Talk:Temple (Latter Day Saints)/Archive 1

I have a problem with including certain temple information in any wikipedia articles. It is illegal. Publication of a matter and information of a private nature violates the right to privacy. Further, the only folks who are most qualified to contribute on the subject are prohibited from doing so...making for a less than accurate article. B 21:30, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

Description of temple ritual is not "illegal". I've put it back - I don't think Wikipedia need censor itself on this. - Someone else 21:56, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree that posting of some temple information would be "illegal" if it is copyrighted material -- and temple rituals are. A description of such rituals is not, as you have done, however many readers could find it poor taste to discuss certain things that are held sacred and not discussed because it is of a personal nature.

While the information is available through a search on the Internet, it does not necessarily need to be included. One example of precedence on Wikipedia in this matter is that of porn. It is easily obtained via searches on the Internet, however Wikipedia does not allow photos of porn to be included on the site as it can be offensive. There are other examples as well where the page author has overruled edits of questionable nature to an article. I would like to see if an administrator has an opinion on the inclusion of this information that could be offensive to some readers. Visorstuff 29 October 2003

Wikipedia's stated goal is to be "complete and accurate". It therefore includes a great deal of material that people find offensive. Administrator's opinions are of no more import than any other users; if you are looking for input from all users you might ask on the mailing list or the Wikipedia:Village Pump. -- Someone else 03:01, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

While there may be some intellectual property right attached to temple rituals (including mere descriptions), that is not my point. There is a right to privacy at common law. (The current right to privacy article does not really address this common law right; although it mentions the celebrity status exception in U.S. law, the article introduces it in terms of an international right to privacy.) With few, narrow exceptions (for example, the personal ongoings of celebrities, politicians, executive corporate officers, &c.), sensitive, private information cannot be publicly disclosed under the common law right. (Public disclosure is not to be confused with recording private information.) It is not a legal cause of action under intellectual property law, it is a tort. Sometimes even the exceptions for public disclosure in the case of persons who have put themselves in the public light do not apply. Consider, for example, Pamela Anderson who recently sued and settled her case because of the public distribution on the internet of her private sexual escapades. The public disclosure of this information went too far. Similarly the Church's private performance of temple rituals is intended as a private matter and explicitly not for public consumption because of the sacredness of the material to its members. It is sort of obvious why the Church doesn't sue in these matters...it's not interested in money damages and a lawsuit would just bring more publicity to the matter. But just because someone can get away with it, like downloading copyrighted songs, does not mean that it is legal nor moral for that matter. Putting aside mere offensiveness, how about morality and civility? I'd hope that wikipedia would give legality, morality and civility higher priorities than "complete and accurate". Further the "complete and accurate" comment completely missed my second point: it is not going to be complete and accurate if those who are most qualified to edit the article cannot engage well in the editing processing.

There is also likely to be developed over the coming decades a more well defined right to privacy (against governmental intrusion) under the 14th Amendment and subsequent congressional legislation applying it to the private sector similar to how civil rights legislation was developed. We are already starting to see it with, for example, the federal do-not-call telemarketing legislation. Many constitutional law experts consider many of the 14th Amendment rights (such as the right to abortion or homosexual relations) to fall under a broader umbrella of the right to privacy; that is, these other rights are extensions of the more fundamental right to privacy. My point here is that one of the great legal movements afoot is to codify the boundaries of privacy...to state what citizens feel should fall within that zone of privacy. I would expect that people would recognize that the subject matter of this article is of the sort that would fall into that zone of privacy.

The application of the common law right to privacy on the subject matter of this article is unique, but falls well within the considerations of that right and IMO, persuasively so. As a devout Mormon I do feel that working on this article is iffy. Some folks would definitely be offended by the material that was cut out...and not just Mormons but people who feel strongly about the right to privacy and feel that the material is too intrusive. At the same time, I think that some description can be included in the article that is legal and civil (or at least moral) and is relatively complete and accurate. Visorstuff also makes some good suggestions in the direction I was contemplating.

Mostly I bring this whole issue up because until now there has been no discussion and there are certainly issues about this article that need to be fleshed out first. So what I'm recommending is that the material be cut out for now with a reference to see this talk page and that the issues and the material be fleshed out before it is replaced or reverted. Maybe the same material that is being cut out will go back in (and then some), but it needs to be looked at a little closer first.

Finally, Someone else, I'd like to know what qualifies you to say the inclusion of the material is legal? Are you an attorney or have some experience on this topic?...because I am an attorney and although this is not my area of expertise, I'm relatively familiar with the case law on this subject. B 18:21, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

No, I am most certainly not a lawyer. The right to privacy can be asserted by the parties to a private act. If one of those parties tells someone else, and that someone reveals a private secret, there is no cause of action again the third party, let alone any further people who learn of it. It's quite clear that discussion of Mormon temple rituals is an exercise of free speech, and you'd frankly probably have more luck in censoring the material if you stuck to moral appeals. In the meantime, I'll post a request for more input on this issue on the village pump. -- Someone else 18:48, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You are confusing mere gossiping with public disclosure (even if by a third party). It is not clearly a legal exercise of free speech. Free speech has never been (nor intended) to be an absolute right in US jurisprudence. In this case free speech conflicts with the right to privacy. B 19:27, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

It is IMO important for a secular reference work not to defer to claims of sacredness by any religion in explaining that religion to non-believers,while still avoiding what anyone other than a thin-skinned and devout believer(not pointing a finger,just generically criticizing hypersensitivity) would regard as insults.--L.E./12.144.5.2

I generally agree. B 19:27, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

This matter does not really need to be stated in terms of sacredness...and a court (ruling in favor of privacy protection) would more likely address the matter as something which is of no interest to the public because it is intended only for qualified Mormons and not for the public and it doesn't affect the public. B 19:46, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Since the article states clearly that it is based on publicly available accounts and personal information of the authors, I don't see how there can be any violation of privacy. DJ Clayworth 19:03, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just because material is publicly available does not mean that material is legally available. B 19:27, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Time to throw my $.02 in. Let me state a few things up front in order to be as clear as possible:

1. I am LDS
2. I am not a lawyer
3. I was disappointed and a bit offended by the ritual descriptions
4. I am not sure that Right To Privacy extends to temple ceremonies

In all fairness, even the brightest attorney cannot be so certain of the outcome of a case like this. I have my professional opinion about it, but as I said it is a unique case for which I don't think there is a similar case exactly on point. At most there would be relevant cases with analogies to inform judicial decision makers. B 20:15, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Now that that's out of the way, I think that wikipedia information can go too far. For example, similar to what Visorstuff said, we do not have images or people engaging in sodomy though we give a description of the act(s). Inclusion of such images are not encyclopedic and would degrade the reputation of the 'pedia as a whole.

While I do not feel that including a in-depth explanation of the temple ceremonies is appropriate, a general high-level description would be fine. Inclusion of it is distasteful to the users who consider the rituals sacred and debased by public disclosure. If a user is particularly interested in what goes on in the temples, there are plenty of other sites on the Internet that have this information. Once again, similar to what Visorstuff said, we do not include images of porn—if a user is that interested in it, they may find it on the Internet themselves.

One further thing, too much information can be damaging. For example, is it appropriate for the 'pedia to explain, in-depth, how all magic illusions are performed? Doing so could seriosely jeopardize magicians' livelihoods. A high-level description of magic tricks and the illusion is fine, but full disclosure could be considered harmful and wreck their profession.

Not to mention other trade secrets or trade secrets in general: Coca Cola's secret formula or McDonald's special sauce. Is wikipedia to be so obsessed with free speech at the expense of other considerations?

That being said, I think leaving the in-depth descriptions out is the preferable course of action. It clearly offends many people who consider the ceremonies sacred and degraded by inclusion in the 'pedia. Similarly, if the Masons have ceremonies they perform and consider them private, they should be left out too, only giving a high-level description to those interested. —Frecklefoot 19:37, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. See comment below - cermonies are not included in other Wikipedia entries. -V

While this issue is being debated and imput given on various mailing lists, perhaps we can look for what is being said publically by the LDS Church about the issue, and there is a lot of information given. I am not for over-censoring any subject, but descriptions such as have been given are not complete or fully accurate to someone who has not experienced this, and therefore not an accurate representation. Those who have experienced this then should contribute as much as they can within what has been publically taught, and what is accurately available. I'll see what I can compile over the next week or so. Visorstuff 30 Oct 2003

On the legal issue, I don't believe any right to privacy exists: the right to privacy, insofar as it exists at all, applies to individuals, not corporations or organizations. The latter can appeal to trade secret law, but that's a higher standard that needs to be met. In general, once it's out in the open, even if the way it got out was illegal, it's now legal to republish. This is why media outlets do not get in trouble when they publish leaks of classified information. Are you suggesting that the LDS temple rites are more legally protected than government-classified information is? --Delirium 01:29, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

We are not suggesting more rights, but we are stating that the Temple ritual is copyrighted, and that copyright has been renewed and is closely held. Therefore any information containing direct quotes from the temple are in violation of copyright law, therefore not appropriate for this forum.

Also in regard to a trade secret, if it is in the open, it is still illegal to republish - there was a Coke case on this in the 1980s, where the information was obtained illegally, republished and the company sued until it was quieted. They church is protective of the copyright or 'trade secret' and regularly sends letters to violators. The media posting classified information fits under a completely different set of laws under freedom of press, not necessarily freedom of information. There is a big difference that you may read about in most communications law books (communications was my undergraduate degree and we studied this exact issue in depth in various law classes I took). In addition, if the reporter knows how the information is obtained in illegal information gathering, then he may not republish the information. Most of the information available about the temple on the Internet states how it was taken. In any case, this is comparing apples to oranges, and the argument is invalid in both cases as it is a religious organization, not the government or company. The Church has been successful in some lawsuits asking people to take down pictures of Garments or the temple rites. -Visorstuff 31 Oct 2003

If the current article contains direct quotes copyrighted by the temple, then those quotes can simply be paraphrased. Unless, somehow, any description of the rituals is somehow a copyright violation, but that would be a very weird type of copyright... Also, if the ritual itself is legally a trade secret, could you site any court cases in which the Church prosecuted and won? I believe the existence of any such cases to be extremely unlikely, since the Church of Scientology is very aggressive is suing people who violate their copyrights, but they don't sue people who merely paraphrase/restate the contents of their secret teachings; if the Church of Scientology could sue those people under trade secret laws, they would have done so, thus I don't think such laws apply here. -- Khym Chanur 02:30, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

Delirium, under federal law, it is true that corporations and other organizations (artificial persons) do not enjoy all of the same rights as individuals nor always the same extent of those rights. For example, artificial persons are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment, but do not have the right against self incrimination under the 5th Amendment. But generally artificial persons are treated as "persons" under the US Constitution. This was decided in Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific in 1868. However there is no such thing as "federal common law" and so there would be no "federal common law right to privacy" for individuals either...let alone artificial persons. The federal cases on the US constitutional right to privacy currently weigh against a broad right to privacy for artificial persons (e.g. US vs Morton Salt in 1950 that artificial persons "can claim no equality with individuals in the enjoyment of a right to privacy"), but this is still a developing area of law (rt to privacy) and will probably be one of the biggest legal battlefields over the next years with far-reaching influence. Now from the beginning, I have been referring to the states` common law right to privacy...and there are precedents under various state laws that are favourable of a right to privacy for corporations. So to make a blanket, unqualified statement that the right to privacy does not extend to corporations and other organizations is false. "Government classified"? Do you mean "secret-classified"? Your other comments seem to confuse trade secrets with the government's secret-classified information. Divulging secret-classified information like military secrets is a crime and it's naive to think that the government would not or legally could not stop the media from divulging certain government information that would harm the nation's security interest. Publishing a leaked unclassified memo from Rumsfeld probably does not jeopardize the nations security interest. Trade secrets is not my area of expertise either, but I can tell you that it is not as simple as your broad statement that "once [a trade secret] is out in the open, even if the way it got out was illegal, it's now legal to republish"..that is naive. I'm spending more time on this than I can afford and you make it more difficult when you positively assert an opinion on a legal issue on which you only know enough to make things more confusing. -B 16:43, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Visorstuff, thank you for your assertion that the ceremonies are copyrighted. When were they published? If not published, when were they first set down in a tangible form? Where may I obtain versions published prior to the exiration of the copyright, which are now in the public domain under copyright law? Which portions of the temple ritual do you assert are creative literary works rather than factual information? If you would like a legal discussion, please avoid assertions which might be seen as ill-founded and instead cite some cases to support your views, preferably those which are on the internet and available for all here to read. You may wish to do a search on cases relating to a utility called DeCSS and the legality of publication of the formerly trade secret material it used prior to occupying your time in such a fruitless way. There are people here experienced with IP law who will be happy to review the merits of your assertions,including some lawyers practicing in the IP law field. JamesDay 18:19, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

James, the temple cermonies are available through the Library of Congress. They were copyrighted the first time during the 1870s by a corporation set up by the Church, which leaves their copyright in effect indefinately as long as it is renewed properly. You may request the information from the library of congress. The temple films are also copyrighted and the copyright is also available through the library of congress, and the copyright/background information can be found on various Internet sites including the Internet Movie Database (the 1969 version information can be found at http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0064697/). You assert that previous versions should be available in public domain because of the lapse of copyright (seventy years after author's death), which does not always apply to corporations, but only single authors. Under current rulings and the recent extension during the digital millenium act, the material therefore is still held in copyright and will continue to be proprietary and protected under copyright law until a specified time after the Church chooses not to renew the copyright. Intellectual property law overlaps much of communications law and copyright law, but few lawyers would be able to comment on the broad range of issues and cases brought up. I think we should stick to Wikipedia precedence, which would err on the side of using authorized, legal and accurate descriptions about temple ceremonies which to this point has not been fully represented in the article.

DeCSS is a completely different issue.

We should not confuse freedom of speech issues, copyright laws and other public information/censorship issues and just think they fit in the same package of law. There are a number of different laws and legal precedence that could be applied and attempted. V

Please clarify your following statement: "Which portions of the temple ritual do you assert are creative literary works rather than factual information?" How does this apply to copyright law, trade secret provisions, privacy under states common law or freedom of speech issues? Copyright law and rest apply to both fictional and factual works. Maybe I'm missing your point. Please clarify.

It is also important to note that while the three or four members of the LDS Church commenting about this subject on this talk page disagree with the entry and feel it is inaccurate, we have not yet deleted it until a consensus is reached as we will err on the side of 'freedom of speech.' This is appreciated. However, the description is just not complete nor totally accurate in my view. -Visorstuff

• • Thanks for your clarification regarding first publication. I'm using a list here to try to make it a bit easier to keep my comments clear. Brace yourself, for it's a lot of writing:
  • Please see the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act for the current US copyright terms. Note that the 75 year term for early Mickey Mouse movies was to expire in the 2000-2004 period prior to that act, which extended copyright terms from 75 to 99 years for corporate works. The early church writings are clearly in the public domain at this point, so far as copyright law is concerned. Factual is an important question for copyright law, because facts cannot be copyrighted, only the specific expression of them. So the church could have a copyright for its official description of its practices but not for the description of them written by another person. The ceremonies themselves are purely factual (at least, for copyright law, which ignores the religious significance). There is no perpetual copyright in the US and the US Constitution was written to prohibit it, by requiring "limited terms". The net effect of this is that there is no useful copyright protection for the issues which concern you.

Thanks for the Bono Copyright link. That's useful. —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, however there are cases going on with how the law applies to estates and corporations, including "Gone with the Wind" and others. In that case, the estate in effect renewed trademarks and copyrights by hiring an independant author to write "Scarlet." The discussion may fit under this set of laws, however, protecting copyright through the use of trademarks is not my area of expertise. I do know that the LDS Church (or Community of Christ Church) holds most trademarks that are specific to so-called Mormonism. The extension by the act could be challenged easily as current the Supreme Court seems to rule on the side of the protection of copyrights. -Visorstuff

Visorstuff alludes at a great point. Despite constitutional or other legal limitations, lawyers can be very creative in formulating legal, constitutional means of extending and broadening (as well as shortening and limiting) copyright laws. Legislation like the Bono Copyright Act only tells half the story. The other half is how courts interpret and apply that law (and that sometimes depends on the biases and imagination of the court involved)...for good or bad, sometimes judicial review can put quite an idiosyncratic face on what appears to be very clear legislative language. —B 03:01, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

It's a good try but the Supreme Court thoroughly rejected an attempt to use tademark law to override public domain rights in a decision issued on 2 June 2003. Please see Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.. I haven't yet rewritten my initial overview for another audience into proper legal format but what is there now and the full decision it links to partially explains why I think this argument is unlikely to be successful. JamesDay 08:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• • Trade secret protection might be possible but there are some problems with it. First, it's clearly no longer secret. Second, those publishing the information are likely in many cases not to have been aware of any improper acquisition of the information, so won't have any legal liability for publishing it. The DeCSS case bears on this, for, while there were some legal successes, the overall result was a complete failure to protect the secret. Today, it's not a secret by any useful definition of the word secret and works using the former secret are in extremely wide use. The legal action undoubtedly hastened the spread of knowledge about the secret.
  • Asserting a right of privacy for information which is already widely published also appears to be extremely problematic, for it is assuredly no longer private information. While celebrities can win cases, they win them against those who took the work in the first place or sometimes those who published with full knowledge that the initial publication was of a private item. That costs the leaker money but it doesn't remove the information from wide public knowledge. In the Pamela Anderson case, the video is extremely widely available and anyone with a broadband internet connection can obtain it within 24 hours, likely significantly less, at no cost. Since the Wikipedia is republishing the information I see little prospect of legal action on this ground prevailing. Even if the Church was to prevail in legal action, which is most uncertain given the near certainty of excellent and free legal representation for the Wikipedia, the net result of the publicity surrounding the case would spread the knowledge further.

Thus, my earlier comment of why the Church generally doesn't pursue legal action: unwanted publicity. Your specific reference to wikipedia and its lawyers seems kind of overly-defensive. BTW, the Church has most excellent legal representation too...and far more resources... —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

BTW, please, what are the names of the law firms and lawyers representing wikipedia? and please tell, are any wikipedians? —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

The best way to contact Wikipedia's lawyer and people who track legal issues is to write to the wikilegal-l list, the details of which I've just added to Wikipedia:Mailing lists. JamesDay 09:10, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Some of you folks keep saying the same thing along the lines that somehow because it is widely available or now that it is out in the public that it is somehow no longer illegal to make it available. Repeating this wrong-headed mantra does not make it so. Pamela has a good case against any one who continues to make her video available. But going after each and every one wouldn't necessarily be worth it in terms of time, money, etc...Pam just went after the biggest fish, but just because she stopped there does not mean it is legal for any one else to keep making it available. Obviously, the remedy for breaching the right to privacy isn't very helpful because it has a tendency to make private info more public. This is why I've suggested that wikipedia adopt a policy of decency that says: ok, even if everyone else and their dog is making this info available to the public when it is illegal OR immoral to do so, as civil wikipedians, we won't stoop to that level. It should only be "extremely problematic" to someone with a defective moral compass. Why so legalistic? Let's assume that under current law (pick your jurisdiction: international, US, the state of Mississipppi) the Church does not have a right to privacy on its temple rituals, I'd expect or at least hope people (especially wikipedians) would feel that it should have a legal right of privacy in this thing and take appropriate precautions. —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I recommend that you seek information on the deepest secrets of Scientology to observe the consequences for church secrets. You won't like what you find, for those deepest secrets are readily available in spite of very large amounts of very costly legal action by that church.

JamesDay, aren't your comments in the para above somewhat presumptious?... —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

• • I commend you and the others of the church for your restraint, for that is the way to the greatest success you can achieve here. Doing otherwise would simply cause the page to be locked against edits, with the information remaining present and church members viewed with undeserved suspicion.
  • I don't think that you will be able to succeed in preventing a fairly comprehensive overview from being presented here. I know you will dislike that opinion, but it is what I expect the result to be.

None here have suggested not to have a "fairly comprehensive overview"...the issue is how detailed should that overview be. —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

• • What you may be able to do, through reasoned discussion and citing of reliable sources, is to end up with an article which presents the most accurate possible view of the situation. That is somewhat contrary to church teaching but it has one advantage: people are fearful of what they don't know and understand. An unsensational description in boring writing style is unlikely to arouse great additional curiosity but can serve to correct the mistakes of others and reduce the potential for harm which sensational writing elsewhere might cause. In this, the relative popularity of the Wikipedia (it's around the 1,000th most popular US site and, except when having technical troubles, is quite rapidly climbing) can help. So long as a respectfully written and accurate account of the information which is already public resides here.
  • I recognize that this is difficult for you and may be contrary to church teachings. Yet I see no better course for you or the church. Given the ease of mass communication today, the best I can suggest for the church is that it seeks a comprehensive overview of the information which is already public and tries to form a revised public presentation which describes the real facts as far as theology can allow, and further than it allows today. That unsensational writing will do more than a large fuss can do, for it will make it appear mundane and uninteresting to those not of your faith. Regrettably, I don't think that the church has a more successful or theologically desirable course available to it today. I know that these words are unwelcome to you but I see no prospect of real success for the church in any other approach.JamesDay 01:24, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wow, insightful prophesy! and from a non-Mormon too!... Look, generally your suggestions above are what I had in mind from the beginning as did, I am sure, other LDS folks participating in this forum: to have a comprehensive, unsensational, accurate (and hopefully respectfully detailed) article on this subject... Generally the material that I cut out earlier was ok, but there were parts that needed more discussion and there needed to be more discussion about how detailed the article should get.—B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

JamesDay, I have primarily focused on right to privacy issues while Visorstuff has primarily focused on intellectual property issues. Some of your posts do not clearly indicate to whom your comments are directed and seem to mix the two of us up. It would help if your comments were more clear on that point going forward. —B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

BTW, JamesDay, Consider some of your comments: "You won't like what you find"; "I know you will dislike that opinion"; and "I recognize that this is difficult for you"... Don't you think those comments are a bit patronizing, presumptious, probably off-the-mark and perhaps somewhat bigoted? You apparently are not as insightful as you might think about how LDS feel about your POV on wikipedia policy on this topic....—B 01:11, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I'm trying to address issues rather than address the posts of specific individuals. If you believe I'm in error when I write that I think a view won't be welcome or assume that a moral objection will apply to all religions, please do tell me that you believe I'm wrong and explain why - that can only serve to increase undertanding of the issues and how LDS people view them and would be welcome. JamesDay 08:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As for the subjective issue, I'd prefer a high-level outline. A detailed description might be warranted of some parts if they have proven controversial or somehow are otherwise relevant (for example, descriptions of some of Scientology's secret internal workings are relevant, as they have featured prominently in lawsuits, and so omitting them would be omitting information necessary to understand those suits). If there is no particular reason for going into details, there's no real reason to.

This is also my point - why include a detailed description, when the church is open about generalities that take place within temples? The details are irrelevant to most people other than to satisfy curiousity. -Visorstuff

Most of us would generally not disgree with you here except I dont' think the issue is necessary relevance because some would argue ALL of the info is relevant...a debatable POV. --B 16:43, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

The temple rituals are of interest in part because of reports of such things as post-death conversions of people to religions other than their own, infringing their privacy rights and religious freedom and potentially condemning their soul to the hell of their religion. That has made the nature of the activities a matter of public interest, particularly to those of strong religious beliefs. Such things appear to me to be well within the scope of an aricle on the church, being an opportunity to explain the truth of what happens and allay any unjustified fears. JamesDay 08:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

However, I'd generally err on the side of open information. If we have to respect each organization's "secrets", our articles on the Freemasons, Scientology, and any other society that likes to keep secrets would be essentially useless. --Delirium 01:29, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. This is why we should look at public and authorized available information on the subject. -Visorstuff

BTW - Freemason ceremonies are not in the Freemasons entry. Nor are Scientology's (Hubbard's) alleged 'higher-level' teachings available from the Internet about a belief in aliens. Another agument for Wiki precedence that cermonies should not be included in the entry. -Visorstuff

see Xenu. As far as I can tell, the only deference we make to the fact that the alien stuff is "secret" is to put a spoiler warning on it. -- Someone else 22:42, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good catch - I haven't seen that entry previously. We are still at loss for a complete consensus of precedence. Visorstuff 31 Oct. 2003

Yes, we are. As I've stated before, I'd prefer to just have the high-level overviews similar to what the Church publishes. The biggest reason I see for such is that as the addition I just re-added states, information about the temple ceremonies comes from unreliable sources. Active, devout members who have temple recommends and attend the temple regualarly are unlikely to add any reliable information to the article (if they did, they could risk getting their recommend yanked). All information comes from people who are in open opposition to the Church.

It just seems like common sense to me, but would you ask a Catholic priest about Jewish beliefs or a Jewish rabbi? Who do you think would give you more accurate information? The Church knows that people are curious about the temples and publsihes high-level overviews of what takes place within.

I would also ask those who are no longer of the church if the matter was difficult. The Catholic church and issues with some unfortunate activities of is priests and how the church handled them illustrate in part why the official words of a church are not always reliable on such matters. I doubt that anyone would assert malice but the church and some of its leaders did end up doing wrong and eventually recognising it. JamesDay 08:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

At the very very least, we should at least contain a warning similar to a spoiler alert that states that that accounts are from unreliable sources. The single sentence that states "judge for yourself" is insufficient IMHO. Something like the following:

Warning: The following information comes from unreliable sources and its accuracy is disputed!

I really don't see a precedent on the 'pedia for including unreliable material. In most cases, unreliable information is left out. The accuracy of this material is inherently dubious. —Frecklefoot 17:08, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regrettably, in this case the church material is also questionable, for it is seeking to keep secrets and may conceal and mislead, based on a belief of the greater importance of protecting the faith. Proper coverage in such situations requires including the reports of those who no longer feel they must protect the faith, just as is the case for reports from former Scientologists. JamesDay 08:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)