“When Moses was called to come talk with God on top of Sinai, the children of Israel had to wait down below and were not permitted to go up. Same principle.” Um, by your standard, how do you reconcile the veil in the Temple being ripped from the top down at the giving up the Ghost on the Cross? Once God ended the separation between man and God through the Atonement, how is it that Joseph Smith re-established it thus setting aside the Atonement?
Having a standard for temple attendance is not putting aside the Atonement, in fact accepting Christ as your Savior and believing he atoned for our sins is a requirement for entering the temple. Attributing motives like that says more about you than about the subject matter.
As for the veil, it was rent, not removed. Because of the atonement there is repentance and forgiveness such that we can still pass to the other side of the veil.
The principle of holding some things sacred and apart from the world is found in both the OT and the NT, Christ put it rather bluntly as not casing pearls before swine at one time. IMHO I think it would be a sad thing if your faith has nothing sacred enough to treat with the same kind of respect we give to temples, but if a religion without pearls is what you want that’s your business.
To all of Israel, the holy of holies represented the very presence of God among men. The barrier which kept the high priest from entering this place was the veil of the temple. For a human hand to remove the veil and reveal the holy of holies would have been considered a sacrilegious desecration punishable by death. But the temple was not rent by a mortal hand:
Bruce R. McConkie “Christ is now sacrificed; the law is fulfilled; the Mosaic dispensation is dead; the fulness of the gospel has come with all its light and power; and so—to dramatize, in a way which all Jewry would recognize, that the kingdom had been taken from them and given to others—Deity rent the veil of the temple ‘from the top to the bottom.’ The Holy of Holies is now open to all, and all, through the atoning blood of the Lamb, can now enter into the highest and holiest of all places, that kingdom where eternal life is found. Paul, in expressive language (Heb. 9 and 10), shows how the ordinances performed through the veil of the ancient temple were in similitude of what Christ was to do, which he now having done, all men become eligible to pass through the veil into the presence of the Lord to inherit full exaltation.” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:830.)
What is the symbolic meaning of the veil being rent? Undoubtedly, it marked the end to a system of temples designed to commemorate the bloody sacrifice of the firstborn Son of God. The Great Sacrifice had been offered; the temples of the Aaronic Priesthood would no longer be necessary. Furthermore, to the wicked chief priests, the torn veil represented God’s displeasure with their apostate disbelief. They had daily offered lamb after lamb on the altars of the temple, and yet rejected the Lamb of God. He was, therefore, rejecting them.
To the righteous, the rent veil meant the final barrier had been broken. While before, only the high priest could approach the veil; now, the way into the very presence of God had been prepared by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Don't forget, Paul and the others continued to worship at the temple after the crucification and renting of the veil. Why would they do this if the temple didn't mean anything to them after that?