Publishing The Temple Ceremony

[mercyngrace]

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.

Storm Rider,

There is a site I fould a while back that compares the temple ceremonies over time and deals with them respectfully. When I first encoutered the site, I was taken aback but have since come to appreciate the moderate tone of the site. It is not mocking or scornful.

I don't think I can post a link per board guidelines which is a shame because it's actually pertinent to this discussion - providing a counter example to the derogatory displays on many anti websites.

MnG

[Storm Rider]

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.

The point is that LDS do not go out of their way to publish, discuss, or monitor the sacred rituals of others. It is a red herring to bring any example up because we simply to do suffer from any desire to riducule or analyze the sacred rituals of other groups.

[Storm Rider]

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.

I agree, it rolls forth in spite of our poor actions and performance as members. I do not deny your experience, but I think it is an error to assume that it is the norm. Bad things happen and I tend to think that these bad things are the exception to the rule. Have LDS ever made fun or talked disparagingly about the religion/church/doctrines of other groups? Of course. Do we make a point of focusing our evangelical efforts on such things? Absolutely not. I in no way attempt to portray that LDS are perfect or are without sin, just that this one area is that we are often, as a church, culpable.

[LDSToronto]

The point is that LDS do not go out of their way to publish, discuss, or monitor the sacred rituals of others. It is a red herring to bring any example up because we simply to do suffer from any desire to riducule or analyze the sacred rituals of other groups.

Are you saying that Bernard's example is also a red herring? I'm fine to continue without the use of analogies - I get the feeling that you still aren't understanding the purpose of the analogy, but no matter.

If that is the case, the interesting question is whether it is legal, ethical, and moral to publish the ceremony for any purpose, including valid scholarly research.

I say it is.

H.

[Deborah]

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?

What group are you accusing of misrepresenting itself? And who is to judge whether they are misrepresenting themselves? We aren't talking of secular public political groups but rather of religious private groups. Since the LDS church doesn't discuss the temple ceremony except in the most general terms how can anyone say we are misrepresenting anything? How can anyone determine if the temple is un-Christian except by doing something which is in itself un-Christian? And why is this low-life then able to say that what they see is un-Christian when it is only according to what they think they see and not what the true meaning is?

[Storm Rider]

Are you saying that Bernard's example is also a red herring? I'm fine to continue without the use of analogies - I get the feeling that you still aren't understanding the purpose of the analogy, but no matter.

If that is the case, the interesting question is whether it is legal, ethical, and moral to publish the ceremony for any purpose, including valid scholarly research.

I say it is.

H.

I have already stated that I don't have a problem with scholarly discussions about the temple. However, I see no reason for the exact wording of the endowments to be used. In reality, there is very little that scholars cannot find in LDS materials about the temple; what they will not find is the exact wording of the ceremonies. Having said that, trying to make an argument that it is impossible to discuss the temple by scholars unless they have the exact wording is also a red herring.

[Hestia]

State your disagreements without personal insults. Otherwise the guilty parties will be banned or the thread closed.

[mercyngrace]

I agree, it rolls forth in spite of our poor actions and performance as members. I do not deny your experience, but I think it is an error to assume that it is the norm. Bad things happen and I tend to think that these bad things are the exception to the rule. Have LDS ever made fun or talked disparagingly about the religion/church/doctrines of other groups? Of course. Do we make a point of focusing our evangelical efforts on such things? Absolutely not. I in no way attempt to portray that LDS are perfect or are without sin, just that this one area is that we are often, as a church, culpable.

I agree that it would be a mistake to presume this behavior was the norm which is why I said I attributed it to the immaturity of youth. It is also a mistake to presume, based solely on one's experiences, that the behavior is an anomaly. It would take some kind of comprehensive study to even begin to determine what the norm is, especially considering that we are discussing individual rather than institutional behavior.

What cannot be disputed however, is that LDS authorities have made some statements that were derogatory about other faiths. To deny that these statements fostered an environment where condescension and sometimes disrespect toward other Christian sects prospered would be to intimate that LDS are not influenced by the words of their leaders.

[thesometimesaint]

Storm Rider:

Nibley and FARMS(Neil Mawell Institute) have already done so, and with a lot more fidelity to the Church than any number of internet postings.

[LeSellers]

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?"

Part of a copyright infringement lawsuit would be publishing the material in the court record, which makes it, ipso facto, a public document.

The Temple Ceremony is more a "trade secret" than a "copyright" issue. Copyrights expire (although, in USmerica, that expiry is very long—the same is not true in other countries, however—and Congress can change that duration more-or-less at will), but trade secrets remain in force as long as the holder can keep it going. No one is going to build a temple like unto the one ins Salt Lake City, and perform the ceremony we do, so, in effect, even though the ceremony is available, it is not being used with a religious meaning. The trade secret has burst, but the effectiveness has not been diluted.

The formula for Coca Cola^® is not copyrighted (nor patented). I would have a hard time accepting that anyone on the earth would believe that the formula for Coke^® is not intellectual property. But, if someone were to duplicate the formula, and manufacture a soft drink using that formula, I doubt the KO would take the matter to court for two reasons: first, as I intimated above, the formula would become public and accessible to anyone who wanted to make his own at home, or for the public. Second, The Coca Cola Company has enough influence to pressure the counterfeit into submission: they could, for instance, buy it out.

"Coca Cola" and "Coke" are registered trademarks of the Coca Cola Company.

The first is probably why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not go to court. The second would not work: those who have stolen our ceremony are not motivated by money but by hate, and hatred is a powerful thing.

Lehi

Edited January 16, 2012 by LeSellers

[Scott Lloyd]

, 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.

I still reject the accusation that mockery or disrespect of another's sacred beliefs is condoned or encouraged by the Church. In fact, I clearly remember specific warning against it during the time I was on my mission.

That certain members of the Church occasionally misbehave -- and not just as it relates to this matter -- is a given. I can deplore, condemn, reject such misbehavior. I can confront the offender, call him to repentance, report the misdeed where necessary. But. confident as I am that the Church itself condemns such behavior, I don't have to "own" the misdeeds.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeff K.]

The issues of copyright fit in the business arena, but the malice of those who want to denigrate private sacred rituals for their own peurile curiosity reflects something much worse. The defenders of such are of the same ilk, because they seek to justify the denigration. They know of no respect towards others, or rather, they consider such respect only for their "own" kind. Mormons to them are lesser beings who do not deserve equal treatment.

[Jeff K.]

I agree that it would be a mistake to presume this behavior was the norm which is why I said I attributed it to the immaturity of youth. It is also a mistake to presume, based solely on one's experiences, that the behavior is an anomaly. It would take some kind of comprehensive study to even begin to determine what the norm is, especially considering that we are discussing individual rather than institutional behavior.

What cannot be disputed however, is that LDS authorities have made some statements that were derogatory about other faiths. To deny that these statements fostered an environment where condescension and sometimes disrespect toward other Christian sects prospered would be to intimate that LDS are not influenced by the words of their leaders.

Some leaders had strong opinions that is true. They believed some churches to be abomindable, but did those leaders seek out the most sacred relics or ceremonies or did they insist upon filming the Vatican council perhaps? One can have a strong opinion of a different church, one can even state they think the church is wrong or even bad (I have my issues with scientology), but no leader of this church has ever sought to defame or denigrate what is viewed sacred by another church. One can disagree and still respect sacred rites.

I believe there is a confusion perhaps which is being used as justification by anti-Mormons like toronto and xander

[mercyngrace]

I still reject the accusation that mockery or disrespect of another's sacred beliefs is condoned or encouraged by the Church.

I agree and haven't said otherwise.

In fact, I clearly remember specific warning against it during the time I was on my mission.

Yep.

That certain members of the Church occasionally misbehave -- and not just as it relates to this matter -- is a given. I can deplore, condemn, reject such misbehavior. I can confront the offender, call him to repentance, report the misdeed where necessary. But. confident as I am that the Church itself condemns such behavior, I don't have to "own" the misdeeds.

What I said was that derogatory statements by influential leaders allowed for a culture of disrespect. Calling Protestants the lewd daughters of Catholicism and referring to the Catholic church as the whore of Babylon has impact, especially when those statements are made by men of influence in one's culture.

You don't have to own the misdeeds of individuals but you ought to be able to own that there is potential blowback from statements of church leaders which is the point I was making.

[mercyngrace]

Some leaders had strong opinions that is true. They believed some churches to be abomindable, but did those leaders seek out the most sacred relics or ceremonies or did they insist upon filming the Vatican council perhaps? One can have a strong opinion of a different church, one can even state they think the church is wrong or even bad (I have my issues with scientology), but no leader of this church has ever sought to defame or denigrate what is viewed sacred by another church. One can disagree and still respect sacred rites.

I believe there is a confusion perhaps which is being used as justification by anti-Mormons like toronto and xander

There's no confusion on my end, Jeff. I have not used statements by church leaders as a justification for publishing the temple rites. Not. Once.

I simply disputed the whitewash that the culture of disrespect for other churches never existed among LDS.

PS I've got to run but I'll check back tonight and respond to further comments if necessary. Have a good one.

MnG

Edited January 16, 2012 by mercyngrace

[wenglund]

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

Let me ask again: In an attempt to better understand your seemingly unique perspective 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, moral, or ethical, 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 and ethical 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-

[wenglund]

I simply disputed the whitewash that the culture of disrespect for other churches never existed among LDS.

So, you think there is an actual culture of disrespect rather than exceptional and isolated instances of desrespect by certain immature members? Fascinating.

All I can say is that my experience is quite the opposite.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bluebell]

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

Even though a person has to be dishonest to do so?

[Scott Lloyd]

What I said was that derogatory statements by influential leaders allowed for a culture of disrespect. Calling Protestants the lewd daughters of Catholicism and referring to the Catholic church as the whore of Babylon has impact, especially when those statements are made by men of influence in one's culture.

You don't have to own the misdeeds of individuals but you ought to be able to own that there is potential blowback from statements of church leaders which is the point I was making.

With the possible exception of certain passages in "Mormon Doctrine" that were removed in later editions and discredited, I don't recall such statements being made by Church leaders in my lifetime.

I do know it is a common anti-Mormon tactic -- exemplified by Graham on this thread -- to dredge up certain polemical quotations from the 19th century, when the Latter-day Saints had been subjected to persecution and atrocities and denial of civil liberties at the hands of sectarians, among others. I don't see how such a thing is relevant or productive in our day and age, nor do I see how it in any way justifies the public mockery or desecration of the temple ceremony, that desecration being the topic of this thread.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Pepcigirl]

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:

Quote

A note to the reader: ....and do not agree with the idea of keeping sacred things secret,...

Thought these quotes from early Christian Church Fathers were interesting and actually show that there was some secrecy in regards to Christian teaching in the early church:

"The Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the Sabbath; but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries, and of the holy light, to those who are able to receive them. He did not certainly disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving and being moulded according to them. But secret things were entrusted to speech, not to writing, as is the case with God."(Clement Stromateis 1.1).

The Alexandrian Orthodox Church of the second century included a belief of the Esoteric teachings amongst the mature Christians.

In the fourth century Esoteric teachings were still taught. Those who received these mysteries were warned not to divulge them to anyone.

"When the instruction was over, if any catechumen tries to get out of you what your teachers told you, tell nothing, for he is outside the mystery that we have delivered to you, with its hope of the age to come. Guard the mystery for His sake from whom you look for a reward. Never let anyone persuade you, saying "What harm is it that I should know as well?"...Already you stand on the frontier of mystery. I adjure you to smuggle no word out." (Procatechesis 12, taken from a translation by W. Telfer "Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius, Library of Christian Classics 1955).

"That the more learned of the Christians, subsequently to the second century, cultivated, in secret, an obtuse discipline of a different nature from that which they taught publicly, is well known to everyone."

"Why Peter, James and John, should have been, in particular, fixed upon as the apostles whom Christ selected as the most worthy of having this recondite wisdom communicated to them by word of mouth, is very easy to be perceived. For these were the three disciples whom our blessed Saviour took apart with him up into the mountain when he was about to be transfigured, (Matthew 17:1; Luke 9:28). To represent them, therefore, as having in a particular manner been favoured with an insight into all mysteries, appeared to be but consistent and proper."

These mysteries were then reserved for those who had been members of Christ's Church for some time: "The multitude professing Christianity were therefore divided by them into those who were not yet admitted to the mysteries, and the initiated, or the faithful and perfect...and as none were permitted to be present at these mysteries, as they were termed, save those whose admission into the fellowship of the church was perfect and complete, so likewise was it expected that, as a matter of duty, the most sacred silence should be observed in regard to everything connected with the celebration of them, and nothing whatever relating thereto to be committed to the ears of the profane."

And he further wrote that, according to the ancient non-Christians, these early Christians had special ways of identifying each other by "secret marks and signs". (Mosheim "Historical Commentaries on the State of Christianity, 1854 Vol 1. 1.373; 1.77; 1.391; 2.472).

Cyril said that :

If a catechumen is told of the Mysteries by one of the faithful: not understanding what he has been told, the catechumen raves, attacking the doctrine and ridiculing the statement, while the believer stands condemned as a traitor. (The Works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catholic University of America Press 1969, Vol 1. Pg79-80).

Athanasius instructed those who had been initiated that:

"One must not recite the mysteries to the uninitiated, lest outsiders who do not understand make fun of them while they perplex and scandalize catechumens."

[BCSpace]

I don't think we need to worry about the esoteric temple rites being published elsewhere. First, it's quite benign. Second, despite it's availability, I've never heard a critic of the Church accurately describe it, even if they were once worthy temple going members themselves.

[cinepro]

The Church of Scientology (COS) presents a process of personal improvement that takes its members through different levels of spiritual acheivement and enlightenmnet, at some cost and effort per level.

Anti-Scientologists have gained access to the transcripts used in teaching the higher levels of Scientology (called Operating Thetan levels or "OT" levels), and published them on the internet, much to the chagrin of the Scientologists.

Apparently, these transcripts were used in a law suit involving an ex-scientologist (Steven Fishman) and the COS, and thus became part of the public court record:

When Fishman was then brought to court, he used parts of Scientology-documents to prove he had been brainwashed by the Church. These Scientology documents thereby became public material: anybody could go to the court library and read them. The Church, fearing that its sacred secrets would be revealed, had some of their people going to the library every day to borrow these documents, thereby preventing other people (read: non-Scientologists) from reading them. Nevertheless, the Fishman Affidavit got copied (it was also available through the clerk of the court, for a mere $36.50). Somebody retrieved the affidavit via the clerk, scanned it, and posted it to the net. The Fishman Affidavit has been travelling on the Internet ever since.

Suppose someone were studying Scientology with an academic interest, and as part of that study wanted to understand the "higher" teachings given to more experienced members. Would it be ethical for them to study these OT levels?

Suppose someone were introduced to Scientology by a friend, and were interested in beginning the long and expensive journey to OT VIII. But they wanted to have a broader picture of what Scientology was about and "what they were getting into". Would it be ethical for them to study the public transcripts of the higher OT levels as a way of getting a clearer view of their new religion?

Is there an acceptable middle ground between total secrecy and public mockery when it comes to religions and their secrets?

Edited January 16, 2012 by cinepro

[Libs]

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.

(Bold mine) Hi Calmoriah. Regarding that last sentence, I would think a member who had made promises in the Temple would be much more accountable, than someone who never did, and may not fully understand the meaning it has for LDS.

[Pahoran]

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

Especially since there are no contemporary representations of him, and nobody now knows what he looked like, there is no way to produce an actual likeness anyway. (The Persian representations I alluded to earlier always show Muhammad with his face veiled.) So someone could caption a picture "Muhammad" but it would not be truthful to actually claim it to be his likeness.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bernard Gui]

I don't think I can post a link per board guidelines which is a shame because it's actually pertinent to this discussion - providing a counter example to the derogatory displays on many anti websites.

Any display of the ceremony outside the temple is derogatory and disrespectful.

Bernard