Animal Sacrifice in Latter-day Temples

[volgadon]

Hence, the state of Israel is not the prophesied gathering.

What is it then, if not that, or at least part of it?

[volgadon]

I've spent some time in a slaughterhouse and participated in butchering.The smell of blood(and other excretions) is not pleasant. Incense would definitely be required. Also the musical instruments would be needed to cover the sound of the cattle and sheep and fowls protesting. If you have seen ancient sacrificial altars you will note the groove around the base. It wasn't for barbecue sauce .

As for PETA (aka PITA ),enough said.

Oh, indeed. I was just remarking to my wife after attending the temple the other day that the most immediately noticeable difference between temples ancient and modern was the smell.

[Bill Hamblin]

What is it then, if not that, or at least part of it?

Well, if the BOM says that the Jews will be gathered to the Land after they come to Christ (which I think it clearly does), and the Jews haven't come to Christ yet (which they clearly haven't--though of course, some have), then the current state of Israel can't not the post-coming-unto-Christ gathering prophesied in the BOM. I don't know what else to conclude. One could argue, perhaps, that it may be a proto-gathering, or preparatory gathering, but it is not the gathering.

[Bill Hamblin]

PETA doesn't approve of lots of things. I don't approve of PETA's methods either. I don't think it will ever be on the same scale as what was seen in First and Second Temple Judaism, but I do see it still happening.

The smell is fantastic! Haven't you ever been to a barbecue? You know who would make a really good Levitical Priest? David Bokovoy. I hear he makes some mean barbecue, though I think its more of the "pork" variety, which wouldn't really work.

One of the major elements of the ancient temple was that it appealed so much to the senses. The smell of cooking meat was meant to be pleasing to the Lord. Who on this board hasn't walked out of their home in the summer to find the incredible smell of cooking burgers, ribs, or other AWESOME food roasting on their neighbor's grill? I've always imagined it that way. Everyone prepping for that heavenly barbecue! The good news...we're allowed to have leftovers!

The incense burning on the altar before the veil of the holy of holies would have been a distinct, powerful smell in addition to the sounds of instruments being played to invoke the presence of the Lord.

Bokovoy for High Priest!

Just about everything in ancient society would have been stinky by modern standards.

[Chris Smith]

One of the major elements of the ancient temple was that it appealed so much to the senses. The smell of cooking meat was meant to be pleasing to the Lord. Who on this board hasn't walked out of their home in the summer to find the incredible smell of cooking burgers, ribs, or other AWESOME food roasting on their neighbor's grill? I've always imagined it that way. Everyone prepping for that heavenly barbecue! The good news...we're allowed to have leftovers!

I can't help but think it's more likely that, if and when we get to heaven, God will point out that animals are sentient beings which we have no more moral right to harm than a mentally handicapped person. And that's if we get to heaven at all. More probably, we'll all go straight to hell for participating (via McDonald's) in the worst mass murder in world history.

[Vex]

I can't help but think it's more likely that, if and when we get to heaven, God will point out that animals are sentient beings which we have no more moral right to harm than a mentally handicapped person. And that's if we get to heaven at all. More probably, we'll all go straight to hell for participating (via McDonald's) in the worst mass murder in world history.

Does that mean we get steak in hell?...I don't know how I feel about that...

I mean, I love me my tri-tip and I thank the animals and God for their tasty flesh. Especially with pico de gallo and a good rub.

[Chris Smith]

Does that mean we get steak in hell?...

In hell, you are the steak.

In all seriousness, I enjoy a good steak, too. But I do view with some amusement those who call themselves "pro-life" and crusade vigorously for the rights of non-sentient fetuses, while raising no objections when sentient animals are butchered by the hundreds of millions. I realize that evolution has bred into us the tendency to treat our own kin preferentially; thus our tendency to genocide. But it seems pretty cynical for deeply "pro-life" religious people to just accept those "carnal" (no pun intended) prejudices at face value.

[kolipoki09]

I've spent some time in a slaughterhouse and participated in butchering.The smell of blood(and other excretions) is not pleasant.Incense would definitely be required.Also the musical instruments would be needed to cover the sound of the cattle and sheep and fowls protesting.If you have seen ancient sacrificial altars you will note the groove around the base.It wasn't for barbecue sauce .

As for PETA (aka PITA ),enough said.

I've experienced it as well blackstrap. I've field-dressed enough big game animals to have a good grasp of what goes on. The smell of burning flesh will ultimately overpower what smells you would initially experience. While it may be off-putting the first few times, it is something that you can get used to. This is how EMT's, doctors, butchers, ranchers, farmers, and many working-class citizens dealing with "gross things" are able to cope with their jobs.

While there were some holding areas for the animals, it wasn't Old McDonald's farm around the altar. The killing of the animal was done in such a fashion that there was limited suffering. I wasn't saying there was barbecue sauce....however the Levites did enjoy good meals as a result of the sacrifices being made.

[Maidservant]

Certainly one aspect of restored sacrifices must have to do with those holding the fullness of the priesthood offering for themselves and looking forward to the redemption of their families, in addition to just being for memorials of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

When I first read this, I was "priesthood offering themselves" instead of "offering for themselves". And I'm thinking maybe the former may be a great way to think of this?

I have no conclusions on this matter. However here are some thoughts I have had. We have to remember that the point of the animal sacrifice was the sacrifice of the Savior. (As well, there is a foil between offering animal sacrifices to a human God versus offering human/infant/virgin sacrifices to animalistic gods--this foil existed anciently and still today, if we can see it.) Thus, THE sacrifice IS the Savior. So if we make an acceptable sacrifice, we are performing the sacrifice of the Savior NOT of animals. There is much in the temples, I'm sure, for this, although I haven't really been looking for this there, so haven't much comment. But as far as temples goes, if we reflect on what or who (ourselves) gets placed on the altar as a sacrifice and who does the officiating, then we have our fulfillment of a righteous offering (which even Saul and Samuel knew about when they discussed obedience versus sacrifice).

But my main point was going to be that we don't have to look as far as the temple. Last Sunday or so I was watching my son bless the Sacrament and I was immediately brought to mind these words that we are discussing, the sons of Levi offering an acceptable sacrifice, and I knew or felt that I was watching that happening. Each Sabbath, the priests of our ward (16 year old young men) make the sacrifice (not of man or of animal, but of the Lamb of God, infinite and eternal). They officiate in both the (ritual) death and resurrection of the Savior, not to mention the dispensation of the Holy Ghost (bread and water carried to the members), each week. There is much more symbolism than I have hinted at, in the Sacrament, but this gives some starting places for pondering. My son IS a priest of Levi REALLY, and he REALLY is dressing, officiating, making, and offering a ritual sacrifice (that of the Savior) each week, for the sanctification of all the sons and daughters of God (members who partake of the sacrifice). Other than the fact that it is cool to look for all parallels and knowledge and prophecies (which I also love to do) ... why are we looking any farther than this obvious event?

However; both Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith taught and believed that the sacrifice would be one of a literal nature.

While cool, we ignore anything else they say in terms of receiving greater light. It's not an ultimate legitimizer to a concept.

[kamenraider]

When I first read this, I was "priesthood offering themselves" instead of "offering for themselves". And I'm thinking maybe the former may be a great way to think of this?

...

I had both in mind -- the latter looking forward to the former. Maybe that's what Job was doing:

Job 1:5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

Also, regarding the sacrament, I noticed this from the D&C:

D&C 95:16 And let the lower part of the inner court be dedicated unto me for your sacrament offering, and for your preaching, and your fasting, and your praying, and the offering up of your most holy desires unto me, saith your Lord.

[USU78]

It seems to me that 2 Ne 6.11[, [l]ikewise 2 Ne 10.7 [a]nd 3 Ne 5.26] is very explicit that the Jews will come to Christ before their gathering.

Must this be? Are we maybe coming to the text as post-Incarnation Christians, and not as pre-Incarnation Nephites? "Redeemer" may simply mean YHWH here, as understood by Messianic, pre-Incarnation Israel. Thus the Jews could be merely "returning" to their Redeemer, YHWH, Who then permits their return to the Land.

When speaking of what the Jews will and won't know, and will and won't accept at any moment in time, we need to be careful not to demand that things happen as required by our, perhaps limited, perspective. They're another branch with other needs and other pressures. We ought to be careful making demands of their behavior based upon what may be our limited understanding of the text.

[Bill Hamblin]

Must this be? Are we maybe coming to the text as post-Incarnation Christians, and not as pre-Incarnation Nephites? "Redeemer" may simply mean YHWH here, as understood by Messianic, pre-Incarnation Israel. Thus the Jews could be merely "returning" to their Redeemer, YHWH, Who then permits their return to the Land.

When speaking of what the Jews will and won't know, and will and won't accept at any moment in time, we need to be careful not to demand that things happen as required by our, perhaps limited, perspective. They're another branch with other needs and other pressures. We ought to be careful making demands of their behavior based upon what may be our limited understanding of the text.

I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply noting what the text says. Read the passages in context. It seems clear to me they are talking about accepting Jesus as the Messiah as a prerequisite to the gathering to the Land.

Another thing to think about is that ancient conversion rates of Jews to Christianity have been estimated at about 20%. That is 1/5th of all Jews converted to Christianity during the first couple of centuries. In the second century probably half of all Christians were Jewish-Christians. (See Skarsaune, The Jewish Believers in Jesus, 2007) Applying this to Roman Palestine, it means that a significant portion of ancient Jews in Judea and Galilee became Christians. These Jewish Christians remained in Roman Palestine through the establishment of the Christian state in the fourth century. These Jewish-Christians eventually intermarried with, and merged with Gentile Christians, losing their distinctive identity as Jewish-Christians. They were, nonetheless, genetic descendants of Israel. The net result was that in the early seventh century, when the Arabs conquered Palestine from the Byzantines, most of the Christians in Palestine were mixed-descendants of Jews. Almost all of them would have had Jewish ancestry. The Arab conquest involved both the migration of Arabs to Palestine, but, more importantly, the conversion of Christian (and Jewish) Palestinians to Islam, and the intermarriage of Arabs with local women, with children being raised Muslims. Palestine, however, was not the zone of major Arab migration (as Egypt, Damascus and southern Iraq were). As time progressed, migration, conversion and intermarriage created a majority Muslim population in Palestine, probably by the ninth or tenth centuries. However, by the 19th century 20% of the Arab population of Palestinians were still Christians, the direct descendants of the Jewish-Christians of the first-fourth centuries. Furthermore, it is certain almost all contemporary Arab Palestinians have Jewish ancestry, because of the conversion of and intermarriage with the seventh century Christian and Jewish population of Palestine, both of whom would have had Jewish ancestry.

Thus, the question arises: Do the descendants of First Century Jews--who converted to Christianity, stayed in the Land, and then later either remained Christians (Palestinian Christians) or converted to Islam (Palestinians Muslims) after the seventh century, that is to say, the contemporary Palestinians--share in the BOM promise of the gathering of the descendants of Israel to the Land? Does their conversion to Christianity (that is, their coming unto Christ), exclude them from the promise? Or do they thus fulfill the prerequisite for the fulfillment of the promise? (The Christian Palestinian population of Israel as been dramatically reduced by emigration from Palestine to the West due to the political problems in Israel. Half of all Arab-Americans are Arab Christians. The proportion of Christian Palestinians has been reduced from about 20% to maybe 2-3%. Are these exiles from the Land who have already come unto Christ to be included or excluded in the predicted return in the BOM?)

One other thing to note. Christ promised/prophesied that "the meek shall inherit the Land (g?)" (Mt 5.5). This is often interpreted as "earth" meaning the whole planet, but in its first century context, I think it means the Land of Israel. That is, the promise of inheriting the Land is given not to Israel as a whole, but to the "meek" of Israel. Just a thought.

[USU78]

I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply noting what the text says. Read the passages in context. It seems clear to me they are talking about accepting Jesus as the Messiah as a prerequisite to the gathering to the Land.

Another thing to think about is that ancient conversion rates of Jews to Christianity have been estimated at about 20%. That is 1/5th of all Jews converted to Christianity during the first couple of centuries. In the second century probably half of all Christians were Jewish-Christians. (See Skarsaune, The Jewish Believers in Jesus, 2007) Applying this to Roman Palestine, it means that a significant portion of ancient Jews in Judea and Galilee became Christians. These Jewish Christians remained in Roman Palestine through the establishment of the Christian state in the fourth century. These Jewish-Christians eventually intermarried with, and merged with Gentile Christians, losing their distinctive identity as Jewish-Christians. They were, nonetheless, genetic descendants of Israel. The net result was that in the early seventh century, when the Arabs conquered Palestine from the Byzantines, most of the Christians in Palestine were mixed-descendants of Jews. Almost all of them would have had Jewish ancestry. The Arab conquest involved both the migration of Arabs to Palestine, but, more importantly, the conversion of Christian (and Jewish) Palestinians to Islam, and the intermarriage of Arabs with local women, with children being raised Muslims. Palestine, however, was not the zone of major Arab migration (as Egypt, Damascus and southern Iraq were). As time progressed, migration, conversion and intermarriage created a majority Muslim population in Palestine, probably by the ninth or tenth centuries. However, by the 19th century 20% of the Arab population of Palestinians were still Christians, the direct descendants of the Jewish-Christians of the first-fourth centuries. Furthermore, it is certain almost all contemporary Arab Palestinians have Jewish ancestry, because of the conversion of and intermarriage with the seventh century Christian and Jewish population of Palestine, both of whom would have had Jewish ancestry.

Thus, the question arises: Do the descendants of First Century Jews--who converted to Christianity, stayed in the Land, and then later either remained Christians (Palestinian Christians) or converted to Islam (Palestinians Muslims) after the seventh century, that is to say, the contemporary Palestinians--share in the BOM promise of the gathering of the descendants of Israel to the Land? Does their conversion to Christianity (that is, their coming unto Christ), exclude them from the promise? Or do they thus fulfill the prerequisite for the fulfillment of the promise? (The Christian Palestinian population of Israel as been dramatically reduced by emigration from Palestine to the West due to the political problems in Israel. Half of all Arab-Americans are Arab Christians. The proportion of Christian Palestinians has been reduced from about 20% to maybe 2-3%. Are these exiles from the Land who have already come unto Christ to be included or excluded in the predicted return in the BOM?)

One other thing to note. Christ promised/prophesied that "the meek shall inherit the Land (g?)" (Mt 5.5). This is often interpreted as "earth" meaning the whole planet, but in its first century context, I think it means the Land of Israel. That is, the promise of inheriting the Land is given not to Israel as a whole, but to the "meek" of Israel. Just a thought.

And good thoughts they are. There may be factors in play here even beyond the points you and I make. As far as the Ersatz Israel argument made by both some Jews and Muslims, I don't think we need even to get there. The restoration/return certainly began when the Diaspora Jews of Europe, especially the Vilna Gaon and his followers, started making specific plans to move the intellectual and spiritual capital of world Jewry from Diaspora centers to Eretz Israel, and the land made ready by G-d's High Priest blessing the Land for that purpose. Where the Diasporiacs come from, whether from Gaza, Brooklyn, Vilnius, Moscow or Baghdad, or even from the Greek Quarter of Jerusalem, they only truly are returned when they accept Israel's Redeemer, regardless what name they call Him by.

The 2 Nephi scriptures have been translated how they've been translated, and a return to Israel's Redeemer, even if He's called the Annointed Savior/Redeemer and not necessarily Jesus Christ, means to me that they have returned to true devotion to Abraham's G-d and His Holy One. There are plenty of D&C and NT scriptures that could be brought to bear to "prove" that the Jews won't recognize the Master for who He was and is until the big battle when He finally redeems them from certain destruction. For example:

D&C 45:48-53 And then shall the Lord set his foot upon this mount, and it shall cleave in twain, and the earth shall tremble, and reel to and fro, and the heavens also shall shake. And the Lord shall utter his voice, and all the ends of the earth shall hear it; and the nations of the earth shall mourn, and they that have laughed shall see their folly. And calamity shall cover the mocker, and the scorner shall be consumed; and they that have watched for iniquity shall be hewn down and cast into the fire. And then shall the Jews look upon me and say: What are these wounds in thine hands and in thy feet? Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God. And then shall they weep because of their iniquities; then shall they lament because they persecuted their king.

Because of such things, there is no reason to believe, on my view, that the 2 Nephi scriptures require that recognition prior to the return/redemption of G-d's People in the land He promised them.

[kolipoki09]

Thanks to WalkerW for bringing this to my attention. From the Church's D&C Institute Manual under Section 13:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith commented as follows on this scripture:

[Robert F. Smith]

It seems to me that 2 Ne 6.11 is very explicit that the Jews will come to Christ before their gathering.

Likewise 2 Ne 10.7

And 3 Ne 5.26

How this relates to the contemporary state of Israel can be debated. But it seems clear and explicit that the prophesied gathering of the Jews to Israel will occur after they accept Christ, not before. Hence, the state of Israel is not the prophesied gathering.

Bill,

2 Nephi 6:11 merely refers to the well-known Jewish "Redeemer" (Hebrew Go'el), but does not identify him as Jesus Christ.

2 Nephi 10:7 does refer to "Christ," which is a Greek-derived form of "Messiah" (Hebrew Mashiach), terms which can be used interchangeably. I don't know whether this means that the Lord God (YHWH Elohim) will be identified by them as their Messiah, but the surrounding text is clearly a midrash on Isaiah 49 & 51, and there have been a number of Messiahs within normative Judaism. Chabad might even claim that this sort of interpretive approach fits a modern Jewish "Great Awakening," but fully within a Jewish context, without any normative Christian connotations.

3 Nephi 5:26 is part of a beautiful chiasm encompassing verses 24 through 26 (see Don Parry's arrangement in his Poetic Parallelisms, 444), and there is no reason here (or in the other citations) to assume a sequential fulfillment -- particularly in light of other scriptures (which I cited, and which USU78 has placed in an additional context of D&C 45:51-52), and since dischronology is such a constant feature of poetry in general and of chiasmus in particular.

Whether any of these terms are transliterated Hebrew words upon the Book of Mormon plates, I don't know, but they could as easily have been translated thereon into equivalent ancient Egyptian words. We are thus somewhat removed from the original text as well as from an easy, sequential interpretation of the poetic parallel members. This is particularly clear in OT prophecy where lack of sequential fulfillment or meaning is so frequent. I would be very astonished if all the signs of the times which we have experienced were not a powerful, if partial fulfillment of the true Gathering of Israel.

In any case, whatever sequence of events is to be supposed among the Jews (in their Zionist aspirations), bear in mind that they must be considered as a people, a true ethnicity, and that those who may have assimilated might not have an immediate claim on the Restoration of All Things as envisaged by Paul for the Jews in Romans 11. We Mormons might as well live in a parallel universe for all the immediate effect we have on our Jewish brethren. I suspect that they will be working out their own salvation for a time, until they come to a realization (in the own due time of the Lord) of the truth. It is a communal or corporate affair conducted under strict covenantal obligations from both sides (2 Nephi 29:4-5, "For I the Lord have not forgotten my people."). There are yet many surprises in store.

I always consider how Caiaphas the High Priest not only prophesied (John 11:49-51), but even gave an order to Jesus which Jesus felt compelled to obey (Matt 26:63-64; cf. Mark 14:61-62). This because our Lord recognized the legitimacy of that priesthood calling.

Bob

[Robert F. Smith]

If animal sacrifice is ever done again I doubt it will be on the scale of Old Testament times. Modern sensibilities

would not permit it.PITA would not approve. The accompanying smell and noise would turn away most current saints.

Rather I think it will be a "one-off" type of sacrifice to represent for all.

You might want to show up at Mt Gerizim at Passover for the Samaritan sacrifice of lambs. They add frankincense to the burning sacrifice there and boast of the sweet smell. Tourists are welcome and used to attend in large numbers (I don't know whether that is still the case, but it probably is).

Animal sacrifice for religious reasons is legal in the USA by decree of the U.S. Supreme Court June 11, 1993. That immediate case involved Santeria, but includes all other such cases of the ritual slaughter of animals.

That comes under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

[Robert F. Smith]

Strangites offered animal sacrifice:

http://www.strangite.org/Offering.htm

Interesting.

Eric Werner pointed out that "some sects of the early Christian Church seemed to have offered animal sacrifices" (Werner, The Sacred Bridge, 44 n.18), including especially the Armenian Christians (pp. 38-39, 48 n. 101).

[volgadon]

Interesting.

Eric Werner pointed out that "some sects of the early Christian Church seemed to have offered animal sacrifices" (Werner, The Sacred Bridge, 44 n.18), including especially the Armenian Christians (pp. 38-39, 48 n. 101).

The Armenians still do.