Publishing The Temple Ceremony

[Storm Rider]

This is beside the point. The issue isn't what the current Prophet says, the issue is where these anti-Catholic sentiments originate. And the sad fact is, they originate from Mormon teaching that dates all the way back to Joseph Smith. Don't blame me for stating facts.

Of course it was. It was his opinion that was typical in Mormon thought, as expressed by LDS leaders before him. When he published a book professing to represent Mormon Doctrine, no one in the Church complained about it until the public caught wind of some of the bigotted comments. As I have argued before, this silly notion of "official doctrine" is something that was completely alien to Mormons at the time. Go ahead and dig through to digital LDS database and pull up all the instances in which "official doctrine" appear. You'll find nothing before the late 70's, because it is a recent apologetic innovation designed to avoid accountability for doctrinal statements by past leaders.

That wasn't my assumption. My Mormonism was primarily shaped by those Mormons who were involved in my conversion. I can assure you that they held McConkie and his book in the highest regard. Never once did I hear anything questioning his teaching or referring to it as merely his "opinion," until after I returned from my mission and I got involved in online apologetics.

Personal experience, obviously. I just moved from Brazil to Atlanta, and I can tell you that the anti-Catholic sentiment is just as strong in both areas as it was twenty years ago. In Brasilia I attended a get together at the Mission President's home, and he made numerous remarks about the Catholic faith as idolators, etc. I've also heard experiences from other people who have seen the same phenomenon in LDS chatter sessions. In fact, the only time I ever see Mormons pretend my description is nothing but a false caricature, are those on apologetic forums who have apparently taken it upon themselves to act as PR reps for the Church.

What "positive" comments could possibly outweigh the level of anti-Catholic intolerance expressed by past LDS leaders? And more importantly, why would an offended Catholic view these recent comments as anything other than an attempt at damage control for PR purposes? You see, you don't get to nullify the strongly expressed opinions and clearly bigoted views of past LDS leaders by pointing to some politically correct comment by a current leader. But why don't you go ahead and provide your list of "positive" comments about Catholics, so we can get a better feel for what you're talking about. I'm guessing they all come from the past decade, in the wake of concerns about past anti-Catholic remarks.

What is obvious is that you have perfected the slur and nothing more. This conversation is a waste of time. Cheers,

[Brade]

What is obvious is that you have perfected the slur and nothing more. This conversation is a waste of time. Cheers,

Will you summarize the point that you believe Xander is attempting to make?

[Hestia]

Xander is out of the thread for derailing after being asked to stop.

[Brade]

Hmm, I'd still like to understand what some of you understand to be the point of Xander's post. What was he trying to say?

Edited January 15, 2012 by Brade

[thesometimesaint]

Brade:

That's easy. That he hates Mormons.

[Jeff K.]

Maybe. But I do believe that that he is not doing something dishonest. He is just being a good american supporting the benefits inherent in capitalism.

Adam Smith said that capitalism could not exist without a moral society. It would appear he is correct.

[Jeff K.]

Scott,

The kind of behavior Xander is describing was fairly routine on my mission also. Missionaries would pretend to cross themselves before prayer, they'd jokingly offer absolution, and generally just be absolute idiots when it came to other church cultures. I did speak up and my words fell on deaf ears. I attributed the behavior to the typical stupidity and immaturity of 19-21 year old boys.

I also agree with Xander about the culture wide disdain for Catholicism in our church. I too heard stories about priests and nuns that mocked their rites and commitments. On my mission, a letter was circulated that described demons dressing priests in their vestments. This was presented as a first person account by a former seminarian. I think McConkie's writings contributed greatly (and wrongly) to this dark side of LDS cultural thought and I also believe, thankfully, that this perception of the Catholic church is waning among LDS.

I will say though that missionaries were fairly indiscriminate in who they mocked. The name for Jehovah's Witesses in Spanish is "Testigos de Jehovah" which missionaries routinely and intentional misnamed "Testiculos de Jehovah". Vulgar on all counts.

That your experience was dissimilar is wonderful but my experience is sadly supportive of Xander's and I've been a member all my life - always actively attending - always temple recommend holding - attended church schools - served a mission - etc. In other words, I've got no reason to lie. I believe this was a cultural foible encouraged by statements by some influential church members and I don't think,if that is the case, that their is anything wrong with owning our mistakes.

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.

[Senator]

Brade:

That's easy. That he hates Mormons.

He may strongly dislike and disagree with Mormonism, but I doubt he hates Mormons

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

He may even like an individual Mormon. I have no way of know.

[Senator]

Senator:

He may even like an individual Mormon. I have no way of know.

Yet you know he hates Mormons???

[Jeff K.]

Is there a difference between contempt and hate?

At least to the person on the receiving end?

Edited January 15, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Pahoran]

So you're probably dealing with someone willing to lie for the Lord. So what? There are plenty of people like this on the Mormon side just the same. Joseph Smith lied about polygamy, John Taylor lied about polygamy, and I know more than a few defenders who lie regularly on apologetic matters.

Correction: you regularly falsely accuse some LDS defenders of lying.

And you do so knowingly.

And this is not in any regard a part of your "history," unless we are talking about "history in the making."

But of course, we're not supposed to hold any of these people accountable for their deceit. Or at least, such attempts are not tolerated on this forum.

As you yourself benefit more than anyone else from this particular moderation policy, I wouldn't whinge too loudly about it if I were you.

Personally, I don't understand why Mormons get to claim something is super sacred,

Thank you for that important admission. I have long suspected that you don't understand why we hold things sacred.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

If I told you that I "strongly disliked" everything you hold sacred, and would go on internet discussions boards to state my antithapy towards those beliefs. How on Gods' green earth could you distinguish that from hate?

[Brade]

Brade:

That's easy. That he hates Mormons.

I'm serious. What point do you think he was trying to make?

[Senator]

Senator:

If I told you that I "strongly disliked" everything you hold sacred, and would go on internet discussions boards to state my antithapy towards those beliefs. How on Gods' green earth could you distinguish that from hate?

Oh, you know.....hate the sin, love the sinner...thingy...

Same concept.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm serious. What point do you think he was trying to make?

If you want to know, start another thread; this one has been derailed enough.

[Calm]

More important, to buy a book does not signify that you would agree with everything written in it. That type of assumption is pretty outlandish.

I even know of one nonmember who bought it out of curiosity and then gave it to me.

[mercyngrace]

Oh, you know.....hate the sin, love the sinner...thingy...

Same concept.

The thing about hating the sin is that you have to hate it no matter who commits it.

And the thing about loving the sinner is that you have to love the sinner, regardless of the sins he commits.

[Darth_Bill]

To get back to the OT, I was just taught to respect all religions so if people aren't doing any harm, I don't care what they do in private. I didn't publish anything on the net about the temple and if other's do it...well, I can't stop them so there is no point in my getting all twisted out of shape about it. As Jesus said, they have their reward, afterlife or not. I'm not worried about it. In a hundred years, I'm still dead.

[frankenstein]

Aren't the covenants only for very specific things and not the whole lot? Does not excuse posting of any of it though

Edited January 15, 2012 by frankenstein

[LDSToronto]

The temple ceremony is published on various anti-Mormon websites. IMO, this is among the

most egregious expressions of hatred against Mormons, because the contents of the temple

ceremony are among the most privately sacred LDS beliefs. Some of the most bitter anti-Mormons use

public desecration of the sacred temple garments to mock, ridicule, or draw attention to

LDS beliefs. For the same reasons, anti-Mormons publish the LDS temple ceremony. Some

accompany this despicable act with a disclaimer, such as the following on one well-known anti-Mormon

website:

When I visit places like Nauvoo or Palmyra, I am bothered by disrespectful anti-Mormon behaviour. It is troubling to see sacred things used to mock one's religious convictions regardless of what I feel about a specific belief system. I would no sooner rejoice at seeing a burning flag of the Star of David as I would to see tattered garments blowing in the wind.

However, I think that there is another side to this story. Publication of the temple ceremony is not necessarily a demonstration of hatred against the LDS. It should be acknowledged that some websites publish the temple ceremony for malicious purposes. That does not mean that all publications of the temple ceremony have the same intent. Sometimes publication of the temple ceremony is about freedom of information and public or scholarly discourse. One serious question is this - if the ceremony is treated with respect and dignity, what difference does it make if it is available to the public?

One way to think about the temple ceremony is to look at Islam. Islamic tradition forbids certain depictions of the prophet Mohammed. Most of us are aware of recent controversies concerning drawings done by a Danish artist; further, we can see where other pieces of art have been destroyed by Islamic factions.

Where do we side? Do we disregard freedom of expression in favour of a public sentiment that honours all sacred religious practice? Or do we favour freedom of expression and express public outrage when artistic license is impeded or when great works of art are destroyed because they offend religious sensibilities?

The question of publishing sacred temple rites is similarly complex. The rituals and wordings are fertile areas of scholarly study; the ceremony may even serve to inspire pro-LDS works of art or illicit public discourse that could work lean in favour of the LDS. Yet, LDS express outrage and make accusations of hatred when public light is brought to sacred and, yes, secret things.

Notice the reference to the oath Mormons make not to make this information public. Also notice that only

"some Mormons may be offended," implying that most won't.

So, if Mormons take an oath not to make the information public, how do these websites obtain copies of

the ceremony?

I have been a regular temple-goer and recall making a covenant to not reveal certain parts of the ceremony. However, it is not forbidden to talk about the temple ceremony outside the temple save for the few sacred parts. All else is fair game.

Would most LDS feel comfortable publishing the ceremony with the few specific sacred parts removed or censored?

The same website describes the most common method: a "Mormon" makes an audio tape of the ceremony

and transcribes it or gives it to the anti-Mormon ministry for transcription and publication.

So, a member of the LDS Church made the tape recording. How did this member gain entrance to the temple?

1. He petitioned his bishop and stake president for a temple recommend.

2. In private interviews, he:

affirmed his loyalty and faithfulness to God, the Church, and its leaders

affirmed his honesty in all his dealings

affirmed that he has no allegiance or dealings with individuals or organizations that oppose the LDS church

3. He signed this recommend in the presence of these priesthood leaders, and by signing it he affirmed that

he was worthy in every way to enter the temple

4. He presented it to the attendant at the door of the temple, who accepted it as a bona fide document used in

good faith to be allowed entrance.

5. He viewed the sign at the entrance desk that instructed members to leave electronic devices in their lockers

6. He swore in the ceremony that he would not divulge the sacred elements of the ceremony

This member violated all 6 of the above requirements to obtain the temple ceremony recording. There are also

a number of anti-Mormon websites that detail stealing or borrowing recommends to deceitfully gain entrance

into the temple in order to record the ceremony.

When I attended the temple regularly, I could recite the entire ceremony from memory; so could others that I knew. I can no longer do that, but I do remember the ceremony in enough detail to run through it in my mind. It is not outside the realm of possibility to write the ceremony down from memory.

I'd suggest that there are more members holding temple recommends than there are members who truly ought to, if one were to get honest answers to the temple recommend questions.

Those who publish the ceremony defend their deceit by claiming they are just a) informing the public, b) providing

information for investigators of the church, or c) exposing the wickedness of Mormonism. The above disclaimer

states that Mormons who have left the church feel no obligation to keep their knowledge private.

The questions:

Do the reasons a, b, and c justify the string of deceptions by which the copy was obtained?

For a) and b), if dissent and subterfuge are the only tools available, then yes, the ends justifies the means.

For c), if the intentions are morally wrong, then I'd say no.

If you are a non-Mormon recipient and publisher of the temple ceremony, would you personally

steal or borrow a recommend in order to get into the temple, or would you pay money to someone

to do it for you, or would you pay money to someone who offered it to you?

I don't understand why anyone would need to pay, steal, or borrow... My guess is that there are enough people who hold valid temple recommends that will publish the ceremony without financial recompense.

If a Mormon has left the Church and no longer keeps his oath, how could a "Mormon" record the

ceremony and pass it on? A Mormon who has left the church no longer has a temple recommend,

cannot enter the temple, and would have no means to record the ceremony except deceitfulness.

Is this claim a prevarication?

Or by memory, which is not impossible. And as I've mentioned, there are wolves amongst the sheep, so to say.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Aren't the covenants only for very specific things and not the whole lot?

That is correct, frank.

H.

[Pahoran]

That is correct, frank.

H.

However, since Latter-day Saints are not Pharisees, we don't take a "strict constructionist" approach to our sacred covenants.

There is nobody of good character anywhere who is "exposing" our sacred ceremonies in order to gratify the idle curiosity of those who are not entitled to enter the Temple.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

However, since Latter-day Saints are not Pharisees, we don't take a "strict constructionist" approach to our sacred covenants.

There is nobody of good character anywhere who is "exposing" our sacred ceremonies in order to gratify the idle curiosity of those who are not entitled to enter the Temple.

Regards,

Pahoran

There are Latter-day Saints of good character, in Sunday School, discussing the law of chastity, law of consecration, law of sacrifice, and other laws mentioned in the temple, and are doing so within the boundaries set by the temple ceremony.

There seems to be sufficient latitude given to discuss the sacred without making it profane.

H.

[Pahoran]

There are Latter-day Saints of good character, in Sunday School, discussing the law of chastity, law of consecration, law of sacrifice, and other laws mentioned in the temple, and are doing so within the boundaries set by the temple ceremony.

There seems to be sufficient latitude given to discuss the sacred without making it profane.

H.

And publishing it on the Internet, for the gratification of the idle curiosity of those who are not entitled to enter the Temple, falls entirely beyond that "latitude."

Regards,

Pahoran