Talk:Temple (Latter Day Saints)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Overview on the Temples page says "A Latter-day Saint must be in good standing with the Church in order to enter a temple. Members are interviewed by Church leaders who issue a temple recommend card which allows a worthy Latter-day Saint to enter a temple. " That infers that non Mormons can not enter a temple. Is that correct? User:Moriori 02.19 Oct 31 03

Once the LDS dedicate a temple, only church members with temple recommends are allowed in. Before dedication, an open house is held to give non-members their last chance to look inside that particular temple when it is almost ready for use. L.E./12.144.5.2

Here is a fuller edit I wrote that Someone else deleted in his revert:

"Only worthy Latter-day Saints with a valid temple recommend are permitted to enter past the foyer of a temple and devout Latter-day Saints who have participated in the temple take their covenants not to reveal details of the temple seriously. Therefore, first hand accounts are generally related by disaffected, former or excommunicated Church members or by non-Mormons who have trespassed on private property probably by deceitful means and any electronic recordings made probably surreptitiously." --B 16:55, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't we put it back in then? I'd like to reword it a bit, though:

"Only worthy Latter-day Saints with valid temple recommends are permitted to enter past the foyer of a temple. Devout Latter-day Saints who have participated in the temple adhere to covenants not to reveal details of the temple ceremonies. Therefore, first-hand accounts are generally related by disaffected, former or excommunicated Church members or by non-Mormons who have trespassed on private property probably by deceitful means and any electronic recordings made probably surreptitiously."

Any comments or (small) rewrite before I slap it back in? —Frecklefoot 18:35, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Your rewrite is fine by me. --B 20:40, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, put it back. It is informative and answers my question nicely. User:Moriori 19.41 Oct 31 03

Put it back in with just a minor rewording of my original rewording. :^) —Frecklefoot 16:39, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The wording breaks NPOV to a ludicrous extent. Stating that the information came from people who "are generally related by disaffected, former or excommunicated Church members" is blatently POV. NPOV language requires objective, not subjective, language and that can be achieved without removing the claim if it is phrased to say that critics of those who have made the claims allege . . .

As to the sentence "trespassed on private property probably by deceitful means and any electronic recordings made probably surreptitiously" it is almost a classic example of how not to write a neutral line. You cannot accuse anyone in an NPOV article of acting by deceitful means, nor can you accuse someone of doing something surreptitiously. All you can do is point out that non-members are not allowed into the temple and that the suspicion is that non-mormons did it in breach of temple rules. (Not illegal, as there is no law banning non-mormons from the temple, nor is there a specific court judgment making it an offence.) Go any further and you are breaking the basic rules of NPOV, which means neutral point of view; this article in its language should neither be pro- nor anti-mormon; using words like deceit and surreptitiously are loaded terms that cannot be used either against mormons or their critics without editorialising, and that is something wikipedia as an encyclopædia cannot do. FearÉIREANN 21:29, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

IANAL, but isn't it trespassing if you enter private property under false pretenses? Since only members with temple recommends without recording devices are allowed to enter a temple, aren't those who are non-members or have recording devices trespassing under false pretenses? Whichever the case, the sentence: "Critics of those who have made claims regarding temple ceremonies allege that those making the claims are..." is confusing and needs to be reworded.

I had a much longer response prepared, but I don't want to start a flame war. Does anyone else have opinions on this? —Frecklefoot 21:54, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the statement was not NPOV. However, any recording or transcript of temple ceremonies not made by the copyright holder (the Church) is simply illegal, as the church heavily protects this particular literary copyright.

Also, trespassing is tresspassing. No one is allowed by law past the foyer of the temple unless they have a recommend or other approval. One case in point is that of the Frieberg Germany temple (depending on spelling) where the East German government was hesitant to allow the building to be built because they would not have access beyond the foyer or entrance hall. Security will be called and trespassers removed. Therefore, the only copies of said material is available legally in the temples, and only by temple attending Latter-day Saints or those fraudulently claiming to be (which is a whole other legal issue).

Regardless, I agree that the wording is much more NPOV, thanks, Jtdirl for your edits. Also, your use of the word "secret" is weird here and should read "unauthorized," per my comments about copyright above. The use of the word "unauthorized" is NPOV. In addition, transcripts or recordings was added as unauthorized recordings or writings is more accurate description. -Visorstuff

Unauthorised is perfectly NPOV. As to literary copyright, that is complicated where the words are being used in a large gathering, and may conflict with the media's right to report their use under the First Amendment in US law.

Trespassing is an offence in law. However many people have a legal right to enter any property; police, army, fire services, etc. In the US the right of free speech also gives people the right to express their opinions on public ceremonies, and holding a ceremony attended by a large group of people, even a restricted-access large group of people, is open to the possible legal definition of 'public'.

One can certainly argue that people not thought entitled by the Church to enter their temples broke Church rules. But to suggest that a legal offence is being committed is questionable in law and certainly not a claim an encyclopædia can make in the absence of explicit unambiguous legal judgment to that effect. We need to be very careful about language in encyclopædias and avoid taking a POV stance on issues, whether it is for or against something. Newspapers and other publications can express POVs. Encyclopædias based on NPOV can't. That is why I made the edit. It was not in any way attempting to attack the Church, or to support it, merely as an editor to get balanced language that would ensure the reader would not get the impression from the text that the article was pro- or anti- the Church, but simply said 'here are objectively established facts; you, the reader, reach whatever conclusion you want.' FearÉIREANN 22:38, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with most of your comments, however the discussion above goes into all the legal issues that are dealt with in regard to copyright, etc and the LDS Temples. Regardless of how large the gathering is, copyright still applies - and it will be uphold in court by how strictly the copyright holder defends the copyright, not by how many people are exposed to it. You've referred to the first ammendment (freedom of speech I presume) which is completely different set of laws from copyright laws, trademark laws and more (again see above). Reporting on an event from a press perspective is one thing and would not be subject under most libel or slander cases, if intent was to educate. However, members of the church or others who comment about temple ceremonies may or may not claim the same rights under the freedom of the press that the media does. As I'm sure you know, communications law is a very complex set of "if this, then that's" and most cases settle before litigation, as neither side wants to have to prove intent, or have a long-drawn out case. But I digress... :-)

I completely agree that many agencies within the governement are granted an easement in case of emergency to enter places of private property, however they are not given the right to enter at any time. Aside from warrants, a good example of this easement granting is the city of Las Vegas. Police may only enter certain buildings and areas of the city only when called upon to do so by a property owner representative or one of their guests. There are cases where people have tried to unlawfully enter the St. George Utah Temple and were arrested for unlawful entry and trespassing. However, I appreciate your viewpoint and you have some valid points.

You have some great edits, your POV keeps us on our toes. We appreciate it.

Thanks. It is so nice to find a constructive page on wikipedia. All too many seem like mini-Iraqs, except with multiple Saddams! :-) I'll be glad to offer an outsider's constructive observations on the article. BTW This talk page needs archiving, but as I have not been a participant in the debate I thought it better to leave it up to people who have written a lot here to archive, as they would know better than I where is the best place to make a cut for the archive. I don't want to inadvertently split up the middle of an argument and put some of it into the archive. Keep up the constructive and thought-provoking work. :-) FearÉIREANN 00:25, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Archive will take place later this week, when I have a bit more time, unless someone wants to step up and do it sooner. Cutting point the summary (perhaps rename summary of discussion this far)? Any objections/comments?

I agree to archive with a summary carried over to new talk page. ?B 02:44, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming more and more unmanageable. I'm thinking of dividing it up similar to what has been done on the Talk:Evolution page. ?B 15:24, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

I also agree the post was POV...even though it is very true. In regards to trespass, just like any individual property owner in the United States, the Church has a right to exclude any one it wants to exclude from its property...and by force if necessary...that includes government authorities. A government authority can only access private property against the property owner's will if the governmental authority has a specific legal privilege to do so. ("Privilege", not "easement", is the correct legal concept here.) It is not a matter of "temple rules", it is a matter of civil law. It is the civil law of trespass, not "temple rules", that gives the Church the right to bodily remove an uninvited, unwelcome infiltrator. Still, it sure is practically difficult to keep those neighbor kids from treking across your yard, not to mention pesky salepersons...LOL! You could go to court and get a separate, permanent court order against each frequent trespasser...then every time the person trespassed, that person would be in contempt of court with consequent penalties...but it would be costly to get an order against every frequent trespasser...AND silly. ?B 02:21, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -V

Removal of POV terms

I removed a couple of POV words.

• illegal - again as said before making a claim of illegality is complex in the absence of an umabiguous, generally binding court judgment or enactment. Unless there is 100% certainty on the issue, and there is not, such a word should not be used in an article because it is a statement of 'universal fact' on an issue that there are diverse opinions and at most individual facts in individual cases. All there is are opinions that believe what has happened was illegal. But no judge has declared all unauthorised entries 'illegal', so we cannot presume that each and every case was, given conflicting rights are involved; privacy, free speech, freedom of association, trespass, etc. In the absence of a definitive ruling we cannot state as a matter of fact something that is a matter of legal opinion.
• publicize details of temple ceremonies -> "publicize details of what are alleged to be temple ceremonies". Not everyone is in agreement that the details published are accurate or in context. The line as added in implies accuracy and as the issue is the subject of debate, that is a POV. Using the word 'alleged' does not take sides on the debate on the accuracy or context, and lets the reader decide what to believe, rather than being told what to believe, which is editorialising.
• "trespassed" -> "allegedly trespassed" - again in the absence of binding rulings in the individual cases of those who allegedly made the recordings we cannot state as a matter of law that a crime was committed. All we have is the belief of some people that the offence of trespass was committed. Using allegedly gives the word trespass the correct meaning, ie that it has been alleged that people trespassed, not proven that people trespassed. FearÉIREANN 20:22, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FearÉIREANN 20:07, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Unlike some of the recent changes, I don't see anyone being offended by these. Good call. :^) —Frecklefoot 20:17, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FearÉIREANN, your comments and changes completely miss the point. What you have done is taken an accurate NPOV statement and made it less accurate on the erroneous presumption that certain words violate wikipedia policy because they are in and of themselves POV. The keyword here is CONTEXT. Generally, it is not wikipedia policy to censor POV so long as they are stated in a NPOV manner. Indeed, generally, ALL relevant POVs need to be included in a NPOV manner. Now, look at the structure of the sentence before your edit. It is in the form: "critics claim [x]". This is not to say "x" is true"; it is merely saying that it is true that "critics claim x". Now what you have done is change the proposition to state "critics claim [y]". However, it is not true that "critics claim y" because they claim more than merely y...they claim x! It is wrong-headed to add "allege" in an indirect statement that is preceed with "claim" for the purpose you state. How can you be a wikipedian for so long and not understand the basic NPOV policy? Please review the NPOV policy. What is the neutral point of view? ?B 22:59, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

You have a rather strange interpretation of NPOV and NPOV language. Others see the problem in the language you want to use. You seem unable to. I am reverting to the NPOV version which follows elementary NPOV rules on language structure. Please learn the actual rules, not what you think they mean. FearÉIREANN 23:13, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please note from the NPOV page -

Basically, to write without bias requires that articles do not advocate any specific point of view. Different viewpoints in a controversy are all described fairly. To write articles without bias describes debates rather than arguing one side of the debate.

The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

If there's anything possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible; and that such a thing is indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists.

Stating as a fact that an offence was committed through language like 'illegal' and 'trespass' when there is no factual evidence to prove that in the cases in question this happened (no court judgments on the cases, no law enacted) breaches these rules and all the others on the NPOV page. All we have is legal opinion that an offence was committed, opinion from some but not all lawyers. But not to mention that some perceive what happened as an offence would be disrespectful to those people who do believe an offence was committed. Qualifying disputed or unproven/unprovable claims with alleged is standard NPOV practice in encyclopædias, sourcebooks, textbooks, newpapers, etc to allow the claim to be made without expressing a POV as to its accuracy or not, something wikipedia cannot do if it is disputed and there is no court case, no law that wikipedia can point to to definitively solve the issue. The wording I added in leaves it to the reader to reach a conclusion. What you want to add tells the reader 'this is a fact' even though it is simply your legal opinion. It may well be that your legal opinion is right. But equally it may be that it is wrong. It is not wikipedia's job to enshrine your opinions as fact, no matter how good your legal opinion may be. So please grasp what NPOV is about, and learn the encyclopædic distinction between opinion 'Saddam was a bad man' and fact 'Saddam murdered x number of people. Encyclopædias carry the latter, not the former. It is up to the reader to form their opinion based on the evidence, not an editorial. And your language, however much you believe in it, is editorialising the article and breaking the fundamental principles of NPOV. FearÉIREANN 23:45, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have attempted to provide language that both of you will find neutral. -- Cyan 23:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good work Cyan. You have tightened the language and strengthened its impartiality. I've made one minor change where I think it read as though it was stating as fact something which not all lawyers would agree on. On the copyright issue I have attributed who in particular believes it breaches copyright law, rather than implying everyone agrees that it did, when it is clear that not everyone shares that legal interpretation. :-) FearÉIREANN 23:59, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I believe BoNoMoJo did not intend his language to imply that everyone agrees that the law was broken. It is not clear that it did imply that - the problem was caused by an ambiguity inherent in the English language. In any case, I think the present phrasing emphasizes Wikipedia's neutrality in fairly natural language. -- Cyan 00:25, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Be careful with that last edit - the very act of recording published material is a violation of copyright. That does not mean he will be convicted, yet the wording of law states it is wrong. There is a distinction (like driving over the speed limit, but not getting caught). Also, both Mormons and non-Mormons may believe this (see your comment about everyone above). In addition, the wording already has "claims" or "alleges" and therefore the second qualifier is not needed. The wording gets messy if you add too many other qualifiers after that first qualifier. You know? I think you are on the right track, but please revise that edit to say something like "made unauthorized recordings or transcripts which, many believe, violate copyright laws that deal with the protected distribution of protected literary works, films and other media" or something that is appropriate. Visorstuff

I am not a lawyer, but I'm not at all sure that copyright applies here. If the temple ceremonies go back to the 19th century, the old copyright laws apply. Under those laws, copyright in unpublished works is murky at best. (Under the Berne convention and current US copyright law, as soon as something is "fixed in a tangible medium", it's copyrighted.) And if they had been published and copyright duly claimed, (a) it might have lapsed, and (b) the material wouldn't be secret.

Of course it's not. This is a massive red herring. Even if copyright applied to the temple ceremonies (which is unclear at best) it would not apply to a description of those ceremonies. If that were not true every movie reviewer who described the movie would be in violation of copyright. Additionally, if the owner of a copyright does not take steps to protect it, then the work is considered to have passed into the public domain (after a period). So unless the church has taken active steps to prevent the dissemination of these descriptions, they no longer come under protection (if they ever did). DJ Clayworth 18:22, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)