**LDS TEMPLE INFO HERE**
James
Yes, you can get detailed discriptions of LDS Temple info
here, but not on this newsgroup, soc.religion.mormon.
The charter of this newsgroup is very clear that the
"Quoted statements that are either attributed to, or
unmistakably part of, the LDS temple ceremony." cannot
be posted on this newsgroup. HOWEVER, there is absolutely
no restriction on posting the links to such resources
for those that are interested in the LDS Temple information.
You can see the soc.religion. charter at:
http://www.lds.npl.com/special/usenet/srm/index.html
Here is a summary of what I have found on the internet:
Transcripts:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/c/cldills/www/temple.html
http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
Extensive discussion of LDS Temple ceremony:
http://nowscape.com/mormcr1.htm
Connection with the Masonic rituals:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masonry.htm
Description of the Kirtland endowment:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorendow.htm
Similarities of the Masonic Ceremony:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
Topics for discussion:
The LDS Temple ceremony changed after Joseph Smith became a mason
in March 1842.
The LDS Temple ceremony changed drasticaly in 1990 eliminating
many of the Masonic elements (and others too).
I will also be happy to talk about what motivated me to post
these LDS related links in the first place.
Sincerely,
James
Roger K. Denison
James wrote:
> Yes, you can get detailed discriptions of LDS Temple info
> here, but not on this newsgroup, soc.religion.mormon.
> Transcripts:
> http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/c/cldills/www/temple.html
> http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
It's great! Now you don't have to go through all the mental and
spiritual preparation. You can read it at work, read it at home, read
it while watching a Mike Tyson fight. And most importantly, you don't
have to enter into one of those burdensome covenants with Jesus Christ.
John 10:1-2
I would also like to mention that Chad Dills, creator of the first
website, told me that if I could find 1% of his site incorrect or false
then he would remove it. I took one page (his "pride and joy", in fact)
and found 56% of it incorrect or false. I pointed this out to him but I
have yet to see any removal of his site or even the parts I labeled as
incorrect.
"Honesty... It's such a lonely word..."
--
Roger 'Billy Joel' Denison.
...True religion is the creator of scripture,
not the interpreter thereof...
ce01580@@isgate.is
In <56a4m1$j...@q.seanet.com>, James <enginee...@mindspring.com> writes:
>The LDS Temple ceremony changed drasticaly in 1990 eliminating
>many of the Masonic elements (and others too).
I have been trying to avoid commenting on this topic, as I find the idea of
discussing these things outside of the Temple distasteful. However, when I see
comments like the above from someone who has NOT attended the Temple, it
bothers me a lot. As a person who has attended both pre- and post-1990
ceremonies, I can state in no uncertain terms that the changes were MINIMAL
and that they did not affect the MEANING of the Endowment AT ALL. Please
don't ask me for specifics, as you know I cannot provide them to you - unless,
of course, you would like to meet me in the Celestial Room of any Temple,
where I would be more than happy to discuss it with you in full detail. :-)
- Todd
James
ce01580@@isgate.is wrote:
>
> In <56a4m1$j...@q.seanet.com>, James <enginee...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >The LDS Temple ceremony changed drasticaly in 1990 eliminating
> >many of the Masonic elements (and others too).
>
> I have been trying to avoid commenting on this topic, as
> I find the idea of discussing these things outside of the
> Temple distasteful.
I think we can talk about the LDS Ceremony without discussing the
particulars. The s.r.m. charter was established to insure
that this was followed.
> However, when I see
> comments like the above from someone who has NOT attended the Temple,
> it bothers me a lot.
Are you saying you would be less bothered if someone that went
through the LDS Temple said the same things I have said in my post?
Hmmm... I always thought Mormons thought less of people if they
break their covenants. However, I have not broken any
covenants or oaths in making the LDS Temple Info Post.
> As a person who has attended both pre- and post-1990
> ceremonies, I can state in no uncertain terms that the
> changes were MINIMAL and that they did not affect the
> MEANING of the Endowment AT ALL.
I think people should take your word into consideration. BUT,
I also beleive people should be given the information to decide
for themselves.
> Please don't ask me for specifics, as you know I cannot provide
> them to you
If someone even asked me on s.r.m. to provide specifics I would be
unable to do this on the s.r.m. The s.r.m. charter prohibits
us from talking about the specifics. In order for me to participate
in the s.r.m. newsgroup I will follow the guidelines of the charter.
> - unless, of course, you would like to meet me in the Celestial
> Room of any Temple,
To me, the truth should be spoken in the the streets, just as it
would be spoken behind closed doors, and even on internet newsgroups.
Your suggestion is that the truth cannot be spoken outside
of the LDS Temple Celestial rooms, if so, you have nothing
to offer me. The truth should be open for everyone to see,
if Mormons want to say it is behind closed doors, then they
lack the concept of the "truth" in my opinion. The truth
cannot be closed behind doors, nor can you or this newsgroup
stop it.
Sincerely,
James "who think the truth should be spoken with every word and not
only behind closed doors."
James
Roger K. Denison wrote:
>
> James wrote:
>
> > Yes, you can get detailed discriptions of LDS Temple info
> > here, but not on this newsgroup, soc.religion.mormon.
>
> > Transcripts:
> > http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/c/cldills/www/temple.html
> > http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
>
> It's great! Now you don't have to go through all the mental and
> spiritual preparation. You can read it at work, read it at home, read
> it while watching a Mike Tyson fight. And most importantly, you don't
> have to enter into one of those burdensome covenants with Jesus Christ.
The truth has a way of getting out. What is wrong with people knowing
what covenants will be asked of them? What is wrong with people knowing
what will be done to their bodies? What is wrong with people knowing
the truth?
I think the concept of keeping this information hidden is contrary
to the principles of truth. Some may argue that those that read it
won't understand it, but then how can anyone guarantee that those that
even go through the LDS Temple will understand the ceremony?
You can't and I can't guarantee anything. However, I can present
resources so people can make a more informed decision rather than
living in a vacuum.
I think when a person is old enough to ask a question, they are
old enough to get an answer, not an excuse. Why do Mormons keep the
LDS Ceremony secret? IMO, to make the endowment a novelty, more
so than a spiritual truth. Spiritual truths should not be hidden (IMO),
they should be presented to the world.
Sincerely,
James
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
Charles Marston
Roger K. Denison wrote:
> > Yes, you can get detailed discriptions of LDS Temple info
> > here, but not on this newsgroup, soc.religion.mormon.
>
> spiritual preparation. You can read it at work, read it at home, read
> it while watching a Mike Tyson fight. And most importantly, you don't
> have to enter into one of those burdensome covenants with Jesus Christ.
You know, I've always had a question about this. Just for
argument sake, let us begin from the point of view that the LDS Church is
all it professes to be and the temple ordinances are all they are
purported to be. As such they are certainly amoung the most importaint
and highest ordinances on the earth today. I wonder just how trivially we
can treat them. If one comes upon the endowment outside the temple or if
one goes searching for it and finds it on something like the Net and
reads it, I wonder if, given the parameters above, there might come a
time when a couple of questions might be posed such as: Why did you take
these things so lightly? and; Since you knew these teachings why did you
not live them or at least make an effort to?
Now, of course, if the LDS Church is not all it purports to be
and the Temple Endowment is not all it purports to be, then it is little
more than an intellectual exercise - or, possibly, a toying with things
not pleasing to the Lord - kind of like playing around with witchcraft or
Satanism - in any case not something the Lord would condone, but still
not as dangerous as playing with truth and teaching it lightly.
So, those who would post and distribute the endowment and those
who would read it with less than a sincere heart seem to be playing in
areas they don't belong - for if it is true then they are treating it
lightly and rejecting truth and if it is false they are playing spiritual
things of an unapproved nature. It's a no-winner.
Of course, I know where I come down. I see them as light and
truth - and light generally comes with heat - and one can get easily
burned....
Charlie....
Woody Brison
Posting links to transcripts of LDS Temple ceremonies is evil,
whether or not it is not prohibited by the list charter.
There is sufficient information outside the Temple on which
to examine the Church and decide if it is true. The
ceremonies inside the Temple are sacred to us. We
specifically ask those not of our Church to respect our
private ceremonies. One may inspect our Temples during the
customary open house prior to their dedication as the House
of the Lord. One may study what is said about them. To pry
into a ceremony that has been designated as private is
outside the limits of simple human decency and especially
Christian behavior.
If you doubt ths, please take this post to your minister,
your parents, or any decent person that you trust, and
discuss it with them. Ask God, also. If your method of
doing that consists of referring to the Bible, that's OK with
me; turn to Matt. 7:12. I hope this simple rule will be more
revered in the future.
Love,
Woody
Aaron Cartwright
On 14 Nov 1996 21:29:08 GMT, James <enginee...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>> - unless, of course, you would like to meet me in the Celestial
>> Room of any Temple,
>
>To me, the truth should be spoken in the the streets, just as it
>would be spoken behind closed doors, and even on internet newsgroups.
>
>Your suggestion is that the truth cannot be spoken outside
>of the LDS Temple Celestial rooms, if so, you have nothing
>to offer me. The truth should be open for everyone to see,
>if Mormons want to say it is behind closed doors, then they
>lack the concept of the "truth" in my opinion. The truth
>cannot be closed behind doors, nor can you or this newsgroup
>stop it.
I know you've heard it before, but...
Truth is spoken outside of the LDS Temple. I, personally, don't think
that truth is the issue. It seems that you would prefer the temple
ceremonies quoted for everyone in this and other NGs.
I am not a secretive person, but there are many special, sacred things
in my life that I'm very happy with, that I do not want to share with
everyone in the world. I feel that it would tarnish the special
nature of them and would make them less that I know them to be.
This is not because they are not true, or that they are somehow bad
and I am protecting myself from ridicule. Just that I feel there are
some things better shared with close family members, or those who
understand why they are special and can comprehend their meaning in my
life.
Again, truth is truth whether you shout it out, or wisper it in
privacy.
Allow those who feel that the temple ceremonies are sacred and special
to keep them from being tarnished.
May God bless you,
Aaron Cartwright
aa...@omnidatai.com
"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions,
as the heathen do: for they think that they
shall be heard for their much speaking."
Matthew 6:7
H. Christian Jorgensen
On 14 Nov 1996 21:35:16 GMT, James <enginee...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
<snip of links to some very sacred stuff>
>
>The truth has a way of getting out. What is wrong with people knowing
>what covenants will be asked of them? What is wrong with people knowing
>what will be done to their bodies? What is wrong with people knowing
>the truth?
Maybe we should know more about our posters as well. Maybe we can
figure out what makes them post links to sacred material? Is this a
lack of respect for things that others hold sacred? Or is it free
speech? What would cause somebody to be so disrespectful to another's
religion? IMO, it is almost the same as going into a NAACP meeting
and stating that I can give you the location for the next KKK meeting.
What would possess someone to be so disrespectful?
>I think the concept of keeping this information hidden is contrary
>to the principles of truth. Some may argue that those that read it
>won't understand it, but then how can anyone guarantee that those that
>even go through the LDS Temple will understand the ceremony?
>You can't and I can't guarantee anything. However, I can present
>resources so people can make a more informed decision rather than
>living in a vacuum.
Suppose I would like to know about our posters private sex lives (just
a point folks). Will they tell me information, under the principle of
truth? Most certainly not. Those that do, I would consider
perverted. Yes, there are some things that others even hold sacred
and private. Yet some people have felt the urge to bring out the LDS'
private parts in the name of free speech.
Posting TC links does not foster credibility. IMHO and the opinion
of other non-LDS (who practice religion), it does the exact opposite.
This post does more to destroy what little credibility a person may
have. IMHO, I see poster who do this in a much different light. If
their reason for doing so is to spew hate and cause anger, may God
forgive them.
>I think when a person is old enough to ask a question, they are
>old enough to get an answer, not an excuse. Why do Mormons keep the
>LDS Ceremony secret? IMO, to make the endowment a novelty, more
>so than a spiritual truth. Spiritual truths should not be hidden (IMO),
>they should be presented to the world.
Some posters understand nothing about sacredness. The point is not
whether it is secret, because it is no longer secret. But it is
sacred. The belief that one has the right to practice and have sacred
ceremonies in your own religion, without persecution is at issue here.
What this post does is simply show somebody who takes the final step
as a religious bigot. IMHO, this is no different than what a racist,
homophobe or sexist would act like to their targets of hate.
When a person violates the sanctity of another's personal beliefs,
they have executed actions that exhibit the ultimate persecution of
that religion.
I pray most CsOTMC and honest information seekers will respect our
sacred material and understand how callously and cruelly it offends.
But sadly, there will be those who just have to know. And if they
choose to drag it through the mud, so be it. But IMHO, I will let the
Lord deal with it.
So what audience does a post like this attempt to reach? Anyone who
reads this post will understand the bigotry and bias behind it and see
that it is indeed prejudice in its purest form.
It may serve the purpose of the finding the truth, but it has also
demonstrates that some people simply have no moral scruples at all.
>Sincerely,
Sadly,
>James
God have mercy on you
May you have peace someday
Christian Jorgensen
---
Aaron Cartwright
<snip>
>I think when a person is old enough to ask a question, they are
>old enough to get an answer, not an excuse. Why do Mormons keep the
>LDS Ceremony secret? IMO, to make the endowment a novelty, more
>so than a spiritual truth. Spiritual truths should not be hidden (IMO),
>they should be presented to the world.
While I agree that questions should be answered, I think that the
extent of that answer depends on their understanding.
When my children ask questions, I answer them to the level of their
understanding. If I go beyond that, they either get more confused, or
misunderstand what I am saying.
I feel that Jesus did the same thing by speaking in parables. He
understood that some in his audience would understand to a certain
point and others would not. Paul wrote of milk before meat. To me
this is a simple idea.
I do not feel that the endowment is a novelty, I feel very strongly
that it is a learning experience. I am not only spiritually lifted,
but I learn new things about Gods plans and kingdom on this Earth.
I think I understand you feelings, but I don't think truth is really
what you mean.
May God bless you,
Aaron Cartwright
aa...@omnidatai.com
"For where your treasure is,
there will your heart be also."
Matthew 6:21
Hedgehog
In article <56g2v4$p...@q.seanet.com> James,
enginee...@mindspring.com writes:
>Hmmm... I always thought Mormons thought less of people if they
>break their covenants. However, I have not broken any
>covenants or oaths in making the LDS Temple Info Post.
There may be miscommunication of some sort going on here. Maybe this
thread would flow a little better if you discussed a little bit of your
personal life. (Are you a Mormon? Are you an ex-Mormon? What is your
goal in posting here? etc.)
Peace,
Hedgehog
James
(message sent to Woody and to srm)
Woody Brison wrote:
>
> Posting links to transcripts of LDS Temple ceremonies is evil,
> whether or not it is not prohibited by the list charter.
So you are self appointed judge of good and evil.
Perhaps, you may have a personal opinion on the matter,
but I can care less about your accussations on my actions.
> There is sufficient information outside the Temple on which
> to examine the Church and decide if it is true.
One of the reasons I posted the LDS temple information was
due to the lies regarding the ceremony. Mormons for years
have denied the connection with Masonry. I have shown to the
very least the many similarities. Also, the LDS Temple ceremonies
have changed with time. The ceremony a Mormon grandmother
went through years ago is different from the one Mormons go
through now. I think Mormons and non-Mormons should have
access to this information.
> The ceremonies inside the Temple are sacred to us.
The opperative word is "us", not everyone.
> We
> specifically ask those not of our Church to respect our
> private ceremonies.
You can only ask, and nothing more. You have no right or
authority to stop me from posting this information on the
internet. Your request is denied.
<snip>
I beleive that people should have access to the information
if they so choose. If people are not really interested in the
information they do not have to visit the web sites.
Sincerely,
James
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
John Perry
Woody Brison wrote:
>
> Posting links to transcripts of LDS Temple ceremonies is evil,
> whether or not it is not prohibited by the list charter.
Ok, let me stir the ant(i)pile a little.
Would you consider it evil to discuss
in detail or post specifics about, say,
the church of scientology? Specifically,
the information that they consider private?
I, for one, would not hesitate for a moment
to read or obtain or talk about their most
secret ceremonies--to me, they are meaningless.
Despite the best efforts of mormons around me
to the contrary, I have a hard time holding
it against non-members when they do the same
with our beliefs. Of course I won't encourage
them, but I can't really blame them.
Now, changing the words or misrepresenting
them to others is an entirely different
matter. Spreading non-truths is wrong.
--
-john perry (per...@medusa.et.byu.edu)
Arden Eby
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Extensive discussion of LDS Temple ceremony:
>http://nowscape.com/mormcr1.htm
Extensive discussion of LDS Temple ceremony as a Christian
ritualization of the anceient Hebrew Temple service
http://www.teleport.com/~arden/temple.htm
>Connection with the Masonic rituals:
>http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masonry.htm
>Similarities of the Masonic Ceremony:
>http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
Differences between the LDS Temple and the Masonic Ceremony:
http://www.teleport.com/~arden/mason.htm
You left these out....
Arden
******************************************************************************
Arden Eby
Internet: ar...@teleport.com
Packet Radio: KI...@KA7AGH.OR.USA.NA
Homepage (Eby's Cyberscroll) http://www.teleport.com/~arden/
******************************************************************************
Mike and Carolyn Bennett
I am an endowed member. I have been back to the temple a number of times
since my endowment. I have not accessed those sites where the temple
endowment is posted nor do I plan to. The things that are taught in the
temple are so sacred that they may only be discussed within the temple.
Mike Bennett
Scott Marquardt
Arden Eby wrote:
>Differences between the LDS Temple and the Masonic Ceremony:
><
>You left these out....
I've never understood this frequent response to the allegation of
similarity. Can you explain the significance of this reply?
Cordially,
Scott Marquardt
Thomas Richard Dibble
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> writes:
> I think when a person is old enough to ask a question, they are
> old enough to get an answer, not an excuse.
And so, when your child asks about sex, you hand him a stack of Playboys?
---- Tom Dibble
--
/"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""\
| Tired of lying in the sunshine, \ / tom...@wpi.wpi.edu |
| staying home to watch the rain. / \ the happiest man alive |
\.........................................................................../
Roger K. Denison
James wrote:
>
> Roger K. Denison wrote:
> >
<snip links to TC>
> > It's great! Now you don't have to go through all the mental and
> > spiritual preparation. You can read it at work, read it at home, read
> > it while watching a Mike Tyson fight. And most importantly, you don't
> > have to enter into one of those burdensome covenants with Jesus Christ.
>
> The truth has a way of getting out. What is wrong with people knowing
> what covenants will be asked of them? What is wrong with people knowing
> what will be done to their bodies? What is wrong with people knowing
> the truth?
John 10
1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into
the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and
a robber.
2But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth
his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
7Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am
the door of the sheep.
Pardon me James, but you are not the door. And since you appear
desirous to gain knowledge in a manner not prescribed by the Savior you
could be guilty of being "a thief and a robber". And by trying to share
this with others you could also be guilty of aiding and abetting.
Perhaps these scriptures may show how Christ, at times, withheld, or
asked to withhold knowledge of his miracles.
Matthew 8:4 (English-KJV)
And Jesus saith unto him, See thou *tell no man*; but go thy way, shew
thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a
testimony unto them.
Matthew 16:20 (English-KJV)
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was
Jesus the Christ.
Matthew 17:9 (English-KJV)
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying,
Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the
dead.
Mark 7:36 (English-KJV)
And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he
charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;
Mark 8:26 (English-KJV)
And he sent him away to his house, saying, Neither go into the town, nor
tell it to any in the town.
Mark 8:30 (English-KJV)
And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
Need I go on? These scriptures illustrate that Jesus wanted his
disciples to come to him out of faith, not because he feed them, or some
other miracle.
> I think the concept of keeping this information hidden is contrary
> to the principles of truth. Some may argue that those that read it
> won't understand it, but then how can anyone guarantee that those that
> even go through the LDS Temple will understand the ceremony?
See below *, but I would bet that the percentage would be much greater
(temple-attending vs. web-browsing) because they entered in at the gate.
> You can't and I can't guarantee anything. However, I can present
> resources so people can make a more informed decision rather than
> living in a vacuum.
But how did it help the Jews in Christ's time?
> I think when a person is old enough to ask a question, they are
> old enough to get an answer, not an excuse. Why do Mormons keep the
> LDS Ceremony secret? IMO, to make the endowment a novelty, more
> so than a spiritual truth. Spiritual truths should not be hidden (IMO),
> they should be presented to the world.
*I think the Lord answers that question for you better than I:
Matthew 13
10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them
in parables?
11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know
the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more
abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even
that he hath.
13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not;
and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By
hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall
see, and shall not perceive:
15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of
hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they
should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should
understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should
heal them.
16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
17For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have
desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and
to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
Now, you may ask: Didn't Jesus at least give the parable to everyone?
Yes, he did, at least to those present. But eventually only those who
continued to follow him received further knowledge. If a person is not
willing to commit to the worthiness required to enter the temple then
they also reject the further light and knowledge revealed in the temple.
Of course one's understanding of the TC is based on righteousness,
similar to understanding the parables.
--
Roger.
H. Christian Jorgensen
On 17 Nov 1996 17:29:49 GMT, John Perry <per...@medusa.et.byu.edu>
wrote:
>Would you consider it evil to discuss
>in detail or post specifics about, say,
>the church of scientology? Specifically,
>the information that they consider private?
Yes. If they consider it sacred. If the official church position and
the Lord's is indeed that.
>I, for one, would not hesitate for a moment
>to read or obtain or talk about their most
>secret ceremonies--to me, they are meaningless.
>Despite the best efforts of mormons around me
>to the contrary, I have a hard time holding
>it against non-members when they do the same
>with our beliefs. Of course I won't encourage
>them, but I can't really blame them.
If one does not beleive that anything is sacred, then one will not
understand the sanctity of such things.
>Now, changing the words or misrepresenting
>them to others is an entirely different
>matter. Spreading non-truths is wrong.
One must know if the source is true before the truth be true.
-
>-john perry (per...@medusa.et.byu.edu)
>
God Bless You
Christian Jorgensen
---
H. Christian Jorgensen
>
>The truth has a way of getting out. What is wrong with people knowing
>what covenants will be asked of them? What is wrong with people knowing
>what will be done to their bodies? What is wrong with people knowing
>the truth?
The point is that some things should not be printed (even though they
can be) out of discretion and respect for others. If one truly be in
Christ and loves others, showing respect and compassion for their
religious beliefs of supreme consideration. If we LDS have asked
others to show respect on this forum and they fail to do so because of
personal agenda, then one should try to understand why the disrespect
was performed.
IMHO, I would never come into someone else's own house and disrespect
their beliefs. What I see here is no better than tabloid journalism.
Tabloid journalism appeals to the reader because of its shock value.
It issues an emotional response from the reader. The reader either
gets angry and blows their testimony or sadly shakes their head. In
some cases, the reader simply tosses the offending junk into the
trash.
But If the credibility of the post is to be understood, the motifs
behind it should be understood as well.
To hide behind the caveat of seeking the truth just simply does not
justify why sacred items need to be discussed.
This is an LDS "hot button" that is well know to solicit high degrees
of emotion within the reader. The posters should know this and be
prepared to offer some latitude in revealing why they are so willing
to breach the issue. Hiding their reasons conflict with the very
nature of their own argument, which is to present the facts as part of
their right to free speech.
>I think the concept of keeping this information hidden is contrary
>to the principles of truth. Some may argue that those that read it
>won't understand it, but then how can anyone guarantee that those that
>even go through the LDS Temple will understand the ceremony?
>You can't and I can't guarantee anything. However, I can present
>resources so people can make a more informed decision rather than
>living in a vacuum.
IMHO, the matters of any church, financial, personal and private are
characteristic of any church in the world. When you have confessions
in the RCC, does that mean the priest will now go to the press and
discuss it? Do we have the right to know as Christians? Once the
priest hears it, should he write it down to understand it better?
I venture to guess the LDS church deserves the same privacy and
ability to practice the Lord's sacred ceremonies, as any church on
this earth. If someone were in a church on this earth, they should
understand and respect this only as a matter of religious freedom.
Which BTW, directly conflicts with the right of free speech.
IMHO, truth is a two-way street. If we don't know the motifs of a
poster (i.e. one does not belong to a church, or has a personal
agenda) then how can we know what is written at these linked sites is
true. This poster may simply be making up lies to deceive and to
mislead.
If the poster never been to the temple or attended the ceremony, then
how do we know that the poster has the credibility to speak on the
subject. IMHO, this would be like me talking to SRM about rocket
science (I know nothing about BTW). So credibility and intent is
important in when you consider a post.
>I think when a person is old enough to ask a question, they are
>old enough to get an answer, not an excuse. Why do Mormons keep the
>LDS Ceremony secret? IMO, to make the endowment a novelty, more
>so than a spiritual truth. Spiritual truths should not be hidden (IMO),
>they should be presented to the world.
Simply put, it is secret because it is sacred. If one holds nothing
sacred, then it will be hard for the reader to respect the sanctities
of the TC and they will read it.
If the reader is seriously considering viewing this material, they
should understand that the Lord has counseled us on revealing this
material. He also states that there will be judgements made by the
Lord against any who abuse the sacredness of this material. If not in
this life, then in the hereafter. As an investigator or new convert,
are you ready to take that step and meet with Him on this issue? You
can hide your actions from your bishop, stake president or even your
wife, but the Lord Jesus Christ knows your will and soul. He alone
will be the final judge.
Remember brothers and sisters in Christ who is the author of confusion
and all lies. What he would like you to believe is that free speech
is his right and not God's as well. But if you trust the Lord not to
lie to you, then believe what he says is correct.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>James
Extensive discussion of LDS Temple ceremony as a Christian
ritualization of the ancient Hebrew Temple service
http://www.teleport.com/~arden/temple.htm
God Bless You
Christian Jorgensen
---
Craig Anderson
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<56nrnk$k...@q.seanet.com>...
> (message sent to Woody and to srm)
>
> >
> > Posting links to transcripts of LDS Temple ceremonies is evil,
> > whether or not it is not prohibited by the list charter.
>
> Perhaps, you may have a personal opinion on the matter,
> but I can care less about your accussations on my actions.
My understanding is that the temple ceremony is copyrighted; if so,
printing the ceremony is a violation of the copyright, and morally wrong,
plain and simple
> One of the reasons I posted the LDS temple information was
> due to the lies regarding the ceremony.
Oh? How has the church lied about the ceremony?
> Mormons for years
> have denied the connection with Masonry. I have shown to the
> very least the many similarities.
Oh, you mean that some members claim that the ceremony stands on its own
merits, any superficial similarities to Masonry notwithstanding, and
therefore, you must publish sacred things? As far as similarities, I notice
you don't also post the greater number of differences. Seems disingenuous
to me.
> Also, the LDS Temple ceremonies
> have changed with time. The ceremony a Mormon grandmother
> went through years ago is different from the one Mormons go
> through now.
So?
> I think Mormons and non-Mormons should have
> access to this information.
Really? Why? What difference does it make to your eternal happiness?
> > The ceremonies inside the Temple are sacred to us.
>
> The opperative word is "us", not everyone.
Yes, "us" meaning the members of the church. Who else would it apply to?
> > We
> > specifically ask those not of our Church to respect our
> > private ceremonies.
>
> You can only ask, and nothing more. You have no right or
> authority to stop me from posting this information on the
> internet. Your request is denied.
Indicating simply a bitterness and hatred toward the church and its
members.
This seems to be a prime example of the statement that those who leave the
church can never fully leave it alone.
Craig
Nathan Hart
James,
I believe the difference between (g)ods and (G)od, is that one is simply
referring to a group or type of being, while the other capitalized one is
referring to a specific person (i.e. God Himself).
Nate
Steve O'Neil
[Moderator's Note: Although you feel it is not secret, it none the less is not permitted to be quoted here as per the charter]
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The temple cerimony is not
secret, just sacred.
You can probably guess what my wife and I do behind closed doors, but
I'm not going to tell anyone about it. Of course I'm not implying that
the temple endowment is anything like that but my point is that both
are so sacred and personal that they're not openly discussed.
People can read the transcripts, but what will that do for them?
People have to meet certain requirements before entering the temple.
Why? Because for one not prepared spiritually, it will be a waste of
time. That's why it is meaningless to someone like James. He can read
transcripts all he likes, but he will never understand it. As he
rightly pointed out, some people go to the temple and still don't
understand it. This is why lds members go again and again. It is so
deep, meaningful and special that it takes an extraordinary amount of
effort to really understanfd and appreciate it. I hope James
participates in a real endowment someday. Then he might just begin to
understand why it's so sacred.
Jeremiah W. James
In article <56r665$l...@q.seanet.com>,
Craig Anderson <cra...@asymetrix.com> wrote:
>My understanding is that the temple ceremony is copyrighted; if so,
>printing the ceremony is a violation of the copyright, and morally wrong,
>plain and simple
I have frequently heard two claims made about the temple ceremony:
1) It is copyrighted (that is, registered with the US Copyright
Office); and
2) A copy is available in the Library of Congress (the claim is
usually made that this is a requirement for #1).
Awhile ago, I investigated these two claims and posted the results to
a.r.m. As far as I can determine, both of them are false. If anyone
has information to the contrary (other than hearsay), I'd like to see
it. Otherwise, I'm afraid these two are also Mormon UL.
Let me add that I think this makes little difference to the dispute at
hand. I hold the temple ceremony to be very sacred, and am saddened and
hurt when someone holds it up as an object of ridicule. I am especially
saddened when I see that the benefits accruing to those who do so are
... well, as far as I can see, the only benefit they get is an
opportunity to mock the temple ceremony, the church, and members of the
church. Mockery, in my opinion, is insufficient motivation for
anything, and I urge James and others who try to drag the temple
ceremony through the mud to heed these words:
Ether 12:26
And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools
mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek,
that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;
Ask yourself, "What do I *gain* by making the TC text available?" Then
ask yourself, "What do I *lose* by making the TC text available?"
Balance the two carefully. Remember that on the losing side you must
include your credence in the eyes of Mormons as someone who genuinely
cares for Mormons.
Jerry James
Email: je...@cs.ucsb.edu
WWW: http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~jerry/
Woody Brison
I, Woody Brison, wrote:
> Posting links to transcripts of LDS Temple ceremonies is evil,
> whether or not it is not prohibited by the list charter.
John Perry <per...@medusa.et.byu.edu> wrote:
> Would you consider it evil to discuss
> in detail or post specifics about, say,
> the church of scientology? Specifically,
> the information that they consider private?
> I, for one, would not hesitate for a moment
> to read or obtain or talk about their most
> secret ceremonies--to me, they are meaningless.
Yes. Look at the reference I gave:
Matt. 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is
the law and the prophets.
Have you read this and spent some time pondering and
communicating with Him who said these words? If you want
others to respect our private ceremonies, you should respect
their private ceremonies. Now consider Article of Faith #11.
We claim the priveledge of worshipping Almighty God according
to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the
same priveledge, let them worship how, where, or what they
may.
> Despite the best efforts of mormons around me
> to the contrary, I have a hard time holding
> it against non-members when they do the same
> with our beliefs. Of course I won't encourage
> them, but I can't really blame them.
Here you are right. It is the act of a true Christian to
overlook faults in others. But it really is a fault. We
have lost a lot of our cultural morality -- unwritten rules
of society -- but they are recoverable with some experience
in life and some thought and some prayer.
Love,
Wood
Woody Brison
Here is a thought: you cannot get at the ceremony, the
/real ceremony, unless you go through the procedure: join the
Church, live the religion for a year, go through the ceremony
yourself, get the Lord to show you what it means. The
transcript, to an outsider, is generally meaningless (unless
they have been studying their apocryphal literature!) so it
is ridiculed. Now /that is proof that you don't have the
right meaning for it, for why would 8 million people support
the Temple if it was ridiculous? No, no; there must be a
hidden meaning in it all, and you simply can't get that except
by revelation from the Lord to you personally.
Wood
James
(message sent to Craig and to s.r.m.)
Craig, thank you for the response.
I hope I can clear up some issues with this post, if
not I will happy to discuss this issue more.
Craig Anderson wrote:
<snip>
> My understanding is that the temple ceremony is copyrighted; if so,
> printing the ceremony is a violation of the copyright, and
> morally wrong, plain and simple
No, I do not believe so. If the publication of the LDS Temple
ceremony was in violation of the law, I am quite sure that
the LDS Church would already have filed charges against these
particular web site owners:
http://www.inlink.com/~rife/ldsendow31 (1931 Version)
http://www.inlink.com/~rife/ldsendow84 (1984 Version)
http://www.inlink.com/~rife/ldsendow90 (1990 Version)
http://nowscape.com/mormcr1.htm
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/c/cldills/www/mormon.html
> > One of the reasons I posted the LDS temple information was
> > due to the lies regarding the ceremony.
>
> Oh? How has the church lied about the ceremony?
I was talking about LDS Scholars.
For instance, Hugh Nibley (Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass)
and Gilbert Scharffs (The Truth About the God Makers).
> > Mormons for years
> > have denied the connection with Masonry. I have shown to the
> > very least the many similarities.
>
> Oh, you mean that some members claim that the ceremony stands
> on its own merits, any superficial similarities to Masonry
> notwithstanding, and therefore, you must publish sacred things?
No many Mormons, and LDS scholars have claimed that there are
no Masonic similarities when there are many. You can see a
list of these similarities at my web site:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
You can also see the transition from the Kirtland endowment
by examining the non-secret ritual:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
> As far as similarities, I notice you don't also post the greater
> number of differences. Seems disingenuous to me.
I have posted the many similarities of the two ceremonies
on this newsgroup, the soc.religion.mormon charter prohibits
such acts.
I will agree with you that the LDS ceremony has more differences
than similarities. However it is the similarities that show
that Joseph Smith used parts of the Masonic rites for the ceremony.
I object to people denying that there are similarities. I do
not object to people stating that there are differences in
the two ceremonies.
<snip>
> > You can only ask, and nothing more. You have no right or
> > authority to stop me from posting this information on the
> > internet. Your request is denied.
>
> Indicating simply a bitterness and hatred toward the church and its
> members.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But, I disagree with
your statements, and I know myself much better than you do.
> This seems to be a prime example of the statement that those
> who leave the church can never fully leave it alone.
Craig if this is a prime example, then how can you explain that
I have never been a member of the LDS Church?
Perhaps the LDS prophet will come up with another statement,
those that find the LDS Church as not true, can't help themselves
in expressing their sincere and honest beliefs to Mormons.
Sincerely,
James
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
James
(Message sent to Steve and to srm)
Steve O'Neil wrote:
>
> [Moderator's Note: Although you feel it is not secret, it none the
less is not permitted to be quoted here as per the charter]
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again. The temple cerimony is not
> secret, just sacred.
On this newsgroup, as the moderator just noted, the LDS Temple
ceremony is "off limits". However, links to descriptions are not.
I think this makes some good sense. First, it allows people
a choice. People can either choose to or not to take a look at
the LDS transcripts: http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
My posting of the links provides people with a choice. I am
certainly not disclosing it here on s.r.m. I am just saying if
people are interested then the information is available. One
of the reasons I posted the links was to facilitate the discussion
of the similarities between the Masonic rituals and the
LDS Temple rites. However, this did not occur as I had hoped.
<snip>
> People can read the transcripts, but what will that do for them?
People will need to answer that question for themselves.
For me, I learned that the LDS Ceremony had many Masonic
similarities. I also admit that there were many differences,
but the similarities are quite telling.
> People have to meet certain requirements before entering the temple.
> Why? Because for one not prepared spiritually, it will be a waste of
> time. That's why it is meaningless to someone like James.
I agree that the LDS Temple ceremony does not hold the same
value in my life as it does yours. However, I do not think that
these differences should stop us from talking about the LDS
Temple ceremony in general (not specifics).
<snip>
Sincerely,
James
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
James
(message sent to Jeremiah W. James and to srm)
Jeremiah W. James wrote:
<snip>
> Let me add that I think this makes little difference to the dispute at
> hand. I hold the temple ceremony to be very sacred, and am saddened
> and hurt when someone holds it up as an object of ridicule.
I do not think that we would be having this discussion at all
if LDS Scholars and others did not lie (IMO) about certain
aspects of the LDS Ceremony. At my web site I do not display
the entire LDS Ceremony. In fact, I only display the sections
that are relevant to my point, the Masonic similarities. I provide
the reference of my source, which happens to be from a web site,
so anyone willing to verify it can do so.
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
My web site also displays the LDS Ceremony in Kirtland which was
not secret at the time. You can find this at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
This is shown so as to provide evidence that prior to Joseph
Smith becoming a Mason the LDS Temple ceremony was absent of
the Masonic similarities. Then I show only weeks after Joseph
Smith becomes a Mason, the Masonic similarities show
up. To me, this is a valid topic of discussion on this newsgroup
as long as we do not discuss the particulars.
<snip>
> Mockery, in my opinion, is insufficient motivation for
> anything, and I urge James and others who try to drag the temple
> ceremony through the mud to heed these words:
I do not think that I am dragging the LDS Temple ceremony
through the mud. However, I am bringing to the discussion
the idea that Joseph Smith borrowed/stole from the Masonic
ceremony to create the LDS endowment ceremony. Furthermore,
the s.r.m. charter does not prohibit such a generalized
discussion of the LDS Temple ceremony, so I am certainly not
"out of line" by bringing this topic to s.r.m.
I am surprised to have encountered such extreme attacks when this
forum is supposed to encourage discussion not condemnation.
Nevertheless, I will respectfully disagree with your judgements.
However, you certainly have the right to express your opinion
here, just as I do too.
<snip>
> Ask yourself, "What do I *gain* by making the TC text available?" Then
I hoped for disscussion of the issues. I also sent a message
which was heard by some.
> ask yourself, "What do I *lose* by making the TC text available?"
I personally do not lose anything. But, many Mormons like yourself
have lost some (a lot of) respect for me. I will take this into
consideration in the future when dealing with the topic. I know
that I will need to earn the respect back.
> Balance the two carefully. Remember that on the losing side you must
> include your credence in the eyes of Mormons as someone who genuinely
> cares for Mormons.
Although I know that I did not do wrong in posting the LDS Temple
ceremony links, I know that I can do better. The post certainly
pressed the limits, only because my limits were also pressed at
the time. The situation was unusual and most s.r.m. readers
will not understand unless they e-mail me privately. I have
talked about the LDS Ceremony previously on s.r.m. without such
acute criticism, but that was a different situation.
When I look back on this thread, I realize that my main message
was lost for most (99%) of the s.r.m. readers. Therefore, others
and myself have not benefited from this thread for the most part.
I will try to improve on future threads. Just think, basically
anything would be an improvement. ;-)
Sincerely,
James
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
James
(message sent to Nathan and to srm)
Is this regarding my comments about the word "gods" in D&C 132?
I was pointing out that the Doctrine and Covenants had changed the
capitalization over time. The History of the Church records that the
Doctrine and Covenants had "gods" capitalized as "Gods". Yet, when
we look at the D&C version today the word is not capitalized for the
same D&C 132. Over time the LDS Church transformed the word "Gods" to
"gods". I find this change interesting because the words may now have
a different meaning.
Sincerely,
James
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
Thomas Richard Dibble
je...@cs.ucsb.edu (Jeremiah W. James) writes:
> In article <56r665$l...@q.seanet.com>,
> Craig Anderson <cra...@asymetrix.com> wrote:
> >My understanding is that the temple ceremony is copyrighted; if so,
> >printing the ceremony is a violation of the copyright, and morally wrong,
> >plain and simple
>
> I have frequently heard two claims made about the temple ceremony:
>
> 1) It is copyrighted (that is, registered with the US Copyright
> Office); and
Actually, this isn't required for a copyright. Registration strengthens
your case if someone infringes on your copyright (you can prove that, yes,
you wrote it first), but *anything* you write is inherently copyrighted.
You hold all rights to the copying of your own material, quite plainly.
Now, I am not sure if the Church would have much of a court case, as the
people posting the ceremony are not getting money for it, nor can it be
proven that their copy is indeed a *copy* of the ceremony without going
through some rather unsavory evidence proceedings. The Church *could* ask
them to stop distributing the materials, but then, it tacitly acknowledges
that those *are* the transcripts of the ceremony.
Hedgehog
In article <56v8dv$5...@q.seanet.com> James,
enginee...@mindspring.com writes:
>I was pointing out that the Doctrine and Covenants had changed the
>capitalization over time.
But also keep in mind that the conventions with respect to capitalization
changes over time as well. Try looking at a wide variety of documents
written in the 18th and 19th centuries and you will see that they do not
capitalize as a 20th century writer would.
It is possible that the doctrine of the LDS church stayed the same, but
that the capitalization need to be changed because of the new conventions.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Diana Newman
James wrote:
<snip>
> No, I do not believe so. If the publication of the LDS Temple
> ceremony was in violation of the law, I am quite sure that
> the LDS Church would already have filed charges against these
> particular web site owners:
<snip URL'S.>
You have us confused with the Scientologists, James. The Temple Ceremony
is indeed copywrited, although by NOT suing violators the church may
have lost a great deal of the protection copywrite laws provide.
We do not sue because the ceremony isn't copywrited. We do not sue
simply because we do not sue. It's not our style.
Diana
Jeremiah W. James
In article <56v8at$5...@q.seanet.com>,
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I do not think that we would be having this discussion at all
>if LDS Scholars and others did not lie (IMO) about certain
>aspects of the LDS Ceremony.
Okay, here's an issue we can sink our teeth into. Which LDS scholars
lied, in your opinion? What references can you provide?
> At my web site I do not display
>the entire LDS Ceremony. In fact, I only display the sections
>that are relevant to my point, the Masonic similarities. I provide
>the reference of my source, which happens to be from a web site,
>so anyone willing to verify it can do so.
>
>http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
>
>My web site also displays the LDS Ceremony in Kirtland which was
>not secret at the time. You can find this at:
>http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
>
>This is shown so as to provide evidence that prior to Joseph
>Smith becoming a Mason the LDS Temple ceremony was absent of
>the Masonic similarities. Then I show only weeks after Joseph
>Smith becomes a Mason, the Masonic similarities show
>up. To me, this is a valid topic of discussion on this newsgroup
>as long as we do not discuss the particulars.
Have you ever responded to Arden? If so, I missed it. Arden's point
was that Masonry provided some of the *form* of the temple ceremony, but
that the *contents* of the two ceremonies are entirely different. I
personally have no problem with that. It is apparent to me that the
Lord frequently uses the forms we humans establish to communicate the
content he wishes us to have? Do you feel that the content of the LDS
temple ceremony also borrows from Masonry? If so, how? If not, what
significance does mere form have?
[snip]
>I am surprised to have encountered such extreme attacks when this
>forum is supposed to encourage discussion not condemnation.
>Nevertheless, I will respectfully disagree with your judgements.
>However, you certainly have the right to express your opinion
>here, just as I do too.
If you think my previous message was an extreme attack, you should take
a look at alt.flame! I was not disputing your right to post here; I was
questioning the wisdom of posting temple ceremony-quoting references.
You are correct in stating that you have the right; I was just
cautioning you that the exercise of that right may very well alienate
the very audience you are trying to address. IMHO, that is not a wise
thing to do.
As a student of things LDS, you must keep in mind the very strong
feelings that faithful LDS have toward the temple ceremony. In
discourse with LDS, you ignore those feelings at the peril of losing
credence in LDS eyes. Did that make more sense?
[snip the rest]
John Taber
On 20 Nov 1996, Thomas Richard Dibble wrote:
> je...@cs.ucsb.edu (Jeremiah W. James) writes:
>
> > In article <56r665$l...@q.seanet.com>,
> > Craig Anderson <cra...@asymetrix.com> wrote:
> > >My understanding is that the temple ceremony is copyrighted; if so,
> > >printing the ceremony is a violation of the copyright, and morally wrong,
> > >plain and simple
> >
> > I have frequently heard two claims made about the temple ceremony:
> >
> > 1) It is copyrighted (that is, registered with the US Copyright
> > Office); and
>
> Actually, this isn't required for a copyright. Registration strengthens
.... blah, blah, blah.
My understanding is that the temple ceremony is a "trade secret". That
is, it's not copyrighted, but it's not in the public domain, either.
Thomas Richard Dibble
mlf...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Michelle Flugge) writes:
> Thomas Richard Dibble <tom...@WPI.EDU> wrote:
> :
> : > I think when a person is old enough to ask a question, they are
> : > old enough to get an answer, not an excuse.
> :
> : And so, when your child asks about sex, you hand him a stack of Playboys?
>
> No, you sit down with them and havea discussion with them about it. You don't
> hand them a stack of Playboys, and you do not tell them "Grow up, get married,
> and then you'll find out." You communicate with your child with what you as a
> parent feels is appropriate information to dispell at the time.
Exactly. And when one has a question regarding some of God's most sacred
ordinances, it behooves us to tell them the important information as is
appropriate. It does not behoove us to break out the equivalent of an
anatomy book in front of a three-year-old. We learn line upon line,
precept upon precept. Any other way is not of God, but is of vain and
prideful men.
Craig Anderson
[Moderator's Note: The TC is probably not a registered copyright, but in any case I think James himself has only used excerpts on his pages and so James' activities could be construed as "fair use".]
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<56v7g1$5...@q.seanet.com>...
> Craig Anderson wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that the temple ceremony is copyrighted; if so,
> > printing the ceremony is a violation of the copyright, and
> > morally wrong, plain and simple
>
> No, I do not believe so. If the publication of the LDS Temple
> ceremony was in violation of the law, I am quite sure that
> the LDS Church would already have filed charges against these
> particular web site owners:
>
> http://www.inlink.com/~rife/ldsendow31 (1931 Version)
> http://www.inlink.com/~rife/ldsendow84 (1984 Version)
> http://www.inlink.com/~rife/ldsendow90 (1990 Version)
> http://nowscape.com/mormcr1.htm
> http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/c/cldills/www/mormon.html
Well, two thoughts: 1) Jeremiah says that he tried to find out whether the
ceremony is copyrighted and it seems that it is not, so far as he could
tell. I may indeed be misinformed on this. 2) I _seriously_ doubt that the
church would expend even one red cent to prosecute any web site owner.
There simply is too much to do, too much good to do, to bother with such
lawsuits. The church generally takes a strictly hands-off approach as far
as the critics are concerned, and rarely responds.
> > > One of the reasons I posted the LDS temple information was
> > > due to the lies regarding the ceremony.
> >
> > Oh? How has the church lied about the ceremony?
>
> I was talking about LDS Scholars.
> For instance, Hugh Nibley (Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass)
> and Gilbert Scharffs (The Truth About the God Makers).
Hmmm, I don't recall reading any _lies_ about the temple ceremony by either
of these men.
> No many Mormons, and LDS scholars have claimed that there are
> no Masonic similarities when there are many.
But it's all pretty academic. Considering that there are far more
differences than similarities, one could certainly search diligently and
find something else that it may be similar to, and claim that it was stolen
from that as well. For myself, I find any superficial similarities with
Masonry to be unworthy of attention.
> > As far as similarities, I notice you don't also post the greater
> > number of differences. Seems disingenuous to me.
>
> I have posted the many similarities of the two ceremonies
> on this newsgroup, the soc.religion.mormon charter prohibits
> such acts.
But the greater point, of course, is that you fail to present a balanced
picture, either here or on your web site. You are so consumed with
fostering the similarities that you give short shrift to the differences.
Thereby you skew the view and present a very one-sided distortion of the
whole.
> I object to people denying that there are similarities.
Then object to them individually; stop painting the membership as a whole
as doing the same thing.
> I do
> not object to people stating that there are differences in
> the two ceremonies.
Nor do you mention the fact. This is typical anti-Mormon modus operandi -
tell only those things that you think cast a bad light on the church, don't
mention anything that might substantiate the church or provide a more
balanced view of the whole issue.
> > > You can only ask, and nothing more. You have no right or
> > > authority to stop me from posting this information on the
> > > internet. Your request is denied.
> >
> > Indicating simply a bitterness and hatred toward the church and its
> > members.
>
> You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But, I disagree with
> your statements, and I know myself much better than you do.
I can only base my opinion on what I've seen on your web site, and what you
post here. I stand by my observation.
> > This seems to be a prime example of the statement that those
> > who leave the church can never fully leave it alone.
>
> Craig if this is a prime example, then how can you explain that
> I have never been a member of the LDS Church?
Hmmm, I could have sworn that you once stated that you were once a member
of the church. Regardless, I care not.
> Perhaps the LDS prophet will come up with another statement,
> those that find the LDS Church as not true, can't help themselves
> in expressing their sincere and honest beliefs to Mormons.
Almost seems to me that you are consumed about it, but that's just IMO.
What, pray tell, would you propose to substitute for the gospel of Jesus
Christ as taught by the LDS church? Fundamental Christianity? No thanks.
Atheism. No way. Agnosticism? Not possible for the overwhelming majority of
us. Judaism? Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism? No thanks, no thanks, no thanks, no
thanks.
The point being, of course, that I have _never_ found anyone who has
_anything_ to offer me that is better than what I have in this church. And
since I know it's true, it all becomes moot anyway. But you're welcome to
give it a shot - it had better be awfully good.
Craig
James
[Moderator's Note: James did not violate the charter by posting a pointer to his web site. He has also been reasonably considerate in indicating that the content of his pages would be contraversial.]
(this message sent to Jorgensen and to srm)
H. Christian Jorgensen wrote:
<snip>
> The point is that some things should not be printed (even though they
> can be) out of discretion and respect for others. If one truly be in
> Christ and loves others, showing respect and compassion for their
> religious beliefs of supreme consideration.
I find your statements awkward when the LDS History has shown
a lot of religious intolerance. (1Nephi 14:10)
> If we LDS have asked
> others to show respect on this forum and they fail to do so because of
> personal agenda, then one should try to understand why the disrespect
> was performed.
My post of links to the LDS Temple ceremony was within the
limits of the s.r.m. charter. This forum allows such a display
of information. To imply that I have overstepped the bounds
of this newsgoup completely ingnores the fact that my posts here
meet the requirements of moderation in both topic, civility,
etc.
> IMHO, I would never come into someone else's own house and disrespect
> their beliefs. What I see here is no better than tabloid journalism.
This is not your home, this is a newsgroup that we all share.
You are as much in my place, as I am in yours.
> To hide behind the caveat of seeking the truth just simply does not
> justify why sacred items need to be discussed.
I have never intended to discuss the particulars of the
LDS ceremony. In fact, I cannot do so on this newsgroup.
All I have presented are links to the information.
> This is an LDS "hot button" that is well know to solicit high degrees
> of emotion within the reader.
I agree that discussing the LDS Temple ceremony is a hot botton,
however, I have not discussed the particulars of the ceremony.
I just presented s.r.m. readers the opportunity to find out
where more information is regarding the ceremony.
<snip>
> IMHO, the matters of any church, financial, personal and private are
> characteristic of any church in the world. When you have confessions
> in the RCC, does that mean the priest will now go to the press and
> discuss it?
>From what I know about the RCC, the priest does not see the
individual confessing the sin.
> Once the
> priest hears it, should he write it down to understand it better?
Interesting.... RCC priests do not see the individual confessing,
nor do they write the information down. However, in the LDS Church
the Bishop frequently gets out the member's files and makes notes
on them while a person is confessing their sins.
> I venture to guess the LDS church deserves the same privacy and
> ability to practice the Lord's sacred ceremonies, as any church on
> this earth. If someone were in a church on this earth, they should
> understand and respect this only as a matter of religious freedom.
> Which BTW, directly conflicts with the right of free speech.
The information I presented only indicates a location where
a person can obtain information. I did not discuss the particulars
of the LDS Ceremony.
By-the-way, without the freedom of speech we would not have any
freedom of religion. You should be very careful when you want
to silence a person for his or her particular viewpoint.
> This poster may simply be making up lies to deceive and to mislead.
Each individual will need to make up their own mind on this issue.
<snip>
Sincerely,
James
______________________________________________________________
LDS Temple Ceremony: http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
My Web Site: http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
Albert E. Schindler
<snip>
> >
> > I have been trying to avoid commenting on this topic, as
> > I find the idea of discussing these things outside of the
> > Temple distasteful.
> Therefore, wouldn't it be best to just totally ignore negative posts like
this? What's to be gained by continuing an altercation with this guy?
> I think we can talk about the LDS Ceremony without discussing the
> particulars. The s.r.m. charter was established to insure
> that this was followed.
> I agree, to intelligently discuss the Temple Ceremony can be of benefit,
especially to those who may have some question about some part of the
Ceremony, or to one who is a bit unsure of what our Temple Ceremony is
all about. But, this guy just wants to see how far he can try your
patients! Why answer him?
Al Schindler
<snip>
James
(message sent to Diana and to srm)
Diana Newman wrote:
>
> James wrote:
<snip>
> You have us confused with the Scientologists, James. The
> Temple Ceremony is indeed copywrited,
I wonder how a religious ceremony can be copyrighted?
Certain aspects of the LDS Ceremony are "identical" or perfect
matches with the Masonic rites. This can easily be shown by
looking at a book published on Masonry in 1827, three years
previous to the formation of the LDS Church.
The book is titled, "Illustrations of Freemasonry, by One of
the Fraternity", by William Morgan, Batvia, New York, 1827.
You can find many of these similarities shown at my web site:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
William Morgan's book was written prior to the LDS Church, if
anyone wanted copyright infringements the Masons would certainly
have a case that parts of their ceremony were stolen. You may
counter that the LDS endowment originated anciently, but that
is soley speculation, and could not be shown. I have shown that
the Masonic ceremony existed prior to the development of the LDS
endowment. I have also illustrated that the LDS ceremony was different
before Joseph Smith entered into Masonry in 1842. You can see the
Kirtland endowment here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
Only weeks after Joseph Smith become a Mason (March 1842), he
teaches the other LDS Church leaders on the new endowment (May 1842).
The new endowment has the Masonic similarities. These facts certainly
indicate that the source of the LDS Endowment was in fact the
Masonic initiation rites. Therefore, the LDS ceremony cannot even
claim original authorship on those many similarities.
> although by NOT suing violators the church may
> have lost a great deal of the protection copywrite laws provide.
First, please show why you think the LDS Ceremony is copyrighted?
If so, are each version copyrighted too?
> We do not sue because the ceremony isn't copywrited. We do not sue
> simply because we do not sue. It's not our style.
I do not think the LDS Church would have any legal case. First, the
ceremony has many Masonic similarities, so claiming original
LDS authorship for some parts would prove very difficult. Secondly,
I do not believe religious ceremonies can be copyrighted in the
first place. If so, someone violated the baptism copyright thousands
of years ago.
Sincerely,
James
___________________________________________________________________
LDS Temple Ceremony:http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
My Web site:http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
H. Christian Jorgensen
[Moderator's Note: Note: General discussions of the Temple are allowed. Only statements purported to be direct quotes are forbidden.]
On 20 Nov 1996 15:32:45 GMT, James <enginee...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>I am surprised to have encountered such extreme attacks when this
>forum is supposed to encourage discussion not condemnation.
>Nevertheless, I will respectfully disagree with your judgements.
>However, you certainly have the right to express your opinion
>here, just as I do too.
IMHO, anyone who addresses this issue on SRM, should not be surprised
by its reaction. It is an admitted "hot button" and it evokes
emotional responses from even the most humblest in SRM.
>I hoped for disscussion of the issues. I also sent a message
>which was heard by some.
How can anyone discuss issues when the details can not be discussed?
If a person has never gone to the temple, this gives that person a
sterile view of the TC. If one saw the joy and goodness it brings in
the lives of LDS, then they could see why it is important to LDS. All
someone does by quoting text is to simply argue the point without
compassion. When one argues without compassion against someone who is
compassionate about the issue, one will never get them to see that
POV. IMHO, love (compassion) is what is missing with TC discussions
by antis.
IMHO, it was a flamer. IMHO, I saw similar types of postings on ARM
and they were just as inflammatory. I am sure other SRMites have seen
the same.
>I personally do not lose anything. But, many Mormons like yourself
>have lost some (a lot of) respect for me. I will take this into
>consideration in the future when dealing with the topic. I know
>that I will need to earn the respect back.
If one wants to convince LDS, one will have to respect LDS sacred
beliefs as well. LDS respond well to people who show love and respect
to us as God's children and not as just another notch for their bible.
>Although I know that I did not do wrong in posting the LDS Temple
>ceremony links, I know that I can do better. The post certainly
>pressed the limits, only because my limits were also pressed at
>the time. The situation was unusual and most s.r.m. readers
>will not understand unless they e-mail me privately. I have
>talked about the LDS Ceremony previously on s.r.m. without such
>acute criticism, but that was a different situation.
IMHO, if one wants to feel free to be unchained, try out ARM again.
There are no limits. You know that.
BTW, I know others who have tried to e-mail antis (not CsotLDS)
privately to engage in subject discussions and they simply do not call
back. IMHO, this shows a lack of sincerity and existence of a
personal agenda of some sort. If one only trolls for doubters, this
does nothing to expand the typical LDS' repository of knowledge.
BTW, hardcore antis seek to find doubt and then attack with fear and
scare tactics to get a person out of "cult". I know because I use
this tactic myself many times.
If one really wants to engage in serious discussions, then one should
avoid mass mailing campaigns and get down to some serious one-on-one
discussions. IMHO, this will gain respect amongst LDS. Those trying
to save the LDS church, should know by now that there are better ways
to maximize their efforts. Simply putting anti literature on their
window, will only irritate the LDS in SRM.
We would love to discuss the facts with antis, but in a loving and
caring way.
>When I look back on this thread, I realize that my main message
>was lost for most (99%) of the s.r.m. readers. Therefore, others
>and myself have not benefited from this thread for the most part.
And if one reposts the same way, it will surely find the same end
result. IMHO, the absolute only thing posts on the TC do to LDS is
to inflame them. If 99% of SRM readers were lost, then one should
take this a very clear message to not repeat it again.
BTW what are the benefits you seek? ;-)
>I will try to improve on future threads. Just think, basically
>anything would be an improvement. ;-)
Thanks for the honesty. :-)
>Sincerely,
>
>James
James
(message sent to Thomas and to srm)
Thomas Richard Dibble wrote:
>
> James <enginee...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> > I think when a person is old enough to ask a question, they are
> > old enough to get an answer, not an excuse.
>
> And so, when your child asks about sex, you hand him a stack of >Playboys?
I think an answer would need to be appropriate to the question.
My original post indicated sources on the internet where the
LDS Temple ceremony is described. I did not force anyone to
read the transcripts. I only provided links to the source
documents. The individual reader was given an opportunity to
decide for themselves whether they wanted the specifics or not.
I think that the question of viewing the LDS Temple transcripts
should be left to the individual. If people have questions
regarding the transcripts they can now click on the link and
find more information.
Sincerely,
James
_________________________________________________________________
LDS Temple Ceremony: http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
My Web Site: http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
James
(this message was sent to Hedgehog and to srm)
Hedgehog wrote:
> In article <56v8dv$5...@q.seanet.com> James,
> enginee...@mindspring.com writes:
> >I was pointing out that the Doctrine and Covenants had changed the
> >capitalization over time.
<snip>
> It is possible that the doctrine of the LDS church stayed the same, but
> that the capitalization need to be changed because of the new > conventions.
What new conventions? Please give us examples that would justify
the changing of "Gods" to "gods". If there are such "conventions"
then surely you should be able to provide some examples for us
here on s.r.m. to discuss.
Moreover, these alledged "conventions" must have occurred within
the last fifty or so years because the History of the Church which
was copyrighted in 1932 indicates that D&C 132 used the word "Gods",
not "gods" (History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. XXXIX).
Sincerely,
James
________________________________________________________________
LDS Temple Ceremony:http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
My Web Site:http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
________________________________________________________________
Jeremiah W. James
In article <57246k$3...@q.seanet.com>,
John Taber <tab...@cougarnet.byu.edu> wrote:
>My understanding is that the temple ceremony is a "trade secret". That
>is, it's not copyrighted, but it's not in the public domain, either.
I have a hard time believing that a religious document could be
considered a trade secret in any legally binding sense, but if you have
references I can look up, I would love to have them. Remember, too,
that we are a worldwide church, so the legal situation may vary from
place to place. I'm interested in any information along these lines
from any part of the world.
I also hold to my opinion that those who are truly concerned about LDS
should tread lightly when dealing with things we consider sacred.
Having someone wave things I consider sacred in my face, and try to
convince me of their profane nature does little to endear that person to
me. Of course, those who are *not* concerned about LDS have no
restraints, as is evident from the number of web sites that quote from
the temple ceremony. I firmly believe, though, that such people place
their own salvation in jeopardy; not because they are scorning the
temple ceremony, but because of a lack of charity (1 Corinthians 13).
Robert J. Currier
Jeremiah W. James wrote:
: I have frequently heard two claims made about the temple ceremony:
:
: 1) It is copyrighted (that is, registered with the US Copyright
: Office); and
: 2) A copy is available in the Library of Congress (the claim is
: usually made that this is a requirement for #1).
:
: Awhile ago, I investigated these two claims and posted the results to
: a.r.m. As far as I can determine, both of them are false. If anyone
: has information to the contrary (other than hearsay), I'd like to see
: it. Otherwise, I'm afraid these two are also Mormon UL.
It was read into the Congressional Record during an investigation of the
LDS church and its practices sometime around the 1900's.
George L. Sherwood
Hedgehog wrote:
>
> In article <56g2v4$p...@q.seanet.com> James,
> enginee...@mindspring.com writes:
> >Hmmm... I always thought Mormons thought less of people if they
> >break their covenants. However, I have not broken any
> >covenants or oaths in making the LDS Temple Info Post.
>
> There may be miscommunication of some sort going on here. Maybe this
> thread would flow a little better if you discussed a little bit of your
> personal life. (Are you a Mormon? Are you an ex-Mormon? What is your
> goal in posting here? etc.)
These are some very good questions, but I suspect that James will only
say his goal is "Truth." However, James, if your goal is truth, why
seek those who broke their voews to find it? Isn't it ironic? as the
song goes. I read one of the links you so kindly provided, and my
first response was: Who ever provided this information broke some
serious vows. Furthermore, if someone cannot keep a vow, how can they
be strong enough to keep the faith? How can they acquire enough
self-dicipline (or faith or whatever) to live the life required of them?
Some may say that they broke the vow because they wanted to reveal the
truth--for "the good of mankind"; but isn't it possilbe that they were
too weak, or not yet ready, to keep the faith and only then did they
decide to break their vows? I think it was Nietzsche who said that the
strong in spirit deliver even more than they promise. My second response
was: So what! What is wrong with any of this ritual? Nothing that I can
discern, except that someone at sometime could not keep their vows to
keep the ritual secret. James, you may say you only wanted to point out
the connection between this and another ritual, but, if you will excuse
my bluntness, I think you have an ulterior motive. And lastly, it seems
that many in this NG are "Christians" who argue, albeit politely, that
theirs is the "true faith." I am not saying that this is the case here,
but this seems to me, if you are willing to listen to one who
knows nothing of religion, that this is the reason for Joseph Smith's
prophecies in the first place, or more precisely, the childish bickering
of "Christians" created the necessity of a new prophecy. Nietzsche led
me to LDS, and though I am not even close to being a member, it is due
to this philosophical background that I respect mormons--which is really
ironic, I know, but nonetheless--it seems as if LDS is a religon lacking
in hypocracy; and for proof, all one needs to do is observe its people.
What can be more important than that? Nietzsche thought truth relevent
only if it served life, and... well, you see what I mean.
Sincerely
George
--
A mystic cloud sings like an angel soaring *uber* visions
of truth, but it gets caught in a net and once they are
through, it is only H2O -- and do.
Hedgehog
In article <56v7g1$5...@q.seanet.com> James,
enginee...@mindspring.com writes:
>If the publication of the LDS Temple
>ceremony was in violation of the law, I am quite sure that
>the LDS Church would already have filed charges against these
>particular web site owners:
[addresses snipped for brevity's sake]
Actually, I think James has a point here. If the LDS church knows of the
existence of these pages and declines to do anything about them, then I
think the law does claim that the church has no grounds for later action
against other people. On the other hand, we don't actually know if the
LDS church knows about these pages.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Craig Anderson
> I find your statements awkward when the LDS History has shown
> a lot of religious intolerance. (1Nephi 14:10)
A "lot" of religious intolerance? How so? And the verse you cite above
hardly gives any credence to your statement:
"And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is
the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil;
wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth
to that great chruch, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the
whore of all the earth."
Now you might interpret that as meaning the church of the Lamb of God is
_only_ the LDS church, but we don't. As far as we are concerned, it refers
to all those who try to follow God and do his will.
Further, we have a strong history of religious tolerance. The 11th Article
of Faith supports this as well:
"We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the
dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let
them worship how, where or what they may."
Religious intolerance? Rubbish.
> However, in the LDS Church
> the Bishop frequently gets out the member's files and makes notes
> on them while a person is confessing their sins.
And your evidence that all the bishops do this is ... what? That you heard
somebody same the bishop does this? I think you have no basis for the
generalized statement above.
Craig
James
(message sent to srm and to Jeremiah)
Jeremiah W. James wrote:
>
> In article <56v8at$5...@q.seanet.com>,
> James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >I do not think that we would be having this discussion at all
> >if LDS Scholars and others did not lie (IMO) about certain
> >aspects of the LDS Ceremony.
>
> Okay, here's an issue we can sink our teeth into. Which LDS scholars
> lied, in your opinion? What references can you provide?
I am glad you asked. Here is the first one I came across,
"The Truth About The God Makers", by Gilbert Scharffs, Publishers
Press, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1992 (first published 1986).
Mr. Scharfs first indicates that it is difficult to compare
the ceremonies objectively, but the statements from "an LDS
scholar who has been a Mason for fifty years is pertinent"
(page 179 of Scharff's book).
Mr. Scharff's then quotes:
"No Mason--or anyone else--acquainted with the ritual of the Order
can honestly claim there is the slightest resemblance of those
ordinances or procedures [of the LDS endowment ceremony] to anything
in a Symbolic Lodge of Freemasonry." This quote was extracted from
Mervin B. Hogan, "The Historicity of the Alledged Masonic Influence
on Mormonism," pp. 17, 30-31, January 15, 1984. The bracketed text
was included in Mr. Scharff's book.
Anybody relying on the above quoted statement would think
that there are no similarities at all, not even the slightest
resemblances, between the Masonic rites and the LDS Temple
ceremony. However, in my opinion, there are many similarities.
At my web page I have illustrated, not only one similarity, not
only two similarities, but around fifteen distinct similarities.
Perhaps one could argue that one of the similarities occurred
by chance, but not all of them. The Masonic similarities even
follow in the same order of the LDS Temple ceremony as they would
in the Masonic ritual.
You can look at the similarities of the two ceremonies side by side.
At this link I only show the parts of the ceremony that are
similar:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
The second reference worth discussing is from Hugh Nibley's
book, "Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass", Deseret Book Company,
Salt Lake City, Utah, 1991.
On page 22 Hugh Nibley is refuting Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows
My History". Nibley writes sarcastically, "In 1842, after
years of temple building, Joseph Smith suddenly becomes a Mason
and steals all their rites." Nibley then changes his town,
"Yet, the temples do not change their design or their meaning."
Here Nibley is outright wrong. The Kirtland Temple was very
different in design and operation. The Kirtland Temple was
used more like a church hall, than a traditional LDS Temple.
The outside of the Kirtland Temple did not have any Masonic
markings or emblems. Furthermore, the endowment practiced in
Kirtland was significantly different than the one practiced
in Nauvoo, or even today. Morover, the ceremony was not
secret at that time.
You can view a description of the Kirtland endowment here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
Hugh Nibley then goes on to say that, "The founding of
an endowment house and a temple at the same time, in 1841,
shows, as Meyer observes that the essence of the temple rites
was well established before then.
Does Nibly forget that the Nauvoo Temple was not even dedicated
until after Joseph Smith's death in 1844?
Furthermore, Joseph Smith's temple records indicate that
he received his endowments on May 4, 1842 (Family Group
Sheet - Father Temple Index Bureau). On this day Joseph
Smith instructed the other LDS Church leaders on the
"attending to washings, anointings, endowments and
communication of keys" (History of the Church, vol. 5,
pg. 2). Where did this take place? In Joseph Smith's
"general business office, or lodge room (that is where the
Masonic Fraternity meet occasionally, for want of a better
place)" (text within parenthesis was included in quote,
ibid., pg. 1)
So what we have is LDS Scholars that should know with a
little research that the Kirtland endowment was much different
than the one practiced in Nauvoo. They should also know
in my opinion, that Joseph Smith became a Mason in March 1842.
And, only weeks after JS instructed the other LDS Church leaders
on the "new" endowment and received it himself.
So, in my opinion, the statement that "No Mason--or anyone else--
acquainted with the ritual of the Order can honestly claim
there is the slightest resemblance of those ordinances or
procedures [of the LDS endowment ceremony] to anything in a
Symbolic Lodge of Freemasonry." is an outright lie. I also
think that the statements made by Hugh Nibley are deceptive,
especially because not only did the Kirtland Temple have
drastic difference from the Nauvoo Temple, but also the
rituals practiced within them were significantly different.
<snip>
> Have you ever responded to Arden?
I think we have had our discussions in the past on a.r.m.
> If so, I missed it.
> Arden's point was that Masonry provided some of the *form* of the
> temple ceremony,
Nevertheless, Arden's statements would contradict the
statements made by Hugh Nibley and Gilbert Scharffs (IMO).
> but that the *contents* of the two ceremonies
> are entirely different.
I agree that the ceremonies are different. However, the
similarities tell a lot (IMO).
> I
> personally have no problem with that. It is apparent to me that the
> Lord frequently uses the forms we humans establish to communicate the
> content he wishes us to have?
For Joseph Smith to steal/borrow from the Masonic ritual he would had
to have violated his Masonic oaths. I cannot discuss them here,
because the s.r.m. charter would prohibit it. Nevertheless,
to accept this theory would mean that God cares nothing about
solemn oaths in the first place, which is something I think most
Mormons would disagree with.
> Do you feel that the content of the LDS
> temple ceremony also borrows from Masonry? If so, how?
Yes, I think that there are some parallels in content,
such as the depiction of Hiram Abiff being raised from the dead
(dead body lifted up by Master Mason). I again cannot
explain in too much detail here because the s.r.m. charter
prohibits the specifics.
> If not, what
> significance does mere form have?
The form indicates the source and also that Joseph would
violate his Masonic oaths.
> [snip]
> I was just
> cautioning you that the exercise of that right may very well alienate
> the very audience you are trying to address. IMHO, that is not a wise
> thing to do.
I can hear your caution. I think my situation was unusual,
but necessary. I never expected this type of a response, but I
will take the just criticism. I often learn most from my mistakes.
> As a student of things LDS, you must keep in mind the very strong
> feelings that faithful LDS have toward the temple ceremony. In
> discourse with LDS, you ignore those feelings at the peril of losing
> credence in LDS eyes. Did that make more sense?
Yes it did.
Thank you for explaining your point and asking for more
discussion. I appreciate the dialogue, and will learn from
the criticism.
Sincerely,
James
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
James
(message sent to Jorgensen and to srm)
H. Christian Jorgensen wrote:
<snip>
> And if one reposts the same way, it will surely find the same end
> result. IMHO, the absolute only thing posts on the TC do to LDS is
> to inflame them. If 99% of SRM readers were lost, then one should
> take this a very clear message to not repeat it again.
In the future, I will take your input and others into consideration.
I think I have learned a lesson from this exchange. I hope we all
have. ;-)
I was acting under an unusual situation, which I hope never happens
again. However, this does not mean in the future I will be silent
about my opinion regarding the Masonic connection with the LDS
Endowment. I also think the LDS endowment in general is a topic
worth discussing, for instance the endowment changes over time.
Sincerely,
James
"I am always willing to learn, but I do not always like being taught"
Winston Churchill
___________________________________________________________
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
James
(Message sent to Craig and to srm)
Craig Anderson wrote:
>
> James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<snip>
>And the verse you cite above
> hardly gives any credence to your statement:
>
> "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only;
> the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the
> church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the
> church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great chruch,
> which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore
> of all the earth."
>
> Now you might interpret that as meaning the church of the
> Lamb of God is _only_ the LDS church, but we don't.
How else can 1 Nephi 14:10 be interpreted? And if you will argue
that other religions belong to the church of the Lamb of God,
would you be so kind in listing them for us. And if there
are other religions that are of the lamb of God, why does the
LDS Church teach missionary discussions to members of other
faiths?
> As far as we are concerned, it refers
> to all those who try to follow God and do his will.
Your interpretation is quite general. During my missionary
lesson the Elders talked about the LDS Church being the only
true church. They outlined the falling away of all other
religions, the apostacy of the RCC, and so on.
> Further, we have a strong history of religious tolerance. The
> 11th Article of Faith supports this as well:
>
> "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the
> dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same
> privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."
Just because the LDS Church has a written policy doesn't
mean the LDS Church abides by it.
AofF:2
"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and
not for Adam's transgression".
Yet blacks for over a hundred years were denied the LDS Priesthood
based solely on the color of their skin.
AofF:12
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers,
and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
Yet, Joseph Smith and other early LDS Church leaders violated
the anti-polygamy law of Illinois which was enacted in
February 1833.
AofF:13
"We believe in being honest, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in
doing good to all men..."
Yet, Joseph Smith ordered the destruction of the printing
press of the Nauvoo Expositor. You can read the Nauvoo
Expositor at: http://www.sj-coop.net/~tseng/LDS/expositr.txt
Yet, Joseph Smith and other early LDS Church leaders denied
that they practiced polygamy publicly accussing those that
had exposed the practice as liars. For references see:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/denpract.htm
(The Doctrine and Covenants published in 1835 even declared
that Mormons did not practice polygamy, yet we should know
that Joseph Smith did practice it)
Yet, there is significant evidence that Joseph Smith married
the wives of other men. See references at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/menwives.htm
Yet, a group of Mormons massacred unarmed men and women at MMM:
http://www.i-d.com/~deshazer/MASSACRE.HTM
<snip>
> > However, in the LDS Church
> > the Bishop frequently gets out the member's files and makes notes
> > on them while a person is confessing their sins.
>
> And your evidence that all the bishops do this is ... what?
I do not think that *all* the bishops write notes regarding
a person's sins. However, I have heard too many personal accounts
from ex-Mormons and Mormons that support my statements.
> That you heard somebody same the bishop does this? I think
> you have no basis for the generalized statement above.
Do we have any Bishops or ex-Bishops on srm that can speak
personally regarding this matter? I would like to hear from
them.
Sincerely,
James
_____________________________________________________________
Visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
LDS Temple Info here:
http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
Peter Berdi
I don't really understand these attacks on James, because he put
a pointer to the LDS Temple Ceremony site.
1.This is not against the s.r.m. charter.
2.If anyone can't get the description of the temple ritual without
James's help, he/she doesn't deserve the right to read about it.
One year ago when I researched the church I wanted to know what
is going on there.It took about a week to find a source, to get
the description.If somebody really want to know it, he/she can get
the information easily.
Today I know of at least 3 bookstores where you can order a
copy of the ceremony.If I know well the ceremony was broadcasted in
Utah on radio a few years ago, from a smuggled out tape.
What could be kept a secret 100 years ago easily it is
impossible today.
Someone said and he was dead right, the internet will do to
mormonism what bookprinting did to catholicism.I guess he had to be
a prophet.
Peter
James
(Message sent to George and to srm)
George L. Sherwood wrote:
<snip>
> These are some very good questions, but I suspect that James will only
> say his goal is "Truth."
Or, something to that effect. I also just enjoy talking with other
people that are interested in the same topic.
> However, James, if your goal is truth, why
> seek those who broke their voews to find it? Isn't it ironic? as the
> song goes.
I think that people should take the source into consideration
when examining any material. Good point.
> I read one of the links you so kindly provided, and my
> first response was: Who ever provided this information broke some
> serious vows.
I would come to a similar conclusion.
> Furthermore, if someone cannot keep a vow, how can they
> be strong enough to keep the faith?
Hmmm... Joseph Smith made similar oaths when he entered
into Masonry in March 1842. Weeks after his initiation into
Masonry the "new" endowment was created, with Masonic similarities
included. Joseph Smith's endowment is recorded as May 4, 1842.
Masonic Oaths/LDS Similarities:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
> How can they acquire enough self-dicipline (or faith or
> whatever) to live the life required of them?
Would you say the same if you knew that Joseph Smith
violated his Masonic oaths?
> Some may say that they broke the vow because they wanted to reveal the
> truth--for "the good of mankind"; but isn't it possilbe that they were
> too weak, or not yet ready, to keep the faith and only then did they
> decide to break their vows?
I do not know the specifics about the individuals that provided
the information. However, I believe the transcripts are accurate
for the most part. I have seen the similar descriptions from
at least twenty or so different sources spanning a time period
of over a hundred years.
<snip>
> What is wrong with any of this ritual? Nothing that I can
> discern, except that someone at sometime could not keep
> their vows to keep the ritual secret.
I believe I pointed out in my previous post that the ceremony
itself shows Masonic similarities. There are fifteen or so that
I have identified at my web site. You can view these similarities
here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
These similarites show up in the LDS Ceremony eventhough the
Kirtland Temple just years earlier had none. A description of the
non-secret ceremony at Kirtland can be found here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
> James, you may say you only wanted to point out the
> connection between this and another ritual, but, if you will
> excuse my bluntness, I think you have an ulterior motive.
I excuse you. My motive was two fold. First, I wanted to show
that the Masonic ceremony did in fact have similarities, even
though LDS Scholars have denied this argument. Second, I
cannot discuss the second reason on this newsgroup.
<snip>
> Nietzsche led
> me to LDS, and though I am not even close to being a member, it is due
> to this philosophical background that I respect mormons--
Although my actions on s.r.m. may appear that I have little or
no respect for Mormons, I do. I have many friends and family that
are Mormon. I value my friendships with them just as much as
I value my friendships with non-Mormons.
After seeing all of the feedback on my post, "LDS TEMPLE INFO HERE"
I realize that I could have done much better in getting my point
across. I hope to learn from this experience for the future.
Thank you for your comments.
Sincerely,
James
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
Marc Schindler
James enginee...@mindspring.com wrote:
<snip>
=I was talking about LDS Scholars.
=For instance, Hugh Nibley (Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass)
=and Gilbert Scharffs (The Truth About the God Makers).
I'm not sure if I'd call Scharffs a scholar (I don't know him), but
I would be interested in knowing why you feel Hugh Nibley's comments
in TCSB deny similarities with Masonic symbolism.
I've steered clear of this discussion on ARM and now here on SRM
for the basic reason that I think the changes in the TC and the
similarities with masonry are all barking up the wrong tree. Of
course there are similarities with masonry, but the point critics
don't seem to understand, IMO, is that they're talking about
liturgy, not the basic core of the TC, which is the covenants we
enter into and the very meaning of the temple itself. It's a
confusion between the medium and the message, in my opinion. I
used to joke on ARM (because we had a Finnish Armekite at the
time [hey, Jesse - you still there?]) that if Joseph Smith had
been Finnish we'd all be chanting strange things out of the
Kalevala. One of the ironies of our TC (again, IMHO) is that the
liturgy is just a means whereby a more profound message is de-
livered, but it could be any liturgy - this just happens to be
the one Joseph Smith picked using what he had at hand - but that
since one of the underlying principles is called "consecration,"
which is to say, a dedication of oneself to the building up of
the Kingdom, and that a token, or outward manifestation of that
covenant is agreeing not to reveal some of the liturgically-ex-
pressed things, like the new name, the tokens, and so on, that
we are put in the awkward spot of saying "I can't discuss that,
but it's not important...well, I mean, it _is_ important, because
I can't discuss it, but I can't tell you why!"
Does that help? Or just muddy things even more?
Marc A. Schindler
Marc Schindler
Further to James's (enginee...@mindspring.com) comments on whether
or not the TC is copyrighted or can be copyrighted: I think, as I think
he does too, when the rubber hits the pavement, that this is a side
issue, if not a red herring, but while we're beating it to death, let
me cast a few of my own stones...
The situation today is that the Berne Convention, to which the U.S. is
a signatory (although somewhat belatedly; the U.S. isn't used to signing
treaties and would rather just tell the rest of the world what to do)
dictates that _any_ creative work is ipso facto copyright, whether the
author claims that right or not. There are certain conventions an author
should (but not necessarily must) follow to protect these rights. There
are also exceptions and caveats, one of the most important of which is
called "fair use policy." That means you don't have the right to take
the latest William Gibson novel and reprint it and sell it as your own,
but you _do_ have the right to quote from it for purposes of review,
academic discussion, etc. Much as I find the posting of the TC dis-
tasteful (as an active LDS with a curren temple recommend myself), I
have to admit that your postings would probably fall under this fair
use policy: you are posting them for the purposes of discussion, not
because you're trying to start up your own church or, well, whatever.
The situation at the time of Joseph Smith wasn't at all so clear. Copy-
right rights are relatively modern in nature; until the 20th century,
the principle seems to have been that plagiarism is the highest form of
flattery; it wasn't the commercial issue that it is today. Furthermore,
the Masons would have been highly unlikely to have tried to sue even if
they had wanted to, because they, too, claim that their ceremony is
of ancient origins, going back to the artisans of Solomon's temple. If
they admit that, they can't very well claim original authorship, can
they?
Incidentally, here's my 2 cents on people who post TC who were once
LDS. I don't like the practice no matter who does it, but I realize
that some non-members, and I believe James may well fit into this
category - only he can look into his own heart - are sincerely trying
to engage in an intellectual discussion. While we LDS may be queasy
about that, it's hard to judge others' motives. OTOH, those who have
left the church and then publish what they know for reasons of revenge
or to make money or gain a reputation, or whatever, are guilty of
a sin no matter whose religion we're talking about. The excuse that
"my covenants are worthless because the Church is wrong" doesn't wash
with basic, common-sense kindergarten-level morality. The example I
like to use is that of a close relative of mine who was a Rosicrucian
for many years. He studied hard and advanced through their particular
hierarchy of understanding. Then he joined the Church and threw out all
of his Rosicrucian stuff. I wanted to read it, but he refused to let me,
saying that even though he no longer believed in it, he had made a
promise not to reveal it to outsdiers, and he still believed in keeping
his promises.
Some strain at intellectual truth and swallow their honour in the
process.
Marc A. Schindler
P.S. If anyone thinks we're rather weird because of our insistence on
keeping some things secret, I would suggest they go to Israel or
Lebanon and ask a Druze about even the basic tenets of his religion.
That person will find himself looking down the barrel of a gun.
Jeremiah W. James
In article <574mqn$r...@q.seanet.com>,
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > However, in the LDS Church
>> > the Bishop frequently gets out the member's files and makes notes
>> > on them while a person is confessing their sins.
>>
>> And your evidence that all the bishops do this is ... what?
>
>I do not think that *all* the bishops write notes regarding
>a person's sins. However, I have heard too many personal accounts
>from ex-Mormons and Mormons that support my statements.
>
>> That you heard somebody same the bishop does this? I think
>> you have no basis for the generalized statement above.
>
>Do we have any Bishops or ex-Bishops on srm that can speak
>personally regarding this matter? I would like to hear from
>them.
I am neither a bishop, nor an ex-Bishop. Heck, I'm only 29. But I am
the ward clerk. My job is to keep the ward records in good order, in
order to assist the bishop and other ward leaders in fulfilling their
duties. As we are a student ward, we meet in the local Institute
building. There is no room for a clerks' office, so we share the
bishop's office with him. I have been through all the records in that
room, both financial and membership, and I can state in no uncertain
terms that my bishop does not take notes regarding a person's sins on
anything in that office. Whether or not he carries personal notes with
him I cannot say.
Even if the bishop did keep such notes, though, I fail to see the
significance of it. Wouldn't you need to know *why* a bishop was
keeping such notes before passing judgment? After all, part of the
bishop's duty is to assist members who have seriously transgressed to
fully repent of their sins. A bishop with a poor memory, for example,
may keep notes to remind himself of an individual member's needs. Now,
if the notes were being taken to blackball a person, or something like
that, I would be very disturbed myself. As far as I can see, though,
that is not the claim being made here.
Jeremiah W. James
In article <572pc9$9...@q.seanet.com>,
Robert J. Currier <rjcu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It was read into the Congressional Record during an investigation of the
>LDS church and its practices sometime around the 1900's.
Would this be part of the Reed Smoot case, or something else? Can you
give me a reference? Hearsay abounds, but references seem to be hard to
come by, for some reason ...
Hedgehog
In article <570l2d$i...@q.seanet.com> Hedgehog, hedg...@scripps.edu
writes:
>It is possible that the doctrine of the LDS church stayed the same, but
>that the capitalization need to be changed because of the new conventions.
James challenged this in e-mail, but he indicated that he would also post
his challenge. I have not see the challenge show up yet on my newserver,
but here is my response to James anyway.
James writes:
>What new conventions? Please give us examples that would justify
>the changing of "Gods" to "gods". If there are such "conventions"
>then surely you should be able to provide some examples for us
>here on s.r.m. to discuss.
I am not sure that you would find any reason sufficient justification for
the change, but I can back up my claim that over the course of history
conventions with respect to capitalizing some nouns have changed.
For example, take a look at this web page:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
That is the Declaration of Independence in the traditional 18th century
capitalization. (Look at the nouns.)
Then look at this page:
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~rodmur/docs/Declaration.html
That is the same document with modern conventions.
I think a more detailed discussion of this should be shifted to
alt.english.usage or some other newsgroup.
>Moreover, these alledged "conventions" must have occurred within
>the last fifty or so years because the History of the Church which
>was copyrighted in 1932 indicates that D&C 132 used the word "Gods",
>not "gods" (History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. XXXIX).
I think you are misinterpreting what I mean by "conventions". I mean
that each period in history has a conventional way of representing spoken
language as written text. I did not mean that there was some sort of
congress of grammarians who issued a decree. As far as the shift having
to occur in the last fifty years, nothing could be further from the
truth. After all, the Declaration of Independence at indiana.edu wasn't
really typed into the computer 200 years ago. All we can conlcude from
what you have presented so far is that someone in 1932 was still using
traditional capitalization to render a traditional document and someone
50 years later decided to modernize the capitalization. There is nothing
at all sinister about that.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Nathan Hart
James (enginee...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: (message sent to Nathan and to srm)
:
: Nathan Hart wrote:
: >
: > James,
: > I believe the difference between (g)ods and (G)od, is that one is
: > simply referring to a group or type of being, while the other
: > capitalized one is referring to a specific person (i.e. God Himself).
:
: Is this regarding my comments about the word "gods" in D&C 132?
:
: I was pointing out that the Doctrine and Covenants had changed the
: capitalization over time. The History of the Church records that the
: Doctrine and Covenants had "gods" capitalized as "Gods". Yet, when
: we look at the D&C version today the word is not capitalized for the
: same D&C 132. Over time the LDS Church transformed the word "Gods" to
: "gods". I find this change interesting because the words may now have
: a different meaning.
:
: Sincerely,
:
: James
: http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
James,
True. Interesting point. I guess "(G)ods" has the implication of a lot
of "people" hanging around that are just like God himself, of equal
glory, etc. Maybe that share his dominion or something. However,
"(g)ods" implies that while there may be other ones out there, they do
not share our God's dominion, etc. Good point. I wasn't there at the
time, so I can't explain why they changed it. Maybe just so we could
more easily tell the difference when the scriptures were referring to OUR
God or the other gods that are probably out there. I don't know. About
your info, opinion, etc., regarding Joseph Smith and the Masonic Rites.
I don't doubt that he got a lot of it from them. To take both sides of
the issue, it could be that Joseph Smith was just a normal man and he saw
some interesting stuff with the Masons and incorporated it. This could
be a blatant act of plagiarism. On the other hand, it could be that God
(for whatever reason) simply hadn't explained it all to Joseph before he
met the masons. Maybe God was working through other people (as He often
does) to get the truth back to Joseph. I don't know everything here, but
if it's possible to get Joseph truth from someone that's already on
the earth, then why restore it? It could be that God simply sent Joseph
to the Masons to learn some of the truth which they held.
At first, when I saw you, I had a fairly negative opinion of you, I must
admit. I am gaining more respect for you as time goes on. While I
disagree with a lot of what you say (as is both of our perogatives), I
appreciate you having said some of it. It makes me think. I appreciate
you trying, especially more recently, trying to be considerate of all
sides.
Nathan Hart
R. Schroeder
In article <574v60$2...@q.seanet.com>, Marc Schindler
<mschi...@shana.com> wrote:
> I've steered clear of this discussion on ARM and now here on SRM
> for the basic reason that I think the changes in the TC and the
> similarities with masonry are all barking up the wrong tree.
[snip]
>It's a
> confusion between the medium and the message, in my opinion. I
> used to joke on ARM (because we had a Finnish Armekite at the
> time [hey, Jesse - you still there?]) that if Joseph Smith had
> been Finnish we'd all be chanting strange things out of the
> Kalevala. One of the ironies of our TC (again, IMHO) is that the
> liturgy is just a means whereby a more profound message is de-
> livered, but it could be any liturgy - this just happens to be
> the one Joseph Smith picked using what he had at hand - but that
> since one of the underlying principles is called "consecration,"
> which is to say, a dedication of oneself to the building up of
> the Kingdom, and that a token, or outward manifestation of that
> covenant is agreeing not to reveal some of the liturgically-ex-
> pressed things, like the new name, the tokens, and so on, that
> we are put in the awkward spot of saying "I can't discuss that,
> but it's not important...well, I mean, it _is_ important, because
> I can't discuss it, but I can't tell you why!"
> Does that help? Or just muddy things even more?
Actually it is very interesting and I wouldn't mind exploring these ideas
further, but I am not quite sure _how_ to discuss it given the constraints
on revelations of the TC.
I guess in a sense it is as if a person were to take an ordinary
"mainstream" Christian wedding and break it down into several parts. On
the one hand, there is the mutual giving of one person to another in a
sort of covenantly bond. And on the other hand, there is the wedding
dress & veil, rings, flowers, etc. etc. Now what you seem to be saying
is that it is the wedding vows--the saying of "I do"--that is important.
We happen to live in a culture where a marriage is signified by the
exchange of rings, but it didn't have to be that way. In other cultures
it might be the exchange of livestock or something else. So what Joseph
Smith did was take the essential covenant aspects of the endowment and put
that in a Masonic form because the Masonic form was something that could
be readily understood by 19th century North Americans. Is that right?
ANd we can use Catholic Mass as a sort of counter example. According to
the Catholic Church, Mass must be said with wafers made from wheat flour
and with real wine. But if Jesus had been born in Japan, we might use
rice and green tea. Is this your point?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Milan H. Dilworth
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>In article <56g2v4$p...@q.seanet.com> James,
>enginee...@mindspring.com writes:
>>Hmmm... I always thought Mormons thought less of people if they
>>break their covenants. However, I have not broken any
>>covenants or oaths in making the LDS Temple Info Post.
>There may be miscommunication of some sort going on here. Maybe this
>thread would flow a little better if you discussed a little bit of your
>personal life. (Are you a Mormon? Are you an ex-Mormon? What is your
>goal in posting here? etc.)
>Peace,
>Hedgehog
This string (from it's beginning) brings feelings of sorrow for any
who mock the sacred things of another's religion.
My only question to anyone reading this string: "What are you
gaining by reading this? I gained nothing and should have folded this
earlier. Much of this string is much like a war of words; wherein,
none will win.
Could anyone tell me of another newsgroup that is established for
LDS members and nonmembers which will not allow mockery, and has
higher standards.
I'd appreciate email with answer.
Milan H. Dilworth mi...@cyberhighway.net
b35...@vaxa.phx1.aro.allied.com
> On 14 Nov 1996 21:29:08 GMT, James <enginee...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> - unless, of course, you would like to meet me in the Celestial
>>> Room of any Temple,
>>
>>To me, the truth should be spoken in the the streets, just as it
>>would be spoken behind closed doors, and even on internet newsgroups.
>>
>>Your suggestion is that the truth cannot be spoken outside
>>of the LDS Temple Celestial rooms, if so, you have nothing
>>to offer me. The truth should be open for everyone to see,
>>if Mormons want to say it is behind closed doors, then they
>>lack the concept of the "truth" in my opinion. The truth
>>cannot be closed behind doors, nor can you or this newsgroup
>>stop it.
The tone you use suggest anger, James. Why are you so angry? What you have
done leads me to believe that you are hatefull or resentfull. Why? Why would
you find it so necessary to "expose" the TC's? You say its in pursuit of truth
yet what has truth got to do with your obvious attempt at trying to hurt the
Church by revealing something you don't believe in. Do you see something in the
TC's that is illegal or depraved?
Throughout all of your posts, whether it be about the BoA or these TC's, the
constant theme is this is what YOU feel is right. You have that right to feel
whatever way you chose but why oh why do you feel it so necessary to inflict
us with your hate. We hold these things sacred, you don't. You feel that truth
should be shouted from the house tops, which is fine for most things, but even
God has withheld some truths from us because of their sacred nature and our
inability to fathom and/or understand them. He has even held back potions of
the scriptures from us because of our unworthiness.
Have you complained to God lately about the whereabouts of the City and the
People of Enoch? There's something that is certainly full of truth but for some
reason God has kept it hidden from us. How about the lost ten tribes of Israel?
Where are they?
I think its obvious to everyone who reads your posts that truth isn't what your
after. You want to hurt the Church in any way you can. Why?
The purpose of finding truth is to provide upward movement. Sometimes upward
movement can best be accomplished by witholding a certain amount of
information because it can hinder rather help forward progression. Not until
someone is properly prepared to understand every aspect of the whole truth
would it be benificial to that someone. You can call it what you want, I call
it being taught the truth then being given the opportunity to study it out and
pray about it, prepare for it, then experience it without preconcieved
falsehoods introduced by those who seek to do harm in any way possable.
You are right, James. We can't stop it. But IF WE are right may God have mercy
on your soul.
Mike
maj...@emuvax.emich.edu
> Nevertheless, Arden's statements would contradict the
> statements made by Hugh Nibley and Gilbert Scharffs (IMO).
So!?!?!?
Neither Hugh Nibley or Gilbert Scharffs were speaking as
offical representatives of the churchs, but as individuals
with there own opinions. Hugh Nibley I know about. He is an admitted
LDS apologist. Often I find what he says interesting, but
it by no means gospel. I disagree with Hugh Nibley in many areas.
the church has never to my knowelage made any statements concerning
the issue.
>
> James
> http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
>
G.W. LeRose
Peggy Rogers
On 23 Nov 1996, Milan H. Dilworth wrote:
> Could anyone tell me of another newsgroup that is established for
> LDS members and nonmembers which will not allow mockery, and has
> higher standards.
> I'd appreciate email with answer.
I fear that a certain number of people have come to s.r.m. hoping that
it would be a Celestial newsgroup, and I am sorry if they are
disappointed. For those of us who have spent time on alt.religion.mormon,
it's been pleasant to be able to get away from the Outer Darkness (with
accompanying wailing and gnashing of teeth) that so often reigns there.
What we have now, I suppose, is a Telestial newsgroup. I think that if
enough good people stick around long enough, it could even become a
Terrestrial newsgroup. But due to a number of issues surrounding its
creation, I'm afraid it will never be a Celestial newsgroup--not, at
least, before the millenium.
Anyway, to answer Bro. Dilworth's question, no, there is not another
newsgroup of the sort you are looking for. There is, however, a large
number of moderated mailing lists where the standards of discourse are
more strict than those we have here.
But there _could_ be another newsgroup, if someone wants to go to the
effort of putting one together. It could be called something like soc.
religion.mormon.fellowship, and the moderator(s) could keep to very
high standards, and forbid all mockery. I would encourage anyone who
thinks this is a worthwhile project to get going on it!
In the meantime, let me ask this: What would be the characteristics of
a Celestial newsgroup? (assuming something very unlikely--that anyone
Celestial would have time to bother with such a thing?) ;-)
| I would be content if my children grew up
Peggy Rogers | to be the kind of people who think decorating
<kro...@xmission.com> | consists mostly of building enough bookshelves.
| --Anna Quindlen
Hedgehog
In article <579nhj$1...@q.seanet.com> Peggy Rogers,
kro...@xmission.xmission.com writes:
>On 23 Nov 1996, Milan H. Dilworth wrote:
>
>> Could anyone tell me of another newsgroup that is established for
>> LDS members and nonmembers which will not allow mockery, and has
>> higher standards.
>> I'd appreciate email with answer.
>
>I fear that a certain number of people have come to s.r.m. hoping that
>it would be a Celestial newsgroup, and I am sorry if they are
>disappointed. For those of us who have spent time on alt.religion.mormon,
>it's been pleasant to be able to get away from the Outer Darkness (with
>accompanying wailing and gnashing of teeth) that so often reigns there.
>What we have now, I suppose, is a Telestial newsgroup. I think that if
>enough good people stick around long enough, it could even become a
>Terrestrial newsgroup. But due to a number of issues surrounding its
>creation, I'm afraid it will never be a Celestial newsgroup--not, at
>least, before the millenium.
Since Mr. Dilworth's comments seem to be precipitated by James' posts, I
hope James will not be offended if I tend to single him out a bit in my
message.
I think it is clear that James feels that LDS claims are untrue and are
most easily explained by some sort of charlatanism. On the other hand,
many people find the LDS Church to be the pinnacle of life's meaning and
their spiritual aspirations. For such people, opinions such as James'
are going to tend to sting a little bit even when they don't actually
hurt.
So for people who object to James' posts, are there any practical and
constructive ways that James could make his posts less offensive while
still expressing his message that he believes the LDS Church to be
basically false?
Peace,
Hedgehog
DJ Allen
In article <574nih$s...@q.seanet.com>, Peti...@news-e2b.gnn.com (Peter
Berdi) wrote:
: I don't really understand these attacks on James, because he put
:a pointer to the LDS Temple Ceremony site.
:
:1.This is not against the s.r.m. charter.
True.
: One year ago when I researched the church I wanted to know what
:is going on there.It took about a week to find a source, to get
:the description.If somebody really want to know it, he/she can get
:the information easily.
True again.
: What could be kept a secret 100 years ago easily it is
:impossible today.
:
I've always wondered why there were oaths of secrecy. I'm guessing that,
in times past, it was a way to identify messengers, thus protecting
yourself from false messengers. It is a bit primitive given we're in the
information age.
Why it's part of the Temple ritual is interesting and debatable. But the
fact that the "secret is out" doesn't change what the endowment ceremony
means to people personally, and how offensive it is to have others treat it
with disdain and disrespect.
:the internet will do to mormonism what bookprinting did to catholicism
How so?
--
David J. Allen
dja...@msmail3.hac.com
DJ Allen
:> Furthermore, if someone cannot keep a vow, how can they
:> be strong enough to keep the faith?
:
:Hmmm... Joseph Smith made similar oaths when he entered
:into Masonry in March 1842. Weeks after his initiation into
:Masonry the "new" endowment was created, with Masonic similarities
:included. Joseph Smith's endowment is recorded as May 4, 1842.
snip
:> How can they acquire enough self-dicipline (or faith or
:> whatever) to live the life required of them?
:
:Would you say the same if you knew that Joseph Smith
:violated his Masonic oaths?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most LDS don't know much about Joseph Smith's affiliation with Masonry and
don't know the origins of the Temple ritual. But, the relationship between
the two is academic, as is the question of Joseph breaking his Masonic
oaths.
Even if the worst explanation of all of this is true, does it prove Joseph
was a false prophet and charlatan? Since no one *really knows* what was in
Joseph's mind and heart at the time, we attribute motivation based on our
own beliefs. Beliving LDS will believe the best, naysayers will believe
the worst.
As a believer, I can point to the BofM, where Nephi slays Laban in order to
obtain the brass plates. Does that make Nephi a murderer?
James, all the things you point out, that:
- Joseph drank alocohol - therefore, he's a hipocrite;
- Joseph broke his Masonic oaths - therefore, he's untrustworthy;
- Joseph copied from the Masonic ritual - therefore, he's a plagarist;
- Joseph married other men's wives - therefore, he's immoral and covetous;
- etc., etc...
are just plain not that useful in proving Joseph was or was not a Prophet
of God. It just points out how you choose to view Mormonism.
It reminds me of how people view the O.J. case and why they believe he's
innocent or guilty. It so much a function of your own point of view and
past experiences.
Ideally, we put aside our prejudice, fear, anger, or whatever to find the truth.
DJ Allen
:So for people who object to James' posts, are there any practical and
:constructive ways that James could make his posts less offensive while
:still expressing his message that he believes the LDS Church to be
:basically false?
:Hedgehog
James could take his constant invitations to visit his homepage offline
(email). His approach is more like a bad salesman who makes enemies with is
clientel. Be our friends; treat us like friends. Sincerety, respect, etc.
Marc Schindler
Peter Peti...@news-e2b.gnn.com wrote:
<snip>
= Someone said and he was dead right, the internet will do to
=mormonism what bookprinting did to catholicism.I guess he had to be
=a prophet.
You mean propel it to become the leading Christian denomination?
(just teasing)
Marc A. Schindler
Woody Brison
James notes,
> However, in the LDS Church
> the Bishop frequently gets out the member's files and makes notes
> on them while a person is confessing their sins.
> And your evidence that all the bishops do this is ... what?
James answered,
> I do not think that *all* the bishops write notes regarding
> a person's sins. However, I have heard too many personal accounts
> from ex-Mormons and Mormons that support my statements.
As a convert of 23 years, I have had, let's see...23 Bishops
by my count, I may have forgotten a couple. I also served
in the capacity of interviewing people for baptism on my
mission, where sins were sometimes confessed. In all that
time, I have never seen a confessor taking notes. My data
says 0 out of 24. And from my experience as confessor, it
would not be good to shuffle papers, or write, or do anything
but listen when someone is telling you something important,
whom you are assigned to help.
On the other hand, I have never interviewed someone who was
extremely critical of the Church, maybe it might be a
preparatory interview for a Church court. It sort of sounds
like James' data is somewhat heavy on that side. In such a
case perhaps the bishop is right to take notes, if it is going
to be taken to the high council where a number of people are
going to be involved.
The whole thrust of a church court is repentance. Sometimes
an individual has gotten themself in such a condition that they
cannot easily admit that they are wrong. Sometimes they need
to be confronted with their own exact words. And sometimes
even that is of no use -- they must be excused from being a
member of the Church, that covenant protection removed from
them, to experience for themself the difference between good
and evil in life. The whole thrust is to give the individual
that which they need.
Woody
James
Hedgehog wrote:
> Since Mr. Dilworth's comments seem to be precipitated by James'
> posts, I hope James will not be offended if I tend to single him
> out a bit in my message.
I do not mind people being blunt and open, but I would also appreciate
a "cc" on an srm post that "singles me out".
> I think it is clear that James feels that LDS claims are untrue and
> are most easily explained by some sort of charlatanism.
You are correct that I personally believe that Mormonism is not
true. I also believe that I have found some examples of Joseph
Smith's "charalatanism". However, what people do with this
information is up to them. I think my goal is more open discussion
of ideas than anything else. In my investigation of Mormonism
I have found some common misconceptions. You can find a list of
them at my web site:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/misconce.htm
> On the other hand,
> many people find the LDS Church to be the pinnacle of life's
> meaning and their spiritual aspirations.
I have many Mormon and friends that hold these spiritual
beliefs. I respect them in their proper place. However,
s.r.m. is a place of open discussion of LDS matters. There
is no limitation on presenting evidence that shows the LDS
Church in a negative light. In fact, I think the s.r.m.
charter encourages discussion, not preaching or fellowshiping
of the LDS religion.
> For such people, opinions such as James'
> are going to tend to sting a little bit even when they don't
> actually hurt.
I think my statements may sting those that are not aware of
certain parts of early LDS history. I encourage Mormons to
take an active role in researching their own history.
<snip>
Sincerely,
James
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
James
(message sent to DJ and to srm)
DJ Allen wrote:
<snip>
> Most LDS don't know much about Joseph Smith's affiliation
> with Masonry and don't know the origins of the Temple ritual.
I think that most Mormons are taught incorrectly about the
development of the LDS temple ceremony. I think I would find
many Mormons thinking that the endowment rituals of today began
in the Kirtland temple.
For instance, in the LDS publication of "Temples, of The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", (1988) reads that
"On the first day of June 1833, in a revaltion to the Prophet
Joseph Smith, the Lord directed the immediate building of a
holy house, in which he promised to endow his chosen servants
with power and authority (See D&C 95). The people responded
to the call with willingness and devotion.... in March 1836 the
first temple of modern times was dedicated at Kirtland, Ohio."
(pg. 41)
>From this one could very easily think that the Kirtland endowment
is the same as the one given in the LDS Temples today. However,
they are not.
Here is a description of the Kirtland endowment:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
You can find a description of today's LDS endowment here:
http://nowscape.com/mormcr1.htm
> But, the relationship between
> the two is academic, as is the question of Joseph breaking his
> Masonic oaths.
I agree that everything that we will talk about here on
the s.r.m. is basically academic. We all have to make the
spiritual decisions on our own. However, this should not
preclude us from discussing such academic matters in my opinion.
> Even if the worst explanation of all of this is true, does it
> prove Joseph was a false prophet and charlatan?
The spiritual proof is withiin an individual's heart, which
we truly cannot debate or even compare.
However, the academic arguments we can discuss and debate.
> Since no one *really knows* what was in
> Joseph's mind and heart at the time,
> we attribute motivation based on our
> own beliefs.
I agree that our own personal beliefs influence our
perception and evaluation of Joseph Smith's character.
Nevertheless, the facts can also speak volumes to both
Mormons and non-Mormons alike.
> Beliving LDS will believe the best, naysayers will believe
> the worst.
No matter what one believes does not change the historical
records or facts.
> As a believer, I can point to the BofM, where Nephi slays
> Laban in order to obtain the brass plates. Does that
> make Nephi a murderer?
I think so, but then again, I do not believe in the BofM.
> James, all the things you point out, that:
> - Joseph drank alocohol - therefore, he's a hipocrite;
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/misconce.htm#alcohol
> - Joseph broke his Masonic oaths - therefore, he's untrustworthy;
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
> - Joseph copied from the Masonic ritual - therefore, he's a >plagarist;
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
> - Joseph married other men's wives - therefore, he's immoral and >covetous;
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/menswives.htm
> - etc., etc...
Also the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri,
and much more ...
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
> are just plain not that useful in proving Joseph was or was not a
> Prophet of God. It just points out how you choose to view Mormonism.
What does the evidence I presented show to you personally on an
academic level?
> It reminds me of how people view the O.J. case and why they
> believe he's innocent or guilty. It so much a function of
> your own point of view and past experiences.
I agree that people need to evaluate the facts themselves.
What I find most troubling in my investigation of Mormonism
is that the evidence is not presented, or only one side of the
evidence is shown. I personally think this is wrong and
I am here on s.r.m. to present another perspective that we
can discuss.
Can a judge evaluate a case without looking at both sides of
the argument? I think not.
> Ideally, we put aside our prejudice, fear, anger, or whatever to find
> the truth.
I agree. We also need to actively look for the truth to find it.
Sincerely,
James
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
Craig Anderson
> Craig Anderson wrote:
> > "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only;
> > the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the
> > church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the
> > church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great chruch,
> > which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore
> > of all the earth."
> >
> > Now you might interpret that as meaning the church of the
> > Lamb of God is _only_ the LDS church, but we don't.
>
> How else can 1 Nephi 14:10 be interpreted?
Well, as I point out below:
> > As far as we are concerned, it refers
> > to all those who try to follow God and do his will.
> And if you will argue
> that other religions belong to the church of the Lamb of God,
> would you be so kind in listing them for us.
You gotta be kidding! I'm gonna go through the hundreds of church's one by
one, make a judgment on each of them, and post it here? Let's not stoop to
the ridiculous.
> And if there
> are other religions that are of the lamb of God, why does the
> LDS Church teach missionary discussions to members of other
> faiths?
Why ask questions you know the answers to? We teach that we have the
fulness of the gospel, and we offer it to everyone.
> Your interpretation is quite general.
Nothing wrong with that, particularly in this case with reference to this
scripture.
> During my missionary
> lesson the Elders talked about the LDS Church being the only
> true church. They outlined the falling away of all other
> religions, the apostacy of the RCC, and so on.
And I agree. That doesn't mean that they are all the church of the devil
though. Your attempt to put them there through insinuation is non-sequiter.
> > Further, we have a strong history of religious tolerance. The
> > 11th Article of Faith supports this as well:
> >
> > "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the
> > dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same
> > privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."
>
> Just because the LDS Church has a written policy doesn't
> mean the LDS Church abides by it.
>
> AofF:2
> "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and
> not for Adam's transgression".
>
> Yet blacks for over a hundred years were denied the LDS Priesthood
> based solely on the color of their skin.
But not denied membership in the church. You have failed to show that this
in any way constitutes religious intolerance. Furthermore, I think any
reasonable person would view the term "religious intolerance" as referring
to the way one religion tolerates another, not to its own internal
doctrines. What's your point?
>
> AofF:12
> "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers,
> and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
>
> Yet, Joseph Smith and other early LDS Church leaders violated
> the anti-polygamy law of Illinois which was enacted in
> February 1833.
So you say. I'm sure you have some quote from someone that would give the
exact year in which this started as well. Presumably, you will claim that
they started violating this law when the saints moved to Illinois (rather
than in 1833), correct? To all of this I say only that I am uncertain that:
1) Joseph truly violated the law, and 2) all the claims being made in the
matter are authentic. They may be, and this may yet be a situation where
the saints violated the law. However, I'm not prepared to agree with this
at this time - I still view much of the "evidence" of such violation with a
skeptical eye.
> AofF:13
> "We believe in being honest, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in
> doing good to all men..."
>
> Yet, Joseph Smith ordered the destruction of the printing
> press of the Nauvoo Expositor. You can read the Nauvoo
> Expositor at: http://www.sj-coop.net/~tseng/LDS/expositr.txt
This in no way constitutes any sort of "religious intolerance". We've been
over this one already, and I'm mightily surprised that you bring it up yet
again. The fact is, Joseph as mayor of Nauvoo was directed by the city
council to destroy the press, and it was legal undertaking. 'Nuff said.
> Yet, Joseph Smith and other early LDS Church leaders denied
> that they practiced polygamy publicly accussing those that
> had exposed the practice as liars. For references see:
> http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/denpract.htm
This is a restatement of the earlier assertion, is it not? Did you run out
of original accusations? <g>
> Yet, there is significant evidence that Joseph Smith married
> the wives of other men. See references at:
> http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/menwives.htm
Same as above.
> Yet, a group of Mormons massacred unarmed men and women at MMM:
> http://www.i-d.com/~deshazer/MASSACRE.HTM
This constitutes a violation of the law and those who did it were punished
according to the law. The only reason for mentioning this at all is a weak
attempt to cast embarassment on the church. The reality is that the
"church" didn't sanction the MMM and those who did it operated
independently of SLC and BY's instructions to leave the people alone. You
really ought to be able to come up with better material for your claims
than this one.
> > > However, in the LDS Church
> > > the Bishop frequently gets out the member's files and makes notes
> > > on them while a person is confessing their sins.
> >
> > And your evidence that all the bishops do this is ... what?
>
> I do not think that *all* the bishops write notes regarding
> a person's sins. However, I have heard too many personal accounts
> from ex-Mormons and Mormons that support my statements.
And if the Bishop, who is the Judge in Israel according to the church, gets
private notes so that he can remember the gist of interviews he has
conducted, yet shows his personal notes to no one, precisely what great sin
has he committed, and how exactly does it have any effect upon anything,
particularly in regards to what is being discussed here?
It seems to me that you just like to find things to gripe about.
> Do we have any Bishops or ex-Bishops on srm that can speak
> personally regarding this matter?
I am not a Bishop and have never been one. However, I have served 8 years
as a counselor to two different Bishops. I asked both of them point blank
whether they kept notes, and neither of them did. But the point is still:
so what if they did?
Craig
Marc Schindler
James enginee...@mindspring.com wrote:
<snip>
This should almost be split into two threads, but...
=Yet, a group of Mormons massacred unarmed men and women at MMM:
=http://www.i-d.com/~deshazer/MASSACRE.HTM
I read your account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and must say
that I found it extremely one-sided. If I had been someone who was
taunted by men who claimed to have raped and killed my relatives,
I'd probably have reacted very violently, too. Nowhere in your
version does one find the provocation for the MMM. Given that, your
characterization of it as the worst event in LDS history borders
on the silly. If you had even an _inkling_ of the skeletons in
other religions' closets!
<snip>
Now back to our regularly-scheduled programming:
=And your evidence that all the bishops do this is ... what?
=I do not think that *all* the bishops write notes regarding
=a person's sins. However, I have heard too many personal accounts
=from ex-Mormons and Mormons that support my statements.
=> That you heard somebody same the bishop does this? I think
=> you have no basis for the generalized statement above.
=Do we have any Bishops or ex-Bishops on srm that can speak
=personally regarding this matter? I would like to hear from
=them.
I'm not a Bishop but I was Secretary to the President for 9 months
on my mission (and served as clerk of the court during two disci-
plinary actions, both involving adultery). The Mission President
in missions where not all members belong to stakes (and this was
the case with our's) acts like a stake president vis-a-vis the
members. This is over and above his duties with respect to the
missionaries. In our mission there weren't even member _files_,
either in the mission office nor in any of the units which
reported to us. Even in the ward I'm in now there's not enough
room in the bishop's office for a filing cabinet large enough to
contain such files.
Incidentally, the only notes or files I ever saw as S-to-the-P
was a correspondence file which held letters to and from a member
who eventually apostatized. The letters concerned this member's
reasons for not sustaining the Prophet or his local leaders, and
the MP's responses (I know because I typed the MP's responses from
a dictaphone, and filed the correspondence. I also handled in-
coming correspondence addressed to the MP).
Hope this helps clear things up.
Marc A. Schindler
James
[Moderator's Note: A copy of this post will not be sent to anyone. When a post clears the moderation queue, it goes to soc.religion.mormon, nowhere else. ]
(Message sent to DJ and to srm)
(DJ, you may receive two of these messages because the srm moderators
also send you a copy when it passes moderation)
DJ Allen wrote:
<snip>
> James could take his constant invitations to visit his homepage offline
> (email). His approach is more like a bad salesman who makes
> enemies with is clientel.
I certainly do not want to sound like a salesperson because I am
not selling anything. I am presenting information, and it's all
free.
I do mention my web site and others so often in LDS Temple
responses because that is the only way that people can easily
get the information. The srm charter prohibits the discussion
of the specifics and I will abide by that rule. I cannot list
the Masonic similarities here for us to discuss because if I
did I would be in violation of the s.r.m. charter.
You can find the s.r.m. charter here:
http://www.lds.npl.com/special/usenet/srm/index.html
>Be our friends; treat us like friends.
At the risk of surprising many people on this newsgroup,
I get along quite well with my Mormon friends and relatives.
I certainly do not have these types of discussions over
Thanksgiving dinner, because that is not the proper place.
However, an internet newsgroup devoted to discussing Mormonism
is certainly a proper place for such discussion (IMO).
> Sincerety, respect, etc.
I try. Obviously, I have failed in the opinions of some on
srm.
Sincerely,
James
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
James
(message sent to DJ and to srm)
DJ Allen wrote:
<snip>
> I've always wondered why there were oaths of secrecy. I'm
> guessing that, in times past, it was a way to identify
> messengers, thus protecting yourself from false messengers.
> It is a bit primitive given we're in the information age.
>
> Why it's part of the Temple ritual is interesting and debatable.
> But the fact that the "secret is out" doesn't change what the
> endowment ceremony means to people personally, and how offensive
> it is to have others treat it with disdain and disrespect.
What I find so interesting about the secrecy aspect of the
endowment is that the rituals practiced in the Kirtland
temple had no oaths of secrecy. These oaths of secrecy only
showed up in the endowment after Joseph Smith became a Mason
-- with the same Masonic oaths. What is interesting today
is that what was o.k. to talk about in the 1830's regarding
the LDS rituals cannot be discussed in the 1990's by Mormons.
Sincerely,
James
_____________________________
My web site:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
Masonic Similarities to LDS Endowment:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
Kirtland Endowment:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
James
Marc Schindler wrote:
>
> James enginee...@mindspring.com wrote:
<snip>
> =Yet, a group of Mormons massacred unarmed men and women at MMM:
> =http://www.i-d.com/~deshazer/MASSACRE.HTM
>
> I read your account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and must say
> that I found it extremely one-sided.
The above URL is not on my web site. Perhaps I should have been
more clear. I provided the link because I felt that it would
allow the reader to look into the matter in more detail. If there
are addition articles on the MMM on the internet, please post the
URL so we can all get more information if needed. This is the
only one I have found on the subject.
By-the-way, my web site is here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
> If I had been someone who was
> taunted by men who claimed to have raped and killed my relatives,
> I'd probably have reacted very violently, too.
Again, I am not the author of the article.
> Nowhere in your
> version does one find the provocation for the MMM.
The article does discuss some of the reasons for the massacre.
Here is a direct quote from the article itself:
"As the wagon train moved south through the settlements there
was great uneasiness on both sides. The Fancher party unable
to receive help, and the saints mad because , there had been
rumors that the wagon train had some members with them that
had killed the prophet and that there were among them some
who had killed some of their family members at The Hawns Mill
Massacre in Missouri. Other rumors also made the whole affair
very unfortunate. As the train passed through Utah the emigrants
had also been charged with poisoning some of the watering holes.
It was said that some of the saints livestock had drank from
the pools and the livestock had died and Indians had ate the
flesh of the dead animals and themselves died."
I think that the article discusses some of the rumors that
may have motivated the massacre.
> Given that, your
> characterization of it as the worst event in LDS history borders
> on the silly. If you had even an _inkling_ of the skeletons in
> other religions' closets!
Yes, there are skeletons in other religions' closets too, but
does this mean the MMM should be buried within history rather
than being discussed in an LDS oriented newsgroup? I think not.
<snip>
> =I do not think that *all* the bishops write notes regarding
> =a person's sins. However, I have heard too many personal accounts
> =from ex-Mormons and Mormons that support my statements.
<snip>
> =Do we have any Bishops or ex-Bishops on srm that can speak
> =personally regarding this matter? I would like to hear from
> =them.
>
> I'm not a Bishop but I was Secretary to the President for 9 months
> on my mission (and served as clerk of the court during two disci-
> plinary actions, both involving adultery).
Any Bishops out there willing to answer the question?
<snip>
> Incidentally, the only notes or files I ever saw as S-to-the-P
> was a correspondence file which held letters to and from a member
> who eventually apostatized.
Thank you for providing your observations. I would also appreciate
some comments from a Bishop if possible.
<snip>
Sincerely,
James
_________________________________________________________
My Web Site:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
LDS Temple Ceremony:
http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
James
(Message sent to Craig and to srm)
Craig Anderson wrote:
> James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<snip>
> > And if you will argue
> > that other religions belong to the church of the Lamb of God,
> > would you be so kind in listing them for us.
> You gotta be kidding! I'm gonna go through the hundreds of
> church's one by one, make a judgment on each of them, and
> post it here? Let's not stoop to the ridiculous.
I do not see why it is ridiculous for me to ask what churches
belong to the Church of the Lamb of God when you have said
other churches belong in this same group as the LDS Church.
Could you give us a list of at least ten or so?
> > And if there
> > are other religions that are of the lamb of God, why does the
> > LDS Church teach missionary discussions to members of other
> > faiths?
>
> Why ask questions you know the answers to? We teach that we have the
> fulness of the gospel, and we offer it to everyone.
I find it interesting that other "Churches of the Lamb of God"
would not have the "fullness of the gospel". To me you are making
further classification when 1 Nephi 14:10 clearly states that
there are only two churches.
<snip>
> > During my missionary
> > lesson the Elders talked about the LDS Church being the only
> > true church. They outlined the falling away of all other
> > religions, the apostacy of the RCC, and so on.
>
> And I agree. That doesn't mean that they are all the church
> of the devil though. Your attempt to put them there through
> insinuation is non-sequiter.
I was not placing any religion in the LDS category of the
church of the devil. I was only pointing out the lessons
taught by LDS missionaries.
<snip>
> > AofF:2
> > "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and
> > not for Adam's transgression".
> > Yet blacks for over a hundred years were denied the LDS Priesthood
> > based solely on the color of their skin.
> But not denied membership in the church.
The denial of the Priesthood to blacks for hundreds of years
is certainly discriminatory eventhough blacks were still
allowed to join the religion.
I pointed this out because you brought up the LDS article of
faith as a banner of LDS beliefs when there are many contradictions
in doctrine and practice with the LDS articles of faith.
> You have failed to
> show that this in any way constitutes religious intolerance.
You brought up the article of faith, in which I attempted
to show contradictions within it.
<snip>
> > AofF:12
> > "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers,
> > and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
> >
> > Yet, Joseph Smith and other early LDS Church leaders violated
> > the anti-polygamy law of Illinois which was enacted in
> > February 1833.
>
> So you say. I'm sure you have some quote from someone that
> would give the exact year in which this started as well.
I encourage you to take a look at my web site where I list Joseph
Smith's practice and denials of polygamy side by side, year by
year. Some of the evidence is less convincing than others, but
the fact that Joseph Smith and the LDS church publicly denied
polygamy in Nauvoo is very very clear.
Here is the URL:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/denpract.htm
> Presumably, you will claim that
> they started violating this law when the saints moved to Illinois
> (rather than in 1833), correct?
>From what I understand about LDS history the saints did not move to
the State of Illinois until much later. In 1833 I believe they
were mainly living in Kirtland, Ohio.
>To all of this I say only that I am uncertain that:
I do not intend to personally clear up all your uncertainties.
I will encourage you to look for the facts on your own.
My web site only offers my opinions and some of the research I
have found, you should feel free to form your own findings.
<snip>
> However, I'm not prepared to agree with this
> at this time
I can respect your patience and even your criticism.
This admission is admirable in my opinion. You should
have the opportunity to do your own research to either
verify or disprove my findings.
>- I still view much of the "evidence" of such violation with a
> skeptical eye.
You should. I think I would do the same.
> > AofF:13
> > "We believe in being honest, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in
> > doing good to all men..."
> >
> > Yet, Joseph Smith ordered the destruction of the printing
> > press of the Nauvoo Expositor. You can read the Nauvoo
> > Expositor at: http://www.sj-coop.net/~tseng/LDS/expositr.txt
>
> This in no way constitutes any sort of "religious intolerance".
Again, I was not pointing out that Joseph Smith was being
religiously intolerant, I was showing that he was not "doing
good to all men". Here is a contradiction in the LDS articles
of faith.
> We've been over this one already, and I'm mightily surprised
> that you bring it up yet again. The fact is, Joseph as mayor
> of Nauvoo was directed by the city council to destroy the
> press, and it was legal undertaking. 'Nuff said.
Joseph Smith was given the instruction to remove the press, not
destroy it. See History of the Church, vol. 6,
pg. 448 states "the Mayor is instructed to cause said printing
establishment and papers to be removed without delay"
<snip>
> > Yet, a group of Mormons massacred unarmed men and women at MMM:
> > http://www.i-d.com/~deshazer/MASSACRE.HTM
>
> This constitutes a violation of the law and those who did it
> were punished according to the law.
Only one person was punished for the massacre and it occurred many
years after the tragic event.
<snip>
Sincerely,
James
_________________________________________________________
My web site:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
LDS Temple Ceremony:
http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
__________________________________________________________
Gregg Smith
I don't know why I bother to answer this. I guess I'm incorrigible.
James (enginee...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: (message sent to DJ and to srm)
: DJ Allen wrote:
: <snip>
: > Most LDS don't know much about Joseph Smith's affiliation
: > with Masonry and don't know the origins of the Temple ritual.
: I think that most Mormons are taught incorrectly about the
: development of the LDS temple ceremony. I think I would find
: many Mormons thinking that the endowment rituals of today began
: in the Kirtland temple.
Guess again. LDS youth are PLAINLY taught in seminary that the endowment
rituals were restored AFTER the saints were forced to leave Kirtland. Although
I've learned to expect otherwise, I still hope that you will stop making
uniformed generalizations.
: For instance, in the LDS publication of "Temples, of The Church
: of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", (1988) reads that
: "On the first day of June 1833, in a revaltion to the Prophet
: Joseph Smith, the Lord directed the immediate building of a
: holy house, in which he promised to endow his chosen servants
: with power and authority (See D&C 95). The people responded
: to the call with willingness and devotion.... in March 1836 the
: first temple of modern times was dedicated at Kirtland, Ohio."
: (pg. 41)
: >From this one could very easily think that the Kirtland endowment
: is the same as the one given in the LDS Temples today. However,
: they are not.
This type of tactic is one key reason why you have lost credibility in
this newsgroup. Sure, one could think that IF one read ONLY that passage and
skipped over the rest of the publication. One who actually studied
the publication would come to a completely different understanding.
: > Since no one *really knows* what was in
: > Joseph's mind and heart at the time,
: > we attribute motivation based on our
: > own beliefs.
: I agree that our own personal beliefs influence our
: perception and evaluation of Joseph Smith's character.
: Nevertheless, the facts can also speak volumes to both
: Mormons and non-Mormons alike.
My problem with the 'facts' you present is that they are misrepresentations
rather than 'facts'. I'd rather base my decisions on true facts. Your
choice to do otherwise speaks volumes...
regards,
-->greggs
maj...@emuvax.emich.edu
In article <57etsg$5...@q.seanet.com>, James <enginee...@mindspring.com> writes:
> I think that most Mormons are taught incorrectly about the
> development of the LDS temple ceremony. I think I would find
> many Mormons thinking that the endowment rituals of today began
> in the Kirtland temple.
not true.
In seminary(early morning religious instruction) and in institute,
the difference between the Kirkland and Navoo temples was recognized.
In fact it was stated quite clearly that JS altered the form of the TC
several times. At first it was stretched out across many days.
Indeed the form of the TC was not standardized by JS, but by Bringham
Young while in Utah.
> Sincerely,
>
> James
> http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
>
G.W.LeRose
Marc Schindler
James enginee...@mindspring.com wrote:
=Marc Schindler wrote:
=>
=> James enginee...@mindspring.com wrote:
=<snip>
=> =Yet, a group of Mormons massacred unarmed men and women at MMM:
=> =http://www.i-d.com/~deshazer/MASSACRE.HTM
=>
=> I read your account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and must say
=> that I found it extremely one-sided.
=The above URL is not on my web site. Perhaps I should have been
=more clear. I provided the link because I felt that it would
=allow the reader to look into the matter in more detail. If there
=are addition articles on the MMM on the internet, please post the
=URL so we can all get more information if needed. This is the
=only one I have found on the subject.
<snip>
Agreed - you didn't write it, you just referred to it. I stand cor-
rected and apologize for any misunderstanding. I still think the
reference to possible motives for the MMM was buried so deep in
the article and weakened so much, though, that I stand by my
claim that it's one-sided. I also have objection to discussing it
on a newsgroup. On the other hand, I would hardly consider it to be
some deep dark secret that no one knows about. Ever since Juanita
Brooks' excellent book on the subject I think it's fairly well
known amongst at least minimally educated Mormons. Incidentally,
her book actually got her ancestor (John Lee) reinstated in the
Church. He was ex'd but when the book came out the Church decided
posthumously to reinstate his membership.
Marc A. Schindler
George L. Sherwood
> > However, James, if your goal is truth, why
> > seek those who broke their voews to find it? Isn't it ironic? as the
> > song goes.
>
> I think that people should take the source into consideration
> when examining any material. Good point.
But you are going to use these sources nevertheless. Doesn't that say
something about how reliable YOUR truth is?
>
> > I read one of the links you so kindly provided, and my
> > first response was: Who ever provided this information broke some
> > serious vows.
>
> I would come to a similar conclusion.
But it obviously does not matter to you, and you obviously think those
who broke serious vows are more reliable than those who did not? Your
motive would baffle me, if I did not know what it is.
> > Furthermore, if someone cannot keep a vow, how can they
> > be strong enough to keep the faith?
> Hmmm... Joseph Smith made similar oaths when he entered
> into Masonry in March 1842. Weeks after his initiation into
> Masonry the "new" endowment was created, with Masonic similarities
> included. Joseph Smith's endowment is recorded as May 4, 1842.
You lost me here. What vows did her break? Did he reveal secrets that he
promised never to reveal, not even to other church members? If so, do you
have proof?
> Masonic Oaths/LDS Similarities:
<snipped>
because I read them, and they are irrelvant to what I am trying to
discover. If you can show me examples of Crusades or Inquisitions
intiated by LDS, then I will listen, or if you can point to a war that
was started by LDS, I will listen, or if you can give evidence of murder
by Joseph Smith, I will listen, otherwise, you motives are suspect.> >
>>How can they acquire enough self-dicipline (or faith or
> > whatever) to live the life required of them?
> Would you say the same if you knew that Joseph Smith
> violated his Masonic oaths?
What I am saying is that I think you are violating yours. I have to ask
myself, what type of person would covertly try to destroy one's religion,
in the name of truth? This is an especially good question if the critic
fails to supply something better. Even Nietzsche loved man enough to do
that.
<snip>
> I do not know the specifics about the individuals that provided
> the information. However, I believe the transcripts are accurate
> for the most part.
What you belive is important and reliable, but what others believe must
be destroyed, is that it?
<snip>
> I believe I pointed out in my previous post that the ceremony
> itself shows Masonic similarities.
And my point is, so what? You goal is far more sinister than pointing
this out. Why else would you site Christians writers and publishers who
are bent on destroying the credibility of LDS?
> > James, you may say you only wanted to point out the
> > connection between this and another ritual, but, if you will
> > excuse my bluntness, I think you have an ulterior motive.
>
> I excuse you. My motive was two fold. First, I wanted to show
> that the Masonic ceremony did in fact have similarities, even
> though LDS Scholars have denied this argument. Second, I
> cannot discuss the second reason on this newsgroup.<snip>
> After seeing all of the feedback on my post, "LDS TEMPLE INFO HERE"
> I realize that I could have done much better in getting my point
> across. I hope to learn from this experience for the future.
While you at the same time continue to say what you have always said, and
continue to rely on data that you admit is suspect. How now? You may have
succeded in drying my interest in LDS, but I am still grateful, because I
have quit drinking coffee, and have quit smoking after years of trying. I
also want to think you and a few others for inspiring my sig file. I also
want to thak eveyone who responded to my posts.
Sincerely
George
--
A mystic cloud sings like an angel soaring *uber* visions
of truth, but it gets caught in a net and once they are
through, it is only H2O -- and do.
Thomas Richard Dibble
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> writes:
> Marc Schindler wrote:
> >
> > James enginee...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > =Yet, a group of Mormons massacred unarmed men and women at MMM:
> > =http://www.i-d.com/~deshazer/MASSACRE.HTM
> > I read your account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and must say
> > that I found it extremely one-sided.
>
> The above URL is not on my web site. Perhaps I should have been
> more clear. I provided the link because I felt that it would
> allow the reader to look into the matter in more detail. If there
> are addition articles on the MMM on the internet, please post the
> URL so we can all get more information if needed. This is the
> only one I have found on the subject.
Then you didn't look very hard. Typing "Mountain Meadow Massacre" in
Infoseek I came up with 47 matches, including:
http://eddy.media.utah.edu/medsol/UCME/m/MOUNTAINMEADOW.html
and a biography of John D. Lee at
http://un.cs.byu.edu/~wad/lee/chapter01.html
Just in case you really want more than one source.
[ ... ]
> Any Bishops out there willing to answer the question?
James, it doesn't look like there are. I'd suspect they're a bit too busy
to be poking around in newsgroups.
But if you won't take the word of Ward Clerks and such, you probably don't
understand much as to how the Church functions. Can you give more
specifics about the incidents or claims you have been given?
---- Tom Dibble
--
/"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""\
| Tired of lying in the sunshine, \ / tom...@wpi.wpi.edu |
| staying home to watch the rain. / \ the happiest man alive |
\.........................................................................../
Scott & Lisa Vass
[Moderator's Note: James is technically in compliance.]
James wrote:
> I do mention my web site and others so often in LDS Temple
> responses because that is the only way that people can easily
> get the information. The srm charter prohibits the discussion
> of the specifics and I will abide by that rule. I cannot list
> the Masonic similarities here for us to discuss because if I
> did I would be in violation of the s.r.m. charter.
By posting a link to when the Temple Ceremony is documented, you may as
well have posted the same text here. You don't appear to me to be
abiding the spirit of the srm charter - don't you think so?
And regarding your Mason arguement...
I don't know why you keep harping on about it. Although my father is a
Mason, I am not. Therefore I do not know what goes on within a Masonic
Temple. So how can I judge for myself the similarities and differences?
Beleive you? Nope. My heart and prayers tell me that Joseph Smith was
indeed a chosen Prophet of God, and the church established on the Earth
through him is the church that Jesus Christ accepts as His own. That's
all I need to know. I'm happy in the church and I love to attend the
Temple.
Forget about this obsesion you have to "expose" the Mormon church, it is
not of God and no good will come of it.
All the best...
--
Scott :)
snl...@magna.com.au
http://www.magna.com.au/~snlvass
Charles Marston
Ken wrote:
>Happily she was not excommunicated, nor was the reinstatement
> rescinded, and readers of her biography, Mormon and non-Mormon alike,
>have universally congratulated, rather than condemned, the Church for
>the reinstatement." SUNSTONE Magazine (Oct 89)
> After her book was published, she was never called to
> any other position." SUNSTONE Magazine (Apr 85)
Ooo, Ken, you almost had me until I saw the references. Sorry,
but I am very leery of anything in Sunstone. Even when something I wrote
showed up there I was leery of it.
By the editorial position, that of being for the "intellectuals"
and giving a "proper" interpretation to Mormon history and events and
peoples, Sunstone must, almost as a given, adopt a position of
interpretation that is, at the very least, questioning or critical of the
Church.
You quote a passage that implies a conspiracy reaching right into
the Sunday School classrooms to exclude these people. It is like unto a
shunning: the President calls the apostles who call the stake presidents
who call the bishops who call the classroom teachers all in a desire to
block out participation by someone who was guilty only of telling the
truth and the absolute truth. Sorry, I don't buy it.
My mom taught Sunday School for years. Then she spent a decade in
the Mutual. Later she was Relief Society President, Sunday School
Secretary, Relief Society teacher etc. She has not had a calling in
several years. She never wrote anything...but I could interpret it as a
form of "shunning" if I were so inclined. Sorry, again. We tend to
interpret history and events not so much for what they really are but for
how we want them interpreted.
There is a difference between reporting the facts of an event and
the trying to interpret or find meaning to those events. The first is
reporting, the latter is story telling. It is the latter that gets us
into trouble. Some see the events of the destruction of the Nauvoo
Expositor as a legal step under the laws and mores of the day. Others try
to interpret it in the light of 1996 understandings of the term "freedom
of the Press" and come to completely different interpretations.
Sunstone gives some light into how the interpretation of what is
in its pages will be presented. I take it all with a big ole' grain of
salt.
Charlie....
James
(Message sent to Gregg and to srm)
<snip>
> James (enginee...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : > Most LDS don't know much about Joseph Smith's affiliation
> : > with Masonry and don't know the origins of the Temple ritual.
>
> : I think that most Mormons are taught incorrectly about the
> : development of the LDS temple ceremony. I think I would find
> : many Mormons thinking that the endowment rituals of today began
> : in the Kirtland temple.
>
> Guess again. LDS youth are PLAINLY taught in seminary that
> the endowment rituals were restored AFTER the saints were
> forced to leave Kirtland.
"Endowments" did occur at Kirtland, you can see a description
at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
The Kirtland endowment then transformed into a different ritual after
Joseph Smith became a Mason in 1842. Some of the elements in
the Kirtland endowment are seen in the LDS endowments performed
today.
I agree that seminary lessons draw a distinction between the
two ceremonies. However, I still believe most Mormons do not
know this information.
For instance, Dr. Hugh Nibley writes in his book, Tinking
Cymbals and Sounding Brass, page 22; "Yet the temples do not
change their design or meaning. The founding of an endowment
house and a temple at the same time, in 1841, shows as Meyer
observes, that the essence of the temple rites was well
established before then."
Dr. Hibley neglects to point out that Joseph Smith did not
teach the "revised" endowment until 1842. Joseph Smith
received his endowments on May 4, 1842 (Family Group Sheet -
Father Temple Index Bureau, May 4, 1842, Temple Nauvoo, Illinois.)
> Although I've learned to expect otherwise, I still hope that
> you will stop making uniformed generalizations.
If I make uninformed generalizations, I expect to be corrected.
<snip reference to "Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day saints", 1988.>
> : From this one could very easily think that the Kirtland endowment
> : is the same as the one given in the LDS Temples today. However,
> : they are not.
>
> This type of tactic is one key reason why you have lost credibility in
> this newsgroup. Sure, one could think that IF one read ONLY that
> passage and skipped over the rest of the publication. One who
> actually studied the publication would come to a completely different
> understanding.
Now that you have raised this issue, please show me in the LDS
publication I referenced where the article describes that the
"endowments" only occurred after Kirtland.
<snip>
> My problem with the 'facts' you present is that they are
> misrepresentations rather than 'facts'.
If I am misrepresenting the facts, please point them out, rather
than just calling them misrepresentations. None of us can
learn from your insight without a presentation of your argument.
> I'd rather base my decisions on true facts.
Me too.
Thank you for the comments, hopefully we can discuss
this matter in more detail.
Sincerely,
James
___________________________________________________________
Endowment in Kirtland:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
Post Kirtland Endowments:
http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
Masonic Similarities with endowment:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
James
Marc Schindler wrote:
<snip>
http://www.i-d.com/~deshazer/MASSACRE.HTM
> =The above URL is not on my web site. Perhaps I should have been
> =more clear. I provided the link because I felt that it would
> =allow the reader to look into the matter in more detail. If there
> =are addition articles on the MMM on the internet, please post the
> =URL so we can all get more information if needed. This is the
> =only one I have found on the subject.
>
> <snip>
>
> Agreed - you didn't write it, you just referred to it. I stand cor-
> rected and apologize for any misunderstanding.
No need to apologize. I am glad that we could easily clear up
the confusion on this particular issue.
> I still think the
> reference to possible motives for the MMM was buried so deep in
> the article and weakened so much, though, that I stand by my
> claim that it's one-sided.
I think the article does have a "one-sided" bent to it. But then
I cannot see how anyone could see the MMM as being justified.
> I also have objection to discussing it on a newsgroup.
Why?
Discussion of LDS topics/doctrine/history is the
purpose of this soc.religion.mormon newsgroup.
> On the other hand, I would hardly consider it to be
> some deep dark secret that no one knows about.
I do not think the topic is a deep dark secret. However,
I think that if people continue to have "objections[s] to
discussing it" then fewer and fewer people will ever learn
about it.
> Ever since Juanita
> Brooks' excellent book on the subject I think it's fairly well
> known amongst at least minimally educated Mormons.
I do not think many Mormons have read Juanita Brooks' book.
> Incidentally,
> her book actually got her ancestor (John Lee) reinstated in the
> Church. He was ex'd but when the book came out the Church decided
> posthumously to reinstate his membership.
Interesting. John Lee was the only man tried and convicted of
the MMM.
To read about John D. Lee's confession of the MMM visit this
web site: http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lee_mm.htm
Sincerely,
James
______________________________________________________________
This is my web site:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
James
(Message sent to Scott and to srm)
Scott & Lisa Vass wrote:
>
> [Moderator's Note: James is technically in compliance.]
<snip>
> By posting a link to when the Temple Ceremony is documented,
> you may as well have posted the same text here.
I disagree. A link only provides a means in which a person
can find the LDS transcripts. People are given the choice to
look at the transcripts or not. Furthermore, I am not
using an enormous amount of bandwidth by posting the LDS Temple
Link: http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
> You don't appear to me to be
> abiding the spirit of the srm charter - don't you think so?
I think I am abiding by the srm charter. From what I have
heard the posting of the LDS Temple links on s.r.m. was
particularly discussed and agreed within the confines of the
s.r.m. charter prior to the establishment of this newsgroup.
> And regarding your Mason arguement...
> I don't know why you keep harping on about it. Although my father is a
> Mason, I am not. Therefore I do not know what goes on within a Masonic
> Temple.
I am not a Mason either. However, I can learn about the Masonic
ceremonies by reading books. One such book was written by
William Morgan, "Illustrations of Masonry, By One of the Fraternity",
Batvia, New York, 1827.
> So how can I judge for myself the similarities and differences?
You can look at transcripts of the two ceremonies and compare them
like I did. Here is the list of at least fifteen similarities
I easily found between the two ceremonies:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
> Beleive you? Nope.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I encourage you
to research this issue on your own to either verify or disprove
my findings.
<snip>
Sincerely,
James
__________________________________________________________
Dave Shafer
In article <57ume2$f...@q.seanet.com>, Charles Marston
<cha...@weber.campus.mci.net> wrote:
> You quote a passage that implies a conspiracy reaching right into
> the Sunday School classrooms to exclude these people. It is like unto a
> shunning: the President calls the apostles who call the stake presidents
> who call the bishops who call the classroom teachers all in a desire to
> block out participation by someone who was guilty only of telling the
> truth and the absolute truth. Sorry, I don't buy it.
I think it should be noted (and this is my 3rd attempt of responding to
this but alas my posts have never made it) that the subject isn't being
totally ignored.
I'll be the first to admit that the church appears to sweep the event
under the "it's history" rug, but a previous poster (who's post has
already dissappeared from the server, sorry I can't quote the exact words)
implied that nearly all mormons are ignorant to the subject. This
shouldn't be the case, at least for the one's who grew up in Utah (not to
mention all Utahn's). Studying the Mountain Meadows Massacre is a part of
the 7th grade curriculum for Utah public education students as part of the
Utah History class. In my case the textbook (which I am assuming is the
same text used in all Utah schools, there can't be very many Utah history
texts out there) explained the events but didn't place the blame on one
specific group. It did however, shame the St. George area saints for
trying to place the blame on Native Americans. I still have some humorous
memories of being a TA for the class...
--Dave--
Marc Schindler
Charles Marston cha...@weber.campus.mci.net wrote:
<snip>
=>Happily she was not excommunicated, nor was the reinstatement
=> rescinded, and readers of her biography, Mormon and non-Mormon alike,
=>have universally congratulated, rather than condemned, the Church for
=>the reinstatement." SUNSTONE Magazine (Oct 89)
=> After her book was published, she was never called to
=> any other position." SUNSTONE Magazine (Apr 85)
= Ooo, Ken, you almost had me until I saw the references. Sorry,
=but I am very leery of anything in Sunstone. Even when something I
wrote
=showed up there I was leery of it.
= By the editorial position, that of being for the
"intellectuals"
=and giving a "proper" interpretation to Mormon history and events and
=peoples, Sunstone must, almost as a given, adopt a position of
=interpretation that is, at the very least, questioning or critical of
=the Church.
I agree with Charlie, but not for the reasons he gives. I think Sun-
stone's editorial position is to present a forum where "objective"
history can find a voice, but I honestly don't think they take sides.
For some people this "objectivity" is offensive, and there's a sense
where if you're going to be a promoter of the Church you're going to
try to wear a "greater mantle," to use Elder Packer's phrase. Indeed,
I sometimes think that modern historians are, to use another well-
known LDS's phrase, a "cult of professionals," however, I also be-
lieve they deserve a forum, as long as people recognize their limi-
tations.
Marc A. Schindler
Marc Schindler
Just a correction of a typo here:
(I wrote:)
=...the article and weakened so much, though, that I stand by my
=claim that it's one-sided. I also have objection to discussing it
=on a newsgroup. On the other hand, I would hardly consider it to be
=some deep dark secret that no one knows about. Ever since Juanita
=Brooks' excellent book on the subject I think it's fairly well
I meant to write "I also have _no_ objection..." (that makes better
grammatical sense, and good grammar is far more important than
mere theological purity... :-))
Marc A. Schindler
David Bowie
Ken (k...@airmail.net) wrote:
: Marc Schindler was discussing the infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre:
: >I also have objection to discussing it on a newsgroup.
: Why not discuss it on a newsgroup? It certaintly won't come up in a Gospel
: Doctrine class. Not if the instructor keeps right to the lesson manual as
: they have repeatedly been instructed to do.
I would like to note that i have been in multiple Gospel Doctrine classes
wherein it's been discussed--so your implication that it would not be
discussed in such a context is false.
<snip>
David "Even came up in my Gospel Essentials class once" Bowie--
David Bowie dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
PhD student in Sociolinguistics http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
Currently reading: Voloshinov, _Marxism_and_the_theory_of_language_
Jesse Paakkari
: used to joke on ARM (because we had a Finnish Armekite at the
: time [hey, Jesse - you still there?]) that if Joseph Smith had
: been Finnish we'd all be chanting strange things out of the
: Kalevala. One of the ironies of our TC (again, IMHO) is that the
Yes, I am still here (or should I say I am also here?). My family and work
is taking a whole a lot of my time right now and therefore I am not really
getting myself involved with anything time consuming...
Just spying on you guys (and girls...) right now.
Jesse
: Marc A. Schindler
--
--
Jesse Paakkari
Study:Jesse.P...@Helsinki.fi
Home :je...@kontu.bbs.fi
Work :je...@stude.pp.fi
H. Christian Jorgensen
On 3 Dec 1996 14:35:48 GMT, James <enginee...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>I disagree. A link only provides a means in which a person
>can find the LDS transcripts. People are given the choice to
>look at the transcripts or not. Furthermore, I am not
>using an enormous amount of bandwidth by posting the LDS Temple
I agree, by the letter of the law, James does no wrong by posting a
link. SRMites have the choice of viewing it or not.
What is missing is an issue of respect. We LDS regard the TC as a
sacred ordinance and ask only for respect and latitude in this area.
If an anti chooses not to offer us this respect (for whatever their
agenda may be), we will not be able to change that anti's POV. BTW,
not all antis post TC links. Many do engage in healthy respectful
discussions.
In my POV, SRMites have the choice of ignoring the poster or not. It
is fairly safe to state that any post from James is going to be anti
and may involve the TC links. So the reader should beware.
What the real issue here is whether LDS want to allow an anti to go
unchecked in our house or not. This IS the real issue. If an anti is
allowed to go unchecked, they can spread material that may not
truthful or may be taken out of context just to fit the anti's POV.
I venture to guess that other SRMites have similar concerns. Where to
draw the line? Invest in the time to dispute and get inflamed, or
just ignore the poster. SRMites have the free agency to choose
either way. I have tried both ways and neither seem to satisfy my
soul.
So IMO, posts from this poster are a test on my patience and provide
an attempt for me to strengthen or blow my testimony. SRMites should
use it as a learning experience and move on.
BTW, when someone keeps book on me, I would believe that it sure looks
like an attempt to steal my testimony.
I have taken the time and read every post from this person for the
past year (using DejaNews). Nothing has convinced me to date that he
wants the truth. All I have seen is a repetitive theme attacking JS,
BoA and some miscellaneous church doctrine. He has posted ad-nauseum
advertising links to anti material. So will we convince him. Not a
chance.
>I think I am abiding by the srm charter. From what I have
>heard the posting of the LDS Temple links on s.r.m. was
>particularly discussed and agreed within the confines of the
>s.r.m. charter prior to the establishment of this newsgroup.
You do in a very cold, emotionless way.
>I am not a Mason either. However, I can learn about the Masonic
>ceremonies by reading books.
As we can learn from the scriptures as well.
>You can look at transcripts of the two ceremonies and compare them
>like I did.
Or you can become worthy and go to the temple and serve the Lord and
see the TC first hand. This takes more work, but is much more
rewarding.
>You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I encourage you
>to research this issue on your own to either verify or disprove
>my findings.
IMO, why bother, it will prove no point. Let the Lord will be your
judge and jury. Love Him and do His will. Serve Him and be happy
you are blessed.
>
><snip>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>James
>__________________________________________________________
God Bless You
Christian Jorgensen
---
b35...@vaxa.phx1.aro.allied.com
In article <581ds4$k...@q.seanet.com>, James <enginee...@mindspring.com> writes:
> Scott & Lisa Vass wrote:
>> [snip]
> [snip]
>> Beleive you? Nope.
>
> You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I encourage you
> to research this issue on your own to either verify or disprove
> my findings.
Ok, I bit, I checked out your web sites (or those of others you keep bringing
up) just so I can see what all of the hoopla was all about. I was underwhelmed.
I thought you might have come up with something a little more substantial than
that. Oh sure, there are some similarities, but so what? I see similarities
between VW bugs and Simi-Tractor/trailer rigs too. They're both powered by
internal combustion engines, they both have headlights and they both have
wheels, both have transmissions with gears and clutches, both have shock
absorbers, fans, exhaust systems, stearing wheels and mechanisms. But which one
would I use to haul a 10,000 lb load.
I've been where you are James, fighting a battle here and there, trying to win
souls away from the LDS Church. I approached it from having been raised LDS and
having Apostisized, though, and I knew the doctrines and I believed I had the
silver bullet. My Silver Bullet was a lot more substantial than this stuff you
keep poppin' in with and I lost my battle (thank my Heavenly Father). I
eventualy figured that the beast was in me and that the Church lives on because
you can't beat the Lords elect. If you insist on continuing You brazen attacks,
call them what YOU want, please consider that WE just might be right and what
MIGHT happen to you if we are. I've stood before the judgement bar once before
and I can testify that there is nothing comparable to having the Lord look down
at you and ask you "WHY?".
Do what you must, James, but do consider ALL possibilities.
Regards,
Mike.
Raymond Bingham
I uncovered clues pointing to James (enginee...@mindspring.com) having written:
>(message sent to Mike and to srm)
>b35...@vaxa.phx1.aro.allied.com wrote:
[snip]
>> I eventualy figured that the beast was in me and that the Church
>> lives on because you can't beat the Lords elect.
>I am not out to convert you to any other religion. I encourage
>you to research the issue on your own. I only present my own
>personal opinion and research. You are certainly entitled to
>disagree with me.
You weren't listening James. Mike explained how he had been
in your shoes. He was a partecipant of the Christian Reasearch
Coalition thingy and many other antimormon factions before
realizing that it was all extremely fruitless. The point he
is making is that he has been down the road you have been down,
he has passed further down it than you and realized it was
going no where fast.
You have another witness that the "research" you're pursuing is
a fruitless bitter journey into self destruction. Because he
cares for you I think he would rather not see you head down that
same road. Sadly you seem to be paying the warnings no heed.
>> If you insist on continuing You brazen attacks,
>> call them what YOU want, please consider that WE just might be
>> right and what MIGHT happen to you if we are.
>The truth leads to God. Lies lead elsewhere. I will take the
>truth over deception.
Mike was telling you outright that you have chosen a life of
deception over the truth that may very well still be alive within
you.
Not all facts are truth, nor are they consequential to anything of
value. I suppose I could try and find God by studying the opinion
of atheists, but I would rather find God by studying the opinions
of those who know God, aka. prophets.
The reason your methods will never lead to God is that you give
no validation to the truth, and take any effort to contradict the
good that is self evident in the LDS church. Thus that good which
is inspired by the Holy Ghost is denied by you, and by denying the
Holy Ghost, no matter how logical your arguments, you have no Spirit
to back it up. Christ was not a critic, he was a builder. He built
upon truth inspired of God. Your tactics are contrary to the Spirit
of Truth, and thus you are not inspired of God.
Mike was wise enough a man to recognize it. Further he cares enough
to let you know exactly where your own life is headed. If you ignore
it, surely by the day of judgement you will have dug your own grave.
Best regards,
--
*****************************************************************
* Raymond Bingham * Fort Collins System Lab - Hewlett Packard *
* (aka. wReam...) * ra...@shofixti.fc.hp.com - 100% MY opinion *
*****************************************************************
* The internet needs a lobotomy to recover from its lobotomy. *
*****************************************************************
James
(message sent to Christian and to srm)
<snip>
> What the real issue here is whether LDS want to allow an anti to go
> unchecked in our house or not. This IS the real issue. If an anti is
> allowed to go unchecked, they can spread material that may not
> truthful or may be taken out of context just to fit the anti's POV.
This is not an LDS owned newsgroup. Controversial topics are
allowed for discussion. For more information related to the
S.R.M. Charter please go here:
http://www.lds.npl.com/special/usenet/srm/index.html
Please read:
"[P2] Acceptable topics
Acceptable topics include, but are not limited to, the following: church
practices and policies, sharing "how-to" ideas for implementation of
church programs, philosophical discussions involving Mormon
doctrine, church history (including other restoration religions),
Latter-day Saint scriptures, lifestyle issues, Mormon culture."
> So IMO, posts from this poster are a test on my patience and provide
> an attempt for me to strengthen or blow my testimony. SRMites should
> use it as a learning experience and move on.
I am glad that I motivate you to think. I hope that you and others
will use my research as a "learning experience". I also encourage
SRMites to do their own research.
> BTW, when someone keeps book on me, I would believe that it sure looks
> like an attempt to steal my testimony.
I don't know what you mean here.
<snip>
If you are interested in discussing Joseph Smith's connection to
Masonry and the development of the LDS Temple Ceremony please
respond to this post either publicly or privately.
Sincerely,
James
______________________________________
My Web Page:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
LDS Temple Ceremony in Kirtland (pre-Nauvoo):
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
Masonic Similarities to LDS Endowment:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
LDS Temple Transcripts Here:
http://www.inlink.com/~rife/religion.html
James
(message sent to Mike and to srm)
b35...@vaxa.phx1.aro.allied.com wrote:
<snip>
> > You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I encourage you
> > to research this issue on your own to either verify or disprove
> > my findings.
>
> Ok, I bit, I checked out your web sites (or those of others you
> keep bringing up) just so I can see what all of the hoopla was
> all about.
So there is no mistake, my web site is at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
>I was underwhelmed.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion.
> I thought you might have come up with something a little more
> substantial than that. Oh sure, there are some similarities, but
> so what? I see similarities between VW bugs and Simi-Tractor/trailer
> rigs too. They're both powered by internal combustion engines, they
> both have headlights and they both have wheels, both have
> transmissions with gears and clutches, both have shock
> absorbers, fans, exhaust systems, stearing wheels and mechanisms. But
> which one would I use to haul a 10,000 lb load.
Which was created first? A VW bug or the Model T Ford?
The Model T Ford of course. If someone claimed that
they had invented the VW Bug prior and that the Model T Ford
was just some modification of the former what would you say?
Here is what I have to say to those that think that Joseph
Smith created the LDS Temple Ceremony independently from the
Masonic rituals?
1). Joseph Smith created an "endowment" in Kirtland. This
endowment was not secret and did not contain many elements that
were later added/changed. You can view this version here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
Notice that the many Masonic similarities are missing.
2). Joseph Smith became a Mason in March 1842. (prior to
this time the "new" endowment had not been taught or initiated
to the LDS Church leaders.)
3). Joseph Smith remains a Mason after he goes through the initiation
and takes it's solemn oaths of secrecy, etc.
4). Joseph Smith teaches the other LDS Church leaders in May 1842
the new endowment, weeks after his initiation into Masonry.
(History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 1-2). Now the many Masonic
similarities appear. For a list of the similarities visit my
web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
5). Joseph Smith initiated the "new" LDS Endowment in his
business office, which is the exact same place he received his
Masonic initiation, and the same place of the Masonic lodge.
(History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 1-2).
For a Mormon scholar that says there is no Masonic similarities
read, "The Truth About the God Makers" by Gilbert Scharffs, pg. 179.
> I've been where you are James, fighting a battle here and there,
> trying to win souls away from the LDS Church.
I cannot win anything from you. I cannot change your beliefs, you
must do it for yourself.
<snip>
> I eventualy figured that the beast was in me and that the Church
> lives on because you can't beat the Lords elect.
I am not out to convert you to any other religion. I encourage
you to research the issue on your own. I only present my own
personal opinion and research. You are certainly entitled to
disagree with me.
> If you insist on continuing You brazen attacks,
> call them what YOU want, please consider that WE just might be
> right and what MIGHT happen to you if we are.
The truth leads to God. Lies lead elsewhere. I will take the
truth over deception.
> I've stood before the judgement bar once before
> and I can testify that there is nothing comparable to having
> the Lord look down at you and ask you "WHY?".
Exactly, one needs to follow their good conscience. I attempt
to do so in my posts.
<snip>
Scott Marquardt
Raymond Bingham wrote:
>Mike was wise enough a man to recognize it. Further he cares enough
>to let you know exactly where your own life is headed. If you ignore
>it, surely by the day of judgement you will have dug your own grave.
But ITMSOT, his destiny will most likely be the paradise on Earth that JW's
are so fond of extolling. Why should Mike be especially concerned?
Cordially,
Scott Marquardt
Jeremiah W. James
In article <5ae403$3...@q.seanet.com>, Scott Marquardt <s...@wwa.com> wrote:
>But ITMSOT, his destiny will most likely be the paradise on Earth that JW's
>are so fond of extolling. Why should Mike be especially concerned?
Because there is something far better than living eternally in paradise.
Perhaps also because a life in a physical paradise will be found to be
somewhat less than paradisiacal as a spiritual residence. Because a
life in paradise is nothing compared to becoming an heir of God, and a
join-heir with Christ. Because, before entering paradise, those who hid
their talent will suffer the wrath of God.
--
Jerry James
Email: je...@cs.ucsb.edu -or- jam...@acm.org
WWW: http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~jerry/