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

[HeatherAnn]

Lehi,

So, you have a hard time imagining that someone could relate to an experience differently than you did?

Maybe others taught you & prepared you better than I. Maybe you didn't expect as much.

I'm glad that you had a good experience your first time through the temple.

Try to understand that for some, that wasn't the case.

I think it's very important to try to understand that others can & do interpret (through thought & feeling) things differently than us.

Because our purpose is to love (God is love) & love is based on understanding.

[mfbukowski]

Amen! "Agree with thine adversary quickly," dang it! (Matthew 5:25)

Ok dang it, you're right!

[David T]

My first Temple experience (aside from baptisms) was neither scary nor weird. I went without an escort, and I had absolutely no idea what was going on until it happened. But it was exciting and fulfilling.

When I hear people say they were "freaked out", it simply does not make any sense at all to me.

Lehi

President McKay:

"Brothers and sisters, I was disappointed in the Temple. And so were you. "

“Do you remember when you first went through the House of the Lord? I do. And I went out disappointed. Just a young man, out of college, anticipating great things when I went to the Temple. I was disappointed and grieved, and I have met hundreds of young men and young women since who had that experience. I have now found out why. There are two things in every Temple: mechanics, to set forth certain ideals, and symbolism, what those mechanics symbolize. I saw only the mechanics when I first went through the Temple. I did not see the spiritual. I did not see the symbolism of spirituality… I was blind to the great lesson of purity behind the mechanics. I did not hear the message of the of the Lord…How many of us young men saw that? We thought we were big enough and with intelligence sufficient to criticize the mechanics of it and we were blind to the symbolism, the message of the spirit. And then that great ordinance, the endowment. The whole thing is simple in the mechanical part of it, but sublime and eternal in its significance.” (From Gregory Prince and Wm. Robert Wright. David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005): 277

[mfbukowski]

Why is it so hot in here?

:diablo:

[Mars]

I had a rough go of the Temple the first time around.

It's gotten better.

[LeSellers]

So, you have a hard time imagining that someone could relate to an experience differently than you did?

No, I have a hard time understanding how they/you could be "freaked out". There's simply nothing there I can imagine that is "freaky".

That you did "freak out", I accept.

The two things are not the same.

Maybe others taught you & prepared you better than I.

I doubt it. I had no Temple Prep class, and my parents didn't say much about it, either. It was a complete mystery to me until it happened in front of my eyes.

The only thing I really knew about it was that it was a "classic": I would not understand it all the first time, and that I would not understand it all, ever.

Maybe you didn't expect as much.

If you had higher expectations, I can imagine that you'd be "disappointed", but not how that would make you "freaked out".

Try to understand that for some, that wasn't the case.

I know it wasn't. I have never doubted it happened. I do not understand how it could be a problem for anyone. My Jacquie didn't have any such experience. None of our seven children did. My brothers and sisters (seven of them, too) didn't. Our children-in-law didn't.

I don't know anyone, personally, who did. That doesn't mean no one does. It just means I can't figure out why.

I think it's very important to try to understand that others can & do interpret (through thought & feeling) things differently than us.

I get that. But that's not what I said. The issue I have is that the "freaky" part of the Temple doesn't seem at all freaky.

I received my endowment in 1967, so, according to some, it was even more "freaky" than it is today, so I'm not being some Goody Two-Shoes and speaking from ignorance of what others may have experienced. My ignorance is of a totally different sort: it's about how they reacted to the experience, not the experience itself.

Lehi

[HeatherAnn]

. My ignorance is of a totally different sort: it's about how they reacted to the experience, not the experience itself.

Lehi,

Thanks for clarifying more... Now let me clarify too.

By "understanding" I did not mean understanding the experience itself, I meant understanding someone else's perspective of the same, or similar experience.

IE: We could both be sitting in class in church. You are sweating hot, & I am freezing my toosh off. We are both experiencing the same room, same external temperature, yet we are feeling unique experiences.

[mfbukowski]

My first Temple experience (aside from baptisms) was neither scary nor weird. I went without an escort, and I had absolutely no idea what was going on until it happened. But it was exciting and fulfilling.

When I hear people say they were "freaked out", it simply does not make any sense at all to me.

Lehi

I have to admit that as a convert at age 30, having heard nothing about the temple, having not been brought up in the culture with garments etc, and working on a Masters in philosophy, I was a little "taken aback" to say the least.

I have grown to love the temple now that I see its significance, and have been an ordinance worker until other callings forced me to stop doing all but veil work.

I have tried to make it a little less confusing for newbies as much as I can. I teach that it is like learning one's "abc's"-

I say something like:

"Here is the chalk- stand up at the blackboard- now make a slanted line- like a front slash. OK- now make a slanted line the other way- like a back slash. See that shape? OK now cross it half way up- That is a capital 'A'- Those are the way we learn things in the temple- we learn how to make 'letters' of a symbolic alphabet which grows in importance as we learn to read"

Once they understand that there will be "activities" they need to learn and how to do these activities, and that they are symbolic, it helps immeasurably.

[mfbukowski]

I expected something like High Mass in a Catholic Cathedral!

[Deborah]

The first time I went through the temple I was so tired from traveling I didn't get anything out of it. When my son went through for the first time he said "Is that it, I expected some new revelation." I explained to him that as he attends he will start to have more insights and understanding and that new revelation. Well, he's a regular temple goer now and looks forward to it.

They didn't have temple prep classes when I went through the first time. Fortunately they do better preparation now because young people hear how wonderful the temple is but they don't understand it's only after you've been going for awhile and start getting some of the deeper insights, along with just an opportunity to escape from the world and find a couple of hours of true peace and quiet.

[HeatherAnn]

The temple, especially celestial room is so beautiful & it is kept in a sacred, peaceful way.

Nature is also a source of sacred peace. Jesus, Moses, Nephi & others went up to the mountains to feel close to God.

I love to go up in the mountains... & I find ever time, I learn something new that can be applied spiritually...

...like how each step requires a degree of intellectual awareness & intuition, to keep moving without falling on all of the slippery rocks.

Similarly, in life, we need to keep moving with both thoughtful reason & inspiration, to keep our balance.

Nature is filled with secrets, that are only secrets until we notice.

[Jeff K.]

My first time in the temple. I told myself I would make it a point to remember everything. I promptly forgot everything, and had to go many times to have a clear full understanding.

[LeSellers]

By "understanding" I did not mean understanding the experience itself, I meant understanding someone else's perspective of the same, or similar experience.

Understanding someone else's perspective is not possible, absent some shared basis for the understanding. I have no such basis.

And people who do feel freaked out can never adequately explain why, which makes my comprehension of their feelings all the less possible. At least a fear of the dark is understandable, even though I've never experienced that, as far as I can recall. The unknown (and unseen) is cause for some of my own fears, and the dark is the unknown.

We could both be sitting in class in church. You are sweating hot, & I am freezing my toosh off. We are both experiencing the same room, same external temperature, yet we are feeling unique experiences.

My Jacquie has hot flashes. It makes no sense. There is nothing in the environment that should make her feel hot. I cannot understand why she is hot. And, in fact, she is not hot at all: it's just a sensation caused by (a lack of) homones. Her actual body temperature does not rise. She cannot explain it to me, either.

There is no way I can understand it. I accept that it's true, but it is unfathomable to me.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

It is clear that Rob really has very little understanding of things LDS.

I for one hereby intend to stop being as belligerent as I have been, understanding that his pov comes from his lack of understanding, and will henceforth treat him more as a genuine investigator.

My previous assumption was that he was here more to challenge and antagonize, from a position of deliberate belligerence, so I responded in kind. Now between this thread and the ones now on the "Focused Discussions" board, it is becoming clear that he has little really understanding and mostly is highly suspicious of us, regardless of the supposed understanding he alleges on his website.

It is clear he has bought all the stupid Anti-Mormon stuff out there hook line and sinker and really doesn't "get" what we really are at all.

I pledge to answer all his questions simply and directly from now on and ignore his defensive suspicion- he is here looking for the "horns" sticking out of our scalps and I intend to make sure that I don't contribute to any negative impressions I may give- my previous assumption was that it was not possible that he was here looking for genuine answers.

[Vance]

It is clear that Rob really has very little understanding of things LDS.

A slight understatement.

I for one hereby intend to stop being as belligerent as I have been, understanding that his pov comes from his lack of understanding, and will henceforth treat him more as a genuine investigator.

I hope this will improve his understanding, but color me skeptical.

My previous assumption was that he was here more to challenge and antagonize, from a position of deliberate belligerence, so I responded in kind.

I think that was rather obvious.

Now between this thread and the ones now on the "Focused Discussions" board, it is becoming clear that he has little really understanding and mostly is highly suspicious of us, regardless of the supposed understanding he alleges on his website.

Well, perhaps the weaknesses of his attacks being exposed has helped him see some light. And perhaps the weaknesses of his theology being exposed has also helped him see some light.

We can only hope.

It is clear he has bought all the stupid Anti-Mormon stuff out there hook line and sinker and really doesn't "get" what we really are at all.

Yes, that is clear. Hopefully he is coming to understand how weak and pathetic that suff really is.

I pledge to answer all his questions simply and directly from now on and ignore his defensive suspicion- he is here looking for the "horns" sticking out of our scalps and I intend to make sure that I don't contribute to any negative impressions I may give- my previous assumption was that it was not possible that he was here looking for genuine answers.

May the Spirit be with you.

[Calm]

And perhaps the weaknesses of his theology being exposed has also helped him see some light.

If you mean his understanding of LDS theology, I would agree that his weakness has been exposed. If you mean his own personal belief system, I would not agree and would suggest the purpose of this board is not to 'expose' alleged weaknesses in others' theologies (except in the case where they perhaps claim that their theology does not have the same alleged weakness that the LDS or other belief systems do when it actually does, but I see that as not about the theology itself but rather claims for the theology).

[cookslc]

Lehi,

It's uncharacteristically quick to be initiated, passed, and raised (administered the 3 degrees of Masonry) within a matter of days or even weeks. There is memorization work to be done and there is the question of whether or not the candidate is ready to be moved on that needs to be answered. ....Then again, I'm looking at it from the time frames that are usually associated with candidates today. Maybe someone else can illustrate/has illustrated the generally accepted time frame for Masons in the mid 1800s?

I cannot give you the precise times during the Nauvoo period. I can tell you that anciently, the TWO degrees were conferred on the same day in Scotland. Stephenson, the First Freemasons; Cryer, Tell Me More About the Mark Degree, p. 21. When I had responsibility for such, I waived the rather minimal time of two weeks between degrees. Further, not all jurisdictions have the lengthy memorization which has become common in the US. In England, we only have a series of short questions which need to be answered.

Duncan's, I think you will find, was published subsequent to 1864.

It would be useful to review the literature on the subject, including the recent article in Heredom, Theological Conundrums from the "Burned over District" as the Key to Mormonism for Freemasonry (V. 18, 2010). The following copyrighted bibliography is provided:

1. http://www.lds-mormon.com/masonry.shtml

2. Glen A. Cook, "A Review of Factors Leading to Tension Between the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry," The

Philalethes Magazine, Vol. XLVII No. 4, August 1995, pp. 76-8, 81)

(not subject to reprint or use without permission of the author);

Address to the Pennsylvania Academy of Masonic Knowledge, 2010.

3. Thomas Gregg, History of Hancock County (Chicogao; Chas. C.

Chapman & Co., 1880)

4. Oaks and Hill, Carthage Conspiracy (University of Illinois Press,

1979)

5. McGavin, Mormonism and Masonry (Bookcraft, 1956)

6. Walgren, "James Adams: Early Springfiled Mormon and Freemason,"

Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 75 (Summer 1982: 121-

36).

7. John C. Reynolds, History of the MW Grand Lodge of Illinois

(Springfield Ill., 1869)

8. Michael W. Homer, 'Similarity of Priesthood in Masonry': The

Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism," Dialogue, A Journal

of Mormon Thought, v. 27, No. 3, Fall 1994; Masonry & Mormonism in

Utah 1847-1984, Journal of Mormon History V. 18, Fall 1992.

9. The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, (Signature Books, Salt

Lake City 1992).

10. Joseph Smith, Jr., et al., History of the Church of Jesus Christ

of Latter-day Saints, ed. B.H. Roberts, 2nd ed., The Deseret Book

Co., Salt Lake City, 1976;

11. Joseph E. Morcombe, "Masonry and Mormonism," Masonic Standard (1

Sept. 1906);

12. Joseph E. Morcombe, History of the Grand Lodge of Ioa (1910)

13. Robert Ramsay, "Freemasonry Among the Mormons," The Craftsman 3

(1869); reprinted in The Masonic Review

14. 1867 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Nevada

15. Samuel H. Goodwin, Freemasonry in Utah. Thirty years of Mt.

Moriah Lodge No. 2 F&AM of Utah 1866-1896

16. 1877 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Utah; 1984 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Utah

17. Robert Baskin, Reminiscences of Early Utah

18. Utah History Encyclopedia, University of Utah Press, 1994.

19. Robert Freak Gould, The History of Freemasonry (New York, John

C. Yorston & Co., 1885-1889)

20. Rudger Clawson, Diary, 4 April 1899

21. Ludlow, ed. Macmillan, New York, 1992, V.2, "Freemasonry and the

Temple."

22. Quinn, Latter-day Saint Prayer Circles, Brigham Young University

Studies, 19 (Fall 1978)

23. Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City,

Signature Books, 1987)

24. Exploring the Relationship Between Mormons and Masons, DVD, Covenenant Communications (2009).

[Vance]

If you mean his understanding of LDS theology, I would agree that his weakness has been exposed.

I meant what I said, "the weaknesses of his attacks being exposed".

But I agree with you that his "fatally flawed" understanding of LDS theology has also been exposed.

Regardless the purpose of this board, "fatal" weaknesses of his theology have been exposed.

Such exposure is simply inherent in the discussion process.

[HeatherAnn]

Understanding someone else's perspective is not possible, absent some shared basis for the understanding. I have no such basis.

And people who do feel freaked out can never adequately explain why, which makes my comprehension of their feelings all the less possible. At least a fear of the dark is understandable, even though I've never experienced that, as far as I can recall. The unknown (and unseen) is cause for some of my own fears, and the dark is the unknown.

My Jacquie has hot flashes. It makes no sense. There is nothing in the environment that should make her feel hot. I cannot understand why she is hot. And, in fact, she is not hot at all: it's just a sensation caused by (a lack of) homones. Her actual body temperature does not rise. She cannot explain it to me, either.

There is no way I can understand it. I accept that it's true, but it is unfathomable to me.

Lehi

Hi Lehi,

Maybe I should have chosen a different word... "Freaked out" sounds too "freaky." ha ha

What I meant is that I was surprised in a disappointed way the first time through the temple.

I was hoping to be more spiritually edified, especially with a focus on Christ, yet that wasn't the case.

I've had better experiences in the temple, but that initial day of receiving endowments was disappointing to me.

And for my kids, I'm going to prepare them better, before they go through, especially regarding symbolism.

You mentioned a good example, with your wife.

I will never know what it feels like to be a man, nor will a man know what it's like to be a woman.

Yet, in believing that they are being honest when they feel something, we can be respectful & validating.

In relating with your wife, you know how uncomfortable it is when you are sweating hot & in a hot car or something...

So you can find some point of reference to help you empathize with her, which I believe helps a lot in relationships.

[coolrok7]

For some context of the question asked of me by Mfbukowski in post # 155:

(coolrok7)... the Mormon g(G)od ...

(Mfbukowski)Which is it?

Are you trying to be as offensive as possible- you will get no converts that way- or are you just incredibly incapable of empathy?

Either way, you are a terrible missionary.

Whatever you think you are selling, I never would want any part of it. Board rules prohibit preaching.

The context of my answer to Vance’s question to me (in which you questioned me):

(Vance) So, the Boy Scouts of America is a religious system?

"On my honor, I will do my best

To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."

There is the National Council for the organization.

And they have a Handbook (scripture).

(coolrok7)Mormon Churches as well as other Church groups sponsor troops as a source for good training of both young and old alike in the sense of duty to "God" and country. The handbook is not Biblical Scripture.

Mormonism as well as others appeals to their view of "God" as a moral basis of which all morality comes from.

I would advance that the Biblical God is not the Mormon god that was once a man and is now God according to Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow.

So in Mormon troops the reference would be to the Mormon g(G)od as that is their belief. In others it would be to the Biblical God.

All this is in the context of the thread op in which this discussion is about. Not trying to be deliberately offensive here, it’s the way I describe the idea of men becoming “a God” (Joseph SmithLorenzo Snow, Milton R. Hunter):

. . .God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, . . . (History of the Church, Joseph Smith Jr., April 1844, 6:305)

As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be— Lorenzo Snow

Jesus became a God and reached His great state of understanding through consistent effort and continuous obedience to all the Gospel truths and universal laws. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.51)

I have described the way I see it in the context of what Mormons teach/believe. He is first like we are, little “g” or a “god in embryo” in which he is born as a spirit baby like his father, who had a father, who had a father, etc., etc.. . . . Upon exaltation he becomes capital “G” “God” to his posterity. There are “many gods” out there.

Being created in the image of God as a human being doesn’t make one God or a g(G)od.

In my view God has always been God and doesn’t have spirit babies like we have human physical babies with our spirits in God’s image (which isn’t necessarily a mirror image as is seen in the pictures of the Father and the Son supposedly “appearing” to Joseph Smith in Mormon publications).

I see the Old Testament teaching:

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. (Psalm 90:2)

God formed man out of the dust of the earth, breathed life into him, and later took a piece of Adam and formed Eve. It is my belief that neither was born of heavenly parents as described in Mormonism.

We’re not allowed to proselytize here and I’m not selling anything. Telling people the Good News about Jesus is the given Biblical methodology. Why would that be offensive to people who claim to believe the Bible?