Pa Pa wrote: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
--------------------
It's kind of hard to believe that those of whom you speak are completely untrustworthy. Do you think these same people have stopped making payments on their houses, car, etc? Do they stop paying taxes as well? Do they cheat on college exams? Are they dishonest in business?
When I made this "binding promise" as some would put it, it was between "me and God". I see no justification for ANYONE to judge my integrity/honesty/trustworthness when it is between me and the Lord. The LDS leaders have said on many occassions that items such as tithing and personal worthiness are between each individual and God, not some self righteous message board poster who thinks he/she can judge that which they know nothing about (since it was a private meeting between me and the Lord).
"The only thing I KNOW is that I don't know"
"Only one thing has to change for us to know happiness in our lives: where we focus our attention." Greg Anderson
guy sajer wrote: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.
Since there is significant disput about a and b, doesn't that make a difference?
There may be plenty of dispute about the existence of wormholes, but does that mean we can safely ignore the possible existence of such?
It makes all the difference. Since I (or other 'apostates') do not accept a or b, I (we) have no ethical obligation. If YOU, however, accept either a or b, then perhaps you do have such an ethical obligation. But don't project your acceptance of a or b on the rest of us.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
beastie wrote: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.
No, the oaths were made before God, Angels and Witnesses, but were made to Mormon God, or possibly the Mormon church. They were not made to the other people in the temple. If necessary, I can provide the exact wording of such oaths. I've no moral reservations about doing so.
Are you referring specifically to the covenants made to not reveal the names and signs of the various tokens, or do you have something else in mind?
Who do you think the covenant is made with?
What level of disclosure do you think makes an ex-mo untrustworthy? If I discuss the temple rites with my never-mo husband, is that a violation that makes me untrustworthy in all respects? Or are you limiting your condemnation for those who post content on the internet?
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
beastie wrote: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?
I think that fraud is not a necessary element for defense in this case. A contract is voidable if it was made under undo influence or under misrepresentation. I think both of these elements were present.
Besides, a contract is not valid unless it was made for consideration. The Church provides no consideration to the entering parties, so it is not a valid contract.
The idea that someones integrity is impugned because they do not follow a void contract is simply silly.
TrashcanMan79 wrote: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.
Perhaps they were saying it was a fabrication to keep suspicion away, so that potentials would still be converted, and once they went to the temple and saw that indeed this was the temple ceremony, the TBMs could indoctrinate and say something to the effect of it takes many visits to understand the temple. Any questions as to why the initial lie was told would be in the "milk before meat" category.
Just a theory.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Pa Pa wrote: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 don't know if Scientologists or JWs have any secrets/oaths comparable to the Mormon Endowment, but supposing for the sake of discussion they did, would you view an ex-member of either of these organizations as untrustworthy for breaking an oath and revealing secrets of their respective faiths?
I expect that, for the sake of consistency, you would. Am I wrong?
guy sajer wrote: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.'
Most believing Mormons who I know believe that the top leadership, including Joseph Smith, never lie to us. Now, I grant that Joseph Smith lied about polygamy, but I do not believe he was a swindler nor do I believe that the other leadership lies to us.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO