It all began in 1994. The Mormon leaders promised to stop having their people do work for these Holocaust victims, but, somehow, the Jewish names kept getting into the main database. The last time the Jewish and LDS representatives met was in 2008. One disappointed Jewish leader, Ernie Michel, refused to participate any longer. Despite losing Michel, the leaders kept meeting and struck a deal in early September that is totally based on a new computer system, which will apparently no longer allow participants to submit names of Holocaust victims or even celebrities. (Even Adolph Hitler has had his work done in a Mormon temple!). We can only keep our fingers crossed because they’ve promised this before.

Michel, who appeared relieved that an agreement was made, said, “We are hopeful now that [Mormons] will keep their word,” he told a Jewish Week journalist, “and that this will lead to a much better relationship.” (The Salt Lake Tribune, September 2, 2010). “Keep their word”? Ouch, it sounds like Mr. Michel has some issues with Salt Lake City.

OK, so now I have some questions for the Mormon leadership. First of all, does this mean that, through no fault of their own, these six million Jewish folks who never heard the Mormon gospel will never, ever get to hear it in the next life either because of the complaints of a few who were living? Death in a concentration camp and no hope for any level of heaven…does this seem fair?

Let’s be honest. If Mormons really do believe that there is another possibility after death to accept the LDS gospel, it seems like the LDS leadership should have just told the Jewish leadership, “Too bad. If these dead spirits don’t want to allow the missionaries from Paradise through their doors, then they can hide behind the couch like every other nonMormon who happens to be living.”  Oh, and what about the celebrities whose work hasn’t been done yet? Apparently, they’re doomed as well. Sorry David Letterman and Jose Canseco.

Another question: If a Holocaust victim already had work done for him/her before 2010, does he/she get to still have the missionaries visit him/her in Spirit Prison? Or do those spirit missionaries have to return to Paradise? What a conundrum!

Still more questions: Could this rule be expunged once the millennium starts? After all, the millennium is when the temple work is supposed to be completed. Will the Mormon leaders not care about hurt feelings during this 1,000-year period of time and just do the work anyway, darn anyone who gets in the way?

Finally, is it possible for me to petition and have my name removed from the genealogical rolls? I want to get in on this deal. After all, what if I never wanted this work done in the first place? Could we expand the sign-in sheet to include those of us who want to be exempt?

I think I wouldn’t make a good God anyway, so I’m probably best left to Outer Darkness. Just ask my wife and kids.

“It would be an oversight to discuss effective ways to increase temple activity and not offer this word of warning: with every effort to build temples or to increase temple attendance, forces of evil will inevitably arise to destroy these efforts…

“The ‘bells of hell’ will ring to rally evil against any effort to establish a holy temple on the earth or to carry out the sacred ordinances performed therein.” (61)

When I read these words I immediately thought of a passage from the Old Testament. In 1 Samuel 5 the Philistines had captured the ark of God. They brought it into the “house of Dagon,” their god, and set the ark next to their idol.

“And when the people of Ashdod rose early the next day, behold, Dagon had fallen face downward on the ground before the ark of the Lord. So they took Dagon and put him back in his place. But when they rose early on the next morning, behold, Dagon had fallen face downward on the ground before the ark of the Lord, and the head of Dagon and both his hands were lying cut off on the threshold. Only the trunk of Dagon was left to him… The hand of the Lord was heavy against the people of Ashdod, and he terrified and afflicted them with tumors, both Ashdod and its territory.” (1 Sam 5:3-4, 6)

The Philistines might have understood this as “the bells of hell” ringing to rally evil against their god Dagon. In fact, though they recognized that the God of Israel was responsible for the afflictions that had come upon them and Dagon, they did not turn away from their false god but merely sent the LORD God of Israel away from their land (1 Sam 6:7-8). They did not heed the warning God so graciously gave them. The Philistines continued to make war against Israel and her God, and the hand of the LORD was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel the prophet (1 Sam 7:13).

While Mormons tend to think opposition to Mormonism and LDS temples is the work of Satan, couldn’t it be something quite different? Couldn’t it be the gracious hand of the LORD outstretched toward the Mormon people, calling them to put away their false gods, and to turn to Him and be saved (Isaiah 45:22)?

Would that the Mormon people would respond to the LORD as the Israelites did when Samuel called them to repentance:

“And Samuel said to all the house of Israel, ‘If you are returning to the Lord with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtaroth from among you and direct your heart to the Lord and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.’ So the people of Israel put away the Baals and the Ashtaroth, and they served the Lord only.” (1 Sam 7:3-4)

“’Mary Mother of Jesus,’ the spouse of ‘Joseph’ ‘of the House of David…’ was baptized and confirmed a member of the LDS Church by proxy on December 9, 2009 in the Idaho Falls Idaho (LDS) Temple. She was subjected to initiatory temple ordinances on December 16, 2009; an endowment ceremony on December 26, 2009; and a sealing to parents on January 7, 2010—all rites occurred in the Idaho Falls Idaho Temple.”

While Ms. Radkey found “Joseph” listed as Mary’s spouse, the submission form indicated Mary’s “Husband #1″ was “God the Father.”

Ms. Radkey says her research also turned up recent proxy temple ordinances on behalf of Jesus Christ, though he is identified in the records as “Jesus Christian” and “Jesus Cristian.” Ms. Radkey explains the records show that Jesus was baptized by proxy on April 8, 2010, and after initiatory and endowment ordinances, was finally sealed to his “spouse” “Mary Magdelena” on April 9, 2010 – all at the Salt Lake City Temple. The same proxy ordinances were performed for “Mary Magdelena” on the same dates in the same LDS temple.

Ms. Radkey found a record for “Heavenly Father” as well:

“There was a separate listing in New Family Search, on March 2, 2010, for ‘Heavenly Father’ with his ‘personal identifier’ given as 21JV-899. Details of any marriage sealing of ‘Heavenly Father’ to ‘[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin]‘ were marked ‘Not available.’ Individual LDS ordinances for ‘Heavenly Father,’ like baptism, confirmation, initiatory and endowment rituals, were tagged ‘Needs more information.’

“By March 10, 2010, roughly a week later, the name of ‘Heavenly Father’ had vanished from record 21JV-899, and ‘Heavenly Father’ was no longer listed as Mary’s spouse on record 9HFF-PVQ for ‘[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin].’ …

“Record 21JV-899 for ‘Heavenly Father’ now shows ‘[Unknown Name] (-) Living.’ The LDS ordinance section of this entry currently reads: ‘This individual is living, and his or her ordinances cannot be displayed. To obtain this information, have the person contact his or her ward or branch clerk.’”

I would be surprised if the LDS Church approved (or would ever approve) proxy temple ordinances for Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ, so please don’t misunderstand me to be suggesting that these records and ordinances had official sanction. However, doesn’t this make you wonder?

• What led any Mormon to think and act on the notion that Jesus Christ needs proxy temple ordinances like baptism by the “proper authority,” endowments, and temple marriage?  According to Mormonism, if Jesus is a god he’s already obtained those essential requirements for exaltation, hasn’t he?
• Why would Jesus’ mother need proxy ordinances performed on her behalf? If temple ordinances were part of the early Christian church (as the LDS Church claims) wouldn’t Mary have participated in her own ordinances while she was living?
• What would cause someone to identify Mary’s “husband #1″ as God the Father? Is this the logical conclusion to which a Mormon has come based on the teachings of Brigham Young and other early LDS leaders?
• As Ms. Radkey asks, “Why was ‘Heavenly Father’ listed in New FamilySearch—not only as the spouse of Mary—but as a living being who could possibly need LDS ordinances?

Does LDS doctrine naturally lead to this kind of thinking about God?

“His [a patron's] personal battle with sleep is not relevant to accomplishing vicarious work in the temple.  He accomplished all that was necessary to complete the ordinance. His presence alone in the temple blessed his life, blessed the [temple] session he attended, and blessed a son of God on the other side of the veil.”

In the introduction to his book Mr. Drake reminds his readers that “all aspects of temple ordinances are important” (p. ix). LDS Apostle James Talmage wrote, “In every detail the endowment ceremony contributes to covenants of morality of life, consecration of person to high ideals, devotion to truth, patriotism to nation, and allegiance to God” (The House of the Lord, p. 84). The endowment ceremony itself includes specific instruction from a temple worker reminding patrons to “be alert [and] attentive.”

The fact that temple patrons struggle to stay awake during the LDS endowment ceremony is understandable and no real surprise. What does surprise me is that, whether the patron is awake or asleep, it’s not at all relevant to vicarious temple work. If this is true, how are we to understand LDS temple work?

LDS Apostle Robert D. Hales taught,

“The primary purpose of the temple is to provide the ordinances necessary for our exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Temple ordinances guide us to our Savior and give us the blessings that come to us through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Temples are the greatest university of learning known to man, giving us knowledge and wisdom about the Creation of the world. ” (Ensign, October 2009, p. 48)

To carry Mr. Hales’ analogy forward, anyone who sleeps through their “university” classes will not pass the course, so doesn’t this suggest that one should stay awake for his or her own endowment even if it’s okay to sleep through vicarious ordinances? Except, perhaps, for this: Joseph Smith taught,

“It is not only necessary that you should be baptized for your dead, but you will have to go through all the ordinances for them, the same as you have gone through to save yourselves.” (History of the Church, 6:385)

And Wilford Woodruff said,

“It takes just as much to save a dead man as a living man.” (Journal of Discourses 19:228)

So if one needs to stay awake to learn and receive instruction necessary for their own endowment, is not the same reception of instruction necessary for a proxy endowment?

Brigham Young taught,

“We have a work to do just as important in its sphere as the Savior’s work was in its sphere. Our fathers cannot be made perfect without us; we cannot be made perfect without them. They have done their work and now sleep. We are now called upon to do ours; which is to be the greatest work man ever performed on the earth.” (Journal of Discourses 18:213)

Heber J. Grant said,

“We have all that is necessary, not only for our own salvation, but that we may be in very deed ‘Saviors upon Mount Zion,’ and enter into the temples of our God and save our ancestors who have died without a knowledge of the gospel.” (Conference Report, p. 28, April 1899)

Doesn’t it seem odd that Mormons would sleep through their work as “Saviors upon Mount Zion”?

In his book Mr. Drake explains,

“It should be understood, however, that the part of temple work that relates to the performance and recording of vicarious ordinances has nothing to do with the alertness of the patron… [even in the event of a sleeping patron] The opportunity was given for a post-mortal son of God to receive an ordinance essential for exaltation. This was accomplished, and there is nothing…that suggests that the living proxy must be alert, attentive, and completely focused on each word of the ordinance for this work to stand as valid.” (pp. 12-13)

What, exactly, is a person’s function as he or she stands as proxy for a deceased person’s LDS endowment? Is it just the presence of human bodies of flesh and bone that are required to make it possible for the dead to appropriate this “essential saving ordinance” for themselves? If temple work for the dead is all about “performance and recording,” is the whole vicarious temple experience, where Mormons “taste the sweet joy of saviorhood,” merely a matter of bookkeeping?

—–

“sweet joy of saviorhood” from John Widstoe, quoted in Church News, April 3, 1999, p. 5

The following Topical Guide entry brings together for us the “scriptures most often used in [LDS] gospel classes and study” on the topic of Geneology and Temple Work. Take a gander at this partial entry scanned from a 1986 LDS Standard Work. (A complete list of verses can be found here.):

One thing I hope you noticed is how it reads.

“all Israel were reckoned by genealogy…Let us go to the house of the Lord… to bring out the prisoners from the prison… in mine house… I will give them an everlasting name…”

The LDS believe they need to trace genealogies so they can “go to the house of the Lord” (their temples) to do the proxy work necessary “to bring out the prisoners from [spirit] prison,” and that they get a new “everlasting name” there, and so on and so forth. So what we’re seeing here is that the Topical Guide entry reads just like the LDS belief.

Are you just going to “buy” this without checking it out? DO THESE LDS-CHURCH-SELECTED BIBLE VERSES TRULY SUPPORT THE LDS BELIEF?

To get an idea of the answer to that question, let’s look at the partial verse from the Topical Guide, Isaiah 42:7 (“to bring out the prisoners from the prison“), in its immediate context.

Isaiah 42:5-8: Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
I am the LORD: that is my name….”

For brevity, I quoted starting at verse 5. But if you back-up and read Isaiah 42:1-4, you see that the verses are about Jesus. To be completely certain, you can read Matthew 12:15-21 which quotes this part of Isaiah and applies it to Jesus. Continuing on subject, then, with verses 5-8, we see that Jesus would be coming, as promised, to open the eyes of the blind (Matt 13:15, Mark 8:18) and release the captives from prison (John 8:32-34, 35-36). Look at what Jesus Himself said in Luke 4:18-19, where he quoted from Isaiah 61:1, a verse that goes on to talk about Him preaching good tidings (2 Cor. 5:21) unto the meek, binding up the brokenhearted, and proclaiming liberty to the captives (John 3:15-17).

So Isaiah 42:7 is the good news, the “gospel” of Jesus the Savior! The immediate context shows this, and the New Testament verifies it. What is extremely important to notice is that there is no mention of temples, no temple work, and no genealogy. Did you see any? No?

So we see that, pushing Jesus aside to make room for its own doctrine, the LDS Church has taken this piece of verse from its context, placed it together with some other similarly separated pieces of verses, and carefully assembled the pieces into a readable sequence which presents LDS doctrine but bears no resemblance to what the biblical writers intended.

Folks, THIS IS BRAIN-WASHING.

Either that, or despite the continuity and simplicity of the gospel message throughout the Bible, there are actually small portions of sentences, strewn throughout the Bible in dissimilar text, hidden so that only the elect elite can find and meaningfully assemble the real truth, which contradicts the overall theme of the Bible. Is this what you believe? Is this how you believe God works? I hope not. The Bible is immensely rich and full — but its message is simple and visible to anyone who looks…

Here’s one last question for those of you who are tempted to say that the Spirit showed you that the Mormon representation of these verses is true. Is it that you read the Bible on your own, and somehow came to the conclusions that your church did, before hearing it from your church? Or did your church explain it to you first, after which you decided that’s what it meant?

Brainwash…

In the October 2009 Ensign LDS Apostle Robert D. Hales wrote about the “Blessings of the Temple.” Some excerpts from the article:

“The temple endowment blessings are as essential for each of us as was our baptism…

“The temple’s saving ordinances are essential to–and even the central focus of–the eternal plan of happiness…

“The primary purpose of the temple is to provide the ordinances necessary for our exaltation in the celestial kingdom…

“…know the importance of the saving temple ordinances and temple covenants and their necessity in achieving eternal goals…

“The temple is a sacred edifice, a holy place, where essential saving ceremonies and ordinances are performed to prepare us for exaltation…

“Our objective is…to be worthy to stand and live in the presence of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, for all eternity–to achieve what is called eternal life.” (Ensign, October 2009, 46-49).

In Mormonism then, temples and the covenants and ordinances accomplished therein, are essential, necessary, and the central focus of God’s plan for saving people and preparing them to achieve their eternal goal of exaltation (aka eternal life). This is, in fact, the primary purpose of LDS temples.

Neither of the official LDS websites (lds.org and mormon.org) include a  glossary entry for the term “exaltation,” but lds.org directs inquiries to the section on “eternal life.” Though a bit ambiguous, the definition reads in part,

“Eternal life, or exaltation, is to live in God’s presence and to continue as families (see D&C 131:1–4).”

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a little more informative:

“To Latter-day Saints, exaltation is a state that persons can attain in becoming like God–salvation in the ultimate sense (D&C 132:17)…This exalted status, called eternal life, is available to be received by a man and wife. It means not only living in God’s presence, but receiving the power to do as God does, including the power to bear children after the resurrection (TPJS, pp. 300-301; D&C 132:19).” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “Exaltation”)

The “Eternal Life”  entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism speaks more about how to achieve it than what it is, but the reader is directed to the entry titled “Godhood” for more information. That says in part,

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all resurrected and perfected mortals become gods (cf. Gen. 3:22; Matt. 5:48). They will dwell again with God the Father, and live and act like him in endless worlds of happiness, power, love, glory, and knowledge; above all, they will have the power of procreating endless lives…

“…while the faithful worship only one God in spirit and in truth, there exist other beings who have attained the necessary intelligence and righteousness to qualify for the title ‘god.’ Jesus Christ is a god and is a separate personage, distinct from God the Father…

“Latter-day Saints believe that God achieved his exalted rank by progressing much as man must progress and that God is a perfected and exalted man…” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “Godhood”)

LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie provided a concise and articulate explanation of exaltation:

“Celestial marriage is the gate to exaltation, and exaltation consists in the continuation of the family unit in eternity. Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life which God lives…they have spirit children in the resurrection, in relation to which offspring they stand in the same position that God our Father stands to us. They inherit in due course the fulness of the glory of the Father, meaning that they have all power in heaven and on earth. (D.&C. 76:50-60; 93:1-40.) ‘Then shall they be gods,…’” (Mormon Doctrine, “Exaltation,” 257)

If, as LDS Apostle Hales said, the primary purpose of the temple is to provide the ordinances necessary for our exaltation; and if, as LDS Apostle McConkie has said, exaltation is procreating spirit children in the resurrection to whom we are then Gods; then it seems entirely reasonable to conclude, though perhaps a bit simplistically, the purpose of LDS temples is to make men into Gods.

———————-

Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.

———————-

Mr. Wallace states in his article that, in 2008, after a long period of litigation, the LDS Church lost its tax exemption for its second British temple, located in Preston, England:

“In analyzing the pertinent law, it was determined that only structures which were open to public religious services were exempt from the tax. It was ruled that since the public in general and Mormons who failed to pay tithe were denied access to the temple that it failed to meet the test of being open to public worship.”

Mr. Wallace argues that taxes should be paid on all LDS temples around the world because they are not open to the public and they don’t provide any service beneficial to the public or government.

Mr. Wallace explains,

“Temple Patrons are members of the church who have passed strict investigation as to morals, strength of church membership and the most important, being a full tithe payer to the church treasury. The tithe represents a full ten percent of gross income before any governmental taxes are deducted. A member in otherwise good standing but failing the full tithe requirement is denied a pass from the local church hierarchy to receive a Temple recommend…

“Probably less than 30% of Mormons are full tithe payers and therefore 70% are ineligible for the temple recommend. Boiled down to the lowest denominator, only members who have paid the price for the ‘Blessings’ of the temple are allowed in it…

“…each patron may return to the temple and do proxy work for each of their ancestry provided they continue to obtain the Temple Recommend each year by paying a full tithing. It is very similar to the privilege to drive a car upon the highways by purchasing an annual license.”

Mr. Wallace goes on to liken the Church’s promised rewards for temple participation to “buying a share in the Brooklyn Bridge.” Of course, he’s writing from the perspective of one who no longer believes Mormonism is true and who has come to believe it’s all a “scam”. He sees the only winner in this scenario to be the one who ends up with all the money — the LDS Church. Therefore, he proposes, “let the church at least pay back to local governments a portion of its gain from the temple scheme.”

Mr. Wallace seems pretty cynical about Mormonism, and perhaps about religion in general, but he presents some interesting ideas. What do you think about his notion that a Temple Recommend is like buying a vehicle license? Or that any supposed spiritual benefits from temple attendance are “purchased” with the patron’s cash?

One might argue that it’s not just disobedience in tithe-paying that would bar someone from the temple, but disobedience of any of the required commandments would forbid participation. This would be tragic because, according to Mormonism, the only way a person can regain the presence of Heavenly Father — the only way anyone can spend eternity in the presence of God — is by going through the temple:

“Only through the eternal ordinances provided in temples can Heavenly Father’s children return to His presence.” (Church News, 5/25/2002, 16)

“It is only through the temple that we can regain the presence of our Heavenly Father.” (Cheryl C. Lant, “The Steps to the Temple,” Ensign, August 2009, 23)

So does this mean that a person cannot be fully reconciled to God and live with Him eternally unless he gives an honest tenth of his income to the LDS Church? And also keeps the Word of Wisdom? And also attends all his Church meetings? And also sustains the current Prophet? And also lives the law of chastity? And also keeps all his covenants? etc.? Does this mean a person can only come to the Father through the Mormon temple? What do you think about that? And how does it fit with John 14:6?

———————-

Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.

———————-

On June 2nd (2009) the Salt Lake Tribune ran a story about recent findings discovered by non-Mormon genealogical researcher Helen Radkey. The Salt Lake Tribune reported,

“Prominent fundamentalist Mormons, most of whom were excommunicated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for practicing polygamy while they were alive, have been posthumously re-baptized in LDS temples, a Salt Lake City researcher says.

“Helen Radkey said in a new report that she obtained church records on 20 fundamentalists — from murderer Ervil LeBaron to Joseph Musser to Rulon Jeffs — showing that they’ve been baptized and have had their plural marriages ‘sealed’ for time and eternity by proxy LDS members, one as recently as this year.” (The article, “Polygamous fundamentalists baptized by proxy into LDS Church, researcher says,” is in the Salt Lake Tribune archives and can be downloaded for a fee. However, the entire article can also be found at the ICSA website.)

On Mormon Curtain Ms. Radkey has detailed her research findings, including names, dates and historical background information on many of the fundamentalists for whom LDS temple work has been performed. For example,

“Rulon Clark Allred was born into a polygamous family in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Allred’s decision to take plural wives came in his twenties following what he described as a vision. That decision resulted in the estrangement of his first wife, Katherine Lucy Handy, whom he had been sealed to in the Salt Lake (LDS) Temple in 1926. Allred was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1940 for practicing polygamy. In 1941, his plural wives were also cut off from the Church… Allred was murdered in his office in Murray, Utah, on May 10, 1977, on the orders of Ervil LeBaron, the head of a rival polygamous group. At the time of his death, Allred was the husband of at least seven wives, the father of forty-eight children, and the spiritual leader of thousands of Mormon fundamentalists. Although the 1926 marriage sealing between Allred and Handy was annulled in 1942–Handy remarried in 1940–online IGI records still display the original 1926 sealing. Several of these records also list Mabel Finlayson, a plural wife of Allred, as an additional spouse. …Allred was posthumously baptized as recently as January 29, 2009 in the Ogden Utah Temple. He was previously baptized in 2001, 2002, and 2008. He was endowed and sealed to his parents in 2002 and 2008. Mormons gave plural marriage for Rulon Allred a recent thumbs up-when he was sealed by proxy to two of his wives, Ruth Rachel Barlow, and Ethel Jessop, on December 16, 2008 in the Ogden Utah Temple…”

A Shield & Refuge Ministry asks, “Why does the LDS Church condemn the practice of polygamy by Mormon fundamentalists, while at the same time, their temple system accepts deceased Mormon fundamentalists and many of their plural marriages?” That’s a good question.

It has long been understood within Mormonism that polygamy will be practiced to some degree in eternity. Three current Mormon apostles have been eternally sealed in the temple to two women each (Dallin Oaks, L. Tom Perry, and Russell M. Nelson are all widowers who have been remarried for time and eternity). But the polygamy of Mormon fundamentalists is quite different. Unlike the Mormon apostles who have but one living wife at a time, the fundamentalists have multiple living wives, and that in defiance of the laws of the Church and the land.

The polygamy of Rulon Allred (and so many others) was a sin requiring excommunication from the LDS Church. These men never repented in life. If they do so in death, according to Mormonism, their forfeited Church-membership blessings may be returned to them. Additionally, because of vicarious temple ordinances their (illegal) plural wives will be theirs for all eternity as well. They will (perhaps) become Gods and reign forever with their wives in their polygamous kingdoms.

Joseph Smith reportedly taught that the “dominion and powr” of a man’s eternal glory was directly tied to the number of wives and children he gained in mortality (see Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 99; Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 10-11). LDS author Todd Compton summarized,

“Thus in Smith’s Nauvoo ideology, a fullness of salvation depended on the quantity of family members sealed to a person in this life” (In Sacred Loneliness, 11, emphasis in the original).

How does all this fit together for the excommunicated Mormon fundamentalists and their wives? It appears they may gain a greater eternal glory than those faithful Mormons who obeyed the prophet and lived monogamously.

What would Jesus say to them concerning the “hour”?

Can you imagine a Jew and a Mormon discussing whether either place was more appropriate to worship at? It’d be the first century all over again.

The words of Jesus two thousand years ago still ring true and relevant for today.

Update:

HankSaint asked, “Why Samaria?”, and Martin gave a great answer:

Possibly Aaron is referring to Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan Woman (John 4:4-26) [Aaron's note: exactly]. She asks Jesus his views on the Temple in Jerusalem, and He answers “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem (John 4:21-23).

We often intepret this as meaning that the worship of the heart is more important than the physical location of the worshipper Its a valid exegesis, but it goes from A to C whilst leaving out B.

What’s not immediately apparent from the text is that the Samaritans had actually built a Temple on Mount Gerazim to rival the one in Jerusalem. It had been destroyed by John Hyrcanus, one of the Maccabees, about 130 years earlier.

If we note the Jews’ dislike of their gentile neighbours, then the subtext of the encounter between Jesus and the woman becomes apparent. Jesus, a Jew, passes through a Samaritan town, and after a discussion about buckets and water, the woman confronts Jesus with the most important issue of her day; something like “We had a temple, but your guys came and ripped it down. Now we have to go to Jerusalem to worship, but when we do, you treat us like dirt.”

Here’s the important bit. If Jesus had been promoting a temple-building movement, he would have said something along the lines of “Your temple was illegitimate, but ours is the real deal” – kind of “our temple is better than yours”. He should have defended the Temple in Jerusalem.

But he doesn’t. In fact he removes both temples from the equation, stating that true worship doesn’t come from the Temple, it comes from the worshipper; “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24).

So, Jesus did not consider the Jerusalem Temple to be an essential part of true worship. It was destroyed in AD 70, never to be rebuilt and I believe the early Christians saw this as God vindicating their message.

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

The Curse of Cain returns?