Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SettingDogStar

Animal Sacrifice

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Sorry to interrupt but I believe Daniel confirms that a daily sacrifice was practiced at the temple. You can find references to it in Daniel 8, 9 & 11. For instance Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

We were talking about "vicarious ordinances for the dead" in the temple.  Does this have anything to do with the usage of old testament temples for use in vicarious ordinances for the dead?

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

This is after the Messiah is "cut off" and i believe is properly understood as the "week" or prophetic seven days of the seven years war in which the temple was destroyed in the midst of the week or 70 AD, thus causing the daily sacrifices performed in the temple to cease.

This is after the Atonement.  A lot of what you're saying doesn't even address what I've actually said.  Have you read my earlier posts?  Or are you skimming?

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

However, just to be clear, unlike Robert I am not proposing that animal sacrifice will ever be reinstituted. The Mosaic law was a lower or teaching law full of symbolism. Those sacrifices were symbolic, and there is no sense of repeating them once the events they symbolize transpire. Quite simply, man has yet to understand them, but that is no reason to reinstitute them. 

I've thought that too.  And I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm saying that other possibilities now seem possible to me.

Share this post


Link to post

@RevTestament

I just need a clarification before I begin a full response.  Are you saying that "The Dispensation of the Fulness of Times" is not "The Last Dispensation"?  I get the rest of your argument.  But I'm having trouble with this fine point.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

@RevTestament

I just need a clarification before I begin a full response.  Are you saying that "The Dispensation of the Fulness of Times" is not "The Last Dispensation"?  I get the rest of your argument.  But I'm having trouble with this fine point.

No. I am saying that Joseph Smith was in the sixth dispensation of covenant and priesthood, and that the last dispensation of the fulness of times had not begun in his day. In his day the Lord said things like which dispensation is about to unfold.  Why does He say this if the last dispensation had begun with the restoration of keys by Elijah?

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I don't see this as an issue of obedience.  But, then again, I don't see anything as an issue of obedience.  (I tend to set down heavy on the 'agency' side, although not to say that obedience and agency are mutually exclusive.)

If it is a matter of meat eaters, then performing sacrifice to make it sacred; I don't have a problem.  Or some temporary device if it truly points the mind, body, and soul to the deeper truth.  But there isn't something better? Or let's just be plain and not learn only by a ritual with hard side effects.

What is difficult for me at this time is the sense of teleological progression to higher law(s).  And part of that is the knowledge that animals are persons with the right to life.  I feel that the Hindu approach to cows, making them sacred by living, rather than killing them.  I don't know that the 'celestial law' involves vegetarianism, but I personally think that it does.  I think it involves not eating anything but light.  You have to stop eating and killing things you can have a conversation with i.e. animals in celestial.  Again, is there a verse and chapter on this? Maybe not.  But it's where my understanding has gone based on a variety of threads and factors that DO have verse and chapter.  (Not that I build my world view solely from verse and chapter.  There is much that is right that has never been written and never could.)  The problem I have with it is if I would not kill a child on an altar, I would not kill a pigeon.  Because I would have repented of thinking a pigeon is something much different than my child.  To me, that is a falsehood; that we can't see better how precious every life form is; brother bear and all that.  I mean, obviously I would rather a pigeon than my child die, but I would rather another's child than mine die too, if those were the choices.  Let's not make them the choices.

It is also a better understanding (or as I say at this time) of 'sacrifice': to make holy, to give life to oneself and others.  It is not about losing something or going without something or killing something or something getting hurt.  Sacrifice is the opposite.  If you think of the Sun of our solar system and how it 'sacrifices' daily--it is what it is, a burning being, and by its burning It gives life to our planet.  I do have a hard time thinking of how a commitment to life would involve a killing ritual for the sake of prophecy (which is not the only sake that I'm saying every one is coming from, but its one).   Sacrifice is to give of oneself to allow others to live, instead of taking from others so that only you can live.

We sacrifice by living, not by dying.

So saying we need to do something simply and only to prove or show the Restoration as if there were boxes to be ticked off (again not saying it is everyone's point of view or only point of view, only one possible), I really think that is a poor way for me personally to accept things as right.

This!! 

Maybe God really doesn't need us to kill anyway, and what sacrifice is it to kill an animal and then eat it. Where is the sacrifice from ourselves in this, absolutely none. I think it was a mistake to think it's what the Lord wanted, really. And when we often say prophets are men and make mistakes, I believe the revelations some of them get is wrong. We should go by our gut feeling, our own compasses or revelation. Thanks for sharing yours, you always have such illuminating things, for me to see better!! ;) :) 

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

CFR

This is a letter from the first presidency saying that all STAKE circles be discontinued because of how large the church was getting. They were performed in stake centers, I have pictures of those rooms as well. Now they’re just used as classrooms.

The act of stake councils performing prayer circles is evident that it was not apostate to perform these outside the temple. The rules might have changed over the years but the principle hasn’t.

ED787A58-248C-488C-84EA-7346D2089752.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This!! 

Maybe God really doesn't need us to kill anyway, and what sacrifice is it to kill an animal and then eat it. Where is the sacrifice from ourselves in this, absolutely none. I think it was a mistake to think it's what the Lord wanted, really. And when we often say prophets are men and make mistakes, I believe the revelations some of them get is wrong. We should go by our gut feeling, our own compasses or revelation. Thanks for sharing yours, you always have such illuminating things, for me to see better!! ;) :) 

I mean Adam did it and was commanded by God to do it and an Angel approved of it. However I see you’re point, especially in a day and age where killing an animal isnt really necessary as it used to be.

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

No. I am saying that Joseph Smith was in the sixth dispensation of covenant and priesthood, and that the last dispensation of the fulness of times had not begun in his day. In his day the Lord said things like which dispensation is about to unfold.  Why does He say this if the last dispensation had begun with the restoration of keys by Elijah?

That's what I thought you meant.  But I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Response:

When does a dispensation "begin"?

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I wonder where else Joseph Smith talked about "the last dispensation?" As far as I have read, he never stated that the last dispensation had started...

(P.S. And no, for the apologists I'm not looking for all the quotes from subsequent presidents of the Church!!!!) 

Maybe it’s semantics but I wonder why Joseph said “and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the authority and delive[r] the Keys of this priesthood” as if Elijah hadn’t already come. This quote was given in 1840 but Elijah had most likely already come in 1836. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I mean Adam did it and was commanded by God to do it and an Angel approved of it. However I see you’re point, especially in a day and age where killing an animal is really necessary as it used to be.

This is where I'm totally confused because I've heard faithful messages here and elsewhere that Adam & Eve are symbolic in the temple and Bible and it didn't really happen. But that topic could be another thread and has one, I believe. So I really don't believe things happened like that physically, the Garden of Eden. But that's me, but I did believe at one time that it was exactly how it says in the Bible, and not just symbolism. But it was on this board that some said it was symbolic and not physical, to which my jaw dropped, because it was from a faithful member. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

This is a letter from the first presidency saying that all STAKE circles be discontinued because of how large the church was getting. They were performed in stake centers, I have pictures of those rooms as well. Now they’re just used as classrooms.

The act of stake councils performing prayer circles is evident that it was not apostate to perform these outside the temple. The rules might have changed over the years but the principle hasn’t.

ED787A58-248C-488C-84EA-7346D2089752.jpeg

Read the first line: "Special Permission".  If special permission was required, then it stands to reason that such is not appropriate (read forbidden) without such permission.

Read the second line: "In the temples of the Church".  If this is referring to the extant prayer circles which were part of the temple ceremony, then why would they need special permission to do this in the temple?

This is obviously a different kind of gathering than those who have been practicing a temple ordinance in private homes.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We were talking about "vicarious ordinances for the dead" in the temple.  Does this have anything to do with the usage of old testament temples for use in vicarious ordinances for the dead?

No. I am simply interrupting on the basis of comments on temple sacrifice.

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is after the Atonement.  A lot of what you're saying doesn't even address what I've actually said.  Have you read my earlier posts?  Or are you skimming?

Sorry if you feel I was not answering your concerns or issues. My comments are limited.

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I've thought that too.  And I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm saying that other possibilities now seem possible to me.

To put it bluntly I disagree with the modern Church's declaration that the Mosaic sacrifice does not apply to us in a literal sense, and its interpretation of the BoM meaning that sacrifice was done away. The BoM means animal sacrifice was done away by Yeshua - trying to say that it will be reinstituted flies in the face of its plain meaning. Yeshua addressed this in John by telling Peter that another would take him by the hand and lead him where he would not - and by what death he would glorify God. Yeshua was the door lintel, but as the appointed holder of the keys of the kingdom, Peter was a door post, and sealed his testimony with his death. Thus, he was the stone that Yeshua placed upon Himself as the chief cornerstone of the house of God.  Peter told the early brethren present  in Jerusalem that they were "lively stones." Many ended up giving up their lives for the sake of the gospel - perhaps in connection with the seven years war when many Jews were crucified by the Romans if not killed in battle. In the last dispensation many will be beheaded for the sake of the gospel, and in an effort to teach the gospel to their fellow man. To put it bluntly, this teaching that the sacrifice will be a reinstituted animal sacrifice is pablum rather than the strong meat of the gospel, and misses the point that sacrifice is forever connected with the power of the priesthood. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is where I'm totally confused because I've heard faithful messages here and elsewhere that Adam & Eve are symbolic in the temple and Bible and it didn't really happen. But that topic could be another thread and has one, I believe. So I really don't believe things happened like that physically, the Garden of Eden. But that's me, but I did believe at one time that it was exactly how it says in the Bible, and not just symbolism. But it was on this board that some said it was symbolic and not physical, to which my jaw dropped, because it was from a faithful member. 

The sacrifice was not in the Garden.  It was after the fall.  And, no, it was not symbolic.  Animals were sacrificed.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The sacrifice was not in the Garden.  It was after the fall.  And, no, it was not symbolic.  Animals were sacrificed.

Didn't say that any sacrifice was in the Garden. I commented on Adam sacrificing, but that I'd read on this board and for the first time, that they are symbolic and not physical, Adam and Eve, specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

No. I am simply interrupting on the basis of comments on temple sacrifice.

Sorry if you feel I was not answering your concerns or issues. My comments are limited.

You're confusing me.  Let me run down the conversation thus far and tell me what I'm missing.

I first made the comment that "work for the dead had not yet begun" prior to the resurrection.  Robert then responded.

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, we know from II Maccabees 12 that temple work for the dead was practiced by the Jews

To which I pointed out with three bullet points that his reference was lacking.

Then you responded with:

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Sorry to interrupt but I believe Daniel confirms that a daily sacrifice was practiced at the temple...

Here is where the break lies.  When I was discussing this with Robert, (that is who I meant by "we") WE were talking about vicarious ordinances for the dead.  What does your Daniel reference have to do with the work for the dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Read the first line: "Special Permission".  If special permission was required, then it stands to reason that such is not appropriate (read forbidden) without such permission.

Read the second line: "In the temples of the Church".  If this is referring to the extant prayer circles which were part of the temple ceremony, then why would they need special permission to do this in the temple?

This is obviously a different kind of gathering than those who have been practicing a temple ordinance in private homes.

I believe the reason it was becoming an issue is because, and the letter mentions this later on, that they were asking for permission outside of a session and it was taking them away from their families to often. The stake leaders either wanted to go to the temple or in their stake building and performing the prayer circle independent of the ceremony. The church leaders gave this permission fairly often, the evidence being that there are quite a few, now defunct, prayer circle rooms in various stake centers that are now used as classrooms.

Though I agree with you that this is different from a single or couple individuals independently practicing the prayer circle without permission. I just wanted to make clear that is was okay to practice outside the Temple so long as you had permission. In addition to stake prayer circles ecclesiastical prayer circles apostle Reed Smoot said in 1900 " I hope that there will not be a ward but what will have a prayer circle inaugurated for it is a strength to the church." I might disagree though in that I think that it should be authorized but that's an entirely different conversation haha

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Didn't say that any sacrifice was in the Garden. 

Then I misunderstood your meaning here:

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So I really don't believe things happened like that physically, the Garden of Eden. 

What were you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Didn't say that any sacrifice was in the Garden. I commented on Adam sacrificing, but that I'd read on this board and for the first time, that they are symbolic and not physical, Adam and Eve, specifically.

I've read that too but I find it hard to believe. Perhaps portions of their story are but from all the discussion of Adam, his sons, Enoch being the recorder, Adam prophesying what would befall his seed, and Adam-Ondi-Ahman. Its really hard to seal a chain of priesthood all the way back to Adam if there's not an Adam to seal yourself too. I'm not attempting to argue, just making a point, because I totally understand why someone might view the story as more symbolic then literal. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's what I thought you meant.  But I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Response:

When does a dispensation "begin"?

Apparently when the Lord dispensates Priesthood keys and/or covenants. Thus, to me Moses was not the head of a dispensation. He gave a law of God because the people were not ready to live a higher covenantal law.  He did not "restore" the priesthood as I have pointed out, and been criticized for. He received the priesthood from his father-in-law Jethro. He did restore the priesthood to Israel, who had obviously lost it in their 400 year sojourn in Egypt. For His own reasons the Lord chose Israel to preserve his ways for the next thousand years, and the priesthood was lost to Abraham's other descendants. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Then I misunderstood your meaning here:

What were you talking about?

I made a comment to SettingDogStar, after he mentioned Adam sacrificed animals. So my comments afterward reflected this. Just read this about Adam & Eve as well. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

The story of the fall of Adam is often considered to be an allegory. There is physical evidence that Adam and Eve never existed; findings in genetics are incompatible with there being a single first pair of human beings.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I made a comment to SettingDogStar, after he mentioned Adam sacrificed animals. So my comments afterward reflected this. Just read this about Adam & Eve as well. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

The story of the fall of Adam is often considered to be an allegory. There is physical evidence that Adam and Eve never existed; findings in genetics are incompatible with there being a single first pair of human beings.

And I think that's where a new thread would need to be opened. Obviously this thread believes in Adam and Eve and the ordinances revealed to them. Of course there are arguments for and against their existence but the point of this thread encompasses their existence since Joseph Smith fully believed they walked the earth (as do I).

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Apparently when the Lord dispensates Priesthood keys and/or covenants. Thus, to me Moses was not the head of a dispensation. He gave a law of God because the people were not ready to live a higher covenantal law.  He did not "restore" the priesthood as I have pointed out, and been criticized for. He received the priesthood from his father-in-law Jethro. He did restore the priesthood to Israel, who had obviously lost it in their 400 year sojourn in Egypt. For His own reasons the Lord chose Israel to preserve his ways for the next thousand years, and the priesthood was lost to Abraham's other descendants. 

Never thought of it that way. Interesting perspective and is worth pondering.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I made a comment to SettingDogStar, after he mentioned Adam sacrificed animals. So my comments afterward reflected this. Just read this about Adam & Eve as well. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

The story of the fall of Adam is often considered to be an allegory. There is physical evidence that Adam and Eve never existed; findings in genetics are incompatible with there being a single first pair of human beings.

So, you're saying "the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden" was symbolic.  Ok.  I get you.  Well it was.  But that doesn't mean it never happened. 

The details have been changed into an allegory that we might learn from.  But there had to be some truth to the story along the lines of "all myth has a basis in truth" kind of thing.  I'm happy with saying "I don't know" just how much was literal and how much was allegory.  I don't see how important it is.  The lessons we learn from the story are much more powerful if we treat it as if it were real.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You're confusing me.  Let me run down the conversation thus far and tell me what I'm missing.

I first made the comment that "work for the dead had not yet begun" prior to the resurrection.  Robert then responded.

To which I pointed out with three bullet points that his reference was lacking.

Then you responded with:

Here is where the break lies.  When I was discussing this with Robert, (that is who I meant by "we") WE were talking about vicarious ordinances for the dead.  What does your Daniel reference have to do with the work for the dead?

It was sounding to me like you were saying that the temple did not have bona fide temple ordinances in Yeshua's day. I was pointing out that they did. There was a daily sacrifice, and the levitical priesthood was authorized to perform the other appointed Mosaic ordinances. Sorry, if I misread your comments. You were probably just speaking of ordinances in the modern restored sense of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Apparently when the Lord dispensates Priesthood keys and/or covenants.

And is this restricted to a single moment in time?  Or is it a process?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, RevTestament said:

It was sounding to me like you were saying that the temple did not have bona fide temple ordinances in Yeshua's day. I was pointing out that they did. There was a daily sacrifice, and the levitical priesthood was authorized to perform the other appointed Mosaic ordinances. Sorry, if I misread your comments. You were probably just speaking of ordinances in the modern restored sense of the word.

I didn't say anything about modern.  The problem was that I was talking about "FOR THE DEAD".  That was the focal point of my entire conversation.  And you simply spoke of the temple of the old testament.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...