Temple Grooming Standards

[Calm]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly, the doctrine of exaltation doesn't resonate with me personally, I had a problem with it even when I was an orthodox Mormon.  I never wanted to or felt like I should strive to become a God.  I don't fault those that do, but it never made sense to my sensibilities.  I like the concepts of eternal progression and eternal increase(not sure how this would work).  But I do think the gospel of Christ should be a focus on the principles of love of neighbor and feeding his sheep, literally and figuratively.  These are radical ideas, the foundation of the Christian message.  When Joseph said: 

To me, this makes the doctrine of exaltation an appendage, and not central to the gospel program.  

Do you wish to be one with God?

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can see now why my remark might be interpreted that way.  My apologies, it was intended more as competitive and playful banter or sarcasm to accentuate my point.  No disrespect. I added a couple emojis to make it more clear.

Ok, thanks.  One of the drawbacks of these message boards, no hard feelings here.  

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you wish to be one with God?

Good question Calm, I honestly don't feel warm and fuzzy about that concept either.  It seems like a loss of individuality.  At a couple rare times I've felt like my hopes and prayers and perhaps even my will were aligned with the divine in an existential kind of way, these experiences were meaningful to me.  However they were temporary and fleeting.  Perhaps that's what it would be like only permanently.  I can't really comprehend that, but that's about as close as my imagination can take me to this concept.  

[Calm]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, thanks.  One of the drawbacks of these message boards, no hard feelings here.  

This may be off topic on this thread, I have lost track of if it was this thread where I read some comments that set off the line of thinking in this post....my apologies if so...

This quote above is one of the reasons why I have a problem with people making statements similar to 'get you, but you don't get me and holding your position means you are .... and also must believe ...' as if they are really capable of analyzing people's world views based on their own interpretations that are driven by their own biases. And assuming that just because there are some global similarities in experience, therefore their reactions and understandings of that experience are similar enough to be predictive (as in 'I have been where you are now, so I have special insight into your experience and my additional experiences of belief, disbelief, singleness, married, childlessness, parenthood, poor, rich, healthy, sick, whatever makes my position more informed than yours who lacks my new experiences') is high arrogance when there is no way to know someone's inner experiences to determine sufficiently similarities or differences to one's own inner experiences.

Given that people often misjudge whether a post is serious or not just in tone as evidenced time and again by reactions that end in similar posts to the above quote, how in the world should we expect detailed and nuanced positions to be comprehended fully enough to make a fair judgment of understanding in most cases?  It helps a great deal when we see actions connected to beliefs, but we lack that resource for most on this board.  Just look at siblings and how often misunderstandings arise within families where continuity of experience is much higher than that between strangers on a message board.

Granted we have to operate on the assumption we understand what others are saying or few would feel value in conversing, still taking it further into a personal analysis of how the other must be thinking (labeling them closeminded among other qualities is the example I remember) is having overconfidence in one's ability to fill in gaps and results in creating a one sided conversation (which unfortunately can too easily lead to closemindedness) or so it seems to me based on years of reading posts between numerous people and watching what it appears to lead to.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good question Calm, I honestly don't feel warm and fuzzy about that concept either.  It seems like a loss of individuality.  At a couple rare times I've felt like my hopes and prayers and perhaps even my will were aligned with the divine in an existential kind of way, these experiences were meaningful to me.  However they were temporary and fleeting.  Perhaps that's what it would be like only permanently.  I can't really comprehend that, but that's about as close as my imagination can take me to this concept.  

Perhaps then given what seems to be expressed as a considerable difference in experience, you should allow for some weight to be given to those who believe they have experienced a desirable greater oneness through their temple experiences and instead of destroying what works for them because you don't find the same meaning in the experience that they do, find other ways to achieve what you and others are seeking, possibly within the temple, but possibly without if you find it impossible to reconcile your currentbtempe experience with what you seek.

Both your description of exaltation and oneness with God are substantially different from what resonates with my understanding of the concepts.  Both are highly desirable to me (they are in fact the same experience/state, exaltation being the fulness of oneness) and I see oneness as the ultimate expression of myself, my potential, my individuality primarily because of my experiences of oneness.  Only in oneness can I fully be known by another, only in oneness can my individuality be fully recognized and therefore expressed.  It may seem paradoxical, but it is not based on what my experience has led me to see oneness as...and this is apparently something you will not be able to comprehend.  Nor do I believe I will be able to comprehend your perception even if we are using the same words because our experiences and therefore interpretations we are tying to those words appear to be quite different.  That doesn't bother me in the least btw, I don't feel any need to dictate to you where and how you should find meaning in what you choose to define as your religious experience.  

Edited February 9, 2017 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good questions.  On the negative vs. positive question, I'm intentionally focused on the negative elements in this thread because that was the point of the OP.  I could point out many positives as well, but I think we can get to be an echo chamber if we all just focus on what we agree on, so for the sake of discussion I'm highlighting those areas where I disagree first and foremost.  

Do I have ideas about small things that could change in the temple an potentially be a net positive for the members?  Yes, I do.  The OP called out some potential concerns, I wanted to stick to those, but I have other ideas, I think the ceremonies are still sexist, I think they are too long and redundant, I think doing work for every human that ever lived is not strongly supported in our theology, I think the buildings are too expensive, I think there are too many buildings, I think the resources are poorly allocated, I think the practices of temple marriage ceremony only for members is divisive, I think the recommend interviews are manipulative and shame inducing.  I could go on, but I'm sure now that I mentioned a few things, people will try picking them apart, thats how I've noticed these discussions in the past, and part of why I hesitate to get into the details, when its the principle of re-evaluation that I want to promote, not necessarily the specifics.  

Oh, and just so I don't miss your call for a better model, I will tell you my top three ideas off the top of my head that I believe would reinvigorate the church.  1.  Make going to temple sealings open to everyone (non members could attend as well, no worthiness requirement to attend a sealing ceremony for weddings).  2.  Change the temple recommend interview significantly, make it mainly about a person's personal commitment to living gospel principles in their life, not about "worthiness".  3. Revamp the rituals, streamline, add insights, remove hurtful old perspectives and language, modernize, incorporate more scripture, remove more of the masonic language, put the focus more on Jesus and less on exaltation.    

Focusing on the principle of reevaluation isn't enough, IMO, because it's asserting a value to something intangible in competition for something that is already tangibly valued. Without specifics there's no room for growth. It also puts people on the defensive. For example, I can name off the top of my head 3-4 things that I would change in the temple.... some small and some larger. I haven't shared because the principle you've been attesting have been so broad with little indication of acknowledging the positive aspects of the temple. Having a core basis of what is positive allows for some sense of commonality. It also gives a sense of what ground in which to build further on. Plus, some of the initial posts were off-putting to assume that just because one adheres and loves temple worship that one can't then see areas of potential improvement. Not a big fan of boxes and being placed in them.

I've also disagreed with the assertion that we all should reevaluate the value of the temple. The temple, even in its imperfect form is priceless and has been priceless. The basis of temple worship is found in every book of scripture and is a central part to worship in Christ. It's like suggesting we should all reevaluate the constructs of marriage and whether one should ever marry to someone who's been happily married for 20+ years. They're not going to pay it much attention because it's fundamentally changed and bettered their lives and is a backbone to social order, just because some have found marriage inadequate or hurtful does not negate the value of the institution.

 In full disclosure here are 2 practical and 1 bigger thing I wouldn't mind seeing changed:

1. Allowing patriarchal blessings to be read in there. That may be a more temple-to-temple policy, but it's been enforced based off of the wording in the guidelines. I feel that it can help many who go there to contemplate their own concerns in their day-to-day and seeking Spiritual guidance for their lives.

2. Videos with adam and/or eve who are some form of visual minorities....if not other key actors. 

The bigger thing: an expansion in understanding of women's power and roles and clarification as their roles as queens and priestesses. Particularly through Eve's depiction. Having lived and breathed the female ordinances for this long, I don't necessarily find them inherently sexist. I do find them like an unfinished or not fully heard story. It's not surprising to me as to why, but I feel it's still an inevitable part of the restoration. I would not be presumptuous enough to say what that should or shouldn't entail. 

 To your underlined point, I think the picking apart is 2 fold. For one, people have different visions for their "ideal experience." For another, it assumes that many of us haven't ever re-evaluated the worth of temple worship and service or why we do what we do in the temple. Re-evaluation doesn't lead us to the same conclusions. My personal evaluations and re-evaluations have never led me to the assertions or ideals you're suggesting we move with. Some things absolutely boggle me. Like removing masonic language or focusing "more" on Jesus. To me the actions and symbols all not only point to Jesus but represent a movement of taking Him personally onto our very being. They symbolize a deep continuing binding and change in being that are to effect our personal disposition, attitudes, personal relationships, and social structures. So they literally are the opposite conclusions that I've come to as I evaluate, memorize, and take part in the ordinances. And let me assure you one of the main reasons I became a temple worker in the first place was because I wanted to be absolutely familiar with the ins and outs of the temple. I wanted a deeper knowledge. On my phone app for my gospel library I have 6 "tags" in it that are specifically about temple language and actions that tie in. My evaluation, minus the one major point I've pointed out already has made me reticent to change most of it up. Some of your suggestions do not fly for me, not because I want to pick them apart but because they don't fit what I've personally deduced or seen about the temple (point one entirely).  The one that I think could be worked to better understand is point 2. I've had perfunctory recommend interviews and didn't think much of it as a teen. But I've also had very spiritual ones. Ones where the Stake president and/or bishop worked hard to assure I knew the purpose of the interview. It wasn't an interview really with them, they just happened to be saying the words, but one between me and the Lord through the Spirit. I would like people to feel that more.

#3 I honestly don't follow. For what I mentioned earlier, but really just about all of it I don't get. It doesn't resonate at all with my experience so I don't get it.     

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If I'm reading you correctly, you're asking how the church would focus it's practice and teachings if not on the model of the temple. The temple provides great meaning for many people and I'm not suggesting the temple is unimportant (even though I point out a few concerns with it and I would echo Hope's additional concerns). But in some ways it feels like the temple has become an idol within the church...a  very expensive graven image. The hyper activity around temple attendance, family history, indexing etc. is relatively new. In some ways it seems to have replaced the hyper activity around missionary work.

But you asked what model would be "better" than the temple focused model. I will simply point out that Jesus had an earthly ministry that was not centered on a temple model. The temple existed and was important and even revered, but it wasn't the "everything" of Jesus' teachings, practice, and daily life. Far from it. So if it wasn't Jesus' main focus, maybe there are some other areas in which we could appropriately refocus our attention as well.

Oops I think I responded to part of this in Hope's response. Oh well. Repeating a little. Added emphasis does not equal graven image. I have met very very few people who could be described as having the temple be their "everything"....maybe your weird uni-garment guy ... In which case they are surely "missing the mark." Still, there are two places I find God the most: Hiking alone and temples. More consistently in temples, and that's saying a lot. I love hikes alone. I found myself wondering if you heard me talk about the temple, it wouldn't feel like the temple has become an "idol." At the same time I think this is another moment of missing each other's point a little. I wasn't talking about a "temple focused model" because I don't feel like we have a "temple focused model" to begin with Temples are absolutely important, but it's not for the buildings themselves but the fundamental work and blessings and age-old edicts that are Christ-laden. The buildings are just a very rich tapestry to lay the symbols in and throughout. We have a focus on furthering the Work of Christ...declaring His gospel and sharing in His nature. And, according to modern scripture and NT bases, this is an extremely important part of His work that He himself established. It should also be pointed out that basically the only time he really got pissed in the scriptures was in behaviors that were deemed desecrating temple-based ceremonies (the money-changers). Still, It's not the sole focus nor should it ever become such. Even the temple have limits to try and make sure that doesn't happen (it's closed monday evenings, sundays, and for stake/general conferences). My point is, just because something feels like it's over-emphasized doesn't mean that it necessarily is.

 

Quote

Actually, I never said that. I think it's an assumption which is at the root of the misunderstanding. But I won't beat the dead horse. Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

Dead horse beaten, I'll leave it as is.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 9, 2017 by BlueDreams

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

This may be off topic on this thread, I have lost track of if it was this thread where I read some comments that set off the line of thinking in this post....my apologies if so...

This quote above is one of the reasons why I have a problem with people making statements similar to 'get you, but you don't get me and holding your position means you are .... and also must believe ...' as if they are really capable of analyzing people's world views based on their own interpretations that are driven by their own biases. And assuming that just because there are some global similarities in experience, therefore their reactions and understandings of that experience are similar enough to be predictive (as in 'I have been where you are now, so I have special insight into your experience and my additional experiences of belief, disbelief, singleness, married, childlessness, parenthood, poor, rich, healthy, sick, whatever makes my position more informed than yours who lacks my new experiences') is high arrogance when there is no way to know someone's inner experiences to determine sufficiently similarities or differences to one's own inner experiences.

Given that people often misjudge whether a post is serious or not just in tone as evidenced time and again by reactions that end in similar posts to the above quote, how in the world should we expect detailed and nuanced positions to be comprehended fully enough to make a fair judgment of understanding in most cases?  It helps a great deal when we see actions connected to beliefs, but we lack that resource for most on this board.  Just look at siblings and how often misunderstandings arise within families where continuity of experience is much higher than that between strangers on a message board.

Granted we have to operate on the assumption we understand what others are saying or few would feel value in conversing, still taking it further into a personal analysis of how the other must be thinking (labeling them closeminded among other qualities is the example I remember) is having overconfidence in one's ability to fill in gaps and results in creating a one sided conversation (which unfortunately can too easily lead to closemindedness) or so it seems to me based on years of reading posts between numerous people and watching what it appears to lead to.

Great thoughts, thanks for sharing Calm.  So important to think about when we're interacting on message boards and social media.  I'm thinking that we humans really weren't wired for this kind of communication medium, and it has significant limitations.  Patience, empathy, giving people the benefit of the doubt, these are all qualities I try to employ, but I also see where I fall short of these ideals frequently enough.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps then given what seems to be expressed as a considerable difference in experience, you should allow for some weight to be given to those who believe they have experienced a desirable greater oneness through their temple experiences and instead of destroying what works for them because you don't find the same meaning in the experience that they do, find other ways to achieve what you and others are seeking, possibly within the temple, but possibly without if you find it impossible to reconcile your currentbtempe experience with what you seek.

Both your description of exaltation and oneness with God are substantially different from what resonates with my understanding of the concepts.  Both are highly desirable to me (they are in fact the same experience/state, exaltation being the fulness of oneness) and I see oneness as the ultimate expression of myself, my potential, my individuality primarily because of my experiences of oneness.  Only in oneness can I fully be known by another, only in oneness can my individuality be fully recognized and therefore expressed.  It may seem paradoxical, but it is not based on what my experience has led me to see oneness as...and this is apparently something you will not be able to comprehend.  Nor do I believe I will be able to comprehend your perception even if we are using the same words because our experiences and therefore interpretations we are tying to those words appear to be quite different.  That doesn't bother me in the least btw, I don't feel any need to dictate to you where and how you should find meaning in what you choose to define as your religious experience.  

Agreed that experiences are different, I liked your post about us remembering the vast differences of belief and our limitations with understanding each other over a message board.  

I'm sorry that you think I'm "destroying what works" for others when I discuss my experience and concerns about these topics.  I certainly don't intend to do that, as I think its healthy to have open discussions about these things. I think we learn by being exposed to the ideas of others that we don't necessarily agree with at first, but that we can grow as we learn to empathize with those who have differing experiences.  

This cuts both ways though and I suggest you think about what I've shared and I would hope that you don't feel threatened by it.  When you say that I should "find other ways to achieve" what I'm seeking, it implies that you aren't even open to the conversation and that you would rather not have divergent ideas shared than to entertain conversations about it on a message board.  If I'm interpreting you wrongly, please clarify.  

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I've also disagreed with the assertion that we all should reevaluate the value of the temple. The temple, even in its imperfect form is priceless and has been priceless. The basis of temple worship is found in every book of scripture and is a central part to worship in Christ. It's like suggesting we should all reevaluate the constructs of marriage and whether one should ever marry to someone who's been happily married for 20+ years. They're not going to pay it much attention because it's fundamentally changed and bettered their lives and is a backbone to social order, just because some have found marriage inadequate or hurtful does not negate the value of the institution.

This is an awesome post BlueDreams, thanks for sharing.  I don't expect that you or anyone else would agree with me 100% on anything, let alone this topic, but I applaud your willingness to share your thoughts and whether we agree or disagree I want to honor and validate your experience.  Such good suggestions, I loved every one of them, especially the idea of having different actors of different nationalities in the temple film, that one should be higher on my list and would be so easy to implement.  

I've never tried reading my patriarchal blessing in the temple, but I don't know why that would be prohibited, can't you just put it in your pocket and then take it out in the celestial room?  

On the topic of making the temple more focused on Jesus, I really mean that one, its an important thing for me.  And I understand what you're saying about how you feel like the symbols point to Jesus, and that's great that you see it, however, I don't see it.  I see the temple as more about earning exaltation, following rules and requirements to earn this reward.  Yes the reward is with Jesus and the means of earning exaltation is through Jesus' sacrifice, but when I say I want more focus on Jesus in the temple, I'm saying that the central message of the temple isn't a focus on the ministry of Jesus.  We could take cues from the liturgy of other Christian faiths, there is much rich symbolism and tradition in the wider Christian tradition that we miss almost entirely as Mormons.  The temple rituals could incorporate some of these traditions and symbolism.  It could contain more focus on us dying in Christ and figuratively taking up our cross as we let go of and become born again through Christ.  There is so much that could be tapped into, including greater focus on this life and the things we need to do to bring the kingdom of God right now in this world.  It also goes to one of my critiques of Mormonism and that there is too much focus on the afterlife, when I believe Jesus was primarily focused on this life.  Yeah, this is quite a change, but its what I'm aspiring to, and even though you find great love for the current emphasis, that doesn't mean you couldn't find greater love with a changed emphasis.  Sometimes leaving the comfortable for the unknown is scary and it feels safer to stay with the comfortable.   

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, ksfisher said:

You've just described sacrament meeting.

Hope had said- " I like the idea of the temple as a place to unify, to worship God, to be a place of peace from the chaos in the world, to perform rituals that strengthen families and communities."

I don't know about your Sacrament meetings, but ours are not a place of peace from the chaos of the world. It is the chaos of the world  

[mfbukowski]

Part of the problem with mixed races is which race is cast as satan.

I would rather see all black movie, all hispanic, all Asian etc movies.

And those who want to do away with "Masonic Elements " clearly have no comprehension of their importance or their message nor their incredible links to the facsimiles.

The hubris is shocking.

It's like going into a physics lab and picking random equipment to eliminate because the equipment is ugly.

It reminds me of Isis destroying priceless monuments because they have faces.  Grrrrrrrr.

( trying not to go off)

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hope had said- " I like the idea of the temple as a place to unify, to worship God, to be a place of peace from the chaos in the world, to perform rituals that strengthen families and communities."

I don't know about your Sacrament meetings, but ours are not a place of peace from the chaos of the world. It is the chaos of the world  

Especially if you have children!  

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hope had said- " I like the idea of the temple as a place to unify, to worship God, to be a place of peace from the chaos in the world, to perform rituals that strengthen families and communities."

I don't know about your Sacrament meetings, but ours are not a place of peace from the chaos of the world. It is the chaos of the world  

I'm assuming there are a lot of children in your ward.  Is that right? 

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Especially if you have children!  

One of my jobs in sacrament meeting was to sit at the end of the bench and keep our kids from getting out into the aisle. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

One of my jobs in sacrament meeting was to sit at the end of the bench and keep our kids from getting out into the aisle. 

Our chapel was built by people who obviously hate parents because even the side pews are open at both ends!

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Our chapel was built by people who obviously hate parents because even the side pews are open at both ends!

Now that's just poor planning!

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Part of the problem with mixed races is which race is cast as satan.

I would rather see all black movie, all hispanic, all Asian etc movies.

And those who want to do away with "Masonic Elements " clearly have no comprehension of their importance or their message nor their incredible links to the facsimiles.

The hubris is shocking.

It's like going into a physics lab and picking random equipment to eliminate because the equipment is ugly.

It reminds me of Isis destroying priceless monuments because they have faces.  Grrrrrrrr.

( trying not to go off)

Probably, which is why adam and/or eve as the minorities would be a safe bet without it necessarily "saying something" negative about a specific race. Since the default race has been white having a white satan in a mixed cast where adam/eve are minorities wouldn't mean anything. Of course you could just cast Satan and Heavenly father as the same minority race and that would also nullify the possible meaning. But in general, I would just go for anything that nudges the envelope with the least amount of discomfort for folks that do place heavy assumptions on the race of varying religious figures. And some still do. I figure some discomfort will ensue, but I would rather that be a gentle nudge than an outright push. 

And don't worry, I've been trying really hard not to make political analogies. Doesn't help that's my break-time reading . 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hope had said- " I like the idea of the temple as a place to unify, to worship God, to be a place of peace from the chaos in the world, to perform rituals that strengthen families and communities."

I don't know about your Sacrament meetings, but ours are not a place of peace from the chaos of the world. It is the chaos of the world  

It always takes a minute to reorient when I go to a family ward again! Sundays at a singles ward definitely fits the bill of quiet . You can hear the tap tap tap of heels everytime someone enters. That sort of quiet. Living the dream! 

 

With luv,

BD

[pogi]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

On the topic of making the temple more focused on Jesus, I really mean that one, its an important thing for me.  And I understand what you're saying about how you feel like the symbols point to Jesus, and that's great that you see it, however, I don't see it.  I see the temple as more about earning exaltation, following rules and requirements to earn this reward.  Yes the reward is with Jesus and the means of earning exaltation is through Jesus' sacrifice, but when I say I want more focus on Jesus in the temple, I'm saying that the central message of the temple isn't a focus on the ministry of Jesus.  We could take cues from the liturgy of other Christian faiths, there is much rich symbolism and tradition in the wider Christian tradition that we miss almost entirely as Mormons.  The temple rituals could incorporate some of these traditions and symbolism.  It could contain more focus on us dying in Christ and figuratively taking up our cross as we let go of and become born again through Christ.  There is so much that could be tapped into, including greater focus on this life and the things we need to do to bring the kingdom of God right now in this world.  It also goes to one of my critiques of Mormonism and that there is too much focus on the afterlife, when I believe Jesus was primarily focused on this life.  Yeah, this is quite a change, but its what I'm aspiring to, and even though you find great love for the current emphasis, that doesn't mean you couldn't find greater love with a changed emphasis.  Sometimes leaving the comfortable for the unknown is scary and it feels safer to stay with the comfortable.   

Everything in the temple points to Christ.  Mormonism doesn't limit Christ to his mortal ministry and gospel (which is part of the core covenants we make to live by), but it gives a much more grand vision of Christ and his work and ministry which includes his pre-earth life and creation, earth ministry and atonement, and post-mortal existence.  It all points us to the grand telos of 'knowing God' ("for this is life eternal..."), not just in the next life, but in the here and now, through covenants to live by every word of Christ.  It is not just about salvation then, it is about bringing the kingdom of heaven into our hearts now in ways that I cannot discuss on this forum.  Exaltation is Christ's work, and it is our work to help save others as Christ saved us. Salvation was his mission, that is why he came to earth - not just to teach us about love, but to save us through love and by love.  To be one with God now and then. That is what the temple is about. It is a work of love unto salvation. 

I think that you are taking what we have for granted.  Nobody else has what we have, not even close. While it is true that the temple lacks some of the symbolism and tradition of the wider Christian tradition, you have to understand that these other traditions lack the bigger picture that we are privy to through temples.  They lack the knowledge of the extent of just how far Christ's mercy and gospel reaches, even beyond the grave.  It is through the temples that we are all linked and bound together in the family of God.  It is the great uniting force of all people, both bond and free, rich and poor, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, secularist, etc., etc., etc., which puts us all on equal grounds and in the arms of the Saviors love.  There is nothing else like it.  "Be ye therefore one." 

you are free to enjoy that symbolism and tradition of the broader Christian sects, and we are encouraged to do so - to accept truth and beauty from all sources, but all good things don't need to be included in the temple rituals.  That is not the purpose of the temple, to be an all inclusive and comprehensive symbol of all truth. 

Joseph said:

"… Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free. …

"… Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation."

"There is never a time when the spirit is too old to approach God. All are within the reach of pardoning mercy, who have not committed the unpardonable sin, which hath no forgiveness, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. There is a way to release the spirits of the dead; that is by the power and authority of the Priesthood—by binding and loosing on earth. This doctrine appears glorious, inasmuch as it exhibits the greatness of divine compassion and benevolence in the extent of the plan of human salvation.

"This glorious truth is well calculated to enlarge the understanding, and to sustain the soul under troubles, difficulties and distresses..."

Don't take these truths for granted!

Edited February 9, 2017 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Everything in the temple points to Christ.  Mormonism doesn't limit Christ to his mortal ministry and gospel (which is part of the core covenants we make to live by), but it gives a much more grand vision of Christ and his work and ministry which includes his pre-earth life and creation, earth ministry and atonement, and post-mortal existence.  It all points us to the grand telos of 'knowing God' ("for this is life eternal..."), not just in the next life, but in the here and now, through covenants to live by every word of Christ.  It is not just about salvation then, it is about bringing the kingdom of heaven into our hearts now in ways that I cannot discuss on this forum.  Exaltation is Christ's work, and it is our work to help save others as Christ saved us. Salvation was his mission, that is why he came to earth - not just to teach us about love, but to save us through love and by love.  To be one with God now and then. That is what the temple is about. It is a work of love unto salvation. 

I think that you are taking what we have for granted.  Nobody else has what we have, not even close. While it is true that the temple lacks some of the symbolism and tradition of the wider Christian tradition, you have to understand that these other traditions lack the bigger picture that we are privy to through temples.  They lack the knowledge of the extent of just how far Christ's mercy and gospel reaches, even beyond the grave.  It is through the temples that we are all linked and bound together in the family of God.  It is the great uniting force of all people, both bond and free, rich and poor, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, secularist, etc., etc., etc., which puts us all on equal grounds and in the arms of the Saviors love.  There is nothing else like it.  "Be ye therefore one." 

you are free to enjoy that symbolism and tradition of the broader Christian sects, and we are encouraged to do so - to accept truth and beauty from all sources, but all good things don't need to be included in the temple rituals.  That is not the purpose of the temple, to be an all inclusive and comprehensive symbol of all truth. 

Joseph said:

"… Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free. …

"… Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation."

"There is never a time when the spirit is too old to approach God. All are within the reach of pardoning mercy, who have not committed the unpardonable sin, which hath no forgiveness, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. There is a way to release the spirits of the dead; that is by the power and authority of the Priesthood—by binding and loosing on earth. This doctrine appears glorious, inasmuch as it exhibits the greatness of divine compassion and benevolence in the extent of the plan of human salvation.

"This glorious truth is well calculated to enlarge the understanding, and to sustain the soul under troubles, difficulties and distresses..."

Don't take these truths for granted!

Thanks Pogi, I appreciate you sharing, you have a lot of the essence of what I see as the brightest parts of the Mormon message, and you articulate those bright parts in a way that gives me hope.  My only contention with you is that I don't believe its through temples that we are all linked, I believe its through God's grace, and I think a focus on the ordinances/rituals in Mormonism can actually be a distraction from this gift.  

A common way of looking at things in Mormonism is to look at rituals as transactions that purchase a reward for us, where I see them as catalysts to putting our thoughts and goals into a difference space for greater commitment and contemplation.  A transactional view of the atonement or our covenants is a very shallow view and misses the meaning and beauty of the gospel message.  

You certainly demonstrate a much deeper and more meaningful approach and I appreciate hearing how it resonates with you.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Pogi, I appreciate you sharing, you have a lot of the essence of what I see as the brightest parts of the Mormon message, and you articulate those bright parts in a way that gives me hope.  My only contention with you is that I don't believe its through temples that we are all linked, I believe its through God's grace, and I think a focus on the ordinances/rituals in Mormonism can actually be a distraction from this gift.  

A common way of looking at things in Mormonism is to look at rituals as transactions that purchase a reward for us, where I see them as catalysts to putting our thoughts and goals into a difference space for greater commitment and contemplation.  A transactional view of the atonement or our covenants is a very shallow view and misses the meaning and beauty of the gospel message.  

You certainly demonstrate a much deeper and more meaningful approach and I appreciate hearing how it resonates with you.  

Thanks hope.

If I didn't know better, I would swear that you are evangelical.  The restoration has brought us tremendous knowledge about temples and the binding power of priesthood ordinances through and by the grace of God, but your spin on Mormonism dilutes the restoration to something that is almost indistinguishable from the rest of sectarianism.  It almost completely eliminates the need for a prophet; it makes the saving ordinances and temple work nothing more than a catalyst to contemplation; it negates the power of the priesthood; it reduces Christ's ministry to his mortal life; it takes all emphasis off of work, etc.  Honestly, to think of Mormon ordinances as "transactions that purchase a reward for us" is a gross misunderstanding of Mormonism and priesthood ordinances - but that is a discussion for a whole new thread.

If temple work is worth nothing more to you than symbolism to inspire commitment and contemplation, and if you find greater depth of meaning in sectarian symbols; and if you find greater value in the voice of "a diverse group of people" than in the voice of the prophets, and if you find no redemption in priesthood ordinances, then why exactly are you Mormon?  I am not trying to be snarky, it honestly sounds like evangelicalism is a better fit for you based on what you are saying here.  What is it that is keeping you here?  What makes Mormonism special for you?

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

If I didn't know better, I would swear that you are evangelical.  The restoration has brought us tremendous knowledge about temples and the binding power of priesthood ordinances through and by the grace of God, but your spin on Mormonism dilutes the restoration to something that is almost indistinguishable from the rest of sectarianism.  It almost completely eliminates the need for a prophet; it makes the saving ordinances and temple work nothing more than a catalyst to contemplation; it negates the power of the priesthood; it reduces Christ's ministry to his mortal life; it takes all emphasis off of work, etc.  Honestly, to think of Mormon ordinances as "transactions that purchase a reward for us" is a gross misunderstanding of Mormonism and priesthood ordinances - but that is a discussion for a whole new thread.

If temple work is worth nothing more to you than symbolism to inspire commitment and contemplation, and if you find greater depth of meaning in sectarian symbols; and if you find greater value in the voice of the people than the voice of the prophets, and if you find no redemption in priesthood ordinances, then why exactly are you Mormon?  I am not trying to be snarky, it honestly sounds like evangelicalism is a better fit for you based on what you are saying here.  What is it that is keeping you here?  What makes Mormonism special for you?

 

I've deconstructed much of my Mormonism in the past few years but I've found insight and inspiration through studying the works of progressive Christians like Marcus Borg and Peter Enns.  I'm still learning.  What I don't believe are Mormonisms claims at exclusive authority or superiority, I think those concepts are destructive.  Priesthood has power, not because God gave it power, but because people give it power through their beliefs.  I don't think God has any allegiance to prophets, I think prophets are no more entitled to inspiration than any other human being.  

My descriptions of Mormonism come from my upbringing and my experiences in Mormonism as an orthodox believer.  

Why am I a Mormon still?  Probably because my family are all still Mormons and I live in Utah and its comfortable and familiar.  I don't see it as superior though.  What makes it special, its part of my family heritage, we've sacrificed much for this faith, and I've personally sacrificed much for it.  I was on a sabbatical for about 16 months, but recently started actively attending again.  I find value in the relationships and the connection with people.  I also found that Mormonism has others like me within its ranks, we may be a minority, but there are progressive thinking (not sure if that's the right label) scholars, historians, neighbors, and all sorts that make up Mormonism.  The brethren might not talk to my sensibilities much, but thats ok, there are others who exist and think similarly.  

Why should I leave?  Why should anyone leave the faith of their childhood.  I also recognize I can have a positive influence as I interact with others in the faith, so I'm attempting to engage more openly and share my heterodox thinking with others. So far so good here.  I hope to continue to learn from the good people in my ward, stake and elsewhere.  I hope you all can learn from people like me as well.  

 

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've deconstructed much of my Mormonism in the past few years but I've found insight and inspiration through studying the works of progressive Christians like Marcus Borg and Peter Enns.  I'm still learning.  What I don't believe are Mormonisms claims at exclusive authority or superiority, I think those concepts are destructive.  Priesthood has power, not because God gave it power, but because people give it power through their beliefs.  I don't think God has any allegiance to prophets, I think prophets are no more entitled to inspiration than any other human being.  

My descriptions of Mormonism come from my upbringing and my experiences in Mormonism as an orthodox believer.  

Why am I a Mormon still?  Probably because my family are all still Mormons and I live in Utah and its comfortable and familiar.  I don't see it as superior though.  What makes it special, its part of my family heritage, we've sacrificed much for this faith, and I've personally sacrificed much for it.  I was on a sabbatical for about 16 months, but recently started actively attending again.  I find value in the relationships and the connection with people.  I also found that Mormonism has others like me within its ranks, we may be a minority, but there are progressive thinking (not sure if that's the right label) scholars, historians, neighbors, and all sorts that make up Mormonism.  The brethren might not talk to my sensibilities much, but thats ok, there are others who exist and think similarly.  

Why should I leave?  Why should anyone leave the faith of their childhood.  I also recognize I can have a positive influence as I interact with others in the faith, so I'm attempting to engage more openly and share my heterodox thinking with others. So far so good here.  I hope to continue to learn from the good people in my ward, stake and elsewhere.  I hope you all can learn from people like me as well.  

Just keep following that light within brother.  That's the best we can do.  Our disagreements on the temple are irreconcilable without a common belief in the authority and binding power of the priesthood through ordinances and covenants.  These are all topics for other threads.

Glad to have you among the fellowship.  I would rather be in a congregation of pure hearted believers (like yourself) who have unorthodox views, than in a congregation of stiff necked believers who's views align more closely with mine.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 I'm thinking that we humans really weren't wired for this kind of communication medium, and it has significant limitations.  

For emotional communication, nonverbals are essential.  Otoh, writing allows us to revisit our thoughts and get into more complicated reasoning than face to face communication because it is less personal.  I think it is simply figuring out what works best for you.  Writing almost always works better for me when communicating ideas because my family is not great on giving detailed feedback and I have trained myself to be hyper aware of the emotions in face to face conversation rather than the ideas due to having several very sensitive individuals in my life.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm sorry that you think I'm "destroying what works" for others when I discuss my experience and concerns about these topics.  I certainly don't intend to do that, as I think its healthy to have open discussions about these things. I think we learn by being exposed to the ideas of others that we don't necessarily agree with at first, but that we can grow as we learn to empathize with those who have differing experiences.  

Discussion destroys nothing except maybe emotional connections, but if your ideas to open the temple up, etc. were implemented, it would, imo, alter the sense of sacred space and time so dramatically that many, possibly most who find it of value today would lose that sense.  The temple would in essence become just another chapel....which is something we need, but we also already have.  The temple is quite unique and has value in those areas of uniqueness (not because they are unique, but what they do in setting the experience into sacred space and time).  

When we push for change it is essential, imo, to be just as concerned about good that may be lost as the good that may come from the change....especially when what we are intent on changing is the sole source of an experience or resource for many, even if we don't see it the same way.

Too many cultural qualities have been destroyed by sometimes well intentioned people thinking they are showing the unenlightened a better way, draining the sacred and rejuvenating life out of a community's traditions so that they become just a form they dance through for nostalgia, for sentimental reasons, not because they are life altering or life sustaining.  Just look at what Christmas has become for most in Western cultures.  There is little of the sacred or necessity about it, it could be interchanged with birthday or other celebrations easily enough...birthdays are another mostly meaningless experience, which is too bad because growing older is a huge impact in positive and negative ways at all ages and we in our culture give little emotional or rational help to people to process it these days.

There are, imo, a myriad of other ways we could open up other spaces to be more inclusive, we don't need to sacrifice the temple experience of setting apart to create a face to face with God, with our own divinity, to do so.  I think altering the temple in drastic ways should be last on the list and we should focus on the other areas that are more adaptable simply because they are meant for many uses.

Small alterations in language and ritual production to better convey current doctrinal understanding...those I am not rejecting.  For example, having a variety of ethnicities in the movies.  It would be distracting to do it all at once, but if they redid the movies more often and added in one or two different ethnic actors each time, it would be just a decade or so before every LDS could see themselves in the portrayal in a greater sense.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Calm