Jump to content

Talk:Temple garment/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Verifiable source

Because of the secret/sacred nature of the details of the subject, the only sources that will describe specifics will be tertiary ones. I see the primary source being the LDS Church who defines what the meaning behind the symbolism is, a secondary source would be an active member of the church. I consider ex-Mormons to be tertiary sources as they tend to have an agenda in revealing these secrets, and although their information may well be accurate, it often times is not (see Ed Decker). I am proposing a warning about this and other articles that involve secrets that cannot be verified by primary sources. Something like "Because of the nature of this topic, some details cannot be verified with primary sources". If anyone can think of better wording, I am up for that. Please do not make this a Mormon/non-Mormon issue, as there are many many articles unrelated to Mormonism to which this suggestion applies. Bytebear 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are misuderstanding the ordinal labeling of sources. I personally hate these labels as they are very commonly misunderstood. Forget about all the "primary" "secondary" etc. that really doesn't apply to images at all. I can't really find any mention of anything at all on verifing illustrations. I suppose the that illustrations should not contradict the information in the text (which should be verified), but honestly I found nothing on this topic. I personally know of no precedent for people asking to have an image verified outside of copyright verification.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
My oppologies, I am not referring to the image (which is why I started a new heading.) I am referring to the specifics of some of the content that cannot be verified by a primary source. Let me give an example. Xenu, apparently is an alien ruler in Scientology. Scientology has attempted to keep this knowledge confidential. Therefore, any information about Xenu would be from a secondary or tertiary source, either from an ex-scientologist or from someone who heard something from an ex-scientologist. Given their propensity to sue over any confidential documentation, I would assume there is no official documents from Scientology referring to Xenu available to reference. Therefore, the article should have a heading that says that the information comes from secondary sources, by its very nature. Bytebear 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Er actually no. The Xenu information comes from documents in L. Ron Hubbard's (the founder of the religion) own handwriting that were published before the community got secretive and copies of the original documents that were smuggled out. If you scrounge around on the internet there are some scans of it available. A perfect primary source, no hearsay involved. The official documents are quite accessable, despite the best efforts of the religion to censor their publication. pschemp | talk 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Still you have misconceptions about sources. I will try to explain, but it is confusing so bear with me. Let's say we have document such as the 9/11 report; it is not inherently a source of any kind; just a document. But we are going to use it as a source. We can use it in several ways. If we wish to use it as a primary source on the opinions of the 9/11 committee we could go to where they discuss their conclusions and say, "The 9/11 commitee concluded Foobar about the attacks" (ref 9/11 report). That would be using it as a primary source as your are simply attributing an opinon to the authors of the source without analysis (i.e. they concluded correctly or incorrectly would be analysis). If we want to use it as a secondary source about the FBI's work prior to the attacks you could say, "The FBI had knowledge of several relevant pieces of information prior to the attacks, such X, Y, Z. However the FBI did not know of A, B, C." (ref 9/11 report) That would be using the document as a secondary source because you are using it's analysis of other documents (i.e. the FBI memos, interviews, etc.); you are also trusting this analysis and treating it as fact. In other ways the 9/11 report could be used as teriary source although I think this distintion is fuzzy and unimportant. If you would reference a timeline of the attacks from the document, I believe that would be using it a a tertiary source. This is because a timeline is a combination and sumarization of all other sources. In the end a document is a document and is not inherently primary, secondary or even a source. These terms all have to do with what a persons wishes to do with a document. Of course some documents are easier to use in one way or another; sometimes, but rarely, exclusively. I really wish everyone would stop using these terms as they are only occasionally used correctly, or at least only use primary and ignore the other two. However this has nothing to do the person who wrote the document and what connections they may or may not have to the subject of the document.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Illustration

I've read a lot of comments that a drawing might serve as a better illustration of the garments, so I made a public domain one with Sharpie and put it up. I'm not necessarily advocating the removal of the photo. Personally like to see them both stay up there for a while while they percolate through the community. Now that there is a drawing up, what do you think? -- Norvy (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite it being made with a Sharpie, I like the illustration better than the photo. Both are pretty crude (no offense), but the illustration is more informative and less intentionally provocative. COGDEN 08:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that the sketch could stay up as a companion to the actual image of the garment; I wouldn't consider it a replacement for the current photo though. Duke53 | Talk 12:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are you changing the format? Images should just be left at "thumb" because everyone has different screen sizes and can set their own preferences. 255 px looks different in relative size on a 17" moniter and a 25" moniter; thumb does not.[1]--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I was setting it in relationship to the existing image; when they are the same size they are in proportion to each other. 275px = 275px on any monitor at any resolution. Duke53 | Talk 16:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right the size of the display does not matter. The thng about using "thumb" is just about getting the user preferences working correctly. Thanks for removing the forced sizing.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The sketch provides a useful illustration of the markings so I would support it as an addition, but not a replacement. The size should default to "Thumb" for best display. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs) 09:49, 11 December 2006.

As a Mormon i would respectfully like to request that all descriptions of the Garments physical appearance including illustrations and photographs be removed. I'm fine with a description of their purpose and use, but please do not show them or describe them or their symbols. I don't see the need to show such things to the general public. So please respect our religeon. Some things need to remain sacred in order to protect their sanctity. You wouldn't want me splashing you're sacred things all over the internet. 4.179.60.47 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As a non-mormon I find your request to be quite unsettling; Wikipedia does NOT allow censorship. I would suggest that you avoid places where freedom of expression is allowed and that you simply stick with mormon owned, endorsed or controlled sites. Feel free to post whatever you choose, but don't make requests that others not be able to do the same. Duke53 | Talk 22:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I object to the word censorship There is a place for respect of other's feelings. For example, comments that would be thought of as gossip should be avoided by each individual. I did not say that any one be forced in any way to not post such information. If they wish to cause offense that is their perrogotive I only requested that out of respect it be removed in the hope that those who did not know it was offensive to others would do so.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.179.60.47 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
I agree with you that censorship is not exactly the right word. However, the goal of Wikipedia is to be a comprehensive neutral compendium of knowledge. Certainly, the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia do not seek to cause offense. At the same time, the consensus here is that we cannot also supress information on the grounds that it may cause offense to some, or we could not have articles on evolution, criticism of Christianity, criticism of Islam, criticism of evolution etc. If you read through the talk page archives, you will see that there has been extensive discussion of these issues.--Kubigula (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Censorship is what it would be, let's not kid ourselves about that. I do not go to mormon owned or controlled sites and ask that they include items that they don't believe; that would be offensive. You should respect Wikipedia's values, or not bother to visit here. I object to you trying to force your values on non-mormons. I find that offensive. Duke53 | Talk 05:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you have misunderstood. I do not intend to suppress free expression of knowledge however I wish you would follow in suit with the editors of the article on LDS Endowments, and excercise similar respect for things we hold sacred. We do not appreciate pictures of such sacred thing to be displayed. It is not an act of censorship, merely a request for respect. If you choose not to follow it that is your choice. I respect that choice. I am not forcing my opinon on anyone. Just asking for respect of our beliefs. Knowing of such things is fine and we as mormons freely talk about the Garments, but certain aspects about them we find too sacred to be treated so lightly. I don't see how asking for respect is forcing my values and that of other mormons on you. Please realise that I don't wish to contentious about this subject, but I would appreciate that you be more ambiguous concerning the symbols on the garments and perhaps refrain from placing photographs of them. Not as an act of censorship but as a act of respect for our beliefs. You may offend me and post you're beliefs. I am not asking that you believe what I believe. Its a free country and internet. I have made the changes that I see fit. Revert them if you wish and you will hear no more from me concerning this. I have made my point, and asked you respectfully. Do what you please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.179.57.219 (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
I misunderstood nothing. You have edited here at Wikipedia on EXACTLY ONE TOPIC: Temple garments ... which you obviously would like to censor. There is no doubt about what you intended to do and, in fact, attempted to do. To deny it now is ludicrous. Duke53 | Talk 14:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You did an admirable job making your request known; thank you. However, as a encyclopedia we are not very good about showing respect. We set up guiding policies that can be carried to extremes, but more importantly ensure an even-handedness with all subject matter. In this instance, some people think that seeing a pair of underwear is far more enlightening than not seeing a pair of underwear. As you continue to edit Wikipedia you will see this type of thing again; it is particularly interesting when another's sacred cow is begins to be gored and how readily they begin to think that policiies should have exceptions. We are seldom very good at living up to principles when they work to our personal displeasure. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well do as you will. But just to respond to Duke53, I actually have edited many wikipedia subjects on many occations and infact i have a wikipedia account but It has been a while, and i forgot my password and signin name, thus the lack of apparent history. You shall hear no more from me on the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.217.206 (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, we hear that often; easy to say, but impossible to prove. Perhaps writing down that info might have helped. :) Duke53 | Talk 14:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
See above for an example of NOT ASSUMING GOOD FAITH. Bytebear 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

New version of photo

I have altered the original photo and uploaded the new version in its place in hopes of achieving the compromise version that editors on this page have asked for. I doubt this will prevent all drive-by removals of the photo, but hopefully it's less objectionable than the original and still sufficiently illustrative. (You may have to clear your browser cache to see the new version.) alanyst /talk/ 04:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an improvement. COGDEN 05:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Nice work. shotwell 06:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this alteration as being a real 'improvement' on the original; there is not a bit more detail of the 'markings' on the garment, which, from many comments on this page, was the biggest criticism of the original photo. The focus of the 'objection' to the original image seems to have changed yet again. Flooding the image with bright white has simply given this image a cartoonish effect. A photo of a garment with higher resolution and detail should still be our objective; this does not achieve that. Duke53 | Talk 07:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an improvement. Thanks for making the effort; having simply a picture of the garment in the identical resolution as the first one should remove the majority of the motivations from anons to delete the picture. Cheers for a job well done.--Storm Rider (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the effort this is great work! It is amazing how much better the photo looks without the busy wallpaper from before! More impotantly removing edvidence of the people themselves is a very nice gesture to those that are offended. Hopefully the differences will also make it hard to recognize as the same photo from Anti-Mormon websites. This is certainly now the best freely licensed illustration available. And your work is a good example of why it is important to focus on freely licensed images. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, this article got referenced by an outside source. See [2]]. They also used the ugly old version of the photo. Sorry to the offended. Bytebear 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

McKay quote

The McKay quote has been unsourced for nearly two years, and had been removed at one point. I've poured over sources, but can't find a source. I think the editor who removed the quote did it righfully - it isn't properly sourced, nor do I think he said it in any referencable forum. User:COGDEN introduced the quote, however, we should remove it or attribute the content to another source. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 19:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can hardly agree he did it rightfully when he also removed both pictures in the same edit. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "the quote". What exactly would you like to see removed?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The rightfully part was his explanation of the removal of the quote. I don't think of us here agree the removal of the image was proper. In the editor's edit summary, they wrote "Removed the incorrect citation of David O. McKay." [3]. The editor was right in removing the quote as it is not something McKay said. If you want to attribute to another person, that is fine, but I can't find where McKay said it, and I have a great deal of access to LDS leader quotes. The quote that should be removed reads:
According to McKay, the reverse-L-shaped symbol on the right breast is the "mark of the square", and represents "exactness and honor" in keeping the commandments and covenants of God. The V-shaped symbol on the left breast, according to McKay, is the "mark of the compass", and symbolizes "an undeviating course leading to eternal life; a constant reminder that desires, appetites, and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set; and that all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole." The horizontal "navel mark," according to McKay, represents "the need of constant nourishment to body and spirit," and the horizontal "knee mark" suggests "that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Christ." ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]
Where he "stated" this is not cited, nor do any reference of him stating such exist. -Visorstuff 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This is from David John Buerger's The Mysteries of Godliness. I don't have access to the book right now to see where Buerger got the information, but I'll be in Utah over the holidays and I'll add it to my list of things to research at the BYU libraries. COGDEN 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response - we'll wait until your return.

However, my guess is that he makes an inference that since McKay led the committee that made changes resulting in the 1936 endowment ceremony, he (McKay) was the author. It would be similar to saying McConkie OR Monson wrote all the chapter headings in the current LDS editions of the standard works. It isn't true. It would be the committee that wrote the changes, not McKay, and I really doubt he had access to primary documents showing such, however, I've been wrong before, and will be wrong again. Thanks again for looking into it. -Visorstuff 23:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found Buerger's book at the library and located the source that COGDEN referred to (page 153). Buerger cites a letter or memorandum from George F. Richards, Joseph Fielding Smith, Stephen L. Richards, and Melvin J. Ballard to the First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles, 22 April 1936, as found in the LDS archives. Buerger quotes an excerpt from that letter, which reads in part:

Committee recommended and received approval [...] The best interpretation [of the markings] which has come to us up to this time has been supplied by President David O. McKay.

What follows is a bullet-point summary of McKay's interpretation of the garment markings, not a narrative text as might be found in the temple ceremony. The summary quoted in Buerger's book is different in some fairly minor respects from the summary that COGDEN presents in this article; COGDEN's version seems to take some details of the explanation from a source other than Buerger's book. (I didn't have time to copy the summary in Mysteries of Godliness verbatim, so I'm afraid I don't have enough information to make specific corrections in the article. COGDEN, maybe you could do this?) But the overall attribution of that part of the temple ceremony to McKay, at least as of 1936, seems to be pretty solid. Hope this helps. I have added the requested citation using the <ref></ref> style, which clashes with the older citation style used for other references, but I think the newer style is needed for this article. Can anyone else help in linking the other references cited to the particular parts of the article they support? It's not clear to me what information in the article comes from the Asay or McDannell sources. alanyst /talk/ 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting blog comparison

For those of you involved in previous week's dispute about the photographs of the Garments, I thought you'd enjoy this blog post. Enjoy. -Visorstuff 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Army Garment

Unless they've been changed to go with the new ACUs (I've been out of the Army since before those were issued so I don't really know what has changed), the garments for Army service personnel are brown not green. Green garments would be something of a stand-out, given that every other soldier has brown t-shirts (and is issued brown underwear). All of my army garments were brown... And I think there are blue versions for the navy, but I could be wrong. Maybe there are other options for militaries other than the US's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.69.111 (talk • contribs)

During the VietNam era, when camouflage garments were green, Mormon soldiers assigned to my unit wore green sacred undergarments. I suspect that the safest comment might be one which indicates the garments are made available in colors that conform to those in use for military camouflage, which change from time to time. Irish Melkite 10:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a user here but was just looking at this page and wanted to add, that I am LDS (and in the military) and the church is now putting out garments in the color of the new ACU uniform, that is sand tan colored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.133.206 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Therefore?

In the following sentence,

Adherents consider them to be sacred and therefore may be offended by public discussion of the garments.

I think we should remove the word "therefore" as POV. I don't think everyone would agree that someone being offended by public discussion of something is a logical consequence of holding that thing sacred. Alternatively we could reword the sentence to say that certain groups do hold to that logic, assuming it is true that they do. --Allen 03:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In this situation there are no groups; it is one group, LDS. The temple garment represents covenants made between the individual and God. Some LDS are especially sensitive while other have a degree of comfort discussion them in general terms. As a LDS it does not bother me to have a narrative about what they are and what they represent; more than that is offensive, but that is me personally. Wikipedia long ago gave up any form of "respect" to the sacred. We are an information source and the mere fact that LDS do not like talking about some of these things makes it all the more appealing to small minority of editors.
In this instance I do not see your interpretation of therefore as POV, rather I see it as logical. Do you like discussing sacred things with strangers? Some people are unfamiliar with the sacred and it might be better to ask, do you mind talking about your most intimate feelings with strangers? This resistance to sharing those personal feelings and thoughts is comparable to what LDS feel when discussing the endowment or anything apertaining to it. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow you. Sacred doesn't have anything to do with private or intimate or personal. Communion is sacred and I don't know any who practices that who is uncomfortable discussing it with strangers. I don't sacred means what you think it means in this particular case. Maybe a more accurate replacement would be "Adherents consider wearing the garments a scared and very private practice".--BirgitteSB 13:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The Holy Communion is sacred just as the Sacrament is sacred; one is viewed as the actual body and blood of Christ and the other represenations. However, these are designed to be communal in nature. In this instance there is no desire on the part of anyone to talk about it regardless of their relgion. However, there are other things of sared nature that are not so easily talked about. The Sacred does become personal and highly reverenced. One instance is the Holy of Holies in ancient Israel was so holy that only high priest could enter. The sacred can easily be sacrosanct. When the degree of sacredness increases to the degree of the sacrosanct, which in this instance it does, it is not open to general discussion. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to agree with Birgitte and I that sanctity does not by itself imply reluctance to discuss a topic in public, and you introduce the word "sacrosanct", which does seem to come closer to implying reluctance for public discussion. Why don't we change the word "sacred" to "sacrosanct" in the sentence I quoted above? I don't see this as a perfect solution for two reasons: first, we're still making our own statement about what is considered logical, when I think it would be better to attribute that logic to a specific group, and second, we would still need a reliable source to show that "sacrosanct" is indeed a term that LDS members use to describe the garments. Even so, I think it would be better than what we have now. --Allen 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I also should add that I thought Birgitte's proposed wording was fine too; I don't think you said what you thought of it. --Allen 15:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
No response, so I changed "sacred" to "sacrosanct". --Allen 03:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sacrosant (Websters): "most sacred or holy; also: having an imputed rather than a genuine sacred character (--institutions that have outlived their usefulness to society)". While I don't think any temple worthy LDSaint would deny that the garments themselves are cloth and thread and are not holy in themselves but as symbols and reminders of sacred covenents, most consider them genuine sacred objects. Misuse, abuse, and public display of the garment are truly offensive. So, if using "sacrosant" implies the garment is not genuinely sacred, I think we could expect some strong opposition. I reverted for now. Best wishes. WBardwin 03:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with you; sacrosanct has meanings that don't work here. Really I think the correct solution is to remove the word "therefore" as I originally proposed, or to go to Birgitte's wording ("Adherents consider wearing the garments a scared and very private practice"). What do you think of these solutions? The problem with the current wording is that sanctity does not in fact imply unwillingness to public discussion. At least other religions, if not Mormonism itself, are full of sacred places, ideas, rituals, entities, and things that adherents are more than happy to discuss publicly. --Allen 03:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I personally would have little difficulty with Birgitte's "Adherents consider wearing the garments a sacred and very private practice". But it truly goes beyond privacy. Finding a word which would get across the intimate (without the current secular/sexual innuendo of that word) nature of the covenant between one person and God which the garment represents would be difficult - but wonderful. I'll think about it. WBardwin 05:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Removed "therefore" as a beginning, along with a copy edit. From the Intimacy article: " Intimacy is linked with feelings of closeness, safety, trust and transparency among partners in a collaborative relationship. For intimacy to be sustainable and nourishing it also requires trust, transparency and rituals of connection." All of these words would apply to a personal covenant made with God, but "intimate" would not imply that to our readers. (Sigh) WBardwin 05:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this. Removing "therefore" satisfies my concerns. I'm afraid I can't be much help fine-tuning the language to reflect the true meaning of the garment, although my guess is that relatively few readers would mistake the word "intimate" as having sexual connotations when used in a context like this. But I could be wrong. --Allen 06:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The edit looks good to me. Storm Rider, I am sorry for not responding to you above. I forgot I had left a comment here until I saw the edit on the article. I tend to check my watchlist in the Main namespace more closely than the rest. I really need to prune the watchlist . .. --BirgitteSB 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Temple_garment/Archive_6&oldid=1144747104"