TempleStudy.com - LDS Temple Study Blog - Sustaining and Defending the LDS (Mormon) Temple

Catholic Prayer and Mormon Prayer

Bryce Haymond — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:41:14 +0000

Book cover

There is a great article over at LDS Views by Dr. Alonzo Gaskill in which he discusses the differences and similarities between Catholic prayer and Mormon prayer. It is quite interesting the comparisons he makes, particularly those with prayer in the temple. I believe this article is from his latest book Know Your Religions, Vol. 1 - Mormonism and Catholicism.

The focus of the article is on Catholic prayer, and that when Catholics petition saints on their behalf it does not mean that they are praying to them. Gaskill explains that praying to anyone else besides God is against Catholic theology. What they are really doing is asking those saints, those faithful followers of Christ, to pray for them, to combine their faith in petitioning God for blessings.

In this way, Catholic prayer is similar to LDS prayer in the temple, where faithful members of the Church combine their prayers of faith with each other to make it more effectual in reaching God’s throne.

While I have personally witnessed many Catholics seemingly worshiping saints other than God, such a practice does not accord with Catholic teaching. In this case, a benefit of a doubt might be granted, since Latter-day Saints also have practices which don’t accord with our teachings too. My wife once worked for the library at BYU cataloging Mormon folklore, and she could give you a laundry list of interesting practices or beliefs among the Saints.

Read the article at LDS Views here.

Catholic Prayer and Mormon Prayer

Should “I Know” the Church is True?

Bryce Haymond — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:16:18 +0000

See my post at Millennial Star:
http://www.millennialstar.org/2008/08/20/should-i-know-the-church-is-true/

Should “I Know” the Church is True?

Seven Parts of Every Covenant - Victor Ludlow

Bryce Haymond — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:10:29 +0000

Dr. Victor Ludlow, Professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU

Yesterday Dr. Victor Ludlow presented an address about covenants at BYU Education Week. It was reported on by Sean Walker at BYU NewsNet, from which I reference the elements below.

In his presentation Dr. Ludlow explained what a covenant is and how it has been used throughout history in making promises between man and God, and also between man and man; in addition to religious covenants, these types of agreements are also used to seal secular and political deals.

Dr. Ludlow listed seven elements that are part of every covenant-making process (not necessarily in chronological order):

Begins with a preface to explain the covenant and those involved.
Historical context of covenant is explained.
Stipulations are given, or what each party agrees to do.
Ritual act, or some symbolic occurrence that shows that each party has entered into the covenant.
Rewards and punishments, or blessings and cursings, for obeying or breaking the covenant.
Witnesses must be present.
The covenant continues for a determined length of time. Covenants with God that can be for “even eternity.”

When studying any covenant, whether secular or spiritual, it would be good to break it down into these seven elements in order to better understand it, particularly if you are the one entering into the promises.

Seven Parts of Every Covenant - Victor Ludlow

Computer Technology Given to Mankind for Temple Work

Bryce Haymond — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:23:01 +0000

Elder Robert D. Hales, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve gave the devotional address at the beginning of Education Week at Brigham Young University today. Deseret News reported on his talk.

His talk was mainly about gaining knowledge through a lifetime of learning, especially spiritual knowledge. He used the example of Michael Phelps Olympic gold records were only possible by building on previous accomplishments.

One of the points he particularly noted was that by increasing our knowledge and capabilities throughout life, we can bless the Church and its work. He gave an example of family history work. Deseret News reports:

In the 1970s, Elder Theodore H. Burton presented the concept of computers being used for family records and research. “He was even bold enough to teach and proclaim that the computer technology was given to man for his use to hasten the day of family history, genealogy and temple work.”

His proclamation was met with reservations about the size and expense of computers for personal use and how few Latter-day Saints would be able to afford or operate them. Other concerns were the complexity how to make them compatible with temple records.

“All seemed to be reasonable reservations for their time,” he said, yet “today, we are embarking on a new era of family history computer technology.”

He then related details about the New FamilySearch which is being put into place as we speak, and is currently available in half of temple districts around the world.

The lesson in that story is simple, he said. “Never dwell or hold on to the past or attempt to protect your comfort zone against the inevitable changes that will be required to meet future advancements. … Our endings only usher in our new beginnings. The ending of one era ushers in a new era. Lifelong learners do not dwell on the past.

“Past learning creates a valuable foundation of experience upon which to build, not a comfortable place to dwell for a lifetime.”

He then said some valuable words to mothers, that they too can be lifelong learners. I recommend you read the story at Deseret News. I look forward to a transcript of his talk.

[Update 8/20/08: An mp3 (audio) format of his talk is now available here.]

Computer Technology Given to Mankind for Temple Work

“Temples and Ritual in Antiquity” SANE Symposium at BYU

Bryce Haymond — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:33:34 +0000

David Larsen posted a great notice over at Heavenly Ascents of the upcoming “Temples and Ritual in Antiquity” Symposium that will be held at BYU on November 7th, 2008. It is being presented by the Students of the Ancient Near East (SANE), and will have both students and top scholars presenting papers on the temple in antiquity. In fact, David will be presenting there too, as well as Andrew Miller. I will certainly be going to this symposium! It will be like Christmas morning, a smorgasbord of insight in temple studies.

I will see if I can liveblog the event here on TempleStudy.com. The FAIR Conference liveblog (Day 1 & Day 2) seemed to work out well and was beneficial to many people. Unfortunately, they have three speakers going at once, so we’ll only be able to attend 1/3 of all the exceptional presentations that will be presented. It’s a shame they had to consolidate since all of the presentations are no doubt going to be excellent. It appears that a selection will be “printed in a publication from the Religious Studies Center, and several others will be printed in Studia Antiqua” (link). (I’m still trying to find a way to go to Margaret Barker’s Temple Study Symposium in Oxford the next day, November 8th, and Bill Hamblin’s Temple Study SBL group in Boston a couple weeks later).

[Update 8/19/08: Dan McClellan has posted a nice schedule of the presentations, as well as short bios of the presenters, on his blog here.]

See the poll below (viewable only from the website):

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

“Temples and Ritual in Antiquity” SANE Symposium at BYU

Job’s Covenant: Hebrew Tav and “Behold my sign!” in Job 31

Bryce Haymond — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 01:41:08 +0000

A few days ago I wrote about a post I read over at Lehi’s Library which quoted a paper by Kevin Christensen in which he referenced Margaret Barker. The subject was the use of the Hebrew word/letter tau or tav, translated as “mark” in Ezekiel 9:4-6, and what it meant in Ezekiel’s day, and what it may have meant to the Nephites who also referenced it (Jacob 4:14). The conclusion was that it may have referred to an anointing that the high priests received on their foreheads, having literally taken upon themselves the name of God. I was curious to investigate the Hebrew word/letter tav more, which I did, and I want to share some of the intriguing things I discovered.

A small disclaimer. I am most definitely an amateur when it comes to Hebrew, so any insights I might gather should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps someone with greater expertise can make a greater inquiry into this particular subject. These are just some of my observations as I’m learning.

Firstly, the Hebrew word tav is made up of two Hebrew letters, tav and vav, which lends the pronunciation “tawv,” the same way its first letter is pronounced. The letter tav is also where we get our modern Romanized letter T. The definition of this word tav (Strong H8420) according to Brown-Driver-Briggs is simply a “desire” or “mark,” or “mark (as a sign of exemption from judgment).” It is likely a derivative of the Hebrew word tavah (Strong H8427), meaning “to scrabble, limit, mark, or set a mark.” Gesenius gives an interesting description of the word tav:

(1) a sign, Eze. 9:4 (Arab. a sign in the form of a cross branded on the thigh of neck of horses and camels, whence the name of the letter tav, which in Phoenician, and on the coins of the Maccabees has the form of a cross. From the Phoenicians the Greeks and Romans took both the name and form of the letter.)
(2) sign (cruciform), mark subscribed instead of a name to a bill of complaint; hence subscription, Job 31:35. It is stated that at the Synod of Chalcedon and other synods principally in the East, some even of the bishops being unable to write, put the sign of the cross instead of their names, which is still often done by common people in legal proceedings; so that in the infancy of the art of writing this could not fail of being the case, so as for the expression to be received into the usage of language.¹

The next thing I noticed is that the word tav is only found three times in the Hebrew Old Testament. Two of those times are in the 9th chapter of Ezekiel that we’ve already discussed. The only other instance is found in the book of Job:

Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book. (Job 31:35 - KJV)

I immediately saw that the use of the word tav is not as noticeable in this scripture as it is in Ezekiel. The translation “mark” does not appear, neither does the word “sign.” Upon further investigation it appears that the English King James translation has changed the rendering of this verse significantly from what the Hebrew reads. Different renderings can be found in the older Bishops’ Bible (1568) and Geneva Bible (1587), precursors to the King James Version, which seem to record the Hebrew more closely:

O that I had one which woulde heare me: beholde my signe in the whiche the almightie shal aunswere for me, though he that is my contrarie partie hath written a booke against me. (Job 31:35 - Bishops’)

Oh that I had some to heare me! beholde my signe that the Almightie will witnesse for me: though mine aduersary should write a booke against me, (Job 31:35 - Geneva)

Indeed, many commentators agree that a better English rendering of the phrase is “behold my sign” or “behold my mark” or “behold my signature.” This is even reflected in some of the latest translations:

Oh, that I had one to hear me!
Here is my mark.
Oh, that the Almighty would answer me,
That my Prosecutor had written a book! (Job 31:35 - New King James Version, 1982)

Oh that I had one to hear me! Behold, here is my signature; Let the Almighty answer me! And the indictment which my adversary has written, (Job 31:35 - New American Standard Bible, 1995)

So what was Job setting his mark to? What was he signing his signature to? What was the nature of this sign? Or, if we take the meaning we’ve learned from the Ezekiel context, why was he calling attention to his anointed status? Furthermore, if the Name that the high priests received in their forehead was the Lord’s, was Job’s mark his own, or was it the Lord’s? These are all interesting questions to ponder and consider. I’ll try to give some brief context, which might help to illuminate the meaning of this scripture.

Most of us know the story given in the book of Job in the Bible. Job is introduced to us as a just and upright man, who was obedient to God and rejected evil; he is even noted as being “perfect” (Job 1:1; perfect = Hebrew tam, meaning complete, perfect, sound, wholesome, morally innocent, ethically pure). Job was blessed greatly, and was quite prosperous, having a large family and many possessions which gave him the title of being “the greatest of all the men of the east” (Job 1:2-3). He performed temple-related labors for his household (Job 1:5). Along comes Satan who makes an agreement with the Lord to test and try Job in his faithfulness (Job 1:7-12). Through these trials Job loses his possessions, his family, and his health (Job 1-2). Through all of his tribulations, Job stays true to God, and bears his afflictions with patience, continually calling upon the name of God. Three “friends” come along and tell him that he must have sinned for such punishments to have been inflicted upon him, and that he must repent. Another stranger also condemns him for what he has done. In all of this Job stands firm in the conviction that he has been faithful and true to God, and has not sinned to cause these trials to come upon him.

Job pleading with the Lord

Job makes continual pleadings that God would hear him, and that they could converse with one another:

Oh that I might have my request; and that God would grant me the thing that I long for! (Job 6:8)

Whom, though I were righteous, yet would I not answer, but I would make supplication to my judge. If I had called, and he had answered me; yet would I not believe that he had hearkened unto my voice. (Job 9:15-16)

Surely I would speak to the Almighty, and I desire to reason with God. (Job. 13:3)

Then call thou, and I will answer: or let me speak, and answer thou me. (Job. 13:22)

Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee… (Job 14:15)

Oh that I knew where I might find him! that I might come even to his seat! … I would know the words which he would answer me, and understand what he would say unto me. (Job 23:3, 5)

Such pleadings recall the Psalmist pattern of prayer for the Lord to hear or give ear to the petitioner (see Ps. 54:2).

Then, what we come to in chapter 31 is a turning point in the narrative, as Matthew Henry informs us:

Job had often protested his integrity in general; here he does it in particular instances, not in a way of commendation (for he does not here proclaim his good deeds), but in his own just and necessary vindication, to clear himself from those crimes with which his friends had falsely charged him, which is a debt every man owes to his own reputation.²

Chapter 31 has been labelled “Job’s Covenant”³. Job himself notes in verse 1 that “I made a covenant with mine eyes…” Here Job is announcing to one and all the covenant that he has taken upon himself, and which he has not broken, including the specific laws or virtues by which he has bound himself to God. Dr. Stephen Ricks from BYU also has noted the covenant pattern of this chapter in his paper “Oaths and Oath Taking in the Old Testament“:

The force of an oath may be strengthened by expressly stating the penalties incurred for failure to perform it. The number of explicitly mentioned curses is relatively limited in the Old Testament. An outstanding example of the oath and curse appearing together is in Job 31, where Job, in defense of his actions, calls down a series of terrible curses upon himself if he has failed to live uprightly: “If I have walked with vanity, or if my foot hath hasted to deceit; Let me be weighed in an even balance. . . . Then let me sow, and let another eat; yea, let my offspring be rooted out” (Job 31:5–8; see Psalms 7:3–5; 137:5–6).⁴

Job lists a number of laws or commandments which he has obeyed as part of this covenant, and, if he has not fulfilled them, welcomes down penalties upon his head. The sins that he denies committing are:

wantonness & uncleanliness (v. 1-4)
fraud, deceit, dishonesty in dealings (v. 4-8)
adultery (v. 9-12)
poor dealings with fellow man (v. 13-15)
bad treatment of the poor, widows, or fatherless (v. 16-23)
love of wealth (v. 24-25)
idolatry (v. 26-28)
revenge (v. 29-31)
inhospitality of the poor/strangers (v. 32)
hypocrisy in covering sin (v. 33)
oppression and violation of other’s rights (v. 38-40)⁵

At verse 35, Job appeals to the judgment bar of God to vindicate his righteousness. He requests that God would hear him or give him a hearing at His bar, and then displays a mark or sign (our Hebrew tav) which somehow represents all of the covenant that he has just finished reciting and which he has faithfully obeyed in his life, and asks if God would answer him (respond, testify, witness) of its truth. The Geneva Bible Translation Notes record the intent of Job:

This is a sufficient token of my righteousness, that God is my witness and will justify my cause.⁶

Albert Barnes gives us further insight into the potential meaning of the sign or mark given by Job:

According to this, Job means to say that he was ready for trial, and that there was his bill of complaint, or his pleading, or his bill of defense. So Herder renders it, “See my defense.” Coverdale, “Lo, this is my cause.” Miss Smith renders it, “Behold my gage!” Umbreit, Meinel Kagschrift - My accusation. There can be no doubt that it refers to the forms of a judicial investigation, and that the idea is, that Job was ready for the trial. “Here” says he, “is my defense, my argument, my pleading, my bill! I wait that my adversary should come to the trial.” The name used here as given to the bill or pleading (תו tâv, mark, or sign), probably had its origin from the fact that some mark was affixed to it - of some such significance as a seal - by which it was certified to be the real bill of the party, and by which he acknowledged it as his own. This might have been done by signing his name, or by some conventional mark that was common in those times.⁷

Moreover, looking at the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament reveals yet another possible translation for the “mark” in Job 31:35. A literal translation of the Greek reads:

oh that there might be given one to hear me, of the hand but of the Lord unless I was in awe; and as to a writ which I had against anyone, (Job 31:35 - The Apostolic Bible)

The word translated as “hand” comes from the Greek cheir (Strong 5495) meaning “by the help or agency of any one” or figuratively “applied to God symbolizing his might, activity, power,” and is often translated as “hand,” “hands,” or once “grasp” in the New American Standard translation.

The following verses continue Job’s surety of victory and of his at-one-ment with God:

Surely I would take it upon my shoulder, and bind it as a crown to me. I would declare unto him the number of my steps; as a prince would I go near unto him. (Job 31:36-37)

The chapters which follow include the Lord responding to Job, from out of a whirlwind or from the “veil of a dark cloud” (Job 38:1)⁸, thus granting his pleadings for questions and answers:

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. (Job. 38:3)

Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. (Job. 40:7)

The Lord recounts to Job the unmatched power of God in comparison to the lowliness of man, including an accounting of the supreme strength and power which He is able to bestow according to His will upon His creations, such as the animals behemoth and leviathan:

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. (Job 40:15-19)⁹

Job confesses to God’s power, that He can do everything, and humbles himself before the Lord (Job 42:2). Job repeats his wish of a hearing before God:

Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. (Job 42:4)

Job is now granted his wish, and experiences a theophany or vision of the Lord:

I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. (Job. 42:5)

The Lord accepts Job (Job 42:9), and bestows upon him twice as much as he had before, both in terms of possessions and in family value and posterity (Job 42:10, 15-16), a blessing for his obedience and faithfulness to God despite the temptations which Satan had heaped upon him to test and try him. Interestingly, in many ways Job’s life is a “historical prototype of Jesus: the Man of Sorrows”¹⁰.

In conclusion, the book of Job is replete with this imagery which I had not before recognized, and which I don’t think has been studied in depth before from this LDS perspective, particularly chapters 31 and 40-42. Clearly there is much more work that could be done here. Looking further into the meaning of the original Hebrew (or Greek) is especially instructive. No doubt this is why the Prophet Joseph Smith was so interested in learning the original language of the scriptures, and in having the brethren around him to do the same, so they could better understand God’s word.

Job’s Covenant: Hebrew Tav and “Behold my sign!” in Job 31

Notes:

Blue Letter Bible, http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H08420&t=kjv
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Job 31
The Apostolic Bible, http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/
Stephen Ricks, “Oaths and Oath Taking in the Old Testament,” The Temple in Time and Eternity, link.
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Job 31
Geneva Bible Translation Notes, Job 31:35
Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible, Job 31:35
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Job 42:5
Leviathan is described in chapter 41. Recalls the sacred bull in Egyptian theology. See also my articles on the ankh. Dr. Bill Hamblin has noted that “Horus fights Seth in the form of a Hippopotamus,” and a hippo has often been regarded as the animal referenced as behemoth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_job#In_Christianity

“New Proposed Location for Solomon’s Temple” at Meridian Magazine

Bryce Haymond — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:57:02 +0000

Tradition has held that Solomon’s Temple, the first permanent temple that the Israelites built in Jerusalem around 968 B.C. and destroyed around 587 B.C. by Nebuchadnezzar, was located on the same site as the modern-day Muslim mosque, the Dome of the Rock. A new archaeological team made up of Garth Norman, Lance Harding, Jason Jones, and John Pratt who have been studying the subject for several months propose that the original temple might have actually been located between the modern Dome of the Rock and the Dome of the Tablets. They propose that Solomon’s Temple could be rebuilt, the Third Temple, on its precise original location without disturbing the standing Muslim mosque. At least 20 other locations have been proposed for the site, including Margaret Barker’s last Monday, so it will be interesting to see how this new theory is accepted.

See the full article at Meridian Magazine:
http://meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/080815temple.html

Some of the evidence this new theory presents seems somewhat unconvincing to me, such as the “pillar base.” Could a pillar base from Solomon’s Temple really have survived intact on the temple mount since 587 B.C.? What have other scholars proposed as the purpose of this stone, which stands out in the middle of the otherwise flat temple mount? If that is where Solomon’s temple originally stood, and the pillar base is intact, would we not also see some evidence for the exterior or interior walls?

The question has been asked, and could be asked again, if the Third Temple has to be built directly on the first temple site at all, or only near it. What do you think about this latest theory?

“New Proposed Location for Solomon’s Temple” at Meridian Magazine

Many More Ordinances Including Resurrection

Bryce Haymond — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:07:42 +0000

Brigham Young - June 1, 1871 - 70th birthday

I came across a talk from President Brigham Young that was deeply insightful, and I want to share a portion. It is from an address he gave on August 24, 1872 in Farmington, Utah, and reported by David W. Evans. In it President Young describes the ordinances of the temple, and the many ordinances that we have yet to receive, including resurrection.

Now a few words to the brethren and sisters upon the doctrine and ordinances of the house of God. All who have lived on the earth according to the best light they had, and would have received the fullness of the Gospel had it been preached to them, are worthy of a glorious resurrection, and will attain to this by being administered for in the flesh by those who have the authority. All others will have a resurrection, and receive a glory, except those who have sinned against the Holy Ghost.

It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and exaltation, and that we are administering in these ordinances. This is not the case. We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would ask what they are. I will mention one.

We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more.

We hold the authority to dispose of, alter and change the elements; but we have not received authority to organize native element to even make a spear of grass grow. We have no such ordinance here. We organize according to men in the flesh. By combining the elements and planting the seed, we cause vegetables, trees, grains, &c., to come forth. We are organizing a kingdom here according to the pattern that the Lord has given for people in the flesh, but not for those who have received the resurrection, although it is a similitude.

Another item: We have not the power in the flesh to create and bring forth or produce a spirit; but we have the power to produce a temporal body. The germ of this, God has placed within us. And when our spirits receive our bodies, and through our faithfulness we are worthy to be crowned, we will then receive authority to produce both spirit and body. But these keys we cannot receive in the flesh. Herein, brethren, you can perceive that we have not finished, and cannot finish our work, while we live here, no more than Jesus did while he was in the flesh.

We can not receive, while in the flesh, the keys to form and fashion kingdoms and to organize matter, for they are beyond our capacity and calling, beyond this world. In the resurrection, men who have been faithful and diligent in all things in the flesh, have kept their first and second estate, and worthy to be crowned Gods, even the sons of God, will be ordained to organize matter. How much matter do you suppose there is between here and some of the fixed stars which we can see? Enough to frame many, very many millions of such earths as this, yet it is now so diffused, clear and pure, that we look through it and behold the stars. Yet the matter is there. Can you form any conception of this? Can you form any idea of the minuteness of matter?….

We will operate here, in all the ordinances of the house of God which pertain to this side the vail, and those who pass beyond and secure to themselves a resurrection pertaining to the lives will go on and receive more and more, more and more, and will receive one after another until they are crowned Gods, even the sons of God. This idea is very consoling. We are now baptizing for the dead, and we are sealing for the dead, and if we had a temple prepared we should be giving endowments for the dead-for our fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, aunts, relatives, friends and old associates, the history of whom we are now getting from our friends in the east….

I am going to stop my talking by saying that, in the millennium, when the kingdom of God is established on the earth in power, glory and perfection, and the reign of wickedness that has so long prevailed is subdued, the Saints of God will have the privilege of building their temples, and of entering into them, becoming, as it were, pillars in the temples of God, and they will officiate for their dead. Then we will see our friends come up, and perhaps some that we have been acquainted with here. If we ask who will stand at the head of the resurrection in this last dispensation, the answer is-Joseph Smith, Junior, the Prophet of God. He is the man who will be resurrected and receive the keys of the resurrection, and he will seal this authority upon others, and they will hunt up their friends and resurrect them when they shall have been officiated for, and bring them up. And we will have revelations to know our forefathers clear back to Father Adam and Mother Eve, and we will enter into the temples of God and officiate for them. Then man will be sealed to man until the chain is made perfect back to Adam, so that there will be a perfect chain of priesthood from Adam to the winding-up scene.

This will be the work of the Latter-day Saints in the millennium. How much time do you suppose we have to attend to and foster Babylon? I leave this question for you to answer at your pleasure. I have no time at all for that, I say, and stop my sayings. (Journal of Discourses, 15:137-38).

Many More Ordinances Including Resurrection

The “Mark” of Anointing

Bryce Haymond — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:42:49 +0000

The Annointing of David by Samuel, Breviary of Martin d'Aragon, 14th Century.

A few days ago I read a post by James over at his superb blog, Lehi’s Library, entitled, “Looking Beyond the Mark: Insights from Margaret Barker.” In it, James refers to an excellent article by Kevin Christensen who talks about the Deuteronomist de-Christianizing of the Old Testament and Josiah’s reforms¹. I thought he made some great points that I want to reiterate and further discuss.

The LDS Church been criticized for superimposing a Mormon/Christian theology onto the Old Testament, particularly with the Book of Mormon that relates Christian/Messiah concepts and practices in place among Israelites before the coming of Christ. The latest scholarship, however, particularly that of Margaret Barker, is slowly pulling back the veil of the Old Testament, showing that certain portions of Israelite history may have been rewritten, changed, or otherwise removed as part of King Josiah’s reforms around the time of Lehi (compare 1 Nephi 13). These reforms were instituted to mask the first temple (Solomon’s) theology and practice, including the belief in a polytheistic God (El/Yahweh), and a Messiah or “Anointed One” which the high priest in the first temple symbolized.

As an example of the effects of such reforms, Christensen shows that Lehi was called to preach in Jerusalem of an anointed Messiah who would come, which was in direct opposition to the prevailing authorities of his time, but which hearkened back to the former “Messiah” religion (1 Nephi 1:19). Christensen also points out that Jeremiah, like Lehi, “appears to have been called against the very people who put Josiah in power, and thus against the very people and institutions who would have been implementing the reforms at the time of his call”². Lehi’s son Jacob later related the condition of the Jews in Jerusalem at the time, and what Lehi and Jeremiah were up against:

But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble. (Jacob 4:14)

Christensen posits that the “mark” that Jacob referenced was the same that Ezekiel, another contemporary of Lehi, used in his writings. Margaret Barker gave a commentary that the “mark” used by Ezekiel in vision in Ezek. 9:4-6 was the Hebrew letter tau or tav, the last letter in the Hebrew alphabet, which the angels marked in the foreheads of the righteous. In the Paleo-Hebrew script of Ezekiel’s day, this letter would have been a diagonal cross. Barker goes on to describe further what this “mark” might have represented to the older religion:

The rabbis also remember that the anointed high priests of the first temple had been anointed on the forehead with the sign of a diagonal cross. This diagonal cross was the sign of the Name on their foreheads, the mark which Ezekiel described as the letter tau.³

A note in Wikipedia corroborates Barker, noting that the Hebrew word emet, meaning truth, ends with the letter tav, and has an interesting tradition associated with it:

In Jewish mythology it was the word emet that was carved into the head of the golem which ultimately gave it life. But when the letter “aleph” was erased from the golem’s forehead, what was left was “met” - death. And so the golem died.⁴

Christensen concludes that such a “mark,” therefore, may have represented to the Nephites the taking upon themselves the “name” of the Messiah (Hebrew), or Christ (Greek), both meaning the “anointed One.” As Barker showed, taking upon themselves His name involved being anointed, or receiving an unction or chrism, which made each like the Christ, sons of God, anointed ones, a pre-exilic first temple practice and theology which the Deuteronomist reformers in Jerusalem were in contest to cover up.

The gospel that Jesus Christ taught was a restoration of what had been previously known in ancient Israel, and if we use this latest Old Testament scholarship, allusions to an anointing being reinstituted are found among His disciples using the same language. A reference to “marks” appears in Paul’s New Testament epistle to the Galatians:

From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. (Gal. 6:17)

Even among all the references to Satan’s counterfeit of the “mark of the beast” in Revelations, the Apostle John also notes that God has His own “mark” which He sets and seals upon the forehead of the righteous.

2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. (Rev. 7:2-3)

4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. (Rev. 9:4)

3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. (Rev. 22:3-4)

That Christ was anointed is unquestioned (Acts 10:38). But we also read references to the disciples and saints being anointed as well, by God, and thus becoming like Christ, or as C.S. Lewis put it “little Christs” (compare Acts 10:38 and Mark 3:14-15). Paul taught the saints in Corinth:

21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;
22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. (2 Cor. 1:21-22)

John also taught of the anointing of the saints:

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 Jn. 2:27)

I wrote a post previously about how this “mark” or anointing sealing has been restored in Christ’s church today. The only way one becomes a Christian, in the true sense of the word, is by being anointed by God as Christ was.

The “Mark” of Anointing

Notes:

Kevin Christensen, “The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament,” FARMS Review, 16.2, http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=547
ibid.
Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, Which God Gave Him to Show to His Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1.1) (Edinburgh: Clark, 2000), 162.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taw_(letter)

Margaret Barker Interview - Part 7b (Temple in the Modern World)

Bryce Haymond — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:56:16 +0000

“We have to try to get through the filter of the later editing… But deep down, there was something there. I’m mean this [the temple] is a cultural icon, it’s shaped our pictures of the garden of Eden, it’s shaped our pictures of what it is to be a human being. Because Adam is the great high priest, and everything that happened within that setting, for better or worse, has shaped the Western world’s idea of what it means to be human. It’s a huge thing to discover…” —Margaret Barker

Margaret Barker Interview - Part 7b (Temple in the Modern World)

Margaret Barker Interview - Part 7a (Location of the Temple)

Bryce Haymond — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:40:41 +0000

“…the building of the Second Temple involved leveling a new site… I mean, as far as I can see, the Zachariah prophesies about the mountain becoming a plain and building all that sort of thing, they are implying that a new mountaintop site is to be used for the rebuilt temple. That suggests to me that the site of the first temple was not the site of the second temple.” —Margaret Barker

Margaret Barker Interview - Part 7a (Location of the Temple)

Margaret Barker Interview - Part 6 (Seeing the Face of God)

Bryce Haymond — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:44:12 +0000

“The original purpose of the temple pilgrimage, was that you went to the temple to see the face of the Lord. Yea? In the old calendars ‘each of your males will see the face of the Lord’… By the time you’re reading the Masoretic texts as we have now, ‘each of your males will be seen in the presence of the Lord’… it’s been changed. Because the idea that you saw the presence of God was unthinkable, so they said, well, ok, you appear in the presence of God, you present yourself in the temple…” —Margaret Barker

“So we know that somebody thought it was you are seeing the face of the Lord. Yea. Very interesting, very interesting. So someone has been at work, changing the docs, and we know which way.” —Margaret Barker

“I think Melchizedek was a theophany of Yahweh. The Jewish interpretation, certainly the next passage, … Yahweh is the great high priest, and he is the one, as you have in the temple, you know, the great high priest is Yahweh, and he is the priest to God Most High. So you’ve got a hierarchy of priests. And I think that is how Genesis 15 was interpreted. Where, in the Apocalypse of Abraham, Abraham sees, mostly clearly, Melchizedek, but he describes him as … the angel Yahweh, and he is dressed as a high priest, with his purple and his… turban thing, and yes, it’s all very very interesting… all the other earlier sources… Melchizedek is the priest of El Elyon, almost certainly Yahweh, part of the great angel hierarchy. I mean, the implications of that for Melchizedek priesthood, is just mind boggling, absolutely mind boggling… So there is a lot of work for people to do, waiting to be done. Oh dear, it would be nice if we didn’t need sleep. We’d get such a lot more done!” —Margaret Barker

Margaret Barker Interview - Part 6 (Seeing the Face of God)

Margaret Barker Interview - Part 5 (Social Implications)

Bryce Haymond — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:54:47 +0000

“… the Old Testament describes idolatry as the work of human hands. So if you worship the work of human hands, the political system, economics, anything like that, that is idolatry. The consequence of idolatry, according to the commandments, is that the third and fourth generation suffer from their iniquity.” —Margaret Barker

“A single parent is actually a contradiction in terms. What you’ve actually got is an abandonment. But you’re not allowed to say that. Because it is usually the mum who is bringing up the child.” —Margaret Barker

“The image of God. That is what we were created in, isn’t it? … That is the basis of human dignity. And if you deny that image in yourself, you are denying the most precious thing. If you say, I am no more than the skin and bones, … you’d have lost the most important thing of all. … I don’t know if you have this in America, but in magazines you have all this ‘Let’s give you a new image!’ You know, and you have your hair dyed and plastic surgery, and all the rest of it. You don’t need a new image! You know, we’ve got the greatest image already, but most people don’t know that. You are the image of God… and that defines your rights and your responsibilities.” —Margaret Barker

Margaret Barker Interview - Part 5 (Social Implications)

TempleStudy.com - LDS Temple Study Blog - Sustaining and Defending the LDS (Mormon) Temple

Catholic Prayer and Mormon Prayer

Related Posts

Should “I Know” the Church is True?

Related Posts

Seven Parts of Every Covenant - Victor Ludlow

Related Posts

Computer Technology Given to Mankind for Temple Work

Related Posts

“Temples and Ritual in Antiquity” SANE Symposium at BYU

Related Posts

Job’s Covenant: Hebrew Tav and “Behold my sign!” in Job 31

Related Posts

“New Proposed Location for Solomon’s Temple” at Meridian Magazine

Related Posts

Many More Ordinances Including Resurrection

Related Posts

The “Mark” of Anointing

Related Posts

Margaret Barker Interview - Part 7b (Temple in the Modern World)

Related Posts

Margaret Barker Interview - Part 7a (Location of the Temple)

Related Posts

Margaret Barker Interview - Part 6 (Seeing the Face of God)

Related Posts

Margaret Barker Interview - Part 5 (Social Implications)

Related Posts