I’ve been thinking about temple
ordinances and wondering if we couldn’t streamline some of them without doing
damage to what they are intended to accomplish, or what they actually can accomplish.
The first question that came to
mind concerns the nature of the endowment and the two very different groups of
recipients for whom it is intended. The endowment, as currently structured, divides
nicely into two separate elements: instruction and covenants. It is currently
aimed at both the living and the dead. It seems to me, however, that the instruction
portion of the endowment is necessary only for the living. If the dead need
instruction, it seems to me that this could and should be given on the other
side of the veil. The proxies sit for a good 40 minutes or so listening to
instruction that they have heard before, many times. Yes, repetition is
important. But to hear the same instruction every time you do an endowment for
an expired human seems largely unnecessary. Perhaps every couple of years a
proxy could sit through an endowment session for the living that would include
the full instruction portion. That should be repetition enough.
The second portion of the
endowment, the covenants, might also be streamlined a bit. I’ve wondered why,
as a proxy, I commit on behalf of a long-deceased person presumably living in
the spirit world to live the law of chastity. Unless the spirit world is a lot
different than what I imagine it to be, this law is probably not very relevant
there. It is important for mortals, as part of our mortal test, so to speak. But
in the hereafter? The same goes for consecration. Is there a lot of spiritual
property in the spirit world that some spirits tend to hoard? Now, time and talents
I understand. Those should carry the same weight in the hereafter as they do
here. But I can’t help but wonder how some of the covenants apply to
disembodies spirits.
The history of the endowment is
both fascinating and rather murky. From what I have read, the endowment has not
only some obvious ties to freemasonry but also a connection to polygamy. It
seems Joseph was very concerned about keeping plural marriage a secret, and the
group he knew that was most adept at keeping secrets was the freemasons. So, it
makes sense that he would borrow some of their methods for ensuring secrecy among
his followers, particularly concerning a practice that was sure to cause an
uproar if it became public knowledge. Of course, it did become public knowledge,
and it did cause an uproar.
I’m wondering, since the need for
secrecy is not such a pressing matter now, whether we couldn’t trim some of the
secrecy-oriented elements from the endowment without really doing any damage to
what it is intended to accomplish. Some of these elements have already been
pruned out. Why not make a few more deletions that nobody really needs in today’s
church?
Maybe another day I’ll tackle
washings and anointings and sealings. I understand sealing spouses together,
but I’ve always wondered what exactly is accomplished by sealing children to
parents. I’m sure my children don’t want to be living under my roof in the
hereafter. I certainly don’t want to be living under my parents’ roof. The
sealing must therefore be mostly symbolic. But if it’s just a formality to
cement family relationships, isn’t that much better accomplished by working at cultivating
strong relationships (read friendships) than by forming some sort of multigenerational
chain? I imagine that if my children want to associate with me in the great
beyond, they will. If they don’t, then no sealing ordinance can force them to.
I agree. When we do vicarious baptisms for the deadwe don’t have a hymn, an opening prayer, talks on baptism and the Holy Ghost, etc, etc. We dunk them as quickly as we can recite ordinance. Our current method of endowments for the dead seems to be like having a complete baptismal service for each name being done.
ReplyDeleteIt's not instruction (or at least not *just* instruction).
ReplyDeleteIt's a dramatic enactment of our fall and redemption, depicted in parallel with the fall and redemption of our first parents. The covenants are just part of our redemption. Every member of the posterity of Adam and Eve is brought individually by name from his or her own sinful state, back into the presence of the Lord. We're not just "hearing about" Adam and Eve; we're with them in the Garden, and with them in the world, and with them as they are redeemed (though that is obscured somewhat in the filmed version, where it's less obvious that the posterity of Adam and Eve is on the same stage and the same room with Adam and Eve and others).
Removing what you call "instruction" would gut the very essence of the endowment, and would imply that the dead are not redeemed on the same basis as the living. Removing the sacred drama from the endowment wouldn't be like removing talks and hymns from a baptism. It would be like doing a baptism without all that water and without the baptismal prayer.
Terry on the temple: "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away."
ReplyDeleteI largely agree with you on streamlining. I would not dispense with the whole instruction part, but would condense it--especially all of the return-and-report stuff. I would not eliminate any of the covenants, however. They will all be relevant in the resurrection.
ReplyDeleteAnother approach I have pondered is taking multiple names--say five--through a single session. Each covenant would have to be repeated five times and people with fewer names would simply abstain once they ran out of names. The instruction part would occur once. At the veil, you would go through symbolically four times (like during the demonstration) and physically only the fifth time.
Last Lemming