Posted on 07/04/2014 6:49:54 AM PDT by Colofornian
Announcement: 9 November 1871
Groundbreaking and Site Dedication: 9 November 1871 by Brigham Young
Private Dedication: 1 January 1877 by Wilford Woodruff, Erastus Snow, and Brigham Young
Dedication: 6–8 April 1877 by Daniel H. Wells (with Brigham Young presiding)
SNIP
The St. George Utah Temple is the first temple where endowments for the dead were performed.
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America appeared twice to Wilford Woodruff in the St. George Utah Temple asking why their temple work had yet not been performed on their behalves. A striking painting depicting this singular event hangs in the temple lobby (That We May be Redeemed by Harold I. Hopkinson).
(Excerpt) Read more at ldschurchtemples.com ...
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America appeared twice to Wilford Woodruff in the St. George Utah Temple asking why their temple work had yet not been performed on their behalves. A striking painting depicting this singular event hangs in the temple lobby (That We May be Redeemed by Harold I. Hopkinson).
Three years ago, I explained this in an FR vanity: Lds Temple Haunted? Did Declaration of Independence signers appear as ghosts to leader? [Vanity]
Current Lds "apostle" Boyd K. Packer also elaborated on Woodruff's reportedly seeing the ghostly Founding Fathers by citing Woodruff's Sept. 16, 1877 Salt Lake Tabernacle discourse at length. (see You May Claim the Blessings of the Holy Temple by Packer, Bookcraft, 1980, pp. 193-194).
"Apostle" Packer claims that not only were the Declaration signers present in 1877 in the St. George Utah Temple, but that "the others included nearly every president of the United States." (The Holy Temple, p. 194)
Yes, and no.
It was the first completed Mormon temple where that happened.
And it was the first dedicated Mormon temple where that happened.
But to show you that a Mormon temple doesn't really need an official “dedication” for that to happen, read from an official Mormon Church Doctrines & Covenants Student Manual (1981, 2000):
”The first baptisms for the dead in the uncompleted Nauvoo Temple were initiated Sunday, 21 November 1841 (see History of the Church, 4:454).” (p. 314)
(Btw, the Mormon “scriptural” root for Mormon temple dedications is Doctrine & Covenants 109 when Joseph Smith dedicated the Kirtland, Ohio temple on March 27, 1836...these days, the LDS Church will hold public “open houses” when a new temple is built; but after the open house, the temple is cleaned literally and “spiritually.” In order for Mormons entering “the threhold of the Lord's house” to “feel thy power” (D&C 109:13), all pagan germs are exorcised with a Smith-like dedication prayer:
”And that no unclean thing shall be permitted to come into thy house to pollute it.” (D&C 109:20)
And that is why no non-Mormons and no Mormons without a temple recommend can enter into a Mormon temple after the open house period; Joseph Smith's temple-segretation prayer tradition is carried on to this very day!
Is he the same “Apostle” Packer who may be the next Mormon profit ???
They built the temple in Kirtland...The Saints lost the Kirtland Temple—that was to be something of a pattern for that generation. The Church does not have the Kirtland Temple now.” (Lds "apostle" Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple, p. 174, Bookcraft, 1980)
Mr. Packer, what do you mean a “pattern?”
Packer elaborates:
* Aug. 3, 1831, Mormons dedicate temple at Independence, Jackson County, Missouri; yet... “The temple was never constructed. When the Saints were expelled from that area...in 1833 the site fell into other hands. Some day...that site will be fully reclaimed and the house of the Lord built as we have been commanded to do it.” (Packer, p. 174) [Wait a minute, Mr. Packer. What do you mean “Some day...?” Isn't Independence, MO, rather “built up” by 2014? Doesn't the Mormon “prophesy” by Joseph Smith, given Sept. 22-23, 1832, portend that “Which city shall be built, BEGINNING at the temple lot...” (Doctrine & Covenants 84:3)...Furthermore, didn't Smith prophesy of this phantom “temple” that: “Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, BEGINNING AT THIS PLACE, EVEN THE PLACE OF THE TEMPLE, WHICH TEMPLE SHALL BE REARED IN THIS GENERATION. FOR VERILY THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT ALL PASS AWAY UNTIL AN HOUSE SHALL BE BUILD UNTO THE LORD... (D&C 84:4-5)...So, Joseph lied in this prophesy? And you, Mr. Packer, deliberately ignore Smith's twice usage of the word “beginning?”]
* July 3, 1837, ground for a temple was broken at Far West, MO and cornerstones laid for it, 176 years ago today –July 4, 1838. According to Packer: ”Nothing further was done until April 26, 1839, when the Twelve Apostles, in fulfillment of a revelation, quietly held a conference on the temple site and as a gesture rolled a large stone up to one of the corners as a symbol of beginning construction on the temple. The temple, which would have been 110 feet long and 80 feet wide according to the plan, was NEVER built.” [Wait a minute, Mr. Packer. It was never built...so the Mormon god was “into” empty symbolism and aborted “gestures?”]
* Early 1840s: “Much of what happened at Kirtland was repeated in Nauvoo. We built a temple in Nauvoo. It was destroyed...In Nauvoo the temple was defiled and destroyed.” (Packer, p. 174) [Wait a minute, Mr. Packer! I thought Joseph Smith prophesied on Jan. 19, 1841 that “my servant Joseph and his seed after him {shall} have place in that house, from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord. And let the name of that house be called Nauvoo House...” (D&C 124: 59-60)...Hmm...I guess phrases like “generation to generation” re: Smith's personal household and “forever and ever” must have different meanings to Mormons and their leaders, eh?]
Bottom line? Joseph Smith prophesied falsely in D&C 84:3-5 and 124:59-60. A thief who steals a few times is a thief; a murderer who murders a few times is a murderer; and a prophet who prophesies a few times “in the Name of the Lord” is a false prophet!
1. Joseph Smith primarily left Kirtland Ohio because the bank he started had failed and he bailed out.
2. The Mormons would like to blame Missouri mobs for the failure of the temple in Independence, MO, yet even the official Mormon Church curricula, Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual (1981/2000), says that besides the “mobs” another reason existed: ”...AND because the Saints at that time had not kept the commandments as they should (see D&C 105:1-9)” So even Mormon leaders blame the Mormon people!
3. The Mormons were in the Salt Lake Valley for about 30 years before the St. George temple was dedicated. (What took so long for those early Utah "pioneer Mormons" to be faithful to the Mormon gods' commands?)
It’s a strange religion, but they do seem very nice and are quite well-behaved in modern times.
For the founding fathers to be seen in the temple, the LDS must have been on LSD!
Because, if you study church history you will learn that the dedication of the first temple at Kirtland, Ohio featured, appearances by Jesus Christ, Moses, Elijah, Elias, and numerous angels; speaking and singing in tongues, often with translations; prophesying; foot washing; and other "spiritual experiences."
Evil Gentile critics point out that the Saints had ginned up (pun intended) a mess of home brew and got loaded to the gills. The Holy Saints would later deny their own records and eyewitness accounts. But in any case, there is only so much of this kind of holy rolling that a body can take.
And now you know.
“It’s a strange religion, but they do seem very nice and are quite well-behaved in modern times.”
I love the qualifier, “...in modern times.”
For them to “seal” dead people into the mormon religion by endowment is seriously weird. And, one should note, profitable. This notion that the Founding Fathers appeared as ghosts in a mormon temple— preposterous.
The degree to which this has gone is or should be a major embarrassment.
Our Founders were NOT mormons in their times (as, they could not have been) and, without stretching it, they would not have been mormons in their day. They were to a large extent Diests or a mixture of Diests and different Christian denominations.
Perhaps. Religious fervor has caused many a strange vision ever since we first stood up on our hind legs and looked to the heavens in wonder.
Why?
IIRC some of the founding fathers appeared to various command officers during the Civil War and WWII, was that preposterous?
Our Founders were NOT mormons in their times (as, they could not have been) and, without stretching it, they would not have been mormons in their day.
That wouldn't keep them out of a Mormon temple before it was dedicated, would it? (Not a Mormon, m'self so I'm not certain on this one)...
Actually as I understand it it was the first Temple to perform “endowments” Mormons baptism for the dead is not the same thing as endowments. The baptisms have to be performed before the endowments. Living people received their own endowments in the Nauvoo temple but not for dead, the article is correct in that endowments didn't happen for the dead until St. George.
If I were to join the church I could perform baptisms the next day in the temple but would still have to wait a year for my endowments or for doing the endowments for the dead. A person has to have their own endowments before they can do it for the dead.
yes, I re-read it right before hitting send, and had to acknowledge a few flashing red signals in the past!
_________________________________________________
Perhaps you don't believe the Apostles of the 1st Century that said they saw many of the dead saints walking around in Jerusalem on the Easter morning. Perhaps you don't believe the Apostles when they say they saw the dead Christ appear to them, teach them and eat with them. Maybe you don't believe the 500 or so people that saw the “dead” Christ speak to them and then ascend in to Heaven.
Just because you or I don't believe something doesn't make it not true.
The Apostle Paul, who also heard and saw the “dead” Christ and said that by their fruits you shall know the followers of Christ, Mormon fruit looks pretty good. We could use a lot more of their fruits in this country right now.
Hopkinson was a below average third tier Mormon artist. The reason the painting is even in the temple can be explained in three words. Free, Free, Free!
And the unsophisticated viewers only saw subjects, not fine art. And throw in some bosom burning and legends are created.
Yeah. I simply can’t wrap my head around their theology, but I do see their fruits.
Perhaps what we believe doesn’t matter as much as what we do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.