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

[_skippy the dead]

Yay! Beastie called me a young'un. That makes my day.

Don't get too excited. Anyone under 45 is a young'un. :P

I'll take what I can get!

[_asbestosman]

I'm interested in this "implicit covenant" issue. It seems absurd on its face that one would be expected to make covenants that aren't even clearly spelled out. What an odd way to achieve salvation.

I had in mind covenants which are implied by obediance to the brethren who represent the church and who have asked that we not discuss anything about the temple except perhaps the things the church has published in their own material on the temple.

I do believe that you must be aware of them to be held acccountable, but I think it is also important to make good faith efforts to be aware of them.

[_beastie]

I had in mind covenants which are implied by obediance to the brethren who represent the church and who have asked that we not discuss anything about the temple except perhaps the things the church has published in their own material on the temple.

I do believe that you must be aware of them to be held acccountable, but I think it is also important to make good faith efforts to be aware of them.

Obedience to the brethren might be a pandora's box.

But aside from that, as you already recognized with your dual thread, you're still heightening ONE part of the required "obedience". The brethren want us to pay tithing, too. They want us to follow the LDS idea of chastity, the WoW, etc etc....so why is it this one thing is singled out above the others? You really don't think that it has to do with the oddity of the ceremony itself, and that the oddity, in and of itself, is somewhat embarrassing to the church?

[_Jersey Girl]

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





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

This could be the stupidest question but since that's never stopped me before...

Didn't Joseph Smith break his promise to the Masons about revealing their ceremony? Did he give his word?

Okay, that was two questions...

[_harmony]

I'm interested in this "implicit covenant" issue. It seems absurd on its face that one would be expected to make covenants that aren't even clearly spelled out. What an odd way to achieve salvation.

I had in mind covenants which are implied by obediance to the brethren who represent the church and who have asked that we not discuss anything about the temple except perhaps the things the church has published in their own material on the temple.

I do believe that you must be aware of them to be held acccountable, but I think it is also important to make good faith efforts to be aware of them.

Obedience to the Brethren? What the heck are you talking about? I took no vow of obedience to the Brethren or the church. What exactly are you referring to?

[_Inconceivable]

Non issue to outsiders - about the value of a garment in a furnace.

Only important to a Mormon within their insignificant little bubble of fiction.

Nobody else even cares - not even the blessed Mother Teresa.



By the way, which legal administrators are called upon to slit my throat and gut me like a pig?

I'd prefer to avoid these mad men.

Reality check, please.

[_the road to hana]

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





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

This could be the stupidest question but since that's never stopped me before...

Didn't Joseph Smith break his promise to the Masons about revealing their ceremony? Did he give his word?

Okay, that was two questions...

Great minds, and all that.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Abman,

I was trying to give some examples of my point without having to discuss the actual temple stuff but obviously that strategy is not working. :-)

OK, in the temple there are four basic covenants If I recall correctly. Can you think of them off hand?

Does anyone expect non-believers to give everything they have to the building up of the church?

Does anyone expect non-believers to never say anything bad about a GA if it is significant to some reason?

Does anyone expect non-believers to avoid loud laughter?

Does anyone expect a non-believer to continue to pay tithing to the LDS church? How about attend their church meetings?

My point is, it seems to me, folks who complain that non-believers break their covenants don't seem concerned that non-believers don't pay tithing or attend their meetings, but have issues if the temple ritual is discussed.

In other words, they are untrustworthy if they discuss the temple rituals but not if they don't attend church, or that they are covenant breakers if they divulge a ceremony but not if they engage in loud laughter.

~dancer~

[_Inconceivable]

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 discovered at an early age that if you wanted to discover whether a man was a member of the Mafia you just needed to ask him if the organization existed.

[_guy sajer]

I'm interested in this "implicit covenant" issue. It seems absurd on its face that one would be expected to make covenants that aren't even clearly spelled out. What an odd way to achieve salvation.

I had in mind covenants which are implied by obediance to the brethren who represent the church and who have asked that we not discuss anything about the temple except perhaps the things the church has published in their own material on the temple.

I do believe that you must be aware of them to be held acccountable, but I think it is also important to make good faith efforts to be aware of them.

Even if we had made some kind of covenant to the Brethren (which we have not), accountability works both ways. These are the same guys who refuse to be held accountable to anyone for anything.

For example, implied by their acceptance of our charitable donations is a responsibility to account for what they do with them. They don't even make a good faith effort to do that. When was the last time the Brethren admitted they were wrong, or made a mistake, or apologized, or in any other way held themselves accountable to the members of the Church they presume to serve?

On top of that, they discipline members who do try to hold them accountable.

They have no moral standing to expect accountability from anyone.