Peggy Fletcher Stack's Thoughtful Article on LDS Temple Rites

[smac97]

Read it.

Well done, Peggy.

[Helorum]

I have to admit I was surprised at how well this article was done -- considering the publication venue.

And there was even a good reference to "Mormon apologists" and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

[mannisue]

That was extraordinarily cool of her. Actually calling upon those who partake in the sanctity of the temple experience to share what they know was extemely good form.

Thanks for sharing this, Smac. It was truly refreshing.

mannisue

[Jeff K.]

I would like to read the article "The Mormon Temple Experience: A Non-Mormon look at a Latter-day Saint's Most Sacred Ritual." named in the article.

[Scott Lloyd]

Read it.

Well done, Peggy.

Unfortunately it was marred by comments from vitriolic, ill-mannered and uncomprehending readers who make up a significant portion of the Tribune's subscriber base

I just saw Peggy at this morning's cornerstone ceremony. We didn't get a chance to chat, but she nodded cordially to me.

[William Schryver]

Peggy, on rare but welcome occasions, manages to pull something out of her journalistic hat that I consider worthy of commendation.

This is one of those occasions.

Now, as for the other 98% of the time ...

[Alf O'Mega]

I would like to read the article "The Mormon Temple Experience: A Non-Mormon look at a Latter-day Saint's Most Sacred Ritual." named in the article.

You'll find it here.

[William Schryver]

You'll find it here.

Hey, Alf! Long time no see. I'm about to send you a PM, so heads up.

[Daniel Peterson]

Unfortunately it was marred by comments from vitriolic, ill-mannered and uncomprehending readers who make up a significant portion of the Tribune's subscriber base

The Hate Brigade seemed a little bit slower than usual today, but they eventually got up to speed.

Fortunately, I suspect that they constitute 90% of the readership of such comments, once the comments reach the number of 20+ or 30+. They seem to be employed, full-time, at some kind of anti-Mormon posting center, because just about any newspaper article, nationwide, that mentions Mormons appears to be flooded almost immediately with the same largely non-topical but virulently contemptuous posts. It's really rather bizarre, I think.

[Robspectre]

nice

[Scott Lloyd]

The Hate Brigade seemed a little bit slower than usual today, but they eventually got up to speed.

Fortunately, I suspect that they constitute 90% of the readership of such comments, once the comments reach the number of 20+ or 30+. They seem to be employed, full-time, at some kind of anti-Mormon posting center, because just about any newspaper article, nationwide, that mentions Mormons appears to be flooded almost immediately with the same largely non-topical but virulently contemptuous posts. It's really rather bizarre, I think.

I hope you're right -- about the 90 percent, that is.

[Analytics]

Read it.

Well done, Peggy.

I like the article too, thanks for sharing.

Two people quoted in the article, Mark Leone and Krister Stendahl, are non-Mormon. The confidence they have about the topic implies that they know what happens in the temple in detail. Their knowledge and confidence about it indicates that they have studied it closely. The fact that they are non-Mormons indicates that they their studies have entailed sources that profane it.

That being the case, I have a couple of questions for you Spencer. First of all, are you offended by them studying the temple? Second, if I defended them for studying it and trying to sincerely understand Mormons on this deep of a level, would you consider that a show of disrespect towards Mormons on my part?

[Scott Lloyd]

I like the article too, thanks for sharing.

Two people quoted in the article, Mark Leone and Krister Stendahl, are non-Mormon. The confidence they have about the topic implies that they know what happens in the temple in detail. Their knowledge and confidence about it indicates that they have studied it closely. The fact that they are non-Mormons indicates that they their studies have entailed sources that profane it.

That being the case, I have a couple of questions for you Spencer. First of all, are you offended by them studying the temple? Second, if I defended them for studying it and trying to sincerely understand Mormons on this deep of a level, would you consider that a show of disrespect towards Mormons on my part?

There is enough that is published and public about the nature and intent of the temple ceremony that one such as Stendahl could speak intelligently about it without knowing every detail. The Draper Temple open house pamphlet alone told a great deal.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

You can learn everything about the Temple, except for specific items, from official Mormon sources. To go to unofficial, or Anti-Mormon, sources for what happens is offensive.

[Analytics]

There is enough that is published and public about the nature and intent of the temple ceremony that one such as Stendahl could speak intelligently about it without knowing every detail. The Draper Temple open house pamphlet alone told a great deal.

Have you read Mark Leoneâ??s "groundbreaking essay" referenced in the paper and linked to above by Alf Oâ??Mega? For example, it says,

Consider then what is going on for the Mormon in the temple. He brings expectations of profound experience and sometimes specific problems to be solved. Narrated before him by supernatural personages is the whole of human history comprising the creation, fall, and redemption of man. At one point there is actually verbal and physical contact with God himself and then God invites the purified to enter and experience heaven. Throughout the narrations people are listening to Adam, God the Father, and Christ talk, not as read by a reader out of the Gospels, but by people playing the heavenly beings. And for additional emotional impact the audience overhears private, off-stage conversations between God, Christ, Peterâ??, and others making plans to redeem man based on his worthy performance....

I don't think any authorized sources go into that level of detail--not even the Draper Temple open house pamphlet.

[Scott Lloyd]

Have you read Mark Leoneâ??s "groundbreaking essay" referenced in the paper and linked to above by Alf Oâ??Mega? For example, it says,

I don't think any authorized sources go into that level of detail--not even the Draper Temple open house pamphlet.

Not quite that level, no, but even I was amazed at how informative it was.

And while I'm glad Peggy wrote a thoughtful, fair and respectful piece, I never said I endorse every particle of it.

[Analytics]

Analytics:

You can learn everything about the Temple, except for specific items, from official Mormon sources. To go to unofficial, or Anti-Mormon, sources for what happens is offensive.

Have you read Leone's essay? Do you think he acquired that level of detail about what happens and that level of confidence about it from sticking strictly to official Mormon sources? Iâ??m not out to demonize him, but it seems naive to think he hasnâ??t studied a transcript.

[thesometimesaint]

The Gate of Heaven by Matthew B. Brown and Temple and Cosmos by Hugh Nibley.

[Analytics]

Not quite that level, no, but even I was amazed at how informative it was.

Good to know. Is it avaiable on the internet?

And while I'm glad Peggy wrote a thoughtful, fair and respectful piece, I never said I endorse every particle of it.

If you concede that it appears he's studied it beyond official sources, would you like to address the questions I asked Spencer? Are you offended by him studying the temple that seriously? Second, if I defended them for studying it and trying to sincerely understand Mormons on this deep of a level, would you consider that a show of disrespect towards Mormons on my part?

[Daniel Peterson]

I believe that I've read Mark Leone's article.

I respect the fact that he doesn't go into detail, even if he knows it. In that, he plainly shows far more class than did the producers and writers of Big Love.

[Analytics]

I believe that I've read Mark Leone's article.

I respect the fact that he doesn't go into detail, even if he knows it. In that, he plainly shows far more class than did the producers and writers of Big Love.

Leone relied on profane sources to come to his thoughtful conclusions, and I'd guess that Krister Stendahl did as well. Are you offended that people profaned the temple by making their research sources available to them? Do you think it is wrong of them to study such things in detail an attempt to better understand Mormons? If I were to defend them for doing so, would that show a lack of respect on my part?

[Daniel Peterson]

Leone relied on profane sources to come to his thoughtful conclusions, and I'd guess that Krister Stendahl did as well. Are you offended that people profaned the temple by making their research sources available to them? Do you think it is wrong of them to study such things in detail an attempt to better understand Mormons? If I were to defend them for doing so, would that show a lack of respect on my part?

The things are out there.

They shouldn't be out there. Publishing them was a profanation.

I don't blame non-Mormons for looking at them -- especially serious non-Mormons, like Krister Stendahl and Mark Leone -- any more than I blame the audience of Big Love for HBO's deliberate profanation of temple ritual.

Incidentally, though, Krister Stendahl seems to have been referring specifically to baptism for the dead. On which he wrote an article for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

[Analytics]

The things are out there.

They shouldn't be out there. Publishing them was a profanation.

I don't blame non-Mormons for looking at them -- especially serious non-Mormons, like Krister Stendahl and Mark Leone -- any more than I blame the audience of Big Love for HBO's deliberate profanation of temple ritual.

The praise for Peggyâ??s article implies that it goes beyond non-blaming them to counting them as allies. After all, having some non-Mormons explaining temple worship gives the article and its positive vibes a lot of credibility. The irony is that having such people as allies wouldnâ??t be possible if it werenâ??t for the people who profaned the source material to begin with.

[talisyn]

The praise for Peggyâ??s article implies that it goes beyond non-blaming them to counting them as allies. After all, having some non-Mormons explaining temple worship gives the article and its positive vibes a lot of credibility. The irony is that having such people as allies wouldnâ??t be possible if it werenâ??t for the people who profaned the source material to begin with.

When life gives you lemons either make lemonade or throw them back.

[bethabara]

Leone relied on profane sources to come to his thoughtful conclusions, and I'd guess that Krister Stendahl did as well. Are you offended that people profaned the temple by making their research sources available to them? Do you think it is wrong of them to study such things in detail an attempt to better understand Mormons? If I were to defend them for doing so, would that show a lack of respect on my part?

I don't think we have any real idea where Stendahl came upon his information. But, I believe his second point in undersatnding other religions was to go to its own adherents for the best understanding. I don't think we are required to believe that his specific information and understanding on these issues came from profane sources. There would be thoughtful Mormon sources which might be sought out for such understanding, which indeed would be in keeping with his own proposed methodology.

But, more importantly, I don't think referencing and researching profane sources was required to come to an understanding of the purpose and place of the temples and temple worship for Mormons, where his ultimate condition was one of "holy envy."

To put it another way, I don't think it is required to learn about physical imtimacy from those who profane it on big and small screens everywhere. While it may be considered "sacred", and a topic that is discussed discretely, in select and respectful circumstances, one can still transfer all that is necessary to have an understanding and appreciation without going into the most private details. And then the point comes down to, any further depth may only come in the participatory experience, which was Fletcher-Stacks point.

That some small good might have come out of the profanity is no justification for its defense, nay promotion.