Question for ex-mo's...are you untrustworthy?

[_Pa Pa]

I posted this over a MAD...I thought I would get some of your responces...

As most of you know, one can go on to the internet and see the entire Temple Ceremony. This is because of Ex-mos who have broken their word and revealed these ordinances to non-believers.

Even if they no longer believe that these things are of God…they (as part of the endowment) gave their “word” that they would never reveal these things to the world.

So the question?

If they cannot be trusted to “keep their word” (promise) concerning these things. Can we expect them to keep their word concerning anything else, and as such become untrustworthy in all things?

Pa Pa





--------------------

[_beastie]

The "contract" was agreed to under fraudulent circumstances. It's not morally or ethically required to abide by a contract filed under such circumstances.

[_antishock8]

I refuse to address this question until LoaP and Bob Crockett address my questions concerning their honesty.

[_silentkid]

So the question?

If they cannot be trusted to “keep their word” (promise) concerning these things. Can we expect them to keep their word concerning anything else, and as such become untrustworthy in all things?

Pa Pa

Nope. We can't expect them to keep their word in anything. Exmos are an untrustworthy bunch. Liars. Disingenuous individuals. Are you serious? Is the Library of Congress an exmo?

[_Pa Pa]

I refuse to address this question until LoaP and Bob Crockett address my questions concerning their honesty.

OK...then why address this post to me. Take it up with them!

[_asbestosman]

The "contract" was agreed to under fraudulent circumstances. It's not morally or ethically required to abide by a contract filed under such circumstances.

Perhaps not morally or ethically, but there are some implicit contracts that one is legally required to fulfill even under fraudlent circumstances. If a man and women decide to have sex together, but the man doesn't want to have to pay child support and the woman assures him that she's on the pill but is lying and gives him a condom with small holes poked in it, if she get pregnant then he'll still have to pay up (even if she doesn't want him to pay up).

Furthermore, I think there is some question as to whether the promises agreed to in the temple were done so under fraudulent circumstances. I certainly do not think they were fraudulent. Doesn't that uncertainty imply that perhaps this is a bit different than clear-cut fraudulent circumstances? The witnesses you were with when you made promises were likely not trying to defraud you. Does this matter? The promises you made do not include silence about harm to others (as with promises not to report inappropriate touching, etc.). Doesn't this make a difference too?

[_antishock8]

I refuse to address this question until LoaP and Bob Crockett address my questions concerning their honesty.

OK...then why address this post to me. Take it up with them!

I wasn't talking to you, Sir! Gosh darn you to heck!!

[_asbestosman]

If they cannot be trusted to “keep their word” (promise) concerning these things. Can we expect them to keep their word concerning anything else, and as such become untrustworthy in all things?

I'd be careful. Apparently Joseph mislead others about whether he was practicing polygamy. Also, apparently God mislead people by using the phrase "eternal damnation" (see D&C 19).

[_beastie]

Perhaps not morally or ethically, but there are some implicit contracts that one is legally required to fulfill even under fraudlent circumstances. If a man and women decide to have sex together, but the man doesn't want to have to pay child support and the woman assures him that she's on the pill but is lying and gives him a condom with small holes poked in it, if she get pregnant then he'll still have to pay up (even if she doesn't want him to pay up).

Furthermore, I think there is some question as to whether the promises agreed to in the temple were done so under fraudulent circumstances. I certainly do not think they were fraudulent. Doesn't that uncertainty imply that perhaps this is a bit different than clear-cut fraudulent circumstances? The witnesses you were with when you made promises were likely not trying to defraud you. Does this matter? The promises you made do not include silence about harm to others (as with promises not to report inappropriate touching, etc.). Doesn't this make a difference too?

The contract is between the individual and GOD. It's not between the individual and other people in the temple. Once one concludes that the "other party", ie, GOD, was fraudulently represented, the contract is null and void.

Think about it. The "other party" that threatens the party with punishment for breaking the contract doesn't even exist (in the eyes of the exmormon). Yet we're supposed to feel ethically bound to this contract? Makes no sense to me.

[Anonymous]

So the question?

If they cannot be trusted to “keep their word” (promise) concerning these things. Can we expect them to keep their word concerning anything else, and as such become untrustworthy in all things?

Pa Pa

Nope. We can't expect them to keep their word in anything. Exmos are an untrustworthy bunch. Liars. Disingenuous individuals.

I already told PaPa this about you rascals (and I told him the whole truth [see below]).

"PaPa"]If they cannot be trusted to “keep their word” (promise) concerning these things. Can we expect them to keep their word concerning anything else, and as such become untrustworthy in all things?

Nope. They're all liars. Liars liars often with pants onfires. And they smell too. That's right. Exmos stop bathing because they fear water. You never know what water has been blessed, and they don't wanna take the chance of getting blessed water on their skin. It burns like acid on exmos. And something else, you can't trust them with children because of high likelihood of tolerating homosexuals. And tolerance of homosexuals is a kissing cousin characteristic of straight out Castro deli which serves ricearoni the San Francisco treat homosexuality. That's right. Exmos are basically lying stinking homos. And they'll eat your children if you give them a chance. That's right they're into cannibalism too. But they only cannibalize heteros because they're soo pro-homo. And they're all Democrats too.

Hey 007 this is not Mormon-discussions board, so don't be stupid! Did I hit a nerve?

Nope. Perhaps I should have just said that exmos probably think there promises are as hollow as they hold the church to be and thus don't matter once they have shifted life viewpoints towards one where LDS things are not sacred.

[Was I over the top earlier? I tried to be...but I didn't want to mention Nazi's or Marxism. Did I mention that all exmos shift from being staunch laisse faire capitalists to communists secretly arming for the communist revolution against their bougeoisie exploitererererers? Well they are. And they aren't going to use conventional weapons, but instead dirty dirty bombs which will be dipped in the excrement of atheist Richard Dawkins right before explosion just so they'll be extra dirty!]