Have you ever wondered what goes on inside a Mormon temple?
January 27, 2017 4:25 AM Subscribe
An ex-mormon, whose internet moniker is NewNameNoah, goes into temples and records secret Mormon rituals with a hidden camera. He has recorded a baptism for the dead, a prayer circle, and the entire endowment ceremony, which Mormons believe is essential to their salvation. The videos are choppy at the very beginning, but they settle down. The reddit ex-mormon community discusses his work here.
That reddit community is very active and frequently makes the front page. There's also a continuing series of secret LDS document leaks, unimaginatively called MormonLeaks, that exposes inner workings of the church and its strategies. It's surprisingly how quiet it's all been so far.
posted by tommasz at 5:10 AM on January 27, 2017
posted by tommasz at 5:10 AM on January 27, 2017
All I have to say is that the Catholics have much better taste in art in their churches and cathedrals.
posted by GamblingBlues at 5:28 AM on January 27, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by GamblingBlues at 5:28 AM on January 27, 2017 [9 favorites]
All I have to say is that the Catholics have much better taste in art in their churches and cathedrals.
Well, we've been at it a whole lot longer.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:32 AM on January 27, 2017 [21 favorites]
Well, we've been at it a whole lot longer.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:32 AM on January 27, 2017 [21 favorites]
I find this really offensive, as someone who grew up LDS. There is something sacred to people, and having it splashed everywhere, so people can make fun of it, or act contemptuously of it. It's not kind.
posted by PinkMoose at 5:45 AM on January 27, 2017 [42 favorites]
posted by PinkMoose at 5:45 AM on January 27, 2017 [42 favorites]
Hey, at least one of your secret religious hand gestures didn't become a science fiction trope.
posted by gwint at 5:49 AM on January 27, 2017 [34 favorites]
posted by gwint at 5:49 AM on January 27, 2017 [34 favorites]
I think that all of this should really at least give us a hell of a lot of pause about whether or not its appropriate watch, much less distribute and commentate on, these videos. Sure, NewNameNoah's perspective on this and his motivation for taping them is complicated and at least compelling in its own way, but what exactly is ours as a community watching them? Do we have a moral right to watch and dissect these rituals even though it is super-abundantly clear that the people performing them do not consider us to be welcome to do so? I can see strong arguments for how these videos should exist for the benefit of recent converts or people questioning their Mormon faith but, for the vast majority of us here, by viewing them we would be consuming something intensely private, and personal, and sacred to what end exactly?
I'm reminded of how squicked out I was by the media attention that some Hopi masks attracted a few years ago (FPP Previously) when they were put up for auction in Paris despite being so intensely sacred that the idea of outsiders even seeing them was considered to desecrate them and the person-hood they were imbued with, as basically all the reportage of them included pictures. Actually seeing the objects was not necessary to understand the story, those pictures were included in the reporting so as to satisfy a sort of colonialist voyeurism, allowing readers to consume at least one aspect of the sacred mysteries of the objects without the consent of those who held them sacred. I think really a lot of what made those objects so commercially valuable, and then so fascinating to read about, had nothing to do with how beautiful they may or may not be but everything to do with the violation inherent to their original theft and then current display. Just like rape is not about sex at all but has everything to do with power, this wasn't about art at all. Almost everything about how those objects were stolen, horded, auctioned, reported on, and then discussed here was about power - and the dominance inherent to using that power to gaze into the lives of people who would find that gaze violating.
In the same way, we never see even the most gorgeous, or intricate, or engaging religious ceremonies posted here to the blue like these have been, and maybe the uncomfortable reason why is that we would be welcome to. Maybe the only real reason why almost any of us here might be tempted to click those links is that we would get a thrill from the violation inherent to our gaze, and whether that thrill is couched in somehow getting back at Mormons for abuses related to the church in some vague way or the authenticity of a performance that is not meant to be seen, I really don't think its ok. Surely even the most stridently anti-theist among us can relate to having something sacred and private that is not meant to be seen, even if its just a browser history or how you really feel about your mother or whatever. There are some things that shouldn't be ok to watch without consent, some kinds of information that shouldn't be ok to consume like any other kind of media commodity, and some kinds of things that really should be considered sacred.
I think this is one of them, and that we should be ashamed of ourselves for treating it so casually.
posted by Blasdelb at 5:51 AM on January 27, 2017 [41 favorites]
I'm reminded of how squicked out I was by the media attention that some Hopi masks attracted a few years ago (FPP Previously) when they were put up for auction in Paris despite being so intensely sacred that the idea of outsiders even seeing them was considered to desecrate them and the person-hood they were imbued with, as basically all the reportage of them included pictures. Actually seeing the objects was not necessary to understand the story, those pictures were included in the reporting so as to satisfy a sort of colonialist voyeurism, allowing readers to consume at least one aspect of the sacred mysteries of the objects without the consent of those who held them sacred. I think really a lot of what made those objects so commercially valuable, and then so fascinating to read about, had nothing to do with how beautiful they may or may not be but everything to do with the violation inherent to their original theft and then current display. Just like rape is not about sex at all but has everything to do with power, this wasn't about art at all. Almost everything about how those objects were stolen, horded, auctioned, reported on, and then discussed here was about power - and the dominance inherent to using that power to gaze into the lives of people who would find that gaze violating.
In the same way, we never see even the most gorgeous, or intricate, or engaging religious ceremonies posted here to the blue like these have been, and maybe the uncomfortable reason why is that we would be welcome to. Maybe the only real reason why almost any of us here might be tempted to click those links is that we would get a thrill from the violation inherent to our gaze, and whether that thrill is couched in somehow getting back at Mormons for abuses related to the church in some vague way or the authenticity of a performance that is not meant to be seen, I really don't think its ok. Surely even the most stridently anti-theist among us can relate to having something sacred and private that is not meant to be seen, even if its just a browser history or how you really feel about your mother or whatever. There are some things that shouldn't be ok to watch without consent, some kinds of information that shouldn't be ok to consume like any other kind of media commodity, and some kinds of things that really should be considered sacred.
I think this is one of them, and that we should be ashamed of ourselves for treating it so casually.
posted by Blasdelb at 5:51 AM on January 27, 2017 [41 favorites]
I'm glad PinkMoose got here before I did because as someone who is not and never has been LDS, holy shit am I conflicted about this. I would never in a million years watch these videos or be that intrusive or voyeuristic about the most private parts of someone else's faith. At the same time, I am a million miles from the intended audience for this, and I am reading and believing the people on the r/ExMormon threads saying they wished they had seen this back when they were the intended audience.
posted by DarlingBri at 6:00 AM on January 27, 2017 [11 favorites]
posted by DarlingBri at 6:00 AM on January 27, 2017 [11 favorites]
I was peripherally involved in an LDS church as a teenager (did 2.5 years of early morning Seminary) because most of my friends were Mormons. I learned a lot of odd things and just about everything I know about the Old Testament (there's a lot of overlap in those two sets).
I do feel like this is an invasion -- I'm glad that folks who need it can find this stuff, but I have no interest in watching and don't think curiosity is a good enough motivation to violate others' privacy.
TBH I felt that way during my whole Anthropology of Religion class as an undergrad, too.
posted by allthinky at 6:09 AM on January 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
I do feel like this is an invasion -- I'm glad that folks who need it can find this stuff, but I have no interest in watching and don't think curiosity is a good enough motivation to violate others' privacy.
TBH I felt that way during my whole Anthropology of Religion class as an undergrad, too.
posted by allthinky at 6:09 AM on January 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
The thing about sacred things that those private moments don't really hurt anyone, usually. The endowment ceremony's placement within the lives of the people who're going through it, though, makes it a high-pressure situation in a way that I think is... a questionable thing for people to consent to without at least giving people the option to know what they're going into and make the decision about whether it's okay beforehand. People should be free to engage in ceremonies like this, but they should also be free to choose not to, and it's clear that a lot of it has been set up to prevent people from having the information to make that decision.
But there's a difference between that information being theoretically available and whether it's necessary to promote it for entertainment purposes. Nothing that's going to be in there is relevant to any decisions I'm going to be making about my life. I think it's possible to record something like that ethically, even to distribute it ethically, but I can't watch it ethically. I'm sure it's something I'd think was weird. I'm sure they'd think I'm weird. The doing of weird stuff shouldn't be the problem. I guess the comparison to sex holds: What you're doing in private places is only relevant to me if it impacts me--but if I'm going to participate, I should know enough about it going in to offer informed consent for what's about to happen. I'm not sure where this falls in terms of how genuinely the person who did this is trying to facilitate the consent part.
posted by Sequence at 6:11 AM on January 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
But there's a difference between that information being theoretically available and whether it's necessary to promote it for entertainment purposes. Nothing that's going to be in there is relevant to any decisions I'm going to be making about my life. I think it's possible to record something like that ethically, even to distribute it ethically, but I can't watch it ethically. I'm sure it's something I'd think was weird. I'm sure they'd think I'm weird. The doing of weird stuff shouldn't be the problem. I guess the comparison to sex holds: What you're doing in private places is only relevant to me if it impacts me--but if I'm going to participate, I should know enough about it going in to offer informed consent for what's about to happen. I'm not sure where this falls in terms of how genuinely the person who did this is trying to facilitate the consent part.
posted by Sequence at 6:11 AM on January 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
As an Ex-mo, for me, it's more along the lines of leaving Scientology and then hearing about Xenu, only soooo much more boring. I never made it into the temple, and I was curious, so I watched some of these videos and frankly I don't feel guilty at all. What grossness I feel isn't because of watching something I wasn't supposed to see, but because of the reminder of the general bland creepiness of the church itself that I remember so well from when I was a member.
posted by jenjenc at 6:11 AM on January 27, 2017 [29 favorites]
posted by jenjenc at 6:11 AM on January 27, 2017 [29 favorites]
On the other hand, sacredness in modern Western culture is almost never secret. It may be private, but secrecy in modern Western religious traditions is highly correlated with cults and abuse. (It isn't ALWAYS and I'm not saying the Mormons are either; just that literally when you're trying to decide if a religion in the US is a cult, "secrecy of its rituals" is one of the red flags because of our cultural context). I want to distinguish this from the Hopi masks and similar cases because, sure, those are sacred things with secrets. But for groups in the modern West, especially arising out of the Christian tradition, especially if they make claims to universality, secrecy is at the very least odd.
I'm actually not all that interested in watching the videos (although reading the community talking about them was hella interesting) ... I'm broadly aware of the ceremonies and (having studied liturgy) I'm well aware that an awful lot of religious ceremonies look fundamentally silly to outsiders. I imagine that'd be what I'd see, which is shruggo to me.
But I do think the whole issue of secrecy around Mormon ceremonies is a bit different than Hopi masks or Aboriginal paint pigments in Australia. Those are secrets limited to small groups and they're typically ethnic religions belonging to a tribal or ethnic group. Mormonism, however, grows out of the Christian tradition, which doesn't in general have secret rituals. (Sometimes private ones, but not secret ones.) It's also an evangelizing religion that wants to convert the whole world. So I think it's fair to question the secrecy, in a way one doesn't with tribal or ethnic religions.
I'm not saying the secrecy is wrong, just that I think it exists in a different context than things like the Hopi masks, and that context (modern, Western, Christian-derived, evangelizing) makes the secrecy function quite differently, and a fair topic of debate.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:20 AM on January 27, 2017 [63 favorites]
I'm actually not all that interested in watching the videos (although reading the community talking about them was hella interesting) ... I'm broadly aware of the ceremonies and (having studied liturgy) I'm well aware that an awful lot of religious ceremonies look fundamentally silly to outsiders. I imagine that'd be what I'd see, which is shruggo to me.
But I do think the whole issue of secrecy around Mormon ceremonies is a bit different than Hopi masks or Aboriginal paint pigments in Australia. Those are secrets limited to small groups and they're typically ethnic religions belonging to a tribal or ethnic group. Mormonism, however, grows out of the Christian tradition, which doesn't in general have secret rituals. (Sometimes private ones, but not secret ones.) It's also an evangelizing religion that wants to convert the whole world. So I think it's fair to question the secrecy, in a way one doesn't with tribal or ethnic religions.
I'm not saying the secrecy is wrong, just that I think it exists in a different context than things like the Hopi masks, and that context (modern, Western, Christian-derived, evangelizing) makes the secrecy function quite differently, and a fair topic of debate.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:20 AM on January 27, 2017 [63 favorites]
Yeah, I'm an active angry atheist and political-secularist, but at the same time, these rituals aren't hurting anyone in or out of the church. Leak all the "How we will fund Prop 8" docs you want, but leave this stuff alone.
posted by Etrigan at 6:20 AM on January 27, 2017 [10 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 6:20 AM on January 27, 2017 [10 favorites]
I totally understand why ex-Mormons would want to see the videos. But I'm not an ex-Mormon, current Mormon, or potential Mormon, and to me, it just feels like gawking. And as a not-very-observant member of a minority religion, I'm super, super cognizant that most non-mainstream religious traditions look very strange to people who aren't members of them. The only reason that the rituals of mainstream religious traditions don't seem strange is that we're all exposed to them so much that they get normalized. Catholics think they practice ritual cannibalism and revere symbolic representations of torture devices, you guys.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:24 AM on January 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:24 AM on January 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
Surely even the most stridently anti-theist among us can relate to having something sacred and private that is not meant to be seen, even if its just a browser history or how you really feel about your mother or whatever.
I can't relate to it, not the sacred part. That isn't to say I don't understand that many people find value in sacred things, and that their right to privacy might include the things they hold sacred. But the implication here, that experiencing things as sacred--that is, worthy of veneration because they are in some sense supernatural--is a universal human experience is not something I agree with.
posted by layceepee at 6:26 AM on January 27, 2017 [17 favorites]
I can't relate to it, not the sacred part. That isn't to say I don't understand that many people find value in sacred things, and that their right to privacy might include the things they hold sacred. But the implication here, that experiencing things as sacred--that is, worthy of veneration because they are in some sense supernatural--is a universal human experience is not something I agree with.
posted by layceepee at 6:26 AM on January 27, 2017 [17 favorites]
It isn't ALWAYS and I'm not saying the Mormons are either; just that literally when you're trying to decide if a religion in the US is a cult, "secrecy of its rituals" is one of the red flags because of our cultural context.
This is more offensive than the tapes, I assure you. You disavowed disparaging Mormons, and yet you spelled out precisely the same sort of slurs Mormons, especially those not born in the Mecca of Mormons, have to deal with from their southern baptists types, say. I'm sure it's being used to this day.
It is dangerous because it binds the Mormons together more strongly than you realize. An enemy makes a group much stronger than the actual group bindings themselves.
As regards the article, rituals should never become so ossified they no longer have their potency. Public gawking is a great antidote for a religion having to discover the hard way what Catholic style corruption leads to within the religion itself. The Mormons are due a reformation, believe me. If a bit of public shaming can get them there great - it may make them more resistant and resilient to outside pressures, more prone to delusion. But that is on the Mormons to decide.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 6:34 AM on January 27, 2017
This is more offensive than the tapes, I assure you. You disavowed disparaging Mormons, and yet you spelled out precisely the same sort of slurs Mormons, especially those not born in the Mecca of Mormons, have to deal with from their southern baptists types, say. I'm sure it's being used to this day.
It is dangerous because it binds the Mormons together more strongly than you realize. An enemy makes a group much stronger than the actual group bindings themselves.
As regards the article, rituals should never become so ossified they no longer have their potency. Public gawking is a great antidote for a religion having to discover the hard way what Catholic style corruption leads to within the religion itself. The Mormons are due a reformation, believe me. If a bit of public shaming can get them there great - it may make them more resistant and resilient to outside pressures, more prone to delusion. But that is on the Mormons to decide.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 6:34 AM on January 27, 2017
I think generally, if you have a high profile religion and a big feature of it is that the adult rituals are all very secret, then people are bound to be curious. I live in an area of the country with many Mormons, there's Mormon influence in politics in my state, our city just got a big new temple, it's to be expected that people will be curious about secret rituals in an organization that otherwise has a large public presence.
And I think that if it is true that these rituals are hidden from the children as stated in the reddit thread and then the 18 year olds are initiated in high pressure situations surrounded by family, then I do think those children have a right to know what is going to happen to them and grow up knowing the adult rituals and traditions they will be expected to enact.
And finally I can't relate needing huge amounts of secrecy to keep things sacred. I don't understand why things would need to be secret to be sacred. Private maybe, but not secret. And I don't agree with Blasdelb's comparison to a browsing history or how I feel about my mother - those things aren't sacred and they are related to only one person. They are not the features of a large and powerful cultural organization.
posted by Squeak Attack at 6:42 AM on January 27, 2017 [19 favorites]
And I think that if it is true that these rituals are hidden from the children as stated in the reddit thread and then the 18 year olds are initiated in high pressure situations surrounded by family, then I do think those children have a right to know what is going to happen to them and grow up knowing the adult rituals and traditions they will be expected to enact.
And finally I can't relate needing huge amounts of secrecy to keep things sacred. I don't understand why things would need to be secret to be sacred. Private maybe, but not secret. And I don't agree with Blasdelb's comparison to a browsing history or how I feel about my mother - those things aren't sacred and they are related to only one person. They are not the features of a large and powerful cultural organization.
posted by Squeak Attack at 6:42 AM on January 27, 2017 [19 favorites]
Leak all the "How we will fund Prop 8" docs you want, but leave this stuff alone.
Mormonism's cult of concealment - going back to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young - encompasses all of this, however. The LDS can operate their political campaigns, and their finances, in the shadows precisely because it's erected a screen of secrecy around everything to do with its organization.
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:43 AM on January 27, 2017 [28 favorites]
Mormonism's cult of concealment - going back to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young - encompasses all of this, however. The LDS can operate their political campaigns, and their finances, in the shadows precisely because it's erected a screen of secrecy around everything to do with its organization.
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:43 AM on January 27, 2017 [28 favorites]
The LDS can operate their political campaigns, and their finances, in the shadows precisely because it's erected a screen of secrecy around everything to do with its organization.
That screen doesn't need to be destroyed wholesale. Privacy -- personal or institutional -- isn't all-or-nothing.
posted by Etrigan at 6:48 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
That screen doesn't need to be destroyed wholesale. Privacy -- personal or institutional -- isn't all-or-nothing.
posted by Etrigan at 6:48 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
And I think that if it is true that these rituals are hidden from the children as stated in the reddit thread...
It does rather raise the question of informed consent, which for me at least trumps religious privacy.
posted by YAMWAK at 7:07 AM on January 27, 2017 [9 favorites]
It does rather raise the question of informed consent, which for me at least trumps religious privacy.
posted by YAMWAK at 7:07 AM on January 27, 2017 [9 favorites]
Privacy -- personal or institutional -- isn't all-or-nothing.
All-or-nothing is exactly how the LDS operates, however, when it comes to its secrecy. The same policy of concealment covers not only all the inner workings of worship but also their opaque finances (which is incidentally why they also sued California to have political prop donors' names concealed in the aftermath of Prop 8). That's why "secrecy of rituals" is a warning sign, as Eyebrows McGree noted, in identifying cult-like organizations.
I have some ex-Mormon friends, and while they can laugh at the goofier aspects, such as the hidden "Temple garment" 19th-century underwear, they recognize that buying into even those was part of what kept them members before breaking away.
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:08 AM on January 27, 2017 [7 favorites]
All-or-nothing is exactly how the LDS operates, however, when it comes to its secrecy. The same policy of concealment covers not only all the inner workings of worship but also their opaque finances (which is incidentally why they also sued California to have political prop donors' names concealed in the aftermath of Prop 8). That's why "secrecy of rituals" is a warning sign, as Eyebrows McGree noted, in identifying cult-like organizations.
I have some ex-Mormon friends, and while they can laugh at the goofier aspects, such as the hidden "Temple garment" 19th-century underwear, they recognize that buying into even those was part of what kept them members before breaking away.
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:08 AM on January 27, 2017 [7 favorites]
In the same way, we never see even the most gorgeous, or intricate, or engaging religious ceremonies posted here to the blue like these have been
Too lazy to go look for them, but pretty sure this is just flatly incorrect.
My immediate reaction, though, is that if Mormons want their faith to be private and secret, they should go away and be private and stop bothering us. The Hopi and the Amish don't spend gazillions of dollars trying to oppress homosexuals outside their faith. If they want to so vigorously influence our society, they should expect our society to scrutinize their practices.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:11 AM on January 27, 2017 [77 favorites]
Too lazy to go look for them, but pretty sure this is just flatly incorrect.
My immediate reaction, though, is that if Mormons want their faith to be private and secret, they should go away and be private and stop bothering us. The Hopi and the Amish don't spend gazillions of dollars trying to oppress homosexuals outside their faith. If they want to so vigorously influence our society, they should expect our society to scrutinize their practices.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:11 AM on January 27, 2017 [77 favorites]
Privacy -- personal or institutional -- isn't all-or-nothing.
All-or-nothing is exactly how the LDS operates, however, when it comes to its secrecy.
Why do we have to let them decide for us?
I get that they have intentionally constructed this veil. I get that they have used it to justify hiding things that we, as a free and open and secular society, should be able to see. I do not get why we have to see their rituals as part of the price of seeing their political influence.
posted by Etrigan at 7:16 AM on January 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
All-or-nothing is exactly how the LDS operates, however, when it comes to its secrecy.
Why do we have to let them decide for us?
I get that they have intentionally constructed this veil. I get that they have used it to justify hiding things that we, as a free and open and secular society, should be able to see. I do not get why we have to see their rituals as part of the price of seeing their political influence.
posted by Etrigan at 7:16 AM on January 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
What a boring cult! There are plenty of exciting videos of Christians getting "slain in the spirit," speaking in tongues, handling snakes, and other non-secret craziness. If fact, non-believers are welcome to go to Pentecostal churches, something I did a couple of times when I was a curious youngster. Wow. LDS secrecy is a little unusual for major Christian sects, but it's a pretty common sales tactic for a lot of religious--and secular--organizations.
posted by kozad at 7:17 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by kozad at 7:17 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
"On the other hand, sacredness in modern Western culture is almost never secret. It may be private, but secrecy in modern Western religious traditions is highly correlated with cults and abuse. (It isn't ALWAYS and I'm not saying the Mormons are either; just that literally when you're trying to decide if a religion in the US is a cult, "secrecy of its rituals" is one of the red flags because of our cultural context). I want to distinguish this from the Hopi masks and similar cases because, sure, those are sacred things with secrets. But for groups in the modern West, especially arising out of the Christian tradition, especially if they make claims to universality, secrecy is at the very least odd."I think even calling these rituals "secret" is charged in a way you might not be intending, we absolutely have had orthodox traditions of arcane and mysterious liturgy in the Christian church that might make better analogues like Allegri's Miserere as once performed exclusively in the Vatican. While its important to acknowledge that private nature of the rituals filmed in the FPP have indeed led to abuse, such as the baptism for the dead ritual being performed for lists of holocaust victims on an industrial scale, I'm not sure its really ok to suggest that White Protestant norms for the proper spheres of public and private life are so universally appropriate.
"But I do think the whole issue of secrecy around Mormon ceremonies is a bit different than Hopi masks or Aboriginal paint pigments in Australia. Those are secrets limited to small groups and they're typically ethnic religions belonging to a tribal or ethnic group. Mormonism, however, grows out of the Christian tradition, which doesn't in general have secret rituals. (Sometimes private ones, but not secret ones.) It's also an evangelizing religion that wants to convert the whole world. So I think it's fair to question the secrecy, in a way one doesn't with tribal or ethnic religions.I would agree that Mormonism's aggressively evangelical nature, as well as the experience of children born into Mormonism as related by this reddit poster, creates a pretty radically different dynamic to the gnostic nature of these rituals than exists around Hopi masks or Aboriginal paint pigments. How that dynamic can have abuse baked into it is indeed a very good reason why these videos should be available for children and potential converts, but I'm not sure that it honestly changes anything about how we here are relating to the material involved. Without the purpose of forewarning us about what may be coming, which isn't relevant to basically any of us, is there really any reason left to watch these videos, rather than say a Mass at St. Peter's, other than the same pruriently non-consensual voyeurism that makes Hopi masks so attractive?
I'm not saying the secrecy is wrong, just that I think it exists in a different context than things like the Hopi masks, and that context (modern, Western, Christian-derived, evangelizing) makes the secrecy function quite differently, and a fair topic of debate."
posted by Blasdelb at 7:17 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
No More Secrets. Along with the coincidentally paired SkirtClub web security scandal, wikileaks and a other exposes, "Information wants to be free" like "supply & demand" is less a moral idea than "9.8 m/s/s" or "Gravity Sucks" is a "Law" of nature.
There are many secrets that need to be disinfected by exposure to sunlight. And it will hurt a few folks in the process, but mainly as repercussions from a repressive environment. Long term, clean up the repression and there is little that can be exposed that will cause harm. (Which seems like a naive ideal but we have come a long way, for instance the "love that may never speak it's name" is on very public posters)
The famously secret rituals of the Masons are pretty much available in libraries and just as boring as jenjenc suggests these are. I personally feel the need for privacy but it's an element of society and the world that is not a constant and is changing.
posted by sammyo at 7:17 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
There are many secrets that need to be disinfected by exposure to sunlight. And it will hurt a few folks in the process, but mainly as repercussions from a repressive environment. Long term, clean up the repression and there is little that can be exposed that will cause harm. (Which seems like a naive ideal but we have come a long way, for instance the "love that may never speak it's name" is on very public posters)
The famously secret rituals of the Masons are pretty much available in libraries and just as boring as jenjenc suggests these are. I personally feel the need for privacy but it's an element of society and the world that is not a constant and is changing.
posted by sammyo at 7:17 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
Have you ever wondered what goes on inside a Mormon temple?
I haven't clicked on the video links, because I think I would disappointed. I would hope to see the ceremonies through the context of the rich web of meanings and significances in which the participants themselves are experiencing it, and what I expect to see is just visual parts of that entire experience which probably is silly looking.
The juxtaposition of hidden rites with youtube exposure doesn't necessarily rob them of their sacred. Good Friday. It gives all youtube videos the possibility of becoming sacred. Easter.
posted by otherchaz at 7:19 AM on January 27, 2017
I haven't clicked on the video links, because I think I would disappointed. I would hope to see the ceremonies through the context of the rich web of meanings and significances in which the participants themselves are experiencing it, and what I expect to see is just visual parts of that entire experience which probably is silly looking.
The juxtaposition of hidden rites with youtube exposure doesn't necessarily rob them of their sacred. Good Friday. It gives all youtube videos the possibility of becoming sacred. Easter.
posted by otherchaz at 7:19 AM on January 27, 2017
Oh god, I just realized these aren't the secret ones either. The secret ones are like your marriage ones, and for the life of me I cannot remember the term used to describe this. I had my mom describe it to me once.
From what I've heard, the secret ones resemble Masonic rituals to a large degree. Not terribly suprising with Smith having been a Mason.
These rituals are the public ones.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 7:38 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
From what I've heard, the secret ones resemble Masonic rituals to a large degree. Not terribly suprising with Smith having been a Mason.
These rituals are the public ones.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 7:38 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
Without the purpose of forewarning us about what may be coming, which isn't relevant to basically any of us, is there really any reason left to watch these videos
Sure, to see if there's something in them that would be offensive to us as Americans (or as Frenchmen or whatever somewhere else the LDS was active and influential). I fully expect that, having glanced at it, nobody stood up and said "Here is the five-point plan for the destruction of America!" or whatever. But the way you know that is by looking at it, and groups and individuals really do make somewhat shocking statements when they think nobody else is looking; viz Romney and the 47\%.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:39 AM on January 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
Sure, to see if there's something in them that would be offensive to us as Americans (or as Frenchmen or whatever somewhere else the LDS was active and influential). I fully expect that, having glanced at it, nobody stood up and said "Here is the five-point plan for the destruction of America!" or whatever. But the way you know that is by looking at it, and groups and individuals really do make somewhat shocking statements when they think nobody else is looking; viz Romney and the 47\%.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:39 AM on January 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
Ah yes, the marriage ones are the 'sealing' ones.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 7:41 AM on January 27, 2017
posted by Strange_Robinson at 7:41 AM on January 27, 2017
I'll be all about leaving what Mormon community to do alone whatever they want just as soon as their leadership does the same to me and my queer community.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:50 AM on January 27, 2017 [21 favorites]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:50 AM on January 27, 2017 [21 favorites]
Personally I think things that are in the public interest should be exposed - political activities, perhaps financial activities. If they want their rites to be secret, and they aren't harming anyone, let it be.
That being said, I find the behavior of 'batizing the dead' to be pretty offensive, and unethical, and at the very least to be violating the privacy rights of the family of the dead... It's just fucking wrong. I felt okay clicking the link to that video. I didn't watch it though, but was curious how many hits it had (27k at the time I clicked).
While I think it's right to fight organizations that are doing harm in the world (and the Mormon church would be one of those), I think it's useful to engage in ethical tactics. I'm not sure this is one of them.
posted by el io at 8:28 AM on January 27, 2017
That being said, I find the behavior of 'batizing the dead' to be pretty offensive, and unethical, and at the very least to be violating the privacy rights of the family of the dead... It's just fucking wrong. I felt okay clicking the link to that video. I didn't watch it though, but was curious how many hits it had (27k at the time I clicked).
While I think it's right to fight organizations that are doing harm in the world (and the Mormon church would be one of those), I think it's useful to engage in ethical tactics. I'm not sure this is one of them.
posted by el io at 8:28 AM on January 27, 2017
I was born and raised in Provo, Utah by a Mormon family, but I was never able to believe "the gospel," even as a kid. So I never got to see the inside of a temple. These videos are interesting to me in that they help me understand some of the experiences of my friends and family.
I do think it's important to respect privacy in general, but the Mormon church absolutely does not respect the privacy of others. They meddle in the lives of "non-members" in mostly-Mormon communities. They use one's faithful family to manipulate members who have doubts, or try to leave. They work to pass laws to prevent same-sex marriage in states where Mormons are a tiny minority. And so on. If they are so cavalier about violating others' privacy, I can muster little respect for theirs.
posted by Hot Pastrami! at 8:38 AM on January 27, 2017 [23 favorites]
I do think it's important to respect privacy in general, but the Mormon church absolutely does not respect the privacy of others. They meddle in the lives of "non-members" in mostly-Mormon communities. They use one's faithful family to manipulate members who have doubts, or try to leave. They work to pass laws to prevent same-sex marriage in states where Mormons are a tiny minority. And so on. If they are so cavalier about violating others' privacy, I can muster little respect for theirs.
posted by Hot Pastrami! at 8:38 AM on January 27, 2017 [23 favorites]
You'd think with all the spooks they've got the Mormons would up their opsec...
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:58 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:58 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
MCMikeNamara: I'll be all about leaving what Mormon community to do alone whatever they want just as soon as their leadership does the same to me and my queer community.
*nods* And just as soon as their leadership does the same to me and my Scouting community. And I bet there are more groups who feel like their norms have been distorted by this group.
Hey, Mormons: your right to swing your fist ends at my face. But honestly, the same goes for all the Evangelicals and definitely even my own Catholic brethren: proselytize through example and speech, but keep your hands, laws, and money off of my life.
--
I know the wife & kids of the imam at the mosque nearest to my house; she is warm and friendly, and encourages individuals and groups to come and visit and learn. At the same time, I would never presume to intrude on their prayers. And when Jewish friends have invited me to join them at their temple for a wedding or bar mitzvah, I happily grab a kippah from the box by the door so that my presence doesn't violate their norms.
Look, I am glad that someone can see these videos, but I don't need to watch them myself. The boundary between privacy and secrecy is tricky: for example, my wedding ceremony was held in a church with 100+ other people to share and witness -- but I would have objected if it was livestreamed to unknown strangers. I grow curious when I am told that I must not know something about someone else: are they afraid to share? But I understand the wish to keep some rituals (and here I am thinking as much of my friends who are Masons as I am of my friends who go to other churches) among a small group.
My church is adding a small room in order to offer perpetual adoration for our parish and a couple of adjacent parishes. Am I going to sign up for a shift? Nope, but I respect that this is an act of worship of something at the very core of my religion. And while I would happily accompany a visitor, I might discourage them from simply dropping in alone just in order to satisfy their curiosity.
"In conclusion, religion is a land of contrasts."
posted by wenestvedt at 8:59 AM on January 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
*nods* And just as soon as their leadership does the same to me and my Scouting community. And I bet there are more groups who feel like their norms have been distorted by this group.
Hey, Mormons: your right to swing your fist ends at my face. But honestly, the same goes for all the Evangelicals and definitely even my own Catholic brethren: proselytize through example and speech, but keep your hands, laws, and money off of my life.
--
I know the wife & kids of the imam at the mosque nearest to my house; she is warm and friendly, and encourages individuals and groups to come and visit and learn. At the same time, I would never presume to intrude on their prayers. And when Jewish friends have invited me to join them at their temple for a wedding or bar mitzvah, I happily grab a kippah from the box by the door so that my presence doesn't violate their norms.
Look, I am glad that someone can see these videos, but I don't need to watch them myself. The boundary between privacy and secrecy is tricky: for example, my wedding ceremony was held in a church with 100+ other people to share and witness -- but I would have objected if it was livestreamed to unknown strangers. I grow curious when I am told that I must not know something about someone else: are they afraid to share? But I understand the wish to keep some rituals (and here I am thinking as much of my friends who are Masons as I am of my friends who go to other churches) among a small group.
My church is adding a small room in order to offer perpetual adoration for our parish and a couple of adjacent parishes. Am I going to sign up for a shift? Nope, but I respect that this is an act of worship of something at the very core of my religion. And while I would happily accompany a visitor, I might discourage them from simply dropping in alone just in order to satisfy their curiosity.
"In conclusion, religion is a land of contrasts."
posted by wenestvedt at 8:59 AM on January 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
Blasdelb: I'm reminded of how squicked out I was by the media attention that some Hopi masks attracted a few years ago
That's an interesting parallel. I draw a distinction because the Mormon church is an evangelical church, one which wants people to be involved, whereas Hopi and other native people have activities that are kept secret and sacred from any and all, with no way gain access (generally speaking). For instance, with at least with some of the Pueblo cultures in New Mexico, you can't marry into a family and be included in the Pueblo ceremonies, though your children will be included. And they can't talk about the ceremonies with their parents who aren't part of the culture.
But if you were to join the Mormon church, at some point, you will be privy to these ceremonies at some point. In my mind, I'm directly comparing the Mormon church to my experience growing up in Protestant churches - you have classes that prepare you to take communion, but none of that is secret, so why should the Mormon church be secret? The Bible is available in most written languages, and the sermons and songs are all in English, and I'm sure you can now read the directions for the various denominations' seasonal ceremonies online, because our doors were open to any and all on Sundays (and most days). I felt (and still feel) it's weird to attend a service in Latin, because I feel like it's designed to keep people uninformed about what's being said right in front of them. With that, I recognize my frame for comparisons may also be biased and flawed.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:28 AM on January 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
That's an interesting parallel. I draw a distinction because the Mormon church is an evangelical church, one which wants people to be involved, whereas Hopi and other native people have activities that are kept secret and sacred from any and all, with no way gain access (generally speaking). For instance, with at least with some of the Pueblo cultures in New Mexico, you can't marry into a family and be included in the Pueblo ceremonies, though your children will be included. And they can't talk about the ceremonies with their parents who aren't part of the culture.
But if you were to join the Mormon church, at some point, you will be privy to these ceremonies at some point. In my mind, I'm directly comparing the Mormon church to my experience growing up in Protestant churches - you have classes that prepare you to take communion, but none of that is secret, so why should the Mormon church be secret? The Bible is available in most written languages, and the sermons and songs are all in English, and I'm sure you can now read the directions for the various denominations' seasonal ceremonies online, because our doors were open to any and all on Sundays (and most days). I felt (and still feel) it's weird to attend a service in Latin, because I feel like it's designed to keep people uninformed about what's being said right in front of them. With that, I recognize my frame for comparisons may also be biased and flawed.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:28 AM on January 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Since we are mentioning Mormon overreach as contextual regarding their right to keep their rituals private, just a reminder: they were still perpetuating the horrific practicing of posthumously "baptizing" Jews killed in the Holocaust as of 2012. The church has repeatedly promised they will end the practice, then continued it in secret. (They also attempted to posthumously baptize Elie Wiesel into Mormonism, despite him still being alive at the time.)
When one of your most secret rites is "desecration of the dead in the most offensive form possible", maybe your secrecy doesn't merit the level of respect you would otherwise be granted.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 9:29 AM on January 27, 2017 [27 favorites]
When one of your most secret rites is "desecration of the dead in the most offensive form possible", maybe your secrecy doesn't merit the level of respect you would otherwise be granted.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 9:29 AM on January 27, 2017 [27 favorites]
As a member of the LDS church, I was sad and dismayed to see this post and I personally think it is quite offensive. But I find lots of stuff on Metafilter offensive and I usually just scroll past it and move on. I just want to say a couple of things. There is a difference between sacred and secret. Even people in the church get confused some times. I have often told people who haven't been into the temple that I would be happy to outline what goes on in the temple for them. The purpose and practices of the temple are not secret, even though some of the specific language and rites are only supposed to be specifically discussed inside the temple. They are sacred to us. So, just as I would find it offensive to find videos posted that were taken inside my home, or of my children, I find these videos offensive. I also have known that for years other groups who dislike the church have made available videos or descriptions of the temple ceremony.
I know that many people dislike the church specifically and many members because you believe that our collective actions or beliefs have injured you or people you care about. To the extent that is true, I am sorry. However, I find that my faith has improved my life and made me a better person. Further, my experiences in the temple have strengthened my faith and helped me and I believe that, in the proper context, the temple ceremonies are uplifting and beautiful. I believe the primary mission of someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ is to love others and show that love and kindness in all that they do. I won't get into public debates online about my faith, or the church and its practices specifically, but I am more than willing to talk with anyone in a less public setting who has an honest desire to converse.
posted by bove at 9:57 AM on January 27, 2017 [8 favorites]
I know that many people dislike the church specifically and many members because you believe that our collective actions or beliefs have injured you or people you care about. To the extent that is true, I am sorry. However, I find that my faith has improved my life and made me a better person. Further, my experiences in the temple have strengthened my faith and helped me and I believe that, in the proper context, the temple ceremonies are uplifting and beautiful. I believe the primary mission of someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ is to love others and show that love and kindness in all that they do. I won't get into public debates online about my faith, or the church and its practices specifically, but I am more than willing to talk with anyone in a less public setting who has an honest desire to converse.
posted by bove at 9:57 AM on January 27, 2017 [8 favorites]
It does rather raise the question of informed consent, which for me at least trumps religious privacy.
If he wrote an essay or posted a lecture to YouTube I would agree, but filming people without consent and then posting it put him in the same category as the jerk that leaked Jennifer Lawrence's nudes. Hell, he could have found people to reenact it to film.
P.S. If you feel a need to experience the feeling of being in a Kiva, Mesa Verde National Parks has one the Hopi have sacrificed to public curiosity.
posted by ridgerunner at 10:10 AM on January 27, 2017
If he wrote an essay or posted a lecture to YouTube I would agree, but filming people without consent and then posting it put him in the same category as the jerk that leaked Jennifer Lawrence's nudes. Hell, he could have found people to reenact it to film.
P.S. If you feel a need to experience the feeling of being in a Kiva, Mesa Verde National Parks has one the Hopi have sacrificed to public curiosity.
posted by ridgerunner at 10:10 AM on January 27, 2017
I'm interested in how he managed to record an hour-plus-long ceremony undetected. The camera movement seems to imply an upper-body-mounted camera (as opposed to a head-mounted device ala GoogleGlass.) But, the clothing is so simple and white, I would think it near impossible to hide a recording device. I'm not up on what sort of spy gear is available to the public these days, though.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:25 AM on January 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 10:25 AM on January 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
a fiendish thingy
Yep, they need to cut that shit out. I'm sure they've done it to me, because my g-g-grandmother was officially a Morman. They probably should have just left her in Oklahoma, one of her rituals was to make damned sure everyone of her descendents knew how to drink a little whiskey and smoke a clay pipe.
posted by ridgerunner at 10:26 AM on January 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Yep, they need to cut that shit out. I'm sure they've done it to me, because my g-g-grandmother was officially a Morman. They probably should have just left her in Oklahoma, one of her rituals was to make damned sure everyone of her descendents knew how to drink a little whiskey and smoke a clay pipe.
posted by ridgerunner at 10:26 AM on January 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
" but filming people without consent and then posting it put him in the same category..."
My understanding (I didn't actually view a video) from the comments in youtube (something I normally would avoid like the plague) was that people's faces were pixilated. Even if they weren't I don't think it's fair to compare this video to a stolen nude video of a celebrity.
As far as filming a ceremony baptizing a dead person... It seems odd to be talking about the violation of consent in such a context unless you are talking about the people performing the ceremony.
posted by el io at 11:12 AM on January 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
My understanding (I didn't actually view a video) from the comments in youtube (something I normally would avoid like the plague) was that people's faces were pixilated. Even if they weren't I don't think it's fair to compare this video to a stolen nude video of a celebrity.
As far as filming a ceremony baptizing a dead person... It seems odd to be talking about the violation of consent in such a context unless you are talking about the people performing the ceremony.
posted by el io at 11:12 AM on January 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
As far as filming a ceremony baptizing a dead person... It seems odd to be talking about the violation of consent in such a context unless you are talking about the people performing the ceremony.
Just so that we are clear-- you are saying that the people whose privacy is being violated are the Mormons who secretly disrespect the heritage and history of the people they posthumously "baptize", but NOT the people-- who were killed BECAUSE of their religion-- being "saved"?
Are you serious?
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:22 AM on January 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
Just so that we are clear-- you are saying that the people whose privacy is being violated are the Mormons who secretly disrespect the heritage and history of the people they posthumously "baptize", but NOT the people-- who were killed BECAUSE of their religion-- being "saved"?
Are you serious?
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:22 AM on January 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
I'm not saying the secrecy is wrong, just that I think it exists in a different context than things like the Hopi masks, and that context (modern, Western, Christian-derived, evangelizing) makes the secrecy function quite differently, and a fair topic of debate.
Well, let's talk about how the secrecy around these specific temple rituals themselves actually functions, then, since I'm not seeing a lot of that.
As far as I can tell it has these effects:
(1) It *does* contribute to a sense of something that's set apart/sacred for many participants.
(2) It gives participating members one of the encounters they can have with an unmediated text, at about the degree I'd imagine that's even possible for a shared text. That is, because it's rarely discussed, it is (generally) not interpreted for members and is therefore more directly *experienced*. The rest of the canon is directly commented on and might be given an authoritative interpretation by the leadership of the church, and I can think of passages of the Bible that are read/used a certain way in LDS meetings often enough that the understanding of those texts seems to ossify; members may not experience the text itself, they experience the mainstream group reading of the text. The temple is already different, it's participatory rather than read. The fact that it's not discussed and therefore not interpreted magnifies the experiential and personal nature.
(3) In some cases, it seems so culturally out of sync with some of the modern world that initial experiences with the rituals really weirds out even lifelong members who haven't been (and maybe can't be) given a clear idea of what to expect, and they nope out.
The first two effects seem like they'd be considered somewhere between positive and benign from most perspectives. The third one might be considered positive from a religion-critical perspective, negative from an orthodox LDS perspective.
There's any number of things that the LDS church arguably makes insufficient efforts to make transparent or even makes outright efforts to obscure that can be fairly criticized.
But that also makes it odd to see the temple rituals get treated as a lightning rod for charges of oversecrecy. There's waaay better targets, and very little the criticism seems to be about how the temple rituals themselves function for participating members. Almost all of it seems to really be secondhand criticism of some other aspect of the church, or to be a reflection of some other negative feelings about it (even if justified). Including in this thread -- though as I'd expect, Metafilter is doing better at the discussion than other venues I've seen it play out in, and if people do want to talk about the specifics of how sacred/secret functions, that'd be great.
posted by weston at 11:43 AM on January 27, 2017
Well, let's talk about how the secrecy around these specific temple rituals themselves actually functions, then, since I'm not seeing a lot of that.
As far as I can tell it has these effects:
(1) It *does* contribute to a sense of something that's set apart/sacred for many participants.
(2) It gives participating members one of the encounters they can have with an unmediated text, at about the degree I'd imagine that's even possible for a shared text. That is, because it's rarely discussed, it is (generally) not interpreted for members and is therefore more directly *experienced*. The rest of the canon is directly commented on and might be given an authoritative interpretation by the leadership of the church, and I can think of passages of the Bible that are read/used a certain way in LDS meetings often enough that the understanding of those texts seems to ossify; members may not experience the text itself, they experience the mainstream group reading of the text. The temple is already different, it's participatory rather than read. The fact that it's not discussed and therefore not interpreted magnifies the experiential and personal nature.
(3) In some cases, it seems so culturally out of sync with some of the modern world that initial experiences with the rituals really weirds out even lifelong members who haven't been (and maybe can't be) given a clear idea of what to expect, and they nope out.
The first two effects seem like they'd be considered somewhere between positive and benign from most perspectives. The third one might be considered positive from a religion-critical perspective, negative from an orthodox LDS perspective.
There's any number of things that the LDS church arguably makes insufficient efforts to make transparent or even makes outright efforts to obscure that can be fairly criticized.
But that also makes it odd to see the temple rituals get treated as a lightning rod for charges of oversecrecy. There's waaay better targets, and very little the criticism seems to be about how the temple rituals themselves function for participating members. Almost all of it seems to really be secondhand criticism of some other aspect of the church, or to be a reflection of some other negative feelings about it (even if justified). Including in this thread -- though as I'd expect, Metafilter is doing better at the discussion than other venues I've seen it play out in, and if people do want to talk about the specifics of how sacred/secret functions, that'd be great.
posted by weston at 11:43 AM on January 27, 2017
For the record, LDS posthumous baptisms are actually OFFERS of baptism that the deceased are free to reject in the afterlife. It's not an automatic conversion.
posted by elsietheeel at 11:59 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by elsietheeel at 11:59 AM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
I try to always read the article and watch the videos before posting...
In this case, I will make an exception.
Regarding my spiritual life, all I want from the rest of the world is respect. I get to do my thing because it is my thing and it is not subject to the scrutiny or judgements of others.
If I expect (nay, demand) that of others, I must first start by offering respect. I need not agree with the practices of others, I only need to respect their right to be... them.
Having never watched them, these videos sound intrusive and icky. If anyone reads down this far in the threads, join me in not watching.
posted by dfm500 at 12:34 PM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
In this case, I will make an exception.
Regarding my spiritual life, all I want from the rest of the world is respect. I get to do my thing because it is my thing and it is not subject to the scrutiny or judgements of others.
If I expect (nay, demand) that of others, I must first start by offering respect. I need not agree with the practices of others, I only need to respect their right to be... them.
Having never watched them, these videos sound intrusive and icky. If anyone reads down this far in the threads, join me in not watching.
posted by dfm500 at 12:34 PM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
For the record, LDS posthumous baptisms are actually OFFERS of baptism that the deceased are free to reject in the afterlife. It's not an automatic conversion.
All the more reason for me to watch these, so that I may make an informed decision in the afterlife.
posted by stevis23 at 12:39 PM on January 27, 2017 [14 favorites]
All the more reason for me to watch these, so that I may make an informed decision in the afterlife.
posted by stevis23 at 12:39 PM on January 27, 2017 [14 favorites]
faces were pixilated. Even if they weren't I don't think it's fair to compare this video to a stolen nude video of a celebrity.
I disagree, neither was done in public or for public dissemination, but someone decided their wants overroad any need for consent. I find Jennifer Lawrence way more sympathetic than the LDS, so what, he still violated their privacy.
posted by ridgerunner at 12:42 PM on January 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
I disagree, neither was done in public or for public dissemination, but someone decided their wants overroad any need for consent. I find Jennifer Lawrence way more sympathetic than the LDS, so what, he still violated their privacy.
posted by ridgerunner at 12:42 PM on January 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
They featured a (fake, obviously) endowment ceremony and celestial room in an episode of Big Love called Outer Darkness. If you want to get an idea of it where no one's privacy was being violated.
posted by phunniemee at 1:40 PM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 1:40 PM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
You lost me at hidden camera.
I don't care what the reason (short of a police sting operation, and even then I'm not so sure), recording people without their consent is gross.
Recording people without their consent in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy is a bridge too far.
Recording people without their consent in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy and posting it on the internet for people to dissect and judge is...what's the word I'm looking for?
Oh, yeah, revolting.
posted by _Mona_ at 2:31 PM on January 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
I don't care what the reason (short of a police sting operation, and even then I'm not so sure), recording people without their consent is gross.
Recording people without their consent in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy is a bridge too far.
Recording people without their consent in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy and posting it on the internet for people to dissect and judge is...what's the word I'm looking for?
Oh, yeah, revolting.
posted by _Mona_ at 2:31 PM on January 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
In the same way, we never see even the most gorgeous, or intricate, or engaging religious ceremonies posted here to the blue like these have been
Too lazy to go look for them, but pretty sure this is just flatly incorrect.
Here's one example.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:52 PM on January 27, 2017
Too lazy to go look for them, but pretty sure this is just flatly incorrect.
Here's one example.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:52 PM on January 27, 2017
This is rude and intrusive and pointless and in fact, I'm going to flag this post as offensive.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:57 PM on January 27, 2017
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:57 PM on January 27, 2017
I'm just glad we're having the conversation about whether, and when, and for whom it is ethical to watch these videos, because that conversation needs to be there. These videos should always be accompanied by that context, and by this discussion, whether any given individual decides to watch them or not.
And it isn't inevitable for that context to be there, either. I was raised Baha'i, though I am not now, and the Baha'is have a tradition that they do not make artistic depictions of their founder, have their founder portrayed in art, etc., rather like the Islamic one, except that it only applies to the person of the founder and human figures are all right in art generally. The theological justification is that they do not want the prophet to be worshiped instead of God, and if there are images of the prophet readily accessible, people are very likely to venerate those.
However, the Baha'is were founded after the advent of photography, and two photos of their founder survive. Both of these are kept in Baha'i archives by Baha'i leadership, and people who go on pilgrimage to the religion's holy sites may view the photos along with other belongings of the prophet. They're not supposed to be copied or distributed.
One of the photos appears on the Wikipedia page for the Baha'i Faith. (Or it doesn't, depending on who is winning the edit war this month, but it's there about seventy-five percent of the time). Unless you look at the page edits, which are an unending fight about the matter, there is no other way to tell from the page that the people of this religion do not want their founder's picture there, do not want to see the photo, do not want other people to see the photo, and feel disrespected by the fact that somebody copied the photo and put it on Wikipedia at all. Baha'is who look at the page tend to be shocked and offended, because what is theoretically trying to be an impartial information source is in fact being very rude. And non-Baha'is who look at the page have no way of knowing any of this, because most of us do not automatically look at the edit history for any Wikipedia page we happen across.
So it isn't automatic that this sort of context accompanies images and descriptions of things that religions would like to keep private. The context is easy to lose. It's fragile. Regardless of how each of us feels personally about whether/when/etc. these videos should be shown, this conversation has to be maintained wherever access to them goes, and this argument has to be had.
I am glad to see that this argument is being had, in good faith, on this website.
posted by Rush-That-Speaks at 7:32 PM on January 27, 2017 [8 favorites]
And it isn't inevitable for that context to be there, either. I was raised Baha'i, though I am not now, and the Baha'is have a tradition that they do not make artistic depictions of their founder, have their founder portrayed in art, etc., rather like the Islamic one, except that it only applies to the person of the founder and human figures are all right in art generally. The theological justification is that they do not want the prophet to be worshiped instead of God, and if there are images of the prophet readily accessible, people are very likely to venerate those.
However, the Baha'is were founded after the advent of photography, and two photos of their founder survive. Both of these are kept in Baha'i archives by Baha'i leadership, and people who go on pilgrimage to the religion's holy sites may view the photos along with other belongings of the prophet. They're not supposed to be copied or distributed.
One of the photos appears on the Wikipedia page for the Baha'i Faith. (Or it doesn't, depending on who is winning the edit war this month, but it's there about seventy-five percent of the time). Unless you look at the page edits, which are an unending fight about the matter, there is no other way to tell from the page that the people of this religion do not want their founder's picture there, do not want to see the photo, do not want other people to see the photo, and feel disrespected by the fact that somebody copied the photo and put it on Wikipedia at all. Baha'is who look at the page tend to be shocked and offended, because what is theoretically trying to be an impartial information source is in fact being very rude. And non-Baha'is who look at the page have no way of knowing any of this, because most of us do not automatically look at the edit history for any Wikipedia page we happen across.
So it isn't automatic that this sort of context accompanies images and descriptions of things that religions would like to keep private. The context is easy to lose. It's fragile. Regardless of how each of us feels personally about whether/when/etc. these videos should be shown, this conversation has to be maintained wherever access to them goes, and this argument has to be had.
I am glad to see that this argument is being had, in good faith, on this website.
posted by Rush-That-Speaks at 7:32 PM on January 27, 2017 [8 favorites]
I believe the primary mission of someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ is to love others and show that love and kindness in all that they do. I won't get into public debates online about my faith, or the church and its practices specifically, but I am more than willing to talk with anyone in a less public setting who has an honest desire to converse.
posted by bove at 12:57 PM on January 27 [6 favorites +] [!]
I believe you are sincere, and I don't need you to justify your beliefs to me. That said, I can't reconcile the 1st sentence with the next two. LDS (along with most other religions) has taken an active role in harming those different from them. I don't understand how you can manage the dissonance between claiming to value love and kindness, while being a member of an organization that has been so hateful, especially in regard to queer and women's rights.
I have a hard time feeling bad that this may make LDS members uncomfortable, when balanced with the fact that LDS doesn't seem to extend the same respect to me and mine.
posted by pickinganameismuchharderthanihadanticipated at 7:45 PM on January 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by bove at 12:57 PM on January 27 [6 favorites +] [!]
I believe you are sincere, and I don't need you to justify your beliefs to me. That said, I can't reconcile the 1st sentence with the next two. LDS (along with most other religions) has taken an active role in harming those different from them. I don't understand how you can manage the dissonance between claiming to value love and kindness, while being a member of an organization that has been so hateful, especially in regard to queer and women's rights.
I have a hard time feeling bad that this may make LDS members uncomfortable, when balanced with the fact that LDS doesn't seem to extend the same respect to me and mine.
posted by pickinganameismuchharderthanihadanticipated at 7:45 PM on January 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
I don't care so much about their rituals. I am somewhat glad these are online, for young mormons questioning their faith to get an inside look if they feel they need it, but I don't need to watch them.
I did find fascinating the leaked videos of their elders's meetings, which I believe most of you will find far less "squicky" and also far more germane to the way the LDS decide to exert their influence.
Also featured in the NYT.
posted by pahalial at 8:48 PM on January 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
I did find fascinating the leaked videos of their elders's meetings, which I believe most of you will find far less "squicky" and also far more germane to the way the LDS decide to exert their influence.
Also featured in the NYT.
posted by pahalial at 8:48 PM on January 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'll be all about leaving what Mormon community to do alone whatever they want just as soon as their leadership does the same to me and my queer community.
People across the political spectrum are fighting back:
Cable TV provider Comcast has agreed to air gay activist Fred Karger’s commercial challenging the Mormon Church’s tax-exempt status.
Philadelphia-based Comcast came to the agreement Wednesday after Karger said he would change an unsubstantiated statement in the ad and provided substantiation for four other statements the cable company had questioned, The Salt Lake Tribune reports. The ad will air in Utah, where the church is based...
Karger himself ran in the Republican presidential primaries in 2012, becoming the first openly gay Republican presidential candidate to get his name on the ballot in several states.
He has continued to denounce the Mormon Church for its antigay policies, which it has toughened in recent years. It not only opposes same-sex relationships — expecting Mormons with such “attractions” to refrain from acting on them — it has begun denying baptism to children being raised by same-sex couples, until they turn 18, and then only if they are no longer living with that couple and denounce their relationship.
And now Karger says he is gathering information on the church’s political activities to build a case against its tax exemption. “We’re really going to dig,” he told the Tribune in December.
The church’s anti-LGBT policies are deeply harmful, he said in that interview, especially to young people. “Somebody has got to fight for these kids,” he said. “It’s inexcusable, the damage and suffering the church has caused for so many of these families.”
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:40 PM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
People across the political spectrum are fighting back:
Cable TV provider Comcast has agreed to air gay activist Fred Karger’s commercial challenging the Mormon Church’s tax-exempt status.
Philadelphia-based Comcast came to the agreement Wednesday after Karger said he would change an unsubstantiated statement in the ad and provided substantiation for four other statements the cable company had questioned, The Salt Lake Tribune reports. The ad will air in Utah, where the church is based...
Karger himself ran in the Republican presidential primaries in 2012, becoming the first openly gay Republican presidential candidate to get his name on the ballot in several states.
He has continued to denounce the Mormon Church for its antigay policies, which it has toughened in recent years. It not only opposes same-sex relationships — expecting Mormons with such “attractions” to refrain from acting on them — it has begun denying baptism to children being raised by same-sex couples, until they turn 18, and then only if they are no longer living with that couple and denounce their relationship.
And now Karger says he is gathering information on the church’s political activities to build a case against its tax exemption. “We’re really going to dig,” he told the Tribune in December.
The church’s anti-LGBT policies are deeply harmful, he said in that interview, especially to young people. “Somebody has got to fight for these kids,” he said. “It’s inexcusable, the damage and suffering the church has caused for so many of these families.”
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:40 PM on January 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
The secrecy of ritual stuff, the cult argument, this is anti-papist stuff. It's bigotry. I'm grateful I've experienced it because it allows me to relate to other persecuted folks.
You want to beat them, you'll have to make a much better argument than that because the age of the Protestant looks to be coming to a close. Yeah, the bigots killed a President, but they just elected a celebrity whose claim to fame is a light S & M reality tv show host.
You want to take them to task for aligning with the Protestants, whose main concern seems to be that the right bits rub together, then keep on keeping on.
LDS are better than that. If they aren't, then good riddance.
Love, an exiled Mormon.
PS - and for the purile, there are better rituals to find than these. But you'll only get to see them if you believe. At least long enough to take pictures, yes?
posted by Strange_Robinson at 10:56 PM on January 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
You want to beat them, you'll have to make a much better argument than that because the age of the Protestant looks to be coming to a close. Yeah, the bigots killed a President, but they just elected a celebrity whose claim to fame is a light S & M reality tv show host.
You want to take them to task for aligning with the Protestants, whose main concern seems to be that the right bits rub together, then keep on keeping on.
LDS are better than that. If they aren't, then good riddance.
Love, an exiled Mormon.
PS - and for the purile, there are better rituals to find than these. But you'll only get to see them if you believe. At least long enough to take pictures, yes?
posted by Strange_Robinson at 10:56 PM on January 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
I have honestly never wondered what goes on in a Mormon temple, as I assumed that it was a lot of boring (to me) stuff. I still assume that it's a lot of boring (to me!) stuff. Still, while I have zero faith, I do find religion fascinating. And as a mother of an inquisitive child that is asking me things about Jesus and God etc and why we don't go to church, I do read up on these things so I can offer her a variety of points and counterpoints for her to build her own views and opinions on those things. So in that context, maybe one day a video like this would be useful for her. But I'm definitely not the target audience because I neither find it amusing nor interesting to watch. I have no interest in peeking over the fence, as long as you don't start chucking things onto my lawn, then I will of course want to see what's going on there.
posted by Hazelsmrf at 12:11 AM on January 28, 2017
posted by Hazelsmrf at 12:11 AM on January 28, 2017
>For the record, LDS posthumous baptisms are actually OFFERS of baptism that the deceased are free to reject
>in the afterlife. It's not an automatic conversion.
So even after I'm dead I'm still going to have to deal with Sunday door-knockers?
Oh just great.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 12:16 AM on January 28, 2017 [11 favorites]
>in the afterlife. It's not an automatic conversion.
So even after I'm dead I'm still going to have to deal with Sunday door-knockers?
Oh just great.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 12:16 AM on January 28, 2017 [11 favorites]
there were a lot of full Cleveland's in the prayer circle.
I know some LDS people here are offended by the posting of these videos. But not as offended as I am by that "church" baptizing dead people. They have no bloody right to do that. None. Bloody wankers
posted by james33 at 5:42 AM on January 28, 2017 [2 favorites]
I know some LDS people here are offended by the posting of these videos. But not as offended as I am by that "church" baptizing dead people. They have no bloody right to do that. None. Bloody wankers
posted by james33 at 5:42 AM on January 28, 2017 [2 favorites]
The organized LDS church is racist, colonialist, and (as far as i'm concerned) a hate group. Do they have a "right" to secrets? Why?
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:38 AM on January 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:38 AM on January 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
adrienneleigh: "The organized LDS church is racist, colonialist, and (as far as i'm concerned) a hate group. Do they have a "right" to secrets? Why?"What a deeply shameful thing to write.
William Roper: "So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!"
Sir Thomas More: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"
William Roper: "Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"
Sir Thomas More: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
Even if you are yourself enough of a bigot to believe that some people should not have privacy even in their most intimate and guarded of moments because of their religion, surely you can at least see that this is not at all how rights, both moral and legal, work? "Rights" that would be lost simply by believing differently than you would not be rights at all, but would just be instruments of the religious discrimination you are pinning after. Of course Mormons have a right to privacy, no matter how much you hate them or how justified or reciprocal you feel your hatred is, because that is what makes it a right.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:27 AM on January 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
WRT Baptism of the dead, as an atheist I personally find it distasteful and disrespectful but have a hard time understanding why anyone thinks that the people performing it would or, from their own perspective, should stop doing so.
As I understand it the people carrying it out believe that they are offering eternal salvation to those for whom it would otherwise be unavailable. If you sincerely believe that then to not do so on the grounds of offending some living people would be morally repugnant.
The only grounds I can see for believing that they should stop doing so would seem to be, for adherents of other religions, thinking that Mormonism is clearly wrong and they should just darn well admit it (which, hey, I think that as well but if you're coming at it from the perspective that your religion is the correct one then good luck) or, for the secularly minded, the idea that all religions are functionally equivalent cultural quirks like national dress or cuisine which are all true in their own ways, rather than a system of frequently incompatible actual statements about how the world works. Which might be a polite fiction which lets us go about our business without yelling at each other non-stop and which lets us believe that such things as separation of church and state are ever really possible but which is also a fairly obvious nonsense not held up by the actual beliefs of many adherents of the religions in question.
posted by Dext at 4:37 AM on January 29, 2017
As I understand it the people carrying it out believe that they are offering eternal salvation to those for whom it would otherwise be unavailable. If you sincerely believe that then to not do so on the grounds of offending some living people would be morally repugnant.
The only grounds I can see for believing that they should stop doing so would seem to be, for adherents of other religions, thinking that Mormonism is clearly wrong and they should just darn well admit it (which, hey, I think that as well but if you're coming at it from the perspective that your religion is the correct one then good luck) or, for the secularly minded, the idea that all religions are functionally equivalent cultural quirks like national dress or cuisine which are all true in their own ways, rather than a system of frequently incompatible actual statements about how the world works. Which might be a polite fiction which lets us go about our business without yelling at each other non-stop and which lets us believe that such things as separation of church and state are ever really possible but which is also a fairly obvious nonsense not held up by the actual beliefs of many adherents of the religions in question.
posted by Dext at 4:37 AM on January 29, 2017
I believe you are sincere, and I don't need you to justify your beliefs to me. That said, I can't reconcile the 1st sentence with the next two.
If you are interested in researching these questions, there are ample resources for you online. You can find out all kinds of information about how LDS people reconcile their faith with the Church's treatment of queer people; how Catholics reconcile their faith with a clergy leadership that protects pedophile clergy; how Christian Scientists reconcile their faith with allowing their children to die of treatable medical conditions; etc, etc, etc.
Many, many people have put their views and faith out there in the public sphere to be examined and to very kindly provide the education you seek. Nobody here has to do that for you. Given the Blue's treatment of members who have stuck their heads over the precipice here and the contempt for faith here, I think bove's offer to discuss these things one-on-one is bother generous and wise.
posted by DarlingBri at 8:42 AM on January 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
If you are interested in researching these questions, there are ample resources for you online. You can find out all kinds of information about how LDS people reconcile their faith with the Church's treatment of queer people; how Catholics reconcile their faith with a clergy leadership that protects pedophile clergy; how Christian Scientists reconcile their faith with allowing their children to die of treatable medical conditions; etc, etc, etc.
Many, many people have put their views and faith out there in the public sphere to be examined and to very kindly provide the education you seek. Nobody here has to do that for you. Given the Blue's treatment of members who have stuck their heads over the precipice here and the contempt for faith here, I think bove's offer to discuss these things one-on-one is bother generous and wise.
posted by DarlingBri at 8:42 AM on January 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
Religions exist because people have religious experiences. I know that's somewhat circular, and I can't do anything about that. The experiences really do defy words, and so you do the best you can with what you've got.
When the organizations go corrupt like they invariably do, there need to be forces inside or outside that force or catalyze change so you can re-invert the dynamic of the institution. Institutions should serve the people, not the other way around.
So religions will never go away. They serve too vital a function, especially for suffering peoples, suffering of which it seems unlikely we'll never be able to be completely rid of because we're people, and limited as people.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 8:45 AM on January 29, 2017
When the organizations go corrupt like they invariably do, there need to be forces inside or outside that force or catalyze change so you can re-invert the dynamic of the institution. Institutions should serve the people, not the other way around.
So religions will never go away. They serve too vital a function, especially for suffering peoples, suffering of which it seems unlikely we'll never be able to be completely rid of because we're people, and limited as people.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 8:45 AM on January 29, 2017
following a random person who is not a part of any organized group and secretly filming his or her spiritual exercises would be creepy and wrong and offensive.
however, secretly filming the religious exercises of a politically reactionary organization (that has no qualms about sponsoring legislation and candidates who interfere in non-members' personal lives) is fine. and the individual members of that organization do not deserve special treatment whether or not they personally advocated for its political causes-- a devoted member of any rigid, hierarchical organization is to a great degree responsible for the actions of that organization.
posted by wibari at 11:23 PM on January 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
however, secretly filming the religious exercises of a politically reactionary organization (that has no qualms about sponsoring legislation and candidates who interfere in non-members' personal lives) is fine. and the individual members of that organization do not deserve special treatment whether or not they personally advocated for its political causes-- a devoted member of any rigid, hierarchical organization is to a great degree responsible for the actions of that organization.
posted by wibari at 11:23 PM on January 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
I won't be watching the videos, but I'm glad they exist for the benefit of young people being raised as Mormons and those thinking of converting. The descriptions of these ceremonies (from ex-Mormons) include people having to make solemn promises in front of people they love and respect, with the assurance that not complying will tear their family apart, but with no knowledge beforehand of what they will be asked to swear to, ie under duress. People should be able to find out what they're going to be asked to commit to and make a free choice. And honestly, if you have to keep the promises secret and put that much pressure on people to make them... they're probably either stupid or harmful commitments to make.
posted by harriet vane at 7:10 AM on January 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by harriet vane at 7:10 AM on January 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
blasdelb: i said absolutely nothing about individual Mormons having no right to privacy. Of course they have one, as individuals. But the church itself is a goddamn hate group. Do you object to investigative reporters filming secret meetings of the KKK? I mean, that'd at least be consistent, but i doubt you actually do.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:30 AM on January 30, 2017
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:30 AM on January 30, 2017
(And the filmmaker has, in fact, preserved the privacy of the individual Mormons, by blurring their faces. We can perhaps argue that he hasn't done so well enough - that's a tactical criticism, and in fact I might agree with it; the blurring he's done is fairly minimal, and arguably he should use some kind of voice distorter, too.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:34 AM on January 30, 2017
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:34 AM on January 30, 2017
however, secretly filming the religious exercises of a politically reactionary organization (that has no qualms about sponsoring legislation and candidates who interfere in non-members' personal lives) is fine.
I don't have the rhetorical skills to politely state how much I disagree with this.
People should be able to find out what they're going to be asked to commit to and make a free choice.
Yep, I don't see why an essay, lecture on YouTube or filming reenactments to post won't suffice.
Do you object to investigative reporters filming secret meetings of the KKK?
If they're standing there, swearing on their 'sacred honor' to confiscate their kids phones if they are caught streaming hip hop or jpop? Yes
If they're conspiring to do something that's actually illegal? Nope.
posted by ridgerunner at 2:03 PM on January 30, 2017
I don't have the rhetorical skills to politely state how much I disagree with this.
People should be able to find out what they're going to be asked to commit to and make a free choice.
Yep, I don't see why an essay, lecture on YouTube or filming reenactments to post won't suffice.
Do you object to investigative reporters filming secret meetings of the KKK?
If they're standing there, swearing on their 'sacred honor' to confiscate their kids phones if they are caught streaming hip hop or jpop? Yes
If they're conspiring to do something that's actually illegal? Nope.
posted by ridgerunner at 2:03 PM on January 30, 2017
adrienneleigh: "i said absolutely nothing about individual Mormons having no right to privacy. Of course they have one, as individuals. But the church itself is a goddamn hate group. Do you object to investigative reporters filming secret meetings of the KKK? I mean, that'd at least be consistent, but i doubt you actually do."This isn't a secret meeting of the KKK and no one in these videos is conspiring to do anything wrong. The leaked video of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other Mormon politicians discussing politics in horrifying ways, and being briefed by a congressman with purportedly classified information who claims to have acted inappropriately to benefit the church, is really fucking different and should be watched by anyone wanting to know more about the influence of the church on modern society. However, this is just people praying in a way you don't like.
That you are apparently bigoted enough to hate these people for their religion has no bearing on whether you have a moral right to peer into their private lives for no reason other than the jollies you get from their violation.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:26 AM on January 31, 2017
Gen X Mormons like myself remember going through these ceremonies when they also carried the penalties for revealing each. Such as slitting your throat ear to ear or being disemboweled. \
Some may object to public viewing of these videos but since I no longer believe Masonic handshakes and passwords will get me into heaven there is a public interest in these videos.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant
posted by ShakeyJake at 10:57 PM on January 31, 2017 [3 favorites]
Some may object to public viewing of these videos but since I no longer believe Masonic handshakes and passwords will get me into heaven there is a public interest in these videos.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant
posted by ShakeyJake at 10:57 PM on January 31, 2017 [3 favorites]
It's bigotry. I'm grateful I've experienced it because it allows me to relate to other persecuted folks.
if you're grateful you've experienced it then you might perhaps not be relating to other persecuted folks as well as you think
posted by reprise the theme song and roll the credits at 12:08 PM on February 2, 2017 [2 favorites]
if you're grateful you've experienced it then you might perhaps not be relating to other persecuted folks as well as you think
posted by reprise the theme song and roll the credits at 12:08 PM on February 2, 2017 [2 favorites]
There is something sacred to people, and having it splashed everywhere, so people can make fun of it, or act contemptuously of it. It's not kind.
This is no different to filming inside a cosplay convention.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:27 PM on February 2, 2017
This is no different to filming inside a cosplay convention.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:27 PM on February 2, 2017
"This is no different to filming inside a cosplay convention."Its clearly very different. If this were filming inside of a cosplay convention without consent, any post featuring it would have been deleted immediately.
posted by Blasdelb at 2:15 AM on February 3, 2017
« Older ...nice place to visit but i wouldn't want to have... | How a sex site left member data open to anyone Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by colfax at 4:48 AM on January 27, 2017