An honest interfaith conversation includes both parties being willing to accept that at least some of their beliefs are based on interpretations of scripture that aren’t completely clear. 

The variety of doctrine in Christianity is a fantastic example of how beliefs develop from various interpretations. For example, all of Christianity interprets the Bible as teaching that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. However, as we move into other doctrines, interpretation of what the Bible teaches becomes more varied. The doctrine of baptism illustrates this well. From sect to sect, and from church to church, Christianity interprets the need for baptism differently, with some believing it is required for salvation, and some believing that it is a good thing but not essential to salvation. In addition to necessity, the purpose, method, and timing of baptism are also interpreted differently.

Baptism isn't some fringe doctrine either–it is a core teaching of Christ, one that he discussed and participated in himself. Yet the various interpretations of the Bible treat baptism differently. 

A level of spiritual maturity that allows one to look at another set of beliefs without feeling a threat to their own, is also a requirement for honest interfaith dialogue. 

In that spirit the information below is not presented as an argument, but as an explanation. 

I have provided some videos at the bottom of the page. All are worth a watch, but especially so if you don't currently have the time to read through the commentary below. These videos are:

1. A former evangelical discusses modern temples and the Bible. 

2. A short version of what is written here

2. An insanely deep drive into temples throughout the bible and early Christianity

[NOTES: the below discussion uses the KJV of the bible for all references unless otherwise noted. "Church of Jesus Christ" and "Church" refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.] 

Temples fall into this category of "interpreted doctrines". The Old Testament is explicit about the importance of temples; however, the New Testament is vague enough about the status of temple worship that multiple interpretations have arisen. Orthodox Christians have continued with liturgical ceremonies that show distinct relation to New Testament worship, and their worship buildings are also called temples. In contrast, evangelical teachings claim that temple worship is no longer needed after the sacrifice of Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints falls somewhere in between these two, believing that temple worship fell to the wayside over time, but God has once again instructed temples to be built. 

This article is an attempt to share how a member of the Church of Jesus Christ may interpret what the New Testament says about temple worship.

Bodies as a Temple

The New Testament teaches that our bodies are temples. Paul states, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?" (1 Cor 3:26) which has been interpreted as referring to both the individual, and the church as a community. He echoes this again later in preaching against fornication, stating that the body is a temple of the Holy Ghost.  .
In his second epistle to the Corinthians Paul continues this theme, stating that "...[God} will dwell in them, and walk in them...".

It is interpreted by some that Paul saying that our bodies are temples to God precludes the need for any temple structure. However, this is never explicitly stated. In none of these instances does Paul state that physical temples should be done away with. 

The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ coincides with Paul's teachings. Our bodies are temples of God, we can be sanctified in Him, and He expects us to treat our bodies as temples (Doctrine Covenants 93:35). At the same time, this doesn't mean that there cannot be temple structures built as part of worship of God. The two are not mutually exclusive, and Paul doesn't indicate that in his teachings–we can have God in us, and also experience his presence in a temple. 

This fact, that both bodies as temples and structures as temples can co-exist, is taught by the Savior himself. In John 2 Jesus goes to great effort to cleanse the temple. He then teaches that his own body is a temple, though the Jews that challenged him did not understand what he said.
It is clear in this story that Jesus himself considers the temple structure as sacred, and his own temple body sacred. But he, as with Paul, does not claim any mutual exclusion between the two. 

In this the Church of Jesus Christ teaches that Christ can dwell in us as a temple and also, as he sees fit, in any other environment–including a temple structure. 

To claim that after Christ's death God could now dwell in us (or with us), and that a physical structure was no longer needed, is to also claim that before Christ's death God could not dwell in, or with, his people without a physical structure. Is this a limitation we would put on God? 

It is made quite clear that God dwelt among his people. For example, Numbers 35:34 states very clearly that the Lord was dwelling in the land with his people. This is echoed in many other verses as well. 

Again, would we say that God required a structure in order for Him to dwell among his people? Is he limited by the existence of a building? 

On this word "Dwell"

Both Greek and Hebrew languages have multiple words that are translated as "dwell". 

For example, the Hebrew word - שָׁכַן - appears in the bible 129 times (including Numbers 35:34). Of these it is translated as "dwell" 92 times. But it is also translated as "abide", "to remain", "to inhabit", "to rest" and others. 

The Greek word for "dwell", as found in 1 Corinthians 3:16, is - οἰκέω - from the root οἶκος. This word is translated most commonly as "house". Considering these translation options, the word "dwell" could be either figuratively or literally, and could be to "remain", to "inhabit", to "reside, or to "cohabit". 

To add to this, we must consider the Middle English word "dwellen", which definition includes "delay", "live", "remain", or "persist". We must also consider the modern "dwell" which is to "live as a resident" or to just "remain for a time". 

Various translations of the bible present - οἰκέω - as "dwells", "dwelleth", "lives in", and "place in". They also follow this up with "in you" and "in your midst" - inferring that it could be translated as God being with us in multiple ways. 

The reason for this dive into the word "dwell" isn't meant to actually clear anything up. In fact, it is to do the opposite, and call attention to the fact that a rigid interpretation of the modern day word "dwell" may limit our understanding of how God dwells. 

The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ doesn't teach that God is limited to permanent residence in a structure made by man–in fact, it teaches the opposite. God's throne is in the heavens, but for Moses God dwelt on a mountain, and for Israel he dwelt in their midst, in their land, in the tabernacle, and later in a temple structure. Christ and the Apostles teach that he also dwells in us as individuals. God can dwell - in one way or another - as he sees fit: in us, among us, or in a structure. 

But what of Acts 7:48?  (Acts 7:47-49)

Stephen  appears to be very explicit in his testimony. Saying "..the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands". Yet the doctrines taught about modern day temples still don't conflict with this verse. 

In this case, the Greek word translated  as "dwelleth" is - κατοικέω - which connotes a more permanent state of habitation. Strong's definition is given as "to house permanently in" or to "reside". 

The following verse states "Heaven is my throne....what house will ye build for me?...". The doctrines of the Church align with this in that God's permanent residence is heaven, and a temple is a "House of the Lord" in that it is a place He may visit at his discretion - again not limiting God's choice of "dwelling".

Looking a little deeper we see that Stephen is referencing another person as he says: "...thus saith the prophet...". It is obvious that Stephen is referencing Isaiah as recorded in chapter 66, wherein the prophet quotes the Lord: "Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?" 

The context of this verse is extremely important if we wish to understand the scripture fully. Stephen is quoting Isaiah, Isaiah is quoting the Lord. Yet at the time Isaiah writes the original text, standing very nearby is Solomon's Temple–a temple that the Lord himself has accepted. How can it be that the Lord's words, through Isaiah, and then quoted by Stephen, would mean that temples are no longer needed after the sacrifice of Christ, if they were originally given when there was a temple that God accepted in operation? What Stephen meant to portray must be consistent with the intent of the original text. 

Solomon himself echoes the same question in his temple prayer (1 Kings 8:27). He asks: How can God even dwell in a temple made by hands?” Yet the Lord himself accepts the temple despite Solomon's concerns. "And the Lord said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. " (1 Kings 9:3).

Stephen's reference to Isiah's words, again, must be consistent with these facts. To claim that Stephen is speaking against physical temples is to ignore the remaining context and intent. 

So what then is all of this talk about dwelling? 

Does God dwell in the heavens, in temple structures, or in us? The answer is "Yes." God dwelleth as He sees fit. From his throne His presence goes forth, dwelling in all places and peoples as He sees fit.

Of the Rent Veil

Mathew, Mark, and Luke all record that at the time of Christ's death the veil in the temple, that separated the Holy of Holies, was rent from top to bottom. This event, combined with words from the book of Hebrews, is often interpreted to be signifying that God was saying the temple was no longer needed. However, again, this is not explicitly said. Multiple meanings can be interpreted by both the event and the words. 

Another interpretation of the rent veil, and one prominent in the Church of Jesus Christ, is also reliant on the letter to the Hebrews. The author takes great effort to go over the ancient temple and its ceremonies, relating them to Christ, and in doing so references the temple and the purpose of the veil: "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us..." (Hebrews 9:24).
As the Temple High Priest would pass through the temple veil, to make an offering for the people, Christ had now passed through the veil of death, offering Himself as sacrifice for his people.

The Cleansing

Christ taught and worshiped in the temple on a very regular basis. There came a day, though, that he came to the temple with an additional purpose. There he would, in the only recorded event of unreserved passion, use a whip to chase out those who had made the temple a place of commerce. This show of force, his obvious vigor, his full dedication to the temple being "...the house of prayer", and Luke recording that he "taught daily" in the temple, all shows the high regard in which the Lord held the temple and ceremonies there in.

This all happened just months, or maybe weeks before his crucifixion. Why do this if He expected the temple to be something of the past in such a short amount of time?  Why make such a display, why put such a public emphasis on the temple by cleansing it and teaching there daily–if it were to be a thing of naught almost immediately after? Why be so specific in the teaching of the importance of the temple, but then leave His people to interpret the end of the temple via a rent curtain?

The two events should bring a clearer message to the importance of the temple–not a diametrically opposed message.  

It is obvious that the temple was important to Christ. Since he was a little boy he went "about his Father's business" at the temple. 

What did the Apostles do with the temple? 

If we are to look for examples of how to worship Christ, then who better to look at than the Apostles? 

The Apostles had grown up with temple worship as part of their life. They were then converted to Christ and His teachings and to His divine mission. The first of them, chosen by Christ himself, witness Him in the flesh, and in His resurrection. 

Though it is clear that the Apostles continued to learn, and continued to gain understanding of His mission, it is also clear that the apostles did not abandon the temple after Christ's death.
Acts 2:41-47 shows the pattern of worship for both the Apostles and their converts, in which it records that "...they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple...". 

Immediately following the Day of Pentecost, Peter and John were headed to the temple to worship at the time of sacrifice, when they encountered the lame man, and there at the gates healed him. (Acts 3:1) They then preached to those at the temple. 

And we must consider Paul. When standing on Mars Hill said: "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshiped with men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;" (acts 17:24-25). 

Context is important here, as he is trying to use the "Unknown God" to teach the Greeks about the Lord. Worship of idols as the gods was common. These gods were of limited domain, controlled by their passions, and residing in physical places. Paul is trying to teach that the "unknown god" is the one true God - Christ - and he is not confined by such material things as these other gods. He is not confined to temples, to mountain tops, or even to his own uncontrollable passions. He is greater than all of these other gods. However, it is clear from Paul's life that he was not attempting to teach that temples to the Lord were no more. We know this because Paul continued to include the temple as part of his worship. 

Approximately 30 years after the death of Christ, after the rent veil, after the resurrection - and about a decade after Mars Hill - Paul was still worshiping at the temple. If he truly meant that the temple was no longer important, then why continue in it himself? 

Again, none of this is presented as an argument against any belief. I fully support each person worshiping how they see fit, dependent on their interpretation of all things. 

However, for me, it is clear that the New Testament does not explicitly teach that temples should be done away with. Unfortunately, what I've included here is only the very surface of the beautiful doctrines related to the Temples of God. 

Further study of the scriptural teachings about future temples, and the intriguing documentation of temple worship among early Christians for centuries after Christ's death, also strengthens my resolve that temples are acceptable to God. If interested, you can find a bit more HERE.

So WHY temples after Christ's sacrifice? 

Why would we need temples after Christ's great sacrifice? If he can dwell in us, what would they offer? 

Just as the temples of the Old Testament pointed people to the future sacrifice of Christ, modern temples point people to the already accomplished sacrifice of Christ. 

Though the liturgical ceremonies are different, the purpose is the same: to help us focus on Christ, His sacrifice, His love, and to help us remember Him.