Rob Bowman Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I have been criticized and even excoriated on another thread for supposedly not understanding that when Mormons say that temple rituals should not be publicized because they are "sacred," this term has limited application to rituals. I do understand that context. However, I have noticed in other threads that the idea of something being "sacred" has been used to explain lack of information on non-ritual matters. Three examples come to mind.(1) I have been told that the reason why very few LDS apostles since Joseph Smith have spoken publicly about seeing the risen Jesus is that the experience was too sacred.(2) I have also been told that the details of a Mormon's spiritual testimony or experience by which they know that the Book of Mormon (etc.) is true are also too sacred to discuss publicly.(3) A current thread includes the statement that the reason why we don't hear more stories from Mormons about miracles occurring in fulfillment of a priesthood blessing is that "The experience is not going to be publicized because it is simply [too] sacred." (I understand that the priesthood blessing might be described as a sacred ritual, but not the promised miracle itself.)So, what should I think about those Mormons who criticized me for not understanding that the temple rituals are secret because they are sacred rituals and not merely because they are "sacred" in a broader sense? Were they wrong? Or were these Mormons wrong to appeal to the "sacred" nature of various non-ritual experiences (visions of Jesus, personal testimonies of the Book of Mormon's truth, miracles of healing, etc.)? Is it possible that Mormons too easily appeal to sacredness to rationalize lack of information on a wide variety of issues? Link to comment
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.