Mormon Temples - Sacred or Secret?

[Truid]

Okay, so you think your right to satisfy your curiosity trumps my right to privacy. Do you believe people have any rights to privacy? Who should decide where those rights begin and end?

Ok, let's talk about this "rights to privacy" business. Of course you have a "right to privacy". I do not have the right to video record you in the privacy of your own home (without your permission). I do not even have the right to video record you in your Temple. That is your "right to privacy".

However, the "right to privacy" does not extend to discussing the endowment ceremony itself (in a non specific way). In other words, if I talk about the ceremony and I don't mention you being part of it, then how am I invading your personal privacy? Quite simply, I am not.

But, if I secretly video recorded you going through the endowment ceremony THEN THAT would be a clear violation of your privacy.

BTW, not many people know this, but a stranger can video record you in a public setting, such as in the park or on the street. Why? Because you are in public and you have no expectation to "right of privacy". Look it up, it's legal.

So, does this "right of privacy" extend to what hapens in the LDS Temple? I believe it does when it pertains to specific persons. But it does not when spoken about in general.

 

[DallasApple]

BTW, not many people know this, but a stranger can video record you in a public setting, such as in the park or on the street. Why? Because you are in public and you have no expectation to "right of privacy". Look it up, it's legal.

Not only am I aware of this..we are often being recorded..Not only that.."live" monitors(people) can and do "watch" people trying on clothes in the dressing rooms of stores to prevent shoplifting.If they are "decent" they usually post a sign.Letting you know(in my case) female employess have a view into the dressing room..So you can "opt" not to undress in there if you are uncomfortble with it...

But anyway..Cameras are everywhere.

Love

Dallas

 

[Katzpur]

Not only am I aware of this..we are often being recorded..Not only that.."live" monitors(people) can and do "watch" people trying on clothes in the dressing rooms of stores to prevent shoplifting.If they are "decent" they usually post a sign.Letting you know(in my case) female employess have a view into the dressing room..So you can "opt" not to undress in there if you are uncomfortble with it...

Well, that's good to know! That's awful!

I guess it gets down to how much privacy we should allow each other, out of nothing more than common courtesy and respect. What's legal, what's ethical, and considerate are sometimes not the same thing at all. If I were in a position to make something public that I knew someone else considered private and didn't want to have made public, I would respect their desires. With some people, it obviously doesn't work that way. There is nothing we can do about the fact that the producers and writers of Big Love didn't believe our desires for privacy were worthy of being respected. So, live goes on, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be around a lot longer than either Big Love or the people whose curiosity it satisifed will be.

 

[DallasApple]

Ok, let's talk about this "rights to privacy" business. Of course you have a "right to privacy". I do not have the right to video record you in the privacy of your own home (without your permission). I do not even have the right to video record you in your Temple. That is your "right to privacy".

However, the "right to privacy" does not extend to discussing the endowment ceremony itself (in a non specific way). In other words, if I talk about the ceremony and I don't mention you being part of it, then how am I invading your personal privacy? Quite simply, I am not.

But, if I secretly video recorded you going through the endowment ceremony THEN THAT would be a clear violation of your privacy.

BTW, not many people know this, but a stranger can video record you in a public setting, such as in the park or on the street. Why? Because you are in public and you have no expectation to "right of privacy". Look it up, it's legal.

So, does this "right of privacy" extend to what hapens in the LDS Temple? I believe it does when it pertains to specific persons. But it does not when spoken about in general.

Im afraid Im going to offend someone ..but I have to agree..

"Privacy" is about your individual right to not have details of your "individual" specifics of your "personal" life experiences open to the public or invaded upon when you are in a "private" setting.

I do not believe that definition would include a "ceremonial" procedure generically protrayed would be a violation of anyones personal right to "privacy".

Lets use the example of say..having a baby..I have the "right" to privacy when Im delievering my child..I have the right to exclude anyone I wish or include anyone I wish for my "individual" experience of birthing my baby..I have the right to have that "personal" experience not documented on film..or audio..

Now lets just say somehow some details of my birth plan got out..and how my delivery went also..

And there was a "mock" interpretation of it..not using my name..but just in general this is a "birth plan" ...and it was aired on T.V as a fictitional event..actually having nothing to do with my personal experience other than that it closely resembled how the birth of my child went that I wanted to be private..That would NOT be a violation of my privacy no matter how sacred my own personal experience was for me.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Well, that's good to know! That's awful!

You didnt know that???

Yes mam...They are watching you

Love

Dallas

 

[Watchmen]

Not only am I aware of this..we are often being recorded..Not only that.."live" monitors(people) can and do "watch" people trying on clothes in the dressing rooms of stores to prevent shoplifting.If they are "decent" they usually post a sign.Letting you know(in my case) female employess have a view into the dressing room..So you can "opt" not to undress in there if you are uncomfortble with it...

But anyway..Cameras are everywhere.

Love

Dallas

Provide some evidence that there are actually cameras in the actual dressing room.

 

[DallasApple]

Provide some evidence that there are actually cameras in the actual dressing room.

My mother worked for Dillards in the 80's for 7 years.I cant "provide" evidence.(I didnt steal any at the time)..But they had cameras and LIVE people whatching into the dressing rooms.Warning signs are posted..The dressing rooms are being monitored..

Love

Dallas

 

[idea]

Lets use the example of say..having a baby..I have the "right" to privacy when Im delievering my child..I have the right to exclude anyone I wish or include anyone I wish for my "individual" experience of birthing my baby..I have the right to have that "personal" experience not documented on film..or audio..

Dallas

I don't see that as an appropriate example because everyone has babies, it is not something that it personal to you, all females have the potential to this.

How about this scenario as a little more applicable. Let's say you come from a family of world famous chefs. You have a few recipes that are “family secrets”. People can eat the food you cook, see how good it is, but you don’t want anyone to have the recipe who is not a good cook – you don’t want morons who don’t know what they are doing in the kitchen to take your recipe, bunk it all up, and then feed it to a bunch of people telling them “this is the _ family recipe” polluting the food, and giving a horrible reputation to your family and all the chef’s in it. So you don’t want to let the recipe out to just anyone, you only give it to those whom you trust, those who know how to cook, and who promise to hold it sacred, so your family name is not all over some nasty TV dinner from the frozen food aisle at the local grocery.

Now let’s say one of the people you trusted with the family recipe goes out and publishes it to everyone to make money off of it. They went against their confidentiality agreement with you, they lied, smeared the family name by presenting some knock-off unprofessional version of the real thing…

I think that would be a more appropriate parable for what is happening.

Do families have the right to keep their recipes secret? Do companies have the right to have trade secrets? Most people would say those with information have the right to do with it what they will.

 

[DallasApple]

I don't see that as an appropriate example because everyone has babies, it is not something that it personal to you, all females have the potential to this.

Everyone does NOT have babies..And those that do it IS personal..And not a SINGLE man has the ability at ALL.

Having that experience "replicated" on T.V is a violation of my privacy !!!

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Now let’s say one of the people you trusted with the family recipe goes out and publishes it to everyone to make money off of it. They went against their confidentiality agreement with you, they lied, smeared the family name by presenting some knock-off unprofessional version of the real thing…

That is a "breach of trust" between you and that person.NOT a violation of your privacy..

Love

Dallas

 

[idea]

That is a "breach of trust" between you and that person.NOT a violation of your privacy..

Love

Dallas

Call it what you will. If companies can have trade secrets, why can't a church?

 

[Truid]

Provide some evidence that there are actually cameras in the actual dressing room.

Would my personal testimony be evidence enough? I used to work for IBM and one of our clients (Dillards) would have us come in to do PM (preventative maintenance) on their computers. I would have access to the security area (where all the monitors were) and it is true that they would monitor the dressing room areas. I'm not saying someone sat there and watched the monitors every second non-stop, but if they suspected someone of shoplifting, they would watch them very closely (both by cam and shadow).

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Provide some evidence that there are actually cameras in the actual dressing room.

Oh for goodness sake lol. I guessed you've never bothered looking up when you've entered most dressing rooms in most clothes shops?

Everything needs objective evidence nowadays. But what's enough? When is objective evidence really concluded?

I can't see why people have such a problem with not knowing? Or why you even care? What's it to you what goes on in the LDS temples? The only time it'd really matter is if you are in the LDS, and at that point they let you in anyway.

I would hope that nobody would EVER publish my rituals on the internet or document them. I would feel violated. Because my rituals are private and nobody else needs to know. And why should they care? If they care so much, join my damn religion. If they're not willing then they don't really need to know anyway.

GhK.

 

[Katzpur]

That is a "breach of trust" between you and that person.NOT a violation of your privacy..

Perhaps. It doesn't really matter what we call it. This isn't a court of law, after all. The result is that something is made public without permission from the party that explicitely asked that it be kept private.

 

[Watchmen]

Would my personal testimony be evidence enough? I used to work for IBM and one of our clients (Dillards) would have us come in to do PM (preventative maintenance) on their computers. I would have access to the security area (where all the monitors were) and it is true that they would monitor the dressing room areas. I'm not saying someone sat there and watched the monitors every second non-stop, but if they suspected someone of shoplifting, they would watch them very closely (both by cam and shadow).

So the camera was actually in the room where people were actually changing? Or was the camera in the dressing room common area?

 

[Watchmen]

Oh for goodness sake lol. I guessed you've never bothered looking up when you've entered most dressing rooms in most clothes shops?

I'm well aware of cameras in dressing room common areas - I'm talking about where the person actually disrobes. If there are cameras then, more than likely the company is violating state law.

 

[Sententia]

Okay, so you think your right to satisfy your curiosity trumps my right to privacy. Do you believe people have any rights to privacy? Who should decide where those rights begin and end?

I don't have a sense of curiousity regarding what goes on in a mormon temple. I need to know as much about what mormons believe in order to sensibly argue that their wrong. (In general, gold plates, angels, gods, eternal life of happiness, etc... I'm sure you're familiar with my core beliefs in the natural laws that we don't have to get into it here)

I would hope that what is going on is moral and that there is some oversight.

But there is no violation of your privacy. Are you on the show now? Did they film you? I watched my children come into this world. Does the fact that others have seen a birth or know what goes in when a child is born take away from the sacred nature of it or deprive me of my privacy?

Is there any example that you can correlate to that represents this type of sacred nature your attempting to assign to a ceremony you weren't in that featured actors and was on HBO?

That's absolute BS.

Its an opinion. It doesn't need your approval to be valid. I take it you disagree with Bill Paxton then?
Hulu - NBC TODAY Show: Bill Paxton on ‘Big Love’

The hell they weren't. I'm not bringing it up with anyone. It will all blow over and won't change anything in the long run.

I think it is interesting that you feel that this show has gone out of their way to offend mormons. Interesting. Haven't you followed the show since the first episode? Even if you have not there is nothing that forces you to watch it. Southpark and Family Guy go out of their way to offend everyone. They're great at it. And its funny. I do not see that Big Love had the same intent or is the same kind of show. So I disagree with you. It doesnt make you wrong. You might know the writers and producers better than I and even if you don't you can still have an opinion.

Tom Hanks did comment on the focus this year. YouTube - Big Love: Tom Hanks

Interesting points but I stated something similar earlier.

Well the producers of Big Love put their dedication into something that hurt real people, and they obviously could care less.

Bill disagrees with you as do I. It was not intended to offend. He talks about the endowment ceremony and the controversy briefly.
http://beta.sling.com/video/show/130554/08/Bill-Paxton's-'Big-Love'

You can't please everyone.

 

[Watchmen]

BalanceFX, like Bill Paxton and others will actually come out and say their intent was to offend.

 

[Sententia]

BalanceFX, like Bill Paxton and others will actually come out and say their intent was to offend.

I listened to Bill's explanation and it sounds more plausible then lets see how many mormons we can get riled up. And yes, some people do come out and tell you they are seeking to offend you. (Do you follow the show Family Guy or Southpark?)

Others will want to do it surreptiously. I dont see this being the case. I am surprised so many mormons watch it though.

 

[Watchmen]

I listened to Bill's explanation and it sounds more plausible then lets see how many mormons we can get riled up. And yes, some people do come out and tell you they are seeking to offend you. (Do you follow the show Family Guy or Southpark?)

Others will want to do it surreptiously. I dont see this being the case. I am surprised so many mormons watch it though.

And how about Tom Hanks?