Thoughts On Ritual Secrecy

[Calm]

I did NOT, in fact, use or reveal any Temple content. I am VERY careful about not discussing those things in a manner to reveal anything not to be revealed, because I respect the feelings the LDS hold for it.

"Temple content" seems to be interpreted by mods as all temple content and even in some cases context and not just what we have been instructed not to reveal, you may have used different words for it but you still referred to an aspect of the ceremony. The mods tend to be very conservative about making calls in this area from what I've seen and restrict the temple content discussion even more so than it is on lds.org because it is just not the content that is their concern but how that content is treated and in an open discussion (as opposed to an article) disrespect and mistreatment of sacred things has a high likelihood of occurring. And this is a case where even minor disrespect is not seen as appropriate among LDS generally. I think their caution is appropriate given from what I've seen take place on other message boards.

Discussion about certain principles that are also taught outside the temple or implications of how the temple ceremony can affect us is different than discussion of something that is not generally discussed outside of describing the temple ceremony.

And just in case you want to know how at least one LDS reacted to it for future posting, when I read it, your post came across as belittling and therefore disrespectful. I assumed you were describing your own reaction and not necessarily insisted that was the truth, but I can see how others with a different assumption would feel it was inappropriate.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

"The LDS"?

Oh, I guess that tells the tail then. You don't have a clue why it is sacred then unless you have attended a hundred or two Endowments.

Let's see- 12 a year- ten years- yeah, that's about right....

"the LDS" = the Latter-Day Saints... it saves time.

My first time through Portland, OR, once through SLC on the way to the MTC, once or twice a week for two months at the MTC, once through Buenos Aires on my way home. a couple more times after my mission. I know it's not 100's of times, but I think 10-15 gives a good impression.

Whatever... my impression, is mine, yours is yours... it's all good.

[Vance]

There are a lot of you on the LDS side of the argument here, and only one of me.

Does this surprise you?

I am happy to answer as many of you as much as I can, but I am laboring under some personal difficulties, not the least of which is a torn rotator cuff in my right shoulder (positively identified as such just this morning, after days of pain).

Humm, whipping strawmen or beating a dead horse?

Please do not construe a lack of response to a particular post or point as avoidance.

Now why would we do that?

I'm very much run down physically, have a lot of other things going on, and am engaged in a rather thankless task by participating in this particular discussion--so please bear with me.

Kicking against the pricks, whooping stawmen and beating dead horses can to that to you.

I did find it interesting that, rather than removing the ill-gotten material, (the posting of which you knowingly cause offense,) you choose to remove the link.

[changed]

In other words, ritual secrecy is part of the process by which we make the mental shift from the mundane world into the realm of sacred space and time. It is that mindset which allows us to pierce the veil and experience the greater realities on the other side.

that is a rather grandiose way of stating it .

I think there are steps in progression that would be impossible if too much info was given too soon:

Example: Adam and Eve - if they knew everything ahead of time, it would have been impossible - (sin instead of transgression if they knew etc. etc.)

same with us - we gain a knowledge of both good and evil... through ignorance, we hopefully gain most of our knowledge through transgression rather than sin, and this is a wonderful thing.

Secrecy allows those who have not yet taken the necessary preliminary steps to do so in innocent ignorance...

we are accountable for what we know... best not to make someone accountable when they are not yet mature enough to be accountable...

in your grandiose statement - yes - through increased knowledge and accountability - through progression, we grow closer to God.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

I did find it interesting that, rather than removing the ill-gotten material, (the posting of which you knowingly cause offense,) you choose to remove the link.

What link? The link to IRR's website in my signature here? That wasn't my decision or choice. A moderator removed it.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

What link? The link to IRR's website in my signature here? That wasn't my decision or choice. A moderator removed it.

So you would have done neither. Even more interesting.

[mfbukowski]

"the LDS" = the Latter-Day Saints... it saves time.

Oh yes.

I thought that sounded familiar.

[mfbukowski]

Whatever... my impression, is mine, yours is yours... it's all good.

No, unfortunately, it isn't.

[mfbukowski]

Humm, whipping strawmen or beating a dead horse?

I did find it interesting that, rather than removing the ill-gotten material, (the posting of which you knowingly cause offense,) you choose to remove the link.

After being instructed to by a mod. Not exactly a "choice".

[Bernard Gui]

What link? The link to IRR's website in my signature here? That wasn't my decision or choice. A moderator removed it.

The honorable thing would be to remove the temple content from your site and replace it

with a sincere apology for desecration of the LDS temple. An expression of regret for your profound antipathy for the LDS demonstrated by knowingly violating our most sacred inward spiritual life would go a long way to repairing the damage you have done to your credibility.

It's the same as if you had stripped us naked and hung us out for public gawking and ridicule. Up until this time you have been a fair and mostly honorable opponent to the LDS church. Publishing a dishonestly obtained tape of the ceremony moves you over the line to opportunistic and sordid religious voyeurism.

To paraphrase the Council of Chiefs of the Haudenosaunee:

There is no legal, moral, or ethical way in which the LDS endowment can be obtained or possessed by a non-Mormon individual or institution, as in order for the endowment to be removed from the temple it would require the sanction of the First Presidency. This sanction has never been given. We ask all people to cooperate in the restoration of endowment and other sacred objects to the proper caretakers among the faithful LDS. It is only through these actions that the traditional culture will remain strong and peace will be restored to our contending religious communities.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Perhaps our non-LDS friends here do not know the egregious affront Mormons experience when their

sacred endowments and artifacts are dragged out for public gawking. I frankly don't know if

there is anything in their spiritual experience that is holy enough not to want it

stripped out of its context, sensationalized, and ridiculed.

The outrage caused by a stupid artist who displayed a crucifix emerged in a jar of urine,

in the name of 'art.' Did that bother you?

The image of the Holy Mother of God covered in elephant excrement? Did you let that stand unopposed?

Perhaps our Protestant friends get some jollies from those desecrations of Catholicism, perhaps not.

Would you rip a burka from a Moslem woman and expose her to the view of infidels?

My Evangelical brothers, is there anything that is sacred to you, that were it to be desecrated in the

most wanton public manner, that you would protest it?

If not, then I can understand your desire to desecrate our temple. But if there is something that is sacred

to you, then I cannot understand your desecration of our temple.

Do you truly not understand the difference between secret and sacred? Perhaps it is simply foreign

to your own spiritual experience.

Would you care to explain?

Bernard

[BookofMormonLuvr]

No, unfortunately, it isn't.

If you want to despise me for simply disagreeing with you that is fine- I love you anyways, brother.

Next Year in Zion!

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

Regarding the publication of the LDS endowment ceremony text on IRR's website, you wrote:

It's the same as if you had stripped us naked and hung us out for public gawking and ridicule. Up until this time you have been a fair and mostly honorable opponent to the LDS church. Publishing a dishonestly obtained tape of the ceremony moves you over the line to opportunistic and sordid religious voyeurism.

And you also wrote this:

Perhaps our non-LDS friends here do not know the egregious affront Mormons experience when their sacred endowments and artifacts are dragged out for public gawking. I frankly don't know if there is anything in their spiritual experience that is holy enough not to want it stripped out of its context, sensationalized, and ridiculed.

The outrage caused by a stupid artist who displayed a crucifix emerged in a jar of urine, in the name of 'art.' Did that bother you?

The image of the Holy Mother of God covered in elephant excrement? Did you let that stand unopposed?

Perhaps our Protestant friends get some jollies from those desecrations of Catholicism, perhaps not.

Would you rip a burka from a Moslem woman and expose her to the view of infidels?

These aren't serious comparisons. I'm not one of those guys walking around Temple Square waving LDS sacred garments in people's faces. We have done nothing to the ceremony to "strip it out of its context," but in fact have provided the full text of the ceremony precisely so that people can see it in context. We have done nothing to sensationalize or ridicule it.

If I were a Mormon, I would find your over-the-top comparisons embarrassing. You aren't helping your cause in this way.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

You wrote:

Is it possible that I read so poorly as to totally misunderstand the intent of the following (from above)

More likely, you read poorly when you are so sure the other person can have nothing valuable or right to say that you assume the worst about his views. We all have to watch this temptation, myself included.

You wrote:

You have said that secrets show "something to be fundamentally wrong with a religion. . . ."

No. I never said that. Here is what I wrote (emphasis added):

"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."

It could be that you missed the word "that" in the second sentence and so misunderstood me to be saying that all alleged ritual secrets show something to be fundamentally wrong with a religion. But then, you would also have needed to miss the first sentence entirely (which I notice in two posts responding to me on this point you neglected both times).

This is really simple, Brant. I explicitly said that not any and all ritual secrets should be exposed to the public, but only those "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." Here is a symbolic representation of the entire set of all ritual secrets:

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N

Here is a symbolic representation of the set of ritual secrets that show something to be fundamentally wrong with a religion or that the religion is not what it claims to be:

A, D, F, G, I, K

The second set is a subset of the first. That is, the set of ritual secrets that deserve to be exposed is a subset of the set of all ritual secrets.

Please tell me you understand this distinction.

[Nathair/|\]

Bernard,

Regarding the publication of the LDS endowment ceremony text on IRR's website, you wrote:

And you also wrote this:

These aren't serious comparisons. I'm not one of those guys walking around Temple Square waving LDS sacred garments in people's faces. We have done nothing to the ceremony to "strip it out of its context," but in fact have provided the full text of the ceremony precisely so that people can see it in context. We have done nothing to sensationalize or ridicule it.

If I were a Mormon, I would find your over-the-top comparisons embarrassing. You aren't helping your cause in this way.

Mr. Bowman, may I presume that my core thesis, that ritual secrecy is vital to the transformative power of the Endowment, is not worthy of your consideration? You have responded several times to peripheral issues in this thread; however, you have not commented on the main concern.

[CV75]

We have done nothing to the ceremony to "strip it out of its context," but in fact have provided the full text of the ceremony precisely so that people can see it in context.

This is blatantly false. You are presenting it completely out of context: it isn't something that is simply read by anyone. You have presented it outside the temple, without authority, without covenant, without recommend, without baptism or sacrament, without personal participation, involvement or investment, without having experienced it yourself under the terms required, and without allegiance but only with criticism. You have thus, and have enabled others, to sensationalize or ridicule it.

[CV75]

Here is a symbolic representation of the set of ritual secrets that show something to be fundamentally wrong with a religion or that the religion is not what it claims to be:

Your ministry should be able to stand on its own as not fundamentally wrong by making its point without sensationalizing and ridiculing what is sacred to others.

[Vance]

Your ministry should be able to stand on its own as not fundamentally wrong by making its point without sensationalizing and ridiculing what is sacred to others.

I don't think they are capable. Not that it can't be done, but just that THEY are incapable of doing so.

To me, their putting the temple material, (which they obtained neferiously) out for ridicule reveals far more about their character than it does about Mormonism. Only those that are insecure in their own theology feel the need to expose, mock and ridicule the sacred/secret ritual material of others. What ever gibberish they put forth to rationalize their behavior not withstanding.

[Vance]

These aren't serious comparisons.

They are. The fact that you can't see that is the real problem here.

I'm not one of those guys walking around Temple Square waving LDS sacred garments in people's faces.

You are EXACTLY one of those kind of "guys".

We have done nothing to the ceremony to "strip it out of its context," but in fact have provided the full text of the ceremony precisely so that people can see it in context.

As explained above, that is a false statement.

We have done nothing to sensationalize or ridicule it.

Other than obtaining it through neferious means, ripping it from context, misrepresenting it, etc. right?

If I were a Mormon, I would find your over-the-top comparisons embarrassing.

The fact that you find them "over the top" may be one of the reasons you are not a Mormon in the first place.

You aren't helping your cause in this way.

Well, since it is rather obvious that you NEVER intended to listen to our complaints with an open mind, because you had already decided that we have no basis for complaint, he certainly hasn't hurt our cause either.

All you are trying to do here is to create the facade of being fair. You can fool the sheeple over at the swill bucket known as IRR, but we can see right through you.

[Deborah]

We have done nothing to the ceremony to "strip it out of its context," but in fact have provided the full text of the ceremony precisely so that people can see it in context. We have done nothing to sensationalize or ridicule it.

??? How do you know its context? Because you see it doesn't mean you understand it. Anyone who goes on a website and sees the temple ceremony without all the understandings and doctrine that go with it will never see it in context. The fact that you would show something others have indicated is sacred to them is exactly the same as "those guys walking around Temple Square waving LDS sacred garments in people's faces."

[Bernard Gui]

These aren't serious comparisons. I'm not one of those guys walking around Temple Square waving LDS sacred garments in people's faces. We have done nothing to the ceremony to "strip it out of its context," but in fact have provided the full text of the ceremony precisely so that people can see it in context. We have done nothing to sensationalize or ridicule it.

You really don't have a clue, do you. I can't believe you are so dense, and I surely do not believe

you are ignorant of the harm you are doing.

The context of the endowment IS the temple. The most intimate connection between husband and

wife is ripped from its sacred environs and put on your website for religious voyeurs to ogle.

That you claim innocence of any wrong-doing is ludicrous. Full text my eye. The full text can only

be understood in its true context. Did you not read the Native American plea?

If I were a Mormon, I would find your over-the-top comparisons embarrassing. You aren't helping your cause in this way.

If you were a Mormon, you would have the same feelings about this abominable behavior that I do. That you think it sould be

embarrassing reveals you have no concept of the sacred and are oblivious to the innermost feelings of the LDS.

You go through our scriptures and teachings searching for a word or a phrase to pounce on, yet you miss this

most fundamental aspect of our religion. How?

Bernard

[MorningStar]

Bernard,

Regarding the publication of the LDS endowment ceremony text on IRR's website, you wrote:

And you also wrote this:

These aren't serious comparisons. I'm not one of those guys walking around Temple Square waving LDS sacred garments in people's faces. We have done nothing to the ceremony to "strip it out of its context," but in fact have provided the full text of the ceremony precisely so that people can see it in context. We have done nothing to sensationalize or ridicule it.

If I were a Mormon, I would find your over-the-top comparisons embarrassing. You aren't helping your cause in this way.

You aren't helping your cause by mocking what we consider sacred.

[Vance]

You aren't helping your cause by mocking what we consider sacred.

Unless his real cause IS to mock what we consider sacred.

[Bernard Gui]

In other words, ritual secrecy is part of the process by which we make the mental shift from the mundane world into the realm of sacred space and time. It is that mindset which allows us to pierce the veil and experience the greater realities on the other side.

Have you read Sacred Space by Vine Deloria? He discusses the Native American concept of the sacredness of locations and space.

I'll post a few excerpts later.

Regarding your OP, the temple is not of this world. It precedes and transcends the world. The temple is the endowment and the endowment is the temple.

Check out this artistic concept of the temple from the Jewish Temple Institute...it is profound!

http://www.templeinstitute.org/

http://www.templeinstitute.org/gallery_images/eye_of_creation_gallery.jpg

Bernard

[Brant Gardner]

"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."

It could be that you missed the word "that" in the second sentence and so misunderstood me to be saying that all alleged ritual secrets show something to be fundamentally wrong with a religion. But then, you would also have needed to miss the first sentence entirely (which I notice in two posts responding to me on this point you neglected both times).

I stand chastized.

However, since you do suggest that ritual secrets should not be made public by outsiders, would you please assist in convincing anyone you know (and work for) to make sure they don't do that?

It will be worth all the humble pie I could possibly eat.

Now, if you are suggesting that our temple ceremonies demonstrate that there is something fundamentally wrong with Mormonism, you have two problems. The first is you admit that you shouldn't know what they are. The second is that you are imputing a value judgement that cannot rest on anything except opinion.

See your first sentence, and make sure that ritual secrets are not made public by outsiders.

Thank you.