Replies

thanks for your reply and I do understand the distinction. However..

I hate the "howevers" and "Buts"...

If "who says what and why" includes oaths or creedal agreements or similar things, then your problem creates a problem for a comparative discussion of religious beliefs and practices.

Why? Do you really think you are going to know everything about one let alone two religions? Compare the Doctrine point by point and who cares what the exact wording of a sacred ceremony is if the doctrine is published, who cares.

I will state that there is nothing doctrinally introduced in the temple that is not in the PGP and the D&C

Whether this is the case in LDS, I don't know. The larger point is I can't know.

Sure, you can take my word for it, and you can look on the churches web site, they talk about the meaning of the temple ceremonies in church publications all the time. Go to the web site and look it up. If we were going to lie, we would just do so and print something innocuous and say that is what we do, but we don't and we tell you why and are willing to tell you what it means, that should increase your confidence in us, since we won't take the easy way and just tell you what you want to hear.

This is similar to the problem I encountered recently concerning whether Masonry was a religion. At some point, the cards are hidden.

Well, what do they say their cards are?

I do understand that some knowledge is gained in progression and one cannot skip steps. Contemplative Christian practice is similar to this. However, the practices are published and described and readily available. One may not understand them, but they're not hidden.

Everything about the temple except for the actual Ceremonies are published by the church, meaning, Doctrine taught, everything, what's the problem because really, I don't see it.

Again, I appreciate that a LDS wishes to keep some aspects secret. Whether the cost of this is greater than the benefit is perhaps a future decision for the church.

God wants us to keep it sacred, it's not up to me, he speaks and I obey.

Read the D&C, and the book of Abraham, and you know all the doctrine that is in there, no problem.

Thanks very much for your reply, and best wishes to you..

Thank you for your cordial responses on this forum, it is refreshing to talk to someone who is civil.

thanks for your reply. I want to make it clear that I'm talking about the problems incurred in discussing your religion when aspects are secret; and not at this point anything particular to the LDS.

I will state that there is nothing doctrinally introduced in the temple that is not in the PGP and the D&C

Using the freemasonry discussion, I was told that nothing there violates the Christian religion. I asked about a reported ceremony, what the candidate said during intitiation to a certain level. This, IMHO, violated Christian doctrine. The person I was discussing with could not confirm or deny what was said by the candidate, or say anything about this ceremony. Similar to your case.

you can take my word for it

I can, but that's not a discussion or debate. These are prevented when one side cannot discuss.

you can look on the churches web site, they talk about the meaning of the temple ceremonies in church publications all the time.

I understand. However we still can't discuss what is actually done and said.

what's the problem because really, I don't see it.

Let me use the fremason example again. He said nothing in freemasonry violated Christianity. I believed a particular ceremony certainly did. I believe he was sincere, but we disagreed. Now, how can we resolve this disagreement, or at least explore, discuss, state our postions and reasoning for them?

We can't. He says the black box contains nothing religious; I say it might. But we can't look at the actual contents.

So, I'm not impugning LDS or you on this particular point. I'm just pointing out that others may disagree with you on the meaning and significance of religious ceremonies and practices. And if these are secret neither side can do more than state their conclusion without discussing the specifics. Debate and discussion stops at the point the secret begins.

Again, this is the LDS's privledge. I see reasons for it, I understand now this is believed to be commanded by God. I disagree and see the value of not having these kinds of secrets. We each includes these factors in our choice of religion and should respect each other for defending them.

thanks very much for your reply.