And about Peterson's claimed hebrew/jewish scholar contacts

[_maklelan]

CFR Please name and reference a few and what they claimed was the significance about the LDS temples.

Sure thing. Rabbi Jacob Milgrom, professor emeritus at UC Berkeley, discusses the Mormon perception of ritual and temple purity as a close analogue to the ancient Israelite perception. That's in Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels. Larry Schiffman of NYU also comments favorably on the video Dan Peterson referenced. You can find a lot of ideologies that parallel those of the Mormon perception of the temple in Menahem Haran's Temple and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (specifically the idea that there were numerous temples up and down Syria-Palestine).

Those three examples spring to mind, but I also think the fallacy of your premise needs to be addressed, because you seem to think that a Jewish scholar, in virtue of being Jewish, has a privileged perspective on ancient Israelite temple ideologies. This is special pleading, as ancient Israel is greatly disparate to modern Judaism, especially as far back as the First Temple. Everyone engaging the question has the same access to the same information. Asserting that a Jewish scholar's opinion is weightier is simply false.

Well, If temple marriages are required by scripture - where is it?

The Doctrine and Covenants.

If they are required by revelation - where is that?

See above.

Since neither scripture nor revelation have required temple marriages, I assume those boys on bikes don't lie when they say it was a "restored principle"!

Restored means it was previously lost, not hiding in plain sight in the most widely read book on the planet.

If it was restored, who better to know and tell about it's origin than jewish/hebrew scholars - like the ones Dan (or you) hang with.

If it took revelation to restore it, why would scholars who make no claim of divine revelation know about it?

Challenge: Can you respond without a Millett!

I guess that'll depend on whether or not you want to respond honestly to my comments.

By the way, are you the same Joey that asked this same question five years ago here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... topic=6179

[_RockSlider]

maklelan, peterson;

personal question ... Were both of you endowed before the series of changes in the temple started to take place (what pre 1990ish)? Do these changes not bother you? One of the latest changes I've heard of (dealing with initiatory) makes me sad.

[_gramps]

CFR Please name and reference a few and what they claimed was the significance about the LDS temples.

Here's a nice, brief YouTube video that includes two eminent scholars (Frank Moore Cross and the late Krister Stendahl, both of Harvard University) who see real significance in the LDS temple:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x_-TQivCx8

Cross and Stendahl are not just reputable scholars. In their respectivefields, they are enormous names. (For what it's worth, Stendahl was both the dean of Harvard Divinity School and the Lutheran bishop of Stockholm, Sweden -- in effect, the head of the Swedish state church).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Moore_Cross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krister_Stendahl

The video was impressive. I would have liked to hear them speak more about their feelings about what goes on inside the temple, aside from baptisms for the dead. Perhaps there is more footage that you are aware of? To put it all in to context, you know.

DCP, do you know if they know (I noticed one of them has passed away) about the actual ceremony, for example, Satan and the minister, just for two examples? Would they have thought so highly of it if they had read the various versions of the ceremony, from Nauvoo forward, I wonder aloud?

But, the short 45-second blurb is something to be proud of as a temple-going Mormon. It was well-done.

[_RockSlider]

Once upon a time ... (late 90's) I spent a lot of time trying to get close to some Jews. I spent countless hours in the AOL religious chat rooms ... with an emphasis on the orthodox Jewish chats.

Gerayrah (don't remember the exact spelling I used), was the screen name I used (hebrew gera = Stranger yrah = Friend). Joseph Smith's rabbi friend in Nauvoo, School of the Prophets study of Hebrew and the various ties to the Temple were of great interest to me. A limited study of Kabbalah ensued. I found a Lubavitch congregation in the SugarHouse area of SLC of all places ... and spent some time there trying to get the rabbi to teach me (which he would not).

It's very very hard to get close to an orthodox Jew. I was somewhat successful in making friends on line, but as mentioned no luck in person. Even saying a word like Christian, or Christmas, let-a-lone Christ or Jesus would be like dropping the F bomb in a Mormon setting.

Watching your little youtube video reminded me of this time. The Kabbalah which I pursued was of the meditative type (i.e. Sefer Yetzirah) It's interesting to note that Joseph Smith's use (related to the Book of Abraham) of an eternal round (i.e. 2.5 billion years) comes straight from the Jewish book Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation).

Anyway, the thing I found that very orthodox Jews would appreciate most about the Mormon temple was its "mystic" (i.e. meditative) qualities. My online friends sometimes paid me the honor of calling me a Mormon Mystic.

[_maklelan]

maklelan, peterson;

personal question ... Were both of you endowed before the series of changes in the temple started to take place (what pre 1990ish)? Do these changes not bother you? One of the latest changes I've heard of (dealing with initiatory) makes me sad.

The earlier changes don't bother me in the least. In the Hebrew Bible oath formulas involved sawing large animals in half and walking between the pieces of their corpses, asking God to do the same to them if they fail to uphold their end of the covenant. Most scholars who address this issue also think the ancient oath whereby the person pledging the oath draws his thumb across his neck and says, "God do so to me if I . . ." is derived from the former and less practical method. It was not a large problem for Mormons in the early church because of the rural nature of that society and the closeness to animal slaughter, blood, etc. For people who haven't slit many animal throats before, it can seem uncomfortable and grotesque, and by the 1990's the majority of the church was not rural and was getting uncomfortable with the oaths. Having both grown up on a farm and become quite familiar with these processes in ancient Israel, I'm not in the least disturbed by it, and I think if someone bothers to take the time to consider these issues it's really not that big a deal. Of course, there will always be those who need to hold on to the idea that it's reprehensible.

As for the new changes, I'm sad to see the old initiatories go. I can think of one change I like, but for the most part I feel the symbolism is weaker.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What maklelan said.

[_Dwight Frye]

That is what Millet taught some soon-to-be missionaries. This instruction can be accessed online.

Actually, this video has been removed from youtube with the note, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by BYU Department of Ancient Scripture" (click the first two links available here to see).

[_RockSlider]

maklelan DP,

As alluded to in a previous post ... to me ... mystics is what the temple is all about (they used to always tell us about the wonderful "symbolism" of the temple, none of which is ever expounded upon).

In somewhat keeping with the topic of the thread (even if it was started maliciously)

Here is how an orthodox jew would view the penalties:

The endowment flows from the head to the feet (Jewish tree of life … Keter (head/thought), Malkuth (children/kingdom)), also think initiatory here.

you will find pictures of this “tree” here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephirot. Stacked (next generations Keter is previous generations Malkuth) pictures can also be found, think Abrahamic convenant.

The penalties that were given were associated with the levels of endowment (i.e. two Aaronic, two Melchizedec ) To be “cut off” at the associated eternal blessing of the levels was the symbolic penalty …a much worse fate than any simple mortal death.

So no, cutting my head off, of spilling my guts never worried me, being cut off from eternal progression did.

As far as concern about changes:

But what about the idea that ordinances cannot be changed.. wording changes in the endowment presentation is one thing … removal of things (thinking about one in particular at the veil) , and what sounds like a total butcher of the initiatory “ordinances” is sad.

I suppose all that talk from Hyrum Andrus about another restoration being required could be an answer.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think it's helpful to distinguish between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment. The latter can be, and has been, changed at various times.

And that's about all I'm going to say. The temple is deeply sacred to me. I don't discuss its rituals very much outside its walls, and I simply won't do so on a public message board -- to say nothing of this particular message board.

My sincere apologies, but that's the way it is for me.

[_maklelan]

maklelan DP,

As alluded to in a previous post ... to me ... mystics is what the temple is all about (they used to always tell us about the wonderful "symbolism" of the temple, none of which is ever expounded upon).

In somewhat keeping with the topic of the thread (even if it was started maliciously)

Here is how an orthodox jew would view the penalties:

The endowment flows from the head to the feet (Jewish tree of life … Keter (head/thought), Malkuth (children/kingdom)), also think initiatory here.

you will find pictures of this “tree” here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephirot. Stacked (next generations Keter is previous generations Malkuth) pictures can also be found, think Abrahamic convenant.

The Sephirot is not a part of orthodox Judaism, but of mystical Judaism, and neither of them have ever had a temple, so I have a hard time accepting their dogmas.

The penalties that were given were associated with the levels of endowment (i.e. two Aaronic, two Melchizedec ) To be “cut off” at the associated eternal blessing of the levels was the symbolic penalty …a much worse fate than any simple mortal death.

So no, cutting my head off, of spilling my guts never worried me, being cut off from eternal progression did.

As far as concern about changes:

But what about the idea that ordinances cannot be changed..

I'm not aware of any such requirements.

wording changes in the endowment presentation is one thing … removal of things (thinking about one in particular at the veil) , and what sounds like a total butcher of the initiatory “ordinances” is sad.

I suppose all that talk from Hyrum Andrus about another restoration being required could be an answer.

I disagree, but at least you're not being antagonistic.