"Midnight Mormons" Profanes Temple

[Kishkumen]

(b) In the public square, where participants knowingly commit to saying what they mean and hearing the views of others, knowing that these may be uncomfortable - here the primary value is truth. I make plain my view that categories of the 'sacred' are frequently supportive of structures of control and domination that small privileged groups make use of to express and enforce their authority over the un-privileged. In the context of this board, it appears to me that the complex of belief and practice centring on LDS temples is part of a major structure of privileged power and control. In my view, the subversion of privileged power through ridicule can be a legitimate move in such exchanges, at least in certain contexts.

I respect you, Chap. But I disagree with this opinion vehemently. This whole idea of domination and control is something that has to be argued out and cannot simply be taken for granted because you say so. There is a world of difference between MK Ultra and the rites of the LDS temple. In my view, secularists spuriously make way too much out of secret ceremonies, and the attitude borders on conspiracy theorist ideation. I expect civilized and humane people to respect the sacred rites of all people. The extent to which this kind of profanation is deemed acceptable is, in my view, the extent to which we are no longer civilized or humane.

[Kishkumen]

Profaning that which is sacred to some holds a strong tradition in free societies and I think it should continue to some extent or another. I caught the video since I posted a little earlier, so I realize what Midnight Mormons refers to--somehow I forgot that's a show that they do.

My wife showed me the video of the lady skating and dancing in her temple clothes and, I admit, it made me chuckle a little. I find little to be offended by it, and I still try to be cautious regarding other people's feelings. And though I realize this little video may offend some LDS members to some extent or another, I don't think it's much more than a silly stunt hoping to loosen the tenseness of relations we all need to navigate. If I can't make a joke to my brother or sister that may tend to profane their beliefs and bit, and they not learn to live with it and still love me, we'd hardly be able to have a relationship. If they too can't razz me about my position, we simply wouldn't get along much.

Although my opinion is not popular here, I continue to disagree. And I think it is particularly important to those who are critical of another person's religion that they maintain a certain respectful distance from the sensitive issues of the people they are criticizing. And I do not think that it is unquestionably a positive tradition in free societies to profane the sacred. It is certainly one of the extreme elements of a libertine ethic that nothing should be held sacred that does not fall under mob control. I don't believe that is true, and I don't take it for granted that this is an unquestionable good.

[Xenophon]

What? Who is NNN?

Around these parts NNN is short for NewNameNoah. If you aren't familiar with his work, he is a disaffected Mormon who is kind of internet famous for having leaked videos of the temple ceremony and a whole slew of other activities that involve profaning the temple and ordinances.

[Sledge]

See Dr. Moore's post above.

I saw it, but what about it answers my question, if that indeed was your objective?

When Bill and Consigliere mock the temple, you don't voice concern. When Midnight Mormons use Bill and Consigliere's temple mockery (in a distasteful way, of course) for rhetorical and visual points, you express concern.

Is there a double standard here?

[consiglieri]

I would think you must first establish where RFM has mocked the temple.

[dastardly stem]

I saw it, but what about it answers my question, if that indeed was your objective?

When Bill and Consigliere mock the temple, you don't voice concern. When Midnight Mormons use Bill and Consigliere's temple mockery (in a distasteful way, of course) for rhetorical and visual points, you express concern.

Is there a double standard here?

To be clear, I don't know what Bill and RFM have done to mock the temple. But if they have, this may illustrate the point I think is important here. There should certainly be a line. But some degree of mocking or profaning seems healthy to me. Without it, we lose the ability to put ridiculous notions into perspective. And it has to be a good thing in the end for believers to know that others find things like temple ceremony and temple dress ups as ridiculous. Without them knowing we lose any sense of being able to relate to each other. So things like NNN is taking it too far in my view. The lady skating and dancing around in temple clothes? It seems more fitting as a move to loosen the tension that has built up between the believer and non-believer. ANd I may be wrong...maybe she's taken too far too. But I fail to see that.

[Chap]

(b) In the public square, where participants knowingly commit to saying what they mean and hearing the views of others, knowing that these may be uncomfortable - here the primary value is truth. I make plain my view that categories of the 'sacred' are frequently supportive of structures of control and domination that small privileged groups make use of to express and enforce their authority over the un-privileged. In the context of this board, it appears to me that the complex of belief and practice centring on LDS temples is part of a major structure of privileged power and control. In my view, the subversion of privileged power through ridicule can be a legitimate move in such exchanges, at least in certain contexts.

I respect you, Chap. But I disagree with this opinion vehemently. This whole idea of domination and control is something that has to be argued out and cannot simply be taken for granted because you say so. There is a world of difference between MK Ultra and the rites of the LDS temple. In my view, secularists spuriously make way too much out of secret ceremonies, and the attitude borders on conspiracy theorist ideation. I expect civilized and humane people to respect the sacred rites of all people. The extent to which this kind of profanation is deemed acceptable is, in my view, the extent to which we are no longer civilized or humane.

Like I said - I make my views plain without concealment or concession in the public square of a discussion board. And so do you. And like you said, if we had the time and inclination to continue this discussion, we would have to argue out our views and neither one of us would expect our say-so alone to establish anything. What's not to like?

You say:

I expect civilized and humane people to respect the sacred rites of all people.

Permit me to say that don't believe that you really expect me (for instance) to respect the sacrificial rites of the Aztec sun-cult (OK, the priests of that religion were massacred a while back, but don't dead people get their rites respected?), or the religiously motivated mutilation of girls' genitals - as the price of being considered 'civilized and humane'. Some rites are more respectable than others, are they not?

[Lem]

You say:

I expect civilized and humane people to respect the sacred rites of all people.

Permit me to say that don't believe that you really expect me (for instance) to respect the sacrificial rites of the Aztec sun-cult (OK, the priests of that religion were massacred a while back, but don't dead people get their rites respected?), or the religiously motivated mutilation of girls' genitals - as the price of being considered 'civilized and humane'. Some rites are more respectable than others, are they not?

Speaking of dead people getting their rites respected, an example that involves the Mormon temple comes to mind, that is, baptism for the dead. I would assume Mormons consider that to be one of their sacred rites, but in my opinion it is a rite that is openly disrespectful of the beliefs of others. Simply because a rite is considered sacred by some is not sufficient reason to respect it. And especially so if that sacred rite causes harm.

[MG 2.0]

You say:



Permit me to say that don't believe that you really expect me (for instance) to respect the sacrificial rites of the Aztec sun-cult (OK, the priests of that religion were massacred a while back, but don't dead people get their rites respected?), or the religiously motivated mutilation of girls' genitals - as the price of being considered 'civilized and humane'. Some rites are more respectable than others, are they not?

Speaking of dead people getting their rites respected, an example that involves the Mormon temple comes to mind, that is, baptism for the dead. I would assume Mormons consider that to be one of their sacred rites, but in my opinion it is a rite that is openly disrespectful of the beliefs of others. Simply because a rite is considered sacred by some is not sufficient reason to respect it. And especially so if that sacred rite causes harm.

Baptisms are done for those that have passed on. Those folks on the other side of the veil are free to either accept or reject that ordinance. And of course, if you don’t believe in a life after death, then there’s no harm done anyway. The LDS Church believes that all must be baptized by priesthood authority in order to qualify for entry into the kingdom of Heaven. So the vicarious work is done. When situations have arisen where organizations or individuals have had objections to the church performing this work for the dead, the church has made efforts to appease those objections and hold off doing baptisms for those deceased people.

1 Corinthians 15:29
“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

See Dr. Moore's post above.

I saw it, but what about it answers my question, if that indeed was your objective?

When Bill and Consigliere mock the temple, you don't voice concern. When Midnight Mormons use Bill and Consigliere's temple mockery (in a distasteful way, of course) for rhetorical and visual points, you express concern.

Is there a double standard here?

Bill and Consig no longer believe.

Kwaku and his gang are still pretending to.