Publishing The Temple Ceremony

[Libs]

Reading along, here, and wanted to say that whether or not, someone who left the church, believes they are bound by the covenants they made in the Temple (I don't, personally, believe that I am), doesn't mean we shouldn't show some basic respect for what LDS consider sacred. I have LDS friends and family, and my respect (if not for the Temple) is for them, knowing what it means to them, and how offended they would be, if I started posting the Endowment ceremony, all over the internet.

I have had this discussion with critics, many times, trying to impress upon them how very, very offensive this behavior is...offensive to people whom some of them (the critics), are trying to convert to their brand of Christianity. They say, we are doing this out of "love". It sure as heck doesn't look like "love" to someone who is LDS. It looks a lot more like "hate".

Edited January 18, 2012 by Libs

[altersteve]

Reading along, here, and wanted to say that whether or not, someone who left the church, believes they are bound by the covenants they made in the Temple (I don't, personally, believe that I am), doesn't mean we shouldn't show some basic respect for what LDS consider sacred. I have LDS friends and family, and my respect (if not for the Temple) is for them, knowing what it means to them, and how offended they would be, if I started posting the Endowment ceremony, all over the internet.

I have had this discussion with critics, many times, trying to impress upon them how very, very offensive this behavior is...offensive to people whom some of them (the critics), are trying to convert to their brand of Christianity. They say, we are doing this out of "love". It sure as heck doesn't look like "love" to someone who is LDS. It looks a lot more like "hate".

I agree entirely. If you attack what I believe, then you're attacking me. I see no difference. What I believe is who I am.

[MorningStar]

I don't think there is any good excuse for publishing the temple ceremony. I think anyone doing so does it out of spite.

[selek1]

If you attack what I believe, then you're attacking me. I see no difference. What I believe is who I am.

Hi Steve-

I think you might wish to qualify a/o clarify this sentiment- and specify precisely what you mean by "attack".

There is a difference between an honest disagreement and a deceitful attack on what you believe. (Though the desperate rationalizations offered in defense of profaning the Temple ceremony certainly qualify as the latter).

Your statement above makes it sound as if there is no room in your worldview for honest disagreement, nor for simple differences in interpretation of the evidence.

Do you equate the words and ideas of responsible, thoughful, reasoning individuals such as Mudcat with the self-serving sophistries and sophmoric platitudes offered by the quislings who defend profaning the Temple rites?

Do you hold the beliefs and ideas of faithful and thoughtful Catholics such as 3DOP to the same low standard as the naked bigotry and consistent, deliberate, pernicious deceit of the hatemongers at IRR?

I frankly doubt that to be the case.

Edited January 18, 2012 by selek1

[Cobalt-70]

You forget that copyright exists from the time a work is created, but only starts to run down from the time a work is first lawfully published. Only upon publication does a work go into the public domain. Since the Endowment ceremony has never been published, the clock has not started to tick yet.

Publication doesn't have anything to do with the term of modern copyrights except in a few limited cases. For anonymous or association-created works which were never published by the author, like the endowment is, the maximum term of copyright is 120 years from the time of creation. Read 17 U.S. Code section 302( c). http://www.bitlaw.co.../17usc/302.html

Edited January 18, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

All honourable people, without exception, accept that the Church owns the Endowment ceremony. The public has no rights and no valid interest therein.

The United States Congress doesn't recognize that, at least with respect to the pre-1892 parts of the ceremony. If you want to say that Congress is not honorable, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.

[Cobalt-70]

I tire of hypotheticals.

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

I know of a website that publishes the ceremony in a relatively respectful way--which in my view requires at the very least, the omission of the actual signs and tokens. But it would violate board rules for me to provide the link. I think the webmaster is an anonymous Mormon, and as far as I can tell, he has not violated any of his covenants, assuming he has made them in the temple. Personally, I wouldn't do what he did, but to each his own. The fact that the ceremony is published doesn't bother me. So what? The more up in arms we get, the more Evangelicals love to use it against us.

[Cobalt-70]

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.)

Can you tell us what year is on the copyright notice, or is that confidential? Or does it have a year?

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Anyone can include a copyright notice. It doesn't mean your copyright is registered. Registration is optional, but mandatory if you want to sue anybody. It requires that you send a copy to the Copyright Office, who then deposits a copy in the Library of Congress where the public can look at it.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

That's not necessarily true. Whether there is fair use depends on a number of factors. It is more likely to be considered fair use if the use is academic, educational, non-commercial, non-substitutional, transformational, if the original is unpublished or not widely available, and how large a portion of the work is being used, among other possible factors. You have to weigh all the factors and circumstances. There are no hard-fast rules such as the one you suggest.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

If the publisher had provided commentary, particularly of an academic nature, that would have strengthened his or her case for fair use.

[Cobalt-70]

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?

Nope, there isn't. If the church wants to go after anybody in court for publishing the ceremony, it has to effectively publish the ceremony by registering its copyright. Any cease-and-desist letter would be toothless, so I doubt the church even bothers.

[LDSToronto]

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.

I get that, and appreciate your viewpoint. Between a bunch of people who are not copyright lawyers or patent agents, we could bicker all day about the legality of publishing the temple ceremony and not get any closer to the reality of the matter.

I still believe that it is possible to explore the moral question here; unfortunately I have to go to work, so that will have to wait.

H.

[LDSToronto]

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

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt the church lacks resources to defend itself...

H.

[LDSToronto]

It is odd that supposed Christians would endorse theft.

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

I don't think it odd at all. Some of the people who have taken the ceremony and published it most likely consider themselves devout Christians, defending their faith with zeal.

H.

It is fairly clear [that LDSToronto wants to mock the church]

It is? Could you provide some evidence of my mockery? I think it's pretty clear that I *don't* want to mock the church, especially when, on this very thread I've stated that I feel it is morally wrong to use sacred things to mock a faith (in reference to the temple ceremony AND to the way sacred garments are desecrated in public)

H.

[LDSToronto]

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.

Asked and answered, Jeff, right here.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt the church lacks resources to defend itself...

Exactly what kinds of resources enable a society to defend itself against unethical behaviour by a person whom it has trusted?

[Storm Rider]

I don't think it odd at all. Some of the people who have taken the ceremony and published it most likely consider themselves devout Christians, defending their faith with zeal.

I think this is a rather naive statement. There is no "defense" of Christainity at all. The sole motivation is to destroy Mormonism and nothing more. Only the worst form of "Christian", in truth no one that could demonstrate they know Jesus Christ, would do such a thing.

[frankenstein]

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.

Jeff you are being evasive. Several claims of "all honorable people" were made, a CFR was requested on those several claims. You, Jeff posted a retort that evaded some of the claims, you then that "cutting through manure" justifies your evasiveness. Evasiveness by your own posted standard is lying or being deceitful. You reframe the question to evade claims and to try to gain the advantage.

Also you make the ignorant claim that "to do what has been suggested one must lie", one need not lie to enter the Temple, and one need not lie to God in making covenants. That someone has become disaffected with the Church and deems void any covenant made does not make the person a liar. Also that some one publishes evrything about the Temple but for those very specific things they covenanted not to speak of does not make them a liar or deceitful.

There is grounds for argument of fraud against both sides here. The Church, officially, and for some time, discourages asking questions about Church history. Elder Packer just last year at GC gave a talk instructing people to not ask questions. The missionary discussions for a very long time were a canned message that for the most part was not to be deveated from. And when people do start asking questions they are often met with disparaging or insulting comments from Church members. The stance of "don't ask questions except and only the question Moroni says to ask" establishes ground for people to think that they were a victim of fraud, or otherwise were jot provided all the information to make an informed decision.

So while I understand that many here are emotionally connected to the issue of the Temple Ceremony and the public publishing of such; that some decides to publish what they witness in the Temple does not make that person a liar.

[LDSToronto]

Exactly what kinds of resources enable a society to defend itself against unethical behaviour by a person whom it has trusted?

Let's focus on this specific issue, not general cases of societies and unethical individuals.

The Church has money, time, lawyers, and (supposedly) the law. The Church can defend itself and its members, can it not?

H.

[frankenstein]

I think this is a rather naive statement. There is no "defense" of Christainity at all. The sole motivation is to destroy Mormonism and nothing more. Only the worst form of "Christian", in truth no one that could demonstrate they know Jesus Christ, would do such a thing.

Even the very elect!? So no one who ever knows Christ would do something deceitful or seek to destroy another religion?

[frankenstein]

Let's focus on this specific issue, not general cases of societies and unethical individuals.

The Church has money, time, lawyers, and (supposedly) the law. The Church can defend itself and its members, can it not?

H.

Concerning the recommend itself the Church by law of the land could send the county sheriff to retrieve a recommend.

........

I think the Church avoids many legal battles becuase of cost benefit and knowing what would have to be revealed in a court of law.

[Anijen]

Just an observation, another church publishing an LDS temple ceremony is not IMO defending their church/faith but attacking another.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Anijen

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

"Also you make the ignorant claim that "to do what has been suggested one must lie", one need not lie to enter the Temple, and one need not lie to God in making covenants. That someone has become disaffected with the Church and deems void any covenant made does not make the person a liar. Also that some one publishes evrything about the Temple but for those very specific things they covenanted not to speak of does not make them a liar or deceitful"

If such is the case their word far from being their bond would mean absolutely nothing.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 17 January 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

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.

Jeff you are being evasive. Several claims of "all honorable people" were made, a CFR was requested on those several claims. You, Jeff posted a retort that evaded some of the claims, you then that "cutting through manure" justifies your evasiveness. Evasiveness by your own posted standard is lying or being deceitful. You reframe the question to evade claims and to try to gain the advantage.

Also you make the ignorant claim that "to do what has been suggested one must lie", one need not lie to enter the Temple, and one need not lie to God in making covenants. That someone has become disaffected with the Church and deems void any covenant made does not make the person a liar. Also that some one publishes evrything about the Temple but for those very specific things they covenanted not to speak of does not make them a liar or deceitful.

There is grounds for argument of fraud against both sides here. The Church, officially, and for some time, discourages asking questions about Church history. Elder Packer just last year at GC gave a talk instructing people to not ask questions. The missionary discussions for a very long time were a canned message that for the most part was not to be deveated from. And when people do start asking questions they are often met with disparaging or insulting comments from Church members. The stance of "don't ask questions except and only the question Moroni says to ask" establishes ground for people to think that they were a victim of fraud, or otherwise were jot provided all the information to make an informed decision.

So while I understand that many here are emotionally connected to the issue of the Temple Ceremony and the public publishing of such; that some decides to publish what they witness in the Temple does not make that person a liar.

They lied on their recommend, they lied on their oaths, but they aren't a liar... my how Orwellian.

Also you make the ignorant claim that "to do what has been suggested one must lie", one need not lie to enter the Temple, and one need not lie to God in making covenants. That someone has become disaffected with the Church and deems void any covenant made does not make the person a liar. Also that some one publishes evrything about the Temple but for those very specific things they covenanted not to speak of does not make them a liar or deceitful.

This is a lie. In your temple recommend the question of honesty exists, in the covenant the question of honesty exists you must circumvent honesty in order to make public and mock temple rites. There is no way around it. I find it interesting how you jump through hoops in order to justify what anyone will tell you is a lie.

There is grounds for argument of fraud against both sides here. The Church, officially, and for some time, discourages asking questions about Church history. Elder Packer just last year at GC gave a talk instructing people to not ask questions. The missionary discussions for a very long time were a canned message that for the most part was not to be deveated from. And when people do start asking questions they are often met with disparaging or insulting comments from Church members. The stance of "don't ask questions except and only the question Moroni says to ask" establishes ground for people to think that they were a victim of fraud, or otherwise were jot provided all the information to make an informed decision.

No the grounds for a lie is that one knows one is misleading another. If one believes something, it is not a lie to them. I do not think Catholics lie when they extol the virtues of their doctrine (and there are many), I do not believe atheists are committing a fraud by their stating their belief system either. I think they believe it to be true. I do think anti-Mormons like when they attempt to circumvent both the temple recomend process and the promises they make in order to produce mockery for the church. That is the only fraud I see committed here.

Now do you believe such fraud is honorable? Does Toronto believe as he has stated and justified, that while he would not publish the temple ceremonies himself (he would let others do the dirty work), he would support those people who have done it? Is that what anti Mormons call "honorable?

You are trying everything not to answer the question.

The truth is and I think you and I both know it... It is dishonorable, it is immoral. No one here believes you are "helping" the church. Anti Mormons don't want to "help" the church, they want it to be ridiculed, they want it marginalized. Something you and Toronto both have shown in these posts.

Now again, do you find this an honorable thing? If so, what type of honor do you proscribe to?