A TBM admits being weirded out by the temple

[_Runtu]

Joseph Smith was not spoken very highly of by members of his own community when the Book of Mormon was published. No one saw exceptional intelligence. And that was my point. However, I do believe that he grew into his calling and progressed tremendously. But if one still reads his letters to Emma, we do not see a gifted writer coming forth in the prose.

I don't recall anyone saying he was "stupid."

I've read Joseph's letters; this idea that he was some sort of illiterate idiot is simply wrong. Some of his letters were later edited into sections of the D&C (121 and 122, for example). Are those the signs of an illiterate bumpkin? I think not.

[_why me]

ETA: The first convert baptism in Scandinavia (where most non-English-speaking converts came from) was in 1850. The first emigration of German converts was in 1853. Where does this notion of non-English speaking converts in Nauvoo come from?

This would not include the welsh population of Nauvoo. As I understand it, the welch formed quite a contingent of the population. Also, it is unclear just how many of the new immigrants could read or write although Bushman claims that Joseph was impressed with the education of some of the new converts.

http://books.google.fi/books?id=npQ6Hd3 ... &q&f=false

see page 327 second column.

[_Runtu]

ETA: The first convert baptism in Scandinavia (where most non-English-speaking converts came from) was in 1850. The first emigration of German converts was in 1853. Where does this notion of non-English speaking converts in Nauvoo come from?

This would not include the welsh population of Nauvoo. As I understand it, the welch formed quite a contingent of the population. Also, it is unclear just how many of the new immigrants could read or write although Bushman claims that Joseph was impressed with the education of some of the new converts.

http://books.google.fi/books?id=npQ6Hd3 ... &q&f=false

see page 327 second column.

Again, you're off by just a bit. Convert baptisms in Wales were minimal before Dan Jones was sent there in 1845. When he arrived in Wales in 1845, there were roughly 200 members in all of Wales, and it wasn't until 1849 that the first organized emigration to the US (under Dan Jones) brought 300 Welsh converts to Council Bluffs, Iowa.

The lack of English speakers among converts was a problem in later decades in Utah, spurring the development of the Deseret Alphabet. But there simply is nothing to back your claim of a language problem among converts in Nauvoo.

[_madeleine]

The ringing of the church bells before Mass is a symbol. Likewise for the incense at high mass. Not to mention the sprinkling of holy water at special masses. And what about ash wednesday? Do you really think walking around with ash on one's forehead is normal? And what about Palm Sunday? All symbols.

I think that I need a reality check.

Yeah, walking around with ash on your forehead is kind of weird - kind of like a red dot on the forehead. I always thought praying to a giant Shiva lingum was weird too.

Palm Sunday seems very Christian since it is talked about in the New Testament so I don't think Western people would say that's weird. Church bells are certainly pretty normal around here.

Incense is slightly weird since that is more popular in Eastern cultures. Holy water strange to me but I've seen that in different cultures around the world.

All of these go back 1,000s of years. Does that validate them? Just because Mormon traditions all go back to Masonry doesn't make them weirder than the others... I guess. Not sure what to say about all this.

All are Biblical in practice...but yeah, the first time I came home from Ash Wednesday, my husband bust out laughing and asked me when I was going to "wash that off".

The Sign of the Cross though, is just that, a sign, that of God's love.

One thing that has to be remembered, for the majority of the 2000 years of Christian history, the majority of the population of Christians were illiterate. The Liturgy of the Mass is how Christian truths have been taught to people, for centuries. Mass, of course, does not exist only as a form of schooling, but it is a form of passing on the faith that incorporates all the senses.

[_why me]

YOU ARE SO FULL OF s*** that your eyes are brown.

Furthermore, the LDS temple ceremony as we know it today developed AFTER Nauvoo.

You can read Bushman. Check the Index to RSR 'endowments' and get back to me.

[_why me]

All are Biblical in practice...but yeah, the first time I came home from Ash Wednesday, my husband bust out laughing and asked me when I was going to "wash that off".

The Sign of the Cross though, is just that, a sign, that of God's love.

One thing that has to be remembered, for the majority of the 2000 years of Christian history, the majority of the population of Christians were illiterate. The Liturgy of the Mass is how Christian truths have been taught to people, for centuries. Mass, of course, does not exist only as a form of schooling, but it is a form of passing on the faith that incorporates all the senses.

Which was the reason for the symbolism. Also the rosary and its mysteries can be related to illiterate christians. The catholic mass is full of symbolism.

[_why me]

ETA: The first convert baptism in Scandinavia (where most non-English-speaking converts came from) was in 1850. The first emigration of German converts was in 1853. Where does this notion of non-English speaking converts in Nauvoo come from?

I am trying to find where I read it but at the moment can't seem to find it. Lets see if I can find the information.

[_Dr. Shades]

In April 1990, the changes indicated to me that God was working through his prophets and adapting his revelations to better suit our times.

APOSTASY: When your church changes.
CONTINUING REVELATION: When my church changes.

I was raised to expect human failure, especially in matters of religion.

Then why not just make up your own religion?

I do recall many years ago asking a few close LDS friends if in fact there was an element of the Emperors clothes in this.

Don't keep us in suspense. What was their response?

And what about ash wednesday? Do you really think walking around with ash on one's forehead is normal? . . .
I still remember as a boy having ash on my forehead in school.

WTF? Catholics don't really undergo such strangeness, do they?

However, here is poor sidney finishing his magnum opus to change the world and form a new religion and who does he chose? A socalled glass looker.

Sidney had no choice. He had to make it look as though authentic scripture was literally pulled out of the ground. Who better to find gold than a money-digger?

I suppose that makes sense. And of course this glass looker suddenly becomes top dog and poor sidney takes back stage and even has his daughter hit on. And sidney? Mums the word.

He had no choice. He had already cast his die; it wouldn't do him any good to pack it all in.

Yep...sounds good to me if it were a con.

Sidney had no way of knowing, in advance, that Joseph would A) wind up being top dog, and B) hit on his daughter.

A logical question would have been: Hey, Joe...are you sure that these are from god because they all seem familiar to me?" How to answer that question?

You answer it by saying that Masonry is the corrupted temple endowment, and that the temple endowment is true Masonry. You know, just like Joseph did.

[_beastie]

Masons who are Mormons have no problem and the masons who were Mormons back then, seemed to have no problems either. A logical question would have been: Hey, Joe...are you sure that these are from god because they all seem familiar to me?" How to answer that question?

The Masons certainly had a problem with it.

[_Runtu]

Then why not just make up your own religion?

In a way, that's exactly what my father has done. He sees Mormonism as a "philosophy of life" that helps him be a better person. He rejects a great deal of the doctrines and dogmas and has no use for a lot of the church leadership (he's used the words "moron" and "blithering idiot" to describe Joseph Fielding Smith and "con man" and "womanizer" to describe Joseph Smith).

He holds to what he finds of value in Mormonism and throws out the rest. I think the difference between him and me is first, I see things more on a macro level: if it's BS, it's BS. If there's crap in my sandwich, I can't just eat around it. Second, he finds more of value in the LDS church than I do. I think it's probably because I think the good the church does is dwarfed by the harm.

And as far as your "continuing revelation" statement goes, looking back on it, I just wanted it to make sense. I wanted to be able to believe in a God who changes his mind but remains consistent.