I’ve really enjoyed the past few posts by Guy Templeton over at Wheat and Tares regarding some topics of the temple. I’ve also enjoyed the interactions with Jettboy and Forgetting here at by blog. Guy has discussed temple symbolism. I have expressed frustration at this symbolism, because to me it seems just like a puzzle I have said in my previous post,
I suck at symbolic language. It’s very difficult for me. The temple is repetitive, and I don’t know what I am supposed to notice. To answer Jettboy’s question, as Guy posted [last week] at W&T, am I supposed to notice the carpet and butterfly symbolism, or is this straining at gnats? If it is what I’m supposed to be noticing, then I suck at symbolic language. Because it feels like straining at gnats to me. Some people may enjoy this puzzle and may find personal inspiration and enjoyment out of looking at carpet and butterflies, but my brain just doesn’t work that way, and I find it frustrating if my brain is supposed to work that way. Perhaps that is why I don’t get much from the temple.
I went on to say
I first went pre-1991 when they still had the penalties. My mission pres, a former temple sealer, once remarked that he wondered why the first signs and tokens had penalties, but the last one did not. He came to the conclusion that was because if we don’t live up to our covenants, the penalty is not living with God, and that was the worst penalty of all.
Of course these penalties have been removed completely from the ceremony, probably as a response to the Godmakers assertion that these penalties were Masonic in origin. This leaves me to wonder if my mission president’s speculation was even important. If this can be removed, was it really a necessary, important part of the endowment? I mean it probably was there because it was borrowed from teh Masons. So did he find spiritual enlightenment in something that just didn’t matter in the eternal scheme of things? And are butterflies and carpet important at all, or are they really tangential?
I think they are tangential, as were the penalties. So when people say they learn so much from temple attendance, I just wonder if they are straining at gnats that aren’t really important. And if you agree with me that these are not important, then what are the important things that I am supposed to learn?
I’ve been told that the temple is about the atonement and/or the plan of salvation. Well, I get more out of a Sunday School lesson on these 2 topics then I ever get attending the temple.
I understand the covenants. I love the sealing ordinance. I like doing temple work for my ancestors. But I don’t “get” what people “learn” from the temple, and it feels to me like it is really weird stuff when I hear explanations about penalties, butterflies, and carpet. Like I said, my brain doesn’t work that way. If your brain does, that’s awesome. I don’t get it.
Both Jettboy and Forgetting have given me a library of books to contemplate the temple. I hope to find time to read them, and I do thank them for the recommendations. I asked Jettboy specifically what he has learned from the temple. He said,
That is a complicated question to answer, because like I said its both butterflies and carpets, and something different. That is like asking someone who studies algebra if what they have learned is along the lines of multiplication or division. Um . . . yea, but those are subsets of the whole that allow you to figure the equations. Another hard part is we are getting into things that are beyond the allowable discussion outside the Temple walls (and I know how frustrating that is to say to someone who finds that a disturbance to learning). Besides, even from what I know there are things that I don’t, and that is what makes each visit intriguing is the possibility to learn, by the Spirit, something different.
While I appreciate Jettboy’s response, it still leaves me frustrated. He went on to talk about his own personal conflict between creationism and evolution. While I am sure it made sense to him, his answer didn’t really resonate with me. I guess the temple is the one place where our Church teaches us “uncorrelated” lessons. Perhaps that is why they don’t want us talking about it. These uncorrelated lessons might be personally fulfilling, but when shared with others, it seems to me that they probably would end up being contradictory. While not communicating about the temple has the advantage to the church of not worrying about contradictory messages, for people like me who suck at symbolic language, it is a major source of frustration. I go out of duty, but when others express how wonderful the temple is for them, for me it just leaves me frustrated. And not being able to talk about it leaves me even more frustrated.
I originally asked these questions to Jettboy, but I would like to throw out these questions to all of you, especially those of you who feel that you learn significant information from temple attendance. Do you mind sharing some things you’ve learned in the temple? Is it along the lines of butterflies and carpets, or is it something different?
Wheat & Tares 
I think for me a lot of what I learn is about the order, sequence and relationship between various gospel principles. For instance, my mission president who was a salt lake temple worker for years explained in a zone conference how the various covenants build upon each other from obedience and sacrifice to sanctification. In effect it teaches the proper sequence of progress for mankind.
To give a personal example, I’ve written elsewhere about how my testimony of families/ the family proclamation came in the temple. One element that contributed to that growing understanding was the placement of the law of chastity in the sequence of covenants. Realizing that it was one of the last and highest covenants ( a melchizedick priesthood one) really shifts my perspective and helped me realize the eternal nature of family/chastity.
While I am sure it made sense to him, his answer didn’t really resonate with me.
I don’t think it’s supposed to. Art resonates differently with different people and ink blots (Rorschach test) even more diversely. Mormonism despite it’s supernatural beginnings keeps all but the most diluted spiritual experiences suppressed and it largely ignores psychology. Yet both are of God, psychology being a subset of spirituality. Removing both psychological and spiritual blocks opens our communication with the divine. That path leads through our subconscious, that is revelation and inspiration enter our minds by precipitating upward from the lower parts of our subconscious making their way futher upward into our conscious mind. Our subconscious is far less inhibited and less filtered than our conscious so this is a place of creativity and learning but by definition is generally below our consciousness. “Be still and know that I am God” means idle your consciousness mind so God may speak to you through your subconscious mind (shut up and listen!) The Bible tells us to pray always. It’s not talking about a formal “Our Heavenly Father, thank you for bla, bla, bla, I want bla, bla, bla, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. That is WAY too stiff and distracting! It’s talking about a form of prayerful meditation, a conversational trance that can be maintained on and off as we go about our daily lives. Why meditation? Because it lowers the water line between our consciousness and subconsciousness minds making some of the content of our subconsciousness more available and it is accomplished while being still thereby allowing God’s message to find it’s way to us.
The temple is enforced stillness that takes place in a sanctuary, it’s boredom forces your thoughts more inward hopefully more introspective. It is a physical attempt at the recreation of a meditative and contemplative state that spiritual people carry with them. Your conclusions of what temple symbolism are is largely unimportant compared to the practice of the process that produced those conclusions, that process is the route to personal revelation and your personal relationship with the spirit.
Well said.
The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching. – Joseph Smith
I tend to lean to the side of the temple being a place to bring out internal contemplation where we are receptive to the subtle thoughts and feelings from God.
That being said, however, I, for one would like to have a more open discussion about the “hidden Mickeys” in the temple, both architectural as well as in the movies. Hidden Mickeys, of course, is a reference to all the Mickey Mouse heads with ears that show up all over Disneyland.
I feel that we make way too big a deal over discussing the temple ritual. Much of the ceremony is found in the Pearl of Great Price! It seems we take out the ability to find greater richness in this ritual by squelching all discussion of things that are not the actual covenants (signs, tokens, and penalties [as they used to be anyway]). My wife taught the young women a few weeks ago about covenants and we discussed what she thought was “safe” territory to discuss the temple covenants. Personally, I feel that it’s fine to know that the covenants made in temple are of sacrifice, consecration and obedience to the gospel.
The temple experience is so richly symbolic, with each temple being designed, or created by a church architect, who, much like a painter or sculptor, lays his/her artistic impression/interpretation of this holy ceremony on the canvas of the building. The same is probably true of the production of the ritual itself on film.
I think that these comments are interesting and it is thought provoking to see what others have seen, and what it meant to them. It can only enrich my life, much like attending an art or music course, where the nuances of the art are revealed.
Before the new film I was able to manage the symbolic language and the message that I thought it was trying to convey. The covenants are straight foreword and are separate from what the film and then the names, signs, and tokens are all about. When I went last week it was the second time I’d seen the new film and the acting, the pace of speech (I’m told it’s to allow for dubbing in different languages), and the settings brought out all the disconnects that now make it unwatchable for me. Some many things have been subtracted since the 60’s when I first went in order to avoid the masonic thing that it’s like watching a collection of dangling clauses. It just makes no sense. I know that the temple is a place of quiet and a spiritual retreat and for some will be a source comfort but I can’t go back.
MH Wrote: “Of course these penalties have been removed completely from the ceremony, probably as a response to the Godmakers assertion that these penalties were Masonic in origin”.
I doubt that the GAs had any critiscm levied by Ed Decker and his ilk in mind. From what I understood, part of the reason for the changes were that some of the gestures indicated, strong enough as they are, are even far more offensive to Asiatic cultures. Contrary to what many Temple goers often suppose, much of the ceremony is “improvised” and so can be revised to reflect changes in cultural tastes and values (or make local adjustments). I likewise went through the Temple for the first time in 1980 and ALWAYS understood that the things were SYMBOLIC; e.g., I never felt that a “destroying angel” would be out to get me if I apostastised and blabbed about the goings on in the House of the Lord. It was my understanding that the intention was to convey the seriousness of the covenants being taken on and how the Lord felt about those that break them.
Symbols and Allegory are useful until the culture changes enough that the objects of the lesson don’t understand anymore. It can be tough enough, for example, to watch old reruns of ‘Monty Python’. What the Brits consider humorous at times bedevils me, and we’re two nations divided by a common language.
I’m a Master Mason so I see the endowment in a different context than most members, but one the original Mormon masons were familiar with.
The thing about Masonry is that it is stuffed with hundreds of symbols, far more than the endowment, but these symbols are usually explained in the Masonic ceremony, so no one really feels in the dark. Some of the LDS symbols borrowed from masonry also have explanations like the compass and square. But the endowment has been so pared down that it only retains a few uncontextualized Masonic remnants, which explains why some of it seems rather strange and certainly anachronistic when compared with correlated Mormonism.
Howard’s approach I think is ideal and beautifully stated. I would add that the focus of the endowment should not be the Masonic strangeness, but the central drama of Adam and Eve which the Masonic structure merely serves. The story is an allegory for our life, and we are to contemplate our creation, our fall from innocence, our partaking of the fruit, our being taught doctrines of men mingled with scripture, our encounters with messengers from God, our journey into Terrestrial and Celestial states.
I appreciate the responses, but at this point I think I’m just going to give up on the idea that the temple is the “university of the Lord.” Maybe one day I’ll learn something, and I’ll embrace that concept, but it’s a real source of frustration for me to hear the temple called the university of the Lord. I don’t learn anything currently.
I go to perform ordinances for the dead and remember my covenants. In that sense, it feels robotic to me. I will try to meditate (but I suck at meditation too–been thinking about writing a post about that for a long time.) It’s awesome that some people have cool spiritual experiences there, but it just doesn’t happen for me.
Nate, if the masons explain the symbols, perhaps I should join them!
I don’t think you can really force a spiritual experience. Some people find enlightenment in the temple, and others don’t. I find the temple symbolism intriguing, but I’m much more likely to have “aha” moments in reading scriptures than I am in the temple. I actually felt pretty well prepared for the endowment ceremony (weird, I know) because I had a very good background in the Old Testament. There is a unique spirit in the temple that is hard to replicate anywhere else, and that is something I love to partake of when I go there. One of the things I love about the endowment ceremony is the feeling that our concept of time (as linear) is totally different in the heavenly sphere. Putting yourself in the steps of Adam and Eve, you’re at once in the distant past, yet you are also in the meridian of time (with the Atonement and Peter, James, and John), in our present time (our local leaders and the Restoration), and also into the far distant future (Establishment of the kingdom of God into the Millennium, and eventual Exaltation–being brought back into the presence of the Father). When I read of John, Nephi, and Moses’ sweeping visions which take them across the expanse of time itself, I hearken back to my alternate views of time in the endowment ceremony and feel that I get a glimpse of what they felt. That is one intellectual benefit I’ve found in temple worship, but there are others. Again, though, the moments when I truly feel like I’m in the Lord’s university, when that “pure intelligence” is flowing faster than my mind can run, I’m usually reading at home. Just because some people tend to feel closer to God in the temple doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily where God speaks to YOU.
Most people have been in a meditative trance, it’s when you have no idea how you drove the last few miles because you were daydreaming! That’s the trance state you want to duplicate when you meditate but you use the trance for different purposes than unstructured daydreaming. If you have not had this experience you are probably a high energy person who has only two speeds high and sleep. If you go rapidly from high speed to asleep chances are you will have more trouble meditating than those who have daydreamed while driving and fall asleep more slowly. The trance usually occurs during theta brain waves, that twilight between awake and asleep and part of learning to meditate is learning to extend this theta period without falling asleep. Meditation is idling most of the mind by giving a small portion of the mind something menial and rote to do (thus the chant or listening to music). It takes practice, a lot of practice, you are learning to discipline your mind. Mormons don’t seem to mind disciplining their natural man, their behavior or following somewhat rote rules but meditation rarely seems to be worth a similar effort to them, kind of funny really since this discipline actually leads one to God.
I was actually gonna suggest just that. Have you listened to Mormon Matters 236: Encountering Other Traditions – Freemasonry? You might find it helpful.
Howard, I like what you shared. I see a veiled Eve as an expression of what you are saying in regards to meditation.
Jettboy, have you read The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond? The primary differences in biology, culture, and behaviors between us and our closed genetic relatives outlined in the book are all addressed by the endowment ritual as well. I don't think it is the focus of the temple, but it is a nice touch.
forgetting,
Thanks you, please elaborate regarding a veiled Eve.
Mary Ann:
I liked what you said. It's something like One Eternal Now.
I read a book once that talked about how our increasing refinement of time, particularly linear time and the increasingly smaller increments we measure it in, is affecting our psychology and mental/physical well being. I like that the temple is a place where we find an 'older' more eternal sense of time.
The book also pointed out that we no longer sleep in the same cycles, and these state of 'in-between' that Howard speaks of occurred regularly as a function of our resting/sleeping cycle. It was between First Sleep and the Second Sleep, and often referred to as the watch (to be awake) You kinda have to wonder if that wasn't the time Moroni started showing up to Joseph.
This is from Wikipedia on segmented sleep:
Howard:
You just elaborated on veiled Eve. I see it just slightly different. It isn't the mind that necessarily needs to be quieted or disciplined. It is more the brain and senses, everything that has to do with embodiment; and with mind being consciousness but not ego (an aspect of embodiment, the natural man), our spirit. All the things we do to prepare to enter a meditative state, the training, practice, constant physical and spiritual discipline, all of this and the things we do in the moment to enter trance, that is veiling Eve (to me). I probably tried to over simplify this and just mucked it up, but maybe you can tease it out. Our embodied (physical, temporal body) aspect must learn to hearken to our spiritual aspect, and then the embodied aspect must quiet, still – or veil itself, so we might receive revelation, or the embrace of Spirit, or divine union.
Of course, I am the strange guy that sees what is happening at the veil, what is happening at the prayer circle, and what happens when a brother or sister gives a blessing (or a prayer) where the 'words were not their's', all as reflections of the same concept.
Yes, time is interesting, eturnity is found in the now that is being present in the present, a place which active LDS members almost never experience.
forgetting,
Your description betrays experience. I agree with your parsing out the embodied elements of our thought process, our wonderful senses are great entertainment distractions in the way that TV is to most people. Out of body we have a strong default of being in the now, embodied without practice we are almost never in the now. Ego is a much longer discussion, but it largely blocks the LDS flock from God by grounding them in a material religion, idol worship and a prosperity gospel that they LOVE and love to defend. Somehow though I still missed how this relates to veiled Eve.
I do see your comparison of veiled vs unveiled but why is Eve veiled and Adam is not?
Howard, I read a lot about the frustration our sisters and some brothers have that there isn't a narrative about a pre-existent Eve, but there is the Michael/Adam narrative. When we speak of Eve this way, we are not speaking of our Mother Eve, who gives us this archetype, but of Symbolic Eve who through the archetype is representing something.
Mother Eve most definitely had a pre-existence, Symbolic Eve was created from Adam's rib. Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. Symbolic Eve did not have a pre-existence because she represents our embodied aspect, or loosely, our physical/temporal existence, or bodies, sense, brains. The females in the ritual, our sisters sitting across the aisle from us, don't represent Eve, they represent our embodied aspect, which is what Symbolic Eve represents. They are acting as Eve, so they are called Eve. In many cultures female as symbol relates to embodiment and our physicalness. Mother Earth, Father Sky. Again, loosely, this is just a blog reply.
Fallen Symbolic Eve speaks to (part of) our Ego (there is the Ego that Adam can have, John of the Cross really speaks to this well) as she has hearkened to Lucifer, the Serpent, or the four primal F's: Flight, Fight, Feed, Fornicate (not LDS usage, but cleaning the language up some). All of this, plus our desire to satiate our other senses is one of the reasons Eve is veiled in order to enter meditative states or trance.
A bit sloppy, but did that help explain what I was saying?
Sure it can be seen in that way, but it’s pretty abstract and very unusual usage for Eve to represent both female and male humankind.
This is what I was struggling with. Adam was a prophet and using your meaning of veiled would be unveiled so veiled Eve would access God through Adam. But this model doesn’t carry forward because nearly all LDS men including the brethren are still veiled. So while I love your definition of veiled in this example it is evidence of apostacy of the church because it is led by veiled blind guides.
Adam, the pre-existent Michael, or spirit. Adam, the Michael that has forgotten, and is learning to remember, it is this aspect that is in tune and attentive to the Spirit, Spirit, messengers from Father, the Voice of The Lord, the Divine. It should be this way through out our daily lives, and this would be especially true for the meditative states.
My primary form of personal meditation, as it was taught to me, involved at first a bandana as a blindfold, and then later a blindfold and a drum. When I put the blindfold on, it not only blocks the light, but is a ritual that draws my attention to the need of silencing the body and senses, and actually begins this process, my veiling of Eve. That takes lots of training and practice for it to occur effortlessly and without thought. There is a part of me that remains awake, aware, focused, grounded, and conscious; the part that experiences and learns, my Adam. Both aspects are necessary in their proper roles.
This isn't my only practice, and in one way or another the pattern holds true with all of them. Just one way to see parts of the ritual. Shrug.
So this is basically an ink blot interpretation of the temple as it relates to your practice of altered state of consciousness and I think that is what the temple symbolism is for to liken them unto ourselves. The split consciousness you describe may be mindfulness, what are you doing with the rest? Are you slit into two or three? Having a third part at observation with and management over the other two allows your body to do mindfulness work while also doing normal meditation and QCing and managing both processes. How’s your divine connection?
Howard, it seems that forgetting is using Adam/Eve more as a metaphor for spiritual/natural man. As Eve represents the mortal body (and all the desires and impulses that go with it), Adam represents the spiritual body. I think this is why forgetting doesn’t see sexism in the temple ceremony, because the idea of Eve obeying Adam is symbolic of the natural man being obedient to the spirit (let me know if I’m getting this wrong, forgetting). Again, Eve doesn’t represent women in this interpretation, Eve represents mortality and the natural man. It also would make sense why Eve was created after Adam (the spiritual body was created first, then the physical body). So in order to commune with God (meditate/pray), Eve (or the natural man) would need to be veiled or muted in some way so that Adam (the soul/spirit) could have better access to Heavenly power. It would also make sense that Eve (the natural man) would have been the one to give in to temptation, and Adam (the spiritual man) would have been the one to resist. It wouldn’t be appropriate, though, to expand this to gender roles within the church – the roles of male and female in this case are symbolic of the spiritual/temporal dichotomy in all individuals. This idea makes sense with the feminine/masculine interplay among rituals in other cultures, but it would likely seem very foreign to most Mormons. I’ve been mulling it over ever since forgetting referred to it in a related post the other day.
I am about one comment behind you.
Adam and Eve together represent one person. So, it's not so much Eve representing two sexes, but Eve representing a part or aspect that both sexes have. Adam fills the same role, one part of the whole. This teaching is much, much older than the restoration, and was commonly understood up until we, in the modern age, became so literal minded regarding scripture, and truthfully, there is a natural resistance in our church to reading anything not LDS. There is, however, language in the ritual to indicate this as well. Adam, Eve, and Divine represents a whole or complete person. The number three and all of its meanings. It is the Divine that reconciles our duality and brings it into unity or oneness.
There is a part of me that remains awake, aware, focused, grounded, and conscious…. If this part is remaining at a normal level of grounded you can allow it to drift much further toward the spirit side, think of it as “grounding” rather than “grounded” more like dragging a rope to point to the way back than a tether that restrains. If you have a connection with the spirit use the other part to meditate on the spirit’s signal for longer and longer periods of time.
Regarding the time/eternity conversation earlier — if you can grasp the concept of different time periods happening at once (the one eternal now), it seriously helps in understanding Isaiah and John (in Revelation) jumping between time periods in their multi-layer prophecies. It also makes sense why those who lived before Christ often spoke of the atonement in the past tense (Mosiah 16:6, for example). Forgot to add that in my original comment. Back to the Adam and Eve dichotomy…
Okay thanks for 22 I understand it now.
Mary Ann,
Yes, thanks for explaining it better than I have; and it is the spirit (as you wrote), your Michael or Adam, and not the Spirit. The spirit should be hearkening to the Spirit.
The way I see things is that we have let our cultural sexism influence our understanding of the ritual, and when we codified that sexist understanding of the ritual, it started a harmful loop back cycle.
Howard:
You are correct. I was sloppy and used grounded to represent grounding. I know exactly what you are saying. Thank you for the correction.
I wouldn't call this inkblot. I do have some schooling in ceremony and ritual, some – as in a lot. I have also depended on the Spirit to teach me what I needed. I wouldn't claim this as the or even an official meaning of the ritual; but there isn't one, is there (or so we keep saying to each other, which confuses me as to why we then individually cling to a sexist interpretation)? I do know that seeing it this way, for me, has had a net benefit, including the healing of physical brain damage I was told was permanent. So maybe someone else can find some value in these insights as well. Again, this is just one way to see it.
I agree with you on this as well: None of this talk matters, and we only receive a fraction of what is offered, because we can't seem to live all of our covenants. As you say and have said before, you have to be a sell all you have and give it to the poor kinda guy. Let the watch word be sufficient for our needs.
Mary Ann, I also think that kind of mindset (time/eternity) is helpful to understanding ritual in general. Especially one like ours that is fractal in nature.
Mary Ann,
Thank you for your 21 explanation, I just saw it, that helps a lot. I agree forgetting it’s much more than an ink blot. It’s a very interesting interpretation and I like it. It isn’t an LDS interpretation, it would clean up the sexist issues but at the indictment of veiled church leadership. BTW it is reversed from the eastern divine femine who would be the unveiled one.
But in the region that the ancient Israelites worshipped, masculinity was associated with the heavens (spirituality), whereas femininity was associated with earth (mortality). Jehovah was associated with many of the same symbols as the Canaanite god Baal-Hadad (thunder, lightning, storm clouds, rain). In the tabernacle, Jehovah’s presence was depicted as a cloud. He often used storms/drought as symbols of his power. His use of the lightning bolt at the time of Elijah was a specific low-blow to the priests of Baal. It was common for the Israelites to adopt Canaanite practices, and they would often worship a female consort to Jehovah prior to the exile – a combination of several Canaanite goddess: Asherah (fertility, groves/trees), Astarte (fertility, sexuality, war) and Anat (earth, war). All of these female concepts could be associated with mortality. Even in the case of Christ himself you could see a male/female dichotomy: divinity/spiritual man from the Father, and mortality/natural man from his mother.
Not saying that I am in support of this interpretation, but it is not outside the realm of possibility that spirituality/divinity could have been anciently associated with the masculine.
It’s a very interesting view, a primitive one but that might be the source. Intuitively it feels role reversed to me because a mortal man moves strongly toward the feminine during his spiritual unveiling. Also how do you graft this story into the balance of Genesis?
Mary Ann, I appreciate this comment. I couldn’t figure out why forgetting kept telling me that the temple wasn’t sexist, and I think you’ve explained his point better than he did. Having said that, most Mormons see the sexism much more easily than this spiritual/natural man dichotomy.
Having said that, if this is really what we’re supposed to glean from the ceremony, (1) it needs to be pointed out by those in charge, or (2) it needs to be removed because the symbolism is lost on most Mormons. Instead you have people like Jettboy seeing the symbolism as a line of authority in which God—–>man—–>woman. The symbol is badly misinterpreted, and therefore it just isn’t effective for most people. People see sexism–they don’t see spiritual/natural man.
Under the category of “Everything I need to know in life, I learned from Star Wars and George Lucas…”
It’s been my experience that going to the Temple is much like Luke Skywalker entering the cave that “strong with the Dark Side is”. What we find therein depends fairly much upon what we take with ourselves. If nothing else, for a few hours, whilst the Temple staff does the “We will control the horizontal…We will control the Vertical” thing, the cares and frustrations of everyday life can be set aside. I think of my erstwhile sister-in-law, whom I’m still on quite good terms with, who went to the Ogden Temple every weekday after dropping the kiddies off at school. This was greatly helpful in her personal struggles. I feel that aside from the actual spiritual power which I believe exists at those edifices, if all the Temple did was a sort of “placebo” effect to the respective parishoners, to get them an uplifting experience which helped to cope with life, it’d be worth every nickel spent.
Howard, I’ll have to think more about the relationship of this spiritual/natural man interpretation to the rest of Genesis. This is still a fairly new concept to me, though I’ve tried to point out some supporting arguments because I think the theory is interesting on the surface and may be helpful to some people. The idea of spiritual vs. natural man is definitely doctrine, but I’m still a bit skeptical that it should be applied to the Adam & Eve story. Maybe forgetting can add some scriptural insights?
MH, I definitely agree that most people will not see this spiritual/natural man interpretation in the temple experience. Based on the teachings of our leaders, they take the God->man->woman injuction literally with the idea of husbands presiding over wives. As a culture, Mormons tend to take scriptures and temple worship very literally. Most people I know would have a hard time stretching their mind around this concept unless they’ve studied or experienced other cultures. This is a different interpretation that adds an additional dimension to the temple experience, though, and may help some people view the endowment as more applicable to themselves where now they see it as off-putting. It would be a mistake to assume that only one standard interpretation can exist for anything that happens in the temple (back to the uncorrelated lessons you mentioned earlier). I have some different temple thoughts to add after I’m done entertaining my children for the day.
Speaking of butterflies and queens and priestesses:
New York, September 5th, 1846.
—Millennial Star 8:178-179.
Written in the Album of Miss Abby Jane Hart, of New York City
Abby: Knowest thou whence thou camest? Thine
Origin? Who thou art? What? and whither
Thou art bound? A chrysalis of yesterday:
Today a gaudy fluttering butterfly —
A moth; tomorrow crushed, and then an end
Of thee. Is this so? And must thou perish
Thus, and die ingloriously without a
Hope?
Ah, no; thou’rt no such thing. Thou in the
Bosom of thy Father bask’d, and liv’d, and
Mov’d thousands of years ago. Yes, e’er this
Mundane sphere from chaos sprung, or sun, or
Moon, or stars, or world was fram’d: before the
Sons of God for joy did shout, or e’er the
Morning stars together sung—thou liv’dst.
Thou liv’dst to live again. Ah, no! thou liv’d
But to continue life eternal—to
Live, and move, and act eternally. Yes;
Long as a spirit, God, or world exists;
From everlasting, eternal, without end.
And whilst thou dwelt in thy paternal home,
And with thy brethren shar’d ecstatic bliss,
All that a spirit could not cloth’d in flesh,
Thou through the vista of unnumbered years
Saw’st through the glimmering veil that thou would’st
Dwell in flesh—just as the Gods.
Tread in the
Footsteps of thine elder brother, Jesus —
The “Prince of Peace,” for whom a body was
Prepared.
Thou hop’d for this. At length it came; and thou
Appear’d on this terraqueous ball,
Body and spirit; a living soul, forth
From the hands of Elohim—eternal
As himself—part of thy God. A small spark
Of Deity struck from the fire of his
Eternal blaze.
Thou came! thou came to live! Of life thou art
A living monument; to it thou still
Dost cling eternal life. To thee all else
Are straw and chaff and bubbles, light as air;
And will be all, until thou gain once more
Thy Father’s breast; rais’d, quicken’d, immortal;
Body, spirit, all: a God among the
Gods forever bles’t.
Abby: and hast thou dared to launch thy
Fragile barque on truth’s tempestuous sea;
To meet the pelting storm, and proudly brave
The dangers of the raging main; and through
The rocks, and shoals, and yawning gulfs, pursue
The nearest way to life, in hopes that thou
Would’st speedy gain a seat among the Gods?
A living monument; to it thou still
Seest thou the multitudes who sail in
Gilded barques, and gently float along the
Silvery stream? Downward they go with sweet
Luxurious ease, and scarce a zephyr moves
The tranquil bosom of the placid stream.
Unconscious of the greatness of the prize
They might obtain, they glide along in peace;
And as they never soar aloft, nor mount
On eagle’s wings, nor draw aside the veil
Of other worlds, they know none else than this —
No other joys. They dream away their life,
And die forgot. Just as the butterfly
They gaily flutter on: today they live —
Tomorrow are no more.
And though, like thee,
In them is the eternal spark, thousands
Of weary years must roll along e’er they
Regain the prize they might with thee have shar’d.
Regain it? Never! No! They may come where
Thou wert, but never can they with thee share
Ecstatic bliss.
For whilst in heaven’s progressive
Science skill’d, thou soared’st from world to world, clad
In the robes of bright seraphic light; and
With thy God, eternal—onward goest, a
Priestess and a queen—reigning and ruling in
The realms of light—unlike the imbeciles
Who dared not brook the scorn of men, and knew not
How to prize eternal life.
Abby: the cup’s within thy reach; drink thou
The vital balm and live.
I don’t post often, and haven’t for awhile but this discussion of symbolism is excellent. I am put to mind of a series of my favorite books from childhood, The Dark is Rising. The movie was awful. In the second book of the same name, the boy Will finds out he is an Old One and part of his training includes going to a sacred space (the hall with big doors), moving between times and being in two times at the same time, and acknowledging ancient patterns that have looked forward to the last great battle between Good and Evil, and finding “angels”in unexpected places. Sounds pretty apocalyptic to me. I am going to have that book in mind the next time I go to the temple.
Also appreciating the discussion. Nothing to add, except I also read ‘The Dark is Rising’ books. In the house somewhere, maybe I should reread them?
Howard:
Yes, I was exposed to a lot of eastern thought while I was attending school at UH. I think a lot of my understanding of this ritual was influenced by eastern thought.
Mary Ann:
I think I owe you a couple of thanks, and a big Thanks for clearing up my written stutters. I liked your wrap up of Israel's sky and earth gods usage, and yes, that also influenced this one additional way I understand the ritual. More, it was the native teachings of Mother Earth, Father Sky, and the Great Spirit/Mystery. A lot less violent and opposing, and a lot more cooperation and harmony in their mythos, so it was easier to see how the symbols worked with each other and presented a more balanced interplay. That resonates with me. This also accords with First Temple teachings, more harmony. Also, I am Manasseh, so what else would you expect.? grin
What pointed my mind in this direction was actually a combination of some things. There was something Hugh Nibley once said about, and this is off the top of my head, the Egyptian Endowment. He pointed out the number of elements regarding the head, and the number regarding the body. With our ritual, it was something I had memorized and written in the back of my scriptures before my mission, but I had never thought to count these elements before then. 7 and 12, Spiritual and corporeal, which is closer to how I see the division, not natural man/spiritual man; natural man is a product of the fall, and both Adam and Eve fell. The corporeal body, in and of itself, is not natural man. In fact, I see Eve, the corporeal body, being pronounced clean, pointing to the promise of corporeal resurrection. What form that resurrection takes is our choice, as shown by the lack of that same blessing to Adam. Of a slight interest, it is the spiritual body that guides the corporeal body through the veil, a la the short ritual at the veil performed before the sealing.
So there was that, but there was also the Hanblecheyapi (or Crying For A Vision), rite or ritual, and the sacred pipe of the native peoples. Specifically the plains people, and the imagery of the Lakota's red pipestone (catlinite) pipe, and all of their sacred teachings concerning it. Briefly, and very basic (doing it a world of disservice), the red stone bowl of the pipe represents Mother Earth, and the wooden stem represents Father Sky. A bit of a reversal by the way, we normally see the male as red dirt or clay and the female as a tree, yet informative.
MH:
I haven't said this is what we are really suppose to glean. What I am saying is no one is locked into one understanding or interpretation. I am saying this is one understanding, mine (and only one of mine). Maybe by sharing this others will see different ways symbols, narrative, and ritual interact. Hopefully, a small hope, our brothers and sisters will then feel like they can go out and start to explore this on their own, and find their own understanding, as it applies to them.
Ideally I would like to see them turning to study, prayer, and receiving revelation directly from the Lord regarding the ritual. Right now, I am not sure people feel like they really have permission to explore on their own, or they feel they lack knowledge, or they are too hurt to try. Everyone seems to want someone to explain it to them, but that doesn't make sense really, the whole goal is to get it directly from the Lord.
Thus my lament that we ever removed the preacher from the ritual, we have grown too dependent on those in charge and not sufficiently dependent on the Lord and the Spirit.
See my thoughts above about just removing things we don't like, or understand, and the long term results. Really? Removing light and knowledge just because we don't understand it, or others mis-use it? That is foolish talk, and it sounds a whole lot like what our institution likes to do with its own inconveniences and uncomfortable historical truths.
Removing or changing this part of the ritual will not remedy our cultural sexism. We will find other places and reasons to justify poor behavior.
People also see McDonald's as a viable source of nutrition. You have said it your self, the other understandings that some (most) people have contradict the scriptures. At that point you should feel free to disregard theirs and seek for other understandings, with guidance (revelation) from the Lord, that align with scripture.
There is one thing the temple ritual promises, and almost everyone ignores. Healing and renewal of not only our spirits, but our physical bodies as well. In fact we were just reminded of that this last conference as President Uchtdorf quoted from D&C 84. I have experienced just a taste of this, and this is something that is very clear to me: Nothing we have to learn from the temple to obtain healing and renewal has anything to do with this sexist understanding. There is something for you to glean.
At it's heart ritual will always offer initiation, reconciliation, and healing. This is universal. If we are not obtaining these things, then we are under an obligation to go back and find new understanding.
I also felt very frustrated about the endowment, but I recently read an excellent book called “Sacred Symbols: Finding Meaning in Rites, Rituals and Ordinances” by Alonzo Gaskill. He takes a very scholarly approach, showing how some of our temple symbols were interpreted through the ages.
Once I started to understand the symbols, the temple experience became much more meaningful. From the moment we set our feet in the temple (yes, even on the carpet), we encounter symbols.
Although one might argue that you can think about these symbols in the abstract, the temple presents them to you in a specific order from the moment you walk into the door. I personally think that you can’t find that ordering of symbols anywhere else. I also find beauty in realizing that I’m encountering at least remnants of ancient symbols and practices (as discussed in depth by Brother Gaskill), which then make me much more aware of my connection to the human family in all ages. Though we are living in different ages, we are each going through the same experience – mortality, the temple experience, etc. – to more closely approach the divine.
Seriously, read the book. It’s deep, not just fluff…
#39 Well done forgetting!
forgetting,
I think it is a good idea to look at things from different perspectives. But in a church that believes in continuing revelation, things are bound to change, often due to cultural understandings. As for the preacher in the old endowment, I’m glad he’s gone. I’m sure you found value, but I’d say the majority of people were missing the mark, and seeing Mormonism as superior to alternate forms of Christianity. So for whatever you gleaned from the preacher, most people were missing the mark, so it was removed. Likewise the penalties. Likewise the sexism. If people are getting the wrong impression of symbols, we already have precedent for changing the ceremony, so why not do it again for symbols that are badly misinterpreted?
I mean temple covenants used to include avenging the blood of Joseph. The Reed Smoot Hearings seemed to do away with that. Do you miss that covenant?
Butterflies and carpet? Zoom…right over the top of my head.
I really appreciate this discussion and thanks to mary ann and forgetting especially for not only sharing their thoughts but presenting them in an open way – the next time I hear someone imply I’m stupid for not understanding the temple symbolism their way I will lose it. Those who interpret God>man>woman often do so authoritatively that it is God’s will and the reason women need the atonement.
Forgetting, it sounds like you have a lot of background in ancient/egyptian symbolism and temple rites? So instead of scrapping parts of the ceremony (hey I’m in favor) perhaps the church could scrap and retool it’s temple prep? Basically the only temple prep is “read the PofGP” and stuff found in Gospel Principles (I’ve taught it). It’s like milk>meat, but going from a glass of milk to 50 lbs of meat on one tray and being told to partake.
Perhaps in temple prep they could actually go over the basics of ancient symbolism and history of the ancient temples. I know this is knowledge we are to seek out on our own, but I literally know people (friends and family) who will not read anything church related not published by the Church.
again I appreciate all the insights and am actually looking forward to my temple visit this week
“it needs to be removed because the symbolism is lost on most Mormons. Instead you have people like Jettboy seeing the symbolism as a line of authority in which God—–>man—–>woman.”
Just because its symbolic doesn’t mean its not literal, and vice versa. I love how the man/woman dichotomy is explained here. That makes a lot of sense and I will contemplate that when going to the Temple again. Not going to change my ideas of the god>man>woman positioning because there are a lot of other teachings that support this. It also doesn’t mean such a positioning is sexist either when understood properly, except in 21st C. feminist orthodoxy. The explanations here just bring it to a new level of understanding.
I found the discussion of the man/woman dichotomy as symbols interesting but have a hard time seeing that as JS’s intention in his creation of the ceremony. And I think that church leaders from him until down as far as GBH see Adam and Eve as real individuals and not as symbols. The only way I can see the temple and ceremony is as a way to add another layer of specialness and charisma so that members would see themselves as set apart and above outsiders and in feeling that way would be willing to endure further sacrifice. The tokens with names, signs, and previously penalties are masonic and the covenants are basic commitments we need to make but the play with all the characters is lost on me other than for a review of the creation. I guess I feel less and less that it’s needed or necessary.
FWIW – I have an old Infobase CD from 1997 that has a couple of thousand books, church records, conference talks, biographies, journals, etc. I did a search for “priestess husband” and got about 11 hits some of which were repetitive:
Parley P. Pratt:
It was from him (Joseph Smith) that I learned the true dignity and destiny of a son of God, clothed with an eternal priesthood, as the patriarch and sovereign of his countless offspring.It was from him that I learned that the highest dignity of womanhood was, to stand as a queen and priestess to her husband, and to reign for ever and ever as the queen mother of her numerous and still increasing offspring.
George Q. Cannon, Sunday Morning of Conference, August 12, 1883:
There is not a man in this room who has a proper conception of the Gospel, and of the rewards attached to obedience to it, who does not at least hope that he will attain unto celestial glory, (which means the Godhead, to be an heir of God, and a joint heir with Jesus Christ); that he will enter upon a career of exaltation that shall not terminate throughout the endless ages of eternity, and that will place him in the company of Him concerning whom it is said “of the increase of His kingdom there shall be no end.” And there is not a woman in this congregation who has a proper conception or knowledge of the promises associated with the Gospel, and with obedience thereto, who does not indulge, when she thinks upon these matters, in similar hopes, and would be very unhappy if she thought she should be deprived of that which she anticipates–I mean of being one with her husband as a wife and as a queen and as a priestess throughout eternity, and stand with him at the head of their mutual posterity.
Elder Stephen L. Richards:
One of the features of temple work should for emphasis be specially mentioned. It is the sealing of husband and wife in the eternal covenant of marriage. Joseph Smith taught that the family circle is the foundation of exaltation and that its projection into eternity is heaven itself. He sanctified the association of loved ones. He made the father a priest and the mother a priestess in the temple of the home. If his glorious interpretation of this divine institution could have general application, the ills of society would be cured and the brotherhood of mankind established. This contribution alone entitles him to a place on the very summit of distinction among the world’s philosophers and benefactors.
For MH and others who see sexism in the temple ceremonies, I think church leaders see the “oneness” that Elder Cannon refers to between a husband and wife who make it to the celestial kingdom. The wife stands with her husband, not under him, not behind him. I don’t exactly know what it means to be a “priestess unto your husband,” whether my wife will actually hold the priesthood or exercise authority independent of me. But does it really matter if she and I are “one?” You may call the patriarchal order the worst thing to have ever existed. But I think our doctrine envisions a patriarchal order where husband and wife, ultimately, are so unified that it won’t matter who officially holds the priesthood and who doesn’t. It isn’t a concept that can, nor should it be, analyzed using a feminist lens which postulates that all things patriarchal are “bad.” While there are plenty of improvement in the way the sexes interact both in and out of church, I think the eternal concept of unity and oneness will take care of all concerns.
MH says, in #9: I appreciate the responses, but at this point I think I’m just going to give up on the idea that the temple is the “university of the Lord.” Maybe one day I’ll learn something, and I’ll embrace that concept, but it’s a real source of frustration for me to hear the temple called the university of the Lord. I don’t learn anything currently.
I’m in a similar circumstance, and after reading all of the comments I’m starting to feel as if I’ve picked up a lot of what there is to be picked up in the endowment. To that extent, Howard’s comment (#2), that the temple is “enforced stillness that takes place in a sanctuary,” which creates the opportunity for contemplative time that our ordinary worship experience doesn’t give us, makes a lot of sense.
I’ve heard that alleged statement of President McKay’s a few hundred times; how he came out of the temple near the end of his life and said something like, “Brethren, I think I am finally beginning to understand.” But frankly, every time I hear a frequent temple-goer tell me they learn something new every time, I start to think they’re admiring the Emperor’s new clothes. We’re supposed to think that, and righteous, temple-worshipping Mormons are supposed to say that, so they do.
YMMV.
eturnity is found in the now that is being present in the present, a place which active LDS members almost never experience.
Well – maybe during fast and testimony meeting. 😉
MH, it occurs to me in reading some of these comments that some of us, you and I included, are simply more concrete thinkers. That’s not a value judgment – I just know I’m not all that abstract, and clearly some commenters find deep meaning in a more abstract experience. I have trouble getting my mental arms around it.
MH,
I think we both know that the oaths of vengeance as an addition to the endowment was a poor reaction to a bad situation.
The penalties are not exactly Masonic, although they do have Masonic forms. Many, the vast majority actually, of initiation rituals contain a concept of dismembering and remembering. Circumcision – the covenant keeping and the promised 'whole every whit' (for us) as the remembering. It's not just a Judaeo/Christo/Islamic ritual, and it can be seen as a fairly extreme version of symbolic dismembering. The original Sundance ritual is also fairly (read very) extreme. Other cultures have less extreme versions with minor cutting and scarring in symbolic places on the body, but in most (modern) cultures it is symbolic only. Our garments are a symbol of this. The marks are cut in and then repaired. Or, they were when we made our own, I can't say what happens in the factories that make them now. Another thing we have lost.
Shamans often experience the dismembering ritual during their spirit journey initiations, and so for these cultures, it is something that maybe only their holy men and women (priests), or those called to be holy women and men experience; and that is on a purely spiritual level (with real affected change). I should add that for shamans it more often than not is a combination of both physical and spiritual initiation rituals. This is a lot like our expectations should be: temple/ritual and then baptisms of Fire and the Holy Ghost. Oh yes, this is in the Book of Mormon.
Each one of those penalties, in regards to our ritual, expresses dismembering actions. Some cultures might see it as teaching that you must sacrifice your will (and/or 'knowing'), your desires, and your appetites in order to progress along the path of life and obtain fulfillment and oneness (Atonement). We covenant to do just that as part of our temple experience, and the penalties express this; and this is truth, as we will not, or cannot, live up to our covenants, we should expect that these sacrifices (of ourselves) will be necessary to repent, or bring back cosmic (from the more primitive view) order and harmony (into our lives).
To play 'what if…', Joseph could have been instructed in ritual by the Native Americans instead of the Masons, and we still would have had dismembering elements. It all plays into the concept of removing the Ego.
I understand what you are expressing (I hope), but I am still finding it strange that you would want to change something, which by your own confession, you do not understand well. Would it not be wiser to reach for understanding first?
I fully believe in leaving behind that which has lost meaning and value to the culture, especially ritual. I am not certain ours has yet. I have also expressed before that we could swap out narratives, Adam and Eve for Father Lehi's (and bits of Nephi's) vision, and obtain the same results the current ritual aims for. If something like that ever happened I probably wet the floor like an overly excited puppy, but until then, or until the changes you want happen, what are we going to do? Continue to be hurt and remain stagnate on the issue? I can't see the authorities addressing this anytime soon. My suggestion is we start taking this – the ritual, our understandings of it, and all of the hurt it is causing – directly to the Lord, and we check with Him to make sure we haven't also been missing a mark ourselves.
(None of this has been said with confrontational tones, but I re-read it and it could come off that way.)
Shamanic dismembering, deconstruction and reconstruction is distinctly different, it’s a metamorphosis from mortal to spiritual to demigod (for lack of a better word) all accomplished within the second estate. Joseph was a shaman. I see the shamanic initiation as more of a parallel to the story told in the couplet As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be than a parallel to the penalties which might be stretched to something like failing to keep your covenants can be suicide but I really think they were meant at face value. I found them very disturbing with little redeeming value.
Something to add to the idea of the corporeal body and symbolic Eve. The etymological source of matter or material is the Latin mater ‘mother.’
Also, this is a good read, it offers a better background for some of the concepts I am trying to speak of. It also speaks to some other symbolic usages of marriage: Sacred Marriage: The Secret Key to Christian Spirituality
Kristine A
I think that is a very good idea, and if anyone was to ask me, I would actually start the nine month (probably why no one will ever ask me) course with two months of Karen Armstrong, Joseph Campbell, and comparison of the Adam and Eve stories from our scriptures to the Tree of Life visions and motifs found in the Book of Mormon. After that, I have other ideas. One problem with temple prep is we are using it to teach theology, or that's how it turns out (or it turns into a genealogy course), and ritual at its heart is anthropology (and a lot of psychology).
Before we can teach our ritual, we need to have a better foundation of what myth, narrative, and ritual are. After that, then we can start teaching the LDS aspects.
The best books I can recommend, for anyone with just a basic level of understanding of myth, ritual, and religion, are A Case For God (just a good study of the introduction would be a good start), A Short History of Myth, and Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life, all by Karen Armstrong. They are written with language Mormons can understand and relate to, and I find that helps. I wrote out some other suggestions of study ideas here scattered in the comments.
I checked this morning, if anyone is interested, the free kindle sample of A Case for God includes the complete introduction and then a good bit after.
School: cultural anthropology; ceremony ritual and food. Also, a crash course in life and the reality of our temple and temple ritual.
Not so much Egypt.
Howard, I don’t know where everyone finds the numbers for comments, but your last comment: we are not in disagreement. Your comment also outlines one of the things I perceive the temple is teaching/offering.
Read what I said again. It is symbolic usage pointing to what we are to obtain – dismembering and remembering.
Seeing a literal suicide required would be serious lack of the understanding of ritual. In that case, it would be a real failure of the temple prep course.
And, since they are gone now it doesn’t matter.
Burn it, my thumb it publish early.
Howard, parts of a ritual should disturb us. That is a component of ritual. We also used to be a whole lot more undressed for the initiatory work. That was disturbing.
This is what I don’t understand about your last comment. You say you understand guided taboo breaking, and yet you are bothered by being disturbed in a ritual?
forgetting,
I believe I understand your point but having experienced the shamanic process of dismembering, deconstruction and reconstruction I do not find a parallel in the pre 1990 penalties.
GBSmith:
Way at the start, I was careful to point out that this is Symbolic Eve, and not Mother Eve. One can express a belief in the reality of Adam and Eve, and still understand that they left a mythos in their wake. That myth is the narrative our ritual is using.
From the Introduction to A Case for God:
and
This is true of our (lds) temple and ritual experiences.
Howard, that's fine, right, this all just perceptions from different angles we are talking? Dismemberment (being lazy, I only have the phone to type on, and it is a bit off topic) isn't only a singular spiritual event or events, although it is most definitely that, and that is the way/form we most often speak of it. It is also a process of daily application, interior work, if we choose to make it so. The same as becoming a hollow bone is a both lifelong pursuit, as well as something that occurs in the moment, more directly, as needed. To be impeccable, it is the constant interior work that needs to be done.
Also, if you will notice. The more humble the signs became as the ritual progressed, and the more penalties were self-applied, the more our ritual embrace (tokens), or symbols of unity, became more complete and intimate?
To be clear, I understand why the penalties were removed, in a way I agree with that, but I can still regret it. I just have a different understanding and lived experience, that's all.
Well forgetting I find your version much more to my liking. It’s been 170 years since our last hollow bone what healing and vitality a new one would bring to this tribe wandering in the wilderness.
Kristine A.
“Perhaps in temple prep they could actually go over the basics of ancient symbolism and history of the ancient temples.”
Yes, this is a great suggestion!! I appreciate your ideas. I want to second my husband’s (forgetting) book suggestion listed above.
I like your comments in other discussions. I have had a few travel nursing jobs in Rexburg, and wish I would have met you, we would have gotten along. If I am ever assigned there again, I want to take you out to lunch!!
… and as it was just pointed out to me, it is The Case for God, not A Case for God. My birthright for a time machine.
Howard, it would be better if everyone was.
L. Deseret, I accept your lunch invitation and will hold you to it – it does get somewhat lonesome here in the Burg 🙂 In fact that goes for everyone – if you are in Rexburg email me and we will get froyo. Always looking for friends that love respectful discussions.
forgetting,
Indeed. You sound like Moses, snake on a stick and all.
I wanted to just say my dislike for the veiling has a lot to do with the fact that I can get anxiety in closed in spaces – and it’s hard to breathe your own carbon dioxide for that long. I even have a hard time being blocked in by people where I sit. The temple is not the easiest place for me – in more ways than one.
Kristine, I may not make it to Rexburg anytime soon (but if I do, I’ll buy the froyo!)
My son wants to know what your husband teaches at BYU-I, so he can take the course. 🙂
I don’t see how any of you can stand the veil. I’m not really claustrophobic; I just have trouble having anything over my face. I’m not fond of anything on my head, either. My main issue with space in the temple is that I’m a big, broad-shouldered guy. I like less-crowded sessions when I can have empty seats on either side of me, so I have shoulder and elbow room.
One more reading suggestion: Beginnings in Ritual Studies by Ronald L. Grimes. I should stop going back through my notes.
It (the myth and the ritual together) is something that needs to be explored and lived, both in the moment of participation, and as something you take out of the temple to live and practice. I think it would be neat to hear someone say in regards to their temple session or the ritual “I lived something new.” or, “I live in a new way.” instead of, “I learned something new.” or “I gained new insights.”
Now, instead of yammering on and on about the dichotomous symbol of the serpent/snake, I will try to stay quiet.
My husband’s in Admin, not teaching classes – but if your son is interested in an oncampus job, my husband hires a lot of kids every year. Apparently they all love him, he holds lots of office parties with eating competitions and has an office intramural softball team he plays on with them.
Fascinating discussion. I have learned a lot!
Years ago, I attended a live session in salt lake. Maybe it’s odd, but I felt like some of the symbolism/concepts seemed easier to grasp. I actually felt LESS weirded out seeing the participants perform a ritual/myth. The movie always seemed so far fetched to me. Not to mention the creepy recorded voice warning me it was my last chance to turn back. I always have to force myself to stay seated at that point. Again, I am probably crazy, but I kind of liked the live endowment!
FYI went to the temple this morning – it was Movie #1, and I had the hardest time thinking abstractly and symbolically because this film is presented very literally. I even think they noticed they told females to consider ourselves as Eve, made it harder to see Christ as the Groom or Eve as our physical embodiment. It was very hard to apply a different interpretation. The discussion after with my husband was hit and miss – he’s pretty sure what parts are definitely literal. Interesting.
I know movie 2 is much more symbolic. Need to see 3.
Kristine:
There are two places in the ritual where the couple is called to the altar and we are told that they represent each of us as if at the altar. The first time, we are directed to consider ourselves, respectively as Adam and Eve. The second time we are just told that the couples represents each of us as if at the altar. That language alone allows us to see the couple as us, individually. For the first, the words respectively and respective have undergone usage changes. One of the meanings was 'not absolutely', or not absolute. A little less likely, but still possible, was careful, cautious, with circumspect, respectfully. Today the word is commonly taken to mean in particular, or in the order given. It is a much more defined and rigid word than it used to be.
There was a recent article on interpreter about using an 1828 dictionary with the Book of Mormon. It is good advice for our ritual as well. It could be right, it could be wrong; at least it's insightful.
rtc: for myself, I like and prefer the live sessions as well. I know a lot of people find them distracting though, and I think the media generation is going to need the film. Theatre isn't as large a part of our culture as it used to be.
As much as we might consider ourselves enlightened/intelligent/free-thinking people, it seems there is a part in all of us that just wants the Church (or some other respected authority) to come out and tell us exactly what everything the temple is “supposed” to mean, and put an end to all of this guesswork and mystery–just like they already do with most of our Sunday curriculum. On some level, we like to be reassured that we are not “doing it wrong”.
It’s a lot like asking Quentin Tarantino “just what exactly was in that briefcase?” His reply: “Whatever you need it to be.”
Our first reaction might be to demand a concrete answer, but part of the lifelong learning process of the temple ordinances is to embrace the mystery, build your own interpretations, and later deconstruct them and build new ones.
Kristine A – for your friends that will only read church approved sources, there’s a good discussion on the Mosaic tabernacle in the CES Institute Old Testament manual. It has application to our current temple ceremonies.
Perhaps because of my archaeological background, I find more value in understanding the tabernacle/temples of the Old Testament in relation to our current temple worship (my husband jokes that I prefer old dead people, probably why I’m also interested in geneaology). Forgetting prefers socio-cultural analyses on ritual. I suspect an architect would find significance in the structure of the temple building itself, and a botanist would find significance in the plants depicted in temple furnishings and videos (acacia trees, palm leaves, olive trees, etc.). Christ used a wide range of symbols in his parables, so it is not surprising that we might best comprehend the “mysteries of God” via individual lenses.
The PofGP is helpful for temple prep because it includes the Creation (as found in Genesis) as well as the understanding that Adam and Eve became aware of the Atonement/Plan after the Fall, which drastically altered their understanding of what they had gone through (Eve’s testimony and joy in the book of Moses is a particularly poignant departure from Genesis and the traditional view of Eve as a villain). The fact that the temple portrays Eve as having a greater understanding of the plan during the Fall puts some questions in my mind — is it purposefully deviating from the scripture as new revelation on what occurred (should be taken literally), or does this seem to indicate that the temple ceremony is combining several aspects of doctrine as a teaching tool and should not be considered quite as literal as some may suggest? Another point that I realized upon going through the temple is that there is no new doctrine introduced (have to admit, I was a little disappointed by that). So if none of the doctrine is new, what is the purpose of the teaching which occurs interspersed among the covenants, key words, signs and tokens (per Brigham Young)? I don’t have a good answer, but it’s a good question for pondering.
Paul and the other apostles viewed the Mosaic law as foreshadowing Christ. Specifically, Paul saw the ancient tabernacle rites as a type of Christ. Referencing the Day of Atonement ritual, Christ was not only the great High Priest (officiating in the ordinance), but also the sacrifice itself, his blood being the purifying force to take away the sins of Israel and offering at-one-ment with God. He not only went through the veil, but ripped it open (the veil being another symbol of Christ’s body, in Paul’s opinion) on his way to entering the presence of the Father (the Holy of Holies). Paul even references the term tabernacle itself as a symbol of Christ’s body in that it was a mortal covering for deity (K. Benjamin uses similar terminology). How much do we see Christ’s body and the atonement symbolized today in our temple worship?
Other ways to think about the relationship of the ancient tabernacle to our temples:
–Similarities between the way Levitical priests were set apart/consecrated to our washing and anointings.
–Similarities of high priest uniform to our temple clothing
–The institute manual points out the relationship between the three divisions in the tabernacle (courtyard, holy place, and holy of holies) to three degrees of glory (telestial, terrestial, and celestial). It points to a system of understanding the sacred spaces in relation to our growing discipleship of Christ. This interpretation begins with the basic ordinances of the gospel faith/repentance/baptism as belonging to the telestial sphere (related to obedience/sacrifice and the laver in the courtyard), and then relying more on the Holy Ghost as we become more experienced in the gospel belonging to the terrestial sphere (related to the menorah/light of Holy Ghost, shewbread/sacrament, and incense altar/prayer in the holy place). Ultimately we will be able to pass by the angels at the veil (in the ancient tabernacle, the veil was decorated with the images of cherubim), and be able to enter into the presence of God.
–Many see a relationship of the ancient tabernacle to the Garden of Eden. (http://www.templestudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/garden-of-eden-tabernacle-schematic.gif).
–Along with the separating of the holy spaces according to degrees of glory, you can also separate them according to priesthood type: Outer Courtyard/Telestial as Aaronic Priesthood (obedience/sacrifice/baptism), Holy Place/Terrestial as Melchizedek Priesthood (Holy Ghost, incense/prayer), and Holy of Holies/Celestial as Patriarchal Priesthood (sealing ordinances, presence of God).
–There are many LDS members who’ve written on the relationship of the ancient tabernacle/temples to our modern temples. Here’s one blog post: http://www.templestudy.com/2009/04/12/mosaic-tabernacle-aaronic-temple/
Another plug for the PofGP as appropriate temple prep literature — Moses 1. We get a fairly unique situation where Moses is instructed by God, left alone to contemplate that instruction, and then approached quite directly by Satan. Satan’s temper tantrum at Moses not listening to him literally shook the earth, and Moses was likely terrified for his life, but Moses used principles learned from his interaction with God previously to (1) identify this as a false messenger, and (2) force Satan to depart from his presence. As a reward for being faithful to what God had previously told him, God gave him further revelation. This type of interaction occurs rarely in the scriptures, and the places where it does happen is often connected by modern prophets to temple situations. It is believed that Christ received divine instruction during his 40 days in the wilderness following his baptism, so Satan’s appearance is consistent with this pattern. The book of Job also provides an interesting story that some have given temple application. In Job’s case, it is his friends that are giving him misleading advice (their own philosophies mingled with scripture), and Job has to remain faithful to his understanding. In return for his faithfulness, God give Job greater understanding of their relationship and ultimately greater blessings. Elder Holland gave a good talk at BYU applying the story of Moses to our lives, and it was later reprinted in an Ensign: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/03/cast-not-away-therefore-your-confidence?lang=eng
Mary Ann,
I really like the additional sources you recommend. Jettboy, in the original post mentioned above, added a link to a list of books I think members that prefer approved sources would also find value in studying. (Where exactly is this list of approved or unapproved sources?)
I think I have not communicated well. I spoke regarding social and cultural issues. For myself, and my preferred source of understanding, I take first scripture and religion/religious experience (including revelation and Spirit) though, I have intentionally avoided that because I am not trying to suggest we make changes to anything other than our understanding of the how and why of ritual; definitely not minds on matters of doctrine or theology. The secondary source of my perspective would be ritual and ritual studies. I have a background in anthropology, so that probably shows through in the way I think, outside of that, I tried to draw attention to the need to study ritual, and in particular knowledge and understanding of this ritual as a ritual, before we decide it needs to be changed.
Ritual, in and of itself, has value in study to answer questions like that. The myth, narration, and gestures or movement; they all work together to form the ritual and ritual experience. If you want to make sense of why there are teachings and myth interspersed with the posture, gesture and movement, then a study of ritual process would provide a better understanding (I recommended Catherine Bell's Ritual: Perspectives and Dimension before, it is a good, although not simple, introduction to the field). A ritual isn't something arbitrarily put together; there is a system and reason behind it. What we were given is a masterpiece, and designed for application. For example, Jung gave a mathematical equation in Aion that he said represented the process of becoming whole. This model of the self he said was based on the Ezekiel vision. The endowment ritual and temple experience could also be represented mathematically, and when it is, it is very similar to, if not like, Jung's equation. Becoming Whole, Jung's Equation for Realizing God by Leslie Stein is a good overview of the equation and some of its implications. This makes studying from sources like the ones you have suggested, as well as scholars like Margaret Barker and the LDS scholars producing similar work, very valuable. Or, from my perspective. I really do have a more encompassing view than I might be showing.
My suspicion is ritual and ceremony are with us for the eternities, it wasn't just family structure Joseph meant when he spoke of the same sociality, so we might as well learn about it soon or later.
Jung has a very interesting take on Job, have you read anything about this?