FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "User:InProgress/Common Questions Drafts/Page 5"
GeorgeCobabe (talk | contribs) (→Short answer) |
GeorgeCobabe (talk | contribs) (→Longer answer) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| − | [[User:GeorgeCobabe|GeorgeCobabe]] Comment not for the text: Both the short and the | + | [[User:GeorgeCobabe|GeorgeCobabe]] Comment not for the text: Both the short and the longer answer presuppose that there was something wrong with seeking for buried treasure. Why is that?? It was a common and honorable task, even if nothing came of it. Do we really want to start from such a negative position? [[User:GeorgeCobabe|GeorgeCobabe]] |
===Longer answer=== | ===Longer answer=== | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
“Those who enter the temple must be worthy, which means that they keep the commandments and are prepared to make and keep sacred temple covenants. In two interviews—one with a member of a bishopric or a branch president and another with a member of a stake presidency or a mission president—Church members certify their worthiness to enter the temple. In these interviews, the priesthood leader asks about the individual's personal conduct and worthiness. Those who are worthy receive a temple recommend, which allows them to enter the temple.” (http://www.lds.org – gospel topics – temples) | “Those who enter the temple must be worthy, which means that they keep the commandments and are prepared to make and keep sacred temple covenants. In two interviews—one with a member of a bishopric or a branch president and another with a member of a stake presidency or a mission president—Church members certify their worthiness to enter the temple. In these interviews, the priesthood leader asks about the individual's personal conduct and worthiness. Those who are worthy receive a temple recommend, which allows them to enter the temple.” (http://www.lds.org – gospel topics – temples) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:GeorgeCobabe|GeorgeCobabe]] comment not for the text: The answer is not given as to why we do not speak of the workings of the temple. Should we approach it from the idea that if we did we would find others making light of our sacred ordinances? Or how? Simply being told not to is not adequate. [[User:GeorgeCobabe|GeorgeCobabe]] | ||
===Additional resources=== | ===Additional resources=== | ||
| Line 83: | Line 85: | ||
“The white garment symbolizes purity and helps assure modesty, respect for the attributes of God, and, to the degree it is honored, a token of what Paul regarded as taking upon one the whole armor of God (Eph. 6:13; cf. D&C 27:15). | “The white garment symbolizes purity and helps assure modesty, respect for the attributes of God, and, to the degree it is honored, a token of what Paul regarded as taking upon one the whole armor of God (Eph. 6:13; cf. D&C 27:15). | ||
| − | “The clergy and many of the committed in almost all major faiths wear special clothing. For Latter-day Saints, among whom there is no professional ministry, men and women from all walks of life share in the callings, responsibilities, and blessings of the priesthood. Their sacred clothing, representing covenants with God, is worn under rather than outside their street clothes. | + | “The clergy and many of the committed in almost all major faiths wear special clothing. For Latter-day Saints, among whom there is no professional ministry, men and women from all walks of life share in the callings, responsibilities, and blessings of the priesthood. Their sacred clothing, representing covenants with God, is worn under rather than outside their street clothes. [[User:GeorgeCobabe|GeorgeCobabe]] you started this paragraph with " and never closed them nor provided a citation. Add what is needed or delete the " [[User:GeorgeCobabe|GeorgeCobabe]] |
The idea of someone making solemn covenants with God, and using an outward mark to signify that covenant is fairly common in religious practice. In some cases, a permanent marking or changing of the body is done, such as a tattoo or circumcision. In other cases, this covenant relationship is marked by wearing a sacred article of clothing, such as a head covering, outward attire, or as in the case of the LDS temple garment, a simple garment worn under our everyday clothing. In this case, as is the case with (to choose one example) the Jewish practice of circumcision to indicate their covenant relationship with God, it is in a private location, where it stands as a reminder to oneself of how they should be living, without the need to display it openly to the world. In neither case would it be proper to make light of the practice or to ridicule something so deeply meaningful to each group, although in both cases there are obvious ways one might ridicule them if they chose to be so crass. -- [[User:SteveWilloughby|SteveWilloughby]] 12:53, 4 October 2010 (MDT) | The idea of someone making solemn covenants with God, and using an outward mark to signify that covenant is fairly common in religious practice. In some cases, a permanent marking or changing of the body is done, such as a tattoo or circumcision. In other cases, this covenant relationship is marked by wearing a sacred article of clothing, such as a head covering, outward attire, or as in the case of the LDS temple garment, a simple garment worn under our everyday clothing. In this case, as is the case with (to choose one example) the Jewish practice of circumcision to indicate their covenant relationship with God, it is in a private location, where it stands as a reminder to oneself of how they should be living, without the need to display it openly to the world. In neither case would it be proper to make light of the practice or to ridicule something so deeply meaningful to each group, although in both cases there are obvious ways one might ridicule them if they chose to be so crass. -- [[User:SteveWilloughby|SteveWilloughby]] 12:53, 4 October 2010 (MDT) | ||
| − | |||
===Additional resources=== | ===Additional resources=== | ||
Latest revision as of 16:48, 6 October 2010
Page 1|Page 2|Page 3|Page 4|Page 5|Page 6
Contents
QUESTION 8b: Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy?
Short answer
Yes, despite his own feelings of “repugnance” at the practice Joseph Smith was certain that God had commanded the practice of polygamy. He obeyed.
Longer answer
Yes, despite his own feelings of “repugnance” at the practice Joseph Smith was certain that God had commanded the practice of polygamy. He obeyed.
In April 1839, Joseph Smith emerged from six months' imprisonment in Liberty Jail with a sense of urgency about completing his mission (see History of the Church: c 1831-1844, Ohio, Missouri, and Nauvoo Periods). Since receiving the sealing key from Elijah in the Kirtland Temple (D&C 110:13-16) in April 1836, the Prophet had labored to prepare the Saints for additional teachings and ordinances, including plural marriage.
“Joseph Smith realized that the introduction of plural marriage would inevitably invite severe criticism. After his first experience with plural marriage in Kirtland in the mid-1830s, he knew the tension it would create in his own family; even though Emma, with faith in his prophetic calling, accepted the revelation as being from God and not of his own doing, she could not reconcile herself to the practice. Beyond that, it had the potential to divide the Church and increase hostilities from outside. Still, he felt obligated to move ahead. "The object with me is to obey & teach others to obey God in just what he tells us to do," he taught several months before his death. "It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular. I will always maintain a true principle even if I Stand GeorgeCobabe stand? lower case s? GeorgeCobabe alone in it" (TPJS, p. 332).
“Although certain that God would require it of him and of the Church, Joseph Smith would not have introduced it when he did except for the conviction that God required it then. Several close confidants later said that he proceeded with plural marriage in Nauvoo only after both internal struggle and divine warning. Lorenzo Snow later remembered vividly a conversation in 1843 in which the Prophet described the battle he waged "in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings" regarding plural marriage. He knew the voice of God-he knew the commandment of the Almighty to him was to go forward-to set the example, and establish Celestial plural marriage. He knew that he had not only his own prejudices and pre-possessions to combat and to overcome, but those of the whole Christian world…; but God…had given the commandment [The Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, pp. 69-70 (Salt Lake City, 1884)].
“Even so, Snow and other confidants agreed that Joseph Smith proceeded in Nauvoo only after an angel declared that he must or his calling would be given to another (Bachman, pp. 74-75). After this, Joseph Smith told Brigham Young that he was determined to press ahead though it would cost him his life, for "it is the work of God, and He has revealed this principle, and it is not my business to control or dictate it" (Brigham Young Discourse, Oct. 8, 1866, Church Archives). “Nor did others enter into plural marriage blindly or simply because Joseph Smith had spoken, despite biblical precedents. Personal accounts document that most who entered plural marriage in Nauvoo faced a crisis of faith that was resolved only by personal spiritual witness. Those who participated generally did so only after they had obtained reassurance and saw it as religious duty.
“Even those closest to Joseph Smith were challenged by the revelation. After first learning of plural marriage, Brigham Young said he felt to envy the corpse in a funeral cortege and "could hardly get over it for a long time" (JD 3:266). The Prophet's brother Hyrum Smith stubbornly resisted the very possibility until circumstances forced him to go to the Lord for understanding. Both later taught the principle to others. Emma Smith vacillated, one day railing in opposition against it and the next giving her consent for Joseph to be sealed to another wife (see comments by Orson Pratt, JD 13:194).” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1091-1093)
Additional resources
- http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Plural_Marriage
- http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy
- http://en.fairmormon.org/Template:PolygamyWiki
QUESTION 8c: Was Joseph Smith a "gold digger"?
Short answer
Prior to his call as a prophet, Joseph Smith sometimes sought for buried wealth—this was a relatively common practice in the early 1800s. LDS do not claim that prophets must be perfect; therefore this insignificant activity in his youth has no bearing on the LDS belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
GeorgeCobabe Comment not for the text: Both the short and the longer answer presuppose that there was something wrong with seeking for buried treasure. Why is that?? It was a common and honorable task, even if nothing came of it. Do we really want to start from such a negative position? GeorgeCobabe
Longer answer
Prior to his call as a prophet, Joseph Smith sometimes sought for buried wealth—this was a relatively common practice in the early 1800s. LDS do not claim that prophets must be perfect, therefore this insignificant activity in his youth has no bearing on the LDS belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God
Some have insisted that Joseph could not be a prophet because of this, or something else they believe was an error or foolish action.
Joseph never claimed to be perfect, or without flaws. The Bible likewise describes prophets who made serious mistakes: Moses killed an Egyptian, Peter denied Jesus, Jonah disobeyed a direct command from God. Only Jesus Christ was perfect.
As with all prophets, the issue is not whether Joseph Smith’s life was perfect, but whether his message comes from God. We bear testimony that God, the only perfect being, will confirm the truth of Joseph’s message, whatever the faults of the messenger.
Additional resources
QUESTION 9a: Temples: are they secret?
Short answer
Latter-day Saints prefer using the word “sacred” in reference to temples rather than “secret.” Temples are literally houses of the Lord. They are holy places of worship where individuals make sacred covenants with God. Because making covenants with God is such a solemn responsibility, individuals cannot enter the temple to receive their endowments or be sealed in marriage for eternity until they have fully prepared themselves.
Longer answer
Latter-day Saints prefer using the word “sacred” in reference to temples rather than “secret Temples are literally houses of the Lord. They are holy places of worship where individuals make sacred covenants with God. Because making covenants with God is such a solemn responsibility, individuals cannot enter the temple to receive their endowments or be sealed in marriage for eternity until they have fully prepared themselves.
“Temples are places of learning. Their principal purpose is to provide ordinances necessary for the children of God to enable them to return to dwell with Him. Temple ordinances lead to the greatest blessings available through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Everything in the Church—the meetings and activities, the missionary efforts, the lessons taught and the hymns—all lead to the work done in holy temples.
“One ordinance received in the temple is called the endowment. The word endowment means "gift," and the temple endowment truly is a gift from God. The ordinance consists of a series of instructions and includes covenants to live righteously and follow the requirements of the gospel. The endowment focuses on the Savior, His role in Heavenly Father's plan, and the personal commitment of each member to follow Him.
“Another temple ordinance is celestial marriage. In this ordinance husband and wife are sealed to one another for eternity. A sealing performed in the temple continues forever if the husband and wife are faithful to the covenants they make.
“Children born to parents who have been sealed in the temple are born in the covenant. These children automatically become part of an eternal family. Children who are not born in the covenant can also become part of an eternal family once their natural or adoptive parents have been sealed to one another. The ordinance of sealing children to parents is performed in the temple.
“People who have died without these essential gospel ordinances may receive those ordinances through the work done in temples. Acting in behalf of ancestors and others who have died, Church members are baptized and confirmed, receive the endowment, and participate in the sealings of husband to wife and children to parents.
“Those who enter the temple must be worthy, which means that they keep the commandments and are prepared to make and keep sacred temple covenants. In two interviews—one with a member of a bishopric or a branch president and another with a member of a stake presidency or a mission president—Church members certify their worthiness to enter the temple. In these interviews, the priesthood leader asks about the individual's personal conduct and worthiness. Those who are worthy receive a temple recommend, which allows them to enter the temple.” (http://www.lds.org – gospel topics – temples)
GeorgeCobabe comment not for the text: The answer is not given as to why we do not speak of the workings of the temple. Should we approach it from the idea that if we did we would find others making light of our sacred ordinances? Or how? Simply being told not to is not adequate. GeorgeCobabe
Additional resources
- www.lds.org – gospel topics – temples
- http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Temples
QUESTION 9b: Temples: Garment (What is the purpose of wearing the "Mormon underwear"?
Short answer
White undergarments or simply “garments” are worn by church members who have received the ordinances of the temple. Garments are a symbol and a constant reminder of the covenants made with God in the temple. Wearing the garment is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.
Some people focus on the idea that they are "strange underwear" which gives it a very different apparent intent than is actually the case. The fact that it's worn under everyday clothing is incidental to the main point, which is to stand as a symbol of a covenant. -- SteveWilloughby 12:53, 4 October 2010 (MDT)
Longer answer
Medium Answer:
White undergarments or simply “garments” are worn by church members who have received the ordinances of the temple. Garments are a symbol and a constant reminder of the covenants made with God in the temple. Wearing the garment is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior. “The white garment symbolizes purity and helps assure modesty, respect for the attributes of God, and, to the degree it is honored, a token of what Paul regarded as taking upon one the whole armor of God (Eph. 6:13; cf. D&C 27:15).
“The clergy and many of the committed in almost all major faiths wear special clothing. For Latter-day Saints, among whom there is no professional ministry, men and women from all walks of life share in the callings, responsibilities, and blessings of the priesthood. Their sacred clothing, representing covenants with God, is worn under rather than outside their street clothes. GeorgeCobabe you started this paragraph with " and never closed them nor provided a citation. Add what is needed or delete the " GeorgeCobabe
The idea of someone making solemn covenants with God, and using an outward mark to signify that covenant is fairly common in religious practice. In some cases, a permanent marking or changing of the body is done, such as a tattoo or circumcision. In other cases, this covenant relationship is marked by wearing a sacred article of clothing, such as a head covering, outward attire, or as in the case of the LDS temple garment, a simple garment worn under our everyday clothing. In this case, as is the case with (to choose one example) the Jewish practice of circumcision to indicate their covenant relationship with God, it is in a private location, where it stands as a reminder to oneself of how they should be living, without the need to display it openly to the world. In neither case would it be proper to make light of the practice or to ridicule something so deeply meaningful to each group, although in both cases there are obvious ways one might ridicule them if they chose to be so crass. -- SteveWilloughby 12:53, 4 October 2010 (MDT)