- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
re: Fourth AoF. The original states that those are the ordinances of the gospel. They were the only ones at that time. It was changed to those being the “first” ordinances and principles of the gospel which allows for additional ordinances. The temple contains additional ordinances. Why would they make the change from “these are the ordinances” to “the first principles and ordinances are” if it wasn’t to be more in harmony with the added ordinances of the temple? I’m sorry if I am not being clear enough.
Ray, I don’t disagree with you. I wouldn’t say that other religions come of evil or anything of the like. I don’t think you can make the scripture retroactive, either. HOWEVER, I do believe that the LDS church has gone against some of
its ownteachings/scriptures. That might be a problem, it might not. I think it is something worth serious consideration. Our own canon tells us important things about ourselves-not others. If our own scriptures tell us we have been wrong, maybe we should take heed. The BoM is about the Mormons, that is who it applies to (in my world view). Why do you think that that 3 Nephi passage was added to the scriptures? I interpret it as a warning against adding more
ordinancesand saying they are part of the doctrine of Christ (doctrine of salvation). I’d be interested to hear what you think it is about. What do you think comes of evil? What would constitute “more or less” than those things? Do we need more than that to be “saved?” MWallace57-You’re welcome. I think it is sometimes hard because we all come at these topics from such different approaches.
just me, I understand what you are saying – and I don’t disagree, in theory. It’s the application where we differ. If faith and repentance are “ordinances” . . . what about love and forgiveness and humilty and other similar things that we no longer call ordinances? Do they come of evil? Again, I am concerned with hedging about the law and adding unnecessary complications, but I just can’t say temple work and worship (or even the parts of it that have been dropped) come of evil simply because they don’t fit precisely and easily into faith, repentance and baptism. MWallace mentioned tithing – but, using the narrow interpretation of the BofM passage, does it come of evil? Does marriage itself come of evil?
My question really is: Where do we draw the line? It’s either a very restrictive one or one that is determined personally, according to the sensibilities of each individual. My approach is the second one – the personal one, and I draw my own line quite liberally.
As to the 4th Article of Faith, I think the original wording was bad and misleading, so it was changed to reference principles AND ordinances – with the understanding that those listed weren’t the ONLY such things that were important. I just don’t see how it could be otherwise, frankly – unless, as I mentioned with circumcision and temple work, the things in question (faith, repentance and baptism) are stretched wide enough to include them. That can be done, imo, but I just don’t see why it’s necessary – especially when SO many other things obviously are accepted as appropriate and fine throughout all of our scriptures.
Anyway, this probably is something where we simply will disagree – which is fine, since I just said I believe this must be something determined individually.
Dear Ray, Of course there are ordinances that belong and have always belongs to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Ordaining of a young man or Elder to the Priesthood (Ordain-ance) if you will is one example. The blessing and administration of the sacrament was performed by Christ Himself. Marriage has always been,
“Ordained of God”. The word “Ordained of God” could led one to call marriage an “Ordinance”. Yes.
I am not referring to any of the principles and ordinances which existed in the original Church of Christ. When the Church was established in 1830, it was founded on the original principles, ordinances and covenants that were given by Christ Himself in the New Testament and in the Book of Mormon. What I was referring to were those ordinances, oaths and covenants that were added more than 10 years later (some were Masonic in nature). I think that it would almost be starting an entirely new thread to discuss them here and I don’t think it is appropriate to elaborate on Temple covenants.
We had been given the Book of Mormon, the New Testament and the Pearl of Great Price. We had the Gospel in it’s fullness. It had been restored. JS had revealed the Plan of Salvation.
Book of Mormon, Ether 8:19
“For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man.”
Book of Moses 5:29
“And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die;”
Book of Mormon, Helaman 6:21-22
“But behold, Satan did stir up the hearts of the more part of the Nephites, insomuch that they did unite with those bands of robbers, and did enter into their covenants and their oaths, that they would protect and preserve one another in whatsoever difficult circumstances they should be placed… they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant…”
The Prophet Joseph Smith Condemned Oaths of Secrecy
“I would further suggest the impropriety of the organization of bands or companies, by covenant or oath, by penalties or secrecies; but let the time past of our experience and sufferings by the wickedness of Doctor Avard suffice and let our covenant be that of the Everlasting Covenant, as contained in the Holy Writ and the things that God hath revealed to us. Pure friendship always becomes weakened the very moment you undertake to make it stronger by penalty oaths and secrecy.”
– The Prophet Joseph Smith, “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” p. 146
but those things are outside of the verse used to title this thread. We’re talking past each other at this point, so I will cut to the chase: Are you saying you believe the temple comes of evil?
Dear Ray, Of course I am not saying the the Ordinances of the Temple “cometh of evil”. The crowning ordinance of the Temple is Celestial Marriage, Marriage for Time and all of Eternity. This is very sacred to me as my own mother passed away when I was 10. My greatest comfort was to know that I was sealed to her (born under the covenant) and that I would be with her in the eternities. Temple Marriage is of God. It is the only marriage that is performed for eternity and not just “til death do we part”. It testifies of the eternal nature of God and His Ordinances. |His covenants are eternal, not temporal or temporary.
You will remember that Christ cleared His temple twice whilst on this earth. Why? because there were things that we there that shouldn’t have been there. The law of sacrifice called for a spotless lamb to be sacrificed unto the Lord. We discussed this similitude. But small animals were being bought and sold inside the temple and the money changers had moved there business inside. I learned a great lesson from this story. Never corrupt the sacred ordinances of the House of the Lord. Do not bring anything into the temple that isn’t clean and ordained of God to be in His house.
The safe thing to do is to stay with the pure and simple ordinances that had been present in the original church. They are outlined in the scriptures. They are clear to all who would read the scriptures. The BofM describes exactly what the basic first four principles. D and C 132 discusses eternal marriage. Baptism for the Dead is a temple ordinance and is described in the scriptures.
When I was married, the Temple Sealer explained that a “ring ceremony” was not part of the Temple ceremony. People come from all over the world to be married in the Salt Lake Temple and many bring customs and traditions from their native lands. Some ring ceremonies are elaborate. Diamonds and gold are beautiful, but they can detract from the simplicity of the ceremony. Some brides and grooms have brought brackets, earrings (and ear piercing equipment) etc.
We have to draw the line somewhere.
This is a sample of a tradition common to some cultures: Coins and Gift Giving
In some Islamic and Central American cultures, the groom giving the bride money during the ceremony is a symbol of his promise to care for and financially support her. Check with your tradition for the specifics on what types of coins and how and when they are given. In Filipino weddings, Grooms traditionally give Brides 13 gold coins, called arias, signifying their promise to materially support their family, during the wedding ceremony.
http://www.interfaithofficiants.com/DesignYourOwnCeremonyPages/DesignYourOwnCeremonyRituals.html (My nephew married a young Filipino sister)
These may be beautiful traditions, but do they belong in the Temple? This is my point about certain masonic oaths.
I don’t think my continuing to post on this thread will add to the spirit of this forum, so I am going to limit myself to one last observation. The Kirtland Temple was open to the public. It appears that the Nauvoo Temple was also originally intended for public worship services. Something changed.
I wish that wedding ceremonies were public. I do think it is a shame they were made private. I don’t know what we can do about it other than gently letting our leaders know that we would be pleased with a change that allowed for ALL family and friends to be involved in the marriage ceremony.
My mom who is Catholic said, “I don’t understand why we can’t come to your weddings, are we not good enough”??? When I told her they were for time and all eternity, she said, “I’ve always know that when I die, I will see your dad and be with him forever”. So simple and lovely!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.