Thoughts On Ritual Secrecy

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

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.

Two can play this game.

I am offended that you would take the biblical ritual of baptism, which John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles practiced out in the open, and turn it into a secret ritual to be performed inside your temples on behalf of my departed ancestors who were Catholics and evangelical Protestants. You have no idea how offensive that is to me. I insist that you stop it at once, you boorish oaf.

I'm making a serious point here. The LDS Church has performed proxy baptisms for Jews killed in the Holocaust. How do you think that makes their surviving loved ones feel? Do Jews and traditional Christians get to say that because they find the practice of proxy baptism for their departed relatives offensive, Mormons should stop doing it?

[Nathair/|\]

Nathair,

You wrote:

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?

No, what I'm trying to say, is that if I talk about any ritual I have participated in which I am not supposed to discuss (The endowment is one, which most people here are familiar with, but the same thing applies regardless), it loses much of it's transformative power for me and for those who hear it from me. I believe one reason for that is that discussing the ritual would blur the lines between the mundane world and the sacred space/time of the ritual, thereby making the ritual a part of the mundane world rather than the sacred. Can you imagine the Navaho Kiva ceremonies being discussed in the same breath as traffic jams and bills? It's the same thing.

I didn't know that when I first went through, but I did know that my Heavenly Father wanted me to go through and not talk about it. I don't believe there could be anything wrong about following His will. I also think that if we as a culture weren't so ingrained with a Deuteronomist/Fundamentalist mindset, we wouldn't be so afraid and we would better understand the reasoning behind it. I confess it took many years, much study and prayer, and the guidance of people like MFBukowski, Dr. Hamblin, Dr. Peterson, and David Bokovoy before I was ready to throw off the traditions and accept the larger world.

Yours under the infinite oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Rob Bowman]

Nathair,

Thanks for your response. I always appreciate your respectful and thoughtful comments.

I think you probably can understand, even if you don't agree, that someone who comes to the conclusion that the ritual does not authentically connect people to Jesus Christ would not be concerned about diminishing the transformative power of the ritual for others by informing them about it.

I don't think I will ever stop being amazed at the Mormon penchant for denigrating the Deuteronomists. Jesus and the NT apostles were clearly Deuteronomic in their theology, and so is the Book of Mormon. As I see it, some Mormons are so zealous to defend Joseph Smith's post-Book of Mormon doctrinal developments that they (unwittingly or not) throw the NT and the Book of Mormon under the bus. Let's face it: if Joseph Smith had died in 1830, Mormons would probably be "Deuteronomists" today.

No, what I'm trying to say, is that if I talk about any ritual I have participated in which I am not supposed to discuss (The endowment is one, which most people here are familiar with, but the same thing applies regardless), it loses much of it's transformative power for me and for those who hear it from me. I believe one reason for that is that discussing the ritual would blur the lines between the mundane world and the sacred space/time of the ritual, thereby making the ritual a part of the mundane world rather than the sacred. Can you imagine the Navaho Kiva ceremonies being discussed in the same breath as traffic jams and bills? It's the same thing.

I didn't know that when I first went through, but I did know that my Heavenly Father wanted me to go through and not talk about it. I don't believe there could be anything wrong about following His will. I also think that if we as a culture weren't so ingrained with a Deuteronomist/Fundamentalist mindset, we wouldn't be so afraid and we would better understand the reasoning behind it. I confess it took many years, much study and prayer, and the guidance of people like MFBukowski, Dr. Hamblin, Dr. Peterson, and David Bokovoy before I was ready to throw off the traditions and accept the larger world.

Yours under the infinite oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Bill Hamblin]

Nathair,

Thanks for your response. I always appreciate your respectful and thoughtful comments.

I think you probably can understand, even if you don't agree, that someone who comes to the conclusion that the ritual does not authentically connect people to Jesus Christ would not be concerned about diminishing the transformative power of the ritual for others by informing them about it.

I don't think I will ever stop being amazed at the Mormon penchant for denigrating the Deuteronomists. Jesus and the NT apostles were clearly Deuteronomic in their theology, and so is the Book of Mormon. As I see it, some Mormons are so zealous to defend Joseph Smith's post-Book of Mormon doctrinal developments that they (unwittingly or not) throw the NT and the Book of Mormon under the bus. Let's face it: if Joseph Smith had died in 1830, Mormons would probably be "Deuteronomists" today.

If Jesus had died in 25 AD we'd all be Germanic or Celtic pagans.

At any rate, a carefully, historically nuanced understanding of the Deuteronomists is not denigrating Deuteronomy or Jesus.

[Steadfast]

Aspects of the endowment probably originally served as important shibboleths for early members who needed such things to protect themselves from infiltration by hostile outsiders. As such, their secrecy was essential.

Like the code names that were once in the D & C, they are probably no longer needed for that purpose. The requirement for secrecy could be eliminated, in my opinion. Other aspects of the endowment, which were no longer necessary, have been eliminated; the obligation to keep certain aspects of the endowment secret could, similarly, be removed in the future.

[Calm]

Aspects of the endowment probably originally served as important shibboleths for early members who needed such things to protect themselves from infiltration by hostile outsiders. As such, their secrecy was essential.

And yet the endowment became quickly known among "hostile outsiders" due to apostates. So if that was the reasoning, it would have failed miserably. OTOH, the purpose of ritual secrecy would have been just as strong no matter what apostates did.

[Deborah]

Keeping something secret is a different issue than upholding the sacred nature of something. By putting on one's website a video which could only be obtained by nefarious means the principle isn't one of secrecy so much as integrity. It is a lack of integrity to openly display another religion's most sacred rites without being able to explain their significance. We have temple classes to explain what one may expect in going to the temple for the first time. These are done with an understanding of the significance of the steps being taken. And even then the rites themselves are not discussed.

I remain amazed at the obtuseness of some to understand this.

[Deborah]

I'm making a serious point here. The LDS Church has performed proxy baptisms for Jews killed in the Holocaust. How do you think that makes their surviving loved ones feel? Do Jews and traditional Christians get to say that because they find the practice of proxy baptism for their departed relatives offensive, Mormons should stop doing it?

Uh, they did. So now will you stop your offensive presentations of our temple ceremony?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Uh, they did. So now will you stop your offensive presentations of our temple ceremony?

Good catch.

[Calm]

Keeping something secret is a different issue than upholding the sacred nature of something. By putting on one's website a video which could only be obtained by nefarious means the principle isn't one of secrecy so much as integrity. It is a lack of integrity to openly display another religion's most sacred rites without being able to explain their significance. We have temple classes to explain what one may expect in going to the temple for the first time. These are done with an understanding of the significance of the steps being taken. And even then the rites themselves are not discussed.

I remain amazed at the obtuseness of some to understand this.

"without being able to explain their significance"....this just adds to the problem as I assume you mean, the lack of integrity is the open display of that which is sacred to others, not being able to adequately explain adds confusion and misinformation into the mix, compounding the error (or sin if done with knowledge). However, by adding this condition on the end it could appear that you are okay if explanations are given along with the rite.

Just a point to clarity to avoid someone jumping on this to make excuses for his own or others' lack of integrity.

[Deborah]

"without being able to explain their significance"....this just adds to the problem as I assume you mean, the lack of integrity is the open display of that which is sacred to others, not being able to adequately explain adds confusion and misinformation into the mix, compounding the error (or sin if done with knowledge).

Exactly. Thanks for clarifying.

[CV75]

someone who comes to the conclusion that the ritual does not authentically connect people to Jesus Christ would not be concerned about diminishing the transformative power of the ritual for others by informing them about it.

However, not all "someones" -- there are overriding conscious-driven filters and controls that keep most people that reject the authenticity of a sacred ritual, or that even lack concern about its power or meaning to anyone else at all, from going so far as to desecrate it.

[Calm]

However, not all "someones" -- there are overriding conscious-driven filters and controls that keep most people that reject the authenticity of a sacred ritual, or that even lack concern about its power or meaning to anyone else at all, from going so far as to desecrate it.

Indeed, if there is something that significant in error in the ritual secrets of a belief system, surely there would be enough error in the public teachings to demonstrate the lack of "authentically connect[ing] people to Jesus Christ" that one could use to accomplish correction without having to desecrate sacred space.

It seems similar to those who lie about the teachings and claim that such is justified because of the need to lead people away from the error....if there is that much error, then why the need to lie?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think you probably can understand, even if you don't agree, that someone who comes to the conclusion that the ritual does not authentically connect people to Jesus Christ would not be concerned about diminishing the transformative power of the ritual for others by informing them about it.

In the academic world, this is why we have ethics policies. As I pointed out earlier, researchers are prohibited from doing precisely what you are doing regardless of their personal conclusions or lack of concern...because it is unethical.

[bluebell]

Indeed, if there is something that significant in error in the ritual secrets of a belief system, surely there would be enough error in the public teachings to demonstrate the lack of "authentically connect[ing] people to Jesus Christ" that one could use to accomplish correction without having to desecrate sacred space.

It seems similar to those who lie about the teachings and claim that such is justified because of the need to lead people away from the error....if there is that much error, then why the need to lie?

Christ taught that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

If a person or an organization has to resort to the the tacits of the devil, such as deceit, to accomplish their purposes then that would seem to imply that it cannot be of God, regardless of the intentions.

Personally, in one way, i kind of appreciate those who put temple content up for all to see. It let's me know right away what kind of people they are and what kind of message they are trying to send. With so much out there competing for my time, it's helpful to have a way to quickly judge who is actually worth it and who doesn't have the integrity between their message and their actions that i'm looking for.

I'm not trying to be snarky or to name call. I just sincerely believe that you can't preach the goodness of Christ while employing deceit to do it. And I don't believe it's possible to get temple content to share with others without the use of deceit somewhere in the process.

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

CFR that the LDS Church has stopped baptizing by proxy any of my departed Christian ancestors.

Uh, they did. So now will you stop your offensive presentations of our temple ceremony?

[Bernard Gui]

CFR that the LDS Church has stopped baptizing by proxy any of my departed Christian ancestors.

They are not exclusively your ancestors. As far as you know, they may very well approve their proxy baptism Unless you believe LDS proxy baptism is valid, it is just a meaningless act performed by deluded religionists. If you believe the proxy baptism is valid, then you also know that it's efficacy depends on their free choice to accept or reject it. No harm is done to you or them.

Now that we have fried that red herring, let's move back to your publication of the sacred LDS temple ceremony.

Enough people have spoken here about the very real damage you are doing, not only to faithful LDS but also to the credibility and respect you have previously been accorded by many in our church. This wanton desecration of our temple puts you squarely in the camp of the likes of Ed Decker and his ilk.

How did you obtain the text?

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You miss the point. I, as the offended party, get to decide what is offensive to me. You have already laid down this principle. If I find the LDS practice of proxy baptism an offensive use of my religion's practice of baptism, then it is offensive, and you should stop it. That is a simple application of your own reasoning.

By insisting on continuing to desecrate the historic Christian practice of baptism by performing it in secret for dead people, you are doing damage to your own credibility. This wanton desecration of baptism means you are no better than Andres Serrano, according to your own standards.

[Calm]

You miss the point. I, as the offended party, get to decide what is offensive to me.

I think you are the one missing the point. What is in discussion is a very specific aspect of belief and worship, ritual secrecy, and how it should be treated by nonbelievers. It is a specific enough issue that even academics have set up ethical standards on what should and shouldn't be published. There are very few LDS who I know who make the claim that simply because they are offended about something, someone should automatically change their behaviour.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

So, you are saying that only ritual secrets need to be treated with respect in the eyes of those who embrace them? It's okay to burn the Qur'an or the NIV or the Book of Mormon? It's okay to make a film mocking Mormonism or Catholicism or Fundamentalism?

I think you are the one missing the point. What is in discussion is a very specific aspect of belief and worship, ritual secrecy, and how it should be treated by nonbelievers. It is a specific enough issue that even academics have set up ethical standards on what should and shouldn't be published. There are very few LDS who I know who make the claim that simply because they are offended about something, someone should automatically change their behaviour.

[Calm]

calmoriah,

So, you are saying that only ritual secrets need to be treated with respect in the eyes of those who embrace them? It's okay to burn the Qur'an or the NIV or the Book of Mormon? It's okay to make a film mocking Mormonism or Catholicism or Fundamentalism?

No, I am saying that this discussion is about ritual secrecy and the appropriateness of publicizing it.

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard,

You miss the point. I, as the offended party, get to decide what is offensive to me. You have already laid down this principle. If I find the LDS practice of proxy baptism an offensive use of my religion's practice of baptism, then it is offensive, and you should stop it. That is a simple application of your own reasoning.

By insisting on continuing to desecrate the historic Christian practice of baptism by performing it in secret for dead people, you are doing damage to your own credibility. This wanton desecration of baptism means you are no better than Andres Serrano, according to your own standards.

Nonsense. That just doesn't cut it. You can't deflect attention from your egregious behavior by casting up more red herrings. You have no exclusive claim to the concept or practice of baptism, but we do have exclusive claim to our temples and what goes on in them. Red herring, tu quoque, and straw man all in one post. I believe you have set a record.

You've been caught in duplicity and your frantic attempts to wriggle free only make it worse. Do the right thing. I don't believe you are really of the same fabric as the Ed Deckers of the world. Show us that isn't so.

How did you obtain the text?

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You asked:

How did you obtain the text?

Perhaps it would be appropriate if I were to invoke confessional privilege.

[Bernard Gui]

Perhaps it would be appropriate if I were to invoke confessional privilege.

That would be to your advantage, because the truth would further diminish your rapidly fading luster. Would you care to comment on how the ends justify the means when it comes to desecrating the LDS temple?

Bernard

[Bill Hamblin]

You might as well give up. Rob will never recognize the offensiveness of desecrating the LDS Endowment.