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

[_asbestosman]

The contract is between the individual and GOD. It's not between the individual and other people in the temple.

I'm quite sure that promises are made between the individual, and God and other witnesses in the temple. I'm certain that I promised both that I would or wouldn't do certain things.

If the promises were made to both other individuals and God and , if God was fraudulently represented is it then justified to renege on the promises made to others present? I would answer that it is only justified when there is sufficient danger to warrant it as in the case of reneging on promises to protect criminal acts, etc.

[_guy sajer]

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.

How can one be held morally accountable for breaking a covenant with a non-existent being?

When we covenant with God, the covenant assumes:

a. God exists
b. God has power to deliver on his end of the covenant

Since neither a or b hold there is no consideration and thus no binding pact.

[_asbestosman]

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

Nah, here's what happens when you tell the whole truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_char ... alaxy#Prak

Prak was a witness in a trial on Argabuthon where the Dwellers in the Forest were suing the Princes of the Plains and the Tribesmen of the Cold Hillsides. Prak was a messenger for Dwellers in the Forest sent to the other two parties to ask "the reason for this intolerable behaviour." He would always walk away thinking about how well-thought out the reason was, but he would always forget what it was by the time he got back. The white robots of Krikkit broke into the court room to steal the Argabuthon Sceptre of Justice, as it was part of the Wikkit Gate Key. In so doing they may have jogged a surgeon's arm, while the surgeon was injecting Prak with truth serum, resulting in too high a dose. When the trial resumed, Prak was instructed to tell "the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth," which, due to the overdose, he did. People at the scene had to flee or risk insanity as Prak told every single bit of the entire truth of the entire universe and all of its history, much of which they found ghastly. Prak recalled that many of the weird bits involved frogs or Arthur Dent. As a result, when Arthur Dent came to visit him in search of the truth, he nearly died laughing. He never did write down anything he discovered while telling the truth, first because he could not find a pencil and then because he could not be bothered. He has therefore forgotten almost all of it, but did recall the address of God's Last Message to His Creation, which he gave to Arthur when the laughter subsided. He died afterwards, not having recovered from his laughing fit.

[_beastie]

I'm quite sure that promises are made between the individual, and God and other witnesses in the temple. I'm certain that I promised both that I would or wouldn't do certain things.

If the promises were made to both other individuals and God and , if God was fraudulently represented is it then justified to renege on the promises made to others present? I would answer that it is only justified when there is sufficient danger to warrant it as in the case of reneging on promises to protect criminal acts, etc.

Well, it's been a while since I've been to the temple, but my interpretation was that I was making certain promises/covenants to God in front of witnesses. I wasn't promising anything to the witnesses.

This kind of reminds me of how LDS sometimes try to insist that exmormons are immoral and sinful when they no longer abide by LDS standards, such as the word of wisdom. Why in the world should people be forever bound to the ethics and standards of a religion they don't even believe in??? I don't believe the LDS God, or any other god, exists, and I'm supposed to keep promises I made to this imaginary being?

[Doctor Steuss]

I think it is unreasonable to say an exmormon is universally untrustable because he blabbed about the temple ceremony. If you look at it from his point of view, you can probably see some of his reasoning and understand that he's acting on something more subtle compulsive promise-breaking. He has chosen to break this oath for a reason. That same reason might lead him to blab about or mock other things LDS, but would not carry over to security issues at work, or client privacy if he is a lawyer or doctor, or personal family issues, or financial secrets if he is an analyst or accountant. More than likely the exmormon has not changed his attitude towards "trust" in any of these other personal and professional fields.

Let's just say, you might not want to tell the exmormon how Heavenly Father answered your prayers in some special way or how your patriarchal blessing "came true", because he has once before shown disrespect for your religion. Other than that, you shouldn't get carried away about his trustworthyness. Especially if he's an Eagle Scout.

[_guy sajer]

The contract is between the individual and GOD. It's not between the individual and other people in the temple.

I'm quite sure that promises are made between the individual, and God and other witnesses in the temple. I'm certain that I promised both that I would or wouldn't do certain things.

If the promises were made to both other individuals and God and , if God was fraudulently represented is it then justified to renege on the promises made to others present? I would answer that it is only justified when there is sufficient danger to warrant it as in the case of reneging on promises to protect criminal acts, etc.

If I remember correctly, the covenant is with God, but we testify to this covenant before "these witnesses in this temple on this day" or something to that effect.

[_Sam Harris]

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





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

I don't think that all exmos are untrustworthy. I think that some are friggin insane, but you have to understand that for many exmos, the experience of being a Mormon was not a happy one. Many people, even current LDS are somewhat unnerved, if not disturbed by the temple ceremony. Especially those who went prior to 1990. I went in 2004, and I had a nice experience, but that was partly due to the fact that I was sure that once I went through the temple, potential mates would view me differently, and what I perceived to be the stain of my non-virginity would be gone. But that doesn't mean I understood what I was doing.

I do not always understand, and I do not always agree with exmo motivations. But I do know that those who revealed the temple ceremony felt strongly that by doing so they'd keep others from "falling into the same trap". What they fail to realize is that not everyone sees it as a trap (and if they don't that doesn't mean there's something wrong with them), and not everyone who falls into it will want to get out.

But does that make all exmos untrustworthy? No. Many exmos just want to move on with their lives.

[Guest]

I have actually found some TBMs to be untrustworthy when it comes to discussing temple content. I once posted in a MySpace group a YouTube video revealing all the signs and tokens and their names, only to have the TBMs in the group claim that the video was a complete fabrication. I couldn't believe it. I've been through the temple many many times, and I know full well the video was accurate in its every particular, yet TBMs who, presumably, had been through as well had no trouble at all in claiming that the video's content was completely fabricated. It's almost as if some perceive the oath they make to not reveal the sacred secrets as giving them carte blanche to lie about them.

I have personally found ex-Mos to be more "trustworthy" than TBMs when it comes to discussion of the temple.

[_Pokatator]

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

You also posted this at CARM.

Where else have you posted this?

[Guest]

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





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

Let's turn this around.

Believing Mormons place their faith in a man who is a proven swindler and liar. Their top leadership justifies a policy of 'lying for the Lord.' Thus they belong to an organization in which lying is officially excused or justified if it suits the interest of the organization. (And this despite the fact that "Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness" is one of the 10 most signal commandments of the sect.) And the believers consent to this arrangement and often even defend it.

How, therefore, can THEY be trusted to keep their word or not to lie when it suits them?

Edited to note that I don't actually believe this. It is a rather contrived, silly argument to demonstrate, via juxtaposition, the contrived, silly argument advanced by Pa Pa.