What Difference Does It Make If Non-Mormons Know The Secrets?

[Mars]

I'm pretty sure you were the first to mention PR.

Maybe PR has a more reputable line of work where you live.

[elguanteloko]

Yes it is a valid reason. Its just not the one you like.

I expect more than this pitiful level of discussion coming form you, Jeff. I expect reasons and so I give some but you just state your position... I can't take you seriously like that.

[elguanteloko]

I'm pretty sure you were the first to mention PR.

Maybe PR has a more reputable line of work where you live.

So, if you answer like this I guess you have nothing in response.

[Mars]

Sure, but think about this: why is Mormon apologetics focused on certain claims and not on others?

The apologetics focus on the criticisms.

The criticisms focus on the 'weird' parts of Mormonism. Yeah, they can look pretty weird from the outside. From the inside too, sometimes...

[Mars]

So, if you answer like this I guess you have nothing in response.

Then let me try again.

Your focus on PR may be misleading, to me at least. It appears from your post that you ascribe the reason, deriving from your use of English "There is a reason..." (emphasis mine) which made me feel you think it is the primary reason.

I feel our (and I don't take myself seriously as an apologist) main reason for entering the foray is because of the heaps of criticism that deserve answers so that those who have questions can hear a faith affirming answer rather than let the critic be the only one who supplies answers.

[elguanteloko]

Not all these miraculous events were shared with others at the time. The events themselves are recorded many years later, which indicates that not all were entitled to know of them at the time. Yes, Jesus healed many, but that got around by word of mouth, not by an announcement of Jesus himself or his Apostles.

We have an examples of this in both the Bible and BOM. In the Bible at certain times people were instructed not to tell what Jesus had done. In Ether 3:21 we read "And it came to pass that the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt not suffer these things which ye have seen and heard to go forth unto the world, until the time cometh that I shall glorify my name in the flesh; wherefore, ye shall treasure up the things which ye have seen and heard, and show it to no man."

The point is still valid.

[elguanteloko]

The apologetics focus on the criticisms.

The criticisms focus on the 'weird' parts of Mormonism. Yeah, they can look pretty weird from the outside. From the inside too, sometimes...

I guess you won't be criticizing what I said, then, because this wasn't the point.

[elguanteloko]

Then let me try again.

Your focus on PR may be misleading, to me at least.

I clarified it for you. Get over it.

[Jeff K.]

I expect more than this pitiful level of discussion coming form you, Jeff. I expect reasons and so I give some but you just state your position... I can't take you seriously like that.

Do you think anyone here takes you seriously? When your claim that Latter-day Saints don't discuss the temple because of shame, you pretty much put yourself in the underdeveloped intellect bracket. Your answers are pitiful and the reasons given in response to why we don't all fall over ourselves breaking our oaths are reasons you don't like. So you reject those reasons even as our understanding is confirmed by your hilarious "oh then you must be ashamed" tactic. One is tempted to ask the rhetorical question... when will you grow up?

[Nemesis]

Do you think anyone here takes you seriously? When your claim that Latter-day Saints don't discuss the temple because of shame, you pretty much put yourself in the underdeveloped intellect bracket. Your answers are pitiful and the reasons given in response to why we don't all fall over ourselves breaking our oaths are reasons you don't like. So you reject those reasons even as our understanding is confirmed by your hilarious "oh then you must be ashamed" tactic. One is tempted to ask the rhetorical question... when will you grow up?

Knock it off.

Nemesis

[Pahoran]

The only good reasons I can think of are to keep others from thinking you are weird (you are ashamed - or that your believes and religion are weird) and a good chance of serious violence because of what you say.

Oh, so those are the only good reasons you can think of, are they?

Well, that tells us how limited your imagination is, but not much else.

Someone mentioned that it was about context but you can explain the context which Mormons won't do since they can't even talk about the Temple rituals themselves. There's a reason why Mormons have apologists and that's, in part, because silence doesn't make good PR in face of attacks.

That's a glib, but ultimately irrelevant response. Explanation is necessarily interpretation. As soon as you try to "explain the context" you are interpreting something according to your own views of it. The ordinances must be experienced -- "explanations" are for the terminally lazy who aren't willing to qualify themselves to either receive the ordinances or understand them.

Another mentioned that they were commanded but we can be "commanded by God" to do anything without explaining what the reason is so this doesn't answer the question.

Not to you; but to those who think obedience to God is important, it just might.

Another attempt I've heard is that this is sacred information (this is obviously related to "sacred experiences" people refuse to share) but putting the word "sacred" prior to a noun doesn't explain anything. Many stories in the Bible of angelic visitations, for example, could be counted as sacred but those that had them did share them so this, by itself, isn't an answer.

Yes, and putting the word "salty" in front of something doesn't explain anything to anyone who's never experienced the taste of salt.

IOW, all your post tells us is this: having no understanding or appreciation of the sacred, you cannot grasp why it matters to anyone else.

What a waste of bandwidth.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

Yes, and putting the word "salty" in front of something doesn't explain anything to anyone who's never experienced the taste of salt.

IOW, all your post tells us is this: having no understanding or appreciation of the sacred, you cannot grasp why it matters to anyone else.

What a waste of bandwidth.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

I will, but note what I was responding to.

But the information is valid, if he considers integrity to be pitiful and not mentioning the temple ordinances to be a matter of shame, yes it chaps me just a bit.

[Jeff K.]

Oh, so those are the only good reasons you can think of, are they?

Well, that tells us how limited your imagination is, but not much else.

That's a glib, but ultimately irrelevant response. Explanation is necessarily interpretation. As soon as you try to "explain the context" you are interpreting something according to your own views of it. The ordinances must be experienced -- "explanations" are for the terminally lazy who aren't willing to qualify themselves to either receive the ordinances or understand them.

Not to you; but to those who think obedience to God is important, it just might.

Yes, and putting the word "salty" in front of something doesn't explain anything to anyone who's never experienced the taste of salt.

IOW, all your post tells us is this: having no understanding or appreciation of the sacred, you cannot grasp why it matters to anyone else.

What a waste of bandwidth.

Regards,

Pahoran

Darn, should have said it that way.

[elguanteloko]

Oh, so those are the only good reasons you can think of, are they?

Well, that tells us how limited your imagination is, but not much else.

Perhaps. If you have better then I want to hear them but please give a little bit of explanation as to why you think those reasons are relevant reasons.

That's a glib, but ultimately irrelevant response. Explanation is necessarily interpretation. As soon as you try to "explain the context" you are interpreting something according to your own views of it. The ordinances must be experienced -- "explanations" are for the terminally lazy who aren't willing to qualify themselves to either receive the ordinances or understand them.

Go to page 2 in this thread and look for what is meant by context there. That's what I was referring to. Someone mentioned "Masonic" context and "Mormon" context and that's the use I gave to the word. Here you mean by that something very different. To say that to explain the context "you are interpreting something according to your own views of it" is useless since this can be said about anything... even about any conclusion or use of language you use to speak to yourself!

Not to you; but to those who think obedience to God is important, it just might.

You guys have some serious problems with identifying what "reasons" are. This is what I wrote: "Another mentioned that they were commanded but we can be "commanded by God" to do anything without explaining what the reason is so this doesn't answer the question."

Yes, and putting the word "salty" in front of something doesn't explain anything to anyone who's never experienced the taste of salt.

So, what's the context? It feels very spiritual? Tastes like an spiritual experience? This is vacuous but if you think you have a point here then I want to hear it.

IOW, all your post tells us is this: having no understanding or appreciation of the sacred, you cannot grasp why it matters to anyone else.

What a waste of bandwidth.

I have been very spiritual for most of my life. So, what "context" are you speaking of?

[mmmcounts]

It is not about them being Secret. It is about them being Sacred.

I have never understood this distinction, although I tend to hear it pretty consistently with regard to this topic.

This is why I haven't understood to this point.

I know the meanings of these words. I know what "secret" means- it means you withhold information from certain people or in certain situations. And I know what "sacred" means- it means set apart for holy use.

I know all about sacred. I do sacred all the time. I've been taught that for a follower of Jesus, your entire life is supposed to be "set apart for holy use." Then there's whatever religious rites that are common to a religious group- marriage, a sacrament or ordinance, not a purely legal transaction but something that is holy and set apart. Baptism, not just a ritual that means "you're in the church" but something that has greater significance, where some even hold to the guarantee of regeneration. Icons, fonts, altars past and present, sacred music (specifically set apart for religious use) and sacred art (specifically commissioned for religious purposes). Sacred, sacred, and sacred.

I know sacred. I am quite familiar with it.

What I'm not as familiar with is the existence of anything in my personal experience of "sacred" that automatically means "secret." Because that is what we're dealing with here- it may very well be sacred, but it's also secret. Yes, it's something that is set apart for holy uses or purposes, but it's also the sort of thing that you don't talk about to certain people or in certain situations. You're not supposed to, anyway.

None of my sacred things lead to secrecy. In my experience, sacred things are sometimes done that way specifically in order for them to stick out- the clergy with the white collar, worn in public specifically so people know he's set apart from the laity. The crosses and crucifixes used in jewelery or on clothing, and the people who lament how it's used by some as a mere fashion statement and it doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean. (Ie., it's supposed to make you stick out and let people know you're a follower of Jesus and that's what's different about you). There's the 40-foot cross along I-55 as I drive south through the state in which I grew up. There's the grand cathedrals of Europe that make a permanent architectural mark on the landscape- specifically in order to let everyone know "This is a place that's set apart for Christian-oriented things; this is a land where Christianity used to be extremely important in everyday life."

No secrets, no secrets, no secrets. All sacred, all sacred, all sacred. All of these things proclaim that which is sacred- they do not keep it secret. That is my experience of "sacred." Very consistently, as a matter of fact.

But this. This is sacred, and it's also very secret. The secrecy is entirely new to my experience with religion in general- and I'm not just talking about Christianity, I'm talking about all major world religions. This is the kind of sacred ceremony that is kept secret, and that must be some entirely new kind of sacred- the kind where you also keep it a secret. That's probably the part I don't entirely understand.

[ERayR]

I have never understood this distinction, although I tend to hear it pretty consistently with regard to this topic.

This is why I haven't understood to this point.

I know the meanings of these words. I know what "secret" means- it means you withhold information from certain people or in certain situations. And I know what "sacred" means- it means set apart for holy use.

I know all about sacred. I do sacred all the time. I've been taught that for a follower of Jesus, your entire life is supposed to be "set apart for holy use." Then there's whatever religious rites that are common to a religious group- marriage, a sacrament or ordinance, not a purely legal transaction but something that is holy and set apart. Baptism, not just a ritual that means "you're in the church" but something that has greater significance, where some even hold to the guarantee of regeneration. Icons, fonts, altars past and present, sacred music (specifically set apart for religious use) and sacred art (specifically commissioned for religious purposes). Sacred, sacred, and sacred.

I know sacred. I am quite familiar with it.

What I'm not as familiar with is the existence of anything in my personal experience of "sacred" that automatically means "secret." Because that is what we're dealing with here- it may very well be sacred, but it's also secret. Yes, it's something that is set apart for holy uses or purposes, but it's also the sort of thing that you don't talk about to certain people or in certain situations. You're not supposed to, anyway.

None of my sacred things lead to secrecy. In my experience, sacred things are sometimes done that way specifically in order for them to stick out- the clergy with the white collar, worn in public specifically so people know he's set apart from the laity. The crosses and crucifixes used in jewelery or on clothing, and the people who lament how it's used by some as a mere fashion statement and it doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean. (Ie., it's supposed to make you stick out and let people know you're a follower of Jesus and that's what's different about you). There's the 40-foot cross along I-55 as I drive south through the state in which I grew up. There's the grand cathedrals of Europe that make a permanent architectural mark on the landscape- specifically in order to let everyone know "This is a place that's set apart for Christian-oriented things; this is a land where Christianity used to be extremely important in everyday life."

No secrets, no secrets, no secrets. All sacred, all sacred, all sacred. All of these things proclaim that which is sacred- they do not keep it secret. That is my experience of "sacred." Very consistently, as a matter of fact.

But this. This is sacred, and it's also very secret. The secrecy is entirely new to my experience with religion in general- and I'm not just talking about Christianity, I'm talking about all major world religions. This is the kind of sacred ceremony that is kept secret, and that must be some entirely new kind of sacred- the kind where you also keep it a secret. That's probably the part I don't entirely understand.

You have misunderstood and missed the point entirely. With LDS it is not secret. It is available to all who prepare to receive the sacred. All things sacred deserve reverence. There are some things that almost everybody can sense as sacred (cathedrals and 40-foot crosses). Yet even these some times get desicrated. There are things that are sacred only to the prepared initiate (rites and ceremonies). The problem comes when there are those who don't respect someone elses sacred (LDS temple ordinances) and publish and ridicule them. Christ has given instruction not to openly proclaim these things. The "...cast your pearls before swine" thing.

LDS temple rituals are not "very secret" despite our best efforts to maintain a sacred attitude towards them. It is unfortunate but there are those who seem to delight in desicrating that which we hold sacred. Despite the claims from the unintiated that we have secret rituals millions participate in them every year. Not a well kept secret. The sad part is that despite our best efforts to prepare the initiates as to their sacredness there are always some who don't feel their sacredness and join with those who have no sense of propriaty and desicrate them.

[Nathair/|\]

I attempted to explore the purposes of ritual secrecy a few weeks ago on this board. We reached a partial conclusion that if ritual secrets are discussed outside the appropriate context, and especially if they are discussed in the same context with carnal matters, the individuals who are party to such discussions lose much of their ability to be transformed by the ritual. The same thing applies to any potentially transformative experience; which is, I believe, a large part of why we don't discuss many of our most sacred, miraculous or revelatory experiences in fora where they will not be treated with appropriate respect.

Yours under the esoteric oaks,

Nathair /|\

[mfbukowski]

But this. This is sacred, and it's also very secret. The secrecy is entirely new to my experience with religion in general- and I'm not just talking about Christianity, I'm talking about all major world religions. This is the kind of sacred ceremony that is kept secret, and that must be some entirely new kind of sacred- the kind where you also keep it a secret. That's probably the part I don't entirely understand.

Have you ever confessed your sins and thanked God for his forgiveness? Was that sacred?

Have you ever prayed about very private matters?

Have you ever had sacred experiences with your wife you will not tell us about?

Have you ever, after receiving the Eucharist, had an experience which is so profound you cannot use words to describe it? You have never had an experience which was just between you and God?

I guess not.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 30 May 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

You entire line of questioning is geared towards asking people why they shouldn't "tell" or in other words, why their oath and promise should mean nothing. If that isn't asking people to give up their integrity I don't know what is. While I am aware of certain sacred ceremonies in other organizations I would respect their view of the importance and sacredness of those ceremonies and I would respect them enough not to ask.

Your line of questioning is insulting along two paralell courses. In the first, you imply that the common knowledge of the ceremony makes our view of its sacredness less so, and therefore any adherence to a promise is unnecessary. Given the source of the ceremony I find it ridiciulous to make an assumption that something God created and asked us to keep sacred and not divulge suddenly becomes less so when some choose to reject their integrity.

Secondly you insult us by presuming that our integrity is so weak and ineffectual that the mere knowledge of the ceremony is sufficient to warrant our rejection of our promise to God.

That does indeed show a great deal of disdain for the church, and a lack of esteem for those who call themselves members of our church.

As has been noted, our promise is with God. It doesn't matter what the world knows, it matters only what we have covenanted to do.

You sir, are "barking up the wrong tree". I asked you to show me one instance in this thread where I have encouraged or accused LDS of not keeping their solemn oaths and you have utterly failed and instead continue on with your ranting because you want it to be so. You need me to be your "bad guy" so you can view yourself as justified in being insulted when you are not. Would you like to try again?

Which part didn't you understand regarding your line of questioning. By asking those questions you in effect encourage LDS not to keep their oaths but to speak of them. I thought I was pretty clear on the issue, apparently I am too subtle in my posts, something I am rarely accused of.

[elguanteloko]

You have misunderstood and missed the point entirely. With LDS it is not secret. It is available to all who prepare to receive the sacred.

"Secret" does not speak of the ability of someone else to know them but of the concealment those that know it use to keep it form others. Do you see the difference? There's a distinction between taking a stone as sacred and keeping the stone from everyone else (or setting a bunch of barriers to get to see it).

All things sacred deserve reverence.

LOL Are you sure about this? I have breaking news for you: not all secrets are good and praiseworthy secrets.

There are some things that almost everybody can sense as sacred (cathedrals and 40-foot crosses). Yet even these some times get desicrated.

Reverence, yes, but that doesn't mean we are going to hide them or seriously refrain from describing them physically to other people.

There are things that are sacred only to the prepared initiate (rites and ceremonies).

Therefore, keep them secret? Come on!

The problem comes when there are those who don't respect someone elses sacred (LDS temple ordinances) and publish and ridicule them.

This already assumes that you have justified the "sacred" to be kept in secret. That's what is in question here.

Christ has given instruction not to openly proclaim these things. The "...cast your pearls before swine" thing.

Again, this doesn't answer the question. "Another mentioned that they were commanded but we can be "commanded by God" to do anything without explaining what the reason is so this doesn't answer the question."

LDS temple rituals are not "very secret" despite our best efforts to maintain a sacred attitude towards them. It is unfortunate but there are those who seem to delight in desicrating that which we hold sacred. Despite the claims from the unintiated that we have secret rituals millions participate in them every year. Not a well kept secret. The sad part is that despite our best efforts to prepare the initiates as to their sacredness there are always some who don't feel their sacredness and join with those who have no sense of propriaty and desicrate them.

If this is a motivator then it is a wrong motivator for keeping the temple secret. Is it more effective against ridicule of the sacred to stay quiet about it or do apologetics about it? What is more sacred: the doctrine that Christ came, died, and rose form among the dead for the salvation of mankind or the temple doctrines? Yet, one merits apologetics and greater diffusion of information but the other one doesn't.

[ERayR]

"Secret" does not speak of the ability of someone else to know them but of the concealment those that know it use to keep it form others. Do you see the difference? There's a distinction between taking a stone as sacred and keeping the stone from everyone else (or setting a bunch of barriers to get to see it).

Where do you get your definitions? Do you just make them up to suit your own needs? Kept hidden from knowledge or view; concealed. Something kept hidden from others or known only to oneself or to a few.

There is also a difference between offering something sacred to a jerk and offering it to someone who will respect it.

LOL Are you sure about this? I have breaking news for you: not all secrets are good and praiseworthy secrets.

You also need reading lessons. I said nothing about secrets being praiseworthy. I said sacred. Your problem is you do not seem to know the difference.

Reverence, yes, but that doesn't mean we are going to hide them or seriously refrain from describing them physically to other people.

It does if the other people:

1 - hasn't the slightest appreciation for what they are hearing and are libel to desecrate them.

2 - Sacred rites are not for the gratification of the purient curiosity of unbelievers.

Therefore, keep them secret? Come on!

Isn't that just what you are accusing the Mormon Church of doing?

This already assumes that you have justified the "sacred" to be kept in secret. That's what is in question here.

A group does not have to justify nor reveal to the ignorant and profane what is sacred to them.

Again, this doesn't answer the question. "Another mentioned that they were commanded but we can be "commanded by God" to do anything without explaining what the reason is so this doesn't answer the question."

What question? Any group does not have to justify nor reveal to the ignorant and profane what is sacred to them.

If this is a motivator then it is a wrong motivator for keeping the temple secret. Is it more effective against ridicule of the sacred to stay quiet about it or do apologetics about it? What is more sacred: the doctrine that Christ came, died, and rose form among the dead for the salvation of mankind or the temple doctrines? Yet, one merits apologetics and greater diffusion of information but the other one doesn't.

False dichotomy. One was meant for difussion and commanded to be taken to all. The other was not but was only for the initiate. I will bet that if you can quit trying to score points and think about it awhile you will be able to understand it.

[Walden]

A lot of the Mormon secrets- Temple secrets in particular- are out there. On the interwebs. People can know them if they care to.

I don't really know how much I know compared to someone who's actually a Mormon, but I know more than I'm supposed to. Without getting too specific, what difference does it make?

Thanks.

Personally, I don't think that it makes much of a difference, but then again, I have not been involved in temple activities in over 15 years, having left the church over a decade ago.

My belief is that the aura/mystery surrounding the temple "secrets" is utilized by the LDS church to promote a sense of exclusivity and prestige among members. This feeling of "exclusivity" in turn promotes a sense of loyalty and camaraderie amongst the members.

It's like any other exclusive, by invitation-only club, whether it be a VIP party, local brotherhood/fraternal organization, fraternity/sorority, etc....invited members are made to feel a sense of pride, elitism and exclusivity through the use of "secret" handshakes, verbal cues, rituals, etc.

Isn't an organization such as the infamous Skull and Bones, the secret society at Yale, much more intriguing precesiely because you do not know the secret rituals, handshakes, etc. that occur during their meetings? Would they be as intriguing if everyone knew these symbols? Would members of that secret society feel as esteemed if everyone knew their symbology?

Same principle with LDS temples.

[Jeff K.]

Could some Mormons be using the issue to create an aura of exclusivity?

Isn't that what baptism is?

Not being "part of the world"?

Just about everything that makes anyone a Christian would create a certain "exclusivity". There is no need for non dislcosure there.

Can some Mormons use it as an act of "superiority"? Indeed, and some have, but on the use of having these ordinances does not diminish their importance or sacredness, rather to hold it as such reduces the individuals using the ordinances to create a perception of superiority. If the church really thought it would create a measure of superiority, the garments would be worn as phylacteries shown outwardly, rather than keeping it underneath our clothing.

[Calm]

Same principle with LDS temples.

And yet within the temple there is no hierarchy, all are the same, all even dress the same so if the principle is to create a sense of superiority and exclusiveness, it seems rather strange that immediately upon entering the temple, you become just one of many.