Posted by: fer-de-lance ®
10/03/2002, 05:00:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think Ed Decker has said somewhere that the intentions of the church are to dot the face of the land with temples in order to crucify christ again on his return (when he comes down from the sky)
Modified by fer-de-lance at Thu, Oct 03, 2002, 05:02:55
|
Posted by: Kevin ®
10/03/2002, 07:11:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm not aware that the pointed steeple has any symbolism at all -- except, perhaps, that the steeple points toward Heaven, or perhaps, symbolizes the resurrection of Jesus.In fact, other than the steeple-sans-cross, LDS meetinghouses are quite devoid of symbolism. Temples, of course, are full of symbolism, but are not connected directly to the Bahai faith as one of your links imagines. At the very most, Joseph Smith and the Bahai faith may have independantly derived some of their beliefs from more ancient sources, like the Jewish Kabbal. Joseph Smith and his family were very much into folk magic as Joseph grew up, and some of the books that he gleaned his knowledge from included information that ultimately came from the Kabbal. Symbolism from the temple can be traced from two main sources (excluding Joseph Smith's imagination) -- Masonic rituals, and folk magic/astrology. Now, Masonic rituals may have had earlier sources that influenced them, but Joseph Smith himself had probably only those two sources. As far as the allegations that Mormons (or Joseph Smith) are/were somehow ANTI-Christ is absurd. While Mormons are definately a heterodox form of Christianity, they still believe that Jesus Christ approves of what they are doing and believing. So, any assertion by anyone of the likes of Ed Decker to the contrary is mere polemic.
|
Posted by: james ®
10/05/2002, 00:05:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm not certain, but I think most critics of Mormonism feel that Mormons are deceived or at least being misguided by their leadership and the message of Mormonism itself. I would agree that the Nail thing is not consciously stated. I think it would be very difficult to directly say 'we want to put jesus on the cross again' and expect the foundations of the faith to remain in place. I think earlier Mormonism was very antagonistic to 'orthodox' Christian teachings. Perhaps this is a subscious expression of this. I think the LDS church has become much more closer to regular christianity, or enough to almost become just another church.
|
Posted by: Kevin ®
10/05/2002, 03:03:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
Absolutely. As we moved through the 20th century, there has been a distinct move toward mainstreaming.In the 19th century, Latter-day Saints relished their uniqueness. They consciously set themselves apart from mainstream Christianity -- for, as Joseph Smith "quoted" God the Father, "they [all of Christianity] draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." I suspect this is part of the origins of the lack of crosses on the buildings. It was an open rejection of some of the trappings of mainstream Christianity. There is only so much the Church would have grown, however, using such isolationist strategies. As the need to grow increased -- financially and politically, as well as actual members -- mainstreaming had to occur. The political machinery is quite large now, so the Utah-based church hasn't moved nearly as fast as the Reorganized LDS Church (now Community of Christ), but the momentum is there -- particularly with the media-conscious Pres. Hinckley. Although, Hinckley hasn't so much mainstreamed the actual beliefs of the Church as much as he's mainstreamed the image of the Church. Since most of what Hinkley has done is cosmetic, I suspect that it's quite possible for the next president to undo much of what Hinkley's done. I'm interested to see what Boyd K. Packer will do. I understand he may have calmed down a bit over this past decade, but he sure has the reputation of being a bull in a china closet. It'll be interesting to see how that all unfolds.
|
Posted by: james ®
10/05/2002, 05:26:22
Author Profile Mail author
|
There is a leadership change? Boyd K is now the current LDS president? I haven't kept up with LDSisms, haven't been interested. I looked up the website about LDS temples, and I am amazed at how many there are now. There is even one in Anchorage, AK. (where I grew up) I don't know if all the changes have been cosmetic. The last thing I ever heard in the paper about Mormons had to do with Hinkleys interview. He really softened the doctrine of potential godhood. Some say think that he was being untruthful, but I don't see why. Some say that the Temple rites have been altered significantly, mostly softening of the language. Well, its out of my hands. I don't attend.
James
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
10/05/2002, 05:52:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
Not yet...He's talking about the future, after Hinkley dies.-Dan
|
Posted by: james ®
10/05/2002, 07:30:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
I thought leaders were chosen by revelation...Will the LDS leadership EVER have a president as young as Joseph Smith ever again? Its not up to me, but I think the LDS church could use some younger minds in leadership positions.
|
Posted by: RC ®
10/06/2002, 11:20:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
Not really. Since the initial leadership change (Joseph Smith to Brigham Young), the successor to the presidency of the LDS Church has been the senior (not in age but in years in the apostleship) apostle in the quorum of the twelve. Of course, the apostles always make a spiel about how they get together upon the death of the prophet and consider the new prophet/president spiritually, this manner of leadership change has stuck and will likely continue in that fashion. Is it revelation? Well, by Mormons' loose interpretation of revelation, yes.(Just a clarification, most Mormon revelation is made up of the first presidency and twelve apostles voting anyway. But you could also extrapolate this to the point that apostles are chosen by revelation (it's still a vote) and thus, when they ascend to the presidency, it is just the fulfillment of their calling which was initially extended by revelation.)
|
Posted by: james ®
10/09/2002, 03:22:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Such is the nature of religion. At least one other religion has variations of what revelation means:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm
I suppose any religious body can vote for its leadership, here is an example:
about the election of church leadership:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm I have no idea if Catholics claim divine choosing of each pope. To me it suspeciously looks like the work of humans and maintance of tradition.
|
Posted by: angelica ®
10/13/2002, 10:35:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
The current trend is towards embracing the people who are from other faiths, the early church had to be something distinct and seperate, othewise its message would have been lost. nowadays we are encouraged to mix in the main stream of politics and life in general , but no way would we be mixing in with mainstream christianity in the sense of sharing idealistic dogmas. what we will do is share in relief efforts and in condemning atrocities where and when they occur. its the basic Christlike tendencies we foster , and these can be found in many walks and faiths
|
Posted by: James ®
10/14/2002, 08:27:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
But Mormons can be members of the armed forces, in which case they could be participants in creating atrocities.
|
|
