Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wow! I read this and just wept. I have been where you are at and had to draw a line in the sand. I have come to the conclusion that the gospel is true, and the “church” is a corporation. How you choose to define the gospel is a personal thing for you to explore. It is a rocky road to travel, but you will feel better about yourself by being true to your feelings and what you feel is right. God gave you a brain and I’m confident that he wants you to use it. I wish you the best of luck with the course you have chosen. I like your computer analogy, Arwen. The only difference with what I proposed, is that the HG actually IS all of us and we are all the lan lines to others. i.e. angels – messengers. Since I believe God is in ALL of us, (angels, as well), I think we are already “in tune” with the main frame without an going through another being. That all of us, collectively – might in fact be that being. It’s something fairly heady to consider and I hope it’s not interpreted as blasphemous. It might be the reason that so little is written and understood about the H.G.?
That is a good – and complex – question. D&C 93:2,9; indicates that Christ is the true light which is in all of us. Vs. 23; We were also “in the beginning” and are “the Spirit of truth.” Vs. 29; In fact, what we are cannot be made – we have always existed. D&C 88:49, 50 also says: “The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him. Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound.” We will know that WE HAVE SEEN CHRIST because he is IN US. These scriptures, (just to quote a few), seem to indicate both a divinity and eternal nature of man. If you take this and add it to the other quotes I originally furnished it gives you pause to consider something of great importance. Separating out “the light of Christ”, with the ‘divine nature’ inherent in all of us is quite difficult. I see all things that are eternal and unchangeable as absolute truth. (This would be different than say, “the Aaronic Priesthood – which ends.) Do you see a clearly defined difference in scripture?
Sambee, I suppose in a sense that would be the case. The other comment about a God without “parts, passions, etc.” reminded me a lot of the pre 1990 Temple ceremony. That was not what I meant by the question. In looking at the quotes and scriptures, I was trying to find where I fit in, and that’s pretty much where it led me – at least for the time being. Until I receive further revelation on the subject, I’m satisfied for the time being – but always in search of further light and knowledge.
Thank you! That was an awesome response. I’m glad to find someone else out here who has bothered to think on these things. It seems that he did communicate his feelings to the Bishop, prior to sending out the e-mail. “Thomas said he told his bishop before he conducted their Friends of Scouting drive that he felt he needed to tell members about that so they could make an educated decision about whether to give.”
This has actually been quite a debate for years within the church. The last letter I read on this was from Bruce R. to prof. Eugene England, threatening to ex him if he spoke openly about eternal progression. J.S., Orson Pratt, and B.H. Roberts were also strong advocates for eternal progression. The idea also has those within the church that strongly disagree with the idea. I’m sure you and your wife can have many wonderful discussions about this! Symbolically, 4 is the number of the earth. Scripture has many references to ‘4 angels over the 4 parts of the earth’, etc. Every day there is a program called “news”, or what’s going on around you north, east, west, and south. Temple symbolism is often depicted as a circle, (eternity), within a square, (the earth). God is very choosy about what He uses in symbolic representation. I have that this is one thing that is a constant in all scripture.
“Thursday, December 28th 1845 Meeting at half past 10 o’clock this day in the attic story of the Temple…Pres. Young arose…The keys or signs of the Priesthood are for the purpose of impressing on the mind the order of creation – In the first place the name of a man is given, a new name, Adam, signifying the first man or Eve, the first woman – Adam’s name was more ancient than he was – it was the name of a man long before him, who enjoyed the Priesthood. The new name should be after some ancient man – thus with your ancient name, your modern name, and the name last given you, you enquire concerning things past, present, & future. Heber C. Kimball Journal, 28 Dec 1845, LDS Archives
wonderingcurrent wrote:Okay I thought it would be good to review and have everything I feel in one place about the Temple. Right now its spread across two or three different discussions that I have participated in (possibly more). I will try to do my best making everything cohesive. Please add to this discussion.
The following are my own feelings on what I have been thinking upon during these Discussions:
1) The Name Symbolism: One of the reason stated why the man needs to know the woman’s name, and the woman does not need the man’s name is that resurrection is an ordinance, therefore it is the man who will resurrect his wife. And the wife will not ever resurrect the husband, it will always be one way. But when I studied the second anointing, and looked past its very patriarchal terminology I realized, as I also read that passage of Mary washing and anointing Christ’s feet, that this was something very essential to be done. Christ did not stop her for he understood it as an exercise of her priest(ess)hood and he had really no authority to stop what she was doing, because he saw the necessity of it. For now the second anointing is done on an invitation bases only for those who are in the top leadership positions of the Church. As a side note: I highly doubt the second anointing as currently practiced, with the men initiating it in the Temple, and the Woman finishing it at home, is the way it is supposed to be, but evolved to be this way due to the Colored glasses and sheet of paper as discussed Either in my post on Women and the Church or in my post in Another Feminist (my introduction post).
2) The Viel in the Temple that women wear: Its See through, so people can see me, but the physical act of putting it on, feels depowering, and though I have looked for empowering views of this, like the whole “denying the head (husband)” to commune with God directly, I feel that it is still overall very sexist, and very much the symbolism of it is so up to interpretation, that it would be just better if this practice just disappeared.
3) The Initiatory (washings and anointings): These seem empowering, except for the line which puts women as being priestesses unto their husbands, with no hint or sign of them doing that for God, just simply because they have to be priestesses to their husband who holds the Priesthood. I do like the fact that the woman performs these ordinances on other women, I hope my Temple experience On Tuesday in this portion can carry me though the rest of it.
4) That there are a million interpretations of these things, That everything is up to what God wants to give as a message. Well for me, the only message I am getting right now as I review it, (after already have read it twice online).
#1. Name symbolism is just that, symbolism. “Tokens” and “signs” are also symbols. The important thing is not to focus on the symbol, but seek to understand it.
The husband is
representingthe Lord when he brings his wife through the veil and he will not use the name she gave him to resurrect her. All of us will be resurrected using the name we assumed at baptism. (Mosiah 5:9-14 and D&C 18:23,24) We are all metaphorically, “the bride of Christ.”The second anointings have ceased a long time ago, as they should have. There is no higher order of knowledge accessable through more symbolism. Your point on females and priesthood id well taken, and I couldn’t agree more. How else can a woman place her hands on another womans head in the initiatory without it? http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/women/chapter17.htm#Woman #2.All clothing is also symbolic. It may be helpful for you to imagine that ALL of us in the session should be wearing this, since symbolically we are ALL the bride of Christ.
#3. We are ALL Adam & Eve. Adam was created first, (Spirit) and Eve was created out of Adam. (the body) Adam was tried by Satan, but cannot be deceived, because pure spirit never can. Eve succumbs, because we are ALWAYS led astray by our 5 senses and the flesh. Eve now becomes Satan’s helper and gets Adam to partake. (The flesh always drags the spirit down with it). Adam also partakes because he and Eve are “one flesh.” When has any couple literally been “one flesh”? Unless this is metaphor/parable.?
#4. Women sometimes feel slighted by ‘Eve’s failure.’ When viewed as parable and metaphor, we have ALL failed, since our flesh as led every one of us into sin.
I’m glad you are looking at these things. Keep it up!
p.s. This is a guy writing this.
I haven’t taken anything literal in the BofM for years. If you do, there are some difficulties you have to resolve. Taking a step back and looking at the large picture, we see: Nephi lying and committing murder. This is to get a copy of the law of Moses, (something he has no problem violating), so his people do not perish in unbelief. His people later all perish in unbelief. This is after the Jaredites all came to the “promised land” and also perished in unbelief…. Once I started to see it all spiritually, it made much more sense – much like the temple ceremony.
