secret combinations

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

harmony wrote:Nehor, quoting the D&C to me is useless. I consider very little of it to be God-breathed, and the vast majority of it to be manufactured revelation based on expediency at the time. Give me Bible or Book of Mormon.

If the church does not fit a secret combination, then why is so much of it secret? Please tell me why are these reasons not valid:

1. Joseph closed the temples in order to hide his polygamous marriages from the public, the members not involved in polygamy, and his wife. There is no reason for them to be closed now, except the Brethren refuse to change a policy the reason for which disappeared several generations ago. To maintain this policy is simply a matter of selfishness and cruelty.

2. The books were closed in 1957 to hide fiscal malfeasance on the part of some of the Brethren. There is no reason to maintain this policy unless there is still something to hide.

3. Disciplinary councils are secret to protect the church, not the person being discliplined.


You may consider the D&C useless but the Church as a whole has sustained it as canon. We can't violate it with impunity.

I think you're confusing secrecy with secret combinations. There are secrets in the Church. God has secrets. He talks about how to get them revealed to you in the Book of Mormon. They are usually referred to as 'mysteries' there. God has told me things that he placed an injunction of secrecy on me never to tell another soul. Does this make my prayer relationship with God a secret combination because it is secret?

1. The Temples are closed for the same reason Jesus threw the money-changers out of the Temple....or do you really think the Temple could remain a house of prayer if the Temple and General Conference Protestors had free access? We've admittedly not done a perfect job of this. Still, the Kirtland Temple was mostly open but the conspirators in Kirtland looking to supplant or murder Joseph did some of their plotting there.

2. I don't pretend to know their reasons. That something is secret is not proof that there is something sinister going on.

3. Considering that the critics use every disciplinary council they know of as a weapon against the Church I hardly see how secrecy is defending it. Again this is in line with LDS canon whether you accept it or not.

The final point I would make is that secrecy does not a secret combination make.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

1. Joseph closed the temples in order to hide his polygamous marriages from the public, the members not involved in polygamy, and his wife. There is no reason for them to be closed now, except the Brethren refuse to change a policy the reason for which disappeared several generations ago. To maintain this policy is simply a matter of selfishness and cruelty.


The ceremonies of the Temple were always closed to the public after dedication. This is pure hokum


2. The books were closed in 1957 to hide fiscal malfeasance on the part of some of the Brethren. There is no reason to maintain this policy unless there is still something to hide.

Source?


3. Disciplinary councils are secret to protect the church, not the person being disciplined.



Nice to see this baseless, intellectually foggy notion notion is noting more than that. Upon what basis do you make this assertion?

As usual, you won't answer pointed questions. Why would I want the church and public to know of serious moral or personal weaknesses, especially of a very personal nature?
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

This is well, well over your head Harmony, I know, but the Temple ceremonies are sacred (as opposed to profane, or worldly), and neither the world, which cannot comprehend them in any case, nor members who are not worthy or prepared to receive them, have any business with them. I understand that, at the present, this is way over your head, but that is why they are "secret".


They can't be too 'way over my head', since I've been endowed for over 35 years, and understand both the symbolic and the practical aspects of the rituals. You haven't explained WHY you think the temple rituals should be considered sacred enough to be kept secret. And you haven't addressed the history of the secrecy at all.

I'm saying that which is sacred does not have to be secret, and should not be. We allow the public and all members to attend baptisms and blessings. There is nothing that happens in the temple that could not be similiarly open. I think it would be joyous thing, for young children to watch their siblings take out their endowments and be sealed in marriage. There is NOTHING that we have to be ashamed of, or keep hidden.

And get off my thread, if you are going to make personal remarks. Stick to the subject, and that means don't be dragging in personal remarks of any kind.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Coggins7 wrote:
1. Joseph closed the temples in order to hide his polygamous marriages from the public, the members not involved in polygamy, and his wife. There is no reason for them to be closed now, except the Brethren refuse to change a policy the reason for which disappeared several generations ago. To maintain this policy is simply a matter of selfishness and cruelty.


The ceremonies of the Temple were always closed to the public after dedication. This is pure hokum


Well, that's not surprising is it? Since Joseph's little forays into plural marriage started in 1831, long before the first temple.

2. The books were closed in 1957 to hide fiscal malfeasance on the part of some of the Brethren. There is no reason to maintain this policy unless there is still something to hide.

Source?


Common knowledge. Look it up yourself.

3. Disciplinary councils are secret to protect the church, not the person being disciplined.



Nice to see this baseless, intellectually foggy notion notion is noting more than that. Upon what basis do you make this assertion?

As usual, you won't answer pointed questions. Why would I want the church and public to know of serious moral or personal weaknesses, especially of a very personal nature?


If someone is disciplined for what would be prosecuted as a crime, the public has a right to know. If the person is disciplined for something other than that which would be prosecuted as a crime, they should be able to have their friends and family there to support them. The proceedings being closed has nothing to do with protecting the person and everything to do with protecting the church.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

harmony wrote:If someone is disciplined for what would be prosecuted as a crime, the public has a right to know. If the person is disciplined for something other than that which would be prosecuted as a crime, they should be able to have their friends and family there to support them. The proceedings being closed has nothing to do with protecting the person and everything to do with protecting the church.


I'm not following here Harmony. Disciplinary councils often let friends and family of the accused in and character witnesses are very, very common and half the High Council (if it is a High Council court) are bound by duty to support the accused.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

The Nehor wrote:You may consider the D&C useless but the Church as a whole has sustained it as canon. We can't violate it with impunity.


We can, if it's not God-given. Just because men attribute something to God doesn't mean God had anything to do with it.


1. The Temples are closed for the same reason Jesus threw the money-changers out of the Temple....or do you really think the Temple could remain a house of prayer if the Temple and General Conference Protestors had free access? We've admittedly not done a perfect job of this. Still, the Kirtland Temple was mostly open but the conspirators in Kirtland looking to supplant or murder Joseph did some of their plotting there.


Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple so polygamy would remain hidden? Wow. I learned something today!

I think the temples wouldn't be targets, if they were open to the public. There's no reason to assume protestors would be granted access, anymore than they are granted access to any baptism in any public meeting house. The laws of the land wouldn't be displaced, just because the temples were open.

2. I don't pretend to know their reasons. That something is secret is not proof that there is something sinister going on.


And it's not proof that there's not, either.

3. Considering that the critics use every disciplinary council they know of as a weapon against the Church I hardly see how secrecy is defending it. Again this is in line with LDS canon whether you accept it or not.


Perhaps you've yet to have a family member in front of a disciplinary council with no support. Something to look forward to, no doubt.

The final point I would make is that secrecy does not a secret combination make.


A fine line, perhaps. But still... why secrecy at all? What do we have to hide?
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

The Nehor wrote:
harmony wrote:If someone is disciplined for what would be prosecuted as a crime, the public has a right to know. If the person is disciplined for something other than that which would be prosecuted as a crime, they should be able to have their friends and family there to support them. The proceedings being closed has nothing to do with protecting the person and everything to do with protecting the church.


I'm not following here Harmony. Disciplinary councils often let friends and family of the accused in and character witnesses are very, very common and half the High Council (if it is a High Council court) are bound by duty to support the accused.


Not in my stake, they don't.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

jljhv
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

They can't be too 'way over my head', since I've been endowed for over 35 years, and understand both the symbolic and the practical aspects of the rituals. You haven't explained WHY you think the temple rituals should be considered sacred enough to be kept secret. And you haven't addressed the history of the secrecy at all.


Oh oh, here comes her "Mormon credentials" again. See the plastic drop out of her wallet. There's the Temple recommend. I don't care how long you've been endowed, you provide no reason to believe you've ever understood a word of the endowment or its symbolism past the rudimentary aspects of the words spoken. Ditto some other basic Mormon doctrines I've seen you get wrong here time after time. We all know the history of the secrecy, both the real history and the manufactured revisionist history. And I did explain why such ceremonies are not for the world: they deal with sacred spiritual things with which the world has no business. But why explain, when we have you as exhibit 'A' of precisely the swine before which the pearls are not to be cast?


I'm saying that which is sacred does not have to be secret, and should not be.


Upon what basis? Are there not varying levels of sacredness, or is all sacredness simply a standard, average sacredness that can be gawked at like an exotic animal in a glass case at a zoo?

Please don't tap on the glass.



We allow the public and all members to attend baptisms and blessings. There is nothing that happens in the temple that could not be similiarly open.


Upon what basis? would you like to develop this theme philosophically in some detail?


I think it would be joyous thing, for young children to watch their siblings take out their endowments and be sealed in marriage. There is NOTHING that we have to be ashamed of, or keep hidden.


The only thing I'd ever be ashamed of is allowing someone like you to view and participate in those endowments and then come back out into the world and do to them what you do to them and the church here. You have no more business handling them, Harmony, than a three year old has playing with a flame thrower.


And get off my thread, if you are going to make personal remarks. Stick to the subject, and that means don't be dragging in personal remarks of any kind.


Are you kidding? The entire thread is personal. Its an attack on the entire church and its most sacred forms of worship. You want to commonize and trivialize that which is unique and profound. You would allow people who have no conception of the meaning or purpose of those ceremonies, nor even, in many cases, any conception of sacredness, to gawk and stare uncomprehendingly at the ceremonies, and then later mock and jeer at them.

You're not even a real Mormon Harmony. You don't accept major aspects of its doctrine or history, the basic trustworthiness of many of its leaders, and huge portions of its sacred writings.

Why are you here Harmony? What is your real agenda? What is your real problem with the Church? Why don't you understand even some of the most basic teachings of the Church?
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Sun May 27, 2007 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

harmony wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
harmony wrote:If someone is disciplined for what would be prosecuted as a crime, the public has a right to know. If the person is disciplined for something other than that which would be prosecuted as a crime, they should be able to have their friends and family there to support them. The proceedings being closed has nothing to do with protecting the person and everything to do with protecting the church.


I'm not following here Harmony. Disciplinary councils often let friends and family of the accused in and character witnesses are very, very common and half the High Council (if it is a High Council court) are bound by duty to support the accused.


Not in my stake, they don't.


They don't allow the accused to have witnesses on their behalf? I find that astonishing.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Post Reply