Ordinances

Good questions. I have questions about the ordinances as well. Even the Bible is contradictory on the subject which is why different Protestant churches believe differently about baptism vs. being saved by grace, etc. I wholeheartedly believe all good people will go to heaven, and probably the not-so-good ones as well, regardless of the ordinances. I’m not sure God is as demanding of obedience as the church teaches he is.

Regarding Jesus and baptism, the party line is that Jesus was baptized to show us the way and/or because no one, even he, could enter heaven without it. I do believe he may have been baptized to show us the way (here comes the heresy) but I also believe Jesus was not sinless or perfect. I do believe he was very good, and perhaps as good as he could possibly be, and progressed (line upon line, etc.) throughout his life but that, like all of us, he was perfected by God. I believe if we knew more about his life as a child, teenager, and young man we would clearly understand this.

Just to make sure it’s stated correctly, the endowment is not an “entire Masonic ritual”. There are elements that are taken from Masonry, but the overall endowment is far more different from the Masonic rituals than it is similar. Seriously, there is much more in the endowment that is not in Masonry than there is that is taken from Masonry.

I view ordinances as important to the people who perform them – no matter the application or specific religion. I see them as tangible ways for people to reaffirm their commitments, and, as such, many organizations use something similar to ordinances – even non-religious organizations. I see them as a way to embody or “physicalize” intangible ideas, beliefs, principles, concepts, etc. – and that is incredibly important to most people.

To echo what others have said, ordinances are at their best when done as an act of faith/commitment between the person and God. If done to fill the Church’s checkbox, they are of limited/no value.

I think this is a great topic for one among us to give, because I think that this community sees the Church only as an enabler or framework, not as God Himself. If the topic is temple ordinances, I would stay away from it, but if it is ordinances in general, this is a lesson I would LOVE to give. You have to do what you are comfortable with, of course, but if the topic really is just ‘ordinances’, I would give it some serious thought about accepting the assignment after all, because of what you can bring to the table that nobody else can or will.

Baptism, for example, is the most wonderful signal of committing to a god-centered life. It is overflowing with symbol, meaning, promise… through it we become part of the Family of Christ. We miss the mark and suck it dry of meaning when we talk about it as a requirement for the CK and have two witnesses to make sure the person went all the way under.

While we may talk about it here, in a lesson at Church, I would stay away from telling others why they are misguided, and simply add spirit to the intent of what we do… personal… god-facing… humble… committing… spirit. If I were doing this lesson, I’d pick one or two ordinances: Baptism for sure, probably Sacrament, maybe Marriage, and use those as an example of how our hearts must be in it for it to have value to us personally, and ask about how we can get our hearts into these ordinances; not in the sense of getting behind the Church, but in committing to god-centered living.

The twelve oxen are described in the OT. I stumbled on the passage by accident once.

I’ve always wondered about the oxen SamBee. Do you recall where?

I can see ordinances being an expression of commitment to a church just as you could have toward any organization (paying dues, attending meting etc) if you want to be a doctor you take the hypocritical oath, etc. but I dint think I see them as being necessary to salvation. Maybe baptism if Christ showed us that, but I haven’t crossed evidence of Christ saying “hey guys, see me? Goin in the temple for my endowment. Hey guys see me? I’m going into the temple to get sealed ( and for Joseph- this is a semi- jab… ) to my 36th wife.

Also, ir gets a bit confusing when you realize Joseph’s POV of the temple was the Masonic ritual was a corrupted version of what was truly practiced in Solomon’s temple.

I have seen the scripture in the bible referencing baptisms for the dead… And like I said, i can reason that Christ showedus baptism was the wat, so ok, I can see the potential need for baptisms for the dead. But in a way I feel like the heart of endowment covenants are already included in baptismal covenants.

Additionally, Christ was 12? In the temple teaching…I just had this view that the temple would have been more enlightening and teaching focused, not necessarily simply being a redundancy factory ( same ceremonies over and over). I hear stories of 80 year old men telling a youth, I think I’m just now starting to get it (the temple).

If that’s the case, why do we only go through it once for ourselves and what about those that geographically have only been able to attend once? They can’t do it for their kindred dead for 60 plus years to finally get it? Also, I understand raft working through complex issues is a greT teaching method, but I always heR the truths of the gospel are beautiful and simple. Just a paradox…

One of my husbands points was also: look at all the hours put in the temple? Do if it is just paperwork for the dead( how I view it) wouldn’t those hours be better spent serving people in our community with worthwhile causes like habitat for humanity etc?

I’m not trying to be a jerk and argumentative, just really trying to figure it out.

Hi, Kcarp – Wow, your ward plans ahead if you’ve been asked to teach a lesson in July. I kind of hope you end up doing it, though. I think it’s great advice to focus on one or two ordinances, and baptism (plus maybe the sacrament) would be the easiest one for me. When you set aside the wrangling about its necessity, you can just admire its beauty. It is “overflowing.”

P.S. I wrote down something Orson said awhile ago about the temple: “Personally, I don’t see the temple as a requirement as much as I see it as symbolic of the true requirement – a love that is deep enough to be eternally binding.”

I think we are saved NOT by the making of covenants, but by the KEEPING of covenants. The LDS ordinances are ways to make good covenants. But we could change the way every single ordinance is done, and live the same way, and it would not matter. It is obedience, sacrifice, love, consecration, etc that save us. I think many people live these without ever completing ordinances. But they are keeping these covenants anyway (ie the 1st and 2nd great commandments). So I think that’s enough.