Thoughts On Ritual Secrecy

[mfbukowski]

The separation of those newly baptized from those fully initiated into Christianity is well documented historically.

The construction of baptistries as a separate building outside the cathedral persisted well into the Renaissance, in fact the famous "Leaning Tower of Pisa" is in fact a baptistry outside the basilica, and like all baptistries, was a designated area restricting where the newly baptized were permitted to attend only the first portion of the mass:

The earliest extant type of baptistery is found in the catacomb chambers in which were the baptismal-pools. (See BAPTISMAL FONT.) These rooms were sometimes spacious; that in the Roman catacomb of Priscilla adjoins other larger cubicula used perhaps for the adjuncts of the baptismal rite; that of the Pontian cemetery bears traces of sixth-century mural decoration, a beautiful crux gemmata with other Christian symbols being yet visible. With the construction of edifices for Christian worship a special building was erected for the ceremonies of initiation. Ordinarily circular or polygonal, it contained in the centre the font; a circular ambulatory gave room for the ministers and witnesses who, with the neophytes, were numerous at the Easter and Pentecost solemnities; radiating from the structure were rooms for the preparation of the candidates, and sometimes a chapel with altar for the Eucharistic service following baptism (cf. BAPTISM), as may be seen in the Lateran baptistery, The building sometimes joined, but was generally adjacent to, the cathedral or church to which it belonged, and was usually situated near the atrium or forecourt. Immersion gradually gave way to infusion, though in the South the custom of immersing children in the baptisteries persisted long after the North had commenced infusion in the small baptismal chapels.....

The earliest existing baptistery is that of the Lateran, said to have been erected in its original form under Constantine. Throughout the Roman world round or polygonal baptisteries seem to have been constantly employed from the fourth century onwards. In many places the Italians have preserved the separate building for baptism, while north of the Alps the practice generally prevailed of administering the rite in the churches.....

The arrangement of the baptistery requires but brief notice. A flight of steps descended into the round or polygonal font (piscina or fons), which was sunk beneath the level of the floor, and sometimes raised a little above it by a row of columns which supported curtains to insure the most perfect privacy and decency during the immersion....

Also, it is well known that in the early church, recently baptized initiates known as "Catechumens" were not allowed into the building where the most sacred part of the mass was performed, the Catechumens were restricted to the baptistry, and not the basilica, where the rest of the mass was performed.

In fact, the word "mass" itself is derived from the word "Missa" from which we get the English word "dismissal", because the first portion of the mass, called the "mass of the Catechumens" was followed by a "dismissal" of those not fully initiated yet, or allowed to enter into the basilica.

All these were destined to be supplanted in the West by the classical name Missa. The first certain use of it is by St. Ambrose (d. 397). He writes to his sister Marcellina describing the troubles of the Arians in the years 385 and 386, when the soldiers were sent to break up the service in his church: "The next day (it was a Sunday) after the lessons and the tract, having dismissed the catechumens, I explained the creed [symbolum tradebam] to some of the competents [people about to be baptized] in the baptistry of the basilica. There I was told suddenly that they had sent soldiers to the Portiana basilica. . . . But I remained at my place and began to say Mass [missam facere coepi]. While I offer [dum ofero], I hear that a certain Castulus has been seized by the people" (Ep., I, xx, 4-5). It will be noticed that missa here means the Eucharistic Service proper, the Liturgy of the Faithful only, and does not include that of the Catechumens.

So the early portion of the mass, that which the catechumens were allowed to attend, was held in a separate building- or portion of a building- from that in which the Eucharistic service was held.

Further, I found it interesting that in the recent royal marriage held in Westminster Abbey, those who watched carefully (my wife recorded it, so I get to play it back line by line) will note that the royal couple left the altar area, and went through the altar screen into what was described as the "most sacred portion of the abbey, reserved for private contemplative prayer" where the actual marriage vows were exchanged.

The notion of specially dedicated spaces separated by a veil of some sort is a well-established Christian practice deriving clearly from ancient times.

In the Orthodox church, the meaning and function of the "Iconostasis" is well known.

There are rules regarding who may enter or leave the sanctuary, and by which door. Neither the Beautiful Gates nor the space between them and the altar may be used by laity under any circumstances, although infants are either carried into the altar through them in the "churching" rite if they are boys, or if they are girls, the infant is simply presented at the doors.[2] Bishops may enter through the Beautiful Gates at any time; priests and deacons may do so only at specific times during the services when the Gates are open (but during Bright Week they always enter and exit through them). All others enter the sanctuary through the side doors.

In a convent only the abbess and elder nuns are permitted to enter the sanctuary, and only by the side doors. The abbess may enter at any time, but the other nuns need a blessing to enter.

Male members of the laity who are usually allowed to enter the sanctuary include those involved in the running of the particular church, i.e. cantors and choristers, altar servers, church keepers and vestrymen, etc. Entering the sanctuary for no good reason or without a blessing is forbidden even if no religious service is being held at the time.

In the Romanian tradition, on the day of the consecration of the altar in the church, the laity, including women, are permitted to enter and venerate the altar up until the beginning of the Vespers of Consecration.

These guidelines were developed over the course of many centuries, with both theologically symbolic and practical reasons for them.

Theological implications

The Iconostasis does not really "separate" the nave from the Holy of Holies; rather, it brings them together. The Iconostasis is the link between heaven (the Holy of Holies) and the nave (The Holy Place). Therefore everything is symbolic upon the Iconostasis. The Icons of Christ the Theotokos and various saints and feasts are there because Christ, the Theotokos, the saints etc., lead us and guide us into the Holy of Holies. Therefore the personages on the Icons upon the Iconostasis guide us into heaven, and therefore the Iconostasis connects not separates. The Icons upon the Iconostasis also are windows and bridges into heaven (although all icons, no matter where, are windows and bridges into heaven). Therefore, in a sense the Iconostasis represents Christ, who is the connection, the door, between both realms. The perfect explanation for the Iconostasis, and its uniting purpose, is seen in Hebrews 10:19-20, "Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is through his flesh."

I find it totally fascinating that the Greek Orthodox use Hebrews 10:19-20 EXACTLY as I have personally used it in discussing the temple.

Clearly, such ideas as the separation of the newly initiated from those who are fully initiated, the use of sacred spaces into which only the specially initiated may enter (in some cases separate buildings) are historically well documented in the history of Christianity, and have persisted in use even today.

[mfbukowski]

A truly fascinating website:

(Italics added)

On the basis of literary sources we can reconstruct the baptismal rite as it developed in antiquity. Normally the catechumen went, after a long period of preparation, to obtain Baptism from the Bishop at the Easter Vigil. Having anointed the candidate several times, renunciation of worldly temptations and exorcisms followed with several blessings with water. Finally there was triple immersion which involved the request to accept the Symbol. This was requested by the deacon to whom the catechumen must respond with the affirmation "Credo". The long ceremony was concluded with the exchange of the kiss of peace with each of the community present. However these rites were enriched and extended in some communities giving rise to slightly different liturgies which were still essentially the same.

Baptism having been conferred, the catechumens became at full right members of the Church Community. Now they could be called neophytes, and as such dressed in white tunics, sign of regeneration received also the Sacrament of Confirmation administered solely by the bishop. This consisted of an anointing on the forehead with the Sign of the Cross using Chrism - a perfumed oil - and the Laying on of Hands. Only from the Vth century, on the initiative of some Gallican dioceses did Confirmation take on a separate character and was less and less often conferred together with Baptism. The Eucharist itself was administered for the first time at the conclusion of the ceremonies by which the catechumens were transformed into true faithful. In a sense, the candidates after having been baptised and confirmed entered the Church for the first time in their lives to take part in the Mass, sharing in the Eucharistic Banquet with the entire Christian community.

4. Archaeological evidence: The Baptistery

There is almost total silence in regard to the existence of baptisteries in the times before religious peace (7). The only exception is furnished by an example found in Dura Europos in Syria where, within a private house dated to the beginning of the Third Century, there have been identified places almost certainly used for Christian worship. The complex has several rooms arranged around a central open air courtyard used for eucharistic celebrations and liturgical gatherings. One of these can be shown to have been a baptistery. In comparison with others, its dimensions are much reduced, but the walls carry pictorial illustrations of noteworthy standard. Scenes referring to the spiritual dimension of Baptism are taken from both Old and New Testaments and cover the most significant center of the room, which has a shallow basin for the immersion of catechumens. This was surmounted by a canopy supported on four columns. The adjoining room was perhaps set aside for the sacrament of Confirmation. The lack of relevant data for baptismal sites in the period of the I / III centuries leaves us to suppose that in these times Baptism was conferred where the natural elements came to the aid as the need arose. Thus people were baptised near rivers, fountains and springs or they may have adapted preexisting buildings which could be transformed into baptisteries such as baths, fountains and swimming pools.

Only from the IVth century, after the religious peace obtained by Constantine can we document the birth and development throughout the Roman Empire of buildings planned and constructed specifically for the rite of Baptism.

Baptisteries generally arose near the cathedral basilicas and could be constituted by only one room, or they could use side rooms whose function cannot be determined with certainty. They seem to have been for holding the different rites and the many phases which made up the ceremonies of Baptism.

An example of a well-structured baptismal complex with different rooms attached and which we can reconstruct with sufficient certainty is that to be found at Salona in Croatia (vide Tav 1, fig 3-4). In this case, fortunately, we can follow, step by step, the various stages which carried the catechumens on their spiritual journeys to the conferring of the sacraments. Those to be baptised, having gathered in the narthex at the edge of the basilica, passed through a doorway (A) into a spacious hall called the "catechumenate"(B) where they received final instructions and were prepared spiritually for their reception of the sacrament. From here through a portico which existed between the church and the baptistery entrance, they came into a great waiting room © with benches against the walls, where they awaited the moment of the ceremony. Then, taking their turn, they passed into a small room (D), the disrobing room, where they undressed to enter the octagonal baptistery (E) in which they underwent an exorcism and triple immersion in the baptismal font which was in the form of a cross (F). Then the baptised gathered near a small apse where the Bishop's chair (G) was, so that they might be baptised. Then, robed in white garments, they left the baptistery along the length of the portico and were admitted into the basilica (H) to participate in the Eucharist.

In the many other cases of baptisteries discovered in archaeological investigations, we cannot always reconstruct the suggestive catechumenal journey with such certainty and at the most we must limit ourselves to noting the variety of structural types which took on a certain degree of mystic symbolism.This became more and more obvious in the mosaic decorations and shapes of the baptismal fonts. They, of varying depths according to whether they were to be used for immersion or pouring and sometimes provided with systems of flowing water, could be square-shaped or rectangular thus recalling the tomb of Christ, the four corners of the earth, the four Gospels or the tetragram of Jahweh. Sometimes they were cruciform and carried strong allegories of the death of the Redeemer alluding to the neophyte's death to sin. The 8-sided and hexagonal fonts proclaim a language derived from the cosmic mysteries of the East - the eighth day - that of the General Judgment and Final Resurrection.

There is so much readily available on these subjects that it is impossible to believe that ceremonies such as these are not well-established historically in Christianity.

I recall well my white suit for my "first holy communion" as a Catholic at the age of 7 and find it ironic- and truly wonderful- that I wore a similar suit for years as an ordinance worker.

I had no idea how well they were linked at the time!

[Nathair/|\]

Is there any validity to my thought that ritual secrecy is important to the experience of the temple? That is, would the rituals have the same power without the secrecy?

[CV75]

Is there any validity to my thought that ritual secrecy is important to the experience of the temple? That is, would the rituals have the same power without the secrecy?

The person would not have the same power.

[mfbukowski]

Is there any validity to my thought that ritual secrecy is important to the experience of the temple? That is, would the rituals have the same power without the secrecy?

Unquestionably.

There is no one between you and God- your understanding of what cannot be discussed is uniquely yours, and between you and your creator. That is it's whole purpose imo.

That makes it a truly "subjective" experience- and a unique opportunity to cross the divide between what is culturally and linguistically understood and what is truly apprehended only through the spirit.

Speaking of things define their meaning by giving them a commonly held cultural context. Wittgenstein speaks of it not being possible to have "private languages", and acknowledges that direct experience is literally "unspeakable".

By separating the direct experience of revelation from a cultural context, we can have direct pure experience. Putting it into a cultural context totally violates and destroys the possibility of ANYONE'S ability to experience it purely.

It turns it from a subjective experience and makes it an objective experience. It permanently attempts to alter someone else's private discussion with their God.

It is more of an invasion of privacy than publishing secretly obtained nude photographs of someone- because it does not violate their body only but their ability to receive revelation privately for themselves- that experience has been violated by someone else.

It is literally religious pornography.

But it appears that I am the only one here who understands or thinks that.

[CV75]

Unquestionably.

There is no one between you and God- your understanding of what cannot be discussed is uniquely yours, and between you and your creator. That is it's whole purpose imo.

That makes it a truly "subjective" experience- and a unique opportunity to cross the divide between what is culturally and linguistically understood and what is truly apprehended only through the spirit.

Speaking of things define their meaning by giving them a commonly held cultural context. Wittgenstein speaks of it not being possible to have "private languages", and acknowledges that direct experience is literally "unspeakable".

By separating the direct experience of revelation from a cultural context, we can have direct pure experience. Putting it into a cultural context totally violates and destroys the possibility of ANYONE'S ability to experience it purely.

It turns it from a subjective experience and makes it an objective experience. It permanently attempts to alter someone else's private discussion with their God.

It is more of an invasion of privacy than publishing secretly obtained nude photographs of someone- because it does not violate their body only but their ability to receive revelation privately for themselves- that experience has been violated by someone else.

It is literally religious pornography.

But it appears that I am the only one here who understands or thinks that.

I agree with you in that secrecy is an essential element to be observed. But the rituals in and of themselves have no power (as Pharaoh demonstrated; Abraham 1:26). Their associated secrecy has no power in and of itself (“Holiness to the Lord” is alive and well despite its betrayal by some). It is the faith and diligence we put into these things that give us the power promised of the Lord. The rituals and the secrecy are like “the pointers which were in the ball, that …did work according to the faith and diligence and heed which we did give unto them... And thus we see that by small means the Lord can bring about great things.” (1 Nephi 16:28, 29).

Those who break their obligation for secrecy, or seek to break others’ obligation or opportunity for secrecy will lose spiritual power and stand condemned, as do those who reveal the rituals or the secrecy that lead to the actual secret through faith and diligence, for the very reasons you outlined (they remove themselves or distract another from that pure experience, or from God). Pornography is a good example because it removes people from the pure experience of what God instituted. Murder removes people from the pure experience of their God-given life; other forms of wickedness and mischief against others removes them from the use of their eternal agency.

[MorningStar]

I usually keep things secret because I don't want other people to know about them.

So why don't endowed Mormons talk with other endowed Mormons about certain aspects of the temple outside the temple? Is it because we're paranoid we're being bugged or that someone is eavesdropping?

[Hughes]

Luke 12

1In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

2For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.

3Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard,

I do not advocate desecration of Native American tribal religion. And making the facts about LDS temple rituals public knowledge is not the same kind of thing as selling Native American medicine masks to tourists.

On the contrary, it is precisely the same thing. To do it to Mormons is just as reprehensible as

to do it to Native Americans. It is hypocritical to do it to one but not advocate it to be done to another.

Either way, it wantonly exposes the innermost sanctity of religious beliefs of a people to the leering stares of spiritual voyeurs.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

"Irreverent"? Not in my view!

This is precisely the definition of "irreverent."

It is irreverent to speak of sacredly held beliefs in this way:

irreverent

adjective

synonyms:

no one was amused by his irreverent joke-telling

disrespectful,

disdainful,

scornful,

contemptuous,

derisive,

disparaging;

impertinent,

impudent,

cheeky,

saucy,

flippant,

rude,

discourteous.

I believe you are Roman Catholic, no?

If one were to disparage or ridicule the Holy Mother of God, would you consider it irreverent?

Bernard

[Calm]

Is there any validity to my thought that ritual secrecy is important to the experience of the temple? That is, would the rituals have the same power without the secrecy?

Substitute "impact" for "power" (for clarity) and I would agree with you that without the ritual secrecy the temple rituals would lack something fundamentally important, imo.

Very interesting thread, Nathair.

[Calm]

But it appears that I am the only one here who understands or thinks that.

Absolutely not...you've just said it so well the rest of us don't feel we need to repeat it.

And it would appear that Skylla agrees as well...at least for one point you made.

[Helorum]

Every Christian was baptized; every Christian partook of the Lord's Supper; and no other ritual was normative or regular in the early church.

Since I've done extensive reading on the MANY aspects of what became the early Christian 'baptismal' rites I can state confidently that LDS temple rites are indeed a genuine restoration of what the early Christians experienced. And what they experienced (in great detail) CAN be found in New Testament texts if the researcher understands the pattern.

[Bernard Gui]

Unquestionably.

It turns it from a subjective experience and makes it an objective experience. It permanently attempts to alter someone else's private discussion with their God.

It is more of an invasion of privacy than publishing secretly obtained nude photographs of someone- because it does not violate their body only but their ability to receive revelation privately for themselves- that experience has been violated by someone else.

It is literally religious pornography.

But it appears that I am the only one here who understands or thinks that.

I am with you on this. My definition of anti-Mormon

begins and ends with a critic's decision to desecrate the

LDS temple. When my grandfather's brother served in the

Southern States mission back in the late 1890s, it was

not uncommon for yahoos to stop strangers on the roads

and rip open their shirts to see if they wore LDS garments,

prior to giving them a good old ***whooping.

Yahoos still do that today only in more discreet ways.

They are the true anti-Mormons.

Bernard

[thesometimesaint]

The Temple is an open secret. We invite all to participate in the experience. That some reject the message, or want to side step the entrance requirements really isn't the fault of the Church.

[mfbukowski]

I am with you on this. My definition of anti-Mormon

begins and ends with a critic's decision to desecrate the

LDS temple. When my grandfather's brother served in the

Southern States mission back in the late 1890s, it was

not uncommon for yahoos to stop strangers on the roads

and rip open their shirts to see if they wore LDS garments,

prior to giving them a good old ***whooping.

Yahoos still do that today only in more discreet ways.

They are the true anti-Mormons.

Bernard

We have all experienced seeing or hearing something we "cannot get out of our head"

War,

Gruesome images

gross stuff

pornography

violent images or events

We will never be quite the same after seeing those things- we get over it, but we become desensitized and are never quite the same.

Kind of like what 9-11 did to all of us- the innocence is gone. We heal and go on with life, and it is all part of living in this wonderful world we have, but we might wonder about what it would be like if they had never happened.

Intentionally doing this to someone is just inexcusable, and places them in a very special category imo.

[MorningStar]

This is most likely a no-win topic for me to tackle here. The fact is that if I address the topic in this forum, I must do so with one hand tied behind my back, as it were, because forum rules dictate that I cannot discuss the specifics. But there is really no way to deal adequately with the issue of whether these specifics should be kept secret without talking about them. Yet this thread was started in response to a discussion on another thread in which my organization's policy in this matter was challenged, so it seems I ought to respond.

I would first like to suggest that at least some of you are engaged in what from my point of view is after-the-fact rationalization. You have been taught that you must keep the things that transpire in the temples as secrets, that you may not discuss them publicly, and you have agreed to follow this policy. But merely saying that you are to keep them secret because they are sacred does not really explain the policy. The death and resurrection of Jesus are sacred events and sacred truths, but you don't have a policy of keeping them secret. "The Book of Mormon is a sacred record," the "Brief Introduction" begins, but you don't try to keep its details secret. Indeed, the Book of Mormon has Nephi saying that he only wrote sacred things on the plates (1 Ne. 19:5-6). So sacredness doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation for keeping something secret. This, I would suggest, is why you find it necessary to discuss the reason for the policy: it isn't clear what that reason is. You are committed to a policy for which no clear reason has been given.

Second, as I see it, New Testament Christianity is not esoteric. There are no secrets hidden from the uninitiated. The early church (by which I mean the first-century church) had no temples, no buildings to which only faithful initiates were granted access--and the early church doesn't seem to have felt any loss for not having such buildings. The early church practiced no rituals to which only elite members were privy. Every Christian was baptized; every Christian partook of the Lord's Supper; and no other ritual was normative or regular in the early church. The development of LDS temple rituals as sacred secrets for the initiates appears not to have been a restoration of primitive Christianity but an instance of the secret societies that were so popular in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. One must resort to finding precedent in Gnosticism or other non-apostolic traditions in the second and third centuries to find anything significant in the ancient church supporting esotericism--and it turns out they were esoteric about different sorts of things than the LDS Church is today.

You are, of course, free to practice your religion in any way you like. You are also free to explain it in any way you like. I don't doubt that some of you find the esoteric elements of LDS religion profound. I am simply offering my perspective, which naturally you are free to reject.

You missed the fact that we don't discuss things in the temple privately either amongst our endowed selves. Why do you think that is, Rob? When my husband and I are alone at night after the kids go to bed, why don't we talk about details of the temple when no one else is around? We both know about them and no one would be able to hear us. You aren't the only one with one hand tied behind your back in this situation. The temple provides good answers as to why some aspects of it are meant to be kept within its walls. I would gladly point those things out in the temple.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

The early church practiced no rituals to which only elite members were privy. Every Christian was baptized; every Christian partook of the Lord's Supper; and no other ritual was normative or regular in the early church

I think this assertion is a little too sweeping. Here is some source material to consider:

New Testament

Unto you it is given to know the mysteries [Greek: musteria] of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given (Revised Version. Matt. 13:11)

And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the mystery [musterion] of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect [teleoi]: yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, which are coming to naught: but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery [musterion], even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory… And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not with meat; for ye were not yet able to bear it: nay, not even now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal (Revised Version. 1 Cor. 1:1-2, 6-7; 3:1-3).

For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for fullgrown men [teleoi], even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil (Revised Version. Hebrews 5:12-14).

Ante-Nicene Fathers

For a mystery ought to be most faithfully concealed and covered, especially by us, who bear the name of faith. (Lactantius Ante-Nicene Fathers 7:221)

And Peter said: “We remember that our Lord and Teacher, commanding us, said, ‘Keep the mysteries for me and the sons of my house.’ Wherefore also He explained to His disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. But to you who do battle with us, and examine into nothing else but out statements, whether they be true or false, it would be impious to state the hidden truths.” (Peter, Clementine Homilies, Ante-Nicene Fathers 8:336)

For the most sublime truths are best honoured by means of silence. (Peter, Clementine Recognitions, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 8:83)

But if [simon Magus] remains wrapped up and polluted in those sins which are manifestly such, it does not become me to speak to him at all of the more secret and sacred things of divine knowledge (gnosis), but rather to protest and confront him, that he cease from sin, and cleanse his actions from vice. But if he insinuate himself, and lead us on to speak what he, while he acts improperly, ought not to hear, it will be our part to parry him cautiously. For not to answer him at all does not seem proper, for the sake of the hearers, lest haply they may think that we decline the contest through want of ability to answer him, and so their faith may be injured through their misunderstanding of our purpose. (Peter, Clementine Recognitions, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 8:98)

But the same writer [Clement of Alexandria] in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge (gnosis) to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one...” (Eusebius. The Church History of Eusebius 2.1.4. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two. 1:104)

The science of nature, then, or rather observation, as contained in the gnostic tradition according to the rule of truth, depends on the discussion concerning cosmogony, ascending thence to the department of theology. (Clement of Alexandria. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. 8:42)

Wherefore also all men are His; some through knowledge (gnosis), and others not yet so; and some as friends, some as faithful servants, some as servants merely. This is the Teacher, who trains the Gnostic by mysteries, and the believer by good hopes, and the hard of heart by corrective discipline through sensible operation. (Clement of Alexandria, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 2:524)

[T]he mysteries are not exhibited incontinently to all and sundry, but only after certain purifications and previous instructions. (Clement of Alexandria, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 2:449)

Now, in answer to such statements, we say that it is not the same thing to invite those who are sick in soul to be cured, and those who are in health to the knowledge and study of divine things. We, however, keeping both these things in view, at first invite all men to be healed, and exhort thosewho are sinners to come to the consideration of the doctrines which teach men not to sin…And when those who have been turned towards virtue have made progress, and have shown that they have been purified by the word, and have led as far as they can a better life, then and not before do we invite them to participation in our mysteries. “For we speak wisdom among them that are perfect.”…[W]hoever is pure not only from all defilement, but from what are regarded as lesser transgressions, let him be boldly initiated in the mysteries of Jesus, which properly are made known only to the holy and the pure…He who acts as initiator, according to the precepts of Jesus, will say to those who have been purified in heart, “He whose soul has, for a long time, been conscious of no evil, and especially since he yielded himself to the healing of the word, let such an one hear the doctrines which were spoken in private by Jesus to His genuine disciples.”… [Celsus] does not know the difference between inviting the wicked to be healed, and initiating those already purified into the sacred mysteries! Not to participation in mysteries, then, and to fellowship in the wisdom hidden in a mystery, which God ordained before the world to the glory of His saints, do we invite the wicked man, and the thief, and the housebreaker, and the poisoner, and the committer of sacrilege, and the plunderer of the dead, and all those others whom Celsus may enumerate in his exaggerated style, but such as these we invite to be healed…God the Word was sent, indeed, as a physician to sinners, but as a teacher of divine mysteries to those who are already pure and who sin no more. (Origen, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 4:487-489)

In these circumstances, to speak of the Christian doctrine as a secret system, is altogether absurd. But that there should be certain doctrines, not made known to the multitude, which are (revealed) after the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain truths are exoteric and others esoteric. (Origen. Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:399)

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the Apostles... (Basil of Caesarea, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. 8:40-41)

In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. “Dogma” and “Kerugma” are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. (Basil of Caesarea, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. 8:42)

We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the Catechumens being over-curious be offended. (Athanasius, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. 4:106)

But first I wish to remind you who are initiated of the response, which on that evening they who introduce you to the mysteries bid you make; and then I will also explain the saying of Paul: so this likewise will be clearer to you; we after all the other things adding this which Paul now saith [in 1 Corinthians 15:29]. And I desire indeed expressly to utter it, but I dare not on account of the uninitiated; for these add a difficulty to our exposition, compelling us either not to speak clearly or to declare unto them the ineffable mysteries. Nevertheless, as I may be able, I will speak as through a veil. (John Chrysostom. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One. 12:244)

[Brian 2.0]

I can state confidently that LDS temple rites are indeed a genuine restoration of what the early Christians experienced. And what they experienced (in great detail) CAN be found in New Testament texts if the researcher understands the pattern.

That's a pretty strong statement. I'd love to read what you've read. We can't go into LDS temple rites, but is it okay for you to quote ancient sources of their temple experiences (I'm new here, don't totally know the guidelines). Share with us the details in the NT that connect with LDS temple rites that make you feels so strongly.

[Duncan]

That's a pretty strong statement. I'd love to read what you've read. We can't go into LDS temple rites, but is it okay for you to quote ancient sources of their temple experiences (I'm new here, don't totally know the guidelines). Share with us the details in the NT that connect with LDS temple rites that make you feels so strongly.

Among a number of books Profs. David Seely and Richard Holzapfel wrote a book about the Temple in the NT, published by Bookcraft in 1994

http://www.aml-online.org/Reviews/Review.aspx?id=2989

[Hayds]

Sometimes I have a hard time understanding why we are supposed to keep temple stuff quiet. There are many things I hold sacred and yet I don't feel the need to keep silent about them. In fact, I usually enjoy talking about such things.

I personally find some aspects of the temple divisive. I have been to several temple weddings in my life. Often times a whole family is left to miss this important family event because the bride/groom is a convert and the rest of the fam are not members. Sometimes a family is a part member family so only part of the family gets to experience the joyous occassion. The worst example I witnessed was a good, honest, LDS man who had to wait outside the temple while his daughter was married because he struggled to overcome the vice of smoking which he had picked up when he was 14. I watched this man quietly weep as he missed the important event. I am sure some of you will say its his fault for succumbing to the world or failing to fly right, but it seemed rather harsh to me. There were also times when a family member or two were married and I found myself waiting in the lobby because my TR had expired and I was behind a few tithing payments so I was not allowed a recommend. I wasn't too bent out of shape about it. I understood the rules.

My question is this: What would the harm be if temple weddings could be attended by at least immediate family members whether they have a recommend or not? In some ways it could be a powerful missionary tool.

[Brian 2.0]

My question is this: What would the harm be if temple weddings could be attended by at least immediate family members whether they have a recommend or not? In some ways it could be a powerful missionary tool.

My wife was a somewhat recent covert when we got married. When we did, there wasn't really a question, we had a civil wedding and then got sealed a year later. She was her father's only daughter and there was just no way that she was going to take away his dream of walking her down the aisle.

My personal take is that marriages should be marriages and sealings should be sealings and the two don't go together. Basically, do it like it's done in international countries where the sealers don't have permission to marry. Have a civil, law bound marriage where you can have whomever you want and all the pomp and circumstance you want... then have a sealing (could be same day, could be later) where you focus just on the eternal nature of the covenants without the hoopla of a wedding day getting in the way. It would solve a lot of hurt feelings.

I know a lot of people from mixed religious homes that choose to do it this way. The thing I didn't agree with is why the church would not allow them to get sealed until a full year after the civil service. If the couple is worth to go to the temple, but has a civil service, why does that service make them unworthy to go and get sealed?

[Hayds]

My wife was a somewhat recent covert when we got married. When we did, there wasn't really a question, we had a civil wedding and then got sealed a year later. She was her father's only daughter and there was just no way that she was going to take away his dream of walking her down the aisle.

My personal take is that marriages should be marriages and sealings should be sealings and the two don't go together. Basically, do it like it's done in international countries where the sealers don't have permission to marry. Have a civil, law bound marriage where you can have whomever you want and all the pomp and circumstance you want... then have a sealing (could be same day, could be later) where you focus just on the eternal nature of the covenants without the hoopla of a wedding day getting in the way. It would solve a lot of hurt feelings.

I know a lot of people from mixed religious homes that choose to do it this way. The thing I didn't agree with is why the church would not allow them to get sealed until a full year after the civil service. If the couple is worth to go to the temple, but has a civil service, why does that service make them unworthy to go and get sealed?

I like your idea. This type of secular wedding pre-sealing is rarely practiced among LDS in UT. It would be nice if this tradition were commonplace. Now if they could just stop having the receptions in the ugly church gym...

[Brian 2.0]

Now if they could just stop having the receptions in the ugly church gym...

Yeah. "sorry you can't see you daughter married, but enjoy some punch by the streamers hanging from the basketball hoop."

[Maidservant]

My question is this: What would the harm be if temple weddings could be attended by at least immediate family members whether they have a recommend or not? In some ways it could be a powerful missionary tool.

A reason, accept it or no, is that the sealing is the culmination of the endowment. So if those without covenants cannot participate in the endowment rituals, they are also not prepared (in this theory) for the most final and sacred portion of the endowment (the sealing of husband and wife).