What Difference Does It Make If Non-Mormons Know The Secrets?

[Walden]

And yet within the temple there is no hierarchy, all are the same, all even dress the same so if the principle is to create a sense of superiority and exclusiveness, it seems rather strange that immediately upon entering the temple, you become just one of many.

I am not speaking at all about what occurs inside the temple. I am speaking to those allowed inside the temple as oppossed to those not allowed inside the temple.

I am simply stating the church utilizes "secret rituals" much like other "secret societies" (such as clubs, fraternities/sororities, etc.) to create a sense of exclusivity and prestige among it's members, which helps to strenghthen those members loyalties, ties and bonds to the organization.

It's really pretty simple actually, and quite pragmatic, and can be seen on a daily basis with all different types of "secret" societies, from your local college fraternity to clubs such as Yales "Skull and Bones.".

[Calm]

I am not speaking at all about what occurs inside the temple. I am speaking to those allowed inside the temple as oppossed to those not allowed inside the temple.

I am simply stating the church utilizes "secret rituals" much like other "secret societies" (such as clubs, fraternities/sororities, etc.) to create a sense of exclusivity and prestige among it's members, which helps to strenghthen those members loyalties, ties and bonds to the organization.

And I am pointing out that the alleged utilization for exclusivity and prestige is very inconsistent because of the commonality that exists---is even demanded---within the temple.

[Walden]

And I am pointing out that the alleged utilization for exclusivity and prestige is very inconsistent because of the commonality that exists---is even demanded---within the temple.

Oh my gosh....are you reading what I am writing?

Yes, among the temple-worthy, LDS membership, there may be some type of "commonality" that is promoted by the rites performed in the LDS temple.

I am not speaking to such things.

I am speaking about the divide between members and non-members (or "Non-Mormons" per the original OP) that is created by "secret" rituals. My point is that the church promotes secrecy of these rituals as a tool to instill loyalty among it's membership while also entitling them with a sense of exclusivity. It is a tool used by the LDS church to increase loyalty and promote exclusivity, just as it is a tool that is used by other "secret" societies to do the same (see my examples in previous posts).

My point is that the church knows exactly what it is doing when it comes to the "secret vs sacred" argument, and their position is based on a calculated and pragmatic stance, and not so much on any "sacred" aspect . In the end, the LDS church is better off not revealing the secrets, not becasue they are sacred, but rather, because revealing them would take some of the sheen and luster off the exclusivity and "chosen" aura that they try to promote among the members. Bottom line, the "secrets" promote group loyalty.

[Jeff K.]

Could some Mormons be using the issue to create an aura of exclusivity?

Isn't that what baptism is?

Not being "part of the world"?

Just about everything that makes anyone a Christian would create a certain "exclusivity". There is no need for non dislcosure there.

Can some Mormons use it as an act of "superiority"? Indeed, and some have, but on the use of having these ordinances does not diminish their importance or sacredness, rather to hold it as such reduces the individuals using the ordinances to create a perception of superiority. If the church really thought it would create a measure of superiority, the garments would be worn as phylacteries shown outwardly, rather than keeping it underneath our clothing.

[Calm]

I am speaking about the divide between members and non-members

Except the divide between members and non-members is through baptism, not temple ordinances, which is not a "secret" ordinance.

The only alleged divide that can be claimed for temple ordinances is within the community.

[ERayR]

My point is that the church knows exactly what it is doing when it comes to the "secret vs sacred" argument, and their position is based on a calculated and pragmatic stance, and not so much on any "sacred" aspect . In the end, the LDS church is better off not revealing the secrets, not becasue they are sacred, but rather, because revealing them would take some of the sheen and luster off the exclusivity and "chosen" aura that they try to promote among the members. Bottom line, the "secrets" promote group loyalty.

Have a nice day.

[Jeff K.]

My point is that the church knows exactly what it is doing when it comes to the "secret vs sacred" argument, and their position is based on a calculated and pragmatic stance, and not so much on any "sacred" aspect . In the end, the LDS church is better off not revealing the secrets, not becasue they are sacred, but rather, because revealing them would take some of the sheen and luster off the exclusivity and "chosen" aura that they try to promote among the members. Bottom line, the "secrets" promote group loyalty.

The problem with your line of reasoning is this. Anyone can find out about the temple ordinances by clicking on the internet. There are always some people without integrity willing to reveal what they have promised not to. So it has been revealed. And yet you still grouse and complain about the luster and exclusivity. Well gee, according to you there won't be any if its revealed. It is revealed and yet to saints it remains a sacred ordinance of which we will not speak. And even after its revelation, group loyalty remains, most still keep their covenants and the sheen and luster of its sacredness remains untarnished.

It appears to me you really don't have an argument.

[Calm]

There are always some people without integrity willing to reveal what they have promised not to. So it has been revealed.

From practically the very beginning, IIRC.

add-on: at least as early as 1846.

[coolrok7]

A lot of the Mormon secrets- Temple secrets in particular- are out there. On the interwebs. People can know them if they care to.

I don't really know how much I know compared to someone who's actually a Mormon, but I know more than I'm supposed to. Without getting too specific, what difference does it make?

Thanks.

As was stated already, Mormons have been instructed in the idea that idea of “sacred”, in reference to the covenants they’ve made, is not to be talked about outside the walls of their temple. I acknowledge that is their view. This instruction initially comes from Masonic ritual where this very thing is presented in a ritually graphical way (outsiders are not under such Biblical obligation to not talk about amongst those not Mormon).

Not wanting to disregard a temple Mormon’s sensibilities, I would not expect for them to discuss things they are obligated to not talk about nor would I try to get them to.

In conversation with those not Mormon I have not taken any obligation to not talk about them after having access to them over the public airways, print, etc..

After hearing some of the recordings (from the LA temple) over the radio back in the late eighties, I have Biblical problems with the practice but Mormons never the less have the right to believe as they see fit. The question comes then, is it really a 1st century apostolically authorized Christian practice initiated by them in any of their teaching codified in Scripture (the Bible)? I say no as a verdict of history and as a subset, recorded Biblical history.

I also don’t regard Mormon “apostles” as authorized by God or any other thing “Mormon” except for where they are in agreement with that which was already Biblical to begin, with unless one is a believer, and hence Mormonism is not necessary (except in my perspective a vehicle for spiritual deception):

Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. (Revelation 2:1-3)

Elder Boyd K. Packer, in a Church video, stated the following (I believe he validates my point- you can’t restore that which was never an apostolic authorized practice):

If you understand why we build Temples you must understand first that we believe in revelation, and in the restoration of the Gospel, and to restore means to bring back something that was lost. Not a new invention but a restoration of that which is/was known anciently.

The Biblical Temple had accomplished what it was intended for, portraying through the sacrifice of animals year after year in a real time/space world the need for the atonement. In due time (1st century), Jesus would come and sacrifice His blood and life for our sin.

Jesus had also before His death prophesied concerning the future of the Jerusalem Temple structure (fulfilled by Titus, the Roman General, in 70 A.D.):

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Matthew 23:34-39)

Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2)

Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:28-30)

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:50-54)

The following is a better understanding, as taught by Peter, of the spiritual meaning behind the Jewish Temple- this is where the idea of the “priesthood of all believers” comes from (This is for all believers, not just those who are considered, by Mormon teachings, as those “who are worthy”):

Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious. Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion

A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,

And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“The stone which the builders rejected

Has become the chief cornerstone,”

And

“A stone of stumbling

And a rock of offense.”

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. (1 Peter 2:1-10)

Faith is required in Jesus as the Christ being the Gospel or “Good News” concerning what He accomplished for us. That is the requirement for being saved (as the result of His shed blood). The good works that follow a believer are a product of Biblical faith, nothing else is needed as that covers everything:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. . . .What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works’ he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, . . . (Romans 3:23-28; 4:1-5)

I view it though as in keeping people who have placed their faith (wrongly I believe) in the Mormon system of belief which would be fine if it was the truth (I would be Mormon myself if I saw that it was the truth. I believe it is spiritual bondage because of its source- Joseph Smith and his spiritual influences not of God).

It is a given that Mormons believe it is true while others don’t which results in this type of conversation.

[Lightbearer]

A lot of the Mormon secrets- Temple secrets in particular- are out there. On the interwebs. People can know them if they care to.

I don't really know how much I know compared to someone who's actually a Mormon, but I know more than I'm supposed to. Without getting too specific, what difference does it make?

Thanks.

Apparently the apostle Paul was one of those "secret" keepers:

(2 Corinthians 12:2-4) "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."

Why was it unlawful for man to utter these words? Was he keeping a secret? Or perhaps he was instructed to do so? Jesus often told His followers to keep some things from the world:

(Mark 1:44-45) "And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter."

Guess he didn't get the PR memo! Also what about the following:

(Matthew 16:16-20) "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ."

What was that all about? Another secret? What about the following:

(Matthew 17:5-9) "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead."

Why this temporary injunction? Did He want to see if they could keep a secret, or was it something more? What about this:

(Luke 8:50-56) "But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole. And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden. And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat. And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done."

Again with the secrets? I think it is appropriate that the mysteries of God should be kept from the profain and those who would trample them under their feet. The Book of Mormon explains how the mysteries are to be understood:

(1 Nephi 10:19) "For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round."

There is also a responsibility placed on those who receive these mysteries:

(Alma 12:9-11) "And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell."

This is the primary reason why we are instructed not to blaze abroad these sacred things. Because those who are not worthy of them could not understand them and they would be liable to ridicule or mock these sacred things. In other words there is no secret in the Temple or anywhere else that will not be revealed to those who are worthy of having them, which God alone can determine who will have them. In other words:

(Matthew 7:6) "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

I think that says it all.

[Storm Rider]

A lot of the Mormon secrets- Temple secrets in particular- are out there. On the interwebs. People can know them if they care to.

I don't really know how much I know compared to someone who's actually a Mormon, but I know more than I'm supposed to. Without getting too specific, what difference does it make?

Thanks.

It makes no difference. The temple is where LDS make personal convenants between them and God. Though reading them on the internet is devoid of the sacredness LDS hold the temple covenants it does nothing that others know of them. There is certainly one can be certain of one thing: the next time someone states LDS temple ceremonies are "secret" you can slap the peewaden (an old southern word for "crap", but not nearly as vulgar and thus acceptable in genteel society) our of them. In this day and age there is nothing secret about them and have not been for decades given they have been in print for much longer.

[coolrok7]

(Lightbearer)Apparently the apostle Paul was one of those "secret" keepers:

(2 Corinthians 12:2-4) "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."

Why was it unlawful for man to utter these words? Was he keeping a secret? Or perhaps he was instructed to do so? Jesus often told His followers to keep some things from the world: . . .

Bottom line is that out of the examples that were supplied, none of them have to do with Masonic ritual from where Mormon temple ordinances are taken from/modified by Joseph Smith which didn’t exist in the first century Temple at Jerusalem and is not Biblically justifiable.

Yet we have a Mormon “apostle” stating the following:

If you understand why we build Temples you must understand first that we believe in revelation, and in the restoration of the Gospel, and to restore means to bring back something that was lost. Not a new invention but a restoration of that which is/was known anciently.

The idea of being forbidden to talk about these things as being “sacred” (or secret) not to be divulged as is done in Masonic ritual with the penalties for doing so as part of the ritual being acted out is where the Mormon temple practice in context comes from, not the first century in which it is claimed to be from.

The verses about speaking things Paul saw as the result of him being caught up (cannot be construed to be the equivalent unless one believes Joseph Smith which I don’t based on his teachings that are not Biblical, the Mormon temple being one of them).

Paul was trained as a Jewish Pharisee and understood the Law of God in a way we don’t in a Jewish context, not modern America, and in which Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus (modern day Syria) giving him instructions to follow in which his calling was affirmed by the apostle Peter:

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:14-16)

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, and hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. (Acts 9:4-6; 10-20)

None of these other things quoted had any thing to do with the Levitical priesthood who ministered in the Jerusalem Temple as priests in the sacrifices and all that was required of them.

What the priests did was known by those not allowed in due to the tribes they were a part in which they were not assigned temple duties according to law:

THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, according to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. (Luke 1:5-10)

In the New Testament, Jesus was all these things together being Prophet, Priest, and King as well as being the sacrifice. These functions were portrayed in separate individuals as well as animals in the Old Testament time period.

To try and tie in to the “secrets”, of not telling people things that Jesus at the time did not want to be told to others, only had to do with before His death and resurrection. After that these things were being written down in Scripture and spoken of publically.

An example of this mystery (sacred secrets if you will) being explained by Paul:

For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. (Ephesians 3:1-12)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bottom line is that out of the examples that were supplied, none of them have to do with Masonic ritual from where Mormon temple ordinances are taken from/modified by Joseph Smith which didn’t exist in the first century Temple at Jerusalem and is not Biblically justifiable.

Completely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Jesus instructed that certain things be kept secret. That is the similarity that you are failing to grasp. And you cannot, with any certitude, say that what was talked about did not involve the temple and the rituals.

[Vance]

Bottom line is that out of the examples that were supplied, none of them have to do with Masonic ritual from where Mormon temple ordinances are taken from/modified by Joseph Smith which didn’t exist in the first century Temple at Jerusalem and is not Biblically justifiable.

Well, DUH!!!!

Since they are and were secret, you can't say what they were or weren't.

Bottom line! Your criticism is just drivel.

DUH!!!

[coolrok7]

Totally relevant and not "Duh" or "drivel". What are/is these things are your responses.

We know where Mormon temple ritual comes from which is historical fact. It came from Masonic ritual in Nauvoo where Mormons had their own lodge of which Joseph rose through the ranks and instituted the Mormon temple ritual after he became involved, not before. There is no evidence of this coming from the first century Jerusalem Temple ordinances in which was established in the time of Moses:

The relationship between Mormonism and Freemasonry began early in the life of Mormon founder Joseph Smith, Jr., as his older brother and possibly his father were Freemasons while the family lived near Palmyra, New York. Nevertheless, in the late 1820s, the western New York region was swept with anti-Masonic fervor, and the Book of Mormon, a foundational religious book published by Smith in 1830, is generally considered to reflect that anti-Masonic sentiment by condemning what it portrays as oath-bound conspiratorial organizations.

By the 1840s, however, Smith and several of the most prominent Mormons had become Freemasons, and founded a lodge in Nauvoo, Illinois in March 1842. Soon after joining Freemasonry, Smith introduced a new temple "Endowment" ceremony including a number of symbolic elements that were essentially identical with their analogues within Freemasonry. Smith remained a Freemason until his death; however, later Mormon leaders distanced themselves from Freemasonry. In modern times, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the predominant Mormon organization, holds no position for or against the compatibility of Masonry with LDS Church doctrine. (Wikepedia)

I have my hands tied here so to speak as the discussion that would ensue that would deal with the actual ritual and its descriptions (plus what I heard on a radio program, the recorded audio of a movie/recording being played/shown during an actual endowment in the LA temple back in the late eighties. which are in the public realm. Parts of the ritual/dialogue now removed directly ties into how those not Mormon were depicted in way that is not the truth of what I (others) as a Christian actually believe.

There was a list of things removed back in General Conference weekend (spring or fall) in 1990 which related directly to the above.

[Vance]

Totally relevant and not "Duh" or "drivel". What are/is these things are your responses.

Nah, it is DUH. And your criticism is drivel.

We know where Mormon temple ritual comes from which is historical fact.

Yes, they came from REVELATION, thank you very much. They may have similarities to the ancient Masonic rituals handed down from the ancient Masons of the Temple of Solomon. But one would have to be both a Mormon and a Mason to know and both have taken oaths.

It came from Masonic ritual in Nauvoo where Mormons had their own lodge of which Joseph rose through the ranks and instituted the Mormon temple ritual after he became involved, not before.

You are not in a position to "know" that, as you are neither a Mormon in good standing nor are you a Mason.

So, quite frankly, you are speaking TOTALLY from ignorance and therefore just spewing DRIVEL. (not unusual for you. Did you ever get that angel-man-Bible thing worked out?)

There is no evidence of this coming from the first century Jerusalem Temple ordinances in which was established in the time of Moses:

More DRIVEL!

Moses lived more than 1000 years before the first century. The secrets held by first century CHRISTIANS is what is important here. And guess what? THEY ARE AND WERE SECRET. So you can't say ANYTHING about them.

I have my hands tied here so to speak as the discussion that would ensue that would deal with the actual ritual and its descriptions (plus what I heard on a radio program, the recorded audio of a movie/recording being played/shown during an actual endowment in the LA temple back in the late eighties. which are in the public realm.

WELL, if you heard it on a radio program then it must be true. As we all know that radio programs (think coast to coast) have nothing but the absolute truth. They are only second to the internet for known reliability.

Oh, wait, you quoted Wikipedia. Then it MUST be true

I can see why a lot of people ignore your posts.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Totally relevant and not "Duh" or "drivel". What are/is these things are your responses.

We know where Mormon temple ritual comes from which is historical fact. It came from Masonic ritual in Nauvoo where Mormons had their own lodge of which Joseph rose through the ranks and instituted the Mormon temple ritual after he became involved, not before. There is no evidence of this coming from the first century Jerusalem Temple ordinances in which was established in the time of Moses:

You are totally changing the subject Cool. The issue here is "Did the early Christians have things that were secret and kept only to themselves and not shared to the public"? The issue is not "Does the LDS temple rituals represent the same rituals as the early Christians".

The answer to the the first is yes, the answer to the 2nd is debatable, however I tend to lean to the "no" camp.

Stick to the issues.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It has nothing to do with what others know. It has a great deal to do with our own integrity.

[Commander]

Generally speaking, keeping secrets is not a good thing that people are asked to do. I always get suspicious when some organized group tells me something can't be shared with outsiders. It's like buying a stock without a full disclosure of the financials. Maybe religion is a little different. I don't know.

[Deborah]

Generally speaking, keeping secrets is not a good thing that people are asked to do.

The issue when it comes to the temple is not keeping secrets but respecting what is sacred and what one covenants with God to do.

[Calm]

Maybe religion is a little different. I don't know.

Perhaps if you read Nathair's thread on ritual secrecy, you might get a different perspective. I believe he gave a link in this thread, if not a simple search should find it.

[GingerRed]

The issue when it comes to the temple is not keeping secrets but respecting what is sacred and what one covenants with God to do.

And we have said this over and over til we are blue in the face, and they STILL don't get it!!

Sad....

Red

[ERayR]

And we have said this over and over til we are blue in the face, and they STILL don't get it!!

Sad....

Red

I think mostly only the ones who don't know sacred.

[mmmcounts]

As was stated already, Mormons have been instructed in the idea that idea of “sacred”, in reference to the covenants they’ve made, is not to be talked about outside the walls of their temple. I acknowledge that is their view. This instruction initially comes from Masonic ritual where this very thing is presented in a ritually graphical way (outsiders are not under such Biblical obligation to not talk about amongst those not Mormon)

I've explored the Masonic connection a little (JS was a lvl 33 Mason, or so I've heard) and I was directed to the FAIR website for a variety of apologetics on the matter. It seems that the LDS position is that the Temple endowment is unique in the completeness and perfection of what it's preserved/restored from ages past, and of course there's a lot of comparisons you could make to any number of other things. But whatever you compare it to is imperfect, incomplete, and somehow lacking as compared to the Endowment. Paraphrasing one source that is cited on FAIR, why should the keeper of a king's treasury pick and choose from a filthy magpie's nest.

I don't think think this argument stands up to the fact that the Endowment itself has gone through a number of significant changes over the years, but there's no easily accessible word-for-word description of what happened in the first Temple ceremonies (although this does exist- Nuttall created such a thing under the direction of Brigham Young) but even without that, significant changes have been made even within the memory of some people currently using this forum. But again, there is secrecy and you're not supposed to talk about what happens now or what used to happen or do anything that would compare the two. But if you did, it would lead to some awkward questions like "How is it that you have a perfect preservation of a God-given ceremony, make pretty huge changes to it, and then say the new thing continues to be a perfect preservation of a God-given thing?"

Of course, it's impossible to address that issue to any great extent. But that doesn't mean the issue isn't there....it just means you're not talking about it. The implications still exist, and it continues to undermine the credibility of LDS teaching on the whole. And if you think about it, people like me are going to talk about this with potential converts to whatever extent we feel like talking about it. What you do- or more appropriately, choose to refrain from doing- is pretty much nothing. It's almost like you need to be playing defense on this one, but you reach a certain point and you just have to take your lumps.

I can't imagine that being enjoyable for you.

Not wanting to disregard a temple Mormon’s sensibilities, I would not expect for them to discuss things they are obligated to not talk about nor would I try to get them to.

And yet, in the intensely competitive religious marketplace that is America, it's worth noting that under the right circumstances, it puts Mormons at a distinct disadvantage. They aren't able to defend Mormonism at certain junctures that are very, very important.

After hearing some of the recordings (from the LA temple) over the radio back in the late eighties, I have Biblical problems with the practice but Mormons never the less have the right to believe as they see fit. The question comes then, is it really a 1st century apostolically authorized Christian practice initiated by them in any of their teaching codified in Scripture (the Bible)? I say no as a verdict of history and as a subset, recorded Biblical history.

I can demonstrate that 21st-century Endowments are pretty drastically different from Endowments as they were done in the 19th century; it's easy to do this without going all the way back to the 1st. But again, this is an area in which Mormons aren't allowed to defend themselves. And I obviously can't go into any more detail than that on this sort of forum. I do this strictly in order to make the point that in some ways, this is not in your own best interest.

Faith is required in Jesus as the Christ being the Gospel or “Good News” concerning what He accomplished for us. That is the requirement for being saved (as the result of His shed blood). The good works that follow a believer are a product of Biblical faith, nothing else is needed as that covers everything:

Ok, that's good. But God has a plan for all of us, and while this is pretty good, His plan can involve you getting your own planet. Step it up, my friend. You know you want it.

[thesometimesaint]

mmmcounts:

I've been going to the Temple for 40 years now. I like the changes.

TTBOMK no where does it say that the Temple Ceremony is perfect and not subject to change.

Actually we're promised to become like God.