There are those who prefer more transparency, but those who prefer confidentiality prevail. There is nothing to be ashamed of, if matters are explained in context. But given the links to masonic rites, the rituals can seem strange to the contemporary mind.

Most contemporary LDS are more pragmatic about the ceremonies, understand them in context and use the temple as a place of respite and contemplation.

Whether you take the contents in figurative sense or in a literal sense is a matter of personal preference. I tend toward the figurative sense in most things as literal interpretations of most matters religious end up disappointing.

So I gather the touching takes place through a thin garment open at the sides like a poncho; She felt that she was naked during this episode or is lying. But why would she try to harm Romney in this publication which is run by Joseph Farah who has endorsed Romney? That part makes no sense.

I don't think I would even consider the claims of being naked to be a straight out lie. At worst a half truth or exaggeration.

Apparently you are naked except for this poncho type garment, and then the person washing and anointing you would reach under the garment put oil on different parts of your body, including what some would consider more intimate ares like your thighs and chest/near breast, with their hands.

The confusion seems to be that this ceremony is not part of the wedding ceremony, but rather the endowment ceremony.

This practice was only changed in 2005, so if this woman left the church prior to that, there is no reason for her to know a change has been made since it is all kept secret anyway.

I typically tend to look skeptically towards anything connected to politics (so this article's focus on what Romney believes versus all Mormons), and it is clear that the person interviewed does not want Romney to be president, but there are plenty of other non-political places to see that these beliefs and ceremonies did in fact take place, though they change them from time to time.

(I'll include my reference links from my last post since they were cut off at the page break.)

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon366.htm
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon386.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_%28Mormonism%29#The_Initiatory


http://www.whatismormonism.com/

That's some creepy stuff, Fozz. And it sounds like those folks didn't appreciate it too much.

I guess all those people are lying, too, hmmm?






[This message has been edited by Captain Pablo (edited 7/21/2012 7:55p).]

Seems that Mormons frequently change their practices and traditions once they are scrutinized. This is one example, as are polygamy and racial issues. This pattern goes all the way back to Joseph Smith. He was changing his story to cover up inconsistencies. More recently, it is done to get closer and closer to christian traditions, which is somewhat ironic since Smith was supposedly "restoring" the true church. You wouldn't think that the restored church would care too much about what other people thought about them, but they fear being marginalized to the point that it affects their recruitment. All of the changes are made based on the concept of "continuing revelation" that is a very convenient option available to the president.

For me, it all goes back to Joseph Smith. You simply shouldn't put your faith in a false prophet...instead we should test their stories and testimony. You don't have to dig too hard to figure out that his story of the plates and "reformed egyptian" story don't hold water.


[This message has been edited by tamc91 (edited 7/21/2012 9:16p).]

Christians should thank their lucky stars Mormons are around to distract from how retarded Christian beliefs are. It's fantastic listening to believers in mysticism rebutting believers in mysticism.

You don't have to dig too hard to realize Jesus was full of crap either. I wouldn't trust that guy with a child much less my eternal life. How would the son of an all knowing all powerful god not know the jews weren't in Egypt? Did he have down syndrome?

[This message has been edited by tysonbam (edited 7/21/2012 9:47p).]

This ritual seems very similar to early Christian rituals as taught by Cyril of Jerusalem.

quote:

---

You were true imitators of Adam, the first man to be created, who was naked in the Garden and was not ashamed.

Then, when you were stripped, you were anointed with exorcised oil , from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.

Having therefore become partakers of Christ, you are properly called Christs, and of you God said, Touch not My Christs, or anointed. Now you have been made Christs, by receiving the antitype of the Holy Ghost; and all things have been wrought in you by imitation, because you are images of Christ. He washed in the river Jordan, and having imparted of the fragrance of His Godhead to the waters, He came up from them; and the Holy Ghost in the fulness of His being lighted on Him, like resting upon like. And to you in like manner, after you had come up from the pool of the sacred streams, there was given an Unction [anointing], the anti-type of that wherewith Christ was anointed; and this is the Holy Ghost; of whom also the blessed Esaias, in his prophecy respecting Him, said in the person of the Lord, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me: He has sent Me to preach glad tidings to the poor… (New Advent)

He was anointed with … what is called the olive oil of exaltation (agalliaseos elaio—a coronation figure) … while you were anointed with myrrh (scented oil), making you companions and copartners (koinonoi kai metochoi) with Christ.

You were anointed on your brow and your other sense-organs, and so while the body is anointed in outward appearance with myrrh, the soul (psyche) is sanctified by the life-bestowing Holy Spirit. First of all you were anointed on the brow (metopon, forehead and eyes, lit. “space between the eyes”) to free you from the shame which completely involved the First Man when he fell, and that you might clearly perceive (or reflect, katoptrizisthe), the glory of the Lord with wide-open mind (lit. with uncovered face). Then your ears that you might receive the hearing ears of the mysteries of God…. Next come the nostrils, that upon receiving the holy ordinance you may say: “We are the sweet odor of Christ to God among the saved.” After that (you were anointed) on the breast (tastethe, “the seat of feeling, passion and thought,” Liddell and Scott), that, clothed with the breastplate of righteousness, you may stand against the wiles of the Devil—(countering his evil thoughts with good ones).

As Christ after his baptism … went forth to confront the Adversary, so you after your holy baptism and mystic anointing, were clothed in the armor of the Holy Ghost to stand against the opposing … power.

It is because you are worthy of this holy anointing (chrism) that you are called Christians…. it is by following this road that you have advanced to the point of earning that title.

When Moses received the order to make his brother a High Priest, after washing him with water he anointed him, and he was called a Christ, because of the anointing which was the type. Thus also Solomon, being called to the Kingship, was anointed after a bath in Gihon by the High Priest. For them it was a type (making them kings and priests), but for us it is not symbolical but real, since you really have been anointed by the Holy Ghost. The King (arche) of your salvation is Christ, for he is the true first-fruits and you are the unleavened bread. If the first-fruits (i.e., the priestly office) is holy, that holiness will be transferred to the unleavened bread (i.e., you too will become kings and priests)

Having put off the old man’s garment of sorrow, you now celebrate as you put on the garment of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Lecture 1)

---

Steel

My religion says I should sexually harass women so it is cool. I mean in the fairly tale about Adam and eve they were naked so I should be able to grope women for giggles and call it ritual.

I want to believe derrida but then folks like steel come along and say this kind of stuff is fine.

Cold Steel - can you provide a reference for that passage?

Cold Steel - what you quoted ties more to the sacrament of confirmation. It has nothing to do with any temple rituals you believe in.

steel is not saying it is fine. He is saying that the beliefs can be found in some early versions of Christianity.

Without commenting directly, I can state I have never believed anybody was doing anything with an intention to cause me embarrassment, shame or to make me uncomfortable. Women are with women, and men are with men except for the marriage ceremony or at the end of the other ceremony. If somebody felt uncomfortable, then that is due to one's own ignorance. The information of the ceremonies is reasonably available prior to willingly participating. So if you came ignorant, I feel badly but knowing it is there beforehand and you didn't take the effort to find out, then I don't feel too much sympathy for willful ignorance.

Again, LDS learn about temple rituals slowly and some like them, some tolerate them and some dislike them because they are too symbolic and stuff is not spelled. I have experienced all three sets of sentiments. The ceremonies are not enjoyable for everybody.

The place is peaceful, beautiful and enjoyable. Even if you barely pay attention, you can be at rest and escape the outside world for but a small moment of contemplation.

I don't think anyone thought the point of the ceremony was to cause embarrassment.

And people willingly participate, but I believe most Mormon's would agree that non-participation would result in a lack of salvation, no?

Here's the real issue. Let's have Mormon's stop pretending, "We're just regular folks with nothing to hide." Christianity may have crazy beliefs, (I'm looking at you guys who say "no salvation without getting dunked in a bathtub" and you "this cracker turns into human flesh in your stomach" people...) but at least they are honest with it. Anyone can tell you and typically will tell you anything about the religion you want to know whether your a member or not.
The Mormon church tries very hard to latch on to mainstream Christianity as an avenue to legitimacy and power. I think one of the many reasons that the true Mormon beliefs and ceremonies are kept a secret in the current day is to minimize the public's knowledge of the huge differences between the religions.
Of course the whole idea of let people learn slowly or "milk before meat" also allows people to slowly resolve the cognitive dissonance between the crazier beliefs and their own logic rather than having them see everything at once and run off. (Not to mention it gives time for new converts to become socially dependent upon other Mormons, so that if they did leave the church they would be cut off from family and friends...)

I don't mean to pick on Mormonism, but certain aspects (the secrecy, the magic underwear, the hidden ceremonies, the modern day prophet who hears directly from God) just scream cult. Personally I find it hard enough having the 3-4 accepted cults running around this country without one more popping up.

[This message has been edited by The Fozz (edited 7/22/2012 12:40a).]

There are countervailing concerns which exist. I admit. Some of the weirdness was the result of a charismatic, Joseph Smith and his fascination with the ancient world while he tried to incorporate into his world, some of it is a result of the persecution of the 19th and 20th centuries.

What happens when an organization is attacked forcefully from all directions? Sometimes it battens down the hatches and engages in a bunker mentality.

Then you influx new, more liberal thinkers and you also influx those who see merit in ecumenical means, and you sometimes get a confusing message. Are we in, are we out? Do we want transparency or confidentiality?

The internal questions are more complex than they might appear to an external observer. You have the old guard, the new guard and those awaiting to get in. It is a complex, bureaucratic organization filled with lots of great people who enjoy each other's community and at the local level live simply without contemplating the weirdness those unfamiliar with the practices see.

Right now the organization is starting to look like almost any other protestant denomination, and the LDS do not consider themselves protestant but rather restorationist to be clear.

What it looks like from the inside is far different than it does from the outside. I can see many angles. I was outside, a disbeliever, then I was dragged inside by family, then I assimilated, and now half my family is outside and I see all parts. With that said, the organization has merit, its people are good and they can make communities better.

William James, as pragmatist, shows us if religion is of value, it will have practical benefit in the here and now. LDS practices have practical benefit.

Hmmmm ... So Lwaxanna Troi was a Mormon? Obscure Star Trek: TNG reference.

Tysonbam, based on your posts I would suggest that you are too headonistic to understand sacred things. Titus 1:15 - Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Tamc91, they can be found in Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures. His most famous writings are set of twenty-three catechetical lectures which he delivered around 347 or 348 A.D.

Rab91, I agree that types and shadows of the early Christian ordinances can be found but they have changed since the first centuries A.D. Latter-day Saints believe that the gospel and its ordinances were restored in their purity, not necessarily in their entirety from an absence. We believe many parts and themes have been left behind of the ordinances as they once were.

The Fozz, While some of the "things" that are done in Mormonism may be strange to outsiders, the point of my post above is that evidence shows we are in good company of that of the early Christians.

Steel

[This message has been edited by Cold Steel (edited 7/22/2012 1:24p).]

Well.... I suppose that depends on what you consider good company...

But tying things in to the early Christian church fathers....Here is my fear with Mormonism. It is still a young religion. People are still familiar with the time period in which it was written and we have plenty of evidence concerning the life and misdeeds of Joseph Smith.

This is a battle that was lost long ago with mainstream Christianity. Contemporary evidence concerning Jesus and his works, potential detractors, so so many issues of evidence have been muddled by the passing of 2,000 years; which makes the religion much harder for skeptics to disprove. (I swear I won't get into a discussion about how silly it is for the burden of proof to be placed on those who don't believe.)

Considering the amount of propaganda the Mormon Church pumps out about Joseph Smith, the way that errors or unacceptable ideas are simply erased from versions of the Book of Mormon, I worry that in 200 years what will be known of Mormonism? The truth or the information fed by the church? Will people who dispute the church or try to expose its origins as a fraudulent polygamous cult be labeled hate mongers spewing lies? Because currently we can provide evidence, but what happens as time passes?

Hell, most Mormons I meet right now don't know half of the documented history of JS or factual origins of the church. Partly because Mormons aren't allowed to question. Partly because any source trying to expose the evidence against JS is labeled "anti-mormon propaganda" by the church and members are instructed to stay away from it. And partly from the propaganda machine that the church runs.

Either way, I think it is good for information about otherwise secret Mormon ceremonies to get out because hopefully it sparks an interest in what Mormon's really believe.

Your portrayal is necessarily negative and biased, Fozz. The dissemination of Church history and current attitude has not been fixed but is dynamic. The Church once had a very open stance, with Church Historian Leonard Arrington, went to a period of less disclosure and now is making its records open for discussion.

There is more and more transparency. So I disagree and find most LDS are much better informed today than they were thirty years ago. The organization is controlled by people, who have their biases and convictions, but it is not run by heinous individuals seeking to deceive but rather seeking to do their best in light of their beliefs and convictions.

As to the "burden" of proof on disbelievers, of course disbelief is easy and faith is difficult. If it is of no value to you, then disbelieve.

However, sociologists can show generally that faith communities benefit society. Tearing them down is a disservice to society.

OTOH, you will never see a faith community present it how you would like it. "Hi, we all know this is a fraud, but we're here to fleece you of every penny you have." IF you expect that, you are being unreasonable.

[This message has been edited by Derrida (edited 7/22/2012 4:44p).]

quote:

---

Hmmmm ... So Lwaxanna Troi was a Mormon? Obscure Star Trek: TNG reference.

---

I remember that one. The guests were supposed to be nude as well if memory serves. Sounds like an old hippie wedding.

As do I.

quote:

---

Derrida, I suspect that she is in her mid/late forties if not older, so this was thirty or so years ago. Was this an earlier ceremony she was describing? Surely she is not going to benefit much if at all from lying about such a temple rite. And no, I have never heard about naked women cavorting through the temple, just the part she describes.

---

Yep, nobody has ever lied for publicity or to make a religion look bad. Especially one they left.