Publishing The Temple Ceremony

[Jeff K.]

Can you be a bit more specific? Jeff is the one claiming Mill said anything...So, tell me exactly what you think I've claimed Mill said (you have to show me a quote, by me). Then I will answer you.

That is catagorically false.

Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

You are the one who stated that according to you there is nothing wrong, it is not immoral or unethical to be subversive

Yes, I said that.

J

Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

and desecrate sacred rites which are private.

No, I did not say that.

Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

You believe it,

Yes, I do.

J

Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

you don't give a moral philosophy

Utilitarianism

J

Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

you don't mention some thinker or other who propose that justification,

Mills.

Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

you stated unequivocably that you specifically believe this.

I unequivocally state everything I believe. Why be wishy-washy?

H.

Again your credibility goes with the presumption that you will be honest in your answers Toronto. Where you this way before you became an anti-Mormon?

[LDSToronto]

That is catagorically false.

Again your credibility goes with the presumption that you will be honest in your answers Toronto. Where you this way before you became an anti-Mormon?

Like I said earlier - you asked a dumb question, you got a dumb answer. Do you base all of your thought on someone elses philosophies?

[LDSToronto]

The question wasn't stupid, though the answer was, I agree. And the questioner is right, you used Mills as a defense in your philosophy to steal and lie and publish sacred rites. The answer was stupid (your words not mine) and the response reflects on your credibility to answer honestly, unless of course you view this discussion as you view a temple recommend discussion, you know, where you justify lying to someone when they ask you to answer honestly?

So was the question.

[Jeff K.]

I think we have a right to bring in the question of honesty and credibility when someone is being blatently dishonest, and beyond that advocating dishonesty in the name of desecration. We are forced to ask just how badly an individual is willing to lie, to cheat, and even to steal and justify it.

And yet the justification itself is false, and the individual then blatently claims he never said it. This is the moral standard held by anti-Mormons. That no lie, no falsehood, is wrong as long as you can undermine a philosophy you disagree with? I personal find such people reprehensible. I would rather sit down and speak with the person who hates the church and all it stands for, but has an ethical moral ground, than someone who claims to be a Mormon but lies or may lie regarding everything they say and do. The difference is stunning. In the former you have an ethical base upon which mutual respect is agreed upon. Philosophies may be diametrically opposed but respect and an equality of respect between two people exists. In the latter, the liar/thief/justifier of lies and theivery (there is no real difference) see you as less than himself, therefore there is no need to be mutually honest and respectful of the integrity.

Perhaps the saddest part is the latter individual cannot even respect his own philosophy sufficiently to be honest in his dialogue, obfuscation and lies are the only defense.

Do anti Mormons really want that kind of person defending their stance? If so, it is no wonder they are parodies of real debate and can only find shelter in the anonymity and falsehoods in the internet. Like cockroaches, they cannot handle the light of day.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 17 January 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

That is catagorically false.

Again your credibility goes with the presumption that you will be honest in your answers Toronto. Where you this way before you became an anti-Mormon?

Like I said earlier - you asked a dumb question, you got a dumb answer. Do you base all of your thought on someone elses philosophies?

Most people do have a philosophical base, such as following Christ, and/or a number of other philosophers. Now you may claim to follow no philosophy, but we all know that isn't true, though you may be thoroughly ignorant of the philosophical catagories in place and which one you most closely resemble.

Again, you do not produce a very cogent (dare I say bright) answer. You simply toss out words and have a shallow understanding of their meanings and implications. This is reflected in your answer.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

I doubt you will confess to the the falsehood. But everyone can see it. But you justify lying anyway, should we be surprised? That by the way is a serious question.

[Jeff K.]

So was the question.

Can you be a bit more specific? Jeff is the one claiming Mill said anything...So, tell me exactly what you think I've claimed Mill said (you have to show me a quote, by me). Then I will answer you.

That is catagorically false.

Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

You are the one who stated that according to you there is nothing wrong, it is not immoral or unethical to be subversive

Yes, I said that.

J

Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

and desecrate sacred rites which are private.

No, I did not say that.

Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

You believe it,

Yes, I do.

J

Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

you don't give a moral philosophy

Utilitarianism

J

Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

you don't mention some thinker or other who propose that justification,

Mills.

Jeff K., on 16 January 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

you stated unequivocably that you specifically believe this.

I unequivocally state everything I believe. Why be wishy-washy?

H.

The fact remains, you lied

[Jaybear]

The fact remains, you lied

I see you are still resorting to calling people who disagree with you, liars.

I suspect, based on on past experience, that you can't and therefore won't back up your outrageous cliam.

To do so, please:

1. Provide the quote in question that contains the alleged lie.

(not the "gist" of what was said)

2. Idenfty, with specifity the factual representation made in the quote that you allege is false.

(can't be an opinion);

3. Provide proof of the falsity of the representation; and

4. State your evidence to support your cliam that he knew the statement was false, at the time it was made.

You seem so adament that he is a liar, this should be easy for you.

[Jeff K.]

Jaybear please see the post above yours.

Compare it to this...

mfbukowski, on 16 January 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

CFR big time, and I am not backing down on this one. Show me where Mill says anything like this.

Can you be a bit more specific? Jeff is the one claiming Mill said anything...So, tell me exactly what you think I've claimed Mill said (you have to show me a quote, by me). Then I will answer you.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

Jaybear I look forward to your acknowledgement of the falsehood.

[Jaybear]

Having just submitted my PhD thesis after 6.5 years of labour, I'm too tired to read through all 15 pages of this thread, but, in reponse to a few of the posts I have read, I offer almost exactly what I wrote on this topic last year:

I am headquartered in the School of Culture, History, and Languages in one of the world's major research universities. If one of our researchers ever published material which a society or group of people considered to be sacred and not for public eyes, s/he would be in breach of strongly worded ethical guidelines and would be harshly disciplined. It's a sad day when mostly godless academics have higher ethical standards in this area than some fellow Christians and disaffected/former members. The notion that the sacred is not something to be treated carelessly or casually is not unique to Latter-day Saints by any stretch.

CFR. Can you cite those guidelines? I am genuinely curious.

Your claims seems highly improbable to me. I suspect, for example, that the dustup a few years ago over a newspaper publishing images of Mohamed, which certain sects of muslim deems sacred, would have garned numerous academic papers regarding the concept of self censorship. I doubt very much that an academic institutute would disciple a student or professor for publishishing the cartoons that led to the outrage.

Likewise, if someone is offering for publication an academic study regarding a ritualisitic ceremony that some deem "sacred" how can you possible do so without publishing the ritual, and offending the easily offended.

Nah. I don't belive you.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Jaybear

[Jaybear]

Jaybear I look forward to your acknowledgement of the falsehood.

You need to break it down. I would tell you that I don't see it, but you might call me a liar.

[LeSellers]

[Taking opictures in someone's bedroom and publishing them as porn] is illegal.

Publishing the [Temple] ceremony is not.

Morality is not always (and, in fact, rarely is) a question that can be resolved in court. (At least not in a governmental court.)

I would not be pleased to be the defendant in the court where it will be.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

No, it's not illegal.It's merely immoral. No good people do it, and no good people condone it.

it's not illegal to steal pictures of naked people and post them on the internet?

No, it's immoral to steal the Temple ceremony and post it on the internet (or anywhere else).

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

You need to break it down. I would tell you that I don't see it, but you might call me a liar.

You see what you want to see Jaybear.

[Jaybear]

You see what you want to see Jaybear.

Of course. We all suffer from confirmation bias. In this instance, what I see is an unwillinging to back up your cliam when pressed, which serves to confirm/reinforce my preexisting opinion of you.

But in this instance, you are the one making the allegation.

When you accuse someone of lying, you bear the burden.

So why don't you tell us what you see. Break down the lie into its core components.

[LeSellers]

Apparently, if the purloining of sacred material is for "scholarly" purposes, the theft is justifiable because the information is not available by other means.

The question then arises: "To what scholarly use has this espionage been put?"

I do not claim to be a scholar, and so cannot pretend to have seen the universe that would include such a treatise, but it seems that were such a study ever made, it would be a subject of discussion somewhere such that I would have at least heard about it. As it stands, I have never even seen the shadow of any evidence that anyone (friend or foe) has done such a work.

So, the question I posed remains unanswered in the very discussion we should expect to find it noted. If these robberies were undertaken to advance academic research, who's actually undertaken that mission? What had he done with this profaned work? And, lastly, what value would it (assuming it exists) bestow on any of us, either inside or beyond the bounds of the Church? Even my friend's thesis on the reproductive life of the desert mosquito had some value, however esoteric.

Lehi

Edited January 17, 2012 by LeSellers

[Senator]

Again, it appears that I am not alone in noticing the longevity and widespread nature of this particular notion.

Just a week ago Sunday, while sitting and chatting about doctrince, an adult sibling of mine asked, "so, is the Catholic church the GaAC"?

[Senator]

It is not comprehensible without, as you say, "certain elements."

Bernard

Ok??

[mercyngrace]

I've never denied there being a widespread consciousness of that 54-year-old statement in the first edition of Mormon Doctrine, but I don't recall having ever seen it brought up in LDS circles except to discredit it. Even the examples you cite above apparently are not by way of giving assent to it.

I can appreciate that this was your experience but it was not mine. I have seen that particular teaching die a slow death. As I mentioned from the outset, it still lingered during my mission in the early 90s.

For the record, I wasn't even born until after the publishing of the second edition and I grew up hearing that the originally published definition of the GAC from active LDS family, friends, and church members.

I wonder if proximity to church hq gives some LDS the idea that what they learn merely by reading the newspaper and conversing at the donut shop must be common knowledge among all LDS everywhere. We considered ourselves blessed beyond measure when a temple was erected within 10 hours of us. The "temple" bookstore was a world of wonder to us. It was a small shop probably not as big as the storeroom at your local Deseret Book, and we saved money to buy a new book every trip. Anything that wasn't published in the Church News or Ensign, we simply didn't hear about it. Many people didn't even get those publications. These repudiations of MD never reached our ears.

The case must have been similar for South American missionaries where I served because the circulated letter I mentioned in my first post on the thread was accepted at face value and generated much conversation.

[mercyngrace]

Having just submitted my PhD thesis after 6.5 years of labour, I'm too tired to read through all 15 pages of this thread, but, in reponse to a few of the posts I have read, I offer almost exactly what I wrote on this topic last year:

I am headquartered in the School of Culture, History, and Languages in one of the world's major research universities. If one of our researchers ever published material which a society or group of people considered to be sacred and not for public eyes, s/he would be in breach of strongly worded ethical guidelines and would be harshly disciplined. It's a sad day when mostly godless academics have higher ethical standards in this area than some fellow Christians and disaffected/former members. The notion that the sacred is not something to be treated carelessly or casually is not unique to Latter-day Saints by any stretch.

The idea that has captivated me throughout the thread is that ANY depiction or transcription must be careless or casual simply by the fact that it is open to public view.

PS Congrats on seeing that major undertaking through!

[Sleeper Cell]

So let's talk morals and ethics. Is it moral and ethical to:

1. Judge a person's moral cleanliness

2. Accept payment of 10% of a person's income

3. Bar close family members who are not members of the church

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.

That, to me, smacks of unethical and immoral behaviour.

And that is why, to me, it is not unethical and immoral to expose the temple ceremony.

What smacks of unethical and immoral behavior to me is to pay tithing

in exchange for anything and to treat the temple ceremony as if it were something to be bought or sold.

I do not know if this is really your view or if you were just trying to make the opposing case and got carried away. But your original argument (that “if the ceremony is treated with respect and dignity,” the sacredness of the temple ceremony is not diminished by publishing it; therefore LDS should not be offended) , has led to ..well, to treating sacred things with disrespect.

[Jaybear]

No, it's immoral to steal the Temple ceremony and post it on the internet (or anywhere else).

Lehi

You are starting with the premise that something was "stolen."

As the LDS Church continues to retain "posession" or use the temple ceremony, traditional notion of stealing doesnt quite work here.

No, its not that simple.

More accurately, what you have here is a "disclosure" of the contents of the ceremony, by someone who I suspect had promised to keep it a secret, to a third party, who then publishes it on the internet.

Its not black and white issue.

At this point in time, the text of the ceremony is in the public domain, and its not copyrighted.

So if I were to look it up, cut and paste it into post on a message board, what I have done that is immoral?

In that instance, I would have stolen nothing, breached no covenant, induced no one to breach a covenant, and broken no laws.

Offensive? Sure. Immoral? Not so clear.

[altersteve]

What smacks of unethical and immoral behavior to me is to pay tithing

in exchange for anything and to treat the temple ceremony as if it were something to be bought or sold.

I do not know if this is really your view or if you were just trying to make the opposing case and got carried away. But your original argument (that “if the ceremony is treated with respect and dignity,” the sacredness of the temple ceremony is not diminished by publishing it; therefore LDS should not be offended) , has led to ..well, to treating sacred things with disrespect.

Sorry, but faithful members of the Church do not pay tithing "in exchange" for anything. They do it because they believe it's God's money.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Stealing, taking anything without permission.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal