posted
I think the difference here is that you define "appropriate times and places" much more narrowly than other people would.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leaving aside "gossip rags," Scott, I think most people would be comfortable discussing the rituals of their faith with close friends and family, even if those friends and family were not of the same religion. The LDS church is considerably more reticent about this than most other American churches.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sacredness is about having a place set apart from the world. If we let the world in, even in ideological terms, then it wouldn't be set apart anymore, would it? If we could watch our most sacred doings on television with the guy who thinks its all bunk and makes fun of it, then what special significance will it retain in the temple? If we could just read it online, why go to the temple? And if we do go to the temple, even if we still only allowed people who have kept God's law, how would it be to know that this is no longer the only place on earth where we can study the sacred teachings?
If we made public everything, then we'd lose it. Just for a little respect by those not willing to accept that there can be sacred things in the world.
Do you really think some stranger's respect is is worth that much?
posted
Ironically the "Secrecy" is working. Think of how "special" people feel who reveal the "oh so secret" LDS Temple stuff. Sure, they mock it and all most of the time. Most who delve into this love to rub it in the Mormon's face -- thus making it special yet again. But, they still end up treating it as if set apart from everything else in a negative sort of way.
I am not saying I like this part of it, but as someone else said its worth the trouble when you understand the significants of the Temple. Aside from that, what ever happened to the idea of respecting peoples differences?
posted
"If we could watch our most sacred doings on television with the guy who thinks its all bunk and makes fun of it, then what special significance will it retain in the temple?"
I see bad marriages all the time on TV, but I'd like to think that there's still some significance to my marriage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't really heard anyone mocking the Temple ceremonies here on Hatrack. . . nor do I think anyone is criticizing the Church for keeping the Temple ceremonies private.
posted
I'm hesitant to make anything of this world, that part of anything which is corruptible, sacred. (I understand this is a choice for me, by the way, and so not relevant to someone covenanted to a particular belief system. Just thinking it through.)
ak once wrote about the cheapest and gaudiest cross, thrown away in the gutter, having the power to be invested with meaning by one who needed it. That regardless of the material face it wore, the spiritual consequences could be just as pure and inviolable as ever, just as powerful.
So, for example, in the case of rape, one might say the violation of the body did not taint anything sacred, not the soul.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:ak once wrote about the cheapest and gaudiest cross, thrown away in the gutter, having the power to be invested with meaning by one who needed it.
What a good idea for a short story.
MINE! You keep you bloody hands off of it, you. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Scott R, I'm serious. It was a powerful metaphor in ak's hands. I just don't rite so gud. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm arguing against isn't what is already there: people who have posted the temple ceremony online in order to show their disdain for the religion (even if they claim to be doing it for the purpose of studying the religion).
And I'm not claiming that disrespect has been shown on Hatrack.
What I'm arguing against is what TomD seems to be wanting: just have the church officially release everything that goes on in the temple. Do away with the secrecy and people will understand Mormons more. We might even gain converts that way.
What I'm saying is that we would lose far more than we would gain.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
And I'm not saying the church should open up its secrets, but it can't begrudge the attitudes toward them from others because of that same secrecy.
Personally, I'd like to see the temples opened. Outside of faith in the divine, the closed nature of such things is what keeps me from being able to be open to the church. Of course, it's that way for other faiths, as well. I respect them greatly, but I won't commit spiritually to something I can't learn as wholly as I feel comfortable with. However, that's just me, and I don't think the whole religion should change to meet my personal preferences. Of course, I feel this way about certain Eastern faiths, as well, and I respect them just as much.
All I'm saying is that you reap what you sow.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
The reaping/sowing anology is actually a good one, even for this discussion. Because you can't just skip from kernal to corn-- a growing process is required.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I have been arguing is that people should respect other people's beliefs about their own beliefs. When sacred means secret, than it should be respected that it is secret because it is considered sacred. There shouldn't be, at least for educated and respectful people, some kind of hidden adjenda read into that fact. Mormons shouldn't have to complain about, "the attitudes toward them from others because of that same secrecy." I WILL bedrudge those attitudes because they are a sign of disrespect and bigotry.
If you don't see the Temple "secrets" as sacred, that is both fine and natural. I am not acting as if anyone should who hasn't made those Covenants. However, it isn't right that I am judged harshly or seen as suspect because of what I consider Private! In other words, its none of your business any more than your life is any of mine.
posted
The problem is that in general society, keeping something secret means a hidden agenda. This is what I mean about reaping and sowing: go ahead and keep whatever you want sacred, but when others get the impression of a hidden agenda, you have no right to expect them to believe otherwise just because you don't think of it that way. Just like you have the right to hold it sacred, they have the right to suspect. The only thing that can change that is something that not everyone will agree to.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you have no right to expect them to believe otherwise just because you don't think of it that way."
I have EVERY RIGHT to expect them to believe otherwise. Its called respect for others.
I want to put this here, because it actually makes more sense here. Didn't know when I edit the above post it would be an answer to something:
quote:If you don't see the Temple "secrets" as sacred, that is both fine and natural. I am not acting as if anyone should who hasn't made those Covenants. However, it isn't right that I am judged harshly or seen as suspect because of what I consider Private! In other words, its none of your business any more than your life is any of mine.
posted
Perhaps I should have put it differently. You can expect people to believe otherwise all you wish, but you cannot FORCE them to believe what you do, and telling someone something is sacred and they are not worthy of knowing is plenty dubious.
[ February 16, 2004, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you have a secret you are fully aware of the fact that people are going to try to find out what that secret is. You have no right to make people not question what your secret is, and most inportantly to question them for reaching false conclusions. You made the decision to keep it a secret, so you are the one who has to deal with the consequences. By keeping something hidden, you are knowingly hanging it out in front of people, so they can try and grab it and know it. If people jump to wrong conclusions its not their fault. You are the one with the knowledge, and you are the one with holding it. Their incorrect answers are the fault of the people who are with holding the answer. I would say that you can keep your secrets, but if you want to blame anyone for false conclusions that are made, then blame yourselves. But if it doesn't bother you, then go ahead and keep your secret, it doesn't bother me(but people have the right to be bothered all the same).
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now for a shoe on the other foot... my sister just had a baby and they aren't telling anyone the name (even though they wrote it on the birth certificate) until the blessing (somewhat like a christening in being a public religious naming of the baby). My husband called them control freaks. I figure I do weirder stuff than that from time to time. But I guess my husband is demonstrating how people hate a "secret". I'm sure it would be possible to fanagle some way to learn this baby's name, but then what?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we refused to tell anyone (including the birth certificate folks) any of our kids names until they were formally given them (at the bris for my son; at the naming for the girls).
It wasn't a control issue -- it just wasn't their NAME yet. (Especially considering that one got changed almost last minute!)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We told OSC, kacard, and docmagik what Superstation's name was going to be. I think we made everyone else wait until he was born before we told them.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
(Especially considering that one got changed almost last minute!)
