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

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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. 

You are right, they aren't secret at all.  They've been published for years.  Even two members who have been to the temple cannot enact or speak of certain parts of what goes on there, outside of the temple (and sometimes, not even outside of a certain room in the temple).  Obviously, trying to keep information hidden has nothing to do with that, since the information is already known by both of them.

It's not because they are to be only spoken of or done in secret.  It's because they are only to be spoken of or done in a sacred space. 

 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

You are right, they aren't secret at all.  They've been published for years.  Even two members who have been to the temple cannot enact or speak of certain parts of what goes on there, outside of the temple (and sometimes, not even outside of a certain room in the temple).  Obviously, trying to keep information hidden has nothing to do with that, since the information is already known by both of them.

It's not because they are to be only spoken of or done in secret.  It's because they are only to be spoken of or done in a sacred space. 

 

Ok. I am not sure how to respond to that. Perhaps I simply don't understand what makes a temple, like the one here in Colonia Juarez a sacred space any different from the LDS chapel during a Sacrament service, or the Catholic altar, or the woods up in the mountains, or anywhere my wife is. For me, a sacred space is where I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. That could be right here in my office where I am typing this. This office is a space dedicated to Christ, as is the rest of my home. Isn't the space where you kneel before Christ before going to sleep for the night a sacred space?

I just don't understand. I admit that. That isn't your problem, nor is it your responsibility to straighten me out. I have a special place on my back patio, just on the river, where the winds and water cool me in the early morning as I take in what God has done for me and my wife. That is one of my many sacred spaces. 

You are speaking of rituals as in and of themselves sacred. I am not creedal or ritualistic enough to understand that. For a country Mennonite, the church building is simply a place to go to worship, fellowship, and minister. There is nothing therein, and that of itself is sacred. For the faithful LDS member, I guess the temple is sacred, as is the altar and host for the Catholic. I guess as neither LDS nor Catholic, I get to consider any space simply as sacred where I feel and see the Spirit of God. As the creator of all, He is capable of being in and with anyplace and anywhere. Thanks for replying to me. I appreciate that. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Ok. I am not sure how to respond to that. Perhaps I simply don't understand what makes a temple, like the one here in Colonia Juarez a sacred space any different from the LDS chapel during a Sacrament service, or the Catholic altar, or the woods up in the mountains, or anywhere my wife is. For me, a sacred space is where I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. That could be right here in my office where I am typing this. This office is a space dedicated to Christ, as is the rest of my home. Isn't the space where you kneel before Christ before going to sleep for the night a sacred space?

I just don't understand. I admit that. That isn't your problem, nor is it your responsibility to straighten me out. I have a special place on my back patio, just on the river, where the winds and water cool me in the early morning as I take in what God has done for me and my wife. That is one of my many sacred spaces. 

You are speaking of rituals as in and of themselves sacred. I am not creedal or ritualistic enough to understand that. For a country Mennonite, the church building is simply a place to go to worship, fellowship, and minister. There is nothing therein, and that of itself is sacred. For the faithful LDS member, I guess the temple is sacred, as is the altar and host for the Catholic. I guess as neither LDS nor Catholic, I get to consider any space simply as sacred where I feel and see the Spirit of God. As the creator of all, He is capable of being in and with anyplace and anywhere. Thanks for replying to me. I appreciate that. 

This is what the church teaches about the difference between a chapel and a temple.

Temples are different than the thousands of Church meetinghouses located around the world. Meetinghouses are where Sunday worship services, youth gatherings, service projects, and other community events take place. All are welcome to join in these activities.

Temples have a more specific purpose. They are places specially set apart for sacred service and ceremonies. They are designated by the Lord and dedicated to His purposes. Temples are the only places where some priesthood ordinances are authorized to be performed. These sacred ceremonies lift and inspire participants as they make commitments to follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.

The bolder is probably the crux of the issue.  We believe it is the way it is because we believe the Lord set it up that way. 

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is what the church teaches about the difference between a chapel and a temple.

Temples are different than the thousands of Church meetinghouses located around the world. Meetinghouses are where Sunday worship services, youth gatherings, service projects, and other community events take place. All are welcome to join in these activities.

Temples have a more specific purpose. They are places specially set apart for sacred service and ceremonies. They are designated by the Lord and dedicated to His purposes. Temples are the only places where some priesthood ordinances are authorized to be performed. These sacred ceremonies lift and inspire participants as they make commitments to follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.

The bolder is probably the crux of the issue.  We believe it is the way it is because we believe the Lord set it up that way. 

Fair enough. You have been more than kind, as always. Religious beliefs, cultures, and practices vary widely between groups, even between Christian groups, even between Evangelicals, even between Mennonites, and even between different groups of Mormons, including between different wards, and might I suggest, between different bishops, whether LDS, LeBaron, or Mennonite.

And I think to be completely accurate, I would have to say differences exist within myself as I ponder my own faith over years of its development. When I was a kid, I was taught that dancing, going to movies, sneaking a peek at a Playboy, playing cards, and watching TV on Sunday were all designated by the Lord as forbidden activities. That is what my church ("the church" for me) taught. 

Perhaps if the LDS church allowed me into the temple, I would learn something or experience something that is new and spiritually meaningful to me. It might be a great missionary endeavor. Somehow, I doubt that would meet with the favor of the local area mission president! Ha!

When I was twenty years old, I experienced a coming-of-age manhood ceremony that was considered sacred by the Borgawa people of Dahomey, West Africa. Outsiders (including women) were forbidden to attend. I became best friends with the nephew of the paramount chief, who reluctantly gave me permission not just to attend but to participate. In a way, it was an honor. That experience had an impact on me that lasts to this day, fifty-six years later. The intensity of that experience is something I can feel as I keyboard this paragraph. Maybe that would happen in the temple. I guess I will never know. I cannot know that which I may not know. I hope that makes sense. Best wishes. 

Edited September 11, 2025 by Navidad

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

erhaps if the LDS church allowed me into the temple, I would learn something or experience something that is new and spiritually meaningful to me.

I think you having a very meaningful spiritual experience in the temple if you were to enter it today is quite possible, even likely.  But opening the temple up to the public would shift the purpose, the sense of what is going on there.  Which would mean we are no longer using the building for the purpose God had us build it for.

There are a variety of religious experiences out there.  It’s not just about having a spiritual experience at the temple, but having a particular type of one.  

I don’t believe it fits God’s purposes to make all varieties of spiritual experiences available to everyone no matter how they are prepared to engage with God (this is not to imply those who are admitted to the temple are better prepared overall spiritually).

To me it’s like the verses “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven” (I always sing this when I write it even though it’s been years, maybe decades since I heard that song, better go add it to my playlist).  Only I add “place” into that as well.  And the temple is a place that has a certain purpose that God has given it in our belief.  A purpose that he wants us to prepare for in certain ways (and not everyone who goes to the temple is prepared in that way, but it’s more likely with the current restrictions than if we opened it up even more, imo). When God desires to change its purpose, then perhaps that will include opening temples upon nonmembers to come and have a different type of spiritual experience (I see this as a possibility in the millennium).

Edited September 11, 2025 by Calm

[organicpeas]

This reminds me of a question I’ve had recently. What’s the new correct term for exMormons and anti-Mormons since we aren’t Mormons anymore and have been told not to use the term.?

[Senator]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

  It’s not just about having a spiritual experience at the temple, but having a particular type of one.  

 

I would be interested in hearing you elaborate on this notion.  But perhaps not fit for this thread

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, organicpeas said:

What’s the new correct term for exMormons and anti-Mormons since we aren’t Mormons anymore and have been told not to use the term.?

We haven’t been told not to use the term at all, but primarily to use preferred terms for the Church and its members, etc.  Even the Church officially uses “Mormon” in names like Mormon Trail.  There has been no attempt to try and change it to Latter-day Saint Trail…thank goodness.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide

However, that doesn’t answer your question.  I go by the rule if they haven’t given a different preferred term, then continuing to use “Mormon” is appropriate.

Edited September 12, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

We haven’t been told not to use the term at all, but primarily to use preferred terms for the Church and its members, etc.  Even the Church officially uses “Mormon” in names like Mormon Trail.  There has been no attempt to try and change it to Latter-day Saint Trail…thank goodness.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide

However, that doesn’t answer your question.  I go by the rule if they haven’t given a different preferred term, then continuing to use “Mormon” is appropriate.

I still have an affinity for "Mormon". If I am identifying the Church, I'll use the full name. Example:

Q: What Church do you belong to?

A: The COJCLDS

but...

Q: Are you a Mormon?

A: Yes!

but...

Q: Are you a member of the Mormon Church?

A: You mean the COJCLDS? Yes!

 

** I retain the right to proudly identify as "Mormon" where appropriate, and not obnoxiously correct people when it's not necessary.**

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I still have an affinity for "Mormon". If I am identifying the Church, I'll use the full name. Example:

Q: What Church do you belong to?

A: The COJCLDS

but...

Q: Are you a Mormon?

A: Yes!

but...

Q: Are you a member of the Mormon Church?

A: You mean the COJCLDS? Yes!

 

** I retain the right to proudly identify as "Mormon" where appropriate, and not obnoxiously correct people when it's not necessary.**

 

There is no way I am going to say “no” to the question of being Mormon.  And I don’t think that is what the Church is asking us to do either.  And I doubt I would ever correct someone who was not writing something up to be published and even then it would be “the Church has asked writers to follow this style guide” and leave it at that.

I do feel a bit bad I can’t get behind on substituting “the Restored Gospel” for “Mormonism”, but I disagree to the core of my being that the culture and lifestyle unique to the Church is the gospel (see style guide if wondering what I am talking about).  Mormonspeak or Mormonese (or even Saintspeak**** for those of us who have been around since before the early 80s) is unique to the Church, but there’s plenty non doctrinal language in it to point out what I am talking about.  Others may see this stuff as not “unique to the Church”, meaning not a result of its revealed teachings, but just typical human stuff, but that is not how “Mormonism” gets used, “Mormonism” often means the baggage that gets attached to the Church, so “the Restored Gospel” just doesn’t work to cover all things labeled “Mormonism.

****here’s a more serious article that preceded the book:  https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/010-25-29.pdf

Edited September 13, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Senator said:

I would be interested in hearing you elaborate on this notion.  But perhaps not fit for this thread

 

Or my current mood. Another time though…

[Navidad]

I have just written a chapter on the Anglo ethnoreligious groups who have migrated to Mexico's north for a Spanish language university book here in Mexico. Here we have several different Mormon groups/colonies all of which have their roots in one way or the other in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My chapter went to several blind reviewers for their comments. When I got them back for me to make changes, I noticed that the Mexican professors objected to my use of the term "Saints" to refer to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

They believed that would confuse Catholic readers since "Saints" is reserved here for the those with that unique designation in the Catholic Church. I had a hard enough time trying to distinguish between the LDS, the LeBaron, and the Margarito Bautista groups of Mormons in their various roles from Baja Norte to Morelos. So I had to change my reference for all of you from Saints to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Cultural conflict and relevance are an important part of the liminal nature of the Mormons and Mennonites here in northern Mexico. Names can be confusing. In this case the dominantly Catholic editors were having nothing to do with me using the term Saint in a dominantly Catholic culture for folks who are non-Catholic. At any rate, it is rare for an Anglo historian to be allowed to write for a Mexican university volume. I am pleased at the honor, even without the use of the nomenclature "Saints."

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Navidad said:

They believed that would confuse Catholic readers since "Saints" is reserved here for the those with that unique designation in the Catholic Church

I think they are right. I think it would confuse many others as well.  I use Saints here without defining it (I did define how I was using it right when I shifted to using it instead of Mormon iirc), but would be sure to tell others I was doing that to any other group that had nonLDS in it, at least outside of Utah…and in some cases I would refrain from using Saints as a label for LDS (probably wouldn’t use in any conversation in a Catholic setting because I am not going to use language that makes people constantly work more to understand if I can help it).

Edited September 13, 2025 by Calm

[phaedrus ut]

On 9/12/2025 at 12:50 PM, organicpeas said:

This reminds me of a question I’ve had recently. What’s the new correct term for exMormons and anti-Mormons since we aren’t Mormons anymore and have been told not to use the term.?

In the early 2000s Amway changed their name to Quixtar to shed the negative image. Everyone just kept calling them Amway and they eventually went back. I believe this rejection of the informal name will be a passing fad as well. I think the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was the biggest victim of this temporary preference. 

Phaedrus 

[Chum]

On 9/10/2025 at 6:32 PM, Navidad said:

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.

One of the original reasons for secrecy is that members are given key words, signs and tokens, to provide to the angels who stand as sentinels. 

My conjecture for the tokens, etc is this. While the restoration was being deployed on the Earth, a complementary security system was being deployed (wherever it is that sentinel angels do their thing). Since an accurate reading of human hearts is notoriously difficult, the keywords, signs and tokens were a stopgap measure. It was put in place to give the sentinel angels time to be properly trained in discerning who was who. This strikes me as a mid-level manager solution but Joseph seemed to have connections all up and down the heavenly sphere. 

If my theory holds, the security tokens should be done away with at at future date. In the mean time, the c-suites are maintaining them for stability's sake.

 

Edited September 13, 2025 by Chum

[Calm]

7 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I believe this rejection of the informal name will be a passing fad as well.

I don’t think this takes into account the problems the nickname caused in some places (mostly confusion).   My gut is the push to limit the use of “Mormon” will lighten up, but that the preference will remain.  But I am not privy to those conversations, so I may be way off.  I do believe having the official name given in scripture makes it more than just a cultural or personal preference of current leaders thing.  

If they are going to  push strongly against the use of “Mormon”, they need to come up with a truly viable alternative to Mormonism imo and Latter-day Saintism is just too bulky.  Neither does Saintist or Saintism work as too confusing (my mind went there because I was wondering how the subject of Seventh Day Adventists is referred to and it is Adventism apparently).

Latter-day Saint or LDS tradition/movement are the most likely candidates.  Maybe I will start trying to remember to use them where I would typically use Mormonism to see if they could work at least for someone willing, but too fond of shorthand. 

Edited September 14, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

In the early 2000s Amway changed their name to Quixtar to shed the negative image. Everyone just kept calling them Amway and they eventually went back. I believe this rejection of the informal name will be a passing fad as well. I think the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was the biggest victim of this temporary preference. 

Phaedrus 

Im not sure what you mean?  They have been the Choir at Temple Square since the change and it doesn’t seem to be causing them any problems.  

[Calm]

7 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

In the early 2000s Amway changed their name to Quixtar to shed the negative image. Everyone just kept calling them Amway and they eventually went back. I believe this rejection of the informal name will be a passing fad as well. I think the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was the biggest victim of this temporary preference. 

Phaedrus 

Wondering if X will go back to Twitter if there is ever a new owner given “tweet” is more popular and better advertising than “post”.

[Stargazer]

On 9/8/2025 at 4:28 PM, 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?

There were those who got all bent out of shape when the current US president was caricatured in Papal robes. But they're perfectly OK with mocking others. Pot calling the kettle something...

[Stargazer]

On 9/8/2025 at 6:42 PM, Calm said:

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?

It's the same thing as "Experts say..." or "Scientists say..." It's perfectly likely that it was just something their office manager's second cousin said something at a party after five margaritas.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There were those who got all bent out of shape when the current US president was caricatured in Papal robes. But they're perfectly OK with mocking others. Pot calling the kettle something...

Catholics are perfectly okay with this garment mockery?

[Stargazer]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Catholics are perfectly okay with this garment mockery?

Didn't say that, did I?

I brought Catholics in only for the Papal robes thing, so as to compare and contrast. I don't believe that papal robes have quite the degree of sacredness among Catholics as LDS garments. Given the number of caricatures of popes in their robes that have been publicized for centuries, I think that's pretty reliable. 

Here's Mr. Bean as the new pope. Did you see the furor at this caricature? No, well of course not. Everyone loves Mr. Bean. But the current US president cannot be allowed any leeway at all -- now matter who drew his papal caricature.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

don't believe that papal robes have quite the degree of sacredness among Catholics as LDS garments. Given the number of caricatures of popes in their robes that have been publicized for centuries, I think that's pretty reliable. 

I would not judge how sacred something is to a community based on how the critics and bigots treat that something.

As far as level of reactions, maybe centuries of enduring such has resulted in Catholics realizing protests typically lead to more mocking of such things.  Doesn’t mean it still doesn’t hurt if so.

Added:  from what I am reading such robes and other vestments are consecrated, so they seem to align in level of sacredness for Catholics with garments for LDS.  The various pieces are full of sacred symbolism.  Hopefully Catholic posters will see this and add their beliefs.

https://holylandartcompany.com/blog/the-significance-of-linens-and-vestments-in-the-catholic-church

Quote

The use of linens and vestments is deeply rooted in Catholic theology and spirituality. They serve as tangible expressions of intangible truths. The care and reverence given to these items reflect the sacredness of the liturgy and the belief in the real presence of Christ. By maintaining these traditions, the Church connects the faithful with the continuity of worship throughout the ages.

Moreover, the linens and vestments act as visual catechesis. They teach and remind the faithful of the sacred mysteries being celebrated. The intricate designs, colors, and uses of these items invite deeper reflection on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the call to live a life of holiness.

https://ascensionpress.com/blogs/articles/what-does-the-pope-wear-a-guide-to-papal-garments-and-their-meanings?srsltid=AfmBOopdK9aE229zj3jfJQMWYVl8cOOzodB8bBsi_iJrGWjIcuBQEa-z

Edited September 16, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Didn't say that, did I?

I brought Catholics in only for the Papal robes thing, so as to compare and contrast. I don't believe that papal robes have quite the degree of sacredness among Catholics as LDS garments. Given the number of caricatures of popes in their robes that have been publicized for centuries, I think that's pretty reliable. 

Here's Mr. Bean as the new pope. Did you see the furor at this caricature? No, well of course not. Everyone loves Mr. Bean. But the current US president cannot be allowed any leeway at all -- now matter who drew his papal caricature.

Who do you think is upset about the papal robes caricature but is ignoring the garment mockery? Those are the ones you were insinuating were hyporcrites. Who are these hypocritical double standard havers?

[Notatbm]

On 9/13/2025 at 1:29 PM, phaedrus ut said:

Phaedrus 

Exactly…. Sooo dumb of a change it makes the Cracker Barrel sign thing look like a good idea. 

Edited September 16, 2025 by Notatbm