Queer Mormon poet with radical political views. I have been married 27 years, and we have 6 children. Sunday school president. Served in the Utah Provo Mission.
View all posts by Kim Siever
120 thoughts on “Do you think the endowment ceremony is literal?”
Any of the Gospel. Evidence for some exists, but for the majority we’re going on faith, right?
Yep, there is. But this isn’t Primary, so I am not intending to go into detail. Besides that, I have to go to bed (need my energy sleep so I can run in the morning).
Just quick, my faith in Jesus Christ and the Gospel (which is very solid) supersedes any tradition, and whether or not the Masons or anyone else made up anything, doesn’t have any effect on what I believe and know to be true. That’s me.
Just try not to get too defensive. No one is trying to challenge your faith in the Gospel.
“There’s a reason why the verbage of the endowment is so exact”
That is, until they change it, right?
There’s not an awful lot of “evidence†for any of it, now is there?
The difference being, of course, that no prophet has claimed revelation regarding the theory you mentioned and no scripture supports the theory either. Yet there are plenty of scriptural/prophetic accounts regarding aspects of the gospel.
I’m sorry, bu this whole wearing garments in the CK thing is just incredibly humourous to me.
If that’s the stuff that’s important in the hereafter, I think God’s got His priorities mixed up…
Dallas,
Sorry for any misunderstanding. I wasn’t insulting you. I have to say, I found your comment 37 where you cite the adversary character as a gospel authority and then include a covenant that is never made quite amusing. You’re a smart guy; I thought my comments acknowledged that. In no way did I mean to imply otherwise.
You’re either having fun pulling our legs or you have some testimony harming objective. I hope it’s the former.
FYI, someone submitted this thread to Sustain’d. If it gets enough sustainings, it will be the first of our posts to get to their front page.
The theory about the Masons getting the tokens from the Jews when the temple was built in Jerusalem has a serious flaw. The Jews never practiced the Mason rites.
The Mason started around the year 1717 and Joseph Smith “borrowed” the tokens and symbols from the Masons for his club of faithful follwers.
Another fictious story that is often told concerns how Joseph Smith translated the Gold Plates with a curtain between the Gold Plates his scribes. The curtain was in place when Martin Harris was the scribe for the lost pages but not when the BOM was written.
The Gold Plates were not used to translate the BOM. Joseph Smith had a rock he found (24 feet underground) when he was digging a well. JS would placed this rock (seer stone) in his hat and then stick his face into the hat to dictate the words from the rock to his scribe. In addition to the rock, words would come into his mind which he would then tell to his scribe.
Feel good stories are not always the truth. If it is not the literal truth then it has to be Symbolic.
The endowment ceremony is Symbolic.
Now these mysteries are not yet fully made known unto me; therefore I shall forbear. – Alma 37:11
And your point, Anonymous?
Perhaps Anonymous is expressing the desire for someone to tell him/her what to believe as opposed to studing it out in their mind and making a decision.
Of course there are literal elements to the endowment. Of course there are symbolic elements to the endowment. I don’t see how anybody can think it’s all one or the other and make any sense at all of the general authority’s repeated prompts to go back often, not just for our dearly departed but for ourselves. If President Benson was “still learning” what the ceremony meant into his nineties, there must have been some symbolic meanings that were still being learned. Yet some things are there on the surface to be read as what they are, the covenants in particular.
“still learningâ€
I get a kick out of that statement. I think it’s just them trying not to insult us so we don’t feel like idiots when we say to ourselves “What the heck was that all about!” after attending the temple, or thinking “man, these old dudes know it all!”
I think than ‘experienced’ members of the church who use that phrase should be required to tell us what they learned that was new.
I bet we’d get responses like “well, I never saw that rabbit behind the strawberry bush in the creation room mural before”
Before I went to the temple I heard stories like people talking in the hallway and then the person they were talking with walked away and they noticed the person’s feet were not touching the floor.
Or they were doing baptisms and a person walked into the room and then left and when they got home they were looking at family pictures and realized it was Great Uncle Joe who had walked into the baptism room while they were doing his name.
While I’m still waiting for Uncle Joe to walk on air, I did see the rabbit behind the strawberry bush, but it was on TV.
Re: Wearing garments in the CK (even though I know nobody here, with the possible exception of Dallas, is taking the idea seriously).
From JS-H 1:31 He (Moroni) had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. … I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.
Moroni apparently wasn’t wearing garments, so unless “visiting the Prophet of the Restoration” is one of the activities for which it is OK to remove the garment, I think the theory is busted.
Besides, according to a statement in the temple recommend book, the “wearing of the garment is an outward expression of an inward commitment” to keep the temple covenants. Methinks such a display be unnecessary in the CK, no?
Also, the temple ceremony is almost entirely symbolic. I really don’t think Peter, James, and John really visited Adam shortly after he was expelled from the Garden of Eden. And consider the line from the ceremony that instructs the members to each consider himself (or herself) as Adam (or Eve). That’s a dead (or proxy?) giveaway.
Yo, slow yer roll Dallas . . .
Dallas said: Rick…just because I read all about Chemistry on the internet or from a textbook does not necessarily a chemist make me. I cannot earn a degree without receiving it from an authority authorized to grant me one…. like a University for example.
The same type of logic applies to the endowment… it is an ordinance that needs to be performed by one with the proper authority.
Yet what Dallas needs to understand is, a person can learn all they need to by studying the same materials without ever being taught by a authorized authority. Degree’s and Certificates are merely contrivances of man, instituted to subject the layperson to the authoritarian. Its all about control of the mind (knowledge) and dictation of direction (action). It’s nothing new, organized religion has been subjecting the faithful, by the same technique, since recorded time. The Catholic church practiced this before the Reformation. You might remember from your studies something called the Dark Ages?!
You do not need an authority authorized to teach to learn what you desire. Free yourselves from this lie and look upward toward God. After all, all wisdom comes through Him and He will grant you understanding without the need for any intercessory body.
Not really on topic . . .but just replying to one comment.
I hope these comments from Boyd K. Packer will have some value here:
Before going to the temple for the first time, or even after many times, it may help you to realize that the teaching in the temples is done in symbolic fashion. The Lord, the Master Teacher, gave much of His instruction in this way.
If you will go to the temple and remember that the teaching is symbolic, you will never go in the proper spirit without coming away with your vision extended, feeling a little more exalted, with your knowledge increased as to things that are spiritual. The teaching plan is superb. It is inspired. The Lord Himself, the Master Teacher, taught His disciples constantly in parables—a verbal way to represent symbolically things that might otherwise be difficult to understand.
“you will never go in the proper spirit without coming away with your vision extended, feeling a little more exalted, with your knowledge increased as to things that are spiritual.”
…so if you do go and for whatever reason do not feel an extension of your vision, more exalted and with an increase of knowledge of spirituality, there was something wrong with you. It’s definitely not the fault of the temple workers or the rituals themselves.
Sounds like Packer alright.
Rick, perhaps you can enlighten us on your vast experience with poor experiences at the temple that were caused by temple workers or rituals. Care to share an anecdote or two?
Sure, I’ll summarize several anecdotes into a single amalgam:
A person went through the temple ceremony for the first time or as a repeat visit. They left feeling no more enlightened than when they entered. Guilt ensued because the person assumed there must be something wrong with them because it didn’t seem they got anything out of the session.
I’ve heard this same story many, many times.
It’s so much like Packer to heap guilt upon someone. Or, to present a scenario in terms that pigeon-hole anyone who doesn’t believe things the way he believes things as a person who is sinful, lacking in spirit or just plain stupid.
I guess it would be nicer of President Packer to make up a soft message that doesn’t require anyone to do anything, and never poses the possibility of feeling bad that you didn’t follow it, rather than deliver the message that comes to him through the Holy Ghost.
Does everyone see how easy it is to play rick’s game of distortion?
Let’s take a comment:
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)
Now let’s twist it, Ã la rick:
So if for any reason Christ doesn’t come in and sup with you, there’s something wrong with you. It’s your fault for not hearing well enough, or not opening the door—not the fault of whoever tempted you, distracted you, or got in your way.
It’s so much like that guy to heap guilt upon someone. Or, to present a scenario in terms that pigeon-hole anyone who doesn’t believe things the way he believes things as a person who is sinful, lacking in spirit or just plain stupid.
See how it works? Let’s try again:
And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence. (2 Nephi 1:20)
So if you don’t feel prosperous, it must be because something is wrong with you—not because others are holding you back. It’s so like Nephi to heap guilt upon others….
Up for another round?
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (Matt. 5:3-6)
So if you don’t inherit the kingdom of heaven, if you don’t feel comforted, if you don’t inherit the earth, or if you’re not feeling filled, then it’s because something was wrong with you, not because someone else did anything wrong. It’s so like that guy to try to make you feel guilty….
You get the idea.
I guess it’s only distortion if you don’t agree with the interpretation, right?
Perhaps it’s would be clearer if we could have an expert on Reformed Egyptian just give us a contemporary translation, but I guess that’s out of the question.
It doesn’t matter what language is used. What matters is that God, and his ordained servants, make conditional promises that when we do certain things we receive certain blessings. Those messages—including the one I quoted above from President Packer—are messages of hope. But your unrelenting determination to paint Elder Packer as a villain leads you to try to find a way to make it look condemning. However, as you can see, your methods make Jesus look just as bad:
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:17)
So if you don’t know whether the doctrine is of God, it’s because there’s something wrong with you—you just weren’t trying hard enough. It’s not because of someone else who confused you or kept you from gaining a testimony. It’s so much like that guy to try to heap guilt on people…
Here’s another quote that I hope is helpful, from The House of the Lord by James E. Talmage. It describes the temple endowment as encompassing a scope of time and events that, in my view, can’t really be encompassed if the entire ceremony is viewed as purely literal:
The Temple Endowment, as administered in modern temples, comprises instruction relating to the significance and sequence of past dispensations, and the importance of the present as the greatest and grandest era in human history. This course of instruction includes a recital of the most prominent events of the creative period, the condition of our first parents in the Garden of Eden, their disobedience and consequent expulsion from that blissful abode, their condition in the lone and dreary world when doomed to live by labor and sweat, the plan of redemption by which the great transgression may be atoned, the period of the great apostasy, the restoration of the Gospel with all its ancient powers and privileges, the absolute and indispensible condition of personal purity and devotion to the right in present life, and a strict compliance with Gospel requirements.
“…the present as the greatest and grandest era in human history.”
Wow.
The hubris.
It’s called the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. It’s the final dispensation, in which the gospel will go to all the world. It’s the dispensation in which the Priesthood can finally be held by all worthy men regardless of birthright. It’s the dispensation in which temples dot the earth and the ordinances of the gospel are spread to all mankind. It’s the last dispensation in preparation for the coming of Christ. It’s the “greatest and grandest era in human history.”
“It’s the dispensation in which temples dot the earth”
At least I know where Gordon got the idea to start his building spree.
No, I’m afraid that as long as you persist in the position that President Hinckley is a false prophet and that there’s no such person as God, you will never know where he got the idea.
You dare to attempt to tell me what I shall know and know not?
Puh-leez.
You are committing a deadly sin.
Repent.
propheta autem qui arrogantia depravatus voluerit loqui in nomine meo quae ego non praecepi illi ut diceret aut ex nomine alienorum deorum interficietur
Old Testament doesn’t count, rick.
I believe the distinction would, at this point, be completely academic; and for that matter completely irrelevant.
OK, then let me try a better response: You said you know where President Hinckley got the idea. Where was that?
See #81
I see. So President Hinckley got the idea of building all those temples by reading comment 81, which you made on June 20, 2007. Or did he get it by reading comment 80, which I made on the same date?
You are committing a deadly sin. Repent.
This leads me to ask three questions:
What is a “deadly sin” and how do they differ from other sins?
What sin do you claim I am committing?
If, as you claim, there is no God, then why should I be concerned about committing this sin?
While you’re at it, should the desire strike you, you should feel free to render your Latin into English for the benefit of those—including me—who can’t understand it.
It’s Deut. 18:20, ltbugaf.
If rick actually took that scripture seriously (rather than dismissing the scriptures as superstitious fictions, as he actually does) then I would have to wonder why he was so fervent in insisting that the Prophet speak words about the Word of Wisdom which the Lord hasn’t commanded him to speak.
(And, of course, anyone can see that I haven’t claimed to be speaking any words of prophecy.)
You made the prophecy that I shall “never know where he[Hinckley] got the idea”.
Google ‘Deadly Sins’ if you’re more interested in the topic.
I highly doubt you’re as oblivious to the points I’m making as you seem to be; but if you are, I am at a loss as to how to present the topics in any more elementary manner.
Perhaps if you were to give me contact information for your local bishop, I could discuss these topics with him and he can, through the gift of tongues, communicate to you my points in a manner that you would be able to understand.
You made the prophecy that I shall “never know where he[Hinckley] got the ideaâ€.
The problem with that statement is that it’s pure crap. You, and every other sensible person who read my comment, already knows that I was not purporting to make a prophecy.
Perhaps if you were to give me contact information for your local bishop, I could discuss these topics with him and he can, through the gift of tongues, communicate to you my points in a manner that you would be able to understand.
Why? Do you think spiritual gifts are given for your entertainment? Oh wait—you don’t believe there is any Gift of Tongues. You’re just throwing more crap.
I am at a loss as to how to present the topics in any more elementary manner.
Well, there’s always writing in English. That’s one way to present them in a more elementary manner, at least for me.
“Do you think spiritual gifts are given for your entertainment?”
The longer I continue this discussion, the more it confirms that thesis…’cuz we’re sure not making any progress here; I must be doing it for entertainment.
I’ve also been wondering:
Since you assure me that your knowledge of Latter-day Saint doctrine is extensive and impeccable, and therefore you know that the classification of “deadly sins” is a Catholic teaching not recognized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—in short, since you know that I don’t believe in “deadly sins”—and since, denying the very existence of God, you also don’t believe in deadly sins, why are you trying to use the concept as an argument or tool against me?
Or is it just puerile mockery?
However, if you’re on a crusade to warn every person who makes a prediction without being told to by God, that he is violating the edict of Deuteronomy 18:20, then I hope you’ll get busy writing to every meteorologist who’s ever made a weather prediction and every stock broker who’s ever made a market prediction. They’re in the same peril I’m in.
I must be doing it for entertainment.
Which, as you know, doesn’t answer the question asked.
ltbugaf, I am mocking you.
I am yanking your chain, getting your goat, rubbing you the wrong way; and all with malice intended.
Are we clear yet?
Yes, I’ve known that for some time. I’ve just been wondering why you’re not ashamed of such idiotic behavior.
That brings up a phrase I’ve often heard uttered:
“When arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn’t doing the same.”
“I’ve just been wondering why you’re not ashamed of such idiotic behavior.”
Funny….I was thinking the same thing of you. Whether you realize it, or not, some of your behaviors are the part of the reason I don’t want my children being taught religion (specifically LDS) by other people.
Any of the Gospel. Evidence for some exists, but for the majority we’re going on faith, right?
Yep, there is. But this isn’t Primary, so I am not intending to go into detail. Besides that, I have to go to bed (need my energy sleep so I can run in the morning).
Just quick, my faith in Jesus Christ and the Gospel (which is very solid) supersedes any tradition, and whether or not the Masons or anyone else made up anything, doesn’t have any effect on what I believe and know to be true. That’s me.
Just try not to get too defensive. No one is trying to challenge your faith in the Gospel.
“There’s a reason why the verbage of the endowment is so exact”
That is, until they change it, right?
The difference being, of course, that no prophet has claimed revelation regarding the theory you mentioned and no scripture supports the theory either. Yet there are plenty of scriptural/prophetic accounts regarding aspects of the gospel.
I’m sorry, bu this whole wearing garments in the CK thing is just incredibly humourous to me.
If that’s the stuff that’s important in the hereafter, I think God’s got His priorities mixed up…
Dallas,
Sorry for any misunderstanding. I wasn’t insulting you. I have to say, I found your comment 37 where you cite the adversary character as a gospel authority and then include a covenant that is never made quite amusing. You’re a smart guy; I thought my comments acknowledged that. In no way did I mean to imply otherwise.
You’re either having fun pulling our legs or you have some testimony harming objective. I hope it’s the former.
FYI, someone submitted this thread to Sustain’d. If it gets enough sustainings, it will be the first of our posts to get to their front page.
The theory about the Masons getting the tokens from the Jews when the temple was built in Jerusalem has a serious flaw. The Jews never practiced the Mason rites.
The Mason started around the year 1717 and Joseph Smith “borrowed” the tokens and symbols from the Masons for his club of faithful follwers.
Another fictious story that is often told concerns how Joseph Smith translated the Gold Plates with a curtain between the Gold Plates his scribes. The curtain was in place when Martin Harris was the scribe for the lost pages but not when the BOM was written.
The Gold Plates were not used to translate the BOM. Joseph Smith had a rock he found (24 feet underground) when he was digging a well. JS would placed this rock (seer stone) in his hat and then stick his face into the hat to dictate the words from the rock to his scribe. In addition to the rock, words would come into his mind which he would then tell to his scribe.
Feel good stories are not always the truth. If it is not the literal truth then it has to be Symbolic.
The endowment ceremony is Symbolic.
Now these mysteries are not yet fully made known unto me; therefore I shall forbear. – Alma 37:11
And your point, Anonymous?
Perhaps Anonymous is expressing the desire for someone to tell him/her what to believe as opposed to studing it out in their mind and making a decision.
Of course there are literal elements to the endowment. Of course there are symbolic elements to the endowment. I don’t see how anybody can think it’s all one or the other and make any sense at all of the general authority’s repeated prompts to go back often, not just for our dearly departed but for ourselves. If President Benson was “still learning” what the ceremony meant into his nineties, there must have been some symbolic meanings that were still being learned. Yet some things are there on the surface to be read as what they are, the covenants in particular.
“still learningâ€
I get a kick out of that statement. I think it’s just them trying not to insult us so we don’t feel like idiots when we say to ourselves “What the heck was that all about!” after attending the temple, or thinking “man, these old dudes know it all!”
I think than ‘experienced’ members of the church who use that phrase should be required to tell us what they learned that was new.
I bet we’d get responses like “well, I never saw that rabbit behind the strawberry bush in the creation room mural before”
Before I went to the temple I heard stories like people talking in the hallway and then the person they were talking with walked away and they noticed the person’s feet were not touching the floor.
Or they were doing baptisms and a person walked into the room and then left and when they got home they were looking at family pictures and realized it was Great Uncle Joe who had walked into the baptism room while they were doing his name.
While I’m still waiting for Uncle Joe to walk on air, I did see the rabbit behind the strawberry bush, but it was on TV.
Re: Wearing garments in the CK (even though I know nobody here, with the possible exception of Dallas, is taking the idea seriously).
From JS-H 1:31
He (Moroni) had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. … I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.
Moroni apparently wasn’t wearing garments, so unless “visiting the Prophet of the Restoration” is one of the activities for which it is OK to remove the garment, I think the theory is busted.
Besides, according to a statement in the temple recommend book, the “wearing of the garment is an outward expression of an inward commitment” to keep the temple covenants. Methinks such a display be unnecessary in the CK, no?
Also, the temple ceremony is almost entirely symbolic. I really don’t think Peter, James, and John really visited Adam shortly after he was expelled from the Garden of Eden. And consider the line from the ceremony that instructs the members to each consider himself (or herself) as Adam (or Eve). That’s a dead (or proxy?) giveaway.
Yo, slow yer roll Dallas . . .
Dallas said: Rick…just because I read all about Chemistry on the internet or from a textbook does not necessarily a chemist make me. I cannot earn a degree without receiving it from an authority authorized to grant me one…. like a University for example.
The same type of logic applies to the endowment… it is an ordinance that needs to be performed by one with the proper authority.
Yet what Dallas needs to understand is, a person can learn all they need to by studying the same materials without ever being taught by a authorized authority. Degree’s and Certificates are merely contrivances of man, instituted to subject the layperson to the authoritarian. Its all about control of the mind (knowledge) and dictation of direction (action). It’s nothing new, organized religion has been subjecting the faithful, by the same technique, since recorded time. The Catholic church practiced this before the Reformation. You might remember from your studies something called the Dark Ages?!
You do not need an authority authorized to teach to learn what you desire. Free yourselves from this lie and look upward toward God. After all, all wisdom comes through Him and He will grant you understanding without the need for any intercessory body.
Not really on topic . . .but just replying to one comment.
I hope these comments from Boyd K. Packer will have some value here:
…forgot to offer the link: http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=34723ff73058b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
Thanks for the quotes and link.
“you will never go in the proper spirit without coming away with your vision extended, feeling a little more exalted, with your knowledge increased as to things that are spiritual.”
…so if you do go and for whatever reason do not feel an extension of your vision, more exalted and with an increase of knowledge of spirituality, there was something wrong with you. It’s definitely not the fault of the temple workers or the rituals themselves.
Sounds like Packer alright.
Rick, perhaps you can enlighten us on your vast experience with poor experiences at the temple that were caused by temple workers or rituals. Care to share an anecdote or two?
Sure, I’ll summarize several anecdotes into a single amalgam:
A person went through the temple ceremony for the first time or as a repeat visit. They left feeling no more enlightened than when they entered. Guilt ensued because the person assumed there must be something wrong with them because it didn’t seem they got anything out of the session.
I’ve heard this same story many, many times.
It’s so much like Packer to heap guilt upon someone. Or, to present a scenario in terms that pigeon-hole anyone who doesn’t believe things the way he believes things as a person who is sinful, lacking in spirit or just plain stupid.
I guess it would be nicer of President Packer to make up a soft message that doesn’t require anyone to do anything, and never poses the possibility of feeling bad that you didn’t follow it, rather than deliver the message that comes to him through the Holy Ghost.
Does everyone see how easy it is to play rick’s game of distortion?
Let’s take a comment:
Now let’s twist it, Ã la rick:
So if for any reason Christ doesn’t come in and sup with you, there’s something wrong with you. It’s your fault for not hearing well enough, or not opening the door—not the fault of whoever tempted you, distracted you, or got in your way.
It’s so much like that guy to heap guilt upon someone. Or, to present a scenario in terms that pigeon-hole anyone who doesn’t believe things the way he believes things as a person who is sinful, lacking in spirit or just plain stupid.
See how it works? Let’s try again:
So if you don’t feel prosperous, it must be because something is wrong with you—not because others are holding you back. It’s so like Nephi to heap guilt upon others….
Up for another round?
So if you don’t inherit the kingdom of heaven, if you don’t feel comforted, if you don’t inherit the earth, or if you’re not feeling filled, then it’s because something was wrong with you, not because someone else did anything wrong. It’s so like that guy to try to make you feel guilty….
You get the idea.
I guess it’s only distortion if you don’t agree with the interpretation, right?
Perhaps it’s would be clearer if we could have an expert on Reformed Egyptian just give us a contemporary translation, but I guess that’s out of the question.
It doesn’t matter what language is used. What matters is that God, and his ordained servants, make conditional promises that when we do certain things we receive certain blessings. Those messages—including the one I quoted above from President Packer—are messages of hope. But your unrelenting determination to paint Elder Packer as a villain leads you to try to find a way to make it look condemning. However, as you can see, your methods make Jesus look just as bad:
So if you don’t know whether the doctrine is of God, it’s because there’s something wrong with you—you just weren’t trying hard enough. It’s not because of someone else who confused you or kept you from gaining a testimony. It’s so much like that guy to try to heap guilt on people…
Here’s another quote that I hope is helpful, from The House of the Lord by James E. Talmage. It describes the temple endowment as encompassing a scope of time and events that, in my view, can’t really be encompassed if the entire ceremony is viewed as purely literal:
“…the present as the greatest and grandest era in human history.”
Wow.
The hubris.
It’s called the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. It’s the final dispensation, in which the gospel will go to all the world. It’s the dispensation in which the Priesthood can finally be held by all worthy men regardless of birthright. It’s the dispensation in which temples dot the earth and the ordinances of the gospel are spread to all mankind. It’s the last dispensation in preparation for the coming of Christ. It’s the “greatest and grandest era in human history.”
“It’s the dispensation in which temples dot the earth”
At least I know where Gordon got the idea to start his building spree.
No, I’m afraid that as long as you persist in the position that President Hinckley is a false prophet and that there’s no such person as God, you will never know where he got the idea.
You dare to attempt to tell me what I shall know and know not?
Puh-leez.
You are committing a deadly sin.
Repent.
propheta autem qui arrogantia depravatus voluerit loqui in nomine meo quae ego non praecepi illi ut diceret aut ex nomine alienorum deorum interficietur
Old Testament doesn’t count, rick.
I believe the distinction would, at this point, be completely academic; and for that matter completely irrelevant.
OK, then let me try a better response: You said you know where President Hinckley got the idea. Where was that?
See #81
I see. So President Hinckley got the idea of building all those temples by reading comment 81, which you made on June 20, 2007. Or did he get it by reading comment 80, which I made on the same date?
This leads me to ask three questions:
What is a “deadly sin” and how do they differ from other sins?
What sin do you claim I am committing?
If, as you claim, there is no God, then why should I be concerned about committing this sin?
While you’re at it, should the desire strike you, you should feel free to render your Latin into English for the benefit of those—including me—who can’t understand it.
It’s Deut. 18:20, ltbugaf.
If rick actually took that scripture seriously (rather than dismissing the scriptures as superstitious fictions, as he actually does) then I would have to wonder why he was so fervent in insisting that the Prophet speak words about the Word of Wisdom which the Lord hasn’t commanded him to speak.
(And, of course, anyone can see that I haven’t claimed to be speaking any words of prophecy.)
You made the prophecy that I shall “never know where he[Hinckley] got the idea”.
Google ‘Deadly Sins’ if you’re more interested in the topic.
I highly doubt you’re as oblivious to the points I’m making as you seem to be; but if you are, I am at a loss as to how to present the topics in any more elementary manner.
Perhaps if you were to give me contact information for your local bishop, I could discuss these topics with him and he can, through the gift of tongues, communicate to you my points in a manner that you would be able to understand.
Please send the contact information to ltbugafsbishop@rickberes.com
The problem with that statement is that it’s pure crap. You, and every other sensible person who read my comment, already knows that I was not purporting to make a prophecy.
Why? Do you think spiritual gifts are given for your entertainment? Oh wait—you don’t believe there is any Gift of Tongues. You’re just throwing more crap.
Well, there’s always writing in English. That’s one way to present them in a more elementary manner, at least for me.
The longer I continue this discussion, the more it confirms that thesis…’cuz we’re sure not making any progress here; I must be doing it for entertainment.
I’ve also been wondering:
Since you assure me that your knowledge of Latter-day Saint doctrine is extensive and impeccable, and therefore you know that the classification of “deadly sins” is a Catholic teaching not recognized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—in short, since you know that I don’t believe in “deadly sins”—and since, denying the very existence of God, you also don’t believe in deadly sins, why are you trying to use the concept as an argument or tool against me?
Or is it just puerile mockery?
However, if you’re on a crusade to warn every person who makes a prediction without being told to by God, that he is violating the edict of Deuteronomy 18:20, then I hope you’ll get busy writing to every meteorologist who’s ever made a weather prediction and every stock broker who’s ever made a market prediction. They’re in the same peril I’m in.
Which, as you know, doesn’t answer the question asked.
ltbugaf, I am mocking you.
I am yanking your chain, getting your goat, rubbing you the wrong way; and all with malice intended.
Are we clear yet?
Yes, I’ve known that for some time. I’ve just been wondering why you’re not ashamed of such idiotic behavior.
That brings up a phrase I’ve often heard uttered:
“When arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn’t doing the same.”
“I’ve just been wondering why you’re not ashamed of such idiotic behavior.”
Funny….I was thinking the same thing of you. Whether you realize it, or not, some of your behaviors are the part of the reason I don’t want my children being taught religion (specifically LDS) by other people.