The Sacrament: Honoring the Literal or Metaphor through Symbol

In a Gospel Principles lesson recently, I mentioned the Catholic idea of trans-substantiation, wherein the people literally ingest the body and blood of Christ. I said I know we view the sacrament symbolically but that the idea of "partaking of Christ" in a way that changes us is powerful and beautiful.

In that light, I love the idea of the sacrament table as Jesus' self-sacrificial altar (and as his final step in the process of perfection - "It is finished.") and the congregation as partakers in that sacrifice and similar pathwaybtonperfection - even though that image is grossly archaic and barbaric to our modern society. It's okay for me, specifically because I view the Garden and Golgatha suffering as representatively symbolic to begin with, so extending the former literal or metaphorical to a current simile doesn't bother me.

I can honor the literal view while not adopting it myself.

When Stories Outgrow What They Are Intended to Teach

A friend of mine said the following a while ago, and I thought it was profound.  The discussion was about the benefits of taking some things literally and other things figuratively, mythologically or symbolically.  I bolded a few things I want to highlight. 

When it comes to religion I've found that the answer to the great question of life, the universe and everything (other than 42) is . . . hymns. I hope you're still with me, I was serious. That's my answer for a lot of the questions I've had (in my life).

So why hymns?

Setting scriptures or gospel principles to music helps us remember the principles better. It's a mnemonic. For instance, I have several hymns memorized but I have a real hard time committing those scripture mastery scriptures to memory.

I think that was the point of all the stories in the scriptures - being vehicles to help us remember the principles they relate. The problem is that the stories grew a life of their own - so much so that the principles the stories teach are completely overlooked or overshadowed.

Noah's Ark for instance. It can be a story about following God . . . or about seeing a job through to completion, planning ahead, providing temporal needs for your family, and doing the right thing despite peer pressure . . . or we can search a mountain range for remains of a boat and try to arrive at the true size of a cubit to see whether there was enough room for the dinosaurs.

Adam and Eve is another one that's trending these days. My facebook feed is filled with creationists attacking evolutionists and vice-versa. In some ways, the story has outgrown the teachings, even to the point of contention.

The Temple: I Don't Have to Believe Literally in Order to Believe Deeply and Passionately

I love Mormonism's temple theology - but I love it for the symbolism of the sealing of all God's children in unity and for what it does to our own hearts to see others as just as loved and important to God as we are, even those who are radically different than we are. It is SO stunningly different than the theological basis of Protestantism that I believe strongly in its inspirational foundation - that is was revelation from God, even with the Masonic origin of some of its elements.

If I had to believe in the literalness of the exclusive saving power of the ordinances (that ordinances must be performed for every person who has lived in the history of the world or they will not be exalted), I would not accept it - since I would have to reject the symbolism that is so rich and powerful to me. Many people need literalness, and I have no problem whatsoever with people taking it literally, but I don't have to believe in it that way - since I personally believe the symbolic view is much more powerful than the literal view.

I also know the ordinances so well by now that I don't have to concentrate on them anymore - or, really, even pay attention much at all. I can spend almost two hours in a quiet place, have a prayer in my heart, let my mind wander and think about whatever hits me in the moment. That approach has been wonderful for me. It can happen for some people in nature (as President Uchtdorf stressed a couple of years or so ago), but it happens best for me in the temple.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't get hung up on the math at all (the question of how we can do ordinances for billions of people) - not one bit. Given the belief that it will be done in the Millennium by millions of people, it isn't daunting in the slightest (in fact it would happen quite quickly) - but, even without that framing, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest, since it has no relevance whatsoever to the symbolism I love so much. 

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.

What's the Point of the Temple?

I really love the concepts and principles taught in the temple - what I see as the grand morality play that is performed in it and the "moral(s) of the story".  That is due to a large degree on the fact that I don't care all that much about the specific details of the ordinances and ceremonies.  Those have changed over time and might change in the future; it's the principles and concepts that resonate most with me.  Just to focus on one aspect today:

I think there is great value in the concept of making and keeping promises - and that there is even greater value in doing so with regard to things a person views as sacred.  Again, I don't care as much about the specific detail of sacred ceremonies - as long as those who participate gain something important to them as a result of their participation. 

In the case of Mormonism, that means I don't care as much about whether or not the person sitting next to me in the temple is getting the same things out of the experience as I am as I do about whether or not each person is getting something from the experiences that is important to her.  I don't care if something hits my wife but doesn't hit me - or if someone sees something as literal that I see as figurative - or almost any other discrepancy between the experiences of those who attend the temple.  I just want each person to sense or touch the divine somehow - or "learn" something new (not necessarily from the words of the play but perhaps from what registers in their hearts and/or minds) - to walk away with something that is of value personally - to leave committed to "make and keep sacred covenants", regardless of how that concept is interpreted individually. 

Whether in a Mormon temple or anywhere else, I see a dichotomy between those who understand promise / covenant making and those who don't - and between those who sense or recognize "the sacred" and those who don't. I think the details are FAR less important than the concept - and I believe strongly that too many people obsess over the details and don't learn the concept on an individual basis.

Jesus as the Great Scapegoat

I don't talk of this very often in church meetings, since it is radical in that setting and would not be understood by many, but I view Jesus' "role" much more symbolically than the vast majority of Christians. I can't comprehend a "physical" atonement, but I am fine with that possibility. I can appreciate it and count it as a great concept. However, I gain more meaning from seeing Jesus of Nazareth as the great scapegoat.

Most of you probably are aware of this, but in ancient Israel on Yom Kippur the high priest symbolically laid the sins of the people on the head of a goat, and the goat was driven from the community into the wilderness - carrying the people's sins from them, so the people could be "right with God". The goat and the sins it carried were allowed to "escape" from the community; thus, it was known as the "scapegoat". This goat, having been a domestic goat and having escaped into the wilderness, inevitably died as a result of being chosen as the people's scapegoat. (see Leviticus 16:8,10,26.)

I choose to see the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth in the light of the scapegoat. I believe the great High Priest (God, the Father) symbolically laid the sins of his children on the head of the great Scapegoat (Jesus, the Christ) and allowed that scapegoat to be driven from and killed by the community. As a result, nobody needed thereafter to suffer for others' sins - to be a sin-scapegoat. As a result, we in the LDS Church can say that "mankind will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression" - but we also can speak of a Savior and Redeemer who has "taken our sins upon Him" and allowed us to repent (become right with God).

I see most of the things we learn from the life of Jesus in this same light. For example:

1) Is political oppression the great evil from which mankind needs to be delivered? No, the great evil is interpersonal oppression and lack of love. Fix that problem, and political oppression ceases.

2) Is it enough to wait on the glory of the hereafter and ignore the suffering around us (or even gloify that suffering in others from the relative comfort of our own judgment seats)? No, God works among the poor and needy to alleviate their suffering in the here and now - because love is a verb that must be shown to be real. The hereafter will take care of itself, but we are called to change the world into a heaven on earth - even amid earthly oppression.

3) Will we have bodies in the here-after similar to those we have now, only with changes that will make them immortal, as a result of the resurrection of Jesus? (In other words, did Jesus really rise from the tomb in a physically unique way - allowing us to rise in the same way?) I don't know, but I love and accept that concept even if I can't understand it literally, since I am open to the idea that ALL matter is "tangible" to those who can "see" it - AND because of the wonderful symbolism of valuing our mortal bodies as potentially eternal.

I want Jesus to have been the Son of God - my Savior and Redeemer - a real, living person who was humanity's great scapegoat - but that is largely because I absolutely LOVE the symbolism I find in his life and the power that symbolism gives to my life.