Jesus Cleansing the Temple

I find it hard to know what the historical Jesus was like. The NT was written quite a few years after his death by people that had specific purposes in writing it. Also, some scenes are private moments without any witnesses. How did the author know what happened? I do find great meaning in the redemptive story of God’s sacrifice and unending love – however, I find it less important for me to try to deduce what the historical Jesus was trying to say.

I feel like it’s hard for me to “unsee” a lot of the problematic elements that seem to promote leader worship, blind obedience and prideful exclusivity.

One of the hardest parts of the conference for me was the renewed push for temple attendance. I’ve enjoyed having that off the table during Covid and worry that at the ward and stake level there will be a big push to make up for lost time and social pressure to go.

I understand that. In another thread I have been describing how our new stake goal for every member to get a TR has led to my bishop bringing me in to “help” me to get mine (by becoming a full tithe payer). Because our local temples are closed for most purposes he volunteered that, for him, having a TR means having reassurance of being right with God and is of value even without the ability to go to a temple. I am glad that he can feel that assurance and that it is meaningful to him. However, that feels like the opposite of how the good news of the gospel is supposed to go. To me it feels too much like saying, “I have a get into heaven card and you should have one too.” At best, having a TR is a corollary to living a decent and spiritual life dedicated to God. At worst, having a TR could become an example of looking “beyond the mark” and trusting in one’s own efforts (and the certification of those efforts that the TR can represent) to save one’s self.

I also have a hard time seeing the need for these new temples, especially in places like Vienna and Oslo where church membership is shrinking. In 10-20 years will we have lots of expensive empty temples and have to pay people to staff them?

It could be just as likely that having a temple available locally will help generate positive temple experiences that help cement people’s activity in the church. The church has the resources and I am quite confident that they see building temples as squarely in the mission of perfecting the saints, proclaiming the gospel, and redeeming the dead.

When you look through the New Testament, Jesus does not have a lot of positive things to say about the temple. When you step away from a “dispensation/restoration” narrative, it seems plain that the temple was the realm of a priestly class who had elaborate cleansing and sacrificial rituals that were expensive and exclusionary. Jesus openly defied the purification codes by eating with unclean people and supported John the Baptist who advocated for a cleansing baptismal ritual that could happen in the muddy waters of the Jordan river and was available to all, not just those who could afford to make the expensive trip to the temple in Jerusalem.

As I understand it the temple was divided into several courts, where each court became more and more exclusive the closer one got to the Holy of Holies (god’s presence). In fact only one person could enter the Holy of Holies and only did so once a year.

The veil was rent when Jesus died. One interpretation of the symbolism is that Jesus removed all of the man-made barriers between man and god. One need not be a ritually pure Jew, a priest, or a High Priest to approach god; Jesus symbolically freed god from the cage that we made for him.

I don’t think we preach that one has to go to the temple to access god but we have made access to the temple exclusive, maybe a rough equivalent to only allowing entrance for ritualistically pure members. Feels like a step backwards to me.

A side note from a scattered brain… something that our temples have taught me is that a rent veil allows one to enter.

I have not figured out how to re-integrate the temple into my reconstructed faith.

The good news is that you don’t have to. 🙂

One of the hardest parts of the conference for me was the renewed push for temple attendance. I’ve enjoyed having that off the table during Covid and worry that at the ward and stake level there will be a big push to make up for lost time and social pressure to go.

Disclaimer, this next statement is overly cynical. The temple represents the proverbial motivating carrot for orthodox believers. It’s come to represent the pinnacle of Mormon worship. The promise of attending the temple can be a motivating goal for members to become more active and obedient.

I also have a hard time seeing the need for these new temples, especially in places like Vienna and Oslo where church membership is shrinking. In 10-20 years will we have lots of expensive empty temples and have to pay people to staff them? With so many people reevaluating their faith, it’s hard for me to see temple attendance increasing in the future? What will be the role of the temple in the future Church? What was Jesus really trying to teach us by overturning the tables in the temple and downplaying its importance?

I don’t have any answers. I don’t get the need for the 20 announced temples either. It’s nice to provide more access to members with fewer means but I wonder when we reach the point of diminishing returns, at least in North America.

I wonder if some of it is not knowing what else to do with the money. What do we do? Shrugs… build more temples?

I think part of the problem with the temple is that members tend to look at the ancient Jerusalem temple through the lens of modern temples. They are completely different in scope and purpose, with the main purpose of the Jewish temple being at-one-ment. Jesus comparing himself to the temple was spot on in that respect. There really is little comparison between our temples and the ancient ones.

I have not figured out how to re-integrate the temple into my reconstructed faith. I can appreciate and respect that it is a huge source of comfort and peace for a lot of people and that a lot of my friends and family members are anxious to get back to the temple. Some people see powerful metaphors of the journey presented in the endowment and it serves as a great life guide for how to return to God. I feel like it’s hard for me to “unsee” a lot of the problematic elements that seem to promote leader worship, blind obedience and prideful exclusivity.

Why do you feel the need to re-integrate it? I get there are family pressures, etc., but other than that? I have not re-integrated the temple in my own rebuilt faith and doubt I ever will. I do hold a TR (actually it’s expired but about to be renewed) not because I am longing to return to the temple or believe in most of it but because I want to be part of family events there. (I do have other reasons why I think it’s important for me to hold a recommend.)

Genesis 1 & 2 is actually two stories, maybe even written by different authors. The second version starts in Gen 2:4. The first version does not give Adam (Hebrew for man) and Eve names, the second version does. How Eve came about is different in the two stories. Nowhere in either story does it indicate Eve is subservient to Adam. It’s interesting to me how it all gets viewed as one story when a careful reading clearly reveals it as two versions of the same story – and the temple somehow melds that together (be ignoring some elements in each). Just to be totally clear, I don’t necessarily believe either story is correct and both could be correct. Likewise, the temple version can also be correct, especially if you believe everything in the temple is symbolic.

Great thoughts, I appreciate the comments. I have renewed my recommend, but mainly to attend weddings, etc. and don’t know if I ever will re-integrate the temple back into my faith paradigm. Good to hear that others have given themselves permission for that not to happen.

Another temple question I have is how committed Joseph Smith was to the temple ordinances by the time he died. The version of history we hear is that he worked to get the ordinances presented in some form and the temple built, but died too soon and Brigham finished the work. The Community of Christ views it very differently, saying that the temple ritual “phase” fizzled out a few months before his death and he had moved on to different things. Some historians view the whole thing tied up with polygamy and that Joseph abandoned both shortly before his death. I do think it’s interesting that Joseph and Hyrum were not wearing garments in Carthage Jail and that Emma did not seem to thing the temple ritual was important after Joseph’s death.

Another temple question I have is how committed Joseph Smith was to the temple ordinances by the time he died. The version of history we hear is that he worked to get the ordinances presented in some form and the temple built, but died too soon and Brigham finished the work. The Community of Christ views it very differently, saying that the temple ritual “phase” fizzled out a few months before his death and he had moved on to different things. Some historians view the whole thing tied up with polygamy and that Joseph abandoned both shortly before his death. I do think it’s interesting that Joseph and Hyrum were not wearing garments in Carthage Jail and that Emma did not seem to thing the temple ritual was important after Joseph’s death.

I have no doubt that JS would have continued evolving, developing, improvising, and receiving new revelations that would fundamentally change the church doctrines and understandings of the Nauvoo period. I had heard some speculation about JS having turned away from polygamy near the end but if I recall correctly the evidence of such a change of heart is slight and from a questionable source (William Marks I believe).

I am not sure that the earliest garments were intended to be worn all the time as is the intention with modern garments. I read one quote arguing that you should always have your garments on under your clothing in case you are asked to participate in an impromptu/emergency prayer circle. I found that quote funny because that practice of wearing the garment all the time did indeed become the norm but we no longer do prayer circles outside the temple (at least that I know of) so the speaker’s point is now moot.

IOW, the reason the speaker gave for wearing the garment at all times is long since obsolete but the practice persists. :lolno:

I am not sure that the earliest garments were intended to be worn all the time as is the intention with modern garments. I read one quote arguing that you should always have your garments on under your clothing in case you are asked to participate in an impromptu/emergency prayer circle. I found that quote funny because that practice of wearing the garment all the time did indeed become the norm but we no longer do prayer circles outside the temple (at least that I know of) so the speaker’s point is now moot.

That is fascinating. I had not heard that one. I know there is a quote from George A. Smith in 1845 from the Quorum of the Anointed minutes that proposes the “robes” (what they used to call garments) be worn at all times. This was after Joseph’s death and would imply that they weren’t worn at all times before, which would explain why Joseph, Hyrum and John Taylor were not wearing them at Carthage.

Now I hear people say that wearing the garment all day every day is “an outward expression of an inward commitment.” Even though it’s underwear so it’s not all that outward. Plus when we do things only to be seen doing them we have our reward… which I guess is a TR.

The garment was seen as almost like a magic talisman that offered physical protection. This is what I heard growing up and I think sounded super weird on the 60 Minutes interview when Bill Marriott shared the story of being spared burns in a boating accident. I think around the late 90s we made the big pivot to the outward expression view. That was presented in this Ensign article https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1997/08/the-temple-garment-an-outward-expression-of-an-inward-commitment?lang=eng. The inner commitment thing sounds less weird, but falls apart because we try to police behavior by asking questions about wearing it in the TR and encouraging judgment and policing of people who are and aren’t wearing it (monitoring garment lines, shoulder and knee exposure, etc.).

It will be interesting to see where the Church goes with garments. I would guess with the latest TR interview question change and from what I see and hear out and about in Utah, that people are wearing them less and that the Church will either police it less and allow for more interpretation or just announce that they are not to be worn outside the temple and pull the plug entirely.