Was it possible in 1848 to verify the accuracy of Baron Hugel’s description of the Golden Temple? Why or why not? 4 to 5 sentences please!

Explanation:

It was towards the end of the 19th century that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church identified a threat to Christian doctrine in a historically rapid drift to a one-world perception of reality. This they labelled "modernism".

He was in his lifetime often associated with the so-called modernist movement which in the latter part of the nineteenth century was bitterly criticised and strongly opposed by the Roman Catholic Church. But although von Hugel was indeed an adventurous thinker, he remained faithful to the Roman Catholic Church all his life, regarding it as the finest possible expression of humanity's religious spirit.

Nevertheless, it's a fair to say that he attempted to straddle the "great divide" between modern and traditional conceptions of the Christian way of life. In particular, he argued against the conclusion that there is no necessary connection between our subjective experience and the world "out there".

He was supported in his conclusions by a wide and deep knowledge of the history of religion. When he analysed Western cultures, he came up with what he perceived as three distinct elements or characteristics:

The Greek desire for a rich harmony in nature;

the Christian capacity to understand how people work and the hidden depths of personality; and

science, the analytical method by which we discover and formulate facts about the universe and the laws which govern them.

All three are essential to human well-being, said Hugel. This meant in practice, for example, that it was right for theologians to dissect and criticise the Bible just as other artifacts in our lives are analysed scientifically. It was probably this sort of free thinking which earned him the suspicion and sometimes opposition of other Roman Catholics.  

He was perhaps to some extent protected by living in England, with its long and bitter experience of religious persecutions and its resulting sense of broad tolerance in matters religious. I have little doubt that he would have been greatly disturbed by fanatical fundamentalists in the 21st century.

i don't know the answer to this

well to answer ur question to be completly honest