From: cwblack%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Charles W. Black)
Subject: Secrecy (was Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM'))
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:16:26 MDT
Summary: Secrecy may be Beneficial
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Utah

Article <1992Apr9.214012.15997@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> You know, I don't really understand why the big deal about secrecy,

	If you don't understand the need for secrecy, perhaps you
	should not be so quick to condemn it.  I do agree that 
	sometimes secrecy is unnecessary and even undesirable.
	In this case, however, secrecy may be quite appropriate.

> because it leads directly to what are claimed to be misrepresentations
> of Mormon practices.  If the temple ceremonies were an open book, you
> could at least dispense with this particular argument.  Hiding such
> practices gives unbelievers the sense that there is something shameful
> about them, or at least that there is something vaguely unsavory.

	Shameful?  Unsavory?  These are hardly reasonable conclusions.
	The purpose of such secrecy *may* not be motivated by the desire
	to hide the content from the general public.  Rather, perhaps
	the secrecy is used to enhance the solemnity of the occasion.
	Perhaps, the secrecy enhances the personal commitments binding
	Mormons more strongly to their particular beliefs and ideals.  
	Certainly, Mormons are not the only ones to keep their most 
	sacred ceremonies to themselves.

	Really, I find it ludicrous to suggest that there is something
	shameful about temple ceremonies.  Rather, I would suppose that
	it is a most sacred and personal experience for those who partake
	in them.  Mormon doctrine is quite generally available to anyone
	who asks.  In fact, the temple ceremonies themselves are not
	quite so secret as one might assume.  Surely, the particulars of
	the ceremonies are kept secret; however, the general purposes
	of the temple ceremonies are discussed openly.

> Now I grant that such openness doesn't remote the chance to be mis-
> interpreted, but you'd at least be in a position to defend yourself.
> Right now, when a Mormon has to answer to such charges, all they have
> are ad-hominems to defend themselves.  ("Would YOU trust someone who
> violated his/her oaths?"  "Well, maybe" is not what you intend to hear
> in reply.)

	Why should one have to defend his/her religious convictions?  If
	I were asked to defend mine, I would not be able to do so on any
	scientific or logical grounds.  I have participated in many 
	discussions that focused on personal beliefs; it seems that
	religious convictions in particular are next to impossible to
	defend, simply becuase of their personal nature.  Explaining 
	matters of faith in any other context is simply not possible.

	Very little, in matters of faith, can be justified, or proven, in 	
	any arguable context.  If this were otherwise, there might just 
	be a clear choice, rather than hundreds of different choices.  
	Personally, I have heard very convincing rationale behind many 
	of the beliefs that are characteristically Mormon.  Most of them, 
	however, could not be proven scientifically.  But, neither could 
	most of them be satisfactorily refuted.
 
> I know very little about Masons, but I have a similar jaundiced
> opinion of their need for secrecy, as if it's a little boy's club.

	Spare me.

	=-*-=

	For the record, I have never experienced a temple ceremony nor 
	have I been inside the temple.  I do, however, have several close
	friends that happen to be devoutly Mormon.  I have found no
	evidence that the secret things that occur inside the temple
	are in any way harmful, shameful, or unsavory.  In fact, I find
	such speculations irresponsible.  Many books have been published
	concerning a variety of religions stating specific flaws in 
	reasoning, doctrine, and practice.  Quite invariably however, 
	the opinions (yes, opinions!) stated in those books rarely
	synch with reality.  I recall my church talking about other
	religions, stating the major flaws with much of the doctrine of
	"other" churches.  And, surely, from our context, it all made
	sense.  But, since then, I have spoken to friends that happen
	to have chosen some of those "other" churches.  In general, I
	have found that most of the blanket assumptions condemning the
	"other" churches was only partially true.  Once the missing pieces
	were put in place, that reasoning, doctrine, and practice didn't
	always seem unreasonable.

	I guess the other issue which I wanted to address was that of
	the appropriateness of secrecy.  Private ceremonies, meetings,
	rituals, etc., are more common than most of us realize.  If 
	anyone has joined a fraternity/sorority (relax! - forget the
	movies you've seen - reality would disappoint you), you know
	that as part of initiation you take an oath not to reveal any
	of the secrets of that organization.  Then, the precepts and
	ideals of the particular organization are revealed.  This is
	certainly not shameful or unsavory.  It serves to unite the
	members with special bond:  trust in each other and adherence
	to common (usually virtuous) ideals.  Such secrecy fosters 
	feelings of pride and commitment on a personal level.  It seems
	to me that such a goal would not be undesirable in a religious
	context.

	By the way, you might be wondering just what part of a ceremony
	need be kept secret.  Well, for those of you who've never belonged
	to any such organization, allow me to elaborate:  secret handshakes;
	meanings of letters, symbols, insignia; promises of adherence to
	the precepts of the organization; an expression of commitment to
	the organization; details (sometimes to the point of boredom).
	And, of course, all promises and commitments are entirely voluntary;
	a participant is allowed to leave at any time.  You might notice
	that I have just told you exactly what happens in such a ceremony,
	yet I have not broken my solemn oath of secrecy.  The point is that
	most of the goals of and the motivation behind the organization is
	public knowledge.  The ceremony simply reinforces those goals
	in a very personal manner and at the same time reveals details
	which serve to further unite the members to their cause.

	This doesn't sound so bad or so unreasonable.  What else would 
	Mormons do in their temple?  Surely, it's nothing so extreme
	as to warrant criticism of their secrecy.  Rather, it's probably
	all just very private and personal, and none of my business.
	
	(Steve, the following is not necessarily directed at you!)

	In summary, I find it offensive to criticize w/o sufficient basis.
	There probably are many valid criticisms that can be raised 
	concerning Mormonism.  But, unless these criticisms can be 
	substantiated, perhaps they should be posed as observations or
	questions.  Reading anti-Mormon literature does not qualify as
	substantive material!  

              ----------  Charles W. Black  ----------
                  ------  cwblack@asylum.utah.edu  ------
                     ---  Department of Computer Science  ---
               ---------  University of Utah  ---------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc