Jeff K. Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:You have gleefully danced around breaking oaths, exposing temple ceremonies to ridicule. Suggesting that any lie or breaking of oaths or exposure is fine and justified. That the desecration of what so many hold sacred here, to you is a minor thing, and again, justified (though you add somehow you would never do it yourself), which while morally inconsistent (let others do the dirty work) fits the nature of your posts.I sometimes wonder why people do that. Even people I most dislike, those people I would never treat in such a manner. If I knew something was sacred and important to them, even when they were of the worst sort, I would respect that aspect of them that at least understands the meaning of sacredness. I would never justify demeaning them by desecrating what they hold to such an important point. I am gratefule that such is a key difference between the two of us exists. And in a way, sad that you would so easily let others do such a thing or justify such an action. It means you have no empathy for the sacred, you cannot understand it, and you don't mind desecrating or justify the desecration of what you don't understand.No, it means I can see more than one side of the story. Empathy is required for that type of viewpoint. I've never said, not once, that I support desecrating the sacred.Now, please, for the last time, STOP judging my character and focus on the discussion.H.Your own words describe you.LDSToronto, on 16 January 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:I posit that it is not illegal, immoral, or unethical to obtain the ceremony by subversive means given it is unavailable by other means.
mercyngrace Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Half a decade? That's five years. What Church general authority was making anti-Catolic remarks five years ago? If it's that recent, you should at least be able to come up with a link or at least a cite. If not, I think a retraction is due.LOL - Good catch! I meant half a century - I shouldn't have been trying to post while submitting reports for work. I retract the word DECADE and replace it with CENTURY.While we're correcting each other's goofs, CATHOLIC has a "H".
LDSToronto Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 What about posting pictures stolen from someone's bedroom, as porn?How is that different?That is illegal.Publishing the ceremony is not.H.
LDSToronto Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 You are the one who has put up your interpretations of what is moral and thereby made the issue a personal one. In effect, it is you who are representing your own position and then attacking those who attack the position as making it "personal"That's not going to work. You are trying to manipulate the board rules in your favorIn effect the discussion IS about your morals, because you have made it so.The only way to answer this is to posit that YOU personally, are wrong because of the way you have stated it.What are you talking about? A discussion of morality can occur without bringing up the character of the people in the discussion.But, I do understand why I'm attacked - if you can't make a good argument, you attempt to make an attack.H. 1
Jeff K. Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 What are you talking about? A discussion of morality can occur without bringing up the character of the people in the discussion.But, I do understand why I'm attacked - if you can't make a good argument, you attempt to make an attack.H.QuoteLDSToronto, on 16 January 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:I posit that it is not illegal, immoral, or unethical to obtain the ceremony by subversive means given it is unavailable by other means.You are the one who stated that according to you there is nothing wrong, it is not immoral or unethical to be subversive and desecrate sacred rites which are private. You believe it, you don't give a moral philosophy, you don't mention some thinker or other who propose that justification, you stated unequivocably that you specifically believe this. Such illicited this response:You have gleefully danced around breaking oaths, exposing temple ceremonies to ridicule. Suggesting that any lie or breaking of oaths or exposure is fine and justified. That the desecration of what so many hold sacred here, to you is a minor thing, and again, justified (though you add somehow you would never do it yourself), which while morally inconsistent (let others do the dirty work) fits the nature of your posts.I sometimes wonder why people do that. Even people I most dislike, those people I would never treat in such a manner. If I knew something was sacred and important to them, even when they were of the worst sort, I would respect that aspect of them that at least understands the meaning of sacredness. I would never justify demeaning them by desecrating what they hold to such an important point. I am gratefule that such is a key difference between the two of us exists. And in a way, sad that you would so easily let others do such a thing or justify such an action. It means you have no empathy for the sacred, you cannot understand it, and you don't mind desecrating or justify the desecration of what you don't understand.
Jeff K. Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 You tell us. Where is the inaccuracy in the response to the argument you have posited?
LDSToronto Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 You are the one who stated that according to you there is nothing wrong, it is not immoral or unethical to be subversiveYes, I said that.and desecrate sacred rites which are private.No, I did not say that.You believe it,Yes, I do.you don't give a moral philosophyUtilitarianismyou don't mention some thinker or other who propose that justification,Mills.you stated unequivocably that you specifically believe this.I unequivocally state everything I believe. Why be wishy-washy?H.
Pahoran Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 That is illegal.Publishing the ceremony is not.H.No, it's not illegal.It's merely immoral. No good people do it, and no good people condone it.Regards,Pahoran
LDSToronto Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 What is one giving up? Not being able to speak about or record ordinances which they would not even know about otherwise?10% income, having non-member family members at weddings, freedom to wear your choice of underclothing and outerclothing, etc.H.
LDSToronto Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 No, it's not illegal.It's merely immoral. No good people do it, and no good people condone it.Regards,Pahoranit's not illegal to steal pictures of naked people and post them on the internet?H.
Jeff K. Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Like a man who says its ok to pull the trigger of a loaded gun pointed at a mans head, that somehow it doesn't mean you are trying to kill him.Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:and desecrate sacred rites which are private.No, I did not say that.The consequence follows automatically. My point remains valid and yours remains vapid.Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:you don't give a moral philosophyUtilitarianismAccording to you then, desecrating Mormon temples by exposing their most sacred rites does the most good for the most people. How are Mormons and non Mormons helped by your desecration of our temples?You have gleefully danced around breaking oaths, exposing temple ceremonies to ridicule. Suggesting that any lie or breaking of oaths or exposure is fine and justified. That the desecration of what so many hold sacred here, to you is a minor thing, and again, justified (though you add somehow you would never do it yourself), which while morally inconsistent (let others do the dirty work) fits the nature of your posts.I sometimes wonder why people do that. Even people I most dislike, those people I would never treat in such a manner. If I knew something was sacred and important to them, even when they were of the worst sort, I would respect that aspect of them that at least understands the meaning of sacredness. I would never justify demeaning them by desecrating what they hold to such an important point. I am gratefule that such is a key difference between the two of us exists. And in a way, sad that you would so easily let others do such a thing or justify such an action. It means you have no empathy for the sacred, you cannot understand it, and you don't mind desecrating or justify the desecration of what you don't understand.I repeat this because it needs to be repeated.It is reprehensible to acquiese to lies and fraud and to justify them. It is cowardly to state you would not do it, but feel others are justified in desecration of temples, and it is your questional morality that reflects a certain lack of ethics in which you see Latter-day Saints as somehow being less than you since you have no problem with saints being lied to, subverted, their temple rites desecrated and made a mockery.I say you are wishy washy, you won't get your hands dirty, but you let others do it for you. I say that such an attitude is somewhat cowardly, and hypocritical since you want people to act one way towards Mormons, and we all assume you don't want people to lie or cheat you or desecrate what you hold important. Wouldn't you agree that those are cowardly and hypocritical characteristics?If not, care to explain how letting others do the bad things that you justify and having a double standard are not cowardly and hypocritical. Edited January 17, 2012 by Jeff K.
LDSToronto Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 According to you then, desecrating Mormon temples by exposing their most sacred rites does the most good for the most people. How are Mormons and non Mormons helped by your desecration of our temples?Is that how you interpret utilitarianism? Do you believe the vast majority of people want to see the rituals desecrated? You may want to read more than the first paragraph on wikipedia...H.
Jeff K. Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 You apparently have no understanding of what you are doing and are grasping at straws. Still waiting for a reply.
Pahoran Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 We are about to enter sensitive territory here. Please be warned that I will report *any* and *all* insults directed my way - I am not an anti-mormon, I am not here to denigrate belief.Threaten away.So far this discussion has been one-sided - those who publish the temple ceremonies must be immoral or unethical, or they must hate Latter-day Saints, or they must be doing this to make a mockery. Pahoran's response makes these assumptions concrete.Not necessarily "must be." I invite you to refrain from putting words into my mouth. I suppose it is possible that people might imagine that they have principled reasons for their unprincipled actions. However, the fact remains that every person or group I am familiar with who "exposes" the Church's sacred ceremonies invariably does so with palpable malice, and usually with schoolboyish glee.Let's flip the table. New members are told that the temple endowment is the summit of earthly Mormon experience, but they are never told before hand what they will be doing, what covenants they will make, what the experience will be like. No, simply, new members are expected to trust that all will be well.Of course they're not told that. The experience cannot be adequately described; it must be experienced. That's what it's all about.Furthermore, the candidate's spiritual preparation is an important part of the experience.So let's talk morals and ethics. Is it moral and ethical to:1. Judge a person's moral cleanlinessWhere the standards of moral cleanliness are explained in advance, where the candidate's behaviour is only evaluated from the time they agreed to live those standards, and where the "judgement" is based solely upon the candidate affirming that they have lived those standards -- of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?2. Accept payment of 10% of a person's incomeWhy not? If you disagree, what figure would you think acceptable? 1%? 3%? What's the "moral" level, for you?3. Bar close family members who are not members of the church"Bar" them? How? From what?Did you mean to say, "require the same standards, impartially, of all who wish to enter the Temple?" If so, why didn't you say so?in exchange for....well, for what? A mystery behind Door #3? The simple fact is, with a culture of silence surrounding the temple, new members have no idea what they are trading their time and values for.Yes, and?That, to me, smacks of unethical and immoral behaviour.Really?What ethics or morals does it transgress, Toronto?And that is why, to me, it is not unethical and immoral to expose the temple ceremony.Oh, I see.By a contrived, strained, overstretched chain of argument, with an appeal to emotion that you hoped would hide the unsupported assertion near the end, rounded off with an obvious non sequitur, you think you can justify blatant dishonesty and cowardly skulduggery, do you?I don't need to "insult" you, Toronto. The conclusions that flow irresistibly from what you've here told us about yourself reflect far more badly upon you than anything I or anyone else could possibly say.Not all research is scare-quoted and nudge-nudge-wink-winked, Pahoran.Anti-Mormon skulduggery masquerating as "research" always is.Always.Without exception.And here's the thing, Toronto (I won't call you "LDS" for the most obvious reasons): you yourself are merely using "research" as a cover story. The utterly self-serving justification you have proposed has nothing to do with anything as scholarly as "research;" it is an expose, of the tabloid variety, and absolutely nothing more.Regards,Pahoran 1
Pahoran Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 it's not illegal to steal pictures of naked people and post them on the internet?You're really not very good at reading in context, are you?I was agreeing with you that it's not illegal for unprincipled swine to "publish" exposes of our sacred ceremonies. It's merely completely immoral and utterly inconscionable.And no-one with a conscience would condone or justify such a thing.Regards,Pahoran
cinepro Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) You don't seem to understand that the issue is more how the text of the ceremony is obtained.There is no way for an "honest" scholar to obtain the ceremonyA lot of emphasis has been put on the subversive way in which the text of the ceremony was obtained.I'm sure most of us are familiar with the conditions under which the first pictures of the interior of a Temple were made publicly available, but for those who aren't, you can read a summary of the story here:Explaining the Temple to the WorldOn 16 September 1911, the Salt Lake Tribune published an account of certain individuals who had secretly taken pictures of the interior of the Salt Lake Temple and who had attempted to sell them to the church. The headlines read: "Photographs secretly taken of Mormon Temple's interior; sent for sale to Church chief. President replies: Church will not negotiate with thieves and blackmailers.'"1 The blackmail scheme was perpetrated by Max Florence, who was at the time in New York City trying to sell sixty-eight unauthorized photographs of the interior of the Salt Lake Temple. Florence had employed the help of a recent convert to the church, Gisbert Bossard, who, disenchanted with the administration of the church, had, assisted by a gardener for the temple grounds, gained access to the Salt Lake Temple and had taken a series of photographs of the interior of the Salt Lake Temple. Apparently motivated by money and "revenge" on the church, these individuals had taken the pictures when the Salt Lake Temple was closed for renovation during the summer of 1911. Florence and Bossard had sent a letter to the First Presidency with a proposal of blackmail—that the church would give them $100,000 and the photographs would be returned; otherwise, they would be shown publicly. President Joseph F. Smith, the recipient of the letter, was outraged, and his response was, "I will make no bargain with thieves or traffickers in stolen goods. I prefer to let the law deal with them."2From this incident the idea for the book House of the Lord was conceived. Joseph F. Smith responded to the affair on 21 September by writing a telegram to the mission president in New York: "Refer ring to temple pictures incident, you are hereby authorized to make public statement to the effect that in view of what has happened, it is our intention to publish in book form in that year future interior and exterior views of all our temples, giving full and accurate descriptions of the same. Also object and purposes for which temples are erected. Will gladly furnish first class views to magazines and moving picture people."3The public had always been curious about and interested in what went on in the Latter-day Saint temples. Because of the sacred nature of the temple ordinances, Latter-day Saints do not discuss outside the temple what happens inside. At the Reed Smoot trials of 1903—7, several apostate Mormons had publicly testified, one even repeating for the record some of the contents of the temple ceremony word for word. All this attention led to a great public interest in the temple and what transpired inside and an increased effort by the church to maintain the sanctity of the temple and the temple ordinances, a situation that Florence and Bossard hoped to capitalize on.This situation has some parrelels to the discussion at hand, but one key difference. The Church defused the situation by simply publishing the pictures themselves. Since then, the pictures have been available for all the world to see, and no one has had to wonder what the interior of the Temples looks like since then.I agree that the dishonest means with which the current transcripts were obtained is problematic, but wish the Church would handle the situation by simply making text of the Temple ceremony publicly available as it does with so many other ordinances. I doubt very many people would be interested (how many of you have taken the time to read the OT levels from Scientology?), and I suspect the most heavy use would come from people cramming for a pending Temple visit. Edited January 17, 2012 by cinepro 4
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Merciful Odin, I actually agree with Cinepro on something. Clearly ragnarök is imminent. 3
Ares Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 What are you talking about? A discussion of morality can occur without bringing up the character of the people in the discussion.But, I do understand why I'm attacked - if you can't make a good argument, you attempt to make an attack.H.Everyone back down a bit on the offending and taking offense.
Jeff K. Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I for one have not allowed any relatives to keep their fingernails upon burial.
KevinG Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 That is illegal.Publishing the ceremony is not.H.In what creation is publishing other peoples copyrighted materials moral or legal?
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 That is illegal.Publishing the ceremony is not.H.LOLWe are talking about morality here, remember?
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 What are you talking about? A discussion of morality can occur without bringing up the character of the people in the discussion.But, I do understand why I'm attacked - if you can't make a good argument, you attempt to make an attack.H.And you can use these personal defenses to avoid making a real reply, when you yourself started talking about your own personal values. And you do.
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Yes, I said that.No, I did not say that.Yes, I do.UtilitarianismMills.I unequivocally state everything I believe. Why be wishy-washy?H.CFR that Mill says ANYTHING like this.
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Is that how you interpret utilitarianism? Do you believe the vast majority of people want to see the rituals desecrated? You may want to read more than the first paragraph on wikipedia...H.CFR big time, and I am not backing down on this one. Show me where Mill says anything like this.
KevinG Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Despite my feeling that Scientology is not condoned of God I chose not to view their private writings or Operation Clambake out of respect for their beliefs.I would not publish Ethiopian Jews Temple rights if they felt that was offensive.I cannot conceive of a moral code that encourages people to act in a manner other than respect of others sacred rites and beliefs. That includes my scolding Sunday School participants who laugh about others "crazy" beliefs or practices.The defense of those who have published the sacred LDS Temple revelations and practices here is mind boggling to me.(...that's not a personal attack is it?) Edited January 17, 2012 by DaddyG
Recommended Posts