FAIR

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Come, Follow Me Resources

Temple

Going to the Temple for the First Time – Interview with Anthony Sweat

by

Podcast: Download (51.5MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Kelsey Edwards Anthony Sweat and Nick Galieti - LDS MissionCast
Kelsey Edwards (Left), Anthony Sweat (Center), Nick Galieti (right)

On this episode Kelsey Edwards and Nick Galieti sit down with BYU scholar and professor, Anthony Sweat who wrote a book called The Holy Invitation, published by Deseret Book. This is book and this interview are focused on those going to the temple for the first time prior to their mission, or even those that have gone but are looking to get more out of the experience. This is a great opportunity for missionaries preparing to leave, those on a mission, or even those that are coming home from a mission and looking to get more from their temple experience. Anthony Sweat has some great insights to share on this subject.

This week we are showcasing the music of Sara Lyn Baril. Her music can be found at http://saralynbaril.com Her music is definitely fitting for a missionary friendly music library, which means its also great for music to listen to on the sabbath day or any time you want to feel the peace and contentment of gospel music.

Sara Lyn Baril Music
Sara Lyn Baril – LDS Musician featured in this episode.

 

The Holy Invitation - Anthony Sweat

Some thoughts on Sacred Silence with the temple by Nick Galieti (host)

I went back to my journals to see back to my first temple experience on October 11th, 1997, the day before I received my mission call to Baton Rouge, LA. It would appear that two things were at play that informed the journal entry for that day, my obsession with girls and getting a girlfriend, so much so that I didn’t really offer much reflection at all on the mission call itself (yeah, really classy – don’t do what I did), and the fact that I was taught that we aren’t supposed to talk about the temple outside of the temple, so I never wrote anything about the experience, who was there, nothing.

In this episode, we touched on the idea of “sacred silence” in our interview. Its an obviously sensitive subject. There are sacred experiences that we should honor in that spirit. But what are those lines that we shouldn’t cross? I want to forward my own thoughts on this matter in hopes that it can help promote the spirit of the temple as well as help us to understand that the answer is far more ambiguous than we might originally think.

In the episode, I agreed with Anthony Sweat that there is a maximal point where all people engaged in living the covenants of the temple have explicitly agreed to not disclose certain parts of the temple endowment ritual. However, while there are those things that are specifically mentioned there, parts that need to remain sacred, it doesn’t mean that the rest of it remains public domain either. As in all gospel principles, but especially teachings of the temple are best understood line upon line, precept upon precept.

This means that what we talk about with respect to the temple should be viewed in light of who we are speaking with, not just what is “approved” according to covenant. It is common and expected that Missionaries will talk about the plan of salvation when speaking with those being taught about the restored gospel. However, it is doubtful that the best course of action is to discuss the content of the drama depicted in the temples as part of the endowment ritual. Then again, it might be. The spirit should be the guide in these matters.

Remember, it’s not that we hide it, at least no more than God has withheld many truths until we are in a position to best endure the experience that comes with tutoring from the spirit. In speaking of the temple and the sacred truths taught therein, much of what is taught is through the spirit to each individual because that is what that individual is prepared for and ready to learn. Without authorization from the spirit to share such things, it is best to treat such things as valuable for the person receiving it, and not necessarily relevant to the rest of the world.

Temple theologians talk about the temple as being sacred space, in sacred time. They also speak of the nature of temple ritual and learning as being something that should not be made profane. Meaning, something relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular rather than religious. The origin of that word profane, from which we get the word profanity, actually originally meant “outside the temple, or not sacred.” (Side note: To speak profanity isn’t just using certain words that are socially considered vulgar, but to speak in any manner that is unholy.)

In order to keep the temple from becoming secular, something all too common, or profane, it is best to remember that while some of what is taught in the temple is not “off limits” to discuss conceptually and principally, or even out-of-bounds according to covenant in the temple itself, we should be careful to not make profane what is taught and what is learned as it remains in the domain of the sacred and spiritual. Sometimes what we learn in the temple is best understood in the temple context, and outside of that it looses its meaning, especially to someone other than yourself.

So, when you go to the temple for the first time, or when you go to the temple in subsequent visits, don’t be afraid to record those sacred experiences in your personal journal, but seek divine approval for what is appropriate to share and with what audience when it comes to speaking of such sacred things.

You can listen to past episodes at LDSMissionCast.com

Articles of Faith: Samuel M. Brown – First Principles and Ordinances (Book)

by

Podcast: Download (73.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

headshot-MikeStack-2014-09-24-art-background-croppedSAMUEL M. BROWN is Assistant Professor of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Medical Ethics and Humanities at the University of Utah and an intensive care physician in the Shock Trauma ICU at Intermountain Medical Center. His award-winning book In Heaven as It Is on Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early  Mormon Conquest of Death was published by Oxford University Press in 2012. He is also translator of Aleksandr Men’s Son of Man: The Story of Christ and Christianity. Here is here today to talk about his book First Principles and Ordinances: The Fourth Article of Faith in Light of the Temple being published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.

Questions addressed in this interview:

Your book addresses, among other things, the topic of faith, but your journey through your own faith crisis becomes an important backdrop for your perspective as a writer. Perhaps you could give the cliff notes version of that to set the stage.

Your book is part of the Living Faith Book Series that is being put out by the Maxwell Institute at BYU. As I understand the series as a whole, and therefore part of the feel and function of your book, is the reconciliation of faith and knowledge which is particularly notable challenge some are having in discourse about Mormonism. How do you seek to approach the challenge of reconciling faith and knowledge with your book?

There is a statement that opens the promotional one-sheet that I received on your book that was quite gripping and thought provoking. I don’t know if you wrote it or if it was someone with the publishing side of this effort, but I want to share it and give you a chance to expound upon that in context of your book: “Familiarity can lead to a kind of blindness in life and in religion. The first principles and ordinances of the Latter-day Saint gospel are particularly at risk for misunderstanding through such familiar neglect.”

While not set up in such a way that it addresses critical questions that some may have about the church, there is a sort of positive apologetic angle, almost devotional feel to your book. Is that a fair assessment?

Your book addresses active faith initially. This is something that I have been studying and feeling for years now so it was nice to see some confirmation in your writings to that idea. You speak of two main models of faith at least the way Latter-day Saints talk about Faith, what are those two models?

Temple Blindness

by

I am pained to see Latter-day Saints get carried away in cynicism over the Temple because some elements are linked to modern sources such as Masonry. This is an important theme in some attacks that have gained publicity recently, where it is argued that the Temple is a fraud because it does not contain elements from Solomon’s temple but from modern Masonry. As I explain on my LDSFAQ page on the LDS Temple and Masonry, neither Masonry nor any other modern source explains the ancient majesty of the LDS temple concept, which is completely foreign to the modern world and to Joseph Smith’s world. Numerous aspects of the LDS temple concept such as washings and anointings, baptism for the dead, and the sealing of families have no relationship to Masonry or and/or predate Joseph’s exposure to Masonry, making Masonry a completely inadequate source to explain the content of the Temple. The LDS Temple is much more at home in a very ancient setting and offers strong evidence for an actual Restoration. As for Solomon’s temple, the relationship might be stronger than blind critics could ever see, as I’ll explore below. 
[Read more…] about Temple Blindness

A Reply to Ms. Erickson

by

CNN has published an interview with a woman named Tricia Erickson, who has spoken out on why Mitt Romney is not qualified to be president of the United States. Instead of criticizing Romney for his political platforms, which is what one would expect in a discussion surrounding a political election, she instead has focused on (surprise!) his religion. She has made some rather pernicious swipes at Mormonism that are true to form amongst zealous Evangelical counter-cultists.

I intended to publish some remarks on the comments section of the CNN webpage, but my verbosity got the better of me and my reply was too long. Thankfully I have another avenues in which I can express my thoughts. What follows are my thoughts as they were intended on being published on the CNN webpage, with minor changes in formatting.

—

I usually don’t comment on blogs or websites such as this, but I feel compelled to relate some of my thoughts regarding Ms. Erickson’s unfortunate remarks directed against Mormonism.

For full disclosure I am a faithful Latter-day Saint. I was born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and made a conscious commitment to my religion as a young teenager when I began to seriously investigate not only my faith but other religions. I recently returned from my LDS mission in New England, where happily most people are not as unpleasant towards my faith as Ms. Erickson is. I have participated in the ordinances of the temple repeatedly. I attend my Church services weekly. And I have extensively studied not only the history and doctrine of my faith from both Mormon and non-Mormon perspectives but also other religious traditions such as Judaism and Islam. I am a student at Brigham Young University and am majoring in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, with an emphasis in Hebrew and the Old Testament. I thought I would get all of this out of the way so that nobody wonders about my background.

First, despite her denial to the contrary, Ms. Erickson’s attitude towards Mormonism is thoroughly anti-Mormon. She is egregiously twisting many tenets of Mormon doctrine, most noticeably the Mormon doctrine of deification (which, incidentally, finds remarkable harmony with the early Christian doctrine of theosis) to suit her polemical agenda. Her description of the ordinances of the temple is not only disrespectful towards Mormons, who hold these ordinances in the highest sanctity, but also is saturated with lurid sensationalism that is only appropriate for yellow journalism or a trashy tabloid. As Professor Bushman noted in his response, Ms. Erickson has stripped the Mormon temple ceremony out of its sacred context and warped it into a frightful, but inaccurate, caricature.

Second, her citing of Ed Decker as an authority on Mormonism is quite astonishing. It is not an exaggeration to say that her citing Decker to explain Mormonism is just as misguided as going to a neo-Nazi to seek out reliable information on Judaism or a member of the KKK to get an objective portrayal of blacks. In fact, Ed Decker’s outrageous distortion of Mormonism is so repellent that nobody less than career anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Utah Lighthouse Ministry (certainly no friends of the Mormon Church) condemned Decker for his irresponsibility and unfounded, repugnant, and salacious attacks against the LDS Church. Decker has zero credibility, and his pseudo-scholarly miasmal book “The God Makers” has been debunked by Mormon apologists. For Ms. Erickson to rely on Decker as an authority on Mormonism is shocking, not to mention unfortunate, and betrays her anti-Mormon tendencies.

Third, Ms. Erickson’s disdain for other American religious minorities, particularly Muslims, is rank with bigotry.

Fourth, her continual spewing of words such as “cult”, “indoctrinate”, “dogma”, and characterizing Mormonism as “a complete lie” compromises her objectivity and her qualification to be a commentator on religious matters.

Someone else here has drawn attention to Dr. Hugh Nibley’s wonderful essay “How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book (A Handbook for Beginners)”. Those curious to see whether Ms. Erickson’s denial of being an anti-Mormon is legitimate should compare her remarks here with what Dr. Nibley has written. You can read it online for free here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=77&chapid=973

Finally, may I express a word to the editors of CNN? Please be more selective with whom you decide to give airtime on your otherwise wonderful and informative website. Ms. Erickson, I am afraid, has no real contribution to the discussion of the relationship between religion and politics in our modern society. Her polemical ranting is below CNN’s standards of journalism.