LDS Church Handbook of Instructions

by What-A-Coincidence 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  LittleToe

  And my rebuttal would be that; in mainstream religion:

  1. people get to choose for themselves what level of doctrine they are ready for, rather than having it imposed on them by "custodians". What is the point?
  2. transparency opens up the misrepresentor to counter-claims of fiction. How is hiding something a good strategy in the face of someone desiring to write an expose?
  3. there is an appreciation that the OT temple rituals were openly available and regularly read in the hearing of the people. There was no resort to "concerns over sacredness" there. Similarly there is no recourse to the same today. Is "sacredness" so very sacred that it must be guarded by man rather than God?

  On a further note, the "pearls before swine" quote is an interesting misapplication of a text...
• 

  Qcmbr

  LT of all people I'd have thought you'd be defending the sacred even if that sacred is not your own.
  
  I'm not certain why the idea of pearls before swine is inappropriate here, I've seen it here where with regards the LDS temple people are willing to post pictures and details that are of no worth to them and to treat them with disdain and rudeness for absolutely no benefit other than as a simple bit of mockery. I think the swine/pearsl analogy is highly apt but I'd be interested where you'd think it applicable.
  
  Again I'm not quite catching your meaning when you claim that something has no claim to sacredness (or the very idea of sacredness itself is 'not') unless God can protect it (I admit I rephrased that totally but please correct me if I've misunderstood the logic here.) Man is protecting the sacred by treating something as special and to be discussed or experienced at certain times and places (christianity is replete with this idea.) I absolutely suggest that something can be sacred and hidden from the general world since it ceases to have any meaning out of context. Again the simplest example for me is the temple covenants that means zero to everyone here who has not been within an LDS temple to experience them. Let me draw a hopefully similar parallel with you - I know from what you have posted here that you have had a personal relationship with divinity that to you is sacred and can be discussed to an extent but can never ever have the same meaning to another that it has to you. I (hope) you would also respect yourself and what those experiences mean to not put them out to open ridicule or shame. There are plenty of things I cannot and will not discuss in this forum for the very reason that they are sacred to me and I don't wish to have people mock - my hiding of them does not make them cultic/shady or suspicious for they mean nothing to anyone else. So it is with esoteric knowledge, its meaning is worthless without context.
  
  These are an unfair questions and feel free to ignore them since they are a kind of trick question (I'm trying to be as transparent as possible but I really am interested in your thoughts here.)
  
  Should God reveal everything now (utter transparency) and if not why not? Is God being cultish to keep knowledge hidden?
• 

  LittleToe

  Sacred is as sacred does. It looks after itself and is only meaningful to the extent to which you grant it meaning. The procedures for creating such a "sacred space" are not sacred in their own right. If another desires to emulate them, let them knock themselves out.

  You are correct in that there are personal experiences that are sacred to us, and which we will not share except in company that we feel comfortable with. Maybe its only a shade of meaning, but I would personally keep this distinct from the mechanisms of a religion. Private notions are quite different from communal practises, at least to me.

  Where an organisation keeps such practises hidden they open themselves up for question. As for what God decides to do, that is His business, and that follows on nicely from my comments about God being able to guard what He deems sacred, without our intervention...

  ...that having been said, that also seems like a fairly transparent process of requirements, to me.
• 

  Qcmbr

  "Sacred is as sacred does."
  
  Don't get it! Maybe I'm being dopey tonight.
  
  sacred adj 1 devoted to a deity, therefore regarded with deep and solemn respect; consecrated. 2 connected with religion or worship • sacred music. 3 entitled to veneration, worship and respect. 4 said of rules, etc: not to be challenged, violated or breached in any circumstances. 5 dedicated or appropriate to a saint, deity, etc
  
  I think one could well be considered in violation of something sacred if one made it available to those who purposefully would not want to share that devotion. An extreme example (obviously made up!) - It would be wrong to remove a cross with a statue of Jesus on it , take it down to the local fairground and hand out coconuts to people who could hit it with wet sponges. It would be considered sacred to keep it in the church (hidden from the fairground - I admit my analogy is fairly stretched!) and force those wishing to experience the icon to enter the church. I think we could draw a simple parallel with knowledge that isn't particularly secret (its very public if you wish to go to church and leave your sponge at home) but it isn't paraded ,copyright free, in the internet fairground for anyone to chuck stuff at.
  
  Right I'm done! I've squeezed this one for all its worth so I'm off to bed.
  
  Oh and a long overdue congrats on the wedding plans LT!
• 

  LittleToe

  Noone has kept such icons from public view for fear of the irreverent making copies and throwing sponges at them. Rather, such things are parodied on the Internet and folks to whom they are meaningful are still able to devote themselves to them without them being tarnished in their eyes.

  Eg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNcrBDG_ajg

  Night, bud