My Friendly Friday Questions

[Saint Bonaventure]

I think I'm understanding this Word of Wisdom thing. An LDS member of my extended family stopped in this morning with veggies from the farmer's market. I was drinking coffee (made by monks in Wyoming, no less), and I offered my LDS family member some tea.

I did not offer black tea or even green tea. I just offered herbal tea. She looked at the k-cup, saw that it was herbal tea, and said "yes."

[Saint Bonaventure]

So I'm tangled a little in LDS theology, and am hoping for perspectives:

• I have come to understand that for Latter-day Saints, intelligences have always existed and will always exist. They are eternal. For a point of reference, in Catholic theology, only God is eternal.
• At some point (in time and/or space?), some intelligences became/become/will become spirits (an incarnation or embodiment of sorts?) and that some of these spirits are children of Heavenly Parents, and are subsequently born on earth, receiving physical bodies.
• Are these spirits still intelligences in a sense? Are spirits a more advanced form of intelligences?
• Was Jehovah (who would be known, once incarnated on earth, as Jesus), the first intelligence in a generation of intelligences to become a spirit, i.e., is Jehovah an elder brother because he was the first intelligence born as a spirit to this particular set of Heavenly Parents?
• Are humans going through the same process as Jehovah to become Heavenly Parents themselves, and to keep this process going perpetually?
• Was Lucifer also an intelligence born as a spirit to these same Heavenly Parents, and that is what people (often critics) are getting at when they say that for Latter-day Saints, Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?
• I've wanted LDS notions of intelligences and spirits to map onto my notion of angels, but it isn't fitting.

I apologize if these questions are ridiculous or just demonstrate how ill-informed I am. I've been doing some reading and am trying to put pieces together.

Edited September 28, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[Teancum]

48 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

So I'm tangled a little in LDS theology, and am hoping for perspectives:

• I have come to understand that for Latter-day Saints, intelligences have always existed and will always exist. They are eternal. For a point of reference, in Catholic theology, only God is eternal.
• At some point (in time and/or space?), some intelligences became/become/will become spirits (an incarnation or embodiment of sorts?) and that some of these spirits are children of Heavenly Parents, and are subsequently born on earth, receiving physical bodies.
• Are these spirits still intelligences in a sense? Are spirits a more advanced form of intelligences?
• Was Jehovah (who would be known, once incarnated on earth, as Jesus), the first intelligence in a generation of intelligences to become a spirit, i.e., is Jehovah an elder brother because he was the first intelligence born as a spirit to this particular set of Heavenly Parents?
• Are humans going through the same process as Jehovah to become Heavenly Parents themselves, and to keep this process going perpetually?
• Was Lucifer also an intelligence born to these same Heavenly Parents, and that is what people (often critical) are getting at when they say that for Latter-day Saints, Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?
• I've wanted LDS notions of intelligences and spirits to map onto my notion of angels, but it isn't fitting.

I apologize if these questions are ridiculous or just demonstrate how ill-informed I am. I've been doing some reading and am trying to put pieces together.

All good questions. I have some ideas I will try to post later. I will be interested to see what others who are believers have to say.  I would say that there is not a lot on some of these.  A lot of speculation I think.

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

So I'm tangled a little in LDS theology, and am hoping for perspectives:

All excellent questions, and questions that Latter-day Saints have been asking too.  But now you've got me thinking this is Friday (it's only Wednesday!) 

I've pasted some of your bullet points below (in blue) with my responses below the bullet points (hopefully this format isn't confusing):

• I have come to understand that for Latter-day Saints, intelligences have always existed and will always exist. 

That is correct.  See Abraham 3:18-19.  Also:

"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29)

"For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy" (Doctrine and Covenants 93:33)

And also this statement from Joseph Smith:   "The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity. Our Savior speaks of children and says, Their angels always stand before my Father. The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were first given to him, and by him to others. He will have to give an account of his stewardship, and they to him."  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Four 1839–42, p.158, also online at JSP - Discourse, and JSP - History)

• At some point (in time and/or space?), some intelligences became/become/will become spirits (an incarnation or embodiment of sorts?) and that some of these spirits are children of Heavenly Parents, and are subsequently born on earth, receiving physical bodies.
• Are these spirits still intelligences in a sense? Are spirits a more advanced form of intelligences?

The part where you say "some of these spirits are children of Heavenly Parents, and are subsequently born on earth, receiving physical bodies" is correct.  But the rest of what you ask is a matter of debate and there are all sorts of different opinions on the difference between intelligences and spirits (or if there is a difference), and nothing concrete (that I'm aware of) has been revealed on this topic.  And, the exact way we become children of our Heavenly Father has not been revealed.  

There was an article in the book, The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God that addresses this topic:  The History of Intelligence in Latter-day Saint Thought, by Kenneth W. Godfrey  This article describes the history (and debate) on the teachings on spirits and intelligences. 

Some assume that "spirit" and "intelligence" can be used interchangeably, others see "spirit" to be a progression state of intelligences.  I personally lean toward the former, and I'm sure we could find arguments for either side. 

• Was Jehovah (who would be known, once incarnated on earth, as Jesus), the first intelligence in a generation of intelligences to become a spirit, i.e., is Jehovah an elder brother because he was the first intelligence born as a spirit to this particular set of Heavenly Parents?

Jesus is the "firstbegotten" of the Father (Heb 1:6), begotten before the worlds.  What that means with respect to intelligence or spirit is part of the prior question (and controversy).   But I think the basic premise you state is correct.  

• Are humans going through the same process as Jehovah to become Heavenly Parents themselves, and to keep this process going perpetually?

I wouldn't say humans are "going through the same process as Jehovah" by any means, because humanity relies on the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Jehovah) in order to participate with God in what he has prepared for us.  But the basic idea, that our spirits are born on earth and receive a physical body and we die and are resurrected (because of what Jesus did for us) and can progress after this life is correct.

• Was Lucifer also an intelligence born as a spirit to these same Heavenly Parents, and that is what people (often critics) are getting at when they say that for Latter-day Saints, Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?

Yes, but the reality is that we are all brothers and sisters, and each of us chose to align ourselves differently in the heavenly council in the beginning (and Lucifer rebelled, was cast out, etc. etc.) 

• I've wanted LDS notions of intelligences and spirits to map onto my notion of angels, but it isn't fitting.

I've always wanted to explore the LDS view of angels further on this board, but I've had too many distractions (in fact, I should be working right now instead of making this post.  I work on my own terms, so I'm only cheating myself ).    But in a nutshell, angels of God can be spirits who have not yet been born on earth, the spirits of just men made perfect but have not yet been resurrected, translated beings that have physical bodies (people like Enoch and others that he taught, or Elijah), or resurrected beings.   I'm not sure if that helps you with the intelligences and spirits issue.  

Good questions, thanks for asking.

  

Edited September 28, 2022 by InCognitus

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

So I'm tangled a little in LDS theology, and am hoping for perspectives:

• I have come to understand that for Latter-day Saints, intelligences have always existed and will always exist. They are eternal. For a point of reference, in Catholic theology, only God is eternal.
• At some point (in time and/or space?), some intelligences became/become/will become spirits (an incarnation or embodiment of sorts?) and that some of these spirits are children of Heavenly Parents, and are subsequently born on earth, receiving physical bodies.
• Are these spirits still intelligences in a sense? Are spirits a more advanced form of intelligences?
• Was Jehovah (who would be known, once incarnated on earth, as Jesus), the first intelligence in a generation of intelligences to become a spirit, i.e., is Jehovah an elder brother because he was the first intelligence born as a spirit to this particular set of Heavenly Parents?
• Are humans going through the same process as Jehovah to become Heavenly Parents themselves, and to keep this process going perpetually?
• Was Lucifer also an intelligence born as a spirit to these same Heavenly Parents, and that is what people (often critics) are getting at when they say that for Latter-day Saints, Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?
• I've wanted LDS notions of intelligences and spirits to map onto my notion of angels, but it isn't fitting.

I apologize if these questions are ridiculous or just demonstrate how ill-informed I am. I've been doing some reading and am trying to put pieces together.

Not a ridiculous question in there. InCognitus gave some solid answers. I would say most of this, scripturally, is based on just a handful of passages, namely Abr 3 and D+C 93. Though it's found in smaller ones throughout all the books of scripture. Along with the references already given, Abr. 3:21-28 is also particularly important. You can find other passages that are often tied to this in these references: here and here. How that is interpreted beyond these statements is probably veering into speculative areas. To not be too repetitive, what follows is more my personal opinion on these areas, moreso than a definitive stance.

   

Quote

I have come to understand that for Latter-day Saints, intelligences have always existed and will always exist. They are eternal. For a point of reference, in Catholic theology, only God is eternal.

That's pretty accurate. It's also described as co-eternal. This is why in the scriptures already mentioned and others use words to describe the process of creation like "organized" and "ordered." 

Quote

 

2) At some point (in time and/or space?), some intelligences became/become/will become spirits (an incarnation or embodiment of sorts?) and that some of these spirits are children of Heavenly Parents, and are subsequently born on earth, receiving physical bodies.

Are these spirits still intelligences in a sense? Are spirits a more advanced form of intelligences? 

 

 

Intelligence and spirit are used interchangeably. There's not a clear distinction. Intelligence is described as the "light of truth" in dc93. Jesus is described multiple times as the "Spirit of truth" who received the "fulness" grace for grace and is thus the "son of God" (see Mosiah 15 for an interesting dive into the titles Son and Father).  In Abr 3 God is described as more intelligent than all spirits/intelligences. You can read it as certain intelligences are spirits. You can read it as God organizes certain intelligence into spirits. You could read it as intelligences in general are spirits. There's not an absolute distinction there. Moses 3:5 Also notes that everything was created spiritually before they were created "naturally" on this earth. How that meshes with the intelligences/spirits is not given. It should also be noted that light and truth are received through this life (and the next) until one receives a "fulness" via Christ and obeying our commandments (dc 93 personalizes commandments one receives in v 27). So a spirit also can increase in intelligence via this life. To me this points to less of a "one becomes the other" sort of thing but a circular dynamic that can be perpetually expansive. 

Quote

 

Was Jehovah (who would be known, once incarnated on earth, as Jesus), the first intelligence in a generation of intelligences to become a spirit, i.e., is Jehovah an elder brother because he was the first intelligence born as a spirit to this particular set of Heavenly Parents? 

Was Lucifer also an intelligence born as a spirit to these same Heavenly Parents, and that is what people (often critics) are getting at when they say that for Latter-day Saints, Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?

 

 

"elder brother" is definitely a term that's interpreted from, as opposed to directly derived, from scripture. It's likely coming from the title "firstborn" given to Christ and the doctrine that we're all children of God.  It's not exactly what's described though. Since intelligences are co-eternal, "first intelligence" is also probably not right if one's thinking chronological order.  Abr 3 describes pre-earth council Christ as the "one like unto God" and is called the "first" only at the end when God says "I will send the first." 3 Nephi 20:26 Christ Describes himself as the one that the Father "raised me up unto you first." IMHO this is more about Christ's role and order....his estate as the Firstborn/Only Begotten. He's pre-ordained to fulfill the purpose of this earth/life that He was pivotal in creating in the first place. He is the first to receive all that God has. And was the only one described as "like unto God" from the beginning.  

And whether it's a particular set of Heavenly Parents is speculative. We're only really given the information that's tied to or related this world or "beginning" with an understanding that it's a part of a greater pattern. But details about that pattern are intentionally not given by God. In this context there's only one Heavenly Parents.  I personally think this points to what it means to be apart of the first estate....as in the class or order or role they were from the onset of the beginning. Just as intelligence and spirit are dynamic and eternal, these also just are.

On christ/lucifer part. Christ had a specific ordering that made him "like unto God" and "like unto the Son of Man" (capitalized Man...referencing God's title "Man of Holiness"). Lucifer is described as simply "another" from the group described as those God would make his rulers (AKA the hosts of heaven....also could be those with special callings....could be all of us since all mankind is made in the image and likeness of God.) There is relation there....if one wants to call it brothers - with Christ as the 'eldest' to guide and mediate for us - many do. I've also heard it discouraged too. After all this is not exactly what our relationship with Christ is described in scripture either. Likewise The "jesus and lucifer as bros" thing doesn't seem exactly right to me since it's clear that Lucifer's ordering was not the same as Christ's, was more like the rest of us, and was then lost all together in his effort to usurp Christ...becoming something all together separate from God and intelligence (light/truth).  

Quote

Are humans going through the same process as Jehovah to become Heavenly Parents themselves, and to keep this process going perpetually?

Yes and no and most likely. Humans do not have the exact role that Jehovah does on earth. His role is to be the Firstborn/Only begotten and then mediate/redeem becoming Father to our spiritual rebirths. Ours are to repent, come unto Christ to be reborn, and follow God. This relationship makes us joint-heirs and we are lifted up with/through him (ie exalted and/or apart of the celestial kingdom). There's varying ways to describe this, particularly in DC76:54-59. Technically "become Heavenly Parents" isn't in the descriptors. But it sounds a lot like it...so it seems like a fair assumption. At the same time, I do wonder if we're missing something on this point too. I'm open to a view/correction via further revelation on this point (and frankly just about any point I've mentioned)     

Quote

I've wanted LDS notions of intelligences and spirits to map onto my notion of angels, but it isn't fitting.

What incognito said. Basically we are angels...or rather we are at certain points of existing. It's basically anyone not in this mortal frame that's been sent as a messenger from God. 

 

An aside: It also struck me while looking over these references, that the "beginning" could also be seen as the organizing moment described in abr 3: 23-24 when certain spirits were prepared for this earth. It's not necessarily the beginning of everything. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Saint Bonaventure]

A low-key question:

How does 1 Tim. 3:12 fit into an LDS understanding of deacon?

Quote

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

 

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

A low-key question:

How does 1 Tim. 3:12 fit into an LDS understanding of deacon?

 

Different times and policies that would make this advice generally more relevant then how we currently use the title “deacon” (whom the majority are 12-14). It used to apply more readily early on in the church, but it changed when teens were included in priesthood ordination. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited October 10, 2022 by BlueDreams

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

A low-key question:

How does 1 Tim. 3:12 fit into an LDS understanding of deacon?

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism has a good article addressing this question.  It mentions that in the "early LDS Church", deacons were adults as well, but that it was changed in the twentieth-century:

Quote

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.3, ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH IN NEW TESTAMENT TIMES (pp. 662-663)

The early church also had bishops (epískopoi, "overseers, supervisors," 1 Tim. 3:1), elders (presbúteroi, Acts 15:22; 16:4; 20:17, where a council of elders is grouped with the apostles), teachers (did skaloi, 1 Cor. 12:28, here mentioned just after the apostles and prophets; Eph. 4:11), deacons (di konoi, "servants, helpers," Philip 1:1), and a group of seventy (Luke 10:1) who gave missionary service. All of these offices have LDS equivalents.

However, Latter-day Saints do not claim an exact, one-to-one correspondence between the primitive Church and the restored Church. Continuing revelation provides for continual adaptations of the basic ecclesiastical pattern. For instance, in the early New Testament Church the three leading apostles were part of the council of the Twelve, while in the latter-day Church they generally are a separate quorum. In the early Church, elders appear to have been older members of a congregation, while in the LDS Church they are often, or usually, younger men. Deacons and teachers were adults in the primitive Church (1 Tim. 3:12) and in the early LDS Church. In the twentieth-century Church, however, young men ordinarily receive these priesthood offices at the ages of twelve and fourteen. The LDS Church has no officer entitled evangelist (euaggelistes, "good-message announcer") or pastor (poimen, "shepherd," Eph. 4:11-14); but Joseph Smith taught that the evangelist was a patriarch, an official who gives revelatory "fatherly" blessings (see TPJS, p. 151); and a pastor, although not an ordained officer in the priesthood, could well be any leader who serves as a "shepherd of the flock" (MD, p. 557).

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

A low-key question:

How does 1 Tim. 3:12 fit into an LDS understanding of deacon?

 

There were six distinct stages that the LDS Church went through with regard to the way that we viewed what we call the Aaronic Priesthood.

Stage 1: 1829-46. Adult males were called to Aaronic Priesthood offices as Church needs required.

During this period (up until near the end), very few men in the LDS Church were ever ordained to the priesthood. We called people when there was a need (as we understood the duties of each office to be). When men were ordained, they were usually only ever ordained to one office (unless they later received a calling in the Church that required what we might call a "higher" priesthood office). At the end of this period, the LDS Church was introduced to the temple endowment. To be endowed required that you be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and so a majority of the men in the Church were ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood so that they could be endowed at the end of this period in Nauvoo (they were rushing to get as much done as they could while preparing to head West). In this early context, 1 Tim. 3:12 was part of the understanding of this calling.

Stage 2: 1847-77. Men holding the Melchizedek Priesthood became "acting" deacons, teachers, and priests. Their primary work was that assigned by revelation to priests and teachers: to teach the Saints righteous principles in their homes and to administer the sacrament.

Because we had no deacons or teachers or priests (for the most part) - we just had elders, some of the elders were assigned specific duties that had until then been assigned to those in the Aaronic Priesthood. We still endowed members (using endowment houses once we started building them). And this kept the need for Melchizedek Priesthood ordinations in the Church, so the LDS Church continued not ordaining men to offices in the Aaronic Prieshtood. We were endowing boys as young as 14 (and consequently also ordaining them to the Melchizedek Priesthood at that age). So there wasn't really space for a progressive sort of approach to the priesthood that we have today.

Stage 3: 1877-1908. By the end of this period, every youth between twelve and twenty was expected to receive at least one Aaronic Priesthood office, usually that of deacon, but Melchizedek Priesthood holders continued to "act" as home teachers and to administer the sacrament.

What happens in 1877 (and the reason why there is this demarcation) is that we open the first western temple. Between 1846 and 1877, we didn't have an operational temple. During this time frame (Stage 3), a more standard approach was implemented increasing the age at which men were ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood (and endowed). And this created space for young men to be ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood before being ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood. As we opened more temples, there was a push to create standard Church wide policies with regards to ages for priesthood and endowments and all of the related things. So we started calling and ordaining young men (up into the early 20s) to the Aaronic Priesthood and we started delaying ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood somewhat.

Stage 4: 1908-22. Aaronic Priesthood work was redesigned for youth with offices linked to age, and with routinized advancement of the worthy and active, with new duties designed for youth, including handling the sacrament, and with teachers and priests involved in ward teaching.

In 1908, President Joseph F. Smith beings what we call today the priesthood reformation. He receives revelation on a reorganization of sorts, and it is in this time frame that the Aaronic Priesthood is closely connected to age for the youth of the Church. This time period creates (for the most part) the system we see today.

Stage 5: 1920s-50s. These new age-linked Aaronic Priesthood functions became firmly institutionalized.

During this period, the ordination of youth becomes routine. At the same time, we also see young men on the end of this spectrum (18-19) start being called as missionaries, and, this helps further institutionalize the Aaronic Priesthood as a preparatory priesthood, but it also set expectations for the age of ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Stage 6: 1960s-present. As part of the Priesthood Correlation program, ward teaching became home teaching (and now ministering), a Melchizedek Priesthood quorum responsibility, with Aaronic Priesthood males assisting as junior companions.

This idea of a preparatory priesthood shows up in the view of younger men (as Aaronic Priesthood holders) assisting in the tasks mentioned in the D&C - training, so to speak, with an older Melchizedek Priesthood holder.

In getting back to your question, 1 Tim. 3:12 played a much larger role in the LDS understanding of a Deacon in a pre-endowment context (up until 1846). After that, it continued to play a role in the assignment of Melchizedek Priesthood holders as acting Deacons (although with polygamy we get into the translational issue of "one wife") through the end of the 19th century. Eventually though, the role of 1 Tim. 3:12 disappears and a greater focus is placed on D&C Sections 107 and 20 - and these are generally used as the basis for the later organization of the Aaronic priesthood quorums. By the beginning of the 20th century, the only real remaining remnant of this idea from 1 Tim. 3:12 is seen in the calling of certain Church leadership positions. For example, the general rule is that you have to be married to be called as a Bishop (which still persists today).

[Saint Bonaventure]

9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism has a good article addressing this question.  It mentions that in the "early LDS Church", deacons were adults as well, but that it was changed in the twentieth-century:

 

Thank you, InCognitus and BlueDreams.

I very much believe that the understanding of truth, and even ecclesiastical structures, can develop and be clarified over time. I have no problems with that idea, whatsoever.

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

I'm sure I'll return to the wonderful discussion we're having about deacons and such, but I'm going to share an observation and I'll hope for comment.

My observation is that there might be a similarity between Catholic Churches and LDS Temples. Specifically, both have one set of doors that are the principal, intended entrances. Catholics will sometimes call these main doors the "sheep gate" and they are meaningful on multiple levels--scriptural, traditional, even doctrinal. 

Am I on to something here? Do LDS Temples usually/always have one principal entrance? If so, what are the meanings attached to this one principal entrance of an LDS Temple?

 

[BlueDreams]

39 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm sure I'll return to the wonderful discussion we're having about deacons and such, but I'm going to share an observation and I'll hope for comment.

My observation is that there might be a similarity between Catholic Churches and LDS Temples. Specifically, both have one set of doors that are the principal, intended entrances. Catholics will sometimes call these main doors the "sheep gate" and they are meaningful on multiple levels--scriptural, traditional, even doctrinal. 

Am I on to something here? Do LDS Temples usually/always have one principal entrance? If so, what are the meanings attached to this one principal entrance of an LDS Temple?

 

It depends the temple. At times there may be two entrances. But I could be wrong and I think it’s more common to have 1 main entrance. Much of this is to do less with the doors themselves and more so the recommend desks. We all have to show our recommends soon after entering in the foyer. This to me does have symbolism as it’s in a similar location as the place where sacrifices were given in the ancient temples. The only sacrifice needed now is indication that one is striving to follow God and the teachings/practices given to us. 
 

I don’t know much about the “sheep gate.” What’s some of the symbolism and significance to this in Catholicism? 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[RevTestament]

On 9/28/2022 at 7:20 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

So I'm tangled a little in LDS theology, and am hoping for perspectives:

• I have come to understand that for Latter-day Saints, intelligences have always existed and will always exist. They are eternal. For a point of reference, in Catholic theology, only God is eternal.

Yes, I believe we are spirit, and that spirit is eternal. Spirit is intelligence and cannot be created. As an example I will refer you to Abraham 3:

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two ^aspirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are ^bgnolaum, or eternal.

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am ^amore intelligent than they all.

On 9/28/2022 at 7:20 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• At some point (in time and/or space?), some intelligences became/become/will become spirits (an incarnation or embodiment of sorts?) and that some of these spirits are children of Heavenly Parents, and are subsequently born on earth, receiving physical bodies.

There is a dichotomy in the Church about intelligences vs spirit. I use the terms interchangeably, and do not subscribe to spirit babies or spirits being born. Spirits are eternal. 

On 9/28/2022 at 7:20 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• Are these spirits still intelligences in a sense? Are spirits a more advanced form of intelligences?

See above.

On 9/28/2022 at 7:20 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• Was Jehovah (who would be known, once incarnated on earth, as Jesus), the first intelligence in a generation of intelligences to become a spirit, i.e., is Jehovah an elder brother because he was the first intelligence born as a spirit to this particular set of Heavenly Parents?

I believe Yeshua became our elder brother when He was chosen as the first born when the Father said to Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." You will probably be able to find different views in the Church about the begotten nature of the Son. I don't view it as a settled matter within the Church. However, in the King Follett discourse of Joseph Smith he said basically that Yeshua did exactly what He had seen the Father do, and that included laying down His life for us.

On 9/28/2022 at 7:20 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• Are humans going through the same process as Jehovah to become Heavenly Parents themselves, and to keep this process going perpetually?

That is what I believe our scriptures show. This will happen in a new heavens and a new earth, where this one will not be remembered nor come into mind. This is why Yeshua said those who followed Him would judge the twelve tribes in the regeneration. We also have scripture telling us the abomination of desolation awaits the wicked not only in this world, but the next. However, the Church as a whole has not reached this stage yet.

On 9/28/2022 at 7:20 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• Was Lucifer also an intelligence born as a spirit to these same Heavenly Parents, and that is what people (often critics) are getting at when they say that for Latter-day Saints, Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?

I personally believe Lucifer was a fallen spirit per Isaiah, who fell or rebelled against God in a long ago time and place - even before this world. This is NOT to be taken as Church doctrine but is my personal belief that in that sense Lucifer is an elder of Christ, who was stripped of his priesthood office. All spirits are brothers, just as we are Yeshua's brothers and sisters, so yes, in that sense Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. 

On 9/28/2022 at 7:20 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• I've wanted LDS notions of intelligences and spirits to map onto my notion of angels, but it isn't fitting.

I apologize if these questions are ridiculous or just demonstrate how ill-informed I am. I've been doing some reading and am trying to put pieces together.

No need to apologize. These are all quite relevant questions. LDS do not believe angels are some separate class of God's creation. The Greek angelos is a form of the Hebrew Malak, and means the same - messenger. Isaiah teaches about the Malak/messenger of the covenant, which Christians read as Christ. So angels are merely the spirits of men who have received a job as a messenger. In my view they are intelligences and spirits. They are the same.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm sure I'll return to the wonderful discussion we're having about deacons and such, but I'm going to share an observation and I'll hope for comment.

My observation is that there might be a similarity between Catholic Churches and LDS Temples. Specifically, both have one set of doors that are the principal, intended entrances. Catholics will sometimes call these main doors the "sheep gate" and they are meaningful on multiple levels--scriptural, traditional, even doctrinal. 

Am I on to something here? Do LDS Temples usually/always have one principal entrance? If so, what are the meanings attached to this one principal entrance of an LDS Temple?

 

This might be helpful…

https://www.templefacts.org/post/holiness-to-the-lord-the-house-of-the-lord

For the foyer area Bluedreams refers to, some pictures (may take a bit to load):

http://moroni10.com/lds/temple_tour/foyer.html

Edited October 13, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm sure I'll return to the wonderful discussion we're having about deacons and such, but I'm going to share an observation and I'll hope for comment.

My observation is that there might be a similarity between Catholic Churches and LDS Temples. Specifically, both have one set of doors that are the principal, intended entrances. Catholics will sometimes call these main doors the "sheep gate" and they are meaningful on multiple levels--scriptural, traditional, even doctrinal. 

Am I on to something here? Do LDS Temples usually/always have one principal entrance? If so, what are the meanings attached to this one principal entrance of an LDS Temple?

 

Our temples are designed essentially using the model of the ancient Jewish temples, as are Catholic cathedrals

Yes there is a main entry through which all must enter.

In the past, catechumens could not enter the main cathedral, but met in the "Baptistry".  Our "investigators" meet in the chapels for about a year after they are baptized, before they are allowed to enter the temple.

There is a separation also between the areas in which the worshippers meet and the "Holiest" part of the temple- the Celestial Room- for Catholics this is either a "screen" in the big old European cathedrals- and in a routine church of course there is the "communion rail" between the altar area and where the worshippers are seated.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol21/iss1/2/

Our own Bro Huff has quite a good article about this as well.

http://adventures-in-mormonism.com/2008/01/18/an-outstanding-post/

How our ignorant farm boy learned all this stuff is a mystery. 

Also Coptic Orthodox liturgies have PROFOUND similarities to LDS rituals.  

https://www.copticchurch.net/introduction-to-the-coptic-church/sacraments/2_confirmation

Most know about garments which are to remind us of our covenants- similar to the Catholic customs of wearing a "habit" etc. - ours are now worn beneath our street clothes.

When I was a Catholic I wore a Scapular which is a VERY close parallel to our concepts of garments, as well.

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

 

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Our "investigators" meet in the chapels for about a year after they are baptized, before they are allowed to enter the temple.

To avoid confusion, these are not the chapels attached to temples, but the ones in our neighborhoods.

But a nitpick for Mark…baptisms for the dead  (done inside temples) can be participated in prior to a year, right?

Edited October 13, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

To avoid confusion, these are not the chapels attached to temples, but the ones in our neighborhoods.

But a nitpick for Mark…baptisms for the dead  (done inside temples) can be participated in prior to a year, right?

Oh sure!  Forgot that one- I am thinking of me 45 years ago..... 

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 10/13/2022 at 10:12 AM, BlueDreams said:

It depends the temple. At times there may be two entrances. But I could be wrong and I think it’s more common to have 1 main entrance. Much of this is to do less with the doors themselves and more so the recommend desks. We all have to show our recommends soon after entering in the foyer. This to me does have symbolism as it’s in a similar location as the place where sacrifices were given in the ancient temples. The only sacrifice needed now is indication that one is striving to follow God and the teachings/practices given to us. 
 

I don’t know much about the “sheep gate.” What’s some of the symbolism and significance to this in Catholicism? 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Thanks for asking, BD.

I've been shuffling about, looking for an article that might aid understanding of the "sheep gate."

This article should help:

Library : On the Symbolism of Holy Doors | Catholic Culture

There are also some excellent books on this subject. Two that I enjoy are:

• Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy: Denis R. McNamara, Scott Hahn: 9781595250278: Amazon.com: Books

and

• Liturgy and Architecture: Pere Louis Bouyer: 9780268001599: Amazon.com: Books

[Saint Bonaventure]

Can anyone here recommend a book on Latter-day Saint architecture?

I'm hoping for a tome that gets into chapels, temples, altars, ambos, rostrums, choir lofts, baptismal fonts, other official buildings and structures, styles in different eras, and so on. 

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

I'm preparing my Bible Study for Sunday, and it occurs to me that Latter-day Saints might have an interesting perspective on Isaiah 2:1-5, specifically:

Do you believe this passage is referring to:

• The Lord's house will be established
• The mountain of the Lord's house will be established
• Jesus, "the word of the Lord," going forth from Jerusalem

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm preparing my Bible Study for Sunday, and it occurs to me that Latter-day Saints might have an interesting perspective on Isaiah 2:1-5, specifically:

Do you believe this passage is referring to:

• The Lord's house will be established
• The mountain of the Lord's house will be established
• Jesus, "the word of the Lord," going forth from Jerusalem

It is often regarded as a prophecy about our church and our temple in the mountains of Utah.  That temple is step 1, before the Millenium.

Quote

 

King James Version

2 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.

 

After Christ's second coming and the Apocolypse, Zion will be located in the continental USA according to prophecies by Joseph Smith- specifically a location which is now in Missouri.

Christ's word will come out of Jerusalem- so there will be two centers - Zion and Jerusalem.  All of this is of course to take place, it is believed, after the Millenium, after Christ establishes a world-wide theocracy, and swords are beaten into plowshares- and there is world wide peace under Christ's direction.

Edited October 18, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

In the Old Testament, Jews would engage in the various temple/tabernacle rituals because of unworthiness. They would be in the temple, all scarlet with sin, and with smelly animals to boot.

Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a worthiness standard to attend and participate in temple rituals, do you all make theological arguments for the shift from unworthiness to worthiness in terms of temple participation? Maybe in LDS scriptures, or in a revelation or something?

As usual, I may be misunderstanding.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

In the Old Testament, Jews would engage in the various temple/tabernacle rituals because of unworthiness. They would be in the temple, all scarlet with sin, and with smelly animals to boot.

Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a worthiness standard to attend and participate in temple rituals, do you all make theological arguments for the shift from unworthiness to worthiness in terms of temple participation? Maybe in LDS scriptures, or in a revelation or something?

As usual, I may be misunderstanding.

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but I'll take a stab at it.

Matthew 27:50-51:  "And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.  And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. "

When the veil of the temple was rent, this symbolized the end of the Jewish system of animal sacrifices and the opening of the most holy place, and the atonement and final sacrifice of Jesus Christ made it possible for all to enter the Most Holy Place.  Thus, preparation to enter the temple now centers around Christ and his atonement, and not the rituals of the temple.

Under the old temple structure, it was divided into three areas:  

Under the Jewish system, any of the Israelites could enter the outer courtyard of the temple, but only the priests could serve in the Holy Place, and only the high priest alone could enter the Most Holy Place (aka Holy of Holies).  The rituals you described in your question above all took place in the outer courtyard, the place where anyone could enter.  That area also symbolizes what the Latter-day Saints view as the telestial realm (the world we live in today - the outer courtyard).  The Holy Place would represent the terrestrial kingdom, and the Most Holy Place would be the celestial kingdom. 

So all the preparation to enter the temple today occurs in the outer courtyard, the telestial realm, and that preparation is only possible through the great and final sacrifice of Jesus Christ, through his atonement.

I think we have areas similar to the outer courtyard in our temples today, i.e the main entrance foyer and baptismal font entrance and foyer.  But to us, the main heart of the temple is the Celestial room, which is the Most Holy Place.

Did that address your question?

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but I'll take a stab at it.

Matthew 27:50-51:  "And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.  And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. "

When the veil of the temple was rent, this symbolized the end of the Jewish system of animal sacrifices and the opening of the most holy place, and the atonement and final sacrifice of Jesus Christ made it possible for all to enter the Most Holy Place.  Thus, preparation to enter the temple now centers around Christ and his atonement, and not the rituals of the temple.

Under the old temple structure, it was divided into three areas:  

Under the Jewish system, any of the Israelites could enter the outer courtyard of the temple, but only the priests could serve in the Holy Place, and only the high priest alone could enter the Most Holy Place (aka Holy of Holies).  The rituals you described in your question above all took place in the outer courtyard, the place where anyone could enter.  That area also symbolizes what the Latter-day Saints view as the telestial realm (the world we live in today - the outer courtyard).  The Holy Place would represent the terrestrial kingdom, and the Most Holy Place would be the celestial kingdom. 

So all the preparation to enter the temple today occurs in the outer courtyard, the telestial realm, and that preparation is only possible through the great and final sacrifice of Jesus Christ, through his atonement.

I think we have areas similar to the outer courtyard in our temples today, i.e the main entrance foyer and baptismal font entrance and foyer.  But to us, the main heart of the temple is the Celestial room, which is the Most Holy Place.

Did that address your question?

Agree fully.

Also, in the older temples parts of the instruction that constitutes the endowment are given in different rooms, so the attendees are taught the simplest principles in the first room, then we physically moved to another room for a "higher" level of spiritual teaching, etc paralleling the ancient temples, and symbolizing the spiritual progression of the participants.  In the LA temple, as one moves between rooms, there are one or two physical stairs upward, between rooms, symbolizing spiritual advancement.

Nowadays we have temples everywhere so the process has been simplified, so more and smaller temples can be built, so now the instruction all happens in one room but the reminder of "advancement" in Doctrine being taught is made clear in the text of the instruction.

I know you are interested in architectural symbols, and there are many in the temples, such as these.

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 10/21/2022 at 3:37 PM, InCognitus said:

When the veil of the temple was rent, this symbolized the end of the Jewish system of animal sacrifices and the opening of the most holy place, and the atonement and final sacrifice of Jesus Christ made it possible for all to enter the Most Holy Place.  Thus, preparation to enter the temple now centers around Christ and his atonement, and not the rituals of the temple.

Thanks for responding, InCognitus. I enjoy that so many folks here are knowledgeable, and yet I don't want to be annoying with my questions.

I'm not hoping for a continuation of animal sacrifice, or the Jewish temple (with the veil rent and so on). At the same time, I'm not really considering preparation as much as I'm trying to wrap my head around whether or not Latter-day Saints see a shift from the OT assumption that everyone is unworthy--temple unworthy, showing up with a sin offering--to a notion of temple worthy to attend the temple. Specifically, is being temple worthy an indication of being in a state of grace for Latter-day Saints? Is being temple worthy something that is a matter of a Latter-day Saints' obedience to commandments/performance of works?

I'm having thoughts about the Epistle to the Hebrews' warning against relapsing into OT worship, and at the same time am thinking about Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 3 that the church is the temple of God.

The tabernacle and Old Testament temples had some variation over time, but that's not really the main point here. Maybe we can have a discussion another time as pertains to the arrangement of temple artifacts, the singularity of the temple, and so on.