Publishing The Temple Ceremony

[Jeff K.]

I also eat small, fattened children.

H.

You can try and squirm out of your justification of lying all day, it doesn't make you a better person.

[Senator]

IHowever, the fact remains that no Latter-day Saint is bound by covenent to keep anything secret save the portions where one is put under covenant. Sure, some Latter-day Saints can insist upon secrecy, but that insistence makes no difference because nobody is bound by covenent not to divulge those other portions.

You seem to be changing your tune a little bit here. But that's a good thing!!!

Besides, I can, in good faith, tell you that I have been in more than one Sunday School and priesthood lesson where the temple ceremony, non-secret parts, are spoken of freely, outside the temple.

The LDS can't have it both ways - you can't claim secrecy and then speak freely of any portion of the ceremony outside the temple.

No, we don't speak freely of any portion of the temple ceremony.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't particularly care what you do as a researcher; you are bound by your ethics and I'll respect that.

Not my ethics. I'm bound by commonly accepted guidelines concerning what is ethical behaviour in research.

However, the fact remains that no Latter-day Saint is bound by covenent to keep anything secret save the portions where one is put under covenant.

Not bound by covenant, but very much bound by clearly communicated community expectations. Your conceit that one can violate such community expectations as long as one hasn't made a formal covenant not to simply wouldn't pass muster with any ethics committee I'm aware of.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[Deborah]

If that were true, no one could ever cliam to have been defrauded.

And your point is...? They claim they were defrauded because they come across some information that they thought was secret but which has been shown over and over to have been available all along.

[Jeff K.]

Morality is such fluid concept, especially among the religous minded.

Evangelicals can justify their behavior, believing sincerly that they are doing the lord's work.

ExMo's justify the breach of a covenant, with the sincere belief that they were the victims of fraud, and thus are free from their covenants.

Actually that is not accurate, it tends to be those who have no moral background in religion who take the many twists and turns. It is not nearly as fluid for the religious minded as it is almost non existent for those who are of no particular religion. They will justify anything.

I have spoken with evangelicals. They aren't nearly as sanguine of the dishonesty displayed by some here who would justify dishonest acts. Their phrase "What would Jesus Do" provokes them to think more carefully. Those who have lost their religious upbringing or have tossed it in the bin, they are the ones who are gladly and openly dishonest (if not cowardly since they let others do their dirty work), those types seek to justify it. Evangelicals in general, even the ones who make fun of our garments are often somewhat embarrassed that people actually consider the falsehood of breaking oaths to God in order to do nothing more than desecrate what is important.

Indeed many evangelicals are considering a change in tactic in which they more seriously approach Latter-day Saints and love them towards their church. It came out in the last meeting they had in Salt Lake City. Usually the anti Mormons like Toronto have lost or disposed of any Christian stance and it is their "fluid" morality which allows them to justify a lie. I have yet to hear of Christian non Mormons on this board (versus the anti Mormons who might claim Christianity but aren't followers of Christ) who would agree with the Torontos that would allow anything.

So you guys can keep equating the law with morality, but thats really not what its about is it? Its about doing something dishonest and with the aim of desecrating what are considered important sacred rituals. Laws of man allow many immoral things. Those acts of dishonesty and desecration being but one.

[Deborah]

Similarly, if your opinion differs from anothers opinion, that does not make the other person small-minded or ignorant. It makes the two opinions different.

We aren't talking about expressing an opinion. We are talking about underhanded methods to publish information for which privacy and respect have been asked.

[Jeff K.]

Not my ethics. I'm bound by commonly accepted guidelines concerning what is ethical behaviour in research.

Not bound by covenant, but very much bound by clearly communicated community expectations. Your conceit that one can violate such community expectations as long as one hasn't made a formal covenant not to simply wouldn't pass muster with any ethics committee I'm aware of.

If you hate enough, you can change your ethics so that others have less of a right to the same things you demand for yourself. But it requires hate, not empathy.

[Pahoran]

Morality is such fluid concept, especially among the religous minded.

And the irreligious minded.

Evangelicals can justify their behavior, believing sincerly that they are doing the lord's work.

Indeed. Jesus himself prophesied that those who think like EV's would think they are doing God service even as they open fire.

ExMo's justify the breach of a covenant, with the sincere belief that if they bleat loudly enough about being the victims of fraud, some will be deceived thereby and thus be anxious to assure them that they are free from their covenants.

There. Fixed it for you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sleeper Cell]

Sorry, but faithful members of the Church do not pay tithing "in exchange" for anything. They do it because they believe it's God's money.

That was precisely my point. You completely misunderstood my post.

[ERayR]

While I think it deplorable that there are those with such little integrity that they cannot honor their promises the publication of the sacred covenants does not lessen its sacredness for me. It does hurt to se sacred things profaned and I feel no reason to associate with any who would do this. I certainly would have no dealings with anyone who couldn't be trusted to honor covenants.

[LDSToronto]

You seem to be changing your tune a little bit here. But that's a good thing!!!

There are many ideas at play here:

1) The whole temple ceremony is sacred vs. specific parts of the ceremony are sacred

2) It is unethical to divulge any part of the ceremony vs. some parts can be divulged vs. every part should be divulged

3) It is unethical to obtain the ceremony, period vs. it is ethical to obtain the ceremony by any means

4) There are no acceptable reasons to publish the temple ceremony vs. there are acceptable reasons to publish the temple ceremony

5) Any publication of the temple ceremony is a desecration and is disrespectable vs. the temple ceremony can be published without desecrating it or showing disrespect

I believe that the second option for each is valid (third option for #2).

H.

[LDSToronto]

A new thought has occured to me, inspired by Jaybear.

Underlying the concept of theft is the assumption of ownership. It has been assumed throughout this discussion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owns the temple endowment ceremony. This assumption has gone unchallenged.

Certainly it can not be disputed that the Church owns temples in which the endowment ceremony is performed, but can the Church claim ownership of the endowment ceremony itself?

H.

Edited January 18, 2012 by LDSToronto

[LDSToronto]

duplicate

Edited January 18, 2012 by LDSToronto

[Cobalt-70]

Yes it is. Borrowing a movie (or music album, or whatever) from your friend and making a copy of it for yourself to avoid paying for it is a violation of federal law. It's just incredibly easy to get away with this, so people rarely get punished for it.

You can read the U.S. law for yourself. Copying your friend's DVD is copyright infringement, yes, and the copyright holder can sue you if they want to. But it is not a crime unless it is done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, or one of the other two limited categories of section 506 of the United States Code, title 17.

Unlike the civil copyright statues, the criminal copyright statutes were designed to punish bootleggers and counterfeiters, not some dude that copies his friend's DVD, and not some ex-Mormon who surrepetitiously copies the endowment ceremony, however immoral or unethical one might think that is.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I believe that the second option for each is valid (third option for #2).

Of course you do. Never mind that each of your chosen options would place you in violation of generally accepted ethical guidelines. Becoming a law unto yourself does have its privileges.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Certainly it can not be disputed that the Church owns temples in which the endowment ceremony is performed, but can the Church claim ownership of the endowment ceremony itself?

I'm reasonably certain that, with just a bit of exertion and a handful of sophistries, you can dispute this claim to your personal satisfaction.

[Cobalt-70]

A new thought has occured to me, inspired by Jaybear.

Underlying the concept of theft is the assumption of ownership. It has been assumed throughout this discussion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owns the temple endowment ceremony. This assumption has gone unchallenged.

Certainly it can not be disputed that the Church owns temples in which the endowment ceremony is performed, but can the Church claim ownership of the endowment ceremony itself?

H.

The LDS church can claim ownership of those parts for which there exists a current, valid copyright. This would include the parts that were amended in 1990, and probably anything that was introduced after 1892 (120 years ago). For anything introduced into the ceremony before 1892, the copyright has expired. When a copyright expires, it is owned by the public. Therefore, from a legal perspective, the public owns anything in the temple ceremony that is older than 120 years.

[LDSToronto]

I'm reasonably certain that, with just a bit of exertion and a handful of sophistries, you can dispute this claim to your personal satisfaction.

Don't forget pomp and circumstance! I love those tools!

H.

[Pahoran]

The LDS church can claim ownership of those parts for which there exists a current, valid copyright. This would include the parts that were amended in 1990, and probably anything that was introduced after 1892 (120 years ago). For anything introduced into the ceremony before 1892, the copyright has expired. When a copyright expires, it is owned by the public. Therefore, from a legal perspective, the public owns anything in the temple ceremony that is older than 120 years.

No. It does not.

You forget that copyright exists from the time a work is created, but only starts to run down from the time a work is first lawfully published. Only upon publication does a work go into the public domain. Since the Endowment ceremony has never been published, the clock has not started to tick yet.

All honourable people, without exception, accept that the Church owns the Endowment ceremony. The public has no rights and no valid interest therein.

Just as all honourable people, without exception, accept that the surreptitious recording, publication or re-enactment of the Endowment Ceremony, or any part thereof, is inconscionable and reprehensible. It has never at any time been done for "scholarly" purposes, and there is no likelihood that it ever will be. It has only ever been purloined or bootlegged to "expose," mock or ridicule the Latter-day Saints, or, in the case of a certain semi-pornographic peepshow, to provide idle entertainment.

And there is no ethical organisation anywhere -- not one -- that hosts transcripts or re-enactments, or anything that purports to be such, on its websites, nor any links thereto. There are only cheap propaganda mills that have no credibility whatsoever.

Just as there are no current or former Latter-day Saints with any integrity who hold that dishonestly obtaining and disseminating such material is justifiable in any way.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

No. It does not.

You forget that copyright exists from the time a work is created, but only starts to run down from the time a work is first lawfully published. Only upon publication does a work go into the public domain. Since the Endowment ceremony has never been published, the clock has not started to tick yet.

All honourable people, without exception, accept that the Church owns the Endowment ceremony. The public has no rights and no valid interest therein.

Just as all honourable people, without exception, accept that the surreptitious recording, publication or re-enactment of the Endowment Ceremony, or any part thereof, is inconscionable and reprehensible. It has never at any time been done for "scholarly" purposes, and there is no likelihood that it ever will be. It has only ever been purloined or bootlegged to "expose," mock or ridicule the Latter-day Saints, or, in the case of a certain semi-pornographic peepshow, to provide idle entertainment.

And there is no ethical organisation anywhere -- not one -- that hosts transcripts or re-enactments, or anything that purports to be such, on its websites, nor any links thereto. There are only cheap propaganda mills that have no credibility whatsoever.

Just as there are no current or former Latter-day Saints with any integrity who hold that dishonestly obtaining and disseminating such material is justifiable in any way.

CFR on "all honorable people" agree with your assessment.

H.

[Jeff K.]

Again, the justification of lying in order to get gain shows an acute moral deficiency no matter how you try to cover it up with who owns what. And the underlying motive is to desecrate and mock.

Can someone explain why this is morally neutral?

[Jeff K.]

CFR on "all honorable people" agree with your assessment.

H.

Do you know an honorable person who believes they should lie in order to desecrate and mock the temple ceremony?

[frankenstein]

Do you know an honorable person who believes they should lie in order to desecrate and mock the temple ceremony?

You are being evasive with your retort. Paharon rather than resorting to his "only a real Saint" juvenile claim has instead resort too another unfounded and unprovable blanket claim of "all honorable people" agree to several things. You Jeff have evaded some of those claims and cunningly crafted your retort to evade the claims made by paharon; therefore by your personal moral standard you are being dishonest.

Edited January 18, 2012 by frankenstein

[Jeff K.]

No, I am being very straightforward. In theory everyone on this board regardless of their personal situation and belief wants to be treated honestly and with honor. Some, even those who would willingly contenance lying, may even think themselves as "honorable" gentlemen. In theory everyone here understands the morality of treating everyone as we wish to be treated, everyone understands what honesty means, and everyone understands that mockery and desecration are wrong.... in theory.

My years in business have taught me to cut through the manure that people often toss around to obfuscate and derail their true intentions and motivations.

To do what has been suggested, one must lie, one must be dishonest. Then on top of the first act of dishonesty, when they make an oath to neither mock or reveal what we consider sacred rites, they make that oath to God. A second oath of honor that some, specifically christians would consider strong, regardless of your belief in our doctrines.

Then of course there is the motivation of mockery. Obviously some consider mockery a noble gesture, done by only the purest of hearts.

So which of you fine upstanding gentlemen who so readily wish to mock the church and desire to lie to obtain the information consider these acts of honor and how do you justify what most both inside and outside the church consider dishonorable. So rather than attempt to avoid the question, I ask again, in the most straightforward way possible........

Do you, any of you, know an honorable person who believes they should lie in order to desecrate and mock the temple ceremony?

It is honest, simple and straightforward. Your answers will of course speak volumes, one way or the other. No obfuscation necessary.

[LDSToronto]

Do you know an honorable person who believes they should lie in order to desecrate and mock the temple ceremony?

Desecrate and mock? No. Publish? Yes.

H.