Continuing Revelation

[mass168]

So is Nibley.  He shows how most of the elements of the ceremonies of the temple can be found in ancient Judaism, early Christianity, other ancient cultures that Joseph Smith would have no knowledge of, and yes, in the Bible too.

Well maybe I'll buy that book sometime. Does it explain differences such as this? How the primary ritual purpose of the OT temple by far was sacrifice?  How baptism was not even an idea yet, and therefore not practiced in the temple? How marriage was not practiced in the temple?

Edited January 17, 2015 by mass168

[mfbukowski]

Do you know what the word restoring means? Explain to me how current temple doctrine is remotely similar to that of the Israelites of old.

Study Margaret Baker.  She is not even Mormon and has shown VERY significant parallels

http://www.margaretbarker.com/

Edited January 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

Well maybe I'll buy that book sometime. Does it explain differences such as this? How the primary ritual purpose of the OT temple by far was sacrifice?  How baptism was not even an idea yet, and therefore not practiced in the temple? How marriage was not practiced in the temple?

 

These items are addressed in both books.  Whether or not they are addressed to your satisfaction I cannot say.

 

And the primary purpose of the OT temple wasn't sacrifice, it was giving thanks and making atonement THROUGH sacrifice.  It's important to see the reason for the sacrifice, not just the sacrifice itself.

 

And ritual washing (just like baptism) was practiced in the early temples.

 

And marriage was not practiced in the Levitical temple because marriage is a higher ordinance - designed to be eternal, not temporal in nature.  The Levitical temple was limited to the temporal rites.

The very first marriage was an eternal one performed with much higher authority than a Levitical Priest held.

Edited January 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[mass168]

These items are addressed in both books.  Whether or not they are addressed to your satisfaction I cannot say.

 

And the primary purpose of the OT temple wasn't sacrifice, it was giving thanks and making atonement THROUGH sacrifice.  It's important to see the reason for the sacrifice, not just the sacrifice itself.

 

And ritual washing (just like baptism) was practiced in the early temples.

 

And marriage was not practiced in the Levitical temple because marriage is a higher ordinance - designed to be eternal, not temporal in nature.  The Levitical temple was limited to the temporal rites.

The very first marriage was an eternal one performed with much higher authority than a Levitical Priest held.

So you make atonement in the temple these days? I heard you have to be worthy to get in there in the first place, so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

 

I've never heard anyone besides you claim that the ritual washing was like baptism in any way, except perhaps that it involved water

 

The bottom line is that it wasn't, that's all I'm trying to show. It is not a "restored" temple. 

 

Oh, another very important difference I forgot about. Who was allowed in the temple in OT days. 

Edited January 17, 2015 by mass168

[Calm]

 never mind

Edited January 17, 2015 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

So you make atonement in the temple these days? 

 

I've never heard anyone besides you claim that the ritual washing was like baptism in any way, except perhaps that it involved water

 

The bottom line is that it wasn't, that's all I'm trying to show. It is not a "restored" temple. 

 

Oh, another very important difference I forgot about. Who was allowed in the temple in OT days. 

 

This response just goes to show why discussing temple ceremonies with non-members yields little fruit.  You don't understand the purposes of what goes on in the temple so you don't see any parallels.  It is absolutely restored, but NOT of the OT Levitical temple.  If you try to match it up to what the sons of Aaron were doing you will only find a few similarities.  That's not all the temple entailed.

You'd be better off reading about Adam in the Garden to understand the temple than reading about the sons of Levi.

[mfbukowski]

Well maybe I'll buy that book sometime. Does it explain differences such as this? How the primary ritual purpose of the OT temple by far was sacrifice?  How baptism was not even an idea yet, and therefore not practiced in the temple? How marriage was not practiced in the temple?

We believe that Joseph restored temple practices as practiced anciently by Adam.  You see apostate forms of temple worship in Egyptian temple rites, and the Hebrew temple rites were as modified for an apostate people who did not understand much about God. You see stories of that in how Moses went up the mountain and received what we would call the "full gospel" including all these rites, Melchizadek Priesthood, etc. but then upon returning and finding them worshiping false gods, God took away that knowledge and left him what they could understand- the more simple rites of the tabernacle and later Solomon's temple.

 

So the belief is that using Solomon's temple as a "precursor" of our temple rites doesn't grasp the significance of what we practice today.  We believe we have the "full" rites as practiced on mountain tops and in other sacred places by the patriarchs of old, like Melchizadek himself.  Remember he was  a priest "without genealogy" meaning he was not a Levite and not descended from that tribe.   His priesthood existed for all eternity- before Levi and after, a priesthood held and introduced by Jehovah himself

 

If you are earnestly interested, we have answers for all your genuine questions if you ask with a respectful attitude genuinely wanting to learn instead of attacking with your personal interpretation of an apostate bible which has not been transmitted correctly to us today.

 

THAT is the meaning of believing the bible "insofar as it is translated correctly"- this statement is not about ancient languages, but about the provenance and transmission of the true gospel of God to us today.

 

We believe that what Joseph restored was much more than what made it to us in the bible, so the bible is only a small part of what was originally available to all the prophets and patriarchs.

 

We don't even know who wrote most of the bible - it is so corrupted by scribes and intermediaries it is practically useless for doctrinal information.  That is why a restoration was necessary, and why I was so pushy on making you understand that faith in the bible alone is just that- faith and nothing more.

 

It's really cool to find someone who seems to actually be interested in learning- and I really respect your admission that you understand that yours- and ours- and everyone's position is ultimately faith -based.   Not many Christians know that or understand what that really means.

[mfbukowski]

These items are addressed in both books.  Whether or not they are addressed to your satisfaction I cannot say.

 

And the primary purpose of the OT temple wasn't sacrifice, it was giving thanks and making atonement THROUGH sacrifice.  It's important to see the reason for the sacrifice, not just the sacrifice itself.

 

And ritual washing (just like baptism) was practiced in the early temples.

 

And marriage was not practiced in the Levitical temple because marriage is a higher ordinance - designed to be eternal, not temporal in nature.  The Levitical temple was limited to the temporal rites.

The very first marriage was an eternal one performed with much higher authority than a Levitical Priest held.

What was done in Solomon's temple is kind of irrelevant really.

 

The question IS - what does God teach, and what did he teach even before the bible was written.  Of course that is unknowable except by faith and personal revelation, but what else is new?

[mfbukowski]

So you make atonement in the temple these days? I heard you have to be worthy to get in there in the first place, so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

 

I've never heard anyone besides you claim that the ritual washing was like baptism in any way, except perhaps that it involved water

 

The bottom line is that it wasn't, that's all I'm trying to show. It is not a "restored" temple. 

 

Oh, another very important difference I forgot about. Who was allowed in the temple in OT days. 

Here's an Evangelical source who would agree with us  http://www.nak.org/catechism/8-the-sacraments/81-holy-baptism-with-water/812-the-biblical-basis-for-holy-baptism-with-water/8121-old-testament-references-to-holy-baptism-with-water/

 

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9202/was-baptism-practiced-before-christ

 

See also Exodus 40

Edited January 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mass168]

We believe that Joseph restored temple practices as practiced anciently by Adam.  You see apostate forms of temple worship in Egyptian temple rites, and the Hebrew temple rites were as modified for an apostate people who did not understand much about God. You see stories of that in how Moses went up the mountain and received what we would call the "full gospel" including all these rites, Melchizadek Priesthood, etc. but then upon returning and finding them worshiping false gods, God took away that knowledge and left him what they could understand- the more simple rites of the tabernacle and later Solomon's temple.

 

So the belief is that using Solomon's temple as a "precursor" of our temple rites doesn't grasp the significance of what we practice today.  We believe we have the "full" rites as practiced on mountain tops and in other sacred places by the patriarchs of old, like Melchizadek himself.  Remember he was  a priest "without genealogy" meaning he was not a Levite and not descended from that tribe.   His priesthood existed for all eternity- before Levi and after, a priesthood held and introduced by Jehovah himself

 

If you are earnestly interested, we have answers for all your genuine questions if you ask with a respectful attitude genuinely wanting to learn instead of attacking with your personal interpretation of an apostate bible which has not been transmitted correctly to us today.

 

THAT is the meaning of believing the bible "insofar as it is translated correctly"- this statement is not about ancient languages, but about the provenance and transmission of the true gospel of God to us today.

 

We believe that what Joseph restored was much more than what made it to us in the bible, so the bible is only a small part of what was originally available to all the prophets and patriarchs.

 

We don't even know who wrote most of the bible - it is so corrupted by scribes and intermediaries it is practically useless for doctrinal information.  That is why a restoration was necessary, and why I was so pushy on making you understand that faith in the bible alone is just that- faith and nothing more.

 

It's really cool to find someone who seems to actually be interested in learning- and I really respect your admission that you understand that yours- and ours- and everyone's position is ultimately faith -based.   Not many Christians know that or understand what that really means.

And I'm glad you realize it is all faith based too. On that note, all of this is a WHOLE lot to have faith in. I suppose that is not hypothetically a problem in itself, simpler is not always better. But seriously think about what you are saying. You're saying the entire OT ramblings on the temple (and believe me there's some doozies) were all for naught. Really? it got that corrupted since the time of Adam and we don't get hardly an inkling? It's a massive stretch to read the Bible and come up with what J.S. came up with. Now again, matter of faith, I get it. But if this is true, you guys really should throw the Bible out as scripture. 

[mass168]

This response just goes to show why discussing temple ceremonies with non-members yields little fruit.  You don't understand the purposes of what goes on in the temple so you don't see any parallels.  It is absolutely restored, but NOT of the OT Levitical temple.  If you try to match it up to what the sons of Aaron were doing you will only find a few similarities.  That's not all the temple entailed.

You'd be better off reading about Adam in the Garden to understand the temple than reading about the sons of Levi.

You seem to be claiming the great apostasy began with Adam. 

[JLHPROF]

You seem to be claiming the great apostasy began with Adam. 

 

No, there have been many apostasies requiring new dispensations of the gospel to man (7 to be precise).

The "great" apostasy is the one that occurred between Christ & his apostles and Joseph Smith.

 

But there are many of these times when men discarded the truth of heaven and corrupted the word of God to the point that God had to start revealing truth from heaven all over again.

[mass168]

No, there have been many apostasies requiring new dispensations of the gospel to man (7 to be precise).

The "great" apostasy is the one that occurred between Christ & his apostles and Joseph Smith.

 

But there are many of these times when men discarded the truth of heaven and corrupted the word of God to the point that God had to start revealing truth from heaven all over again.

If that's how you're defining it I would go wayyyyy more than 7 but off topic lol 

[mfbukowski]

And I'm glad you realize it is all faith based too. On that note, all of this is a WHOLE lot to have faith in. I suppose that is not hypothetically a problem in itself, simpler is not always better. But seriously think about what you are saying. You're saying the entire OT ramblings on the temple (and believe me there's some doozies) were all for naught. Really? it got that corrupted since the time of Adam and we don't get hardly an inkling? It's a massive stretch to read the Bible and come up with what J.S. came up with. Now again, matter of faith, I get it. But if this is true, you guys really should throw the Bible out as scripture. 

No, it testifies of Christ.  The BOM is the second testament of the same thing.

 

As far as I am concerned I would not care if we threw out the Old Testament, but they forgot to ask my opinion

 

Think about it.  A guy coming back from the dead?  Somebody who may not have existed, died on a cross 2000 years ago and my sins are taken away by that?

 

Yes, it is all faith based.

Edited January 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mass168]

No, it testifies of Christ.  The BOM is the second testament of the same thing.

 

As far as I am concerned I would not care if we threw out the Old Testament, but they forgot to ask my opinion

Exactly. You CANNOT throw out one without the other, so you are advocating throwing out the whole thing.. 

[mfbukowski]

No, there have been many apostasies requiring new dispensations of the gospel to man (7 to be precise).

The "great" apostasy is the one that occurred between Christ & his apostles and Joseph Smith.

 

But there are many of these times when men discarded the truth of heaven and corrupted the word of God to the point that God had to start revealing truth from heaven all over again.

Yep- that's the point.  There have been several restorations.

[mass168]

Think about it.  A guy coming back from the dead?  Somebody who may not have existed, died on a cross 2000 years ago and my sins are taken away by that?

You supposedly believe all that too, PLUS all your other stuff. 

Edited January 17, 2015 by mass168

[JLHPROF]

Exactly. You CANNOT throw out one without the other, so you are advocating throwing out the whole thing.. 

 

Without the OT we would not understand the temporal/lesser side of God's gospel.  The law of Moses was given direct from God and yet Christ provided further truth.  The Jews say - OT, no more.  The evangelicals say - NT, no more.  We say, whatever God wants to tell us is fine by us.  EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.  Not every word until 100AD and then he'd better keep quiet.

[mfbukowski]

If that's how you're defining it I would go wayyyyy more than 7 but off topic lol 

Yes- actually that is why personal revelation is so important.

 

The gospel is really "restored" in each of us individually.  Personal revelation is really all we have.

[JLHPROF]

If that's how you're defining it I would go wayyyyy more than 7 but off topic lol 

 

Yep- that's the point.  There have been several restorations.

 

Thank goodness that's all done with.  Bring on the Millennium...

[mass168]

Without the OT we would not understand the temporal/lesser side of God's gospel.  The law of Moses was given direct from God and yet Christ provided further truth.  The Jews say - OT, no more.  The evangelicals say - NT, no more.  We say, whatever God wants to tell us is fine by us.  EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.  Not every word until 100AD and then he'd better keep quiet.

mfb wanted to throw it out, not me. I would never, come on now JLH pay attention

[mfbukowski]

You supposedly believe all that too, PLUS all your other stuff. 

I actually believe that the gospel as we teach it is the best story ever developed to allow us to become the best humans we can imagine.  The atonement allows me to take away the guilt of all I have done that is wrong, and becoming like Christ gives me a model to become the best human I can imagine.

 

I believe in family values, and essentially worship the family by worshiping Heavenly Father's family.  The temple gives me a place to expand my consciousness and receive revelation, and symbols to contemplate which allow me to receive further revelation as I contemplate the wonders of God.

 

Yep- that's about all I need spiritually.  It's all here.  No trinity silliness, no "being", just a few "mysteries" - enough to make me understand the miracles I see every day.

 

It's all here.

[mfbukowski]

Without the OT we would not understand the temporal/lesser side of God's gospel.  The law of Moses was given direct from God and yet Christ provided further truth.  The Jews say - OT, no more.  The evangelicals say - NT, no more.  We say, whatever God wants to tell us is fine by us.  EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.  Not every word until 100AD and then he'd better keep quiet.

Yeah, if you believe it.  There are a lot of great lessons there.  But for me that's true of all scripture.

[mass168]

I actually believe that the gospel as we teach it is the best story ever developed to allow us to become the best humans we can imagine.  The atonement allows me to take away the guilt of all I have done that is wrong, and becoming like Christ gives me a model to become the best human I can imagine.

 

I believe in family values, and essentially worship the family by worshiping Heavenly Father's family.  The temple gives me a place to expand my consciousness and receive revelation, and symbols to contemplate which allow me to receive further revelation as I contemplate the wonders of God.

 

Yep- that's about all I need spiritually.  It's all here.  No trinity silliness, no "being", just a few "mysteries" - enough to make me understand the miracles I see every day.

 

It's all here.

Well seriously no offense meant here, but the other side of that.. No GA's contradicting each other all the time.. No wondering if my feeble attempts at repentance will be enough. No struggling to get into a building that may or may not answer some of my questions. I hope you can see at least hypothetically how one could have issues with it. 

[mfbukowski]

Thank goodness that's all done with.  Bring on the Millennium...

Hey I am always ready for something new!