Archive | August, 2015

Response to CARM: Difficult questions, part 5

31 Aug

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

This next page is titled “Difficult Questions For Mormons to Answer.” It is a series of questions that are supposed to stump members of the LDS church. There are 32 questions total. Most are followed by a few quotes that try to establish the subject in question. The first part of my response will be a comment on the quotes given, and this will be in green.

Now, since there are so many questions and responding to all of them will take a long time, I will be dividing this into many separate posts, each answering 1-3 questions.

 

 

Q. Why does DC 42:18 say that a murder will never be forgiven, yet 3 Nephi 20:2 says that he can be forgiven?

A. The two verses in question are given by the author, and I give them again here, though abbreviated.

DC 42:18, “Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.”

3 Nephi 30:2, “Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings…of your murders…and from all your wickedness…and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins…”

At first blush these seem to contradict each other. However, there is a subtle difference that needs to be noted. D&C is speaking of the individual, but 3 Nephi is speaking of society in general.

An individual is guilty of murder when they shed innocent blood and kill another. This act of an individual can never receive a full forgiveness and those guilty of it will never inherit more than the Telestial, or lowest glory.

A society is guilty of murder when they allow individuals to escape justice and thus allow murder to occur among them. When murders can buy their way out of justice, or are excused for any reason than the society that has allowed this is guilty of murder. If the society turns from this and begins again to bring murderers to justice and uphold the laws of God, than that society can repent of the allowing of wickedness to flourish in society. For example; when the reporter and camera man were shot on public TV what was the nations reactions. Political activists starting blaming the NRA, others wanted to talk about his mental health, and simply wanted to watch the live death of others. The killer uploaded a video of the shooting to the internet and people flocked to watch it. When this is our attitude and reaction we, as a society, are guilty of murder and in need of sore repentance.

In 3 Nephi the writer is calling the gentiles, as a society, to repentance, not the individuals.

 

Q. How could the Garden of Eden be in Missouri (according to Mormonism) when the Pearl of Great Price 3:10-14 tells us it was the area of Assyria when it mentions the rivers of Eden located there?

A. The author gives five quotes. The first four are to establish that the church does, in fact, teach that the Garden of Eden was in the Americas. As this is true I do not give the quotes here. The last quote comes from the book of Moses where it describes the Garden of Eden. I give the verse here, though abbreviated.

Moses 3: 10-14 “…caused a river to go out of Eden… it was parted…into four heads…the first Pison…compasseth…Havilah…the second river was called Gihon…compasseth…Ethiopia…the third river was Hiddekel…which goeth toward…Assyria…the fourth river was the Euphrates.”

The question makes the assumption that the Assyria spoken of here is the same as the ancient empire in the Middle East. This is not based on any actual evidence. It is simply reasoned that since the description of the garden contains the name Assyria than it must be talking of the area that that ancients knew as Assyria.

However, the truth is that the Assyria spoken of in Moses was also in the American continent (though I don’t know where). Adam, after being driven from the garden, still lived in relative close proximity to it, and his faithful descendents lived in the same basic area (read Moses 6). So, Noah would have been familiar with the area and its names, as would his three sons. After the flood, when they began to spread again on the earth, it would have been natural for them to give their new surroundings the familiar names of their old home.

So, the Assyria in the middle east is named after the Assyria that was near the Garden of Eden, which was in the Americas.

 

Q. Mormonism teaches an infinite regression of Gods. But an infinite regression of gods means that there is no first god by which his subjects were exalted to godhood. If there is no first God, how can there be a second and a third and thus there be the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression?

A. No quotes are given.

There would be no first or second or third, etc. However, there would be a next God, and a next, and so on. Much like moving through the universe, we cannot move from beginning to end (as neither exist), but we can move within it.

See my response to this logical proof.

Response to CARM: Difficult questions, part 4

29 Aug

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

This next page is titled “Difficult Questions For Mormons to Answer.” It is a series of questions that are supposed to stump members of the LDS church. There are 32 questions total. Most are followed by a few quotes that try to establish the subject in question. The first part of my response will be a comment on the quotes given, and this will be in green.

Now, since there are so many questions and responding to all of them will take a long time, I will be dividing this into many separate posts, each answering 1-3 questions.

 

Q. Why does the book of Mormon say that black skin is not “enticing” to God’s people in 2 Nephi 5:21?

A. The author quotes 2 Nephi 5: 21, as follows.

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

It seems clear that the Book of Mormon says this because the Israelites in the sixth century BC did not, in general, find black skin attractive. As such, the Lord darkened their skin so that the Nephites would not be enticed into marrying and thus intermingling with them.

Q. Why does the Mormon Church still claim the book of Abraham is inspired Scripture when it has been demonstrated that it is not but is instead an Egyptian burial papyrus?

A. No quotes are given.

No one has proven anything, except that a few small fragments of ancient scroll were funeral text. They haven’t proven that these fragments came from the scrolls that Joseph Smith translated. They can show that they come from the same collection, but this is a far cry from saying they are the same scroll.

Joseph Smith had several dozen feet of scrolls in the collection. Eye witness accounts describe him laying the scroll out to cover the floor in the room where he worked. Less than one dozen feet survive, and most in small fragments (not even from the same scroll in all probability). Because of this it is impossible to prove anything.

Read this for more information.

Response to CARM: Difficult questions, part 3

28 Aug

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

This next page is titled “Difficult Questions For Mormons to Answer.” It is a series of questions that are supposed to stump members of the LDS church. There are 32 questions total. Most are followed by a few quotes that try to establish the subject in question. The first part of my response will be a comment on the quotes given, and this will be in green.

Now, since there are so many questions and responding to all of them will take a long time, I will be dividing this into many separate posts, each answering 1-3 questions.

 

Q. If the book of Mormon was transmitted to us by the power of God, why does it have thousands of changes in it?

A. The author gives a series of comparative quotes, comparing the original 1830 edition with the 1981 edition. I am going to address only the first two in the series as they are both from Nephi’s great vision, as recorded in 1 Nephi 10: 17 – 15: 36.

Verse

1830

1981

1 Nephi 11: 18 “…And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of flesh…” “And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.”
1 Nephi 13: 40 “…and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world…” “…and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the son of the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world…”

Now, before we go any farther, let us understand that all the changes made in the Book of Mormon have been of two types: (1) corrections of punctuation, scribal error or typesetting error; (2) clarifications of passages that were somewhat less than clear in the original edition. Most of these were made by Joseph Smith himself, and thus carry the authority of his priesthood.

Now, some have claimed that the changes made here alter the meaning of the verses. This is, of course, not true. They do fall into the category of clarifying changes, as the original was a little confusing.

I have often heard those who criticize the church say that we take various verses of the Bible out of context. I believe the author, in making the claim regarding these two verses in the Book of Mormon, is guilty of taking them out of context. Few verses stand alone, but must be understood in light of what is being said in the surrounding verses and what the full message of the passage is. So, let us look at the context, using only the 1830 edition (though the links are to the current edition for comparison).

In 1 Nephi chapter 10 Lehi has just finished telling of his Tree of Life vision. At the end of the chapter Nephi expresses his desire to see the vision for himself. In verse 17 he tells us that his father had seen these things through faith on the son of God “… And the son of God was the Messiah, which should come….” (pg 23, par 1) It clearly shows that the Messiah was the son of God.

Then, in chapter 11 Nephi recounts the vision he had. He is guided through this vision by an angel. In verse 7 the angel tells him “… thou shalt also behold a man descending out of Heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after that ye have witnessed him, ye shall bear record that it is the son of God.” (pg 24, par 1) So, the angel is establishing that the following vision would reveal the coming of the son of God.

It is then in verse 18, which the author quotes, that we read the statement that the virgin is the mother of God. (pg 25, line 4) However, it has already been established that the vision is about the son of God.

In verse 21 of the 1830 edition we also read “…behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father…” (pg 25, par 1) Again, it is an apparent contradiction of what has already been established.

However, in verse 24 Nephi tells us “…I looked, and I beheld the son of God going forth among the children of men…” (pg 25, par 1) again establishing that we are talking about the son of God.

We then go back again in verse 32, which reads “…And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world…” (pg 26, par 1)

Then in chapter 13 verse 40, which the author quotes, we read “…that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world…” (pg 32, par 1)

So, in the 1830 edition we have this apparent contradiction within the vision of Nephi.

But, we read in Mosiah 15: 2-5 (in the 1830 edition) “because he dwelleth in flesh, he shall be called the son of God: and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the son; the Father because he was conceived by the power of God; and the son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and son: and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of Earth; and thus the flesh becoming subject to the spirit, or the son to the Father, being one God”

So, there really is no contradiction, as Christ is the Father and the Son. However, it is a bit confusing to the reader. Thus the changes clarify for the reader the context that had already been set by Nephi without actually altering the meaning of the passages. In fact, all these verses were changed to say the son of God (or the like) by Joseph Smith in the 1837 edition.

I have not yet looked at all the passages listed, but I am confident that they will reveal similar results. I will analyze them in the comments section in a few days.

*This question is answered in the response be S.H.I.E.L.D.S. It contains a number of additional examples. I will address all of them in a later post, so keep an eye out for it.

Response to CARM: Difficult questions, part 2

26 Aug

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

This next page is titled “Difficult Questions For Mormons to Answer.” It is a series of questions that are supposed to stump members of the LDS church. There are 32 questions total. Most are followed by a few quotes that try to establish the subject in question. The first part of my response will be a comment on the quotes given, and this will be in green.

Now, since there are so many questions and responding to all of them will take a long time, I will be dividing this into many separate posts, each answering 1-3 questions.

 

Q. If the book of Mormon is the most correct book of any on earth and contains the fullness of the gospel, then why does it not contain the essential Mormon doctrines of eternal progression, the priesthoods, the plurality of gods, that God is an exalted man, and the 3 degrees of glory?

A. The quote given is Joseph Smith’s statement that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book. This establishes the basis for the question, but does not need to be repeated here.

The Fullness of the Gospel refers to the basics, or the core doctrine that leads men to God and the Celestial Kingdom. That fullness is contained in the Book of Mormon.

One should not confuse the core of the gospel with the appendages. Christ and the atonement are the fullness of the gospel, to which might be added baptism and confirmation. This is what brings men back to God and the Celestial Kingdom. Anything outside this is not a part of what is referred to as the fullness of the gospel, but is an appendage to it.

As to being the most correct, that does not mean it contains all truth, nor does it mean that it is completely free of error. It means that what truth it does contain is more free of error than any other book.

You may also read what I wrote concerning what the Book of Mormon Does Not Contain as one of the earliest posts on my blog.

 

Q. Isn’t the Book of Mormon in English inspired? If so, can you trust the French, German, Spanish translations, etc., as being correct?

A. No quote is given for this question.

Yes. Each translation was done through the inspiration of God, and thus all translations are correct.

 

Q. Why does the Book of Mormon say that Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) when the Bible says He was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5: 2)?

A. The author quotes Alma 7: 10, which is the verse in question. It is given here as well.

“And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.”

Let us look at the wording in this verse. First, Alma says that Christ will be born at Jerusalem, not in Jerusalem. Second, once Alma has named the place of Christ’s birth he then identifies it as “the land” of their ancestors. It is clear that Alma is not speaking of a city, but of a geographic region which his ancestor came from. This would be the land of Judea.

It is understandable that Alma would use the name Jerusalem. The descendents of Lehi had been separated from Judea for over 500 years. It is likely that few, if any knew anything about the geography of the Old World, and thus naming Bethlehem would have meant very little to them. However, the name Jerusalem would have likely still been known as it is frequently mentioned in the prophecies of the Old Testament. Many of these prophecies, including Isaiah’s and Jeremiah’s, were contained in the Brass Plates and thus were available to the Nephites.

Alma would also have needed to clarify that he was speaking of the Old World. The Lamanites had built a city which they named Jerusalem. So, to make sure that people did not think he was talking about the Jerusalem of the Lamanite’s he clarified that he was speaking of the Jerusalem that was of their ancestors.

So, while Micah named the specific town in which Christ would be born, Alma named only the general geographic area.

Response to CARM: Difficult questions, part 1

26 Aug

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

This next page is titled “Difficult Questions For Mormons to Answer.” It is a series of questions that are supposed to stump members of the LDS church. There are 32 questions total. Most are followed by a few quotes that try to establish the subject in question. The first part of my response will be a comment on the quotes given, and this will be in green.

Now, since there are so many questions and responding to all of them will take a long time, I will be dividing this into many separate posts, each answering 1-3 questions.

 

Q. If the principle of “progression” is eternally true, why is it that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not gods of their own worlds?

A. Attached to this question are two quotes, but I will not be commenting on them. The question assumes that we believe all gods get their own planet, and neither of the quotes given say anything to that effect. As such the quotes are meaningless for the purpose of the question.

Now, the actual answer to this question is simple. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the God of this Earth. Actually, they are the God of many worlds; in fact, all the worlds that the Father has created. Joseph Smith taught that “The head of the Gods called a council of the gods.” Also, in the Book of Abraham we read that the Gods (plural) planned the creation of the earth. All this shows that we do not believe that each god gets their own world, but rather work in a council to conduct their work.

Here is a great article on this very topic.

 

Q. If it is necessary to have a body in order to become a God, then how did the Holy Spirit, who does not have a body, attain the status of godhood?

A. Once again the quote provided does not support the question at hand. It restates the fact that the Holy Spirit is a spirit, but makes no mention of the need for a body to be a god. It is, again, a useless quote for question asked.

Now, I do not dispute the teaching that a body is needed to be like God. This is a well established teaching. However, there is a distinction made in the church between gods and God. Notice that one is not capitalized while the other is. The one that is not capitalized is a noun that refers to the state of existence that God enjoys. The capitalized word is a title of authority that is given to any who hold the appropriate authority over man.

At the time of the creation both words applied to the Father, for he existed in the state of godhood and had the authority of God.

Jesus, at the time of the creation, had not yet received a physical body, and thus only the title applied to Him, as he had the authority but did not live in the state of existence. After the resurrection the noun then applied as he had entered the state of existence. This is shown in how he changes the command to be perfect. Before his resurrection he says to be perfect “even as your Father, which is in heaven, is perfect.” Yet, after his resurrection he say “even as I or your Father is perfect.”

The Holy Ghost, being a spirit, does not yet enjoy the state of existence, but does have the authority and thus is rightly called God. At some time in the future the Holy Ghost will be given a physical body.

 

Q. If the angel Moroni was a devout follower of the Mormon gospel, then why is he an angel right now and not a god?

A. The author quotes D&C 132: 17 which describes those who will not gain exaltation. It has minimal applicability to the question, as it does explain what some angels are, and the question is asking why Moroni is an angel. I would point out that the verse speaks of “these angels” which would indicate that there are other angels not included in the description given.

As to why Moroni was an angel and not a god: Moroni was given the keys of the stick of Joseph, and thus still had a mission to fulfill on the earth. As far as I know he still holds those keys and still has a mission. As such he is a heavenly messenger he is a ministering angel to this earth. Now, as he is described as a glorified resurrected being it is also possible that he has already been exalted, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are said to have received already.

*This question is answered in the response be S.H.I.E.L.D.S. I will address that in a later post, so keep an eye out for it.

 

 

Response to CARM: Homosexuality

25 Aug

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

The page I will address here is titled “The Mormon Church and homosexuality.” I have to say it was a new one for me. So far I have only read and heard people criticize the church for being too hard on homosexuals. However, the author here doesn’t think we are hard enough.

The author gives the church credit for opposing same-sex marriage, but they raise issues on the question of homosexual attraction. He rightly quotes the leaders in saying “The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and behavior.” That we maintain “that feelings and inclinations toward the same sex are not inherently sinful.” (Same-Gender Attraction)

While applauding the kindness and sensitivity he does say that we missed the mark with this. As he puts it “homosexual attraction is not sinful until it is acted upon.” The author than speak about lust and then tells us “God judges the heart–not just the action.”

Right now I will agree with this. God will judge our thoughts, but what will he judge? The author quotes Matthew 5: 28 “but I say to you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” He quotes some other verses as well, but the basic idea of the claim is that any thought that enters the mind which is in line with sinful action is also a sin.

Let us consider the lusting after a woman that Christ was talking about. To lust is to have a strong longing or desire for someone in a sexual way. So, the question we must ask is this: Is it possible to experience attraction towards another person without having the accompanying desire for them?

The answer to this question is obvious. Of course it is. The definition of attraction is a person or thing that draws, attracts, allures, or entices.

A man can walk down the street and pass an extremely beautiful woman towards whom he experiences a moment of attraction and possibly even physical arousal. However, he can go on his way and never think of her again, and thus he has never experienced any sexual desire for her, and thus is not guilty of lusting after her.

In the same manner a person can experience and feel attraction to those of the same sex; however, until they desire to act on those feelings then they have committed no sin.

God will judge the heart, and the heart that turns from lusts will be justified, even if it has faced the trails of attractions that are unlawful and unnatural.

Response to CARM: temple veil

25 Aug

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

The page I address here is titled “The Temple Veil was destroyed by God, yet Mormonism puts it back.” It speaks to the temples and the veil that is used. I am not going to quote it in its entirety here, but you can use the link to read the full article. Also, it speaks of many things concerning the temple that I will not openly discuss. They are sacred and are not for those who have not entered the covenants of the temple. I will discuss the basic premise and make as many comments as my conscious will allow.

 

The author starts out with a brief summary of some LDS doctrines. We do believe we are the “true Christian church with the fullness of the gospel.” We also believe the temples “are holy places” and are the house of God.

The author does make one minor error when he claims we believe “the same sacred ordinances of the Biblical pattern are performed” in the temples. It would be more accurate to say that we believe the ordinances are from Biblical times, but not necessarily described in the Bible itself.

The author gives some quotes for this, which is fine, though I am not sure what the second one has to do with the topic at hand. I am not going to make direct comments on these however, as they are incidental to the basic premise.

The author then tries to summarize much of the Endowment Ceremony. Honestly, I found it a little offensive and blasphemous, so I will say only that there is a veil in the temple that is part of the ceremony. More than this is not needed for the discussion.

The author than quotes Luke 23: 44-46. I am not sure what translation of the Bible the author uses, but as the LDS use the KJV, I will here give that translation.

“And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: And having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”

I am not sure why the author feels the need to them state that “God dwelt in the Temple–not the devil.” Maybe it was to put emphasis on their next statement; that it was God that tore the veil in the temple. Why the need for such an emphasis I do not understand, but that is not important.

According to the author this tearing, or destroying of the veil, was to symbolize that the separation between God and man was done away through the atonement. The claim is that “God destroyed the veil.”

The author than asks the following questions.

Why does the LDS church put into their temples the veil that God destroyed by tearing it in two?

Think about it. God destroyed the veil. He “got rid of it.” Yet, the LDS church put it back. If the LDS church is true, why would it put back into their temples the very thing that God destroyed?

The answer is simple: We build the temples according to the commands of God. It may have been God that tore the veil in the temple of Jerusalem, but it was also God that commanded us to build temples with veils.

I will also give the following from the church’s New Testament Institute study manual.

The Holy of Holies was the most sacred room in the ancient temple; it symbolized the presence of God. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest passed through the veil of the temple and entered into the Holy of Holies, where he sprinkled the blood of a sin offering to atone for the sins of all the congregation of Israel (see Leviticus 16). When the veil of the temple was “rent in twain” (torn in two) at the death of Jesus Christ (Matthew 27:51), it was a dramatic symbol that the Savior, the Great High Priest, had passed through the veil of death and would shortly enter into the presence of God.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote that in addition to the Savior entering the presence of the Father, “the Holy of Holies is now open to all, and all, through the atoning blood of the Lamb, can now enter into the highest and holiest of all places, that kingdom where eternal life is found. Paul, in expressive language (Heb. 9 and 10), shows how the ordinances performed through the veil of the ancient temple were in similitude of what Christ was to do, which he now having done, all men become eligible to pass through the veil into the presence of the Lord to inherit full exaltation” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:830). The Apostle Paul taught that just as the torn veil of the temple allowed symbolic entrance into the Holy of Holies, it is the torn flesh of Jesus Christ that opens the way for us into the presence of the Father (see Hebrews 10:12, 19–20).