Elder Richard G. Scott

In the April General Conference earlier this year Elder Richard G. Scott spoke about the temple.  He said:

I have seen that many times individuals have made great sacrifices to go to a distant temple. But when a temple is built close by, within a short time, many do not visit it regularly.  I have a suggestion: When a temple is conveniently nearby, small things may interrupt your plans to go to the temple. Set specific goals, considering your circumstances, of when you can and will participate in temple ordinances. Then do not allow anything to interfere with that plan. This pattern will guarantee that those who live in the shadow of a temple will be as blessed as are those who plan far ahead and make a long trip to the temple.

As Elder Scott suggested, one way to succeed in attending the temple regularly is to identity those things that interfere, and either eliminate them, work around them, or correct them.

So, we come to the poll below (only visible on the website).  This poll is completely anonymous.  Feel free to explain your choices, or “other” selection, in the comments, and how you plan to overcome your interferences.

Poll – Top Things that Interfere with Regular Temple Attendance?

William Weeks Nauvoo Temple architectural plan. (Click for larger view)

It is my honor and pleasure to introduce a new guest blogger to TempleStudy.com, Matthew B. Brown.  Many of you may already be familiar with the great work of this historian, scholar, and author.  If you are not, I heartily recommend his work to you. One of my favorite books on the temple is by Br. Brown, The Gate of Heaven: Insights on the Doctrines and Symbols of the Temple.  A big thanks to Br. Brown for sharing his insights with us here on TempleStudy.com.  -Bryce

Guest Blogger: Matthew B. Brown holds a degree in history from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. He is the author of ten books and has published articles with the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU (aka FARMS). Matthew serves as a volunteer researcher, editor, and respondent for The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) and has spoken at several of their annual conferences. He has also been featured on TV and radio programs as well as at a number of seminars and symposiums.

On 19 January 1841 the Lord issued an important revelation through the Prophet Joseph Smith which is now known as Doctrine and Covenants section 124.¹ There are many verses within this revelation where the Lord describes concepts associated with the Nauvoo temple. These concepts can be placed under five general categories so that they can be more easily evaluated: The Lord's People, The Lord's Commands, The Lord's House, The Priesthood, and The Ordinances. This article is calculated to help students of the past more accurately understand what (and how much) the Lord revealed about the temple in Nauvoo, Illinois by the first month of the year in 1841. It is also designed to show intriguing connections between the Mormons who lived in the first half of the nineteenth century and what took place among the covenant people of the biblical period. 

The Lord's People

In the temple-related material recorded in D&C 124 the Lord uses two different terms to identify the group to whom He is speaking. In verses 39 and 40 He calls them "my people" while in verses 25, 29, and 31 He describes them as "my saints." In either case, the idea receiving emphasis is that they are the Lord's possession--they belong to Him. This notion of belonging to the Lord is tied in the Old Testament to being in a covenant relationship with Him (see Ex. 19:5)² and being a "holy people" (Deut. 14:2). Indeed, one word translated as "saint" in the Old Testament is the Hebrew qadosh (meaning 'holy')³ and another is hasid (meaning 'godly'),⁴ while in the New Testament it is the Greek hagios (also meaning 'holy').⁵

It should be noted that the phrase "my people" was utilized in an ancient Hebrew formulary when a covenant relationship was being formed. It was said by Deity with regard to the participating parties, "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Ezek. 37:27; emphasis added). Notice that in the rest of this passage from the book of Ezekiel the Lord states, "my tabernacle" or temple "shall be with them." This should be compared to Revelation 21:3 where it is said, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them [cf. D&C 124:27; Ex. 25:8, 29:45], and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them [cf. D&C 124:28], and be their God."

The Lord's Commands

It is interesting to note that there are nine temple-related commands given to the Saints, by the Lord, in the 124th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. And it seems to be more than a mere coincidence that these directives are closely matched by what is said about the temple on the pages of the Old Testament.

1. LDS: The Lord said, 'send out messengers' (see D&C 124:26). ISRAELITES: Solomon sent his servants to talk to king Hiram about the temple project (see 1 Kgs. 5:1-6).
2. LDS: The Lord said, 'gather the Saints' (see D&C 124:25). ISRAELITES: there was a gathering in order to build the temple (see 1 Chr. 22:2).
3. LDS: The Lord said, 'assemble construction materials' (see D&C 124:26-27). ISRAELITES: there was a divine command to take an offering of construction materials (see Ex. 25:1-7).
4. LDS: The Lord said, 'build a temple' (see D&C 124:31). ISRAELITES: The Lord said, "let [the children of Israel] make me a sanctuary" (Ex. 25:8).
5. LDS: The Lord said, 'raise it to my name' (see D&C 124:27, 40). ISRAELITES: The Lord said, "build the house unto my name" (1 Kgs. 8:19, 44, 48 and 1 Kgs. 5:5).
6. LDS: The Lord said, 'erect it in a particular place' (see D&C 124:43). ISRAELITES: God commanded the building of a temple in a particular city (Ezra 1:2).
7. LDS: The Lord said, 'bestow ritual elements upon certain individuals' (see D&C 124:95, 97)⁶. ISRAELITES: The Lord said, 'bestow specific rituals on certain individuals' (see Ex. 29:1).
8. LDS: The Lord said, 'assign priesthood officers' (see D&C 124:144). ISRAELITES: The Lord assigned priesthood officers (Ex. 28:1).
9. LDS: The Lord said, 'construct rooms for priesthood officers inside of the temple' (see D&C 124:145). ISRAELITES: Solomon's temple included a courtyard for the priests (see 2 Chr. 4:9) and the revelatory temple design recorded in the book of Ezekiel had chambers for the priests (see Ezek. 40:45-46).

Since two of the commands above come from verse 26 in section 124 it is interesting to make note of specific Old Testament parallels associated with this passage. The Doctrine and Covenants verse reads: "And send ye swift messengers, yea, chosen messengers, and say unto them: Come ye, with all your gold and your silver, and your precious stones, and with all your antiquities; and with⁷ all who have knowledge of antiquities, that will come, may come, and bring the box-tree, and the fir-tree, and the pine-tree, together with all the precious trees of the earth." Mention of 'swift messengers' being sent out to members of a scattered nation can be found in Isaiah 18:2. The invitation to 'come' together for the purpose of temple construction is matched by words found in Exodus 36:2. The building materials listed in D&C 124:26-27 (gold, silver, brass, iron, wood, stones) goes right along with what is said in Exodus 25:2-3, 5, 7 and 1 Chronicles 22:14. Even the same types of wood to be used in the construction process are repeated in Isaiah 60:13. Finally, there is the curious reference in D&C 124:26 to persons who have "knowledge of antiquities." A match in wording can be found in Exodus 31:3 and Exodus 36:1-2 where the temple builders are said to be filled with "knowledge" of workmanship necessary for carrying out their task. By checking a popular English dictionary from the early nineteenth century one discovers that "antiquities" includes "edifices,"⁸ and so it may be that the Lord is indicating in verse 26 that it will be useful for the modern temple constructors in Nauvoo to possess knowledge about the ancient temples of the Bible.

The Lord's House

In addition to what has already been demonstrated above, there are connections to be ascertained between the way the Nauvoo Temple is described in the Doctrine and Covenants and the descriptions of Israelites temples in the Old Testament. Consider the exacting parallels and the proposed links in the following five categories.

Pattern:

• design details provided by the Lord (D&C 124:42 / Ex. 25:9, 40)

Character:

• place of holiness (D&C 124:39, 44 / Ex. 28:36, 29:43)
• place of honor and glory (D&C 124:34 / 1 Chr. 16:27)
• place of revelation (D&C 124:39 / Ex. 29:42)
• place of dwelling for Deity (D&C 124:27 / Ex. 25:8)
• dedicated to the Lord's name (D&C 124:40 / 1 Kgs. 8:16-20)

Materials:

• built of precious stones, woods, and metals (D&C 124:26-27 / 1 Chr. 29:2)

Objects:

• water receptacle [implied by "washings" rite] (D&C 124:39 / Ex. 40:30-32)
• oil receptacle [implied by "anointings" rite] (D&C 124:39 / 1 Kgs. 1:39)
• "font" (D&C 124:29) which matches the form of the Solomonic "sea" (2 Chr. 4:15)

Divisions:

D&C 124 includes direct and indirect evidence for contemplated spacial divisions inside of the Nauvoo Temple and these divisions have counterparts within biblical sanctuaries. The "most holy" place⁹ mentioned in verse 39 of section 124 is an unmistakable reference to the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle built by Moses and the Temple constructed by king Solomon (see Ex 26:33-34; 1 Kgs. 6:16, 19). The reference to an "assembly" in D&C 124:39 may possibly be connected with the assembly that was commanded to meet at the door of the Tabernacle proper--which served as the entryway into the Holy Place of the temple (see Num. 10:1-3). Sacrifice is likewise mentioned in the 39th verse of section 124 and since sacrifice in the Israelite temple took place at the altar (see Isa. 56:7) which was situated out in the courtyard of the complex (see Ex. 40:33) verse 39 seems to make an allusion to both the outermost space and the central ritual object which was placed there.

The Priesthood

The Lord discusses the priesthood and related subjects in several verses of D&C 124. He provides a lengthy list of the officers of His priesthood (see vv. 123-144)¹⁰ and directs that rooms be built for them within His temple (see v. 145).¹¹ The Lord also indicates that He is naming these priesthood holders and their respective offices so that they may "hold the keys thereof" and thereby legitimately engage in the work of governing and perfecting the Saints (vv. 123, 143). The Lord further reveals that "the keys of the holy priesthood" are "ordained"¹² specifically for the temple (v. 34) and He will show the Prophet Joseph Smith "all things pertaining to . . . the priesthood" of His holy house (v. 42), even all things connected with "the fulness of the priesthood" (v. 28).¹³

In D&C 124:39 the Lord makes a connection between Latter-day Saints and the ancient "sons of Levi" or Israelite temple priests (see Deut. 21:5, 31:9). The Old Testament states that it was "the sons of Levi . . . [who] did the work for the service of the house of the Lord" (1 Chr. 23:24). More specifically, they made offerings unto the Lord (see Mal. 3:3) and "c[a]me near to the Lord to minister unto Him" (Ezek. 40:46). Because the ancient sons of Levi ministered within the temple precincts they were required to wear "holy garments"--the pattern of which was revealed by the Lord Himself (Ex. 28:1-4).

The Ordinances

When the temple priests of ancient Israel received their sacral clothing during their induction into office they also participated in several rituals. Included among these rites were washing with water (see Ex. 29:4, 40:30-32) and anointing with oil (see Lev. 8:30). These very same ordinances were prescribed by the Lord for his modern temple ministers in the 124th section of the Doctrine and Covenants (see vv. 37, 39).

The "sacrifices" of section 124 verse 39 can certainly be classified as ordinances but the wording of verse 39 distinguishes them from their Old Testament counterparts. Whereas the ancient temple priests actually slew animals at an altar the Latter-day Saints were only going to offer "memorials" of those sacrifices. The word "memorial" was defined in Joseph Smith's day as "that which preserves the memory of something; anything that serves to keep in memory."¹⁴

Baptism for the dead receives a significant amount of attention in D&C 124 (see vv. 29-33, 35-36, 39). The Lord orders, in this revelation, that a font--instead of a natural body of water--be used for this ceremony (see v. 29) and gives divine sanction to the proxy method of salvation. This particular baptismal rite belongs to the temple (see v. 30, 33), was instituted as an ordinance before the foundation of the earth was established (see v. 33), and is meant to be performed in a place of refuge (see v. 36).¹⁵

The Lord teaches in section 124 that He will only accept certain ordinances if they are performed in a temple that has been built unto His name (see vv. 28-30, 33, and 37). Such a stipulation was laid down before the creation of the world (see v. 33). Indeed, The Lord says that this is the reason behind the construction of the wilderness Tabernacle and the Jerusalem Temple--a place was needed in which to reveal¹⁶ a set of ordinances¹⁷ (v. 38). And these ordinances were not new.¹⁸ The Lord had the Latter-day Saints build the Nauvoo Temple because He designed¹⁹ to "restore again" ceremonies which, over a period of time, had become lost (v. 28).²⁰

--------

NOTES

1. An extract of D&C 124 was first published in the Times and Seasons, vol. 2, no. 15, 1 June 1841 (hereafter cited as T&S). A large portion of this revelation which is pertinent to the present study can be found on pages 425 and 426 of that source. A comparison of this early printed text with the current version of section 124 indicates that a word has been added in verse 39. The Times and Seasons document reads, "and your oracles in your most holy places" while the current printing says, "and for your oracles in your most holy places." When the word "for" is removed the entire paragraph flows more naturally as a list of items. It should also be noted that in verse 26 of D&C 124 the Times and Seasons version and the modern printing agree in content. Both sources read: "and with all who have knowledge of antiquities." The 1841 newspaper source may contain a scribal error, however. The phrase "with all" occurs three times in verse 26 but if the word "with" is removed from the third instance then the information associated with it makes more sense.

2. The Lord refers to "my people Israel"--meaning the covenant people--on several occasions in the texts of the Old Testament (see 2 Chr. 6:6; 1 Sam. 9:16; 2 Sam. 7:7-8, 10; Ps. 81:8; Jer. 12:14).

3. John R. Kohlenberger III and James A. Swanson, eds., The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 1448, word #6918.

4. Ibid., 1390, word #2623.

5. Ibid., 1475, word #40.

6. Elder Orson Pratt hinted at the identification of the D&C 124:95 and 97 "keys" in The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon and Sons, 1891), 441, ftnts. 2o and 2p. Notice in Elder Pratt's statements that the "keys" belong to an "order" which has been "ordained of God" (cf. JST Ex. 34:1-2 which speaks of the Lord's "holy order, and the ordinances thereof").

7. See endnote #1 above for an explanation of this strikeout word.

8. "Antiquities comprehend all the remains of ancient times; all the monuments, coins, inscriptions, edifices, history and fragments of literature, offices, habiliments, weapons, manners, ceremonies; in short, whatever respects any of the ancient nations of the earth" (Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language [New York: S. Converse, 1828], s.v., "antiquity," definition #5).

9. In D&C 124:39 the Lord indicates that His disciples are to receive "oracles" and "conversations" in some connection with the most holy place (cf. 1 Kgs. 6:16, 8:6; 2 Chr. 5:7; Ex. 26:33, Ex. 29:42). Oracles can be defined as "communications, revelations or messages delivered by God" (Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v., "oracle," definition #4).

10. It seems to be relevant that within the list of priesthood officers provided by the Lord there is a distinguishable pattern. There are eight sets of presidencies named--First Presidency, Seven presidents of the Seventies, High Priests presidency, Elders presidency, Bishopric, Priests presidency, Teachers presidency, Deacons presidency. These presidencies were physically represented in the twenty-four Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood pulpits which were located on a lower floor of the Nauvoo Temple.

11. For an architectural diagram of the priesthood rooms built in the attic story of the nineteenth century Nauvoo Temple see Devery S. Anderson and Gary J. Bergera, eds., The Nauvoo Endowment Companies 1845-1846: A Documentary History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005), xvii.

12. The general meaning of the word 'ordain' is to 'appoint' (Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v., "ordain," definition #2, #4, #5). In Numbers 28:1-6 it is recalled by the Lord that the activities of the temple priests had been "ordained" by Him.

13. In order for a person to be perfected in 'the fulness of the priesthood,' said Elder Parley P. Pratt, they needed to receive "holy washings, anointing, keys, ordinances, oracles, and instructions" inside of the temple (Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, 3d ed. [Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1874], 92). Elder Orson Hyde taught that "the fulness of the priesthood includes the authority of both king and priest" (Millennial Star, vol. 9, no. 2, 15 January 1847, 23). Elder Brigham Young declared, "For any person to have the fullness of [the Melchizedek] priesthood, he must be a king and priest" (Brigham H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church [Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1909], 5:527).

14. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. "memorial," noun, primary definition.

15. The idea of a city of refuge can be found in several Old Testament passages but Numbers 35:6 is especially interesting because it is indicated there that some such cities were connected with the Levites--the persons charged with the care of the temple.

16. Since there are some individuals who believe that Joseph Smith either made up or plagiarized the Nauvoo temple rites from non-Mormon sources it is crucial to point out three verses in D&C 124 where the Lord clearly indicates those ordinances were going to be revealed by Him (see vv. 38, 40, 41). Notice in D&C 124:40 that the Lord employs a possessive phrase for the Nauvoo Temple rituals, calling them "mine ordinances" (emphasis added). This precludes the idea that Joseph Smith borrowed those rites which were eventually practiced inside of the sanctuary at Nauvoo.

17. It appears that the "statutes and judgments" of D&C 124:39 fall under the category of ordinances in that the word 'statute' can be defined as "a positive law . . . . [which owes its] binding force to a positive command or declaration of the supreme power" (Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v., "statute," definition #1) and the word 'judgment'--from a scriptural perspective--refers to "the spirit of wisdom . . . enabling a person to discern . . . good and evil" (ibid., s.v., "judgment," definition #7). Latter-day Saints who have experienced the temple ceremonies which were vouchsafed during the Nauvoo period should have no difficulty correlating how such things apply to their experience.

18. It is not uncommon for the casual reader of D&C 124 to consider the content of verse 41 in isolation. It says, "For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times" (emphasis added). The conclusion that is sometimes drawn from these words is that the Nauvoo Temple endowment was something new--only for the last dispensation of the gospel. But the content of verse 38 does not support such a view. It reads, "for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise, that those ordinances might be revealed which had been hid from before the world was" (emphasis added). In other words, the same restricted, confidential ceremonies that were once practiced in the Mosaic tabernacle and the Solomonic temple were revealed once again in the latter days. It is interesting to note that priests were initiated in the tabernacle build by Moses and kings were initiated in the temple constructed by Solomon.

19. In the current LDS edition of the Doctrine and Covenants verse 41 reads, "I deign to reveal unto my Church" whereas the first known printing of this text said, "I design to reveal unto my Church" (T&S, vol. 2, no. 15, 1 June 1841, 426). In the Prophet's era the word 'deign' meant "to condescend to give to" (Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v., "deign," second listing).

20. In verse 28 of D&C 124 the Lord states: "there is not a place found on earth that [the Most High] may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which He hath taken away" (emphasis added). By consulting the Joseph Smith Translation of Exodus 34 the meaning behind this becomes clearer. In verses 1 and 2 of that source (written in late July 1832) it is said by the Lord with regard to what happened at Mount Sinai: "hew thee two other table[t]s of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also the words of the law . . . but it shall not be according to the first [set of tablets], for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order and the ordinances thereof shall not go before them . . . . they shall not enter into my presence" (Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, eds., Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts [Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2004], 701; emphasis added).

The Lord Speaks Again: Ancient Temple Patterns in D&C 124

Detail from Sacrament, by Minerva Teichert (ca. 1935). On display in the JSB at BYU.

Last night at the Third Nephi conference held at BYU, Professor John W. Welch gave the keynote address.  His topic was “New Insights Into the Temple Setting of the Sermon on the Mount in Reference to the Sermon at the Temple.”  It was an excellent address, after which Paul Y. Hoskisson, the director of the Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies, remarked that he was overwhelmed by what he just heard.  You can read my notes on the conference last night here.

One of the things Professor Welch did was give a free handout to all those who were in attendance to outline some of the things he was going to cover, and topics he has written about in an upcoming book.  I have included this handout embedded at the end of this post.  Professor Welch has been studying this topic since about 1988 when he first wrote a FARMS Update article entitled “The Sermon at the Temple,” in which he wrote of 3 Nephi 11-18 as a text which “offers clues to connect the [Sermon on the Mount] with the making of covenants at the temple”. 

Professor John W. Welch

In this article he gave six key points which link the sermon to the temple:

1. Jesus gave the address “to the Nephites at their temple (3 Ne. 11:1).”
2. The sermon was given “in a covenant-making context.”
3. The stipulations in the sermon were “by way of commandment.”
4. The purpose of the sermon was to “show the disciple how to be exalted at the final judgment.”
5. Looking at the sermon in this way “dramatically enhances its meaning.”
6. The commandments given by the Savior here “could hardly be a more succinct preparation for the making of temple covenants.”

Professor Welch has published a book on this subject geared toward an LDS audience entitled Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and Sermon on the Mount (Provo: FARMS, 1999).  This book can also be read online at the Maxwell Institute’s website here.  This book is at the top of my list to read next.

Last night he announced another book which will be published in 2009 on the same subject which will be more generally addressed to New Testament scholars entitled The Sermon on the Mount in the Light of the Temple (London: Ashgate, forthcoming 2009).  Professor Welch gave us a preview of what will be coming in that book in the handout:

• Selected Temple Elements in the Sermon on the Mount – Taken from chart 1 in Welch’s upcoming book.  In this document Welch compares elements, including phrases, words, topics, themes, and patterns in the Sermon on the Mount to other temple texts in the Bible such as Psalms, Exodus, and Isaiah.
• The Stages of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 – This document is based on the table of contents of Welch’s upcoming book, outlining the 25 stages he has found in the Sermon on the Mount which establish the temple covenant pattern.

The last page in the handout is entitled “Temple Studies: Selected Recent Bibliography.”  This is a list of some of the major publications, many non-LDS, published since 2000 which have been on the topic of temple studies.  It is a great list of literature, which should serve as an excellent guide for anyone curious in studying and learning more about the temple.

See the embedded handout below.  Note that you can maximize it to full screen by clicking the icon on the right of the toolbar.

Update (9/29/08): Because of copyright restrictions, I have excluded pages 2 and 3 from the embedded handout below. We may be able to include them in the future.

Preview: “The Sermon on the Mount in the Light of the Temple,” by John Welch

Satellite photo of the San Diego California Temple with the "Seal of Melchizedek" overlayed 13 times. I particularly like the symbol used in the skylight of the atrium in the center of the temple.

(Continued from Part 3)

To continue my research I wanted to know as accurately as possible the story about this symbol, the “seal of Melchizedek,” as it was used in the San Diego Temple.  I couldn’t find a good account online, so I decided to go to the source.  Who better would know than the design architect of the temple?  So I gave him a call. 

His name is William “Bill” S. Lewis Jr., and he is a member of the Church and a current sealer at the San Diego Temple.  He graduated from the University of Southern California in 1953 with a degree in architecture, was a co-owner of an architectural firm in San Diego for a number of years, and he has been involved with many architectural projects in the San Diego area.  I’m sure he counts his design work on the temple as one of his most cherished experiences.  He retired in 1990, after a 41-year career.  See the footnotes for a little more background about Br. Lewis .  He was very cordial on the phone, and gave me the courtesy of about a twenty minute phone call.  The story he told me was intriguing, and I thought it would be good to document it.

He said that the architects were given quite a lot of freedom on the design of this particular temple, and it was not dictated by the Church’s building department as other temples have been.  This freedom was granted expressly by President Hinckley.

He said they were working hard to find a common symbol, module, or pattern to give continuity to the design, or to give a certain character to the temple.  They started with a square, but they thought that was too plain and boxy.  Then they started chamfering the square’s corners which brought it to an 8-sided figure.  When they extended the lines it became two overlapping squares.  They thought that would work well and so they started using it more and more in the design of the temple.  He said that the more they used it the better and better it worked.  Some people asked about the symbolism of the design, and he told them he didn’t know if it had any particular symbolism.  He said that they put a circle in the middle, which he thought could have stood for the sun or the Celestial Kingdom.  He said that they used it many thousands of times all throughout the design of the temple – in the doors, fencing, exterior, interior, trimwork, floorplan, etc (see satellite photo above for the use of the symbol in the overall layout).  When the design was originally shown to the General Authorities in Salt Lake they had sun stones, moon stones, and star stones on the exterior of the temple too (mirroring the Salt Lake and Nauvoo Temples), but the Brethren notified them that these symbols shouldn’t be used.  So they removed these symbols, but they didn’t say anything about the interlocking squares symbol.

Once the temple was finished, Elder David B. Haight of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles escorted the media through the temple, as they are some of the first that get to go through.  Someone from the media asked him what the symbol was, and what it represented, and Elder Haight was taken a little off-guard by that question.  He said that it was probably just an architectural detail.

Br. Lewis said that a good friend of his, Stan Smith, who has been a regional representative, and was the project representative on the temple, was taking photos all the time during the construction of the temple.  But this particular symbol bugged him for some reason.  He took the photos he had down to the Church Historian’s Office in Salt Lake City and asked if they knew anything about it.  They didn’t.  But they suggested that he take them down to Hugh Nibley at BYU who might know something about it.  So Br. Smith made an appointment with Br. Nibley, and sat down with him in his office and asked him if this symbol had a name.  Nibley said something like, “Oh sure, it is the seal of King Melchizedek.” He also indicated that it was a symbol of Melchizedek’s power, kingdom, and as a type of name of Melchizedek, like a seal in wax.

Stan Smith called Br. Lewis to tell him the good news, and was quite excited about it.  Br. Lewis wanted to verify it himself, so he made an appointment with Nibley too.  Nibley verified it with Lewis as well, after which they had an extensive conversation about all things temples, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc., with Nibley in typical fashion referring to all three in the same sentence.

Br. Lewis said that President Hinckley would probably be interested to know this detail about the symbol, since he had met with the architects 4 times throughout the design of this temple, which was extremely unusual.  So Lewis wrote a letter to President Hinckley, who Lewis said also verified it with Nibley.

Since then Br. Lewis has seen the same symbol used on the Newport Beach Temple, and also in several places in the Salt Lake Temple (like the door patrons enter with a beehive in the center), and he supposes that we will see it more and more as time goes on.  But he was pleasantly surprised to have found out such an interesting detail about the symbol that he used throughout the San Diego Temple.  He has been asked to speak hundreds of times about the design of the San Diego Temple in firesides and other occasions.  He said a couple years ago he was asked to speak at an event of the Fine Arts Department at BYU about it, but wasn’t sure of the details of the occasion.

It is doubtful that there is a transcription anywhere of this story, so I took as many details down as I could on our phone conversation.  Thanks to Br. Lewis for telling us this great story.

(To be continued…)

The Seal of Melchizedek – Part 4

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.

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.

Chapter 31 has been labelled “Job’s Covenant”.  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).

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)

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.

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.

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), 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)

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”.

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

A respectful evangelical protestant reader of TempleStudy.com has asked this question:

Paul tells us in the sermon at Mars Hill that the Lord does not “dwell in houses built by hands” (Acts 17:24-25, Stephen echoes this in ch 7 of the same book) but rather that the Holy Spirit of God dwells in us; that is, that WE are His temples (1 Cor. 3:16-17). Interestingly, not only is this a contradiction to D&C teachings regarding the temple (see D&C 97), but it also appears to be a strong witness to the Trinity, at least in part (demonstrating an equivalency between the Father and the Spirit – “you are a temple of God [...] the Spirit of God dwells in you”). I am curious how you interpret these scriptures.

I think this gets to the heart of the doctrinal argument over the necessity/validity of the temple in the post-Messianic age. I know where I stand, but I welcome your counterpoint!

This is an honest question; unfortunately the scriptures in question to support the claim are misunderstood.

I’m unsure about how these scriptures are evidence for the Trinity, particularly between the Father and the Spirit, for if that were the meaning we would have to be the Father and the Spirit dwelling in us, which seems incongruous. But even then, the Spirit of God would be dwelling in us, instead of being us, depicting the Holy Spirit’s own traits of individuality. Rather, the scripture says that we are “a temple of God,” meaning a sacred place where His Spirit, the Holy Ghost, may dwell when invited by righteousness and obedience to God’s commandments.

But the root of this question is in regard to the validity or necessity of a physical temple since the time of the sacrifice, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, and if this atoning work wrought by the Savior superseded the physical temple and made it obsolete forevermore. First let’s examine the scriptures in question, namely Acts 17:24-25 and 1 Cor. 3:16-17, during which we will look to history to see if this interpretation is in concert with the ancient Israelite nation in the Old Testament, and the early Christian disciples of the New.

In Acts 17 the Apostle Paul was on a missionary trip passing through Athens, and while waiting there finds the city engrossed in idolatry (Acts 17:16). So Paul began his preaching of Christ among the Athenians in the synagogues and in the streets (Acts 17:17). He came in contact with certain learned philosophers who thought they knew a lot, calling Paul a “babbler” (Acts 17:18). So they went together to Areopagus, where they could discuss these issues in a better setting. (Areopagus is the Greek word for the Hill of Ares or Mars in Athens to the west of the Acropolis where the highest judicial Athenian council met, but this gathering was most likely an informal one). There they begin to question Paul on this “new doctrine” that they had not heard before (Acts 17:19-21). It is here that Paul stood on Mars’ Hill, among idolaters, and said:

23 …Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
24 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Acts 17:23-31)

Paul makes it very clear here that the Athenians were idol worshipers, believing that their god or gods were in idols made of “gold, or silver, or stone,” made by man. It was these idols that the Greeks worshiped, instead of that God who “made the world and all things therein.” Indeed, at least one of the gods that they worshiped they believed to be “unknown,” or perhaps unknowable, something akin to what traditional orthodox Christianity believes today from what became known as the Nicene Creed, undoubtedly influenced by Greek philosophy:

These various evolutions and iterations of creeds--and others to come over the centuries--declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted "mystery of the trinity." They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point--that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible.

Yet Paul declared just the opposite to the Greeks, that God was not in idols, was a real being, could be known, and began describing Him in a very detailed language, including indicating our very literal familial relationship to Him as His offspring.

I believe that the meaning of Paul’s words are two-fold. Not only is he telling the Athenians where God is not, he tells them where He is:

1. When Paul says that God “dwelleth not in temples made with hands,” he is making allusion to those man-made idols to which the Greeks were making their devotions. That isn’t where God was found, he says. God made the heavens and the very earth whereupon we stand, and is not found in the small objects made by man from the materials with which he organized the earth, the planets, and the stars. God is superior to and above his creation. From the beginning man has been commanded:
   

   3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

   4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

   5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (Exodus 20:3-5)

2. Paul is also teaching where God’s literal dwelling place is. He is giving the same lesson about God’s heavenly temple which Stephen gave:
   

   48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

   49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

   50 Hath not my hand made all these things? (Acts 7:48-50)

   Paul also taught this in another place:

   11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; . . .

   23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

   24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: (Hebrews 9:11, 23-24)

But do Paul’s words suggest that God’s presence cannot be had within earthly temples which mirror the heavenly temple? I don’t believe so, because I don’t believe they are earthly. Dr. John Tvedtnes has explained that the words “‘without hands’ suggest something not made by mortals, but by God” (cf. Col. 2:11). In every case of God’s dealing with man on earth He has commanded his servants to build sacred sanctuaries (temples) wherein He may reveal Himself and His will to His people. In such cases God has been the director of the building of these structures, not man. The very detailed instructions God gave to Moses for the construction of the Tabernacle in the wilderness is a great example. Hence, even these physical temple buildings are really not “made with hands,” at least not mortal ones. God reveals His will to man, and man obeys. It is God’s holy house, even a “mountain of the Lord’s house” (Isa. 2:2-3). We are taught as much by Paul in Hebrews 8:

1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices . . .

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. (Hebrews 8:1-3, 5)

It is interesting to note at this point that D&C 97, which section our reader believes to be in contradiction to the Bible, uses very similar language when describing the divine direction of the building of the Kirtland temple:

10 Verily I say unto you, that it is my will that a house should be built unto me in the land of Zion, like unto the pattern which I have given you. . . .

15 And inasmuch as my people build a house unto me in the name of the Lord, and do not suffer any unclean thing to come into it, that it be not defiled, my glory shall rest upon it;

16 Yea, and my presence shall be there, for I will come into it, and all the pure in heart that shall come into it shall see God.

17 But if it be defiled I will not come into it, and my glory shall not be there; for I will not come into unholy temples. (D&C 97:10, 15-17. See especially 2 Chr. 5:14; Lev. 16:2; Matt. 5:8; 1 Kings 8:10-11)

Dr. Lawrence H. Schiffmann, the Director of Judaic Studies at New York University, has explained the very purpose of temples on earth:

When it comes to the temple, I think one of the ideas is that a person that comes into the structure is supposed to be overcome spiritually, to feel that he or she is literally in the presence of God.

If God “dwelleth not” in these temples which He commanded and instructed His people on earth to construct for the very purpose of being in the divine presence, then why did Christ refer to the temple in Jerusalem as his “Father’s house”? What of Paul’s own worship and practice in the temple following the ascension of Christ, including a theophanic vision. Dr. Bill Hamblin has shown:

… it is quite clear that the New Testament apostles continued to worship in the Jerusalem temple after Christ’s ascension (Acts 2:46, Acts 3:1-10, Acts 5:20-42). Even Paul worshipped there (Acts 21:26-30, Acts 22:17, Acts 24:6-18, Acts 25:8, Acts 26:21). Paul is explicitly said to have performed purification rituals (Acts 21:26, Acts 24:18), and prayed in the temple (Acts 22:17, cf. Acts 3:1); he claims that he has not offended “against the temple,” implying he accepts its sanctity (Acts 25:8). Indeed, Paul also offered sacrifice (prosfora) in the temple (Acts 21:26, cf. Num 6:14-18), a very odd thing for him to do if the temple had been completely superceded after Christ’s ascension. Finally, and most importantly, Paul had a vision of Christ (“The Just One” ton dikaion) in the temple (Acts 22:14-21), paralleling Old Testament temple theophanies, and strongly implying a special sanctity in the temple, where God still appears to men even after Christ’s ascension.

If Paul’s words to the Athenians were to be taken at face value, Paul would have no regard for the temple structure whatsoever, let alone be found worshiping there or having the divine presence being made manifest to him there.

(Continued in Part 2)

God Dwelleth Not in Temples Made with Hands? – Part 1

There is no part of our civilization which doesn’t have its rise in the temple.

Nibley also made the comments:

So poetry, music, and dance go out to the world from the temple-called by the Greeks the Mouseion, the shrine of the Muses.

And:

All the arts and sciences began at the temple. Dance, music, architecture, sculpture, drama, and so forth-they all go back to the temple.

The more I study the temple the more I am convinced of these statements. I have found evidence for the temple in language, literature, poetry, dance, music, theater, drama, education, custom, astronomy, architecture, art, science, politics, and of course in the many religions of the world. Even our daily personal patterns of awakening, opening our eyes, arising, washing ourselves, getting dressed, eating breakfast, working out our salvation while the day of probation lasts, then going to sleep and awaiting to arise the next morning clearly has connections with the temple.

In what patterns of our civilization do you see the temple?

Temple the Source of All Civilization