LDS Freedom Forum

Elias Returns wrote:There is a reason why we can discuss the Baptismal Ordinance performed there, because if you notice it is conducted and performed at the lowest level in the Temple itself. This is symbolic.

Rand wrote:We have been counseled as temple workers not to speak of the temple outside of the temple. It has been reinforced lately again. Caution is always the best course in this regard.

I remind you of the absolute obligation to not discuss outside the temple that which occurs within the temple. Sacred matters deserve sacred consideration. We are under obligation, binding and serious, to not use temple language or speak of temple matters outside. I first went to the temple fifty-seven years ago. It was different from any other experience I had had in the Church. A young man of my association went about the same time. Thereafter, he was wont to use phrases from the language of the temple in a frivolous way. It was offensive. It was a betrayal of a sacred trust. I have watched him through the years. Once faithful, he has drifted from all Church activity and forsaken the faith of his fathers. I think that much of what has happened to him began with that small irreverential thing that he did in trivializing language which is not trivial.

Please, brethren, do not discuss outside of the temple that which occurs in the temple. While there, you are at liberty to do so. If you have questions, you may speak with the temple president or one of his counselors. But when you leave the doors of the House of the Lord, be true to a sacred trust to speak not of that which is holy and sanctified. Said the Lord, “Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit.” (D&C 63:64.) And again, “Trifle not with sacred things.” (D&C 6:12.)

-President (at the time First Counselor) Hinckley, “Keeping the Temple Holy,” Ensign, (May 1990)

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/ ... 20holy.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MercynGrace wrote:Not sure what you've read here that bothered you but I usually feel comfortable discussing aspects that have already been written about by church leaders or scholars like Nibley, Millet, McConkie (Joseph Fielding). Not to mention that most of what goes on in the temple has ancient parallels in the OT, PGOP, etc, and those are obviously not being kept secret. For my part, I haven't read any comments that went beyond what's already been published.

I remind you of the absolute obligation to not discuss outside the temple that which occurs within the temple. Sacred matters deserve sacred consideration. We are under obligation, binding and serious, to not use temple language or speak of temple matters outside. I first went to the temple fifty-seven years ago. It was different from any other experience I had had in the Church. A young man of my association went about the same time. Thereafter, he was wont to use phrases from the language of the temple in a frivolous way. It was offensive. It was a betrayal of a sacred trust. I have watched him through the years. Once faithful, he has drifted from all Church activity and forsaken the faith of his fathers. I think that much of what has happened to him began with that small irreverential thing that he did in trivializing language which is not trivial.

Please, brethren, do not discuss outside of the temple that which occurs in the temple. While there, you are at liberty to do so. If you have questions, you may speak with the temple president or one of his counselors. But when you leave the doors of the House of the Lord, be true to a sacred trust to speak not of that which is holy and sanctified. Said the Lord, “Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit.” (D&C 63:64.) And again, “Trifle not with sacred things.”

gkearney wrote:I think the issue here is that the similarities between the endowment and Masonic rituals is there and if we LDS do not address them the person with questions will be forced to deal only with the critics. The critics can then sow doubt.

Talking about the Temple
Most members of the Church, I feel, do not have have a good understanding of the meaning, symbolism, and the singular worth of their temples. In some measure, we take the temple for granted. Why? I believe it is because we are fearful of studying the temple, of discussing it, of teaching it’s overarching doctrines, and of delving into the deeper significance of its message, this largely because of the covenants of sacred secrecy which we make in the temple. But as Nibley ironically points out, sometimes we take those vows to a point of hiding behind our own ignorance:

What the Mormons like best about their temples is the obligation of secrecy that exonerates them from ever having to speak, and hence to think, about what they have learned by the ordinances and teachings. So strict are they in observing the confidential nature of those teachings that they, for the most part, scrupulously avoid dropping so much as a hint to outsiders by putting any of them into practice. 9

President Benson spoke similar sentiments:

Because of [the Temple's] sacredness we are sometimes reluctant to say anything about the Temple to our children and grandchildren. As a consequence, many do not develop a real desire to go to the Temple, or when they go there, they do so without much background to prepare them for the obligations and covenants they enter into.10

Just because we have covenanted to not discuss the details of the temple ceremony outside the temple does not exempt us of the responsibility to learn more about it. The first and greatest prophet of this dispensation, Joseph Smith, once taught, “O, I beseech you, go forward and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of godliness”11. The “mysteries of godliness” are the ordinances of godliness12. To the early Christians, the word mystery usually referred to ordinances13. Thus the prophet is encouraging us, even begging us, to seek out an understanding of the temple and the things we do there. We must not be content with only going through the motions, but having the motions go through us.

Of course we do make solemn and sacred covenants to God to not reveal the details of the temple outside of its walls. Because of the sacred nature of the subject matter of this blog, all comments will be moderated. We keep sacred things sacred14. “Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit" (D&C 63:64). In this effort, I am still learning myself, and if I come too close to the line, I will stand corrected. But as the countless volumes of temple books that have been produced by the General Authorities and trusted scholars of the Church attest, there is much we can talk about! And we should. We cannot be saved in ignorance (D&C 131:6). The temple is the greatest icon of our worship, the center of our theology, where we make the highest and most sacred covenants with God. It is an earthly reflection of the heavenly destination where we long to be. In them we receive the greatest teaching on the Atonement of Jesus Christ that can be offered on this earth, and what must be done in order to regain His and the Father’s presence. We get nowhere by ignoring the house of the Lord. Indeed, the focus of the Church since the beginning of the restoration has been the building of temples and doing temple work.

Talking About The LDS Temple

It has been the conversation of many lately of what members of the church should and shouldn’t discuss about the LDS temple while outside of the temple. Here are some of my thoughts.

What can we talk about?
There is a lot that we can share with others about the temple. The main doctrines that are taught in the temple are the same doctrines that are taught in the scriptures and in our Sunday School classes and manuals. The Pearl of Great Price is a perfect temple study tool; much of what we learn in the temple can be found in those books of scripture, and we can certainly discuss scripture in a scriptural context. The doctrines of the creation, the fall, the atonement, and our return to the presence of our Heavenly Father are all openly taught. We are also openly taught about chastity, obedience, sacrifice, and consecration. These are doctrines that every member, endowed or not, should understand. The names of the ordinances have also been made publicly known – baptism for the dead, ordination, washings and anointings, endowment, and sealing. Brigham Young has offered,

Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell. (Journal of Discourses, 2:31)

Elder Packer tells us that this is a published definition or description of the endowment, and uses it himself (“The Holy Temple”, 153).

What should we keep sacred?
But we should not directly discuss the “details” of the temple outside of the temple. We do not talk specifically about the “key words, the signs and tokens.” We don’t discuss the details of the garment. We don’t share details about the sacred clothing worn in the temple. We don’t share the temple ceremony wording or language. We don’t discuss the veil. We don’t talk about the particular procedures or methods of the ordinances. There is much more that we are to keep sacred than those things explicitly stated in the ordinance. Elder Packer has said,

Our reluctance to speak of the sacred temple ordinances is not in any way an attempt to make them seem more mysterious or to encourage an improper curiosity about them… They are kept confidential lest they be given to those who are unprepared… There are some blessings which can be bestowed only in the Lord’s temple, and we do not talk of them outside the temple… We are not free to discuss the temple ordinances and ceremonies… Without the spiritual atmosphere of the temple itself, and without the worthiness and preparation required of those who go there, the temple ceremonies would not be quickly understood and might be quite misunderstood… While we cannot discuss in detail the temple ordinances and ceremonies, there is much we can discuss in this book – and we will. (“The Holy Temple”, 27-39)

As Elder Packer says, it is mostly a matter of preparation. We don’t cast our pearls before swine, and neither did the Lord and His apostles when they discussed the “higher knowledge.” It is a sacred knowledge that is not to be given to all people, only to those who are prepared to receive it, which is determined by a temple recommend. But even among endowed temple recommend holders we don’t discuss outside the temple the details of the ordinances and ceremonies. It is not the right environment. The temple has been built, prepared, and dedicated to the Lord and sanctified for the purpose of teaching the details and discussing the details. Following Elder Packer’s admonition, we should “not discuss the sacred ordinances and ceremonies of the temple further than has previously been published about them by the Church” (“The Holy Temple”, 10).



How do we talk about the temple?
Hugh Nibley is an ideal example and has set a precedent of how we can and should talk about the temple. As his biography by Boyd Petersen points out,

Importantly, Hugh has maintained the confidence of General Authorities by writing about the temple in a highly respectful way that also preserves the sacred nature of the subject matter. Hugh’s writings about the temple provide not only new insights and knowledge but also deeper inspiration and motivation. Indeed, with both his words and his deeds, Hugh has inspired both templegoers and a whole generation of scholars to take the temple more seriously… In all of these studies, Hugh has been respectful of the covenants of secrecy safeguarding specific portions of the LDS endowment, usually describing parallels from other cultures without talking specifically about the Mormon ceremony. This approach earned him a great deal of trust from both General Authorities and from Church members… Stressing the value Church leaders placed on Hugh’s temple-related studies and their gratitude for his approach, Elder Dallin H. Oaks later wrote Hugh: ‘It also seems desirable for me to express, in behalf of my brethren, our admiration and appreciation for the sensitive way in which you have done your scholarly work and expressed your views on subjects related to the temple ceremonies.’ Oaks included with that letter ‘The Temple Ceremonies,’ a talk he had recently given to ‘an audience of General Authorities’ in which he addressed the manner and extent to which temple ordinances should be discussed outside the temple. Oaks assured Hugh that ‘nothing in this talk is intended to be a criticism or a discouragement of efforts as sensitive as yours. The talk has some targets, but you aren’t one of them. (“Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life”, 351-356)

In a footnote, Petersen mentions that in Oaks’ “The Temple Ceremonies” talk that “Oaks cited James E. Talmage and Boyd K. Packer as models of what can and cannot be discussed; however, he specifically quotes Hugh’s writings in several places throughout the talk.”

If you want to know what can be freely discussed outside the temple, study these brethren, and other trusted LDS scholars such as those at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU (formerly known as FARMS), or the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR). Volumes of books have been published on the subject of temples from these and others. By reading them, we may come to understand what is appropriate to talk about and what is not. The most common way to study particular details of the LDS temple has been to investigate ancient traditions and temple experiences which parallel our own. This is where it can get tricky, and where a fine line is drawn, because while we can discuss the ancient patterns it is not advisable to compare them with our current practices. Nibley pointed this out when writing his book “The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri”:

But here we run into a strange impasse indeed. For it turns out by the nature of things that the most eminent Egyptologist cannot qualify either to question or test our thesis. The whole purpose of this book is to compare two scenarios, the Egyptian and the Mormon; but the writer has been careful throughout to describe and discuss only one of them, preserving complete silence on the other. Often sorely tempted to point out some really stunning parallels between the two disciplines, he has been restrained both by the admonition of the prophets and the consideration that what is glaringly obvious to him hardly needs to be called to the attention of any adult practicing Latter-day Saint; while to take up and discuss such matters with outsiders would only perplex and confuse them. Thus, our learned critic finds himself in the position of a one-armed violinist, while the writer claims impudent immunity from attack. (intro)

TempleStudy.com blog
This blog will discuss temple theology, history, ritual, symbolism, doctrine, ancient patterns, fragments, apostate forms, apocrypha, and more as it relates to and supports the modern day practice of the LDS temple, but always keeping those things sacred which should be kept sacred. I take my temple covenants very seriously, and will not allow this blog to profane the holy things of God. As such, I will be moderating all the comments on this blog as a screen against publishing those things about the temple which should not be published. Here we are in the business of supporting, building up, and securing a testimony of the truth, not of defaming. There is much that we can talk about the temple while we are on the outside, we just need to learn how to do it to be respectful the sacred nature of the Lord’s house.

I have followed TempleStudy for years now and have gotten to know Bryce Haymond pretty well and can say that he is always very respectful of the temple. If you like Hugh Nibley you'll love his site. Yes there ARE things about the temple we can study outside it's walls like the atonement for instance, creation, symbolism, the fall, and the doctrinal debris that we see in the world around us. Bryce's site has tons of great articles about ancient and modern practices of other faiths that have connecions to ancient and modern temples. I applaud the fact that there are sites like TempleStudy that seek to appropriately study temple doctrine and practices.

I once had a friend who joined the church and one year later he went through the endowment. He was nodding his head in agreement the entire time because he recognized everything. We had a phenomenal institute teacher who through the ancient temple and simple principles taught the doctrine of the temple without saying anything specific about the temple. My friend came out saying that the endowment was the most spiritual experience of his life. If anyone has anything but a positive experience, they were done the disservice of being ill-prepared by people who probably didn't really understand the temple themselves.

iamse7en wrote:I've long felt that statements like President Hinckley's ("do not discuss outside of the temple that which occurs in the temple") are taken way too far in the Church. There is some very rich doctrine and symbolism in the Temple that can and should be freely discussed outside of the Temple. I realize there are some very sacred elements that are not to be discussed, and those elements are protected by sacred covenants not to reveal, i.e. discuss, them. Clearly, we should seek the Spirit when we decide what is too sacred to discuss outside of the Temple, but it's clear to me what specific elements cannot be discussed whenever I attend the Temple.

Sometimes we discuss very too little about the Temple, because we want to assure we do not cross any lines that shouldn't be crossed. That is wise, especially when you don't exactly know what those lines are, but sometimes it is taken so far that new members are completely unprepared and blindsided by what should be a very rich and valuable experience. They keep those feelings to themselves because a) they feel they cannot discuss anything about the temple and b) they don't want to present themselves as lacking in testimony about the Temple and restored Gospel. Then the temple remains a confusing and disappointing experience for them throughout their LDS life.

"The sacred looks very different from within the relationship than from without. Within the relationship, the sacred demands taking off one’s shoes to tread lightly and reverently before incommensurate power and love. Looking at the rituals from outside the relationship, as mere objects for scholarly study, one sees only non-sense. The natural reaction is bewilderment and perhaps uneasy laughter and mocking.

The closest comparison in human experience to the divine relationship is the complete and total unity of body and spirit found between passionate and caring lovers in a sexually intimate relationship. The closest analogue to breaking the sacred silence is infidelity or unfaithfulness. To use a metaphor to illustrate, if I were to discuss with you as an object of discourse the acts of physical intimacy that I enjoy with my wife, I would be unfaithful to the trust inherent in such a relationship. By merely making my intimate relationship an object of discourse I objectify it, and in so doing I devalue and degrade it. Looked at from the outside, my physical intimacies with my wife become pornographic and vulgar. If I were to discuss the sexual passion arising from my relationship with my wife, I would be unfaithful to our relationship; I would transform an I-Thou relationship into an It-It relationship; I would profane the holy. Depicting the act of human intimacy from outside of the relationship looks the same whether it involves a caring spouse or a whore. The sacred value can be seen only from within the relationship. It is therefore imperative to understand that the value and life of the relationship is wounded when it is made an object of discourse.

On the other hand, looked at from inside the relationship, my intimacies are the most self-affirming experiences I know. The relationship provides the most soul-satisfying fulfillment that I am capable of grasping. Looked at from within the relationship, these intimacies are sacred and beautiful. I truly find my meaning and value as a person confirmed in such intimacies. The details are none of your business. You can fully understand what I am saying only by experiencing it for yourself. It would therefore not only be morally wrong, but foolish for me to try to explain the nature of the acts involved, for in so doing we necessarily lose the value and miss the point.

The sacred ordinances of salvation are sacred in this same sense. Looked at from outside the divine relationship they make little sense and may even look foolish. Exposes of such ordinances have the same moral status as pornography. To speak of them outside the context of the divine relationship they were designed to effectuate profanes them. It is only when viewed from within the divine I-Thou relationship that the ritual acts have sacred meaning. It is only from within the relationship that the sacred discourse of ritual can occur."

This was an EXCELLENT analogy 5tev3!

PatriotSaint said:
Most of these things (apart from those that shouldn't be revealed) are found in the scriptures. Yes, temple worship should be treated as sacred and what we are permitted to discuss should be discussed carefully, but the idea that we have covenanted not to speak of it at all unless we are inside the temple is a false sectarian notion.

2 Nephi 31
3 ...For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

I don't understand the need for the so-called 'masonic' aspects of temple worship. I tend to separate the doctrinal from the ritual in my own mind, but I'm certainly not compelled to doubt the doctrine or the 'good' fruit it bears over my lack of knowledge. I look to Personal Revelation to answer all my questions and allow others the same privilege.