Should a Religion have Private, Personal, Sacred Practices?

[Cow Poke]

You really wouldn't want us to put our light on a hill, as you seem to think it would be ultra deceptive of us to do so? You pretty much said so in another thread today. Anyway, Jesus was talking about good works. He wasn't talking about things very personal, and very sacred, and very private.

But if you still want to see our "light on a hill" then check out ProvidentLiving.org.

So, I take it that there is nothing in your Faith or your relationship with God that is private, personal, and sacred.

This sounds like the frustrated - doesn't-know-what-else-to-say - OC. You can always tell by that snitty last line that is so full of sanctimonious horsey poo.

[One Bad Pig]

There are others that I have mentioned. And mockery doesn't hurt God's feelings so much, but it does bring condemnation upon the mocker's head.

If someone is mocking the truth, yes.

[Sparko]

Line upon line. Precept on precept. Here a little, there a little.

It's an act of mercy, that God does not tell the world more than they are able to hear. If he were to do so, they would then be under obligation to accept and be under condemnation for not accepting. The world is ABLE to hear the message of the crucifixion and resurrection, and repentance and baptism. They are NOT ready or prepared to hear the specifics pertaining to the kingdom of heaven. That is why Jesus spoke in parables.

what does that have to do with what Hamster asked? he asked why being Mocked was such a big deal? Christians have been mocked for their beliefs and practices for 2000 years and they never felt the need to hide them from the world.

you just keep jumping around from one excuse to another.

[OtherCheek]

what does that have to do with what Hamster asked? he asked why being Mocked was such a big deal?

Mocking sacred things condemns the mocker, not the target of the mockery. OBP seemed to understand what I was saying. So, it's sad for me to see when it happens. Mocking sacred things also sets a bad example for others to follow.

[Cow Poke]

Mocking condemns the mocker, not the target of the mockery. OBP seemed to understand what I was saying.

With the caveat, of course, that whatever is being mocked is TRUE! God doesn't condemn somebody for mocking false prophets or false religions.

Do you think God would punish you if you mocked Jim Jones or David Koresh?

[Hamster]

What's more potentially mockable than the crucifixion?

[OtherCheek]

What's more potentially mockable than the crucifixion?

I don't know if I can answer that. Some people may not be inclined to mock the crucifixion, but rather mock Jews being slaughtered in the Holocaust.

[Sparko]

Mocking sacred things condemns the mocker, not the target of the mockery. OBP seemed to understand what I was saying. So, it's sad for me to see when it happens. Mocking sacred things also sets a bad example for others to follow.

You are still avoiding Hamster's question.

So what if the mocker is "condemned" by his mockery? That is no excuse to hide your ceremonies and rituals. Again, Christians didn't hide their beliefs or rituals and they were mocked, shunned and killed for them. But they never hid them.

Yet the LDS does.

[Cow Poke]

You are still avoiding Hamster's question.

So what if the mocker is "condemned" by his mockery? That is no excuse to hide your ceremonies and rituals. Again, Christians didn't hide their beliefs or rituals and they were mocked, shunned and killed for them. But they never hid them.

Yet the LDS does.

Cause they have to guard their secrets!

[OtherCheek]

You are still avoiding Hamster's question.

So what if the mocker is "condemned" by his mockery? That is no excuse to hide your ceremonies and rituals.

Sure it is a reason. And a good one, too.

[KingsGambit]

Sure it is a reason. And a good one, too.

Aren't we to share the truth of the way of life with all people? This sort of logic seems like what one would use to justify not sending missionaries out to an unreached group of people, arguing that they can't be condemned by what they don't know.

[OtherCheek]

Aren't we to share the truth of the way of life with all people? This sort of logic seems like what one would use to justify not sending missionaries out to an unreached group of people, arguing that they can't be condemned by what they don't know.

What we're debating here, is whether or not it is a valid thing for a religion to have some private, sacred, and personal practices, (among all of their practices,) which are intended to remain private, sacred, and personal. It isn't about whether it is a valid thing for a religion to hide EVERY single one of their practices.

Here are some practices that are (or should be) well known to the public.

Church welfare system.
Deseret Industries.
Sunday 3 hour block of meetings.
Family Home Evening.
Home teaching.
Visit teaching,
Fasting, Fast Offering, Fast and testimony meeting.
Payment of tithing.
Mutual nights for youth.
Scouting endorsement.
Church callings.
Administering to the sick and afflicted.
Caring for the poor and needy.
Missionary effort.
Welfare effort abroad among non LDS.
Food storage.
No dating until age 16
Modesty in clothing and conduct.
Law of chastity.
No alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea
Required obedience to the commandments of God.
Baptism for 8 year-olds.
Baptism for the dead.
Salvation for the dead.
Marriage for time and eternity.
Belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Redeemer of Mankind.
Belief that God loves all his children and has prepared a way for all of them to be saved.
Belief in 3 degrees of glory.
Belief in a Pre-mortal existence.
Belief in living prophets.
Belief in additional scripture.

These are just a very few of the things that are out there for the public to see, hear, learn about, and understand about us.

[KingsGambit]

What we're debating here, is whether or not it is a valid thing for a religion to have some private, sacred, and personal practices, (among all of their practices,) which are intended to remain private, sacred, and personal. It isn't about whether it is a valid thing for a religion to hide EVERY single one of their practices.

That's a very fair point. I suppose this ultimately boils down to a philosophical difference regarding what should and shouldn't be occult - I couldn't imagine wanting to gloss over anything I truly believe, as I believe anything that is true should be openly affirmed as such.

[OtherCheek]

That's a very fair point. I suppose this ultimately boils down to a philosophical difference regarding what should and shouldn't be occult - I couldn't imagine wanting to gloss over anything I truly believe, as I believe anything that is true should be openly affirmed as such.

Thanks,KG.
Neither could I imagine glossing over anything I believe in. But among the hundreds of practices, there is only one sacred practice in our church, and that is temple worship. And we don't gloss over it, and we invite guests to open houses for every new temple, and we share information about WHY we have temples, and their purpose.

[ZackMartin]

Just look at how the temple garment is mocked by the world. Is there such a thing as "higher thoughts" and "higher ways" than the thoughts and ways of the world?

Not a practice I personally endorse, but I agree that the extent of mockery levied against it is uncalled for and not respectful. We ought to try to respect other people's sincere religious views; respecting something doesn't mean we have to agree with it, but we should limit our expression of that disagreement to seriousness instead of mockery.

If you really have to mock something, pick a thing which isn't sacred to somebody. But mockery is cheap anyway.