Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Core danger: Too many Church members don’t know the Standard Works





Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are often among the most trusting and gullible people in the world. They also sometimes believe in doctrines they find on the Web that they should know are false and not even worth reading. A big problem is they sometimes then teach these untruths to other Church members – even in official meetings.
The core problem is that too many Church members these days don’t read the Standard Works – or at best only read The Book of Mormon over and over.
These members are clueless on what doctrines are found in the Old Testament, the Doctrine and Covenants and/or the Pearl of Great Price.
President Harold B. Lee, stated very prophetically about the danger of scriptural ignorance in the Ensign Magazine of December 1972:
“I say that we need to teach our people to find their answers in the scriptures. If only each of us would be wise enough to say that we aren’t able to answer any question unless we can find a doctrinal answer in the scriptures! And if we hear someone teaching something that is contrary to what is in the scriptures, each of us may know whether the things spoken are false—it is as simple as that. But the unfortunate thing is that so many of us are not reading the scriptures. We do not know what is in them, and therefore we speculate about the things that we ought to have found in the scriptures themselves. I think that therein is one of our biggest dangers of today.
When I meet with our missionaries and they ask questions about things pertaining to the temple, I say to them, as I close the discussion, “I don’t dare answer any of your questions unless I can find an answer in the standard works or in the authentic declarations of presidents of the Church.”
The Lord has given us in the standard works the means by which we should measure truth and untruth. May we all heed his word: “Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law, to be my law to govern my church.” (D&C 42:59.)”


NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

Is the foundation of the Salt Lake Temple composed of granite or sandstone?




DOES the famous and historic Salt Lake Temple actually sit on a base of all granite?
There’s no doubt that a sandstone base, taken from Red Butte Canyon, was the Temple’s original base. But is any of the sandstone still there?
The vast majority of all Internet searches find sources that imply the sandstone base was entirely removed – it is all granite now.
The most authoritative of these sources is from the BYU Religious Studies Center at:
This report states that the Temple’s foundation was covered as the U.S. Army approached Salt Lake in the summer of 1857.
Then, as the Army threat disappeared, the foundation was uncovered as Temple work was ready to resume.
The BYU Religious Studies history of the Salt Lake Temple then states:
“At this time, President Young examined the newly uncovered foundation and became aware that it was defective. He and his associates noticed large cracks and concluded that its small stones held together with mortar could not carry the massive weight of the temple. On January 1, 1862, he announced that the inadequate foundation would be removed and replaced by one made entirely of granite. The footings would be sixteen feet thick. “I want to see the Temple built in a manner that it will endure through the Millennium,” he later declared. The work of rebuilding the foundation moved slowly, and the walls did not reach ground level until the end of the construction season in 1867, fourteen years after the original cornerstones had been laid.”



However, this report can be supplemented by several Deseret News stories, including a photograph from the early 1960s.
The Deseret News of March 30, 1963 published a photograph of when extensive excavations were made around the base of the Salt Lake Temple. This photograph lists the granite foundation as 14 feet deep (two feet less than the BYU article stated).
It also clearly shows a sandstone sub-foundation still there, underneath the granite foundation.
So, technically both statements of a granite or sandstone base are true.
An earlier Deseret News story on Sept. 8, 1962, stated:
“The story of the foundation and the back-breaking labors of the pioneers who toiled with oxen to haul giant pieces of granite from Cottonwood Canyon quarries to replace an original foundation of sandstone has been told.”
Thus, if there ever was a full foundation of sandstone up to the ground level, then the upper 14 feet of that base had to have been removed and replaced with granite. However, the BYU story stated that the temple structure didn’t rise to ground level until 1867, or 10 years after the threat from the U.S. Army. So, this casts some doubt on a full underground base of sandstone ever existing.
Notwithstanding, it is a fact that some 14 feet to 16 feet of lower sandstone sub-base still remain below ground.
The 1963 Deseret News story stated that the sandstone sub-foundation was 30 feet down. Amazingly, only hand tools, horse and oxen power created that foundation.
This sandstone sub-foundation covers an area of 4,850 square feet.
The photograph also reveals how layered in blocks and even partially eroded the sandstone sub-foundation appears to have been in 1963.
During the 1963 renovation, cement wells and footings were added to replace the previous rocky subsoil. At the same time of the 1963 underground improvements, underground passages were also added.
-“Facts about the Temple” was an Oct. 22, 1891 story on the S.L. Temple in the Salt Lake Herald newspaper. This article accurately mentions the deepest foundations as being sandstone.
“The Salt Lake Temple foundation is not laid of granite from Cottonwood canon (sic), as has been stated, but is of the same kind of sandstone as the temple block wall foundation – we call it firestone – and has never been disturbed or taken up and relayed as has been stated …” the Herald story stated.
The Herald also explained that oxen hauled the sandstone from a spur in the mountain a little south of the mouth of Red Butte Canon (sic), in blocks about three feet thick.
Back to the Deseret News’ 1963 photograph, it does appear to show the three-foot thick sandstone blocks in the sub-foundation.



-One other interesting excerpt from the BYU Religious Studies article on the history of the S.L. Temple is this:
“Because the builders recalled President Young’s desire for this temple to stand through time, the structure was very solid. Even at their tops, the walls were six feet thick, and the granite blocks were individually and skillfully shaped to fit snugly together. Nearly a century later, Elder Mark E. Petersen attested to the soundness of the temple’s construction. He was in the temple when a rather severe earthquake hit, damaging several buildings around the Salt Lake Valley. “As I sat there in that temple I could feel the sway of the quake and that the whole building groaned.” Afterward, he recalled, the engineers “could not find one semblance of damage” anywhere in the temple.”
So, the finished Salt Lake Temple may be more earthquake resistant than some may believe – notwithstanding that sandstone sub-foundation.
-Still one more interesting fact from the BYU Religious Studies article is this:
“Some have suggested that in the Salt Lake Temple, shafts were provided for elevators and spaces left throughout the building for electric conduits and heating ducts even before these technologies were known. Angell Sr., (the temple’s architect) however, certainly would have learned about elevators, which were just coming into use at the time of his 1856 visit to Europe. By the early 1860s, electricity was already being used in Utah for the Deseret Telegraph system. Hence, most of the temple’s interior was designed and built long after these technologies emerged. Although the west center tower proved to be a convenient location for the two main elevators, there is no evidence to suggest that their shafts were planned when there was no knowledge of this technology.”


-Originally published in the Deseret News.

NOTE 1: The term "granite" is a layman's term in this article. Geologists probably have their own different scientific terms.

NOTE 2: Temples can be vulnerable to earthquakes, God permitting. Example: The Logan Temple's main structural beam was found to be cracked in two when extensive remodeling work began in 1976. It was surmised that a past earthquake (possibly from the March 27, 1975 Pocatello Valley Idaho quake that was near the Utah-Idaho border and equaled 6.3 in strength), damaged it.
Thus, if the temple had simply been renovated, the roof could have eventually collapsed. Fortunately, a total rebuilding inside the walls and roof was done.

NOTE 3: It was announced in April of 2019 that the Salt Lake Temple will close at the end of 2019 for approximately 4 years for extensive remodeling. This will be the first remodeling of that temple since 1963, when the photos on this blog were taken. Extensive seismic upgrades will be made -- and the sandstone sub-foundation will surely be exposed again.

NOTE 4: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.


Monday, May 7, 2018

Don't make the error of elevating The Apocrypha (or Esdras) to a Standard Work






SOME members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have apparently recently seized upon verses from the Book of 2nd Esdras in the Apocrypha as being Gospel and clearer and more prophetic than the Book of Revelation and the Doctrine and Covenants about what happens in the last days.
These questionable teachings are even on some popular LDS member's pages on Facebook - and yet few seem to be even questioning their validity ....

BEFORE anyone buys into this kind of risky doctrine, they should consider the following:

1.        The Prophet Joseph Smith said much of the Apocrypha is true and much of it is false. (See D&C 91:1-2). Without the spirit, it is not possible to determine which is which. The scriptures also stated it was not needful for the Prophet to re-translate any of the Apocrypha. Why? Likely because there was nothing important enough there. The Prophet also wanted to run for President of the United States. If the Esdras sections of the Apocrypha actually contain the future history of U.S. Presidents (as some claim in an eagle's feathers treatise), it is hard to accept that Joseph Smith didn’t note that somewhere – and yet he didn’t.

2.        President Gordon B. Hinckley said time and time again that Church members should read the Book of Mormon -- a book of scripture written for us and our day. He said nothing about reading the Apocrypha. It is the Book of Mormon that is the book for the American continent. The Sealed Plates of the Book of Mormon likely do have a detailed history of the world from the beginning to the end, so why would Esdras have a small section of that in it?
3.        It is simply hard to believe that Ezra, who wrote the book of Esdras in the Apocrypha could be so detailed in his so-called foretelling of the American Presidency and future of the USA, when no other scripture -- including the Doctrine and Covenants -- is even close to being as detailed. And, the Lord's style simply ISN'T to give man such detailed accounts of things to come -- and certainly not a presidential timeline.
      
     This blog isn't the only one to question the teachings in Esdras. For example, ldsscriptureteachings.org states:
"The apocalyptic tone of II Esdras is impressive and appealing. Not all of the content, however, is trustworthy. It tries to describe some very questionable signs of the Second Coming as follows:
…infants a year old shall talk, and women with child will bring forth untimely infants at three or four months, and they will live and dance…
…[in that day] wild animals will go outside their [dens], and women in their uncleanness will bear monsters. (2 Esdras 6:21; 5:8)"
Also, the same blog states:
"The Second Book of Esdras teaches false doctrine about Father Adam, blaming him for the consequences of the Fall."
4.         Plus, who was the author of Esdras? He was Ezra, a scribe and priest for the Jews. Not likely a prophet ... and why did he get such revelation that was certainly not in any way pertinent to his calling?
Doesn’t D&C 50:13 apply here to Ezra?
(“Wherefore, I the Lord ask you this question—unto what were ye ordained?”)
Or, even if Ezra was writing down a prophet’s words, who was that prophet?

Finally, if you search Ezra the Jewish scribe on Google, it is clear that many scholars believe his writings are counter to other Biblical doctrines and Esdras may not have actually been fully written when Ezra was even still alive, but may have been written later on. Some scholars even question Ezra’s sanity during some of his writings.
-BOTTOM LINE: Some Church members are too hasty to believe such fringe and shaky doctrines these days, especially with the easy access to them via the Web.

Some of these same Church members likely haven't even read the Old Testament, or the Pearl of Great Price and yet they jump to The Apocrypha? If they don't know what's in the Standard Works, then how can they judge authenticity for The Apocrypha? 

-Lastly, Robert J. Matthews, BYU professor, said, "When compared with the scriptures, the Apocrypha is less fruitful soil for spiritual growth without greater than usual assistance from the Spirit… While historians and scholars can find much in these documents of importance to their research, average Church members will receive a greater spiritual return on their investment of time by reading the Bible and the other standard works than they will by reading the Apocrypha." (Ensign, December, 1983, page 70.)


NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.