Temple Symbolism Outdated? (Break Off From "Temple Talk Guidelines")

[selek1]

Is our modern Temple symbolism outdated? Are the symbols to hard for modern Saints to understand? Would a modernization be accepted by the Church or would it be too difficult to change?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what would you like to see changed- an in what way?

It's very easy to offer calorie-free critcism....it's often must harder to offer substantive fixes to the putative problems.

One thing that's been hinted at (though I've failed to see it stated explicitly in this thread) is that at the Temple (and ideally, everywhere else) we learn through and from the witness and influence of the Spirit.

If someone is truly prepared and receptive to the Spirit of God, then the poor quality or "arcane" nature of the symbolism won't be an issue.

I have to disagree, without discussing specifics I think 95% of first time temple goers have no understanding of the Temples symbolism.

And we thank you for your opinion- but I have to both reiterate what I said above and agree with Daddy G.

Better preparation- both in scholarship and in receptiveness to the Spirit- is the solution, rather than a revamping of the ceremony/symbolism.

I had to do a lot of research about free masonry and studying the work of Hugh Nibley before I felt i had a grasp of it.

That was YOUR path to understanding the truth. As stated on this thread, I myself and others found a different path.

I would also caution you that your post above treads perilously close to the long-discredited "Mormon temple ordinances are the same as Free Masonry rites" slur. While I am not suggesting that's what you are implying- the close parallels between your statement and that slander might make it easy to misunderstand your intent.

Admittedly i think it would be hard to find applicable modern symbols and keep intact anything that resembled a reverent ceremony.

Hence my question about criticism and solutions above.

Its easy to throw stones. It's a lot harder to replace the broken window.

It almost to the point where the average first time temple goer doesn't even realize that it is symbolic, they just see funny clothes and weird gestures.

I think you're generalizing- and perhaps overstating the problem. Does it happen that way for some first-time Temple goers? Without question.

I don't think, however, that you can state with any accuracy that it happens that way a majority- or even a plurality- of the time.

I also think you're underestimating both your fellow Saints and the Spirit of God.

I think there needs to be a fine balance between first time understanding of symbols, so that first timers aren't completely bemused and longterm enrichment from repeated visits so that repeat visits are just as enriching.

I agree. Unfortunately, no one has shown that that the current program is demonstrably unbalanced.

as it is now the scales are tilted toward longterm understanding.

In your experience, perhaps. Others may disagree.

In my own case (and those of others with whom I've spoken), the Temple President was kind enough to stop by to discuss issues or questions with me, and I was fortunate enough that I had both a wise and learned friend to discuss things with after.

Do I believe I missed things the first time through? Undoubtedly.

Did I see nothing but "funny clothes and wierd gestures"? Not hardly.

[David T]

Watch the movie "A More Perfect Union." Go to the 6:06 mark here and the :49 mark here.

Both in one movie?! Blows the mind...

I am surprised there hasn't been a new version done since the current 2 in rotation. The current filmed productions are over 20 years old now, I believe.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I vote Terrence Malick as director of the new version:

[Rob Osborn]

It saddens me that we can't all see eye to eye on the temple endowment and what it means. We are cousled not to disciss temple material outside of the temple but then when you go, no one discusses it anyway. Asking questions about this or that to other members only gets you a "well...I think it may mean..." I find it disheartening that when it comes to the temple drama, we as members see it a lot differently from one individual to the next. I doubt this is how the Lord wants it. His house is not a house of confusion.

I know from my own experience and my own private temple study that there may indeed be a very large part that we are missing upon- simple stuff many of you who discuss with me know about. Our system is made in such a way though that it makes it extremely hard to get real valid clarification on the temple endowment. There are a lot of opinions regarding temple symbolism out there but not much in the way of "official" explanations. That is what I find frustrating. I have heard we are supposed to figure out what it means on our own or what ity means to us at that time. Well, I ahve done that and have found obvious contradictions in our gospel. But now what? Up through the chain of command? In the past one could just write an apostle and get a direct answer "officially". Now one must go through what seems like an endless chain of command just to get permission to be heard. It would be a lot better if the temple preparation class dealt with each of the symbolisms and explained what they really mean. Don't make it confusing on members- especially first time goers. Finding truth in the temple and feeling at one with each other is hard to do in my opinion. Everyone has their own ideas on what the symbolism means. Is it really supposed to be so confusing to gain eternal life?

[KevinG]

There are lots of good resources for Temple preparation and symbolism. They are not in confusion.

If you have questions in the Temple you can ask there.

[mfbukowski]

Everyone has their own ideas on what the symbolism means. Is it really supposed to be so confusing to gain eternal life?

Eternal life is creating our own universe- there's no reason we can't start now with our own understanding of what it all means.

It's not confusion- it's organizing matter unorganized in our own ways.

Edited October 14, 2011 by mfbukowski

[selek1]

It saddens me that we can't all see eye to eye on the temple endowment and what it means.

Considering that your starting point utterly dismisses the Temple as an anachronism of Jewish worship and the endowments as a man-made fabrication rather than a vital part of true Christian faith, I can't conceive of any method by which we might achieve an honest meeting of the minds.

Nor can I see any way (short of our utter capitulation and obeisance to your ideology) by which you would concede that we might actually be correct.

We are cousled not to disciss temple material outside of the temple but then when you go, no one discusses it anyway.

How on Earth could you possibly know that? You are an avowed opponent (if not avowed enemy) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You are not even remotely qualified or entitled to a Temple recommend nor to acces about what goes on therein.

So how could you possibly know with any accuracy what is actually discussed therein?

I find your generalization to be untenable, inaccurate, and to border on the deliberately offensive. It specifically contradicts my own experience, and those of other faithful members with whom I've spoken.

Asking questions about this or that to other members only gets you a "well...I think it may mean..." I find it disheartening that when it comes to the temple drama, we as members see it a lot differently from one individual to the next. I doubt this is how the Lord wants it. His house is not a house of confusion.

"We as members"? Who are you quoting here Bowman?

I know from my own experience and my own private temple study that there may indeed be a very large part that we are missing upon- simple stuff many of you who discuss with me know about. Our system is made in such a way though that it makes it extremely hard to get real valid clarification on the temple endowment."

"My own experience", "Our system"?

Who's line are you parroting? And why should we give any credence to your rendition of thier words?

There are a lot of opinions regarding temple symbolism out there but not much in the way of "official" explanations. That is what I find frustrating. I have heard we are supposed to figure out what it means on our own or what ity means to us at that time. Well, I ahve done that and have found obvious contradictions in our gospel. But now what? Up through the chain of command? In the past one could just write an apostle and get a direct answer "officially". Now one must go through what seems like an endless chain of command just to get permission to be heard. It would be a lot better if the temple preparation class dealt with each of the symbolisms and explained what they really mean. Don't make it confusing on members- especially first time goers. Finding truth in the temple and feeling at one with each other is hard to do in my opinion. Everyone has their own ideas on what the symbolism means. Is it really supposed to be so confusing to gain eternal life?

The operative word in the cut-and-paste diatribe is "in my opinion."

And when one considers the source....

[KevinG]

deleted for piling on a mistake. Sorry.

Edited October 14, 2011 by DaddyG

[shalamabobbi]

Rob Osborn not Rob Bowman..

[volgadon]

Rob Osborn not Rob Bowman..

Indeed. Rob Osborn is a member of the church.

[Calm]

I think selek got mixed up, Rob Osborn is LDS....and I believe he's said before he is active, though I could be wrong.

Perhaps selek just read the first name "Rob" and the rest registered "Bowman".......?

Looks like we all saw it at the same time, lol

Edited October 14, 2011 by calmoriah

[Maidservant]

I know what you mean, Rob, however I think it is the challenge (definitely) and the beauty of temple learning that we get it straight from God and not from any other counsel. And getting it from God means that it IS all the same (eventually), although each of us may see or learn different insights in different ways and different times, but it all irons out in the end. Sometimes I have been carrying around a realization or set of realizations that is basically freaking me out (being different than the gospel I thought I once knew), and I feel so alone on it, and then I will read something from a leader or hear a friend or even hear on this board things that I see that I am not alone, that many have heard the same whisperings. (I suppose that doesn't make the new insights automatically right, but there are lots of ways that I go about testing and correcting my ideas also, so that hopefully I don't get too far off.)

Isaiah 54:13 "And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children." [this is a temple scripture]

[selek1]

Ha! He isn't a Temple going member?

That's rich. I think my answer might have been different if I had known that.

How about, get baptized, life faithfully for a year, get a recommend, attend the Temple - then if you have questions you can ask there.

Rob Osborn not Rob Bowman..

Indeed. Rob Osborn is a member of the church.

I think sleek got mixed up, Rob Osborn is LDS....and I believe he's said before he is active, though I could be wrong.

Perhaps sleek just read the first name "Rob" and the rest registered "Bowman".......?

Ooops.....

I will blame the SNAFU on my out-of-date eye glasses prescription and the drugs I am currently taking (prescribed, I promise).

My sincerest apologies to Rob Osborn for the mix-up.

[Maidservant]

You could just hurry and delete the non-needed posts now if you want.

[selek1]

It saddens me that we can't all see eye to eye on the temple endowment and what it means.

I am inclined to agree. Though the Church is a hospital for the sick rather than a resort for the cured.

We are all at different paths on the road to Salvation/Exaltation.

I think a certain amount of parallax is going to be unavoidable.

We are cousled not to disciss temple material outside of the temple but then when you go, no one discusses it anyway. Asking questions about this or that to other members only gets you a "well...I think it may mean..." I find it disheartening that when it comes to the temple drama, we as members see it a lot differently from one individual to the next.

As stated in my earlier response to Saints Alive, this contradicts my own experience. I have never lacked for people with whom to have reasonable and learned conversations about the temple material.

I doubt this is how the Lord wants it. His house is not a house of confusion.

I agree whole-heartedly.

I know from my own experience and my own private temple study that there may indeed be a very large part that we are missing upon- simple stuff many of you who discuss with me know about.

And yet this is also an admission that you cannot speak authoritatively for the membership as a whole. Your experience (and mine for that matter) is by definition both subjective and anecdotal. Just because things are a certain way for us does not mean they are that way for the whole.

Our system is made in such a way though that it makes it extremely hard to get real valid clarification on the temple endowment.

I'm not quite sure I agree. I will concede that the system is balanced to rely upon confirmation from the Spirit- but I'm not convinced that we are left to wander without guidance as your post seems to imply.

Too many people seem to want to take the Endowment as a "stand-alone" ordinance.

On the contrary, the Temple Ordinances are inexplicably intertwined with the doctrine and teachings of the Church as a whole, and must be evaluated and understood in that context... or not at all.

[selek1]

You could just hurry and delete the non-needed posts now if you want.

Nope.

I haven't sufficient posts yet to edit or delete my own posts.

Though that day of reckoning is indeed coming....bwaa haa haa!

[cinepro]

Perhaps David O. McKay's thoughts on this subject might be pertinent?

Do you remember when you first went through the House of the Lord? I do. And I went out disappointed. Just a young man, out of college, anticipating great things when I went to the Temple. I was disappointed and grieved, and I have met hundreds of young men and young women since who had that experience. I have now found out why. There are two things in every Temple: the mechanics, to set forth certain ideals, and symbolism, what those mechanics symbolize. I saw only the mechanics when I first went through the Temple. I did not see the spiritual. I did not see the symbolism of spirituality. Speaking plainly, I saw men, physical state, which offended me. That is a mechanic of washing....I was blind to the great lesson of purity behind the mechanics. I did not hear the message of the Lord, "Be ye clean who bear the vessels of the Lord." I did not hear that eternal truth, "Cleanliness is next to godliness." The symbolism was lost entirely....And so with the anointing, following the washing. Do you see the symbolism?...How many of us young men saw that? We thought we were big enough and with intelligence sufficient to criticize the mechanics of it and we were blind to the symbolism, the message of the spirit. And then that great ordinance, the endowment. The whole thing simple in the mechanical part of it, but sublime and eternal in its significance.

Address delivered by David O. McKay at the dedicatory services of the additions to the Arizona Temple, December 30, 1956, as cited in "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism" page 277

Edited October 14, 2011 by cinepro

[KevinG]

Thanks Cinepro- a good reference.

I was so scared I'd mess up the ordinances I failed to get much out of my first trip to the Temple. I'm not sure I really "got it" until it was my first time to help a new Temple attendee through. Then I forgot my own fear and in the process of helping them gained a deeper understanding.

[Rob Osborn]

One of the big issues I have is that you go to the temple preparation class and they instill the belief that the endowment is the plan of slavation and that the plan is further clarified or explained there. So, you go and the plan is entirely different. One is then left to wonder why we have two different plans.

Also, doing some research, it is not hard to find out that the endowment has changed through the years (parts ommitted that were offensive) which I find to be very interesting. Are they errors of man?

Edited October 14, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[Saints Alive]

One of the big issues I have is that you go to the temple preparation class and they instill the belief that the endowment is the plan of slavation and that the plan is further clarified or explained there. So, you go and the plan is entirely different. One is then left to wonder why we have two different plans.

Also, doing some research, it is not hard to find out that the endowment has changed through the years (parts ommitted that were offensive) which I find to be very interesting. Are they errors of man?

I have to disagree, The plan of salvation is there and it is expounded upon probably not in the way most expect.

I find the ceremony very beautiful, but I still standby my statement that its meaning is lost by the average person, even after repeated trips.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

I didn't find any of it offensive, but I do think they became outdated. This Saint has always been aware of the cost of not folowing what I agree to.

Edited October 14, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Maidservant]

its meaning is lost by the average person, even after repeated trips.

So, good point, and I wonder why this is so?

Even myself when I go there and I believe I am prepared and open to learn anything, I still sometimes wonder, so what (even after learning what I think is there)? Of course, I have a hard problem or weakness of thinking that about life in general--so what? What's the point? What's the point of all this? And, I guess it is a valid question, if not THE most valid question.

But I'm wondering if some people who go expect to have what they previous believed confirmed whereas the exercises in the temple are rather to challenge our beliefs and enlarge our minds . . . that is, what we believe so far is not a belief condition sufficient to sanctify us, which follows that our beliefs have to change and/or become more exact.

As a mother preparing my children to enter the temple, this has been a most humbling experience. Things that I didn't realize I could know simply by bringing my son to the temple for his own endowment. When this experience was close to happening, I began to be full of thoughts of how the Lord had delivered a son to me 19 years previous (wow! such joy!) and now I was bringing my son to the temple to deliver him back to the Lord (a la Hannah and Samuel) (wow! such joy!). I did tell my son not to expect anything, but simply to let things be and just enjoy it in a simple way.

I also have a policy in my home (right or wrong) that I teach my children and explain everything about the temple except those things specifically I have promised not to say. I have chosen to do this even after reflecting upon that perhaps it is best for them to have a surprising experience even the first time, but I decided that on the whole, this was not the idea I was going to go with. I have explained the process, the content in general, etc (such as in a Family Home Evening or serious, respectful family talk). I do not know if these things should be in even a temple prep class, but I feel that it is more than appropriate for me to transmit this knowledge as a mother.

My mom and I when we are not in the presence of others, but when we get the chance to have long conversations, we frequently, in fact almost always when she and I talk, we speak on the temple and the learning experiences and thoughts we are having and bounce them off of each other, basically because talking on God, temple and life is our favorite subject, period. "Why would this happen?" (speaking on the symbols, story or process) etc This has been great for me and we have been able to learn faster, having two minds together.

[Rob Osborn]

I do love the temple. I don't frequent it very often though. I know I should frequent it a lot more than I do. It would be great if i could open my "Gospel Principles" manual and have the plan of salvation as the temple describes explained to me in that context. I believe the temple plan differences actually clarifies most of our heaven/hell issues and "degrees of glory". I have found that most people are not altogether comfortable discussing those points in an open classroom even though the areas being discussed are just general everyday information that are explained at temple open house walk-throughs to anyone. This is another area where we as LDS are not sure exactly what can and cannot be discussed outside of the temple. I have been shut down a few times on these discussion boards over the years for trying to explain some of that not so secret information.

I wonder why it is that we do not teach the real meanings of the three glories outside the temple? We are still stuck in the McConkie era of thinking telestial obedience is wickedness/worldliness.

[KevinG]

Regarding things some people may have found offensive...

This was why my earlier comment said those symbols appropriate for conveying meaning to 1000BC nomads, 32BC Romans, 1840AD Farmers and 1990AD Accountants are going to be different even when the underlying message is the same.

[wenglund]

I suspect that part of the reason that some people may be uncomfortable at first with the temple ceremony, and part of the reason they have trouble "getting it," is likely the same reason they react similarly to biblical books like Isaiah and Revelations.

It is a cultural clash between our western way of thinking and eastern thought. Our western thinking is predominately linear, logical, literalistic, and left brained; whereas eastern thinking is predominately global, emotional, symbolic, and right brained.

In western thought, our learning tends to be line-upon-line, precept upon precept; whereas, in eastern thought the learning tends to be in the form of stories, parables, and metaphors.

It takes some time to adjust and adapt to the different instructional styles, particularly for those resistant to change and different ways of looking at things.

I happen to believe that one of the purposes for temple participation of adult members is to help transition us from the fundamentalist way of thinking that was important in our childhood and youth, and cognitively move us towards increased nuanced cogitations that are more functional as learned adults.

As such, part of the discomfort and resistance to "getting it" may be due to fear of somewhat letting go of the known, clear, solid, certain, fundamentalist way of thinking and embracing the somewhat new, nebulous, flexible, and uncertain way of thinking.

Maturation is not always an easy process.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-