Discussing temple stuff online

[bluebell]

Like a lot of you, i'm on the fence about it.  From my perspective, there wasn't anything in the Facebook mommy group (it's a private group only for members) that was inappropriate to discuss.  The sister had been doing lots of studying on new names in the Old Testament and her questions stemmed from that and finding out that everyone who goes through the temple on the same day gets the same name.  That's all that was discussed.

But in general, i would like more guidance because i feel like it is a sacred topic and needs to be treated like one, but that also we are hemmed in by our cultural traditions more than we need to be.

[rpn]

I understand that in Catholicism one gets a new name too at confirmation.

I would not be comfortable discussing that topic on a public forum.   I would refer them to the temple prep materials and advise that everyone is welcome to ask their temple related questions of the temple president when they are there.

But I would be comfortable discussion the things one agrees to do in the temple.   And general questions about the process. 

But I don't know that it is "sinful": merely (may not give it proper weight) in violations of covenants depending on what is discussed.

Edited January 9, 2018 by rpn

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm a part of a "mommy group" on Facebook (I joined because my friend was a member and she wanted me to read someone's post once, I'm not very active and have never posted anything myself).  Today one of the members asked a question about the significance of the new name in the temple.  She was very respectful and just wanted more information about what it was about, the idea behind it, etc.

Most of the women were supportive but there were a few who were adamant that it was sinful to talk about that all on Facebook.  I didn't see the problem but it made me wonder, how many other people felt that way?  

So what do you think, what can we talk about and what (besides the specific things we have specifically covenanted not to talk about) can't we?  

 

As others have pointed out, there are only a few things in the Temple that we actually promise not to talk about outside the Temple.  One of those things is what the new name actually is, but I don't recall promising to never talk about the concept of the "new name" or other particulars surrounding it.  The best answer to give this woman is that we really know very little about the "new name" other than that it is used during a particular part of the Temple Ceremony.  You don't have to pretend that you're keeping something secret when you don't actually know what it is.

And in the age of the internet, keeping the new name itself secret is largely a ceremonial effort.  If I told you I went through the Temple on June 26, 1993 and got my new name, anyone with internet access can now find out what my new name is within about 20 seconds.  So the key now is to keep the date that you went through the Temple secret, which I don't recall ever promising to do.

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

As others have pointed out, there are only a few things in the Temple that we actually promise not to talk about outside the Temple.  One of those things is what the new name actually is, but I don't recall promising to never talk about the concept of the "new name" or other particulars surrounding it.  The best answer to give this woman is that we really know very little about the "new name" other than that it is used during a particular part of the Temple Ceremony.  You don't have to pretend that you're keeping something secret when you don't actually know what it is.

And in the age of the internet, keeping the new name itself secret is largely a ceremonial effort.  If I told you I went through the Temple on June 26, 1993 and got my new name, anyone with internet access can now find out what my new name is within about 20 seconds.  So the key now is to keep the date that you went through the Temple secret, which I don't recall ever promising to do.

For that matter, temple patrons know the name of everyone of the same gender going through the temple that day. 

If you go through for the first time with other people of the same gender, then you all know each other’s name.

It’s not secret at all, even before the internet.

It messes some people up when they realize that, so being able to discuss the symbolism of new names can be helpful. 

Edited January 9, 2018 by bluebell

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For that matter, temple patrons know the name of everyone of the same gender going through the temple that day. 

If you go through for the first time with other people of the same gender, then you all know each other’s name.

It’s not secret at all, even before the internet.

I’ve often thought it odd that my wife can’t be told my new name but my dad knows it because he went through with me  

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

From a General Conference address by President Hinckley:

I would personally not be comfortable engaging in such a discussion in a public forum.

That may be all very well, but the fact is that the Brethren themselves have commented in detail on temple ordinances in the pages of Church magazines for many years, and usually accompanied by beautiful photos.  They have also published books on temples, again accompanied by many internal photos.

The Holy Temple, Boyd K. Packer

The House of the Lord, James E. Talmage

https://www.lds.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng .

https://www.lds.org/temples/what-happens-in-a-temple-sealing?lang=eng .

They also have non-Mormon scholars commenting on LDS temples in videos on YouTube, such as this one (put on YouTube by our own cdowis):  

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That may be all very well, but the fact is that the Brethren themselves have commented in detail on temple ordinances in the pages of Church magazines for many years ...

Of which I'm fully aware and concerning which I have zero qualms. In fact, I use much of the above when I teach on the temple. I was actually addressing the OP's specific question.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

From a General Conference address by President Hinckley:

I would personally not be comfortable engaging in such a discussion in a public forum.

This admonition from President Hinckley is consistent with what I was told in the temple at the time I received my endowment all those years ago. I have been careful to follow it ever since.

 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm a part of a "mommy group" on Facebook (I joined because my friend was a member and she wanted me to read someone's post once, I'm not very active and have never posted anything myself).  Today one of the members asked a question about the significance of the new name in the temple.  She was very respectful and just wanted more information about what it was about, the idea behind it, etc.

Most of the women were supportive but there were a few who were adamant that it was sinful to talk about that all on Facebook.  I didn't see the problem but it made me wonder, how many other people felt that way?  

So what do you think, what can we talk about and what (besides the specific things we have specifically covenanted not to talk about) can't we?  

My guess is that they feel this way because in the Temple everyone takes an oath, "not" to discuss such things outside the Temple. 

ETA: The scriptures however talk about "new names, seer stones and Priesthood robes" will be given to the righteous and those who overcome the world. (Revelation 2: 17, 6: 11) It also speaks of "hidden manna", things revealed only to the righteous. 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Of which I'm fully aware and concerning which I have zero qualms. In fact, I use much of the above when I teach on the temple. I was actually addressing the OP's specific question.

 

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This admonition from President Hinckley is consistent with what I was told in the temple at the time I received my endowment all those years ago. I have been careful to follow it ever since.

I suppose that simply quoting the Brethren on what takes place in our temples can give cover to those who are hesitant to say anything at all, but I have found that most members are not even aware of that.  Moreover, we have hymns which discuss what takes place in our temples.  Even so, anyone who wants to know what does take place in our temples can find all of it discussed and displayed by anti-Mormons on the internet.

As for what should be acceptable in openly discussing the temple, I gave a talk in my ward's sacrament mtg a few years ago in which I thought I exercised appropriate restraint while still saying something meaningful:  “Some Thoughts on the Temple,” revised Sacrament Meeting Address, Jan 26, 2014 (Provo, Utah), online at   http://www.scribd.com/doc/203066472/SOME-THOUGHTS-ON-THE-TEMPLE .

[clarkgoble]

For some reason my comment from last night disappeared into the aether again. (For me the forum was also down a bunch of last night both at home and at work - no idea if others found that or if that's related to the comment getting lost)

I don't have time to retype it all. The gist was that you can typically talk about all these elements by looking at comparative religion studies or phenomenology of religion. While it's dated I strongly urge people to pick up Mircea Eliade's main works. In particular The Sacred and Profane, The Myth of the Eternal Return, and Images and Symbols. He goes through most of the key elements of the endowment but in a broad sense of their place in near eastern mythology and religion. This includes naming rites - especially receiving new names, learning secret names of god, ascending sacred spaces, participating in creation and a lot else. These are really ubiquitous elements of ancient ritual but are among the least understood for contemporary people for whom modernism has cut them off from traditional notions of the sacred. Even though Eliade was primarily writing in the 50's and certain techniques he uses (structuralism) are dated, these are a must read for people trying to understand the endowment. 

The nice thing is that you're discussing these issues that are so poorly understood about the endowment without actually discussing the endowment. 

BTW - His Myth and Reality appears to be online.

Edited January 9, 2018 by clarkgoble

[HappyJackWagon]

To the OP-

It sounds like an opportunity for a good gospel discussion. If there isn't a specific covenant NOT to discuss something, then it is free game to discuss in a respectful manner.  If someone asked you about the symbolism of baptism would there be concern in sharing? I doubt it. It has become a cultural standard that discussion of the temple beyond the most vague terms is inappropriate but as has been stated throughout this thread, the temple teaches the gospel. Why should we be concerned about sharing that? I think answering these kinds of questions is often because it's easier to avoid difficult questions, not because of any covenant or propriety.

 

[mnn727]

21 hours ago, rongo said:

 

The question I am supposed to ask the temple president is: may we mention the specific covenants we make in the endowment in preparing people or teaching in Church? They are in the scriptures, and are not earth-shattering. I see no problem at all teaching people what covenants they are going to make (the ones we make during the endowment), and I think many people will appreciate knowing that they will formally make *these* covenants from the scriptures (all well-known) in the endowment. But, I would appreciate authoritative guidance on this.

Prior to my Endowment in my discussion with the Temple President, he discussed the Covenants, this was of course in the Temple. But I think in general, my Temple Prep class (in the back of the van on the way to the Temple) did not prepare me at all for what was to happen that day. The Ward I am currently in (some 23 years after) does a good job of Temple Prep and you're right, the Covenants are right out of Scripture.  I see no reason not to point them out.

[Kevin Christensen]

There is a lot we can do to improve our temple experience, particularly along the lines of reading the kinds of things that open our minds to what is going on.  I think of Jesus in 3 Nephi telling the audience that the were weak and could not understand all his words, and that they should go home, and prepare their minds.  A friend on mine in California is a well-known scientist.  He admitted that he was embarrassed by the temple until he watched the PBS series on The Power of Myth, where Bill Moyers interviewed Joseph Campbell.   That totally changed the way he thought about the experience.  I've got the book and the DVDs.   I also second Clark's recommendation of Eliade as amazingly helpful particularly since he knows nothing about our temples, and at the same time, everything.

There is Nibley, of course, offering a range of eye-opening talks and books.  And Margaret Barker.  One of her website essays is called "Belonging in the Temple" and I think it would go well in a LDS Temple Prep or Temple Appreciation class.  My wife and I went to see Margaret in Yonkers when she spoke to the Orthodox school there a few years back.  After the talk on "The Great High Priest," Shauna was overcome, and told Margaret, "We have no idea what we have!"  Shauna meant specifically, what we have in the Temple.  Margaret, for her part, told us that when she arrived, she said to them, "If you are serious about the temple, you'll have to swallow your pride and ask the Mormons, because they have the best scholars on the topic."  She would be referring to Nibley, Tvedtnes, Welch, and several others.  (I once sent her a big box of books with LDS volumes on the Temple, Nibley, Welch, and collections of Temple essays by BYU scholars.)  One of the things she does in her workshops is to show a model of the Holy of Holies.  A gold foil-lined cube, into which she puts a miniature menorah, with the candles lit, and she turns off all the other lights.  One of her mental exercises is to imagine the experience of the High Priest entering the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple, with the walls all reflective gold sheets, and the Tree of Life with the 9 candles burning, and the arc of the covenant, representing the throne of God.  What would a person see but themselves surrounded by numberless concourses of angels (for the priest himself is dressed in white, in the garb of angels),  amid the everlasting burnings created by the countless reflections of the lights from the Tree of Life? 

Welch's books (and ongoing work) on Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount was particularly eye-opening for me. That and Eliade got me away from thinking about a particular set of words, and on the ideas and imagery and structure and symbolism  behind and above and through and behind and beyond the words.  And Ostler in BYU Studies on "Clothed Upon" and Nibley on "Sacred Vestments," both essays overlapping in sources and insights, but helping me appreciate the significance of what we do. 

And there are the many presentations that have emerged from the Temple Study groups in London and Salt Lake and Provo over the past several years. 

I must admit that I find this kind of scholarship on the temple, both LDS and otherwise, far more helpful than frustrating vague though earnest piety larded with emotional but abstract superlatives.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I must admit that I find this kind of scholarship on the temple, both LDS and otherwise, far more helpful than frustrating vague though earnest piety larded with emotional but abstract superlatives.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I agree.  I think abstract superlatives have their place, but I don't think they should be the focus of temple prep, as they seem to usually be.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  I think abstract superlatives have their place, but I don't think they should be the focus of temple prep, as they seem to usually be.

Yes if I could change one thing about Temple Prep it would be to have two chapters on the nature of Ancient Near East ritual/myth. There's many skilled people at BYU who could write an overview that gets people into the mindset of ancient people informed by Eliade, Nibley and others.

As I said those works are dated. So some caution is in order. All of them were part of a broad movement called structuralism which informs myth and ritual criticism going all the way back to Fraser's The Golden Bough back in the 1890's. The problem with this movement - and it's particularly acute in Joseph Campbell's work on myth - is that they are so focused on structures that repeat that they neglect differences. Frequently this leads to distorting a story so that it fits the categories they've built up. (You see this both in Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces but also arguably in much of Nibley's work)

Differences matter at least as much as similarities. And I think with our endowment we can see that. The endowment shares a lot with intellectual movements out of the Renaissance such as theurgical platonism, the Art of Memory (a way of memorizing things using visual memory palaces as mnemonics), hermeticism, everyman plays, and then later speculative Freemasonry. Yet the endowment differs a great deal from those intellectual influences - frequently radically shifting the meaning of elements it may share with such parallels. So difference has to be paid close attention to. 

That said, seeing these broad cultural movements in religion - particularly pre-modern religion and religion in the ancient near east - is extremely helpful understanding not only the endowment but more common rites like the sacrament or baptism.

[snowflake]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That may be all very well, but the fact is that the Brethren themselves have commented in detail on temple ordinances in the pages of Church magazines for many years, and usually accompanied by beautiful photos.  They have also published books on temples, again accompanied by many internal photos.

The Holy Temple, Boyd K. Packer

The House of the Lord, James E. Talmage

https://www.lds.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng .

https://www.lds.org/temples/what-happens-in-a-temple-sealing?lang=eng .

They also have non-Mormon scholars commenting on LDS temples in videos on YouTube, such as this one (put on YouTube by our own cdowis):  

 

Maybe you could list some of the elements that have been restored for us, when I compare the current LDS temple ceremony to the OT temple and rituals there simply isn't any restoration whatsoever!  It's all completely different. Boyd K. Packer claims it is a restoration.....I'm still looking for a single element other than the word "temple" that is a "restoration"! Restore means to make like the original.

[Bobbieaware]

1 minute ago, snowflake said:

Maybe you could list some of the elements that have been restored for us, when I compare the current LDS temple ceremony to the OT temple and rituals there simply isn't any restoration whatsoever!  It's all completely different. Boyd K. Packer claims it is a restoration.....I'm still looking for a single element other than the word "temple" that is a "restoration"! Restore means to make like the original.

It’s a restoration of the temple ordinances that pertain to the Melchizedek priesthood, the priesthood power and authority that empowered the Patriarchs prior to the time of Moses. The present-day temple ordinances are not a restoration of the ordinances that pertained to the law of Moses.The Latter-Day Saints believe the Piesthood of Melchizedek (originally known as the Holy Prieshood after the Order of the Son of God) is the priesthood power and authority that existed on earth prior to the time when the children of Israel were punished for their disobedience, when God in his wrath gave them a lesser order priesthood that wasn’t able to bring them to perfection.

[poptart]

So, I'll be point blank, what's the deal?  A good Google search, similar, etc. Reveals all.  A lot of the stuff on freemasonry is out and even rome fessed up to a lot, why not just come clean?  It's like the church has something to hide.

[Robert F. Smith]

59 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Maybe you could list some of the elements that have been restored for us, when I compare the current LDS temple ceremony to the OT temple and rituals there simply isn't any restoration whatsoever!  It's all completely different. Boyd K. Packer claims it is a restoration.....I'm still looking for a single element other than the word "temple" that is a "restoration"! Restore means to make like the original.

One must first of all understand that the LDS temple liturgy does not restore the Mosaic temple liturgy (which the Jews in Israel fully intend to restore), and does not claim to do so.  Second, one must have a more than passing acquaintance with the Bible and with ancient temples.

Thus, during that LDS temple video, "Between Heaven and Earth," you  may have missed some of the comments of prominent non-Mormon scholars (or maybe you thought they were Mormons), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TbENguf6Ng ,

Frank Moore Cross, Jr.,

Quote

“Someone who does not know much about temples and Mormons building temples, should be directed to the Bible.”

Krister Stendahl,

Quote

“I feel that the Mormon experience of the temple, has sort of restored that meaning to the temple.”
* * * * 
“1 Corinthians 15 by Paul speaks about those who baptize themselves for the dead, and obviously takes for granted that (a) there were people who did so, and (b) he has no complaint about it. Now with the Mormons we have it again as a practice.  It’s a beautiful thing.  I could think of myself as taking part in such an act, extending the blessings that have come to me in and through Jesus Christ.  That is a beautiful way of letting the eternal mix into the temporal, which in a way is what Christianity is about.”

The late Prof Frank Cross was one of the most prominent biblical scholars in the world, and was professor of Hebrew at Harvard.

The late Prof Krister Stendahl, was not only the Dean of the Divinity School at Harvard, but he was also the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm and head of the Swedish state church.

Numerous books are available explaining what that restoration means in specific terms, but these two by Hugh Nibley are a good place to start:

Nibley, Hugh W., "The Idea of the Temple in History," Millennial Star, 120/8 (Aug 1958):228-237, 247-249, reprinted by BYU Press as What is a Temple? (1963/ 1968), in T. G. Madsen, ed., The Temple in Antiquity, 19-37, and in Collected Works of Hugh Nibley IV (FARMS & Deseret Book, 1987), 355-390.

Nibley, Hugh W., The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, 1st ed. (SLC: Deseret Book, 1975); 2nd ed., Collected Works of Hugh Nibley XVI (2006).  This volume has the distinction of laying out the standard ancient temple liturgy in sequence and detail (summarized by the Table of Contents), and also includes an Appendix of other examples of the same liturgy in use in a variety of traditions.

It does help if you know something about Jewish synagogue liturgy and how it relates to high church Christian liturgy, and if you understand that every Christian cathedral is an analog of the Jewish temple, and that every Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox priest is a holder of the Melchizedek priesthood, and that they were earlier holders of the Aaronic priesthood (the diaconate).

 

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, poptart said:

So, I'll be point blank, what's the deal?  A good Google search, similar, etc. Reveals all.  A lot of the stuff on freemasonry is out and even rome fessed up to a lot, why not just come clean?  It's like the church has something to hide.

Are you familiar with homographs? words that are spelled the same but have different meanings based on context. So, for example, "bear", "land", "ground", etc and related to it are words that are spelled the same but sound different like, "down", "bat" etc. but again based on context you don't know what the word means, you need more information. We could easily give the world all the information but based on that context, devoid of the spirit, they wouldn't appreciate it. If you think the Church is hiding something then go to the Church to get it uncovered, not to outsiders

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, poptart said:

So, I'll be point blank, what's the deal?  A good Google search, similar, etc. Reveals all.  A lot of the stuff on freemasonry is out and even rome fessed up to a lot, why not just come clean?  It's like the church has something to hide.

As you said, poptart, all the details are available online anyhow.  So what is the big deal?  The LDS Church isn't hiding anything.  It is all out there for anyone to examine in detail.  However, those of us who actually participate in such holy rites consider it crude and rude to discuss them in public with pagans who only wish to make light of them.  We are oath-bound to hold our peace about such sacred matters.  All people are free to inform themselves about these matters, either by going online, or by joining the LDS community and participating directly in the work of salvation in holy temples.  I have no problem with either choice.  We Mormons believe in free agency.

[poptart]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As you said, poptart, all the details are available online anyhow.  So what is the big deal?  The LDS Church isn't hiding anything.  It is all out there for anyone to examine in detail.  However, those of us who actually participate in such holy rites consider it crude and rude to discuss them in public with pagans who only wish to make light of them.  We are oath-bound to hold our peace about such sacred matters.  All people are free to inform themselves about these matters, either by going online, or by joining the LDS community and participating directly in the work of salvation in holy temples.  I have no problem with either choice.  We Mormons believe in free agency.

Lol pagan, thanks I'll take that as a complement.  Now if only more would think I look cute in girls clothes ;_;

Anyway, there is a huge curiosity especially considering the Masonic ties, revisions and how those who are worthy do find a favorable bias behind the Zion curtain. 

[poptart]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Are you familiar with homographs? words that are spelled the same but have different meanings based on context. So, for example, "bear", "land", "ground", etc and related to it are words that are spelled the same but sound different like, "down", "bat" etc. but again based on context you don't know what the word means, you need more information. We could easily give the world all the information but based on that context, devoid of the spirit, they wouldn't appreciate it. If you think the Church is hiding something then go to the Church to get it uncovered, not to outsiders

There we go....

Go on.

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, poptart said:

There we go....

Go on.

The word "go" is a homograph but the other ones aren't. Go can mean a Chinese game and stop, go that kind of thing