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

[_asbestosman]

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.

*sigh* I guess you win. I'm not going to encourage you to proivde the exact wording, but I'm not convinced. I'll have to wait until I do it again (probably in a week and a half).

[_asbestosman]

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.

I think, though, the problem is that God doesn't just represent some other party in the minds of believers. Rather, God represents an absolute as though one were promising the universe--not another party or person--of something one will absolutely do since God is seen as greater than all of humanity combined.

[_KimberlyAnn]

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.

I think, though, the problem is that God doesn't just represent some other party in the minds of believers. Rather, God represents an absolute as though one were promising the universe--not another party or person--of something one will absolutely do since God is seen as greater than all of humanity combined.

So you're a mind reader now, Asbman?

I most certainly did not believe I was making promises to the universe as a whole. Your above characterization of Mormon God strains credulity. As a Mormon, I believed God was a resurrected man, not omni-present, and certainly not "the universe". He was a physical being. I believed he lived on a planet near Kolob, probably had many wives, and sired spirit babies by the billions. That was the God to whom I made oaths, and I do not believe that Mormon God even exists.

I believe the Mormon church and it's God to be a fraud. I wasn't forewarned of what oaths I would be taking in the temple, wasn't shown the "contract" in advance and I am not under any obligation to keep a single covenant or oath made under such circumstances, and made to something that doesn't exist.

KA--Wears her temple robe as a toga.

[_asbestosman]

So you're a mind reader now, Asbman?

I can read my mind--usually.

I believed he lived on a planet near Kolob, probably had many wives, and sired spirit babies by the billions.

Yes, me too. God is a physical being and I make the promises with Him, but in my mind He represents (not is, but represents) the totality of everything. Making a promise with Him, in my mind, is like making a promise with not only the physical being God the Father, but all He represents or the absolute because God is seen as the ultimate authority--what He wants is right, etc.

I won't pretend to read others minds now so I'll ask. Did you not see a promise to God as having more weight or being more absolute than any other promises like, say, promising your kids you'd go to Disneyland? Isn't it just that you now think that God isn't holding you to those promises rather than that those promises weren't intially made with the assumption that these would be the most absolute promises available? Maybe you didn't see it that way. I know I do. Well, so much for mind reading by assuming that other believers have similar beliefs to my own.

Anyhow, it's not like I think exmos all turn into shady insurance salesmen and car dealers or something--not that I'd trust either one if they were Mormon or anything else either.

[_OMWO2]

So you're a mind reader now, Asbman?

I can read my mind--usually.

I believed he lived on a planet near Kolob, probably had many wives, and sired spirit babies by the billions.

Yes, me too. God is a physical being and I make the promises with Him, but in my mind He represents (not is, but represents) the totality of everything. Making a promise with Him, in my mind, is like making a promise with not only the physical being God the Father, but all He represents or the absolute because God is seen as the ultimate authority--what He wants is right, etc.

I won't pretend to read others minds now so I'll ask. Did you not see a promise to God as having more weight or being more absolute than any other promises like, say, promising your kids you'd go to Disneyland? Isn't it just that you now think that God isn't holding you to those promises rather than that those promises weren't intially made with the assumption that these would be the most absolute promises available? Maybe you didn't see it that way. I know I do. Well, so much for mind reading by assuming that other believers have similar beliefs to my own.

Anyhow, it's not like I think exmos all turn into shady insurance salesmen and car dealers or something--not that I'd trust either one if they were Mormon or anything else either.

asbestosman - I must say you are at least more civil then some of the posters on the other board that this topic was discussed on. While I appreciate your feeling that a promise is a promise, I do not see life so black and white. I prefer to see things with shades of grey. I also consider the circumstances in which one entered into a contract. I feel that the LDS church is a bit manipulative in the manner in which a new temple goer is exposed and committed to these "promises". The option to leave "prior" to ever hearing what contract we are making is a questionable practice. It seems odd and manipulative to me to hold people to a promise while dangling a "golden carrot" with promises of a greater knoweledge. I feel that this "greater knowledge" was never given to me by the "other" party and so therefore the contract was voided by the "other" party. With that I feel no obligation to refrain from discussing the temple ceremony, both pre and post 1990. I have discussed most of the temple ceremony with my oldest daughter and will with the rest of my children when the time is right. I do this to allow them to make an informed decision regarding Mormon temples. Do I have a website exploiting the temple ceremony? No. Do I condone it? I see no issue with it if one chooses to do it. I certainly do not view them as "untrustworthy" or "liars" as has been stated.

[_guy sajer]

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.

Can somebody find and refer to (I think it was Dallin Oaks) who defended the practice of 'Lying for the Lord,' maybe I'm misremembering.

Abman, what do you call pretending to posses magical powers to find buried treasure and charing people for the service if not a swindle?

(As an aside, if I could actually find buried treasure, I'd sure as hell not charge anyone money to find it, I'd find it myself and get frig'n rich.)

[_asbestosman]

I'm not trying to paint exmos as liars or totally untrustworthy or whatever. Maybe I'm not sure exactly what leaves me feeling uneasy about it all--there are probably many factors. Still, I do not think it is justified to divulge the temple content because I believe that the covenants present no imminent danger and I believe that revealing the temple stuff hurts Mormons in a way that I see no need for. Similarly, even though I never promised not to make fun of other religions, I don't see any justification for me to do so (and I'm probably not perfect at it).

[_truth dancer]

Let's say you promised to donate $10,000 to a relief agency under the impression they would provide relief to the victims of China's earthquake.

Then you discovered that the relief agency was actually spending the money on oh, let's say fancy condos on Hawaii's beachfront.

Would someone who decided not to give the money to the relief agency be considered untrustworthy?

~dancer~

[_asbestosman]

Abman, what do you call pretending to posses magical powers to find buried treasure and charing people for the service if not a swindle?

I call it a colofrul story that was based on truth but exagerated. I don't belive that Joseph pretended to posses magical power to find treasure, rather others insisted he had it so despite mild protests he caved in and took the job. That's more or less how the faith-promoting version of the account was related to me.

[_asbestosman]

Let's say you promised to donate $10,000 to a relief agency under the impression they would provide relief to the victims of China's earthquake.

Then you discovered that the relief agency was actually spending the money on oh, let's say fancy condos on Hawaii's beachfront.

Would someone who decided not to give the money to the relief agency be considered untrustworthy?

No.

I don't see how that applies to the temple covenants since I don't see how failing to disclose them somehow makes you suffer personal loss or protects criminals. I see how disclosing them hurts other Mormons though.