The Objective of Our Religious Ordinances

I believe we bind ourselves to each other, that we separate ourselves from each other and that the concept of eternal sealing as embodied in the temple is a wonderful, profound, necessary thing. I love the concept, even if I don't put any power into the ordinance in, of and by itself.

I am confident every apostle in the LDS Church agrees with that last sentence, since every one of them will say that people who are sealed in the temple won't stay sealed automatically just because of that ceremonial sealing. An abusive jerk won't be able to abuse his wife and kids eternally just because he lied to get into the temple and participate in a sealing ordinance - but a righteous, loving spouse who truly becomes bound to his or her spouse in this life will gratefully accept the continuation of that sealed relationship in the next life, regardless of whether they were part of a ceremonial sealing in this life.

The object of our ordinances isn't to go through them; it is to have their symbolic meaning spread throughout us.  The object of our ordinances is to be changed by them - to become what they are intended to convey to us it is possible to become.  

I Don't Care Much about the Exact Nature of Our Temple Ordinances

I don't think the exact actions performed in the temple are eternal actions that must occur for each and every person who has lived throughout history for those people to be saved / exalted in the kingdom / presence of God. If circumcision could be replaced by baptism as a sign of a people's covenant relationship with God, then I'm open to just about any sign of that sort of covenant relationship. (Seriously, cutting off a bit of someone's penis changed to immersing them in water?! There is absolutely no connection there, except the symbolism and faith behind the actions.) It's not the exact form of one's actions that I believe is important; it's the intent and symbolism of those actions and how they impact lives and "becoming" that I think is critical, important, vital, significant, empowering, etc.

So, I believe in LDS temple work passionately for what it represents and symbolizes - but I could feel the same way if the exact nature of the actions was something totally different. Thus, I don't think the actions themselves need to be taken literally (in the sense that we use to extrapolate baptism back to Adam, which I just don't believe at all) - but I do believe the purpose / symbolism behind them is literal and powerful.

At the risk of sounding heretical, and asking everyone to understand what I am trying to say by wording the following in an intentionally exaggerated manner:

I wrote once that if jumping around like a monkey while barking like a dog somehow carried deep, symbolic meaning and purpose for a people, and if they chose, therefore, to enact sacred rituals in which they jumped around like monkeys and barked like dogs, I would have no problem with that - none, at all. (In many ways, that's how others often react to our own temple ceremonies - with that degree of disbelief and scorn.)  If they were able to feel close to God in that manner, if they really were able to tap into the divine in that way, God bless them and keep them. I wouldn't try in any way to shatter that and substitute something that wouldn't resonate with them and create that same wonder and relationship, just because their format wouldn't work for me. Therefore, I can appreciate much of what I see in lots of religious / sacred traditions and sometimes gain much from borrowing elements that actually do resonate with me - symbolically.

I do believe that some form of communal "ordinances / ritual" is important - that, literally, people have to create some form of worship that draws them to God. That, in my opinion, is literal - and I personally LOVE the way that it is structured in Mormonism in the temple. I love the concept and principle of turning our hearts to our ancestors and believing that they have turned their hearts to us. I wish badly that we as a people would look at temple ordinances as a chance to "re-call" our ancestors, as opposed to just "remembering" them. That, to me, is literal and vital - not the exact manner in which we do the recalling, even as I love the way we can do it in the temple.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: When Ordinances Become "Communal" and Their Real Power Is Manifest

Last Sunday was the final week to discuss "Ordinances and Covenants", so I borrowed a copy of the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 2 - intending to highlight some of the ordinances we hadn't discussed previously and the general policies surrounding performing ordinances. (Section 20) It didn't go fully according to my plan; it turned out to be a much better discussion than I could have imagined.

I started by revisiting the foundational concepts we had discussed in the first lesson this month:

1) Ordinances are actions we perform to convey a specific meaning or message. They are symbolic and have NO power whatsoever except what we give to them. For example, if baptism was about immersion in water only, we could have people jump into a pool and call it baptism - or we could eat some cake and drink some fruit punch in the cultural hall and call it the sacrament.

2) Covenants are the actual meaning of the ordinances - meaning the power and purpose of ordinances is wrapped up in what they motivate us to promise to do and then actually do. Again, without covenants, there is no power whatsoever in ordinances - since it's not performing them that is the key but rather what we choose to become as a result of participating in them.

I then explained what I had in mind, held up the handbook and asked how many of them knew that the handbook was available to all of them online. I shouldn't have been surprised due to their ages, but most of them (whose parents almost all have prominent callings in the ward) didn't know there was a handbook that contained the official church policies and general counsel. Due to that, I took a few minutes to read through the section titles and go through how to access the handbooks online - step-by-step, so they could do so anytime the wanted.

From 20.1 (General Instructions), I showed them the part about saving ordinances needing authorization from the person who holds the keys to the performance of that ordinance (the person who is authorized to control, direct and oversee it), then we read the general format of all ordinances:

1. It should be performed in the name of Jesus Christ.
2. It should be performed by the authority of the priesthood.
3. It should be performed with any necessary procedures, such as using specified words or using consecrated oil.
4. It should be authorized by the presiding authority who holds the proper keys (normally the bishop or stake president), if necessary according to the instructions in this chapter.

I modeled what something like a baby blessing would sound like if only the minimum requirements were included ("Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ and by the authority of the priesthood, I give his child the name of Jane Doe" - perhaps with an additional, "and bless her with everything you desire to give her. Amen.") - and stressed that such a blessing would be every bit as meaningful as one that lasted for 15 minutes. We discussed the danger of allowing blessings to become about us and our oratory skills. I told them about my varying experiences with blessings - how I have participated in hundreds of blessings throughout my life, with only a handful where I can say, without doubt, that I spoke revelation directly from God. I explained that even though I couldn't say that about the other hundreds, I was glad I had participated in them in order to experience the overpowering ones.

We talked about what kind of ordinances require exact wording (e.g., baptism, the sacrament, temple ordinances, etc.) and which ones don't (e.g., all blessings, confirmation after baptism, etc.). We talked about what is necessary for someone in one ward or branch to perform an ordinance in a different location (approval from the leader in that other location) and how that decision might be made (a letter from the other Bishop, a phone call, an active temple recommend - although that last one might not be accurate, if someone had sinned egregiously after receiving it, etc.). We then read 20.1.3 about that situation, and I pointed out the use of "should" - as opposed to "must". I told them we would revisit that issue at the end of the lesson.

From 20.1.1 (Participation in Ordinances and Blessings) and 20.1.2 (Worthiness to Participate in an Ordinance or Blessing), we talked about ordinances that require a current temple recommend and the Melchizedek Priesthood (primarily the "saving ordinances") and the difference between being the voice in an ordinance (representing the church leadership) and simply participating (less strict standards, with more discretion given to the local leader). We also discussed how baptism does NOT require either the Melchizedek Priesthood or a current temple recommend, even though it is considered a saving ordinance - which means there are a LOT of fathers who may perform that ordinance for their children who might assume they can't. I told them that I hope when they are leaders of any kind that they are mindful of such situations and allow fathers to do so as much as possible.

I mentioned that, as I read the handbook, I am struck by how many policies and how much counsel HAD to have been the result of members doing really stupid things. I mentioned how much smaller the current version is than in the past, but, even now, I envision the leadership sitting down to discuss the handbook and saying:

You're kidding me! They did WHAT?! Ah, crap, now we're going to have to write a policy and give counsel about that.

At this point, the lesson took a different turn than I had expected. We read the following:

Those who participate are usually limited to a few, including priesthood leaders, close family members, and close associates such as home teachers. Inviting large numbers of family, friends, and leaders to assist in an ordinance or blessing is discouraged. When too many participate, it can become cumbersome and detract from the spirit of the ordinance. Those who perform an ordinance and those who preside are the only ones required. Others provide support and sustain the spokesman.

I asked the students why the policy is usually to limit those who participate in ordinances to "a few" people. They were a bit stumped by that, so I asked them what would happen if a large family, with lots of adult relatives (like mine), wanted to have all of those people (say 35) help bless a baby. (I used an extreme to make the point obvious.) I gave them a visual illustration of how each person would have to stand in order for all of them to reach the baby - and we spent a few minutes laughing at the possibilities. When we had stopped laughing, I pointed out that what had just happened in our classroom (laughing at the visual image) is precisely why the policy is in place - along with the desire to not have ordinances become a contest to see who has "the most righteous" posterity / family or create concern about overlooking anyone and having people be upset that they weren't asked to participate.

Somehow, that discussion led to a different discussion about what happens when an entire congregation becomes invested in an ordinance and it becomes more than an individual experience and more of a true community (group unity) event. I shared the gist of one of my favorite blog posts ever, "Ninety One Words" - about a young man with a severe stutter being asked to say the sacrament prayer. I described how, by the end of the prayer, the entire congregation was mouthing the words silently - praying for the young man to have or receive the strength he needed to get through it. I explained how the sacrament had never meant more to that congregation, since they were united in support of someone else and were inspired to consider the words themselves more carefully and deeply than had happened previously in their lives. (Please read the post. It is stunning.)

The story really touched the students, and one of them shared an experience he had witnessed in his previous ward, prior to moving to our ward. He said the missionaries had been referred to and started teaching a man who was in the hospital being treated for the effects of being severely overweight - somewhere over 500 pounds. He accepted the message and asked to be baptized, but he couldn't fit in the church's font - so the Bishop arranged to perform the ordinance at a pool in the community. About a dozen or so people got into the pool, and someone said the baptismal prayer at the edge of the pool next to the man. After the prayer, people outside the pool used a fireman's tarp (the kind that is used to catch people who jump from burning buildings) to lower the man into the pool, where the people in the pool took the tarp and allowed it to sink to the bottom so the man could be immersed - then lifted the man back out of the pool and set him and the tarp back on the edge of the pool.

We talked about how it is moments like those experiences when what too often becomes little more than rote, autopilot actions suddenly take on real, deep meaning - when necessary exceptions almost force us to see the ordinances as they are intended to be - when we become truly invested in them and realize how much they mean to those who see and feel the power of the symbolism and are determined to participate no matter the difficulty.

We were almost out of time at that point, so I simply mentioned how important it is to read the handbook carefully and notice the choice of words, especially those like "should", "must", "can", "might", "encouraged", "discouraged", "forbidden", etc. I told them that I personally read everything with an eye to the most charitable, inclusive application possible - that I would rather err on the side of inclusion and charity than on the side of exclusion and judgment. I shared the story told here (without sharing the name of the site, obviously) about someone being denied the opportunity to have his baby blessed during sacrament meeting because he wasn't a member at the time - and I pointed out that there is nothing in the handbook that says a non-member can have a baby blessed, but there also is nothing in it that says it can't be done. I told them that I believe it our Christian duty to make our decisions based on what we feel would be the best for the people involved - what we would want if it was us making the request, as long as such a request was not explicitly forbidden in the handbook. I told them that they all probably will be leaders of some sort in the Church at some point in their lives and that I hope they will read and apply the handbook policies and counsel as expansively as they can - to make as many ordinances as "communal" as possible.

There was a spirit during the last part of the lesson that I couldn't have anticipated, and I am grateful it went differently than I had planned.

We Shouldn't Stop Baptisms for Our Own Dead Ancestors, No Matter What They Believed

Baptism for the dead of other people's ancestors is a highly emotional issue, especially when those ancestors were part of a group that died rather than deny their religion.  This is true of Jews, and particularly Holocaust victims, but it also is true of other groups throughout history.

I have heard the following analogy more than once from those opposed to our vicarious temple ordinances:

Imagine if a Rabbi said that Joseph Smith Jr. had been initiated in the Jewish religion now that he was on the other side of death. And because of that his whole life, all the work he stood for and his death are now worthless from the viewpoint of Mormonism. How would the LDS membership feel about that?  

I agree that this concept and principle is highly offensive to people, just like the example of the Holocaust victims. I really do. At heart, it can't be seen as anything but arrogant by those who aren't part of the group performing the ordinances. I get that.

Now, the inevitable "however" . . .

1) I think most of it is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between baptism in the LDS Church and baptism in other Christian denominations. In other churches, a baptism is a choice made prior to the baptism happening and a binding, saving ordinance all by itself - and, since there is no concept of a "preliminary baptism, subject to acceptance later", baptizing someone else is seen as a violation of choice. Thus, people see baptizing others who have died as a violation of choice when, in principle within Mormonism, it isn't such a violation.

2) If I were a non-member, and if something like this happened with someone I know and/or revere, and if I understood Mormon doctrine better than most people do, I would be FAR more upset about the confirmation than about the baptism. I could understand the general concept of baptism for the dead, but I would have a hard time understanding the idea that a church continues past death and that my ancestor had been confirmed as a member of a particular church in the next life. I'm a firmly believing member, and even I don't see it that way. I'm OK with the practice of temple confirmations (since I can view it all symbolically), but I absolutely can understand why others would be upset about it who have no viewpoint other than the literal.

3) Finally, if we exclude some people, where do we draw the line? Do we stop baptizing everyone whose kin or nationality might get upset about it? That would include just about everyone. If so, we might as well shut down the temples completely - and I absolutely don't want that happening. The concept and principle of universal opportunity for salvation and exaltation is one of my favorite aspects of Mormonism - and I really do love the embodiment of that in the vicarious ordinances for the dead. Do we only stop baptizing celebrities and famous people - those whose names are easily recognizable? That just doesn't sit well at all with me. I'd rather shut down the temples than say, "We'll baptize all individuals whose work won't cause a scene, but we'll skip all those famous people whose work might do so."

Honestly, I really am torn on this one a bit - since I don't want to gut one of my favorite aspects of Mormonism. In many ways, my choice would be to have the Church issue a press release laying out exactly why we perform temple ordinances (with a Biblical justification), that there is no aspect of coercion or lack of choice in the practice, that the ordinances are not seen as binding in any way for those involved and that we won't stop doing something we believe has been commanded by Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. I'd rather have a strong statement saying, essentially:

"This is a core element of our theology, and we won't back down from it." 

I also would reiterate to the membership that their first concern should be finding and doing the work for their own ancestors, not submitting names of people to whom they are not descended directly unless they can show that they have exhausted all possibility of furthering their own genealogical research.

I know that would not help our missionary work with some people, but I think it actually would with others - and I just see it as the right things to do, if we really do believe in the concept and principle of the work done in the temple (even if we see it as purely symbolic).

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Sacrament Covenant - Repentance; A Deeper, Fresh View

Yesterday, we focused on the lesson outline: "How can I make the sacrament more meaningful to me?" We had talked the first week about the sacrament and the covenants associated with it, but I really like the way the opening paragraph of the outline is worded, so I used that paragraph as the foundation of a deeper look at how to maximize the concept of the sacrament in practical terms in our lives.

The lesson outline starts with the following:

During the sacrament each week, we should examine our lives, ponder the Savior’s Atonement, and consider what we need to do to repent of our sins. We do not need to be perfect in order to partake of the sacrament, but we should have a spirit of humility and repentance in our hearts. The sacrament can become a source of strength and an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to living the gospel.

I started by reminding everyone of a lesson we had last year about repentance - particularly how we only understand half of the concept of repentance when we focus solely on remembering our sins / mistakes and vowing not to repeat them. (If anyone wants a fuller look at that concept before continuing with this lesson summary, read the following post from January 2008, since our discussion was based on that post: "A Fresh View of Repentance".)

I asked everyone what "repent" means, and they remembered that it simply means "change". I explained that we were going to talk about two ways to try to repent: 1) the traditional focus on recognizing past sins and committing to not repeat them; 2) changing our very nature by developing characteristics that will help us not feel and act in the same way we naturally would.

I mentioned that the first approach (the traditional steps of repentance method) is necessary for "hardcore" sinners (similar to what addicts might have to do because they might struggle with a temptation all their lives but simply have to commit to a sheer force of will no matter how long it takes, along with other strategies), but that, for most people, just suppressing an inclination generally results in that inclination eventually erupting through built-up pressure - which, as one student said, leads to a vicious cycle of failed attempts and self-criticism. I call this reactive repentance, and I stressed that the ONLY focus of this sort of repentance is to remain as good as we are at any given point - to not let our "badness" overcome our goodness, so to speak. There is no real "growth" in that approach; rather, it is much more of a fight to remain stationary.

The second approach is to recognize a weakness and work to develop a characteristic that will eliminate the inclination / weakness / undesired action. This also is focused on "change", so it is "repentance" every bit as much as the other approach. I call this approach proactive repentance. 

I asked the students if any of them had ever lost their temper and acted toward someone in a way that they regretted. (I picked a fairly generic issue in order to make it personal for all of them but avoid embarrassing anyone.) They all grinned and raised their hands. I asked them how they could change that - how they could go about trying to not do it anymore - other than simply committing not to do it. I asked them to think about exactly what they could do to tackle that particular issue. Eventually, we came up with the following:

1) Develop more patience;

2) Learn to understand the other person better - both their view/perspective and what things in their life might lead them to say and/or do something that bothered the students enough to get upset and lose their temper.

We talked about patience being the "lower" standard and understanding being the "higher" goal. One of the students in the class has Asperger's Syndrome and occasionally says something inappropriate or off the wall. He said it was okay to use him as an example, so we talked about why everyone else didn't get mad at him and lose their tempers when he said or did something that might make them mad if someone else said or did it. They all said they understand and love him - and, beside being a wonderfully tender moment, it helped them see what I meant about repentance being more than just not doing things. It also can mean doing something to improve one's self and change actions as a result, in this case by understanding someone enough to love them no matter what they say or do.

One student said he would like to read the scriptures more, so we talked about how repentance also can apply to things that aren't seen as sin but are strictly things we want to do better - things we want to change. For this discussion, I focused on the idea of needing to examine one's life and make "repentance" a very practical exercise. We talked about needing to think about themselves and when they are most alert - to look at their real-life schedule and choose a time that will work to read the scriptures - to actually calendar the time so it becomes habitual - to perhaps let others know so they can remind us of the commitment - etc. There were seven people in the room, and we came up with at least four approaches that would be best for someone.

This highlighted that repentance is an individual thing - that there is no one-size-fits-all, universally right approach - that nobody ought to try to force someone else to repent in the same way that person does.

Finally, I returned to the sacrament and pointed out that the ideal is not just to "think about Jesus" but rather to have faith in the Atonement enough to examine our lives and use the sacrament as a way to recommit to a practical examination and plan to change - to move from a warm fuzzy spiritual contemplation to a difficult, reflective, practical exercise founded on a spiritual hope.

I left them with the request to pick something that they want to improve about themselves and start focusing on doing so, if only one thing at a time for a limited time and if only to make some limited improvement during that time (rather than trying to overcome it completely and be "perfect" [whole, complete, fully developed] at it in the short-term).

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Baptismal Covenants; or, Serving Only "Our Own" Is Not Following Jesus

Last Sunday, we talked about only one aspect of ordinances and covenants: the baptismal covenant to bear one another's burdens, mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need to comfort.

We spent the entire lesson talking about: 1) the fact that the Gospels detail a LOT more time spent serving people than time spent preaching; 2) exactly whom Jesus served during his mortal ministry (lepers, the sick and afflicted, the unclean, the despised, the poor, the powerless, etc. - his "kingdom of nobodies", as a friend of mine once wrote) and whom he did NOT serve (the religious leadership, the rich and famous and influential, etc.); 3) whom he might serve if he was born and ministered now; 4) how all of that relates to our own baptismal commitment to bear, mourn and comfort and, overall, to take Jesus' name upon us and become more Christ-like.

The list of whom he might serve now was created by the students and included: the sick, the poor, unwed teenage mothers, alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, the homeless (especially those who are mentally disabled). I pressed them to keep adding to the list, asking them to consider those who are marginalized specifically by our current Mormon culture and not already on the list, and they added homosexuals and the divorced. I personally added church members who see things differently than a locally dominant culture, struggle with aspects of faith and remain silent in order not to feel rejected in their congregations.

We talked about how natural it is to try to avoid becoming unclean or hurt (and how, in some cases, that is an unfortunate necessity) and how that translates inter-personally and socially into avoiding people who we see as unclean and/or dangerous - either physically or spiritually. We talked about how doing so is diametrically opposed to becoming Christ-like (except in the extreme cases when it is necessary), since he spent his entire ministry interacting with, serving and physically touching the people whom everyone else labeled as unclean and avoided in order to remain clean.

To end the lesson, I quoted my oldest daughter after she went through the temple for the first time. She said:

Dad, we spend so much time trying to build up the kingdom of God on earth that we forget to establish Zion.

I told them that we aren't really fulfilling our baptismal covenants if we aren't serving people who live outside our comfort zone - if we aren't helping people in a deeply personal, individual way who are rejected by other people, even people within our own church circles. I mentioned how much we construct our service projects around helping "our own" and too often ignore the people around us who are carrying the heaviest burdens, mourning alone and need comfort the most desperately. I asked them to think about the people on the list we created and look for ways to reach out to SOMEONE - actively and directly - who would be on that list. I told them that such an effort was vital to being a true disciple ("follower") of Christ - since, to do so, we have to be willing to go where he went and serve whom he served.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Power of Ordinances through Covenants - Part 1

I just realized I didn't post yesterday the summary of my lesson last Sunday. Here goes: 

The topic this month is Ordinances and Covenants. I really like the first verse cited in the first lesson outline - the "theme verse" (D&C 84:19-20), which says:

And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

I began by casting ordinances as symbolic actions within the administrative Priesthood (what is performed by others - currently only ordained men) and covenants as the responsibility of the "priesthood of believers" (things men and women both do through the authority and power of the priesthood we discussed last month when analyzing Elder Oaks'' talk). I told the students we would be talking for at least a couple of weeks about specific ordinances, what they mean (the symbolism of each one), the covenants associated with them and what "power of godliness" they manifest. To set the stage, we talked about the relationship between ordinances and covenants - focusing on the idea that the ordinances symbolize, in a tangible, physical manner, the covenants we make with God and ourselves and that living covenants is how divine power (the power of godliness) is manifest. To illustrate that relationship, we covered baptism, the sacrament and confirmation after baptism.

In the spirit of a summary, the following is the result of our discussions. Keep in mind that what follows was not presented in a lecture format but rather through discussion, as I try to do nearly every week.

Baptism means, literally, immersion. (The original meaning of "to baptize" means "to immerse".) The symbolism of baptism is the burial of one's old life and a birth as a "new creature in Christ". By being immersed in water, the person symbolically is immersed anew in Christ and emerges as a "Christian" - or, in Mormon terms, a god in embryo or a developing God, someone who is following Jesus in an evolutionary, progressive way. S/he is born into godhood, so to speak, and begins a journey toward perfection (completeness, wholeness, full development) in Christ.

The covenants we accept at baptism all deal with actualizing (making literal) the symbolic meaning of the ordinance. We promise to take Jesus' name upon us, always remember him, stand as a witness of him, keep his commandments, etc. (I skipped the comfort, mourn and bear burdens covenants, since we are going to devote as much of the lesson as possible later today on that concept.) The power of godliness that is manifest in baptism is NOT in the physical ordinance itself, and there is no magic / sudden / automatic power involved. Rather, the power is activated when a person acts on the covenants: becoming a real disciple of Christ, always remembering him (and acting on that remembrance), standing as a witness of him (not just in word but in deed, as well) by doing the things he did and asked us to do (loving, not judging, serving, teaching, supporting, embracing, etc.). The power is the metamorphosis that occurs when a "natural (wo)man" becomes unnatural or godly - literally becoming a new person, just like the ordinance symbolizes.

The word "sacrament" means "a visible sign of an inward grace; something regarded as possessing a sacred character or mysterious significance." The "inward grace" symbolized by the sacrament is being cleansed by Jesus' blood and body - and we normally talk about it in terms of remembering Gethsemane and Golgotha and what occurred there. However, it is more than just remembering Jesus during the ordinance; it is supposed to be remembering his sacrifice for us and being cleansed anew (renewing our baptismal covenants). Thus, the power of the sacrament is the exact same as being baptized - the continuation of the metamorphosis to which we commit initially, contingent on us actually living the covenants on a continual basis. The exact composition of the sacramental elements can change (wine to water, for example, or military rations, when bread and water are unavailable), as long as the meaning and power remain unchanged.

"Confirm" means "establish the truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify". Confirmation, at its most basic level, simply validates publicly what is performed privately (or in front of a limited number of observers). Part of that is for the person who was baptized, so s/he can claim a cleansed state without disputation from others, but the primary focus is on the rest of the community - an official stamp of approval by the leadership certifying acceptance into the group. The added Mormon element is the second part of the ordinance - the charge to receive the Holy Ghost. That symbolizes the beginning of divine assistance in the new journey of discipleship - and the power of the ordinance occurs, just like with baptism and the sacrament, when we act in such a way that we really do "receive the Holy Ghost" (or, more generically, listen for and follow what we believe to be God's will in our lives).

I made a point to talk about why it is wrong to say that we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost when we are confirmed. That wording makes the primary "actor" (the one who is active as the primary subject) the person who performs the ordinance, while the wording ("receive the Holy Ghost") clearly puts the responsibility for the actualization of the power squarely on the person who has been baptized.

We also talked about how baptism does NOT bring anyone into the Church, since a person who died immediately following being baptized would never have been, officially, a member of the Church.

Finally, we talked about how the blessing that commonly is pronounced along with the confirmation is NOT part of the ordinance itself but rather a cultural practice to provide guidance and revelation to the person. If the person performing the ordinance ended it right after the admonition to receive the Holy Ghost, it would be considered a full and proper confirmation.

To wrap up the lesson, I simply pointed out that the power of each of these ordinances is manifest ONLY if the person on the receiving end takes the covenants seriously and uses the ordinances as a symbolic launching pad toward developing the characteristics of godliness that allow God to make us what we would not become on our own - that the power of godliness is a transformative process of continually lived and internalized action, not symbolic actions performed once or even periodically.

Why Are Ordinances Necessary Now if They Are Going to Be Performed for Everyone Eventually?

The question in the title of this post is one I've heard numerous times in my life, and I think it is a very good question - and I also think the answer to that question is absolutely vital to an understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the incredible power of the Restored Gospel as taught in Mormonism.  I hope the following answer to that question is understandable and helps someone who reads this post:

The LDS Church teaches that the ordinances of the Priesthood are necessary for exaltation, but it also teaches that those ordinances will be performed for literally everyone who ever has lived at some point in time when the information becomes available to us. This leads directly to the question in the post title: Sure they are necessary, but why should we care about performing them now? Within our theology, them happening at some point is a given, so it's no big deal for the people who have died, from an eternal perspective, that they happen right now. They might have to wait a little longer if we don't do the ordinances now, but what's a few more years (or even a thousand more years) in light of an eternity?   

My answer is that it's absolutely important for US that WE do them now.

1) Providing the ordinances for every single person who ever has lived removes all "arbitrary" aspects of salvation and exaltation and says we really will be "judged" according to who we become - not what ordinances we perform. That assertion, and the practical proof that we really do believe it, as shown by our willingness to do vicarious ordinances, cuts the heart out of the mainstream Christian arrogance that asserts salvation for the believers in this life and damnation for the non-believers in this life.

That's so important that I will repeat it in different words:

Whether or not ordinances literally are necessary right now is irrelevant, IF we posit that they will be performed in the end for every person who ever has lived. If they are going to be performed at some point, the only "real" benefit of doing them here and now is to those who perform them - particularly in regard to how they see and judge others. In other words, it's all about the effect of those ordinances on us. 

2) It truly is eye-opening to compare the statements in Malachi and the Doctrine & Covenants about the visitation of Elijah as it relates to vicarious work.

Malachi 4:6 says:

And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers...

D&C 2:2, on the other hand, says: 

And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. 

Notice that the verse in Malachi mentions two turnings of the heart, while the verse in the D&C mentions only one turning.  That distinction is critical, I believe, as it seems to say that the "heart of the fathers" already has been turned to the children - so all that is left is to turn the heart of the children to their fathers.  

In other words, at the most basic level, if we are to be united as one great, eternal, universal family of God, the need to perform vicarious ordinances lies in the need to have our own hearts turned to meet the hearts of our fathers that have been turned already.  The need to turn our hearts encompasses ALL of our ancestors - ALL of God's children - meaning we need to seek them out and acknowledge our eternal debt and connection to them, then try to show our love and respect by going to a temple and bearing testimony of our changed hearts by doing something they can't do for themselves but which could and will be done by someone else whose heart is turned to them if ours is not. 

Why are ordinances necessary now if they are going to be performed for everyone eventually?  

Our hearts need to be turned. 

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Temple Ordinances (Laws) and Covenants

In our previous lesson we talked about the ordinances and covenants outside the temple, so last Sunday we talked about the ordinances and covenants in the temple. Given their relative inexperience with the temple, this lesson was much more a traditional lesson (I talked most of the time.) than our normal lessons.

We started by writing the definitions from last week on the board again:

ordinance: "a physical action that represents / symbolizes a covenant"

covenant: "a spiritual promise between God and humanity in which God sets the terms and we accept those terms, with a reward or benefit associated with faithful adherence to the terms of the covenant"

I explained the difference between "high church" worship (elaborate and ceremonial, like Catholic mass and our own Sacrament ordinance) and "low church" worship (common and horizontal, like many Protestant services, but especially like our open involvement model). I explained how hard it can be for Catholic investigators and converts to accept the low-church aspects of our regular worship but how easy it is for many of them to accept the temple, since it is very much a high church model - and how the opposite is true for many Protestant investigators and converts.

We listed the regular ordinances that are performed in the temple: baptisms for only the dead, the initiatory (washing and anointing) for the living and dead, the endowment, marriage sealing. We talked briefly about each of them and what happens, skipping the endowment to discuss in more detail as the last part of the lesson.

Since we talked about the initiatory last week, we didn't spend much time on it this week. We only talked about the introduction of the garment - and I told them the covenants we make in the temple regarding the garment: "to wear it throughout our lives and not to defile it." I told them that lots of members want to told what to do in too many situations, so the handbook has examples of things that generally should or shouldn't be done, but then the handbook says the specific decisions are up to the members to make with the actual covenants in mind.

We talked about the differences between being married/sealed in the temple and a civil wedding. They knew about the "til death do you part" difference, but they didn't know about the actual nature of the ordinance - the promise-based wording that is very different than the traditional wording. We talked about the difference in the US and other places where the government recognizes a temple sealing as a legal wedding and where the government does not but requires a civil ceremony. One of the students asked about someone who is sealed in another country without being married civilly first and then moves to the US - if that sealing is recognized as a valid marriage in the US. I explained that governments only recognize marriages authorized by other governments, so it would not be valid in the US - which is why people who get sealed in those countries get married civilly first - and why they don't require a waiting period for the sealing that follows.

We then moved to the endowment. We defined "endowment" as "gift". I talked about how some people miss a lot of the beauty and meaning of the endowment because they take everything in it literally - and I mentioned the quote about walking past the angels who stand as guardians to the Celestial Kingdom (modified to remove any reference to the signs and tokens). I mentioned that understanding it as symbolic (going back to the definition of ordinance above) and/or literal allows me to see much more meaning and "learn something new" when I go, since seeing it as literal would limit my understanding and end up being nothing more than sitting through something I have memorized by this point in my life.

I drew a linear representation of the endowment: l---Pre-Mortal Life---l---Telestial---l---Terrestrial---l---Celestial---l

I explained that the endowment is an interactive play (in movie form in most temples now, but still with live actors in SLC and Manti, at least) which depicts out eternal journey from the Pre-Mortal life back into the presence of God in the Celestial Kingdom. I explained that it uses Adam and Eve to represent us - and we talked about the meanings of those names (Adam being "man" and Eve being "mother / initiator / introducer"). Interestingly, one of the students is named Adam, and the meaning associated with the name in baby books is "earthly" - which fits really well. I explained the physical set-up of the rooms and how we move from room to room as we move through the eternal stages. I also mentioned that most of the smaller, most recent temples don't have extensive murals in the rooms but how the earlier and bigger ones depict each stage visually - and how there are more rooms and moving around in the older and larger temples.

I listed the "Laws" that are associated with each stage and room, and I pointed out again that "ordinance" can be translated as "law" - and that making that connection is important in the temple. I told them that I see the endowment as being structured around a series of ordinances - termed "laws" in the actual endowment wording - and the covenants associated with those ordinances or laws. I told them that there is almost nothing that we are commanded not to discuss outside the temple, as long as we are respectful and reverent in the way we do so - but that there are a few things I would not be discussing, particularly the exact form of the ordinances themselves (the way we perform the ordinances associated with the specific covenants). I think seeing the endowment in this manner makes more sense when dealing with the ritualistic aspects that were adapted from Masonry - seeing those aspects as ways that promises are made in the performance of individual ordinances.

We discussed the telestial laws / ordinances: the Law of the Lord, the Law of Sacrifice and the Law of the Gospel.

I mentioned that the Law of the Lord doesn't provide specifics but is focused on hearkening to the voice and commandments of God - and that the woman's covenant includes the promise to hearken unto the "counsel" of her husband as he hearkens unto the Lord. I told them that there is nothing in the wording that requires a woman to "obey" her husband or even accept his counsel if he isn't righteous or simply because he is her husband - that the promise is to listen to him and consider / follow his "counsel" as (to the extent and in the same way that) he is listening to and following the Lord. Importantly, the wording places the right and responsibility to make that judgment with her, not with her husband.

They all understood the basic concept of the Law of Sacrifice, so we didn't spend much time on it - but I did point out that it is a type of preparatory law / ordinance prior to the terrestrial Law of Consecration. I asked them for examples of sacrifice that might apply to this law, and they mentioned tithing and serving in callings.

The Law of the Gospel isn't defined clearly in the temple, so we talked briefly about what "the Gospel" is - faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, love / charity, service, enduring to the end, etc. We talked about why those things are necessary to move from a telestial state to a terrestrial state.

We then discussed the terrestrial laws / ordinances: the Law of Chastity and the Law of Consecration.

I gave them the exact wording of the Law of Chastity in the temple: "no sexual relations except with a husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded". We talked about how non-specific that wording is and how that is intentional. I mentioned the lists of standards in the For Strength of Youth pamphlet and how they represent a kind of Law of Moses approach to chastity - and how the temple wording moves away from that approach and represents our covenant to understand the law more fully and make informed decisions on our own without being commanded in all things.

I also pointed out that the Law of Chastity is accepted in the terrestrial state - and how I believe we devalue it too often when we assume it should be easy for people to live. It actually is the second highest law in the endowment, followed only by consecration, and is accepted as preparation to enter the presence of God. It's not required of people to be considered terrestrial beings, which means people can be committing fornication and still be considered good people who are terrestrial in nature. (I think that's important to understand, and I think it is not understood very well among the church membership, including leaders at all levels.)

We talked about the Law of Consecration and how it is a step up, if you will, from the Law of Sacrifice. I gave the the exact wording of being willing to give our time, talents and everything with which the Lord has blessed us and everything with which he may bless us to the building up of the kingdom of God on earth and to the establishment of Zion.

I ended by sharing with them something my oldest daughter said after her first time going through the temple and experiencing the endowment. She said:

"Dad, we focus so much on building the kingdom of God that we sometimes forget to establish Zion."

We talked about how those two things ought to be synonymous, but how we sometimes separate them. I asked them for ideas about how that might happen, and they mentioned focusing so much on baptism that we forget to fellowship, love and retain new members - that we focus so much on tithing that we forget about fast offerings - that we focus so much on church stuff that we forget about family stuff - etc. I asked them to think about that and talk with their parents about it, since I believe that might be our biggest failure as a people when it comes to truly understanding the temple ordinances and living according to the covenants we make in the temple.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: "P"riesthood and "p"riesthood - Power, Authority and Keys

Last Sunday was the first lesson about the Priesthood and Priesthood Keys.  I used the lesson to go into detail about what the Priesthood is and isn't and the difference between the Priesthood, the priesthood, power, authority and keys.  It was titled, "Priesthood and priesthood" - and I wrote each term above on the chalkboard, with definitions or descriptions under each one added as the lesson progressed. 

1) We started by reading from D&C Section 121.  I mentioned that we nearly always read the first part (Joseph's plea to the Lord) as completely separate from the last part (how to use the Priesthood) but that they are the beginning and end of the same section and, I believe, important to understand together.  I had them read verses 1-6, and I described what was happening in Joseph's life - that he was in the Liberty Jail for months under extreme duress as he heard about all the terrible things that were happening to his people.  I told them that I view this as the moment he finally "broke".  We read the verses and translated them into wording teenagers might use.

"Where are you, God?  Where are you hiding? How long will you watch and listen to your people suffer without helping them?  God, come out of hiding.  Let you anger and fury loose and wipe out our enemies!  If you remember us, we will praise you forever." 

Their translation of God's response was:

"My son, chill out.  Be at peace." 

God then went on to teach Joseph why the request had been an attempt to have God use the Priesthood unrighteously (the use of compulsion through the authority of the Priesthood - verses 36-37) - and he told Joseph how to use it righteously (verses 41-44). 

2) We read from the Bible Dictionary, in which "Priesthood" is not included, but "Priests" is.  It says that OT priests acted as mediators between God and the people - that they were able to "draw nigh to God" but the people weren't.  I pointed out that this structure was the same as the Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages - and that it extended to the people being illiterate and not being able to read the Bible for themselves, relying totally on the Priests to tell them what it said and meant.  That changed dramatically with the Gutenberg Bible and the people being able to read and interpret on their own - and the subsequent rejection of the "Priesthood" being embodied in men and, instead, the "priesthood (of believers)" not requiring mediators between God and the people. 

I asked the students which model we have in the LDS Church, and they recognized that we have both "The Priesthood" and "the priesthood" - since we accept communication from God to church leaders but also personal revelation.  I told them that this structure is more complicated and can be messier than only having one of the models, but that I see it as an aspect of the "Restoration of ALL Things".  This means that the LDS Church has designated Priests, but it also allows everyone, male and female, to be priests.  (I will get into Priests and Priestesses and how this plays out in the temple in a later lesson.) 

2) I asked the students to define "Priesthood".  One of them said it is "the power of God" - so I wrote that on the board.  Another one said it is "the authority to act in the name of God" - so I wrote that also.  I then added that it is "an obligation to serve" and wrote that on the board, telling them I would talk about that later. 

3) Given those definitions and what we had discussed up to that point, I asked them what the difference is between "Priesthood" and "priesthood".  That stumped them, so I added "to perform ordinances" under Priesthood and "to hear and share God's word and do his work" under priesthood.  I called Priesthood the "administrative, formal" Priesthood and priesthood the "informal" priesthood. 

We talked about how every person ever born has the light of Christ and can receive revelation from the Holy Ghost - how every baptized member has committed to take the Lord's name upon them and renews that commitment each Sunday through the sacrament - how every temple endowed member makes covenants and receives promises relative to the priesthood (more detail in a future lesson), etc.  I mentioned that men are the only ones in the Church right now who can administer Priesthood ordinances outside the temple, but every member can speak and act in God's name and, therefore, every member (men, women and children) has that type of priesthood. 

4) We defined "authority" as "permission or right, given by someone to someone else".  Thus, young men in the Aaronic Priesthood have differing things they are authorized to do.  They have the same general authority, but they are authorized to do different things. 

5) We defined "power" as strength or ability, and we talked about how someone can have authority but no power - either due to general unworthiness or, going back to D&;C 121, by trying to compel someone to do what they say "by virtue of the priesthood" (lower case, interestingly).  I used them as examples, looking at one of the young women and mentioning that if she received personal revelation and tried to compel me to follow it, she would be using her priesthood authority unrighteously and, thus, would lose her priesthood power. 

6) I asked them what the purpose of Priesthood ordinances is.  That got some blank looks at first, so I asked them whom the "target" of the ordinances is - the people performing them or the people receiving them.  They got that distinction as we used baptism, the sacrament and healing blessings as examples.  I asked about vicarious temple ordinances - and I pointed out that those ordinances are a bit different in that we can receive the blessings of humility and having our hearts turn to our ancestors - that I don't see temple ordinances in quite the same way as non-temple ordinances, since I see just as much benefit to the "performer" as for the "recipient".

Thus, each and every one of them, male and female, regardless of the type of P/priesthood they hold, only can magnify that divinely representative power and authority righteously by serving others in the way that D&C 121:41-44 describe.  The performance of ordinances, notwithstanding, and the way those responsibilities have been assigned differently over time, in the way they are required to exercise what they have been given there is no difference between them; they all progress individually in exactly the same way.  

Not All Temple Experiences Are Wonderful, but It's Wonderful When They Are

One of my daughters went to the temple a couple of years ago, and there were a couple of really neat experiences during the baptisms. The following is what I wrote about it at the time:

1) One of the men in our ward had some family file names, and he really choked up when he baptized his daughter for the first person. I asked his daughter who that person was while she was waiting to be confirmed (while her father was performing some baptisms with his son), and she said it was her grandmother - her father's mother. I didn't have time to ask for clarification, but she said they had found the necessary information while they were in Cincinnati recently - which made me wonder if this is a "biological mother" of an adopted son, or some other unique situation.

I understand fully that it might have been nothing more than emotion, but it still was deeply touching to see a man who obviously cared so deeply about doing something for his mother - especially if it was a mother he never knew. (It also reminded me of how little we really know about many of the people in our congregations.) It also might have been a deeply spiritual experience, and it's important to keep that open as a distinct possibility. 

2) I was baptizing one of the other young women in the ward, and things were going normally. I have a decent short-term memory for names I read, and I know the prayer by heart, so I try whenever possible to take a moment and read the name, memorize it and then close my eyes and say the prayer in the same way we normally think of a prayer being said. I don't like the old rushed way of saying the prayer at a breakneck pace, so I slow it down just enough to articulate each word clearly - and I lower my arm and pause while reading the next name in order to make it a clear break between people being baptized. I then raise my arm and start again.

I baptized this particular girl for ten people, and it was a little difficult at first. She is 12, and she was going down into the water in such a way that she barely was getting immersed, so I whispered some simple directions on how to make it easier - but in trying to do what I had suggested, she ended up complicating it and making it even harder. After about the third baptism, she whispered something about contradictory instructions - and I realized I had complicated it for her with my attempt to help and started to make her frustrated. (There's a valuable lesson there for lots of things in the Church and life, I believe.)

I apologized to her and took a second while I looked at the next name to say a really quick, simple, silent prayer that she would have a good experience during the rest of the baptisms - then I started again. The next one went very well, as did the one after that. The next person had only a first name listed, and as soon as I said the words, "for and in behalf of Eva" - I got all choked up myself and literally had to pause for probably ten seconds just to get my own emotions under control. My voice cracked a little as I ended with, "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen." That feeling disappeared completely as soon as that particular ordinance was over, and there was nothing out of the ordinary for the rest of the time I was there.

I believe that experience was more than just emotional - and I have no idea if it was to help that young woman and/or me. I just know it was a really neat experience - the strongest I've ever had in that situation, and one of only a handful for me like it over the decades in the setting of the temple.

Two things leaped to mind at the time, and another one came to mind as I typed this post:

1) It's important to experience the "normal" (the hundreds of times in the temple where I have not felt such an amazing spirit but, instead, merely was there physically or gained personal insight and revelation) in order to be there to experience the sublime.  Without the numerous normal, I wouldn't have been there that day to experience the singular sublime. 

2) It's important to pray for special experiences in the temple - of some sort, either specific or general. 

3) It's important that we not over-complicate the temple (and other ordinances / programs / activities / interaction / teaching) with a focus on "procedure" - even as it's important to try to prepare ourselves and others to participate and learn.

"Preach the Gospel and Administer in the Ordinances Thereof": Some Possible Alternative Meanings

My New Year's Resolution topic for this month is the Fifth Article of Faith.  In its entirety, it reads:

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. 

Nearly always, when I have heard someone talk or write about this Article of Faith, that person has focused on the first part of what it says - the idea that someone must be called of God and that such a calling must be the result of prophecy and the laying on of hands by those who have the authority to act in the name of God.  That focus is fine, but my resolution for this month is to focus on the part that gets overlooked and, I believe, misunderstood in the vast majority of discussions regarding the Article of Faith itself.  That ignored part is the final clarifying statement - that the laying on of hands is by those who are authorized specifically to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances of that Gospel (and not necessarily anything else) - AND/OR that the calling of God ratified through prophecy and by those in authority to lay hands of confirmation is specifically for those callings related to preaching the Gospel and administering in the ordinances of the Gospel (and not necessarily anything else) - AND/OR that only men "must" be called in this manner, while women can preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances of that Gospel without such a formal process of calling and laying on hands. 

Those are very different readings, but each is a reasonable parsing of the actual words themselves.  The purpose of this post is to present each interpretation in short, summary form and set the stage for my other weekend posts this month, in which I hope to explore each possibility in more detail - and also look at some of the cultural and policy implications of the less traditional interpretation. 

1) If the final phrase is focused on those who are authorized to lay hands of confirmation on one who is called, the wording overall suggests that such authority is limited to those who can preach the Gospel and administer ordinances of the Gospel.  Such a reading can fit nicely into the standard construct of men who hold the Priesthood ordaining other men to receive that Priesthood, thus perpetuating the man-driven structure in which the Gospel is preached and ordinances are performed - but it doesn't have that narrow application if read strictly on its own, without the reinforcement of our modern organizational and "authority" structure.  It also is a bit circuitous when used to say only men can hold the Priesthood - meaning it presupposes the Priesthood has anything to do with what it being taught (since the Priesthood is not mentioned directly and only can be inferred if that belief is held prior to reading it).  I believe that is important to understand, at least, no matter what conclusion(s) one reaches ultimately.   

2) If the final phrase is focused on the calling through prophecy that is being confirmed by the laying on of hands, the wording suggests that the authorization process of that calling relates ONLY to preaching the Gospel and administering in the ordinances thereof.  The questions that spring to mind immediately with this interpretation are:

"What is "the Gospel"?  What is meant by "preach" the Gospel? What are the ordinances of that Gospel?"

3) If the final phrase is focused on the idea that only a man needs to go through this process, but women are not required to go through it, it opens a plethora of possible implications that are mind-boggling and tradition-challenging for many members - and I only will say that such a reading would not be completely foreign to the early Mormon saints. 

Finally, I hope to be able to discuss at some point this month the fascinating use of the following wording: 

"administer IN the ordinances thereof" 

as opposed to

"administer the ordinances thereof" 

What are your initial reactions to these possibilities?  Have you ever considered that there are potential readings that are different than what is assumed generally today?  Have you ever seen this particular Article of Faith as perhaps our most complex and difficult to parse without the over-whelming influence of our current culture and administrative policies? 

My Sacrament Meeting Talk Today about "The Creation"

Since I had to take my oldest daughter to Utah yesterday and return to Carson City in time to speak in church tomorrow (a round trip of just over 1,100 miles in a total of 28 hours), I didn't write my normal weekend New Year's Resolution Post.  Instead, I am posting the outline of my talk tomorrow about "The Creation".  (I joked that I was going to guarantee never being asked to speak in my new ward again by talking exclusively about evolution and procreation [making babies], but I decided not to do that.  My wife was pleased with that decision.)

I almost always write my talks in concept outline form, think about the outline up until I give the talk, jot down any specific thoughts that hit me while I'm sitting on the stand and then speak about each item in the outline in the talk itself.  Therefore, what I am posting now is the outline I will be using.  I'm not sure if I will be able to come back and edit to add whatever detail ends up making it into my actual talk, but I would love to hear what any of you would add as detail with regard to any or all of the outline items. 


"The Purpose (the Why) of Creation"

1) Intro disclaimer about Science and the "How" of creation - simply to emphasize that I will be talking about the "Why" of creation (the purpose)

2) Define "create" and "creation" - focusing on synonyms in our scriptures that are used in the various accounts ("form", "make", "organize", etc.) -- Discuss concept of "ex nihilo" creation (creating something out of nothing) and how the Mormon view of creation is radically different, in that it is much more about "changing" an existing something and turning it into something else -- explain it as a "creative process" rather than a one-time action -- emphasize the organization of the chaotic into something that was changed in such a way that "it was good".

3) Discuss the order of creation in our scriptures (first spiritual, then physical) and the importance of that order when it comes to the purpose of "The Creation".

4) Quote Moses 1:39 and discuss how God's work and glory are fulfilled through "The Creation" - how the Plan of Salvation is actualized only through multiple creative processes.

5) Quote the verses in Malachi and D&C 2 regarding the spirit of Elijah and explain the meaning of the earth (The Creation) being "wasted" without the creation of a sealing bond across time and all eternity.

6) Discuss the principles and ordinances of the Gospel as the parameters of creation's purpose: faith in the purpose of the creation (an at-one-ment) and repentance (transformative change) as the fulfillment of the purpose - with baptism as an outward symbol of that faith and desired repentance, the Holy Ghost as the guiding light toward the process of repentance and enduring to the end as the patience to continue throughout the divine creative process.  Compare that process to the creation of the world - as organizing something good out of former disorganization and even chaos.

7) Discuss the concept of being temples - and how that relates to allowing god to build / create us in such a way that it can be said of us that the kingdom of God is within / among us.

8) Explain Matthew 5:48 in terms of being an progressive creation and becoming a finished, completed, wholly developed "new creature in Christ". 

9) Reiterate Moses 1:39 and the stated purpose of creation - NOT to build an assembly line of robots but rather to take caterpillars and turn them into a myriad of uniquely beautiful butterflies.

The First Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel: What Do They Mean to You?

My focus this month for my New Year's Resolution posts is principles and ordinances.  I am late writing this first weekend post because of Easter last week, but I want to focus initially on a very simple explanation of what the "first principles and ordinances of the Gospel" mean to me. Next week, I will address why they are the fundamental principles and ordinances, but first I want to write a very simple post about what they actually are - at only the most basic level. 

Our Fourth Article of Faith says:

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In order, the most basic explanation of each of these principles and ordinances for me is:

1) "faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ"

I see this principle, again at the most basic level, as nothing more complicated than actually believing what our scriptures say about Jesus of Nazareth deeply and profoundly enough that it actually motivates us to do what he asked us to do / said we need to do to qualify as disciples.  James describes true, living faith as a combination of belief and action, and Joseph Smith said that faith is an animating and motivating power.  Belief alone is not enough, since even the devils believe; the differentiating and distinguishing factor between those who profess to believe and those who truly believe is NOT the detail of their belief but rather how they live according to their professed beliefs - how their lives reflect their beliefs - what they become as a result of their beliefs. 

Thus, at the most fundamental level, this principle is not simply the content of my beliefs about the Lord, Jesus Christ; it includes the expression and manifestation of those beliefs in my actual, real, interpersonal life in the actual, real world in which I live among actual, real people. 

2) "repentance"

At the core, repentance means nothing more than "change" - and that is a wonderfully concise description of the central reason for our existence.  We all recognize, hopefully, that we are weak and ungodly in our human nature.  Repentance is more than just a recogniton of that simple fact; it is the active component of real faith.  It is how true faith is manifested in our lives. 

Jesus taught us to be and become different than we are and have been.  Repentance, again at the most fundamental level, is our acceptance of personal responsibility to strive to follow that admonition - to be and become more like him and his Father - to be "partakers of the divine nature" - to "be ye therefore perfect, as your father which is in heaven is perfect" - to "put off the natural man and become a saint" - etc. 

(For more of what I've written about repentance, including about how we have narrowed repentance too much in our delineation of the "steps of repentance" and how we need to have a fresh view of repentance, click on the tab for "Repentance" in the list at the bottom of this blog.) 

3) "baptism by immersion, for the remission of sins"

Focusing on the most fundamental definition possible, I see baptism as nothing more or less than a symbolic, public, physical representation of our firm commitment to have real faith and to repent - and I believe each of those asepcts is critically important. 

a) Baptism is symbolic.  There is nothing magical or special about the water in which we are immersed - and there is nothing magical or exclusive about the actual form of the ordinance.  As I've said in other threads here, ancient Israel used circumcision to represent their commitment to follow their God, and circumcision and baptism couldn't be more different.  If God can use such radically different ceremonial forms to convey commitment, I am fine with just about anything that resonates with societies and cultures - although I also am fine with limiting our own fundamental expression of commitment within the LDS Church to baptism.  It's not the literal form of the ordinance that is important; it's the symbolic meaning that is central for me. 

b) Baptism is public.  I think this is important, to the extent possible in individual situations, since baptism also is an entry way into a comunity of believers - a way for the person entering to assure the community that she truly is committed AND a way for the community to express support for that commitment.  There are no hermits in the kingdom of God; godhood is not a solitary existence; commitment to Jesus of Nazareth and the gospel he taught is communal in a very real and powerful way. 

c) Baptism is physical.  Just like cirumcision was a physical expression of faith and communal identity that carried spiritually symbolic meaning, baptism also is performed by immersion for a very simple but profound reason - that the "whole soul" must be committed and involved.  We must love God with all of our heart, might, mind and strength - not just with our spirit.  Thus, immersion is central to the proper symbolism of our commitment - just as circumsision necessitated a real, physical commitment for the men of ancient Israel.  Importantly, at least for me, baptism is a new testiment that allows women to participate in the full process of expressed commitment in a way that circumcision did not in the past. 

4) "laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost"

In the ordinance of confirmation, we are told to "receive the Holy Ghost".  There is a sermon in that phrase alone, but I want to focus on the most basic meaning of the ordinance itself - which, for me, is nothing more than a commitment to seek and follow input from God.  By accepting the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, we acknowledge our willingness to seek and follow input from God in two distinct and vital ways: through the ministering of others (the laying on of hands) and through direct revelation / inspiration from God (the gift of the Holy Ghost).  Both are vital, and I believe we overlook the first too often in our exclusive focus on the second. 

The above is how I see the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel, at the most basic level.  I would love to hear from anyone who reads this about how they see these principles and ordinances.

There Is Something Outside of Myself That Understands and Knows

I have had a handful of experiences that can be explained rationally in no way except that the heavens were opened to me and I saw or sensed or spoke prophetically of the future or of things unknown to me - very directly and explicitly, not vaguely like a fortune teller. I'm not saying they prove the existence of God, and I'm not saying they are "visionary" in the way that most members would interpret that word - just that they proved to me that there is something outside of myself that understands and knows more than we do in the moment.

One was an amazing experience while blessing our second son as an infant (giving him a name and a blessing) that is so obvious that my oldest son now refers to it as our own Star of Bethlehem - something shining brightly as a sign that God's great work was being accomplished - something to which we can look and which we can remember as we make our own life's journeys. There was absolutely no rational reason for me to say what I said in his blessing, and I had no intention of doing so when I opened my mouth, but what I said was spot-on and prophetic of the life he has lived in the last 21 years - and uniquely so.

I have a gift in that regard that manifests itself occasionally, and there really is no way to explain it rationally. I can't control it, and there are plenty of times when I offer blessings or advice when I wish it would show up and not make me do my best all on my own. I don't understand it (really, almost at all), but it's real in a very objective way.

The Power of Honoring Ritual

1) I love performing baptisms in the temple. It is, without question, my favorite activity there - even though I thoroughly enjoy all the ordinances. I particularly am grateful that the Church practically has demanded that those who perform the baptisms slow down and do so at a "normal" pace.

A few years ago, I decided to treat each and every baptism as a separate and distinct ordinance, as it should be considered and truly is. I know the baptismal prayer without having to think about it, so before each baptism I look at the name, memorize it (with a few exceptions - some of the names . . .), bow my head, close my eyes and voice the prayer in the exact same manner as I did when I baptized my own children. I speak clearly and pronounce each word with care. Then I open my eyes, look at the proxy and lower him or her into the water the same way I would if I were baptizing a new convert or one of my children. It has been an amazing experience.

2) In my current calling, I receive e-mails occasionally from the Stake Executive Secretary asking me to indicate approval of a stake calling that needs to be issued. Whenever I see such an e-mail, I pause, close my eyes and say a very quick, simple prayer that I will be able to know if there is any reason why the calling should not be extended as proposed. I don't know if I will ever receive a "Don't approve this" answer, but just taking time to honor the "ritual" has been a neat experience.

3) Whenever I am at the podium announcing a calling and asking if there are any who oppose that calling, I always take a moment and scan the congregation (clearly and distinctly) to see if anyone is raising their hand. Then I turn and look at those sitting on the stand. I feel confident those on the stand won't be opposing the calling(s), but the pure ritual should provide them the honor of being included in the request to show disapproval if they so desire.

I believe that ritual loses its power when it is not accorded respect and serious consideration - when it becomes nothing more than vain repetition in practical performance. 

Are Ordinances Necessary Works or a Gracious Gift?

Some people claim ordinances are necessary "works" - because God said we must perform them, and because these ordinances will be done for all. If they will be done for all, can we take credit for performing them now? In other words, we believe that God is going to ensure that the ordinances get done, no matter that we will never be able to reconstruct our genealogical records well enough to do it on our own. Therefore, it is going to take miraculous intervention on His part for us to perform the ordinances - meaning even that is not necessary for US to do them on our own. The completion of the commandment is done through His grace.

I believe DEEPLY in the concept of eternal, saving ordinances, but I see them as "necessary" for US - a physical, visible, tangible token or sign of our determination and faith - an outward manifestation of our inner commitment. I believe they are necessary not for some checklist in the Book of Life, but rather to put our actions in harmony with our feelings and beliefs - to marry the physical with the spiritual in a real way - to embed our beliefs in practice - to be true "fruits" of our faith. Temple ordinances are a way to continually affirm, in a very physical way, that we truly are willing to turn our hearts to our fathers and, by extension, all God's children - not just those with whom we currently share this planet. I see them as a powerfully humbling framework that changes our very attitudes and perspectives in a way that merely intellectual or spiritual things simply cannot.

Does getting dunked in water miraculously cleanse me? Perhaps and perhaps not, but I KNOW it gives me an actual, physical experience which I can "remember" - that can form the foundation of my attempts to model and emulate and become like Christ. Likewise, does my getting dunked miraculously cleanse someone else? Perhaps and perhaps not, but I KNOW it gives me an actual, physical experience which I can "remember" (especially through regular reenactment) - that can keep me focused on humbly and symbolically bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man - that can keep me from the natural arrogance of focusing strictly on myself.

The Sermon on the Mount is One Eternal Round

My resolution for this month is to "seek for and do the will of the Father" - taken from Matthew 7:21-23, which says:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Two points only for now about what this passage means, then more throughout the month about my actual efforts to incorporate this message.

1) This passage is perhaps the best example in all of our recorded scriptures of a simple refutation of the concept of "confess his name and be saved". That concept lies at the heart of why many reject Mormonism as not being Christian (the erroneous idea that we believe we can work our way into heaven), and it is diametrically opposed to this passage.

This passage reads as if it was directly responding to that idea - the idea that all one needs to do is confess that Jesus is the Christ (or, in reality, that Jesus is the Christ in one particular, generally accepted codification). This even goes so far as to say that confessing his name AND doing "wonderful works" in that name is not enough. That ties in well with my posts from last month about the need to produce "fruit of the vine" rather than our own works - that it's not doing what we think we should do that is important, but that it's doing what HE wants us to do that is important.

2) This passage also is the ultimate definition of "taking the Lord's name in vain". This describes those people who claim to be representing the Lord but not doing what His Father wants them to do. "Vain" means "arrogantly and/or without effect". Therefore, those who use His name in order to justify their actions when those actions are not what God wants them to do are guilty of both definitions above - arrogance and ineffectiveness.

Using the Lord's name without effect (like the non-thinking, reflexive, blasphemous usage that is SO common even among those who profess to be Christian) is bad enough. Doing so to justify improper actions is even worse.

The important point to make is that NOBODY is immune from this temptation or tendency - except for those who follow the admonition earlier in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:33-37) to "swear not at all, but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." In that context, nothing should be done "in thy name" except for sacred ordinances that require such attribution (e.g., "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." [Matthew 28:19]) and prophetic statements that truly do express His will ("Thus saith the Lord.").

My understanding of the multiple statements in the Sermon on the Mount regarding claiming to speak and act for the Lord makes me very wary of doing so outside the parameters set in the these passages. I believe that it is important to be careful to give credit where credit is due and avoid arrogance, but also not to begin to claim reflexively to represent Him in all we do - thus embracing the opposite manifestation of the arrogance that occurs when we fail to credit him.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3)

Truly, it is fascinating that the final message of the Sermon on the Mount is the same as the first message of the Sermon on the Mount.

Creative Ordinance Administration

I have a slightly different take on the sacrament prayer and the baptismal requirements than what I have seen in most wards and branches I have attended. In each case, I accept fully the idea that the words have been given by revelation and should be repeated verbatim (and that a baptism must include full and simultaneous immersion to keep the symbolism intact), but I believe the administrative form is almost completely adaptable. I believe we should do anything within reason to ensure that the ordinance need be done only once (or only one additional time when a mistake is made) - and can be done by each and every worthy Priesthood holder.

If that means one Priest places a hand on the shoulder of the kneeling Priest and squeezes the shoulder of the one saying the prayer if a mistake is made (so that the one voicing the prayer can correct immediately and not need to repeat the entire prayer) - or multiple brethren stand in the baptismal font to help immerse an unusually heavy person - or someone “coaches” an illiterate Priesthood holder (or one who simply cannot memorize the prayers for some reason) one small phrase at a time - or the person being baptized sits on the floor of the font while someone holds down her legs to keep her feet from coming out of the water - or a mute Priest signs the prayer with hands above his head while the members in the congregation (all having been taught the prayers in sign language) keep their eyes open and watch the prayer being "said" (or another Priesthood holder verbalizes the prayer as the mute Priest signs) - or someone signs the prayer for a deaf member in the congregation - or any other method of ensuring that every worthy Priesthood holder feels confident that he could administer the ordinances as designed, then so be it.

If, for whatever reason, the baptismal ordinance needs to be repeated, I believe the presiding Priesthood authority should explain the need to the observers PRIOR to the repeated performance - and take whatever additional steps are necessary to ensure that one more time will be enough, again explaining what is being done and why. (In my opinion, a third attempt is a failure of leadership.) I also believe any time the sacrament prayer is repeated, the person conducting should explain immediately following the completion of the administration of the ordinance. In each and every case I have observed that the explanation has been presented properly, the Spirit was stronger than it had been initially.

Conversion of the Whole Soul: Body and Spirit

I have been thinking a lot lately about conversion, and I have come to realize that a true and full conversion includes the whole soul - both body and spirit. If someone is not converted spiritually AND socially, that conversion is not complete. Joseph Smith preached community/kingdom building far more than "personal" salvation. In other words, a full conversion is spiritually (individually) to the Gospel and physically (socially, collectively) to the Church - carrying a personal understanding of the theology and doctrines, but literally losing social individuality within the greater unity of the Body of Christ.

In this light, I think ordinances strengthen both aspects of full conversion - the individual and the communal, the spiritual and the physical. They teach and reinforce the Gospel, usually in symbolic ways that can bring continued understanding of Gospel nuances, but they also tighten communal bonds as they are shared - as our eyes behold others participating with us. Lastly, they provide an actual, tangible experience that I believe becomes embedded into the very archives of our soul. That last point is as true of the sacrament (renewed baptism) as it is of the temple.