“Now the chief priests and the whole Council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'” (Matt 26:59-61)
Were these men lying? Todays readers of Matthew are aware of an earlier encounter that our Lord Jesus had with Jewish leaders early in his ministry. Asked for a sign by the Jews he replies “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19-21). An attentive reader of this exchange, which occurred after the first cleansing of the temple, will know that the witnesses distorted both the words and the meaning of Jesus’ claim. Their misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying to his interrogators is understandable, John tells us that even his disciples did not understand what Christ meant until after his resurrection (John 2:21, 22). These exchanges in Matthew’s and John’s Gospels are just two, of many, examples showing the role that Christ saw for the temple in past, present, and future redemptive history.
In his paper for the 1959 Jewish Quarterly “Christian Envy of the Temple” Hugh W. Nibley, a frequently cited Mormon apologist tries to take Christians to task for our ignoring the temple. He claims that, “the Christian world has been perennially haunted by the ghost of the temple.” and that “the temple has never lost its power to stir men’s imaginations and excite their emotions, and the emotion which it has most often inspired in Christian breasts has certainly been that of envy, a passion the more dangerous for being suppressed.” While this article is easy for Protestants to ignore because of Dr. Nibley’s failure to address Reformed theological views of the temple it is important for Christians testifying to Mormons precisely because of what Dr. Nibley chooses to ignore. In her article “The Body as Temple in High Middle Ages” Dr. Jennifer Harris explains that, “Nibley overlooks the equation of body and Temple in the New Testament.” In fact Nibley creates a false dilemma for Christians by ignoring the orthodox theology of the incarnation (cf. Matt 1:23; Isaiah 7:14).
Also ignored by Dr. Nibley in his paper is the concept of “types” in theology. A “type” in theology is “a special example, symbol, or picture that God designed beforehand, and that he placed in history at an earlier point in time in order to point forward to a later, larger fulfillment.” An example of a type is the Levitiacal sacrificial system, pointing forward to the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. While Mormons may agree that the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament are fulfilled in Christ they fail to acknowledge that the tabernacle and temple are both a type pointing forward to a later larger fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
Both in Exodus 25:8 the making of the tabernacle and in 1 Kings 6:12, 13 the building of Solomon’s temple herald God the Son living with man (Matt 1:23; John 2:19-21; Rev 21:22). In union with Christ both the individual Christian and the Church itself become the dwelling place of God on earth (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; Eph 2:19-22). One of the most illustrative examples of the role of the temple/tabernacle and its fulfillment in Christ can be seen in Exodus 40:34 and the corresponding 1 Kings 8:10, 11. In these passages we see God filling the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple with his presence or his glory, foreshadowing the miraculous events that take place in the New Testament. First we see the fullness of the Spirit in Jesus Christ (Matt 3:16-17; John 1:14; 3:34-35) and then in the church (Acts 2:3-4; 1 Cor 3:16).
It is understandable, when you look at Dr. Nibley’s heterodox views of God and temple worship that he would look for an explanation for an absence of temples in today’s Christian worship. Sometimes the easiest answer to a question is the correct one. Orthodox Christians follow the teaching of the writer of Hebrews when he teaches, there is no need for temple worship because, “For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf” (Heb 9:24 ff.).
Something else can be seen from Dr. Nibley’s work, especially with regard to Mormon temple practices. Knowing his audience he chooses not to propose any correlation to Mormon temple rituals to those in ancient Jewish rites. Missing is any suggestion of parallels between Solomon’s temple and eternal marriages, baptisms for the dead, or other secret rituals. Instead he chooses to immerse himself, obliquely into the early Churches questions concerning eschatology and the role of a temple after the parousia. As if these questions have anything to do with the worship of God prior to the eschaton. In fact in dealing with as many “Churchman” as he does Dr. Nibley proves the opposite of his thesis. Christians have thought deeply about the role of the temple. They have debated and disagreed but they have done so with the knowledge that God is with us now and we do not need a temple to bring him closer.
The mormon temple is yet another example of a concept taken out of context in the Bible and misapplied, much like the “restored” priesthood, prophets, dietary laws, etc. The temple and the tabernacle were never ends unto themselves, they were types and shadows of Christ. The sacrifices carried out in the temple were never intended and were in fact insufficient to reconcile man to God, they were pointing to the perfect sacrifice of the cross. Every reason for having a temple in the first place was done away with and made obsolete at the cross (Heb 8:13). Why restore something that has become obsolete? In reality the claims that mormonism has restored something that Christ replaced with His own body is blasphemous. Little wonder that temple worship is so secretive in mormonism, the truth of what goes on inside and what the temple represents cannot stand up to scrutiny and comparison to the Word of God.
http://fo-mo.blogspot.com/2009/03/secret-versus-sacred.html
Aaron,
I’m almost besides myself with excitement. Can we actually discuss the Bible, instead of constantly referring to dreadful Biblical-sounding theories by some self-centered 19th Century North Americans?
The topic of the Temple is deeply ingrained into Biblical thought, culture and language, and I am delighted that you’ve brought it up. Where do we start? The centre of individual and corporate identity in ancient near-east culture? The Types of Christ? The failure of religion? All of the above?
Here’s a thought, which might suit the context of your post. In trying to find some scandal to pin on Jesus, his accusers finally settled on an offense against the Temple. It was not a matter of theology, or even authority that did it, but the consensus that Jesus had insulted the one thing that they valued above all else – their Temple.
They were right, of course. Jesus deliberately set about disenfranchising the Temple system. For example, you no longer went to the Temple to get clean, you went to Jesus himself (Matt 8:3).
Furthermore, God was no longer confined to the Temple, Evangelicals rightly see the tearing of the curtain as the opening of the way to God (Matt 27:51), but I like to think that it also unleashed God into the World in a new and counter-intuitive (for use, at least) way.
However, the accusers failed to see that Jesus was justified in positioning himself where the Temple was. In so doing they precipitated his execution and with it they wound up the operations of the earthly temple by the last legitimate act of blood sacrifice.
Jesus fulfilled all the intents and functions of the Temple, which is how I read Romans 10:4 “Christ is the end of the law…” Everything (yes, everything) the Temple did is done truly in Christ. As John writes, “I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.” (Rev 21:22). Our response should be to change direction from building earthly temples, to joining with Christ in the heavenly Temple built by God himself (Heb 3:1 – heck, just read the whole book).
I believe that to understand the Christ of the Bible, we must understand the Temple of the Bible. But, please, let’s not confuse the Biblical Temple with the poor imitations found in the LDS movement.
Last week a Mormon friend of mine (temple worthy Mormon for 20 years, but currently moving away from that faith) told me about her recent reading of Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus. She said reading about the Old Testament temple made her wonder, “How can Mormons say they are Christians? Christians believe the purpose of the temple is fulfilled in Christ. Christ Himself replaced the function of the Old Testament temple. But the [LDS] Church replaces — or augments — what Christ has done with its temples. Mormonism is really more akin to Judaism than to Christianity.”
Interesting observation.
Nibley really was coming at things from the Mormon mindset (fascination with the temple), because in all my years of evangelical Christianity I have not seen a shred of longing/excitement for the OT temple. We don’t need or want the temple. Why would we? Christ is the re-built temple. The temple was a type, or forshadowing for what God really intended, which is Jesus. I remember studying the OT temple in Sunday School and in sermons, but it was always in the historical sense, or of the temple pointing to Christ. God also does his purifying work through the Holy Spirit in us, his temples. Returning to lurkdom now….
Let’s look at what temples are/were in the OT. We read –
1 Chronicles 17 esp v 5 For I have not dwelt in an house since the day that I brought up Israel unto this day; but have gone from tent to tent, and from one tabernacle to another.
2 Samuel 7 esp v 6 Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.
(emphasis mine)
These are the same story just different versions, about when King David wanted to build a temple for God so that the Ark could be in a finer and more permanent housing. God told David that he cannot build the temple, but his son would be allowed. Note what I have bolded. God said that He had not lived in a house since the Israelites left Egypt. What? God lived in a house when the Israelites were in Egypt and possibly before? That is what this says at face value which most of you say is how to interpret scripture. If a temple is the physical House of God on this earth in which He dwells, then these scriptures indicate that temples have been on this earth since before the Exodus and the tabernacle. The tabernacle was a tent – a temporary abode while the Exodus was occurring. This too is found in the Bible including in the chapters above.
So what occurred in the temple? We know that the Law of Moses entailed animal sacrifices to be performed in the tabernacle and the temple, but what about before the Law of Moses – ie in Egypt and before? Most likely animal sacrifices were also performed then as well. Animal sacrifices were the duty of the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood, which is what we LDS teach was given to the Israelites when the Higher Priesthood (Melkizedec P/H) was taken from them because of their unbelief. All other temple ordinances (ie temple sealings, endowments, etc) were/are performed by the Melkizedec P/H so were not able to be performed after the Exodus, which is approximately when the Melkizedec P/H was removed. But before and during the settlement in Egypt when they had the Melkizedec P.H did they do these things? We don’t know do we, because there are no records of a temple at these times let alone what happened in them. But we do know that a temple existed because of the above verses in 1 Chronicles and 2 Samuel.
Yes, I agree that the temple and sacrifices are a type/symbol of Jesus, but types and symbols can have other meanings/uses too. As most keep pointing out God is the same yesterday, today and forever. If He has had a physical house on this earth to dwell in with His faithful people throughout the OT, then why should He change now? None of the verses in the article above state firmly that we do not need a temple on this earth. As far as I know in the Bible there is no verse that states temples are no longer necessary. All that I hear is conjecture about what verses/events mean but nothing solid. Why didn’t the early Christians build temples? If we LDS are correct then the early church was on this earth for only a couple of decades with the leaders (ie 12 apostles) being hounded and killed, etc – so there was not enough time to have them receive revelation about building a temple so none were built.
Martin, Revelations 21 is about the coming of the New Jerusalem and that there is no temple in THAT city. It does not say that there are not temples in other cities before the coming of the New Jerusalem, nor does it say that temples are not necessary.
But this is all my thoughts – not official doctrine nor other LDS thoughts. I may be wrong but to me it makes sense and is plausable.
Ralph,
What makes Mormons so much more righteous than Moses and the Israelites? Every time I read the Exodus I thank God I live today, because I know that I would have been wandering in the wilderness.
There are a few flaws in your theory. Where are the Melchizedek priesthood rituals listed? Where are the Melchizedek Temples in Egypt listed? Where do you get that the Melchizedek priesthood was taken from Israel? I have looked I cannot find it.
If the Jews had a Melchizedek temple system in Egypt why didn’t Pharaoh tell them to worship in the Melchizedek temples when Moses asked to go into the wilderness to worship(Exodus 5:1-9)? If the Jews had a Melchizedek temple system why didn’t they go and worship there when Moses and Aaron first spoke to the elders of Israel (Exodus 4:27-31)? Why didn’t the Elders of Israel mention to Moses we have the Melchizedek temple just down the road? If there was a Melchizedek temple/priesthood system why is there no mention of it’s removal? The Bible is generally very specific about the wrath of God. Why is there no mention of the destruction of the Melchizedek temples after the Jews departed from Egypt?
1 Chronicles 17 and 2 Samuel 7 do not in any way say or imply that there was a temple before the Exodus. God saying that he has not lived in a house since before the Israelites left Egypt does not mean he lived in a house in Egypt. For that matter you are missing the point of both of these passages. God is not concerned for David to build him a house, because God is going to build David a Kingdom and a dynasty that will be the messianic dream of Israel fulfilled by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Gundeck,
No where did I say that we are more righteous than Moses and the Israelites. It is up to God what He does to/with His people and what He gives/takes away from His people, not me. Besides, we teach that Moses held the Melchizedek (thanks for the correct spelling by the way) P/H and that he passed it on to Joshua who then passed it on through so that Elisha and Elija were able to hold that P/H as well. But the Melchizedek P/H was removed from the general congregation and the Levitical/Aaronic P/H was given to them. A lesser law (ie Mosaic Law) and P/H to be used as a schoolmaster to bring the Israelites back to God. As far as Bible passages, I do not believe that there are any – this is from modern revelation.
As far as the temple and God, in many places in the Bible the temple is called the house of God. Even God and Jesus held this stance. If it is the house of God and God made the statement about not dwelling in a house since the Israelites had left Egypt then it strongly infers that it is meant literally. In the Mosaic Law there is a couple of verses that mention hygene and sanitation and goes on to say that God walks through the camp and does not want to see anything defiling the streets. This was a very specific rule with a very specific reason. If it was not meant literally then why would God say it and have it in His law? Why not just leave it at go outside the camp and dig your own hole? So back to God dwelling in a house before the departure from Egypt and then in a tent since the departure of Egypt – its too specific to be figurative.
Yes, God was going to build a house and kingdom for David that would last be forever, but God also states that it would be David’s son that will build His house, not David. So there is nothing in there where God says that He does not care about a temple/house being built. In fact its quite the opposite – He states He wants it built by David’s son, not David. If He did not care then He would not have stated that David’s son will build the temple. He would have just stopped at David don’t build it, it doesn’t matter.
Ralph,
Thanks for your posts here, I truly respect your honesty and your modesty in acknowledging what’s your opinion and what you consider to be of higher authority.
I find the LDS “take” on the Melchizedek priesthood totally baffling. Wasn’t the whole point that Melchizedek’s priesthood was not based on his ancestry; “one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.” (Heb 7:16, NIV). Seems to me that the Writer of Hebrews is using a Rabbibinical argument to justify Jesus’ role as great high priest, given that he was of Judah, not Levi.
Perhaps what prompted the writing of the Letter to the Hebrews was the objection that Christ could not serve as our Great High Priest because his ancestry disqualified him from the role. If this were the case, then there’s a strong argument that the earliest Christians were teaching that Christ replaces the Temple System, which goes against Ralph’s suggestion that the early Christians wanted to build earthly Temples but were unable to do so because of persecution.
Returning to the text, the Writer explains that Melchizedek is a “type” of Christ, because he is “Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever” (Heb 7:3, NIV). We could say that Melchizedek is metaphorically timeless, but Christ’s priesthood is really eternal.
We might also note that the distinctive of Melchizedek’s priesthood is that he did not get it through some earthly institution, contrary to the Levitical Preisthood, who got their mandate through their ancestry. So what, in heaven’s name, is the LDS movement doing by instituting an “order” of Melchizedek? The whole idea is an oxymoron.
Anyhow, what should our response be? Given that Christ’s priesthood is permanent (Heb 7:24), the one thing we should not do is to try to replicate it by instituting an ephemeral, earthly priesthood in its place. That would be attempting to shove Christ aside.
Every time I hear about one of my contemporaries holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, I think that here is a man who has put himself where Christ should be.
PS The Writer of the Hebrews does a typically Hebrew thing in word-playing with the name Melchizedek (Heb 7:2). If my rudimentary Hebrew serves correctly, the components are “Melech” – King, “i” – first person singular possessive, and “zedek” righteousness. Similarly, we get “Abimelech” – the King is my father, and “Zedekiah” – YHWH is my righteousness. So, technically, Melchizedek could be “Righteousness is my King”, meaning “I am ruled by righteousness”, which is a fitting title for the Christ of God.
Ralph,
Don’t than me for spelling; it was the Google spell checker.
What I found most intriguing about Dr. Nibley’s paper is that the positions that you are taking in our discussion are completely absent. There is not a single reference to the Mormon temple philosophies or the Melchizedek priesthood. In fact when reading this piece by Dr. Nibley you have to wonder about some of the positions that he takes in making his argument and if he truly held them because they seem contrary to Mormonism.
For instance when you consider that the temple that Dr. Nibley is referring to in this paper is the Jewish temple from Second Temple Judaism, how can we, or he, ignore the Levitical sacrificial system and its connection to the temple of that era? In fact Dr. Nibley barely glosses over the fulfillment of the sacrificial system on the cross in an unrelated footnote. How then are we to take Dr. Nibley’s insinuation that Christian “Churchmen” got it wrong when they claim that the temple will not be reestablished? Remember Nibley is not referring to Mormon temples in this paper, but to Jewish (Levitical sacrificial) temples. What does this say for the doctrine of substationary atonement? If Christ died for our sins and negated the need for Levitical sacrifices as we both acknowledge why is Dr. Nibley positing the reestablishment of Jewish temples when it would be contrary to his own beliefs?
I found this article most interesting because Nibley, in order to confront Christianity to a Jewish audience, had to compromise his own beliefs.
After reading the very good posts above, I’m somewhat hesitant to join in because of the simplicity of my thinking. I can’t find the restored gospel of Mormonism anywhere in the Bible. None of it! Not only that, there’s no tradition passed down of any of it. Ah Ha, that’s where the conspiracy theory fills in the gaps of lack of any evidence for Mormonism being early Christianity. I have an issue here of Christian History that deals with the type of and places of early Christian worship. Sorry, no Mormonism! I know. The plot thickens.
Here, I just took the time to dig it out. I’m holding it up to the computer screen for everyone to see. It’s issue 37 and the title is “Worship in the Early Church”. Sub titles are: “Eyewitness Accounts”, “Where Christians Met”, “Did They Worship Like Pagans?”, “High-Drama Baptism”, “From the Last Supper to Holy Communkion”, Plus” Early Hymns, Sermons, and Prayers.
A sample: “The Didache (Greek for teaching) is our earliest example of a ‘church order.’ It sets out how congregations should baptize, fast, pray, receive visiting prophets, and the like. The Didache probably reached its present form before the end of the first century A.D., but it certainly contains earlier material.” OOPS, no temple worship or priesthood anywhere to be found. Imagine that! On pages 26 and 27 there’s even a detailed timeline regarding worship during the first 350 years of the Church. Nope, no Mormon stuff.
On the final page is a listing of books that cover the topic of worship and the early Church. Maybe our Mormon friends would consider buying some of these. I could supply the titles upon request. Kind of blows the whole Joseph Smith revelation trip though. That’s really the only place Mormonism can be found of course; in brother Joseph’s furtile imagination. Certainly can’t be found in history. Stupid historical records. They certainly take all of the fun out of being a Mormon! Ahhhhhhh what’s the difference. If you “feel” it, that’s all that counts.
Pingback: Gundeck makes a Guest apperance… « GUNDECK
Now as far as the temple goes from the Bible here is a rough breakdown. When Adam and Eve were created their was no temple. Then after they sinned and were kicked out of the garden their was no temple, so how were they saved?
It is believed from the time of Adam and Eve till God flooded the world and destroyed it, it was about 2,000 years. They figure this from the ages of what people lived. Anyway, no temples at all are ever mentioned. So if any part of our salvation come from entering the temple we have a problem.
Then after the flood up until the time Abram was called Abraham their was no temple and no Jews, their was simply the human race. After Abraham had Isaac, Isaac takes a bride, Isaac has Children, one of the kids is called Jacob. Jacob is a liar and deceiver and over in Genesis Chapter 32 he wrestles with God, and God after the Match renames Jacob, Israel. As of yet no temple, then we jump ahead to the Book of Exodus.
In here we Find Moses born and after about 80 years he goes and sets his people free. Now we find in Exodus chapter 11, The 10th and final plague. The reason why this is important is because, first off their is still no temple to save us. Then we find that Jews who did not put Blood upon the door and the sides, which formed a Cross by the way and Jesus was the lamb slain for us, but yet the Egyptians who were with the Jews under the blood were saved.
So we find some of both killed and saved. We are saved by the Blood of Christ, both Jews and gentiles. Then after the Jews were let go into the wilderness some of the Egyptians went with them. Now after Moses and his people were set free and allowed to go, the Pharaoh changed his mind and went after them. So after Moses and everyone crossed the red sea then they were given laws and rules to follow.
Even though God gave laws and rules to follow we are not saved by them. Remember their were people who lived and died before the laws and rules were given. And these laws and rules were given to the Jews, not the gentiles, so if the laws save us, and they were not given to gentiles (Non-Jews) how were they saved. Then if you read through the Book of Exodus, can anyone really say, I follow every one of those laws and rules?
Now starting in Exodus Chapter 25 we find the Sanctuary and the Tabernacle, but remember this is not the temple and not just anyone can enter it. Now I have been to the Fair LDS board and spoke with many LDS over their, some have told me that they lie about Keeping the WoW and keeping all that is required to enter the temple, because they want to get into the temple, Well if you now jump over to Leviticus Chapter 10 we read,
Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Lev 10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Lev 10:3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This [is it] that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.
Now we see God killing these two for not Doing what God commanded them to do, If this were still true today and God did this, many LDS who claim to be true Christians would be dead. Because they bring strange fire into the temple and since they lie to get into the temple, they go in as liars and sinners and do not regard God as holy. To add to what I just said, read,
Lev 10:8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying,
Lev 10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: [it shall be] a statute for ever throughout your generations:
Lev 10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
Many LDS who lie to enter the temple lie because they want to Drink and also enter the temple. I honestly have no problem with a person wanting to drink a glass of wine or beer, But according to God, they should die, but yet they don’t, so this shows God’s great love and grace. Plus it shows us that the temple does not save us, because as I said before, their was no temple and as of yet their is no temple.
Then read the entire chapter 15 in Leviticus, it talks about men and women who have a bodily discharge, in other words Bodily fluids from the male Penis or from the women, their can be many reason why this happens, but the real question is this, we know it happens even today to faithful LDS members, Maybe through Sex with a married partner, or through self pleasure or sickness, how ever it comes, Do the LDS follow these rules Given? They might not openly admit and say, Hey I’m unclean, I cannot enter the temple today, I had sexual intercourse with my wife or was lusting and fell into sin of masturbation, and we will never really know, but since it is openly spoken of in the Bible we should be able to openly speak about it and live by this law. Honestly I doubt LDS follow these laws.
Now we read in Numbers the placement of the tribes, the thing about they way they were placed is this. It formed a Cross, so when God looked down from heaven upon the tribes He saw a Cross. He knew He was going to be sending His Son to die on a cross. This reminds me, we see the cross all though the Bible. When Abraham went with his son Isaac to offer him up as a burnt offering, we see God doing this with His son Jesus. Isaac told his dad, their is not an offering, and Abraham said back to Isaac, Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
Notice he said (God will provide himself a lamb). the word FOR is not in their, God was that Lamb that Died for us, this again shows we are not saved by the temple or works, we are saved by the blood of Jesus. Now we read in the book of Leviticus chapter 16
Lev 16:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the LORD, and died;
Lev 16:2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy [place] within the vail before the mercy seat, which [is] upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.
Lev 16:3 Thus shall Aaron come into the holy [place]: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.
Now I know God is speaking to Moses about Aaron, but this method applies to all who enter to see God. I also know this is not the temple either, but Not just anyone could go before God, and there is no list given of a temple recommend to enter either, so again, how are we saved by the temple?
Move to Chapter 21, you can read that for your self, but the basic view of it is this, “Regulations for conduct of priests” Are the LDS “Priests” or “Priest holders” Following these rules “Laws” Given by God?
Now when we move to the Book of Numbers, God set up how the tribes are to be laid out when they are resting and waiting to move, I sent a photo of that, it is the form of a Cross when God is up in heaven looking Down upon it, He sees the Cross is yet future and that is what is to come.
Not the temple, but the Cross. Now you will love this, in the Book of Deuteronomy we find what is called Cities of refuge. These were set up so that if a person killed another by shear accident or “manslaughter” He could flee to the City of refuge, and he was allowed to enter and live in their and the avenger of blood was not allowed to enter and kill him. If this person leaves the City he is fair game and can be killed, but if the high priest of the City dies a natural death, then the person can leave the city free and clear. Now here is why this is so cool, it is a type of Christ. Jesus Died on the Cross, but guess what, We put Him their, it was us who killed him, but He “Jesus” says father forgive them for they know not what they do, So Jesus was saying it was an Accident, “manslaughter” And in Hebrews we read He is our high priest who lives forever.
So if He lives in us, and we in Him, He is our city of refuge and we cannot be harmed by the avenger of blood. But if we step out of His protection we can be harmed. Cool, Huh. Now we do not see a temple until King David wants to Build it, But God will not allow Him to build it, but His Son King Solomon built it. Then after he builds a temple, not just anyone can enter, not even the Jews could simply just walk in, and Like the LDS temple where you have to be asked questions to see if you are worthy to enter, that was not the case with the temples for the Jews, and the temples were not created to attain any form of salvation.
Now that we get to the New Testament we never read about Jesus entering the temple and brining people to it. After Jesus crucified the veil of the temple was torn in two, that was a massive feat to happen, the say that it was a cloth that was about 18 inches thick, and would take something like 20 or more oxen pulling one way, while that many pulled the other way. The other reason that was a big deal is because, we no longer need to enter the temple.
The only temple at the time was destroyed just as Jesus said it would be. Then after Jesus goes up into heaven, we never read about any of his followers entering a temple or re-building one, From the time Jesus died and rose again till know is about 2,000 years, thats a long time with no temple if one really is required to be saved. Take care my friend and study the scriptures and give serious thought to what I said. Remember Acts 17:11
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Rick b
RickB,
Just because the Bible is silent on temples before the tabernacle was built does not mean that they were not in existance. You still have not addressed the issue of the temple being called the house of God by God and Jesus throughout the Bible including the NT. And yes, Jesus did go to the temple a number of times -do you not remember when He cleansed the temple and told them that they had made His house a den of thieves? Then when David wanted to build a temple God told Him not to do it BECAUSE David’s on will do it – nothing at all about not needing to build it but that David’s son will build it. God also said to David that He had not had a house to live in SINCE the Israelites left Egypt. I have looked at the dictionary and the use of the word ‘since’ from any definition you want to use implies that He did live in a house before that point in time. Thus there is evidence off possible temples before the Exodus within the Bible.
Does it have a place in our salvation? Did it have a place in the salvation of the Israelites? Yes it did. After the Aaronic/Levitical P/H was commissioned, all sacrifices for sin etc were to be performed in the tabernacle. Then when they had arrived in the promised land and Solomon built the temple, all the sacrifices had to be performed in the temple. If they were not performed in the tabernacle or temple they were not accepted by God. These sacrifices were to be performed to ‘assist’ in their salvation – they did not take the place of Jesus but allowed the person to remember the prophecies and promise of the Christ/Messiah and to show their faith in Him. This is how they were part of their salvation – it showed their faith in and dedication to God and Jesus – but they were to be performed in the tabernacle/temple only.
These days we do not need to do the animal sacrifices but we still need the temple to make certain covenants with God and to show our faith in and devotion to Him and Jesus.
All this temple talk by the Mormons without understanding/realizing that the the Aaronic priesthood, which officiated in the temple, has been done away with. Yes, it has been done away with. The purpose of the temple was to look forward to the Messiah, and the sacrifices performed were a type of the Lamb of God. Praise be to God Jesus has come, and He is the promised Messiah. Therefore, there is no more need for the temple. Jesus is the great HighPriest who intercedes for us with the Father. He is our great Prophet, who instructs in thepaths of righteousness. Lastly, He is our King, and His kingdom is not found in a building, an organization, or within country borders, but exists wherever there are believers in HIm!
Falcon,
Loved your post! You are real, honest, and humorous. Glad to see you back!
Peace and Grace!
The priesthood is where the Mormon male gets his ego trip so it’s going to be pretty tough to talk our TBM guy friends out of it. That, along with all of them thinking they’re big time prophets; getting revelations directly from the Mormon god puts their spiritual pride out of the stratosphere orbiting them somewhere around Kolob. So they try to find some justification for the temple and the rituals being first century Chrisitanity but it’s not there. These guys are hybred models of thirty-second degree Masons, but when you don’t know any better, anything can pass for a real spiritual routine.
Bottom line, there were no Christian temples and no rituals, no plural wives. Joseph Smith had it all revealed to him after he joined the Free Masons. Some of these folks catch on. For the rest, there’s just too much invested to give it up. They’re all like the rich young ruler.
Ralph,
Your position that an absence of LDS forms of priesthoods and rituals from the Bible does not preclude their existence is specious, because there is no place for them in the beliefs, piety, or practice coming from the bible. Simply, as has been pointed out by many of the commenter’s on this post, the priesthood and worship practices of the Levitical system played a part in redemptive history. The cultic practices given to the Jewish people by God at Sinai and the Temple itself did not take place in a vacuum. They took place in history and in particular they took place in the history of God’s interaction with His creation.
The temple was set up as a house of sacrifice (2 Chron 7:12) and prayer (Isa 56:7; Matt 21:13) by God for His people. There are literally hundreds of references to the temple but I hope we can all acknowledge that it was particularly ceremonial, relating to the manner of worshiping God (Lev 7:37, 38; Heb 9:1-7). It is also equally clear that the temple and it predecessor the tabernacle were illustrative and types pointing to Christ (Isa 4:6; John 1:14; Heb 9:8, 9, 11) and of the Church (Psalm 15:1; Isa 16:5; 54:2; Heb 8:2; Rev 21:2, 3). What can be seen is that the temple as described in the Bible has a place in and a relationship inside redemptive history itself. Where exactly is this place and purpose for the Mormon temple in redemptive history? From everything that I have seen it does not exist. The Mormon temple and priesthood, like the BoM, stand outside of history, without any context in the past workings of God as revealed to us.
As I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, Mormon philosophy understands that anthropomorphic references to God in the Bible are to be translated literally, assigning God a physical “flesh and bone” body. As the Church has recognized anthropomorphism severely changes God from, light (Isa 60:19; Jas 1:17; 1 John 1:5), invisible (Job 23:8, 9; John 1:18; 5:37; Col 1:15; 1Tim 1:17), unsearchable (Job 11:7; 37:23; Psalms 145:3; Isa 40:28; Ro 11:33), eternal (Deut 33:27; Psalm 90:2; Rev 4:8-10), omnipresent (Ps 139:7; Jer 23:23), etc. I could go on. So while I do agree that the Temple was described as the House of God (2 Chron 23:5, 12) we know that this was in fact in a gloriously spiritual sense, as we see when the Temple was filled with the “glory” (kabowd) of God (1Kings 8:10, 11; 2 Chron 5:13; 7:2).
On an unrelated note I also confused about the Mormon’s hard-line stance concerning idolatry and the fact that they adorn their temples with statues of angels and Jesus. Is this related to your allowed because of your anthropomorphic view of God?
On the issue of the Temple, one of the first places my mind goes is to the curtain that was torn in half. My understanding is that a big reason it was torn was that we no longer needed the temple to directly and openly access God.
This is hard to reconcile with Mormon belief because if it is said be direct access to God, but still require ‘secret’ temple rituals to fully access everything God can offer God did not ever fully open His “door” to us.
I am sure there is something to explain this from the Mormons, but the torn curtain is basic to Christian thought.
Ralph is concerned about the Temple as the “House of God”.
Gundeck has done a pretty good sweep of the Biblical references referring to the Temple and anthropomorphisms, so I won’t repeat them. However, I do object to the LDS implication that “House of God” woodenly refers to the four walls and a roof that a very physical God lives in.
I read that the phrase “Bethel” (literally “House of God”) first appears in the story of Jacob, whom, while taking an outdoor slumber, dreamt his famous “ladder” (Gen 28:10-19). An altar comes out of this encounter, but there’s no Temple, though the place is then referred to as a city (formerly Luz). It seems we have a “house” without a house, so how can this be?
Well the answer isn’t difficult, provided we abandon the notion that when the Bible says “house”, it is not always referring to four walls and a roof. This actually is something that LDS can easily grasp; its the relationship between “family” and “family home”, or “household” and “house”. Consider Joshua’s declaration “As for me and my house, we will follow the LORD” (Joshua 24:15), or the “House of Israel” (Ex 40:38, etc), or the “House of your Father” (2 Sam 3:8, etc). Just type in “house” on http://www.biblegateway.com and take a look at the dozens of verses that use it. The most common use is in relation to “household”, or to “the group of people under my care”, or “the folks you are closely associated with” (including non-family members). Likewise, the “House of God” can legitimately be applied to the bunch of people who are under God’s care.
I’m not disputing that the Temple represents the special dwelling of God. In fact the filling of the Temple with smoke signifies God’s special presence (2 Chron 5:13-14, Isaiah 6:4, Rev 15:8). However, the presence of the physical House of God could not retain, capture or guarantee the presence of God, else how could the House of Israel have sinned and got itself exiled to Bablyon? Remember that the apostate Israel had a fully functional Temple when it got exiled, though, strictly the Temple was dysfunctional at the time.
As Solomon said “But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him?” (2 Chron 2:6). Solomon knew the problems of trying to put God into a building. It seems that God only stays as long as he chooses, and removing his special presence from the Temple is actually a sign of his judgement (1 Sam 4:21).
Returning to the thought that the Temple is the meeting place for God and man, where do we see God and man truly “brought together” and reconciled? We see it ultimately in Jesus; his divine nature and his human nature living perfectly happily together in the “house” of his own body. Being both fully and truly God and fully and truly human is just one of the reasons why Jesus is the true Temple. Jesus is the true “House of God”, and we have no need for earthly buildings to compete with him.
And this, I suggest, is why Christians should not build temples today.
Amen Martin, Gundeck, Rick B.. you have all provided scripture that contend for the Christian Faith well.
I was just thinking that in Mormonism, there’s wayyyy to much attention taken away from Jesus Christ… A hymn “Hail to the prophet” comes to mind… baptizing the dead, masonic endowments, “our” priesthood instead of HIS priesthood…
In Mormonism, there is just too much focus on man and not the Christ and it saddens me.. I went to a ward for 5 years straight so I know how little they mentioned Jesus..
At my church, Jesus has always been the center of everything.. I cant think of one song that we sing that doesn’t give direct praise to Jesus Christ.
Now I’m not saying Mormonism doesnt mention Jesus, but it has been night and day since I stopped going to that ward and started attending a Christian church… just my observations..
Perhaps someone with a better knowledge than me regarding the Navoo temple, the endowment ritual and the introduction of polygamy/polyandry might comment on how the temple served Joseph Smith’s purposes. He drew around him his trusted leaders and gave them the “principle” of plural marrage and then introduced rituals that secured their secrecy. He got his homies to do the throat slit and the disembowelment signs and brought them over to the dark side. You have to admire this guy in a way that you might admire any emotionally manipulative sociopath. He was a master. I believe this was also about the time he started teaching about forever families and eternal marrage. I don’t think any of these goodies even appear in the BoM. That’s why Mormon groups such as the Community of Christ and Temple Lot have dumped Brother Joseph’s program that appeared about this time. The SLC sect is stuck with trying to defend and find rationale for practices that exist no where but in Joe’s “revelations”. He was pretty creative I will admit. But for modern Mormons not to see through it and reject it makes them accessories after the fact. They share his guilt.
During Holy Week, I attended a service at a local Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod). We normally go to a Presbyterian Church, but I had heard of this Church and wanted to check it out. The service really brought home to me the fulfillment of the purpose, or should I say, the embodiment of the temple in Jesus Christ. When we partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, we are participating in and applying the sacrifice of Christ to our lives. That’s why Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, when he celebrated His last Passover with the disciples. “This is my body and blood given for you, take and eat.” Wow, He fulfilled God’s redemptive plan with His sacrifice on the cross – and provided a way of redemption for you. God is calling us all to partake of the ultimate and final great temple sacrifice, the sacrifice to which all others pointed – to come to the altar and know Him. The Church is the sanctuary of the Lord – God has gone out from the temple and indwells His people. The curtain is torn and the holy of holies is offered to us through the preaching of God’s Word and partaking of the sacraments instituted by Christ. The free gift of salvation purchased by Christ’s blood is ours. There is no need for a temple, for God’s people and the Church now are indwelt with that purpose fulfilled in Christ.
We’re having a discussion here about temples and first century Christianity. There is zero evidence that any aspect of Mormonism, including temples, were part of the early Church. There was the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and there were Greek pegan temples, but no Christian temples.
The Mormon temples are basically a lasting remnant of polygamy. Keeping polygamy secret was Joseph Smith’s motivation for the temple endowment ceremony. That’s why the oaths of secrecy. Joseph Smith was able to manipulate his inner circle into secrecy by means of the death oath. That’s how he covered-up what he was doing while slowly introducing his inner circle to the practice of plural wifery. Check out History of the church volume 5.1.
Closed temple marriages started with polygamy. Prior to Nauvoo polygamy, mormon marrages were conducted anywhere. Even in the Kirtland temple, nonmormons could attend. (The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 1835-36) The closed temple marrages of today are a direct result of the Prophet attempting to keep polygamy secret. The guy was marrying other men’s wives. It was imperative that it be kept secret.
The concept of eternal marriage began when Smith started taking on additional wives. Before that he taught that marrage was until death. The hook in the celestial marriage concept was that the women and their families would be sealed to him for eternity. What a guy!
I could go on, but I think the reader gets the point. I will say this, Joseph Smith was very creative and one incredible salesman….with an insatiable sex drive.
The Prophet needed a new term to get around charges of adultery.
From Emma Hale Smith’s biography, p.40 “Simultaneously with the endowment and plural marriage, Joseph formalized a third concept. He explained to Emma (for the first time) that husbands and wives could be married, ‘sealed’, forever by proper priesthood authority. Understanding this new doctrine led to the next step, which was the marriage of a living husband to several living wives. This doctrine seemed to alleviate some of the repugnance to plural marriage.” So women could say they were married to their husband but could then be “sealed” to Joseph Smith. There was thus two different marriage contracts that would allow them to have sex with Smith.
The sacred garments was another ruse Smith employed to set a part his inner circle who, were practicing polygamy, from the monogamus males. It was, in its original form, a uniform that allowed them into the club. Again, from the biography of Emma Hale Smith p. 140. “After being involved in the construction and design of the garments, the building of the temple, and hearing about their place in the endowment in the Relief Society (by Smith), why had women not been admitted to the Endowment? Joseph taught that a man must obey God to be worthy of the endowment and that a wife must obey a righteous husband to merit the same reward. Until Emma could be obedient to Joseph (D&C 132) and give him plural wives, she could not participate in the endowment ceremonies, yet Smith taught her that the endowment was essential for exaltation.”
The whole idea of the Celestial Room in the temple started out as an experience Smith developed to demonstrate how he would be with his wives in heaven. He was showing how polygamy would work in heaven.
The Kirtland “temple” was an elaborate church. The Nauvoo temple corresponded with the beginning of polygamy in the church.
Mormonism is a religion in and of itself. It bears no resemblance to Christianity past or present.
Falcon,
You cite Christian history, which I am glad you have used as a reference. I find it so incredible how the Trinitarians so easily dismis their history. Let’s take the Gnostics for example and their belief in “secret knowledge”. On what basis did the early Trinitarians dismiss the validity of this claim? The Gnostics were every bit Christians (at least from a Jewish perspective). If I were living in 100 AD, on what basis would I consider the proto-orthodoxs any more legitimate than the Gnostics? Because they were in the majority? Here’s my point. Modern day Trinitarians say “look the Gnostics were wrong and how do we know? Because our scriptures don’t mention anything about secrets” Well guess what, their did and they are just as legit sources as those that eventually were canonized. Why not acknowledge that their was a group of legitimate self proclaiming Christians who believed in secret knowledge? Your only real claim is that Mormonism does not resemble Trinitarian Christianity.
I don’t know if anyone is even looking at this thread anymore but had to share this.
Coming home listening to Christian station on XM. Great song by Rush of Fools “Lose it All”. Loved it. Then I thought “Wait a minute, this is the Law of Consecration”
So if I take the principle of sacrificing everything for the Savior and package it into a sweet combo of tunes and dress up in a trendy fashion…then I am a Christian. But if I dare suggest that this is a sacred covenant relationship to be formed in a quiet setting by an honest and sincere promise to the Lord…now I am a heretic/apostate/antichrist (ie Mormon). Am I missing something? If I am to take the modern Christian seriously, I would expect them to say “Well at least the Mormons have the Consecration thing right”….but nothing and so the credibility remains weak.
So I stumbled upon this site and felt compelled to read through the horrendous “research” here on how temples are not christian. It has been interesting.
My first conclusion is, either the christians here are purposefully lying or keeping back what they know, or have never read their bibles. ever. The argument that the apostles after Christ no longer had use for the temples can be dispelled pretty easily in several passages in the NT, before and AFTER the veil was rent.
Before: Mark 14:49 – He taught in the temple daily and the disciples were there.
After: Acts 2:41, 44, 46 – all that believed continued daily with one accord in the temple.
Acts 5: 19-21, 42 – The are commanded of an angel to teach in the temple, and they do so daily.
Acts 3:1 Peter and John went up into the temple at the hour of prayer.
Acts 4:1-3 They were kicked out of the temple by the saducees.
Acts 21:26 Paul purifies himself and enters into the temple (we will speak more on this, the end of sacrfice and the beginning of early christian initiation ceremonies).
Acts 22:17-18 Paul describes in his own word that while he prayed in the temple, christ appears to him and instructs him to leave Jerusalem and teach the gentiles. Kind of an important instruction that Paul receives, which appears to be an experiences that aids in his launching his life into teaching the gentiles.
So, wow, for a people that had no more need of temples, they sure spent a lot of time there. So do “christians” still read their bibles? We could go on and on about the priesthood as well, and how the priesthood and the office of a priest existed before the mention of the tabernacle and the law of moses.
Here’s a pretty interesting one. So, many above want to contend that the temple was done away with, obsolete after Christ’s ministry, yet we have John here, the last book in the NT:
Revelations 7:15 – Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
This passage is very important. If you believe John, then God’s throne is within the temple, and Revelations lays out that 24 elders are made kings and priests before his throne, (5:10) and compare that to the 24 temple priests of the Old Testament (1 Chron 24:1-19). Going through a simple reading of the OT you will find that isrealite preists and kings were vested in white linen vestments and adorned with golden crowns.
There are also less evident ones to those who maybe have not adequately studied the parallels in the old testament. In 1st kings 6:20 – the layout of the holy of holies is given and laid out in a cubic fashion, in length and breadth. When speaking about the construction of the New Jerusalem, scholars have noted the parellel in both description and language in its detailed construction. Why should matter if the new Jerusalem is cubic and after the same instruction as the holy of holies? Why so specific, well as is pointed out to Moses when instructed to build the tabernacle, it was to be built after the pattern the Lord had shown. It has been concluded by many in logical fashion, as well as because of the early christian devotion to Temple Worship, that the New Jerusalem is in fact a Holy of Holies, and those that enter in are entering God’s most holy place in the temple.
Again I ask, if the temple has been made obsolete, why do the apostles spend so much time there? Why is Christ appearing there? Why does John describe his throne in heaven within a temple, and why is the New Jerusalem described as a Holy of Holies? It is hard to imagine the idea of Temples as being foregone places with no more value in light of their discussion and acceptance by the apostles AFTER the veil is rent.
Then of course we can find in Revelations all sorts of great info on what will come to those before Gods’ Throne (remember John tells us its in the temple). He speaks of a new name, power over nations, eating of hidden mana in New Jerusalem (done in the holy of holies in the OT), etc. We could go on and on and on. Lets just say, to even utter that there is no temple reference after the veil was rent is ridiculous and you should be embarrassed that you have never read your NT or researched anything on the subject before making such an assertion.
You could always read the article by the late Mathew B Brown on The Israelite Temple and Early Christians. You can find most of what i wrote here as well as much much more.
Dr. Maxwell Johnson of Notre Dame University has a collection of workds called Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy. These are a collection of early Christian initiation texts that he updated in 2003. IN them you will find temple references from early christians about laver, altar, sacrifice, incense, priest, Levites, and high priests. You will also find statements that initiates are going to enter into the temple of God to receive certain ordinances and also enter into the Holy of Holies.
Michael Brown points out this very interesting tid bit.
Here is an ancient Armenian text that describes the Christian anointing ceremony as it was practiced in that part of the world in the ninth century.35 This is a direct quote.
“[the priest] anoints [the initiate] with holy oil:
First [on] the forehead, saying: A fragrant oil poured out in the name of Christ, the seal of heavenly gifts.
Next the eyes, saying: This seal which is in the name of Christ, may it enlighten thine eyes, that thou mayest not ever sleep in death.
The ears: May the anointing of holiness be for thee unto hearing of the divine commandments.
The nostrils: May this seal of Christ be to thee for a sweet smell from life to life.
The mouth, saying: May this seal be to thee a watch set before thy mouth and a door to keep thy lips.
The palms of the hands, saying: May this seal of Christ be for thee a means of doing good, of virtuous actions and living.
The heart: May this seal of divine holiness establish in thee a holy heart, and renew an upright spirit within thy interior.
The backbone: May this seal which is in the name of Christ be for thee a shield and buckler, whereby thou mayest be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one.
And the feet: May this divine seal guide thy steps aright unto life immortal.” –Ibid., 78ñ79.
The above anointing ceremony had to do with baptism, not with any temple ceremony. And this was practiced by the Early Church Fathers. Here is an excellent article about it.
As for the ceremony, you can read all about it here. It appears that what you quoted isn’t complete, because you are missing some of it, like their recital of the Nicene Creed before the ritual. Though I’m not an expert in this subject, I’m willing to bet that this got handed down through Masonry and that is how Joseph Smith and the Mormons acquired the terminology. It would take a bit of research, but I’m sure I can find a connection.
I have found that the research I’ve read from Matthew Brown (particularly on Adam god) was full of omissions, ellipses, and wrong conclusions. I have not read his piece on Temples, but if I have time, I’ll investigate it and perhaps get back to you.
As for Christians and temples, we don’t believe we need them for good reason, we have Jesus and the Holy Spirit. That is why the temple was destroyed when Jesus died, and though God may dwell in a heavenly temple, the earthly temple he had Moses create was primarily for sacrifice until Christ came. We are now in the age of Spirit, and will have no need of it until we are reunited with Christ at his coming. Then the heavenly temple will be brought to earth and there will be the marriage of Christ and his bride, the church.
The Christians spent a lot of time in the temple because they were preaching to the Jews. Also, they did not enter the holy of holies, they entered the outer courtyards. What better place to go and teach about Christ? And it’s not like they thought it was evil, they still felt that it was a place of reverence that their fellow brothers were, (in ignorance) still maintaining as a part of the Law of Moses which the Jews who were not converted to Christianity still kept.
Interesting comments, thanks for posting them.
grindael, thank you for your response! I really did not think anyone would ever look at this article again.
The thing that is frustrating from my point of view with your response, is that you have no source or evidence for your statements. You would have no idea if the apostles ever entered the holy of holies, yet you make an absolute statement. You make the same absolute statement about how the temples are not needed, but, again, before i made such an assertion, I would want actual statements. Instead, we have none. Yes, we have references to Christ and his body a temple, but that is hardly good evidence to suggest that actual temples were to be done away with. Not only that, but there is evidence that temples existed before the law of moses, as did the calling of priests and the priesthood.
And you did not answer my question, why did Christ appear to Paul within the temple then? And you dont know in what part of the temple this occurred, and neither do I, but I would rather not make absolute statements as you have done without any historical or scriptural backup. They only entered the courtyards? Completely and totally without any evidence, which invalidates your arguments entirely. It puts into question your honesty, or knowledge, or both. You expect me to believe Paul was in the courtyard praying when Christ appeared to him? Not within a more holy location inside in private?
You can reason in your mind, as all people do (as i will do), in order to defend your stance, but some substance would be nice too. I have given you good examples, especially those in revelations, of how important the temple still is in John’s vision. If you want to ignore these, then that is fine, but they are still there. There is absolutely no statement made by Christ or his apostles that temples should will have no more use. Again, you can reason out what you would like, but the evidence is lacking.
As far as Mathew Brown, your accusations are pretty heavy handed. In the scholarly world, that would be a pretty leveled attack. You can disagree, but in the future, if you want to discount someone’s research, it would be appreciated if you provided proof of his/her “omissions, ellipses, and wrong conclusions(subjective).” Again, I do not believe that to be the case. He may not see it the same as you, he being a defender of lds faith and you being against its teachings. In any case, I think that you yourself have made some glaring omissions in the case of early christian temple worship and rites. To say that early christian rites were only baptismal is not true, and to say there was no early temple worship that was in correlation with isrealite temple worship is not true. It is documented.
In fact, in the very book you pointed to, there are many references to temples and holy of holies, In fact, there is this statement about Priest Burial which refutes the idea that temple worship has ended after Christ, “And not by the blood of bulls and goats, but by the blood of Christ has he entered into the Holy of Holies.” The law of moses did away with the sacrificing of animals, but it did not do away with the purification rituals or the Holy of Holies. References to the holy of holies as an altar and offering given there are found within the text, as are references to the church as containing holy of holies. Now granted, again, I think that this is not good doctrinal info from an LDS standpoint who sees this time as having seriously degraded in doctrinal foundation. There is proof at this time of changed texts to the NT and writings of Paul among other things, but is still evident of some familiarity with temple practice, however wrong. Temples in and of themselves are wholly symbolic, as was the holy of holies, to insinuate that just because the holy of holies might be used in reference to Christ, or that the word temple is used in reference to Christ, that it means that temples as places of worship are not still used, is stretching by a mile. Just because A equals B does not automatically mean that all B’s equal A’s. It is a faulty logic to assume that Temples have been done away with on such vague references. Things can and always have had dual meanings within gospel teachings. I believe it is more of a stretch to assume the apostles did NOT go to the temples to worship than the belief that they did. You cannot prove they did not enter into the holy of holies or still practiced Temple ordinances, nor that they taught against it, but I can show, and have showed that the temple continues to be a place of importance to them, as Paul goes there for prayer and sees christ. Why would Christ appear there and further confuse the issue? Or why not tell Paul, “Hey man, tell people that the temple is done away with. You dont need this place. No, instead he chooses it as a place to appear. The new jerusalem being cubic in breadth, width, and height, being constructed in the manner of the Holy of Holies deserves some discussion here, as does his references to the throne of God being within the temple.
There are direct rites related to temple functions in that book. Now, I am of the belief that at this point, yes, these temple functions have degraded. They dont resemble perfectly what LDS followers believe temple worhsip to be. Just as, we also do not believe the Nicene creed to be in any way directed from God, nor is it really claimed to be. It is also documented how the Nicene creed was developed and voted in, and that there were many disagreements. Not only that, but it was incredibly politically motivated as a document to set heresy against Arius. This is a completely different discussion, but early christian beliefs held the idea of subordinationism, that Jesus and the holy ghost are subordinate to God the Father. Again, this is probably for a different discussion.
However, LDS followers also do not believe that temple worship has been exactly the same through all the ages anyway. If you have been through a mormon temple, then you will know LDS do not believe the building to be as important as the worship and rites, as is evident by how we believe Adam practiced his temple worship early on.
There are many parrellels between early christian rituals and the mormon temple rituals, clothing being foremost. I dont want to go into all of that here, as I do see the practice as sacred, however, we can say that from maxwell jounsons book that he says baptismal clothing is specifically called “the glorious robe which Adam lost.” In another document the initiates not only receive “white vestments” but also a royal head covering which is called a “crown” and is bound on them by a priest. These initiates are said to be wearing “the garment of glory”. This is not only very close to our practice, but to the Israelite clothing as well. We could go on and on about the correlations of mormon temple worship being much closer to christian initiatory practices than to masons. If you want to point out the similarities to mason worship, then you should point out the differences. The washings and annointing practices were established by Joseph before any connection with freemasonry and are well parrelled with early christian purification.
Go look through Maxwell Johnson’s book on the Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy. It discusses some of the early Christians receiving their initiation rites they were not only taught the story of creation but they had a confrontation with a serpent named Satan. The initiates were told during this ritual to consider the adversary to be in their immediate presence and to tell him to “depart.” Thus, a victory was gained against the initiate’s enemy.
Another way that the early Christians ritualistically separated themselves from Satan was to renounce him by way of covenant. One initiation text is particularly interesting because in it the initiates made their renunciation and covenant by clasping the left hand of the officiating priest. Then another covenant was made—this time to commit oneself to Jesus Christ—by a clasping of the right hand with the officiator. The right-handed clasp is a motif found in early Christian artworks. In the middle is a resurrected Christian in a white robe being admitted through the gate of the New Jerusalem. And on the right we see the Israelite king standing at the veiled door of the Jerusalem Temple and being admitted by the Lord into an assembly of people (see Psalm 27).
The Christians spent a lot of time in the temple because they were preaching to the Jews. Also, they did not enter the holy of holies, they entered the outer courtyards. What better place to go and teach about Christ? And it’s not like they thought it was evil, they still felt that it was a place of reverence that their fellow brothers were, (in ignorance) still maintaining as a part of the Law of Moses which the Jews who were not converted to Christianity still kept.
This is misleading I feel. The scriptures I presented do not portray this sentiment at all. It says that all believers gathered at the temple daily. It says paul was IN the temple. You could have at least read the passages I presented. All you have to do is hover your mouse over them.
No need to get frustrated, my comment was not meant to be a detailed response.
Are you always this antagonistic? Why not ask questions respectfully, instead of judging me so harshly?
You’ve said this already. Are you just continuing in this vein for your own benefit?
Again, I’m aware of this. And again, what you gave as an example was NOT a temple rite, so you would have to come up with something else. And WHERE is it documented that there was early temple worship like Mormons have that early Christians practiced? As for Matthew Brown I can ABSOLUTELY back up what I say about his Adam god presentation at the 2010 FAIR Conference. I’m not confident that he can present his case for temples, if he is trying to make a connection to the Mormon Temple Ceremony and that Baptismal Anointing.
In reference to Christ they are speaking of the HEAVENLY TEMPLE. You can’t be that naïve. And you don’t know my references because I haven’t provided any. I didn’t ever say that Paul said “you don’t need this place”. In fact it seems that you are holding a conversation with me by yourself, inserting arguments for me that I never said and then debating with an imaginary me. This is kind of weird.
There MIGHT be something in there in relation to a temple, but I would have to look at the context. It’s probably in reference to the heavenly sanctuary.For example, the scriptures say there are holy places in heaven where God dwells. The Lord so simplified His instruction as to make it possible for His people to understand the actual work which our High Priest would carry on while in heaven, by giving them an object lesson in the mission of the earthly sanctuary and its ministry. Heb. 6:19, 20; Heb. 9:3-7, 24, 25. Pay particular attention to verse 24.The Bible declares that in connection with the Levitical sanctuary, there were two holy places—the holy and the most holy place. Even so of the heavenly sanctuary the Scriptures declare: “O God, Thou art terrible out of Thy holy places.” Ps. 68:35.
But what you quoted to me was in reference to a baptismal rite NOT a temple rite. If you have some other examples, I would be happy to look them over and explain them.
I can quote you Mormon authorities that show that you are mistaken about the temple ceremony.
All of that is from Masonry. Like I said, there is a Masonic connection to all of this, and I’ll provide evidence at a later time. You would have to get into specifics, quotes, and then I would be able to reasonably respond to your claim that Christian rituals “were very close to” Mormon practice. I’ve never seen it, and only seen speculation which can’t be proved.
Please give me quotes. I don’t have time to read or look through an entire book. If you want to prove your claim, I’ll need to see the quotes.
Quotes please. (And you are doing what you claimed I was, speaking generally without any quotes. But I’m not judging you or your motives, I’m just asking for evidence for your claims. I’ll be providing my own next time I post. And Psalm 27 has nothing to do with what you are saying. There is nothing about a “right handed clasp” to be found there. David is speaking of sacrificing in the Temple. (Among other things). Where do they do that in Mormon Temples?
The scriptures that YOU presented? How about the scriptures as a whole? I did read the passages. The one about Paul says
“When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance 18 and saw the Lord speaking to me. ‘Quick!’ he said. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.’
Paul was “AT” the Temple, not “IN” the holy of holies. It was worded that way in the Greek for a specific reason. There are OTHER places in the New Testament that explain this, and I will provide them.
You know it takes some time to provide a detailed response to claims like yours, don’t you? That is the beauty of an ONGOING conversation, Lee. One can answer specific things. I told you that I would investigate and get back to you. You need to give someone a chance to do so, before you question a person’s honesty.