Wall Street Journal getting some Pushback for Disrespectful Article about the Church

[bluebell]

I'm not going to link to the article because it includes pictures of someone in a public park wearing only garments but if you search the topic it's all over.  It's an interview of Ex-mormon influencers.

Here is an article about the article, showing the pushback that the journal is getting.

https://publicsquaremag.org/media-education/news-media/sacred-rites-double-standards-wsjs-ethics-fail/

Here's the first paragraph in the public square article:

Quote

The Wall Street Journal used to know the difference between covering a faith and staging it. In “‘Exmo’ Influencers Mount a TikTok War Against the Mormon Church,” that line isn’t blurred—it’s crossed. The piece does more than report on critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints; it puts their reenactments front and center, including a posed photo of an ex‑member wearing sacred temple clothing and descriptions that turn baptisms, initiations, and other temple rites into shareable spectacle. What is sacred is not content. And when a national newspaper treats it that way, it isn’t tough reporting—it’s trespass dressed up as journalism.

Thoughts?

[Calm]

What the purpose for the WSJ reporting on this now?  Anyone know?  Slow news day?  LDS are in the news again for some reason?  ExLDS having their moment now?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

What the purpose for the WSJ reporting on this now?  Anyone know?  Slow news day?  LDS are in the news again for some reason?  ExLDS having their moment now?

The title of the article is "‘Exmo’ Influencers Mount a TikTok War Against the Mormon Church" so probably someone on staff that got sucked into that algorithm on social media and decided it would make a good article.

Just a guess though.

[bluebell]

Interestingly enough, the WSJ article ran the same week as a Time Magazine OP ED article written by Pres. Nelson

https://time.com/7315003/russell-nelson-dignity-respect/

His article was called "We all Deserve Dignity and Respect"

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The title of the article is "‘Exmo’ Influencers Mount a TikTok War Against the Mormon Church" so probably someone on staff that got sucked into that algorithm on social media and decided it would make a good article.

Just a guess though.

Having read the WSJ article several things left me dissatisfied.  They refer to “some insiders” but there is no hint of how they qualify as insiders.  Are they in any position to actually know stuff or just sharing rumors?

Justin Turman….I have spent some effort trying to find his background in hopes of finding out his methodology.  Can’t find anything online about him that is not repeating the article.  Why not share some credentials/background  like they did with the others mentioned (except for “some insiders”) instead of just dropping a name and a claim.  They have made it impossible to verify or even guess about the claims.  Are we supposed to take then on trust?

They mention several who were influenced by Grenfell’s videos.  She said she started in 2023.  One of the persons mentioned says she saw Grenfell’s videos when she was 18, so she (Hughes) was likely born in 2005.  Given that I find her description of herself rather unusual (just the bolded part, I have no trouble believing the second part of the sentence or anything else).  It is written imo to imply part of her struggle was her lack of awareness of homosexuality at all and given the context one can easily infer the fault for that lack of info is her “intensely Mormon community”.  She says she avoided social media, but not TV, the news, school, etc.. She would have been 10 years of age when gay marriage was legalized.  I am baffled unless by years she means “preschool years”….unless there are some Utah communities that are much more isolated than any I have experienced over the decades (I may have mentioned it before, but for four months in 1969 iirc in 6th grade I lived in Utah, went to Farrer Middle School and that is where I first heard what I used to consider top tier swear words and taunting accusing someone of being gay…using a more derogatory word, of course; it came primarily from one young man, but there were a few others…mostly likely in rebellion, quite the cliche looking back; the music teacher there also exposed me to my first rock opera, Tommy, which we studied in depth including talking about drugs, sex, and abuse…just realized it had been released the previous spring, she was quite cutting edge).

Quote

Growing up in an intensely Mormon community in Utah, Cecily Hughes said she long tried to stick with church-approved sources of information, largely avoiding social media. For years, Hughes said, she didn’t realize gay people existed and fell into a depression while grappling with her sexuality.

“Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith,” church members often repeated to her. By 18, Hughes discovered Grenfell’s videos online and months later decided to leave the church

 

Edited September 8, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

I assume this is the study they refer to in the article, but where to find the info?

Quote

The portion of people in the U.S. who identify as Mormon has almost halved from the 1.8% they represented in 2012, according to the Cooperative Election Study, a survey of more than 50,000 Americans.

https://tischcollege.tufts.edu/research-faculty/research-centers/cooperative-election-study
 

Given the background, seems quite credible.

Quote

The Cooperative Election Study (CES) is the largest academic survey focused on American elections. Since 2006, the study has interviewed more than a half-million Americans to capture their views on contemporary policy debates, their engagement in political and social life, and their vote choices in federal and state elections. The study is a collaborative enterprise partially funded by the National Science Foundation and involving the participation of hundreds of scholars and students across dozens of academic institutions across the country. 

During election years, the survey consists of interviews with more than 50,000 American adults before and after the election. During the pre-election wave, respondents answer questions about their general political attitudes, various demographic factors, assessments of policies being debated in Congress, political information, and vote intentions. In the post-election wave, respondents answer questions about how they voted in the election and other ways in which they have recently engaged in political and social life. In non-election years, the survey consists of a single wave conducted in the fall.

The data from the CES are used widely by researchers, journalists, and members of the public to understand American elections and public opinion. Few, if any, data infrastructure ventures in the discipline have participation from as many institutions and scholars as CES has facilitated. 

So far the only thing I found from them is too generic:

https://tischcollege.tufts.edu/research-faculty/research-centers/cooperative-election-study

Edited September 8, 2025 by Calm

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not going to link to the article because it includes pictures of someone in a public park wearing only garments but if you search the topic it's all over.  It's an interview of Ex-mormon influencers.

Here is an article about the article, showing the pushback that the journal is getting.

https://publicsquaremag.org/media-education/news-media/sacred-rites-double-standards-wsjs-ethics-fail/

Here's the first paragraph in the public square article:

Thoughts?

The author of this article,  C. D. Cunningham, is LDS and has written many LDS faith-promoting articles—nothing wrong with that, but something to keep in mind when evaluating the author's positionality.

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

The author of this article,  C. D. Cunningham, is LDS and has written many LDS faith-promoting articles—nothing wrong with that, but something to keep in mind when evaluating the author's positionality.

I assumed, given their other content, that they were probably a member.

Likewise, I’m assuming that the person who wrote the article for the Wall Street Journal is not a member.  A good thing to remember when evaluating that author’s positionality as well  

Do you disagree with Cunningham’s conclusions, that it’s not good journalism to disrespect the sacred things of certain religions?

Edited September 8, 2025 by bluebell

[Navidad]

My thought about all of this is, how do we define "disrespect" in a way that would be agreed upon by most? I could make a case that the Mennonite faith as a composite of various Mennonite groups (including the Amish) is the most disrespected religious group on earth. Mennonite customs, doctrines, clothes, beards, prayer caps on ladies are routinely chided or mocked or disprespected, or made-fun-of, or dismissed as archaic, or or or.

I did not find the Wall Street Journal disrespectful, but then I am not a member. I have never been to a temple ordinance, but I have studied about them for so many years, that I think I could figure out which is which. Just personally for me, I find something that is "mocking" much worse than something that is "disrespectful." But then, who is to draw the line between mocking and disrespect? I think many memes online are mocking. Others I consider disrespectful. The former bothers me a lot more than the latter. If I don't respect something, does that mean I disrespect it? I don't think so. I think it all depends in the context of the use and meaning of the word.

I knew Jerry Falwell, Sr. fairly well. I often drove around with him in his then-ancient Bronco. I read many articles that disrespect him, his vision, and work. That really doesn't bother me. However, when people have nothing better to offer than to mock him, then I can get worked up about their comments. Whenever I hear someone disrespect a modern prophet, I can understand that. However, when someone mocks a modern prophet, that really bothers me. Of course, to further explain that, I would have to define "disrespect," "mock," and "prophet." I consider John R. W. Stott a modern-day prophet and would be upset at someone mocking him. However, I don't consider him a prophet in the same sense as I would an Old Testament prophet. In describing Stott with that word, I am describing his gift of preaching, not of foretelling something before it happens. Ditto for President Nelson. Of course, my LDS friends mean something different than I do by using that term for their leader. So now we are back to needing to define our terms! That will never end. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not going to link to the article because it includes pictures of someone in a public park wearing only garments but if you search the topic it's all over.  It's an interview of Ex-mormon influencers.

Here is an article about the article, showing the pushback that the journal is getting.

https://publicsquaremag.org/media-education/news-media/sacred-rites-double-standards-wsjs-ethics-fail/

Here's the first paragraph in the public square article:

Thoughts?

I haven’t read the WSJ article since it’s pay walled. I have seen the temple clothing picture however, so will limit my remarks to that. First, I think any former Latter-day Saint needs to (and almost certainly does) understand that Temple related content will be extremely offensive to current members. That said, I have a hard time understanding why you don’t think that people like Grenfall have just as much right to those clothes and rites as you do. Grenfall was forced to change out of her wedding dress and into a temple dress because it was a shade too creamy. She (and many other that have left your faith) have felt trauma from the temple rites (my niece was bawling and never went back to church if I understand correctly). Grenfell feels regret for excluding her elderly grandma from her wedding. And she posed for the WSJ in the actual clothing she was married in. Why doesn’t she have the right to take ownership of her pain by showing *her temple clothes. Why do you have more ownership of those clothes than her? 
 

Cunningham’s analogies fall laughable short:

”There is a long, public record of how mainstream outlets (including the Journal) handle other traditions’ restricted rites: with restraint. When Catholics choose a pope, reporters don’t slip cameras past the Swiss Guard; they acknowledge the sealed conclave and cover the smoke and statements, not the oaths inside the Sistine Chapel (see the Journal’s own recent explainer and history features on conclaves and their secrecy: here and here). When monks on Mount Athos bar women from entering their all‑male peninsula, the Journal writes about the place and its rules—but does not break them (book‑review coverage). When Muslims perform the hajj, the paper uses official vantage points, not undercover intrusions; its recent reporting on the devastating 2024 heat deaths shows exactly that kind of distance and care (news report and video). In other words: consent is the difference between a tour and a trespass—and the Wall Street Journal knows it”

Grenfell didn’t sneak a camera in and film the wedding ceremony or endowment rites. The WSJ didn’t publish that. They did publish a picture of Grenfell in *her* wedding clothes that she owns. Is it offensive and considered sacrilegious by those who believe? Sure, by many of them. But that doesn’t mean that offense and sacrilege are the motive for printing it. 

[Calm]

One of the people interviewed for the article expresses her opinion of the result.

She shares the reporter claimed the Church was cooperating with the Journalist for the article when the reality was they declined to comment.  

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1401535104280653

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

My thought about all of this is, how do we define "disrespect" in a way that would be agreed upon by most? I could make a case that the Mennonite faith as a composite of various Mennonite groups (including the Amish) is the most disrespected religious group on earth. Mennonite customs, doctrines, clothes, beards, prayer caps on ladies are routinely chided or mocked or disprespected, or made-fun-of, or dismissed as archaic, or or or.

I did not find the Wall Street Journal disrespectful, but then I am not a member. I have never been to a temple ordinance, but I have studied about them for so many years, that I think I could figure out which is which. Just personally for me, I find something that is "mocking" much worse than something that is "disrespectful." But then, who is to draw the line between mocking and disrespect? I think many memes online are mocking. Others I consider disrespectful. The former bothers me a lot more than the latter. If I don't respect something, does that mean I disrespect it? I don't think so. I think it all depends in the context of the use and meaning of the word.

I knew Jerry Falwell, Sr. fairly well. I often drove around with him in his then-ancient Bronco. I read many articles that disrespect him, his vision, and work. That really doesn't bother me. However, when people have nothing better to offer than to mock him, then I can get worked up about their comments. Whenever I hear someone disrespect a modern prophet, I can understand that. However, when someone mocks a modern prophet, that really bothers me. Of course, to further explain that, I would have to define "disrespect," "mock," and "prophet." I consider John R. W. Stott a modern-day prophet and would be upset at someone mocking him. However, I don't consider him a prophet in the same sense as I would an Old Testament prophet. In describing Stott with that word, I am describing his gift of preaching, not of foretelling something before it happens. Ditto for President Nelson. Of course, my LDS friends mean something different than I do by using that term for their leader. So now we are back to needing to define our terms! That will never end. 

In this case, I'm using disrespect to mean mocking (since mocking someone is disrespectful in my view).  And I'm specifically speaking of photographing people wearing what we consider to be sacred clothing that is not to be publicly displayed as part of the article.  I consider that mocking of what I consider sacred.  I know that other people's opinions may disagree.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I haven’t read the WSJ article since it’s pay walled. I have seen the temple clothing picture however, so will limit my remarks to that. First, I think any former Latter-day Saint needs to (and almost certainly does) understand that Temple related content will be extremely offensive to current members. That said, I have a hard time understanding why you don’t think that people like Grenfall have just as much right to those clothes and rites as you do. Grenfall was forced to change out of her wedding dress and into a temple dress because it was a shade too creamy. She (and many other that have left your faith) have felt trauma from the temple rites (my niece was bawling and never went back to church if I understand correctly). Grenfell feels regret for excluding her elderly grandma from her wedding. And she posed for the WSJ in the actual clothing she was married in. Why doesn’t she have the right to take ownership of her pain by showing *her temple clothes. Why do you have more ownership of those clothes than her? 
 

Cunningham’s analogies fall laughable short:

”There is a long, public record of how mainstream outlets (including the Journal) handle other traditions’ restricted rites: with restraint. When Catholics choose a pope, reporters don’t slip cameras past the Swiss Guard; they acknowledge the sealed conclave and cover the smoke and statements, not the oaths inside the Sistine Chapel (see the Journal’s own recent explainer and history features on conclaves and their secrecy: here and here). When monks on Mount Athos bar women from entering their all‑male peninsula, the Journal writes about the place and its rules—but does not break them (book‑review coverage). When Muslims perform the hajj, the paper uses official vantage points, not undercover intrusions; its recent reporting on the devastating 2024 heat deaths shows exactly that kind of distance and care (news report and video). In other words: consent is the difference between a tour and a trespass—and the Wall Street Journal knows it”

Grenfell didn’t sneak a camera in and film the wedding ceremony or endowment rites. The WSJ didn’t publish that. They did publish a picture of Grenfell in *her* wedding clothes that she owns. Is it offensive and considered sacrilegious by those who believe? Sure, by many of them. But that doesn’t mean that offense and sacrilege are the motive for printing it. 

I think she certainly has the right, and I believe doing so was disrespectful.  I don't think that offense and sacrilege need to be the motive for something to be disrespectful.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think she certainly has the right, and I believe doing so was disrespectful.  I don't think that offense and sacrilege need to be the motive for something to be disrespectful.  

I think it’s your right to frame it that way, and it might be true and it might not. If I as a white secular white guy went and acquired a hijab, then dressed up a dummy in the hijab and burned it - that would be disrespectful. If an exmuslim woman that experienced trauma that she associated with the hijab decided to burn her own former clothing? I wouldn’t see that act as inherently disrespectful at all. 

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If an exmuslim woman that experienced trauma that she associated with the hijab decided to burn her own former clothing? I wouldn’t see that act as inherently disrespectful at all.

Certainly not if done privately.  Publicly however, which means part of it is to make a statement, then yes, disrespectful.

I don’t see disrespect as always wrong or bad though.  If Grenfell seriously believes she is helping people by being disrespectful to an organization she believes hurts people more than it helps, I don’t judge her actions as wrong or bad, but misguided.  Now WSJ…seems to me that is about making money more than anything else because first, they aren’t making a stand openly that the Church is harming people even if there is a good chance that reporter believes it so they are trying to have their cake (trash the Church) and eat it too (claiming unbiased, respectful reporting) plus there is the whole lying about the Church cooperating with them, so I do criticize them for making those choices.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Certainly not if done privately.  Publicly however, which means part of it is to make a statement, then yes, disrespectful.

I don’t see disrespect as always wrong or bad though.  If Grenfell seriously believes she is helping people by being disrespectful to an organization she believes hurts people more than it helps, I don’t judge her actions as wrong or bad, but misguided.  Now WSJ…seems to me that is about making money more than anything else because first, they aren’t making a stand openly that the Church is harming people even if there is a good chance that reporter believes it so they are trying to have their cake (trash the Church) and eat it too (claiming unbiased, respectful reporting) plus there is the whole lying about the Church cooperating with them, so I do criticize them for making those choices.

Ditto for me about disrespect - I don't see disrespect as always wrong or bad either. That is the difference between disrespect and mocking for me. The intent of a mocker is always negative, at least in how it is used in the Bible.

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think it’s your right to frame it that way, and it might be true and it might not. If I as a white secular white guy went and acquired a hijab, then dressed up a dummy in the hijab and burned it - that would be disrespectful. If an exmuslim woman that experienced trauma that she associated with the hijab decided to burn her own former clothing? I wouldn’t see that act as inherently disrespectful at all. 

For me, the difference is in the intent and also the authorization.  When someone does something publicly that they know can be (or will be) considered mocking, there is intent there.  It's not just personal intent, it's public intent.  They are intending to send a message, not just about themselves, but about the other party and to the other party.  At that point, they have invited the other party into the conversation and the other party's perceptions are then, in my opinion, as valid as the person who committed the act.

As for authorization, that's a more nebulous concept but I think it's still relevant.  We are no longer authorized to wear temple clothing when we denounce the church.  Sure, no one's going to take them away from us, and no one is going to stop us from doing whatever we want with them.  But I think the lack of authorization still matters.

It's not the best analogy, but it's a little like a husband and wife who have shared intimate photos, but then get divorced.  Would it be disrespectful for either spouse to share those pictures in public in the act of making a public statement about the other spouse?  I think so.  They were once authorized to have them, but that authorization was revoked.  Not to mention, they were never authorized to share them in public, and the other spouse would have never given such intimate things to them if they knew they were going to share them in public. 

The divorce means something in regards to those pictures, even if it's just symbolically.  In terms of integrity and respect, revoked authorization creates lines that when crossed impact concepts of respect.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For me, the difference is in the intent and also the authorization.  When someone does something publicly that they know can be (or will be) considered mocking, there is intent there.  It's not just personal intent, it's public intent.  They are intending to send a message, not just about themselves, but about the other party and to the other party.  At that point, they have invited the other party into the conversation and the other party's perceptions are then, in my opinion, as valid as the person who committed the act.

But the intent doesn't have to be mockery, disrespect, or any of that. It can be as simple as, you no longer have any control over my life. You scarred me and now I claim the things that scarred me and can do what I want with them.

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As for authorization, that's a more nebulous concept but I think it's still relevant.  We are no longer authorized to wear temple clothing when we denounce the church.  Sure, no one's going to take them away from us, and no one is going to stop us from doing whatever we want with them.  But I think the lack of authorization still matters.

Authority is part and parcel with the message. The publicness of it is an explicit rejection of the authority that led Grefell to exclude her grandmother from her wedding for example.

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's not the best analogy, but it's a little like a husband and wife who have shared intimate photos, but then get divorced.  Would it be disrespectful for either spouse to share those pictures in public in the act of making a public statement about the other spouse?  I think so.  They were once authorized to have them, but that authorization was revoked.  Not to mention, they were never authorized to share them in public, and the other spouse would have never given such intimate things to them if they knew they were going to share them in public. 

The divorce means something in regards to those pictures, even if it's just symbolically.  In terms of integrity and respect, revoked authorization creates lines that when crossed impact concepts of respect.

I think this is pretty extreme, especially since Grefall is using clothing she owns and obtained without deception. A better analogy? A controlling husband coerced his wife to do a boudoir photo shoot for him (featuring only herself). After separating, the wife decides to post the photoshoot to the world. The ex-husband objects. Claims the photos were only for him and he still has authority over them and they can't be shared. 

[The Nehor]

Disagree with the Public Square article. They talk about journalistic respect but their analogies are flawed. They suggest a picture of someone protesting in temple clothing as the equivalent of sneaking into a Catholic conclave or Mecca. The equivalent of this would be if the WSJ reporter infiltrated the temple which didn’t happen. I found it hard to take the article writer seriously after that.

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But the intent doesn't have to be mockery, disrespect, or any of that. It can be as simple as, you no longer have any control over my life. You scarred me and now I claim the things that scarred me and can do what I want with them.

We definitely disagree about all of her motivations for the photo shoot and article.

Quote

Authority is part and parcel with the message. The publicness of it is an explicit rejection of the authority that led Grefell to exclude her grandmother from her wedding for example.

I agree.  It likely is an explicit rejection of that authority.  She's 'reclaiming her voice'. She's allowed to. 

That doesn't really change anything in my opinion.  She used her voice to give power to a publication to be disrespectful and mock people who believe differently than she does.  Some people are fine with that.  They don't believe in respecting other people's sacred things.  I disagree with those people.  

Quote

I think this is pretty extreme, especially since Grefall is using clothing she owns and obtained without deception. A better analogy? A controlling husband coerced his wife to do a boudoir photo shoot for him (featuring only herself). After separating, the wife decides to post the photoshoot to the world. The ex-husband objects. Claims the photos were only for him and he still has authority over them and they can't be shared. 

Because these are clothing that are held in common with millions of other people, her actions will lead to the derision of other members.  The disrespect and mocking that those pictures have already fueled online is being aimed at the people who believe in the importance of those sacred clothing.  The photos are not only of her, though she is the only one in the pictures.

 

Edited September 9, 2025 by bluebell

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Disagree with the Public Square article. They talk about journalistic respect but their analogies are flawed. They suggest a picture of someone protesting in temple clothing as the equivalent of sneaking into a Catholic conclave or Mecca. The equivalent of this would be if the WSJ reporter infiltrated the temple which didn’t happen. I found it hard to take the article writer seriously after that.

I agree that that analogy didn't really work, though I think the article's implications about the difference between trespass and consent is valid, even though the trespass in question was not literal.  In this instance, it was a theological trespass, not an actual trespass. 

It would be more comparable to the WSJ seeking out someone who would tell them the secrets of the Catholic conclave so they could print them, rather than WSJ sneaking into the conclave itself.

The intent (to get forbidden information) and consequence (having that information published to the world) is the exact same, though the route taken to the get the illicit information that will be shared is different.

I guess the question is, is the route taken what determines whether or not a line has been crossed?

Edited September 9, 2025 by bluebell

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree that that analogy didn't really work, though I think the article's implications about the difference between trespass and consent is valid, even though the trespass in question was not literal.  In this instance, it was a theological trespass, not an actual trespass. 

It would be more comparable to the WSJ seeking out someone who would tell them the secrets of the Catholic conclave so they could print them, rather than WSJ sneaking into the conclave itself.

The direct corollary would be a group of dissaffected catholic bishops posting online about their purportedly traumatic experiences in the Catholic conclave. Noticing this, the WSJ talked to them and published their experiences.

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

The intent (to get forbidden information) and consequence (having that information published to the world) is the exact same, though the route taken to the get the illicit information that will be shared is different.

I guess the question is, is the route taken what determines whether or not a line has been crossed?

I think the intent is not necessarily to get forbidden information at all, but rather to discuss why people found it traumatic and why they are all discussing it online.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The direct corollary would be a group of disaffected catholic bishops posting online about their purportedly traumatic experiences in the Catholic conclave. Noticing this, the WSJ talked to them and published their experiences.

I think the intent is not necessarily to get forbidden information at all, but rather to discuss why people found it traumatic and why they are all discussing it online.

That's not my perception but you could be right.

[phaedrus ut]

Active participating members of the church are the minority at around 25% globally and ~35% in the USA. A discussion of Mormonism and ignoring the experience of the majority of that religions population would be bad journalism IMO. The correlated story of Mormonism from the church's marketing and PR efforts has been long and numerous. These stories haven't been heard by the majority of their audience and honestly are quite a bit more interesting. 

When you stop letting people tell you what you can or can't talk about it is pretty clear this is just a interesting story. 

 

Phaedrus 

[Navidad]

I am not sure anyone has mentioned this. . . . But perhaps the problem/challenge is the secrecy in and of itself. Why are the temple ordinances secret in the first place? Or, why are they secret anymore? This might be a better question. Currently, virtually nothing is secret. For a while some years ago, I was a Mason. I thought all the secrecy, the guard at the door, etc. etc. was a carryover from another century, no longer relevant in the world of the internet. Slowly, the threats and penalties inherent in the ceremonies (in Masonry) were diminished and in some cases, done away with completely. Or they were redefined as symbolic, not literal. I have been in several temples during open houses. Very archaic and beautiful designs. So, I guess my question is, why in 2025 are temple ceremonies secret? I am not asking why they are sacred. I am asking why, in this case, is the sacred secret? I honestly don't remember, but were there secret sacred rites in the Book of Mormon? I neither respect nor disrespect the secrecy. I am simply wondering how these rites would be diminished if they were done in quiet reverence. Again, I am not asking why they are the considered sacred. I certainly (ha!) understand that. My question is, why are they required to be done in secret? Doesn't that, by its very nature, open the closed door to speculation and misconceptions? Thanks and best wishes to all.