CATHOLIC ANSWERS AND ISAIAH BENNETT

[LDS4Me2000]

I hope you will forgive what seems to be a long delay in replying to one
of
your articles, but I just went online with AOL, and just discovered this
article by Isaiah Bennett. I knew him when he was a Carmelite priest of
the
New York Province of St. Elias. I knew him to be moody and pensive, a
classic loner, constantly struggling to find his faith and place in the
world.

I am not writing to you, however, simply to bash his faith or struggles
therewith, but to point out several serious errors in what he wrote about
the
Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. He has many ideas that are
factually incorrect, and i can only assume, having known him in
Middletown,
NY, and Washington, D.C., that his loneliness and fear of commitment are
responsible for his deliberate misrepresentation of our church. Perhaps
he
is trying to win back his faculties of a Catholic priest? And after all,
how
can any Catholic or Mormon take him seriously about religious truth when
he
has broken solemn vows and covenants made as an adult, with supposedly
honest
intent, to both churches? An apostate from two religious traditions
cannot
simply expiate his guilt by re-converting . eric, and as a priest cannot
be taken so lightly by your
church, just as his covenants in the Temple of the Lord cannot be ignored
by
mine. His four-tape set explaing Mormonism is certainly as flawed and
self-serving as his analysis of our temples, and the idea of attempting to
make money on the religious beliefs of others, whatever there beliefs,
should
be condemned by everyone. There are, of course, some LDS people who are
just
as intolerant of other faiths as are some Catholics. And as a Catholic
home
page, your agenda is to spread your faith. My objection is that people
like
Isaiah bennett are not checked out as to accuracy, as they serve their
purpose by writing critical articles on other faiths. In my view, this
leads
to a lack of credibility, if not literary laziness.

I willl not speak specifically on the temple ordinances, as we hold these
as
sacred. I will comment on what bennett says towards the end of his
article.
he says, quote: those are entitled to attend the temple who acknowledge
to
their church authorities that they consider themselves virtuous and
deserving . A person seeking a temple recommend does not go his/her
Bishop
with such an arrogant attitude. It is up to the bishop (for Catholics the
parish priest) and the stake president ( who is as your bishop) to decide
after meeting the individual, that he or she should be given a recommend
to
attend the temple. Do not Catholic priests give absolution before
individuals receive communion? Is it not the obligation of the confessor
to
determine true remorse for sin? Yes, it is his job, as it is the job of
LDS
authorities to make sure people are living up to their commitments. this
does not mean an inquisition, but a serious reflection on the part of
those
in authority to determine, as much as possible, the moral maturity of
someone
asking (for Catholics) forgiveness, or for a temple recommend (for LDS).

He states that the temple is the house of the lord s elect , which is
true,
but that does not limit any LDS member from attending the temple as long
as
they live up faithfully to the commitments they make to the church. Does
bennett forget the vows he made as a Catholic? yes. as a Catholic priest?
yes. Did he forget the covenants of the LDS church that he made solemnly?
Yes.
he portrays the temple as an unattainable goal for most members: the vast
majority of Mormons themselves are not qualified to enter . Where does he
get that bogus factoid ? He could not possibly have been a position to
make
such a statement. I have been a member of the LDS church for 20 years,
and I
have never been in the position to make such sweeping judgments of other
peoples righteousness, nor would i try.
Iit is from here that Bennett really begins to mislead the reader. he
says:
there is no room for sinners, no room to which the guilty and broken may
be
welcomed. He knows very well, or should know since he has put out tapes
on
the subject, that the temple is not the place for the expiation of sins.
He
knows that any ward meeting house or stake center (equivalent to parishes
and
dioceses ) is more than willing to help people in spiritual need, and
everyone of them welcomes members and visitors in distress. The
confessional
is the place to forgive sins, and is usually a required before taking
communion. The time to repent for the Catholic is not the communion rail,
but before a priest in the confessional. so too, with LDS, the place to
work
out sinfulness is not the temple, but with the bishop in the ward.

Corporate worship ,as he calls it, is not the purpose of the temple.
Bennett knows that LDS meet on Sunday in congregations, and to give
non-LDS
the impression that people wander through the temple wrapped up in their
own
private worlds is an outright falsehood.

LDS youth wait until the end of their teenage years to go to the temple
for
their endowment two basic reasons: 1. So that the bishop can be
reasonably
sure they are ready to make their covenants with as much maturity as
possible, and, 2. before they go off to server a 2 year mission for the
church. Do not Catholic religious leaders attempt to ascertain the
spiritual
and emotional maturity of people they ordain to the priesthood?? yes, of
course they do, even though bennett apparently slipped by them.

He goes on to say that: Jesus Christ himself often appears in the temple
to
people. Come on, Bennett, do you really think Catholics are stupid enough
to
believe that?? But it is printed as if it were true. I wonder what he
thinks of apparitions in Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugore(SP?), garabandal,
etc??
perhaps being freshly re-converted he is getting personal visits all the
time.

He says: those unworthy of receiving the rituals of the temple will be
damned --this is perhaps the most moronic statement he makes in the entire
article. A total lack of LDS theological knowledge here, which shows in
the
short time he spent in the LDS church, he learned nothing. Perhaps his
theological studies in washington, d.C., warped his brain a bit.

I want to conclude now, as the rest of his article seems to be written to
his
bishop or religious superior trying to convince them of his rebirth as a
Catholic. I wish i had seen this article earlier, as it is almost a year
since it was published. I have no idea where Bennett is now or what other
misinformation he may be spreading. I do not as a rule write rebuttals on
religion, as this is often a waste of time, but when you know the author
and
his background, the opportunity and necessity of responding is impossible
to
resist.

While forgiveness is a hallmark of Christianity, i find it difficult to
believe that any serious Catholic would give credence to a 2-time apostate
like Bennett. Who knows, a year has gone by and he may have joined some
other church by now, dropped out, and started his own. What happened to
the
poor LDS girl who married him, thinking he took her and his covenants
seriously?? Will he divorce her, and if he does, will some Catholic
bishop
or his Carmelite superiors take him back? I m sorry for his confusion,
but
cannot ignore his lies. Bennett is a spiritual transient, moving here and
there without direction. If he wants to speak of humble and repentant
believers that's fine. But it is very hard for me, or i believe anyone
else
with a sense of discipline and commitment, to accept this deliberately
false
and misleading article as anything more than an attempt to win back the
favor
of someone in the Catholic church. I hope that Catholic answers, Inc.
would, in the future ,find an objective source on the church of Jesus
Christ
of latter-day saints, and not quote the words of an apostate from both
your
church and mine.

I entertain no illusions that what i write to you will be seen by anybody
other than at Catholic Answers, but i believe that it is important for
you
to know about this author you cite on the net.

RULDS2

[Scott Marquardt]

LDS4Me2000 wrote:

>He says: those unworthy of receiving the rituals of the temple will be
>damned --this is perhaps the most moronic statement he makes in the entire
>article. A total lack of LDS theological knowledge here, which shows in
>the short time he spent in the LDS church, he learned nothing. Perhaps his
>theological studies in washington, d.C., warped his brain a bit.

But I'm regularly told in this forum that these people _will_ be "damned." I'm
not getting my info from crank LDS, either, but from LDS whose judgment on
Mormon doctrine I pretty much trust, though I think they're not familiar in some
cases with the implications of such doctrine.

_____________________________

OK--Monday, I'm outta here for the summer.
My best to all.

Cordially,

Scott Marquardt
s...@wwa.com (RTF-enabled) Please respond EITHER with a post
http://miso.wwa.com/~sam/ or email--but not both. Thanks!

[DennisDD]

Scott Marquardt quotes LDS4Me2000 [Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 01:05:41 GMT
From: s...@wwa.com (Scott Marquardt) Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
Subject: LDS Damnation?]: <<<He says: those unworthy of receiving the

rituals of the temple will be damned --this is perhaps the most moronic
statement he makes in the entire article. A total lack of LDS theological
knowledge here, which shows in the short time he spent in the LDS church,
he learned nothing. Perhaps his theological studies in washington, d.C.,
warped his brain a bit.>>>

Scott replies <<<But I'm regularly told in this forum that these people

_will_ be "damned." I'm not getting my info from crank LDS, either, but
from LDS whose judgment on Mormon doctrine I pretty much trust, though I
think they're not familiar in some cases with the implications of such
doctrine.>>>

Without a specific reference, such a broad sweeping general description is
meaningless and cannot be replied to. This cheap ploy is a common tactic
used by those who need to fabricate bogus support or erect a straw man to
attack, while hoping to remain immune to reply. Please, Scott, identify
your source. Be specific. Let's see the actual quote.

Scott repeatedly displays this sloppiness throughout the posts I've seen.
I think more LDS defenders need to ignore Scott's distracting verbosity and
focus on his evasiveness, invalid arguments, and complete lack of
supporting evidence or rationale.

"Regularly?" By "LDS whose judgment on Mormon doctrine I pretty much
trust"?

I wonder if Scott can produce even ONE such example and hold it up for
evaluation as to accuracy in its paraphrase.

Dennis \ SnakePiper
snake...@aol.com
or snake...@gnn.com
~~~ "...be ye therefore wise as serpents..." [Matt 10:16]

[Keith Campbell]

In article <4o5v7h$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> LDS4Me2000 wrote:

<snip>

I normally don't bother defending other writers who take issue with
Mormonism. Some of them ARE out of line, and as for the rest of us - well, we
pretty much expect some abuse when we take a negative position. However,
since I know some of the folks at Catholic Answers, and have read the Bennett
article (and found it excellent) I will take a hand at responding to some of
the charges here.

>I just went online with AOL, and just discovered this
>article by Isaiah Bennett. I knew him when he was a Carmelite priest of
>the New York Province of St. Elias. I knew him to be moody and pensive, a
>classic loner, constantly struggling to find his faith and place in the
>world.
>
>I am not writing to you, however, simply to bash his faith or struggles
>therewith, but to point out several serious errors in what he wrote about
>the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. He has many ideas that are
>factually incorrect, and i can only assume, having known him in
>Middletown, NY, and Washington, D.C., that his loneliness and fear of
>commitment are responsible for his deliberate misrepresentation of our
>church. Perhaps he is trying to win back his faculties of a Catholic
>priest? And after all, how can any Catholic or Mormon take him seriously
>about religious truth when he has broken solemn vows and covenants made as
>an adult, with supposedly honest intent, to both churches? An apostate from

> two religious traditions cannot simply expiate his guilt by re-converting

For someone who just wants to point out factual errors, you certainly spend a
lot of time with ad-hominem arguments, well poisoning and unsubstantiated
speculation about someone else's psychology, motivation and even spiritual
condition. This is not only tasteless and uncharitable, but it is bogus
argumentation.

A word about "breaking vows". Just what course of action would you suggest
for someone who has come to believe that he has taken vows that are offensive
to God? I didn't hear of any LDS complaining of Bennett breaking his priestly
vows when he became LDS. Bennett obviously came to believe that his priestly
vows were not pleasing to God - and I'm sure most LDS would agree. Bennett
subsequently came to believe, just as I came to believe myself, that type
type of oaths and vows required in the LDS temple are not something that God
wishes me to keep, but that he rather wishes me to repent of. If a Satanist
or pagan converted to Mormonism, would you expect him to keep his vows to
pagan or demonic entities?

> His four-tape set explaing Mormonism is certainly as flawed and
>self-serving as his analysis of our temples

And you don't provide specifics of either sets of flaws. Personally, I found
his article unusually kind and even-handed, coming from an ex-LDS
perspective.

> I will comment on what bennett says towards the end of his
> article. he says, quote: those are entitled to attend the temple who
> acknowledge to their church authorities that they consider themselves
> virtuous and deserving . A person seeking a temple recommend does not go
> his/her Bishop with such an arrogant attitude. It is up to the bishop (for

> Catholics the parish priest) and the stake president ( who is as your
> bishop) to decide after meeting the individual, that he or she should be
> given a recommend to attend the temple. Do not Catholic priests give
> absolution before individuals receive communion? Is it not the obligation
> of the confessor to determine true remorse for sin? Yes, it is his job, as

> it is the job of LDS authorities to make sure people are living up to
> their commitments. this does not mean an inquisition, but a serious
> reflection on the part of those in authority to determine, as much as
> possible, the moral maturity of someone asking (for Catholics)
> forgiveness, or for a temple recommend (for LDS).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I was last interviewed for a recommend, I
recall a question to the effect of "Do you consider yourself worthy to enter
the temple?" None of the many Bishops I had ever spent much time in "serious
reflection". There was a checklist of questions, and the Bishop dutifully
ticked each one off often without actually looking at me, and usually
seeming a bit upset with my habit of qualifying my answers to the questions
"Are you COMPLETELY honest in all your dealings with your fellow men?" and
"Do you consider yourself worthy...?" etc (I could never bring myself to give
an enthusiasic YES to either of those questions - since I saw in both of them
a POSITIVE requirement as well as a negative one, if you get my drift) So
Bennett is quite factually correct on the nature of the assertions one must
make.

Bennett is also completely correct when he insistes that there is a basic
difference in philosophy between the Mormon concept of worthiness for the
temple and the Catholic concept of worthiness for communion. As a Mormon the
idea is clearly felt that if you can answer appropriately and honestly the
Bishop's questions, then you are WORTHY to enter the temple. A Catholic at
mass is continually reminded that, while he may have managed to avoid the
serious mortal sins which would temporarily cut him off from communion, he is
NEVER completely worthy of communion with God. The last words the Catholic
recites before receiving the Eucharist are "Lord, I am not worthy to receive
you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed.."

>He states that the temple is the house of the lord s elect , which is

>true,but that does not limit any LDS member from attending the temple as

>long as they live up faithfully to the commitments they make to the

>church...he portrays the temple as an unattainable goal for most members:

>the vast majority of Mormons themselves are not qualified to enter . Where
>does he get that bogus factoid ? He could not possibly have been a
>position to make such a statement. I have been a member of the LDS church
>for 20 years, and I have never been in the position to make such sweeping
>judgments of other peoples righteousness, nor would i try.

We'll, you've certainly made a go of making a sweeping judgement of BENNETT'S
righteousness, haven't you? To the point, the "bogus factoid" is a fairly
simple calculation based on Ward attendance and tithing faithfulness
statistics, which are not terribly difficult to obtain (and both of which are
requirements for temple worthiness). Just going by those figures, at least as
they were when I was in Ward leadership myself, the number of people who are
worthy to attend the temple are clearly a minority of Mormons. Nor does
Bennett portray temple worthiness as an "unattainable goal" as you suggest.
He simply notes that the majority do NOT atain it, and that the unworthy
clearly feel themselves in a seperate category.

>Iit is from here that Bennett really begins to mislead the reader. he
>says: there is no room for sinners, no room to which the guilty and broken
>may be welcomed. He knows very well, or should know since he has put out
>tapes on the subject, that the temple is not the place for the expiation of
>sins.

Which is exactly what he has just said.

>He knows that any ward meeting house or stake center (equivalent to
>parishes and dioceses ) is more than willing to help people in spiritual
>need, and everyone of them welcomes members and visitors in distress. The
>confessional is the place to forgive sins, and is usually a required before
>taking communion. The time to repent for the Catholic is not the communion

>rail,but before a priest in the confessional. so too, with LDS, the place

>to work out sinfulness is not the temple, but with the bishop in the ward.

But event the vilest sinner can participate in the mass and come to the alter
rail for a blessing. Bennett's point is simply that the highest spiritual
experience for Mormons (the Temple) contrasts from the highest spiritual
experience for Catholics (the Mass) in that the "unworthy" can't even darken
the door.

>Corporate worship ,as he calls it, is not the purpose of the temple.
>Bennett knows that LDS meet on Sunday in congregations

Again, the point is not that Mormons never have corporate worship, but that
the highest spiritual ritual for a Mormon is private whereas the highest
spiritual ritual for a Catholic is public.

>...and to give non-LDS the impression that people wander through the temple

> wrapped up in their own private worlds is an outright falsehood.

I strongly disagree. Bennett's observation completely corresponds to my many
experiences in the temple. It was always a very very private and internal
affair. I find it difficult to believe you disagree with this
characterization. Have you BEEN to the temple?

>LDS youth wait until the end of their teenage years to go to the temple
>for their endowment two basic reasons: 1. So that the bishop can be
>reasonably sure they are ready to make their covenants with as much maturity
>as possible, and, 2. before they go off to server a 2 year mission for the
>church. Do not Catholic religious leaders attempt to ascertain the
>spiritual and emotional maturity of people they ordain to the priesthood??
>yes, of course they do, even though bennett apparently slipped by them.

As far as I can detect, Bennett is simply making an observation - that LDS
youth wait until their teenage years to go to the temple. If there is any
implied criticism in the observation (which I can't detect) I suspect it
would be on the same grounds as above - that the highest act of worship in
Mormonism is one that only adults can engage in.

>He goes on to say that: Jesus Christ himself often appears in the temple
>to people. Come on, Bennett, do you really think Catholics are stupid
>enough to believe that?? But it is printed as if it were true. I wonder
>what he thinks of apparitions in Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugore(SP?),

>garabandal,etc?? perhaps being freshly re-converted he is getting personal
>visits all the time.

Please clarify your criticism here. Are you saying that Mormons do NOT
believe Jesus often appears in the temple? Certainly they DO. Are you saying
that Bennett is making a statement against religious experiences in general?
There's nothing in his remark to indicate any such thing. He is simply and
factually explaining that Mormons regard the temple as the pinnacle of
religious events - which they do. The ad-hominems here are wild and
completely off-base.

>He says: those unworthy of receiving the rituals of the temple will be
>damned --this is perhaps the most moronic statement he makes in the entire
>article. A total lack of LDS theological knowledge here, which shows in
>the short time he spent in the LDS church, he learned nothing. Perhaps his
>theological studies in washington, d.C., warped his brain a bit.

Let's read the remark in context, please "Those unworthy of receiving the
rituals of the temple will be damned, or perhaps 'dammed' prevented from
returning to the presence of their Heavenly Father." You failed to indicate
that Bennett gives a clear definition of what he means by "dammed" - not
"burning in hell", but "prevented from returning to the presence of their
Heavenly Father". That is a completely factual statement of Mormon belief.
The ad-hominems are getting worse here.

> I want to conclude now, as the rest of his article seems to be written to
> his bishop or religious superior trying to convince them of his rebirth

> as a Catholic...Who knows, a year has gone by and he may have joined some

> other church by now, dropped out, and started his own. What happened to
> the poor LDS girl who married him, thinking he took her and his covenants
> seriously?? Will he divorce her, and if he does, will some Catholic
> bishop or his Carmelite superiors take him back?

Again, for someone who "doesn't make sweeping judgements", this really takes
the cake.

>I'm sorry for his confusion, but cannot ignore his lies.

You are using an extreemly destructive word MUCH too freely here, in my
opinion. At the best, you have demonstrated that you have problems with
Bennett's emphasis or interpretation. Frankly, I think his interpretation is
extreemly kind, cogent and understated. But to call this kind of difference
of opinion a "lie" is using language irresponsably.

-KHC
AMGD

P.S. I invite other LDS to peruse the original article
(http://www.electriciti.com/~answers/bennett.html) and see what you think of
Bennett's presentation.

[Alan Mowbray]

Subj: RE: Bennett & Son
Date: 96-06-01 00:26:44 EDT
From: YQM...@prodigy.com (MR ALAN E MOWBRAY)
To: Keit...@gnn.com, lds4m...@AOL.COM

-- [ From: Alan Mowbray * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --

I appreciate your zeal in responding, if not your objectivity, since
your buds at "CA" never bothered to respond after receiving my
response to Keating's rambling diatribe.
"Ad hominem" seems to be a favorite "buzz" phrase of Catholic
apologists, used much too often and often incorrectly, in order to
intimidate other people from challenging the absurd premises of its
users. If you choose to view my observations as "uncharitable and
tasteless", that is your affair. In any case, they are not a
presentation of an "arguement", but to establish that I know a great
deal about him.
You stated that "Bennett obviously came to believe that his priestly
vows were not pleasing to God"--now who is "speculating about someone
else's psychology, motivation, and even spiritual condition?" Look in
the mirror, Keith.
You go on to say that "the types of oaths and vows required in the LDS
temple are not something that God wants me to keep, but that he rather
wishes me to repent of." What did you and Bennett think you were
DOING in the Temple? Attending some encounter group? You, as well as
Bennett, obviously did not prepare yourself for the experience. If you
read my previous post CAREFULLY, you would have noticed that I took
issue with Bennett's acknowledged apostasy from BOTH the LDS and Roman
Catholic churches. You cannot, in my view, change your belief systems
like you change your socks. And what of the LDS woman he married? I
don't question Bennett's spiritual turmoil--all human beings go through
doubt, fear, and spiritual 'drought', But BOTH churches expected
Bennett to be a man and live up to his vows. He did not, and as I ALSO
said in my previous post, I am not attempting to judge his SPIRITUAL
state, What I continue to challenge is his FACTUAL misrepresentation
to readers, who may know little or nothing about the LDS church or the
Temple. Your representation that he was "kind and even-handed" in his
comments is somewhat disingenuous, even from "an ex-LDS perspective".
I also find it positively laughable, given your previous comments, that
YOU could possibly attack any Bishop or Stake President for not
spending time in "serious reflection" concerning recommend interviews.
Your stated attitude and "habit of qualifying your answers " during the
interview SHOULD have "upset" any Bishop, not because of the
qualification itself, but because of the spirit of negativity behind
the qualifications. By your own admission, " I could never bring myself
to give an enthusiastic YES to either of those questions." Why did you
not tell your Bishop then and there you had doubts and end the
interview? Curiosity about Temple ordinances perhaps pushed you to
mislead your Bishop about your motivation for wanting a recommend?
Perhaps Bennett felt the same way as you did.
Your comparison of "worthiness" in the LDS Temple recommend interview
and the Catholic Mass-communion context is a comparison of apples and
oranges. The Catholic notion or philosophy of 'sacrament' has nothing
whatever to do with 'worthiness' to attend the Temple. In the LDS
church, 'worthiness' to take the Sacrament on Sunday and 'worthiness'
to attend the Temple are held to different standards of 'righteousness'
In the Catholic church, do not the priests distinguish between
'mortal' and 'venial' sin?', and does this not impact on the Catholic's
penance and "worthiness" to receive communion? It most certainly does.
So there can be no logical comparison between the two, since the word
"worthiness", as used by you and Bennett, mean very different things
to an LDS.
You said you read my post, but you continually demonstrate a lack of
familiarity with what I said. The "bogus factoid" presented by Bennett
was NOT that most LDS do not hold Temple recommends, but that Bennett
CLEARLY IMPLIED that the majority of LDS were somehow prevented from
obtaining one. He does not " simply note that the majority do NOT
attain it" as you suggest. Any literate person who understands written
English can understand his meaning. If you were in a "Ward leadership
position" (again, why did you accept the calling and not tell your
Bishop you had doubts?), it seems strange to me you would refer to
other members as "unworthy" and "clearly feel themselves in a separate
category." Perhaps this statement is a reflection of your own sense
of unworthiness, since you apparently obtained recommends under false
pretenses.
You go back again to comparing the Mass to the Temple, which as I
stated before is comparing apples and oranges. You know as well as I
do that the "vilest (no such word, Keith--'most vile') sinner can
participate in the Mass (cap. M) and come to the altar (not alter)rail
for a blessing" is not the same thing as receiving communion. Anyone
can stand in a pew and be physically present at a Mass, but not there
spiritually or intellectually. I have attended many Masses during
which a great many people spend their time talking, and after
"worthily" taking communion rush for the exits as though the church
were on fire. So lets not be so arrogant about Catholic "public
religious rituals" being so superior. Bennett's presentation of the
Mass may be true for many people, but there are at LEAST as many
"unworthy" (your word) Catholics as LDS.
Your "many experiences in the temple" must have been after closing
time. Sessions are packed with people, and if you felt this to be a
"private and internal affair" you again demonstrate your lack of
preparedness and perception of the Temple experience. I have been to
and worked in 5 different Temples, so I know what goes on.
Certainly Jesus can "appear" anywhere He chooses, but Bennett and you
seem to believe, as a matter of LDS doctrine, that Jesus pops in and
out of Temples regularly. After doing work in 5 Temples, I have not
seen or heard anyone say they have seen Jesus Christ. The pertinent
word here is "often". Has anyone EVER seen Jesus in a Temple? I take
it on faith that the answer is yes. But "often" as used by Bennett,
implies that thousands of LDS are having personal visions of the Savior
all the time. This is misleading, and, contrary to what you say here,
he is not "simply and factually explaining that Mormons regard the
Temple as the pinaccle of religious events"--this is an asinine
statement. He never mentions or implies that seeing Jesus in the
Temple is the "pinnacle of religious events". Now you fall back on
your favorite phrase "ad hominem", which you again use incorrectly and
selfservingly. Your understanding of LDS theology is very limited,
especially regarding "exhaultation". Any non-LDS reader would get the
false impression from Bennett that by not attending the Temple a person
is totally cut off from God. This is not LDS theology. There are
'degrees' of glory, as you might remember from your LDS studies (if you
bothered to study at all), and not everyone gets the same "mansion" in
heaven. Your flaccid interpretation of Bennett's comments here reflect
poor scholarship and your understanding of LDS theology in this area is
"completely
non-factual". Lo and behold! He uses 'ad hominem' again. Such a
limited vocabulary; how do you get along in life?
The English language is a very rich and precise instrument, and I
attempt to use it correctly to explain and expand upon the ideas that I
have about any number of issues. Your attempt to defend Bennett's
position, as well as your own, is not at all convincing based on
numerous factual and theological errors presented by you. If you are
happy with your life, thats fine, but by your own statements you have
shown you were a weak and indecisive member of the LDS church, as was
Bennett, and your rather feeble attempts to "rehabilitate" Bennett
through convoluted logic leave me bemused. However, as I said at the
beginning, at least you had the courtesy and guts to attempt a
response. I hope to dialogue with you again someday in the future.

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From YQM...@prodigy.com Sat Jun 1 00:26:40 1996
Return-Path: YQM...@prodigy.com
Received: from pimaia2y.prodigy.com (pimaia2y.prodigy.com [198.83.18.95])
by
emin16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA17769 for
<lds4m...@AOL.COM>; Sat, 1 Jun 1996 00:26:40 -0400
Received: from mime3.prodigy.com ([192.168.253.27]) by pimaia2y.prodigy.
com
(8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id AAA23652 for <lds4m...@aol.com>; Sat, 1
Jun
1996 00:25:00 -0400
Received: (from root@localhost) by mime3.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id
AAA17360; Sat, 1 Jun 1996 00:16:38 -0400
Message-Id: <1996060104...@mime3.prodigy.com>
X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06
From: YQM...@prodigy.com (MR ALAN E MOWBRAY)
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 00:16:38, -0500
To: Keit...@gnn.com, lds4m...@AOL.COM
Subject: RE: Bennett & Son

[Keith Campbell]

In article <4ooigr$u...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com> Alan Mowbray wrote:

<snip>

Since this section of my reply on the "CATHOLIC ANSWERS" thread might be of
more generic interest, I've extracted it from the rest of the thread

>You go on to say that "the types of oaths and vows required in the LDS
>temple are not something that God wants me to keep, but that he rather
>wishes me to repent of." What did you and Bennett think you were

>DOING in the Temple? Attending some encounter group?You, as well as

>Bennett, obviously did not prepare yourself for the experience.

The extent of my preparation is hardly a subject you could know anything
about. You really ought to try to resist jumping to conclusions every time
someone disagrees with you. Certainly I read everything I could get my hands

on about the temple, and was expecting it to be a supremely important
religious event which I took very, very seriously. Of course, I didn't know
the precise content of the ceremony in advance, nor the exact words I would
be expected to swear to. As I recall, the only opportunity of LEAVING was
extended BEFORE I knew what those oaths consisted of. It would have been
impossible for any reasonably intelligent person to NOT realize that the
oaths in the temple were considered DEADLY serious. That idea is repeatedly
reinforced, after all.
Why then do I say that God wishes me to repent of these oaths? I'm afraid
that to explain that, I will have to make some strong statements that are
likely to offend you. I apologize for any offense the following may cause,
but I think it important that you understand that I repent of my temple vows
for reasons that, to me, were not trivial. I repent of them because they were

obtained by fraud. Mormonism, playing on my ignorance, had purported itself
as the Restored Church of God when in fact it was nothing of the kind, but a
mere human invention. In addition to being obtained under false pretense, and

being used to persuade me to deny the newly educated conviction of my
conscience, the temple oaths suffered from other faults:
A) They were coerced. Great social pressure is put upon the active member to
serve a mission, marry in the temple and other activities which cannot be
undertaken without swearing to the temple oaths. My very eternal life (the
type of life God leads, that is) was, I was lead to believe, depended on my
swearing those oaths. The only opportunity given to withdraw from the temple
ceremony is BEFORE the oaths are known, and even then only at the price of
great personal embarrassment in front of a crowd of people (often friends).
To expect a person to commit to take oaths at a point BEFORE the oaths are
known is also fundamentally immoral.
B) They were secret. You might make a case from scripture for secret TEACHING

(I think it's a false case, but it's a case nonetheless) - but to invoke some

sort of scriptural reverence over secret names, secret hand signals and
gestures falls into the worst traditions of human society - more fit for the
Gadianton robbers than the House of God.
C) The oaths are cruel and barbaric. In my day, the "penalties" were still a
part of the ceremony. To punctuate a sacred ceremony with implied threats of
gristly and inhuman forms of death is unchristian and inhumane.
D) The oaths are Masonic. Mormon apologists' assertions notwithstanding, I
have no doubt that any reasonably objective student of the Mormon temple
ceremony will find it to be a direct descendant of the Masonic ceremonies.
The infamy of Masonry is a tree of who's fruit no Christian should partake.
Now I understand that you disagree with my opinions on the Mormon temple
oaths. But I hope you understand, at least, that my reasons for repenting of
them are extremely serious, not because I was regarding the whole thing as an

"encounter group".

> If you
>read my previous post CAREFULLY, you would have noticed that I took
>issue with Bennett's acknowledged apostasy from BOTH the LDS and Roman
>Catholic churches. You cannot, in my view, change your belief systems
>like you change your socks.

You should change your belief systems just as often as your conscience
demands - no more, no less. The alternative you apparently are suggesting is
to remain committed to the outward forms of a religion you no longer believe
to be true. This is ALWAYS sinful. In fact, if I knew a Catholic priest who
had become convinced in his mind and heart that the Catholic priesthood was
apostate, and that Mormonism was in truth the restored Church, I would advise

him to join - and that would be the advice of every Catholic moral theologian

I'm familiar with. Naturally, I think he would be making an factual error
(not a moral error), and I'd try to convince him of it - but if he remained
unconvinced, then the only morally safe course is to follow your conscience.
In fact, the Catholic Church might well wish that some of the priests who
obviously HAVE come to doubt the divinity of the Church would go elsewhere
instead of remaining priests. To be sure, if you find yourself making a habit

of changing religions often you may want to slow down and take a more
measured approach to your religious quest. That's why I studied Catholicism
for several years before making a move toward becoming communicant. After
what I've been through, I don't particularly need one more religion on my
resume. ;-) In fact, it was Karl Keating specifically who encouraged me NOT
to become Catholic quickly, but to take my time and make sure I knew what I
wanted. Needless to say, that's not the advice we offered to Catholics
wanting to become Mormons as missionaries in Argentina ;-)

>And what of the LDS woman he married?

I would assume they're still together. If not, I would hope Bennett wasn't
the party initiating divorce, since the Catholic Church takes a very very dim
view of divorce - more so than the LDS Church.

> I
>don't question Bennett's spiritual turmoil--all human beings go through
>doubt, fear, and spiritual 'drought', But BOTH churches expected
>Bennett to be a man and live up to his vows.

As I said, no Catholic moral theologian or spiritual director would EXPECT a
man to live up to a vow to a Church he no longer believed in - and if the
Mormons expect it, shame on them. Living up to such a vow doesn't make you a
man - it makes you a sinner against your own conscience. For a lighthearted
look at some of the absurdities that can result from placing a sworn oath
above all else, I suggest you check out Gilbert and Sullivan's _The Pirates
of Penzance_. G&S had a way of demolishing such moral over-simplifications.

> What I continue to challenge is his FACTUAL misrepresentation
>to readers, who may know little or nothing about the LDS church or the
>Temple.

I've been in the temple more times than I can count (in fact, I was a veil
worker), and you've failed to convince me of any "factual misrepresentation".

> Your representation that he was "kind and even-handed" in his
>comments is somewhat disingenuous, even from "an ex-LDS perspective".

How can an expression of opinion be disingenuous? Are you suggesting that's
not my REAL opinion? Bennett describes the temple and its rituals as
beautiful, rich, respectful, modest and reflective. His actual descriptions
of the occurrences are quite straight-forward and correct.

>I also find it positively laughable, given your previous comments, that
>YOU could possibly attack any Bishop or Stake President for not
>spending time in "serious reflection" concerning recommend interviews.

No attack was implied. I did not understand, then or now, that it was the
Bishop's BUSINESS to engage in "serious reflection". That's YOUR contention,
trying (I think erroneously) to propose a similarity between an LDS recommend
interview and Catholic spiritual counseling. A recommend interview is a very
straightforward affair. The questions are pre-defined and they rarely last
more than a few minutes. What I am attacking is your COMPARISON, not the
Bishop.

>Your stated attitude and "habit of qualifying your answers " during the
>interview SHOULD have "upset" any Bishop, not because of the
>qualification itself, but because of the spirit of negativity behind
>the qualifications. By your own admission, " I could never bring myself
>to give an enthusiastic YES to either of those questions." Why did you
>not tell your Bishop then and there you had doubts and end the
>interview? Curiosity about Temple ordinances perhaps pushed you to
>mislead your Bishop about your motivation for wanting a recommend?
>Perhaps Bennett felt the same way as you did.

Let's bring the freight-train of speculation to a halt for a moment and I'll
elaborate for you. Here are the issues I had with the questions:
1. "Are you COMPLETELY honest in all your dealings with your fellow men?"
Well, actually, no, I'm not. Example #1 -my wife comes out of the hair salon
(as she did a few months ago) and asks "How do you like it?" with a big smile
on her face. Now if I were COMPLETELY honest with my fellow men (and women),
I'd have told her I thought the cut was much too short, made her face look
chubby and was rather unbecoming. Instead I said "It looks GREAT!" Example #2
- We're eating at a friends' place and the host says "How do you like the
appetizers?" The completely honest man would say "they're too dry and too
spicy". Instead, I said "They're very good." I follow the advice of Mark
Twain - "An injurious truth has no merit over an injurious lie - neither
should ever be uttered."
2. "Do you consider yourself worthy in every way to enter the temple?" Well,
because of the very high view I always had of the temple, I always wished I
were closer to God than I was so that I could appreciate the experience even
more fully. I had no serious sins, but plenty of small ones, especially sins
of OMISSION. Had I really "magnified my calling" as well as I should have?
Proclaiming myself "worthy in every way" was just something I found
difficult, knowing how much better I could be.
I confessed ALL of these doubts, in complete candor, to my Bishops whenever
they asked, and I was always assured that, for the purposes of the interview,
I was honest ENOUGH and worthy ENOUGH to receive a recommend, and that the
questions didn't mean to be as absolute as I was interpreting them. So
eventually I just came to qualify my answers with something like "I'm
completely honest with my fellow men - at least in the sense this question
intends." etc. I would NEVER have entered the temple out of mere curiosity,
without being assured of "worthiness". What spiritual benefit could THAT be?
It was exactly out of this fear that I was so particular in my answers.

-KHC
AMGD

[Keith Campbell]

(part of the response below has been cut to a thread titled "Temple oaths and
worthiness)

In article <4ooigr$u...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com> Alan Mowbray wrote:

> "Ad hominem" seems to be a favorite "buzz" phrase of Catholic
>apologists, used much too often and often incorrectly, in order to
>intimidate other people from challenging the absurd premises of its
>users.

And precisely which of my absurd premises was I trying to intimidate you away

from challenging? If you find people repeatedly accusing you of ad hominem,
you just might want to consider the possibility that the shoe fits...

> If you choose to view my observations as "uncharitable and
>tasteless", that is your affair. In any case, they are not a
>presentation of an "arguement", but to establish that I know a great
>deal about him.

You say that you knew him as a Carmelite priest, and that he seemed "moody

and pensive, a classic loner, constantly struggling to find his faith and

place in the world." None of which is a sin, nor does it cast aspersions on
his ability to accurately contrast the two religions with which he has been
involved. One would rather EXPECT that someone who had gone from Catholic to
Mormon to Catholic again to be "struggling to find his faith". You have NOT,
however, contented yourself with establishing that you were once aquatinted
with Bennett, but have gone one to belittle, insult and slander him quite
beyond necessity.

>You stated that "Bennett obviously came to believe that his priestly
>vows were not pleasing to God"--now who is "speculating about someone
>else's psychology, motivation, and even spiritual condition?" Look in
>the mirror, Keith.

Good point. I noticed this slip myself, but had already sent the message. I
should have written that Bennett PRESUMABLE came to believe, etc. Now it's
always possible that Bennett came to no such conclusion as I presume, but
left his priestly vows and joined Mormonism while actually believing that God

preferred him to remain a celibate priest under Carmelite authority. I can't
think of a motive for such bizarre behavior, but it's always possible.
It is a generally accepted principle of ethics, however, that human beings
are morally owed the presumption of innocence. Unless I have some compelling
reason to believe that Bennett left the Catholic priesthood dishonestly, I am
required as a moral person, and particularly as a Christian, to give him the
benefit of the doubt. Your "inside information" that Bennett was "struggling
to find his faith" only reinforces this presumption, rather than arguing
against it. I have far more hope for the man who is interested enough in God
to endure a confusing struggle to find him, than for the man who is
apathetic.

>Your comparison of "worthiness" in the LDS Temple recommend interview
>and the Catholic Mass-communion context is a comparison of apples and
>oranges.

The comparison was YOURS! "It is up to the bishop (for Catholics the

parish priest) and the stake president ( who is as your bishop) to decide
after meeting the individual, that he or she should be given a recommend
to attend the temple. Do not Catholic priests give absolution before
individuals receive communion?"

> The Catholic notion or philosophy of 'sacrament' has nothing
>whatever to do with 'worthiness' to attend the Temple. In the LDS
>church, 'worthiness' to take the Sacrament on Sunday and 'worthiness'
>to attend the Temple are held to different standards of 'righteousness'
> In the Catholic church, do not the priests distinguish between
>'mortal' and 'venial' sin?', and does this not impact on the Catholic's
>penance and "worthiness" to receive communion? It most certainly does.
>So there can be no logical comparison between the two, since the word
>"worthiness", as used by you and Bennett, mean very different things
>to an LDS.

Your point here is unintelligible. You first insist that the LDS and Catholic
concepts of worthiness are entirely different, then you proceed to point out
the similarities!

>You said you read my post, but you continually demonstrate a lack of
>familiarity with what I said. The "bogus factoid" presented by Bennett
>was NOT that most LDS do not hold Temple recommends, but that Bennett
>CLEARLY IMPLIED that the majority of LDS were somehow prevented from
>obtaining one.

You stated: "he portrays the temple as an unattainable goal for most members:

the vast majority of Mormons themselves are not qualified to enter . Where

does he get that bogus factoid ?" Normal grammatical usage would suggest
that the "factoid" is the clause immediately preceding, i.e. "the vast

majority of Mormons themselves are not qualified to enter"

> He does not " simply note that the majority do NOT

>attain it" as you suggest. Any literate person who understands written
>English can understand his meaning.

Please quote the passage from Bennett which any literate person who
understands English will agree CLEARLY IMPLIES that "the majority of LDS" are
"somehow prevented from entering" rather than simply failing to qualify.

> If you were in a "Ward leadership
>position" (again, why did you accept the calling and not tell your
>Bishop you had doubts?), it seems strange to me you would refer to
>other members as "unworthy" and "clearly feel themselves in a separate
>category." Perhaps this statement is a reflection of your own sense
>of unworthiness, since you apparently obtained recommends under false
>pretenses.

Since temple worthiness is clearly defined and delineated, it implies no
claim to spiritual discernment on my part to observe that some members were
"unworthy". It's a pretty cut-and-dried distinction. Either you can honestly
qualify for a recommend or you can't. As for the "separate category", this is
from my observations as a home-teacher and Elders' Quorum president. A number
of non-templed members confided to me at various times their feeling of
exclusion and being ostracized.
We'll file the free psychological analysis and the "false pretenses" remark
in the "sticks and stones" folder and proceed...

>You go back again to comparing the Mass to the Temple, which as I
>stated before is comparing apples and oranges. You know as well as I
>do that the "vilest (no such word, Keith--'most vile') sinner can
>participate in the Mass (cap. M) and come to the altar (not alter)rail
>for a blessing" is not the same thing as receiving communion. Anyone
>can stand in a pew and be physically present at a Mass, but not there
>spiritually or intellectually.

And when anyone can similarly come into the Mormon temple and WATCH the
endowment, even if they can't fully participate, then Bennett's distinction
can be dropped. Until then, there is a distinction - that in addition to the
"intellectual" exclusion, non-recommended Mormons are PHYSICALLY excluded
from the entire event. When you sit down in a temple session, you are sitting
down in a group of people who have all passed the recommend worthiness exam.
The fact that you have a sacrament service that is somewhat more analogous to
the Mass than the temple endowment is fine. Bennett is trying to capture the
spiritual feeling of the temple (which was, after all, the subject of the
article) by comparing it to religious rituals that Catholics are familiar
with. And, after all, the Mormon sacrament meeting, while more similar to the
Mass in some ways (it's public, for one thing) is also just as different from
the Mass as the temple endowment. The Mass is a fixed ritual, a liturgy, and
a real priestly sacrifice - the highest moment of Catholic religious
experience. It is quite natural to compare and contrast it with what is
obviously the highest religious ritual - also a fixed liturgy - for
Mormonism, the endowment. So I think it's more like peaches and nectarines
than apples and oranges ;-) By the way, "vilest" is right from the American
Heritage Dictionary. The other two ARE mistakes, but don't waste your time
correcting them. When it comes to spelling and punctuation (unlike religion
and philosophy) I am irreformable! ;-)

>I have attended many Masses during
>which a great many people spend their time talking, and after
>"worthily" taking communion rush for the exits as though the church
>were on fire. So lets not be so arrogant about Catholic "public
>religious rituals" being so superior. Bennett's presentation of the
>Mass may be true for many people, but there are at LEAST as many
>"unworthy" (your word) Catholics as LDS.

The issue is the character of the rite, not whether people are getting what
they should (or wish to) out of it. Certainly, for both Mormons or Catholics,
there are a group who attend the service (Mass or endowment) and take nothing
away (usually through their own fault). Then there is a group who attend, and
feel they have been enriched. The question addressed is not whether a
Catholic or Mormon can come out of their particular ritual unaffected and
uninspired (obviously, one CAN) but whether - when the participant DOES
experience the rite properly, there is a difference in the character of the
rituals.

>Your "many experiences in the temple" must have been after closing
>time. Sessions are packed with people, and if you felt this to be a
>"private and internal affair" you again demonstrate your lack of
>preparedness and perception of the Temple experience. I have been to
>and worked in 5 different Temples, so I know what goes on.

Certainly the sessions are often "packed with people" (I've only been to four
temples, not five, but we had plenty of packed sessions in Provo) But the
point it that regardless of how many people are in the session, you never
speak to any of them. I usually didn't speak to anyone (except at the veil)
from the time I entered to the time I left. I seem to recall that there was
an instruction to that effect in the endowment introduction, that if you
absolutely had to speak anywhere in the temple, to do so in a whisper. The
degree of silence was rather extraordinary. One undressed in the locker room
without speaking to people. One walked to the chamber without speaking. One
never spoke to one's neighbors. Even the CAFETERIA was quiet.
Now (unlike Bennett) I'm not sure that this level of interior solitude is
necessarily BAD. Certainly, since the liturgical reforms following Vatican
II, the Mass has become an event in which one is much more conscious of one's
neighbors. Indeed, I wouldn't mind being a little LESS conscious of them. But
the concern here is not whether silence and introspection is desirable or not
desirable, but whether Bennett is accurately portraying the character of the
experience. He is.

>Certainly Jesus can "appear" anywhere He chooses, but Bennett and you
>seem to believe, as a matter of LDS doctrine, that Jesus pops in and
>out of Temples regularly.

Well, I'll have to look around for the most authoritative pronouncement to
that effect. Although Bennett said nothing about it being a matter of
doctrine. He said "it is thought". And just between you and I and the
Internet... it IS thought, after all. The frequent appearance of Jesus in the
temple was a common subject of speculation and excitement in firesides,
Elder's quorum meetings, Gospel Doctrine class and just sitting around the
dorms, the mission lodging, or wherever devout Mormons gather. We both know
it, so let's not play dumb.

> After doing work in 5 Temples, I have not
>seen or heard anyone say they have seen Jesus Christ.

I've personally talked to several.

> The pertinent
>word here is "often". Has anyone EVER seen Jesus in a Temple? I take
>it on faith that the answer is yes. But "often" as used by Bennett,
>implies that thousands of LDS are having personal visions of the Savior
>all the time.

There's no precise numerical definition of "often". Generally, the frequency
has to do with the kind of event we are discussing. For example, if I say "I
brush my teeth often" - then several times a day seems likely. On the other
hand, if I say "Elizabeth Taylor often eats at that restaurant", then "often"
might mean once a month. It's certainly a reasonable expression of what MY
thoughts were as a Mormon, at least, to say that I thought Jesus appeared in
the temple "often".

> This is misleading, and, contrary to what you say here,
>he is not "simply and factually explaining that Mormons regard the
>Temple as the pinaccle of religious events"--this is an asinine
>statement.

Is that simply an opinion, or do you have a REASON for saying it's an asinine
statement?

> He never mentions or implies that seeing Jesus in the
>Temple is the "pinnacle of religious events".

To quote: "The beauty of the temple and the richness of its rituals are
extolled as the high point of the worthy Mormon’s mortal life. Indeed,
Catholic converts to Mormonism are occasionally told that the temple
surroundings and rituals will remind them of Catholic high Mass. It is
thought that in the temple one will be closest to God and that, within the
walls of the temple, Jesus Christ himself often appears."

> Now you fall back on
>your favorite phrase "ad hominem", which you again use incorrectly and
>selfservingly.

The phrase that I took exception to was "I wonder what he [Bennett] thinks of

apparitions in Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugore(SP?), garabandal,etc?? perhaps
being freshly re-converted he is getting personal visits all the time."

As far as I can tell, this isn't an attack on anything Bennett has said about
Mormonism, but rather attempting to impugn his mental stability, (or perhaps
his personal integrity) without any particular evidence, except for Bennett
making a perfectly valid and ordinary statement about LDS thinking on Jesus
appearing in the temple. If it's not ad hominem, just what it is? (By the
way, Garabandal is capitalized ;-)

>Your understanding of LDS theology is very limited,
>especially regarding "exhaultation".

If so, it's a poor testimony to the Church's educational abilities, since I
had four years of Seminary, served a mission, attended BYU religion classes,
attended the Institute of Religion for two years and read prodigiously from
the Standard Works (finishing them all at least once every several years), as
well as a wide variety of LDS authors. It's also a poor testimony to the
judgment of those who called me to be a missionary, Gospel Doctrine
instructor, Ward Mission leader and Elder's Quorum President. If someone like
myself can make it through all that with a "very limited" understanding of
LDS theology, just what kind of credentials ought we to demand of someone
before they are qualified to post on Mormon topics? Seriously, I think you
will find I understand the concept of exaltation perfectly well.

>Any non-LDS reader would get the
>false impression from Bennett that by not attending the Temple a person
>is totally cut off from God. This is not LDS theology. There are
>'degrees' of glory, as you might remember from your LDS studies (if you
>bothered to study at all), and not everyone gets the same "mansion" in
>heaven.

The fact is, Mormons believe anyone not attending the temple is indeed
"prevented from returning to the presence of their Heavenly Father." just as
Bennett claimed. Yes it's true that for the rest, there are some "lovely
parting gifts". Most will supposedly get to enjoy the presence, or at least
the occasional visit, of Jesus or the Holy Spirit. True also that they won't
be roasting in flames as the more literal ideas of the Christian "hell" would
suggest. But let's not pretend that to the LDS, these "also ran" categories
are anything less than a catastrophe. Any Mormon would be deeply grieved to
think their children (or they themselves) would only inherit one of the
"lesser" degrees. I don't know what kind of space restrictions Bennett was
under in this article, or whether he had time for a tangent to explain the
LDS concept of "degrees of glory". The point was that the penalty for
skipping the temple is eternal and, in effect, infinite.

> Lo and behold! He uses 'ad hominem' again. Such a limited vocabulary; how
do you get along in life?

I suppose I really ought to call it something else this time just for
variety. "Unsubstantiated, slanderous conjecture" perhaps. But if the tactic
is employed frequently enough, one is bound to eventually exhaust the
Thesaurus. One might, of course, return in kind and inquire about your
limited number of rhetorical approaches. In your "Bennett" letter, they seem
to be limited to:
1. Personal insults and unsupported assumptions.
2. Attempting to twist your opponent's words into something more provocative
than what he actually said
(examples, "it is thought" becomes "it is taught as doctrine" or "The

vast majority of Mormons themselves are not qualified to enter."

becomes "the vast majority of Mormons are PREVENTED from entering", etc.)
3. Criticizing the author for "giving a false impression" because he is
unable to explain every single related aspect of Mormonism in a single,
fixed-length document.
The particular section I took issue with here as "ad hominem" was, as you may
recall, the following rather remarkable string of conjectures: "Who knows, a

year has gone by and he may have joined some other church by now, dropped
out, and started his own. What happened to the poor LDS girl who married
him, thinking he took her and his covenants seriously?? Will he divorce her,
and if he does, will some Catholic bishop or his Carmelite superiors take him

back? I m sorry for his confusion, but cannot ignore his lies. Bennett is a
spiritual transient, moving here and there without direction." Out of nothing
but an article and an old acquaintance, you've constructed a hypothetical
series of events that would shame any soap opera to lay at the man's door.
Does your defense of the Church really justify this type of slander?

>The English language is a very rich and precise instrument, and I
>attempt to use it correctly to explain and expand upon the ideas that I
>have about any number of issues.

I'll leave that one alone...

> Your attempt to defend Bennett's
>position, as well as your own, is not at all convincing based on
>numerous factual and theological errors presented by you.

Once again, all of your "factual and theological errors", in the end, reduce
to differences of opinion and emphasis. I cannot find any demonstration by
yourself of a single objective, factual error in your entire reply, unless
you regard your own opinions as objective fact.

>If you are
>happy with your life, thats fine, but by your own statements you have
>shown you were a weak and indecisive member of the LDS church, as was
>Bennett,

Actually, I found that LEAVING the LDS Church required a lot more strength
and decisiveness than staying in it would have. Doing nothing is usually
fairly easy...

>and your rather feeble attempts to "rehabilitate" Bennett
>through convoluted logic leave me bemused.

We aim to please... ;-)

Feel free, by the way, to point out any logical difficulties you happen to
find ... please.

-KHC
AMGD

[Steve Roberts]

For what it's worth and from what I can gather from you Keith, you are one to be
admired. (To one's own self be true and all that.) But...

Keith Campbell wrote:
>
> In article <4ooigr$u...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com> Alan Mowbray wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Since this section of my reply on the "CATHOLIC ANSWERS" thread might be of
> more generic interest, I've extracted it from the rest of the thread
>

><snip>

> The extent of my preparation is hardly a subject you could know anything
> about. You really ought to try to resist jumping to conclusions every time
> someone disagrees with you. Certainly I read everything I could get my hands
>
> on about the temple, and was expecting it to be a supremely important
> religious event which I took very, very seriously. Of course, I didn't know
> the precise content of the ceremony in advance, nor the exact words I would
> be expected to swear to. As I recall, the only opportunity of LEAVING was
> extended BEFORE I knew what those oaths consisted of. It would have been
> impossible for any reasonably intelligent person to NOT realize that the
> oaths in the temple were considered DEADLY serious. That idea is repeatedly
> reinforced, after all.
> Why then do I say that God wishes me to repent of these oaths? I'm afraid
> that to explain that, I will have to make some strong statements that are
> likely to offend you. I apologize for any offense the following may cause,
> but I think it important that you understand that I repent of my temple vows
> for reasons that, to me, were not trivial. I repent of them because they were
>
> obtained by fraud.

<snip>

I haven't seen that part of your repentence process is to reveal those things
held sacred to active card carrying LDS. Is it? I had a friend as a kid that grew
up mainstream protestant of some flavor and was a member of Demolay. When he
eventually converted to LDS, and to this day, does not reveal the secret word or
words (I don't know) even though he doesn't believe the stuff at all. He simply
respects the beliefs of others. Maybe this is difficult for those who are truly
concerned about our eternal welfare and feel they must protect us from the
consequences of our beliefs. (I can only surmize that you feel you have some
sense of responsibility in this regard since you hang out here.)

<snip>

>
> You should change your belief systems just as often as your conscience
> demands - no more, no less. The alternative you apparently are suggesting is
> to remain committed to the outward forms of a religion you no longer believe
> to be true. This is ALWAYS sinful. In fact, if I knew a Catholic priest who
> had become convinced in his mind and heart that the Catholic priesthood was
> apostate, and that Mormonism was in truth the restored Church, I would advise
>
> him to join - and that would be the advice of every Catholic moral theologian
>
> I'm familiar with.

I agree with you. But I am not so sure your Church does. As a kid I had a good
catholic friend that was not even allowed by the Catholic church to attend church
with me. Admittedly this was a while back, back in the days when meat was a no-no
on fridays. (And we get jabbed about flip flopping on the blacks and the
Priesthood! But I digress. :o)

> Naturally, I think he would be making an factual error
> (not a moral error), and I'd try to convince him of it - but if he remained
> unconvinced, then the only morally safe course is to follow your conscience.
> In fact, the Catholic Church might well wish that some of the priests who
> obviously HAVE come to doubt the divinity of the Church would go elsewhere
> instead of remaining priests. To be sure, if you find yourself making a habit
>
> of changing religions often you may want to slow down and take a more
> measured approach to your religious quest. That's why I studied Catholicism
> for several years before making a move toward becoming communicant. After
> what I've been through, I don't particularly need one more religion on my
> resume. ;-) In fact, it was Karl Keating specifically who encouraged me NOT
> to become Catholic quickly, but to take my time and make sure I knew what I
> wanted. Needless to say, that's not the advice we offered to Catholics
> wanting to become Mormons as missionaries in Argentina ;-)
>
>

I hope this policy changes. What is the purpose of baptising folks that aren't
ready?

I seem to remember in an earlier thread where you explained that at one time you
had a tremendous LDS testimony and now that you have a similiar Catholic based
testimony. Sort of led me to believe that you could still be in transition as you
search for ultimate truth. (after all you probably believed you had ultimate
truth at some point as an LDS.)

<snip>

> As I said, no Catholic moral theologian or spiritual director would EXPECT a
> man to live up to a vow to a Church he no longer believed in - and if the
> Mormons expect it, shame on them. Living up to such a vow doesn't make you a
> man - it makes you a sinner against your own conscience. For a lighthearted
> look at some of the absurdities that can result from placing a sworn oath
> above all else, I suggest you check out Gilbert and Sullivan's _The Pirates
> of Penzance_. G&S had a way of demolishing such moral over-simplifications.
>

I'm not sure I understand you here. I have several good Catholic friends who
don't personally believe that abortion is wrong. Yet they live up to it because
of the doctorine of their church. Does the Catholic church expect these people to
have abortions and still be otherwise good Catholics by your account?

> I've been in the temple more times than I can count (in fact, I was a veil
> worker), and you've failed to convince me of any "factual misrepresentation".
>

Did you know that veil workers no longer have to memorize their parts? Bummer man
some of us had to really work at it.

<snip>

> Let's bring the freight-train of speculation to a halt for a moment and I'll
> elaborate for you. Here are the issues I had with the questions:
> 1. "Are you COMPLETELY honest in all your dealings with your fellow men?"
> Well, actually, no, I'm not. Example #1 -my wife comes out of the hair salon
> (as she did a few months ago) and asks "How do you like it?" with a big smile
> on her face. Now if I were COMPLETELY honest with my fellow men (and women),
> I'd have told her I thought the cut was much too short, made her face look
> chubby and was rather unbecoming. Instead I said "It looks GREAT!" Example #2
> - We're eating at a friends' place and the host says "How do you like the
> appetizers?" The completely honest man would say "they're too dry and too
> spicy". Instead, I said "They're very good." I follow the advice of Mark
> Twain - "An injurious truth has no merit over an injurious lie - neither
> should ever be uttered."

Keith, I am surprised at you here. I always answer truthfully and let the Bishop
judge. That's his job. If you explained your answer as you have here then I would
think you would pass with flying colors.

> 2. "Do you consider yourself worthy in every way to enter the temple?" Well,
> because of the very high view I always had of the temple, I always wished I
> were closer to God than I was so that I could appreciate the experience even
> more fully. I had no serious sins, but plenty of small ones, especially sins
> of OMISSION. Had I really "magnified my calling" as well as I should have?
> Proclaiming myself "worthy in every way" was just something I found
> difficult, knowing how much better I could be.
> I confessed ALL of these doubts, in complete candor, to my Bishops whenever
> they asked, and I was always assured that, for the purposes of the interview,
> I was honest ENOUGH and worthy ENOUGH to receive a recommend, and that the
> questions didn't mean to be as absolute as I was interpreting them. So
> eventually I just came to qualify my answers with something like "I'm
> completely honest with my fellow men - at least in the sense this question
> intends." etc. I would NEVER have entered the temple out of mere curiosity,
> without being assured of "worthiness". What spiritual benefit could THAT be?
> It was exactly out of this fear that I was so particular in my answers.
>

(Ignore previous interjection you answered above but ...)
Are you suggesting that the words of the question should be reworded? I believe
the questions are to be interpreted as you stated but I believe that it is
equally important to have the opportunity to interpret them. That is, the process
of reflection is important.

> -KHC
> AMGD

steve(I'll bite, what is AMGD)roberts

ps. just a suggestion, but it would be easier to interject if you would break up
your thoughts with a few more line breaks ;-)

[Arden Eby]

Keit...@gnn.com (Keith Campbell) wrote:

In all honesty, it seems like this statement:

>A) They were coerced.

and these explanations:

>Great social pressure is put upon the active member to
>serve a mission, marry in the temple and other activities which cannot be
>undertaken without swearing to the temple oaths. My very eternal life (the
>type of life God leads, that is) was, I was lead to believe, depended on my
>swearing those oaths. The only opportunity given to withdraw from the temple
>ceremony is BEFORE the oaths are known, and even then only at the price of
>great personal embarrassment in front of a crowd of people (often friends).

Are self contradictory. Certainly social pressure based on the
perception of ones "Very eternal life" are common within religious
institutions including Catholicism (go visit alt.recovery.catholoicism
if you doubt this...). His, however, differes widely from coercion
which relies on force or threats of force to exact compliance.

>B) They were secret. You might make a case from scripture for secret TEACHING
>(I think it's a false case, but it's a case nonetheless) - but to invoke some
>sort of scriptural reverence over secret names, secret hand signals and
>gestures falls into the worst traditions of human society - more fit for the
>Gadianton robbers than the House of God.

They, or similar things, actually come from the Bible. See revelation
2:17 and the treatment below. Further, every week when you go to
Mass, you are participating in a ceremony that was, following the
reading of the Gospel, strictly secret for hundreds of years. The
break in the ceremony at that point was originally to allow the
uninitiated to be ushered out. If you don't believe me, ask your
priest. He'll tell you that I'm right. I provide additional
background and references on this issue in the repost below. Please
refer to it.

>C) The oaths are cruel and barbaric. In my day, the "penalties" were still a
>part of the ceremony. To punctuate a sacred ceremony with implied threats of
>gristly and inhuman forms of death is unchristian and inhumane.

I didn't like them either. I always thought that they were an
uninspired addition and I believe that's why they were removed.
However, they obviously weren't threats--they were symbols as are most
things in the temple.

>D) The oaths are Masonic.

Though details of the temple ceremony did bear some resemblance to the
York rite Masonic ceremonies (and less so now), it is MUCH more
similar to the Biblical temple in overall scheme. See below.
Besides, do you REALLY want to swap stories of cruelty and barbarism
between Mormonism and Roman Catholicism? One quick retort here (of
tens of thousands that are available)--In 1793, the Roman Catholic
church declared the Guarani Indians of the Rio Del Plata region of
Argentina to be non-human so they could be enslaved. This was AFTER
they had converted to Roman Catholicism. When they resisted, they
were exterminated. Now is that really an improvement over a couple of
awkward symbols?

>I've been in the temple more times than I can count (in fact, I was a veil
>worker), and you've failed to convince me of any "factual misrepresentation".

Certainly no one coerced you to do that. You must have liked at some
point or you wouldn't have volunteered for such duty.

>No attack was implied. I did not understand, then or now, that it was the
>Bishop's BUSINESS to engage in "serious reflection". That's YOUR contention,
>trying (I think erroneously) to propose a similarity between an LDS recommend
>interview and Catholic spiritual counseling. A recommend interview is a very
>straightforward affair. The questions are pre-defined and they rarely last
>more than a few minutes. What I am attacking is your COMPARISON, not the
>Bishop.

I've always considered the temple interview similar to but more humane
than traditional Roman Catholic confession. The reason I find it more
humane is that it limits the discussion to rather specific things
while traditional RC confession potentially opens up one's entire life
to scrutiny. I understand that more progressive priests are getting
away from that. Is that the kind of thing you're referring to?

Anyway, here is a repost of something I wrote on this subject awhile
back. Tell me what you think:

[repost follows]

After following the temple ceremony wars here on a.r.m off and on for
a few years, and trying to analyze the situation as dispassionately as
possible, I’ve come up with a FAQ that practically no one will like
<g>.

1) [From a non-Mormon] Is the Mormon temple ceremony anti-Christian?

The temple ceremony (especially the current one) is beautiful and will
probably attract more people than it repels. The modern temple
ceremony is an excellent Christianization of the ancient Jewish
temple. The key figures of the ancient temple were sacrifice and the
symbolism of the holy place, the vale and the holy of holies.

In our temple, Christ has replaced the bloody sacrifice of the ancient
temple with his once and for all sacrifice on the cross (cross-- see:
D&C 138:35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and
great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had
been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross).
Now, instead of bloody sacrifices we offer ourselves, our time,
talents and so forth. This is the sacrifice of the modern temple.
(Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of
God, that ye present your bodies a **living sacrifice,** holy,
acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service).

To serve in the ancient temple, the priesthood was limited to a select
group. But now it is open to all, including endowed women who are
promised to become "priestesses" in the temple and now function in
priesthood ordinances in the initiatory sessions (I’m ready--fire away
<g>). As the ancient priesthood wore special robes and miters (Exodus
28:3-4) so do we wear the robes of the holy priesthood (including the
women, you’ll note).

The architectural focus of the ancient temple was the Holy of Holies
which was separated from the holy place by a vale. The Holy of Holies
symbolized the presence of the Lord and the vale thus represented the
separation of man from God. Only the High priest could enter the holy
of holies and that only once a year (Leviticus 16, Hebrews 9:1-7).

It is highly significant to me that when Christ died the vale of the
temple was ripped (Matthew 27:50-51 Jesus, when he had cried again
with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the
temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did
quake, and the rocks rent). Upon His death, this ripping of the vale
symbolized the end of separation between man and God on the basis of
sin. The secured vale was no longer a fitting symbol for the
relationship between God and man.

Our temple has a similar layout. The ordinance room (also called the
terrestrial room) symbolizes man apart from God. The vale is there
but it is "ripped" (separated) into small sections corresponding to
the "New Testament" vale that appeared after Christ’s death. When
Mormon Christians approach the vale, how is it that the pass through?
I won’t get specific, but the symbols are CLEARLY directed at Christ’s
suffering and death on the cross (not, I might point out, in
Gethsemane). So it is by symbolically taking Christ's sacrifice upon
ourselves that we pass through the vale of separation between man and
God. What could be more Christian? Anyone who reads the temple
ceremony can’t help but be impressed with its fundamentally Christian
character.

Now some people might suggest that I have gone into too much detail.
I apologize if I offended anyone. However, in the current state of
affairs we Mormons must simply turn over all public interpretation of
the temple to anti-Mormons. I’m not prepared to do that. The temple
ceremony is far too beautiful to allow this to happen. Fellow Mormons
might call me an "Uzzah, steadying the Ark." I personally think that
that is a nonsensical story and I simply don’t believe that God
operates that way. But, if I’m wrong, I’m willing to accept the
responsibility for my actions. I rather think I’m a good candidate
since I think that if the church is literally true the way
conservative Mormons think it is, then I’m headed for the Terrestrial
Kingdom anyway. I’m more than happy to use my situation to raise the
level of this whole debate up a notch.

2) [from a Mormon] The temple ceremonies are sacred. What can we do
to stop these people from posting them here?

It is simply a fact that the temple ceremonies are public. We are
just going to have to learn to live with it.

The internet is only going to increase their availability to the point
that, sometime in the near future, we can expect that every
anti-Mormon, every potential convert in the first world and every
media reporter covering Mormonism will have read them. Although it
might be annoying, in general, it won’t be (and isn’t) all that bad.
Yes, occasionally people will turn it into something truly base, like
the pornographic, NAZI version some Cretan posted here awhile back,
but as the real ceremony becomes more public, these sorts of things
will lose their impact. Most of the time, it will be posted and read
out of mere curiosity. Such curiosity will be raised to a level
commensurate with our protestations. So, if you REALLY want people to
go out and read the temple ceremony, then complain bitterly when they
are posted. I happen to have copies of the Masonic temple ceremony
and a number of secret Rosecrucian rites. I didn’t read them to mock
the people involved or anything, I was just curious and since I didn’t
promise anyone that I wouldn’t and don’t feel bound by Masonic or
Rosecrucian rules, I don’t feel like I’m doing anything evil. The
vast majority of non-Mormons who read the temple ceremony probably
feel exactly the same way.

2) [Also from a Mormon] Won’t the posting of the temple ceremonies
hurt the church?

No. The posting of the temple ceremony could actually have beneficial
results for the church. It may not have been the path we chose, but
there is virtue in making the best of a bad situation.

A) Because of our "secret rituals" we are now often perceived as
somewhat aberrant. Most people are worried about anything that is
done in secret and this is especially true in a relatively open
democracy like the US. As the temple ceremonies become readily
available, the "mysterious" element of Mormonism will fade away and
people will become less suspicious of our potential for "hidden
agenda."

The early Christian church was faced with a similar publicity problem.
The church service was divided into two portions, the mass of the
catechumens and the mass of the faithful. The non-believers and the
immature were allowed to attend the mass of the catechumens which
consisted of hymns, scripture readings and a sermon, but they were
excused for the mass of the faithful witch was the "mystery" of
communion or the sacrament. Precisely what Christians were doing in
there was a big secret. (See Chadwick, Henry, _The Early Church_, p.
32ff.) A letter from the ancient Roman Caecilius notes that the
Christians follow a "secret and nocturnal rite" and reports rumors
that they eat the flesh and blood of infant humans. Another Roman,
Epiphanus says that they have secret handshakes to identify believers
but also accuses them of having ritualized sex in the secret part of
their ceremony. (These letters are reprinted in full in Benko,
Stephen _Pagan Rome and the Early Christians, Bloomington: University
of Indian Press, 1984, pp 55-66.) To gain perspective on our
situation, I strongly recommend Benko’s book to all Mormons. These
sorts of accusations will be familiar to most of us.

In any case, this issue was a publicity disaster for the early church.
However, over a long period of time, truthful information about the
service did leak out. Justin Martyr and Hippolytus, for example, made
some relatively vague public statements and, more importantly, Roman
officials made legitimate investigations (For example, Pliny, the
governor of Bythnia wrote to the emperor Trajan and explained that,
after his investigation, he determined that Christians took oaths "to
do right" and ate and drank "simple bread and wine in memory of their
God." This won the Christians a degree of legal protection that they
had not theretofore know (this is not to say that persecutions never
flared up again, but they were over different matters).

My point is that publicity (however offensive) of a secret rite helped
them in the public relations department and it could have the same
effect for us.

Arden

******************************************************************************
Arden Eby
Internet: ar...@teleport.com
Packet Radio: KI...@KA7AGH.OR.USA.NA
Homepage (Eby's Cyberscroll) http://www.teleport.com/~arden/
******************************************************************************

[Alan Mowbray]

Date: Wednesday, 05-Jun-96 04:33 AM

From: Alan Mowbray \ PRODIGY: (YQMB41B)
To: Keith Campbell \ Internet: (keit...@gnn.com)

Subject: re: Bennet

Without a doubt, you are an interesting personality. We will
probably
never agree significantly in religious matters, but I appreciate your
enthusiasm.

> "Ad hominem" seems to be a favorite "buzz" phrase of Catholic
>apologists, used much too often and often incorrectly, in order to
>intimidate other people from challenging the absurd premises of its
>users.

And precisely which of my absurd premises was I trying to intimidate you
away from challenging?

--The phrase "ad hominem" is often used in an attempt to put people
of
conviction on the defensive, and to diminish their credibility in the
eyes
of others. It is a dismissive term, which allows the user a 'way out' of
debate. I meant to emphasize the over-use of the phrase, not you
personally.

If you find people repeatedly accusing you of ad hominem,
you just might want to consider the possibility that the shoe fits...

--What I find "repeatedly" in this newsgroup are people more willing
to
fall back on jargon than dialogue. If you find me provocative, I don't
mind

You say that you knew him as a Carmelite priest, and that he seemed

"moody
and pensive, a classic loner, constantly struggling to find his faith and

place in the world." None of which is a sin, nor does it cast aspersions

on
his ability to accurately contrast the two religions with which he has
been
involved.

--I never said it was a sin to struggle with faith. What person does not?

You know as well as I do , that religious struggles are most subjective,

and can be very painful and personal. Objectivity from a person
enduring
such struggles is highly suspect in my view.

but have gone one to belittle, insult and slander him quite
beyond necessity.

--Really, Keith, Compassion for him I do have, but not for his
misleading representations of my church. It was he who chose to
"belittle,
insult, and slander quite beyond necessity", in my humble view, the LDS
church by publishing an article about the Temple which he solemnly
promised
he would not do. Even if he did'nt believe in the covenants he made,
common
decency would dictate a respect for the sensibilities of those who DID
take
their vows seriously. To me his actions are as serious as if he broke
the
"seal" of the Catholic confessional and shared a persons sins publically.

>Your comparison of "worthiness" in the LDS Temple recommend interview
>and the Catholic Mass-communion context is a comparison of apples and
>oranges.

The comparison was YOURS!

"It is up to the bishop (for Catholics the
parish priest) and the stake president ( who is as your bishop) to
decide
after meeting the individual, that he or she should be given a recommend
to attend the temple. Do not Catholic priests give absolution before
individuals receive communion?"

> The Catholic notion or philosophy of 'sacrament' has nothing
>whatever to do with 'worthiness' to attend the Temple. In the LDS
>church, 'worthiness' to take the Sacrament on Sunday and 'worthiness'
>to attend the Temple are held to different standards of 'righteousness'
> In the Catholic church, do not the priests distinguish between
>'mortal' and 'venial' sin?', and does this not impact on the Catholic's
>penance and "worthiness" to receive communion? It most certainly does.
>So there can be no logical comparison between the two, since the word
>"worthiness", as used by you and Bennett, mean very different things
>to an LDS.

Your point here is unintelligible. You first insist that the LDS and
Catholic concepts of worthiness are entirely different, then you proceed
to
point out the similarities!

--No, Keith. The distinction here is between the Catholic notion of
"sacrament" as it concerns communion and the LDS notion of "worthiness"
as
it concerns attending the Temple. If you see "similarities", they are of
form and not substance. The Catholic church requires confession of sins
to a
priest before communion. The priest , determines the state of the
persons
soul, perhaps asking them to clarify specific sinful behavior, gives a
penance, the person does it, and is judged "worthy" to receive communion.
As
you said previously of Bennet, the priest PRESUMES that the person has
confessed honestly and fully with good intent. The LDS is interviewed
by
their Bishop and Stake President, asked questions about their spiritual
state, undrstanding of covenants and church responsibilities, and both B
&
SP PRESUME that the person has been honest and open with them and God.
SO
THERE MAY BE A SIMILARITY OF FORM HERE, BUT NOT SUBSTANCE..
The theology of "sacrament" in both churches is totally different, and
thus
"worthiness" to receive the sacrament in either church cannot be compared
in
any objective way. So= apples and oranges.

You stated: "he portrays the temple as an unattainable goal for most

members:
the vast majority of Mormons themselves are not qualified to enter .
Where

does he get that bogus factoid ?" Normal grammatical usage would suggest

that the "factoid" is the clause immediately preceding, i.e. "the vast

majority of Mormons themselves are not qualified to enter"

> He does not " simply note that the majority do NOT
>attain it" as you suggest. Any literate person who understands written
>English can understand his meaning.
Please quote the passage from Bennett which any literate person who
understands English will agree CLEARLY IMPLIES that "the majority of
LDS"
are
"somehow prevented from entering" rather than simply failing to qualify.

---Bennet is writing to an audience who we can presume does not know
a
great deal, if anything, about the LDS church. By simply saying,
without
any elaboration, WHY most LDS do not hold recommends, he leaves the
impression that only a few people can ever attend. As an ex-LDS, you
know
that is not the case. If he were to have said :"...are not qualified to
enter BECAUSE...." I might have given him the benifit of the doubt, but
this
was a critical and in my view, deliberatly misleading statement.

Since temple worthiness is clearly defined and delineated, it implies no

claim to spiritual discernment on my part to observe that some members
were
"unworthy". It's a pretty cut-and-dried distinction. Either you can
honestly qualify for a recommend or you can't.

---Again, Keith, you fall back on form rather than substance, the
letter of the law, not the spirit. The questions asked may be "defined
and
delineated" in a certain formulation, but that does not excuse the
member
from a spiritual discernment of worthiness for a recommend. If, after
all
your years in the church, you never picked that up I don't know what I
can
say to you. You yourself said you (paraphrase) "could never quite
answer
these questions without qualification", and perhaps that lead to a
"qualified" testimony. If you noticed other members you judged to be
"unworthy", what does that say about your idea above that all "human
beings
are morally owed the presumption of innocence"? HM?

As for the "separate category", this is from my observations as a
home-teacher and Elders' Quorum president. A number of non-templed
members
confided to me at various times their feeling of exclusion and being
ostracized. We'll file the free psychological analysis and the "false
pretenses" remark in the "sticks and stones" folder and proceed...

---This must be a "Utah-thing" or something. If "non-templed" members
felt excluded, why did'nt they do what is required to get a recommend?
Excluded from what? Where they disfellowshiped or excommunicated for
not
having a recommend? Certainly not. Ostracism--come on, this is a
Mennonite
trademark (shunning), not LDS.
P.S.--you still do not explain why you accepted responsible church
callings
when you had "qualified" doubts--just thought I'd ask, inquiring minds
want
to know:)

And when anyone can similarly come into the Mormon temple and WATCH the
endowment, even if they can't fully participate, then Bennett's
distinction
can be dropped. Until then, there is a distinction - that in addition
to
the "intellectual" exclusion, non-recommended Mormons are PHYSICALLY
excluded from the entire event. When you sit down in a temple session,

you

are sitting down in a group of people who have all passed the recommend
worthiness exam.

----FORM FORM FORM FORM!! You are so hung up on this Keith. What
is
the point of "watching the endowment, even if they can't fully
participate?"
The Temple is not a 12 step meeting or encounter group. Participants
must
be SPIRITUALLY in tune with what is going on, not just physically
present
in the room. How many Catholics do you think are "physically" present at
a
Sunday Mass and not spiritually present?(Again, I am not comparing the
Mass
to the Temple, only pointing out that people who are merely physically
present or "watching" either event are, in effect, not substantially
involved.

Bennett is trying to capture the spiritual feeling of the temple (which
was, after all, the subject of the article) by comparing it to religious
rituals that Catholics are familiar with.

---How can he "capture the spiritual feeling of the Temple" when
he
broke the covenants he made there? The spirit eluded him. Comparing it
to
a Catholic ritual without any elaboration is like trying to explain
transubstantiation to a atheist. If he meant to stress the importance
of
the Temple to the LDS, as the Mass is to a Catholic, he failed completely.

And, after all, the Mormon sacrament meeting, while more similar to the
Mass in some ways (it's public, for one thing)

---FORM AGAIN, BUT HERE YOU ARE RIGHT

is also just as different from the Mass as the temple endowment.

---now you have it, SUBSTANCE!

The Mass is a fixed ritual, a liturgy, and
a real priestly sacrifice

---"a real priestly sacrifice"-- is this a 'closet; ad hominem?

- the highest moment of Catholic religious experience. It is quite
natural
to compare and contrast it with what is obviously the highest religious

ritual - also a fixed liturgy- for Mormonism, the endowment.;-)

---You cannot "compare and contrast" the two, they are in no way
similar. Again, the FORM of both may be described as 'rituals', but the
SUBSTANCE of both is totally different. English and Japanese, for
example,
can be compared and contrasted as organized language forms, but they are
substantially different in conceptualization.

The issue is the character of the rite, not whether people are getting
what
they should (or wish to) out of it.

---that is precisely NOT the issue. I can't believe you would say
such a thing. But there is your "form" hangup again. Rites and rituals
have and will continue to change over time as people learn different ways
of
expressing the same truths. What you seem to be saying is that the rite
is
more important than the people it is intended to serve and instruct.
Rituals and rites come from the shared religious traditons of PEOPLE and
are
not static.

The question addressed is not whether a Catholic or Mormon can come out
of
their particular ritual unaffected and uninspired (obviously, one CAN)
but
whether - when the participant DOES experience the rite properly, there
is a
difference in the character of the rituals.

---how do you determine, objectively, that a rite has been
experienced
"properly"? Again you seem to say that the people involved are less
impotant than the rite they are involved with. How do you meaure the
differances in "character" of a ritual?. `

>Your "many experiences in the temple" must have been after closing
>time. Sessions are packed with people, and if you felt this to be a
>"private and internal affair" you again demonstrate your lack of
>preparedness and perception of the Temple experience. I have been to
>and worked in 5 different Temples, so I know what goes on.

But the point it that regardless of how many people are in the session,

you
never speak to any of them. I usually didn't speak to anyone (except at
the
veil) from the time I entered to the time I left

---I guess you never spent time in the celestial room then

I seem to recall that there was an instruction to that effect in the
endowment introduction, that if you absolutely had to speak anywhere in
the
temple, to do so in a whisper. The degree of silence was rather
extraordinary. One undressed in the locker room without speaking to
people.
One walked to the chamber without speaking. One never spoke to one's
neighbors. Even the CAFETERIA was quiet.
Now (unlike Bennett) I'm not sure that this level of interior solitude is

necessarily BAD. Certainly, since the liturgical reforms following
Vatican
II, the Mass has become an event in which one is much more conscious of
one's
neighbors. Indeed, I wouldn't mind being a little LESS conscious of them.

But
the concern here is not whether silence and introspection is desirable
or
not
desirable, but whether Bennett is accurately portraying the character of
the
experience. He is

----perhaps you are thinking of Trappist monks and the 'grand
silence'/

Well, I'll have to look around for the most authoritative pronouncement
to
that effect. Although Bennett said nothing about it being a matter of
doctrine. He said "it is thought".

----and again the statement is not nuanced properly, such as " it
is
thought by SOME...(again a Utah-thing):

And just between you and I and the
Internet... it IS thought, after all. The frequent appearance of Jesus
in
the temple was a common subject of speculation and excitement in
firesides,
Elder's quorum meetings, Gospel Doctrine class and just sitting around
the
dorms, the mission lodging, or wherever devout Mormons gather. We both
know
it, so let's not play dumb.

-----people speculate about life on Mars, too, Keith, but that
don't
make it so!

There's no precise numerical definition of "often". Generally, the
frequency
has to do with the kind of event we are discussing. For example, if I
say
"I brush my teeth often" - then several times a day seems likely. On
the
other hand, if I say "Elizabeth Taylor often eats at that restaurant",
then
"often" might mean once a month. It's certainly a reasonable expression
of
what MY thoughts were as a Mormon, at least, to say that I thought
Jesus
appeared in the temple "often"

---now who is playing dumb Keith?.

Is that simply an opinion, or do you have a REASON for saying it's an
asinine statement?

---since you have not said you had a personal encounter with Jesus
in
the Temple, and you no longer believe that the Temple is the "House of
the
Lord", how can you give credance to the "several" you said have told you
they have met him, and expect me to give credance to your statement that
most LDS believe Jesus appears "often" in the Temple . Utah again.

> He never mentions or implies that seeing Jesus in the
>Temple is the "pinnacle of religious events". To quote: "The beauty of
the
temple and the richness of its rituals are extolled as the high point of
the
worthy Mormon’s mortal life. Indeed, Catholic converts to Mormonism are
occasionally told that the temple surroundings and rituals will remind
them
of Catholic high Mass

----"High Mass" has been gone since Vat.I I(perhaps some OPUS DEI
holdouts still try it), and there are no candles or chalices in the
Temple.
Form is still different...and so it goes..

As far as I can tell, this isn't an attack on anything Bennett has said
about Mormonism, but rather attempting to impugn his mental stability

---now your projecting Keith

, (or perhaps his personal integrity) without any particular evidence,
except for Bennett making a perfectly valid and ordinary statement about
LDS
thinking

----I'm glad to know you are an expert on "LDS thinking"-not

If so, it's a poor testimony to the Church's educational abilities, since
I
had four years of Seminary, served a mission, attended BYU religion
classes, attended the Institute of Religion for two years and read
prodigiously from the Standard Works (finishing them all at least once
every several years), as well as a wide variety of LDS authors. It's also
a
poor testimony to the judgment of those who called me to be a missionary,

Gospel Doctrine instructor, Ward Mission leader and Elder's Quorum
President. If someone like myself can make it through all that with a
"very
limited" understanding of LDS theology, just what kind of credentials
ought
we to demand of someone before they are qualified to post on Mormon
topics?
Seriously, I think you will find I understand the concept of exaltation
perfectly well.

---you may have a great deal of 'book knowledge' of the church, but
I
suspect, from your own words, that you never got beyond the intellectual.

Your 'qualified faith' perhaps made you spiritually "limited", despite
all
those church callings that had no effect on you.

>Any non-LDS reader would get the
>false impression from Bennett that by not attending the Temple a person
>is totally cut off from God. This is not LDS theology. There are
>'degrees' of glory, as you might remember from your LDS studies (if you
>bothered to study at all), and not everyone gets the same "mansion" in
>heaven.

The fact is, Mormons believe anyone not attending the temple is indeed

"prevented from returning to the presence of their Heavenly Father." just
as
Bennett claimed.

---not damned or 'dammed'

Yes it's true that for the rest, there are some "lovely parting gifts".

-----cheap shot here...

Most will supposedly get to enjoy the presence, or at least the
occasional
visit, of Jesus or the Holy Spirit. True also that they won't be roasting
in
flames as the more literal ideas of the Christian "hell" would suggest.
But
let's not pretend that to the LDS, these "also ran" categories are
anything
less than a catastrophe. Any Mormon would be deeply grieved to think
their
children (or they themselves) would only inherit one of the "lesser"
degrees.

---no reason to pretend--LDS should strive for the celestial kingdom,
as
it is attainable to those willing to reach for it. Your tone is getiing
"ad
hominemy" (sorry, new word)

1. Personal insults and unsupported assumptions.
2. Attempting to twist your opponent's words into something more
provocative
than what he actually said (examples, "it is thought" becomes "it is
taught

as doctrine" or "The vast majority of Mormons themselves are not
qualified
to enter."

becomes "the vast majority of Mormons are PREVENTED from entering", etc.
)
3. Criticizing the author for "giving a false impression" because he is
unable to explain every single related aspect of Mormonism in a single,
fixed-length document. The particular section I took issue with here as
"ad
hominem" was, as you may recall, the following rather remarkable string
of

conjectures: "Who knows, a year has gone by and he may have joined some

other church by now, dropped out, and started his own. What happened to
the
poor LDS girl who married
him, thinking he took her and his covenants seriously?? Will he divorce
her,
and if he does, will some Catholic bishop or his Carmelite superiors
take
him

back? I m sorry for his confusion, but cannot ignore his lies. Bennett
is
a
spiritual transient, moving here and there without direction." Out of
nothing

but an article and an old acquaintance, you've constructed a hypothetical

series of events that would shame any soap opera to lay at the man's door.

Does your defense of the Church really justify this type of slander?

----no remarkable conjecture here--who knows what will happen as
the
spiritual struggle continues. His words and past actions speak for
themselves, and I really don't care what he does with his life. There
is
nothing "hypothetical" about his flip-flopping on solemn covenants to
both
churches. It is the LDS church that has been misrepresented, even though
he
had ample opportunity to nuance his statements. But he would only do
that
if he wanted to it.

>The English language is a very rich and precise instrument, and I
>attempt to use it correctly to explain and expand upon the ideas that I
>have about any number of issues.

I'll leave that one alone...

---a wise decision on your part Keith:)

Once again, all of your "factual and theological errors", in the end,
reduce
to differences of opinion and emphasis. I cannot find any demonstration
by
yourself of a single objective, factual error in your entire reply,
unless
you regard your own opinions as objective fact.

----we will have to just 'agree to disagree' here I guess

Actually, I found that LEAVING the LDS Church required a lot more
strength
and decisiveness than staying in it would have. Doing nothing is usually

fairly easy ,

Feel free, by the way, to point out any logical difficulties you happen
to
find ... please.

---you can count on it Keith

Take care for now--Alan

[Steve Roberts]

Keith Campbell wrote:

In article <4ooigr$u...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com> Alan Mowbray wrote:

> <snip>

>
> >Certainly Jesus can "appear" anywhere He chooses, but Bennett and you
> >seem to believe, as a matter of LDS doctrine, that Jesus pops in and
> >out of Temples regularly.

> <snip>

> > After doing work in 5 Temples, I have not
> >seen or heard anyone say they have seen Jesus Christ.
>
> I've personally talked to several.
>

I feel left out! I never have, nor do I personally know anyone who has seen Jesus at
a temple. I would think that it would be a reasonable place for him to show up (when
he's on vacation from the vatican <G>) and I have heard the folk legends but nothing
even second hand.

Can we substantiate any of this?

steve(Once did meet Steve Martin at the temple ;-)roberts

[Marc Schindler]

Arden Eby ar...@teleport.com wrote on 05.06.96:

>Keit...@gnn.com (Keith Campbell) wrote:

<snip>

>>C) The oaths are cruel and barbaric. In my day, the "penalties" were still a
>>part of the ceremony. To punctuate a sacred ceremony with implied threats of
>>gristly and inhuman forms of death is unchristian and inhumane.
>
>I didn't like them either. I always thought that they were an
>uninspired addition and I believe that's why they were removed.
>However, they obviously weren't threats--they were symbols as are most
>things in the temple.

I assume, then, Keith, that you are using a laptop whilst lying in bed in the
intensive care unit of your local hospital, where you are recovering from
attempted murder (in a grisly way, of course) from a Danite attack? Every
religion uses symbolism which can strike outsiders (even insiders) as grisly,
inhuman, unchristian (I guess - that's a sort of do-it-yourself adjective) and
inhumane: have you ever seen El Greco's "Crucifixion"? I used to tease a
certain ARMekite, whom I haven't seen in these here parts for nigh unto a
moon or so, who used to criticize our rejection of the cruciformal symbolism
as anti-Christian by pointing out that if Christ had lived in the modern
Middle East, the counterpart to Biblicist Christians would be wearing little
pewter Kalashnikovs around their necks... Get real, and study up on the
uses of ritual and the importance of mythos to religion, any religion. Boy,
I'll never take you to the fertility temples of India with me!

>>D) The oaths are Masonic.
>
>Though details of the temple ceremony did bear some resemblance to the
>York rite Masonic ceremonies (and less so now), it is MUCH more
>similar to the Biblical temple in overall scheme. See below.
>Besides, do you REALLY want to swap stories of cruelty and barbarism
>between Mormonism and Roman Catholicism? One quick retort here (of
>tens of thousands that are available)--In 1793, the Roman Catholic
>church declared the Guarani Indians of the Rio Del Plata region of
>Argentina to be non-human so they could be enslaved. This was AFTER
>they had converted to Roman Catholicism. When they resisted, they
>were exterminated. Now is that really an improvement over a couple of
>awkward symbols?

No, the oaths are Mormon. They may bear a resemblance to Masonry, and may
indeed owe their expression to historical association with Masonry, but this
is no more relevant than the fact that you, Keith, are a Celtic warrior
because your first name is anglicized Gaelic and your last name is a pop-
ular Scottish name which comes from a Latin term meaning "field of war"
(campus bellum). These are, again, cultural artefacts, and to trip over
them is to get hung up on the narrow-bandwidth of prose and miss the wider
bandwidth of the medium itself and the depth and power of ritual symbolism.

<snip of a rather good re-post of a FAQ by Arden on temple ordinances>

Marc A. Schindler

[Professor]

Someone truly converted to Mormonism and dedicated to Gods will wouldn't
have to worry about breaking the temple oaths, would they. If a person
isn't then they ought not to be going through the temple. That is why
the option to back out is given at the beginning. If a person isn't
truly dedicated and converted they shouldn't go through.

[Scott Marquardt]

Alan Mowbray wrote:

Good grief! This is not a flame--it's a question: Is this really the best
Prodigy's newsreading utility (is that what it is?) can do? How on earth is
anyone supposed to read this, much less perpetuate the structural confusion with
a response?

Cordially,

Scott Marquardt

[John Martinson]

Arden: It is your right to your opinion. Some people
feel, however, that the temple is "sacred" not "secret"--
and I believe the Church will support that point of view.

[Alan Mowbray]

Repost for Scott: PART 1

Date: Wednesday, 05-Jun-96 04:33 AM

From: Alan Mowbray \ PRODIGY: (YQMB41B)
To: Keith Campbell \ Internet: (keit...@gnn.com)

Subject: re: Bennet

Without a doubt, you are an interesting personality. We will
probably
never agree significantly in religious matters, but I appreciate your
enthusiasm.

> "Ad hominem" seems to be a favorite "buzz" phrase of Catholic
>apologists, used much too often and often incorrectly, in order to
>intimidate other people from challenging the absurd premises of its
>users.

And precisely which of my absurd premises was I trying to intimidate you

away from challenging?

--The phrase "ad hominem" is often used in an attempt to put people
of
conviction on the defensive, and to diminish their credibility in the
eyes
of others. It is a dismissive term, which allows the user a 'way out' of
debate. I meant to emphasize the over-use of the phrase, not you
personally.

If you find people repeatedly accusing you of ad hominem,
you just might want to consider the possibility that the shoe fits...

--What I find "repeatedly" in this newsgroup are people more willing
to
fall back on jargon than dialogue. If you find me provocative, I don't
mind

You say that you knew him as a Carmelite priest, and that he seemed

"moody
and pensive, a classic loner, constantly struggling to find his faith and

place in the world." None of which is a sin, nor does it cast aspersions

>Your comparison of "worthiness" in the LDS Temple recommend interview

>and the Catholic Mass-communion context is a comparison of apples and
>oranges.

The comparison was YOURS!

"It is up to the bishop (for Catholics the
parish priest) and the stake president ( who is as your bishop) to
decide
after meeting the individual, that he or she should be given a recommend
to attend the temple. Do not Catholic priests give absolution before
individuals receive communion?"

> The Catholic notion or philosophy of 'sacrament' has nothing
>whatever to do with 'worthiness' to attend the Temple. In the LDS
>church, 'worthiness' to take the Sacrament on Sunday and 'worthiness'
>to attend the Temple are held to different standards of 'righteousness'
> In the Catholic church, do not the priests distinguish between
>'mortal' and 'venial' sin?', and does this not impact on the Catholic's
>penance and "worthiness" to receive communion? It most certainly does.
>So there can be no logical comparison between the two, since the word
>"worthiness", as used by you and Bennett, mean very different things
>to an LDS.

Your point here is unintelligible. You first insist that the LDS and

any objective way. So= apples and ORANGES.Date: Wednesday, 05-Jun-96
04:33 AM

From: Alan Mowbray \ PRODIGY: (YQMB41B)
To: Keith Campbell \ Internet: (keit...@gnn.com)

Subject: re: Bennet

Without a doubt, you are an interesting personality. We will
probably
never agree significantly in religious matters, but I appreciate your
enthusiasm.

> "Ad hominem" seems to be a favorite "buzz" phrase of Catholic
>apologists, used much too often and often incorrectly, in order to
>intimidate other people from challenging the absurd premises of its
>users.

And precisely which of my absurd premises was I trying to intimidate you

away from challenging?

--The phrase "ad hominem" is often used in an attempt to put people
of
conviction on the defensive, and to diminish their credibility in the
eyes
of others. It is a dismissive term, which allows the user a 'way out' of
debate. I meant to emphasize the over-use of the phrase, not you
personally.

If you find people repeatedly accusing you of ad hominem,
you just might want to consider the possibility that the shoe fits...

--What I find "repeatedly" in this newsgroup are people more willing
to
fall back on jargon than dialogue. If you find me provocative, I don't
mind

You say that you knew him as a Carmelite priest, and that he seemed

"moody
and pensive, a classic loner, constantly struggling to find his faith and

place in the world." None of which is a sin, nor does it cast aspersions

>Your comparison of "worthiness" in the LDS Temple recommend interview

>and the Catholic Mass-communion context is a comparison of apples and
>oranges.

The comparison was YOURS!

"It is up to the bishop (for Catholics the
parish priest) and the stake president ( who is as your bishop) to
decide
after meeting the individual, that he or she should be given a recommend
to attend the temple. Do not Catholic priests give absolution before
individuals receive communion?"

> The Catholic notion or philosophy of 'sacrament' has nothing
>whatever to do with 'worthiness' to attend the Temple. In the LDS
>church, 'worthiness' to take the Sacrament on Sunday and 'worthiness'
>to attend the Temple are held to different standards of 'righteousness'
> In the Catholic church, do not the priests distinguish between
>'mortal' and 'venial' sin?', and does this not impact on the Catholic's
>penance and "worthiness" to receive communion? It most certainly does.
>So there can be no logical comparison between the two, since the word
>"worthiness", as used by you and Bennett, mean very different things
>to an LDS.

Your point here is unintelligible. You first insist that the LDS and

any objective way. So== apples and oranges.

[Alan Mowbray]

repost for Scott: PART 2

[Keith Rogers]

Arden---

I enjoy most of your postings, but I really would like to
ask one small favor: could you please learn how to spell
the word(s) _veil_? Drives me nuts all the time. It goes
like this:

veil a concealing curtain or cover of cloth

to put on or wear a veil

vale valley

vail to lower as a sign of respect or submission

Thanks!
--
| Thou shalt neither vex a newbie, nor
Peggy Rogers | oppress him: for ye were newbies in
kro...@xmission.com | the land of Usenet.
| (see Exodus 22:21)

[Robert Craig Harman]

And conversely, there are those of us who think that the "sacred,
not secret" statement is a weak and hackneyed mantra, used by those
who cannot understand that sacredness implies secretiveness toward
those who would profane that self-same sacredness.

...Craig

[George Rasmussen]

YQM...@prodigy.com (Alan Mowbray) wrote:

>repost for Scott: PART 2

>You stated: "he portrays the temple as an unattainable goal for most
>members:
> the vast majority of Mormons themselves are not qualified to enter .
>Where
>does he get that bogus factoid ?" Normal grammatical usage would suggest

>that the "factoid" is the clause immediately preceding, i.e. "the vast
>majority of Mormons themselves are not qualified to enter"

<snip>

Hello Alan,

I've found it of interest to try and follow your exchange with Keith --
though I must confess it has been somewhat difficult from your side of the
issue to track accurately your thoughts and ideas, in large measure
because of the fractured format nature of the posts you are producing.

I don't know what you are using as a NG reader, but I had something of a
similar poor result to what you are experiencing now when I loaded and
used the beta of Microsoft's new News and Mail reader. ..In fact I only
used it about two days or so before pulling the plug and going back to
Agent!

Don't know if this helps or not, ..but as things stand now just simply
trying to read your posts in the poorly formatted form in which they show
up here is difficult enough -- and when you add to that the challenge of
trying to come to grips with the substance of your objections to Keith's
observations, ..well, it becomes a real task!

Hope this helps..

Blessings..

George

[Arden Eby]

John Martinson <jpm...@bmi.net> wrote:

>Arden: It is your right to your opinion. Some people
>feel, however, that the temple is "sacred" not "secret"--
>and I believe the Church will support that point of view.

Exactly. This is exactly what I believe. You must have misunderstood
my post.

[Michael A. Erickson]

In article <31B514...@isysg.com> Steve Roberts <steve....@isysg.com> writes:

>Keith Campbell wrote (speaking about problems he had with temple
>recommend interview questions):

>> 2. "Do you consider yourself worthy in every way to enter the temple?" Well,
>> because of the very high view I always had of the temple, I always wished I
>> were closer to God than I was so that I could appreciate the experience even
>> more fully. I had no serious sins, but plenty of small ones, especially sins
>> of OMISSION. Had I really "magnified my calling" as well as I should have?
>> Proclaiming myself "worthy in every way" was just something I found
>> difficult, knowing how much better I could be.
>> I confessed ALL of these doubts, in complete candor, to my Bishops whenever
>> they asked, and I was always assured that, for the purposes of the interview,
>> I was honest ENOUGH and worthy ENOUGH to receive a recommend, and that the
>> questions didn't mean to be as absolute as I was interpreting them. So
>> eventually I just came to qualify my answers with something like "I'm
>> completely honest with my fellow men - at least in the sense this question
>> intends." etc. I would NEVER have entered the temple out of mere curiosity,
>> without being assured of "worthiness". What spiritual benefit could THAT be?
>> It was exactly out of this fear that I was so particular in my answers.
>>
>
>(Ignore previous interjection you answered above but ...) Are you
>suggesting that the words of the question should be reworded? I
>believe the questions are to be interpreted as you stated but I
>believe that it is equally important to have the opportunity to
>interpret them. That is, the process of reflection is important.

FYI, the temple interview questions have been changed, and, Keith, if
theye were such a problem before, you can now feel free to return to
the LDS church without worrying about these particular problems.

Isn't great how the Lord responds to our concerns through His prophet!
--
\MaE

Michael A. Erickson
mier...@indiana.edu

[Arden Eby]

>Arden---

>I enjoy most of your postings, but I really would like to
>ask one small favor: could you please learn how to spell

>the word(s) _veil? Drives me nuts all the time. It goes
>like this:

>veil a concealing curtain or cover of cloth

> to put on or wear a veil

>vail

> to lower as a sign of respect or submission

Thanks for the correction. I'm not sure where you got the above, but
"vail" and "veil" are used interchangeably in the Bible as in:

Exodus 26:30-31
30 And thou shalt rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion
thereof which was shewed thee in the mount.
31 And thou shalt make a VAIL [of] blue, and purple, and scarlet,
and fine twined linen of cunning work: with cherubims shall it be
made.

and

Matthew 27:51
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top
to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

It seems to me that I used "vail" throughout the temple FAQ but my
spell checker didn’t recognize it and wanted to change it to "vale."
I recall kind of absentmindedly thinking, "Hmm...This must be the
modern spelling," and clicked "OK."

Arden

P.S. The second to the last sentence of your first paragraph is
incomplete. It has no subject. It should read, "It drives me nuts
all the time."

******************************************************************************

[Arden Eby]

Keit...@gnn.com (Keith Campbell) wrote:

In all honesty, it seems like this statement:

>A) They were coerced.

and these explanations:

>Great social pressure is put upon the active member to

>serve a mission, marry in the temple and other activities which cannot be
>undertaken without swearing to the temple oaths. My very eternal life (the
>type of life God leads, that is) was, I was lead to believe, depended on my
>swearing those oaths. The only opportunity given to withdraw from the temple
>ceremony is BEFORE the oaths are known, and even then only at the price of
>great personal embarrassment in front of a crowd of people (often friends).

Are self contradictory. Certainly social pressure based on the

perception of ones "Very eternal life" are common within religious
institutions including Catholicism (go visit alt.recovery.catholoicism

if you doubt this...). His, however, differs widely from coercion

which relies on force or threats of force to exact compliance.

>B) They were secret. You might make a case from scripture for secret TEACHING

>(I think it's a false case, but it's a case nonetheless) - but to invoke some
>sort of scriptural reverence over secret names, secret hand signals and
>gestures falls into the worst traditions of human society - more fit for the
>Gadianton robbers than the House of God.

They, or similar things, actually come from the Bible. See revelation

2:17 and the treatment below. Further, every week when you go to
Mass, you are participating in a ceremony that was, following the
reading of the Gospel, strictly secret for hundreds of years. The
break in the ceremony at that point was originally to allow the
uninitiated to be ushered out. If you don't believe me, ask your
priest. He'll tell you that I'm right. I provide additional
background and references on this issue in the repost below. Please
refer to it.

>C) The oaths are cruel and barbaric. In my day, the "penalties" were still a

>part of the ceremony. To punctuate a sacred ceremony with implied threats of
>gristly and inhuman forms of death is unchristian and inhumane.

I didn't like them either. I always thought that they were an

uninspired addition and I believe that's why they were removed.
However, they obviously weren't threats--they were symbols as are most
things in the temple.

>D) The oaths are Masonic.

Though details of the temple ceremony did bear some resemblance to the

York rite Masonic ceremonies (and less so now), it is MUCH more
similar to the Biblical temple in overall scheme. See below.
Besides, do you REALLY want to swap stories of cruelty and barbarism
between Mormonism and Roman Catholicism? One quick retort here (of
tens of thousands that are available)--In 1793, the Roman Catholic
church declared the Guarani Indians of the Rio Del Plata region of
Argentina to be non-human so they could be enslaved. This was AFTER
they had converted to Roman Catholicism. When they resisted, they
were exterminated. Now is that really an improvement over a couple of
awkward symbols?

>I've been in the temple more times than I can count (in fact, I was a veil

>worker), and you've failed to convince me of any "factual misrepresentation".

Certainly no one coerced you to do that. You must have liked at some

point or you wouldn't have volunteered for such duty.

>No attack was implied. I did not understand, then or now, that it was the

>Bishop's BUSINESS to engage in "serious reflection". That's YOUR contention,
>trying (I think erroneously) to propose a similarity between an LDS recommend
>interview and Catholic spiritual counseling. A recommend interview is a very
>straightforward affair. The questions are pre-defined and they rarely last
>more than a few minutes. What I am attacking is your COMPARISON, not the
>Bishop.

I've always considered the temple interview similar to but more humane

than traditional Roman Catholic confession. The reason I find it more
humane is that it limits the discussion to rather specific things
while traditional RC confession potentially opens up one's entire life
to scrutiny. I understand that more progressive priests are getting
away from that. Is that the kind of thing you're referring to?

Anyway, here is a repost of something I wrote on this subject awhile
back. Tell me what you think:

[repost follows]

After following the temple ceremony wars here on a.r.m off and on for
a few years, and trying to analyze the situation as dispassionately as
possible, I’ve come up with a FAQ that practically no one will like
<g>.

1) [From a non-Mormon] Is the Mormon temple ceremony anti-Christian?

The temple ceremony (especially the current one) is beautiful and will
probably attract more people than it repels. The modern temple
ceremony is an excellent Christianization of the ancient Jewish
temple. The key figures of the ancient temple were sacrifice and the

symbolism of the holy place, the veil and the holy of holies.

In our temple, Christ has replaced the bloody sacrifice of the ancient
temple with his once and for all sacrifice on the cross (cross-- see:
D&C 138:35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and
great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had
been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross).
Now, instead of bloody sacrifices we offer ourselves, our time,
talents and so forth. This is the sacrifice of the modern temple.
(Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of
God, that ye present your bodies a **living sacrifice,** holy,
acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service).

To serve in the ancient temple, the priesthood was limited to a select
group. But now it is open to all, including endowed women who are
promised to become "priestesses" in the temple and now function in
priesthood ordinances in the initiatory sessions (I’m ready--fire away
<g>). As the ancient priesthood wore special robes and miters (Exodus
28:3-4) so do we wear the robes of the holy priesthood (including the
women, you’ll note).

The architectural focus of the ancient temple was the Holy of Holies

which was separated from the holy place by a veil. The Holy of Holies
symbolized the presence of the Lord and the veil thus represented the

separation of man from God. Only the High priest could enter the holy
of holies and that only once a year (Leviticus 16, Hebrews 9:1-7).

It is highly significant to me that when Christ died the veil of the

temple was ripped (Matthew 27:50-51 Jesus, when he had cried again

with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the

temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did

quake, and the rocks rent). Upon His death, this ripping of the veil

symbolized the end of separation between man and God on the basis of

sin. The secured veil was no longer a fitting symbol for the

relationship between God and man.

Our temple has a similar layout. The ordinance room (also called the

terrestrial room) symbolizes man apart from God. The veil is there

but it is "ripped" (separated) into small sections corresponding to

the "New Testament" veil that appeared after Christ’s death. When
Mormon Christians approach the veil, how is it that the pass through?

I won’t get specific, but the symbols are CLEARLY directed at Christ’s
suffering and death on the cross (not, I might point out, in
Gethsemane). So it is by symbolically taking Christ's sacrifice upon

ourselves that we pass through the veil of separation between man and

Arden

******************************************************************************

[Scott Marquardt]

Alan Mowbray wrote:
>Repost for Scott: PART 1

Will someone _please_ tell me if Alan's post was hashed, or is it just me?!

-Scott

[Helen Sillasen]

Robert Craig Harman <pa...@byu.edu> wrote:

>John Martinson wrote:
>>
>> Arden: It is your right to your opinion. Some people
>> feel, however, that the temple is "sacred" not "secret"--
>> and I believe the Church will support that point of view.

>And conversely, there are those of us who think that the "sacred,

>not secret" statement is a weak and hackneyed mantra, used by those
>who cannot understand that sacredness implies secretiveness toward
>those who would profane that self-same sacredness.

Yo, Craig!

Can you speak a little plainer, please?
My senses are overloaded with too many Secret/Sacred words. <g>

Best,
Helen

[Keith Campbell]

In article <31B514...@isysg.com> Steve Roberts wrote:
>> I think it important that you understand that I repent of my
temple
>> vows for reasons that, to me, were not trivial. I repent of them

>> because they were obtained by fraud.

> I haven't seen that part of your repentence process is to reveal

those
> things held sacred to active card carrying LDS. Is it? I had a
> friend as a kid that grew up mainstream protestant of some flavor
> and was a member of Demolay. When he eventually converted to LDS,
and to
> this day, does not reveal the secret word or words (I don't know)
even
> though he doesn't believe the stuff at all. He simply
> respects the beliefs of others. Maybe this is difficult for those
who are
> truly concerned about our eternal welfare and feel they must
protect
> us from the consequences of our beliefs. (I can only surmize that
you
> feel you have some sense of responsibility in this regard since
> you hang out here.)

Well, in point of fact, I try NOT to talk about the temple in a way
that will seriously offend an LDS by way of revealing what they
would rather not reveal. I don't always succeed - and sometimes I
skirt the edge much closer than LDS are comfortable with (some of
my messages in this thread may do that, for which I apologize to
any offended). I TRY to avoid this, not because I still feel bound
by my temple obligations, but because A) You can't really carry on
a discussion with someone when you're behaving in a way they regard
as sacrilegious and B) I understand that it's frustrating to the
LDS to not be able to rebut my points because they feel bound by
oath NOT to discuss the matter. Sometimes in private, with a
non-LDS who is extremely curious, I will get more specific if they
wish. I no longer regard the oaths as binding because, quite
literally, I regard the being (the Mormon Elohim) to whom I made
the commitments as no more really existent than if I had made the
promises to Bel or sworn an oath to Apollo. I realize how difficult
it would be for the LDS to imagine this frame of mind, but it is
quite literally true.

>> You should change your belief systems just as often as your
conscience

>> demands ...

>
> I agree with you. But I am not so sure your Church does. As a kid
I had a
> good catholic friend that was not even allowed by the Catholic
church to
> attend church with me. Admittedly this was a while back, back in
the days
> when meat was a no-no on fridays. (And we get jabbed about flip
flopping
> on the blacks and the Priesthood! But I digress. :o)

I'm not saying the Catholic Church exhorts everyone to go out and
"find themselves". Attending the religious meetings of other
denominations is usually seen as espousing a communion and
agreement that doesn't exists, unless the purpose of the meeting is
clearly ecumenical. It has to do with a different concept for a
Catholic of what attending a religious service actually
accomplishes, but that's a tangent. I don't think the spirit of
this teaching would be violated by a strictly investigatory
attendance, but I'm sure some of the old-timers would disagree.
As for meat on Fridays, the Catholic Church has always had a fairly
clear distinction between doctrines and dogmas, which can't change,
and matters of discipline and practice, which change frequently.
For example, the fact that women won't be ordained to the
priesthood is doctrine. The fact that priests aren't married is a
discipline, and could change (and in some rites, such as the
Melkite Catholic church, they ARE or can be married). Meatless
Fridays were a spiritual discipline, not a doctrine. Actually, the
official pronouncement only says that Catholics can substitute some
OTHER form of spiritual discipline for abstaining from meat. In
fact, what happened is that most Catholics dropped meatless Fridays
like a hot potato (pardon the food metaphors) and substituted
NOTHING. My family still tries to observe the meatless Friday.

>I seem to remember in an earlier thread where you explained that
at one
> time you had a tremendous LDS testimony and now that you have a
similiar
>Catholic based testimony. Sort of led me to believe that you
could still be
>in transition as you search for ultimate truth. (after all you
probably believed
>you had ultimate truth at some point as an LDS.)

But my point was that I no longer rely EXCLUSIVELY on a testimony.
The fact that mine seemed to adapt nicely from Mormon to Catholic
convinces me that I need some external checks to make sure I’m not
just hearing God say what I WANT him to say. Might I find some new
evidence that leads me elsewhere? It’s always possible. But since
part of the evidence that convinces me of Catholicism is bedrock
philosophical, it would have to be pretty fundamental.

>I'm not sure I understand you here. I have several good Catholic
friends
> who don't personally believe that abortion is wrong. Yet they
live up to it
> because of the doctorine of their church. Does the Catholic
church
> expect these people to have abortions and still be otherwise good
> Catholics by your account?

No, just as Bennett didn’t remain a “good Catholic” when he became
a Mormon. In recognizing that an individual is responsible to God
for his own behavior according to his conscience, the Catholic
Church doesn’t cease from teaching certain doctrines and insisting
on certain behavior. It simply believes that people who follow
misguided moral principles and false doctrine may occasionally be
innocent before God for their error. In the case of your friends,
presumably, they are at the point where they feel that the issues
which bind their conscience to obedience to the Catholic Church are
stronger than the issues which cause their conscience to question
the Church’s teaching on abortion. If they ever reached the place
where their conscience insisted that abortion was a more serious
moral issue than obedience to the Church, then they would disobey.
The Church would discipline them (hoping by it’s censure to EDUCATE
their conscience), and would continue to regard abortion as a real
sin and a moral evil. But as to the ultimate spiritual guilt or
innocence of a dissenter, only God can say.
Of course, there is a responsibility to EDUCATE the conscience. If
a person’s actions result from laziness in learning what is true or
selfishness in wanting one’s own way, then guilt may not be
avoided. In general, however, sin is only sin when we commit it
REALIZING it to be sin.

>> Let's bring the freight-train of speculation to a halt for a
moment and
>> I'll elaborate for you. Here are the issues I had with the
questions:

<snip>

>Are you suggesting that the words of the question should be
reworded? I
> believe the questions are to be interpreted as you stated but I
believe that it is
>equally important to have the opportunity to interpret them. That
is, the
> process of reflection is important.

No, on consideration, there’s no easy way to ask what I think the
Bishop is really trying to ask. Catholic moral theology makes a
rather sophisticated science out of deciding when the complete
truth is and is not required. The Mormon approach just assumes
you’re going to use common sense - which is fine for most
situations.

>> -KHC
>> AMGD
>
>steve(I'll bite, what is AMGD)roberts

Well, I’m rather embarrassed to realize that I’ve been pasting in
the wrong abbreviation all this time. The more common arrangement
of the letters is: AMDG.

Hope that clarifies.

>ps. just a suggestion, but it would be easier to interject if you
would
> break up your thoughts with a few more line breaks ;-)

I don’t want interjections. I want to PONTIFICATE! ;-)

-KHC
AMDG

ps. Ok, I won’t be cruel. It’s “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam” (“To the
Greater Glory of God”, the motto of St. Ignatius Loyola and the
Jesuits)

[AMowbray96]

Keith said:

The extent of my preparation is hardly a subject you could know anything
about. You really ought to try to resist jumping to conclusions every time
someone disagrees with you. Certainly I read everything I could get my
hands
on about the temple, and was expecting it to be a supremely important
religious event which I took very, very seriously. Of course, I didn't
know
the precise content of the ceremony in advance, nor the exact words I
would
be expected to swear to. As I recall, the only opportunity of LEAVING was
extended BEFORE I knew what those oaths consisted of. It would have been
impossible for any reasonably intelligent person to NOT realize that the
oaths in the temple were considered DEADLY serious. That idea is
repeatedly
reinforced, after all.

---You are into FORM in this thread too, Keith. What I know about your
preparation, from your own words, is a deduction by me. If my deductions
are faulty, you certainl;y have said nothing that would change them. Your
preparation for the Temple was obviously WAY too intellectual. Where
are the spiritual considerations? What did you take very, very seriously
? If you felt unsure of taking these oaths that were deadly serious ,
why DID NT you take the opportunity to leave? That's why they give you
the opportunity to do so.

Why then do I say that God wishes me to repent of these oaths? I'm afraid
that to explain that, I will have to make some strong statements that are
likely to offend you. I apologize for any offense the following may cause,
but I think it important that you understand that I repent of my temple
vows
for reasons that, to me, were not trivial. I repent of them because they
were
obtained by fraud. Mormonism, playing on my ignorance, had purported
itself
as the Restored Church of God when in fact it was nothing of the kind, but
a
mere human invention.

---Nothing you say can offend me personally, as I do not know you. You
offend the intelligence of people when you say that a fraud was
perpetrated on you by the LDS church. I assume you were an adult when you
joined the church, with an education and common sense. If there was
ignorance here, it was YOUR ignorance in not informing yourself FULLY of
the SPIRITUAL (or as I have told you before, SUBSTANTIAL) SIGNIFICANCE OF
THE TEMPLE, NOT MERELY THE EXTERNAL RITUALS. Rituals are important in
expressing religious beliefs, but not the ONLY way of experiencing God.
Apparently, you never learned this truism.

In addition to being obtained under false pretense

---Come on, Keith, give it a rest.

A) They were coerced. Great social pressure is put upon the active member
to
serve a mission, marry in the temple and other activities which cannot be
undertaken without swearing to the temple oaths. My very eternal life (the
type of life God leads, that is) was, I was lead to believe, depended on
my
swearing those oaths. The only opportunity given to withdraw from the
temple
ceremony is BEFORE the oaths are known, and even then only at the price of
great personal embarrassment in front of a crowd of people (often
friends).
To expect a person to commit to take oaths at a point BEFORE the oaths are
known is also fundamentally immoral.

----Here you go, playing the poor innocent victim again. No one forces
a mature adult to do anything they do not want to do. The great social
pressure you say you felt to perform in a certain way, speaks more to
your lack of spine than actual coercion. You seem overly concerned with
what others think of you, Keith. Did it ever occur to you that the crowd
of people(often friends) of which you speak, would ADMIRE your courage in
leaving the Temple if you were not prepared to accept it s
responsibilities? If you thought that the procedures of the Temple were
fundamentally immoral , you CLEARLY were dishonest with your Bishop, Stake
President, and any other members of the church who believed you had a
testimony of the Gospel. Your lack off spiritual formation is
fundamentally immoral .

B) They were secret. You might make a case from scripture for secret
TEACHING
(I think it's a false case, but it's a case nonetheless) - but to invoke
some
sort of scriptural reverence over secret names, secret hand signals and
gestures falls into the worst traditions of human society - more fit for
the
Gadianton robbers than the House of God.

---This old canard has been beaten to death. I would have thought you
could come up with something more creative and original. FORM AGAIN
KEITH--GET PAST IT.

C) The oaths are cruel and barbaric. In my day, the "penalties" were
still a
part of the ceremony. To punctuate a sacred ceremony with implied threats
of
gristly and inhuman forms of death is unchristian and inhumane

--- Cruel and barbaric ? I am beginning to think you NEVER were in the
Temple. Just WHO do you think you are kidding, Keith?

.

D) The oaths are Masonic. Mormon apologists' assertions notwithstanding,
I
have no doubt that any reasonably objective student of the Mormon temple
ceremony will find it to be a direct descendant of the Masonic ceremonies.

---- All religious traditions borrow things from the culture around them,
for religion is the living expression of faith through familiar symbols.
If you find similarities between SOME of the Temple endowment and Free
Masonry, the similarity is in FORM KEITH, NOT SUBSTANCE! It is not the
ritual, but the MEANING behind the ritual. FORM FORM FORM FORM FORM
FORM!!--When will you GET IT STRAIGHT?

You should change your belief systems just as often as your conscience
demands - no more, no less.

---HERE is the core of your problem Keith. You have no moral center
(apparently), no one set of values as a foundation for your life. If your
conscience demands that you change your belief system (read: basic
core values) in response to the situation of the moment , how can you
possibly have ANY standards or stability in your life? No, my friend,
without a core a being is hollow and their conscience is faulty.

if I knew a Catholic priest who had become convinced in his mind and
heart that the Catholic priesthood was apostate, and that Mormonism was in
truth the restored Church, I would advise him to join - and that would be
the advice of every Catholic moral theologian I'm familiar with.

----Even YOU use the word form here ( outward forms ). I dare say that
the Catholic Bishops take a VERY DIM view of such advice . Remember
what happened to Hans Kung and Charles Curran? Are these the theologians
to whom you refer?

Naturally, I think he would be making an factual error (not a moral
error), and I'd try to convince him of it - but if he remained
unconvinced, then the only morally safe course is to follow your
conscience.

----OH brother. Not a moral error? You suffer from a theological
principle of the Catholic church called invincible ignorance

To be sure, if you find yourself making a habit of changing religions
often you may want to slow down and take a more measured approach to your
religious quest. That's why I studied Catholicism for several years before
making a move toward becoming communicant. After what I've been through, I
don't particularly need one more religion on my resume. ;-)

---You seem to be the one who has a habit of changing religions , not I.
I m sure, based on what you have said previously, that your preparation
for Catholicism was just as FORM based as your LDS experience. In short:
no core values, no stable foundation, and situational until your
conscience demands that you change your mind again.

In fact, it was Kart Keating specifically who encouraged me NOT

to become Catholic quickly, but to take my time and make sure I knew what
I
wanted.

---poor Kart. Does he know of your hangup with formulations and ritual?

Needless to say, that's not the advice we offered to Catholics
wanting to become Mormons as missionaries in Argentina ;-)

---I am amazed the church their survived so well, given you infidelity and
fortitude.

As I said, no Catholic moral theologian or spiritual director would
EXPECT a
man to live up to a vow to a Church he no longer believed in

---Very nice to know you have authority to speak for so many Catholic
theologians and spiritual directors. I suggest you contact The National
Conference Of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C., or perhaps Cardinal
Ratzinger in Rome to get their read in this area. Or maybe even Mother
Angelica in Alabama?????

Living up to such a vow doesn't make you a
man - it makes you a sinner against your own conscience.

---Careful Keith--this is dangerously close to secular humanism. Sin ,
by definition, is an offense against God, not yourself. Your sinful
actions may or may not effect you outwardly, but they certainly effect
your soul. You make your conscience the final arbiter of truth, which it
is not, either in the LDS or Catholic churches. You must know that your
latest church teaches that conscience can be corrupted, and that any
decisions made by that conscience are morally defective on their face.
Consequently, your statement is factually and religiously absurd.

For a lighthearted look at some of the absurdities that can result from
placing a sworn oath above all else, I suggest you check out Gilbert and
Sullivan's _The Pirates
of Penzance_. G&S had a way of demolishing such moral
over-simplifications.

---Your comparison of Temple covenants to a theatrical show demonstrate
your grotesque shallowness. It once again shows your abysmal lack of
spiritual sensibility.

I've been in the temple more times than I can count (in fact, I was a
veil
worker), and you've failed to convince me of any "factual
misrepresentation

--- Invincible ignorance again rears it s ugly head---

How can an expression of opinion be disingenuous? Are you suggesting
that's
not my REAL opinion?

----it is a real opinion, just a faulty real opinion.

Bennett describes the temple and its rituals as
beautiful, rich, respectful, modest and reflective. His actual
descriptions
of the occurrences are quite straight-forward and correct.

---HO,HUM: Welcome to Fantasy Island....

No attack was implied. I did not understand, then or now, that it was the
Bishop's BUSINESS to engage in "serious reflection". That's YOUR
contention,
trying (I think erroneously) to propose a similarity between an LDS
recommend
interview and Catholic spiritual counseling.

----You are correct. You did not understand, then or now about the
Bishop s role in the recommend interview. If you just want someone to
read questions to you, we can call in Bob Barker or Alex Trebek. I NEVER
used the term spiritual counseling , nor implied it, in the context of
the recommend interview. The role {business} of the Bishop is DISCERNMENT
of the members fidelity to the church insofar as that is possible. If the
member wants counseling on another issue, that is not the time or place.

A recommend interview is a very straightforward affair. The questions are
pre-defined and they rarely last more than a few minutes. What I am
attacking is your COMPARISON, not the Bishop

----Perhaps in your two-dimensional world it is, but then again we covered
your form obsession a number of times already. Defective conscience =
defective reasoning.

Let's bring the freight-train of speculation to a halt for a moment and
I'll
elaborate for you. Here are the issues I had with the questions:
1. "Are you COMPLETELY honest in all your dealings with your fellow men?"
Well, actually, no, I'm not. Example #1 -my wife comes out of the hair
salon
(as she did a few months ago) and asks "How do you like it?" with a big
smile
on her face. Now if I were COMPLETELY honest with my fellow men (and
women),
I'd have told her I thought the cut was much too short, made her face look
chubby and was rather unbecoming. Instead I said "It looks GREAT!"

----A childish and, again, shallow example. Honesty is value and a
virtue that develops the character of the individual OVER A LIFETIME.
Being overly zealous in self-examination is just as bad as being
indifferent to one s faults. Your literal approach to everything is
remarkable, and is intellectually and morally limited and defective.

Example #2
- We're eating at a friends' place and the host says "How do you like the
appetizers?" The completely honest man would say "they're too dry and too
spicy". Instead, I said "They're very good." I follow the advice of Mark
Twain - "An injurious truth has no merit over an injurious lie - neither
should ever be uttered."

---just as childish and just as faulty as #1

I confessed ALL of these doubts, in complete candor, to my Bishops
whenever
they asked, and I was always assured that, for the purposes of the
interview,
I was honest ENOUGH and worthy ENOUGH to receive a recommend, and that the
questions didn't mean to be as absolute as I was interpreting them. So
eventually I just came to qualify my answers with something like "I'm
completely honest with my fellow men - at least in the sense this question
intends." etc.

---I guess you were not listening to them, since your Bishops were
convinced that you were TRYING to live up to the standards of the church,
and they were trying to tell you not to be so dogmatic. You clearly say
that they did not mean the questions to be an absolute , but you took
them that way. Perfection is not required, but fidelity and effort are
required. Your equivocations and qualifications should have been picked
up and dealt with before a recommend was issued.

So we have reached the end. Like Bennet, I sympathize with your
struggles, but in my view, your observations and conclusions are based on
a faulty moral sense and two dimensional thinking. Your constant fixation
with form over substance has held you back, despite numerous LDS church
callings and experiences. You failed to comprehend the message because
of your obsession with the messenger . Your relativistic and situational
philosophy has clearly colored your analysis of the LDS church, and any
opinions you may express about the LDS church must be taken with HUGE
grains of salt.

--Alan

Alan Mowbray

[Steve Roberts]

Keith Campbell wrote:

Thanks Keith. Your perspective is very much appreciated and insightful. As a kid
the Catholic Church scared me. I had Catholic friends that went to Catholic
schools that hated it. (Really didn't like those mean nuns and plaid skirts etc.)
I remember in the back of my mind an old black and white movie about the crusades
and red hot pokers putting out eyes of a children by priests. (It may have not
even been about catholics but during that time with my friends I thought so. I was
only 7 or 8.) The whole mafia thing etc. Anyway ever since I have had a hard time
seeing any rationality in your faith. (And of course I didn't directly search it
out.) Anyway your thoughtful posts have been helpful for me and I have gained a
lot from them.

Some of the finest experiences I have found in life is when I am made
aware and overcome some of my blind prejudices.

> <snip>
>
> >Are you suggesting that the words of the question should be
> reworded? I
> > believe the questions are to be interpreted as you stated but I
> believe that it is
> >equally important to have the opportunity to interpret them. That
> is, the
> > process of reflection is important.
>
> No, on consideration, there’s no easy way to ask what I think the
> Bishop is really trying to ask. Catholic moral theology makes a
> rather sophisticated science out of deciding when the complete
> truth is and is not required. The Mormon approach just assumes
> you’re going to use common sense - which is fine for most
> situations.
>

I agree.

>
> >ps. just a suggestion, but it would be easier to interject if you
> would
> > break up your thoughts with a few more line breaks ;-)
>
> I don’t want interjections. I want to PONTIFICATE! ;-)
>

Ok, if you wont breakup your sentences will you at least stretch out you netscape
window a bit more when you reply so the orginal stuff doesn't get hashed up. ;-)

-steve(pontificatee)roberts-

[Robert Craig Harman]

Keith Rogers wrote regarding some confusing homonyms:

>
> veil a concealing curtain or cover of cloth;
> to put on or wear a veil
>

> vale valley

>
> vail to lower as a sign of respect or submission

There's also "vale" = "farewell" and "vail" = "avail".

...Craig

[Keith Campbell]

In article <4p41ue$f...@nadine.teleport.com> Arden Eby wrote:
>Besides, do you REALLY want to swap stories of cruelty and
>barbarism between Mormonism and Roman Catholicism? One quick
>retort here (of tens of thousands that are available)--In
>1793, the Roman Catholic church declared the Guarani Indians of
>the Rio Del Plata region of Argentina to be non-human so they
>could be enslaved. This was AFTER they had converted to Roman
>Catholicism. When they resisted, they were exterminated.
>Now is that really an improvement over a couple ofawkward
>symbols?

And I assure you, if as a Catholic, I were asked to endorse slavery
and racism, I would feel justified in objecting as I feel in
objecting to the fact that, as a faithful Mormon, I was required to
represent mimic forms of barbaric execution (as threats against
myself) as part of the most holy ordinances of the Church.

Fortunately for Mormons, that is no longer required. What IS still
an issue with Mormonism (since we are speaking of racism) is the
idea ingrained in it from the Book of Mormon that skin color is a
barometer of righteousness. Yes, I'm aware that there are some
Niblyesque sophistries that try avoid this conclusion - but even as
a Mormon I thought they were completely unbelievable.

Back to the original charge - I would be very grateful if you could
support your contention, especially the exact document where the
Church "declared" the inhumanity of the Indians. This is NOT my
understanding of this incident. The Portuguese raided the region
for slaves, and the Church, under threat of retaliation from the
Portuguese, withdrew the protection of the Jesuit missions. This
was cowardly, expecially in light of the fact that the threatened
retribution (the expulsion of the Jesuits from Portugal and other
countries of Europe) occured in SPITE of this concession. But I am
unaware of any offician Vatican declaration that slavery was
allowed and that Amerinds were not human. Furthermore, it is at
odds with a number of Papal documents which I CAN quote, going back
to the mid 1400's, which condemn and forbid slavery and clearly
teach the HUMANITY of the Amerinds and other peoples.

In case it's not clear, the Portuguese in the 1700's didn't much
CARE what Vatican taught, especially during the political career of
Sebastiao Jose de Carvalho e Mello, the prime minister. As a matter
of fact, since we were discussing Masonry, it has been suggested
that Masonic influences in Portugal were at least partially
responsable for the rejection of the Church's authority which had
been attempting to restrain slavery. The Catholic Church was really
the only major force in the Americas seriously attempting to
protect the Amerinds for most of the history of the colonozation of
the hemisphere.

-KHC
AMDG

[Keith Campbell]

In article <4p41ue$f...@nadine.teleport.com> Arden Eby wrote:

>... The modern temple

>ceremony is an excellent Christianization of the ancient Jewish
>temple. The key figures of the ancient temple were sacrifice and
>the symbolism of the holy place, the vale and the holy of holies.

Ditto for the Masonic temple in many ways. The fact that the
original wording of the endowment is so precisly Masonic suggest to
me that the endowment is more of a Christianization of Masonry than
of the Jewish temple directly.

>In our temple, Christ has replaced the bloody sacrifice of the

>ancient temple snip re Christ sacrifice, our priesthood and
>sacrifice, etc.

Well and good, but I must say that Christ's sacrifice is much more
difficult to focus on in the endowment than in, say the Mass. As I
said, the focus of the endowment, the central theme, is progression
from one degree to another. Christ's sacrifice can be divined from
some of the temple symbols, but it's hardly the central event of
the drama.

> It is highly significant to me that when Christ died the vale of

>the temple was ripped...Our temple has a similar layout.

Of course, it would be rather difficult to proceed with the
ceremony if the veil were intact ;-)

> ..So it is by symbolically taking Christ's sacrifice upon

>ourselves that we pass through the vale of separation between man
>and God. What could be more Christian? Anyone who reads the
>temple ceremony can’t help but be impressed with its
>fundamentally Christian character.

Actually, I would say it has a peripherally Christian character.
Clearly, the ceremony suggests a belief that Jesus' sacrifice was
important - several of the Masonic signs in the middle of the
sequence in particular, have been modified slightly to have a more
Christian character. On the other hand, the first two signs, and
the last one, don't seem as significant. The name, in particular,
of the last sign, which is the climax of the ritual- so secret is
has to be received from God himself - is entirely self-serving.

>Now some people might suggest that I have gone into too much
>detail. I apologize if I offended anyone. However, in the current
>state of affairs we Mormons must simply turn over all public
>interpretation of the temple to anti-Mormons. I’m not prepared to
>do that.

I realize that I'm not much of an endorsement, but I think that you
are being sufficiently descrete even by the standards I would have
had as an LDS. I agree with you that descrete discussion of the
ritual is helpful to the LDS Church, and is probably, IMHO,
responsible for some of the changes that we both agree were for the
best.

> The non-believers and the immature were allowed to attend the
> mass of the catechumens which consisted of hymns, scripture
> readings and a sermon, but they were excused for the mass of the
> faithful witch was the "mystery" of communion or the sacrament.
> Precisely what Christians were doing in there was a big secret.

> (See Chadwick, Henry, _The Early Church_, p.32ff.) A letter from

> the ancient Roman Caecilius notes that the
> Christians follow a "secret and nocturnal rite" and reports
> rumors that they eat the flesh and blood of infant humans.
> Another Roman, Epiphanus says that they have secret handshakes
> to identify believers but also accuses them of having ritualized
> sex in the secret part of their ceremony.

As mentioned in another message, while it was at one time
considered inappropriate for a non-believer to be present when
Jesus became present in the Eucharist, the contents of the ceremony
were not secret. Any difficulty among the Romans in knowing what
went on was mainly due to the fact that during various periods, the
entire CHURCH was underground - not from ritual secrecy, but to
preserve their lives.

> To gain perspective on our
>situation, I strongly recommend Benko’s book to all Mormons.
>These sorts of accusations will be familiar to most of us.

Good point.

>In any case, this issue was a publicity disaster for the early

>church.However, over a long period of time, truthful information

>about the service did leak out. Justin Martyr and Hippolytus, for
>example, made some relatively vague public statements and, more
>importantly, Roman officials made legitimate investigations

As said previously, the Didiach, which was read in churches and
used to teach catechumans (during the PUBLIC portion of the Mass,
for example) gives clear details of what a Eucharistic ceremony is
like. The Fathers, Justin in particular, were not "vague" at all,
but much more detailed than anything I've recently heard out of the
Mormon Church about the endowmnet. Shall I quote them?

[Keith Campbell]

In article <4p479c$i...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com> Alan Mowbray
wrote:

> -The phrase "ad hominem" is often used in an attempt to put
> people of conviction on the defensive, and to diminish their
> credibility in the eyes of others. It is a dismissive term, which
> allows the user a 'way out' of debate. I meant to emphasize the
> over-use of the phrase, not you personally.

When ad hominems are being used, debate is not occurring - so
accusing people of ad hominem, when appropriate, can be the only
wan INTO real debate. When making statements extreemly critical of
others, being "on the defensive" is probabaly a good policy. If you
say you have seen it over-used, so be it. Such has not been my
experience.

>--I never said it was a sin to struggle with faith. What person
> does not? You know as well as I do , that religious struggles are
> most subjective, and can be very painful and personal.Objectivity
> from a person enduring such struggles is highly suspect in my
> view.

Possibly. On the other hand, it's difficult to think of a better
background to explain one religion to another than to have been
involved in both - which presupposes some "struggle with faith". To
put it another way, if Bennett had remained a faithful Carmelite
and had written such an article, wouldn't you have attacked him as
ignorant of his topic? The test of his objectivity is the accuracy
of his comments. On that score, I think he does extreemly well.

> --Really, Keith, Compassion for him I do have, but not for
> his misleading representations of my church. It was he who chose
> to "belittle, insult, and slander quite beyond necessity", in my
> humble view, the LDS church by publishing an article about the
> Temple which he solemnly promised he would not do.

Then attack the "misleading representations" and not the
individual. I'd have to check the article again, but I don't recall
that Bennett actually violated any of his specific oaths (although,
in my opinion, he is not bound by them).

>To me his actions are as serious as if he broke
>the "seal" of the Catholic confessional and shared a persons sins
>publically.

I have a hard time believing that Mormons have received anything
but benefit from their ceremony being understood, instead of wildly
speculated upon. This hardly compairs to slandering an individual.

> The theology of "sacrament" in both churches is totally
> different, and thus "worthiness" to receive the sacrament in
> either church cannot be compared in any objective way.
> So= apples and oranges.

I repeat, the comparison is yours. Bennett was pointing out that in
Mormonism, a person, to go to the temple, has to profess their
worthiness. This is quite factual, and in fact is one of the
specific recommend questions. You tried to equate this to the
situation of a Catholic's worthiness for communion. You are correct
(this time). They are NOT the same.

> ---Bennet is writing to an audience who we can presume does
> not know a great deal, if anything, about the LDS church. By
> simply saying, without any elaboration, WHY most LDS do not hold
> recommends, he leaves the impression that only a few people can
> ever attend. As an ex-LDS, you know that is not the case. If he
> were to have said :"...are not qualified to enter BECAUSE...." I
> might have given him the benifit of the doubt, but this
> was a critical and in my view, deliberatly misleading
> statement.

Nonsense. Bennett has been extreemly clear that the recommend is a
result of an interview regarding the member's faithfulness. It
couldn't be plainer.

> You yourself said you (paraphrase) "could never quite
> answer these questions without qualification", and perhaps that
> lead to a "qualified" testimony. If you noticed other members
> you judged to be "unworthy", what does that say about your idea
> above that all "human" beings are morally owed the presumption of
> innocence"? HM?

It says that you are not following my posts. As I explained, my
qualifications regarding the question were not the result of some
angst regarding the Church. There were because I'm a very literal
sort of person (more so then than now). Each of my bishops always
were told the complete truth, and each of them found me worthy.
My testimony, until my last year of my membership, was extreemly
strong and unqualified. I knew (or so I thought) beyond a shadow of
a doubt that the Church was true. And finally, I was judging no
one. I simply observed that when I visited with people who, as they
told me, were not recommend holders, that these people felt that
the Church was not particularly kind or understanding toward them.

> ---This must be a "Utah-thing" or something.

First of all, I only lived for a brief time in Utah, when in the
MTC or attending BYU. Most of my Mormon life was lived in
California, with some time spent in New Hampshire, Colorado and (of
course) Argentina.

> If "non-templed"
> members felt excluded, why did'nt they do what is required to get
> a recommend?

In human-relations terms, that sounds like "Maybe if I try really
hard to make you happy, you'll stop being cruel to me."

> Excluded from what?

Social gatherings, visits, conversations, etc.

> Where they disfellowshiped or
> excommunicated for not having a recommend? Certainly not.
> Ostracism--come on, this is a Mennonite trademark (shunning),
> not LDS.

Yes, I'm afraid that accusation has been cast in the LDS direction
once or twice..

> P.S.--you still do not explain why you accepted
> responsible church callings when you had "qualified" doubts--just
> thought I'd ask, inquiring minds want to know:)

Because (as I've explained several times now) my Bishops, having
received a complete and trueful answer to all their questions, told
be that I WAS worthy, and that my "qualifications" stemmed from
interpreting the questions too literally.

> ----FORM FORM FORM FORM!! You are so hung up on this Keith.
> What is the point of "watching the endowment, even if they can't
> fully participate?" The Temple is not a 12 step meeting or
> encounter group.

And it's not the Mass (which was the whole point Bennett was
making). It's absurd to criticize Bennett's comments about the form
of the endowment and then complain when the discussion revolves
around form.

>Participants must be SPIRITUALLY in tune with what is going on,
> not just physically present in the room.

And is that not true of Sacrament Meeting? Is there any point in
attending Sacrament Meeting when one is spiritually out of tune, or
non-communicant (in the case of a non-member?) No, the temple is
shut off from the unworthy because it centers around secrets, pure
and simple.

> How many Catholics do you think are "physically" present at
> a Sunday Mass and not spiritually present?

At LEAST as many as at Sacrament Meeting. The point being?

>(Again, I am not > comparing the Mass to the Temple,
>only pointing out that people who are merely physically
>present or "watching" either event are, in effect, not
>substantially involved.

So should an investigator, who cannot take the sacrament, attend
Sacrament Meeting? Why, if he cannot fully participate?

> ---How can he "capture the spiritual feeling of the Temple"
> when he broke the covenants he made there? The spirit eluded
> him.

Only if we assume that a person who captures the spirit of an
event, place or ritual will never come to reject it. Perhaps the
person who best captures the "spirit" of a place is the FIRST to
reject it - precisely because the true spirit of it is false or
inferior. Otherwise, it's obvious you've never really captured the
"spirit" of a Catholic mass and all your comments about it are to
be dismissed.

> Comparing it to a Catholic ritual without any elaboration is
> like trying to explain transubstantiation to a atheist.

That shouldn't be particularly difficult... You wouldn't secure his
AGREEMENT, but it ought to be relatively easy to make him
understand what is meant.

>If he meant to stress the importance of the Temple to the LDS, as
>the Mass is to a Catholic, he failed completely.

Then his failure is peculiarly successful, since I grasped his
intent immediatly.

>The Mass is a fixed ritual, a liturgy, and
>a real priestly sacrifice
>
> ---"a real priestly sacrifice"-- is this a 'closet; ad
hominem?

Not at all. The "real" referred to the sacrifice, not the
priesthood. I meant that it is a REAL sacrifice, as opposed to the
Protestant concept of communion being a MEMORIAL of the sacrifice.

> ---You cannot "compare and contrast" the two [the Mass and
> the Endowment], they are in no way similar.

You can compair and contrast anything you like - even apples and
oranges ;-). And of COURSE there are similarities, both in content
and in form.

> What you seem to be saying is that the rite is
> more important than the people it is intended to serve and
> instruct.

When the subject of Bennett's article is the temple rite, then yes,
describing the FORM of the rite is extreemly important.

> Rituals and rites come from the shared religious > traditons of
>PEOPLE and are not static.

Which is why Bennett has taken pains to try to express the kinds of
emotional and spiritual connections he and other Mormons
experienced regarding the temple.

> ---I guess you never spent time in the celestial room then

I often went alone, since I worked near the temple. Even when I
went with my wife, we usually spent the time in the celestial room
in quiet reflection, as did most of the other groups and
individuals we observed.

> ----perhaps you are thinking of Trappist monks and the 'grand

No, I've never visited the Trappist monks. I HAVE been in the
temple many times.

> And just between you and I and the
> Internet... it IS thought, after all. The frequent appearance of
> Jesus in the temple was a common subject of speculation and
> excitement in firesides, Elder's quorum meetings, Gospel
> Doctrine class and just sitting around the dorms, the mission
> lodging, or wherever devout Mormons gather. We both
> know it, so let's not play dumb.
>
>
> -----people speculate about life on Mars, too, Keith, but
> that don't make it so!

Exactly. It makes it THOUGHT! I don't think Jesus DOES appear in
the Mormon temple. But most Mormons I know do. That, as you say,
don't make it so.

>>It's certainly a reasonable expression of
>>what MY thoughts were as a Mormon, at least, to say that I
>>thought Jesus appeared in the temple "often"

> ---now who is playing dumb Keith?.

Your right, your right! I confess! I only thought he appeared
semi-frequently. Mea culpa!

>, how can you give credance to the "several" you said have told
> you they have met him, and expect me to give credance to your
> statement that most LDS believe Jesus appears "often" in the
> Temple . Utah again.

Well, I would have suggested we check some other LDS for their
opinions on this issue - but these messages of ours have become so
long I doubt anyone else is reading them at this point...

>>> He never mentions or implies that seeing Jesus in the
>>>Temple is the "pinnacle of religious events".

>>To quote: "The beauty of the temple and the richness of its
>>rituals are extolled as the high point of the worthy Mormon’s
>>mortal life. Indeed, Catholic converts to Mormonism are
>>occasionally told that the temple surroundings and rituals will
>>remind them of Catholic high Mass
>
> ----"High Mass" has been gone since Vat.I I(perhaps some
>OPUS DEI holdouts still try it), and there are no candles or
>chalices in the Temple. Form is still different...and so it goes

Excuse me, but you seem to have changed the subject a bit when I
pointed out that Bennett has clearly mentioned something that,
according to you, "He never mentions". To all appearances, you
either don't remember very well the article you are so
vociferiously attacking, or you're willing to stretch things a
bit...

>>As far as I can tell, this isn't an attack on anything Bennett
>>has said about Mormonism, but rather attempting to impugn his
>>mental stability
>
> ---now your projecting Keith

Let's try again. You said, ""I wonder what he [Bennett] thinks of
apparitions in Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugore(SP?), garabandal,etc??
perhaps being freshly re-converted he is getting personal visits
all the time."

Now please explain EXACTLY how this is factual and objective,
rather than the clear ad-hominem it seems like. You claim the
ad-hominem charge is over-used, yet when someone shows you a clear
example and asks for an explanation, you side-step.

>>except for Bennett making a perfectly valid and ordinary
>>statement about LDS thinking
>
> ----I'm glad to know you are an expert on "LDS thinking"-not

Well, let's see. I used to be LDS, and can remember in general what
I used to think. for at least 16 years all my best friends were
LDS, and often used to tell me what THEY thought. Yes, I've had
enough exposure not to be fooled by a blatant denial of something
that LDS do, in fact, think.

> ---you may have a great deal of 'book knowledge' of the
> church, but I suspect, from your own words, that you never got
> beyond the intellectual. Your 'qualified faith' perhaps made
> you spiritually "limited", despite all those church callings
> that had no effect on you.

Well, now that you know that my "qualifications" were, in fact,
immaterial to the discussion, I suppose you'll have to try the
analysis again.

>>The fact is, Mormons believe anyone not attending the temple is
>>indeed "prevented from returning to the presence of their
>>Heavenly Father." just as Bennett claimed.
>
> ---not damned or 'dammed'

No, not "damned" in the sense of roasting in hell, nor "dammed" in
the sense of having a large structure built accross them to hold
water, but both "damned" and "dammed" in exactly the way Bennet has
clearly defined.

> ---no reason to pretend--LDS should strive for the celestial
> kingdom, as it is attainable to those willing to reach for it.

Exactly. The rest will be "dammed".

> Your tone is getiing "ad hominemy" (sorry, new word)

"Ad hominemy" as in insulting or as in full of pickeled corn? ;-)

>> Out of nothing but an article and an old acquaintance, you've
>> constructed a hypothetical series of events that would shame any
>> soap opera to lay at the man's door.
>
>>Does your defense of the Church really justify this type of
>>slander?
>
> ----no remarkable conjecture here--who knows what will happen
> as the spiritual struggle continues.

Who knows indeed. Certainly not you.

> His words and past actions speak for themselves, and I really
> don't care what he does with his life.

Considering that his actions "speak for themselves", you certainly
don't mind helping them along a bit to suit your purpose.

>
> ----we will have to just 'agree to disagree' here I guess

Yes, that summarizes it nicely...

-KHC
AMDG

[Keith Campbell]

In article <31B514...@isysg.com> Steve Roberts wrote:

>> I think it important that you understand that I repent of my temple
>> vows for reasons that, to me, were not trivial. I repent of them
>> because they were obtained by fraud.

> I haven't seen that part of your repentence process is to reveal those

> things held sacred to active card carrying LDS. Is it? I had a
> friend as a kid that grew up mainstream protestant of some flavor
> and was a member of Demolay. When he eventually converted to LDS, and to
> this day, does not reveal the secret word or words (I don't know) even
> though he doesn't believe the stuff at all. He simply
> respects the beliefs of others. Maybe this is difficult for those who are
> truly concerned about our eternal welfare and feel they must protect
> us from the consequences of our beliefs. (I can only surmize that you
> feel you have some sense of responsibility in this regard since
> you hang out here.)

Well, in point of fact, I try NOT to talk about the temple in a way that will
seriously offend an LDS by way of revealing what they would rather not
reveal. I don't always succeed - and sometimes I skirt the edge much closer
than LDS are comfortable with (some of my messages in this thread may do
that, for which I apologize to any offended). I TRY to avoid this, not
because I still feel bound by my temple obligations, but because A) You can't
really carry on a discussion with someone when you're behaving in a way they

regard as sacreligious and B) I understand that it's frustrating to the LDS
to not be able to rebutt my points because they feel bound by oath NOT to
discuss the matter. Sometimes in private, with a non-LDS who is extreemly

curious, I will get more specific if they wish. I no longer regard the oaths
as binding because, quite literally, I regard the being (the Mormon Elohim)

to whom I made the commitments as no more really existant than if I had made

the promises to Bel or sworn an oath to Apollo

>> You should change your belief systems just as often as your conscience
>> demands - no more, no less. The alternative you apparently are
> suggesting is
>> to remain committed to the outward forms of a religion you no longer
> believe
>> to be true. This is ALWAYS sinful. In fact, if I knew a Catholic priest

> who
>> had become convinced in his mind and heart that the Catholic priesthood
> was
>> apostate, and that Mormonism was in truth the restored Church, I would
> advise
>>
>> him to join - and that would be the advice of every Catholic moral
> theologian
>>
>> I'm familiar with.
>

>I agree with you. But I am not so sure your Church does. As a kid I had a
> good
>catholic friend that was not even allowed by the Catholic church to attend
> church
>with me. Admittedly this was a while back, back in the days when meat was
> a no-no
>on fridays. (And we get jabbed about flip flopping on the blacks and the
>Priesthood! But I digress. :o)
>

>> Naturally, I think he would be making an factual error
>> (not a moral error), and I'd try to convince him of it - but if he
> remained
>> unconvinced, then the only morally safe course is to follow your
> conscience.

>> In fact, the Catholic Church might well wish that some of the priests who
>> obviously HAVE come to doubt the divinity of the Church would go
> elsewhere
>> instead of remaining priests. To be sure, if you find yourself making a

> habit
>>
>> of changing religions often you may want to slow down and take a more
>> measured approach to your religious quest. That's why I studied
> Catholicism
>> for several years before making a move toward becoming communicant. After
>> what I've been through, I don't particularly need one more religion on my

>> resume. ;-) In fact, it was Karl Keating specifically who encouraged me

> NOT
>> to become Catholic quickly, but to take my time and make sure I knew
> what I

>> wanted. Needless to say, that's not the advice we offered to Catholics

>> wanting to become Mormons as missionaries in Argentina ;-)
>>
>>
>

>I hope this policy changes. What is the purpose of baptising folks that
> aren't
>ready?

>
>I seem to remember in an earlier thread where you explained that at one
> time you
>had a tremendous LDS testimony and now that you have a similiar Catholic
> based
>testimony. Sort of led me to believe that you could still be in transition
> as you
>search for ultimate truth. (after all you probably believed you had
> ultimate
>truth at some point as an LDS.)
>

><snip>

>
>> As I said, no Catholic moral theologian or spiritual director would
> EXPECT a

>> man to live up to a vow to a Church he no longer believed in - and if the
>> Mormons expect it, shame on them. Living up to such a vow doesn't make
> you a
>> man - it makes you a sinner against your own conscience. For a

> lighthearted
>> look at some of the absurdities that can result from placing a sworn oath
>> above all else, I suggest you check out Gilbert and Sullivan's _The
> Pirates
>> of Penzance_. G&S had a way of demolishing such moral
> over-simplifications.
>>
>

>I'm not sure I understand you here. I have several good Catholic friends
> who
>don't personally believe that abortion is wrong. Yet they live up to it
> because
>of the doctorine of their church. Does the Catholic church expect these
> people to
>have abortions and still be otherwise good Catholics by your account?
>
>

>> I've been in the temple more times than I can count (in fact, I was a
> veil
>> worker), and you've failed to convince me of any "factual

> misrepresentation".
>>
>
>Did you know that veil workers no longer have to memorize their parts?
> Bummer man
>some of us had to really work at it.
>
><snip>

>
>> Let's bring the freight-train of speculation to a halt for a moment and
> I'll
>> elaborate for you. Here are the issues I had with the questions:
>> 1. "Are you COMPLETELY honest in all your dealings with your fellow men?"
>> Well, actually, no, I'm not. Example #1 -my wife comes out of the hair
> salon
>> (as she did a few months ago) and asks "How do you like it?" with a big
> smile
>> on her face. Now if I were COMPLETELY honest with my fellow men (and
> women),
>> I'd have told her I thought the cut was much too short, made her face
> look
>> chubby and was rather unbecoming. Instead I said "It looks GREAT!"

> Example #2
>> - We're eating at a friends' place and the host says "How do you like the
>> appetizers?" The completely honest man would say "they're too dry and too
>> spicy". Instead, I said "They're very good." I follow the advice of Mark
>> Twain - "An injurious truth has no merit over an injurious lie - neither
>> should ever be uttered."
>

>Keith, I am surprised at you here. I always answer truthfully and let the
> Bishop
>judge. That's his job. If you explained your answer as you have here then
> I would
>think you would pass with flying colors.

>
>> 2. "Do you consider yourself worthy in every way to enter the temple?"
> Well,
>> because of the very high view I always had of the temple, I always
> wished I
>> were closer to God than I was so that I could appreciate the experience
> even
>> more fully. I had no serious sins, but plenty of small ones, especially
> sins
>> of OMISSION. Had I really "magnified my calling" as well as I should
> have?
>> Proclaiming myself "worthy in every way" was just something I found
>> difficult, knowing how much better I could be.

>> I confessed ALL of these doubts, in complete candor, to my Bishops
> whenever
>> they asked, and I was always assured that, for the purposes of the
> interview,
>> I was honest ENOUGH and worthy ENOUGH to receive a recommend, and that
> the
>> questions didn't mean to be as absolute as I was interpreting them. So
>> eventually I just came to qualify my answers with something like "I'm
>> completely honest with my fellow men - at least in the sense this
> question

>> intends." etc. I would NEVER have entered the temple out of mere
> curiosity,
>> without being assured of "worthiness". What spiritual benefit could THAT
> be?
>> It was exactly out of this fear that I was so particular in my answers.
>>
>
>(Ignore previous interjection you answered above but ...)

>Are you suggesting that the words of the question should be reworded? I
> believe
>the questions are to be interpreted as you stated but I believe that it is
>equally important to have the opportunity to interpret them. That is, the
> process
>of reflection is important.
>

>> -KHC
>> AMGD
>
>steve(I'll bite, what is AMGD)roberts
>

[Keith Campbell]

In article <4p4kqs$9...@tigger.planet.eon.net> Marc Schindler wrote:
>Arden Eby ar...@teleport.com wrote on 05.06.96:
>
>>Keit...@gnn.com (Keith Campbell) wrote:
>
><snip>
>

>>>C) The oaths are cruel and barbaric. In my day, the "penalties" were
>>> still a part of the ceremony. To punctuate a sacred ceremony with
>>> implied threats of gristly and inhuman forms of death is unchristian

>>> and inhumane.
>>
>>I didn't like them either. I always thought that they were an
>>uninspired addition and I believe that's why they were removed.
>>However, they obviously weren't threats--they were symbols as are most
>>things in the temple.
>

> I assume, then, Keith, that you are using a laptop whilst lying in bed in
> the intensive care unit of your local hospital, where you are recovering
> from attempted murder (in a grisly way, of course) from a Danite attack?
> Every religion uses symbolism which can strike outsiders (even insiders) as
> grisly, inhuman, unchristian (I guess - that's a sort of do-it-yourself
> adjective) and inhumane: have you ever seen El Greco's "Crucifixion"?

And you didn't take the easiest shot, which would have been the Catholic
conception of the transubstantiated Eucharist itself. Eating real flesh and
blood, after all, might make a few squeemish. But the squeemishness isn't the
point. The point is that I don't think it was a symbol at all. I think it was
a threat. As symbols, bloody cruelties might be explained, but as threats,
they make the threat even more atrocious.

Now it's true that in their final version (just before being dropped
altogether) it was difficult to tell if the penalties were an implied threat
or not. As for myself, I always felt that they were, and I've talked to many
who share that belief. This position can be considerably reinforced by
looking at earlier versions of the penalties, which compair nearly
word-per-word and gesture for gesture with the Masonic penalties, and in the
same order.

For example, the first Masonic penalty according to texts of the period: "I
will...never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the
secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasony...binding myself under no
less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the
roots.." The gesture that accompanies this penalty was to draw "your right
hand across your throat, the thumb next to your throat, your arm as high as
the elbow in the horizontal position".

Here, for comparison, is an EARLY version of the LDS penalty as published in
the 1930's. "Adam - we, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will
not reveal any of the setrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic
priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we
agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by
their roots." You already know, if you are old enough to have gone to the
temple when I did, that the gestures were still the same, even though the
wording was softened. (I apologize if some feel I'm stepping over the line,
but after all, this is an old version of something that isn't even in the
ceremony any more.)

The point is, it was still called a PENALTY. Earlier version make it clear
that it was a direct PENALTY or PUNISHMENT that could be imposed on anyone
who revealed the secrets. Although subsequent changes softened this, it was
still called a penalty. And the fact is, humorous quip about the Danites
notwithstanding, that there have been incidents, both in Masonry and
Mormnism, of it being extracted in a very literal sense.

Naturally, such violence would no longer be condoned by the Church - but it
was clear to me, at any rate, that the Church still felt it was deserved,
even if it couldn't be applied.

[Keith Campbell]

In article <4p41ue$f...@nadine.teleport.com> Arden Eby
wrote:

>.... Certainly social pressure based on the

>perception of ones "Very eternal life" are common within
religious
>institutions including Catholicism (go visit
alt.recovery.catholoicism

>if you doubt this...). His, however, differes widely from

coercion
>which relies on force or threats of force to exact
compliance.

The dictionary seems to agree with you that
coercion tends to imply force, whereas I was only
claiming pressure, so I'll withdraw the word
"coercion". What I was shooting for was something
more like "undue influence". The part that is inappropriate, as I see it,
isn't so much the pressure - every religion, as you say, can create pressure
simply by its teaching. The issue that troubles me is pressure to make a
"black box" committment - pressuring the candidate into unknown committments
- into the King Herod situation of committing to give "whatever you ask",
and then finding out (too late) that what is asked is not what one would
have wished to commit to.

>>B) They were secret. You might make a case from scripture for secret
>>TEACHING (I think it's a false case, but it's a case nonetheless) -
>>but to invoke some sort of scriptural reverence over secret names,
>>secret hand signals and gestures falls into the worst traditions of
>>human society - more fit for the Gadianton robbers than the House
>>of God.
>

>They, or similar things, actually come from the Bible. See revelation
>2:17 and the treatment below.

Revelation 2:17 is an image from the ancient courts of justice, where there
accused were condemned by receiving a black pebble with their name on it, or
aquitted by being given a white one. The new name is the name of Christ, by
who's merits we are aquitted, and who is truly known only by those who
receive him. There is no indication in this scripture that the name was even
secret - simply novel. I can find no "similar things" as you suggest which
were not a part of war or espionage.

> Further, every week when you go to
>Mass, you are participating in a ceremony that was, following the
>reading of the Gospel, strictly secret for hundreds of years. The
>break in the ceremony at that point was originally to allow the
>uninitiated to be ushered out.

Quite so, with the following being noted:

1) The Holy Spirit guided the Church into realizing that having the
consecration closed to outsiders, while preserving a sense of sacredness,
had a number of disadvantages - a realization the LDS Church has yet to
grasp.

2) Although there was colorful speculation about Christian rituals during
their "underground" period, the exact nature of the events of the Eucharist
were not secret, but were talked and written about by the early Fathers of
the Church to believer and non-believer alike from the time of the Didiach,
which predates some of the New Testament. The Didiach contains a text of the
sacrament, and Justin's _Apology_, far from being "vague" as you suggest, is
rather detailed. The event was considered sacred, since Christ himself was
believed to make himself present - but it did not have the trappings of
espionage - oaths of secrecy and secret handshakes and secret names.

3) The only "initiation" required was simple baptism. Christians were not
divided into those who were worthy of gnosis and those who were still
unenlightened. The Mormon endowment partakes far more of general philsophy
of the mystery cults than Christian worship did.

>I didn't like them [penalties] either. I always thought that they were an

>uninspired addition and I believe that's why they were removed.
>However, they obviously weren't threats--they were symbols as are most
>things in the temple.

See my other post in this thread for evidence that I think they WERE
threats.

>>D) The oaths are Masonic.
>

>Though details of the temple ceremony did bear some resemblance to the
>York rite Masonic ceremonies (and less so now), it is MUCH more
>similar to the Biblical temple in overall scheme. See below.

Well, Masonry borrows rather heavily from Biblical temple imagery also,
claiming as it does to descend from Solomon. In point of fact, many of the
oaths, penalties and gestures of the Mormon endowment were originally point
for point and word for word from Masonry (see my other post, or I can supply
further examples if you wish,) which to me is considerably more striking
than the general resemblances you have pointed out. Furthermore, the entire
SPIRIT of the ritual is Masonic. The entire PURPOSE of the Masonic ritual is
PERSONAL PROGRESSION, from degree to degree. Ditto for the endowment. The
entire purpose of the Jewish temple ritual (or the Mass) is to offer (or
re-present) sacrifice for sin.

- Good spot to break here. More presently...

-KHC
AMDG

[Keith Campbell]

In article <4p41ue$f...@nadine.teleport.com> Arden Eby wrote:

>Keith Campbell wrote:

>> I've been in the temple more times than I can count
>> (in fact, I was a veil worker), and you've failed to
>> convince me of any "factual misrepresentation".
>

>Certainly no one coerced you to do that. You must have liked at
>some point or you wouldn't have volunteered for such duty.

Once you've taken the oaths for yourself (and the first time, I WAS
uncomfortable) being a stand-in proxy for a dead person who might
or might not accept it didn't seem as threatening (after all,
threatening to kill a dead man if he talks doesn't have quite the
same force behind it ;-)

>I've always considered the temple interview similar to but more

>human than traditional Roman Catholic confession. The reason I

>find it more humane is that it limits the discussion to rather
>specific things while traditional RC confession potentially opens
>up one's entire life to scrutiny. I understand that more
>progressive priests are getting away from that. Is that the kind
>of thing you're referring to?

More humane? What benefit are you suggesting? The opportunity to
say to yourself, "Gee, I have a serious sin in the area of such-and
such, but fortunately the Bishop didn't ask!" I thought that
possibility was rather ruled out by the "are you worthy in every
way" question. Catholic confession, of course, potentially opens up
any part of one's entire life that one feels is sinful (the
decision on what sins need to be confessed is made by the
individual) Whether this is more humane or not depends on whether
one considers confessing sins to be a benefit or a burden. The
Catholic priest doesn't generally ask specific questions, but
relies on the penitent to bring up whatever topic needs bringning
up. About the only time he asks questions is generally if the
penitent is too vague, as in "I've committed a sin against
chastity." Some might consider it MORE humane, in that the penitent
can confess in anonimity. This can help draw people into dealing
with and repenting of their sins when their embarrassment might
otherwise cause them to leave the issue buried.
The practice of having a "spiritual director" is coming back into
popularity among Catholics. In this practice one discusses one's
spiritual development and struggles face to face with the same
individual on a regular basis (this is sometimes combined with
confession) While more difficult, some find it much more beneficial
than anonimous confession.

-KHC
AMDG

[Steve Roberts]

Keith Campbell wrote:

<SNIP>

> The issue that troubles me is pressure to make a
> "black box" committment - pressuring the candidate into unknown committments
> - into the King Herod situation of committing to give "whatever you ask",
> and then finding out (too late) that what is asked is not what one would
> have wished to commit to.
>

This is an interesting conundrum. One could argue that if you are ready to go to
the temple, then it doesn't matter that you don't know beforehand. I mean part of
the entrance fee is to already have professed to believe the church is run by
revelation etc. If the temple ceremony is part of the gospel then its part of the
gospel. If one answers the entrance exam truthfully then one shouldn't complain
about what they experience in the temple because its part of the deal.

The key is to make sure you are ready to go to the temple and I don't think that
has much to do with what goes on in the temple but about one's own basic faith
and commitment prior to going into the temple. I think its the examiners (read
bishop and stake presidents) role to insure that the candidate is ready. (It use
to be that the bishop and the stake president gave the yearly interviews, but now
the councelors can *except* for your first trip [own endowment] to the temple.)

Because the ceremony is sacred if you are not ready for it ("No wine before its
time" or the scriptorial equivalent) then you are not ready for it.

So the issue arises once you get to the temple having, answered the questions
truthfully, go through it and think "My this is wacko, I guess I don't believe
the church is run by revelation." My guess, at that point the real question to
oneselve would not be about the wacko stuff in the temple but how was it that I
thought I knew this church was true to begin with and more importantly how will
I ever know if anything is true in the future.

If your point is that one may fully believe the gospel (LDS) but are not ready to
make the commitments then I revert to my earlier comments about the discernment
of the bishop (And shame on him if he gets it wrong).

steve(not platter material)roberts

[AMowbray96]

Why can't you come up with some original thoughts Keith?? Why repost a
discreditied piece. Surely you can manage SOME creative response, even if
it is flawed and morally defective.

--Alan
Alan Mowbray

[Steve Roberts]

Hey Al. Why all the bile?

steve(intolerant of the intolerant)roberts

[AMowbray96]

Keith said to Arden:

Well, in point of fact, I try NOT to talk about the temple in a way that
will
seriously offend an LDS by way of revealing what they would rather not
reveal. I don't always succeed - and sometimes I skirt the edge much
closer
than LDS are comfortable with (some of my messages in this thread may do
that, for which I apologize to any offended).

---You could have fooled me Keith. In your other posts, you speak of
fraud and deception. Any revelations you might discuss have long since
been on the net, so
lets not play the innocent here.

I TRY to avoid this, not because I still feel bound by my temple
obligations, but because A) You can't really carry on a discussion with
someone when you're behaving in a way they regard as sacreligious and B) I
understand that it's frustrating to the LDS
to not be able to rebutt my points because they feel bound by oath NOT to
discuss the matter

----Oh, Brother! This directly contradicts your other posts. Remeber,
Keith, their are people out here who actually read your posts.

Sometimes in private, with a non-LDS who is extreemly curious, I will
get more specific if they wish. I no longer regard the oaths as binding
because, quite literally, I regard the being (the Mormon Elohim) to whom I
made the commitments as no more really existant than if I had made the
promises to Bel or sworn an oath to Apollo

----What a hypocrite! One minute you avoid it the next you wallow in it.
Also, could you be referring to BAAL or maybe Belle Star?

Alan Mowbray

[Alan Mowbray]

Keith said:

“1) The Holy Spirit guided the Church into realizing that having the

consecration closed to outsiders, while preserving a sense of sacredness,

had a number of disadvantages - a realization the LDS Church has yet to

grasp.”

----Now you are having personal revelations from the Holy Spirit! Maybe
when
Jesus is not “often” visiting LDS Temples, as you and Bennet believe,
he
dispatches the HS to give you visions. Still making it up as you go,
eh
Keith?

“2) Although there was colorful speculation about Christian rituals

during
their "underground" period, the exact nature of the events of the
Eucharist
were not secret, but were talked and written about by the early Fathers
of
the Church to believer and non-believer alike from the time of the
Didiach,
which predates some of the New Testament. The Didiach contains a text of
the
sacrament, and Justin's _Apology_, far from being "vague" as you suggest,
is
rather detailed. The event was considered sacred, since Christ himself
was
believed to make himself present - but it did not have the trappings of

espionage - oaths of secrecy and secret handshakes and secret names.”

----I just bet all those ancient Christians knew the “exact nature” of
the
eucharist Keith. ‘Transubstantiation’ was understood by all, right?
“Trappings of espionage”? Where did you get this line, Keith, from a
cheap
novel?

“3) The only "initiation" required was simple baptism. Christians were

not
divided into those who were worthy of gnosis and those who were still
unenlightened. The Mormon endowment partakes far more of general
philsophy

of the mystery cults than Christian worship did.”

---”Gnosis”? Your following the party line here Keith, just like Bennet

“See my other post in this thread for evidence that I think they WERE
threats.”

----You gave no evidence at all. All bombast and defective logic

“Well, Masonry borrows rather heavily from Biblical temple imagery also,

claiming as it does to descend from Solomon. In point of fact, many of
the
oaths, penalties and gestures of the Mormon endowment were originally
point
for point and word for word from Masonry (see my other post, or I can
supply

further examples if you wish,)”

----I explained this to you before Keith, remember? Culture and form?

“Furthermore, the entire SPIRIT of the ritual is Masonic.”

---You will never get it right Keith. The FORM may appear Masonic to YOU,

but the SPIRIT (or SUBSTANCE) is not. Try thinking before you shoot off
your
mouth

----

[Alan Mowbray]

Keith said:

“Once you've taken the oaths for yourself (and the first time, I WAS

uncomfortable) being a stand-in proxy for a dead person who might
or might not accept it didn't seem as threatening (after all,
threatening to kill a dead man if he talks doesn't have quite the
same force behind it ;-)

----How childish can you get

>I've always considered the temple interview similar to but more
>human than traditional Roman Catholic confession. The reason I
>find it more humane is that it limits the discussion to rather
>specific things while traditional RC confession potentially opens
>up one's entire life to scrutiny. I understand that more
>progressive priests are getting away from that. Is that the kind
>of thing you're referring to

Keith said:

“More humane? What benefit are you suggesting? The opportunity to

say to yourself, "Gee, I have a serious sin in the area of such-and
such, but fortunately the Bishop didn't ask!" I thought that
possibility was rather ruled out by the "are you worthy in every

way" question.”

---You will notice Arden was referring to the ‘temple interview’. Been
over
this with you in another post.. The TI is not a counseling session.

“ Whether this is more humane or not depends on whether
one considers confessing sins to be a benefit or a burden.”

-----I thought Catholics saw it as a “benifit”? Better check with
“Catholic
Answers” or the new catechism Keith.

” In this practice one discusses one's spiritual developmentand

struggles
face to face with the same individual on a regular basis (this is
sometimes
combined with confession) While more difficult, some find it much more

beneficial than anonimous confession.”

-----You should have tried this with your Bishops, it might have helped
your
doubts, equivocations, and flawed logic.

[Alan Mowbray]

In article <4p41ue$f...@nadine.teleport.com> Arden Eby wrote:

Keith said:

“as a faithful Mormon, I was required to represent mimic forms of

barbaric
execution (as threats against myself) as part of the most holy ordinances
of

the Church.”

----You really know how to murder the English language, as well as
obfuscate
issues.

“What IS still an issue with Mormonism (since we are speaking of racism)

is
the
idea ingrained in it from the Book of Mormon that skin color is a
barometer
of righteousness. Yes, I'm aware that there are some Niblyesque
sophistries
that try avoid this conclusion - but even as a Mormon I thought they
were

completely unbelievable.”

-----More like the “mark of Cain”, but this issue has been resoved for
almost
20 years.

” The Portuguese raided the region for slaves, and the Church, under

threat
of retaliation from the Portuguese, withdrew the protection of the
Jesuit
missions. This was cowardly, expecially in light of the fact that the
threatened retribution (the expulsion of the Jesuits from Portugal and

othercountries of Europe) occured in SPITE of this concession. But I am

unaware of any offician Vatican declaration that slavery was
allowed and that Amerinds were not human. Furthermore, it is at odds
with a
number of Papal documents which I CAN quote, going back to the mid 1400's,

which condemn and forbid slavery and clearly teach the HUMANITY of the

Amerinds and other peoples.”

-----Ask the Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, and every other tribe in Latin
America if
they found much solace from Catholic religious, as Catholic Europeans
plundered their countries. “Looking the other way” was the Vatican
policy.

“ As a matter of fact, since we were discussing Masonry, it has been

suggested
that Masonic influences in Portugal were at least partially responsable
for
the rejection of the Church's authority which had been attempting to
restrain
slavery. The Catholic Church was really the only major force in the
Americas
seriously attempting to protect the Amerinds for most of the history of
the

colonozation of the hemisphere.”

----Protugal rcognized the truth: Rome was a political force to be dealt
with, and like all political states, the Vatican tried to gain power
through
(and I’ll use your word here) “coerscion”. “Seriously attempting” to
help
the Indian peoples? Pleaaaaaaaaaaaasssee!

[Arden Eby]

Keit...@gnn.com (Keith Campbell) wrote:

>>They, or similar things, actually come from the Bible. See revelation
>>2:17 and the treatment below.

>Revelation 2:17 is an image from the ancient courts of justice, where there
>accused were condemned by receiving a black pebble with their name on it, or
>aquitted by being given a white one. The new name is the name of Christ, by
>who's merits we are aquitted, and who is truly known only by those who
>receive him. There is no indication in this scripture that the name was even
>secret - simply novel. I can find no "similar things" as you suggest which
>were not a part of war or espionage.

This is merely one, rather narrow, interpretation of the verse. The
Roman Catholic _Jerome Biblical Commentary_ links it with the white
stone and equates it with pagan amulets and charms suggesting it would
be perceived as an incantational charm against evil spirits (sort of
like Joseph Smith's Jupiter Talisman). Furthermore, both the white
stone and the new name are linked to the *hidden* manna mentioned
earlier in verse.

See:

Raymond Brown S.S. and Fitzmier Jospeh S.J. et. al. _ The Jerome
Biblical Commetary_(Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968), pp.
473-4 [NT Section].

>> Further, every week when you go to
>>Mass, you are participating in a ceremony that was, following the
>>reading of the Gospel, strictly secret for hundreds of years. The
>>break in the ceremony at that point was originally to allow the
>>uninitiated to be ushered out.

>Quite so, with the following being noted:

>1) The Holy Spirit guided the Church into realizing that having the
>consecration closed to outsiders, while preserving a sense of sacredness,
>had a number of disadvantages - a realization the LDS Church has yet to
>grasp.

I agree.

>2) Although there was colorful speculation about Christian rituals during
>their "underground" period, the exact nature of the events of the Eucharist
>were not secret, but were talked and written about by the early Fathers of

>the Church to believer and non-believer alike .....

> Justin's _Apology_, far from being "vague" as you suggest, is
>rather detailed.

I rather see Justin as being a "liberal" Christian in the sense that I
am a liberal Mormon. He was writing to an educated audience and was
obviously familiar with classical philosophy and so on. I believe he
also saw the dangers of this secrecy. He is vague in regard to the
Eucharist to the extent that I am vague in regard to the endowment. .
In any case, the exclusion of catechumens went on long after Justin.

>The event was considered sacred, since Christ himself was
>believed to make himself present - but it did not have the trappings of
>espionage - oaths of secrecy and secret handshakes and secret names.

Almost everything in the early church has the trappings of espionage
when viewed from the perceptive of the Romans. It is their role you
have assumed in regard to Mormons.

>3) The only "initiation" required was simple baptism.

Yes....kind of like washing and anointing.

>>>D) The oaths are Masonic.
>>
>>Though details of the temple ceremony did bear some resemblance to the
>>York rite Masonic ceremonies (and less so now), it is MUCH more
>>similar to the Biblical temple in overall scheme. See below.

>Well, Masonry borrows rather heavily from Biblical temple imagery also,
>claiming as it does to descend from Solomon. In point of fact, many of the
>oaths, penalties and gestures of the Mormon endowment were originally point
>for point and word for word from Masonry (see my other post, or I can supply
>further examples if you wish,) which to me is considerably more striking
>than the general resemblances you have pointed out.

I strongly disagree. The similarities refer to what I consider to be
trivialities. The general scheme is TOTALLY different. I still see
it as vastly more similar to the ancient Hebrew temple. More later.

[Arden Eby]

Keit...@gnn.com (Keith Campbell) wrote:

>In article <4p41ue$f...@nadine.teleport.com> Arden Eby wrote:
>>... The modern temple
>>ceremony is an excellent Christianization of the ancient Jewish
>>temple. The key figures of the ancient temple were sacrifice and
>>the symbolism of the holy place, the vale and the holy of holies.

>Ditto for the Masonic temple in many ways. The fact that the
>original wording of the endowment is so precisly Masonic suggest to
>me that the endowment is more of a Christianization of Masonry than
>of the Jewish temple directly.

Not really. Have you ever read through the whole York rite ceremony?
Its basic scheme is totally different from both the LDS and Jewish
temples. It has all sorts of "odd-ball" dramas in which the initiate
is blindfolded, attacked and so on. It draws more symbolism from
bricklaying than from the Hebrew temple.

>>In our temple, Christ has replaced the bloody sacrifice of the
>>ancient temple snip re Christ sacrifice, our priesthood and
>>sacrifice, etc.

>Well and good, but I must say that Christ's sacrifice is much more
>difficult to focus on in the endowment than in, say the Mass.

That depends upon you, doesn't it?

>As I
>said, the focus of the endowment, the central theme, is progression
>from one degree to another.

This characterization, while it fits your thesis is basically false.
The central theme is drawing nearer and nearer to God.

>Christ's sacrifice can be divined from
>some of the temple symbols, but it's hardly the central event of
>the drama.

Well it is the last physical symbol that gets you into the kingdom of
God.

>> It is highly significant to me that when Christ died the vale of
>>the temple was ripped...Our temple has a similar layout.

>Of course, it would be rather difficult to proceed with the
>ceremony if the veil were intact ;-)

Well it means rather more than that. In the Mormon temple, it is
through Christ the the veil is parted.

>> ..So it is by symbolically taking Christ's sacrifice upon
>>ourselves that we pass through the vale of separation between man
>>and God. What could be more Christian? Anyone who reads the
>>temple ceremony can’t help but be impressed with its
>>fundamentally Christian character.

>Actually, I would say it has a peripherally Christian character.

You could say this, but the central event of the ceremony is made
possible by Christ's death on the cross symbolically re-enacted.
Thus, I believe, the atonement is absolutely central.

> The name, in particular,
>of the last sign, which is the climax of the ritual- so secret is
>has to be received from God himself - is entirely self-serving.

Yes but the token that symbolically makes it possible represents the
atonment.

>> The non-believers and the immature were allowed to attend the
>> mass of the catechumens which consisted of hymns, scripture
>> readings and a sermon, but they were excused for the mass of the
>> faithful witch was the "mystery" of communion or the sacrament.
>> Precisely what Christians were doing in there was a big secret.
>> (See Chadwick, Henry, _The Early Church_, p.32ff.) A letter from
>> the ancient Roman Caecilius notes that the
>> Christians follow a "secret and nocturnal rite" and reports
>> rumors that they eat the flesh and blood of infant humans.
>> Another Roman, Epiphanus says that they have secret handshakes
>> to identify believers but also accuses them of having ritualized
>> sex in the secret part of their ceremony.

>Any difficulty among the Romans in knowing what

>went on was mainly due to the fact that during various periods, the
>entire CHURCH was underground - not from ritual secrecy, but to
>preserve their lives.

And many Mormons won't admit the endowment is secret either. However,
the Romans believed it was.....

>>In any case, this issue was a publicity disaster for the early
>>church.However, over a long period of time, truthful information
>>about the service did leak out. Justin Martyr and Hippolytus, for
>>example, made some relatively vague public statements and, more
>>importantly, Roman officials made legitimate investigations

>As said previously, the Didiach, which was read in churches and
>used to teach catechumans (during the PUBLIC portion of the Mass,
>for example) gives clear details of what a Eucharistic ceremony is
>like.

>The Fathers, Justin in particular, were not "vague" at all,
>but much more detailed than anything I've recently heard out of the
>Mormon Church about the endowmnet. Shall I quote them?

No need. I'm quite familiar with what they say. I do, however,
disagree that they are "much more detailed than anything I've recently
heard out of the Mormon Church about the endowment." Justin is no more
detailed than I have been in this post. You might argue that I do not
represent the church. Quite true, but neither did Justin. In regard
to the Didache, I'm sure you're familiar with the fairly well
established theory that a "church manual" has been edited on to the
instructional text.

[Arden Eby]

Keit...@gnn.com (Keith Campbell) wrote:

>And I assure you, if as a Catholic, I were asked to endorse slavery
>and racism, I would feel justified in objecting as I feel in

>objecting to the fact that, as a faithful Mormon, I was required to

>represent mimic forms of barbaric execution (as threats against
>myself) as part of the most holy ordinances of the Church.

It was wise to insert the disclaimer "as threats against myself" since
you do, in fact, mimic forms of barbaric execution as part of the most
holy ordinances of your Church. So the point goes back to whether the
Mormon actions really were "threats."

>Fortunately for Mormons, that is no longer required. What IS still

>an issue with Mormonism (since we are speaking of racism) is the
>idea ingrained in it from the Book of Mormon that skin color is a
>barometer of righteousness.

That's funny. The Book of Mormon very plainly says just the opposite.
One need not resort to "Nibleyesque" arguments. The text of the Book
of Mormon makes it quite clear:

2 Nephi 26:33

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that
which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it
be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come
unto him, **black and white,** bond and free, male and female; and he
remembereth the heathen; and **all are alike unto God.**

>Back to the original charge - I would be very grateful if you could
>support your contention, especially the exact document where the
>Church "declared" the inhumanity of the Indians.

I did not say that the church "declared the inhumanity of the
Indians" generally. just the Guarani. I can't refer you to the
primary sources yet, but I'll continue looking. A good secondary
source is: Bangert, William V. _History of the Society of Jesus_. St.
Louis: Society for Jesuit Sources, 1972.

I looked into this incident a few years ago after being deeply moved
by the film _The Mission_. I confirmed that the basic story portrayed
in the film was accurate. That is that since, as you put it...

>a number of Papal documents...going back

>to the mid 1400's, which condemn and forbid slavery and clearly
>teach the HUMANITY of the Amerinds

[One has to be impressed that the church regarded Amerinds to be human
even before it knew about their existence....<grin>]

and...

> the Church, under threat of retaliation from the
>Portuguese, withdrew the protection of the Jesuit missions. This
>was cowardly

the legate declared the Guarani to be non-human and thus unworthy of
the continued protection of the church. You could, perhaps argue that
this was his personal decision and violated official church teaching.
Perhaps. However, if you do so, Mormons must be given the same
leeway.

Further, even if we ignore the Guarani incident, one still must
remember that 1/2 to 2/3rds of the funds used to build churches in
colonial Latin America came from the encomenderos and thus from what
was essentially the slave labor of native Americans. This is true
regardless of what the church officially taught.

[Steve Roberts]

AMowbray96 wrote:
>
> Keith said to Arden:
>

Hey Al, just shows how much you are paying attention. Keith actually responded to me on
this, not Arden.

steve(intolerant of the intolerant)roberts

[Alan Mowbray]

In article <4p41ue$f...@nadine.teleport.com> Arden Eby wrote:

Keith said:

“as a faithful Mormon, I was required to represent mimic forms of

barbaric
execution (as threats against myself) as part of the most holy ordinances
of

the Church.”

----You really know how to murder the English language, as well as
obfuscate
issues.

“What IS still an issue with Mormonism (since we are speaking of racism)

is
the
idea ingrained in it from the Book of Mormon that skin color is a
barometer

of righteousness. Yes, I'm aware that there are some Niblyesque
sophistries
that try avoid this conclusion - but even as a Mormon I thought they
were
completely unbelievable.”

-----More like the “mark of Cain”, but this issue has been resoved for
almost
20 years.

” The Portuguese raided the region for slaves, and the Church, under

threat
of retaliation from the Portuguese, withdrew the protection of the
Jesuit

missions. This was cowardly, expecially in light of the fact that the
threatened retribution (the expulsion of the Jesuits from Portugal and
othercountries of Europe) occured in SPITE of this concession. But I am
unaware of any offician Vatican declaration that slavery was
allowed and that Amerinds were not human. Furthermore, it is at odds
with a

number of Papal documents which I CAN quote, going back to the mid 1400's,

which condemn and forbid slavery and clearly teach the HUMANITY of the

[Arden Eby]

Keit...@gnn.com (Keith Campbell) wrote:

>>I've always considered the temple interview similar to but more
>>human than traditional Roman Catholic confession. The reason I
>>find it more humane is that it limits the discussion to rather
>>specific things while traditional RC confession potentially opens
>>up one's entire life to scrutiny. I understand that more
>>progressive priests are getting away from that. Is that the kind

>>of thing you're referring to?

>More humane? What benefit are you suggesting? The opportunity to
>say to yourself, "Gee, I have a serious sin in the area of such-and
>such, but fortunately the Bishop didn't ask!" I thought that
>possibility was rather ruled out by the "are you worthy in every
>way" question.

No. I was referring to the idea in traditional RC confession that one
could should confess *all* sins. This strains the imagination. As I
understand it, venial sins are only to be omitted when the penitent
has recently received a general absolution.

>The
>Catholic priest doesn't generally ask specific questions, but
>relies on the penitent to bring up whatever topic needs bringning
>up.

That, to me, is the problem. It isn't really a big one though. The
original point though was that the Mormon worthiness interview and
Roman Catholic auricular confession are similar. In fact, they are.

[spa...@redrock.net]

In <31B9EE...@isysg.com>, Steve Roberts <steve....@isysg.com> writes:
>Keith Campbell wrote:
>
><SNIP>

>
>> The issue that troubles me is pressure to make a
>> "black box" committment - pressuring the candidate into unknown committments
>> - into the King Herod situation of committing to give "whatever you ask",
>> and then finding out (too late) that what is asked is not what one would
>> have wished to commit to.
>>
>

>This is an interesting conundrum. One could argue that if you are ready to go to
>the temple, then it doesn't matter that you don't know beforehand. I mean part of
>the entrance fee is to already have professed to believe the church is run by
>revelation etc. If the temple ceremony is part of the gospel then its part of the
>gospel. If one answers the entrance exam truthfully then one shouldn't complain
>about what they experience in the temple because its part of the deal.
>
>The key is to make sure you are ready to go to the temple and I don't think that
>has much to do with what goes on in the temple but about one's own basic faith
>and commitment prior to going into the temple. I think its the examiners (read
>bishop and stake presidents) role to insure that the candidate is ready. (It use
>to be that the bishop and the stake president gave the yearly interviews, but now
>the councelors can *except* for your first trip [own endowment] to the temple.)
>
>Because the ceremony is sacred if you are not ready for it ("No wine before its
>time" or the scriptorial equivalent) then you are not ready for it.
>
>So the issue arises once you get to the temple having, answered the questions
>truthfully, go through it and think "My this is wacko, I guess I don't believe
>the church is run by revelation." My guess, at that point the real question to
>oneselve would not be about the wacko stuff in the temple but how was it that I
>thought I knew this church was true to begin with and more importantly how will
>I ever know if anything is true in the future.
>
>If your point is that one may fully believe the gospel (LDS) but are not ready to
>make the commitments then I revert to my earlier comments about the discernment
>of the bishop (And shame on him if he gets it wrong).
>
>steve(not platter material)roberts

Steve, it appears that you are in fear of something. The real problem is that many men and women in the world in general will not keep their comittments to God. They alway want to put
themselves in the position of looking good before the public at all costs. With this type of action, it robs the spirit from sacred things. So everyone suffers from the behavior of others.

[AMowbray96]

When making statements extreemly critical of others, being "on the

defensive" is probably a good policy. If you say you have seen it

over-used, so be it. Such has not been my experience.

----not PERSONAL criticism Keith, only criticism of someone s position on
a topic.

On the other hand, it's difficult to think of a better background to
explain one religion to another than to have been involved in both

----interesting choice of words :involved . If a persons experiences are
nuanced by qualification and equivocation, one is not qualified, IMHO, to
explain that religious involvement with any objectivity.

To put it another way, if Bennett had remained a faithful Carmelite and
had written such an article, wouldn't you have attacked him as ignorant of
his topic? The test of his objectivity is the accuracy of his comments. On
that score, I think he does extreemly well.

-----Had he remained Catholic, he probably would not have written such an
article in the first place. If he had remained Catholic, his ignorance
would be based on a simple lack of faith, rather than apostasy. The test
of his objectivity would have been to: 1.not to write an article on the
Temple to begin with, as he promised to hold it in confidence, and, 2. to
avoid MISLEADING unsuspecting people as to the SUBSTANCE of the endowment
(I know you have a problem with SUBSTANCE over FORM), So, IMO, he is not
entitled to any credibility in this area.

Then attack the "misleading representations" and not the
individual. I'd have to check the article again, but I don't recall
that Bennett actually violated any of his specific oaths (although,
in my opinion, he is not bound by them).

----I have done so to him and you in many posts, but perhaps in a way you
do not like. What you continually OBSESS on is the form or ritual,
which is only part of the whole. I have mentioned this to you many times.

I have a hard time believing that Mormons have received anything
but benefit from their ceremony being understood, instead of wildly
speculated upon. This hardly compairs to slandering an individual

-the problem is Keith--AGAIN--that trying to explain a ritual to people
who do not have faith in what the ritual REPRESENTS. cannot understand it
properly, and people who have left the LDS church have, by their apostasy,
proven their inability to understand the endowment. As I said before, if
there is slander , it is Bennet s on the LDS church.

I repeat, the comparison is yours. Bennett was pointing out that in
Mormonism, a person, to go to the temple, has to profess their
worthiness. This is quite factual, and in fact is one of the
specific recommend questions. You tried to equate this to the
situation of a Catholic's worthiness for communion. You are correct
(this time). They are NOT the same.

No, no Keith--but here is your invincible ignorance again (not an ad
hominem , but a Catholic religious principle you should be familiar with(.

Nonsense. Bennett has been extreemly clear that the recommend is a
result of an interview regarding the member's faithfulness. It
couldn't be plainer.

---WRONG AGAIN Keith! A recommend is not simply a piece of paper
guaranteeing a member s faithfulness. Anyone can equivocate, hedge, or
downright lie to a Bishop. Bennet and you show no recognition of the the
SPIRITUAL condition of the member seeking a recommend, fixating on form.
You said in other posts that your Bishops noticed this tendency in you,
but I guess you learned nothing from them.

> You yourself said you (paraphrase) "could never quite
> answer these questions without qualification", and perhaps that
> lead to a "qualified" testimony. If you noticed other members
> you judged to be "unworthy", what does that say about your idea
> above that all "human" beings are morally owed the presumption of
> innocence"? HM?

It says that you are not following my posts. As I explained, my
qualifications regarding the question were not the result of some
angst regarding the Church. There were because I'm a very literal
sort of person (more so then than now).

-----When intelligible, conceptually and grammatically, I DO follow your
posts. Being a very literal sort of person is very Protestant.
Catholic theology stresses context in the scripture not literalism .
Perhaps you would do better in the Assemblies of God church?

My testimony, until my last year of my membership, was extreemly strong
and unqualified. I knew (or so I thought) beyond a shadow of a doubt that
the Church was true.

----CAN YOU NOT SEE CLEARLY THE INCONSISTENCY OF YOUR STATEMENT HERE? Of
course your testimony was qualified. You said as much in other posts and
YOU DO IT AGAIN HERE : I knew (or so I thought)... Your testimony was
obviously intellectual and reflects your literal proclivities.

And finally, I was judging no one. I simply observed that when I visited
with people who, as they told me, were not recommend holders, that these
people felt that the Church was not particularly kind or understanding
toward them.

---- simply observed is an equivocation Keith. Your implication is
clear.

In human-relations terms, that sounds like "Maybe if I try really
hard to make you happy, you'll stop being cruel to me."

---In Gospel terms it means maybe if I try really hard to make GOD
happy, he will start blessing me. But you need faith Keith, not doubt.

Yes, I'm afraid that accusation has been cast in the LDS direction
once or twice.

----by whom? ex-LDS? apostates?.

Because (as I've explained several times now) my Bishops, having
received a complete and trueful answer to all their questions, told
be that I WAS worthy, and that my "qualifications" stemmed from
interpreting the questions too literally

-----Oh I see. YOU didn't feel completely worthy, but because your
Bishops TOLD you were, you accepted their judgment. That relieved YOUR
conscience of responsibility. But you could not have given complete
answers even if truthful, in that you DID have recurring reservations
about your testimony. Too many posts of yours to back-peddle Keith.

And it's not the Mass (which was the whole point Bennett was
making). It's absurd to criticize Bennett's comments about the form
of the endowment and then complain when the discussion revolves around
form.

----I disagree. Without rehashing everything I have said to you in other
posts as well as this one, both you and Bennet continually miss the point.
Bennet did not discuss the theology of the endowment, only the FORM,
which is his point and yours. He appealed to people s curiosity, not to
instruct or inform them of LDS theology.. What is absurd is Bennet (and
you) confusing the theological aspects of the Mass with the purely
ritualistic aspects of the endowment. There seems to be no form of logic
available to explain this simple fact to you.

And is that not true of Sacrament Meeting? Is there any point in
attending Sacrament Meeting when one is spiritually out of tune, or
non-communicant (in the case of a non-member?) No, the temple is
shut off from the unworthy because it centers around secrets, pure
and simple.

----the only thing simple here are your simple-minded statement. Of
course there is a point in attending: to keep and get back into tune
The secret slam is a bankrupt canard.

At LEAST as many as at Sacrament Meeting. The point being?

----the point being that are equivocators and qualifiers in both
churches

So should an investigator, who cannot take the sacrament, attend
Sacrament Meeting? Why, if he cannot fully participate?

----Non-Catholics cannot receive communion licitly, so by your defective
logic they should not attend Mass.

Only if we assume that a person who captures the spirit of an
event, place or ritual will never come to reject it.

----that is the expectation of the LDS church

Perhaps the person who best captures the "spirit" of a place is the FIRST
to
reject it - precisely because the true spirit of it is false or inferior.

-----Baloney (or bologna if you are a purist)

That shouldn't be particularly difficult... You wouldn't secure his
AGREEMENT, but it ought to be relatively easy to make him
understand what is meant.

----your linear thinking is amazing. You think that by simply defining a
word makes it intelligible? Not at all.

Then his failure is peculiarly successful, since I grasped his

intent immediately

----shazanm Sergeant Carte! Inquiring minds want to know !.

I meant that it is a REAL sacrifice, as opposed to the
Protestant concept of communion being a MEMORIAL of the sacrifice

----I m not Protestant, but I bet they would take issue with you on this
one..

When the subject of Bennett's article is the temple rite, then yes,
describing the FORM of the rite is extreemly important.

----you know as well as I do that Bennet was more interested in the idle
curiosity of his readers than writing an objective story about the LDS
church. Have SOME degree of intellectual honesty here.

Which is why Bennett has taken pains to try to express the kinds of
emotional and spiritual connections he and other Mormons experienced
regarding the temple

----- emotional and spiritual connections ? Give me a break!

Well, I would have suggested we check some other LDS for their
opinions on this issue - but these messages of ours have become so
long I doubt anyone else is reading them at this point..

Excuse me, but you seem to have changed the subject a bit when I

pointed out that Bennett has clearly mentioned something that,
according to you, "He never mentions". To all appearances, you
either don't remember very well the article you are so

vociferously attacking, or you're willing to stretch things a
bit..

----HO, HUM.

Let's try again. You said, ""I wonder what he [Bennett] thinks of
apparitions in Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugore(SP?), garabandal,etc??
perhaps being freshly re-converted he is getting personal visits
all the time."

----this is not a comment on Bennet s mental stability (your words).
Don t project your psychological opinion of Bennet on my words. It is a
compare and contrast to the Jesus-appears-often-in-the-Temple statement.
Think before you write.

Now please explain EXACTLY how this is factual and objective,

rather than the clear ad-hominem it seems like. You claim the
ad-hominem charge is over-used, yet when someone shows you a clear
example and asks for an explanation, you side-step.

----not at all. Read the previous answer, and stop projecting your
fantasies on my words.

Well, now that you know that my "qualifications" were, in fact,
immaterial to the discussion, I suppose you'll have to try the
analysis again.

-----not immaterial, just defective

Exactly. The rest will be "dammed".

-----baloney, part deux

Who knows indeed. Certainly not you.

------not with precision, but deduction based on his past struggles

Considering that his actions "speak for themselves", you certainly
don't mind helping them along a bit to suit your purpose.

-----I always feel obligated to refute defective logic, misleading
statements, equivocations, and qualifications of people who seek to damage
the LDS church, No apologies for that.

> ----we will have to just 'agree to disagree' here I guess

Yes, that summarizes it nicely...

AMEN AND AMEN

Alan Mowbray

[Alan Mowbray]

This was snipped from a post from Keith dipstick, not me. et it right
before you shoot your mouth off.
-
ALAN MOWBRAY AMow...@prodigy.com

[Alan Mowbray]

This was snipped from a post from Keith dipstick, not me. Get it right

[Alan Mowbray]

Hey Steveie=when you have something intelligent to say I'll be glad to
hear it. Be creative and original now.................

[Steve Roberts]

AMowbray96 wrote:
>

<SNIP>

> (I know you have a problem with SUBSTANCE over FORM), So, IMO, he is not
> entitled to any credibility in this area.

<SNIP>

> -----I always feel obligated to refute defective logic, misleading
> statements, equivocations, and qualifications of people who seek to damage
> the LDS church, No apologies for that.
>
> > ----we will have to just 'agree to disagree' here I guess
>
> Yes, that summarizes it nicely...
>

Al, talk about FORM over SUBSTANCE. Do you ever read what you write? You may have
some good points but your apparent insecurities masked by belligerent attacks has
the effect to cause one to lose the message while pitying the messenger.

I think you could learn something from Keith in this regard.

-steve-

[Steve Roberts]

spa...@redrock.net wrote:
>
> In <31B9EE...@isysg.com>, Steve Roberts <steve....@isysg.com> writes:
> >Keith Campbell wrote:
> >
> ><SNIP>
> >

> >> The issue that troubles me is pressure to make a
> >> "black box" committment - pressuring the candidate into unknown committments
> >> - into the King Herod situation of committing to give "whatever you ask",
> >> and then finding out (too late) that what is asked is not what one would
> >> have wished to commit to.
> >>
> >

> >This is an interesting conundrum. One could argue that if you are ready to go to

> >the temple, then it doesn't matter that you don't know beforehand. I mean part of
> >the entrance fee is to already have professed to believe the church is run by
> >revelation etc. If the temple ceremony is part of the gospel then its part of the
> >gospel. If one answers the entrance exam truthfully then one shouldn't complain
> >about what they experience in the temple because its part of the deal.
> >
> >The key is to make sure you are ready to go to the temple and I don't think that
> >has much to do with what goes on in the temple but about one's own basic faith

> >and commitment prior to going into the temple. I think its the examiners (read

> >bishop and stake presidents) role to insure that the candidate is ready. (It use
> >to be that the bishop and the stake president gave the yearly interviews, but now
> >the councelors can *except* for your first trip [own endowment] to the temple.)
> >
> >Because the ceremony is sacred if you are not ready for it ("No wine before its
> >time" or the scriptorial equivalent) then you are not ready for it.
> >
> >So the issue arises once you get to the temple having, answered the questions
> >truthfully, go through it and think "My this is wacko, I guess I don't believe
> >the church is run by revelation." My guess, at that point the real question to
> >oneselve would not be about the wacko stuff in the temple but how was it that I
> >thought I knew this church was true to begin with and more importantly how will
> >I ever know if anything is true in the future.
> >
> >If your point is that one may fully believe the gospel (LDS) but are not ready to
> >make the commitments then I revert to my earlier comments about the discernment
> >of the bishop (And shame on him if he gets it wrong).
> >
> >steve(not platter material)roberts
>

>Steve, it appears that you are in fear of something. The real problem is that many
>men and women in the world in general will not keep their comittments to God. They
>alway want to put themselves in the position of looking good before the public at
>all costs. With this type of action, it robs the spirit from sacred things. So
>everyone suffers from the behavior of others.

Sparks, I have read and reread your reply and my post. I am sorry but I don't have a
clue what you are talking about. I think maybe you have jumped in at the end of a
dialogue here and have taken things out of context. Then again maybe I just missed
your point.

-steve-

I think I think, therefore I think I am. I think. (or something to that effect)

[Steve Roberts]

Dipstick? Well, then either Keith is forgetful, or he plagiarizes himself (which is not a
crime) or you are out to lunch.

On my defense I have included the orginal below.

steve(you get my vote)roberts

***************************************
Subject: Re: Temple oaths and worthiness
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 15:13:22
From: Keit...@gnn.com (Keith Campbell)
Organization: GNN
Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5

In article <31B514...@isysg.com> Steve Roberts wrote:

>> I think it important that you understand that I repent of my temple
>> vows for reasons that, to me, were not trivial. I repent of them
>> because they were obtained by fraud.

> I haven't seen that part of your repentence process is to reveal those
> things held sacred to active card carrying LDS. Is it? I had a
> friend as a kid that grew up mainstream protestant of some flavor
> and was a member of Demolay. When he eventually converted to LDS, and to
> this day, does not reveal the secret word or words (I don't know) even
> though he doesn't believe the stuff at all. He simply
> respects the beliefs of others. Maybe this is difficult for those who are
> truly concerned about our eternal welfare and feel they must protect
> us from the consequences of our beliefs. (I can only surmize that you
> feel you have some sense of responsibility in this regard since
> you hang out here.)

Well, in point of fact, I try NOT to talk about the temple in a way that will

seriously offend an LDS by way of revealing what they would rather not
reveal. I don't always succeed - and sometimes I skirt the edge much closer
than LDS are comfortable with (some of my messages in this thread may do

that, for which I apologize to any offended). I TRY to avoid this, not

because I still feel bound by my temple obligations, but because A) You can't
really carry on a discussion with someone when you're behaving in a way they
regard as sacreligious and B) I understand that it's frustrating to the LDS
to not be able to rebutt my points because they feel bound by oath NOT to

discuss the matter. Sometimes in private, with a non-LDS who is extreemly

[Steve Roberts]

Alan Mowbray wrote:
>
> Hey Steveie=when you have something intelligent to say I'll be glad to
> hear it. Be creative and original now.................

Al, you are ignorant.

It is obvious, based on the form of your contributions, that it would be
difficult for you to recognize something intelligent if you saw it. My comments
aren't really directed at you at all. They are directed to those that are
unfortunate enough to read your stuff as it is written. Let's just call it
an attempt at damage control.

As I have mentioned in a previous reprimand you have some good points but it's
lost in your delivery. But all that is secondary. The point is - you should
practice what you believe. (Start with A of F #11.)

Steveie(just trying to be helpful)roberts

[Robert Craig Harman]

Helen Sillasen wrote:
>
> Robert Craig Harman <pa...@byu.edu> wrote:
>
> >John Martinson wrote:
> >>
> >> Arden: It is your right to your opinion. Some people
> >> feel, however, that the temple is "sacred" not "secret"--
> >> and I believe the Church will support that point of view.
>
> >And conversely, there are those of us who think that the "sacred,
> >not secret" statement is a weak and hackneyed mantra, used by those
> >who cannot understand that sacredness implies secretiveness toward
> >those who would profane that self-same sacredness.
>
> Can you speak a little plainer, please?
> My senses are overloaded with too many Secret/Sacred words. <g>

That would depend. Which part did you need clarified?

...Craig

[RJHOLZ]

Steve Roberts wrote:
>
> AMowbray96 wrote:
> >
>
> <SNIP>

>
> > (I know you have a problem with SUBSTANCE over FORM), So, IMO, he is not
> > entitled to any credibility in this area.
>

> <SNIP>

>
> > -----I always feel obligated to refute defective logic, misleading
> > statements, equivocations, and qualifications of people who seek to damage
> > the LDS church, No apologies for that.
> >
> > > ----we will have to just 'agree to disagree' here I guess
> >
> > Yes, that summarizes it nicely...
> >
>

> Al, talk about FORM over SUBSTANCE. Do you ever read what you write? You may have

> some good points but your apparent insecurities masked by belligerent attacks has
> the effect to cause one to lose the message while pitying the messenger.
>
> I think you could learn something from Keith in this regard.
>

> -steve-I think, Steve, you should pay closer attention to Alan's posts IN
CONTEXT. Making comments without specific references to this long
standing thread are useless.

[Helen Sillasen]

....sorry...but all of it. I'm just a slow comprehentional person, I guess.

Best,
Helen

[Keith Campbell]

amowb...@aol.com (AMowbray96) wrote:

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:14:23
From: Keit...@gnn.com (Keith Campbell)
To: amowb...@aol.com

>Keith said:
>
>> The extent of my preparation is hardly a subject
>> you could know anything about.
>---You are into FORM in this thread too, Keith.
> What I know about your preparation, from your own
> words, is a deduction by me. If my deductions
>are faulty, you certainl;y have said nothing that
>would change them.

There is an intellectual responsability to have
significant evidence to base your "deduction" UPON in
order to merit CALLING it a deduction. You had
virtually none. Your original charge of "lack of
preperation" was based on nothing more than the fact
that I disagree with YOU. This is not a deduction,
it's a prejudice.

> Your preparation for the Temple was obviously WAY
> too intellectual. Where are the spiritual
> considerations?

Actually, if you're at all familar with my other
threads on the newsgroup, I would say that if
anything, my fault was in OVER-emphasising "spiritual
considerations", particularly my own personal
religious experience. As I've made it clear in these
posts, I took great pains to verify that I was
spiritually worthy to enter the temple. I fasted and
spent many hours in prayer and in spiritual
discussion with several mentors. Frankly, I find it
difficult to understand how (in good conscience) you
could mistakenly attack me in one thread for what you
supposed to be my presumptive judging of other's
unworthiness to enter the temple and then engage in a
preemptive judging of MY preperation.

> What did you take very, very
> seriously? If you felt unsure of taking these
> oaths that were deadly serious , why DID NT you
> take the opportunity to leave? That's why they
> give you the opportunity to do so.

I took the ENDOWMENT very seriously. Wasn't that
clear? Why didn't I leave? Believe it or not, I
actually considered it. What prevented me (in
addition to the embarrasment that would have caused
to my friends and family who were with me) was my
trust in the Church. My thoughts ran something like
this: "This warning is frightening. WHAT exactly am I
going to have to swear to? Am I getting into a
situation that will be a spiritual burden instead of
a blessing? But I know the Church is true - and I
trust that they wouldn't ask me to take any oath that
is wrong. I don't know what I'll be asked to do, but
I'll have faith that everything I'll be asked to do
will be holy and good."

>>I repent of them [the oaths] because they
>>were obtained by fraud. Mormonism, playing on my
>>ignorance, had purported itself as the Restored
>>Church of God when in fact it was nothing of the
>>kind, but a mere human invention.
>
>---Nothing you say can offend me personally, as
> I do not know you. You offend the intelligence
> of people when you say that a fraud was
> perpetrated on you by the LDS church. I assume
> you were an adult when you joined the church,
> with an education and common sense.

Assuming seems to be a rather strong instinct with
you. In fact, I was thirteen when I decided to join
the Church, and fourteen when I was actually
baptized. I was reasonably well educated for my age,
but really not equipped to penetrate the erroneous
ideas and representations which were (in all
innocence, I'm sure) recommended to me by the
missionaries. For one thing, the very first thing the
missionaries did was mess around with my
epistimological tools by convincing me that a
particular sort of religious experience was a more
certain guide to truth than reason, evidence,
scripture or history.

Since I think this "fraud" concept is important, I
want to give several illustrations of why I think
such fraud negates temple oaths.

Let's take another sort of serious obligation
(although not so eternally or spiritually
significant) - a business contract. Suppose that I
negotiate a business arrangement with ACME company -
perhaps a merger or a distribution agreement. Suppose
I later discover that, in spite of due diligence,
ACME has pulled one over on me. Their books were
cooked. Their references were pre-arranged plants.
ACME is unable to meet it's side of the bargan. In
fact, they aren't even the same kind of COMPANY I was
led to believe. Perhaps ACME's negotiators and
salesmen acted in good faith. They didn't know
either. But the fact is, once I find out the truth,
my contract with ACME will be tossed out and I will
seek damages.

Here's a more serious example which happened to
someone I know. She had been dating a man who
appeared to be a wonderful Mormon convert. They dated
for some time, fell in love and decided to marry.
Once she actually took up residence as the woman of
the house, however, she discovered some nasty
surprises. He had managed to conceal from her that he
was massively in debt (and in fact, managed to
destroy HER credit as well). Also, unknown to her, he
was in treatment for sever psychological problems, as
well as debilitating and expensive medical
conditions. He had a previous marriage about which
she had not been told, and so it went. I know it's
difficult to believe that it would be possible to
date such a man for any length of time and not catch
on to any of this. But I met the man myself, and he
was a master at deception. I came away with a most
favorable opinion of him. Suffice it to say, the
court threw out the marriage. No divorce was needed -
the marriage was ANNULLED. His deception had made her
promises to him null and void.

Now, without impuning in the slightest the honesty,
spirituality or integrety of ANY particular Mormon,
most of whom I know to be honest to a heroic degree -
I believe Mormonism has inherited a fradulent
product. My connection to Mormonism has been, in my
mind, ANNULLED. There were too many skeletons in the
closet, and I never got to see into the closet.

> If there was ignorance here, it was YOUR
> ignorance in not ? informing yourself FULLY of
> the SPIRITUAL (or as I have told you before,
> SUBSTANTIAL) SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TEMPLE,
> NOT MERELY THE EXTERNAL RITUALS. Rituals
> are important in expressing religious beliefs,
> but not the ONLY way of experiencing God.
> Apparently, you never learned this truism.

Actually, the endowment was pretty much my first
exposure to ritual, so I was quite familiar with the
concept of experiencing God without it. And of COURSE
I expected the endowment to be spiritual significant.
In fact, I expected it to be much more "spiritual"
than I actually found it at first - but with practice
I was able to overcome the initial feeling that this
seemed more like a fraternity initiation than a holy
ordinance.

>----Here you go, playing the poor innocent
> victim again. No one forces a mature
> adult to do anything they do not want to do.
> The great social pressure you say you felt
> to perform in a certain way, speaks more to
> your lack of spine than actual coercion.
> You seem overly concerned with what others
> think of you, Keith. Did it ever occur to
> you that the crowd of people(often friends)
> of which you speak, would ADMIRE your courage
> in leaving the Temple if you were not prepared
> to accept it s responsibilities?

A stirring endorsement of personal independance and
courage. But the Mormon social system seems to value
conformity somewhat more than independence. Yes, I've
always cared deeply what other people think of me.
It's a character trait that can lead you into certain
sins and failures - but it can also save you from an
equal number. Still, I took the step to be baptized
Mormon when I was 14 - the only member in my
immediate family and in spite of bitter opposition
from my family. And I left the Church when leaving it
meant all my closest friends turning against me -
when it meant admitting that many years of my life
had been spent on a fundamental error, and when I
wasn't at all sure if my wife would follow me out or
divorce me. So I've had to do a thing or two that was
socially difficult. As I said above, what inspired me
to continue with my endowment was my testimony of the
Church.

> If you thought that the procedures of the Temple
> were fundamentally immoral , you CLEARLY were
> dishonest with your Bishop, Stake President, and
> any other members of the church who believed you
> had a testimony of the Gospel. Your lack off
> spiritual formation is fundamentally immoral .

Just how was I suppose to confess to my Bishop and
Stake President that I had problems with the
endowment when I wasn't even certain what it would
consist of?? Even after going, it wouldn't have
entered into my mind (yet) that anything the Church
had asked me to do could possibly be immoral. All I
was concious of what that I didn't seem to enjoy the
temple as much as I thought I OUGHT, but instead felt
somewhat uneasy - a defect in myself, I supposed,
which I tried to remedy by attending as frequently as
possible. And indeed, with familiarity, the
uneasiness left. It is only upon considerable
reflection after the fact that I can now say that
there was something wrong with the endowment.

>> B) They were secret...
>
>---This old canard has been beaten to death. I
> would have thought you could come up with
> something more creative and original. FORM
> AGAIN KEITH--GET PAST IT.

My intent is not to "come up with something". I'm
simply stating what I believe to be the truth. If
it's redundant, then I apologize that others noticed
this problem before I did.
It occurs to me that you are invoking your
mantra against "FORM" so often that you really might
be able to justify ANY objective, concrete, evil
behavior with a little more application. For example,
shall we decide, perhaps, that ritual fornication in
the temple would be acceptable, so long as there was
a suitable spiritual meaning behind it? After all,
there is precedent in several pagan rituals. Perhaps
we could accentuate the "penalties" by actually
engaging in a bit of ritual slashing and
blood-letting, as the priest of Baal? After all, it's
only form. The SUBSTANCE of the slashing - which
would be the spiritual emphasis of our eagerness to
get God's attention, is what is central.
The point is, the objective, concrete acts of our
body matters. What we say and what we do, may be
"form", but you can't run away from your
responsability for the form, as WELL as the
substance.

>> C) The oaths are cruel and barbaric. In my day,
>> the "penalties" were still a part of the
>> ceremony. To punctuate a sacred ceremony with
>> implied threats of gristly and inhuman forms of
>> death is unchristian and inhumane

>--- Cruel and barbaric ? I am beginning to think
> you NEVER were in the Temple. Just WHO do you
> think you are kidding, Keith?

I take it, then, that you consider throat-slitting,
tearing out of hearts and disembowlment to be mild
and civilized??

> D) The oaths are Masonic...
>---- All religious traditions borrow things
> from the culture around them, for religion is the
> living expression of faith through familiar
> symbols. If you find similarities between SOME of
> the Temple endowment and Free Masonry, the
> similarity is in FORM KEITH, NOT SUBSTANCE!
> It is not the ritual, but the MEANING behind the
> ritual. FORM FORM FORM FORM FORM
> FORM!!--When will you GET IT STRAIGHT?

In the first place, I don't object to the IDEA of
"borrowing from the culture" (although Joseph doesn't
seem to have let on that he was borrowing). It is the
CONTENT of what is borrowed that it at issue. Shall
we imitate pornography or senseless violence, both a
strong part of our culture? Or shall we admit that
some cultural sources are inappropriate?
Secondly, I completely disagree that the resemblance
to Masonry is not substantial. The very ESSENCE of
both rituals, as I have stated, is progression from
degree to degree of advancement. Compaired to what is
shared in the fundamental spirit of the rituals, the
differences are of secondary significance.

>> You should change your belief systems just as
>> often as your conscience demands - no more, no
>> less.

>---HERE is the core of your problem Keith.
> You have no moral center (apparently), no
> one set of values as a foundation for your life.
> If your conscience demands that you change your
> belief system (read: basic core values) in
> response to the situation of the moment ,
> how can you possibly have ANY standards or
> stability in your life? No, my friend,
> without a core a being is hollow and their
> conscience is faulty.

I suppose sticking with a belief system we earnestly
believe to be false CAN lend a sort of stability -
may God spare us all from such stability! There are
several problems here. First of all, you equate
belief system with core values. This is not
necessarily so. Many of my core values remain the
same now as when I was a Mormon. Others have changed,
based on my belief system - since I have come to the
conclusion that a number of things I believed to be
true were actually false and a number of things I
believed to be false were actually true.
This change did not come about, as you suggest, in
response to the "situation of the moment", but over
the course of years of painful evaulation.
Furthermore, it is erroneous to suggest that because
I have had to CHANGE several beliefs, that I don't
have core values. The presumption you seem to make is
that we can NEVER be mistaken about belief systems or
core values. Since you obviously believe MINE to be
mistaken, that presumption is prima facia false.

>> if I knew a Catholic priest who had become
>> convinced in his mind and heart that the Catholic
>> priesthood was apostate, and that Mormonism was in
>> truth the restored Church, I would advise him to
>> join - and that would be the advice of every
>> Catholic moral theologian I'm familiar with.
> I dare say that the Catholic Bishops take a VERY DIM
> view of such advice. Remember what happened to Hans
> Kung and Charles Curran? Are these the theologians
> to whom you refer?

I think the Bishops would probably be delighted if Kung and Curran
could be as principled as Bennett and disassociate themselves from
a Church who's teachings they openly contradict. If you have read
my other posts on the thread, you will realize that I'm not saying
the Church should APPROVE of dissent. The Church must be what it is

and teach what Christ has commanded it to teach. But, while
censuring such theologians as Kung, it does NOT claim to know the
state of their individual conscience before God - something you
appear to be claiming to know in the case of both Bennett and
myself.

>> To be sure, if you find yourself making a habit of
>> changing religions...

>---You seem to be the one who has a habit of changing
> religions , not I.

The comment was generic advice, equivalent to "If one finds
oneself..." etc.

> I m sure, based on what you have said
> previously, that your preparation for Catholicism was
> just as FORM based as your LDS experience. In short:
> no core values, no stable foundation, and situational
> until your conscience demands that you change your
> mind again.

You are "sure" about the darndest things. I haven't even BEGUN to
describe my preparation for Catholicism. It included both spiritual
and intellectual experiences and processes that you couldn't
possibly be privy to. And simply HAVING "core values" (which I do,
of course, like most people) or stable beliefs isn't quite so
important as that those values be correct, good, and true. Faithful
adherence to something one knows to be a pack of lies can hardly
be a good recommendation.

> Needless to say, that's not the advice we offered to Catholics
>wanting to become Mormons as missionaries in Argentina ;-)
>
>---I am amazed the church their survived so well, given you
infidelity and fortitude.

I like the sentence above, because it brings two questions to mind
at the same time. #1 Why do you frequently criticize the grammer,
spelling and English usage of others when your own isn't
particularly stellar? #2 Why do you accuse people of being
judgemental and then pass such scathing judgments yourself?

> ---Very nice to know you have authority to speak for so many
> Catholic theologians and spiritual directors. I suggest you
> contact The National Conference Of Catholic Bishops in
> Washington, D.C., or perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger in Rome to
> get their read in this area. Or maybe even Mother Angelica
> in Alabama?????

I doubt that either the Bishops or the CDF has the time to settle
the point for us, but I have a number of contacts among professors
in theology departments who could probably weigh in on the issue.
I'll ask them.

>> Living up to such a vow doesn't make you a
>>man - it makes you a sinner against your own conscience.
>
>
> ---Careful Keith--this is dangerously close to secular
> humanism. Sin , by definition, is an offense against God, not
> yourself. Your sinful actions may or may not effect you
> outwardly, but they certainly effect your soul. You make your
> conscience the final arbiter of truth, which it is not,
> either in the LDS or Catholic churches. You must know that
> your latest church teaches that conscience can be corrupted,
> and that any decisions made by that conscience are morally
> defective on their face. Consequently, your statement is
> factually and religiously absurd.

In my other posts on the thread, we've discussed the responsability
for educating the conscience. Yes, a conscience can be corrupted,
through willful ignorance or habitual sin, leaving one with moral
responsability. That is why I stressed that advice to such a person
would only follow extensive attempts to make sure their conscience
was educated.
I am NOT, however, making conscience the final arbiter of "truth".
It is simply (unless defective) the baseline against which God will
judge us. To whom much is given (in terms of knowledge and an
informed conscience) much will be required.

>> For a lighthearted look at some of the absurdities that
>> can result from placing a sworn oath above all else, I
>> suggest you check out Gilbert and Sullivan's _The Pirates
>> of Penzance_. G&S had a way of demolishing such moral
>> over-simplifications.
>---Your comparison of Temple covenants to a theatrical show
>demonstrate your grotesque shallowness. It once again shows
>your abysmal lack of spiritual sensibility.

No such comparison was made. I was comparing the PRINCIPLE (as it
has come up in this discussion) that a sworn promise [whatever it
might be] is the highest moral duty to the cental device of that
show, which is identical.
In case you haven't seen it, Frederick, the hero of the show, has
been accidentally apprenticed to a band of pirates (his nurse
didn't hear clearly when the old man told her to have him trained
as a PILOT). Being a young man of spotless moral character,
Frederick gives the pirates expert advice on committing acts of
pillage and piracy, convinced it is his moral duty under his
indentures, even though he dispises everything the pirates stand
for.

>> I've been in the temple more times than I can count (in fact,
>> I was a veil worker), and you've failed to convince me of any
>> "factual misrepresentation.
>
>--- Invincible ignorance again rears it s ugly head---

It's not too particularly difficult to claim "invincible ignorance"
in your opponent when the fact is that your argument isn't
persuasive. A few more solid facts might do wonders for your case.
Specifically, you accused Bennett of "factual misrepresentation"
about the temple. When asked for support this, you fail to point
out any case of factual error, but rather several areas where you
think Bennett doesn't give enough background for his non-LDS
readers. That's a far cry from "factual misrepresentation".

>> How can an expression of opinion be disingenuous? Are you
>> suggesting that's not my REAL opinion?
>
>----it is a real opinion, just a faulty real opinion.

Ah. Then you didn't mean "disingenuous". Disingenuous implies that
I'm trying to fool you. It is a form of dishonesty.

>> Bennett describes the temple and its rituals as
>> beautiful, rich, respectful, modest and reflective. His
>> actual descriptions of the occurrences are quite
>> straight-forward and correct.
>
>---HO,HUM: Welcome to Fantasy Island....

You'll find each of the adjectives I described in Bennett's
article, so THAT part can't be fantasy. Perhaps the descriptions?
Which descriptions did you find to be incorrect?

>----You are correct. You did not understand, then or now
> about the Bishop s role in the recommend interview.
> If you just want someone to read questions to you, we
> can call in Bob Barker or Alex Trebek. I NEVER used
> the term spiritual counseling , nor implied it, in the
> context of the recommend interview. The role {business} of the
> Bishop is DISCERNMENT of the members fidelity to the church
> insofar as that is possible. If the member wants counseling on
> another issue, that is not the time or place

Well, if you read the other responses on this thread, you'll find
that there seems to be some variety of opinion about just what the
bishop's role should involve. Some are glad that the questions are
very specific, and limit the bishop's opportunity to probe into
uninvited areas. Others have suggested that the very difficulties I
found with the questions are an intentional opportunity to engage
in some discussion and counseling with the interviewee.
From my experience, the former view is the more popular. Several
bishops that interviewed me absolutely refused to provide any
explanation for any of the questions, and left it entirely up to ME
to interpret the questions as I saw fit. The "discernment" was left
entirely up to me.

>>1. "Are you COMPLETELY honest in all your dealings with your
>>fellow men?"
>
>----A childish and, again, shallow example. Honesty is
> value and a virtue that develops the character of the
> individual OVER A LIFETIME. Being overly zealous in
> self-examination is just as bad as being indifferent
> to one s faults. Your literal approach to everything is
> remarkable, and is intellectually and morally limited and
> defective.

Yes, assuming that people actually mean exactly what they say is a
trait children often posess. Over time, we learn from experience
(as I did) when there are unspoken modifications assumed to what
appears to be a straight-forward question. Unfortunately, I wasn't
raised in a Mormon family, or even a religious family, for that
matter, so such nuances of conscience were never explained to me.
Now I understand that when a Mormon bishop asks you if you are
TOTALLY honest, he doesn't want you to respond totally honestly ;-)

> Your equivocations and qualifications should have been picked
>up and dealt with before a recommend was issued.

Such a pity you weren't there to correct my bishops in their
dereliction of duty...

> So we have reached the end. Like Bennet, I sympathize
> with your struggles

With friends like you...

> but in my view, your observations
> and conclusions are based on a faulty moral sense and
> two dimensional thinking. Your constant fixation
> with form over substance has held you back, despite
> numerous LDS church callings and experiences. You failed
> to comprehend the message because of your obsession
> with the messenger . Your relativistic and situational
> philosophy has clearly colored your analysis of the LDS
> church, and any opinions you may express about the LDS
> church must be taken with HUGE grains of salt.

Actually, I see YOUR position as the relativistic and situational
one. It's difficult to discuss any aspect of the LDS Church with
you in objective terms because the entire structure of the Church
and all it's practices are only a chimerical "FORM" in your
parlance. All of it is a clever disguise for the real "substance"
of the whole thing. And this substance is only discernable by
someone with the proper "preperation" - a preperation which YOU
manage to have acheived, but which anyone who disagrees with you
has not. These poor, unprepared souls are handicapped, alas, by
their deep psychological problems and preoccupations and failed to
reach the enlightened state.

Then, of course, the possibility seems to loom in the back of the
mind, begging for a hearing, that all of this is simply a rather
transparent technique for avoiding any kind of objective
discussion, at the expense of your targets. Is this really the sort
of charitable, intelligent representation your Church ought to
inspire?

-KHC
AMDG

[Michael G Gordon]

Keith Campbell (Keit...@gnn.com) wrote:
: wording was softened. (I apologize if some feel I'm stepping over the line,
: but after all, this is an old version of something that isn't even in the
: ceremony any more.)

It depends only on any oath that you may have taken. I honor the oaths
that I have taken, even though it may be that the secret I guard is no
longer a secret. If you reveal a thing that you promised to not reveal,
then you have broken an oath, and I cannot see how than can be respected.

Sincerely,
Michael Gordon

[Steve Roberts]

RJHOLZ wrote:
>
> Steve Roberts wrote:
> >
> > AMowbray96 wrote:
> > >
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >

> > > (I know you have a problem with SUBSTANCE over FORM), So, IMO, he is not
> > > entitled to any credibility in this area.
> >

> > <SNIP>

> >
> > > -----I always feel obligated to refute defective logic, misleading
> > > statements, equivocations, and qualifications of people who seek to damage
> > > the LDS church, No apologies for that.
> > >
> > > > ----we will have to just 'agree to disagree' here I guess
> > >
> > > Yes, that summarizes it nicely...
> > >
> >

> > Al, talk about FORM over SUBSTANCE. Do you ever read what you write? You may have
> > some good points but your apparent insecurities masked by belligerent attacks has
> > the effect to cause one to lose the message while pitying the messenger.
> >
> > I think you could learn something from Keith in this regard.
> >
> > -steve-

> I think, Steve, you should pay closer attention to Alan's posts IN
> CONTEXT. Making comments without specific references to this long
> standing thread are useless.

Sorry for the confusion RJ, my intent wasn't to use his form/substance in context. My issue
with Al is his form over substance in general, in this, or any other thread.

And you are undoubtably right.

-steve-

[David Black]

In article <31BC2D...@isysg.com>, Steve Roberts
<steve....@isysg.com> wrote:

: Al, talk about FORM over SUBSTANCE. Do you ever read what you write?

You may have
: some good points but your apparent insecurities masked by belligerent
attacks has
: the effect to cause one to lose the message while pitying the messenger.

Al suffer's from what we all do, Emotion. Only some of us cannot handle
it and some close it in no matter what. Emotional men make better
husbands (my wife thinks so) but makes us bad at argument because we take
it so personally.

You understand that right? Religion is an emotional topic, men have
fought wars over it.

--
David 'Zxeses' Black @ Zapcom.net
http://www.zapcom.net/~zxeses

[Robert Craig Harman]

OK, in simpler terms:

I think that the "sacred, not secret" phrase that we hear repeated so
often is intellectually dishonest. Is not the temple ceremony "kept
from knowledge or view" of the world? Is its treatment not "marked by
the habit of discretion"? Is it not "revealed only to the initiated"?

(All quotes from the definition of "secret" obtained from the Hypertext
Webster Interface <http://c.gp.cs.cmu.edu:5103/prog/webster>.)

I think that too many people get hung up thinking of "secret" as
"clandestine", "surreptitious", or "underhand"--that is terms of
concealing evil purposes--which need not be the case.

We covenant not to disclose the temple ceremonies so that they are not
profaned by those who would esteem them for naught. That covenant is
a promise to keep the ceremonies _secret_, so that they remain _sacred_.

Because it's such a catchy phrase, many LDS have bought into the
"sacred, not secret" tripe, even though the reality of the matter
("sacred, thus secret") is not that much more difficult a concept...

...Craig

[Alan Mowbray]

Gee whiz, do I stand rebuked! Commenting on matters of which you
demonstrate no understanding are hardly useful, and certainly not "damage
control" Spare me your helpful comments, as you have none to offer. If
you have some concrete ideas in this thread post them, and we can look at
your "delivery". If not, why waste time here.

[Alan Mowbray]

PART 1--------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

Keith said:

“There is an intellectual responsibility to have

significant evidence to base your "deduction" UPON in

order to merit CALLING it a deduction.”

-----Deduction ,my dear Keith, is intuitive, based on the evidence
presented as well as the logic o or the lack thereof, Your posts give
MORE THAN AMPLE “significant evidence” of defective logic, linear
thinking, and equivocations. If you cannot comprehend basic English or
abstracts concepts, how can you comment on significant religious issues
intelligent?

“ Your original charge of "lack of preparation" was based on nothing more
than the fact that I disagree with YOU. This is not a deduction, t's a
prejudice.”

---No, Keith. Your “lack of preparation”, IMO, was SPIRITUAL, not
intellectual or experiential. This is logically deduced by anyone from
your own words in these posts..
“Disagreements” based on interpretation of conflicting facts are one
thing, but when your logic is demonstrably defective, it is quite another
thing. “Prejudice” implies unreasonable bias. Not so. I am
‘discriminating’, however, which means I choose to confront those
positions taken by people against the LDS church that are misleading and
unintelligible.

“Actually, if you're at all familiar with my other threads on the
newsgroup, I would say that if anything, my fault was in OVER-emphasizing

"spiritual considerations", particularly my own personal religious

experience.”

---I see no convincing evidence of you “over-emphasizing spiritual
considerations”. Your focus is on LITERAL interpretation of SPIRITUAL
ABSTRACTIONS. In point of fact, a “religious experience” is NOT de facto
a spiritual one. ‘Religion’ is the outward, communal display of commonly
held beliefs through ritual. Without making a valid spiritual connection
with the ritual, the ritual becomes the more important than the faith
BEHIND the ritual. That was the point Jesus was trying to make to the
Jewish leadership and people. Ritual has meaning only in a faith context,
not the other way around.

“As I've made it clear in these posts, I took great pains to verify that

I was spiritually worthy to enter the temple. I fasted and spent many

hours in prayer and in spiritual discussion with several mentors.”

----Please e-mail me the posts where you mentioned these efforts.

“ Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how (in good conscience) you

could mistakenly attack me in one thread for what you supposed to be my
presumptive judging of other's unworthiness to enter the temple and then

engage in a preemptive judging of MY preparation.”

-----If you believed you were “mistakenly attacked” by me, then you are
wrong. I don’t know you personally. These words of yours imply a degree
of defensiveness on your part. What I take issue with are your POSITIONS,
not you personally. I have told you this before. ‘Left-handed’ remarks
about the state of my “conscience” are childish, and diminish the
relevancy of your arguments.

“I took the ENDOWMENT very seriously. Wasn't that clear? Why didn't I

leave? Believe it or not, I actually considered it. What prevented me (in

addition to the embarrassment that would have caused to my friends and
family who were with me) was my trust in the Church”

-----No it was not clear. You took the RITUAL seriously perhaps, but
your tone here and in other posts again reflects fear and equivocation,
not the anticipation of a spiritual experience. “Trust in the church” is
nice, but like the ‘religious experience’ issue above, it does not mean
that the endowment would be a spiritual one for you or anyone else. That
is between God and the soul.

“ My thoughts ran something like this: "This warning is frightening. WHAT

exactly am I going to have to swear to? Am I getting into a situation
that will be a spiritual burden instead of a blessing?

---This goes EXACTLY to the point I have been trying to make all along in
all these posts. It is one thing to concerned about one’s ability to
live up to covenants made in the Temple, but to enter the ordinance when
you are “frightened” , or you might feel “burdened” by it later is
precisely WHY you are given the opportunity to leave. I don’t dismiss
your doubts about covenanting, but these doubts should have been resolved
BY YOU before going to the Temple, not by your Bishop or ‘mentors”. If
you “trust” the church as you said above, then you would believe that you
would not be asked to bear any “spiritual burdens” at all

“But I know the Church is true”

----HOW did you “know the church was true”? Intellectually?

“ and I trust that they wouldn't ask me to take any oath that is wrong. I
don't know what I'll be asked to do, but i'll have faith that everything

I'll be asked to do will be holy and good."

----Again Keith, what I see here is a less than prepared spirit for the
Temple. You were obviously NOT ready to take that ‘leap of faith’
required to covenant freely.

“Assuming seems to be a rather strong instinct with you.”

----”Assumption” is not an instinct Keith. It is an opinion based on the
facts in evidence.

“In fact, I was thirteen when I decided to join the Church, and fourteen

when I was actually baptized. I was reasonably well educated for my age,
but really not equipped to penetrate the erroneous ideas and
representations which were (in all innocence, I'm sure) recommended to me

by the missionaries.”

----”Erroneous ideas and representations” Keith? And you are “equipped”
now? I doubt it.

“For one thing, the very first thing missionaries did was mess around
with my epistemological tools by convincing me that a particular sort of

religious experience was a more certain guide to truth than reason,

evidence, scripture or history.”

-----Is this REALLY how you intend to defend your position? This is
unintelligible English.

“Since I think this "fraud" concept is important’

---’Fraud” is not a ‘concept Keith. It is either a ‘fact’ or it is not.
However,.....

“ Let's take another sort of serious obligation(although not so eternally
or spiritually significant) - a business contract. Suppose that negotiate

a business arrangement with ACME company - perhaps a merger or a
distribution agreement. Suppose I later discover that, in spite of due
diligence, ACME has pulled one over on me. Their books were cooked. Their
references were pre-arranged plants. ACME is unable to meet it's side of

the bargain. In fact, they aren't even the same kind of COMPANY I was led

to believe. Perhaps ACME's negotiators and salesmen acted in good faith.

They didn't know either .But the fact is, once I find out the truth, my
contract with ACME will be tossed out and I will seek damages.”

-----The OBVIOUS problem with your analogy is that a failure to live up
to a “business contract” must be PROVEN in a court of law based on
empirical FACTS presented to a judge and jury. “Finding out the truth”
of a religious belief system is based on FAITH, which is not empirical.
So you cannot argue that you have “found out the truth” about the LDS
church, unless you can empirically prove you had a personal visitation
from God.

“Here's a more serious example which happened to someone I know. She had

been dating a man who appeared to be a wonderful Mormon convert. They
dated for some time, fell in love and decided to marry. Once she actually
took up residence as the woman of the house, however, she discovered some
nasty surprises. He had managed to conceal from her that he was massively
in debt (and in fact, managed to destroy HER credit as well). Also,
unknown to her, he was in treatment for sever psychological problems, as
well as debilitating and expensive medical conditions. He had a previous
marriage about which she had not been told, and so it went. I know it's
difficult to believe that it would be possible to date such a man for any
length of time and not catch on to any of this. But I met the man myself,
and he was a master at deception. I came away with a most favorable

opinion of him. Suffice it to say, they threw out the marriage. No
divorce was needed the marriage was ANNULLED. His deception had made her
promises to him null and void.”

-----What has this to do with religious truth? If this man perpetrated a
fraud on this woman, EMPIRICAL FACTS can be presented to substantiate the
allegation of fraud, and she can seek compensation through the court.
“They threw out the marriage”--who is ‘they?’ The court? The church? If
“they” refers to LDS church authorities, and these people were sealed in
the Temple, a ‘Temple divorce’ may be issued for just cause. “Annulment”
is a Catholic term referring to the fact that a sacramental marriage
never took place(in other words, God did not bless the marriage because
one or both of the parties to the marriage contract were incapable of
validly making or keeping the vows they made). Any attempt to use the
above story as an analogy to the endowment covenants is utterly false,
both in terms of LDS church teachings and in logic.

“I believe Mormonism has inherited a fraudulent product. My connection to

Mormonism has been, in my mind, ANNULLED. There were too many skeletons

in the closet, and I never got to see into the closet.”

-----I hate to keep bringing this up, Keith, but is this statement
supposed to make sense??

“Actually, the endowment was pretty much my first exposure to ritual, so
I was quite familiar with the concept of experiencing God without it.””

-----I guess you never attend Sunday meetings--these are rituals Keith.

“ And of COURSE I expected the endowment to be spiritual significant. In

fact, I expected it to be much more "spiritual" than I actually found it

at first - but with practiceI was able to overcome the initial feeling

that this seemed more like a fraternity initiation than a holy ordinance.

”

----Nothing you have written shows this to me. By comparing the
endowment to a “fraternity initiation” you ONCE AGAIN, FOR THE HUNDRETH
TIME, SHOW YOUR LACK OF SPIRITUAL PREPARATION FOR THE TEMPLE.

“A stirring endorsement of personal independence and courage. But the

Mormon social system seems to value conformity somewhat more than

independence.”

-----The “Mormon social system” as you call it values mature, reflective
commitment, not equivocation and qualification(yes I’m using these words
again--’if the shoe fits.....’).

“And I left the Church when leaving meant all my closest friends turning
against me”

-----How close could these “friends be if they turned against you for
leaving the church?

“when it meant admitting that many years of my life had been spent on a

fundamental error, and when I wasn't at all sure if my wife would follow
me out or divorce me. So I've had to do a thing or two that was socially

difficult.”

-----I suspect, given your intense literalism, that many of your
difficulties were magnified by your PERCEPTION of what others would/did
think of your decision.

“Just how was I suppose to confess to my Bishop and Stake President that

I had problems with the endowment when I wasn't even certain what it

would consist of??”

-----I thought you said above you “trusted” the church? Anyway, the issue
was NOT a problem with the endowment, but your evident spiritual doubts
about what you were planning to undertake. FORM again, linear thinking...
...........................

“Even after going, it wouldn't have entered into my mind (yet) that
anything the Church
had asked me to do could possibly be immoral”

-----another ‘closet’ ad hominem Keith. Childish.

” All I was conscious of what that I didn't seem to enjoy the temple as

much as I thought I OUGHT, but instead felt somewhat uneasy - a defect in

myself,”

-----”ENJOY”???????????? Are you SERIOUS?? The Temple is WORK Keith, and
if you projected in your mind that ‘heavenly choirs’ would be singing
‘hosannas’ to you, you were more out of touch with the Temple experience
than even I imagined. If you perceived a ‘defect’ in yourself, perhaps in
was a sense of spiritual equivocation?

“It is only upon considerable reflection after the fact that I can now
say that there was something wrong with the endowment.”

------What is the BASIS of your “considerable reflection”? It cannot be
spiritual.

“My intent is not to "come up with something". I'm simply stating what I

believe to be the truth. If it's redundant, then I apologize that others

noticed this problem before I did.”

----The issue is that you made a “problem” where none existed.

“It occurs to me that you are invoking your mantra against "FORM" so

often that you really might be able to justify ANY objective, concrete,

evil behavior with a little more application.”

---If I use the word FORM, it is because of YOUR obsession with it. It
oozes out of almost every statement you make. “Justification” is just
another word for equivocation, the basis of your moral and religious life.

“For example, shall we decide, perhaps, that ritual fornication in the
temple would be acceptable, so long as there was After all there is
precedent in several pagan rituals.”

----PLEASE, OH PLEASE organize your thoughts into grammatically correct
English!

“ Perhaps we could accentuate the "penalties" by actually engaging in a

bit of ritual slashing and blood-letting, as the priest of Baal? After
all, it's only form. The SUBSTANCE of the slashing - which would be the
spiritual emphasis of our eagerness to get God's attention, is what is

central.”

--------I really DO believe that you are “INVINCIBLY IGNORANT”. You
haven’t a CLUE about what you are talking about. I’m glad I taught you
how to spell “BAAL’.

“ The point is, the objective, concrete acts of our body matters. What we

say and what we do, may be "form", but you can't run away from your

responsibility for the form, as WELL as the substance”

------more poor English, confused concepts, defective logic ‘ad nauseam’.
..

“In the first place, I don't object to the IDEA of "borrowing from the

culture" (although Joseph doesn't seem to have let on that he was

borrowing). It is the CONTENT of what is borrowed that it at issue.”

----No it isn’t. The issue is your CONTINUAL misunderstanding of FORM
AND SUBSTANCE.

“ Shall we imitate pornography or senseless violence, both a

strong part of our culture? Or shall we admit that some cultural sources

are inappropriate?”

-----just plain ignorant.

“Secondly, I completely disagree that the resemblance to Masonry is not

substantial. The very ESSENCE of both rituals, as I have stated, is

progression from degree to degree of advancement”

------Even YOU use the word ‘ritual’ here. Don’t you have a theological
dictionary that will explain the difference between ‘ritual’ and
‘essence’(read:substance)? You do not UNDERSTAND or USE words correctly
which accounts for your CONTINUAL conceptual and contextual errors about
the church and Temple..

“Compared to what is shared in the fundamental spirit of the rituals, the
differences are of secondary significance.”

-----murdered English again.....................

“There are several problems here. First of all, you equate belief system
with core values. This is not necessarily so.”

-----Of course it is “so” Keith. ‘Values’ are not innate in people, they
are taught and learned by everyone, and if the system taught is defective,
the resulting values will be defective as well. Religious “belief
systems” are not simply statements of theological principles but
teachers of core values. An elementary understanding of Western
Civilization makes it clear that the foundations of our society are
based on such ‘core values’ commonly held.

“Many of my core values remain the same now as when I was a Mormon.

Others have changed, based on my belief system - since I have come to the
conclusion that a number of things I believed to be true were actually
false and a number of things I

believed to be false were actually true.”

-----”Others have changed”--like what? You can modify, compromise,
equivocate, waffle, flip-flop, or ignore core values taught to you, but
you cannot “change them often” (as you said before) and be stable.
Remember Jesus’ question to Peter?

“This change did not come about, as you suggest, in response to the

"situation of the moment", but over the course of years of painful

evaluation.”

-----How much ‘time’ you spent in “painful evaluation” does not change
the fact that, in your OWN words, your faith was always qualified, and
little by little (or ‘situation by situation’)you moved further away from
the church. “A gift not used is withdrawn................”

“I think the Bishops would probably be delighted if Kung and Curran could

be as principled as Bennett and disassociate themselves from a Church

who's teachings they openly contradict.”

---You obviously know NOTHING about Kung or Curran, and apparently have
not read anything by the CBofA. Bennet “principled”?? Don’t make me
laugh.

“The Church must be what it is and teach what Christ has commanded it to
teach.”

------The LDS church--right Keith, you have got it:)

“ But, while censuring such theologians as Kung, it does NOT claim to

know the state of their individual conscience before God - something you

appear to be claiming to know in the case of both Bennett and myself.”

-----Not in this context Keith. I am interested only in the “state” of
your illogical and defective arguments. You and Bennet don’t have to
explain your apostasy to me, only to God.

“You are "sure" about the darndest things. I haven't even BEGUN to

describe my preparation for Catholicism. It included both spiritual and
intellectual experiences and processes that you couldn't possibly be

privy to”

----not your preparation personally, but I studied Catholicism at one
time with a priest, so I am QUITE familiar with Catholicism.

“ And simply HAVING "core values" (which I do, of course, like most

people) or stable beliefs isn't quite so important as that those values

be correct, good, and true.”

----You said before that you knew the LDS church was ‘true’, which was
not so, and here you claim to know what values are “correct, good, and
true/” Given your record of qualification, how can anyone accept that
you really know or believe what you are saying here?

>---I am amazed the church there survived so well, given you infidelity
and fortitude.

“I like the sentence above, because it brings two questions to mind at

the same time. #1 Why do you frequently criticize the grammar, spelling
and English usage of others when your own isn't particularly stellar?”

----I thought that incorrect spelling and poor grammar once in a while
would make you feel more comfortable, since it seems to be your ‘style’.
However, it pains me greatly to imitate you, so I will stop.

“#2 Why do you accuse people of being judgmental and then pass such
scathing judgments yourself?”

----ONCE AGAIN, it is the positions you take I criticize, not you
personally. It is YOU who feel “judged”, and there is nothing I can do
about that.

“I doubt that either the Bishops or the CDF has the time to settle the

point for us, but I have a number of contacts among professors in
theology departments who could probably weigh in on the issue. I'll ask

them.”

--Good idea. Make sure they teach at a ‘Pontifical’ university, to make
sure their opinions are considered ‘orthodox’ by Rome.

> conscience the final arbiter of truth, which it is not,“I am NOT,

however, making conscience the final arbiter of "truth". It is simply
(unless defective) the baseline against which God will judge us. To whom
much is given (in terms of knowledge and an informed conscience) much

will be required.”

-----Very good Keith. You are beginning to ‘see the light’ :)

END OF PART 1-------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------

[Alan Mowbray]

PART DEUX-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------

“No such comparison was made. I was comparing the PRINCIPLE (as it has

come up in this discussion) that a sworn promise [whatever it might be]

is the highest moral duty to the central device of that show, which is
identical.”

-----”The highest moral duty to the central device of the show”--I’m
afraid your sentence is unintelligible here as it relates to this thread.

“Frederick is convinced it is his moral duty under his indentures, even
though he despises everything the pirates stand for.”

----Even if it were logical to compare a theatrical event with the
endowment, Freddy CLEARLY shows a defective conscience. Indentured
servitude is slavery, not freely taken covenants.”

“It's not too particularly difficult to claim "invincible ignorance" n

your opponent when the fact is that your argument isn't persuasive. A few
more solid facts might do wonders for your case. Specifically, you
accused Bennett of "factual misrepresentation" about the temple. When
asked for support this, you fail to point out any case of factual error,
but rather several areas where you think Bennett doesn't give enough

background for non-LDS readers. That's a far cry from "factual
misrepresentation".

-----I’m not interested in “pointing out factual errors” in RITUALS,
which is what you really would like to see posted. My concern with
Bennet and you are THEOLOGICAL comparisons, misrepresentations, half-
truths, obfuscation, and conjecture that distort
the LDS church. If you guys have ‘ an ax to grind’ with the church,
thats OK. If you and Bennet choose to discuss the Temple ordinances
after promising to not to do so, thats on your head not mine. The fact
is, there is no intention by Bennet or you to give an objective view of
the LDS church. Of course you and Bennet would not find arguments
“persuasive” by any LDS--as with Pharaoh yours “hearts” have been
hardened.

“Ah. Then you didn't mean "disingenuous". Disingenuous implies that I'm
trying to fool you. It is a form of dishonesty”

-----You are not fooling me, as I know better. Perhaps you are not being
honest with.yourself.

“You'll find each of the adjectives I described in Bennett's article, so

THAT part can't be fantasy. Perhaps the descriptions? Which descriptions

did you find to be incorrect?”

----I’ve been over this above.

“Well, if you read the other responses on this thread, you'll find that

there seems to be some variety of opinion about just what the bishop's
role should involve. Some are glad that the questions are very specific,

and limit the bishop's opportunity to probe into uninvited areas.”

-----I do read them, and as I have written before the recommend
interview is not meant ot be a counseling session, UNLESS there is some
issue that would effect the Bishop’s decision to give a recommend.

“Several bishops that interviewed me absolutely refused to provide any
explanation for any of the questions, and left it entirely up to ME o

interpret the questions as I saw fit. The "discernment" was left entirely

up to me.”

-----I find this hard to believe, unless these Bishops felt your tone or
attitude in asking for an “explanation” was seen to be confrontational by
them. Every Bishop I know is more than willing to discuss such questions.

“nuances of conscience were never explained to me. Now I understand that

when a Mormon bishop asks you if you are TOTALLY honest, he doesn't want

you to respond totally honestly ;-)”

-----They never are “explained” TO you Keith, but BY you, if you have
been raised properly. Your conscience reflects your core values, and an
LDS Bishop DOES want you to be “totally honest” with him, just not so
literal( they told you that you were to literal, remember?)

“Such a pity you weren't there to correct my bishops in their dereliction
of duty”

---How true :)..

“Actually, I see YOUR position as the relativistic and situational one.”

------Why amsurpriseduprised?

“ It's difficult to discuss any aspect of the LDS Church with you in

objective terms because the entire structure of the Church and all it's

practices are only a chimerical "FORM" in your parlance.”
translateanslate this into English please......................

“ All of it is a clever disguise for the real "substance" of the whole
thing.”

--------translate AGAIN please!!

“ And this substance is only discernable by someone with the
ppreparationeratiopreparationeration which YOU manage tachievedcheived,
but which anyone who disagrees with you has not.”

-----Yes Keith! This is called a ‘testimony’.

“These poor, unprepared souls are handicapped, alas, by their deep
psychological problems and preoccupations and failed t reach the
enlightened state.”

-----sounds more like Buddhism to me than CofJCofLDS.

“Then, of course, the possibility seems to loom in the back of the mind,

begging for a hearing, that all of this is simply a rather transparent
technique for avoiding any kind of objective discussion, at the expense

of your targets.”

------The original point of this entire thread was the lack of
objectivity in Bennet’s article. How quickly you forget. Your ‘logic’ is
the only “transparent” part of this discussion. With your qualifications
as theologian and philosopher you might get a job with “Catholic Answers”.
Ask Karl, see what he says. You and Bennet can go on the road together.

--Alan

END OF PART DEUX----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------

[Alan Mowbray]

> You understand that right? Religion is an emotional topic, men have

> fought wars over it.

>

“Believe me I know, I cry with the best of them. One can be emotional and
passionate
about this but there is no need to be belligerent or belittling.”

-----Sorry you are so sensitive Steve. Being provocative is not
“belligerent” and if you feel my posts “belittle” people PERSONALLY, you
are incorrect, as I do not know them. My arrows are meant for their
opinions. When I post something, it is generally long and there are
dozens of issues involved in responding to others. If I use phrases you
deem as personal attacks, I suggest you grow a thicker skin. I also
suggest you read your most recent postings to me and ask yourself if YOU
practice what you preach to me.
You may be found wanting.

---Alan (nothing personal) Mowbray

[Steve Roberts]

Alan Mowbray wrote:

> Keith said:
>
> “There is an intellectual responsibility to have
>
> significant evidence to base your "deduction" UPON in
>
> order to merit CALLING it a deduction.”
>
> -----Deduction ,my dear Keith, is intuitive, based on the evidence
> presented as well as the logic o or the lack thereof, Your posts give
> MORE THAN AMPLE “significant evidence” of defective logic, linear
> thinking, and equivocations. If you cannot comprehend basic English or
> abstracts concepts, how can you comment on significant religious issues
> intelligent?

My aren't we condescending?

<SNIP>

> “ Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how (in good conscience) you
> could mistakenly attack me in one thread for what you supposed to be my
> presumptive judging of other's unworthiness to enter the temple and then
> engage in a preemptive judging of MY preparation.”
>
> -----If you believed you were “mistakenly attacked” by me, then you are
> wrong. I don’t know you personally. These words of yours imply a degree
> of defensiveness on your part. What I take issue with are your POSITIONS,
> not you personally. I have told you this before. ‘Left-handed’ remarks
> about the state of my “conscience” are childish, and diminish the
> relevancy of your arguments.

Ya, right Al, I wonder why anyone would think you have a habit of attacking Keith?
Just a sample of your self righteous blabbage below.

"Where did you get this line, Keith, from a cheap novel?"

"Try thinking before you shoot off your mouth"

"Surely you can manage SOME creative response, even if it is flawed and morally
defective."

"I would have thought you could come up with something more creative and original."

"You suffer from a theological principle of the Catholic church called invincible
ignorance"

"Your lack off (sic) spiritual formation is fundamentally immoral."

"It once again shows your abysmal lack of spiritual sensibility."

"--- Invincible ignorance again rears it s ugly head---"

"Keith,
It is very difficult to respond to you in a literate and intelligent way, as
your post is so poorly organized and written. However, lets take a stab at
it."

"If you cannot comprehend basic English or abstracts concepts, how can you comment
on significant religious issues intelligent?"

"----PLEASE, OH PLEASE organize your thoughts into grammatically correct English!"

"--------I really DO believe that you are “INVINCIBLY IGNORANT”. You haven’t a

CLUE about what you are talking about. I’m glad I taught you how to spell “BAAL’."

"------more poor English, confused concepts, defective logic ‘ad nauseam’.
.."

" ----I thought that incorrect spelling and poor grammar once in a while would

make you feel more comfortable, since it seems to be your ‘style’. However, it
pains me greatly to imitate you, so I will stop."

Al, it's time for rationalization mode.

<SNIP>

>
> “ and I trust that they wouldn't ask me to take any oath that is wrong. I
> don't know what I'll be asked to do, but i'll have faith that everything
> I'll be asked to do will be holy and good."
>
> ----Again Keith, what I see here is a less than prepared spirit for the
> Temple. You were obviously NOT ready to take that ‘leap of faith’
> required to covenant freely.
>

By what right do you judge Keith?

<SNIP>

> “For one thing, the very first thing missionaries did was mess around
> with my epistemological tools by convincing me that a particular sort of
> religious experience was a more certain guide to truth than reason,
> evidence, scripture or history.”
>
> -----Is this REALLY how you intend to defend your position? This is
> unintelligible English.

Why so?

<SNIP>

>
> “I believe Mormonism has inherited a fraudulent product. My connection to
> Mormonism has been, in my mind, ANNULLED. There were too many skeletons
> in the closet, and I never got to see into the closet.”
>
> -----I hate to keep bringing this up, Keith, but is this statement
> supposed to make sense??
>

Al, get off it. What is wrong with this? His statement of course makes sense. Just
because we don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

> “Actually, the endowment was pretty much my first exposure to ritual, so
> I was quite familiar with the concept of experiencing God without it.””
>
> -----I guess you never attend Sunday meetings--these are rituals Keith.
>

Yea and so is breathing. Give us a break.

> “ And of COURSE I expected the endowment to be spiritual significant. In
> fact, I expected it to be much more "spiritual" than I actually found it
> at first - but with practiceI was able to overcome the initial feeling
> that this seemed more like a fraternity initiation than a holy ordinance.
> ”
>
> ----Nothing you have written shows this to me. By comparing the
> endowment to a “fraternity initiation” you ONCE AGAIN, FOR THE HUNDRETH
> TIME, SHOW YOUR LACK OF SPIRITUAL PREPARATION FOR THE TEMPLE.
>

It's a fraternity initiation and a holy ordinance. It's two, two rituals in one.
double your pleasure double your fun...

<SNIP>

>
> ” All I was conscious of what that I didn't seem to enjoy the temple as
> much as I thought I OUGHT, but instead felt somewhat uneasy - a defect in
> myself,”
>
> -----”ENJOY”???????????? Are you SERIOUS?? The Temple is WORK Keith, and
> if you projected in your mind that ‘heavenly choirs’ would be singing
> ‘hosannas’ to you, you were more out of touch with the Temple experience
> than even I imagined. If you perceived a ‘defect’ in yourself, perhaps in
> was a sense of spiritual equivocation?
>

So Al, don't you enjoy your work?

<SNIP>

> --------I really DO believe that you are “INVINCIBLY IGNORANT”. You
> haven’t a CLUE about what you are talking about. I’m glad I taught you
> how to spell “BAAL’.
>

Attaboy Al, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

<SNIP>

> “Compared to what is shared in the fundamental spirit of the rituals, the
> differences are of secondary significance.”
>
> -----murdered English again.....................
>

You ain't exactly Hemingway.

<SNIP>

>
> >---I am amazed the church there survived so well, given you infidelity
> and fortitude.
>

I amazed that the church survives with self righteous intolerants like you.

<SNIP>

> ----ONCE AGAIN, it is the positions you take I criticize, not you
> personally. It is YOU who feel “judged”, and there is nothing I can do
> about that.
>

What a joke, Al. You are so blind.

>----Very good Keith. You are beginning to ‘see the light’ :)

and arrogant on top of it.

Ya know Al, I do believe that there are those in this forum who only respond to
your sort of approach. You may even be surprized whom you might see use it,
serving kind for kind, but it is beyond me why Keith deserves these attacks.

I dare say Al, I see little charity and Christ like love in your responses.

-steve-

[RJHOLZ]

Amen Alan!

[Steve Roberts]

David Black wrote:
>
> In article <31BC2D...@isysg.com>, Steve Roberts
> <steve....@isysg.com> wrote:
>
> : Al, talk about FORM over SUBSTANCE. Do you ever read what you write?
> You may have
> : some good points but your apparent insecurities masked by belligerent
> attacks has
> : the effect to cause one to lose the message while pitying the messenger.
>
> Al suffer's from what we all do, Emotion. Only some of us cannot handle
> it and some close it in no matter what. Emotional men make better
> husbands (my wife thinks so) but makes us bad at argument because we take
> it so personally.
>

> You understand that right? Religion is an emotional topic, men have
> fought wars over it.
>

Believe me I know, I cry with the best of them. One can be emotional and passionate
about this but there is no need to be belligerent or belittling.

-steve-

[Steve Roberts]

Hey Al, does your software have a problem keeping these threads threaded?

You really are ignorant aren't you? Shall we go for idiot, as well?

steve(takes one to know one)roberts

[Helen Sillasen]

Robert Craig Harman <pa...@byu.edu> wrote:

>> >> Can you speak a little plainer, please?
>> >> My senses are overloaded with too many Secret/Sacred words. <g>
>>
>> >That would depend. Which part did you need clarified?
>>
>> ....sorry...but all of it. I'm just a slow comprehentional person,
>> I guess.

>OK, in simpler terms:

[lots of good stuff snipped]

>Because it's such a catchy phrase, many LDS have bought into the
>"sacred, not secret" tripe, even though the reality of the matter
>("sacred, thus secret") is not that much more difficult a concept...

>...Craig

Thanks Craig, for explaining it a little better for me. Your a doll!

Best,
Helen

[G. Merrill Dodge]

Robert Craig Harman wrote:
>
> I think that too many people get hung up thinking of "secret" as
> "clandestine", "surreptitious", or "underhand"--that is terms of
> concealing evil purposes--which need not be the case.
>
> We covenant not to disclose the temple ceremonies so that they are not
> profaned by those who would esteem them for naught. That covenant is
> a promise to keep the ceremonies _secret_, so that they remain _sacred_.
>

> Because it's such a catchy phrase, many LDS have bought into the
> "sacred, not secret" tripe, even though the reality of the matter
> ("sacred, thus secret") is not that much more difficult a concept...

Well said.

There is nothing wrong with holding some things as secret so why
apologize. Even if others would break the promise.

We all have various circles of inclusion: Groups of people with whom we
will share things. I will share some possessions/experiences with some
people and not others. That is my decision to make. God decides what he
will share. I will not give out my visa card number over the phone or the
net because I don't want them used by anyone but me. The whole concept
of priesthood is one of *authorized* use of that which belongs to God.

Those who would take what God has given with restriction to a certain circle of
inclusion and distribute it without regard to God's intention are thieves. They
are the ones being surreptitious and underhanded. If they gripe about the
exclusivity of the endowment they are like the bank robber who complains that the
door to the vault isn't left open for him. They are swine crying for pearls to be
cast before them.

There! I feel so much better now.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
G. Merrill Dodge
Unisys, Mountain West Sofware Engineering Group, Publications
Mailto:MDo...@slcpo2.slc.unisys.com

[David Black]

:> (sort of like Joseph Smith's Jupiter Talisman).

Joseph NEVER had one of these, and any book that tells you otherwise is
just repeating a lie.

[RJHOLZ]

Why don't yous show us what you have to offer? All I see here is
childish ad hominems. Perhaps what is "soft" here is not Alan"s
software, but your head. If you get your GED you might understand more
in the future.

[Scott Marquardt]

Steve Roberts wrote:
>Alan Mowbray wrote:
>>
>> Gee whiz, do I stand rebuked! Commenting on matters of which you
>> demonstrate no understanding are hardly useful, and certainly not "damage
>> control" Spare me your helpful comments, as you have none to offer. If
>> you have some concrete ideas in this thread post them, and we can look at
>> your "delivery". If not, why waste time here.
>
>Hey Al, does your software have a problem keeping these threads threaded?

This is something that has freaked me out. I had thought it was a glitch at my
end, but it really is the Prodigy thing, eh? I mean, not only is the reader
garbling messages, but it's also trashing thread structure!

Steve, do you have any idea how many CDs and disks I get in the mail _each week_
from these online services? I've gotta tell you, these outfits are about the
weirdest thing going, IMO. I realize that some folk without an A-band ISP PoP
might be able to get a decent monthly fee and a nearby PoP with these services,
but for my part I shudder to think what the Chicago scene would be like without
ISPs.

Cordially,

Scott Marquardt

[Keith Campbell]

ar...@teleport.com (Arden Eby) wrote:

>>Fortunately for Mormons, that is no longer required. What IS still
>>an issue with Mormonism (since we are speaking of racism) is the
>>idea ingrained in it from the Book of Mormon that skin color is a
>>barometer of righteousness.

>That's funny. The Book of Mormon very plainly says just the opposite.
>One need not resort to "Nibleyesque" arguments. The text of the Book
>of Mormon makes it quite clear:

>2 Nephi 26:33

> 33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that
>which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it
>be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
>unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come
>unto him, **black and white,** bond and free, male and female; and he
>remembereth the heathen; and **all are alike unto God.**

Ok, I accept that as a good clarification. The Book of Mormon doesn't
make skin color a barometer of INDIVIDUAL righteousness, but of RACIAL
righteousness. The scripture above, along with Jacob 3:8 and the
teaching of Samuel the Lamanite in Helaman 13 and onward - make clear
that people of dark skin can be more righteous than people of light
skin.

But let's not run away from the rest of the Book of Mormon, which also
clearly teaches that dark skin is originally an artifact of divine
indignation with a people, and that white skin is an artifact of
divine blessing. This is true at LEAST for the BofM peoples, and of
course the same idea had wide currency regarding the mark of Cain, so
it seems to be something of a general principle. It is an inescapable
conclusion from this that dark skin is BAD and undesirable - a curse,
at least in God's eyes. True, such a cursed individual can endure
their cursing in humility and righteousness, but it is still a curse.

>>Back to the original charge - I would be very grateful if you could
>>support your contention, especially the exact document where the
>>Church "declared" the inhumanity of the Indians.

>I did not say that the church "declared the inhumanity of the
>Indians" generally. just the Guarani. I can't refer you to the
>primary sources yet, but I'll continue looking. A good secondary
>source is: Bangert, William V. _History of the Society of Jesus_. St.
>Louis: Society for Jesuit Sources, 1972.

I'll try to find it, but I'd appreciate something better if possible.

>I looked into this incident a few years ago after being deeply moved
>by the film _The Mission_.

Good film.

>I confirmed that the basic story portrayed
>in the film was accurate. That is that since, as you put it...

>>a number of Papal documents...going back
>>to the mid 1400's, which condemn and forbid slavery and clearly
>>teach the HUMANITY of the Amerinds

>[One has to be impressed that the church regarded Amerinds to be human
>even before it knew about their existence....<grin>]

Hey, your cheating! You clipped my quote, which originally read "which
condemn and forbid slavery and clearly teach the HUMANITY of the
Amerinds *AND OTHER PEOPLES*" [emphasis added] The "other peoples" in
question were inhabitants of the Canary Islands, newly discovered in
1435 when Pope Eugene IV issued the bull "Sicut Dudum", which said:

"They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to
their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said
islands to perpetual slavery (<subdiderunt perpetuae servituti>), sold
them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil
deeds against them.... Therefore We ... exhort, through the sprinkling
of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, emporal
princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles,
communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful
of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist
from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist
from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and
command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the
space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place
where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and
each person of either sex who were once residents of said
Canary Islands ... who have been made subject to slavery (<servituti
subicere>). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and
are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."

The Canaries were one of the first newly-discovered territories, from
the first wave of global exploration. So here the Church condemns
slavery, condemns it as soon as it is found, and condemns it in the
strongest terms.

In 1537, Paul III, with "Sublimis Deus" and several related bulls,
reemphasised the same teaching with regard to Amerinds.

"And since mankind, according to the witness of Sacred Scripture, was
created for eternal life and happiness, and since no one is able to
attain this eternal life and happiness except through faith in our
Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary to confess that man is of such a
nature and condition that he is capable to receive faith in Christ and

that everyone who possesses human nature is apt for receiving such
faith . . . Therefore the Truth Himself Who can neither deceive nor be
deceived, when He destined the preachers of the faith to the office of
preaching, is known to have said: 'Going, make disciples of all
nations.' 'All,' he said, without any exception, since all are capable
of the discipline of the faith."

""Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always
opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a
way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word
of God from being preached to the nations. He has stirred up some of
his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming
to assert far and wide that the Indians of the West and the South who
have come to our notice in these times be reduced to our service like
brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic
Faith. And they reduce them to slavery (<Et eos in servitutem
redigunt>), treating them with afflictions they would scarcely
use with brute animals."

"Therefore, We, . . . noting that the Indians themselves indeed are
true men and are not only capable of the Christian faith, but, as has
been made known to us, promptly hasten to the faith' and wishing to
provide suitable remedies for them, by our Apostolic Authority decree
and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all
other peoples-even though they are outside the faith-who shall
hereafter come to the knowledge of Christians have not been deprived
or should not be deprived of their liberty or of their possessions.
Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this
ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to
slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered
null and void. These same Indians and other peoples are to be invited
to the said faith in Christ by preaching and the example of a good
life."

The teaching was reiterated by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII
in 1639 in his document <Commissum Nobis>. Slavery was agan forbidden
in a response of the Holy Office on March 20, 1686, under Innocent XI,
and by the encyclical of Benedict XIV, <Immensa Pastorum>, on December
20, 1741. These are only the examples BEFORE the Guarani massacre. So
there is good evidence to say that the Church taught the humanity of
the Amerinds and the illegality of slavery from the beginning.

>> the Church, under threat of retaliation from the
>>Portuguese, withdrew the protection of the Jesuit missions. This
>>was cowardly

>the legate declared the Guarani to be non-human and thus unworthy of
>the continued protection of the church. You could, perhaps argue that
>this was his personal decision and violated official church teaching.
>Perhaps. However, if you do so, Mormons must be given the same
>leeway.

#1, I WOULD like to see the words of the "declaration" complete and in
context. What you say is certainly possible, but if so then yes, I
would insist that this was his personal decision and violated the
official Church teachings quoted above. And yes, I believe I have
always given Mormons the same leeway. I don't accept a complete
retreat by Mormons into a tiny subset of "official Mormon doctrine" -
not if it can be demonstrated that the doctrine is widely and
generally believed without contradiction from the Church officially (a
Mother in Heaven, for example) But neither do I hold that just because
you can find something in one speach from the Journal of Discourses or
hear it at a Stake Conference it's Mormon Doctrine.

>Further, even if we ignore the Guarani incident, one still must
>remember that 1/2 to 2/3rds of the funds used to build churches in
>colonial Latin America came from the encomenderos and thus from what
>was essentially the slave labor of native Americans. This is true
>regardless of what the church officially taught.

That's another figure that might be difficult to jusfity, but in any
case, the support of churches in Catholic countries wasn't looked on
in the same way as charitable contributions in America. The Church
was, in effect, a social services branch of the government, and the
funds that supported it were more like taxes than contributions. Just
as even a drug dealer can be nailed for tax violations, even slavers
were expected to contribute financially to the social/spiritual
welfare - PARTICULARLY slavers, since they caused the most damage. The
Church received revenues from the society REGARDLESS of what economy
of the situation might be. If the country were full of watchmakers,
then churches would be build with the funds of watchmakers. If the
country were full of slavers violating the Church's teaching on
slavery, then the churches would be built with the funds of slavers.
In a similar way, in Utah, Mormons enjoy state services and benefits
financed in part from the incomes of state-run liquor stores.

-KHC
AMDG

[Keith Campbell]

amowb...@aol.com (AMowbray96) wrote:

>Why can't you come up with some original thoughts Keith?? Why repost a
>discreditied piece. Surely you can manage SOME creative response, even if

>it is flawed and morally defective.

Which discredited piece did I repost and how was it discredited?
Creativity is not my goal. Accuracy is more important.

-KC
AMDG

[Scott Marquardt]

RJHOLZ wrote:
>Steve Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Alan Mowbray wrote:
>> >
>> > Gee whiz, do I stand rebuked! Commenting on matters of which you
>> > demonstrate no understanding are hardly useful, and certainly not "damage
>> > control" Spare me your helpful comments, as you have none to offer. If
>> > you have some concrete ideas in this thread post them, and we can look at
>> > your "delivery". If not, why waste time here.
>>
>> Hey Al, does your software have a problem keeping these threads threaded?
>>

>> You really are ignorant aren't you? Shall we go for idiot, as well?
>>
>> steve(takes one to know one)roberts
>
>
>Why don't yous show us what you have to offer? All I see here is
>childish ad hominems. Perhaps what is "soft" here is not Alan"s
>software, but your head. If you get your GED you might understand more
>in the future.

Should I make the chain of diatribe oone person longer? That would make it:

Kieth, the original target of
Alan, whose scorn presented itself to
Steve, who took a bead on Alan only to perturb
RJ, who in turn, by dint of cumulative effect by this time, made
Scott note that this kind of thing could go on forever.

Now listen guys, if we're going to do this right, none of the above parties may
respond to this post. We need some _fresh_ participants.

Cordially,

Scott Marquardt

[Scott Marquardt]

Alan Mowbray wrote:

>-----Sorry you are so sensitive Steve. Being provocative is not
>“belligerent” and if you feel my posts “belittle” people PERSONALLY, you
>are incorrect, as I do not know them.

Wow.

Sounds like a carte blanche to be a jerk, if you ask me!

Cordially,

Scott Marquardt

[Keith Campbell]

mier...@croton.psych.indiana.edu (Michael A. Erickson) wrote:

>FYI, the temple interview questions have been changed, and, Keith, if
>theye were such a problem before, you can now feel free to return to
>the LDS church without worrying about these particular problems.

Really? I'd be interested in learning what the new questions are. No,
I'm afraid they weren't my reason for leaving the Church. In fact, I
didn't really have any problem with the questions at all. They came up
when Alan challenged Bennett's assertion that a person requesting a
recommend is required to affirm his worthiness. Is the "are you worthy
in every way" question still in the interview?

Thanks for the response, by the way.

-KHC
AMDG

[Keith Campbell]

Steve Roberts <steve....@isysg.com> wrote:

>Keith Campbell wrote:

>Thanks Keith. Your perspective is very much appreciated and insightful. As a kid
>the Catholic Church scared me. I had Catholic friends that went to Catholic
>schools that hated it. (Really didn't like those mean nuns and plaid skirts etc.)
>I remember in the back of my mind an old black and white movie about the crusades
>and red hot pokers putting out eyes of a children by priests. (It may have not
>even been about catholics but during that time with my friends I thought so. I was
>only 7 or 8.) The whole mafia thing etc. Anyway ever since I have had a hard time
>seeing any rationality in your faith. (And of course I didn't directly search it
>out.) Anyway your thoughtful posts have been helpful for me and I have gained a
>lot from them.

Well, when you have several thousand years of history to choose from,
there's bound to be ample material to choose from if you want some BAD
examples of "Catholicism" . On the other hand, I've only recently
realized what a great deal of history I've missed by being raised in a
Protestant culture.
As to Catholic schools, my wife went to them when she was a girl, and
her bad experience with them was one of the reasons she had such a bad
time comming back to Catholicism. There were a few nuns and priests
she still needed to forgive.
As for us, we're homeschoolers, so the issue of WHO'S schools are the
most abominable doesn't come up ;-)

>Some of the finest experiences I have found in life is when I am made
>aware and overcome some of my blind prejudices.

Absolutely. There's no experience quite as exhilirating to me as
realizing that I was completely wrong about something. I'm not sure
quite why that is, but it's GREAT.

>Ok, if you wont breakup your sentences will you at least stretch out you netscape
>window a bit more when you reply so the orginal stuff doesn't get hashed up. ;-)

>-steve(pontificatee)roberts-

I'm trying a new newsreader. Let's see if it helps.

-KHC
AGDG

[Keith Campbell]

Technically, I've not revealed anything in these messages which I
specifically took an oath not to reveal. I HAVE discussed the temple
in a level of detail which I'm sure some would feel violates the
general teaching of the Church not to discuss the temple.
I want to reiterate, however, that I do not any longer feel bound by
the temple oaths. I submitted to them, not knowing what they would
even be, because I trusted the Church. Since I now feel that A) The
Church defrauded me and B) The being to whom the oaths are primarily
made doesn't exist, I feel absolutely no moral compulsion in regards
to these oaths. I DO try to respect the sensibilities of the LDS in
discussing the temple, but I will probably sometimes go over the line
in the estimation of some.

Again, I apologise for the forcefulness of saying "The Church
defrauded me". I wouldn't normally approach it so strongly (even
though it's what I actually think) because it But it doesn't make any
sense to say "I broke sacred oaths because I have a few minor issues
with what the Church teaches." when that understates the serious
nature of the problem.

-KHC
AMGD

[Keith Campbell]

>In <31B9EE...@isysg.com>, Steve Roberts <steve....@isysg.com> writes:

>This is an interesting conundrum. One could argue that if you are ready to go to
>the temple, then it doesn't matter that you don't know beforehand. I mean part of
>the entrance fee is to already have professed to believe the church is run by
>revelation etc. If the temple ceremony is part of the gospel then its part of the
>gospel. If one answers the entrance exam truthfully then one shouldn't complain
>about what they experience in the temple because its part of the deal.
>
>The key is to make sure you are ready to go to the temple and I don't think that
>has much to do with what goes on in the temple but about one's own basic faith
>and commitment prior to going into the temple. I think its the examiners (read
>bishop and stake presidents) role to insure that the candidate is ready. (It use
>to be that the bishop and the stake president gave the yearly interviews, but now
>the councelors can *except* for your first trip [own endowment] to the temple.)
>
>Because the ceremony is sacred if you are not ready for it ("No wine before its
>time" or the scriptorial equivalent) then you are not ready for it.
>
>So the issue arises once you get to the temple having, answered the questions
>truthfully, go through it and think "My this is wacko, I guess I don't believe
>the church is run by revelation." My guess, at that point the real question to
>oneselve would not be about the wacko stuff in the temple but how was it that I
>thought I knew this church was true to begin with and more importantly how will
>I ever know if anything is true in the future.
>
>If your point is that one may fully believe the gospel (LDS) but are not ready to
>make the commitments then I revert to my earlier comments about the discernment
>of the bishop (And shame on him if he gets it wrong).

Agreed. If you caught some of my other messages on this thread (and I
can certainly understand if you didn't) This is basically the position
I took - "Boy, this is a bit wierd and I don't really like it... but
the Church is true, so I'll accept it."

I didn't doubt the Church was true because I didn't like the temple,
but rather I eventually rejected the temple because I came to doubt
the Church.

I'm only going into these issues by way of explanation for the
question "how could you break your oaths?"

And actually, to be perfectly honest, most of them are just "filler"
after the first one - which is that, since I no longer believe the
Church is what it claims to be, then the oaths it asked of me on that
basis are null. Your point actually speaks directly to this issue -
since people do (and I did) "sign away" part of their right to
objecting to the temple oaths on the basis of the Church being true,
then if the Church is NOT true, they have "signed away" this moral
perogative on non-existant grounds.

As I said, the other issues - secrecy, lack of informed consent, etc
are only issues that arise if one doubts the Church, and so will be of
no interest to (and totally unpersuasive toward) currently faithful
LDS.

Actually, I don't even object to the concept of accepting these kinds
of moral obligations on authority. I do it all the time as a Catholic.
I have a hard time believing that God expects EVERYONE to have the
energy, time and spiritual and intellectual capacity to arrive at the
truth of every issue of faith and morality by their own individual
effort. BUT if one comes to have serious reason to change one's
opinion on the one central question - the validity of the authority -
then all the other issues accepted on that basis suddenly come into
question, in a giant cascade...

-KHC
AMDG

[Scott Marquardt]

Alan Mowbray wrote:
>Keith said:

>“There is an intellectual responsibility to have
>significant evidence to base your "deduction" UPON in
>order to merit CALLING it a deduction.”

>-----Deduction ,my dear Keith, is intuitive

??!!?

>, based on the evidence
>presented as well as the logic o or the lack thereof, Your posts give
>MORE THAN AMPLE “significant evidence” of defective logic, linear
>thinking,

!!??!

>-----If you believed you were “mistakenly attacked” by me, then you are
>wrong. I don’t know you personally. These words of yours imply a degree
>of defensiveness on your part. What I take issue with are your POSITIONS,
> not you personally. I have told you this before. ‘Left-handed’ remarks
>about the state of my “conscience” are childish, and diminish the
>relevancy of your arguments.

Sounds like you're taking things rather personally. Keith doesn't know you
either, so why are you responding that way?

Scott "having a rough time figuring out how not knowing someone personally has
any bearing on whether one is nasty or not in posting" Marquardt

[RJHOLZ]

I've heard it takes one to know one Scott :)--RJ

[RJHOLZ]

Scott Marquardt wrote:
>
> Steve Roberts wrote:
> >Alan Mowbray wrote:
> >>
> >> Gee whiz, do I stand rebuked! Commenting on matters of which you
> >> demonstrate no understanding are hardly useful, and certainly not "damage
> >> control" Spare me your helpful comments, as you have none to offer. If
> >> you have some concrete ideas in this thread post them, and we can look at
> >> your "delivery". If not, why waste time here.
> >
> >Hey Al, does your software have a problem keeping these threads threaded?
>

> This is something that has freaked me out. I had thought it was a glitch at my
> end, but it really is the Prodigy thing, eh? I mean, not only is the reader
> garbling messages, but it's also trashing thread structure!
>
> Steve, do you have any idea how many CDs and disks I get in the mail _each week_
> from these online services? I've gotta tell you, these outfits are about the
> weirdest thing going, IMO. I realize that some folk without an A-band ISP PoP
> might be able to get a decent monthly fee and a nearby PoP with these services,
> but for my part I shudder to think what the Chicago scene would be like without
> ISPs.
>
> Cordially,
>

> Scott MarquardtI agree. Ihad AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve at one time. Really bad
service--RJ

[Arden Eby]

zxe...@zapcom.net (David Black) wrote:

>:> (sort of like Joseph Smith's Jupiter Talisman).

>Joseph NEVER had one of these, and any book that tells you otherwise is
>just repeating a lie.

And you evidence is? Joseph was wearing his jupiter talisman when he
died. It is now in the church archives I believe. It's no big deal.

Arden

******************************************************************************
Arden Eby
Internet: ar...@teleport.com
Packet Radio: KI...@KA7AGH.OR.USA.NA
Homepage (Eby's Cyberscroll) http://www.teleport.com/~arden/
******************************************************************************

[Alan Mowbray]

Scott wrote:

“Sounds like you're taking things rather personally. Keith doesn't know
you

either, so why are you responding that way?”

----- Save your projection for your analyst Scott. Read more of his posts
to find out, in between innings of course.

“Scott "having a rough time figuring out how not knowing someone
personally has

any bearing on whether one is nasty or not in posting" Marquardt”

-----Alan “having a rough time understanding how Scott does not know the
difference between provocative and “nasty” Mowbray

[Alan Mowbray]

[Alan Mowbray]

“Ya, right Al, I wonder why anyone would think you have a habit of

attacking Keith?
Just a sample of your self righteous blabbage below.

"Where did you get this line, Keith, from a cheap novel?"

"Try thinking before you shoot off your mouth"

"Surely you can manage SOME creative response, even if it is flawed and
morally
defective."

"I would have thought you could come up with something more creative and
original."

"You suffer from a theological principle of the Catholic church called
invincible
ignorance"

"Your lack off (sic) spiritual formation is fundamentally immoral."

"It once again shows your abysmal lack of spiritual sensibility."

"--- Invincible ignorance again rears it s ugly head---"

"Keith, It is very difficult to respond to you in a literate and
intelligent way, as

your post is so poorly organized and written. However, lets take a stab
at

it."

"If you cannot comprehend basic English or abstracts concepts, how can
you comment

on significant religious issues intelligent?"

"----PLEASE, OH PLEASE organize your thoughts into grammatically correct
English!"

"--------I really DO believe that you are “INVINCIBLY IGNORANT”. You
haven’t a

CLUE about what you are talking about. I’m glad I taught you how to
spell “BAAL’."

"------more poor English, confused concepts, defective logic ‘ad
nauseam’.

" ----I thought that incorrect spelling and poor grammar once in a while
would

make you feel more comfortable, since it seems to be your ‘style’.
However, it

pains me greatly to imitate you, so I will stop."

-----------VERY GOOD, Steve! I see your newsreader is adequet. ALL of
these quotations are, IMO, true and accurate, and can just as easily be
attributed to your opinions. By the way, there is no such word as
“blabbage”> Get that one from Keith?

----Alan

[Alan Mowbray]

> “I believe Mormonism has inherited a fraudulent product. My connection
to

> Mormonism has been, in my mind, ANNULLED. There were too many
skeletons

> in the closet, and I never got to see into the closet.”

>

> -----I hate to keep bringing this up, Keith, but is this statement

> supposed to make sense??

>

Al, get off it. What is wrong with this? His statement of course makes
sense. Just

because we don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

--------If you read everything previous to this, you see poor grammar,
allegorical BS, and a concept (annulment) which does not exist in Lds
theology. Other than that it makes perfect sense.

I could respond to the rest of your post but it would be a waste of my
time. You add nothing to this thread, writing 2 and 3 sentences at most
without any substance and showing no ability to ligitimaetly debate. You
seem to be an “ARM groupie”, putting in your ‘two-cents’ in an attempt to
get some recognition from others.. I suggest you find another place to
get your kicks, maybe in ‘alt.rcovery.mormon’, where the ‘anawim’ hang
out. (look it up Steve)

----Alan

[Steve Roberts]

Scott Marquardt wrote:

> Steve, do you have any idea how many CDs and disks I get in the mail _each week_
> from these online services? I've gotta tell you, these outfits are about the
> weirdest thing going, IMO. I realize that some folk without an A-band ISP PoP
> might be able to get a decent monthly fee and a nearby PoP with these services,
> but for my part I shudder to think what the Chicago scene would be like without
> ISPs.
>

I know I will never have to buy another floppy disk as long as I live. I have actually
recieved 3 in one day from AOL! Need to teach them about computer databases.

-steve

[Scott Marquardt]

Alan Mowbray wrote:

>----- Save your projection for your analyst Scott. Read more of his posts
>to find out, in between innings of course.

Henceforth, I must say that--despite some discussion about how you have been
"getting personal" (and thus an irony is afoot)--I cannot imagine taking such
remarks at all seriously. It becomes risible after a while.

This doesn't diminish the value (or lack) of whatever insights you might offer
in your posts, but it certainly qualifies the human factors which for most
people (IMO) are part and parcel of being a party to such discussions.

In short, "Whatever, Al."

Cordially,

Scott Marquardt

[Steve Roberts]

Alan Mowbray ignorantly wrote:
>
> -----Sorry you are so sensitive Steve. Being provocative is not
> “belligerent” and if you feel my posts “belittle” people PERSONALLY, you

> are incorrect, as I do not know them. My arrows are meant for their
> opinions. When I post something, it is generally long and there are
> dozens of issues involved in responding to others. If I use phrases you
> deem as personal attacks, I suggest you grow a thicker skin. I also
> suggest you read your most recent postings to me and ask yourself if YOU
> practice what you preach to me.
> You may be found wanting.
>
> ---Alan (nothing personal) Mowbray

Al, I think being sensitive is a postive thing. I'm sorry you don't.

Provocative? Did you say Provacative? Is that what you call yourself?

<ROTFWL>

What has knowing someone got to do with belittling someone. I don't know you and I
belittle you. :o)

I think your arrows are boomerangs.

Now,with regard to me. I think I am generally consistent in "practicing what I
preach." (I may not be right in what I preach, but I try to be consistent.) I tend
to be a mirror. I treat others as they treat others. It is only coincidental if I
treat others as they treat me. If you think my treatment of you is hypocritical (it
is not, if you understand what I preach) then you should see my treatment of my
friends Charles McCane, Jeff Shirton (where are you Jeff?) and a few others.

With regard to my accusations. Am I incorrect? Below are samples of your
"provocative", non-belligerent and non-belittling statements. (Maybe you missed them
the first time around.)

"Where did you get this line, _______, from a cheap novel?"

"Try thinking before you shoot off your mouth"

"Surely you can manage SOME creative response, even if it is flawed and morally
defective."

"I would have thought you could come up with something more creative and original."

"You suffer from a theological principle of the Catholic church called invincible
ignorance"

"Your lack off (sic) spiritual formation is fundamentally immoral."

"It once again shows your abysmal lack of spiritual sensibility."

"--- Invincible ignorance again rears it s ugly head---"

"It is very difficult to respond to you in a literate and intelligent way, as

your post is so poorly organized and written. However, lets take a stab at
it."

"If you cannot comprehend basic English or abstracts concepts, how can you comment
on significant religious issues intelligent?"

"----PLEASE, OH PLEASE organize your thoughts into grammatically correct English!"

"--------I really DO believe that you are “INVINCIBLY IGNORANT”. You haven’t a
CLUE about what you are talking about. I’m glad I taught you how to spell “BAAL’."

"------more poor English, confused concepts, defective logic ‘ad nauseam’.

.."

" ----I thought that incorrect spelling and poor grammar once in a while would
make you feel more comfortable, since it seems to be your ‘style’. However, it
pains me greatly to imitate you, so I will stop."

**************
Al, IMO, if you do not believe the above demonstrates belligerence and belittlement
then you need to go through some sort of calibration.

Then again I may be "wanting and have too thin of skin."

steve(intolerant of the intolerant)roberts

[Steve Roberts]

Alan Mowbray wrote:
>
> > “I believe Mormonism has inherited a fraudulent product. My connection
> to
>
> > Mormonism has been, in my mind, ANNULLED. There were too many
> skeletons
>
> > in the closet, and I never got to see into the closet.”
>
> >
>
> > -----I hate to keep bringing this up, Keith, but is this statement
>
> > supposed to make sense??
>
> >
>
> Al, get off it. What is wrong with this? His statement of course makes
> sense. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
>
> --------If you read everything previous to this, you see poor grammar,
> allegorical BS, and a concept (annulment) which does not exist in Lds
> theology. Other than that it makes perfect sense.
>

Right but apparently, poor spelling does exist in LDS theology.

> I could respond to the rest of your post but it would be a waste of my
> time. You add nothing to this thread, writing 2 and 3 sentences at most
> without any substance and showing no ability to ligitimaetly debate. You
> seem to be an “ARM groupie”, putting in your ‘two-cents’ in an attempt to
> get some recognition from others.. I suggest you find another place to
> get your kicks, maybe in ‘alt.rcovery.mormon’, where the ‘anawim’ hang
> out. (look it up Steve)
>

Which misspelled word did you want me to look up for you?

Remember Al, you are not my audience. Your audience is my audience. Damage
control remember? I'm not expecting you to respond to anything. I wish you
wouldn't.

If I did give you my 'two-cents' worth then you owe me change. <G>

Why go someplace else when you are so easy to kick around here. (You bring it
on yourself, Al.)

In all seriousness Al, I promise, you be civil to others and you won't have to
worry about responding to me.

steve(hardly ever recognized)roberts