[latterdaytemplar]

Roy wrote:

Thank you for sharing this. I found it very interesting.

You’re very welcome. I am glad that you found it to be of interest and I hope that it was also to your benefit. My apologies for the following novel in response to your excellent questions; I tried not to be too wordy.

Roy wrote:

I do have some follow-up clarifying questions. They may be personal and I would respect your right to decline to answer any and all of them.

No worries at all. If I encounter any questions that I am not comfortable answering, I will flat-out state as much and will even explain why if necessary.

Roy wrote:

latterdaytemplar wrote: ↑16 Apr 2021, 11:59

I’m glad that my differentiation between ceremonial elements and subject matter was clear;

To clarify, this theory posits that JS used the format of the freemason ceremony as a delivery/teaching method to give knowledge/revelation to the saints? Right?

Mostly correct. I say “mostly” here for this reason: I never thought of the format as a tool or catalyst for revelation. I think that the subject matter taught to the endowment candidates (as well as the correlating context and purposes) can certainly evoke revelation, but I do not think that the teaching method does. That stated, my experience is not universal; someone else may find revelation somehow in the teaching model that I have not found. I simply have never thought about that.

Roy wrote:

latterdaytemplar wrote: ↑16 Apr 2021, 11:59

I personally have somewhat more of a literal opinion of the endowment. Although I do believe that we’ll at least need to have been given the signs/tokens of the endowment, I do not believe that these in and of themselves will be what gets us past sentinel angels; instead, it will be the faithful keeping of covenants that allow us to dwell the presence of God.

Lots of follow-up questions related to this:

Do you believe in a literal Adam & Eve as presented in the bible story?

I do personally believe in a literal Adam & Eve; however, that personal belief incorporates the theory of the Promethean Adam.

Roy wrote:

Do you believe in the story as presented in the endowment is literal history, metaphor, allegory, or some other combination? (you could for example believe that Adam and Eve were literal without believing in a literal visit from Peter, James, & John)

I believe that the story as presented in the endowment is an allegory based on literal history. I believe that Adam & Eve were literal people, and the Garden of Eden was a literal place. I am neutral on whether Peter, James, & John literally visited them. I do not believe, however, that Adam & Eve were endowed as we are today. My basis for this comes from D&C 124.

In this section, Christ commanded the Saints to build a temple in Nauvoo so that they could perform washings, anointings, and vicarious ordinances therein; then, in verses 40-41, Christ stated that He deigned to reveal ordinances that had been hid from before the foundation of the world. The only ordinances that were revealed after this revelation was received were the endowment, sealings, and the second anointing.

For this reason, I do not believe that Adam & Eve were endowed as shown in the temple; for that reason also, I believe that the presentation itself is merely an allegory based on a historical setting. People say that such ordinances were restored, but I believe that they were only restored in the sense that they were principles that we knew of when first presented with the Plan of Salvation in pre-mortality and that those principles have been given to us again.

Roy wrote:

Do you believe in a literal aspect of the masonic story (Hiram Abiff)?

In regard to this, I only believe that the Masonic legend is an allegory to illustrate self-improvement. There are quite a few details that have been taken straight from the Old Testament to give a structure for that allegorical setting, and the character of Hiram Abiff is certainly based upon a personage mentioned in the Old Testament; however, the specific storyline given about Hiram Abiff, I believe, is nothing more than an allegorical tale.

Roy wrote:

Are there differences in how you interpret the literalness of the content from the endowment and masonic ceremonies?

Insofar as literalness is concerned, I approach my interpretation of each in the same way.

Roy wrote:

I am intrigued by your statement that we might need to be given the signs/tokens but that they are not what will get us past the sentinel angels. Are you meaning that you believe we will be asked to produce the signs/tokens but that individuals that know the correct form but are otherwise unworthy will be denied admittance still? Another possible interpretation of what you said could be that the signs and tokens are symbols of our covenants but that it is ultimately the fact that we made and kept covenants that is important (and that potentially, other religious individuals might use different symbols to represent their covenants and still gain admittance). Can you clarify?

I think that sentinel angels will already be able to tell whether we have them or not. If we have them, then I have no doubt that we will certainly know. However, just as a baptism can be: [list]

[latterdaytemplar]

oon,

You’re very welcome. It was my pleasure (although I must say that, in the weeks leading up to the video being posted, my stomach was twisted in knots; perhaps a virtual form of stage fright?). I’m glad that my differentiation between ceremonial elements and subject matter was clear; it’s typically far easier for me to write than it is to speak.

I appreciate your comparison to software engineering. My brother just recently became an engineer and he loves talking about it, so it was nice for me personally to see something here related to that field.

I personally have somewhat more of a literal opinion of the endowment. Although I do believe that we’ll at least need to have been given the signs/tokens of the endowment, I do not believe that these in and of themselves will be what gets us past sentinel angels; instead, it will be the faithful keeping of covenants that allow us to dwell the presence of God. Something else that I did not get to expand upon in the interview was that tokens are everywhere. A driver’s license in the US is a token of authority from the state allowing us to drive on public roads as well as a token of identity. A signature is also a token of authority and identity. Misusing, stealing, or counterfeiting such tokens typically do not bode well in this life, and to fake the spiritual components of covenants with God would not be sufficient to get one past sentinel angels and into the presence of God in the next life. That stated, this is merely my subjective view and understanding of what’s taught in the temple; for all I know, the view and understanding that you have expressed here could be wholly accurate.

Thank you for your thoughts and feedback.

[latterdaytemplar]

I am incredibly disappointed about this as well. I had the privilege to attend a live session in the SLC temple with my wife a few years ago. I loved the artwork; I loved the live performance. Up until this announcement came out, it was a goal of mine to be a part of the live cast for either the SLC or Manti temple. However, I understand the urgent need for more space so that more temple work can be done.

This may be silly of me but, insofar as the artwork is concerned, I am choosing to take comfort in the following passage portion:

Quote:

… whatsoever you record on earth shall be recorded in heaven …

—D&C 128:8

The artwork was a record of sorts: depictions of God’s handiwork. I hope to see it whole sometime in the next life.

[latterdaytemplar]

PazamaManX wrote:

Welcome! I also at times find myself running into issues with things from the church’s past. Particularly the Joseph Smith era. I look to reading your contributions to the forum.

Thank you!

[latterdaytemplar]

Roy wrote:

Welcome aboard!

We don’t claim any one correct way to navigating the tension of remaining LDS after a crisis of faith. However, we do share what has worked and is working for us as well as our frustrations and failures. I look forward to hearing more from you in the forums.

Roy

Thanks. I look forward to learning/reading from all y’all and I hope that my contributions here help.

[latterdaytemplar]

Minyan Man wrote:

Welcome, Keep coming back.

Thank you!

[latterdaytemplar]

nibbler wrote:

Welcome.

I look forward to your contributions.

Thank you. I hope that my contributions can be of value here.

[latterdaytemplar]

DarkJedi wrote:

Welcome to our little island of misfit toys. New voices and perspectives are always welcome (within the guidelines of course). This is a safe place to express yourself.

As kind of a side note, most of us here value the place in part because of the afforded anonymity. You have given some info which could identify you to people who know you, and there’s a picture. If you’re not concerned about that, fine – but be aware anyone can look at anything here.

I appreciate the welcome.

I also appreciate the heads-up regarding the benefit of anonymity that this forum affords. For personal reasons, however, I have decided forgo that benefit here.

[Author]

Posts