If you dig through the sources cited in the materials you linked, the best evidence presented in defense of the LDS view that LDS temple rites are ancient is that provided by Margaret Barker in her work on the original Jewish Temple. I’ve read all of her articles and her most important texts (Great High Priest, Temple Theology, Temple Themes in Christian Worship). I won’t go so far as to say that the F.A.R.M.S. folks that FairLDS relies on “twist” Barkers work, but they do cherry pick her findings to support the LDS view. They focus on the minimal parallels between the ancient Jewish temple and the LDS temple, ignoring the other, far more plentiful parallels between the ancient temple and the earliest Christian liturgies - which are still preserved the the Tridentine Rite and especially the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. It’s ironic, but after becoming acquainted with Barker’s work (suggested to me by an LDS friend of Nibley’s, hilariously enough, who thought it would help me see the divinity behind LDS temple rituals) I was convinced that BYU/FARMS/FairLDS claims were specious, left the LDS church and became a Catholic. I’m sure the guy who pointed me in Barker’s direction would be shocked and dismayed at the result. But to me, the evidences Barker brings to bear shows an obvious progression from ancient Judaism to Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Mormonism is left hanging in the wind as a late-comer copying mere memories of the ancient Jewish temple rites transmitted to Joseph Smith in Nauvoo through his exposure to Kabbalah at the hands of Alexander Neibaur, Joseph’s Hebrew tutor and a Kabbalist, and through Joseph’s exposure to Masonry, which itself is a product of the movement (which included rosicruianism and the rise of alchemy) that emerged after the appearance of the kabbalistic writings in Europe in the medieval era. Kabbala itself contains Jewish memories of the temple in Jerusalam, but corrupted and filtered through the rabbinic movement and memories of the second (Herod’s) temple. It’s a controversial claim, but Barker asserts that the first Christians (who became Catholics/Orthodox) preserved memories of the first (Solomon’s) temple rites and passed them into their liturgies, which you can still experience in slightly modified form today. In fact, Barker claims that everything (Second Temple rites and the rabbinic movement of modern Judaism that followed from it, gnosticism, kabbalah, Catholic/Orthodox liturgies, even Islam) all derive from memories of the first temple in Jerusalem. It is her argument that it was the first Christians, beginning with Jesus himself through the apostles to Catholicism/Orthodoxy, who best preserved the original rites and theology of the first temple. The BYU/FARMS people who claim to love Barker so much and depend on her to support all of their recent apologetics in defense of the LDS temple ignore all of this “inconvenient to Mormonism” info in her work and cherry pick only what they find to be useful to support their views. It’s all specious work, and that’s the kind of “scholarship” available in the links you provided to defend the LDS point of view.
NS
When Sid and Joe clashed, it was over power. Sid essentially provided the means for Joe to get it, and once there, Joe wanted it all for himself. If you check out the mormon D&C, a lot of the claimed visions were Sid’s, not Joe’s.
By the way, what would you say if mormons and protestants would refer to the pope as Benny? Would you report such posters? Just curious to know.