Are The Temple Ordinances "Secret"?

[thesometimesaint]

Chris444:

No need to stop posting, but there are certain rules we must adhere to. The Saints are bound by oath not to talk about certain things except in the Temple. So we can not respond concerning those things here. None of us can posts to non official Temple tapes, transcriptions, renditions. of the Temple ceremony. We can discus overall themes, and ideas behind the Temple however.

The Urim and Thummin, divining cup, divining sticks are right out of Old Testament, as are casting lots by the Apostles in the New Testament.

Edited September 2, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Bernard Gui]

to judge Smith i think we need to figure out what Deuteronomy means by magic divination ect and then look at the facts....do you know the bible means in the verse, there's other verse ant magic too, they are prob about the same jest though....Sorry if i offended you brother, just want to get to the truth on this issue!

How do you prove you are telling the truth?

Elected by my Heavenly Father before the foundation of the world to eternal life with himself, not through any forseen free will faith but only by God's mercy. Jesus Christ the only begotten of the Father then redeemed me through his precious blood shed on the cross and the Holy Spirit made me alive in Christ, it was only then that i willfully ran to the mercy of God through his son Jesus Christ. Therefore i am but a piece of clay whom the Father had mercy on - and the father now works in me to will and do of his good pleasure - all for the glory of himself and his dear son Jesus. Heavenly Father has graciously given me a desire for truth - and my aim is to share this truth that the Lord Jesus has revealed to me to whoever he wills. for many are called but few are chosen.

[Bernard Gui]

Are the Church's finances "secret" or "sacred"?

They come under the category "None of your business."

[Bernard Gui]

Prophets dont need seeing stones yo!

Really?

http://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

From the Time of Moses

The urim v'tummim is unlike any other aspect of the priestly garments, for it was not created by those skilled artisans who fashioned the other items, aided by their understanding and inspiration; and it was not created from the donations or contributions of Israel, as were all the other appointments of the Temple. The entire matter is one of those mysteries which was handed down to Moses at Mount Sinai by G-d Himself, and its secret was transmitted orally down through the generations.

At the time of the original Tabernacle erected in the desert, Moses took the original urim v'tummim, written in sublime holiness, and placed it inside the breastplate of judgment, after Aaron donned the ephod. This is reflected by the verse (Lev. 8:7), "... and he put the ephod upon him, and he fastened him with the belt of the ephod... and he put the breastplate upon him, and into the breastplate he put the urim v'tummim."

Only Questions of Congregational Importance

The process of questioning for Divine aid with the ÔUrim V'Tummim' was done in the following manner: When a question arose whose implications were so consequential that the entire congregation of Israel would be effected-such as, for example, the question of whether or not to go out to war - then, the King of Israel (or the commanding officer of the army) would ask his question before the High Priest. An ordinary person, or someone not representing the entire community would not ask of the urim v'tummim.

The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the priest's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?"

A Meditative Experience and a Prophetic Revelation

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.

Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory.

Another midrashic passage indicates that when the tribes of Israel found favor in G-d's eyes, each respective stone shone brilliantly. But when particular members of any one tribe were involved in a transgression, that tribe's stone would appear tarnished and dimmed. The High Priest would see this phenomena and understand its cause. He would then cast lots within the rank of this tribe, until the guilty person was revealed and judged (Midrash HaGadol).

[wasatchm]

speaking of temples. the brigham city dedication is coming up soon. I know a TICKET is required to view the dedication at your local stake center. and an interview is required to get a ticket. must one be worthy of a REGULAR TEMPLE RECOMMEND in order to attend a temple dedication at the local stake center? I would like to attend (since there are no other church service on sunday...at least here in utah). however, I am an actively attending member but not quite worthy of a regular temple recommend. I'd prefer to pass on doing an interview if I know I am going to fail. but I know eventually I will get there. thanks

[webbles]

speaking of temples. the brigham city dedication is coming up soon. I know a TICKET is required to view the dedication at your local stake center. and an interview is required to get a ticket. must one be worthy of a REGULAR TEMPLE RECOMMEND in order to attend a temple dedication at the local stake center? I would like to attend (since there are no other church service on sunday...at least here in utah). however, I am an actively attending member but not quite worthy of a regular temple recommend. I'd prefer to pass on doing an interview if I know I am going to fail. but I know eventually I will get there. thanks

If you have a recommend already, a ticket is not required (or at least in my stake). I don't think you can get in if you don't have a temple recommend.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

If so a badly kept one.

[Stargazer]

The picture is not exactly true. The lds does have sacred rites and are not encouraged to discuss them with non-members. But this does not make them secret. The poster makes the lds church seem sinister and it gives a negative connotation in people's minds. However, I do believe that with Mitt's acceptance speech and with the people that he helped as bishop speaking at the convention, people are definitely wondering just what is the mormon church because it sounds wonderful.

Actually, when it comes to "sacred-vs-secret" members are not even supposed to discuss the Endowment and other ordinances of the temple in detail outside the temple, even with those who have likewise received those ordinances. And even within the temple, there are limitations on discussing some portions of them in detail. This is largely, I believe, to hold them as sacred as possible.

As an outside-the-temple analog, consider the name of the priesthood which we call the "Melchizedek Priesthood". This is not THE name of the priesthood, it is merely the handle we have been given to use in place of its actual name, which is: "The Holy Priesthood After the Order of the Son of God." We are told in scripture that it is commonly referred to as the Melchizedek Priesthood in order to avoid the too frequent repetition of the name of Diety:

1 There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.

2 Why the first is called the aMelchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the bOrder of the Son of God.

4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

DC 107:1-4

If we hold the "mere" name of the Supreme Being to be too sacred to repeat too profligately, then holding the ordinances He has prescribed as sacred, even to the point of only discussing certain of them in detail in certain limited places and circumstances seems to be completely congruent with the adjective "sacred."

Edited September 3, 2012 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

The temple ceremony is sacred to Latter-day Saints. As for secret, there are certain parts that are secret and during the endowment ceremony participants are explicitly told not to reveal them.

It's kind of interesting that there are parts of the endowment which are not revealed en masse, but only one-on-one, and are implicitly held so sacred that they are virtually never repeated outside that one-on-one venue, in the temple or outside.

And as to the parts that participants are explicitly told not to reveal, those parts have been revealed to the public over and over again and are freely available. Yet I will still not reveal them, or discuss them in detail. Because they are SACRED, and I don't care if YOU know them or not, they are not to be discussed except in very general terms outside the temple, because they are SACRED.

If this isn't clear enough then no amount of explanation will suffice. If you're just not going to buy it from those who know, and prefer to hold fast to your own version of reality, then I say let you keep it, for what good it will do you.

[blackstrap]

" Holy priesthood.... " is the english translation.What name was used for diety? We don't know as it was too sacred to say.

Some societies take the idea of sacred more seriously than others. Put on a Hawaiian shirt and shorts and attend the ceremonies at Mecca.

For that matter,try to sneek in to a Native American ceremony.

[The Grimace]

It's kind of interesting that there are parts of the endowment which are not revealed en masse, but only one-on-one, and are implicitly held so sacred that they are virtually never repeated outside that one-on-one venue, in the temple or outside.

And as to the parts that participants are explicitly told not to reveal, those parts have been revealed to the public over and over again and are freely available. Yet I will still not reveal them, or discuss them in detail. Because they are SACRED, and I don't care if YOU know them or not, they are not to be discussed except in very general terms outside the temple, because they are SACRED.

If this isn't clear enough then no amount of explanation will suffice. If you're just not going to buy it from those who know, and prefer to hold fast to your own version of reality, then I say let you keep it, for what good it will do you.

I hope this post wasn't directed at me - I have never revealed the temple rites nor have I felt that anyone else ought to.

[Stargazer]

" Holy priesthood.... " is the english translation.What name was used for diety? We don't know as it was too sacred to say.

Some societies take the idea of sacred more seriously than others. Put on a Hawaiian shirt and shorts and attend the ceremonies at Mecca.

For that matter,try to sneek in to a Native American ceremony.

Some of my ancestors were initiates in the Kuksu secret society. They had secret ceremonies as well as some public ones, and they were restricted not to only to males, but also individual men could be excluded from membership, as membership was not universal even among the men. So, the LDS Endowment is, in comparison, universal and not at all secret.

[Stargazer]

I hope this post wasn't directed at me - I have never revealed the temple rites nor have I felt that anyone else ought to.

It wasn't. I was just using your post as a springboard for my own thoughts on the subject. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

[MormonMason]

to judge Smith i think we need to figure out what Deuteronomy means by magic divination ect and then look at the facts....do you know the bible means in the verse, there's other verse ant magic too, they are prob about the same jest though....Sorry if i offended you brother, just want to get to the truth on this issue!

Were you aware that Daniel the prophet was appointed and accepted appointing to the office of "chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners" and given a name from a false god? (Daniel 4:8-9; 5:11-12)

Were you aware that Elisha the prophet taught a king of Israel to use the casting of arrows to determine the future? (Those knowledgeable of occult arts would refer to that as a kind of belomancy, [divination by arrows] but, see 2 Kings 13:14-19 for yourself).

As to your statement about prophets not using "seeing stones," a prophet (Moses, who knew what these devices were and knew their purpose) took stones and gave them to the high priest in Israel. High priests in Israel then used these stones to obtain the will and mind of God. Three words: Urim and Thummim.

The apostles also cast lots to determine successors. Those knowledgeable of occult arts would class this a form of divination called cleromancy.

My advice is for you to tread carefully in discussion of this subject matter.

[MormonMason]

...

So according to Wikipedia he was both a medium, magician, and practiced divination. If you count claims that he had prophesies that didnt come true, id say that is a royal flush of satanism!

I know this sounds like a slippery slope argument, but you cant deny it.....you can ignore criticism you have to face it. I challenge you to do that!!

Well, let's see... Well, no, I don't see the need. Yes. Joseph Smith got involved with glass looking for a bit.

But, before he could get the Book of Mormon and become a prophet, he was told by the angel that he had to "stop lying" and "quit the company of the money-diggers." Well, at least that is what Martin Harris told his interviewers. You see, Joseph Smith did not become a prophet and seer until he began his work with the Interpreters, which were later called Urim and Thummim. Although he had seen God and his Son earlier (this first vision was more for his benefit than for anyone else at the time), he did not really become a prophet until later, after a period of trial and testing. So, it really does not matter what he did before he became a prophet, now does it?

The "prophecies that did not come true" argument really is a different subject, however, and is a subjective matter. Many of these so-called arguments have been addressed. My favorite is the so-called "Canadian copyright revelation" episode as misremembered and misrecounted by David Whitmer. It later turned out that the original revelation has been found and it does not exactly fit the details that David Whitmer represents of the situation. The others are like that, too. It is a matter more of interpretation and misunderstanding on the part of many critics than otherwise.

Edit: Allow me to preempt a CFR for when Joseph Smith became a prophet. Here is what President Brigham Young had to say about it:

But as it was in the days of our Savior, so was it in the advent of this new dispensation. It was not in accordance with the notions, traditions, and pre-conceived ideas of the American people. The messenger did not come to an eminent divine of any of the so-called orthodoxy, he did not adopt their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 2:171; as cited from LDS Library 2006; bold emphasis mine)

Edited September 5, 2012 by MormonMason

[thesometimesaint]

MormonMason:

Good to see you again.

[MormonMason]

MormonMason:

Good to see you again.

Thank you. It's good to be back. I do not know how long that will be, though. Time constraints could force me to be away for a while again.

One never knows which way the wind will blow until it is in motion. It's maddening, though, when I am in the middle of a thread and have to leave. But, it's good to be back--even if for a little while.