[jcl]

This is a fascinating topic leading me to want to go re-read Temple and Cosmos

Valoel wrote:

It’s almost like all the symbolism is ignored as fluff. I think it is the actual meat.

I totally agree. I think it’s part of the degeneration of our society. Look at how TV spoon feeds everyone on how to think. People don’t think about symbols anymore. I chose after being freaked out by the Temple to study symbolism and it’s ancient roots to see if I could make sense of it all (I nearly left the Church). This has helped me immensely. I think another problem we have in the church is we forget “Truth” is everywhere, not just in the temple. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been reading something and stop and tell my wife “this is so what the temple is talking about.”

Valoel wrote:

Compass – represents feeling and intuition.

I’d say feeling and intuition could also be called in more Mormon vernacular such things as the Liahona, the Spirit of God, the Holy Ghost, or the Light of Christ.

Valoel wrote:

If you are familiar with this material, how has it affected your relationship to our Church? If you are not aware of this type of material, does it help? Does it make any sense?

Some of what you said was new to me but much of the ideas were things I had stumbled upon outside the context of Masonry. I see the worship dramas presented throughout this world’s history (our temple included) as tying deeply into this symbolism and how we fit into the universe. For me, I tie all of this into a sort of Jung/Joseph Campbel idea of the Collective Unconscious/Story Archetypes. Why do all the best selling books/movies/etc. have so much in common with each other and if you boil it down with the religious drama presented in temple worship? (for example Good vs Evil) That’s where I see the archetypes/collective uncouncious coming in.

The more you start looking, the more you start seeing what we practice in temple worship being a huge part of all society/media (while certainly not everything and definately in bits and pieces). I’d love to say more but the other thoughts on my mind right now aren’t appropriate for this place.

[jcl]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

One universe perhaps, but what of the multi-verse? Of course, we’re deep in speculation now.

If there’s a multi-verse, that is why for us HF is the only God who matters to us. God did not want to bog us down in the details so he’s only told us about his universe and so he is the Supreme being for us because other universe’s wouldn’t have any bearing on our mortality would they? All speculation but one way of thinking about it.

[jcl]

Thanks Heber13

My point for #6 was heavily edited down to what in retrospect was probably a badly written sentence. Here’s a more thorough discussion on my view:

I believe the only precedent you can logically glean from a study of history and the scriptures is that the church will not change on SSM:

Polygamy

It’s been pointed out that because the church has changed it’s stance on the issue of Polygamy they say the church can and probably will change on SSM. What this argument fails to consider is that throughout both Modern LDS history and in ancient scripture, that we profess to try and follow, Polygamy has been instituted and revoked many times. I see Polygamy as being a way God quickly builds a people when needed and then revoked when population control is needed. This is why the conflicts between many scriptures and revelations as to if Polygamy is legal or not. It simply depends on the time and God’s purposes for that generation.

Blacks and the Priesthood

Another reason people think the church will change on SSM is because of the change in giving Blacks the Priesthood. At least 3 blacks had been given the priesthood without it ever being revoked many years previous to the official change . There is no doctrinal foundation for denying the priesthood to these brothers. President McKay even called a special committee of the 12 to find out if there was a sound scriptural basis for the ban sometime in the mid 1950’s. They couldn’t find one and called it a practice but decided the church was not ready for such a big change yet. I personally believe it was a protection to the church considering the anti-black persecution that took place throughout the US during the civil rights movement. Had we extended the priesthood at that time I imagine we’d have had buildings burned, members mobbed and even killed, etc.

Mosaic Law changes

The food restrictions and entire law was not given to the Israelites until they were wondering in the wilderness. What did they do before this? We don’t know but if they hadn’t been told not to, I’d imagine they did eat pork. I believe this law was a protection and even more of a recommendation because of unsuitable preparation methods to kill bacterias and such. The WOW is another example of dietary recommendations instituted for protections which not all generations of time have followed.

Precedent for SSM?

So as illustrated above there was lots of precedent in the church to make changes on those issues (and you could make a similar case for any of the other changes). For SSM there is no basis in scriptures for allowing it but in fact much against it. There are many scriptures that God does not want homosexual relations among his people. See the topical guide in your scriptures on homosexuality for a long list.

Heber13 wrote:

jcl,

If the rest of society moves to accept these marriages, there will be considerable pressure for the LDS church and other religions to not discriminate or potentially lose status by the laws of our government. It will not be unlike the pressure to bend on polygamy.

I see polygamy only having been temporarily instituted to quickly build the church. So while social pressure may have quickened it’s end, it would have ended anyway by commandment from God later. Thus I see social pressure and status concerns not so unlike saying the Church is going to one day change it’s belief in God to atheism because that’s the prevailing popular belief. I believe there are certain fundamental beliefs at the core of the Church that identifies it as a religion and without them it’s no longer a religion.

[jcl]

This is the same question I’ve been debating with my wife and other family members lately. A few different scattered thoughts I’ve come up with:

[list]

[jcl]

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: [list]

[*]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

[/list]

[jcl]

@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.

[jcl]

I found this site from an article in the SL Tribune. It is awesome and I’m so glad it has received the press it did so I could find it. I’ve become a FAIR “junkie” since stumbling on a pretty presuasive anti-mormon website and then finding out the answers to the questions they raised in my own testimony through Mormon apologetics. So keep spreading the “gospel” of helping people with the Gospel.

[jcl]

Thanks for the responses already. They’ve provided some good food for thought.

As far as the history is concerned, I’ve found it especially interesting to look at how Brigham Young and his assistants perfected the endowment as we know it and created a written version. FAIR has some interesting tidbits about this which is part of what got me thinking more deeply about the needs for vicarious ordinances.

I completely agree ordinances (whether vicarious or otherwise) are symbolic rituals and while the meanings and interpretation certainly differs from person to person I also think there are universal truths (think along the lines of Jung’s archetypes and his collective unconscious ) found within the ordinances that speak to the human condition and how we interact and build societies. I’ve found more truth (I’m using this word in the philosophical sense) in my study of the ordinances and their symbols then anything else in the past 2 years since I was married and first went through the temple.

The idea of us acting as Saviors is pretty awesome. I never thought about that before.

I like the other thoughts too. I especially like the thought of being with my Wife (and future kids) eternally. I see the value of promoting a means to encourage us to learn about our past and connect to them.

There is a lot in temple worship and vicarious ordinances for those who perform them. But what of the people we are performing them for? If it is so essential for us to perform them for ourselves and to learn the symbols and rituals for our own salvation, and to gain the benefits mentioned, how does us doing it vicariously for another give them the same benefit that we are receiving?

Is it so essential for a deceased person to receive these ordinances vicariously through us solely for our own benefit?

[jcl]

I’m looking for answers as to why beyond a blanket statement to the effect of “man can not be saved without baptism.”

If the answer comes from scriptures that’s great. Though I haven’t found anything other than commands for work to be done in my own research.

[Author]

Posts