Why Ordinances for the dead? – Page 2

This topic is empty.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 45 total)

Author

Posts
July 22, 2009 at 1:08 am #219004

Anonymous
Guest

Tom, for what it’s worth, I am open to all kinds of interpretations of the actual life and suffering of Jesus – including that it all is symbolic. I don’t think anyone has to accept the substitution or penal theories of the Atonement to be “Mormon”. In fact, part of me really dislikes (borderline hates) intellectual arguments about the nature of the Atonement. I couldn’t care less – as long as how I view the Atonement (or grace or love or eternal progression or whatever) leads me to love and live graciously and leave this world and its inhabitants better than before they met me.

I use LDS language on a site like this, but I am totally comfortable using other language in others places. I try to use whatever will make sense to those with whom I’m conversing, as long as it doesn’t change my meaning – and I’ve always found that I can convey what I mean in multiple ways when necessary.

July 22, 2009 at 3:02 am #219005

Anonymous
Guest

~~Tom Haws wrote:~~

I, however, would feel unfaithful to the Highest to use a motif (Atoning Sacrifice) that suggests He needs an excuse to forgive His children. I see deep spiritual meaning in Atoning Sacrifice. But I can’t bring myself to teach we are forgiven only because of the Blood of the Lamb

~~Old-Timer wrote:~~

I don’t think anyone has to accept the substitution or penal theories of the Atonement to be “Mormon”.

Thanks, Ray. For a second there I thought Tom had banished me from being “Mormon” 😆

@Tom:

That was quite a threadjack, soul-baring, heart-warming, inspiring threadjack. Very nice.

You pretty much summed up the be-all, end-all of this forum, and with such eloquence. My take: I’m letting the wind blow me, learning tons from everyone, open to everything, and loving it all. There are self-corrections that I make when I feel that I could “be better”, but it’s such a fascinating journey and you only get one ticket to ride.

As for “the dead”, they’re on their own. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: “The world is for the living”. Try that on for cynical.

July 22, 2009 at 4:03 am #219006

Anonymous
Guest

~~swimordie wrote:~~

As for “the dead”, they’re on their own. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: “The world is for the living”. Try that on for cynical.

Not at all. In fact, Jesus might agree.

Matt. 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

July 22, 2009 at 5:19 am #219007

Anonymous
Guest

~~swimordie wrote:~~

For a second there I thought Tom had banished me from being “Mormon” 😆

Along with myself, I take it.

@Ray: Well, my hat is off to your lifelong developed ability to be comfortable in different worlds. You are in trouble now. I’ll be keeping my eye on you, because you have some experience I can learn from. That really is where I intend to find myself: as well grounded and sensitive yet still comfortable and multilingual as you seem to be.

July 22, 2009 at 8:36 pm #219008

Anonymous
Guest

~~Tom Haws wrote:~~

Of course I think you are right, jmb. I believe the intent of the temple ordinances is good, but I am not uncomfortable suggesting that they may miss the mark by a mile. At the same time, that doesn’t prevent them from being wonderful for many people, a source of heavenly inspiration, and an occasion for visions and learning. Heaven isn’t stingy.

I’m probably in a quandary as to just how much of LDS-ism I will have to choose to believe in as I continue in it. I don’t know that I am really that well served to choose to make LDS-ism my spiritual language as Ray has. On one hand, I have to consider, like you, whether LDS-ism is really and truly up to the task of serving as my spiritual language. On the other hand, life isn’t all about spiritual language (I suppose God can take care of that with each person), and adopting all I can of LDS spirituality would certainly reduce the sore spots and grease the loving along the way.

For now, I remain inwardly quite aloof, going just far enough to say I don’t disbelieve and I see that it can be good for a lot of people. Whether I will ever be ready, willing, or prompted to plunge back into the world of LDS testimony, I really can’t say (I’m keeping an open mind here).

Let me give an example. Ray blogged about Grace, using the Atonement of Christ as a talking point. I, however, would feel unfaithful to the Highest to use a motif (Atoning Sacrifice) that suggests He needs an excuse to forgive His children. I see deep spiritual meaning in Atoning Sacrifice. But I can’t bring myself to teach we are forgiven only because of the Blood of the Lamb. If I saw a prevalent view of a vengeful Father God, I might use the motif of a sacrificial Son God to explain mercy. But I don’t see that view. And I believe perpetuating it harms the meaning of parenting for fathers who internalize the teaching. Nothing is academic.

So how LDS am I staying?

Very nice Tom. Let me give you my take on this thread-jacked topic.

I (for better or worse) treat Mormonism like I do everything else that is important to me. I research the heck out of it, study it, criticize it, beat it to death, love it, treasure it, and use it as it suits me. I am not inclined to ignore the negative aspects if they deserve mentioning. And heaven knows, in Mormonism they deserve mentioning given its claims. I have no problem ripping it to shreds, pointing out the (sometimes) obvious inconsistencies, and viewing it as it is. I feel no inclination to paint it through rose colored glasses. I feel its important to acknowledge the bad, but also discuss the reasons it’s good. Most of you here realize by now that I have no problem attacking it. I’m quite critical. The distinguishing feature for me, is that I’m critical because I care about it. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t.

Having said this, hopefully those here who’ve read my posts and comments realize that I also choose to stay by finding what works for me in spite of my skepticism. I stay in the church because it is the best spiritual tool for me right now. I’m not a mystic, and don’t care to be. I enjoy trying to find meaning in things but don’t get too worked up over differences. I think there is a lot of good in the church, and, at the end of the day, I believe the church produces good people (a far cry from my first post about raising kids and deception). I choose to associate with the good people I know and love.

The point is, when I hear a question like “Why ordinances for the dead?” the first thing that comes to my mind is what I said above, and I have no problem saying it. For me, that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything good to be gained, or that there aren’t other reasons. I point out the negative, but it doesn’t mean that I think the discussion ends there.

July 23, 2009 at 2:42 am #219009

Anonymous
Guest

The whole temple thing is something that has bothered me for a while. The clothing and hand signals etc have always been weird to me, and seem very periodic of JS time. My own personal feeling is that JS went to HF and said what can I do to help keep these people strong in the gospel. (think all the interview questions) and just like the brother of Jared, HF said you figure it out. So JS came up with something involving promises borrowed a little from the Masons which he was familiar with, and came up with the endownment. By doing it for the dead, it forces us to continually keep striving to keep ourselves worthy, and become better. So my own personal feeling is that it has it’s purpose, and it is a good and important thing, but perhaps doesn’t have as much to do with the dead as it is laid out to be. Like one of the previous posters said that there are billions and trillions who would need the work, and how could it be done on earth. And I do think it is good to have ties and understandings of our ancestors. That being said, I don’t frequent the temple, but I do try to keep a recommend and keep myself worthy. This is one of the ways I have made the temple fit into my belief system to make the church still work for me.

then again, it is just the gosple according to ams

July 23, 2009 at 6:10 am #219010

Anonymous
Guest

~~ams wrote:~~

The whole temple thing is something that has bothered me for a while. The clothing and hand signals etc have always been weird to me, and seem very periodic of JS time. My own personal feeling is that JS went to HF and said what can I do to help keep these people strong in the gospel. (think all the interview questions) and just like the brother of Jared, HF said you figure it out. So JS came up with something involving promises borrowed a little from the Masons which he was familiar with, and came up with the endownment. By doing it for the dead, it forces us to continually keep striving to keep ourselves worthy, and become better. So my own personal feeling is that it has it’s purpose, and it is a good and important thing, but perhaps doesn’t have as much to do with the dead as it is laid out to be. Like one of the previous posters said that there are billions and trillions who would need the work, and how could it be done on earth. And I do think it is good to have ties and understandings of our ancestors. That being said, I don’t frequent the temple, but I do try to keep a recommend and keep myself worthy. This is one of the ways I have made the temple fit into my belief system to make the church still work for me.

then again, it is just the gosple according to ams

I think our opinions are fairly similar. Joseph took what God wanted to teach the Saints, and laid it into a teaching vehicle (a modified Freemasonry temple ceremony) that would fit the people’s cultural paradigm best. The culture has changed, and so the ‘brethren’ have been updating the antequated aspects to try and keep it current. They’re a bit behind, but at least they’re trying…

As for work for the dead, I really do believe there is a ‘real’ aspect to it, as when we die our beliefs here create and sustain things there to a large degree, at least for those attached to such things. The spirit world is an amazing place. I don’t know whether the writings of Carolyn Larson or C.S. Lewis are my favorites, in that regard.

HiJolly

July 23, 2009 at 7:22 am #219011

Anonymous
Guest

@ams

I was totally weirded-out by the temple when I was first endowed so I understand those things bothering you.

What you said makes a lot of sense and I like it a lot. I believe the idea of HF telling JS and Brigham Young to figure things out to be a large part of the exact implementation of temple work similar to the brother of Jared’s experience. I also believe all other church leaders who’ve made changes/improvements to the ordinances have worked within a similar type of experience.

However, based on other research I’ve done here’s a few things to think about in context of this:

There’s quite a lot of evidence (read Temple and Cosmos by Hugh Nibley) that the symbols, framework, ceremonial clothing and such are quite universal having been used in various forms of worship around the world and throughout various time periods. In fact if you look at where the Mason’s have gotten their ceremonies, they came from the Knights Templar. There’s quite a lot of evidence that the Knights Templar got their stuff from the Jewish temple ceremony. There is also substantial evidence that various other societies including Ancient Egypt and various Sothern American cultures practiced various forms of temple worship using similar type symbols and rituals.

A good read is also: ~~http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Freemasonry_and_the_Temple” class=”bbcode_url”>~~http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Freemasonry_and_the_Temple which states among some things:

~~Quote:~~

Many sacred ceremonies existed in the ancient world. Modified over centuries, these rituals existed in some form among ancient Egyptians, Coptic Christians, Israelites, and Masons, and in the Catholic and Protestant liturgies. Common elements include the wearing of special clothing, ritualistic speech, the dramatization of archetypal themes, instruction, and the use of symbolic gestures. One theme common to many-found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Egyptian pyramid texts, and Coptic prayer circles, for example-is man’s journey through life and his quest, following death, to successfully pass the sentinels guarding the entrance to eternal bliss with the gods. Though these ceremonies vary greatly, significant common points raise the possibility of a common remote source.

Full Temple worship as we know it was not fully implemented by Joseph Smith but actually by Brigham Young in Utah who added and perfected many things to the foundation JS laid.

JS was familiar since he was young boy with the practices of Masonry due to his Father being one he did not join Masonry until Nauvoo and only at that time would he have known all the secrets.There is evidence (by dates of documents and such including some published) in what JS did bring to the temple ceremonies we know today, was actually implemented before he ever joined the Masonic Lodge in Navuoo. JS recieved what seems to be his endowment in Kirkland OH though the fullness of the endowment and temple worship was received in pieces even in Nauvoo.

All that being said there are and have been a lot of similarities to Masonry however many of the similarities have been removed and/or minimized in what is practiced today because of the loss of meaning in those symbols to current members.

So while I belive there to be a large element of the “Brother of Jared Method” in our ceremonies I also believe there to be a large degree of universilism that may have greater meaning to past cultures more in touch with symbolism than our modern society.

July 23, 2009 at 12:12 pm #219012
Anonymous
Guest
~~jmb275 wrote:~~

Oh man, my comment will seem so negative.

Am I the only one that sees the possibility that we do temple ordinances in the temple to reinforce our commitment to the organization? I mean, I’m not mad about it, but look at the covenants. At least two of them are completely dedicated to the organization and its leaders. And in the older versions of the endowment, the lovely gruesome oaths, coupled with vengeance on the nation for Joseph’s and Hyrum’s death seem to be in this vein. I’ll be honest, it’s pretty cult like.

Having said this, I don’t think this is the complete, or only explanation. I like what everyone else said about the symbolism and geneology etc. I choose to look at this more than the other. But I do think strengthening our commitment to the organization is at least part of the reason for the temple ceremony. And what better way to keep us coming back than to suggest we must do it for everyone who died? It’s beautifully self-perpetuating.

Sorry, I know that’s cynical, I apologize. Once again, I like the symbolism too and I think it’s important.

I don’t see your comment as being negative at all. While a TBM may take issue with the exact wording (which is more of an image issue TBM’s have about the church and putting it in a positive light) I think, no matter what your view on Mormonism and especially if your a TBM, anyone would agree a part of the church should be devoted to perpetuating it through member retention.

As far as the “blood oaths” go, while I first went through the temple long after they were done away with, they troubled me greatly when I heard about them. The conclusion I came to about them is two fold:

Our common vernacular is laced with mentions of penalties. Solemn claims are often followed with, for instance, “cross my heart, hope to die” or “may Heaven strike me dead” though these are far less common today than in past times

Their meaning as many other things that have been removed from the ceremony are lost on modern society/culture and thus no longer appropriate but the covenants are no less or more important in either version