Nominee Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 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. Withoutour 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'sa social scientist gathering information on LDS family activities. OK. That makes it all better.Clear and valid. Thank you, Bernard.
LDSToronto Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 How does freedom of information concern a private ceremony?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. Withoutour 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'sa social scientist gathering information on LDS family activities. OK. That makes it all better.Churches are public places of worship. My home is a private dwelling. I would suggest, and this is only a guess, that the church would sue the pants off anyone making publishing copies of the temple ceremony if they had the ability.So, why aren't there any lawsuits claiming IP or copyright infringement?H.
Jeff K. Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Churches are public places of worship. My home is a private dwelling. I would suggest, and this is only a guess, that the church would sue the pants off anyone making publishing copies of the temple ceremony if they had the ability.So, why aren't there any lawsuits claiming IP or copyright infringement?H.Temples are NOT public places. I wish these people would stop attempting to justify what is wrong.
LDSToronto Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Then the recommend is not valid.I don't understand this answer. Anyone with a valid temple recommend can enter the temple.H.
Nominee Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Churches are public places of worship. My home is a private dwelling.Temples are not public places of worship. So what is your point here?
LDSToronto Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Temples are NOT public places. I wish these people would stop attempting to justify what is wrong.CFR
LDSToronto Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Temples are not public places of worship. So what is your point here?CFR
Nominee Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) CFRThe Laie Hawaii Temple open house, being held from October 22 through November 13, excluding Sundays, is open to the general public. Guests will be taken on guided tours of the temple. Tickets are required and are available free of charge.This is as close to public as a Temple gets. And no, the ordinances are not demonstrated for the curious during said tour. Edited January 16, 2012 by Nominee
Jeff K. Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Temples are not open to the public. They are privately held properties not open to the public.
Bernard Gui Posted January 16, 2012 Author Posted January 16, 2012 So, why aren't there any lawsuits claiming IP or copyright infringement?You know the answer to that question.Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted January 16, 2012 Author Posted January 16, 2012 I don't understand this answer. Anyone with a valid temple recommend can enter the temple.A recommend obtained by deceit is not valid. It may get you in the door, but you gainedentrance fraudulently. In essence, it is a counterfeit. Bernard
Jeff K. Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Temples are paid for and maintained with private, not public funds, they are not open to the public. They are only open to members who meet certain criteria and they have a right to refuse anyone entrance because they are private property.
cinepro Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Ordinances for which the wording and instructions are made publicly available:- Naming and Blessing Children- Baptism- Confirmation- Conferring the Priesthood- Blessing the Sacrament- Consecrating Oil- Administering to the Sick- Anointing With Oil- Sealing the Anointing- Father's Blessing- Dedicating GravesGranted, these are performed outside of Temples, but are they not also sacred? Has their availability in the public realm exposed them to ridicule or desecration by the world?Apparently, it's possible for the wording of ordinances to be made public and for that ordinance to still remain sacred. I suspect that if the Church made the wording for the Temple ordinances public, the shock value would dissapate and anti-Mormons would quickly lose interest. Edited January 16, 2012 by cinepro
Nominee Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Regular Temple Operation>After being dedicated, temples are open for use by Church members Monday through Saturday. In order to enter the temple, Church members must (1) be at least 12 years of age, (2) be a member for at least one year, and (3) have a current temple recommend. To obtain a recommend, a Church member has a special interview with his or her bishop or branch president and stake or district president before going to the temple. These Church leaders will ask questions to determine if the member has a testimony of the Church, keeps the commandments, supports Church leaders, obeys the Word of Wisdom, pays tithing, and is honest.
Jeff K. Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 I kiss my wife in public. It does not mean I want our intimate moments to be filmed. I think you can see that difference.
TAO Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) 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.Nah, my friend. It's disrespectful because it concerns us, and not others, and we ask for it not to be done.Thus the reason I find people who dress immodestly annoying, but not disrepsectful, accordingly. Edited January 16, 2012 by TAO 1
LDSToronto Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) You know the answer to that question.BernardNo, I really don't know the answer to this question - if you know the answer, I'm all ears. Again: "So, why aren't there any lawsuits claiming IP or copyright infringement?"H. Edited January 16, 2012 by LDSToronto
LDSToronto Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Temples are paid for and maintained with private, not public funds, they are not open to the public. They are only open to members who meet certain criteria and they have a right to refuse anyone entrance because they are private property.So are meetinghouses.H.
LDSToronto Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 I kiss my wife in public. It does not mean I want our intimate moments to be filmed. I think you can see that difference.I can't even begin to imagine what this has to do with the temple. But thanks for the visual.H.
Bernard Gui Posted January 16, 2012 Author Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Ordinances for which the wording and instructions are made publicly available:Granted, these are performed outside of Temples, but are they not also sacred? Has their availability in the public realm exposed them to ridicule or desecration by the world?Apparently, it's possible for the wording of ordinances to be made public and for that ordinance to still remain sacred. I suspect that if the Church made the wording for the Temple ordinances public, the shock value would dissapate and anti-Mormons would quickly lose interest.Substitute "temple ordinances" for "medicine masks."Exhibition Of Medicine MasksThe 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 be 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. The temple is a refuge from the world, not a reflection of it. It is sacred space and should be respected as such, both by believers andnon-believers.Bernard Edited January 16, 2012 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted January 16, 2012 Author Posted January 16, 2012 No, I really don't know the answer to this question - if you know the answer, I'm all ears. Again: "So, why aren't there any lawsuits claiming IP or copyright infringement?"Sacred things would be made public. Church members could not participate without violating their covenants.Bernard
LDSToronto Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Substitute "temple ordinances" for "medicine masks."Can one photograph these masks? Study their use in rituals and First Nations society?H.
Thinking Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Critics believe that what goes on inside an LDS temple is un-Christian. Of course we can't debate that belief because of board guidelines. If you believed a group was misrepresenting itself, would you try to expose it? 1
Bernard Gui Posted January 16, 2012 Author Posted January 16, 2012 Can one photograph these masks? Study their use in rituals and First Nations society?Read it again and look for this part:Reproductions, castings, photographs, or illustrations of medicine masks should not be used in exhibitions, as the image of the medicine masks should not be used in these fashions.How would you propose studying the masks if they are not to be used for that purpose according to their owners?Do you respect their wishes?Bernard
LDSToronto Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Read it again and look for this part:How would you propose studying the masks if they are not to be used for that purpose according to their owners?Do you respect their wishes?BernardConcerning these masks, I question the claim that ownership belongs to the tribe - there's more to ownership than the issuance of an edict. But that is neither here nor there.Do I respect their wishes - sure. I have no problems with a group claiming sacred exclusivity when it comes to ownership. But if the group gives up one of the masks, as it has done in the past, you can hardly blame an anthropologist for wanting to study it.Similarly with the the temple rites. Claim sacred exclusivity for as long as you'd like, but don't blame others when the ritual is published and examined.I don't believe that anyone should use the temple ordinances to cause harm to the LDS people (through mockery) but I also don't believe that revealing the ordinances for study does any great harm to the LDS people.H.
Recommended Posts