Talk:Temple (Latter Day Saints)/Archive 5

This discussion is moved from the former article Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Per the discussion in the Latter Day Saint movement project, I took the text of Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and integrated it into this article. I'm moving all of the talk from that article as well.

More expansions and organization of this combined article to follow soon. --John Hamer 22:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Need help

Made some major changes to the entire page - need some cosmetic editing before I finish the remainder of my edits. HELP! Visorstuff 22:59, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Renaming the page to Temple (Latter-day Saint)?

Consistent with Temple (Mormonism), and standard Wikipedia practice, shouldn't this page be renamed to Temple (Latter-day Saint)? COGDEN 20:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not sure I agree yet. There is a slight difference between temples as a generic LDS (or Mormonism) topic and "temples of" the LDS church. I prefer how it is, but could be persuaded if there was more at stake here than naming conventions. -Visorstuff 20:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The suggestion seems to me to be logical, and as C. says, consistent (with other pages, and with the convention). Don't follow the 'too generic' objection: the suggestion was (Latter-day Saint), not (Latter Day Saint). In any event, I assume the page 'needs' to move, to handle The The... Alai 04:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of recent edits

I removed the following and reverted some edits by an anon user User:65.176.81.110 from the historical section of the page. I also restored information about the Whitney store being first used for Temple ordinances.

(Unlike Nauvoo, and those temples built by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Kirtland Temple was a house of public worship, it was also a house of both secular and sectarian education, church adminisrative offices and was open to all people. The various ordinances done in LDS Temples today were not performed in the Kirtland Temple, but trace their roots to those done in the Red Brick Store and Nauvoo Temple).

Let me explain why the edits are incorrect.

First - The ordinance of the Washing of Feet was performed in the Whitney store. Second - People were asked to leave the Kirtland temple by the Brethren. In general, it was a public house of worship (much similar to the concept of the Hong Kong or Manhattan Temples), but remember that there was strict instruction to keep the temple undefiled. Even William Smith was asked to leave the temple on one occasion because of an argument with his brother. Third - sectarian education implies that those of other protestant faiths taught there. I am unaware of this while it was in operation (although it may be true - if it is, please provide a reference). I am aware of secular education being done there - an even on upper floors in one or two cases, but that was for Quorum instruction only (like asking a RS President to attend a quorum meeting to discuss something - quite the exception). Fourth - "Church administrative offices" were not in the Temple. Fifth - The upper rooms were solely for priesthood quorums and ordinance work. Sixth - Many temple ordinances that are now part of the modern Endowment/temple work were performed in that temple. While no vicarious work was performed there, others was. For example, an early version of the initiatory was done there - and is still practiced by the Strangites. The ordinance mentioned above of washing and others was also performed there. ] Seventh - LDS temple ordinances can "trace their roots" back prior to the Red Brick store. There are many elements taught and given by Smith prior. Think Book of Abraham as an example for those familiar with the endowment. The modern presentation of what most refer to as "The Endowment" (not including initiatory work, although it is actually part of the endowment proper) was given in the brick store.

If anyone disagrees with my removal, let me know. -Visorstuff 16:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• If I understand this right, the Washing of the Feet was something (mainly) missionaries did when they were severely wronged, to bear witness against the people that wronged them, right? I think it could be done anywhere, not just in a temple. So I'm not sure how it's relevant to anything here. LawnGnome 18:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You have it confused with "shaking the dust off one's feet", which is something different. COGDEN 10:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Combining Temple (Mormonism) and Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Summary of changes.

I've done a bunch of combining and moving text around. In the general section, I elaborated the "History" section through 1844. I pulled much of the "Purposes" section together into summary form and I moved some of the discussion of "Center of the City of Zion" to a new, important article on "City of Zion (Mormonism)" --- that really can use a lot of elaboration and is on my "To Do list".

The Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article became the next section header and its sections became sub-sections.

I elaborated the "History" subsection which had only been a chronology. The history of the "temple ordinances" needs to be elaborated in the article Ordinance (Mormonism).

There was a significant amount of redundancy in the "Purposes" "Temple ordinances" and "Requirements" sections --- all three talked about the Endowment and all three talked about requirements. I moved all the temple recommend text to the Requirements section. I moved a significant portion of the "Temple ordinances" section to the article Ordinance (Mormonism) --- which needs a lot more elaboration.

The "Temples in Other Latter Day Saint denominations" could still use some elaboration, breaking Community of Christ out into its own section.

I also added a comparison chart.--John Hamer 19:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really liked the update to my original diagram made by Oscarsonthepond. However, I'd already begun working on a more ambitious diagram that shows the temples in much greater detail. The older diagrams are still in the system: Image:Templecomparison-updated.gif --John Hamer 15:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Endowment Houses

There needs to be some information on the role of [Endowment Houses (Mormonism)] if it indeed needs to be a separate entry at all. I guess the first candidate for an Endowment House might be Joseph Smith's Red Brick Store, followed by the one that preceeded the Salt Lake Temple, and I believe there was one in southern Utah too. Several groups in the Latter-day Saint movement had their own endowment houeses too, such as Alphaeus Cutler's church (and perhaps Lyman Wights and James Strang too), etc. Endowments were also performed on Ensign Peak in Utah. --Tobey 15:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Renaming to "Temples (Latter Day Saint)"

This is different from the above proposal in that it is using the more generic term. This article also discusses temples in the Community of Christ which are not part of Mormonism. (We haven't yet established what is "Mormonism", but we've established that CoC isn't part of it.) What about the rename? Val42 17:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There was some reasoning behind this nomenclature - the CoC temple is not the same vein as Mormonism temples. It is not an ordinance temple, which the bulk of this article deals with. It should be almost a side-note in this article, as a comparison between the mormonism and latter day saint movements. I may be talked out of it, but I think we really need a good reason, as Temples as explained in this article is definitely a Mormonism thing - perhaps this can help us define what Mormonism is. Mormonism are groups that believe in and practice parts and portions of temple rites revealed to Joseph SMith. I could make a strong argument of how that affects Mormonism culture. -Visorstuff 20:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding a link

I was wondering what the group would think about my adding a link to an on-line tour of temple square to this article. The link is located at http://www.allaboutmormons.com/templesquare.php. I should disclose that I am the creator of the site, which is why I wanted to make sure it was alright with the group before posting the link myself. I hope I've proceeded appropriately, as I'm new to Wikipedia and don't understand all of its policies.

Never mind...looks like someone already added it.

Temple structure and design

I think the graphic [[1]] is really good at showing the style and size of various temples. I also like the image here [[2]]. Although less about the purpose of temples, I would love to see a section or article on the architectural design of temples. This would include the symbolism used in early temples (Nauvoo and Salt Lake) as well as comments on early temples and their castle or fortress styles and how it relates historically with the persecution and triumphant attitude of the Saints as they built Zion in the west.

Also, because my favorite temple is the very unique San Diego temple, I would love to see a full list of the designs of the temples from unique designes like San Diego, Salt Lake or Washington DC, to modified patterns like Provo, Jordan River and then to out of the box styles like the smaller generic designs of today. Of course there are also cases where an existing building was refitted to become a temple, like New York and I believe Timpanogos.

Also I would love to see some third party discussion or research done on what architectural critics think of temple design and structure.

Finally, I would love to know a bit more about the actual construction and design. Elevator shafts in the Salt Lake temple, for example, or how the structures are built to be three or four times the strength required by building codes.

As you can see, there is a lot of info on this subject and I for one am fascinated by it all. - Bytebear 21:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusion on Community of Christ

The article says:

The Community of Christ Church of Modena, Utah built a temple-like Pyramid-shaped structure in the mid-1980s, for use in its ordinances. [citation needed]

But is this the same as the Community of Christ, or is it another offshoot of Utah Mormons? It seems a bit confusing. At first I thought the link was just bad, but then the Modena, Utah threw me, so this either needs to be clarified or removed. - 66.151.81.244 22:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Secrecy and death

Reswobslc, I have reverted your edit because it is wrong. The current endowment ceremony does not contain any laguage comprable to what you insist on portraying. I believe if you will continue to reserach your reference you will find that those words are alledged to have come from earlier endowment wording that has since been changed. It is no longer part of the ordinance. That being true, the threat of death or the willingness to die are not a deterent for LDS to maintain the sacredness or secretiveness of temple ordinances. One only covenants to keep the covenant secret. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me when such change occurred? I have been to the temple myself and have heard the specific text quoted. If they have removed it recently, then that's fine, we can update the article to reflect that. Reswobslc 18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The reference does not support your statement. I searched the link for death and dead and nothing came up for your wording. Could you please provide a reference for an exact quote. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Search not for the specific word "death", but the phrase "Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken". Reswobslc 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement was removed when the penalties were removed. Also, I added the words as you instructed on your edit to the article page. Unfortuantely, the article now reads very poorly, but you achieve your objective. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean in 1990 when the throat-slitting and bowel-slitting was removed? Or sometime more recently, like post-2000? In 1990, when the throat-slitting and bowel-slitting was removed, the verbal death oaths still remained. Reswobslc 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the penalties; I particularly like your wording because it is so appropriate to the context. Your reference reads as follows:

The officiator in the pre-1990 version, after demonstrating the sign and execution of the penalty, said:

"I will now explain the covenant and obligation of secrecy which are associated with this token, its name, sign and penalty, and which you will be required to take upon yourselves. If I were receiving my own Endowment today, and had been given the name of "John" as my New Name, I would repeat in my mind these words, after making the sign, at the same time representing the execution of the penalty: I, John, covenant that I will never reveal the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken."

Do you have any reference to support that it is still in the LDS endowment ordinance? Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't. Absent evidence to the contrary, none is needed. Reswobslc 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your own reference tells you clearly that the language was used pre-1990 and yet you state that is not evidence enough to the contrary? It would appear you have an agenda that prevents you from acknowledging facts when they are your own. It is unfortunate, but it is what we risk when building a public encyclopedia; we will have bright people that attempt promote neutral writing and then we will have people with private agendas that are not interested in quality writing or facts. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, it looks like you're right. I fixed it. Looks like the throat-slitting, gut-slitting and the death oaths were all removed together in 1990. My mistake. Reswobslc 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reswobslc seems determined to insert POV. Citing Richard Packham as a verifialbe source is dispicable. At least find a neutral source for your reference. I have removed the reference until something more suitable can be found. Bytebear 17:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your arbitrary choosing of what is and is not a verifiable source constitutes original research. It's unacceptable. And in fact, the veracity of the statements are not only verifiable, but widely known throughout the Mormon community. Reswobslc 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again Reswobslc has added an unverifiable and biased sources in an attempt to include "shocking" secrets of the temple ceremony. Notice that I said UNVERIFIABLE not UNTRUE. It is irrelivant if the oath (which is mentioned appropriately in the article) contains or contained pentalties of death, even in gruesome ways. The point is that the source is POV and unverifiable. Get a better source. The cnurch confirms that oaths and covenants are made in the temple, but the specifics are not revealed by the church, and any other source is second hand and therefor unreliable. Secondly, the details of these oaths should be descussed in another article, and presented in a more speculative way. They just don't belong here. Bytebear 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that the material is factual, but persist in deleting it anyway because you don't like the source. The material you continue to delete is factual, undisputed by both Mormons and non-Mormons, and verifiable by thousands of Mormons. Your allegation of unverifiability is hocus pocus. Reswobslc 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am making two points. 1) The source you use is bias and unverifiable. Find a source that is more verifiable, and 2) the content is POV in that the point of the paragraph is that because the rites are considered sacred and not discussed, there is little commentary on the actual ceremonies. Your addition of "throat slitting" adds nothing to the article, particularly as you point out, the pentalties were removed 16 years ago. It is clearly just a bomb throw. I am not trying to censor you. There is just no proper context for the statement. I just don't think it belongs here. As I have said there are better places to discuss the pentalties of the temple. Honestly, I think the whole paragraph needs to be rewritten (see my comments on weasel words below). 68.4.225.187 07:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You could probably use a read of some Wikipedia policies. First of all, the main idea of the WP:NPOV policy is that articles must adhere to a neutral point of view - NOT that they must not reference sources which reflect POV or bias. Secondly, Wikipedia NPOV policy is that all significant points of view are to be included - which includes criticism and those things from the past that people don't like to talk about. Third, have a read of WP:VER (verifiability) policy. You seem to have the impression that only official LDS church sources are acceptable for talking about the LDS church, and this is simply not true. The fact that Mr. Packham has been a prominent critic of the LDS church for years is sufficient alone for his website to be a "verifiable" source. Finally, the idea that mention of temple oaths don't belong on the Temple (Mormonism) page is preposterous... where else do you think it belongs? Under Carbon dating? The fact is, the throat slitting has happened in the temple for the majority of the church's history, and is undisputably significant enough to deserve mention in an article about Mormon temples. Reswobslc 08:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentence is the exact example of the danger of such statements. Please tell me when throat slitting actually happened in any LDS temple in the world? Exactly, not once instance; yet you purport to be someone who knows and obviously you do not. It may have been mistake, but I suspect it is more a Freudian slip and reveals your strongly negative feelings and willingness to misrepresent LDS beliefs than anything else.

I think history is important and I am not opposed to keeping the language in. If someone wants to make a further clarification of Packham and his statements, I think it would also be acceptable. I wonder if penalties should be explained from an Old Testament viewpoint? Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... you're trying to knock my mention of "throat slitting" as though there's some technical inaccuracy, as though you don't write with plenty of errors yourself? LOL. Let me guess, you're worried someone might be confused and think I'm saying people actually use real knives to slit their throats in the temple. Yeah right. It is plenty obvious what I'm referring to. Reswobslc 16:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are incapable of reading plain English then I suggest you go elsewhere. You stated clearly above, "the throat slitting has happened in the temple for the majority of the church's history". You did not qualify your statement as to the reality of the penalty discussed and that is the danger which I identified. It is typical anti-Mormon propaganda methods; take an issue, distort it and then present it as truth.

Also, in the future, if you feel compelled to correct another's typing, please do it without drawing attention to yourself and your rather inflated self-perception. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone needs a nice cup of tea and a sit down. I'm a fairly disinterested third party (I think) and to me it looks like you're both trying to make the article better- there's no reason to accuse anyone of anything. To me it seems clear that what was meant was that the throat slitting ritual was in use- obviously nobody's claiming actual murder was part of the rites. Anyway, I just wanted to remind everyone to assume good faith and focus on the article contents, not the mistakes of other editors. Friday (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me this material is POV and thus should be omitted, not to mention there are more appropriate places to present such information. 66.151.81.244 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest breaking the Temple rites into another article only if neccessary for length reasons. They belong here until then. I agree that we need good sources obviously, but there's no shortage of ex-LDS folks willing to talk about these things. To say that any source other than the LDS themselves is unrealiable is not reasonable tho- it's basically saying we'll agree to keep their secrets for them. Since we're a neutral encyclopedia, we have no reason to keep their secrets. Friday (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to see how to clarify this issue, and I hope an analogy can help (forgive me if it too far out in left field). Let's compare the LDS church to the US Government. Next let's compare the LDS Temple rites to the government knowledge to UFOs and secret UFO projects. A lot of people have first hand experience, and we all know something is going on in area 51, but can we verifiably define what that is? I think the difference is that there are many more witnesses to temple rites than to secret government programs. Is there a threshold to number of witnesses that makes a source verifiable? Should be believe in UFOs because there are non-government sources claiming they exist? Does the same criteria apply here? Bytebear 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to decide who's right. We just say who said what. The Tanners for example, are well-known LDS critics and their books or websites would be good sources to use. (Sources criticizing the work of the Tanners would also be good.) The nice thing is, the UFO folks tend to be dismissed as nutjobs in a way that LDS critics aren't quite so much. I believe it's well-established that LDS nicked many of their Temple rites from Freemasonry, so descriptions of the rituals involved shouldn't be automatically unbelievable the way certain UFO stories might be. Friday (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Claims of Copyvio

This morning, Trödel removed links I added as citations, stating that they were (in his opinion) copyright violations.

They are not copyright violations. The material has been hosted on Teleport.com (an Earthlink site) for almost 5 years[3]. Earthlink handles removal of copyvio material daily. If you feel it's a copyvio, then go tell them. I'm sure they'll remove it in a hurry (that is, if you're actually right). Until then, do not remove those links citing them as copyvio.

There is no rule against citing copyrighted sources. Just about all sources are copyrighted in the first place. Reswobslc 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There are so many places to get that on the internet it is not worth it; however, on wikipedia we have a higher scholarship standard. As to your challenge on whether it is a copyright - any artistic expression is protected by copyright to the benefit of the author, or, in the case of a work for hire, the owner. That includes a derivative work such as a transcript of a film dialog. If you want more info - see http://www.copyright.gov/title17/. Additionally although the film does not have a (c) 19xx, Intellectual Reserve, Inc. - the purpose of that is to give notice that there is a copyright owner who wishes to assert their rights. Courts have found plenty of ways to give constructive notice - among them forbidding the recording of a speaker, etc. See Wikipedia:Copyrights --Trödel 18:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not claim the material is not copyrighted. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point. Rather, I dispute your assertion that links to copyrighted material is somehow not "allowed". As you note, most material is copyrighted upon creation, whether or not a copyright notice is placed. If linking to copyrighted material were somehow not allowed, that would disqualify about 99% of the citations and references on Wikipedia as a whole. Rather, I believe that your attempted censorship of that material is representative of the fact that Mormons would prefer that it be seen by as few people as possible - something that is not honored on Wikipedia. I believe your mislabeling it as a "copyvio" is an attempt to pull a fast one. The problem is that if you want to keep reverting me, you're inviting outside scrutiny, and people will quickly note that if material has managed to sit on Earthlink for 5 years, it's probably not a copyright violation, even if the material is copyrighted by its author, and the material will stand. Reswobslc 19:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue is not linking to copyrighted material - that is fine. The issue is linking to a site that is reproducing verbatim copies of copyrighted material - in obvious violation of the copyholders rights. Proper scholarship would dictate that one would use legitimate, verifiable sources. --Trödel 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your claim to its legitimacy and your assertion of the site being a violation of copyright is your own opinion and you have nothing to back it up. Meanwhile, the fact that Earthlink hasn't removed it in 5 years is quite telling. Additionally, you are repeatedly removing other text that isn't even related to the alleged copyvio, and this is the third time you've done it. Let's not get you blocked for violating WP:3RR, all right? Your insistence on deleting that material is a textbook open-and-shut case of 3RR. Reswobslc 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As an example, I would think it inappropriate to link to an audio file of a popular song if the song were protected under copyright. I think the same standard applies here. Bytebear 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "if" it's protected by copyright? All works are automatically protected by copyright, until their authors are dead for 75 years. I think you are confusing copyrighted works with copyright violations. The LDS church vigorously chases down copyright "violations" it doesn't like with legal threats. Apparently, the temple ceremony isn't one of those things they want to chase after. Also, see the site www.ldsendowment.org, which is the temple ceremony, published by a Mormon, which is complete except for that the secret signs and tokens are omitted. Reswobslc 21:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The posting of such information is frequently gone after by the church - Packham's site is frequently down (one that is linked to), and it (and others) have even been hosted offshore. As the temple ceremony was copyrighted by a corporation (and various versions are available in the library of congress) it is a quite a different story than just being "dead for 75 years, as a corporation is considered a living entity. (now corporate trademarks are another issue, but we won't go there). The current ceremony was copyrighted in 1990, and therefore, any publishing of it since 1990 is a copyright violation. Earlier versions still have some copyright protections from the late 1800s, 1920s, 1950s and 1960s. There are some exceptions to using the information, and that is fair use under educational purposes, which the tanners have discussed on their site and why they only include exerpts from and discuss the changes - but even that has been challenged, and wikipedia has generally shyed away from using in this way (hence the image rules we have here). Linking to such a site is not a copyright violation, but including informaiton verbatim from the site is a copyright violation. And believe me, the church does send "cease and desist" letters to those sites who violate this copywright. Just because it is on the web doesn't mean it aint copyrighted or illegal. You can read about the decisions not to inlcude those quotes in earlier versions of this page and Endowment (Mormonism) where the wikipedia community decided to only include links to such sites rather than verbatim quotes due to the copyright violations. It because quite a visible debate two or so years ago, and if it becomes visible again, the results will be the same, as lawyers weighed in last time. -Visorstuff 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I should make clear here that I am arguing we should link to analysis of the changes; however, we should not link to a verbatim copy of the entire ceremony. This is similar to the song example, wikipedia should not link to pirated copies of any song (popular or not) and the same goes with pirated copies of any other copyrighted material regardless of the medium. --Trödel 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel the same way about linking to ldsendowment.org? Your assertion of copyright violation is only your opinion. In the case of that site in particular, how do you know that the site isn't sanctioned or approved by the church? How do you know that the site doesn't have permission to use the content? The church chased the Church Handbook of Instructions off the net, and even chased it off one Netherlands ISP (xs4all.nl) to another one (provocation.net) that basically told the church to piss off. If they're willing to threaten an ISP in one of the most notoriously liberal countries on the planet, why don't you think they're bothering to ask Earthlink to remove the temple ceremony, who would certainly do so in a heartbeat upon request let alone threat of litigation? Reswobslc 06:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I feel the same way, just because my mp3 version of a Guns N' Roses song has edited out the explicit lyrics doesn't change that it is a pirated copy. Additionally, your argument that because a copyright holder has failed to enforce their rights in some instances is irrelevant to the discussion of good scholarship. I can still find mp3's of all the Guns N' Roses songs I want on the interent - does that imply that it is not stealing to download those or that Guns N' Roses has given me a waiver to violate their copyright - obviously not. btw, provocation.net is hosted in Germany not the Netherlands.

Lets be clear here - I have no problem linking to a site that offers analysis of the changes - and as you know - even linked to the analysis on the same site that has the pirated copies of the copyrighted material - my issue is that we shouldn't link to pirated copies of anything. --Trödel 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your mp3 version is not pirated, particularly if you own the CD. If you are saying you pirated it, then it's pirated only because you pirated it, and not because it's an MP3 on its face. Media shifting is fair use. You clearly must not know what you're talking about, as if what you just said is true, MP3s as a whole would be illegal, and Apple wouldn't be selling billions of dollars worth of iPods. Until the church bothers to assert that the content in question is a copyright violation (it clearly is aware of it), then for all intents and purposes, it's not. They don't even bother to assert that it's copyrighted (that's not to say that it's not). I guess in the olden days, including death threats in the ceremony was their way of deterring people from violating the copyright, and they simply forgot to replace the death threats with a copyright notice when they took them out. ;) Reswobslc 18:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL - thx for a good laugh today on replacing death threats with copyright. That the hypothetical mp3 file from Guns N' Roses is pirated is the assumption :) - anyway - whether a party asserts their rights under copyright is usually not considered for pictures - as they can assert those rights at any time - and the only thing not asserting them can do is limit the damages.

However, I think we are getting too far afield, can you help me understand why referencing the criticisms and discussion of the differences isn't sufficient - I think that it is and it keeps wikipedia out of the murkiness and vagaries of copyright. --Trödel 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I prayed about this matter, as I couldn't think of any good reason why the church would not bother to go after what appears to be an obvious copyright violation. And then the revelation hit me like a ton of bricks. Joseph Smith and the prophets didn't write the Endowment, the Lord did. And, the Lord doesn't have a date of death, unless you refer to His mortal life, which if I recall correctly is slightly more than 75 years ago. The church isn't about to show up in court and assert that author of the Endowment was Joseph Smith, or the First Presidency, or anybody else. That would make The Lord's One True Church the laughingstock of the news media. So basically, the temple ceremony is fair game until the church ever gets up the nerve to say it was "written" in any manner that would subject it to United States copyright laws. Reswobslc 22:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it does not fall under fair use for wikipedia to quote it, and it is a copyright violation. The Wikipedian community and lawyers have already decided this as referenced above. And to re-iterate, the church does sent cease letters on publishing the copyrighted temple ceremonies. If you'd like, I'll email some of the lawyers involved and get them back into this disucssion. Again, the copyright holder and the author are two seperate issues, and in this case, the copyright holder is now Intellectual REserve and it has been renewed - you should check it out in the Library of Congress or even the copyrighted film, which info may be found at IMDB.com. Although laws change constantly based on presedence, copyright laws - even with media shifting, are still prtected, according ot the latest communications and copyright refresher course I've been to. As I work in the communications field, this is something I know a little bit about. I'm not sure you completely understand laws as determined by the court in regard to "distribution" and other fair use requirements, based on your comments. -Visorstuff 00:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that it is not fair use and that it's a copyright violation is your non-professional opinion that has no legal basis other than that you say it's so. In regards to your statement "As referenced above", you have not inserted any references into this page whatsoever to refer to. (I don't know how much school you attended, but using "Go check it out in the Library of Congress" isn't acceptable as a reference on any sort of paper). I am sure you're not about to pay lawyers $150+/hr to contribute to this discussion when you're not even willing to provide diffs/links to the Wikipedia discussions you claim these people had. Whether you mean to say that the church does send, or did send cease and desist letters (the expression "does sent" is ambiguous besides being an obvious mistake), you have absolutely nothing to back that up. The expected results of such letters (which would be a rapid removal of the content from the websites in question) clearly hasn't happened. I suspect you are just guessing and making this up as you go along. I am doing a lot of guessing too, but at least I'm qualifying my guesses as guesses. You state your guesses as facts. But then again, my experience with the church is pretty much consistent with the same theme: What one says is, isn't. Reswobslc 00:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is my professional opinion, as I deal with this issue every day (please see my profile). AND it does have a legal basis (see above sentence). Please review the archives - there are multiple previous discussions about this topic (hence my see above comment). If it makes you feel better, I'll track down the ISBN/call number and/or copyright number of the temple ceremony. The film may be found at the copyright office under the title "Project #134." And as for the lawyers comment, there are an entire group of wikipedians who are lawyers, and regularly weigh in on copyright issues. You are right, I have no knowledge of Packham's recieving threats, but I do know a few church lawyers who do say they send letters to folks. But my basis in the copyright issue is based on my professional and academic experience. Stay tuned on the numbers...and please read previous discussions on this topic at the churhc's page, this page and the endowment page. -Visorstuff 16:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I really am interested in reading the discussion you're talking about as far as Wikipedia goes - if you're for real, would you mind posting a link? Referring to "The Archives" is just as broad as referring to the whole Library of Congress, unless perhaps you're referring to archives of this talk page. Also, I note that the copyright status of the film is irrelevant - the site does not have a verbatim copy of the film, only the script. The script preceded the film. The script is supposedly authored by God. The film is a derivative work of the script, not the other way around. Reswobslc 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the archives of this talk page, from a review of them I gather that the consensus of all Wikipedians who are NOT Mormons are that the temple ceremony is not a copyvio, not secret, and not even an issue unless the church raises a legal stink otherwise. Please point me toward statements from non-Mormon Wikipedians that take the stance you say they do, which from above was: "The bottom line is that it does not fall under fair use for wikipedia to quote it, and it is a copyright violation. The Wikipedian community and lawyers have already decided this as referenced above." Thanks Reswobslc 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph

I moved the following paragraph to this page for discussion. After attempting to edit the paragraph, I decided it would be better to move it here rather than attempt a complete rewrite. I find it somewhat duplicative of other information already in the article and also POV:

Mormons cite the sacred nature of the Holy House as the reason for the exclusivity of the Temple ceremony. The difficulty members face in obtaining a recommend denotes the firm belief in keeping the temple grounds clean of all serious sin. The sealing ordainance is revered in the Church as the holiest of all ordainances, and a requirement to attain the highest degrees of glory in heaven; differing greatly from the traditional Christian belief, which inspires an air of inferiority to couples who marry. Many offices in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are held exclusively by those who hold a temple recommend.

The fact that LDS hold temples to be sacred has already been stated several times. Difficulty of obtaining a recommend is POV. I know many nonmembers that could easily meet all the moral requirements of entering a temple. Further, who thinks it difficult to possess a recommend and by what type of evaluation. To you pay a tithe, repect your family by not being abusive, have a testimony of the Savior, and attend church. You will find many that find no difficulty whatsoever. The sealing ordinance, as with all temple ordinances, are held sacred and all are required. Also, with a correct understanding of doctrine even those who do not marry in this life will have the opportunity to be sealed in the millennium; therefore this statement is a red herring and not a true reflection of the LDS position. Please tell me in which church a bride and groom are encouraged to be inferior in the wedding ceremony? I added a "fact" to that statement. I also changed the last statement to read the more accurate statement that leadership positions are held by those with current temple recommends. The previous statment was being sealed in the temple. This whole paragraph is highly POV. I think it best to delete it rather than rewrite it. I think all of the information is already in the article and even after a rewrite, it would be redundant. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that text was added by a söckpuppet in order to disguise the deletion of other text. The exaggerated spelling errors and style and dazzling familiarity with WP and the subject article are totally inconsistent and indicative of söckpuppetry. There is no sense commenting on the content - to do so is simply to participate in the strawman argument being made. If the content is incorrect, then just delete or fix it. Reswobslc 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Discourage vs. forbids

The church discouages civil ceremonies of any kind following a temple marriage. However, I have attended a reception at which a ring ceremony was performed. One member of the couple was from a non-member family. Two general authorities were in attendance because of their personal relationship with the groom's family. Please desist from stating things that are not true and are obviously beyond your knowledge or understanding. I have corrected this before and you insist on changing it to meet your twisted view of the LDS church.

The church never forbids anything. As Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." There is no form of control to prevent a couple from exercising a ring ceremony after a temple ceremony. It is discouraged because the Church wants to emphasize the sacredness of an eternal marriage, but it is not forbidden. Taking another tack, they can't do anything if one does have a civil ceremony or a ring ceremony. If you really want one, do it. If not, don't. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that two general authorities were in attendance. Those who own the gold, make the rules. When you know the right people, you can break all the rules you want. That is just a fact of life. Everyone else has to play by the rules, which are explicitly spelled out in the Church Handbook of Instructions, which among other things, specifically says: "No other marriage ceremony should be performed following a temple marriage" (page 70) and "A husband and wife who were married outside a temple may be sealed after one full year from the time of the civil marriage" (page 73). My experience with LDS friends and family who recently got married is consistent with this. And, "please desist"? LOL, yes sir. The church never forbids anything? No form of control? What do you think the document "Recommend for Living Ordinances" is for? It's an approval from your bishop to get a temple marriage, which he can revoke at any time. So the only way a determined couple can have a forbidden ceremony is to lie and keep it secret from the bishop until the temple gig is over. When you say the church never forbids anything, I doubt you're trying to be dishonest - I think you're just underinformed. Reswobslc 06:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Reswobslc - I have attended ring ceremonies where no GA's are present - just the bishop and the families. Even the quote you give "No other marriage ceremony should be performed..." There is plenty of latitude given when local leaders can justify their decision to others - it has nothing to do with "who you know." But it has a lot to do with the situation, e.g. I can see a bishop saying no to a family whose extended members are not temple worthy (typical situation in slc), but another saying ok where a family has had a daughter recently join the church the parents are not members (atypical in slc).

What is the church going to do if you rent out a hotel ballroom and have a friend of the family preside over a ring ceremony - NOTHING - when you say they forbid - what you really mean is that the Bishop won't officiate in that meeting and hold the ring ceremony in the chapel (or cultural hall) for free, like many members do with the post temple reception. So there is no forbidding, just a frustration that the Bishop won't do what the family wants him to - the bishop has the freedom to do what he wants just like the family does. If a couple wants a secular reception, let them rent a hall, and manage the process just like any other secular marriage - and leave the services of the Bishop and the church facilities out of it (which by the way are provided at no cost to any couple, member or not, who chooses to follow the instructions of the local Bishop) - and if they don't, let them pay for the ceremony they want just like anyone who has a secular marriage has to pay for the minister, the use of the building, etc. --Trödel 09:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Not even the same thing. I'm not talking about a token "ring ceremony", which the CHI specifically permits. What I am (and the CHI is) talking about is having another wedding ceremony, complete with a procession and guests and vows, that everyone can attend - whether it's the bishop or an Elvis lookalike presiding. I suspect you already know this, as so does every freaking Mormon over the age of 10. This has nothing to do with the bishop or his "services" or money in the first place, as a wedding in a park (which, incidentally is a far more beautiful place to get married than on the basketball court inside an LDS chapel) is equally forbidden. And what is this "secular reception" nonsense? All receptions are "secular"... ever heard of a "temple reception"? Reswobslc 18:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is huge social pressure not to do such a thing - however, it is strongly discouraged and not forbidden - as I have seen an exchange of vows, ring, etc. with a Bishop officiating in an LDS chapel - and attended a traditional latin wedding ceremony, at a beautiful outdoor park btw I agree re basketball court/park, post temple - at which the Bishop did not officiate or attend and did discourage - and probably didn't attend to emphasize his discouragement. As far as I know there were no reprecussions - they at least didn't lose any callings in the church (of course I don't know if they lost their temple recommend for a time - as I shouldn't) - the point is that "forbidden" is not a proper term - now sharing the signs keywords and tokens - that is forbidden. --Trödel 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If a cop watches you speed 10mph over the speed limit and doesn't bother to pull you over, that doesn't mean that speeding is not forbidden. The cop was just cool and decided not to push the letter of the law on you. I suppose I would support the use of a word other than forbidden, as speeding is illegal as in, contrary to law, which arguably isn't the same thing as forbidden. But discouraged is hardly appropriate to the rule - as that word makes it sound like it is just a suggestion. The fact of the matter is that church policy states that except under certain conditions (like where required by law), Mormons must wait one year after their "civil" wedding in order to get a temple sealing. Whether a given bishop chooses to bend the rules for brother and sister so-and-so has no bearing on that. Reswobslc 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You have still not answered how SHOULD is the equivalent of forbid. You have an agenda that the church must be perceived only as you perceive them. The fact is that the church is different from what you want it to be. You prefer to rail against the big, old bad Mormon church. Great, if you are happier doing so; knock yourself out. However, it is not appropriate to impose your POV on an article that strives to be NPOV. The think this conversation is pretty much done. The term "should" does not equate to "forbid"; it never has and never will. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement containing the word "should" is not the only statement describing the policy. The majority of page 73 describes the one-year rule, states four automatic exceptions (1=civil ceremony required by law 2=no temple in their country 3=temple so far away couple would have to sleep together overnight just to get there 4=members baptized less than a year ago) and states that only the First Presidency may grant any other exceptions to the policy. That to me looks far stronger than discouragement. It is outright prohibition. Reswobslc 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with your analogy is that the policeman has the power of the state behind him. Additionally, your reference to page 73 only reinforces the idea that it is discouraged, not forbidden. Something that is fobidden would have long-lasting consequences, not clear methods on what to do to gain the full blessings should one elect not to follow the suggestions. --Trödel 00:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the church (and specifically, a bishop who follows the rules) has the power to cancel one's temple sealing appointment. Depending on what you believe, that's quite a long-lasting consequence... lasting anywhere from a 1 year delay, to eternity. Regardless of what you believe, to a bride on her wedding day, having her wedding canceled is a far bigger deal than a speeding ticket. It is not as though the couple is going to be able to get sealed without a valid Recommend for Living Ordinances. On the other hand, the mighty hand of the state is dealt with in three business days with a call to the court with a valid credit card in hand. Reswobslc 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and page xiii of the introduction to the Church Handbook of Instructions states: "This entire book should not be duplicated". I suppose that this means that the church discourages, rather than forbids the duplication of the book, right? My dorsal perforation yeah right. Reswobslc 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am still wondering exactly all the "forbidding" did that somehow did not stop you from quoting from it? Obviously forbid did quite work so well or the church's arm is very short in deed.

Second, you insist on talking about instances where a civil ceremony happens prior to a temple marriage. Nothing stands in the way of a couple doing whatever they want after a temple ceremony. NOTHING. You create red herrings and then act like it is reality. It may be a reality in your own mind, but the rest of us know better by factual experience; the reality in which everyone else is living. This is tiring. Facts mean nothing to you because you have convinced yourself that only you know the truth of the matter. It is going nowhere and I am getting the definite impression that you are a troll. I think it is time to stop feeding you. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

While I admit that in our previous discussion about whether the gut slitting was taken out in 1990 vs 200x I was totally wrong, the bait to respond (troll or not) wouldn't be there if it weren't so full of sugary misinformation and ignorance of the "facts" you refer to. You say facts mean nothing to me (WP:NPA? certainly ad hominem if not, though not like it matters) but then you're still "wondering" how I can quote from a copyrighted work, as though Fair_use#Amount and substantiality were a brand new concept, and then you've said things that must be stretched like silly putty to even be remotely true. Nothing stands in the way of a couple violating church policy after their temple ceremony?... yeah, except the Bishop, to whom one must lie (and of course make sure no one else tells him about the illicit ceremony) in order to slide it past him, assuming he's not cool enough to just let you do it. Can I not make a point (i.e. "what a jerky policy of the church to exclude family members from their own family's wedding all while claiming to be a family church") without everyone including their diatribes of denial ("it's not really what it says", "I know of a couple that...", "couples can do whatever they want"). Uh huh, give me a break. I have been that very family member who has missed family weddings because the family was Mormon, and they refused to hold anything else other than a tripe 5-minute "ring ceremony" which consisted of 10 seconds of ring exchanging and 4 min 50 seconds of the bishop further reminding us that we missed the real wedding and that the ring charade was just a charade. Oh, and the reason they refused? Because the bishop said that's how it was supposed to be. And why the bishop said that? It's church policy. Just because I happened to goof up a date in a previous discussion doesn't mean I suddenly don't know what I'm talking about - you're at least as likely to make that error as I. Reswobslc 14:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you were treated that way - I am sure your son/daughter would not want you to have such negative feelings about thier marriage - hopefully you will be able to discuss it together and the new couple can do something to help you feel more a part of thier new life together --Trödel 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words?

"... some Latter-day Saints allege that those who publicize details of temple ceremonies are either disaffected, former or excommunicated Church members ..." Does this constitude weasle words? I think this section should be removed or replaces with any action the church itself has made to protect any copyright violations. Members may be offended by published temple rites or they may not care. I would rather know the church position, if any. Bytebear 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of including death penalties and ceremonial details in article?

I'm curious what the academic value is of including death penalties overview in this article? Is it to show that the temple ceremonies have changed? Is it that the information is sensational? Not to compare, but I'm looking at the Freemasonry pages, and not only don't they discuss their ceremony, but they don't discuss similar oaths. Why do we go into so much detail here, when other, similarly compared "secretive" ceremonies aren't even on wikipedia? Just curious what the point is of including it here, when wikipedia has declined to do it elsewhere? Is it that relevant to the end reader? -Visorstuff 18:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's because Wikipedia isn't about catering to one single point of view, and that includes the LDS church that wants to display its temples as heaven on earth and pillars of perfection. If you want an article about the Mormon temple, or anything else for that matter, be prepared for that article to include criticism along with the official tale. The fact that lots of things happened in the temple as part of the ceremony that people find spooky is notable enough to the world to include it in an article like this. That idea is well supported in Wikipedia policy. Whitewashing an article to spin it to only contain positive things is a violation of WP:NPOV. If the early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. is notable enough for its own articles, the fact that people mimed execution methods in the temple is certainly deserving of a mention. Reswobslc 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph that contains the death pentalty references is about the sacred nature of the ritual and that some have recorded the ritual in violation of vows they have made. It is not about "criticsms of the ritual" or the "spooky" nature of the ritual as you explicitly state as the reason for inclusion. You are trying to add titilation and shock value for no other reason than to "expose" the "true nature" of the temple. You come with an agenda, and it isn't to make the article better. If you want to talk about such controversies, put them in the Criticism of Mormonism article; But, unless it has some specific purpose other than to shock the reader, then it doesn't belong. Bytebear 22:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about assuming good faith and quit telling me what I'm "really" trying to do. I am sorry the truth shocks you - it doesn't shock me. The truth is they did that stuff in the past, and that's what the article needs to say. WP admins will support me on this one - every religion from Buddhism to Catholicism has people that want to whitewash the articles or to present a non-historical view of the way things are today - which is against the goal of an encyclopedia and is why Wikipedia has a specific policy to address it. I suggest you read and follow it instead of making your own rules. Reswobslc 23:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You mistake my point as a defense of Mormonism. In fact, it is a defense of a good article. You assume that I am trying to hide facts about Mormonism. I am not. My point is that the paragraph is awkward and your last sentence reads as a tacked on thought. In your words: "lots of things happened in the temple as part of the ceremony that people find spooky". Well, neither the section in question, nor the article in general is about the "spooky" nature of the temple. If you want to start a new section called "The Spooky Nature of the Temple", then go ahead, but I think more than a few people would consider it POV. Bytebear 23:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

BB - I disagree that it should be in the criticisms of Mormonism article. If it belongs anywhere it is in this article. And I'd like to include, but what is the best approach? I'm not sure a "criticism" section to this article is the best approach.

I'm still not sure I understand your point of view, Reswobslc. How is this different that what has been decided about masonic rituals? Nearly identical "death penalties" are given in some masonic ceremonies (depending on the lodge), however, there is no mention of those in the Masonry article. I really don't think that this information is really all that shocking. Nearly every religion and fraternal organization has oath-bound aspects, so including it in thsi article is not a big deal.

I'm trying to find out why it is significant, if the exact same item is not significant in another article (Masonry) - especially as it is not practiced anymore. You'll note I didn't remove the section, but in fact clarified it before its removal.

Just because it is not practiced anymore, does this make it more or less relevant. Should we also include information about the Second Anointing, Feetwashing, Prayer circles, oath of vengence (prior to 1900), Adam-God, points of fellowship, multiple changes to the initiatory ordinances, Adoption, the removal of the preacher from the endowment, and adamic words used in the temple, temple clothes and even the temple cafeteria in this article? What about including some of the details for the current ceremony - they are missing as well (but appropriately linked to for wikipedia). All are things that some may find strange, but they are historical and most in today's church find them irrelevant. Why is this particular item of note to you? Why not add infomration on all the rest - especially when they have more doctrinal import? I'm trying to determine why you think it is relevant. It being "spooky" is no different than a description of Greek orthodox Chrism and "new name" ceremonies (which are not described in detail on wikipedia, as they are considered "sacred" by adherents). Even the Skyclad article doesn't go into detail of the ceremonies associated with the ritual nudity practice. What about the Opus Dei, the ceremony for cardinals, Military Hazing and oaths, and/or other oath-bound Liturgy and Ritualism? I firmly believe that most would find the specific practices of these groups and others as "shocking" but they are not discussed in the same detail that this article does.

Now, I'm all for being open and explaining strange perceptions of others about the church and being honest about practices some may see as strange. I just wnat to understand its relevance to the community. I want to understand why this articel should be treated differently than other similary articles as cited above. Lets work to have it included, but lets also work to have it included appropriately. Can you please expand on your thoughts above to give more context? -Visorstuff 23:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way you state :"WP admins will support me on this one - every religion from Buddhism to Catholicism has people that want to whitewash the articles or to present a non-historical view of the way things are today - which is against the goal of an encyclopedia and is why Wikipedia has a specific policy to address it."

I am an admin. Consensus and this policy declare that one err on the side of documentation, not hearsay, and that sacred things (regardless of religion) be treated with respect. I think that teh appropriate links policy would state that the Packham link would be hearsay. Especially with such incorrect information such as the following paragraph to the throat-slitting one:

" The church when I left had no family home evening, no three-hour block of meetings, no correlation committee, no "Strengthening the Members" committee, no Blacks (they were called "Negroes" then).

Either Packham left the church prior to 1900, or he loses credibility about his knowledge of the church with this sentence. Facts: In 1915 President Joseph F. Smith instituted "Home Evening" [4]. Formal organization of a Priesthood Correlation Program occurred in 1908, and the first black I know of that was baptized into the church took place in 1830 (Elijah Abel was baptized in 1831, and held the priesthood, as did his children and grandchildren until the priesthood was extended to all worthy men).

Now all of that is irrelevant aside from finding credible sources (the Tanners are probalby the best for this one). I believe that you treat these articles with respect (thank-you by the way), but I think this argument about this detail explores the question on how much detail do we want to go into on these articles. The rest of the article is quite general, this is one of the first "details" given - and as such makes it look like a major part of the endowment - which it is not. I look forward to hearing more on your thoughts above. -Visorstuff 23:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the Packham sentence based on some very good points by Visorstuff.

* Other groups with similar oaths and practices do not have them detailed making the inclusion unique and inconsistant.

* Consensus and this policy declare that one err on the side of documentation, not hearsay

* Other details of the temple ordinance as well as general functionality are not covered, making the blood oaths stand out, again inconsistant.

* Packham loses credibility about his knowledge of the church (see above)

I am for rewording the section, and if the blood oaths end up being relevant, then I will support their inclusion. Bytebear 01:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to find a way to appropriate include the information so that we don't keep having this issue - it is not over now, nor is it not going to arise again. I'd rather over-include information than not, however, let's make it acurate and referenceable. Better to be open up front than to be accused of whitewashing history and doctrines.

I wasn't meaning to slam on Packham, but he gets way too much attention for being credible, when he isn't. He has created an equally large follwoing in the exmormon community as Jeff Lindsay has in the Mormon community - and with less credentials. Everything from DNA to Ancient Egyptian to US and Mormon history is his specialty depending on the argument. He's a worse know-it-all than I am, and that's saying something.

And I'd still like to hear more of Reswobslc's thoughts on the comments above. -Visorstuff 00:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the deletion based on the following:

* There is no consensus for its deletion, and in fact, deletion is against WP policy. You may not simply remove things from Wikipedia simply because you don't like them there.

* Packham is alive and well today, not pre-1900, and notwithstanding there are more sources for this than just Packham, including [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and plenty others. Sourcing this as fact presents no problem whatsoever.

* What appears in the Masonry article or any other is completely irrelevant

* Bytebear seems determined to delete the text for any reason, good or not

I am for rewording the section, but if it results in whitewashing the plain and simple relevant facts, then they're going to appear back in there. The WP:NPOV policy is non-negotiable. You can argue all you want - it still applies. Reswobslc 02:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

All - please don't reply to posts in-line. It is difficult to follow and not the current wikipedia norm. You can keep track of what people are responding to by how indented you have your comments.

As for your "What appears in the Masonry article or any other is completely irrelevant" statement, that is not the case at all. Wikipedia works on presedence and consensus. That is what the community has decided, and they are able to change it, but it is more difficult. Let's not remove the details during this dialogue, but we still need to hear more on why that particular detail is important for this article, while others are not. And why this article should be treated differnetly than similar ones.

By the way, I'm probably more familiar with Packham than you are. I'm just saying he loses credibility at the chance for sensationalism - hense the quote I shared. I can find a dozen like it in other works he's done. He isn't credible. Others are, and I think that a printed academic work woudl be a more appropriate source - adn they are out there - even signature books carries one. -Visorstuff 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reswobslc, still would like to hear your thoughts on my request? -Visorstuff 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that description of Temple rites has a value to offer - it's informative. People see these impressive buildings they're not allowed to enter, and they're curious about what goes on in there. I do notice that there's not a lot of this in Freemasonry for example, but we do not have an article on Masonic temples that I can find (other than a few, specific ones). However, now that I see we have Ordinance (Mormonism), I think description of the rites may be more relevant there. Anyway, saying they should not be included does sound like what LDS members would prefer (see the bit in the article that says "Members of the LDS Church explain that the ordinances performed in the Temple are personal and sacred, rather than secret. Because of their perceived sacredness, excessive discussion of these ordinances is viewed as irreverent.") But, we're not here to do what LDS wants, we're here to make a neutral encyclopedia, and I see no reason to not discuss Temple rites, assuming it can be done in a relevant way. Friday (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I already answered your question, Visorstuff. If I didn't answer it to your satisfaction, then ask clarifying questions, but please stop referring to this "request" I supposedly ignored. I didn't! Second, your assertion that you're more familiar with Packham than me is pointless, no different if I say that I'm more familiar with God than you and that therefore I'm somehow right. About reasons for inclusion, Friday said it well. This is an encyclopedia, and people are curious to learn. The word "notability" is just a formal way of saying "people care". Do people care what goes on in the temple? YES, and is the material true, YES, verifiable, YES, and is it relevant to Temple (Mormonism) YES... all plenty of reasons to have the material in the article. You'd never argue that Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage isn't relevant to her and doesn't belong in her article... or that it belongs in an article about marriage or jokes or pranks... it's silly and an expression of bias to argue that mention of rituals doesn't belong in the temple article. Reswobslc 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reswobslc - I've never said that I don't think it should or shouldn't be in the article, in fact, just the opposite, if you've read what I've written. However, I do say that it should be balanced as far as the detail shared- which I believe is your goal as well. What I am looking to understand from you is the following:

1. Why this obscure detail and not others? Should we should should "include information about the Second Anointing, Feetwashing, Prayer circles, oath of vengence (prior to 1900), Adam-God, points of fellowship, multiple changes to the initiatory ordinances, Adoption, the removal of the preacher from the endowment, and adamic words used in the temple, temple clothes and even the temple cafeteria in this article?" What about the Kirtland endowment, the red brick store differnces and the move to do washings and anointings in the temple and not at a home?
2. "What about including some of the details for the current ceremony - they are missing as well (but seem to be appropriately linked to for wikipedia)"? How much detail should we go into there that falls into wikipedia prescedence, is appropriate and yet satisfys the reader?
3. "Why is this particular item of note to you? Why not add infomration on all the rest - especially when they have more doctrinal import? I'm trying to determine why you think it is relevant."

These are the questions you have not addressed as of yet. No worries. I'm sure you'll get to them.

And now I have a new question. Are there similar articles set prescedence in going into this much detail on ordinances, rituals and ceremonies. No offense but Brittany Spears and the LDS Church are not similar, but other religious, liturgical or even "secret society" examples would be welcome to point to so we can study this issue out best. Knights_of_Columbus, Secret Society may help us all get started in this.

I do think that Chrism is a good similar article that balances details with generalities using references. They don't divlulge what they consider sacred, but at the same time give the readers referencs to find the obscure and "spooky" details of ceremonies involving Chrism.

I'm undecided if we should give the generalities and references to the details (the original design of this article was to give a brief overview and references both pro and con for more info), or if we should go into detail on the ceremonies explaining every change, oddity and difference between the 1836 Kirtland initiatory/endowment right on to the 2005 change to the initiatory. As the article is quite long, perhaps we should start a sub-article on changes in the temple experience? The more I re-read this article and the disagreement between you and Bytebear, the more I like that idea. -Visorstuff 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Friday and Visorstuff - we should find scholarly reputable sources rather than polemic observers - I would oppose quoting Lindsay on the topic just as I am Packham. Additionally, to mention this detail here is to emphasize it over the other things that are part of the almost 2 hour endowment ordinance. There you go: Oppose here, support reputable non-polemic sources (unless of course they are being quoted for the polemic attitudes), details belong in the article that discusses the detail, oh, and present the information in a non-sensationalistic way. --Trödel 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think our best sources will be Quinn, the Tanners and Signature books. There were some BYU Studies and Nibley writings on changes, but I think the three above are percieved as thourough enough and we can always come back to the last two if needed. -Visorstuff 00:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the death-like oaths are notable because they are what Mormons refer to negatively as "sensational", and what the rest of the world calls "encyclopedic". People are interested in verifiable facts like those. That's what makes it material for Wikipedia, regardless of what's on the Chrism or the Schism or the Sadomasochism page. Since I am not accountable to you personally for the decision as to what's relevant, I'll leave it at that. Further, the Wikipedia:Consensus versus Wikipedia:Precedent is a moot argument - consensus is real, precedent is bogus - if you're going to make up a fake Wikipedia rule and start touting it as real, at least spell it correctly. As a borrowed legal term, precedent may help admins make administrative decisions as a matter of common sense, but it's wholly irrelevant to the argument of what an article should or should not contain. Reswobslc 04:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the policy of assuming good faith, but when the evidence is so overwhelming it is senseless to continue to prevaricate. There is no good faith to Reswobslc’s edits. He makes no sense, he doesn't attempt to answer any questions, and when directly asked, he evades.

In addition, he is overly confused with the definition of consensus. Consensus is not, nor has it ever been, unanimous support for an action. Consensus is achieving general agreement among the participants. Your lone dissent is simply that, lone dissent; consensus has been achieved. We simply choose to bend over backwards to work with you, which I believe is a mistake.

The fact is that the majority of the group feels that mentioning in the article may be appropriate depending upon concluding what other facts should be mentioned. You continue to not answer why this fact and not all the others mentioned by Visor. A bit of advise, completely free of charge, and put in the common language of the day; pull your head out, put down your sword, and start using you head rather than your personal animosity to guide your contributions. I agreed with keeping the language and you still rejected my comments. Your actions demonstrate you are not interested in producing an encyclopedic article, but rather to provoke others. Your behavior is that of a troll and nothing more. Stop feeding this troll; ignore him. Put the troll aside and his puerile edits.

I reject the need to be precise, but they should be referenced so that those interested can read in more depth. This incessant whine from the ignorant about the temple ceremony being secret is a farce and a red herring that has its roots in anti-Mormon literature. For it to be secret, no information would be available to the public. The internet is rife with a multitude of sites that are word-for-word copies of the temple ceremony; however, Latter-day Saints do not talk in depth about temple ceremonies. That does not make it secret, but it does make it sacred to those who participate in temple ordinances. Enough said.

Question to the group: would it not be appropriate to briefly describe that the temple ceremony has evolved over time? I do think it is important to hit the highlights and possibly the more controversial parts of the ordinance. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I still am trying to understand where Reswobslc is coming from. Please answer the three questions above. I'm not, nor have been combative with you Reswobslc, yet, your posts seem quite defensive. On the contrary, I'm trying to work with you, please WP:NPA. And precedent is very important for most of those who work toward consensus. Most of us admins look to what is done in other areas to help guide discussions.

As for you "not accountable to you personally for the decision as to what's relevant, I'll leave it at that." comment, seems to contradict your earlier statement of "I thought I already answered your question, Visorstuff. If I didn't answer it to your satisfaction, then ask clarifying questions, but please stop referring to this "request" I supposedly ignored. I didn't!" Just answer the question so we can work with you, and understand your concerns. We are not frustrated (yet) we just want to understand your point.

In addition, I disagree that these types of details is neccessary for the article to be encyclopedic. I know of no other encyclopedia, including the encyclopedia of cults that include this detail. Asserting that it is neccessary is not wise, rather it may be relevant if you'd give a reason as to the why. Until you actually engage in discussion, you are not doing much by way of building consensus. It doesn't seem had for you to give opinions on my questions, but perhaps I'm asking too much to try to understand your viewpoint better.

Storm Rider, my only concerns with your suggestion is that of article length and differnces between sects. But perhaps it is the best suggestion yet. I can live with the article being longer, but each Mormonism sect that practices temple ordinances (or believes in them) do them differntly. The Strangites did sacrifices, the FLDS have a longer version that has supposedly evolved differently than the LDS Temples. How do you include all of those and go into a detailed enough hightlight? What about a timeline of changes in temple-like ordinances - that details from 1832 to present? WE could then include what major changes were made (including the disputed) and not leave out the others, but would place it into context? As I'm typing this, I like the idea of it more and more. We could even include changes to garments with the LDS. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 19:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the easiest solution to keeping the article at a reasonable size is to put such details in supporting articles, such as Endowment (Mormonism) which does in detail discuss changes in the rites over the years as well as "signs given them in the ceremony, were symbolized by gestures for having the throat cut, the breast cut open, and the bowels torn out." In this context it seems redundant to repeat the information here. I do agree with Storm Rider that there ins an agenda on the part of Reswobslc, but notwithstanding this information can and probably should be presented in an encyclopedic way, and I think is fairly well in the above mentioned article. Bytebear 06:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the above comment, I now realize something I had forgotten. Looks like the Endowment talks about the ceremonies. The temple article talks about the purpose of temples in Mormon theology. If this is the case, which it is, then this detail has no place in this article. The purpose of the temple is not to make oaths to make such oaths, etc. rather than taking a poll about removing it, I'll modify as follows:

Remove the section, however, state that numerous changes have been made in the temple experience since 1831, and that an overview of each of the changes may be found at their corresponding pages - ie, Washings and Anointings (Mormonism), Endowment (Mormonism), etc. And that people made covenents not to reveal certain aspects of the temple, with an oath that they'd rather die than reveal them (see Endowment (Mormonims). or somethign like thta. Here goes. -Visorstuff 17:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

One other item - I noticed that the penalties in Smith's Nauvoo Red Brick Store endowment is slightly different than the one cited. I've made changes as explained above. Hopefully R, this satisfy's the concern you had. If not, please let us know here and we'll walk through it. -Visorstuff 18:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Insults in summaries

Failing to assume good faith is something that many on this page are failing to do: "Look before you edit..." - Sentence was awkwardly worded with unclear antecedents. Granted my wording wasn't the best - but I was trying to keep as much of the text that I assumed (maybe wrongly) was yours to avoid conflict. But my efforts are not so generously rewarded. --Trödel 23:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Mormonism

Merge with Mormonism

Only Mormons seem to deem themselfs worthy of a Temple page and a Priesthood page. Where is the Cathedral (Catholic) or the Priesthood (Catholic) or other religions. I think this page can live on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impending (talk • contribs)

• I have removed the merge tag per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Other religions have articles on their places of worship (see synagogue, mosque, cathedral, Hindu temple etc.) Kafziel ^Talk 16:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Aside from this user having less that 30 edits (all in the same day), article number or space is not an issue on Wikipedia - there are articles on millions of items - and it just so happens that Temple (Mormonism) is one of the most trafficked wikipedia pages about Mormonism. If you think that Cathedral is worth an article, by all means, start one. But just because no one has started such an article does not mean that others should be deleted.

That said, welcome to Wikipedia - glad to have you aboard. -Visorstuff 18:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)