Are The Lds Temple Rituals Supposed To Be Anything Like The Rituals Of The Old Testament Temple?

[Robert F. Smith]

Per Eisenman, I think you overstate: there is pretty good evidence that James, the author of the eponymous letter, was acting at some point as High Priest in the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem.

As great as James the Just was, and as fine a reputation, he was executed by the high priest and Sanhedrin. Being a Judahite, he could not be high piriest.

[USU78]

As great as James the Just was, and as fine a reputation, he was executed by the high priest and Sanhedrin. Being a Judahite, he could not be high piriest.

I'm not advocating for the position, just noting that there's a case to be made that Christian exclusion from the Temple was prolly overstated, given the traditions about James' involvement with the Temple prior to his assassination by the Herodian priesthood.

[Robert F. Smith]

Early Christian baptisms for the dead were not done in the Temple. The Christians did not even control Herod's temple, so they couldn't have used it for Christian rituals.

Come on, Cobalt.

Early Christians were Jews, and they regularly went to the Temple of Herod and performed Jewish temple ordinances, which could include offerings and prayers on behalf of the dead, as in II Macc 12. As you know, baptisms for the dead may be performed in any river, sea, or mikveh. Our current practice of baptism for the dead does not even require a regular temple recommend.. Baptism is not an esoteric rite. Nor is confirmation.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

Thanks to Tvedtnes for telling us that the Gnostics had initiation rituals, that the Gnostics had handclasps, that the Gnostics had secret "mysteries," that the Gnostics had ritual prayer circles, and that Gnostics and Kabbalists believed that you needed a password to get past the angels guarded the doors of heaven.

Now, Mr. Tvedtnes, please tell us how any of these things has anything to do whatsoever with the Temple in Jerusalem. And tell me why anyone should be surprised that the esoteric Freemasons adopted Gnostic and Kabbalistic elements into their rituals.

OK you said the magic word "Masonry" - now there is something I know something about.

What this shows is that the elements of masonry were there anciently which is about as much as one could hope for considering the esoteric nature of both traditions.

Somehow I don't think you will find a 2000 year old man who participated in both types of ceremonies as an eyewitness and whos testimony would be believable.

Perhaps Alzheimers could be an issue of course after 2000 years and all.

Edited September 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

You missed the typological point, Cobalt. Go back and reread what volgadon actually cited relating to the divine name (Tetragrammaton) in that context, which was actually very apt. Your comments indicate either that you have never participated in LDS esoteric rites, or that you didn't understand them. Also, you need to be very cautious about making claims about modern LDS temple rites here, lest you be banned.

I'm sure I'm as familiar with the rites as you are, both pre-1990 and post-1990. And I think it's fair to say that the Tetragrammaton, whether mumbled or spoken clearly, has never been part of the LDS Endowment ceremony. "Ani wa-Ho" certainly bears no resemblance to any phrases that might have been spoken around the altar prior to 1990.

[Cobalt-70]

Come on, Cobalt.

Early Christians were Jews, and they regularly went to the Temple of Herod and performed Jewish temple ordinances, which could include offerings and prayers on behalf of the dead, as in II Macc 12. As you know, baptisms for the dead may be performed in any river, sea, or mikveh. Our current practice of baptism for the dead does not even require a regular temple recommend.. Baptism is not an esoteric rite. Nor is confirmation.

An sacrifice or prayer for the dead is not the Mormon ordinance of baptism for the dead. Even Catholics pray for the dead. That doesn't mean they practice Mormon temple rituals.

[Cobalt-70]

OK you said the magic word "Masonry" - now there is something I know something about.

What this shows is that the elements of masonry were there anciently which is about as much as one could hope for considering the esoteric nature of both traditions.

I'm not disputing that these elements go at least as far back as the 2nd or 3rd century Gnostics. What I'm disputing is the idea that these Gnostic elements had anything to do with the long-destroyed Jewish Temple, or the idea that our connection to this ancient Gnostic and Kabbalist esoteric tradition isn't the direct result of Joseph Smith adapting elements of Freemasonry into the Endowment ceremony.

[Robert F. Smith]

volgadon, on 04 September 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

From a Zadokite fragment not attested in the DSS, as reconsctructed by Wacholder, "The New Damascus Document," p. 6-7. I am not saying that this exactly conforms to LDS practice, nor that we know precisely the purpose, but the ritual of circling the altar was considered an important part of temple practice. Other Jewish sources support this idea, perhaps even shedding additional light on its significance. The Mishnah (t. Sukkah 4:5) relates how, “Each day they [the priests] made one circuit around the altar and they would say: "Please O Lord, save; Please O Lord, save us!" (Ps. 118:25). R. Yehudah states: "[they would say] Ani wa-Ho, save us! Ani wa-Ho, save us!” Urbach surmised that this is a mumbled version of ana (please) and the Tetragammaton.[1] It was mumbled so that the unrighteous would not hear it because of the power inherent in that name. Zadokites and rabbinic sages were not exactly the best of friends, so any shared traditions can be given some weight. Once we start listening to the texts, they have a lot to tell us.

[1]E. E. Urbach, The Sages, p. 127-28.

I'm sure I'm as familiar with the rites as you are, both pre-1990 and post-1990. And I think it's fair to say that the Tetragrammaton, whether mumbled or spoken clearly, has never been part of the LDS Endowment ceremony. "Ani wa-Ho" certainly bears no resemblance to any phrases that might have been spoken around the altar prior to 1990.

If you read to understand, you get one message. If you read only to sneer, you get quite a different message. Thus, you miss the point yet again. It isn't the mumbling which is important. Nor the particular form in which the divine name is uttered. Only a yokel would think that one name for God is really different than some other name. It is the pattern of observance which is important here and which is comparable -- not some rigid adherence to set words or forms -- and only those honest enough to deal with that sort of comparison will understand. If you knew Hebrew, you would know that whichever version of the rite you are considering, either is spot on, and the comparison particularly apt in several respects. Probably most readers of this board would be well advised to believe exactly the opposite of whatever Cobalt claims. The misinformation you spread is that starkly out of phase with reality.

[Robert F. Smith]

An sacrifice or prayer for the dead is not the Mormon ordinance of baptism for the dead. Even Catholics pray for the dead. That doesn't mean they practice Mormon temple rituals.

There is nothing new about LDS rites. I already made the point above about the Roman Catholic practice of praying for intercession of the Saints. These are ancient, even primordial rites. Nibley has a detailed appendix filled with them in his The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, now in a second edition.

If you understood the principle of vicarious expiation of sin, you would admit up front that it is essentially the same as baptism for the dead. That you do not means that you are denying that the late James Barr was correct in his statement about the direct connection of II Macc 12 with I Cor 15:29. Did you even bother to read this thread before popping off? Do you even believe in real, serious discussion?

[Tacenda]

If you read to understand, you get one message. If you read only to sneer, you get quite a different message. Thus, you miss the point yet again. It isn't the mumbling which is important. Nor the particular form in which the divine name is uttered. Only a yokel would think that one name for God is really different than some other name. It is the pattern of observance which is important here and which is comparable -- not some rigid adherence to set words or forms -- and only those honest enough to deal with that sort of comparison will understand. If you knew Hebrew, you would know that whichever version of the rite you are considering, either is spot on, and the comparison particularly apt in several respects. Probably most readers of this board would be well advised to believe exactly the opposite of whatever Cobalt claims. The misinformation you spread is that starkly out of phase with reality.

Don't discount Cobalt like that (bolded part). I'm not the best person to say this, so sorry Cobalt if you needed someone other than me to back you.

Just because it's a simple answer or a more logical answer, doesn't make it wrong. It's like some on here are reaching so far out there to make it work. I thinks it's a pattern among the super intellectuals or apologists on the board. Sometimes they need to step down and live in reality.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Tacenda

[Cobalt-70]

If you read to understand, you get one message. If you read only to sneer, you get quite a different message. Thus, you miss the point yet again. It isn't the mumbling which is important. Nor the particular form in which the divine name is uttered. Only a yokel would think that one name for God is really different than some other name. It is the pattern of observance which is important here and which is comparable -- not some rigid adherence to set words or forms -- and only those honest enough to deal with that sort of comparison will understand. If you knew Hebrew, you would know that whichever version of the rite you are considering, either is spot on, and the comparison particularly apt in several respects. Probably most readers of this board would be well advised to believe exactly the opposite of whatever Cobalt claims. The misinformation you spread is that starkly out of phase with reality.

Only the "yokel" who wrote the Ten Commandments, which says that the Hebrews were never to take the name "YHWH" in vain. This was the true divine name as understood by the Zadokites. All other names, such as El and Elohim, were basically euphemisms, as they are among Jews today. If God's name were part of an esoteric keyword, you would think that it would be his true name.

[Cobalt-70]

There is nothing new about LDS rites. I already made the point above about the Roman Catholic practice of praying for intercession of the Saints. These are ancient, even primordial rites. Nibley has a detailed appendix filled with them in his The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, now in a second edition.

If you understood the principle of vicarious expiation of sin, you would admit up front that it is essentially the same as baptism for the dead. That you do not means that you are denying that the late James Barr was correct in his statement about the direct connection of II Macc 12 with I Cor 15:29. Did you even bother to read this thread before popping off? Do you even believe in real, serious discussion?

Barr might be right, but if he is, then every biblical Mormon justification for the baptism for the dead doctrine is wrong. To Mormons, "baptism" is not just a prayer on behalf of the dead. It is a sacred, highly symbolic ritual. You can't equate an animal sacrifice or a prayer to a Mormon baptism. You can't for example, forgo a trip to the temple for your ancestors and instead just pray for them.

[Robert F. Smith]

Don't discount Cobalt like that (bolded part). I'm not the best person to say this, so sorry Cobalt if you needed someone other than me to back you.

Just because it's a simple answer or a more logical answer, doesn't make it wrong. It's like some on here are reaching so far out there to make it work. I thinks it's a pattern among the super intellectuals or apologists on the board. Sometimes they need to step down and live in reality.

Sorry, Tacenda, didn't mean to spoil your day. You are such a nice, sincere, and well-mannered person. Not everyone on this board is like you, even though it may not always be apparent.

As to living in reality, I have gone to great lengths to provide the opinions of non-Mormons who are in the front rank of biblical scholarship, since no one seems to believe anything a Mormon says, but that makes no difference to Cobalt, whose stock in trade is ignoring the obvious. Or ignoring standard scholarship. If that is "reaching so far out there to make it work," then try hiring a non-plumber next time you need some serious plumbing problem taken care of, and see where that gets you.

[Robert F. Smith]

Barr might be right, but if he is, then every biblical Mormon justification for the baptism for the dead doctrine is wrong. To Mormons, "baptism" is not just a prayer on behalf of the dead. It is a sacred, highly symbolic ritual. You can't equate an animal sacrifice or a prayer to a Mormon baptism. You can't for example, forgo a trip to the temple for your ancestors and instead just pray for them.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the old Mormon baptisms for the dead done in rivers rather than temples. Perhaps the concept of vicarious expiation of sin is too much for you, since you prefer to say "sacred, highly symbolic ritual," but never ask "symbolic" of what? At least you and rigid right-wing Mormons agree on how to interpret words without understanding them, so that the great James Barr is made out by you to be a liar when he sees no basic difference between those vicarious, expiatory sacrifices in II Macc 12 and the vicarious remission of sin in I Cor 15:29. These are merely two means to the same end for Barr. This is easy stuff, Cobalt. It's just not that hard to see, unless you don't want to see.

[Cobalt-70]

As to living in reality, I have gone to great lengths to provide the opinions of non-Mormons who are in the front rank of biblical scholarship, since no one seems to believe anything a Mormon says, but that makes no difference to Cobalt, whose stock in trade is ignoring the obvious. Or ignoring standard scholarship. If that is "reaching so far out there to make it work," then try hiring a non-plumber next time you need some serious plumbing problem taken care of, and see where that gets you.

I'm not ignoring the standard scholarship. I'm disputing the very non-standard and strained uses you are trying to make of that scholarship--uses I'm sure the authors would strongly disagree with.

[Cobalt-70]

Perhaps you are not familiar with the old Mormon baptisms for the dead done in rivers rather than temples. Perhaps the concept of vicarious expiation of sin is too much for you, since you prefer to say "sacred, highly symbolic ritual," but never ask "symbolic" of what? At least you and rigid right-wing Mormons agree on how to interpret words without understanding them, so that the great James Barr is made out by you to be a liar when he sees no basic difference between those vicarious, expiatory sacrifices in II Macc 12 and the vicarious remission of sin in I Cor 15:29. These are merely two means to the same end for Barr. This is easy stuff, Cobalt. It's just not that hard to see, unless you don't want to see.

What happened in II Macc 12 is related to Mormon baptism for the dead only as much as animal sacrifice and prayer are related to Mormon baptism. In other words, not much. You can't join the LDS Church by praying and performing an animal sacrifice. Baptism is a quite different ritual, with a different purpose. Baptism is not an atonement for anybody's sins. It is a ritual that shows symbolic willingness to accept the atonement already made, 2000 years ago, by Jesus.

[Tacenda]

Sorry, Tacenda, didn't mean to spoil your day. You are such a nice, sincere, and well-mannered person. Not everyone on this board is like you, even though it may not always be apparent.

As to living in reality, I have gone to great lengths to provide the opinions of non-Mormons who are in the front rank of biblical scholarship, since no one seems to believe anything a Mormon says, but that makes no difference to Cobalt, whose stock in trade is ignoring the obvious. Or ignoring standard scholarship. If that is "reaching so far out there to make it work," then try hiring a non-plumber next time you need some serious plumbing problem taken care of, and see where that gets you.

Referring to the plumbing bit, that's why I like the board to go here for the right answers. I've gone the Fairlds route, it's over my head alot of times, what they reply with. I appreciate that you and the others are willing to talk to people like me. I've not a lot of knowledge except for years of being in the lone and dreary world of unbelief of some of what mormonism claims and thereby reading everything I could get my hands on, either on the web or books. Though now mainly the web.

If only I could go back in time and be with JS during the restoration period and be an eyewitness, my troubles would cease.

But thanks for the replies so far. I guess I just don't like seeing people treated a certain way. Heck I was sad to see Selek 1 banned from a thread or was it the whole board?

Edited September 6, 2012 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

Only the "yokel" who wrote the Ten Commandments, which says that the Hebrews were never to take the name "YHWH" in vain. This was the true divine name as understood by the Zadokites. All other names, such as El and Elohim, were basically euphemisms, as they are among Jews today. If God's name were part of an esoteric keyword, you would think that it would be his true name.

According to the late William F. Albright, Hebrew Yahwe (the Tetragrammaton YHWH) means "He who creates that which comes into existence." It is a descriptive epithet, like "I am," which is Hebrew Ehye "I am he who creates that which comes into existence." Both are used in Exodus, along with other "names" for God. Jesus later uses "I am," and nearly gets stoned for it.

No scholar I know has ever suggested that 'El or 'Elohim are "euphemisms," and I'm not sure what you think Jews do with such terms today, but they certainly do not consider them to be "euphemisms." 'El was the term applied to the head of the Canaanite & Israelite head of pantheon -- chief of the assembly of the gods. 'Elohim was the term for God preferred in the northern kingdom of Israel, while Yahweh / Jehovah was the term preferred by the southern kingdom of Judah. These are titles rather than names, in any case.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not ignoring the standard scholarship. I'm disputing the very non-standard and strained uses you are trying to make of that scholarship--uses I'm sure the authors would strongly disagree with.

What happened in II Macc 12 is related to Mormon baptism for the dead only as much as animal sacrifice and prayer are related to Mormon baptism. In other words, not much. You can't join the LDS Church by praying and performing an animal sacrifice. Baptism is a quite different ritual, with a different purpose. Baptism is not an atonement for anybody's sins. It is a ritual that shows symbolic willingness to accept the atonement already made, 2000 years ago, by Jesus.

You might try reading some of those sources sometime to see whether they say something different that what I attribute to them. Instead you let your wild imagination do your thinking for you. Do you hate Mormons and Mormonism so much that you will go to any length to deny the obvious?

If what you say is true, then why would Barr think the two instances connected? Have you even bothered to consider for a second what the principle of vicarious expiation of sin means? Whatever the case, you certainly know nothing of Mormonism if you can't even get the purpose of baptism right: Article of Faith #4, "Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins." Barr, who was raised as an evangelical Christian, at least understood why baptism for the dead was a vicarious act for the remission of sin, just as the instance of the temple offering on behalf of the dead in II Macc 12 was a vicarious act for remission of sin. In both instances, the rationale is that the resurrection is real. The concept just isn't that hard to grasp, Cobalt.

[mapman]

How much do we actually know about Solomon's temple and the rituals performed there? Aren't most of the descriptions of temple rituals in the Bible from later periods? I've also heard it suggested that the kings or Zadokites had the Melchizedek priesthood. Does anyone know anything about that?

[ERayR]

I watched something on temple ceremonies performed in the Old Testament temple. It described alot of interesting facts of what this temple was for. It also talked about things that contradict what our LDS temples are used for. None of the things we do in temples like baptisms for the dead, endowments, weddings, sealings,etc. were done in the ancient temple. Things like sacrificing animals and how there is the holy of holies room that was visited only once a year by the only High Priest to shed blood on the Ark of the covenant that was in a cubicle that was made out of 270 tons of gold. The oxen font that was placed outside in front of the temple was for washing before entering the temple. Outside the temple they were sacrificing animals, so blood was everywhere. Also, those that entered the temple were not worthy, the temple was all about sacrifice for sin. There was only supposed to be one temple and after Jesus rent the veil, he is our temple now. Scripture I found below...

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was

rent

in twain from the top to the bottom—Matthew 27:50-51.

A quote by Mark E. Petersen taken from this talk.......

http://www.lds.org/l...e-build-temples

In biblical times sacred ordinances were administered in holy edifices for the spiritual salvation of ancient Israel. The buildings thus used were not synagogues nor any other ordinary places of worship. They were specially constructed for this particular purpose. While the people traveled in the wilderness, they used a portable tabernacle. This tabernacle is called “the temple of the Lord,” and it was there, for instance, that Samuel’s mother went to pray. (

1 Sam. 1:9

.) When they ceased their wanderings and obtained a stable government, they built a glorious temple in Jerusalem to take its place.

Following the pattern of biblical days, the Lord again in our day has provided these ordinances for the salvation of all who will believe and directs that temples be built in which to perform those sacred rites.

Anciently, to obtain the

saving

blessings of the Lord, it was necessary for an individual to do two things:

(1) Live the righteous life described in the commandments of the Lord, and

(2)

Participate

in the saving ordinances administered by the Lord’s truly authorized servants.

sh—Hebrews 10:19-20.

Is our temple supposed to be like the temple of old, or as some anti mormons say, did Joseph Smith start the temple around the time of his polygamy? To make secret oaths?

Are there any scriptures in the BoM that talk of any ordinances performed in LDS temples?

No.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If only I could go back in time and be with JS during the restoration period and be an eyewitness, my troubles would cease.

With all due respect, Tacenda, the opportunity to be an eyewitness did not expire with the Martyrdom.

From the very beginning, the Prophet did not expect people simply to believe what he said, nor did he fault those who disbelieved due to lack of experience: 'I don't blame anyone for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself'. Rather, he told them what he'd experienced as an invitation for them to seek to know via their own experiences. I think few things brought him greater relief than seeing early Church members come to know what he knew -- not from having observed him but from having had similar experiences.

That opportunity, quite literally an invitation, is still open. What we have works -- reliably, consistently, predictably. Embrace it with all you heart, might, mind, and strength and then see what happens. Soon you will be an eyewitness.

It's not about observing others, not even when the others are prophets. The witnesses of others can motivate, certainly, but that's not enough. Remember that there were hundreds of early Saints who rubbed elbows with Joseph Smith but then abandoned the Restoration. Others stuck with it through hard things (plural marriage, as just one example), exile, persecution, and sometimes their own martyrdoms. Why? Because they, like Nephi before them, were 'desirous also that [they] might see, and hear, and know of these things' for themselves.

One of my favourite examples, written by Elizabeth Ann Whitney in relation to the newly revealed practice of plural marriage:

My husband revealed these things to me; we had always been united, and had the utmost faith and confidence in each other. We pondered upon them continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation concerning this new and strange doctrine. The Lord was very merciful to us; He revealed unto us His power and glory. We were seemingly wrapt in a heavenly vision, a halo of light encircled us, and we were convinced in our own minds that God had heard and answered our prayers and intercedings before Him.

Of course, even this manifestation was just an intermediary step. Next they had to embrace and live what had been revealed to them. It was in the faithful living of it that they came to know things with surety.

In this I am reminded of my dear friend and brother, a young man whom I drove to the airport and saw off to the MTC exactly three weeks ago. From an inactive family, he made the choice to come back to church two-and-a-half years ago. As his priests quorum advisor, I took him to seminary every morning, taught him on Sundays, played hard with him on Wednesdays, took him camping, taught him to drive my car, and tutored him through his final two years of school. One evening the first year, when I was helping him with one of his school assignments, I asked him why he was making the choices he was. He said simply that he trusted what I had taught him. I told him that was a good start but wouldn't prove to be enough for very much longer.

The night before he left for the MTC, I had the privilege of helping to set him apart as a fulltime missionary. Afterward, the stake president asked him to share his testimony, and he spoke for about 15 minutes about what he had himself experienced the past couple of years. Though I had heard it before, I felt simultaneous joy and relief: He now knows for himself what he previously just trusted from listening to, being with, and observing me. As we were driving to the airport, I asked him how he thought he would respond to people who would challenge his faith. He said, 'I'll just tell them I know what I know because I have lived it'.

And indeed he has! When he announced at the beginning of last year that he was giving up his sporting aspirations to prepare to serve a mission, his parents were so angry with him that they didn't speak to him for six months. But he persisted. He fasted and prayed, receiving answers to his sincere petitions on behalf of others as well as himself. He prepared for and received the Melchizedek Priesthood, and then he exercised it in righteousness, discovering for himself that God would open his mouth to speak blessings which would be realised, sometimes in dramatic fashion. He kept the commandments with exactness and discovered that his happiness increased in direct proportion. He learnt to repent and in the process came to know the Saviour in intimate terms. He is another eyewitness, and he will return in two years even more of one.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[Flyonthewall]

My thought would be that the ordinances that can be performed under the Levitical priesthood would not be exactly the same as the ordinances that could be performed under the Melchezi**** priesthood.

[Tacenda]

With all due respect, Tacenda, the opportunity to be an eyewitness did not expire with the Martyrdom.

From the very beginning, the Prophet did not expect people simply to believe what he said, nor did he fault those who disbelieved due to lack of experience: 'I don't blame anyone for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself'. Rather, he told them what he'd experienced as an invitation for them to seek to know via their own experiences. I think few things brought him greater relief than seeing early Church members come to know what he knew -- not from having observed him but from having had similar experiences.

That opportunity, quite literally an invitation, is still open. What we have works -- reliably, consistently, predictably. Embrace it with all you heart, might, mind, and strength and then see what happens. Soon you will be an eyewitness.

It's not about observing others, not even when the others are prophets. The witnesses of others can motivate, certainly, but that's not enough. Remember that there were hundreds of early Saints who rubbed elbows with Joseph Smith but then abandoned the Restoration. Others stuck with it through hard things (plural marriage, as just one example), exile, persecution, and sometimes their own martyrdoms. Why? Because they, like Nephi before them, were 'desirous also that [they] might see, and hear, and know of these things' for themselves.

One of my favourite examples, written by Elizabeth Ann Whitney in relation to the newly revealed practice of plural marriage:

Of course, even this manifestation was just an intermediary step. Next they had to embrace and live what had been revealed to them. It was in the faithful living of it that they came to know things with surety.

In this I am reminded of my dear friend and brother, a young man whom I drove to the airport and saw off to the MTC exactly three weeks ago. From an inactive family, he made the choice to come back to church two-and-a-half years ago. As his priests quorum advisor, I took him to seminary every morning, taught him on Sundays, played hard with him on Wednesdays, took him camping, taught him to drive my car, and tutored him through his final two years of school. One evening the first year, when I was helping him with one of his school assignments, I asked him why he was making the choices he was. He said simply that he trusted what I had taught him. I told him that was a good start but wouldn't prove to be enough for very much longer.

The night before he left for the MTC, I had the privilege of helping to set him apart as a fulltime missionary. Afterward, the stake president asked him to share his testimony, and he spoke for about 15 minutes about what he had himself experienced the past couple of years. Though I had heard it before, I felt simultaneous joy and relief: He now knows for himself what he previously just trusted from listening to, being with, and observing me. As we were driving to the airport, I asked him how he thought he would respond to people who would challenge his faith. He said, 'I'll just tell them I know what I know because I have lived it'.

And indeed he has! When he announced at the beginning of last year that he was giving up his sporting aspirations to prepare to serve a mission, his parents were so angry with him that they didn't speak to him for six months. But he persisted. He fasted and prayed, receiving answers to his sincere petitions on behalf of others as well as himself. He prepared for and received the Melchizedek Priesthood, and then he exercised it in righteousness, discovering for himself that God would open his mouth to speak blessings which would be realised, sometimes in dramatic fashion. He kept the commandments with exactness and discovered that his happiness increased in direct proportion. He learnt to repent and in the process came to know the Saviour in intimate terms. He is another eyewitness, and he will return in two years even more of one.

Thank you for sharing that personal story, it was sweet how you helped him along in the faith. I have a son that turned 19 a year ago and hasn't turned his papers in yet. I hope I haven't hurt his chances. But I've tried to encourage him to either go on a mission or attend some kind of schooling. He works full time and has a girlfriend. So we'll see.

[volgadon]

Mormons don't circle around the altar in the temple. And they don't chant "Please O Lord, save." You can't say that what is described here is a modern Mormon prayer circle, or even a prayer circle at all. The priests circled the altar individually.

Sigh. You seem to have missed where I said it doesn't conform exactly to modern LDS practice. I also think you have read the ancient texts with as much care as you have my remarks. Where does it say that the priests circled the altar individually? It doesn't. You are going to have to show how, if you claim otheriwse.

What the text relates is how priests would circle the altar and relay the name of God in a supplicatory prayer. If you want to dismiss that, go ahead.