Sacred versus Secret

[SoonerCoug]

I was watching this Scientology video and it got me thinking about what would happen if an apostle or prophet were confronted with temple secrets during an interview.

Why are these things secret in Scientology? I think it's because they are afraid that people will laugh at them--just like we Mormons don't like to talk about garments and such because people like to laugh at those things also.

[YOUTUBE]sUiUyVqOuJI[/YOUTUBE]

[Viking]

I was watching this Scientology video and it got me thinking about what would happen if an apostle or prophet were confronted with temple secrets during an interview.

Why are these things secret in Scientology? I think it's because they are afraid that people will laugh at them--just like we Mormons don't like to talk about garments and such because people like to laugh at those things also.

[YOUTUBE]sUiUyVqOuJI[/YOUTUBE]

Martin Bashir is a douche bag.

I understand it costs a lot of dough to learn about Xenu. That's why it's secret.

Sort of like the temple.

[Uncle Ted]

Martin Bashir is a douche bag.

I understand it costs a lot of dough to learn about Xenu. That's why it's secret.

Sort of like the temple.

L. Ron Hubbard was a pretty good SF writer and businessman... The story about Xenu is some of his better stuff.

"Science fiction editor and author Sam Moscowitz tells of the occasion when Hubbard spoke before the Eastern Science Fiction Association in Newark, New Jersey in 1947: `Hubbard spoke ... I don't recall his exact words; but in effect, he told us that writing science fiction for about a penny a word was no way to make a living. If you really want to make a million, he said, the quickest way is to start your own religion.'"

- Bare-Faced Messiah, The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard by Russell Miller

[The Rambam]

Calling something "too sacred to share in public" is really just saying it is too ridiculous to defend, too embarrassing to admit, and too shameful to own publicly.

I admit that in more primitive, uneducated times secrecy could bind a community together ("we share this great secret so we should stick together") and could help the superstitious to believe they had an inside track to heaven. But I can't imagine that view being held today by educated rational people.

Does anyone believe that there are actual angels that stand as guards on the road to heaven that you can only pass if you know the right handshakes and arm placements? Since there were substantive changes to the signs, tokens and names in 1990, which set are you supposed to use? If your hat-tie isn't knotted, but only looped, to the robe, is the ceremony still valid?

Ceremony had, and has, its place. There was a majesty in the recent Royal Wedding, as there was in a sealing I attended for a nephew a few months ago. But these are really public events (even the Temple sealing is a ceremony for the temple-recommend holding friends and family). Maybe masonry and Mormon temple ceremonies held more power in less scientific and technologically advanced times.

But secret ceremony is just silly in the modern world. In reality, there is no such thing as a secret ceremony with the internet. So why keep up the charade? The Scientology guy knows that the world knows how silly they are, just like the world knows how silly our secrets are. He is right to be embarrassed. I'm sure Mitt would feign offense to hide his embarrassment if he was asked if he really believed there were angels waiting secret handshakes on the road to heaven.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Calling something "too sacred to share in public" is really just saying it is too ridiculous to defend, too embarrassing to admit, and too shameful to own publicly.

That's a silly statement. So if you don't admit to details of intimacy with your spouse it is just because you are embarrassed or something about it is too shameful?

[Sleeping in EQ]

I haven't heard a persuasive argument as to why temple ordinances are more sacred than baptism. In a Christian context, how can something be more sacred than being born again in Christ?

[The Rambam]

That's a silly statement. So if you don't admit to details of intimacy with your spouse it is just because you are embarrassed or something about it is too shameful?

I can understand why my comments feel threatening, but comparing supposedly salvational religious ordinances to ushering your one-eyed trouser trout into nature's tufted treasure is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I don't want to know the details about your twisting out a nine coiler the morning after your Aunt Alta Lavee's 70th birthday party at the Orem Chuck-a-Rama either. There are some things that should be kept to oneself that have nothing to do with religion.

But if you are engaged in religious practice that demands to be hidden from sunlight, be assured it is because your community is embarrassed and ashamed.

Imagine how fast you would run from a believing and practicing and donating Scientologist presidential candidate. Then look at Romney's results in the Bible Belt. Our Temples and their "sacred secrecy" are probably a significant reason for that distrust.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Calling something "too sacred to share in public" is really just saying it is too ridiculous to defend, too embarrassing to admit, and too shameful to own publicly.

I admit that in more primitive, uneducated times secrecy could bind a community together ("we share this great secret so we should stick together") and could help the superstitious to believe they had an inside track to heaven. But I can't imagine that view being held today by educated rational people.

Does anyone believe that there are actual angels that stand as guards on the road to heaven that you can only pass if you know the right handshakes and arm placements? Since there were substantive changes to the signs, tokens and names in 1990, which set are you supposed to use? If your hat-tie isn't knotted, but only looped, to the robe, is the ceremony still valid?

Ceremony had, and has, its place. There was a majesty in the recent Royal Wedding, as there was in a sealing I attended for a nephew a few months ago. But these are really public events (even the Temple sealing is a ceremony for the temple-recommend holding friends and family). Maybe masonry and Mormon temple ceremonies held more power in less scientific and technologically advanced times.

But secret ceremony is just silly in the modern world. In reality, there is no such thing as a secret ceremony with the internet. So why keep up the charade? The Scientology guy knows that the world knows how silly they are, just like the world knows how silly our secrets are. He is right to be embarrassed. I'm sure Mitt would feign offense to hide his embarrassment if he was asked if he really believed there were angels waiting secret handshakes on the road to heaven.

Hack!

https://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=3489

Although I like to think that I was a little more diplomatic.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I can understand why my comments feel threatening, but comparing supposedly salvational religious ordinances to ushering your one-eyed trouser trout into nature's tufted treasure is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I don't want to know the details about your twisting out a nine coiler the morning after your Aunt Alta Lavee's 70th birthday party at the Orem Chuck-a-Rama either. There are some things that should be kept to oneself that have nothing to do with religion.

So now the only thing that qualifies is religion? You sound like someone with a really strange fetish.

But if you are engaged in religious practice that demands to be hidden from sunlight, be assured it is because your community is embarrassed and ashamed.

Imagine how fast you would run from a believing and practicing and donating Scientologist presidential candidate. Then look at Romney's results in the Bible Belt. Our Temples and their "sacred secrecy" are probably a significant reason for that distrust.

Nothing in my post suggests that I would run from a practicing Scientologist, in fact it implies the opposite. I have no desire to vote for Romney and have stated such many times. Don't try to turn your bitterness on me, it is you that has a problem not me.

[woot]

So now the only thing that qualifies is religion? You sound like someone with a really strange fetish.

If it doesn't involve religion, it can't be "sacred", so I don't see where he backpedaled.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

If it doesn't involve religion, it can't be "sacred", so I don't see where he backpedaled.

I disagree, most involved in Christian religious pursuits consider sex to be a sacred thing. If you were to ask a Christian of any variety to describe their last sexual encounter with their partner they wouldn't answer, and that doesn't mean that they are doing something embarrassing or shameful.

The fact that rambam makes a jerk-off joke and then attacks me as being scared of his powerful words of the influences of Scientology suggests to me that he didn't have a really strong argument.

[woot]

I disagree, most involved in Christian religious pursuits consider sex to be a sacred thing. If you were to ask a Christian of any variety to describe their last sexual encounter with their partner they wouldn't answer, and that doesn't mean that they are doing something embarrassing or shameful.

The fact that rambam makes a jerk-off joke and then attacks me as being scared of his powerful words of the influences of Scientology suggests to me that he didn't have a really strong argument.

Your post is self-contradictory. The reason "most involved in Christian religious pursuits consider sex to be a sacred thing", if that is indeed the case, is clearly because of their religion. Again, the definition of the word "sacred" requires religion to be involved. Without religion, nothing is, by the denotation at least, sacred.

[The Rambam]

So now the only thing that qualifies is religion? You sound like someone with a really strange fetish.

I thought we were talking about religious secrets. If we are not, I apologize for being so completely off-topic and retract everything I said about holy sacred silence being motivated by embarrassment in the modern age.

And I do enjoy some wonderful fetishes, some might call them strange, I guess. I think I share one with Goatnapper in fact (not at the same time, mind you, just the same topical fetish). It is amazing that you can tell my fetishes from a post about secrecy in religion--you must have the gift of discernment.

[The Rambam]

Hack!

https://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=3489

Although I like to think that I was a little more diplomatic.

I should have just linked to your post. I agree with it completely.

[jay santos]

Can someone give me the Cliffs version of Scientology for Dummies. Do they believe that stuff about the origination of humans, and why was the guy so pissed?