Are Temples Consistent with the New Testament?

And it is our privilege to have you here this evening. Hopefully some other folks will be making their way here, but we're going to go ahead and get started.

It is our hope here this evening to have a formal, respectful debate about what the differences are between LDS and evangelical positions.

I ask that you treat everyone with respect, that you hold all applause or other shows of support or disgust or whatever else might be motivating you, and at the end that we applaud both speakers.

It is a privilege to have men of their caliber to appear at an event like this, and so I hope that you will show respect to both of our speakers.

We're going to begin with 20 -minute opening statements. The subject that we have here this evening is

Are Temples Consistent with New Testament Christianity? We're going to have, after the opening statements, 10 minutes of rebuttal.

That will take us until just past 8 o 'clock. We'll take a very short break. Restrooms are out this way, and if you need to make use of those, please be as quick as you can because we need to start back as soon as possible.

When we rejoin, we will start with the questions between the speakers, cross -examination for 15 minutes each.

Then we'll have 5 -minute closing statements, and then we'll have questions from the audience. There are 3x5 cards on which you can submit your questions.

You can give them to me during the break, or you can give them to me immediately before the question period. I'm going to make my best effort to be fair in picking through those questions and alternating between our speakers.

As a perk to sponsoring this debate, we would like to tell you just a little bit about our church.

There are some brochures up here at the front that will tell you about us. We are a congregation of the

Orthodox Presbyterian denomination. We are a church that tries to stress seriousness about God and his word, seriousness about our relationship with him, particularly in terms of worship, and a seriousness about our relationships with one another.

We have services here in Salt Lake on Sunday mornings. We also have midweek Bible studies.

We have evening services in Provo. We have a church planner who's arriving in less than 3 weeks who will be taking over that mission work and will be introducing morning worship in Provo in a matter of a few months.

Lord willing, we'll be starting evening services up in Logan in September. So if you know of anyone looking for a church that holds to the historic doctrines of the

Reformation, we encourage you to point them towards our church. I have been asked enough questions that I think that it's good to point out that we are very much in sympathy with Dr.

White. We are a Reformed church. That came as a surprise to some of the people that have been to the debates, but that's the reason that we keep having him here.

It is a great privilege to have him and Richard Hopkins appear with us this evening.

Dr. Hopkins is a graduate of UCLA, has a

Juris Doctorate. He was a trial attorney for over 20 years in California. He is a member of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints and has written two books dealing with LDS apologetics.

The first is Biblical Mormonism Responding to Evangelical Criticisms of LDS Theology.

The second is How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God. We also have with us

Dr. James White. He is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona. He is an elder in the

Reformed Baptist Church. His church holds to a statement of faith nearly identical to our own.

He is the author of roughly 20 books now or maybe even more, more than 20 books.

It's hard to keep up. But those titles include Letters to a Mormon Elder, The Same -Sex

Controversy, Potter's Freedom, and The God Who Justifies. This is,

I believe, the ninth debate that Dr. White has done for us and the second time that Dr.

Hopkins has appeared representing the LDS position. It's a great privilege to have them with us.

And so I'll begin with Dr. Hopkins taking the affirmative on the question,

Are Temples Consistent with New Testament Christianity? I want to thank

Pastor Jason Wallace and the Christ Presbyterian Church for the opportunity to be here today, and I appreciate all of you coming out and going through the trouble of finding this location.

The topic is an interesting one. Are Temples Consistent with New Testament Christianity?

We look back at the history of the world as much as we know of it, and we note that pagans built temples that they named for their various gods.

So it's not unusual if we start to wonder whether temples were ever consistent with any of God's teachings.

Why did God command Israel to build temples in the first place?

Was he copying the pagans? Of course we would reject that.

Perhaps the pagans were copying an earlier era of people of God who were building temples.

Well, whatever the purpose of the true and living God in commanding temples to be built in Israel anciently, our question here really is, did

God change and in the New Testament stop, change his purpose with respect to having temples?

Now Dr. White has made some claims regarding these issues, and I will attempt to address some of those claims.

He's made those claims in writing, so I know of them already, and I think it would be helpful if I addressed some of them.

But we should remember that as each of us discusses this, our statements may seem, of necessity, somewhat speculative.

And that is because we have to face the reality that there is very little, we know very little about temples from the

Bible. We know in general things, but we don't know details.

We still have some information that is useful to us, though, and I'd like to look over that tonight. The first subject that I'd like to go with is the location of the temple.

Now Dr. White has written that God, quote, allowed his people to build a single temple, only one, and located in Jerusalem.

That's a quote. But let's look at this a little bit more fully.

In Deuteronomy 16, verses 2 and 6, the Lord commanded Israel to, quote, sacrifice the

Passover unto the Lord thy God, in the place which the Lord shall choose to place his name there.

Verse 5 indicates that this is a special place, because it says, quote, thou mayest not sacrifice the

Passover within any of thy gates. Quote, you can't do it at your house. This is something that's supposed to be done in a place which the

Lord places his name, which we would call a temple. Now this commandment was given long before the

Temple of Solomon was built, and yet the Passover was sacrificed annually, every year after Israel left

Egypt, except for times of apostasy, and until the temple was destroyed.

Where did this sacrifice take place before the temple in Jerusalem was built? Well, this is important to know, because wherever it took place, that must have been the place that the

Lord chose to place his name, and hence could be considered a temple. We know a few of these places from the

Bible. The first year after they left Egypt, the Passover was sacrificed in the wilderness in Sinai.

This is Numbers 9 .5, you can find that. While Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years,

God commanded them to build the tabernacle. Now the tabernacle is referred to specifically as, quote, the

Temple of the Lord, unquote, in 1 Samuel 1 .9

and 3 .3. But even after Israel settled in the Promised Land, the tabernacle was not kept at Jerusalem.

In fact, we know that when Israel first entered the Promised Land, they offered the Passover at Gilgal. This is

Joshua 5 .10. Of course, when the Temple of Solomon was built, it was dedicated as, quote, the place of which thou hast said, my name shall be there, unquote.

And that's 1 Kings 8 .29. However, in 2 Chronicles 7 .12,

it says that, quote, the Lord appeared to Solomon by night and said unto him,

I have heard thy prayer and have chosen this place, the Temple of Solomon, to myself for an house of sacrifice, unquote.

Notice that he said an house of sacrifice, not the house of sacrifice, not the exclusive house of sacrifice.

The language leaves open the probability of other temple locations. The Bible indicates that there were many other places where authorized sacrifices were offered to the

Lord. What was basically required was an altar. See Exodus 20, verse 24.

In fact, the specifications for a sacrificial altar are given in Exodus 20, 25 and 26, and in Joshua 8 .31.

Joshua built such an altar in Mount Tubal and offered sacrifice.

That's in Joshua 8 .30. Gideon was specifically commanded of the

Lord to build an altar in Ophrah of the Abizrites and to offer sacrifice.

That's in Judges 6, verses 21 -27. He was told to build the altar in a specific location, quote, upon the top of this rock in the ordered place, unquote.

That's Judges 6 .26. Of course, there was an altar built where the tabernacle was located, and for many generations after Israel entered the

Promised Land, the tabernacle was kept in Shiloh. You can see

Joshua 18 .1 and 1 Samuel 3 -5, and verse 11 for that. And it is said in tribute to Elkanah, the righteous father of Samuel, that he, quote, went up out of his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the

Lord of hosts in Shiloh. 1 Samuel 1 -3.

But even while the temple was in Shiloh, Samuel offered sacrifice in Gilgal, where Saul was crowned, and that's 1

Samuel 11, 13 -14. David offered sacrifice with his family in Bethlehem, 1

Samuel 20, verse 6. And before he built the temple in Jerusalem, Solomon offered, quote, a thousand burnt offerings, unquote, upon the altar in Gibeon.

This is in 1 Kings 3 -4. Now, when David kept the ark at Kirjath Jerem and moved the tabernacle to Gibeon, he left priests to minister and to offer burnt offerings in both locations.

1 Chronicles 16, 37 -42. After the temple in Jerusalem was built, the people went through various apostasies.

They started worshiping pagan gods and built unauthorized temples outside of Jerusalem. These unauthorized temples were closed by some of the later more righteous kings, including

Hezekiah and Josiah, each of whom kept Passovers in Jerusalem.

See 2 Chronicles, chapters 33 and 35. But 2 Chronicles 33 -17 implies that in consolidating all sacrifice to Jerusalem, Hezekiah may have also closed some places outside of Jerusalem, which had authorized sacrifices being made to the

Lord. You can see 2 Kings 18 -22 and Isaiah 36 -7 on that.

Much later, in the prophecy repeated in Nehemiah, chapter 1, verses 8 and 9, the

Lord promises to gather Israel to, quote, the place that I have chosen to set my name there, unquote.

This was after the temple had been rebuilt and Israel had been gathered back to Jerusalem from Babylon.

So the passage here refers to the latter -day return of the Jews to a temple.

There are many other prophecies and references in the Old Testament that speak of latter -day temples.

For example, Ezekiel, chapters 40 -47, Isaiah 2, verses 2 and 3, which are repeated in Micah 4, 1 and 2,

Zechariah 14, verses 16 -21, and even 2 Thessalonians 2 -4 in the

New Testament. Looking at all of this, all of these scriptures together, we can see why the

Lord always seemed to refer, in general terms, to the location of His temple. He referred to it as the place that I have chosen to set my name there.

As the circumstances of Israel changed, He knew there was going to be different places that they would need temples.

And after Solomon's temple, it appears that circumstances may have justified additional temples elsewhere in Israel as well.

But in the last days, the temples will be built in Israel and other places that are not specifically stated in the

Bible. So we do not feel that we should put God in a box, claiming that Jerusalem is the only location

He can ever put a temple. God has spoken generally about the place where His temples will be located, and we feel that we should not restrict

His options. So, now, Dr. White has also written, quote,

The temple in Israel had one primary function, the worship of God through the offering of sacrifices. Now, of course, sacrifice was certainly one function performed in the temples.

But was it the one primary function of the temple? Well, sacrifices were not performed inside the tabernacle specifically, nor were they performed in the

Holy of Holies, in the Temple of Solomon. Now, there were offerings made there, though, blood offerings.

But what was the purpose of these inner rooms of the temple? And what about the upper chambers of the temple that were referred to in 2

Chronicles 3 and 9? What took place in these temples? We have no indication specifically from the

Bible, but certainly they would have been entirely unnecessary if the one primary function of the temple was sacrifice.

So let's take a look at the Bible and see if we can determine from Scripture some of the other uses of the temple that were made by the people.

Luke 24 tells us that after Christ spent 40 days instructing His disciples following His resurrection,

He told them to, quote, tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endowed with power from on high, unquote.

That's Luke 24, verse 49. He then left them and was, quote, carried up into heaven, verse 51.

Verses 52 and 53 say that in response to His command, quote, they worshiped

Him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing

God. This suggests that the apostles understood that the temple was the place they should go to be endowed from on high.

It also indicates that praising and blessing God is one of the activities that occurs in the temple.

Psalms 11 .4, which is quoted in Habakkuk 2 .20, says,

The Lord is in His holy temple, unquote. Isaiah 6 .1 says, quote,

I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple, unquote.

Thus Israel understood that the temple was God's house on earth and that He visited it.

So clear was this understanding that Psalm 18 .6 says, God, quote, heard my voice out of His temple, unquote.

Isaiah 66 .6 also refers to the voice of the Lord coming from the temple. From this we learn that hearing, seeing, or even talking with God is a reason for the temples.

In Psalms 27 .4, the psalmist prays, quote, that I may dwell in the house of the

Lord all the days of my life to behold the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in His temple, unquote.

This suggests that people went to the temple to make inquiries about the Lord. That is what Christ was doing in the temple when

He was but a child. Luke 2 .46 says that His parents found Him, quote, in the temple sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions, unquote.

Psalm 29 .9 says, quote, in His temple doth everyone speak of His glory, unquote.

This also suggests teaching and inquiry. Of course, during His ministry,

Christ regularly taught in the temple. We see that from Matthew 26 .55, Mark 12 .35,

John 7 .14, and 8 .20. Note that in Acts 3, Peter teaches the people about Christ when he is in the portion of the temple called

Solomon's Porch. And in Acts 5 .19 -20, an angel opened the prison doors to the apostles and commanded them to, quote, go stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life, unquote.

In response, they, quote, entered into the temple early in the morning and taught, unquote.

Teaching about God and Christ, then, is another reason for temples. Amos 8 .3

refers to the songs of the temple, unquote. This suggests that singing was an activity that occurred in the temple.

Another one that Dr. White has recognized specifically is prayers. Prayers were often in the temple, and indeed, Jonah 2 .7

refers to prayer coming to God, quote, in thine holy temple, unquote. Christ referred to the temple as the house of prayer, specifically.

Matthew 21 .13, Mark 11 .17. Acts 3 .1 says that Peter and John, quote, went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour, unquote.

This suggests that prayer was a special activity scheduled at a specific, separate time. Paul prayed in the temple,

Acts 22 .17. And while praying in the temple, Paul received a vision of Christ, Acts 22 .17

through 21. Thus, we see that prayer was a very important part of temple activity. The Bible refers to purification rituals being performed in the temple.

For example, 2 Chronicles 30 .29, Nehemiah 12 .45. Paul mentions that he was, quote, found, quote, purified in the temple, neither with multitude nor with tumult, unquote.

Acts 24 .18. His point was that he was there not to profane the temple, nor to teach the multitudes about Christ on that occasion, but simply to perform this purification ordinance.

See Acts 21 .26. The Bible also refers to washings in the temple.

Regarding Aaron and his sons, this is in Exodus 29 .4, Chapter 30, verses 18 -21,

Chapter 40, 12 and 30. Now, Leviticus 16 .4 and 24 required all priests to wash themselves, quote, in the holy place, unquote, before putting on the, quote, holy garments, unquote.

Moses was commanded to, quote, take the Levites from among the children of Israel and cleanse them, unquote.

And this was the first thing he was to do in order to cleanse them. Quote, sprinkle water of purifying upon them.

That's Numbers 8, 5 -7. These washings were associated with the purification rituals mentioned above in Numbers 19, 19 -20.

In fact, in Solomon's temple there was a sea, it was called, which was a large basin that was, quote, for the priests to wash in, unquote.

And that's 2 Chronicles 4 .6. The fact that these washings involved all who came into the temple is suggested in Psalms 26 .6,

which says, quote, I will wash my hands in innocency, so will

I compass thine altar, O Lord. What do we know about these other aspects of temple worship?

Well, very little appears in sacred writ. I pretty much told you all that is there just now, summarized it.

Some very early Christian groups claimed to have temple knowledge and wrote some of it down. These groups were called

Gnostics because of their claims to know these extra biblical details, but these groups were heretical in a great many respects, and so their information, though it is interesting, is unreliable.

The Masons today claim to have some of this information passed down to them through their grandmasters.

But can we rely on their information? I don't think so. We don't think so.

But we can learn from these sources that there were things done in the temple that were instituted by the

Lord, and though they are referred to, the details were not made public in holy writ.

These details were lost or perverted over the centuries, but they were important to New Testament Christians, the early

Christians. Otherwise, these early Christians, including the Apostles themselves, would not have spent so much time in the temple.

How do we get accurate information about these details today? I suggest there is only one source that we can rely on, and that is revelation from God.

He is the source to whom Joseph Smith went, and he is the sole source for what is practiced in LDS temples today.

Those who are familiar with LDS temple ordinances, however, do recognize numerous subtle references to temple practices that remain both in the scriptures and in the less reliable writings of the early

Christian groups. That is why our scholars occasionally point to these early writings as substantiation for LDS doctrine on temples, but these sources are not the basis for our doctrine by any means.

The final source for any knowledge we have of what was practiced in the temple anciently is modern revelation, and that,

I believe, is the only reliable source available for that information. Now, Dr. White claims that, quote,

Jesus Christ fulfilled the law as well as the function of the temple, unquote. Does the

Bible uphold this claim? Well, we know that Christ fulfilled the law, but there is no passage in the

Bible that specifically says the temple functions were fulfilled. There is scripture that tells us that the law of Moses was fulfilled, but the law of Moses was separate from the temple.

Paul, in fact, listed it separately when he defended himself in Acts 25 .8. He's saying, quote, neither against the law of the

Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar have I offended anything at all, unquote.

The law of Moses was also separate from sacrifice. Jacob offered sacrifice in Genesis 31 .54,

long before the law of Moses was instituted. And before Moses was given the law, he asked

Pharaoh to allow the Hebrews to go out five days, or let's see, it was like three days, yeah, into the desert, to offer sacrifice to their

God. That's in Exodus 5. Also, we note that the sacrifices offered in the

Temple of Solomon were to be, quote, an ordinance forever to Israel, unquote, 2

Chronicles 2 .4. Is there any other way you see this? Only we can tell whether or not the functions of the temple were fulfilled.

I suggest there is. We can look at the practice of early Christians after Christ's resurrection.

What do we learn from looking at that? Well, after the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, which fulfilled the law of Moses, the apostles, including

Paul, attended the temple regularly. Acts 2 .46 says they were continuing daily with one accord in the temple, unquote.

The Jews caught Paul there in Acts 26 .21. Thus, the Bible verifies that the apostles and early

Christians were in the temple regularly. What does this tell us? Well, it doesn't give us many details, but it tells us this one thing for certain, and that is that temples are definitely consistent with New Testament Christianity.

Thank you. We'll now have opening statements from Dr.

White. Well, good evening.

It's good to be with you again this evening. I'm glad all of you found your way through the university parking lots and various and sundry other things to the location here.

A very important topic this evening, especially here in the location where we find ourselves.

Obviously there would be places around the United States, and indeed outside of Utah there would be a lot of times when

I think a lot of Christians would have questions concerning just how valid this particular discussion really is.

But we are talking about something that, if you are LDS, you fully understand is central to the teachings of your faith, and it is one of the major differences that exist between the

LDS faith and historic Christian faith, such as my own, that believes that the church is what is commanded of us in the

New Testament, in the sense of what the only thing that we build. Christ builds his church.

We, the people of God, are the temple of God, and all the things that were associated with the

Old Testament temple, that temple there in Jerusalem, or before that fixed structure was built, the tabernacle that God gave the exact means of building, the exact way it was to be laid out in Scripture for a purpose, as we will see.

We believe that the function of that tabernacle and that temple was to point to Jesus Christ, was to point to his sacrificial death, was to demonstrate through the offerings that were made year by year, the writer to the

Hebrews tells us, that these things were pointing forward to a much greater fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ.

And that since he has come, and since he has offered that one sacrifice, and since he is the only holder of the

Melchizedek priesthood, according to the book of Hebrews, therefore, the concept of Christians building structures, calling them temples, and engaging in religious activity within them, is contradictory to,

A, the teaching concerning the tabernacle or temple in the Old Testament, and then in the

New Testament, the fulfillment of those things in the person of Jesus Christ, and the teaching concerning the nature of the law, the nature of sacrifices, and the nature of the singular sacrifice of Jesus Christ, found particularly this evening in the book of Hebrews.

Now, just a few things, just to make sure that we're all on the same page, because there have been a lot of scripture references already cited, and they're cited so quickly that most of the time, especially in a context like this, especially if you're sitting in some of those rows where there's not much light, even if you wanted to try to look up the references, you would have difficulty in so doing.

But let's try to refocus our attention. What I have said in the past, and some have, for some odd reason, focused upon the word allowed in context, it obviously meant that God only commanded the building of, first, the tabernacle.

The tabernacle was portable. There was only one tabernacle. God did not say build as many tabernacles as you can.

God did not say build multiple tabernacles and place them all over Israel so that people have ease of access.

There was one tabernacle, and that one tabernacle housed that special Ark of the

Covenant, and it was that one tabernacle that people were to go on the Day of Atonement, on the

Day of Covering, Yom Kippur, the Day of Covering, Kephar, to cover over when the sacrifice would be made and the blood would be sprinkled upon the altar.

Now, the functions of that particular tabernacle in regards to those offerings was transferred to the singular temple in Jerusalem when

Solomon built that, and so the people of God were to gather to one place. In fact, it's fascinating.

The men were to come together. They were to come to that place of offering as the people of God, and this was such a universal command to go to one place, not to many places, but to one place, that God in His Word even promises that when the men leave, and think about those

Israelites who were living on the borderlands, and right across a boundary or a river would be their enemies, those who hate them.

They see the men leaving at the same time each year. What is to keep them from coming across and carrying away the women and their goods?

God even promises to take away the desire from the heart of their enemies to take their lands when they would be faithful to go to that one place of worship.

Now, were there not other places of worship? There certainly were, and they were idolatrous. The Bible is filled with references to the idolatrous worship that took place in many places, and almost all of these places were modeled after the

Asherim, the groves, were modeled after the pagan religions that constantly were encroaching upon the people.

God's prophets were constantly having to talk about the fact that Yahweh is the one true

God, that you cannot bring the worship of Yahweh together with the worship of other gods. This kind of syncretism, this kind of giving in, coming to Jerusalem to worship

Yahweh, but then going and worshipping the Baals, and the Asherim, and the Asheroth, and so on and so forth, this was something that the people in the

Old Testament did all the time. And we read the prophets over and over again, calling the people to pure worship, and God once in a while grants repentance.

We see the reformations under Hezekiah or Josiah, and there is a period of time when the

Asherims are destroyed, and there is a restoration of true worship, but unfortunately, most of the time, the people are very content to tip their hats toward the true worship of God, and then go on with that which fulfills their own desires.

Now, what happens then, since we are talking about, are temples consistent with New Testament Christianity?

The first thing to recognize is, well, if you, as a New Testament Christian, do not seek to build a single temple, see if there is going to be a consistency, if there is going to be a demand to say, well, unless you have a passage that says stop building a temple, singular temple, then you're to continue to do that, which really wouldn't be relevant to the thesis this evening, because, as we know,

Mormonism builds many temples, but if we were to substantiate the thesis, at least someone might say, well, still, you have to explain why the people of God, in the

Old Covenant, built that one temple, and their worship is focused there, and in those early days, the church in Jerusalem, as long as that temple existed, they still went there, they still used it as a place of proclamation, which, of course, is interesting to note, however, that those

Christians outside of Jerusalem do not make pilgrimages, they do not go to the temple to do things in the sense of, where do they go and evangelize?

They evangelize in the synagogues, in the same place where the Jews were. Why do they go there first?

Why does Paul, whenever he goes into a city, go into the synagogue first? Because there you find the scriptures, there you find the people who already possess the

Word of God, you can go to the Word of God and say, look, here you have the prophecies of the Messiah, here you have the pictures of the

Messiah, that's where you start, and then in each one of those instances in Acts, when eventually the

Jews rebel against that, sometimes even driving the Apostles out of the city, then you have the

Apostles going to the Gentiles at that point in time. Look at, for example, Acts chapter 13, for a good example of that particular situation.

But still, the question remains, well, if you're going to say that New Testament Christians do not build a particular structure, upon what basis do you do so?

Well, I think the universal answer to that question throughout the history of the Church has been very clearly enunciated in the book of Hebrews.

The book of Hebrews presents to us an apologetic. It is a book written to those

Hebrew Christians who were under duress, they recognized what they were facing.

They would be put out of the synagogue, they would be in essence, excommunicated from their families. They would be considered to be dead.

And there was this temptation placed before them, this force placed upon them that said, come back to the old ways.

This Jesus the Messiah thing, it's just not worth what you're giving up. Think about the family.

Think about all the difficulties you're going to go through. Come back to the old ways. Come back to the old ways.

And so what does the writer to the Hebrews do? He demonstrates the supremacy and superiority of Christ in numerous different ways to the old way.

He demonstrates that there is in essence nothing to go back to. Now in that process for example, he demonstrates the eternal nature of Christ, the deity of Christ in Hebrews chapter 1.

His supremacy over the angels. His supremacy over Moses. And then most interestingly enough for us this evening he begins an extended section where he demonstrates that Jesus Christ is our one high priest.

And that he has made one offering and the contrast is drawn between the many offerings which took place in the temple, not in multiple temples, but in the temple.

The contrast is drawn between those repeated offerings and the people coming to that one offering, especially on Yom Kippur, the day of atonement with the singular sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

In the process the author addresses the issue of, for example, the priesthood. And he says that the old priesthood has been done away with.

The Levitical priesthood traced through Aaron, and Aaron only, no one who is not of the family of Aaron, can hold that priesthood.

Remember what happened in Numbers when the ground opened up and swallowed Korah, Dathan, and Mabirim for daring to claim priesthood authority when they did not have it.

That particular priesthood is contrasted with Christ's priesthood.

And in fact, in Hebrews 7 verse 12, we're told where there is a change of law, there is a change of priesthood. The two are connected together.

And in point of fact, that priesthood which offered the sacrifices which had charge over the temple precincts, was done away with.

Its purpose is fulfilled. Why? Because a greater priesthood he is called the mediator of a better covenant with better sacrifices, better promises, a better hope.

Each of these placed in contrast with the old covenant, and that old covenant and its old priesthood was part and parcel of the old temple and the worship that took place within it.

And so you will notice that while we have the one incident of Paul and a

Nazarite vow, we do not have sin offerings any longer by anyone, even those in Jerusalem.

And never do you find in the New Testament or in the history of the early church those Christians going out and building buildings and offering sacrifices within those particular structures.

And so we have the contrast that is presented to us by the writer of the Hebrews where he says all of these things, the priesthood and their offerings, the sacrifices, the things that took place were pointing forward.

In fact, remember in Hebrews you have the discussion where you have all of the furniture and the way it was arranged in the holy place and it specifically asserted all of this

God gave us the exact way it was supposed to be built for what reason? So that it might represent its fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

And so then the writer says so you see what's going on here is even though the high priests who were not able to continue their work because of death, they would die and a new high priest would have to come along.

Jesus Christ because he does not die is able to save the uttermost those who draw near unto

God by him. It talks about him entering into the holy place which the high priest could only do once a year to offer that sacrifice for the people.

He has entered in and unlike the old high priest who had to just enter in and perform his work and then leave,

Jesus enters in and he stays. And the old high priest there was no place to sit.

There was no place to sit because his work was never completed. But Jesus as the one high priest, the only

Melchizedek priest because the Melchizedek priest has to be able to save the uttermost those who draw nigh unto

God by him. Hebrews chapter 7. He enters into that holy place and what does

Hebrews chapter 10 tell us? By one offering he has perfected forever those who are sanctified and he has sat down in the presence of the

Father. He has sat down. He is no longer in a situation where he is having to work in the sense that the old priest had to continuously be doing the offering again and again and again.

The writer of Hebrews says he does not do so. He has perfected by one offering for all time those who are sanctified.

And so you see the reason, my friends, that New Testament Christians did not go out and say, well, we now have a new priesthood authority that was not present in the old temple.

And I'm not sure about the discussions of the rooms and things like that. For example, the law was found in Josiah's day in one of those rooms and there are places of storage and priesthood the priest and the priesthood

I mean, have you ever tried to sacrifice a whole lot of lambs? It takes a lot of stuff to do that and there had to be places of storage and things like that.

I'm not sure if there was anything else being suggested about that, but be that as it may, it was the erotic priesthood that was in charge of what was going on in Jerusalem.

And we don't find the New Testament Christians saying, well, we have a new priesthood so we are going to go and we're going to come up with a completely new way of doing things.

We have no record given to us, though we have clear record in the Old Testament of exactly how the tabernacle is to be built exactly how it's to be laid out nothing like that in the

New Testament. We have no references whatsoever to the New Testament Christians going out and building structures and engaging in any kind of religious activity within these structures that were kept from other people.

There is no evidence of this whatsoever and the reason we would not see it is because they recognized, as the book of Hebrews tells us, that those old particular structures, those offerings, those priesthood activities pointed to what they now realized and saw was past completed and perfect.

And in fact, may I suggest to you that to go back to priesthoods in the sense of the

Aaronic priesthood or Melchizedek priesthood or something along those lines, to go back to temples to go back to things like that is to take a step away from the finished and perfect work of Jesus Christ.

That's why the New Testament Christians did not do that. They saw that there was a temple. The New Testament speaks about a temple.

What is it? Well, first you have the heavenly temple that Jesus has entered into the tabernacle was just a picture of that.

But you see what's the earthly temple? It is the church. We heard much of all the functions that were to take place in the temple.

There was teaching. There was prayer. There was singing. Where do all those things take place for New Testament Christians?

They take place in the body of Christ, the church, which is

His temple. We are the temple. The temple is no longer made of stones.

It is no longer found in one place. A New Testament Christian doesn't go, there's the temple over there.

You see, when the people of God gather together, there you have the temple.

There you have the body of Christ. Teaching takes place there.

Does not Paul tell Timothy? He refers him to the Theanostos Scriptures, those

God -breathed Scriptures. And he says, Timothy, if you want to know what you as the man of God are to do in the church of God, which he calls the pillar and foundation of the truth, then,

Timothy, you look to those Scriptures for your teaching, your exhorting, your rebuking, your training in righteousness. All those things are found for you right there in the

Scriptures, Timothy. And where is all that ministry taking place? In a physical building called a temple?

No. It takes place in the church, in the gathered body. That's where the prayers are.

That's where the Psalms are sung, and the hymns are sung, and the worship takes place, and the teaching takes place, is in the body of Christ.

And so when we ask the question, obviously when we ask are temples consistent with New Testament Christianity, the fact that we are doing this in the context of the

University of Utah means that we are looking at the paradigm offered by the LDS Church.

And we have these structures that exist all over the world now. And they are not where the people of God meet regularly from the

Mormon perspective. Their award chapel is not a temple in that way. And so you have a different structure, and there would be no

LDS temple without the concept of priesthood. There would be no LDS temple without the concept of the restoration of Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood orders.

I think most people would agree with that particular assertion. And so the reason that I rise in the negative this evening then, is very simply this.

That the New Testament tells us that the priesthood functions of the

Old Covenant have passed away. Jesus Christ is our only High Priest.

Jesus Christ alone holds the Melchizedek priesthood. The only terminology used of priests outside of that which is in reference to Jesus Christ is the general priesthood of all believers, male and female, young and old, in fulfilling the promises of the

Old Testament regarding God's restoration of His people. Those things are fulfilled in the

Church. And so to go back to the old way, is to not only believe that the

New Testament documents are not sufficient to give us direction as to how we are to worship God today, but also to go against the teaching of the

New Testament documents concerning the priesthood of Christ, the singular offering of the sacrifice of Christ, the fulfillment of the priesthood orders in the temple worship that is seen in Christ, and the teaching that the only temple for New Testament Christians is the

Body of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ, which, by the way, the Apostle Paul tells us in Ephesians chapter 3, would exist throughout all ages.

Not just in some ages, but that God indeed would protect His people, which we believe that He did.

And hence the differences between us this evening. I hope that we will look to God's Holy Word for our answers this evening.

Thank you very much. We'll now have 10 minutes of rebuttal from Dr.

Hopkins. Dr. White suggests that we take a look at the

Scriptures for this, and I think he's wise to say so. So let's do that. Hebrews 9 verses 1 through 8 gives us some insight into the temple, and specifically the transition that was occasioned by the rending of the veil in two.

That event occurred in Matthew 27, 51, Mark 15, 38, and Josephus and the

Talmud also record this event associated with the earthquake. Anyway, let's take a look at those verses.

Hebrews 9, 1 through 8 says, Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary.

For there was a tabernacle made, the first wherein was the candlestick and the table and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary.

Now this was the first part of the temple, the first portion of the temple or room in the temple, and it's on the lower floor.

And after the second veil, it goes on to say, the tabernacle, which is called the holiest of all. That was the second room in the temple, separated from the sanctuary by the veil, which was the veil that was rent in two.

And it goes on to say that the holiest of all, the Holy of Holies, had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the gold pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant, and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Now when these things were thus ordained, the priest went always into the first tabernacle accomplishing the service of God, but into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the heirs of the people.

The Holy Ghost, this signifying, this is the interesting part in this, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing.

The law of Moses set forth the first covenant with Israel. Christ, as Dr. White has said, brought a new covenant, a better covenant,

Hebrews 8 .6. As Hebrews 8 explains, the new covenant allows us to be closer to God because Christ's sacrifice allows our sins to be washed away.

In the Holy of Holies was the Ark of the Covenant and the Mercy Seat, of which they could not speak. However, we can learn something about the

Mercy Seat from Exodus 25 .22. That verse says, and there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the

Mercy Seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the Ark of the Testimony. Now this therefore was the seat on which

God spoke, on which he sat, from which he spoke to Moses, and it represented the presence of God in the temple.

Only the high priest was allowed to enter this portion, i .e. he was the only one who was allowed to enter the holiest, the presence of God, and for the rest of the people, the way was, as the scripture said, not yet made manifest.

Now Hebrews 9, 9, and 10 go on to say the temple, the first tabernacle, was a figure of the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to conscience, which stood only in meats and drinks, and diverse washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

This passage confirms that there were other things done in the temple besides sacrifices of meats and drinks. These included the offering of gifts, diverse washings, carnal ordinances, but Hebrews 9 goes on then to address the time of reformation.

This is an important timing. It explains the passage in Hebrews explains that the symbolism, explains the symbolism of the sacrifice under the law of Moses, just as Dr.

White explained it was to point people towards the sacrifice of Christ, and it explains that, points out that there was to have been a change, or reformation of the law, and of the sacrifices required under the law.

Now you can read this change, it was prophesied by prophets of the Old Testament as quoted in Hebrews chapter 9, but there are other additional passages, for example

Isaiah 1, 11 says quote, to what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me saith the

Lord. I am full of burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

This is interesting for him to say back in the Old Testament. And it pointed to a change that would occur, because he was not satisfied with the situation, and that was not what it was about.

What did God want? Well, Psalms 51, 17 answered that question, and explains that quote, the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken spirit and a contrite heart,

O God, thou wilt not despise. This is also explained in Psalms 34, 18.

Now the message of Hebrews 9 goes on through chapter 10 to verses 16 -18 quoting

Isaiah, and they point to the conclusion of this passage, and let me read this to you because it's important.

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, that is at the time of this prophesied time of Reformation.

I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them, and their sins and iniquities will

I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

This passage indicates that there was to be no more offering for sin by Christians through blood sacrifice under the law of Moses, after the time of Reformation, which was signaled by the death of Christ, his resurrection, and his sacrifice for our sins.

And it was heralded by the rending of the veil in two. But did this mean that the temple ordinances were done away with?

Not according to the next four verses in chapter 10 verses 19 -22 they say, having therefore brethren boldness, which the word translated boldness really means like license or authority, to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which he hath consecrated to us through the veil, that having an high priest over the house of God let us draw near with a full heart, with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Thus we see that Christ's sacrifice was intended to provide a new and living way for all to enter

God's presence, this holiest of holies. And through the veil, through his flesh, and the rending of the veil, which was like the rending of his flesh, established a new covenant through the blood of Christ, whereby all could enter the place in the temple that was associated with the presence of God, providing they first had their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and their bodies washed with pure water.

This does not suggest the elimination of temple ordinances, not by any means. In fact, quite the opposite.

It indicates that there was a change in the ordinances, a very important change. That is specifically what

Hebrews is about. But specifically for Christians it eliminated the blood sacrifice, because that was the fulfillment of it.

But after the temple was written in Twain, after the

Savior made his sacrifice for sins, the early

Christians and the Apostles attended the temple regularly. They attended the temple until it was destroyed.

They were given no further revelations of any sort after the book of John was written.

Possibly some look at the Shepherd of Hermas as a revelation.

But the official doctrine of the church by the end of the second century was no more revelations from God.

So how could they ever have discovered what to do? They didn't listen. They didn't hear any commandments to build a temple.

Of course they didn't build any temples after that. But when they had the temple, and when they had the

Apostles to lead them, they went to the temple regularly. There was a reason for that.

And it isn't true what Dr. White said that the people from outside of Jerusalem, the

Christians from outside of Jerusalem, didn't come to Jerusalem to attend the temple. Paul specifically was asked to come back and to attend the temple.

And he did that. Showing that he reverenced the temple of God.

Now, on the subject of Christ being the only holder of the Malchizedek Priesthood, I would like to suggest that the

Scriptures do reveal one other holder. Malchizedek. Let me explain the

Malchizedek Priesthood to you. And the position of Christ with respect to that priesthood is very clear.

The priesthood is agency. Christ is the only principle.

But he has many agents. Malchizedek was one of them. The priesthood is named after Malchizedek.

If there is no priesthood, then there's a lot of things to explain in the

Scriptures. Acts verses, Acts chapter 8 verses 5 through 20 being the biggest one.

The Malchizedek Priesthood is the agency of Christ. Christ holds the preeminent position there, of course, as the book of Hebrews explains.

But he holds it as the principle whose agency it is. I'm not sure how much more time

I have on this book, Jason. I think very much that that at least explains the rebuttal to these things that we have.

Thank you very much. We'll now have a 10 minute rebuttal from Dr.

White. Hopefully you still have your

Scriptures open to that passage in Hebrews chapter 10. I would like to again focus our attention there.

It is very important. I recognize in an academic debate you have cross -examination immediately after the opening statements to try to clarify things, and that would be useful here because I'm not 100 % certain of exactly what the position was that was just enunciated, but I have to do my best with the format that we have.

Jeremiah chapter 31 verses 31 through 34 contains the prophecy that was read, a portion of which appears in Hebrews chapter 10 verses 16 through 17.

You can see the fuller rendition of it found in Hebrews chapter 8 verses 8 through 12 directly from Jeremiah chapter 31 regarding what

God is going to do in that day when He establishes this new covenant with His people.

And immediately after saying that Christ's one offering perfects, sanctifies, it is one offering over against the many offerings, the repeated offerings of the old covenant were a reminder of sin.

We do not have repeated offerings. We have only one offering that has brought perfection, not merely a possibility of salvation, but has truly brought salvation.

Then in the beginning of verse 19 and I'm not completely certain, and I'm sure that during the cross -examination we'll be able to clarify this.

Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil that is

His flesh, and since we have a great high priest over the house of God, notice it's a great high priest, not many, let us draw near with a sincere heart and full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Now, the way I understood what was being said was that this somehow has something to do with the continuation of Christian participation in temple ordinances in Jerusalem.

Believe me, the Jews did not take kindly to Christians seeking to participate in temple worship.

Look what happened to Paul when he was simply paying a vow, let alone anything else. Please notice these washings had to do with priesthood.

These were the ordinations of the Aaronic priests that are being referred to here, and obviously

Paul wouldn't be involved in something like that. What is going on here? This isn't written to people who are only in Jerusalem.

This entering in is in the worship of the church. Everything that's being discussed here, the veil is the body of Christ.

We're not talking about the veil in Jerusalem. It was done away with. It was torn from the top to the bottom, as only God could do.

Then man comes back in and tries to patch it back up from the bottom to the top, as man is wont to do. We have a great high priest over the house of God.

The house of God here, my friends, is no longer the temple in Jerusalem. The gathered people of God are now the house of God.

They are the temple, not that building in Jerusalem any longer. And so when it says, let us draw near with a seer heart and full assurance of faith, he's not saying, let us go to the temple in Jerusalem.

It was just said that I was in error when I said people didn't make pilgrimages and things like that back to Jerusalem. Well, Paul certainly didn't.

Paul was bringing the offering that he had gathered from all the Christian churches in Asia Minor with the suffering saints in Jerusalem.

Those suffering saints weren't getting on those saints in Asia Minor weren't getting on boats and going to Jerusalem so they might somehow engage in temple ordinances or the like.

It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. I also don't understand what is being asserted because is it, am

I to understand that what is being asserted is that the Christians were engaging in some kind of activity parallel to what

Mormons do in temples today in the temple in Jerusalem. I mean, they had the Melchizedek priesthood even according to Mormonism at this particular point in time and so as long as there are valid Melchizedek priesthood holders in the

Mormon paradigm, are you not to build temples so as to do these things? But they didn't do so.

And they certainly by gathering in the porticos of the temple and teaching about Jesus until they're driven out were not in so doing engaging in some kind of temple ritual.

It was the place where they gathered and preached to the people about who Jesus Christ was. This same type of thing does not happen elsewhere.

You do not see as the apostles go out, they're giving instructions to the churches. We see a lot about the instructions they give.

We have entire books of the Bible. The pastoral epistles, 1st, 2nd Timothy, Titus, as to what the elders of the church are to do in the organization of the church and its worship and there is not a word in this divine revelation concerning the concepts of Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods and temple ordinances or anything else.

It's simply not there and there is no order given to them to build certain kinds of buildings in a certain form so as to in essence make it possible to receive exaltation as gods.

For we know that outside of those ordinances in Mormonism there is no exaltation to godhood and so is this what is being said here in Hebrews chapter 10?

Most certainly not. These are words that to every believer, every believer is called to draw near.

Does that terminology sound familiar? Turn back with me to Hebrews chapter 7. You'll see what it means to draw near.

It doesn't mean to go to the temple in Jerusalem. Hebrews chapter 7 says in beginning verse 23, and the former priest on the one hand existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing.

That's the old priesthood. The priesthood that's passed away has lots and lots and lots of priests. But he, contrast with the singular he, that's

Jesus on the other hand, because he abides forever. He is resurrected. He shall not die.

He holds his priesthood permanently. Aparabaton, a term that means there is no ending to his holding of this priesthood.

There is no passing it on. He does not have to give it to someone else. He holds it permanently.

Hence also because of this indestructible life and the fact that he is not prevented by death like the old high priests were, hence also, verse 25, he is able to save forever or to the uttermost completely who?

Those who draw near to God through him, since why? He always lives to make intercession for them.

Here is the Christian's high priest. And he has entered into the holy place, we're told in Hebrews chapter 9, having obtained eternal redemption.

And that's why we do not repicture what he did. That's why we do not need to have a temple which was the function of the temple in the

Old Testament, to repicture what he has done because we, as the people of God, the temple of God, the body of Christ, know what he has accomplished in our behalf.

Now, if the argument this evening is, well look, there were temples and that's the basis for us today,

I would say that that argument fails simply due to the fact that the form of the temple, the function of the temple, and the worship of the temple in the

Old Covenant is so radically different than what is found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day

Saints today that there is no meaningful parallel to be drawn and if it is attempted to be drawn, the priesthood issue and the fulfillment issue destroys the parallel.

But I think we've actually heard the true argument already because has it not been said that really, fundamentally, the final authority for the building of temples, the final authority for LDS temples, is modern day revelation.

That is the foundation. That is the perspective. It is, we believe these things because we believe in the prophethood of Joseph Smith, the continuing line of prophets, the existence of apostles, etc.,

etc. That is really the foundational issue, but the problem is the thesis for our debate this evening is, is it consistent with New Testament Christianity and that would mean in essence that the

New Testament itself has to be precluded from the examination to come up with the thesis.

And the thesis contains the phrase New Testament. How do we know what is

New Testament? Well we know what is New Testament by what the New Testament itself teaches.

Now I can, I can almost hear the, the argumentation. Well, but you see, the New Testament says that the church is supposed to have this form.

And we could debate the issue of the form of the church. It's clearly laid out for us in the New Testament. Things like that.

I'm well aware of where all the various and sundry rabbit trails might lead. But in regards to the thesis statement, and in a trial court as I'm sure would be admitted, you have to try to stick to the subject.

Most judges want you to get back to that particular point after you've chased a few rabbits. The fundamental issue this evening is what does

New Testament Christianity have to do with temples? And I suggest to you that if we allow the

New Testament to speak, if we allow the New Testament to define the issue for us, that the answer has been clearly given.

And that in fact in the admission that we need something beyond the New Testament to substantiate the

LDS perspective, we have in that statement a recognition that New Testament Christianity as it's found in the

New Testament is not consistent with the building of LDS temples. Thank you very much. We're going to take a five minute break for the restrooms and for if you want water fountains,

I believe there's some out there. Since you found us to the end when we can applaud both men, it is very serious business that we are discussing here this evening.

We have been described in some circles with these debates as being anti -Mormon and hate mongers and a number of other things, all by people who have not attended.

The people who have attended from both sides have been very complimentary. If you believe that this has been anything other than fair and an attempt to show respect,

I ask that you please point that out to me so that I can deal with the issue because that is our aim. But please refrain from showing support until the end when we can show it to both because it's very easy for people to be offended on each side and that's not what we're intending to do with these.

As I said, we will have a debate tomorrow evening. Dr. White will be debating Pastor Dee Bradshaw on the subject of gay marriage.

We invite you to join us for that. If you have questions about our church, there are brochures up front.

There are also 3x5 cards on which you can submit questions. We're now going to move to cross -examination.

We're going to begin with 15 minutes of questions from Dr. Hopkins to Dr. White. All right.

There are a couple of questions about the temple that I'd like to ask, but first I'd like to clarify this issue of the priesthood of all believers that was mentioned by Dr.

White. First question is if the priesthood was fulfilled, as you've said, and finished and completed, no longer in existence, what priesthood, if any, was left to be a priesthood of all believers?

Well, the reference that's here... Wow. I didn't think it would work quite that well.

The reference that you're referring to is, of course, Peter's description of all

Christians. And that is a fulfillment of the Old Testament.

This is specifically 1 Peter chapter 2, beginning at verse 7. This precious value, then, is for you who believe, but for those who disbelieve.

Then it says, the stone of stumbling, rock of offense. They stumble because they are disobedient to the word and to this doom they are also appointed.

But you are a... and then you have the citation in verse 9 from Deuteronomy chapter 10. You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possessions.

You may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. There is the fundamental role of the priesthood of every believer.

And that is, you have here the proclamation, verse, again, verse 9, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

The same thing is found in the book of Hebrews, which after belaboring the point of the fulfillment of the priesthood, then talks about us who offer sacrifice of praise.

Paul uses in Romans 12 the offering and sacrifice of our bodies in service. It is a spiritual fulfillment in us of what was an outward and limited to only a specific family and group of people priesthood in the

Old Covenant. There is no, as we both I think would agree, sacrificial element whatsoever in that general priesthood that is found amongst all believers, especially when it's male and female believers.

Now you mentioned language in the book of Hebrews that says something about the fulfilling of the priesthood.

Where is that? I read only a change in the priesthood, not an elimination of the priesthood in Hebrews.

Well, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I not only see the reference to,

I assume you're referring to Hebrews 7, verse 12, for when the priesthood is changed and assessed, there takes place a change of law also.

But I'm arguing that the entirety of chapters 5 through 10, and specifically the fulfillment in it of the priesthood offerings that are seen in Jesus Christ.

And this is, I mean, chapter 8 talks about it in regards to verse 6. Chapter 9, when

Christ appears, a high priest, good things come. He enters the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands. Verse 9 of chapter 9, this is a symbol for the time we even went through that particular section of the

Holy Spirit is signifying this. My argument has been that all of these types and shadows, which in the

Old Covenant were intimately, directly, and in fact, I would argue could not be separated from temple worship are what are fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

And so, that's what I mean. I can't think of a single thing that is specifically the priesthood's responsibility in the temple that is not fulfilled in Christ and fulfilled in His Church.

How would we know? We know so little about the temple's specific ordinances. But I thought you did a great job, actually.

You mentioned a number of functions that I thought was very insightful. You talked about preaching, making instruction, teaching, making prayer, singing, the worship.

I think those things are exactly what we see in the New Testament Church being fulfilled, and that's why it's the body of Christ called the temple of the

Lord. Well, you know, that's another issue. Well, let me first try and get this clear, because I'm not clear at all.

Either there is a priesthood, or there isn't a priesthood, I would assume. And are you saying that the priesthood of believers is a priesthood, or it's not a priesthood?

It is the fulfillment of Deuteronomy chapter 10 in the people of God according to 1 Peter chapter 2 verse 9, where it's,

I'm sorry, yeah verse 9. This is a fulfillment. Now these words were initially said about Israel, a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession.

These are all now fulfilled. You read from Jeremiah 31 as well in Hebrews chapter 10. These are now fulfilled in the people of God.

It is a priesthood that does not involve succession. It is a priesthood in that these the people of God are the ones who mediate the knowledge of who

God is. In fact, remember Hebrews chapter 8 when it quotes from Jeremiah, it says they shall not, each one teach his brother, saying, know the

Lord. For what? For they shall all know me That's not now though. That's in the millennial time in the

New Jerusalem, right? No, I would not believe that to be the case at all. Let me clarify the point better than I have then.

Was this priesthood of believers organized in any way so that there were offices?

With offices and things like that? No, there wasn't. Let me get this straight.

You remember Simon in Acts chapter 8. He believed and was baptized.

Did he get the priesthood then of all believers? Well, of course Simon was described for us in the book of Acts as a hypocrite.

Fine, but did he get it or not? It says he believed. It doesn't say he was a hypocrite while believing. It says he believed and was baptized.

Obviously I believe that there is false faith and there is true faith. And he is identified as one having a false faith.

So no, that would not be the case. So you don't think he got the priesthood of all believers? Well, when you say get the priesthood of all believers that's terminology that's not used in the

New Testament. It's not the idea that you receive something. It is that the people of God fulfill something. If you ask me, was he a part of the people of God?

No, he was not. Well, how do you explain the clear ecclesiastical differences in offices that are given in the

Old Testament and the bishops and deacons and all of these officers of the priesthood?

Were those something other than the priesthood of all believers? They are not described as offices of a priesthood anywhere in the

New Testament. They are the officers of the Church. There are two offices, and only two offices. There is the elder and there is the deacon.

The elder is a bishop. The elder is the overseer. Those terms are used by Paul in the pastoral epistles in an interchangeable fashion.

And they are the ones who are called to teach and preach the Word of God. The deaconates are those who care for the widows and the orphans and the matters of the

Church, distribution of food, things like that. Those are the only two offices in the New Testament and they are never associated with the word priesthood, to my knowledge, anywhere in the

New Testament. Well, Philip goes down to Samaria in Acts chapter 8 and he preaches to the people they believe and he baptizes them.

Now, in verse 14 it says, Now, why wasn't

Philip able to do that if he had the same office as the apostles? I never said he had the same office as the apostles.

Apostleship is a specific kind of office that, according to the New Testament, is limited to those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, this is a unique situation that goes against all of the other situations and there is a reason for that.

Here we see the Gospel going outside the realm of Judaism to the Gentiles. And instead of having a distribution of a

Gentile Christian Church and a Jewish Christian Church, you have the apostles themselves coming down and by their involvement in the

Gospel coming to these Samaritans, which the Jews would consider to be non -Jews as we know they were a mixture of the two, but they are considered non -Jews by the apostles being involved in this one situation.

You have the holding together, we are one church, we don't have the Jewish Christian Church over here, we don't have the

Gentile Christian Church over here, very same concern Paul has in Galatians chapter 2 when it looked like that type of situation.

Nowhere else does that same type of situation take place. It is unique in its context in the early church and the uniqueness of the context is the

Gospel first going into a non -Jewish context and the need for the unity of the church.

Well, that's not the point the passage makes. The point makes, the passage is that the priesthood that they had, the authority to lay on hands to receive the gift of the

Holy Ghost was the gift of God. I'm sorry, where does the term priesthood appear though, I didn't see it.

Excuse me? You said the priesthood that they had, I don't see anything, where does the term priesthood appear?

Apostles, that's an office of the priesthood. You're using terminology I don't see.

I've never seen the phrase apostles are an office of priesthood in the New Testament, have you?

Is that the point? No, that isn't the point. The point is that their authority, their ability to lay on hands and give the

Holy Ghost is a gift from the Lord. Simon wanted that gift so that he could lay hands on people and they'd receive the

Holy Ghost. He was not allowed to have that because he wanted to pay money for it, and as you said he was a hypocrite, but he did believe and was baptized.

I mean, he misunderstood some things, clearly. Seriously, he misunderstood some things.

And the point here is that this is the gift of God, the ability to give this Holy Ghost. Now, you're saying that the apostles were the only ones who had this ability, apparently, and therefore after they died nobody could receive the gift of the

Holy Ghost? No. What I'm saying is the apostles existed only at one point in the Church. The Bible says that the

Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. You don't keep laying a foundation over and over again.

You lay a foundation once. And that this is a unique situation where because the Gospel is going off into non -Jewish lands the apostles come down, they lay their hands, which is an external situation, something that is seen.

They are associating with non -Jews and the result of the coming of the Holy Spirit demonstrates this is one

Gospel, one people of God, there is not going to be anything else. There is nothing in here. When you ask me about priesthood authorities

I don't see the word priesthood anywhere in Acts chapter 8. You mentioned Ephesians.

Yes I did. With regard to the apostles being the foundation of the Church. And then it says other offices, mentions other offices that are built on the foundation of the apostles.

This is a description of the Church and what you're telling me now is that we can take the foundation away from the

Church and it will still remain because this is a foundation of old apostles that there were only a certain number of them.

Is the same true of the other offices that it was only a certain number? Only the people that were bishops at the time of the early

Church then were the only bishops that we were ever going to have. No, actually you're conflating a couple of different passages there from Ephesians because the question assumed that these you said something about offices being built upon this foundation.

That's not what it says. It says having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone in whom the whole building being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the

Lord in whom you are also being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit which is very relevant to our debate this evening because here the

Church is the temple. But it seems that your question is conflating that with the offices that are mentioned in chapter four.

And I'm not sure exactly how I'm supposed to conflate the two together because this passage doesn't say anything about offices in regards to the foundation and if what you're asking me is well if the apostles are left then do all these other offices leave?

No, because the apostles have left us their testimony in holy scripture in the same way the

Lord Jesus has preserved that word for us which is why Paul says to Timothy, Timothy look to that scripture as your foundation as the man of God.

I've still got two minutes here. Alright.

Of course we all believe that that we let me since we just have this

I'm going to have to get this other one question. Now you've said that that the temple was only a place for convocation and yet we clearly have a major discrepancy from that in the scriptures namely the

Nazarite vows that Paul took. Where have I said the temple was only a place for convocation?

I said it's primary purpose. No I said the primary purpose of the temple. For Christians. Oh, oh ok.

After the fulfilling of you know after Christ's sacrifice. And I mentioned

Paul's Nazarite vow. I know you mentioned it but you didn't explain it. How do you explain that? I mean clearly he's there doing a

Nazarite vow in the temple Is there something terribly wrong with Paul?

Is that what you're saying? No. Paul was a Jewish Christian and as such Paul exercised his liberty amongst other

Jews his purposes for doing so are not stated in scripture but he had the liberty to do so but it was not it did not involve first of all sacrifice for sin because that would put it directly in contrast to what he himself taught.

It was some other ordinance. And secondly it would seem to me that if Paul was a priesthood holder in your context he would have sought the temple that he himself would have been commanded to be built and to exercise his alleged

Melchizedek priesthood authority within the context that Mormons do today. I don't see any evidence that he did that as a

Jewish Christian with that as his culture and his background that's what he did. I don't see any other explanation for it than that.

Well, our time is up. My time is up. Thank you. Thank you.

Would you and this is I guess where I can finally clarify. When you directed our attention to Hebrews chapter 10 verses 19 and following and seemingly attached this to the apostles attending the temple are you suggesting as I responded to it that this passage has to do with engaging in temple ordinances in Jerusalem?

I think it speaks for itself quite well. It says having therefore brethren boldness or authority to enter into the holiest.

Now they didn't have that before. They had that authority to enter into the holiest through Christ.

So are you saying first of all that the word confidence can be translated as authority? Yeah. License or authority.

License or authority. And so it is your assertion that the apostles were entering into the holy place in Jerusalem?

Into the holy of holies? We have no information on that.

We have this indication and as you well know my position is that we do not know the details of what was done in the temple outside of the sacrifices at all.

And yet it's clear that there was a lot being done. So don't you think that the

Jewish folks who were in charge of the temple who finding Paul in the outer courts of the temple had him dragged away and almost killed.

Don't you think they would have had a real problem with entering into the holy place? Of course.

So alright well it says to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus. If we're going to literally take this as the holy place then does that mean that they also had the blood of Jesus?

Or that they had his flesh with a veil? I just don't understand when you say it speaks for itself.

It does seem to speak for itself but it's speaking of a spiritual fulfillment not a physical fulfillment isn't it?

Now you can terminate it or you can term it as a spiritual fulfillment and we have no way to tell really.

I mean whether or not anything like this was changed physically at that.

But I would point out that a lot happened in the temple with the Christians there with the apostles before the chief priests and those who were over the temple did anything with respect to stopping them.

Ok let me ask you if... And they weren't very successful at stopping them. I mean it was clear an angel comes and lets them out of prison and they're right back there the next day preaching in the temple.

I mean they didn't have much control over they didn't have much ability to keep them from doing this.

Do you see anything anywhere in the New Testament where Christians are seen to be within the actual inner courts of the temple which would include the holy place the place of the sacrifice altar and then the

Holy of Holies where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. Are you just simply saying we don't see it or can you point us to any place that would indicate that?

There's no place I know of that says they went into the Holy of Holies. I think that's clear.

There are no places that say very much about what was done at all. We do know that Paul fulfilled a

Nazarite vow. Apparently Nazarite vows were not fulfilled. Ok in regards to the priesthood of Melchizedek is it not true that from the

LDS perspective you must have priesthood authority for a temple to properly exist?

Of course. And once the

Melchizedek priesthood is established is it not the responsibility of the Melchizedek priesthood holders to build a temple even at the cost of their life as you see in early

LDS history? No. No? No. When must a temple be built?

When the Lord commands it. And are you saying that the Lord did or did not command the apostles to build temples?

I find nothing in the New Testament that says they were commanded to build temples.

I do not believe they were commanded to build temples. Could you speculate on why given the well you would believe that they held the

Melchizedek priesthood. They did hold the Melchizedek priesthood up until a point.

Ok but in the passages that we've been reading. Let me explain to you what happened. Maybe you don't understand just how thorough the

Romans were in doing everything they could to wipe out Christianity. Oh believe me that's not my question.

No let me explain because I'm answering your question with respect to this. After the

Roman persecutions that ended for a short while with Trajan's persecution by 115

A .D. there were only two men in the world left who had ever even spoken to an apostle.

Polycarp and the Bishop of Smyrna. Ignatius died in 108.

No Ignatius learned from Polycarp. That was his big claim to fame.

He was like in primary with Polycarp. Ok but the question I have is not later on.

In the book of Acts Don't you see that the Lord knew that that was going to be the case. What's the point of how could you command them to build a temple when there's not going to be anybody left around to run it or who knows anything about it.

Ok so the answer to your speculation as to why God did not command the building of temples of the apostles is that he knew that the

Romans were going to savagely persecute them until 313 and therefore there's no reason to build temples.

He knew there was going to be an apostasy. That was clear. He stated as much. Where did

God state what kind of apostasy? Complete apostasy? No. There were numerous apostasies from the truth during the time of the

Old Testament. We know it wasn't complete in the sense that there was no church left. There was still the

Jewish religion and there was traditions and people still did things. They just did a lot of things wrong.

Sometimes they got so badly out of focus that they had to re -read the scriptures and start all over again as you know.

Hezekiah and Josiah they had terrible problems trying to restore these things and then a lot had to be done when they came back from Babylon to restore the church.

Well that restoration of the church that's what happened. It was an apostasy in large measure and certainly they lost the

Melchizedek priesthood. You say that the Lord knew that there was going to be an apostasy regarding a priesthood.

Can you point me to a passage that connects apostasy and priesthood in the

New Testament? Well, you know I didn't come to here.

This is off the subject. I didn't prepare for that but I certainly can give you plenty of scriptures on the apostasy.

I don't mean to take it off topic however I thought that we had pretty well established that you had said revelation from God is the final authority for your view of the temple.

That the temple and the priesthood are intimately connected and so I'm just trying to find since the thesis of the debate is in regards to the

New Testament every element that I possibly can to understand how you can affirm the thesis and you just said that the

Lord knew that there would be an apostasy and therefore He didn't command the building of temples. And in light of this assertion that the

Lord knew there would be an apostasy could you explain for example why the Apostle Paul said in Ephesians 3 .21

to Him be the glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever,

Amen. Why would Paul say this if there were going to be all sorts of generations, in fact generations right around the corner that would not possess the

Church of Jesus Christ amongst them? In the year 2000 we saw country after country that is a non -Christian country

I mean Singapore essentially acknowledged that Christ was the

King of the world because they recognized and acknowledged that that was the year 2000 years after the birth of Christ.

And you do not recognize, I mean dating is done from the birth of the

King it always has been. But you cannot possibly think that these people although they acknowledged in a way they didn't realize that Christ was the

King and fulfilled this very scripture that you mentioned to me.

That they really have any understanding of Christ or have a correct knowledge of Him. There was an apostasy, you can have an apostasy and yet still people looked to Christ and understood a great deal about Christ.

Understood But the true Church didn't exist.

Pardon? But the true Church did not exist. The Melchizedek Priesthood had been taken. That's clear.

But did the true Church exist? Can the true Church exist without the Melchizedek Priesthood? It did prior to Christ's coming of course.

From Moses to John the Baptist. It survived as the Aaronic Priesthood.

They didn't have the Aaronic Priesthood either though unfortunately. Can there be a true Church without priesthood authority according to Mormon teaching?

Well I hate to use the term true Church. Okay? We do not lump other churches who do not have the priesthood authority into necessarily false or anti -Christian churches or non -Christian churches at all.

In fact I personally believe that when the scriptures in the

Book of Mormon draw the line between those churches that are of God and those churches that are of the

Devil, that Christian churches certainly like this one that's holding this are amongst the churches of God mentioned there.

So when you say is there a true Church without the priesthood?

In the sense of having everything that the Lord would like us to have including priesthood authority no.

But that doesn't mean there isn't truth. That doesn't mean that you can't say that this is a Church that's teaching truth or that's a true

Church in a sense. That it is a Church of God. Going back to what you had said concerning the

Temple itself in Jerusalem. You mentioned these other rooms. Was there in those comments a suggestion that there was anything going on in these rooms that would be parallel to modern

Latter Day Revelation and endowment ceremonies and things like that? Most definitely.

So that was your suggestion. And yet there was no Melchizedek priesthood that would be over these things? No there was no

Melchizedek priesthood over the over the

Temple ordinances from the time of Moses to the time of John the Baptist. So why would they build rooms in which they couldn't do anything?

No, no, no. They were doing things. It was just different. It's not the same. It's like. It's not exactly the same.

It's not going to be the same ordinances precisely. So the Aaronic priesthood had some sort of you're suggesting it had some sort of.

They certainly had washings. Could that not have been the washings involved with the ordination of Aaronic priests?

Yes, but there are, as I pointed out, there are indications that it was broader than that.

What are those indications? Well, I indicated that in my opening remarks. For example, in Psalms, what is it?

26 .6 it says, I wash my hands innocently before I surround the altar of God.

Now, surrounding the altar of God there are there's mention in Psalms 24, for example, if it's, unfortunately

I haven't come prepared with the translation correctly, but there is arguments about translation of that.

And there is a portion of Psalms 24 which refers to a prayer circle. And these are things that Latter -day

Saints recognize. We say, hmm, that looks familiar. That sounds familiar. Now, we don't know, because it doesn't say anywhere in the script

Bible, what all this was part of. But it appears that there was some things going on that were similar to what goes on in Latter -day

Temples today. In fact, the very fact that Christian groups such as the

Gnostics had some rudimentary knowledge that they got from somewhere that looks when you look at it, it's very similar in many ways to what is done in Latter -day

Temples. The fact that Masons have passed down things that, you know, little bits and pieces look like things that might have been, that are similar, suggests very strongly that there was more going on in the

Temples than appears in the Bible. Is it possible that the similarities in Gnosticism and in modern -day

Masonry are much more closely connected to the standard religions of man that has these kinds of rituals in centralized religious places under the control of a hierarchy, rather than it having any origination from the

Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ? You would, you, you know, there's not enough known for you to answer that question from Scripture.

So I'm just going to say, you cannot tell, nor can you tell either way.

In other words, you cannot make that assumption any more than I can refute that assumption.

We'll now have five minute closing statements beginning with Dr. Hopkins. If you have questions, please put them in writing.

I'll be taking them up in just a moment. Again with Dr. Hopkins. We all believe that we are, as 1

Corinthians 6, 19 states, that our bodies are, quote, the temples of the

Holy Ghost which is in you. It's interesting, though, that that passage refers to the member of the, one member of the

Godhead, specifically, the Holy Ghost, the Spirit, which is within us. This leaves open very clearly the possibility that God and His Son may come to temples in the latter days.

Indeed, these very events are prophesied by prophets. Ezekiel verses chapters 40 through 47 tell of a temple that clearly was not the temple at Jerusalem.

It was to be built in the latter days. Isaiah 2, 2 and 3 speaks of a temple to be built in the latter days.

Zechariah 14, 16 through 21, tells of a millennial temple to be built in the latter days at which the

Jews, at least, will offer sacrifice again. They having not received the fulfillment of Christ as yet.

2 Thessalonians 2, 4 refers to Satan in the temple of God declaring himself to be

God. Temples were not done away with.

We know that because the apostles and the early

Christians attended them. And it's easy to try and say, oh no, they just were there to teach the people of Christ.

But that does not explain all of the scriptures that we have. It does not explain why

Paul was there for a Nazarite vow and nothing associated with teaching the people.

Dr. White has said that the temples, has asked, what does the New Testament say on temples?

It says a mouthful. It tells us that the apostles and the early

Christians were there continually and praying, not just preaching, but praying in the temple and doing whatever else we don't know because the temple is a sacred and holy place and what goes on there has never been detailed in public writings.

So I don't see how you can avoid the decision that the temples were consistent with New Testament Christianity.

The New Testament Christians were worshiping there. What could be more consistent? Thank you very much.

We'll now have closing statements from Dr. White. First of all

I'd like to thank you all for coming out this evening. For those of you who have written questions, very appreciative of your participation in the debate this evening.

I'd like to thank of course Jason Wallace and Mike Wieckowski and all those who labor so diligently to make these things work and of course

Mr. Pierce who's back there in the middle who's going to make it possible for literally thousands of other folks to participate in our debate this evening in the coming months and indeed years.

Thanks to the gift of technology, an incredibly wonderful thing. And of course sir, thank you very much for being here this evening as well.

I appreciate it. I would just like to a little bit of housekeeping before I give you the summary statement.

I would like to challenge the assertion that was made in regards to the Greek term parousia.

In Hebrews chapter 10 it does not mean authority, it is not a cognate of any term that means authority and I would direct you to any standard lexical sources in regards to that particular issue.

Hebrews chapter 10 it has been asserted, well we're just not really certain but it sounds like, it's very plain, the apostles were entering into the holy place.

My friends, let me tell you something. The Jews were given the authority by the Romans to use military level force to control the temple precincts.

They had their own guards, they had their own weapons. We have found an element of a sign that was posted that in essence said,

Gentiles keep out. And I can assure you the temple guards knew exactly who was and who was not in the

Holy of Holies because you could only go in there once a year. The apostles were not holding

Bible studies in the Holy of Holies in the temple in Jerusalem. It was not happening and that is a complete misreading of the text.

The text is very clear. This is said to all Christians, including to us today, who can't go to Jerusalem and can't go to a temple, that we enter in to the deepest level of fellowship with God by the blood of Jesus Christ.

He bids us to come before the throne of grace because the veil has been rent, which was the veil of his body and therefore that priesthood and all those ordinances which stood between us and that direct communion with God have been done away with in the perfect sacrifice of the

Lord Jesus Christ. We heard it said at one point and I was unable to follow up on it that well what you have in Hebrews chapter 8 and that perfect new covenant, well it hasn't been established yet.

In reality it says specifically in verse 6 of Hebrews 8 but now he has obtained a more excellent ministry as much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant which has been enacted perfect, passive complete action of the past abiding results of the present using a term that refers to legal legislation.

It has been enacted on better promises. You may argue that its fulfillment may yet be future but the enactment of it has already taken place.

Why do I continue to believe at the end of this period of time that the construction of temples is inconsistent with New Testament Christianity?

Well we just heard it said well it has to be consistent because the apostles went to the temple. They didn't build it. The apostles didn't go back in AD 71 and say we need to rebuild it.

They didn't do so. The Christians didn't do so. Now we might say well the reason of course is that God knew that there would be great persecution.

Well God has always known his people would be persecuted. Doesn't God have control over persecution? I don't know that that is really a valid reason why

God would not command his people to do what they must do. The Latter Day Saints have built temples in the face of tremendous opposition.

Why didn't the apostles? Was God able to do it now and he couldn't do it then? I don't follow that.

The point is there is no command and it has been admitted. There is no command to build temples in the

New Testament. And the reason for that though is not to be seen by looking back anachronistically from our day to the days of the apostles.

We need to go back then. What did the apostles teach concerning the sacrifices of the old covenant in the temple?

They had been fulfilled in Christ. Those offerings plural fulfilled in one offering singular and the one high priest enters into the holy place and we are not commanded to build buildings today because our high priest has entered into the presence of the

Father and we are the temple of the Lord indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Thank you very much.

Alright we are going to try to squeeze in as many questions as possible. I am going to try to somewhat on the fly pick the best ones or try to conflate some of them because some of them are on the same subject.

I ask that the speakers answer as briefly as possible and take no more than two minutes to answer any of the questions.

We will begin with Dr. White. Dr. White if there is no temple then what do you make of Paul's reference to baptism for the dead?

Well interestingly enough that wouldn't even be an issue from an

LDS perspective either. Especially if it is referring to people outside the church who wouldn't have the authority to engage in that activity anyways.

But my understanding of 1 Corinthians chapter 15 first of all historically there were no temples in which they could be doing this.

I can guarantee you one thing. There were no baptisms of the dead taking place in the temple in Jerusalem. Therefore whatever is being referred to in 1

Corinthians chapter 15 verse 29 cannot refer to the same thing that is practiced in LDS temples today.

But my understanding of 1 Corinthians 15 29 focuses upon the preposition hupere. Otherwise what will those do who are baptized for the dead?

Hupere is used by Paul in a substitutionary sense and I believe in the context what he is saying is if there is no resurrection which is what 1

Corinthians 15 is all about. If there is no resurrection why baptize anyone as a new convert into the place of those who are undergoing persecution and even dying if there is no resurrection?

And this is exactly what he says. Notice what he says. If the dead are raised not all why are they then baptized for them? Why are we also in danger every hour?

There is the persecution. I protest brethren by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord. I die daily if from human motives

I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus what does it profit me if the dead are not raised let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die.

The whole point being that if there is no resurrection then there is no reason to be bringing anyone else into this fellowship where they are going to be persecuted or they are going to possibly even lose their lives.

Baptism then is the baptism that new converts replace those who have gone on to be in the presence of the

Lord. Dr. Hopkins in terms of the list of things that you enumerated that took place in the temple in Jerusalem can you tell how those are paralleled in LDS temples as much as you can comment?

Unfortunately as you know I can't comment much.

I can only say that each of the things that are mentioned for example endowed from on high it was a term that Christ said that the apostle would be and of course you've heard of the endowment so and it is intended to be an endowment from on high of knowledge or information so teaching is going on in the

LDS temples and let's see praising and blessing

God of course occurs in the temple. The temples have the purpose whereby we could hear, see or talk with God and that has happened in LDS temples.

Let's see I'm sorry let's see singing in the temple

I think has occurred of course it's not part of any regular temple ordinance but prayer is a very significant part of what goes on in LDS temple ordinances.

Prayer circles which are mentioned in the scriptures are something that members of the church who attend the temple understand very well.

Of course all references to purification ordinances whereby people are washed or anointed are very meaningful to Latter Day Saints who are familiar with LDS temple ordinances.

Words like sprinkle water purifying upon them statements like holy garments references to holy garments references to how did it say the purification of the body by washing with pure water if they meant baptism they would have said baptism.

Washing with pure water is a different thing that was part of this understanding of what was going on.

Something was going on there of that nature it was not made public. It isn't made public now but a reference to it is made and that reference is very meaningful in terms of LDS ordinances.

Dr. White could you comment on Melchizedek in Genesis 14 verses 18 through 20 as to who this person is?

Could he be an Old Testament appearing of Jesus Christ incarnate? I've heard that the

Hebrew meaning of the name Melchizedek is King of Righteousness which points to Jesus Christ the one and only person who has ever held the

Melchizedek priesthood. Yeah, I think the important thing to remember is that there is only one

Melchizedek priest in the Old Testament and there is only one fulfillment in Christ. He is described as having no father, no mother, no genealogy.

Now, scholars have taken two perspectives on this. One is that those words would be taken literally and that Melchizedek was a pre -incarnate, what we would call a

Christophany, an appearance of Christ. Nothing is said about his background or anything like that.

He simply appears and he is described in Hebrews chapter 7 verses 2 and 3 as being made like unto the

Son of God. So there are those who do take it as an Old Testament Christophany. Others would say that no, the writer of the

Hebrews is paralleling Melchizedek with Christ simply in the fact that the record does not record for us.

It doesn't say Melchizedek ben Jehuah or something like that saying that he was the son of someone, that there is no genealogy given, no father and mother is listed, anything along those lines.

And so in that particular situation they might say no, that Melchizedek was a historical human being who lived and died and that he was placed in the place that he did to provide this picture of the coming priesthood of Christ in the life of Abraham.

I think either one of those are possible. I personally lean toward the first, the idea of a Christophany but I also recognize the propriety of seeing that you cannot force the issue one way or another just simply on an exegetical ground.

Chapter 9 verses 1 through 9 could you please comment on verses 10 and 11? I did as a matter of fact but let me do it again.

Hebrews 9, was it 10 and 11? Yeah. In these two verses it specifies or gives us a hint, a little bit of an idea of the kinds of things that were going on in the temple.

Well now are we talking about 10 and 11 right? It says, As to verse 11 this is the subject of Christ being come in high priest of good things to come by greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands that is to say not of this building.

This is reminiscent of when Christ spoke of himself his own body as a temple made with hands.

He said in fact let me get that for you. Alright.

If I can find my notes. Christ used the expression to refer to his own body.

He said I will destroy this temple that is made with hands and within three days I will build another made without hands.

And this is a reference to this expression. And the allegory is of course to his death and resurrection.

And the expressions made with or without hands refer to the fact that mortality, Christ was partly mortal.

I mean a mortal being had something to do with the creation of his physical body. Whereas no mortal hand was involved in the creation of his resurrected body.

And that's what the reference here to 9 -11 is. But remember that the fact that Christ's physical body could be described as a temple made with hands did not prevent him from occupying or dwelling in that body during his mortal life.

If there was no apostasy why are you not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? If there was no apostasy why was the

Reformation necessary? Well you know I'm not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox because there was no apostasy.

When I say apostasy obviously we are defining this within the context of an evangelical

LDS dialogue. The teaching of the apostasy is that there was a complete apostasy.

That is that all the priesthood authority was lost. And the Bible never predicts that, never even mentions that there is a prophecy of apostasy which you can see going on during the days of Paul.

He has to write to the churches. He has to talk about false brethren within the churches. He has to talk about those who have abandoned the faith, denied the faith, so on and so forth.

The seeming assumption on the basis of the writer is to associate both the

LDS concept with church history. And I would reject that. I believe in apostolic succession.

I believe that you stand in the succession of the apostles when you believe what the apostles taught.

And the apostles' teaching has been preserved for us in their writings called the scriptures.

And I do not believe that either modern Eastern Orthodoxy or modern Roman Catholicism is representative of even the church in the primitive period.

Certainly you would not find anyone at the Council of Nicaea who believes all the things that are taught or believed within Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy today.

And so when the Bible talks about an apostasy, yes there have always been, it will always be the experience of the church that there will be those who will be unfaithful to her.

But that does not mean that the teaching of Christ, that the church would continue, or of Paul, that it would do so throughout all generations was untrue.

The defection of even many does not mean that God stops being faithful even to His few as He demonstrated over and over again in the

Old Testament with the remnants, even in the days of the greatest apostasy. God still had

His people who did not bow the knee to Baal. Dr. Hopkins, how do you respond to the

Bible's description of the church as the temple of the Lord? Well, let's read what it exactly says there because that would help to make sure we're interpreting the right thing.

It says that it says that Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God and are built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets,

Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. I hope we don't think that the cornerstone is not still a living cornerstone,

Christ is still alive just as we believe that there should still be apostles that are the foundation of the church.

We believe that Christ is a living cornerstone of this building. Anyway, in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto and holy temple in the

Lord. I don't see the mystery there.

The church's aim is to become as a group and holy temple unto the

Lord. That does not mean that we do not have special buildings in which sacred ordinances are performed and in which we draw closer to the

Lord than you can draw at a chapel or worldly place.

That does not mean that the temple at Jerusalem was not correctly built by the command of the

Lord. There's no reason to believe that the

Lord's purpose in building temples in the Old Testament which included having a place that somebody, at least one person a year and Moses certainly and the prophets could draw near to Him, could enter this

Holy of Holies and speak with God. There's no reason to think that that has changed any in New Testament times.

Now ultimately we hope it does completely. If for example in Revelations 11 it speaks of seeing the temple in the in Heaven and that there was no that John saw that temple and there was no temple there, saw the celestial kingdom actually and there was no temple there because God and Jesus were the temple of it.

Well that's the goal of this passage that we grow to that level. A couple of last questions to try to squeeze in here.

Dr. White if we had the Ark of the Covenant today where would the Church want it stored, a museum or a temple? I never pondered that one.

I think they stuck it in a box in a big warehouse someplace didn't they? At least that was the last

I saw. Somewhere in the 1940's. Well you know isn't it interesting that we do not and that the

Lord made sure that that would not happen in the destruction of the

Temple of Jerusalem in AD 70 and that illustration of the fact that His wrath had come upon in fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies upon the city of Jerusalem.

My answer would be that we would not build a shrine.

Well let me take this back. The Church of Jesus Christ would not build a shrine because you see we already have the

Holy of Holies within us. That's what the Holy Spirit is. When it was said earlier well you only have one person of the

Godhead, the Holy Spirit. Well John 14 23 says the Father and the Son make their abode with His people through the presence of the

Holy Spirit. God dwells with His people and there would be many who would like I think in idolatry to build something that God has not authorized us to build to store something like that within it.

But God has not allowed that to happen. And so in reality the importance

I think of this debate is to emphasize that you know maybe if you're an

LDS person you've heard some things about what the Church is about that you normally don't hear from evangelicals.

I'm a churchman. I believe that the local expression of the Church is described in the

Bible as the pillar and foundation of the truth. And I apologize to any

LDS people here who may have spoken with evangelicals who do not have a biblical view of the

Church. The Church is extremely important. It is very central to what God is doing in this world.

And it is in fact the place where He dwells with His people. One last question for Dr. Hopkins.

Are the LDS temples built according to biblical specifications? There are no biblical specifications for Latter Day Temples other than perhaps the

Ezekiel chapter 40 verse 47. They are built pursuant to God's specifications exactly the same way that the

Temple of Jerusalem was built according to God's specifications. Yes.

They are built according to God's specifications. We will be here next evening at 7 p .m.

for another debate. We would love to have you be part of that. We have a pad of paper up here.

If you have signed up before for our mailing list but did not get a postcard this time, we lost some of the names due to a hard drive failure.

And so please sign up if you'd like to get notification about future debates. We have brochures.

And I would like to take the time now to please thank both of our speakers for being generous enough to come and speak for us this evening.