- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yeah, I’ve said in lots of places that I LOVE the symbolism of ordinances for the dead, but I also believe they are just that – symbolic actions designed mostly for us in order to acutalize in a physical way our commitment to turn our hearts to our fathers and avoid the arrogance of thinking we are the top of the evolutionary chain, with our ancestors being much lower on the scale. It doesn’t always work that way, but I believe it is meant to blunt that particular “natural man” arrogance. It’s taking the symbolism literally, imo, that leads to a pious version of that arrogance – which, unforunately, if alive and well in the Church. Old-Timer wrote:Yeah, I’ve said in lots of places that I LOVE the symbolism of ordinances for the dead, but I also believe they are just that …
For me, baptism for the dead follows this logic.
a) With the ordinance of your own personal baptism alone, there aren’t enough carrots to ensure people pay tithing, get married to other Mormons for the growth of the Church, or obey the commandments such as obeying local leaders for the rest of their lives. It’s easy to get baptized and then fall away due to no immediate rewards or punishments to keep the average person helping the growth of the Church after their baptism. Therefore additional ordinances are necessary.
b) The temple provides a place for such higher-level ordinances after baptism, with eternal marriage sealings/family providng additional incentive to stay faithful after baptism AND marry within the Church, have children in the Church, and keep the organization growing.
c) However, as with the ordinance of personal baptism, the same lack of carrots exists if one goes to the temple once for their own endowment or marriage sealing. Therefore, there’s a need for a continuing string of ordinances. The answer? — do ordinances by proxy such as baptism for the dead etcetera. There are billions upon billions of people who died on this earth, providing an endless supply of work to keep people returning to the temple over and over again. This in turn provides an endless stream of carrots to keep us contributing tithing, obeying priesthood leaders in order to maintain our temple recommend.
By the way, my logic above helps me understand the statement that the book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, when it doesn’t include the everlasting covenant of marriage, which Gospel Principles says is meant by the fulness of the gospel. According to this logic,the reason JS said the BoM contains the fulness of the gospel is because at the time of its publication, he hadn’t yet seen the disappointing lack of striving/results from members after baptism, and didn’t see the need for additional carrots. He thought baptism and enduring to the end would be enough, and prematurely declared the BoM contained the fulness of the gospel. It wasn’t enough, so there was a need for temples to provide additional carrots to keep the people strivng. And so, we are stuck with the historical statement that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, when really, it lacks the temple ordinances and therefore does not have the fulness.
I’m sorry if this sounds cynical, but it’s crossed my mind several times. I’m almost interested in hearing people refute the idea…..but it’s starting to become part of my belief system.
SilentDawning wrote:I’m sorry if this sounds cynical, but it’s crossed my mind several times. I’m almost interested in hearing people refute the idea…..but it’s starting to become part of my belief system.
To me, it’s pretty sound. Can not really refute your conclusion.
cwald wrote:SilentDawning wrote:I’m sorry if this sounds cynical, but it’s crossed my mind several times. I’m almost interested in hearing people refute the idea…..but it’s starting to become part of my belief system.
To me, it’s pretty sound. Can not really refute your conclusion.
Although it makes logical sense to me, I recognize it’s at the root of the fact that I don’t really enjoy going to the temple. Cynicism and faith really don’t go together very well, do they? When you stop believing that God is the ultimate creator and director of the Church, it makes it hard to live the commandments it issues, doesn’t it?
SilentDawning wrote:Although it makes logical sense to me, I recognize it’s at the root of the fact that I don’t really enjoy going to the temple. Cynicism and faith really don’t go together very well, do they? When you stop believing that God is the ultimate creator and director of the Church, it makes it hard to live the commandments it issues, doesn’t it?
Yes.
SilentDawning, it is easy to see from many of your posts lately you seem to be in a difficult time personally with the church. We understand this, we know the frustration and the pain. It’s not easy and it does take some time to work through. It brings to mind some thoughts from Dr. Wendy Ulrich:
Quote:The third stage of committed relationships, which usually comes after years of vacillating between lingering idealism and the increasing futility of the power struggle, is withdrawal. At this stage we essentially give up, although we may not leave. We resign ourselves to not really getting what we want, not really changing the other party, and not really being happy. We are tired of fighting, but we can’t recoup our lost idealism. We go through the motions of relationship but we are frustrated and we feel more or less betrayed and misunderstood. This period of withdrawal allows us to regain some independence, pursue other sources of satisfaction, and develop other talents and interests. If we are lucky we begin to work on ourselves–whom we can change–instead of working on our partner whom we cannot change. With the Church or with God, this means we begin to face that there are some questions we will not get answered, some differences that will not be worked out, some losses that will not be prevented. This is a risky stage, a stage when some people decide there is nothing to hold onto because they are no longer in love (stage 1) and no longer have hope for change (stage 2). But as we continue to work on ourselves, see reality more clearly, and resolve our own issues we have a chance of moving toward stage 4.
This is not to be confuse with Fowler’s stage 3 and 4, it would correlate more with Fowler’s stages 4 and 5. The difficulty here is obviously how our need for separation affects our loved ones who need us to stay engaged. It’s a tightrope to walk, maybe the most difficult thing we will do in our lifetime. But hopefully in time we can get our bearings on a new and meaningful goal in life, and hopefully that goal can also facilitate family unity.It may also be helpful to consider her thoughts on the next stage, and remember that the “committed relationship” she is talking about here is ours with the church:
Quote:The fourth and final stage of committed relationships is about renewal. Not exactly a renewal of the honeymoon, but a more mature, realistic, and truly loving renewal. We come to accept our spouse or our parents or the Church, and we come to accept ourselves. We allow God to run the universe, and we become more content to let go of things we cannot change. A deeper, more mature love begins to emerge, with fewer power struggles and less disengagement. We do not need to see all the answers, and we do not need perfection by our standards in order to not be embarrassed or ashamed of our Church, our partner, or our God. We reinvest in the relationship, not because we have decided to risk yet one more time that we will not get hurt only to have the rug pulled out yet one more time from under us, but because we have learned that hurt can be survived, that this is a risk worth taking, and that it does not mean we cannot be happy or that we are irrational suckers or that we are doomed to failure because we take another chance on trust or because we fail or are failed again. We see ourselves and our partner more realistically, and we do not run from either vision. We recognize that we can be hurt by being betrayed or we can be hurt by not trusting, but we don’t get the no-hurt choice because there isn’t one, at least not until we simply choose not to read betrayal into every ecclesiastical failure, or abandonment into every unanswered prayer.
Remember, stay on the trail and keep journeying. There are better views up ahead!Wendy Ulrich is brilliant! You can’t go back to the honeymoon period. It just doesn’t work that way. You have to move forward and create new experiences that are just as rewarding.
Thanks Orson.
I was meditating about this thread last night, and It dawned on me. My previous comment was incorrect. I was not DISPLEASE at all when Poelman got censored. I was thrilled! I was a die-hard Fowler Stage 3er. In the 80’s, my favorite apostles was BRM and BKP, and I loved “The Caravan Moves On.” Boy how has things changed!
In my stage of faith, I really appreciated Orson’s comments: Quote:“It appears to me that your struggle is with the power of church culture, and the difficulty of swimming up-stream makes you think about climbing out of the water and walking up the shoreline instead. The only thing I can think to say about that right now is: What is more likely to cause someone to think about the direction they are swimming – a fellow swimmer going the other way, or someone that they can’t see walking out on the shore?
But my reason is not simply to try to turn the tide, personally I really like swimming in this pond, even if at times I’m overcome by the current of the masses. Lately I’ve noticed a few more “fish” swimming in a similar direction as myself, and it renews my energy to hold my course.”
Thanks Orson, I am really trying to hold my course. I can hardly wait to see our meeting enlivened with greater inspiration and better music and Holy Spirit inspiration and deeper more open discussions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.