Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruincoug
i can't say what Mike "wants" the numbers to say. but, if we were talking about the ordinances of baptism or marriage -- i'd say that a ho-hum or neutral experience is falling short of the mark.
true, the purpose of a given ordinance may not be "to make the participants comfortable." also, maybe this informal survey is framed poorly (what if i was uncomfortable at one point and very comfortable / spirit-filled the rest of the time? heuristic biases may lead me to report "uncomfortable")
nonetheless, as with marriage or baptism, where we build up the experience for years, or even a lifetime, talking about how sacred / wonderful / spiritual it is -- and most people don't have a positive experience, I find it somewhat troubling. of course, the easiest (and most faith-promoting) finger to wag is: the problem is in that build-up and / or preparation.
isn't the endowment -- at least according to Bushman's take on it in RSR, which i think is compelling -- designed / advertised / restored to give individual members a significant spiritual experience analogous to ancient Israel hearing the voice of God. again, maybe that experience was not "comfortable" for ancient Israel -- but hopefully it was more positive than negative. (I understand you can criticize the assumption of a such a teleological quality to ordinances. But that's a longer discussion, and I've already pointed to Bushman's treatment of the history)
|
Shouldn't the endowment ceremony be the spiritual high point of one's life, up to that point, in terms of ordinances?
I think a lot of people could say they were comfortable with every ordinance in the church they had experienced, UNTIL the endowment.