Temple Worship & Temple Worthiness:A Fascinating Persepctive

[Anonymous]

The following post last year on By Common Consent is by Brad – who is not exactly an orthodox member, to say the least. It is fascinating, and it makes one point, in particular, that I think is deep and potentially paradigm altering for some people who struggle in some ways with the temple.

It might not resonate with some people here, but I think it ought to be considered, at least, as one way to view the temple theology in perhaps a new light.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/02/28/temple-worship-and-temple-worthiness/

The point I want to highlight:

Quote:

I think that more Mormons should experience the endowment the way Tyler did. The bulk of the ceremony should serve as a progressively unnerving reminder of how inadequate we are, how miserably we fail to live up to our sacred commitments, what a fallen world this is and what fallen and vulnerable and exposed creatures we are. And then we should experience the spiritual relief wash over us as God, on the basis of only tokens of our effort and of our having even accepted the impossible commitments in the first place, accepts us, embraces us, lets us into His presence, gives us a place of rest, considers us worthy. The failures of our lives, ritually reenacted in the temple by our acceptance of obligations we know we cannot and will not and do not live up to, inevitably propel us toward an encounter with God in which our unworthiness to stand in His presence is manifest and inescapable, a state of unimaginable vulnerability. And yet we are taken in, and once in His presence, despite our unworthiness, we desire to stay.

[Anonymous]

Ray, why would you say the temple is restricted by recommends?

I like the idea of reminding us all we are unworthy, so why not open it up to all…since we are all unworthy?

[Anonymous]

Ray,

I like the way this lays things out, but it still leaves me with questions. Don’t take this the wrong way, because I know this question might sound like I’m being facetious, but this really is a sincere question: If we need to make temple covenants, then what was the point of the atonement? When I read the message that you posted, it sounds more to me like the covenants/promises associated with baptism and the sacrament. I guess, my questions are similar to Shawn’s thoughts in a different thread about why we would be required to make these temple promises. It makes me feel like Christ’s atonement wasn’t enough, and that’s something that I don’t want to believe. Again, I’m NOT trying to be argumentative in any way. Just trying to understand what this article says, and how those temple promises differ from baptism/sacrament. I hope that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

HC, I’m sure Ray will respond, but my take is that the temple is about progression, and the Atonement is the backdrop for it all.

We get baptized. We covenant and are given certain promises, bound on earth as it is in heaven. Then the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The temple is additional commitments, with additional promised blessings, as we are endowed with power from on high for the steps we take.

Atonement is about being forgiven of sins.

Baptism is about showing the commitment to follow Christ and be forgiven of sins through the Atonement.

Temple is about showing the commitment to God to have families sealed forever and be able to be a King and Priest, Queen and Priestess returning to God’s presence in the Celestial Kingdom.

Through the Atonement we are all saved over physical death.

Through the Atonement we can have Eternal Life with God, if we follow Christ. One way we do this is by living worthy to go to the temple, showing Christ we follow and obey, and temple becomes part of the Atonement, not separate from it.

Can you clarify for me what conflict you see with the Temple and the Atonement? I don’t see them in duplication or in conflict. We need both.

[Anonymous]

Heber, Thanks for the info. I’m not sure if I can point to one thing specifically that I see in conflict. I just don’t see why God would require temple covenants in addition to baptism and sacrament. What if I want to live with my family forever, and I live my life in a way that I am completely worthy to attend the temple, but choose not to? What if I believe in eternal families and want that piece of the pie, but I don’t want to spend eternity as a King and Priest?

And I think one of the things I think about most often (when it comes to temple stuff) is, if temple covenants are so important that they are necessary for eternal families and salvation, then why didn’t Christ or the apostles ever say anything about it? Know what I mean? Sure, we can say they weren’t ready for it 2,000 year ago, and that this is part of the fullness of the gospel that came with the restoration. I don’t know, I just have a hard time buying it. It seems like Christ’s life fulfilled so many OT practices, it seems to me like he fulfilled temple practices as well. So I have a hard time accepting that temple covenants are necessary. Again, not trying to be contrary or argumentative; just sharing some of my current doubts and struggles with the LDS-specific doctrine.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow wrote:

Know what I mean? …I have a hard time accepting that temple covenants are necessary.

Yes. I know exactly those feelings. I think I do know what you mean. I don’t think it is at conflict with the Atonement, and I think one who has a strong testimony in the atonement may not have a strong testimony of the temple and the need for it.

I guess I see it like the person who may find huge inspiration and life changing thoughts around the teachings in the New Testament like the Prodigal Son or Good Samaritan, but doesn’t find the Book of Mormon’s Tree of Life story very compelling, and maybe even troubling.

You don’t HAVE to love the Tree of Life Story. The purpose of it was to try to inspire and teach, but the real purpose is to change your heart to become the person you should become to live with God some day (whatever that means to you). Others will LOVE the Tree of Life story. But maybe it just doesn’t speak to you.

That’s OK. Focus on the New Testament…become a righteous soul.

I think the temple is like that. It may not speak to some people. Some will declare it the most holy place on earth.

To each his/her own. No church leader will argue this point….it is all about getting closer to God. That is the objective.

I just think it can be different for different people. And some will shrug off the temple as just not that important to them. Even if the Atonement is.

[Anonymous]

This post isn’t about necessary at all. Seriously, that isn’t part of the equation in the post itself or the quote.

The post is about the power of looking at the covenants as making promises we can’t possibly keep – but being accepted regardless for making what amounts to a token effort. That can be the heart of the Mormon theology of Atonement – that we promise to do what we know we can’t do, because we have faith that whatever we can do as we stumble toward God will be acceptable and soul-changing in the end.

I really like that framing.

[Anonymous]

I have always thought that the atonement was what God did for us. We do nothing to earn the atonement. It is a freely given gift from God.

The temple is all about what we do for God. The temple ceremony is similar to a nun or priest taking vows. In the temple, you promise to put God and the LDS church first in your life in all ways.

[Anonymous]

I don’t mean to be snarky at all in this comment, but I have to ask:

Did everyone read the full post, or are people reacting to the excerpt I quoted?

In isolation, outside the context of the entire post, I can see how a different meaning can be taken from that excerpt alone. That different meaning didn’t hit me when I posted the excerpt, since I had the background of having read the post.

[Anonymous]

😆 Ha ha! Speaking only for myself, I can see how my responses don’t have much to do with most of the article. Since most of it talks about one person’s personal experience with the temple, I didn’t address any of that. Since all of our personal experiences can be so different, I didn’t have much to say about the bulk of the article. But the final paragraph that you quoted and highlighted struck me differently. The way it talks about temple work being our token effort, is more how I feel about baptism. And what it says about reenacting our acceptance of obligations is how I view the sacrament. I believe that Jesus atoned for my sins, and that by being baptized and taking the sacrament I show that I’m willing to remember his sacrifice and try to be the best person I can be. But, I don’t see it extending to temple work. Not saying that it doesn’t. I just don’t draw the same conclusions that others might. Like I said, we all experience things differently, and to me most of this article was a great story about one man’s experience. I just don’t relate to the specific conclusions that are drawn from it.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow wrote:

The way it talks about temple work being our token effort, is more how I feel about baptism. And what it says about reenacting our acceptance of obligations is how I view the sacrament. I believe that Jesus atoned for my sins, and that by being baptized and taking the sacrament I show that I’m willing to remember his sacrifice and try to be the best person I can be. But, I don’t see it extending to temple work. Not saying that it doesn’t. I just don’t draw the same conclusions that others might. Like I said, we all experience things differently, and to me most of this article was a great story about one man’s experience. I just don’t relate to the specific conclusions that are drawn from it.

The endowment can be viewed as another way of showing a willingness to follow Christ. Eight is still a little young to make such a commitment, receiving the endowment can be another way to show a willingness to follow Christ at an even greater age of accountability.

We do have the weekly sacrament that can serve the same purpose but I suspect that we don’t feel like it has that same “oomph.” Some of the weight behind the ordinance of the sacrament may have been lost by making it such a routine part of our service.

In other churches people will often decide to get re-baptized. They aren’t changing churches or anything, it’s just a way to show a renewed commitment. Being baptized again doesn’t really make sense in the Mormon paradigm but the endowment can fill that same need.

[Author]

Posts