Should a Religion have Private, Personal, Sacred Practices?

[Cow Poke]

How about the actual experience of being "indwelt" before they were actually "indwelt"? Maybe there is a small percentage of orthodox Christians who would not have joined up if they beforehand knew what it was like to be indwelt equal to the small percentage of LDS would not have joined up if they had experienced beforehand the temple ceremonies.

It's not just the temple ceremonies, OC -- it's a WHOLE BUNCH of misrepresentation your Church does --- like your idealistic account of your "martyr", and your idealistic account of the "translation", and special .. um... "clothing".... and the whole "you're not spiritual enough to understand this yet, so just go along with it line upon line" thing. Heck, you guys even fake the PICTORIAL representations of Smith, and the "translation", and the "martyrdom".

The public image of your Church is a facade, OC. An entire PR campaign!

[nrajeff]

Jesus had just been crucified, and other Christians were being martyred. The Roman government in particular was, depending upon the Emperor and locale, persecuting Christians. That is, of course, what Saul was doing before his Damascus Road Experience. So, yeah, there was a lot of "hiding" going on, and I'd even call it "secret" stuff.

Yes, that is my understanding as well. So, if we slightly change the thread's question to "Is it sometimes necessary and prudent for a religion withhold from the public some of the things it does?" can you agree that the correct answer is "yes" ?

I don't know about "depraved", but some of the Emperors saw Christianity as quite different from other religions and "gods" they "inherited" when they conquered other lands.

What I was thinking of when I wrote that was accusations against early Christians, made by anti-Christians, of orgies and baby-sacrificing. Apparently, the fact that the Christians were meeting, and teaching stuff, in secret, at undisclosed locations, led non-Christians to distrust them, and to invent and spread lurid, sensationalistic rumors about what was going on behind those closed doors.

[nrajeff]

Hiding for your life is different than keeping secret rituals. anyone who was interested in Christianity can know everything about it by either reading the scriptures, or asking a believer. They didn't keep secrets from people until they were initiated.

This guy's apologia can be applied to both the criticism of Freemasonry's secrecy, and to the claim that early Christianity was DEVOID of any secrecy:

...“Why don’t we give open double edged razor blades to babies to play with?” I let him think about it for a moment and then explained, “It’s not because the razor blade is a bad thing. It is because the baby is not yet mature enough or dexterous enough to handle it correctly and it can be seriously dangerous, and you can be liable for the injuries to the baby, yes?” I then explained that Jesus also kept secrets and taught in parables because to the masses, who were not ready for the teachings yet, it would harm them, but to his closest followers they were given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God...."

"....Clement of Alexandria wrote centuries ago “Some things I purposely omit, in the exercise of a wise selection, afraid to write what I guarded against speaking: not grudging – for that were wrong – but fearing for my readers, lest they should stumble by taking them in the wrong sense; and, as the proverb says, we should be found ‘reaching a sword to a child.’”...

"...Morton Smith also points out that Clement thought the “secret oral tradition contains the highest truth, which can be revealed only to the Gnostic… this tradition and other important elements of Christianity should be hidden, not only from outsiders, but even from catechumens and unworthy Christians; it is a Christian’s duty to conceal the truth.”.... Proverbs 25:2 – Kabod Elohim haseter dabar – “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter…”

http://www.backyardprofessor.com/the...parallels.html

[Cow Poke]

Yes, that is my understanding as well. So, if we slightly change the thread's question to "Is it sometimes necessary and prudent for a religion withhold from the public some of the things it does?" can you agree that the correct answer is "yes" ?

Sure!

And would you agree that there is no comparable worldly threat against the Mormon Church THESE DAYS, thus, there's no real reason not to be totally "up front" about your beliefs?

What I was thinking of when I wrote that was accusations against early Christians, made by anti-Christians, of orgies and baby-sacrificing. Apparently, the fact that the Christians were meeting, and teaching stuff, in secret, at undisclosed locations, led non-Christians to distrust them, and to invent and spread lurid, sensationalistic rumors about what was going on behind those closed doors.

Well, I would offer that there was probably less "substance" upon which to base those allegations than there was (is) with the publicized (by your own Church) doctrines such as polygamy, and Smith instigating that policy, then it later being "commanded by God" to be uninstigated. But, again, we don't have near as much "source material" from the early Church as we do from the Mormons.

[One Bad Pig]

I kinda sorta remembered something like this, but wasn't sure. Linky?

Christians were rumored to take part in child sacrifice and incest. See Tertullian's Apology, particularly chapters 7-8. Interestingly, Tertullian says there was no attempt by the authorities to confirm these allegations, only coercion to renounce the faith.

[Cow Poke]

This guy's apologia can be applied to both the criticism of Freemasonry's secrecy, and to the claim that early Christianity was DEVOID of any secrecy:

...“Why don’t we give open double edged razor blades to babies to play with?” I let him think about it for a moment and then explained, “It’s not because the razor blade is a bad thing. It is because the baby is not yet mature enough or dexterous enough to handle it correctly and it can be seriously dangerous, and you can be liable for the injuries to the baby, yes?” I then explained that Jesus also kept secrets and taught in parables because to the masses, who were not ready for the teachings yet, it would harm them, but to his closest followers they were given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God...."

"....Clement of Alexandria wrote centuries ago “Some things I purposely omit, in the exercise of a wise selection, afraid to write what I guarded against speaking: not grudging – for that were wrong – but fearing for my readers, lest they should stumble by taking them in the wrong sense; and, as the proverb says, we should be found ‘reaching a sword to a child.’”...

"...Morton Smith also points out that Clement thought the “secret oral tradition contains the highest truth, which can be revealed only to the Gnostic… this tradition and other important elements of Christianity should be hidden, not only from outsiders, but even from catechumens and unworthy Christians; it is a Christian’s duty to conceal the truth.”.... Proverbs 25:2 – Kabod Elohim haseter dabar – “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter…”

http://www.backyardprofessor.com/the...parallels.html

Come on, Jeff ... a double edged razor blade to an infant? Who HAS those anymore! (kidding)

But you aren't seriously suggesting that "withholding knowledge" of a spiritual nature from seekers is in any way comparable to letting a baby play with razor blades, are you?

[nrajeff]

OC, I don't have a problem with restricted access or private ceremonies. Just keeping the ceremonies and rituals secret that only the initiated know about it. It smacks of Masons and Pagan practices.
In the bible even when there were private ceremonies, what went on was clearly spelled out to anyone who wanted to know. Nothing was done in secret.

"[Jesus] conversed with His disciples in private, and especially in their sacred retreats, concerning the Gospel of God; but the words which He uttered have not been preserved, because it appeared to the evangelists that they could not be adequately conveyed to the multitude in writing or in speech and they saw what things were to be committed to writing, and how this was to be done, and what was by no means to be written to the multitude, and what was to be expressed in words, and what was not to be so conveyed. (Contra Celsus, Chap. VI. 18)

[nrajeff]

Come on, Jeff ... a double edged razor blade to an infant? Who HAS those anymore! (kidding)

Well, I still use the old "Atra" system, which has only 2 blades, and even though it's supposed to be a safe way to shave, I still manage to get a cut every other time. : )

But you aren't seriously suggesting that "withholding knowledge" of a spiritual nature from seekers is in any way comparable to letting a baby play with razor blades, are you?

I was quoting others who have seriously suggested that the word of God is even SHARPER than a sword (double-edged one) and that it can, when misused, do even more damage than a real sword can do in the hands of someone who shouldn't be using one.

[One Bad Pig]

"[Jesus] conversed with His disciples in private, and especially in their sacred retreats, concerning the Gospel of God; but the words which He uttered have not been preserved, because it appeared to the evangelists that they could not be adequately conveyed to the multitude in writing or in speech and they saw what things were to be committed to writing, and how this was to be done, and what was by no means to be written to the multitude, and what was to be expressed in words, and what was not to be so conveyed. (Contra Celsus, Chap. VI. 18)

This cite is not correct. It's not even formatted correctly. Contra Celsus Book VI Chapter 18 says no such thing. Try again.

[Sparko]

"[Jesus] conversed with His disciples in private, and especially in their sacred retreats, concerning the Gospel of God; but the words which He uttered have not been preserved, because it appeared to the evangelists that they could not be adequately conveyed to the multitude in writing or in speech and they saw what things were to be committed to writing, and how this was to be done, and what was by no means to be written to the multitude, and what was to be expressed in words, and what was not to be so conveyed. (Contra Celsus, Chap. VI. 18)

er if they were not preserved or conveyed, how did he know about them?

[nrajeff]

er if they were not preserved or conveyed, how did he know about them?

Valid question. The knowledge of the existence of something can exist and be passed down to later generations, even when the actual details or contents of it were not made public knowledge.

It is possible to be aware of the existence of missile launch codes that would be used if a world war starts, but what those codes are will be on a very strict need to know basis.

[Sparko]

Valid question. The knowledge of the existence of something can exist and be passed down to later generations, even when the actual details or contents of it were not made public knowledge.

It is possible to be aware of the existence of missile launch codes that would be used if a world war starts, but what those codes are will be on a very strict need to know basis.

well since we have no idea what this information was, to argue that it was some secret rituals would be an argument from silence.

[nrajeff]

well since we have no idea what this information was, to argue that it was some secret rituals would be an argument from silence.

I think we can get an "idea" as to what the secret teachings were about, even if the specific teachings themselves have been kept from us. Just as with the case of missile launch codes. If Jesus taught His inner circle some of the mysteries of the kingdom of God, then that is what the teachings were about.

Nibley cites Clement's claim that Jesus ordered the apostles to publicly preach no doctrine beyond baptism "for the time being." Sounds like secret teachings existed in Christianity. Nibley cites Acts 1:3, where Jesus taught His inner circle about the kingdom of God and cites Schmidt, in Gesprache Jesu, 304-36 in saying that "It was universally believed in the early church that the last and highest revelations were those given by the Lord after his resurrection, and that these dealt with the kingdom of God."

Nibley also notes that " Some insist that because we know the subject of the 40 days' discourse, we know its content--which is far from being the case" and cites F.F. Bruce's Commentary on the Book of Acts as one supporting source.

[nrajeff]

P.S. For more info on whether early Christianity had esoteric teachings, and whether doing so is against God's will, see Bickmore's article

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/bickm...ity/the-temple

[One Bad Pig]

This cite is not correct. It's not even formatted correctly. Contra Celsus Book VI Chapter 18 says no such thing. Try again.