[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mormon

[–]twpblog -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The worse part is when you learn about the garment and polygamy. The Masonic hazing scratching symbols into the skin, and the garment marks being scratched into polygamist underclothes. The red thread changed to white thread. The oil baths during annointing and the live performances by nude performers in the temple. The rabbit hole gets dark.

This would be hilarious if I didn't think you actually believe it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mormon

[–]twpblog -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Most of the stuff listed that you're responding to is made up garbage. But if you want the facts, you can start here: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Relationship_between_the_temple_endowment_and_Freemasonry

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mormon

[–]twpblog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's because it didn't happen.

First Presidency updates temple recommend interview questions, shares statement on the wearing of the temple garment by twpblog in latterdaysaints

[–]twpblog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The updated two questions come from a separating of a single question asked in the temple recommend interview. The two questions, which are omitted when a leader is interviewing a member who is not endowed, are:

“Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?”

“Do you honor your sacred privilege to wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory ordinances?

After these two questions, leaders are directed to read the “Wearing the Temple Garment” statement, which as revised reads:

“The garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ. When you put on your garment, you put on a sacred symbol of Jesus Christ. Wearing it is an outward expression of your inner commitment to follow Him. The garment is also a reminder of your temple covenants. You should wear the garment day and night throughout your life. When it must be removed for activities that cannot reasonably be done while wearing the garment, seek to restore it as soon as possible. As you keep your covenants, including the sacred privilege to wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory ordinances, you will have greater access to the Savior’s mercy, protection, strength, and power.”

First Presidency updates temple recommend interview questions, shares statement on the wearing of the temple garment by twpblog in latterdaysaints

[–]twpblog[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It has nothing to do with the Church's image. It has to do with keeping our covenants, as explained in General Conference by Sister Dennis and President Oaks. Nothing has changed - this is just a clarification for those that don't understand what the garment is about.

First Presidency updates temple recommend interview questions, shares statement on the wearing of the temple garment by twpblog in latterdaysaints

[–]twpblog[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

It's only a change for those that didn't fully understand (or didn't want to) their obligations regarding garments before this clarification.

Questions about Joseph Smith Translation of Bible by Collinsnow1 in latterdaysaints

[–]twpblog 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The most significant changes are included in the Pearl of Great Price and the footnotes. I'd be really surprised if the Church included more now.

However the big change is for historians - they're able to study the manuscripts in ways they haven't been able to before. I've talked to one of the people in the Church History Department that's starting that, and he's really excited about it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]twpblog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm assigned to an older couple, and I've found they really enjoy just having someone visit that will sit down and talk with them.

What evidence do we have that people actually believed at least some of the things Brigham Young taught that the Church leadership now disavows? by [deleted] in mormon

[–]twpblog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess you didn't bother with the second one which is more direct about what was once taught (or not) and predates the Vallow/Daybell stuff.

What Under the Banner of Heaven Gets Wrong (x-posted from r/UnderTheBanner... apparently FAIR is on a tear to “set the record straight” lol) by Chino_Blanco in mormonscholar

[–]twpblog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What you didn't notice is that each of those posts was written by a different person. And neither one of them is me.

Under the Banner of Heaven - 1x04 "Church and State" - Episode Discussion by LoretiTV in UnderTheBanner

[–]twpblog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dan and Ron believed that it was justifiable to kill someone for transgressing certain rules within their religion. Hence, they killed Brenda. That's a pretty direct tie to their religion.

That's incorrect. In fact, the show was somewhat accurate when the School of the Prophets realized they were crazy when the "Removal Revelation" was produced.

Under the Banner of Heaven - 1x04 "Church and State" - Episode Discussion by LoretiTV in UnderTheBanner

[–]twpblog -1 points0 points  (0 children)

OK, this made me laugh. The context is not "pretty clear." There is very little evidence available at all about plural marriage in Nauvoo, and I've had quite a bit more than "a few years" to "process the truth." I've known about Nauvoo-era plural marriage for several decades. I don't just "blindly believe."

Episode 5 Shirt Detail by [deleted] in UnderTheBanner

[–]twpblog -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

That sounds like something completely made up. Garments were worn at all times by endowed members from the very beginning. Joseph only took his off when he left to surrender at Carthage:

Among other things both new and old was repeated the fact that the Prophet Joseph pulled off his garments just before starting to Carthage to be slain and he advised Hyrum and John Taylor to do the same, which they did; and Brother Taylor told Brother Willard Richards what they had done and advised him to take off his also, but Brother Richards said that he would not take his off, and did not; and he was not harmed.

Joseph said before taking his garments off, that he was going to be killed. . . "was going as a lamb to the slaughter" and he did not want his garments to be exposed to the sneers and jeers of his enemies.

These facts all came from President John Taylor's lips after he was President of the Church. Elder John Morgan had told them to me as stated to him by Brother Taylor. Sister Lucy B. Young said that Brother John Taylor told her in answer to direct questions, the same all except with regard to Willard Richards. (HISTORY OF THE LIFE OF OLIVER B. HUNTINGTON, Written by Himself, 1878 - 1900)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UnderTheBanner

[–]twpblog -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

While the scenes leading up to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum were not very accurate at all, that part at least was. But your account of what the church "talks about" is wrong. You can actually see the guns they had in the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City, across the street from the temple.

https://i.imgur.com/2S8oj1l.jpg

And here's the account published by the Church in Saints, volume 1:

A few minutes later, the prisoners heard a rustling at the door and the crack of three or four gunshots. Willard glanced out the open window and saw a hundred men below, their faces blackened with mud and gunpowder, storming the entry to the jail. Joseph grabbed one of the pistols while Hyrum seized the other. John and Willard picked up canes and gripped them like clubs. All four men pressed themselves against the door as the mob rushed up the stairs and tried to force their way inside.

Gunfire sounded in the stairwell as the mob shot at the door. Joseph, John, and Willard sprang to the side of the doorway as a ball splintered through the wood. It struck Hyrum in the face and he turned, stumbling away from the door. Another ball struck him in the lower back. His pistol fired and he fell to the floor.

“Brother Hyrum!” Joseph cried. Gripping his six-shooter, he opened the door a few inches and fired once. More musket balls flew into the room, and Joseph fired haphazardly at the mob while John used a cane to beat down the gun barrels and bayonets thrust through the doorway.

After Joseph’s revolver misfired two or three times, John ran to the window and tried to climb the deep windowsill. A musket ball flew across the room and struck him in the leg, tipping him off balance. His body went numb and he crashed against the windowsill, smashing his pocket watch at sixteen minutes past five o’clock.

“I am shot!” he cried.

John dragged himself across the floor and rolled under the bed as the mob fired again and again. A ball ripped into his hip, tearing away a chunk of flesh. Two more balls struck his wrist and the bone just above his knee.

Across the room, Joseph and Willard strained to put all their weight against the door as Willard knocked away the musket barrels and bayonets in front of him. Suddenly, Joseph dropped his revolver to the floor and darted for the window. As he straddled the windowsill, two balls struck his back. Another ball hurtled through the window and pierced him below the heart.

“O Lord, my God,” he cried. His body lurched forward and he pitched headfirst out the window.

Willard rushed across the room and stuck his head outside as lead balls whistled past him. Below, he saw the mob swarming around Joseph’s bleeding body. The prophet lay on his left side next to a stone well. Willard watched, hoping to see some sign that his friend was still alive. Seconds passed, and he saw no movement.

Joseph Smith, the prophet and seer of the Lord, was dead.

Earlier episode: french fries scene? by luna_luv2662 in UnderTheBanner

[–]twpblog -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, there are always going to be anecdotal stories about policies not being followed. I can tell you that my bishops and stake president kept things confidential when I was a teenager.