The LDS temples

[arizona_sunshine]

Tell you what, I'll answer your question if you'll answer mine!

Ha! Mine was rhetorical.

I need a response from you in the 'honest question' thread.

 

[baker]

Of what, the apostacy?

Doc

~

Actually I was referring to the temple endowments and marriages/sealings.

 

[Doc T]

This is what I was referring to in an earlier post. If it was as sacred and as required as thd lds church claims, do you really believe Christ would be so cryptic in His message. It would be so inconsistent with His purpose and the word of God.

Well unfortunatly for us, Christ did not teach teach these sacred rites until his 40-day ministry after his resurrection. For some unknown reason, nothing of this event is recorded in the Bible as we now have it.

If we have to fall back on the ol, "well we can't trust the catholic church for including everything we have in the bible today", why would something like this pose a problem for any church? What was there to hide or controll? (I just finished the Da Vinci Code, so go ahead and hit me up!)

I gather you did not read Hugh Nibley's article, "The Christian Envy of the Temple"?

Doc

~

 

[Helaman]

Temple Envy?

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Question for anyone
What was the temple that Christ tore down and built again in three days?

His body

 

[skylark1]

His body

Exactly.

There is no "temple envy." The body of Christ was broken for us. He has redeemed and reconciled to God, all who accept his invitation to salvation. A temple is no longer required in order to have fellowship with God, because every believeris a sacred dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. We are his temple.

1 Corinthians 3
16Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?

1 Corinthians 6
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

​

 

[Doc T]

Deleted, duplicate post.

 

[Doc T]

Exactly.

There is no "temple envy."

Have you read Dr. Nibley's article? Are you sure there is no "temple envy"?

Doc


~

 

[skylark1]

I don't need to read Dr. Nibley's article to know there is no "temple envy," when I can read in the Bible that every believer is considered the temple of the Holy spirit.

 

[Doc T]

I don't need to read Dr. Nibley's article to know there is no "temple envy," when I can read in the Bible that every believer is considered the temple of the Holy spirit.

And where does it state in the Bible that the "only" temple that would be is the temple of the body? And why did the Christians build temples after Christ's death and resurrection if the temple of the body was the only one necessary?



Doc

 

[baker]

OK. For the lds posters here, if D&C 132 is the authority for the temple weddings and eternal marriage and was supposedly revealed to Smith in 1831:


Why did he never teach it and was emphatic on a church policy in the 1835 D&C that had nothing to do with temple weddings or eternal marriage. Why would he go against a supposed revelation from god?

 

[unbound]

And where does it state in the Bible that the "only" temple that would be is the temple of the body? And why did the Christians build temples after Christ's death and resurrection if the temple of the body was the only one necessary?



Doc

Maybe they didnt build them, but just used them to teach from?

You ignore the fact that Christ clearly stated that our bodies are the temple.

Then you do a 180 and propose that Christ taught rituals in a temple, and the only way to be fully saved is to enter into a temple made with human hands.

Sorry,you can argue it all you want, but this completely contradicts the clear message of Christ.

I cant simply reject the "plain" and "precious" things that Christ truly taught, in order to receive a more complex and corrupt version of handshakes, code names and death oaths.

 

[MormonFriend]

Maybe they didnt build them, but just used them to teach from?

You ignore the fact that Christ clearly stated that our bodies are the temple.

Then you do a 180 and propose that Christ taught rituals in a temple, and the only way to be fully saved is to enter into a temple made with human hands.

Sorry,you can argue it all you want, but this completely contradicts the clear message of Christ.

I cant simply reject the "plain" and "precious" things that Christ truly taught, in order to receive a more complex and corrupt version of handshakes, code names and death oaths.

I haven't been following this thread closely, but it seems to me that Paul was focusing on the importance of keeping our bodies pure and undefiled since it has the potential to house the Spirit of God. That is what a Temple is for, to dwell with God, and God with us. If we entered a Temple of God, and our bodies were defiled, then the obvious result would be that we would not have the Spirit dwelling within to enlighten us to the things being taught without.

On this same note, the same applies to this very discussion and all others pertanining to the things of God. If our bodies are defiled and the Holy Ghost is crowded out because of our priority to the carnal nature, then understanding is obscured. The same condition that affected the children of Israel, I believe pertains to us today.
4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.(Deuteronomy29:4)

The "plain and precious" things of God are given line upon line, and precept upon precept, as we cleanse the inner vessel and allow the Holy Ghost to reveal it. Without that personal revelation, people end up with misconceptions when they hear of doctrines and ordinances which you call complex and corrupt.
I do not hold that against you (not that I am entitled to do so). Those parts of Temple learning were never designed to be opened to discussion outside of the Temple itself. The only reason you have knowledge of it at all is the results of covenant breakers, who vowed never to disclose or discuss these things except for within the appropriate areas of the Temple. It is a given, that since they are covenant breakers, then they do not have the Spirit of God to open their eyes to the true simple and pure applications of those sacred things that they defiled. And you are the end recipient of the empty shell of words which are filled with whatsoever meaning you happen to perceive, not having received the words in the original environment where the Holy Ghost can fill their meaning as intended.

 

[MormonFriend]

OK. For the lds posters here, if D&C 132 is the authority for the temple weddings and eternal marriage and was supposedly revealed to Smith in 1831:


Why did he never teach it and was emphatic on a church policy in the 1835 D&C that had nothing to do with temple weddings or eternal marriage. Why would he go against a supposed revelation from god?

Do you suppose that it might have something to do with the Church being in its infancy? The members too were still "infants," wisely being fed with the milk.
The Lord has His time table as always, and His wisdom in this matter has proven to bring the Church out of its infancy, and into its maturity.

 

[MormonFriend]

If Jesus established a new system of temple worship, don't you think that there would be some evidence of theis found in the Bible?

Is there anyway to document what documents were tossed out by the early church fathers?

 

[Rescued One]

Is there anyway to document what documents were tossed out by the early church fathers?

 

[MormonFriend]

I am not understanding the messagge here. I do not want to interpret it as what it seems.

Baker asked a valid question:
"If Jesus established a new system of temple worship, don't you think that there would be some evidence of theis found in the Bible?"

And I answered it with another question:
"Is there anyway to document what documents were tossed out by the early church fathers?"

If you find that humorous, I can use a good laugh, even if it is at my expense.

 

[twhite982]

OK. For the lds posters here, if D&C 132 is the authority for the temple weddings and eternal marriage and was supposedly revealed to Smith in 1831:


Why did he never teach it and was emphatic on a church policy in the 1835 D&C that had nothing to do with temple weddings or eternal marriage.

Smells of deja vue here........

Principles of "eternal marriage" were know to Joseph Smith possibly as early as 1831 in connection with the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible.

Was the complete revelation given to Joseph in 1835?

Can you say so either way with certainty?


Additionally, can you say that this revelation in its complete for was designed to be given to the church in its entirety?

In other words were they ready for it?

Why would he go against a supposed revelation from god?

Its your assumtion that the article on marriage (1835 D&C) was an actual revelation. Joseph Smith did honor the vote of the commitee after his return from Michigan and leave this article as it stood, but this does NOT equate it as a revelation. It is very clear the 2 articles (marriage and government) were written in response (Oliver Cowdrey, WW Phelps) to outside critisism of the church. Each and every link that I get from checking the phrase "article on marriage" states exactly what I said above... that the article on marriage was NOT revelation, but rather written by Oliver Cowdrey.

Besides didn't we go through this before with the 1835 D&C and the article on marriage by W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdrey in other threads? Hence the deja vue...

Tom

 

[Rescued One]

I am not understanding the messagge here. I do not want to interpret it as what it seems.

Baker asked a valid question:
"If Jesus established a new system of temple worship, don't you think that there would be some evidence of theis found in the Bible?"

And I answered it with another question:
"Is there anyway to document what documents were tossed out by the early church fathers?"

If you find that humorous, I can use a good laugh, even if it is at my expense.

I'm sorry...sometimes things just really strike me funny. Ask my husband. On second thought, maybe you shouldn't ask him. He gets rather longwinded.

You say the early church fathers threw out documents and then suggest that someone kept a record of what they tossed out. Yeah, right. Do you know what they tossed out? Can you document where you got this information? Did they toss out heresies?

 

[unbound]

"If we entered a Temple of God, and our bodies were defiled, then the obvious result would be that we would not have the Spirit dwelling within to enlighten us to the things being taught without."

Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but the above statement sound like you believe I have to go into a building made by hands for God to dwell in me. Remember those buildings shall be utterly destroyed...Where will that leave Gods temple?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
" On this same note, the same applies to this very discussion and all others pertanining to the things of God. If our bodies are defiled and the Holy Ghost is crowded out because of our priority to the carnal nature, then understanding is obscured. The same condition that affected the children of Israel, I believe pertains to us today."

No argument here. But what "understanding" are you thinking about? Carnal temple rituals?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The "plain and precious" things of God are given line upon line, and precept upon precept, as we cleanse the inner vessel and allow the Holy Ghost to reveal it"

This sounds like a description of freemasonry and all its "degrees".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Without that personal revelation, people end up with misconceptions when they hear of doctrines and ordinances which you call complex and corrupt."

When it comes to issues like these, I turn to Gods word to show me the way, and it does every time. This is why Satan want to re-write Gods word, because it tells on the wolves that do his dirty work. But His words shall stand true forever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The only reason you have knowledge of it at all is the results of covenant breakers, who vowed never to disclose or discuss these things except for within the appropriate areas of the Temple."

The only reason I know about it is because God wants me to know what kind of snare is waiting for me behind those closed doors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
" It is a given, that since they are covenant breakers, then they do not have the Spirit of God to open their eyes to the true simple and pure applications of those sacred things that they defiled."

Has it ever occured to you that some of those"covenant breakers" found the truth in a more "simple and pure" doctrine that promises salvation with no card needed at the door?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And you are the end recipient of the empty shell of words which are filled with whatsoever meaning you happen to perceive, not having received the words in the original environment where the Holy Ghost can fill their meaning as intended."

Forgive me again if I am wrong, but your above posts sounds like the Holy Ghost works better inside a pile of rocks with pretty murals on the walls. Why have you limited the power of God? Why do you confine Him to a building?

Sometimes we are better off, once we see the truth, to put our pride aside and accept the fact that after all these years, our leaders could be leading us astray. No man has the power to create a raquet on Gods word, it is free for anyone, I dont have to be bound by your oaths to get a key to heaven. As a matter of fact Im really wondering just WHAT door your prophets have the keys to! May Jesus give you peace and everlasting life, no handshake required!