Thoughts On Ritual Secrecy

[Bill Hamblin]

Ritual secrecy was a fundamental part of old Israelite religion, (and the Romans mocked them for it precisely as anti-Mormons mock us). If God doesn't like ritual secrecy, why did he create such a complex form of ritual secrecy surrounding the Israelite temple cult?

At any rate, I suggest anti-Mormons teleport back to first century Jerusalem and try to enter the Court of the Israelites on the temple mount. Here was the inscription on the soreg by the gates from the court of the Gentiles to the court of the Israelites:

“No non-Jew is to enter the soreg-barriers surrounding the temple. He who is caught will have himself to blame for his ensuing death.”

The Israelites believed God himself had instituted the ritual secrecy associated with their temple, and took the sacred obligations associated with it very seriously.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

CFR that ritual secrecy was a fundamental part of ancient Israelite religion. The fact that Gentiles were prohibited from entering the Court of the Israelites is not support for that claim. All that shows is that Gentiles were prohibited from entering, not that they were prohibited from knowing what went on inside.

Ritual secrecy was a fundamental part of old Israelite religion, (and the Romans mocked them for it precisely as anti-Mormons mock us). If God doesn't like ritual secrecy, why did he create such a complex form of ritual secrecy surrounding the Israelite temple cult?

At any rate, I suggest anti-Mormons teleport back to first century Jerusalem and try to enter the Court of the Israelites on the temple mount. Here was the inscription on the soreg by the gates from the court of the Gentiles to the court of the Israelites:

The Israelites believed God himself had instituted the ritual secrecy associated with their temple, and took the sacred obligations associated with it very seriously.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

CFR that ritual secrecy was a fundamental part of ancient Israelite religion. The fact that Gentiles were prohibited from entering the Court of the Israelites is not support for that claim. All that shows is that Gentiles were prohibited from entering, not that they were prohibited from knowing what went on inside.

Still confusing ritual secrecy with secrecy I see. A ritual secret may be well known, even universally known, and still be a ritual secret.

At any rate, all you've got to do is read the Bible without your Evangelical blinders on. The temple cult is filled with limitations of access, limitations of participation in rituals, and acts done in ritual secrecy (anything in the Holy Place or Holy of Holies). It is not clear how you can say that the culmination of the Day of Atonement ritual in which the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies and performed his ritual ALONE before the Lord is not a ritual secret. It includes the quintessential Israelite ritual secret--the true pronunciation of YHWH's name.

It really is so blatantly obvious that I'm astonished that so many Evangelicals can't see it.

[blackstrap]

I am sure there was a site that the Gentiles could go to , to learn about what went on inside without ever actually going inside.Saves all that messy covenant stuff.

Torpe

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Still confusing ritual secrecy with secrecy I see. A ritual secret may be well known, even universally known, and still be a ritual secret.

Fine. Then you have no problem with people outside the LDS Church knowing and discussing the ritual secrets of the LDS temple rituals. Right?

Please. Don't think I will let this attempt at obfuscation pass. The issue here, the thing that is making Mormons see red, is the publication of the endowment ritual text. Is there any precedent in the OT religion for Mormon outrage at having the text of the endowment ceremony made public knowledge? Yes or No, please. If yes, please explain and document the precedent.

You wrote:

At any rate, all you've got to do is read the Bible without your Evangelical blinders on.

I find comments like these obnoxious.

You wrote:

The temple cult is filled with limitations of access, limitations of participation in rituals, and acts done in ritual secrecy (anything in the Holy Place or Holy of Holies).

And nothing I am doing regarding the LDS temple ceremonies violates such limitations. I am not trying to get access to the temple. I am not trying to participate in its rituals. And I am not trying to intrude in the temple while acts are done in ritual secrecy. If that's all you've got, you've got nothing that is precedent for your fellow Mormons expressing outrage and offense over the mere publication of the words spoken in one of the LDS rituals.

You wrote:

It is not clear how you can say that the culmination of the Day of Atonement ritual in which the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies and performed his ritual ALONE before the Lord is not a ritual secret. It includes the quintessential Israelite ritual secret--the true pronunciation of YHWH's name.

There is no evidence from the OT period that the true pronunciation of YHWH's name was a secret, or a ritual secret. There is no evidence from the OT period that the Name could only be pronounced in that ritual context. And the post-OT development was that Jews refrained from pronouncing the Name, not that it was something that outsiders were not supposed to know or make public. And if that's not what you mean, then what you mean is of no relevance to the discussion here.

You wrote:

It really is so blatantly obvious that I'm astonished that so many Evangelicals can't see it.

Typically, when someone blusters about something being obvious but provides no clear examples, he hasn't got any.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

Fine. Then you have no problem with people outside the LDS Church knowing and discussing the ritual secrets of the LDS temple rituals. Right?

Please. Don't think I will let this attempt at obfuscation pass. The issue here, the thing that is making Mormons see red, is the publication of the endowment ritual text. Is there any precedent in the OT religion for Mormon outrage at having the text of the endowment ceremony made public knowledge? Yes or No, please. If yes, please explain and document the precedent.

You do realize this thread is not about you, right?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

You do realize this thread is not about you, right?

Yes. I know what this thread is about. It is about why Mormons "don't talk about what goes on in certain aspects of [their] religious experience." It has to do with the fact that Mormons "promise not to discuss them." And as I understand most of the Mormons who have posted here, it is about why they object when these things are made public knowledge.

Now, if you're saying that you as a practicing Mormon have no objection to the text of the endowment ceremony being made public knowledge, fine. If you think this question is irrelevant to the topic of this thread, please say so. But a lot of people here seem to think that is very much relevant to the issue of this thread.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

Yes. I know what this thread is about. It is about why Mormons "don't talk about what goes on in certain aspects of [their] religious experience." It has to do with the fact that Mormons "promise not to discuss them." And as I understand most of the Mormons who have posted here, it is about why they object when these things are made public knowledge.

Now, if you're saying that you as a practicing Mormon have no objection to the text of the endowment ceremony being made public knowledge, fine. If you think this question is irrelevant to the topic of this thread, please say so. But a lot of people here seem to think that is very much relevant to the issue of this thread.

I have made a covenant to God not to disclose certain things. I keep that covenant. You haven't made that covenant. As far as I'm concerned, you can do whatever you please. Personally, however, I don't think it is appropriate to desecrate things other people hold sacred, even if I don't believe they are necessarily sacred. Minimally it is a matter of good manners and good taste.

However, you can't expect Mormons to applaud or condone your desecration of things we hold sacred any more than you can expect the ancient Israelites to applaud or condone when Gentiles did the same type of thing to their sacred places and rituals.

[Bill Hamblin]

Please. Don't think I will let this attempt at obfuscation pass. The issue here, the thing that is making Mormons see red, is the publication of the endowment ritual text. Is there any precedent in the OT religion for Mormon outrage at having the text of the endowment ceremony made public knowledge? Yes or No, please. If yes, please explain and document the precedent.

First, you need to note that the OT is not the only source for knowledge of ancient Israelite religion. Agreed?

There were many secret and esoteric Jewish texts. They are not in the Bible because the Bible is precisely defined as those books which can be read publicly in the Jewish synagogue. Look at the esoterica in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example. The OT Pseudepigrapha has many examples. The most obvious is 4 Ezra {Jewish, c. 100 CE}, where the God commands Ezra:

“Make public the twenty-four books [of the Hebrew Bible] that you wrote first, and let the worthy and unworthy read them. But keep the seventy [books] that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people [that is, only the worthy]. For in them [the seventy books restricted to the worthy and wise] is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge” (14:45-48).

Thus canonized scripture is public knowledge, that can be read by the unworthy. Other books are restricted only to the wise and the worthy.

[Bill Hamblin]

I find comments like these obnoxious.

So you are claiming that you don't read the Bible with Evangelical presuppositions, hermeneutics, etc. I find would find such a claim very hard to believe.

[Bill Hamblin]

And nothing I am doing regarding the LDS temple ceremonies violates such limitations. I am not trying to get access to the temple. I am not trying to participate in its rituals. And I am not trying to intrude in the temple while acts are done in ritual secrecy. If that's all you've got, you've got nothing that is precedent for your fellow Mormons expressing outrage and offense over the mere publication of the words spoken in one of the LDS rituals.

This discussion is not about you. Let me repeat, this discussion is not about you. If you want to discuss you, you can start your own thread and discuss yourself all you'd like.

You asked me for examples of ritual secrecy in ancient Israel. I provided several. You didn't engage to the actual examples I provided. You talked about you. Frankly, I don't want to talk about you.

[Bill Hamblin]

There is no evidence from the OT period that the true pronunciation of YHWH's name was a secret, or a ritual secret. There is no evidence from the OT period that the Name could only be pronounced in that ritual context. And the post-OT development was that Jews refrained from pronouncing the Name, not that it was something that outsiders were not supposed to know or make public. And if that's not what you mean, then what you mean is of no relevance to the discussion here.

I'll try one more time. Note that there is a difference between a secret and a ritual secret. It is quite possible lot's of people knew the pronunciation of YHWH's name. So? Ritual secret names in the LDS temple are mostly common English words in daily use. It is the use in the temple context which renders them ritual secrets.

On the other hand, the best evidence we have from theophoric names, ostraca and the Elephantine papyri are that the name was not pronounced fully in ordinary speech. It seems to have been pronounced Yah or Yahu in ordinary speech, not Yahweh as spelled in the Hebrew Bible. At any rate, Ex 20:7 indicates some restrictions on pronunciation of the name. Be that as it may, the pronunciation of the name by the High Priest in a ritual context, makes it a ritual secret. Only he can pronounce it, and only in its proper time and ritual setting. Even if he pronounced it at other times, its pronunciation on the Day of Atonement was a ritual secret.

Note also the transformation of YHWH to kyrios in the LXX. Obviously by the 3rd century at the latest, the Name was not to be pronounced publicly. (Note also the use of Paleo-Hebrew to write YHWH in the DSS, again indicating it was not to be pronounced.

[Bill Hamblin]

Typically, when someone blusters about something being obvious but provides no clear examples, he hasn't got any.

So you are telling me the rituals performed in the Holy Place and Holy of Holies were not ritual secrets? I think the problem is that you don't understand what a ritual secret it, not that there are no clear examples.

[Questing Beast]

...

"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."

...

I am going to leap in here (been lurking all the while) and interject: that Rob Bowman obviously thinks that there is "something fundamentally wrong with Mormonism", or else he would not have put up the temple endowment "in context" for public display.

Why don't you just cut to the chase, Mr Bowman, and explicitly assert what is wrong with the temple endowment, such that you feel it necessary to put it on public display?...

[coolrok7]

(Questing Beast)I am going to leap in here (been lurking all the while) and interject: that Rob Bowman obviously thinks that there is "something fundamentally wrong with Mormonism", or else he would not have put up the temple endowment "in context" for public display.

Why don't you just cut to the chase, Mr Bowman, and explicitly assert what is wrong with the temple endowment, such that you feel it necessary to put it on public display?...

I’m sure he will as I think he’s been trying to answer their concerns (He can speak for himself though).

(Rob Bowman)This is most likely a no-win topic for me to tackle here. The fact is that if I address the topic in this forum, I must do so with one hand tied behind my back, as it were, because forum rules dictate that I cannot discuss the specifics. But there is really no way to deal adequately with the issue of whether these specifics should be kept secret without talking about them. Yet this thread was started in response to a discussion on another thread in which my organization's policy in this matter was challenged, so it seems I ought to respond.

I’ve been following the dialogue of the other thread Rob mentions above and have participated somewhat. I’m responding here in the light of your comment as I understand that for those that reject Mormonism as coming from God are in big time disagreement with the teaching and especially the way our things that we consider sacred are handled by Mormons in their proselytizing efforts down through the years (not much different if we are to accept them at their word).

We both have been invited here by Mormons. The purpose of the site is in the title, “MORMON dialogue and discussion board” (for the discussion of things Mormon).

Rob as the director of IIR was challenged by those here as to why he posts things that are offensive to Mormons in their website in the context of what they consider sacred ritual (or secret as part of not being disclosed as the title of this thread is, “Thoughts on Ritual Secrecy” which has I believe the Mormon temple in mind).

While it is their right to believe and promote things Mormon, they have crossed over our line of faith and declared it to be bankrupt as regards to the truth of God we believe to be Biblical, both publically and privately speaking.

I will have questions later but don't have time at the moment for them (by the way thanks for the comment you made to me, I think, in the other thread)

[CV75]

merely making the text of the ceremony public knowledge means we are sensationalizing, ridiculing, or mocking it

Yes: posting sacred things anywhere outside their context constitutes desecration. It takes something that is spiritual and twists it into something appealing to the uninitiated, untrained, or lesser senses, which is very much a form of sensationalizing, regardless of pretense. In the same way, ridicule and mocking are part and parcel. Violating sacred character is an act of provocation, which is also a sensational device that fosters an environment of enmity and not goodwill (there is no godliness in yellow journalism).

[mfbukowski]

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.

[mfbukowski]

What you call disrespect, I call disagreement.

I have finally figured out what really bothers me about your attitude.

You are like a sexual harasser who says "That's not sexual harassment, it's just a little fun!"

It is up to the person who is offended to determine the level of offense, NOT the person giving the offense.

People who do that are oafish, offensive, obnoxious boors.

Thanks for letting me understand a little more what sexual harassment feels like to a woman. You have no clue how offensive your behavior is.

Christ said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do", but he didn't feel a need to carry on a conversation with them further, either.

[mfbukowski]

Violating sacred character is an act of provocation, which is also a sensational device that fosters an environment of enmity and not goodwill (there is no godliness in yellow journalism).

[Anijen]

Is there the Hopi Kiva ceremony posted also on his site, No? What about the Masonic ceremony, uh no. You mean just the LDS temple ceremony? If yes then he is not looking for dialog about ritual secrecy because he would include others (even though that would also be disrespecting them).

Thoughts on ritual secrecy do not make the people who use ritual secrecy less religious or unworthy. I think some groups feel that it is a sin to have such sacred rituals, Rob seems to be one.

NOTE: There are ways to have a discussion on ritual secrecy without divulging the ritual. So if two scholars lets say non LDS are discussing the sacredness of the Holy Temple and in their discussion with each other one shares his knowledge of what is inside, like Professor Hamblin has made reference too this person has not taken any covenants not to do so, but this person is talking to just one other academic on the matter. The fact that he used the inside ceremony we still find disrespectful but how would we know? We wouldn't? So if one then publishes open on the internet leaves links for more information and has a history of anti-mormon behavior I ask you this; does this person want to discuss in a scholarly dialog ritual secrecy or does he want to promote a biased agenda?

[Mars]

You are like a sexual harasser guy who tells really offensive jokes, but when called out for it says "That's not sexual harassment, it's just a little fun!"

It is up to the person who is offended to determine the level of offense, NOT the person giving the offense.

Fixed, so as to not give Rob any reason to reject your point because of the harsh words involved.

[Gervin]

If anyone grows tired of castigating Mr. Bowman, or otherwise believes that "blessed are the merciful", he asks a pertinent question, on topic, back at post #155:

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?

[ELF1024]

If anyone grows tired of castigating Mr. Bowman, or otherwise believes that "blessed are the merciful", he asks a pertinent question, on topic, back at post #155:

Personally, I don't think that the ritual has any power of it's own. Sharing the ritual doesn't diminish it's worth, or power, as the worth of it is placed upon it by the believer, and it's power is given it by the power of the Priesthood. The same ritual, performed outside of the temple, and without the proper authority is meaningless to those performing it.

It is a matter of respect for the ritual, not making it common place or profane. Sacred things should be respected.

Matthew 7:

6¶^aGive not that which is ^bholy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your ^cpearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

[mfbukowski]

Fixed, so as to not give Rob any reason to reject your point because of the harsh words involved.

I should care if he rejects my point? Have you ever tried discussing things with him?

Brant tried- what did it get him?

[mfbukowski]

If anyone grows tired of castigating Mr. Bowman, or otherwise believes that "blessed are the merciful", he asks a pertinent question, on topic, back at post #155:

I will bow out now- but good luck with him actually discussing a relevant point. You will see as I have time after time. It's not worth the effort.

I already answered that and waited for a response- nothing.

Look at post 2- somebody must have liked that post judging from the "rep points" it got.

Brant tried to discuss it, Hamblin tried to discuss it, all Bowman does is ruin every thread he responds to.

I'm outa here.