Altar at Temple Square visitor's center.

[CuriousThinker]

Sounds Masonic and not doctrinal

You think that the masons talk about bikkurim sacrifices?

No. But they do things to confuse people.
“Deception is a strong element in Freemasonry. The Masonic Hierarchy intentionally misleads lower degree Masons. 33rd Degree Freemason Albert Pike stated this fact well in his well known book ‘Morals And Dogma’, “Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explainations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be mislead.”

“I am the god of this world.
You, the god of this world?
Yes. What do you want?”

This is not doctrine. It’s derived from masonry.

What is misleading? You care that deeply about whether bikkurim sacrifices began with Moses or Adam?

If it shows Adam doing something he didn't, it matters.

[Artaxerxes]

You think that the masons talk about bikkurim sacrifices?

No. But they do things to confuse people.
“Deception is a strong element in Freemasonry. The Masonic Hierarchy intentionally misleads lower degree Masons. 33rd Degree Freemason Albert Pike stated this fact well in his well known book ‘Morals And Dogma’, “Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explainations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be mislead.”

“I am the god of this world.
You, the god of this world?
Yes. What do you want?”

This is not doctrine. It’s derived from masonry.

What is misleading? You care that deeply about whether bikkurim sacrifices began with Moses or Adam?

If it shows Adam doing something he didn't, it matters.

Because.....

[Artaxerxes]

I assumed most people would recognize a quote from the temple, but I guess I overestimated my audience.

You claimed "The quote you shared is wrong according to scripture and the church's own article about Adam and sacrifice." You didn't claim "The church website doesn't mention sacrifice of first fruits." There's a big difference between the two.

Oh my. First fruits refers to Christ, not actual fruit.

.... You should read the OT. Like the part I quoted. It literally talks about sacrificing the first fruits of the harvest of their crops.

Screenshot_20221022-193246.png

Again, that was not what Adam did. That is in Deuteronomy. It was in the Law of Moses, which Adam did not follow. He followed the law of sacrifice and performed animal sacrifice. It is found in Moses and in the temple when they mention him sacrificing the animal and an angel asking him why and he says he only knows because he was commanded. It was a similitude of Christ. He did not follow the Law of Moses. That began with Moses, hence its name.

You claimed that the phrase "first fruits" referred to Christ. It usually doesn't. It usually refers to the first fruits of a harvest. Which is why I posted that.

[Mamabear]

During the twentieth century there was a statue depicting Adam and Eve kneeling making an (unacceptable) offering of fruits of the field. Organic food is shown presented upon the altar between them. Lying safely beside them is a lamb, also cast in bronze, rejected as a sacrifice.

What explanation is there for this now retired Church sculpture, if not a hat tip to Lucifer, the god of this earth?

Logonbump, you’re a cool guy who doesn’t say much. What is your opinion….why do you think it’s a hat tip to Lucifer?

[CuriousThinker]

During the twentieth century there was a statue depicting Adam and Eve kneeling making an (unacceptable) offering of fruits of the field. Organic food is shown presented upon the altar between them. Lying safely beside them is a lamb, also cast in bronze, rejected as a sacrifice.

What explanation is there for this now retired Church sculpture, if not a hat tip to Lucifer, the god of this earth?

Sacrificing fruits of the field!?! Blasphemy!!!!!! (Or people could actually read their scriptures.....)

Screenshot_20221022-161814.png

I thought that was for the Law of Moses, which began with Moses, not Adam. Leviticus doesn't apply to Adam and Eve.

Nope. "The posterity of Adam down to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus Christ, offered up the firstfruits of the field and the firstlings of the flock, which continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood."

I am wondering if the quote in conflating two different timelines. Note it points out Adam to Moses and Moses to Christ. Why not just say from Adam to Christ? I think it is because from Adam to Moses it was firstlings and Moses to Christ it waa firstlings and first fruits because then there was the Law of Moses. It really isn't a well phrased sentence and I can see it being confusing.

[Artaxerxes]

Sacrificing fruits of the field!?! Blasphemy!!!!!! (Or people could actually read their scriptures.....)

Screenshot_20221022-161814.png

I thought that was for the Law of Moses, which began with Moses, not Adam. Leviticus doesn't apply to Adam and Eve.

Nope. "The posterity of Adam down to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus Christ, offered up the firstfruits of the field and the firstlings of the flock, which continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood."

I am wondering if the quote in conflating two different timelines. Note it points out Adam to Moses and Moses to Christ. Why not just say from Adam to Christ? I think it is because from Adam to Moses it was firstlings and Moses to Christ it waa firstlings and first fruits because then there was the Law of Moses. It really isn't a well phrased sentence and I can see it being confusing.

That isn't a reasonable reading of it. The sentence would be constructed entirely differently if that was the meaning.

It delineates those two time periods to underscore the continuity. To reenforce the idea that sacrifices were not invented as part of the Law of Moses.

[CuriousThinker]

I thought that was for the Law of Moses, which began with Moses, not Adam. Leviticus doesn't apply to Adam and Eve.

Nope. "The posterity of Adam down to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus Christ, offered up the firstfruits of the field and the firstlings of the flock, which continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood."

I am wondering if the quote in conflating two different timelines. Note it points out Adam to Moses and Moses to Christ. Why not just say from Adam to Christ? I think it is because from Adam to Moses it was firstlings and Moses to Christ it waa firstlings and first fruits because then there was the Law of Moses. It really isn't a well phrased sentence and I can see it being confusing.

That isn't a reasonable reading of it. The sentence would be constructed entirely differently if that was the meaning.

It delineates those two time periods to underscore the continuity. To reenforce the idea that sacrifices were not invented as part of the Law of Moses.

True about firstlings. That is found in scripture to support the continuity, but not first fruits. That is only mentioned under the Law of Moses. The law of sacrifice is contained in the Law of Moses, but the law of sacrifice was animal sacrifice.

[logonbump]

During the twentieth century there was a statue depicting Adam and Eve kneeling making an (unacceptable) offering of fruits of the field. Organic food is shown presented upon the altar between them. Lying safely beside them is a lamb, also cast in bronze, rejected as a sacrifice.

What explanation is there for this now retired Church sculpture, if not a hat tip to Lucifer, the god of this earth?

Logonbump, you’re a cool guy who doesn’t say much. What is your opinion….why do you think it’s a hat tip to Lucifer?

Pondering the meaning of an acceptable offering, which is and was and which isn't and wasn't.
Clearly the improper sacrifice that Cain made was distinct from the one required, but was acceptable to the one who tempted him to offer it.
If we as a people sit in judgement and are condemned for not providing for God the sacrifice required, the new sacrifice required being bringing unto God a broken heart and contrite spirit, then by keeping a bronze like that we do rebelliously deny a decision that Adam and Eve did make which was to offer appropriate sacrifices as commanded. Which we haven't, as a group.

Which is a victory for Satan.

[Artaxerxes]

During the twentieth century there was a statue depicting Adam and Eve kneeling making an (unacceptable) offering of fruits of the field. Organic food is shown presented upon the altar between them. Lying safely beside them is a lamb, also cast in bronze, rejected as a sacrifice.

What explanation is there for this now retired Church sculpture, if not a hat tip to Lucifer, the god of this earth?

Logonbump, you’re a cool guy who doesn’t say much. What is your opinion….why do you think it’s a hat tip to Lucifer?

Pondering the meaning of an acceptable offering, which is and was and which isn't and wasn't.
Clearly the improper sacrifice that Cain made was distinct from the one required, but was acceptable to the one who tempted him to offer it.
If we as a people sit in judgement and are condemned for not providing for God the sacrifice required, the new sacrifice required being bringing unto God a broken heart and contrite spirit, then by keeping a bronze like that we do rebelliously deny a decision that Adam and Eve did make which was to offer appropriate sacrifices as commanded. Which we haven't, as a group.

Which is a victory for Satan.

You're right that whatever God requires is right. Everything else you said is wrong.

This is depicting them sacrificing the first fruits of the field, which we are taught in the temple they were commanded to do. They were right to follow God's commandments.

[farmerchick]

During the twentieth century there was a statue depicting Adam and Eve kneeling making an (unacceptable) offering of fruits of the field. Organic food is shown presented upon the altar between them. Lying safely beside them is a lamb, also cast in bronze, rejected as a sacrifice.

What explanation is there for this now retired Church sculpture, if not a hat tip to Lucifer, the god of this earth?

Logonbump, you’re a cool guy who doesn’t say much. What is your opinion….why do you think it’s a hat tip to Lucifer?

Pondering the meaning of an acceptable offering, which is and was and which isn't and wasn't.
Clearly the improper sacrifice that Cain made was distinct from the one required, but was acceptable to the one who tempted him to offer it.
If we as a people sit in judgement and are condemned for not providing for God the sacrifice required, the new sacrifice required being bringing unto God a broken heart and contrite spirit, then by keeping a bronze like that we do rebelliously deny a decision that Adam and Eve did make which was to offer appropriate sacrifices as commanded. Which we haven't, as a group.

Which is a victory for Satan.

Could there be another meaning? Satan counterfeits everything as we have seen from the hijacking of the rainbow in modern times... We don't have all the info.....so could there be another meaning being portrayed? Maybe it's the contemplation of eating the fruit from the tree of life?..... which in my opinion was a weighty matter. Maybe why the lamb was portrayed along side the alter where the fruit was laid out on as a symbol that Adam and eve could be saved together from their transgression as long as Adam ate the fruit......from what I gather Cain was neither bringing a broken heart or the correct sacrifice to the Lord when he brought forth his first fruits of the ground instead of a lamb.....just a thought....it may not be what it appears at first glance...

[Niemand]

Then why wasn't Cain's offering accepted?

His attitude among other things.

[Atrasado]

Sacrificing fruits of the field!?! Blasphemy!!!!!! (Or people could actually read their scriptures.....)

Screenshot_20221022-161814.png

I thought that was for the Law of Moses, which began with Moses, not Adam. Leviticus doesn't apply to Adam and Eve.

Nope. "The posterity of Adam down to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus Christ, offered up the firstfruits of the field and the firstlings of the flock, which continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood."

Then why wasn't Cain's offering accepted?

Cain's sacrifice wasn't accepted because he offered sacrifice to the Lord because Satan told him to offer sacrifice to the Lord. If someone follows Satan in appearing to be righteous that doesn't fool an omniscient being. The Lord isn't after our lambs or our vegetables, He wants our hearts.

[CuriousThinker]

I thought that was for the Law of Moses, which began with Moses, not Adam. Leviticus doesn't apply to Adam and Eve.

Nope. "The posterity of Adam down to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus Christ, offered up the firstfruits of the field and the firstlings of the flock, which continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood."

Then why wasn't Cain's offering accepted?

Cain's sacrifice wasn't accepted because he offered sacrifice to the Lord because Satan told him to offer sacrifice to the Lord. If someone follows Satan in appearing to be righteous that doesn't fool an omniscient being. The Lord isn't after our lambs or our vegetables, He wants our hearts.

I think in this instance it was both. His heart didn't want to obey the Lord by being obedient and following the sacrifice the way the Lord wanted. I think that can manifest in many ways. I can say I want to follow the Lord but decide that sprinkling instead of full immersion is fine. The Lord wants my heart and to obey his commandment to be fully baptized His way.

[logonbump]

I think the old altar statue was displayed meaningfully. The church , like the fictional Adam and Eve portrayed, has, instead of sacrificing its fame, notoriety, might, willpower and dominance, its pride, that is, sacrificed instead its real growth, the fruits of its field, (those being) the testimonies and happiness and the very lives of its members, they instead are "let go" of in serving the "higher purpose", the bottom line.

They might as well be sacrificing to Mammon.

[Pazooka]

Why are their hands behind their back? Are their fingers crossed too?