Lds Temple Ceremonies And Indigenous Tribal Rituals

[Calm]

That was not me.

I agree with tss that some things were changed for the physical comfort and efficiency of the ceremony, but that would be only one of several causes.

Edited September 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

Nehor,

It is a fact that neither I nor IRR's website mocks the LDS temple ceremony. I understand that Mormons find any disclosure of the ceremony offensive, but the fact is that we do not engage in any mocking or ridicule of the ceremony.

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're right, I goofed. I have edited the post to correct the mistake. Thanks.

That was not me.

I agree with tss that some things were changed for the physical comfort and efficiency of the ceremony, but that would be only one of several causes.

[Calm]

It is our honest position that you mock the temple ritual by publishing it.

[Calm]

I am bowing out. I was up most of the night with my sick daughter and need to get off the board or I will never get back to sleep and will end up sick myself.

I am not sure what else I can say anyway due to respect of the temple and its rituals.

Edited September 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

Sorry to hear about your daughter. I hope she feels well soon and that you get some rest.

I am bowing out. I was up most of the night with my sick daughter and need to get off the board or I will never get back to sleep and will end up sick myself.

[The Nehor]

Nehor,

It is a fact that neither I nor IRR's website mocks the LDS temple ceremony. I understand that Mormons find any disclosure of the ceremony offensive, but the fact is that we do not engage in any mocking or ridicule of the ceremony.

I implied no such thing. I gave a similar disclosure. If you chose to read mockery into it that is understandable but no mockery or ridicule was intended.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

Agreed. Rob attempts to make the sacred profane

[Calm]

One comment before I go (since it was a bad reaction to medication, we have to now decide if we want to continue with another night....it will be the fourth....of hell in hopes that she'll get used to it or give up and go back to square one; I think the decision will be to cut the dose in half and try again so if anyone sees me on the board again without a huge break for sleep, scold me soundly please as tonight even with a smaller dose is likely not to be that nice, maybe purgatory rather than hell)...

I don't have a problem with nonmembers who haven't made covenants putting up the endowment or other information on websites. That doesn't really bother me. They haven't made any commitments to God, they don't even think God is involved in most cases and often think they are doing a good thing by spreading the word of a false gospel.

I just think it is hypocritical for them to then claim that they respect LDS after such an action. Doing something that violates (and exposing to public view is a violation of the temple ceremony in LDS eyes) the sacred beliefs of another is not a sign of respect in my view.

And that is my own honest position.

Edited September 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

calmoriah:

Agreed. Rob attempts to make the sacred profane

I don't worry too much about it. Anti's love to post it and make jokes about freemasonry but other then that they cannot make the sacred profane because they have no idea what the temple ceremonies mean and without that knowledge they cannot touch the sacred nature of the temple. It is as if God blanks the mind of the apostate as to what the Temple ceremonies mean when they leave. God protects the ordinances Himself. I have seen this happen more then once. People who got great insight from the Temple ceremony leave the Church and then God strikes them dumb on that point.

Of course those who try to profane them anyways are certainly going to have to explain that at the Final Judgment. I need to repent of my sense of revenge as I am pretty sure laughing at them while watching is a sin.

[CV75]

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.

I don’t understand why you / IRRC can’t avoid offending Mormons over this issue by having concerns about:

1. Recognizing that the LDS Church rituals do belong to a specific people group;

2. Admitting that the IRRC doesn’t need to meet a demand of outside interest to know about the LDS ceremonies;

3. Not rationalizing that some elements of the LDS ceremonies being borrowed from other sources means they all elements are for public viewing;

4. Respecting that the LDS Church shares aspects of the temple and temple doctrine that it considers to be appropriate for public consumption;

5. Recognizing that there are many motives and reactions to the material by the outside, uninitiated viewer;

6. Understanding that change is not indicative that the ritual is no longer sacred;

7. Admitting that the IRRC really doesn’t need to be the arbiter of who should know about these ceremonies based on the complaints of those who criticize them and the LDS Church.

There are elements of the above that do indeed correllate with the proper treatment of tribal practices.

I can’t believe the concerns you listed were the only considerations made in relation to IRRC’s justification for publishing temple material.

[Alan]

I find Rob Bowman's claim that the endowment ceremony underwent change in the early 1990's because of exposure in the 1980's, ridiculous. It demonstrates either very poor research or very questionable motives on his part. In fact the endowment ceremony has been a matter of public record for around 100 years. It can also be found in the US Congressional Library I believe.

The truth is the church (by it's own public admission) consulted with members regarding the ceremony and made some changes because of the responses it received.

I cannot believe Rob Bowman does not know that. I thought everybody did.

[Mark Beesley]

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.

Bowman continues to illuminate his ignorance. LDS do not take an oath not to reveal any of the temple content. We take very specific oaths not to reveal very discrete, symbolic portions of the ceremony. The rest we are counseled not to discuss outside of the temple because of its sacred nature.

Bowman writes:

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.

Bowman's claim that somehow prospective members need to have access to temple content before going through the temple would imply that there is something nefarious about the endowment. But not since the chicken heads. . . .

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.

Well, since we are not insisting that they be kept secret, this analogy is just dumb.

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.

Bowman makes so many assumptions on so many levels here that it is hard to take anything he has to say seriously.

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.

The most controversial elements of the temple ceremony were removed long before the 1980s and long before there was anybody like Bowman publishing temple content. The presentation of the endowment is always being reviewed and refined and elements removed and/or added depending on how the Holy Spirit guides. But, people like Bowman like to pound their chest and take credit for something they really had nothing to do with. Gorillas have more integrity with their chest-pounding.

Just go away Bowman. You only hurt yourself by talking.

[The Nehor]

I find Rob Bowman's claim that the endowment ceremony underwent change in the early 1990's because of exposure in the 1980's, ridiculous. It demonstrates either very poor research or very questionable motives on his part. In fact the endowment ceremony has been a matter of public record for around 100 years. It can also be found in the US Congressional Library I believe.

The truth is the church (by it's own public admission) consulted with members regarding the ceremony and made some changes because of the responses it received.

I cannot believe Rob Bowman does not know that. I thought everybody did.

Critics of the Church tend towards megalomania. They have this strange idea that almost everything we do that they might like is an attempt to appease apostates.

[mfbukowski]

I am bowing out. I was up most of the night with my sick daughter and need to get off the board or I will never get back to sleep and will end up sick myself.

I am not sure what else I can say anyway due to respect of the temple and its rituals.

The thread itself is enough to make me sick anyway.

I hope you feel better.

Rob is slowly hanging himself anyway. Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do.

Edited September 10, 2012 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

The Nehor:

That has become one of the great tragedies of our age. The lose of the sacred. To me it is unimportant whether I feel something is sacred or not. I think enough of my fellow man to keep silent about what they believe is sacred.

Edited September 10, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Vance]

It is a fact that neither I nor IRR's website mocks the LDS temple ceremony.

That is debatable.

I understand that Mormons find any disclosure of the ceremony offensive,

And yet it remains.

Conclusion: you want to offend Mormons.

Do you think is will really help to convince Mormons to leave Mormonism by offending them first?

but the fact is that we do not engage in any mocking or ridicule of the ceremony.

Again, debatable. The fact that you post it is a form of mockery and ridicule. But you know that.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

I don’t understand why you / IRRC can’t avoid offending Mormons over this issue....

What is "IRRC"?

You wrote:

1. Recognizing that the LDS Church rituals do belong to a specific people group;

No they don't. A religion whose members are drawn from many nations and ethnicities is not a people group.

You wrote:

2. Admitting that the IRRC doesn’t need to meet a demand of outside interest to know about the LDS ceremonies;

Whatever the IRRC is, the point is that people have a legitimate reason to want to know, whether or not you think they need to know.

You wrote:

3. Not rationalizing that some elements of the LDS ceremonies being borrowed from other sources means they all elements are for public viewing;

This comment does not address the point.

4. Respecting that the LDS Church shares aspects of the temple and temple doctrine that it considers to be appropriate for public consumption;

Also doesn't address the point in context.

You wrote:

5. Recognizing that there are many motives and reactions to the material by the outside, uninitiated viewer;

The significance of this point escapes me.

You wrote:

6. Understanding that change is not indicative that the ritual is no longer sacred;

It is the context in which the changes were made that is indicative.

You wrote:

7. Admitting that the IRRC really doesn’t need to be the arbiter of who should know about these ceremonies based on the complaints of those who criticize them and the LDS Church.

Whatever the IRRC is, your comment again misses the point, which is that publishing the information provides a service for which many people are grateful.

You wrote:

There are elements of the above that do indeed correllate with the proper treatment of tribal practices.

One can draw parallels between almost any two things. I could draw parallels between the LDS ceremony and college hazings, but I don't think you would find such parallels helpful.

You wrote:

I can’t believe the concerns you listed were the only considerations made in relation to IRRC’s justification for publishing temple material.

I was responding specifically to the LDS argument that LDS temple rituals should not be disclosed to the public for the same reason that anthropologists do not disclose tribal rituals to the world. That is an argument that assumes that there are meaningful parallels between the two kinds of rituals that justify the Mormon complaint about outsiders publicizing temple content. Your comment appears to insinuate that IRRC, whatever that might be, had dishonest or evil motives or reasons for doing what it did. If that is what you meant, please say so and provide a reasoned case for that criticism.

[Rob Bowman]

Alan,

You wrote:

I find Rob Bowman's claim that the endowment ceremony underwent change in the early 1990's because of exposure in the 1980's, ridiculous. It demonstrates either very poor research or very questionable motives on his part. In fact the endowment ceremony has been a matter of public record for around 100 years. It can also be found in the US Congressional Library I believe.

The truth is the church (by it's own public admission) consulted with members regarding the ceremony and made some changes because of the responses it received.

I cannot believe Rob Bowman does not know that. I thought everybody did.

While there was published information about the temple endowment ceremony prior to the 1980s, it was not as easily or as widely accessible. The widespread dissemination of publications exposing the temple ceremonies in the 1980s constituted a PR problem for the LDS Church in a way that (for example) something accessible in the deep recesses of the Library of Congress would not. There was a steady build-up of greater and greater exposure to information about LDS temple content especially from the 1960s to the 1980s, and the 1980s appear to have been the tipping point when the matter became sufficiently worrisome that the LDS Church decided to address it. I should also say that 1990 was not the first time that changes were made to the ceremony.

In any case, the fact that elements could be removed from the ceremony certainly seems to imply that those removed elements are no longer sacred, doesn't it?

[Mark Beesley]

While there was published information about the temple endowment ceremony prior to the 1980s, it was not as easily or as widely accessible. The widespread dissemination of publications exposing the temple ceremonies in the 1980s constituted a PR problem for the LDS Church in a way that (for example) something accessible in the deep recesses of the Library of Congress would not. There was a steady build-up of greater and greater exposure to information about LDS temple content especially from the 1960s to the 1980s, and the 1980s appear to have been the tipping point when the matter became sufficiently worrisome that the LDS Church decided to address it. I should also say that 1990 was not the first time that changes were made to the ceremony.

In any case, the fact that elements could be removed from the ceremony certainly seems to imply that those removed elements are no longer sacred, doesn't it?

No.

[CV75]

I was responding specifically

LOL—I meant IRR.

I disagree with the spirit of your replies. Possessing multi-national and multi-ethnic properties has nothing to do with not belonging to a specific group; Mormons are a specific group (I thought you would get that). People also have illegitimate purposes for knowing, and IRR doesn’t really need to cater to those. “Not rationalizing that some elements of the LDS ceremonies being borrowed from other sources means that all elements are for public viewing” is a valid means of not offending Mormons—tis concern stands on its own. “Respecting that the LDS Church shares aspects of the temple and temple doctrine that it considers to be appropriate for public consumption” also stands on its own. “Recognizing that there are many illegitimate motives and reactions to the material by the outside, uninitiated viewer” should not escape you / IRR. The context of the changes makes no difference as to their sacredness (and I see that this was addressed in another post). Providing a service for which many people are grateful is not sufficient justification for you or IRR to be doing it—the same could be said for porn.

I don’t know what would even cause you to mention drawing parallels between the LDS ceremony and college hazings, given your sincere desire not to offend.

I understand you were responding specifically to the Church / tribe comparison, but I’m responding to the assertion that you / IRR do not seek to offend, and that you / IRR weigh various considerations about what you publish, for whom, and why.

As you said, one can draw parallels between almost any two things, so I’m trying to get to the OP assertion that you / IRR would rather not offend Mormons, which you used the Church / tribe to justify not doing. The IRR had to have considerations other than simply not drawing parallels between the LDS Church and indigenous tribes to justify publishing temple content in relation to Mormons’ sense of sacrilege.

(Could you really not figure out what I meant by “IRRC”? Are you really that literal, or just when you need a device--and if the latter, why did you use it in this exchange?)

[BlueDreams]

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

It’s a parallel, not an actuality. It’s finding a similarity in the larger world of what is considered respectful dialogue for things considered sacred and barred from those considered outside certain acts or ceremonies. We are not a tribe, true. But we are considered an ethnoreligious group and have specific practices that are culturally/religious unique…the temple is at the top of the list. There is little to compare it to within general protestant communities nowadays so parallels are hard to make. The only similarity I can think of that directly fits with a meme that protestants would understand is excessive divulging about one’s sex life.

How LDS discuss sacred experiences differs from many in a protestant perspective. The temple is a good basis to much of our dialogue within the LDS community on extremely sacred experiences. For example, LDS are very likely to limit what sacred experiences they’re willing to talk about in public. Not just within the institution that have specific perameters for discussion (example of Patriarchal Blessings) but personal experience as well. I’m certain there are a number of people here who’ve had spiritual experiences that are of such a sacred nature that the number of people they tell is extremely limited. I certainly do. So if I for some reason told you of a personal experience and told you I’d prefer the experience be kept between me and you and then found out later your told everybody word for word. I would be justified in being offended. And you stating that something along the lines of “well others really wanted to know and I thought their own possible experiences may warrant me telling them the entirety of your story” ain’t cutting it.

The general idea that I get from his parallel is to allow the group to set the basic parameters of what can be observed outside the group. Some tribal groups wouldn’t have a problem being taped during certain ritual (including the disturbing ones, like female circumcision….don’t believe me? I watched it last year on Halloween for a college course. That by far was the scariest thing I saw on Halloween). Some would. The idea is to work within what can be acceptably mentioned or done within the group for public disposal. There is no other means to be respectful to the group in question. To pretend that it’s suddenly ok or, worse, respectful by placing a disclaimer at the beginning of detailing the temple ceremony is spurious.

Yes the LDS church has provided a substantial amount of info about the temple ceremonies for the public. That would be the working constructs for what is deemed appropriate to unfold in public forums. It does not give one license to go beyond that. It’s like saying, look I have my permit to drive. That means I can drive where and when I want with who ever I want. Discussion of the temple is not banned, but there are perameters for what is acceptable discussion outside the temple. Your site breaks that. It’s disrepectful and offensive to LDS. All the disclaimer does is add another adjective of demeaning to the list of problems with it being there.

With luv,

BD

Edited September 10, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In any case, the fact that elements could be removed from the ceremony certainly seems to imply that those removed elements are no longer sacred, doesn't it?

No it wouldn't. I am not sure how being removed means not sacred anymore.

[USU78]

thesometimesaint,

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

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.

Boobirds published a great deal of the endowment ceremony's text long prior to the '90s-era changes. Nothing new was put out then that had not been put out previously. Those of us old enough to remember remember this very well.

I hail from Brigham City, a hotbed of boobird activity from the XIXth Century because of the railroad towns (esp. Corrine) and the influx of Evie Protestant in the late '50s/early '60s to man Thiokol (a lot from Georgia, since Rambling Wrecks were highly involved in building the solid rocket boosters during the Space Race.

The boobirds were placing temple garments in laundry windows as long as there've been laundries. You pulled this "embarrassed the Church into changing the endowment ritual" out of the air.

The changes were not particularly discussed, but the reasons for the exclusion of certain elements was that the way the covenants' importance were impressed upon people's minds were not, in some instances, communicating clearly what was intended to be communicated . . . and a portion that appeared to some to mock Evie Protestant gullibility was excised. Everything else was exactly the same, though shortened.

I will not discuss the details, and you do poorly, as ever you did, to involve yourself in this sordid business.

Shame on you.

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

Thank you for your illuminating response. You almost have me convinced....

No.