What do you believe about temple worship?

Jesus worshiped from time to time in a temple, which was a substantially different building than what we would call a “church” today. Some people claim that “the [temple] rituals have been done away with with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem“. What evidence is there that these rituals were not part of the ancient Christian church after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem? If they were part of the ancient church prior to the destruction of the temple, why would the destruction of a building have signaled their end forever? If something were important enough to God, would the mere destruction of a building signal their end?


  1. If you do a study on the purposes of the Temple in the Old Testament, then read the gospels and the new testament, you will see why temples have been done away with.

  2. I've done that, and I don't see why they have been done away with. Can you be a bit more specific?

  3. Just to give you a start for your own research, the temple in the Old Testament had a Holy Place and a Most Holy Place. The priest acted as a mediator between man and God. He offered up gifts, offerings and sacrifices for sins etc. A curtain or veil separated the holy place from the most holy place.

    Only the priest was allowed into the most holy place in the presence of God. He acted as mediator for the people. Since the sin offerings being made could not take away the peoples sin and clear their conscience, they could not enter the most Holy Place. Sin separates from God.

    All of the work being done in the temple was only a shadow of the reality we have found in Christ. Because of Christ offering up himself one time for all, the curtain separating the holy place from the most holy place has been torn in two. In other words, we have direct access to God ourselves because of what Jesus has done for us. He has completely cleared our consciences that we may approach the throne of God directly.

    We, that is our individual bodies, have now become the TEMPLE of God and also together with believers everywhere we are the temple of God also.

    See Hebrews Chapter 10 and 1 Corinthians 6:19 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" Ephesians 2:21 " In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

    Anyways, that should get you started. I hope that information proves useful to you.

  4. So why did Jesus spend time in the temple? Didn't he have direct access to God outside the temple?

    Also, why did the apostles visit the temple after the resurrection of Christ? See Act 3:1-8 below:

    1. Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.

    2. And a certain man lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;

    3. Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.

    4. And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us.

    5. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them.

    6. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

    7. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

    8. And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.

  5. Question: "So why did Jesus spend time in the temple? Didn’t he have direct access to God outside the temple?"

    Answer: He had access to God where ever he went. But the curtain in the temple wasn't torn in two until after Jesus died so at that time, the temple was still valid as in the old testament. Jesus mainly went to the temple to teach.

    Question: "Also, why did the apostles visit the temple after the resurrection of Christ? See Act 3:1-8 below"

    Because that is where the Jews gathered together and they needed to hear the good news about Jesus. If you read a little further on in Acts you will see that they teach the people about Jesus.

  6. Fair enough. I guess we'll agree to disagree, since I believe Jesus and the apostles went to the temple for reasons other than to teach others. While there is nothing within the Bible to prove my point of view, I don't believe there is anything to disprove it either. That is, there is nothing in the Bible that proves that members of the ancient church did not practice the same ordinances in temples that are today practiced by Mormons in the LDS Church.

  7. Here is another verse for you: Acts 17:24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands."

  8. Again, no conflict with LDS doctrine. See God Dwelleth Not in Temples Made with Hands? – Part 1 and God Dwelleth Not in Temples Made with Hands? – Part 2 for really, really detailed explanations, but the simple one is this–Paul was teaching a group of idol worshipers that God did not live in the idols they had made with their hands, nor in their pagan temples.

    Did Paul mean that God's presence is not to be found in the temples God commands to be built? Clearly not, since the Bible itself says that God appeared in the temple, as in Deuteronomy 31:15 – "And the Lord appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle." The "tabernacle" was the portable temple God commanded the Israelites, through Moses, to build and take with them while they were in the wilderness.

    When Mormons talk of the temple as "The House of the Lord" we don't mean that he lives there in the same sense that you and I live in our houses. We mean that the temple is where his presence is to be felt, where we can draw close to him.

    Whenever there has been a decent sized group of true followers of God, God has commanded them to build a temple. We see this throughout the Bible, and the practice was restored in modern days with the restoration of God's true church.

  9. Before his crucifixion Jesus said “I will destroy your temple, but I will build another in three days” what did he mean?

    • I assume you’re referring to John 2:19, where Jesus says “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

      The LDS interpretation is that Jesus was speaking of the temple of his body and the resurrection to take place three days after that temple was “destroyed” or killed.

  10. Did you know that Jesus could not enter into the holy place or the most holy place, because he was not a decendent of Arron or of the tribe of Levi.

    • I don’t think I’ve ever had someone bring that up before. Is that just something interesting or is there a point you’re trying to make?

      • In old testament times only the Tribe of Levi could hold the Priesthood and only the Descendants of Arron had the Aaronic Priesthood only they could minister between man and God.
        No 12 year olds received the Aaronic Priesthood as Mormonism wants you to believe, The tribe of Judah, Benjamen. Joseph or any other tribe could not hold the Priesthood.
        So according to Mosaic Law unless you were a direct descendent of Aaron you CAN NOT hold the Aaronic Priesthood.

        • This started at the time of Moses, applied to the Israelites, and brings up some questions:

          1. Did this apply only to the Israelites, or to all people of God who might exist in other parts of the world?

          2. Who was eligible to receive the Priesthood prior to this practice being initiated under Moses?

          3. Are we still living under Mosaic law?

          • Joshua, What do you think it means that “Jesus Fulfilled the Law?”

          • At least in part it means to me that there are practices that were designed to be temporary, and that Jesus fulfilled or completed those practices. Hence we no longer continue many of the practices of the Mosaic law such as animal sacrifice, not eating pork, etc.

          • The main job of the Aaronic Priesthood was to offer sacrifices to God [hey Josh how many bulls, rams, goats have you slaughter?] But when Jesus offered his life once and for all. It was finished. No more need for sacrifices, ergo no more Aaronic Pristhood.
            You do know that the PHARISEES were the Aaronic priest. there the ones that sought to Kill Jesus.
            And you Mormons want to give a Dead Priesthood to 12 year olds

          • Where does the Bible say there was no Aaronic Priesthood after Christ? No sacrifices, yes, but does it explicitly say no Aaronic Priesthood anywhere? Does the Bible state anywhere that performing sacrifices was the only function of the Aaronic Priesthood and nothing else?

          • What do you think of this passage, HEBREWS :7

            11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

            “You are a priest forever,
            in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]

            18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

            20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

            “The Lord has sworn
            and will not change his mind:
            ‘You are a priest forever.’”[b]

            22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

            23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

            26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.


          • None of this conflicts with LDS doctrine. It is LDS doctrine.

            Perhaps a good analogy is that the Aaronic Priesthood is like a glass of water that is half full. The Melchizedek Priesthood is the same stuff (the water), but it’s a glass that is completely full. So yes, the Aaronic Priesthood is not enough to attain perfection, as pointed out in verse 11, because it’s only part of what is needed, not everything that is needed. Some of the regulations that went along with the lesser or partial priesthood that was given to the Israelites were done away with, in favor of the more complete set of regulations that go along with the greater or more complete priesthood. The Aaronic Priesthood by itself was weak and useless in a sense, and the Melchizedek certainly gave a better hope to help us draw nearer to God.

            So today young men are given the Aaronic Priesthood, or you could say a part of the Melchizedek Priesthood, in order to give them a chance to serve within a limited scope and prepare to receive the complete priesthood.

          • Why don’t you take off your rose color LDS glasses off. This passage [Hebrews 7] is talking about Jesus’s Priesthood. HE and only He can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, it is being conferred to him by God. None of us are even worthy to clean the dirt off his sandals.

            You know that the Pharisees followed the Laws and Ceremonies of the Mosaic law almost to the Letter. But Jesus said to them: If you don’t know who “I AM” You are dead in your Sins.
            The Pharisees kinda sound like your Prophets and Apostles in their expensive suits their hearts puffed up with pride.

            Who is Jesus? is he our older spirit brother the brother of Satan. Was chosen over Satan to save us? Not a bad deal suffer a few days, then become the most Powerful entity in the Universe, Have anything you want in your fingertips, 70 virgins like the Jihads, Life everlasting.

            Or is he what the Bible claims him to be.

            In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD.
            He already is God. Immutable all powerful.all loving willing to forsake his Glory his Immortality for us who are wallowing in sin.

          • Carlos, what are you trying to accomplish with this conversation we’re having?

          • You do know that Jesus prophiesied the destuction of the temple

            in Matt 24:1-8″Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. ‘Do you see all these things?’ he asked. ‘I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down'” (Matt.24:1-8 NIV). See also Lk.21:5-6.

            But the Mormons like the ancient Jews have built the Temple [there was only supposed to be one temple] back up and resewn the Veil,
            JESUS has made it clear that we don’t need Temples made with hands or dead Priesthood to worship GOD

          • How does a prophecy about the destruction of one temple imply that there would never be another legitimate temple? Where does the Bible say there can only be one temple? Yes, the Aaronic Priesthood is dead in the sense that it is not enough by itself, but it is merely a limited part of the full Priesthood. To say it is not needed is to say the full Priesthood is not needed, which is to say there is no need for the power of God to be given to men. If you believe that then we can agree to disagree, but where in the bible does it say that after Christ and the apostles that the Priesthood would not be needed?

          • You do know what the difference between a covenat is ? Like the Old covenant

            [Mosaic Law, And the New Covenant [Christianity]

            Hebrews :8

            8 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

            3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”[a] 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

            7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said[b]:

            “The days are coming, declares the Lord,
            when I will make a new covenant
            with the people of Israel
            and with the people of Judah.
            9 It will not be like the covenant
            I made with their ancestors
            when I took them by the hand
            to lead them out of Egypt,
            because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
            and I turned away from them,
            declares the Lord.
            10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
            after that time, declares the Lord.
            I will put my laws in their minds
            and write them on their hearts.
            I will be their God,
            and they will be my people.
            11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
            or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
            because they will all know me,
            from the least of them to the greatest.
            12 For I will forgive their wickedness
            and will remember their sins no more.”[c]

            13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

            Note last verse#13

          • We believe the old covenant is the law of Moses, which only included the ordinances of the Aaronic Priesthood. The new covenant included the Aaronic Priesthood plus the rest, meaning the Melchizidek Priesthood, or everything. The old was done away and replaced with the new, so yes, the old covenant became obsolete. That doesn’t mean everything in the Old Testament became void (we still obey the ten commandments), but that the specific system has been replaced. So nothing in these scriptures conflicts with LDS doctrine, or at least not with the LDS interpretation of them.

          • You have eyes but do not see. I’ll pray for you

          • Or to respond more fully, I see exactly what you’re saying, I just disagree with your interpretation of scripture. You read those words and interpret them one way, I read them and interpret them another way. You cannot prove to me that the words mean what you say they mean because the meaning of the words is not 100% clear. I know you think it’s clear, but again, that’s a matter of interpretation. You say the words mean certain things, but the things you say are not exactly what the words in the Bible say. You add meaning to the words that is not explicitly there. If it were explicitly there, there would be no room for debate.

            If you want to prove to me that the Bible teaches there is no Aaronic Priesthood today, nor could be, then you have to show me words in the Bible saying “The Aaronic Priesthood is done with, no longer exists, and never will exist ever again.” But you have not done that. You have talked about the old and new covenants, about new things replacing old things, about the Mosaic Law being fulfilled, completed, etc. but in none of the scriptures you’ve cited does it contradict the LDS doctrine.

          • I’m not interpreting nothing I’m just reading the message I.m not trying to put meaning in it in any way, shape or form.
            The AAronic Priesthood might exist But it belongs to the Jewish Religion and you know without interpretion that the Jews do not believe in Jesus’s Divinity, they are still waiting for their Messiah

          • Is it possible to read anything and not let our biases influence our interpretation of it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>