Thoughts On Ritual Secrecy

[Brant Gardner]

There are important differences between a secret and ritual secrecy. A secret is kept tightly and depending on what it is, it can be kept individually. A ritual secret is inherently a shared secret, and that shared secret has multiple functions.

The first is that because it is shared along lines that define a community (those who believe in and practice whatever leads to the ritual secret) it serves to provide a common bond that further binds the community. It has a social function.

Second, the ritual secret isn't so much that knowledge cannot be had, but that it cannot be transmitted outside of the ritual environment. That serves to strongly delineate the field of the sacred and the profane and heighten the difference. Everyone lives with some aspects of the sacred in their daily life, but when some are marked as a ritual secret, they intensify the understanding of the participant in the ritual secret that there is a fundamental distinction. Any time the topic comes up, there is a reminder of the division between sacred and profane that requires one to remember their sacred place/promises. Of course, this happens in other ways as well. The Hebrew dietary laws and LDS Word of Wisdom are other means of drawing the same distinction.

The function of heightening the sacred amongst the quotidian is also seen in the prohibition of speaking the name of God.

[Brant Gardner]

I would first like to suggest that at least some of you are engaged in what from my point of view is after-the-fact rationalization. You have been taught that you must keep the things that transpire in the temples as secrets, that you may not discuss them publicly, and you have agreed to follow this policy. But merely saying that you are to keep them secret because they are sacred does not really explain the policy. The death and resurrection of Jesus are sacred events and sacred truths, but you don't have a policy of keeping them secret.

I'm sorry, but you completely misunderstand the point. The point is not secrecy, but ritual secrecy. While we all come up with ideas that we use to explain the whys of the world (and often get them wrong, which leads to folk etmologies and other kinds of folk explanations), the idea of the explanation has nothing to do with ritual secrecy.

Ritual secrecy defines particularly sacred things that are held in common by a knowing group. I strongly suspect that there were some things in early Christianity that may have had such an aspect, which may have led to the rapidity with which the gnostic movement developed to hold and transmit them to their initiates (though I am sure that Greek mystery religions were also important in that process). Nevertheless, while we might not accept gnostics as mainstream, there were a lot of them and they were Christian--and they depended upon the idea that there were ritual secrets.

Ritual secrecy cannot work if the entire religion is secret. Then there is little chance that it will be transmitted. Ritual secrecy is always defined to a small portion of a society. What is also interesting about ritual secrecy is that it is publicly known that there is a secret. Ritual secrets are not hidden. They are kept secret for details, but never for the fact that they exist. The knowledge that there is such a shared secret available is an important aspect of any religious body that uses them.

This, I would suggest, is why you find it necessary to discuss the reason for the policy: it isn't clear what that reason is. You are committed to a policy for which no clear reason has been given.

In religion, the particularly sacred often doesn't have a secular reason. There are times when that is the point. However, in this you still misunderstand the function of ritual secrecy and conflate it with secrets. That is simply incorrect.

Any assumption that a group who has a ritual secret should have that secret made public by those who do not believe it is fundamentally disrespectful. It is a form of mockery that only those with the ritual secret feel keenly. The fact that one doesn't share the sacred concerns of another should never give license to denigration of their sincere beliefs.

Second, as I see it, New Testament Christianity is not esoteric. There are no secrets hidden from the uninitiated.

That is a fascinating argument. New Testament Christianity is, by defiinition, entirely dependent upon what was written down. Ritual secrets are, by definition, not to be written and passed around. Therefore, it is entirely possible that there were such ritual secrets in early Christianity and we wouldn't know because there was no record left--which would be consonant with a ritual secret. There are some texts and artifacts of early Christianity that are suggestive. However, the complication of the wide divisions in early Christianity make it difficult to know what was open ritual and what was a closed ritual. I remember an archaeological find of white clothing and shoes in a religious building that suggest by their presence that they were to be worn in that building rather than the clothing worn outside. I don't know if that was a ritual secret or simply a ritual--the contextual information is missing. (Just as a side note, there were significantly more women's shoes than men's--so women seem to have been more faithful in the past as well as the present).

The early church (by which I mean the first-century church) had no temples, no buildings to which only faithful initiates were granted access--and the early church doesn't seem to have felt any loss for not having such buildings.

You are forgetting Christian roots in the temple, and that the Jerusalem temple (and others built in other locations--and yes, there were others) had restricted areas. Some were so restricted that only one person could enter. The temple was a revered site for the earliest Christians (while Christianity was still centered in Jerusalem). However, the destruction of that temple by the Romans required a restructuring of religious ideology and practice for both Jew and Christian. In the case of Christians, any ritual secrets were about the practice, not the place.

Modern LDS temples added the element of restricted entry after Kirtland, and probably after Nauvoo and probably with conscious or unconscious modeling of the restrictions of the Jerusalem temple(s). Appealing to a time when Christianity (as well as Judaism) assumed it could not create such a temple distorts history and an understanding of the process of modern revelation.

The early church practiced no rituals to which only elite members were privy.

Wow. That is a theological statement, not a historical one. Although it is extremely difficult to ferret out what an ancient ritual secret might have been, there is certainly evidence that some Christians had them. Surely you are not suggesting that your particular flavor of Christianity was the only one that ever existed?

The development of LDS temple rituals as sacred secrets for the initiates appears not to have been a restoration of primitive Christianity but an instance of the secret societies that were so popular in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Or the temple at Jerusalem with its very clear restrictions (one of which pronounced death on any gentile within a defined boundary).

One must resort to finding precedent in Gnosticism or other non-apostolic traditions in the second and third centuries to find anything significant in the ancient church supporting esotericism--and it turns out they were esoteric about different sorts of things than the LDS Church is today.

I agree that most gnostics were not mainstream. However, I don't know the early history well enough to tell you how they were defined. I am reasonably certain that it is not yet known. I know it is more complex that you are suggesting.

You are, of course, free to practice your religion in any way you like. You are also free to explain it in any way you like. I don't doubt that some of you find the esoteric elements of LDS religion profound. I am simply offering my perspective, which naturally you are free to reject.

And you, of course, are free to practice your religion and believe as you wish. Those rights and deserving respect should be important social grease that keeps us going. The problem is that you work for an organization whose intent is to disrespect the very things you suggest we are free to believe. As others in this thread have noted, the notion of respect for other people's beliefs should extend to respecting their rights to ritual secrecy, even when we don't find any value in the secret ourselves.

[Kevin Christensen]

And there is Nibley's discussion of secrecy in the "Unto them is it not given" chapter in Since Cumorah.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=74&chapid=912

Barry Bickmore's review of Stoumsa's "Hidden Wisdom."

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=1&id=332

And Margaret's essay on "The Secret Tradition."

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/SecretTradition.pdf

Discretely, for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Hamba Tuhan]

sorry... they WEREN'T written "for our day"

But when were they written? And how were they shared at that time?

[Questing Beast]

delete

[Questing Beast]

Can't you keep your nose out of anything?

You are ruining this forum. We cannot have a LDS discussion without your irreverent comments.

That was uncalled for, imho....

[LeSellers]

I usually keep things secret because I don't want other people to know about them.

There are, however, a variety of reasons for keeping things secret.

Sometimes, we're embarrassed, or fearful of the consequences of the thing we're hiding. Sometimes, it's just that it's no one's business but our own. Often, it;s part of a larger whole, the revelation of which would put us at a disadvantage. Frequently, we have been asked not to reveal the thing (for whatever purpose he had in mind).

In some cases, like the Temple rites to dome extent, I believe there is an economic reason: too many people with the information makes the value of that information less for each one who previously held it.

There is also the issue of treating it lightly when we have no requirement to treat it with care. Too often, when information is widespread, those who have it fail to act on it with respect.

Eventually, we'll live in a world where everyone will know these things. But we will still not speak of them openly. That's because it is sacred. It is just that there are correct times and places to talk about it and incorrect times. The Temple is that place, nowhere and nowhen else qualify.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You wrote:

"I speak to them in parables."

Sounds like there were secrets.

When's the last time a Mormon prophet spoke to the world about the temple ceremonies in parables?

Jesus didn't speak in parables in order to keep things secret from the uninitiated. If that had been the intent, we would not have Jesus' explanation for some of his parables recorded in writings available to the public (e.g., Matt. 13:18-23, 36-43). The truths of the kingdom of God were kept "secret" only in the sense that Christ conveyed those truths using stories that those who had "ears to hear" would understand and believe while those who were hardened to the gospel would not understand (Matt. 13:11-17).

You wrote:

They worshiped in the Jerusalem Temple until +/- 70 C.E. The Elephantine Temple survived well after that, and there's no evidence that I've seen that the Christ followers were expelled from that Temple. Perhaps you have contrary information? Which is the true early C.E. Christianity: that which lived cheek-by-jowl with their Jewish cousins and worshiped in the same Temples and nascent synagogues . . . or the poor folks who got kicked out the synagogues years later?

The true early Christianity is the Christianity of the apostles as recorded in the New Testament. The Elephantine temple played no role in their religion; in fact, I am not aware of any evidence of the existence of that Jewish Elephantine temple after the fifth century BC. As for the Jerusalem temple, Jewish Christians in Jerusalem of course went to the temple before its destruction in AD 70, but not to practice esoteric rituals.

[USU78]

I grew up in the Pueblo Indian area of northern New Mexico. We knew a number of tribal members including a tribal elder who was LDS.

He would not discuss the kiva ceremonies, artifacts, or dress and compared their sacredness with those of the LDS temples. It would be

the height of conceited disrespect to try to ferret out their secrets and publish them to non-tribal members. I cannot imagine him or

any of his fellow Pueblos betraying that trust, even if they did not abide by the ancient religion. As a committed LDS, he never betrayed

the sacredness of his heritage.

Words like "honor" and "duty" and "commitment" don't have much truck in the wonderful, wacky world of antiMo-ism.

Isn't it odd that the discovery of the benefits of Evangelical or Secular non-Mormonism too often are accompanied by a sudden need to break one's promises?

[Duncan]

USU78,

You wrote:

When's the last time a Mormon prophet spoke to the world about the temple ceremonies in parables?

Jesus didn't speak in parables in order to keep things secret from the uninitiated. If that had been the intent, we would not have Jesus' explanation for some of his parables recorded in writings available to the public (e.g., Matt. 13:18-23, 36-43). The truths of the kingdom of God were kept "secret" only in the sense that Christ conveyed those truths using stories that those who had "ears to hear" would understand and believe while those who were hardened to the gospel would not understand (Matt. 13:11-17).

You wrote:

The true early Christianity is the Christianity of the apostles as recorded in the New Testament. The Elephantine temple played no role in their religion; in fact, I am not aware of any evidence of the existence of that Jewish Elephantine temple after the fifth century BC. As for the Jerusalem temple, Jewish Christians in Jerusalem of course went to the temple before its destruction in AD 70, but not to practice esoteric rituals.

What about the Christianities that existed prior to the writings in the NT as evidenced by the first bit of Luke?

[Rob Bowman]

Hamba Tuhan,

None of the passages you quoted here have anything whatsoever to do with keeping esoteric rituals secret. Jesus asked people to keep certain miracles secret to prevent even larger masses of people flocking to see him just to obtain miracles--a problem that he had during his ministry in Galilee. Jesus also told his disciples not to tell others about the Transfiguration until after Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Obviously, then, it was not a secret that could not be told, but an experience they were asked to tell only after his resurrection.

Since these things are all recorded for public consumption in the Gospels, obviously they were not kept secret.

'And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man...'(Mattew 8:2-4).

'Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ' (Matthew 16:20).

'And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead' (Matthew 17:9).

'And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat. And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done' (Luke 8:54-56).

'And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen' (Luke 9:35-36).

[USU78]

Jewish Christians in Jerusalem of course went to the temple before its destruction in AD 70, but not to practice esoteric rituals.

[sotto Leonard McCoy]Now how is it you know that so exactly? You a Vulcan?[/sotto Leonard McCoy]

USU "Knows it's not possible to prove the absence of secrets not committed to paper by people who would be breaking their religious covenants to commit them to paper" 78

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

I do not advocate desecration of Native American tribal religion. And making the facts about LDS temple rituals public knowledge is not the same kind of thing as selling Native American medicine masks to tourists.

Here's something from a Native American group that has sacred material. It pertains directly to the issue of the

sacredness of LDS temple ceremonies and artifacts.

I would love to hear how Rob Bowman and others who shamelessly reveal LDS temple secrets would justify the desecration of this

tribe's religion as described by the Council of Chiefs.

Bernard

http://www.peace4tur.../maskpolicy.htm

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

[sotto Leonard McCoy]Now how is it you know that so exactly? You a Vulcan?[/sotto Leonard McCoy]

USU "Knows it's not possible to prove the absence of secrets not committed to paper by people who would be breaking their religious covenants to commit them to paper" 78

I love the McCoy imitation.

We have lots and lots of information on paper about the fact that the rituals performed by Mormons in their temples are secrets, so the epistemological problem you describe is a non-problem. We have no such paper trail for the first-century Jewish Christian community. What we do have is very specific information from ancient Jewish and Christian sources as to what people did in the Jerusalem temple, and those activities were not esoteric rituals that could not be discussed with outsiders.

[Duncan]

USU78,

I love the McCoy imitation.

We have lots and lots of information on paper about the fact that the rituals performed by Mormons in their temples are secrets, so the epistemological problem you describe is a non-problem. We have no such paper trail for the first-century Jewish Christian community. What we do have is very specific information from ancient Jewish and Christian sources as to what people did in the Jerusalem temple, and those activities were not esoteric rituals that could not be discussed with outsiders.

What do you think still exists document wise from the first century Jewish Christian community?

[Ceeboo]

Hey MFB,

At the risk of creating waves (Not my intent), I will offer a few brief words (FWIW)

Can't you keep your nose out of anything?

You are ruining this forum.

On the contrary: People who post different perspectives are one of the biggest values to a "discussion and dialogue" board.

Bowman, wether you happen to like him or not, has given great effort, much of his time, and has shared his perspective for all to measure and weigh.

No matter what "side" you happen to fall on, clearly (IMO) his contributions are worthy of slightly more then "you are ruining this forum"

We cannot have a LDS discussion without your irreverent comments.

"Irreverent"? Not in my view!

Perhaps a "dialogue and discussion" for only LDS folk should be considered?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Brant Gardner]

We have lots and lots of information on paper about the fact that the rituals performed by Mormons in their temples are secrets, so the epistemological problem you describe is a non-problem. We have no such paper trail for the first-century Jewish Christian community. What we do have is very specific information from ancient Jewish and Christian sources as to what people did in the Jerusalem temple, and those activities were not esoteric rituals that could not be discussed with outsiders.

And we also have evidence of an official purge of non-orthodox religious texts in Christianity. The largest find of gnostic texts was in Egypt, not coincidentally far from Rome's orbit. While there is much written about the gnostics, their own writings were few and far between until the find (again far away) in Nag Hamadi.

Comparing the textual process in that antiquity to the ability to create/save/communicate texts in the modern world is interesting, but certainly not sufficiently precise that the modern can be used as a model for the ancient.

[mfbukowski]

That was uncalled for, imho....

I won't respond further to this issue, so as not to derail this thread, but I stand behind that post. Perhaps the tone was a bit strong, but I think I was justifiably disgusted

I am tired of him derailing every thread into a discussion of Evangelical doctrine and an advertisement for his blatantly anti-Mormon website. No one else gets to advertise their websites. All he does is derail threads for his own agenda.

We can't link to the trailer park, but links to his website which contain temple content are just fine I guess. Not to me. I won't discuss it further here, this is a great thread.

[Brant Gardner]

I do not advocate desecration of Native American tribal religion. And making the facts about LDS temple rituals public knowledge is not the same kind of thing as selling Native American medicine masks to tourists.

I wonder what the difference really is? I note that one of the aspects of the masks was that they were not even for display. It is entirely conceivable that one might display one that is not for sale.

Are you suggesting that the only time that desecration of Native American religion occurs is when money changes hands? If one freely posted the masks on a website for which there was no charge, would they not see that as a desecration? Archaeologists fought with difficult questions when the opportunity to examine the Kennewick man came into conflict with Native American sentiments--and that find was old enough that no tribe could reasonably claim it.

Desecration is desecration. It is bad when it is unintentional. It is worse when it is intentional. It is even bad when there are supposedly good intentions behind it. That doesn't change the nature of the act.

In the case of temple ceremonies, I suspect that the most important aspects of maintaining the ritual secrecy attach to those who participate and accept it. In that case, it becomes a deliberate rejection and intentional desecration. For an outsider, it isn't the knowledge but the publicity of the sacred in a non-sacred context that raises ire.

Ask the Native Americans.

[Mars]

PS Rob...

The Savior was the only one who spoke in parables.

The prophets, both OT and NT, taught using the imagery and language that was familiar to them and their audience. It's not a fair comparison to demand why Mormon prophets do not use parables the same way the Savior did.

[Brant Gardner]

Jesus didn't speak in parables in order to keep things secret from the uninitiated. If that had been the intent, we would not have Jesus' explanation for some of his parables recorded in writings available to the public (e.g., Matt. 13:18-23, 36-43).

This is correct. It is also a different kind of case. The parables were not ritual secrets, they were "hidden teachings" that could only be understood by one who had ears to hear. The "key" was passed to a community which gave it freely within the community.

So, it was a hidden language, but a very different type of process that the ritual secrets. Those attach to ceremonies. They are also the kinds of things that would not be written in the gospels because the intent of the document was very different.

It is quite clear that there was a much larger body of Christian religious texts, only some of which were later codified. Evidence of the plausibility of rituals that may have been considered secret come from other sources--rather necessarily separate from what was accepted into a canon designed for more public dissemination.

The true early Christianity is the Christianity of the apostles as recorded in the New Testament.

An interesting statement if you look at the textual issues of the four gospels, the fact that they are much later, and the difficulties of understanding the nature of Christianity in the first fifty years between Christ's death and the beginnings of the gospel traditions. Particularly when we get to Paul, we are reading of a very different Christianity than was present before Paul (socially if not doctrinally).

[Rob Bowman]

Duncan,

You asked:

What do you think still exists document wise from the first century Jewish Christian community?

All of the NT writers, with the likely exception of Luke, were first-century Jewish Christians. So that's at least 25 books right there. The Jewishness of Matthew, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews is evident on every page.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Can't you keep your nose out of anything?

You are ruining this forum. We cannot have a LDS discussion without your irreverent comments.

As I pointed out, this thread was started in response to a discussion in which I was a central figure. If the moderators would like me to bow out of this particular thread, however, I will offer no objection.

[Duncan]

Duncan,

You asked:

All of the NT writers, with the likely exception of Luke, were first-century Jewish Christians. So that's at least 25 books right there. The Jewishness of Matthew, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews is evident on every page.

And you don't think those writings and others that haven't survived talk or allude to the Temple and the goings on, does your Church have a Temple? if not why not?

[Skylla]

Rob Bowman:

The board guidelines state:

Do not post temple content or links to temple content.

The link should be removed from your signature.

Skylla