Discussing temple stuff online

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, poptart said:

Lol pagan, thanks I'll take that as a complement.  Now if only more would think I look cute in girls clothes ;_;

Anyway, there is a huge curiosity especially considering the Masonic ties, revisions and how those who are worthy do find a favorable bias behind the Zion curtain. 

There may indeed be some bias, just as there is in the Jewish community in favor of fellow Jews, and within the pagan community in favor of fellow pagans.  Birds of a feather, you know.  We all search for friends we can really trust.  However, Mormons are far more cosmopolitan than most groups, and seem very friendly to everyone -- perhaps hoping to convert them . . .  

[poptart]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

The word "go" is a homograph but the other ones aren't. Go can mean a Chinese game and stop, go that kind of thing

Kanji is very much like that, as are the runes that Odin the allfather gained after he hung himself on the world tree.  Runekraft is very fascinating, ever hear of guido von list book secret of the runes?  Fascinating stuff.

[poptart]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There may indeed be some bias, just as there is in the Jewish community in favor of fellow Jews, and within the pagan community in favor of fellow pagans.  Birds of a feather, you know.  We all search for friends we can really trust.  However, Mormons are far more cosmopolitan than most groups, and seem very friendly to everyone -- perhaps hoping to convert them . . .  

Doubt any of the elders would date me, I always had sisters visit me ;_;

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, poptart said:

So, I'll be point blank, what's the deal?  A good Google search, similar, etc. Reveals all.  A lot of the stuff on freemasonry is out and even rome fessed up to a lot, why not just come clean?  It's like the church has something to hide.

If the prohibition on speaking about temple things was because it was supposed to be kept secret, you would have a point. 

But my husband and I, who have both been through the temple, can’t speak of some certain aspects of the temple, even if we are completely alone and there is no chance of any one overhearing.  

If it was about hiding stuff from those who have never been that wouldn’t be the case. 

[poptart]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the prohibition on speaking about temple things was because it was supposed to be kept secret, you would have a point. 

But my husband and I, who have both been through the temple, can’t speak of some certain aspects of the temple, even if we are completely alone and there is no chance of any one overhearing.  

If it was about hiding stuff from those who have never been that wouldn’t be the case. 

That still kinda sounds like the same thing just reworded a bit.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, poptart said:

That still kinda sounds like the same thing just reworded a bit.

Her husband knows and she knows, so how is not talking about it keeping it secret from either of them?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the prohibition on speaking about temple things was because it was supposed to be kept secret, you would have a point. 

But my husband and I, who have both been through the temple, can’t speak of some certain aspects of the temple, even if we are completely alone and there is no chance of any one overhearing. If it was about hiding stuff from those who have never been that wouldn’t be the case. 

I agree with this.
But I think some members have an unhealthy fear of the temple ordinances and some don't have enough fear.

For example, Joseph Smith said once:

• I want every man that goes to be a king and a priest. When he gets on the mountains, he may want to talk with his God;
  AND
• "When speaking in one of our general fast meetings, he said that we did not know how to pray to have our prayers answered. But when I and my husband had our endowments … Joseph Smith presiding, he taught us the order of prayer"  (Bathsheba W. Smith)

Yet the Church put a stop to this practice.  And perhaps for a wise purpose.   But back to my point which is I think members today would be terrified to use what they have learned in the temple as it was used all through the 1800s in into the 1900s.
And at the same time many posts about the garments for example on this board shows there are  members who don't think how they wear them or don't matters much.

Unhealthy fears, and not enough fear - both.
 

• 
   

[poptart]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Her husband knows and she knows, so how is not talking about it keeping it secret from either of them?

Said it kinda does, not sounds like the same thing.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

Maybe you could list some of the elements that have been restored for us, when I compare the current LDS temple ceremony to the OT temple and rituals there simply isn't any restoration whatsoever!  It's all completely different. Boyd K. Packer claims it is a restoration.....I'm still looking for a single element other than the word "temple" that is a "restoration"! Restore means to make like the original.

So far as I know no other Christian groups put on the robes described in Leviticus nor have people ordained and consecrated as priests. Nor do they think anointing with oil and washings are done as a rite. Nor do they think of people going through the temple through the veil to the Holy of Holies. If you know of an other Christian group doing that I'm all ears?  And that's just what's in the Old Testament. Move beyond what's recorded there to what scholars universally consider part of second temple Judaism like Merkabah ascents to heaven where one puts on the heavenly robes and is made a high priest receiving a new name, often the new name of God and you'll find that in the temple too.

Typically what other Christians disagree with is whether such things are necessary. i.e. the issue isn't whether there's a restoration but rather whether Christ did away with such things. i.e. whether a restoration was necessary

But if the question is whether the endowment in its general form is part of Judaism or Christianity of the second temple period through late antiquity then the answer is overwhelmingly yes. If the question is whether such a form is a correct part of Christianity then of course that's more debatable. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, poptart said:

So, I'll be point blank, what's the deal?  A good Google search, similar, etc. Reveals all.  A lot of the stuff on freemasonry is out and even rome fessed up to a lot, why not just come clean?  It's like the church has something to hide.

Sacredness. The notion of sacred items, sacred communication, and sacred space is a part of most religion even if it's becoming more and more alien to modern culture. It's not an issue of secrets. Again I'd point to Eliade's The Sacred and Profane. Since it's not really much of a part of our broader culture and is becoming less so each year, doing some reading on sacredness would probably help.  

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

Maybe you could list some of the elements that have been restored for us, when I compare the current LDS temple ceremony to the OT temple and rituals there simply isn't any restoration whatsoever!  It's all completely different. Boyd K. Packer claims it is a restoration.....I'm still looking for a single element other than the word "temple" that is a "restoration"! Restore means to make like the original.

It's not a restoration of the OT temple rituals from the law of Moses.
It's more a restoration of the temple society of Eden.  A restoration Abraham, Enoch.  A restoration of the practices of Christ and the Apostles and his followers.

"Temple" merely means ‘open or consecrated space.’

That is how our bodies can be temples.  That is how our homes can be temples.  That is how Christ is the temple.  And that is how a building used for God's purposes becomes a temple.

[poptart]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not a restoration of the OT temple rituals from the law of Moses.
It's more a restoration of the temple society of Eden.  A restoration Abraham, Enoch.  A restoration of the practices of Christ and the Apostles and his followers.

"Temple" merely means ‘open or consecrated space.’

That is how our bodies can be temples.  That is how our homes can be temples.  That is how Christ is the temple.  And that is how a building used for God's purposes becomes a temple.

I prefer the idea of a temple not made by human hands...

[poptart]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Sacredness. The notion of sacred items, sacred communication, and sacred space is a part of most religion even if it's becoming more and more alien to modern culture. It's not an issue of secrets. Again I'd point to Eliade's The Sacred and Profane. Since it's not really much of a part of our broader culture and is becoming less so each year, doing some reading on sacredness would probably help.  

Saved!

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, poptart said:

So, I'll be point blank, what's the deal?  A good Google search, similar, etc. Reveals all.  A lot of the stuff on freemasonry is out and even rome fessed up to a lot, why not just come clean?  It's like the church has something to hide.

Not to repeat myself but:

 

"Even though everyone may discover what goes on in the temple, and many have already revealed it, the important thing is that I do not reveal these things; they must remain sacred to me. I must preserve a zone of sanctity which cannot be violated whether or not anyone else in the room has the remotest idea what the situation really is ...

"No matter what happens, it will, then, always remain secret: only I know exactly the weight and force of the covenants I have made -- I and the Lord with whom I have made them -- unless I choose to reveal them. If I do not, then they are secret and sacred no matter what others may say or do. Anyone who would reveal these things has not understood them, and therefore that person has not given them away. You cannot reveal what you do not know!"

 

Hugh Nibley said it best...

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, poptart said:

I prefer the idea of a temple not made by human hands...

Yet Christ revered the sacredness of the temple.  So much so that in its sacred defense, the Lord displayed his only act of physical aggression in all of scripture; making a whip, and turning over the tables, and driving out the money changers who defiled its sacred space.  Yeah, it mattered to him!

The sentiment which Stephen asserted here was not a rebuke of a physical temple, because this same sentiment was expressed in the dedicatory prayer of Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 8:27), and also by Isaiah (Isaiah 66:1-2), who frequented the temple and even saw the LORD there, whose train filled the temple.

The temple itself is only a symbol of our sanctified and purified heart, the true holy of holies and house of our Lord, where the real work of the Lord is performed.  Just as the temple housed the ark and the covenant, so to our hearts are to contain the word of the Lord.

The outward temples simply guide us through symbolism, back to our inward heart, not made by human hands...  

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by pogi

[snowflake]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

So far as I know no other Christian groups put on the robes described in Leviticus nor have people ordained and consecrated as priests.

Correct, and the Jews don't do this either because the temple was destroyed around 70 a.d. by Nero. Christians are not Jewish Levites.

 

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Nor do they think of people going through the temple through the veil to the Holy of Holies.

Correct again, interesting how the veil was torn at the time of Jesus' Crucifixion, a symbol that all believers now have direct access to God through our mediator Jesus. Yet the Jews repaired the veil, and the Mormons put up another veil in their temples to separate their members from God. 

I just don't understand the claim that the temple is some form of restoration, clearly it is not a restoration of the First century NT church, and it is not a restoration of the temple and the levitical customs of that first century time, so what is it restoring? 

[Kevin Christensen]

49 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Correct, and the Jews don't do this either because the temple was destroyed around 70 a.d. by Nero. Christians are not Jewish Levites.

 

Correct again, interesting how the veil was torn at the time of Jesus' Crucifixion, a symbol that all believers now have direct access to God through our mediator Jesus. Yet the Jews repaired the veil, and the Mormons put up another veil in their temples to separate their members from God. 

I just don't understand the claim that the temple is some form of restoration, clearly it is not a restoration of the First century NT church, and it is not a restoration of the temple and the levitical customs of that first century time, so what is it restoring? 

Well, there is this:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Temple/default.htm

And of course, this:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/SecretTradition.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, poptart said:

Said it kinda does, not sounds like the same thing.

Not even "kinda".

[cdowis]

On 1/8/2018 at 5:12 PM, bluebell said:

So what do you think, what can we talk about and what (besides the specific things we have specifically covenanted not to talk about) can't we?  

A simple question -- what "temple stuff" is found and taught in church lesson materials, and in General Conference talks?  What about the Temple Preparation manual.

I think we can discuss things that are discussed in church materials and talks, otherwise.......

Edited January 10, 2018 by cdowis

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Correct, and the Jews don't do this either because the temple was destroyed around 70 a.d. by Nero. Christians are not Jewish Levites.

Well that's a bit more complicated given that we know there were other temples that were considered authorized in the second temple period. There's no intrinsic reason why Jews abandoned the priestly rites with the destruction of the temple and rabbinical Judaism dominated. Rewind history and it's quite possible Judaism would have developed in a different fashion.

I'd be nice to have better records about what was transpiring in Babylon among the priestly class before the second temple period to understand how priests functioned in the past without the temple.

Also while the Jews didn't continue temple rites, in the post 70 AD development of Judaism you do have various quasi-temple rites done in spiritual or mystical fashion. You see this quite a bit with the merkabah and hekhalot literature of late antiquity. Even with the rise of more formal Jewish mysticism in the early medieval era up through it's peak in 12th century Spanish Kabbalism there's strong conceptual temple practice, even if the rites aren't physically implemented.

With regards to Christianity, temple imagery remains important in early Christianity. If you look at the wide range of Christian pseudopigrapha and apocalypses one quickly sees this. Also if you look at eastern Christianity you see much more influence in terminology, dress and rites than you do in the west. They even call large Churches temples in the eastern tradition. (I don't know as much about the smaller sects in the middle east and Africa - although certainly the coptic tradition before the domination of Islam seemed to have much more connection) So while I don't dispute the basics of what you say, it is more complicated when you look at the details. From a Mormon perspective eastern Christianity simply maintained much more we consider authentic that was lost in the western tradition. (Particularly the marriage rite)

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Correct again, interesting how the veil was torn at the time of Jesus' Crucifixion, a symbol that all believers now have direct access to God through our mediator Jesus. Yet the Jews repaired the veil, and the Mormons put up another veil in their temples to separate their members from God. 

Well of course that's one interpretation. The other is that what was once just for the High Priest is now for all believers without removing the process. Also Mormons don't see the veil as separating members from God but as part of the process by which we return to God. (Just as the High Priest went through the veil to communicate with God) So saying Mormons see the veil as separation misses the whole point for Mormons. The idea is that we are separated but don't need to be separated.

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

I just don't understand the claim that the temple is some form of restoration, clearly it is not a restoration of the First century NT church, and it is not a restoration of the temple and the levitical customs of that first century time, so what is it restoring? 

That's just not clear. Again though since there wasn't one Christian tradition in the 1st century either among Jews or among Christians you have to ask restored from what? And since information about 1st century Christianity is so limited, you're largely making an argument from silence and reading your tradition of dogma back to the 1st century. But it's not at all hard to find texts from the 1st and 2cd century that have all the elements Mormons claim needed restored that weren't had among Protestants or Roman Catholics. (Again the east and African forms of Christianity get a bit more complicated)

Texts dealing with heavenly ascents where you are clothed in heavenly priestly robes, pass by guardians demanding signs and tokens, pass a veil to enter heaven with new names given along the way are simply ubiquitous in Jewish and Christian texts from 200 BCE - 300 CE. You might decide they're heretical but there's no denying they're there and part of the culture. Even things like being married in mirrored rooms off the holy of holies for all eternity and died to deification are in these ancient texts. This simply isn't even controversial. Again there's the issue of what you consider authentic legitimate Christianity versus what is heretical. But that seems an entirely different issue and largely one where both of us will simply project our own religion traditions. So you could say we're restoring heretical practices. The claim that what we restore bears remarkable similarity to practice from late antiquity seems undeniable though.

Edited January 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[poptart]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Yet Christ revered the sacredness of the temple.  So much so that in its sacred defense, the Lord displayed his only act of physical aggression in all of scripture; making a whip, and turning over the tables, and driving out the money changers who defiled its sacred space.  Yeah, it mattered to him!

The sentiment which Stephen asserted here was not a rebuke of a physical temple, because this same sentiment was expressed in the dedicatory prayer of Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 8:27), and also by Isaiah (Isaiah 66:1-2), who frequented the temple and even saw the LORD there, whose train filled the temple.

The temple itself is only a symbol of our sanctified and purified heart, the true holy of holies and house of our Lord, where the real work of the Lord is performed.  Just as the temple housed the ark and the covenant, so to our hearts are to contain the word of the Lord.

The outward temples simply guide us through symbolism, back to our inward heart, not made by human hands...  

 

Last time I checked he forked over the keys to st. Peter, basically told him in a nice way don' screw up then peaced out, followed by two angels telling the apostles/saints quit looking up, get to work.

Temple not made by human hands aludes to something else, some of the more versed lds may spot it, doctrine  + blind faith = ineffective on poptart.

 

[poptart]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well that's a bit more complicated given that we know there were other temples that were considered authorized in the second temple period. There's no intrinsic reason why Jews abandoned the priestly rites with the destruction of the temple and rabbinical Judaism dominated. Rewind history and it's quite possible Judaism would have developed in a different fashion.

I'd be nice to have better records about what was transpiring in Babylon among the priestly class before the second temple period to understand how priests functioned in the past without the temple.

Also while the Jews didn't continue temple rites, in the post 70 AD development of Judaism you do have various quasi-temple rites done in spiritual or mystical fashion. You see this quite a bit with the merkabah and hekhalot literature of late antiquity. Even with the rise of more formal Jewish mysticism in the early medieval era up through it's peak in 12th century Spanish Kabbalism there's strong conceptual temple practice, even if the rites aren't physically implemented.

With regards to Christianity, temple imagery remains important in early Christianity. If you look at the wide range of Christian pseudopigrapha and apocalypses one quickly sees this. Also if you look at eastern Christianity you see much more influence in terminology, dress and rites than you do in the west. They even call large Churches temples in the eastern tradition. (I don't know as much about the smaller sects in the middle east and Africa - although certainly the coptic tradition before the domination of Islam seemed to have much more connection) So while I don't dispute the basics of what you say, it is more complicated when you look at the details. From a Mormon perspective eastern Christianity simply maintained much more we consider authentic that was lost in the western tradition. (Particularly the marriage rite)

Well of course that's one interpretation. The other is that what was once just for the High Priest is now for all believers without removing the process. Also Mormons don't see the veil as separating members from God but as part of the process by which we return to God. (Just as the High Priest went through the veil to communicate with God) So saying Mormons see the veil as separation misses the whole point for Mormons. The idea is that we are separated but don't need to be separated.

That's just not clear. Again though since there wasn't one Christian tradition in the 1st century either among Jews or among Christians you have to ask restored to what? And since information about 1st century Christianity is so limited, you're largely making an argument from silence and reading your tradition of dogma back to the 1st century. But it's not at all hard to find texts from the 1st and 2cd century that have all the elements Mormons claim needed restored that weren't had among Protestants or Roman Catholics. (Again the east and African forms of Christianity get a bit more complicated)

Texts dealing with heavenly ascents where you are clothed in heavenly priestly robes, pass by guardians demanding signs and tokens, pass a veil to enter heaven with new names given along the way are simply ubiquitous in Jewish and Christian texts from 200 BCE - 300 CE. You might decide they're heretical but there's no denying they're there and part of the culture. Even things like being married in mirrored rooms off the holy of holies for all eternity and died to deification are in these ancient texts. This simply isn't even controversial. Again there's the issue of what you consider authentic legitimate Christianity versus what is heretical. But that seems an entirely different issue and largely one where both of us will simply project our own religion traditions.

Lol, that sure sounds like something Bro. Joseph and the rest of the early Masonic leadership as well as the Masonic family would have picked up in naovuoo lodge though.  Still amazed they made him a master mason on sight, politics...

Curious, that was something I thought the council of nicea addressed, the early church was responsible for the destruction of Alexandria and all kinds of other mayhem, the powers that be had to step in.

Edited January 10, 2018 by poptart

[poptart]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not to repeat myself but:

 

"Even though everyone may discover what goes on in the temple, and many have already revealed it, the important thing is that I do not reveal these things; they must remain sacred to me. I must preserve a zone of sanctity which cannot be violated whether or not anyone else in the room has the remotest idea what the situation really is ...

"No matter what happens, it will, then, always remain secret: only I know exactly the weight and force of the covenants I have made -- I and the Lord with whom I have made them -- unless I choose to reveal them. If I do not, then they are secret and sacred no matter what others may say or do. Anyone who would reveal these things has not understood them, and therefore that person has not given them away. You cannot reveal what you do not know!"

 

Hugh Nibley said it best...

Who's that?

[clarkgoble]

56 minutes ago, poptart said:

Lol, that sure sounds like something Bro. Joseph and the rest of the early Masonic leadership as well as the Masonic family would have picked up in naovuoo lodge though.  Still amazed they made him a master mason on sight, politics...

Curious, that was something I thought the council of nicea addressed, the early church was responsible for the destruction of Alexandria and all kinds of other mayhem, the powers that be had to step in.

There's no doubt masonry was a huge influence on Joseph. However if you look at the roots of masonic practice in the rediscovery of various traditions from late antiquity in the Renaissance that's actually a pretty reasonable path for these things to reach Joseph. It always struck me as odd that it was fine to borrow things from Protestantism that was true but not from Masonry that were true. When you stop and think about it that's a pretty huge double standard. However even a little reading of the esoteric traditions of the Renaissance makes you realize how much was transmitted. The issue is less Masonry than it is how many elements in Masonry simply matched broad practice in Jewish, Christian and pagan esoteric mysteries in late antiquity. The reality is a lot. Now the beliefs of the origins of Masonry in the early 19th century were completely wrong. It simply didn't go back to the Temple of Solomon. It was mostly created out of Renaissance traditions. Those in turn arose out of the rediscovery of various texts brought to the west after Constantinople was sacked along with texts and traditions held among Jews that gained broader currency.

Also, appealing to Masonry doesn't accomplish as much as some think. For one most of the main Masonic rites weren't brought over. Just elements. Second, other elements were taken from the abundant secondary speculative rites such as Royal Arch extensions and possibly adoptive Masonry. Finally I think a compelling case could be made that the particulars of the endowment are preparatory rather than actual. i.e. the actual signs, tokens and names haven't been given to most members. Rather they are given a prepratory rite to help them prepare for the actual heavenly ascent. As such copying with variations Masonic signs and tokens is kind of irrelevant. They are place holders albeit placeholders with symbolic significance.

In any case most of the endowment can't be found in Masonry and to my perspective those are simultaneously the more important parts. Second much of the Masonic elements have been removed. But the key issue is whether the broad outlines of the ceremony can be found in late antiquity. And they most explicitly can. That Masonry has some parallels and likely indirect influence from the same is just icing on the cake.

 

Quote

Curious, that was something I thought the council of nicea addressed, the early church was responsible for the destruction of Alexandria and all kinds of other mayhem, the powers that be had to step in.

Not sure what you're talking about here. I assume you're alluding to past discussions I wasn't part of.

 

1 hour ago, poptart said:

Last time I checked he forked over the keys to st. Peter, basically told him in a nice way don' screw up then peaced out, followed by two angels telling the apostles/saints quit looking up, get to work.

Temple not made by human hands aludes to something else, some of the more versed lds may spot it, doctrine  + blind faith = ineffective on poptart.

Not sure what you're talking about here. From a Mormon perspective the issue isn't whether Peter had the keys but whether he passed all the keys on.

Again I'm not sure what you're alluding to in the last comments. But if it's the distinction between the heavenly and earthly temples I'd certainly agree. So too did the Jews even when focused on rebuilding the earthly temple. One need only look to the Old Testament to note that distinction. I certainly agree that visiting the heavenly temple is the important thing though.

[blueglass]

9 hours ago, cdowis said:

A simple question -- what "temple stuff" is found and taught in church lesson materials, and in General Conference talks?  What about the Temple Preparation manual.

I think we can discuss things that are discussed in church materials and talks, otherwise.......

 when I was helping a young man prepare for the temple I prepared groups of scriptures for him to read.  For example the washing and anointing scriptures in Exodus ch 29, 30, 40, hebrews etc. 

"and anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may serve me as priests. And their anointing shall admit them to a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations.”

Rev 2:17 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.’

Rev 3:12  "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."

1Kings1:39  "And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon.  And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon".

Exodus 29:20  "Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about."

Lev14:17-18  "And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the priest put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the blood of the trespass offering:
18  And the remnant of the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed: and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD."

As for the specific new names we don't share them with others, but we can study the lives of prophets/priests, prophetesses/priestesses from church history and the scriptures. 

"Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are continually before me."  Isaiah 49:16

"And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us."  1 John 3:23

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."  1 John 5:13

"Lift up your hands in the sanctuary, and bless the Lord."  Psalm 134:2

We all pray, "O God, hear my prayer; give ear to the words of my mouth." Psalm 54:2

Ezra 9:8  "And now for a little space grace hath been shewed from the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage."

D&Cov 6:37 "Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.  Amen."

 

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by blueglass