Publishing The Temple Ceremony

[LDSToronto]

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

I think I've already given you many options in this thread.

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.

OK, so you have made a distinction between disrespectful depictions of Mohammed and respectful depictions. Thank you for verifying my thoughts - it's OK to make respectful depictions of Mohammed regardless of what some factions of Islam say.

This sounds like it jives with my thoughts on the matter of temple ordinances.

And it's OK, we don't have to pursue this any further. I understand.

[LDSToronto]

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.

I've done tonnes of searching for mormon-related stuff on the internet over the past 15 years on just about every imaginable topic, and I can honestly say that I've *stumbled* across temple ordinances maybe once, or twice.

When I *intentionally* search for it, I find it no problem.

One you've used yourself, I take it?

Never!

H.

Edited January 16, 2012 by LDSToronto

[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.

Meaning that when God judges us, He will take into account the good intentions that might have been involved in any failed efforts (or even, hypothetically, outright bad acts.)

It has never been taken to mean that we are supposed to ignore an act, or its consequences; nor that we should refrain from standing up for what is right.

But then, I rather suspect you know that. Indeed, if you know a tenth as much about LDS life and teaching as you profess, you must know it.

What's good for the goose....

H.

Has nothing to do with the umbrella.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bernard Gui]

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?

Earlier, I described the sacred nature of the ceremonies held in Pueblo Indian kivas. The Pueblo do not discuss these with outsiders.

What kind of respectful study could be made of these ceremonies? How would they become known to outsiders? By violating the

privacy of the kiva, for whatever reason, scholars or voyeurs would show great disrespect to the Pueblo people.

Here is a similar situation. Sacred Native American medicine objects used contrary to the purpose for which they were created, and

the tribal response.

http://www.peace4tur.../maskpolicy.htm

Haudenosaunee Confederacy Policy On False Face Masks

The Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee, The Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy, issued in 1995 the following policy statement regarding all medicine masks of the Haudenosaunee:

Medicine Societies

Within the Haudenosaunee there are various medicine societies that have the sacred duty to maintain the use and strength of special medicines, both for individual and community welfare. A medicine society is comprised of Haudenosaunee who have partaken of the medicine and are thereby bound to the protection and perpetuation of the special medicines. Such medicines are essential to the spiritual and emotional well-being of the Haudenosaunee communities. The medicine societies are a united group of individuals who must uphold and preserve the rituals that guard and protect the people, and the future generations. Among these medicine societies are those that utilize the wooden masks and corn husk masks, which represent the shared power of the original medicine beings. Although there are variations of their images, all the masks have power and an intended purpose that is solely for the members of the respective medicine societies. Interference with the sacred duties of the societies and/or their masks is a violation of the freedom of the Haudenosaunee and does great harm to the welfare of the Haudenosaunee communities.

Status of Masks

All wooden and corn husk masks of the Haudenosaunee are sacred, regardless of size or age. By their very nature, masks are empowered the moment they are made. The image of the mask is sacred and is only to be used for its intended purpose. Masks do not have to be put through any ceremony or have tobacco attached to them in order to become useful or powerful. Masks should not be made unless they are to be used by members of the medicine society, according to established tradition.

Sales of Masks

No masks can be made for commercial purposes. Individuals who make masks for sale or sell masks to non-Indians violate the intended use of the masks, and such individuals must cease these activities as they do great harm to the Haudenosaunee. The commercialization of medicine masks is an exploitation of Haudenosaunee culture.

Authority Over Medicine Masks

Each Haudenosaunee reservation has a medicine mask society that has authority over the use of masks for individual and community needs. Each society is charged with the protection of their sacred masks and the assurance of their proper use.

The Grand Council of Chiefs has authority over all medicine societies and shall appoint individual leaders or medicine societies as necessary. However, no individual can speak or make decisions for medicine societies or the displacement of medicine masks. No institution has the authority over medicine masks, as they are the sole responsibility of the medicine societies and the Grand Council of Chiefs.

Exhibition Of Medicine Masks

The public exhibition of all medicine masks is forbidden. Medicine masks are not intended for everyone to see and such exhibition does not recognize the sacred duties and special functions of the masks. The exhibition of masks by museums does not serve to enlighten the public regarding the culture of the Haudenosaunee as such an exhibition violates the intended purpose of the mask and contributes to the desecration of the sacred image. In addition, information regarding medicine societies is not meant for general distribution. The non-Indian public does not have the right to examine, interpret, or present the beliefs, functions, and duties of the secret medicine societies of the Haudenosaunee. The sovereign responsibility of the Haudenosaunee over their spiritual duties must be respected by the removal of all medicine masks from exhibition and from access to non-Indians. Reproductions, castings, photographs, or illustrations of medicine masks should not he used in exhibitions, as the image of the medicine masks should not be used in these fashions. To subject the image of the medicine masks to ridicule or misrepresentation is a violation of the sacred functions of the masks. The Council of Chiefs find that there is no proper way to explain, interpret, or present the significance of the medicine masks and therefore, ask that no attempt be made by museums to do so other than to explain the wishes of the Haudenosaunee in this matter.

Return Of Medicine Masks

All Haudenosaunee medicine masks currently possessed by non-Indians, including Museums, Art Galleries, Historical Societies, Universities, Commercial Enterprises, Foreign Governments, and Individuals should be returned to the Grand Council of Chiefs of the Haudenosaunee, who will ensure their proper use and protection for the future generations. There is no legal, moral, or ethical way in which a medicine mask can be obtained or possessed by a non-Indian individual or institution, as in order for a medicine mask to be removed from the society it would require the sanction of the Grand Council of Chiefs. This sanction has never been given. We ask all people to cooperate in the restoration of masks and other sacred objects to the proper caretakers among the Haudenosaunee. It is only through these actions that the traditional culture will remain strong and peace will be restored to our communities.

Dawnaytoh,

Chief Leon Shenandoah, Tadadaho

Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee

Regarding the OP,

"There is no legal, moral, or ethical way in which a medicine mask can be obtained or possessed by a non-Indian individual or institution, as in order for a medicine mask to be removed from the society it would require the sanction of the Grand Council of Chiefs. This sanction has never been given."

Is there a legal, moral, or ethical way in which the LDS temple ceremony can be obtained or possessed by a non-LDS individual or institution?

Bernard

Edited January 16, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Pahoran]

I think I've already given you many options in this thread.

I'm afraid I haven't seen any. You'll have to point them out to me.

OK, so you have made a distinction between disrespectful depictions of Mohammed and respectful depictions.

No.

I have not.

You fabricated that out of whole cloth.

Thank you for verifying my thoughts - it's OK to make respectful depictions of Mohammed regardless of what some factions of Islam say.

No.

It is not.

This sounds like it jives with my thoughts on the matter of temple ordinances.

That explains why you knowingly, wilfully and consciously misrepresented my statement on this point.

And it's OK, we don't have to pursue this any further. I understand.

Evidently we do, just to correct your deliberate falsehoods on the subject.

That you may have no reason to pretend that I have left you with any excuse on this subject: I do not regard it as respectful or appropriate for any non-Muslim to make visual representations of Muhammad, ever, of any kind, if for no other reason that that there are many Muslims who find such depictions disrespectful and inappropriate.

That does not mean (anticipating the other prong of your fork) that I condone acts of violence against disrespectful idiots.

Now: see that you do not misrepresent any more of my statements on this thread. I am a rare and reluctant user of the Report function, but I will use it if you don't stop your badgering on this matter.

Is that clear?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bernard Gui]

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

Anyone following the LDS woman's disappearance in SLC knows of the controversy about her husband

publishing her teenage journals. Doing so is an extreme act of disrespect against her and has been vehemently

condemned. The journals are not his to publish. The temple ceremony belongs to the LDS church.

To publish it for whatever reason is an extreme act of disrespect.

Bernard

[LDSToronto]

That you may have no reason to pretend that I have left you with any excuse on this subject: I do not regard it as respectful or appropriate for any non-Muslim to make visual representations of Muhammad, ever, of any kind, if for no other reason that that there are many Muslims who find such depictions disrespectful and inappropriate.

See? Was that so hard? I think you could have given me this answer the first time I asked you instead of playing games...

Now: see that you do not misrepresent any more of my statements on this thread. I am a rare and reluctant user of the Report function, but I will use it if you don't stop your badgering on this matter.

Is that clear?

Make sure you answer clearly from now on, and maybe you won't have to derail threads with threats.

H.

[Pahoran]

Regarding the OP,

"There is no legal, moral, or ethical way in which a medicine mask can be obtained or possessed by a non-Indian individual or institution, as in order for a medicine mask to be removed from the society it would require the sanction of the Grand Council of Chiefs. This sanction has never been given."

Is there a legal, moral, or ethical way in which the LDS temple ceremony can be obtained or possessed by a non-LDS individual or institution?

Bernard

No. There is not.

The person who records, transcribes or re-enacts the Temple ceremonies, or any portion of them, has committed theft.

The person who forges or falsifies the Temple ceremonies, or any portion of them, has committed fraud.

The person who knowingly disseminates material that he knows to be the result of either theft or fraud is no better than any other receiver of stolen goods.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

No. There is not.

The person who records, transcribes or re-enacts the Temple ceremonies, or any portion of them, has committed theft.

The person who forges or falsifies the Temple ceremonies, or any portion of them, has committed fraud.

The person who knowingly disseminates material that he knows to be the result of either theft or fraud is no better than any other receiver of stolen goods.

Regards,

Pahoran

Quick question - is the temple ceremony published in the Library of Congress? In the Smoot hearings?

H.

[Pahoran]

See? Was that so hard? I think you could have given me this answer the first time I asked you instead of playing games...

As you perfectly well know and fully intended, the whole "Muhammad" thread-derail was a game. I simply tried to avoid getting sucked into playing your manipulative little game.

Make sure you answer clearly from now on, and maybe you won't have to derail threads with threats.

H.

How about you refrain from derailing threads with irrelevant and off-topic tangents, and fabricating the answers you want when people don't want to chase your red herrings?

Just a suggestion.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Senator]

Can the Free Masons claim any IP to their rituals?

[LDSToronto]

As you perfectly well know and fully intended, the whole "Muhammad" thread-derail was a game. I simply tried to avoid getting sucked into playing your manipulative little game.

It was an analogous scenario. Not a game.

H.

[Pahoran]

Quick question - is the temple ceremony published in the Library of Congress? In the Smoot hearings?

The Reed Smoot inquisition, in which the US government attempted to impose a religious test for public office in defiance of its own constitution, did not exercise any sort of respect or decent restraint towards matters that are sacred to the Latter-day Saints.

That gang at least can plead ignorance in mitigation of their perfidy. You do not have that excuse.

Any other questions?

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

Ya, good question, Senator. The claim of IP on the temple ceremony - wouldn't that imply that it has to be published somewhere?

[Jeff K.]

Like I said, those who have contempt for the church are on one side of this line. They will justify any malice towards the church and will profane anything. It is a waste to reason with them, they don't want to reason, they merely want to denigrate.

[Pahoran]

Ya, good question, Senator. The claim of IP on the temple ceremony - wouldn't that imply that it has to be published somewhere?

Has someone made such a claim?

But in fact, the answer is no. Intellectual property rights exist as soon as the property is created and are not dependent upon any publication or registration. Registration of a copyright claim merely creates a paper trail that can be consulted in the case of a subsequent dispute.

And here we are talking about what is right and wrong, not what unprincipled people can get away with. And it has been established beyond dispute that the ordinances of the Temple are sacred, and therefore the only right thing to do is to respect that sanctity by not disseminating them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Like I said, those who have contempt for the church are on one side of this line. They will justify any malice towards the church and will profane anything. It is a waste to reason with them, they don't want to reason, they merely want to denigrate.

I agree with you. And this thread demonstrates that you are right.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

It was an analogous scenario. Not a game.

H.

Your willingness to fabricate answers that were clearly contrary to the tenor of my responses and then attribute them to me demonstrates that you were not pursuing that line of discussion in good faith.

And if you insist on having the last word, go ahead.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

The Reed Smoot inquisition, in which the US government attempted to impose a religious test for public office in defiance of its own constitution, did not exercise any sort of respect or decent restraint towards matters that are sacred to the Latter-day Saints.

That gang at least can plead ignorance in mitigation of their perfidy. You do not have that excuse.

Any other questions?

So, the US Government has an excuse - they were ignorant of sacred matters. But, the fact is, the ceremony is published in a publicly accessible archive.

BTW, I don't need an excuse - I've never published the temple ceremony anywhere. I'm as respectful as the next guy.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Your willingness to fabricate answers that were clearly contrary to the tenor of my responses and then attribute them to me demonstrates that you were not pursuing that line of discussion in good faith.

And if you insist on having the last word, go ahead.

Naw, I'm a good sport - the last word is yours.

H.

[Jeff K.]

So, the US Government has an excuse - they were ignorant of sacred matters. But, the fact is, the ceremony is published in a publicly accessible archive.

BTW, I don't need an excuse - I've never published the temple ceremony anywhere. I'm as respectful as the next guy.

H.

No you aren't hanging anyone, you are just carrying the rope.

[Senator]

Ya, good question, Senator. The claim of IP on the temple ceremony - wouldn't that imply that it has to be published somewhere?

Actually I was questioning if there is a case against the Mormon "use" of certain ritual elements.

[Nominee]

No you aren't hanging anyone, you are just carrying the rope.

Maybe he'll end up like Saul of Tarsus, who kept an eye on the coats of those that stoned Stephen?

[LDSToronto]

Maybe he'll end up like Saul of Tarsus, who kept an eye on the coats of those that stoned Stephen?

Don't forget to tip at the coat check.

H.

[Bernard Gui]

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?

How does freedom of information concern a private ceremony?

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.

So, here we are having some quiet sacred time in our home, and over there in the corner is a total stranger with a video camera. Without our permission, he records what we say and do, and publishes it on the internet. How did he get into our house? Why is he here? Oh. He's a social scientist gathering information on LDS family activities. OK. That makes it all better.

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.

Regular temple goers are regularly reminded that what is spoken and done in the temple should stay in the temple.

Here are the instructions in the LDS manual, Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple."

There are restrictions and conditions set. They were established by the Lord and not by man. And, the Lord has every right and authority to direct that matters relating to the temple be kept sacred and confidential

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

You know the answer to that question.

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.

Then their recommends are not valid. They obtained the recommends by deceit.

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

Indeed. They are the ones who record the ceremony and publish it.

Bernard

Edited January 16, 2012 by Bernard Gui