- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I did a post over at Wheat and Tares on the history of the Kirtland Temple and wanted to share a few interesting quotes. John Larsen interviewed Barbara Walden, and noted that the Kirtland Temple was open to the public, unlike modern LDS temples. —
Barbara Walden [former Director of the Kirtland Temple], “That’s right. It was intended to be the center of community life. As I mentioned, they had a high school that met up on the third floor. There are great accounts of them inviting ministers of other churches to use the pulpits to preach. On one account of a Unitarian minister, taking advantage of that and preaching from the pulpit. I think it was a hope for the Latter-day Saints that if we invite you into our house of worship to allow you to preach, perhaps you too would allow us into your house of worship to preach as well. It’s almost the beginning of some ecumenical work there in Kirtland.
They were also giving tours of the temple, I should point that out. Joseph Smith Sr, was a pretty good guide. Warren Parrish was another tour guide at the Kirtland Temple. So they’re recognizing that the building is kind of a curiosity if you will, and people were dying to get inside to take a look. So there is evidence that they were charging admission for the tours, and one of the highlights of the tours–for one man he paid to go back a second time–was to see the mummies that were on exhibit on the third floor.
John Larsen: “Later those were in somebody’s basement, but they were at the Kirtland Temple, right?
BW, “They were up on the third floor, yes. There were accounts of them on exhibit over at Joseph and Emma Smith’s house, and Frederick Granger’s house. It seems like they have their own tour of the Kirtland area as well.”
{chuckles….}
—
More of the post is at
http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/01/31/mummies-in-the-temple/ There are those (especially NOM’s) who think that temples should be open to the public. We can see a precedent that Kirtland was open. Do you think it is a good idea for lds temples to follow more of a Kirtland model?
Interesting stuff. As for the last question: For me personally, not now. Different times, different approaches.
I wouldn’t mind it if sealings were open to family, whether or not they are members (which probably would necessitate changing the locations of the sealing rooms), but to the public generally all the time? Not for me.
Considering they were not doing endowments in the Kirkland temple I do not think there was anything to hide. If todays temples were open to the public what would they see? They would see stuff that would really make us look like a ritualistic cult. So yes I think the temples should be opened to all members but not all aspects of the temple should be seen by all. Like Ray says marriages should be available to all family and friends. Now I will be the cynic. the temple is a revenue vehicle for the church. As long as it is held out as the ultimate place to go, and all member aspire to get there then it remains special. And since you need to pay tithing to attend, members will continue paying tithing more fully than if there was no temple or if anyone could go. So no I do not think the church will ever open up the temple to non recommend holders.
The idea fits much better with a hybrid chapel/Temple building than how our temples are used today. As Bushman points out Joseph never built or had plans for a chapel, his temples served both purposes. Hmmm? Interesting. Our form of temple worship today is kind of a sore spot for me, so my response is going to be cynical. Enough said.
Cadence wrote:…yes I think the temples should be opened to all members but not all aspects of the temple should be seen by all. Like Ray says marriages should be available to all family and friends.
Now I will be the cynic. the temple is a revenue vehicle for the church. As long as
it is held out as the ultimate place to go, and all member aspire to get there then it remains special. And since you need to pay tithing to attend, members will continue paying tithing more fully than if there was no temple or if anyone could go. So no I do not think the church will ever open up the temple to non recommend holders. Exactly, temples look like they have become primarily a symbol of the “eternal family” sales pitch that the Church currently uses to motivate obedience to their rules like tithing, the WoW, and essentially professing acceptance of the “one true church” idea. These temple marriage and temple entrance requirement doctrines have basically become the real gospel according to the LDS Church.
I guess people can believe whatever they want to but personally I don’t see what any of these things really have to do with being a good Christian. It seems to me that you can easily have one without the other either way but as far as what is actually required and expected out of members it is easy to see what is most important to the Church at this point. Oh well, I guess I have already cast my one vote against the current temple interpretation and implementation but as long as enough members are willing to go along with this program then I don’t really expect these doctrines and policies to change.
Interesting stuff. Of course, temples were then also raided and burned down. Glad those things don’t occur any longer! So…when did the temples become closed to the public? The Kirtland temple was a dedicated temple, right (D&C 109)? Was the Nauvoo temple closed to the public?
Personally, I like the quiet and peaceful feel of the temples today.
Both the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples were open to the public. John Hamer says that neither endowments or baptisms for the dead were done in Kirtland (no revelation had been received yet), and baptisms and endowments in Nauvoo were done in the basement and attic spaces. Nauvoo had open courts just like Kirtland. I’m not 100% sure when temples became closed, but I’m pretty sure it was the Utah period under Brigham Young. St George was the first temple completed in Utah (though not the first started because SL took so long.) Hamer notes that in Utah, the attic and basement spaces overtook the courts of Nauvoo and Kirtland, and now LDS temples are only used for ordinances, rather than meetings. I think the Tabernacles (or modern day Conference center) took over the meeting responsibilities of the early Nauvoo/Kirtland temples.
I find the Kirtland Temple history very interesting. As I read “The Mysteries of Godliness” a history of mormon temple worship by David John Buerger and listen to the Greg Kearney master mason podcast, I can’t help but try to work out all the details of what seems to be an ever changing and inconsistent temple ceremony over the early years of the church. Along comes the Navoo era and add a cup of Masonry and bake for 45 min @ 350. I’m just not buyin it. I am glad they took out the enactment of the inflicted punishment for violation of covenents back in 1989? Those really freaked my out! f4h1
mormonheretic wrote:John Hamer says that neither endowments or baptisms for the dead were done in Kirtland (no revelation had been received yet), and baptisms and endowments in Nauvoo were done in the basement and attic spaces.
I wanted to add some clarification to this. There was a prototype endowment in Kirtland. It was done on a limited basis in groups, and was unlike what we know today. The concept did exist though, and people participated in this initiation ritual. So I would both agree with John H. and also disagree.
There were no baptisms for the dead in Kirtland. Those started outdoors like regular baptism for a period in Nauvoo, and then were moved into the basement of the temple later on.
I agree with the Nauvoo description. Nauvoo is where the endowment / initiation experience started to look more like what we have today, but would still be foreign to modern temple Mormons. Nauvoo brought in the signs, tokens, the mystery play (actors and a story, but not the same as today), the levels of priesthood, etc.
The functions of our temples today occupied only a small part in the temples at Kirtland and Nauvoo.
I would oppose temples being open on a permanent basis to the public. Maybe one or two opening occasionally… The reason I say this is because there are simply too many nutjobs out there. We’d have to frisk people going in and out to see if they were carrying bombs or matches etc… Also I think that in the likes of the SLC temple, the footfall would be so great as to obstruct its designated business.
I think it’s a good thing temples are opened to the public before consecration, and that the public realises nothing sinister is hidden in side, but when it comes to security and practicalities…
I think the Kirtland Temple was also much more like a traditional church, or cathedral maybe, than the current ones, which contain chapels but are rather different.
Brian, In the interview, Hamer and Walden go into much more detail about the Kirtland Endowment than my “sound bite” description. Certainly there was something the saints called an “endowment” in Kirtland, but the meaning was much different than the LDS have today. Also, there were washings and annointings in Kirtland. While Hamer didn’t talk about it in this interview, Elijah Abel received his washing and annointing in Kirtland, completing the endowment as far as it was revealed at that time When the Nauvoo endowment was revelaed, he didn’t receive it because he was on a mission, and Brigham never let him receive it in Utah.
Yes, they did washing, anointing, and feet-washing in Kirtland. But this wasn’t called “endowment.” The “endowment” in Kirtland was closer to what the word actually means, i.e., “gift.” The endowment that members were promised and which they received in Kirtland was a powerful outpouring of the Spirit, which is how the members reported their feelings during the dedication ceremonies. Agreed. I recall some people expressing the experience as an “endowment” from on high when recording their history, as in a spiritual gift. They used that word to describe it. But it wasn’t an “Endowment” in the sense of the later LDS temple ritual with that name. I think of Kirtland as an experiment, or a proto-type idea for the later ritual. The later Endowment was nothing like the Kirtland activities, whatever we want to label them. Kirtland still seemed to me like some kind of attempt at an “initiation ceremony” in the larger comparative religion sense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.