The Temple and the Presence of God

[Balzer]

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?

Yeah, I guess I do. I just can't imagine that Christ would ever place upon us a requirement that we must pay money in order to get to heaven. (even if that was but one of many requirements)

Respectfully,

Balze

[LeSellers]

Yeah, I guess I do. I just can't imagine that Christ would ever place upon us a requirement that we must pay money in order to get to heaven. (even if that was but one of many requirements)

Why not?

"Money" has no value except as a representation of a portion of the person's life. Tithing is just a way to demonstrate that the person has dedicated a portion of his life to Christ.

Lehi

[Balzer]

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).

I'm not sure that I do. My issue with the LDS temple is that you have to pay tithing to get in, getting in is required in order to get to heaven, and that some LDS apparently believe that they can get closer to God in their temples than non-LDS can in their churches.

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

Me too. I just don't think he'd dig the idea that you have to pay money.

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

This is becomming more and more apparent.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Balzer]

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

Not entirely certain where you're coming from here, but, like it or not, Christ had plenty to say about the law of Old Testament. You know that, right?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[mfbukowski]

Yeah, I guess I do. I just can't imagine that Christ would ever place upon us a requirement that we must pay money in order to get to heaven. (even if that was but one of many requirements)

Respectfully,

Balze

He doesn't.

Anyone can "get into heaven" according to our doctrine without paying a dime of tithing.

You just can't get exalted. But you don't believe anyone can do that anyway, so why do you care?

We believe there is a higher law for a higher reward. You don't. You can't obey a law you don't believe exists.

[volgadon]

Yeah, I guess I do. I just can't imagine that Christ would ever place upon us a requirement that we must pay money in order to get to heaven. (even if that was but one of many requirements)

Respectfully,

Balze

That sounds like a fickle and capricious God. One day he is totally pissed off because people aren't paying tithes and offerings, yet the next day he is totally pissed off because they are.

BTW have you ever noticed the location where the biblical sermon was given from which I took the verse?

[Vance]

Not entirely certain where you're coming from here, but, like it or not, Christ had plenty to say about the law of Old Testament. You know that, right?

Respectfully,

Balzer

Yeah, like this:

Matt 5:21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

. . .

27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

. . .

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

33 ¶ Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:

35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Hey, it's kind of like He was giving a HIGHER law.

[volgadon]

Balzer, are LDS claims of exclusivity of the temple really all that far removed from your own beliefs? After looking at a couple of verses it would seem not.

John 14:6.

Acts 4:12.

Are other faiths (and atheists) inferior to you because they don't have THE way, THE, truth, THE life? Do you consider yourself better than non-Christians because they can't come to God the Father since they don't believe in Jesus Christ like you do? Does following only name given for salvation imbue you with an arrogant sense of superiority? Do you feel that non-Christians can't come close to God because they are following something which isn't as complete as your belief?

I suspect that the answer to these questions is negative. What then makes the LDS belief any more offensive? Apart, that is, from your apparent distaste for things LDS.

[Balzer]

Balzer, are LDS claims of exclusivity of the temple really all that far removed from your own beliefs? After looking at a couple of verses it would seem not.

John 14:6.

Acts 4:12.

Are other faiths (and atheists) inferior to you because they don't have THE way, THE, truth, THE life? Do you consider yourself better than non-Christians because they can't come to God the Father since they don't believe in Jesus Christ like you do? Does following only name given for salvation imbue you with an arrogant sense of superiority? Do you feel that non-Christians can't come close to God because they are following something which isn't as complete as your belief?

I suspect that the answer to these questions is negative. What then makes the LDS belief any more offensive? Apart, that is, from your apparent distaste for things LDS.

I'm not at all offended by LDS belief and doctrine. What I'm struggling with is the comment that non-LDS were "incorrect" in their belief that they could get as close to God in their "congregation" as the LDS can in their "temple." (btw, I struggle equally with many other organized religions, so please don't take offense. None is intended.)

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Nathair/|\]

I'm not at all offended by LDS belief and doctrine. What I'm struggling with is the comment that non-LDS were "incorrect" in their belief that they could get as close to God in their "congregation" as the LDS can in their "temple." (btw, I struggle equally with many other organized religions, so please don't take offense. None is intended.)

Respectfully,

Balzer

I don't think we are doing a very good job of explaining what a temple really is. In the interest of space, I'm only going to quote a couple paragraphs, but you really need to read Dr. Hugh W. Nibley's essay, "The Meaning of the Temple" and, if possible, the entire book in which it is included.

As it comes and goes through the dispensations, the temple is the bridgehead for Zion—preparing the way, a sort of outpost or outland. It is an alien thing in the world and as such it is resented. It is feared and envied; it lies as an intruder, the dread and envy of the world, an invader in a wicked and adulterous world. Zion is on the defensive. Our early Latter-day Saint temples were all designed as fortresses, with their buttresses, their battlements, their gates, their walls—always the surrounding wall. If the temple represents the principle of order in chaos, it also represents the foothold, you might say, of righteousness in a wicked world. Someone once asked me concerning the Egyptian ordinances contained in the Joseph Smith manuscript, Is this stuff relevant to the modern world? My answer is no. It is relevant to the eternities. The modern world is as unstable as a decaying isotope, but the temple has always been the same. The ordinances are those taught by an angel to Adam.The bringing of the temple into the world was a reminder in the days of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, and Joseph Smith that the world as a going concern is coming to a close. That little phase of human existence was about to pass away and give place to another. One of the lessons of the recent scientific research in these many fields is that the course of history and geology—thinking of that "Permo-Triassic catastrophe" now—is not one of slow, infinitely gradual, salutary evolution.⁵¹ The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith in the first vision that he was fed up with the world: "There is none that doeth good, no not one."⁵² And he was about to remove it. We are told that the sudden, catastrophic housecleaning is to take place when the condition of saturation has been reached—when the people are ripe in iniquity.

[Balzer]

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?

Well said and all true. I've always felt special. And blessed.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[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.

Ok, how about this: I feel much closer to God while standing in my kitchen than you ever will/could while standing in your temple and you are incorrect in your belief that your temple is the same as my kitchen.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[mfbukowski]

Ok, how about this: I feel much closer to God while standing in my kitchen than you ever will/could while standing in your temple and you are incorrect in your belief that your temple is the same as my kitchen.

Respectfully,

Balzer

There you go. Perfectly right. Both comments are equally useless.

Now you finally understand my point. So can we stop making useless comments about how much we each love God now?

[volgadon]

Ok, how about this: I feel much closer to God while standing in my kitchen than you ever will/could while standing in your temple and you are incorrect in your belief that your temple is the same as my kitchen.

Respectfully,

Balzer

Ok, yet your kitchen is not an LDS temple and this shows how completely and utterly you have misunderstood the issue. The point is not about feeling close to God (feelings, how ironic).

[mfbukowski]

Exactly!

[CV75]

My question though has to do with latter-day temples and the presence of God. How do we view such a belief? Is God "specially present to his people" in our temples? What does it mean to call the temple the "house of the Lord", especially in contrast to our chapels?

From the perspective of the after-life, God’s children get closer to Him through the covenants and ordinances of the temple than they otherwise could or would without those ordinances. The keys of the priesthood seal the covenants and ordinances on earth and in heaven, and so bring people closer to God than if they were not available or exercised. These keys are exercised in their fullness in the temple.

From the perspective of everyday life, God’s children also get closer to Him through the anonymous, selfless service they perform in behalf of others in getting these same eternal covenants and ordinances than they otherwise would by ignoring or denying these essential covenants and ordinances.

So He is specially present in the exercise of the restored keys, and in the exalting ordinances that are performed in temples and not chapels.

[CV75]

Ok, how about this: I feel much closer to God while standing in my kitchen than you ever will/could while standing in your temple and you are incorrect in your belief that your temple is the same as my kitchen.

When people get into a good faith conversation about the differences between their churches, including describing what they find so wonderful about their own church, and even invite each other to experience what they have, they are not inclined to tell the other person what they are or are not feeling, nor are they inclined to interpret the praises made of the other church as an invalidation of their own feelings.

[WalkerW]

Ok, yet your kitchen is not an LDS temple and this shows how completely and utterly you have misunderstood the issue. The point is not about feeling close to God (feelings, how ironic).

I'm still wondering why he thinks tithing is bad despite the fact that it was a commandment from God. Or what he thinks of the fact that temples are biblical. Better yet, I wonder what he thinks of the following:

The term wealth...is nowhere mentioned in biblical citations of Deuteronomy 6:5. Related terms for wealth are, however, later associated with the command to love God in general and in particular with that part of the command to commit one's strength...[A]ll of the early Palestinian sources translate the term ["strength"] of Deuteronomy 6:5 with "wealth," "money," "possessions," or their lexical equivalents. (Catherine M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls & in the Qumran Community, Brill, 2002: 122-123.)

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan replaces the term "strength" in Deuteronomy 6:5 with "money." Also, commenting on Deut. 6:5, Mishnah Berakot 9:5 reads, "...and with all thy might--with all thy wealth." Targum Neofiti translates "strength" in Deut. 6:5 as "money." Targum Onqelos replaces "strength" with "property, possessions, substance" (the term here is similar to the common Aramaic for "sacrifice"). Sipre Deuteronomy 32 is attributed to Rabbi Eliezar, who links "all thy might" with one's wealth.

Various fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls describe the "fundamental act of the voluntary donor...is to bring his knowledge, strength, and wealth into the community of God in order to conform these gifts more closely to God's statutes, ways, and counsels--that is, to God's covenant...Not surprisingly, this recollection to the covenant is couched in terms derived from the written covenant, particularly from Deuteronomy. (Murphy, 2002: 120.)

Were these people "paying" to get into heaven?

[urroner]

I'm still wondering why he thinks tithing is bad despite the fact that it was a commandment from God. Or what he thinks of the fact that temples are biblical. Better yet, I wonder what he thinks of the following:

The term wealth...is nowhere mentioned in biblical citations of Deuteronomy 6:5. Related terms for wealth are, however, later associated with the command to love God in general and in particular with that part of the command to commit one's strength...[A]ll of the early Palestinian sources translate the term ["strength"] of Deuteronomy 6:5 with "wealth," "money," "possessions," or their lexical equivalents. (Catherine M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls & in the Qumran Community, Brill, 2002: 122-123.)

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan replaces the term "strength" in Deuteronomy 6:5 with "money." Also, commenting on Deut. 6:5, Mishnah Berakot 9:5 reads, "...and with all thy might--with all thy wealth." Targum Neofiti translates "strength" in Deut. 6:5 as "money." Targum Onqelos replaces "strength" with "property, possessions, substance" (the term here is similar to the common Aramaic for "sacrifice"). Sipre Deuteronomy 32 is attributed to Rabbi Eliezar, who links "all thy might" with one's wealth.

Various fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls describe the "fundamental act of the voluntary donor...is to bring his knowledge, strength, and wealth into the community of God in order to conform these gifts more closely to God's statutes, ways, and counsels--that is, to God's covenant...Not surprisingly, this recollection to the covenant is couched in terms derived from the written covenant, particularly from Deuteronomy. (Murphy, 2002: 120.)

Were these people "paying" to get into heaven?

The widow who gave her mite, was she paying to get into heaven? The widow who fed the prophet Elisha when she had nothing left attempting to pay her way into the graces of God?

Tithing is based upon the principle of sacrifice and the Lord has given us the commandment of tithing to teach us that principle and help us to learn to abide that principle. When we, as a Church, abide the principle of sacrifice willingly, without being asked, then the commandment of tithing will go away, but then we will be living the law of consecration then where we will be truly willing to sacrifice everything for God and His Kingdom without being commanded to do so.

I have met many who say they are Christians, yet they are only willing to make small sacrifices for God and His Kingdom, especially when it comes down to money and life style. Then again, I have met mainstream Christians who willingly and with true joy in their hearts make sacrifices that make my paying tithing pale in comparison.

[Nathair/|\]

Ok, how about this: I feel much closer to God while standing in my kitchen than you ever will/could while standing in your temple and you are incorrect in your belief that your temple is the same as my kitchen.

Respectfully,

Balzer

Did you even read the essay I linked to? As Volgadon said, it's not about feeling closer to God. There are many places where you can do that. Personally, I never feel closer than when I participate in bringing forth new life. The temple is, in the words of Christ, " a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God;" which He, Himself, commanded us to build. (Doctrine and Covenants 88:119) It is the meeting point between Asgard, Midgard and Niffelheim; and as such, It is the place authorized by our Lord where whe can perform those ordinances that allow us to pass by the angels and to be sealed to our families for all eternity, as well as to provide saving ordinances for those who did not receive them in mortality.

The temple is also where the veil between this world and the world of angels is thinnest. That doesn't mean that nobody ever finds it easier to penetrate in other places, but that's because their ability to do so is enhanced, not because of the nature of the thing itself.

Yours under the stone-cracking oaks,

Nathair /|\

edit to add, Other veils, such as the one between here and Faerie may be thinner in other places.