I need help writing an article

[pam]

I'm going to open this up to the general group.

I've been tasked to write an article for Third Hour on a subject that I really don't know anything about.  

It's to be titled: 10 Ancient Connections to Modern Day Temples

I can start a google doc and share it with anyone that is interested in helping.  BTW, they want it ASAP.  Like next week.  

Here are a couple of references we can use:

https://thirdhour.org/blog/faith/mormon-temple-ceremonies/

Also a ChatGPT:

Initiation - Endowment

Christianity and Mormonism are two of the most prominent religious movements in the world, each with a rich history and unique traditions. One area of overlap between these two faiths is the initiation ceremony or ritual that marks the beginning of a person's religious journey. In this article, we will compare the similarities between the early Christian initiation ceremony and Mormon temple rituals.

Early Christian Initiation Ceremony

The early Christian initiation ceremony, also known as the sacrament of baptism, was a symbolic act of purification and initiation into the Christian community. The ritual involved the pouring of water over the head of the individual being initiated, symbolizing the washing away of sin and the rebirth into a new life. This ceremony was performed by a priest or bishop and was accompanied by prayers and hymns.

In addition to baptism, early Christian initiation also included the sacrament of confirmation, which involved the laying on of hands by a bishop or priest, and the receiving of the Holy Spirit. The newly initiated Christian was then welcomed into the Christian community and given access to the Eucharist or Communion.

Mormon Temple Rituals

Mormon temple rituals are a series of ceremonies that are performed within the temple and are designed to help individuals progress spiritually. These rituals include baptism for the dead, endowment, and sealing. Like the early Christian initiation ceremony, these rituals are symbolic and are performed by priesthood leaders.

Baptism for the dead is a unique Mormon ritual that involves the living being baptized on behalf of deceased ancestors. This is done to help the deceased gain access to the blessings of the gospel. The endowment ceremony involves symbolic clothing, instruction, and covenants with God, while the sealing ceremony is a marriage ceremony that binds families together for eternity.

Similarities between Early Christian Initiation and Mormon Temple Rituals

One of the most significant similarities between the early Christian initiation ceremony and Mormon temple rituals is their symbolic nature. Both involve the use of physical acts, such as baptism or laying on of hands, to represent spiritual rebirth and initiation. Both also involve the use of prayer and hymns as part of the ritual.

Another similarity is the involvement of priesthood leaders in the initiation ceremony. In both the early Christian and Mormon traditions, priests or bishops play a significant role in performing the initiation ceremony and leading the individual through the process.

Finally, both early Christianity and Mormonism place a significant emphasis on the importance of the family unit. The early Christian initiation ceremony welcomed new members into the Christian community, while Mormon temple rituals are designed to strengthen familial relationships and ensure that families are united eternally.

Conclusion

Despite the differences between early Christianity and Mormonism, there are significant similarities between the initiation ceremonies of both religions. Both involve symbolic acts of initiation, the involvement of priesthood leaders, and an emphasis on the importance of the family. These similarities demonstrate the universal human need for spiritual initiation and the importance of community and family in religious traditions.

Regenerate response

Is anyone interested?  I would just need your email address to send you an invite to edit the document.  I can do the final clean up on it once we have what we need.

Thanks in advance.  

 

[askandanswer]

Gooday Pam

I'm interested in the outcomes and the process but I feel there are a great many people on this forum more able and knowledgeable than me who could assist you. I'd be  inclined to start with Nibley's Temple and the Cosmos: Beyond this ignorant present.

[askandanswer]

 

All of this is available through gospelink.com

 

• Every Stone a Sermon by Richard Neitzel Holzapfel
• Gospel Symbolism by Joseph Fielding McConkie
• Holy Temple by Boyd K. Packer
• House of Glory: Finding Personal Meaning in the Temple by S. Michael Wilcox
• House of Learning by M. Richard Walker , Kathleen H. Walker
• House of the Lord by James E. Talmage
• In Old Nauvoo: Everyday Life in the City of Joseph by George W. Givens
• Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment by Hugh Nibley
• Nauvoo Temple by E. Cecil McGavin
• Six Events by Stephen R. Covey
• Spiritual Progression in the Last Days by Blaine M. Yorgason
• Teens, Temple Marriage, and Eternity by Allan K. Burgess
• Temple Worship by Andrew C. Skinner
• Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present by Hugh Nibley
• Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives by Truman G. Madsen
• Temple: Where Heaven Meets Earth by Truman G. Madsen
• Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism by Donald W. Parry
• Temples of the Most High by N. B. Lundwall

[askandanswer]

From the entry on Temples in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism at eom.byu.edu

 

Temples: Temples Through the Ages

Author: RICKS, STEPHEN D.

The center of the community in ancient Israel and in other parts of the ancient Near East was the temple, an institution of the highest antiquity. Its construction regularly represented the crowning achievement in a king's reign. Thus, it was the central event in the reign of king Solomon, far overshadowing any of his other accomplishments (1 Kgs. 6-8), and it was a crucial event in the establishment of the Nephite monarchy (2 Ne. 5:16-18). The presence of the temple represented stability and cohesiveness in the community, and its rites and ceremonies were viewed as essential to the proper functioning of the society. Conversely, the destruction of a temple and the cessation of its rites presaged and symbolized the dissolution of its community and the withdrawal of God's favor. The fall of Jerusalem and its temple (586 B.C.), along with the rifling of its sacred treasures, symbolized, like no other event, the catastrophe that befell Judah. Following the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon (c. 500 B.C.), the prophets Haggai and Zechariah persistently reminded their people that no other achievement would compensate for their failure to reconstruct a temple. Temples were so important that, when distance or other circumstances made worship at the Jerusalem temple impractical, others were built. Thus, Israelite temples were built at Arad near Beersheba, at Elephantine and Leontopolis in Egypt, and a Nephite temple was erected in the land of Nephi.

Several studies have shown that certain characteristics regularly recur in the temples of the ancient Near East. Among the features that have been identified that distinguish the temple from the meetinghouse type of sacred structure such as synagogue or church are: (1) the temple is built on separate, sacral, set-apart space; (2) the temple and its rituals are enshrouded in secrecy; (3) the temple is oriented toward the four world regions or cardinal directions; (4) the temple expresses architecturally the idea of ascent toward heaven; (5) the plans for the temple are revealed by God to a king or prophet; and (6) the temple is a place of sacrifice (Lundquist, pp. 57-59).

Latter-day Saints recognize among these features several that are characteristic of ancient Israelite temples as well as their own. For example, the sites of ancient Israelite and modern Latter-day Saint temples are viewed as holy, with access restricted to certain individuals who are expected to have "clean hands and a pure heart" (Ps. 24:3-6; cf. Ps. 15; Isa. 33:14-16; see Temple Recommend). Like the tabernacle and temple in ancient Israel, many Latter-day Saint temples are directionally oriented, with the ceremonial main entrance (indicated by the inscription "HOLINESS TO THE LORD" on modern temples) facing east. Ancient Israelite temples were divided into three sections, each representing a progressively higher stage, reaching from the netherworld to heaven; similar symbolism can be recognized in the LDS temples as well. The plans for the temple of Solomon were revealed to King Solomon. Likewise, plans for many Latter-day Saint temples were received through revelation.

What occurred within temples of antiquity? The temple is a place of sacrifice, a practice that is well attested in ancient Israel. Animal sacrifice is not to be found in temples of the Latter-day Saints because blood sacrifice had its fulfillment in the death of Jesus (3 Ne. 9:19). Still, Latter-day Saints learn in their temples to observe the eternal principles of sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit (3 Ne. 12:19). In addition, inside the temples of the ancient Near East, kings, temple priests, and worshippers received a washing and anointing and were clothed, enthroned, and symbolically initiated into the presence of deity, and thus into eternal life. In ancient Israel-as elsewhere-these details are best seen in the consecration of the priest and the coronation of the king. LDS temple ordinances are performed in a Christian context of eternal kingship, queenship, and priesthood.

The features of temple worship described above are also found among many other cultures from ancient to modern times. Several explanations of this can be offered. According to President Joseph F. Smith, some of these similarities are best understood as having spread by diffusion from a common ancient source: Undoubtedly the knowledge of this law [of sacrifice] and of the other rites and ceremonies was carried by the posterity of Adam into all lands, and continued with them, more or less pure, to the flood, and through Noah, who was a "preacher of righteousness," to those who succeeded him, spreading out into all nations and countries…. If the heathen have doctrines and ceremonies resembling…those…in the Scriptures, it only proves…that these are the traditions of the fathers handed down,…and that they will cleave to the children to the latest generation, though they may wander into darkness and perversion, until but a slight resemblance to their origin, which was divine, can be seen [JD 15:325-26].

When Jesus drove the moneychangers from the temple-which he referred to as "my Father's house" (John 2:16)-it reflected his insistence on holiness for the sanctuaries in ancient Israel. Neither Stephen's nor Paul's statements that "the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 7:48;17:24; cf. Isa. 66:1-2) imply a rejection of the temple, but rather an argument against the notion that God can be confined to a structure. Solomon, at the dedication of the temple in Jerusalem, said similarly, "The heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?" (1 Kgs. 8:27; 2 Chr. 6:18). As late as the fourth century A.D., Christians were able to point to the spot on the Mount of Olives "where they say the sanctuary of the Lord, that is, the Temple, is to be built, and where it will stand forever…when, as they say, the Lord comes with the heavenly Jerusalem at the end of the world" (Nibley, p. 393).

While the idea of the temple was somewhat submerged in the later Jewish-Christian consciousness, it was never completely forgotten. As Hugh Nibley points out, the Christian church sensed that it possessed no adequate substitute for the temple. Jerusalem remained at the center of medieval maps of the world, and the site of the temple was sometimes indicated on such maps as well. When the Crusaders liberated the holy places in Jerusalem, the site of the temple was visited immediately after that of the Holy Sepulcher, even though no temple had been there for over 1,000 years (Nibley, pp. 392, 399-409).

Jews and Christians who take the vision of the reconstruction of the temple in Ezekiel seriously-and literally-anticipate the place in God's plan of rebuilding a future temple, as well as the reConstitution of distinct tribes of Israel (Ricks, pp. 279-80). While Jewish life proceeded without the temple following its destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70, it retained a significant role in their thought and study. In the modern period, the temple remains important to some Jews, who continue to study their sacred texts relating to it.

Bibliography

McKinlay, Don E. Review of Solomon's Temple: Myth and History, by William J. Hamblin, David Rolph Seely. BYU Studies 47:4 (2008):154-157.

[askandanswer]

A part of the chapter "Return to the Temple from Nibley's Temple and Cosmos

emples in General

Hundreds of books and articles written since the beginning of the century draw attention to certain basic aspects common to temples throughout the world at all times. 15 The temple is an imposing structure, the place where one gets one's bearings from the universe, a place for the gathering of the entire race at an appointed time, namely the new year, to celebrate the beginning of a new age, the common birthday of mankind, i.e., the begetting of the race in a sacred marriage in which the king takes the role of the first ancestor. It is the "hierocentric point," 16 the place where all time, space, and humanity come together. 17 The word templum not only designates the template, the point of cutting between the cardo and decumanus from which the observer of the heavens makes his viewing, it is also the diminutive of the word tempus, denoting that it measures the divisions of time and space in a single pattern (cf. fig. 4, p. 20). 18 There, all the records of the past are kept and all the prophecies for the future are divined. 19 G. A. Ahlstrom concludes that the two basic symbols of the temple are in general (1) its cosmic symbolism, and (2) the paradise motif, setting it aside as a sort of halfway-house between heaven and earth. 20 One center would establish others in distant places in the manner, as Augustine says, 21 of a central fire that sends out sparks, each one of these setting a new fire to scatter new centers, etc., so that the whole world is embraced in a common unity around a common center. 22 This idea is reflected in concern with cosmology, a theme dominant in the Jewish and Christian writings until the schools of rhetoric took over. "The earthly shrine [is] a microcosm of the cosmic shrine, . . . conceived as preserving the proportions of the cosmic abode of deity in reduced measure." 23 "The temples," writes Hrozńy, "were not only centers of religious life, they were also centers of cultural, economic, and even political life of Babylonia." They were also schools and universities somewhat like medieval cloisters. 24

Albright notes that the original temple of Solomon as a point of contact with the other world presented a "rich cosmic symbolism which was largely lost in the later Israelite and Jewish tradition." 25 Since the beginning of the century, widespread comparative studies have shown the uniformity and antiquity of this institution as well as its worldwide contamination and decay, so that not a single example remains in its purity, and yet by virtue of comparing hundreds of imperfect and fragmentary institutions, the original can be reconstructed with great confidence and clarity. In 1930 the so-called Cambridge School gave this doctrine the label of "patternism." 26 Scholars avoided it until after World War II; since that time it has been accepted as standard by many.

But it was Joseph Smith who first pointed this out, recalling a common heritage from what he calls the archaic religion, coming down from Adam in such institutions as Freemasonry, and clearly pointing out their defects as time produced its inevitable corruption. What he himself supplied single-handedly is the original article in all its splendor and complexity: quod erat demonstrandum ("that which had to be proven"). The cosmic pattern is presented in every external aspect of the Salt Lake Temple. At the dedication of that temple, Brigham Young explained to the people, "So we commence by laying the stone on the south-east corner because, there is the most light." 27 And at the dedication of the St. George Temple, "Precisely at 12 m President Brigham Young, at whose side stood Presidents John W. Young and Daniel H. Wells, broke ground at the south-east corner, and, kneeling on that particular spot, he offered the dedicatory prayer." 28

The Covenant and the Gathering

God made his covenant with Israel both individually and collectively; he required everyone to repair to a certain place at an appointed time to enter a covenant with him. The names by which the Jews designated the temples are House of the King, House of God (fig. 10); the temple at Jerusalem was called specifically the Dwelling, ha-bayit, which does not mean that God dwelt there all the time, for the other name for it was 'ulam, meaning vestibule or passage. It was also the miqda 29, or place sanctified or set apart; the naos or hey -k al, meaning shrine or sanctuary; to hieron, the holy. The most common word with the Jews today is the House, Herod's temple being "the Second House." "Josephus calls it the Deuteron Hieron." 30

"All this must be done at a certain place" he tells Israel; "and I will send an angel to direct you to it. Behave yourselves and pay attention to his voice, because he is acting in my name" (cf. Exodus 23:20-21). They come together as equals, camp in families, follow the directions, note the functions of the appointed priesthood, and hearken to the voice of their prophet and leader when he shows his face after conversing with the Lord. The appointed place always had some structure, even if it was only a tent or stone (usually a ring of standing stones). This structure was considered sacred and was preserved in the building of the temple, which was built to house the original structures.

What Was Done in the Temple?

The central rite of the temple was certainly the offering of sacrifice — the slaughtering of beasts; yet the activities we read about in the Bible simply take that for granted and tell us of preaching, of feasting, and of music. The place seemed to be a general center of activity. The huge outer court allowed for this; the inner court was limited to Jews over twenty who had paid their tax for instruction or teaching, for the temple was a school. In fact, it was all those things for which the Kirtland Temple was dedicated in D&C 109. However, through the years both the structure and the uses to which it was put have remained completely baffling to scholars. 31 What the temple really looked like remains today as puzzling as ever. 32 Welcome light has finally come with the discovery of the great Temple Scroll from Qumran (fig. 11). This, as Yadin noted, was not a spiritual temple or an ideal model of a heavenly temple, but the temple which these people actually intended to rebuild as soon as the Lord would command them — a more perfect temple than that which the men at Jerusalem had defiled. 33 Its purpose was the renewal of the covenant made at Sinai, i.e., the temple ordinances that were present before; from the beginning, the building was merely to accommodate them. This temple was to be in three levels, in three concentric squares or in three cubes, as Frank Cross sees it, the ta -b nî -t being "a model of the cosmic Tabernacle of Yahweh." 34 Joseph Smith takes it back to "the three principal rounds of Jacob's ladder — the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial glories or kingdoms," 35 the highest level being an assembly hall facing a veil that ran from one side of the room to the other. According to Cross, the place behind the veil was reached by workers who would ascend a winding staircase in a tower or "house of the winding stair," which stood ten feet free of the building and was connected with the top story by a little bridge. In the Holy Place, for the priesthood, was the table of the "presence-bread" (i.e., shewbread). 36 Every morning in the temple, twelve loaves were spread out for the twelve tribes, and the workers took the sacrament (Leviticus 24:5-9; cf. Exodus 25:23-30; 29:33-34). The most impressive rite of the temple was the "drinking of the new wine by the entire assembly," which was to symbolize a ransom or redemption.

A stairway led to an upper story connected to the temple attic; equally impressive was the House of the Laver, containing a great bronze tank located in a separate building a few feet from the main temple, with dressing rooms at hand, emptying into a drain which carried the water off to be absorbed into the ground.

In the far northeast corner of the great enclosure is a roofed building supported by twelve columns with chains and pulleys; this is the place where the sacrificial animals were killed, far removed from the sacred precincts. From all this we see that the sacrificing of animals was only a part of the ritual activities that went on in the temple. 37 According to Milgrom, "The entire scroll is the revealed word of God," 38 and it begins with the covenant with Moses and a section on the Holy of Holies, which unfortunately is the one part of the scroll which has been completely destroyed.

In both Jewish and Christian sources, one often reads of the five things — five covenants, five tokens, etc. — which are an organic part of the temple: When "prophecy ceased. The Urim and Thummim fell into disuse. . . . Corruption spread among the priesthood. . . . Was this God's holy Temple?" asks S. J. D. Cohen. 39 "Even the high priests were no longer legitimate high priests; they were regular priests who usurped the leadership"; the five things were gone, i.e., the sacred fire, the ark, the Urim and Thummim, the oil of anointing, and the holy spirit (prophecy). These five are the typical list of the schoolmen. According to the Gospel of Philip, the five secret ordinances of the Lord are (1) baptism, (2) chrism (anointing), (3) the eucharist, (4) the ordinance of salvation (sote — unexplained), and (5) the bridal chamber or highest ordinance. 40 In a very old Manichaean manuscript recently discovered we read, "These five things [ordinances] about which you asked me," says the Lord, addressing the apostles after the resurrection, "appear to the world to be small and foolish things, and yet they are great and honorable or exalted (eutaiait). I am he who will reveal to you its ordinances [mysteries]. These five tokens are the mystery of the first man Adam." 41

Substitutes and Proxies

In the temple, and in other structures, the sacrifices could be substituted (the tent, standing stones, the enclosure, the mountain, all stood for the same appointed and sequestered spot, depending on which structure was the most convenient, and it was the same with the sacrifices). The beasts whose blood was shed were only incidental; they stood for something much more. Already in Exodus when Aaron is crowned with his cap or turban, the crown of sanctification (cf. fig. 17C, p. 98) is added (the round linen cap was to act as a cushion for a metal crown during a long ceremony). Later the cap alone would suffice, since it showed that the owner was qualified to wear the "crown of justification." Aaron's sons, arrayed in their holy garments, then appeared and put their hands on the head of a bullock before the tabernacle; it was killed at the door. Moses, dipping his finger in the blood, put it on the horns of the altar (Exodus 29:5-12). The same thing is done with a ram (Exodus 29:15-18). The same men then lay their hands upon the head of another ram, kill the ram, and put some of its blood on the right ear of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:19-20). This recalls the rite of nailing the right ear of a servant to a door (there are only three nerves in the lobe of the ear) to signify an everlasting bond or covenant between the Lord and his servant (Exodus 21:6; Deuteronomy 15:16-17). Moses also marks with blood the thumb of the right hand of Aaron and his sons, as well as the big toe of the right foot (Exodus 29:20). In the Temple Scroll the bloody spot is placed in the palm of the right hand, whereupon the priest sprinkles the blood all around the altar to signify that this is the blood of sacrifice. It takes no great mental effort to see that the slaying of the ram is the same as the slaying of the ram which represents Isaac in the akedah, or "binding," for Israel, an assurance of the resurrection, a similitude of a great and last sacrifice. 42

Today for the first time, Jewish scholars have become greatly concerned with this question: Did Isaac make the atoning sacrifice? 43 But Isaac was not put to death! If not he, who then? What is being recognized is that there was much more to the ordinances than the scholars have been aware of. Thus H. G. May tells us that the "tabernacle ('ohel), the ark ('aocircRoman [and] the ephod ('e -p ô -d ) . . . may be closely related institutions." 44 "The ephod was a portable instrument of divination. . . . One suspects that it was the same instrument . . . [as the] urim and thummim." 45 Are all these things the same? How were they really used? Morton Smith has recently caused a sensation by calling attention to a thing deliberately bypassed by Jewish and Christian scholars alike, namely that for the temple the ancient saints always designated a mystery as an ordinance, and vice versa. He notes that Judaism itself was considered a "mystery religion" and that the rites of circumcision and passover were mysteries; 46 that such early and orthodox Christian writers as Clement of Alexandria "think of Jesus as a 'hierophant,' a teacher of the mysteries." 47 As Dr. Smith sums it up, "This was the mystery of the kingdom — the mystery rite by which the kingdom was entered," i.e., the ordinances of initiation. 48 In Paul, he finds, this is "a preparatory purification," followed "by unknown ceremonies" by which one became "united with Jesus," and so ascended with him and "entered the kingdom of God." 49 The teaching was very secret and was limited to an "inner circle." 50

After administering the blood, Moses then took the oil of anointing and sprinkled it over Aaron and his sons, clothed in their garments; thereby they became sanctified (cf. Exodus 29:21). This is the oil of healing, which reverses the blows of death. The sons of Aaron were made bloody, as if they had been sacrificed, and then cleansed, as if cleared of their sins. Being "washed in the blood of the lamb" is thus no paradox — the blood actually cleanses them of what most needs cleansing by transferring their sins to another. Leviticus deals with the matter in detail. It begins with every man in Israel who is for Jehovah bringing his offering from the herd, a male animal without blemish, as a personal, voluntary offering. He, not the priest, lays his hand on the animal's head, after which it represents him as an offering and a ransom for his sins (Leviticus 1:2-4). The conditions of the atoning sacrifice are given; all follow the same pattern, and the feast that goes with it is eaten in humility — "and ye shall eat in sorrow" (cf. Genesis 3:17). The principle of proxy continues as we read that the priest is to serve as a substitute or proxy for the king or the people (Leviticus 4:10, 13). He in turn avoided being sacrificed by being bought off (redeemed) by another substitute, a bullock whose blood is sprinkled before the veil while some of it is put on the horns of the altar. This bull is not eaten; the whole animal is burned in the ashdump outside the camp to eliminate completely all the sins of the people (Leviticus 4:1-12).

And so anciently the principle of proxy was carried out: a goat for a prince who has unwittingly sinned (Leviticus 4:22), a bullock for all the unwitting sins of Israel (Leviticus 4:13-14), a female kid as ransom for any commoner for his unintentional trespasses, a lamb or a kid; or if you could not afford that, two turtle doves; or if you could not afford them, two young pigeons (one for a sin offering and one for burning); if you could not afford that, one tenth of an ephah of flour would do (Leviticus 1:2-2:1). The bread and wine in the temple represent sacrifice and atonement. For sins against holy things, a perfect ram must be brought, or its equivalent in shekels (i.e., by weight of pieces of silver; Leviticus 5:15). A clear case comes from Leviticus 8:12-15: First, oil is poured on Aaron's head to sanctify him; then his sons are brought in, properly attired, leading a bullock. They lay their hands upon its head, for it is to atone for their sins. Aaron kills the bullock, puts the blood on the altar, lokapper, to make atonement for them. The rites with the Levites are the same. Thus the sacrifices are carried out in the temple without the shedding of human blood, but if human blood can be spared, why not all blood? Because this was the similitude of the shedding of blood for the atonement of sin. Properly, of course, the sinner's own blood must be used, unless a go'el, a representative substitute advocate or redeemer, could be found to take one's place. The willingness of the candidate to sacrifice his own life (the c&acheckebar; -d ah) is symbolized by the blood on the right thumb and right earlobe, where the blood would be if the throat had been cut.

Symbolic Representations

Great emphasis is laid on the assembly of the people, both in the Old Testament and the Temple Scroll, as the camp of Israel in the wilderness — an armed, walled camp, the image vividly depicted in the appointments of the Temple Scroll. One of the most baffling titles connected with the temple is that of Metatron, the title normally reserved to Enoch as the guide of the initiates through the temple. After much argument and research, it is widely agreed now that the root of the word is metator — the metator being one who goes ahead of the host to set up the camp and supervise operations. This is also indicated in the name of Enoch, which signifies a guide or instructor of initiates into the temple — the hekaloth. Anyone approaching the holy enclosure must identify himself in three steps — the admission of initiates is the central theme of the Manual of Discipline. 51 First, at a distance, he seeks admission, giving a visible sign by raising his arms (a greeting that can be seen from afar and is a sign, among other things, that he is unarmed); approaching closer for inspection, he gives his name; then approaching for the final test, he actually makes physical contacts with certain grips, which are the most secret and decisive. His final acceptance is by the most intimate tokens of all, including an embrace, or a unio mystica (mystic union), in which the candidate becomes not only identified, but identical, with the perfect model. 52

The Arrested Sacrifice

The gospel is more than a catalogue of moral platitudes; these are matters of either eternal life or nothing. Nothing less than the sacrifice of Abraham is demanded of us (D&C 101:4). But how do we make it? In the way Abraham, Isaac, and Sarah all did. 53 Each was willing and each expected to be sacrificed, and each committed his or her all to prove it. In each case the sacrifice was interrupted at the last moment and a substitute provided: to their relief, someone else had been willing to pay the price, but not until after they had shown their good faith and willingness to go all the way — "lay not thy hand on the lad, . . . for now I know" (Genesis 22:12). Abraham had gone far enough; he had proven to himself and the angels who stood witness (we are told) that he was actually willing to perform the act. Therefore the Lord was satisfied with the token then, for he knew the heart of Abraham. This is the same for Isaac and Sarah and for us. And whoever is willing to make the sacrifice of Abraham to receive eternal life will show it by the same signs and tokens as Abraham, but he or she must do it in good faith and with real intent. Circumcision is another form of arrested sacrifice in which the victim's own blood was shed and a permanent mark was left. It represents the sacrifice of Abraham, who initiated it (Genesis 17:10-14; cf. Exodus 21:6-7). It was the misunderstanding of both the seriousness of temple ordinances and their symbolic nature that gave rise to all the horror tales about temple ordinances in anti-Mormon literature of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 54

The Force of the Name

Anciently, the signs and tokens were accompanied by words, the most important being certain names. 55 The epoch-making discoveries from Ebla put great emphasis on the primacy of the name in the rites of the temple and all its activities showing "local[ized] veneration of the divinised Name that corresponds to the veneration manifest in the personal names." 56 They are for identification, but they are more than that. Why is it necessary that all be done "in the name of the Son?" There is no mystic or esoteric allure to the logos, or spoken word. Like the other elements of ordinance, it is a means of communication. God says there is "no end to my works, neither to my words" (Moses 1:38), explaining in the same passage that his work and his glory is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). His whole concern, then, is to pass on to others what he has. The glory of God is intelligence, which he wishes to share with all others. Glory is shared intelligence. Hence his works always go along with his words. They are the means by which his thoughts are communicated to other beings and made intelligible to his children. Without works, words would be a futile exercise in a vacuum, the subject of endless and perplexed speculation by the Doctors of the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment. According to the oldest of all temple documents, the Shabako Stone, and the Sefer Yetzira, the way one becomes a member of the universe is through one's sensory perceptors. Whatever gets to us from out there must come through "the seven gateways" of the eyes, ears, nose, and mouth. 57 These are the avenues made functional by the initiatory rite of the Egyptian temples. The Opening of the Mouth, in which the organs of the senses are first washed and then anointed, is to make the organs efficient conveyors to a clear and active brain, by which the mind evaluates, structures, and comprehends reality. But the receptors work only one way: the eyes, ears, nose, and taste buds do not broadcast what they receive. There is only one way that all those impressions — unified, structured, and enjoyed by the mind — can be conveyed to others, and that is by speech, by the word alone. It is the word alone that releases us and opens up a common universe of discourse. If we are full of grace and truth, we have the desire to seek truth and the grace to share what we have so that all can rejoice together. This can only be done through the word. "There is no end to my works, neither to my words" (Moses 1:38; cf. 1:4). The two are inseparable, and all is made intelligible through that one circuit — the voice, the word, the name.

Secrecy

The ordinances are not deep, dark secrets to be kept as such from the world. It is easy to get a temple recommend and then later apostatize and spread abroad the so-called secrets of the temple. The basic idea of the ordinances from Moses back to Adam is separation from the world. The endowment represents steps by which one disengages from a corrupt, secular, imprisoned environment. Segregation is the first step in the law of Moses. The people must give up their worldly practices and avoid contamination. The Mosaic rites and especially the Temple Scroll show an almost fanatical preoccupation with being qaocirc;&scheck;, "sanctified" (cf. Gk. hagios, Lat. purus) — all of these words for holiness mean specifically "set apart," "cut off," not mingled to any degree, because we are dealing with two worlds, the one eternal and incorruptible, the other corruptible and temporal. The slightest taint of corruption means that the other world would be neither incorruptible nor eternal. The tiniest flaw in a building, institution, code, or character will inevitably prove fatal in the long run of eternity. The object of the rules laid down in Leviticus 10:10-12 is to make a sharp distinction lohabdil (between what is holy and unholy, clean and unclean). Chapters 11 and 12 give a detailed catalog of what is clean and what is unclean, with the strictest rules for keeping the two absolutely separate. The lesson of absolute separation is forcefully brought home to Israel in the beginning of Exodus 19, where certain fences are set up at the foot of Mt. Sinai, with death the fate of any who cross the line (fig. 12). The teachings of Moses begin with a warning to make the people keep their distance (Exodus 19:21). The priests are authorized to approach more closely. Why? Because they are willing to take things more seriously. They are required to sanctify themselves, and Jehovah will come to them as a special group (Exodus 19:22). The priests themselves, however, must keep their proper distance: "They must not try to ascend any nearer to Jehovah or they will be overpowered" — blown up, yi -p ra .z (cf. Exodus 19:24).

Purification is the beginning and end of the Temple Scroll, and it goes back to Adam (Moses 6:8). Temple work began among Adam's children when God set them apart, gave them a blessing, gave them a new name, registered them in the new Book of the Generations of Adam (Genesis 5:1-2), setting the true family of Adam on its course beginning with Seth (whose name means "second, substitute, equal" — he was the living image of Adam [D&C 107:48], and his name shows that), followed by his son, Enos (meaning "man," exactly the same as Adam and Enoch) — the line of patriarchs being carried down in the record.

The ordinances are not secret, and yet they are, so to speak, automatically scrambled for those not authorized to have them. Satan disobeyed orders when he revealed certain secrets to Adam and Eve, not because they were not known and done in other worlds, but because he was not authorized in that time and place to convey them. Likewise he conveyed certain secrets to Cain, who became Master Mahan, and to Lamech, who achieved the same degree of negative glory (Moses 5:29-31, 49-52). Lamech's wives in turn "had not compassion" and spread the secret things abroad (Moses 5:47-48, 53). This is the classical account of the Watchers, angels who came to call the human race to repentance, but who, being tempted by the daughters of men, fell and gave away the covenants and the knowledge they possessed. 58 This was their undoing, and was always treated as the most monstrous of crimes, divulging the pure ordinances of heaven to people unworthy to receive them, who then proceeded to exercise them in unrighteousness while proclaiming their own righteousness on the grounds of possessing them (cf. Genesis 6:4-6).

The oldest tradition common to many ancient people is that of the woman who got the secret name from the most high god. It is the Egyptian story of Re and the Son's Eye. Isis, wishing to found the Egyptian Dynasty along matriarchal lines by endowing her sons with the priesthood, begged Re, their father, to tell her his secret name. It is the story of Epimetheus, who loosed all evils upon mankind when he deferred to Pandora's request. Recently that story has turned up in the early Coptic Christian Third Apocryphon of John. Moreover, a two-volume work by Ludwig Laistner traces the Sphinx motif through ancient times. In the Bible it is Samson and Delilah. But the most significant telling of the story is in Moses 5:47-55, the story of Lamech, which reports how this pattern was spread throughout the entire world in the abominations of the ancients. This opens up a whole world of comparative studies telling us how it is that ceremonies resembling those of the temple are found throughout the ancient world. 59

Why are these temple ordinances guarded with such secrecy when anyone who really wants to can find out what goes on? Even though everyone may discover what goes on in the temple, and many have already revealed it, the important thing is that I do not reveal these things; they must remain sacred to me. I must preserve a zone of sanctity which cannot be violated whether or not anyone else in the room has the remotest idea what the situation really is. For my covenants are all between me and my Heavenly Father, all others being present only as witnesses. Why witnesses, if this must be so intimate and private? Plainly others are involved in it, too. God's work and his glory is to share that work and glory with others. Abraham said he sought diligently for these ordinances that he might administer them to others (Abraham 1:2). It is because others are engaged in the work that we know that we are not just imagining it. On the other hand I can never share my understanding of them completely with anyone but the Lord. No matter what happens, it will, then, always remain secret: only I know exactly the weight and force of the covenants I have made — I and the Lord with whom I have made them — unless I choose to reveal them. If I do not, then they are secret and sacred no matter what others may say or do. Anyone who would reveal these things has not understood them, and therefore that person has not given them away. You cannot reveal what you do not know! The constant concern is to keep Israel out of contact with the profane things of the world; the reason given is not absolute secrecy, but to keep these sacred things from becoming .h alal, that is, vulgar, popular, the subject of everyday discussion, in a word, trivia. This is what is meant by blasphemy, which signifies not some awful and horrible commitment to evil but simply taking holy things lightly. And what is wrong with being .h alal? What is evil in innocent everyday conversation about the temple? Even at its most innocuous, the bringing up of such matters in public can only lead to their cheapening, but, worst of all, to all manner of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, disputation, contention, contamination, and corruption. 60 This is exactly what has happened throughout history — the possession of God's secrets was a cause for vanity and self-congratulation. In some parts of the world where the greatest secrecy was observed — as at Eleusis and in Egypt, and it would appear that some of the secrets never leaked out — scholars marveled at how well those secrets were kept; the rites appear today surprisingly like those in the real temple.

When the Lord speaks of giving precious things to the dogs and pearls to the swine, it is not with contempt for those creatures, but with the futility of such a thing for all concerned — the dogs would find no value in precious things, which would be thrown away into dirt and trodden under foot.

With the sectaries of the second century and following, secrecy becomes a subject of great fascination; it tickles vanity and gives even the lowliest a feeling of superiority. It was not so with the early Christians: "Everyone should be given the highest mystery which he is worthy to receive. For if ye hide any mystery from a worthy person ye may be guilty of great condemnation." Whoever asks and knocks should be given the benefit of the doubt, but we must not forget that it is very dangerous to give mysteries to the unworthy — it will harm them and everyone else. 61 The mischief resulting from secrecy has been apparent throughout the history of religion.

There is no doubt at all that the early Christians were not only concerned with the temple but kept their knowledge of it and its ordinances secret. 62 The Roman Catholics have always denied this, claiming that everything Christ taught was to be "preached from the house tops." Roman Catholics are also very uncomfortable with the traditions of the temple. George MacRae goes so far as to assert that Luke gives a completely warped view in his attempt "to show that the primitive Christian community in Jerusalem focused its life around the temple. . . . I don't think Luke had any acquaintance with Jerusalem itself," he writes, "and how the temple actually functioned in the lives of people." 63 The Christian temple ordinances emerge in the forty-day teachings of the Lord to the apostles, which MacRae calls the "revelation-discourse[s]." 64 He considers them based on a complete misunderstanding perpetrated by the Gnostics. 65 In all of his works to disqualify the teachings of the Lord after the resurrection, MacRae never gives the slightest hint that there might really have been a fortyday ministry.

Are the Conventional Ordinances Enough?

The ordinances of some Christian churches today are Baptism, Confirmation, Communion (sacrament), Penance, Anointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction), Holy Order, and Matrimony. All of these have come in for examination, and some of them recently for drastic revision. The ancient records show that what corresponds to these rites today is complex and conflicting. Nobody really understands them. The discovery of early records has required constant reappraisal. The Reformation got rid of much ritual and liturgy of patently non-Christian origin, but as a result the liturgical poverty of Protestantism is one of its serious failings. How can such a defect be corrected? Can we trust to the taste and judgment of self-certifying institutions to impart sanctity to forms and observances? An example is the academic caps and gowns. Whether the design is by committees, synods, conventicles, or individuals, by what authority do they act? Wherein does the sanctity of these costumes reside?

The Catholic case is even more dubious. When at the monastery of Solesmnes in 1830 the serious study of old and forgotten manuscripts dealing with the mass was undertaken, it became apparent that there was nothing particularly ancient or Christian in the rites. 66 Today the standard work on the mass is that of Eisenhofer and Lechner, who trace the origin of the Holy Office to four sources — and if there is one thing in which one is not lacking for evidence it is in the ritual of the church, attested in thousands of documents all over Europe. 67 The four sources are as follows:

1. The rites of the synagogue consisted of singing, preaching, scripture reading, and prayer. Reminders of the temple are important, but they didn't make it a temple or transfer any of the ordinances. 68

2. The adoption of antique cult practices, for example the practice of the annona, are clearly present in the mass. The word mass, messis, is in fact the Latin word for harvest ceremony. The council of Elvira in A.D. 444 forbade the use of candles and incense in churches, since they were a basic pagan practice everywhere. Parts of the mass thought by the apologists of the nineteenth century (such as the naive G. K. Chesterton) to go back to the days of the apostles are no later than the sixteenth century in origin. Such are the epiclesis and the monstrance, that climactic elevation of the host which has become the high point of the mass (fig. 13). The core of the Western rite was the Milanese order brought by Ambrose, a convert when he came from Antioch, via Ephesus and Lyons, while the foundation of the present Roman mass is the rite established at Aachen in the days of Charlemagne.

3. Much of the splendor of the mass may be attributed to the Roman Imperial cult, as Andreas Alföldi has shown at length. 69

4. The Germanic and Celtic courts of the North contributed some of the most venerated rites of Christian churches. Henry St. John Feasey's studies on the English Holy Week's Ceremony show how deeply rooted in pagan antiquity these rites are. 70

For years it was accepted doctrine that the early Christians had a choice between Amt and Geist ("office" and "spirit"), the two being mutually exclusive. Rudolph Sohm made this into an article of faith: Whereas the old Jewish religion was steeped in hierarchy, form, and authority, the early Christians relinquished all that to be governed by nothing but a spirit of love — no organization of any kind, no offices, no orders, no structure, just the spirit that bloweth as it listeth. But then there was a reaction. It was easy for Adolf von Harnack to show how involved the Christians were in an ordinance such as the laying on of hands, on which they were absolutely insistent and which served, as the earliest writings make clear, as an ordinance of initiation, which would necessarily be initiation into an organization. 71

More recently the coming forth of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the early Coptic Christian texts, as well as the rediscovery of a mass of apocalyptic writings, such as the books of Enoch and Abraham, bring out an intense concern with the ordinances of the temple. But this is the ideal temple, the heavenly temple after which the earthly temple is modeled. Needless to say, it is a very different structure from that which scholars have tried to construct through the years: To this day no one is sure what the temple was like or what was done in it. But the Temple Scroll is a link between the two; that document shows how the earthly temple insensibly fuses with the holy city and eventually embraces all the spirits in the world. 72 The numerous accounts of the heavenly temple are found in a multitude of Ascension texts. 73 These might appear as altogether fanciful were it not that they show a consistent picture of the temple and are supported by numerous points of contact with actual practices. We must not forget the forty-day literature, in which the Lord instructs the apostles in great secrecy after his resurrection in the rites and ordinances of a higher order, such as the prayer circle and "the bridal chamber." 74

[pam]

46 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

From the entry on Temples in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism at eom.byu.edu

 

Temples: Temples Through the Ages

Author: RICKS, STEPHEN D.

The center of the community in ancient Israel and in other parts of the ancient Near East was the temple, an institution of the highest antiquity. Its construction regularly represented the crowning achievement in a king's reign. Thus, it was the central event in the reign of king Solomon, far overshadowing any of his other accomplishments (1 Kgs. 6-8), and it was a crucial event in the establishment of the Nephite monarchy (2 Ne. 5:16-18). The presence of the temple represented stability and cohesiveness in the community, and its rites and ceremonies were viewed as essential to the proper functioning of the society. Conversely, the destruction of a temple and the cessation of its rites presaged and symbolized the dissolution of its community and the withdrawal of God's favor. The fall of Jerusalem and its temple (586 B.C.), along with the rifling of its sacred treasures, symbolized, like no other event, the catastrophe that befell Judah. Following the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon (c. 500 B.C.), the prophets Haggai and Zechariah persistently reminded their people that no other achievement would compensate for their failure to reconstruct a temple. Temples were so important that, when distance or other circumstances made worship at the Jerusalem temple impractical, others were built. Thus, Israelite temples were built at Arad near Beersheba, at Elephantine and Leontopolis in Egypt, and a Nephite temple was erected in the land of Nephi.

Several studies have shown that certain characteristics regularly recur in the temples of the ancient Near East. Among the features that have been identified that distinguish the temple from the meetinghouse type of sacred structure such as synagogue or church are: (1) the temple is built on separate, sacral, set-apart space; (2) the temple and its rituals are enshrouded in secrecy; (3) the temple is oriented toward the four world regions or cardinal directions; (4) the temple expresses architecturally the idea of ascent toward heaven; (5) the plans for the temple are revealed by God to a king or prophet; and (6) the temple is a place of sacrifice (Lundquist, pp. 57-59).

Latter-day Saints recognize among these features several that are characteristic of ancient Israelite temples as well as their own. For example, the sites of ancient Israelite and modern Latter-day Saint temples are viewed as holy, with access restricted to certain individuals who are expected to have "clean hands and a pure heart" (Ps. 24:3-6; cf. Ps. 15; Isa. 33:14-16; see Temple Recommend). Like the tabernacle and temple in ancient Israel, many Latter-day Saint temples are directionally oriented, with the ceremonial main entrance (indicated by the inscription "HOLINESS TO THE LORD" on modern temples) facing east. Ancient Israelite temples were divided into three sections, each representing a progressively higher stage, reaching from the netherworld to heaven; similar symbolism can be recognized in the LDS temples as well. The plans for the temple of Solomon were revealed to King Solomon. Likewise, plans for many Latter-day Saint temples were received through revelation.

What occurred within temples of antiquity? The temple is a place of sacrifice, a practice that is well attested in ancient Israel. Animal sacrifice is not to be found in temples of the Latter-day Saints because blood sacrifice had its fulfillment in the death of Jesus (3 Ne. 9:19). Still, Latter-day Saints learn in their temples to observe the eternal principles of sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit (3 Ne. 12:19). In addition, inside the temples of the ancient Near East, kings, temple priests, and worshippers received a washing and anointing and were clothed, enthroned, and symbolically initiated into the presence of deity, and thus into eternal life. In ancient Israel-as elsewhere-these details are best seen in the consecration of the priest and the coronation of the king. LDS temple ordinances are performed in a Christian context of eternal kingship, queenship, and priesthood.

The features of temple worship described above are also found among many other cultures from ancient to modern times. Several explanations of this can be offered. According to President Joseph F. Smith, some of these similarities are best understood as having spread by diffusion from a common ancient source: Undoubtedly the knowledge of this law [of sacrifice] and of the other rites and ceremonies was carried by the posterity of Adam into all lands, and continued with them, more or less pure, to the flood, and through Noah, who was a "preacher of righteousness," to those who succeeded him, spreading out into all nations and countries…. If the heathen have doctrines and ceremonies resembling…those…in the Scriptures, it only proves…that these are the traditions of the fathers handed down,…and that they will cleave to the children to the latest generation, though they may wander into darkness and perversion, until but a slight resemblance to their origin, which was divine, can be seen [JD 15:325-26].

When Jesus drove the moneychangers from the temple-which he referred to as "my Father's house" (John 2:16)-it reflected his insistence on holiness for the sanctuaries in ancient Israel. Neither Stephen's nor Paul's statements that "the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 7:48;17:24; cf. Isa. 66:1-2) imply a rejection of the temple, but rather an argument against the notion that God can be confined to a structure. Solomon, at the dedication of the temple in Jerusalem, said similarly, "The heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?" (1 Kgs. 8:27; 2 Chr. 6:18). As late as the fourth century A.D., Christians were able to point to the spot on the Mount of Olives "where they say the sanctuary of the Lord, that is, the Temple, is to be built, and where it will stand forever…when, as they say, the Lord comes with the heavenly Jerusalem at the end of the world" (Nibley, p. 393).

While the idea of the temple was somewhat submerged in the later Jewish-Christian consciousness, it was never completely forgotten. As Hugh Nibley points out, the Christian church sensed that it possessed no adequate substitute for the temple. Jerusalem remained at the center of medieval maps of the world, and the site of the temple was sometimes indicated on such maps as well. When the Crusaders liberated the holy places in Jerusalem, the site of the temple was visited immediately after that of the Holy Sepulcher, even though no temple had been there for over 1,000 years (Nibley, pp. 392, 399-409).

Jews and Christians who take the vision of the reconstruction of the temple in Ezekiel seriously-and literally-anticipate the place in God's plan of rebuilding a future temple, as well as the reConstitution of distinct tribes of Israel (Ricks, pp. 279-80). While Jewish life proceeded without the temple following its destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70, it retained a significant role in their thought and study. In the modern period, the temple remains important to some Jews, who continue to study their sacred texts relating to it.

Bibliography

McKinlay, Don E. Review of Solomon's Temple: Myth and History, by William J. Hamblin, David Rolph Seely. BYU Studies 47:4 (2008):154-157.

This really helps.

 

[pam]

For anyone that might be interested.  Here is the final product.  I had so much help from one of our members.  I don't even know how to thank him enough. I don't want to give out his username without his permission but we were up past midnight last night working on it.  Well he was working on it as I watched him.     

https://thirdhour.org/blog/faith/lds-temples/10-ancient-connections-to-modern-day-temples/

[askandanswer]

On 6/2/2023 at 1:57 AM, pam said:

For anyone that might be interested.  Here is the final product.  I had so much help from one of our members.  I don't even know how to thank him enough. I don't want to give out his username without his permission but we were up past midnight last night working on it.  Well he was working on it as I watched him.     

https://thirdhour.org/blog/faith/lds-temples/10-ancient-connections-to-modern-day-temples/

I'm really looking forward to your next week's article  

[Vort]

Great article. Well done. Kudos to you both.