Book Cover

I just finished Dan Brown’s latest thriller, The Lost Symbol, which was published a few days ago on September 15th.  There has been a lot of anticipation surrounding this book, since 6 years have passed since the publication of his bestseller The Da Vinci Code, with 80 million copies sold worldwide to date.  Many wondered if Brown would repeat his success with this book, and while the jury is still out on the answer to that question, I must say that I’m personally fascinated by the material that Brown discusses in this novel.

As was predicted, the story centers around the subject of Freemasonry (or simply Masonry), which most people have heard of but know little about.  This is perhaps the reason Brown chose to explore this subject, one that was ripe for novelty in historical fiction.  However, as before, Brown branches out into a myriad of related subjects and connections, weaving a web of mystery and puzzles which must be solved once again by his favorite character, Robert Langdon.

But this is not going to be a review of the book.  There will be ample time for that, with more qualified critics analyzing the merits and faults of Brown’s work.  In addition, I don’t want to spoil anything while the pages are still wet.  I do quote some brief excerpts from the book below, but they are mostly circumstantial details, and won’t give much away about the plot, if anything.

What I do want to point out are some interesting general impressions I had while I read, particularly as they relate to me, my studies, and the LDS (Mormon) faith.  Call them synchronicities or coincidences, or just interesting tidbits, either way they have called my attention. 

The Apotheosis of Washington

Three months ago, on June 27, 2009, I wrote a short post about the painting that adorns the interior side of the dome of the U.S. Capitol Building rotunda.  That painting is called The Apotheosis of Washington, which surprisingly figures quite predominantly in Dan Brown’s book.  I had been watching a show called Secret America on Discovery, when they had mentioned the painting.  I immediately went online to find out more about it, and wrote about it on TempleStudy.com.  The strange thing is that it was a pretty obscure painting that not many people had heard about.

What’s even more interesting is that I mentioned the painting again just two weeks ago, on September 3.  A friend had told me about an ebook that had been written about the U.S. Capitol, and the painting of Washington filled the front cover.  It’s quite possible that people have been getting wind of the subject matter of Brown’s book for a while, making programs and books about the more esoteric aspects of Washington, D.C., and I picked up on some of that because of their relationship to the temple.  But it still surprised me to find that prior to The Lost Symbol‘s publication, I had written specifically about a painting which bookends and frames the plot of Dan Brown’s novel.

Why is the painting so predominant?  The book does a good job of explaining that, as well as my previous posts.  The painting depicts George Washington, one of our Founding Fathers, and first President, ascending into heaven to sit amongst the gods and becoming deified as one of them.  As theosis is a major theme of the book, man’s potential to become like god, it is no wonder that Brown used this painting as a central motif.

Theosis

Theosis, or deification, has always been a sticking point with critics of the LDS Church.  To these seemingly erudite scholars, a belief in theosis is likely the most heretical and blasphemous doctrine Mormonism could have possibly come up with – the idea that fallen and sinful man could rise to the stature of our God in heaven.  And to many modern-day Christians, it probably seems that way.  Fortunately, with some homework, you will quite literally find a plethora of references to the doctrine of theosis in the ancient world, including in Judaism and Christianity.  Indeed, even Jesus Christ himself declared that man had divine potential when he repeated the Psalm, “ye are gods,” to teach the Jews it was not blasphemous for him to call himself the Son of God (John 10:31-36; cf. Ps. 82:6).  Indeed, even the idea of “fallen” man indicates that he was once at a higher state, a state to which he can return through the atonement of Jesus Christ.  The Latter-day Saints believe that we are literally children of God, our Father in Heaven, and as His children we have the potential to become just as He is.

Dissertations and books have been written on the subject of theosis, and much more could be said.  Suffice it to say, for the present, that even Christianity’s most oft-quoted and beloved modern theologian, C. S. Lewis, once said the following:

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship. . . 

The command "Be ye perfect" is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him--for we can prevent Him, if we choose--He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creatures, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to Him perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said. 

Morality is indispensable: but the Divine Life, which gives itself to us and which calls us to be gods, intends for us something in which morality will be swallowed up. We are to be remade. . . . we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy. 

Moreover, even entire semester university courses have been designed to teach on this particular, that there is a common theme throughout the works of C. S. Lewis, and that is “theosis… Christianity’s ultimate end is the deification of a person”.  One of my favorite lines in The Lost Symbol on this subject was a simple statement from Peter Solomon:

"A wise man once told me," Peter said, his voice faint now, "the only difference between you and God is that you have forgotten you are divine."

Mormon References

I want to take note of the two references to Mormonism in The Lost Symbol.  The first is on page 79:

"As are many equally improbable beliefs." Langdon often reminded his students that most modern religions included stories that did not hold up to scientific scrutiny: everything from Moses parting the Red Sea . . . to Joseph Smith using magic eyeglasses to translate the Book of Mormon from a series of gold plates he found buried in upstate New York. Wide acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity.

This is somewhat of a backhanded compliment.  On the one hand, Langdon is saying that the stated origins of the Book of Mormon are improbable based on scientific scrutiny.  On the other hand, he compares the belief to Moses parting the Red Sea, quite a miracle and one which many millions of several different faiths believe was a literal reality.  What is interesting is that even though the stated origins of the Book of Mormon may not hold up to “scientific” scrutiny (and they probably never will), neither has science, or anyone else, been able to determine and explain the supposed actual origins of the complex book of 588 printed pages, produced in 60 some-odd working days, if it wasn’t translated as it claims.  It is like Dan Brown producing The Lost Symbol in 60 days, instead of 6 years, and that’s giving him extra time with 79 less pages to write.  Furthermore, there are references later in The Lost Symbol that indicate that the always incredulous Langdon might have began to think differently after his experiences.  Warren Bellamy teaches him:

“I've learned never to close my mind to an idea simply because it seems miraculous.”

The other reference to Mormonism is on page 438:

…all spiritual rituals included aspects that would seem frightening if taken out of context--crucifixion reenactments, Jewish circumcision rites, Mormon baptisms of the dead, Catholic exorcisms, Islamic niqab, shamanic trance healing, the Jewish Kaparot ceremony, even the eating of the figurative body and blood of Christ.

The exquisite irony here is that even Dan Brown took Mormon practices out of context by misstating our ritual.  Mormons practice baptisms “for” the dead, not baptisms “of” the dead.  It is precisely these kind of mistakes that make rituals appear frightening.  There are many who do not understand this LDS practice because they believe we somehow baptize literal dead corpses – “of” the dead.  I’m not exactly sure how the logistics of that would work, and it would require a host of exhumation permits, but it is far from actuality.  We baptize for, and in behalf of, people who have died without the opportunity of baptism.  Members of the Church research their own line of genealogy, and take names of ancestors to the temple so they themselves can perform proxy vicarious baptisms, in name only, for their deceased forebearers who did not have that chance in life.  We believe that those people have the opportunity to accept or reject the baptism performed for them in the afterlife.

Intelligences

I now want to take note of a few intriguing references to subjects that I did not know were thought about outside of the LDS Church; indeed, I have not heard them discussed outside an LDS context.  The first is “intelligences.”

After their discussion, Katherine had a strange notion. Her brother had mentioned the Book of Genesis and its description of the soul as Neshemah--a kind of spiritual "intelligence" that was separate from the body. It occurred to Katherine that the word intelligence suggested the presence of thought.

This was something that I thought was unique to LDS belief, the idea that the spirit is an “intelligence.”  Indeed, the Book of Abraham in the LDS canon teaches about intelligences:

21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.
22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (Abraham 3:21-23)

Here, the Book of Abraham makes clear that intelligences, souls, and spirits, are all inter-related, and may be one in the same thing.  They are the “minds” of men and women before being born on the earth with physical bodies.  Interestingly, a few verses earlier the scriptures suggests that God is God because he is “more intelligent than they all” (Abr. 3:19).  This is a related theme to theosis taken up in the book, that it is the enlightened mind and exalted intelligence that eventually deifies man to become like God.  Katherine in the book goes so far as to say that “it was our minds that were created in the image of God”.  As far as the pre-mortal life is concerned, LDS belief would agree with her, but we also take it to the next logical conclusion, that what man now is, God once was, and that as God now is, man may be.  Consequently, we believe that God has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s, albeit exalted and perfected (D&C 130:22).

Spirit Matter

Directly after discussing intelligences, Katherine explains her conclusion:

Noetic Science clearly suggested that thoughts had mass, and so it stood to reason, then, that the human soul might therefore also have mass. Can I weigh a human soul?…

Katherine recalled writing in her lab notes with a trembling hand: "There seems to exist an invisible 'material' that exits the human body at the moment of death. It has quantifiable mass which is unimpeded by physical barriers. I must assume it moves in a dimension I cannot yet perceive."

Again, LDS scripture indicates that spirit has mass:

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter. (D&C 131:7-8)

This was a revelation received by the Prophet Joseph Smith in May of 1843.  I don’t know of any other religious faith that believes that spirit is matter, finer and more pure matter, but nonetheless has a mass.  Also notice, however, that the scripture says “spirit,” not “spirits,” and is therefore not necessarily exclusively describing spirit bodies.  It says “all spirit.”  Other early Mormon prophets taught that all space has life, and therefore all space has energy.  Another scripture tells us that “light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space – The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things” (D&C 88:12-13; cf. D&C 88:37).  All space has light.  All space has energy.  All space has matter.  All space has mass.  When our bodies (and minds) are purified we will see that it is so.

Ancient Mysteries

Of course, one theme mentioned time and time again throughout the book is the ancient mysteries.

"The Hand of the Mysteries is a formal invitation to pass through a mystical gateway and acquire ancient secret knowledge--powerful wisdom known as the Ancient Mysteries . . . or the lost wisdom of all the ages."

I’ve written about “the mysteries” before.  Suffice it to say that the mysteries spoken of in early Christians texts use the word to indicate certain initiation rites or sacraments.  Joseph Smith used the term “mysteries” to describe the ordinances of the temple, in association with the authoritative keys of the priesthood.

Plurality of Gods

The Lost Symbol also briefly notes:

God is found in the collection of Many . . . rather than in the One.

"Elohim," Langdon said suddenly, his eyes flying open again as he made an unexpected connection.

"I'm sorry?" Katherine was still gazing down at him.

"Elohim," he repeated. "The Hebrew word for God in the Old Testament! I've always wondered about it."

Katherine gave a knowing smile. "Yes. The word is plural."

Exactly! Langdon had never understood why the very first passages of the Bible referred to God as a plural being. Elohim. The Almighty God in Genesis was described not as One . . . but as Many.

"God is plural," Katherine whispered, "because the minds of man are plural."

On this subject, President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

It is perfectly true, as recorded in the Pearl of Great Price and in the Bible, that to us there is but one God. Correctly interpreted God in this sense means Godhead, for it is composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This Godhead presides over us, and to us, the inhabitants of this world, they constitute the only God, or Godhead. There is none other besides them. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6.) To them we are amenable, and subject to their authority, and there is no other Godhead unto whom we are subject. However, as the Prophet has shown, there can be, and are, other Gods.

Have we overlooked the fact that the scriptures, ancient and modern, hold out the promise to all those who are faithful and true to every covenant and obligation which the gospel places upon them that the reward will be that they shall become gods? Jesus taught this doctrine to the Jews. It is interwoven throughout all of our Standard Works. The promise has been made to all who are just and true, that they shall become sons and daughters of God, members of his household, (Ephesians 3: 14-15) “joint heirs with Jesus Christ,” (Romans 8:17) and entitled to the fulness of exaltation.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (D&C 132:20)

A Modern Worldview from Plato’s Cave

Lastly, four years ago, long before I started TempleStudy.com, I wrote a paper for Dr. Brent Strong’s History of Creativity course at Brigham Young University.  The final assignment of the course was to either do a project or write a paper that would exhibit big “C” creativity.  Big “C” creativity was contrasted with little “c” creativity.  Little “c” creativity was described as something that is creative on a personal level, something that gives you many personal “firsts.”  Big “C” creativity was something else entirely, something big enough to be creative on a world-wide level, something that was unique, valuable, had intent, and implementation excellence and continuance.  While this is not the place to explain fully what those terms meant, suffice it to say that big “C” creativity needed to be something other than your home-made weekend papier-mâché project.  It needed to be creative to the world.

I took the project seriously, and thought of many things I might be able to do.  Finally I decided to try to follow in the footsteps of my mentor, Hugh Nibley, and write something of real worth.  I’m glad I did, as it is probably one of the major catalysts that drove me to build this website.

What I wrote was “A Modern Worldview from Plato’s Cave.“  For a long time I had the impression that the world is not exactly as we see it.  Reading certain books on quantum mechanics, in particular, opened my eyes to a new level of reality.  Something else is going on in our world that we are just beginning to try to grasp, yet remains mind-boggling.  The interesting thing is that there were many parallels of the same theme manifest in many times, cultures, religions, and locations around the world.  The diversity of the theme I wanted to explore, to see if I could come to any conclusions of “why.”

The reason I bring this up now is that after having read The Lost Symbol, the subject of my paper four years ago bears upon some of the same subjects as the novel, namely Noetics, quantum mechanics, the power of the mind, enlightenment, and hidden secrets in the world.  Some of my paper almost reads as an extension of one of Katherine’s or Peter’s sermons from the book.  As I read The Lost Symbol, I couldn’t help but notice that I had studied some of these things before.

I have never published the paper I wrote, but today seems as good a day as ever, particularly in light of this new novel that will surely generate conversation on the topic for the foreseeable future.  Below is a link to a PDF of my paper.  I’ve also embedded it below for easy viewing.  It is about 50 pages in length. Please let me know your thoughts.

There will be much more to discuss about Dan Brown’s latest book. Do you have any insights about The Lost Symbol you’d like to share? Please discuss with us in the comments.

A Modern Worldview from Plato’s Cave (PDF)

Mormon Impressions of Dan Brown’s ‘The Lost Symbol’

Harold Bloom

One of our readers, RBiddulph, recently pointed me to a quote by Harold Bloom, a well-known literary and cultural critic who is currently a Sterling Professor of the Humanities at Yale University, who once said this about Joseph Smith:

I can only attribute to his genius or daemons his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly. (Harold Bloom, The American Religion, 101.)

Theurgy means the working of divine agency or intervention in human affairs.

The following hymn was written by W. W. Phelps to the memory of Joseph Smith, who was assassinated at Carthage Jail, Carthage, Illinois, on June 27, 1844:

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!
Jesus annointed that Prophet and Seer.
Blessed to open the last dispensation,
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.

Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr;
Honored and blest be his ever great name!
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,
Plead unto heaven while the earth lauds his fame.

Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true, he will enter his kingdom,
Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.

Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know “brother Joseph” again.

Chorus:

Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again.

[Via NewTestamentTempleRitual.blogspot.com]

Harold Bloom on Joseph Smith’s Genius

This morning, I read a Deseret News article this morning which reported on a talk that Dr. Bushman gave at Weber State University on March 5th. One of the main subjects that Bushman spoke about is Mormonism’s acceptance in America, and the troubles which surround that acceptance. One of those troubles stems from the LDS practice of keeping the temple secret. The report states:

“It is true that we are in a sense secret,” Bushman said. “It will be difficult to remove the suspicions when there is a certain fact to it.”

Bushman said he doesn’t like when Mormons say the temple is not secret, that it is sacred.

“It is secret,” he said. But he appreciates how excellent Mormons are at creating sacred spaces.

“Those temple spaces are just different from the rest of the world,” Bushman said after watching people walk silently with arms folded through the Manhattan Temple before it was dedicated. The process to be able to go into a Mormon temple evolves around keeping it sacred and at the same time, secret.

“Important as anything,” Bushman said, “is you don’t speak about the temple, even to those who go to the temple.”

I don’t think Dr. Bushman was recommending the temple be as secret as it has come to be in the Church, but was making an observation of the standing custom among Latter-day Saints of remaining quite silent about the temple when outside of that sacred space. We even go far as to not discuss it even while sitting in the celestial room.

Taken to Extremes?

As I have written in the past, I believe that many members of the Church take the sacred secrecy of the temple to extremes that are not necessary, and which actually disregards Joseph Smith’s admonition to “search deeper and deeper the mysteries of godliness”. If the temple were as secret as the prevailing custom of the Church claims it to be, we would not have the mountain of books, General Conference talks, articles and commentary that have been written by apostles, prophets, other General Authorities, and the best of LDS scholars, on the subject, many through the indispensable work of FARMS at BYU, now part of The Neal A Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.

Clearly there are many aspects of the temple that we do not talk about outside the temple--we do not share the specific language of the ceremonies casually, talk in detail directly about the ritual, or describe the sacred clothing directly. These are sacred subjects, and requires caution in speaking of them. But much has been written on the subject of temples, most recently Temple Worship, a book I’ve been wanting to pick up by BYU’s Dr. Andrew Skinner.

Drawing the Line

The the real question and dichotomy becomes, where are the lines drawn? How should the temple be spoken of? What is the right and correct way to discuss it, share it, and study it? How do we speak of it with friends and others not of our faith? How is the “cult” stigma of the temple assuaged by scholarly work? Instead of sealed lips, how do we go about researching and talking about the temple, the pinnacle and most sublime aspect of our worship?

This has been a question of mine for years, but I believe I’ve begun to nail it down. Hugh Nibley began a precedent, or at least established a more firm footing, which I believe has been followed by other scholars, and even by General Authorities, of discussing the deeper and more detailed aspects of temple worship in an indirect way. Ancient practices, customs, texts, and non-LDS scholars’ work can be studied in relationship to ritual subjects, without as much preoccupation of stepping across certain boundaries. Discussing how the early Christians interpreted and practiced ritual worship, for instance, is mostly ok. Making direct comparisons between those practices and our modern-day temple is mostly off limits. The reader is left to their own interpretations in drawing parallels between the two, which endowed members of the Church do quite easily, but which leaves others who are not acquainted with LDS temple practice somewhat puzzled other than us stating to them, “Our practice is similar to theirs and therefore has precedence in antiquity,” or in other words, “Joseph didn’t make it up; these things have been revealed by God in the past.” It is a matter of analyzing only that which is presented from factual evidence obtained by a historical study of the ancients, while staying silent on the presently revealed forms. But as I’ve mentioned before, there still is much we can learn from others about our own traditions, and how the temple ordinances have been revealed in former dispensations sheds significant light on their current practice.

What Have the Brethren Said?

I’ve been trying to get a copy of a talk by Elder Oaks on the subject, entitled “The Temple Ceremonies,” that Boyd Petersen mentioned in his biography of Hugh Nibley, and in which Elder Oaks discusses the limits in a specific way and includes quotes by Nibley and other apostles. Unfortunately, it was given at a general leadership meeting and is therefore not widely available. A publication of this sort would help define the lines of propriety, and open up appropriate discussion and study among the Saints. In the meantime, studying respected and trusted authorities on the subject is the best guide for knowing how the temple can and should be spoken of.

Update 3/15/08:  A transcription of Dr. Bushman’s talk has been made available at the Juvenile Instructor.  It is an excellent analysis of America’s stance on Mormonism today, and the prospects of the future.

“You Don’t Speak About the Temple” Says Bushman

Tian Tan

In my readings on mudras I found other information on the Tian Tan, or Temple of Heaven, that I thought was interesting.

The Tian Tan is a Taoist temple in Beijing, China, and its construction dates back to the fifteenth century when it was originally named the Temple of Heaven and Earth. This temple has been used for Chinese worship in year-rites, prayer ceremonies, harvest ceremonies, and sacrifices for several centuries.

A description of some of the traditional ceremonial activities that took place here is interesting:

In ancient China, the Emperor of China was regarded as the Son of Heaven, who administered earthly matters on behalf of, and representing, heavenly authority. To be seen to be showing respect to the source of his authority, in the form of sacrifices to heaven, was extremely important. The temple was built for these ceremonies, mostly comprising prayers for good harvests.

Twice a year the Emperor and all his retinue would move from the Forbidden city through Beijing to encamp within the complex, wearing special robes and abstaining from eating meat. No ordinary Chinese was allowed to view this procession or the following ceremony. In the temple complex the Emperor would personally pray to Heaven for good harvests. The highpoint of the ceremony at the winter solstice was performed by the Emperor on the Earthly Mount. The ceremony had to be perfectly completed; it was widely held that the smallest of mistakes would constitute a bad omen for the whole nation in the coming year.

In these practices I see a belief in priesthood-like vicarious authority, temple prayer worship, cosmology, special ceremonial clothing, esotericy, worthiness requirements, perfect performance of rites, and even a practice which recalls the Word of Wisdom. Could this all be coincidence? Or did these things stem from something more ancient?

Tian Tan – The Temple of Heaven

John A. Tvedtnes

John A. Tvedtnes, senior resident scholar with the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University, recently authored an article for Meridian Magazine entitled, “Secretive Mormonism.” He had some great comments about the esoteric versus exoteric nature of the LDS temple practices (emphasis is my own):

Commentators frequently refer to Mormon temple rites as the heart of secret goings-on. It is true that some elements of the temple are so sacred that we do not discuss them publicly, but most of what goes on in the temples is well-known.

One need not look far to learn that the most important such rite is the solemnization of marriage for time and all eternity and that vicarious ordinances (sacraments in Roman Catholic parlance) are performed for deceased ancestors, beginning with proxy baptism.

Even the endowment ceremony, the one most commonly held in Latter-day Saint temples, is mostly public knowledge. Most of the teachings presented during that time derive from the Book of Moses, published in the Pearl of Great Price. During an endowment session, we are reminded of our responsibility to obey the basic laws given mankind by God, such as the law of chastity (including fidelity after marriage), the law of obedience to God’s commandments, the law of sacrifice (which culminated in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross), the law of the gospel (salvation through Christ), and the law of consecration of one’s time, talents, and other divine blessings, to building up the Lord’s work on the earth.

Elements that are not discussed openly include ritual elements of temple prayer and the actual endowment or giving of signs, names, and tokens designed to enable one to pass the angels and ultimately to enter the presence of God. These may seem strange to most modern Christians, but they were common in early Christianity, as I have discussed in some of my published articles on ancient temple rites.

Read the rest of this excellent article at Meridian Magazine.

[via A Soft Answer]

John Tvedtnes on The Sacred in the Temple

The experiential, ritual, ethical and legal, and material dimensions of Mormonism all have one thing in common: relatively little attention has been paid to them. These elements need to be integrated with other dimensions of the faith and compared with like characteristics in other religions before the tradition’s structural makeup is fully portrayed. What it means to be a Latter-day Saint is reflected in the experiential and ritual dimensions of the faith every bit as much as in what adherents believe or in the sacred writings they hold dear . . . the study of the ritual or ceremonial dimension of Mormonism, in everyday life and worship, is of vital importance in gaining a better appreciation of the tradition as a whole. This aspect also needs to be studied in comparison with patterned celebrations and formalities manifested in other traditions.

As Aquinas at Summa Theologica points out, not only is there a lack of this type of discussion in academia, but in interfaith discussions and understanding as well:

The ritual and liturgical aspects of another faith tradition are clearly more difficult to understand, in my view, than textual material; if for no other reason that it requires more observation and experience than textual analysis does. Compound this with the fact that, as Bradford points out, little attention has been paid to Mormon ritual and liturgical studies, and we can see all the more need for inquiry and awareness of this area.

The purpose of this blog is to explore, appropriately, such study of ritual and liturgical aspects of the LDS faith, especially as it pertains to the temple experience, for that is where I believe much of the discussion of LDS ritual and ceremonial practices is lacking.

Of course we must tread this path very reverently, for as faithful members of the Church we have covenanted to keep sacred the things of the Lord’s house sacred. But there is much we can talk about the temple, as Elder Packer points out in The Holy Temple, and there is much historical evidence, not directly related to the Church, which supports the LDS practice which we can discuss.

There has been much written and discussed about the more exoteric doctrines and practices of the Church, while ignoring the esoteric ones. This tends to breed ignorance and misunderstanding on the part of many in the public and media who do not understand the purpose of the LDS temple and who therefore view it as strange, secretive, and cultic (as the negative connotations have defined it today). Recently, it was found that many did not understand the difference between LDS meeting houses (chapels) and LDS temples. Ignorance tends to encourage the pursuit of information from whatever source may be available, even from the critics. But such exposé analyses fail to even drop a hint at the historical, archaeological, textual and comparative religious studies which overwhelmingly confirm and validate the LDS temple practice in the world of Christian worship. But who would expect more from those that stake an antagonistic position? Hopefully we will be able to start discussion with those who may be seeking to have a better contextual understanding of the LDS temple from an LDS viewpoint, and show that it does, indeed, fit within Christianity. The Lord has commanded His people to build temples to His name in these last days in preparation for His second coming, and we will obey.

FARMS Review notes lack of Mormon Ritual discussion

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.

Talking about the LDS Temple