The LDS temples

[Helaman]

The Temple is a Holy Place, a place of love and beauty. I'll prepare myself... while I am young; this is my sacred duty.

 

[Doc T]

The International Bible Encyclopedia which was referenced in the above quote clearly states that the veil that was torn was the inner curtain; the veil that separated the Holy of Holies.

Two things. First from your quote of the International Bible Encyclopedia, I do not get, from reading it, a clear declairation that the veil that was torn was the inner curtain. It simply states "that at the time of Christ's death the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom." Then the writer makes the same conclusion that you do based on Hebrews 10:20. Now you both may be right, but my point is that there is scholarly disagreement.

Secondly, I apologize on the IBE reference. I tried to save time and shorten the reverence. Let me give you the complete reference from the book.

15. "According to Mishnah Yoma v.1 (cf Middoth iv.7) two curtains a cubit apart from each other separated the [Holy Place] from the Holy of Holies" (Geoffrey W Bromiley, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed. [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1988], 4:774; see also Patrich, "Reconstructing the Magnificent Temple Herod Built," 22, 25). Those who advocate the tearing of the Holy of Holies veil frequently quote the allegorizations found in Hebrews 6:19, 9:3, and 10:20 to support their argument "although no mention is made of a torn veil" in any of those verses (Allen C. Myers, ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 19871, 1036). Rice has demonstrated, based on a survey of texts from the Septuagint, that one cannot automatically assume that the veil mentioned in Hebrews 6:19-20 is the one hanging before the heavenly Holy of Holies (see George E. Rice, "Hebrews 6:19: Analysis of Some Assumptions Concerning Katapetasma," Andrews University Seminary Studies, vol. 25, no. 1, Spring 1987, 65-71).

Doc

~

 

[Doc T]

Is it just me or has Baker suddenly disappeared now that this thread is starting in earnest?

Doc


~

 

[Helaman]

Is it just me or has Baker suddenly disappeared now that this thread is starting in earnest?

Doc


~

Perhaps he ate a big bag of ban.

 

[twhite982]

Is it just me or has Baker suddenly disappeared now that this thread is starting in earnest?

Doc


~

Don't worry he's probally gathering ammo to drop on us.

I personally don't see what his "hard evidence" is.

I've discussed almost every aspect of the temple and related issues with him and I am unconvinced of his "fact". Maybe just 'cause I'm stubborn, who knows.

Anyways, its always a good discussion when he is here and he keeps me on my toes causing me to study and learn and I thank him for it.

Tom

 

[twhite982]

SkyLark,

Did I answer your questions you posed to me to your satisfaction?

We have 3-4 different threads that we're interacting on and quite frankly I'm having a tough time keeping them straight.


Tom

 

[skylark1]

SkyLark,

Did I answer your questions you posed to me to your satisfaction?

We have 3-4 different threads that we're interacting on and quite frankly I'm having a tough time keeping them straight.


Tom

I asked several questions on post #53, if you don't mind responding.

 

[twhite982]

What relationship do you see between the OT temple and LDS temples?

The layout is similiar in that as you went deeper into the temple, the more holier area you were entering.

In the LDS temple as you go up in floors, from the basement up the higher the ordinance. Not than any of them are insignificant, but the sealings are done on the highest floor. God's government is family and we deem this as the highest calling we can have; father and mother.

I thought instead of list everything I could think of I'll just post a link
http://www.lds.org/temples/faq/0,11264,1904-1,00.html

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
19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

LDS believe that our bodies are temples.



​

What do you base your claim on that only those who have participated in LDS temple ordinances can spend eternity with God the Father? I know of no Biblical support for this, or for the claim that one must be "sealed" to spend eternity in His presence.

This is primarily based upon LDS scripture in D&C 132.

I still have a difficult time understanding the reason for the restrictions in light of the veil being torn.

As I've explained earlier, I believe the veil was symbolic of seeking forgiveness for our sins. Prior to this the high priests was the only one able to do this once a year on the day of atonement, now Christ is our mediator.

The restriction again is due to the lack of belief in the LDS church and that God ordained its existance.

LDS do not believe that because we are the one true church you as a non memeber do not have access to God through His Son.

We are talking about ordinances that are sacred to us and have a responsibility to be handled in a sacred manner. As another poster said there are no uninvolved temple attendees. All particiapte and are part of the ceremony if in just the least as witnesses before God. We ensure by admitance requirements that those who are involved in the ordinances have shown themselves to be faithfull to the promises that are given within the temple.

Did the restrictions begin when sealings/celestial marriage/polygamy was introduced in the LDS church?

Not to my knowledge.

The first endowments were performed in the upper room of NK Witney's store under the guidance of Joseph Smith to a select few leaders. This is when no temple was available, but the ordinance needed to be done.

The temple has always stood for something sacred, where outsiders were not allowed admittance, both in OT and NT times. In fact Herod's temple and I'm sure others had a sign signify to ALL forgeiners that if the crossed the partition from the court of the gentiles into the court of the women the penalty was death.

The restriction of the temple to the faithful seems to have always been active.

Tom

 

[skylark1]

The layout is similiar in that as you went deeper into the temple, the more holier area you were entering.

In the LDS temple as you go up in floors, from the basement up the higher the ordinance. Not than any of them are insignificant, but the sealings are done on the highest floor. God's government is family and we deem this as the highest calling we can have; father and mother.

I thought instead of list everything I could think of I'll just post a link
http://www.lds.org/temples/faq/0,11264,1904-1,00.html

That wasn't much of an answer. I guess that my question wasn't very clear. I should have specified that I was asking about a spiritual relationship, rather than physical. The OT temple pointed to Jesus and his atoning sacrifice, which is perfect and complete.

LDS do not believe that because we are the one true church you as a non memeber do not have access to God through His Son.

We all only have access to God through His Son. Really this seems to contradict some other statements that have been posted. It has been said that Christians who do not accept the LDS gospel and ordinaces will not have their sin forgiven, and therefore will be separated from God the Father for eternity.

The first endowments were performed in the upper room of NK Witney's store under the guidance of Joseph Smith to a select few leaders. This is when no temple was available, but the ordinance needed to be done.

I wasn't asking about endowments, but about sealings and polygamous marriages.

The temple has always stood for something sacred, where outsiders were not allowed admittance, both in OT and NT times. In fact Herod's temple and I'm sure others had a sign signify to ALL forgeiners that if the crossed the partition from the court of the gentiles into the court of the women the penalty was death.

The restriction of the temple to the faithful seems to have always been active.

I agree, until Jesus bridged the gap, and God Himself tore the veil open that barred the way to His presence.

 

[twhite982]

That wasn't much of an answer. I guess that my question wasn't very clear. I should have specified that I was asking about a spiritual relationship, rather than physical. The OT temple pointed to Jesus and his atoning sacrifice, which is perfect and complete.

Sorry I didn't understand your question.

Off the top of my head a spiritual similarity is the baptismal font, which is laid upon 12 oxen symbolizing the 12 tribes of Israel. In part signifying that the gospel and its ordinances need to go to the 12 tribes or in other words the world.

Maybe others can add spiritual similarities.

As far as functions, I think they are much more different than similar.

The whole point I made before the temple has nothing to do with atoning for sin, this is the huge difference.

We all only have access to God through His Son. Really this seems to contradict some other statements that have been posted. It has been said that Christians who do not accept the LDS gospel and ordinaces will not have their sin forgiven, and therefore will be separated from God the Father for eternity.

I said something like this before, but you must've misread my intent.

I was saying for someone who knows the LDS church is God's church and rejects or fights against it is sinning.

"For him that knows how to do good and does it not it is sin" James

This was my point. Not that everyone who doesn't join the LDS church is sinning.

Again we will ALL recieve our sufficient opportunity to accept or reject the gospel in this life or the next.

I wasn't asking about endowments, but about sealings and polygamous marriages.

I know, this was to illustrate that not all sacred ordinances were always done in the temple, but this was out of expediency, not choice.

I answered your question the best I knew in the last post.


Tom

 

[Doc T]

That wasn't much of an answer. I guess that my question wasn't very clear. I should have specified that I was asking about a spiritual relationship, rather than physical. The OT temple pointed to Jesus and his atoning sacrifice, which is perfect and complete.

I guess the similarities that I see between the OT temple, the early Christians rituals and the LDS temples would be washings, anointings, and investiture. You are correct the OT temple pointed the people to Christ and his atoning sacrifice. The early Christian and LDS temples build upon that make it possible for man to enter into God's "rest".

"Under the old covenant, only members of the tribe of Levi could serve in the temple as priests and Levites, participate in all the priestly temple ordinances, and have access to the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. The book of Hebrews points out, however, that the Aaronic Priesthood and the old covenant system of temple worship could not make anyone "perfect" (teleioo, Hebrews 7:11, 19). The head priest of the old covenant was only allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies (symbolic of God's presence) once every year and was then required to retreat. It is evident from several New Testament passages that when Jesus Christ established the New Covenant, He established a new system of temple worship. Under this system Christ Himself was the high priest (see Hebrews 3:1) but His Priesthood was after the order of Melchizedek (see Hebrews 5:5-6; 7:12-17). This is referred to as the "royal priesthood" in 1 Peter 2:9, and' it was received in conjunction with the swearing of an oath (see Hebrews 7:21, 28; compare D&C 84:33-41). Unlike the Aaronic Priesthood, the Melchizedek Priesthood did have the power to make its possessors perfect" (teleioo, Hebrews 7:19). While the Greek word that is translated as "perfect" in the book of Hebrews is commonly interpreted to mean "complete" or "finished, it can also be translated as "initiated." The book of Hebrews indicates that any man who is made a priest after the order of Melchizedek can do the following:

● Inherit the promises of the Abrahamic covenant (see Hebrews 6:11-15).
● Become "Perfect" or fully initiated (see Hebrews 7:11-12, 19).
● Become both a king and a priest (see Hebrews 7: 1; Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
● Become like the Son of God (see Hebrews 7:3, 28).
● Follow Christ within the veil of the Holy of Holies (see Hebrews 6:19-20; 10:19-20).
● Draw near unto God (see Hebrews 7:19).
● Receive eternal life (see Hebrews 7:16)."

(Matthew Brown, "The Gate of Heaven" p. 180-181)


Doc

~

 

[baker]

Is it just me or has Baker suddenly disappeared now that this thread is starting in earnest?

Doc


~

Fear not. I've been up to my ears in airports and lawyers for the past 5 days. I will drop my two cents in when this deal gets a little more papered!

Besides, from a very quick glance it looks like Skylark has it analyzed pretty well.

Please, carry on and I'll probably get some time later this week!

 

[skylark1]

I guess the similarities that I see between the OT temple, the early Christians rituals and the LDS temples would be washings, anointings, and investiture. You are correct the OT temple pointed the people to Christ and his atoning sacrifice.

I realize that Aaron and has sons were washed with water, anointed with oil, and consecrated for service. But just as the rest of the temple furnishings and rituals foreshadowed and symbolized the spiritual realities in Christ, I believe that this also did.

Hebrews 9
8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
​

It is clear that these were only external regulations, and a shadow of the inward cleansing of our hearts that only Christ could offer. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses our hearts from sin.

Revelation 1
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

​

Likewise, the anointings were a shadow of a spiritual reality. Oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. When a person comes to Christ, they are born again, as the oil of the Holy Spirit sparks the life of Christ in our hearts.

2 Corinthians 1
20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. 21Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.


​

The early Christian and LDS temples build upon that make it possible for man to enter into God's "rest"

Do you have Bilical support for this statement? What I read is that those who believe enter into his rest.

Hebrews 4
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

​

It is evident from several New Testament passages that when Jesus Christ established the New Covenant, He established a new system of temple worship.

Please show me this from scripture. I read that he fulfilled the old temple worship, rather than established a new system of temple worship.

The book of Hebrews indicates that any man who is made a priest after the order of Melchizedek can do the following:

While I agree that Hebrew points out that Jesus was a priest of after the order of Melchizedek, I do not read that any other man after Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Jesus entered the Holy of Holies in heaven on our behalf. He is our priest, and it is only through Him that those in Christ have been blessed with every spiritual blessing.

 

[rnmomof7]

Excellent post skylark

 

[Helaman]

Fear not. I've been up to my ears in airports and lawyers for the past 5 days. I will drop my two cents in when this deal gets a little more papered!

Besides, from a very quick glance it looks like Skylark has it analyzed pretty well.

Please, carry on and I'll probably get some time later this week!

Please, take your time.

 

[Doc T]

I realize that Aaron and has sons were washed with water, anointed with oil, and consecrated for service. But just as the rest of the temple furnishings and rituals foreshadowed and symbolized the spiritual realities in Christ, I believe that this also did.

I started a more detailed response and it got over three pages long, so I deceided just to give a sweetened condensed version.

Donald Parry had this to say about washings and annointings.

Ritual anointings were a prominent part of religious rites in the biblical world. Recipients of the anointing included temple officiants (Ex. 28:41), prophets (1 Kgs. 19:16), and kings (1 Sam. 16:3; 1 Kgs. 1:39). In addition, sacral objects associated with the Israelite sanctuary were anointed (Ex. 30:22-29). Of equal importance in the religion of the Israelites were ablutions or ceremonial washings (Ex. 29:4-7). To ensure religious purity, Mosaic law required that designated individuals receive a ritual washing, sometimes in preparation for entering the temple (Ex. 30:17-21; Lev. 14:7-8; 15:5-27).
The washings and anointings of the biblical period have a parallel today in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In response to a commandment to gather the saints and to build a house "to prepare them for the ordinances and endowments, washings, and anointings" (TPJS, p. 308), these ordinances were introduced in the Kirtland Temple on January 21, 1836 (HC 2:379-83). In many respects similar in purpose to ancient Israelite practice and to the washing of feet by Jesus among his disciples, these modern LDS rites are performed only in temples set apart and dedicated for sacred purposes (D&C 124:37-38; HC 6:318-19).

Many symbolic meanings of washings and anointings are traceable in the scriptures. Ritual washings (Heb. 9:10: D&C 124:37) symbolize the cleansing of the soul from sins and iniquities. They signify the washing-away of the pollutions of the Lord's people (Isa. 4:4). Psalm 51:2 expresses the human longing and divine promise: "Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin" (cf. Ps. 73:13; Isa. 1:16).

The anointing of a person or object with sacred ointment represents sanctification (Lev. 8:10-12) and consecration (Ex. 28:41), so that both become "most holy" (Ex. 30:29) unto the Lord. In this manner, profane persons and things are sanctified in similitude of the messiah (Hebrew "anointed one"), who is Christ (Greek "anointed one").

Hebrews 9
8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
​

It is clear that these were only external regulations, and a shadow of the inward cleansing of our hearts that only Christ could offer. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses our hearts from sin.

I feel that the choice of "external regulations" is a poor choice of translation looking at many different translation of this verse. I think that a better translation of the greek word sarx would be "of natural or physical origin" Washings and annointings are of physical origin symbolic of spiritual.

While I agree that Hebrew points out that Jesus was a priest of after the order of Melchizedek, I do not read that any other man after Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Jesus entered the Holy of Holies in heaven on our behalf. He is our priest, and it is only through Him that those in Christ have been blessed with every spiritual blessing.

The New Testament identifies Christ as the great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, but says nothing more on the subject. Were there other high priests after this order? It seems obvious that Melchizedek was one, at least, and it is called an "order," after all. Theophilus of Antioch taught that Melchizedek was the first of many priests of his order:

And at that time there was a righteous king called Melchisedek, in the city of Salem, which now is Jerusalem. This was the first priest of all priests of the Most High God; and from him the above-named city Hierosolyma was called Jerusalem. And from his time priests were found in all the earth.​

Both Ignatius and Hippolytus called bishops "high priests": "And say I, Honour thou God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image of God -- of God, inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest." "Grant unto this Thy servant whom Thou has chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest . . . ." Clement of Alexandria called each man who had been entrusted with the mysteries of God a "truly kingly man; he is the sacred high priest of God." Likewise, the Didache referred to prophets and Apostles, as "high priests." "Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests." [Barry Bickmore, "Restoring the Ancient Church"]

I will try to get a chance to address the other issues later.

Doc

~

 

[happyinhisgrace]

I realize that Aaron and has sons were washed with water, anointed with oil, and consecrated for service. But just as the rest of the temple furnishings and rituals foreshadowed and symbolized the spiritual realities in Christ, I believe that this also did.

Hebrews 9

8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

​

It is clear that these were only external regulations, and a shadow of the inward cleansing of our hearts that only Christ could offer. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses our hearts from sin.

Revelation 1

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,


​

Likewise, the anointings were a shadow of a spiritual reality. Oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. When a person comes to Christ, they are born again, as the oil of the Holy Spirit sparks the life of Christ in our hearts.

2 Corinthians 1

20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. 21Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.



​

Do you have Bilical support for this statement? What I read is that those who believe enter into his rest.

Hebrews 4

3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.


​

Please show me this from scripture. I read that he fulfilled the old temple worship, rather than established a new system of temple worship.


While I agree that Hebrew points out that Jesus was a priest of after the order of Melchizedek, I do not read that any other man after Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Jesus entered the Holy of Holies in heaven on our behalf. He is our priest, and it is only through Him that those in Christ have been blessed with every spiritual blessing.

Whoo Hoo!!!!! Fabulous posting Skylark, that one's a keeper.

God Bless,
Tami

 

[skylark1]

I feel that the choice of "external regulations" is a poor choice of translation looking at many different translation of this verse. I think that a better translation of the greek word sarx would be "of natural or physical origin" Washings and annointings are of physical origin symbolic of spiritual.

Here are several translations of Hebrews 9:10

Hebrews 9
9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations applying until the time of the new order. NIV
​

Hebrews 9
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. KJV

Hebrews 9
9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,
10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. NASB




​

You objected to the translation of the Greek word sarx as external. Following is Strong's outline of Biblical usage for sarx:

1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
2) the body
a) the body of a man
b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship
1) born of natural generation
c) the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"
1) without any suggestion of depravity
2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast
4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

​

Clearly sarx=flesh. The flesh is extenal, as opposed to the spirit being internal. The KJV translates sarx as carnal in this passage.



I think that the real question in this passage concerns the meaning of the time of "new order" or "reformation." The Greek word translated as new order or reformation is diorthosis. From Strongs:

1) in a physical sense, a making straight, restoring to its natural and normal condition something which in some way protrudes or has got out of line, as broken or misshapen limbs

2) of acts and institutions, reformation


​

From Thayers Lexion:

​

The perfecting of things refers to the times of the Messiah. The time of new order, and the time of reformation, refer to the time when Christ gave His life as a sacrifice for the sin of this world. It is also clear from reading these three separate translations that the time of restoration is in the past tense.

I will try to get a chance to address the other issues later.

I look forward to it. I'll respond to some of your other comments later.

 

[baker]

Well so far, other than Twhite's comment about the temple sealing requirements originating with D&C 132, it seems like the support for a "requirement of temple ceremony", being of God, really seems to be mostly of speculation of what the bible "doesn't say" as opposed to any actual scriptural support.

I think Skylark has made some very good points about what scriptures we do have and what they are actually saying.

But let me throw this out for consideration before getting into the actual lds church history on this claim:

Since all of this temple history originates with and is documented in jewish history, why don't we see the jewish faith practising the similar ceremonies. I mean isn't it reasonable to think, that if this is what was really practiced in the temple that Solomon built, we would see much more of this being practiced within the jewish faith. Why do they not practice these "restricted ceremonies" with respect to marriage and endowments? If they ever did, when did they abandone such practices? If they never participated in such practices, how do lds rationalize these practices originating from the jewish temple?

 

[fatboys]

Well so far, other than Twhite's comment about the temple sealing requirements originating with D&C 132, it seems like the support for a "requirement of temple ceremony", being of God, really seems to be mostly of speculation of what the bible "doesn't say" as opposed to any actual scriptural support.

I think Skylark has made some very good points about what scriptures we do have and what they are actually saying.

But let me throw this out for consideration before getting into the actual lds church history on this claim:

Since all of this temple history originates with and is documented in jewish history, why don't we see the jewish faith practising the similar ceremonies. I mean isn't it reasonable to think, that if this is what was really practiced in the temple that Solomon built, we would see much more of this being practiced within the jewish faith. Why do they not practice these "restricted ceremonies" with respect to marriage and endowments? If they ever did, when did they abandone such practices? If they never participated in such practices, how do lds rationalize these practices originating from the jewish temple?

Jewish rites were of the lower laws.