Endowment changes yet again

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe it has something to do with different levels (or types) of sacredness? Some sacred things are for public display and others are not. We see this probably best illustrated with sexual relations between husbands and wives.  

So some are secret and some are not. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe it has something to do with different levels (or types) of sacredness? Some sacred things are for public display and others are not. We see this probably best illustrated with sexual relations between husbands and wives.  

Further, my wife and I have sex. It’s not sacred. It’s not a secret. It is private. Not seeing the relationship here. People committing adultery in the other hand? Private and secret. 

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is new. As far as I understand, the temple ceremonies have not been allowed to be public since their inception, which pre-dates the internet.

 

I had a seminary teacher in high school who told us that all the temple ceremonies are available in the Library of Congress, because that was a requirement for the church to build temples (basically that's what he said, he was probably more in depth in his explanation).  I've never tried to find out if that was true or not.  He was accurate in everything else he taught us (he's why I knew that JS had over 30 wives and that there were multiple versions of the First Vision when I was in high school while other members learned that information in the 2000s and struggled with it) and a college professor (not of religion) so generally trustworthy.

But even if he's wrong, it's been available in book, article, and online form for as long as I've been alive (and a long time before that).  Not being allowed to be public doesn't mean that they aren't.  Yet the church and it's members continue to treat the information the same, regardless of how published it is.

Quote

I think so, yes. If you can't talk about it, it's secret.

This is where you lose me a little bit.  In your first post you said that "you cannot say they are not secret unless you twist the definition of the word secret beyond recognition."  The definition of secret is "not known, or seen, or meant to be known".  

If two people know the information but still cannot discuss it with each other in any setting (not even in the temple), doesn't it twist the definition of the word secret to say that those people cannot discuss the information because 'it isn't known or meant to be known'?  They already know it, and it is meant for them to know it. 

So how is it still secret, using the definition of the word? 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Further, my wife and I have sex. It’s not sacred. It’s not a secret. It is private.

That's fine if you don't believe that you and your wife having sex is sacred.  But I know many many people (members and nonmembers) who do believe that that is sacred and that that is why it is restricted to husbands and wives and not for anyone else in any way.  

The discussion isn't about whether or not something should be considered sacred, it's about whether or not considering something to be sacred is a valid reason to restrict access to it.  Or, if the only reason to ever restrict access to something is because it needs to be kept secret, as Miserere's post suggests.

Quote

Not seeing the relationship here. People committing adultery in the other hand? Private and secret. 

You've perfectly illustrated my point.  People committing adultery keep it private because the information is not to be known (is a secret).  People who believe that sex between a husband and wife is sacred keep it private because of the sacredness of that act in the relationship.  The reason why the information is restricted matters when attempting to accurately label it.

With adultery, the information isn't known and isn't meant to be known, with the temple, the information is known by anyone who wants to know it, and is actually meant to be known by everyone.

 

[Peacefully]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I had a seminary teacher in high school who told us that all the temple ceremonies are available in the Library of Congress, because that was a requirement for the church to build temples (basically that's what he said, he was probably more in depth in his explanation).  I've never tried to find out if that was true or not.  He was accurate in everything else he taught us (he's why I knew that JS had over 30 wives and that there were multiple versions of the First Vision when I was in high school while other members learned that information in the 2000s and struggled with it) and a college professor (not of religion) so generally trustworthy.

But even if he's wrong, it's been available in book, article, and online form for as long as I've been alive (and a long time before that).  Not being allowed to be public doesn't mean that they aren't.  Yet the church and it's members continue to treat the information the same, regardless of how published it is.

This is where you lose me a little bit.  In your first post you said that "you cannot say they are not secret unless you twist the definition of the word secret beyond recognition."  The definition of secret is "not known, or seen, or meant to be known".  

If two people know the information but still cannot discuss it with each other in any setting (not even in the temple), doesn't it twist the definition of the word secret to say that those people cannot discuss the information because 'it isn't known or meant to be known'?  They already know it, and it is meant for them to know it. 

So how is it still secret, using the definition of the word? 

They showed some of the endowment on a tv show. I don’t remember which one. I’m sure it is all out there in cyberspace, too. I just choose to keep it sacred to myself. 

Edited September 4 by Peacefully

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So some are secret and some are not. 

Like our own personal relationships (which you rightly labeled as sacred), some sacred things are openly shared, and some are more restricted in their nature.  

[bluebell]

Just now, Peacefully said:

They showed some of the ceremony on a tv show. I don’t remember which one. I’m sure it is all out there in cyberspace, too. I just choose to keep it sacred to myself. 

I think the HBO show Big Love showed part of the ceremony.  

 

[Peacefully]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I think the HBO show Big Love showed part of the ceremony.  

 

Yes, I think that was the one.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

The discussion isn't about whether or not something should be considered sacred, it's about whether or not considering something to be sacred is a valid reason to restrict access to it.  Or, if the only reason to ever restrict access to something is because it needs to be kept secret, as Miserere's post suggests

Respectfully, from where I sit, the conversation is about whether refusing to discuss something makes it secret regardless of whether or not it is sacred. Refusing to discuss details about what happens in the temple makes it secret. Restricting access and refusing to discuss with the uninitiated by definition makes something secret. 

[carbon dioxide]

I am just happy that the endowment has not been fully restored as I would not want to go through the temple rites that Nephi and others had to go through.   David Butler goes through a great case that that the ancient temple rituals they went through included a ritual beating and that is why Nephi says it is important that he says even though he was young he was large in stature.  He needed to be big at that young age to get through the rituals ok.  Lots of good stuff. The good stuff starts around minute 25

 

 

Edited September 4 by carbon dioxide

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Respectfully, from where I sit, the conversation is about whether refusing to discuss something makes it secret regardless of whether or not it is sacred. Refusing to discuss details about what happens in the temple makes it secret. Restricting access and refusing to discuss with the uninitiated by definition makes something secret. 

Even if it doesn't match the definition of what a secret is?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Even if it doesn't match the definition of what a secret is?

“not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others.” I am not allowed to go into the temple. I cannot witness the changes to the ceremony or the oaths. It is disengenious and dishonest to state that the ritual is not secret when I am forbidden from ever seeing it or witnessing it. That the information might be available through other means doesn’t circumvent the idea that I am not “meant” to know.  The line that you want everyone to witness rings really flat to me. I can no more express belief in church leaders and your church than I can stand outside at noon on a sunny day and say the sun isn’t shining. Your church forbids me entry and knowledge. That’s fine. But that is textbook secrecy. 

[bluebell]

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

“not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others.” I am not allowed to go into the temple. I cannot witness the changes to the ceremony or the oaths. It is disengenious and dishonest to state that the ritual is not secret when I am forbidden from ever seeing it or witnessing it. That the information might be available through other means doesn’t circumvent the idea that I am not “meant” to know.  The line that you want everyone to witness rings really flat to me. I can no more express belief in church leaders and your church than I can stand outside at noon on a sunny day and say the sun isn’t shining. Your church forbids me entry and knowledge. That’s fine. But that is textbook secrecy. 

I agree that a lot of this is just differences in ways of seeing things.  I'm not so much trying to argue that your way is wrong and that mine is right, but that mine is also a reasonable way to look at it, even if you ultimately disagree with my conclusions.

From my perspective, it's not that you aren't allowed to go into the temple, but that you choose not to meet the requirements necessary to do so.  And from my perspective, you are absolutely meant to know the information inside, just under specific conditions that, again, you can choose to meet or not.  And if you choose not to meet those conditions the information is still available from many other sources, which the church has not put any effort into shutting down in any attempt to keep the information from you.

There are some sacred places in the world that have requirements that people must meet in order to enter.  In many Buddhist temples, you can't enter unless you remove your shoes (and hat if you have one on).  Just because a place has requirements a person must meet before they can enter, does not mean that the person is not allowed to go into them.  Neither does it mean that they are not meant to know what happens inside.  It means they have to meet certain conditions before they do.

And to me, having requirements for entry is not "textbook secrecy", which is why your insistence on the validity of that word rings biased to me.

From my perspective, the disagreement with the use of the term secret becomes even more apparent when you consider that we aren't only speaking about nonmembers.  Even temple attending members cannot talk about it, even with other temple attending members.  Some of this knowledge can't even be spoken of with other members when everyone is inside the temple, attending together, and everyone already knows the information.

None of that would be true if the purpose of not speaking about the information was to keep it a secret. 
 

Edited September 5 by bluebell

[Stargazer]

On 9/4/2024 at 2:48 AM, MiserereNobis said:

This statement has always rather irked me. They are secret (or at least meant to be). Just stick with that. No need to say, "they're not secret, they're sacred" when they are clearly secret. Now, they certainly can be sacred, too, at the same time, but you cannot say they are not secret unless you twist the definition of the word secret beyond recognition. It seems an attempt to avoid the possible negative connotation of the word "secret."

 

You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to disagree with you.

There are things secret, and there are things sacred. Sometimes they are both. As to secret, every married person knows what goes on in my bedroom with my wife. It is not secret. But the details are sacred, to me at least. 

When it comes to the endowment, you can find surreptitiously-made recordings of the ordinance online if you look hard enough. Ultimately the details of the ordinance are not secret, because you can find those who will violate the sacred nature of the ordinance by telling you all about it. And if you really want to know about the ordinance without violating the sacredness, you can do what is required to legitimately access the ordinance. That is why I say it for everyone.

When it comes to endowed members of the church, beyond vague references that we understand due to shared experience, we don't generally discuss the details with each other outside the temple. Because we respect the sacredness of the ordinance, even though the details are not secret (for we know they quite well), we keep them sacred by not talking about them unless we are inside the temple.

Do you see the difference now?

 

[Stargazer]

On 9/4/2024 at 2:51 AM, MiserereNobis said:

There must be a reason that the majority of traditional religions contain some sort of repetitive mantra like prayer, often using beads to count the prayers...

Could there be something actually efficacious to the practice?

There could be some value to it, although I'm skeptical. I don't think God hears one better just because one says the selfsame words over and over again.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

When it comes to the endowment, you can find surreptitiously-made recordings of the ordinance online if you look hard enough. Ultimately the details of the ordinance are not secret,

However, if there were no exposes, etc, available, the Church would not provide them, correct?

The intent of the Church seems to me to be to keep them secret/restricted to be shared among initiates only and not others.  It is unfortunate in the Church’s view that such can’t be done. 
 

As far as I am aware, it is intent that defines secrecy, not the success rate or the number who are aware of the secret (a massive surprise party may be known to hundreds of people and kept secret from only one person and can be defined as a secret).

Edited September 6 by Calm

[manol]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

There could be some value to it, although I'm skeptical. I don't think God hears one better just because one says the selfsame words over and over again.

I can't speak for @MiserereNobis, but imo the memorization and the repetition are primarily for the benefit of the person saying the prayer.  God doesn't need to tune-in to us; we need to tune-in to God. 

 

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, if there were no exposes, etc, available, the Church would not provide them, correct?

Absolutely correct.

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

The intent of the Church seems to me to be to keep them secret/restricted to be shared among initiates only and not others.  It is unfortunate in the Church’s view that such can’t be done. 

Yes, but everyone knows that two people can only keep a secret if one of them is dead. And even then...

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

As far as I am aware, it is intent that defines secrecy, not the success rate or the number who are aware of the secret (a massive surprise party may be known to hundreds of people and kept secret from only one person and can be defined as a secret).

It may be a gray area. 

But I feel that a secret is not truly secret, if anyone who wishes to learn the secret has a pathway to do so, without restriction. Prior to 1978 there were restrictions, but they have since been lifted.

True secrets, in my opinion, are those secrets that cannot be discovered because there is no legitimate pathway for doing so. For example, the rule of "need to know" forbids an unauthorized person, regardless of security clearance, to learn a secret they don't "need to know." Another example is the Druze religion. If you are not born into a Druze family, you cannot become a Druze, and cannot learn the Druze religion no matter how much you may wish to. And not all Druzes have the right to learn the higher things of their religion. Those kinds of things are truly secret. 

Thus, the Endowment is not truly secret.

 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, if there were no exposes, etc, available, the Church would not provide them, correct?

The intent of the Church seems to me to be to keep them secret/restricted to be shared among initiates only and not others.  It is unfortunate in the Church’s view that such can’t be done. 
 

As far as I am aware, it is intent that defines secrecy, not the success rate or the number who are aware of the secret (a massive surprise party may be known to hundreds of people and kept secret from only one person and can be defined as a secret).

I'd love to understand this perspective more, from someone who I know isn't biased against the temple in general.  Why, in your view, do members who know the information not speak of it outside of the temple, if the intent of keeping silent is secrecy? 

Is it because they may be overheard by someone who doesn't know the information?

[InCognitus]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'd love to understand this perspective more, from someone who I know isn't biased against the temple in general.  Why, in your view, do members who know the information not speak of it outside of the temple, if the intent of keeping silent is secrecy? 

Is it because they may be overheard by someone who doesn't know the information?

I think the reason we aren't supposed to discuss what goes on inside of the temple outside of the temple (even between two or more people who have been to the temple) has nothing to do with whether or not someone might overhear it, rather it is so that sacred things are kept only in sacred places that are dedicated to the Lord specifically for that purpose.  Even within the temple, some things are to be shared only at specific places within the temple.  It is to preserve the sacredness of those things.

So the attempt at defining the difference between "sacred" or "secret" is complicated.  Am I keeping "secrets" from my wife when the two of us come home from doing ordinances at the temple and we don't talk to each other about what went on in those ordinances, even when she participated in the very same ordinances?  I don't see it that way.  It's not a secret to either one of us.  But if we discuss those same things inside the temple it is different.  We can freely discuss those very things there.

The temple is the "house of the Lord".  However, as also scripture says, the most High does not dwell only in temples made with hands.  But the temple creates a sacred space, a holy place, where the things of the world are kept out, and the Lord can freely give to us sacred things.  That's why I see those things as "sacred".  But does that mean they are they also "secret"?  They aren't to anyone who goes there.  So I don't know.

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There could be some value to it, although I'm skeptical. I don't think God hears one better just because one says the selfsame words over and over again.

Repetition of familiar, comforting  words (even if only though sound and not meaning) is an excellent relaxation technique, calming the body and mind, potentially freeing it to be more open to the Spirit.  Coupled with simple physical movement such as moving beads through one’s hand…it’s brilliant mediation technique imo, easily accessible anywhere, anytime. 

Edited September 6 by Calm

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Thus, the Endowment is not truly secret.

 

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'd love to understand this perspective more, from someone who I know isn't biased against the temple in general.  Why, in your view, do members who know the information not speak of it outside of the temple, if the intent of keeping silent is secrecy? 

Is it because they may be overheard by someone who doesn't know the information?

I have never actually thought of the temple ceremonies as being secret myself since I know they have been widely known by those into such things for whatever reason even if not initiated by receiving the endowment as an ordinance.  Their secrecy for religious purpose is a wished for ideal that has never existed.  In that sense even if members refuse to speak of them with others, it’s not out of a mistaken idea it’s going to keep people from learning about them, it’s not for the purpose of keeping them secret. It is for the purpose of showing and nurturing respect and love of the ordinances by separating them both physically (by placing them only in the temple) and mentally and emotionally from the mundane. 

The purpose of any efforts towards controlling the discussion is to create mental and emotional sacred space around the ordinance, imo, by limiting its discussion and presentation to very limited sacred physical spaces.  For the ordinance, the words will ideally be associated with the temple experience and as one thinks of it privately, it is more likely that the feelings one experiences in the temple are experienced again even outside the temple rather than feelings and impressions associated with where one talked about it with a friend, like over lunch or in a classroom with other students.
 

And hopefully since the primary memory is temple experience those feelings are peace and connection with the Spirit. 

We don’t treat them as being secret to keep them secret (because they aren’t practically speaking), but to keep them sacred (which we can do by refusing to talk about them casually and even restrict where we speak of them to very limited number of spaces), special, set aside apart from the world for ourselves even if not for others.  In essence, the act of shedding mundane clothing and donning all white temple clothing has a similar purpose. The clothing can bring us back to feelings we experience in the temple while we care for them.  It sets apart the temple from the mundane as much as walking through the doors and into the interior of the temple. 

However, when it comes to how we do discuss them…

Among the initiated and even other members…because the ultimate purpose of limiting speech is to promote a sense of set apartness and sacredness surrounding the experience such that thinking of them draws us to think of God in much the same that temples and cathedrals are built to draw one’s eye up or to symbols that lead us to dwell on God and even reach out to him and that is the emphasis every member should be putting on their choice to not speak of them, I think using the label “secret” among members is more confusing and distracting than helpful because it shifts the focus to the limitations, removing the very purpose of the limitations, which is to help center our thoughts on God.

With nonmembers though, I think the reverse can happen. If we are too focused on rejecting or even just downplaying the term “secret”, that can prevent us from communicating the purpose of the choice of respectful secrecy because we get trapped in the debate of secret or not. I would approach it myself by first speaking about the limitations and their purpose and if the person expressed the idea of secrecy, I would likely agree that the ceremonies were kept secret out of respect for them and that we would love them to become a religious secret we could shout from the rooftops to share with all of mankind when all are initiated and the world itself is worthy  of being treated as a temple, but it’s not that kind of world yet. 

I personally think there is enough variation on how everyone is using “secret” for this that to avoid confusion it would be best to simply describe the rule rather than use the label of “secret” given the negative often associated with it.  I think I prefer using “limitation” or “restrict” as in ‘we limit our discussion and practice of these sacred ceremonies to the temple in order to cultivate respect for and nurture the sacredness of the experience for ourselves and others”.  But I also think it’s reasonable for someone to use the term “secret” since it would be the preference of the Church as far as I can tell in general that those not initiated to be unable to have access to the ordinance just to satisfy curiosity or even to study it secularly, whether those are a majority of the community or a few, so I won’t choose to argue or even persuade them not to use the term. 
 

But it is also very easy for me to understand the frustration members can feel around the use of term as using the term “secret” probably feels like the other person is missing the whole point of the temple. 

Edited September 6 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But the temple creates a sacred space, a holy place, where the things of the world are kept out,

Mundane, secular things are kept out and sacred things kept in. 
 

Not all but enough to create the sense of separateness. 
 

After thinking about this here, I think I prefer “set apart” to limited, taboo, restricted or secret….which ties nicely into sacred. 
 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/sacred

Edited September 6 by Calm

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Repetition of familiar, comforting  words (even if only though sound and not meaning) is an excellent relation technique, calming the body and mind, potentially freeing it to be more open to the Spirit.  Coupled with simple physical movement such as moving beads through one’s hand…it’s brilliant mediation technique imo, easily accessible anywhere, anytime. 

No doubt of that at all! I listen to familiar music to keep my spirits up if I am down. Others have other ways of coping.

But whenever I hear about a priest in a confessional telling the penitent person to say 100 Hail Marys and 100 Our Fathers I wonder at the utility of it. Does it work for forgiveness? Help the person not to think about the thing he or she did that needed confessing? I am reminded of being punished in school by writing "I will do [that thing I did] in school again" 100 times. Maybe it does help.

But I also remember that scene in "A Bridge Too Far" when the American unit is crossing the Rhine river in broad daylight under fire with the unit commander (played by Robert Redford) saying "Hail Mary! Full of Grace!" over and over as they paddle across. I believe the scene was accurate to the actual event, and I have no doubt that saying that did help the commander get through it. Plus, who wouldn't want to have a prayer on one's lips if one were to die in that moment? I surely would.

Edited September 6 by Stargazer

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Mundane, secular things are kept out and sacred things kept in. 
 

Not all but enough to create the sense of separateness. 
 

After thinking about this here, I think I prefer “set apart” to limited, taboo, restricted or secret….which ties nicely into sacred. 
 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/sacred

Set apart is a good way to look at it. I like that.