With reference to Heb 10:20 (“By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh”), Joseph Fielding McConkie wrote the following about the temple veil:
It was the rending of the veil, or Christ’s death, that enabled all by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel to enter into the divine presence. This symbolized the end of the old covenant of death and announced the new covenant wherein all may receive the “fulness of his glory” (D&C 84:24). The Mosaic dispensation had now ended; the new and everlasting covenant had been re-established. With the rending of the veil, all exclusive privileges associated with the law of Moses were abolished, distinctions in the flesh were at an end, the carnal law was suspended, and the higher law returned—all was accomplished because of the atoning sacrifice of him of whom the veil was a type. The same hand that rent the beautiful fabric which hitherto had concealed the holiest of all had now opened the graves to a glorious resurrection for that “innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality” that they, like the righteous of all future generations, might enter the presence of their divine Father (D&C 138:12). (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Gospel Symbolism [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1985], 109)
Without naming him, McConkie also discusses Walter Martin's popular "comeback" to LDS who point to anthropomorphic depictions of God in the Bible. Martin would often point to Psa 91:4 to counter LDS claims:
He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
The argument would be that, if LDS wish to absolutise language depicting God as having a body, they would have to argue, on the basis of Psa 91:4, that God is a chicken, which is absurd. Of course, such ignores the fact that the book of Psalms is poetry, while Gen 1:26-27 and other like texts are historical narratives, showing Martin's poor exegetical skills. As McConkie noted on this issue:
A favorite text used by a leading anti-Mormon spokesman in attacking missionaries for teaching that God is a personal being is the Psalm which states that God will protect his people with “his feathers, and under his wings.” In a mocking tone the question is asked, “Is God a chicken, or some other kind of a bird that he would have feathers and wings?” The line brings a good laugh and young missionaries are not always prepared to respond, though a reading of the text would be more than adequate. Dramatizing the protection one finds in the Lord and by obedience to gospel principles, the Psalmist referred to God as a refuge and fortress. Then to further illustrate his point he wrote: “Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.” (Psalm 91:3-4). The expression is an obvious metaphor. (Ibid., 208)
