Jaybear Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Jaybear:Stealing, taking anything without permission.http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/stealNon sequitor. I know the defintion of stealing.If you tell me something in confidence, and I tell my wife what you said, what have I stolen?I understand why you are offended. But the leap from offensive to immoral takes more than conclusory loaded allegations. Edited January 17, 2012 by Jaybear 2
LeSellers Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 If you tell me something in confidence, and I tell my wife what you said, what have I stolen?Does the phrase "intellectual property" mean anything to you?Any information disclosed in trust is intellectual property, just as are computer programs (which have no physical form), books and other published documents, movies, radio programs, even simple speech. The state has chosen to protect some of these (speech is not protected (if I hear you say something, I can repeat it, but if you say it "on the air", the same words are then protected—go figure).The question is not about "legality" nearly as much as about "morality". The law is more often amoral than based on morality. It is also frequently immoral. (It is also very often unconstitutional, but that's a slightly different issue.)If you disclose that which was vouchsafed to you, you have morally stolen the information, and the person hearing you morally guilty of receiving stolen property.It takes a moral person to understand this.Lehi
altersteve Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Speaking of intellectual property, I was speaking to someone a few weeks ago, and he told me that it is illegal for anyone other than an endowed member of the Church to own temple garments and for anyone to put them on display, and that the Church has the right to take legal action against those who do so. Any truth to this?
LeSellers Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Speaking of intellectual property, I was speaking to someone a few weeks ago, and he told me that it is illegal for anyone other than an endowed member of the Church to own temple garments and for anyone to put them on display, and that the Church has the right to take legal action against those who do so. Any truth to this?I have heard the same thing, but have no confirmed basis for it.Lehi
Jaybear Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Does the phrase "intellectual property" mean anything to you?Does the word "rhetorical question" mean anything to you?Any information disclosed in trust is intellectual property, just as are computer programs (which have no physical form), books and other published documents, movies, radio programs, even simple speech. The state has chosen to protect some of these (speech is not protected (if I hear you say something, I can repeat it, but if you say it "on the air", the same words are then protected—go figure).Now you are elevating every breach of confidence as a "theft" of "intellectual property." Good luck with that. The question is not about "legality" nearly as much as about "morality".If a "theft" has occured, then a crime has occured which can be prosecuted.If "intellectual property" has been stolen, then there is a crime. By contrast, its not, per se, illegal to breach a contract. The law is more often amoral than based on morality. It is also frequently immoral. (It is also very often unconstitutional, but that's a slightly different issue.)If you disclose that which was vouchsafed to you, you have morally stolen the information, and the person hearing you morally guilty of receiving stolen property.It takes a moral person to understand this.It takes a self righteus person to make such a statement.The bottom line is that you have someone who made a covenant to keep the information secret, and breached that covenant. You may even have someone who induced a third party to breach a covenant. The fact that you feel the need to characterize the disclosure as a "theft" of "intellectual property" in order to support your argument that the action was immoral, seems both odd and desperate to me.But, whatever floats your boat.
LeSellers Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 whatever floats your boat.As I said, it takes a moral person to understand this.Lehi
Jaybear Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 As I said, it takes a moral person to understand this.LehiOh, I "understand" your argument. I just disagree. Does that mean I am immoral?
BookofMormonLuvr Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I believe the only thing that those who have published the LDS Endowment Ceremony have shown is how incrediable unremarkable it is. The big "secret" is that it is rather mundane and doesn't, in fact, reveal anything of the mysteries of God.
LeSellers Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Oh, I "understand" your argument. I just disagree.Does that mean I am immoral?That may not, but ... .Lehi
sjdawg Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 There are people who do not believe that the ceremony is sacred because they are not mormon. When we put ouselves in other people's shoes we can see that it is not that important for others and since they are not mormon, they do not think that it is sacred. So, reading it is just a curiosity for them.I may feel the same when dealing with other religions and about what they consider to be sacred. However, I can respect the people who view aspects of their faith as sacred and treat their ceremonies as such.But for former mormons to help get it on the web for mocking is quite another thing.I heard a story once (not sure if it is truth or folklore) about missionaries who had to leave Asia for disrespecting a religious site of worship there. I disagree with someone publishing the temple ceremony but disrespect often goes both ways.
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Jaybear:I have dealt with confidential information all of my adult life.I don't believe you do understand the nature of confidential information.Yes you have stolen confidential information. It doesn't matter whom you betrayed it to. You were told something in confidence then you betrayed that confidence. You have literally stolen that confidential information for your own purposes.On a more personal level. I have promised the state not to reveal to ANYONE the names, addresses, phone numbers, any identifying mental or physical characteristic, or anything said in confidence in the course of counseling, for any of my clients without written permission. I am hesitant to do it even then. Edited January 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Duncan Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I heard a story once (not sure if it is truth or folklore) about missionaries who had to leave Asia for disrespecting a religious site of worship there. I disagree with someone publishing the temple ceremony but disrespect often goes both ways. http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/68043It was in Thailand in 1972
wenglund Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Jaybear:I have dealt with confidential information all of my adult life.I don't believe you do understand the nature of confidential information.Yes you have stolen confidential information. It doesn't matter whom you betrayed it to. You were told something in confidence then you betrayed that confidence. You have literally stolen that confidential information for your own purposes.On a more personal level. I have promised the state not to reveal to ANYONE the names, addresses, phone numbers, any identifying mental or physical characteristic, or anything said in confidence in the course of counseling, for any of my clients without written permission. I am hesitant to do it even then.I like the HIPAA comparison.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 sjdawg:Those two were sent home as punishment for misdeeds. Moreover two wrongs never make a right.
Jaybear Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Jaybear:I have dealt with confidential information all of my adult life.I don't believe you do understand the nature of confidential information.Yes, actually I do. Yes you have stolen confidential information. It doesn't matter whom you betrayed it to. You were told something in confidence then you betrayed that confidence. You have literally stolen that confidential information for your own purposes.I don't believe you understand what the word "literal" means. Why is it not enough to simply say that "you have literally breached/betrayed that confidence"?I understand why you are offended by the publication of temple ceremony. I don't understand the need to call it something that it clearly is not..
wenglund Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I believe the only thing that those who have published the LDS Endowment Ceremony have shown is how incrediable unremarkable it is. The big "secret" is that it is rather mundane and doesn't, in fact, reveal anything of the mysteries of God.It does to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.What often gets lost in this discussion are the reasons why the temple ceremonies are to be kept private. Those who have lost faith, or who are of little faith, or who never had faith at all, may not grasp this.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
sjdawg Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Young people sometimes do foolish things. And they should repent of it. If a bishop heard it, or the mission president, a definate call to repentence comes forward. The policy of not speaking of other churches in a negative manner is indicative of where we as a church would like our members to be. In a mission we offer what we have, we do not denigrate or undermine what others present. I would say that the experience presented was unique and without foundation as a normal course of events in the church. Almost everyone here is a member of the church and can of course recount boorish behavior by other Latter-day Saints, and we know it is boorish behavior and we know it is neither contenanced nor remotely acceptable. The disadvantage many have with this forum is that the members here are diverse in the church and know too many people and stakes to presume an anecdotal incident is the norm.It is one reason anti Mormons have such a difficult time, we know the church to well.What makes you think most non-mormons are any different? Do they ALL consider publishing temple ceremonies acceptable? Blanket statements don't really work either way.
sjdawg Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 sjdawg:Those two were sent home as punishment for misdeeds. Moreover two wrongs never make a right.I agree. My point was simply that misdeeds and disrespect go both ways.
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Jaybear:Then you don't understand the nature of confidential information. The LDS who have their Endowments have been sworn to confidentiality.The LDS has established rules, protocals, proceedures, and Church Law for whom may attend the Temple, and people unable and/or unwilling to meet those demands can not attend, let alone use them for their own purposes. The Church will not give written/oral permission to have its Temple ceremonies given to anyone not able and/or willing to abide by those requirements. even attending a session is by written permission only.
sjdawg Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 In a hypothetical situation would it be incorrect to publish the "sacred" ceremonies of a religion if there was something immoral or unethical contained within the ceremony?
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Then you don't understand the nature of confidential information. The LDS who have their Endowments have been sworn to confidentiality.I may be mistaken, but I'm recalling only having sworn to not reveal very specific items in the endowment. Not the entire proceedings....not that I have any desire to tell all...
Pahoran Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I believe the only thing that those who have published the LDS Endowment Ceremony have shown is how incrediable unremarkable it is. The big "secret" is that it is rather mundane and doesn't, in fact, reveal anything of the mysteries of God.It does to me.Every time I experience it.But as has been pointed out several times, and you seem to have ignored: reading about it falls far short of experiencing it.Regards,Pahoran
BookofMormonLuvr Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) It does to me.Every time I experience it.But as has been pointed out several times, and you seem to have ignored: reading about it falls far short of experiencing it.Regards,PahoranI experienced it first hand several times, and after getting over the excitment of anticipation that is pumped into you through growing up, and stepping back and realizing what it actually is and what it teaches, I realized it is an empty ceremony meant to hold members curiosity and loyalty with a promise of something more. The continual recital of having to go back again and again to really "get it", is needed because most realize there is not much to see there. So convincing them that they are the problem, not the ceremony, becomes neccesary. Edited January 17, 2012 by BookofMormonLuvr
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) sjdawg:With some exceptions of where the unethical and immoral activities are defined by secular law(IE; physical abuse, threats to individuals, admissions of serious criminal activity). I would say that discloser is unjustified.Senator:It is true that we agree to not reveal specific words and phrases. However recording or transcribing even from memory an entire ceremony would of necessity involve revealing those words and phrases. Most LDS feel it is bettter to deal in generalities rather than specifics if they talk about the Temple Ceremonies at all, outside of the Temple walls.IE; It is well known that LDS believe in chastity before marriage, and absolute fidelity afterwards. However we don't go into detail about those agreements made in the Temple about the specific words and phrases. Edited January 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Pahoran Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I experienced it first hand several times, and after getting over the excitment of anticipation that is pumped into you through growing up, and stepping back and realizing what it actually is and what it teaches, I realized it is an empty ceremony meant to hold members curiosity and loyalty with a promise of something more. The continual recital of having to go back again and again to really "get it", is needed because most realize there is not much to see there. So convincing them that they are the problem, not the ceremony, becomes neccesary.Your accusation is false, and I can only conclude that the manipulation you imagine is a projection of your own mind.Regards,Pahoran
Recommended Posts