From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Oaths & Fervor
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:36:15 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>I think the discussion between Jay Windley and Kilroy is mostly
>missing the point.

Yes, after consideration of the arguments presented, I believe we have
indeed been arguing apples and oranges.

My indictment of the two authors was in some respects built upon guilt
by assocation.  In my ministry I have frequently come in contact with
such published material as has been discussed, and so I am acquainted
with the format and the general tenor of such writings.

>What neither seems to be doing is making what I think is a critical
>distinction between reporting events and describing their
>significance.

Thank you for hitting the nail on the head.  Most authors attempt to
provide commentary on what goes on the temple so that the reader feels
he has been provided with a context.  It is this treatment which is in
nearly every case in error.

Now certain parts of the temple ceremony are not protected by oaths of
confidentiality.  Rather, they are simply not referred to in detail or
in mixed company out of deference to their solemnity and sacredness.
The summary I presented was more explicit than is usually given to
non-LDS readers, but in no way violated any obligation of secrecy.

However, I have yet to see a temple expose' pamphlet which does not
delve further into those elements of the temple ceremony which are not
to be divulged.  I do not know that our authors did this, but I
suspect that they did since such is the nature of that genre.
However, suspicion is not proof, and I cannot hold the authors
responsible for something which I cannot show they did.

In examining the summary John provided, I do see, however, something
which demands further exposition.  I intended to do this earlier, but
with the pace of the discussion it slipped away.

The authors describe a scene from the ceremony film involving an
evangelist.  They tell us it is a Protestant minister, and that he is
in cahoots with Satan.  This is their interpretation, and it is wrong.
In one rendition of the film the evangelist was clothed in a way that
might suggest a Protestant minister, but as this raised many questions
among temple patrons it was altered so that the man could not be
identified with any religion.

Further, though the man converses with Satan, he is unaware of his
identity.  When he learns who Satan is, he shuns him without
hesitation and joins those who portray the faithful.  His experience
is a type of that had by all inhabitants of the earth in that we fall
unknowingly into evil, but when we realize it we repent and shun that
evil.

In selectively presenting factual information and slipping in their
own opinion (which is specifically denounced by the LDS leaders as
incorrect), our authors have manipulated their readers, who now think
that LDS believe all Protestant ministers to be in league with Satan.
I cannot say strongly enough THAT SUCH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE.

In the spirit of good will I would be willing to forgive the authors
summarily for their misinterpretation in the matter of assigning some
specific religion to the evangelist, especially since it was not an
uncommon mistake.  However, their omission of certain elements of the
story (i.e., that the evangelist does not recognize Satan for who he
is) which bear heavily on its correct interpretation still leave me
with the opinion that the judgement of these two people is
questionable.  This sort of thing cannot be other than deliberate.  I
cannot believe that the authors just conveniently forgot the part of
the story which disagrees with their conclusion.

So while it may be unfounded to claim they were dishonest merely
because they violated an oath of secrecy, I still cannot consider them
a reliable source of information since they withold information
necessary to drawing a correct conclusion.

>Actually, the most disturbing revelation of all came from one of our
>LDS participants (Jay?), who said in passing that one of the things
>involved is revelation of a secret password for passing into the upper
>reaches of the hereafter.

Well, I didn't describe the nature of the parts of the ceremony which
are secret, so "password" is Charles' own interpretation.  But the
Brigham Young quote I presented has been a matter of public record for
150 years, so this "revelation" is hardly a new thing.

>However if they teach that some password is required in
>the hereafter other than the name of Jesus, that would be cause for
>great concern.  Of course it's possible that this secret actually is
>Jesus or something similarly Biblical.  Let's hope so.

Well, for obvious reasons I don't want to embark upon a discussion of
this information.  I can say with safety that there are Biblical
allusions to these parts of the ceremony, found chiefly in Revelation
and throughout the Old Testament.

In that several people have questioned my statement that early
Christianity had hidden information, I will probably attempt to find
my notes and references on the subject.  In which case, I may treat
this in greater detail.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2