Thus Holiness to the Lord would mean set apart for or to the Lord

“Sacred” comes from the Latin sacrum, which referred to god and to sacer, priest; sanctum, set apart. It was generally conceived spatially.

“Holy” and “holiness” come from 13th Century with the Old English word hālig derived from hāl meaning health, happiness and wholeness. As "wholeness", holiness may be taken to indicate a state of religious completeness or perfection.

To properly communicate why temples are dedicated or set apart to and for the Lord use of the Holy would help our Christian brothers. We have, I think, relied too much on the simplistic alliteration “sacred not secret” to communicate what may be more completely understood by the phrase “Holiness to the Lord” as a setting apart for the Lord.

It would be nice to see some of the same or similar comments above left on the ABC News site. It would also be beneficial to see links – (if possible, I haven’t tried it yet) – in a few of these comments back to your blog, or at least to specific posts on your blog. You have so many posts about the rich history of temple building and worship that touches upon so many religious traditions that it may assist some in putting this story into some context.

Just a thought.

Would it really kill these reporters to just portray the Church as it is and not as a caricature of their prejudices? It really can be done properly in 9 minutes. Really.

I agree with Geoff B. Why even mention the FLDS? What was the point in doing that? I thought the purpose of the interview was to dispel the “myths” of Mormonism. It seem like they were trying to maintain speculations. Also, I felt the introductory to the interview was a bit awkward. Where the anchor mention that the Mormon church is now opening the “doors in attempted to dispel some of the myths surrounding their faith”. This as always bothered me because we have 50,000 to 60,000 missionaries throughout the world and 13 million members who share the gospel. The church has been sending missionaries throughout the world since the 1830′s. I feel the church has always been opening the “doors” to others, people aren’t just listening.

Overall, the interview was better than many others. Eventually the church will get it’s message to all the world because the scriptures say that none will be left with excuse.

To better understand doctrinally why the church supported Prop 8, I recommend Elder Oaks’s talk entitled, “Same-Gender Attraction”. Read the 11 Gospel Doctrines he outlines and ask yourself, how would those doctrines be maintained if the church supported and allowed gay marriage? For example, Elder Oaks mentions, “The purpose of mortal life and the mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to prepare the sons and daughters of God for their destiny--to become like our heavenly parents”. How would supporting gay marriage prepare God’s children for their destiny-to become like our heavenly parents? It wouldn’t. In fact, it would be contrary to it’s purpose. It’s an interested exercise which I recommend to do. The church isn’t picking on anyone. It’s defending the gospel of Christ.

In my opinion Elders Ballard and Cook did not expresse clear enough that the teachings of the Church concerning marriage between man and woman are not only teachings of the Church but comes from God through revelation.

Overall, the report was quite balanced and described some of the rooms in the temple. It didn’t spend a lot of time on Prop 8 but stuck to the purpose for which the reporters had come. The only thing that didn’t seem to sit well with me was the way the Elders seemed to talk to the reporter, or in other words, as if he understood words like “baptistry” or “sealed for time and all eternity”. For some reason it sort of rubbed me the wrong way and I can’t put my finger on why. Perhaps I was hoping that these terms, which make sense to us, would have been adjusted for the layman like President Hickley was able to do or at least clarify. Or I am just too sensitive about it.

I just came away with the distinct impression that a person listening to NPR whose only knowledge about the Church was about Prop 8 listened and it was a wasted opportunity to clarify exactly what really happens in a temple to an audience who will probably never hear it from someone so official. Maybe I’m just too sensitive about that.

Overall, the story was better than some, however. I agree the Church did not get an opportunity to defend itself on Prop. 8 the way it could have, but that’s to be expected with these types of reports.