Jaybear 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.That's rich. I don't "understand" the nature of confidential information, because I don't agree with you that a breach of confidence necesarily constitutes "theft". What I really don't understand, is why you feels its that important to label it a "theft" that you would feel compelled to make such a patently specious argument, followed by a personal insult.Afterall, you think someome is breaching a covenant they made with God. If so, the consequences of breaching a covenant made to God, must exceed any punishment levied by the state for a mere theft.
Pahoran Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the "whore of Babylon" whom the Lord denounces... as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act. If any penitent believer desires to obtain forgiveness of sins through baptism, let him beware of having any thing to do with the churches of apostate Christendom, lest he perish in the awful plagues and judgments, denounced against them. The only persons among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who have authority from Jesus Christ to administer any gospel ordinance are those called and authorized among the Latter-day Saints. Before the restoration of the church of Christ to the earth in the year 1830, there have been no people on the earth for many generations possessing authority from God to minister gospel ordinances. We again repeat. Beware of the hypocritical false teachers and imposters of Babylon!"- Apostle Orson Pratt The Seer, Vol.2, No.4, p.255I have long observed -- and I have never had a moment's reason to reconsider this view -- that honest critics of the Church, if such there be, never quote from The Seer, a publication that was denounced by the leaders of the Church and repudiated by its author.The 19th century was a rough time from the Church. Even when it wasn't the target of military pogroms or draconian laws designed to suppress or destroy it, it was under constant attack from press and pulpit throughout the United States. Honest critics of the Church, if such there be, do not cherry-pick isolated quotes from Church leaders responding to those attacks without mentioning the context in which those statements are made. To do so is deliberately manipulative and deceitful.Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 That's rich. I don't "understand" the nature of confidential information, because I don't agree with you that a breach of confidence necesarily constitutes "theft".What I really don't understand, is why you feels its that important to label it a "theft" that you would feel compelled to make such a patently specious argument, followed by a personal insult.Afterall, you think someome is breaching a covenant they made with God. If so, the consequences of breaching a covenant made to God, must exceed any punishment levied by the state for a mere theft.Jaybear, I don't know why anyone bothers trying to explain morality to you.But an individual who, without leave or colour of right, takes something that does not belong to him, whether that something is tangible or not, is stealing.And by the same token, someone who accepts something stolen, either to keep or to distribute to others, is receiving stolen property.I'm surprised you cannot grasp these simple facts.And the reason we talk about this, Jaybear, is that we know perfectly well that there are plenty of people to whom nothing is sacred, and who therefore cannot understand why anything should be sacred to anyone else. Such people can usually understand the concept of theft, though.Regards,Pahoran
David T Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) I say the best thing that comes out of not being considered kosher to read and recite the Temple Script in Church is that we don't have several talks and teachers telling us for sure WHAT IT DEFINITIVELY MEANS, as they tend to do with other ambiguous scriptures.The medium of participation placing oneself in the drama makes the meaning of the drama intimate and personalized.I love that about it.In the past, when it hasn't been possible to attend a temple for a while, I have consulted a transcript to remind myself of some specific phrasing. I think such things can be useful for members (a 'monitor' of sorts), but certainly not in any way at all as a replacement for the experience. Edited January 17, 2012 by nackhadlow
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Jaybear:I said nothing about God. I said the Church a very earthly organization of very real live people. No different in this model than the state. Really If you and I make a contract(agreement/covenant) that you and I will each do something, and I violate the terms of that agreement how am I not guilty of a type of theft?Is there something about, and these witnesses you don't understand. Edited January 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint
frankenstein Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Breach of agreement does not equal theft. It is upto you to define theft and then show how breach of agreement equals theft.And to equate sacred things to theft is equally ridiculous as the unfounded claim that breach equals theft.Because this is an international board let's use the common law definition of theft. Edited January 17, 2012 by frankenstein
Pahoran Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Breach of agreement does not equal theft. It is upto you to define theft and then show how breach of agreement equals theft.And to equate sacred things to theft is equally ridiculous as the unfounded claim that breach equals theft.The Temple ceremony does not belong to you. When you record or transcribe it, you are taking something that does not belong to you.This is theft.When you sell or give the stolen recording or transcription to another person, that person is receiving stolen goods.This is not rocket science, Frankie.Regards,Pahoran
sjdawg Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 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.I could agree to that.
frankenstein Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 The Temple ceremony does not belong to you. When you record or transcribe it, you are taking something that does not belong to you.This is theft.When you sell or give the stolen recording or transcription to another person, that person is receiving stolen goods.This is not rocket science, Frankie.Regards,PahoranSince we are stretching to capacity....can you recite from memory the parts you are to remember, if you can by your definition you have committed theft.
Deborah Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I realized it is an empty ceremony meant to hold members curiosity and loyalty with a promise of something more.Wow. How sad. My experiences have certainly been different. I've had some profound experiences and epiphanies while there.
Jeff K. Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Jeff K., on 15 January 2012 - 11:36 AM, said: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.Different from whom? I think most non Mormons are relatively equal in doing what is good and right. They also respond to policy and frankly many religions hostile to the LDS tend to take a more aggressive approach. We see that with the justification of lies and deceit; in order to desecrate, advocated by some of the anti Mormons who range this board. We (by we I mean members of the Church) know that our church teaches not to desecrate the ideas of others, not to lie in order to desecrate their ideas and not to undermine what they hold as holy. We merely offer what we feel to be true from our perspective.The anti Mormons like Toronto for instance do not believe in reciprocating such respect, to them we are unworthy of being treated as we treat others in both policy and morality. To them any breach of morality that undermines our church is acceptable. Both lies and subversion are justified. The amazing thing is they themselves won't get their hands dirty (as they have indicated) but will let others do the dirty work for them. I don't know if that makes them better or worse than the anti Mormons who actively put themselves on the line for their belief against the church. Edited January 17, 2012 by Jeff K.
Cobalt-70 Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Breach of agreement does not equal theft. It is upto you to define theft and then show how breach of agreement equals theft.Whether or not it is moral or ethical, publishing the temple ceremony is not "theft." The Church of Scientology once tried to sue one of its breakaway groups for stealing its secret instructional materials, arguing that the group stole its "trade secrets." The court dismissed the suit, however, because the "secrets" were not commercially valuable, unless you subscribe to the theory that the Church of Scientology was a business, in which case it could not be tax exempt. Legally, the same is true for the Mormon endowment ceremony. So publishing the endowment ceremony is not "theft."Publishing the ceremony could, depending on the circumstances, be copyright infringement. But not necessarily. One thing that sets this ceremony apart from any other copyrighted material is that it is unpublished. Copying an unpublished, non-commercial text might be protected by the fair use doctrine under some circumstances, particularly if it is in an academic context, and especially if it contains commentary. In any case, the LDS Church is extremely unlikely to sue anybody for publishing the temple ceremony in the US, given that before they can do so, they would need to register their copyright, which requires them to deposit a copy of it for use in the Library of Congress.
Jeff K. Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 There is theft according to the law and then there is an understanding that morally someone can steal. You can take a mans entire wealth legally and not call it theft. But you would also know that it is wrong to do so. Legal does not equal moral, and theft can reside in either one or both mediums.
Rob Bowman Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Pahoran,I wouldn't quote The Seer by itself to establish a controversial claim, but as one of a series of quotations from different sources to establish a point I see nothing wrong about it. If articles on lds.org can quote from The Seer, without any qualifications or disclaimers (see here, here, and here), I don't see why honest critics can't do so as long as they are not using a statement that the LDS Church itself rejected at the time.I have long observed -- and I have never had a moment's reason to reconsider this view -- that honest critics of the Church, if such there be, never quote from The Seer, a publication that was denounced by the leaders of the Church and repudiated by its author.The 19th century was a rough time from the Church. Even when it wasn't the target of military pogroms or draconian laws designed to suppress or destroy it, it was under constant attack from press and pulpit throughout the United States. Honest critics of the Church, if such there be, do not cherry-pick isolated quotes from Church leaders responding to those attacks without mentioning the context in which those statements are made. To do so is deliberately manipulative and deceitful.Regards,Pahoran
Deborah Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I see no reason for anyone to publish or show the temple endowment except to mock and denigrate. You can make all the excuses you want for those who do but it won't take away their accountability. I find such people to be small-minded and arrogant. It is sad because the ignorant who view such things will think there is nothing special and not understand how profound the experience itself can be.
Cobalt-70 Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I wouldn't quote The Seer by itself to establish a controversial claim, but as one of a series of quotations from different sources to establish a point I see nothing wrong about it. If articles on lds.org can quote from The Seer, without any qualifications or disclaimers (see here, here, and here), I don't see why honest critics can't do so as long as they are not using a statement that the LDS Church itself rejected at the time.I agree that there is nothing wrong, in general, with quoting The Seer. Pratt and the LDS Church did not repudiate the entire publication--only those parts that contradicted the Adam-God doctrine. Even then, Pratt repudiated his Adam-is-different-from-God theology under duress. Since Adam-God was officially abandoned in the early 20th century, The Seer has been rehabilitated.
Duncan Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 LDS Toronto isn't anti-mormon, he may...I dunno... support the Maple Leafs Hockey team but I don't see him being anti 1
sjdawg Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 LDS Toronto isn't anti-mormon, he may...I dunno... support the Maple Leafs Hockey team but I don't see him being antiIf it is true, supporting the Maple Leafs does make him a horrible person. 1
Jaybear Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Jaybear, I don't know why anyone bothers trying to explain morality to you.No one, on this thread, has tried. The question I am adressing is whether breach of a confidence constitutes "theft", not whether its immoral. I realize that you can't help yourself, that when you see an opportunity to insult my grasp of morality, you do. But please try to stay on point.But an individual who, without leave or colour of right, takes something that does not belong to him, whether that something is tangible or not, is stealing.Take is the operative term. The indidual in question did not "take" the ceremony, it was given freely to him/her, with the understanding that he/she would not disclose the same. Now, if someone snuck in and took the script, then you would have a theft. Additionally you have the problem of identifying a "property interest." Not all "ideas" rise to the level of a property right. And by the same token, someone who accepts something stolen, either to keep or to distribute to others, is receiving stolen property.I'm surprised you cannot grasp these simple facts.Bad premise bad conclusion.When you accuse someone of committing theft, or accepting stolen property, you are accusing them of committing a crime. That is libel, where there is no theft, and therefore no crime.And the reason we talk about this, Jaybear, is that we know perfectly well that there are plenty of people to whom nothing is sacred, and who therefore cannot understand why anything should be sacred to anyone else. Such people can usually understand the concept of theft, though. Actually, I am not aware of any connection between not holding any sacred, and not understanding why anything should be sacred to someone else. In fact, my observation is the people who whold things sacred, often have litte to no regard for that which they do not consider sacred, but others do.Many LDS posters here, for example, could not grasp why anyone would take offense that Mormons would undertake baptism of dead relatives.
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 frankenstein:Yes I can, but will not do so here.
Jaybear Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Jaybear:I said nothing about God. I said the Church a very earthly organization of very real live people. No different in this model than the state. Really If you and I make a contract(agreement/covenant) that you and I will each do something, and I violate the terms of that agreement how am I not guilty of a type of theft?You are guilty of breach of contract. It is not illegal to breach a contract. If you have no excuse, and I am damaged by your breach, I can sue you for that breach. If I accuse you of committing a theft, merely because you breached a contract, then you can cross sue me for slander/liable.
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Cobalt-70:It is theft. Theft of intellectual property. Further the entire ceremony is in the Congressional Record in the Library of Congress. I won't Link to it but it is there.
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Jaybear:That the Church chooses not to press for prosecution is a decision far above my pay grade. But they are legally entitled to do so. Edited January 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Cobalt-70 Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Cobalt-70:It is theft. Theft of intellectual property. Further the entire ceremony is in the Congressional Record in the Library of Congress. I won't Link to it but it is there.The entire endowment ceremony was not read into the Congressional Record. Parts of it, including the now-removed "Oath of Vengeance," were discussed during the 1904-06 Smoot hearings, but not the entire ceremony. In any event, this does not count as a copyright registration. To register a copyright to the endowment ceremony as a prerequisite to suing someone for copyright infringement, the LDS Church itself would have to voluntarily submit a copy of the entire ceremony to the U.S. Copyright Office, who would then deposit it in the Library of Congress. The LDS Church will almost certainly never do that; therefore, if they still have copyrights in the ceremony, they cannot protect them.As to "theft," it is still not theft of intellectual property, for the reasons I have already discussed. Theft requires that the allegedly stolen secrets have commercial value. If you were to steal a chair from the temple, that would be one thing. But we are talking about intangible assets, and in that case it is not theft unless these assets have commercial value. It is also not theft unless the church takes adequate precautions to keep the ceremony secret, which usually requires that those to whom the information is disclosed sign a non-disclosure agreement. the temple recommend does not include such an agreement. Also, the covenants made in the temple are supposed to be between the patron and God, not the patron and the Church. The law does not recognize God as a party to a legal contract. Edited January 17, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Thunderfire Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I see no reason for anyone to publish or show the temple endowment except to mock and denigrate.You offer a valid point to consider. Expecially when it is ex-mormons that I would suspect are behind publishing the information. But as an outsider, some if it has proven invaluable for me in understanding the LDS faith in greater detail. Granted, even though much of it is not talked about publicly, I have found that over the years I could pick up a piece here and there in posts that have been written. But it was beneficial to read and see it clearly spelled out. Now here is something else that I ran into once:There was a elder who engaged me in a less than stellar debate regarding our two restoration factions. I tried making a light hearted remark about how neither of our groups having secret ********** which caused him to go ballistic on me. It made no sense to me whatsoever why he became so angry until someone pulled me to the side and showed me a website that proved me wrong. I simply and honestly did not know that this was a practice with the LDS. He did not believe me when I said I didn't know and it was a valuable lesson for me to learn more so I would never offend your church again. So yes, it is not a good thing to publish these things simply because you do not want it published. But then, it proved beneficial to me that I may know better how to act and what to say so as not to offend. I hope this makes sense...
Recommended Posts