Scottie wrote:Does anyone have more information on this? Why is MormonThink posting that it was secret because Joseph Smith was hiding polygamy?
I have no more information on this, Scottie, but I think Packham may be jumping to conclusions in positing temple ceremonies were made secret in order to keep the lid on plural marriage.
And your example of baptisms for the dead taking place in temples may add to the idea that the ceremonies would have been kept secret regardless of whether there was anything outward to criticize.
And for the record, I too am not fond of the phrase, "It's not secret, it's sacred."
I prefer to say, "It's secret because we believe it to be sacred."
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
Fence Sitter wrote:Is this because the temple ceremony was actually being performed/developed else where?
Most of the Quorum of the Anointed received the ordinances of washing and anointing, endowment, and second anointing in the upper room of the Red Brick Store. And, yes, those ordinances were secret (more or less).
You know, the church COULD have a much more favorable position when it comes to the temple.
Even apologists will admit that the roots of the physical acts (signs, tokens, etc) in the temple ceremony have nothing to do with King Solomon or anything else Biblical, but rather are rooted in something much more mundane. Medieval stone masons needed secret handshakes and code words to tell a member of their group from an outsider who might pretend to be a craftsman, be hired on to do some stone cutting, but not be a part of the guild. And of course, there was no such thing as photo ID.
That's it. No mystery. Jesus and and the apostles didn't know the secret handshakes. They didn't exist until the stone masons invented them.
Greg Kearney has said that Joseph Smith simply took something that was very popular and prevalent in his day - masonry - and used it as a teaching tool and vehicle for the endowment itself. It doesn't technically have to be associated with the rituals of masonry, that's just how it turned out.
If the church would teach that kind of thing openly, I think the membership would breath a sigh of relief. No one really understands what the secret handshakes have to do with anything, and now that almost no one in the church is a Mason anymore, it's really distracting and irrelevant. They could just focus on the endowment itself, and the strictly theological elements of it. Masonry doesn't resonate with modern Mormons, and it has outlived its usefulness. The church could easily ditch it, but they won't, of course.
Of course, there were a lot of Mason-penned books in Joseph Smith' day about imaginary connections between masonry and King Solomon's temple, etc. They were complete BS, but I'm sure that's why Joseph chose to incorporate masonry into Mormonism. Masonry is just a craftsman's guild turned gentleman's social club. No more, no less.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
I can understand the Initiatory ritual (especially ones of the past) being kept secret because of its provocative nature, yet we should not in any way be embarrassed by the Sealing ceremonies. Every culture has its own traditions.
moksha wrote: Every culture has its own traditions.
Mazel tov!
Sieg Heil!
.
.
.
.
.
Ehm...
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Buffalo wrote:The church could easily ditch it, but they won't, of course.
That would require the ability to actually receive revelation, so that's not gonna happen.
(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.
I prefer the word "bizarre". It's not secret, it's bizarre.
Actually, it's not secret, it's embarrassing.
(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.
