Where to find a description of those ordinances–the Church doesn’t provide those to the general public because the ordinances are also considered to be extremely sacred. Observant LDS (and semi-active or non-active types such as I) won’t discuss the particulars of them outside of the Temples.
I can understand the initial query from a student of comparative religions (I consider myself to be such a student, after all); however, upon being informed that there are certain requirements and that the place is restricted, I’d consider my phrasing in the article to be pretty accurate for someone who trespassed anyway.
What happens inside the Temple, as far as what ordinances are peformed, is also well known - it’s the particulars of the ordinances that are not.
Also: I mentioned above that the baptisms for the living are performed in the chapels. This is generally true; however, the Ward Bishop or Stake President may authorize a different venue. I got to baptize my best friend in the Carmel River.
Shoot, Arnold,I’ve been a member all of my life and I still don’t know exactly what goes on in a Temple. I mean, I know why the ordinances are performed, but I do not know how they are performed, what’s said, etc etc.
Each temple has a maintenance staff who are recommend holders and therefore able to work in the temple without disrupting normal operations. I’ve seen workmen doing routine repairs from time to time. If significant maintenance is required then your description is accurate – the temple is closed, repairs or remodelling is done by typical contractors and the temple is rededicated on completion. This has been done from time to time but the key word here is “significant” – usually it involves a pretty thorough renovation.
I might add, in case anyone is concerned, that if there were a true life-threatening emergency that required emergency personnel to enter the temple they would be allowed in. This might require re-dedication of the facility afterward, but no one would allow someone to die to prevent that inconvenience.
FWIW, many of the workers at the temples are quite elderly (most are retired couples) and I’m sure it’s not uncommon for medical emergencies to arise from time to time. So the presence of a medical staff is not just academic.
Well, correct me if I were wrong then Monty.
You can be sinful and still get into the temple?
Or just act sin free?
I am slightly curious, having been baptized and all last year.
It didn’t take however. Theres way too many oppositre beliefs between Mormons and Pentecostals.
Or any other sect of christianity.
And I thought (and I am sure) that Mormons believe that you are saved by grace AFTER ALL YOU CAN DO.
Sorry, God saves when we cant do anything. We never merit it, so its all grace.
I can give you a site, but you wont believe it since it disagrees with you.
If this helps any, vanilla, I think one of the problems with Mormons and talking about being saved by grace is that we make a distinction between salvation and exhaltation. We know that without Christ then we would all be eternally lost after we die and there would be absolutely nothing we could do about it. The difference comes in where we don’t just believe in Heaven and Hell, but in different degrees of glory and in eternal progression. We are saved by grace AND judged by our works, both.
There are sins that will keep you out of the temple (the ones that they ask about in the reccommend interview) but if people were perfect they wouldn’t be here. We’re all struggling with different things.
With respect, Arnold, if a person knows that a certain action will offend the faithful of a particular religion, and goes ahead anyway, I think that person is intentionally offending those believers. The motive may not be to offend, but the act is intentional (perhaps more in the sense of “recklessness” or “don’t care”). In essence, the person is saying, “I know this will offend you, but my spirit of inquiry is more important than your religious beliefs.”
Northern Piper, Monty - I see what you’re saying, but the question for me then becomes “is that that person is doing unethical?” i.e. I am a scholar that disguises myself to observe a private ceremony, and does not disrupt the ceremony. I would argue that the person who does this and then describes the ceremony in an article (without mockery, and without revealing any of the names of the persons involved, is not acting unethically, if the scholar has beforehand applied for knowledge about the ceremony and been denied that knowledge.
Now that’s a fascinationg issue. The answer to “Is that ethical behaviour?” would vary depending on the ethical philosphy of the person queried. Some philosophical systems would say it’s unethical, and others would say it’s ehtical. Obviously, I’d say it’s unethical.
Someone who’s going to the temple for the first time calls and makes an appointment, and generally brings a friend along as an “escort” to help them out. They also get a little colored slip of paper pinned to them that says, “Hey, I’m new! I don’t know what I’m doing!” so they get a lot of help and direction.
Anyone who didn’t have one of these papers pinned to them but who didn’t know what they were doing would stick out like a sore thumb and be immediately obvious. Whether it would be ethical or not, I just don’t think it would work.
There have been plenty of people who have left the church who have written all about the temple ceremonies in great detail. There’s even a movie.
But your presense is disruptful. For starters, you are lying about who you are and your relationship with God. There is a reason you must get a Temple recommend to go through the ordinances. It would be an insult to God to just let anybody into His most sacred place on Earth.
I don’t think so. Again, there are reasons it is a secret, and kept apart from the public. In the LDS religion the ordinances performed in the Temple are absolutely key factors to gaining access into the Highest Degree of Heaven. People who don’t understand what the ceremony is for would make a mockery of it.
Your presense would be very unethical because it would show a marked disrespect for other people’s beliefs as well as God. You may not believe in that God, but that doesn’t give you the right to disrupt a private ceremony between a person and a person’s chosen Diety.
I would never, ever dream of interupting someone’s prayer, meditation, confession, or any other religious rite a person performs simply for “scholarly interest”. If a person is able and willing to explain afterwards, it’s different. But barging into something that is the most sacred and important part of the whole religion simply because you are curious is unacceptable.
After briefly skimming over what has been asked, said, and assumed about Latter Day Saints and their temples, I believe that peoples’ questions have been answered, or atleast to the best that the internet can do. One thing that I can reiterate that Monty already said, is that if you want to know anything about the LDS church its best to go straight to the source, or atleast the Official source for the internet, and that is at:
Many of the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints somewhat discourage (not offically) the use of the internet to teach people about the Church, mainly because of how difficult it can be to articulate ones beliefs in postings such as this (nothwithstanding the Straight Dope rule about prostelyzing). Yes, there IS an Official site, but that is simply to inform about the beliefs of the church. Yeah, yeah, why not do it on a posting such as this? Well, because ideas can get mixed, because (not to my knowledge)myself nor anyone else has the authority to speak for the Church, and because people can easily misinterpet what one says or how they say it. (not to say that doesnt happen in person) And, im not trying to take anything away from monty or pepper, Both of them along with several others have been doing a FABULOUS job of dispelling some of the misconceptions about the Church.
Another way that anyone can find out more about the LDS church is to visit a sacrament meeting, or talk to a missionary. (one of those guys wearing suits and riding bicycles) If you can’t find one, look in any phonebook for “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” If THAT fails, then I believe there is a 1-800 number that you could call and they will send a missionary to you. (Im not certain what that number is, and yes, I should have been prepared with that).
And finally, why would anyone WANT to break in to someone elses’ religous ceremony just to see what they “do in there.” That to me seems like they are looking to create a clash, or cause trouble. Point taken: the name of the person who asked the original question, “B.Young.” Yeah, that wasnt a crack at Brigham Young, yeah, right.
I came up LDS on this test. No surprises there, because I am LDS. But I was hoping that the analysis would be a little more fine-grained – it could have said something like “You are a post-neo-existentialist vegetarian Mormon.”
Having been labelled as a “Not so veiled anti-Mormon type” by Monty, I suppose that whatever I say will be seen as derogatory and condeming… Ah well, so much for open discussion.
If my neighbours told me they were going to use the same pattern as we had used, and then used a different one, but told everyone who would listen that it was the same as ours, and they believed him, I might feel a little put out.
No, it was your comments in the first page of this thread that label you as such.
No, it was your comments in the first page of this thread that showed it is YOU who have no intereset in such.
This has my nomination as the most irrelevant comment in this board’s history.
Anyway, your feeling put out has exactly zero relevance to the way another religion is constructed, as aptly poined out by Bluesman. I might also add that your latest comment definitely supports the assertion about “not so veiled.” I might also add that one of your comments was derogatory and condemning of the Jewish faith also.
Bluesman didn’t say he was surprised at it; he merely asked why someone would have issues with the way another religion is constructed. Grimpixie’s answer to that is above.
Grim: << the community of saints/priests (i.e. needing no intermediary between us and God) is central to my faith >>
Nonsense. You are a professed Christian, correct? So you have Jesus as intermediary between you and God, do you not? [/wicked grin]
OK, gang, there is a line, however fuzzy. This forum is about asking honest questions and receiving honest answers. This is NOT a forum for pesonal attacks (those go in BBQ Pit). This is NOT the forum for debate/discussion about whether Mormons are Christians, or whether salvation is from grace or deeds, or any of those topics (those belong in Great Debates or IMHO forum.)
A comparison of the theology of LDS compared to Catholicism or Presbyterians or Sunni Moslems IS appropriate here: comparative religion, comments about how “Methodists believe X and LDS believes Y,” those are acceptable in this forum.
However, comments about “I believe X” or “icons are idols” or “Transubstantiation is sinful” or “We can’t be saved by deeds” are NOT appropriate here. It’s the diff between saying that a particular religion holds a certain theology, and trying to apply that theology to someone else’s religion, I suppose.
The difference is perhaps a fuzzy one, but I don’t want this degenerating into name-calling or religion-baiting. OK?
Dar! I had a great “Comparison Chart” of religions that I can’t find any more – it was a fold-out chart (actually two charts). Although it wasn’t published in Salt Lake City, or even in Utah, the chart was obviously put together by Mormons, because only Mormons would have made up the categories on the chart (“Belief in Pre-Existence”).
Until I can locate that, let me recommend A Tale of Two Cities. Nope, not the Charles Disckens book, but one written and published by Catholics. The titular “two cities” are Salt Lake City and Rome. It compares the two religions, pretty clearly from a Catholic point of view. It’s pretty respectful, and was big in the Catholic Community when I lived in SLC (Roman Catholics are the second biggest Church in Utah – but they’re a long way second.)
Touche!! Semantically (?sp), Jesus and God = “one-and-the-same”, but who wants to play with words when you can play with Action Man ™…
It seems that I may have crossed into the fuzzy zone, and for that I appologise - what started out as a genuine attempt to understand something that was new and unknown turned (thanks mostly to my ill-phrased questions/comments) into “name-calling or religion-baiting”.
My only real contact with the LDS Church was through a friend of mine at school (10 yrs+ ago) who told me that the beliefs and practices were basically the same as my own (mainstream, evangelical, protestant). Reading this thread (and others) has opened my eyes to the apparent larger-than-expected differences between the two.
Until the next time - I’m of to the LDS site to do my homework [/chastend look]
