Lds Temple Ceremonies And Indigenous Tribal Rituals

[Rob Bowman]

I'd like to comment on the following remarks Robert F. Smith made in another thread regarding the publication of material about LDS temple content:

As to the appearance of sacred temple content on his website, I think that is a serious problem, but he needs to see the problem from our point of view. Even as a matter of academic integrity, some things should be off limits, but he needs to come to that realization on his own. My best friend got his PhD in anthropology from Cornell studying and writing about a very complex and civilized tribe in Africa. He spent two years at it (he, his wife, and children living with that tribe), and learned a great deal about their sacred, esoteric rites. However, he deliberately left that out of his dissertation out of respect for that tribe. Academic integrity was very important to him. At some point, Rob may come to understand that and remove the offending material from his site. After all, that sort of scurrilous approach is readily available elsewhere anyhow, isn't it?

Bob, you continue to show generosity and kindness toward me. I am very grateful. Let me give you some history about our article and then comment on what you say here.

When I came on staff at IRR four years ago, the article that gives the text of the temple ceremony was already on IRR's website. We have had considerable discussion on staff about LDS sensitivities about this matter. I have also had discussions on this forum about it. As a result of that discussion here, I placed the following caveat at the top of the web page in question:

A note to the reader: Practicing members of the LDS Church regard the temple ceremonies, including the text of the endowment ceremony, as sacred and not to be divulged to the world or discussed with others. They take an oath not to make this information public. Former temple-going members who have left the LDS Church, on the other hand, often view their oath as invalid or non-binding. Although we do not regard the LDS temple ceremonies as sacred and do not agree with the idea of keeping sacred things secret, we understand and acknowledge that some Mormons may be offended by the publication of details concerning LDS temple ceremonies. It is definitely not our intention to mock Mormons or their practices; our intention is simply to make information available to those who are looking for it. We encourage readers to be circumspect about bringing up these things when engaged in discussion with practicing Mormons.

That note has not satisfied our critics, but I hope it shows that I am not simply ignoring Mormon concerns about the matter.

Now, with regard to what you say, I understand your point of view but am not convinced that the comparison between the LDS temple ceremonies and such phenomena as the sacred tribal rites of certain African tribes is a valid comparison. I have several reasons for thinking this to be an invalid comparison.

1. Obviously, the LDS Church is not a tribe; its rituals are not indigenous cultural developments of a specific people group.
   
2. The LDS Church, unlike such tribes, actively and aggressively seeks to convert outsiders to its beliefs and to induce them to qualify themselves to undergo the rituals in question. This is a key point not only because it reveals a significant difference between tribal rituals and Mormon temple ceremonies but also explains why outsiders have a valid interest in knowing about the LDS ceremonies.
   
3. The historical and comparative evidence shows that key elements of the LDS temple rituals, including elements Mormons would like kept secret, were taken from Freemasonry. From an outside researcher's perspective, it doesn't make much sense for Group B to claim that their rituals must be kept secret if they took supposedly secret elements of those rituals from Group A.
   
4. The LDS Church has already provided a substantial amount of information to the public about its temple ceremonies. It actually provides guided tours inside temples when they are first opened and publishes material about the temple ceremonies and their significance. The tribes that have secret rituals don't generally make comparable information available about their rituals.
   
5. In many cases drawing comparisons between LDS temple ceremonies and secret tribal rituals would backfire because those tribal rituals are often highly objectionable from an outsider's perspective. African tribal initiation rituals often involve such acts as genital mutilation of females and cutting or branding the skin of males.
   
6. After elements of the LDS temple ceremonies were made public in the 1980s, the LDS Church substantially revised those ceremonies to remove some of the most controversial elements. How "sacred" could those elements have been if they could be removed for the sake of public relations? For all we know, some years from now the ceremonies will be revised again and more "sacred" elements dropped. Indeed, one could argue that those who exposed the pre-1990 ceremony to the public did the LDS Church a favor, as the exposure of those controversial -- and apparently not really sacred -- elements moved the LDS Church to remove them, making the ceremonies far less troubling than they were. African tribes that practice secret rituals do not, of course, revise them if researchers publicize details about those rituals.
   
7. Many people have left the LDS Church, and many who left testified that they wished they had known what the temple ceremonies involved before the went through them (this seems to apply especially to the pre-1990 ceremonies). Knowing this raises the issue of balancing the desire to be respectful of LDS sensibilities with the desire to provide information that would be of value to those who have not yet been initiated into the temple. Again, this sort of concern simply does not come up in regard to secret rituals of indigenous tribes in Africa or the Americas.
   

As I think through this issue, I honestly don't find the comparison you make (and that others have made) at all cogent. I don't go looking for ways to offend people and would prefer to avoid offending Mormons over this issue if I could without compromising the concerns stated above. Hopefully you can see why a person could in good conscience disagree with you about the temple ceremonies, even if you continue to find our position offensive.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Calm]

After elements of the LDS temple ceremonies were made public in the 1980s, the LDS Church substantially revised those ceremonies to remove some of the most controversial elements. How "sacred" could those elements have been if they could be removed for the sake of public relations? For all we know, some years from now the ceremonies will be revised again and more "sacred" elements dropped.

You are seriously attempting to define what is sacred and what is not for another faith....sheesh.

[Calm]

• Obviously, the LDS Church is not a tribe; its rituals are not indigenous cultural developments of a specific people group.

  And this makes it okay to be less respectful of our sacred rituals why? We are a faith community. Does a faith community deserve less respect than a tribal one?
  

• The LDS Church, unlike such tribes, actively and aggressively seeks to convert outsiders to its beliefs and to induce them to qualify themselves to undergo the rituals in question. This is a key point not only because it reveals a significant difference between tribal rituals and Mormon temple ceremonies but also explains why outsiders have a valid interest in knowing about the LDS ceremonies.

  I think it is irrelevant to whether or not one should expose tribal rituals as opposed to a faith's rituals, but it is a valid point if one is attempting to counteract that missionary effort....whether it is sufficient is another question.
  

• The historical and comparative evidence shows that key elements of the LDS temple rituals, including elements Mormons would like kept secret, were taken from Freemasonry. From an outside researcher's perspective, it doesn't make much sense for Group B to claim that their rituals must be kept secret if they took supposedly secret elements of those rituals from Group A.

  And plenty of tribal rituals have been transferred/adapted from one tribe to another. LDS temple ritual does not state "and now this symbol we are using is from a secret Masonic ritual". No one comes out of a temple endowment knowing more about what goes on in a Masonic ceremony.
  

• The LDS Church has already provided a substantial amount of information to the public about its temple ceremonies. It actually provides guided tours inside temples when they are first opened and publishes material about the temple ceremonies and their significance. The tribes that have secret rituals don't generally make comparable information available about their rituals.

  So because someone draws a less extreme line of sacredness it makes it okay to violate that line. Got it.
  

• In many cases drawing comparisons between LDS temple ceremonies and secret tribal rituals would backfire because those tribal rituals are often highly objectionable from an outsider's perspective. African tribal initiation rituals often involve such acts as genital mutilation of females and cutting or branding the skin of males.

  Only for those who don't get that concept of sacredness....which would not be those who are expressing understanding of the sacredness of such rituals by refusing to discuss them in public even when they are not themselves participants or believers.
  

• After elements of the LDS temple ceremonies were made public in the 1980s, the LDS Church substantially revised those ceremonies to remove some of the most controversial elements. How "sacred" could those elements have been if they could be removed for the sake of public relations? For all we know, some years from now the ceremonies will be revised again and more "sacred" elements dropped. Indeed, one could argue that those who exposed the pre-1990 ceremony to the public did the LDS Church a favor, as the exposure of those controversial -- and apparently not really sacred -- elements moved the LDS Church to remove them, making the ceremonies far less troubling than they were. African tribes that practice secret rituals do not, of course, revise them if researchers publicize details about those rituals.

  An absolutely bizarre reason for justifying exposure of a sacred ritual....it's not really sacred based on your evaluation no matter what believers actually believe about it.
  

• Many people have left the LDS Church, and many who left testified that they wished they had known what the temple ceremonies involved before the went through them (this seems to apply especially to the pre-1990 ceremonies). Knowing this raises the issue of balancing the desire to be respectful of LDS sensibilities with the desire to provide information that would be of value to those who have not yet been initiated into the temple. Again, this sort of concern simply does not come up in regard to secret rituals of indigenous tribes in Africa or the Americas.

  Again attempting to stop someone from trying to convert to what someone believes is a false faith is a reasonable reason for exposing what one finds false....whether or not it is sufficient to cause to expose what is viewed as sacred depends on whether or not additional valid reasons weight the answer toward respect or exposure.
  

Edited September 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

You are seriously attempting to define what is sacred and what is not for another faith....sheesh.

This is an a priori objection to what I said, rather than an actual engagement with the argument I presented. Surely we can agree that claims by some religious groups that their secret rituals are sacred are open to question.

In regard to my first point, you wrote:

And this makes it okay to be less respectful of our sacred rituals why?

The argument is cumulative; the first point needs to be taken together with what follows.

You wrote:

And plenty of tribal rituals have been transferred/adapted from one tribe to another. LDS temple ritual does not state "and now this symbol we are using is from a secret Masonic ritual". No one comes out of a temple endowment knowing more about what goes on in a Masonic ceremony.

This rather misses the point. Joseph Smith knowingly lifted elements of the temple ceremony from Masonic temple rituals but claimed that the ceremony was received by divine revelation via his capacity as a prophet. Tribal rituals may include elements from the rituals of other tribes, but they don't go around propagandizing the rest of the world about the unique spiritual value of their rituals. In fact, the whole point of tribal rituals is that they are rites of passage within the tribe, important to them because they contribute to the differentiation of tribal members into their traditional roles (men vs. women and children; chiefs or shamans vs. the rest of the people; etc.).

Regarding my sixth reason for rejecting the comparison of LDS temple ceremonies to sacred tribal rituals (the tribal rituals are not amended to satisfy public relations concerns, whereas the LDS ceremonies were), you commented:

An absolutely bizarre reason for justifying exposure of a sacred ritual....it's not really sacred based on your evaluation no matter what believers actually believe about it.

This doesn't engage the argument at this point. It is another a priori objection.

You wrote:

Again attempting to stop someone from trying to convert to what someone believes is a false faith is a reasonable reason for exposing what one finds false....whether or not it is sufficient to cause to expose what is viewed as sacred depends on whether or not additional valid reasons weight the answer toward respect or exposure.

That's a reasonable conclusion. I do think there are sufficient reasons cumulatively to justify the exposure, though of course I don't expect faithful Mormons to agree.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'd like to comment on the following remarks Robert F. Smith made in another thread regarding the publication of material about LDS temple content:

When I came on staff at IRR four years ago, the article that gives the text of the temple ceremony was already on IRR's website. We have had considerable discussion on staff about LDS sensitivities about this matter. I have also had discussions on this forum about it. As a result of that discussion here, I placed the following caveat at the top of the web page in question:

Then when is it coming down? You are the boss right?

[CA Steve]

Would a internet post or site about the secret practices and beliefs of Scientology be disrespectful?

Edited September 10, 2012 by CA Steve

[Calm]

Surely we can agree that claims by some religious groups that their secret rituals are sacred are open to question.

Only if such claims violate other claims of the religious group. The fact that LDS are open to continuing revelation eliminates any claim that simply because something has been changed means that the former situation was somehow less sacred than either the current or a future one.

We do not discount the value of anointing healing blessings given by women in the past because it is not done that way now. We do not discount the multiple baptisms that used to take place as having no spiritual meaning because we limit baptisms to one purpose now, we do not discount the sealing relationships of the past because we seal only in family lines now.

In regards to cumulative points....if a point has zero value in the first place, even if it is one of a thousand other points...all valid (which is not the case in your list in my view) it still has zero value.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You don't seem to have read the entire opening post.

And no, I'm not "the boss," but that isn't relevant here.

Then when is it coming down? You are the boss right?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Would a internet post or site about the secret practices and beliefs of Scientology be disrespectful?

Yes when someone comes extending the hand of friendship.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

You don't seem to have read the entire opening post.

And no, I'm not "the boss," but that isn't relevant here.

Rob...is it gone? That is all that matters.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

Only if such claims violate other claims of the religious group. The fact that LDS are open to continuing revelation eliminates any claim that simply because something has been changed means that the former situation was somehow less sacred than either the current or a future one.

Come now, Cal. The ceremony was not changed because the Prophet received new revelation, but because former Mormons embarrassed the LDS Church by publicizing the ceremony. I don't think this conclusion can be plausibly refuted.

You wrote:

In regards to cumulative points....if a point has zero value in the first place, even if it is one of a thousand other points...all valid (which is not the case in your list in my view) it still has zero value.

But none of the points I gave has zero value. It is a fact, to be specific, that the LDS Church is not a tribe. This places some burden of proof on the Mormon who wants to claim that the elective religious rituals of its temples are comparable to the non-elective cultural (which includes religion but is much more than religion) rituals of indigenous tribes.

[CA Steve]

Yes when someone comes extending the hand of friendship.

Would an internet expose on Scientology by someone who was never a member of Scientology be disrespectful?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

I am intimately aware of the changes made, and not one was because of embarrassment.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Rob Bowman:

I am intimately aware of the changes made, and not one was because of embarrassment.

Could you expand...I would like the truth.

[Calm]

The ceremony was not changed because the Prophet received new revelation, but because former Mormons embarrassed the LDS Church by publicizing the ceremony. I don't think this conclusion can be plausibly refuted.....

But none of the points I gave has zero value. It is a fact, to be specific, that the LDS Church is not a tribe. This places some burden of proof on the Mormon who wants to claim that the elective religious rituals of its temples are comparable to the non-elective cultural (which includes religion but is much more than religion) rituals of indigenous tribes.

You assume your interpretations are the correct ones...beliefs and historical events and even what are the appropriate reasons for holding something sacred. I know quite a few people who would discount respecting the sacred nature of tribal ritual simply because they see them as false. How is that different than what you have done here establishing your own rule of what is "sacred" enough to respect or not as opposed to simply letting an organization judge the sacredness for itself?

I don't buy your limited interpretations of why changes were made. There existing one cause or contributor does not prevent something else, including revelation, from contributing to change or the establishment of the use of a ritual's symbol. It is not acceptable to think that LDS have to accept your definitions of what caused our temple rituals in determining whether it is sacred enough to us to be given the level of respect we think is appropriate.

Edited September 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

the sometimesaint,

You wrote:

I am intimately aware of the changes made, and not one was because of embarrassment.

What would you call it?

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

The overall length was reduced and not as much standing is now required.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

You assume your interpretations are the correct ones...beliefs and historical events and even what are the appropriate reasons for holding something sacred.

It wouldn't make much sense for me to assume that my interpretations are incorrect, would it?

You wrote:

I know quite a few people who would discount respecting the sacred nature of tribal ritual simply because they see them as false. How is that different than what you have done here establishing your own rule of what is "sacred" enough to respect or not as opposed to simply letting an organization judge the sacredness for itself?

I think I've been clear about my reasoning, and it is not simply that I view LDS beliefs as false.

You wrote:

I don't buy your limited interpretations of why changes were made. There existing one cause or contributor does not prevent something else, including revelation, from contributing to change or the establishment of the use of a ritual's symbol. It is not acceptable to think that LDS have to accept your definitions of what caused our temple rituals in determining whether it is sacred enough to us to be given the level of respect we think is appropriate.

If you will review my comments in this thread, I have stated candidly that I do not expect LDS to accept my argument. The most for which I am hoping is that you will understand it enough to acknowledge that our position is an honest one.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

The number of sessions were increased.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

Regarding what changes were made to the temple ceremony, you wrote:

The overall length was reduced and not as much standing is now required.

Yeah, that's it. Those cwazy anti-Mormons did their expose of the temple ceremony because they thought it was too long and required too much standing.

Mr. Saint, you're not helping your cause with this sort of superficial apologetic.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa:

The overall length was reduced and not as much standing is now required.

Yes...I thought we were speaking about Temple content still at IRR. Rob...if there just take it down.

[Tacenda]

Could you expand...I would like the truth.

I know there was a survey done. I'll have to get back with references.

[Calm]

Cal, you're not helping your cause with this sort of superficial apologetic.

What are you talking about specifically?

[The Nehor]

Rob Bowman's avatar shows his typical smug look and his face is just asking to be mocked and/or punched. I mean look at that face all scrunched up like that. And those clothes. Looks like what a 12 year old wears to church when he just does not care. We invite all to look at the avatar and make their own decisions on this important matter.

Note to readers: We know that mockery of the physical features of others is in bad taste and may be offensive. In spite of this we did it anyways because it is convenient to us. Let it be known that we are sympathetic to the victim's concerns and carefully considered this post before making it and then made it anyways.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

What are you talking about specifically?

Maybe I misunderstood your comment to Pa Pa. I thought you were answering his question as to what changes were made to the temple ceremony in 1990. It appeared that in answer to that question you were saying that the ceremony was shortened and less standing was required. That is surely a superficial description of the changes. Forum rules prevent me from going into the necessary details, but you surely understand the basis of my criticism.