- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My husband wants me to make a goal to go back to the temple with him. To be honest, I don’t want to. Every time I have gone it has made me uncomfortable. I don’t like it. It doesn’t fill me with the spirit. It weirds me out (and bores me at the same time). He wants me to sit down with the temple president and tell him my issues and get all my questions answered so I can have a better understanding. I don’t even know where to start! A lot of things seem to rub me the wrong way. If you ever had a question about the temple, I’m sure I’ve had it too. What questions do you/have you had about the temple that you would ask the temple president if you could?
First, there is no way I would hit a temple president with a bunch of questions about anything except the temple ceremonies. Even then, I would understand that I’m going to get personal opinion. Second, honestly, I don’t have any questions I would ask a temple president. Since I take it all symbolically, I don’t want correlated answers / opinions. I want the freedom to understand it any way that feels right to me. I would ask other members I like how they view things, but I wouldn’t ask a temple president. However, that’s just me – and I’m not exactly normal, as cwald likes to point out.
If you want my general take on the temple ordinances, read the last lesson summary in the thread “My New Calling”. We talked about the temple ordinances and covenants in the lesson this last Sunday in my youth Sunday School class. If you have any questions about the summary, feel free to ask me in this thread or that one. My answers might or might not be the same as a temple president’s, but it doesn’t hurt to have multiple perspectives – and everyone else here can give their input, as well.
Nope I don’t. I see no benefit or good coming from asking the temple president questions. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Also…I have not been to the temple in 14ish years now…but now that I understand masonry and the symbolism, and don’t have to believe it’s “all true or all false” I kind of would like go back…for the “weirdness”aspect. Perhaps you should just go for the weirdness aspect and to spend time with spouse?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I suggest just going again instead of preparing a list of questions. I’ve read there will be some changes late-summer and you might have a different experience. I’m giving optimism a fair shake.
I found this to be a refreshing perspective on the temple ceremony. I would want to ask an authority something along this line of thinking: – Divorces happen, and a man can be civilly divorced and subsequently sealed to more than one woman.
– A woman can get permission to get the temple divorce and be sealed to a different husband
– A widow can be sealed to more than one man
– We won’t have all records for every single human being that ever lived, so we can do temple work for those we know about, but the rest will be taken care of in the millennium or next life
– Some groups won’t give permission in this life, like Holocaust victims or some religious groups, or even individuals who specifically request to not have their work done.
sometimes the circumstances become complex and at some point, trying to make literal sense of it all leads to the final answer, “Well, we don’t know everything in this life, so some things will be worked out in the next life, God can provide for His worthy children to receive blessings that are in store for them.”
So…questions:
1) Is that correct as stated above, regarding some things get worked out in the next life?
2) If so, why do earthly ordinances matter in this life if it gets worked out later? Could it be they help us learn in this life, but are not literal requirements for exaltation?
3) Could we not just accept the deficiencies in this mortal life make it acceptable to treat all temple work as a symbolic gesture to link our families, and move away from a literal interpretation?
4) Therefore, since it can be viewed as symbolic with provisions for the next life to work things out, can we also let go of a “one true church” mentality where everyone must be baptized and go to the temple in this life, because as stated, things all work out in the next life? More important is that good people are good people, and truth is truth, wherever we find them.
5) If not, why? What is the difference between the holy buddhist monk living a life devoted to goodness, love, and service, and a stake president in the mormon church living a devoted life, where the SP receives ordinances in this life, and the buddhist monk has opportunities to receive ordinances in the next life? Doesn’t it all work out in the end regardless of special circumstances?
6) Is it possible the doctrine of proxy work for the dead was born out of the need to restore truths about God being more inclusive and merciful in this life (such as Brother Alvin dying without ordinance work but its ok…it gets worked out in God’s merciful plan), but in doing so, only opens the door to more questions which eventually leads to even more universalistic view of salvation, which is even more benevolent?
7) If we accept a more universalistic approach, and things work out in the next life for those without opportunities in this life, could we not stop building so many temples around the world and save some money to be used for more humanitarian aid, needs that people have here and now in this telestial world?
Finally, if things get worked out in the next life, and the church has admitted we do not understand if homosexuality is a choice or is genetic, is it possible two males or two females could be eternally sealed in marriage in the temples, realizing “all things will get worked out in the next life”?(I am not sure you’d make it past #4, but if you could make it all the way to #8…beware of eyeballs popping out of the temple president’s head!)
Heber13 wrote:I would want to ask an authority something along this line of thinking:
– A widow can be sealed to more than one man
Just wanted to comment on this.
A living woman can only be sealed for eternity to one man. If he dies first she can marry again but is sealed for time only.
If a dead woman in your family tree was married to 2 or men and both men died (no divorce) then she is sealed to both by proxy. Assumption being she will pick one.
I would ask this: – What is the actual saving nature of an ordinance?
– Why do we have ordinances? – To make commitments?
– Commitments lead to actions, which creates habits and eventually character. Is this the point of covenant making ordinances? To help us “become” not simply “do.”
…
– If that’s the case… what if someone made the same commitments to God, or even themselves, which lead to actions, habits and character.
– In other words. If all covenants are enablers to building character, don’t people who have the ability to establish these actions, habits and character without a temple covenant get the same benefit as a person who needs the temple structure to facilitate this outcome?
– Doesn’t God want “Human Beings” not “Human Doings?”
Right… I’ve delayed long enough. I’ve been promising to write up my perspectives on the temple. I love the LDS Endowment session. I would even be happy for it to have been written by Joseph, entirely based on contemporary sources (including masonry) and still love it. There are parts that I just ignore. It’s a series of symbols and parables that teach me about life and I enjoy it.
I love Les Miserables and know it’s fiction.
I love the Book of Mormon and think it might be fiction.
I love the endowment and treat it as fiction.
I’ve got a free weekend coming up (and wife & kids are away), so I’ll try to put some thoughts together.
I’ve probably massively over-trailed this so I hope it’s not a disappointment! I’m aware that ‘epiphany moments’ are rarely as interesting for other people as they are for the individual who has them. So it may be that what I consider to be a beautiful story arc in the ceremony seems a bit odd to others.
I will also do it while respecting the covenants of sacredness made in the endowment. Having said that, we covenant to keep the names, token and signs secret. Nothing else. I consider one of the issues of the temple is that everyone believes that the ceremony should never be discussed. There’s no need to do that. Mature students of the ceremony get that. Hugh Nibley used to discuss aspects of the ceremony quite openly.
For example:
The fact that there are even secret signs/token are themselves a teaching principle more than the signs/tokens themselves. They teach me: “only I am responsible for the promises I make with God and with myself. They are private to me and Him. No-one else can make them for me and I can’t make them for anyone else.”
My question is simply how the proxy ordinances are supposed to work*. I must admit I’ve taken a reaction against the endowment. I like the rest of the temple but not being told by Lucifer I might come under his power. Lucifer has too big a role, and we’re not Satanists.
* Not if they do, quite different.
I’m not going to talk about the temple, because I think that’s treating the symptom. You and your husband need to get on the same page about your faith crisis/transition. Your husband is probably a problem solver by nature. You tell your husband you don’t like to attend the temple, he looks for ways to fix it. I suggest that you get away for discussing specific points of doctrine and focus on your belief about God, spirituality, and discipleship. Tell him what you do believe, not what you don’t. Reassure him that you are the same person you’ve always been, but that your faith is changing. Tell him you support his faith. Tell him you’d like to go to the temple with him, because you love him, but that you don’t need to be converted to the temple-as-salvation model in order to do so. If he’d welcome you with that understanding, then you’d welcome the chance to go with him. If you just can’t be comfortable with the temple, then take that off the table, and substitute “church” for “temple”. A couple of years after my faith crisis, I had a talk with my wife, in which I realized that she still, erroneously, held out hope that I was just “struggling” with my testimony. It was a bit of an epiphany for me. I had done a poor job of including her in this most critical transition in my life. Since then, I’ve been open with her… again… not about church doctrine, but about what I believe. It’s helped a lot.
I will echo On own now. Especially In marriage it’s better to focus on the positive things you share than dwell on the things that cause a rift. Find stuff in common and share it. It’s difficult for problem solvers to just sit and listen without them thinking of how to “fix” something even if it isn’t broken but they perceive it to be. You can share and discuss problems but don’t let it become the focus.
Positive affirmation, unconditional love and support and respect. Who could argue with that?! No matter what your position in life or issue.
maggiemoo wrote:My husband wants me to make a goal to go back to the temple with him. To be honest, I don’t want to. Every time I have gone it has made me uncomfortable. I don’t like it. It doesn’t fill me with the spirit. It weirds me out (and bores me at the same time). He wants me to sit down with the temple president and tell him my issues and get all my questions answered so I can have a better understanding.
I don’t even know where to start! A lot of things seem to rub me the wrong way. If you ever had a question about the temple, I’m sure I’ve had it too. What questions do you/have you had about the temple that you would ask the temple president if you could?
I would not ask questions of the temple president. I once read in the BOA facsimile that certain symbols could only be revealed in the temple. So when I finally got the chance to talk to the temple president
in the templeI decided to ask him about it. He told me he didn’t know and I believe him. I remember having a rather benign conversation with the SP where I was asking him what he meant by the word “perfect” in the sentence – “The church is perfect.” After a few attempts he told me that he was a simple man with a simple faith. People can be called to be temple presidents and other church leaders because of their administrative skills and loyalty to the organization – thay might not have any special insights into a particular area. I agree that your husband might be trying to fix this. When my faith crisis began DW called our very knowledgable about historical issues former bishop and asked him to talk to me. When he called me my concerns where all about philosofical issues (i.e. What is my relationship to God based on? Does He intervene in our lives? What might His intervention be based upon?). DW hoped that I might resolve my concerns and recommit to the program, but that didn’t happen. People can’t be “fixed.”
I agree with what quite a few of the others have said – I’m not sure there’s much a temple president might say that would change how I feel about the temple, one way or the other. Do you think that he is likely to have some profound insight that you haven’t considered previously? I kind of doubt it. Do you think he’ll have some additional factual information on the creation of the endowment and its evolution over time? Again, doubtful. Your reaction to the temple ceremony seems to be visceral rather than methodical or rational (not a criticism, just an observation). As such, I’m not sure hearing anything that a temple president is going to say will change your reactions to it.
One way or the other, I hope you’re able to find some peace there. I’m with Ray on this – I view very little from the temple as literal. It’s all symbolic to me. Therefore, if there were anything doctrinal or historical about the temple that might bother me, I can easily skip past it and on to something that actually is meaningful.
Good luck!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.