Darth J: A simple yes or no answer please.

[_krose]

I have been confused at the insistence that those of us who no longer believe should still feel any kind of obligation to honor a 'covenant' we made in the temple years ago, simply because it's something we once promised. Our good friend, Pahoran, once called me a dishonorable, despicable human (consider the source, of course) for admitting that I have no problem telling my children and wife exactly what goes on in the temple.

Many of us don't even believe the other party to the 'covenant' really exists, so why should we be expected to honor it? It feels like being expected to continue to "love, honor and obey" an ex-spouse long after a divorce.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I started watching the video but got bored. It's crazy that after so many times what is probably bizarre to most outsiders is just boring and repetitive to me. So many wasted hours in the temple that I wish I could get back.

[_Chap]

I started watching the video but got bored. ...

So did I - and I am interested in Mormonism.

What astonished me is how the Mormon church has stuck with the idea that it will be just great to have believers go through what is apparently exactly the same thing, in the same place, with the same clothes over and over and over again.

No seasonal change, no cycle of readings, hymns or prayers that change from week to week, and you have to watch the same film every time. I'd go crazy with boredom after the first ten visits or so.

But then my expectations were not formed within Mormonism, and I was not trained for years to expect this to be the most significant experience I could have on earth ... like everything else, it all goes to show that human beings can be conditioned by early training to find just about anything sacred and solemn.

I am so glad I was (through no merit of my own) raised in a religious culture whose liturgical expression has the potential to be sufficiently beautiful that even rank atheists sometimes come along to listen. (I don't go any more myself, though.)

[_Bob Loblaw]

I guess I'll have to skip forward to see whose head they substituted for Fred Hunting's.

[_Jaybear]

Hey Darth, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of contract law, but supposing the whole temple experience were a contract, would it be a valid one?

I would challenge the legally binding nature of the 'contract' on the basis of undue influence given the circumstances in which the temple patron is first proposed the contract obligations, given no time to consider it, and requiring public spectacle/humiliation at the only time and circumstance not to enter into it.

It also has aspects of a contract of adhesion. It is imbalanced in favor of elohim over the temple patron, undercutting the notion that it was freely bargained. If elohim is omnipotent and omniscient, there is not the proximity of bargaining strength between elohim and the temple patron that the patron can be said to have willingly entered into the promises made.

Its not illegal or (inherently) immoral to breach a contract.
The party breaching the contract, is simply responsible to pay damages that flow from the breach, to the nonbreaching party.
Here though, no one was harmed, or damaged by the breach.

BC has a better claim to asserting immoral behavior, by noting that they entered into the "contract", intending to breach the contract, and therefor with fraudulent intent.

At that point, however, they will say they did it for a greater moral cause ..... truth.

In the end, then, the answer to the question was it "right" to film the ceremony, turns on whether one accepts or rejects LDS truth claims.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

It's far from a simple question, but if you insist on yes or no, my answer would have to be yes. At this point, it seems obvious to me that the "sacred/secret" aspect of the temple is simply a manipulative tool to keep members in line, keeping embarrassing stuff amongst themselves and keeping them thinking that they are doing something important. In my view now, though, as a former member, it's amost funny how hard Mormons try to force me into protecting them from their religion. It's wrong for me to express any opinion against the church; I'm supposed to nourish their testimonies because, in the words on one, "it's hard enough to keep a testimony out there without you telling me stuff." Mormonism is surviving on psychological manipulation and control of it's members, former members and even never-members whom they manage to imbue with their attitude that "it's not nice to try to break my little bubble."

[_sock puppet]

Hey Darth, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of contract law, but supposing the whole temple experience were a contract, would it be a valid one?

I would challenge the legally binding nature of the 'contract' on the basis of undue influence given the circumstances in which the temple patron is first proposed the contract obligations, given no time to consider it, and requiring public spectacle/humiliation at the only time and circumstance not to enter into it.

It also has aspects of a contract of adhesion. It is imbalanced in favor of elohim over the temple patron, undercutting the notion that it was freely bargained. If elohim is omnipotent and omniscient, there is not the proximity of bargaining strength between elohim and the temple patron that the patron can be said to have willingly entered into the promises made.

Its not illegal or (inherently) immoral to breach a contract.
The party breaching the contract, is simply responsible to pay damages that flow from the breach, to the nonbreaching party.

I think when one is fully informed, has an opportunity for contemplating the proposed terms and can decline without peer pressure to accept, to enter the contract and later change one's mind, that breach has a slight stain of immorality. I think one should do as one commits, others rely on that.

Here though, no one was harmed, or damaged by the breach.

TBMs feel that what they shared with the breacher as sacred has been profaned. But if TBMs were truly interested in keeping it secret ('sacred'), they'd be more interested in a thorough preparation and not a process that basically gets the drop on first time patrons.

BC has a better claim to asserting immoral behavior, by noting that they entered into the "contract", intending to breach the contract, and therefor with fraudulent intent.

Much more venal that a change of mind breach, no doubt.

[_Darth J]

Hey Darth, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of contract law, but supposing the whole temple experience were a contract, would it be a valid one?

Brade, I have a thoughtful comment on this. But I am trying to get some achievements on XBox 360 games to bump up my gamer score, so it will have to wait until tomorrow.

[_brade]

Hey Darth, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of contract law, but supposing the whole temple experience were a contract, would it be a valid one?

Brade, I have a thoughtful comment on this. But I am trying to get some achievements on XBox 360 games to bump up my gamer score, so it will have to wait until tomorrow.

Ok, I'll try that scary Slenderman game in your sig while I wait.

Edit: Ok, I think I'll put this game on hold and finish it in the morning.

[_brade]

Hey Darth, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of contract law, but supposing the whole temple experience were a contract, would it be a valid one?

Brade, I have a thoughtful comment on this. But I am trying to get some achievements on XBox 360 games to bump up my gamer score, so it will have to wait until tomorrow.

How's your gamer score?