DiscussMormonism.com

I happened across this scripture recently, and wondered how it was interpreted by LDS:

Acts 17:24, 25 --

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life and breath, and all things...

Both the "dwelling not in temples" and "not worshipped with men's hands" seems to apply both to temples and the rituals that occur there. What is the response to this?

Loquacious Lurker wrote:I happened across this scripture recently, and wondered how it was interpreted by LDS:

Acts 17:24, 25 --

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life and breath, and all things...

Both the "dwelling not in temples" and "not worshipped with men's hands" seems to apply both to temples and the rituals that occur there. What is the response to this?

Nice find! Let the rationalizing begin.

Loquacious Lurker wrote:I happened across this scripture recently, and wondered how it was interpreted by LDS:

Acts 17:24, 25 --

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life and breath, and all things...

Both the "dwelling not in temples" and "not worshipped with men's hands" seems to apply both to temples and the rituals that occur there. What is the response to this?

He doesn't dwell in the Temple. This can mean two things. He's not always in his Temples in physical form. This is probably not a problem. The other is that he is not limited to his Temples. See Alma teaching those cast out of the synagogues for more information.

He's not worshipped with men's hands as though he needed anything. If everyone were to stop worshipping him it wouldn't effect his powers. He doesn't need our praise. This was to combat the notion that God needs our worship and that we're doing him a favor by praising him. A lesson many (including LDS) have not yet learned.

Loquacious Lurker wrote:neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed anything

In context doesn't that refer to the statues which the Greeks built to worship their gods? While we may have statues of Christ they are not seen as necessary objects for proper worship.

Come on, do you really think scriptorians like Zakuska et all weren't aware of this one? I remember stumbling across plenty of these on my mission. I think the Bible makes it clear that the temple was an important place of worship. Next I suspect you'll quote the one from Revelation which says there was no temple because God dwelt among the people . . .

The Nehor wrote:He's not always in his Temples in physical form. This is probably not a problem.

Thanks for the response, Nehor, I appreciate it. But I think it's difficult to read that as anything other than "he dwells not in temples". It doesn't say, "sometimes he's not in temples", it says "dwells not". Kind of has a note of finality to it.

I kind of take that passage to mean (and realize the atheist is speaking here, for what it's worth) that God dwells in the heart, not in any building made by man. That would make sense in light of the fact that early Christians did not build temples, unlike the Judaism that they were derived from. It was almost as if they were distancing themselves from the Jewish temple concept with that scripture.

Loquacious Lurker wrote:

The Nehor wrote:He's not always in his Temples in physical form. This is probably not a problem.

Thanks for the response, Nehor, I appreciate it. But I think it's difficult to read that as anything other than "he dwells not in temples". It doesn't say, "sometimes he's not in temples", it says "dwells not". Kind of has a note of finality to it.

I kind of take that passage to mean (and realize the atheist is speaking here, for what it's worth) that God dwells in the heart, not in any building made by man. That would make sense in light of the fact that early Christians did not build temples, unlike the Judaism that they were derived from. It was almost as if they were distancing themselves from the Jewish temple concept with that scripture.

Exactly. This is verse clearly coming down against the idea that God is a just being or super creature "out there" in the world.
But other parts of the Bible say different and that is only because the Bible is a hodgepodge of competing ideas about God that was compiled from many sources.

asbestosman wrote:

Loquacious Lurker wrote:neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed anything

In context doesn't that refer to the statues which the Greeks built to worship their gods? While we may have statues of Christ they are not seen as necessary objects for proper worship.

Well, Paul wasn't afraid to use the word "idols", so I doubt that refers to statues. If he wanted to say "statues", he'd just say it. No coy beating around the bush.

Come on, do you really think scriptorians like Zakuska et all weren't aware of this one?

Hey, I'd never heard it addressed before. Which is why I asked. If there's a ready answer to yet another contradiction, great. I want to hear it.

I think the Bible makes it clear that the temple was an important place of worship.

Not in the New Testament. 1 Cor 3:7 and 2 Cor 6:16, among others, makes it clear the temple is the body. Not a building. In fact, it's in there a second time, in Acts 7:48 --

"Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet."

Next I suspect you'll quote the one from Revelation which says there was no temple because God dwelt among the people . . .

Maybe I should. Yeah. What he said.

Loquacious Lurker wrote:

The Nehor wrote:He's not always in his Temples in physical form. This is probably not a problem.

Thanks for the response, Nehor, I appreciate it. But I think it's difficult to read that as anything other than "he dwells not in temples". It doesn't say, "sometimes he's not in temples", it says "dwells not". Kind of has a note of finality to it.

I kind of take that passage to mean (and realize the atheist is speaking here, for what it's worth) that God dwells in the heart, not in any building made by man. That would make sense in light of the fact that early Christians did not build temples, unlike the Judaism that they were derived from. It was almost as if they were distancing themselves from the Jewish temple concept with that scripture.

He doesn't dwell in the Temple though. He may come and go as such but then I suspect based on prayers that God is omnipresent in a way I haven't figured out yet and not just omniscient. Another fun puzzle to play with.

The Nehor wrote:

Loquacious Lurker wrote:

The Nehor wrote:He's not always in his Temples in physical form. This is probably not a problem.

Thanks for the response, Nehor, I appreciate it. But I think it's difficult to read that as anything other than "he dwells not in temples". It doesn't say, "sometimes he's not in temples", it says "dwells not". Kind of has a note of finality to it.

I kind of take that passage to mean (and realize the atheist is speaking here, for what it's worth) that God dwells in the heart, not in any building made by man. That would make sense in light of the fact that early Christians did not build temples, unlike the Judaism that they were derived from. It was almost as if they were distancing themselves from the Jewish temple concept with that scripture.

He doesn't dwell in the Temple though. He may come and go as such but then I suspect based on prayers that God is omnipresent in a way I haven't figured out yet and not just omniscient. Another fun puzzle to play with.

If LDS don't believe God dwells in the temple, then why do we call it "His house" and why would it matter if one was "worthy" to enter? There have been Prophets who claimed to see Christ in the temples.

Seven wrote:

The Nehor wrote:

Loquacious Lurker wrote:

The Nehor wrote:He's not always in his Temples in physical form. This is probably not a problem.

Thanks for the response, Nehor, I appreciate it. But I think it's difficult to read that as anything other than "he dwells not in temples". It doesn't say, "sometimes he's not in temples", it says "dwells not". Kind of has a note of finality to it.

I kind of take that passage to mean (and realize the atheist is speaking here, for what it's worth) that God dwells in the heart, not in any building made by man. That would make sense in light of the fact that early Christians did not build temples, unlike the Judaism that they were derived from. It was almost as if they were distancing themselves from the Jewish temple concept with that scripture.

He doesn't dwell in the Temple though. He may come and go as such but then I suspect based on prayers that God is omnipresent in a way I haven't figured out yet and not just omniscient. Another fun puzzle to play with.

If LDS don't believe God dwells in the temple, then why do we call it "His house" and why would it matter if one was "worthy" to enter? There have been Prophets who claimed to see Christ in the temples.

Christ can come to his Temple just as he can anywhere else. I think calling it "his house" is more meant to indicate that it belongs to him and is used for his purposes not that he takes his shower there and if you look hard enough you'll find his bed or a lamp with lightbulbs manufactured on Kolob. The worthiness is to protect the ordinances not God himself. God has never set worthiness requirements for prayer. He would have if he wanted some people to stay away from himself.