Protester

[allredcon]

I went to priesthood session at the conference center and although I have pretty much answered my own question; I'd like to see what others have to say.

A protester outside was holding a sign with Acts 7:48 ("Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,") written upon it. If one reads on in acts it says that heaven is his home and the earth is his footstool. So then I thought "well then why do we build temples if he doesn't want temples?"

( 44Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.

45Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

46Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.

47But Solomon built him an house. )

I then thought, oh yeah -- temple work, duh.

But, that still makes me wonder why do we say "house of the lord"? is it bible doctrine that we call it that? or is it just something we say?

[deseretgov]

Well I think God does dwell intemples but He doesn't dwell in temples. God lives in Heaven, but He does visit temples. Temples aren't His home, Heaven is.

[allredcon]

Oh! So basically, temples are not where God lives. It's where WE go on earth (his footstool) to get closer to his home, in heaven.

Awesome. Thank you so much!

That protester needs better material next time. haha

[john doe]

It may be the House of the Lord, but that doesn't make it the Home of the Lord.

[Ophiophagus]

Which proves that our condemners led by Satan are either unintelligent or flat out lying to trick you into doubting. Put your shoulder to the wheel my friend. Few of us our strong enough to continually question every thing or dwell on doubt and accusations.

[prisonchaplain]

Better material...hmmm...yeah...like:

WHY DO LDS TITHE TO SLC INSTEAD OF THE CHAPLAINS ENTERTAINMENT FUND???

I'm wondering if that sign would do a better job of convincing people of the errors of their ways???

[Lorenzo]

God does not live in the temple, of course. There are many temples, and he can't be divided into different parts. He won't have an arm in one temple and a foot in another, like medieval reliquaries or whatever. He wouldn't even want to live in the temple, I wouldn't. The temple is more like a school. Kids go to school a few hours each day, but it isn't home. I'm all for education, but I don't want to spend my whole life in a school 24-7 or 24-1000 (years to a day :)) If they haven't been through the temple, they are going to misunderstand the purpose of temples, they won't know they are sacred; and what goes on in there, and why we can't talk about what goes on in there, it's not just because we would be ridiculed; and where God really does dwell. It isn't even this planet. Like the Moonie temple, the only way to be sure what it's all about is to go there. The Moonie temple costs even more to get to than a Mormon temple, so if you're being frugal, you have to choose Mormonism over Moonism. I don't even know if people other than the Moon family and their VIPs are even allowed in that temple.

No one should be allowed to protest outside the temple, It is holy ground. The protestors are like the prophets of Baal. I wouldn't be surprised if lightening struck them some day.

[Maxel]

No one should be allowed to protest outside the temple, It is holy ground. The protestors are like the prophets of Baal. I wouldn't be surprised if lightening struck them some day.

Well... I agree that people shouldn't protest the temple or outside of it. However, I'd hate to revoke the right to peacefully assemble. As long as protesters stay off the private temple grounds, their right to protest needs to be preserved for all our sakes...

[Lorenzo]

The right to assembly shouldn't apply to outside churches. Inside is okay, but churches shouldn't be surrounded and threatened or even just harrassed.

[ploomf]

So I'm confused Gnat. You're saying people should have the right to barge into a church and protest but shouldn't be able to protest outside a church? That doesn't really make sense. As long as they are not on the churches property the church and the government really shouldn't have any say over what they do.

[jadams_4040]

I went to priesthood session at the conference center and although I have pretty much answered my own question; I'd like to see what others have to say.

A protester outside was holding a sign with Acts 7:48 ("Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,") written upon it. If one reads on in acts it says that heaven is his home and the earth is his footstool. So then I thought "well then why do we build temples if he doesn't want temples?"

( 44Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.

45Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

46Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.

47But Solomon built him an house. )

I then thought, oh yeah -- temple work, duh.

But, that still makes me wonder why do we say "house of the lord"? is it bible doctrine that we call it that? or is it just something we say?

He has stood beside me in the holy temple many times.:)

[Maxel]

The right to assembly shouldn't apply to outside churches. Inside is okay, but churches shouldn't be surrounded and threatened or even just harrassed.

I agree that they shouldn't, but that the ability to do so still needs to be preserved. That's why protesters (supposedly) get permission from the city to assemble and protest, and can't go onto private property without consent from the owner- to protect the rights and safety of those not involved in the protest.

[jadams_4040]

I went to priesthood session at the conference center and although I have pretty much answered my own question; I'd like to see what others have to say.

A protester outside was holding a sign with Acts 7:48 ("Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,") written upon it. If one reads on in acts it says that heaven is his home and the earth is his footstool. So then I thought "well then why do we build temples if he doesn't want temples?"

( 44Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.

45Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

46Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.

47But Solomon built him an house. )

I then thought, oh yeah -- temple work, duh.

But, that still makes me wonder why do we say "house of the lord"? is it bible doctrine that we call it that? or is it just something we say?

Taking a couple of verses out of context is easy for anyone to do. and there is a whole lot of discusion involved with debunking this myth created by not quoiteing in context; but one of my favorites is in revealation; where it is speaking of the milleniel reign on earth; before the second coming, and when he does finally come all of a sudden there will "be no temple therin". ? {making it quite obvious they are to there till that time} Why? because then no temples will longer be needed the work will be done; but its very obvious temples are to be in use during the millenium, before the second coming. And that my freinds {the millenium} is yet to come; so i would say its very obvious temples have been commanded until his coming; the bible says this; so no christian l.d.s or otherwise can deny it. :) Edited October 6, 2009 by jadams_4040

[marshac]

The right to assembly shouldn't apply to outside churches. Inside is okay, but churches shouldn't be surrounded and threatened or even just harrassed.

Oh my gosh, I couldn't disagree more. The right to peaceable assembly in public is one of the cornerstone rights we enjoy in the USA. The founding fathers believed in it so much that it was the FIRST ammendment to the US constitution-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It's a slippery slope to say "because I disagree with your message, you can't be here." Sure, you might benefit from it right now, but what about when you want to go toting your pro-life sign in front of the local abortion clinic? Oops, too bad, looks like your right to assemble there has been suspended. Feel like protesting outside the local political convention? Oh, well, looks like your rights were suspended- but look, there is a 'free speech zone' 6 blocks over.

Freedoms, especially those fundamental freedoms enshrined in the bill of rights, are not open for negotiation. They are inalienable and therefore can not be suspended.

Non-peaceable assembly is NOT a right and that's what police are for.

[Lorenzo]

Oh my gosh, I couldn't disagree more. The right to peaceable assembly in public is one of the cornerstone rights we enjoy in the USA. The founding fathers believed in it so much that it was the FIRST ammendment to the US constitution.

Don't quote me if you're talking about "peaceable assembly in public". You know that was not the gist of my post. I was talking about non-peaceable, threatening and/or harrassing "assembly", and not in public but on and in front of church property, which is not a public privilege.

[marshac]

Don't quote me if you're talking about "peaceable assembly in public". You know that was not the gist of my post. I was talking about non-peaceable, threatening and/or harrassing "assembly", and not in public but on and in front of church property, which is not a public privilege.

People holding signs and yelling slogans, etc is peacable, even if it causes you unease. Since you meade no reference to the mode of expression other than "The right to assembly shouldn't apply to outside churches" how else am I supposed to take your comment? As for "in front of church property"- you're right, they have no right to be on private property, but if they are in front of the church on public property (sidewalk, road, etc), then they have every right to be there.