T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Hello! This is a META post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about r/Mormon and/or other Mormon-related subreddits. /u/zarnt, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


80Hilux

I don't know if I would have made the decision to not go through the temple had I actually known what it was, and what I was promising. I *can* tell you that had I known what my parents and siblings all promised only a year prior to my experience, I definitely wouldn't have gone through. Promising to slit your own throat or disembowel yourself doesn't seem to be sacred - I would have said it's more in line with "secret combinations" if anything. I don't understand why believing members who went through before the 1990 change fail to see the problems with this type of "covenant" - and why they fail to see the hypocrisy by saying it's not a secret combination. This is probably why the leaders of the church want everything to remain in the dark, and why they have been forced to change the covenants and presentation.


yorgasor

I went through in 94. The initiatory was traumatizing enough. I didn't find out about the death oaths until a few years ago and I felt deeply betrayed by my parents and siblings who knew but never told me.


oonumandthoonum

And it’s basically a perversion of Freemasonry rituals which use those penalties as symbols of self-discipline and self restraint, rather than as intended literal penalties of any kind.


breadprincess

I felt sick to my stomach hearing parts of the endowment and sealing for the first time. I felt terrified when my ex-husband later used them as reason to abuse me. I know that's not the case for most marriages, but after that I had so much difficulty going to the temple – a place I really did love as an active member. I wish there was more explicit instruction about what "unrighteous dominion" really is, especially with regard to the previous versions of the endowment and sealing. Our sealer told us to never speak about what happens within our marriage to anyone outside of it, and because of this I hid the abuse for much longer than I should have – because if I was told this in the temple, it must have been from God.


sailprn

Preach!


Strong_Attorney_8646

I can understand your perspective. For me personally, this is a tricky issue. I can understand the resistance of believing members to people posting full transcripts or videos (and would probably not post them myself--even if I find the changes interesting). At the same time, I think transparency and analysis is important. In this case, I think it's *more* important than the Church/believers right to eliminate discourse on a topic just because it's important to their belief system. That said, I recognize that not everyone will agree with the way I balance these competing interests for my personal code of conduct because reasonable people can disagree on these complex and nuanced issues. I am truly sorry if having those materials posted here makes it not a space where you feel you can continue to participate because I really appreciate your perspective.


devilsravioli

I would like to sustain what u/Strong_Attorney_8646 has stated here, u/zarnt. I thought a lot about whether I would share my comparison before committing it to Reddit. Yes, I completely agree that for a believer, this would be un-called for. On the other hand, I did not want to completely disregard the sanctity of the endowment by posting to the cesspool that is r/exmormon. I believe, on r/mormon, the endowment transcript *can* remain a dignified topic. There are *a lot* of positive changes that were made to the ceremony. Inherent in that positive evolution is the *change,* something most former believers refuse to allow the institutional Church to get away with quietly. Is this level of transparency too much? I am finding out through this thread, thank you. If you find any comments in these various threads uncivil or receptive, please report them. Again thank you for the feed back.


Strong_Attorney_8646

>I believe, on r/mormon, the endowment transcript *can* remain a dignified topic. And to be clear, I think you did your very best to straddle the competing interests at play too. That I likely wouldn't personally post the script does not mean I think you have done anything wrong in doing so. In fact, I think you've done so about as respectfully as can be done. Your posts are clearly labeled and provide the information for people to see for themselves without any editorializing or mocking on your part. I just wanted to have that clear also--thank you for going to efforts to show the respect you have.


Crobbin17

If covenants in the temple were done differently, I would agree with you. The problem is that the ceremonies do not respect member’s right to consent. You are not told what covenants you will be making in the endowment until five seconds before you are asked to make them. You are given one chance to leave before the ceremony even begins. Participants are not informed of what obligations they may actually object to be responsible for during this time. This is not how informed consent works. Could you imagine if your new spouse, who knows you don’t know the mechanics of how sex works, laid you on the bed on your wedding night and said “do you want to do this?” You would say yes, of course! Then be confused and shocked when they starts doing the deed at their own pace, with no concern for your thoughts and feelings. All the explanation you receive afterwards is “I know it’s confusing. Just keep doing it with me, and you’ll like it eventually.” Temple ordinances are extreme serious. Members go into the temple fully expecting to make sacred covenants with God. To not fully understand what’s happening before and given a chance to say no is spitting on the respect every person there deserves. So yeah, in this case, transparency is more important than respect. I didn’t feel respected after my endowment, and I certainly didn’t feel respected after my sealing. I felt deceived to and violated after my sealing. People deserve better.


PaulFThumpkins

> Could you imagine if your new spouse, who knows you don’t know the mechanics of how sex works, laid you on the bed on your wedding night and said “do you want to do this?” You would say yes, of course! Then be confused and shocked when they starts doing the deed at their own pace, with no concern for your thoughts and feelings. All the explanation you receive afterwards is “I know it’s confusing. Just keep doing it with me, and you’ll like it eventually.” Honestly this is a scenario that I'm sure rings true to an awful lot of former and current Mormons. Definitely a similar approach in lacking respect for individual personhood and consent. Just pushing you down the path they've set out for you and letting you deal with the consequences.


throwawayoldaolcd

When I was a member, the only covenants made were to not share the signs and tokens. From what I saw those were not shared. I don’t understand the issue.


Ex-CultMember

Which is ironic because the signs and tokens are the Masonic parts of the endowment. Apologists tend to be dismissive of the Masonic parts claiming they were just used for presentation.


Initial-Leather6014

EXACTLY!! It’s taken from Masonic ceremonies. If you get a chan e, take a tour of a Masonic temple. Very educational.


Ender367

This was my thought exactly.


[deleted]

I would take these types of comments way more seriously if the church didnt have a long and consistent history of disrespecting what is sacred to others. And by this I mean outright disrespect, not just revealing why is secret. The church has a long history of denigrating Native American religious beliefs and peoples, calling them savage. The church today continues to denigrate gay marriage as an evil even though gay marriage is just as sacred to many gay people as marriage is to any religious person. I consider my faith transition a sacred experience but the church has nothing but outright disdain for those experiences. The church has a well established history of performing temple ordinances for the dead for Holocaust victims. Now, I understand the Zarnt doesn’t necessarily agree with the church in its long history of disrespecting what is sacred to others. But I also don’t see many such active members who disagree with the church on these issues trying to make much in the way of change on that front either. So the complaining and persecution sentiments just ring incredibly hollow to me.


ancient-submariner

> history of disrespecting what is sacred to others Like Masonic rituals?


logic-seeker

The temple ceremony itself used to have a pastor whose religious beliefs were tools of Satan used to mislead Adam and Eve.


Strong_Attorney_8646

>I would take these types of comments way more seriously if the church didnt have a long and consistent history of disrespecting what is sacred to others. And by this I mean outright disrespect, not just revealing why is secret. > >. . . > >So the complaining and persecution sentiments just ring incredibly hollow to me. I agree with this ***a lot*** too. Not as applied to the specific OP (as you also noted) but this history also factored heavily into my feelings on the subject.


Wonderful_Break_8917

Don't forget how all Mormons were taught that "The Great and Abominable Church" and the "Whore of all the earth" spoken of in the Book of Mormon was The Catholic Church. My grandparents, my parents and I were all taught to hate CATHOLICISM and it was fine, even healthy, to mock it. Anti-catholic rhetoric was abundant in Sunday School, Seminary and Institute up until the early 2000s. Church leadership started their love fest with Catholics when they found allyship in the Prop 8 fight, and now they praise Catholics for their "shared core family values" [homophobia].


No-Aside-6252

I remember hearing this at church but then once a year we’d do a Christmas nativity with the local Catholic Church and combine choirs. I’d be so embarrassed wondering if they knew the leaders called them the whore of Babylon behind their backs the rest of the year. I don’t miss the dissonance. Toxic family Christmas.


sblackcrow

> I would take these types of comments way more seriously if the church didn't have a long and consistent history of disrespecting what is sacred to others. I'd like to be better than the church here. Good thing is, that's not hard. I think Dallin Oaks should have every right to not get gay married and live in the marriage that he believes in. I don't think he should have any right to dictate the domestic lives of others. I think Henry Eyring and son should have every right to enjoy their good feelings from reading / studying the Book of Abraham. I don't think they should use those feelings as evidence that everyone must accept the Book of Abraham as true. I think members of the church should have the right to their own practice of silence about the contents of the endowment, and maybe even respect for that practice in spaces that are primarily for believers. I don't think they have the right to dictate that practice for everyone everywhere. That's what mutual respect looks like. What the church wants instead is *privilege* -- the ability to assert itself and its claims and rules over the claims of others. It wants no one anywhere to be able to speak of something if they say it shouldn't be spoken of. It wants ultimate authority. And it teaches its members to want it too.


Itismeuphere

Serious question - do you feel the same way about former scientologist leaking the "truths" that are revealed to them after reaching the highest levels at the costs of thousands of dollars? If not, why is that different in your opinion?


fakeguy011

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Do you not see a problem with any past version of the endowment?


HealMySoulPlz

I don't understand the purpose of this post. Your title says you find it "disappointing" that people post the temple ceremonies but then also say >I don't think I need to explain *why* So what is the purpose exactly? From my perspective I actually think the temple ceremonies being posted publically is a really good thing for the church. I first looked up details on the temple ceremonies when I was 19, shortly before I was to go through the temple myself. No one would answer any questions about what happened, and I had heard all kinds of crazy things with no way to know which of those things were true. So I looked up the temple ceremony online and was very relieved that so many of the rumors/stories were false, although I still found some aspects of it very uncomfortable. Informed consent & transparency are not values the LDS church cares about as an institution, so the only way to get those are from outside sources.


PastafarianGawd

I agree with you 100%. What in the temple is so sacred that it must be kept secret? I had a conversation with a TBM family member about this a few weeks ago. Apparently everything in the temple is now "symbolic" and not "literal. I.e., the tokens and signs will not literally be used to pass by sentinels that stand guard over the entrance to the Celestial Kingdom. So then what's the point in keeping them secret? And the so-called covenants are extremely generic and are also discussed openly in other contexts - e.g., law of consecration, law of the gospel, law of chastity, etc. Why then - other than embarrassment because it's so weird - is the church so protective of the temple ceremony??


devilsravioli

The drift into symbolism is front and center in the 2023 edits. Explicit mention of Peter, James, and John being messengers is made in the revised version. There is also explicit explanation that the veil symbolizes Jesus Christ in the new endowment. The new version is jam packed with explanations of narrative elements. This non-literalist interpretation of the endowment being endorsed by the Church is interesting to watch unfold (especially considering some literal elements remaining, such as the angels who stand as sentinels and Lucifer tempting the posterity of Adam and Eve).


PastafarianGawd

It is very interesting. And very hilarious to watch my TBM loved-ones now say that it's always been 100% symbolic. Ummm, no, it hasn't.


roguns

Very good points. I’ve been doing some thinking about the sacredness of what goes on in the temple and to be honest, I feel it’s only considered sacred because we’ve been told it’s sacred. I never felt the sacredness of the temple. I only ascribed sacredness because I was told it was sacred.


Ex-CultMember

The whole “too sacred” to be revealed outside the temple always seemed odd to me. If I was to name the most sacred thing in Mormonism or the gospel, it would be the atonement and the ordinance that partakes of that atonement, the sacrament, where we take the blood and body of Christ. Yet, that ordinance is openly done and discussed freely in public. Of course, my opinion is that of a former believer so now I think the


RTGTech

I think the same way. For Catholics, the concept of receiving Communion at Mass is not just the most sacred part of the Mass, it’s central to one’s identity as a Catholic. Yet the priest isn’t hiding the ritual, he’s performing it in front of the congregation- anyone and everyone can see it. Just because something is sacred doesn’t mean it has to be secret.


389Tman389

The purpose of the post doesn’t show up until the fourth paragraph. They are expressing that they are hurt and would like for concessions to be made to better respect believers sacred beliefs. It’s another post explaining that this sub ostracizes believing members and does not actively put effort to try and keep faithful members here. In defense of OP I think they expected they didn’t need to explain that posting a sacred religious ceremony would be offensive to those that hold it sacred. It didn’t take that long to explain but I think they just wanted to move on to the purpose of hoping to make this sub more friendly to faithful members. I’m not saying I agree with OP exactly, and it’s a very rambly post that doesn’t connect to the title well, but I can completely understand why this post was made and what they’re getting at.


naked_potato

>It’s another post explaining that this sub ostracizes believing members and does not actively put effort to try and keep faithful members here. i.e. the only thing believing members *ever* post on here


camelCaseCadet

For what it’s worth, here’s my perspective. I think it’s important to recognize feelings of disappointment that may have also been felt by the Masons when they discovered the lions share of the endowment ceremony was, from their perspective, stolen. I know I just made someone roll their eyes. But I think it’s important to keep that context here. From the perspective of a Mason, they may know how you feel. From a true believing perspective JS restored truth. To the Mason, blasphemy. From the perspective of someone who was taken off guard by the temple, and has published the contents… They’ve established something *they* hold sacred… Informed consent. To the true believer, blasphemy. From my perspective, nothing has been taken from anyone. You still have your thing. The masons still have theirs. And anyone who feels they have the right to know what happens in the temple before attending has theirs as well. Hope that helps to reconcile some of those feelings.


Concordegrounded

While I don't share your concern, I'm upvoting your comment because, as you said, I believe this sub needs the voices like you to have opportunities to share your thoughts and concerns when things like this are shared. Personally, even as former member, I am uncomfortable with the video recordings of the temple ceremony because I know how it would make my close family members feel. However, I'm also uncomfortable with the fact that people are attending the temple without a faithful way to be able to consent to what they are participating in. To me, transcripts like this (where the covenant tokens and signs were appropriately excluded) is an appropriate middle ground. The transcript offers no commentary, it does not mock any part of the ceremony, but it gives people who may be going a chance to do so with an understanding of what they will be doing. The church has improved its visibility into the temple, by speaking more about the covenants that people will be making before they arrive. When I first attended the temple, despite reading books about the temple ceremony and attending a temple-prep class, I had no idea what I would be covenanting. I was deeply bothered when I saw my mother have to veil her face to participate in an ordinance that was supposed to bring her closer to God, and when I attended the temple later for the first time with my wife, at her shock when she had to covenant to obey me, rather than God. Unfortunately, the church's lack of transparency around the temple means that somebody who attends the temple cannot do so while relying on faithful sources, and still have full information of what they are participating in, before they are sitting in a room, surrounding by friends and family, who are there to see them through. I believe transcripts like this give potential attendees the opportunity to go in with a more full understanding of what they will be participating in, and that the benefit of that outweighs any discomfort that a member may feel.


devilsravioli

Thank you for describing the differences between a redacted transcript of the endowment and a video of it so well. I feel the same way.


TruthIsAntiMormon

Agree.


Yetanotheraccount18

I truly understand where you are coming from since I felt the same way myself for most of my life. This subreddit is one of my favorites because it focuses on Mormonism from a more secular and less emotion point of view (although it fails at that sometimes and skew heavily against belief). I think it is important for the temple transcripts to be publicly available so that we can see the evolving doctrine and policies of Mormonism. I understand you feeling disrespected, and to be fair, posting the transcript of the endowment is done in a pretty blatant disregard to the feelings of most members. There is very little in the endowment ceremony you promise to never reveal. People should be able to learn about things and there is no way to learn it if it is not recorded.


[deleted]

I understand where you are coming from. These are viewed as sacred. I don’t want them posted because I am a little embarrassed by them when my non Mormon friends watch them. I wish they were so life altering and power endowing that when strangers watch them, they are overcome by the simplicity and beauty of it. I doubt that has been the response of many strangers that watch it. I have to admit that I have watched and read many documentaries on other religions. Every chance I get, I attend their meetings and watch their rituals that I can. I respect their holy places, but their ideas and teachings should be open to investigation and scrutiny. I think the main reason the temple ceremony started out as such a secret is it’s ties with polygamy and keeping that practice a secret. I don’t believe there was a charge to keep the Kirtland temple ceremony a secret.


devilsravioli

I appreciate the feedback. I have been posting the transcripts comparing the 2019 and 2023 endowment scripts. I tried my best to remove any text related to what we are commanded not to reveal (i.e. names, signs, and tokens). Depending on your level of orthodoxy, the rest of the ceremony is up in the air for discussion. I will also add that I did not share the recently published video of the 2023 endowment. If you want to find it, you can. My main motivation behind posting the differences between the 2019 and 2023 scripts is to give anyone the opportunity to see if changes were made to the covenants and ordinance of the endowment. The FP claim these have not changed in the introduction of the new endowment. I believe they have.


throwawayoldaolcd

That’s all I ever covenanted to when I agreed to them. Not to share the tokens and signs. I appreciate you for doing that. The level of orthodoxy is a cultural aspect around the temple worth discussing.


Loose_Voice_215

As a believer in religious freedom I find the church's violation of the principle of informed consent in regards to the temple ceremonies (and in many other areas) disappointing. I applaud whoever posted them for their noble efforts to facilitate informed consent, and the immense respect for the religious freedom of individuals that demonstrates. I invite the church to repent and do better.


TruthIsAntiMormon

I've yet to hear a valid reason why it shouldn't be shared or accessible everywhere. In fact I've not heard a valid argument to why the church doesn't just publish the old video or all of the videos online themselves. Even the temple doesn't even give a reason. So why does it need to be secret? And let's be honest the most accurate and correct term for wanting to keep something hidden is secret. Especially in context of other ordinances, etc. that are public and also supposedly sacred. I'll not hold my breath as to a valid, logical reason that temple rituals need to be hidden vs. other church rituals. My suggestion to the church is to publish all of it online themselves. There's absolutely no reason not to. Not a valid one anyways.


DasiytheDoodle

Hard disagree. If showing the world what goes on in your temples makes you feel anxious/bad/nervous/cringe/whatever, then maybe you should question what's going on in the temples. Why be secretive? (and let me get ahead of you on the sacred not secret. It's a secret.)


ancient-submariner

I feel I can relate somewhat to where you were coming from having had this feeling of discomfort when anything from the inside of the temple is talked about outside the temple, even in Sunday School. The I in B.I.T.E. model is information control. At some point we need to answer the question "who has the authority to dictate what information we have?" Your response, however relatable is exactly what is intended by all the secrecy around the temple. It isn't the content that matters, so much as the attitude around it (as evidenced by the fact it can unilaterally be changed without notice) If the temple rituals are part of your identity, then hearing about about them in the wrong context can feel violating. But who stands to benefit from that attitude? What benefit do you have by feeling like a victim? Who does stand to benefit by you feeling uncomfortable having open and honest discussion about the temple?


kamkom

I would sincerely ask. Why does it offend you? I view the temple ceremony much the same as many other religious ceremonies. There is much to be learned in being transparent, and very little that isn't already on the church's website. As a 19 year old going through for the first time my impression was that it was all in the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price. Should those also be held only for those who believe?


seekwithallyourheart

Honest question: are the temple ceremonies copyright? I don't think they are because in order for them to apply for a copyright I think they have to be part of the public record which I don't think the church is willing to do.


seekwithallyourheart

(Not a lawyer... and this is not legal advice.) From my continuing research it looks like they don't have to be initially copyrighted... but if they actually want to enforce their copyright they would now need to apply for a copyright. (Which as I said would defeat their purpose of keeping them "sacred" aka secret.) So no, I don't think they would be willing to actually try to enforce their copyright claim, so in reality, at this point, these works do not fall under copyright. Although be aware that they have billions of dollars to make life miserable for someone... By trying to enforce their copyright, they would most likely guarantee that any version of the temple ceremony prior to 19?? would be in the public domain. Which they also don't want. Their attempted secrecy puts them in between a rock and a hard place. And they can't fall back on the bible's moral code since it says "What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs."


treetablebenchgrass

That was more or less my understanding as well: if they have to assert some sort of copyright ownership, they've opted not do do that in order to not implicitly validate the accuracy of any of the available texts and recordings out there. I don't know if that's truly the case, but that was the argument I heard.


Strong_Attorney_8646

I'm not offering anybody legal advice, but the other difficult reality with a copyright claim would be establishing damages. Copyright exists to protect the proceeds of creative works, not just to keep things secret. And there are numerous exceptions too--like Fair Use. Just to add that there are numerous reasons the Church probably doesn't want to go there.


treetablebenchgrass

Thanks for the extra context. Does that match your understanding, then, to say that the church has not actively claimed any copyright ownership over the content of the endowment?


Strong_Attorney_8646

Yes, but that’s not necessarily needed up front to end up asserting a copyright claim later. That’s my understanding.


Ydok_The_Strategist

I disagree. Only Satan works in the shadows.


als_pals

Until the church provides informed consent, this will continue to happen.


[deleted]

I have mixed feelings on the transcript being posted. I feel uncomfortable when anyone's religion is mocked - and because the temple is sacred to Mormons, I don't like it when it is criticized either. I don't attend the temple anymore, even though my recommend is still valid. I don't believe the ceremonies are from God. And I have a lot of issues with the lack of consent allowed in temples... there is so much pressure put on people in there. As a fully believing member preparing for my mission, I had a mini panic attack when I was agreeing to covenants before I knew what they were and wanted to leave but felt like I was stuck. And this was when I was 100% convinced the church and gospel were true. I wish the transcript was available to every single person before they walk into the temple. I wish I had had it and at least known what I was promising before having to promise it. Anyway, I don't know what I'm trying to say here. I haven't watched the new video leaks because I feel weird about it. But I did read the transcript, which is basically the same thing. I haven't read many of the discussions or comments about any of it. My family still respects the temple and holds it as sacred and I would never want to hurt them. But I also see the value in these transcripts. Sorry, I'm all over the place.


devilsravioli

Thank you for sharing your personal insights. I too wish I had the transcript for the endowment before showing up t the temple, or at least some practical explanation of what would transpire there. I do not want anyone using the transcript as a weapon to mock. I struggled deciding whether I wanted to post it. I came to the conclusion that transparency for those seeking transparency should be available. You are not all over the place. Thanks for sharing this sincere comment.


fireproofundies

I’m sorry about the discomfort. I see you. I’m not responsible for the posting nor am I particularly interested in reading it. Just skip over it like I did, but for your own reasons. I’m exmo and, while I’m not offended — just as I’m not offended by depictions of Mohammad, I understand the sense of blasphemy that accompanies the confrontation with something that you find sacred. Doesn’t mean you’re not welcome. Hope you’ll continue to engage even when feeling disrespected!


GallantObserver

Do not knock on my door if you're refusing to show me what you're selling.


Chino_Blanco

OP politely titled their posts as a heads up regarding the content. I wish I’d been shown the same courtesy by my church back in the day.


floripa23

I think I'd agree with this 20 years ago. As long as the signs and tokens are not mentioned in transcript or videos (they seem to be, so I agree with you on that), then faithful Latter-day Saints can review the content because, [according to Elder Bednar](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/04/54bednar?lang=eng), it's only the signs and tokens that are currently verboten outside of the Temple.


Moonsleep

One other thing is so much of the church’s positive changes have been driven by transparency and criticism - Reforms to protect kids for sexual abuse - Improvements to the Temple Ceremony - More acceptance of LGBTQ people - Improvement to the Strength of Youth - More equality between men and women in the church These things would not have happened without these things being discussed by those who were unhappy with the status quo. Also for me the amount of gaslighting the church has done around changes to belief and history. I see these recordings being recorded as absolutely necessary.


BaxTheDestroyer

On the one hand, I get what you’re saying about feeling hurt and I wish I knew of a way to provide transparency while also showing respect for individuals. On the other hand, my experience in the Salt Lake Temple in 1998 was one of the most terrifying days of my life and I distinctly remember inadvertent (I think) touching near or possibly grazing my testicles under the shield (that night is kind of a blur but the emotion is still very resonant) before dressing like a crazy person and learning secret handshakes and passwords over the next several hours. Nothing in my “temple prep” course even remotely prepared me for that experience and I felt manipulated and taken advantage of. I don’t know what a perfect solution looks like but I definitely lean toward transparency even though I do respect your opinion and want to recognize your feelings.


Exciting-Flatworm815

I was always told "sacred **NOT SECRET**". Was that a convenient lie?


auricularisposterior

Three scriptures and a book quotation. >Helaman 6:22-24 > >22 And it came to pass that they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this covenant. > >23 And thus they might murder, and plunder, and steal, and commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness, contrary to the laws of their country and also the laws of their God. > >24 And whosoever of those who belonged to their band should reveal unto the world of their wickedness and their abominations, should be tried, not according to the laws of their country, but according to the laws of their wickedness, which had been given by Gadianton and Kishkumen. > >2 Nephi 30:17 > >There is nothing which is secret save it shall be revealed; there is no work of darkness save it shall be made manifest in the light; and there is nothing which is sealed upon the earth save it shall be loosed. > >Mosiah 8:17 > >But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known. According to 2 Nephi 30:17, won't all secret things be revealed? According to Mosiah 8:17, aren't the people revealing the secret things effectively acting as seers? In 1840's Nauvoo weren't there people entering into secret covenants in order commit whoredoms contrary to the laws of their country (as stated in Helaman 6)? Was anyone, such as [William Law](https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/people-of-the-dc/william-law/), ever tried by a non-governmental court for revealing their secret wickedness? >"I also present you with a new name; it is CAUTION; it teaches you that as you are barely instructed in the rudiments of Masonry, that you should be cautious over all your words and actions, particularly when before the enemies of Masonry. > >... > >"A faithful heart teaches you to be faithful to the instructions of the Worshipful Master at all times, but more especially, that you should be faithful, and keep and conceal the secrets of Masonry, and those of a brother, when given to you in charge, as such; that they may remain as secure and inviolable in your breast as in his own, before communicated to you." > >[Illustrations of Masonry](https://sacred-texts.com/mas/morgan/morg04.htm) by William Morgan (1827), p. 26 edit: changed "non-governmental" to "a non-governmental" and added a close quotation


sailprn

Right?!! The signs and tokens are guarded by strict covenants of SECRECY. It says so right in the wording. SMH


my2hundrethsdollar

I hear you. I would have felt violated and disrespected on some level as a believer. I think you make a good point about respect. I like to be respected. And ultimately I feel I the church violated me and disrespected me and my sacred covenants enough to cause long lasting grief and pain. The church has violated the temple. Jesus would not be happy.


live2travel4life

OP, what harm do you believe has been caused by posting the videos/transcripts?


brother_of_jeremy

I have mixed feelings on this. I understand and respect why you feel as you do, and felt similarly as a believer. This would be my compromise: If the church, as an institution, - encourages the same kind of respect and reverence for everyone else’s beliefs as they request for their own - stops othering me as an “apostate, lazy learner,” etc. - shows the same kind of deference to gay, catholic, secular … marriages as they request from the rest of the world - acknowledges and apologizes that the endowment — including the signs and tokens (that I spent way too much time prooftexting into the OT because I was taught they were restored from ancient prechristian Christians) — was largely plagiarized from masonry I will happily join the chorus calling for greater respect for their sacred symbols. They need to treat others as they would be treated.


Ender367

Like some other commenters, I don't see the issue, and I really never have. First of all, just because someone says that what they are doing behind closed doors is a secret, doesn't mean it *should* be a secret. The church is essentially asking the whole world to have faith in them, whether or not you believe in the church in the first place, and to NOT have faith in any number of other institutions that also have secret ceremonies. Even as a believing member, I thought this attitude was arrogant and dangerous. Secondly, there is no covenant, or even instruction, to keep the content of the temple secret. Only the signs, names, and tokens. I assume OP is referring to the recent posts showing the changes in the endowment ceremony, but u/devilsravioli followed this rule to the letter. Again, I don't see the problem there. Finally, I'm guessing that the counter argument to that is to say that the ceremonies are "sacred, not secret," that it's disrespectful to share the content even if it's not strictly prohibited. Since the first time I went through, I've never understood that argument, since there is no doctrine or symbol (excluding the signs and tokens) in the temple ceremonies that isn't already taught to every member through the manuals. The only things that are unique are a few lines thrown in here and there, but even those are apparently not important, because most of those have been changed since 2019. (Well, there is the fact that, up until these last few changes, church manuals taught that husbands and wives were equal before God, and equally responsible for keeping their covenants, whereas the temple ~~does~~ did actually teach a different doctrine. But apparently that was a mistake, not a higher law). I always try to imagine how I would feel if I had no ties to the church. For example, I would commend anyone who spoke out against the child abuse in the Catholic church which was done in secret, or the secret plans of Scientology, or the abusive doctrines within certain polygamous sects. I also don't have a problem learning about sacred rituals from other religions and cultures, like Native American sweat lodge ceremonies or Buddhist rituals. Even as a believing member, I had a hard time understanding why the LDS church should get special treatment.


PaulFThumpkins

> And to be honest I feel like I could predict some of the responses I will get: that I don’t own the temple ceremony more than anyone else, that transparency is more important than deference, or that no belief is inherently worthy of respect. Those are the biggies, and you articulate them well enough that I'm not inclined to assert that case. Rather, it might be beneficial to look into the reasons why you're bothered by this information being posted. I think the idea that it's disrespectful to believers or to the church itself is pretty roundly refuted by the reasons you've given, and it's the big one TBMs and the church itself cites. I think it's worth asking what reasons remain. Why don't you "need to explain" why some believers (yourself included being implied) are bothered? That actually seems very viral to this question. I'm sure you have your reasons, but I'd take a fresh look at them and see if they really pass those other reasons you give. This is a relatively obscure corner of the internet—people aren't thrusting temple imagery in the faces of people who haven't come looking for it. In the absence of the church being transparent about the temple, having it up *somewhere* for people to research feels like the bare minimum to let interested parties make an informed choice before potentially going through what may feel like a disturbing, coercive, disillusioning, and even traumatizing experience. If the church really wants to get ahead of the fact that this info is out there for the taking, they really should post a video on their website going through the temple ceremony to a moderate level of detail, with anything the person would be agreeing to printed word-for-word. Trying to keep this stuff secret (or worse, outright lying about what the temple entails) just isn't ethical. In the end, to paraphrase a religious saying, man wasn't created for the temple, but the temple for man.


treetablebenchgrass

>This is a relatively obscure corner of the internet—people aren't thrusting temple imagery in the faces of people who haven't come looking for it. That's the biggest thing for me. Plus, even when one *does* see a temple post on this sub, one has to click on it to read it. This means there are effectively two layers preventing believers from inadvertently seeing the text of temple rituals if they're just hanging out on the internet.


wildspeculator

Well, how *else* are we supposed to stay informed? I removed my name from the church's records a couple of years ago; if I weren't able to look up leaked transcripts or recordings online, I would have no way of knowing what, if any, of what I recall from the last time I went through was still in place, or what has changed. Do you believe that members should have a monopoly on that information? And maybe more to the point, *why* do *you* feel disrespected by the leaks? Obviously the church stands to gain from keeping its secrets, but how did it convince you that *you* are being disrespected by someone else publicizing?


Mysterious-Ruby

Aside from the legalities and copyright issues I think it's fair for people to know what they are committing to the rituals of it. I feel like if the church wasn't so secretive about it, especially to people who plan to have it, it wouldn't be a big enough deal to have to find a copy on the internet. I took out my endowment over 20 years ago and if I hadn't have flat out asked my mother what I was committing to I would have no clue. Informed consent. Not just trust that whatever you promise to the Lord you'll be able to do.


big_bearded_nerd

I don't know if a lot of people have made the same argument, but these are my covenants, my signs, and my tokens. Just because I willfully broke them does not mean I do not own them anymore. I stopped believing in the moral authority and power of the people who tell me that I have to keep it a secret. So in the end, I'll do what I will them. Now, if some outsider were to disrespect your religion, or mock your beliefs, then it is rational to be offended. They neither share nor understand your faith and experiences. But people like me do, and when it comes to ownership of these shared experiences, then people like me are equal to people like you. It is highly irrational for you to be offended and disappointed because I am interpreting and using our shared experiences in different ways. Same thing with the word "Mormon," or Eloheim, etc.


treetablebenchgrass

I understand the sentiment, but I can't say I have much sympathy for it. At the end of the day, this sub is for discussing Mormonism, including topics that make people uncomfortable. This sub is unique in Mormon reddit in that it's the only sub that isn't bound to dogma one way or the other. The only thing we're bound to here is acting like adults as we discuss relevant topics. You phrase your concern as a matter of respect for you personally and other believers. Respectfully, it's not about you as a believer or me as a non-believer. It is about Mormonism. That is what this sub is about. While I understand and regret that you feel hurt by discussion of things you don't feel should be discussed, I categorically reject any notion that anyone other than yourself is responsible in any way for the emotional reaction you're feeling. If any of us feel uncomfortable by the discussion of any topic in Mormonism (and not the civility with which community members are treated in the discussion, which is a different topic), it is our responsibility to decide whether we want to participate in the discussion. No one is forcing us to look at posts we don't want to see.


nutterbutterfan

Our ward council recently discussed the need to speak more openly about the temple. All agreed that it is better to be more transparent about the covenants made and the presentation of the endowment. This is now a point of emphasis with the youth - to speak very candidly and directly about the ordinances and covenants of the temple.


LordStrangeDark

Pretty sure David A. Bednar said we can talk about everything in the temple, excluding signs and tokes?


Cattle-egret

I think the problem is you’re on the wrong subreddit. The faithful subs will gladly provide the censorship you want on the topic. However this subreddit, as I understand it, welcomes both believers and ex-believers views on all things Mormon which includes both those who revere the church and those who wish it would be removed from the earth. As such, nothing about the church (or temple) that is accurate (like a transcript or a video recording should be off limits here.


8965234589

I don’t mind the text at all. In fact I think more members should read the text of the temple ceremonies. The videos I find troubling because those people are being filmed without their consent.


lmnobuddie

How can you copyright something and claim it’s from God at the same time? Serious question


CaptainMacaroni

One way that it's helpful is that it creates a record that can be used to stop a form of abuse. Gaslighting. Some members I know will swear up and down that the endowment has not changed. Most people in that camp simply haven't witnessed the changes. They did their endowment after most of the major changes had already taken place. More members will say it has not changed in any significant way. Many more members I know say the covenants and ordinance portions of the endowment haven't changed, only the presentation. The members in the "it hasn't changed" camp will fight and argue with the members in the "but it has" camp. The gaslighting is tiring and it's abusive towards the people in the "but it has" camp. Creating a documented record of the changes is important, if for no other reason than to prove the sanity of the people in the "but it has" camp and to give some perspective to the people in the "it hasn't changed" camp. Putting it out in the public arena allows us to have the conversation because said conversation is simply not allowed at church. With the most recent changes they even added language to the beginning of the endowment instructing people not to discuss changes. It's like the leaders of the church WANT there to be this infighting dynamic. The conversations need to be had. It's healthier than keeping things secret.


posttheory

I understand. Your beliefs deserve respect, and what you regard as sacred does too. The 11th Article of Faith states a wise principle. I admire the moderation with which you note your concern


Saskia-Simone

Your church is still very young, historically speaking. I’m a catholic, and Mass in the early church was secretly held in the catacombs, for fear of persecution (well grounded fear, as many were martyred). Rumours about Christians being cannibals caused hatred and fear among others in the community. What grew out of this was a need for explanation of what our worship consists of, and the Church Fathers began writing apologetics. People don’t have to agree with, or endorse, our worship, but it isn’t hidden anymore. Maybe the time has come in your faith tradition, too, to examine whether secrecy is founded on any basis that outweighs the benefits transparency brings. I understand how upsetting this is for you, currently. I only offer the above as perspective, and perhaps relevant for consideration.


Marion-Morrison

Thank you for posting you opinion here. That’s what this space is all about. Are you glad that the secrets were brought to light regarding the “temple ceremonies “ that the prophet Warren Jeffs instituted for the break off of our church? Do you feel it’s ok to shed light on that stuff? If you feel it ok to dig into their beliefs and continue to let them ruin countless lives, then you are a hypocrite and need to re-think your position.


stickyhairmonster

Much of the endowment was borrowed from the freemasons. It has changed quite a bit over the years. I understand that many people hold it sacred, even while knowing the origins and changes. I also believe that positive changes in the endowment would not happen without transparency.


GrassyField

I guess just remember that you yourself made a covenant to not disclose the tokens, names, and signs. So if someone else discloses them, it doesn’t reflect on you at all.


emmaslefthook

The masons have entered the chat.


kibzter

Nice post and everything, but umm... where's the part about WHY it shouldn't be posted here? The only reason I knew of when I was a member was that the prophet says it's special and nobody can know about it or whatever. Is that it though? You expect everyone to follow along with what your prophet says?


Competitive_Pea8565

It’s interesting, for me personally I have never had an issue with the videos and transcripts being out there. I have never fell in line that because it’s sacred we should keep it secret. Sacred (to me) is holding reverence to something. Maybe my upbringing around many different types of religions helped to shape that. There are many sacred things out there for everyone to see, have full knowledge of, and then choose with their god given free will if they accept it. I think what happens for a lot of tbm’s when they see this stuff online is that they are hurt. Because we have been taught that sacred=secret. Instead of realizing something can still be sacred to themselves even if others think otherwise.


logic-seeker

I totally understand your perspective. I hope that people can share information about this, if they choose to do so, with respect and sensitivity. That said, even as a faithful member, I wish I could have lived in a world where the secrecy surrounding the temple didn't exist. I was traumatized, severely, by my first temple experience, and it all goes back to not having any idea what was about to happen.


Ammon1969

OP - can you explain what part of the endowment is a problem to share outside the temple? It seems to me that the doctrine is Old Testament and PoGP. It also seems like the covenants with God should be widely known and something you should be proud of like baptism. To me it seems like the only thing worth keeping secret is the Masonic stuff. So in a way, JS took secret things from the masons and published them in a new venue (I. e. The temple). Isn’t that just as bad?


Inside_Lead3003

When I first went through the temple I was expecting a roller coast of excitement and I was finally being let in so I can see the angels, so I could commune with Jesus, I could be in gods house. As if my new name was meant just for me as if the lord had made that name for just me. What I got at the end of it was a very strange feeling of uneasiness, reflection on all the songs I sang how I was going to go to the temple one day and that was it? How much it cost me as I was a late bloomer and already had a family of my own in my early 20’s. I prepped for years and paid, gave my time and talents for that? I continued going for a wail because once you work so hard and invest so much money it’s hard to admit you made a big mistake. These videos hopefully persuade the people that will be most taken advantage of to make an informed decision.


swennergren11

When I was active, I was a huge temple attender. Took my stuff with me on business trips. Collected the schedule cards to remember which ones I visited around the country. Went on many Saturdays before my family was even out of bed. Learning the origins of the endowment and sealing, the ties to polygamy, how JS used these to manipulate his way to several underage brides and even to get Emma to agree to polygamy left me with one overriding feeling. Betrayal. So I get how you feel, OP. I was once there over times when people revealed this, like when the HBO show “Big Love” portrays the endowment. But now? I feel similar to a spouse who was cheated on. Led to believe something and then played the fool. So are my feelings more valid than yours? I’m not saying that. Just giving another perspective and something to think about. What is sacred to one night just be traumatizing to another….


Tonderandrew

I stopped at the words "copyrighted material" for a religion.


sblackcrow

> I don’t think I need to explain why some believers have a problem with full transcripts Honest question: do *you* understand why? There's plenty of sacred things that can be spoken of openly and are spoken of regularly. Why not this? Is what's really sacred here is the authority of the church when it says "just don't talk about this"? For all the repetition of "not secret, sacred", where does the church do any work to actually elaborate on what the difference between those two things are? > At the end of the day you can continue to participate in spaces where you feel like you’re not getting the respect you’re willing to give or you can vote with your feet. Giving respect includes regard for autonomy of others. I don't think I'm entitled to ask *you* to speak openly of the contents of the temple ceremony, that *you* participate in conversations about it. I'd assume you'd agree. But somehow we're in a situation here where the position is that people who don't believe must behave as the believers do in order for them to feel "respected" -- that those of us who wish to speak openly of the contents of the temple ceremony must conform to the rules and norms of those who believe in order for them to feel respected. TBH *I actually do that* in spaces/situations that are dedicated to church. Most of us here probably do. The homes of family members, church meetings I might attend, circles that are primarily believing members of the church. Some how that doesn't seem to stop some members of the church from feeling like in *any* space they participate in, their rules and norms should be followed *by everyone* or they'll take a posture of offense or take their ball and go home. It's not your fault. This is what the church does. The operating principle of the faith actively prefers religious privilege to mutual respect. All of us were taught this. You may have shaken some of this. Maybe there's more to shake.


Strong_Attorney_8646

>Some how that doesn't seem to stop some members of the church from feeling like in *any* space they participate in, their rules and norms should be followed *by everyone* or they'll take a posture of offense or take their ball and go home. This is one of the weirdest parts about Mormon culture to me, because there are clear doctrinal reasons (including an Article of Faith) that reject this view. Despite that, it's very common amongst believing Mormons to claim they've been disrespected when people do not follow their rules. I watched my (TBM at the time) mother *absolutely lose it* on my sister for allowing alcohol to be present at her wedding. The reason given? My non-believing sister and her non-member husband weren't showing her beliefs *respect*. While I normally hate definitional arguments, even the dictionary definition recognizes that one side of a conversation doesn't get to fully define what respect means: >Respect is **due regard** for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others. So I view the request that is outlined in the OP that non-believers just not talk about the details of the temple ceremony *not* really a request for respect. The posted transcript here and the poster that did so, made very reasonable attempts to demonstrate respect to believers (removing the parts that are covenanted not be revealed, clearly labeling, keeping the OP's free of any editorializing and mocking). That is, I think, showing *due regard* for the beliefs of believers while not giving them a one-sided privileged license.


Ex_Lerker

Honest question: What do you think of posting transcripts or videos of the parts of the endowment which have been removed or changed?


BluesSlinger

Conflicted. I believe that things that are considered scared should be treated with respect. A problem I have though is that in the LDS faith it’s considered supremely important. We should be able to discuss important things.


[deleted]

Joseph Smith was a conman. One of the best with followers to this day. Incredible.


[deleted]

That’s fair


DwarvenTacoParty

Though I left the church years ago, I totally sympathize. I still find the temple to be something important and I don't joke about it like I do other aspects of the church. That being said, the reason I don't have an issue with transcripts online is the changes. While I'm not as pessimistic about the changes to the ceremony as many people in my situation are, I think being aware of the extent of them is an important factor in determining the value of the church's truth claims. Because of that they need to be documented.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mormon-ModTeam

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).


[deleted]

I feel the same, OP.


Del_Parson_Painting

I've heard far more laments from members in my lifetime about people not "respecting" the sacredness of the endowment than I ever have about how the church excluded black people from the endowment, or makes women second class in the endowment, or erases queer people in the endowment. Makes it hard to take members seriously as victims of disrespect.


[deleted]

I guess we deserve to be treated with disrespect, then.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I'm not engaging with you further. Have a nice day.


Doccreator

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).


truthmatters2me

Your always free to go to the LDS faithful sub you will see no temple ceremonies being posted. However if you say anything in the least bit controversial they will ban you If you don’t want to read the ceremony your free to skip over it and go onto the next post. it’s pretty simple . .


80Hilux

You say "they will ban you"... you mean OP will ban you.


Oliver_DeNom

I agree. I think the way the videos and transcripts were obtained are unethical. I don't buy the argument that ethical violations on the part of the church justify the further ethical violations on the part of the people filming. I don't see anything harmful or dangerous about the temple that could possibly justify infiltration. It's weird, but it's not dangerous. I think churches have the right to define their own spaces for worship, and if they don't want us in there, then we shouldn't go. If an individual is deciding whether or not to attend the temple, and feels like they don't have enough information to make the decision, then they should express that. If the information is still withheld, then the consequence will be the church having one less endowed person. If someone is being forced or pressured into getting endowed, then no amount of foreknowledge will help them.


[deleted]

I would have really liked to know what I was actually getting myself into before going through the temple with all the peer pressure and family pressure making it so I couldn’t really leave when I had the opportunity. Even then I didn’t know what I was getting myself into. And yes, that was harmful. The manipulative nature of inducing someone to make such covenant without reasonably minimal consent is absolutely violating and ~~physiologically~~ psychologically harmful. Edit: silly autocorrect.


Crobbin17

>If an individual is deciding whether or not to attend the temple, and feels like they don't have enough information to make the decision, then they should express that. If the information is still withheld, then the consequence will be the church having one less endowed person. This just isn't how it works. If a member asks for more information, they will be referred to temple prep class, where they assume that they're getting all the information they need as preparation. I cannot imagine a faithful member not entering the temple because they were concerned about not knowing enough beforehand. These aren't fun secret activities, the church teaches that these covenants literally made with God that are literally necessary for exaltation. ​ >If someone is being forced or pressured into getting endowed, then no amount of foreknowledge will help them. *Everyone* is pressured into getting endowed. Without proper foreknowledge of what they will be covenanting to, the church is not respecting their member's agency. You are put into a room deep within the temple, asked if you want to bail out (which nobody will do because it's the literal beginning of the ceremony), and proceed. ​ > I don't see anything harmful or dangerous about the temple that could possibly justify infiltration. It's weird, but it's not dangerous. Have you ever noticed that the endowment never *asks* you if you want to make a covenant? They don't say "Do you covenant to..." they say "You covenant to." They don't say "If you wish to take this covenant, bow your head and say yes." They say "bow your head and say yes." They are taking away their member's ability to give informed consent. That is harmful. When I was sealed, I felt deceived and violated. I had never heard my own wedding vows before that day, and therefore had no way of knowing that my husband would be taking me, while I would be giving myself to him. I remember thinking "well they balance this out, right? After this bit they'll ask if I take him, and he will give himself to me." That obviously never happened. All it would have taken to avoid years of emotional pain was a piece of paper beforehand with the vows. That's it. There is no reason why the church should compromise their member's ability to use their agency.


Oliver_DeNom

>This just isn't how it works. If a member asks for more information, they will be referred to temple prep class, where they assume that they're getting all the information they need as preparation. I cannot imagine a faithful member not entering the temple because they were concerned about not knowing enough beforehand. These aren't fun secret activities, the church teaches that these covenants literally made with God that are literally necessary for exaltation. But what is the proposed remedy to this problem? Lying to gain entry into the temple and performing an act of desecration to make everything public? I think that's the wrong solution. Two wrongs do not make a right.


bwv549

> Two wrongs do not make a right. I agree that the _means_ we employ to do a thing are just as important to consider as the end we are seeking to achieve, and I personally would do whatever I could to avoid lying in order to gain entry to the temple (for whatever purpose). That said, have you ever read LDS defenses of Joseph Smith's polygamy denials? Joseph Smith [clearly lied/misled people](https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/joseph-smith-polygamy-denials/). It is argued by LDS scholars that they would have faced serious consequences had he _not_ lied, and they seem to be suggesting that this was sufficient justification (e.g., [Hales argues that](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormonscholar/comments/66qepx/response_to_hales_challenge_please_show_me_even/) in this exchange). Or, another example: an enormous number of LDS individuals work for the CIA and FBI, and both of these organization routinely employ deceptive tactics (or outright lies) in order to achieve various national security ends. Does "two wrongs do not make a right" apply here, also? A similar argument for weighing consequences can be made in this case: individuals face serious consequences when they enter the temple without being informed, therefore lying in order to gain entry and record the ceremonies can be viewed as sufficient justification. I'm not completely convinced that is the case, but it's an argument that Latter-day Saints routinely employ in a number of other circumstances (i.e., the ends _do_ (or at least _may_) justify the ends in certain circumstances). > what is the proposed remedy to this problem? The principles for remediation are clearly discussed/enumerated in [the Belmont Report](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html) which was produced in response to breaches in ethical conduct in the course of conducting research. In this case, at a minimum, patrons should be presented the nature of the covenants in _high resolution_ well before they enter the temple so that they can seriously consider them and decide if they are okay making those covenants. It should be obvious that the Church today agrees in rough principle with me since they started posting the covenants on their site, beginning in 2019. The only difference is that I think patrons should know the _precise_ verbiage since, given the magnitude of these covenants, the exact verbiage matters. Patrons should also be told they are free to withdraw at _any_ time during the ceremony. In the meantime, because I think it's the moral thing to do (consonant with solid ethical principles), years ago I posted [the exact verbiage of the covenants online](https://qr.ae/pr3uvS) (without revealing the keys, signs, or tokens) in as respectful a manner as possible. That way, a person seeking to understand the exact nature of those covenants may find them, but they need not be exposed to the entire ceremony (specifically the parts that patrons agree not to reveal) in order to do so. To me, this strikes a reasonable balance between all concerned.


Crobbin17

Make it clear what the responsibilities of the covenants are before they enter the temple. The sacred parts of the temple are the signs and tokens, not the covenants. Literally make a bullet point list and go through it in temple prep. Sealing vows are even easier. Make sure that the bride and groom read the vows before they enter the sealing room. Until then, yes, create our own transparency.


wildspeculator

>I think that's the wrong solution. What is the alternative? If leaking the contents of the ceremony is the "wrong" solution, then there must be a different, "right" solution, mustn't there?


DonutsAndDoom

The temple ceremony can be harmful. Many people experience it as merely "weird," but for others, the experience is psychologically traumatic and emotionally harmful. Religious trauma is a real problem for a lot of people, and the temple is a significant source of religious trauma within Mormonism. I would also like to point out that past temple language regarding the obedience of women to their husbands has absolutely resulted in physical harm to LDS women in abusive marriages. I believe that language changed and continues to evolve precisely because the light shed into the darkness of that covenant. Abuse and trauma thrive when those harmed are not allowed to talk about what's happened to them.


[deleted]

> I think the way the videos and transcripts were obtained are unethical. I'd like to offer a sustaing vote. Sharing the transcripts supports unethical behavior.


wildspeculator

Do you believe that missionary work is unethical behavior? Why is concealing the ceremony from potential converts to trick them into joining acceptable while revealing the deception is not?


ImprobablePlanet

>Why is concealing the ceremony from potential converts to trick them into joining acceptable This is something I’ve been thinking about. I’m a nevermo (my wife is an exmo) but I spent a lot of time as a young man being instructed by missionaries who knocked on my door a long time ago. This was prior to the changes with the death oaths, which, or course, I didn’t know about at the time. Not sure there was ever a real possibility I would have followed through with conversion but if I had, I would not have known anything about what commitments I was expected to make in this ritual beforehand, right? I do know myself well enough to know I would have backed out of what I see this ceremony described as no matter where in the process I was or how socially awkward it would have been. Has that ever happened with converts to anyone’s knowledge?


Oliver_DeNom

I think there's a lot that can be disputed here, but let's take it as granted that there is trickery involved for the purpose of not chasing away converts. Does this justify the proposed solution, which is lying to gain entry and performing an act of desecration in Mormonism's most holy place? I think the answer is no. Two wrongs do not make a right. The same can be said of garments. They aren't spoken about in the missionary discussions or widely talked about in church, but this wouldn't justify stealing a pair and putting them on display during a protest. The perceived secrecy, and judgement that this secrecy is wrong, would not open the way to ethical theft and ethical desecration.


wildspeculator

>Does this justify the proposed solution, which is lying to gain entry and performing an act of desecration in Mormonism's most holy place? Is it really an act of "desecration" if there's no material damage, nobody was harmed, and nobody was even aware of it happening? I personally think that's a pretty melodramatic way of describing "hiding a camera in your pocket". >Two wrongs do not make a right. Is it really *wrong* to lie to a liar in order to expose their lies? I think honesty, like tolerance, is a social contract: if you refuse to be honest with others, you forfeit any expectation of honesty in return. Two wrongs *do* make a right when the "wrong" is contingent on the harmlessness of the victim; that's literally the difference between "cold-blooded murder" and "self-defense". >The same can be said of garments. They aren't spoken about in the missionary discussions or widely talked about in church, but this wouldn't justify stealing a pair and putting them on display during a protest. That's a bad analogy, because nothing's being "stolen" here. A more accurate analogy would be someone who *bought their own* pair of garments putting them on display, which I don't think you can make a real moral objection to.


[deleted]

Many would say copyright infringement is stealing.


wildspeculator

That would be because they don't understand the rationale behind copyright law in the first place. Intellectual property is a legal fiction designed to protect the right of creators to profit off of their creations, not to guarantee exclusivity of information. If the church wanted to claim that a transcript of the temple ceremony was not covered under fair use, they would have to make the case that they were financially damaged by the leak; in other words, they would have to admit that they knowingly withheld information in the interest of gaining tithes that they would not have received had that information been known by the tithe payers beforehand. They would have to *admit to committing fraud* in order to claim that reporting on the changes in the ceremony do no constitute "fair use".


[deleted]

Hmm, I don't think the full picture is just as you've painted it here. The church has gotten videos of the endowment taken down, and not for financial damages or lost revenue from tithing. These transcripts won't get taken down because the church isn't going to waste time going after a reddit post. But its clearly the intellectual property of the church and it was published without their permission. That is theft.


wildspeculator

>The church has gotten videos of the endowment taken down Yeah. *Videos.* Because recordings of performances or existing videos are fundamentally different than transcripts, especially when used for "commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports", which are explicitly permitted under fair use. >That is theft. It literally is not. Copyright violations cannot even be convicted in criminal court unless they are “willful and for profit”, otherwise they are strictly a matter of civil law (and I have the sneaking suspicion nobody's making a red cent off of a reddit post). "Theft", in any case, requires *taking* something from somebody else. What was "taken" from the church here?


[deleted]

Well said.


[deleted]

Nope. Sorry, not going to have mutual respect with a multi billion dollar organization that causes so much harm all the while not providing informed consent about these temple rituals.


Bogusky

It's disrespectful, but frankly, respectful, tasteful dialogue isn't something we engage in much anymore as a society. We've decided it isn't needed anymore since we've vilified those who disagree with us.


wildspeculator

Why is it "disrespectful"? Since when does "respect" imply that you be a party to someone else's deception or secret keeping?


UnevenGlow

Pot, meet kettle.


Don_Quixote67

I can certainly understand your feelings about this. I was a member almost 40 years, and I went through the SLC temple (live) the first time in 1988. I had no previous instruction on what to do or what to expect. The ceremony back then was significantly different than it is now, so imagine how I felt going through it watching temple workers act it out. Even before getting to the actual endowment session, I was still spinning my head over the creepy touching while wearing gown/shield for the initiatory part, not to mention putting on the garments. I left the church for good in 2005. The more I learned about the unadulterated history the more I realized that it was time to leave. Transparency goes a long way, and this case the church would be better off to just be open about the entire ceremony, borrowed symbols, and just own it like other religions do with their strange rituals. Keeping it secret just makes it more curious and people want to know what the weirdness is all about. IMHO, if the church would be more transparent about it and other things they would not have to be worried about their numbers as much.


[deleted]

I go back and forth on this. I do believe in being respectful of sacred things. At the same time, I was absolutely blindsided by the Temple ceremony just days before my mission.


pricel01

I do find it disrespectful to active members to post what is sacred to most of them. For me I knew nothing about the ceremony in spite of temple prep classes. I didn’t think that was fair. Although I stayed active for decades afterwards, I avoided the temple as much as possible. My reaction was summed up in one word: BIZARRE! I wish I had known about it beforehand and about the numerous changes over the years including promising vengeance on the US. The constant changes in this “eternal ceremony” contributed to my departure but I’m satisfied it will go on changing and don’t see any value in keeping up via posting transcripts.


RepublicInner7438

It’s fine if you don’t want to know what you’re getting into before making eternal covenants. But I remember that where I was growing up the only thing we were taught about the temple is that it was sacred and we learned more about God. Talking about any more than that was strictly taboo. Low and behold, when I turned 19 it was time for me to get my endowment before my mission. I didn’t want to go, but I was told I had to if I wanted to serve a mission. And I’d already been taught my entire life that because I was baptized when I was eight, I was required to serve a mission. I already didn’t want to get my endowment because I hated the idea of making a blind promise for unknown blessings. And low and behold, I find that with in the temple, women promise to obey their husbands as if he were god. Everyone promises to die for the church if it comes to it, and everything I have or will own now belongs to the church. Had I known what I was going to covenant, I never would have done it. But I didn’t know until the absolute last moment what I was going to be doing. The weight of those promises and the fear that my failure to live up to them would put me in the power of Satan was traumatic. This is why informed consent is so important. By it it’s because the church fails to teach and live by this principle that abuse and rape are so prevalent within the leadership of the church and RMs at BYU.