You are exempt from my suggestion that tolerance is an appropriate behavior for ex-Mormons. I don't think tolerance, bonhomme and good will were ever in your nature, either before and after your departure from the Church and your marriage.
You must hope that insulting me will distract attention from the fact that you completely dodged my point. It won't.
Perhaps you can fall back on "I don't know what you're talking about".
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
truth dancer wrote: I have no idea where you get the idea that I have a theory that the "brethren" think former believers are untrustworthy. Perhaps YOU can show me where I said or suggested or insinuated such a thing?
You are either confusing me with someone else or are just making stuff up... not sure which.
So, what, do the brethren get to decide what covenants former members must or must not keep to be considered trustworthy after one leaves the church?
Sorry; I thought you made this statement and I was just asking for any references to possibly support this.
The above was a QUESTION asked of the originator of the thread.
One the one hand he/she suggested former members SHOULD keep their promises made as a temple going believer (to not disclose the temple ritual), OTOH, the brethren seem to NOT want members to keep their promise to wear their garments. Again, I was asking a question.
Hope that clears it up.
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
harmony wrote: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?
Isn't it implicit in that we lose our temple recommends when we don't? How do we sustain the Brethren if we do not follow their counsel? Furthermore, how do we consecrate ourselves to the church if we are not willing to obey the counsel received from those in authority?
Guy Sajer wrote: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.
They are accountable to God and even to each other. Furthermore we get to vote whether to sustain them. These men are held accountable. George P. Lee was accountable for his misdeeds.
With regard to donations, I feel they have demonstrated sufficient accountability. I gave that money to the church to do with as God sees fit. I believe God leads these men. I have faith that they will spend it as God inspires them to do. I do not believe that it is my responsibility to steady the ark or command the head.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
truth dancer wrote: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.
Alright, that's a fair point and one I brought up in a thread last month. Why, for example, do we not consider those who use God's name in vain to be covenant breakers on par with adulterers or those who reveal temple covenants? I think somehow the hurt is perceived as more personal and insulting when someone discloses the details of the temple. It would seem, then, that the covenants themselves aren't the whole issue. I mean, we all know that even good Mormons who are repenting of various sins (perhaps losing one's temper) will promise not to repeat that offense as part of repentance but will occasionally slip. We do not consider them horrible covenant breakers. On the other hand, someone who commits adultery is likely viewed that way probably in part because the hurt is much deeper and much more serious. Just a thought anyhow.
Oh, and loud laughter is likely seen as mocking or making light of sacred things such as the temple or the atonement. I was told that a good natured laugh is permissible but it must not be at the expense of God. In fact, it probably shouldn't be at the expense of anyone.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
So why is the hurt so much deeper? I believe it is due to what I said above - the temple ceremony is odd, and members know it is odd. They suspect that the simple fact of revealing it - even without mockery, just simply revealing it - will open them to embarrassment because it is just so strange.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
rcrocket wrote: I don't think tolerance, bonhomme and good will were ever in your nature, either before and after your departure from the Church and your marriage.
That's actually 'bonhomie' - I know you like to get French right.
'Bonhomme' on the other hand means something a bit more like, well, 'chap'. I am of course full of tolerance and goodwill.
I'd love to know, by the way, whether your references to people throwing feces on to the roofs of LDS meeting houses were anything more than a rather nasty figure of speech. Does this happen often? Ever? If so, it is reprehensible.
If it doesn't actually happen, and is just your special way of talking, you might try washing your mouth out.
I think the question "are all exmo's untrustworthy" is about as valid a question as "are all muslims untrustworthy" or "are all italians untrustworthy".
To take a certain group of people and try and stuff them into a single stereo-type is unreasonable and faulty logic.
beastie wrote:So why is the hurt so much deeper? I believe it is due to what I said above - the temple ceremony is odd, and members know it is odd. They suspect that the simple fact of revealing it - even without mockery, just simply revealing it - will open them to embarrassment because it is just so strange.
Isn't it more than that though? I have no trouble admitting to others that I found it odd my first time through. I think there is a real sense of betrayal about it. If it's embarassing, then why don't exmos feel as hurt as TBMs about admitting that they did it too? Why do I still feel embarassed about some things I did when I was about 12 (or younger) even though I've changed quite a bit since then?
I think if the church was only seen as another religion instead of a western Christian or Christian-like religion, then the temple wouldn't be seen as so weird. Nobody probably cares much about any of the odd things you may see in native American religions or even some Asian or African ones.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
harmony wrote: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?
Isn't it implicit in that we lose our temple recommends when we don't? How do we sustain the Brethren if we do not follow their counsel? Furthermore, how do we consecrate ourselves to the church if we are not willing to obey the counsel received from those in authority?
Guy Sajer wrote: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.
They are accountable to God and even to each other. Furthermore we get to vote whether to sustain them. These men are held accountable. George P. Lee was accountable for his misdeeds.
With regard to donations, I feel they have demonstrated sufficient accountability. I gave that money to the church to do with as God sees fit. I believe God leads these men. I have faith that they will spend it as God inspires them to do. I do not believe that it is my responsibility to steady the ark or command the head.
How precisely have the Brethren demonstrated accountability in terms of how they have disposed of the tens of millions of dollars in charitable donations they receive?
You miss the point entirely. The Brethren are accountable to the membership of the Church. Aside from the sustainings (which are as democratically legitimate as elections in North Korea), how precisely does this process function to hold the Brethren accountable?
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 ..."