Temple Ceremony not weird

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_kate
_Emeritus
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:58 pm

Re: Temple Ceremony not weird

Post by _kate »

I was told not to tell anybody else about the ceremony, and to not even discuss it with other endowed members.

Has the definition of secret changed? I'm new, I know, and I'm not showing good form by being snarky right out of the gate, but I don't know how else to put it. Don't tell anybody means it's a secret.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Temple Ceremony not weird

Post by _harmony »

kate wrote:I was told not to tell anybody else about the ceremony, and to not even discuss it with other endowed members.

Has the definition of secret changed? I'm new, I know, and I'm not showing good form by being snarky right out of the gate, but I don't know how else to put it. Don't tell anybody means it's a secret.


It is secret. Nothing has changed. At least, nothing that makes any difference has changed. It's still secret. Women still veil their faces.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_kate
_Emeritus
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:58 pm

Re: Temple Ceremony not weird

Post by _kate »

harmony wrote:
kate wrote:I was told not to tell anybody else about the ceremony, and to not even discuss it with other endowed members.

Has the definition of secret changed? I'm new, I know, and I'm not showing good form by being snarky right out of the gate, but I don't know how else to put it. Don't tell anybody means it's a secret.


It is secret. Nothing has changed. At least, nothing that makes any difference has changed. It's still secret. Women still veil their faces.


I've yet to understand what the big deal about the word "secret" is to the LDS. I have theories, but I've never heard any real explanation from the faithful as to why the word secret is so offensive, in reference to the ceremonies. This was never up for discussion while I was a member, so I would be interested to hear current LDS's take.
_Yoda

Re: Temple Ceremony not weird

Post by _Yoda »

kate wrote:I've yet to understand what the big deal about the word "secret" is to the LDS. I have theories, but I've never heard any real explanation from the faithful as to why the word secret is so offensive, in reference to the ceremonies. This was never up for discussion while I was a member, so I would be interested to hear current LDS's take.



Welcome to the board, Kate! :smile:

I think that the whole "sacred not secret" phrase initiated with "The Godmakers" book and film, when the Church felt it was under severe scrutiny, and was deathly afraid of being categorized as a cult.

As an active LDS, I don't really hear the phrase as much now as I used to.

What I found interesting were the changes that happened in the endowment ceremony in the early 90's. It was obvious that someone was talking about the ceremony, because the changes all reflected issues which made the Church sound much more streamlined from a Christianity standpoint. (I can't really go into more detail than that in this thread....but we can talk about specific temple details in the Telestial Forum, if you are interested.)
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Temple Ceremony not weird

Post by _The Nehor »

kate wrote:I've yet to understand what the big deal about the word "secret" is to the LDS. I have theories, but I've never heard any real explanation from the faithful as to why the word secret is so offensive, in reference to the ceremonies. This was never up for discussion while I was a member, so I would be interested to hear current LDS's take.


It's mostly just due to a change in connotation. The literal meaning is things that aren't generally known. In modern parlance it tends to convey that something sinister took place. If someone mentions a secret meeting everyone asks what there was to hide.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Temple Ceremony not weird

Post by _harmony »

The Nehor wrote: In modern parlance it tends to convey that something sinister took place. If someone mentions a secret meeting everyone asks what there was to hide.


Kinda like the secret that's hidden in the closed books.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Temple Ceremony not weird

Post by _The Nehor »

harmony wrote:
The Nehor wrote: In modern parlance it tends to convey that something sinister took place. If someone mentions a secret meeting everyone asks what there was to hide.


Kinda like the secret that's hidden in the closed books.


I have no reason to believe that is sinister either.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Temple Ceremony not weird

Post by _moksha »

The Nehor wrote:
I have no reason to believe that is sinister either.


It's just esoteric.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Re: Temple Ceremony not weird

Post by _Gazelam »

Kate,

I've yet to understand what the big deal about the word "secret" is to the LDS. I have theories, but I've never heard any real explanation from the faithful as to why the word secret is so offensive, in reference to the ceremonies. This was never up for discussion while I was a member, so I would be interested to hear current LDS's take.


There are certain things that can be discussed, and certain things that can't.

The Creation and the Fall and the Atonement are certainly open for discussion among all people. Washings and Annointings and Baptism for the dead is certainly just fine to discuss amongst the company of other faithful members. Signs and tokens are to only be discussed in the Temple itself.

There is a great deal regarding the Temple talked about in Hugh Nibleys book Temple And Cosmos That I would highly recommend if you really want to delve into Temple study.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_zzyzx
_Emeritus
Posts: 1042
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:31 pm

Re: Temple Ceremony not weird

Post by _zzyzx »

I just wonder why something given directly from God, not to be changed... has been changed?

I agree with an earlier topic I have read that I would like to see Satans apron from the 1950/60's. It had actual symbols of his 'powers & priesthoods' on it. This one was not the Masonic apron. I had one of those and it was different.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Post Reply