Publishing The Temple Ceremony

[Nevo]

I think John Lundquist has some good thoughts on the topic of secrecy in his book, The Temple: Meeting Place of Heaven and Earth (London: Thames and Hudson, 1993):

The temple preserves and transmits the esoteric tradition, the mysteries. Access to the rituals by which these mysteries are transmitted in the temple is restricted, and the knowledge of them is supposed to be kept secret from the uninitiated. Even in modern society, where 'there are no more secrets', and accounts of the initiatic procedures of various temple communities are widely published, such publications still do not give the uninitiated genuine knowledge of the esoteric traditions of the community in question because a ritual is something that must be experienced in order for it to become alive. Reading about it is not enough....

Such strictures [rules of secrecy associated with temple ritual] are now, and probably always were, as a general rule, metaphors for the loss of the spiritual power attained in the initiation by the individual who revealed the secrets.... In many cases, the secrets are culturally and ethnically based, and provide a stronghold of inner, communal strength against the inroads of outsiders whose influence would contribute to the destruction of the social cohesion that is fostered by the rituals....

Since the ultimate role and meaning of temple ritual is spiritual, the only harm that can result from betraying the secrets is to the inner spiritual life of the initiate himself. Those who, in a modern, open society, observe a ritual with some degree of curiosity, without personal involvement or understanding, can hardly be harmed, and indeed will doubtless be blessed, by the spiritual power of what they witness (pp. 27-28; emphasis added).

I don't expect the Church will ever publish transcripts of the temple ceremonies, but I wouldn't be offended if they did. I recently saw the now-infamous Big Love temple scene on YouTube and, for an exposé, I thought it was actually done quite well (unlike the trashy September Dawn)—I guess I'm a sucker for Samuel Barber's Agnus Dei. If the temple ceremonies are going to be out there for all to see, I hope they are at least represented accurately.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Nevo

[mfbukowski]

I agree that the dishonest means with which the current transcripts were obtained is problematic, but ...

No buts

That is the entire issue.

[Thinking]

I agree that the dishonest means with which the current transcripts were obtained is problematic, but wish the Church would diffuse the situation by simply making text of the Temple ceremony publicly available as it does with so many other ordinances.

Would you support making the text of all the pre-1990 ceremonies available?

[mercyngrace]

Did you mean to say half a century? Because I doubt you could come up with anything substantial even in that period.

MD was first publish in '58. Just over the 50 year mark. It was floating around for 8 years before a second edition corrected the GAC bit. There is no denying it's far reaching influence. As late as 1988, Stephen Robinson published Warring Against the Saints of God in the Ensign and, disputing McConkie's original GAC idea, wrote this:

More often, some have suggested that the Roman Catholic church might be the great and abominable church of Nephi 13.

If this notion had so little staying power in the church, why address it thirty years later? Why say "More often"?

I'm not alone in encountering this idea at church long after the second edition made it's way into bookstores. Just googling, I turned up numerous hits on pro-LDS sites where I encountered comments following a similar pattern:

MormonFortress: Later editions of Mormon Doctrine (the second edition didn’t appear until 1966) removed such references, but not before the LDS bestseller popularized the belief among many Latter-day Saints. (See Quinn 2002, and Mauss, 162-3.¹)

Commenter at BCC: Seriously, though, I’ve always liked this quote [referencing a JS quote the speaks posiively of Catolicism] and like to trot it out in EQ or GD whenever someone brings up the Great and Abominable = Catholic idea. One time, a EQ teacher with some wit said: “well, then I guess the protestants don’t have anything ‘great’ about them—they’re just abominable.”

(This comment was posted in Sept. 2007 so apparently, somewhere this idea is still circulating at church.)

Another from a BCC contributor: (I have a suspicion that it’s the Catholic origin of the expression that causes the discomfort, because as we all know, the Catholic Church is the Great and Abominable Church of Lucifer the Devil and Author of the Dreadful Papist Apostasy.)

(This comment was obviously tongue in cheek however the mere fact it was written to an LDS audience, even in sarcasm, demonstrates the broad cultural knowledge of this teaching, false as it is.)

Latterday Commentary: You are probably aware that in the first edition of the book Mormon Doctrine that Bruce R McConkie identified the great and abominable church as the Catholic church.

Again, it appears that I am not alone in noticing the longevity and widespread nature of this particular notion.

(PS Thanks for the implied CFR. It pushed me to read a lot of really great articles on 1 Nephi 13-14 tonight.)

Edited January 17, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Bernard Gui]

To be fair we should say, "display of certain elements of the ceremony" outside the temple........

It is not comprehensible without, as you say, "certain elements."

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

But if someone says they are using such sacred things for purposes of (nudge, nudge) "study" (wink, wink) you'll unhesitatingly accept that without question

As long as they cross their fingers while taking the oaths, everything is cool.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Do you consider the textual renderings of ancient temple rites to be an offense against earlier saints? If prophets, scribes, translators,and scholars consolidated those vivid descriptions of temple rites in a book, for example, would that be sacrilege?

Are the adherents and their temples dead and gone?

This is why I think intent matters and that some things can be explained, written about, discussed, and even depicted outside the temple - and that such can be done in a respectful way.

One man's respect is another man's mockery.

Bernard

Edited January 17, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Just like pictures of Jesus.

Jews do not make pictorial representations of God. Christians do not behead those who draw a picture of Jesus.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Just like pictures of Jesus.

Jews do not make pictorial representations of God. Christians do not behead those who draw a picture of Jesus.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

I read a talk recently by an AA70 that IMO said some stuff that was a bit of a collar yanker

I would feel uncomfortable in that situation. But if the one who holds the keys of Elijah says differently, then we can take our cue from him.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

I wonder if the MTC impresses the importance of respecting other religions, as a part of the missionary training? Seems that would be a good thing (and could be it's already being done...I really don't know).

Yes, it does. However, as my cowboy uncle used to say, "it takes some of us longer to get over Fool's Hill."

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

For decades we have lived in a declining culture of ever increasing disrespect and mockery. No notion of the sacred is essentially missing now.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

How is one dishonest? If I recall, there is no temple recommend question that asks if you are divulging temple rituals.

Think again, and you will find that there is.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

it's not illegal to steal pictures of naked people and post them on the internet?

Depends on the intent of the poster.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Merciful Odin, I actually agree with Cinepro on something. Clearly ragnarök is imminent.

There is a wide divide between photos of altars and what is said and done at the altars.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

I doubt very many people would be interested (how many of you have taken the time to read the OT levels from Scientology?), and I suspect the most heavy use would come from people cramming for a pending Temple visit.

There is a purpose for receiving the endowment that transcends simply reading it. it cannot be

understood correctly outside its holy space.

Cramming for a pending temple visit?

Bernard

[Hamba Tuhan]

Having just submitted my PhD thesis after 6.5 years of labour, I'm too tired to read through all 15 pages of this thread, but, in reponse to a few of the posts I have read, I offer almost exactly what I wrote on this topic last year:

I am headquartered in the School of Culture, History, and Languages in one of the world's major research universities. If one of our researchers ever published material which a society or group of people considered to be sacred and not for public eyes, s/he would be in breach of strongly worded ethical guidelines and would be harshly disciplined. It's a sad day when mostly godless academics have higher ethical standards in this area than some fellow Christians and disaffected/former members. The notion that the sacred is not something to be treated carelessly or casually is not unique to Latter-day Saints by any stretch.

[Libs]

I think I remember the incident. Wasn't it in Mexico? There was a group of statues, and the head had come off one of them. One of the missionaries picked up the head and posed for an "Alas poor Yorick" kind of photo. Since nobody knew when or how the statues had been damaged, the missionaries were blamed.

The lesson for them being that they really shouldn't have been horsing around with something that was sacred to the local people.

When I served my mission, back in the 1970's, the white handbook contained an instruction which, IIRC, said something to the effect of, "Do not make light of matters that are sacred or otherwise significant to the people in your mission area." Their "making light" got them unfairly blamed for the actual damage, something that they wouldn't have been blamed for if they had behaved themselves as missionaries are supposed to.

Pity the facts don't support the hate-based accusations of the Grahams of this world, but I think I can live with that.

Regards,

Pahoran

Well, we were both wrong. It was in Colorado. "The damaged statue seen in one of the photos depicts Manuel Morales, who was the 28-year-old president of Mexico's National League for the Defense of Religious Liberty" and I guess the missionaries were caught, when they posted photos on the internet.

http://www.deseretne...-case.html?pg=1

The LDS Church did some very serious apologizing to the Catholic Church that was vandalized. The boys were not charged with anything, but I'll bet they were in a ton of trouble.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

Yes, it does. However, as my cowboy uncle used to say, "it takes some of us longer to get over Fool's Hill."

Bernard

lol...yep.

Thanks, Bernard.

[Scott Lloyd]

LOL - Good catch! I meant half a century - I shouldn't have been trying to post while submitting reports for work. I retract the word DECADE and replace it with CENTURY.

While we're correcting each other's goofs, CATHOLIC has a "H".

Thanks just the same, but I spotted and corrected the error very soon after I made the post.

Unlike Dan Peterson, Pahoran and a few others here, I have not yet mastered the skill of flawless text on initial posting, but I'm apt to fix even minor errors the moment I see them. That is why so many of my posts carry "edited" stamps on them.

Incidentally, I really wasn't certain whether your use of "half a decade" was inadvertent; I'm glad to see that it was.

[Scott Lloyd]

MD was first publish in '58. Just over the 50 year mark. It was floating around for 8 years before a second edition corrected the GAC bit. There is no denying it's far reaching influence. As late as 1988, Stephen Robinson published Warring Against the Saints of God in the Ensign and, disputing McConkie's original GAC idea, wrote this:

If this notion had so little staying power in the church, why address it thirty years later? Why say "More often"?

I'm not alone in encountering this idea at church long after the second edition made it's way into bookstores. Just googling, I turned up numerous hits on pro-LDS sites where I encountered comments following a similar pattern:

MormonFortress: Later editions of Mormon Doctrine (the second edition didn’t appear until 1966) removed such references, but not before the LDS bestseller popularized the belief among many Latter-day Saints. (See Quinn 2002, and Mauss, 162-3.¹)

Commenter at BCC: Seriously, though, I’ve always liked this quote [referencing a JS quote the speaks posiively of Catolicism] and like to trot it out in EQ or GD whenever someone brings up the Great and Abominable = Catholic idea. One time, a EQ teacher with some wit said: “well, then I guess the protestants don’t have anything ‘great’ about them—they’re just abominable.”

(This comment was posted in Sept. 2007 so apparently, somewhere this idea is still circulating at church.)

Another from a BCC contributor: (I have a suspicion that it’s the Catholic origin of the expression that causes the discomfort, because as we all know, the Catholic Church is the Great and Abominable Church of Lucifer the Devil and Author of the Dreadful Papist Apostasy.)

(This comment was obviously tongue in cheek however the mere fact it was written to an LDS audience, even in sarcasm, demonstrates the broad cultural knowledge of this teaching, false as it is.)

Latterday Commentary: You are probably aware that in the first edition of the book Mormon Doctrine that Bruce R McConkie identified the great and abominable church as the Catholic church.

Again, it appears that I am not alone in noticing the longevity and widespread nature of this particular notion.

(PS Thanks for the implied CFR. It pushed me to read a lot of really great articles on 1 Nephi 13-14 tonight.)

I've never denied there being a widespread consciousness of that 54-year-old statement in the first edition of Mormon Doctrine, but I don't recall having ever seen it brought up in LDS circles except to discredit it. Even the examples you cite above apparently are not by way of giving assent to it.

My personal recollection is that it had been widely repudiated long before Robinson wrote his superb treatises on the Church of the Lamb of God vs. the Church of the Devil. I don't see how mere awareness of the McConkie statement sustains the notion of implied institutional approval of desecration of other religions. As I mentioned, as early as my mission in the mid-'70s, we were warned not to disrespect the objects and beliefs of other religious faiths or cultures. That has been the stance of the Church for as long as I can remember.

And if I may point it out, it appears that Graham (like the proverbial birds of a feather) was not just an observer but a participant in the outrageous behavior he recounts from his mission. Pardon the earthy reference, but that strikes me as being a bit like pissing in the neighborhood swimming pool and then complaining to everyone that the pool is unsanitary.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[LDSToronto]

CFR that Mill says ANYTHING like this.

Says anything like what? I doubt Mill knew anything about the temple. Jeff K said my thinking was invalid because my moral philosophy was not based on a 'thinker'. So I named a moral philosophy and a thinker who was influential in that philosophy. I don't claim that Mill agrees with me.

(it was kind of a "ask a stupid question get a stupid answer" situation)

H.

[LDSToronto]

LOL

We are talking about morality here, remember?

And legality. I believe a number of posters have questioned the legality of the situation.

[LDSToronto]

CFR big time, and I am not backing down on this one. Show me where Mill says anything like this.

Can you be a bit more specific? Jeff is the one claiming Mill said anything...So, tell me exactly what you think I've claimed Mill said (you have to show me a quote, by me). Then I will answer you.

H.

[Jeff K.]

Says anything like what? I doubt Mill knew anything about the temple. Jeff K said my thinking was invalid because my moral philosophy was not based on a 'thinker'. So I named a moral philosophy and a thinker who was influential in that philosophy. I don't claim that Mill agrees with me.

(it was kind of a "ask a stupid question get a stupid answer" situation)

H.

The question wasn't stupid, though the answer was, I agree. And the questioner is right, you used Mills as a defense in your philosophy to steal and lie and publish sacred rites. The answer was stupid (your words not mine) and the response reflects on your credibility to answer honestly, unless of course you view this discussion as you view a temple recommend discussion, you know, where you justify lying to someone when they ask you to answer honestly?