Scott

When did temple marriage begin?

Recommended Posts

On 8/9/2019 at 2:32 PM, GaleG said:

"From the days of Adam to the meridian of time, temple ordinances were performed for the
living only".

We've said nothing to the contrary.  What are you thinking of that makes you think we did?

On 8/9/2019 at 2:32 PM, GaleG said:

The Old Testament temple practices are sacred in nature yet it describes in great detail what
occured in the temple.

Yes, the ordinances of the Mosaic Law.  And these were considered (mostly) a lesser set of ordinances.

If we agree (and I'm not 100% convinced it was so) that the higher ordinances were not had during the Law of Moses era, then the higher ordinances wouldn't be described at all.  So, no surprise there. 

If they were had in some way shape or form, then it wouldn't be directly written down.  But we might find hints at their existence.  I have even mentioned one. 

On 8/9/2019 at 2:32 PM, GaleG said:

Just trying to understand why the Book of Mormon doesn't seem to
make any reference at all to the ordinances

In addition to what I said about the Mosaic Law, I'd find it an interesting challenge to find such hints in the Book of Mormon.  I'll let you know what i find.

On 8/9/2019 at 2:32 PM, GaleG said:

the LDS Church believes actually occurred.

This has yet to be established.  Do you understand what this thread is actually about?  It seems that you're conflating and confusing many topics in combinations that make no sense on this end.

On 8/10/2019 at 9:54 AM, GaleG said:

I will try to improve the way I am expressing. 

One thing that I've personally asked for many times that you've only acceded to in a limited fashion is that when you ask a question, please provide your line of reasoning and even your own guesses and theories as to the answers (labeling them as such).

An isolated question provides no context and will lead to answers that make no sense or do not address your real question.  So, if we are to help you understand us better, then you need to help us understand where you're coming from so we can address it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 12:57 PM, Texan said:

As a long-time periodic (but very cordial and I hope respectful) investigator of the Church, I've often wondered the very same thing.  The Book of Mormon has always been presented to me as containing the fulness of the Gospel, but from my reading it seems to omit things that form the very centerpiece of today's Church.

This is not a belligerent question or an attack.  I'm genuinely interested in the question that @GaleG asked, and to be honest I have heard significantly different answers over the years.  For a while I took the view that the Book of Mormon radiated general teachings that have been instantiated or particularized in today's Church, perhaps even in a form that Book of Mormon people would not recognize, and that today's ordinances are simply specific implementations of more general principles that the Book of Mormon enshrined.  

But I've moved away from that view and am now thinking that the Book of Mormon omits many topics that were surely commonplace in ancient times, sacred or not, and that while those omissions can lead to speculation, they don't prove much.  Besides, I was always taught that Heavenly Father became God by obedience to everlasting Gospel ordinances, which makes me suspect those ordinances are pretty rigid things.

Speaking personally, I think it's VERY important to be upfront in explaining what "the fullness of the Gospel" means.  Because it's not what folks assume by default (that "the fullness of the Gospel" = every detail about God's Truth is in there) cause it's not.  We are a faith that very much believes that we STILL don't know everything about God's Truths (see Article of Faith 9).  

Rather  "the fullness of the Gospel" is talking about the centerpiece with IS the Gospel: that Christ, the Son of God, was born, lived, died, and rose again as our Savior.  That's the huge centerpiece and foundation.

Ordinances, while important, aren't the counterpoint of the Gospel.  Rather, they are branches springing from the trunk which is Christ's life. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 1:57 PM, Texan said:

As a long-time periodic (but very cordial and I hope respectful) investigator of the Church, I've often wondered the very same thing.  The Book of Mormon has always been presented to me as containing the fulness of the Gospel, but from my reading it seems to omit things that form the very centerpiece of today's Church.

This is not a belligerent question or an attack.  I'm genuinely interested in the question that @GaleG asked, and to be honest I have heard significantly different answers over the years.  For a while I took the view that the Book of Mormon radiated general teachings that have been instantiated or particularized in today's Church, perhaps even in a form that Book of Mormon people would not recognize, and that today's ordinances are simply specific implementations of more general principles that the Book of Mormon enshrined.  

But I've moved away from that view and am now thinking that the Book of Mormon omits many topics that were surely commonplace in ancient times, sacred or not, and that while those omissions can lead to speculation, they don't prove much.  Besides, I was always taught that Heavenly Father became God by obedience to everlasting Gospel ordinances, which makes me suspect those ordinances are pretty rigid things.

The question you seem to be asking is:

Quote

What is contained in the Book of Mormon that does not exist in the Bible which can be accurately labelled as "The Fulness of the Gospel"?

That is a fair question.  And I'll go ahead and give you my take.

It all boils down to:  A greater understanding of the necessity and effects of the Atonement of Christ.

An atheist or many other faiths would ask: Why was an atonement necessary?  Wasn't it within the abilities of an almighty God to go ahead and forgive sins if people showed a repentant heart?  There really is no satisfactory answer in the Bible.  All we read is that Jesus paid the price for sin.  But why was the price there in the first place?  Why can't God simply forgive?  There are many who have come up with certain explanations from various parts of the Bible to piece together some sort of exposition on the matter.  But it requires piecing together many parts that are unrelated in order to get there.  And I personally do not find the arguments convincing.  Why "hide" the meaning, purpose, and reasoning for the most fundamental and basic belief of all Christianity?

The Book of Mormon lays out principles in nice clusters.

1) There was a reason for the fall.  And the fall was according to God's plan.
2) A description of the fallen nature of man (the "natural man") and how to overcome it.
3) The nature of justice and mercy being at the core of the necessity of the Atonement and how the Atonement balances justice and mercy.
4) Prophecies of the restoration of the Gospel in the last days, in preparation for the Second Coming.

While we can find hints of these things in the Bible if you really look hard, the Book of Mormon spells it out in plain language.

5) The necessity of the priesthood (authority from God) to minister in holy things.  This one is actually spelled out in the Bible in multiple places.  But today's Christianity ignores it.  So, apparently, it wasn't obvious enough.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Texan

Ill add this as well. When teaching the gospel as found in our church to traditional Christian Protestants, there are a lot of assumptions that Protestants take with them into the church that just don’t hold up.

Traditional Protestants take the Bible as THE word and THE divine law and all that god has for us is found in the holy scripture. If it isn’t found in the holy writ, then it isn’t part of the gospel. The Bible is the rock on which all gospel teachings is formed on(correct me if I got that wrong).

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we don’t believe that entirely. The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, bi-annual general conference, and church produced material are source of divine teachings from God. But we don’t use them as the source of all truth and teachings. So if a teaching like eternal marriage isn’t directly mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon, that doesn’t hurt us at all because we don’t believe them to be the rock and source of all our teachings and truth. One of our “articles of faith” (a creed if you want to call it that) says “We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and that he will reveal many great and important truths pertaining to the Kingdom of God”. So yes, there will be a lot taught in the church because we believe God is still speaking to his children and has more to give us.

 

(side note: We so believe there are other divine writ out there that hasn’t been revealed. Just as God spoke to those in the Bible and Book of Mormon, we believe he spoke to others on other parts of the world and they wrote his words down too)

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 3:58 PM, Vort said:

If by "temple marriage" you mean the sealing of a man and a woman as a couple, then...I don't know. I suspect it did occur among the Book of Mormon peoples and to some degree in Old Testament times, especially during the lives of the Patriarchs before Moses' time

I couldn't find "temple" mentioned in the Book of Ether (for the Jaredites)
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mormon/simple.html

Aside from the pagan temples which might have existed on the American continent
before Lehi left Jerusalem, was Nephi's temple the first one to be built to serve the
true God?

Gale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GaleG said:

I couldn't find "temple" mentioned in the Book of Ether (for the Jaredites) https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mormon/simple.html

As far as I know, the idea of a "temple" as an independent structure built for the purpose of ordinance work was established under Moses and first fulfilled under Solomon. The people of Jared were pre-Moses, so I would not expect them to have been given the concept of temple worship (though I would not balk at it if they had been).

3 minutes ago, GaleG said:

Aside from the pagan temples which might have existed on the American continent before Lehi left Jerusalem, was Nephi's temple the first one to be built to serve the true God?

Gale

The first on the American continents? Probably. We have no record (of which I'm aware—always open for correction) that Adam or any of the antediluvian patriarchs built temples, so presumably Nephi's temple would have been the first in the Americas. The first in the world? Clearly not. Nephi himself states that he copied as best he could from Solomon's temple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 6:30 AM, Fether said:

side note: We so believe there are other divine writ out there that hasn’t been discovered revealed.

A gentle but important correction. We do not go out proactively searching for undiscovered documents to give us the word of God. I realize that's neither what you said nor what you implied, but some will wrongly infer that from the original wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GaleG said:

I couldn't find "temple" mentioned in the Book of Ether (for the Jaredites)
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mormon/simple.html

Aside from the pagan temples which might have existed on the American continent
before Lehi left Jerusalem, was Nephi's temple the first one to be built to serve the
true God?

Gale,

I don't think you've understood one very important thing most of us have said multiple times.

We don't know.  Why would we?  Why would we need to know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GaleG said:

I couldn't find "temple" mentioned in the Book of Ether (for the Jaredites)
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mormon/simple.html

Aside from the pagan temples which might have existed on the American continent
before Lehi left Jerusalem, was Nephi's temple the first one to be built to serve the
true God?

Gale

The first temple building that we have record of.  If they're were others, we don't have record of them.  Also, the Lord doesn't always work though a temple building made of stone/brick/wood/etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the whole thread, but Doctrine and Covenants 132: 39 seems to me to be strongly suggestive of the idea that some form of eternal marriage took place between Moses and Christ

39  David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:39)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 8:45 PM, Jane_Doe said:

The first temple building that we have record of.  If they're were others, we don't have record of them.  Also, the Lord doesn't always work though a temple building made of stone/brick/wood/etc. 

If there is no record of them, what is the basis for Elder Nelson stating in the October
1994 GC that "From the days of Adam to the meridian of time, temple ordinances
were performed for the living only"?  Was it a gospel truth or merely speculation?

Thank you,

Gale

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GaleG said:

If there is no record of them, what is the basis for Elder Nelson stating in the October
1994 GC that "From the days of Adam to the meridian of time, temple ordinances
were performed for the living only"?  Was it a gospel truth or merely speculation?

Thank you,

Gale

What do Elder Nelson's words about proxy ordinance work have to do with the building of temples?

Perhaps you assume that "temple ordinances" can be done only in a temple. If so, you are mistaken. What we call "temple work" for the living, including the endowment and sealings, can be and have been done outside of temples, even in these latter days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 6:45 PM, Jane_Doe said:

The first temple building that we have record of.  If they're were others, we don't have record of them.  Also, the Lord doesn't always work though a temple building made of stone/brick/wood/etc. 

Sometimes, anciently, sacred things were spoken of symbolically.  Even in our Latter-days the temple is called "The House of the L-rd" or "The House of G-d".  Some of the ancient symbolic references are "A High Mountain", "The Mountain of G-d" and "Sacred Ground" where shoes should be removed. 

I personally believe that references to altars were sacrifices were made to G-d is a reference to something like unto what we think of as a temple.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GaleG said:

If there is no record of them, what is the basis for Elder Nelson stating in the October
1994 GC that "From the days of Adam to the meridian of time, temple ordinances
were performed for the living only"?  Was it a gospel truth or merely speculation?

Thank you,

Gale

 

That he doesn't believe in the New Testament, Paul, or Baptisms for the Dead being mentioned?

I do not know.  I suppose I'd have to read his talk to understand the context of that statement in order to understand what he was saying or intended to state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GaleG said:

If there is no record of them, what is the basis for Elder Nelson stating in the October
1994 GC that "From the days of Adam to the meridian of time, temple ordinances
were performed for the living only"?  Was it a gospel truth or merely speculation?

Thank you,

Gale

 

For that answer, I would recommend an earnest seeker ask the Lord. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GaleG said:

If there is no record of them, what is the basis for Elder Nelson stating in the October
1994 GC that "From the days of Adam to the meridian of time, temple ordinances
were performed for the living only"?  Was it a gospel truth or merely speculation?

Thank you,

Gale

You know, Gale, you’ve been obsessing on this “why aren’t the temple ordinances spelled out in the Book of Mormon?” hobby horse for over a month and a half now, in at least two different threads.  In another thread in which you participated, in mid-July I wrote:

Quote

There’s a distinction between the endowment versus the endowment ceremony.  

The endowment consists of a series of specific covenants that an individual makes with God.

The endowment ceremony is the modern LDS liturgy in which those covenants are administered together over a period of a few hours, together with some teaching. 

But, there’s no eternal requirement that the covenants associated with the endowment all be administered at the same time.  The modern endowment ceremony suggests that it is hypothetically possible to enter into one covenant of the endowment, and then go for months or years before receiving the next covenant.  

So yes, I believe Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Peter, John, etc. were familiar with the endowment; and certainly the concepts of the endowment covenants turn up all over the scriptures.  (Whether the broad population of ancient Israel under the law of Moses was familiar with it is a tougher question to me, because the endowment covenants are administered under the Melchizedek order of priesthood and this order—with very few exceptions—didn’t exist in ancient Israel; and Nephite culture was an outgrowth of ancient Israelite culture.)  But that does not mean that the patriarchs who received their endowment underwent, or were familiar with, anything like modern Latter-day Saints “endowment ceremony.”

By way of analogy:  there’s “calculus”, and then there’s “Calculus 101” taught by Dr. Jones at UCLA.  Isaac Newton never stepped on the UCLA campus and never met Dr. Jones or saw her syllabus or reviewed the course textbook—but that didn’t prevent Newton from knowing calculus.  And the fact that Newton never imagined the existence of UCLA or Dr. Jones or her textbook, doesn’t undermine the value of Dr. Jones’ Calculus 101 course.

The covenants we consider “temple ordinances”—what, above, I dub “the endowment”—have existed, at least intermittently, since Adam.  We are confident of this because the modern endowment ceremony tells us they did; because Joseph Smith and other early developers of the ceremony told us the same; because because we find traces of the endowment’s core covenants and concepts peppered all throughout our scriptures; and because we have a modern prophet like unto Moses who tells us that this was the case.  

Now, yes; there were periods in human history when the endowment covenants weren’t available because no one had the requisite priesthood authority to administer them.  There were other periods when they were administered in secret amongst only a small subset of the broader community of believers.  This is perfectly compatible with the quote from the 1994 talk you mention, whose thrust—in context—is that proxy temple ordinances were not performed prior to Christ. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now