Why the temple?

[Anonymous]

The last couple of times I have been to the temple have not been good experiences. I just felt uncomfortable and weird. I have never had a strong spiritual experience in the temple but I have almost always felt peaceful there and it was a nice place to be. As I have been struggling with my faith and testimony over the last year I have really been thinking about the need or purpose of the temple. From a realistic standpoint you have this series of ordinances that are required to reach the highest level of heaven but it is limited to an incredibly small percentage of the human population. I know we have temple work for the dead but even that just barely scratches the surface of human population. I just can’t believe that God would require such a specific thing in order to return to Him.

The other part of my questioning is even though I know they had temples in ancient times did they actually perform ordinances that were similar to what we do in the temple today? Is there any evidence of this? What were Joseph Smiths reasons for initiating this practice? I went to the temple initially because like so many other things in the church it is just what you do. I did not really know much about it and just thought it was one more step I needed to take.

I have let my TR lapse and am not in a big rush to renew it because I just don’t really see the point. I do have a son to baptize and one to ordain in the near future so I don’t know if that will be an issue or not. Can anyone offer some perspective and insight about what purpose the temple serves?

[Anonymous]

According to Tvedtnes

Quote:

That baptism for the dead was indeed practiced in some orthodox Christian circles is indicated by the decisions of two late fourth century councils. The fourth canon of the Synod of Hippo, held in 393, declares, “The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies, nor baptism conferred upon them.” The ruling was confirmed four years later in the sixth canon of the Third Council of Carthage.

It seems quite likely this practice did go on in many churches.

Prayer for the Dead is widespread, even in modern Catholicism and Judaism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_for_the_dead

Quote:

From a realistic standpoint you have this series of ordinances that are required to reach the highest level of heaven but it is limited to an incredibly small percentage of the human population. I know we have temple work for the dead but even that just barely scratches the surface of human population. I just can’t believe that God would require such a specific thing in order to return to Him.

I had this query myself, but apparently a lot of this will be sorted out in the Millenium. See the relevant section of “Gospel Principles”.

[Anonymous]

trudge52 wrote:

The last couple of times I have been to the temple have not been good experiences. I just felt uncomfortable and weird. I have never had a strong spiritual experience in the temple but I have almost always felt peaceful there and it was a nice place to be. As I have been struggling with my faith and testimony over the last year I have really been thinking about the need or purpose of the temple. From a realistic standpoint you have this series of ordinances that are required to reach the highest level of heaven but it is limited to an incredibly small percentage of the human population. I know we have temple work for the dead but even that just barely scratches the surface of human population. I just can’t believe that God would require such a specific thing in order to return to Him.

The other part of my questioning is even though I know they had temples in ancient times did they actually perform ordinances that were similar to what we do in the temple today? Is there any evidence of this? What were Joseph Smiths reasons for initiating this practice? I went to the temple initially because like so many other things in the church it is just what you do. I did not really know much about it and just thought it was one more step I needed to take. I have let my TR lapse and am not in a big rush to renew it because I just don’t really see the point. I do have a son to baptize and one to ordain in the near future so I don’t know if that will be an issue or not. Can anyone offer some perspective and insight about what purpose the temple serves?

As far as I’m concerned, temples have become mostly a symbol of the “eternal family” sales pitch that the Church currently uses to motivate obedience to their rules like tithing, the WoW, and essentially professing acceptance of the “one true church” idea. I guess the temple work for the dead makes members feel like they are doing their duty and helping to save lost souls but it also gives members another reason to remain “temple worthy” throughout their life. These doctrines have clearly evolved over time as mentioned in the recent Kirtland Temple thread that explains how it was originally open to the public rather than being such an exclusive place to go.

Temples are I real sore spot for me because of the way my family judged me and disrespected me when I wasn’t married in the temple and then my wife tried to pressure me into getting married in the temple later on as if that was the absolute most important thing in the world. Once I started to see some these temple-related doctrines from the outside looking in they really started to bother me because it all seemed somewhat cult-like to put this much emphasis on being separate from and better than the world over things like coffee and tithing. Seriously, does this really look like the kind of thing Jesus would teach?

[Anonymous]

It always makes me kind of sad when I read about others having bad temple experiences. The temple is foremost reason I stay. IMO, there are some significant ways in which the temple ties LDS theology together that go largely unrecognized by most LDS I know and are rarely discussed. The biggest irony is that we treat the temple as if it were an exclusive club when in reality it is the place where our theology breaks new ground, shattering the gates of hell so that ALL may escape and return to the presence of God.

Once I abandoned old presumptions and accepted two basic ideas about the temple, it became an amazingly enlightening experience for me:

1. Everything is symbolic. Everything.

2. The medium is not the message.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Seriously, does this really look like the kind of thing Jesus would teach?

The gospel has always been taught through ritual – sacrifices, sacrament, washings, anointings, tabernacles, etc. In a modern world, largely devoid of rich symbolism, the manner of passing down knowledge we see in the temple sometimes strikes us as bizarre. Ritual is like poetry and in the temple the poetry alludes to rich but simple truths about the love of God for all men and the process of progressing toward emulating Him.

[Anonymous]

There was a fantastic podcast by John Dehlin a few years ago. He interviewed Greg Kearney, a 5th generation Mormon and Master Mason. I highly recommend it: http://mormonstories.org/?p=14

To briefly answer your questions, Joseph believed he was restoring some ancient temple practices that were “corrupted” by the Masons. In reality, the masonic rites go back only a few hundred years, and do not date to the time of Christ. Of course, there are similarities with the Old Testament temple worship: the brazen sea, the priesthood clothing, etc., but the endowment isn’t something that was done in temples at the time of Christ. I think it is a cool, symbolic theological innovation. As mentioned by others, it does appear that baptism for the dead was practiced anciently, though the details are admittedly rusty. I think baptism for the dead has more support than endowments and sealings, but I find endowments and sealings to have some cool symbolism that make them worthwhile.

[Anonymous]

mercyngrace wrote:

1. Everything is symbolic. Everything.

If this is the case and the temple is a place to learn that is fine I guess. But why is it an ordinance we need in order to achieve the highest degree of heaven? Right now I am not even sure what I believe as far as degrees of glory in heaven go or even what the afterlife will even be like. So I do have that to work through as well. I am still just wondering have the temple ordinances been something that has been required or done down through the ages or is this something that Joseph Smith saw as having value somehow in the theology he was developing?

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, temples have become mostly a symbol of the “eternal family” sales pitch that the Church currently uses to motivate obedience to their rules like tithing, the WoW, and essentially professing acceptance of the “one true church” idea.

This definitely resonates with me. Because being a full tithe payer and obeying the WoW as well as the other requirements are essential for obtaining a TR this places heavy emphasis on being obedient to these commandments. Without the requirement of the temple ordinances in order to have an eternal family I think it would be hard to keep people as obedient to some of the rules such as tithing and the WoW.

[Anonymous]

trudge,

IMO, the ordinances have always been a part of the method of teaching. They’ve varied depending on the people, place, and time but they’ve always been a part of the process.

As for what actual purpose the temples serve, I believe their greatest impact is in turning the hearts of children to their fathers by educating us on our premortal past and postmortal future.

I personally wonder if the notion that ordinances must be performed in a certain way in mortality, live or by proxy, is a misunderstanding derived from an overly literal approach. The ordinance of baptism represents entering a covenant with Christ. It isn’t the ordinance that saves but the covenant. The ordinance is only an outward token. As we live under the present law which requires baptism and other outward ordinances, we live that law just as the Nephites kept the law of Moses even though they knew their was no salvation in it – some prematurely ceased living the LOM and were called to repentance, as you know.

IMO, every law except the Celestial law is a schoolmaster and uses Levitical markers of a preparatory gospel which are merely types and shadows (precepts which hint at principles).

IOW, I’m not convinced the tokens are necessary for the dead, though I believe the covenants are. I believe spirits must acquire knowledge to progress but I think our randomly selected pink and blue slips of paper are more for us than for them.

[Anonymous]

trudge52 wrote:

The last couple of times I have been to the temple have not been good experiences. … From a realistic standpoint you have this series of ordinances that are required to reach the highest level of heaven but it is limited to an incredibly small percentage of the human population.. ..I just can’t believe that God would require such a specific thing in order to return to Him.

I can’t believe it either. I highly doubt that god would put such boundaries and limitations on himself. Sure doesn’t sound like a “fair” system to me. I believe the temple was JS attempt to teach the people of his time some spiritual truths, and he used what he knew (masonary) to do it.

I have always found it interesting that we claim the BoM is the most correct book on the earth and contains the fullness of the gospel, and I even believe that somewhat, but isn’t it ironic that it doesn’t mention endowments, or baptisms for the dead, or temple marriage or temple worship at all etc etc. Hmmmm?

[Anonymous]

mercyngrace wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Seriously, does this really look like the kind of thing Jesus would teach?

The gospel has always been taught through ritual – sacrifices, sacrament, washings, anointings, tabernacles, etc. In a modern world, largely devoid of rich symbolism, the manner of passing down knowledge we see in the temple sometimes strikes us as bizarre. Ritual is like poetry and in the temple the poetry alludes to rich but simple truths about the love of God for all men and the process of progressing toward emulating Him.

I don’t have a problem with rituals and some sacrifice in general. What I meant by this is that looking down on someone as “unworthy” because they drink coffee or beer looks a lot more like something the Pharisees would have done than something I would expect Jesus to teach based on most of the other things he said according to the Bible. I know that it might seem worthwhile and not that big of a deal to members that are already used to these traditions but personally I think this kind of thing also has some negative side effects like spreading intolerance and unnecessary divisiveness that will only get worse as more and more members lose faith in the Church while their families don’t understand why.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I don’t have a problem with rituals and some sacrifice in general. What I meant by this is that looking down on someone as “unworthy” because they drink coffee or beer looks a lot more like something the Pharisees would have done than something I would expect Jesus to teach based on most of the other things he said according to the Bible. I know that it might seem worthwhile and not that big of a deal to members that are already used to these traditions but personally I think this kind of thing also has some negative side effects like spreading intolerance and unnecessary divisiveness that will only get worse as more and more members lose faith in the Church while their families don’t understand why.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I don’t have a problem with rituals and some sacrifice in general. What I meant by this is that looking down on someone as “unworthy” because they drink coffee or beer looks a lot more like something the Pharisees would have done than something I would expect Jesus to teach based on most of the other things he said according to the Bible. I know that it might seem worthwhile and not that big of a deal to members that are already used to these traditions but personally I think this kind of thing also has some negative side effects like spreading intolerance and unnecessary divisiveness that will only get worse as more and more members lose faith in the Church while their families don’t understand why.

While I don’t think we should ever judge others who are unable or unwilling to enter the temple, I do think it’s reasonable to expect priests (and all who enter the temple are supposed to be part of a nation of priests) to consecrate themselves before entering the temple and demonstrations of setting oneself apart from the world can always been seen as Pharisitical and unnecessary – even by those who participate in them. Really, how did uncut hair and a lack of wine make John the Baptist holier than those prophets and priests before him who weren’t Nazarites? Was the act of consecrating for John, God, or Jewish onlookers? For whom do we consecrate ourselves? Are we just checking boxes so we can get a TR? Are we doing it because we think God’s needs some validation of our devotion? Or are we setting ourselves apart for our own benefit?

What’s sad is that I think many LDS, like you say, use these acts of ‘setting oneself apart’ for outward show. IMO, it’s making a mockery of the whole affair when we use temple recommends to judge others for how they live rather than to inspire ourselves to live up to our own covenants.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I don’t have a problem with rituals and some sacrifice in general. What I meant by this is that looking down on someone as “unworthy” because they drink coffee or beer looks a lot more like something the Pharisees would have done than something I would expect Jesus to teach based on most of the other things he said according to the Bible. I know that it might seem worthwhile and not that big of a deal to members that are already used to these traditions but personally I think this kind of thing also has some negative side effects like spreading intolerance and unnecessary divisiveness that will only get worse as more and more members lose faith in the Church while their families don’t understand why.

Bingo.

I think we’ve been here before. 😆

I don’t think the WoW should keep people out of the temple, and is a matter of choice, but it has worked well for me. I’ve got negative feelings about drunkenness and smoking, but moderate drinking, and the consumption of tea and coffee are not “immoral”. I think it’s a health issue, much like how much fat and refined sugar one eats – but as we know that’s hardly an issue at LDS dinners etc.

I think that temple marriage should be at least semi-public as well.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

cwald wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I don’t have a problem with rituals and some sacrifice in general. What I meant by this is that looking down on someone as “unworthy” because they drink coffee or beer looks a lot more like something the Pharisees would have done than something I would expect Jesus to teach based on most of the other things he said according to the Bible. I know that it might seem worthwhile and not that big of a deal to members that are already used to these traditions but personally I think this kind of thing also has some negative side effects like spreading intolerance and unnecessary divisiveness that will only get worse as more and more members lose faith in the Church while their families don’t understand why.

Bingo.

I think we’ve been here before.

Right, but I was mostly just trying to clarify my point for mercyngrace in case he doesn’t have time to go back and read some of the older threads because it sounded like he misunderstood what I was trying to say. Also some people that are interested in trying to understand what the temple is all about might not care as much about the WoW because it is a non-issue for them but personally I think the relationship between “temple worthiness” and the WoW is not always positive with some of the shunning and self-righteous disrespect that goes on over this. Like Jesus said, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matthew 25:40).

[Anonymous]

In every religion, there is a seeking of a “higher” religious experience. Whether it be Islam and Mecca, Judaism and the Temple at Jerusalem, Pilgrimages to Holy sites such as the Vatican, or the Temples of Buddhism, Hinduism. The desire to set aside a “sacred” building or structure to create a sort of portal between “heaven” and earth, as a place to commune with the Divine in an unobstructed manner, as a place to realize your “full self,” has been mankind’s quest for as long as we’ve recored history.

In Mormonism, Temple worship is part of our religious experience. I accept that. Even if the language and rituals are so obviously derived from Joseph’s Masonic experience, the ideas that the dead can be redeemed, that we can be exalted, and that we can live with our families for eternity, are not entirely unattractive.

Honestly, I rarely attend the Temple. In years the past, I went almost weekly. But I almost only go now when there is a specific reason (attending an endowment, sealing, on vacation somewhere and want to check out the temple, etc.). The option to go when important events arise is the reason I maintain a current Temple recommend.

[Author]

Posts