What Mormons call “ordinances” (what other Christians often call “sacraments”) are a subset or component of what religious scholars term “religious rituals.” It might be a life event thing that happens once, like baptism, or it might be a recurring thing, like taking the LDS sacrament on Sunday. You might think of baptism narrowly, strictly as an ordinance (baptism is immersing a person in water, after a priesthood holder repeats the proper words) but let’s try to think of it more broadly, as a ritual (lots of relatives and some visitors attend, there is a song and a prayer and a talk, then the ordinance in the water is performed, then another talk and another ordinance to confirm the person, then another song and prayer and then some treats over by the kitchen). Rituals have a strong communal component. In fact, scholars who look at religious ritual apart from the supernatural aspect that believers ascribe to such performances focus primarily on the social or communal effects to understand why ritual persists and what it does. Instead of asking “What do ordinances mean?” they ask “What do rituals do?” And what they do is primarily social.
That’s a set up to talk about Chapter 6, “Rituals,” in Pascal Boyer’s book Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought (Basic Books, 2001). His Wikipedia page describes Boyer as “a French-American cognitive anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist.” Not every believer (and certainly not every Mormon) wants their religion explained or wants to ponder the evolutionary origins of religion, particularly their own. If that’s you, click here. Otherwise, read on. I recommend the whole book if you can find a copy, but I’m going to limit my discussion to the manageable topic of rituals. Because Mormonism is full of rituals.
A Western Bias Toward Meaning
I think that in organized religion in the West, in the various Christian denominations but also in Judaism and Islam, participants are inclined to be literate and read/study religious texts and commentaries. It’s easy to think that religion is in good part about learning things (doctrines, history, fixed prayers or scriptures to recite from memory, deep spiritual truths). Religious rituals are often seen through this lens. Boyer suggests this view of ritual is largely misplaced. What did you learn the last time you took the sacrament? The last ten times?
We often say that ceremonies are meaningful to the people who perform them. Through ritual, people perhaps grasp or express important messages about themselves, their relationship to each other and their connection with gods and spirits. This may well be what some ritual participants themselves offer as justification for their performance. But do rituals really convey much meaning? … What is the information transmitted? Not much, apparently. If you asked people what they had learned or expressed through participation in such rituals, they would find the question rather strange.
Religion Explained, p. 232.
That makes sense, actually. Ask an eight-year-old what they learned at their baptism or what it means, I’m not sure you’d get much of an answer. But ask them what is different now or how it changed them, and they’ll say “I’m an official member of the Church now” or, more precisely, “Adults at home and in Primary tell me I’m an official member of the Church now.” It’s not quite a coming-of-age ritual, but the rest of the religious community does treat the newly baptized kid differently, sees them as more responsible and more grown up. On Sunday with the Sacrament, they can actually renew a covenant they made at baptism. They have become a more integrated member of the religious community. The participant’s view of baptism, “my sins were washed away,” is of course relevant to the participant. But plenty of sins accumulate after baptism, and those who are never baptized are not foreclosed from salvation. In practice, baptism doesn’t really absolve your sins nor does the lack of it bar you from salvation. What is often said about what Mormons believe about baptism doesn’t really correspond to our actions in practice. That’s a bit strange, isn’t it?
What Makes a Ritual a Ritual?
Boyer goes on to note three properties of religious ritual that set it apart from other human activities. I’ll note that much of Boyer’s analysis of religious thought and practice is based on human mental processes and cognitive processing. We attribute agency (a mind and intentions) to natural processes and poorly understood phenomena, we infer the existence of many things we do not observe, we often offer (weak) explanations for things that we don’t really understand, our memories play tricks with us, and so forth. Anyway, here are his three properties of religious ritual (p. 235-36):
- “Acting in rituals is not quite the same thing as acting in other contexts, as any participant or observer feels quite clearly. However, this feeling is particularly difficult to describe.”
- “Many rituals have consequences for social interaction: the wedding makes an honest family of two lovers, initiation makes a man out of a boy, sacrificing a sheep to the ancestors seals your alliance with that other village.”
- “Perhaps most important for our purposes, notions of supernatural agents are included in many rituals …. The supernatural participation problem is better understood if we realize that the participation in question is really optional, as witness the number of rituals without any gods or spirits. In other words, you can understand what gods are doing in ritual, so to speak, once you realize that they are an add-on to a human activity that does not really require them.”
There is more in the chapter, such as likening the obsessive focus on detailed rules and particular actions that become part of some religious rituals to the “automatic and compelling actions endlessly and pointlessly performed by individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder” (p. 238). But I think I have covered enough to spur some thinking and support a nice discussion in the comments.
Mormon Rituals
I’ll bet you can suddenly see some interesting things about Mormon ritual. First, it’s broader than an ordinance. The ritual of baptism, as noted above, is an entire social event, not just 30 seconds in the water. Second, some things are rituals that we don’t often think of as such. Testimony meeting once a month is a ritual. I’m sure you can list the components. Serving an LDS mission is a ritual, particularly for young men. It serves as sort of an extended version of the coming-of-age ordeal that some cultures employ: go out a boy, come home a man. People talk about it this way: He was a much better student when he came back, went from getting C’s to getting A’s and B’s, and so forth. The homecoming talk given by returning missionaries is designed to showcase this transformation. Getting married without going on a mission first is seen as sort of cheating, taking a short cut to becoming an adult. Oddly, joining the military is highly regarded in the Church, and is sort of granted pseudo-mission validity as an alternate ritual. Often youth in the ward who are in the military are listed along with missionaries serving and their addresses. Sometimes they get a picture in the glass case out in the foyer, just like missionaries.
Third, this way of thinking about religious rituals and about LDS ritual in particular may actually be helpful and reassuring to some readers. Understanding that religious ritual is so broad and is oriented towards social involvement and activity — and that the supernatural component is, objectively, more like an add-on that lends meaning to the ritual for some participants — makes it easier to participate for some people. If you give a talk at your nephew’s baptism, you’re not endorsing all of the official and folk doctrine that gets associated with the ritual, you’re just helping little Jared celebrate his special day that marks his official entry into the Church. If you accompany the youth to do temple baptisms, you’re not endorsing the belief that great-great-great-grandparent Orville or Prudence spend two centuries languishing in spirit prison until Ethan or Emma was baptized on their behalf. No, you’re just helping the kids experience the temple and come out feeling good about themselves and their group.
Maybe that works for you, maybe it doesn’t. If you object to this way of thinking about LDS ordinances and Mormon rituals, think about someone else’s religion. Have you been to a Catholic baptism or a Catholic funeral? An Evangelical Bible camp? A Jewish passover meal? It may be easier to bracket the supernatural element and highlight in a positive way the social and communal effect of religious ritual if you think about someone else’s religion or denomination.
So tell me, what do you think of Mormon rituals? How positive or negative has your experience been? Have you had a surprisingly positive experience visiting or attending someone else’s ritual in another church or religion? How many Mormon activities suddenly make more sense as a religious ritual with a social and communal effect, with or without an ordinance attached?
Wheat & Tares 
I am going say something that many (I think most) LDS feel but few are willing to say: the temple ordinances are strange, uncomfortable, and overrated in terms of how wonderful they are portrayed. I’m going to be respectful here and not mention specifics. But in general, what we experience in the temple is heavily influenced by Masonry. I don’t think anyone denies that reality. And the consequence of this is that what we experience in the temple is heavily influenced by a source that has absolutely nothing to do with divinity (unless of course you believe Masonry is rooted in the divine). And I find this very unfortunate because the mechanics of the ordinances detract from the beauty of the message. In sum, we can say that the temple is “weird” and not feel guilty about it because what is weird is the Masonry stuff, not the meaning of the ordinances.
Also, the fact that the ordinances have been modified so many times seems to prove that they aren’t really based on some ancient God-given formula. I may like the temple ordinances more now than I did pre-2020 and pre-1990 but the fact that they were changed so drastically suggests something some of us realize but hate to admit.
I’m going to be less respectful than josh h–the penalties in the temple ceremony were the beginning of the end of my relationship with the church. I served a mission but was never more than a lukewarm participant meeting family expectations and trying not to really convert anyone so I could avoid the guilt of having introduced someone to the faith without having shared the gory details kept secret in the temple. For that reason, I would separate the temple ‘ritual’ from all others I experienced. Baptism is a ritual practiced throughout Christianity. The mission was difficult but growth promoting, and I did return to school better prepared to succeed. I think the temple is often viewed as a bright line between true, devoted, understanding members and those who basically just stay with the tribe they were raised in.
Now, I have to wonder if the temple is a ritual that really does compel commitment or if it just drives more people away, even in it’s current, reconstituted format. Because the idea endures of the temple ceremony as an event we don’t discuss outside the temple, it’s difficult to determine how many hate and see cultish behavior in the whole experience, as I did. I would submit that many will just quietly drift away rather than verbalize questions and concerns.
Is this because the church has seemingly always treated it as literal event? I tend to be literal, so I don’t doubt that many never viewed it that way. But as I was making the motions and putting on the extra layers of odd clothing, I saw it as both literal and profoundly disturbing. I felt I truly needed to remember the weird names and handshakes. It was important, but why? Compare that with my experience in the U.S. of Buddhist ritual, which is considerable in the practice. We were told not to take it too literally and to appreciate it for the value of repetition and the manner in which repeating calming rituals can create more peace in the mind and body. I buy into the idea of ritual as repetitive reinforcement (the sacrament, perhaps, prayer) of beneficial behavior, but not as literal sacrament of which God is keeping score.
And I think Dave B. is correct–Mormon rituals are communal, bonding, boundary maintenance-focused events. I recall my family gathered around me in the celestial room, beaming with pride and wondering what I thought. I was in the club, at that point, even though I really wasn’t. That I’ve rejected Mormon rituals since that time has forever changed the nature of my relationship with my family, and I can do nothing about it save return to the fold. From my perspective, that’s not a religion that uses ritual to bond people together; the Mormons use ritual to keep out the disbelievers, even if they’re blood relations.
@Josh H I appreciate your candor and being respectful, I’ll do the same.
The frustrating part also about the temple is that they tell you to pay attention to the symbols but if you are post 1990, you’ll never understand what some of the things actually mean since they’re modifications of the prior endowment and you’re catching the tail end. Without the internet I’d be trying to find positive things from negative symbols.
On a positive note, I like the temple because it is quiet and peaceful. People go out of their way to be nice. And the ordinances are like saying a prayer for a your ancestors to show them you care since there’s literally nothing else you can do for them (other than be a good person that they’d be proud of).
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
The LDS temple incorporates a lot more formal ritual than other LDS religious practices. So those who attend are often rather alienated by the whole experience. Some never get over it. Given how little meaningful preparation is given to new templegoers for dealing with the ritual aspects of the temple experience, some of which are rather overwhelming, it’s hard to blame them rather than the Church.
But, in the spirit of the OP, consider the whole broader experience of “going to the temple” as a ritual: getting in a suit or a dress, driving to the temple, doing the temple thing, possibly seeing other ward members if it’s a group event, going out for dinner afterwards. That’s the ritual in the broader sense. In some countries, it may be a two-day event, which might include local members together boarding a chartered bus for a long ride, staying overnight in the temple city (possibly in LDS housing), and a return trip.
I also liked the temple because it was quiet and peaceful until it wasn’t—one day I finally admitted to myself that it was actually extremely boring, and then I stopped being bored and started being angry, mostly over feminist issues, and then I stopped going and never looked back.
I can still vividly remember my first temple experience. Since it was accompanying me about to leave on a mission, a lot of family were present. I found the entire experience confusing and uncomfortable and it made me anxious, uneasy, and questioning my religion. I kept thinking to myself “this is nothing like my previous 18 years experience with this institution.” And this was in 1998!
At lunch after, I remember looking around the table at parents, siblings, and they all seemed so happy. None of them seem bothered with any of it. I convinced myself it was me, and not the temple. I kept going, and got used to it all.
Eventually I reversed my position and decided it was not me, it was the temple.
In terms of ritual, I think that’s one of the things that bothered me most (along with the whole invasion of my personal space thing). I don’t see ritual in our Sunday meetings; I see repetition by convenience, but very little ritual. So all the ritual just didn’t fit with the rest of my lived Mormon experience. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I just can’t get behind a God of tokens and signs.
Thanks for the insights…that was a great blogpost
It seems that I am in the minority here. But I just adore the temple ceremonies. Although I would have appreciated a deeper preparation than what the Church offers, I’ve grown to feel strongly for these unusual ways of worship. I feel that my natural proclivity for rituals, growing close to medieval sites and learning about the ancients, and hours digging for BYU Studies articles have helped me grow a better understanding of the rituals and an appreciation for them. I feel like a knight about to enter into the orders (which is, I think close to the point Dave B. was making).
I think that the problems with the endowments aren’t necessarilly the endowment itself, but the gap between the worldview it originated from (either from its antique or its 19th century aspects) and our culture which is skeptical towards rituals and prones a rationalism and materialistic worldview by design. The Temple is a strange land, with different costums, but when understood,they show something beautiful. And I hope we will get better at conveying that when talking about the Temple rather than our simplistic approaches.
When I was reading Dave B’s comments, I kept thinking, “but what about the temple?” I appreciate the comments which have reinforced what I thought about the rituals in the temple.
When my husband and I went, it was in the mid-1990’s. We had taken the temple prep classes so I thought we were prepared for what was going to happen. It truly was a quiet, clean place aesthetically. Nothing was spared in order to build and furnish the temple. Furniture, carpeting, painting, curtains, lighting, etc., etc., were all top of the line. However, the ceremony and rituals were so outside my comfort zone. I was literally in shock when it was over. I, too, remember looking at everyone and thinking, “what am I missing?” All family and friends who attended with us seemed so happy and I didn’t get it. I still don’t get it.
I had a few people tell me to “just keep going” and eventually it would all make sense. I don’t know if that is true, because I probably went 2-3 more times and each time the ceremony and rituals were so outside my comfort zone. I do not want to offend anyone, because I know that to many devout LDS, the temple is considered their number one blessing. But I still find the whole thing so bizarre. I feel certain that there are better ways to get into Heaven (whatever that is). How about service, charity, kindness, and love of ALL of our fellow human beings throughout the world?
Dot! You stole my line! Solidarity, sister.
Some of us participate in ritual without living family to witness, so for us there needs to be meaning other than social, and we ascribe meaning and promote the idea of understanding as part of our narrative about the temple.In fact if this whole thing had been sold to me as pure social and community bonding as in many other religions I think I would be cool with that.
What I’m left with is utter bafflement, not least because I’m told that some of it is literal, and some figurative. So it means something to someone, but they’re not telling.
I’ve seen two Presbyterian baptisms in the last several years. They were light-hearted, celebratory, and touching. The ritual is done in the sanctuary at a regular Sunday service. The pastor told how the candidates (all adults) had met before some fellow members as well as some representatives of the broader church organization where they shared their spiritual journey and why they desired baptism as the next step.
They had towels placed around their necks because they weren’t going to get sprinkled – they were going to get drenched with water poured over their heads. Very joyous and done in a spirit of fun.
After that, the pastor prayed over them. Anyone in the congregation that wished was invited up to lay a hand on the newly baptized person. It was a swarm of love with dozens of fellow Christians crowded around, surrounding the new members with support in a sort of communal covenant.
For me, the community expression was powerfully moving.
Another story of when the ritual was more than the ordinance. When our youngest was going to be baptized, our gay son had been out for a year or so. He asked my wife and me if he could come. We said of “of course”. Then he said, his married siblings would be there with their spouses and that he wanted to bring his partner to share in the occasion. He said that he realized that some of the family might not approve and would we ask. If anyone didn’t want them there together, they would stay home – no hard feelings. But it was important to him that he be able to come authentically and on the same footing as his brother and sisters.
There was one (now former) son-in-law that didn’t want them there and said he wouldn’t come with his kids if they did. My wife checked with the bishop – he said, “My best friend is gay – of course, they came come. And if you need me to talk with anyone else about I’d be happy to.”
We let it sit for a few days. The reluctant one had a change of heart within an hour of the baptism. We all came together for and had a touching experience. The usual after-party was great.
It was also the first time my parents saw my son as part of a couple. I have a gay brother that had come out two decades before that. My parents had never allowed him to bring a boyfriend to the house. A few months after the baptism, he was coming to Utah with his partner (now husband) for the Fourth of July. I called mom and dad and asked if it was time that the gay kid and grandkid be allowed to bring their partners to the family celebration (50+ people). They thought about it and the answer was “Yes”. They were willing to face possible stigma from their friends and consider what was right for the family.
I think the wonderful spirit at the baptism helped them somehow see our son and their son as humans with legitimate desires for love and companionship – not some abomination that needed to be fenced out. My dad became my son’s biggest advocate and defender – next to my wife. He always was concerned and doing kindnesses for my son until he passed.
Even though the gays in the family are barred from some ordinances, they can’t be excluded from the rituals.
BeenThere– That is beautiful.
“Even though the gays in the family are barred from some ordinances, they can’t be excluded from the rituals.”
If you find the temple “strange land”, here’s a great simple read that makes actual sense of it. You won’t be disappointed.
“Understanding Your Endowment” by Corey Jensen.
Thankyou very much for your constructive response Mez, will do. I have always enjoyed symbolism and related strongly to soul journeys, so have found it hard to not relate in any way to my temple experience other than to be able to pray for my brethren.
Wayfarer: “I’m told that some of [the endowment] is literal, and some figurative.” I don’t recall ever being told that any of it is literal, but I once assumed it was. Now I find a literal approach “profoundly distracting”. That approach seems to appeal to some and to put others off. It would help the latter if a symbolic approach were taught in temple preparation (without dictating what meaning the participant must or should find, but merely acknowledging possibilities). As to the endowment, it would help greatly if the covenants, changes to them over the years, the vagueness of some of them, various ways in which they have been understood, and the threat from the father of lies (John 8:44)were openly discussed. That can all be done respectfully and without violating any covenant of secrecy (despite the exaggeration by many of the very limited covenants not to disclose “except at a place that will be shown to you.”) Unfortunately, that approach to temple preparation can also be expected to put off those of a simple or literal bent. It could also put off those like the temple president who recently repeated multiple times in stake conference the falsehood that “the covenants have not changed.” (Maybe he meant the covenants that matter to him had not changed insofar as he knew. Or maybe he meant that while the wording had changed the meaning had not — but that would also have been false, at least as to the 1930s deletion of the former “oath of vengeance” and for many the recent change to the words and direction of a covenant of obedience.)
I remember many decades ago having gleaned the impression from Seminary teachers and others that “ritual” was an apostate invention of the “great and abominable church” of McConkie’s description. (Don’t know, of course, whether that’s actually what they thought they were teaching.) That (in addition to (a) the expectation of making unknown covenants and (b) a then temple garment that covered exactly no nakedness that mattered) made the initial endowment experience significantly upsetting, even revolting, and as far as one could ever get from an endowment of power. It certainly did not point to Christ, contrary to the current slogan. (Of course, subsequent encounters with officious, busy-body, know-it-all temple workers hasn’t helped either. 🙂 )
Some have read Church leaders’ statements (and PR slogans like “Everything in the temple points us to Jesus Christ.”) literally — and with varying results for their experience of the rituals. E.g.,
President Brigham Young (1801–77) said of the endowment: “Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2007/10/come-to-the-temple?lang=eng
Boyd Packer, October 2007, citing “Discourses of Brigham Young,” sel. John A. Widtsoe (1941), 416.
Others have found that description by BY and others sufficiently contradicted by their understanding of scripture or their own spiritual experience that they must either reject or ignore the temple or find some symbolic way of understanding it. “O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. … the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant [sentinel?] there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.” 2 Nephi 9:41
Ritual can be comforting, instructive, socially meaningful, spiritually meaningful, baffling, offensive, intrusive, demanding, fearful, threatening, or many other things. How any particular ritual functions for any particular person seems to me to depend partly on that person, her preparation and understanding, and partly on the social context in which she experiences that ritual. Having given up any expectation of being told simply the ultimate reality of God or the cosmos or any expectation that ritual and covenants would or should have the same, clearly understood meaning for all, and having finally given up some former literalism, I can now find healthy, spiritual and social meaning in temple rituals as I do in the sacrament and in my observation of rituals of some other religions.
Thanks for that Wondering, but then it seems to me it can mean anything to anybody, in which case I’m left wondering what’s the point? I could just be making it all up in my own mind, which is cool, but I’d like someone to tell me that it’s cool. Wouldn’t want any last minute surprises if you know what I mean.
Well, wayfarer, it seems to me that “anything to anybody” goes a bit further than a sensible symbolic approach would allow. It’s true that symbols can mean very different things to different people, e.g., those for whom the inverted pentagram stars on the Nauvoo temple are satanic symbols seem unable to see them otherwise because they are ignorant of other and earlier non-satanic uses of such symbols and/or unwilling to acknowledge that a symbol, or even a word or a tune, can mean something other than what it means to them. On the other hand, with respect to any sensible symbolic understanding of LDS temple rites, it would seem to need at least some connection to the context and history in which they appear. That would fall somewhat short of meaning “anything to anybody.” I’ve found a couple of Sam Brown’s books helpful in understanding historical context and purpose.
What’s the point? Perhaps its a motivational teaching tool. Perhaps it functions as instruction on relationships and goals. Perhaps repeated participation functions as reminders of ideal relationships and goals. Perhaps it binds people together. For some the mere symbolism of the representation of the Lord accepting them into His realm is worth putting up with the parts that are to them as yet incomprehensible, meaningless, or even irritating, but which may not be meaningless or irritating to others with whom we share the Church and its attempts to become a Zion society.
As to last minute surprises — I think they are inevitable and that certainty is often illusory and, in any even, not a guaranty of either truth or one’s understanding of truth or reality. I suppose as far as typical or stereotypical Mormon thinking goes, I may be an odd duck, but I’m very far from unique..
Good luck.
i’m all for symbols, rituals, meditating and thinking, although agree our sunday services don’t prepare us for ritual and it can be quite shocking and disorienting. sometimes it’s nice not to be told what things mean so that we’re free to make our own meaning rather than worry about whether we’re deviating from “doctrine”. but i’m not all for placing people under *covenants* to do things without explaining what they’re being asked to do. a couple of the covenants legit do not make sense to me, like I truly do not understand what they are asking me to do, so they’re pretty meaningless. and of course some of them i pretty vehemently disagree with (or used to until they were removed) unless i reinterpret them so much that i’m really, really stretching the meaning beyond what I know most mormons would think (at which point I have to wonder – what’s the point if I have a counter-narrative running though my head every time???).
i’ve put a LOT of years and sessions into getting more out of the temple. for sure i think there can be benefits, and i get that it’s a sacred and special place for a lot of people. but i’ve had SO many whispered conversations with people who don’t like the temple but are afraid to admit it and assume they are the only ones and feel like something must be wrong with them. our secrecy encourages this and I don’t think it’s a good thing. we could do a better job of preparing people for sure. but we could also recognize that the temple isn’t one-size-fits-all in terms of how it helps your spirituality. we need to give people more options for how they can connect spiritually if the temple doesn’t work for them. it’s pretty hard for me not to see our focus on temples as a way to keep people in line & paying tithing.
I so agree with Elisa – “it’s pretty hard for me not to see our focus on temples as a way to keep people in line & paying tithing.”
I first went to the temple in the late 60s – totally didn’t get it and we lived far from temples at the time so I sort of accepted it and moved on. Through study, feminist awakening and being troubled by history and certain current policies I’ve also come to question temple rituals. I agree they are lovely spaces and can bring comfort but it’s been drummed into the children and youth that the temple is something beautiful and important to aspire to, but typically without proper preparation. I can totally understand why so many are just plain confused by the whole thing. It’s boring and frankly also a bit creepy, especially when I took my own endowments when there were the ‘penalties’. I’ve come to enjoy doing family history but also question in my mind the need for doing these rituals for ancestors – and anyone who has worked in FamilySearch for long will have unearthed many errors in their trees. But then without it there wouldn’t be this need to return and return? So much of what we do seems like busy work – keeping us in. And like someone else mentioned – it’s a bit of a stretch for me to think of a God who requires these ordinances. I also think that the temple creates two tiers of members and probably encourages us to lie on recommend interviews (which have also changed a lot over the years and have become more intrusive) because there’s a feeling of not being part of the in group without one. You can be a wonderfully kind and spiritual person but if the tithing falls short – nope not worthy!
Celestial Rooms always remind me of hotel lobbies. I truly do not understand why they are considered examples of great beauty when, to me, they seem like a “stock” item purveyed by a chain hotel corporation. YMMD.
Thanks Wondering, that’s probably more info than I have had in 40 years as to how I might situate my temple experience. I’m not stupid, but I am ignorant, and sadly, I’m not alone.
Mystery religions and initiation rituals exist the world over. They fill a deep human need.
Why is the world the way it is?
How do I fit into society and the world.
How can I survive and succeed?
Have I been welcomed in the community, by God embracing me or otherwise?
These are the primary questions they are supposed to answer.
One interesting thing is how we have subdued some elements.
In the Salt Lake City temple one moves between rooms with doors and thresholds.
In an Egyptian ritual the participants rode between realms in a boat.
In the Chinese triads they crossed over bridges.
Most modern temples make due with slight changes in how bright the lights are.
The Carbonari and Masons had some real differences.
Pythagorean’s mysteries were geometric rules and musical scales. Herakles has the secret that there was really just one God and the rest was metaphor.
The Chinese rites from before the time of Christ we know emphasized the equality of male and female (as a great secret) and a compass and square in a different position than Masons used them. We have their temple veils still preserved.
Ephesus—it is still speculation. Thousands of years and the mysteries were not leaked.
But ask many LDS how the temple answers the basic questions and it isn’t obvious to many.
I wonder about it all.
And I’m curious about the answers others have found to the core questions.
Thanks for this post!
I’ve recently been mourning how women were excluded from so many of my significant memories growing up – baptism, confirmation, temple work, settings apart, father’s blessings, etc. This post has helped me to re-frame some of my early memories so that instead of mourning that, for example, my mom wasn’t allowed to be an official witness at my baptism, I can better appreciate the real, important, and ritualistic work that my mom did. Like preparing baptism invitations, coordinating and cooking for the potluck, and making sure I had a new, clean towel to dry off, I appreciate the chance to reconsider “worldly” women’s work in the church as essential ritualistic work. And why not! I feel the spirit way more baking a loaf of bread than I ever did in the temple!
Wayfarer, There is indeed a dearth of discussion that leads to the “ignorance” in which you are not alone. I’ll add this as a way in which some have found meaning in what seemed to them meaningless:
While the names of the tokens cannot be disclosed except in a certain place in the temple, for some it is worth thinking of those names in connection with certain scriptural concepts:
1. Matthew 22:30 “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” This may require recognizing and accepting who one really is and one’s status before God: Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
2. 2 Corinthians 5:17 “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” Revelation 2:17 “…To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.” Revelation 3:12 “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, … and I will write upon him my new name.”
3. 1 John 1:7 “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Isaiah 22:23 “And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.”
4. Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye. shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”
Some see the ritual aspects with respect to the tokens as ways of cementing these concepts in memory. Physical involvement can aid learning and memory. E.g., the simple act of taking notes on a lecture can help one remember even without ever going back to review those notes. I suspect that, if in some way the endowment “points to” Christ, it is largely through these scriptural concepts. Perhaps learning and applying them will prove more significant than any magic in the ritual designed to call them to mind.
Of course, I could just be “out to lunch” like some think I am when I suggest that tithing-paying is not a matter of “worthiness” but a matter of preparation. I have wondered how it could be appropriate to encourage someone to make a temple covenant of consecration if they have not somehow found a way to pay tithing.
On the other hand, I’d prefer dropping the word “worthiness,” dropping the tithing question, and replacing it (and other things) with disclosure and discussion of the covenants and their possible meanings. Maybe we should even go back to Lorenzo Snow’s words omitted in favor of elipses in “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church – Lorenzo Snow”: “…I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child WHO HAD MEANS shall pay one tenth of their income as a tithing…” I would then leave it to them whether they have “means” just as our local leaders are now instructed to leave it to the member to determine whether to pay tithing on “gross” or “net” income — whatever those concepts mean.
Again, good luck.
BeenThere said “Even though the gays in the family are barred from some ordinances, they can’t be excluded from the rituals.”
I noted above how beautiful BeenThere’s words are. They are also heartbreaking. I wish that our “family oriented” church didn’t so often exclude certain family members. Allowing marriages outside of the temple without delaying the sealing for a year is a start (although culturally we have a distance to go on this as many couples still cling to old ways no matter who is excluded). Many of our ordinances and rituals could be adapted to become more inclusive. I thought the church did nothing but strengthen families until I had a family member who wasn’t active and then it became glaringly obvious how in these cases the church becomes an obstacle to family unity. Elder Ballard asked, of those wanting to leave, “Where will you go?” Maybe to a place that allows us to be together for important life events. To a place that excludes no one.
I love the attitude of BeenThere’s family. I long for the church to change in inclusive rather than exclusive ways.
Dave B
Your third way of looking at rituals is useful to me:
“ Understanding that religious ritual is so broad and is oriented towards social involvement and activity … makes it easier to participate for some people.”
Thank you for pointing that out.
My oldest left the church long ago. I feel like he managed his exit well. He lived 2,000 miles away from us when our youngest went on a mission. To coordinate with another family event, the mission farewell was weeks before the mtc. As a surprise, he showed up the day before the mtc admit.
Showing solidarity with his sib was more important to him than his church qualms.