Anti-Christ And The Temple

[Duncan]

3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God

What do you make of this verse from 2 Thessalonians 2:4 saying that the Satan will sit in the Temple? or am I way off?

[David T]

Joseph, at least at one point, interpreted verse 3 as being fulfilled in the 1831 endowment (High Priest Ordinations), when Satan was reportedly recognized ("revealed") and cast out.

Interestingly, the actions of verse 4 currently are played out in a dramatic form in the Temple.

[LeSellers]

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God

What do you make of this verse [sic] ... saying that the Satan will sit in the Temple? or am I way off?

Not "way off", but I have a minor correction. It is not "Satan" who will sit in the Temple, but "the son of perdition".

Please recall that "Perdition" is one of Satan's name/titles (the lost one). Those who are his sons (the sons of perdition) are those who have utterly rejected Christ, who are implacably opposed to Him and everything He represents, including Father and the Saints. Rather than being adopted back into Father's family, to "serve in heaven", they'd rather "rule [sic in h***" (of course this is not scriptural, it's Milton, but it is true nonetheless).

Satan, as a being of spirit only, is incapable of sitting in the Temple. He can only do so vicariously, by means of one of his servant/sons usurping the rightful place a Saint should be.

The rest is less clear to me.

Lehi

[Hughes]

3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God

What do you make of this verse from 2 Thessalonians 2:4 saying that the Satan will sit in the Temple? or am I way off?

Which Temple do you think he's talking about?

[altersteve]

Which Temple do you think he's talking about?

The temple of God. Verse 4 says that specifically.

[inquiringmind]

Joseph, at least at one point, interpreted verse 3 as being fulfilled in the 1831 endowment (High Priest Ordinations), when Satan was reportedly recognized ("revealed") and cast out.

Interestingly, the actions of verse 4 currently are played out in a dramatic form in the Temple.

This is interesting.

Culd you supply a reference?

What exactly happened?

[Duncan]

Which Temple do you think he's talking about?

We are getting one here but hope to whoever Satan doesn't show up! We have enough problems as it is...

[David T]

This is interesting.

Culd you supply a reference?

What exactly happened?

Bushman covers it quite well in Rough Stone Rolling , 156-157

Begin with the last two paragraphs on p.156, and read through the first two paragraphs of p. 157

Edited July 11, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Doctor Ninja]

Not "way off", but I have a minor correction. It is not "Satan" who will sit in the Temple, but "the son of perdition".

Please recall that "Perdition" is one of Satan's name/titles (the lost one). Those who are his sons (the sons of perdition) are those who have utterly rejected Christ, who are implacably opposed to Him and everything He represents, including Father and the Saints. Rather than being adopted back into Father's family, to "serve in heaven", they'd rather "rule [sic in h***" (of course this is not scriptural, it's Milton, but it is true nonetheless).

Satan, as a being of spirit only, is incapable of sitting in the Temple. He can only do so vicariously, by means of one of his servant/sons usurping the rightful place a Saint should be.

The rest is less clear to me.

Lehi

So "vicariously" by those who lie to get into the Temple?

Which brings up a question: does satan have any powers within the Temple? I would say no, but people who are unworthy can bring his influence in and therefore make the Temple "polluted".

[Doctor Ninja]

Bushman covers it quite well in Rough Stone Rolling , 156-157

Begin with the last two paragraphs on p.156, and read through the first two paragraphs of p. 157

Amazing.

That opposition is definitely real preparing for the Temple or helping someone reach the goal of the Temple.

[Hughes]

The temple of God. Verse 4 says that specifically.

And where is this Temple of God that verse 4 specifically speaks about?

[bjw]

I don't see how the antichrist prophecy could be fulfilled yet since the D&C says that two prophets sent by the church will be slain by antichrist and resurrected by God in fulfillment of the prophecy of the two prophets in Revelation. It seems that LDS eschatology, while not including a rapture or literal 7 year tribulation, does include an antichrist that is yet to come.

[TAO]

Which brings up a question: does satan have any powers within the Temple? I would say no, but people who are unworthy can bring his influence in and therefore make the Temple "polluted".

I have no idea... but the spirit is strong in the temple... overwhelmingly strong... for those who know truly of their guilt... it'd almost be better to run away, I think. However... there are other who might not =0.

EDIT: Bjw, are you sure they are referring to the same person?

Edited July 11, 2011 by TAO

[bjw]

EDIT: Bjw, are you sure they are referring to the same person?

I don't know for sure, but D&C 77 links the two prophets to Revelation 11, which makes it clear that the beast of the book of Revelation kills them. The beast in Revelation demands worship, as well as the person mentioned in the Thessalonians passage. So, they seem to be the same.

[LeSellers]

I don't see how the antichrist prophecy could be fulfilled yet since the D&C says that two prophets sent by the church will be slain by antichrist ... . It seems that LDS eschatology ... does include an antichrist that is yet to come. [Emphasis added.]

One problem many people have when trying to understand concepts involving "antichrist" is that they misunderstand the term, believing that there is one antichrist.

There have been, are, and will be many. They are antichrist to varying degrees, although all are well beyond merely disagreeing with the Church or even trying to harm her in ignorance (even in willful ignorance). (Note for inquiringmind: they do not have to be sons of perdition—that's a different category.)

If we try to cram all the references to antichrist into a single individual, we miss the fact that "antichrist" is a concept, not necessarily a person, although once the concept inhabits him, that person is then an antichrist.

Lehi

[rameumptom]

I don't necessarily take this as a LDS temple the Adversary (Satan) will sit in. I think it suggests a religious presence, one who is worshiped in place of God and Christ. It could easily be an economic or political power or person that represents the Adversary.

As it is, it could have several levels of fulfillment. It may be that in some ways it has already come to pass in terms of the Great Apostasy. There have been many ruthless religious and political leaders over the centuries that have caused massive damage to soul and body. The scriptures, for example, were limited to only a few people for centuries. This alone would have limited man's ability for revelation and instruction from above. The lack of education, radical events such as the Crusades and Inquisition, could all have been part and parcel of the Adversary of God.

[Hughes]

I don't necessarily take this as a LDS temple the Adversary (Satan) will sit in. I think it suggests a religious presence, one who is worshiped in place of God and Christ. It could easily be an economic or political power or person that represents the Adversary.

As it is, it could have several levels of fulfillment. It may be that in some ways it has already come to pass in terms of the Great Apostasy. There have been many ruthless religious and political leaders over the centuries that have caused massive damage to soul and body. The scriptures, for example, were limited to only a few people for centuries. This alone would have limited man's ability for revelation and instruction from above. The lack of education, radical events such as the Crusades and Inquisition, could all have been part and parcel of the Adversary of God.

Tell me if your interpretation sounds correct after a careful reading of the passage:

2Thess: 1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

A couple things are easily derived from this passage.

1) The timing is near the end (the coming of the lord)

2) Don't believe all prophecies

3) That day won't come until after "the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed"

4) He sets himself up in God's temple proclaiming himself to be God.

Which temple could Paul possibly talking about?

[ERMD]

Why don't you just state your point rather than playing "guess what I'm thinking?"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And where is this Temple of God that verse 4 specifically speaks about?

You tell us Hughes. Your church does not have one. I thought we did not need one. But according to this verse there is a Temple and Christ cannot return until he (Satan) be revealed "the Son of Perdition".

Edited July 12, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Hughes]

Why don't you just state your point rather than playing "guess what I'm thinking?"

Because I don't know what the LDS teaching is on this point.

You tell us Hughes. Your church does not have one. I thought we did not need one. But according to this verse there is a Temple and Christ cannot return until he (Satan) be revealed "the Son of Perdition".

Right. Christ won't return until there is a Temple. What Temple could Paul have been speaking about? There is only one possibility, in context. Speaking as Jew, he can only be referring to the Jewish Temple.

For us today, that means it has to be rebuilt by the Jewish people, in Jerusalem.

I don't know if this lines up with LDS theology, but it is what scripture teaches.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Hughes

[altersteve]

Because I don't know what the LDS teaching is on this point.

Right. Christ won't return until there is a Temple. What Temple could Paul have been speaking about? There is only one possibility, in context. Speaking as Jew, he can only be referring to the Jewish Temple.

For us today, that means it has to be rebuilt by the Jewish people, in Jerusalem.

I don't know if this lines up with LDS theology, but it is what scripture teaches.

If you are implying that the ancient Jews only recognized the temple in Jerusalem, then you are mistaken.

Edited July 12, 2011 by altersteve

[mfbukowski]

3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God

What do you make of this verse from 2 Thessalonians 2:4 saying that the Satan will sit in the Temple? or am I way off?

I'm coming late to the thread, but let me just throw this out there. I'm probably wrong, and someone should check the Greek to rule it out, but there is an alternative interpretation to this, at least in English.

"... the son of perdition;

4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he(the word HE here referring to God, not the son of perdition) as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God"

So that last verse might be re-stated:

"... So that God, as God, sitteth in the temple of God shewing himself that he is God"

Anyone buying that interpretation?

[LeSellers]

Anyone buying that interpretation?

I don't know about buying it (that would require money), but I'd like to rent it for a while.

Lehi

[Hughes]

If you are implying that the ancient Jews only recognized the temple in Jerusalem, then you are mistaken.

It was *THE* temple, which was still there, where the wailing wall is now, at the time of Paul's writing those words. So yes, he's referring to that Temple. The only one that housed the Ark of the covenant.

I'm coming late to the thread, but let me just throw this out there. I'm probably wrong, and someone should check the Greek to rule it out, but there is an alternative interpretation to this, at least in English.

"... the son of perdition;

4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he(the word HE here referring to God, not the son of perdition) as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God"

So that last verse might be re-stated:

"... So that God, as God, sitteth in the temple of God shewing himself that he is God"

Anyone buying that interpretation?

Not a chance. Reading it in modern english versions makes it clearer.

[altersteve]

It was *THE* temple, which was still there, where the wailing wall is now, at the time of Paul's writing those words. So yes, he's referring to that Temple. The only one that housed the Ark of the covenant.

This does not address the point I brought up. You seemed to imply that the ancient Jews did not recognize other temples. That is incorrect. I never said Paul wasn't talking about the Jewish temple. Please actually read what I say before you comment on it.