Temple Endowment Recording Provides Accurate Information about the Mormon Temple

I think it's important that accurate information about the temple be available. The temple ceremony recordings put on YouTube under the account NewNameNoah, though they have been controversial, do provide accurate information.

Going through the temple is like entering a contract (or covenant to use the religious term). An important part of being Mormon is making and keeping sacred contracts (covenants) in the temple.

Having accurate information about what's in the contract is essential before signing any kind of contract. In the case of this temple contract (or temple covenant), the church itself provides very little information about what is in the contract. Temple prep classes give vague lectures on the importance of making and keeping contracts (covenants), temple open houses let people walk through the temple, and members talk about their feelings about the temple, but all this is done without actually explaining anything about the ceremonies themselves or the details of the temple contract.

Having accurate information is key to making good choices. Having access to accurate information is especially important when entering into contracts as life-encompassing as the temple contact. For example, as part of the endowment ceremony, members covenant to give themselves, their time, their talents, and everything that they have been blessed with or will be blessed with to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That's a pretty big commitment.

The temple recording I've linked to below offers accurate information about that contact, specifically the endowment ceremony. You can skip 58 minutes to hear about the law of consecration, which is the part where the members promise to give everything they have to the church. It is a recording from an actual temple session at a temple in Arizona. Endowment ceremonies are nearly identical across temples (sometimes the version of the movie is different, and some temples will have live actors instead of a movie).

From the temple script:

"We are instructed to give unto you the law of consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in connection with the law of the gospel and the law of sacrifice, which you have already received. It is that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion."

I know some people won't want to watch it, and that's fine. There are other people who will want to watch it, and they have the right to do so. In fact, I think they should do so. Especially Mormons who are thinking of entering into the contract. They deserve all the accurate information they can get before jumping into something so big.

This is the bottom line: if the Mormon church won't provide accurate information about the temple ceremonies, then people on the internet will. And that's a good thing.

These videos provide the accurate information about Mormon temples that the members and institutional leaders have not provided themselves. Having accurate information will help both members and nonmembers make better decisions when it comes to the temple.

This link starts in the middle of a Mormon temple endowment session, at the part of the session that talks about the law of consecration: https://youtu.be/5VrsFEiTpsQ?t=3518

(See the YouTube channel NewNameNoah for more videos from Mormon temples)

The Mormon Church is Claiming Copyright Infringement to Hide Information From Members

In general, I don't have a problem with churches hiring lawyers. It would be naive to expect a large organization not to employ some lawyers or even a team of lawyers. The judicial system is complicated and I see nothing wrong with an organization hiring specialists to help that organization navigate through the system.

I do, however, think it's wrong for the Mormon church to use its resources to keep information from the general public and from the members who give so much time and money to the organization.

Here's an example of why I think the Mormon church is using its resources to hide information:

In early March 2017, someone from intellectual property office of the church sent a take down notice to MormonLeaks, a website that has been leaking internal videos and documents since October 2016. The documents hosted on the MormonLeaks website so far have included pay stubs to church general authorities (with social security numbers removed), information about the cost of furniture inside of temples, agendas and presentations from meetings of the church's apostles, and a number of other items.

What damage has MormonLeaks done to the church that the church needs to send a notice to them?

There is no question that the church would be justified in taking action in some cases.

Are the documents slanderous?
Are there forged or false documents included on the MormonLeaks website?
Were these documents made-up just to make the church look bad, so the church needs to defend its public image?

In the case of MormonLeaks, the answer to these questions is no.

The notice sent in March shows that the church is going after MormonLeaks with the claim that they are breaking copyright laws.

The take down notice can be seen here: 

https://www.docdroid.net/Go946j5/2017-03-01-dmca-notice-mormonleaks-final.pdf.html

The fact that they are claiming copyright infringement legitimizes these documents. It establishes that these documents are, in fact, used internally by the church and contain accurate information.

Given that these are legitimate documents actually used internally by the church, why do I think they shouldn't be able to claim copyright infringement?

What does it matter if their meeting agendas and pay stubs get leaked? These items aren't some sort of creative content. They are business documents showing the internal workings of the organization that one would expect an open and honest organization to give out freely. Does making that information available to the public damage the Mormon church somehow?

By issuing this copyright notice, the Mormon church is admitting that this information IS damaging.

It's not damaging because it's false.
It's not damaging because it's slanderous.
It's not damaging because it's a loss of trade secrets.
It's not damaging because it's a loss of control over created content.

The information is damaging because it's accurate information that the church would rather hide.

The Mormon church is either the one true church, as they claim to be to the members who they require 10% tithing from, or it is a corporation trying to make sure that the wizard stays behind the curtain.

I don't think that it's the one true church, and I think it's despicable that they try so hard to keep their members in the dark. The "prophets" of the Mormon church seem more interested in profits than in being open and honest. Why else would they care if this information became available to their tithe-paying members?

Guest Post: A Rebuttal to "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

I've seen the article "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism" being shared a lot online in the past few weeks. The article talks about the dangers of Exmormonism by framing it in terms of the dangers of atheism. It is true that there is a growing trend in the US for people to become atheist when they leave a religion (rather than converting to another religion) and Mormonism is no exception. The problem that I have with this article is that it tries to make the argument that true morality comes only through religion and that this trend towards becoming a more secular and atheist society will lead to moral degeneration as we give up on the values taught by religion.

I'm not the only one to find this idea absurd. Today's post is written by an anonymous guest as a rebuttal to the four points made in the article. Enjoy!

Link to "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism":

http://federalistpress.com/the-alarming-truth-behind-anti-mormonism.php

Point one: There is Only one Credible Alternative to the Restored Gospel

The author says that the only credible alternative to Mormonism is atheism.

 - 0.2% of the world population is Mormon

 - 14% of the world population is "secular, non-religious, agnostics and atheists"

If the only two credible options for religious belief are the Restored Gospel and atheism, then 85.8% of the world population does not have a credible alternative to the Restored Gospel.

In America, atheism is one of the fastest growing religious opinions (as the author points out in point number two). Catholics aren't leaving their church to become Jews. Jews aren't suddenly deciding to be Lutherans. Evangelicals aren't suddenly converting to Islam. The majority of people who leave every religion are becoming atheists.

This point could just as easily read: There is only one Credible Alternative to the Catholic Church: atheism.

Assuming of course that there was some Catholic out there who assumed, like this person, that the only metric of an arguments validity was its popularity, and only sampled people who were or were formally part of the Catholic church. This argument is absurd! But not only is it absurd, it completely devalues religious faith. In a world where 85% of the population bases their world view on religious faith, to say that only 0.2% of the population that has a faithful view even has a credible opinion is to say that religious faith produces what the author claims to be a credible argument only 0.23% of the time.

If you follow the (flawed) populist logic of the author, we can conclude that because atheism produces a credible argument 98.6% of the time, we should all be atheist. Obviously, we cannot immediately reject all faith based arguments because of some convoluted popularity contest. This sloppy, lazy, and down right rude attempt to dismiss all of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and (insert literally any religion other than Mormonism here) was made to make Joseph Smith the sole defender of Christian faith.

The statement "Christianity itself hinges upon the question, “Was Joseph Smith really a prophet?" is simply untrue, regardless of the opinion of some Mormons. The divinity of Christ doesn't depend on Joseph Smith's ability to prophesy (although Joseph's ability to prophesy certainly depends on Christ's divinity). Just read any book on theology written before 1828, or ask any non-Mormon Christian.

Point two: Crises of Faith in LDS Communities Are Really Just a Symptom of a Larger Problem

As I have already shown, the author's second point (the fact that atheism is rising across the board) shoots the first point in the face, drags it to the road, and curb stomps it.

Point three: Post-Modern Atheism Is Paving the Way for a New and Destructive Moral Order

First, I would like to quote the author:

"To be clear, people who become Atheists don’t suddenly become moral monsters. Their moral views shift, but they probably have more in common with the moral beliefs of their religious friends than they have in contrast."

He then goes on to describe how without religious belief, a society goes into a steady moral decline.

…Really? Lets look at the morals of societies that are (100% religious, 0% atheist):

First one to comes to mind is Saudi Arabia, where people are beheaded for apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and witchcraft. Women can't drive, must be accompanied by a man everywhere in public, and are generally treated like property.

The same horrible morals appear at the other end too (0% religious, 100% atheist):

North Korea, Religious people can be killed on the spot.

Obviously the only reason you would have 0% of one type of belief is if you're murdering your opposition, which is completely immoral. The only conclusion I can come to is that there is a non linear relationship between "Immorality" and religious belief. I live in a very religious area, and I know for a fact that the people here are acting immorally. Just ask any bishop. He only hears what goes on from the ones who aren't too afraid to confess. A lot of very religious people do some very immoral things.

I also know that very much of what shakes my own faith and the faith of other people I know isn't the desire to be immoral, but it is the immorality that we see in religion. The religiously motivated wars in the Bible. Or the "it's better for one man to perish than a nation dwindle in disbelief" quote from the Book of Mormon.

Obviously, religious people see religion in a different way, but the point I'm making is that human morality doesn't come after someone has become religious, it preceded it. The desire to be moral is what motivated them to be religious, the religion isn't what motivated them to be moral. Whether there is or is not a religion, people will continue to act in moral ways.

Perfect Example: Jean Meslier. There are many people who continue in the religion without any religious faith, specifically because they enjoy the morals it encourages. I have met several Atheists who have completed missions, and are still completely active and enjoy the church, with no intention of leaving. I have also met several grown men who are the same way, but enjoy raising their families in a moral tradition. The faith may fade, but the morals will stay.

"You see, when people begin rejecting moral codes (because they are based on transcendent truths), they shift from feeling ashamed about falling short of moral standards and become angry that anyone would condemn their actions in the first place."-said by someone who rejects Sharia Law (a moral code based on transcendent truths) and is angered to find out it is immoral for women to drive.

Point four: The Book of Mormon Powerfully Responds to This Mindset

…by giving us free agency.

"The goal of Atheism, however, is to destroy the moral distinction between choices."

…No, the goal of atheism is to not believe in a deity. Socrates was forced to drink hemlock on a charge of atheism, and wrote an entire book on ethics, which in my opinion, has been more influential than the Bible has been. (I mean, you don't see us stoning people for minor religious infractions anymore, but good grief, we don't exactly "Turn the other cheek" either.)

Again, atheism doesn't end morality, it just takes it from one realm to another. In the Theistic realm, God is an absolute authority on morality, and what he says goes! If God says, give, you give and it's moral. If God says love, you love and it's moral. BUT, if God says kill, you kill and it's moral. If God says harm and you harm, it's moral.

In the atheistic realm, there is no absolute authority on morality. If I say "giving is moral", we debate. If I say "Loving is moral", we debate. If I say "killing is moral", we debate. If I say "harming is moral", we debate. Which leaves us with some grey areas on a few subjects, but at least we aren't, you know, killing people and taking their land because God promised it to us. *Cough*Old Testament *Cough*