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.

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.

There is a big difference between secret, and Sacred

Yes, however, in this case the rite is both.

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?

A rite is a ceremony or act, a customary observance or religious practice. Holy Communion is a rite for example. If the Eucharist rite was secret, for example, this would be a big deal for those considering Catholicism or discussing its theology. Rites and doctrines are inseparable.

If however, you want to discuss my activities with my wife behind the doors of our bedroom

If you compare a church rite to a marital sex act.. I can't imagine that. Church rites are before the whole church - marriage, confirmation, baptism, ordination, etc. So, you might see how this idea of a rite would cause some concern or suspicion. Those are too strong a words. It's just not what others would consider a rite - one held in secret, you should understand some eyebrows would be raised. And, again, we can't discuss how these rites are or are not coherent with what doctrine - other than taking someone's word for it.

Now if the rite were actually some form of confession, that would be in secret - what is confessed in confession would be kept secret. However the rite of reconciliation (confession) is not secret, what is said and done follows a formula and this is known, discussed, published, part of doctrine - an important part of doctrine.

…the judge will not allow you to subpoena sensitive records to get this information that is easily available from another source.

What is the source for what is said and done during the rite?

I can look up the forms, formula and specifics of rites for every other mainstream Christian Church. It doesn't fit in the same category as those rites. So, I don't think your "rite" defense is right - but as I've said, that's still your church's right..

{^_^}

Thanks very much for your reply.