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

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I really want to disagree with that. I disagree with it because it is wrong.

According to the FAQ of the U.S. Copyright Office:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork

You didn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask when protection begins, I asked why one would WANT to be protected if the work was not published. The only time protection has any efficacy is when work is published.

[bookofmormontruth]

The reason for the secrecy, which we regard as sacredness, is that we have covenanted not to reveal certain portions.

No "active member" would or will reveal these sections- or it would show them, by definition, NOT to be an "active member". It would be like an "active" Baptist denying the efficacy of Baptism by immersion- the denial itself would by definition show that they were not "Baptist" since such a belief defines being Baptist, or an "Active Catholic" saying that the Eucharist was just a piece of bread.

The portions not to be revealed have meanings which are revealed to each individual according to his ability to understand their meanings- to an outsider they would appear silly and meaningless, but when studied in context, there is no end to the profundity of what may be learned about the gospel. Just as you have certain things between you and your wife, say, which are no one's business but you and your wife's, what is revealed to us in the temple is between us individually and God and is no one else's business, and so is extremely sacred. If I told you my understanding, it would no longer be just between God and me- the sacredness of it would be breached. It is "for" me and for my personal understanding, not for you personally. You have to develop your own personal understanding.

One does not even really begin to see the meanings until one has memorized virtually the whole ceremony- and the only way that can be done is by repeating the ceremonies many times over many years- and that in itself encourages temple attendance. At first one gets a glimmer that there is a "greater meaning", and for an attentive member, each time one attends an Endowment, the meaning becomes a little clearer and things are noticed which were never noticed before. Like the proverbial onion, the layers peel back one at a time.

There is a story about one of the prophets- I don't know, it could be a "faith promoting rumor" but it still shows the attitude we have toward the temple- that at an advanced age, just before entering the temple with the 12, he turned and said to them "You know brethren, I think I am just beginning to actually understand the Endowment".

One learns humility by obedience.

Well said. And rumor or not, definitely profound.

[Mike Reed]

Oh nice zing, I am impressed!

I appreciate you being a good sport about it.

I am curious where you got the idea that masonry existed before the world was created? I am going to guess from LDS doctrine and you stamped out that doctrine and placed it with masonry. I answered my question, thanks.

You misunderstood my post. I was explaining what Christian Masons believed in Joseph's day... not what was actually the case.

[mfbukowski]

Read the thread title. Read this post. Look up "dramatic irony" in your favorite online dictionary. Giggle uncontrollably.

Repeat.

Change underwear.

Read on.

:rofl:

[mfbukowski]

No . . . I can only smell the mendacity.

USU "Once played a protestant preacher in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" 78

Holy cow! You are killing me!

[bookofmormontruth]

I appreciate you being a good sport about it.

You misunderstood my post. I was explaining what Christian Masons believed in Joseph's day... not what was actually the case.

And these Christian Masons got their knowledge from?

[Mike Reed]

And these Christian Masons got their knowledge from?

What "knowledge"? You mean ideas? They got their ideas from various sources available in their environment.

[mfbukowski]

Many (like Joseph) believed God was the source; masonry existed not only since the days of Adam, but even since before the creation of this earth.

Why do you say that? Did the "spiritual meaning" change in any significant way?

Also... If what you suggest is true... then what do you suppose that the relevance is?

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant, because I definitely don't understand your comments. My point was that the "spiritual meaning" did NOT change even though there were changes in the actual practices.

I think the "relevance" is to turn our hearts to seeking revelation and to provide a catalyst for doing so.

[Mike Reed]

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant, because I definitely don't understand your comments. My point was that the "spiritual meaning" did NOT change even though there were changes in the actual practices.

If the spiritual meaning did not change, and if such meaning primarily derived from Freeemasonry... then it is confusing to me that you'd call such an origin irrelevant. Maybe you are just saying that the the origin of something does not necessarily determine its current significance. If that's the case, then I'd agree with you.

I think the "relevance" is to turn our hearts to seeking revelation and to provide a catalyst for doing so.

That is an interesting idea. I like it.

[mfbukowski]

Maybe you are just saying that the the origin of something does not necessarily determine its current significance. If that's the case, then I'd agree with you.

That is an interesting idea. I like it.

Yep that's what I am saying.

[Mike Reed]

Yep that's what I am saying.

Cool.

[mfbukowski]

Cool.

Cool indeed!

[Analytics]

You didn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask when protection begins, I asked why one would WANT to be protected if the work was not published. The only time protection has any efficacy is when work is published.

Let's review. USU said, "Copyrights only protect PUBLISHED material." My point was simply that this is not correct.

Why would somebody want to protect work that wasn't published? Somebody might want to protect their unpublished work because they might want to publish it some day. Or they might want to protect it because they don't want it published. It seems quite obvious to me; have you thought this through?

[USU78]

Well said. And rumor or not, definitely profound.

As I heard it, it was David O. McKay that said that, or something similar.

I attended my first session, a live one, in May 1973, a few days in advance of my older brother's wedding and 2 months prior to my mission. In the last 3 years or so I've learned more about the Temple and its rituals than in every year prior thereto.

The tokens and signs have come alive.

And Leviticus makes a whole lot more sense to me now.

Taking my daughter through last December in advance of her wedding gave me a chance to express some of what I've learned. It's something I wouldn't trade anything for.

[volgadon]

Sounds like it has been "Mormonised".

I emailed my friends and asked for the tour guide info, tour guide's name and explanation of the connections again in case I didn't repeat them accurately.

Do you happen to have a blog or something of your personal story? Sounds fascinating!

I do have a blog, but I haven't really written my personal story yet.

Anyway, after a bit of detective work I found that I was being too generous in regards to the notes in the Wall. The earliest reference dates to 1903. The Hasid Yaakov Sofer published a collection of tales about holy men, sort of a Hasidic lives of the saints. One of the apocryphal tales concerns the Hida (Hayyim Yosef David Azulay, 1724-1806) and the Or Hayyim (Hayyim ibn Attar, 1696-1743). According to this unlikely story, the Or Hayyim sent a note with the Hida when he was immigrating to Israel (he was actually born there). The Hida forgot and was struck with a curse from above. He remembered about the note, placed it in the wall, and all worked out well. The contents asked the Shechinah to please "help my dear disciple in times of trouble." This so impressed the Jerusalem Jews that they made the Hida their rabbi.

[mfbukowski]

As I heard it, it was David O. McKay that said that, or something similar.

I attended my first session, a live one, in May 1973, a few days in advance of my older brother's wedding and 2 months prior to my mission. In the last 3 years or so I've learned more about the Temple and its rituals than in every year prior thereto.

The tokens and signs have come alive.

And Leviticus makes a whole lot more sense to me now.

Taking my daughter through last December in advance of her wedding gave me a chance to express some of what I've learned. It's something I wouldn't trade anything for.

[Questing Beast]

I'm not disingenuous, only ignorant. So without general public access, there is no "ownership"? That's bogus, imho.

I do know, however, that the Church settles out of court rather than prosecute or go through with a public defense, whichever. So my suggestion that they ought to sue Websites like Bowman's was perhaps being a bit less than candid: I know that they will not push for defense of their "ownership". Therefore, the Net exposure of the temple drama text (and even more) will proliferate....

[Rob Bowman]

All,

Just wanted to let you know that I have drafted a statement to be added to our website about the sensitive nature of the LDS temple endowment ceremony. The statement will get kicked around for a day or two, probably, and I expect it will be posted online next week. I'll let you know when it's up and what it says (without a link here, to comply with board rules).

[LeSellers]

I have drafted a statement to be added to our website about the sensitive nature of the LDS temple endowment ceremony. The statement will get kicked around for a day or two, probably, and I expect it will be posted online next week. I'll let you know when it's up and what it says (without a link here, to comply with board rules).

Thank you.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

All,

Just wanted to let you know that I have drafted a statement to be added to our website about the sensitive nature of the LDS temple endowment ceremony. The statement will get kicked around for a day or two, probably, and I expect it will be posted online next week. I'll let you know when it's up and what it says (without a link here, to comply with board rules).

Hopefully a step in the right direction. Thanks for going that far.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All,

Just wanted to let you know that I have drafted a statement to be added to our website about the sensitive nature of the LDS temple endowment ceremony. The statement will get kicked around for a day or two, probably, and I expect it will be posted online next week. I'll let you know when it's up and what it says (without a link here, to comply with board rules).

Here is to building bridges.

[CV75]

I have drafted a statement to be added to our website about the sensitive nature of the LDS temple endowment ceremony.

Teaching the Gospel is inherent in LDS Church membership. All have the sacred responsibility; some are formally called and set apart to teach. In all cases they are counseled to teach by the Spirit through word and example. They are accountable to God for how they fulfill this means of standing as a witness of Christ in all times and in all things.

Do you view your participation in and contribution to the activities of the Institute for Religious Research in the same light? Do you consider these activities an expression of your Christianity or as a duty or a calling from God? I see it is a non-denominational Christian foundation, but do you view it as an extension of your practice or membership in a denomination?

[CV75]

I have drafted a statement to be added to our website about the sensitive nature of the LDS temple endowment ceremony.

I think such a statement needs to be crafted very carefully, because to say something is sacred for a particular religious group and then proceed to hold it up publicly for detailed examination by those who do not consider it sacred (and whether they do it in a dispassionate way or passionately) comes across as extremely disingenuous.

I think there is a threshold of awareness on the part of the observed group, below which an examination of their sacred things by even the most professionally or scientifically motivated can begin to be considered justifiable. I’m thinking of controlled anthropological studies of technologically undeveloped, “primitive” groups that are not aware of how their sacred traditions and objects are being treated by others. It could be argued that an injury of conscience caused by an invasion of their “sacred space” is prevented by their lack of awareness.

But since the Church has members all over the world with access to and awareness of how badly their sacred things can be treated by others, the risk of offending good people is extremely high. Some of these members are children and are covered by the warning of the Savior to those who would “offend one of these little ones.”

But even though mocking in secret or among the initiated may spare injury to the faithful, a blaspheming party typically does not seek to spare injury to the faithful.

I think the statement should somehow address these concerns of the subjects of the institute's comparative studies and library.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

Yes, absolutely, what I do is ministry. I am accountable to God for what I do. It is a calling from God and one that brings great responsibility to live and work with integrity and character, even while acknowledging that I fall short and have plenty of room to grow and mature. Each member of IRR's staff is expected to be rooted in an evangelical Christian church--and in fact at the present time all of us are members of the same congregation (although that isn't a requirement), which actively supports what we do.

Teaching the Gospel is inherent in LDS Church membership. All have the sacred responsibility; some are formally called and set apart to teach. In all cases they are counseled to teach by the Spirit through word and example. They are accountable to God for how they fulfill this means of standing as a witness of Christ in all times and in all things.

Do you view your participation in and contribution to the activities of the Institute for Religious Research in the same light? Do you consider these activities an expression of your Christianity or as a duty or a calling from God? I see it is a non-denominational Christian foundation, but do you view it as an extension of your practice or membership in a denomination?

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

I honestly think LDS parents have much bigger worries with regard to their children surfing the Internet than them running across the text of the endowment.

As I have already made clear, IRR does not "mock" the temple ceremonies, nor does it mock Mormonism in general. We don't mock it publicly or in secret, and we publicly discourage evangelicals from mocking it.

As far as I am concerned, blasphemy is an objective matter of offense to God, not a subjective matter of offense to a particular person's or group's religious sensibilities. The Jewish religious leaders accused Stephen of blaspheming Moses and God and of speaking against the temple and the Law (Acts 6:11-14), but Stephen was right and they were wrong. Speaking against the LDS religious system, including its temples, is blasphemous only if that system is truly of God. Likewise, I personally find some of the things Joseph Smith taught to be offensive, but what matters is whether he was right. Truth, then, is the issue. But out of consideration for the feelings of practicing Mormons, I do think it is a good idea to acknowledge LDS sentiments on the matter, and that is what we are planning to do.

I think such a statement needs to be crafted very carefully, because to say something is sacred for a particular religious group and then proceed to hold it up publicly for detailed examination by those who do not consider it sacred (and whether they do it in a dispassionate way or passionately) comes across as extremely disingenuous.

I think there is a threshold of awareness on the part of the observed group, below which an examination of their sacred things by even the most professionally or scientifically motivated can begin to be considered justifiable. I’m thinking of controlled anthropological studies of technologically undeveloped, “primitive” groups that are not aware of how their sacred traditions and objects are being treated by others. It could be argued that an injury of conscience caused by an invasion of their “sacred space” is prevented by their lack of awareness.

But since the Church has members all over the world with access to and awareness of how badly their sacred things can be treated by others, the risk of offending good people is extremely high. Some of these members are children and are covered by the warning of the Savior to those who would “offend one of these little ones.”

But even though mocking in secret or among the initiated may spare injury to the faithful, a blaspheming party typically does not seek to spare injury to the faithful.

I think the statement should somehow address these concerns of the subjects of the institute's comparative studies and library.