Just curious if these are some of the beliefs of LDS. C&P from a website, http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm
Thank you for sharing!
Amy

"The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, p. 635. They teach there was an apostasy and the true church ceased to exist on earth.
There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.
There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443.
God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354. "

Hi there. I just wanted to make a quick observation.... those quotes are all taken out of context and I think it is difficult to discuss them in their current form.

The C&P had a header "what LDS believe" so I didn't leave anything out, but I guess I could go back and try to find the particular book online and look it up myself? See if this man is correct?
Thanks for sharing-
Amy

I thought the idea of becoming a God was interesting - as there is a similar doctrine in my religion. I found this, but I don't know how accurate the characterization of the Mormon beliefs are.


http://www.answers.com/topic/theosis

In Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic theology, theosis, meaning deification or divinization, is the call to man to become holy and seek union with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection. Theosis comprehends our salvation from sin; is premised upon apostolic and early Christian understanding of the life of faith; and is conceptually foundational in both the east and the west.
Through theoria, the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, human beings come to know and experience what it means to be fully human (the created image of God); through their communion with Jesus Christ God shares Himself with the human race, in order to conform them to all that God is in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. Theosis also asserts the complete restoration of all people (and of the entire creation), in principle. This is built upon the understanding of the atonement put forward by Irenaeus, called "recapitulation".
The doctrine of theosis or deification in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differs significantly from the theosis of Orthodox Christianity. In Mormonism it is usually referred to as exaltation or eternal life. While the primary focus of Mormonism is on the atonement of Jesus Christ, the reason for the atonement is exaltation which goes beyond mere salvation. All men will be saved from sin and death, but only those who are sufficiently obedient and accept the atonement of Jesus Christ before the judgment will be exalted.

the short answer to most of these is yes we believe these things. they are taken out of context and are not quotes from mormon doctrine, just someones interpretation. I have to go get dd ready for school but I will try to elaborate later.

My answer will be long, but I'm going to answer your questions. Please keep in mind that although many smart and wonderful members of the LDS (mormon) church have wonderful things to say and it *may* be true, the only word we take as coming directly from God is that of the prophet.
"The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, p. 635. They teach there was an apostasy and the true church ceased to exist on earth. Bruce R. McConkie was one of the twelve apostles and an incredible man, but not our prophet.

The bible teaches us there was an apostasy, and after all of Jesus' disciples had died or were killed, the complete truth of God's church was lost. Many other churches have much of the truth, some of it, etc., but the complete truth was lost. Even the bible itself has been translated and changed so many times that it's difficult to find the whole truth.

We believe that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith, and they told Joseph that the fullness of the gospel was missing from the earth. They restored that power and completeness through Joseph Smith, so that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, Mormon, whatever) is the same church that existed in Jesus' time... He is the head, etc.

There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.
We believe that God was once as man is, and that man can become as God is. Our God, the Father of our world, our spirits, etc. is the being we pray to, love, believe in, depend on, etc. However, we do believe that God had a Heavenly Father, that His Father had a Father, etc. So although we don't "know" or pray to these other Gods, it would be true to state that we believe there are multiple Gods.

There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443. James Talmage was an apostle, not the prophet.
Many members of our church think there is a Heavenly Mother. Because we believe that we are literal spirit children of God, and that we were all part of a family, it makes sense that there is a Heavenly Mother. I personally think that we don't know much about or talk about her because God wants to protect her from the sorts of things people do and say about Him, but that's just my opinion, not any sort of doctrine.

God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614;Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333. Joseph Smith was the prophet, so I'd say this statement is true and accurate. As I stated above, we believe God had a Father. We also believe God was once a man and that He had similar experiences to our own, lived a mortal life, that He became a God, and that we, too, have that same potential.

After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354. " I'd be REALLY surprised if that was the exact wording of this, especially since Joseph Smith didn't refer to us as "mormons" but we were given that nickname by others, but it doesn't matter. We believe that if you follow God's commandments, if you do everything He requires, if you live a good life, learn what is needed to learn and fulfill all His requests, that each person has the potential to become a God. We don't believe that families or learning end after this life... we think that we all go on, and that there will be those who can learn and grow to become Gods and Goddesses of their own worlds. You don't have to be "a good mormon" to do this... every man has the opportunity.

I hope that I've helped answer your questions. Please feel free to ask anything else, or explain why you're interested (I'd be curious to know your feelings about this, OP) and I have no problem answering any question asked... I'd much prefer you hear or read things from those of us practicing this faith then from other forums bashing our beliefs or misquoting us (not saying your references are, but there are many out there doing that) It's also okay with me if you disagree with anything stated - I don't expect my beliefs to be the only ones around!

Hope that helps!!
Tara

Please feel free to ask anything else, or explain why you're interested (I'd be curious to know your feelings about this, OP) and I have no problem answering any question asked... I'd much prefer you hear or read things from those of us practicing this faith then from other forums bashing our beliefs or misquoting us (not saying your references are, but there are many out there doing that) It's also okay with me if you disagree with anything stated - I don't expect my beliefs to be the only ones around!

Hope that helps!!
Tara

I have to say ITA and Im also interested to know the source of your information Amy, if you don't mind sharing.

Thank you Tara, for your response-it was so generous of your time to answers all those questions!
Here's the web address where I found the info:http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm
I included it in teh OP, too. I should've done that in the first place-sorry!
Thanks again-
Amy

So is it too bold of me to ask your feelings on this Amy, I mean what sparked your interest and have your questions been answered?

So is it too bold of me to ask your feelings on this Amy, I mean what sparked your interest and have your questions been answered?

Not bold at all!
Never even considered that God had parents, though I do remember asking my mom if they did when I was 4, lol.

To borrow an ol' sixties phrase, "it blows my mind"!!!

Thank you so much for sharing mamas!!!
AMy

Many members of our church think there is a Heavenly Mother.

It is absolute doctrine, not a belief. She is not worshipped in any form though... just like there being other gods.... it is doctrine, but LDS ppl only worship one God.

Just curious if these are some of the beliefs of LDS. C&P from a website, http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm
Thank you for sharing!
Amy

"The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, p. 635. They teach there was an apostasy and the true church ceased to exist on earth.
There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.
There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443.
God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354. "


Technically they are all true (what you have above) but to get a complete understanding of these beliefs, you need to study a bit more so you get the full context of how/where these beliefs fit in to LDS belief and life.

So, yeah it is true but when quotes are short like that, they nearly always make the LDS church look wacky IMHO. Reading further, will explain better and maybe make some of it make sense to you. (even if you don't agree with it for your own life)

I forgot how tough it is trying to explain quotes to others like those above. (I've been inactive/nonpracticing LDS for more than five years now) The doctrine is so complex IMHO and multi-layered like an onion.

Michelle

My answer will be long, but I'm going to answer your questions. Please keep in mind that although many smart and wonderful members of the LDS (mormon) church have wonderful things to say and it *may* be true, the only word we take as coming directly from God is that of the prophet.

Tara


Tara,

It has been six years since I was in a LDS meetinghouse but I had been taught (during the 10 yrs I was active) that the words in the Ensign were also to be considered doctrine. This was taught in more than one ward/branch and also at the stake level.

Is this different now? Things may have changed and I am trying to keep up with the changes since I live in a high LDS area now and am still technically a member, although I don't plan on going back.

Thanks :)

Michelle

I was under the impression that the words in the Ensign ARE in fact doctrine depending upon who those words are coming from. If its of General Authority then yeah, its doctrine, but if its just some scholar or anyone else writing an article then it doesnt necessarily mean its doctrine. Though the articles do have to have approval, it doesnt mean everything in the Ensign can be considered doctrine.

I was under the impression that the words in the Ensign ARE in fact doctrine depending upon who those words are coming from. If its of General Authority then yeah, its doctrine, but if its just some scholar or anyone else writing an article then it doesnt necessarily mean its doctrine. Though the articles do have to have approval, it doesnt mean everything in the Ensign can be considered doctrine.

Thanks...that is what I had been taught.

I did love and do still miss reading the Ensign. Wonderful magazine. I think our public library carries it. I'll peek at it next time and see if they do. (or maybe it was the New Era that they carry....isn't that the name of the teenaged church mag?)

Michelle

Yes, the New Era is the "Teen" magazine, the Friend is for the younger children, and the Ensign is for the adults. The church also puts out a weekly or bi-weekly newspaper call The Church News which gives more recent articles about what is going on.

Let me get this straight, because I do not know very much at all about the LDS religion --- BUT, you do recognize that there ARE other Gods?

If so, wow, how kewl is that? As a Pagan, I find that neat that you at least recognize/admit that there are other Gods.

Yes, the New Era is the "Teen" magazine, the Friend is for the younger children, and the Ensign is for the adults. The church also puts out a weekly or bi-weekly newspaper call The Church News which gives more recent articles about what is going on.
Ah yes!!! We use to get all of them (well, except the New Era since we did not have teens back when we were active).....good publications with neat ideas in them.

Michelle

Could someone please clarify this for me...

I've been told that women in the LDS church can not attain the god position unless thier dh's do and if they are divorced they can not at all. But then I've also been told that if an LDS couple divorces and the dh remarries and reaches godhood that the first wife will be by his side and the second won't (not sure what happens to the second wife)
so how do LDS women fit into the afterlife?

Could someone please clarify this for me...

I've been told that women in the LDS church can not attain the god position unless thier dh's do and if they are divorced they can not at all. But then I've also been told that if an LDS couple divorces and the dh remarries and reaches godhood that the first wife will be by his side and the second won't (not sure what happens to the second wife)
so how do LDS women fit into the afterlife?

That was a huge issue with me personally. Nobody (meaning a higher up) could show me where teachings were totally solid on what happens in these various situations.

I was given silly answers to try to make me shut up to equality questions and that did have a small part in my leaving.

Men are allowed to know their wives special names (that everyone gets in the Temple ceremony) but women are forbidden from knowing their husbands special name. Men are to call their wives into glory with that name etc....

LDS mamas, I hope I am OK with not giving away any info about Temple that I should not. I try to still honor that and not say anything specific. If I crossed the line above with that info about the names, please let me know and I'll delete it out of respect for you all.

Michelle

You know what I find most intriguing about all of this?

It occurs to me that LDS is truly a Christian mystery-based religion in many regards. How interesting!!!

If you're not sure what I mean by this, here is a pretty good page on them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_religion

The name thing in the temple is strictly symbolic. It is not chosen by inspiration. It's symbolic of our obedient side and disobedient side. And my name in the temple is not going to be my name in the afterlife. Same for dh. The fact that men hear the name and women don't could be just a reminder that our exhaltation is dependant on each other. I believe it is a matter of responsibility and accountability. Men ARE in fact leaders of the family-like it or not-and they are responsible to a higher degree on certain factors than women are. Women are not less than men, but we each have different primary objectives.

And more on the name thing, in the pre-existance, Jessica probably wasnt my name then, so chances are it won't be my ONLY name after.

Also, the temple ceremony, it is normally looked at too literally. One of its undertones is the separation of ones physical body and spiritual being. It is not necessarily the individual roles of the woman and individual roles of the man. The man and woman are symbolic of physical and spiritual.

Also just because a woman ends up being sealed to someone who becomes unworthy, doesnt mean she wont get exhalted. Its not her fault that he broke his covenant. There isnt any doctrine to back up what Im about to say, but logically I would assume that in the afterlife, if the woman kept her covenants then it would be worked out for her. Because God is infintely merciful and infinitely just. And btw, it would be a 2 way street.




Michelle, I think you doing just fine and thank you for your respect. :)

P.s. Rebecca, I think just about any religion could qualify as a Mystery based religion.

Christianity itself is a mystery based religion. Crosses and communion/sacrament would be examples of symbols. Baptism or being saved would be the example of initiation.

FTR the Wikipedia project is not academic research because just about anyone could post an essay.

P.s. Rebecca, I think just about any religion could qualify as a Mystery based religion.

Christianity itself is a mystery based religion. Crosses and communion/sacrament would be examples of symbols. Baptism or being saved would be the example of initiation.

FTR the Wikipedia project is not academic research because just about anyone could post an essay.

Ummm, I'm well aware what Wikipedia is. I just happen to think that page on Mystery-Religions was well done and informative.

I disagree that almost any religion could qualify as a mystery-religion, *especially* by how they are actually practiced & applied, not merely how they look on paper --- but that is neither here nor there, and not sure why we're splitting hairs about this.

I think the article was interesting. In my church we call sacraments Mysteries. In our communion prayer, we say "...I will not reveal your mysteries to your enemies, nor give you a kiss as did Judas...". This comes from ancient times when Christians were persecuted. Christianity, in its early days, was a mystery based religion in order to protect itself. Maybe it isn't necessary anymore.

I can't think of anything that would make Christianity a mystery religion today. Sure there are things that we can't really understand at this point such as how can Jesus be fully God and yet fully man but the majority of Christianity (LDS being an obvious exception here, there may be others but I'm talking about mainstream Christianity) don't have any "secret beliefs" that only certain people are allowed to know. Not that I can think of anyway. *shrug* We are all allowed to own bibles today and in countries where they aren't it's because of the government, not because our beliefs say you aren't allowed to know this. There are lots of ministries world-wide with the specific purpose of getting bibles to people who don't have one so all the info is available.

BTW, Jeni, I just moved from Virginia Beach a few months ago. I miss it bad! :(

I can't think of anything that would make Christianity a mystery religion today. Sure there are things that we can't really understand at this point such as how can Jesus be fully God and yet fully man but the majority of Christianity (LDS being an obvious exception here, there may be others but I'm talking about mainstream Christianity) don't have any "secret beliefs" that only certain people are allowed to know. Not that I can think of anyway. *shrug* We are all allowed to own bibles today and in countries where they aren't it's because of the government, not because our beliefs say you aren't allowed to know this. There are lots of ministries world-wide with the specific purpose of getting bibles to people who don't have one so all the info is available.

Very valid points. Exactly part of my point. Thanks for sharing.

Being a Mystery Tradition has nothing to do with having secrets that others aren't allowed to know.

Being a Mystery tradition has to do with how we deal with the unknown. Mystery is based on the contact between this world and what lies intaingible just beyond. IT has to do with how we interact with the unseen, with God, and how those interactions affect and change our daily attitudes and rpactices. And of course it has to do with how much of the religious life is connected to/with access to the Mystery.

I lke this definition: "Mysteries are a set of esoteric principles that govern existence, the personal implementation of which theoretically produce "enlightenment." "

I can think of a number of Mysteries within various branches of the CHristian church:

1. Transubstantiation (actually, i want to include all rites of communion as a mystery. it's really a matter of perception)
2. Speaking in Tongues
3. the resurrection of Christ
4. The Trinity
5. salvation
6. ecstatic prayer/worship

I'm sure I could htink of more. The point is, Christianity certainly has it's own Mysteries, though in many Protestant denominations those Mysteries have largely been pushed aside in favor of the more exoteric aspects of religion: dogma. But that doesn't mean the Mysteries don't exist.

A Mystery Tradition is a religion in which contact with God and understanding of God is *primarily* based on it's mystical aspects. So I wouldn't call the whole of CHristianity a mystery tradition, though it certainly has the hallmarks, as does every major world religion. All religions have some aspect of mysticism. But I would certainly say that Catholicism is by and large a Mystery faith, and to some extent so is Episcopalianism/Anglicanism.

Anise, that would explain the use of the word "mysteries" for sacraments in my church. I think the use of the word comes from the Greek, as do most words in my church usage. Also, it explains the prayer's usage of the word. I guess my cursory reading of that passage from Wikipedia was a little too cursory! (Or, I am just dumb.)

Being a Mystery Tradition has nothing to do with having secrets that others aren't allowed to know.

This is what I was going by on the site Becca posted:
"A mystery religion is any religion with an arcanum, or body of secret wisdom. In a mystery religion, an inner core of beliefs, practices, and the religion's true nature, are revealed only to those who have been initiated into its secrets."
"mystery religions do not produce a body of scripture that is claimed to be "revealed" by the prophet of a deity."
"For the other two general forms of religions, compare the public revelations embodied in a written scripture that are characteristic of any "revealed religion""

I guess I'm a little confused then. Is this source not defining the term correctly? I guess there is a down side to using a lay source instead of an actual encyclopedia. :lol:

Anise, that would explain the use of the word "mysteries" for sacraments in my church. I think the use of the word comes from the Greek, as do most words in my church usage. Also, it explains the prayer's usage of the word. I guess my cursory reading of that passage from Wikipedia was a little too cursory! (Or, I am just dumb.)

No, that article is just crazily biased. It's talking about only the extreme version of certain initiatory Mystery traditions with a particular Greek bent to them. But anywhere there is mysticism there are Mysteries, and certainly not all Mysteries are available only to a certain elite or select group *nless* you consider all Catholics, all Anglicans etc an elite group ;) The point is that most religions have mystical spects to them that don't necessarily follow what is outlined in that particular article.

This is what I was going by on the site Becca posted:
"A mystery religion is any religion with an arcanum, or body of secret wisdom. In a mystery religion, an inner core of beliefs, practices, and the religion's true nature, are revealed only to those who have been initiated into its secrets."
"mystery religions do not produce a body of scripture that is claimed to be "revealed" by the prophet of a deity."
"For the other two general forms of religions, compare the public revelations embodied in a written scripture that are characteristic of any "revealed religion""

I guess I'm a little confused then. Is this source not defining the term correctly? I guess there is a down side to using a lay source instead of an actual encyclopedia. :lol:

See above post. That Wikipedia article is way biased.

Rebecca, wasn't trying to split hairs with ya. I just wanted to point out that there are aspects of most any religion IMO that could put it under the mystery relgion heading.

Also I was just trying to point out that anyone with an opinion could submit an article or essay to the site you linked and wanted to clarify that, maybe not necessarily for you but for anyone else coming in on the thread.
I wanted to say that I did in fact find the link interesting and it touched on many points that I was able to somewhat agree with and also some (most)that I disagree with, but that's how it goes.
Sorry if you took offense to my post earlier, I didnt think I came across that way.

Also, for just a moment, Id like to point out the difference between mystery and sacred. I think that its safe to say that if you are part of a religion and there is mystery, then no one would know what it is/how it happened. But if its sacred, then anyone willing to persue for information could obtain it. I dont find this to be an act of mystery religion because if you want to know, you can.
Twiceblessed was saying that there aren't any mainstream Christian churches with 'secret beliefs' I found it interesting that she used the word secret in place of mysterious because I think a majority of people do tend to see the words as being synonymous. I dont think much of anything to do with the LDS church would be considered truly mysterious, maybe secret but even that is a stretch because anyone can learn everything about the church if they wanted. Everything about the church and the temple ceremonies can be found in the Bible.

LOL apparently I need to learn how to type faster...sorry for repeating what faster typists have pointed out :lol:

Twiceblessed was saying that there aren't any mainstream Christian churches with 'secret beliefs' I found it interesting that she used the word secret in place of mysterious because I think a majority of people do tend to see the words as being synonymous.

I said "secret" because I was using this definition from wikipedia "A mystery religion is any religion with an arcanum, or body of secret wisdom" which I see now is not exactly reliable. lol! The words mystery and secret and non synonyms. Mystery is something that we don't know the answer to. A secret is something people do know the answer to but they ain't tellin'. lol! At least that seems to be the way they are using it in the article.

I said "secret" because I was using this definition from wikipedia "A mystery religion is any religion with an arcanum, or body of secret wisdom" which I see now is not exactly reliable. lol! The words mystery and secret and non synonyms. Mystery is something that we don't know the answer to. A secret is something people do know the answer to but they ain't tellin'. lol! At least that seems to be the way they are using it in the article.

And Wikipedia is EXACTLY correct. That is indeed what a mystery religion is. Their page was excellently written and right on the money. I find it accurate both academically and spiritually.

Here are a few other pages that explore this topic as well:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/M/My/Mystery_religion.htm

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Mystery_religions

Even a Catholic page goes into this:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10662a.htm

Being a Mystery Tradition has nothing to do with having secrets that others aren't allowed to know.

Being a Mystery tradition has to do with how we deal with the unknown. Mystery is based on the contact between this world and what lies intaingible just beyond. IT has to do with how we interact with the unseen, with God, and how those interactions affect and change our daily attitudes and rpactices. And of course it has to do with how much of the religious life is connected to/with access to the Mystery.

I lke this definition: "Mysteries are a set of esoteric principles that govern existence, the personal implementation of which theoretically produce "enlightenment." "
"Snip>


You may define it however you wish Anise. However, I completely disagree that "secrets" and "hidden knowledge" have nothing to do with Mystery Religions of our Ancestors or today's Mystery Religions. That is absolutely incorrect.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but what "is" and what "isn't" is plain.


Again --- there is a huge difference between a Mystery Religion, and mystical elements or beliefs within any/all religions.

No, that article is just crazily biased. It's talking about only the extreme version of certain initiatory Mystery traditions with a particular Greek bent to them. But anywhere there is mysticism there are Mysteries, and certainly not all Mysteries are available only to a certain elite or select group *nless* you consider all Catholics, all Anglicans etc an elite group ;) The point is that most religions have mystical spects to them that don't necessarily follow what is outlined in that particular article.


Again "mystical aspects" do not make a Mystery Religion nor Tradition. Sorry, but that just isn't true Anise.

<snip>
I guess there is a down side to using a lay source instead of an actual encyclopedia. :lol:

MSN Encarta, Encyclopedia Britannica, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001; and Encyclopedia Mythica ALL are academic based, and they ALL have very similar entries for "mystery religions", "mystery cults" or "mystery faiths."

So, again, it's not a problem with Wikipedia at all -- it's a problem with how people are choosing to personally define "mystery religion/cult/faith" vrs. how it is actually defined.

SORRY for hijaking the LDS thread (which is very interesting) into a sub-topic. If someone wishes to continue discussing and/or debating what mystery religions / faiths / cults are, and what they are not, maybe this should be split off by a moderator into a new thread.

Anyway - Sorry for the actual thread getting hijacked.

MSN Encarta, Encyclopedia Britannica, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001; and Encyclopedia Mythica ALL are academic based, and they ALL have very similar entries for "mystery religions", "mystery cults" or "mystery faiths."

So, again, it's not a problem with Wikipedia at all -- it's a problem with how people are choosing to personally define "mystery religion/cult/faith" vrs. how it is actually defined.

Well, it's really not a big deal to me anyway. :) I generally assume Anise knows what she is talking about with this sort of thing because of her education in the subject but like I said it's not really a concern of mine other than it makes for interesting discussion. ;)

All righty. Let's start here, from teh Catholic Encyclopedia:

In conformity with the usage of the inspired writers of the New Testament, theologians give the name mystery to revealed truths that surpass the powers of natural reason. Mystery, therefore, in its strict theological sense is not synonymous with the incomprehensible, since all that we know is incomprehensible, i.e., not adequately comprehensible as to its inner being; nor with the unknowable, since many things merely natural are accidentally unknowable, on account of their inaccessibility, e.g., things that are future, remote, or hidden. In its strict sense a mystery is a supernatural truth, one that of its very nature lies above the finite intelligence.

What I take issue with is the idea of a Mystery being something "other people aren't allowed to know: secret". Because that isn't quite true, and is rather misleading. It isn't that other people (ie, the "uninitiated") aren't allowed to know or that I can't tell you: it's that unless you've had the expereince yourself, you can't know and I quite literally can't tell you. The Mystery is that which is revealed which lies beyond human capacity to demonstrate, relay, or express. The Catholic encyclopedia did a great job expressing that.

Modern Mystery Traditions are tradtions in which primary understanding of God, the Divine, the Sacred, the Universe, whatever comes from such revealed instruction. Its basis is primarily mystical--focusing on the bridge between that which we can know and that which is ineffable. Traditions that rely instead on passed down knowledge, recorded wisdom are called Wisdom Traditions, and include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc because there are a body of sacred writings that form the primary canon of sacred knowledge. There is still mysticism and there are still mysteries, but they are secondary to the sacred writings.

Now, about this business about being initiated, there are two possibilities here. There is the physical initiation by a body or a person which essentially lets you into their club, and then there's divine initiation, or course changins, where God bestows enlightenment. IIRC, the Eleusinian Mysteries (i can never spell that right, and don't make me try and say it) were open to anyone. Anyone could go and participate. But that doesn't mean that everyone "understood" the rite. Some would go and think "yeah that was great" and others might go and have their eyes opened. And that opening of the eye, that transparency between God and man, is the initiation. That is where the Mystery descends. ANd that experience is what defines a mystery tradition.

Without all of the above you don't have a Mystery Tradition. You have a "Secret Handshake Club".

Here are a few other pages that explore this topic as well:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/en...ry_religion.htm

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Mystery_religions


Those are both the exact same as the Wikipedia article.

Putting on my dunce cap and movin' to the corner.

*lol*

Michelle

>What I take issue with is the idea of a Mystery being something "other >people aren't allowed to know: secret". Because that isn't quite true, and is >rather misleading. It isn't that other people (ie, the "uninitiated") aren't >allowed to know or that I can't tell you: it's that unless you've had the >expereince yourself, you can't know and I quite literally can't tell >you. The Mystery is that which is revealed which lies beyond human >capacity to demonstrate, relay, or express. The Catholic encyclopedia did a >great job expressing that.

What you've said is basically true, however, "secrets" are also a part of Mystery Religions Anise. Again, I repeate, this isn't my defintion of them -- this is the definition of them. Mystery religions will have *both* elements within them -- the personal exploration and experience of that which is "the mystery" which is reveal by the Seeker, as well as "secrets" of that particular sect/faith/cult/ect. which are revealed to the *initiate*.

>Modern Mystery Traditions are tradtions in which primary understanding of >God, the Divine, the Sacred, the Universe, whatever comes from such >revealed instruction.

Agreed.

>Its basis is primarily mystical--focusing on the bridge between that which >we can know and that which is ineffable. Traditions that rely instead on >passed down knowledge, recorded wisdom are called Wisdom Traditions, and >include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc because there are a body of sacred >writings that form the primary canon of sacred knowledge. There is still mysticism and there are still mysteries, but they are secondary to the sacred >writings.

Yep, you're correct. I agree.


>Now, about this business about being initiated, there are two possibilities here. There is the physical initiation by a body or a person which essentially >lets you into their club,

You know, I'm not sure if your past experiences are affecting your choice of words, or if you've never considered how the usage of the word "club" can come off. I am a Student of a Mystery Religion/Faith/Tradition, which indeed not only has written, taught, and passed down Lore and yes even "secret Lore" too, but absolutely is dependant upon the the individual Seeker's personal exploration and revelation of that which is "The Mysery." However, to say that initiations and secrets are akin to mere "clubs" is well, somewhat offensive to me Anise.


>and then there's divine initiation, or course changins, where God bestows >enlightenment. IIRC, the Eleusinian Mysteries (i can never spell that right, >and don't make me try and say it) were open to anyone.

Eleusinian. You had it correct. ;)

>Anyone could go and participate. But that doesn't mean that everyone >"understood" the rite. Some would go and think "yeah that was great" and >others might go and have their eyes opened. And that opening of the >eye, that transparency between God and man, is the initiation. That is >where the Mystery descends. ANd that experience is what defines a >mystery tradition.

That is absolutely correct. However, therein lies the "secret" -- however, I would disagree a little bit on how you view the Eleusinian Mysteries, how they were practiced, etc.-- but that is neither here nor there at this point in time.

>Without all of the above you don't have a Mystery Tradition. You have a >"Secret Handshake Club."

Of course! In every Mystery Religion there has to exist a component of the Seeker going through a personal transformation, awakening, and experience of that which is "The Mystery." However, to say that "secret knowledge" , etc. is never a part of, or not a part of Mystery Religions -- and that by having those they are compared to a "secret handshake club" is not only incorrect in my opinion/study, but a tad bit offensive to say the least.

Grassaf,

Becca

Okay, you have secrets in a mystery tradition. But I maintain that that is not what they are about. I'm talking about focus--the meat, as it were. The secrets are there but the secrets themeselves don't define the tradition. Like I said, having a secret doesn't make it a mystery tradition.

Club, group, sect, order, family, whatever. My use of the word club wasn't meant to be derogatory, just a figure of speech (it's something i say. "i dont take the eucharist, so im not in that club. i only like boys, so im not in the bisexual club. im not a feminist, so im not in the cool kid club, etc. it's just how i denote a group of folks, that's all.)

Look, i admit it: I think religious secrets are silly. Very, very silly. I think the "oathbound-ness" of oathbound traditions is by and large silly and I think most so-called Mystery Traditions in their current forms are a bit silly. (ie--the GD, the OTO, a lot of Greek mystery trads. In other words, primarily the hermetic and hermeticly inspired stuff, not necessarily more religiously oriented orders) That's my opinion. I have tried to see the other side of it and I can't. Maybe that's a shortcoming on my behalf. I also understand that my position on the matter could be taken as offensive, but that's my view.

anyway, my only real point is that i think it is disingenuous to stress the secret aspect of any mystery because that's not the core of the mystery. It's only the frosting. And if you write 2,000 word article on Mystery Traditions for Wikipedia and you leave that completely out, I think you suck :p That's a very lopsided, narrow view of the whole *purpose* of the Mystery Tradition.

Without all of the above you don't have a Mystery Tradition. You have a "Secret Handshake Club".

Addendum from the husband: "And if you have to pay money, then you have Scientology."

I haven't checked back for awhile and this thread got long :)

In going back to some questions asked, here's my response below:

Could someone please clarify this for me...

I've been told that women in the LDS church can not attain the god position unless thier dh's do and if they are divorced they can not at all. But then I've also been told that if an LDS couple divorces and the dh remarries and reaches godhood that the first wife will be by his side and the second won't (not sure what happens to the second wife)
so how do LDS women fit into the afterlife?

Heaven is a lot more than just heaven and hell. In order to become as God is, and to live with Him, a person needs to have the covenants that come with sealing (marriage). If a person doesn't get the chance or want to in this life, that can be taken care of in the next life. If you don't want to, you don't go to hell, you just don't get to become as God. You still have a nice peaceful afterlife, etc. For all I know (not mormon doctrine) you might become an angel ;) So a woman can't do it without a man, but a man can't do it without a woman either.

If you are divorced, and a new marriage doesn't work out in this life, they'll be worked out in the next. If you are divorced and the husband remarries, his first wife wouldn't be by his side in the next life because that sealing covenant has been broken. If the church didn't approve him to be sealed to his second wife, then God would work that out in the next life. No one is going to be stuck in eternity with someone they don't want to be with. Also women are JUST AS IMPORTANT in the afterlife as men - there would be no becoming as God if women didn't make it too.

That was a huge issue with me personally. Nobody (meaning a higher up) could show me where teachings were totally solid on what happens in these various situations.

I was given silly answers to try to make me shut up to equality questions and that did have a small part in my leaving.

Men are allowed to know their wives special names (that everyone gets in the Temple ceremony) but women are forbidden from knowing their husbands special name. Men are to call their wives into glory with that name etc....

LDS mamas, I hope I am OK with not giving away any info about Temple that I should not. I try to still honor that and not say anything specific. If I crossed the line above with that info about the names, please let me know and I'll delete it out of respect for you all.
In regards to the temple name, the only time the husband hears or knows it is one single instance when he is representing God. It's just symbolism, but he represents God and calls his wife by name. My own husband swears he can't even remember what my temple name was... we were getting married, he was nervous, and it was the last thing on his mind.

I know some women struggle with the fact that men hold the priesthood and they don't. I don't know how to respond to that, honestly, because I think men and women are supposed to do different things. I'd much rather bear a child then have the priesthood. I can see this being hard for someone to accept, if they didn't like it. I don't think it makes the man or woman any less equal - just different roles.

And finally, about the doctrine issue, I'll see what I can find out. As a missionary we were taught that even incredible books like mormon doctrine, Jesus the Christ, etc., were NOT scripture and were not to be taken as such. We were told specifically to never quote mormon doctrine as specific doctrine. Having said that, it WAS a part of our mission library and we did read from it and study it, so that's got to mean something.

I would think that anything the prophet says is doctrine. Anything the apostles say in general conference is doctrine. (Each talk is approved by the prophet before hand). The presidency messages in any church magazine is doctrine.
Anything beyond that, could be, but I wouldn't call it such unless I heard it from the prophet himself. As for Heavenly Mother, I honestly wasn't aware that was doctrine so I'll have to do some of my own personal research on that.

I haven't checked back for awhile and this thread got long :)

In going back to some questions asked, here's my response below:

<snip>



Thank you for sharing so much first hand information. Fascinating! I've learned far more about the LDS faith in this one thread than I had done so before this point in time.

<snip>
Look, i admit it: I think religious secrets are silly. Very, very silly. I think the "oathbound-ness" of oathbound traditions is by and large silly and I think most so-called <snip>
anyway, my only real point is that i think it is disingenuous to stress the secret aspect of any mystery because that's not the core of the mystery. It's only the frosting. And if you write 2,000 word article on Mystery Traditions for Wikipedia and you leave that completely out, I think you suck :p That's a very lopsided, narrow view of the whole *purpose* of the Mystery Tradition.

Thanks for sharing these as opinions. I respect your opinion Anise. I simply do not agree with it, from an academic as well as spiritual/personal view. Which is my opinion, and experience.

And thank the Gods we live in America where currently we're still able to agree to disagree. Thanks for at least considering how your opinion was coming off, and how it may appear and sound to others. I appreciate that.

Grassaf,

Becca

As for Heavenly Mother, I honestly wasn't aware that was doctrine so I'll have to do some of my own personal research on that.

I'm perplexed. You just listed LDS doctrine, you just said man and woman have to make it together... so why would you say you're not aware that "Heavenly Mother" is doctrinal? It's at the very core of the LDS religion.... families staying intact in the next life.... husbands cannot be exalted w/out their wives... so why don't you know that God has a wife?

I always think of doctrine as set in stone, this is, well, doctrine.

It makes sense to me, knowing LDS doctrine that there would need to be a Heavenly Mother, but I don't remember ever reading the prophets declare that or even talk much about it.

Doesn't mean it wasn't so, or that they haven't, it just means that *I* hadn't ever studied it before or don't remember. I've got it on my plate to study up on so that I can have a better answer next time around.

I guess I think of it in the same realms of whether or not Jesus was married... I personally think He was or will be, but can't remember finding any actual doctrine that said He was/is.

Or polygamy. Some say it's doctrine, others say we won't have to live it in the next life, etc. I don't know what the right answer is on that. I don't know what the "doctrinal" answer is.

Does that make more sense? It's not that I was trying to second guess anyone or not give someone a straight answer, it's just something I'd never thought all that much about or studied enough to know if it was "doctrine".

Now I'm confusing even myself. I guess I always had the opinion that there would have to be or was, but having never heard or read it stated as "doctrine" I didn't know if it was really true.

Clear as mud?

Heavenly Mother was doctrine back when I was a member....unless the church pulled it since then (which I'm sure they didn't), it would still be doctrine. Not one of those things you hear talked about at church in meetings (same as polygamy, for example) but they are both doctrine.

I heard the speculation that Jesus was married (when I was active), but I was never taught that this was doctrine.

It does get confusing! Especially when some leaders in the church will say that all Discourses are doctrine since the prophet was speaking to the members as the mouthpiece of Heavenly Father etc...etc...etc....but then when you read the actual discourses, you sometimes wonder. I asked my stake president about what was doctrine (years ago) and that is where I got my info. It would be neat to hear what your stake president says if you were to ask him the same question.

Hey, aren't conferences coming up soon? I thought I remembered them happening in March or April. Are the talks online anywhere in text? I was told that the Ensign that comes out after conference (the one that has the talks in it from the conference) is to be considered doctrine. I'd like to read them so I can stay up-to-date.

I found in my own studying of early church doctrine, that it is clear as mud in many instances and my local (stake level) leaders did not know much more than I did about what was or was not doctrine when I brought early teachings to their attention.....many of the teachings were totally foreign to my stake leaders which frustrated my search for answers even more!!! *lol* I was like a puppy chasing her tail much of the time.

This has been a great thead.
Michelle

You can find the conference talks and other articles/info atLDS Official Website (www.lds.org) I hope that helps. I just got my Ensign in yesterday and have not had a chance to read it yet. Conference Sunday's are my family go to the park days b/c it is hard to keep 4 kids still and quiet. We used to try watching conference at home but dh would go to sleep each time... :rolleyes: Hope that helps!

I have always been told that the only thing considered doctrine was what came in the scriptures and from the prophet.

The best place you can look to see what is and is not church doctrine is in the "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie. It has numerous topics and explains the history and the belief with that topic.

About what is doctrine it says:
"Gospel doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation. It comprises the tenets, teachings, and true theories found the the scriptures; it includes the principles and precepts, and revealed philosophies of pure religion; prophetic dogmas, maxims, and views are embraced within its folds; the Articles of Faith are part and portion of it , as is every inspired utterance of the Lord's agents."

Further on it says:
" Apostles and prophets have been set in the Church for the purpose of teaching and identifying true doctrine, lest men be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."(Eph. 4:11-14) If a church has no prophets and apostles, then it has no way of knowing whether its doctrines are true or false."

Does that clear up the doctrine issue?
:monkeydan

The best place you can look to see what is and is not church doctrine is in the "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie. It has numerous topics and explains the history and the belief with that topic.

About what is doctrine it says:
"Gospel doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation. It comprises the tenets, teachings, and true theories found the the scriptures; it includes the principles and precepts, and revealed philosophies of pure religion; prophetic dogmas, maxims, and views are embraced within its folds; the Articles of Faith are part and portion of it , as is every inspired utterance of the Lord's agents."

Further on it says:
" Apostles and prophets have been set in the Church for the purpose of teaching and identifying true doctrine, lest men be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."(Eph. 4:11-14) If a church has no prophets and apostles, then it has no way of knowing whether its doctrines are true or false."

Does that clear up the doctrine issue?
:monkeydan


That just further confuses it for me.

Reason why is I've used and quoted Mormon Doctrine before and have been rebuked for doing so and was told that this was not considered doctrine. But I had been told that it was indeed considered to be doctrinally sound by my former stake president (when I was active)....but if women here who are members have been told it is NOT to be considered doctrine/doctrinally sound, then that is very very very inconsistent of what members are being told IS and IS NOT doctrine, KWIM?

This inconsistency that I saw/see in many areas of the church (historical issues, what is doctrine etc....) is one of the reasons why I left the church a number of years ago.

So, no.....this did not clear up the doctrine issue. Sorry.

Michelle

Well, I am sorry I could not clear it up. I will say that alot of General Authorities have quoted and referred to the Mormon Doctrine in their talks. I am not gonna say it is the ONLY thing to refer to to get information. I also feel that fretting over some topics is just looking for a reason to dispute something. I had a dear friend who left the church b/c of something so minor and detailed that I cannot even remember what it was. Do I "hold that against her"? No! She has the right to her beliefs and choices just as I do, and so do you. BUT....I believe in the Book of Mormon, Bible, Doctrine and Covenants and have a strong testimony of Christ and his resurrection. Can I prove any of it? NO, but I have had my personal witness and I dont need to have it "proved" to me.

OK, I am getting off on a tangent, just excuse me and I will go back to lurking like I usually do.... :eyes:

I believe there is a statement from Bruce R McConkie in the foreword of Mormon Doctrine that says it is not official doctrine. I will have to look for my copy.

Well, I am sorry I could not clear it up. I will say that alot of General Authorities have quoted and referred to the Mormon Doctrine in their talks. I am not gonna say it is the ONLY thing to refer to to get information. I also feel that fretting over some topics is just looking for a reason to dispute something. I had a dear friend who left the church b/c of something so minor and detailed that I cannot even remember what it was. Do I "hold that against her"? No! She has the right to her beliefs and choices just as I do, and so do you. BUT....I believe in the Book of Mormon, Bible, Doctrine and Covenants and have a strong testimony of Christ and his resurrection. Can I prove any of it? NO, but I have had my personal witness and I dont need to have it "proved" to me.

OK, I am getting off on a tangent, just excuse me and I will go back to lurking like I usually do.... :eyes:

I'm so sorry if I came across as challenging the validity of your belief or anything. Not my intention at all!! :hug: I am not a angry former member (worked through the "angry" stage a while ago)....I have much fondness for the church but am honest in what I post regarding what I personally experienced and feel. I can only pray that I come across as sincere and I apologize if my post above was hurtful to you in any manner. I totally support those who believe whatever they believe. (Articles of Faith #11 is still believed by me...as well as bits and pieces here and there of other doctrine)

My leaving was over more than one major doctrinal issue...I just dont' want you to assume I am like your dear friend. I took the study and decision to leave very very seriously and wanted to find reasons to stay in the church... but it did not turn out that way.

I totally agree with you about leaders quoting Mormon Doctrine. They also will often quote various former Prophets in the church through their Discourses and that always totally confused me. I used both of those in my talks in our local church also.....but it was also those (starting with the Discourses of Brigham Young) that caused me to seriously begin to ask my local leaders questions that set my feet on the path of doctrine/historical church research, more questions, which unfortunately led me out of the church....but that is a whole other boring topic that I won't waste time on here! I do mean unfortunately because my life would have been a lot less complicated and stressful had I never started that study in the first place, but I can't go back and turn back time.

Please don't go back to lurking...I was not challenging the vaidity of your belief with my response to your post. I was honestly expressing how some leaders saying something is OK and others not OK totally confused me back when I was a member and even now as a supportive/interested inactive-but-now-Episcopalian-member. *lol*

I hope you accept my apologies.:butterfly

Michelle

That just further confuses it for me.

Reason why is I've used and quoted Mormon Doctrine before and have been rebuked for doing so and was told that this was not considered doctrine. But I had been told that it was indeed considered to be doctrinally sound by my former stake president (when I was active)....but if women here who are members have been told it is NOT to be considered doctrine/doctrinally sound, then that is very very very inconsistent of what members are being told IS and IS NOT doctrine, KWIM?

Michelle

Michelle-that is what I have heard too. In fact, I will be at deseret books today and I will pick up a copy to look at it.

I talked to dh...and he said that Mormon Doctrine (as well as Jesus the Christ and Miracle of Forgiveness) are not doctrine....they are reflections of an apostle on doctrine.

HTH

No Michelle, you did not offend me. I just lurk alot more than I post. I only post when it is something I am interested in or know about. ALot of the stuff here I am reading b/c it is "new" to me and I want to learn(like breastfeeding, I have been unsuccessful so far). I can understand your situation and was not trying to come off offended. I love talking about stuff like this. :happy:

No Michelle, you did not offend me. I just lurk alot more than I post. I only post when it is something I am interested in or know about. ALot of the stuff here I am reading b/c it is "new" to me and I want to learn(like breastfeeding, I have been unsuccessful so far). I can understand your situation and was not trying to come off offended. I love talking about stuff like this. :happy:

Whew! I'm glad.

Sometimes when I say "former" member, it gives the impression I am "anti", KWIM? that is why I now use the term "inactive" mostly....since we never did remove our names formally.

I need to dig up my copy of Mormon Doctrine and see the inside of the front of the book. I do think there is a "disclaimer" that it is not to be taken as official doctrine. That is a bit confusing with the title of the book being "Mormon Doctrine", KWIM? I no longer have my book Jesus The Christ and Marvelous Work and Wonder but I know those were used by missionaries for investigators. I sold those two books. I think the only ones I still have are my Quad and Mormon Doctrine. I sometimes wish I had not sold off my entire LDS library, but I did it when I was mad at the church right when I left. I'm just glad I held onto my quad as I do still read it on occasion.

Michelle

The "disclaimer" or Preface in my copy says:
This work on MORMON DOCTRINE is designed to help pserons seeking salvation to gain that knowledge of God and his laws without which they cannot hope for an inheritance in the celestial city.

Since it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance of GOd and his laws, and since man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation, it follows that men are obligated at their peril to learn and apply the true doctrines of the gospel.

This gospel compendium will enable men, more effectively, to "teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom"; to be "instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient" for them "to understand." (D&C 88:77-78)

For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility.
Salt Lake City, Utah
June 1, 1958
Signed, Bruce R. McConkie

I also whole heartedly agree with you about the 11th Article of Faith btw.

What is the 11th article of faith?

thanks!

The 11th Article of Faith:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may"

The 11th Article of Faith:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may"

:thumbsup: I'm not LDS, but I agree with that too! Thanks for answering my question. :)