known only to the initiated or the few
We started going to a temple prep class this week. I don't understand why it's necessary to use double-speak about the temple. It's not secret ... it's just that I can't tell you what covenants you'll make there. And you can't learn anything specific about it unless you're baptized and pay a tenth of your yearly income. It's only for your own good ... that you can't be there for your daughter's wedding.
It's not so unreasonable to say that dedicated temples and their ordinances are reserved for those who have shown themselves to be dedicated to the Gospel. But a lot of the spin used to explain that seems stunningly dishonest. I think kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged
is about the most accurate description possible of the temple ordinances.
That said, it's actually a pretty good class. I really like the teacher. And I must say, "The Book of Mormon--Artifact or Artifice", from Card's A Storyteller In Zion, has me quite concerned that the Church is actually true.
20 comments:
I'll admit that I still really don't understand the temple and the endowment. If it weren't for the fact that I definitely feel the spirit every time I go, I probably would've stopped going.
The baptistry is dear to me--I always end up doing dishes reverently because of the associations with the smell of chlorine. Endowments haven't really resonated, though.
Oh, by the way--Theric, I was delighted to see your review of A Storyteller in Zion on Amazon.
The thing that bothers me most about it is, while that you have the chance to say yes you'll commit to the covenants or no you won't, that chance only comes before you hear what covenants you're going to make! Not that the covenants themselves are all that base or bad, but you don't get to read the contract you're signing before you sign it! WTF?
Yes, exactly, JB.
Do mean you don't get to know what the covenants are before you go to the temple? Because they do give you the opportunity to back out once you're there.
SB (or the other JB ;) )—my understanding (from having read the ceremonies online), is that you get to say "yes, I'll commit to everything I'm about to commit to" or "no, I won't commit to everything I'm about to commit to," but that the option is offered up front before you even know what it is you are or are not committing to. I can hardly stand to do that with iTunes, but the rest of one's eternal life seems a bit much. You're trusting the church and everyone you know who's done it before you that if there's something you personally don't like or don't agree with they wouldn't have done it. . . I just don't like that idea. It's like the car salesperson who is in your family and expects you to trust her. Then she hands you a contract with blank ink that will become black once you sign on the dotted line. . . no, thanks!
My complaint (and, as I understand it, JB's) is that you are told you may back out rather than enter into the covenants that will be required, but still not told to that point what they will be. The impression is given, imho, that once you've heard a covenant explained, the chance to not enter it has been forfeit.
Sorry, simulpost. I like your explanation, JB.
You know, you can believe whatever you want, but honestly, the covenants made in the temple really aren't that different from things temple-worthy people do already. I thought they were going to be earth-shattering and scary. They're not. The covenants aren't new, but the process is. You won't be surprised at all about what you learn when you go through. So don't let the class worry you too much.
If you have real questions about it, go to the temple and speak with a temple worker. There are five covenants, and really, you've heard of them, and you're probably living most of them already.
By the way, and no offense to anyone who has, but don't read anything about the temple ceremonies online. Most of that stuff is written by apostates or others who don't truly appreciate the importance of the temple. Stick with your class.
Hey Erin. Frankly, I disagree--what I am objecting to is that most temple initiates have no idea what to expect until they have already agreed to make covenants, and the class's failure to warn members of that fact is a particularly frustrating facet of the problem to me.
Regardless of the actual content of the covenants (and, though they're fairly reasonable in their current form, I would have been uncomfortable with the pre-revision version), the *principle* of asking people to agree to terms unknown is what I object to.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that the transcript I refer to online is what I remember, though I can't vouch for its pre-revision comparison.
Anyway. Thanks for reading and commenting. I'm glad that your temple worship is fulfilling.
I don't disagree with you there. All I can say is that someday we'll find out why temple preparation is set up the way it is.
I also disagree with the concept of telling someone to trust you and The Church so much that you'll sign up to anything. In fact, it contradicts the LDS stance to "find out for yourself" and "seek truth." It's almost "find out for yourself" except for this one thing. . .
With all due respect, Erin, if you've been to the temple and you've read the site I've read, then you'd probably find that the ceremonies I've read are word-for-word what's in the temple. Nothing I read surprised me, they sounded about like what I'd expect were I to go to the temple. For the record, the person putting these ceremonies online wasn't doing so to tear down Mormonism (though he doesn't agree with it, he also doesn't tear it down anywhere on his site that I've read). He put them up because he'd never made covenants not to talk about them and to let people know what Mormon temple ceremonies are all about.
I know people who've been through the temple and though they won't talk to me about the ceremonies, two of them have told me that the whole ceremonies can be found online verbatim. I'm not just going to read some bullshit website and think it must be true. I was Mormon for 22 years: I think I could tell the difference between Anti-Mormons for Jesus or whatever that ridiculous cult is called who are out to say nasty hateful things about the Mormon church and someone actually portraying LDS beliefs. Though, I haven't personally been to the temple and can't actually confirm what I read was absolutely how the ceremonies are told/performed in the LDS temples. And, sadly, I'm having a really rough time finding that site again. If I do I'll link to it here.
Sorry if my last comment was too inflammatory. Actually, if this is wrong, please feel free to let me know. I appreciate knowing whether or not this is true. . . but I also don't want to ask you to confirm or deny anything that you feel would contradict covenants you made. I do actually respect making covenants even though I don't totally agree with the Mormon church or its theories/doctrines surrounding their temple covenants.
I feel like I'm being really inflammatory. I don't mean to be. I'm not sure how to say what I want to say differently (except maybe to take out the swears?). Erin, I really don't mean to bitch you out. I was too offended at first. Sorry.
I think perhaps Erin wasn't so familiar with your background, JB? I think she was more upset simply bht the fact that you were reading them, rather than challenging your intelligence or ability to make decisions.
On a side note, I find this topic interesting. It was highly discussed in one of my psychology classes at BYU and in church, and people point out a few things:
1. It's not just the temple that's like that, it's all ordinances. You get baptized and spend the rest of your life figuring out just what that means.
2. It means to many that God isn't bound by laws or something intangible. Or at least, if he is, we can't hold him to them--he is the one who truly makes the laws and our existence, and our relationship with him is one of trust.
Because you wouldn't be able to handle life if you were told what it was beforehand; just like marriage.
My struggle on the issue is that I feel like God has left me or betrayed me--if he's supposed to be so personal, why does he never say anything? And if he never says anything, why aren't there bound laws I can hold to in the meanwhile?
It's awfully cruel to be given laws, told they're temporary, and then left alone in the dark with no where to turn.
I stopped being so offended afterward. I really did. I just didn't know how to amen what I'd said to still be truthful but also less angry/offended.
In response to your points:
1. It is just the temple that's like that. When you get baptized, I think the church does a decent job (usually) of letting people know what that means. You won't be drinking, smoking, etc. you will take the sacrament, etc. In the temple it's "ok, everything from now on is a mystery take it all or leave it all."
2. It's not trust in God, it's trust in a church. It's trust in the people who interpreted God that they did it correctly and didn't misunderstand something in a way that will cause you spiritual or emotional pain.
As for marriage, I think I would have just as happily gotten into it if I'd known what it'd really be like (maybe more happily and less stressfully). Not that I'm amazing at this myself, but I think that's faulty reasoning. Perhaps I misunderstand?
I'm sorry to hear you've had a rough time with it. It must be so hard to feel like God is absent like that—I know plenty of people who feel the same way and I don't think it's a matter of not understanding or listening hard enough. Personally, I didn't feel like God left me, I felt the Church misrepresented God and they were what pissed me off, not the deity I now am more ambivalent about. But I see where you're coming from and am sorry you've had to struggle with it!
While I can see your point, TO, I mostly agree with JB--Alma, for one, clearly explained the covenant of baptism prior to the ordinance, and marriage has actually been pretty much what I expected.
Ah, because baptism and marriage are more spoken of.
I think the principle is still the same, though--does an 8-year-old kid or a young 20-something really know what they're in for, even if the scriptures or friends can fill them in on it?
However, stories about what it's like for others are public and plenty, whereas they aren't for the temple--so I guess we were on different wavelengths.
It's a fair point re eight-year-olds.
Oops. Didn't realize I responded using E. Heh.
Stupid gmail not letting you use blogger under a different name....
Post a Comment