Temple History

[Anonymous]

I have sometimes thought that my concerns regarding church history could be overcome if I could accept how the church is now. The main obstacle has been temples. For many years, I have thought some aspects of temples are strange and I doubted they are of God. It seemed that Joseph Smith and/or Brigham Young borrowed stuff and made up other stuff. Since I didn’t believe temples to be of God, I couldn’t get over some historical issues.

Well, I have had a major breakthrough. I have been studying some things that I should have learned about long ago, and I’m sure many of you already know about them. I can see now that temple ceremonies and clothing are ancient and there is more to them than I thought. Of course, there are many differences in our temples today, but that’s okay with me. I can’t say this resolves everything for me, but it sure helps.

Everything after the line below comes from Jeff Lindsay’s website. Yes, he’s an apologist, but I find him to be quite tolerable. I am only posting some of the meat from his page.

---

My understanding and appreciation of the meaning of the LDS Temple grew most dramatically not by reading LDS writings, but by reading two books by modern scholars dealing with ancient religious practices and symbols. Most helpful of all was the book Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible…by Jon D. Levenson, a Jewish scholar who was at the University of Chicago at the time, but now is at Harvard…

On page after page, I encountered evidence that ancient Temple practices – covenant making, symbols, meanings – had been restored in a pure and powerful way in the modern LDS Temple. One of the most exciting discoveries was that the typical ancient form of covenant making had been restored. This ancient pattern for making a covenant between God and man or a king and his subjects is known as the “covenant formulary” and includes six major steps, though many ancient examples may only have a subset of the six:

1. The preamble

2. Historical prologue (description of what the king has done for the subjects)

3. Stipulations (to secure fidelity of the subjects to the king)

4. Deposition of the text of the treaty or covenant (special writings and other means to ensure that the covenants aren’t forgotten and are recorded and reviewed)

5. List of witnesses

6. Statement of curses and blessings (the results of disobedience or obedience)…

The use of sacred clothing closely related to that of the LDS Temple is indicated in numerous ancient documents that Joseph Smith did not have access to. One example is found in the description of the priestly initiation of Levi in one of the second-century B.C. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs…:

Quote:

And I saw seven men in white clothing, who were saying to me, “Arise, put on the vestments of the priesthood, the crown of righteousness, the oracle of understanding, the robe of truth, the breastplate of faith, the miter for the head, and the apron for prophetic power.” Each carried one of these and put them on me and said, “From now on be a priest, you and all your posterity.”

…Another article of interest on related topics is “The Catholic Liturgy and the Mormon Temple” by Marcus von Wellnitz…Wellnitz shows that a variety of elements in ancient Catholic rites and architecture are shared with the LDS Temple. Tracing Catholic concepts to early Christian and ancient Jewish concepts provides meaningful insights into related LDS concepts. For example, rituals of washing and anointing were important, and the oil was applied to specific regions in a specific order with blessings being spoken that all reverbates remarkably well with the modern LDS Temple…Then, after application of water and oil, the Christian would receive a new white garment.

Other aspects of Catholic rites discussed by Wellnitz include:

• the giving of new names to those entering monasteries

• the ancient practice of keeping men and women separate in the church, just as they were kept separate in the temple at Jerusalem

• the use of a veil or covering for women’s heads…

• the porter at the door of the chapel in the primitive church to ensure that only worthy persons entered

• details of ritual clothing and related symbolism

• altars and veils in church buildings…

• the raising of the hands of the priest done anciently

• the hand symbol of a hollowed palm in the left hand when approaching the altar…

• the prayer offered for the church and the world by the priest which was repeated by the congregation, praying for names of people written on folded parchments (diptychs), especially for those who were ill or needed special consideration…

• ritual knocking (three times) with a hammer on the portal of a door, now acted out in the ritual of the Porta Santa at St. Peter in Rome, representing entry of the children of God into the presence of the Lord.

…John Tvedtnes has made some other fascinating observations about the ancient temple concept. Here is an excerpt of a document he forwarded in early 2004…:

Quote:

Epiphanius (Heresies 36.13) cites the Gospel of Philip as saying, “The Lord revealed unto me what the soul must say as it goeth up into heaven, and how it must answer each of the powers above.” In the Testament of Isaac 6:4, we read, “Then they (the angels) took me by the hand and led me to the curtain before the throne of the father.”

…If the early Christians had temple worship, how was it lost? It was probably through the same type of long-term apostasy…One non-LDS Christian historian offers this analysis:

Quote:

The number of the faithful having greatly increased – the Christians from being persecuted having become the persecutors, and that of the most grasping and barbarous kind – the Church in the seventh century instituted the minor orders, among whom were the doorkeepers, who took the place of the deacons. In 692 everyone was ordered thenceforth to be admitted to the public worship of the Christians, their esoteric [secret] teachings of the first ages was entirely suppressed, and what had been pure cosmology and astronomy was turned into a pantheon of gods and saints. Nothing remained of the mysteries but the custom of secretly reciting the canon of the Mass. (C.W. Heckworth, The Secret Societies of All Ages and Countries…).

[Anonymous]

This reminds me of an experience in college. We were reading some flood stories attached to creation myths from several ancient cultures. One student responded that the story of Noah and the flood must have been plagiarized from these older sources. That is one possibility, but then I also read of an ancient flood story from a Native American tribe – where did they get their story from? I believe that the possibilities are as follows:

1) There was an ancient flood that all of these stories are based upon.

2) That there was an original flood story/parable/myth that these stories were based upon.

3) That God inspired the same basic story to be told from several (otherwise independent) sources.

4) That devastating floods might match the experience of many ancient cultures. That having a story that attributes divine meaning to some floods might be expected as it would help them to understand their world. These stories could have originated independently.

I see the same possibilities with the temple ceremonies (Probably a mixture of several options).

[Anonymous]

The older I get, the more I appreciate the symbolism of the Temple ceremonies. I like the repetition. I like the peace.

I like going through with my family names to remember & celebrate their lives for a few hours.

If it helps on the other side, even better.

[Anonymous]

I wonder why we assume because something has ancient origins it is somehow correct or better. That may be the case but there is no reason to assume it to be so. There are many practices from the past that we have shed for a more rational modern approach.

[Anonymous]

Lately my solution to church history has been to embrace it, to find the good in it, and I’ve found quite a bit.

Not to take us too far off topic but when comparing the early church to the modern church I see some qualities I really like in each. For example, I like how the early church was more open to taking the best ideas from external sources and incorporating them into the religion. Of course that’s an exercise that any new organization must go through, all ideas are external at that stage, but I get the sense that the intention was to make that a continual process. That’s certainly a process I’d like to adopt for myself.

I like the comparison that Roy drew between possible reasons for a common flood narrative and reasons for the temple. Even though they are largely mutually exclusive of each other I currently don’t have a problem believing more than one line of reasoning.

It would be hard for me to use similarities between the temple ceremonies and any ancient practice to validate the temple. Take the clothing for instance. The quoted description in Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs reminded me a lot of the clothing described in Exodus 28 (and to a lesser degree Ephesians 6). I’m under the impression that the masons incorporated special clothing in their ceremonies. Does a new discovery of the use of special clothing used in ancient religious rites vindicate JS, the people he borrowed from, both, or neither?

Some argue that there are a finite number of original stories and that the overwhelming majority of stories just point back to that finite set. It’s certainly not a bad thing. Perhaps a farmer needs a story centered around a harvest to better relate to a central core story. Maybe a child can better relate to that central core story if it takes place at an amusement park. It’s good that there are a variety of ways to hear a story/principle/etc. because we’re all unique. Ok, I’m straying. Maybe the point is that for some people historically linking the temple to ancient rites tells the story god wants them to hear.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Lately my solution to church history has been to embrace it, to find the good in it, and I’ve found quite a bit.

Not to take us too far off topic but when comparing the early church to the modern church I see some qualities I really like in each. For example, I like how the early church was more open to taking the best ideas from external sources and incorporating them into the religion. Of course that’s an exercise that any new organization must go through, all ideas are external at that stage, but I get the sense that the intention was to make that a continual process. That’s certainly a process I’d like to adopt for myself.

I like the comparison that Roy drew between possible reasons for a common flood narrative and reasons for the temple. Even though they are largely mutually exclusive of each other I currently don’t have a problem believing more than one line of reasoning.

It would be hard for me to use similarities between the temple ceremonies and any ancient practice to validate the temple. Take the clothing for instance. The quoted description in Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs reminded me a lot of the clothing described in Exodus 28 (and to a lesser degree Ephesians 6). I’m under the impression that the masons incorporated special clothing in their ceremonies. Does a new discovery of the use of special clothing used in ancient religious rites vindicate JS, the people he borrowed from, both, or neither?

Some argue that there are a finite number of original stories and that the overwhelming majority of stories just point back to that finite set. It’s certainly not a bad thing. Perhaps a farmer needs a story centered around a harvest to better relate to a central core story. Maybe a child can better relate to that central core story if it takes place at an amusement park. It’s good that there are a variety of ways to hear a story/principle/etc. because we’re all unique. Ok, I’m straying. Maybe the point is that for some people historically linking the temple to ancient rites tells the story god wants them to hear.

Well said!

[Anonymous]

Cadence, that is a good question. In general, I agree that something is not necessarily correct or better only because it is of ancient origin. Specifically, however, temples are more correct and better to me now.

The page on Jeff Lindsay’s website has a lot more information than what I posted and he provides many references to additional stuff. I am learning that temples are deeply historic and meaningful.

I had considered some aspects of temples to be weird and uninspired. I figured that some things were contrived by Joseph Smith and/or Brigham Young. In my mind, today’s temple practices were lingering problems from the past and that was a major hurdle. If I can accept these practices, I can largely resolve my concerns with church history, so this is significant to me. It will mean that I have no major concerns with today’s church.

[Anonymous]

I’ve heard from many, both born in the Church and converted to it as adults, that the Temple experience can be very jarring. But I find that’s just not the case for me or for the few Jewish converts that I know. We found the Temple experience very comfortable in that it presented a very Jewish atmosphere and include a great many Jewish details. We feel right at home there.

[Anonymous]

I’ve heard the same thing from lots of Jewish and Catholic converts.

[Anonymous]

I changed the name of this thread because “Maybe Temples Are Not So Strange” was lame. I hope no one minds.

It is very interesting that many Jewish and Catholic convert are comfortable with temples. It’s too bad I haven’t liked going there. Maybe I’ve missed out.

[Anonymous]

I’m glad I never saw blood oaths.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

I’m glad I never saw blood oaths.

I’m not bothered by the former use of blood oaths. I think it wasn’t a big deal to people in the past. They weren’t as squeamish as people are today.

[Anonymous]

I’m

glad to have missed the penalties, which some have described as evil,

and which others deny ever took place. They must have been weird and

driven many from the church. I wonder if people ever used to run away

during that part – must have happened.

It’s fairly obvious to me the endowment contains:

* Pre-existence

* Birth

* Childhood

* Adulthood

* Marriage

* Death

* Exaltation/afterlife

… in that order.

Personally I like the film and the CR, but not the rest. The endowment

is my least favorite part of the temple. Like the celestial room though –

even if people talk too much there. I get more out of the film than the rest.

[Anonymous]

I do think the punishments were taken away for a reason – people found it to.. Bloody. But as already mentioned here, I also believe this was only a recent issue as I don’t believe people in the past where bothered with it at all. Culture changes, so temple rituals change. Way back in the day all the people who were Freemasons would not think about it at all since the punishments were included/taken from the mason rituals. If only that was widely know by people today I don’t think having punishment rituals would be too much of an issue since it ads to the “it all symbolic and inspired by masonry”-thought. I think it would actually help us rise above it and understand the whole endowment even better, if we knew more about its Masonic origins.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

I think it’s a bit much springing something on someone, and then threatening to kill them if they tell anyone else about the weird stuff that goes on.

No wonder we have conspiracy theories and trash galore being spouted.

[Author]

Posts