Are The Temple Ordinances "Secret"?

[cinepro]

In the thread discussing the Second Anointing podcast, a tangential disagreement came up about whether or not the Temple Ordinances are "secret."

We can all agree that LDS consider them "sacred", but some took exception to the idea that they are also "secret."

As a side note, I would point out that whether or not something is "sacred" is really irrelevant as to whether it is also "secret", other than to explain why it is "secret." There are many things which are sacred which are not secret, and many things which are secret which are not sacred. And some which are both, such as the Temple ceremonies.

As another side note, I would point out that just because some people know the secret, doesn't make something not secret. Some secrets are not well kept, and others are shared among large groups of people. Perhaps for the sake of discussion, we can apply these three definitions from Dictionary.com:

Secret:

2. kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged: a secret password.

3. faithful or cautious in keeping confidential matters confidential; close-mouthed; reticent.

4. designed or working to escape notice, knowledge, or observation: a secret drawer; the secret police.

To prove my point, I would challenge anyone to prove me wrong by explaining what the Church would need to do if tomorrow morning, President Monson had a revelation that it was time to start keeping the Temple Ceremonies secret after all these years.

If the Temple Ceremonies are not "secret" at this time, what would need to change to make them so?

Please keep it on topic by answering the question. Thanks.

[Tacenda]

In the thread discussing the Second Anointing podcast, a tangential disagreement came up about whether or not the Temple Ordinances are "secret."

We can all agree that LDS consider them "sacred", but some took exception to the idea that they are also "secret."

As a side note, I would point out that whether or not something is "sacred" is really irrelevant as to whether it is also "secret", other than to explain why it is "secret." There are many things which are sacred which are not secret, and many things which are secret which are not sacred. And some which are both, such as the Temple ceremonies.

As another side note, I would point out that just because some people know the secret, doesn't make something not secret. Some secrets are not well kept, and others are shared among large groups of people. Perhaps for the sake of discussion, we can apply these three definitions from Dictionary.com:

To prove my point, I would challenge anyone to prove me wrong by explaining what the Church would need to do if tomorrow morning, President Monson had a revelation that it was time to start keeping the Temple Ceremonies secret after all these years.

If the Temple Ceremonies are not "secret" at this time, what would need to change to make them so?

Please keep it on topic by answering the question. Thanks.

I would say that's not a new revelation, that is always how it's been!

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

It doesn't matter if someone else keeps what they don't consider sacred as a secret. But it does matter if I do.

I don't know as any changes would be needed. Just a willingness on the part of Church members to keep them so.

[KevinG]

By the dictionary definition of secret yes.

"Not secret but sacred" is an attempt to distinguish between something that is forever a secret and limited to a special class and the temple which is open to all who are willing to keep their covenants with God (as taught by the LDS church). That phrase isn't one of my favorites because it is an award attempt to describe this in a sound bite.

Ours is a fraternity that extends an invitation to all people everywhere (even the dead ones). In the eternal sense its not a very well kept secret.

As I said on the other thread our covenants not to reveal temple content outside of the temple probably have more to do with testing our ability to keep sacred things sacred than any imagined protection of the temple ceremony from prying eyes.

Edited August 30, 2012 by KevinG

[BCSpace]

I still prefer esoteric:

1a : designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone

b : requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group <esoteric terminology>; broadly : difficult to understand <esoteric subjects>

2a : limited to a small circle <engaging in esoteric pursuits>

b : private, confidential <an esoteric purpose>

3: of special, rare, or unusual interest <esoteric building materials>

[DH]

I would say that some parts of the temple ceremonies, specifically the signs and tokens, are meant to be kept secret. I've heard faithful Latter-day Saints discuss other aspects of the temple ceremonies outside of the temple, and even in books and articles, openly, but with reverence.

I see no reason to shy away from the word or concept of secrecy. Maybe to some people it makes it sound as though Mormons are plotting evil deeds in the temple. But there is nothing wrong with secrecy in and of itself, and it annoys me when people say "it's not secret, it's sacred." Sorry, but to me it seems slippery and squirelly to redefine words like that, presumably in order to look better to outsiders.

Basically, the things in question are both sacred and secret.

Edited August 30, 2012 by DH

[KevinG]

I would say that some aspects of the temple ceremonies are meant to be kept secret, but not everything.

Yeah. A good review of Genesis covers a lot of temple content.

[cesc101]

Sometimes I wonder if what the High Priest learnt behind the veil, in ancient Israelite Temple, was shared word-for-word with everyone?

If Yes, then Why the prohibition on who goes through the veil?

Else,

Was such practice intended as a SECRET or regarded as SACRED?

[Thinking]

If I am directed to not reveal something, that thing is secret. It may also be considered sacred. To faithful LDS, the covenants made in the temple are both sacred and secret.

[Sleeper Cell]

In the thread discussing the Second Anointing podcast, a tangential disagreement came up about whether or not the Temple Ordinances are "secret."

We can all agree that LDS consider them "sacred", but some took exception to the idea that they are also "secret."

As a side note, I would point out that whether or not something is "sacred" is really irrelevant as to whether it is also "secret", other than to explain why it is "secret." There are many things which are sacred which are not secret, and many things which are secret which are not sacred. And some which are both, such as the Temple ceremonies.

As another side note, I would point out that just because some people know the secret, doesn't make something not secret. Some secrets are not well kept, and others are shared among large groups of people. Perhaps for the sake of discussion, we can apply these three definitions from Dictionary.com:

To prove my point, I would challenge anyone to prove me wrong by explaining what the Church would need to do if tomorrow morning, President Monson had a revelation that it was time to start keeping the Temple Ceremonies secret after all these years.

By your own definitions, temple ordinances are not secret.

2. If they are readily available on the internet, they are not being kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated.

3. The Church, itself, is not faithful or cautious in keeping temple ordinances confidential, in that they continue to reveal them to great numbers of people, despite knowing, by previous experience, that it is virtually certain that some of them will reveal the “secrets.”

4. No church ordinance is "designed or working to escape notice, knowledge, or observation,” if the way the church chooses to administer the ordinance makes it virtually certain that it will not escape notice, knowledge, or observation.

If the Temple Ceremonies are not "secret" at this time, what would need to change to make them so?

It is too late to make something secret that is readily available on the internet.

If the church really wants to keep something secret, the obvious first step would be to greatly restrict the number of people with access to the secret.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Sleeper Cell

[SeekerB]

They are sacred, and should be kept secret. The Temple Ordinances can't be completely considered a secret (something known only by a few), since millions of church members are quite familiar with them.

[Saints Alive]

Here's a question for those who don't consider the temple secret... If the church could or had its way... would the temple ordinances be secret?

[Tacenda]

Here's a question for those who don't consider the temple secret... If the church could or had its way... would the temple ordinances be secret?

Is this a trick question?

[Saints Alive]

Is this a trick question?

I certainly didn't mean for it to be.

[swfarnsworth]

In the most general sense of the word, parts of the endowment can be considered secret, but they become more difficult to label when you consider that:

1. When two people know a secret, they will usually be willing to discuss it when they are certain that nobody else will hear their discussion. As with the temple ordinances, two endowed people could not discuss the signs and tokens in the middle of the Sahara with no civilization for miles unless there happens to be a celestial room there.
   
2. An endowed person is not seeking to prevent others from learning the "secrets" when they refuse to discuss them openly, they are only trying to obey the commandment to not reveal them. A secret keeper, however, might try to prevent the seeker from learning the secret in more ways than simply asking them not to.
   

[theplains]

To prove my point, I would challenge anyone to prove me wrong by explaining what the Church would need to do if tomorrow morning, President Monson had a revelation that it was time to start keeping the Temple Ceremonies secret after all these years.

If the Temple Ceremonies are not "secret" at this time, what would need to change to make them so?

Please keep it on topic by answering the question. Thanks.

I have a few suggestions.

1] I have heard that on a given day when the Endowment Ceremony occurs, all the male and female patrons get the same

name (ex. Mary for the females, Joseph for the males).

This is not a secret if this is the case. I would suggest drawing your name from a list of names from a basket.

2] install metal detectors so there's no way a hidden camera or voice recorder could be brought into the temple to have

ordinances taped.

3] prior to allowing people to enter the temple, make them swear to God on the Bible or Book of Mormon that they promise

not to reveal anything about what they see and hear during the temple visit while they are members of that church.

Regards,

Jim

[Cobalt-70]

Certain parts of the ceremony are intended to be secret, even though the secret has not been very well kept. The pre-1990 ceremony used the phrase "obligations of secrecy." Anything that you covenant never to reveal is by definition a secret. I think that when we try to split hairs and deny this, it just makes us look defensive and ashamed of our temple ceremony. There are secrets in the temple ceremony. Unless we want to remove these secrets from the ceremony, we should be proud of the fact that they are there.

[Tacenda]

I have a few suggestions.

1] I have heard that on a given day when the Endowment Ceremony occurs, all the male and female patrons get the same

name (ex. Mary for the females, Joseph for the males).

This is not a secret if this is the case. I would suggest drawing your name from a list of names from a basket.

2] install metal detectors so there's no way a hidden camera or voice recorder could be brought into the temple to have

ordinances taped.

3] prior to allowing people to enter the temple, make them swear to God on the Bible or Book of Mormon that they promise

not to reveal anything about what they see and hear during the temple visit while they are members of that church.

Regards,

Jim

I read something recently on someone going into the temple and recording Mitt Romney attending a session. He said he's going to reveal it in September. So I think this would be a good security measure.

[wenglund]

Will I get anything of value from playing this semantic game?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

Here's a question for those who don't consider the temple secret... If the church could or had its way... would the temple ordinances be secret?

If the Church had its way everybody would have the integrity to partake of the blessing and not then go out and publicly ridicule sacred things. It has been said before but bears repeating, the ban on public disclosure is all about protecting the sacredness of the ordinances. It is about protecting them from the unholy interest of the unbelieving and uncouth.

[Ahab]

To prove my point, I would challenge anyone to prove me wrong by explaining what the Church would need to do if tomorrow morning, President Monson had a revelation that it was time to start keeping the Temple Ceremonies secret after all these years.

If the Temple Ceremonies are not "secret" at this time, what would need to change to make them so?

The Church would need to not tell anyone else about the Temple Cermonies... and to not tell anyone else about them would include not showing them to anyone else or allowing anyone else to read or see anything in print or on video about them... and to not even explain why the Church would be keeping them a secret or to even mention anything about them. Even the term itself... "Temple Ceremonies"... would be taboo. Nobody in the Church would be able to talk about them with anyone else.

That's what the Church would need to do, if the Church wanted to keep them a secret.

And btw, the Church could keep it a secret even if people outside the Church shared everything with the whole world, because what the Church does doesn't necessarily have to be what the world does on the same issues.

[ERMD]

Rep point for Wade.

[ERayR]

I have a few suggestions.

1] I have heard that on a given day when the Endowment Ceremony occurs, all the male and female patrons get the same

name (ex. Mary for the females, Joseph for the males).

Your comments show that you have no idea what the ordinances are and only illustrate and underscore the reason for confidentiality. And you have no Idea the reason for that do you.

This is not a secret if this is the case. I would suggest drawing your name from a list of names from a basket.

Another illustration for confidentiality. Well meaning, but presumptuous suggestions without having an understanding of the ceremony.

2] install metal detectors so there's no way a hidden camera or voice recorder could be brought into the temple to have

ordinances taped.

The temple is designed to be holy experience and not an excursion to the state prison. All, who present recommends to enter, are assumed to be honorable and honest. That some are not is to their discredit and damnation.

3] prior to allowing people to enter the temple, make them swear to God on the Bible or Book of Mormon that they promise

not to reveal anything about what they see and hear during the temple visit while they are members of that church.

Regards,

Jim

Those promises are made in the course of the ordinances. If one does not have enough integrity to keep their promises, even if they become disaffected, then no amount of oaths sworn on any sacred object will keep them from doing that which they have promised not to do.

[ERayR]

I read something recently on someone going into the temple and recording Mitt Romney attending a session. He said he's going to reveal it in September. So I think this would be a good security measure.

Read post #23.

[alter idem]

Cinepro, I'd say the temple ceremonies were meant to be kept secret--because they are sacred. But they sure are not secret since they are, in various forms of accuracy, plastered all over the internet, available in books, as well as re-enacted in TV and movies.