From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Oaths & Fervor (and Golden Rules)
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:01:47 MDT
Keywords: zeal, znake, zloth, zailfish, zalamander, zcorpion, `Zoof!'
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

I have a lengthy post in preparation (some of which I will probably
revise in light of this contribution) which touches on these and other
points in a better organized fashion, but here's the timely response:

kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:

>In an earlier article, Jay Windley produced what appeared to be an argument
>with these two points:
>
> 1) The ex-LDS who talk about the ceremony are not trustworthy because they
>    are breaking a promise to keep silent.

Essentially correct.

> 2) Those ex-LDS do not care about humans involved because what they do is
>    horribly embarassing to current LDS.

I probably shouldn't have given the impression that these things are
"horribly" embarrassing.  The temple endowment ceremony is one of our
most solemn and sacred practices.  Mormons generally speak about it
only in appropriately solemn contexts.

When these practices are explained publicly it is embarrassing, not
because I'm embarrassed by anything which takes place in the endowment
ceremony, but because in society there are those individuals who lack
the maturity to let pass in silence something with which they
disagree, or to whom something sounds strange.

Jesus spoke about casting pearls before swine, and I believe that
advice is applicable here.  I have met many non-Mormons who understand
the purpose behind the LDS ceremony and appreciate its beauty, but
unfortunately I have also met those who view anything even slightly
outside the realm of their personal preference with loathing and
intolerance.  These people are unable to look at the benefits of the
endowment and focus exclusively on those parts of it which do not fit
their preconceptions of what constitutes legitimate worship.

When our authors publish this material widely, they cast the pearls
before everyone:  before the Lord's sheep and before the swine.  The
sheep don't care, but swine turn and rend not the authors but the
Mormons. 

>I believe that both of these points are defective, and that Mr Windley's
>argument is invalid.  I am not making any argument of my own, and I don't
>really care what goes on in the LDS temples as long as it doesn't involve
>unwilling participants.

Funny you should mention that.  Before the ceremony starts,
participants are told that they will be expected to take upon
themselves obligations of secrecy.  They are given the opportunity to
leave, if they so desire.  Participants may leave the ceremony at any
time.

Considering the depth of personal preparation and sacrifice required
to attend the temple endowment, the insinuation that it involves
unwilling participants is silly.  More people are willing to
participate than are usually worthy.

>On Mr Windley's first point, I wrote that if you swear to keep silent and
>later find that your silence permits immorality, breaking the promise may not
>be improper.  This is _not_ a claim on my part that the ceremony is immoral,
>merely an observation about ethics in general.

But we're not talking about ethics in general, we're talking about
ethics in a specific situation with real-life parameters.  I'll deal
with this more later.

Your application of this axiom in this discussion can certainly be
construed to indicate you think there is at least the possibility of
immorality in the temple ceremony.  Otherwise your point, that being
sworn to keep an immoral secret is nonbinding, is irrelevant -- the
secret is not immoral.

>If the ex-LDS truly believe that keeping silent will allow something bad to
>happen, then breaking the promise of silence is not necessarily improper.

Every man is justified in his own eyes.  I have absolutely no doubt
that our authors think they have a laudable goal.  However, one's
conception of a laudable goal does not universally legitimize whatever
means may be employed to achieve that goal.

If I honestly think the Eiffel Tower is an affront to God, does that
justify my blowing it up?  It does in my eyes, but my actions have
adversely affected others who do not share my beliefs, and in their
eyes my actions had no justification.  It reminds me of a line in
Steven Sondheim's _Into the Woods_ in which Rapunzel says to her
mother: "You locked me in a tower for fifteen years, you shaved off my
hair, you blinded my prince, and you let me wander about in the desert
with no food and no company!"  to which comes the reply: "I was only
trying to be a good mother."

The "I'm just trying to be a good Christian" defense will only justify
so much indignity and impropriety.  And I think parading the most
revered and private practices of millions of Mormons in front of
anyone who cares to render judgement beyond those limits.

Remember the sex-life analogy?  Suppose I'm your psychiatrist, and you
told me intimate details about your sex life (or some other private
matter) under the seal of professional confidentiality.  Now suppose
that in my opinion (not yours, mine) it would be universally
beneficial -- to you and to society in general -- to have that
information made public, even though I have promised not to reveal it
to anyone.  And so Dan Rather describes your personal sexual
preferences to millions of Americans (unlikely, I know, but humor me).

Now there's not necessarily anything inherently bad or scandalous
about a person's sexual life, but it is information whose
dissemination you would probably want to control.  But now you have no
control over it -- everybody knows it.  Now granted there are some who
won't care and won't behave any differently, but there are also some
who would have a hay day.  Can you imagine stepping on the bus and
being recognized by the bus driver who says, "Hey, look!  Here's the
guy who likes to do it dressed like Phil Donahue.  Isn't that the
weirdest thing you've ever heard?"  Would you feel comfortable riding
that bus?  Would you feel I had done you a favor?  Would the other
riders think I had done you a favor?

I stand by the theory that the end (especially one which isn't
generally or universally considered good) simply does not justify the
means (especially those which are generally or universally considered
bad).

>But the statement
>that "Yours is the logic upon which is based all that is ugly about religion"
>is both uncalled for and silly: I'm the local Universalist, remember?

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I stand by my statement.  Whenever
anything disgusting (e.g., the Inquisition or the Crusades) is done by
religion, it's always under the guise of trying to do good.  But this
good (whether real or subjective) does not diminish the detrimental
effects thus promulgated.  To quote from Eco's _The Name of the Rose_:
"A holy war is nevertheless a war."

The same logic that justifies these crimes, in a diluted form, also
argues that it's okay to break promises, it's okay to offend and
embarrass people, it's okay to do anything you need to as long as you
think you're right.

>Maybe they didn't see anything wrong the first hundred times.  Suppose you
>thought the sacrifices were symbolic and involved only Cabbage Patch (tm)
>dolls, but later found they were real humans?

What on earth are you talking about?  You presented a completely
inapplicable hypothetical situation, and I answered, against my better
judgement.  This line of reasoning is silly.  Why can't we stick with
the situation at hand instead of playing ethical "what if" games?

The almost universal trend in Mormonism, gleaned from personal
experience, is that those who stop attending the temple do so after
their first or second visit.  Statistically, Mormons who object to
something in the ceremony do so after their initial visits, not years
down the road.

>My point is this: if one believes that Mormonisms is dangerous, and believes
>that revealing the ceremony specifics will keep innocents from falling in
>with the LDS, then they are not (in their own minds) acting out of malice.

I don't care how they justify it in their own minds.  I'm willing to
concede that they might not be acting out of deliberate malice, but
they are nevertheless being malicious (or at the least, improprietous)
and I don't think they are justified in this.

>One interesting aside:
>
>Not too long ago, you wrote articles on homosexuality, concluding that
>"It is incompatible to be homosexual and Christian.  God has forbidden it".

If you recall, I apologized publicly for that statement and retracted it.

The article was a response in request for passages from the Bible
which allegedly forbade homosexuality.  It started as a factual answer
to a request for facts, the debate over whose applicability got out of
hand.

>Do you think that posting those articles was a good way to help others?

No, I realized my error and repented of it.  I realized that even
though I disagreed with their lifestyle I had no right to judge them
for it, nor was it my position to accuse them.  I was wrong, I
admitted it, and made amends.  I make no attempt to justify my
improprieties.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2