s/o on we're all Hindus/are Mormons Christian (cc obviously)

[MamaSheep]

Thank you for your gentle and generous reply. I think you covered everything very well, and we have about beat this dead horse to... well... death. :001_huh:

 

Blessings to you and yours, and I hope you have a very good and productive week! :001_smile:

 

Thanks, tomorrow is our official first day and since I haven't tried teaching both of them before I feel the need for blessings. I hope you have a good week too. Thanks for the interesting discussion. :)

[usetoschool]

Thank you for the information. I am not arguing that the ceremonies that take place are themselves are strange or that there is anything wrong with them. I am also aware that someone with little or no knowledge of Catholocism would find our rituals strange at first. That is not the point, the point is that people can witness the rituals in order to help them learn more about them. Witnessing temple ordinances is, to some degree, participating in them. It almost all involves receiving knowledge, but you need to be spiritually prepared and mature and worthy to receive that knowledge and make those covenants. There is sacred information presented that isn't appropriate to disseminate to the general public and if you watched you would receive that information. There isn't any reason to learn more about them as far as details. Members of the LDS church do attend a temple preparation class before hand but it is very general and focused on spiritual preparation.

 

The issue is not the rituals themselves, but the amount of secrecy that surrounds them. There is plenty of anti-Catholic sentiment, even persecution, that has been instigated by people misinterpreting the rituals and teachings of the church, but Church has continued to remain open to the public. What goes on in the church is public knowledge, anyone can find out.

 

This is very different from the Temple and the ceremonies that go on there. So while I am sensitive to your Church trying to avoid unwanted attacks and ridicule, it is really not a good enough reason to create such a secret and closed off system. After all, it is that level of secrecy that breeds mistrust and makes it all the easier for false stereotypes to occur.

 

I am just trying to say that the secrecy and exclusion that surrounds the Temple and its rituals can not be compared to Catholic practices, as was earlier stated. It isn't about secrecy in any way. Every. single. person. on the face of the earth could attend the temple if they wanted to. They just need to meet the spiritual requirements set by God. It is not a policy of the church to avoid ridicule. It isn't a policy at all. It is a standard of worthiness and spirituality set by God. There is absolutely no secrecy, it is 100% about sacredness.

 

The end of the article reads like this:

 

"I’ve been dozens of times, and each time I feel an outpouring of the Spirit of God. You can’t do that on television, and so no matter what you saw on Big Love or read on the Internet, you haven’t experienced the temple. And because you can’t experience the temple outside of the temple, Mormons don’t want you to try, for fear that you’ll walk away thinking that you’ve experienced it when you haven’t."

 

The same can be said about the Eucharist, watching it is not as powerful as recieving it, but watching it can still be a catalyst to you wanting to recieve it. Being open with your rituals and practices can help bring people to Christ. Certainly it can't hurt. And fact that watching a temple endowment isn't as powerful as participating in one is not a convincing argument for limiting attendance and making people take vows of secrecy. I understand that being in the Temple is an important spiritual event, but billions of other Christians have similiar experiences in the light of day, where anyone else can experience it with them. My most powerful spiritual experience happened in an open field where Pope John Paul II said mass for 100,000 pilgrims. I was in a huge crowd, and the section I was in had hundreds of people from Mexico who did not speak English, but I have never felt closer to other people in my life. It happened in daylight, with television cameras recording it for all the world to see. I think that there is more to the ordinances performed that might be helpful to understand - it is more than just a ritual or a spiritual experience or an endowment of knowledge - there are covenants made with God. So when I say watching it participating, I mean that only in the most basic of ways. There is information presented that someone not spiritually mature or prepared should not receive, but it is also more than just a spiritual experience - it is a two way process.

 

The level of secrecy is the only thing that makes the Mormon rituals stand apart, and I wish it were something that they could change. It is hard for us to trust something or someone who is not out in the light. It isn't church leaders who have created the ordinance or the rules. It would do nothing to bring anyone closer to the Savior to open it up to anyone who wanted to watch. It is about covenants made with God and he sets the terms for those who are prepared to accept them. Not secret, sacred, and open to anyone willing to pay the price in spiritual preparation.

 

I understand that because there isn't anything similar in other churches that it seems secretive and hidden. I may be opening a whole new can of worms here but when Moses came down the first time he had a higher law for the children of Israel but he found them participating in the vilest of sins and so he had to present them with a lesser law to train them until they were spiritually prepared. They wandered in the wilderness for a long time trying to get rid of past wickedness and move forward. I would say the temple represents that higher law that Heavenly Father would like all of his children to participate in and live by but they must be ready. Temples are nothing new, there were temples in the old testament and only those who were worthy and set apart for that work were allowed to participate in the ordinances.

 

I will be at the temple Tuesday night and I think I will have a hard time focusing because you and others and these conversations will be on my mind :001_smile:. This sounds sappy but my problem will be, not contention or frustration or logic, but a wish that all of you could be there because I know how wonderful it is, and I will be praying that we will all be able to continue to look past our theological differences and work even more closely together to spread the Saviors love.

[texascamps]

Just to clear things up - it wasn't a comparison of the two ordinances but the only analogy available to talk about worthiness to participate in a church ordinance.

 

I was taught in Confirmation class that one did have to be worthy to take the Holy Eucharist.....I can't remember details but baptism in the church was one of them..... can't remember the others.... I do remember thinking that my father nor my little brother would be able to take the Eucharist, not that they were knocking down doors to get to church.

 

Someone might clarify those restrictions.

 

Oh, I also remember the priest telling us that the wine did turn to the blood of Christ and the bread was the actual body. In my arrogance I insisted that the priest was wrong that he must have been meaning it symbolically and he, in return, insisted that it was not symbolic but literal....

 

I thought that perhaps it turned back into wine when it was my turn....

[MyFourSons]

I understand that because there isn't anything similar in other churches that it seems secretive and hidden. I may be opening a whole new can of worms here but when Moses came down the first time he had a higher law for the children of Israel but he found them participating in the vilest of sins and so he had to present them with a lesser law to train them until they were spiritually prepared. They wandered in the wilderness for a long time trying to get rid of past wickedness and move forward. I would say the temple represents that higher law that Heavenly Father would like all of his children to participate in and live by but they must be ready. Temples are nothing new, there were temples in the old testament and only those who were worthy and set apart for that work were allowed to participate in the ordinances.

 

I will be at the temple Tuesday night and I think I will have a hard time focusing because you and others and these conversations will be on my mind :001_smile:. This sounds sappy but my problem will be, not contention or frustration or logic, but a wish that all of you could be there because I know how wonderful it is, and I will be praying that we will all be able to continue to look past our theological differences and work even more closely together to spread the Saviors love.

 

I am sorry if these discussions have caused you any worry about your next temple visit, but I am glad they have given you pause for thought.

 

You say that I think the Temple is secretive because there is nothing like it foud in other religions. There are similiar rituals and sacred ceremonies to be found in every religion. The tabernacle in a church is, to Catholics, considered the most holy spot in the world, and is treated with just as much reverence as you pay to your temple. The only difference is that it is open to the public, just like other Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Islamic holy sites. To say that your religion has only place and the only rituals where people experience a form of grace or euphoria is not true. All religions provide this type of experience, or no one would be members, that is the kind of experience that humans beings long for. The only difference between your rituals and mine is that you can not discuss your rituals with outsiders, where I can. That is the only reason that they seem secretive.

 

As far as the existence of this type of practice in the bible, there was a Temple in the OT and NT (which was rebuilt). But the reason the Temple system was abandoned by Christianity is because it was condemned by Jesus Himself, He came to abolish the barrier between God and His people that this elitist system created. He admonished the priests of His day for limiting people's access within Temple. This is why many Christian denomonations see limiting the access to the Mormon Temple as somewhat going against the teachings of Christ and the New Testament.

 

The teaching of Jesus that all people (sinners and priests alike) should have direct contact with God in His most holy place is illustrated in the New Testament account of the ripping of the veil in the Temple, which occured after the death of Jesus. The timing of this is symbolic, Jesus through His death and resurrection created a new covenant, one where the seperation of God from His people would be no more. It is described in all four Gospels. Here is a description of the meaning of the event:

 

"The curtain, or veil as some translations have it, was the partition between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place in the Tabernacle and later the Temple. The Holy Place housed the menorah and the table of the bread of the Presence and was where the Old Testament priests performed the daily rituals. But in the Most Holy Place stood the Ark of the Covenant with the mercy seat on top of it, where God's presence dwelt. Only the high priest could go in once a year on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, and he had to bring blood as a sacrifice for his sins and those of the people of Israel. According to tradition a rope was tied around the high priest's leg in case he was struck dead by the Lord for wrongdoing and the people had to retrieve his body.

 

The curtain was a very clear testimony to the fact that God and his presence were separated from the people because of their sin. If a sinner were to enter into the Holy of Holies he would be immediately struck dead by the justice of God. In Jesus' time, the veil in the Temple was 60 feet high and 4 inches thick; a very sturdy reminder of the separation of a sinful humanity from a holy God.

 

So why is the ripping of this partition so important? There are many reasons, but a few that strike my soul and reveal Christ's glory are: 1) It shows the uselessness of the Temple and the Old Testament system it represented. 2) It shows that Jesus was the true temple of the living God. and 3) It shows that the separation between God and man caused by sin has ended in Jesus."

 

What I am trying to say is that merely pointing out that comparing the Old Temple to Mormon temples seems like a redundant argument to Catholics, as Jesus came to do away with the old covenant represented by the temple and create a new one.

Edited August 24, 2009 by MyFourSons

[dangermom]

But the NT doesn't say that the temple was useless; all it says is that the veil was ripped. All that explanation you give is just someone's interpretation of the event--it's not scripture. Jesus spent a lot of time teaching at the temple, and from my POV it wasn't "useless" at all (that strikes me as very disrespectful to the Jewish faith--after all, God did order the building of the temple in OT times).

 

I've always seen the rending of the veil as an expression of the universal grief and pain at the Savior's death, but that's just my impression. I don't see why it should invalidate temple worship.

 

At any rate, it seems that the early Christians did have rites which were not open to the public and were only for the more initiated of Christians. They are mentioned in the early writings, but not described (because they were too sacred to be written down), and were lost. So I don't see why Christianity would be incompatible with such practices--they don't exist any more in mainstream churches, but they did once.

 

(This is from an LDS POV.)

[Lovedtodeath]

The temple and the priesthood were symbolic. When Jesus became the high priest the temple and curtain were no longer needed. Hebrews 8:1-5

Edited August 24, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[MyFourSons]

I was taught in Confirmation class that one did have to be worthy to take the Holy Eucharist.....I can't remember details but baptism in the church was one of them..... can't remember the others.... I do remember thinking that my father nor my little brother would be able to take the Eucharist, not that they were knocking down doors to get to church.

 

Someone might clarify those restrictions.

 

Oh, I also remember the priest telling us that the wine did turn to the blood of Christ and the bread was the actual body. In my arrogance I insisted that the priest was wrong that he must have been meaning it symbolically and he, in return, insisted that it was not symbolic but literal....

 

I thought that perhaps it turned back into wine when it was my turn....

 

The restrictions for recieving Holy Communion is that you must be baptized, you must actually believe in the meaning of the sacrament and the true presence of Christ in the sacrament, and you must be free of Grave sin.

 

This is not limited to Catholics. Many other Christian denomonations believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and they are permitted to recieve Communion within a Catholic church if they meet the other requirements.

 

Grave sins are also called the deadly sins. They are serious sins that cause a seperation between you and God, IOW they are so serious that they get in the way of having a relationship with Him, thereby causing spiritual death (hence the name deadly sins). The differnt types of sin is described in John:

 

"If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly." (1 John 5:16-17)

 

The sins that are "deadly" are described by Paul:

 

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-20)

 

According to Catholic doctrine, people must be forgiven by God and the community for grave sins, and this is accomplished through confession. People often wonder why you must go to a priest for forgiveness. The Catholic church teaches that it is a sacrament instituted by Christ.

The key passage to note is John 20:21-23:

"Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

 

He is speaking to the apostles here, and the Catholic church maintains that this responsiblity has been handed down to the clergy from the time of the apostles.

[texascamps]

 

As far as the existence of this type of practice in the bible, there was a Temple in the OT and NT (which was rebuilt). But the reason the Temple system was abandoned by Christianity is because it was condemned by Jesus Himself, He came to abolish the barrier between God and His people that this elitist system created. He admonished the priests of His day for limiting people's access within Temple. This is why many Christian denomonations see limiting the access to the Mormon Temple as somewhat going against the teachings of Christ and the New Testament.

 

 

 

Where can I find this in the New Testament?

[Lovedtodeath]

The restrictions for recieving Holy Communion is that you must be baptized, you must actually believe in the meaning of the sacrament and the true presence of Christ in the sacrament, and you must be free of Grave sin.

 

 

The sins that are "deadly" are described by Paul:

 

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-20)

Sorry. My limited vocabulary needed a different translation. LOL Am I understanding that there are cases in which Catholics are barred from communion? But confessing to a priest is the only requirement to meet?

 

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, 20 idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, 21 envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom.

 

Edited August 24, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[scgirl816]

Thank you so much to those of you who responded to me. It makes more sense to me now, and I'd much rather be adequately educated on a subject than blindly listen to people's hearsay. :)

 

I am so wanting to print out this conversation and pour over it! It's so interesting to me, but my eyes have been crossing the past couple of days as I've been researching homeschooling like crazy. At some point, I'm going to have time to go back and read it all. As it is, I've been trying to just follow one subject in this thread and seem to be skipping around as many different things are being discussed!

 

I had one more question though, if you wouldn't mind indulging me. Could you explain the part about your beliefs that people are gods? That part does confuse me.

 

Thank you!

Rebekah

[mktyler]

I have really enjoyed this discussion. As I am not nearly so eloquent as previous posters, I will jump in with a link for Rebekah on the topic of becoming gods. It is a fairly short and concise description of the Biblical passages that influence such a doctrine.

 

http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Do_We_Have_the_Potential_to_become_Like_God.html

 

Melissa

Minnesota

Reading Program Junkie

dd(11) dd(7) ds(5) ds(1)

[usetoschool]

Thank you so much to those of you who responded to me. It makes more sense to me now, and I'd much rather be adequately educated on a subject than blindly listen to people's hearsay. :)

 

I am so wanting to print out this conversation and pour over it! It's so interesting to me, but my eyes have been crossing the past couple of days as I've been researching homeschooling like crazy. At some point, I'm going to have time to go back and read it all. As it is, I've been trying to just follow one subject in this thread and seem to be skipping around as many different things are being discussed!

 

I had one more question though, if you wouldn't mind indulging me. Could you explain the part about your beliefs that people are gods? That part does confuse me.

 

Thank you!

Rebekah

 

A little background first, I think. The LDS church teaches that God is our Heavenly Father - the father of our spirits. We lived with him in Heaven and there, when we had reached a limit to our progression he presented to us His plan for coming to earth, receiving a physical body and learning to choose good from evil in an evironment that included temptations, so that we could continue to progress and become like Him. The plan always included a Savior, Jesus Christ, and the possibility of failure on our part if we rejected the Savior.

 

The reason for the plan was to be able to progress and become "like" our Heavenly Father. Big emphasis on LIKE. No where is it taught that we will become God, capital G. Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost will always be the Godhead, always be our God, always be the direction we look for salvation. The creation never supplants the creator. In fact I would say that is where Satan or Lucifer got into trouble. He wanted to supplant the creator and receive the glory for himself.

 

The definition we would use for the little g "god" that we can become involves being entrusted with the creation of spirit children of our own - an eternal increase, but still all to the glory of our Heavenly Father. We believe that man has always existed and will always exist and that throughout that eternity there is progression, but never beyond God. So, I guess the definition of the 'god' that we believe all of Heavenly Father's children can become means being entrusted with authority and responsibility given by Heavenly Father for the progress of other spirits. That is also why we feel so strongly about the Temple because that is where the priesthood ordinances are performed that bind the beginnings of that eternal family together - the mother and the father as the head of a family.

 

That is a long way off, an eternity of learning and proving ourselves worthy and trustworthy. Although I am always amazed at how much he trusts us now, as parents, with others of his children, our brothers and sisters. That is an awesome responsibility and the older my kids get the more I realize how naive I was and how just plain blessed and lucky I am that they turned out as well as they did!

[MyFourSons]

But the NT doesn't say that the temple was useless; all it says is that the veil was ripped. All that explanation you give is just someone's interpretation of the event--it's not scripture. Jesus spent a lot of time teaching at the temple, and from my POV it wasn't "useless" at all (that strikes me as very disrespectful to the Jewish faith--after all, God did order the building of the temple in OT times).

 

I've always seen the rending of the veil as an expression of the universal grief and pain at the Savior's death, but that's just my impression. I don't see why it should invalidate temple worship.

 

At any rate, it seems that the early Christians did have rites which were not open to the public and were only for the more initiated of Christians. They are mentioned in the early writings, but not described (because they were too sacred to be written down), and were lost. So I don't see why Christianity would be incompatible with such practices--they don't exist any more in mainstream churches, but they did once.

 

(This is from an LDS POV.)

 

But the viel itself had a special meaning, it kept the unholy and unworthy from entering the Holy of Holies, as that is where God dwelled and only the High Priest could be in the presence of God. The Jews actually thought it was dangerous to be in His presence. Jesus completely changed this. According to Christian beliefs, God came down from heaven and became man in the form of His son, Jesus Christ. He ate with His people, traveled with them, slept with them, He interacted with them in everyday ways and he did so with the lowest of the low (lepers, tax collectors, etc). This sent a message that God wanted a personal relationship with all His people, priests and sinners alike. This is a radical departure from the beliefs in Judaism, who felt only the most worthy could enter the Holy spaces within the Temple, and only the priests were truly worthy. It was so off limits that you couldn't even touch the veil.

 

There is nothing wrong with having a holy place called a Temple, or a church, or a sacred space. The issue is how we worship, not where. The system used in the Temple limited people's access to the most holy space, and the high priests controlled access to God in this way. It was this type of religious system that Jesus was abolishing. He was bringing the tabernacle out into the light of day, literally through the ripping of the veil and figurtively through his teachings. The fact that it veil ripped is seen as symbolic as the death of Jesus eliminating the distance between God and His people. The point was being made that God is available to everyone everywhere. It was not the actual building of the Temple that was under attack, or the worship of God there, but the way the High priests controlled that worship. Therefore, the ripping of the veil has much more meaning than grief, as Jesus Himself was against what the veil represented. It is a sign from God that the old way of worship has come to an end.

 

So that is why Christians have holy places of worship where there is no seperation between the presence of God and the people, the tabernacle is open to the public. The dwelling place of God is not dependent upon a special building, he is in the hearts of His believers, though He chooses to dwell in sacred spaces as well. This is why the limited access of the Mormon Temple varies from the teachings of orthodox Christianity as interpreted through the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.

Edited August 24, 2009 by MyFourSons

[scgirl816]

Okay, that makes more sense to me why you would believe that. What about polygamy? So far on the websites I've dinked around on and from what you guys have said about eternal marriage, it doesn't sound as if there is more than one marriage partner, and yet that is one of the most common beliefs about mormons. Could you clear it up?

[KingM]

Okay, that makes more sense to me why you would believe that. What about polygamy? So far on the websites I've dinked around on and from what you guys have said about eternal marriage, it doesn't sound as if there is more than one marriage partner, and yet that is one of the most common beliefs about mormons. Could you clear it up?

 

LDS do not currently practice polygamy. It is absolutely forbidden.

 

There are some fundamentalist Mormons who never gave up the practice (these are the people who are always in the news), but they are not affiliated with the mainstream Mormon church.

[Lawana]

LDS do not currently practice polygamy. It is absolutely forbidden.

 

 

There is one vestige of polygamy remaining. If after a man and woman have married in the temple, and the wife dies, the man may remarry another woman in the temple. He then has two wives for eternity, albeit not on earth.

(Disclaimer: this is based on 25 year old information.)

[Lovedtodeath]

There is nothing wrong with having a holy place called a Temple, or a church, or a sacred space. The issue is how we worship, not where. The system used in the Temple limited people's access to the most holy space, and the high priests controlled access to God in this way. It was this type of religious system that Jesus was abolishing. He was bringing the tabernacle out into the light of day, literally through the ripping of the veil and figurtively through his teachings. The fact that it veil ripped is seen as symbolic as the death of Jesus eliminating the distance between God and His people. The point was being made that God is available to everyone everywhere. It was not the actual building of the Temple that was under attack, or the worship of God there, but the way the High priests controlled that worship.

 

God made the rules regarding access to the ark, not the priests. The temple was built and used according to Jehovah's directions. Were the priests adding to that, and making it less accessable than those directives? That is possible, but that is not part of your argument as far as I can tell. The physical, earthly temples represented a greater spiritual temple, (Hebrews 8:2) the arrangement for approaching God in worship on the basis of the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 9:2-10, 23) The temple and its use in worship was not something disapproved, but actually set in place by God.

[MyFourSons]

God made the rules regarding access to the ark, not the priests. The temple was built and used according to Jehovah's directions. Were the priests adding to that, and making it less accessable than those directives? That is possible, but that is not part of your argument as far as I can tell. The physical, earthly temples represented a greater spiritual temple, (Hebrews 8:2) the arrangement for approaching God in worship on the basis of the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 9:2-10, 23) The temple and its use in worship was not something disapproved, but actually set in place by God.

 

I am not aruging about whether or not the Temple system was set in place by God, or whether it was ever valid, it was. But the system was abused by it's priests and God came to change it. It was part of the old covenant, and Jesus came to replace the old covenant with a new covenant. The temple system had become corrupted by an elite class of priests, the Pharisees, who cared more for their own power than for the true worship of God. God came as Jesus and He came to establish a new way of worship. He came, among other reasons, to reform the Temple system, and that fact also helps explain his angry outburst with the money changers in the Temple square. The old way was not needed anymore, people were ready to have direct contact with their God (as they already had in the form of Jesus Himself) and God created a new covenant, which he wanted to extend to people of all nations, not just Israel as the old covenant had done. This is what the Gospels are all about.

 

This is why Catholics call Mary the "Ark of the New Covenant." Just as the original Ark carried Moses, and the lost Ark carried the presence of God with the ten commandments, Mary's womb became an "ark" or vessel for God made flesh: Jesus. As I stated before, this new covenant was radically different from the old, with God having direct contact with His people through the Eucharist. And so, the old system of worship represented by the Temple and it's priests became obsolete.

 

This is also seen as a reason by many Christians as to why God would allow the Temple to be destroyed and the Ark of the Covenant to be lost. It simply isn't needed anymore, as He has established a new church on earth. The Eucharist became the paschal sacrifice, a sacrifice open to all, and the tabernacle is also open for all to see. The original temple system would go against this type of worship.

Edited August 24, 2009 by MyFourSons

[KingM]

This is also seen as a reason by many Christians as to why God would allow the Temple to be destroyed and the Ark of the Covenant to be lost. Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant, as the Ark is the vessel that carries the living God, Mary's womb carried Jesus. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross cements the new covenant and becomes the new sacrifice for the faithful. It is a sacrifice open to all, and the new tabernacle is open for all. Therefore the Temple system that was in place

 

Where does the Bible say that Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant?

 

Also, couldn't you argue that Jesus cleansing the temple is evidence that the temple was sacred space and that the Lord wanted it renewed for His holy purpose?

 

This is not my position, per se, as Jesus doesn't spend a whole lot of time talking about the temple, but this seems to be a reasonable interpretation.

[MyFourSons]

This has been such an interesting thread, thank you to everyone for helping to shed light on all the different sides of the issue. I really do need to end my posts, school starts next week and there is too much to do! I've been indulging myself in topics like this a bit too much. I hope everyone has a great start to their year, or have already had one!

[Lovedtodeath]

 

This has been such an interesting thread, thank you to everyone for helping to shed light on all the different sides of the issue. I really do need to end my posts, school starts next week and there is too much to do! I've been indulging myself in topics like this a bit too much. I hope everyone has a great start to their year, or have already had one!

I appreciate that you need to stop spending so much time. So do I.:) It does strike me that someone wanted a scriptural reference about your theory on the Temple and it was never provided. I am curious if/where the Bible discusses this.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Also, couldn't you argue that Jesus cleansing the temple is evidence that the temple was sacred space and that the Lord wanted it renewed for His holy purpose?

At that time the temple was still being used in the worship of the True God. After Jesus death it was no longer needed.

[lionfamily1999]

Aren't our bodies the temple now? After a baptism in the Holy Spirit, doesn't that allow God to dwell in you, thus making you the temple (and the need to keep your body clean and sacred)?

[Peek a Boo]

Where does the Bible say that Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant?

 

she answered that in her post:

 

Originally Posted by MyFourSons

. Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant, as the Ark is the vessel that carries the living God, Mary's womb carried Jesus. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross cements the new covenant and becomes the new sacrifice for the faithful.

 

 

it doesn't directly say "Mary is the new AotC" --you gotta employ some basic reading comprehension. Or work on some extra logic puzzles. ;)

[usetoschool]

God made the rules regarding access to the ark, not the priests. The temple was built and used according to Jehovah's directions. Were the priests adding to that, and making it less accessable than those directives? That is possible, but that is not part of your argument as far as I can tell. The physical, earthly temples represented a greater spiritual temple, (Hebrews 8:2) the arrangement for approaching God in worship on the basis of the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 9:2-10, 23) The temple and its use in worship was not something disapproved, but actually set in place by God.

 

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

Aren't our bodies the temple now? After a baptism in the Holy Spirit, doesn't that allow God to dwell in you, thus making you the temple (and the need to keep your body clean and sacred)?

This is a very deep subject. In writing about God's spiritual temple which was pictured by the physical temples, Paul said that the Most Holy is Heaven itself. We can conclude then that the rest of the temple described must pertain to earthly things. Hebrews 9:9, Hebrews 9:24

 

Revelation 3:12 refers to those that have been born again as a pillar in the temple. Since God's spirit dwells within these ones, they are likened to a spiritual temple. Ephesians 1:1,13;2:20-22; 1 Peter 2:5 New Jerusalem, the Heavenly city of these ones does not need a temple, since they are spirit adopted sons of God and serve directly with Jesus. Revelation 21:2,22

 

And there is much, much detail that I left out so I am sure this raises more questions than answers. ;)

[dangerdad]

 

At that time the temple was still being used in the worship of the True God. After Jesus death it was no longer needed.

I seem to recall God being pretty specific about the temple. The Apostles continued in the temple after Jesus (Acts 3, Acts 21, etc.). Can you point to where it says the temple wasn't needed?

[KingM]

I seem to recall God being pretty specific about the temple. The Apostles continued in the temple after Jesus (Acts 3, Acts 21, etc.). Can you point to where it says the temple wasn't needed?

 

Interesting point.

 

Of course, to play devil's advocate, I should point out that the LDS temple ceremonies bear little resemblance to what was done in the temple in Jerusalem, so far as I am aware.

 

ETA: It appears that the first LDS temple in Kirtland did not resemble modern temple either, which would imply that temple theology evolved as time went on. This seems to suggest that the LDS temple is not a restoration, but rather a modern development.

 

The first structure of its kind to be built by the Latter Day Saint movement, the Kirtland Temple is different in purpose than the Nauvoo temple built in the 1840s. It is different in both design and purpose of the temples built by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints portion of the movement in latter years as they embraced and grew from Nauvoo temple theology.

 

 

The lower inner court is used primarily for various worship services. It has two sets of pulpits, one set on either end, and the pews featured an adjustable design which allowed the audience to face either end. The second floor was designed for education, and was to house a school for church leaders known as the "School of Mine Apostles" (See School of the Prophets). Use of the third floor alternated use between general academic classes during the day, Church quorum meetings in the evenings, the Kirtland Theological Institution, the School of the Elders (possibly an enlargement of the school of the prophets, and may have been destined to become the school of mine apostles), Church offices, including that of Smith, were also located on the third floor. At the time of construction, none of the ordinances associated with LDS temple worship, such as baptism by proxy, had been instituted.

 

Source.

Edited August 25, 2009 by KingM

[Lovedtodeath]

Well, the reason I said that was that the ark, the Most Holy, the animal sacrifices, all of it was no longer what God wanted after Jesus' death. Then God allowed its complete destruction and never had it rebuilt. I don't have anything more specific, though I could probably find it.

[Lovedtodeath]

Interesting point.

 

Of course, to play devil's advocate, I should point out that the LDS temple ceremonies bear little resemblance to what was done in the temple in Jerusalem, so far as I am aware.

Look! I am agreeing with KingM!

[KingM]

Well, the reason I said that was that the ark, the Most Holy, the animal sacrifices, all of it was no longer what God wanted after Jesus' death. Then God allowed its complete destruction and never had it rebuilt. I don't have anything more specific, though I could probably find it.

 

Just so we don't agree too much, I think our Mormon friends would argue that he did, in fact, have it rebuilt. ;)

[Tea Time]

I seem to recall God being pretty specific about the temple. The Apostles continued in the temple after Jesus (Acts 3, Acts 21, etc.). Can you point to where it says the temple wasn't needed?

 

They may have continued in the Temple for a time, but the rituals were no longer consistent with Christ's message and the New Covenant. It may have taken some time, but things changed, and in around 70 AD, the Temple was destroyed.

 

The Temple - the one that FourMom talked about was "The Temple" which is not the same as a synagogue. But you don't have to take my word for it, here is an answer from a Rabbi. Google the words temple vs synagogue if you want further clarification. Here is an excerpt and the link:

 

"In ancient Israel some 3,000 years ago, there were no such institutions as synagogues; there was only the Temple in Jerusalem that King Solomon built to glorify and sanctify God. That sacred space was the domain of the ancient priests and Levites who performed the ancient cult’s sacrificial rituals, and commoners like you and me could enter the Temple only so far. " (underline is mine)

 

Read more here:

 

http://www.macon.com/147/story/795826.html

 

So... places to worship, teach, and continue the Sacraments instituted by Christ were and are still needed, but a place to house the Holy of Holies... to keep some people away from God and allow others inside... to give blood sacrifices... do you need a chapter and verse to understand why these were and are no longer needed? I don't really have time to research the topic Biblically right now, but it seems self evident to me.

 

BTW, rebuilding The Temple would cause a major problem because that sacred space is now shared with Islam, the Dome of the Rock.

[cougarmom4]

Man, this morning I felt relieved that this thread had finally gotten lost! And here it is...back full steam ahead. Only so far, I've only seen nonLDS debating about how wrong we are to have temples. :001_smile: I don't have the energy to deal with it anymore. I suppose my naive purpose in the beginning was to correct misconceptions and share in a discussion to increase understanding; I have never been interested in a debate for the sake of 'proving' my religion is right...especially not in this type of avenue...for in my perspective logic doesn't convert...the spirit is the one that changes hearts and lives.

 

Any chance I could get one of you to start a new thread and continue your debate there...with, perhaps, a different, more respectful title? I realize it may seem like a strange request, and I ask this hesitantly, but perhaps I can explain...every time I open these boards and see the bolded title implying Mormons aren't Christians...well, it just bothers me and it seems to be going on forever.

 

Okay, obviously I can choose not to open the thread...but I fight this internal battle every time I see the title. (The internal battle between wanting to stand up for my beliefs and knowing that no matter what I say, opinions will not change...) Of course, I could always just stay away from the boards...but I really do enjoy most of the discussions here--I am learning so much, and would probably go through withdrawals. (Hmm, on the other hand, perhaps it's just what I need...break my addiction).

[KingM]

Cougarmom,

 

I think most people have been respectful, even if they're not always agreeing. And plenty of non-Mormons like myself have stood up to defend the right of Mormons to call themselves Christians.

 

Of course this isn't the venue for Mormons to "convert" others, but I've been impressed on several occasions with how thoughtful some of the LDS posters have been in many of these discussions.

 

As an outsider, I think you're holding your own. :thumbup1:

[Julie in Austin]

KingM,

 

I appreciate your comment, but I think I also get where cougarmom is coming from. Reading things like "do you need a chapter and verse to understand why these were and are no longer needed?" sounds to LDS like what "do you really need chapter and verse to understand why homeschooling is going to ruin your kids for life?" would sound to everyone here.

[Lovedtodeath]

KingM,

 

I appreciate your comment, but I think I also get where cougarmom is coming from. Reading things like "do you need a chapter and verse to understand why these were and are no longer needed?" sounds to LDS like what "do you really need chapter and verse to understand why homeschooling is going to ruin your kids for life?" would sound to everyone here.

Just to clarify... I was not commenting in any way on the temples in use by the LDS... I was commenting on THE TEMPLE, used by the Jews under the Law. It was never my intention to point out how wrong y'all are to have temples. I agree that the LDS have done a great job on this thread and I have learned a lot from it.

 

Now maybe due to the title of the thread being bothersome we should move on.

[Tea Time]

I appreciate your comment, but I think I also get where cougarmom is coming from. Reading things like "do you need a chapter and verse to understand why these were and are no longer needed?" sounds to LDS like what "do you really need chapter and verse to understand why homeschooling is going to ruin your kids for life?" would sound to everyone here.

 

 

Wait a minute, you are misunderstanding. I have been very respectful and careful in my posting, or I have tried to be, and I have tried to avoid making statements directly related to the LDS Church's practices. I even stated in one of my posts that I would not attempt to do so because I have no idea what they believe.

 

The statement above was about the Old Testament Temple and its purposes (including blood sacrifices) not LDS Temples. I have no idea what they are doing in the LDS Temple or what their beliefs about the temple might be, but I don't think they are killing birds to atone for sin. The reason why ritual sacrifice is not needed anymore should be self explanatory (not needing a chapter and verse) to any Christian, that is all I meant.

 

But I think feelings are getting too tender in general, and I will stop posting on this topic.

 

Cougarmom's idea of starting a new thread to talk about temples in general might be a good one. I ran across an interesting article about how shopping malls are kind of the new "secular" temples of modern times. They had some pictures of how much time and money are put into them and how beautiful they make them, too. Interesting how people are drawn to the idea. Anyway, just want to mention this because bashing the LDS temple was the farthest thing from my mind; I was just researching the term for my own clarification.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Tea Time

[Julie in Austin]

I appreciate the clarification. When I read the statement, I assumed it was a slam against the foolishness of LDS for thinking that a temple would be necessary after Christ; I am very glad to learn that I was misreading the statement.

[cougarmom4]

Cougarmom,

 

I think most people have been respectful, even if they're not always agreeing. And plenty of non-Mormons like myself have stood up to defend the right of Mormons to call themselves Christians.

 

Of course this isn't the venue for Mormons to "convert" others, but I've been impressed on several occasions with how thoughtful some of the LDS posters have been in many of these discussions.

 

As an outsider, I think you're holding your own. :thumbup1:

 

 

KingM,

I have noticed that you have been the one to come to 'our' defense a time or two...much appreciated. I have struggled with feelings of offense a time or two, but have tried to remember most are not intentionally trying to offend.

 

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me...in fact, I enjoy learning what others believe and I do want to have a greater understanding of different religions/perspectives. I think that helps us all to become more tolerant and accepting of others and our differences. And heaven knows we need more tolerance in our world!

 

I guess in my mind, a helpful, informative discussion would include a little bit more of: I see it this way. Oh, interesting...I see it that way. Hmm, now I understand where you are coming from. What do you think about x, y, z. Oh, that makes sense, but I see it like h, i, j. Ah, I'll have to think on that some more. Kind of a share and share alike type of thing. So I guess that was my bad...I was anticipating a different kind of discussion; and found myself in a debate--but I also suddenly found myself not able to walk away without defending myself. I now know not to get involved in religious debate on here in the future. :D I will run away and hide!

 

Julie in Austin,

That's the exact type of analogy I've been thinking of since this started.

 

To take it a little further, let's say every time you opened up the forums, there was a thread titled, Homeschoolers aren't intelligent. Judgment/opinion statement? Yes! Overgeneralization? Of course! Accurate statement? Possibly in some cases...I might even be able to site examples to prove it. Do you think this might possibly bother some homeschooler to see this? Probably. I'd bet people would get their shackles up and come out in full force to defend themselves...to say how dare you make such a comment...to prove that I don't know enough about it to make such a statement. And perhaps every time they saw it, it would bug them.

 

Perhaps this little analogy will help others to see how this thread has felt from my perspective.

 

(And btw, the analogy example is purely fictional and not my opinion!)

 

I think I'm ready to move on to discuss other things! :001_smile:

[cougarmom4]

Cougarmom's idea of starting a new thread to talk about temples in general might be a good one. I ran across an interesting article about how shopping malls are kind of the new "secular" temples of modern times. They had some pictures of how much time and money are put into them and how beautiful they make them, too. Interesting how people are drawn to the idea. Anyway, just want to mention this because bashing the LDS temple was the farthest thing from my mind; I was just researching the term for my own clarification.

 

Tea Time,

Thank you for your comments and clarification. No hard feelings. :grouphug:

 

If you wouldn't mind, I'm wondering if I can ask a favor? If/when you start your new thread, would you be so kind as to leave 'LDS' temple out of the title? Then I won't get my panties in a wad every time I get on this forum! (Of course, it's really no business of mine what you title your thread....)