Publishing The Temple Ceremony

[Senator]

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

Bernard

To be fair we should say, "display of certain elements of the ceremony" outside the temple........

[Jeff K.]

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:

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?

It is called respecting the right to privacy of other groups, even other sects. We cannot and should not invoke some personal bias in order to take away from someone else what we ourselves would not wish taken. The broader picture is one in which an individual involved can make the choice they wish to make. No one forces you to remain in a group once you feel they are not for you, so the point of "investigating in depth" becomes moot when one crosses the line into exposing what is a private ritual which hurts no one.

If people did not mock, I suppose it wouldn't be an issue, but they do and that is enough to want to hold sacred things and intimate things in private away from those who wish to denigrate it.

[Pahoran]

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.

Let's see.

A person enters the Temple on the understanding that they are going to hold it and its ordinances sacred.

S/he affirms that s/he will keep the covenants entered therein.

S/he is admitted on a basis of trust.

S/he betrays that trust by smuggling recording equipment in.

S/he breaks solemn promises by divulging things s/he promised to hold sacred.

And Toronto doesn't see anything wrong with that.

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

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.

But if someone says they are using such sacred things for purposes of (nudge, nudge) "study" (wink, wink) you'll unhesitatingly accept that without question.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

To be fair we should say, "display of certain elements of the ceremony" outside the temple........

No. To be fair, we should say "Any display of the ceremony outside the temple is derogatory and disrespectful."

Have you noticed that there is a clear divide on this question throughout this thread?

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

ANY display of ANY part of the Ceremony outside of the Temple is disrespectful to LDS To display certain parts of the Ceremony outside of the Temple is contemptuous of LDS who hold the Temple Ceremonies as sacred. Further for exLDS, and currant LDS alike to display them violates covenants already made. Motivations are irrelevent.

IE; As a social worker I have made agreements with the state to keep priviledged information confidential. Even my retirement did not release me from that agreement.

Edited January 16, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

(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.

In regards to the temple, certainly. However, for that remark I was thinking though of LDS who disrespected others' sacred faiths, not ones they claim to hold or formerly held. Devout LDS may be in the situation where they do not fully understand the meaning for the Catholic, the Jew or any other who have beliefs they hold dear and wish to protect from casual abuse, I would still hold them accountable because they should understand the meaning of what has been dedicated to the sacred and be able to see it and understand the same value in others' lives as their own even if the object of that regard is significantly different. I do think we should take the time to learn what a faith principle really is and means to those who hold it or choose not to say anything about it at all in order to avoid error.

[David T]

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.

Just like pictures of Jesus.

[Senator]

No. To be fair, we should say "Any display of the ceremony outside the temple is derogatory and disrespectful."

Have you noticed that there is a clear divide on this question throughout this thread?

Regards,

Pahoran

A signifcant portion of the temple narrative can be had in our very public scriptures. They can be read at any time, any place. Only certain elements are to be kept in reserve.

[David T]

Elder Hales published the names of the Covenants made in the Temple - in order - in a visual diagram in his latest book 'Return'. So it's safe to say that's not off limits, and not a violation of the Covenants to do so.

Edited January 16, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Duncan]

Elder Hales published the names of the Covenants made in the Temple - in order - in a visual diagram in his latest book 'Return'. So it's safe to say that's not off limits, and not a violation of the Covenants to do so.

I read a talk recently by an AA70 that IMO said some stuff that was a bit of a collar yanker

[Stargazer]

I have no idea for sure but I assume someone smuggled in a recording device.

The word "smuggle" suggests that it would be difficult to do. Not so.

I once "smuggled" one of those little digital audio recorders into the temple inadvertantly. The intent was not to record anything in the temple, but to record a speaker at a business meeting that I attended beforehand, and it was in my white shirt pocket -- the same shirt I wore for the temple session. So, here I am leaving the temple chapel on the way to the ordinance room, and suddenly I remember the device, which I had not shut off after the business meeting. I managed a detour to the rest room and turned the stupid thing off before getting into the session. It was one of those models with a 4 hour recording memory, so it had lots of capacity left.

They don't search you at the recommend desk, so it can't be "smuggling".

[mercyngrace]

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

Past tense.

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

Present tense.

Please don't put words in my mouth, Wade.

[mercyngrace]

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

Bernard

Bernard,

Do you consider the textual renderings of ancient temple rites to be an offense against earlier saints? If prophets, scribes, translators,and scholars consolidated those vivid descriptions of temple rites in a book, for example, would that be sacrilege?

MnG

PS What if someone used the information from that book and made a video about it?

This is why I think intent matters and that some things can be explained, written about, discussed, and even depicted outside the temple - and that such can be done in a respectful way.

Edited January 16, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Libs]

In regards to the temple, certainly. However, for that remark I was thinking though of LDS who disrespected others' sacred faiths, not ones they claim to hold or formerly held. Devout LDS may be in the situation where they do not fully understand the meaning for the Catholic, the Jew or any other who have beliefs they hold dear and wish to protect from casual abuse, I would still hold them accountable because they should understand the meaning of what has been dedicated to the sacred and be able to see it and understand the same value in others' lives as their own even if the object of that regard is significantly different. I do think we should take the time to learn what a faith principle really is and means to those who hold it or choose not to say anything about it at all in order to avoid error.

Yeah, I hear ya. I would still give a little more leeway in that area, simply because a person may very unknowingly step on "sacred toes" and it's just not always possible to know everything about every religion that one may come in contact with. Have to say, though, that if I were touring a sacred place, I would make a point of finding out about the customs and "taboos", before entering a place of worship.

Most of the critics of Mormonism don't have ignorance as an excuse, though, because most have either studied the religion (or have been members) and are well aware of LDS belief about things sacred (Temple, garments, etc). They choose to trespass & defile, anyway, with no regard for the feelings of others.

[Libs]

A side note, on the story about LDS missionaries and their behavior in a Catholic Church (from Xander, I think?)...that's not the first incident I have heard of LDS missionaries behaving in such a manner towards Catholics. I think a few missionaries got into trouble, somewhere in South America, for destroying some statues of Catholic Saints. I wonder if the MTC impresses the importance of respecting other religions, as a part of the missionary training? Seems that would be a good thing (and could be it's already being done...I really don't know).

[Jeff K.]

The MTC did indeed impress the importance of respecting other religions. It is in their red languages books (back in the day) and I remember it being taught to me in a very straightfoward way (back in the 1980's), I don't see the church retreating from that position.

[Duncan]

The word "smuggle" suggests that it would be difficult to do. Not so.

I once "smuggled" one of those little digital audio recorders into the temple inadvertantly. The intent was not to record anything in the temple, but to record a speaker at a business meeting that I attended beforehand, and it was in my white shirt pocket -- the same shirt I wore for the temple session. So, here I am leaving the temple chapel on the way to the ordinance room, and suddenly I remember the device, which I had not shut off after the business meeting. I managed a detour to the rest room and turned the stupid thing off before getting into the session. It was one of those models with a 4 hour recording memory, so it had lots of capacity left.

They don't search you at the recommend desk, so it can't be "smuggling".

haha! that's a hoot! I I am now wondering if someone brought in a video camcorder type thing or just a listening device

[wenglund]

Bernard,

Do you consider the textual renderings of ancient temple rites to be an offense against earlier saints? If prophets, scribes, translators,and scholars consolidated those vivid descriptions of temple rites in a book, for example, would that be sacrilege?

MnG

PS What if someone used the information from that book and made a video about it?

You really think there is a moral equivolency here? Amazing!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

A side note, on the story about LDS missionaries and their behavior in a Catholic Church (from Xander, I think?)...that's not the first incident I have heard of LDS missionaries behaving in such a manner towards Catholics. I think a few missionaries got into trouble, somewhere in South America, for destroying some statues of Catholic Saints. I wonder if the MTC impresses the importance of respecting other religions, as a part of the missionary training? Seems that would be a good thing (and could be it's already being done...I really don't know).

I think I remember the incident. Wasn't it in Mexico? There was a group of statues, and the head had come off one of them. One of the missionaries picked up the head and posed for an "Alas poor Yorick" kind of photo. Since nobody knew when or how the statues had been damaged, the missionaries were blamed.

The lesson for them being that they really shouldn't have been horsing around with something that was sacred to the local people.

When I served my mission, back in the 1970's, the white handbook contained an instruction which, IIRC, said something to the effect of, "Do not make light of matters that are sacred or otherwise significant to the people in your mission area." Their "making light" got them unfairly blamed for the actual damage, something that they wouldn't have been blamed for if they had behaved themselves as missionaries are supposed to.

Pity the facts don't support the hate-based accusations of the Grahams of this world, but I think I can live with that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

"Former temple-going members who have left the LDS Church, on the other hand, often view their oath as invalid or non-binding."

That would be a difficult position to defended to the face of God on judgement day.

I didn't think it was binding because I didn't believe in it any more?!

Heck even if the Gospel of Jesus Christ (as LDS understand it) isn't God's official version I'd be too embarassed to defend those actions in the presence of God. Funny how I left Methodism to become a Latter-day Saint yet I have never felt the need to publish the deep dark secrets of my Methodist family, minister and congregation, or trumpet their doctrinal errors!

Wow! Just wow!

Edited January 16, 2012 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

Bernard,

Do you consider the textual renderings of ancient temple rites to be an offense against earlier saints? If prophets, scribes, translators,and scholars consolidated those vivid descriptions of temple rites in a book, for example, would that be sacrilege?

MnG

PS What if someone used the information from that book and made a video about it?

This is why I think intent matters and that some things can be explained, written about, discussed, and even depicted outside the temple - and that such can be done in a respectful way.

I'm not Bernard but I will play him for this post...

if a significant portion of those beliefs were still practiced and held by contemporaries I would think it very bad form to publish old versions of their sacred and private writings. It fits very well with Christ's admonition to do unto others...

The same applies to actions. I don't have a problem seeing the remains of Amerinds in a museum, but if a local tribe of living Indians is offended then repatriate the remains and don't go digging for more!!

[wenglund]

Past tense.

Present tense.

Please don't put words in my mouth, Wade.

Even though my QUESTION (speaking of putting words into people's mouths) could be interpreted in a tense-neutral sense, let me accommodate your baffling need for hyper-precision of language, and rephrase my simple and striaghtforward question this way: "So, you think there existed an actual culture of disrespect rather than exceptional and isolated instances of desrespect by certain immature members?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mercyngrace]

You really think there is a moral equivolency here? Amazing!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

In order to suggest moral equivalency, you must have two things to equate. I did not compare or contrast anything. I am simply suggesting that some depictions and transcriptions may be done respectfully. To illustrate that point, I selected a depiction of sacred rites that find respectful.

MnG

[LDSToronto]

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

How is one dishonest? If I recall, there is no temple recommend question that asks if you are divulging temple rituals.

H.

[Pahoran]

The word "smuggle" suggests that it would be difficult to do. Not so.

I once "smuggled" one of those little digital audio recorders into the temple inadvertantly. The intent was not to record anything in the temple, but to record a speaker at a business meeting that I attended beforehand, and it was in my white shirt pocket -- the same shirt I wore for the temple session. So, here I am leaving the temple chapel on the way to the ordinance room, and suddenly I remember the device, which I had not shut off after the business meeting. I managed a detour to the rest room and turned the stupid thing off before getting into the session. It was one of those models with a 4 hour recording memory, so it had lots of capacity left.

They don't search you at the recommend desk, so it can't be "smuggling".

The point is not that it's difficult. The point is that it is surreptitious, i.e. intentionally dishonest. If you can find a more apropos term than "smuggling," then I'll be happy to use that.

Your experience, wherein you inadvertently carried something in, forgetting that you had it, merely shows that it's not hard to bring it in. But for a morally upright person, something may be both physically easy and morally impossible.

OTOH, for a morally bankrupt person....

Regards,

Pahoran