Thoughts On Ritual Secrecy

[mfbukowski]

The thing I didn't agree with is why the church would not allow them to get sealed until a full year after the civil service. If the couple is worth to go to the temple, but has a civil service, why does that service make them unworthy to go and get sealed?

It's a question of what is important to you- where your first priorities are.

[Bernard Gui]

A reason, accept it or no, is that the sealing is the culmination of the endowment. So if those without covenants cannot participate in the endowment rituals, they are also not prepared (in this theory) for the most final and sacred portion of the endowment (the sealing of husband and wife).

All you have to remember is what happens at the altar and what the couple is wearing and then you will know why

it's not open to the public. I'm leaning to the "two ceremonies" solution, because I've had personal experience

with people being unable to attend the sealing. A ring ceremony later is sort of a substitute.

Still, the temple and its doings should not be open to the view of whomever.

Bernard

[Brian 2.0]

A ring ceremony later is sort of a substitute.

A friend of mine has a ring ceremony afterword which was being conducted by their Stake President, who wasn't too keen on the idea. Right before it started he saw the flower girls in the back ready for a procession and walk down the aisle. He told them that they aren't supposed to make a big deal out of a ring ceremony (don't know where he got that) and he refused to perform it with a procession. The flowers girls had to sit down without walking down the aisle. The bride wasn't walked down the aisle by her father. They just had to nonchalantly make their way up to the front where he did the ceremony quick and without much emotion.

Granted, I blame a little of this on the bride and groom who must not have talked to him about how it was going to go down, but I was so upset. I wanted to get up and relieve the Stake President and do it myself. The Stake President doesn't need to be involved, and there doesn't need to be any authority to do a ring ceremony, so i just wanted to run it and have the full procession and let the little girls walk down the aisle. I was furious, but I didn't have the guts to make a scene.

[Hayds]

A friend of mine has a ring ceremony afterword which was being conducted by their Stake President, who wasn't too keen on the idea. Right before it started he saw the flower girls in the back ready for a procession and walk down the aisle. He told them that they aren't supposed to make a big deal out of a ring ceremony (don't know where he got that) and he refused to perform it with a procession. The flowers girls had to sit down without walking down the aisle. The bride wasn't walked down the aisle by her father. They just had to nonchalantly make their way up to the front where he did the ceremony quick and without much emotion.

Granted, I blame a little of this on the bride and groom who must not have talked to him about how it was going to go down, but I was so upset. I wanted to get up and relieve the Stake President and do it myself. The Stake President doesn't need to be involved, and there doesn't need to be any authority to do a ring ceremony, so i just wanted to run it and have the full procession and let the little girls walk down the aisle. I was furious, but I didn't have the guts to make a scene.

Whoever that SP is, he's a jerk. Unrighteous dominion at its finest. Guys like him are usually peons at their day jobs so they get absolutely drunk with authority. Whatever ceremony they were having outside of the temple ceremony is purely secular and no need to inject the church into it. He should have felt honored he was asked to perform the ceremony. Sure the bride and groom prolly should have spoke to him in advance, but on the flipside why would you expect someone to tell you how things were to going to go down at YOUR wedding? I could go on forever. Its guys like this that give the church a black eye yet somehow they keep promoting people like him through the ranks.

[Calm]

Now if they could just stop having the receptions in the ugly church gym...

Right, force them to shell out a bunch of cash just when they need it most....

[Calm]

A friend of mine has a ring ceremony afterword which was being conducted by their Stake President, who wasn't too keen on the idea. Right before it started he saw the flower girls in the back ready for a procession and walk down the aisle. He told them that they aren't supposed to make a big deal out of a ring ceremony (don't know where he got that) and he refused to perform it with a procession. The flowers girls had to sit down without walking down the aisle. The bride wasn't walked down the aisle by her father. They just had to nonchalantly make their way up to the front where he did the ceremony quick and without much emotion.

Granted, I blame a little of this on the bride and groom who must not have talked to him about how it was going to go down, but I was so upset. I wanted to get up and relieve the Stake President and do it myself. The Stake President doesn't need to be involved, and there doesn't need to be any authority to do a ring ceremony, so i just wanted to run it and have the full procession and let the little girls walk down the aisle. I was furious, but I didn't have the guts to make a scene.

It's in the handbook. The ring ceremony is not supposed to be a substitute for a wedding ceremony but should be something very simple. The ring ceremony shouldn't have even been done in the chapel if I remember rightly.

As far as choosing to marry in the temple or not....

Christ said some pretty strict things about whether one was supposed to put one's relationship with family (something very important in its own right) first or one's relationship with God first.

Having a major wedding ceremony that can be highly exhausting and anxiety producing the same day as a temple sealing has the potential to take away from what should be the focus, the establishing of a covenant relationship with the Lord. I've seen brides so preoccupied with their clothing and getting the pictures taken afterwards (and grooms preoccupied with their wives' emotions as well as trying to do things right) that the temple ceremony itself is overshadowed and becomes for them more or less of a blur with everything else they are struggling to achieve. I think the ideal would be to have a sealing at least a week, if not a month before any celebration and it wouldn't be a bad idea to restrict the sealing to simply a few individuals to serve as witnesses and then allow the family/community to make a big deal about it a month later if they feel it is necessary.

[Calm]

Whatever ceremony they were having outside of the temple ceremony is purely secular and no need to inject the church into it.

If it was held at the church he had very good reasons to do so, especially since allowing it to go forward would have set up expectations for future families. It should have been made clear beforehand but that is an error of all parties involved as they should have informed the person they asked to preside what their intentions were and he should have made clear any limitations that the church required of him.

This may be in the Handbook 1 and not 2 that is available online so I am using a cite that quotes the guidelines rather than the manual itself. Feel free to ask your bishop if you want to know specific wording.

The church’s most recent statement on ring ceremony protocol in 1984 reads that “the circumstances should be consistent with the dignity of [the] temple marriage. The exchange should not appear to replicate any part of the marriage ceremony. For instance, there should be no exchanging of vows on that occasion.” A 1987 article in the New Era repeats that “the sanctity and impressiveness of the [sealing] marriage ceremony should not be overshadowed by any other procedure.”

http://www.weddinglds.info/ring-ceremony-during-an-lds-reception

[Calm]

Church leadership is not unfeeling about the problems this can cause among families.

“The young couple must understand that their parents may have looked forward to the wedding day during the entire lives of the bride and groom. Their desire to attend the wedding, and their resentment when they cannot, is a sign of parental attachment. It is not to be resented by the young couple. It is to be understood and planned for carefully as a part of the wedding.” President Boyd K. Packer, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, The Holy Temple (1980), 66–67.

http://lds.org/ensign/2005/02/questions-and-answers?lang=eng

[bluebell]

Yeah. "sorry you can't see you daughter married, but enjoy some punch by the streamers hanging from the basketball hoop."

Since it's usually the bride and her family that pick the reception location (because they are the ones paying for it), if the parents of the bride feel slighted by having it in the gym, they should probably have had it somewhere else.

[bluebell]

Whoever that SP is, he's a jerk. Unrighteous dominion at its finest. Guys like him are usually peons at their day jobs so they get absolutely drunk with authority. Whatever ceremony they were having outside of the temple ceremony is purely secular and no need to inject the church into it. He should have felt honored he was asked to perform the ceremony. Sure the bride and groom prolly should have spoke to him in advance, but on the flipside why would you expect someone to tell you how things were to going to go down at YOUR wedding? I could go on forever. Its guys like this that give the church a black eye yet somehow they keep promoting people like him through the ranks.

The 'jerk' was just following the church's rules about ring ceremonies. Being upset that he made sure the ceremony went the way the church has sanctioned is like someone going to a wedding in a Catholic church and then calling the the Priest names because he wouldn't do something the church views as inappropriate for the ceremony.

It's not like he demanded to be there. He was ASKED by someone in the group to perform it. How can any of this-that he was asked and did not request to preside over it, that he was simply following the rules the church has laid out-equal 'unrighteous dominion'?

[bluebell]

Right, force them to shell out a bunch of cash just when they need it most....

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Maybe the guests could just feel honored to have been invited....

[mfbukowski]

A friend of mine has a ring ceremony afterword which was being conducted by their Stake President, who wasn't too keen on the idea. Right before it started he saw the flower girls in the back ready for a procession and walk down the aisle. He told them that they aren't supposed to make a big deal out of a ring ceremony (don't know where he got that) and he refused to perform it with a procession. The flowers girls had to sit down without walking down the aisle. The bride wasn't walked down the aisle by her father. They just had to nonchalantly make their way up to the front where he did the ceremony quick and without much emotion.

Granted, I blame a little of this on the bride and groom who must not have talked to him about how it was going to go down, but I was so upset. I wanted to get up and relieve the Stake President and do it myself. The Stake President doesn't need to be involved, and there doesn't need to be any authority to do a ring ceremony, so i just wanted to run it and have the full procession and let the little girls walk down the aisle. I was furious, but I didn't have the guts to make a scene.

He was right on the money per the manual.

The ring ceremony is to be just that- a ring ceremony, NOT a mock-wedding, which would detract from the REAL "wedding" (sealing) which happens in the temple.

No walking down the aisle, no fuss.

If your buddy wanted you to do it, fine- rent a banquet all and you do the ring ceremony. But if you want it in a chapel with the SP doing it, it WILL follow the rules

[Rob Bowman]

Duncan,

You wrote:

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

Huh?

Luke 1:1-4 indicates that Luke was aware of other writings about Jesus, but says nothing to indicate that any of those writings represented different "Christianities." And even supposing for the sake of discussion that he did, would you wish to argue that we should accept those other Christianities instead of the Christianity we find in the New Testament???

[mfbukowski]

Whoever that SP is, he's a jerk. Unrighteous dominion at its finest. Guys like him are usually peons at their day jobs so they get absolutely drunk with authority. Whatever ceremony they were having outside of the temple ceremony is purely secular and no need to inject the church into it. He should have felt honored he was asked to perform the ceremony. Sure the bride and groom prolly should have spoke to him in advance, but on the flipside why would you expect someone to tell you how things were to going to go down at YOUR wedding? I could go on forever. Its guys like this that give the church a black eye yet somehow they keep promoting people like him through the ranks.

Uh, no.

He was just following church policy.

If you don't like it, write a letter, but don't blame him for doing it right. If you want a secular ceremony- go ahead. No chapel, no priesthood leaders- you can have your Cocker Spaniel officiate if you like.

THE ENTIRE POINT IS THAT IT WAS NOT THEIR "WEDDING"

It was a ring ceremony which happened after their sealing in the temple.

If they didn't like it, let them do it a different way- go to Vegas, have an Elvis impersonator marry them, then wait a year.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

Hi there. You wrote:

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.

The fact that you would resort to citing the Gnostics as precedent for the LDS view of ritual secrecy is very telling, from my perspective. I'm not concerned with whether the Gnostics were numerous or self-identified as Christians. Their teachings were clearly out of step with that of the apostles as preserved in the New Testament.

You wrote:

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.

Exactly, which is why it is important to notice that the 27 books of the NT do not attest to or support the idea of ritual secrets existing as part of the apostolic Christian faith.

You wrote:

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.

My claim is not that any ritual secret of any religion should be made public by outsiders. My position is that alleged ritual secrets that show something to be fundamentally wrong with a religion, or that show the religion to be something other than what it claims to be, are fair game for exposure and critique. As I said in my first post in this thread, I am limited in the defense I can make of publicizing the LDS temple ceremony by the restriction against discussing the specifics of that ceremony.

You wrote:

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.

You yourself have pointed out that a religion with ritual secrets keeps those secrets hidden but not the fact that it has such secrets. As best I can tell, you have undermined your own argument here.

You wrote:

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).

Perhaps, or it might mean merely that women were more likely to want footwear than men. I know for a fact that far more women wear flip-flops at the beach and socks to bed than men do.

You wrote:

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.

I'm not forgetting these things at all. The restrictions on entering certain parts of the temple, and in particular the Holy of Holies, had nothing to do with ritual secrets that could not be discussed or made public. They had to do with symbolizing the holiness of God and the need for a mediator to stand in God's presence on behalf of sinners.

You wrote:

In the case of Christians, any ritual secrets were about the practice, not the place.

Perhaps an explanation and some documentation would help here.

You wrote:

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.

Perhaps I'm just not tracking with your argument here, but I don't understand what you are saying.

You wrote:

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?

Surely you know that I said no such thing. I do say that there was no esoteric ritual-based Christianity endorsed by the first-century Christian apostles, or even any such Christianity existing until perhaps the very end of the first century.

[Duncan]

Duncan,

You wrote:

Huh?

Luke 1:1-4 indicates that Luke was aware of other writings about Jesus, but says nothing to indicate that any of those writings represented different "Christianities." And even supposing for the sake of discussion that he did, would you wish to argue that we should accept those other Christianities instead of the Christianity we find in the New Testament???

I don't know how long the truth about Christ was on the earth before it was corrupted but what i do know is that it branched out into a variety of Christianities and then in the 4rth century it became more monolithic, not completely, and then because of the reformation it has branched out again to where it was before. Luke used those earlier writings and may have conducted interviews with the participants like Mary the mother of Jesus. I want the truth about Christ.

[Brant Gardner]

The fact that you would resort to citing the Gnostics as precedent for the LDS view of ritual secrecy is very telling, from my perspective. I'm not concerned with whether the Gnostics were numerous or self-identified as Christians. Their teachings were clearly out of step with that of the apostles as preserved in the New Testament.

No, you are arguing against what you thought I was saying rather than what I was saying. What I was saying is that while there is an understandable lack of information on ritual secrecy, there were certainly aspects of early Christianity who developed it. I am not using them as precedent for LDS practices, but rather as evidence of a historical situation.

Of course, part of your answer depends upon your theological view of the canon, which I understand. It doesn't necessarily deal with the historical situation, however.

Exactly, which is why it is important to notice that the 27 books of the NT do not attest to or support the idea of ritual secrets existing as part of the apostolic Christian faith.

No. This is a faith affirmation that the 27 books eventually canonized are are complete and closed canon. That is a statement of theology, not history.

My claim is not that any ritual secret of any religion should be made public by outsiders.

Great. Will you please do what you can to stop any with whom you are acquainted from doing so? Thank you.

My position is that alleged ritual secrets that show something to be fundamentally wrong with a religion,

This is not only a faith-affirmation, it is one that is entirely dependent upon a particular flavor of Christian faith. It is absolutely unsupportable from any anthropological study of human populations. I am not aware of any anthropologist of religion who would endorse your statement, and most (if not all) would vehemently oppose it.

or that show the religion to be something other than what it claims to be, are fair game for exposure and critique.

Again, your statement is in direct contradiction to the entire history of the world. I imagine that you might hold that position if you suggest that there is something wrong with what anyone believes who does not believe exactly as you do--but then I find something rather wrong with that idea as well.

As I said in my first post in this thread, I am limited in the defense I can make of publicizing the LDS temple ceremony by the restriction against discussing the specifics of that ceremony.

Rightfully. Any desire you have to do more is inappropriate. Your unbelief in someone's religious system in no way constitutes license to disrespect what that religion holds most sacred. Personally, I eat ham. I would never invite any Jew into my home and serve ham. Even if they are non-observant, there is a respect that is due. That is only a dietary law, and not particularly sacred.

You yourself have pointed out that a religion with ritual secrets keeps those secrets hidden but not the fact that it has such secrets. As best I can tell, you have undermined your own argument here.

Then you have missed everything I have said. A ritual secret is qualitatively different from "secrets." The function is different. The nature of them is different. The point is not to keep anything hidden, but to keep it sacred. When Moses approached the burning bush he was told to remove his shoes because he was on sacred ground. We need to make distinctions between the sacred and the holy and we do so by creating differences in what we do in each sphere. In the case of sacred space, Moses was to remove the shoes which carried the dust/dirt of the world so that the world did not intrude upon sacred space. Shared ritual secrets separate knowledge into the same secular and sacred. The importance is for the one maintaining the ritual secret because it continually separates sacred understanding from the worldly.

Surely you are not against any Christian attempting to hold the things of God sacred and therefore separate from the world?

The restrictions on entering certain parts of the temple, and in particular the Holy of Holies, had nothing to do with ritual secrets that could not be discussed or made public. They had to do with symbolizing the holiness of God and the need for a mediator to stand in God's presence on behalf of sinners.

OK, now you are close. The sacred separation of space deals with locations. The sacred separation of knowledge moves the very same concept into the realm of understanding.

Are you suggesting that no one should have respected those spatial divisions because dirt was dirt and there is no reason not to walk on dirt? (for floor is a floor--building a building, etc.)

I do say that there was no esoteric ritual-based Christianity endorsed by the first-century Christian apostles, or even any such Christianity existing until perhaps the very end of the first century.

Not my area of research. Helorum has the data. Please continue the discussion with him. He has gone through it pretty completely.

[Duncan]

No, you are arguing against what you thought I was saying rather than what I was saying. What I was saying is that while there is an understandable lack of information on ritual secrecy, there were certainly aspects of early Christianity who developed it. I am not using them as precedent for LDS practices, but rather as evidence of a historical situation.

Of course, part of your answer depends upon your theological view of the canon, which I understand. It doesn't necessarily deal with the historical situation, however.

No. This is a faith affirmation that the 27 books eventually canonized are are complete and closed canon. That is a statement of theology, not history.

Great. Will you please do what you can to stop any with whom you are acquainted from doing so? Thank you.

This is not only a faith-affirmation, it is one that is entirely dependent upon a particular flavor of Christian faith. It is absolutely unsupportable from any anthropological study of human populations. I am not aware of any anthropologist of religion who would endorse your statement, and most (if not all) would vehemently oppose it.

Again, your statement is in direct contradiction to the entire history of the world. I imagine that you might hold that position if you suggest that there is something wrong with what anyone believes who does not believe exactly as you do--but then I find something rather wrong with that idea as well.

Rightfully. Any desire you have to do more is inappropriate. Your unbelief in someone's religious system in no way constitutes license to disrespect what that religion holds most sacred. Personally, I eat ham. I would never invite any Jew into my home and serve ham. Even if they are non-observant, there is a respect that is due. That is only a dietary law, and not particularly sacred.

Then you have missed everything I have said. A ritual secret is qualitatively different from "secrets." The function is different. The nature of them is different. The point is not to keep anything hidden, but to keep it sacred. When Moses approached the burning bush he was told to remove his shoes because he was on sacred ground. We need to make distinctions between the sacred and the holy and we do so by creating differences in what we do in each sphere. In the case of sacred space, Moses was to remove the shoes which carried the dust/dirt of the world so that the world did not intrude upon sacred space. Shared ritual secrets separate knowledge into the same secular and sacred. The importance is for the one maintaining the ritual secret because it continually separates sacred understanding from the worldly.

Surely you are not against any Christian attempting to hold the things of God sacred and therefore separate from the world?

OK, now you are close. The sacred separation of space deals with locations. The sacred separation of knowledge moves the very same concept into the realm of understanding.

Are you suggesting that no one should have respected those spatial divisions because dirt was dirt and there is no reason not to walk on dirt? (for floor is a floor--building a building, etc.)

Not my area of research. Helorum has the data. Please continue the discussion with him. He has gone through it pretty completely.

yeah man!

[Mars]

What I was saying is that while there is an understandable lack of information on ritual secrecy, there were certainly aspects of early Christianity who developed it. I am not using them as precedent for LDS practices, but rather as evidence of a historical situation.

Worth repeating.

Not an endorsement of Gnosticism.

[Brian 2.0]

If it's policy, then it's policy... but at least talk about it beforehand.

The ring ceremony I was referring to was not in a chapel. They could have chosen someone else to do it, and they probably would have if they knew the policy. I put blame on both parties. If someone asks you to officiate in their ring ceremony at a off-site reception hall then you should tell them what you can't do, and if you asking someone to officiate in your ring ceremony then you should talk about what you want them to do. Bad communication.

What I do put on the SP is something he said at the service. He talked about how they were sealed earlier that day and what that meant (nice). Then he talked about how he had married his daughter to a "really nice man" who wasn't a member of the church. He performed the wedding in his backyard, and it was a bittersweet moment he said, "because I knew I was giving them a certificate of divorce upon death."

I know the doctrine he's getting at, but it made all non-mormons in the room quite uncomfortable. I know a lot of people are well intentioned, and they want to speak "the truth," but a little tact can go a long way. What good will a comment like that do? Because if he was trying to express a great doctrine of the church and help in missionary efforts to the non-members it had the opposite effect. All his "divorce upon death" comment did was offend the non-mormon people to think that Mormons are this elitist bunch who think all their marriages are so much better than theirs. Bad move, in my opinion.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

You wrote:

This is not only a faith-affirmation, it is one that is entirely dependent upon a particular flavor of Christian faith. It is absolutely unsupportable from any anthropological study of human populations. I am not aware of any anthropologist of religion who would endorse your statement, and most (if not all) would vehemently oppose it.

I was not aware that I was claiming to be engaged in anthropology of religion.

More later.

[Brant Gardner]

I was not aware that I was claiming to be engaged in anthropology of religion.

So your only position is that your belief system differs from my belief system? We knew that. If you are suggesting something that is testable in human populations, such as what ritual secrecy in religion does, you will get a better perspective if you do engage in some anthropology of religion. It could move you away from statements whose validity depends solely upon your assertion of them.

[Nathair/|\]

Mr. Bowman, did you see these? This is what I am trying to get at through my poor communication skills.

Unquestionably.

There is no one between you and God- your understanding of what cannot be discussed is uniquely yours, and between you and your creator. That is it's whole purpose imo.

That makes it a truly "subjective" experience- and a unique opportunity to cross the divide between what is culturally and linguistically understood and what is truly apprehended only through the spirit.

Speaking of things define their meaning by giving them a commonly held cultural context. Wittgenstein speaks of it not being possible to have "private languages", and acknowledges that direct experience is literally "unspeakable".

By separating the direct experience of revelation from a cultural context, we can have direct pure experience. Putting it into a cultural context totally violates and destroys the possibility of ANYONE'S ability to experience it purely.

It turns it from a subjective experience and makes it an objective experience. It permanently attempts to alter someone else's private discussion with their God.

It is more of an invasion of privacy than publishing secretly obtained nude photographs of someone- because it does not violate their body only but their ability to receive revelation privately for themselves- that experience has been violated by someone else.

It is literally religious pornography.

But it appears that I am the only one here who understands or thinks that.

Substitute "impact" for "power" (for clarity) and I would agree with you that without the ritual secrecy the temple rituals would lack something fundamentally important, imo.

Very interesting thread, Nathair.

You missed the fact that we don't discuss things in the temple privately either amongst our endowed selves. Why do you think that is, Rob? When my husband and I are alone at night after the kids go to bed, why don't we talk about details of the temple when no one else is around? We both know about them and no one would be able to hear us. You aren't the only one with one hand tied behind your back in this situation. The temple provides good answers as to why some aspects of it are meant to be kept within its walls. I would gladly point those things out in the temple.

[mfbukowski]

So your only position is that your belief system differs from my belief system? We knew that. If you are suggesting something that is testable in human populations, such as what ritual secrecy in religion does, you will get a better perspective if you do engage in some anthropology of religion. It could move you away from statements whose validity depends solely upon your assertion of them.

That is a continuing problem.

[Calm]

Mr. Bowman, did you see these? This is what I am trying to get at through my poor communication skills.

Considering how it was Nathair who started this thread, it would be considerate to address his comments expanding on his OP.