Lds Temple Ceremonies And Indigenous Tribal Rituals

[Rob Bowman]

BlueDreams,

You wrote:

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.

Mormons are an ethnoreligious group? That would have been a more plausible claim prior to 1978.

[USU78]

I am aware of 2 individuals who were inducted into Kiva ceremonies by members of the Hopi tribe (don't know which specific Hopi tradition or village).

They were put under covenant to keep those ceremonies secret/sacred. They are active LDS.

They never have broken their word, notwithstanding they never believed in the efficacy of those ceremonies.

They both found them highly holy, however, and saw many similarities to the LDS Endowment.

So . . . question . . . who has and who lacks integrity, the LDS Hopi initiates, or the endowed LDS who joins the boobirds?

[BlueDreams]

Mormons are an ethnoreligious group? That would have been a more plausible claim prior to 1978.

Yes, it can be. Ethnicity and race are not the same thing. Anthropology, sociology, or any social issues course on the 101 level informs you of that. But wikipedia will do the job for you too.

With luv,

BD

[KevinG]

A lesson on temple symbolism from someone who has been a temple attendee and worker from before 1990 and is intimately familiar with changes and policy.

1. The meaning of symbols are owned by those who use them. (For example the Asian use uf the swastika as a good luck symbol). It is dishonest for an evangelical to tell someone what the LDS ordinances and rituals mean.

2. The symbol is not the thing is symbolizes. There are many widely accepted religious symbols that represent penalty or punishment including the phrase being cut off or the concept of hell-fire and brimstone. Using a wavy line to symbolize water does not mean you can drink or would even be encouraged to drink a wavy line.

3. The only similarity between LDS temple symbolism pre 1990 and primitive tribes is the fact that the temple symbolism was originally developed for an agrarian society. It was quite appropriate to change some symbols that would be readily understood by agrarian people but could be a stumbling block to more modern sensibilities.

4. Changing symbols to convey a message in a way a student can more readily understand the lesson without being distracted by the symbol itself is an excellent educational and communications practice. A parallel would be delivering Catholic mass in the listeners native language instead of Latin.

I don't expect critics who are crass enough to violate our sacred spaces to be convinced of anything, but I do worry that the distasteful nature of having to answer to critics who have already violated standards of decency and fear of discussing these sacred things in public will discourage us from answering spurious charges and leave any innocent bystanders with a very poor idea of what really goes on in the temple.

Edited September 10, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

Mormons are an ethnoreligious group? That would have been a more plausible claim prior to 1978.

While Mormons are somewhat North American centric I can attest to taking on many Mormon social constructs in my 25 years of being a member. My children are definitely products of Mormonism. The genetic, cultural and doctrinal threads reach well into modern congregations and populations.

There are a great number of people who are not affiliated with the LDS Church or its offshoots that identify as Mormon because of family ties.

Given the success of the Book of Mormon musical and other popular notions of Mormons evidence shows they are identified as an ethnoreligious group as much as Jews, Catholics and Muslims.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I agree and have used that analogy myself. Having the endowment on the internet is like having a camera under someone else's control, in your bedroom.

That experience is so personal to me that the analogy of one's relationship with one's wife is precisely analogous.

But they will never understand that because they are incapable of understanding it. They simply don't care how many times we tell them that. Perhaps some vile activity with the American flag would explain it, but that's not even close.

Is there a secular thing we hold sacred? Maybe doing something horrible to mock the tomb of the Unknown Soldier? Nothing matches it.

Those who do not have the Sacred in their lives do not understand it.

Edited September 10, 2012 by mfbukowski

[KevinG]

While the hidden camera in the bedroom analogy is good I would equate it with my morning cleaning rituals rather than intimate moments with my wife. The act itself is not shocking to behold but it is private and could include things that would seem strange taken out of context like trimming nose hairs or applying ointments to private areas.

OK that last bit could seem shocking.

Edited September 10, 2012 by KevinG

[Pahoran]

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.

Just so you know, "conclusion" is not an accepted spelling for "assumption."

And I don't think your assumption can be supported.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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 answer to that question is found in another: Does Mr Bowman share that community's faith?

If so, then of course it is deserving of the utmost respect. If not, then evidently it's fair game.

Regards,

Pahoran

[shalamabobbi]

Rob - This is what you do with a little rope?

I anxiously await Robert Smith's response from which I hope to learn something..

(but secretly, my favorite so far is the Nehor's)

ETA: What? No group hug?

Edited September 10, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[Pahoran]

Mormons are an ethnoreligious group? That would have been a more plausible claim prior to 1978.

Why draw an arbitrary line at 1978?

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Nehor]

Why draw an arbitrary line at 1978?

Regards,

Pahoran

Think of a certain announcement made in General Conference in 1978. It was an attempt at a cheap shot.

[KevinG]

Revelation is not received in a vacuum. If concerns that members and critics alike were misconstruing the meaning of symbols or being distracted from the deeper lesson by the symbols used in the endowment it is very plausible that a Prophet of God could pray about the importance of those symbols and receive an answer that they can be substituted or altered so a contemporary people could focus on the gifts, covenants and blessings of God.

This has good precedent. The brethren received the word of wisdom after Emma scolded them for their filthy habits of chewing tobacco and smoking. When they inquired of the Lord they received that revelation as an answer. When the church was threatened with having all its property taken and with it the ability to do temple work the Lord answered Wilfred Woodruff that the sacrifices associated with polygamy were accepted as though they were given in full and that the Saints were not required to make them anymore. When the Saints in Africa and Brazil started asking about when the priesthood restrictions would be lifted the brethren received the revelation on all worthy males being priesthood holders (note this was decades after the civil rights movement and any attempt to embarrass the church into changing policy.)

The endowment was also shortened by several minutes during the changes which allowed for more work to be accomplished without loss of the meaning or lesson involved.

We are a practical people as Brigham used to teach. This does not mean that revelation is somehow required to be out of a clear blue sky or acted out like an oracle of delphi to be legitimate.

[KevinG]

It was an attempt at a cheap shot.

Consistent with the topic of this thread.

[USU78]

Consistent with the topic of this thread.

Nothing is holy to the anthropologist: The Proper Study of Mankind is Man becomes The Proper Study of Mankind is Me.

[KevinG]

Nothing is holy to the anthropologist: The Proper Study of Mankind is Man becomes The Proper Study of Mankind is Me.

Jane Goodall is watching me from my laundry hamper.

Edited September 10, 2012 by KevinG

[BlueDreams]

Jane Goodall is watching me from my laundry hamper.

You probably should shave....she thinks you're a gorilla

With luv,

BD

[USU78]

You probably should shave....she thinks you're a gorilla

With luv,

BD

Uh . . . I think he's a boyilla.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Uh . . . I think he's a boyilla.

Rofl.

[KevinG]

You may be correct.

"Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy lies a small, unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly 92 million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea." -Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy

[CV75]

I was responding specifically

BUMP since I think these questions got lost in the sauce earlier today:

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?)

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

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).

You used the term "people group," which usually is understood in a narrower sense. Obviously, Mormons are a specific group. So is Phi Beta Kappa, and the 82nd Airborne Division, and Evangelical Ministries to New Religions, and BYU. The fact that they are a specific group is nugatory as far as supporting the analogy between LDS temple secrets and indigenous tribal secrets.

You wrote:

People also have illegitimate purposes for knowing, and IRR doesn’t really need to cater to those.

Potential abuse of information is insufficient grounds for demanding the censorship or suppression of the information. Look at it this way. The point has been made that it is already possible to get the information from other sources. The cat is already out of the bag. What IRR is doing is making that information available in a context that encourages people to be circumspect and civil in the way they use the information. I would think that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Most of the rest of your post merely reiterates your earlier assertions, which I do not find supported by any cogent reasoning. You wrote:

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.

If that were the only justification I had offered, you might have had a point.

You wrote:

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.

Clearly, you missed my point. I mentioned this precisely because drawing parallels between the two would not be a good argument.

You wrote:

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.

I mentioned some reasons in the course of rebutting the analogy in question. Publishing the information provides specific details supporting the contention that the temple ceremony was derived from Masonry; it shows some specific ways in which LDS religion is offensive to traditional Christianity; it gives prospective converts relevant information to consider in order to make a more informed decision. Those are good reasons from our point of view, and they outweigh Mormon sensibilities about the content being sacred.

You wrote:

(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?)

Just imagine the field day my critics would have if I claimed to be critiquing the scholarship of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research and kept calling it FAIRC.

[Calm]

I agree and have used that analogy myself. Having the endowment on the internet is like having a camera under someone else's control, in your bedroom.

That experience is so personal to me that the analogy of one's relationship with one's wife is precisely analogous.

But they will never understand that because they are incapable of understanding it. They simply don't care how many times we tell them that. Perhaps some vile activity with the American flag would explain it, but that's not even close.

Desecration of a Bible perhaps? I do not know if this bothers nonLDS Christians who choose to post the endowment but it would seem likely to given that some of the street preachers have chosen to demonstrate their negative opinion of our faith and temple by dragging the BoM and/or temple garments through the gutter in front of temple or conference goers, in some cases apparently attempting to incite LDS observers into violence.

[Calm]

Just so you know, "conclusion" is not an accepted spelling for "assumption."

And I don't think your assumption can be supported.

Precisely....and accurately in my opinion....stated.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

I had written:

"Mormons are an ethnoreligious group? That would have been a more plausible claim prior to 1978."

You asked:

Why draw an arbitrary line at 1978?

It wasn't arbitrary. 1978 was the year that the LDS priesthood was officially opened to worthy men of all races. Up to that point the ethnic makeup of Mormonism was not monolithic but it was far more homogeneous than it is now.