Endowment Video is Up

[_DarkHelmet]

I'm wondering at what point weird beliefs are open to public ridicule? Religious beliefs are mocked all the time by people not associated with the religion.

[_Bob Loblaw]

why me, your Sarcasm Meter is clearly malfunctioning.

Mine's in working order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggXmKPMaHMo

[_why me]

I thought the question was whether it was appropriate to post the video itself. I can talk about the endowment without mocking. Can you?

Yes. But the people commenting about the video on youtube are mocking, bashing and being disrespectful. Of course, this is just the sign of the times. We are in one big realityTV program. There is no consideration for that which is considered sacred by the people in the faith.

I would call it hate speech just as I would if someone posted mocking comments about the orthodox jews praying the way they do. And equality knows this too. Hence, he is not living his religion.

[_Equality]

And equality knows this too. Hence, he is not living his religion.

There you go again--mocking me and the way I live my religion. Hypocrite!

[_Sethbag]

It's a conversation that the Mormons shouldn't necessarily be allowed to own, or exercise control over.

I'm confused as to actually which conversation you are referring to. Are you saying that Mormons don't have the right to exercise control over their own religious ceremonies?

Mormons have full editorial control over the endowment content that is shown in LDS temples. They also set up the ceremonies and dictate the sequence of events that those staging the ceremonies are intended to follow. In that sense, what happens in the LDS endowment between consenting members and the temple workers happens according to the LDS hierarchy's wishes. They get to control their own religious ceremonies in that sense.

What I'm talking about is what other people think about the ceremonies, and what conversations these people have about them. Random Joe on the Internet is not someone the LDS church wants knowing and talking about the endowment ceremony, but that's just tough crap, because Random Joe is not under the ecclesiastical thumb of the LDS church - they have no power over him. So they reach for the only form of control they have over Random Joe, which is an attempt to shame him by claiming to be offended that Random Joe knows about and is talking about the temple endowment.

What I'm saying is that that claim should not necessarily stop Random Joe from talking about it if he wants to. I don't necessarily buy that the LDS church has a legitimate claim to control who gets to talk about the endowment, and what they say about it.

[_Chap]

Just to test my assumptions, I asked myself this question:

"If someone installed a webcam in my bedroom and secretly filmed scenes involving me having a close physical relationship with some person or thing (a person or thing with which having a close physical relationship was not illegal) and posted the results on the internet, why would I be entitled to object to that if I don't think Mormons are entitled to object to a video of the temple ceremony being posted on the internet?"

My answer would, I think, be as follows.

In general it is better that the absolute minimum of restraint should be placed on the expression of views or the publication of material discussing or showing what has taken place. (Yes, I am a First Amendment kind of person.)

Restraint is only justified if the social or personal harm resulting therefrom is of a high degree.

Now in the case of exposure of my private ... relational activities, it is widely agreed that broadcasting them on the internet could gravely lower the respect in which I was held, and generally cause great difficulties in my professional and social life. So restraint is justified.

In the case of exposure of the details of the temple ceremony, the degree of harm done is simply not grave enough to warrant the restraint of free expression involved in preventing that exposure.

Do I have that about right?