😔 Too Sacred to Share¶
Estimated time to read: 10 minutes
This isn't clearly marked in the notes below, but I have a collection of quotes from LDS church leadership, rationalizing that something is Too Sacred to share.
One might argue that this statement is emotional misattribution, where members feel such a strong compulsion to fit in that they'll ascribe profundity or find meaning in everyday experiences.
You felt elevation emotion hearing Great Uncle Pawdabber associate a mundane experience with divinity, and using his retelling as a reference point, you also need to find some association between the two. Did you find your keys when you may have otherwise missed a flight? God did that. No other explanation when you need to have something to share in Fast & Testimony meeting.
What is sacred?¶
Sacred is analogous / similar to holy, or divine. Not to be mocked or belittled, demanding or deserving of respect and reverence. When I held LDS beliefs to be sacred, I would find myself so emotionally attached to the ideas that I would use this rationale that whatever audience would hear them simply wouldn't understand or appreciate them. Whenever I hear of an LDS practitioner refuse to elaborate on something because it's "too sacred to share," I am left to assume they use the same rationale that I did while in that same mindset— meaning, "I don't want to talk about it," or more likely, "I don't trust you with that information."
The topic within Mormonism that I find associated with this defense most often is that of temple ceremonies. When met with blank, confused stares, one might elaborate that those ceremonies are "sacred, not secret." A prime example of this is demonstrated in my notes on Garments.
To me, this raises the question if there is a precedent for this kind of aversion to disclosure. Did Jesus in the New Testament advise people that "there's another aspect to your salvation, but I don't trust you to know what it is"?
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;
What does it imply?¶
I suppose this is context-sensitive, but broadly speaking I'd say that a sacred (holy, divine, demanding reverence) experience is meant to confirm truthfulness. A sacred experience would verify or confirm God's presence, love, involvement— or that the restored LDS church is led by God.
If something is too sacred to speak of outside of some context, I am left to assume it's not nearly as grandiose as it is implied to be. If one were to rationalize this by quoting Jesus' advice to not "cast ye your pearls before swine," think of what that implies about the conversation partner. Does that mean that something is "too sacred to share with you because I think you're a piece of shit?"
So, then, does that mean that spiritual experiences, below or above the threshold of "too sacred," can only be felt by those of the LDS faith? If yes, that claim is remarkably bold, even arrogant. If no, then what's the point? Human experience is too broad to say that spirituality is owned, copyrighted, monopolized by one organization.
Why not share it, then?¶
Look, if you can't share it, either the experience is bullshit or you're lying. I can't think of a more polite way to communicate that while retaining simplicity.
Which of the following is more likely: an event that defies all known laws of physics privately witnessed and leaving no evidence... or a human lying.
Anyone who says their experience is too sacred to share has discovered the thrill of exaggerating a story for effect only to have gullible people give you undeserved reverence— it's a potent thrill that really deepens and intensifies while serving a full-time mission.
If you wouldn't believe such a claim from any other religious zealot, then why would he believe yours? If you encountered a 7th day Adventist who mentioned that they know of a certainty that their flavor of Christianity is true because of personal experiences, how would you feel when they refuse to tell you about that personal experience? Would you think "well, by golly, if it's so sacred that they can't tell me anything about it, they must be telling the truth. Sign me up!" If it's that secretive, why would God even want you to even hint at it and then refuse sharing? Did you feel prompted by the holy ghost to share your experience, or not?
Imagine if the Book of Mormon, Another testament of Jesus Christ, took this approach: "And behold! Jesus may have visited the Americas and taught the people sacred things, but we can neither confirm or deny this because someone we want to term as swine might read this record and we do not want to cast pearls before swine." That'd be pretty ridiculous, right? ... What's that? The Book of Mormon actually says that? Well... Good thing the book actually goes into detail about what Christ actually taught. The Nephites definitely didn't just quote Matthew and then write "he taught a bunch of other stuff too idk"
Maybe I'm just a miserable grump, too far displaced from the Light of Christ™️ to appreciate sanctity. If that is the case, then I will make an earnest effort to find an explanation when withholding a testimony is appropriate.
An emotionally sensitive topic does require a certain "vibe" for lack of a better word. If the context of a hypothetical conversation is that of derision, then no, testifying of Christ may not be suitable. If someone sustained as an Apostle of Christ addresses a congregation who gathered to hear someone with that title, then yes, sharing a sacred experience is appropriate.
Extrapolating¶
Leading up to my experience entering the temple, I had been advised that the ceremonies are too sacred to talk about outside of the temple. This was used to hype up how great and awe-inspiring it was (or would be.) I can look back on how disappointing and bewildering the experience was, and I can see a pattern.
We mustn't talk about our patriarchal blessings, or else people will realize how similar they are, making them meaningless.
Don't talk about the time God spoke to you, since God only speaks to prophets, and we can't have regular folk claiming that kind of access in Sacrament Meeting.
Don't talk about the temple ceremonies, or else people will start to realize how cult-like it is, and how it's deliberately plagiarized.
Don't talk about the second anointing, people might question just how holy the recipient must be if they do anything "wrong."
Apostles¶
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
...
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
To me, it sounds like Jesus himself specifically told these apostles to do what we today would call missionary work. Going to the world, all nations, teaching people to follow Christ's commandments, baptizing them, and invoking signs that confirm the truth of their words.
Now... Somehow we've gone from the original twelve apostles going to preach Christ's teachings, baptizing people, even to their own detriment and violent demises, to... hiding behind a pulpit, saying their experience is too sacred to share. Including, but not limited to, being asked if a given latter-day apostle has seen Jesus Christ, the response is that "it's too sacred to share." Somehow, modern apostles have taken Jesus' admonition to mean "go ye into all the world, but don't give anyone any details about me or my teachings!"
This is your job. Not "job" as in mission, though that is also true, but "job" as in W2 employees with a 401k. This is literally the one thing Apostles are meant to do. Either you saw Jesus or you didn't. Were ancient apostles concerned about what the world would think of them? Need I remind you, strawman apostle and imaginary conversation partner, that Joseph Smith testified of seeing Elohim, and Jehovah— God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ— physically and in person? And you can't say one way or the other if you saw Jesus? Why? Is your experience more sacred than the First Vision? Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus— is your experience more sacred than Paul's? Martin Harris "met the Lord Jesus Christ, who walked along by the side of him in the shape of a deer for two or three miles, talking with him as familiarly as one man talks with another." Was that experience too sacred to share? What am I paying tithing for if an apostolic witness of Christ isn't going to witness of Christ?
If an apostle will rationalize that a sacred experience is too sacred, I am left to assume that means "no I have not seen Jesus Christ, but I want you to think that I have. I want to keep that illusion alive so that I still have some form of power over you." It could also mean "nobody will believe me anyway and I don't want anyone suggesting alternative, more realistic, interpretations of my experience." Whatever imagined story that us common, lay members conjure up must be more faith-promoting than whatever story this hypothetical apostle could tell us. The implication must be more powerful than the actual story.
If there was ever an individual, or quorum of individuals, who shouldn't be dissuaded from speaking because something is sacred, I should damn well expect it to be the apostles of Jesus Christ's one, true, restored church.
What's that? You're just going to witness the name of Christ? ... What the fuck does that even mean