Robert F. Smith Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 If the Jews do build a temple without revelation and authority from God, .........................................................................So you reject the authority of President Joseph Smith Jr to direct Apostle Orson Hyde to formally dedicate the Holy Land to the gathering of the Jews and to the Jewish rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, and then you attach several of your own bills of attainder thereto just for good measure? And do you suppose that the Jews are just going to say that, if Teddy says so it must be right because he is a faithful Mormon? Help me understand this, teddy? Are you a canon lawyer? I can think of a couple of canon lawyers in the LDS Church in my lifetime, and one of them had to publicly eat his words. Up till then, he was so absolutely sure of his empty claims. What happened? How can someone be so sincere, and yet so wrong?
Canadaigua Posted January 6, 2015 Author Posted January 6, 2015 I agree, you could be completely right, and that is the end of the story.. But there is even another dimension to all this. Notice D&C mentions the "Sons of Levi" making the sacrifice, so we automatically assume that means members of the church who are at least Aaronic priesthood holders. Suppose these sons of Levi were literal sons of Levi who are not church members, but Jewish, who offer the sacrifice in a new temple not yet constructed, in Israel? If we make this assumption, and further assume that references in Doctrines of Salvation misinterpreted the scripture just as has virtually everyone else, the entire problem disappears. LDS.ORG—>Resources—>General—>Magazines and Manuals—>All Manuals—>Institute— >Doctrine and Covenants (Student Manual)—>Section 13—>D and C 13:1 D&C 13:1. What Is Meant by the Sons of Levi Offering an Offering of Righteousness unto the Lord?The Prophet Joseph Smith commented as follows on this scripture:“It is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in the future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.“The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. …“These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.” (Teachings, pp. 172–73.)President Joseph Fielding Smith further explained that “we are living in the dispensation of the fulness of times into which all things are to be gathered, and all things are to be restored since the beginning. Even this earth is to be restored to the condition which prevailed before Adam’s transgression. Now in the nature of things, the law of sacrifice will have to be restored, or all things which were decreed by the Lord would not be restored. It will be necessary, therefore, for the sons of Levi, who offered the blood sacrifices anciently in Israel, to offer such a sacrifice again to round out and complete this ordinance in this dispensation. Sacrifice by the shedding of blood was instituted in the days of Adam and of necessity will have to be restored.“The sacrifice of animals will be done to complete the restoration when the temple spoken of is built; at the beginning of the millennium, or in the restoration, blood sacrifices will be performed long enough to complete the fulness of the restoration in this dispensation. Afterwards sacrifice will be of some other character.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:94.) What do you make of this quote from the above sectionIt is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued. Prior to Moses' day they were under the higher law i.e. the Melchizedek Priesthood--which included animal sacrifice and that this needed to be restored. "Sacrifice by the shedding of blood was instituted in the days of Adam and of necessity will have to be restored.
teddyaware Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 So you reject the authority of President Joseph Smith Jr to direct Apostle Orson Hyde to formally dedicate the Holy Land to the gathering of the Jews and to the Jewish rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, and then you attach several of your own bills of attainder thereto just for good measure? And do you suppose that the Jews are just going to say that, if Teddy says so it must be right because he is a faithful Mormon? Help me understand this, teddy? Are you a canon lawyer? I can think of a couple of canon lawyers in the LDS Church in my lifetime, and one of them had to publicly eat his words. Up till then, he was so absolutely sure of his empty claims. What happened? How can someone be so sincere, and yet so wrong? I don't get it. I believe all i did is supply some quotes to underscore the fact that the coming Jerusalem temple is going to be an LDS temple When I get back from work, I'll see if I can figure out what's got you exercised.
mfbukowski Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 LDS.ORG—>Resources—>General—>Magazines and Manuals—>All Manuals—>Institute— >Doctrine and Covenants (Student Manual)—>Section 13—>D and C 13:1 D&C 13:1. What Is Meant by the Sons of Levi Offering an Offering of Righteousness unto the Lord?The Prophet Joseph Smith commented as follows on this scripture:“It is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in the future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.“The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. …“These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.” (Teachings, pp. 172–73.)President Joseph Fielding Smith further explained that “we are living in the dispensation of the fulness of times into which all things are to be gathered, and all things are to be restored since the beginning. Even this earth is to be restored to the condition which prevailed before Adam’s transgression. Now in the nature of things, the law of sacrifice will have to be restored, or all things which were decreed by the Lord would not be restored. It will be necessary, therefore, for the sons of Levi, who offered the blood sacrifices anciently in Israel, to offer such a sacrifice again to round out and complete this ordinance in this dispensation. Sacrifice by the shedding of blood was instituted in the days of Adam and of necessity will have to be restored.“The sacrifice of animals will be done to complete the restoration when the temple spoken of is built; at the beginning of the millennium, or in the restoration, blood sacrifices will be performed long enough to complete the fulness of the restoration in this dispensation. Afterwards sacrifice will be of some other character.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:94.) What do you make of this quote from the above sectionIt is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued. Prior to Moses' day they were under the higher law i.e. the Melchizedek Priesthood--which included animal sacrifice and that this needed to be restored. "Sacrifice by the shedding of blood was instituted in the days of Adam and of necessity will have to be restored. Already answered that. Read the thread. 1 Sacrifice continues today in temples symbolically, but you will not understand that. 2 Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong, but you will not understand that.
mfbukowski Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) I don't get it. I believe all i did is supply some quotes to underscore the fact that the coming Jerusalem temple is going to be an LDS temple When I get back from work, I'll see if I can figure out what's got you exercised.What happened was that you didn't read the thread and then threw the thread under the bus, but continue to argue about points which have already been discussed thoroughly. If you don't care about it, don't keep arguing about it. Mark, I hope you know I was joking and having a good laugh when I said my feelings were hurt by Robert (guess I should have used a winking emoticon). Also, I write on this board more for the clarity of my own thinking, and the exercise of my own mental processes, rather than writing in order to persuade others of the rightness of my positions. Instead of doing crossword puzzles, I write and post on this board. Edited January 6, 2015 by mfbukowski
CV75 Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Yes, and both of you have stated your obvious position well enough already, and I am even sympathetic, but this beating of a dead horse still doesn't address the strong likelihood that the Jews will build their Temple in Jerusalem (in accord with the formal declaration of Apostle Hyde), and that they will be offering animal and other sacrifices there. We can eschatologically hem and haw till the red heifers come home, but it's gonna happen. What then? Does God reject it? Or is something more subtle going to take place? My goodness... I'm brainstorming and thinking out loud (and responding to posts directed at mine where I may have to repeat ideas overlooked by the poster)... Are you so insecure that becomes a "position" and arguing against the Jews building a temple and offering sacrifices? LOL... Is this really all about what you have to say? Now that you bring it up, it seems you're beating a dead horse in your own way (as well as not reading the posts very carefully!)! So why not contribute something new to the conversation? For example, let's consider the possibility of a sacrifice consisting of a serpent with his head being crushed.
CV75 Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Just a quick show of hands - how many LDS have had a lesson in Sunday School, Priesthood, or elsewhere concerning the restoration of animal sacrifice?I never have.It has been brought up more on this board by Canadaigua than in the last 50 years or so that I have been present for any lessons.As a new convert I read about it in my studies, and never gave it much thought, but it seems to generate a lot of heat, and now that I've been instigated to explore it (more by those responding to Canagaigua than Canadaigua himself), I'm being encouraged not to! LOL
Canadaigua Posted January 6, 2015 Author Posted January 6, 2015 Already answered that. Read the thread. 1 Sacrifice continues today in temples symbolically, but you will not understand that. 2 Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong, but you will not understand that.If you recall the quote is from a modern day official LDS manual.Have you ever considered that you may be wrong on this one?
mfbukowski Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) If you recall the quote is from a modern day official LDS manual.Have you ever considered that you may be wrong on this one?That also has already been answered in numerous posts about the nature of doctrine We acknowledge that "official manuals" may be wrong. Prophets may be wrong. No, I am not "wrong". How do you know the bible is "true"? Could you be wrong about that? How would you know if you were right or wrong about that? Have you studied the bible? Do you know that it is just a collection of writings in many cases not even written by the people who they are named after? The only way we can know if we are right or wrong about religious matters is what God speaks to our hearts. Otherwise it would be "blind obedience" stuff- Jim Jones. One must always follow one's own conscience and not blindly follow dogma. But Mormonism can accommodate that position. That is something you do not understand. We can be quite diverse in our beliefs because we know that it all hinges on personal testimony. Edited January 7, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 My goodness... I'm brainstorming and thinking out loud (and responding to posts directed at mine where I may have to repeat ideas overlooked by the poster)... Are you so insecure that becomes a "position" and arguing against the Jews building a temple and offering sacrifices? LOL... Is this really all about what you have to say? Now that you bring it up, it seems you're beating a dead horse in your own way (as well as not reading the posts very carefully!)! So why not contribute something new to the conversation? For example, let's consider the possibility of a sacrifice consisting of a serpent with his head being crushed.You can lolligag around the subject all you want, of course, but you still haven't responded to my point at all. What better way than to accuse me of doing what you have been doing? I would much rather engage the hard issues, which you seem very reticent to do.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I don't get it. I believe all i did is supply some quotes to underscore the fact that the coming Jerusalem temple is going to be an LDS temple When I get back from work, I'll see if I can figure out what's got you exercised.Very simple and obvious, Teddy. You said "If the Jews do build a temple without revelation and authority from God," which is a non-sequitur in view of Joseph Smith directing Apostle Hyde to dedicate Palestine to the gathering of the Jews and for them to build a temple in Jerusalem. It is as though this was never mentioned or quoted in this thread. If you reject that authority, by all means say so and provide your rationale. This isn't rocket science.
Canadaigua Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 The only way we can know if we are right or wrong about religious matters is what God speaks to our hearts. Otherwise it would be "blind obedience" stuff- Jim Jones. One must always follow one's own conscience and not blindly follow dogma. But Mormonism can accommodate that position. That is something you do not understand. We can be quite diverse in our beliefs because we know that it all hinges on personal testimony.If you really think about your position you know that it can't possibly be right because it would mean that two contradictory beliefs are both true. Perhaps we can test it out. You believe that Mormonism is true because of your personal testimonyI believe that Mormonism is false because of my personal testimony BTW the following statements from your last post I think best describes your position on truth--that it is relative to the observer."We acknowledge that "official manuals" may be wrong. Prophets may be wrong.""No, I am not "wrong"."
CV75 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 You can lolligag around the subject all you want, of course, but you still haven't responded to my point at all. What better way than to accuse me of doing what you have been doing? I would much rather engage the hard issues, which you seem very reticent to do.Rather, point out what you are doing what you have accused me of doing... LOL... What are the hard issues for you?
CV75 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Very simple and obvious, Teddy. You said "If the Jews do build a temple without revelation and authority from God," which is a non-sequitur in view of Joseph Smith directing Apostle Hyde to dedicate Palestine to the gathering of the Jews and for them to build a temple in Jerusalem. It is as though this was never mentioned or quoted in this thread. If you reject that authority, by all means say so and provide your rationale. This isn't rocket science.The dedicatory prayer mentions 5 key things: 1. “…dedicate and consecrate this land unto Thee, for the gathering together of Judah's scattered remnants, according to the predictions of the holy Prophets -- for the building up of Jerusalem again after it has been trodden down by the Gentiles so long, and for rearing a Temple in honor of Thy name.” 2. “…remove the barrenness and sterility of this land…” 3. “…inspire the hearts of kings and the powers of the earth to look with a friendly eye towards this place …to restore the kingdom unto Israel -- raise up Jerusalem as its capital, and constitute her people a distinct nation and government, with David Thy servant, even a descendant from the loins of ancient David to be their king. 4. “Let that nation or that people who shall take an active part in behalf of Abraham's children, and in the raising up of Jerusalem, find favor in Thy sight.” 5. The last 3 paragraphs are about the LDS Church as Zion and her role in preparing the honest in heart throughout the world to meet the Bridegroom (which priesthood dedications and consecrations of lands are aimed at), with a particular blessing upon the Presidency of the Church and the quorum of the Twelve. The realization of the main point of entire prayer hinges upon the preservation of the Restored Church. When I look at the prayer as a whole, it seems to ask the Lord's blessing upon the remnant /scattered Jews so they can gather and build a temple in concert with the latter-day Restored Church. The further on track we are for the coming of the Lord, the more integrated the chosen people will be able to fulfill those blessings as members of the Church (much like the Book of Mormon prayers and prophecies in behalf of the remnant of the seed of Joseph in building the New Jerusalem, according to the covenant Jehovah made with Jacob). Edited January 7, 2015 by CV75
mfbukowski Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 If you really think about your position you know that it can't possibly be right because it would mean that two contradictory beliefs are both true. Perhaps we can test it out. You believe that Mormonism is true because of your personal testimonyI believe that Mormonism is false because of my personal testimony BTW the following statements from your last post I think best describes your position on truth--that it is relative to the observer."We acknowledge that "official manuals" may be wrong. Prophets may be wrong.""No, I am not "wrong"."Yep. And...?
teddyaware Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Very simple and obvious, Teddy. You said "If the Jews do build a temple without revelation and authority from God," which is a non-sequitur in view of Joseph Smith directing Apostle Hyde to dedicate Palestine to the gathering of the Jews and for them to build a temple in Jerusalem. It is as though this was never mentioned or quoted in this thread. If you reject that authority, by all means say so and provide your rationale. This isn't rocket science. Hi Robert: Had a good laugh with the animated dead horse getting a good thrashing. Rather than risk confusion by continuing in my habit of being too verbose, I believe it will be best if I take things one point at a time (and let's hope I'll be stepping away from stinky dead horse as I do). In post number 164, I quoted several Church authorities, including Bruce R McConkie, who said that the Jews who will build the temple in Jerusalem will be Jews by blood, but that they will also be baptized and endowed members of the LDS Church, acting in their temple building labors under the authorization and direction of the First Presidency. So, in spite of the above, am I correct in understanding that you believe the prophesied Jerusalem temple will not be built by LDS Jews acting under the direction of the President of the LDS Church? Edited January 8, 2015 by teddyaware
mfbukowski Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 In post number 164, I quoted several Church authorities, including Bruce R McConkie, ....What can I say?
teddyaware Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) What can I say? So, do I rightly surmise you believe that by quoting BRM'S "A New Witness for the Articles of Faith" the idea of a Jewish/LDS Jerusalem Temple is to be held suspect? Or am I just being paranoid? Edited to add: The Prophet Joseph Smith is one of the Church leaders I quoted in post 164 on the purpose of the Jerusalem temple and who would build it. Edited January 8, 2015 by teddyaware
mfbukowski Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) So, do I rightly surmise you believe that by quoting BRM'S "A New Witness for the Articles of Faith" the idea of a Jewish/LDS Jerusalem Temple is to be held suspect? Or am I just being paranoid? Edited to add: The Prophet Joseph Smith is one of the Church leaders I quoted in post 164 on the purpose of the Jerusalem temple and who would build it.It has no more importance than a crossword puzzle anyway, right? To fully answer one would have to re-read and analyze the whole thread. You seem to be re-hashing points made earlier. I love Elder McConkie but it is well known he was a controversial figure with controversial opinions. Edited January 8, 2015 by mfbukowski
Robert F. Smith Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Rather, point out what you are doing what you have accused me of doing... LOL... What are the hard issues for you?I have been trying to enunciate them, as in my post 150. Would you like to engage me on that level?
Robert F. Smith Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 ............................................................ I love Elder McConkie but it is well known he was a controversial figure with controversial opinions.Yes, and he was a great canon lawyer. The problem is that he had to declare publicly in 1978 that he had been wrong on a major issue, that he and some others had lacked light and knowledge on that issue.
CV75 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I have been trying to enunciate them, as in my post 150. Would you like to engage me on that level?I did in #152 but then you got "distracted." The only question you asked was: “Could Apostle Hyde's words as one called to make that dedication of the Holy Land be construed as authority or keys?” I responded, “This is an example of the keys (in this case, of gathering) having been restored to the Church and oversight by the Prophet.” So as not to distract you again with the sacrifice of horses and the beating thereof, I won’t repeat #189, but: The Lord holds all the keys; Joseph Smith was given the keys of the kingdom (including gathering and temple-building) and in turn authorized Elder Hyde to dedicate and consecrate the land unto God; the “holy Prophets” of yore that he mentions certainly had the keys to predict the gathering and building of the temple. So I do not see in Elder Hyde’s words any indication that a separate set of Jewish keys for gathering and temple-building have existed all along but at some point were placed in suspension; or that if they do indeed need to be restored or reactivated that they will be through a parallel “Southern Kingdom [of God on earth].” For example, a literal firstborn descendant of Aaron can exercise his right to the presidency of that priesthood / bishopric and become legally authorized to officiate in his priesthood only as “designated…, and found worthy, anointed, and ordained” by those with the keys, which I think would require baptism and confirmation before proceeding. it is one kingdom.
teddyaware Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Yes, and he was a great canon lawyer. The problem is that he had to declare publicly in 1978 that he had been wrong on a major issue, that he and some others had lacked light and knowledge on that issue. I just read Orson Hyde's full dedicatory prayer, and all it says is that the Jews will build the Jerusalem temple. But without clarification, one way or the other, he doesn't stipulate whether or not these temple building Jews will simply be modern members of the Jewish faith or if they will be Jews who have converted to the LDS Church. This is very important because LDS Church leaders, including the Prophet Joseph Smith himself, have indicated that the Jews who will build the Jerusalem temple will be Jews by lineage, but in addition to that they will also be members of the LDS Church.
mfbukowski Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Again, two temples.One Jewish, one LDS.No conflict, no discussion.
mfbukowski Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Yes, and he was a great canon lawyer. The problem is that he had to declare publicly in 1978 that he had been wrong on a major issue, that he and some others had lacked light and knowledge on that issue.And the "Mormon Doctrine" controversy.
Recommended Posts