An argument for symbolic rather than literal interpretations

I’ve been having a fairly interesting IRL conversation the past few days, and doing a lot of reading, as a result, about the way we interpret the temple ordinances and the various rituals and rites of the church.

I tend to see the ordinances as outward symbols of inward covenants. It’s been quite some time since I thought baptism water was magical, signs and tokens literally unlocked closed doors or allowed me to bypass sentinels, or kneeling across the altar created binding eternal ties. My understanding (fwiw) is that the covenants we make and live, increase our knowledge, allow us to forgive and be forgiven, and bind us together (D&C 121 – by living virtuously and treating others with love unfeigned, they seek to be bound to us, without compulsory means, etc). In other words, it’s the application of what we learn and covenant to do in the temple that effectuates any life-giving consequences, not the act of participating in the ritual itself. The ritual being only a symbolic act employed to instruct and inform the patron.

My major argument for a symbolic understanding is that if the ordinance (the outward ritual) literal accomplishes what is promised in the covenant, then (1) we bypass any worthiness issues (to quote Greg Prince “even the Tanners have the keys…”) and (2) we eliminate the need for Christ (the ritual alone saves or exalts) and effectively turn temple work into idolatrous worship with no more validity than infant baptism.

Before I ask for opinions, I want to clarify that I do see these rituals as inherently necessary and essential but not because I see them as literally binding. I see them as necessary because they teach us the underlying principles and continually bring us back to the beautiful and basic truths of the gospel better than any other available method. Additionally, I believe that were we to abandon the profound poetry of ritual in worship, we would lose our grasp on many of the truths they convey just as some BOM societies lost sight of their need for a Savior when they abandoned the law of Moses. (IMO, BOM historicity is irrelevant to the meaning of these accounts, in this case.)

I see temple ordinances as literally turning our hearts to our children and our ancestors but only if we perform the ordinances out of love. If we rush to get genealogy completed because we fear great aunt Maude is stuck in a prison waiting room and we must earn her release, then the rituals are not only in vain, but counter to the purposes of the temple. The temple is about the inclusive love of a God who seeks to save all His children, but also about the love we feel for one another as we offer the sacrifice of self at the altar, on behalf of our tribe (family and loved ones). When we carry another’s name through the ordinances, we are testifying before God that we want this person to enjoy all the blessings of exaltation. Whatever you believe about the afterlife, this is a peace-inducing, charity-inspiring, life-altering perspective.

I actually see the temple as more beautiful, more meaningful, and more inviting because I see the work as symbolic.

Okay – please tell me whether you think my position is sound and if not, where my thinking has derailed…

Thanks,

Cate