Thoughts On Ritual Secrecy

[Anijen]

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.

But you are "one of those guys" that would wave sacred LDS beliefs on the internet. When you do this you set yourself up as a judge of what is sacred and what is not. The fact is, that judgement is not up to you and your replies to this exposes your pride and although you do not want to hear it, it does make you a bigot.

There have been plenty of non LDS scholars who can speak about Mormonism who have not crossed that line. You will never be equal to them now.

[mfbukowski]

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

Next Year in Zion!

Despise you? Where are you getting this stuff?

I happen to believe there is good in the world and bad in the world.

I definitely don't believe "it's all good". What is that supposed to mean anyway? Do you really believe that "it's all good" and nothing is evil?

[mfbukowski]

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.

Go back and read mine, and many others.

It is you who haven't a clue. It appears you do not understand the notion of "sacred".

If you think it is over the top, go back and see which posts have been praised with "reputation points" as a poll on which have been most popular.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Get used to it.

[Rob Bowman]

Nathair,

You wrote:

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.

I think that in my first post to this thread I indirectly gave you my assessment of your thesis. It is, as best I can tell, an after-the-fact rationalization. One would think that everyone who goes through the endowment ritual knows why it is a ritual secret, but they don't--which is why the discussion is taking place. My point is that if you didn't know why you were pledging to keep the ritual secret before you made the pledge, that in and of itself raises some troubling questions.

I'm not sure what it means to suggest that ritual secrecy is vital to the ritual's transformative power. Does the ritual transform you less if non-members know about it?

[mfbukowski]

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.

The guys in temple square don't quote the temple rites- even they know better than to do that.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

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.

When Mormons argue that we non-Mormons should not make public or discuss with anyone the specifics of the temple rituals simply on the grounds that they are meant to be seen and heard only in the temple context, you can make at least a plausible-sounding case for that viewpoint, ignoring for the sake of discussion what those specifics actually are. But when you try to claim that merely making the text of the ceremony public knowledge means we are sensationalizing, ridiculing, or mocking it, or, as Bernard claimed, that we are acting no better than those who put crucifixes in urine, you lose all credibility. No fair-minded person could seriously draw such equivalencies.

I'm willing to discuss serious objections to what we are doing, but don't be surprised if I don't take seriously such over-the-top criticisms.

[Minos]

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 need to address the topic or get out of the thread.

Of course Mormons consider what you are doing to be desecration. "Desecration (also called desacralization or desanctification) is the act of depriving something of its sacred character, or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred or holy by a group or individual" (Wikipedia) I can only conclude that your intention is to insult and demean because it is not your call to tell other religions what they should consider sacred or what qualifies as a desecration of it. You are not treated differently on this board but you will not be given free rein to profane Mormon sacred space. It doesn't help your cause to have to be reminded of such an elementary concept and you should be the one who is embarrassed.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

The guys in temple square don't quote the temple rites- even they know better than to do that.

Are you saying that they are behaving more considerately or more respectfully than I am?

This is more derailing.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Minos,

You wrote:

You need to address the topic or get out of the thread.

As I have already explained, I am participating in this thread because it was started in response to another thread in which I was centrally involved. I am attempting to address the topic and the points raised by others here. I regret that you don't think I have been doing so.

You wrote:

Of course Mormons consider what you are doing to be desecration. "Desecration (also called desacralization or desanctification) is the act of depriving something of its sacred character, or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred or holy by a group or individual" (Wikipedia) I can only conclude that your intention is to insult and demean because it is not your call to tell other religions what they should consider sacred or what qualifies as a desecration of it. You are not treated differently on this board but you will not be given free rein to profane Mormon sacred space. It doesn't help your cause to have to be reminded of such an elementary concept and you should be the one who is embarrassed.

I certainly do not intend to insult or demean. If anything I have been the subject of insults and demeaning comments from several individuals in this forum ever since I began participating.

If the temple ceremony is truly sacred because it is truly from the Holy God, then nothing I can do can "deprive" it "of its sacred character." I don't see how publishing the text of the ceremony is either "disrespectful or contemptuous," particularly in view of my stated intention to add a statement acknowledging Mormon sensibilities on the matter. If what you are saying is "we get to say what is desecration of our sacred ritual, and we say that publishing the text of the ritual is desecration," then there is no room for argument or discussion of the matter. "It is desecration because we say it is" is neither an argument nor an explanation. However, if as moderator you tell me that even discussing the question is off limits, I will voluntarily cease from posting in this thread.

At present, the forum rules prohibit the discussion of the temple ceremonies themselves, but apparently do not prohibit discussions such as this one concerning why temple rituals are secret. If the moderators choose to make such discussions also off-limits, I will of course abide by that decision.

If there is a way that you think I could address the topic that you would find acceptable, please let me know.

[GingerRed]

Mr Bowman

I've been following this thread from the beginning....just WHAT is your problem???

I am totally baffled you don't understand what you are doing is wrong, disrespectful, and shameful ! How many times must you be told? The fact that you ignore our concerns, and act like it's no big deal is amazing! And you talk about respect?? If you can't GIVE respect, you certainly won't earn it!

Bottom line...will you remove the temple content from your site or not? If not, then you have no reason for us to believe you are not in ANY way, as much an anti-Mormon as the ones protesting at Temples and waving our garments around! I see no difference between them and you!

[Rob Bowman]

GingerRed,

You wrote:

I've been following this thread from the beginning....just WHAT is your problem???

I am totally baffled you don't understand what you are doing is wrong, disrespectful, and shameful ! How many times must you be told?

I don't need to be told. It would be helpful if someone here could offer a good argument for why it is wrong, rather than merely asserting "it's wrong because we say it is." This very thread begins with an admission that Mormons themselves are not all clear on why the rituals must be kept secret.

You wrote:

The fact that you ignore our concerns, and act like it's no big deal is amazing!

Ginger, I am baffled that you would claim that I am ignoring your concerns or acting like it is no big deal. If that were so, why would I be trying to discuss the question with people here despite the verbal abuse I'm taking? Why would I volunteer to post a statement on our website cautioning readers that Mormons view the ceremony as sacred and to be circumspect in using the information?

You wrote:

And you talk about respect?? If you can't GIVE respect, you certainly won't earn it!

Bottom line...will you remove the temple content from your site or not? If not, then you have no reason for us to believe you are in ANY way, that you are as much an anti-Mormon as the ones protesting at Temples and waving our garments around! I see no difference between them and you!

As I said, when Mormons like you draw this sort of equivalency, you lose any credibility. If you don't like what I'm doing, that's fine--you're entitled to your opinion, as am I. If you can offer me some reason why I should agree that what I am doing is wrong, please feel free to present it. But when you claim I'm no different from those who are deliberately mocking your religion, I know you're mistaken, and badly so.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Despise you? Where are you getting this stuff?

I happen to believe there is good in the world and bad in the world.

I definitely don't believe "it's all good". What is that supposed to mean anyway? Do you really believe that "it's all good" and nothing is evil?

I guess I don't see our current theological differences to be the big deal that you think they are. The Lord will sort out our difference in Zion.

[Anijen]

I don't see how publishing the text of the ceremony is either "disrespectful or contemptuous,"

This is the problem.

Rob is does not matter if you think it is sacred or not, LDS believe it to be. And by publishing it you are profaning what we believe to be sacred.

"we get to say what is desecration of our sacred ritual, and we say that publishing the text of the ritual is desecration," then there is no room for argument

This is correct LDS define what is sacred to them.

Again because you believe different does not mean it is not sacred to us.

You disrespect us by your publication of what is sacred. You further disrespect us by admitting you know it is sacred to us yet you feel no harm done by profaning (by making public the temple ceremony) what we feel is sacred.

You can discuss this on your web site any way you choose but if you do so in ways that is disrespectful which to us the very act of making public the temple ceremony, you show your agenda. Which is not to have a dialog but to push an anti-mormon agenda based on your biased thoughts.

Again it isn't how you feel on the matter LDS believe it to be sacred and you are profaning it.

[Rob Bowman]

Anijen,

You wrote:

This is the problem.

Rob is does not matter if you think it is sacred or not, LDS believe it to be. And by publishing it you are profaning what we believe to be sacred.

This is correct LDS define what is sacred to them.

Again because you believe different does not mean it is not sacred to us.

Does this go for any religion and for any aspect of any religion? If the people in any religion claim something is sacred and so can't be made public, outsiders must abide by this demand no matter what?

You wrote:

You disrespect us by your publication of what is sacred. You further disrespect us by admitting you know it is sacred to us yet you feel no harm done by profaning (by making public the temple ceremony) what we feel is sacred.

What you call disrespect, I call disagreement.

Suppose tomorrow the LDS Church president announced that any public criticism of the Book of Mormon is disrespectful and desecration of LDS religion. Would I have to abide by that claim and refrain from expressing any disagreement with the Book of Mormon?

You wrote:

You can discuss this on your web site any way you choose but if you do so in ways that is disrespectful which to us the very act of making public the temple ceremony, you show your agenda. Which is not to have a dialog but to push an anti-mormon agenda based on your biased thoughts.

Are you saying that it would be okay for me to discuss the temple ceremony publicly, but not to say what actually happens in the ceremony?

[GingerRed]

This is the problem.

Rob is does not matter if you think it is sacred or not, LDS believe it to be. And by publishing it you are profaning what we believe to be sacred.

This is correct LDS define what is sacred to them.

Again because you believe different does not mean it is not sacred to us.

You disrespect us by your publication of what is sacred. You further disrespect us by admitting you know it is sacred to us yet you feel no harm done by profaning (by making public the temple ceremony) what we feel is sacred.

You can discuss this on your web site any way you choose but if you do so in ways that is disrespectful which to us the very act of making public the temple ceremony, you show your agenda. Which is not to have a dialog but to push an anti-mormon agenda based on your biased thoughts.

Again it isn't how you feel on the matter LDS believe it to be sacred and you are profaning it.

Exactly!!!!

Red

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Where were LDS cries of condemnation of the State of Texas for taking and releasing photos from within the FLDS Temple? Why did you not run to the defense of that people and their sacred edifice?

After a warning about staying on topic you have got to be kidding. Exit left.

[Vance]

Does this go for any religion . . .

Why wouldn't it?

. . . and for any aspect of any religion?

No, only the ones they declare as sacred.

If the people in any religion claim something is sacred and so can't be made public, outsiders must abide by this demand no matter what?

If they want to show respect to the members (as you claim), yes!

What you call disrespect, I call disagreement.

Disrespect by any other name is what, exactly?

Suppose tomorrow the LDS Church president announced that any public criticism of the Book of Mormon is disrespectful and desecration of LDS religion.

Nice red herring.

Tone down the attitude, stop the off- topic *** for tat or take a break. Let's get this thread back on track.

Oh, and for the record that rep. point was me accidentally hitting the wrong button.

[Minos]

This is the OP question:

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.

Thoughts?

Does that really need further explanation? It is not an open invitation to draw pictures of Mohammad, it is not an invitation to diminish or mock Catholic, Greek Orthodox or Mormon expressions of sacredness. It is a request to discuss the concept of ritual secrecy. Anyone doing any of the former is going to get thrown out of the thread.

[Minos]

Suppose tomorrow the LDS Church president announced that any public criticism of the Book of Mormon is disrespectful and desecration of LDS religion. Would I have to abide by that claim and refrain from expressing any disagreement with the Book of Mormon?

I can see that you are really struggling with this topic. I googled this for you: http://www.pitt.edu/~strather/journal.htm Maybe that will be a good place to start to update yourself on the topic.

[changed]

Luckily the most sacred aspects of the LDS temple cannot be posted on the internet, because in order to understand it all, you have to first fully understand the symbolism...

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3b593c7842470110VgnVCM100000176f620a____

“No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand. …"

It is impossible for outsiders to understand the parables, the symbols, the mighty realities - so imo, no matter what has been posted on the net, nothing sacred has been revealed.

Those who prove themselves unable to respect smaller sacred ordinances are not given knowledge of the real underlying truths which are revealed to those with eyes that can see... it's a test, some understand why it takes a little maturity to be able to handle some info, others do not... those who are not mature enough will not progress in their knowledge.

Jesus used symbolism/parables, for the same reason that the current temple uses it - it is wonderful way of disseminating information to a select group of people who have the background necessary to understand it.

[Deborah]

What you call disrespect, I call disagreement.

So if you go to a foreign country and do something offensive to the people of that country and they warn you you have offended them, do you continue to do the offensive action or do you apologize and not do it again. I'm beginning to think you would argue with them about why they shouldn't be offended even though it's based on years of custom.

Disagreement is saying you don't think our temple rituals are important. Disrespect is presenting them for public consumption, after we've told you it's offensive, and pretending that you know anything about what they mean and letting others think you've told the whole story. Are you really unable to see the difference?

This topic isn't about Mr. Bowman. Please get back on topic.

[Deborah]

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.

I think there is something to this idea of a shift. Often when I've gone I have felt that I've stepped from this world of haste and worry into a serene place where I can forget the worldly things and focus on that which is of greater import. I've had many an epiphany while in the temple and the symbols come to mean something different depending on where I am in my life and what my needs are. The quiet and kindness of those inside those walls brings a feeling of great peace and joy.

This world becomes insignificant when one contemplates the great plan of our Heavenly Father and so all the trials we are having and all the petty discomforts and irritations take their place in the big picture as just temporary setbacks on our way home.

[LeSellers]

'Tseems there are those who, not understanding others' "secret" (i.e., sacred) rites, think them fair game for mockery and profanation; that the lack of such sacredness in their own traditions means that anything held sacred and reserved for initiates becomes, a priori, evidence of wrongness.

To address this mistaken position, I ask the following: What was the second floor of Solomon's Temple used for? Indeed, where was the veil Solomon had woven and embroidered for his Temple (given the Holy of Holies was separated from the Holy Place by a door, not a veil)?

If there were no sacred and secret rites performed therein, why have we no information on the purpose(s) of those gold-plated rooms?

31 And for the entering of the oracle he made doors of olive tree: the lintel and side posts were a fifth part of the wall. 32 The two doors also were of olive tree; and he carved upon them carvings of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold, and spread gold upon the cherubims, and upon the palm trees.

9 And the weight of the nails was fifty shekels of gold. And he overlaid the upper chambers with gold.

...

14 And he made the vail of blue, and purple, and crimson, and fine linen, and wrought cherubims thereon.

Flavius Josephus, in The Antiquities of the Jews, said that Solomon had a "fine contrivance" (a spiral staircase) built into the walls of the Temple to enter the "upper house" which had two room of the same dimensions as those on the ground floor.

2. Now, therefore, the king laid the foundations of the temple very deep in the ground, and the materials were strong stones, and such as would resist the force of time; these were to unite themselves with the earth, and become a basis and a sure foundation for that superstructure which was to be erected over it; they were to be so strong, in order to sustain with ease those vast superstructures and precious ornaments, whose own weight was to be not less than the weight of those other high and heavy buildings which the king designed to be very ornamental and magnificent. They erected its entire body, quite up to the roof, of white stone; its height was sixty cubits, and its length was the same, and its breadth twenty. There was another building erected over it, equal to it in its measures; so that the entire altitude of the temple was a hundred and twenty cubits. Its front was to the east. As to the porch, they built it before the temple; its length was twenty cubits, and it was so ordered that it might agree with the breadth of the house; and it had twelve cubits in latitude, and its height was raised as high as a hundred and twenty cubits. He also built round about the temple thirty small rooms, which might include the whole temple, by their closeness one to another, and by their number and outward position round it. He also made passages through them, that they might come into on through another. Every one of these rooms had five cubits in breadth, and the same in length, but in height twenty. Above these there were other rooms, and others above them, equal, both in their measures and number; so that these reached to a height equal to the lower part of the house; for the upper part had no buildings about it. The roof that was over the house was of cedar; and truly every one of these rooms had a roof of their own, that was not connected with the other rooms; but for the other parts, there was a covered roof common to them all, and built with very long beams, that passed through the rest, and through the whole building, that so the middle walls, being strengthened by the same beams of timber, might be thereby made firmer: but as for that part of the roof that was under the beams, it was made of the same materials, and was all made smooth, and had ornaments proper for roofs, and plates of gold nailed upon them. And as he enclosed the walls with boards of cedar, so he fixed on them plates of gold, which had sculptures upon them; so that the whole temple shined, and dazzled the eyes of such as entered, by the splendor of the gold that was on every side of them. Now the whole structure of the temple was made with great skill of polished stones, and those laid together so very harmoniously and smoothly, that there appeared to the spectators no sign of any hammer, or other instrument of architecture; but as if, without any use of them, the entire materials had naturally united themselves together, that the agreement of one part with another seemed rather to have been natural, than to have arisen from the force of tools upon them. The king also had a fine contrivance for an ascent to the upper room over the temple, and that was by steps in the thickness of its wall; for it had no large door on the east end, as the lower house had, but the entrances were by the sides, through very small doors. He also overlaid the temple, both within and without, with boards of cedar, that were kept close together by thick chains, so that this contrivance was in the nature of a support and a strength to the building.

As I said, if there is no secrecy in Judeo-Christianity, we ought to have a host of information on those upper rooms. We have none: God has revealed to His servants many things that are not disclosed to the world. Some are "time sensitive": He will reveal them to others at the right time. Others are never shown openly. The upper floor of His house in ancient times was a a place where such rituals were performed.

Lehi

[changed]

imo, the need for secrecy started in Eden -

...vail ... and wrought cherubims thereon.

(Old Testament | Genesis 3:24)

Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Eden is where we first hear about cherubims guarding something

(see Lehi's dream of the tree of life for some more clues on one of the items that was being guarded)

we are told about what was in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle..

Hebrews 9:3 - 5

1.) golden censer - filled with fire - Holy Spirit

2.) manna/bread from Heaven- Christ,

3.) Aaron's rod that budded = tree of life - ___________

4.) tables of the covenant; the law/justice - God

the entire point of it all is to learn more about the Godhead, who They really are... you learn about someone through study/prayer/Spirit/going to Their house, spending time with Them...

those who claim to know everything about the temple who have not really had the entire temple experience - are like those who claim to know a person they have never actually befriended...