Elder Holland: Nephite temples were like our temples

[canard78]

In this YSA Fireside, Elder Holland mentions the Book of Mormon temples in the land of Nephi, Zarahemla & Bountiful and then says:

"We assume those temples were about like our temples." (56mins in).

I'm not suggesting that Elder Holland was speaking "as a prophet" in that moment, it's a fairly informal setting and he's being fairly conversational.

The Book of Mormon says they were "about like Solomon's temple" (to paraphrase).

Now I'm aware that there are plenty of parallels that can be found between LDS mordern temple and Solomon's temple... but is it really accurate to tell the YSA that Nephite temples (based on their description in the BoM) were "about like our temples."

Edited April 27, 2016 by canard78
removed quip

[canard78]

FWIW... I think Elder Holland is a wonderful speaker. I ended up watching much more than planned of this. I've every confidence that he's a genuine guy with a good heart.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, canard78 said:

FWIW... I think Elder Holland is a wonderful speaker. I ended up watching much more than planned of this. I've every confidence that he's a genuine guy with a good heart.

And he has read a few books, and went to a pretty good school, and is by no means a dodo.

And yet he cannot seem to resist the temptation of reading modern Mormonism back into ancient scripture.  That is, if you believe the Book of Mormon is ancient.

A similar thing happens with Mormons reading Mormonism back into the New and Old Testaments, as well.

Has Elder Holland never heard of what happens when you "assume" something . . .? 

 

[Duncan]

he did say assume, did he or did he not?

[canard78]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

he did say assume, did he or did he not?

True. But why would he assume that when the book itself already has a description of the temples they built?

[canard78]

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And he has read a few books, and went to a pretty good school, and is by no means a dodo.

And yet he cannot seem to resist the temptation of reading modern Mormonism back into ancient scripture.  That is, if you believe the Book of Mormon is ancient.

A similar thing happens with Mormons reading Mormonism back into the New and Old Testaments, as well.

Has Elder Holland never heard of what happens when you "assume" something . . .? 

 

John Sweeney is not product of the UK that I'm particularly proud of. Just sayin'

[Duncan]

Just now, canard78 said:

True. But why would he assume that when the book itself already has a description of the temples they built?

Maybe he doesn't want to say for 100 certain for the reason you gave in the OP?

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, canard78 said:

In this YSA Fireside, Elder Holland mentions the Book of Mormon temples in the land of Nephi, Zarahemla & Bountiful and then says:

"We assume those temples were about like our temples." (56mins in).

I'm not suggesting that Elder Holland was speaking "as a prophet" in that moment, it's a fairly informal setting and he's being fairly conversational.

The Book of Mormon says they were "about like Solomon's temple" (to paraphrase).

Now I'm aware that there are plenty of parallels that can be found between LDS mordern temple and Solomon's temple... but is it really accurate to tell the YSA that Nephite temples (based on their description in the BoM) were "about like our temples."

meh. I think he was assuming they were like our temples in terms of being legitimate, priesthood-led temples that served the people of their respective lands for their particular time.

[canard78]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

meh. I think he was assuming they were like our temples in terms of being legitimate, priesthood-led temples that served the people of their respective lands for their particular time.

Sure.

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, canard78 said:

In this YSA Fireside, Elder Holland mentions the Book of Mormon temples in the land of Nephi, Zarahemla & Bountiful and then says:

"We assume those temples were about like our temples." (56mins in).

I'm not suggesting that Elder Holland was speaking "as a prophet" in that moment, it's a fairly informal setting and he's being fairly conversational.

The Book of Mormon says they were "about like Solomon's temple" (to paraphrase).

Now I'm aware that there are plenty of parallels that can be found between LDS mordern temple and Solomon's temple... but is it really accurate to tell the YSA that Nephite temples (based on their description in the BoM) were "about like our temples."

Perhaps there is a problem here with reading comprehension"

 

"WE ASSUME...."

Does not mean that there is historical evidence, does not mean that they were, does not mean anythin gother than it is a basic assumption taken on faith.

If you want to play semantic games at least get a better argument that AT LEAST gets the words right.

[Hashbaz]

I talk about such things in my Axes Mundi article on Interpreter.

[Glenn101]

We have no description of Nephite temples after Christ's visit. Elder Holland is speculating, not revelating.

I doubt that Elder Holland was speaking about architecture, but how the temples were used. And I expect that after the Christ's visit to the Nephites that there were some new ordinances instituted and the ordinances of the Mosaic law were no longer performed. This is just speculation on my part, as we have had no revelations that I know of on the subject. But such a scenario would make sense according to LDS theology.

 

Glenn

[ERMD]

There are many temple texts in the Book of Mormon.  He may be referring to more than the physical structure.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Sure.

Yes, of course sure: he said so much in the next few sentences.And I think it goes without saying that after the Lord’s visit to the Book of Mormon people, the temples were re-purposed to provide the same ordinances that Christ had set up in the Old World, such as baptism for the dead (see New Testament).

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps there is a problem here with reading comprehension"

 

"WE ASSUME...."

Does not mean that there is historical evidence, does not mean that they were, does not mean anythin gother than it is a basic assumption taken on faith.

If you want to play semantic games at least get a better argument that AT LEAST gets the words right.

And then, as far as semantics go, there's always the (likely) colloquial use of the word "assume" in light of the casual, conversational tone.

[CV75]

There's been some quibbling in this and another thread about the accuracy of two of Elder Holland's remarks in this YSA event. If the Lord is to be our Exemplar, He set the standard for what it important for accuracy in D&C 128 (temple ordinance records) and 3 Nephi 23 (records of the testimonies and prophecies of His servants).

While a video recording is about as accurate as one might expect, the content for this particular one should be looked at by the standard the Lord set. using that standard, I see the video / audio (and perhaps transcribed) record of Elder Holland's testimony as being the most pertinent thing to attend to.

[Buckeye]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

In this YSA Fireside, Elder Holland mentions the Book of Mormon temples in the land of Nephi, Zarahemla & Bountiful and then says:

"We assume those temples were about like our temples." (56mins in).

I'm not suggesting that Elder Holland was speaking "as a prophet" in that moment, it's a fairly informal setting and he's being fairly conversational.

The Book of Mormon says they were "about like Solomon's temple" (to paraphrase).

Now I'm aware that there are plenty of parallels that can be found between LDS mordern temple and Solomon's temple... but is it really accurate to tell the YSA that Nephite temples (based on their description in the BoM) were "about like our temples."

Can someone please define 'our temples?'  Are we talking Kirtland, Nauvoo, 19th century Utah, pre-1990 ordinances, 1990s ordinances, current ordinances, or one of the dozens of future iterations?  Which of our many versions of a temple is the same version that was used by the nephites during their 1000+ years as a people?  

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And then, as far as semantics go, there's always the (likely) colloquial use of the word "assume" in light of the casual, conversational tone.

Yup.

And he was right to say that.  

We "assume" that the temples found in Meso America are "Nephite"

Since we believe that Nephites had beliefs like ours, based on the BOM, we assume their temples must have been used in a manner similar to the way we use them

We don't know this for sure- we don't know this from archaeology nor do we have scriptural evidence for that.  But based on our faith, and based on the belief that Nephites were like we LDS are, we "assume" that these temples had similar functions.  They are oriented as ours are, as Hashbaz has pointed out, so that assumption at least in that regard is totally justified and pretty much not disputable.

It is in fact concrete evidence that those temples are "like" ours in that respect at least.

So "assuming" those are Nephite temples, clearly that is at least one historically justifiable assertion.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Elder H's assertion.  It is perfectly accurate as it stands.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Are we talking Kirtland, Nauvoo, 19th century Utah, pre-1990 ordinances, 1990s ordinances, current ordinances, or one of the dozens of future iterations?

Yes.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Hashbaz said:

I talk about such things in my Axes Mundi article on Interpreter.

Are you aware of any BOM passages which might imply parallels in the functions of the temples?

Great to see you here- and hear from you- it's been a while!  Brant shows up occasionally but it's pretty cool to get a gen-u-wine BOM scholar's opinion!

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

In this YSA Fireside, Elder Holland mentions the Book of Mormon temples in the land of Nephi, Zarahemla & Bountiful and then says:

"We assume those temples were about like our temples." (56mins in).

I'm not suggesting that Elder Holland was speaking "as a prophet" in that moment, it's a fairly informal setting and he's being fairly conversational.

The Book of Mormon says they were "about like Solomon's temple" (to paraphrase).

Now I'm aware that there are plenty of parallels that can be found between LDS mordern temple and Solomon's temple... but is it really accurate to tell the YSA that Nephite temples (based on their description in the BoM) were "about like our temples."

It is probably not helpful to paraphrase the BofM on this matter.  Especially since you are calling into question the accuracy of Holland's informal comment. First, one would ask:  What could Holland have possibly meant?  Second, what sort of temples did the Jews build outside Jerusalem, and in what ways were they similar to or different from the magnificent Jerusalem temple?  At that point, one might be better able to compare such statements with reality.  Do you actually have any answers to such questions, canard?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

There's been some quibbling in this and another thread about the accuracy of two of Elder Holland's remarks in this YSA event. If the Lord is to be our Exemplar, He set the standard for what it important for accuracy in D&C 128 (temple ordinance records) and 3 Nephi 23 (records of the testimonies and prophecies of His servants).

While a video recording is about as accurate as one might expect, the content for this particular one should be looked at by the standard the Lord set. using that standard, I see the video / audio (and perhaps transcribed) record of Elder Holland's testimony as being the most pertinent thing to attend to.

Yes, let's.  When Jesus predicted of the temple “that there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Matt 24:1-2), has archeology proven him a liar?  After all, many courses of the original Herodian stones of the Temple Mount are still in place.   If we approach this matter the same way we approach statements by Elder Holland, would that be fair?

Edited April 28, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Kevin Christensen]

If you want to consider the question at something other than a shallow, surface, twitter-level, start with Welch, The Temple in the Book of Mormon:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2246&index=14

And Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/illuminating-the-sermon-at-the-temple-sermon-on-the-mount/

And even moi:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1081&index=15

And don't forget the link by Hashbaz.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited April 28, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
typo, as usual

[Judd]

13 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And yet he cannot seem to resist the temptation of reading modern Mormonism back into ancient scripture.  That is, if you believe the Book of Mormon is ancient.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Judd

[Judd]

13 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And yet he cannot seem to resist the temptation of reading modern Mormonism back into ancient scripture.  That is, if you believe the Book of Mormon is ancient.

 

If I recall, it wasn't too long ago you were making quite a few "bulls eye" threads for the Book of Mormon. Is this no longer your stance?