Talk:Temple (Latter Day Saints)

Temple Ceremony Descriptions

I have a problem with including certain temple information in any wikipedia articles. It is illegal. Publication of a matter and information of a private nature violates the right to privacy. Further, the only folks who are most qualified to contribute on the subject are prohibited from doing so...making for a less than accurate article. B 21:30, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

Description of temple ritual is not "illegal". I've put it back - I don't think Wikipedia need censor itself on this. - Someone else 21:56, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree that posting of some temple information would be "illegal" if it is copyrighted material -- and temple rituals are. A description of such rituals is not, as you have done, however many readers could find it poor taste to discuss certain things that are held sacred and not discussed because it is of a personal nature.

While the information is available through a search on the Internet, it does not necessarily need to be included. One example of precedence on Wikipedia in this matter is that of porn. It is easily obtained via searches on the Internet, however Wikipedia does not allow photos of porn to be included on the site as it can be offensive. There are other examples as well where the page author has overruled edits of questionable nature to an article. I would like to see if an administrator has an opinion on the inclusion of this information that could be offensive to some readers. Visorstuff 29 October 2003

Wikipedia's stated goal is to be "complete and accurate". It therefore includes a great deal of material that people find offensive. Administrator's opinions are of no more import than any other users; if you are looking for input from all users you might ask on the mailing list or the Wikipedia:Village Pump. -- Someone else 03:01, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

While there may be some intellectual property right attached to temple rituals (including mere descriptions), that is not my point. There is a right to privacy at common law. (The current right to privacy article does not really address this common law right; although it mentions the celebrity status exception in U.S. law, the article introduces it in terms of an international right to privacy.) With few, narrow exceptions (for example, the personal ongoings of celebrities, politicians, executive corporate officers, &c.), sensitive, private information cannot be publicly disclosed under the common law right. (Public disclosure is not to be confused with recording private information.) It is not a legal cause of action under intellectual property law, it is a tort. Sometimes even the exceptions for public disclosure in the case of persons who have put themselves in the public light do not apply. Consider, for example, Pamela Anderson who recently sued and settled her case because of the public distribution on the internet of her private sexual escapades. The public disclosure of this information went too far. Similarly the Church's private performance of temple rituals is intended as a private matter and explicitly not for public consumption because of the sacredness of the material to its members. It is sort of obvious why the Church doesn't sue in these matters...it's not interested in money damages and a lawsuit would just bring more publicity to the matter. But just because someone can get away with it, like downloading copyrighted songs, does not mean that it is legal nor moral for that matter. Putting aside mere offensiveness, how about morality and civility? I'd hope that wikipedia would give legality, morality and civility higher priorities than "complete and accurate". Further the "complete and accurate" comment completely missed my second point: it is not going to be complete and accurate if those who are most qualified to edit the article cannot engage well in the editing processing.

There is also likely to be developed over the coming decades a more well defined right to privacy (against governmental intrusion) under the 14th Amendment and subsequent congressional legislation applying it to the private sector similar to how civil rights legislation was developed. We are already starting to see it with, for example, the federal do-not-call telemarketing legislation. Many constitutional law experts consider many of the 14th Amendment rights (such as the right to abortion or homosexual relations) to fall under a broader umbrella of the right to privacy; that is, these other rights are extensions of the more fundamental right to privacy. My point here is that one of the great legal movements afoot is to codify the boundaries of privacy...to state what citizens feel should fall within that zone of privacy. I would expect that people would recognize that the subject matter of this article is of the sort that would fall into that zone of privacy.

The application of the common law right to privacy on the subject matter of this article is unique, but falls well within the considerations of that right and IMO, persuasively so. As a devout Mormon I do feel that working on this article is iffy. Some folks would definitely be offended by the material that was cut out...and not just Mormons but people who feel strongly about the right to privacy and feel that the material is too intrusive. At the same time, I think that some description can be included in the article that is legal and civil (or at least moral) and is relatively complete and accurate. Visorstuff also makes some good suggestions in the direction I was contemplating.

Mostly I bring this whole issue up because until now there has been no discussion and there are certainly issues about this article that need to be fleshed out first. So what I'm recommending is that the material be cut out for now with a reference to see this talk page and that the issues and the material be fleshed out before it is replaced or reverted. Maybe the same material that is being cut out will go back in (and then some), but it needs to be looked at a little closer first.

Finally, Someone else, I'd like to know what qualifies you to say the inclusion of the material is legal? Are you an attorney or have some experience on this topic?...because I am an attorney and although this is not my area of expertise, I'm relatively familiar with the case law on this subject. B 18:21, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

No, I am most certainly not a lawyer. The right to privacy can be asserted by the parties to a private act. If one of those parties tells someone else, and that someone reveals a private secret, there is no cause of action again the third party, let alone any further people who learn of it. It's quite clear that discussion of Mormon temple rituals is an exercise of free speech, and you'd frankly probably have more luck in censoring the material if you stuck to moral appeals. In the meantime, I'll post a request for more input on this issue on the village pump. -- Someone else 18:48, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You are confusing mere gossiping with public disclosure (even if by a third party). It is not clearly a legal exercise of free speech. Free speech has never been (nor intended) to be an absolute right in US jurisprudence. In this case free speech conflicts with the right to privacy. B 19:27, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

It is IMO important for a secular reference work not to defer to claims of sacredness by any religion in explaining that religion to non-believers,while still avoiding what anyone other than a thin-skinned and devout believer(not pointing a finger,just generically criticizing hypersensitivity) would regard as insults.--L.E./12.144.5.2

I generally agree. B 19:27, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

This matter does not really need to be stated in terms of sacredness...and a court (ruling in favor of privacy protection) would more likely address the matter as something which is of no interest to the public because it is intended only for qualified Mormons and not for the public and it doesn't affect the public. B 19:46, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Since the article states clearly that it is based on publicly available accounts and personal information of the authors, I don't see how there can be any violation of privacy. DJ Clayworth 19:03, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just because material is publicly available does not mean that material is legally available. B 19:27, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Time to throw my $.02 in. Let me state a few things up front in order to be as clear as possible:

I am LDS
I am not a lawyer
I was disappointed and a bit offended by the ritual descriptions
I am not sure that Right To Privacy extends to temple ceremonies

In all fairness, even the brightest attorney cannot be so certain of the outcome of a case like this. I have my professional opinion about it, but as I said it is a unique case for which I don't think there is a similar case exactly on point. At most there would be relevant cases with analogies to inform judicial decision makers. B 20:15, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Now that that's out of the way, I think that wikipedia information can go too far. For example, similar to what Visorstuff said, we do not have images or people engaging in sodomy though we give a description of the act(s). Inclusion of such images are not encyclopedic and would degrade the reputation of the 'pedia as a whole.

While I do not feel that including a in-depth explanation of the temple ceremonies is appropriate, a general high-level description would be fine. Inclusion of it is distasteful to the users who consider the rituals sacred and debased by public disclosure. If a user is particularly interested in what goes on in the temples, there are plenty of other sites on the Internet that have this information. Once again, similar to what Visorstuff said, we do not include images of porn—if a user is that interested in it, they may find it on the Internet themselves.

One further thing, too much information can be damaging. For example, is it appropriate for the 'pedia to explain, in-depth, how all magic illusions are performed? Doing so could seriosely jeopardize magicians' livelihoods. A high-level description of magic tricks and the illusion is fine, but full disclosure could be considered harmful and wreck their profession.

Not to mention other trade secrets or trade secrets in general: Coca Cola's secret formula or McDonald's special sauce. Is wikipedia to be so obsessed with free speech at the expense of other considerations?

That being said, I think leaving the in-depth descriptions out is the preferable course of action. It clearly offends many people who consider the ceremonies sacred and degraded by inclusion in the 'pedia. Similarly, if the Masons have ceremonies they perform and consider them private, they should be left out too, only giving a high-level description to those interested. —Frecklefoot 19:37, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. See comment below - cermonies are not included in other Wikipedia entries. -V

While this issue is being debated and imput given on various mailing lists, perhaps we can look for what is being said publically by the LDS Church about the issue, and there is a lot of information given. I am not for over-censoring any subject, but descriptions such as have been given are not complete or fully accurate to someone who has not experienced this, and therefore not an accurate representation. Those who have experienced this then should contribute as much as they can within what has been publically taught, and what is accurately available. I'll see what I can compile over the next week or so. Visorstuff 30 Oct 2003

On the legal issue, I don't believe any right to privacy exists: the right to privacy, insofar as it exists at all, applies to individuals, not corporations or organizations. The latter can appeal to trade secret law, but that's a higher standard that needs to be met. In general, once it's out in the open, even if the way it got out was illegal, it's now legal to republish. This is why media outlets do not get in trouble when they publish leaks of classified information. Are you suggesting that the LDS temple rites are more legally protected than government-classified information is? --Delirium 01:29, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

We are not suggesting more rights, but we are stating that the Temple ritual is copyrighted, and that copyright has been renewed and is closely held. Therefore any information containing direct quotes from the temple are in violation of copyright law, therefore not appropriate for this forum.

Also in regard to a trade secret, if it is in the open, it is still illegal to republish - there was a Coke case on this in the 1980s, where the information was obtained illegally, republished and the company sued until it was quieted. They church is protective of the copyright or 'trade secret' and regularly sends letters to violators. The media posting classified information fits under a completely different set of laws under freedom of press, not necessarily freedom of information. There is a big difference that you may read about in most communications law books (communications was my undergraduate degree and we studied this exact issue in depth in various law classes I took). In addition, if the reporter knows how the information is obtained in illegal information gathering, then he may not republish the information. Most of the information available about the temple on the Internet states how it was taken. In any case, this is comparing apples to oranges, and the argument is invalid in both cases as it is a religious organization, not the government or company. The Church has been successful in some lawsuits asking people to take down pictures of Garments or the temple rites. -Visorstuff 31 Oct 2003

If the current article contains direct quotes copyrighted by the temple, then those quotes can simply be paraphrased. Unless, somehow, any description of the rituals is somehow a copyright violation, but that would be a very weird type of copyright... Also, if the ritual itself is legally a trade secret, could you site any court cases in which the Church prosecuted and won? I believe the existence of any such cases to be extremely unlikely, since the Church of Scientology is very aggressive is suing people who violate their copyrights, but they don't sue people who merely paraphrase/restate the contents of their secret teachings; if the Church of Scientology could sue those people under trade secret laws, they would have done so, thus I don't think such laws apply here. -- Khym Chanur 02:30, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

Delirium, under federal law, it is true that corporations and other organizations (artificial persons) do not enjoy all of the same rights as individuals nor always the same extent of those rights. For example, artificial persons are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment, but do not have the right against self incrimination under the 5th Amendment. But generally artificial persons are treated as "persons" under the US Constitution. This was decided in Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific in 1868. However there is no such thing as "federal common law" and so there would be no "federal common law right to privacy" for individuals either...let alone artificial persons. The federal cases on the US constitutional right to privacy currently weigh against a broad right to privacy for artificial persons (e.g. US vs Morton Salt in 1950 that artificial persons "can claim no equality with individuals in the enjoyment of a right to privacy"), but this is still a developing area of law (rt to privacy) and will probably be one of the biggest legal battlefields over the next years with far-reaching influence. Now from the beginning, I have been referring to the states` common law right to privacy...and there are precedents under various state laws that are favourable of a right to privacy for corporations. So to make a blanket, unqualified statement that the right to privacy does not extend to corporations and other organizations is false. "Government classified"? Do you mean "secret-classified"? Your other comments seem to confuse trade secrets with the government's secret-classified information. Divulging secret-classified information like military secrets is a crime and it's naive to think that the government would not or legally could not stop the media from divulging certain government information that would harm the nation's security interest. Publishing a leaked unclassified memo from Rumsfeld probably does not jeopardize the nations security interest. Trade secrets is not my area of expertise either, but I can tell you that it is not as simple as your broad statement that "once [a trade secret] is out in the open, even if the way it got out was illegal, it's now legal to republish"..that is naive. I'm spending more time on this than I can afford and you make it more difficult when you positively assert an opinion on a legal issue on which you only know enough to make things more confusing. -B 16:43, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Visorstuff, thank you for your assertion that the ceremonies are copyrighted. When were they published? If not published, when were they first set down in a tangible form? Where may I obtain versions published prior to the exiration of the copyright, which are now in the public domain under copyright law? Which portions of the temple ritual do you assert are creative literary works rather than factual information? If you would like a legal discussion, please avoid assertions which might be seen as ill-founded and instead cite some cases to support your views, preferably those which are on the internet and available for all here to read. You may wish to do a search on cases relating to a utility called DeCSS and the legality of publication of the formerly trade secret material it used prior to occupying your time in such a fruitless way. There are people here experienced with IP law who will be happy to review the merits of your assertions,including some lawyers practicing in the IP law field. JamesDay 18:19, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

James, the temple cermonies are available through the Library of Congress. They were copyrighted the first time during the 1870s by a corporation set up by the Church, which leaves their copyright in effect indefinately as long as it is renewed properly. You may request the information from the library of congress. The temple films are also copyrighted and the copyright is also available through the library of congress, and the copyright/background information can be found on various Internet sites including the Internet Movie Database (the 1969 version information can be found at http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0064697/). You assert that previous versions should be available in public domain because of the lapse of copyright (seventy years after author's death), which does not always apply to corporations, but only single authors. Under current rulings and the recent extension during the digital millenium act, the material therefore is still held in copyright and will continue to be proprietary and protected under copyright law until a specified time after the Church chooses not to renew the copyright. Intellectual property law overlaps much of communications law and copyright law, but few lawyers would be able to comment on the broad range of issues and cases brought up. I think we should stick to Wikipedia precedence, which would err on the side of using authorized, legal and accurate descriptions about temple ceremonies which to this point has not been fully represented in the article.

DeCSS is a completely different issue.

We should not confuse freedom of speech issues, copyright laws and other public information/censorship issues and just think they fit in the same package of law. There are a number of different laws and legal precedence that could be applied and attempted. V

Please clarify your following statement: "Which portions of the temple ritual do you assert are creative literary works rather than factual information?" How does this apply to copyright law, trade secret provisions, privacy under states common law or freedom of speech issues? Copyright law and rest apply to both fictional and factual works. Maybe I'm missing your point. Please clarify.

It is also important to note that while the three or four members of the LDS Church commenting about this subject on this talk page disagree with the entry and feel it is inaccurate, we have not yet deleted it until a consensus is reached as we will err on the side of 'freedom of speech.' This is appreciated. However, the description is just not complete nor totally accurate in my view. -Visorstuff

- Thanks for your clarification regarding first publication. I'm using a list here to try to make it a bit easier to keep my comments clear. Brace yourself, for it's a lot of writing:
- Please see the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act for the current US copyright terms. Note that the 75 year term for early Mickey Mouse movies was to expire in the 2000-2004 period prior to that act, which extended copyright terms from 75 to 99 years for corporate works. The early church writings are clearly in the public domain at this point, so far as copyright law is concerned. Factual is an important question for copyright law, because facts cannot be copyrighted, only the specific expression of them. So the church could have a copyright for its official description of its practices but not for the description of them written by another person. The ceremonies themselves are purely factual (at least, for copyright law, which ignores the religious significance). There is no perpetual copyright in the US and the US Constitution was written to prohibit it, by requiring "limited terms". The net effect of this is that there is no useful copyright protection for the issues which concern you.

Thanks for the Bono Copyright link. That's useful. —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, however there are cases going on with how the law applies to estates and corporations, including "Gone with the Wind" and others. In that case, the estate in effect renewed trademarks and copyrights by hiring an independant author to write "Scarlet." The discussion may fit under this set of laws, however, protecting copyright through the use of trademarks is not my area of expertise. I do know that the LDS Church (or Community of Christ Church) holds most trademarks that are specific to so-called Mormonism. The extension by the act could be challenged easily as current the Supreme Court seems to rule on the side of the protection of copyrights. -Visorstuff

Visorstuff alludes at a great point. Despite constitutional or other legal limitations, lawyers can be very creative in formulating legal, constitutional means of extending and broadening (as well as shortening and limiting) copyright laws. Legislation like the Bono Copyright Act only tells half the story. The other half is how courts interpret and apply that law (and that sometimes depends on the biases and imagination of the court involved)...for good or bad, sometimes judicial review can put quite an idiosyncratic face on what appears to be very clear legislative language. —B 03:01, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

It's a good try but the Supreme Court thoroughly rejected an attempt to use tademark law to override public domain rights in a decision issued on 2 June 2003. Please see Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.. I haven't yet rewritten my initial overview for another audience into proper legal format but what is there now and the full decision it links to partially explains why I think this argument is unlikely to be successful. JamesDay 08:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

- Trade secret protection might be possible but there are some problems with it. First, it's clearly no longer secret. Second, those publishing the information are likely in many cases not to have been aware of any improper acquisition of the information, so won't have any legal liability for publishing it. The DeCSS case bears on this, for, while there were some legal successes, the overall result was a complete failure to protect the secret. Today, it's not a secret by any useful definition of the word secret and works using the former secret are in extremely wide use. The legal action undoubtedly hastened the spread of knowledge about the secret.
- Asserting a right of privacy for information which is already widely published also appears to be extremely problematic, for it is assuredly no longer private information. While celebrities can win cases, they win them against those who took the work in the first place or sometimes those who published with full knowledge that the initial publication was of a private item. That costs the leaker money but it doesn't remove the information from wide public knowledge. In the Pamela Anderson case, the video is extremely widely available and anyone with a broadband internet connection can obtain it within 24 hours, likely significantly less, at no cost. Since the Wikipedia is republishing the information I see little prospect of legal action on this ground prevailing. Even if the Church was to prevail in legal action, which is most uncertain given the near certainty of excellent and free legal representation for the Wikipedia, the net result of the publicity surrounding the case would spread the knowledge further.

Thus, my earlier comment of why the Church generally doesn't pursue legal action: unwanted publicity. Your specific reference to wikipedia and its lawyers seems kind of overly-defensive. BTW, the Church has most excellent legal representation too...and far more resources... —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

BTW, please, what are the names of the law firms and lawyers representing wikipedia? and please tell, are any wikipedians? —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Some of you folks keep saying the same thing along the lines that somehow because it is widely available or now that it is out in the public that it is somehow no longer illegal to make it available. Repeating this wrong-headed mantra does not make it so. Pamela has a good case against any one who continues to make her video available. But going after each and every one wouldn't necessarily be worth it in terms of time, money, etc...Pam just went after the biggest fish, but just because she stopped there does not mean it is legal for any one else to keep making it available. Obviously, the remedy for breaching the right to privacy isn't very helpful because it has a tendency to make private info more public. This is why I've suggested that wikipedia adopt a policy of decency that says: ok, even if everyone else and their dog is making this info available to the public when it is illegal OR immoral to do so, as civil wikipedians, we won't stoop to that level. It should only be "extremely problematic" to someone with a defective moral compass. Why so legalistic? Let's assume that under current law (pick your jurisdiction: international, US, the state of Mississipppi) the Church does not have a right to privacy on its temple rituals, I'd expect or at least hope people (especially wikipedians) would feel that it should have a legal right of privacy in this thing and take appropriate precautions. —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I recommend that you seek information on the deepest secrets of Scientology to observe the consequences for church secrets. You won't like what you find, for those deepest secrets are readily available in spite of very large amounts of very costly legal action by that church.

JamesDay, aren't your comments in the para above somewhat presumptious?... —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

- I commend you and the others of the church for your restraint, for that is the way to the greatest success you can achieve here. Doing otherwise would simply cause the page to be locked against edits, with the information remaining present and church members viewed with undeserved suspicion.
- I don't think that you will be able to succeed in preventing a fairly comprehensive overview from being presented here. I know you will dislike that opinion, but it is what I expect the result to be.

None here have suggested not to have a "fairly comprehensive overview"...the issue is how detailed should that overview be. —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

- What you may be able to do, through reasoned discussion and citing of reliable sources, is to end up with an article which presents the most accurate possible view of the situation. That is somewhat contrary to church teaching but it has one advantage: people are fearful of what they don't know and understand. An unsensational description in boring writing style is unlikely to arouse great additional curiosity but can serve to correct the mistakes of others and reduce the potential for harm which sensational writing elsewhere might cause. In this, the relative popularity of the Wikipedia (it's around the 1,000th most popular US site and, except when having technical troubles, is quite rapidly climbing) can help. So long as a respectfully written and accurate account of the information which is already public resides here.
- I recognize that this is difficult for you and may be contrary to church teachings. Yet I see no better course for you or the church. Given the ease of mass communication today, the best I can suggest for the church is that it seeks a comprehensive overview of the information which is already public and tries to form a revised public presentation which describes the real facts as far as theology can allow, and further than it allows today. That unsensational writing will do more than a large fuss can do, for it will make it appear mundane and uninteresting to those not of your faith. Regrettably, I don't think that the church has a more successful or theologically desirable course available to it today. I know that these words are unwelcome to you but I see no prospect of real success for the church in any other approach.JamesDay 01:24, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wow, insightful prophesy! and from a non-Mormon too!... Look, generally your suggestions above are what I had in mind from the beginning as did, I am sure, other LDS folks participating in this forum: to have a comprehensive, unsensational, accurate (and hopefully respectfully detailed) article on this subject... Generally the material that I cut out earlier was ok, but there were parts that needed more discussion and there needed to be more discussion about how detailed the article should get.—B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

JamesDay, I have primarily focused on right to privacy issues while Visorstuff has primarily focused on intellectual property issues. Some of your posts do not clearly indicate to whom your comments are directed and seem to mix the two of us up. It would help if your comments were more clear on that point going forward. —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

BTW, JamesDay, Consider some of your comments: "You won't like what you find"; "I know you will dislike that opinion"; and "I recognize that this is difficult for you"... Don't you think those comments are a bit patronizing, presumptious, probably off-the-mark and perhaps somewhat bigoted? You apparently are not as insightful as you might think about how LDS feel about your POV on wikipedia policy on this topic....—B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I'm trying to address issues rather than address the posts of specific individuals. If you believe I'm in error when I write that I think a view won't be welcome or assume that a moral objection will apply to all religions, please do tell me that you believe I'm wrong and explain why - that can only serve to increase undertanding of the issues and how LDS people view them and would be welcome. JamesDay 08:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As for the subjective issue, I'd prefer a high-level outline. A detailed description might be warranted of some parts if they have proven controversial or somehow are otherwise relevant (for example, descriptions of some of Scientology's secret internal workings are relevant, as they have featured prominently in lawsuits, and so omitting them would be omitting information necessary to understand those suits). If there is no particular reason for going into details, there's no real reason to.

This is also my point - why include a detailed description, when the church is open about generalities that take place within temples? The details are irrelevant to most people other than to satisfy curiousity. -Visorstuff

Most of us would generally not disgree with you here except I dont' think the issue is necessary relevance because some would argue ALL of the info is relevant...a debatable POV. --B 16:43, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

The temple rituals are of interest in part because of reports of such things as post-death conversions of people to religions other than their own, infringing their privacy rights and religious freedom and potentially condemning their soul to the hell of their religion. That has made the nature of the activities a matter of public interest, particularly to those of strong religious beliefs. Such things appear to me to be well within the scope of an aricle on the church, being an opportunity to explain the truth of what happens and allay any unjustified fears. JamesDay 08:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

However, I'd generally err on the side of open information. If we have to respect each organization's "secrets", our articles on the Freemasons, Scientology, and any other society that likes to keep secrets would be essentially useless. --Delirium 01:29, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. This is why we should look at public and authorized available information on the subject. -Visorstuff

BTW - Freemason ceremonies are not in the Freemasons entry. Nor are Scientology's (Hubbard's) alleged 'higher-level' teachings available from the Internet about a belief in aliens. Another agument for Wiki precedence that cermonies should not be included in the entry. -Visorstuff

see Xenu. As far as I can tell, the only deference we make to the fact that the alien stuff is "secret" is to put a spoiler warning on it. -- Someone else 22:42, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good catch - I haven't seen that entry previously. We are still at loss for a complete consensus of precedence. Visorstuff 31 Oct. 2003

Yes, we are. As I've stated before, I'd prefer to just have the high-level overviews similar to what the Church publishes. The biggest reason I see for such is that as the addition I just re-added states, information about the temple ceremonies comes from unreliable sources. Active, devout members who have temple recommends and attend the temple regualarly are unlikely to add any reliable information to the article (if they did, they could risk getting their recommend yanked). All information comes from people who are in open opposition to the Church.

It just seems like common sense to me, but would you ask a Catholic priest about Jewish beliefs or a Jewish rabbi? Who do you think would give you more accurate information? The Church knows that people are curious about the temples and publsihes high-level overviews of what takes place within.

I would also ask those who are no longer of the church if the matter was difficult. The Catholic church and issues with some unfortunate activities of is priests and how the church handled them illustrate in part why the official words of a church are not always reliable on such matters. I doubt that anyone would assert malice but the church and some of its leaders did end up doing wrong and eventually recognising it. JamesDay 08:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

At the very very least, we should at least contain a warning similar to a spoiler alert that states that that accounts are from unreliable sources. The single sentence that states "judge for yourself" is insufficient IMHO. Something like the following:

Warning: The following information comes from unreliable sources and its accuracy is disputed!

I really don't see a precedent on the 'pedia for including unreliable material. In most cases, unreliable information is left out. The accuracy of this material is inherently dubious. —Frecklefoot 17:08, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regrettably, in this case the church material is also questionable, for it is seeking to keep secrets and may conceal and mislead, based on a belief of the greater importance of protecting the faith. Proper coverage in such situations requires including the reports of those who no longer feel they must protect the faith, just as is the case for reports from former Scientologists. JamesDay 08:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Summary of Discussion of Temple Ceremony Descriptions

A couple of observations and comments about the discussion - I am trying to sum up the arguments to this point as it is getting hard to navigate (I hope I didn't miss anything in the summary, if so, please edit my text directly):

Most of us realize that material is available on the subject and that the Temple rituals are not that earth shattering in presentation or content. However, they are sacred to the people who have experienced them and are not discussed, as members who experience it are told that it can only understood by revelation - on a personal level. A member of the LDS Church that attends the temple may see something symbolically one time and literal another or understand something very different each time. Therefore the way it is presented is essential and can only be fully understood in that setting.

I think all of us want a description included. It is important with all the information out there to provide an accurate description in this educational forum.

We want a legal, accurate description based on publicly available information. This discussion began with the thoughts about how detailed the description should be. All of the legal issues may or may not be relevant, but it is obvious there a number of legal issues that can come into play and could cause problems. That is why I suggest we use publicly available descriptions and steer away from potential confusion and problems. There has also been a search for precedence set on Wikipedia, which has produced mixed results. The point of this discussion has not been censorship, but rather to produce a legal and accurate description.

I am working on a revision to the current description form and will include it later this week. Visorstuff

Source of Accounts of Temple Ceremonies

The Overview on the Temples page says "A Latter-day Saint must be in good standing with the Church in order to enter a temple. Members are interviewed by Church leaders who issue a temple recommend card which allows a worthy Latter-day Saint to enter a temple. " That infers that non Mormons can not enter a temple. Is that correct? User:Moriori 02.19 Oct 31 03

Once the LDS dedicate a temple, only church members with temple recommends are allowed in. Before dedication, an open house is held to give non-members their last chance to look inside that particular temple when it is almost ready for use. L.E./12.144.5.2

Here is a fuller edit I wrote that Someone else deleted in his revert:

"Only worthy Latter-day Saints with a valid temple recommend are permitted to enter past the foyer of a temple and devout Latter-day Saints who have participated in the temple take their covenants not to reveal details of the temple seriously. Therefore, first hand accounts are generally related by disaffected, former or excommunicated Church members or by non-Mormons who have trespassed on private property probably by deceitful means and any electronic recordings made probably surreptitiously." --B 16:55, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't we put it back in then? I'd like to reword it a bit, though:

"Only worthy Latter-day Saints with valid temple recommends are permitted to enter past the foyer of a temple. Devout Latter-day Saints who have participated in the temple adhere to covenants not to reveal details of the temple ceremonies. Therefore, first-hand accounts are generally related by disaffected, former or excommunicated Church members or by non-Mormons who have trespassed on private property probably by deceitful means and any electronic recordings made probably surreptitiously."

Any comments or (small) rewrite before I slap it back in? —Frecklefoot 18:35, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Your rewrite is fine by me. --B 20:40, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, put it back. It is informative and answers my question nicely. User:Moriori 19.41 Oct 31 03

Put it back in with just a minor rewording of my original rewording. :^) —Frecklefoot 16:39, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The wording breaks NPOV to a ludicrous extent. Stating that the information came from people who "are generally related by disaffected, former or excommunicated Church members" is blatently POV. NPOV language requires objective, not subjective, language and that can be achieved without removing the claim if it is phrased to say that critics of those who have made the claims allege . . .

As to the sentence "trespassed on private property probably by deceitful means and any electronic recordings made probably surreptitiously" it is almost a classic example of how not to write a neutral line. You cannot accuse anyone in an NPOV article of acting by deceitful means, nor can you accuse someone of doing something surreptitiously. All you can do is point out that non-members are not allowed into the temple and that the suspicion is that non-mormons did it in breach of temple rules. (Not illegal, as there is no law banning non-mormons from the temple, nor is there a specific court judgment making it an offence.) Go any further and you are breaking the basic rules of NPOV, which means neutral point of view; this article in its language should neither be pro- nor anti-mormon; using words like deceit and surreptitiously are loaded terms that cannot be used either against mormons or their critics without editorialising, and that is something wikipedia as an encyclopædia cannot do. FearÉIREANN 21:29, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

IANAL, but isn't it trespassing if you enter private property under false pretenses? Since only members with temple recommends without recording devices are allowed to enter a temple, aren't those who are non-members or have recording devices trespassing under false pretenses? Whichever the case, the sentence: "Critics of those who have made claims regarding temple ceremonies allege that those making the claims are..." is confusing and needs to be reworded.

I had a much longer response prepared, but I don't want to start a flame war. Does anyone else have opinions on this? —Frecklefoot 21:54, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the statement was not NPOV. However, any recording or transcript of temple ceremonies not made by the copyright holder (the Church) is simply illegal, as the church heavily protects this particular literary copyright.

Also, trespassing is tresspassing. No one is allowed by law past the foyer of the temple unless they have a recommend or other approval. One case in point is that of the Frieberg Germany temple (depending on spelling) where the East German government was hesitant to allow the building to be built because they would not have access beyond the foyer or entrance hall. Security will be called and trespassers removed. Therefore, the only copies of said material is available legally in the temples, and only by temple attending Latter-day Saints or those fraudulently claiming to be (which is a whole other legal issue).

Regardless, I agree that the wording is much more NPOV, thanks, Jtdirl for your edits. Also, your use of the word "secret" is weird here and should read "unauthorized," per my comments about copyright above. The use of the word "unauthorized" is NPOV. In addition, transcripts or recordings was added as unauthorized recordings or writings is more accurate description. -Visorstuff

Unauthorised is perfectly NPOV. As to literary copyright, that is complicated where the words are being used in a large gathering, and may conflict with the media's right to report their use under the First Amendment in US law.

Trespassing is an offence in law. However many people have a legal right to enter any property; police, army, fire services, etc. In the US the right of free speech also gives people the right to express their opinions on public ceremonies, and holding a ceremony attended by a large group of people, even a restricted-access large group of people, is open to the possible legal definition of 'public'.

One can certainly argue that people not thought entitled by the Church to enter their temples broke Church rules. But to suggest that a legal offence is being committed is questionable in law and certainly not a claim an encyclopædia can make in the absence of explicit unambiguous legal judgment to that effect. We need to be very careful about language in encyclopædias and avoid taking a POV stance on issues, whether it is for or against something. Newspapers and other publications can express POVs. Encyclopædias based on NPOV can't. That is why I made the edit. It was not in any way attempting to attack the Church, or to support it, merely as an editor to get balanced language that would ensure the reader would not get the impression from the text that the article was pro- or anti- the Church, but simply said 'here are objectively established facts; you, the reader, reach whatever conclusion you want.' FearÉIREANN 22:38, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with most of your comments, however the discussion above goes into all the legal issues that are dealt with in regard to copyright, etc and the LDS Temples. Regardless of how large the gathering is, copyright still applies - and it will be uphold in court by how strictly the copyright holder defends the copyright, not by how many people are exposed to it. You've referred to the first ammendment (freedom of speech I presume) which is completely different set of laws from copyright laws, trademark laws and more (again see above). Reporting on an event from a press perspective is one thing and would not be subject under most libel or slander cases, if intent was to educate. However, members of the church or others who comment about temple ceremonies may or may not claim the same rights under the freedom of the press that the media does. As I'm sure you know, communications law is a very complex set of "if this, then that's" and most cases settle before litigation, as neither side wants to have to prove intent, or have a long-drawn out case. But I digress... :-)

I completely agree that many agencies within the governement are granted an easement in case of emergency to enter places of private property, however they are not given the right to enter at any time. Aside from warrants, a good example of this easement granting is the city of Las Vegas. Police may only enter certain buildings and areas of the city only when called upon to do so by a property owner representative or one of their guests. There are cases where people have tried to unlawfully enter the St. George Utah Temple and were arrested for unlawful entry and trespassing. However, I appreciate your viewpoint and you have some valid points.

You have some great edits, your POV keeps us on our toes. We appreciate it.

Thanks. It is so nice to find a constructive page on wikipedia. All too many seem like mini-Iraqs, except with multiple Saddams! :-) I'll be glad to offer an outsider's constructive observations on the article. BTW This talk page needs archiving, but as I have not been a participant in the debate I thought it better to leave it up to people who have written a lot here to archive, as they would know better than I where is the best place to make a cut for the archive. I don't want to inadvertently split up the middle of an argument and put some of it into the archive. Keep up the constructive and thought-provoking work. :-) FearÉIREANN 00:25, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Archive will take place later this week, when I have a bit more time, unless someone wants to step up and do it sooner. Cutting point the summary (perhaps rename summary of discussion this far)? Any objections/comments?

I agree to archive with a summary carried over to new talk page. —B 02:44, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

I also agree the post was POV...even though it is very true. In regards to trespass, just like any individual property owner in the United States, the Church has a right to exclude any one it wants to exclude from its property...and by force if necessary...that includes government authorities. A government authority can only access private property against the property owner's will if the governmental authority has a specific legal privilege to do so. ("Privilege", not "easement", is the correct legal concept here.) It is not a matter of "temple rules", it is a matter of civil law. It is the civil law of trespass, not "temple rules", that gives the Church the right to bodily remove an uninvited, unwelcome infiltrator. Still, it sure is practically difficult to keep those neighbor kids from treking across your yard, not to mention pesky salepersons...LOL! You could go to court and get a separate, permanent court order against each frequent trespasser...then every time the person trespassed, that person would be in contempt of court with consequent penalties...but it would be costly to get an order against every frequent trespasser...AND silly. —B 02:21, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -V

From the village pump

Is including certain details of LDS temple rites illegal or immoral?

The info following below in this section pretty much sums up the usefulness of contributions from Morven, FearÉIREANN and Delirium so far: not worth crap. None are lawyers. Nor do any of them have a fairly good grasp of intellectual property law (like copyright law or trade secrets) nor a good grasp of the common law right to privacy. Replies (above) to their naive critiques have gone unanswered. The only comments that "lack credibility", are "legally dubious", "spurious" or "bogus" are their own. —B 18:41, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Unless you find a lawyer who is willing to sue us over it, I'd consider it a non-issue. And even then I'd be skeptical. Let's keep the discussion to issues of NPOV. --Delirium 09:03, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

User:BoNoMoJo deleted material about LDS temple rites from Temples_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints, suggesting on the talk page that such material was not only immoral but illegal. Further input would be desirable. -- Someone else 18:49, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

While I am not a lawyer, User:BoNoMoJo's arguments lack credibility to me. Quoting directly from copyright material of the church would obviously be illegal if they refuse permission (subject to rights of fair use, of course) - but the bogus 'right to privacy' he invokes is utter nonsense. If the church makes its members sign a contract before revealing its inner secrets, then it would be a possible breach of contract law and trade secrets law, but the fact is that this information has now been revealed by so many as to be public knowledge. The church could go after members for revealing its secrets, but I do not think it now has the right to have this information removed. --Morven 19:32, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think the cultural issues here may be more important than the legal ones although IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) either. If these were the religious secrets of an illiterate tribal society I think we would have qualms about the article. What's the difference? Please note, I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I'm not saying I think the article should be blanked. I'm saying I don't know, the question is a real one, and I think we should discuss it and perhaps try to work out a policy. Andrewa 00:11, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As far as the legal issues, there are almost certainly none. Even if there were a contract of secrecy involving all members of the Church, it would still be legal for us to publish the information. It would be illegal for them to divulge it to us, but once we have it, since we have not signed any contract, we can publish it (as long as it doesn't fall under trade secret law). A similar situation arises with leaks of classified documents: it is illegal for an official to leak classified information, but once it is leaked, it is not illegal to publish it (and in fact classified information is published by major media outlets all the time, citing "anonymous sources"). --Delirium 01:34, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

A fair bit has already been said about this at Talk:Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why not carry on there? Smokey the Bear says, "Only you can stop forest fires." -- Cyan 01:11, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good point, and hopefully this discussion will end up there too. There are some more general issues raised here as well, perhaps we need a Wikipedia ethics page. Not sure which wikipedia:namespace is best for it, or the meta, I'm still getting the hang of the namespace and link structure of Wikipedia. Or does it exist already somewhere? If so please someone say where, and let's link to it from wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Andrewa 18:42, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Removal of POV terms

I removed a couple of POV words.

illegal - again as said before making a claim of illegality is complex in the absence of an umabiguous, generally binding court judgment or enactment. Unless there is 100% certainty on the issue, and there is not, such a word should not be used in an article because it is a statement of 'universal fact' on an issue that there are diverse opinions and at most individual facts in individual cases. All there is are opinions that believe what has happened was illegal. But no judge has declared all unauthorised entries 'illegal', so we cannot presume that each and every case was, given conflicting rights are involved; privacy, free speech, freedom of association, trespass, etc. In the absence of a definitive ruling we cannot state as a matter of fact something that is a matter of legal opinion.
publicize details of temple ceremonies -> "publicize details of what are alleged to be temple ceremonies". Not everyone is in agreement that the details published are accurate or in context. The line as added in implies accuracy and as the issue is the subject of debate, that is a POV. Using the word 'alleged' does not take sides on the debate on the accuracy or context, and lets the reader decide what to believe, rather than being told what to believe, which is editorialising.
"trespassed" -> "allegedly trespassed" - again in the absence of binding rulings in the individual cases of those who allegedly made the recordings we cannot state as a matter of law that a crime was committed. All we have is the belief of some people that the offence of trespass was committed. Using allegedly gives the word trespass the correct meaning, ie that it has been alleged that people trespassed, not proven that people trespassed. FearÉIREANN 20:22, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FearÉIREANN 20:07, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Unlike some of the recent changes, I don't see anyone being offended by these. Good call. :^) —Frecklefoot 20:17, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FearÉIREANN, your comments and changes completely miss the point. What you have done is taken an accurate NPOV statement and made it less accurate on the erroneous presumption that certain words violate wikipedia policy because they are in and of themselves POV. The keyword here is CONTEXT. Generally, it is not wikipedia policy to censor POV so long as they are stated in a NPOV manner. Indeed, generally, ALL relevant POVs need to be included in a NPOV manner. Now, look at the structure of the sentence before your edit. It is in the form: "critics claim [x]". This is not to say "x" is true"; it is merely saying that it is true that "critics claim x". Now what you have done is change the proposition to state "critics claim [y]". However, it is not true that "critics claim y" because they claim more than merely y...they claim x! It is wrong-headed to add "allege" in an indirect statement that is preceed with "claim" for the purpose you state. How can you be a wikipedian for so long and not understand the basic NPOV policy? Please review the NPOV policy. What is the neutral point of view? —B 22:59, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

You have a rather strange interpretation of NPOV and NPOV language. Others see the problem in the language you want to use. You seem unable to. I am reverting to the NPOV version which follows elementary NPOV rules on language structure. Please learn the actual rules, not what you think they mean. FearÉIREANN 23:13, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please note from the NPOV page -

Basically, to write without bias requires that articles do not advocate any specific point of view. Different viewpoints in a controversy are all described fairly. To write articles without bias describes debates rather than arguing one side of the debate.

The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

If there's anything possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible; and that such a thing is indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists.

Stating as a fact that an offence was committed through language like 'illegal' and 'trespass' when there is no factual evidence to prove that in the cases in question this happened (no court judgments on the cases, no law enacted) breaches these rules and all the others on the NPOV page. All we have is legal opinion that an offence was committed, opinion from some but not all lawyers. But not to mention that some perceive what happened as an offence would be disrespectful to those people who do believe an offence was committed. Qualifying disputed or unproven/unprovable claims with alleged is standard NPOV practice in encyclopædias, sourcebooks, textbooks, newpapers, etc to allow the claim to be made without expressing a POV as to its accuracy or not, something wikipedia cannot do if it is disputed and there is no court case, no law that wikipedia can point to to definitively solve the issue. The wording I added in leaves it to the reader to reach a conclusion. What you want to add tells the reader 'this is a fact' even though it is simply your legal opinion. It may well be that your legal opinion is right. But equally it may be that it is wrong. It is not wikipedia's job to enshrine your opinions as fact, no matter how good your legal opinion may be. So please grasp what NPOV is about, and learn the encyclopædic distinction between opinion 'Saddam was a bad man' and fact 'Saddam murdered x number of people. Encyclopædias carry the latter, not the former. It is up to the reader to form their opinion based on the evidence, not an editorial. And your language, however much you believe in it, is editorialising the article and breaking the fundamental principles of NPOV. FearÉIREANN 23:45, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have attempted to provide language that both of you will find neutral. -- Cyan 23:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good work Cyan. You have tightened the language and strengthened its impartiality. I've made one minor change where I think it read as though it was stating as fact something which not all lawyers would agree on. On the copyright issue I have attributed who in particular believes it breaches copyright law, rather than implying everyone agrees that it did, when it is clear that not everyone shares that legal interpretation. :-) FearÉIREANN 23:59, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I believe BoNoMoJo did not intend his language to imply that everyone agrees that the law was broken. It is not clear that it did imply that - the problem was caused by an ambiguity inherent in the English language. In any case, I think the present phrasing emphasizes Wikipedia's neutrality in fairly natural language. -- Cyan 00:25, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Be careful with that last edit - the very act of recording published material is a violation of copyright. That does not mean he will be convicted, yet the wording of law states it is wrong. There is a distinction (like driving over the speed limit, but not getting caught). Also, both Mormons and non-Mormons may believe this (see your comment about everyone above). In addition, the wording already has "claims" or "alleges" and therefore the second qualifier is not needed. The wording gets messy if you add too many other qualifiers after that first qualifier. You know? I think you are on the right track, but please revise that edit to say something like "made unauthorized recordings or transcripts which, many believe, violate copyright laws that deal with the protected distribution of protected literary works, films and other media" or something that is appropriate. Visorstuff

Why secret?

To the extent that it's possible, please explain why these matters are secret and how the secrecy evolved. That may assist those not of the faith to understand the issue better. JamesDay 08:54, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Whose work?

Who first created the activities in the church? Who created the Book of Mormon and other works? Are they the literal word of God? If they are, has God legally assigned the intellectual property rights exclusively to the church? To its members? To others? To all of us, in the hope that we may convert? When did God first create them, particularly the copyrighted items, in a tangible form? If they aren't Gods work, from what time do they date and how did the chain of intellectual property progress to the current day? Was it clearly assigned to the church or did the church simply continue to use it, without an explicit grant of rights? JamesDay 09:10, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Legal issues list

The best way to contact Wikipedia's lawyer and people who track legal issues is to write to the wikilegal-l list, the details of which I've just added to Wikipedia:Mailing lists. JamesDay 09:10, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming more and more unmanageable. I'm thinking of dividing it up similar to what has been done on the Talk:Evolution page. —B 15:24, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)