flood of anti-Mormon sentiment

happyinhisgrace said:

Emarld, the communion is in the Bible for ALL to see, no secrets at all about that. Also, it is not bread and water, it is bread and wine (some churches use grape juice). The ONLY church I know of that uses water is the LDS church.

Click to expand...

And I am sure it is greatly offensive to God that we use water as opposed to wine and/or grape juice... Perhaps if water was more typically drinkable in Christ's area of the world & time in history, He would have preferred it as well.

Give it a rest Grace, if the LDS church doesnt work for you, it doesnt work for you.

arizona_sunshine said:

Perhaps if water was more typically drinkable in Christ's area of the world & time in history, He would have preferred it as well.

Click to expand...

Sunshine,

This makes no sense. Do you know what the water content percentage is in wine? How does on drink wine without drinking water?

Is this just one of those "rationalizations" you've been told or have you done any research to back this statement up. How do you reach such conclusions!!!

emerald Dragon said:

What I was trying to say is, we hold these ceremonies sacred. We just don't wish people to bash something like this, whne we hold it so dear. When I used teh Sacrament as an example, I used saying, what would you say if someone said that it was a load of crock-you would know that it wasn't, but you might be offended anyway, right?

We hold the cermonies sacred, but we also don't want just anyone to see them. There are things in them that would be confusing to people who have not been properly prepared to see them. Like in math, a person would be confued with Intergrals in Calulus, if they only just finished learning about long division, right? We neeed to be properly prepared, or the ceremonies just don't make sense to us.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

Click to expand...

Emerald, I can see how you would feel that way from a Mormon point of view but the majority of the world is not Christian and they do think my beliefs (Christ) are a load of crock but I really don't care what they think. Jesus did not teach in secret and churches should not either. There is nothing more sacred than Jesus, nothing and his Word is in plain view for all to see and judge for themselves. The LDS teachings (temple ceremony) should be also, especially considering it is nothing sacred compared to Jesus.

Grace

arizona_sunshine said:

And I am sure it is greatly offensive to God that we use water as opposed to wine and/or grape juice... Perhaps if water was more typically drinkable in Christ's area of the world & time in history, He would have preferred it as well.

Give it a rest Grace, if the LDS church doesnt work for you, it doesnt work for you.

Click to expand...

LMBO....and what is wine made mostly of? Oh, I will laugh over that one for days.

Grace

== Jesus did not teach in secret and churches should not either.

You must be kidding. Paul considered an entire Church "babes" who weren't ready for meat, but only milk. What was the meat? We never find out in the Bible. Paul also saw and heard things that no man should utter. There lies an esoteric tradition in early Christianity that cannot be dismissed just because the Bible doesn't detail the doctrines. Well, of course it doesn't. That is the whole point.

Huh? They are selfish because they are in love? That statement is revealing in itself. For the record, my Baptist parents threw me out of the house and literally disowned me on the day I was baptized LDS. I was just 19 years old. I had to move in with some Mormons down the street. 13 years later they admit regretting it, because they were duped by so much anti-Mormon material that was sent to them through the mail. I served my mission and they never wrote. But in all of their misguided hatred towards the LDS faith, they never once called me selfish.

Wow, well you and I have something in common then. My LDS family (relatives and all) disowned me after I left the LDS church 2 years ago, they did however call me selfish unlike your Baptist parents who didn't.

And yes, it is selfish for her child to disregard the feelings of his mother and father who have loved, raised and cared for him all there lives and to deny them the well deserved right they have to attend their own childs wedding.

Grace

Kevin Graham said:

== Jesus did not teach in secret and churches should not either.

You must be kidding. Paul considered an entire Church "babes" who weren't ready for meat, but only milk. What was the meat? We never find out in the Bible. Paul also saw and heard things that no man should utter. There lies an esoteric tradition in early Christianity that cannot be dismissed just because the Bible doesn't detail the doctrines. Well, of course it doesn't. That is the whole point.

Click to expand...

Please show me in the Bible where Jesus taught in secret.

Grace

== it is selfish for her child to disregard the feelings of his mother and father who have loved, raised and cared for him all there lives and to deny them the well deserved right they have to attend their own childs wedding.

So you're calling yourself selfish? I know for a fact that my old Baptist minister wouldn't marry us in his Church.

Weddings are not about Parents. They are about the couple. Talk about selfish.

I said: "Bible doesn't detail the doctrines. Well, of course it doesn't. That is the whole point."

To which Happy responds: "Please show me in the Bible where Jesus taught in secret."



What part of "The Bible doesn't detail it... that is the whole point behind being secret," don't you understand?

If it was in the Bible, it wouldn't be secret now would it?

I will let this verse speak for itself:

Kevin Graham said:

== it is selfish for her child to disregard the feelings of his mother and father who have loved, raised and cared for him all there lives and to deny them the well deserved right they have to attend their own childs wedding.

So you're calling yourself selfish? I know for a fact that my old Baptist minister wouldn't marry us in his Church.

Weddings are not about Parents. They are about the couple. Talk about selfish.

Click to expand...

I never denied my parents the right to attend my wedding, infact...I got married out of the temple so they could attend (my mother was not 'temple worthy' at the time)

Weddings are about the parents just as much as the child. Marriage is about the couple, weddings are a celebration for EVERYONE!

Kevin Graham said:

I said: "Bible doesn't detail the doctrines. Well, of course it doesn't. That is the whole point."

To which Happy responds: "Please show me in the Bible where Jesus taught in secret."



What part of "The Bible doesn't detail it... that is the whole point behind being secret," don't you understand?

If it was in the Bible, it wouldn't be secret now would it?

Click to expand...

You are cirlce talking. Please show me in the Bible where Jesus said he taught in secret or even where it talks about Jesus teaching in secret.

Grace

skylark1 said:

I will let this verse speak for itself:

John 18

20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.


​

Click to expand...

Skylark1,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here it seems to indicate in Matt 17 regarding the mount of transfiguration that Jesus didn't want things He taught to go to the world until after His ressurection. Since Jesus' trial was prior to the ressurection it would seem your quote would not be all-inclusive.

Matt 17:9
9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

What do you think?

TW

Kevin Graham said:

== Jesus did not teach in secret and churches should not either.

You must be kidding. Paul considered an entire Church "babes" who weren't ready for meat, but only milk.

Click to expand...

In addition to what you think Paul may have "considered", could we relflect upon what Christ "stated":

19Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
20"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said." {John 18}

What was the meat?

Click to expand...

I'm afraid what you tell me it is, may be "a lot of bull"

We never find out in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the need for a "restored fullness of the gospel" as proclaimed by your prophets thru revelation. Thus, the book of mormon.

Now Kevin, where in the BOM is the rest of the story that the bible leaves out? Something proclaimed to be the fullness would surely would not leave out The Most Sacred of Ordinances. Why then, how could it be proclaimed the "fullness" if it did?

Paul also saw and heard things that no man should utter. There lies an esoteric tradition in early Christianity that cannot be dismissed just because the Bible doesn't detail the doctrines. Well, of course it doesn't. That is the whole point.

Click to expand...

What is your point here. How do you logically use this in defense of secret temple cerimonies? What scriptures support the requirement for such temple ordinances. What is the origin of such teachings?

Twhite,

The verse that you quoted concerned a vison that the disciples had seen. The verse that I quoted concerned the teachings of Jesus. Here is the preceding verse:

twhite982 said:

Skylark1,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here it seems to indicate in Matt 17 regarding the mount of transfiguration that Jesus didn't want things He taught to go to the world until after His ressurection. Since Jesus' trial was prior to the ressurection it would seem your quote would not be all-inclusive.

Matt 17:9
9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

What do you think?

TW

Click to expand...

TW, I am not skylark but from the passage you posted above, it appears that they saw a "vision" not that they recieved secret teaching.

Grace

== In addition to what you think Paul may have "considered", could we relflect upon what Christ "stated":\

But he obviously "considered" something right? Christ naturally taught the basics of salvation and his purpose for redeeming us, but he taught anything else, let alone in secret. That was the job of his apostles. After all, had Christ taught everything we needed to know, there would be no purpose for Paul's vision, or his allusion to gospel meat and gospel milk.

== Now Kevin, where in the BOM is the rest of the story that the bible leaves out? Something proclaimed to be the fullness would surely would not leave out The Most Sacred of Ordinances. Why then, how could it be proclaimed the "fullness" if it did?

You've misunderstood what was meant by "fulness" obviously. It doesn't refer to a list of every single doctrine and practice consecrated by God. This is a common misconception our critics have, but given your previous claims to have read FARMS material, I'm surpirsed you actually bring this one up. President Ezra Taft Benson explains: "The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation." See also fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom11.html

== What is your point here. How do you logically use this in defense of secret temple cerimonies? What scriptures support the requirement for such temple ordinances. What is the origin of such teachings?

These are from my notes from Mike Griffith:

The New Testament contains indications that the ancient church possessed extra-scriptural teachings that were not made available to the public but were reserved for worthy followers of Christ.

"I have fed you with milk," Paul told the Corinthian saints, "and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet are ye now able" (1 Corinthians 3:2). If Paul ever gave this doctrinal "meat" to the Corinthians, it is not recorded in any extant version of the New Testament. Why not? Moreover, since Paul's first letter to the saints at Corinth discusses everything from the order and glories of the resurrection to the various kinds of spiritual gifts found in the church, what could have been the "meat" that Paul withheld?

The Corinthians were "babes" in Christ; they were still unable to handle the "meat" of the gospel (1 Corinthians 3:1-2). However, Paul told them that "mature" saints were taught a "secret and hidden wisdom" (1 Corinthians 2:6-7). This secret wisdom undoubtedly constituted part of the "meat" that the apostle withheld from the Corinthians.

When Paul was blessed to visit Paradise, he heard "things that must not be divulged" (2 Corinthians 12:4, AB). The Greek here is arreta remata, "unutterable words." The adjective "unutterable" was often used "of things disclosed in Mystery rites which the initiates were charged to keep secret" (Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, The Anchor Bible, Grden City, New York: Dubleday & Company, Inc., 1984, p. 527).

The ninth chapter of Hebrews begins with a detailed discussion of the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple. This chapter has long puzzled scholars because of the author's sudden reluctance in verse 5 to tell us anything specific about the cherubim: "concerning which things this is not the proper time to speak" (Anchor Bible). The RSV renders the author's reluctance this way: "Of these things we cannot now speak in detail." Why not? Why isn't the full explanation to be found anywhere in the New Testament? When was the "proper time" to discuss these things "in detail"? What was it about the cherubim and their function in the Holy of Holies that made them such a sensitive subject? LDS scholar Eugene Seaich believes the reluctance to discuss the cherubim had to do with what they represented. He has gathered a considerable amount of evidence that the cherubim represented the divine model of male-female union and that this symbolism was used to teach the doctrine of eternal marriage in the temple (Mormonism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Texts, Murray, Utah: Sounds of Zion, 1980, pp. 32-43).

Church father Ignatius told the Trallians he possessed sacred information that they were not yet ready to receive:

Am I incapable of writing to you of heavenly things? No, indeed; but I am afraid to harm you, seeing you are mere babes. You must forgive me, but the chances are you could not accept what I have to say and would choke yourselves. Even in my own case, it is not because I am a prisoner and can grasp heavenly mysteries, the ranks of angels, the array of principalities, things visible and invisible--it is not because of all that that I am a genuine disciple as yet. (Cyril C. Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1970, pp. 99-100)

Click to expand...

Robert M. Grant translates this passage as follows:

Can I not write heavenly things to you? But I fear that I may do harm to "you who are infants." You must pardon me, lest you be choked by what you cannot swallow. For though I am in bonds and can know heavenly things such as the angelic locations and the archontic conjunctions, visible and invisible, for all that I am not already a disciple. (Jack N. Sparks, The Apostolic Fathers, Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1978, p. 93)

Click to expand...

These "heavenly things" or "heavenly mysteries" were obviously not recorded in the scriptures, and Ignatius did not think the Trallians were ready to receive them.

Clement of Alexandria also acknowledged that the church had secret teachings. He said these teachings had come from Christ through the apostles. I quote from historian Frank N. MaGill's summary of Clement's teachings on this subject:

Clement concedes that the Scriptures open salvation to the many, who experience the "first saving change," when they pass from heathenism to faith, or from law to Gospel. But these are saved only in the first degree. Besides his public teaching, Christ also taught his Apostles the gnosis [hidden sacred knowledge] which leads to perfection. This knowledge, Clement claims, "has descended by transmission to a few, having been imparted unwritten by the apostles." Great preparation and previous training are necessary to receive it. But those who can obey it, achieve here and now a foretaste of eternal bliss, and, in the world to come, will take their places with the Apostles in the highest sphere. (Masterpieces of Christian Literature, New York: Harper & Row, 1963, p. 47)

Click to expand...

According to the ancient Christian historian Eusebius, Clement taught that after the resurrection the Savior gave the higher teachings to Peter, James, and John, and they shared them with the rest of the apostles, who in turn relayed them to the Seventy (Douglas M. Parrot, "Gnostic and Orthodox Disciples in the Second and Third Centuries," in Charles Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, editors, Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986, p. 214). Similarly, esteemed church father Origen said the true students of the higher teachings among the apostles were Peter, James, and John (Parrot, Ibid., p. 214).

Kevin Graham said:

These are from my notes from Mike Griffith:

Click to expand...

Notes indeed! Looks like a direct cut and paste job from here:

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id132.htm

Not scoring many points here for originality.:o

Come on Kevin, stand on your own two feet.

baker said:

Notes indeed! Looks like a direct cut and paste job from here:

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id132.htm

Not scoring many points here for originality.:o

Come on Kevin, stand on your own two feet.

Click to expand...

Not scoring many points in honesty either.

Good grief!

Deal with the evidence and try not to whine about how or where I got the quotes. I told you I got the notes from Griffith, AND I DID. I had no idea this was posted online or else I would have posted the link. So how on earth is this being in any way "dishonest"? To use this as a means to attack my morality only reflects poorly on the two of you. You're not thinking critcially at all, only looking for excuses to attack the messenger instead of having to deal with the message.