Sure, but he’s not everywhere for the same reason. He’ll be down in the grocery store to pick up bread and wine, he’ll be over in the bookstore to buy a couple Bibles and Dianetics, and then it’s over to Carl’s for a burger, fries, and a coke.
He heads off to the Temple whenever he wants some peace and quiet.
Cal, LDS art has become much bigger in the past 10 years. Some of it is pretty cool; some is cheesy. But there is a lot more than there used to be. It’s not uncommon to see new paintings in the magazines, and when I went to Utah, there was a really nice exhibit of modern LDS art in the Church History museum. Otherwise it’s not necessarily all that easy to come by. A guy named Greg Olsen is particularly popular for his depictions of Christ; although I find him slightly sentimental, he’s a lot better than gold ol’ Friberg (who I hear was a painter for the Football Hall of Fame–that’s why his ten-year-olds look like they could bend steel 
).
Okay, now my bubble’s burst.
I’m interested to hear that there’s new Church art, and I’m curious to see it. It’s been way too long since I was in SLC.
As for Arnold Friberg, my favorite comment on him was in one of Bagley’s books (or was it the other guy?) about everyone in them looking like Conan the Barbarian. I like it. Nobody in Catholic art ever wore wristlets. Mr. Friberg was also a designer/costume designer/artist for the 1956 movie The Ten Commandments, which would look right at home in one of the Visitors Centers in Temple Square.
For pete’s sake, won’t some moderator correct the spelling? (That is, Morman --> Mormon?)
Monty, I know and accept how sensitive you are to slurs on the LDS religion, just as any person of faith is regarding his or her religion. However, I think you are being unnecessarily hard on grimpixie. S/he has a valid question/concern, although probably being expressed in the wrong forum, which is, “You and I both call ourselves Christians. I, and many if not most of the Christian denominations, believe that Jesus eliminated the need for the secrecy of the Holiest of Holies and the divisions in the temple, so that all men are equal before him. The LDS church, on the other hand, believes that there are places so sacred that only people who attain a certain moral or ceremonial status may enter them. This is an obvious contradiction between two sects who both claim to follow the words of Jesus, and concerns me.” Maybe the question was phrased poorly, or at the wrong place or wrong time, but I don’t think that means it is invalid, nor do I think it merits personal attacks when certainly nobody has attacked you personally.
But that’s just my opinion. I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again.
Have to disagree with you there, PLD. I think the bit about “like having issues” covered earlier pretty well summed it up.
Cheers!
-Chip
Back to the topic of outsiders entering Mormon temple rituals, I thought some of you might find this interesting: http://www.teleport.com/~packham/templex.htm It’s the stroy of a few unbelievers who entered a Mormon temple not long ago. As you’ll see, they had little trouble.
This author also has a helpful essay on the details of Mormon temple ritual at http://www.teleport.com/~packham/temples.htm He also asks the question, “is it ethical to publish details of what is supposed to be a ‘sacred’ ceremony?” His answer is that we don’t usually worry about discussing the sacred rituals of African or Native American tribes; why should we change our opinion simply because the tribe in question is composed of normal mainstream white people?
A previous post noted that descriptions of Mormon temple ceremonies on the Internet are incorrect or too biased and “anti-Mormon” to be taken seriously. I disagree only partially. It seems likely that, as the Mormon church can change the temple ritual at any time, any Internet version is going to be at least a little out of date. Apparently large changes were made in 1990 and little has changed since then, but you never know.
It should also be remembered that, since a devout Mormon would never discuss these rituals publicly, any public discussion is going to be conducted by people who are at least disenchanted with Mormonism. But I don’t know if that automatically discredits them. In my interactions with Mormons on the Internet, I’ve noticed that the label “anti-Mormon” gets thrown around a lot. I guess Mormons have a lot of enemies, or they have a siege mentality of some kind, but it sometimes seems like even innocent questions about Mormon theology get slapped down because Mormons feel threatened by them. I’ve heard more than once that people shouldn’t listen to former members of the Mormon church, since they all have it in for Mormonism. I don’t know. It seems to me that if you want a balanced picture of a religion you can’t just get it from the firm believers–just like if you want a balanced picture of President Bush, you can’t just talk to wealthy Republicans.
Anyway, I’ve read a few different versions of the Mormon temple ceremony on the Internet, and they agree enough to make me think they’re mostly correct. I doubt if anyone on the Internet has the exact word-for-word ceremony, but I don’t think anyone’s got it completely wrong, either.
I have fixed these links so they work… ignore the later posts that say they don’t. – Dex
[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 06-08-2001 at 07:18 AM]
Well, if the Africans and Native Americans object to the discussions, perhaps we should worry about it. I would say that behavior of that type is Victorian, racist, and imperialistic, in a “we’re white scholars, so we can intrude in whatever native rituals we want” sort of way. We should be trying to get rid of it, not encourage it everywhere.
Well, all that tells me is they’re just crass. Anyway, I think my comment in the Staff Report covered such an eventuality.
Two things:
[list=1][li]Please see above where I commented that the answer to such a query depends on the ethical philosphy held by the person providing the answer to the query. No doubt his answer justifies his (or the subject of the article’s) actions in violating sacred ground.[/li][li]Why do you place quotes around “sacred?” The ground isn’t supposed to be sacred, it is sacred to those who hold it as such.[/li]
IIRC, many (if not most or even all) of those groups have provided information about those rituals or have even allowed others to view them. Also IIRC, what many (if not most or even all) of those groups have objected to is the trivialization of their rites. I trust you can see that the violation of the Temple is such a trivialization, too.
Maybe because the opinion was in error?
Your agreement is not needed to validate another’s religious practice.
“Seems likely,” huh? “You never know,” huh? Neither of which provides any reasonable justification for violating the Temple, or the sacred ground of any other faith, for that matter.
Well, that’s not exactly true. Public discussion, to a degree, isn’t derogatory in the LDS view (speaking for myself). What is derogatory is public discussion of the particulars of the ordinances.
I’d have to say that a pretty good acid test for credibility would be “are they discussing too much detail?” If the answer’s “yes,” then it’s not credible in my view, as the person doing so has an agenda of sorts.
Perhaps because those who have an agenda agains the LDS also use the internet?
Yeah, that ol’ Extermination Order from the Governor of a state in the USA did wonders for alleviating such a mentality. BTW, when was the last time every single member of your faith group was kicked out of a state in the USA?
I could also say that those answering questions, such as “What exactly are the words to those rituals in the Temple?” just might be reacting extremely to being told, “It’s sacred so we don’t discuss it outside of the Temples.” And I could also say that, just maybe, those who are reacting that way, and those who are publishing too much info on those ordinances are doing so because it is they who feel threatened by the LDS.
I seem to recall that being said, “One should take what the former members say with a grain of salt.”
If you’re looking for a balanced picture, be sure to ask what I mentioned earlier in this post, and also ask yourself, “Do I need to take what the person answering (either LDS or formerly LDS) tells me with a grain of salt?” Oh, and you could probably check out Jan Shipps’ book.
Oh, please. Even some conspiracy theorists have versions which agree with details in other versions of conspiracies. Does that mean those are “mostly correct?”
This time, I’ll have to say, that’s something outsider’s will never know for certain. Unless, of course, they pull off the crass stunt referred to above.
Monty, I have edited out your comment about links not working, since they are now repaired. I also edited out the link you had to Amazon.com, which was not a review or summary of Jan Shipps’ book, but a how-to-order site. I think that also fixed the long url you had, that caused the window width to go crackers. – Dex
[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 06-08-2001 at 07:25 AM]
Could I get an assist from a mod, please? My last posting seems to have widened the window a tad. Thanks.
vanilla, is there any reason in particular you feel the need to be insulting?
In keeping with the long-standing SDMB tradition of branching off of the thread’s initial topic but still remaining somewhat relevant, here’s a recent story from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/06/07/excavation.protest.ap/index.html
You’ll notice the tribe involved didn’t oppose the dig, per se, but opposed the disrespect shown during the dig.
Monty wrote:
A quick glance at the links shows that Ian stuck periods in right after the htm’s, is all. Here are the links again:
http://www.teleport.com/~packham/templex.htm
http://www.teleport.com/~packham/temples.htm
The rest of this post is in the Pit.
By “chapel”, I know you mean not the room where Sacrament Meeting is held but the whole building containing that room. In our stake centre (San Diego North), the font is at the back of the Primary room (children’s meeting room, for those of you not familiar), with a metal curtain that’s opened for baptisms. (Yours probably has a similar arrangement.) In our area, I don’t know of any ward chapels (as opposed to stake centres) that have fonts; in fact, when a stake centre is replaced by a new one, and the old one becomes a ward chapel, the font is covered over (I know of two where this has happened). It may be different in your area, though. Thanks for your excellent article.
Couple of things:
1 - DaveoRad: Y’all down South have more space than we do here on the Central Coast. Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the baptismal pool for any of the chapels here. As I said above, the time I got to baptize my friend, the ordinance was performed in the river. That’s the only time after my own baptism I’ve participated in one.
2 - DaveW: Yep. Ian’s links did have the period underlined. I swear I’m going to have to start wearing my reading glasses when I’m on the 'net. I guess it’s not bad enough I had to start wearing the blame things at 42 (actually 42 years and two months - started wearing 'em this February).
3 - DaveW: I don’t know if you were referring to Ian’s post or mine when you said “The rest of this post is in the Pit.” Actually, I didn’t find his posting pitworthy, and I certainly hope mine wasn’t - perhaps I need to master the rolling eyes emoticon. However, the first link he provided (the second one still doesn’t work) is, at best, laughable. I thoroughly enjoyed this part:
Which basically translates into Reality as:
And we’re the ones who are keeping secrets?
Monty wrote:
See http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=73561
Well, just in defense of him posting the disclaimer, it’s pretty common when a person is writing about sensitive stuff, or his subjects don’t want to be identified, to create fictional names. It’s even done in court cases. For example, the individual suing to have the right to an abortion in Roe V. Wade was given the pseudonym Jane Roe, out of concern for her reputation if her real name was discovered. I’d also mention that, while it is disrespectful, not everyone who would sneak into an LDS temple would do it to mock members of that faith. It could be inspired by curiosity. In the case of the referenced link, it does seem to be for mockery sake, but I don’t know if that’s always the case.
Minor housekeeping note: Please edit “outsider’s” in my posting above to “outsiders.” Thanks.
Actually, Monty, I feel safe in concluding that first link to be 100% false. Almost everything there was BS anyway (the whole “God’s not striking us down with lightning bolts!” motif should be blatantly obvious), but this part, especially, wised me up to it:
Anybody who spends just a few minutes looking at the Church’s records of geneology would know that there are many thousands, if not millions, of names, constantly, awaiting baptism.
The assertion that they were “reusing names” is absolutely ludicrous. I would have believed it to have happened maybe ten or twenty years ago, when a centralized system didn’t exist, but the story (dated May 8th) described the excursion as “recent”.
Hell, my dad has, by himself, several hundred names that need to be processed.
Sorry, but Link #1 is kaput.
The second link starts off on an equally bad foot - try describing a religion’s major worship buildings as “imposing” twice in one paragraph and maintain a sense of objectivity.
In either case, the second link simply goes through a description of the primary Temple services, maintaining a sense of disdain for the whole process (describing baptisms for the dead as a “production-line operation”). The Endowments, however, I have no experience with, having left the Church at the ripe old age of 18. I’ll let others comment on that, if they want.
Why is “imposing” improper as an adjective?
I’m sorry if the first link I posted offended the Mormons on this thread. I posted it mainly because it seemed to address the original topic, about what would happen if a non-believer entered the Mormon temple. On second reading, I can see why it’s offensive. Certainly the group in question were not respectful of the ceremony. I’m sorry.
Monty, two questions. You mentioned that Mormons had been driven from Missouri by an “extermination order.” Didn’t this happen some 100-150 years ago? Also, in Richard Ostling’s book “Mormon America,” it’s explained that a leader of the Mormons had threatened a “war of extermination” against non-Mormons in Missouri during a speech to the body of the Church in that area. In light of this, is a siege mentality by current Mormons really justified?
Second question: you compare people who publish the Mormon temple ritual on the Internet to conspiracy theorists. Are you implying that they got it wrong? Are these accounts literally false? Or is that a question that you’re not prepared to answer?
I’m sorry, by the way, for putting quotes around the word “sacred.” You’re right, these ritual are indeed sacred to a great many people. I have to admit, I don’t personally think that the aura of secrecy around the temple is either helpful or important, but I do agree that I should have more respect for the beliefs of others. Live and learn, I guess.
Ian