"Covenants"; still applicable?

[_BishopRic]

How do you suppose this "deal" will work in improving relations between members and former members? Or has your former intent become so much smoke--not unlike your Church and marital covenants?

Your dig at my "church and marital covenants" appears to be just that -- a dig. If you can't understand that many of us made "covenants" under circumstances that we feel today were dishonest, and without proper disclosure to the truth of the organization's history -- thereby making any alleged covenant fraudulant, null, and void, then you are much more ignorant than I thought.

Let me ask you Wade, do you feel that the covenant made by one of Warren Jeff's 14 year old brides is a true and binding eternal covenant? One that should never be challenged? That these 400+ girls that have been rescued fron Eldorado should not be given the opportunity to learn of the other side of their FLDS background, and be given the chance to be free to live a new life independent of their upbringing?

I will agree that there are differences between today's LDS and today's FLDS churches. But the principle is EXACTLY the same! My "covenants" you speak of were made without disclosure of the real history of the church. There was no encouragement to study the information I've learned of today. How can there be a valid "covenant" when it is done the way it is?

I know you don't agree with what we exmo's believe. But at least you should be able to understand where we are coming from, and have a small amount of empathy towards it.

Or have YOU chosen not to help bridge the gap?

I wanted to pull this forward and get a response from Wade -- if he is still around. I'm particularly interested in the concept of what constitutes a binding "covenant?"

Thoughts? Or for any other exmos, what "covenants" do you feel obligated to still adhere to?

[_skippy the dead]

I wanted to pull this forward and get a response from Wade -- if he is still around. I'm particularly interested in the concept of what constitutes a binding "covenant?"

Thoughts? Or for any other exmos, what "covenants" do you feel obligated to still adhere to?

I do not feel obligated to keep any covenants made in the temple. Those covenants were made based upon a set of beliefs and premises that no longer exist for me. That doesn't mean that I will rush to hold temple ceremonies up to constant public ridicule, but I do not feel obligated to consecrate anything to the church or not discuss what transpires within, etc.

I can't think of any church covenants that I consider to be binding at this point.

[_Inconceivable]

Good questions, BishopRic,

I am supposing the only binding covenants or commitments made in the temple are those enforceable by the law of the land.

There are none as I recall.

Although legal marriage, by law, requires certain obligations. Mainly refering to spousal maintanance and childcare.

None of which were consistantly practiced by the father of polygamy: Abraham (refering to Hagar and their son).

[_Scottie]

When I first left, I still felt as though I had made certain covenants in the temple, and I didn't feel right breaking them.

Until someone pointed out that I had covenanted to obey the law of consecration. There is no way I'd obey that law if it ever comes back around. So, since I felt no obligation to that oath, I didn't feel any obligation to any other oaths either.

[_Mercury]

Covenants are a two way promise. the church broke theirs so I am more than comfortable with not keeping my end of the bargain.

[_Sethbag]

All of the covenants made in the temple were made with the officiator acting for God. I was one party to the covenants, God was ostensibly the other. Since God doesn't actually exist, there literally is no actual covenant.

One cannot induce me, under the false pretense of representing (with authority) God, who doesn't exist, and then claim that it is my obligation to abide by my part of the covenant. The covenants were fraudulently represented to me and fraudulently entered into by the other side, therefor there is no obligation for me to abide by them.

I do, however, have a valid marriage certificate from Maricopa County in the state of Arizona. God might not exist, but Maricopa County does, so I'm still married, even if I'm never going to living in a mythical Celestial Kingdom and pump out infinitely numerous spirit babies through Celestial Sex with my harem of wives, starting with my current wife.

[_BishopRic]

All of the covenants made in the temple were made with the officiator acting for God. I was one party to the covenants, God was ostensibly the other. Since God doesn't actually exist, there literally is no actual covenant.

One cannot induce me, under the false pretense of representing (with authority) God, who doesn't exist, and then claim that it is my obligation to abide by my part of the covenant. The covenants were fraudulently represented to me and fraudulently entered into by the other side, therefor there is no obligation for me to abide by them.

I do, however, have a valid marriage certificate from Maricopa County in the state of Arizona. God might not exist, but Maricopa County does, so I'm still married, even if I'm never going to living in a mythical Celestial Kingdom and pump out infinitely numerous spirit babies through Celestial Sex with my harem of wives, starting with my current wife.

This is one of the challenges as it relates to my history. I agree with all the comments about "church" issues. But a marriage in the temple involves both "covenants" of a temporal nature, as well as religious.

I left the church over 10 years ago, as far as I was concerned (still on the records today). My very TBM wife expressed a willingness to work on the marriage, and stay together, despite our differences. We had a reasonably good and healthy marriage -- didn't fight, had fun together, etc.. But we both knew we were very different people now (admittedly, I changed much more than she), and knew it would take work to re-establish a working marriage situation. So we agreed to marriage counseling.

We tried a few counselors. The TBM counselors couldn't get past the approach that "in time, he might return to the church." And the never-mos were not respected by her. We finally found a counselor that we both liked. He got his Phd in marriage and family counseling at BYU, but was a non-Mormon. He was very good.

We worked with him for a few years. At (what turned out to be) our last session, he asked each of us to write the 5 things we most needed from the other. He looked at our papers, then looked up at us and suggested we get a divorce. Her 5 items all related to the church. She needed a man to take her to the temple, give the children priesthood blessings, prepare for the CK with the family, etc.. I wanted freedom to live a spiritual life as I felt comfortable with, support to find my new path, etc.

He felt (and was very right) that the apparent need to change me was going to be more of a problem than he had thought; and that the kids would be better served with two parents living there own path happily, that together unhappily.

So one thing I think I have learned is that when we have a need to change another (we call that codependency in the addiction world); when our own well-being depends on the beliefs and behaviors of another, we can't be truly happy. I find that mixed faith relationships can work if they can get past that trait, and it is very common in the LDS church. If not, life can be a living hell for both people.

So I agree that the "religious" aspects of the covenants are null when we learn a new path, and create a huge challenge to re-establish workable commitments when one leaves.

[_rcrocket]

I can't think of any church covenants that I consider to be binding at this point.

What about the covenant to be anonymously obsessed, with a very thin education, about the Church on a public board despite your departure therefrom?

[_skippy the dead]

What about the covenant to be anonymously obsessed, with a very thin education, about the Church on a public board despite your departure therefrom?

Blah blah blah anonymous blah blah blah

[_rcrocket]

What about the covenant to be anonymously obsessed, with a very thin education, about the Church on a public board despite your departure therefrom?

Blah blah blah anonymous blah blah blah

Very good comeback. Now, back to your Star Wars novella.