Grimpixie, if you want homework, I can recommend a book co-authored by an evangelical Protestant theologian and an LDS scholar, called How wide the divide? It compares and contrasts the two denominations, and each person presents his own side, so it’s very fair. It’s an excellent read. I lent my copy out, and I can’t remember the Protestant’s name, but the LDS author is Stephen E. Robinson.
Okay, so here is exactly what LDS believe, as taken from the 13 articles of faith. (you can find these on http://www.lds.org ) This is as objective as I can think of, and if it comes across as prostelyzing, I apologize ahead of time.
The Articles of Faith
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
this is just in case anyone has any further questions, they might be answered by the above posting. 
I knew when that I was leaving myself open for trouble with that last post!
Monty - of course you’re entitled to your own opinion. In fact I see some merit to your claim that it’s not very ethical.
Helena - you say that it would be difficult to anonymously witness a ceremony without being noticed. That may be true, so my secret observer would have to be well coached to avoid detection or disruption of the service. You also say “accounts are available from ex-mormons.” What is the position of the church on those purported narratives? My LDS friends (some of my best friends are mormons! ) say that they are not accurate, though I don’t know if they’ve really seen them, and I’m sure that the church doesn’t give them its seal of authenticity. So how do I know that they are truthful?
pepperlandgirl - in my scenario, the person “intruding” in the ceremony would be there incognito and none of the worshippers would know that s/he is there. So there would be no “interruption” of their prayer. I fail to see how a person describing objectively a ceremony would be making a mockery of it, unless by “mockery” you mean that the ceremony would be invalid? But the faithful would not be aware that a non-believer is in their midst and would still believe in the sanctity of their ordinance. And it’s all about belief, isn’t it?
I believe that society at large has a right to know what goes in a regularly scheduled religious ceremony:
a) A legal right - to ensure that the ceremony does not contravene any edicts or statutes;
b) A general right to knowledge - information about human customs and practices are useful for anthropologists, psychologists, theologians, etc…
I contrast this with the right to privacy of an individual - i.e. no one needs to know exactly what Arnold Winkelried did in the ordinance held on 27 May 2001 in the temple in Los Angeles, California, USA (assuming of course that Arnold Winkelried did not commit a crime.)
Northern Piper - it’s OK for you to switch your vote, and join the opposing camp.
Arnold, there are accounts out there, but the only one I’ve ever read (well, actually, peeked at, because I was so horrified I skipped over it) had such a bad attitude that it was downright profane and in no way presented an accurate picture. And I’m not going to tell you where to find any. To a devout LDS person, seeing any account in print would be quite shocking. It’s very private and sacred, and I really think that should be respected. There can be no such thing as a respectfully written public description of the temple ceremony, because to publicize it would be inherently disrespectful. An observer would not invalidate the ceremony, but would desecrate it. Rest assured, however, that the gov’t has already determined the lawful nature of the ceremony.
I have to disagree with you that the public has a right to know. In ancient times, this sort of thing would have been called a ‘mystery,’ and most religions had them. I think that any religion that wants to have private, sacred ceremonies ought to be able to do so without fear of desecration, as long as they’re law-abiding. There is evidence, btw, that the primitive Christian church had esoteric ceremonies for only some members that were never written down (ask for a citation, and I’ll go find it, but I’m fixing dinner right now). Today, no one knows what they might have been. So this is not unprecedented in Christian theology.
I maintain it would be a mockery in the eyes of God*. It wouldn’t matter if the participants didn’t know the interloper was there, because God would know. And God specifically commands that all Temple ceremonies be kept sacred and a private matter between the followers and God.
If you call someone a big fat cow, you are disrespecting that person, whether that person hears it or not. When you intrude on one of the most important religious rituals in a person’s religion, you are disrespecting that person and God, whether that person knows it or not.
If there was anything illegal going on, it would have been revealed by now. Furthermore, the LDS Church teaches that you are to follow all the Laws of the Land
It may be useful and even helpful, but I disagree anyone has the right to know what happens when a person communicates to his or her God.
*[sub]For the sake of this arguement, the God that the LDS members worship is the One True God.[/sub]
Or rather, how a person chooses to communicate with God.
Well, yes, but as I mentioned earlier, there aren’t any observers. Everyone who’s there is participating in the ordinance. The ordinance involves making certain covenants with God that we take very seriously. If you were there, going through the motions of taking these very serious coventants upon yourself, but not meaning it at all, don’t you think that would be a bit tacky if nothing else?
As are you. I also specifically indicated that whether the incognito act is ethical or not is different for different people holding to different ethical philosophies.
The idea, if one holds to the LDS view, is that the incognito’s person’s mere presence on the sacred ground has defiled that ground in God’s view.
Society’s approval is not required to validate one’s religious functions. Thus the separation provided for in the US Constitution.
If people were mysteriously checking into the temple and never checking out, then that could be cause for an investigation into a possible crime. If children were going into the temple and coming out with welts and scars or missing body parts, that also would be cause for an investigation.
The same could be said if those people went into your house. That some people may be curious as to what’s going on your house, absent any of the evidence (direct or circumstantial) of a crime therein, does not give society a right to know what’s going on in your house - private property and all that.
Well, no. Nobody has a right to have their curiosity sated. As far as reporting on the customs of the people involved, they’ll just have to make do with “this group holds certain ceremonies in a certain building from which outsiders are barred, and faithful members of this group don’t talk too much about what goes on in those ceremonies.”
Exactly, but you’re missing the point that groups of individuals also enjoy those rights. Free association and all that. Especially on private property.
Right back atcha. 
Arnold, not to sound condescending, but lets say you had a very private, and personal momment, would you want a bunch of people who were just there to mock to see it? even if it was done “secretly?”
Perhaps im being too vague here, so lets say your wedding night was actually filmed by some peeping tom. How would you feel?
Maybe thats a bad example, but I think you get the picture. Temple rites are not a secret, but they are sacred.
Arnold, I’m afraid I don’t understand your comment 
I don’t see this as opposing camps or opposing religions. The reason I mentioned that I’m not a member of the LDS was simply to indicate that I don’t have a personal stake in the secrecy of the temple ceremonies. My own faith doesn’t have any secret ceremonies (at least none that they’ve told me about ), but I still think that a person who intrudes in the services, knowing that his/her presence is considered a desecration (see Pepperlandgirl’s post), is intentionally offending the members of that faith.
My 1.6¢ (conversion rates suck just now).
a) Wrong. You must have probable cause and a warrant to invade private property for law enforcement reasons. Thankfully that’s the case in the US. Otherwise, don’t I have a right to enter your home in the middle of the night just to make sure you’re not doing anything illegal? This one’s a no-brainer.
b) There is no such right. You’re making it up–we’ve learned over hundreds of years of abuse of power that invading private property without just cause is a baaaad idea.
Your assumption is wrong of course, because you would have committed two crimes: fraud and trespassing. Fraud to produce a temple recommend, and trespassing on private property.
Perhaps you meant that people have privacy to congregate together, say without fear that their sacred beliefs are being violated. I thought you might. Thanks for making the point so eloquently.
I find it amazing that anyone would think that their “right” to satisfy curiosity annuls anyone else’s right to privacy, worship, etc. Sigh.
Arnold wrote:
It’s the only line I’ve ever seen that screamed to become a sig. Glad to help out with your dream.
Well, that particular part I actually see as a similarity, not a difference. Sure, the word “ceremony” is a bit much, but it’s the “secret” part I was looking at. This ties in quite well with the other point I was making with that post: that various groups of people have always had “issues” with various other groups. Secrecy of any sort doesn’t help the situation, it makes it worse. “What are those people doing in there?” The paranoid (who have a decent history of being charismatic) will assume it’s something bad. How does flodnak know they’re just voting for a new Pope? For all we know, they’re also making plans to corner the pork belly market. Your own idea of a legal right to trespass on a sacred ceremony just to ensure they’re not doing anything illegal in there kinda makes me think you might have some of those paranoid leanings.
Monty wrote:
I know Bluesman didn’t say he was surprised, but it sure sounded like he was - like he’d never imagined someone could have issues with the way another religion is constructed. The words ‘shocked’ and ‘indignation’ came to mind when I read his question. The wallpaper analogy he created just reinforces this view, since it ridicules the idea that this ever happens by comparing a trivial matter of taste to the quite-serious matter of deeply-held emotional convictions about who God is and what He wants us to do. I don’t think “merely” is a good descriptive for the question at all.
And I think part of the reason you find that answer so incredibly irrelevant is that Grimpixie made the mistake of following along with the bad analogy instead of seeing it for what it was.
- Dave W.
http://members.aol.com/psorsite/
“My dream is of a day where every SDMB poster will have a quote of mine in their sig.” - Arnold Winkelried
Here’s the book comparing Catholicism and LDS, written by an ex-saint:
As I’ve written above, the desire to get into an LDS ceremony had a certain appeal to me, as it apparently does for Mr. Winkelreid. I think that in his case it is no more disrespectful than in mine. As I’ve mentioned, Sir Richard Burton did something of the sort (you can see him doing so in the movie The Mountains of the Moon, and although he has come in for some flak over this in recent years, I don’t think that his intentions were dishonorable, either.
Nevertheless, I came to the conclusion that this would be a crass thing to do. If you want to know the reasoning, read Robert Heinlein’s book Double Star about the hero’s reasoning for not revealing Martian religious practices. It’s a fictional character talking about a fictional situation, but I suspect this is awfully close to Heinlein’s own feelings – he was living in Colorado (Mormon country) at the time he wrote this.
Besides, as I’ve pointed out, there are plenty of ways to find out what’s going on in there if you want to. Some people may feel that even this is disrespectful, but I submit that human curiousity ( a God-given feature) is omnipresent and a Good Thing, even if it gets you in trouble (See Genesis for details), and that there is something odd in not wanting people to find out about a religious rite that you yourself believe to be beneficial for one’s spiritual well-being.
Finally, when I suggested that Temple Recommends are computerized I didn’t mean that they buried chips in the cards or anything – I merely meant that there was probably an up-to-date database. This might include photographs. That combination wouldn’t be terrifically high-tech, and would make “sneaking in” a lot less likely.
pepper:
First of all, I don’t think God thinks that only “certain” buildings are Holy.
God is everywhere.
A building is simply bricks and mortar (or whatever else too).
Nothing holy about a bunch of bricks.
Its like you worship a building.
God is found outside of buildings. He is spirit.
Oh, and the Book of Mormon is accurate only so far as its translated correctly.
Vanilla, your personal thoughts are irrelevant to this discussion. Please see my posting above: this forum is for comparative religion discussion and discussion about LDS, it is not about your personal feelings, those belong in IMHO or Great Debates forum.
Besides, your comments are inconsistent with Jewish-Christian-Moslem-and-LDS tradition. The first words spoken to Moses from the Burning Bush are, “Take off your shoes for you are standing on holy ground.” Clearly, some places/times are more holy than others in the view of every religion that accepts the encounter between Moses and God as a moment of revelation.
That completely ignores the fact that the LDS do think that a certain place is sacred to God, and it wasn’t the building which made it sacred - it was the dedicatory prayer (which I shall post shortly).
In case this has escaped you: different religions have different views. As I said earlier in this thread, you are not forced to be part of that religion.
That’s one opinion. Other opinions say differently.
One could very well say the same about the sacramental elements in any faith’s version of communion. I’ve already discussed the essential difference between the Catholic and LDS communions.
That’s your opinion, and an incorrect one at that as it’s not supported by valid observation.
Didn’t you just say he’s everywhere?
As is the Bible.
I second C K Dexter Haven’s comments above, except for the apparent distinction between Christian and LDS, of course. {big grin}
Here’s the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple:
Sorry to keep bursting your bubble on this one, Cal, but still no.
When I was bishop I signed a lot of temple recommends. The bishop has a big book of blank recommends. The recommends are serialized, and the book is kept under lock and key, but that’s about the extent of the physical protection. The person desiring a recommend comes in, is interviewed, the bishop fills in the indentification data (name, ward and stake), both the bishop and the candidate sign the recommend, the bishop tears the recommend out and hands it over. There is a carbonless duplicate that remains in the book, so there is a record, but it isn’t computerized or anything. Certainly no photographs are available. Recommends are only valid for one year at a time. If someone should lose their recommend they are supposed to tell the bishop who is supposed to call the nearest temple and report the serial number of their recommend, but this is only infrequently done, and I’ve never seen the temple workers refer to a list of “bad” serial numbers or anything.
Whether it is wisdom or not, the LDS church makes only minimal physical efforts to prevent intruders or imposters from entering the temple. Perhaps if it became known that someone had successfully sneaked in and witnessed temple ordinances they might be more careful, but for now that’s all they do.
No bubbles burst. Thanks for the information.
The one thin I’ve always been inerested in seeing the interior of temples for is the Church Art. For some reason there is not a lot of Mormon Church Art today, and what little there is you can only see in the Temples. (There used to be a lot of Church Art – look at the exhibits in the Museum of Church Art next to Temple Square. There used to be many depictions of events in early LDS history and in Book of Mormon subjects. Nowadays it seems as if the only Church Art is in the visitor’s Centers – all those Arnold Friberg paintings.)I’m still sore because I missed the chance to tour the Belmont Temple before ts consecration – but I was changing jobs at the time, and my life was a mess. Now when will I get chance to see a Creation Room?
Cal, they don’t do creation rooms any more, sadly. The older temples were planned with a creation room, a garden room, a world room, etc, and people would move from one room to another as the ordinance progressed. Now we sit and watch a film. The temples are still very beautiful inside. Some of them do have murals, and they all have framed artwork on the walls. Most of the art I’ve seen in temples recently is the same thing you’d see in a chapel (framed portraits of Christ).