Symbols

[mfbukowski]

No. I think I'm plenty skeptical (Smiley face is a symbol for just kidding, or don't take offense, or can't you tell I'm funny?...)

 

I hear what you're saying Mfbukowski. But when we go to the temple are we not intended to receive a specific endowment of knowledge from a God sanctioned authority? And isn't that knowledge intended to be somewhat universal for all of God's children? And if so, wouldn't it be helpful to be led in a clear path of understanding instead of each individual creating their own religion based on their personal perceptions and interpretations of what may or may not be a symbolic message? Maybe not. If we really are all as free as you suggest to discover and decide for ourselves, there sure seems to be plenty of push for orthodoxy in the church which would suggest a firm doctrine we should believe. In the church we seem to place great importance on authority, as we sustain the authority the church has set up.

 

If you're suggesting we should ignore all external authority and become an authority unto ourselves, I can go with that, but I don't think the church would approve.

Disagree entirely.

 

If you do not have your own testimony that the church is "true" why would anyone hang around wasting time?

And it is a continuous matter for debate as to whether or not we have any "doctrine" at all.  http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

 

The church you live in seems to be quite different than mine.   I was told I need to have my own testimony of each principle.  To me that sounds like we need to follow our conscience rather than submit to authority brainlessly because we are told to do so.

 

No you are not "not intended to receive a specific endowment of knowledge from a God sanctioned authority? And isn't that knowledge intended to be somewhat universal for all of God's children?"

 

I suggest you talk to your temple president and ask him that question if you think I am wrong.

 

The Temple is designed to be a University for learning to follow the spirit.  Giving you the answers to the temple symbolism would be like going to college and giving you answer sheets to all the exams

 

You go to college to learn to think and go to the temple to learn the spirit.  No, you are not to come out

 

But I guess people don't go to college to learn to think anymore, but to learn a trade.  What a shame that is. 

Edited January 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

No. I think I'm plenty skeptical (Smiley face is a symbol for just kidding, or don't take offense, or can't you tell I'm funny?...)

 

 

All of those?  Since all of those are valid meanings how do I know which one you mean or how do you know which I mean?  So you or I just choose by the context we perceive.

[mfbukowski]

Mars, thanks for your thoughts. I partially agree with you. God must be extremely forgiving or we're all toast.

 

But, misinterpreting teachings can have negative consequences. For you, knocking on the door again, a simple berating. But what if I go to the temple and view and interpret symbols in a way that leads me to believe that God really intends for me to practice plural marriage, and I either start to practice polygamy or teach it at church? Would there be consequences to my church membership? Most likely. Why? Because I misinterpreted symbols because there was an absense of authoritative teaching about the symbol.

We don't talk about the temple.  Why do you think that is?

 

Do you think that publishing a manual of all that happens would violate the reasons for that?

 

Do you think that if we DID publish all that happens in the temples with circles and arrows and pointers pointing to specific symbols and their exact meaning, it would defeat the purpose of having them remain sacred?

 

If someone published pictures of all their activity with their spouses, would it enhance the sacredness of marital love?

 

When someone publishes the temple ceremonies does it enhance their sacredness?

 

"Sacred"= private experience and revelation.  Intimacy with God.  Not for publication.  THAT is what "sacred" IS!

[mfbukowski]

All of those?  Since all of those are valid meanings how do I know which one you mean or how do you know which I mean?  So you or I just choose by the context we perceive.

Great point.  Now we should discuss the semantics of smiley faces.  Clearly you  are wrong.  Never ever does a smiley face mean "just kidding".

 

It requires a winking smiley face to say "Just kidding".     

 

Clearly we need a smiley face manual.

 

but wait- then we wouldn't need them at all.......

Edited January 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

"Sacred"= private experience and revelation.  Intimacy with God.  Not for publication.  THAT is what "sacred" IS!

 

Why doesn't the LDS Church stay true to form (as it does for the temple ceremonies) and withdraw

its statement on Joseph Smith and his polygamy then?  Sacred stuff should not be distributed to

the national media or made public on the church's website.

 

Do non-believers and all the Mormons in non-English speaking countries really need to know this

about Joseph Smith?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[mfbukowski]

Why doesn't the LDS Church stay true to form (as it does for the temple ceremonies) and withdraw

its statement on Joseph Smith and his polygamy then?  Sacred stuff should not be distributed to

the national media or made public on the church's website.

 

Do non-believers and all the Mormons in non-English speaking countries really need to know this

about Joseph Smith?

 

Thanks,

Jim

You have a point there.

 

Only people who speak English have access to truth.  Everyone knows that.  

[Garden Girl]

No. I think I'm plenty skeptical (Smiley face is a symbol for just kidding, or don't take offense, or can't you tell I'm funny?...)

 

I hear what you're saying Mfbukowski. But when we go to the temple are we not intended to receive a specific endowment of knowledge from a God sanctioned authority? And isn't that knowledge intended to be somewhat universal for all of God's children? And if so, wouldn't it be helpful to be led in a clear path of understanding instead of each individual creating their own religion based on their personal perceptions and interpretations of what may or may not be a symbolic message? Maybe not. If we really are all as free as you suggest to discover and decide for ourselves, there sure seems to be plenty of push for orthodoxy in the church which would suggest a firm doctrine we should believe. In the church we seem to place great importance on authority, as we sustain the authority the church has set up.

 

If you're suggesting we should ignore all external authority and become an authority unto ourselves, I can go with that, but I don't think the church would approve.

 

First, we do receive a specific endowment of knowledge... everyone who attends an endowment session...

But there are also symbols that invite us to ponder and learn...

I know of nothing in the symbols that in any way invites a person to create their own religion... 

The symbols do not contradict gospel principles, but invite us to understand and appreciate more deeply those principles...  for instance, when I'm walking up to the temple entrance, there is a beautiful water fountain... there is space to sit and one could do so while pondering the teachings of Christ regarding the woman at the well and partaking of his "living water" thus never thirsting again... 

It sounds to me like you're misinterpreting the purpose of the symbolism and how we are to view it.  Everything about the temple is to lead us to Christ and revealed gospel principles... not to go off on "interpretations" and start creating our own religion...

 

GG

[Mars]

~snip~

 

You go to college to learn to think and go to the temple to learn the spirit.  No, you are not to come out

 

~snip~

 

Did you leave a thought unfinished?

[Mars]

GardenGirl just blew my mind.

[HappyJackWagon]

First, we do receive a specific endowment of knowledge... everyone who attends an endowment session...

But there are also symbols that invite us to ponder and learn...

I know of nothing in the symbols that in any way invites a person to create their own religion... 

The symbols do not contradict gospel principles, but invite us to understand and appreciate more deeply those principles...  for instance, when I'm walking up to the temple entrance, there is a beautiful water fountain... there is space to sit and one could do so while pondering the teachings of Christ regarding the woman at the well and partaking of his "living water" thus never thirsting again... 

It sounds to me like you're misinterpreting the purpose of the symbolism and how we are to view it.  Everything about the temple is to lead us to Christ and revealed gospel principles... not to go off on "interpretations" and start creating our own religion...

 

GG

Garden Girl, I understand what you are saying but it is inevitable that I will see and interpret symbols differently than you will. I may be looking for symbolic meaning so much that I see meaning that isn't really there. You too. It's inevitable. And it wouldn't take too much misinterpretation to start down a new path that wasn't intended or going beyond the intended mark.

[Mars]

Garden Girl, I understand what you are saying but it is inevitable that I will see and interpret symbols differently than you will. I may be looking for symbolic meaning so much that I see meaning that isn't really there. You too. It's inevitable. And it wouldn't take too much misinterpretation to start down a new path that wasn't intended or going beyond the intended mark.

 

I'm really trying, but I still don't understand what you are getting at.

 

Yes, there is a risk of getting it wrong.  I don't know how to understand the implication of this risk without rearranging your concerns (if they even are concerns, I'm still not sure I get what you mean by stating this risk) into a strawman.  I don't find it likely that the person who has prepared herself to go to the Temple will find herself outside of a certain range of misinterpreting symbols - certainly not starting up a new religion or thinking God wishes she inflict harm on herself or others.  In other words, I can see her getting something benign wrong, but not something so way off that her understanding of what the Temple is teaching is outside what we do know and has been revealed - what the point of the Temple is.  There are criteria, conditions, and parameters under which we operate as we go to the Temple to help constrain our interpretation and learning.

 

So as long as Temple worthiness is maintained, a sense of decorum and privacy which pervades the Temple from the get go is preserved, what is the harm in getting it wrong?  By all means, try and test out in your own little world all you like.  When something no longer makes sense to you, discard it, and seek the Spirit for correction.  That's one of the key points of continual Temple attendance - to learn to understand how God speaks to you.  That necessarily implies getting it wrong at first until you get it right.

 

I feel like we're starting to repeat ourselves here - you to us and us to you.  Am I not understanding something?  Is this just a simple disagreement over what God should be doing, and since it doesn't make sense to you, you're not sure you believe God's behind it?  Because you assume somewhere that if God were behind it, the way things are now would be different?

Edited January 8, 2015 by Mars

[HappyJackWagon]

I just think it's dangerous and unhelpful to a realistic faith to find eternal meaning in every random thing we don't understand. That is all. Some things just are. They are not symbols to enlighten to deeper knowledge. If we think it is we are bound to be misled.

[Mars]

I just think it's dangerous and unhelpful to a realistic faith to find eternal meaning in every random thing we don't understand. That is all. Some things just are. They are not symbols to enlighten to deeper knowledge. If we think it is we are bound to be misled.

 

Dangerous?  In what way?  Are Mormons who routinely go to the Temple statistically more likely to do harm to themselves and those around them?

[HappyJackWagon]

Dangerous?  In what way?  Are Mormons who routinely go to the Temple statistically more likely to do harm to themselves and those around them?

Surely you recognize there is more than just physical danger.

 

Seeking symbols in the temple or even in everyday life could be akin to sign seeking. The result could be applying meaning and therefore making decisions based on the understanding received from a false symbol/sign. I'm sorry if I'm not articulating this well. It doesn't seem complicated to me but I'm clearly not communicating well. I'll stop beating the dead horse.

[Mars]

I guess I just don't see it as dangerous.

 

If you're honest, you have integrity, and you're trying to do what God wants per your understanding, then you're not really in danger.  I don't even see that as sign seeking. 

 

On the secular side of life I make decisions based on half-cooked understandings all the fricking time...  I could never gather all the information needed to make a complete decision.  I don't see my spiritual life as being any different.  I have a threshold, as I'm sure everyone does, of necessary understanding and information, which needs to be hit before I go and do, think, or say a thing.  It sometimes changes depending on the situation but I do my best to be reasonable, patient, and honest in how I live my life both in the Church and out.

 

I guess I just disagree that any of that is bad.  Sub-optimal...  Yes.  But it's life, man.  You do the best you can and you deal with it when you screw up.  Both in the Church and out.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Mars

[ERayR]

I just think it's dangerous and unhelpful to a realistic faith to find eternal meaning in every random thing we don't understand. That is all. Some things just are. They are not symbols to enlighten to deeper knowledge. If we think it is we are bound to be misled.

 

If you "find eternal meaning in every random thing we you don't understand" that sounds like something for you to work on.  Why should it be withheld from everybody because someone can't use discernment?

[mfbukowski]

Did you leave a thought unfinished?

oops! Part of an edit fragment I forgot to clean up. Rephrased it and didn't erase the old version.

[mfbukowski]

I guess I just don't see it as dangerous.

If you're honest, you have integrity, and you're trying to do what God wants per your understanding, then you're not really in danger. I don't even see that as sign seeking.

On the secular side of life I make decisions based on half-cooked understandings all the fricking time... I could never gather all the information needed to make a complete decision. I don't see my spiritual life as being any different. I have a threshold, as I'm sure everyone does, of necessary understanding and information, which needs to be hit before I go and do, think, or say a thing. It sometimes changes depending on the situation but I do my best to be reasonable, patient, and honest in how I live my life both in the Church and out.

I guess I just disagree that any of that is bad. Sub-optimal... Yes. But it's life, man. You do the best you can and you deal with it when you screw up. Both in the Church and out.

Nailed it.

There is no right or wrong, there is only the best we can do with what we have.

Edited January 8, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Alvie J]

You would just about have to be a 33rd degree freemason, and

a student of all the lore and tradition inherent in the upper degrees

of the two rites, in order to speak with sufficient knowledge on this

sort of topic -- and, even then, other masonic scholars might well

disagree. But the masonic beehive means pretty much what it did

to the early LDS -- industry, cooperation, obedience, loyalty, etc.

 

Coupling the beehive with "holiness to the Lord" adds a whole extra

level of meaning, however. The masons claim to be merely the meek

"handmaiden" of religion -- its forerunner, as John prepared the way

for Jesus. But the masons cannot be accepting of members of all

different kinds of religions, and still promote (and enforce) the motto

"holiness to the Lord" -- it is Judeo-Christian or philoSemitic, and

has a direct tie to the old High Priests of the Jerusalem Temple.

 

In a roundabout way, freemasonry thus appropriates that high priestly

role and authority. Is their beehive merely symbolic of a single, lower

level "blue lodge," or of a royal arch chapter, or of the Grand Lodge,

or of all Freemasonry -- or, perhaps, of the entire human race?

 

Questions to ponder.

 

And while we are on the topic of symbols, folks might wish to consult

the old Brigham Young photo, in which his stick-pin is a square and

compass, encircling a capital G. -- Not an ornament that would have

brought a smile to the face of any mason of his day and age.

 

UD

If you’re really interested in the Book of Mormon and its connection to Masonry and the Rosicrucians perhaps you might look at this college research paper in which explores the Book of Mormon as a ciphered text.  It’s full of colored graphs and to pictures better help the reader discern the ciphers and their meanings. 

 

https://www.academia.edu/7892970/The_Mormon_Cipher