The Temple and the Presence of God

[Nathair/|\]

You old tree-hugger you!!

It really is an incredible article if you want to study the history of the Mass, assuming you are not already familiar with it.

It is even clear to me as well as the ex-Catholic priest ordinance worker I knew, that the sign of the cross developed out of some of the annointing ceremonies, but that is not to be discussed here of course.

That's why to me all the squabbling about Joseph Smith and Book of Mormon geography and the Book of Abraham is just chaff in the wind. When you really start studying this stuff, there is just one possible explanation: that this is from God, and Joseph was a prophet. Period.

Of course that only really comes through testimony, but all this evidence is frosting on the cake.

But as all things with the gospel, you don't see the "evidence" until you get to the point where you see it, line upon line.

Since you brought up tree hugging, I have to share this: Maybe someone will find it helpful. I sure do.

Trees and other green growing things form one of the classic Druid emblems of Spirit Within. The reasons are complex, touching on the deep reaches of magical philosophy and practice, but one explanation deserves discussion here. Human beings and trees exchange energy easily and benefit each other in the process. Just as trees thrive on carbon dioxide, which human beings breath out as a waste product, and produce oxygen that human beings need to survive, so the energy given off by many trees heals humans, while energy from humans nurtures trees. The same is true of other plants and indeed many other things in the natural world, and an entire system of Druid natural medicine unfolds from the same principle.

Start the exercise by selecting a tree. Some varieties are considered more beneficial to human beings than others: pine, fir, and cedar are held to be best, with oak, beech, and apple not far behind. Elm is traditionally avoided, as its energies are unhealthy for human beings.

You'll need to ask the tree's permission before exchanging energy with it. Like other nonhuman creatures, trees don't understand human language, but they do understand our emotional patterns--often better than we do. Stand before the tree, and ask it silently if it's willing to share its nwyfre with you. Feel for the answer and behave accordingly.

If the tree gives permission, approach it and come in contact with it. There are two traditional ways to do this. The first focuses the healing effecht on your nervous system. To do this, stand or sit with your back pressed against the trunk. you can amplify the effect by putting your left hand on the small of your back with the palm turned out, touching the tree, and your right hand on your belly just below the navel, palm in.

The second focuses the healing effects on the organs of your chest and abdomen. To do this, face the tree with your feet a few inches away from the base of the trunk, then lean the front of your body and your forehead against the tree. You can heighten the effect by placing your hands at forehead level, forming an upward pointing triangle with your thumbs and index fingers, spreading the other fingers comfortably. Let your forehead rest in the center of the triangle. Your arms bend around the trunk, as though embracing the tree with your elbows.

In either posture, relax your body as much as possible and feel the tree as a living presence. An attitude of openness, friendship, and affection will yield the best results here. Ten or fifteen minutes of quiet presence next to a large, healthy tree will leave your own nwyfre cleansed and energized, and will do much the same thing for the tree.

John Michael Greer--The Druid Magic Handbook

If that ain't tree-hugging, I don't know what could be.

Yours under the symbiotic oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Questing Beast]

Skimming the posts already here, I find the usual assertions that the Spirit of God is strongest in temples, etc. This I have never felt nor believed. My own experience is that my home is the most sacred place on earth to me. I have received almost all the answers to prayer and insights at home.

Then I heard recently: "Let us make the temple the symbol of our religion". (can't recall which GA said that last fall) That seems counter to Christ being our religion; more like moving in the direction of idolatry.

To me the temple is just a building where "worthy" members go to stay out of trouble, or to flee worldly trouble. The work therein is essentially endless, capable of constant occupation from now until "dooms day". Like religion typically, temple worship is a distraction that some people need in order to not be taken away from religious devotion by the otherwise-distractions of the world. Religious devotion makes bad men good and good men better (whoever originally said that, I believe that Joseph Smith also said it somewhere). But not everyone feels such a need. And most who do not feel such a need are NOT bad men either. All my life my closest friends have either been irreligious or at least non Mormon. Yet I have not found them to be one whit less "good" than the Mormons I meet with each Sunday or otherwise socialize with....

[mfbukowski]

MFB! May your toenails grow ever longer!

Dang.

Your spies are gooooooooood!

[Questing Beast]

...but remember for LDS the Lord is "Family". ...

I have NEVER heard this expression in the Church before....

[mfbukowski]

I have NEVER heard this expression in the Church before....

Yeah, it IS kind of a new idea.

http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/jesus-christ-taking-the-name-of?lang=eng&query=take+upon+name+Christ

Jesus Christ, Taking the Name of

see also Blaspheme; Profanity; Swearing.

* in his name shall the Gentiles trust, Matt. 12:21

* believing ye might have life through his name, John 20:31

* none other name

[LeSellers]

I have NEVER heard [but remember for LDS the Lord is "Family"] in the Church before....

I guess you have just never heard us call God "our Father in Heaven", or Jesus "our elder Brother". You never sang, "In the heav'ns are Parents single? No! the thought makes reason stare. Truth is reason, truth eternal tells me I've a Mother there"?

No, it's all about family, and the Temple is the place where families are, or more exactly, where the Family is sealed together.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Another thing about this, for an ex-Trinitarian, should one know where to find one, because we become sons and daughters of Christ as well as the Father (as his spirit children) there is a very real way in which the Son becomes our Father. (See for example Mosiah 5:7 above)

One might say that this is another way that the Father and Son are one in being (a) Father(s) to us. This is why when we are linguistically sloppy, we can sound very much like Modalists. The Son becomes our Father in a very real way.

[ChristKnight]

Bryce Haymond has a new post on his Temple Study blog entitled "Seeing the Face of God in the Temple", which is the first part in a multi-part treatment of the subject of seeing God in the temple. Great article.

[cinepro]

When they remodeled the LA Temple a few years ago, some of the construction workers lived in our ward for the duration. One of them gave a talk in Church and shared an experience he had while working on the Salt Lake Temple.

They had kept the Temple open during one of his projects, so he had to try and be unobtrusive as he worked. He had been running cables in a crawlspace, and had to whisper to his partner to coordinate the cable runs. At the end of the day, the Temple President told him he had several patrons tell him they had heard "angels whispering" during their visits that day, and he didn't have the heart to tell them what they had really heard.

So while I don't know for sure about God and Angels visiting the Temple, I do know for sure that construction workers visit.

[Balzer]

What I totally disagree with is the incorrect teaching in most of mainstream Christianity that there congregations are the same thing as a temple. A temple is not a regular place of worship, and it wasn't that way in the ancient Church, the synagogues were not considered temples at all. They were places to gather an learn from the Torah, the temple on the other hand was holy ground, one could not enter unless they were worthy and even them most could not enter the most holy parts of the temple.

I have two problems with this:

1) I can't get past the feeling that LDS generally feel superior to others because they have their temples. In other words, you non-LDS folks couldn't possibly find God in your silly, insignificant (in the eyes of God), "congregations" such as we do in our spectacular, expensive, magnificent "temples." Am I wrong? Christ said that His "Church" was wherever two or more people gather in His name didn't He? I'm not saying that temples were unimportant to Him, I'm just saying they weren't necessary to worshiping Him to the fullest. If you feel closer to God by being in your temple that's great, I say go and go often. But don't condescend to someone who feels closer to God elsewhere, say, within their congregation. All Christian religions do not find it necessary to build temples in order to become especially close to God, and LDS do not harbor the exclusive ability to do so because they choose to build temples. I firmly believe that Jesus wants us to be able to feel especially close to God virtually anywhere we might happen to be.

2) I've often wondered how Jesus would react to the LDS temple, given the fact that one cannot enter the LDS temple unless he/she is "worthy," and one cannot become worthy unless/until they have paid their tithe. Instead of becoming a place where people could meet and worship God, this fact renders it a "marketplace" of sorts, doesn't it? Why wouldn't Jesus turn the whole thing over like a cart in the temple of old? I can't imagine He would approve of such a practice as requiring the payment of tithing in order to enter "His" temple. In fact, I really think that concept would completely piss Him off.

Just one man's opinion. Most likely I'm wrong.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[volgadon]

Am I wrong?

Yes.

[Balzer]

Yes.

Cool. So is the poster also wrong when they characterize as incorrect the teaching of mainstream Christianity that there [sic] congregations are the same thing as a temple (when they have no temple)?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[LeSellers]

I can't get past the feeling that LDS generally feel superior to others because they have their temples. In other words, you non-LDS folks couldn't possibly find God in your silly, insignificant (in the eyes of God), "congregations" such as we do in our spectacular, expensive, magnificent "temples." Am I wrong?

...

Just one man's opinion. Most likely I'm wrong.

Here you are conflating two very different things. Our Temples are not the same as churches, and even "churches" are not the same thing as Christ's Church.

A Temple is not a place of gathering and ordinary worship. The worship we perform in a Temple is not the hymning and preaching, nor even the Sunday School or Relief society lessons. In the Temple, we worship god by rendering service to those who are unable to accomplish the necessary in their propria personnae. We give to God the hands and hearts He needs to save His people.

Moreover, by calling the Temples "churches", and by then trying to say that the Church (which is an organization) is two or three and contrasting that with the Temple (which is a building), the very premise makes no sense.

It is true that we Saints do see a great difference in between Temples and chapels (or meeting houses, more properly), and that other Christians do not have the former. And it is also true that our Temples are more holy and more elevated than any chapel, including our own. And we are justly, I believe, pleased to have them: they represent the power given to us to do a work that few in history have had the privilege of doing. We are able, through the Priesthood of God, to provide saving ordinances to those who would have had them, had they been able to perform the work for themselves.

When you fail to grasp the differences between various words and even meanings that a single word has, when you, in effect, play on the ambiguities inherent in the English (or any) language, and do so to the hurt of others, it seems to me to be less than admirable.

Lehi

[ChristKnight]

2) I've often wondered how Jesus would react to the LDS temple, given the fact that one cannot enter the LDS temple unless he/she is "worthy," and one cannot become worthy unless/until they have paid their tithe. Instead of becoming a place where people could meet and worship God, this fact renders it a "marketplace" of sorts, doesn't it? Why wouldn't Jesus turn the whole thing over like a cart in the temple of old? I can't imagine He would approve of such a practice as requiring the payment of tithing in order to enter "His" temple. In fact, I really think that concept would completely piss Him off.

Just one man's opinion. Most likely I'm wrong.

Respectfully,

Balzer

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here. I'm also not sure why you're focusing on tithing. The issue is whether one is following the commandments of the Lord. One of them is tithing. Now, when I spoke with my bishop about a temple recommend, we went over tithing (because I asked how to "do" it, as I'm a convert), and he told me that some people tithe after every paycheck, at the end of the year, etc. I hadn't started paying tithing yet at that meeting, yet I still received a recommend, and was able to enter the temple last week. My bishop also mentioned that some people don't have income, so obviously 10% of nothing would be nothing, and they would still be able to enter the temple.

So, no one is paying to go to the temple. What they are doing is following the commandments of God, one of which is tithing.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here. I'm also not sure why you're focusing on tithing. The issue is whether one is following the commandments of the Lord. One of them is tithing. Now, when I spoke with my bishop about a temple recommend, we went over tithing (because I asked how to "do" it, as I'm a convert), and he told me that some people tithe after every paycheck, at the end of the year, etc. I hadn't started paying tithing yet at that meeting, yet I still received a recommend, and was able to enter the temple last week. My bishop also mentioned that some people don't have income, so obviously 10% of nothing would be nothing, and they would still be able to enter the temple.

So, no one is paying to go to the temple. What they are doing is following the commandments of God, one of which is tithing.

[Calm]

I have two problems with this:

1) I can't get past the feeling that LDS generally feel superior to others because they have their temples. In other words, you non-LDS folks couldn't possibly find God in your silly, insignificant (in the eyes of God), "congregations" such as we do in our spectacular, expensive, magnificent "temples." Am I wrong?

I've never seen this attitude expressed. I've heard some negativity due to the style of worship, but none about the environmental surroundings. Considering how we claim to "find God" in our own generally bland and ungarnished chapels, I don't see this as something we would then point to as a negative in someone else's worship.

2) I've often wondered how Jesus would react to the LDS temple, given the fact that one cannot enter the LDS temple unless he/she is "worthy," and one cannot become worthy unless/until they have paid their tithe. Instead of becoming a place where people could meet and worship God, this fact renders it a "marketplace" of sorts, doesn't it?

Not really seeing it sorry. Now if paying tithing was the only reason, but it's not and someone who pays no tithing at all will be seen as just as worthy to enter into the temple as someone who pays hundreds of thousands in tithing.

I can't imagine He would approve of such a practice as requiring the payment of tithing in order to enter "His" temple. In fact, I really think that concept would completely piss Him off.

And yet the restrictions he gave to enter the temple in the past were at least as demanding as they are now so I don't really see it as likely myself unless one assumes he has nothing to do with those building the temple in the first place and claiming to receive the revelation on who is to gain entrance and how and if so, then why would he care at all?

Most likely I'm wrong.

Now that I agree with.

[volgadon]

Cool. So is the poster also wrong when they characterize as incorrect the teaching of mainstream Christianity that there [sic] congregations are the same thing as a temple (when they have no temple)?

Respectfully,

Balzer

No, the poster is not wrong in that. Christian congregations are not the same thing at all as LDS temples. This is not a value judgment, but a matter of functionality. Your mischaracterisation of LDS temples and LDS attitudes towards temples is utterly false, pure and simple.

[volgadon]

I can't imagine He would approve of such a practice as requiring the payment of tithing in order to enter "His" temple. In fact, I really think that concept would completely piss Him off.

Do you really believe that the same God who declared wherein have ye robbed me? in tithes and offerings would be pissed off by this?

[WalkerW]

1) I can't get past the feeling that LDS generally feel superior to others because they have their temples. In other words, you non-LDS folks couldn't possibly find God in your silly, insignificant (in the eyes of God), "congregations" such as we do in our spectacular, expensive, magnificent "temples." Am I wrong? Christ said that His "Church" was wherever two or more people gather in His name didn't He? I'm not saying that temples were unimportant to Him, I'm just saying they weren't necessary to worshiping Him to the fullest. If you feel closer to God by being in your temple that's great, I say go and go often. But don't condescend to someone who feels closer to God elsewhere, say, within their congregation. All Christian religions do not find it necessary to build temples in order to become especially close to God, and LDS do not harbor the exclusive ability to do so because they choose to build temples. I firmly believe that Jesus wants us to be able to feel especially close to God virtually anywhere we might happen to be.

I hope you have the same problem with biblical temples then, especially since they seem to have influenced early Christianity. See Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest: Temple Roots of the Christian Liturgy (T&T Clark, 2003).

2) I've often wondered how Jesus would react to the LDS temple, given the fact that one cannot enter the LDS temple unless he/she is "worthy," and one cannot become worthy unless/until they have paid their tithe. Instead of becoming a place where people could meet and worship God, this fact renders it a "marketplace" of sorts, doesn't it? Why wouldn't Jesus turn the whole thing over like a cart in the temple of old? I can't imagine He would approve of such a practice as requiring the payment of tithing in order to enter "His" temple. In fact, I really think that concept would completely piss Him off.

I'm sure Jesus would be just fine with the concept of being worthy to enter His holy temple:

Psalms 15 and 24 (especially vv. 3-6) have long been recognized as liturgies for worshipers entering the temple. They, along with Isaiah 33:14b-16, follow a set pattern: (a) a double question of who may visit Yahweh's holy hill, (b) a reply consisting of the qualifications for worshipers, and ( c ) a promise. (Craig C. Broyles, "Psalms Concerning the Liturgies of Temple Entry," The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, ed. Peter W. Flint, Patrick D. Miller, Aaron Brunell, Ryan Roberts, Brill, 2005).

Most likely I'm wrong.

Given the actual data, I think you're right about being wrong.

[WalkerW]

Do you really believe that the same God who declared wherein have ye robbed me? in tithes and offerings would be pissed off by this?

Of course, Volgadon! Don't you know that the New Testament has absolutely nothing to do with the Old?

[mfbukowski]

I think Americans in particular have a real problem with the idea that since we are "created equal" there is something wrong with being "special".

I recall I had a high school teacher who once said to me- "What's your problem? Do you want special treatment?" He just exploded when I answered "Sure- doesn't everyone?"

Of course that was a smart alec comment which I probably shouldn't have made in the context, but I think it does have some truth to it. What is wrong with thinking that we are right in our opinions? What is wrong with thinking we have the True Church- who would want to worship in a church which is NOT the "true church"??

There is nothing wrong in being smarter than others, working harder than others, wanting to serve more than others or being more right than others.

Should we take pride in it, and see it is an opportunity to "put down" others? Of course not! But there is nothing wrong with thinking that your chosen path is "better" than others chosen path- otherwise why would you pick one above the others? Does anyone want to think that their beliefs are "inferior" to others' beliefs?

Does anyone want to think that their political beliefs are inferior to the "other guy's"?

No, we like to think we are right about things. What's wrong with that?

[Balzer]

Here you are conflating two very different things. Our Temples are not the same as churches, and even "churches" are not the same thing as Christ's Church.

A Temple is not a place of gathering and ordinary worship. The worship we perform in a Temple is not the hymning and preaching, nor even the Sunday School or Relief society lessons. In the Temple, we worship god by rendering service to those who are unable to accomplish the necessary in their propria personnae. We give to God the hands and hearts He needs to save His people.

Moreover, by calling the Temples "churches", and by then trying to say that the Church (which is an organization) is two or three and contrasting that with the Temple (which is a building), the very premise makes no sense.

It is true that we Saints do see a great difference in between Temples and chapels (or meeting houses, more properly), and that other Christians do not have the former. And it is also true that our Temples are more holy and more elevated than any chapel, including our own. And we are justly, I believe, pleased to have them: they represent the power given to us to do a work that few in history have had the privilege of doing. We are able, through the Priesthood of God, to provide saving ordinances to those who would have had them, had they been able to perform the work for themselves.

When you fail to grasp the differences between various words and even meanings that a single word has, when you, in effect, play on the ambiguities inherent in the English (or any) language, and do so to the hurt of others, it seems to me to be less than admirable.

Lehi

All fair, although I haven't failed to grasp the difference. The problem I have, and which you may have missed, is that many Christian religions do not have temples, and your position re: your temples really says that you have an exclusive access to God that others don't, apparently for the sole reason that you have temples. I don't take issue with the fact that you have them, or what they are for, or what you do in them. Thats all ok with me. In fact, I would wholly expect that a Mormon would feel closer to God in a Mormon temple. I'm just not convinced that I (or you)can't feel just as close to God virtually anywhere else I may find myself, including my church. And, I'm equally unconvinced that Christ feels any closer to me depending on where I happen to be standing, including my church.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Balzer]

I've never seen this attitude expressed. I've heard some negativity due to the style of worship, but none about the environmental surroundings. Considering how we claim to "find God" in our own generally bland and ungarnished chapels, I don't see this as something we would then point to as a negative in someone else's worship.

Me neither. And I was surprised when the poster said that non-LDS Christians were "incorrect."Not really seeing it sorry. Now if paying tithing was the only reason, but it's not and someone who pays no tithing at all will be seen as just as worthy to enter into the temple as someone who pays hundreds of thousands in tithing.

Then why not remove tithing as one of the requirements? And yet the restrictions he gave to enter the temple in the past were at least as demanding as they are now so I don't really see it as likely myself unless one assumes he has nothing to do with those building the temple in the first place and claiming to receive the revelation on who is to gain entrance and how and if so, then why would he care at all?

But they did not include the payment of money.

Now that I agree with.

Yeah, I get that alot.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[mfbukowski]

All fair, although I haven't failed to grasp the difference. The problem I have, and which you may have missed, is that many Christian religions do not have temples, and your position re: your temples really says that you have an exclusive access to God that others don't, apparently for the sole reason that you have temples. I don't take issue with the fact that you have them, or what they are for, or what you do in them. Thats all ok with me. In fact, I would wholly expect that a Mormon would feel closer to God in a Mormon temple. I'm just not convinced that I (or you)can't feel just as close to God virtually anywhere else I may find myself, including my church. And, I'm equally unconvinced that Christ feels any closer to me depending on where I happen to be standing, including my church.

Respectfully,

Balzer

I am not sure what you are or are not convinced of is relevant to much at all.

I guess my problem with this is it's kind of a dead end comment. You are stating your feelings, but there's nothing to discuss. So I will state mine, and this non-discussion could continue forever.

I find myself much closer to God in the temple, and I have much to talk to him about there, and he talks back. I am very convinced of that.

[Balzer]

No, the poster is not wrong in that. Christian congregations are not the same thing at all as LDS temples. This is not a value judgment, but a matter of functionality. Your mischaracterisation of LDS temples and LDS attitudes towards temples is utterly false, pure and simple.

I guess this would be easier to swallow if you had said "Christian congregations are not the same thing at all as LDS temples to LDS members."

I don't really think I have an "attitude" re: LDS temples and attitudes towards temples. Really I don't. I think it's fine that you have temples. What I'm struggling with is the idea that you can get closer to God in your temple than I can in my church. That is utterly false, pure and simple. (I wonder, is this a selling point for the LDS religion? You can get closer to God in our temple?)

Respectfully,

Balzer