Temple Ordinances & Jesus

[LionHeart]

Here you go Paladin Girl.

[LukeAir2006]

We know that to inherit the celestial kingdom we are required to receive the temple initiation (I prefer that expression cos thats exactly what it is) and endowment and then be sealed to our wives. Jesus showed that he was also required to comply with all of the requirements of the Celestial Law. He would not have been able to return to the presence of the Father without receiving the ordinaces of the Temple. There are documentary sources that speak of Mary, the mother of Jesus, receiving her temple ordinances. Nibleys 'Temple and Cosmos' is an excellent reference on this. It also mentions the Saviour leading the Apostles and their wives through the endowment. This was probably during the 40 day ministry after the resurrection. Brethren, these things are real and they are true. The church is exactly what it claims to be: a restoration of all that was had anciently. Remember also that these things are sacred and that we are surrounded by those who wish to destroy the work of the Lord, both in and out of the church.

[LukeAir2006]

I think its important to clarify that in order to become a God or in other words a Celestial Father and Husband, one must be sealed to your spouse in the Holy Temple and keep your covenants, enduring to the end. If you are not sealed you wont become a God. You will be a servant to a God. See D&C 131. This law applies to everyone - Jesus/Yeshua and every other person born on this planet.

[Dr T]

Hello Luke,

Not that I hold that belief that someone becomes a God but my question based on your last post is "what about those before temples sealings were even available?"

[CrimsonKairos]

They'll use an absentee ballot, Dr. T.

Just kidding. That's why there's 1,000 years during the Millenium to do proxy temple ordinances for the dead.

[Dr T]

:) Thanks for the chuckle and the info CK

Is there a possibility of "Hanging chads"? (only joking)

[CrimsonKairos]

For a minute there I thought you were talking dirty or something Doc, lol.

[boyando]

Thanks guy's, for the laughs.

I needed that.

[LukeAir2006]

Thats why we have vicarious work for the dead. As you have rightly pointed out, they can't do these things for themselves...but we can. As Crimson has inferred, by the end of the Millenium, every Spirit child of our Heavenly Father will have had all of the ordinances performed for them. Whether or not they accept that work or are worthy to receive them is a whole different matter. Remember, those who overcome the world, not those who are overcome by the world, will be worthy to sit on a throne, and receive a white stone, and inherit all things, and eat of the tree of life and the hidden manna, and have a new name, and will have power over the nations. Wow. Sounds like being a God to me. And all this from the Bible!

Revelation 2: 7, 11, 17, 26 Revelation 3: 5, 12, 21

[jms.mills]

Interesting question, Dr. T....I look forward to seeing the answers you get...The early Christians didn't have temples did they? Is there any reason to believe that any of the Apostles would have done "temple work" either?

Hello, this being my first major post in this forum, I hope I am not breaking any taboo rules by dredging up an old topic. I am a recent convert (I joined the church almost six months ago). Here is my perspective on early christians and temples.

From what we read in Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46 (and the entire chapter of Acts 3), and possibly other new testament passages, we find that the early christians (at least Peter and John specifically) went to the temple. These christians are recorded as going there to pray and to worship. I think we can all agree on these facts. The early christians in Jerusalem did visit the temple.

Now for my take on these passages. While I was investigating, I read numerous anti-mormon websites that claim the early christians did not place an importance on temples. Instead, the authors of these anti-mormon articles seem to give two reasons the early Jewish christians gathered in the temple: 1) they were somehow holding onto some parts of the jewish tradition, or 2) they were going to the temple to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

These reasons do not seem to agree with what Paul wrote in Galatians 1:13-14. Here, Paul seems to have a somewhat lower opinion of what he refers to as "the Jew's religion" or "the religion of my fathers" (verse 14). I think we all can agree that Paul was one of the foremost teachers/missionaries in New testament times. It seems Paul no longer held the customs of "the Jew's religion" as binding. This would include attending the temple in Jerusalem.

So, if Paul taught that "the Jew's religion" no longer had any force in his life (and by correlation the life of any other christian) then the early christians must have had much deeper motives for attending the temple. I am sure there were some of the early christians who still felt some sentimental connection to the temple, but I do not think the apostles would be going there for these rather simplistic reasons. They had more important things to accomplish. Perhaps these matters include temple ordinances.

That said, I am sure the early christians did preach in the temple, but that cannot be one of the major reasons, if Paul's writings are valid.

James

[a-train]

Thanks for bringing this up James. You know, I think all of us are completely comfortable believing that Jesus had power to proclaim the fulfillment of Mosiac Law and the institution of a Higher Law which would no longer include many outward ordinances of the fulfilled law.

Imagine how seemingly impossible it would have been for the New Testament Christians to show from the Torah and the Prophets this change. I doubt any Jew denying the divinity of Jesus Christ and the authority of His Apostles can see any of the New Testament practices or doctrines in their scriptures. To them, Christianity is a cult of blasphemous assertions which have only stolen some of the sacred and precious principles of Judism to create a phony belief system of myth and legend.

It is so with the Restoration. Christians who deny that the LORD had anything to do with the prophet Joseph see no vindication of any Temple involvement on the part of the Primitve Church in the scriptures, even in those you mentioned. We LDS can look at the scriptures and there is nothing in our heart to prevent us from believing that the Temple had a part in New Testament Christianity. We believe in the reality of the LORD's Dispensation through the prophet Joseph Smith which proclaims that the Temple has been and will always be an essential part of God's kingdom on earth until Christ comes again.

It always comes down to the same exact thing. Revelation.

LDS believe our religion is revealed to us. We remember answers to prayers via the Holy Ghost that gave us the definitive answer to the question of Joseph Smith and the Restoration. We don't need to see a complete description in the Bible giving the specifics of the Restoration, Temple Ordinances, the immortal spirit of man and our ante-mortal existance, etc.

Understanding this, the LORD has not sent His missionaries to the world with the Bible alone. Our missionaries are not asked to attempt any effort to prove our religion through the Bible. They are commisioned to share the message of the Restoration with the promise that the LORD Himself will testify of it's truthfulness by the power of the Holy Ghost. This is the great message of the Restoration, that the Heavens are open!

We are therefore comfortable as were the New Testament Christians in believing modern revelation.

God Bless

-a-train

[Dr T]

Hi James,

That is not taboo in my book. Anytime you have something to say, regardless of how old the topic is, bring it up. I am not an expert. There is a difference however in the "temple" and "synagogue." Maybe PC can speak to that and what happened at those gatherings. When a town had 10 males over the age of X met for... and where the Rabbi's taught.

[Traveler]

There are indications that Jesus was involved in covenants and is obedient to all the covenants and commandments LDS are taught in the temple. What takes place in the temple is considered sacred and is not talked openly. Likewise there are a couple of events in the live of Jesus that are not talked about very much in scripture.

For example, the Mount of transfiguration where Jesus received endowments to be or in essence a coronation. Keep in mind that LDS are endowed to someday become. A slight difference. Another example is what is called the “Last Supper”. There was much more going on than was recorded in the Bible.

Again in Matt 5:48 – Jesus gives a commandment to “be perfect”. At that time he did not consider himself perfect but he did consider his father perfect. Some believe (myself included) that perfect means accepting of all covenants, ordinances and commandments. It would be interesting to see how Jesus addressed perfection after completing his mission. In the Book of Mormon he indicated that we should be perfect as he and the father are perfect.

To assume Jesus was not married is speculation. To assume that the Bible has all we need to know about Christ if foolish at best. To say he did not receive the temple endowment is without question wrong. Those that have received the temple endowment should understand why this is wrong.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

To assume that the Bible has all we need to know about Christ if foolish at best. To say he did not receive the temple endowment is without question wrong.

Those words can be flipped the other way too Traveler. "To assume that the Bible isn't is foolish at best." To say he did receive the temple endowment is without question wrong." What we know is that you, without question, have been taught that and believe it. That's all. You assert things as if they are unquestionable when obviously they are not. (I question them :) )

[Traveler]

To assume that the Bible has all we need to know about Christ if foolish at best. To say he did not receive the temple endowment is without question wrong.

Those words can be flipped the other way too Traveler. "To assume that the Bible isn't is foolish at best." To say he did receive the temple endowment is without question wrong." What we know is that you, without question, have been taught that and believe it. That's all. You assert things as if they are unquestionable when obviously they are not. (I question them :) )

The Bible tells us that if all that should be written about Christ was written there was not a library large enough to hold all the writtings. This is not my teaching but the teaching of his apostles. On one subject Paul tells us that the time has not come for some things to be known.

Every one is entitled to their opinion - and mine is that 10 million years from now even as some live in heaven there will be more to know of the Christ and of G-d.

Please let me know when you are done learning about the Christ so we can stop talking about such a thing.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

I agree with that Traveler. Jesus, being God, is infinite. He has always existed. Can anyone say I know ALL about the intricacies of all his being? We will learn more and more as we grow and fellowship with him. "It is not yet time" dealt with Christ's death and resurrection-or are you talking about something else?

[Traveler]

I agree with that Traveler. Jesus, being God, is infinite. He has always existed. Can anyone say I know ALL about the intricacies of all his being? We will learn more and more as we grow and fellowship with him. "It is not yet time" dealt with Christ's death and resurrection-or are you talking about something else?

Yes - the significance of the Cherubim at the mercy seat of the temple (since we are talking about specifice things in the temple) .

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

Yes - the significance of the Cherubim at the mercy seat of the temple (since we are talking about specifice things in the temple) .

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Traveler...I don't think they're ready for that! I did enjoy our discussions on the matter a while back, though.

[Dr T]

I can handle it. None of the "milk" "meat" thing. Lets hear what you think the Cherubim issue is about.

Thank you

[Traveler]

I can handle it. None of the "milk" "meat" thing. Lets hear what you think the Cherubim issue is about.

Thank you

CK and I had a good conversation on this subject. I have researched Cherubim for more than 15 years and discussed the topic with some rather prominante scholars - both LDS and non LDS. The truth is that there is not mush in scripture. As you have pointed I have a bias from my temple experiences.

So I leave you with some small hints:

1. What is the symbolic roll that the Cherubim play in the salvation (returing to G-d) for man?

2. What symbolic "powers" are given or used by the Cherubim in relationship to mankind?

3. What do the scriptures prophesy concerning man in relationship to those symbolic powers and where in the grand eternal scheme of things do men encounter such powers?

Enjoy

The Traveler