Media continues to highlight Mormon moments

Return To Article
Add a comment
    July 5, 2013 4:05 p.m.

    Why is Chris B so curious about LDS temple ordinances and church finances? What does he intend to do with the info once he gets it? Our experience with the recent presidential election should tell us why. If I had the notoriety Mitt Romney has (and I don't), I wouldn't want someone prying into my private and family affairs.
    He objects to the word "sacred". Well, isn't there anything sacred anymore? What's so wrong with the term that he finds it objectionable?
    As to our “pleading for acceptance—“ I offer my hand for anyone to shake in a friendly gesture. But I have had those who refused, or closed the door in my face. That’s their choice. I’ll give them their space; it is their right. My feelings aren’t as fragile as all that.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 3, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    RE: EternalPerspective, How else could anyone know for certain what is truth with all the different interpretations? Study N.T. Greek. i.e..

    Priesthood authority, In(D&C 110: 1-16) Elias and Elijah appear to JS, but in the Bible they are the same person. The KJV translators attempted to transliterate Elijah to Elias because there isn’t a Greek character for the English letter J.

    To avoid confusion, modern translations: NIV, NJKV, NASB have Elijah instead of Elias in(Mt 11:14; Luke 1:17)JS was fooled.

    1 Pet 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the *spirits in prison; 1 Pet 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein eight souls were saved by water.

    *Spirits is only used of human beings when qualifying terms are added, otherwise the term is restricted to supernatural beings. …the unclean spirits(demons), and they come out(Luke 4;36)

    RE:… Patterns in the Bible.
    …These are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ!(Col 2:17)

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 3, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    "and MOST ALL churches in America (not just LDS) do not disclose. "

    The Methodist church I grew up in disclosed their financial records to the congregation. The Catholic church I visit here includes their financial records in the bulletin once a year. I personally have no idea what percentage of churches in the US disclose their financial records. I just know that the non-LDS churches I've been to do.

    "Baptism for the dead was practiced by early AD Christians until this was done away by the great apostasy and rise of man-made Christian religions."

    Paul criticized the practice and it was only used by a tiny subset for people who were planning on being baptized but ended up dying shortly before then. It was never used as broadly back then as the LDS church currently uses it.

  • EternalPerspective Eldersburg, MD
    July 3, 2013 11:59 a.m.


    Paul was not speaking of the resurrection but the actual ordinance of Baptism for the dead by the living for those spirits who died in mortality and were awaiting the resurrection.

    Baptism for the dead was practiced by early AD Christians until this was done away by the great apostasy and rise of man-made Christian religions. There were certainly those who did not believe in such ordinances, but they were part of the church Christ established.

    If Jesus Christ was the "first fruits of them that slept", or the first who was to be resurrected, then how could anyone before Him have been resurrected? People were certainly resurrected when "graves were opened" after Christ was resurrected because they appeared unto people in Jerusalem.

    Your interpretations of the Bible bring up a great point that was also the conclusion of Joseph Smith before he received the charge to restore Christ's true and living Church. That is, the Bible alone cannot settle questions of doctrine. They are rather affirmed by the same patterns in the Bible by Priesthood authority, living prophets, and revelation.

    How else could anyone know for certain what is truth with all the different interpretations?

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 3, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    RE: EternalPerspective. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment(Hebrews 9:27 NIV)
    1 Cor. 15:29, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we. This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were. Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?

    1 Peter 4:6 does not say, “for this cause the gospel is preached,” but “for this cause the gospel was preached [past tense,] to them that are now dead.” Peter means Christians who are now deceased, but who were alive when they heard and believed the gospel.

    J S recognized that the text of 1 Peter 4:6 as it stands is a shaky basis for salvation for the dead The “Because of this, is the gospel preached to them who are dead” .

    Baptism for the dead was condemned by several early Christian councils

  • EternalPerspective Eldersburg, MD
    July 3, 2013 8:59 a.m.


    What would be the use of Priesthood authority and the laying on the of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost or full immersion Baptism to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (born of wather and the spirit), if Christians could simply believe and be saved, receive the Holy Spirit without these ordinances, or become the children of God?

    Likewise, when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:29, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?". If faith is all that is required to be saved, what of all those dead who never heard the words of Jesus, nor had a chance to receive His Gospel? Are they condemned?

    Also in 1 Peter 4:6, "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.". How could the dead receive ordinances of salvation, save the living performed them? Would not a House of the Lord be required as in Old Testament times?

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 3, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    RE: EternalPerspective. we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe(Heb 4:14). Jesus is the high priest for Christians .

    And the True Temple for Christians is Jesus. “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). After Christ’s resurrection the meaning of these words became plain, when Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple, he was speaking of his own body (John 2:22).

    And Christ is the New Temple. Christ’s body is the true temple–as Paul puts it, “For we are the temple of the living God” (2 Corinthians 6:16)–what use remains for an a future literal temple? That to which the temple had pointed, is now a reality through the work of the Holy Spirit. as many as did receive and welcome Him, He(Jesus) gave the “authority “to become the
    children of God, … in(John 1:12 AB)

    RE: SameJersey, “Jesus” … I have not spoken in secret(John 18:20NLT)

  • EternalPerspective Eldersburg, MD
    July 3, 2013 4:03 a.m.

    Let us remember that progression in the light of truth given by the gift of the Holy Ghost with the laying on of hands and proper Priesthood authority is incremental by nature to protect the individual from eternal consequences should they at any point along the way, reject the greater knowledge that can only be given by God, not the world, nor the people in it who do not possess this authority.

    When Mormons say the temple is "sacred not secret", this means spiritual progression is a prerequisite to prove faith and obedience to the covenants and commandments given by God at Baptism and Confirmation whenever His Priesthood authority and Church exist on earth. Is this not a similar pattern of the Old Testament when temple building and ordinances were a central theme of Judaism?

    Those of worldly perspective will never understand temple building and the sacredness of the Lord's house that requires commitment and obedience before entrance is permitted because they do not have Priesthood authority that makes all the difference with the degree God can reveal eternal truths, light, and knowledge.

    It is only by this means that "sacredness" becomes understood by firsthand experience only.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    July 2, 2013 4:47 p.m.

    You can see everything that happens in the temples, if you join the church and get a temple recommend from your bishop.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    July 2, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    @Chris B,

    I find your criticisms of LDS transparency odd coming from a professed Roman Catholic. When it comes to opaque finances, the Vatican is several orders of magnitude ahead of Temple Square.

  • SameJersey Kaysville, UT
    July 2, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    Chris B.

    No offense, but there is this tiny little thing called "separation of Church and State." And, yes, it does swing both ways.

    If you don't want religion in government, you can't expect government to be in and/or oversee religion.

    All churches are exempt from filing Form 990s and disclosing their finances to the federal government. I know the LDS catch a lot of flak for not disclosing their finances, but the FACT is that ALL churches are not required to disclose their finances, and MOST ALL churches in America (not just LDS) do not disclose.

    SOme people feel the need to criticize Mormons for a variety of practices common to quite almost every Church in the U.S. As far as not disclosing what happens in Mormon temples, let's not forget that Christ himself admonished his apostles to "tell no man" of various sacred events to which they were privy. It would be hard for any believer of Christ to argue that there is no such thing as a sacred event which does not mandate a certain level of confidentiality according to divine instruction.


  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 11:55 a.m.


    I am not suggesting from a legal standpoint the Mormon church has the same legal obligation.

    Its a recommendation from an outsider to an organization that so deeply wishes to be accepted and embraced by all.

    It's an honest and sincere recommendation of someone who, for reasons I give along with others, does not support and will not support the Mormon church.

    The Mormon church doesn't like to be referred to as a secret group that hides a lot of information.

    Agree or disagree?

    If you don't like that label, don't be a secret group that hides a lot.

    I have suggested starting with your temples and finances.

    I think the truth is that your church doesn't show that information as it would scare/drive people away.

  • dpiedra Toronto, 00
    July 2, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    The church is a private entity, and like all other such entities has the right to not reveal all details related to their finances. The Church is involved in many building projects and humanitarian causes which should raise no questions as to where the money goes. Do we ask the same of other churches or private entities? You cannot compare our government in whatever level you want, to a private Church.

  • barkermom Hurricane, UT
    July 2, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    Chris B. You can find out all about what is done with the finances of the church. Look around! Watch what happens when there is a disaster in the world- who is there to help and support- and not just with people, but with supplies and monetary help. They do build a lot of buildings too! Beautiful buildings!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 2, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    This corporation sure is sensitive to any mention in the media it doesn't own.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    If the LDS church truly wants to be accepted, which they do, I have one recommendation.

    Be transparent.

    Show and tell everyone everything about what happens in your temples.

    The response of "its sacred" doesn't quite hold, unless you are suggesting nothing that ever happens in your regular church buildings is sacred. You invite people to come to your church, and watch your baptisms and all that, is that not sacred? And yet you show people in full detail?

    Your leaders should also tell about their finances.

    We demand that our government be as transparent as reasonably possible with finances, how much tax they collect, where its spent, how much reserves we have.....

    The same can be expected of religious groups seeking acceptance