Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski
I am not suggesting we start a detailed discussion on the temple ceremony, but fusnik brings up an interesting point. This whole "do not discuss" and sacred/secret nature of the thing makes the temple ceremony a very unique part of our religion. We analyze and dissect every issue of scripture, history, etc, but there is no discussion, no academic articles, no ensign articles, no priesthood/SS lessons etc. covering the real heart of the ceremony which is promoted as the pinnacle form of our worship. Sure you can discuss it in the temple, but given the nature of modern temple worship, opportunities for discussion inside the temple are almost non-existent. We promote it, we do it, then we go home and avoid talking about it. You have to admit that this is kind of bizarre.
|
No one has to admit it's bizarre. And who says that you have to go home and avoid talking about it? I don't think anyone here has said that, but yet understands the reverance regarding what goes on inside. It's not a subject to be tread on or around lightly. Fus is a special case as I'm sure he'd blab to anyone who'd be more than willing to listen to his bizarre take on things. If you want use that word bizarre then might I suggest it be used in it's proper context,,,like keeping it applicable on someone that's deserving of it and has earned it time and again, and has deliberately tried to get people to view him that way, like he has. Used then, it's certainly appropriate given his context and history.
Things that we hold dear to us, that are very private and held with discretion and respect aren't things typically blabbed out about in public, but rather with those closest to you, or with those you respect, trust and admire.
Exactly why is that bizarre?