Replies

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.

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.

There is a big difference between secret, and Sacred, sorry to be a nit picker, but it's an important nit.

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.

Not even remotly similar to our case. We have additional scriptures (I keep talking about them) which discuss the doctrine covered in detail, so you can learn without having the "Exact words" what we are talking about, and have a platform to discuss it with us.

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

Debate all you want, the Doctrines are all in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&anp;C) and the Book of Abraham, which are published, so you have free access to all the information, just not the rites themselves. Unless you are wanting to critique the rites, and not the Doctrine you don't need them, and discussing Doctrine was your premise here was it not?

Let me give you an example, if you want to discuss the sexual nature of man, even getting into the medical aspects, and procedures, we can have a meaningful discussion, if however, you want to discuss my activities with my wife behind the doors of our bedroom, you will be disappointed.

This discussing of our rites in minute detail feels a lot like a discussion of me and my wife's sex life, and it makes me wonder why you and Elsie find it so important that I have no secrets, nothing I hold sacred. So why do you think you need to know?

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

You are quite right, I am not going to discuss my intimate moments with my wife either, neither should prohibit a philosophical, or factual discussion.

Let me use the fremason example again.

No, because it's not apples to apples, we have published all the doctrine.

If you were a lawyer, and the facts are available through a public venue, the judge will not allow you to subpoena sensitive records to get this information that is easily available from another source.

Debate and discussion stops at the point the secret begins.

That depends on what you are debating, the secret is not in the doctrines you claim to want to talk about, for they are publicly available to you through another source.

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.

When you find yourself in disagreement with God......Repent (grin).

We each includes these factors in our choice of religion and should respect each other for defending them.

Thank you, I do respect the logical way in which you present your argument. The presentation however, does not preclude me from disagreeing with either your premise, or your conclusions.

Have a really great day! and God bless.

To you it seems this is a LDS privilege but to the LDS it is a sacred covenant from the Lord!

Unless you are wanting to critique the rites, and not the Doctrine you don't need them, and discussing Doctrine was your premise here was it not? No; it was not.

Where do you get the AUTHORITY to keep your temple rites sacred/secret.

I could care less WHAT you say in your sacred/secret rites.

All I want is to shown the AUTHORITY.

It should be simple: cut & paste.

I think the two of you are overlooking your need to know is in conflict with a commandment that the Lord gave his Children and you are asking us to break our vows for your self satisfying pleasure.

It seems the Lord had his reasons for his children do not always know to whom they are speaking to and what they will do with the knowledge or their intent so the Lord is in charge of what goes on in his house!

Matt 7
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Prov. 23:
9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

Matt. 15: 26 (
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

D&C 6: 12
12 Make not thy gift known unto any save it be those who are of thy faith. Trifle not with sacred things.

D&C 10: 37 (36-37)
37 But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter.

D&C 41:
6 For it is not meet that the things which belong to the children of the kingdom should be given to them that are not worthy, or to dogs, or the pearls to be cast before swine.