As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

[bookofmormontruth]

Well a lot of Mormons seem to be. They are told endlessly the big bad "world" is out to get them. My point was that Mormon controlled forums never seem to allow full and open discussion, even excluding temple subjects.

"seem to be"? To who? You? The "temperature reader" of all Mormons?

Also, CFR where we are told the "world" is out to get us? Seems completely contrary when we go forth to all the ends of the Earth to share the Lord's message.

I messed up on a rule on this same very thread, yet I am not complaining about it and I am LDS. Rules serve a purpose even for complainers and the unruly.

[mfbukowski]

I lost how what you are saying is relevant to miracles. I do not think I am totally predictable- assuming I do not have a disease (and there are mental diseases where someone loses complete control of their actions). Your brain has the ability to control itself in a way. So you supposed wrong.

However, that doesn't mean that choosing what school to go to, or which (out of many) girls to pursue, is a SUPERNATURAL event.

A very good answer. I don't believe in supernatural events- I believe that God is scientifically discoverable in principle.

I didn't say this had anything to do with miracles, but it might.

It appears you are saying that there are certain important events in life about which decisions are to be made, the outcome of which is not scientifically predictable or in fact knowable, and if this is the case, such decisions cannot in principle be made scientifically.

You can make a "best guess" but never really know how things will turn out. Divorces happen.

Science has limited utility in making the most important decisions in life.

[cdowis]

Besides, it's not hard to find false prophecies made by Smith even if you accept FAIR's explanation as rock solid. Smith said in one sermon that the people attending would be alive when Christ returns. HE said there were 6ft tall Quakers living on the Moon.

Can you please open a new thread on this subject. We will be happy to educate you.

[Mudcat]

I am giving a hats off to Bowman. Dude is like a bulldog.

I would have dumped the thread a while back if I were him.

[bookofmormontruth]

Rob,

I wanted to apologize publicly.

I do stand by my judgment (we all have that right) on the direct fruits of your profession and my adamant opposition to the anti-Mormon material recommended by you and your anti-Mormon website (defined by FAIR). I do believe that you and your organization have not fully caught the vision that was set by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen and until then, there will be no honest discussion and frankly will be discounted and dismissed for running the same type of anti-Mormon business that has been around for the last 180 + years.

I also fully believe it is mockery to G-d and His members to provide sacred Temple content with the almost attitude to just "deal with it". Temple going members will understand how this is a mockery for "G-d will not be mocked" and I am sorry you don't see how it could be so offensive to us who consider the Temple very sacred in every way. I hope you reconsider this offensive approach.

Even with this stance, I could and should have handled myself differently and not been so harsh towards you and given you cheap shots towards your salary. I am not at the level as other members who are better examples and I fully admit, I handle anti-Mormons in complete different way than with honest truth seekers.

I hope you take my apology for what it is worth since it is noticeable that I have strong views and beliefs. I do not apologize for my testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only Church on Earth that is led by the Savior, Himself and that the Book of Mormon will bring a person closer to the Lord than any other book of scripture. As been shown on this thread, I know that will be offensive to others - not sure how to go around that in any other way then to state my truth.

And in all honestly - despite my stance and beliefs, I could easily have you over for a BBQ and we would get along just fine. You might end up in the pool "accidentally", but a towel would be provided very quickly.

Regards and I hope you continue to post.

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

I accept your gracious apology. No doubt there will remain a "divide" between us and you will continue to find some of what I do offensive. Of course, I don't expect you to apologize for your own convictions and testimony.

I wish there were a way past the stumbling block concerning the Temple ceremony text. Our intent is certainly not to ridicule or mock, but to inform. I realize what I am about to say will offend you and you might not even accept it as true, but even a lot of Mormons who are sincere about their faith are very uncomfortable with aspects of the Temple ceremony. I am giving some thought to how we might go about including this information in a way that shows even more sensitivity to LDS objections. I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps we could include a warning or disclaimer stating that Mormons consider the ceremony text sacred and object to its being made public, so that only those who feel they have a need to examine the subject should proceed to read the article. I doubt that would satisfy you, but I have to think not only about your sincere sensibilities but also the needs of people who are also sincerely seeking information about the LDS religion.

By the way, I know Carl and Paul, and have a particularly good relationship with Carl. For what it's worth, he doesn't have any problem with what I do.

Rob,

I wanted to apologize publicly.

I do stand by my judgment (we all have that right) on the direct fruits of your profession and my adamant opposition to the anti-Mormon material recommended by you and your anti-Mormon website (defined by FAIR). I do believe that you and your organization have not fully caught the vision that was set by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen and until then, there will be no honest discussion and frankly will be discounted and dismissed for running the same type of anti-Mormon business that has been around for the last 180 + years.

I also fully believe it is mockery to G-d and His members to provide sacred Temple content with the almost attitude to just "deal with it". Temple going members will understand how this is a mockery for "G-d will not be mocked" and I am sorry you don't see how it could be so offensive to us who consider the Temple very sacred in every way. I hope you reconsider this offensive approach.

Even with this stance, I could and should have handled myself differently and not been so harsh towards you and given you cheap shots towards your salary. I am not at the level as other members who are better examples and I fully admit, I handle anti-Mormons in complete different way than with honest truth seekers.

I hope you take my apology for what it is worth since it is noticeable that I have strong views and beliefs. I do not apologize for my testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only Church on Earth that is led by the Savior, Himself and that the Book of Mormon will bring a person closer to the Lord than any other book of scripture. As been shown on this thread, I know that will be offensive to others - not sure how to go around that in any other way then to state my truth.

And in all honestly - despite my stance and beliefs, I could easily have you over for a BBQ and we would get along just fine. You might end up in the pool "accidentally", but a towel would be provided very quickly.

Regards and I hope you continue to post.

[bookofmormontruth]

BOMT,

I accept your gracious apology. No doubt there will remain a "divide" between us and you will continue to find some of what I do offensive. Of course, I don't expect you to apologize for your own convictions and testimony.

I wish there were a way past the stumbling block concerning the Temple ceremony text. Our intent is certainly not to ridicule or mock, but to inform. I realize what I am about to say will offend you and you might not even accept it as true, but even a lot of Mormons who are sincere about their faith are very uncomfortable with aspects of the Temple ceremony. I am giving some thought to how we might go about including this information in a way that shows even more sensitivity to LDS objections. I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps we could include a warning or disclaimer stating that Mormons consider the ceremony text sacred and object to its being made public, so that only those who feel they have a need to examine the subject should proceed to read the article. I doubt that would satisfy you, but I have to think not only about your sincere sensibilities but also the needs of people who are also sincerely seeking information about the LDS religion.

By the way, I know Carl and Paul, and have a particularly good relationship with Carl. For what it's worth, he doesn't have any problem with what I do.

Thanks Rob.

The only honorable way is to take it completely down.

Here is another way to look at it. The way for someone to have this information is to actually steal it from the Temple or use nefarious way to obtain it so why would you want to be attached to this in any way? It is the property of the LDS Church just like our Temple recommends so anyone in possession is just as guilty of stealing a chair, book etc. from the Temple. You wouldn't put a stolen painting in your home would you? Even if your intentions were to "help" people understand how the brush strokes were not in conformity with the way you feel brush strokes should be applied in paintings, it is still wrong.

The organizations and people who promote this are anti-Mormons and this does not fit the vision of Mosser and Owen of providing and supporting the most offensive material (spiritual pornography) possible in the hopes of what? You will continue to fit in the anti-Mormon category with this offensive material (spiritual pornography) which most LDS members had no clue that you had so it would be hard to imagine that Carl Mosser would also have this knowledge or that the same material on your website is found on FAIR and labeled anti-Mormon.

In addition, we made sacred covenants to only have this information available in the Temple and it will give no benefit to the world or for an understanding of our beliefs. We are the primary source for these beliefs and our enemies will not give it a fair treatment.

It only incites our enemies and makes an honest person confused and uniformed because they do not have full context and preparation that can take years and even a lifetime for members to enter the Temple to understand.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I wish there were a way past the stumbling block concerning the Temple ceremony text. Our intent is certainly not to ridicule or mock, but to inform. I realize what I am about to say will offend you and you might not even accept it as true, but even a lot of Mormons who are sincere about their faith are very uncomfortable with aspects of the Temple ceremony. I am giving some thought to how we might go about including this information in a way that shows even more sensitivity to LDS objections. I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps we could include a warning or disclaimer stating that Mormons consider the ceremony text sacred and object to its being made public, so that only those who feel they have a need to examine the subject should proceed to read the article. I doubt that would satisfy you, but I have to think not only about your sincere sensibilities but also the needs of people who are also sincerely seeking information about the LDS religion.

You know that is not a bad idea. I do have another idea. It is possible that for you to fulfill your ministry that you not even talk about the temple content. I mean, I am going to play devil's advocate here. THere is enough "wrong" with mormonism that you need not even approach that. I guess though, that if you have to state that you know we hold those things sacred, perhaps you could also state that people who read your site should be senstive and that it not a good idea to bring up what they read on thier site about the temple cermony to their LDS friends. I tell you, there is no faster way to get a door of friendship slammed in the face if you bring any of that stuff up.

I perosnally think it bad idea to bring up temple content due to the sacrad nature to the LDS people.

Of course the main issue is that we hold them sacred and you do not. Form a respect point of view, what do you think should be done?

There is this old saying about wanting your cake and to eat it too.

Take care Rob. And I echo Mud's statements you are a bulldog man.

[Questing Beast]

I agree with the sentiment likening the temple ceremony/drama as property of the LDS Church. But if so, then the Church needs to go after Websites displaying its Copyrighted material and obtain redress through the legal system. If the Church does not do this then there is no Copyright and the temple drama text is public domain material.

That said, I find nothing whatsoever offensive about discussing the text of the temple drama. Others are adamantly opposed to even the repetition of a single line from the text outside of the temple itself. I would not "reveal" the signs and tokens of the temple covenants; that, imho, is all that the injunction to not reveal them is about: not the text of the drama, which is only a conveyance as it were, not the actual sacred covenants.

Even back in the day of my active temple-going I held the above views. Nothing has changed, other than that I don't care if the Mormons have temples or not. If they all vanished from the earth tonight I would find the phenomenon interesting but not the least upsetting. If the Church decided to sell off various of its temples (as they do with meeting houses) that would also not be a cause for concern. Yet many faithful, dedicated temple-goers would be upset.

I also agree with the suggestion that the Website ought to provide a caveat to the visitor vis-a-vis the "sacredness" of the material to be viewed: so that any visiting Mormons might be fairly warned before proceeding. This seems like a polite and considerate thing to do....

[USU78]

Yeah, some people would love to parade the text of the endowment ceremony and clips from the Temple movie(s) in a courtroom with reporters all over the place.

QB, you're either being disingenuous or you're not thinking this through. Court is the last place the Church wants such things to happen. Copyrights only protect PUBLISHED material, and the Church doesn't "publish" (in the legal sense) the text or the movie(s) anywhere other than within the Temples to endowed and presently temple-worthy Mormon types.

[Analytics]

Yeah, some people would love to parade the text of the endowment ceremony and clips from the Temple movie(s) in a courtroom with reporters all over the place.

QB, you're either being disingenuous or you're not thinking this through. Court is the last place the Church wants such things to happen. Copyrights only protect PUBLISHED material, and the Church doesn't "publish" (in the legal sense) the text or the movie(s) anywhere other than within the Temples to endowed and presently temple-worthy Mormon types.

I believe you are mistaken about copyright law. My understanding is that intellectual property is automatically protected by copyright as soon as it is created, regardless of whether or not it is published.

But copyright protection does eventually expire, at which point the work enters the public domain. That’s most likely the legal status of the endowment ceremony script.

[mfbukowski]

Yeah, some people would love to parade the text of the endowment ceremony and clips from the Temple movie(s) in a courtroom with reporters all over the place.

QB, you're either being disingenuous or you're not thinking this through. Court is the last place the Church wants such things to happen. Copyrights only protect PUBLISHED material, and the Church doesn't "publish" (in the legal sense) the text or the movie(s) anywhere other than within the Temples to endowed and presently temple-worthy Mormon types.

Leaving the creeps who do publish it perfectly able to break the law, or at least its spirit, with impunity.

[bookofmormontruth]

I agree with the sentiment likening the temple ceremony/drama as property of the LDS Church. But if so, then the Church needs to go after Websites displaying its Copyrighted material and obtain redress through the legal system. If the Church does not do this then there is no Copyright and the temple drama text is public domain material.

That said, I find nothing whatsoever offensive about discussing the text of the temple drama. Others are adamantly opposed to even the repetition of a single line from the text outside of the temple itself. I would not "reveal" the signs and tokens of the temple covenants; that, imho, is all that the injunction to not reveal them is about: not the text of the drama, which is only a conveyance as it were, not the actual sacred covenants.

Even back in the day of my active temple-going I held the above views. Nothing has changed, other than that I don't care if the Mormons have temples or not. If they all vanished from the earth tonight I would find the phenomenon interesting but not the least upsetting. If the Church decided to sell off various of its temples (as they do with meeting houses) that would also not be a cause for concern. Yet many faithful, dedicated temple-goers would be upset.

I also agree with the suggestion that the Website ought to provide a caveat to the visitor vis-a-vis the "sacredness" of the material to be viewed: so that any visiting Mormons might be fairly warned before proceeding. This seems like a polite and considerate thing to do....

The Lord's Church doesn't need to do anything.

Can we? Yes. Just walk to general conference and you see the Book of Mormon and sacred garments being drugged on the ground. We probably could find a way to stop this like the issue of sacred garments being sold on E-bay, but we don't get involved generally. And to make the argument that because we don't get involved in every detail, automatically makes it public material? Not sure what world that happens in, maybe in anti-Mormon land.

With your obviously bittered sentiments, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[mfbukowski]

I believe you are mistaken about copyright law. My understanding is that intellectual property is automatically protected by copyright as soon as it is created, regardless of whether or not it is published.

But copyright protection does eventually expire, at which point the work enters the public domain. That’s most likely the legal status of the endowment ceremony script.

The only thing he said about the law was that it only protects published material.

Do you really want to disagree with that? What would be the purpose of "protecting" unpublished material?? From what?

The real point was that the church would not want to enforce it's rights in such a case, anyway.

[mfbukowski]

Frankly I don't think those who publish temple information could possibly understand how offensive it is, especially when they supposedly want to convert Mormons.

It's like doing the most vile thing one can imagine to the American flag, publishing videos of it, and then trying to recruit members of the Marine Corps to you new organization.

Not too bright.

Yet people will do such things and then say they are engaged in a "ministry" to Mormons, and wonder why they are derided on Mormon message boards to which supposedly they have been "invited".

[Mudcat]

Frankly I don't think those who publish temple information could possibly understand how offensive it is, especially when they supposedly want to convert Mormons.

It's like doing the most vile thing one can imagine to the American flag, publishing videos of it, and then trying to recruit members of the Marine Corps to you new organization.

I think something worth consideration is that this information has been initially made public by former Temple worthy LDS who are know ex-LDS.

Such a person, given their background would likely be completely understanding of it's offensive nature and simply disregard the offensive nature for what they feel is a better goal. An ends vs. means issue I suppose.

IIRC, Rob isn't ex-LDS and doesn't directly qualify. But on some level it seems like it should be noted that ultimately the roots of his information trail directly back to former LDS.

I suppose I have a similar view as Mola. In that there is a lot of stuff that is discussion worthy besides Temple content. However, I don't see much of an issue with discussing Temple related stuff in a conceptual sense.

LDS publicly recognize that endowments, baptisms for the dead, marriages, sealings... occur in the Temple. Over the years, I have had a number of conversations with LDS about the theological purposes, ramifications and so forth of these things.

Bearing in mind, these discussions didn't openly divulge the exact methodly this sort of thing happened inside the Temple. I don't think I have ever found an LDS to be offended by these sorts of discussions.

I think as long as person is trying to understand the general concept of what a person believes... Most people are okay with that.

I think if it's part of a persons theology, it ought to be able to be discussed on some level. But I think it's better to avoid offense when possible.

I never have made much of Temple related sorts of things and haven't seen that the goings of an LDS Temple ceremony is much in the way of my business at all, other than to know what someone meant when they said "sealed" or something like that and how that squared with their beliefs in a theologic sense. But IMO Temple activities are simply modes of output for LDS theology and not the actual theology itself.

Personally I think it's better to address the theological problems or difficulties a person has directly rather than making a thrust towards the application of a device that is caused by the same theology.

edit - syntax mostly

[Eldwynn]

I thought it wasn't copyrighted because the text was taken from another source to begin with? If anyone is breaking copyright laws, the church did it first.

[Vance]

I think something worth consideration is that this information has been initially made public by former Temple worthy LDS who are know ex-LDS.

That isn't exactly the impression that is given. The impression that IS given is that the source was an active current member. Not that that makes it better.

Such a person, given their background would likely be completely understanding of it's offensive nature and simply disregard the offensive nature for what they feel is a better goal. An ends vs. means issue I suppose.

Still true, but now more offensive.

IIRC, Rob isn't ex-LDS and doesn't directly qualify.

That doesn't remove any culpability from his part.

But on some level it seems like it should be noted that ultimately the roots of his information trail directly back to former LDS.

That doesn't remove any culpability from IRR's part either.

Isn't being the distributor of known stolen items a crime, just as serious as the theft itself?

[Mars]

The text from the Temple Endowment didn't come from Masonic ceremonies. I'm a Mason.

[HiJolly]

The text from the Temple Endowment didn't come from Masonic ceremonies. I'm a Mason.

I'm not a Mason. There were lodges in France and in Louisiana that had replaced the Hiram Abiff proponent with Adam & Eve, and expanded the ceremony to include women. Radical, non-accepted lodges, sure.

Still, there was precedent, and there could have indeed been copying of text. Though I don't have the resources that could prove that, personally.

HiJolly

former member of SRRS

[HiJolly]

I thought it wasn't copyrighted because the text was taken from another source to begin with? If anyone is breaking copyright laws, the church did it first.

My personal opinion is that the text had significant and substantial changes from anything recognizably Masonic such that a copyright lawsuit might well be summarily dismissed. Signs, Tokens, Names, 5 points of fellowship - some were not changed, but others were. But there's a ton more material in the endowment than just these.

HiJolly

[mfbukowski]

I thought it wasn't copyrighted because the text was taken from another source to begin with? If anyone is breaking copyright laws, the church did it first.

Nah, that's wrong. It has tenuous similarities to other sources, but it would be like saying the content of a peer-reviewed journal article on astronomy was derived from a 17th century astrological chart because they used some of the same words.

If you understand it, the endowment is about Jesus Christ from the beginning to the end

[Mars]

There were lodges in France and in Louisiana that had replaced the Hiram Abiff proponent with Adam & Eve, and expanded the ceremony to include women. Radical, non-accepted lodges, sure.

Still, there was precedent, and there could have indeed been copying of text. Though I don't have the resources that could prove that, personally.

Having served a mission in France, I'm aware of the clandestine lodges and some of the alterations they've made and practice. I'm not aware that many Masons in Joseph Smith's time, Bennett included, were members of clandestine orders. If any Mason is, he is expelled from his lodge. I imagine that was the case in Illinois, but I do not know for sure.

But there's a ton more material in the endowment than just these.

That's kind of the point. If I were to try my best to see the point behind the idea that Joseph Smith borrowed or stole from the Masonic ritual to invent the Endowment, the similarities are superficial. The content of the Endowment simply diverges. Masonry doesn't teach doctrines of salvation. There's not really any other way to cut it.

[HiJolly]

Having served a mission in France, I'm aware of the clandestine lodges and some of the alterations they've made and practice. I'm not aware that many Masons in Joseph Smith's time, Bennett included, were members of clandestine orders. If any Mason is, he is expelled from his lodge. I imagine that was the case in Illinois, but I do not know for sure.

Bennett was at least a member of the York rite. He kinda infuriated the Grand Lodge by sending them notes in the Royal Arch cipher.

That's kind of the point. If I were to try my best to see the point behind the idea that Joseph Smith borrowed or stole from the Masonic ritual to invent the Endowment, the similarities are superficial. The content of the Endowment simply diverges. Masonry doesn't teach doctrines of salvation. There's not really any other way to cut it.

I agree, although in my opinion there is a powerful ascension motif in the York and Scottish rites. Salvation does have some congruence to the concept of ascension, but there's no doubt that in the Blue lodge, one's salvation is considered dependent on the individual frater's religious pursuits, whatever their religion may be.

HiJolly

[bookofmormontruth]

Definitely doesn't derive from Masons even though the Masons had to get their content from somewhere. We know where.

My good friends just returned from Israel on a tour of the Middle East. I was amazed in what they told me of the rituals that the Jews do this day that are exactly done in the LDS Temples. For Temple goers, imagine what is done and amazingly the Jews do a lot of the same near the wall of the Temple.

A person comparing LDS Temple content to modern day Jews could easily argue that Joseph Smith "stole" the Temple content from the Jews.

Now where did the Jews get it from? We know where.