Skip to main content

The Meaning of the Mystery

Rumaging through old Facebook messages the other day, I came across this little gem sent to friend on August 25, 2010. A few days before that, I had said something in a group conversation about the original meaning of mystery being associated with esoteric rites. He asked if I could send him something on it, so I whipped this up. (Gives you a bit of a peek into what I was busy reading approx. 3 years ago, eh?) Not wanting to loose it in an Inbox clear out, I thought I would post it here, where I'll always be able to find it and  where it may be of some benefit to others. Enjoy!!

The word “mystery” comes from the Greek word “mysterion” (sometimes rendered “musterion”), which is based on the Greek root “myo,” which means “to shut the mouth.”(Strong) On the same entry in the same dictionary, Strong defines “mysterion” as a secret which is kept “through the idea of silence imposed by initiation into religious rites.” (Ibid) In an article about the apostasy, John Gee notes, “Between the time of writing the New Testament and the end of the second century, the meanings of several of the words changed.” (Gee) As an example of these changes, Gee says that “mysterion” changed from meaning “(initiation) rite” to simply mean “secret.” (Ibid) Commenting on 1 Cor. 2:6-7, Stephen E. Robinson explains that “The Greek word translated ‘mystery’ is ‘musterion,’ and it means ‘a mystery,’ ‘a secret,’ ‘a secret rite,’ or ‘a secret teaching.’” (Robinson) Barry R. Bickmore explains:
“Actually, the word ‘mystery’ [Greek mysterion] is a technical religious term equivalent to the Latin sacramentum, which simply means ‘ordinance.’ The term was normally used in the context of the Greek ‘mystery religions’ which were common in the ancient world, and included various secret doctrines and rites. Therefore, when Paul and later Christian writers spoke of ‘the mysteries,’ they were borrowing a technical term loaded with meaning, and may well have been referring not only to certain doctrines, but to various rites associated with them.” (Bickmore)
Lastly, Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks briefly note that “the word ‘mystery’ was regularly used by the early Christians to refer to secret rites or ordinances.” (Peterson and Ricks)
Now, while all of these various quotes are not completely harmonious on the exact meaning and history of the word “mystery,” one element is common to everyone them: The meaning of the Greek word for “mystery” (mysterion) was originally tied to secret initiation rites. Thus, we can be almost certain that when Jesus, Paul, and other apostles speak of the “mystery” in the New Testament , they are almost certainly referring to some sort ritual, rite, or ordinance which was later lost to the rest of Christianity. A great deal of historical and scholarly evidence has confirmed this, and some VERY interesting parallel’s can be (and have been) made to LDS Temple services.
James Strong, Transliterated Strong’s Greek-English Dictionary of the Greek New Testament, g3466
John Gee, “The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity” in Noel B. Reynolds [Editor], Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy
Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians?
Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity

Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word


Popular posts from this blog

The 15 “Best Books” to Read BEFORE Having a Faith Crisis

Elder M. Russell Ballard recently stressed that it is important for Gospel educators to be well-informed on controversial topics, not only by studying the scriptures and Church materials, but also by reading “the best LDS scholarship available.” I personally think it is imperative in today’s world for every Latter-day Saint—not just Gospel educators—to make an effort to be informed on both controversial issues as well as knowing reliable faith-building information as well.
(Given that Elder Ballard’s CES address was published to general Church membership in the Ensign, I think it’s safe to say that Church leadership also feels this way.)
An important step in the process of getting informed is reading the 11 Gospel Topic essays and getting familiar with their contents. But what’s next? How can a person learn more about these and other topics? What are the “best books” (D&C 88:118) or “the best LDS scholarship available”?
Here are 15 suggestions.
1. Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith S…

“The Dominant Narrative is Not True”: Some Thoughts on Recent Remarks by Richard Bushman

The following is making its rounds on Facebook (from this video): Questioner: In your view do you see room in Mormonism for several narratives of a religious experience or do you think that in order for the Church to remain strong they would have to hold to that dominant narrative?
Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that's what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change. As I have seen this quote flash across my Facebook news feed and thought about how to make sense of it, I have been reminded of the short essay response questions I would often have on tests or assignments in college or even high school. It would not be uncommon for these questions to be built around a quote from an important schola…

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…