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

[Calm]

e Temple endowment is unique in the completeness and perfection of what it's preserved/restored from ages past

CFR please. I'd like to know where on FAIR that 1) it says the Temple ceremony is perfect and 2) solely restored from ancient sources (that appears to be what you are saying it is claimed). This doesn't sound familiar to me, but then I haven't read all of FAIR.

[coolrok7]

Thread opening:

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.

This thread was not started by either one of you (Mola/Vance you each can contribute to the discussion as you wish just as I do but you are acting like board nannies telling me what I can and can’t say and that what I say is “drivel”):

(Mola)Stick to the issues.

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".

(Vance)Nah, it is DUH. And your criticism is drivel.

Elder Boyd K. Packer states in a Church video given to me by missionaries (2003) to watch during their proselytizing efforts:

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 Mormon understanding of “restoration” (which includes having temples) is relevant to the discussion and faulty reasoning in my perspective based upon what Scripture teaches concerning what is truth and error.

Masonry is a religious belief (a secular belief system, religious none the less) but is not Christion as it can use any book considered to be "Scripture" but is not (except for the Bible which is and can also be used which in America usually is used).

I’m not changing the subject at all but discussing from my perspective of the thread op, as far as I can, but very limited in what can be discussed openly here concerning Mormon temple ordinances which are at the heart of the discussion:

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".

I consider them Biblically not sacred at all but a methodology of deception by the “angel of light” being imposed through “false prophets” warned about by Jesus and others in the New Testament.

The Biblical teaching Mormonism is appealing to in the verses quoted to justify the idea of having “sacred” temple ordinances where oaths are required to not talk about openly is based on specific pre-resurrection instructions which is not the Biblical model for Christian orthodoxy/orthopraxy.

My answer deals directly with the understanding of whether or not it was apostolic instruction in the Scripture being written by those whose writings became a part of the New Testament.

There was no instruction for having temples as there were none other than the Jerusalem Temple in which they were never allowed into other than what they could do as Jews (the outer courts of meeting) in the required attendance at the Temple in Jerusalem such as the one here in John (Feast of Tabernacles):

In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. (John 7:37-43)

The above reference to the Holy Spirit of course happened at the feast of Pentecost, just as Joel had prophesied and Peter confirmed (we know this of course based on hindsight as it is in recorded Scripture):

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: (Acts 2:14-18)

It is the Holy Spirit Who said that “some would fall away” (not “all”) as Paul wrote about (another false interpretation within Mormonism).

What individuals as Christians did on their own in their own groups is not necessarily to be the universal truth of Christianity in the sense of having a temple or temples.

The Jerusalem Temple played an essential prophetical part of the sacrificial system until the one Who came to accomplish the actual atonement and the need for a temple was done away with (no longer needed):

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.(Hebrews 10:1-25)

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)

Having Mormon temples is not a good work that would please God.

Reed Durham of the Mormon History Association had things to say concerning the connections between the Mormon temple ceremony and Masonic ones (I don’t accept Mormon so-called “revelation” as coming from God):

1974 Nauvoo speech

At the Mormon History Association (MHA) conference in Nauvoo, Illinois, on April 20, 1974, Durham delivered his presidential address on the connections of Mormonism and Freemasonry, entitled "Is There No Help for the Widow's Son?". During a thunder storm that day, Durham discussed Masonic parallels with the LDS priesthood, the Masonic Enoch Legend, the occultic Jupiter Medallion attributed to Joseph Smith, and Masonic elements in Mormon temple design and ceremony. About the temple ceremony, Durham famously stated:

There is absolutely no question in my mind that the Mormon ceremony which came to be known as the Endowment, introduced by Joseph Smith to Mormon Masons initially, just a little over one month after he became a Mason, had an immediate inspiration from Masonry. This is not to suggest that no other source of inspiration could have been involved, but the similarities between the two ceremonies are so apparent and overwhelming that some dependent relationship cannot be denied.”

Durham said he was attempting to raise questions and he appealed to the historical community to clarify Joseph Smith's relationship to folk magic and Masonry, rather than burying their heads "in the traditional sand". (Wikepdedia)

Also I’m not saying that Wikepedia is the only source that one can go to and is always the truth in every detail but it is often appealed to for a quick reference to go to. Mormons here do their share of quoting from it when it suits their needs.

Masonry I believe is a sort of secular but religious belief system that tries to meld all religious belief systems together (with the other so-called "Holy Books) which are not compatible with the Bible.

[Jeff K.]

What I find interesting is the idea that people claim "we can't talk about it".

Actually we can, but only in those places of equal sacredness, mainly the temple. And in the temple we talk freely about it, but outside the temple, that is the world, that is the temporal and our words should not be tossed about and our covenants cannot and should not be made light of.

Frankly its unimportant as to the question of credibility people have regarding the Temple and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If one ever really looks at the premise, that we claim to worship a man who was dead and then rose from the dead, who somehow was able to circumvent space time and absorb and pay for all of the sins (which have no weight, and no measureable consequence to an unmeasureable soul), for a promise of a similar resurrection with a greater reward we cannot imagine.... all that, and the argument is the temple isn't credible? Now that is incredible.

And finally, there is no such thing as perfect preservation, because such a concept places the words of the ordinance over the power of the ordinance. We speak the words in different languages (upon which we change to words to make the meaning more clear). Perfect preservation for the sake of perfect preservation is like a dead body in amber that never resurrects, it has no power, no place, and no life. The ordinances in the temple, have power, they a place in our lives, and they have a meaning in life. It is presumptious to believe the words alone are what matter, or even that the words (which are only used to articulate concepts) bear any real importance beyond communication. It is the priesthood power, the power of God, and the strength and will of man to covenant with God that matter. Such a thing is of such importance that speaking of the ordinances used to communicate such endowment, force, and intensity is to take that wonderful gift and make light of it.

We reserve such great things for the temple, and the temple alone.

[GingerRed]

What I find interesting is the idea that people claim "we can't talk about it".

Actually we can, but only in those places of equal sacredness, mainly the temple. And in the temple we talk freely about it, but outside the temple, that is the world, that is the temporal and our words should not be tossed about and our covenants cannot and should not be made light of.

Frankly its unimportant as to the question of credibility people have regarding the Temple and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If one ever really looks at the premise, that we claim to worship a man who was dead and then rose from the dead, who somehow was able to circumvent space time and absorb and pay for all of the sins (which have no weight, and no measureable consequence to an unmeasureable soul), for a promise of a similar resurrection with a greater reward we cannot imagine.... all that, and the argument is the temple isn't credible? Now that is incredible.

And finally, there is no such thing as perfect preservation, because such a concept places the words of the ordinance over the power of the ordinance. We speak the words in different languages (upon which we change to words to make the meaning more clear). Perfect preservation for the sake of perfect preservation is like a dead body in amber that never resurrects, it has no power, no place, and no life. The ordinances in the temple, have power, they a place in our lives, and they have a meaning in life. It is presumptious to believe the words alone are what matter, or even that the words (which are only used to articulate concepts) bear any real importance beyond communication. It is the priesthood power, the power of God, and the strength and will of man to covenant with God that matter. Such a thing is of such importance that speaking of the ordinances used to communicate such endowment, force, and intensity is to take that wonderful gift and make light of it.

We reserve such great things for the temple, and the temple alone.

Well said!!

[mfbukowski]

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.

You can't possibly understand how incredibly ....... uh...... uninformed....... that sounds.

Do you think we do not know that the endowment has been changed? Do you think that actually makes a difference to us?

These questions about changes and connections to Masonry are a non-issue to endowed LDS, because we actually UNDERSTAND that the endowment is designed to be a spiritual journey and symbolic university to bring us to Christ.

You fundamentalists- religious and otherwise- will never understand this.

Quite obviously, if the words can be changed in the endowment, THE WORDS ARE NOT IMPORTANT.

And you say "the words came from here" or "from there"! Obviously this is totally irrelevant!!!

It is like saying "Did you know that the words of the King James Bible came from ENGLISH? And English was just invented in the 12th century, so it could not possibly contain truth from the 1st century!" The source of the vocabulary is irrelevant! What is important is the meaning behind it.

What is important and what you will never understand is the REVELATION we receive in the temple by contemplating the words being said.

But go ahead. Knock yourselves out. Spend time on this irrelevant stuff, so we can spend more time discussing relevant issues.

[mfbukowski]

What I find interesting is the idea that people claim "we can't talk about it".

Actually we can, but only in those places of equal sacredness, mainly the temple. And in the temple we talk freely about it, but outside the temple, that is the world, that is the temporal and our words should not be tossed about and our covenants cannot and should not be made light of.

Actually, I am glad you mentioned this. Saturday I was privileged to attend an INCREDIBLE chapel session in which a member of the temple presidency lectured us for about a half hour about some details of the endowment I had never before even contemplated, after some years as an ordinance worker and have attended the temple for 30 years, and being "into" these questions and observations for at least that long.

The bottom line is that everything can be, and IS discussed within the temple itself.

And for those who have questions about these things, ask your temple president. That is definitely part of his job- go discuss it with him in his office in the temple, if you have questions!

[mfbukowski]

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.

Totally irrelevant that it has changed- as above and as far as "defending ourselves"- I just did.

I teach courses to those attending for the first time- and all these issues are handled. Continue your fantasy world.

[Mars]

For what it's worth:

There are 3 degrees of "Blue Lodge" Masonry that purport to have been handed down from King Solomon's time:

1 - Entered Apprentice

2 - Fellowcraft

3 - Master Mason

Beyond that, Masonry forks into the Royal Arch and Scottish Rite masonry. I am completely uneducated about what the differences are, and I only can describe nominally they claim to be. It's been explained to me by Royal Arch and Scottish Rite Masons here in Utah that both do not claim to have been handed down in their origins from Solomon, but the geneses can be easily traced to 17th century England/Scotland.

I am a Master Mason. I was 'raised' (made a Master Mason) about 5 years ago. I have personally participated in many rites and conferring of degrees to candidates over that time.

I am an endowed member of the Mormon Church. I first received my endowment 14 years ago. I don't go as often as I should (mea culpa!) but I've been once every 3 months or so over that time, minus the 2 years I served my mission in France.

I don't claim to understand the full scope of the Endowment, but I believe I know its intent. I also don't claim to understand the full scope of the Masonic ritual, but I believe I understand its intent. That Masonry was an inspiration for the Endowment, I can agree. That Joseph Smith borrowed, took, or outright stole details, forms, symbols, allegory, or anything of that nature from the Masonic ritual and attempted to pass it off as revelation and "created" the Endowment is something with which I do not agree. The context and intent of Masonry is to take a man and make him better. We use the symbol of the smooth and rough ashlar to illustrate this. The Endowment's context is, as has been mentioned here, to bring one to Christ, teach of the Fall and Redemption of man, and to bless and bind the faithful adherent.

I am curious to read Mike Reed's paper, and I'll do it, but for now, there are my rather relevant thoughts on the matter.

[Mars]

I would also emphatically deny coolrok's assertion that Masonry is a religious belief. As would every stinking Mason I've met.

[LeSellers]

As would every stinking Mason I've met.

But what about the ones who shower?

Lehi

[Mars]

None of us bathe.

[LeSellers]

None of us bathe.

Ah, now I smell what you're steppin' in.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

For what it's worth:

There are 3 degrees of "Blue Lodge" Masonry that purport to have been handed down from King Solomon's time:

1 - Entered Apprentice

2 - Fellowcraft

3 - Master Mason

Beyond that, Masonry forks into the Royal Arch and Scottish Rite masonry. I am completely uneducated about what the differences are, and I only can describe nominally they claim to be. It's been explained to me by Royal Arch and Scottish Rite Masons here in Utah that both do not claim to have been handed down in their origins from Solomon, but the geneses can be easily traced to 17th century England/Scotland.

I am a Master Mason. I was 'raised' (made a Master Mason) about 5 years ago. I have personally participated in many rites and conferring of degrees to candidates over that time.

I am an endowed member of the Mormon Church. I first received my endowment 14 years ago. I don't go as often as I should (mea culpa!) but I've been once every 3 months or so over that time, minus the 2 years I served my mission in France.

I don't claim to understand the full scope of the Endowment, but I believe I know its intent. I also don't claim to understand the full scope of the Masonic ritual, but I believe I understand its intent. That Masonry was an inspiration for the Endowment, I can agree. That Joseph Smith borrowed, took, or outright stole details, forms, symbols, allegory, or anything of that nature from the Masonic ritual and attempted to pass it off as revelation and "created" the Endowment is something with which I do not agree. The context and intent of Masonry is to take a man and make him better. We use the symbol of the smooth and rough ashlar to illustrate this. The Endowment's context is, as has been mentioned here, to bring one to Christ, teach of the Fall and Redemption of man, and to bless and bind the faithful adherent.

I am curious to read Mike Reed's paper, and I'll do it, but for now, there are my rather relevant thoughts on the matter.

Thanks for this; as an "outsider" who is not Mason I think I have studied this as far as I can without being a Mason myself- which I would love to do, but do not have the time for at present- hope to someday. BUT having read most of Albert Pike, and about all that is available on the internet (which is I think, a considerable amount) I kind of came to the same conclusion- but I really appreciate you confirming that.

In other discussions with Mike Reed, he has brought up the fact that lodges in Western New York at the time of JS taught a more "Christianized" version of Masonry which was more directly about salvation etc.

That may well be the case, and I also look forward to reading Mike's paper, but again for me, it is irrelevant.

If they had a version of Masonry which brought one closer to Christ- I am not about to criticize it.

What I do know is that I find the endowment incredibly enriching in my life, and it has brought me closer to the savior and allowed me to contemplate more about the atonement than I could have ever ever understood on my own. In short, I have an incredible testimony of what the endowment can do for members of the church- and also to me, that is all that matters!

Edit: I would strongly encourage anyone to read my Calmoriah quote below in my siggy- all of religion can be seen as a "work of art", and once one has seen that paradigm all these silly squabbles go away. What matters is listening to the spirit in what brings us to Christ, nothing more.

Nothing less.

[Mars]

[Kenngo1969]

None of us bathe.

[Ken rubs hands together in unrestrained glee] Aaaah! One of your secrets!

[mfbukowski]

[Ken rubs hands together in unrestrained glee] Aaaah! One of your secrets!

I think it would be pretty easy to guess that one!

[Kenngo1969]

... What I do know is that I find the endowment incredibly enriching in my life, and it has brought me closer to the savior and allowed me to contemplate more about the atonement than I could have ever ever understood on my own. In short, I have an incredible testimony of what the endowment can do for members of the church- and also to me, that is all that matters! ...

Impossible, per Coolrok ... QED.

[sigh!]

But thanks fer playin'!

[Kenngo1969]

I think it would be pretty easy to guess that one!

Ohhhhh ... I was wondering where that smell was coming from!

[Pahoran]

For what it's worth:

There are 3 degrees of "Blue Lodge" Masonry that purport to have been handed down from King Solomon's time:

1 - Entered Apprentice

2 - Fellowcraft

3 - Master Mason

And also, FWIW, these are all the degrees that Joseph Smith actually received in his entire life. He received them in a two-day span in Nauvoo, and pretty much dropped masonic activity after that.

So the idle gossip that mmmcounts irresponsibly repeats, that Joseph was a 33rd degree mason, is false.

(Also, just BTW, MMM doesn't count.)

In the meantime, Joseph had been confidently predicting -- for years -- that additional temple ordinances would be revealed. See, for example, Doctrine and Covenants 124:41.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mars]

I do not know the extent of Joseph's Masonic activity.

I think I read that he was made a Mason 'on-sight,' which means he was never the recipient of conferred degrees, but was instantaneously granted the status of Master Mason and then could participate or be in attendance of ritual. I hear-tell the same was done for Robert Redford. But since I hear-tell, that makes it hearsay.

But like I said earlier, I'm not that worried about it.

[Mike Reed]

I think that unless you *are* a Mason, and can understand the context of the ritual, and then compare it to your own first hand experience of the Temple Endowment, and understand its aims, you're really just shouting from the sidelines.

Well... with all due respect, Mike Homer didn't think I was merely shouting from the sidelines at MHA; neither did Clinton Bartholomew.

But I will grant you that it is more difficult for a non-Mason or non-Mormon to write on this topic. I also will say that if one chooses to write on the topic, it is wise to consult people who are members of these organizations.

[Mars]

Correction: You're *standing* on the sidelines, and some of you might be jumping about like a loud monkey, and some of you might be producing neat-o papers that are professionally researched and well-worth reading.

But surely you'd agree, Mike, there's nothing like a first-hand experience...?

Edited to add more praise to Mike's work.

[ERayR]

And if, notice I said if, the temple ordinances were identical to masonic rites why woulld that prove them false. Can't truth be present in more than one place?

[Mike Reed]

But surely you'd agree, Mike, there's nothing like a first-hand experience...?

I agree with this. We probably also agree that being a mason of the 21st century (rather than the 19th) has its limitations too. In that sense, we are all standing on the sidelines.

Edited to add more praise to Mike's work.

[Kenngo1969]

... Having Mormon temples is not a good work that would please God. ...

Wull ... OK. But ... what'll we do with all the pretty buildings?