Temple Secrecy

[Jeff Lebowski]

We had a big discussion yesterday in priesthood meeting about the Big Love episode. When referring to discussions on the temple, we often hear the phrase "sacred, not secret". That always seemed a tad disingenuous to me, since it really is both. But given last night's event and the advent of the internet, one can certainly make a case that the temple ordinances are not secret. Not anymore. A five-second google search reveals the complete ceremony to the curious. Ironically, the only people to whom the ceremony is a mystery is active LDS who have not gone through the temple yet and who have the self-discipline not to look it up.

The original endowment ceremony was "revealed" by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo right after the saints started dabbling in Masonry. There is no record of a revelation related to the temple ceremony in the traditional sense that we see with the sections in the D&C. It wasn't even written down for many years. The ceremony underwent numerous iterations, with BY and others providing input. The original endowment ceremony lasted up to ten hours. It has evolved significantly over the years, including two substantial revisions in my lifetime.

Early church leaders made no attempt to deny the masonic links. BY called it "true masonry". If one looks at the masonic rituals, the parallels are striking. I have always wondered if the "secrecy" part of our temple tradition is a result of the masonic influences and tradition. Furthermore, it seems to me that much of what has been removed in my lifetime represents some of the more "masonic" elements. I can't help but wonder what changes lie in store for the future. And if we eventually remove ALL masonic elements (signs, tokens, etc.), would there be a need for secrecy anymore?

[Mormon Red Death]

We had a big discussion yesterday in priesthood meeting about the Big Love episode. When referring to discussions on the temple, we often hear the phrase "sacred, not secret". That always seemed a tad disingenuous to me, since it really is both. But given last night's event and the advent of the internet, one can certainly make a case that the temple ordinances are not secret. Not anymore. A five-second google search reveals the complete ceremony to the curious. Ironically, the only people to whom the ceremony is a mystery is active LDS who have not gone through the temple yet and who have the self-discipline not to look it up.

The original endowment ceremony was "revealed" by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo right after the saints started dabbling in Masonry. There is no record of a revelation related to the temple ceremony in the traditional sense that we see with the sections in the D&C. It wasn't even written down for many years. The ceremony underwent numerous iterations, with BY and others providing input. The original endowment ceremony lasted up to ten hours. It has evolved significantly over the years, including two substantial revisions in my lifetime.

Early church leaders made no attempt to deny the masonic links. BY called it "true masonry". If one looks at the masonic rituals, the parallels are striking. I have always wondered if the "secrecy" part of our temple tradition is a result of the masonic influences and tradition. Furthermore, it seems to me that much of what has been removed in my lifetime represents some of the more "masonic" elements. I can't help but wonder what changes lie in store for the future. And if we eventually remove ALL masonic elements (signs, tokens, etc.), would there be a need for secrecy anymore?

Great Post...

My only thought is in concern to your 2nd to last question. I just can't see us giving up the tokens. Aren't they supposed to be the way we get by the sentinels?

[RC Vikings]

And if we eventually remove ALL masonic elements (signs, tokens, etc.), would there be a need for secrecy anymore?

I would love to see this happen.

[RobinFinderson]

I just can't see us giving up the tokens. Aren't they supposed to be the way we get by the sentinels?

I haven't seen such a literal interpretation in ages. I think that for a growing number of LDS, such a literal interpretation is increasingly unnecessary.

[CardiacCoug]

There is an incredible amount of ignorance in the Church regarding the history of the temple ceremonies. This thread from Cougarboard below depicts some of it. One guy says "the Masonic parallels were taken out" of the Temple ceremony. That is amazingly ignorant.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=4490504

There was another thread where some guys seemed to imply that the endowment hadn't changed since Nauvoo. Again, amazingly ignorant.

It's probably the case that most LDS people actually know less about the history and the Masonic background of the temple ceremony than any non-LDS person who is willing to spend 15 minutes on the internet.

To me, it's just the covenants that members make in the temple that I consider to be inspired. Everything else is just a "vehicle" to facilitate making the covenants. This vehicle is not necessarily inspired and can and should continue to evolve over time, as it has evolved substantially in the past.

[CardiacCoug]

I haven't seen such a literal interpretation in ages. I think that for a growing number of LDS, such a literal interpretation is increasingly unnecessary.

I think it was TIC. But there are a lot of old people who definitely intepret all that stuff literally. That's one of the great benefits to working in the temple as an old person -- after you die, you will be able to give all the necessary tokens in your sleep and will sail right on through to the CK in record time.

[Pheidippides]

There is an incredible amount of ignorance in the Church regarding the history of the temple ceremonies. This thread from Cougarboard below depicts some of it. One guy says "the Masonic parallels were taken out" of the Temple ceremony. That is amazingly ignorant.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=4490504

There was another thread where some guys seemed to imply that the endowment hadn't changed since Nauvoo. Again, amazingly ignorant.

It's probably the case that most LDS people actually know less about the history and the Masonic background of the temple ceremony than any non-LDS person who is willing to spend 15 minutes on the internet.

To me, it's just the covenants that members make in the temple that I consider to be inspired. Everything else is just a "vehicle" to facilitate making the covenants. This vehicle is not necessarily inspired and can and should continue to evolve over time, as it has evolved substantially in the past.

I ran across a few sites a while back (if I find them again, I will link to them) written by putatively faithful card-carrying members who have done a side by side comparison of the old ceremonies versus the current version. They gave it all, word for word, save the stuff you are actually told not to disclose, under the theory that the rest is fair game. Whether or not I actually agree with that approach, I have to say that it was very educational. I knew, of course, of the Masonic roots, and also that things had changed since Nauvoo (10 hours to just less than 2? C'mon, people!). But knowing the changes gave me background I didn't have (not having gone until '96, I was post all but the most recent change) and gave me more food for thought.

[Solon]

Nice post, Mr. Lebowski.

A few years ago, I was in the temple with my dad and my uncle. My uncle is a minor league LDS big-shot, and he introduced me to a guy in the temple presidency. As a natural part of the conversation, I asked him a question about a historical change to the ceremony. He told me that it was inappropriate to discuss it. We're in the temple, mind you, past the recommend-checker where only endowed members are allowed. I asked him when it would ever be appropriate, then, if not then and there. He changed the subject and I let it go since my uncle was getting uncomfortable.

So, I went and bought the book.

[wuapinmon]

When referring to discussions on the temple, we often hear the phrase "sacred, not secret". That always seemed a tad disingenuous to me, since it really is both.

When people ask me about it, I tell them there are some things that I cannot reveal, because of I have covenanted with God not to do so. I tell them they are not secret, but that I hold them sacred, and am bound by my word to not reveal them. I also point out that the entire ceremony is seconds away on the Internet. When they ask about magic underwear, and they do, I just say that they aren't magic, but that they're reminders to me of covenants I've made. They "protect me" in that sense, in that they are a constant reminder to remember who I am and what I stand, or kneel, for.

[Jeff Lebowski]

When people ask me about it, I tell them there are some things that I cannot reveal, because of I have covenanted with God not to do so. I tell them they are not secret, but that I hold them sacred, and am bound by my word to not reveal them. I also point out that the entire ceremony is seconds away on the Internet. When they ask about magic underwear, and they do, I just say that they aren't magic, but that they're reminders to me of covenants I've made. They "protect me" in that sense, in that they are a constant reminder to remember who I am and what I stand, or kneel, for.

Sure. That's a good response. But look at the language you are using ("I cannot reveal", "bound by my word to not reveal"). You have covenanted with God to keep it secret. Secret vs. sacred is a false dichotomy. It is both. Looking at it another way, 99% of non-LDS would define what you are describing as "secret".

A related question is why do we feel such a need be defensive about the "secrecy" label?

[Brian]

A related question is why do we feel such a need be defensive about the "secrecy" label?

secret has a weird feeling to it. Cultish, mysterious, etc. Trying to distance ourselves from that.
Which seems like semantics to me.
At face value, the temple is weird and secret and cult-ish. It totally caught me off guard in pre-internet day first visit.

[Pheidippides]

Sure. That's a good response. But look to the language you are using ("I cannot reveal", "bound by my word to not reveal"). You have covenanted with God to keep it secret. Secret vs. sacred is a false dichotomy. It is both. Looking at it another way, 99% of non-LDS would define what you are describing as "secret".

A related question is why do we feel such a need be defensive about the "secrecy" label?

I've got to go with The Dude here. In fact, my wife and I had this conversation yesterday. It is secret, in that we only wish certain people to know about it, and I don't talk about it generally (although my response to friends is similar to wuap's). I personally view it as sacred, as I make no secret of my card-carrying orthodoxy here. But the two aren't mutually exclusive. IMO, the "secret" vs. "sacred" dichotomy is a bit of a botched PR idea.

Speaking of which, does anybody know where the original of that phrase comes from? I would suspect it comes from Boyd K's book, or a conference talk, or something similar.

[RobinFinderson]

At face value, the temple is weird and secret and cult-ish. It totally caught me off guard in pre-internet day first visit.

Me too. My very last time going through the temple, Faith and I acted as witnesses for a good friend of ours from back in Provo. She came out to D.C. to have us witness the event. The friend had prepared for the temple well, and this was post internet, but nothing had prepared her enough. Once in the celestial room, the friend broke down into tears. I'm sure most people in the room thought that she was being moved by the spirit, but the friend was experiencing a huge wellspring of regret. It was a sad sad day for everyone.

[Pheidippides]

Me too. My very last time going through the temple, Faith and I acted as witnesses for a good friend of ours back in Provo. She came out to D.C. to have us witness the event. The friend had prepared for the temple well, and this was post internet, but nothing had prepared her for the temple. Once in the celestial room, the friend broke down into tears. I'm sure most people in the room thought that she was being moved by the spirit, but the friend was experiencing a huge wellspring of regret. It was a sad sad day for everyone.

My dad tried to prepare me. But it did more harm than good.

It took me a couple of months to be comfortable with the idea, concept and spirit.

I think it would have been easier, honestly, if I would have had exposure to other religions that have more emphasis on ritual observances. A simple attendance at a Catholic service, for example, would probably have made it less traumatic in my mind.

IMO opinion, most of the shock comes as a result of our populist "low" religion. There is very much an informality to our normal worship services, and the concept of ritual dress and action, while very much a part of other religions, was as foreign to me when I first went through as Japanese was at the time.

The fact that my dad kept whispering things to me about this, that or the other the whole time didn't help.

[UtahDan]

My dad tried to prepare me. But it did more harm than good.

It took me a couple of months to be comfortable with the idea, concept and spirit.

I think it would have been easier, honestly, if I would have had exposure to other religions that have more emphasis on ritual observances. A simple attendance at a Catholic service, for example, would probably have made it less traumatic in my mind.

IMO opinion, most of the shock comes as a result of our populist "low" religion. There is very much an informality to our normal worship services, and the concept of ritual dress and action, while very much a part of other religions, was as foreign to me when I first went through as Japanese was at the time.

The fact that my dad kept whispering things to me about this, that or the other the whole time didn't help.

That is a great point. Our worship is pretty vanilla for the most part. Other faiths have much more ritual and symbolism in their regular worship. Its almost a "oh, we are weird too" reaction.