the effects are still noticeable today.

 

That's so interesting. I grew up in the church in the 70's and 80's too, and have noticed no significant changes in church doctrine at all. There has been a much greater effort to eliminate erroneous practices and teachings and improve consistency throughout the church, but the actual core doctrines now are the same I was taught as a child, and really the same that I find when I read through things written by early church leaders. I wonder if has to do with differences in where we were raised. I'm glad things are more consistent now.

[JennyD]

What an interesting thread. Thanks for starting it.

 

On the subject of proxy baptisms: a number of years ago some Holocaust survivors discovered that Jewish Holocaust victims (w/no LDS descendants) were being baptized by proxy and listed on LDS rolls. There has been a back-and-forth between Jewish and LDS leaders for quite a while on this issue -- apparently the practice is not longer officially endorsed but some observers claim that it continues.

 

My question: Is the LDS Church really as monolithic as it appears from the outside? To an outsider, it seems remarkably centralized, with little sanctioned space for variation, but is that actually the case? Do church leaders ever openly disagree with one another about doctrine? I know that there are splinter groups, but are there any sorts of official or unofficial divisions or subgroups within the mainstream LDS church? Are there different 'types' of Mormonism?

Edited January 2, 2011 by JennyD

[Amira]

That's so interesting. I grew up in the church in the 70's and 80's too, and have noticed no significant changes in church doctrine at all. There has been a much greater effort to eliminate erroneous practices and teachings and improve consistency throughout the church, but the actual core doctrines now are the same I was taught as a child, and really the same that I find when I read through things written by early church leaders. I wonder if has to do with differences in where we were raised. I'm glad things are more consistent now.

 

I agree the core doctrines haven't changed, but so much of what we talk about has changed and a lot of the weird stuff has been rooted out. Honestly, almost every weird rumor I hear about Mormons has some basis in truth, but because there used to be Mormons who believed those things. Except the horns and sex in the temple and a few other things.

 

I doubt I'm explaining this well, but I'm quite sure I don't disagree with you at all. I was referring to extra-doctrinal practices instead of core doctrines.

[Mekanamom]

 

3. You need to be preparing to go on a mission or get married or a mature adult (i.e., not 19) to go to the temple. So, basically any adult who wants to can and will go to the temple.

 

 

I can think of two other instances...

 

The youth (YM/YW) can (could in the past, anyway) go to the temple to perform baptisms for the dead.

 

As a young teen, I was admitted to the celestial room to be sealed to my family. We were not converts, I was born under the covenant, I don't know why my parents weren't sealed before then and I haven't asked. :)

 

BUT, though I have been in the temple and have even participated in temple ordinances, I never received endowments and have not experienced that part of the temple. I do understand that the endowment ceremony was changed in the 90s somewhat, but I don't have personal experience with that.

[Veritaserum]

I can think of two other instances...

 

The youth (YM/YW) can (could in the past, anyway) go to the temple to perform baptisms for the dead.

 

As a young teen, I was admitted to the celestial room to be sealed to my family. We were not converts, I was born under the covenant, I don't know why my parents weren't sealed before then and I haven't asked. :)

 

BUT, though I have been in the temple and have even participated in temple ordinances, I never received endowments and have not experienced that part of the temple. I do understand that the endowment ceremony was changed in the 90s somewhat, but I don't have personal experience with that.

 

I'm confused. If your parents were not sealed before you were born, then you were NOT born in the covenant (thus the need for you to be present at the time that they were sealed). "Born in the covenant" means a child was born after his/her parents had already been sealed in the temple. :)

 

As has been discussed earlier in this thread, teens do participate in proxy baptisms, but these occur in an entirely separate part of the temple. They do require a temple recommend, but it is a limited recommend that does not grant access into the areas for endowed (adults who have made specific commitments during a special ceremony) members. Only endowed adults wear the special garments under their clothes.

 

I received my endowment in 1999, so I don't know what changes there might have been. I can't imagine them changing anything particularly significant....

[Mekanamom]

You may perform ordinances for those not of your own family, but the names were submitted by the family of those you are doing the work for. Did that make any sense? LOL I may do the geneaology of family members and then turn the names into the temple, but not actually go and do the work myself. Whatever youth group shows up will take care of it. Now, if you choose to do the work for your own family member yourself, you have that option as well.

 

 

Ok... This was admittedly a long time ago, and I do not remember all the specifics. I do remember that everyone in our group was being baptized for people who had all lived in the same region. I may have misunderstood that we were going by region instead of by individual families. Thanks!

[Xuzi]

What an interesting thread. Thanks for starting it.

 

On the subject of proxy baptisms: a number of years ago some Holocaust survivors discovered that Jewish Holocaust victims (w/no LDS descendants) were being baptized by proxy and listed on LDS rolls. There has been a back-and-forth between Jewish and LDS leaders for quite a while on this issue -- apparently the practice is not longer officially endorsed but some observers claim that it continues.

 

My question: Is the LDS Church really as monolithic as it appears from the outside? To an outsider, it seems remarkably centralized, with little sanctioned space for dissent, but is that actually the case? Do church leaders ever openly disagree with one another about doctrine? I know that there are splinter groups, but are there any sorts of official or unofficial divisions or subgroups within the mainstream LDS church? Are there different 'types' of Mormonism?

There is room for disagreement. However, the church tends to draw the line at you trying to "convert" others to your way of thinking about things, saying that you're more right than Church. For example, in the 90's there were a group of members who tried to say that we should pray to Heavenly Mother. That is not church doctrine, and it did not come from a Prophet, so it wasn't a correct teaching, and the church leadership tried to get those members to stop preaching to other members (many of them were trying to teach it from the pulpit and during Sunday School lessons), and when they refused they were excommunicated.

 

I see it much the same way as say, a member of a Catholic parish trying to convince his fellow parishoners that Catholicism should embrace the six points of Calvanism. It's not Catholic teaching, and even goes against many of their current teachings. I wouldn't be surprised if that member were asked to either keep their opinion to themselves while at church, or remove themselves from the church. The Church -any church- has the right to decide what is considered Doctrine, and what is and isn't taught from it's pulpits as being "official church teachings". In the LDS church we believe in a living Prophet who speaks for the Lord and is entrusted with the running of His Church here on the earth. No one else has the right or authority to try and alter church Doctrine, no matter how convinced they might be that they're right.

 

Many people who have felt their interpretation of church doctrine was more correct than what the church was currently teaching have usually left the church (or been excommunicated) and started their own churches. From my understanding this is what happens in other Chrisitan denominations as well. If your beliefs don't mesh with what an established church is preaching, then you either find another church or start another church and preach what you believe to be the Truth.

 

It's mainly vocal disagreement with Doctrine (trying to convince others that you're view is right and the entire Church needs to change to meet your view) that is looked down upon. But I've heard members on several occasions in Sunday School classes offer up "different ways of looking" at scriptureal teachings or Doctrines. Comparing and contrasting and looking at things from a different life experience, etc. Especially for doctrines and teachings where there isn't a lot of information available,like what "eternal progression" will look like) where there's LOTS of speculation typically shared during a lesson when the subject comes up, and I've seen people get into pretty heated arguments over it, but the biggest consequence I've seen someone handed for speaking out in such a manner was a chastizement from the Bishop for being rather brash in their presentation of their opinion (a swear word was thrown in :tongue_smilie:).

 

The church is indeed very centralized though. Lesson manuals and teaching aids are published by the Church and distributed to all congregations. Every six months the Prophet, his two councilors, the 12 Apostles, and selected members from the Quorums of the 70 address the entire church body, (via live broadcast or recording, depending on your location) and give talks (sermons) on various points of Doctrine. Any changes in church procedures, any new Temples that are going to be built, any new persons called to positions in general Church leadership, are announced at that time. All tithing is sent to Salt Lake, where it is distributed to each ward according to it's needs. If a ward needs a new building, the church sends representatives to scout out a site and start the building process. The congregation doesn't have to come up with the entire funds on their own.

 

The Lord's House is a House of Order. There's no differering doctrines being preached in one chapel than their is in another. Certainly the Lord would want all of His sheep to be hearing the same message. :)

Edited January 2, 2011 by Xuzi

[Amira]

What an interesting thread. Thanks for starting it.

 

On the subject of proxy baptisms: a number of years ago some Holocaust survivors discovered that Jewish Holocaust victims (w/no LDS descendants) were being baptized by proxy and listed on LDS rolls. There has been a back-and-forth between Jewish and LDS leaders for quite a while on this issue -- apparently the practice is not longer officially endorsed but some observers claim that it continues.

 

My question: Is the LDS Church really as monolithic as it appears from the outside? To an outsider, it seems remarkably centralized, with little sanctioned space for dissent, but is that actually the case? Do church leaders ever openly disagree with one another about doctrine? I know that there are splinter groups, but are there any sorts of official or unofficial divisions or subgroups within the mainstream LDS church? Are there different 'types' of Mormonism?

 

You're right, the Church isn't as completely monolithic as it seems. I hope that's obvious from this thread where most questions have been answered by several different Mormons with somewhat different opinions. No one is checking on everything we do and, outside core doctrines, there often is a wide range of belief, and that's okay.

 

But it's still pretty centralized. Leaders do not openly disagree about those core doctrines, or at least it's very, very unusual. You don't change wards to find a bishop that teaches something you're happier with. There really isn't much open effort to change things from within. Those have have effected change have done so patiently as faithful members, not as people who are unhappy with the church.

[Xuzi]

Mekanamom: Did your parents adopt by any chance? Perhaps you were present for the Sealing of your parents to your new sibling, rather than the Sealing of your parents to eachother?

[Hunter's Moon]

This really isn't a question for LDS specifically, but you might know or someone on here reading this might pop in and answer.

 

Is the LDS church the only Christian church that accepts God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost as three different entities and not one in the same, or are there other sects?

 

Now these are specially LDS questions:

 

Can you please explain *how* you look at them all differently? It might seem like a loaded question, or it might seem very simple to understand, but please enlighten me.

 

Do you believe Jesus is physically God's son, and the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary or God himself did, without physically doing it?

 

This may have been asked elsewhere, and I have read all 40 pages, but can't remember if it was asked.

 

Thanks.