Publishing The Temple Ceremony

[LDSToronto]

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

What about publication in a scholarly journal for the advancement of knowledge? Is that acceptable? Or how about publication on a website for the enlightenment of humanity?

What is acceptable here, Pahoran?

H.

[Pahoran]

What about publication in a scholarly journal for the advancement of knowledge? Is that acceptable? Or how about publication on a website for the enlightenment of humanity?

I'm quite certain that anti-Mormons can find self-serving justifications for profaning sacred things.

What is acceptable here, Pahoran?

H.

What is acceptable is that someone who calls himself "LDS" makes some sort of effort to understand why we hold the Temple and its ordinances sacred, and why we ask people of good will to show respect for such things.

And since 100% of all people of good will do show respect for such things, that really shouldn't be hard.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

LDSToronto:

To what end? Hugh Nibley did a good job of explaining the signifiance of the temple in "Temple and Cosmos", and FARMS did a good job in Temples of the Ancient World. Both without revealing the specifics of the ordinances.

Edited January 15, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Sleeper Cell]

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?

As far as I know, nobody has issued an LDS fatwa against the life of those who have published the temple ceremony, nor are LDS gangs going around burning books or destroying artwork. BTW, doesn’t “freedom of expression” cover both those who publish the temple ceremony and those who verbally express their outage about the publication?

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?

In general, LDS feel that making the ceremony available outside the temple is not treating it with respect and dignity -- even if those doing so honestly believe that they are. It seems to me that it is up to a religious community (not outsiders and not individual members) to decide what constitutes treating their own sacred rituals with respect and dignity and what doesn’t.

[LDSToronto]

I'm quite certain that anti-Mormons can find self-serving justifications for profaning sacred things.

Do you believe scholarly work on the temple ritual, including the sacred portions which are not to be revealed, is possible without the authors of said scholarly works being labeled 'anti-Mormon'?

What is acceptable is that someone who calls himself "LDS" makes some sort of effort to understand why we hold the Temple and its ordinances sacred, and why we ask people of good will to show respect for such things.

And since 100% of all people of good will do show respect for such things, that really shouldn't be hard.

I understand why the LDS consider the temple ritual sacred; please don't make this about me, Pahoran. Riddle me this, Pahoran - do you believe pictorial depictions of the Prophet Mohammed, done in good taste, are acceptable?

H.

[LDSToronto]

LDSToronto:

To what end? Hugh Nibley did a good job of explaining the signifiance of the temple in "Temple and Cosmos", and FARMS did a good job in Temples of the Ancient World. Both without revealing the specifics of the ordinances.

How about some non-LDS scholarship on the matter? Why can't one study the ordinances in a respectful manner? Why is such scholarship considered disrespectful, hateful even?

H.

[TAO]

LDSToronto, not hateful necessarily, but the second, disrespectful, yes. Simply, because we ask for it not to happen.

Edited January 15, 2012 by TAO

[Pahoran]

Do you believe scholarly work on the temple ritual, including the sacred portions which are not to be revealed, is possible without the authors of said scholarly works being labeled 'anti-Mormon'?

Regardless of any delicate squeamishness that may attach to the "anti-Mormon" descriptor, the fact remains that publication of our sacred ceremonies, by anybody at any time, can never in any sense be considered respectful or acceptable.

I understand why the LDS consider the temple ritual sacred; please don't make this about me, Pahoran. Riddle me this, Pahoran - do you believe pictorial depictions of the Prophet Mohammed, done in good taste, are acceptable?

H.

That's an irrelevant question. You'd need to ask a Muslim what he thinks would constitute "in good taste" in this connection.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

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.

I presume this is sarcastic. Thievery is not capitalism. In fact, one would think he could be prosecuted for copyright infrigment theoretically.

[Libs]

Just want to say that I agree with Bernard that it's very disrespectful to disclose the Temple ceremonies.

The idea that there are people in the LDS Church who are also, sometimes, disrespectful, of the beliefs of others, doesn't excuse the disrespect towards the LDS Temple.

I would, personally, love to see more respect and regard for the beliefs of others, all around. And, if that's what I want..that's what I have to give. (In the spirit of Gandhi, who said, "you must be the change you wish to see in the world")..

[LDSToronto]

Regardless of any delicate squeamishness that may attach to the "anti-Mormon" descriptor, the fact remains that publication of our sacred ceremonies, by anybody at any time, can never in any sense be considered respectful or acceptable.

I disagree. The simple act of publication is not enough to accuse the publisher of disrespect.

That's an irrelevant question. You'd need to ask a Muslim what he thinks would constitute "in good taste" in this connection.

This is a completely relevant question because it puts the shoe on the other foot. If you find it acceptable to make tasteful depictions of the Prophet Mohammed regardless of what Islam teaches and requests then it would be very difficult to justify a publication ban on the temple ceremony in scholarly works.

Should we assume that you support the publication of tasteful pictorial depictions of the Prophet Mohammed?

H.

[LDSToronto]

LDSToronto, not hateful necessarily, but the second, disrespectful, yes. Simply, because we ask for it not to happen.

Doesn't this set a further precedent - declare it sacred and it shall be an offense to speak of it publicly? What further things can the LDS ask the secular world to respect or risk being labeled 'disrespectful'?

H.

[Libs]

I disagree. The simple act of publication is not enough to accuse the publisher of disrespect.

If the publisher is fully aware that the ceremonies are considered sacred and for the eyes and ears of LDS Temple-goers "only", and that knowledge is simply dismissed (for whatever reason), there is, at least, a smidgeon of disrespect in that dismissal, IMO. It would be like a non-Catholic, going to the altar for communion, because they wanted to experience it and share that experience, or "study it" or whatever. I am sure most Catholics would consider that disrespectful of their altar and sacrament (no matter the justification).

Edited January 16, 2012 by Libs

[Bernard Gui]

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?

Perhaps you could ask in another thread?

This one has already gone to the dogs.

Bernard

[LDSToronto]

If the publisher is fully aware that the ceremonies are considered sacred and for the eyes and ears of LDS Temple-goers "only", and that knowledge is simply dismissed (for whatever reason), there is, at least, a smidgeon of disrespect in that dismissal, IMO. It would be like a non-Catholic, going to the altar for communion, because they wanted to experience it and share that experience, or "study it" or whatever. I am sure most Catholics would consider that disrespectful of their altar and sacrament (no matter the justification).

Personally, I think that it all depends on the intent of the heart of the publisher.

H.

Edited January 16, 2012 by LDSToronto

[Pahoran]

I disagree.

Of course you do. What is important to us doesn't matter to you.

The simple act of publication is not enough to accuse the publisher of disrespect.

As a matter of fact it is. Any disrespectful act, however "simple," is sufficient to not only accuse but convict the perpetrator of disrespect.

The Temple and its ordinances are sacred. (Look it up.) They are kept sacred in part by being held in sacred space. Dragging them out and dissecting them in profane space is exactly what it takes to profane them.

This is a completely relevant question because it puts the shoe on the other foot. If you find it acceptable to make tasteful depictions of the Prophet Mohammed

Pardon me for interrupting your sermon, but as you perfectly well know and fully intend, your use of manipulative adjectives like "tasteful" begs the question. "Taste" is nothing but a matter of individual preference. When you say such a depiction is "tasteful," you are merely saying that it's not your ox being gored.

Apparently in exactly the same way as it's not your ox being gored when the Ed Deckers and Rob Bowmans of this world profane the Temple of the Lord.

Incidentally, I happen to know that there was a time in Muslim history (in Persia) when visual depictions of Muhammad were accepted providing his face was hidden. There is not one unitary Muslim view on the question.

regardless of what Islam teaches and requests then it would be very difficult to justify a publication ban on the temple ceremony in scholarly works.

Should we assume that you support the publication of tasteful pictorial depictions of the Prophet Mohammed?

You may assume whatever you please, especially if factual accuracy doesn't matter to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Personally, I think that it all depends on the intent of the heart of the publisher.

What utter drivel. The "intent of the heart" is entirely unrecoverable to anyone else; but regardless of intent, if said publisher had any respect for something that others hold sacred, he wouldn't profane it. It's really as simple as that.

By the same token, if the Latter-day Aint's who enabled the profanations had any personal integrity at all, they wouldn't be traitorous quislings.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nominee]

Personally, I think that it all depends on the intent of the heart of the publisher.

H.

It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. D&C 131:6

[LDSToronto]

Of course you do. What is important to us doesn't matter to you.

Pahoran, it warms my heart to know that you care about what matters to me.

As a matter of fact it is. Any disrespectful act, however "simple," is sufficient to not only accuse but convict the perpetrator of disrespect.

The Temple and its ordinances are sacred. (Look it up.) They are kept sacred in part by being held in sacred space. Dragging them out and dissecting them in profane space is exactly what it takes to profane them.

Of course the temple is sacred. Haven't disputed that once. Publication of it's ordinances does not mean that the publisher is disrespectful of the beliefs of the LDS no matter how slighted you feel.

Pardon me for interrupting your sermon, but as you perfectly well know and fully intend, your use of manipulative adjectives like "tasteful" begs the question. "Taste" is nothing but a matter of individual preference. When you say such a depiction is "tasteful," you are merely saying that it's not your ox being gored.

Apparently in exactly the same way as it's not your ox being gored when the Ed Deckers and Rob Bowmans of this world profane the Temple of the Lord.

Incidentally, I happen to know that there was a time in Muslim history (in Persia) when visual depictions of Muhammad were accepted providing his face was hidden. There is not one unitary Muslim view on the question.

Ok, let's remove the word 'tasteful'. And let's focus on today. My guess, based on your responses so far, is that it's OK for you ignore the wishes of some religious groups, but you expect that your own sacred rites be left alone.

H.

[LDSToronto]

What utter drivel. The "intent of the heart" is entirely unrecoverable to anyone else; but regardless of intent, if said publisher had any respect for something that others hold sacred, he wouldn't profane it. It's really as simple as that.

By the same token, if the Latter-day Aint's who enabled the profanations had any personal integrity at all, they wouldn't be traitorous quislings.

Regards,

Pahoran

I was just echoing an oft-quoted refrain common amongst the LDS - It's the intent of the heart of the person, not the outward act, that God sees.

What's good for the goose....

H.

[Jeff K.]

People who hate the church, disdain it, want to hurt it, will of course find all kinds of reasons to show the film. They will toss out carnards such as "well sometimes Mormons are disrespectful and so we are allowed to be". We know that such a position is morally bankrupt. Others will seek other justifications, but we know it hurts members of the church to see something so important dragged out, something we maintain is holy, and very personal.

So far the justifications are not nearly as telling as those who seek the justifications, almost all want to harm the church, pretty much all have more often than not spoken disparagingly of our doctrine and its members. You can substitute any act against the church, the same suspects will come out and seek to justify it. The pattern is rather straightforward if you take a look.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, it warms my heart to know that you care about what matters to me.

Of course the temple is sacred. Haven't disputed that once. Publication of it's ordinances does not mean that the publisher is disrespectful of the beliefs of the LDS no matter how slighted you feel.

Of course it means that. What else could it mean?

Either the person has not bothered to find out that absolutely everyone "who are or can be called Saints" opposes the public exposure of our sacred ordinances, in which case they don't respect us enough to find out what our wishes might be, or else they do know it but chose, contrary to our wishes, to expose our private religious doings before all the world, in which case they don't respect our wishes at all.

Even if they pretend the offer the paltry excuse that they are doing it for "scholarly" reasons: you may think it "respectful" to treat your fellow-citizens like bacterial cultures in a petrie dish, but I assure you that good people do not.

Ok, let's remove the word 'tasteful'. And let's focus on today. My guess, based on your responses so far, is that it's OK for you ignore the wishes of some religious groups, but you expect that your own sacred rites be left alone.

You guess wrong.

I am simply trying to avoid being dragged into an irrelevant argument about Muslims and Muhammad.

But since you insist upon an answer to your unending campaign of pointless taunts: I have no more respect for the idiotic "journalists" who deliberately set out to push Muslim buttons by publishing cartoons of Muhammad, than I do for the conscienseless anti-Mormon swine who profane our sacred ordinances.

And I have absolutely nothing else to say upon this subject. You will accept that as my final answer. Kindly refrain from pursuing it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

If members are searching the internet and finding the temple ceremony, either in video form (which, btw, I've never seen posted) or in print form, isn't that their own problem? If they don't want to see it, don't search for it.

Kinda reminds me of the old, "I was searching for the weather and all this porn popped up!" excuse...

H.

[Nominee]

Publication of it's ordinances does not mean that the publisher is disrespectful of the beliefs of the LDS

What?! We as LDS ask that our temple ordinances not be published. To ignore the request is disrespectful. And that is even putting aside any sacred meaning. If I ask someone not to go in my kitchen and they do it anyway ~they are disrespecting me. That is grade school stuff, come on!

...it's OK for you ignore the wishes of some religious groups, but you expect that your own sacred rites be left alone.

Who on this thread has ignored or disrespects the wishes of some religious groups and is being hypocritical about it? Tell me you are not saying that The LDS here are hypocrites because they don't respect another religious groups' wish to violate our choice of privacy regarding temple ordinances because we consider them to be sacred to us.

It's the intent of the heart of the person, not the outward act, that God sees.

Yes, this is true ~ THAT GOD SEES. God knows the hearts of men, LDS do not know the hearts of men. One does not tolerate abuse because God might better understand why the abuser does what he does!

Edited January 16, 2012 by Nominee

[Pahoran]

If members are searching the internet and finding the temple ceremony, either in video form (which, btw, I've never seen posted) or in print form, isn't that their own problem? If they don't want to see it, don't search for it.

Except that, as you are no doubt aware, the swine who profane our sacred ordinances make sure they pop up on a range of Mormon-related searches.

Go ahead and tell us you don't approve of that, Toronto. Tell us there's anything that shower do that you don't approve of, Toronto.

Kinda reminds me of the old, "I was searching for the weather and all this porn popped up!" excuse...

H.

One you've used yourself, I take it?

Regards,

Pahoran