I quoted CalMeacham above to make the following two points (which I then didn’t make before I clicked on the “Submit Reply” button):
Yes, if you’re determined to learn “what goes on” in those Mormon temples you can find it out from outside sources.
Temple recommends are not computerized. They are just small (wallet-sized) certificates identifying the recommend holder and containing the signatures of the holder, and his or her bishop and stake president.
You have to display your recommend at the recommend desk, just inside the temple. Typically this desk is manned by one or more temple workers, volunteers who serve at the temple, most of whom are elderly. It is not an elaborate process – they just look your recommend over, make sure it is signed and current, and welcome you to the temple.
For a brief time a few years ago they did encode your name and ward and stake on a magnetic stripe attached to your recommend. They used it to input your name as they recorded ordinance data, but they later decided they were keeping too many records and stopped doing that.
As far as Mormons being Christians, I guess we’re just to have to agree to disagree (not you Cal, but others have disagreed). Mormons certainly consider themselves to be Christians, and there are (IMO) reasonable arguments to support that position, but some people and sects are offended by that claim. I did learn the other day that for some Christians being a Christian is defined as adhering to the Nicene Creed. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not subscribe to that creed and, by that definition, disqualify themselves.
There is however a unique serial number on each recomend, I have never heard of anyone checking or recording this number.
Some have called the temple session boring, like most religious services it certainly can be seen as such. However, such things are largely a product of one’s frame of mind. The temple is a very good place to meditate, think and reflect. Apart form the religious significance; “getting away from it all” for a couple of hours is another one of the benefits of temple attendance.
Let’s recap:
[ul][li]Question asked.[/li][li]Question answered.[/li][li]Relevant question asked.[/li][li]Relevant question answered by more than one poster, each with more information, pertinent information to boot.[/li][li]Not so veiled anti-Mormon type asks irrelevant questions.[/li][li]I screw up and answer those.[/li][li]Not so veiled individual tells a lie.[/li][li]Cal and JWK point out interesting and valid info.[/li][li]Vanilla chimes in with an opinion disquised as fact (or at least not indicated as an opinion).[/li][li]Grimp complains about being worried about something asserted without evidence in Vanilla’s post.[/li][li]Couple of other folks make interesting queries.[/li][li]Those get answered to a degree, this time bieng indicated as opinion when it’s not obvious.[/li][li]Bluesman sums up Grimps’ stance perfectly.[/ul][/li]
Did I leave anything out?
Oh, and how many folks here (besides me) just knew that no matter what the answer to “B. Young’s” query would be, the reaction would be what’s transpiring here? BTW, “B. Young,” huh? Cute.
A new temple was recently completed in our city, and we (non-LDS) took advantage of the open house. It was a very interesting tour. The faith doesn’t particularly attact me, but I do respect the sincerity of the adherents that gave the tour, as well as the beauty of the building and the spaces inside. It was interesting to hear how the various rooms are used, and for what purposes. Fine workmanship went into the construction.
Well, anyway, the point is that as I left the tour, having been told about the pending consecration (?) of the building, and this being the only time it would be open to non-recommend-holders, I wondered what would happen in the event of a leaky roof (though I suspect this would be rare, given the care that appears to have gone into the construction). But, after all, every building needs significant maintenance from time to time.
What do they do in that case (and the question about how did the police get let in, if they weren’t recommend-holders is a valid one)? Do they unconsecrate the space long enough for repairs, then rededicate it? Do they find recommend-holders in the necessary trade?
Just curious. Obviously the fate of the world doesn’t hang in the balance on this question.
I’m a protestant (Presbyterian, to be specific), and off the top of my head, I can’t think of any “secret” ceremonies that we have. In fact, except under circumstances that prevent it (such as a dying newborn in a hospital) Presbyterian baptisms are to be performed in public, usually in front of the relavent congregation.
I asked my dad (a Presb. Minister) once, why the Catholics exclude us from their communion services (Presbyterian communion services are, by requirement, open to any and all believers of any denomination…the only requirement being the ability to profess a belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour). My dad’s response was that I shouldn’t think of it as being excluded, rather that I should think of it as Catholics not asking non-Catholics to participate in something that we aren’t familiar with or can’t be sincere about (Catholics…as do others…put a spin on Communion that Presbyterians don’t share).
That satisfied, for the most part. And, I suppose the same approach could be recommended regarding the secrecy of the Temple Ordinances.
I do think, however, that for those of us practicing a particular flavor of faith that seems (to us, anyway) very open (non-Presbyterian family members are welcomed to come witness their Presbyterian niece/nephew/grandchild’s baptism/wedding/confirmation/etc.), the secrecy does elicit a bit of curiosity at best, and perhaps suspicion and disapproval at worst.
I would agree that “having issues with” the secrecy seems intolerant of a different faith system. But I would hope that those whom find meaningfulness in the secrecy can be patient with those of us sincerely trying explore and learn the motivations for faith features that are different than our own.
Well, I’m just a bit curious, in the end, just like grimpixie was.
Here’s my (ammature, and perhaps inaccurate) take on this phrase. As a non-Catholic, I could be either flat out wrong, or at least out of date…but…my understanding is that the Catholic faith teaches that a persons path to God is through the ordained Priests. It is the Priest that dispenses forgiveness on behalf of God (presumably after judging the worthiness for such forgiveness), and just generally acts as a go-between between God and the believer. The example may not be accurate, but I beleive I at least have the flavor of the three-way relationship (believer-Priest-God, with Priest in between) generally correct.
Presbyterians (and many/most? other non-Catholic denominations) believe that we relate directly with God, with no one between us. We ask God directly for forgiveness, and God gives forgiveness directly to us, for example. Our ordained clergy are leaders/enablers/guides in the faith, not intermediaries.
For some, this is a significant difference in faiths.
I believe that grimpixie was asking for an LDS believer to describe the LDS belief on this issue, and I, too, would be curious to learn.
I’m sure most of the posters knew this already, but just to make Captain Amazing’s statement and AJCook’s comment perfectly clear:
The roman catholic church asks that you be a catholic before taking communion in a catholic service, but there is no checking and you are not asked if you are truly a member of the church. They depend on your honesty.
I would have phrased this sentence in the staff report slightly differently:
<<But if all you want to do is profane what someone else considers to be an extremely sacred place and to heck with the consequences, or you think that you gotta be let in just because you want to and to heck with it being private property and all that, then have at it.>>
I would see why someone would be interested in attending a “secret” ceremony just out of curiosity, without the intent of offending any of the believers. Like René-Auguste Caillié travelling to Tombouctou.
Cathlics don’t have any secret ceremonies now, but I understand that in the first few centuries they allowed unbaptized attendees to stay until just before the Offertory (the first part of the Mass was called the “Mass of the Catechumens”, that being the name for aspiring Church Members), at which time they were sent out and the doors closed. The rest of the ceremony was only open to the Baptized. Had the Internet been around in those days, I’ve no dount that apostate Catholics would be posting the words of the rest of the Mass online.
I’m frequently amazed at the way Mormonism resembles Roman Catholicism more than the Protestant tradition it sprang from. Of course, it also resembles Islam in many ways, too, so I’m not making a case for an secret relationship. I suspect it has a lot with some deep human need for a particular form of spirituality. But don’t ask me to explain why that should be.
It would be interesting but a little awkward! In a temple endowment session there’s no “observing”–everyone who’s there is participating in the ordinance. (There are places where you could just go to sit and meditate if you wanted to and not participate in anything, but there wouldn’t be anything to observe there).
The Mormon perspective on this is that when Christ was on the earth he organized his church, which later fell into apostacy and the priesthood (the authority to act in God’s name) was lost. The Catholic church retained a lot of the original forms and doctrines, but many truths were lost. When the gospel and the priesthood were restored through Joseph Smith, it was the same as Christ’s original church. So it makes sense that there would be similarities! (BTW, we don’t consider ourselves part of the Protestant movement at all, since it was a direct restoration, not a reformation).
I remember one time I took a “What Religion Are You?” test. No surprise I was 100% LDS. What surprised me was according to the test, Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthadox were 2nd and 3rd on the list.
I’m actually surprised you were surprised at this. It’s quite obvious that, for example, Catholics have or had “issues” with Protestants, Jews with Muslims, fundamentalists of any religion with everyone else, etc… Historically, intolerance of other religious views (even when the difference was very slight) was the norm, not the exception.
CalMeacham wrote:
Um, doesn’t this count? “Cardinals have been the sole electors of the pontiff for nearly 1,000 years and it remains their most important job. For centuries, they have chosen from their own ranks, locked away in a secret conclave.” http://amarillonet.com/stories/022001/usn_electpope.shtml
I appreciate your interest and respect your opinion, but you may be under the impression that all LDS baptisms are done in secret. Actually, it’s only baptisms for the dead (by proxy) that are done in the temple. Baptisms for the living are done in a stake centre (a stake being a collection of wards) and are open to the public.
I once asked a similar question about what would happen if someone had a medical emergency in the temple. There’s not such a high percentage of Mormons here in San Diego, so it would be much harder to find paramedics with current recommends. I was told that the temple was staffed with recommend-holding emergency medical personnel who would be able to handle many emergencies. If paramedics were necessary, the on-site medics would stabilise the patient enough to move him/her outside the temple, where the paramedics could then transport the patient to the hospital without having to enter the temple.
I am no longer a Catholic, but I was raised as one. The reasons behind not allowing those who are not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian to receive communion at Mass are twofold.
First, Catholics and Eastern Rite Christians believe in transubstantiation. This means that they believe the bread and wine are actually changed into the Body and Blood of Christ when sanctified. (I’m using the capitalization that Catholics would use.) Protestants believe either that the bread and wine remain bread and wine at all times and are merely symbolic of the Body and Blood, or that they are bread and wine and the Body and Blood at the same time. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that transubstantiation is so central to the Sacrament of the Eucharist that those who do not believe in it cannot in good conscience participate.
Secondly, the Eucharist is the central sacrament. Catholic Masses always include communion, unlike many Protestant faiths where communion may be part of the service on some Sundays but not others. For Catholics, communion is more than just a remembrance of the Last Supper; it is a celebration of community - and of unity. Now, it’s part of Catholic dogma to pray for the reunion of all Christians, but as long as that reunion has not happened, to invite other Christians to participate in the Eucharist would be to imply a unity that does not exist.
Pre-Vatican II, only baptized Catholics free from mortal sin were supposed to be present for the second part of the Mass. The first part involves prayers and three (on weekdays) or four (on Sundays) readings from the Scriptures, plus a sermon. Non-Catholics and Catholics in a state of mortal sin were supposed to scoot after the sermon. This was changed and now anyone is welcome to stay (subject to the usual restrictions, e.g. if you’re there to cause a disruption you aren’t going to be welcome at any religious ceremony).
DaveW, if the cardinals choosing the new Pope counts as a secret ceremony, then is it a secret ceremony when a big company chooses a new CEO? I’m not denying that the process is secretive, I just don’t agree with the “ceremony” part. They’re just voting (and maybe enjoying some fine Italian reds).
DaveoRad: Baptisms for the living are performed in the chapels; Stake Centers also have chapels attached to them.
flodnak: The communion prayer for the LDS asks God to bestow blessings on those who partake of the bread and water, and does not recite the story of the first communion. The LDS do not believe the Sacrament to be the body and blood of Christ but that the act of taking communion is in response to Christ’s command. Oh, yes, I do realize that’s a lot of semantics inolved in this description.
Monty, first I have to apologize. Your column was very well written, on a difficult and (for a member of the LDS faith) controversial subject. I see too many posts where people pick at the mistakes in a staff report without acknowledging the work that goes behind it. Well done!
Now, to get back to my statement that I would have phrased something differently:
Imagine that I am a student of comparative religions who would like to witness a temple ceremony (or ordinance if that’s the right word.) I suppose I would fit in your category «you think that you gotta be let in just because you want to and to heck with it being private property», but I don’t think that you are accurately describing my motives.
Of course, that isn’t strictly speaking the subject of the column, but you did mention that it’s possible to see the inside of the building (books, open house) and you mentioned the various kinds of events that take place in a temple, so of course the question arises «where do I find a description of those ordinances?»
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 06-02-2001 at 10:11 AM]
DaveW -
First of all, nice sig!
Secondly, I thought exactly of what you were saying when I mentioned communion in your post, as an example of a well-known event in the world of Roman Catholics that is closed to the public. flodnak already commented, but I will add my 2¢ also. Here’s where I see that it differs from the subject of Mormon Temple ordinances:
a) It is not a religious event, it’s an “administrative” meeting. Many private organizations have meetings closed to the public.
b) What happens during the conclave is well-known. When John Paul II was elected, media sources described what would be happening in the Sistine Chapel (IIRC, that’s where the meeting take place.) Of course, a cardinal can’t tell you about the individual events happening in the conclave, but the general process is not a secret.
