Publishing The Temple Ceremony

[Bernard Gui]

Concerning 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.

Well, there's the problem. They think they own the masks, but you don't.

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.

Nor can you blame the tribe for wanting to get them back.

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.

Someone had to get it and publish it. It didn't publish itself. What legal, moral, or ethical right did they have to do that?

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.

Really? I suppose dragging our sacred garments through the mud and hoisting them on poles at conference doesn't really harm us either.

Bernard

Edited January 16, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Jeff K.]

I can't even begin to imagine what this has to do with the temple. But thanks for the visual.

H.

Of course you can't, it is what limits you in so many conversations. Your bigotry blinds you.

[altersteve]

So are meetinghouses.

H.

Nope. Anybody is welcome inside an LDS meetinghouse.

[wenglund]

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.

In an attempt to better understand your seemingly unique perception about the public disclosures of things "sacred," would you think the same way you do if instead of calling it "sacred" we used the word "private" or "privacy."

In other words, in your view, is it appropriate to, absent requisite permission, for people to publically disclose private matters as long as it is done "tastefully" and in the interest of "scholarship?"

For example, would you find it entrely respectful and perfectly appropriate were someone outside your family, and without your family's permission, to install a video camera above your shower and toilet, and to broadcast the videos online as a part of a scholarly study of the bathroom habits of Canadians?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 16, 2012 by wenglund

[Duncan]

In an attempt to better understand your seemingly unique perception about the public disclosures of things "sacred," would you think the same way you do if instead of calling it "sacred" we used the word "private" or "privacy."

In other words, in your view, is it appropriate to, absent requisite permission, for people to publically disclose private matters as long as it is done "tastefully" and in the interest of "scholarship?"

For example, would you find it entrely respectful and perfectly appropriate were someone outside your family, and without your family's permission, to install a video camera above your shower and toilet, and to broadcast the videos online as a part of a scholarly study of the bathroom habits of Canadians?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

the only people interested in such a study would be some pervert nutbag, probably American too, we Canadians have all the answers we need and we need not know about matters such as these! we have much bigger fish to fry like who's going to win the Stanly Cup this year. Let me tell you a little about our organization...!

Edited January 16, 2012 by Duncan

[Storm Rider]

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.

I agree with you. In our mission we went to Midnight mass at Christmas, we met with priests so that they knew who we were and that they understood that we were seeking out the lost sheep (some appreciated and a few were still very protective of their area). The most I heard was a discussion of McConkie's allegation that the Catholic Church was the Great Whore, which was always disputed by some while others accepted it as reality. We visited cathedrals and had an amical relationship with almost everyone. I just did not see this a the hateful display that mercyngrace or Xander say they saw.

[Bernard Gui]

For example, would you find it entrely respectful and perfectly appropriate were someone outside your family, and without your family's permission, to install a video camera above your shower and toilet, and to broadcast the videos online as a part of a scholarly study of the bathroom habits of Canadians?

They have showers and toilets in Canada?

Bernard

[Storm Rider]

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

Yes, the covenants are very specific and they do not cover the entire ceremony or ritual. However, you will find most LDS reticent to talk directly about the temple endowment.

[Duncan]

They have showers and toilets in Canada?

Bernard

you are always welcome to come to my house to find out! I got extra sheets, blankets, pillows and cutlery

[Storm Rider]

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.

Where has it been published for strictly scholarly research? Or in a strictly "freedom of information" type of format? I don't think these situations exist, rather they have all been published by those typically thought of as anti-Mormons and their objective is to ridicule.

For me personally, I think it is healthy to have respectful discussions about the temple and discuss those things that are acceptable for public discussion.

[wenglund]

They have showers and toilets in Canada?

Bernard

Speaking of disrespectful, I heard they merged the two and now call it a bidet, but I could be wrong. LOL (Okay, enough of the potty humor)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 16, 2012 by wenglund

[Storm Rider]

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'?

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.

This is a red herring; there are no pictures of the prophet Mohammed nor has the LDS Church gone out of its way to publish any likeness of the prophet Mohammed.

[Duncan]

I heard they merged the two and call it a bidet, but I could be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

rumour

[Bernard Gui]

you are always welcome to come to my house to find out! I got extra sheets, blankets, pillows and cutlery

Do you guys have toilet paper yet? Maple leaves are a bit rough.

Sorry, but I couldn't help it.

Bernard

[Storm Rider]

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.

It is quite possible to discuss the temple ordinances in a respectful manner without publishing the exact wording of the endowment itself. There is no need to do so to have a sholarly discussion.

[Duncan]

Do you guys have toilet paper yet? Maple leaves are a bit rough.

Sorry, but I couldn't help it.

Bernard

oh, that's rich!!!

[Bernard Gui]

oh, that's rich!!!

Major bummer. I get after Xander for derailing the thread, and now look at what I'm doing!

Oh, the hypocrisy.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

This is a red herring; there are no pictures of the prophet Mohammed nor has the LDS Church gone out of its way to publish any likeness of the prophet Mohammed.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to publish a likeness of Mohammed other than to stick it in

the eye of his followers.

Bernard

[Calm]

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")..

Thank you, Libs.

[Calm]

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.

I think that not making the effort to find out how important the temple ceremony is to LDS (and thus learning it is sacred and should not be published) is a sign of disrespect as well. I cannot imagine anyone publishing it thinking it is somehow trivial to LDS and therefore they should make an effort to find out just how important it is, so I see no excuse in ignorance.

If the purpose is concern that LDS are teaching a false religion, surely there is plenty of doctrine elsewhere that fills this need. Even for this purpose, one can be restrained in how one criticizes another faith's.

I feel the same treatment should be given when discussing and exploring any society's potentially sacred beliefs, even on an academic level 'for the pure pursuit of knowledge'. Such maybe a less frivolous and therefore less petty form of curiosity, but it is still curiosity and therefore one has a choice on how to approach the study and publish the results, whether one gives those she studies dignity and respects or treats them as the equivalents as primates or other animals, as if they were simply objects to fulfill the desires of the researchers alone without value in and of themselves whose concerns and beliefs should have more impact than just being noted in lists of facts or dissected for further 'insights'.

Any LDS who has fallen into treating others with the same sort of disrespect and objectification will have to repent and suffer the consequences of their sin as much as any nonmember choosing to publish the temple ceremony.

Edited January 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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

More like tidying up afterwards.

[Calm]

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.

I believe England taxes temple grounds for this very reason, they are not open to the public.

[LDSToronto]

This is a red herring; there are no pictures of the prophet Mohammed nor has the LDS Church gone out of its way to publish any likeness of the prophet Mohammed.

Guys, this was an analogous scenario - of course the LDS church hasn't published any likeness of Mohammed (as far as I know), but then again, I didn't claim it had.

And, a quick google search would show that pictures of Mohammed have been made by others. However, I find it strange that a few of you have labeled this a red herring yet fully support the idea of the Iroquois protecting its medicine masks. If that analogy works, we can use that one.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Well, there's the problem. They think they own the masks, but you don't.

They own the masks they hold in possession. I question whether they own masks that are in private collections and public institutions. I think it's more complex than simply saying, "We hold these things sacred and we want them back". One would have to trace the trail of possession back to the original transactions.

Nor can you blame the tribe for wanting to get them back.

Of course not. I'm simply saying that their claim may not be valid.

Someone had to get it and publish it. It didn't publish itself. What legal, moral, or ethical right did they have to do that?

Legally, I don't know - I'd really like to hear from a lawyer who understands whether the church has a legal leg to stand on. Moral and ethical? To explore those we'd best start another thread because we would have to understand a whole bunch of stuff about the temple ceremony, the culture that surrounds temple attendance, and temple worthiness.

But in a nutshell, I do not believe that the act of recording the temple ceremony is immoral or unethical.

Really? I suppose dragging our sacred garments through the mud and hoisting them on poles at conference doesn't really harm us either.

I stated in my first post on this thread, and I stated in a subsequent post, that I do not believe it is morally right to use sacred things to make a mockery of a religion.

H.

[mercyngrace]

The most I heard was a discussion of McConkie's allegation that the Catholic Church was the Great Whore, which was always disputed by some while others accepted it as reality. We visited cathedrals and had an amical relationship with almost everyone. I just did not see this a the hateful display that mercyngrace or Xander say they saw.

I heard and participated in the very kind of discussion you described, Storm Rider. But the other things I described happened as well and to deny them just because they validate the experiences of someone I disagree with would be dishonest.

Sometimes the gospel rolls forth because of us. Other times, it rolls forth in spite of us. Whatever our flaws individually or institutionally, the gospel is still true and the Lord is still in charge. He doesn't need me to lie or to protect His image, His people, or His church.