Publishing The Temple Ceremony

[LDSToronto]

So which of you fine upstanding gentlemen who so readily wish to mock the church and desire to lie to obtain the information

How do you know that I wish to mock the church and that I desire to lie? Serious - I need an answer here because you seem to know something about me that even I don't know.

H.

[KevinG]

Desecrate and mock? No. Publish? Yes.

H.

You must have missed this question earlier... but Sacredness and respect aside...

In what creation is publishing copyrighted materials you don't own legal or moral? Please explain.

(I also wonder if your opinions about downloading music that has not been paid for will be consistent with your reasons)

[wenglund]

Desecrate and mock? No. Publish? Yes.

H.

I am pleased to see you aren't entirely devoid of propriety.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

Toronto as an anti Mormon decides to take out the part of the question he dares not answer. By doing so he thinks to deal dishonestly with us....

Lets look at the entire context of the question...

No, I am being very straightforward. In theory everyone on this board regardless of their personal situation and belief wants to be treated honestly and with honor. Some, even those who would willingly contenance lying, may even think themselves as "honorable" gentlemen. In theory everyone here understands the morality of treating everyone as we wish to be treated, everyone understands what honesty means, and everyone understands that mockery and desecration are wrong.... in theory.

My years in business have taught me to cut through the manure that people often toss around to obfuscate and derail their true intentions and motivations.

To do what has been suggested, one must lie, one must be dishonest. Then on top of the first act of dishonesty, when they make an oath to neither mock or reveal what we consider sacred rites, they make that oath to God. A second oath of honor that some, specifically christians would consider strong, regardless of your belief in our doctrines.

Then of course there is the motivation of mockery. Obviously some consider mockery a noble gesture, done by only the purest of hearts.

So which of you fine upstanding gentlemen who so readily wish to mock the church and desire to lie to obtain the information consider these acts of honor and how do you justify what most both inside and outside the church consider dishonorable. So rather than attempt to avoid the question, I ask again, in the most straightforward way possible........

Do you, any of you, know an honorable person who believes they should lie in order to desecrate and mock the temple ceremony?

It is honest, simple and straightforward. Your answers will of course speak volumes, one way or the other. No obfuscation necessary.

Anti Mormons without honor will overlook their dishonorable actions. As I said, it speaks volumes to Toronto's grasp of morality and truth, and honesty and treating others as he would be treated.

Do you, any of you, know an honorable person who believes they should lie in order to desecrate and mock the temple ceremony?

Let us be honest here, if that is possible for some of you. Toronto, and others have no intention of treating what we consider holy rites, with any kind of respect, in fact they are open in disrespecting what we believe in (accepted since that is the norm for anti-Mormons), so they are not doing any scholarly work, that is simply more dishonesty flung about to obfuscate the truth of their contempt.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Jeff K.

[KevinG]

I tire of hypotheticals.

Where is this supposedly respectful, scholarly and honest publication of the LDS Temple rights to be found (outside the Temple)?

Edited January 18, 2012 by DaddyG

[LDSToronto]

In what creation is publishing copyrighted materials you don't own legal or moral? Please explain.

(I also wonder if your opinions about downloading music that has not been paid for will be consistent with your reasons)

Fair Use laws allow distribtion, legally. Can you show that the LDS church hold copyright or claims ownership of the temple ceremony?

Morally, it's a longer answer.

I pay for the music I listen to. Same with movies.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Toronto as an anti Mormon

No I'm not. Please support this claim with evidence.

H.

[KevinG]

Fair Use laws allow distribtion, legally. Can you show that the LDS church hold copyright or claims ownership of the temple ceremony?

Morally, it's a longer answer.

I pay for the music I listen to. Same with movies.

H.

Become a temple worker and you can see the copyright notice on the materials they use along with a very prominent notice that they are not to be removed from the ordinance rooms. (For that reason I cannot "show" you.)

It is nice that you pay for your printed and recorded materials. Now the other question you left unanswered...

where is this supposed respectful, moral and legal use of the LDS Temple ordinances and materials outside the Temple itself?

[LDSToronto]

I tire of hypotheticals.

Where is this supposedly respectful, scholarly and honest publication of the LDS Temple rights to be found (outside the Temple)?

It is against board guidelines to link to temple content (For that reason, I can't "show" you)

H.

Edited January 18, 2012 by LDSToronto

[KevinG]

It is against board guidelines to link to temple content.

H.

wiggle dodge...

Just describe the useage and explain why it is respectful, moral and legal. You can provide enough information to make your case without linking the site.

[LDSToronto]

Become a temple worker and you can see the copyright notice on the materials they use along with a very prominent notice that they are not to be removed from the ordinance rooms. (For that reason I cannot "show" you.)

It is nice that you pay for your printed and recorded materials. Now the other question you left unanswered...

where is this supposed respectful, moral and legal use of the LDS Temple ordinances and materials outside the Temple itself?

If it's a registered copyright, doesn't it need to be published in the Library of Congress? I'm unclear on this matter, so this is an honest question, not a trick question.

H.

[KevinG]

Fair use by the way is a very specific set of guidelines that apply to public educational use in the USA. It does not permit the republication of entire works of literature or art against the express permission of the owner.

[KevinG]

If it's a registered copyright, doesn't it need to be published in the Library of Congress? I'm unclear on this matter, so this is an honest question, not a trick question.

H.

Copyright.gov says the work does not have to be published to be protected.

[LDSToronto]

wiggle dodge...

Just describe the useage and explain why it is respectful, moral and legal. You can provide enough information to make your case without linking the site.

It is published, verbatim, with no commentary. The only commentary claims that the purpose is to provide the text of the ceremony for interested parties and for educational purposes. Fair Use clause of the Copyright Law is quoted. There is no commentary, pro or anti, there is no graphical depiction, it's plain text on a white background. There is no mocking language.

So... Is that enough?

[KevinG]

It is published, verbatim, with no commentary. The only commentary claims that the purpose is to provide the text of the ceremony for interested parties and for educational purposes. Fair Use clause of the Copyright Law is quoted. There is no commentary, pro or anti, there is no graphical depiction, it's plain text on a white background. There is no mocking language.

So... Is that enough?

Nope. They still did it without the express permission of the LDS Church.

That would be like me posting the Rolling Stones collection on line claiming fair use and educational purposes without even the excuse of being an musicologist.

...with the added insult that the LDS Church and its members consider the ordinances sacred and not for public consumption unlike the music of the Rolling Stones.

Edited January 18, 2012 by DaddyG

[LDSToronto]

Nope. They still did it without the express permission of the LDS Church.

That would be like me posting the Rolling Stones collection on line claiming fair use and educational purposes without even the excuse of being an musicologist.

...with the added insult that the LDS Church and its members consider the ordinances sacred and not for public consumption unlike the music of the Rolling Stones.

And yet, the Church is apparently powerless to protect what everyone here claims to be it's most sacred and most secret material, even with your interpretation of Fair Use.

Why is that? I don't buy the whole, "The Church would then be forced to publish the ceremony". There must be more than one avenue of legal recourse, isn't there?

H.

[KevinG]

And yet, the Church is apparently powerless to protect what everyone here claims to be it's most sacred and most secret material, even with your interpretation of Fair Use.

Why is that? I don't buy the whole, "The Church would then be forced to publish the ceremony". There must be more than one avenue of legal recourse, isn't there?

H.

I don't think the Church has to publish anything and I have no idea how many cease and desist letters the publisher has received. Read up on open source (i.e. Napster and its offshoots) to see how easy it is to keep things off the web that are copyrighted, illegally obtained or where pulication is unwanted.

My whole point is that the activity is not necessarily moral, legal, respectful or scholarly just because it exists. I have serious doubts that it is any of those things.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Thank you. This should be the end of the discussion....but we can carry on from here.

Bernard

Edited January 18, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[KevinG]

Thank you. This should be the end of the discussion.

Bernard

Don't spoil our fun. Some of us like peeing in the wind.

[Hamba Tuhan]

And yet, the Church is apparently powerless to protect what everyone here claims to be it's most sacred and most secret material....

Oddly enough, ethics guidelines were created specifically to protect the otherwise powerless.

[Jeff K.]

Well Humba, the issue of ethics does not pertain to anti Mormons. Their ethics are situational to their attack on Mormons.consider how Toronto would condone lying and dishonesty in order to obtain and publish temple rites. Such is typical of anti Mormons. Their ethics or rather the ethics they profess are applicable to when they deal with Others, but not Mormons.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Jeff K.

[mfbukowski]

CFR on "all honorable people" agree with your assessment.

H.

It is odd that supposed Christians would endorse theft.

But I guess they are not perfect.....

[Jeff K.]

Toronto as an anti Mormon decides to take out the part of the question he dares not answer. By doing so he thinks to deal dishonestly with us....

Lets look at the entire context of the question...

No, I am being very straightforward. In theory everyone on this board regardless of their personal situation and belief wants to be treated honestly and with honor. Some, even those who would willingly contenance lying, may even think themselves as "honorable" gentlemen. In theory everyone here understands the morality of treating everyone as we wish to be treated, everyone understands what honesty means, and everyone understands that mockery and desecration are wrong.... in theory.

My years in business have taught me to cut through the manure that people often toss around to obfuscate and derail their true intentions and motivations.

To do what has been suggested, one must lie, one must be dishonest. Then on top of the first act of dishonesty, when they make an oath to neither mock or reveal what we consider sacred rites, they make that oath to God. A second oath of honor that some, specifically christians would consider strong, regardless of your belief in our doctrines.

Then of course there is the motivation of mockery. Obviously some consider mockery a noble gesture, done by only the purest of hearts.

So which of you fine upstanding gentlemen who so readily wish to mock the church and desire to lie to obtain the information consider these acts of honor and how do you justify what most both inside and outside the church consider dishonorable. So rather than attempt to avoid the question, I ask again, in the most straightforward way possible........

Do you, any of you, know an honorable person who believes they should lie in order to desecrate and mock the temple ceremony?

It is honest, simple and straightforward. Your answers will of course speak volumes, one way or the other. No obfuscation necessary.

Anti Mormons without honor will overlook their dishonorable actions. As I said, it speaks volumes to Toronto's grasp of morality and truth, and honesty and treating others as he would be treated.

Do you, any of you, know an honorable person who believes they should lie in order to desecrate and mock the temple ceremony?

Let us be honest here, if that is possible for some of you. Toronto, and others have no intention of treating what we consider holy rites, with any kind of respect, in fact they are open in disrespecting what we believe in (accepted since that is the norm for anti-Mormons), so they are not doing any scholarly work, that is simply more dishonesty flung about to obfuscate the truth of their contempt.

Since Toronto has assiduously avoided answering a direct question, I feel it necessary to repost it, just be sure he hasn't "honestly" overlooked it.

[mfbukowski]

How do you know that I wish to mock the church .....

It is fairly clear.

[Jeff K.]

Late night iPad makes it tough. Time for bed.