Talk:Temple (Latter Day Saints)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Latter Day Saints (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as High-importance).
 
Archive
Archives

New WikiProject proposed[edit]

I have proposed a new WikiProject which would aim to maintain and improve all of the temple articles listed here. If you have any interest, you can leave comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#LDS Temples WikiProject. --Lethargy 02:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the initiative - I have some suggestions at WP:LDS -Visorstuff 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

External link spam[edit]

It is not necessary, in my opinion, to have the exact same links in every article about temples. Almost all of them currently contain at least some of these links:

I am completely fine with having links about the specific temple mentioned in the article, but when general temple information is added to every page, all we are doing is spamming. Some of these links would probably be acceptable in the main temple article (this one), but not every one.

Is anyone opposed to removing general links from these articles? --Lethargy 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I created a template for each temple page which hopefully covers some of these issues. I was thinking about putting these common links into their own template so they can be changed at a global level. Bytebear 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Although that would certainly make them easier to maintain, it would still put links to general sites about temples in each article, rather than links about that specific temple. Wikipedia has a guideline somewhere stating that internal links are preferred over external links; most temple articles already have a See also section which links to this article, where they can find more information and external links about temples in general. --Lethargy 20:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking about it, and I do think that the external links section should be specific to the temple article. Ideally it should be a reference to the content of the article. But each temple article should have in the "See Also" section a link to this artcile, and probably to the LDS main arcticle and to list of temples. So there would still be a set of general links for each temple article. Bytebear 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad Citations/ possible spam[edit]

I'm new to wikipedia, and know that anything mormon is a touchy subject, so am not going to take action myself, but just point out what I assume are problems/irregularites in the "citations" of the "Controversies" "Exclusive Temple Weddings" section of the article.

Citation 2 (the first of the paragraph) takes you to an anti-mormon propoganda site with a clearly biased POV, and many speculative, skewed, and some downright false statements about the temple and the church. I don't see how this link qualifies the statement "When a couple chooses to marry in the temple where a parent does not possess a temple recommend, the parent(s) may feel resentment and pain". Does that statement need a link? If so it would seem that a newspaper or other article that quotes parents discussing said feelings would do well, whereas just a webpage (a propaganda one at that) arbitrarily stating that it is so ( from the page: "LDS temple rules forbid non-LDS parents from seeing their own children’s temple wedding. This leaves many parents literally standing outside the temple, devastated at being denied this moment in their child’s life. Matters are made worse by the fact that the temple wedding ceremony is so secret that it must not be discussed even with the parents afterward.") doesn't seem like a ligitimate or useful source. I suspect it may have added to draw people to the site.

Citation 3 supposedly qualifies the statement: "For those couples who prefer a non-temple marriage first, the couple is required to wait at least one year to be sealed." The citation takes you to another anti-mormon site that discusses in depth the changes to the temple ceremony and does hit upon the topic, but is not an authoritative source by any means, once again a biased webpage, arbitrarily stating that something is so. Of course, it is so, but it just doesn't seem like the right citation. Seems footnote 3 would be the correct citation here as it cites official church policy on the topic, verifying the statement, so I do not see the need for the link.


Citation 4 takes us to the same source as citation 2. It is meant to qualify the statement "Critics claim that this is simply an intrusive and divisive way used to persuade members to donate more, while at the same time, putting pressure on non-Mormons to convert". OK, so we are citing the fact that critics claim something... this one is a little different. The author of the webpage, although making all sorts of arbitrary claims of fact without citation, obviously qualifies as a critic. However, although he says many things about temple marraiges (some skewed or taken out of context, some false), he does not say anything about it meant to put pressure on non-Mormons to convert. And the "this" in "critics claim that this" would seem to be a pronoun referring to the church's specification, per the previous sentence.

I am not experienced in wikidom; I just wanted to bring these things up as I am probably one of the few people interested in the criticisms to click on the links and once i did it became obvious that they were bogus citations meant to lead readers to propaganda.

All in all, this paragraph seems to be pretty rough, and could use some organization and cleanup. While the controversies regarding temple marriage definitely exist and should be noted, it could sure be cleaned up, stated more concisely and professionaly, and it seems some legitimite sources should be used. (or none at all would be better than the spam that is currently there.)

Thanks --KÆN 04:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Legality issues[edit]

Some time ago, there was a discussion on this page (at its former location) concerning the legality and appropriateness of this article containing specific information on temple ceremonies. After reading through it, I'm not sure if any conclusion was reached. While it's not an issue at the present time, I think it's inevitable that in the future, specific ceremony details will be added. There's also the related question of whether to accept images of things held sacred by CoJCoLDS members: garmets, temple clothing, and depictions of temple ceremonies (whether real or re-enacted). When the issue presents itself, it'd be good to have the question settled — it may prevent a massive edit war, or at least help cool it down some.

For those unfamiliar with why this question is important, a brief explanation is in order. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold the specific details of ceremonies held in temples sacred and secretive. According to official Church policy (link forthcoming), it is not permissible for members to discuss details of ceremonies outside of the temple (i.e. specific wording used in ceremonies). Combine the controversy that exists about LDS Church practices with the curiosity of the general public and the free speech allowed by the internet and Wikipedia, and we've got a recipe for conflict.

As I see it, there are two questions at hand here: 1. Is it legal to display information, whether written or through multimedia, about temple ceremonies on Wikipedia which is not disclosed in LDS Church materials? 2. Is it moral to display such information? Or, perhaps a better way to state the question, Even if it is legal to display such information, should Wikipedia do so?

As I've mentioned before, I think it's important to resolve this issue before it comes to a head. There's a number of policies which could apply here, which I'll start to add in in the near future. For now, I'll create a subsection for each question, although I understand if there's some crossover. I also realize that the questions may need to be revised. Tijuana Brass 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Another issue you neglect to mention is this: Is this the appropriate article to have such details? This article covers temple of all groups within the Latter Day Saint movement, including the Community of Christ, which does not do endowment ceremonies in their temples. There is an article (Endowment (Latter Day Saints) that covers such details, and this discussion should probably be moved to that article, and any information about the ordinance itself should be discussed there, and not in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bytebear (talkcontribs) 02:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Is it legally permissible to display material (be it written, photographic, video, or audio) concerning temple ceremonies that the LDS Church would not want released to the general public?[edit]

  • Comment - Please refrain from comments that divert from the legal question unnecessarily, such as lengthy theological statements. Statements should be based upon policy and verifiable sources, not personal opinions. As for me, I'm withholding judgment for the time being. However, the precedent set by the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy seems to indicate that at least some material would be allowed. Tijuana Brass 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's perfectly legal to discuss the temple ceremony and include pictures of sacred things. Endowed members have made oaths not to reveal the names, tokens, signs, and (pre-1990) penalties, but that's a purely religious matter. When the Endowment was first created, securing a copyright required publication, which obviously never happened, and in any case the copyright would have expired. Moreover, the church's changes over the years since the early 20th century and onward could theoretically be copyrighted as derivative works, but any commentary in an article such as this one would be protected under fair use. COGDEN 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The Church of Scientology sues just about everyone who says anything negative about scientology and yet we have the information about Xenu and lots more on the page. Calibas 04:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If it it permissible, should Wikipedia do so?[edit]

  • Comment - I personally am also withholding a decision on this issue. However, I see little precedent to disallow the display of legal, relevant content on Wikipedia. There have been some occasions where material has been censored — usually involving direct office action, from my understanding — but generally, the possibility of material offending others has not been accepted as a reason for removal. With that said, if such content does find its way online, courtesy demands that some sort of warning or notice be set up advising readers, not unlike the {{spoiler}} tag. Tijuana Brass 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As to whether such information can be kept from coming out on Wikipedia, it's not likely, and it's already Wikipedia policy not to prevent the inclusion of truthful and accurate subject matter. That said, the Endowment article does not specifically discuss the names, tokens, signs, and penalties, and nobody thus far has complained. If someone insists, I don't think there's anything we can do, although you can bet there will be an onslaught of LDS vandalism, which will require the page to be protected. Not a good result. COGDEN 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There is plenty of titilating, if not detailed information from published and available LDS works, including The Holy Temply by Boyd K. Packer, The House of the Lord: A Study of Holy Sanctuaries, Ancient and Modern by James E. Talmage. Both of these books can be bought on Amazon.com and any Mormon or non-Mormon can read them. I would say, any details should be referenced by these and similar works. This will appease Mormons who will cry foul at any anti-Mormon reference (which nearly all non-Mormon descriptions will come from) and it will have enough details and descriptions to cover the topic thoroughly enough to appease those who feel that the Mormons are trying to hide or censor something. The specifics of the "signs and tokens" are not as relevant as to what the LDS consider important about those things, and LDS publications covers those details. Bytebear 08:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I recommend moving it to a separate page and putting some sort of warning on the link. While I certainly don't believe in censorship I think Wikipedians should respect religions and accommodate them when possible. Calibas 04:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Graphic?[edit]

There used to be a graphic file showing the relative sizes of the temples. Why was it removed; it was very helpful? 66.191.19.217 22:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You can find it in the Temple architecture (LDS Church) Bytebear (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The graphic I referenced included the CoC (RLDS), FLDS and AUB temples as well. 66.191.19.73 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That image is in the article. Bytebear (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. When I posted back in 10/07 it was gone. Good addition, BTW. 68.113.47.85 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible violation of sanctity/copyright of ordinances, potential for lawsuit if Church ever found out.[edit]

I posted a comment on the talk page of the Washing and anointing Wiki page. My viewpoint is explained in full there. Here I will only say that unless it can be shown that the Church endorses the inclusion of such information on a public-domain website, there's a possibility that this inclusion constitutes a violation of the sanctity and sacredness of the ordinances. Such a blatant breech of the Church's policy of keeping these things sacred could mean that if the Church ever found out about this page, there might be a lawsuit, as the Church is becoming more and more concerned with the sanctity of the temple. There have even been reports of disaffected members of the Church trying to publicize these ordinances in the hopes of discrediting the Church. I know that the First Presidency has in the past discouraged ANY discussion of temple ordinances outside the temple as violations of the sanctity of the ordinances, and the Church takes a very dim view of anyone doing so without permission. There has to be a way to include this information without violating the sanctity of the temple or what is done therein. Otherwise, I concur with the First Presidency that such material shouldn't be included in the public domain. However, if someone can direct me to ONE source by an apostle/prophet of the Church stating that inclusion of this information in the public domain is permissible, I will be silent. Of course, I doubt very much anyone will be able to find such a source. In everything I've read, the Church has ALWAYS maintained that what happens in the temple should stay in the temple, and so unless a source proves otherwise, I would be strongly in favor of toning these pages down quite a bit to comply with the Church's wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"I would be strongly in favor of toning these pages down quite a bit to comply with the Church's wishes". Is the above section meant to be a joke and / or parody? The mormon church can censor any and all of the publications they own, but they do not have that luxury here at Wikipedia. Duke53 | Talk 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
p.s. It would be fun to watch a lawsuit of that nature filed. Duke53 | Talk 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jgstokes, I have heard of the Church suing over violations of copyright, but not of violations of sanctity (which would never hold up in court). If there are copyright violations on Wikipedia (and I'm not saying there are in this case; haven't looked) then there by WP policy they must be removed. If they are not copyvios or other policy violations, then there's little that you can do about what Wikipedia publishes. alanyst /talk/ 06:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have heard others make the claim of copyright infringement, but this area is completely out of my area of expertise. However, those who threaten lawsuits may be banned from Wikipedia; I would urge caution when making any statements in this regard unless you know for a fact your comments are on solid legal grounds. Another piece of advice is to never threaten; only act!
What is required on Wikipedia is to follow policies regarding references. If a references is reputable, one can say almost anything on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia does not recognize the concept of "sacred", i.e. there is no respect for such a concept. Instead this area is explored, information provided, etc. This is particularly true for smaller groups, minorities, etc. Policies are generally observed everywhere, but application can be spotty. This is not one of those areas and never will be. If you have a problem with any of the references provided, then you can explain your case here. Otherwise, there is nothing that you can do. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"If a references is reputable [sic], one can say almost anything on Wikipedia". That's the beauty of it all, since it cuts both ways. Duke53 | Talk 06:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't making myself quite clear. I myself was not intending to "threaten lawsuits". After all, I am not a General Church leader, and to say that I had the power to threaten a lawsuit on behalf of the Church would be a gross misrepresentation. If I understand things correctly, the Church has copyrighted the wording/material used in temple ceremonies, and to publish them on an online encyclopedia constitutes a violation of copyright. While my main issue was with the sanctity being violated, I now acknowledge that there is the potential for a copyright violation. I also know for a fact that these wordings/material are copyrighted. I work in one of the temples, and on all material I've seen, a notice indicates that the wording/material is copyrighted and is not to be produced in whole or in part in any form, written or electronic, outside of the temple. I've heard of cases where such attempts to reproduce were made and the Church came down on the perpetrators because of copyright issues. This I know of my own personal knowledge because I've been present when these issues have been discussed. I am not permitted to say any more than that because doing so would constitute a violation of copyright on my part. So, with that added information, I can't say whether I have "firm legal ground" to mention the possibility of a lawsuit. Only those who have responded to my original request can be the judge of that, but the facts are before them now. I assure my esteemed fellow editors that I never intended to make it sound as if I was "threatening a lawsuit on behalf of the Church" and I certainly wouldn't want to be suspended based on the assumption that I did. The moral issues came to mind before the legal issues, but since WP will not consider moral issues, I urge all concerned to think of the legal ramifications and copyright issues. I'll leave it at that. I hope my additional information and clarification is not interpreted as a threat. That is in no way my intention. While I myself don't want to get in trouble because of WP policy, I'd hate for WP to get in trouble because of the legal issues. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess that I would have to personally see this supposedly copyrighted material (with the copyright tag) before I would assume that it is indeed copyrighted. Are we supposed to take the word of an anonymous person declaring that he has seen it and that somehow makes it a valid claim? Sorry, but that just doesn't make it, in the real world or here at WP ... verify, verify, verify. Duke53 | Talk 03:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, US copyright law grants automatic copyright to the author of any copyrightable work upon its creation. If I wrote an original five paragraph essay on the merits of the gold standard, for example, I would have an automatic copyright on that essay, even without a printed notice or official registration of the copyright. (This is why you can license your contributions to Wikipedia under the GFDL; if you didn't own copyright to your contributions you would have nothing to license.) So there's no need to ask for proof that the church owns copyright on the text of its ordinances. However, US copyright law also has a fair use exemption that permits certain uses of copyrighted works even without permission of the owner. The rules of fair use can be complex, but the idea is to allow limited excerpting and quoting for purposes of research, review, and criticism. Quoting a work in its entirety, or copying for commercial purposes, are typically out of bounds. Limited paraphrasing or quotation from such texts as the church's ordinances by Wikipedia articles probably falls under the fair use privilege. But I am not trained in legal matters, so do not rely on my word alone. alanyst /talk/ 04:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about a printed notice or official registration ... where do we see a copy of the text? Are you saying that I can claim to have the copyright to something that I keep hidden from the general public, but show to a select group of people who declare that they saw what I claim to have? I would love to see a suit brought on the basis of that argument, and would really love to see the attorney who would have to defend that argument. If a document isn't released then it would be fairly difficult to prove that you have a copyright on it. Duke53 | Talk 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
A copyvio claim could certainly be initiated without the owner having to publish the work they claim is being pirated. Proving the violation in court would of course have to involve disclosure of the work, to show sufficient similarity to back up the claim. But that can be done under seal. If we're talking about copyright concerns expressed on Wikipedia and not claims made in the courts, then it's an easier question. Either the material quoted is authentic, in which case we have to make sure we're within the boundaries of fair use, or else it's not authentic, and the representation of the text as actual LDS temple ceremonies is deceptive, and at least for Wikipedia is inappropriate for use. Assuming good faith of those who contributed the text, they believe the material to be authentic, and so they should assume that they're dealing with copyrighted material and act accordingly to avoid infringement. alanyst /talk/ 05:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me ask you one thing, Duke 53. If I told you that I had seen something that was copyrighted, accompanied by a notice saying that the material could not be reproduced in whole or in part WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, how in the world could I show you that notice if the very essence of it forbids me from doing so? I've heard a lot of talk about "fair use" in connection with this issue, but have yet to be shown or believe that WP's use of this material falls under said "fair use" law. And while we're talking about reputable sources, how do you know that whoever included this information in the first place got it from a reputable source? Church members are under solemn and sacred covenant not to violate ordinance sanctity and copyright by NEVER discussing wording/procedure outside of the temple, period. Any Church member who does so and is caught reproducing said copyrighted material in whole or in part is disciplined/disfellowshipped/excommunicated. That is, always has been, and always will be Church policy on this issue. Since when is someone disaffected from the Church a "reputable source" for what goes on in the Church? For all we know, bitterness against the Church could have distorted their "reputable report" of the material. And any Church member in good standing would NEVER give information out about the temple, except in general terms as permitted by the Church, and the wording would NEVER be released to the public domain. But I'm rambling far too much. The proof is in sources. Because of the policy I outlined according to my understanding of such, I can give no evidence that what I say is true. The only course, irregular though it may be, is for someone on the other side of this issue to find a source stating that the inclusion of this material as it stands in the public domain is permissible. Unless I see a verifiable, Church-endorsed source stating without equivocation that such material is permissible for inclusion, then I have to go with what I know and understand, even if I can't prove it because of the restrictions mentioned. So, show me one source saying this material is permissible to include in the public domain, and that will be the end of my viewpoint. Otherwise, I can't let this rest and will continue to state the Church's position based on my understanding of it until I see proof that I am in error. The ball is in your court. Inform me of your next play. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
To additionally emphasize what I've been saying all along, I found a quote from President Packer about the sanctity of temples. I've edited the relevant portions to place the emphasis on the views that support my position. This comes from "The Holy Temple," an article featured in the February 1995 issue of the Ensign, pg. 32. "A careful reading of the scriptures reveals that the Lord did not tell all things to all people. There were some qualifications set that were prerequisite to receiving sacred information. Temple ceremonies fall within this category. We do not discuss the temple ordinances outside the temples. It was never intended that knowledge of these temple ceremonies would be limited to a select few who would be obliged to ensure that others never learn of them. It is quite the opposite, in fact. With great effort we urge every soul to qualify and prepare for the temple experience. Those who have been to the temple have been taught an ideal: Someday every living soul and every soul who has ever lived shall have the opportunity to hear the gospel and to accept or reject what the temple offers. If this opportunity is rejected, the rejection must be on the part of the individual himself. The ordinances and ceremonies of the temple are simple. They are beautiful. They are sacred. They are kept confidential lest they be given to those who are unprepared. Curiosity is not a preparation. Deep interest itself is not a preparation. Preparation for the ordinances includes preliminary steps: faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, worthiness, a maturity and dignity worthy of one who comes invited as a guest into the house of the Lord. All who are worthy and qualify in every way may enter the temple, there to be introduced to the sacred rites and ordinances." (emphasis added) Since this comes from a Church-endorsed source, unless something the Church has said more recently proves the contrary, then I have to go with what this verifiable source says. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think where you are making your mistake is that you feel that everyone is bound by the mormon church's 'ordinances' and / or 'covenants' ... their edicts count for nil in courts of law and also here at Wikipedia. You may feel that you have to follow these commands, but you are a member of a tiny minority; the rest of us needn't follow them in the slightest. Duke53 | Talk 03:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel I'm making a mistake in the slightest. In the source cited, Packer states in essence that what happens in the temple stays in the temple. Simply put, what goes on in the temple should not be discussed outside the temple, period. It's not an "edict," it's a well understood policy except by those who choose to fight it as you do. You are getting so tied up by trying to present a counterexample to what is contained in my source that you are overlooking the obvious remedy. Find me ONE verifiable, attributable statement from someone authorized to speak for and in behalf of the Church that states explicitly that the text/description of the ordinances CAN be in the public domain, and you'll hear no more from me about this issue. Until that time, I intend to stick to my viewpoint, and I would greatly appreciate your allowing me to do so. After all, while I may be in the minority here, that doesn't give either you or Wikipedia the right to tell me that I'm not entitled to express and defend a stated opinion simply because I am in the minority. I do not assume the right to speak for Wikipedia on this issue, and I don't see how you can justify your statement that "the rest of us" don't feel the same way I do. Perhaps other editors are waiting for the same verifiable source I am before they comment one way or the other. Either way, while you and I have a right to our opinions, neither you or I can or should assume that we are authorized to speak for "the rest of us." In the meantime, I'll stick to what I said, and neither you nor anyone else will be able to change my mind on this issue until I see the requested source. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if you ever change your mind, but if you try to change articles to conform to the mormon church's 'ordinances', 'convenants' or policies then there may be a problem. If you are going to be part of Wikipedia then you must follow their rules, not rules imposed by any outside faction. Duke53 | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 04:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Jgstokes, I think the point is that the Church can only constrain publication of the materials if such publication violates copyright law. The Church's blanket prohibition on reproduction of the work in whole or in part cannot supersede the fair use clause of US copyright law, so publication in part is allowed when it's compatible with the rules of fair use. The main factors in fair use are copying of sufficiently limited portions of the work, and copying for the purposes of education, research, review, and criticism. If Wikipedia is quoting limited excerpts for the purposes of education, it would seem to me that such use would be allowed under the fair use doctrine, no matter whether the Church gives permission or not. I do not think an argument can be made to exclude limited quotations for fear of infringing copyright since Wikipedia seems to be protected by a fair use defense. If you do not think fair use applies, please study the fair use article and then explain why. alanyst /talk/ 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all for your patience with me. In spite of what I know about what the Church has said pertaining to this issue of keeping what happens in the temple in the temple only, the last couple of days in which I have not responded has given me time to think and research. I haven't yet studied thoroughly the fair use pages pertaining to US law and WP law. However, I have sat back and let others comment, and the comments have been useful. I state again that I know I do not decide WP policy. However, just because I seem to be in the minority on this one doesn't make my viewpoint any less valid. I intend to give very serious consideration to the sources I've been directed to. In the meantime, I encourage all on both sides of this discussion to do the same. Also, see the comment made by Linus Hawk on the washing and anointing page. I concur fully with him. Beyond my concerns about sanctity and copyright, I am seeing a lot of material that is unsourced in these articles. Additionally, those that are sourced appear to be sources set up without consent of the Church and not endorsed by the Church, and unless information is obtained from a credible verifiable source, then the same WP policy that forbids me from establishing my viewpoint as the rule in this case also prohibits the inclusion of material that is not sourced and not verifiable. So, for those on the other end of this discussion, I encourage you to consider that as I consider national and WP policy as pertaining to fair use. I can tell you this much as of now, though: Just glancing through both pages, I found enough evidence to substantiate my viewpoint in no uncertain terms. I'll talk more about that when I've studied more on it. Until that time, this comment is left for all to consider, no matter what viewpoint you take on the issue under discussion. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, if nothing else, but I do find it a little bit on the bizarre side; that is, I find it strange that religious arguments and appeals to sanctity are being made when we're dealing with an (secular, I assume) encyclopedia. I'm not at all convinced that copyright is even an issue in this case, but if we assume for a moment that it is, there is one issue that I think would be important:

  • If the temple ordinances are copyrighted, who was the author? Joseph Smith, Jr. In the United States, I believe copyright at most lasts the length of the author's life +100 years. Smith died in 1844. Thus, the copyright on the temple ordinances would have lasted until 1944 at the latest.

There are other points I have, but really, I don't know if they are worth making here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that copyright law has any basis here (even though it has been stated the ordinances have been changed as recently as the last ten years, I assume if copyright is applicable, the term is renewed irrespective of the death of Smith); however, as has been stated before a reputable reference may be at issue. Given that there is little said by the LDS church about their temple ceremonies, who is then deemed a reputable reference and how is that verified? Who is the recognized expert of such things and how is that determined? Though this has been asked on several occasions, I don't recall any definitive answers. There are a number of websites that are recognized as anti-Mormon in nature that purport to "reveal" Mormon temple ceremonies, but how are they judged accurate or correct? Are any of these sources peer reviewed and determined accurate?
It is meaningless that the LDS church desires to have their temple ceremonies kept sacred or private; this position has no bearing on Wikipedia. This is a public encyclopedia that pursues the dissemination of verifiable facts in a neutral manner. It is not a repository or collection of sensational, titillating stories for those in search of a life or those with an ax to grind or soapbox upon which to pontificate their chosen "truth" (as a purist, I detest those vapid sections about "in modern media" that has become so common (modern media does not have facts, but trivia), but I digress). Truth does not even have a basis on Wikipedia; we are not an arbitrator of such. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I took another look at the sources listed for the copyrighted text in these articles. Whoever included these sources obviously didn't do the research. The man who wrote them up is an ex-member of the Church, and therefore the source is not verifiable anyways. On the site itself, I saw evidence (I can't remember exactly where) that the guy himself said that he had violated Church policy by recording the ordinances. He was proud of it! It's obvious that having become disaffected with the Church, he has maliciously attempted to violate Church policy about not revealing what happens in the temple. I looked at particular areas of the site and found that they were either incomplete or severely lacking in verifiability. I strongly encourage taking another look at this. Ex-members of the Church are far more dangerous to the Church than are people who are not members of the Church. What I'm trying to say is, you can't always get accurate information about a person or organization from someone who has split ways with him/her/it. It's like asking Joseph Smith's killers if he was really a prophet. In either case, they are going to give a biased answer based on their current position. I've tried to be open minded about all this. If there is grounds for fair use, I'll accept that. However, since the same WP policy that keeps getting thrown in my face over fair use also states that a source must be unbiased and accurate, and since the webmaster of the site in question clearly shows a bias, my understanding of WP policy is that information like that should not be included. I've failed in appealing to moral instincts and hoping my fellow WP editors have some. I haven't got through thoroughly studying the fair use issue yet. However, verifiability is as of just as much concern, if not more so, than the whole "fair use" issue thing either. And since this is the only source acclaiming the appropriateness of the included information, and since it is not reputable, I again urge reconsideration of this issue. A moral argument has failed, a copyright violation/fair use argument is under study, but one thing that I have to constantly be reminded of here on WP is that everything must be verified from a reputable source. An ex-Mormon mostly has a skewed view on things, and in the website cited, it is freely admitted that copyright laws and Church policy were broken to obtain this information, so given that, I would strongly encourage reconsidering the situation. Study the cited web page very carefully. You'll be as surprised as I was at this contemptible issue. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Since we're striving for neutrality, etc., why is it that a former Mormon is more of a biased source than a current Mormon? Both obviously come with preconceived beliefs, as does everyone in the world. Seems to me we should be looking to other factors, and not to the current or past religious affiliations of the authors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello Jgstokes, I read your edit and would urge to consider how you present your argument on Wikipedia. The above is so full of hooks that many editors familiar with Wikipedia policy or even those not favorable Latter Day Saint movement are going to overlook your valid argument and be caught up in the fluff and weakness of your presentation. Only address policy and that which you think violates it and leave the rest out.
Wikipedia is not moral; it does not take a position about what is "true". We seek to report facts as presented by reputable sources or experts. That's it; there is nothing else to discuss. A regular member or an ex-member is not a reputable source. We don't care what a particular church feels or says about how others think about their church, their doctrine, etc. It is irrelevant. What is important is that an expert has stated something in a reputable source. Your only valid position is to determine the reputableness of the reference provided for the cite. There may be an argument in this one area because I don't think an ex member is in the position of being an expert; if so, how has that been determined and by whom? A self-published website is not a valid source and an anti-Mormon website may be suspect as an expert source; it depends on who is generating the comments and their recognized degree of expertise; i.e. do they have degrees in religion and have demonstrated an expertise by colleagues that have reviewed their work. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. I have a tendency to be verbose, especially on subjects I feel strongly about. So, I'll try to keep the "fluff" and "weakness" out of this post. Thanks for working with me on that point. This is not a valid source because the webmaster has no credentials establishing himself as an expert. No credentials=No verifiability, consequently the data cited from this source should be removed. How's that? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be a much more productive and effective way to get people to understand your point. As regards fair use, I would reccomend following the current litigation regarding the Harry Potter Lexicon which appears to be turning out to be an excellent discussion of the limits of fair use. Packetmonger (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Packetmonger (talkcontribs) 06:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
For controversial edits on Wikipedia we work by consensus. Taking unilateral action may often lead to edit wars with other editors who also feel strongly about issues on the other side. Though we do encourage editors to be WP:BOLD, this may be a situation where you seek the thoughts of editors both pro and con. Given the lengthy history of this issue, I suspect it will not be an easy fight. However, I agree that the current source is not reputable. What do others think? --Storm Rider (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Community of Christ's old name[edit]

According to this link the name used prior to Community of Christ was "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" - Capital "D" and no dash. Only when talking about the Salt Lake based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically, should the term "Latter-day Saints" be used. Bytebear (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree — the RLDS Church always used "Latter Day Saints", not "Latter-day Saints". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ring ceremony[edit]

Since when do LDS civil weddings not include a ring ceremony? From my experience, civil ceremonies although simple, are no different than any other wedding ceremony, including exchange of rings. The article implies a civil wedding is somehow more restrictive than any other wedding ceremony, which isn't the case. Bytebear (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Using rings in a wedding ceremony are fine and used all the time. The exchanging of rings do not have a place in temple sealing ordinances. They may be exchanged by the couple, but they are not part of the ordinance. Could the editor who keeps making the change please explain his basis for saying they are never a part of marriages of Latter-day Saints outside of a temple? --Storm Rider (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the editor in question (whoever he may be) was referring to the fact that the "ring-exchange" is not an official part of a temple marriage. I know that, most often, rings ARE exchanged outside the temple and during civil marriages, but perhaps the wording (which I'd have to look over) was in this context referring to the lack of a "ring-exchange" as part of the official temple ceremony. If that's the case, then this edit seems to be correct. If not, then it needs to be revised. Clear as mud? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read my original comment again. I am only speaking of an LDS civil wedding. The article currently implies that ring ceremonies are somewhat taboo, which is incorrect. They simply are not part of the temple ceremony. The article should say that Civil weddings are similar to any other traditional wedding. Bytebear (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

YouTube video[edit]

The video called "Between Heaven and Earth", which is being linked to from YouTube, is almost surely running afoul of copyright violation. The copyright for the video is owned by Bonneville Communications. There is nothing on the YouTube link that suggests that it has been placed there with permission or authorisation from the copyright owner. Thus, we should not be providing a link to the video. Please note that according to WP:COPYVIO, "[c]ontributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems." Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

FLDS Section[edit]

The FLDS section needs to be updated as to the status. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In what way? It's all well and good to say that it needs to be updated, but if you don't specifically tell us how, they we can't take care of it. Thanks in advance for the additional information. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, was in a hurry the other day. The article currently reads (my emphasis added):
"The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) made news in 2004 by embarking on the construction of a temple at their new settlement near Eldorado, Texas. The foundation of the FLDS temple roughly matches that of the original Nauvoo Temple. This is the second time any of the polygamous Mormon fundamentalists sects have attempted to build a temple of their own."
AFAIK, the temple in now complete and has been since 2006 - 2007 [1]. The only thing I'd recommend is adding that part. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The article you provided as a source was very informative. Thank you for the additional information, and for bringing this to our attention. However, you will note that the article itself states, "the first-ever temple of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints appears to be nearing completion, if it isn't finished already, say observers near Eldorado, Texas. The polygamous sect itself remains silent, as it has been since construction started. "They're not making a lot of comments on it," Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran said. "They said, 'Yeah, the structure's completed on the exterior,' but they didn't elaborate." (emphasis added by me.)
In short, what we have in this article is a hearsay-type claim based on nothing more than guess work. The article says the structure "appears" to be done. Since the FLDS people have not issued an official statement on whether the temple is indeed complete, or whether it is being used for anything, it's largely guesswork on the part of the Deseret Morning News writer who authored this article. What the FLDS people DID say is that it was completed as far as the exterior, but no further elaboration has been provided by that organization. Evidence that the temple IS completed is merely circumstantial, not conclusive, and seems to not meet WP's standards about adding verifiable material. It is my personal opinion that IF we had an official statement endorsed by FLDS leaders saying that the temple IS complete and IS being used, that THEN this would be an acceptable change. For now, it's all too theoretical and conjectural. And neither theory nor conjecture is permissible for inclusion on WP, UNLESS the theories/conjectures are those of a noted scholar or are backed up by actual fact. That's the way I see it. If I'm wrong, though, I'd like to be told about it. Are there any other comments? My gut feeling is not to include this material until it is confirmed by sources that offer neither conjecture or theory but fact. What do you think? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That all sounds fine to me and I agree we shouldn't say it is completed until there is something official. Perhaps adding a single sentence indicating that the exterior appears complete (with a reference) would be be sufficient. Members of the sect have made a statement to that effect at least. As more develops, we can go from there. Thanks.66.191.19.217 (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Feel free to add that if you like, and if the change is disputed, I will point out that it has been discussed here. Thanks for your great work. As a sidenote, you may wish to consider getting a proper user name. Then issues raised by you are less likely to be contested, your work will not be challenged as much, you will have greater credibility and believability, and your fellow editors will be able to address you by name, all of which are beneficial for WP purposes. Please contact me on my talk page with any questions you may have about what I have said here. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cite tag[edit]

I'm not sure why requests for citation are being summarily deleted—twice in recent days for the following sentence: "Temple worship played a prominent role in the Bible's Old Testament, and in the Book of Mormon." While it's true the original request for a citation did not use the proper template to ask for it, that's not really a great reason to simply delete it. I replaced the request with the appropriate {cn} tag and it was removed again. I really don't understand why it would be removed—it's entirely appropriate to add a citation tag for a statement that claims temple worship played a "prominent role" in both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon. It's certainly not a statement that is self-evident and therefore not in need of an appropriate citation. On the substantive merits of the claim, I'm not aware of temple worship playing what I would call a "prominent" role in the Book of Mormon. It's certainly there, and it's mentioned a number of times, but I don't know if I personally would call it "prominent". That's why we need a source that would so describe it and why it's appropriate to ask for one. Otherwise it's just users' subjective opinions as to what constitutes or does not constitute "prominent role". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think being mentioned 20 times in pretty prominent. And it is something that goes without saying. I do agree that the statement could be considered original research, and we should look for a third party source. But, really, if the question is "Does the Book of Mormon promote temple worship?" the answer needs no citation. Bytebear (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that it needs no citation—WP:RS is just a core WP principle. If you and I disagree about the fact of its "prominence" in the BoM, that should be reason enough to justify a citation tag, which is my whole point. Q.E.D. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
If you need a citation, I recommend this. Bytebear (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
That's good, but it basically consists of a run-down of the mentions in the book. I'm not sure he's arguing it is of a particular "prominent" role in the book, just that it's definitely "there". It would be good to get some non-apologetic sourcing on it, I suppose, since obviously an LDS Church source is going to frame it from a particular POV. But it's certainly better than nothing. Personally, I would consider "prominent" in the BoM: teachings about Jesus; accounts of wars; a personal visitation of Jesus; quotations from Isaiah and other prophets; accounts of civilisation downfalls as a result of pride; and others. But not temple worship. But that's just my view. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section[edit]

If the controversy section is to be added (and whether it should or not is a whole other issue), it's probably more relevant at Temple (LDS Church), since the section is all about LDS Church temples, not Latter Day Saint temples in general, which is what this article is about. The section should be removed from this article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edits. One of the weaknesses of LDS related articles is the vast amount of repetition that is found. I would like to see fewer articles that cover the topics, not more articles that just simply repeat what is already present in several other articles. --StormRider 04:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I was a bit surprised when the LDS Church-specific article was created, as I thought this one was doing the job nicely. It's confusing for the average encyclopedia user, I would think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The controversy section defines a balanced perspective on LDS temples. (At least it should...) Not everyone is in love with the church or its beliefs. Some have been effected negatively by the LDS beleifs at marriage time. The controversy sections represents this in a balanced and unbiased approach. This section has been present in this article for some time. It was removed early November for some reason. I don't know why it was removed. I can't find any discussion about it. It was just suddenly gone. Maybe vandalism? This section should be present in this article. If it needs some clean up changes lets talk about that instead of just removing it completely. I actually made some changes to it some time ago and cleaned up some of the links which indeed were somewhat dubvious. So I am restoring the article to its former accuracy and balance as to say. User: ant75 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's the problem. 90% of the text in the "controversay" section is quoting official church policies on temple weddings, then there are only two referrences that say those policies are bad, and both come from questionable sources (Utah Lighthouse Ministries and lds-mormon.com). So, why repeat policies that are in the article already to make a point that people don't like them. It's overkill and extremely POV. You are basically presenting every policy in a negative way, when they should be presented in a neutral way. Bytebear (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Criticism is handled do differently from article to article. Not "liking" the doctrine of one religion is not criticism...it is "not liking it". In Catholicism, as Mormonism, marriage is a sacrament and only Catholics can marry Catholics and result in a marriage that is recognized by the Catholic Church. I have no problem with criticism sections in articles, but they should not be repetition, that should be legitimate criticism. For religion topics stating the obvious is not criticism. My religion is better than your religion, X does not believe in Y, this people really tick me off, etc. is not criticism. If two people join a religion and they want to get married and their religion says they have to get married on the moon, it is not the religion's fault for the requirement, it is the two people who commit to get married on the moon. This is the type of quasi-criticism that I find so objectionable; it is the "I don't like your beliefs" genre that is so silly. Don't state the obvious, don't be repetitive, use reputable sources, and make sure you use accurate references that can be checked by other editors.
As an aside, I thought this was a section that was recently added that I deleted; no? --StormRider 07:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
And to restate my original point—if included, why isn't it going in Temple (LDS Church)? Since the criticism is denomination-specific, it should go in the denomination-specific article, and not in this more general one. I think the new article was created since the section was deleted in early Nov, as Ant says it was. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks like I'm three months behind the times. Back in November, the controversy section was removed, but has actually been copied word for word into the new article Temple (LDS Church) as Storm Rider mentions above. I wasn't aware of this newer second article until now. Sorry, it all just keeps changing so fast! So I agree there is no need to have this controversy section in both articles, so I have removed it from this article once again. Sorry to waste everyones time.[[User: ant75 (talk) 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant75 (talkcontribs)

Content fork?[edit]

I can't see an obvious difference between this page and Temple (LDS Church), suggesting either it is a content fork or both lead sections need to be adjusted for greater clarity. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That page deals strictly with temples of the Utah-based LDS church, while this is a broader-based one covering temples in all Latter Day Saint sects. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Temple of Solomon[edit]

Is it true that Mormon Temples are meant to replicatea aspects of solomon's Temple. and, if so, would someone who knows something about it write it up on Replicas of the Jewish Temple. thank you.Historicist (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, according to this site [2] the Mesa Arizona temple is "suggestive of pre-Columbian temples and the Temple of Herod." It could probably be included in your list All LDS Temples have a baptismal font, designed from the description of the "brazen sea" of Solomon's temple. Also, the visitors' center at Temple Square in Salt Lake City has a model of the Holy Land, including the temple of Solomon.Bytebear (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No people allowed in temple images?[edit]

Why are there never any people visible in LDS published images of the temples? Is that not allowed for some reason? It would help to put the building size in proportion -- 92.229.77.243 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for a picture not to have a person in front of them; it is just a matter of who is taking the picture and their objective. Obainting pictures of temples with people so that a sense of scale is introduced would be helpful for readers. I don't think it is necessary for all pictures, but at least some of them.
As for as those published by the LDS Church it is a matter of importance. You will find many pictures of temples with people in front of them particularly at temple dedications etc., but more often than not the temple itself (themselves) is the focus of most pictures. The issue of scale is a priority for taking the picture. Hope this helps. --StormRider 17:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I know this is probably not terribly helpful, but when architectural renditions of temples are generated before they are built, the renditions often show people on walkways, automobiles in adjacent parking lots, etc, to help people get an idea of size. Once a temple is built, there is normally enough information available online regarding size that it becomes unnecessary. But no-- there is no specific prohibition of a person appearing in a photograph of a temple, it's just (as was mentioned above) that the Church wishes to emphasize the building, not people near it. Kingsfold (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cutlerite information[edit]

I took all the Cutlerite temple info, which was previously split between two different sections, and combined it into one section, all its own. While the Cutlerites have never built a temple of their own, per se, their meetinghouse is essentially a temple, as they perform all the temple ordinances (save Eternal marriage, which they don't recognize) there, including the Endowment and Baptism for the Dead. This gives their meetinghouse the effective status of a temple, even if they don't call it such--hence, my moving it to its own section, instead of leaving it in the "other buildings" and "other denominations" sections. If anyone disagrees, please contact me before reverting my edits, if you don't mind, and let's talk about it... Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Same topic[edit]

Hi, I suggest that this article can be merged with Temple (LDS Church). Both articles talk about the same topic. Jmvkrecords Intra Talk 06:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully oppose - The article you mention is specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is but one denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement. This article, on the other hand, is broader in scope, encompassing temples of other denominations within the movement. Since the LDS church has so many temples, they should retain an article of their own, while this one remains the broader-focused reference. But that's just my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, while the vast majority (about 98%, so I am probably still not fully conveying how things are) of people in the Latter Day Saint movement are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms are not synonymous. I do have to say that "but one denomination" just does not express what is going on. However this article has large sections dealing with temples in the Community of Christ and other denominations. It makes sense to have both articles since they cover different topics, even if there is some overlap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Other comments? ok, if no other comments, we can remove the template. Indeed, many religious denominations confuse me when I'm doing Wikidata's maintenance. Thank you all. Jmvkrecords Intra Talk 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)