Elder Holland: Nephite temples were like our temples

[churchistrue]

Let's say you didn't believe the BOM was historical.  Or you weren't sure it was.  Or you thought it was some sort of modern expansion on an ancient text or even an expansion on a perceived setting.  But you also believed the book was inspired.  So much so that it was the most important book to you in the world, you've read it countless times, you've immersed yourself in the book and its characters and stories and teachings.  To the point that whether or not you thought there was a real Nephite temple at some point, it becomes irrelevant in your mind.  You might compare a Nephite temple to a modern temple, very naturally.  You'd describe the Nephite temple not so much as something you knew about based on revelation from God about an actual historical Nephite temple, but you'd understand it within the context of the rest of the book and the author's intent.  We do this with other allegory.  We sometimes have very complex analysis of for example, the Parable of the Prodigal Son.  We try to understand the context and the author's intention and extrapolate out details about the son or the brother or the father or the inheritance, whatever, though those details might not be in the original story, we still feel it natural to extrapolate out details based on the author's intent.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

17 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.

So you are being very gracious in not raising any issues.

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

At II Nephi 5:16, it actually reads:

Quote

 16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

How does this really differ, for example, from Josephus' description of the Jewish Temple of Onias IV built at Leontopolis in Egypt?

Quote

So Onias took the place, and built a temple, and an altar to God, like indeed to that in Jerusalem, but smaller and poorer.  Antiquities, 13, 3, 3 (72).

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."

Yes, of course, provided you are actually familiar with such similarities.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Quote

14 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?

Well, since no one took the bait, I'll answer my own riddle:

KJV translators have unwisely given us the same word “temple” in cases where very separate Greek terms are found.   What Jesus is actually referring to in Matthew 24:1-2 is the hieron or the more limited sacred precinct or temenos (not the entire Temple Mount or Islamic Haram el-Sharif).  The still more limited term for the temple edifice itself is different (naos), and each term is used accurately in the New Testament for different occasions.  Such Greek terms are naturally merely translations of the corresponding Aramaic and Hebrew terms actually used by Jesus. Not knowing this could easily lead to misinterpretation by the uniformed reader.  Harold Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (1977), 40-41; U. von Wahlde, “Archaeology and John’s Gospel,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (2006), 549 re John 2:13-16.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[canard78]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

They're all very good questions Robert. 

If we know little, would it be reasonable to assume they were "about like our temples?"

We could speculate that they were. We could maybe look at other non-Jerusalem temples and draw possible comparisons. 

I'm fully aware that Elder Holland was making some lighthearted comments and not speaking prophetically. This is not an attempt to make Elder Holland seem an unreliable source. 

I heard an unofficial and informal statement about the Bountiful and Zarahemla temples... Are they accurate?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, since no one took the bait, I'll answer my own riddle:

KJV translators have unwisely given us the same word “temple” in cases where very separate Greek terms are found.   What Jesus is actually referring to in Matthew 24:1-2 is the hieron or the more limited sacred precinct or temenos (not the entire Temple Mount or Islamic Haram el-Sharif).  The still more limited term for the temple edifice itself is different (naos), and each term is used accurately in the New Testament for different occasions.  Such Greek terms are naturally merely translations of the corresponding Aramaic and Hebrew terms actually used by Jesus. Not knowing this could easily lead to misinterpretation by the uniformed reader.  Harold Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (1977), 40-41; U. von Wahlde, “Archaeology and John’s Gospel,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (2006), 549 re John 2:13-16.

LOL I thought that was a rhetorical question!

Where / what was the temenos Jesus referred to in relation to Herod's temple? I see the term has a number of possible meanings, only some of which entail stone structures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temenos

 

[cinepro]

22 hours 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 . . .? 

 

Honestly, until he has shown a correction (or "update") on his views expressed in this talk, I don't know that I'll be listening to any of his assumptions about what may or may not have been going on here thousands of years ago.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

LOL I thought that was a rhetorical question!

Where / what was the temenos Jesus referred to in relation to Herod's temple? I see the term has a number of possible meanings, only some of which entail stone structures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temenos

A look for hieron in Wikipedia might be better, since that is the word the NT uses: " hieron; Ancient Greek: ἱερόν, lit. "holy place") is a holy shrine, temple, or temple precinct in Ancient Greece."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiero .  The hieron is the temple proper, while the naos is the holy of holies.  Both were completely destroyed in 70AD, while the retaining walls of the temple mount itself remain.  A temple need not be constructed of stone, and the tabernacle in the desert and at Shiloh was not a stone structure.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A look for hieron in Wikipedia might be better, since that is the word the NT uses: " hieron; Ancient Greek: ἱερόν, lit. "holy place") is a holy shrine, temple, or temple precinct in Ancient Greece."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiero .  The hieron is the temple proper, while the naos is the holy of holies.  Both were completely destroyed in 70AD, while the retaining walls of the temple mount itself remain.  A temple need not be constructed of stone, and the tabernacle in the desert and at Shiloh was not a stone structure.

So Jesus spoke quite specifically and literally in this particular prophecy. Now while Elder Holland wasn't making a prophecy, or being specific about his assumptions of how our temples are like the Book of Mormon temples, not all prophecies are that specific, either. So I think he gets a pass on his non-specificity.

And sometimes we don't recognize a prophecy's specificity until after it is fulfilled. I propose that an assessment of Jesus' prophecies would show them to come across as fairly non-specific, and their full meaning and application revealed to whom and when the the circumstances require, which can also vary. I think this same process has been demonstrated in a modest way by those who have come up with observations of how our temples are like the Book of Mormon temples.

[Monster]

And just how would he know? Eye roll please.

[Ahab]

On 4/27/2016 at 3:02 PM, 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).

He said we assume that.

He didn't say we should assume that, or that we are correct to assume that.

And am I correct to assume that I am one of those we?

I prefer to be the one to do my own assuming if or when I assume anything.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

So Jesus spoke quite specifically and literally in this particular prophecy. Now while Elder Holland wasn't making a prophecy, or being specific about his assumptions of how our temples are like the Book of Mormon temples, not all prophecies are that specific, either. So I think he gets a pass on his non-specificity.

And sometimes we don't recognize a prophecy's specificity until after it is fulfilled. I propose that an assessment of Jesus' prophecies would show them to come across as fairly non-specific, and their full meaning and application revealed to whom and when the the circumstances require, which can also vary. I think this same process has been demonstrated in a modest way by those who have come up with observations of how our temples are like the Book of Mormon temples.

Yes, and the problem gets even more complex when we bring in Josephus talking about the Jewish Temple of Onias IV near Heliopolis, Egypt, in a very similar manner.  If we fault Holland and Nephi then we also end up faulting Josephus, along with many another real-life description of that sort -- in a never ending regression.  Reality therapy is always helpful in controlling apriorism.

[PeterPear]

On April 27, 2016 at 3:11 PM, 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 . . .? 

 

A RESTORATION of the Gospel naturally means we can't assume our temples resemble ancient temples. Such as a rectangle, or a roof or walls, a floor, or specific rooms for specific purposes, nor can we assume even a resemblance in the same priesthood being used. 

Maybe at the last and great day of judgment when we all stand to be judged by our priesthood leaders, Elder Holland will assume Consiglieri was a great guy, a loyal defender of the Lord's kingdom, worthy of the highest supernal blessings of Eternity; then Consiglieri will correct Elder Holland about his making assumptions.

LOL!

 

Edited April 30, 2016 by PeterPear

[canard78]

On 4/29/2016 at 6:13 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and the problem gets even more complex when we bring in Josephus talking about the Jewish Temple of Onias IV near Heliopolis, Egypt, in a very similar manner.  If we fault Holland and Nephi then we also end up faulting Josephus, along with many another real-life description of that sort -- in a never ending regression.  Reality therapy is always helpful in controlling apriorism.

For those of us who haven't read it, could you provide a reference and perhaps a summary of what Josephus said?

In what way are Josephus, Nephi and Holland similar?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

For those of us who haven't read it, could you provide a reference and perhaps a summary of what Josephus said?

In what way are Josephus, Nephi and Holland similar?

As I said just above in this thread:

At II Nephi 5:16, it actually reads:

Quote

 16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

How does this really differ, for example, from Josephus' description of the Jewish Temple of Onias IV built at Leontopolis in Egypt?

Quote

So Onias took the place, and built a temple, and an altar to God, like indeed to that in Jerusalem, but smaller and poorer.  Antiquities, 13, 3, 3 (72).

[canard78]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I said just above in this thread:

At II Nephi 5:16, it actually reads:

How does this really differ, for example, from Josephus' description of the Jewish Temple of Onias IV built at Leontopolis in Egypt?

Thanks for the references. 

I agree that there are similarities between those two passages. 

I'm wondering how you then compare that to what Elder Holland said. 

He said the Nephite temples were similar to the temples we have today. 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/28/2016 at 6:26 AM, churchistrue said:

Let's say you didn't believe the BOM was historical.  Or you weren't sure it was.  Or you thought it was some sort of modern expansion on an ancient text or even an expansion on a perceived setting.  But you also believed the book was inspired.  So much so that it was the most important book to you in the world, you've read it countless times, you've immersed yourself in the book and its characters and stories and teachings.  To the point that whether or not you thought there was a real Nephite temple at some point, it becomes irrelevant in your mind.  You might compare a Nephite temple to a modern temple, very naturally.  You'd describe the Nephite temple not so much as something you knew about based on revelation from God about an actual historical Nephite temple, but you'd understand it within the context of the rest of the book and the author's intent.  We do this with other allegory.  We sometimes have very complex analysis of for example, the Parable of the Prodigal Son.  We try to understand the context and the author's intention and extrapolate out details about the son or the brother or the father or the inheritance, whatever, though those details might not be in the original story, we still feel it natural to extrapolate out details based on the author's intent.

 

None of us were witness to the resurrection but the story has changed countless lives and altered the course of history.

It is the belief alone that has done that. What happened is irrelvant, the story is everything 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

Thanks for the references. 

I agree that there are similarities between those two passages. 

I'm wondering how you then compare that to what Elder Holland said. 

He said the Nephite temples were similar to the temples we have today. 

They are.  Of course, if you don't have any idea what those similarities might be, it sounds hollow and meaningless.  That's the nature of apriorism.

[Rajah Manchou]

On 4/29/2016 at 0:13 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and the problem gets even more complex when we bring in Josephus talking about the Jewish Temple of Onias IV near Heliopolis, Egypt, in a very similar manner.  If we fault Holland and Nephi then we also end up faulting Josephus, along with many another real-life description of that sort -- in a never ending regression.  Reality therapy is always helpful in controlling apriorism.

The difference is that Josephus seemed to be very familiar with the Temple of Onias. He first said it resembled the temple in Jerusalem but he later adds details describing the temple as not being so similar, at least in physical appearance:

"Nomos was called the Nomos of Hellopolls, where Onias built a fortress and a temple, not like to that at Jerusalem, but such as resembled a tower. He built it of large stones to the height of 60 cubits; he made the structure of the altar in imitation of that in our own country, and in like manner adorned with gifts, excepting the make of the candlestick, for he did not make a candlestick, but had a [single] lamp hammered out of a piece of gold, which illuminated the place with its rays, and which he hung by a chain of gold; but the entire temple was encompassed with a wall of burnt brick, though it had gates of stone." - Wars, 7:426–432

Josephus knew enough about the temples in Jerusalem and Onias to make an informed comparison. And we can safely assume today that these two Old World temples were similar in function because both are mentioned in the Bible. It is much more difficult to compare Nephite temples with LDS temples. But no harm in making educated assumptions.
 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

In his famous attack on the Book of Mormon in the February 1831 Millennial Harbinger, Alexander Campbell termed the Nephite Temple a "wigwam temple," showing that his reading of the passage was not at all grandiose.  http://www.lds-mormon.com/campbell.shtml .

[James Tunney]

On 4/30/2016 at 0:23 PM, mfbukowski said:

None of us were witness to the resurrection but the story has changed countless lives and altered the course of history.

It is the belief alone that has done that. What happened is irrelvant, the story is everything 

So, as long as we have good writers that tell us wonderful stories that inspire, it doesn't matter whether or not they are real?  Even if they are claimed to be real, but are false?  Isn't that dangerous if those who control the societal myths created by these writers have bad motives?

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

So, as long as we have good writers that tell us wonderful stories that inspire, it doesn't matter whether or not they are real?  Even if they are claimed to be real, but are false?  Isn't that dangerous if those who control the societal myths created by these writers have bad motives?

I would suggest you study social constructivism and the deflationary theory of truth. You are a logical positivist, a position long ago debunked. Sorry I haven't the time to get into it with you. Look up all three on Wikipedia for starters. I have posted here extensively on all 3, if you care.

[James Tunney]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would suggest you study social constructivism and the deflationary theory of truth. You are a logical positivist, a position long ago debunked. Sorry I haven't the time to get into it with you. Look up all three on Wikipedia for starters. I have posted here extensively on all 3, if you care.

I don't have time to engage with you either any more. I'd brush you aside too with a reading assignment but what's the point? I'm not here to pontificate my knowledge. However, I have a feeling your Wittgenstein God creation wouldn't believe in your religion.

[Guest]

On April 27, 2016 at 6:02 PM, 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 sounding like he was suggesting that some aspects were the same. Prior to the advent of Christ Solomon's Temple would have had animal sacrifice. Our Temple of course do not, when partaking of the sacrament our altars are the table upon which is the body and blood of Christ. Symbolically it is Christ sacraficed which lies upon our altar. The Altar in the Temple where we make covenants is the same, minus the sacrament. Once I was answering a question that was asked, "where is your altar"? I replied where the sacrament is blessed, where a Priest (just like in times of old) bless and pray over the body and blood where the sins of the repentant are passed upon what used to be animal and now is Christ. And just like times that occurred in the OT and now the NT, our sins are forgiven "if" we believe and are repentant we are forgiven of all sins. Partaking of the sacrament and being worthy to do so is like being being baptized again each week making us worthy to enter the presence of God. I don't remember which Prophet taught this, but this is what we experience, just as Christ did at the final supper. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I don't have time to engage with you either any more. I'd brush you aside too with a reading assignment but what's the point? I'm not here to pontificate my knowledge. However, I have a feeling your Wittgenstein God creation wouldn't believe in your religion.

I am sorry that you are not aware of these things, if you study it you would learn otherwise

On the other hand they would clearly honor the rationality of believing in it.  

Wittgenstein has a lot of writings covering "religion" in  general way, and what belief in it is about, and how such beliefs cannot be challenged.

Rorty's wife, herself a philosopher and a good one, was raised Mormon and understood well the very issues you and others raise here all the time. She was of course not an active member and I do not mean to insinuate she actually believed "doctrine" but she knew well how Mormon doctrine specifically related to philosophy- which are what we are almost discussing, around the edges.  If you really want to get into it, I will happy to do so and take all the time you need, it is just that I have done that so often.

If you are interested you can watch this video- it's 75 minutes which could change your life and your view of religion, and I am not kidding.  Unfortunately the final minutes are damaged, but the direction Rorty is taking this is clear.

What is fascinating to me is that it profiles essentially Rorty's wife, portrayed as a fictional professor who is a Catholic.  Instead of course she was a professor who was a Mormon.  At a point, he specifically mentions Mormonism and Catholicism.

An interesting anecdote is that there is a professor of philosophy who happened to live in the same ward in which Rorty and his wife personally lived, and because of his philosophy background, he was assigned to be Mary Rorty's home teacher.

Here is his story about that:  https://works.bepress.com/scott_abbott/58/

I am sorry to sound as if I am bashing your credentials- if you want to give me a reading list then go ahead.  My only condition is that you spend as much time reading my references as I will have to invest reading yours. Quite frankly I would love to be able to discuss this with someone who has studied these issues on a professional level.  The BYU faculty is somewhat limited in how much they find prudent to get involved in apologetics especially when it involves sensitive issues.  That is my own speculation based on what I know they know vs what they actually publish.  They are totally aware of the technical philosophical arguments which grounds their theology, but it is too technical for the regular public who do not know philosophy.  It would be jibberish to them, fully of jargon, and vocabulary which is familiar to philosophers but without meaning to those who have not studied it.

Finally then, is the link to the video where Rorty discusses how science is compatible with religion and his world view which justifies his position:

http://habermas-rawls.blogspot.com/2013/06/rorty-on-compatibility-of-science-and.html

I suspect you will not take me up on my offer, but at least I have made the effort.  Good thing the first Sunday is slow for me.

Edited June 5, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Five Solas]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

...

Unfortunately the final minutes are damaged, but the direction Rorty is taking this is clear.

...

When mfbukowski says unfortunately--he actually means fortunately.  Because somewhere around that 75-minute mark, Rorty was overcome by the sound of his own droning, nodded off and fell face-first into the podium.

Now if you're unclear how unfortunate could really mean fortunate--well, that's because you're a discredited logical positivist and you don't understand postmodernism.  Shame on you!  But mfbokowski has some books that are sure to help...

;0)

--Erik

PS.  Anywho, it's all way less exciting than those missing minutes of the Nixon tapes ("we could kill him... but that would be wrong")

PPS.  Please forgive this post!