The LDS temples

[baker]

Jewish rites were of the lower laws.

More personal speculation I assume, seeing that you have no support for such claim. Am I correct?

 

[Doc T]

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.

Thank you for posting Strong's definations. I was aware of them, but others here may not have been. It was because of this that I "objected" to the translation of "external" as I do not see that usage among Strong's list. But perhaps it is because I am thinking of a different understanding of the word "external". Perhaps I can ask a question to clairify. Would you consider baptism to be an "external" ordinance? If so, then we are probably on the same page.

Doc

~

 

[Doc T]

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.

As I have contended in the past. The Bible cannot be properly understood in a vacuum and we must study and understand the historical background to fill in areas that are not clear in the Bible text.

And besides I have not even addressed the issue of the "requirement of temple ceremony, being of God" I was waiting for you to take the lead. I simply was conversing with skylark about the OT temple.

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

I hardily agree, Skylark always makes good comments.

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?

I am a bit suprized by your questions. It seems obvious to me that throughout the OT the jews went through periods of faithful temple worship and then periods of temple neglect only to be followed by a prophet coming on to the scene and calling Israel to repentance for neglecting the temple. Today, as with the early Christians, when their temples were destroyed and they were not permitted to rebuild, they did without the best they could and are now wait for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem again.

Doc

~

 

[rnmomof7]

Thank you for posting Strong's definations. I was aware of them, but others here may not have been. It was because of this that I "objected" to the translation of "external" as I do not see that usage among Strong's list. But perhaps it is because I am thinking of a different understanding of the word "external". Perhaps I can ask a question to clairify. Would you consider baptism to be an "external" ordinance? If so, then we are probably on the same page.

Doc

~

It is an outward sign of an inside change. Unnecessary for salvation , it is a testimony to what has already occurred.

I believe to Mormons it is a necessary ordinance for exhaultation

 

[skylark1]

I agree. Baptism is an external (physical) symbol of a spiritual (inward) reality.

 

[Doc T]

I agree. Baptism is an external (physical) symbol of a spiritual (inward) reality.

Then as I suspected, we are talking the same thing. Then do you agree with my statement "Washings and annointings are of physical origin symbolic of spiritual."?

Doc

~

 

[Doc T]

It is an outward sign of an inside change. Unnecessary for salvation, it is a testimony to what has already occurred.

I believe to Mormons it is a necessary ordinance for exhaultation

Correct, not necessary for salvation, but we believe that keeping all of God's commands are necessary for returning and living with him and receiving all the blessings in store for those who overcome. (exaltation)

Doc

~

 

[skylark1]

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").

This statement raises an obvious question. If only those who are "worthy" are allowed into an LDS temple, then why does this speak of "profane persons" sanctified through annointings in an LDS temple? This is a serious question.

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"]

"The New Testament identifies Christ as the great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, but says nothing more on the subject."

Exactly. I guess that you have not found scriptual support for this statement that you made?

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

 

[rnmomof7]

Correct, not necessary for salvation, but we believe that keeping all of God's commands are necessary for returning and living with him and receiving all the blessings in store for those who overcome. (exaltation)

Doc

~

But then EVERY one is saved by LDS theology except Lucifer and his demons that go into the pit .

 

[rnmomof7]

[/i]
This statement raises an obvious question. If only those who are "worthy" are allowed into an LDS temple, then why does this speak of "profane persons" sanctified through annointings in an LDS temple? This is a serious question.

And an excellent one .

 

[arizona_sunshine]

This statement raises an obvious question. If only those who are "worthy" are allowed into an LDS temple, then why does this speak of "profane persons" sanctified through annointings in an LDS temple? This is a serious question.

Just to preface my commentary, I have never been to the temple and know very little about it - save the symbolic nature of its rites.

The answer to this question, I believe that no member of the LDS church, even one whos actions deem them 'temple worthy' find themselves, alone, justified and sanctified without the Lord. The 'annointings' must be symbolic of the workings of Christ's atonement on His disciples.

 

[skylark1]

arizona_sunshine,

You can read the full quote that Doc posted from Donald Parry on post #76. I wasn't implying that LDS find themselves to be temple worthy without the Lord. My point was if LDS who participate in temple annointings consider themselves worthy, why did the quotation speak of them as profane? I hope that made more sense.

 

[AMMON]

But then EVERY one is saved by LDS theology except Lucifer and his demons that go into the pit .

Incorrect. There are many who shall become Sons of Perdition and shall be thrust to Hell to dwell with Satan and his angles; Cain, for example, has already earned that dishonor. Further, we only consider those "saved" who enter the Celestial Kingdom, and few there will be that enter therein for the path thereto is narrow and many shall stray therefrom unto paths of darkness. These shall inherit a lower kingdom, which is not salvation but damnation.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

I wasn't implying that LDS find themselves to be temple worthy without the Lord. My point was if LDS who participate in temple annointings consider themselves worthy, why did the quotation speak of them as profane? I hope that made more sense.

I didnt think you were implying anything, I know you were asking an honest question. All I am saying is that those who are 'temple worthy' in their own eyes / the eyes of the 'church' may still be 'profane' / 'imperfect' in the eyes of God. Temple worthiness does not mean 'calling and election is sure.'

 

[skylark1]

I didnt think you were implying anything, I know you were asking an honest question. All I am saying is that those who are 'temple worthy' in their own eyes / the eyes of the 'church' may still be 'profane' / 'imperfect' in the eyes of God. Temple worthiness does not mean 'calling and election is sure.'

What do you believe makes us perfect in the eyes of God?

 

[Doc T]

This statement raises an obvious question. If only those who are "worthy" are allowed into an LDS temple, then why does this speak of "profane persons" sanctified through annointings in an LDS temple? This is a serious question.

I believe that Dr. Perry used the word "profane" in this sense of definition #3 on dictionary.com:

3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.

So, he was referring to uninitiated (profane) persons.

"The New Testament identifies Christ as the great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, but says nothing more on the subject."

Exactly. I guess that you have not found scriptual support for this statement that you made?

You would be correct, that from the Bible only, there is not the support for that statement. It comes from historical documents and the other LDS scriptures.

Doc

~

 

[arizona_sunshine]

What do you believe makes us perfect in the eyes of God?

Only the Atonement of Christ.

 

[Doc T]

What do you believe makes us perfect in the eyes of God?

Arizona, feel free to add your imput, but to me the thing that makes us perfect in the eyes of God, is having entered into a covenant with him through baptism, and then us doing our best to live Christ's teachings, but falling short and atonement of Christ making up for that failure in spite of any efforts on our part. In other words, our efforts do not save us, but are still necessary to remain in the covenant.

Doc

~

 

[skylark1]

Only the Atonement of Christ.

I agree.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

In other words, our efforts do not save us, but are still necessary to remain in the covenant.

Agreed.

I do, however, believe there are those who will 'go thru the motions' having never truly understood and applied the atonement. All ordinances, rituals and rites of the LDS church point to the Atonement. Christ is the only way, and I believe He has instituted these practices to remind us of that.