Talk:Washing and anointing/Archive 1

Discussion

I was more than a little surprised to see this much information about washing and anointing, and am more than a little curious as to where this information was obtained. Of late, the sanctity of the temple ordinances has been sabotaged through shoddy attempts of critics to find a way to enter the Lord's houses and obtain information about the initiatory and endowment process. This is severely frowned upon by the leaders of the Church, who have spoken out against it multiple times. Reading this information offends my spirit, as the things that I hold sacred are revealed to anyone happening to visit this page. While, except in a few cases, the exact wording of these sacred ceremonies has been eliminated, there's got to be a way to mention these things without violating the sanctity of such ordinances. The Church, to my knowledge, has never advocated or authorized the inclusion of such information in ANY source by ANY members. Show me a Church-endorsed statement that validates the appropriateness of this page, and I'll be quiet. Otherwise, I have no alternative other than to assume that this page has been put together by an excommunicated member of the Church who no longer appreciates the sanctity of the covenants that were once made, in which case, it shouldn't be included anyways, because the Church has never authorized its former members to release such information in their behalf. I've thought about this for several days, but finally decided to comment on it. Sacred things CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be treated so lightly. Again, if there's a Church endorsed source approving inclusion of this information, I'll be quiet. But I'm sure I'm not the only Church member troubled by this. Perhaps I'm just the first one bold enough to comment on it. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of what I was trying to say, based on some confusion about my expressed viewpoint as stated in Temple (Latter-Day Saints): 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 are copyrighted and not to be produced in whole or in part 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 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) 01:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if we assume that you are 100% correct, and the information was derived from a copyrighted pamphlet, there isn't a copyright issue. It's quite permissible to summarize and quote a copyrighted work, and that doesn't violate the copyright. You need to study the concept of "fair use" with respect to copyright law. Wikipedia legal position is a good place to start.Kww (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It couldn't have been derived from a "copurighted pamphlet." So strict has the Church become on this issue that there are no "pamphlets" issued. Patrons and workers alike have been expressly and in no uncertain terms forbidden from discussing wording/procedure outside the temple, period, even in general terms. And so this information has obviously been included by a Wiki editor who is either disaffected from or out of favor with the Church. In other words, I suspect this information was added by someone who no longer appreciates the sanctity or copyright issues. In which case, it's not a reputable source anyways, because any source that would be reputable on this issue wouldn't be disrespectful enough to violate Church policy on this issue. I've read the "fair use" rationale at least 10 times on other issues, and in most cases have been led to concur that I was in error in my stated position. However, when the material is copyrighted, hasn't been released in ANY FORM whatsoever, and there are limitations set as to how that information may be included in the public domain, then it is an issue. I reiterate something I said on the other topic: Show me one Church-endorsed, verifiable source that says this information is permissible to include in the public domain, and that's where my point of contention ends. But until that time, I won't keep silent on an issue I feel strongly about, especially since I know of my own personal knowledge what the position of Church headquarters is on this issue. Like I said, one reputable source, and I'll change my mind. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to stand by the Church's position as I have been given to understand it from my own personal knowledge about what Church headquarters said. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:18, 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) 01:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources quoted for the majority of this article, and there are either, in the case of the cited website, nonexistent, or in the case of the novels quoted, inaccurate. This tale is becoming all too common on these temple related LDS articles. One wonders if the facts that were originally attributed to these books were ever double checked. I have the majority of these books, and I don't find the information quoted here in any of them. Unless someone can provide a more reliable source, Wikipedia policy mandates that we remove the erroneous information. --User:Linus Hawk- 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The websites do exist — I just accessed them now, and the information is accurate. Copyright here is not in question. I'm not sure what the "books" are you refer to, since the article doesn't refer to books. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been attempting for the better part of an hour to determine the reliability of the websites that are linked to as a source of the information you want included in this article. After much thought, I've concluded the sources are unreliable. For information on what is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards consider reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It might not be mentioned in any reliable sources which would indicate that this these statements are inherently false. If true, and noteworthy, surely they could be substantiated with a source which Wikipedia's sources consider to be "reliable." Also remember that Wikipedia isn't always about saying everything that is true about a topic, or to quote Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". These websites are dubious as to accuracy, and unless a reliable source can be cited, this information must be removed. --User:Linus Hawk- 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What you say may or may not be true or agreed to by other editors, but it still doesn't explain a lot of the other deletions you have performed to the contents of the article. For instance, why delete the "See also" section which includes a link to Second Anointing? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that his comment is a near word for word copy of one of his previous comments should be taken into account when considering the merits of his arguments.Kww (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment posted by me in Temple (Latter-Day Saints):

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)

The real problem is that it takes a massive assumption of good faith to believe that your motivation is based on the purely secular goal of improving the reliability of the encyclopedia. It is much easier to believe that you are motivated by the desire to see material that you consider sacred removed from the encylopedia.

I agree that disaffected LDS members wouldn't normally be the first place I would go to on issues of the LDS faith. However, there are some issues that most LDS members simply won't talk about. On those issues, disaffected LDS members are the only source of information. For the things that are in Wikipedia, there is pretty wide agreement among those sources about what the various rituals are. So long as they aren't presented in a disparaging or mocking fashion, I think it's reasonable to present things that are in multiple sources.Kww (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have two issues to addres. First, your statement above my previous comment, posted after my previous comment. If I understand correctly, a discussion is more readable if comments made after previous comments are posted chronologically rather than having a responsive comment being posted before the comment it's responding to. I don't know what you mean by an almost word for word copy of my previous comment should be taken into account when considering the merits of my arguments. I have essentially the same thing to say under both topics because essentially the same arguments are being used. Rather than trying to drum up an original way to present my position under each subject, I find it easier to quote myself and repeat what I said that way so I don't miss anything I want to say in both topics, especially if what I want to say is essentially the same thing. If that makes my argument less valid in your eyes, I'm sorry, but there's not a lot I can do about it when I'm doing my best to make sure to always say what's on my mind. Perhaps what really is troubling you is my verbosity. I addressed that in the temple topic, and, for the sake of brevity, only duplicate part of my comment here as posted there: "This is not a valid source because the webmaster has no credentials establishing himself as an expert [in this area]. No credentials=No verifiability, consequently the data cited from this source should be removed." That, in a nutshell, is the issue. While I still feel strongly about other points I made, this is probably the one that deserves the most consideration. While I am still concerned about the moral and copyright/fair use issues, I think this angle of things carries the most weight. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My previous comment was addressed to Linus Hawk's comments, not yours. You presented your argument as a copy, and didn't claim to have performed exactly the same action multiple times. My argument is that the information cross-checks. In the absence of a conspiracy of ex-LDS members to misrepresent LDS rituals in the same way, information that appears in multiple sites can be deemed reliable, even if it wouldn't be classed as reliable if it came from only one place.Kww (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with the first part of your post. Sorry about the confusion on my part. In response to your comment about how something appearing in multiple sources can be deemed reliable even if it wouldn't be classed as reliable if it had come from only one place, I will say that I took a look at the second site mentioning exact wording of Initiatory ordinances, and I found that it said that this site was not affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by the Church. And since that statement appears, then my assumption would be that the information was obtained by someone unaffiliated with or formerly affiliated with the Church and therefore unauthorized even if it's accurate, and I'm not saying it is. It's true there's probably no basis for a "conspiracy theory" on the part of the owners and operators of these sites, but since everything has to be sourced on WP, where is the reliable, verifiable source that the information in the cited sources was obtained from? Everything that has been cited by WP in the past can be traced back to a definite, reliable source that was put out by individuals/groups/qualified experts who knew that the information contained was accurate. Where are these sources' sources? If something written about an organization is verifiable, it can usually be traced back to something that was put out by the organization the information is about. So, where is the Church reference that this source's information came from? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If they were a member of the LDS, and experienced or observed the ritual they describe, that makes them at least a primary source. Someone that compile his experiences and those of others is a secondary source. The lack of authorization from the church is completely irrelevant. Think of this as a parallel ... if a CIA agent revealed state secrets, would the lack of permission from the CIA be relevant to evaluating him as a source?Kww (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The LDS Church temple ceremonies have been "published" as transcripts a number of times by a number of different persons, both on the internet and in print. If one website is judged to be not reliable, there are many other references that say exactly the same thing. The fact that they all agree should suggest some degree of reliability. That's why this issue is really just a technical one of getting the right citation for the material — it's not about deleting the information, which some seem to want it to be about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on that point for sure. That's what I've been trying (not very well, I'm afraid) to say all along. These two sites don't appear to be reputable because of the other content found on them indicating no authorization and a definite bias against the Church. Is there any Church-endorsed site or reference that treats in essence the same material but does it in a way that, while still making it readable, would not be so objectionable to people like me who hate to see the covenants they made detailed online? I've looked but haven't found anything. At any rate, I think we're at a standstill as far as discussion goes. It'll be obvious to those following this conversation that I haven't changed my mind, and it will be equally obvious that neither myself or anyone else can change the opinions of the other people on either side of the issue. A difference of opinion never hurt anyone, and I guess the best option at this point until someone turns up something solid one way or the other is to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. Sorry if I've crossed that line myself. As I said, one of my trademarks is never backing down if I feel I'm right about something unless I'm convinced I'm wrong. So far, I'm not convinced. And while I would never want my actions to be interpreted as trying to make everyone I talk to conform to my point of view, I don't think the points I've made in the past should be overlooked simply because I'm in the minority on this one. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would it have to be LDS Church approved? This seems to go to the heart of the matter, somewhat. It doesn't need to be LDS Church approved; it just needs to be reliable. It can be one without the other. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the First Presidency has recently reemphasized the importance of the concept of "what happens in the temple stays in the temple". I work in one of the temples, and that was recently restated to us in a letter the First Presidency asked all temple presidencies to read to all temple workers. I haven't yet been able to find that letter, but if word of mouth was a good enough source to get the text for these ordinances (which, come to think about it, it what this actually is) then word of mouth should be enough to substantiate the concept just reemphasized. What this latest direction means is that the technique/wording of ordinances and covenants are not to be discussed outside of the temple, period. And any member of the Church knows this because it's emphasized enough in recommend interviews, magazine articles regarding the temple, etc. So any faithful member of the Church would stick to that. Which means the material was obtained from someone no longer faithful, in which case, for all the average reader knows, details could be skewed, wording misquoted, explanations misconstrued, etc. WP, I believe, would be on far safer ground if this material or something close to it could be found in an official Church publication. That way, for people who have the same type of concerns I have, the material is still covered but appropriate. I know that WP doesn't adhere to Church policy. I also know that WP is not governed by the thoughts or opinions of one editor. I know that there are some fair use contentions, some copyright concerns, and some verifiability questions. While I'm trying to see both sides of the issue, I don't think I should be denied the right to my opinion simply because I don't express it well and ramble. And while I haven't found anything that can be sourced to advocate my position on this issue, neither has the evidence presented by other editors convinced me that I am in error. I've got some studying of other issues relating to this matter to do, and until then, I'll try to keep an open mind. But until I find anything or am shown anything that proves I'm wrong, I have to go with what I know. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is some rather odd circular reasoning you have there. LDS emphasizes the importance of keeping certain rituals confidential. All good Mormons listen to the leaders of the LDS so that means all information must have been obtained from bad Mormons and all bad Mormons give unreliable information about secret temple rituals. How do you know the information is unreliable? It was written by bad Mormons. How do you know it was written by bad Mormons/former members? Because they are writing about temple rituals. Anyway, look, I know you don't like it but this information is out there. Wikipedia is certainly not the only website containing this information. When so many potentially former members of the Mormon church all pretty much say the same things about the rituals I fail to see how the information is unreliable. I would also point out that you have yet to say what is inaccurate about the descriptions. I mean you don't have to break secrecy or anything. You could just say 'x, y or z is wrong.' It's not telling secrets if you point out things that are incorrect. But you don't do that. In fact none of the Mormons who question the reliability of the information ever provide a single concrete problem they have, point out a single particular thing that is wrong. Anyone who wants to know about this stuff can easily read about it. Attacking Wikipedia does nothing but frustrate you. I am sorry that they offended you, if it were up to me I wouldn't publish it, but, in all due respect, what exactly did the LDS expect? It's human nature that when someone puts a sign up saying Do Not Enter or Private we want to know what's behind the door. When we see something and someone tells us 'sorry you're not allowed' 'it's forbidden' 'keep out' etc. it fuels a desire to know what that something is. If Mormon's hadn't made such a big deal out of it, simply had their temple rituals and only allowed members without making a huge fuss about 'it's secret...stay out' then maybe people wouldn't have been so curious. Once curiosity builds it is inevitable that someone will come along to satiate that desire. It just so happens that the curiosity was satiated by former Mormons who no longer care about keeping secrets or maybe they do it for spite. But, just because a person has questionable motives doesn't mean they are lying. In fact the whole spite thing makes much more sense if they are telling the truth because if they lie all actual church members will call them on it and ignore it. They tell the truth and it bothers you a hell of a lot more.

As far as your copyright and fair use and trade secrets claims go, I'm afraid you are incorrect. Trust me on this. I have been a litigator for many years now and part of my practice is federal litigation and several federal cases I've had have had components of copyright violation claims and trade secret claims. I won't bore you with the details and it is impossible to explain this area of law with any degree of simplicity. It's an incredibly complex body of law, to the extent that I've always hired an expert to co-counsel with me when a copyright or trade secret claim emerges. There is no copyright violation here. There is nothing wrong with quoting from or paraphrasing from copyrighted material. So long as a certain percentage of the material is original, which paraphrasing would count as original, there is no violation. A violation has to demonstrate certain characteristics to show that the material is an illegal copy and that pretty much means blocks of identical, uncredited text. It's even worse with music because there you have to show that the riff is identical not just remarkably similar. Anyway, there needs to be some text, some book, some concrete thing that is copyrighted and is then being reproduced without permission. It just doesn't sound like there is and for various technical reasons there is no real way to copyright the ritual itself, it just doesn't work that way. The ritual also doesn't meet the requirements of a 'trade secret' either in spirit (economically important secrecy in manufacturing and development) or in text. I don't have the time to comb through the annals of Westlaw at the moment but I feel incredibly certain in asserting that there simply is no case on point that would suggest that something like a religious ritual can be construed as a trade secret. Again, that's not how it works. It just isn't. The best you could do is some type of slander allegation, that the dissemination of this information is slanderous to the church. Frankly you'd have to show actual damages, because this is certainly not 'slander per se,' and I see no way in which you have been actually damaged by Wikipedia here. The point being you have no legal ground to demand that this material be removed, the material doesn't violate Wikipedia's own policies and it's not like Wikipedia is the only one giving this information out. You should probably move on and ignore it because you have no alternative and there's no need in frustrating yourself over something you can't control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.23.62 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that non-LDS-Church-approved materials are necessarily unreliable on these issues. In any case, as I mentioned before, when there are multiple sources that all say the same thing, it reinforces reliability. I don't think there's really much of an issue here for WP editors to debate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)