Elder Holland: Nephite temples were like our temples

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

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!

And this is aimed at undergraduates.  Perhaps you do not have an aptitude for philosophy.  I was trying to keep it simple.

How about some Habermas for the real thing?  Note especially the underlined part, emphasis added:

http://habermas-rawls.blogspot.com/

Quote

(4) This brings me now to the final episode in my story. The isolation of the ”buffered self” of transcendental philosophy from empirical knowledge has not withstood the powerful movements of detranscendentalization of the mind. With the rise of humanities and the social sciences at the turn of the 19th century, a new continent of history, culture and society was opened up for philosophical reflections. Hamann, Humboldt, Hegel, Schleiermacher discovered that the achievements of our minds are as much reflected in the cultural forms of (what Hegel has called) ”the objective mind” as the minds of subjects are shaped in turn by those intersubjectively shared symbolic and historical realities of culture and society. 

In the wake of the pragmatist, the historicist and the linguistic turns, the trancendental subject has been stripped of the armor of a priori knowledge. The eyes of the detranscendentalized reason have gradually opened for what it also can learn about itself from the world. Now that all of its assertions have become fallible, philosophical self-reflection also has to take into consideration advances of both sciences and humanities.

(5) What does this mean for the commitment that philosophy shared with religion and shares with religion until now? In what ways can it still contribute to clarifying a joint understanding of us, ourselves and how the world hangs together?

Nowadays a kind of post-metaphysical thinking inspired by Hegel, Marx and pragmatism is confronted with a scientific philosophy for which only strictly scientific propositions are - ultimately at least - capable of truth and falsity. It wishes to answer Kant’s question ”What are men?” exclusively in terms of natural science. However, cognition and self-cognition are not the same thing. A scientifically enlightened self-understanding means that we recognize and re-identify ourselves under improved – empirically improved – descriptions. Advances in empirical knowledge about us as objects should not be confused with the kind of decentering of our understanding of ourselves and the world that is triggered by new scientific knowledge. Scientific statements lend themselves to a critical examination of errors about the world that can lead to an enlightened decentering of an understanding of ourselves in the world, but not to its substitution by natural science.

Scientism denies a presupposition that it at the same time makes at the performative level. I mean that reference to ourselves as socialized subjects who - insofar as we relate to something in the world - always find ourselves already situated within the horizon of a lifeworld. Of course, philosophy can explain this self-reference as well only insofar as it grasps the general structures of the lifeworld in the light of what the human sciences teach us. 

Unlike myths and religions, post-metaphysical thinking no longer has the power to generate worldviews. It navigates between religious traditions and secular views, between natural and human sciences, law, literature and art, in an attempt to eliminate illusions from our self-understanding, and in the process also to explore its own limits. 

Nowadays, philosphy is a – if I may say – parasitic undertaking that lives off learning processes in other spheres. But precisely in the secondary role of a form of reflection that refers to other already existing cultural achievements, philosophy can render what is known and half-known in a society transparent in its interconnections and thus, expose it to critical scrutiny. This is what originally was meant by a critical theory of society.

The translation of this is found in D&C 93: 

Quote

 

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 

I prefer the second, don't you?

Edited June 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Johnnie Cake]

He was speculating as a man and not as a prophet.

[sunstoned]

46 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

He was speculating as a man and not as a prophet.

That would be my guess.

[James Tunney]

11 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

That would be my guess.

How are you doing sunstoned?

[sunstoned]

6 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

How are you doing sunstoned?

Thank you for asking James.  My wife and I am taking each day one at a time. 

[James Tunney]

48 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

That would be my guess.

How are you doing sunstoned?

Hang in there. I just tried to give you a positive rep. Everyone's behind you.

[Tacenda]

I didn't feel like making a new topic, hope it's okay I piggy back on this one. Just read this blog in another forum...http://www.116pages.com/2016/07/afton-wyoming-vs-brasilia-brazil.html  Why is this happening? 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I didn't feel like making a new topic, hope it's okay I piggy back on this one. Just read this blog in another forum...http://www.116pages.com/2016/07/afton-wyoming-vs-brasilia-brazil.html  Why is this happening? 

Are you confident that all the facts that go into the decision as to where temples are built have been presented by this blogger?  Or just the ones that would fulfill the bloggers goal of making the church look bad?

[Calm]

What is the number of available temple workers for Brassilia, people that can devote enough time and resources (transportation costs, for example) to fulfill the role?  If not enough due to economic and other conditions, I suppose senior missionaries could be called to fill the role, but I wonder if that has something to do with it.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Are you confident that all the facts that go into the decision as to where temples are built have been presented by this blogger?  Or just the ones that would fulfill the bloggers goal of making the church look bad?

I just wondered what you all thought. I bet it stems from lack of usage in some countries but don't know.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just wondered what you all thought. I bet it stems from lack of usage in some countries but don't know.

Suitable land would need to be available.

Enough members would need to be available near the temple to staff it.

The blogger makes no reference to how many members in this proposed temple district would qualify for a temple recommend.

I'm sure there are many other considerations others here can think of.

The church has not shown itself unwilling to build temples in poorer areas of the world.

 

[strappinglad]

Can we say that all of our temples are about like each other? Not really, at least from an architectural perspective. There are ' temple types ' but they are not all the same. Hence, Elder Holland must have been referring to some other thing. Could it have been about the same purpose, or about the same spiritual focus , or some combination. There are many buildings in meso-america that are referred to as temples, few if any can be linked to possible Nephite ones. The Egyptians had temples and Nibley showed some interesting parallels in ordinances, but the buildings themselves had little similarity to Hebrew ones .

 The BoM records the space of about 200 years after Christ appeared in which there was peace and prosperity. We  Mormons in North America have had about 100 years of peace and prosperity. We have quite a few temples. I wonder if the Nephites  only had a couple . To quote canard ,sure.

[Bernard Gui]

On June 4, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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 .

Are you aware of any comparisons of the structures, costumes, and ceremonies of the Pueblo and Hopi kivas, the Northwest Longhouses, and the LDS temples? I have a Pueblo and a Puyallup friend (LDS) who have alluded to similarities, but I do not press them for details.

[Cold Steel]

On 4/27/2016 at 6:11 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.

The ancient Christians were said to be guilty of reading their theology into ancient Judaism as well. In the late 70s, Father George McRae, head of the Harvard Divinity School, addressed BYU upper classmen on the Nag Hammadi library. He was highly amused at the early Christian tendancy to do this and as an example used a story of Peter, James and John visiting Adam after his expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Although he had a good laugh on those early Christians, his LDS audience were not nearly as tickled. 

The Mormons have been criticized for doing the same thing, but it's human nature. At the time the Book of Mormon was produced, there was no Nad Hammadi, nor were there other Christian apocrypha. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was widely used by early General authorities of the ancient church, but one of the chief reasons it was rejected by later churchmen was because it was just a bit too obvious in writing Christianity backwards. But that was before those other writings were discovered. 

I suspect that the preChristian temples in this hemisphere were a great deal like Solomon's temple; and that after Christ the temples were a great deal like our own. Dr. Nibley and others have documented the wide use of creation myths in many ritualistic temple ceremonies of other cultures. Our temples have a pretty basic (and brilliant) design and if we find one I suspect we'll know it. 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/16/2016 at 1:16 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Are you aware of any comparisons of the structures, costumes, and ceremonies of the Pueblo and Hopi kivas, the Northwest Longhouses, and the LDS temples? I have a Pueblo and a Puyallup friend (LDS) who have alluded to similarities, but I do not press them for details.

I know that Hugh used to allude to Hopi ritual, but didn't give a lot of detail.  Linguist Brian Stubbs has a great deal of analysis of the Hopi vocabulary, including ritual terms, and some guys who served as missionaries among the Navajo (and Hopi) have some cryptic comments to make.  However, best I can do is to recommend the following:

http://www.templestudy.com/2008/04/24/a-hopi-anointing/comment-page-1/ 

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V31N01_37.pdf 

http://www.bmaf.org/node/451 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/06/gospel-taught-gospel-shared?lang=eng 

http://inthecavityofarock.blogspot.com/2011/03/hopi-wedding-ceremony-adds-validity-to.html 

http://universe.byu.edu/1997/11/06/symposium-shows-similarities-in-hopi-lds-religion/ 

 

[rodheadlee]

On 7/15/2016 at 11:47 AM, Tacenda said:

I didn't feel like making a new topic, hope it's okay I piggy back on this one. Just read this blog in another forum...http://www.116pages.com/2016/07/afton-wyoming-vs-brasilia-brazil.html  Why is this happening? 

Your kidding right? Who runs this blog? The Afton Temple is the size of a closet. I drove by it a few weeks ago, it's not about the money.

[rodheadlee]

On 7/16/2016 at 0:16 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Are you aware of any comparisons of the structures, costumes, and ceremonies of the Pueblo and Hopi kivas, the Northwest Longhouses, and the LDS temples? I have a Pueblo and a Puyallup friend (LDS) who have alluded to similarities, but I do not press them for details.

That reminds me of a time, many moons ago. My wife and I were in the 4 corners area and we wanted to go on a tour given by a local Navajo. we didn't have much money and he agreed to take us on the tour for the money we had in our pocket, he knew we would probably never be able to pass through there again.. It was late afternoon and we drove down into the valley in a 2 wheel drive truck. I was amazed that we never got stuck. We drove around down there for hours. Anyway he took us to a sacred Hogan (off the regular tour path) and he sung a Song of Mourning, it was very moving.  We drove around some more and when we got back it was still late afternoon, it was if time had stood still while we were there.I'll never forget that.

[theplains]

On 27/04/2016 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.

It doesn't matter who speaks a word or when it is spoken. What matters is whether it is true 
or false.  You need to get rid of that "he wasn't speaking as a prophet" mantra.

Thanks,
Jim

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, theplains said:

It doesn't matter who speaks a word or when it is spoken. What matters is whether it is true 
or false.  You need to get rid of that "he wasn't speaking as a prophet" mantra.

Thanks,
Jim

So when Peter and Paul, both Apostles and prophets, were disagreeing strongly on doctrine, to the point that only one of them could be speaking the truth, which was the prophet?

Either what Paul said was true or what Peter said was true.  One was speaking as a prophet, the other was not.
And one of them being wrong (saying something not true) was speaking according to his own understanding, and his being wrong has no impact on the other truths he spoke.

[theplains]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So when Peter and Paul, both Apostles and prophets, were disagreeing strongly on doctrine, to the point that only one of them could be speaking the truth, which was the prophet?

Example?

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, theplains said:

Example?

Galatians 2

[theplains]

On 18/07/2016 at 7:07 PM, JLHPROF said:

Galatians 2

Yes.  Peter knew the truth, but for fear sided with the Jews. Paul was quick to stop his error 
in judgment before it impacted the church further.

If only more Latter-day Saints did the same with Bruce R. McConkie instead of waiting for him 
to pass away before dismissing some of his teachings (in the earlier edition of Mormon Doctrine) 
as false and deceptive.

Even today, a former president of the LDS Church taught "He [mankind] dies in consequence of the 
sin of Adam” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph F. Smith, Chapter 10, page 89).
This is alluded to in the March 2008 Ensign magazine. But this teaching is not accepted as truth
because some hold to another teaching: 

Preparing For Exaltation: Teacher's Manual - Lesson 3 - The Fall of Adam and Eve
https://www.lds.org/manual/preparing-for-exaltation-teachers-manual?lang=eng

"Note to the teacher: The decision of Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit was not a sin, as 
it is sometimes considered by other Christian churches: (Dallin H. Oaks, in Conference
Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 73)."

Thanks
Jim

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, theplains said:

Even today, a former president of the LDS Church taught "He [mankind] dies in consequence of the 
sin of Adam” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph F. Smith, Chapter 10, page 89).
This is alluded to in the March 2008 Ensign magazine. But this teaching is not accepted as truth
because some hold to another teaching:

"Note to the teacher: The decision of Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit was not a sin, as 
it is sometimes considered by other Christian churches: (Dallin H. Oaks, in Conference
Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 73)."

This is no contradiction.
Just two different definitions of sin.
Partaking the fruit was a sin in that a law was transgressed/broken.  Partaking the fruit was not a sin in that it was required and planned.

All about perspective.

[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."

Can they not be both, designed after Solomon's Temple and taking part in similar ordinances, and like our own since those in Book of Mormon days knew of Christ by name and looking to him for salvation and sacrafice?