167 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 27 May 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

I don't understand what you were saying in the first post.

Okay, let's go with the simpler question. Are all things that are "sacred" to be kept secret, or not?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 27 May 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

Mola,

You wrote:



Okay, let's go with the simpler question. Are all things that are "sacred" to be kept secret, or not?

Rob Bowman, on 27 May 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

SGW,

You wrote:



None of this answers my question. Here, I'll make it even easier. Are all things that are sacred to be kept secret, or not?

hmm, it depends on what it is. Like the sacrament is sacred but it is definatly not secret.

So that would be a "No".

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram, 27 May 2011 - 01:44 PM.

[Deborah]

Rob Bowman, on 27 May 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

Well, for example, I would like to know why Joseph Smith gave a detailed description of his experience of seeing the risen Jesus, but virtually no LDS apostles or prophets since then have reported such experiences.

As I said above "Joseph Smith revealed what he did to the world to move the church forward and to establish the nature of God and Heaven. Otherwise he was very careful who he shared experiences with. The fact that others may have taken those experiences and talked about them is a different matter and one which often brought persecution on the church."

The nature of God is accepted now by the members of the church and Joseph Smith's testimony is given on that. Modern prophets and Apostles have actually said many things that allude to a personal knowledge of the Savior, but as in the Parables of old they are only for the faithful to understand and hear.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Deborah, on 27 May 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

As I said above "Joseph Smith revealed what he did to the world to move the church forward and to establish the nature of God and Heaven. Otherwise he was very careful who he shared experiences with. The fact that others may have taken those experiences and talked about them is a different matter and one which often brought persecution on the church."

The nature of God is accepted now by the members of the church and Joseph Smith's testimony is given on that. Modern prophets and Apostles have actually said many things that allude to a personal knowledge of the Savior, but as in the Parables of old they are only for the faithful to understand and hear.

Deborah now speaks for me.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 27 May 2011 - 11:38 AM, said:

I'm sorry to say that so far no one has addressed the issue I raised. The issue has to do with the disparity between my being told, by Mormons in this forum, that it is only because the temple ceremonies are sacred rituals that they are not to be discussed publicly (not merely because they are sacred [secret?]), and my being told, also by Mormons in this forum, that various non-ritual matters are not discussed publicly because they are too sacred.

I could be missing something; but I can't see the "disparity" you are talking about. Why can't some personal (non-ritual) experiences be too sacred to discuss publicly; and some "ritual" practices to be too sacred to discuss publicly as well? Why do you see a "disparity" between the two? Why can't they both be true at the same time?

[Mark Beesley]

Rob Bowman, on 27 May 2011 - 11:38 AM, said:

I'm sorry to say that so far no one has addressed the issue I raised. The issue has to do with the disparity between my being told, by Mormons in this forum, that it is only because the temple ceremonies are sacred rituals that they are not to be discussed publicly (not merely because they are sacred), and my being told, also by Mormons in this forum, that various non-ritual matters are not discussed publicly because they are too sacred.

Holy Cow!!!  You mean there is disparity between what different members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say?  Golly, why can't we all just get on the same page and be good little automatons like we're supposed to be???  Guess we're still working to become one.

Say Rob, since you apparently are not interested in answering any of the questions posed to you thus far, perhaps you can answer this one:  Does every one in your congregation (assuming you attend some sort of church service) have the same opinion about every issue raised in discussions with other members?

[Nathair]

Your question actually goes back to my  last significant point in the Ritual Secrets thread.  If these things are discussed overmuch, and especially in the same breath or thought as carnal things, we lose much of our ability to be transformed by them.  I won't wear a t-shirt with a picture of Christ on the cross or in Gethsemane and I rarely discuss such topics unless everyone present is thinking about sacred things.  It also helps to have some kind of ritual before and after the discussion, even one as simple as a verbal indication that the topic is switching.  


Yours under the boundary oaks,
Nathair /|\

[alter idem]

I agree with those who cited the words of Jesus Christ when he said not to cast pearls before swine. It is very upsetting to share a spiritual experience and have it ridiculed or mocked.  I believe that is why many people, including apostles might choose not to share personal spiritual experiences. And I think that is why we don't discuss the temple ordinances in detail. I don't think it's because they are 'too sacred', but because when you share something, you have no control over how it will be perceived or handled.
I also think that when Christ said not to cast pearls before swine, he was also warning us about sharing things that another is not ready to hear--hence their treating things lightly or ridiculing them.

[bookofmormontruth]

Rob Bowman, on 27 May 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

BOMT,

You wrote:



Just to let you know, I'm not going to bother with people who keep questioning or challenging my sincerity, especially for trivial reasons.

Then put the wax away.

Is it too much (being on a Mormon dialogue & discussion board) to avoid using the description of "secret" for what we consider as sacred? If it is too much, you might be playing at the wrong gig. My link

[Libs]

SeattleGhostWriter, on 27 May 2011 - 01:05 PM, said:

Libs,

If Jesus Christ himself appeared to you while you were praying and he said to you that your sins are forgiven and that the LDS Church is true. I mean really phyiscally appeared to you.

Would this event be Sacred? Would you publish to the world that you personally say the Resurrected Christ, or would you keep that part secret and sacred so that people would not mock and ridicule you?

It is a very honest direct question.

I would share it sparingly, to those I could trust, or as the Spirit lead me to share.  I am not saying that sacred things should, necessarily, be shared with the whole world.  That is not my belief, and was not my point.

Let me ask you a question.  Would you respect and hold in reverence rituals that you believed to be satanic?  (And, please, I am NOT saying that *I* believe the Temple rituals are satanic)...but, there are those who do believe that, and believe they are very harmful, which is part of the reason they feel led to expose them.

My point was, not that there is nothing sacred that should be held close to the breast, but that there are some big differences in belief about what, exactly, IS sacred and what is not.  That's where the problem lies, IMHO.  Not in the question of whether or not something sacred should be "secret".  We keep things which are sacred to us, somewhat private, because we don't want sacred things mocked, by those who don't believe they are sacred.

[CV75]

Libs, on 27 May 2011 - 04:22 PM, said:

Let me ask you a question.  Would you respect and hold in reverence rituals that you believed to be satanic?  (And, please, I am NOT saying that *I* believe the Temple rituals are satanic)...but, there are those who do believe that, and believe they are very harmful, which is part of the reason they feel led to expose them.

This is where the exposé approach to discredit religions falls far short of the glory.

The darker things are, the less they need to be exposed, or the less light is required to expose them. The light of Christ does the job just fine without that kind of misplaced effort on the part of professed followers of Jesus. Those who have ears to hear will hear the voice of the Shepherd and see things in their proper light.

For this reason, the more the effort placed on exposing something, the less intrinsic and less powerful is the light behind that effort, and the brighter the object of its effort to expose an imagined darkness.

The light of the Gospel is what needs to be revealed by the true followers of Christ. This is what casts out the darkness. Those who are incapable and unauthorized by Christ to do this right will attempt to cast out the darkness by revealing its darkness. This approach only comes from and creates another kind of darkness.

Rather Alma 37:27-32 is the approach taken by the Lord’s true servants.

Edited by CV75, 27 May 2011 - 06:34 PM.

[mfbukowski]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 27 May 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

Deborah now speaks for me.

What she said.

[TAO]

Rob, you should really read Inspiring Experiences about Faith.

Trust me, it will be worth your while, if you want powerful experiences, shared.

That is what it is completely about.

Best Wishes,
TAO

Edited by TAO, 27 May 2011 - 07:09 PM.

[Vance]

Deborah, on 27 May 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

As I said above "Joseph Smith revealed what he did to the world to move the church forward and to establish the nature of God and Heaven. Otherwise he was very careful who he shared experiences with. The fact that others may have taken those experiences and talked about them is a different matter and one which often brought persecution on the church."

The nature of God is accepted now by the members of the church and Joseph Smith's testimony is given on that. Modern prophets and Apostles have actually said many things that allude to a personal knowledge of the Savior, but as in the Parables of old they are only for the faithful to understand and hear.

[Vance]

mfbukowski, on 27 May 2011 - 11:37 AM, said:

You know, I was just thinking that it seems that no one other than LDS have this sense of the "sacred".

Just from that, I wonder if we can take that as evidence that our experiences really ARE different from other religions.

If no one else has that experience, how am I supposed to conclude anything else?  We have often described the testimony experience as a "6th sense"- analogies with a blind man not understanding color or a deaf person not understanding music, abound.

I will go ahead and say it even if it is not PC

Suppose we really ARE the elect, and no one else even HAS that 6th sense?

Why can't they understand this then?  Why the continuing questions from every religion on earth including atheists and agnostics?  And yet we understand each other- while others don't have a clue what we are talking about.

What's up with that?

This thread just got me thinking- why don't they get it?

This seems to go along with the mocking of the witness of the Holy Spirit as "a warm fuzzy feeling", etc.

Perhaps those that have never had the witness of the Holy Ghost have no frame of reference for things sacred or spiritual.

And it also appears that they have an aversion to doing what is necessary to have said spiritual experience.

I suppose they would rather spend their time mocking and ridiculing the faith/sacred things of others.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 27 May 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

Just to let you know, I'm not going to bother with people who keep questioning or challenging my sincerity, especially for trivial reasons.

Oh Boo hoo.

So someone who makes a living in part by the neferious revelation of the most sacred things of a certain religous group is attempting to play the victim card to members of that same group?

Oh please!

[3DOP]

I don't know who mocks or ridicules a miracle. I don't mind if Mormons say that miracles aren't as prevalent as in the Apostolic Age. But if Latter-day Apostles were doing public miracles like those in the New Testament, I would be willing to pray about the Book of Mormon. Not now. I believe in public miracles that are well documented for the sake of people of good will towards the Catholic faith. But I don't get why LDS say they have just as many miracles now as ever, but because they don't want to be ridiculed, they won't talk about it or bring forth evidence. The book of Acts is full of miracles. It seems like the Latter-day Church should be similar. I think the Catholic Church is similar. Nobody ridicules the Catholic Church for the modern miracles at Lourdes for instance, documented by non-Catholic doctors.

It seems like there is a real need, considering that nobody who isn't LDS, believes that LDS Apostles see Jesus, receive revelations, or work miracles, that the LDS Apostles would show themselves to be something like the original Apostles. If you really do miracles, who can mock you, and who cares? The bad guys ignore miracles and make fun of the good or beautiful. And that is why in the New Testament, there wasn't anybody claiming that this or that miracle was too sacred to share with the infidels. Pearls before swine isn't about hiding miracles:  

Quote

Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.  

---Mt. 7:6

The warning against pearls before swine and holiness to dogs is more about beautiful practices and good teachings than miracles. I understand not talking about the Temple. But share your miracles. I don't think anybody here wants to say I am a dog or a swine anyway just because I am non-LDS. What about each other? The Gospel says that you don't share your precious spiritual experiences with those who are malicious. It appears to me that you all just say that these wonderful things happen, but you can't share them with us non-LDS because we are dogs and swine who will allegedly mock you. But that means you talk about these wonderful things among yourselves at least? Right?

I have a friend that often rides with me to Mass. Among other spiritual experience not too sacred to share, he has the wildest stories about how St. Anthony finds things for him. Amazing stories. I make the coffee most Sunday mornings at our parish. A couple years ago, a good parishioner gave us this coffee maker that is really big, and it saves a bunch of time because I can make all the coffee for both Masses in one pot. So I come in one Sunday morning, and I can't find the lid. I look everywhere. Every cupboard. Every nook and cranny in the kitchen. So my buddy, Michael, who besides being my friend, sometimes irritates me with his multitudinous spiritual experiences that I don't have. So he hears me complaining to my wife after the Second Mass that I had to use several coffee makers that day because one of the "faithful" lost the lid for me. Before I know it, this "nutball" is on his knees saying "Let's pray on it." I DIDN"T want to pray. I wanted to be angry at the faithful. I already looked. So he prays and asks St. Anthony to find the lid and he goes straight to this cupboard two seconds after prayer and produces the stinking lid. I was part mad but I was happy to have the stupid lid. It WAS a miracle!

It's kind of funny. A few days later it was 2 or 2:30 AM and I had to go to work. I drive a truck and can't drive without my glasses. Where were they? I looked everywhere. Its getting late. Of course I remember Michael. Reluctantly. I didn't just pray direct to this St. Anthony. I didn't have the faith for it. I prayed to the "St. Anthony that Michael prays to". I even knelt down like Michael does. And I looked down on the hearth, and there were my glasses. Were they there before? I'm not sure. I sure thought I looked! Such stories only go so far. It seems trivial on the one hand...but on the other...I KNOW I looked for the coffee lid and my glasses in the same places that they were found immediately after praying. I don't think you're dogs and swine. I'll tell you that miracles are real. And this is just my personal experience in the last few weeks. Do you want modern healings of the blind, Eucharistic miracles, resurrections from the dead? They are documented. They aren't mocked by dogs or swine. Dogs and swine mock the priesthood and chastity. Malicious people ignore miracles. I want Latter-day Saints to know that in my Catholic and Apostolic faith the age of miracles is NOW. I don't quite get why you can't even talk about miraculous events among yourselves and other people of good will towards your faith.

3DOP

Edited by 3DOP, 27 May 2011 - 09:28 PM.

[Bernard Gui]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 27 May 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

hmm, it depends on what it is. Like the sacrament is sacred but it is definatly not secret.

The deep contemplations during the sacrament
are sacred and personal.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

3DOP, on 27 May 2011 - 08:49 PM, said:

I want Latter-day Saints to know that in my Catholic and Apostolic faith the age of miracles is NOW. I don't quite get why you can't even talk about miraculous events among yourselves and other people of good will towards your faith.

3DOP

Have you attended an LDS testimony meeting?  That is our public venue for sharing sacred experiences and miracles.
There are many personal miracles published in our monthly magazine, Ensign.

Bernard

Edited by Bernard Gui, 27 May 2011 - 10:27 PM.

[Bernard Gui]

Mr. Bowman:
We obviously do not share the same understanding about what is sacred. We have repeatedly told you what we consider to be sacred, but you seem not to be able to comprehend.  Your reluctance to define your side makes it impossible to communicate with you on this issue.

We have asked you several times on this thread and others whether there is anything sacred to you. Apparently, either the answer is no, or you don't want to talk about them.

What is your reaction to the abuse of the missionaries in my great uncle's mission in the Southern states in the late 1800s? Strangers were stopped and their shirts were ripped open. If they were wearing temple garments, they were severly beaten. The garments are kept covered because they are sacred and are held close to the body as a constant reminder of holy covenants. Would you agree the garments and what they symbolize were desecrated?

How does that differ from what you do?

Bernard