Jump to content
nuclearfuels

Future Temple on Mount Horeb?

Recommended Posts

With all the new Temples being announced and my excitement builds at attending the dedications of said Temples, can the experts on this forum and the Journal of Discourse experts comment as to a future Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Temple on Mount Horeb (Moses and the Burning Bush site)? Perhaps during the Millennium?

Share this post


Link to post

Mt Horeb, Wisconsin does not have enough LDS in the area to justify a new temple at this time.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

With all the new Temples being announced and my excitement builds at attending the dedications of said Temples, can the experts on this forum and the Journal of Discourse experts comment as to a future Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Temple on Mount Horeb (Moses and the Burning Bush site)? Perhaps during the Millennium?

Maybe during the millennium for symbolism sake. There isn't a crazy amount of people, especially any members,  around that area so I can't see a reason right now to even consider building one. It did act just like a temple when Moses was there though! The people were at the base, the priests were half way up the mountain hearing the Lord, and Moses was on the top experiencing an Ascent. I see a Jerusalem temple coming sooner then Horeb since no prophecies exist for future uses. That would be super cool though!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

With all the new Temples being announced and my excitement builds at attending the dedications of said Temples, can the experts on this forum and the Journal of Discourse experts comment as to a future Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Temple on Mount Horeb (Moses and the Burning Bush site)? Perhaps during the Millennium?

Where is Mt Horeb?  Both Moses and Elijah hung out there for awhile.  Where was that?  In the midst of the Sinai Desert?  Or in Midian?  Which one?

Image result for mt horeb

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Where is Mt Horeb?  Both Moses and Elijah hung out there for awhile.  Where was that?  In the midst of the Sinai Desert?  Or in Midian?  Which one?

If Moses led the children of Israel through the Red Sea (see 1 Nephi 4:2) in the Gulf of Aqaba, then Mount Horeb would have to be in the Land of Midian.  This is where Moses tended the flocks of Jethro for 40 years and saw the Burning Bush in the Mountain of God (probably in the 80th year of his life).

Edited by longview

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

With all the new Temples being announced and my excitement builds at attending the dedications of said Temples, can the experts on this forum and the Journal of Discourse experts comment as to a future Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Temple on Mount Horeb (Moses and the Burning Bush site)? Perhaps during the Millennium?

Well there's only one mention of Horeb in the Journal of Discourses and it has nothing to do with a temple.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

With all the new Temples being announced and my excitement builds at attending the dedications of said Temples, can the experts on this forum and the Journal of Discourse experts comment as to a future Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Temple on Mount Horeb (Moses and the Burning Bush site)? Perhaps during the Millennium?

 

4 hours ago, longview said:

If Moses led the children of Israel through the Red Sea (see 1 Nephi 4:2) in the Gulf of Aqaba, then Mount Horeb would have to be in the Land of Midian.  This is where Moses tended the flocks of Jethro for 40 years and saw the Burning Bush in the Mountain of God (probably in the 80th year of his life).

The Gulf of Aqaba is basically an impossible crossing site given the time listed in Exodus until the crossing. It is also impossibly deep. Mount Horeb is essentially the name of the western wilderness of Mount Sinai, while the wilderness of Sinai, is the name of the eastern side where Israel encamped. Paul said it was in Arabia, and I agree. The traditional site in the Sinai Peninsula was chosen by Helena - I'm sure one of the real factors was that the site was inside the Roman Empire. Do you really want to send all the new Christian pilgrims to Arabia to enrich those Arabian merchants? i basically disagree with just about everything "Orthodox," and this is just one more incorrect tradition. The real Mount Sinai represented the temple - it was a substitute until the people could build one - note that only the high priest and the 70 elders were able to go up into the mountain/temple where they saw YHWH. Settingdogstar is right: "It did act just like a temple when Moses was there though!" The law given there still applies to us - to love our neighbor as ourselves, which is the heart of all the commandments and the prophets.

Whether a temple will ever be built there I do not know - it will undoubtedly not happen until the Arabs convert - which will probably take some centuries.

Interestingly, in Nephi's vision of being caught up into an exceedingly high mountain, I believe he was being shown Sinai, which was just to the east of where he was.

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, longview said:

If Moses led the children of Israel through the Red Sea (see 1 Nephi 4:2) in the Gulf of Aqaba,

The "Red Sea" crossed by Israel led by Moses was Hebrew yam-sûf “Sea of Reeds” (Exodus 23:31; LXX Greek erythras thalassēs “Red Sea”) = Ancient Egyptian pЗ twf(y) “the marsh, wetlands; reeds” = Tjaru/ Sile (on the eastern border, at the northernmost point of the El-Ballah Lakes in Egypt) in the Ramesside Onomastica of Amenemopet.[1]

[1] James K. Hoffmeier, “Out of Egypt,” BAR, 33/1 (Jan-Feb 2007):40-41, citing A. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (1947), II:122-202; Manfred Bietak, Tell el-Dabˁa (Vienna, 1975), II:136-137; and William Ward, “The Biconsonantal Root Sp and the Common Origin of Egyptian Čwf and the Hebrew Sup: Marsh (-Plant),” Vetus Testamentum, 24 (1974):339-349; M. Copisarow, “The Ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Hebrew Concept of the Red Sea,” VT, 12 (1962):1-13.

4 hours ago, longview said:

then Mount Horeb would have to be in the Land of Midian.  This is where Moses tended the flocks of Jethro for 40 years and saw the Burning Bush in the Mountain of God (probably in the 80th year of his life).

Yes, it must be in Midian, which is the same area traversed by Clan Lehi a millennium later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/23/2018 at 1:36 AM, RevTestament said:

Interestingly, in Nephi's vision of being caught up into an exceedingly high mountain, I believe he was being shown Sinai, which was just to the east of where he was.

Which would put it SQUARELY in the land of Midian.  The area Lehi's family was traversing as confirmed by RFS.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, longview said:

Which would put it SQUARELY in the land of Midian.  The area Lehi's family was traversing as confirmed by RFS.

If nothing else that would be incredibly poetic for the Book of Mormon. Considering the fact that it was there that God showed Nephi the fate of his people in the "promised land" which they were traveling through the wilderness to get to. They even crossed a body of water to get to it! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

Which would put it SQUARELY in the land of Midian.  The area Lehi's family was traversing as confirmed by RFS.

Yes. That is where Moses had been living according to scripture. Yet, orthodox still try to say Jethro must have traveled over to the Sinai Peninsula, and Moses must have taken his sheep over to that barren desert, which was controlled by Egypt at the time no less - because Helena said it was there, and tradition says so. I do recognize that the peninsula had a few oases, but... it just shouldn't be named Sinai. All I said is that a crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba is inconsistent with everything we know. It was popularized by a SDA, Ron Wyatt, who tried to claim he found chariot wheels off Nuweiba beach. We know from King Tut's tomb what Egyptian chariots were built like. There is no way the relatively thin wood wheels would have survived 3500 years at the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba.

In New Testament times the area was called Arabia. By that time the Midianites had long been dispersed. It was no longer the land of Midian. The Nabateans had conquered it. The rift valley was called the Arabah. The tribes down there eventually were called Arabs, but were a mix of various Biblical tribes. 

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

In New Testament times the area was called Arabia. By that time the Midianites had long been dispersed. It was no longer the land of Midian.

You are in harmony with Apostle Paul:  Gal 4:25  For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

 

This is a graphic representation of the crossing route  at the Gulf of Aqaba A theratical image of the Red Sea parted.
Here is a view of the route that the Hebrews actually crossed the Red Sea (Gulf of Aqaba).

 

(Up to 50 feet deep.)
This is a graphic illustration if what the crossing may have looked like.

 

black-line.gif
"And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea". Exodus 15:8
Edited by longview

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

You are in harmony with Apostle Paul:  Gal 4:25  For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Yes. Like I said in my first post: "Paul said it was in Arabia, and I agree."

Quote
This is a graphic representation of the crossing route  at the Gulf of Aqaba A theratical image of the Red Sea parted.
Here is a view of the route that the Hebrews actually crossed the Red Sea (Gulf of Aqaba).

 

(Up to 50 feet deep.)
This is a graphic illustration if what the crossing may have looked like.

 

black-line.gif
"And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea". Exodus 15:8

Sorry, I disagree, and that representation is very inaccurate. Although the initial area around Nuweiba beach is shallow, the gulf gets quite deep there - over a thousand feet deep - not "up to 50 feet deep," and is quite steep on the Arabian side. The shallowest crossing site is actually at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba, but it too is presented with very steep and almost cliff-like sides on the Arabian side, with coral reefs to contend with as well. To get to either site within the one week presented by Exodus would involve traveling impossible distances of around 60 miles per day. Try doing that with flocks of goats and ox carts, and you will quickly give up on that model. A good day would be 15 miles. On Joseph Smith's Zions camp they made about 18-20 miles max per day with horses.

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The shallowest crossing site is actually at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba, but it too is presented with very steep and almost cliff-like sides on the Arabian side, with coral reefs to contend with as well.

I have imagined the Children of Israel being led all the way down to the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula.  That the Egyptian army completely out flanked them on both sides of the peninsula with only the Pillar of Fire to keep them at bay.  The mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba would have been a great place for God to perform another of His Wonders.

It is disappointing that many on this board are so inclined to put "humanist" limitations on the power of God.  I have no problem with God making the walls of water to be very high for dramatic effect but He can also smooth out a path for easy transit by the Israelites.  If Jesus can walk on water, God can lay a "firmament" at the right elevation.  Consider this scripture:

1 Nephi 17:50 And I said unto them: If God had commanded me to do all things I could do them. If he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done.

Edited by longview

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, longview said:

It is disappointing that many on this board are so inclined to put "humanist" limitations on the power of God.  I have no problem with God making the walls of water to be very high for dramatic effect but He can also smooth out a path for easy transit by the Israelites.  If Jesus can walk on water, God can lay a "firmament" at the right elevation.  Consider this scripture:

1 Nephi 17:50 And I said unto them: If God had commanded me to do all things I could do them. If he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done.

Look bro, it is wrong. I almost take offense at your calling me "humanist." I put scriptural limitations on the event. There are actually a number of reasons the Gulf of Aqaba crossings cannot be correct - scripturally - not the least of which they are just too far away. However, we can agree on Sinai being around the land of Midian. And guess what? That is scriptural. If you want to put some kind of additional supernatural additions to the story, hey, I ain't gonna stop you - we'll just disagree. Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Look bro, it is wrong. I almost take offense at your calling me "humanist." I put scriptural limitations on the event. There are actually a number of reasons the Gulf of Aqaba crossings cannot be correct - scripturally - not the least of which they are just too far away. However, we can agree on Sinai being around the land of Midian. And guess what? That is scriptural. If you want to put some kind of additional supernatural additions to the story, hey, I ain't gonna stop you - we'll just disagree. Cheers

Your statements are confusing.  I have re-read the postings in this thread.  You seem to agree that the "Mountain of God" (called Mount Sinai or Mount Horeb) was squarely in the Land of Midian.  I assume that you believe that Moses did stretch forth his rod and divided the "body of water" and led his people across (as affirmed by 1 Nephi 4:2).  I guess the question now is:  where do you think this "body of water" was?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, longview said:

Your statements are confusing.  I have re-read the postings in this thread.  You seem to agree that the "Mountain of God" (called Mount Sinai or Mount Horeb) was squarely in the Land of Midian.  I assume that you believe that Moses did stretch forth his rod and divided the "body of water" and led his people across (as affirmed by 1 Nephi 4:2).  I guess the question now is:  where do you think this "body of water" was?

I believe in a fairly traditional spot. Immediately after crossing the Yam Suf, the Israelites entered the wilderness of Shur. May I suggest you study the wilderness of Shur? If it is not in Arabia, you will have an impossible time with a Gulf of Aqaba crossing. Note in the text, that after a fairly long time, they came to the Yam Suf again. The Reed Sea argument is not important. Until recent times the north end of the Gulf of Aqaba was full of fresh water reeds. This is due to the unique geography of the area. The water from the two sides of the Arabah, collects in the middle and flows down to the Gulf of Aqaba, where it seeps out of the very ground acting much like a giant spring. Travelers could stop and water their camels by simply scooping out some sand and letting the fresh water seep into the hole. The Israelites knew about the Red Sea. The Egyptians not only traveled across the Sinai Peninsula, but they sent boats around to a port in the Gulf of Aqaba to pick up copper which was smelted in the Arabah. Egypt was a bronze age society and consumed huge quantities of copper. Further, trade through the Red Sea was very important, and I believe was a major reason the Hyksos, so called, moved into lower Egypt - to gain control of that trade route. I believe the Israelites were on fairly friendly terms with the Hyksos, and were even government administrators for them - so they would have known about the Red Sea through trade. Note the familiarity with which certain apparent landmarks are mentioned in Exodus as Israel leaves Egypt, and their Egyptian etymology. 

Well, that is enough. I have very firm beliefs about the route of the exodus, but do not wish to say more at this time. :) 

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/26/2018 at 10:20 AM, RevTestament said:

. . . you will have an impossible time with a Gulf of Aqaba crossing.

You need not fret about that, God had sufficient provisions for a walkable path as documented here:  ". . . and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea". Exodus 15:8

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, longview said:

You need not fret about that, God had sufficient provisions for a walkable path as documented here:  ". . . and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea". Exodus 15:8

OK, Whatever you say.

1 Samuel 15:7

7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to aShur, that is over against Egypt.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By HappyJackWagon
      I've been hearing rumors since the last conference that there will be some significant changes to the ways we experience and worship in the temple. Most significantly I'm hearing that there is an effort afoot to shorten the endowment to help reduce the logjam of names. As we know, a person (or group) can go to the temple and be baptized for 150 people within the same time it takes a person to do 1 endowment. I've long wondered about this discrepancy and how it could easily cause an imbalance in temple work. I've seen temples limit the number of baptisms one person could do. For a while on youth trips each youth was limited to just 5 names even though we had time to do more. So it would make sense to me to somehow shorten the endowment. Changes have been made before so I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done.
      With that general background, I'm also hearing that Pres. Nelson wants temple worship to be his legacy. For that to be the case I would suspect some significant changes would be needed, else why would it be "his" legacy. He is definitely a mover and a shaker, making things happen quickly so I think it fits his personality to move with changes he may have been considering for many years. In general I enjoy his ambition and determination to make things happen.
      I'm also hearing about mandatory meetings in early January for all temple workers where supposedly they will be informed of these changes so they can be prepared. Perhaps January meetings for all temple workers is a totally normal thing (I don't know as I've only ever served as a veil worker).
      So, it makes sense to me that changes could come, as early as the next few weeks. So I've got a couple of questions.
      1- Would you welcome changes to the length of time it takes to perform temple ordinances? (I call these efficiency changes)
      2- Is the family history/temple approval system adequate for temple work to move forward in a faster way? IOW- will there be enough names (without duplication) to keep up a faster pace?
      3- Are there other changes (besides efficiency) that you might expect to see?
      *Please keep the discussion respectful, both to each other and also to the temple rituals. There are a couple of specific items/topics regarding temple worship that shouldn't be discussed.
    • By SettingDogStar
      The First Endowment was administered in the Upper Room of the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. The room is not very big and Joseph said that he spent the day giving all the different "..washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings.."
      My question was how they would have been able to arrange the room to match the temple layout? What else do you think Joseph included that Brigham Young eventually cut/rearranged in the Nauvoo temple and in later arrangements of the endowment?
      I can't find Josephs original plans for the layout of the Nauvoo floors. However from the ones I can find it doesn't seem to include the rooms that were built in later temples like St. George and Salt Lake. When the Nauvoo temple was finished they hung curtains to section off the different portions of the endowment but I feel like Joseph would have specific rooms built for that purpose? Or no?
      Just curious on your thoughts!!
    • By nuclearfuels
      So in the Primary class I teach, my coteacher is incredible and brings video clips from a Jewish film library.
      Last Sunday we learned about Solomon's Temple, which imitated the Tabernacle Moses built, and Moses' Temple imitated/represented the actual, physical Garden of Eden with the Tree of eternal life being up on top of a hill and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil being lower than the hill, according to Jewish scholarship.
      Was the Garden of Eden a Temple? A representation of mortality, condensed?
      Hoping Robert Smith will weigh in on this.
       
       
    • By nuclearfuels
      Hi all-
      How can I get tickets to the Salta Argentina Temple Dedication?
      Emailed my wife's mission pres, now a GA, with no luck.
      Descamisados! Mi compañeros!
      Otherwise I'll have to ask that you not cry for me, Argentina
×