Why Changes to the Temple Ceremony?

[neverending]

Sir told me that I should start a new thread on this subject since he wouldn't answer my question. What I'd like to know is why there was a change made to the temple ceremony without the President of the LDS Church coming out saying he received a revelation. Even Pres. Kimball revealed a revelation in 1978 that blacks were to receive the Priesthood. Isn't the temple ceremony the most important ordinance for all LDS members?
I know that Joseph Smith stated that these ordinances were never to be changed or altered. "'Ordinances insti tuted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed." He also said, "He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them."
- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208
what then are people to believe? Why do the LDS not become confused over these changes or question why?

[Sir]

Sir told me that I should start a new thread on this subject since he wouldn't answer my question. What I'd like to know is why there was a change made to the temple ceremony without the President of the LDS Church coming out saying he received a revelation. Even Pres. Kimball revealed a revelation in 1978 that blacks were to receive the Priesthood. Isn't the temple ceremony the most important ordinance for all LDS members?
I know that Joseph Smith stated that these ordinances were never to be changed or altered. "'Ordinances insti tuted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed." He also said, "He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them."
- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208
what then are people to believe? Why do the LDS not become confused over these changes or question why?

No confusion at all.

The ordinances have not changed.

The means and the message are able to be modified according to circumstances.

But the ordinances themselves have not changed.

Hope that helps.

[neverending]

No confusion at all.

The ordinances have not changed.

The means and the message are able to be modified according to circumstances.

But the ordinances themselves have not changed.

Hope that helps.

Sir,
Try and explain it anyway you want, but a modification IS a change!! The endowment procedure has been changed too. No longer do the men or women going through the temple for the first time have oil touched to intimate areas of their bodies. That is a CHANGE!! The blood oaths have been TOTALLY removed from the ritual, that is a MAJOR CHANGE!! So, your answer is not truthful. JUST WHAT, are these circumstances that now have gone against what God supposedly ordained? No one was pressuring the Church to make these changes other then maybe the young women going through to be married and found the rituals gross and disgusting as I did. A secret club for only the worthy members? An ordinance so special and important that it is denied to a majority of its members, especially when you think of those members who live in poor countries. And let's not forget the wealth that resides within the LDS Church and how they spent 3 billion dollars to build a shopping mall and condos in downtown Salt Lake City and recently spent a half billion dollars to purchase land in Florida. Why not allow ALL members this wonderful ordinance if it is the highest form of worship for you and without it, those poor souls will never gain their exaltation? Should people due to being poor be denied these special ordinances? That would be making God out to be a respecter of persons.

[Apologette]

Sir,
Try and explain it anyway you want, but a modification IS a change!! The endowment procedure has been changed too. No longer do the men or women going through the temple for the first time have oil touched to intimate areas of their bodies. That is a CHANGE!! The blood oaths have been TOTALLY removed from the ritual, that is a MAJOR CHANGE!! So, your answer is not truthful. JUST WHAT, are these circumstances that now have gone against what God supposedly ordained? No one was pressuring the Church to make these changes other then maybe the young women going through to be married and found the rituals gross and disgusting as I did. A secret club for only the worthy members? An ordinance so special and important that it is denied to a majority of its members, especially when you think of those members who live in poor countries. And let's not forget the wealth that resides within the LDS Church and how they spent 3 billion dollars to build a shopping mall and condos in downtown Salt Lake City and recently spent a half billion dollars to purchase land in Florida. Why not allow ALL members this wonderful ordinance if it is the highest form of worship for you and without it, those poor souls will never gain their exaltation? Should people due to being poor be denied these special ordinances? That would be making God out to be a respecter of persons.

Well, consider that Mormons have MODIFIED Who God is; Who Jesus is; Who the Holy Spirit is; What Creation means; and What Prophecy is (unfulfilled jabbering by Smith). In the world of Mormonism, words have no meaning other than what they apply to them at the moment. Thus, the command never to alter the temple rituals is actually circumvented by saying that the ritual was only modified. Incredible, and duplicitous!

[Snow Patrol]

Sir told me that I should start a new thread on this subject since he wouldn't answer my question. What I'd like to know is why there was a change made to the temple ceremony without the President of the LDS Church coming out saying he received a revelation. Even Pres. Kimball revealed a revelation in 1978 that blacks were to receive the Priesthood. Isn't the temple ceremony the most important ordinance for all LDS members?
I know that Joseph Smith stated that these ordinances were never to be changed or altered. "'Ordinances insti tuted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed." He also said, "He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them."
- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208
what then are people to believe? Why do the LDS not become confused over these changes or question why?


Good question. Times change. The temple movie changes. There was a time where there wasn't a movie. The underlying ordinances have not changed or gone away. How those ordinances are carried out has. Just like baptism. Originally it was done in a river or lake. Now, in many cases it is done in a building. I have done a baptism in a river before. Again, the ordinances are still performed, which is the critical thing.

Now as to your comment..."Can you see where trying to understand Mormonism is full of so many conflicting doctrines and very difficult to keep track of? God is NOT the author of confusion. For it says in 1 Cor.14:33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." I can say the same about modern Christianity. Doctrines change, ie.. women clergy, gay marriage, etc. Even doctrines in the different denominations are different. Talk about confusion. It is all different in Christianity.

[Apologette]

Good question. Times change. The temple movie changes. There was a time where there wasn't a movie. The underlying ordinances have not changed or gone away. How those ordinances are carried out has. Just like baptism. Originally it was done in a river or lake. Now, in many cases it is done in a building. I have done a baptism in a river before. Again, the ordinances are still performed, which is the critical thing.

Now as to your comment..."Can you see where trying to understand Mormonism is full of so many conflicting doctrines and very difficult to keep track of? God is NOT the author of confusion. For it says in 1 Cor.14:33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." I can say the same about modern Christianity. Doctrines change, ie.. women clergy, gay marriage, etc. Even doctrines in the different denominations are different. Talk about confusion. It is all different in Christianity.
They certainly have been changed - all the blood letting has been omitted!

[nrajeffreturns]

They certainly have been changed - all the blood letting has been omitted!

Do you long for the good old days? :)

[Sir]

Sir,
Try and explain it anyway you want,

I was answering your question in a civil and non-argumentative way. Why do you ask Mormons to dialogue with you and answer your questions, and as soon as they do, your first response is they are simply trying to explain it away?


but a modification IS a change!! The endowment procedure has been changed too. No longer do the men or women going through the temple for the first time have oil touched to intimate areas of their bodies. That is a CHANGE!! The blood oaths have been TOTALLY removed from the ritual, that is a MAJOR CHANGE!!

Jesus "modified" the gospel, did he not? "Ye have heard it said......but I say unto you......."

Do you have a problem with that?

But the ordinance hasn't changed. Just some procedures. While I went after the 1990 change, the "blood oaths" you refer to are not the ordinance.


So, your answer is not truthful.

Sure it was. You just can't seem to resist calling me a liar, even when I decided to actually entertain your thread without polemics or argumentation.


JUST WHAT, are these circumstances that now have gone against what God supposedly ordained? No one was pressuring the Church to make these changes other then maybe the young women going through to be married and found the rituals gross and disgusting as I did. A secret club for only the worthy members? An ordinance so special and important that it is denied to a majority of its members, especially when you think of those members who live in poor countries. And let's not forget the wealth that resides within the LDS Church and how they spent 3 billion dollars to build a shopping mall and condos in downtown Salt Lake City and recently spent a half billion dollars to purchase land in Florida. Why not allow ALL members this wonderful ordinance if it is the highest form of worship for you and without it, those poor souls will never gain their exaltation? Should people due to being poor be denied these special ordinances? That would be making God out to be a respecter of persons. [/SIZE]

ALL members are allowed the wonderful ordinances found in the temple. Being poor has nothing to do with being allowed to participate in the temple.

I do find it strange that you and Jim seem so obsessed with the money issues of the LDS church. What they do, what they buy, what they invest in, what they spend it on, who benefits, etc....

[RealFakeHair]

Sir's comment!

ALL members are allowed the wonderful ordinances found in the temple. Being poor has nothing to do with being allowed to participate in the temple.

I do find it strange that you and Jim seem so obsessed with the money issues of the LDS church. What they do, what they buy, what they invest in, what they spend it on, who benefits, etc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet you a dollar to a doughnut there will never be a person who is on welfair becoming the church prophet too.

[neverending]

I was answering your question in a civil and non-argumentative way. Why do you ask Mormons to dialogue with you and answer your questions, and as soon as they do, your first response is they are simply trying to explain it away?



Jesus "modified" the gospel, did he not? "Ye have heard it said......but I say unto you......."

Do you have a problem with that?

But the ordinance hasn't changed. Just some procedures. While I went after the 1990 change, the "blood oaths" you refer to are not the ordinance.



Sure it was. You just can't seem to resist calling me a liar, even when I decided to actually entertain your thread without polemics or argumentation.



ALL members are allowed the wonderful ordinances found in the temple. Being poor has nothing to do with being allowed to participate in the temple.

I do find it strange that you and Jim seem so obsessed with the money issues of the LDS church. What they do, what they buy, what they invest in, what they spend it on, who benefits, etc....

Sir,
What I highlighted in red, is a real problem. Again, you say falsehoods. As a member of your church, born and raised, married in one of your temples, I KNOW that in order to even get a temple recommend, one MUST be a full ti the payer plus answer all the many questions put to them by their Bishop and Stake President. Have the requirements for a recommend changed now too? How can a poor person who has to s****e out a living daily, afford to pay ti thing? That man is striving with everything that is in him to provide a meager life for his family and doesn't have anything at the end of the day to pay to the WEALTHy church he joined.
As for Jim and I being curious about ALL the money that the LDS Church spends, it is only because we see the money spent on things that are not of God, i.e. spending 3 billion dollars to buy up a full block of downtown SLC to build a shopping mall and million dollar condos. Then recently, spending almost a half a billion to purchase acreage in Florida. How does this help anyone other then the Church? Who benefits? Is it the poor? When I know that the LDS Church gives .7% of what it takes in to help the poor. That is shameful! Can you imagine all the poor people a half a billion dollars would have helped? I can think of so many places that kind of money could have been used. Christ said, "when you've done it unto the least of these my brethren, you've done it unto me (Matt. 25:40).

[James Banta]

Sir,
What I highlighted in red, is a real problem. Again, you say falsehoods. As a member of your church, born and raised, married in one of your temples, I KNOW that in order to even get a temple recommend, one MUST be a full ti the payer plus answer all the many questions put to them by their Bishop and Stake President. Have the requirements for a recommend changed now too? How can a poor person who has to s****e out a living daily, afford to pay ti thing? That man is striving with everything that is in him to provide a meager life for his family and doesn't have anything at the end of the day to pay to the WEALTHy church he joined.
As for Jim and I being curious about ALL the money that the LDS Church spends, it is only because we see the money spent on things that are not of God, i.e. spending 3 billion dollars to buy up a full block of downtown SLC to build a shopping mall and million dollar condos. Then recently, spending almost a half a billion to purchase acreage in Florida. How does this help anyone other then the Church? Who benefits? Is it the poor? When I know that the LDS Church gives .7% of what it takes in to help the poor. That is shameful! Can you imagine all the poor people a half a billion dollars would have helped? I can think of so many places that kind of money could have been used. Christ said, "when you've done it unto the least of these my brethren, you've done it unto me (Matt. 25:40).

We have been told and retold, if you want to know the truth of all things Follow the Money IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Most gods are ever changing, the gods of 19th centry America isn't the same gods of today.
Examples, *****s are now accepted in most churches even in leadership roles.
Women are now deacons and preachers and teachers to men.
Slavery okayed in the South by their gods, and today not.
Sagreagation okayed in America by their gods, and not today.
LDS the everylasting never changing gospel of the 19th centry, well it changed too.
Seems to me the God of yesterday, today, and tomorrow should be the same God.

[James Banta]

Good question. Times change. The temple movie changes. There was a time where there wasn't a movie. The underlying ordinances have not changed or gone away. How those ordinances are carried out has. Just like baptism. Originally it was done in a river or lake. Now, in many cases it is done in a building. I have done a baptism in a river before. Again, the ordinances are still performed, which is the critical thing.

Now as to your comment..."Can you see where trying to understand Mormonism is full of so many conflicting doctrines and very difficult to keep track of? God is NOT the author of confusion. For it says in 1 Cor.14:33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." I can say the same about modern Christianity. Doctrines change, ie.. women clergy, gay marriage, etc. Even doctrines in the different denominations are different. Talk about confusion. It is all different in Christianity.

Can a movie be made as to say the EXACT SAME THINGS said in acting out the play that is today found in the Salt Lake temple? The temple ceremony has changes many times.. In Kirtland, Ohio in 1836 a washing and anointing ceremony was performed. This included complete bath, followed by an anointing with oil. Later this was change to include only a foot-washing ceremony and partaking of the sacrament which consisted of bread and wine. The washings and anointing ceremony found their way into the Nauvoo Temple where they became know as the initiatory ordinance taken before a person was allowed to do their endowment work. The earliest accounts of the Nauvoo temple endowment indicate that initiatory washings followed a literal Old Testament model of actual bathing. Large tubs of water are specified in the separate men's and women's rooms. The anointing was performed by liberally pouring consecrated oil from a horn over the head and allowing it to run over the whole body (Wilford Woodruff, Mysteries of Godliness, p. 81).

That is much different than a small dab of oil placed on the forehead of the initiate. Today people must be considered clean as they come into the temple from the world.. That is a HUGE Change of Doctrine..

As late as 1931 the Salt Lake Temple had full-sized bathtubs for the washing ceremony (Evolution of the Mormon Temple Ceremony, Appendix F, pp. 175-76). Then a few years later the washing and anointing ceremony was reduced to a ritual touching with water and oil on the various parts of the body by an officiator as prayers were said. The initiate was no longer totally undressed but covered with a sort of white poncho (called a "shield") open on the sides. The officiator then reached inside the shield to anoint various areas of the body (Evolution of the Mormon Temple Ceremony, p. 61). Then the temple worker ***isted the initiate in putting on the one-piece form of the garment. Many Mormons wear the two-piece style in everyday life, reserving the one-piece style for the temple.

In January of 2005, the initiatory washing and anointing rite was again modified. Now an initiate disrobes in a locker room (men and women in separate areas), puts on the one-piece garment by him/herself, and then puts the newly designed shield over that. The new shield is no longer open on the sides so that the person is totally covered prior to entering the cubical for the washing and anointing rite. The temple worker simply touches the person's forehead with water, and then gives the blessing regarding the various parts of the body (see account below). This is followed by an anointing of the forehead with oil and a repeat of a similar set of prayers. There has also been a slight modification to the wording at the end of the ritual telling the patron that his/her garments are now "authorized."

LDS defenders tell us that there are good and righteous reasons for changes to the Temple ceremony they teach:

It is important to remember that the temple ceremonies are teaching mechanisms that are tailored to the needs of their audience. . . The mechanisms may be changed for many reasons including, but not limited to, the following:

Spiritual Growth of the Church. . . .
Apostasy in the Church. . . .
Modernize to conform with the prevailing culture and/or language. . . .
Add a specific teaching that is especially needed at a point in time. . . .
Remove a specific teaching for cultural reasons. . . . ("Changes to the Temple Ceremonies," by W. John Walsh, www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/temple_changes.htm).

And all this happens before we even start talking about pulling the "Pay-lay-ale", the minister, and the penalties out of the endowment for no other reason I can understand other than to make those using the temple believe they are as Christian and any other, but they know more, having more of God's word..

There are no changes in a CHRISTIAN CHURCH.. We have no female clergy, no gay marriage. The Bible teaches that a elder/bishop is to be the husband of one wife, not the wife of one husband. It teaches that:

Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Any "church" that would ignore these teachings calling them Old Fashion, or out of step with the modern world is NOT a Christian church, and are not part of the greater Catholic Christian Body.. There in no confusion in the Church there is much within mormonism.. IHS jim

[Sir]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet you a dollar to a doughnut there will never be a person who is on welfair becoming the church prophet too.

Strawman..

[neverending]

Sir's comment!

ALL members are allowed the wonderful ordinances found in the temple. Being poor has nothing to do with being allowed to participate in the temple.

I do find it strange that you and Jim seem so obsessed with the money issues of the LDS church. What they do, what they buy, what they invest in, what they spend it on, who benefits, etc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet you a dollar to a doughnut there will never be a person who is on welfair becoming the church prophet too.

Hi and you're absolutely right. I don't know of one GA that isn't wealthy. All are either, doctors, attorneys, or prominent business men. They sit up there behind the pulpit looking so smug or sleeping. Why can't an ordinary member of the church hold this position?

[Sir]

Sir,
What I highlighted in red, is a real problem. Again, you say falsehoods.

No, I didn't lie. You just can't help yourself to want to argue and be divisive (even while complaining about people doing that).


As a member of your church, born and raised, married in one of your temples, I KNOW that in order to even get a temple recommend, one MUST be a full ti the payer plus answer all the many questions put to them by their Bishop and Stake President. Have the requirements for a recommend changed now too?

So your criticism is there are certain requirements that need to be met to be able to have access.

When you said, "An ordinance so special and important that it is denied to a majority of its members", do you also say that "Salvation is denied to a majority of the world."? Or do you believe that salvation is available to everyone in the world but that there will be many that don't meet the requirements in order to get it?


How can a poor person who has to s****e out a living daily, afford to pay ti thing?

The same way others do. By faith and devotion to God.

Anti-LDS who criticize the principle of ***hing based on your reasoning above teach us that you really do not understand or have real faith.


That man is striving with everything that is in him to provide a meager life for his family and doesn't have anything at the end of the day to pay to the WEALTHy church he joined.

The church doesn't need our ***hing, it needs our faith.



As for Jim and I being curious about ALL the money that the LDS Church spends, it is only because we see the money spent on things that are not of God, i.e. spending 3 billion dollars to buy up a full block of downtown SLC to build a shopping mall and million dollar condos. Then recently, spending almost a half a billion to purchase acreage in Florida. How does this help anyone other then the Church? Who benefits? Is it the poor? When I know that the LDS Church gives .7% of what it takes in to help the poor. That is shameful! Can you imagine all the poor people a half a billion dollars would have helped? I can think of so many places that kind of money could have been used. Christ said, "when you've done it unto the least of these my brethren, you've done it unto me (Matt. 25:40). [/FONT][/SIZE]

You know who else made the same type of argument? Judas Iscariot:



John 12:4-10
King James Version (KJV)

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Seems there will always be critics who complain about the cost of things and what others do with their own money and how much good they could've done with it, but even Jesus didn't have a problem with it and he even told us there will always be poor people around.

Although, I don't think I would want to be in the company of Judas.

[Sir]

Hi and you're absolutely right. I don't know of one GA that isn't wealthy. All are either, doctors, attorneys, or prominent business men. They sit up there behind the pulpit looking so smug or sleeping. Why can't an ordinary member of the church hold this position?

You undermine your own argument with your negatively-biased attacks.

Can you list all 12 apostles and their previous careers, along with the first presidency?

[RealFakeHair]

You undermine your own argument with your negatively-biased attacks.

Can you list all 12 apostles and their previous careers, along with the first presidency?

Hey, Sir. Did you know at krispy kreme you can buy an extra dozen of doughnut for only 1 dollar.

[neverending]

You undermine your own argument with your negatively-biased attacks.

Can you list all 12 apostles and their previous careers, along with the first presidency?


Sir,
Do you think I am uneducated and don't have any intelligence at all? Please forgive the length of this post but it contains a lot of info. Here goes.
Who is in the first presidency? 1. Pres. Thomas Monson: Distinguised career in publishing. Exec. for Advertising for the Deseret News. Sales Manager for the Deseret News Press, on of the West's largest Commercial Printing Firms where Monson rose to Gen. Manager. 2. Pres. Henry Eyring: Pres. of Ricks College, faulty member and a graduate of the school of Business, Stanford. BS in physics from University of Utah. MBA, Business Administration and PhD of Business from Harvard. 3. Pres. Deter Uchtdorf: Pilot for Lufthana German Airlines. Senior Vice President, Flight Operations and Lufthana Chief Pilot, Chairman of Flight Operations Committee of the International Air Transport ***oc.

The 12 Apostles:
1. Boyd Packer: Supervisor of Seminaries and Insti tutes of Religion and a member of the Administration Council of BYU.
2. Tom Perry: BS degree in Finance with a career in the retail business and served as Vice President and Treasurer in companies in Idaho, California, NY and M***achusetts.
3. Russell Nelson: Thoracic Surgeon graduate from University of Utah.
4. Dallon Oaks: Attorney and graduate of BYU. Practiced law in Chicago. Pres. of BYU from '71-'80. Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, '80-'84.
5. Russell Ballard: Real Estate, automotive and investments. Member of civic committees and boards.
6. Richard Scott: Mechanical Engineer, and served on the immediate staff of Admiral Hyman Rickover directing the development of the nuclear fuel for a wide variety of navel and land based power plants.
7. Robert Hales: Distinguished business career serving in executive positions with 3 major national companies.
8. Jeffery Holland: Educator, served as President of the AAPICU (American ***oc. of President of Independent Colleges & Universities. Sat on the board of NAICU (National ***oc. of Independent Colleges & Universities. Member of the NCAA, President Commission. Served on the governing boards of a number of civic and business related Corporations. Author of 8 books.
9. David Bednar: Professor of Business Management at Texas Tech University and the University of Arkansas.
10: Quentin Cook: Vice Chairman of Sutter Health System. President and CEO of a California health care system. Prior to that, a business lawyer and managing partner of a San Francisco Bay law firm. Board member of several profit and not-for-profit corporations.
11. D. Todd Christofferson: ***oc. General Counsel of NationsBank Corp. now Bank of America. Also served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Commerce Union Bank of Tennessee.
12: Neil Andersen: Masters of Business Administration from Harvard. Business interests, advertising, real estate development and healthcare.

Ok Sir, as you can plainly see, ALL the GA's are well to do business and professional men. They are all well to do. It is a shame that you can't see it and have no answer as to why an ordinary member in good standing can't be asked to be a GA. And as for finding this info, anything one wants to know is easily found here on the internet.
One question for you. Why is there 14 Apostles within your church? And what kinds of men did Jesus pick to be his apostles? Where they wealthy men or just ordinary, every day men?

[Sir]

Sir,
Do you think I am uneducated and don't have any intelligence at all?


No, but I do see you don't disappoint with your victimhood/ self-persecution complex by asking that question.




Please forgive the length of this post but it contains a lot of info. Here goes.
Who is in the first presidency? 1. Pres. Thomas Monson: Distinguised career in publishing. Exec. for Advertising for the Deseret News. Sales Manager for the Deseret News Press, on of the West's largest Commercial Printing Firms where Monson rose to Gen. Manager. 2. Pres. Henry Eyring: Pres. of Ricks College, faulty member and a graduate of the school of Business, Stanford. BS in physics from University of Utah. MBA, Business Administration and PhD of Business from Harvard. 3. Pres. Deter Uchtdorf: Pilot for Lufthana German Airlines. Senior Vice President, Flight Operations and Lufthana Chief Pilot, Chairman of Flight Operations Committee of the International Air Transport ***oc.

The 12 Apostles:
1. Boyd Packer: Supervisor of Seminaries and Insti tutes of Religion and a member of the Administration Council of BYU.
2. Tom Perry: BS degree in Finance with a career in the retail business and served as Vice President and Treasurer in companies in Idaho, California, NY and M***achusetts.
3. Russell Nelson: Thoracic Surgeon graduate from University of Utah.
4. Dallon Oaks: Attorney and graduate of BYU. Practiced law in Chicago. Pres. of BYU from '71-'80. Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, '80-'84.
5. Russell Ballard: Real Estate, automotive and investments. Member of civic committees and boards.
6. Richard Scott: Mechanical Engineer, and served on the immediate staff of Admiral Hyman Rickover directing the development of the nuclear fuel for a wide variety of navel and land based power plants.
7. Robert Hales: Distinguished business career serving in executive positions with 3 major national companies.
8. Jeffery Holland: Educator, served as President of the AAPICU (American ***oc. of President of Independent Colleges & Universities. Sat on the board of NAICU (National ***oc. of Independent Colleges & Universities. Member of the NCAA, President Commission. Served on the governing boards of a number of civic and business related Corporations. Author of 8 books.
9. David Bednar: Professor of Business Management at Texas Tech University and the University of Arkansas.
10: Quentin Cook: Vice Chairman of Sutter Health System. President and CEO of a California health care system. Prior to that, a business lawyer and managing partner of a San Francisco Bay law firm. Board member of several profit and not-for-profit corporations.
11. D. Todd Christofferson: ***oc. General Counsel of NationsBank Corp. now Bank of America. Also served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Commerce Union Bank of Tennessee.
12: Neil Andersen: Masters of Business Administration from Harvard. Business interests, advertising, real estate development and healthcare.

Ok Sir, as you can plainly see, ALL the GA's are well to do business and professional men. They are all well to do. It is a shame that you can't see it and have no answer as to why an ordinary member in good standing can't be asked to be a GA. And as for finding this info, anything one wants to know is easily found here on the internet.

You seem fixated on your own preconceived caste system. It doesn't strike me as problematic that people who are successful in their spiritual lives are also successful in their temporal lives.


One question for you. Why is there 14 Apostles within your church? And what kinds of men did Jesus pick to be his apostles? Where they wealthy men or just ordinary, every day men? [/SIZE]

That's three questions. :p

I honestly think God calls who he wants for leadership positions in the church. The only people who seem to have a problem with who God calls are jealous and/or bitter in their own lives, so they ridicule and despise others.

[neverending]

No, but I do see you don't disappoint with your victimhood/ self-persecution complex by asking that question.




You seem fixated on your own preconceived caste system. It doesn't strike me as problematic that people who are successful in their spiritual lives are also successful in their temporal lives.



That's three questions. :p

I honestly think God calls who he wants for leadership positions in the church. The only people who seem to have a problem with who God calls are jealous and/or bitter in their own lives, so they ridicule and despise others.

Your comments are always interesting. Do you have education in psychology? You accuse me of many mental problems. You always ***ume things that aren't there as well. I had a few simple questions that I wished an answer to but you went off on your tangent. Maybe someone else can answer my questions without going into the my mental state. For me, there's no problem with wondering something, that is how one learns. And yes, God can call whomever He wishes, but in the case of LDS GA's they are called due to their position within the community, it has nothing to do with God. For with the LDS, it is always about appearances...I know, I saw how my father was as a child and even as an adult. Once I had left the church and was attending a Baptist Church, our son was asked to be the lead in a Christmas play about the star over Bethlehem. My son has a lovely singing voice and had to sing 3 songs in the play. I was very proud of him. When I told my parents about it and invited them to come, my father refused saying, "there's no way I would come. What if someone saw me going into your church?" I was shocked that he refused on such ridiculous grounds and missed out on seeing his grandson sing. It was upsetting for my son when I had to tell him his grandpa wouldn't be coming. How was a child to understand such things?

[Sir]

Your comments are always interesting. Do you have education in psychology? You accuse me of many mental problems. You always ***ume things that aren't there as well. I had a few simple questions that I wished an answer to but you went off on your tangent. Maybe someone else can answer my questions without going into the my mental state.

So it's okay for you to question MY thoughts, but it isn't okay for me to question YOURS?

Sounds about right.


For me, there's no problem with wondering something, that is how one learns. And yes, God can call whomever He wishes, but in the case of LDS GA's they are called due to their position within the community, it has nothing to do with God.

That's simply your own biased conjecture.


For with the LDS, it is always about appearances...I know, I saw how my father was as a child and even as an adult. Once I had left the church and was attending a Baptist Church, our son was asked to be the lead in a Christmas play about the star over Bethlehem. My son has a lovely singing voice and had to sing 3 songs in the play. I was very proud of him. When I told my parents about it and invited them to come, my father refused saying, "there's no way I would come. What if someone saw me going into your church?" I was shocked that he refused on such ridiculous grounds and missed out on seeing his grandson sing. It was upsetting for my son when I had to tell him his grandpa wouldn't be coming. How was a child to understand such things? [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

And here is the typical "Banta-rant" that we have come to expect. The story/ anecdote about an event in your own family that proves the LDS church is bad. Did it ever occur to you that maybe it was just your own family's problems/ issues? I have been to and will be going to a Baptist Christmas show. In fact, I have participated in them as a musician. And Catholic, Methodist, AoG, Evangelical....

Sounds like your beef is with your dad, not us or the church.

[neverending]

So it's okay for you to question MY thoughts, but it isn't okay for me to question YOURS?

Sounds about right.



That's simply your own biased conjecture.



And here is the typical "Banta-rant" that we have come to expect. The story/ anecdote about an event in your own family that proves the LDS church is bad. Did it ever occur to you that maybe it was just your own family's problems/ issues? I have been to and will be going to a Baptist Christmas show. In fact, I have participated in them as a musician. And Catholic, Methodist, AoG, Evangelical....

Sounds like your beef is with your dad, not us or the church.

I think that is great that you've been involved in other churches meetings etc. Would you be kind enough though to answer why your church has 14 apostles? You've skipped over that one. And, I know there are many wonderful, faithful members who don't make a lot of money but never get a chance to serve as an Apostle or GA. I still see it as the President and his Counselors picking only those men who are wealthy. For me that is wrong for God is not a respecter of persons and He certainly doesn't care how wealthy a man may be. Excuse me for sharing too about how LDS care only about appearances. Did you not read the story of a Bishop right here in the SL valley who disguised himself as a homeless man and went to his Ward? Several members asked him to leave. Some wouldn't even speak to him or look at him. So, is this NOT about appearances?

[Sir]

I think that is great that you've been involved in other churches meetings etc. Would you be kind enough though to answer why your church has 14 apostles? You've skipped over that one.

There are 12 apostles and a First Presidency consisting of 3. Have you forgotten the simple things of the LDS church?


And, I know there are many wonderful, faithful members who don't make a lot of money but never get a chance to serve as an Apostle or GA. I still see it as the President and his Counselors picking only those men who are wealthy. For me that is wrong for God is not a respecter of persons and He certainly doesn't care how wealthy a man may be.

True. But you are reading your own negative bias into the LDS' motives.


Excuse me for sharing too about how LDS care only about appearances.

Why? That is a fallacy.


Did you not read the story of a Bishop right here in the SL valley who disguised himself as a homeless man and went to his Ward? Several members asked him to leave. Some wouldn't even speak to him or look at him. So, is this NOT about appearances? [/SIZE]

Yeah, we're talking about that at CARM too. Did you know a Methodist pastor did a similar thing with similar results.

You seem to take the bad things LDS do and paint the whole religion as bad. There are bad examples of Christ-like love in all churches, even yours. So be careful how quickly you judge others.

[James Banta]

You seem to take the bad things LDS do and paint the whole religion as bad. There are bad examples of Christ-like love in all churches, even yours. So be careful how quickly you judge others.

If the whole church is doing it as is represented in who is called to serve as a GA. The whole church has shown that it is a group of Zoramites.. Even in it's pulpits

http://www.lds.org/bc/content/locations/temple-square-conference-center/images/CCAud_Detail.jpg

Anyone can see how the GAs are placed above the congregation.. Yeap that is Zoramite.. The LDS church is in apostasy.. IHS jim

[Sir]

If the whole church is doing it as is represented in who is called to serve as a GA. The whole church has shown that it is a group of Zoramites.. Even in it's pulpits

http://www.lds.org/bc/content/locations/temple-square-conference-center/images/CCAud_Detail.jpg

Anyone can see how the GAs are placed above the congregation.. Yeap that is Zoramite.. The LDS church is in apostasy.. IHS jim

Actually, the choir sits higher than the GAs, and as the congregation slopes higher toward the back than the GAs, and don't forget the second level, which sits much higher than the GAs.

You didn't think this through very well, Jimster.

[Ma'am]

Sir,
Try and explain it anyway you want, but a modification IS a change!! The endowment procedure has been changed too. No longer do the men or women going through the temple for the first time have oil touched to intimate areas of their bodies. That is a CHANGE!! The blood oaths have been TOTALLY removed from the ritual, that is a MAJOR CHANGE!! So, your answer is not truthful. JUST WHAT, are these circumstances that now have gone against what God supposedly ordained? No one was pressuring the Church to make these changes other then maybe the young women going through to be married and found the rituals gross and disgusting as I did. A secret club for only the worthy members? An ordinance so special and important that it is denied to a majority of its members, especially when you think of those members who live in poor countries. And let's not forget the wealth that resides within the LDS Church and how they spent 3 billion dollars to build a shopping mall and condos in downtown Salt Lake City and recently spent a half billion dollars to purchase land in Florida. Why not allow ALL members this wonderful ordinance if it is the highest form of worship for you and without it, those poor souls will never gain their exaltation? Should people due to being poor be denied these special ordinances? That would be making God out to be a respecter of persons.


Didn't there used to be blood oaths in the ceremony, that the participants had to make slashing motions across their throats and I think bellies, that they should die if they gave away what they participated in, in the endowment ceremony? Why would God want us to make blood oaths like that? Why would God want us to have secret ceremonies? I have been to many churches and nothing they did was done in secret. So, why the secrecy in the temple ceremonies?

[Apologette]

Didn't there used to be blood oaths in the ceremony, that the participants had to make slashing motions across their throats and I think bellies, that they should die if they gave away what they participated in, in the endowment ceremony? Why would God want us to make blood oaths like that? Why would God want us to have secret ceremonies? I have been to many churches and nothing they did was done in secret. So, why the secrecy in the temple ceremonies?

Especially when the Lord Jesus condemned oaths and said let your yes be yes and your no be no. Mormonism simply have no clue about the Gospel. Nobody who knows Christ would participate in something so occult.

[neverending]

Snow...a poor ****ogy about baptism. Has the LDS changed to baptism by sprinkling? NOW, that would be a change. Being dunked into a river, or lake or even a swimming pool, makes no difference, it is still by immersion so that makes no change or difference. Now as to differences in Christianity? As far as doctrines, NO! We believe in ONE GOD, and his Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit which makes ONE GOD!! We believe Christ bled and died on the cross for ALL man kinds sins. He became sin and took our place on the cross. I could attend any denomination on any given Sunday and feel comfortable and have no problems with anything preached. Those denominations who have chosen to go against God by having women clergy, performing gay marriages and even allowing clergy to be gay themselves are NOT part of the body of Christ, meaning, they have distanced themselves from the truth of what the gospel is and have gone their own way, the way of the world. Don't worry, soon the LDS Church will be accepting of gays; which they already are doing (alright to be gay as long as one doesn't act on their desires) and performing gay marriages, its only a matter of time. They will bow to the pressure put on them by the world just as they did with the blacks in 1978. When the LDS Church begins allowing gays to be married in the temple the questions to gain a recommend will have to be changed and how will you feel about that?

[neverending]

Didn't there used to be blood oaths in the ceremony, that the participants had to make slashing motions across their throats and I think bellies, that they should die if they gave away what they participated in, in the endowment ceremony? Why would God want us to make blood oaths like that? Why would God want us to have secret ceremonies? I have been to many churches and nothing they did was done in secret. So, why the secrecy in the temple ceremonies?

As I continue to research the changes to the temple ceremony I ran across this: As noted on page 218 of their recent book Mormon America (http://www.lds-mormon.com/mormonamerica.shtml), Richard and Joan Ostling point out that the main source of Mormon converts comes from people already familiar with some sort of Christian background or belief system:
"Mormonism succeeds by building on a preexisting Christian culture and by being seen as an add-on, drawing converts through a form of syncretism. Mormonism flourishes best in settings with some prior Christianization."
Syncretism means "the combination of different forms of belief or practice" and also "to unite and harmonize especially without critical examination or logical unity."
Since most Mormon converts in the 1970's and 1980's were coming from a Christian background, it was becoming apparent to LDS leaders in the 1980's that ridiculing the Protestant minister in the temple film (http://www.lds-mormon.com/compare.shtml) was offensive to many new converts. There were even some reports of converts attending the temple once, and vowing to never return -- sometimes even refusing to return to any LDS meetings.
In 1987, David John Buerger (http://www.lds-mormon.com/buerger.shtml) (an active but liberal Mormon), published an article (http://www.lds-mormon.com/whytemplechanges.shtml#article) in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (http://www.lds-mormon.com/dialogue.shtml#dialogue), a liberal Mormon publication which is not controlled by the LDS church. In the article, Buerger suggested that LDS church leaders needed to seriously consider making changes in the temple endowment ceremony to counter declining rates of attendance.
Although possibly just a coincidence, the Mormon Church issued a survey (http://www.lds-mormon.com/whytemplechanges.shtml#survey) to about 3,400 members in Canada and the U.S. to determine members' opinions concerning temple work and various other topics only a few months after the 1987 Buerger article.
Soon after the 1988 survey, plans were underway to change the endowment ceremony again (the ceremony had been modified many times since its introduction in Nauvoo, Illinois in the early 1840's). In 1990, the revised ceremony became effective, and the Protestant minister was eliminated from the film.
Some of the key changes were:
1. Protestant minister paid by Lucifer (http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml) to preach false doctrine was eliminated.
2. All penalties (and gestures like throat slashing, chest slashing and bowel slashing) were eliminated.
3. Women's promise to be obedient to husbands was modified.
4. The intimate position at the veil (foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand on shoulder and mouth to ear) was eliminated.
5. The strange words "Pay Lay Ale" (meaning "Oh God hear the words of my mouth") were eliminated.
Without question, most faithful Mormons would stand firm in their faith that any decision to change temple ceremonies would have to come by direct revelation from God. It's likely that few LDS members are even aware of the 1987 Dialogue article or the 1988 survey. Many endowed members first attended the temple after 1990 and have no idea about the old version of the ceremony. I've even heard reliable reports of members refusing to believe that older versions included the ridicule of a Protestant minister and bloody oaths. Of course, these people would avoid any information about older versions of the ceremonies in books or on the internet. Critics and skeptical members might speculate that the 1987 article was one catalyst for the 1988 survey which was a catalyst for the 1990 changes. It's probable that the survey results indicated that a significant number of people were offended by various parts of the ceremony. In particular, many converts with a Christian background were highly offended by the part of the minister accepting employment from Satan ("Lucifer"), not to mention the bloody oaths and other things.
It would seem that the church caved to pressure from its members for the numbers of those attending the temple was falling off. Goodness, they had to do something. But when an ordinance in this church, ordained by their god was changed with no revelation given to their prophet, doesn't that make it MAN ORDAINED?

[James Banta]

As I continue to research the changes to the temple ceremony I ran across this: As noted on page 218 of their recent book Mormon America (http://www.lds-mormon.com/mormonamerica.shtml), Richard and Joan Ostling point out that the main source of Mormon converts comes from people already familiar with some sort of Christian background or belief system:
"Mormonism succeeds by building on a preexisting Christian culture and by being seen as an add-on, drawing converts through a form of syncretism. Mormonism flourishes best in settings with some prior Christianization."
Syncretism means "the combination of different forms of belief or practice" and also "to unite and harmonize especially without critical examination or logical unity."
Since most Mormon converts in the 1970's and 1980's were coming from a Christian background, it was becoming apparent to LDS leaders in the 1980's that ridiculing the Protestant minister in the temple film (http://www.lds-mormon.com/compare.shtml) was offensive to many new converts. There were even some reports of converts attending the temple once, and vowing to never return -- sometimes even refusing to return to any LDS meetings.
In 1987, David John Buerger (http://www.lds-mormon.com/buerger.shtml) (an active but liberal Mormon), published an article (http://www.lds-mormon.com/whytemplechanges.shtml#article) in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (http://www.lds-mormon.com/dialogue.shtml#dialogue), a liberal Mormon publication which is not controlled by the LDS church. In the article, Buerger suggested that LDS church leaders needed to seriously consider making changes in the temple endowment ceremony to counter declining rates of attendance.
Although possibly just a coincidence, the Mormon Church issued a survey (http://www.lds-mormon.com/whytemplechanges.shtml#survey) to about 3,400 members in Canada and the U.S. to determine members' opinions concerning temple work and various other topics only a few months after the 1987 Buerger article.
Soon after the 1988 survey, plans were underway to change the endowment ceremony again (the ceremony had been modified many times since its introduction in Nauvoo, Illinois in the early 1840's). In 1990, the revised ceremony became effective, and the Protestant minister was eliminated from the film.
Some of the key changes were:
1. Protestant minister paid by Lucifer (http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml) to preach false doctrine was eliminated.
2. All penalties (and gestures like throat slashing, chest slashing and bowel slashing) were eliminated.
3. Women's promise to be obedient to husbands was modified.
4. The intimate position at the veil (foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand on shoulder and mouth to ear) was eliminated.
5. The strange words "Pay Lay Ale" (meaning "Oh God hear the words of my mouth") were eliminated.
Without question, most faithful Mormons would stand firm in their faith that any decision to change temple ceremonies would have to come by direct revelation from God. It's likely that few LDS members are even aware of the 1987 Dialogue article or the 1988 survey. Many endowed members first attended the temple after 1990 and have no idea about the old version of the ceremony. I've even heard reliable reports of members refusing to believe that older versions included the ridicule of a Protestant minister and bloody oaths. Of course, these people would avoid any information about older versions of the ceremonies in books or on the internet. Critics and skeptical members might speculate that the 1987 article was one catalyst for the 1988 survey which was a catalyst for the 1990 changes. It's probable that the survey results indicated that a significant number of people were offended by various parts of the ceremony. In particular, many converts with a Christian background were highly offended by the part of the minister accepting employment from Satan ("Lucifer"), not to mention the bloody oaths and other things.
It would seem that the church caved to pressure from its members for the numbers of those attending the temple was falling off. Goodness, they had to do something. But when an ordinance in this church, ordained by their god was changed with no revelation given to their prophet, doesn't that make it MAN ORDAINED?

Was it not man ordained to begin with? Did the temple ceremony ever exist in mormonism in any state that has a reference to today's ceremony before Smith became a Mason? The LDS temple ceremony then is a perverted version of the Masonic ceremony.. Yes the story line is different but the names, signs, keys, and penalties were identical.. The whole ceremony is man ordained not just the most recent changes.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Actually, the choir sits higher than the GAs, and as the congregation slopes higher toward the back than the GAs, and don't forget the second level, which sits much higher than the GAs.

You didn't think this through very well, Jimster.

Yes that is a practice that we see from long ago before the advent of amplification to make sure the choir can be heard. That has a purpose.. The idea of promoting men above the people is wrong as the BofM attests.. Know what.. I wouldn't even mind seeing the speakers located on the stand but men who are there just because they are called elder? NOPE! that is wrong..

Ok I have asked you before.. While I use the name here that you have chosen to be called you insist on using names that I find to be insulting.. I am Not Jimbo, Jimster, or any name that an uneducated backwoods hillbilly might use.. My name is James, you may even use jim but I ask you now for the last time to give me the same amount of curtsey I afford you and use the name I have listed on the forum as mine.. If you can't do this then no more complaints about the language we rightly use to describe the person of Joseph Smith.. Words like liar, pedophile and pervert.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Actually, the choir sits higher than the GAs, and as the congregation slopes higher toward the back than the GAs, and don't forget the second level, which sits much higher than the GAs.
You didn't think this through very well, Jimster.

Oops! At least Jim has been known to admit he was wrong about something on occasion, if I am not mistaken.

[RealFakeHair]

Oops! At least Jim has been known to admit he was wrong about something on occasion, if I am not mistaken.

Having never been wrong myself, I could not tell, but maybe one day.

[nrajeffreturns]

I am Not Jimbo, Jimster, or any name that an uneducated backwoods hillbilly might use.. My name is James, you may even use jim but I ask you now for the last time to give me the same amount of curtsey I afford you and use the name I have listed on the forum as mine..

If someone were to search the forum for posts by you where you referred to Joseph Smith as "Joey" would they find anything? Isn't "Joey" a name that an uneducated backwoods hillbilly might use?

[RealFakeHair]

If someone were to search the forum for posts by you where you referred to Joseph Smith as "Joey" would they find anything? Isn't "Joey" a name that an uneducated backwoods hillbilly might use?

Kinda like Bubba, as in Bill Clinton. Just goes to prove joey and Bubba, do have more in common then you think.

[Sir]

Yes that is a practice that we see from long ago before the advent of amplification to make sure the choir can be heard. That has a purpose.. The idea of promoting men above the people is wrong as the BofM attests.. Know what.. I wouldn't even mind seeing the speakers located on the stand but men who are there just because they are called elder? NOPE! that is wrong..

Ok I have asked you before.. While I use the name here that you have chosen to be called you insist on using names that I find to be insulting.. I am Not Jimbo, Jimster, or any name that an uneducated backwoods hillbilly might use.. My name is James, you may even use jim but I ask you now for the last time to give me the same amount of curtsey I afford you and use the name I have listed on the forum as mine.. If you can't do this then no more complaints about the language we rightly use to describe the person of Joseph Smith.. Words like liar, pedophile and pervert.. IHS jim

I don't care what words you want to call Joseph Smith.

Can I call you adulterer?

At least that one is proven fact here, unlike your charges against Joseph Smith.

[neverending]

And can I call you a cultist, hypocrite, God hater, gullible, and blind?? Are you free from sin, Sir? Are you so righteous that you have never failed in living your faith? Have you never held hate or envy towards anyone, at anytime in your life? Do you get angry with your wife, kids, mother, father siblings, neighbor, co-worker or boss? We are ALL sinners Sir, and because we are, that is why Christ came to earth. Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10). Christ's whole mission here on earth was to spread his gospel and bring the lost sinner to repentance and for them to be saved. He went to the cross for that cause but have you really given any thought, that he loved YOU enough to die for YOU!! He took YOUR place on that dreadful cross, when it should have been YOU! There is NOTHING you could ever do to repay Christ for his sacrifice for YOU!! Maybe time for you to humble yourself, get on your knees and ask God to forgive you. Ask him to open your heart and mind to the real truths and show you the way to him, not J. Smith who we have evidence of his philandering and law breaking. Were the things he did prove he was a man of God? Your church's main thing is claiming it is, "the ONLY TRUE CHURCH." If this is true, why then are so many members not living it? One would think every member would be joyous and doing all they could to show the world that Christ lives in them and due to that, the light of Christ would sign through. I've yet to see that in any LDS members I've known. All have been judgmental, cruel and malicious gossipers.

[Ma'am]

No confusion at all.

The ordinances have not changed.

The means and the message are able to be modified according to circumstances.

But the ordinances themselves have not changed.

Hope that helps.

Weren't the blood oaths discontinued in 1990? And all of that touching and anointing with oil on bare skin, under the robes the women wore? I have read that many hated that.

These are BIG changes, especially the blood oaths. And weren't changes made in the play that the inductees had to watch, that showed Satan paying Christian clergy to supposedly preach a false gospel?

These changes are changes in the ordinance. BIG changes. So, how can you possibly say the ordinances haven't changed? They weren't discontinued, but they were changed!

[RealFakeHair]

Weren't the blood oaths discontinued in 1990? And all of that touching and anointing with oil on bare skin, under the robes the women wore? I have read that many hated that.

These are BIG changes, especially the blood oaths. And weren't changes made in the play that the inductees had to watch, that showed Satan paying Christian clergy to supposedly preach a false gospel?

These changes are changes in the ordinance. BIG changes. So, how can you possibly say the ordinances haven't changed? They weren't discontinued, but they were changed!

I don't know what went wrong, but when Joseph Smith jr. got the everlasting never to change again gospel from the book with the golden bible or Book of Mormon, and not the mention all them up to date revelations from his mormon god one might think the LDSinc. gospel would have never changed, but we know different don't we.
Oh well maybe jo should have said, " the everlasting gospel, until further notice. lol

[Sir]

And can I call you a cultist, hypocrite, God hater, gullible, and blind?? Are you free from sin, Sir? Are you so righteous that you have never failed in living your faith? Have you never held hate or envy towards anyone, at anytime in your life? Do you get angry with your wife, kids, mother, father siblings, neighbor, co-worker or boss? We are ALL sinners Sir, and because we are, that is why Christ came to earth. Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10). Christ's whole mission here on earth was to spread his gospel and bring the lost sinner to repentance and for them to be saved. He went to the cross for that cause but have you really given any thought, that he loved YOU enough to die for YOU!! He took YOUR place on that dreadful cross, when it should have been YOU! There is NOTHING you could ever do to repay Christ for his sacrifice for YOU!! Maybe time for you to humble yourself, get on your knees and ask God to forgive you. Ask him to open your heart and mind to the real truths and show you the way to him, not J. Smith who we have evidence of his philandering and law breaking. Were the things he did prove he was a man of God? Your church's main thing is claiming it is, "the ONLY TRUE CHURCH." If this is true, why then are so many members not living it? One would think every member would be joyous and doing all they could to show the world that Christ lives in them and due to that, the light of Christ would sign through. I've yet to see that in any LDS members I've known. All have been judgmental, cruel and malicious gossipers.

There was so much irony and hypocrisy in that post I don't know where to begin!!!!

[Ma'am]

As I continue to research the changes to the temple ceremony I ran across this: As noted on page 218 of their recent book Mormon America (http://www.lds-mormon.com/mormonamerica.shtml), Richard and Joan Ostling point out that the main source of Mormon converts comes from people already familiar with some sort of Christian background or belief system:
"Mormonism succeeds by building on a preexisting Christian culture and by being seen as an add-on, drawing converts through a form of syncretism. Mormonism flourishes best in settings with some prior Christianization."
Syncretism means "the combination of different forms of belief or practice" and also "to unite and harmonize especially without critical examination or logical unity."
Since most Mormon converts in the 1970's and 1980's were coming from a Christian background, it was becoming apparent to LDS leaders in the 1980's that ridiculing the Protestant minister in the temple film (http://www.lds-mormon.com/compare.shtml) was offensive to many new converts. There were even some reports of converts attending the temple once, and vowing to never return -- sometimes even refusing to return to any LDS meetings.
In 1987, David John Buerger (http://www.lds-mormon.com/buerger.shtml) (an active but liberal Mormon), published an article (http://www.lds-mormon.com/whytemplechanges.shtml#article) in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (http://www.lds-mormon.com/dialogue.shtml#dialogue), a liberal Mormon publication which is not controlled by the LDS church. In the article, Buerger suggested that LDS church leaders needed to seriously consider making changes in the temple endowment ceremony to counter declining rates of attendance.
Although possibly just a coincidence, the Mormon Church issued a survey (http://www.lds-mormon.com/whytemplechanges.shtml#survey) to about 3,400 members in Canada and the U.S. to determine members' opinions concerning temple work and various other topics only a few months after the 1987 Buerger article.
Soon after the 1988 survey, plans were underway to change the endowment ceremony again (the ceremony had been modified many times since its introduction in Nauvoo, Illinois in the early 1840's). In 1990, the revised ceremony became effective, and the Protestant minister was eliminated from the film.
Some of the key changes were:
1. Protestant minister paid by Lucifer (http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml) to preach false doctrine was eliminated.
2. All penalties (and gestures like throat slashing, chest slashing and bowel slashing) were eliminated.
3. Women's promise to be obedient to husbands was modified.
4. The intimate position at the veil (foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand on shoulder and mouth to ear) was eliminated.
5. The strange words "Pay Lay Ale" (meaning "Oh God hear the words of my mouth") were eliminated.
Without question, most faithful Mormons would stand firm in their faith that any decision to change temple ceremonies would have to come by direct revelation from God. It's likely that few LDS members are even aware of the 1987 Dialogue article or the 1988 survey. Many endowed members first attended the temple after 1990 and have no idea about the old version of the ceremony. I've even heard reliable reports of members refusing to believe that older versions included the ridicule of a Protestant minister and bloody oaths. Of course, these people would avoid any information about older versions of the ceremonies in books or on the internet. Critics and skeptical members might speculate that the 1987 article was one catalyst for the 1988 survey which was a catalyst for the 1990 changes. It's probable that the survey results indicated that a significant number of people were offended by various parts of the ceremony. In particular, many converts with a Christian background were highly offended by the part of the minister accepting employment from Satan ("Lucifer"), not to mention the bloody oaths and other things.
It would seem that the church caved to pressure from its members for the numbers of those attending the temple was falling off. Goodness, they had to do something. But when an ordinance in this church, ordained by their god was changed with no revelation given to their prophet, doesn't that make it MAN ORDAINED?


Thank you for that information; some of it is new to me. If it was so perfect to begin with and ordained by God, why then, did they change it? Shouldn't they have listened to God and not those coming into Mormonism from a Christianized background? Isn't it better to obey God than man?

[Snow Patrol]

If this is true, why then are so many members not living it? One would think every member would be joyous and doing all they could to show the world that Christ lives in them and due to that, the light of Christ would sign through. I've yet to see that in any LDS members I've known. All have been judgmental, cruel and malicious gossipers.


Your whole post was made useless by this statement. Because you know darn well that not every single LDS you met has been judgemental, cruel and malicious gossipers. It is a gross generalization. Just like if I said every "Christian" that I've met has been a fake, someone who claims to be a saved Christian and then turns around and does all sorts of worldly things. It is a gross generalization, but at least I honest enough to admit that it is.

[Apologette]

Snow...a poor ****ogy about baptism. Has the LDS changed to baptism by sprinkling? NOW, that would be a change. Being dunked into a river, or lake or even a swimming pool, makes no difference, it is still by immersion so that makes no change or difference. Now as to differences in Christianity? As far as doctrines, NO! We believe in ONE GOD, and his Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit which makes ONE GOD!! We believe Christ bled and died on the cross for ALL man kinds sins. He became sin and took our place on the cross. I could attend any denomination on any given Sunday and feel comfortable and have no problems with anything preached. Those denominations who have chosen to go against God by having women clergy, performing gay marriages and even allowing clergy to be gay themselves are NOT part of the body of Christ, meaning, they have distanced themselves from the truth of what the gospel is and have gone their own way, the way of the world. Don't worry, soon the LDS Church will be accepting of gays; which they already are doing (alright to be gay as long as one doesn't act on their desires) and performing gay marriages, its only a matter of time. They will bow to the pressure put on them by the world just as they did with the blacks in 1978. When the LDS Church begins allowing gays to be married in the temple the questions to gain a recommend will have to be changed and how will you feel about that?
And I see a change in their at***ude toward ****sexual "marriage" coming down the pike. The Mormons will do anything to make themselves as "agreeable" to as many people as possible. And ****sexual members will be a boon as far as more money is concerned.

[neverending]

There was so much irony and hypocrisy in that post I don't know where to begin!!!!

Oh, really? And what is hypocritical about Christ's death on the cross where he did for your sins? I forgot, you're sinless. And you constantly fail to answer questions asked of you. I can only think that you don't have a concrete answer or you are only here to play your games. So don't worry, you don't have to try and begin to answer for it would be something like this one. No substance.

[Apologette]

Your whole post was made useless by this statement. Because you know darn well that not every single LDS you met has been judgemental, cruel and malicious gossipers. It is a gross generalization. Just like if I said every "Christian" that I've met has been a fake, someone who claims to be a saved Christian and then turns around and does all sorts of worldly things. It is a gross generalization, but at least I honest enough to admit that it is.

How about this - do you believe it is ethical for Mormons to snoop around in "visitors messages" not addressed to them and then publicly post them on a forum?

[neverending]

Snow...Since you have no idea where I grew up nor what kind of Ward or Branches I have lived in, you have no room to say anything. I have yet to meet ONE member of your church who ever showed me any kindness, even when I was a member so I am not making generalizations. I've seen the heartless way members of your church treat each other. Your church IS a respecter of persons, and only those with money have any importance within your church. Did you know my own brother was left alone for the last six months of his mission due to the Mission President who got all bent out of shape getting told off by our family doctor. My brother had asthma and had to take medication daily for it. His landlady saw him popping pills each morning and accused him of doing illegal drugs and called the Mission President. It was wrong and cruel and anything could have happened to my brother during that time. DON'T tell me what I know.....you've not lived my life!!!

[Snow Patrol]

Snow...Since you have no idea where I grew up nor what kind of Ward or Branches I have lived in, you have no room to say anything. I have yet to meet ONE member of your church who ever showed me any kindness, even when I was a member so I am not making generalizations. I've seen the heartless way members of your church treat each other. Your church IS a respecter of persons, and only those with money have any importance within your church. Did you know my own brother was left alone for the last six months of his mission due to the Mission President who got all bent out of shape getting told off by our family doctor. My brother had asthma and had to take medication daily for it. His landlady saw him popping pills each morning and accused him of doing illegal drugs and called the Mission President. It was wrong and cruel and anything could have happened to my brother during that time. DON'T tell me what I know.....you've not lived my life!!!

You are right. I don't know you and I don't know your life. But when someone makes sweeping generalizations such as "I have yet to meet ONE member of your church who ever showed me any kindness..." makes one really wonder about your life. So you've never gone to a store in Utah and been treated kindly? You've never had any neighbor who did not maliciously gossip about you? The Law of Large numbers makes it highly unlikely that you been treated unkindly by EVERY SINGLE LDS you've encountered. What have I done that has been unkind?

[Snow Patrol]

How about this - do you believe it is ethical for Mormons to snoop around in "visitors messages" not addressed to them and then publicly post them on a forum?

Are we picking individual situations and generalizing on the particular population as a whole? If so, we'll be at this all day with my experiences with "Christians".

[Sir]

How about this - do you believe it is ethical for Mormons to snoop around in "visitors messages" not addressed to them and then publicly post them on a forum?

Yes.

If you go write on someone's board how much you don't like LDS people or say bad things about them, it is perfectly ethical for a LDS to post such comments on the LDS board.

Why not?

What Anti-LDS say to other Anti-LDS on their walls is usually more of their honest opinions. Why not post them? Those who speak negatively of LDS in private will be rewarded openly. :p

And by the way.....all visitor messages are made for public access. There isn't any malicious hacking or invasion of privacy.

[James Banta]

Yes.

If you go write on someone's board how much you don't like LDS people or say bad things about them, it is perfectly ethical for a LDS to post such comments on the LDS board.

Why not?

What Anti-LDS say to other Anti-LDS on their walls is usually more of their honest opinions. Why not post them? Those who speak negatively of LDS in private will be rewarded openly. :p

And by the way.....all visitor messages are made for public access. There isn't any malicious hacking or invasion of privacy.

Go ahead.. I post what I post in private because it was meant for one person not the whole channel.. If you are interested please feel free to post what I say even to other Christians.. Understand we are coming from a place of joint agreement.. You might not like seeing the teachings of your church discussed with so little respect.. But If you want to I will tell you openly what a lie I believe mormonism to be and why.. I thought I was doing that with regularity anyway.. IHS jim

[Sir]

Go ahead.. I post what I post in private because it was meant for one person not the whole channel.. If you are interested please feel free to post what I say even to other Christians.. Understand we are coming from a place of joint agreement.. You might not like seeing the teachings of your church discussed with so little respect.. But If you want to I will tell you openly what a lie I believe mormonism to be and why.. I thought I was doing that with regularity anyway.. IHS jim

You are not even part of this conversation or issue.

You really need to interject yourself into everything, don't you?

[James Banta]

If someone were to search the forum for posts by you where you referred to Joseph Smith as "Joey" would they find anything? Isn't "Joey" a name that an uneducated backwoods hillbilly might use?

It sure is and I would be happy to show a bit more curtsey but that has been laid aside by sin.. So jeff sorry but when I post responses to sin he will get joey.. When I post to you I will use Joseph.. If I am referred to by a less than faltering name and I have asked for it not to be used, but it persists. Het Joseph Smith didn't ask me not to call him joey. This is the only way I can think of within the rules of the forum to show that it is plain rude.. Sorry you all have to be punished for the sins of one rude poster.. IHS jim

[Sir]

It sure is and I would be happy to show a bit more curtsey but that has been laid aside by sin.. So jeff sorry but when I post responses to sin he will get joey.. When I post to you I will use Joseph.. If I am referred to by a less than faltering name and I have asked for it not to be used, but it persists. Het Joseph Smith didn't ask me not to call him joey. This is the only way I can think of within the rules of the forum to show that it is plain rude.. Sorry you all have to be punished for the sins of one rude poster.. IHS jim

Better proofread your post again...

LOL....

wow.

What's a "less faltering name"?

[neverending]

Dear Snow,
Please don't get me started on the things you've done, mostly from comments made here. It is so hard to have any good feelings about members of your church when all I've ever known is their snotty ways, excluding me from their clicky groups and ignoring me when I tried to be friends. As for people working in a store, how would I know if they are LDS or not? I don't ask people....and Snow, just because I live in the Salt Lake Valley doesn't mean everyone I run into is a Mormon.
When two small girls were left with James and I years ago when their mother had to go to the hospital, and it was the dead of winter in North Dakota; these girls were desti tute. The one little girl had lost all the ****ons off her coat. Neither one of them had gloves or boots and their clothes were worn out. I made a call to the Relief Society President, Francine Jarmin. I told her of the situation and asked if an announcement could be made next time we met for Relief Society that these girls could use some hand me downs, I didn't ask for brand new items. Nothing was offered. I finally cut the ****ons off my own coat and made a way to work them onto the poor girls coat so she could stay warm. Finally out of desperation for these girls, I made an appointment to talk to the Branch President, President Gordhammer. As I met with him and told him of the situation and could the church help out in some way, this is what he told me, "there will be no help for these children since their mother doesn't attend her meetings as she should." Yes! That is what I was told. I was so shocked by his comment, I didn't even know how to respond. I do know that the Lord will be judging him harshly for turning his back on two young children who, due to no fault of their own were left in our care, not even knowing us and they were needing help. How horribly selfish of the church when they bring in millions daily. I don't care what you say about this incident, for Sir will make fun and say it's just another rant, anecdote, and I am making it up. Think what you will, we know what happened. And if you've done it unto the least of these my brethren, you've done it unto me.

[Sir]

Dear Snow,
Please don't get me started on the things you've done, mostly from comments made here. It is so hard to have any good feelings about members of your church when all I've ever known is their snotty ways, excluding me from their clicky groups and ignoring me when I tried to be friends. As for people working in a store, how would I know if they are LDS or not? I don't ask people....and Snow, just because I live in the Salt Lake Valley doesn't mean everyone I run into is a Mormon.
When two small girls were left with James and I years ago when their mother had to go to the hospital, and it was the dead of winter in North Dakota; these girls were desti tute. The one little girl had lost all the ****ons off her coat. Neither one of them had gloves or boots and their clothes were worn out. I made a call to the Relief Society President, Francine Jarmin. I told her of the situation and asked if an announcement could be made next time we met for Relief Society that these girls could use some hand me downs, I didn't ask for brand new items. Nothing was offered. I finally cut the ****ons off my own coat and made a way to work them onto the poor girls coat so she could stay warm. Finally out of desperation for these girls, I made an appointment to talk to the Branch President, President Gordhammer. As I met with him and told him of the situation and could the church help out in some way, this is what he told me, "there will be no help for these children since their mother doesn't attend her meetings as she should." Yes! That is what I was told. I was so shocked by his comment, I didn't even know how to respond. I do know that the Lord will be judging him harshly for turning his back on two young children who, due to no fault of their own were left in our care, not even knowing us and they were needing help. How horribly selfish of the church when they bring in millions daily. I don't care what you say about this incident, for Sir will make fun and say it's just another rant, anecdote, and I am making it up. Think what you will, we know what happened. And if you've done it unto the least of these my brethren, you've done it unto me.

All I can say is, when it comes to these stories from you, I can see why you made "neverending" your username.

[neverending]

If all you can do is find fault with a misspelled word then why are you here? Where are your scriptures Sir? Why don't you defend your religion. NOPE! All you do is come here and make fun of others and that is just the example I've stated about the rude, cruel and unkind treatment of LDS members to non-members and even to your own. Good for you, you should be proud!!

[neverending]

Shut the hell up for once!! And as for your name......you don't deserve to be called Sir.....but I can think of many names you ought to call yourself!!

[Sir]

If all you can do is find fault with a misspelled word then why are you here? Where are your scriptures Sir? Why don't you defend your religion. NOPE! All you do is come here and make fun of others and that is just the example I've stated about the rude, cruel and unkind treatment of LDS members to non-members and even to your own. Good for you, you should be proud!!

Yes, your "neverending" stories. Sadly, you are so bitter and angry about the LDS that you have blinded yourself to anything good found in the church or the people. So you simply rant about this or that LDS person who supposedly mistreated you, or the LDS person that wouldn't help you. As was pointed out, you are so blinded by your hate that you even claim that ALL LDS are that way and there is no good in them. So then when a LDS person points out your flaws, you engage your programmed emotional response of emoting in sweeping generalizations and hyperbole. Such irrational judgments weaken your argument and we see what you apparently cannot because you are willfully blinded and hardened

[Sir]

Shut the hell up for once!! And as for your name......you don't deserve to be called Sir.....but I can think of many names you ought to call yourself!!

Whoa!......blood pressure........remember?

Chill.

(the red font is a nice touch though)

[neverending]

Yes, your "neverending" stories. Sadly, you are so bitter and angry about the LDS that you have blinded yourself to anything good found in the church or the people. So you simply rant about this or that LDS person who supposedly mistreated you, or the LDS person that wouldn't help you. As was pointed out, you are so blinded by your hate that you even claim that ALL LDS are that way and there is no good in them. So then when a LDS person points out your flaws, you engage your programmed emotional response of emoting in sweeping generalizations and hyperbole. Such irrational judgments weaken your argument and we see what you apparently cannot because you are willfully blinded and hardened
OH and you should talk because you are the PERFECT example of the LDS I've been talking about. And I have every reason to feel the way I do about you and ALL Mormons!! You claim to have the truth but yet, I see none in you and have found none. So, when will you start defending your religion with scripture. I accuse you of not knowing any. You do your own amount of ranting as well and you have your hatred for non-LDS or you wouldn't make the comments you do.

[Sir]

OH and you should talk because you are the PERFECT example of the LDS I've been talking about. And I have every reason to feel the way I do about you and ALL Mormons!!

Well, sure, bigots usually "have a reason" to feel negative about an entire group of people. Your justification is no different than the KKK or Nazis.


You claim to have the truth but yet, I see none in you and have found none. So, when will you start defending your religion with scripture. I accuse you of not knowing any. You do your own amount of ranting as well and you have your hatred for non-LDS or you wouldn't make the comments you do.

No, you are just projecting your hatred onto me. It isn't even subtle or hidden, given you have already told us how you feel about ALL LDS people. I'm not offended. It's just sad to see how you can be filled with so much bitterness and anger toward an entire group of people, and then pontificate on how you are such a Christian.

[neverending]

Well, sure, bigots usually "have a reason" to feel negative about an entire group of people. Your justification is no different than the KKK or Nazis.



No, you are just projecting your hatred onto me. It isn't even subtle or hidden, given you have already told us how you feel about ALL LDS people. I'm not offended. It's just sad to see how you can be filled with so much bitterness and anger toward an entire group of people, and then pontificate on how you are such a Christian.

A real shame that you've lost this argument accusing me of being like the KKK and Nazis? Anytime one has to resort to that, it's a lost cause. I have never claimed to be perfect. And I will ALWAYS speak out against any religion that teaches falsehoods as Mormonism does. How often have you been told that you believe in a different god and Jesus then Christians? You claim a prophet who is supposed to converse with god but yet could be fooled by Mark Hoffman (Pres. Kimball). You make claims of the importance of a temple and that if any member of your church doesn't obtain those ordinances, they can never gain their exaltation and yet, a majority of your members can't get a recommend to go. Your church has made changes to that temple ritual which Joseph Smith claimed was given to him by god but it was CHANGED in 1990 because, the numbers of members attending the temple was slacking off. Far to many converts were being insulted by the part where the Pastor is accused of being paid by Lucifer. And many women had issues with the blood oaths and penalties. How can you change something that was ordained by god? At least by your god. You claim to be the only true church but I've yet to witness in my life, LDS members living the truth but being judgmental and mean spirited. Yes, I am bitter for the way I was treated as well as my family. It is all a lie, you live a lie everyday.
Again I ask, why don't you defend your religion with scripture but you never do. So once again I accuse you of not knowing any. "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" ( 1 Cor. 1:18).

[Sir]

A real shame that you've lost this argument accusing me of being like the KKK and Nazis? Anytime one has to resort to that, it's a lost cause.

Godwin's Law doesn't really apply here. But I understand the need to brush it aside since my ****ogy pretty much put you into the light you are in - a bigot.


I have never claimed to be perfect. And I will ALWAYS speak out against any religion that teaches falsehoods as Mormonism does. How often have you been told that you believe in a different god and Jesus then Christians? You claim a prophet who is supposed to converse with god but yet could be fooled by Mark Hoffman (Pres. Kimball). You make claims of the importance of a temple and that if any member of your church doesn't obtain those ordinances, they can never gain their exaltation and yet, a majority of your members can't get a recommend to go. Your church has made changes to that temple ritual which Joseph Smith claimed was given to him by god but it was CHANGED in 1990 because, the numbers of members attending the temple was slacking off. Far to many converts were being insulted by the part where the Pastor is accused of being paid by Lucifer. And many women had issues with the blood oaths and penalties. How can you change something that was ordained by god? At least by your god. You claim to be the only true church but I've yet to witness in my life, LDS members living the truth but being judgmental and mean spirited. Yes, I am bitter for the way I was treated as well as my family. It is all a lie, you live a lie everyday.

Boring rant noted.


Again I ask, why don't you defend your religion with scripture but you never do. So once again I accuse you of not knowing any. "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" ( 1 Cor. 1:18).

You can accuse all you want. I'm not interested in throwing around Bible verses with you. You've already demonstrated the lack of gospel knowledge you possess, so simply throwing around a verse at the end of your rants doesn't mean much.

[Billyray]

. . .Again I ask, why don't you defend your religion with scripture but you never do. . .


. . . I'm not interested in throwing around Bible verses with you. . .
Of course you are not interested. You know that you can't defend your own beliefs from the Bible because they run counter to what the Bible teaches so you would much rather talk about anything else. Right?

[nrajeffreturns]

And I have every reason to feel the way I do about you and ALL Mormons!!

One fallacy I see in that generalization is that if it were true, it would mean that 100% of the people who join the LDS church as converts would have to be mean, selfish people. The millions of Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. who leave those churches and join the LDS church are uncaring, evil Scrooges? That just defies common sense.

With my calling as a clerk and the husband of a Relief Society president, I see LDS members making big sacrifices for other people on a weekly basis. That's how I know from personal experience that Jim's wife's accusation is extremely false, as one would expect if a similar accusation were made against all Baptists or all Jews or all Republicans or all black people.

[Snow Patrol]

Dear Snow,
Please don't get me started on the things you've done, mostly from comments made here.


No, I would like you to show me what I've done that has been unkind to you. The reason I would like to know is because unfortunately when someone starts making gross generalizations, they tend to let their hatred overwhelm them and they start making irrational comments. This is one of those times I'm afraid. I make a great effort to be considerate and polite on this forum and so I would like you to provide evidence of me being unkind to you.

[neverending]

One fallacy I see in that generalization is that if it were true, it would mean that 100% of the people who join the LDS church as converts would have to be mean, selfish people. The millions of Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. who leave those churches and join the LDS church are uncaring, evil Scrooges? That just defies common sense.

With my calling as a clerk and the husband of a Relief Society president, I see LDS members making big sacrifices for other people on a weekly basis. That's how I know from personal experience that Jim's wife's accusation is extremely false, as one would expect if a similar accusation were made against all Baptists or all Jews or all Republicans or all black people.

The millions? I know, it's only words, no truth to it. From what I've read, there are many members leaving your church. I think more and more people are turning their backs on God then wanting to be a part of any religion or attend any church. We can see where this has lead us, our nation falling apart because of a lack of God fearing people. Atheists who whine about seeing a cross by the side of the rode where someone was killed. I find that really sad. We even had vandals here where I live who destroyed a Menorah from one of the Jewish Synagogues. It will only get worse. We've seen vandalism happening to many different denominations within the past few months. The world is becoming more evil all the time. All I can say is keep your loved ones close and pray for them.

[Ma'am]

I don't know what went wrong, but when Joseph Smith jr. got the everlasting never to change again gospel from the book with the golden bible or Book of Mormon, and not the mention all them up to date revelations from his mormon god one might think the LDSinc. gospel would have never changed, but we know different don't we.
Oh well maybe jo should have said, " the everlasting gospel, until further notice. lol

Could be. Mormonism is built upon shifting sand.

[Ma'am]

Good question. Times change. The temple movie changes. There was a time where there wasn't a movie. The underlying ordinances have not changed or gone away. How those ordinances are carried out has. Just like baptism. Originally it was done in a river or lake. Now, in many cases it is done in a building. I have done a baptism in a river before. Again, the ordinances are still performed, which is the critical thing.

Now as to your comment..."Can you see where trying to understand Mormonism is full of so many conflicting doctrines and very difficult to keep track of? God is NOT the author of confusion. For it says in 1 Cor.14:33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." I can say the same about modern Christianity. Doctrines change, ie.. women clergy, gay marriage, etc. Even doctrines in the different denominations are different. Talk about confusion. It is all different in Christianity.

The temple endowment ceremony most definitely did change--the blood oaths were taken out, the part of the play where Satan pays clergy in Christendom to preach false doctrines was taken out ,as was the anointing with oil on bare skin, under the robes, and the five points of touching--mouth to ear, foot to foot, etc.

These are BIG changes. To say that the ordinance didn't change is to be very disingenuous. Or to deliberately blind oneself to the truth.

[James Banta]

Better proofread your post again...

LOL....

wow.

What's a "less faltering name"?

Nit picking a bit aren't you sin.. Yes I am calling you sin.. That is the name you deserve because of your actions.. No matter about a misspelled word here and there all the others here are smart enough to read through them.. Seems all but one.. BTW unless you make some effort to show a reason why mormonism is God's one true Church, or how the Christian Church is false I no longer see any reason to respond to your personal attack ridden posts.. IHS jim

[Sir]

I no longer see any reason to respond to your personal attack ridden posts.. IHS jim

Fantastic.

[Snow Patrol]

No, I would like you to show me what I've done that has been unkind to you. The reason I would like to know is because unfortunately when someone starts making gross generalizations, they tend to let their hatred overwhelm them and they start making irrational comments. This is one of those times I'm afraid. I make a great effort to be considerate and polite on this forum and so I would like you to provide evidence of me being unkind to you.

"Please don't get me started on the things you've done, mostly from comments made here."

Neverending, please don't back away from providing evidence of this. In your haste you made a claim that I've been unkind to you by statements that I have made. First off, I've rarely interacted with you. When I have, like I do with others, I strive to remain polite and considerate. So, when you respond to me that I've made unkind statements to you I believe that your hostility towards LDS has influenced you to respond this way. And if you are capable of responding to me this way about this topic when you haven't shown that I've mistreated you in any way, then we have to wonder about your claims that EVERY SINGLE LDS person has been rude to you. I fear that your hatred of all things LDS has severly clouded your perception of reality when it pertains to interactions with LDS people. Do I deny that there are rude LDS people out there, absolutely not. I, myself, have been treated the way you have mentioned. However, to say that all LDS are that way simple comes across as a gross generalization.

[James Banta]

"Please don't get me started on the things you've done, mostly from comments made here."

Neverending, please don't back away from providing evidence of this. In your haste you made a claim that I've been unkind to you by statements that I have made. First off, I've rarely interacted with you. When I have, like I do with others, I strive to remain polite and considerate. So, when you respond to me that I've made unkind statements to you I believe that your hostility towards LDS has influenced you to respond this way. And if you are capable of responding to me this way about this topic when you haven't shown that I've mistreated you in any way, then we have to wonder about your claims that EVERY SINGLE LDS person has been rude to you. I fear that your hatred of all things LDS has severly clouded your perception of reality when it pertains to interactions with LDS people. Do I deny that there are rude LDS people out there, absolutely not. I, myself, have been treated the way you have mentioned. However, to say that all LDS are that way simple comes across as a gross generalization.

You and I have often disagreed (every time).. But I have never thought of you as being inconsiderate or discourteous. Neverending just finished up with some heated words with sin (sir).. Please go on and dismiss these statements.. Sin can be very discourteous. When asked to please use either my name I gave to be known by on the forum or even by the name jim, he has decided that I don't deserve such courtesy and has invented names I find objectionable to use for me and will not change his tactics. A small thing, yes, but it does show a underlying bitterness for me that I don't believe should exist in civil discussion. Because of that and other non answer to questions or even one word of support for the LDS church or word showing the failing of my faith he has shown he has one reason to be here and that is to be a tare among the wheat.. IHS jim

[Sir]

You and I have often disagreed (every time).. But I have never thought of you as being inconsiderate or discourteous. Neverending just finished up with some heated words with sin (sir).. Please go on and dismiss these statements.. Sin can be very discourteous. When asked to please use either my name I gave to be known by on the forum or even by the name jim, he has decided that I don't deserve such courtesy and has invented names I find objectionable to use for me and will not change his tactics. A small thing, yes, but it does show a underlying bitterness for me that I don't believe should exist in civil discussion. Because of that and other non answer to questions or even one word of support for the LDS church or word showing the failing of my faith he has shown he has one reason to be here and that is to be a tare among the wheat.. IHS jim

Another long-winded whining episode about me. How.....adult.

[neverending]

"Please don't get me started on the things you've done, mostly from comments made here."

Neverending, please don't back away from providing evidence of this. In your haste you made a claim that I've been unkind to you by statements that I have made. First off, I've rarely interacted with you. When I have, like I do with others, I strive to remain polite and considerate. So, when you respond to me that I've made unkind statements to you I believe that your hostility towards LDS has influenced you to respond this way. And if you are capable of responding to me this way about this topic when you haven't shown that I've mistreated you in any way, then we have to wonder about your claims that EVERY SINGLE LDS person has been rude to you. I fear that your hatred of all things LDS has severly clouded your perception of reality when it pertains to interactions with LDS people. Do I deny that there are rude LDS people out there, absolutely not. I, myself, have been treated the way you have mentioned. However, to say that all LDS are that way simple comes across as a gross generalization.

Snow,
You know, you're right and for that I will apologize. I admit due to the many thoughtless comments by Sir, that I became very angry. As I've said before, I am not perfect but when I think about things, and realize I am wrong, I will fess up to it. We've not had many discussions and you try to be courteous and that is appreciated.

[Sir]

Snow,
You know, you're right and for that I will apologize. I admit due to the many thoughtless comments by Sir, that I became very angry.

Hey now!!

I've thought through all my comments!

:p

[neverending]

Not worth a reply.

[Sir]

Not worth a reply.

And yet......

LOL