Thoughts On Ritual Secrecy

[Bernard Gui]

You might as well give up. Rob will never recognize the offensiveness of desecrating the LDS Endowment.

I believe he realizes what a serious mistake he has made, what damage he has done to his reputation, but can't figure a way to extricate himself without having to make an honest apology. Finding oneself crossed over into Deckerland cannot be a pleasant experience for one who supposedly had staked out the ethical high ground of the anti-Mormon evangelical ministries.

Bernard

[USU78]

Bernard,

You miss the point. I, as the offended party, get to decide what is offensive to me. You have already laid down this principle. If I find the LDS practice of proxy baptism an offensive use of my religion's practice of baptism, then it is offensive, and you should stop it. That is a simple application of your own reasoning.

By insisting on continuing to desecrate the historic Christian practice of baptism by performing it in secret for dead people, you are doing damage to your own credibility. This wanton desecration of baptism means you are no better than Andres Serrano, according to your own standards.

I get it. I don't know why anybody's continuing the questioning.

RB doesn't give a crap whether he is a religious pornographer and what he links and posts on his website was obtained by stealth and theft and that he becomes a thief himself by enjoying possession of things he knows are stolen and that publishing that which is sacred to others is the functional equivalent of rape. He understands quite well. He just doesn't care. He likes doing this.

USU "Lookin' over at the mockers in the GSB; seein' RB leadin' the cheers" 78

[USU78]

Bernard,

You asked:

Perhaps it would be appropriate if I were to invoke confessional privilege.

Disclosing that you obtained information you publish via the priest/penitent privilege is to break the close of the confessional.

And added more condemnation on your head. What you obtain via that means stays inside your head, except reasonably necessary to share with other clergy in your organization.

USU "Knows a fair bit about privileges" 78

[mfbukowski]

I get it. I don't know why anybody's continuing the questioning.

RB doesn't give a crap whether he is a religious pornographer and what he links and posts on his website was obtained by stealth and theft and that he becomes a thief himself by enjoying possession of things he knows are stolen and that publishing that which is sacred to others is the functional equivalent of rape. He understands quite well. He just doesn't care. He likes doing this.

USU "Lookin' over at the mockers in the GSB; seein' RB leadin' the cheers" 78

Gee, aren't you worried about being "over the top"?

You might offend him you know!

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You wrote:

Disclosing that you obtained information you publish via the priest/penitent privilege is to break the close of the confessional.

That isn't true, but in any case the joke's on you. I was kidding about confessional privilege. I figured some of you would refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of me appealing to that time-honored religious reason for secrecy even while you hypocritically insisted on the validity of your ritual-secret rationale for opposing the publishing of the endowment text. I was right.

I had nothing to do with the text of the endowment ceremony appearing on our web site. It was placed on our website years before I joined the staff of IRR. Anyone who bothers to look will see that the text comes from a publication by the Tanners that was published over 20 years ago. They state that the text is a transcription of an audio tape recording of the ceremony made by a Mormon man in 1990. This is really old news, and I had nothing to do with any aspect of the process by which this information comes to be on our site and perhaps a dozen or more other sites.

You also wrote:

RB doesn't give a crap whether he is a religious pornographer and what he links and posts on his website was obtained by stealth and theft and that he becomes a thief himself by enjoying possession of things he knows are stolen and that publishing that which is sacred to others is the functional equivalent of rape. He understands quite well. He just doesn't care. He likes doing this.

I can't dispute that you feel the way you do, but I can certainly dispute your ridiculous assertions about how I feel about these things. I believe I have demonstrated that I do care about LDS sensitivities on the matter. I don't particularly like having the ceremony text on our website, and the matter remains under review. As I said above, I didn't put it on our website, and it isn't my decision alone whether it remains there. In the meantime, I have already done something no one else has done, to my knowledge, in posting a paragraph on that page cautioning readers about recognizing LDS sensitivities concerning the temple ceremonies. I have also subjected myself to a lot of verbal abuse here from you and others over this issue. There's no plausible reason for me to do these things if I don't care or even like offending Mormons, as you claim. In any case, I know how I feel about it, and you're just plain wrong.

[mfbukowski]

In any case, I know how I feel about it, and you're just plain wrong.

Are you married?

[Gervin]

Nosing around the internet I noticed a site operated by an endowed LDS with the complete texts for the initiatory and endowment, with footnotes explaining the rite's historical development. It also includes a quote by LDS sociologist Armand Mauss:

[T]here is no real reason that even devout Church members could not talk more about the temple ceremonies than they do, with appropriate discretion about time and place, since the oaths of secrecy attach only to the new names, signs, tokens, and penalties. Indeed, more open talk about the temple would not only facilitate understanding among both Mormons and non-Mormons in certain historical and scholarly respects, but would also infinitely improve the preparedness of initiates, almost all of whom now enter the temple with only the vaguest idea of what to expect or of the obligations they will be asked to assume.

Perhaps the indignation expressed here is more appropriately directed to the Mormon Scholars Testify-worthy LDS who suggests more open talk about the temple ceremonies and the endowed LDS who posts the complete texts and other information comparing changes to the endowment.

I also have to wonder about the efficacy of a sacred temple experience that results in LDS members hurling vulgarities at non-members (e.g., "religious pornographer, thief, [functional equivalent of] rapist, using tactics of the devil" etc.) This might be interpreted by some as adequate evidence against sacred teachings, sacred learning, and sacred practices.

[mfbukowski]

I also have to wonder about the efficacy of a sacred temple experience that results in LDS members hurling vulgarities at non-members (e.g., "religious pornographer, thief, [functional equivalent of] rapist, using tactics of the devil" etc.) This might be interpreted by some as adequate evidence against sacred teachings, sacred learning, and sacred practices.

Matthew 23

1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

16Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

John 2:

13And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

14And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

16And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

17And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Gosh, we wouldn't want to offend anybody or anything would we?

[Mars]

I also have to wonder about the efficacy of a sacred temple experience that results in LDS members hurling vulgarities at non-members (e.g., "religious pornographer, thief, [functional equivalent of] rapist, using tactics of the devil" etc.) This might be interpreted by some as adequate evidence against sacred teachings, sacred learning, and sacred practices.

This was my main concern. Those who don't care about trampling on the Endowment are going to focus on a few words rather than the point that was made. I want to give them as little ammo as possible. Not for fear of hurting feelings, but to try and get them to focus on what they're doing.

[Vance]

I also have to wonder about the efficacy of a sacred temple experience that results in LDS members hurling vulgarities at non-members (e.g., "religious pornographer, thief, [functional equivalent of] rapist, using tactics of the devil" etc.)

It is unfortunate that you don't know what the word "vulgarities" actually means.

[Gervin]

Matthew 23

John 2:

Gosh, we wouldn't want to offend anybody or anything would we?

I think Jesus was definitely trying to push back against the Pharisees. However, we also see in scripture that Christ is our altar (Hebrews 13:10) and our temple (John 2:21). Christ sanctifies our gifts 1 Peter 2:5. Those who replace their works in the place of Christ's righteousness and justification are guilty of the Pharisees' sins and the true Christian is a living temple (Titus 1:15).

Does the statement of the LDS sociologist have merit? Does the posting of the endowment by the endowed LDS have merit?

[Gervin]

It is unfortunate that you don't know what the word "vulgarities" actually means.

My Webster's 7th New Collegiate includes the word "coarse" under the definition. That word fits, in my estimation.

[ELF1024]

My Webster's 7th New Collegiate includes the word "coarse" under the definition. That word fits, in my estimation.

"coarse" kinda like posting sacred things on the Internet for all to see.....

[Gervin]

"coarse" kinda like posting sacred things on the Internet for all to see.....

... or not, per the statement by Armand Mauss and the actions of the endowed LDS who runs an Internet website for all to see ...

[Vance]

My Webster's 7th New Collegiate includes the word "coarse" under the definition. That word fits, in my estimation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vulgarities

1. The quality or condition of being vulgar.

2. Something, such as an act or expression, that offends good taste or propriety.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vulgarities

Vulgarity-ies Take all the most repulsive, rude and crude things you and your grandmother can think of and you have vulgarities...

1. coarseness, crudeness, crudity, in-decorum, indelicacy, ribaldry, rudeness, suggestiveness

2. bad taste, gaudiness, grossness, lacking refinement

more...

grossness raunch vulgarism commonness coarseness inelegance tawdriness gaudiness crudeness rudeness coarseness

[ELF1024]

... or not, per the statement by Armand Mauss and the actions of the endowed LDS who runs an Internet website for all to see ...

If you wish to find a way to defend Mr. Bowman's actions that is your choice. However, I don't see much reason to do so.

[mfbukowski]

Does the statement of the LDS sociologist have merit? Does the posting of the endowment by the endowed LDS have merit?

I think he is way off base to say the least. At least he omits the most important parts, as far as I can see. If Rob did what he did, frankly I am not sure we would have too much to complain about

[Gervin]

I think he is way off base to say the least. At least he omits the most important parts, as far as I can see. If Rob did what he did, frankly I am not sure we would have too much to complain about

Could you clarify? Who is "he"? Armand Mauss? If it would be ok for Rob to provide the level of info as provided by the endowed LDS (which is much more extensive than that on IRR) would it be ok to provide the link, here, for others to comment on?

[mfbukowski]

Could you clarify? Who is "he"? Armand Mauss? If it would be ok for Rob to provide the level of info as provided by the endowed LDS (which is much more extensive than that on IRR) would it be ok to provide the link, here, for others to comment on?

Actually, I had to leave right after I posted that, and I was going to edit it upon returning, but you already quoted it.

I think I was wrong about that. Mauss should not have quoted it, if indeed that is Mauss's site- it is a little hard to tell- I have not really looked that carefully at it.

I am not a moderator obviously- but I think a link would be inappropriate as well. The point being made is that there are "levels" of sacredness in the endowment, and Mauss (if that is his site) has not included those. But to me, it is still totally inappropriate after thinking about it.

[Calm]

Actually, I had to leave right after I posted that, and I was going to edit it upon returning, but you already quoted it.

I think I was wrong about that. Mauss should not have quoted it, if indeed that is Mauss's site- it is a little hard to tell- I have not really looked that carefully at it.

I am not a moderator obviously- but I think a link would be inappropriate as well. The point being made is that there are "levels" of sacredness in the endowment, and Mauss (if that is his site) has not included those. But to me, it is still totally inappropriate after thinking about it.

I dont' believe Mauss included it, he just spoke of being more open about discussing the endowment, but still choosing an appropriate time and space....there was no suggestion in that quote of his that included public discussion on the internet.

Another individual who claims to be a fully endowed and devout LDS member has posted the endowment on his own website. It will be interesting to see what happens with that. The vast majority of members I know who are aware of it think it is totally inappropriate.

Mauss' quote is being used as a footnote in this individual's justification of posting the endowment online though he does not post those parts he states he has covenanted not to, so I don't think one should automatically assume it is identical to what anti-mormon sites usually put up about the temple ceremony. I have not read either site's 'expose' and will not do so, so cannot compare specifics.

[mfbukowski]

I dont' believe Mauss included it, he just spoke of being more open about discussing the endowment, but still choosing an appropriate time and space....there was no suggestion in that quote of his that included public discussion on the internet.

Another individual who claims to be a fully endowed and devout LDS member has posted the full endowment on his own website. It will be interesting to see what happens with that. The vast majority of members I know who are aware of it think it is totally inappropriate.

I went back to the Mauss site and read more, and am more convinced than even before that it is totally, totally inappropriate. There were portions revealed there which made me very uncomfortable even reading outside the temple- and of course I don't even look at Rob's site.

If I understand correctly, it appears that Mauss was not endowed until late in life, if indeed he was endowed post 1990 as it seems to be disclosed on the site. Perhaps he has not had long enough to fully absorb the impact of what he is doing- indeed to me, the whole notion of it being "good" to discuss temple content denies the importance of ritual secrecy which I mentioned way back in post #2.

Mauss doesn't have a clue what he is doing imo. I sympathize with the objectives of preparing the unendowed with the endowment- but there are symbolic ways to do even that. One can speak of a "symbolic alphabet" to be learned, and that prepares them, I have taught temple prep many times, and one can fully prepare someone without revealing a single item of what is sacred. One can discuss the covenants as commonly taught gospel principles without saying "these are the covenants" for example.

Mauss is off base imo. Big time.

[Calm]

I went back to the Mauss site and read more, and am more convinced than even before that it is totally, totally inappropriate. There were portions revealed there which made me very uncomfortable even reading outside the temple- and of course I don't even look at Rob's site.

If I understand correctly, it appears that Mauss was not endowed until late in life, if indeed he was endowed post 1990 as it seems to be disclosed on the site. Perhaps he has not had long enough to fully absorb the impact of what he is doing- indeed to me, the whole notion of it being "good" to discuss temple content denies the importance of ritual secrecy which I mentioned way back in post #2.

Mauss doesn't have a clue what he is doing imo. I sympathize with the objectives of preparing the unendowed with the endowment- but there are symbolic ways to do even that. One can speak of a "symbolic alphabet" to be learned, and that prepares them, I have taught temple prep many times, and one can fully prepare someone without revealing a single item of what is sacred. One can discuss the covenants as commonly taught gospel principles without saying "these are the covenants" for example.

Mauss is off base imo. Big time.

Are you talking about the endowment site or another site that Mauss has created? The endowment site is not Mauss', but may be John Charles Duffy's (he is listed in the domain info).

[Calm]

If I understand correctly, it appears that Mauss was not endowed until late in life, if indeed he was endowed post 1990 as it seems to be disclosed on the site.

I think you are mixed up if you are reading the story on the endowment site as Mauss'. Here Mauss tells his own story and he is third generation LDS and likely went on a mission (and thus was endowed) at the usual age: http://mormonscholar.../armand-l-mauss

In the quote given in a footnote on the endowment website, Mauss states:

[T]here is no real reason that even devout Church members could not talk more about the temple ceremonies than they do, with appropriate discretion about time and place

There is no discretion in posting the endowment on the internet where one has no control over who is discussing it and how. The individual doing so is fooling himself if he thinks Mauss' comment is justifying his actions.

[mfbukowski]

Are you talking about the endowment site or another site that Mauss has created? The endowment site is not Mauss', but may be John Charles Duffy's (he is listed in the domain info).

I dunno. You are probably right- I forgot how to check the domain info- but I got to the site by googling Mauss' name- perhaps Duffy quoted him and that is why it came up- wish I was better at this stuff!

[Calm]

I dunno. You are probably right- I forgot how to check the domain info- but I got to the site by googling Mauss' name- perhaps Duffy quoted him and that is why it came up- wish I was better at this stuff!

Yes, that is why it came up, only because the individual used his quote, not because Mauss contributed to or supported the website at all.