100 Most Holy Places on Earth--LDS sites make the list

[Stormin' Mormon]

Patheos put together a list of the 100 most holy places on earth.  Three LDS sites made the list: the Kirtland Temple (#91), the Sacred Grove (#74), and Temple Square (#54)

https://www.patheos.com/sacred-spaces/kirtland-temple

https://www.patheos.com/sacred-spaces/the-sacred-grove

https://www.patheos.com/sacred-spaces/temple-square

Personally, I would have ranked the sacred grove above Temple Square, but whatever.  I'm just happy to be included.  

I can't find a simple 1-page list of the 100 selected sites; they are instead organized as a slides show with one page for each entry.  If you want to simply jump to the beginning of the Top Ten click here:  https://www.patheos.com/sacred-spaces/the-western-wall.  If you want to read the whole thing, including how they made their selections, click here: https://www.patheos.com/sacred-spaces/overview

Thoughts?  Discussions?  Omissions, of either LDS or non-LDS sites?

 

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Personally, I would have ranked the sacred grove above Temple Square

I'd say that any piece of ground with a dedicated temple sitting on it would rank above the sacred grove. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'd say that any piece of ground with a dedicated temple sitting on it would rank above the sacred grove. 

God the Father and Jesus appeared there.  Now if they came in person, that would make it as sacred as a temple in some ways.  We don’t worship there as we do in the temple, so that would lower its rank.  Possibly same if they appeared in a vision (Joseph saw them, but they weren’t actually present).  Since we call both instances visions when involving divine beings, the name isn’t helpful.

Isn't there an account of Joseph being physically touched or did I dream reading that?

Edited August 17, 2023 by Calm

[Buckeye]

I’m frankly surprised that we merit 3 locations considering that we make up well under 1% of the world’s population, and we’ve only been around for 200 years. Three sites strike me as an over representation. 

As for ranking our most sacred places, you have to consider the criteria; specifically, whether the place is currently sacred (active temples) or historically sacred (grove, kirtland). My sense is that these rankings are directed to historically important locations. Also of consideration is whether the place is accessible to the public or only adherents of the faith. If the list is meant to guide non-adherents to where they can go to better understand the faith (which seems reasonable) then these 3 sites seen the best to me. 
 

 

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn't there an account of Joseph being physically touched or did I dream reading that?

I don't recall ever hearing or reading that.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't recall ever hearing or reading that.

Maybe what I read was comparing it to another scriptural account.

Added:  nope, I was right.  Charles Walker said Joseph’s eyes were touched (third person though)

https://rsc.byu.edu/exploring-first-vision/significance-joseph-smiths-first-vision-mormon-thought

Quote

fourth reference to this idea is seen in the diary of Charles L. Walker on February 2, 1893. Walker wrote of hearing John Alger declare in “Fast meeting” that he had heard Joseph Smith relate the story of the vision, saying “that God touched his eyes with his finger and said, ‘Joseph this is my beloved Son, hear him.’ As soon as the Lord had touched his eyes with his finger he immediately saw the Saviour.” [24] The latter, of course, is only reminiscence, but together with the earlier narratives it demonstrates at least that a few people had this concept of the vision as it gradually took its place among the fundamental teachings of the Church. Other variations may be noted in all the foregoing documents.

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

I guess it depends on your definition of the word "sacred."  For me, anywhere my wife is, is sacred to me. We have an LDS temple fifteen minutes down the road. Nothing about it is sacred to me. Methinks the best we can say is that "sacred" is in the eye of the beholder. Sacred history is a whole other subject.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I guess it depends on your definition of the word "sacred."  For me, anywhere my wife is, is sacred to me. We have an LDS temple fifteen minutes down the road. Nothing about it is sacred to me. Methinks the best we can say is that "sacred" is in the eye of the beholder. Sacred history is a whole other subject.

Or maybe “the eye of the believer”. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Or maybe “the eye of the believer”. 

Well said!

[Navidad]

I am trying to figure out what makes an inanimate object like a place, a plot of ground, or a building sacred. I can understand the Old Testament temple with the indwelling of the shekinah glory as sacred. I can't say the same for the temple after Ezekiel 10. Maybe the human being indwelt by the Holy Spirit is sacred? I always thought that perhaps the temple in Colonia Juarez becomes sacred when the Saints are inside it because then the Holy Spirit indwelling them is inside it too. I have always taught that the shekinah glory, the physical visible presence of God on earth was in the burning bush, then the pillar of smoke and fire of the tabernacle, then the temple, on the ark of the covenant, then in Christ, and now after Pentecost in the Christian. When I was in Africa, I lived among an animistic people. Stone, rocks, mud, chicken feathers, and trees were all sacred to them.

So, if the Holy Spirit indwells us and no longer in places made by hands (Acts 7), how is an inanimate object sacred without a Christian in it? Special maybe, but special isn't sacred. Maybe we are as Mark says, defining things differently. I am not 100% sure, but methinks the word sacred never appears in the NT. I Cor 9:13 never uses the Greek word for holy or sacred in it. Anyone have any other ideas? I would think that the elements that become the literal body and blood of Christ in the Catholic Eucharist would be considered sacred to those who believe that happens. Interesting question.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Navidad

[pogi]

If you would have asked the early saints, there would have been no question that Jackson County Missouri tops the list.

“July 20, 1831The Lord designated Independence, Missouri, as the center place of Zion where a temple will be built.
   August 2, 1831The land of Zion was consecrated and dedicated for the gathering of the Saints.
   August 3, 1831A temple site in Independence, Missouri, was dedicated.”

Not only has it been consecrated and dedicated for the gathering of the Saints, and revealed as the “New Jerusalem”, it was also taught to be the location of the garden of Eden.

Hard to top that!

It’s mostly a footnote now though.  
 

 

[Malc]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you would have asked the early saints, there would have been no question that Jackson County Missouri tops the list.

“July 20, 1831The Lord designated Independence, Missouri, as the center place of Zion where a temple will be built.
   August 2, 1831The land of Zion was consecrated and dedicated for the gathering of the Saints.
   August 3, 1831A temple site in Independence, Missouri, was dedicated.”

Not only has it been consecrated and dedicated for the gathering of the Saints, and revealed as the “New Jerusalem”, it was also taught to be the location of the garden of Eden.

Hard to top that!

It’s mostly a footnote now though.  
 

 

Well, there has been a latter-day saints temple in Independence, Mo for several decades - just not a temple belonging to the CoJCoLDS.

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, Malc said:

Well, there has been a latter-day saints temple in Independence, Mo for several decades - just not a temple belonging to the CoJCoLDS.

True, but I'm not sure it meets any scriptural definition of a temple.  I say that not to denigrate that Church or their temple.

But taking the definition from the examples in scripture of the various temples in Israel it doesn't fit.  The CoJCoLDS temples obviously aren't an exact match either but their intents and purrposes are basically the same.

[Malc]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

True, but I'm not sure it meets any scriptural definition of a temple.  I say that not to denigrate that Church or their temple.

But taking the definition from the examples in scripture of the various temples in Israel it doesn't fit.  The CoJCoLDS temples obviously aren't an exact match either but their intents and purrposes are basically the same.

I cannot be sure of the features, intents, and purposes of any of these three "classes" of temple from my own knowledge (having been an inactive non-believer for decades), so perhaps you can help me understand what you're saying.

As far as I remember from the OT, temples in ancient Israel were used for purposes that are not represented in modern LDS temples, and modern LDS temples are used for purposes that were not represented in temples in ancient Israel. In what way do you see their intents and purposes as basically the same?

In particular, referring to the 1831 designation, consecration, and dedication that Pogi quoted, and that I responded to, in what ways do the CoJCoLDS temples have the same intents and purposes as temples in ancient Israel that are not shared with the intents and purposes of the CoC temple?

Sorry - I realize that these 2 paras have a lot of overlap, and could be expressed better, but it is after midnight in my time zone, and I'm not much inclined to tune them right now. If you're OK with responding to their present state, I'll be happy, but if you'd like me to rewrite them in the morning, when I'm more awake, I'm good with that too.

[blackstrap]

There are 2 times that an individual in the OT is commanded to remove their shoes because they were on holy ground. What made the ground holy and was that a permanent designation ?

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 8/17/2023 at 8:53 AM, Calm said:

On 8/17/2023 at 8:44 AM, ksfisher said:

I'd say that any piece of ground with a dedicated temple sitting on it would rank above the sacred grove. 

God the Father and Jesus appeared there.  Now if they came in person, that would make it as sacred as a temple in some ways.

Oh, opinions vary about that.   Jerusalem's temple mount is full of 3 religions fighting over the same plot of land because of important events that happened there.  It's the site of King David's first temple, so it's ours!  Oh wait, it's where the Prophet Muhammad ascended into heaven, so it's ours!  Not so fast, it's sacred because the destruction of the temple was a divine act of punishment to folks who killed Christ, so it's ours!  They tell me there's a ladder leaning against a wall, and the folks in charge of Jerusalem can't agree on who put it there or why, so out of respect to everyone who might consider it sacred for reasons that may be accurate or false, they need to leave the ladder untouched.

If someone is selling me dirt, I'm only going to pay more for "dirt from a road traveled by Jesus" if I'm buying a souvenir and I'm late for a plane.   

I'm not even a little ticked off about the Brighamites not running the Kirtland temple.  I'm happy they rebuilt the Nauvoo temple, but it was the completion and dedication that makes it sacred.  The geographic location and history just make it historical and loved.  

We're told to build zion and make it holy.  That means my own living room is (on a few rare occasions), sacred to me.   It comes and goes.

Edited August 18, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, blackstrap said:

There are 2 times that an individual in the OT is commanded to remove their shoes because they were on holy ground. What made the ground holy and was that a permanent designation ?

Well, if I might proffer an answer . . . I think in both those occasions a Hebrew was standing in the presence of God, in a burning bush and as a theophany in the form of the commander or Lord of the army. The second is the most complicated. Theophanies or hieraphonies are very rare, extraordinarily rare, so some prefer to think the commander was an angel. Of course, I don't know with certainty which it was, but the fact of the taking off of the shoes and declaration of Holy Ground leads me to believe it was the Lord. Was it a permanent designation? There is no indication in later Israeli history that was the case. There was no permanent designation of either site as "holy" or "sacred after the event itself. If both Moses and Joshua stood in the presence of God, then while God was there the site was sacred. On that site was the literal physical visible presence of God. Christ was that manifestation while He was on earth. Then the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost and was that manifestation. Today we are that manifestation since God in the form of the Holy Spirit indwells us today. To me that is the most awesome thought in all of Christianity, that we are each the living breathing temple in which God, via the Holy Spirit dwells. What a privilege and responsibility.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Navidad
forgot a question mark

[webbles]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

They tell me there's a ladder leaning against a wall, and the folks in charge of Jerusalem can't agree on who put it there or why, so out of respect to everyone who might consider it sacred for reasons that may be accurate or false, they need to leave the ladder untouched.

I'm betting you are talking about the "immovable ladder" that is against a wall of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  That ladder doesn't have anything to do with whether it is sacred or not.  Because of contention between various Christian sects at various holy sites, the Ottoman at that time made a decree that defined what each sect had responsibility over and where they could put their stuff.  This was done back in the 1800s.  That ladder was placed before the decree and since no one knows who owns it, no one is allowed to touch it.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_Quo_(Jerusalem_and_Bethlehem) has a pretty good rundown on the situation.

[JAHS]

On 8/17/2023 at 7:53 AM, Calm said:

God the Father and Jesus appeared there.  Now if they came in person, that would make it as sacred as a temple in some ways.  We don’t worship there as we do in the temple, so that would lower its rank.  Possibly same if they appeared in a vision (Joseph saw them, but they weren’t actually present).  Since we call both instances visions when involving divine beings, the name isn’t helpful.

Isn't there an account of Joseph being physically touched or did I dream reading that?

I assume you mean touched by Jesus or the Father? I don't think so. He was touched by John the Baptist and Peter James and John.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I assume you mean touched by Jesus or the Father? I don't think so. He was touched by John the Baptist and Peter James and John.

See the Walker quote in a later post. I have my doubts about it as it’s a thirdhand that is not confirmed by anyone else I know of. 

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/18/2023 at 12:54 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

We're told to build zion and make it holy.  That means my own living room is

But how often do you vacuum?