Discussing temple stuff online

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, poptart said:

Who's that?

Hugh Nibley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Nibley

[poptart]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

 

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

 

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.

I'l get to the rest in a bit, with masonry an easy answer, he took an oath to keep what he learned secret, he didn't and most likely it was a few angry lodge brothers who probably had a hand in shooting him on the jailhouse wall.  He was made a mason on site so had his hands in a lot of pots in doing so.  Something most people here stateside have always had issues with, following the rules.  He broke em big time.  While freemasonry doesn't have an endowment,  they do have an initiation.   Not a mormon but to me they sound like the same thing.  I've tried asking in greater detail but always been stonewalled.  Money and comfort reigns supreme. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by poptart

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, poptart said:

I'l get to the rest in a bit, with masonry an easy answer, he took an oath to keep what he learned secret, he didn't and most likely it was a few angry lodge brothers who probably had a hand in shooting him on the jailhouse wall.

Easy answer for what? And I think the Masonic oath is a bit more complicated than you suggest. Clearly Masons reveal it to Masonic initiates. Joseph saw Masonry as the apostate endowment and said as much. He changed it and Masons would say corrupted it. But from Joseph's perspective he had a Masonic charter and was still initiating people into the secrets and purifying the rite. Really what you have is an inter-lodge conflict over modifying the rite. Joseph felt he had the right to modify the Nauvoo lodge and was indeed commanded by God to do so. 

There's a lot you can criticize him for, but breaking his oath of secrecy really isn't one of them.

[poptart]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

 

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

 

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.

As a cultural Christian that' like saying Christ gave st. Peter the keys and later in said ops forgot one!  Just my take.

 

If you didn't get the temple no built bynhands part, well nvrmind...

[poptart]

At work, will reply later doing this on a phone is a pain.  

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, poptart said:

As a cultural Christian that' like saying Christ gave st. Peter the keys and later in said ops forgot one!  Just my take.

If you didn't get the temple no built bynhands part, well nvrmind...

I got the Mark 14 reference. I wasn't clear on how you were using it or relating it to Acts 7:48 which is a reference to the heavenly temple. The reason I ask is because Stephen is quoting Isaiah 66 with obvious implications to rebuilding the temple after the exile.

To Peter, Mormons think Peter had all the keys. We just don't think he gave them to Linus. And of course this is a point of big debate between Protestants and Catholics/Eastern Christians. Since Protestants have difficulty with the idea of keys per se as opposed to a priesthood of all believers. But if you have a priesthood of all believers grounded in reading the Bible then Peter's significance seems problematic.

Edited January 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

2 hours 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.

 

And last time I checked, Christ was still the head of the Church, even after his death and resurrection, and that the saints were commanded to keep an eye single to God...aka, "look up".  I like the saying, "pray is if it all depends on the Lord, but work as if it all depends on you."

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence.  Please enlighten us. 

[Jeanne]

Hi everybody...I haven't read all of this thread as of yet..but was curious as to how difficult it is for faithful members to remain "mum" on temple things when it is brought up outright or discussed online...or with non mormon friends.  Though everything is already posted online in regard to temple things..do you have a hard time not saying anything or do you feel a sense of justice in somehow setting things straight?

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/8/2018 at 3:38 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

According to the temple prep manual, each person preparing for the endowment is to be given a copy of Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple. It is therefore not obscure, and it is, in my opinion, specific, candid and respectful.

For example, it includes the following passages:

There's nothing better than going straight to the source and finding out what it says. Thanks for posting this.

Here are my pertinent experiences:

 

1. I received my endowments while at the Mission Home in SLC when I went on my mission. There was not much in the way of preparation, but we did get together in the upper assembly room afterwards where we could

talk about it with several general authorities. I don't remember who they were. I was definitely not well prepared for that experience. Fortunately, I studied the Pearl of Great Price. I recommend everyone who attends for

the first time to be very familiar with Moses and Abraham.

 

2. While Sister Gui and I have tried earnestly to prepare all our kids for the temple,  our daughter Bellalindissima had a bad first experience and almost backed out of her temple marriage in spite of her bishop and us giving her some pretty good preparation. Afterwards, I really listened to her concerns when we talked about her experience. It helped immensely. She was married and is very active with 4 kids. 

 

3. While serving as bishop, I met with a couple who had just been baptized but were very angry and were leaving the Church after just one week. At that time Ed Decker's group in our area followed the elders around and

would knock on the doors of people they were visiting after the elders left to set them straight on what Mormons were really about. The couple was contacted shortly after their baptism and were given some "Temple Prep"

lessons Decker-stye. The thing that concerned them most was the LDS practice of running around the temple naked and having orgies in private rooms. They were told that if they confronted me (their bishop) with this information,

that I would deny it because Mormons are not allowed to talk about what happens in the temple. Of course I denied it. I even pointed out several older and highly respected members of our ward who were temple workers and asked them if they

really thought those people could possibly be involved in such things. Even with that, they insisted that what they had been told was so shocking they would never come back. And they never did.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

There's nothing better than going straight to the source and finding out what it says. Thanks for posting this.

Here are my pertinent experiences:

 

1. I received my endowments while at the Mission Home in SLC when I went on my mission. There was not much in the way of preparation, but we did get together in the upper assembly room afterwards where we could

talk about it with several general authorities. I don't remember who they were. I was definitely not well prepared for that experience. Fortunately, I studied the Pearl of Great Price. I recommend everyone who attends for

the first time to be very familiar with Moses and Abraham.

 

2. While Sister Gui and I have tried earnestly to prepare all our kids for the temple,  our daughter Bellalindissima had a bad first experience and almost backed out of her temple marriage in spite of her bishop and us giving her some pretty good preparation. Afterwards, I really listened to her concerns when we talked about her experience. It helped immensely. She was married and is very active with 4 kids. 

 

3. While serving as bishop, I met with a couple who had just been baptized but were very angry and were leaving the Church after just one week. At that time Ed Decker's group in our area followed the elders around and

would knock on the doors of people they were visiting after the elders left to set them straight on what Mormons were really about. The couple was contacted shortly after their baptism and were given some "Temple Prep"

lessons Decker-stye. The thing that concerned them most was the LDS practice of running around the temple naked and having orgies in private rooms. They were told that if they confronted me (their bishop) with this information,

that I would deny it because Mormons are not allowed to talk about what happens in the temple. Of course I denied it. I even pointed out several older and highly respected members of our ward who were temple workers and asked them if they

really thought those people could possibly be involved in such things. Even with that, they insisted that what they had been told was so shocking they would never come back. And they never did.

Thank goodness that isn't part of the temple. I remember hearing and scoffing at these kinds of claims because they certainly weren't part of my experience.

However, IIRC, in the early days of the church there was a very extensive "washing" in bathtubs with spiced whiskey. Hence some nudity. Later, when nudity was uncomfortable the church moved toward using "shields" which were open on the sides as the only covering prior to receiving the garment. The officiator would then touch various body parts as part of the anointing. When that became too uncomfortable they sewed up the sides of the shields and then had the individual come to the washing already clothed in the garment. They also changed to only anoint the head instead of touching body parts. I mention this because things have changed dramatically. What we are used to now isn't how it always was. My guess is that most of us would feel very uncomfortable receiving the endowment (including washings and annointings) as they were received in the early days of the church. While "the LDS practice of running around the temple naked and having orgies in private rooms" is a gross misrepresentation of what happens, there is a reason people think that. The worst stories are embellished over the years and since members are so hesitant to talk about what actually does happen, then people are left to believe the crazy rumors. Add to that some of the FLDS temple practices and suddenly those crazy claims are more legitimate.

[poptart]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I got the Mark 14 reference. I wasn't clear on how you were using it or relating it to Acts 7:48 which is a reference to the heavenly temple. The reason I ask is because Stephen is quoting Isaiah 66 with obvious implications to rebuilding the temple after the exile.

To Peter, Mormons think Peter had all the keys. We just don't think he gave them to Linus. And of course this is a point of big debate between Protestants and Catholics/Eastern Christians. Since Protestants have difficulty with the idea of keys per se as opposed to a priesthood of all believers. But if you have a priesthood of all believers grounded in reading the Bible then Peter's significance seems problematic.

Catholic/Lutheran background, like the Latin rite and the bling plus all the good rome does so they kinda win out.  

Temple not made by hands, old expression with Masonic and enlightenment roots.  Even the pagans of old, and new have their ceremonies outside.  When asatruar worship the gods it' often in open air, the early church had a huge problem with this in northern Europe, a lot of things were a compromise lol.  Wish we had krampus, American brats could do with the life scared out of em lol.

 

I know there are LDS here with Masonic ties, come out come out wherever you are....

[poptart]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

And last time I checked, Christ was still the head of the Church, even after his death and resurrection, and that the saints were commanded to keep an eye single to God...aka, "look up".  I like the saying, "pray is if it all depends on the Lord, but work as if it all depends on you."

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence.  Please enlighten us. 

See above.  Also, I was referring to after the sermon on the mount when the apostles were just standing there and the angels appeared and said Christ would return, why were they just standing there?  Basically, get to work, build the kingdom of heaven on earth.  Then we had the Vatican and the good times rolled.

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, poptart said:

Catholic/Lutheran background, like the Latin rite and the bling plus all the good rome does so they kinda win out.  

Temple not made by hands, old expression with Masonic and enlightenment roots.  Even the pagans of old, and new have their ceremonies outside.  When asatruar worship the gods it' often in open air, the early church had a huge problem with this in northern Europe, a lot of things were a compromise lol.  Wish we had krampus, American brats could do with the life scared out of em lol.

Depends upon the pagans. Typically the Egyptian and Mithraic mysteries were done indoors or in caves.

I definitely missed your reference though. I thought you were going for the NT, not Masonic context. Although it's obviously related to 1 Cor 3.

[poptart]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Depends upon the pagans. Typically the Egyptian and Mithraic mysteries were done indoors or in caves.

I definitely missed your reference though. I thought you were going for the NT, not Masonic context. Although it's obviously related to 1 Cor 3.

Asatru/odinism.  Google irminfolk, they do glorious work.

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, poptart said:

Temple not made by hands, old expression with Masonic and enlightenment roots.  

Roots from the enlightenment?  It is older than that.  It is a Biblical saying (Acts 7 and 17).  The Masons also trace their roots to the Bible.

The temple not made by hands, in Masonic ritual, is the Spirit of man, or "the Center".  aka, the heart of man (like I said).  King Solomon's temple is a metaphor for "the Center".  Interesting that you use the Masons who are heavily involved in temple ritual to appeal to discredit the idea of a physical temple.  Again, the physical temple guides us inward to the temple not built with hands...   The Masons understood this well. 

32 minutes ago, poptart said:

Even the pagans of old, and new have their ceremonies outside.  When asatruar worship the gods it' often in open air, the early church had a huge problem with this in northern Europe, a lot of things were a compromise lol.  

 There is a strong connection between temples and holy mountains.  You might find this interesting.

32 minutes ago, poptart said:

I was referring to after the sermon on the mount when the apostles were just standing there and the angels appeared and said Christ would return, why were they just standing there?  Basically, get to work, build the kingdom of heaven on earth.

I think you mean after the resurrection when Christ appeared to the apostles, not the sermon on the mount.  It is in Acts 1:11.  I am familiar with the verse, but if you think the angels were telling them to stop looking to God for guidance, you are sorely mistaken. Just 3 versus later, all of the apostles, several other women, the mother of Jesus, and his brothers were all joined together and "steadfastly continued in prayer with one accord."  In other words, they never took their eyes off of heaven, but kept them single to God, as expected.

 

[poptart]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Roots from the enlightenment?  It is older than that.  It is a Biblical saying (Acts 7 and 17).  The Masons also trace their roots to the Bible.

The temple not made by hands, in Masonic ritual, is the Spirit of man, or "the Center".  aka, the heart of man (like I said).  King Solomon's temple is a metaphor for "the Center".  Interesting that you use the Masons who are heavily involved in temple ritual to appeal to discredit the idea of a physical temple.  Again, the physical temple guides us inward to the temple not built with hands...   The Masons understood this well. 

 There is a strong connection between temples and holy mountains.  You might find this interesting.

I think you mean after the resurrection when Christ appeared to the apostles, not the sermon on the mount.  It is in Acts 1:11.  I am familiar with the verse, but if you think the angels were telling them to stop looking to God for guidance, you are sorely mistaken. Just 3 versus later, all of the apostles, several other women, the mother of Jesus, and his brothers were all joined together and "steadfastly continued in prayer with one accord."  In other words, they never took their eyes off of heaven, but kept them single to God, as expected.

 

Nope, didn't mean the angels ment that at all.  Didn't pick up the sarcasm did you?

 

Also on the Masonic part, Google celestial lodge....

[pogi]

Just now, poptart said:

Nope, didn't mean the angels ment that at all.  Didn't pick up the sarcasm did you?

Sarcasm is very hard to read on-line.  I still don't know what you mean.  Can you just speak plainly?  Thanks. 

1 minute ago, poptart said:

Also on the Masonic part, Google celestial lodge....

The celestial lodge is heaven.  That is not the same as the temple built without hands.  See page 34

https://books.google.com/books?id=A5T8eNEieJYC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=temple+not+made+by+human+hands+masonic+roots&source=bl&ots=jcoN5ZnzqE&sig=j0wiWJmG3AUhMi1nS7W5JurdVkU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH7Le5u87YAhUs6IMKHZ7PChYQ6AEIUTAL#v=onepage&q=temple&f=false

I still don't understand why you are referencing the Masons for support.  They use temples built by hand. 

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

I still don't understand why you are referencing the Masons for support.  They use temples built by hand. 

In Masonry the allegoric idea of the temple not built by hands is the idea of each mason as a living brick. The community are the temple. So as each mason serves others they are part of the living temple. The part of the allegory is in the level of the Rose Cross in the Scottish Rite related to what Joseph ascended through in Nauvoo. (In a fashion that was a bit scandalous) The idea of the temple without hands was a popular metaphor in the Renaissance, often given a quasi-mystic meaning. But it also was seen in the rising fashion of plays and acting even though they were held in disrepute. The relationship between this "living temple" and acting has an interesting history of its own. I'm sure morality plays and mystical plays in the Renaissance contributed in no small way to the rise of recreational plays such as Shakespeare. Likewise the Art of Memory was frequently seen as a stage with props and players. The Art of Memory was a major contributing part to the origins of Masonry in the late 16th century. The stage in the Art was frequently called a temple or memory palace. Although I don't think such memory palaces were ever called temples made without hands. Although they certainly were. In a certain sense all more platonic oriented interpretations of temples (not just Jewish ones) end up being temples made without hands.

[poptart]

26 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

In Masonry the allegoric idea of the temple not built by hands is the idea of each mason as a living brick. The community are the temple. So as each mason serves others they are part of the living temple. The part of the allegory is in the level of the Rose Cross in the Scottish Rite related to what Joseph ascended through in Nauvoo. (In a fashion that was a bit scandalous) The idea of the temple without hands was a popular metaphor in the Renaissance, often given a quasi-mystic meaning. But it also was seen in the rising fashion of plays and acting even though they were held in disrepute. The relationship between this "living temple" and acting has an interesting history of its own. I'm sure morality plays and mystical plays in the Renaissance contributed in no small way to the rise of recreational plays such as Shakespeare. Likewise the Art of Memory was frequently seen as a stage with props and players. The Art of Memory was a major contributing part to the origins of Masonry in the late 16th century. The stage in the Art was frequently called a temple or memory palace. Although I don't think such memory palaces were ever called temples made without hands. Although they certainly were. In a certain sense all more platonic oriented interpretations of temples (not just Jewish ones) end up being temples made without hands.

Was Joseph Smith Scottish rite too?  Kind a figured Illinois Masonic charterwas Scottish rite, either them or Ohio.  Know one of em was York rite. 

[poptart]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

Sarcasm is very hard to read on-line.  I still don't know what you mean.  Can you just speak plainly?  Thanks. 

The celestial lodge is heaven.  That is not the same as the temple built without hands.  See page 34

https://books.google.com/books?id=A5T8eNEieJYC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=temple+not+made+by+human+hands+masonic+roots&source=bl&ots=jcoN5ZnzqE&sig=j0wiWJmG3AUhMi1nS7W5JurdVkU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH7Le5u87YAhUs6IMKHZ7PChYQ6AEIUTAL#v=onepage&q=temple&f=false

I still don't understand why you are referencing the Masons for support.  They use temples built by hand. 

...see th quote from the guy who just quoted the 18th-19th degrees of the Scottish rite.  I'm impressed.

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, blueglass said:

 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. 

Of course we can quote scripture. manual materials, and conference talks without going into sacred  temple details.

Edited January 11, 2018 by cdowis

[blueglass]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

Of course we can quote scripture. manual materials, and conference talks without going into sacred  temple details.

I don't think any of the scriptures I listed are referenced in the temple preparation manuals.  The list I gave is far from comprehensive.  

Edited January 11, 2018 by blueglass

[Kevin Christensen]

The whole business of Joseph having gotten the idea of the endowment from Masonic rites (rather than, as Bushman proposed, some pedagogical language) always ignores the presence of explicit and detailed temple rites in the Book of Mormon.  John Welch's material in from this 2012 conference is the best and most detailed presentation so far with respect to 3 Nephi.

http://www.templestudy.com/2013/08/26/mormonism-temple-2012-conference-proceedings-pdf/

And that does not consider Mosiah, and Alma 9-13, and Jacob's Day of Atonement discourse.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg

[pogi]

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

In Masonry the allegoric idea of the temple not built by hands is the idea of each mason as a living brick. The community are the temple. So as each mason serves others they are part of the living temple. The part of the allegory is in the level of the Rose Cross in the Scottish Rite related to what Joseph ascended through in Nauvoo. (In a fashion that was a bit scandalous) The idea of the temple without hands was a popular metaphor in the Renaissance, often given a quasi-mystic meaning. But it also was seen in the rising fashion of plays and acting even though they were held in disrepute. The relationship between this "living temple" and acting has an interesting history of its own. I'm sure morality plays and mystical plays in the Renaissance contributed in no small way to the rise of recreational plays such as Shakespeare. Likewise the Art of Memory was frequently seen as a stage with props and players. The Art of Memory was a major contributing part to the origins of Masonry in the late 16th century. The stage in the Art was frequently called a temple or memory palace. Although I don't think such memory palaces were ever called temples made without hands. Although they certainly were. In a certain sense all more platonic oriented interpretations of temples (not just Jewish ones) end up being temples made without hands.

It appears that there are levels and layers of symbolism in the temple not built by hands.  The link that I posted speaks of the idea you mention, but it also confirms the ideas that I mentioned, that the inner spirit (the Center) is the temple built without hands.

This still doesn't explain to me his appeal to Masonry.  Masonry understands the value and symbolism of physical temples.  It is like he wants to steal the heart of their teachings without doing the temple work necessary.  It doesn't make sense.  If he really understood the Masonic concept of the "temple built without hands", then he wouldn't diminish physical temples, as it is through the rituals of the temple that Masons learn how to construct the spiritual temple. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

14 hours ago, cdowis said:

Of course we can quote scripture. manual materials, and conference talks without going into sacred  temple details.

The irony of this is that if we point out temple teachings in scripture it's not really any different than discussing the temple.

If I point to a scripture and say "this refers to the temple" we are still discussing temple teachings.  But if I discuss the teaching outside of scripture people get all worried about mentioning temple things.