This is a short but provocative article.  Hamblin defines the Hebrew word sod and its use in the Bible as having to do with the council of the Gods, their secrets and plans for the salvation of man. The bulk of the article shows how Biblical prophets in their ascent or throne theophanies, entered into this council and learned these secrets.  This concept is found in: 1 Kings +22:19-23; Isaiah 6; Jeremiah23:16-18. 21-22; Psalm 82; Amos 3:7; Psalm 25:14; and in Job 1:6, 2:1.  Hamblin discusses each of these texts briefly and observes that this story of a council of Gods is familiar to Latter-day Saints because references to it are found in 1 Ne. 1:8-19 and Abraham +3:22-23.  As the bibliography demonstrates, these points have been made by others in various publications and venues.  The value here is collecting the data in one place.  In conclusion, Hamblin states: “I would like, however, to move one step further and suggest that we should understand the LDS Endowment as a ritual and dramatic participation in the sod/divine council of God, through which God reveals to the covenanter his sod/secret plan of salvation–the hidden meaning and purpose of creation and the cosmos.”  In doing so, he asserts, “the Endowment fits broadly into the biblical tradition of ritually observing or participating in “the council/sod of YHWH” described in these biblical texts.   The article is accompanied by two helpful bibliographies; a general one from non-Mormon scholars listed chronologically, the second, an LDS bibliography listed alphabetically.

Losie, Lynn Allan.  “The Cleansing of the Temple: A History of a Gospel Tradition in Light of Its Background in the Old Testament and in Early Judaism.”  PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1985.  [Israel/Herod/Christian]

Abstract:  The Gospel pericope of the cleansing of the temple provides a special opportunity for the reconstruction of a history of tradition, since it is one of the few pericopes which is attested in all four Gospels. Although the pericope has received attention in journal articles and in books on related themes, it has only been subjected to monograph-length scrutiny in two modern studies: E. Lohmeyer’s Lord of the Temple (1942) and an unpublished dissertation by R. E. Dowda (1972) which limits itself to a consideration of the synoptic Gospels. Using the data provided in all four Gospels, the present study is an attempt to trace the history of this tradition from Jesus through the interpretations of each of the Gospel writers, on the basis of the background in the Old Testament and in early Judaism.

Part I consists of three chapters which provide an independent assessment, in debate with other opinions, of the critique of and eschatological expectation concerning the temple in the Old Testament (Chapter 1), the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Chapter 2), and the literature from Qumran (Chapter 3). It is argued that (a) all three bodies of literature exhibit a belief in a new or renewed eschatological temple as the scene of God’s future reign, (b) the role of a messianic figure in relation to this temple is only rarely attested, and (c) critique of the temple is relative in the literature of Palestinian provenance and fundamental only in the literature of the diaspora, which is more greatly influenced by hellenism.

Part II then turns to the Gospels and analyzes the tradition to determine its earliest form (Chapter 4), evaluates the significance of the earliest form of the tradition and attempts to relate this to the life of Jesus (Chapter 5), and, after noting developments in the attitude toward the temple in the early church, considers in turn the interpretation brought to the event of the cleansing by each of the Gospel writers (Chapter 6). It is argued that the pre-Markan form of the tradition is prior to the pre-Johannine form, and that this earliest tradition interprets the cleansing as an eschatological act in preparation for the advent of the kingdom of God. It is further suggested that this interpretation coheres with Jesus’ ministry as the eschatological prophet, and that a background might be found in Isaiah 52:7-12 where the herald of good tidings proclaims the kingdom of God and calls for a preparatory cultic cleansing. It is then shown that the event was soon interpreted as a negative critique in which Jesus became the messianic judge of Judaism (Mark), brought a divine visitation which was rejected by the Jews (Luke), and superseded the temple as the merciful Son of David (Matthew) and as the locus of God’s glory (John).

This now rare book dealing with the Temple in the New Testament is uneven in quality.  There are many, many good explanations and insights, but there are also places where there are virtually none. [See pp. 150-152 for two major events that are not treated well.] The authors are anxious to show that Jesus loved the temple and participated in its worship, yet we only know of his attendance at the festivals and teaching while in her courts.  Except for the last supper which was a Passover meal, we have no evidence that he participated in the ritual of sacrifice.  Moreover, the authors nearly completely ignore the negative things about the temple found in the book of Mark.  Their focus is on Matthew, Luke, and John among the Gospels, and Acts, Hebrews and Revelation in the remainder of the New Testament.  Chapter three on the Temple at the time of Christ was a good review, but did not contain much new that was helpful or insightful.  The authors hold many assumptions regarding Jesus and the temple that most LDS seem to share, a number of which cry out for closer examination.  Among the many very helpful things found in this book some notable ones include: their numerous notes on the meaning of Hebrew and Greek terms, information regarding the evidence of Jewish apostasy and corruption of the Temple, and their review of temple related material in the books of Hebrews and Revelation.

This is an interesting and helpful article about Jesus and the Temple and the Temple in the New Testament generally.  The general thesis is that Luke shows that Jesus, the apostles, and thereby the Church, exhibited a positive attitude toward the temple, and worshipped there for decades after the Crucifixion, probably until AD 70 when the temple was destroyed.   This is not a position that is shared by many modern New Testament scholars who tend to see the portrayal of the Temple in the Gospels as negative or at best as a hybrid of positive and negative attitudes toward the Temple.   Few view Jesus as positive about the Temple.

Brown organizes his evidence in the following categories: 1) Luke begins his narrative on the life of Christ in the temple, 2) offerings  made in the temple, 3) spiritual manifestations in the temple, 4 ) teaching and learning in the temple, 5) worship and prayer in the temple, 5) ceremonies, 6) beauty and begging, 7) deliverance by Romans from Antonia, and 7) from sanctuary to destruction.

Of particular interest is his view of  the presentation of Jesus at the temple as a babe.  He argues  that Jesus was not redeemed from obligatory service to his Father as stipulated in the Old Testament, but rather presented Jesus to his Father for his service as Hannah did with Samuel.

Brigham talks mainly about those ordinances which cannot be done unless inside a temple–sealings of children to parents, and endowments for the dead.  Contains a good quotation about being worthy of a temple recommend.  Children born in the covenant have the keys of the kingdom.

Philo is one of the most difficult of all the ancient authors of Judaism and early Christianity.  Yet, Margaret Barker has a penchant for him as for all the ancient sources.  As the Hugh Nibley of Protestantism, she brings together in this article, as in all her writings, data and evidence from a vast array of ancient sources to illuminate the meaning both Philo and the Bible.  Her openness is admirable.  She believes one of the difficulties of modern religious scholarship is the habit of reading present-day orthodoxies of the later rabbis and Fathers into first century Judaism and Christianity, which causes us to miss some very important, though controversial things, for example, the fact that ancient sources speak of two Gods in very anthropomorphic terms.  Another issue to which she is open is theosis, or the potential deification of man.  Both these issues appear in this paper, though the latter is treated much less extensively than the former.   It is Barker’s belief that much of the imagery Philo uses and discusses is temple-related.  This paragraph from page 100 illustrates the point.  “The imagery underlying Philo’s exposition of the Logos is unmistakable; the temple cult of Jerusalem was the source of a very great deal of it, and given that we only know of that cult fragments that can be reconstructed from many sources, it may well be that far more of his allusions and imagery could fit did we but know the master picture.”

This article is taken from an address President Benson gave at the Centennial of the Logan Temple, 17 May 1984.  It is almost totally devoted to explaining the meaning of the phrase “order of the Priesthood” as used in the revelations and the teachings of Joseph Smith.  He equates it with obtaining a fulness of the priesthood and the patriarchal order of the priesthood and gives some detail and explanation with relevant authoritative quotations. Interestingly, he said this is “background” that should be taught to the youth prior to their attending the temple, and to motivate an prepare them to do so!

The author investigates the evidence for the practice of sealing previously married couples, living and dead, during the life of Joseph Smith.  Three charts accompany the article in the form of lists of (1) The Earliest Plural and Eternal Marriages,” (2) “The Earliest Eternal Marriage Sealings for Living Civilly Married Couples,” and (3) “The Earliest Proxy Marriage Sealings.”  Documentation for the details in these charts is largely found in the body of the text as each couple’s circumstances are discussed.  There were a number of insights about sealings which came through both the historical analysis and some of the accompanying quotations that were new and insightful.

The author’s conclusions are an adequate summary of this article.  He wrote: “Jubilees speaks in a negative way of the actual Temple.  In a positive way it speaks about the former sanctuaries and about the future Temple in a new creation.  Only with regard to Eden and with regard to a restored Zion the dwell in of the Lord is mentioned.  The Old Testament speaks in two way about Eden.  First, it is applied to the loss of former glory, and secondly it is applied to a restoration in the future.  Only with regard to the second application Eden is explicitly related to Zion.  When Eden is connected with Jerusalem in early Jewish literature it is always concerned with the future Temple.  My suggestion is that when the Book of Jubilees speaks about Eden, it does not mean the inauguration of all the sanctuaries in the history of Israel, but it is aimed at a future, eschatological Temple on Mount Zion.  The actual Temple, like the actual creation, is deficient, it does not function as it should function.  Therefore the author of Jubilees speaks about a restored Zion in a new creation.  When he rewrites the story of Eden, he actually means to speak about a new Eden, a new creation, in which Zion will be restored.”   I found of particular interest the rather definite statements regarding the defilement and unworthiness of the temple found in Jubilees.

The Editor’s Preface is about as interesting as the book.  I think this is the only time I have ever read of a publisher praying about whether or not to publish a book.  After seeking the guidance of the Spirit, he says, “We came away satisfied that the work is pleasing to the Lord and that it will prove a blessing to many Saints.” (p. 12).  This alone should alert the reader to the possibility that there may be things in this book about sacred Mormon temple ordinances that are questionable–they apparently were for the publisher.   A publisher of course, has the freedom and responsibility for what he decides to print.  But a Mormon publisher should realize it is not his purview to decide what is appropriate to publish about the temple.  The editor was misguided and self-serving in implying the book was approved by the Spirit. The title points up the problem.  It is the prerogative of the Lord and the Brethren who preside over the Church to explain the meaning of the Endowment and associated symbols, not John D. Charles or Horizon Publishers.

Moreover, the author says the book is “not written to describe or depict sacred principles or procedures which, by covenant, endowed temple attenders have pledged not to discuss outside of the temple.” (pp. 15-6) This nod to the notion of confidentiality does not dispel concern because he and the editor made a serious misjudgment about what things are permissible to discuss in public.  I have identified at least dozen pages in this small book of 106 pages where things were said about the temple ordinances that were unnecessarily explicit and that I believe would displease the Brethren and the Lord.   A young author might be excused for over stepping his bounds, but more mature editors and publishers should have caught these things and left them out, as well as redirected the direction of the book and its title.

I, of course, am not the final word on what is appropriate to publish about the temple.  Readers will have to decide for themselves.  But I am not ignorant on the issue either.  My beliefs about what is appropriate are based on several years of serious study about the temple and my experience as a temple ordinance worker and member of the Logan Temple presidency.  In both I have paid close attention to what the brethren say about what is appropriate to discuss outside of the temple.  I have learned that there is very little that they feel should be discussed or written about explicitly, especially symbolisms related to the endowment.  I know from personal experience that President Hinckley considered what transpired in the temple, whether directly related to the meaning of the temple or not, as out of bounds for discussion outside of the temple.

The editors go on to praise the young author and speak of the “profound insights” he provides in this small book, which he says is intended for those who have been to the temple.   There are some helpful insights perhaps for those who have been endowed relatively recently, but for a well seasoned Saint the “profound insights” to be gained from this work will be relatively few if any.

On an another issue, in at least two critical places the Charles reads into a text what he wants to see, or what he believes it means based on his understanding of the temple today.  The most notable example, which the editors should have caught, concerns his treatment of Revelation 1:5-6, the relevant portion of which reads: 5)…Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his father….”  Five times in the subsequent discussion the author says nearly this same thing: “By describing the saints as having been anointed ‘kings…unto God,’ John….”  (p. 53, see also 54.)  While it is very possible, perhaps even likely that this refers to an anointing, the fact is that the text does not use the word anoint or speak of an anointing, but Charles does not acknowledge this.  On the third iteration of this idea he adds yet another mistake when he says “John invokes the image of a priest as the one authorized to enter God’s presence.” (p. 53) However, only the High Priest was permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies, which represented “God’s presence” and only on the Day of Atonement.

Another disappointing aspect of the book is the rather lengthy recital of the story of the Creation and the Fall, using primarily the account in Moses, with some help from D&C 76.  The insights the author elicits from this recital are even fewer than elsewhere in the book.

Despite the content of the book and its purpose, an even larger issue is the possible effect that this and other books like it may have on encouraging other authors to make similar explanations of the meaning of the temple and its symbolism.