Salvation and Temples

[Anonymous]

I am questioning the claim that temple ordinances are necessary for salvation and I am distraught.

The “Salvation” page in Gospel Topics says “In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms ‘saved’ and ‘salvation’ have various meanings.” Here are two of those meanings:

Quote:

Salvation from Sin. To be cleansed from sin through the Savior’s Atonement, an individual must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost…

Eternal Life, or Exaltation…Eternal life is to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and dwell with Them forever—to inherit a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. This exaltation requires that men receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, and that all Church members make and keep sacred covenants in the temple, including the covenant of eternal marriage.

There’s all sorts of support in the scriptures and elsewhere for the first one. There is much less support for the second. Now consider what King Benjamin taught:

Quote:

…I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God…if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God…

…but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent…

…if ye have come to a knowledge of…the atonement which has been prepared from the foundation of the world, that thereby salvation might come to him that should put his trust in the Lord, and should be diligent in keeping his commandments, and continue in the faith even unto the end of his life…this is the man who receiveth salvation, through the atonement…And this is the means whereby salvation cometh. And there is none other salvation save this which hath been spoken of; neither are there any conditions whereby man can be saved except the conditions which I have told you.

(Mosiah 2:41,3:18,4:6-

So he said there is really only one salvation, which is to be “received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God” and it is possible only “in and through the atoning blood of Christ.” I am having a difficult time believing that there is another type of salvation that requires temple ordinances. It seems bizarre that I would need “the key words, the signs and tokens” to pass “the angels who stand as sentinels” (you all know that quote by Brigham Young).

Paul warned about those who might “preach any other gospel” (Galatians 1:. Sometimes I wonder if salvation through temple ordinances is another gospel.

Any thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Shawn,

I share your questions about salvation through the temple. I can agree with the first definition, but I completely disagree with the second definition. There were no endowments, sealings, and tokens in Solomon’s Temple, so why would it be a requirement in the temple now. If temple endowments and holding the priesthood were required for salvation, wouldn’t the authors of the NT have said something about it? When I read these scriptures, I believe Christ was telling us that our bodies are the new temple:

1 Corinthians 3:16 – Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

2 Corinthians 6:16 – And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

After he came to the earth, his atonement made animal sacrifice a thing of the past (along with many other OT practices). I believe the work that was being done in the temple at the time was one of those OT practices that Christ fulfilled, and made possible for us to practice through HIM, rather than through the work of the priests/high priest at the temple.

[Anonymous]

I have said for a long time that I LOVE the temple and what it symbolizes, and that Mormonism wouldn’t be as appealing to me without our temple theology, but I take none of it literally – and even Boyd K. Packet said it all is symbolic.

I am fine with literalists taking it literally, but I don’t have to see it that way. I can define salvation in such a way that the temple is important to me relative to that definition, especially communal salvation and symbolic sealing of hearts – but I don’t believe at all that the exact structure of the ordinances have an impact on salvation or an eternal nature, in and of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Shawn – My thinking on the temple has changed a lot, so much that I wonder if I really have any business being there. But there is still beauty and familiarity in it. I recommend going to Ray’s blog and reading through the “Temple” posts.

[Anonymous]

I agree, Shawn, I also doubt the need for the temple in our salvation. The symbolism and all is fine for those for whom it works. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m not at all sure baptism is required, either.

I can feel peace in the temple and they are certainly beautiful places.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I have said for a long time that I LOVE the temple and what it symbolizes

I wish I could feel that way about it. It has always felt to me to be odd and a huge expense for the church. As much as I have tried I have never once felt anything in the temple. It leads me to believe that either God is upset with me (don’t feel that way really anymore, but did for decades) or some people just get excited about the beauty of it and what they feel it means. I travel quite a bit the last few years and I often am in really fancy hotels, so the temple does not “feel” so super beautiful to me. In fact even in the hotels I feel they are a waste and more should be spent helping those in real need.

[Anonymous]

We should first study salvation and what we believe about that.

Then temples fit into the belief on salvation.

Temples and ordinances, like seer stones, are a vehicle to deliver necessary learnings from God.

One cannot determine truthfulness of the Book of Mormon by studying seer stones.

Like wise, you don’t get a testimony of salvation by studying temples and temple ordinances.

We should not look past the mark.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard, I probably should have said I love the temple BECAUSE of what it symbolizes.

Individual salvation in a state of perpetual praise and no real growth just doesn’t do anything for me. In fact, it is a pretty good description of damnation / Hell to me. Communal, familial salvation / exaltation and eternal progress (including on-going “work and glory”) is a concept I absolutely love.

I see the temple as the physical, symbolic manifestation of that concept – and it helps that I love theater and see everything as a cosmic participatory play. I can overlook the outdated aspects for a number of reasons (or, rather, I can deal with them in peace for a number of reasons), including the number of changes I have seen in my lifetime that were a direct result of disconnects among active participants.

[Anonymous]

Some days I’m absolutely convinced that temple worship was one of the things that Jesus purposely came to put an end to and that including them as a part of the restoration was a huge mistake. Other days I compare old world temple symbology with latter-day temple symbology and the new symbols seem to resonate with elements of my nuanced faith in Christ. Right now I lean towards both. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Great comment, nibbler.

As much as I love the temple theology, there absolutely are elements of how we use the temples that I don’t like like very much (and that model a bit too closely the issues Jesus had with the way the temple was used in his day) – and there are elements that I believe need to be changed, including some of the endowment script.

It’s not love/hate for me – but it is love/dislike.

[Anonymous]

I completely understand how people enjoy going to the temple for the peaceful, quiet, focused experience. It can be hard to find that when you’re outside of the temple, because of all the other distractions around us. But, I find the same experience when I take time to go searching for solitude in the forest. I also completely love the doctrine of eternal families. I just have a hard time believing that the temple is requisite in families being together in the afterlife. I’ve said before, that when my kids go off to college, I’m not going to require them to give me a secret handshake to come back a visit. I’ll welcome them with open arms. And when they get married, I won’t require their spouse to know the secret password before I allow them into our house. I see the temple the same way. I just have a hard time believing that a loving Father would require us to know a bunch of masonic tokens and symbols before he allowing us to be with our families forever.

And I see very little in our temple that directly relates to ancient temples. Except maybe the money changers. I say that half-way joking, but it really was surprising to me the first time I went to the temple to get past the entry and walk directly to a row of cash registers to rent clothing. And then to go down to the cafeteria to buy lunch. Sure, you can argue that they’re only doing it to cover the cost of the clothes/food, and they don’t make a profit, but still… It feels a little hypocritical when we have the lesson on Christ kicking the moneychangers out of the temple, when we’ve got plenty of money changing hands in our temples. This isn’t the biggest issue I have with the temple, or even close to it, but it is one thing that bothers me.

For me personally, no matter how beautiful the temple experience might be. I just see it as an opportunity to get away from the world and focus on worship. I don’t see it as being required for our salvation. Like LH said above, I tried for years to make the temple a priority, but after 20 years of temple attendance (sometimes 2-3 times/week), I was never able to get past the weirdness of it all. I know for many people it’s a beautiful place, and I completely respect that. I just have never been able to find peace there, even in my most TBM days.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow wrote:

I completely understand how people enjoy going to the temple for the peaceful, quiet, focused experience. It can be hard to find that when you’re outside of the temple, because of all the other distractions around us. But, I find the same experience when I take time to go searching for solitude in the forest.

I really do love that about the temple. The calm is so nice. Others smiling and quietly pondering God. It is a good feeling.

Holy Cow wrote:

It feels a little hypocritical when we have the lesson on Christ kicking the moneychangers out of the temple, when we’ve got plenty of money changing hands in our temples.

I don’t imagine temples in Christ’s day started in a way that was offensive to God. It was only when it got out of hand that it was mocking to the Lord, and unacceptable. But I think I get your point, and many people I talk to share that feeling about it a little. It’s just kinda weird to see the money in the temple when few scriptures talk about Christ and the temple, except about that very thing.

I still think the first step is to think about the doctrine of salvation before looking at what the temple practices are, in order to see what the temple really is about.

Handshakes may be one way to do things. Recommends from leaders with magnetic cards that swipe information is another way. Internet or cloudbased databases are another way. But the purpose was to link families. How it is done is irrelevant to me.

I like focusing on the feeling of quiet, peace, stillness, holiness.

[Anonymous]

What if the temple is not merely a harmless, symbolic way to learn more about the plan of salvation that is taught in the scriptures? This quote by Brigham Young is actually paraphrased in the temple:

Quote:

Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.

I “believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent” and “there is none other salvation.” I believe Jesus taught his doctrine in 3 Nephi 11 and said “whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil”.

Insofar as temples support scriptural salvation, it’s true that “temples fit into the belief on salvation,” like Heber said. However, we are not taught that temples are there just to support existing doctrine and ordinances; we are taught that additional ordinances are necessary to return to live with God. It seems we’re being taught, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the scriptures is actually not enough. You also need to know ‘the key words, the signs and tokens’, make additional covenants, and wear garments throughout your life.”

I could be totally wrong. Maybe this really is the dispensation of the fullness of times wherein God has revealed higher ordinances and previous dispensations were not granted as much light and knowledge.

Here’s the main point: I am concerned that going to the temple would mean I am denying that the atonement of Jesus Christ is enough to save me.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Here’s the main point: I am concerned that going to the temple would mean I am denying that the atonement of Jesus Christ is enough to save me.

I know what you mean Shawn. All Christians seem to agree that Christ gives us something that we need and that we can’t get for ourselves. It is therefore up to Christ to determine who receives his saving gift and who does not.

He could save just those that He has predetermined through irresistible grace, or just the house of Israel, or the 144,000, or those that believe on his name, or those that are baptized, or those that receive the “higher” temple ordinances, or a thousand other different possibilities. Whatever His criteria or conditions, it is His right to apply His gift as He pleases.

Many claim to know exactly what Jesus requires and what he does not. If they are right then woe be unto those that do not take heed. If they are wrong then woe be unto those that follow after them.

I personally speculate the Jesus is more loving, forgiving, and generous than we might imagine and will look at the intent of the heart of each individual.

As long as we are talking about temples – one of the most beautiful doctrines is that well meaning people that die without taking any necessary steps to enter heaven can be given that opportunity post-mortem. Thus the only variable left is the intent of the heart.

This doctrine resonates with me. I am not convinced of the literal application, but the symbolism of love and second chances is powerful IMO.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, Shawn, I should probably know this. Have you been endowed? If so, you already have all you need to know. Returning to the temple is an opportunity to be reminded of the covenants, but I am unaware of any teaching that we must return.

At any rate, there are references to Christ in the temple. I don’t think God or Christ are offended by our temple worship, however, like you I question the need because of the atonement. The more orthodox have no problems with this because they see it as part of “after all we can do” and generally fail to understand grace.

[Author]

Posts