For example, we do not explicitly say what's in our initiation ritual before someone is initiated. (There are a few other pieces like that, but they're all less of a 'this is something someone might object to or have concerns about' thing - details of meditations, a few specific bits of particular rituals.)
We handle it by teaching a class right before people can request initiation that is "Here is what initiation means in our context, and some similar ones. Here are kinds of things that show up in initiation rituals, and some of why. We're not telling you which ones show up in ours, but if you have questions or concerns about any of these, or need to share information we might need to know, your initiation request letter or a conversation before submitting it is the time to do that."
And by doing it before initiation, but late in the process, they have a baseline of what we do in rituals and meditations, and of whether or not they trust us. (And if they don't trust us after a year of working together, then there are other issues we'd need to resolve anyway...)
Similarly, there are some roles in our ritual work that can only be done by people of a particular degree. If you're not that degree a) it's not relevant and b) you should be focusing on other stuff.
There's actually a tremendous freedom in that (I'm the kind of person who always feels I should be doing more, and to have it be so clear during my own training that that wasn't my job to worry about yet was really helpful. Hard, but helpful).
But it means I can't begin to promise full disclosure. We're a mystery-focused tradition, and those two things just don't fit together, by fundamental nature. The best I can do is be honest about the scope of what I'm not sharing, and talk about when I will share information that people need as it becomes relevant to their decisions.
Oaths and information provision
For example, we do not explicitly say what's in our initiation ritual before someone is initiated. (There are a few other pieces like that, but they're all less of a 'this is something someone might object to or have concerns about' thing - details of meditations, a few specific bits of particular rituals.)
We handle it by teaching a class right before people can request initiation that is "Here is what initiation means in our context, and some similar ones. Here are kinds of things that show up in initiation rituals, and some of why. We're not telling you which ones show up in ours, but if you have questions or concerns about any of these, or need to share information we might need to know, your initiation request letter or a conversation before submitting it is the time to do that."
And by doing it before initiation, but late in the process, they have a baseline of what we do in rituals and meditations, and of whether or not they trust us. (And if they don't trust us after a year of working together, then there are other issues we'd need to resolve anyway...)
Similarly, there are some roles in our ritual work that can only be done by people of a particular degree. If you're not that degree a) it's not relevant and b) you should be focusing on other stuff.
There's actually a tremendous freedom in that (I'm the kind of person who always feels I should be doing more, and to have it be so clear during my own training that that wasn't my job to worry about yet was really helpful. Hard, but helpful).
But it means I can't begin to promise full disclosure. We're a mystery-focused tradition, and those two things just don't fit together, by fundamental nature. The best I can do is be honest about the scope of what I'm not sharing, and talk about when I will share information that people need as it becomes relevant to their decisions.