New Temple Ceremony Doctrinal Flaws

[Obeone]

Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and D&C are divine scripture. I know because the Spirit of God made it known to me.

Eternal fire is a convincing teacher. Before long, all will know it.

You will eat your words by and by.

Mark my word.

Cheers.

You can’t lump all of that together and say it is all “divine.” God expects us to use our brains, our agency, and our gift of discernment. As I noted in my other thread, scriptures are intended as a springboard to help us come to know God for ourselves, but there is no perfect book. All scripture has imperfections or the intentions of the writer.

Book of Mormon title page answers you well:

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

[Obeone]

This is so true. There is no temple ceremony in the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses. The D&C is so full of crap it just as well be jettisoned as well. I know those are hard truths to swallow but better than wasting your time trying to invent some explanation to support the unsupportable.

Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and D&C are divine scripture. I know because the Spirit of God made it known to me.

Eternal fire is a convincing teacher. Before long, all will know it.

You will eat your words by and by.

Mark my word.

Cheers.

Not concerned. I'm happy for you.

I have heard this before:

 Alma 54:
21 And as concerning that God whom ye say we have rejected, behold, we know not such a being; neither do ye; but if it so be that there is such a being, we know not but that he hath made us as well as you.
22 And if it so be that there is a devil and a hell, behold will he not send you there to dwell with my brother whom ye have murdered, whom ye have hinted that he hath gone to such a place? But behold these things matter not.
23 I am Ammoron, and a descendant of Zoram, whom your fathers pressed and brought out of Jerusalem.
24 And behold now, I am a bold Lamanite; behold, this war hath been waged to avenge their wrongs, and to maintain and to obtain their rights to the government; and I close my epistle to Moroni.

If you remember, it did not end well.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and D&C are divine scripture. I know because the Spirit of God made it known to me.

Eternal fire is a convincing teacher. Before long, all will know it.

You will eat your words by and by.

Mark my word.

Cheers.

You can’t lump all of that together and say it is all “divine.” God expects us to use our brains, our agency, and our gift of discernment. As I noted in my other thread, scriptures are intended as a springboard to help us come to know God for ourselves, but there is no perfect book. All scripture has imperfections or the intentions of the writer.

Book of Mormon title page answers you well:

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

You need to read that carefully. Condemn not the things of God does not mean you believe the faults. Come on, God expects us to be capable of using the gifts of discernment.

And, I should add, D&C has so many problems. If you think D&C is divine, then why did they add and remove sections? Why is the original 101 gone? Because Brigham couldn’t have that getting in the way of his 132 abominations.

[Obeone]

You can’t lump all of that together and say it is all “divine.” God expects us to use our brains, our agency, and our gift of discernment. As I noted in my other thread, scriptures are intended as a springboard to help us come to know God for ourselves, but there is no perfect book. All scripture has imperfections or the intentions of the writer.

Book of Mormon title page answers you well:

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

You need to read that carefully. Condemn not the things of God does not mean you believe the faults. Come on, God expects us to be capable of using the gifts of discernment.

And, I should add, D&C has so many problems. If you think D&C is divine, then why did they add and remove sections? Why is the original 101 gone? Because Brigham couldn’t have that getting in the way of his 132 abominations.

132 is true.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and D&C are divine scripture. I know because the Spirit of God made it known to me.

Eternal fire is a convincing teacher. Before long, all will know it.

You will eat your words by and by.

Mark my word.

Cheers.

You can’t lump all of that together and say it is all “divine.” God expects us to use our brains, our agency, and our gift of discernment. As I noted in my other thread, scriptures are intended as a springboard to help us come to know God for ourselves, but there is no perfect book. All scripture has imperfections or the intentions of the writer.

Book of Mormon title page answers you well:

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

It’s like what I said went completely over your head.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Book of Mormon title page answers you well:

You need to read that carefully. Condemn not the things of God does not mean you believe the faults. Come on, God expects us to be capable of using the gifts of discernment.

And, I should add, D&C has so many problems. If you think D&C is divine, then why did they add and remove sections? Why is the original 101 gone? Because Brigham couldn’t have that getting in the way of his 132 abominations.

132 is true.

And the original 101…? A simple mistake?

[Obeone]

You need to read that carefully. Condemn not the things of God does not mean you believe the faults. Come on, God expects us to be capable of using the gifts of discernment.

And, I should add, D&C has so many problems. If you think D&C is divine, then why did they add and remove sections? Why is the original 101 gone? Because Brigham couldn’t have that getting in the way of his 132 abominations.

132 is true.

And the original 101…? A simple mistake?

Original 101, was saying "we believe" right? So it was not a revelation.

All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents and masters who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin.

mrm.org/1835-dc-101

[Reluctant Watchman]

132 is true.

And the original 101…? A simple mistake?

Original 101, was saying "we believe" right? So it was not a revelation.

*sigh* Good luck with your harem of wives.

[Obeone]

So original 101 was not a revelation (with it's "we believe"s etc), but 132 was.

[Reluctant Watchman]

So original 101 was not a revelation (with it's "we believe"s etc), but 132 was.

Quick question for you. Do you believe everything these men say? I mean, when are they speaking “as a prophet” or not? The modern LDS org teaches then your president opens his mouth, he is speaking for the Lord. (I’m not joking, that’s. a quote from Rasband in general conference)

Secondly, how do you reconcile one “prophet” who condemns the teachings of a former “prophet”? For example, Brigham taught Adam/God theory, a latter leader condemned and rejected the belief. Who is correct?

[Obeone]

So original 101 was not a revelation (with it's "we believe"s etc), but 132 was.

Quick question for you. Do you believe everything these men say? I mean, when are they speaking “as a prophet” or not? The modern LDS org teaches then your president opens his mouth, he is speaking for the Lord. (I’m not joking, that’s. a quote from Rasband in general conference)

Secondly, how do you reconcile one “prophet” who condemns the teachings of a former “prophet”? For example, Brigham taught Adam/God theory, a latter leader condemned and rejected the belief. Who is correct?

I already answered that.

Prophets make mistakes. God doesn't.

And you need to have the Spirit of God with you even to know when the prophet speaks the word of God and when he does not.

In fact, even if the prophet says "Thus saith the Lord" it does not automatically mean you should obey him, because personal revelation of God to you outranks anything the prophet says.

Why? Because you must obey God above men, even if that man is a prophet.

But God will hold us responsible when we do not believe His words delivered by the prophets.

So the beginning and the end of this: you must have the Spirit of God with you to know when God speaks to you, whether by His own voice, or by the voice of His prophets, it is the same.

But unless you have the Spirit, you will not recognize it.

[Reluctant Watchman]

So original 101 was not a revelation (with it's "we believe"s etc), but 132 was.

Quick question for you. Do you believe everything these men say? I mean, when are they speaking “as a prophet” or not? The modern LDS org teaches then your president opens his mouth, he is speaking for the Lord. (I’m not joking, that’s. a quote from Rasband in general conference)

Secondly, how do you reconcile one “prophet” who condemns the teachings of a former “prophet”? For example, Brigham taught Adam/God theory, a latter leader condemned and rejected the belief. Who is correct?

I already answered that.

Prophets make mistakes. God doesn't.

And you need to have the Spirit of God with you even to know when the prophet speaks the word of God and when he does not.

In fact, even if the prophet says "Thus saith the Lord" it does not automatically mean you should obey him, because personal revelation of God to you outranks anything the prophet says.

Why? Because you must obey God above men, even if that man is a prophet.

But God will hold us responsible when we do not believe His words delivered by the prophets.

So the beginning and the end of this: you must have the Spirit of God with you to know when God speaks to you, whether by His own voice, or by the voice of His prophets, it is the same.

But unless you have the Spirit, you will not recognize it.

I agree. A witness of the Spirit supersedes the teachings and preachings of men.

So now… how do we resolve the issue of you and I receiving different witnesses from the Spirit? You believe these men are called of God, I do not. Repeatedly on the forum you condemn and shame people because they don’t believe the way you do.

[Obeone]

I already answered that.

Prophets make mistakes. God doesn't.

And you need to have the Spirit of God with you even to know when the prophet speaks the word of God and when he does not.

In fact, even if the prophet says "Thus saith the Lord" it does not automatically mean you should obey him, because personal revelation of God to you outranks anything the prophet says.

Why? Because you must obey God above men, even if that man is a prophet.

But God will hold us responsible when we do not believe His words delivered by the prophets.

So the beginning and the end of this: you must have the Spirit of God with you to know when God speaks to you, whether by His own voice, or by the voice of His prophets, it is the same.

But unless you have the Spirit, you will not recognize it.

I agree. A witness of the Spirit supersedes the teachings and preachings of men.

So now… how do we resolve the issue of you and I receiving different witnesses from the Spirit? You believe these men are called of God, I do not.

It is simple, one of us is under influence of a lying spirit.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I already answered that.

Prophets make mistakes. God doesn't.

And you need to have the Spirit of God with you even to know when the prophet speaks the word of God and when he does not.

In fact, even if the prophet says "Thus saith the Lord" it does not automatically mean you should obey him, because personal revelation of God to you outranks anything the prophet says.

Why? Because you must obey God above men, even if that man is a prophet.

But God will hold us responsible when we do not believe His words delivered by the prophets.

So the beginning and the end of this: you must have the Spirit of God with you to know when God speaks to you, whether by His own voice, or by the voice of His prophets, it is the same.

But unless you have the Spirit, you will not recognize it.

I agree. A witness of the Spirit supersedes the teachings and preachings of men.

So now… how do we resolve the issue of you and I receiving different witnesses from the Spirit? You believe these men are called of God, I do not.

It is simple, one of us is under influence of a lying spirit.

There…. that’s the Obeone I was looking for. Any guesses as to who?

[Obeone]

I agree. A witness of the Spirit supersedes the teachings and preachings of men.

So now… how do we resolve the issue of you and I receiving different witnesses from the Spirit? You believe these men are called of God, I do not.

It is simple, one of us is under influence of a lying spirit.

There…. that’s the Obeone I was looking for. Any guesses as to who?

Definitely not me.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Oh, of course not.

[Hogmeister]

Of course the laws aren't taught well in the temple. They are given mere minutes. Any average Sunday School class could do a better job. Indeed, there have been entire books written on the subject. But that's my point, the endowment as practiced in the LDS temples isn't an end in itself. Its merely an invitation to go get the real thing.

As for the temple recommend questions. I dunno. All I can say is "woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

So what's the point if you don't talk about them outside, nor inside, and discourage people from talking about them at all?

I think many of the 15 questions are an abomination. Especially when you peel the layers back and begin to understand how awful this practice is. The "sustaining" questions alone are straight-up idolatry, especially considering Nelson has taught that to sustain is an "oath-like covenant" to obey them. And the tithing question, and what they've done to the doctrine, is one of the most egregious and blatant forms of leadership corruption I've ever seen in a religion.

You might be right that the current questions have been somewhat corrupted but I believe they were well intended from the beginning and have a precedent.

PSALM 15

David asks, Who will dwell in the Lord’s holy hill?—He answers, The righteous, the upright, and those with integrity.

A Psalm of David.

1 Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?

2 He that awalketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.

3 He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.

4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

5 He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Of course the laws aren't taught well in the temple. They are given mere minutes. Any average Sunday School class could do a better job. Indeed, there have been entire books written on the subject. But that's my point, the endowment as practiced in the LDS temples isn't an end in itself. Its merely an invitation to go get the real thing.

As for the temple recommend questions. I dunno. All I can say is "woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

So what's the point if you don't talk about them outside, nor inside, and discourage people from talking about them at all?

I think many of the 15 questions are an abomination. Especially when you peel the layers back and begin to understand how awful this practice is. The "sustaining" questions alone are straight-up idolatry, especially considering Nelson has taught that to sustain is an "oath-like covenant" to obey them. And the tithing question, and what they've done to the doctrine, is one of the most egregious and blatant forms of leadership corruption I've ever seen in a religion.

You might be right that the current questions have been somewhat corrupted but I believe they were well intended from the beginning and have a precedent.

PSALM 15

David asks, Who will dwell in the Lord’s holy hill?—He answers, The righteous, the upright, and those with integrity.

A Psalm of David.

1 Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?

2 He that awalketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.

3 He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.

4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

5 He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.

Maybe… but I doubt it. The doctrinal basis for the endowment should 1) be taught correctly, which it is not. 2) be taught openly and to anyone who wants to make appropriate covenants with the Lord. And that does not include making an oath-like covenant to leaders as Nelson has suggested in recent years.

[Mamabear]

The temple ceremony is nothing more then an attempt to legitimize polygamy. Baptism for the dead is anti atonement
and anti-Christ. There is nothing to be gained by studying it or participating in it in any way. Bottom line it is a complete waste of time and has stolen from untold thousands of people the joy of helping to save the living.

Question: why would a Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, reveal a false doctrine such as baptism for the dead as part of the restoration?

Could it be that Joseph’s idea of the restoration was entirely different than the one in Isaiah so he just made stuff up?
Polygamy, baptism for the dead, authority, keys, endowment, sealing, priesthood, tithing etc.

[BenMcCrea]

The biggest flaw for me is still the veil and who is receiving at the veil.

‘and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there;’

2 Nephi 9:41

[Luke]

The temple ceremony is nothing more then an attempt to legitimize polygamy. Baptism for the dead is anti atonement
and anti-Christ. There is nothing to be gained by studying it or participating in it in any way. Bottom line it is a complete waste of time and has stolen from untold thousands of people the joy of helping to save the living.

Question: why would a Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, reveal a false doctrine such as baptism for the dead as part of the restoration?

Could it be that Joseph’s idea of the restoration was entirely different than the one in Isaiah so he just made stuff up?
Polygamy, baptism for the dead, authority, keys, endowment, sealing, priesthood, tithing etc.

Or maybe he was right. Have you not at least considered that that might be a possibility?

[Mamabear]

The temple ceremony is nothing more then an attempt to legitimize polygamy. Baptism for the dead is anti atonement
and anti-Christ. There is nothing to be gained by studying it or participating in it in any way. Bottom line it is a complete waste of time and has stolen from untold thousands of people the joy of helping to save the living.

Question: why would a Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, reveal a false doctrine such as baptism for the dead as part of the restoration?

Could it be that Joseph’s idea of the restoration was entirely different than the one in Isaiah so he just made stuff up?
Polygamy, baptism for the dead, authority, keys, endowment, sealing, priesthood, tithing etc.

Or maybe he was right. Have you not at least considered that that might be a possibility?

Yeah I did that for almost 20 years.

I wonder if that thief on the the cross with Jesus was baptized? You know the one that was going to paradise with him? Or maybe the Bible was wrong and Jesus told him he would have to wait in 2,000 years in spirit prison until someone who is lds will baptize him.
You know because I’m sure there is absolutely no water in heaven when we return back to our natural spiritual state. Nothing can be done there because earth has more resources than heaven and dead people rely on the living to help them achieve salvation.

[mikewoodings]

Question: why would a Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, reveal a false doctrine such as baptism for the dead as part of the restoration?

Could it be that Joseph’s idea of the restoration was entirely different than the one in Isaiah so he just made stuff up?
Polygamy, baptism for the dead, authority, keys, endowment, sealing, priesthood, tithing etc.

Or maybe he was right. Have you not at least considered that that might be a possibility?

Yeah I did that for almost 20 years.

I wonder if that thief on the the cross with Jesus was baptized? You know the one that was going to paradise with him? Or maybe the Bible was wrong and Jesus told him he would have to wait in 2,000 years in spirit prison until someone who is lds will baptize him.
You know because I’m sure there is absolutely no water in heaven when we return back to our natural spiritual state. Nothing can be done there because earth has more resources than heaven and dead people rely on the living to help them achieve salvation.

I just read an analysis on the verse you brought up in Luke so that I could answer your question. The original text did not have any punctuation but was added in later. Biblical evidence show that the common that was placed in later should actually be after today. Making it read, “And he [Jesus] said to him [the criminal], ‘Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.’

You do realize that baptisms for the dead weren’t invented by Joseph Smith right? They existed in the original church of Christ until the Council of Carthage banned them but still continued in the smaller sects.

Polygamy has existed since the beginning of the earth so it’s nothing new. Joseph didn’t invent that either. Just Christianity had been perverted so much that they completely rejected it. Also, tithing as outlined in D&C is paid on increase or the amount over what you need to live. Just the same as what Abraham paid to Melchizedek.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

The temple ceremony is nothing more then an attempt to legitimize polygamy. Baptism for the dead is anti atonement
and anti-Christ. There is nothing to be gained by studying it or participating in it in any way. Bottom line it is a complete waste of time and has stolen from untold thousands of people the joy of helping to save the living.

Question: why would a Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, reveal a false doctrine such as baptism for the dead as part of the restoration?

Could it be that Joseph’s idea of the restoration was entirely different than the one in Isaiah so he just made stuff up?
Polygamy, baptism for the dead, authority, keys, endowment, sealing, priesthood, tithing etc.

One explanatory theory: as Joseph was exposed to more theological ideas, from his great uncle John Smith the Theology professor at Dartmouth, from Sydney Rigdon, a Baptist Minister and Historian, and from others who exposed Jospeh to the ideas of the time like pre-existence, agency, etc. Joseph found ways to incorporate those "ideas" into his revelations and theology. It was a work in progress. We call it an ongoing restoration today, because, well, that sort of explains the process. But to be blunt, it looks like Jospeh was a sponge, soaking up the different doctrinal ideas that came along. 1820-1840 was a time of religious awakening and with that came new or deep philosophical interpretations of the the Bible. These new doctrines added weight to the idea that Joseph was a prophet and it also increased the plausibility that the church was being "restored". These new doctrines were like a sedative to new members. They were lulled into a sense that the restoration was happening in real time and they were part of something grand and glorious. They may have been. But another explanation is that Jospeh borrowed from the ideas of his day.

[Robin Hood]

Or maybe he was right. Have you not at least considered that that might be a possibility?

Yeah I did that for almost 20 years.

I wonder if that thief on the the cross with Jesus was baptized? You know the one that was going to paradise with him? Or maybe the Bible was wrong and Jesus told him he would have to wait in 2,000 years in spirit prison until someone who is lds will baptize him.
You know because I’m sure there is absolutely no water in heaven when we return back to our natural spiritual state. Nothing can be done there because earth has more resources than heaven and dead people rely on the living to help them achieve salvation.

I just read an analysis on the verse you brought up in Luke so that I could answer your question. The original text did not have any punctuation but was added in later. Biblical evidence show that the common that was placed in later should actually be after today. Making it read, “And he [Jesus] said to him [the criminal], ‘Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.’

You do realize that baptisms for the dead weren’t invented by Joseph Smith right? They existed in the original church of Christ until the Council of Carthage banned them but still continued in the smaller sects.

Polygamy has existed since the beginning of the earth so it’s nothing new. Joseph didn’t invent that either. Just Christianity had been perverted so much that they completely rejected it. Also, tithing as outlined in D&C is paid on increase or the amount over what you need to live. Just the same as what Abraham paid to Melchizedek.

That's the argument the JW's use re. the thief on the cross... but it's wrong. The phrase "Verily I say unto you" appears in a number of places in the gospels, but not once does it include "today". It doesn't even make sense when you think about it. It just isn't a real phrase.