There is no Nauvoo Temple revelation

[Shawn Henry]

A challenge to all; find any reference in Section 124 about the Nauvoo Temple, there isn't one.

The entirety of the section is about the Nauvoo House. The Nauvoo House is the House of the Lord, it is also the boarding house for strangers.

The section heading says 22-28, but read those verses carefully and there is no Nauvoo Temple.

Why is this important? Because the saints made their last efforts to finish the Lord's House on the wrong building. The Nauvoo House didn't even get past the foundation.

The saints were under the deadline to not be rejected as a church and they didn't even get the right building! Holy S!#t.

It is important to note that JS is on record telling them that both were required, and this is likely why the saints were confused, but Joseph's claim fails to explain why the Lord only mentions the boarding house. Why is there no revelation for the Nauvoo Temple? Is this the key that lets us know that the Lord's works are not masonic?

There was even revelation appointing the oversight committee for the Nauvoo House. The committee for the temple was selected by a council, no revelation there.

To show the importance of the Nauvoo House, look at it mentioned in verse 60 and then notice that in verse 61, it is the house that has "watchmen upon her walls".

When the baptismal font was brought to Nauvoo, it was placed in the Nauvoo House. It was only later when the deadline loomed did the saints move it to the temple. It seems clear from this and from the text of 124 that baptisms for the dead were to be performed in the Nauvoo House.

If historians agree and if quotes from BY and many others confirm that the Nauvoo Temple was never finished, what worse off we are when the building we were supposed to finish in the first place never got past the foundation?

"Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these." Thanks for the warning, Jeremiah. We wish we would have listened to you.

[Bronco73idi]

A challenge to all; find any reference in Section 124 about the Nauvoo Temple, there isn't one.

The entirety of the section is about the Nauvoo House. The Nauvoo House is the House of the Lord, it is also the boarding house for strangers.

The section heading says 22-28, but read those verses carefully and there is no Nauvoo Temple.

Why is this important? Because the saints made their last efforts to finish the Lord's House on the wrong building. The Nauvoo House didn't even get past the foundation.

The saints were under the deadline to not be rejected as a church and they didn't even get the right building! Holy S!#t.

It is important to note that JS is on record telling them that both were required, and this is likely why the saints were confused, but Joseph's claim fails to explain why the Lord only mentions the boarding house. Why is there no revelation for the Nauvoo Temple? Is this the key that lets us know that the Lord's works are not masonic?

There was even revelation appointing the oversight committee for the Nauvoo House. The committee for the temple was selected by a council, no revelation there.

To show the importance of the Nauvoo House, look at it mentioned in verse 60 and then notice that in verse 61, it is the house that has "watchmen upon her walls".

When the baptismal font was brought to Nauvoo, it was placed in the Nauvoo House. It was only later when the deadline loomed did the saints move it to the temple. It seems clear from this and from the text of 124 that baptisms for the dead were to be performed in the Nauvoo House.

If historians agree and if quotes from BY and many others confirm that the Nauvoo Temple was never finished, what worse off we are when the building we were supposed to finish in the first place never got past the foundation?

"Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these." Thanks for the warning, Jeremiah. We wish we would have listened to you.

I’m only here to help start the discussion. I read it as history has said it happened. Isn’t this the house built for man? The one they had the baptismal font in and then moved into the temple when it was dedicated?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_House

30 For this ordinance belongeth to my house, and cannot be acceptable to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not able to build a house unto me.
31 But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.
32 But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.

So he wanted a house (temple) that they could baptize the dead, because of their poverty he would allow it in the Nauvoo House. Is how I read this.


I think 124 and what is left out of it is an excellent example of how the lord deals with men. I’m sure that JS told them that they need to build these houses before the lord had to tell them in 124. I also think 124 was enough to get them motivated to do what they needed to do to finish both houses.

Just my thoughts.

[Artaxerxes]

A challenge to all; find any reference in Section 124 about the Nauvoo Temple, there isn't one.

The entirety of the section is about the Nauvoo House. The Nauvoo House is the House of the Lord, it is also the boarding house for strangers.

The section heading says 22-28, but read those verses carefully and there is no Nauvoo Temple.

Why is this important? Because the saints made their last efforts to finish the Lord's House on the wrong building. The Nauvoo House didn't even get past the foundation.

The saints were under the deadline to not be rejected as a church and they didn't even get the right building! Holy S!#t.

It is important to note that JS is on record telling them that both were required, and this is likely why the saints were confused, but Joseph's claim fails to explain why the Lord only mentions the boarding house. Why is there no revelation for the Nauvoo Temple? Is this the key that lets us know that the Lord's works are not masonic?

There was even revelation appointing the oversight committee for the Nauvoo House. The committee for the temple was selected by a council, no revelation there.

To show the importance of the Nauvoo House, look at it mentioned in verse 60 and then notice that in verse 61, it is the house that has "watchmen upon her walls".

When the baptismal font was brought to Nauvoo, it was placed in the Nauvoo House. It was only later when the deadline loomed did the saints move it to the temple. It seems clear from this and from the text of 124 that baptisms for the dead were to be performed in the Nauvoo House.

If historians agree and if quotes from BY and many others confirm that the Nauvoo Temple was never finished, what worse off we are when the building we were supposed to finish in the first place never got past the foundation?

"Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these." Thanks for the warning, Jeremiah. We wish we would have listened to you.

Most of this is pretty suspect, but I'll just ask for three cites for now:

What is your source for the claim that there was ever a baptismal font in the Nauvoo House?

For the claim that "historians agree" that the Nauvoo Temple wasn't completed?

For the claim that Brigham said it wasn't completed?

[gruden2.0]

TPJS states this:

The Lord has told us to build the temple and the Nauvoo House; and that command is as binding upon us as any other; and that man who engages not in these things is as much a transgressor as though he broke any other commandment; he is not a doer of God's will, not a fulfiller of His laws.

Joseph makes clear that BOTH have been commanded to be built. One is a house for the Lord, the other is a boarding house which the Lord's name on it. Brigham Young promoted the idea that the temple was completed as commanded, but that overlooks the fact that it was TWO buildings that had to be built, and the latter was never finished, although it was made livable later. Brigham clearly had no idea what the Lord had in mind for the Nauvoo House, and never made any effort on it, which is proof to all that what the Lord commanded was never finished, and therefore what came after should be interpreted as the fulfillment of the curses for failure.

In any case, in Watcher's vid he shows that Joseph clearly indicated that both structures had been commanded and needed to be built. The way I read it, up to v. 55 is speaking of the temple, and v. 56 on is the Nauvoo house. In vv. 38-39 what is being described as a structure that basically describes the functions of a temple. The Lord frequently refers to a temple as a house with His name.

Lastly, 127:4 has a "thus saith the Lord" that a temple had been commanded to be built.

Anyway, Watcher has some interesting thoughts on the subject. It's pretty clear that multiple revelations had been received and Joseph (and others) spoke of it on multiple occasions.

[cachemagic]

Most of this is pretty suspect, but I'll just ask for three cites for now:

What is your source for the claim that there was ever a baptismal font in the Nauvoo House?

For the claim that "historians agree" that the Nauvoo Temple wasn't completed?

For the claim that Brigham said it wasn't completed?

Here is a quote from Brigham Young:

"We build one in Nauvoo. I could pick out several before me now that were there when it was built, and know just how much was finished and what was done. It is true we left brethren there with instructions to finish it, and they got it nearly completed before it was burned; but the saints did not enjoy it." (JD 18:304)

Here is a site the gives details about how the Nauvoo Temple wasn't completed.
https://salemthoughts.com/Topics/Nauvoo_Temple.shtml

[JLHPROF]

Well they had started preparations to build it by Dec 1840
"You will observe by the “Times & Season” that we are about building a Temple for the worship of our God in this place; preparations are now making, every tenth day is devoted by the brethren here, for quarrying rock &c &."
Letter to Quorum of the Twelve, 15 December 1840

D&C 124 was dictated January 19, 1841 so either it had been received long before that date, it came after construction began so wasn't the revelation instructing them to start, or Joseph didn't believe a new revelation was needed and started anyway.

The Church voted by common consent to build it at the October 1840 conference.
"The president then spoke of the necessity of building a “House of the Lord” in this place.
Whereupon it was resolved, that the saints build a house for the worship of God, and that Reynolds Cahoon, Elias Higbee, and Alpheus Cutler, be appointed a committee to build the same.
On motion. Resolved, that a commencement be made ten days from this date, and that every tenth day be appropriated for the building of said house."

In July of 1840 Joseph said "and this proclamation goes forth from this hour bring every thing you can bring and build the house of God".

We also know that like Kirtland Joseph had seen the Nauvoo temple in vision.

So however you choose to twist D&C 124 I consider it a moot point since the temple had already been decided, voted, and started by the time 124 was dictated.

[Shawn Henry]

Joseph makes clear that BOTH have been commanded to be built.

Yes, I agree, but the Lord does not. There's no revelation whatsoever. The "and again" is definitely referring to a previous command and though Watcher says it is less likely that he is referring to the command mentioned earlier in the same section, I think it has to, because what other command could it be referring to. There is no other revelation about Nauvoo. Are we to believe that Joseph had one but never delivered it, because that sounds negligent?

Anyway, the text does not support such a transition away from the Nauvoo House, in my opinion. The Lord wouldn't purposely omit any reference to the temple, only to sneak in a cryptic "And again" reference. There's just way too much at stake, the saints being rejected is on the line here and 124 is the section dealing with that and the Lord never says temple once. He wouldn't reject his people for a cryptic hidden "gotcha" reference.

I think the reason Joseph is saying both is the same reason he did and taught everything in Nauvoo, he was testing the saints to see if they would follow what had been previously revealed. This follows along the same lines as everything else; are we willing to disregard the Lord himself when a man says something different? We trusted in the arm of flesh.

Anyway, thanks for your response. Let me know what you think of what I said. (sometimes I do get it wrong and Watcher brings me back)

[Shawn Henry]

So however you choose to twist D&C 124 I consider it a moot point since the temple had already been decided, voted, and started by the time 124 was dictated.

What twisting are you talking about? I fully acknowledge that both houses have their history and I'm familiar with everything you posted.

What I'm talking about is section 124 and how the deadline to build the House of the Lord is referencing the Nauvoo House. There is only one they have to build according to the Lord, not two.

Joseph ties the deadline to both houses, which makes "Joseph said" quoters like yourself even more hard pressed to justify why neither was finished.

Luckily the Lord, however, only tells the saints to complete the Nauvoo House. Every time the Lord says, "House of the Lord" it is about the Nauvoo House.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the saints took it upon themselves to build a temple and appointed a committee by council and then the Lord gives 124 and doesn't reference the temple, but rather tells them to build a different house and even appoints an entirely different committee?

[Shawn Henry]

Here is a site the gives details about how the Nauvoo Temple wasn't completed.
https://salemthoughts.com/Topics/Nauvoo_Temple.shtml

There's a lot of good history in that article. Unfortunately, the author makes the same mistake of linking the temple to 124.

[Shawn Henry]

I'll just ask for three cites for now

How about you first bring something to the table yourself.

[Artaxerxes]

I'll just ask for three cites for now

How about you first bring something to the table yourself.

You made the assertions. You have the burden of supporting your own arguments.

[innocentoldguy]

Joseph makes clear that BOTH have been commanded to be built.

Yes, I agree, but the Lord does not. There's no revelation whatsoever. The "and again" is definitely referring to a previous command and though Watcher says it is less likely that he is referring to the command mentioned earlier in the same section, I think it has to, because what other command could it be referring to. There is no other revelation about Nauvoo. Are we to believe that Joseph had one but never delivered it, because that sounds negligent?

Anyway, the text does not support such a transition away from the Nauvoo House, in my opinion. The Lord wouldn't purposely omit any reference to the temple, only to sneak in a cryptic "And again" reference. There's just way too much at stake, the saints being rejected is on the line here and 124 is the section dealing with that and the Lord never says temple once. He wouldn't reject his people for a cryptic hidden "gotcha" reference.

I think the reason Joseph is saying both is the same reason he did and taught everything in Nauvoo, he was testing the saints to see if they would follow what had been previously revealed. This follows along the same lines as everything else; are we willing to disregard the Lord himself when a man says something different? We trusted in the arm of flesh.

Anyway, thanks for your response. Let me know what you think of what I said. (sometimes I do get it wrong and Watcher brings me back)

When you admit that this is all "in [your] opinion," don't you feel a tad presumptuous to then go on and speak for the Lord? Reading other people's minds is considered a thinking error. I would imagine it's at least twice as big an error when you attempt to do it to the Lord.

[BuriedTartaria]

Adrian Larsen (big in Snuffer's movement) does a great write-up on this, even if you don't believe him or agree with his other views.

https://www.totheremnant.com/2015/02/pr ... ow-is.html





In my opinion the early saints failed. I agree with Denver Snuffer when he declares that Nauvoo was a viper's den.

Nauvoo was a viper’s den. It was a place with widespread adultery and conspirators who precipitated the murders of Joseph and Hyrum.

Why, during His mortal ministry, did Jesus Christ not establish a place of peace, a city of Zion? Was not Christ the greatest teacher of all?

Reflect on this and consider whether the people who were taught by Melchizedek lived with and were taught by Joseph Smith, would they have repented, obeyed and obtained the fullness?

If Enoch’s people lived in Nauvoo, would they have repented? If Joseph, instead of Enoch, taught the people of Enoch, would there have been Zion? Had Joseph, instead of Melchizedek, taught the people of Salem, would they have forsaken their abominations?

Is Zion the result of the teacher or the people?

The people matter more than the teacher. As long as the gospel is taught, including the need for repentance and obedience, any faithful teacher may be enough. But nobody can bring Zion with people who refuse to repent and obey God’s commandments. The teacher is necessary, but only a community of people willing to heed the gospel can fulfill the prophecies.

https://denversnuffer.com/2021/10/148-shem-part-7/

I don't have time to find it but there's a damning assessment from the Lord on the quality of the world around Joseph in one of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[Subcomandante]

A challenge to all; find any reference in Section 124 about the Nauvoo Temple, there isn't one.

The entirety of the section is about the Nauvoo House. The Nauvoo House is the House of the Lord, it is also the boarding house for strangers.

The section heading says 22-28, but read those verses carefully and there is no Nauvoo Temple.

Why is this important? Because the saints made their last efforts to finish the Lord's House on the wrong building. The Nauvoo House didn't even get past the foundation.

The saints were under the deadline to not be rejected as a church and they didn't even get the right building! Holy S!#t.

It is important to note that JS is on record telling them that both were required, and this is likely why the saints were confused, but Joseph's claim fails to explain why the Lord only mentions the boarding house. Why is there no revelation for the Nauvoo Temple? Is this the key that lets us know that the Lord's works are not masonic?

There was even revelation appointing the oversight committee for the Nauvoo House. The committee for the temple was selected by a council, no revelation there.

To show the importance of the Nauvoo House, look at it mentioned in verse 60 and then notice that in verse 61, it is the house that has "watchmen upon her walls".

When the baptismal font was brought to Nauvoo, it was placed in the Nauvoo House. It was only later when the deadline loomed did the saints move it to the temple. It seems clear from this and from the text of 124 that baptisms for the dead were to be performed in the Nauvoo House.

If historians agree and if quotes from BY and many others confirm that the Nauvoo Temple was never finished, what worse off we are when the building we were supposed to finish in the first place never got past the foundation?

"Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these." Thanks for the warning, Jeremiah. We wish we would have listened to you.

The ordinance of proxy baptism is an ordinance that can only be had within a temple and not within a boarding house or a hotel. The one exception being at that time in Nauvoo before the Temple could be built there (and it was built with those ordinances done inside).

[Mindfields]

The ordinance of proxy baptism is a sham. The living need our help. The dead don't.

[Shawn Henry]

When you admit that this is all "in [your] opinion," don't you feel a tad presumptuous to then go on and speak for the Lord? Reading other people's minds is considered a thinking error. I would imagine it's at least twice as big an error when you attempt to do it to the Lord.

"Reading other people's minds", what the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about how the text is written, what the Lord actually said. We have the entire section in plain English, there is no mind reading old man. The Lord calls the Nauvoo House the House of the Lord throughout the whole section.

How about you stop running your fingers on the keyboard and actually read the section and tell us what verses speak of the temple.

That's what I'm challenging you to, show me the verses, show me the language in English.

If one were to ask anyone unfamiliar with the text, someone without preconceived notions, how many houses are referenced in the section, that person would say only one. There is only one house of the Lord here.

[Shawn Henry]

a great write-up

Yes, that is great work, thanks for bringing that into play. He makes the same mistake though of not even seeing that there is no temple in the whole section. The section in its entirety is talking about the boarding house. The boarding house is the House of the Lord, not the Nauvoo Temple.

I shall have to reread my OP and see how I may have not made this clear, I thought that I had, but many are missing it entirely.

[Shawn Henry]

The ordinance of proxy baptism is an ordinance that can only be had within a temple and not within a boarding house or a hotel. The one exception being at that time in Nauvoo before the Temple could be built there (and it was built with those ordinances done inside).

I'm not talking about what we all learned growing up.

I'm talking about how the English reads throughout the section and the fact that the House of the Lord throughout the section is the boarding house, the Nauvoo House.

All those ordinances listed were to be performed in the Nauvoo House.

The Nauvoo House is the house here associated with the stipulation of building it or be rejected as a church.

Try to find where the Lord stops talking about the Nauvoo House and transitions to talking about the Nauvoo Temple. He does not. It's in plain English.

[JLHPROF]

The ordinance of proxy baptism is a sham. The living need our help. The dead don't.

You'd think Joseph would have realized that and explained it to the Lord when he received those revelations.

[JLHPROF]

The ordinance of proxy baptism is an ordinance that can only be had within a temple and not within a boarding house or a hotel. The one exception being at that time in Nauvoo before the Temple could be built there (and it was built with those ordinances done inside).

I'm not talking about what we all learned growing up.

I'm talking about how the English reads throughout the section and the fact that the House of the Lord throughout the section is the boarding house, the Nauvoo House.

All those ordinances listed were to be performed in the Nauvoo House.

The Nauvoo House is the house here associated with the stipulation of building it or be rejected as a church.

Try to find where the Lord stops talking about the Nauvoo House and transitions to talking about the Nauvoo Temple. He does not. It's in plain English.

I've slept several nights in the Nauvoo House. It looked finished to me.
And it definitely wasn't the House of the Lord.

[Shawn Henry]

The ordinance of proxy baptism is a sham. The living need our help. The dead don't.

I think that this may be a good example of where the saints, on their own, lapped up the idea and it satisfied the craving within their itching ears and the Lord rolled with it and said, "I can respect your agency, do it this way, if you insist". Does it need to be done, no. Can it be done and help point to a better way of turning the hearts to the fathers, yes.

So, the Lord thereby turns the saints wrong into something right, even if only temporarily right. Do you think that could be the case?

[inho]

Try to find where the Lord stops talking about the Nauvoo House and transitions to talking about the Nauvoo Temple. He does not. It's in plain English.

I think your reading is interesting and plausible. For the sake of the conversation, let me try to push back.

I think all can agree that verses 22-24 talk about the Nauvoo house, since they talk about house for boarding. They also say it is house build unto Lord's name (v. 22 and 24) and that Lord will dwell therein (v 24). So, when the revelation continue in verses 26-31 and again talks about house build unto Lord's name, it could very well refer to the same house. Yet typically these verses are understood to be about temple, since they talk about fulness of the priesthood and baptism for dead. I agree, that there is nothing in the text itself to differentiate the two houses here.

However, I would like to turn attention to verses 55 and 56:

55 And again, verily I say unto you, I command you again to build a house to my name, even in this place, that you may prove yourselves unto me that ye are faithful in all things whatsoever I command you, that I may bless you, and crown you with honor, immortality, and eternal life.

56 And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein, from generation to generation.

Here I think it is a reasonable reading to interpret these verses be about two different houses: first temple, then Nauvoo House. The difference is not very clear though. However, I would argue that the beginning of the verse 56 is too repetitive if the verses talk about same house. It sounds like the boarding of strangers is mentioned to make the difference between the two houses. It is repetitive to mention that the house is build unto Lord’s name, since that was just said.
This I found to be the clearest passage in the revelation that seems to talk about two houses. I can see how someone may read it differently though.

[JLHPROF]

Try to find where the Lord stops talking about the Nauvoo House and transitions to talking about the Nauvoo Temple. He does not. It's in plain English.

I think your reading is interesting and plausible. For the sake of the conversation, let me try to push back.

I think all can agree that verses 22-24 talk about the Nauvoo house, since they talk about house for boarding. They also say it is house build unto Lord's name (v. 22 and 24) and that Lord will dwell therein (v 24). So, when the revelation continue in verses 26-31 and again talks about house build unto Lord's name, it could very well refer to the same house. Yet typically these verses are understood to be about temple, since they talk about fulness of the priesthood and baptism for dead. I agree, that there is nothing in the text itself to differentiate the two houses here.

However, I would like to turn attention to verses 55 and 56:

55 And again, verily I say unto you, I command you again to build a house to my name, even in this place, that you may prove yourselves unto me that ye are faithful in all things whatsoever I command you, that I may bless you, and crown you with honor, immortality, and eternal life.

56 And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein, from generation to generation.

Here I think it is a reasonable reading to interpret these verses be about two different houses: first temple, then Nauvoo House. The difference is not very clear though. However, I would argue that the beginning of the verse 56 is too repetitive if the verses talk about same house. It sounds like the boarding of strangers is mentioned to make the difference between the two houses. It is repetitive to mention that the house is build unto Lord’s name, since that was just said.
This I found to be the clearest passage in the revelation that seems to talk about two houses. I can see how someone may read it differently though.

Another separation has to do with location.
The location of the Nauvoo House hadn't been shown to those appointed to build it:

22 Let my servant George, and my servant Lyman, and my servant John Snider, and others, build a house unto my name, such a one as my servant Joseph shall show unto them, upon the place which he shall show unto them also

They had yet to know its place. Joseph would show it to them.

The location of the temple was known to them since it had been chosen:

43 And ye shall build it on the place where you have contemplated building it, for that is the spot which I have chosen for you to build it.

The temple lot had been chosen and is confirmed/revealed in vs 43. They'd already started quarrying materials.
The lot for the Nauvoo House is not yet known to them according to vs 22.

Clearly two separate buildings - especially since the lots are at opposite ends of Nauvoo.

[inho]

Another separation has to do with location.

Good observation

[Shawn Henry]

I've slept several nights in the Nauvoo House. It looked finished to me.
And it definitely wasn't the House of the Lord.

I know you are not actually maintaining that the Lord extended his deadline to build until well after the saints left. It wasn't even really worked on compared to the Temple. When all the saints had left, it still only had a foundation.

You say it wasn't the House of the Lord, have you even read section 124. Perhaps you should actually read it before saying that.

...build a house unto my name, such a one as my servant Joseph shall show unto them, upon the place which he shall show unto them also. And it shall be for a house for boarding...

...It shall be holy, or the Lord your God will not dwell therein...