167 replies to this topic

[mfbukowski]

nackhadlow, on 28 May 2011 - 01:59 PM, said:

I think the question being asked is: Where is the line between what is acknowledged as sacred-and-fit-for-public-knowledge-and-presentation (Scriptures, Baptism, Confirmation Blessings, Baby Blessings, Sacrament, certain testimonies), and sacred-but-not-fit-for-public (Visions of Christ, certain testimonies, everything that happens in the temples, garments, etc).

Are there differing levels of Sacred? Are there different categories of Sacred? Does the level of strangeness-in-the-eyes-of-the-world designate what we don't talk about? Is something that is more likely to be mocked considered sacred-but-not-fit-for-public, where something considered more  'mainline' (such as baptism, sacrament, every day life testimony experiences, etc) would be sacred-and-fit-for-public-knowledge?

I think it's a valid concept to explore. I think we as Mormons can get to used to the word 'Sacred' as a defense, that we're not really sure ourselves what it means anymore, and how to strictly define it. There are plenty of sacred things we talk about and discuss, and proclaim publicly.

On the other hand, you just precisely listed the acceptable parameters for things spoken about in public and those restricted to private conversation or no conversation, while protesting that we "don't know how to define it".

You got that understanding from somewhere.

I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it, just questioning the need to do so.  I think we already kinda know what is proper and what is not, and don't much care if it appears conflicting to outsiders.

But maybe that's just me.

[David T]

I "got it from" practice. Tradition. I'm a convert of 7 years, so it wasn't even something I was taught by my parents. What I have observed is, people don't discuss things that will most likely get questioned, are embarassed about, or even they do not understand. With those things, the wall of "Sacred" ends discussion. Yet, many other things which, theologically, we should hold as equally sacred, are not hidden behind that wall.

The question, I think is, are we comfortable with the "Strange" = "Too Sacred To Talk About" distinction? Is it a doctrinal teaching? Are the things we don't talk about more sacred than the standard doctrines and scriptures taught by the Missionaries? If so, how is the "degree of Sacredness" measured? All I've objectively been able to see as a differentiator as it appears in practice, is the "especially strange to others" modifier.


Also, I feel there certainly are just as valid and righteous and honorable reasons for wanting to discuss the history, dramatic presentation, text, symbolism and mechanisms of the Temple ordinances as there are having discussions about the history,  presentation, text, symbolism and mechanisms of Scripture, Baptism, etc.

Edited by nackhadlow, 28 May 2011 - 02:51 PM.

[Hestia]

Let's remember this board guideline of what not to do: Proselyting or "witnessing" from either side. Although it is tempting to do on a topic such as this try to keep it more objective.

[bookofmormontruth]

Jeff K., on 28 May 2011 - 02:12 PM, said:

I appreciate that.  It was people like you that introduced a young man to the gospel and helped him understand Christ.  The South was never an easy place for missionaries to work.  But for people like me in Virginia, who were taught by people like you, that effort was a wonderful gift for us.

Love it! Thanks for sharing!

The south was difficult, but so worth it to find the seekers of truth like you.

Quote

We seem to have some kind of affinity for the South- hence my interest in Evangelical theology. My daughter is now in So Carolina on her mission and doing well with several baptisms- and she has not been out that long.

My son did well also despite the drinks thrown and all the other adventures he endured, it seems that my daughter has not had nearly as many adverse experiences as my son did.The fact that he is 6'4" possibly intimidated some, though he has a gentle disposition- and the "Southern gentleman" thing I think keeps some of the rowdies away from my daughter

With your son and daughters successes, it reminded me of what kept us going when things got hard. With the mission rules, they gave us the book "Take heed that you be not deceived" because of all the anti-Mormon material in the South and the "Vision/Prophecy of the South" which we always envisioned and additionally helped us in a way to keep "obedient".

This is a short version (Early 1980s if I remember correctly) of the quote given by Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone as he quoted President Spencer W Kimball.

"President Spencer W. Kimball stated, "Make no small plans, they have no magic to stir mans souls. This is the Vision I have for the South. I believe one day the South will baptize more people into the church than all other English speaking missions in the World together. There are hosts of marvelous Baptists, members of the Church of Christ, Methodists, and Catholics, who are honorable people and have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and love him. As they see their church veering off to the right of the left of those basic teachings, they will begin to search for truth. And as pivitol teachers come into the church and have influence, we will see the time when we will baptize hundreds, and thousands, tens-of-thousands, in your day you will see a million members of the church in the South. There will be Temples plural in the South State. What a great call you have to serve with these marvelous people." Vaughn J. Featherstone

And to stay on topic. These people probably had the same questions posed by Rob Bowman, but will be able to understand the sacredness of the Temple one day more fully. And when Rob Bowman is baptized into the Lord's Church, he will also have that same opportunity of understanding the sacredness.

[ERayR]

nackhadlow, on 28 May 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

I "got it from" practice. Tradition. I'm a convert of 7 years, so it wasn't even something I was taught by my parents. What I have observed is, people don't discuss things that will most likely get questioned, are embarassed about, or even they do not understand. With those things, the wall of "Sacred" ends discussion. Yet, many other things which, theologically, we should hold as equally sacred, are not hidden behind that wall.

I don't think you have this quite right.  For me I have some experiences that I will readily discuss, some I discuss with a few closer friends and fellow church members, and finaly some things I discuss only with those very close to me.  None of it is about embarassment or understanding but one of resspect for the experience and where it comes from.  I make it a rule that temple content stays in the temple.  Concepts based on temple content can/is discussed only with someone who has a love and respect for it which approaches my own.  I am not embarassed about gospel doctrine, principles or rituals.


The question, I think is, are we comfortable with the "Strange" = "Too Sacred To Talk About" distinction? Is it a doctrinal teaching? Are the things we don't talk about more sacred than the standard doctrines and scriptures taught by the Missionaries? If so, how is the "degree of Sacredness" measured? All I've objectively been able to see as a differentiator as it appears in practice, is the "especially strange to others" modifier.

I personally am not comfortable with the "Strange" = "Too Sacred To Talk About" distinction.  I know that some of our practices and doctrine may be strange to the uninitiated but I am ok with that.  I don't mind being thought of as strange occasionally.  Given an opportunity I can usually sit down with them and in a while can have them at a point of understanding where I am coming from even if they do not agree with me.

The things I do not talk about are not necessarily more sacred but are either by definition/instruction not talked about (temple content) or very personal (personal undeniable spiritual manifestations). I personally have no problem with it being strange to others.  That is a personal problem for them to overcome.  A great many of them seem somewhat strange to me (my problem to overcome).

Also, I feel there certainly are just as valid and righteous and honorable reasons for wanting to discuss the history, dramatic presentation, text, symbolism and mechanisms of the Temple ordinances as there are having discussions about the history,  presentation, text, symbolism and mechanisms of Scripture, Baptism, etc.

My understanding of temple content is that specific content is off limits to discussion outside of the temple.  That would include dramatic presentation, text, symbolism  and mechanisms.  Concepts that are taught are fine as long as specific content is avoided.  If you want to discuss temple content with someone go to the temple together and spend some time in the temple celestial room discussing to your hearts content.

[David T]

Quote

My understanding of temple content is that specific content is off limits to discussion outside of the temple. That would include dramatic presentation, text, symbolism and mechanisms. Concepts that are taught are fine as long as specific content is avoided.

I guess the question then would be what the point of covenanting not to disclose very specific aspects of the ordinance  if it's supposed to be assumed we're held under an obligation not to discuss any and all of it. I personally think we're at the "Hedge Around The Law" phase in common practice where it concerns the Temple. To make sure we don't accidentally talk about the things we are actually covenenting not to, it's safe to stay away from any of it. Then the suggestion becomes believed to be The Law Itself. I think that's unfortunate.

Quote

If you want to discuss temple content with someone go to the temple together and spend some time in the temple celestial room discussing to your hearts content.

The problem with that is the Celestial Room is generally a place for silent contemplation and prayer. I even served, as an ordinance worker, under a Temple President who considered aspects of interpretation to be "things we don't talk about" - even in the Temple! Talk about mixed signals.

Saying "It's not Secret, it's Sacred" becomes confusing, in that it leads those who get that explanation to assume that if something is talked about, then it must not be considered Sacred.

[Flyonthewall]

All things sacred, whether they be rituals or personal experiences, need to be shared as moved upon by the spirit.  
I have heard many people share experiences of prayers being answered.    
I have heard many people share experiences of miraculous healings after a priesthood blessing. Because this falls under the "miraculous" category, there are many Christians that reject it as a miracle because it has not been documented by a team of scientific researchers(like any miracles in the scriptures are held to the same standard).
I have heard many people share experiences of the the gift of tongues, not just babbling gibberish, but actually speaking things in a language they do not understand to the benefit of someone who does speak the language(There are countless missionaries that experience this).
I have heard many people share experiences of dreams they have had that inspired them, changed their outlook,and uplifted them.
These are all experiences that can be considered sacred.  They are shared with many people, to audiences that understand sacred things.  They are not secret, but they don't have to be held up to those that will ridicule and mock them to be considered sacred instead of secret.
There is no disparity in sacred things as to what is shared and what is not. Those who have ears to hear will hear sacred things shared.

Edited by Flyonthewall, 29 May 2011 - 09:24 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You wrote:

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.

Your comments appear to reflect the idea that Joseph Smith's First Vision established the nature of God in the sense of revealing that the Father and the Son were both separately embodied beings of flesh and bones. However, this does not seem to be the case. Nowhere in any of Joseph's numerous writings and recorded sermons did he ever claim that the First Vision revealed the truth about the nature of God. He doesn't make this connection in any of his accounts of the First Vision or in any other known statement. Nor did Brigham Young ever make such a connection, so far as I have been able to determine. The earliest known statements citing the First Vision as proving the embodied nature of God the Father were made in the 1880s. On this point, see the following two articles by LDS scholar James B. Allen:

“The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1, 3 (Autumn 1966): 29-45.  
“Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in Mormon Religious Thought.” Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 43-61.

I would also suggest to you that there is no evidence of anyone ever persecuting Joseph Smith or anyone else in LDS Church history for claiming to have seen Christ. Joseph got himself into a lot of trouble with a lot of people, but not because of the First Vision.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

Incorrect. The first Vision established that God the Father, and his Son are two distinct individuals.

[Rob Bowman]

saint,

You wrote:

thesometimesaint, on 29 May 2011 - 12:59 PM, said:

Rob Bowman:

Incorrect. The first Vision established that God the Father, and his Son are two distinct individuals.

CFR.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 29 May 2011 - 01:05 PM, said:

saint,

You wrote:



CFR.

JSH 1:17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

Beat me to it.  

[Vance]

thesometimesaint, on 29 May 2011 - 01:15 PM, said:

Vance:

Beat me to it.  

  Sorry,  I looked at the bottom of the page and didn't see you logged in, so I answered for you.

I suspect Bowman will attempt to deny that that verse is an answer to the CFR.

PS, but it is possible that my saying that will prevent it from happening.  He he.

Edited by Vance, 29 May 2011 - 01:23 PM.

[Deborah]

Rob Bowman, on 29 May 2011 - 12:47 PM, said:

I would also suggest to you that there is no evidence of anyone ever persecuting Joseph Smith or anyone else in LDS Church history for claiming to have seen Christ. Joseph got himself into a lot of trouble with a lot of people, but not because of the First Vision.

Oh. From Joseph Smith History:

Quote

21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

22 I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase....

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I had asked for a reference showing that the First Vision "established" that the Father and the Son are "two distinct individuals." You replied:

Vance, on 29 May 2011 - 01:12 PM, said:

JSH 1:17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

This doesn't answer the question. Where did Joseph Smith or anyone else prior to the 1880s cite the First Vision as "establishing" the doctrine that the Father and the Son were two distinct "individuals"? I realize you think that JS-H 1:17 teaches or implies this idea, but Joseph doesn't make anything of it. He doesn't claim that the vision revealed a new truth about the nature of God. That the Father are the Son were distinct persons was already a familiar idea in Christianity. The very statement that Joseph claimed he heard the Father make is recorded on more than one occasion in the Gospels.

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

The statement in JS-H 1:21-22 is not evidence that Joseph was persecuted because of the First Vision. It is a claim that such persecution took place, but there is no evidence to back it up. In fact, there is no evidence that anyone even knew about the First Vision in the 1820s or even early 1830s.

[Jeff K.]

Its a hot sunny day outside.  Do I declare it?  Must I declare it?  Or does it seem obvious?

[calmoriah]

Rob Bowman, on 29 May 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

Deborah,

The statement in JS-H 1:21-22 is not evidence that Joseph was persecuted because of the First Vision. It is a claim that such persecution took place, but there is no evidence to back it up. In fact, there is no evidence that anyone even knew about the First Vision in the 1820s or even early 1830s.

http://www.fairwiki....ure_before_1843

[bookofmormontruth]

Rob Bowman, on 29 May 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

Deborah,

The statement in JS-H 1:21-22 is not evidence that Joseph was persecuted because of the First Vision. It is a claim that such persecution took place, but there is no evidence to back it up. In fact, there is no evidence that anyone even knew about the First Vision in the 1820s or even early 1830s.

Therein lies the dilemma. Believe in the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith or believe in the words of the false prophet, Rob Bowman and his ever so reliable "IRR" source.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:


Incorrect.  http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

Some preachers and other professors of religion reject the account of the First Vision—Persecution is heaped upon Joseph Smith—He testifies of the reality of the vision. (Verses 21–26.)

21. Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as avisions or brevelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.