Skip to main content


As I was reading in Daniel C. Peterson’s and Stephen D. Ricks’ Offenders for a Word , I read the following quote, which is in response to the accusation that it is unchristian to have “secret rituals:”

“The very word from which ‘mass’ may be derived, missa (in the phrase missa est), appears to have been the point in the Christian worship service when those who were not yet members in full standing were ‘invited . . . to leave the church building. Then the doors were closed, and the ushers assumed their placed in order to inquire of anyone who still desired to entire if he was baptized.’”[2]

This struck me as rather fascinating, since when I was on my mission in Virginia, my second Easter out in the mission field, my companion and I had agreed to go to an Easter Vigil with some recent converts who were formerly Catholic. This was a positive learning experience for me. Afterwords, my companion pointed out several parallels to the LDS Temple ordinances. While I haven’t been to an actual Mass, I have discussed this with some members and missionaries who have, and they have all pointed out parallels in Mass and the Temple ordinances as well. Some have also told me that a Vigil and a Mass are quite similar.

In light of the quote above, perhaps many of the rituals preformed in Catholic services are traces of the long since lost “secret” (sacred) ordinances which have now been restored to modern temples? I don’t know if this is really the case, just something I thought was interesting and so decided it would be worth sharing.



1. While this posting mentions the Temple ordinances, I do not discuss what goes on inside the Temple. The internet is not the place for that, as I hold these ordinances to be very sacred. I respectfully ask any and all commenters to please be respectful and not discuss the details of the Temple ordinances here, or anywhere else on my blog. Thank you.

2. Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word (1992), response to Claim 10. Peterson and Ricks have a citation in this quote which I have omitted.


  1. Good to have you back. I still owe you a response on a couple of your previous posts (and I hope to get around to it eventually ha ha), but there's nothing I really disagree with here. That the temple ceremonies are 'secret' doesn't really bother me, especially considering how readily accessible the goings-on are on the internet. But I won't divulge that info here, of course.

    Also, you may be interested in some of the discussions going on at the USU SHAFT blog. Check it out. I'd love your input.

    Take care! Let's do lunch soon.

  2. Thanks for the comments. As you have already noticed, I left a few thoughts on some of your posts at SHAFT. I have read your blog there before. Always good to get a look at a different perspective. I'll facebook you about lunch, my schedule is pretty open during the days right now.

  3. Hey, I was just snooping around in your archives. it is interesting that you make a connection between the Mormon temple and the catholic Mass. especially in talking about how people who hadn't been baptized were not allowed to participate or even to be there.
    however i think there is a big difference between what happens in the temple and what happened in the mass. it was actually the Eucharist or the great thanksgiving or the lord supper. See at a time when Christianity was illegal and in the minority they did not openly practice the lord's supper only those who had gone through catechism and had been baptized were allowed to participate in the communion. it was the most holy thing they did and it was a precious thing they did to go to the lord's table and eat with him as they did at the last super. actually the the Catholics call the bread the host is because Jesus is the host of this mean and depending on how literally you take the phase 'this is my body' he is also the bread. anyway as time when on and more and more people where christian, and where baptized at birth there was less reason to have people who had not yet been baptized to leave before the lord's supper was 'served.'


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nephite History in Context 4: The Iron Dagger of King Tutankhamun

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth contribution to my new series Nephite History in Context: Artifacts, Inscriptions, and Texts Relevant to the Book of Mormon. Check out the really cool (and official, citable) PDF version here. To learn more about this series, read the introduction here. To find other posts in the series, see here.
The Iron Dagger of King Tutankhamun
The discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb in 1922 was a worldwide sensation, and to this day is widely regarded as one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all-time due to the veritable treasure trove of artifacts found inside. The treasure was so great that to this day many of the items have yet to be studied. Likewise, Tutankhamun (ca. 1336–1327 bc) remains the best-known Pharaoh of Egypt in popular culture today, but details about his actual reign and accomplishments are still generally unknown among the public. Some are aware that he ascended to the throne as a mere child, about 8 years old, but few r…

Nephite History in Context 3: Vered Jericho Sword

Editor’s Note: This is the third contribution to my new series Nephite History in Context: Artifacts, Inscriptions, and Texts Relevant to the Book of Mormon. Check out the really cool (and official, citable) PDF version here. To learn more about this series, read the introduction here. To find other posts in the series, see here.
Vered Jericho Sword
Vered Jericho was a small ancient Israelite fortress first excavated in the winter of 1982 by archaeologist Avraham Eitan. It’s located roughly 3.7 miles (6 km) south of Jericho proper, on the northern side of Wadi es-Suweid. The walls still stand over 6 and half feet tall (2 m) and nearly 3 feet (0.9 m) wide, with two towers on each corner flanking the gate. Inside the fort is a courtyard and two dwelling structures. The fort may have also had cultic or ritual functions as a “high place” (beit bamah). It dates to the late seventh to early sixth century BC, and was destroyed by fire, quite likely in either the Babylonian siege of …

Responding to the New Video on Nahom as Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Many of my (few) readers have probably already seen the new video by Book of Mormon Central on Nahom as archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, starring my good friend (and co-author on a related paper) Stephen Smoot. If you haven’t, check it out:

As usual, comments sections wherever this video is shared have been flooded by Internet ex-Mormons insisting this not evidence for the Book of Mormon. I’ve actually had a few productive conversations with some reasonable people who don’t think Nahom is, by itself, compelling evidence—and I can understand that. But the insistence that Nahom is not evidence at all is just, frankly, absurd. So I’ll just go ahead and preempt about 90% of future responses to this post by responding to the most common arguments against Nahom/NHM now:
1. The Book of Mormon is false, therefore there can be no evidence, therefore this is not evidence. First, this is circular reasoning. It assumes the conclusion (Book of Mormon is false) which the evidence pre…