skippy the dead wrote:Pa-pa - a couple of questions for you:
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 will never pass judgement on what a husband and wife discuss. I am talking about those who live to hurt the church and anyone who is a member of it.
You didn't answer any of my questions. They were serious queries. If it helps to focus, take away the marital communication aspect. Either substitute it with me having a conversation with a friend or something, or ignore it altogether. Can you please answer the other questions?
I do hope Pa Pa comes back to address my questions. My response depends on his clarification.
It would appear that Pa Pa just came by to lob this grenade in here without any real intent of discussing it. C'mon Pa Pa - finish what you started.
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)
guy sajer wrote:You miss the point entirely. The Brethren are accountable to the membership of the Church.
But aren't making themselves as accountable as we are holding them? Isn't it our responsibility to look at the books before writing a check for charitable donations--if we forgoe that then that is our choice.
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?
My life and property are not in peril if I refuse to sustain the brethren. I'm not saying that the church is a democracy (democracies are problematic anyhow as is all government), but my point was that we do freely choose to follow them or not. If we don't like what they are doing, it is relatively simply to leave. That is one way we can hold them accountable.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
skippy the dead wrote:Pa-pa - a couple of questions for you:
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 will never pass judgement on what a husband and wife discuss. I am talking about those who live to hurt the church and anyone who is a member of it.
You didn't answer any of my questions. They were serious queries. If it helps to focus, take away the marital communication aspect. Either substitute it with me having a conversation with a friend or something, or ignore it altogether. Can you please answer the other questions?
I do hope Pa Pa comes back to address my questions. My response depends on his clarification.
Pa Pa wrote:Yes to the actual ordiances it is, that I speak.
Glad you came back. I think you've answered my first question. Here's the original set:
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 friends, 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?
So the answer to the first question (I think) is that you are referring to those covenants not to reveal the names and signs of the tokens received.
Can you answer the other two questions (I modified the third question to remove a spousal reference, since that seemed distracting before)? TIA.
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)
Pa Pa wrote:[quote="truth dancerDid you read the OP? This whole thread is a discussion on whether or not former members are trustworthy or not. I'm glad you do not think they are.
Not all ex-members, just those who reveal these things to the world, when they said they would not.[/quote]
Glad you came back. I think you've answered my first question. Here's the original set:
OK here is my answer...or my opinion based on the OP...
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?
Yes
Who do you think the covenant is made with?
To God and the Church and to other members in the room. The language is "befre God, angels, and "these" witnesses"
What level of disclosure do you think makes an ex-mo untrustworthy? If I discuss the temple rites with my friends, 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?
Those who publish it to the world in order to "sensanalize" (hope I spelled that right) it to the world, for the purpose to retarding the work.