Temple Symbolism Outdated?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

[mfbukowski]

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.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Since I could only give you one reputation point, I thought I would re-quote this one! Great post- totally agree.

Kevin C. often posts about Perry's 9 stages of intellectual development; here is a video about it:

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

Oh, Grasshopper --

You remind me very much of beginners in Zen Buddhism. They need patience above all, and the willingness to allow the truth to come in its own time. Once they have settled down (sitting zazen) and begun contemplating the sound of one hand clapping, for example, the real initiation begins.

The LDS temple experience is a grand catechism. Hugh Nibley used to say that, if he didn't learn something new each time, he would stop going. A girlfriend of mine long ago used to tell me of fantastic mystical experiences she had in the temple. I believed her.

You can help move the process along a little better by reading useful, informative material. I recommend a small book by the late Truman Madsen, The Temple: Where Heaven Meets Earth (SLC: Deseret, 2008). It is very frank and accessible. Very insightful. His wife, Ann, contributed to it.

Living the Gospel is essential. One must go to the temple with a clear conscience and deep humility, holding nothing back from the Lord. It is his house and his glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). The noble work of doing esoteric rites on behalf of all humankind is not only unselfish, but it unites our efforts as saviors on mount Zion with those of our elder Brother in making it possible to apply His vicarious expiation of sin to all who will accept it on the other side. I so love to see so many unendowed youth all lined up early in the morning waiting to be baptized for some of the dear departed. It is finally all about love.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

Temple rites, like all esoteric rites, are culture-based, very much like sacred architecture. There is no one right way to do temple work, any more than there is only one form which the Church may take through time. All of these features are time-bound excresences of the power of the priesthood to accomplish its work. For the priesthood is not bound by time, nor by the division of this world from other realms.

Of course there are recognizable commonalities in all authentic temple work, and even in apostate temple work (which seeks, like the arrogant Zoramites, to copy the real thing). Both the Book of Mormon and the Bible contain a huge amount of temple material, but only those who have eyes to see can find it -- David Bokovoy, for example.

Please don't blame a poor temple preparation class. Give the process time to work, and at the appropriate time and place in the temple, say a silent but fervent prayer about these very concerns which you have.

[Robert F. Smith]

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-

By George, I think you've got it!!

[Maidservant]

Oh, Grasshopper --

You remind me very much of beginners in Zen Buddhism. They need patience above all, and the willingness to allow the truth to come in its own time. Once they have settled down (sitting zazen) and begun contemplating the sound of one hand clapping, for example, the real initiation begins.

The LDS temple experience is a grand catechism. Hugh Nibley used to say that, if he didn't learn something new each time, he would stop going. A girlfriend of mine long ago used to tell me of fantastic mystical experiences she had in the temple. I believed her.

You can help move the process along a little better by reading useful, informative material. I recommend a small book by the late Truman Madsen, The Temple: Where Heaven Meets Earth (SLC: Deseret, 2008). It is very frank and accessible. Very insightful. His wife, Ann, contributed to it.

Living the Gospel is essential. One must go to the temple with a clear conscience and deep humility, holding nothing back from the Lord. It is his house and his glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). The noble work of doing esoteric rites on behalf of all humankind is not only unselfish, but it unites our efforts as saviors on mount Zion with those of our elder Brother in making it possible to apply His vicarious expiation of sin to all who will accept it on the other side. I so love to see so many unendowed youth all lined up early in the morning waiting to be baptized for some of the dear departed. It is finally all about love.

Very nice words.

Don't even have to be in the temple to have it opened to you. I have gone often enough over the years that I have the process memorized as it is, so that I carry it with me wherever I go, and just tonight, I was reading in another book, not even anything by an LDS author, but something she said, just clicked on something in my mind from the temple and then it was like a download of information on that section of the process that literally had my jaw hanging (not exaggerating, my mouth was open in Wow)! Just tonight! Then I looked down at the book again to see exactly what she said that was so special, and I didn't even see that it was extraordinary . . . it may have just been something in my mind/spirit that finally finished processing (in regards to temple symbolism and several other pieces of the puzzle from other places in life and knowledge that have been in suspension within me for weeks, even months) and just needed a tiny match to light it and bring it all together into something awesome that I can really use in understanding why I am here on the planet and what we are doing here.

[mfbukowski]

Living the Gospel is essential. One must go to the temple with a clear conscience and deep humility, holding nothing back from the Lord. It is his house and his glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). The noble work of doing esoteric rites on behalf of all humankind is not only unselfish, but it unites our efforts as saviors on mount Zion with those of our elder Brother in making it possible to apply His vicarious expiation of sin to all who will accept it on the other side. I so love to see so many unendowed youth all lined up early in the morning waiting to be baptized for some of the dear departed. It is finally all about love.

[wenglund]

Very nice words.

Don't even have to be in the temple to have it opened to you. I have gone often enough over the years that I have the process memorized as it is, so that I carry it with me wherever I go, and just tonight, I was reading in another book, not even anything by an LDS author, but something she said, just clicked on something in my mind from the temple and then it was like a download of information on that section of the process that literally had my jaw hanging (not exaggerating, my mouth was open in Wow)! Just tonight! Then I looked down at the book again to see exactly what she said that was so special, and I didn't even see that it was extraordinary . . . it may have just been something in my mind/spirit that finally finished processing (in regards to temple symbolism and several other pieces of the puzzle from other places in life and knowledge that have been in suspension within me for weeks, even months) and just needed a tiny match to light it and bring it all together into something awesome that I can really use in understanding why I am here on the planet and what we are doing here.

I love those "ah ha" moments. Ironically, it makes me feel like I have become like a child again--as the Savior advised.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lightbearer]

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?

Why do you say it is outdated? The principles taught are eternal, so what would they change? I think if the First Presidency were to introduce any changes it would be accepted just as it has in the past. I received my own endowment in 1979 and it was beautiful and awe inspiring. Although there have been some changes since that time it has mostly been to shorten it, however there are a couple of points that indicate it was changed to please some weak Saints who cannot abide the apparent criticism of apostate christendom... some are so afraid of offending that they think the Gospel needs to be "toned down" so it is more pallitable to babylon. I do not think we should "dumb-down" the endowment just because some people cannot abide the truth. Laman and Lemuel thought that Nephi said "hard things." As for understanding the meaning of the symbolism, the reason the Lord taught the people in parables during His mortal ministry is so the spiritually enlightened would understand and that those who hardened their hearts would not. The following scripture seems appropriate to the discussion here:

"It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell."

(Book of Mormon | Alma 12:9 - 11)

The endowment is essentially spiritual knowledge, it is something that must be revealed by the Holy Ghost and it is generally done line upon line, not all at once. When I first experienced the endowment it was a wonderful experience, I did not think it was "weird" or uncomfortable, in fact the most comfortable I have ever been in my life is in that Holy house, feeling the spirit of the Lord warm my soul and where the doctrines of priesthood can "distil upon" me "as the dews of heaven." So no I cannot think of anything that should be omitted or changed in the Endowment.

[Tarski]

I am glad to know that I am not the only one to have a "disappointing" experience when first going through the temple.

But the ceremony has changed a lot since I first went through the 1970s when I was 19 years old. How much? Well, enough that whenever a younger member who only knows the lastest version squeezes out of me what used to be included in the ceremony that was so hard for me, I am invariably called a liar or told that my memory must be messed up.

So what feeling did I have that sunny day driving home from the DC temple with my parents? Well, honestly, and for what it is worth, up until that moment in my life the word cult wasn't a word I had a use for. I am not even sure I had occasion to utter it in any contexrt before that day and even then I didn't utter it outloud. I tried to explain to my parents what I was feeling on the long drive home without getting them upset but what I was feeling was a sort of shock and the word "cult" suddenly and for the first time had personal relevance.

Somehow I got over the feeling quickly and rationalized the whole thing to my satisfaction--at least on some level. In fact, the way I rationalized the felt weirdness of it--weirdness to me---was to explain to anyone who asked that it would indeed seem strange to them but only because it was all so extremely ancient.

By the time the word "cult" came up again in connection with Mormonism, I was much older and somehow had no use for the word since I was not sure how to define it (clear definitions having become important to me). But I think the fact that the word came to mind at that time explains clearly how I felt.

Would the newer version have brought that word to mind if that had been what I experienced first? I can't be sure.

But I am now of the opinion that it is not essentially weirder, when viewed more objectively, than rituals found in myriad other religions (to the extent that one can even say what objectively might even mean for "weirdness").

I believe the version of the ceremony I experienced is already basically forgotton from Mormonism--as if it never were a reality.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Tarski

[Palerider]

I am glad to know that I am not the only one to have a "disappointing" experience when first going through the temple.

But the ceremony has changed a lot since I first went through the 1970s when I was 19 years old. How much? Well, enough that whenever a younger member who only knows the lastest version squeezes out of me what used to be included in the ceremony that was so hard for me, I am invariably called a liar or told that my memory must be messed up.

So what feeling did I have that sunny day driving home from the DC temple with my parents? Well, honestly, and for what it is worth, up until that moment in my life the word cult wasn't a word I had a use for. I am not even sure I had occasion to utter it in any contexrt before that day and even then I didn't utter it outloud. I tried to explain to my parents what I was feeling on the long drive home without getting them upset but what I was feeling was a sort of shock and the word "cult" suddenly and for the first time had personal relevance.

Somehow I got over the feeling quickly and rationalized the whole thing to my satisfaction--at least on some level. In fact, the way I rationalized the felt weirdness of it--weirdness to me---was to explain to anyone who asked that it would indeed seem strange to them but only because it was all so extremely ancient.

By the time the word "cult" came up again in connection with Mormonism, I was much older and somehow had no use for the word since I was not sure how to define it (clear definitions having become important to me). But I think the fact that the word came to mind at that time explains clearly how I felt.

Would the newer version have brought that word to mind if that had been what I experienced first? I can't be sure.

But I am now of the opinion that it is not essentially weirder, when viewed more objectively, than rituals found in myriad other religions (to the extent that one can even say what objectively might even mean for "weirdness").

I believe the version of the ceremony I experienced is already basically forgotton from Mormonism--as if it never were a reality.

Do you then still apply the word cult to the LDS church as a whole or somehow separate out or compartmentalize the temple ceremony as "cultish"? Just curious.......

[Maidservant]

I had my own endowment in 1990, so I just barely missed the "old" endowment I think (although there have continued to be technical changes since then). I went through a live session (Idaho Falls Temple), and I went the night before I was going to be married (I was 19). For the record, although I have had glimpses here and there of what was in the "old" version, I really don't care or want to know; in my view, I think it is fitting that I should never know (that's the point of a new generation).

No one ever talked to me about the temple except in young women's classes where it was impressed upon me, of course, that that was where I should be to get married (after which was handed out a white handkerchief, right?).

But I had a few clues for me before I went that ended up preparing my mind, I think. First was doing the family's laundry all my life, I finally at some point really noticed my parents' garments and so what I noticed caused me to ponder and I knew that I would learn on that when I went to the temple, and I looked forward to that. Also, shortly after I graduated from high school, but before I had my endowment, I went to a church aerobics class each morning, and a woman there talked to me on the temple not realizing I hadn't been. She said nothing earth shattering from the point of view of now that I know, but at the time, it was quite revealing to me. She mentioned the names on the parts that were played, it was something in the course of our conversation, I don't recall why. But I pondered that in my heart after that. Also, of course, I was aware of how the rooms looked from books showing the rooms of the temples--I knew there were auditorium seats, altars, mirrors, murals, etc. So I knew that whatever happened there was going to be much different than what I knew at church. Oh, and the most important thing! My little brother was sealed to my mother and my adoptive (step)father when I was 9 years old. So I got to attend and witness this ceremony. I remember being shocked--but pleasantly so--to see women in their full temple clothing. So that was something for me to ponder after that. Also, when as a child, our helper took us up to the sealing room, we had to wait outside for several minutes. There was a dark sealing room next to it, and our helper said, Would you like to see that? So she turned on the light, and let us see and talked to us about the sealing room and so I had this experience of feeling like the temple was completely approachable . . . nothing I couldn't (ultimately) touch, see or talk about. Also, of course, my mind has a very 'wierd' turn to it, so temple experience is completely my element.

When I had my own endowment, then, I don't remember every detail of my reaction except that it must have been on the whole positive, but I do remember two very AMAZING things I was confronted with and from that moment of seeing it, to this, I have had the desire to wring every thing from the temple I possibly could. The first I think I won't share, but it took my breath away (happily, humbly, amazingly), brought tears to my eyes. It was really even before the ceremony started. I don't now if this was something that happened to everyone because I have never seen nor heard of it since (maybe I will know when I am a temple worker). The second thing was (and I don't think men get the opportunity for this exactly same experience), again, my breath was taken away by being administered to by women (rather than men) in priesthood ordinances. I thought WOWIE! OF COURSE! and it followed that I wanted ALL of that knowledge that gave rise to such a thing.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Maidservant

[mfbukowski]

I believe the version of the ceremony I experienced is already basically forgotton from Mormonism--as if it never were a reality.

I often recite those parts to myself at the appropriate moments in order to remember them clearly. I am not sure why I do that.

[Tarski]

Do you then still apply the word cult to the LDS church as a whole or somehow separate out or compartmentalize the temple ceremony as "cultish"? Just curious.......

I think the temple is the main thing.

I never refer to the LDS church as a cult aloud and I don't think it is helpful in any serious academic discussion (and certainly not in politics!) but every once in a while the church seems "cult-ish" to me. I keep that feeling to myself for the most part.

I have both positive and negative associations with Mormonism. Mostly the actual meetings have a weird feel to me (or at best boring) but the social aspects and special activities such as father and sons camp outs, service projects, plays and productions, choir, are all positive associations that don't feel cultish.

[Palerider]

I think the temple is the main thing.

I never refer to the LDS church as a cult aloud and I don't think it is helpful in any serious academic discussion (and certainly not in politics!) but every once in a while the church seems "cult-ish" to me. I keep that feeling to myself for the most part.

I have both positive and negative associations with Mormonism. Mostly the actual meetings have a weird feel to me (or at best boring) but the social aspects and special activities such as father and sons camp outs, service projects, plays and productions, choir, are all positive associations that don't feel cultish.

Would the "cultish" aspect of the temple be the emphasis on the ritual/ceremonial character of the endowment or is it more the psychological pressure that is brought to bear in the sense of not being able to be sealed to one's family if one fails to achieve the endowment and sealing?

Edited October 16, 2011 by Palerider

[thesometimesaint]

Maidservant:

My first time was in 1972.. There is some differences in the two ceremonies. The newer one is not as long. A few things were dropped. The covennents are still the same. It was changed again. Not as much standing. So it is easier on us who are physically handicapped.

Men who have been previously given the Priesthood are given it. There are a few other differences between the women's and men's Endowment, but we probably shouldn't talk about them in a public forum.

[Verum]

Quick question...there are certain symbols and signs the just do not make sense now since 1990. Are members supposed to re-interpret what they mean now or do they still how the original meaning?

[Verum]

Quick question...there are certain symbols and signs left in the current endowment that now just do not make sense since 1990. In the pre-1990 endowment, they make perfect sense. Are members supposed to re-interpret what they mean now or do they still have the original meaning?

[Kenngo1969]

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.

There's only one objective, comprehensive, encompassing meaning we're supposed to derive from temple ordinances and covenants? Wow! No wonder so many of us aren't getting it, then!

[mfbukowski]

Quick question...there are certain symbols and signs left in the current endowment that now just do not make sense since 1990. In the pre-1990 endowment, they make perfect sense. Are members supposed to re-interpret what they mean now or do they still have the original meaning?

Do words keep the same meaning over time? Do we still speak Middle English?

[thesometimesaint]

verum:

Without being explicit they mean the same.

[mnn727]

Yes, the symbols are very outdated and need to be changed, the sooner the better.

They are just symbols, changing them would not change the endowment itself.

Symbols mean different things to different generations. These symbols times have passed - about 40 years ago

Edited October 16, 2011 by mnn727

[Verum]

verum:

Without being explicit they mean the same.

I agree, and I have no issue with this as the meaning. The problem though is how can anyone understand what they mean without knowing about the pre-1990 experience? Of course, I know this is hard to discuss without being specific...

[mnn727]

There are lots of good resources for Temple preparation and symbolism.

The Temple Prep class is not one of them

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

But who, the Temple workers? They don't see a problem,

Your escort? - they usually don't see any problems either.

I asked my Bishop about the symbolism the 2nd time I was at the Temple (with him in the Celestial Room) he just gave (what was to me) an evasive answer and left.

[wenglund]

Yes, the symbols are very outdated and need to be changed, the sooner the better.

They are just symbols, changing them would not change the endowment itself.

Symbols mean different things to different generations. These symbols times have passed - about 40 years ago.

I am fine with leaving it to God to make that call since we humans may know little if anything of what we are talking about on this matter.. Besides, I don't view it as necessarily wise to let the students dictate the mode and manner of instruction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 17, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Yes, the symbols are very outdated and need to be changed, the sooner the better.

They are just symbols, changing them would not change the endowment itself.

Symbols mean different things to different generations. These symbols times have passed - about 40 years ago

Gosh, then maybe, since you understand it perfectly, the church should call you for advice on how to bring it up to date. You could express it for them with correct symbols.

Wouldn't that be great?