- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yesterday at church the lesson in Relief Society was on temples. Not my favorite topic for a number of reasons, but what I started thinking about was why they have such emphasis on doing the work for the dead when it can’t possibly all get done (until the millennium, right? 🙂 ). There are so few Mormons and billions of people to do temple work for I just don’t understand why that is the focus of it. If someone enjoys the temple experience in its own right that is good for them, but the guilt trip doesn’t make sense to me. Why does God require a physical ceremony to admit someone to heaven? Doesn’t he know who is worthy already? If someone didn’t do the work for a person, would he really deny them entrance? I guess this ties into a more general thing too, the way that many LDS doctrines seem to limit God. I just don’t see how when most people who live on earth will not even know about Mormons are then dependent on them for salvation. That it isn’t God himself, but people going to the temple that they owe their salvation to. And I know how our church explains it, but I mean logically it doesn’t make sense and makes God seem limited in what he is able to do.Building on this is also the confusion I have over the set up of life. Why do so few have “the true gospel” and yet it’s eternally required to learn and to participate in its ordinances. Most people, like 99% of all people who will ever live, will get taught the gospel in the next life and have their ordinances done by proxy. It seems very inefficient to me I guess.
(I’m sorry if this isn’t very coherent, I have all these ideas in my head I want to discuss, but can’t express myself very well!)
Enjoy your trip down the rabbit hole. The more you analyze everything from a logical perspective the more you realize it makes little sense. It makes more sense when you take the approach it is all fiction or the musings of men turned into doctrine and practice. Yeah, I think I’m starting to realize that Cadence. My way of dealing with these issues has been to not think about them, but you get to a point where that doesn’t work anymore. It’s all unknowable, and while it use to be comforting to have explanations for everything, now it is very tiresome since I’m beginning to see they don’t add up. I love the temple theology – but I love it for the symbolism of the sealing of all God’s children in unity and for what it does to our own hearts to see others as just as loved and important to God as we are, even those who are radically different than we are. It is SO stunningly different than the theological basis of Protestantism that I believe strongly in its inspirational foundation. If I had to believe in the literalness of the exclusive saving power of the ordinances, I would chuck it and see it as silly, false, make-believe or some other description. Many people need literalness, but I don’t have to believe in it that way – and I believe the symbolic view is MUCH more powerful than the literal view.
I also know the ordinances so well by now that I don’t have to concentrate on them anymore – or, really, even pay attention much at all. I can spend almost two hours in a quiet place, have a prayer in my heart, let my mind wander and think about whatever hits me in the moment. That approach has been wonderful for me. It can happen for some people in nature (as Pres. Uchtdorf stressed recently), but it happens for me in the temple.
Also, fwiw, I don’t get hung up on the math at all – not one bit. It doesn’t matter to me in the slightest, since it has no relevance whatsoever to the symbolism.
journeygirl wrote:Why does God require a physical ceremony to admit someone to heaven? Doesn’t he know who is worthy already? If someone didn’t do the work for a person, would he really deny them entrance? I guess this ties into a more general thing too, the way that many LDS doctrines seem to limit God.
I agree with you but I don’t see it as a necessarily a bad thing. I will try to explain my perspective on this.“Why does God require a physical ceremony to admit someone to heaven?” This idea was already around long before Mormonism. Whether the rite of baptism is necessary in and of itself or is only representative of an internal acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior – most Christians believe that without this magical ingredient (of accepting Christ) one will burn in hell for eternity. Mormon theology actually made several notable advances towards universal salvation. A few that pop into my head are: vicarious ordinances that will eventually be offered to all, a “hell” of limited duration, and degrees of salvation that are available to all but the “sons of perdition” where people will be happy where they are. If we add in eternal progression (another Mormonesque concept) and allow for people to advance from one degree or kingdom to another as soon as they are ready – then the doctrine seems pretty ahead of its time.
“Doesn’t he know who is worthy already?” Under the concept that I described above I don’t find the word “worthy” to be very satisfying to describe how God sees us. If I have two sons, one a PHD student and the other in 1st grade – which one is the more worthy? Clearly the PHD student knows more and has the ability to apply this knowledge, but there is still much that the PHD student does not know. Both of them are my sons and are “worthy” of my love and acceptance.
“If someone didn’t do the work for a person, would he really deny them entrance?” Nope – I look at vicarious ordinances as symbols to help us better understand divine principles. Individual symbols may have a mixture of divine inspiration and human guesswork and are not created equal. Because a symbol may be very effective and meaningful for one person but not for another – determining the value of a symbol is very subjective.
“Many LDS doctrines seem to limit God.” Yes, but sometimes that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Under the doctrines of irresistible grace and predestination God is so powerful that he created some beings for the express purpose of honoring them and they are powerless to change it. Unfortunately God also created some beings for the purpose of dishonor, wrath, and destruction and they are powerless to change it. Presumably God would do this to show all those that are being honored how great they have it and how they are completely dependent on his good graces. Paul seems to be teaching this doctrine in Romans 9.
There seems to be a general tension between the inherent goodness of humans to accomplish something of value on their own and the complete and total Omni-everything of God. LDS have largely come down on the side of the inherent goodness of man (divine potential, divine spark, Children of God, Gods in Embryo, spirit + body = living soul, etc.) This has both benefits and drawbacks.
I guess a key part of understanding my perspective is that there are many schools of thought. All schools of thought are useful and not useful depending on many variables. All schools approach divine truth in their way. No school is a perfect expression for even a single facet of divine truth. And especially no school can hope to encapsulate all the facets of divine truth.
I know, I know, supposed to be on a sabbatical. Call this my down time (or an admission I’m addicted to staylds forum). Anyway…
I actually don’t think the dead ever needed the work doing in the first place. I think we do. We’re taught ‘we cannot be saved without our dead.’ While I don’t take it quite as literally as that, I do still see significance in it. For three reasons:
1) It teaches us a principle of eternal families. Without the work for the dead it’s quite difficult for the concept to carry weight. There’s not much meaning to the claim if only those who get the ordinance while living can be eternal families. I don’t think God or the dead actually need the ceremony. I think we need to believe in the significance of it. Believing my marriage could be eternal can motivate me in the only marriage that actually matters now – my living marriage. Even if it actually ends at death, the belief that it doesn’t makes me want to make sure there’s something to look forward to.
2) We need something to keep us going. I simply don’t buy the critics who say that the temple is a framework for control/obedience/income. I think it’s more sincere than that. As I’ve said before, I find a beautiful symbolism in the temple ceremonies. It teaches me about my place in life and the universe. Not literally, but symbolically. Without the motivation to do the work for the dead there would be less motive and reason to go through regularly.
3) It provides a service opportunity with no chance for immediate recompense or thanks. The person we (perhaps only metaphorically) serve is dead. In most other service settings there’s a chance for a thank you or even the person paying it back (or forward) – some immediate reward. In the temple we give up 2-3 hours in service to someone we might not even know. We serve someone, not because we owe them or because we are personally interested in them. Simply and purely because we want to serve. This, to me, is the purest kind of service. The Givens said something similar to this point in The God Who Weeps.
I take very little literally in the temple. We’re even taught to see it for its symbols first.
This is a part of how the temple is more a parable than a documentary to me (I’m still collecting thoughts and sources on the endowment as a parable).
I think I’m halfway between Ray and the original post on this. I enjoy the temple on occassion – 2 or 3 times a year is plenty for me. It’s calm and peaceful. Like Ray, I don’t take too much that I see in there literally. If the temple is intended to be symoblic, though, why are the Big Wigs so tied up in literalism regarding garments? I hope this isn’t too much of a threadjack, and I know garments have been discussed in other threads, but I’m relating this to the original post — if we’re not going to be able to literally perform temple ordinances for every living soul who ever lived on earth, why do we take literally the idea that God will clothe us and protect us from temptation with a “shield and protection” in the form of cotton-poly underwear?
Many members take it literally; many don’t. I think the vast majority don’t believe in a literal, physical protection but understand the symbolism it represents – since the literal version is nonsensical at the group level. Too many good, faithful members have been killed while wearing them for it to be literally physical.
So, to not threadjack this into another garment discussion (please don’t, everyone), the symbolism makes sense to me but a literal view doesn’t.
Most of the comments so far seem to be saying that they take the temple symbolically, and see the good of it in other benefits beyond what it supposedly does for the dead. I agree with this, and would say in my opinion that is the only way to take it, since it doesn’t make sense on any other level to me. However, the problem is that this (and I think most doctrines) are presented by the church as literal and most members would consider it wrong to think of them as purely symbolic. journeygirl, actually there is TONS of official teaching by church leaders saying it’s all symbolic. People who want and need things to be literal will take it that way – but it’s meant to be symbolic. After all, the endowment itself is a play in nature. Well, wouldn’t you say that they do teach the need for ordinances for the dead as literal? That’s really what I meant. Some of the endowment ceremony is perhaps taught as symbolic, but I’m certain many take all of it literally as well. Quote:We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Journeygirl, I agree that many members/leaders would consider it wrong to think of these doctrines are purely symbolic. I agree that most teach the literal need for ordinances for the dead. Even the great “olive branch” talks like the recent one Elder Holland gave tend to imply that belief in literalness is the preferred method. I have just gotten past the point of letting it bother me. I must allow others to believe and worship as they will even if that is no longer right for me.
I was once in the same boat trying to reconcile my feelings and beliefs with what is taught at church. Please see my post on the following thread:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=932&hilit=+robinson I guess part of me was expecting some sort of pat on the back for seeing the Gospel clearly as though for the first time. As though all those years before I had been “looking beyond the mark.” Those years had been preparatory but now I was ready to accept what had been there the whole time – the fruit that is delicious and desirable beyond measure. Instead of commendation or even acceptance, I found many church sources suggesting that I was “skating on thin ice” and “on a slippery slope to apostasy,” that I was “struggling” and “losing my testimony.”
It can be really hard sometimes to find personal meaning in Mormonism when there are people at all levels saying that your interpretation is wrong.
It gets better though, don’t give up.
Quote:Wouldn’t you say that they do teach the need for ordinances for the dead as literal?
Yes, if by “they” you mean many people – but that’s okay.
Some people need to see the need as literal, so I’m glad there are people who teach the need as literal.One of the things we stress here is that different views are okay – and we can say that only if we really believe and accept it. I don’t want everyone to see things the way I see them; I want everyone to see things the way they honestly and sincerely see things – and for that to be okay. I want Zion to be unity in diversity, not unity in homogeneity.
In an ironic way, I want – badly – for some members to take everything about the temple ordinances literally – and for some to take some things literally and some things symbolically – and for some to take everything symbolically. I want those who take things literally to accept that I take things symbolically – to accept ME, and I can’t be true to that desire and be truly charitable if I can’t turn around and accept them in their literalness.
I must let them be them if I want them to let me be me.I don’t want a different orthodoxy as much as I want the type of diversity Pres. Uchtdorf taught in the last General Conference. It’s only at the extremes that I can object and not be hypocritical – and I believe we tend to label as extreme much that isn’t, just as we who are not extreme are labeled as extreme by some others. I refuse to be the Hyde to someone’s Jekyll – the opposite extreme of the same approach.
There are several things in the temple that I personally have interpreted to be somewhat contrary to the typical Plan of Salvation taught in missionary and Sunday school lessons. For example it appears that you do not require a physical body or exhalation to exhibit Godlike powers and create a world full of life. It appears as though evil is allowed to exist in paradisiacal glory, and also that God desired Adam to sin in order to kick start phase two of the Plan, by having him succumb to the trap he no longer remembers building himself.
Trouble is, these are my interpretations. The fellow who fell asleep on my shoulder the minute the lights went out probably has a different idea of what is portrayed in the temple drama.
But, even DW has begun to question why Adam and Eve were unable to procreate on the garden, unable to find a justification that is satisfying to her interpretation.
The trouble is there is no antechamber off the celestial room with a library describing the symbolism of the forms, rituals, and practices of the temple, and rarely do two people have the same answer to the same question.
I would prefer more clarity. We have no problem defining the symbolism of baptism, the sacrament, and even the washing and anointing is done very well, but the endowment seems disjointed and incomplete. We start out with a review of the creation account, the fall of man, keeping his first estate, and then somehow it becomes an advertisement for missionaries. Then a series of forms and rituals of which only one is really discussed in any detail.
While I have found the endowment interesting, I have not found it as inspiring as the sermon on the mount.
It seems inefficient and cumbersome, but the next person in line will say it was wonderful. Good for them.
I do see your points, Roy, Ray and Reflexzero. I may still be in that black/white thinking of there being an absolute truth and trying to find it, even though I am trying to get away from that. I guess what prompted this post in the first place though was that at church I am only getting one viewpoint, the orthodox view. I know it isn’t fair to blame that on “the church” since it may be a result of my particular ward and teachers. It would just be nice if there was more allowance on a larger scale for there to be many interpretations. It would be easier to accept the views I don’t agree with if they would accept mine as well. But, like Roy said Roy wrote:Instead of commendation or even acceptance, I found many church sources suggesting that I was “skating on thin ice” and “on a slippery slope to apostasy,” that I was “struggling” and “losing my testimony.”It can be really hard sometimes to find personal meaning in Mormonism when there are people at all levels saying that your interpretation is wrong.
I do like that on this site there are many different ways presented of how to see things, so I know it is possible, but this is an anonymous site and we are from all over, so in any given ward this variety is lacking.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.