Publishing The Temple Ceremony

[frankenstein]

Jeff I find it interesting that you use evasiveness in supposed defense of the Church or sacred things.

One does not have to lie to enter the Temple. And being honest in ones dealings would mean not being evasive. A honest person can enter the Temple and then publish everything they witness except for those things they covenanted not to reveal. It is a simple concept of honesty. Do LDS covenant not to reveal anything done to jot and turtle, or do LDS covenant not to reveal only certain specific things. How is keeping true to covenants not being honest?

And yes, a person can honestly saytbey believe something one day.and the next day say tbey do not believe that thing, how is this possible because the person gains more knowledge of a that thing. Does this mean the person lied on the previous day, no it does not.

Real life situation. A woman is attacked, she testifies in court and under oath so help her God that what she is saying is what she believes the truth to be. She testifies that the defendant attacked her. Defendant is convicted, years later the woman recants her testimony because she learns the person she accused is innocent. She apologized to the man she accused.

The question is then, did she lie? The answer is No, she did not because she spoke the truth as she believed the truth to be at the particular time of her original testimony.

Edited January 18, 2012 by frankenstein

[Jaybear]

Jeff I find it interesting that you use evasiveness in supposed defense of the Church or sacred things.

One does not have to lie to enter the Temple. And being honest in ones dealings would mean not being evasive. A honest person can enter the Temple and then publish everything they witness except for those things they covenanted not to reveal. It is a simple concept of honesty. Do LDS covenant not to reveal anything done to jot and turtle, or do LDS covenant not to reveal only certain specific things. How is keeping true to covenants not being honest?

And yes, a person can honestly saytbey believe something one day.and the next day say tbey do not believe that thing, how is this possible because the person gains more knowledge of a that thing. Does this mean the person lied on the previous day, no it does not.

By Jeff's "logic" anyone who divorced is a liar, because they broke a covenant to stay together for eternity.

Jeff is a smart guy. I can only assume that he is pretending not to understand your point, for some greater good.

[Jeff K.]

Both of you are using evasiveness.

When you do something with the expressed plan to mislead you are lying (thank you for presenting excellent examples by the way).

The Temple recommend is only good as long as you believe the temple ceremony to be true. When you disbelieve, the Temple Recommend no longer is valid. The foolish idea is that the Temple Recommend is good for two years, basing worthiness on a time period, but the caveat is that it is in fact only good as long as you live to the standards in the interview. If you go out and commit adultry, that does not mean the Temple Recommend remains valid. It only means that you have chosen to lie if you enter the Temple again.

Your obfuscations are so transparent, that for me to call either of you very smart or intelligent on the matter would be a lie.

In truth, do you find it somehow honorable to lie in order to enter the temple, and to present the ceremony in public in order to mock. Are these honorable to either of you?

George Orwell awaits to hear your answer.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

By Jeff's "logic" anyone who divorced is a liar, because they broke a covenant to stay together for eternity.

Jeff is a smart guy. I can only assume that he is pretending not to understand your point, for some greater good.

A rather dull analogy given that indeed the oath has been broken by one or both parties, and forgiveness is offered also.

[LeSellers]

Desecrate ...? No. Publish? Yes.

To publish is to descrate.

desecrate

verb (used with object), -crat·ed, -crat·ing.

1. to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office.

2. to divert from a sacred to a profane use or purpose.

3. to treat with sacrilege; profane.

publish

verb (used with object)

1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.

2. to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner.

3. to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate.

4. to make publicly or generally known.

5. Law . to communicate (a defamatory statement) to some person or persons other than the person defamed.

sacred

adjective

1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.

2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.

3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books.

4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.

5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.

consecrate

verb (used with object)

1. to make or declare sacred; setapart or dedicate to the service of a deity: to consecrate a new church building.

2. to make (something) an object of honor or veneration; hallow: a custom consecrated by time.

3. to devote or dedicate to some purpose: a life consecrated to science.

4. to admit or ordain to a sacred office, especially to the episcopate.

5. to change (bread and wine) into the Eucharist.

Were we to take definition 5 of consecrate, and take a consecrated wafer from a Catholic priest and "publish" it (even for "scholarly" purposes), I believe the Catholics here would believe that to be a desecration; especially if that "taking" was by stealth, deception, or outright theft.

When something once sacred is "generally known" it is no longer sacred. It is not "set apart": it is profaned.

Lehi

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Just a not of clarification and a question...

Due to the reaction to my previous comments- I just want to make clear that I do find the publication of your ceremony morally wrong and am not advocating for those who do it.

Now my question...

How is publishing the text of the ceremony "attacking" the church? That would seem to indicate that there is something in there that if people saw they would think less of the church and its members- I don't think that is the case. Most would just read it, shrug, and say "So what?"

[Jaybear]

Both of you are using evasiveness.

When you do something with the expressed plan to mislead you are lying (thank you for presenting excellent examples by the way).

The Temple recommend is only good as long as you believe the temple ceremony to be true. When you disbelieve, the Temple Recommend no longer is valid. The foolish idea is that the Temple Recommend is good for two years, basing worthiness on a time period, but the caveat is that it is in fact only good as long as you live to the standards in the interview. If you go out and commit adultry, that does not mean the Temple Recommend remains valid. It only means that you have chosen to lie if you enter the Temple again.

Your obfuscations are so transparent, that for me to call either of you very smart or intelligent on the matter would be a lie.

In truth, do you find it somehow honorable to lie in order to enter the temple, and to present the ceremony in public in order to mock. Are these honorable to either of you?

George Orwell awaits to hear your answer.

You are absolutley correct. It is dishonest to "to lie in order to enter the temple".

Neither Frank nor I have said otherwise.

We have both tried to explain to you why you have misscontrued Frank's point. I assumed your inabilty to grasp the point was dilberate. Apparantly, I was wrong. You seem quite sincere in pressing a point that no one here disagrees with.

[frankenstein]

A rather dull analogy given that indeed the oath has been broken by one or both parties, and forgiveness is offered also.

Wow, it appears two things going on here:

First you are putting yourself in the place of God and handing out eternal judgment.

Second you are denying the Atonement of Christ by stating as fact there is no forgiveness for endowed members who eiterh, publish any part of the Temple ceremony or who rescind their membership and publish all or part of the Temple Ceremony.

Forgiveness is for all except sons of perdition. And as has been discussed many times here there are few if any outside the 15 at their respective times in mortality who could become sons of perdition.

Edited January 18, 2012 by frankenstein

[LeSellers]

How is publishing the text of the ceremony "attacking" the church? That would seem to indicate that there is something in there that if people saw they would think less of the church and its members- I don't think that is the case. Most would just read it, shrug, and say "So what?"

The point of every unauthorized publication of the Temple ceremony is to ridicule it (and us as individuals and as a church). I can think of no such publication whose authors did it on the premise of "Hey, this is fascinating! Don't you think this is cool?"

They actively want others to think it's weird, unchristian (whatever that means to them), and that the church who uses it is unworthy of consideration for anyone to join.

A truth that told with bad intent

Beats all the lies you can invent.

Lehi

Edited January 18, 2012 by LeSellers

[Jeff K.]

Are you now playing God and stating as fact there is no forgiveness for endowed member who leave the church. Forgiveness is for all except sons of perdition. And as has been discussed many times here there are few if any outside the 15 who could become Sons of perdition.

There is no forgiveness for those who seek no repentance, surely even you know that. A son of perdition is different since they have had the opportunity for forgiveness withdrawn from them.

Another faulty attempt at derail with rhetoric that reflects your desperation on the issue.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 18 January 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Both of you are using evasiveness.

When you do something with the expressed plan to mislead you are lying (thank you for presenting excellent examples by the way).

The Temple recommend is only good as long as you believe the temple ceremony to be true. When you disbelieve, the Temple Recommend no longer is valid. The foolish idea is that the Temple Recommend is good for two years, basing worthiness on a time period, but the caveat is that it is in fact only good as long as you live to the standards in the interview. If you go out and commit adultry, that does not mean the Temple Recommend remains valid. It only means that you have chosen to lie if you enter the Temple again.

Your obfuscations are so transparent, that for me to call either of you very smart or intelligent on the matter would be a lie.

In truth, do you find it somehow honorable to lie in order to enter the temple, and to present the ceremony in public in order to mock. Are these honorable to either of you?

George Orwell awaits to hear your answer.

You are absolutley correct. It is dishonest to "to lie in order to enter the temple".

Neither Frank nor I have said otherwise.

We have both tried to explain to you why you have misscontrued Frank's point. I assumed your inabilty to grasp the point was dilberate. Apparantly, I was wrong. You seem quite sincere in pressing a point that no one here disagrees with.

Even Orwell is disappointed in your answer.

Franks point and the point of other anti Mormons is that they can go into a temple and make oaths or promises not to reveal what is sacred. They give their word in both the recommend and the ceremony. When they seek to desecrate the temple by making public the ceremony, their motivation isn't to help the church, we all know that what both of you want is to hurt it. So any attempt at playing the innocent simply undermines your credibility. The issue is false.

As have the false issues you continue to throw up (and the term has a useful double meaning) false issues in order to side track the straightforward and honest dealing between honorable men.

You cannot name a honorable man that will knowingly lie to gain entrance, nor can you name an honorable man that will break his word to God in order to make public temple ceremonies that are so obviously up for ridicule. Some anti-Mormons are honorable in that they feel the church is against what they believe in, but they would refuse to do what some here have contenanced. Especially those who would let others do the messy work and then declare their own hands "clean" while supporting the wrong that is being done.

Do you see such actions as honorable?

[frankenstein]

Both of you are using evasiveness.

No Jeff it is you, but if you need to falsely accuse that is fine. I have stated over and over that one does not need to deceive or lie to enter the Temple. You do not seem to understand this point.

When you do something with the expressed plan to mislead you are lying (thank you for presenting excellent examples by the way).

You mean like reframing a question in an attempt to gain an advantage?

The Temple recommend is only good as long as you believe the temple ceremony to be true.

I do not disagree with you here

When you disbelieve, the Temple Recommend no longer is valid. The foolish idea is that the Temple Recommend is good for two years, basing worthiness on a time period, but the caveat is that it is in fact only good as long as you live to the standards in the interview.

I do not disagree with this either.

If you go out and commit adultry, that does not mean the Temple Recommend remains valid. It only means that you have chosen to lie if you enter the Temple again.

Lets examine these two sentences carefully, "if you go out" and violate your covenants "that does not mean the Temple Recommend remains valid." The key word you have used is "remains", by using "remains" you are suggesting that the person has a Recommend. Now lets explore this thought. It seems that your position is that any and all persons who ever entered the Temple and then subsequently violated a Temple Covenant, must and only could have entered the Temple in the first place under false pretenses; that is, the person lied to their Bishop, then lied to the Stake President or his Counselor, and then lied to God.

What you seem unable to see is that a honest person can enter the Temple honestly and with pure intent and heart, and then afterwards turn away from such pure heart and intent. I do not understand why that is so difficult to grasp. However, perhaps it is better to just label all those people as being liars from the start, rather than have to accept that anyone, even the very elect, have the potential and capacity to turn away from the Gospel.

Your obfuscations are so transparent, that for me to call either of you very smart or intelligent on the matter would be a lie.

George Orwell awaits to hear your answer.

Insults aside Jeff, I have not obfuscated anything, I have not used evasion to reframe questions in an attempt to gain an advantage.

Not every person who has ever entered the Temple, then turned away from such, entered the Temple with the intent to deceive, when you can admit that, the conservation can progress.

...we all know that what both of you want is to hurt it. So any attempt at playing the innocent simply undermines your credibility.

In the words of Nephi..."wo unto the liar" Jeff you are a liar, you do not know my intent. You have to claim that I seek to hurt the Church, You have to claim this, because you are unable to acknowledge that not every member of the Church is a dogmatic and hatefilled like yourself.

I have only presented that absolutely plausible that not every person who enters the Temple and then turns away from such, originally entered the Temple under false pretenses. Because I can acknowledge this, and because I am not the dogmatic bigot you are, I then must be a person who seeks to do harm to the Church.

Jeff, is that your dogmatic idolatry to false claims, your lies via false accusations, do more harm to the Church than me not toeing to your dogmatic idolatry of false claims.

Edited January 18, 2012 by frankenstein

[Jeff K.]

If you turn away from the church and do not go out and reveal your temple covenants to the world, you are honorable since you have in honesty lost your faith but maintained your moral standing to keep your word.

If you have lost your faith, but enter the temple to "record" and remember we are talking about recording, in one way or another, you have in effect decided that your honor is worth less than your ability to hurt the beliefs others hold sacred.

Is this honorable?

Toronto has given the most straightforward anti Mormon answer..... While he would not himself take part in recording the ceremony or making it public, he would support those who do it.

You are left with finding ways to disrespect the sacred, desecrating it, and acting towards others in a way you would not contenance others acting towards you. The hypocrisy aside, it is also dishonorable to do so. It is a desire to hurt others and it is wrong.

You cannot twist the issue to somehow make it right.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Small request for Jeff K...

Why don't you tone down the rhetoric and stop calling anyone that disagrees with the church an "anti-Mormon"?

[Jeff K.]

I don't call people who disagree with me anti Mormons, I do however call those who want to hurt the church or desecrate it, or seek a means to destroy it anti Mormons. Perhaps it isn't the rhetoric but the truth of the rhetoric which causes discomfort to some.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I don't call people who disagree with me anti Mormons, I do however call those who want to hurt the church or desecrate it, or seek a means to destroy it anti Mormons. Perhaps it isn't the rhetoric but the truth of the rhetoric which causes discomfort to some.

Problem is, from your posts, you seem to see anyone with any argument, big or small, against the LDS Church in that light. It is possible to have an honest disgreement without some evil motive to hurt, desecrate, or destroy the church.

[Hestia]

This topic has been discussed and arguments are being repeated and rhetoric is getting hot. Time to close.