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

[_asbestosman]

Let's say that what I discovered isn't illegal, but it is something I strongly disagree with. Can I somehow rework that contract or otherwise disclose that which I promised not to? Now I grant that the company I made the agreement with definitely exists so this is not a perfect analogy. I only intend it to the extent that misjudging the bases which facilitate entering into a contract may not remove one from being obligated to keep it.

As for companies that actually exist, if the company committed fraud in inducing you to enter into a contract under false pretenses, and you can demonstrate that in court, then they could not enforce that contract because, in fact, it would not be valid.

As for the temple covenants, a covenant made upon inducement by someone representing themselves as having authority from a being who in fact does not exist, is no covenant at all.

Good luck proving that in court. Anyhow, for my example imagine that the company didn't misrepresent anything to you--you merely had the wrong idea all by yourself.

Let's put it this way. If I told a group of children that I was the duly appointed and empowered representative of Santa Claus, and they believed me, and I placed them under covenant to obey the will of Santa Clause, and give all of their time and talents to the building up of the Kingdom of Santa Clause, as lead by me, do you think they would be morally obligated to continue obeying me, and donating their time and talents to me, on the basis of this covenant? Overlook the fact that they were children here, and just think about this as a parallel situation. I think you'd have to agree that nobody could, or should feel themselves obligated to obey covenants made to Santa Clause, once they learn or realize that Santa isn't actually real, and the person representing themselves as Santa's Helper in fact is a fraud.

1) You don't really believe in Santa, but the leaders of the church almost certainly believe in God and that they are authorized.
2) The only covenant I'm really worried about in this thread is that of non-disclosure. I don't think promises to keep things secret should be broken unless there is a really good reason to do so (i.e. to testify against criminals or warn others about criminal activity). I do not see how disclosing the temple covenants protects others from crime.

[_truth dancer]

Not to derail this topic but another question...

Why does anyone care if the tokens and passwords are public knowledge (which actually they are)?

Are members worried that non-believers will be able to trick the various angels and get into heaven? ;-)

I understand member believe they are sacred and all but why are they sacred in the first place?

Abman, you said discussing the temple ceremony hurts people? Whom does it hurt and how?

[_Blixa]

Although I think asbestosman is a decent sort and this kind of back and forth could be useful to him,

While I'm happy to learn a thing or two in discussions, is it really the case that this is not useful for anyone else?

Eh, sorry. You're quite right. I don't think all my thoughts got into that sentence. I was mentally contrasting you, as a believer, with the originator of the thread, who I don't think asked the question out of an interest in learning no matter how magnanimously construed.

But you are right and as usual the proof of the pudding is in the eating, or in this case, reading. I just quickly scanned the discussion that ensued from the same OP as posted over at MAD and...good grief.

Hey Bond! I liked your serf/lord of the manor subtle pun!

[_Bond...James Bond]

Hey Bond! I liked your serf/lord of the manor subtle pun!

Somebody got it! Heck yeah!

[Hope you are well...I'm watchin Iron Jawed Angels and feeling like a really big feminist right now]

[_asbestosman]

Not to derail this topic but another question...

Why does anyone care if the tokens and passwords are public knowledge (which actually they are)?

Are members worried that non-believers will be able to trick the various angels and get into heaven? ;-)

Of course not. It's symbolic.

I understand member believe they are sacred and all but why are they sacred in the first place?

It's more than sacred. We speak quite openly of the sacred atonement. In any case it's sacred because it pertains to our salvation in a rather personal way.

Abman, you said discussing the temple ceremony hurts people? Whom does it hurt and how?

It hurts the LDS friends and family of the person who does it. Actually, I think it's more than mere discussion. It's when someone gets into specifics that it becomes hurtful. I'm not sure exactly how it hurts, but then it's not up to me to decide who can be legitimately hurt or offended at thing X whether thing X is disclosing temple covenants or performing baptism for the dead for someone's ancestors or anything else.

[_Sethbag]

Let's say that what I discovered isn't illegal, but it is something I strongly disagree with. Can I somehow rework that contract or otherwise disclose that which I promised not to? Now I grant that the company I made the agreement with definitely exists so this is not a perfect analogy. I only intend it to the extent that misjudging the bases which facilitate entering into a contract may not remove one from being obligated to keep it.

As for companies that actually exist, if the company committed fraud in inducing you to enter into a contract under false pretenses, and you can demonstrate that in court, then they could not enforce that contract because, in fact, it would not be valid.

As for the temple covenants, a covenant made upon inducement by someone representing themselves as having authority from a being who in fact does not exist, is no covenant at all.

Good luck proving that in court. Anyhow, for my example imagine that the company didn't misrepresent anything to you--you merely had the wrong idea all by yourself.

Pay Lay El. There, I said it, now take me to court.

Good luck getting a court to enforce LDS Church seizure of everything I have, on the grounds that I pledged it and everything else "with which the Lord has blessed me, or which the Lord may bless me".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! MAUAHAHAHASHDFASHDHASHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Joseph Smith was a f*cking prick. There's some loud laughter *and* evil speaking of "the Lord's annointed." Good luck getting a court to sanction me on the grounds that I covenanted not to do that.

This is all so besides the point. We're not talking about a court, where the LDS temple endowment covenants are concerned. If you believe that Elohim exists, and if you believe that Peter, James, and John, through some old guy who worked at your particular temple the day you were endowed, were actually authorized by this real Elohim to put you under all those covenants, then by all means, obey them to your heart's content.

As for me, I'm convinced that Elohim doesn't even exist, and the old man who put me under those covenants did so under an imagined and false authority, under the false pretense of representing God, and with the false promise of obtaining a Kingdom, a Priesthood, and an exaltation as a God in the Celestial Kingdom if I obeyed these covenants. These covenants mean nothing to me now, because they were false and fraudulent right from day 1, and not because of me. They were fraudulent from day 1 because Joseph Smith was not who he said he was, and the temple ordinances he claimed to be from God were a work of fiction composed of two parts Joseph Smith and one part Freemasonry.

I guess I don't really know what it is you're arguing. Are you arguing that people like me, who no longer regard the farcical LDS temple covenants as something that must be respected and obeyed, as untrustworthy? What is it exactly that you're arguing?

1) You don't really believe in Santa, but the leaders of the church almost certainly believe in God and that they are authorized.

It doesn't matter whether they believe in God and that they are authorized. They're wrong, and there's no substance backing up their claims. There is no Elohim, there is no Celestial Kingdom, and you will not ever be a God, a King and a Priest to Elohim, creating your own universes with your harem of Celestial wives. It's all fiction, Abman. There's nothing real about it, except the real people who are duped, and work hard to (even unknowingly) dupe others.

2) The only covenant I'm really worried about in this thread is that of non-disclosure. I don't think promises to keep things secret should be broken unless there is a really good reason to do so (I.e. to testify against criminals or warn others about criminal activity). I do not see how disclosing the temple covenants protects others from crime.

It may protect others from being sucked in by the mind virus. If the farce and bogusness of it all can be demonstrated to those who are interested in the church, perhaps they will see it for the manmade religion it is, and avoid being sucked in.

If you could take some prospective Scientologist aside and tell them that, after they've spent $300,000 in training and auditing, they will be told that Xenu, Galactic Overlord of the Galactic Confederation, which had existed for 38 trillion trillion years, sent billions of people to Teegeeack (Earth, as it was called then) to be exploded by hydrogen bombs and have their souls captured, indoctrinated, and then turned loose on the unsuspecting population, don't you think you'd be doing them a service? By the time they learn this, a Scientologist is so mentally conditioned that many of them actually find a way to believe this bullsh*t. Wouldn't you be doing them a service if you could tell them in advance so they can make a reasoned decision to believe this stuff or not before the brainwashing? You'd be saving them $300,000 or thereabouts, at the very least.

There's NOTHING about the LDS temple ceremony which deserves to be secret. I honestly don't care if exmos tell everything they know, right down to the very last jot and tittle. It's a farce invented by Joseph Smith and foisted upon several generations of unwitting dupes, and it deserves to be exposed as the farce and the scam that it is.

[_Bond...James Bond]

So basically freedom of speech goes both ways. Easy to jump in, easy to jump out.

[_asbestosman]

I guess I don't really know what it is you're arguing. Are you arguing that people like me, who no longer regard the farcical LDS temple covenants as something that must be respected and obeyed, as untrustworthy? What is it exactly that you're arguing?

In that line I was arguing with Skippy about having made promises of keeping secrets which one would not have made if one had different information and whether or not one could still be held to those promises.

If you could take some prospective Scientologist aside and tell them that, after they've spent $300,000 in training and auditing, they will be told that Xenu, Galactic Overlord of the Galactic Confederation, which had existed for 38 trillion trillion years, sent billions of people to Teegeeack (Earth, as it was called then) to be exploded by hydrogen bombs and have their souls captured, indoctrinated, and then turned loose on the unsuspecting population, don't you think you'd be doing them a service? By the time they learn this, a Scientologist is so mentally conditioned that many of them actually find a way to believe this bullsh*t. Wouldn't you be doing them a service if you could tell them in advance so they can make a reasoned decision to believe this stuff or not before the brainwashing? You'd be saving them $300,000 or thereabouts, at the very least.

I haven't made a promise not to talk about those things. For those who have done it, I'm not sure why they need to. Isn't warning people without specifics enough? I don't see why an ex-scientologist is morally obligated to spill the beans about Scientology and doing so may hurt some Scientologists he still considers to be friends (or maybe ex-scientologists can't be friends with scientologists, but Mormons can with ex-Mormon family and friends so long as they do not sympathize with apostate groups or those who seek to hurt the church).

[_asbestosman]

So basically freedom of speech goes both ways. Easy to jump in, easy to jump out.

Freedom of speech isn't the issue for me. I think people should be free to say many things which I hope they never do. I think people should be free to say that white males are the cause of nearly all societal ills, Mormons are totally depraved, asbestosman is a total loser, and God hates root beer, but I hope they don't.

[_Sethbag]

I didn't say that an ex-Scienologist should be obligated to tell all they know. But I wouldn't say that they should not tell all they know. It would be up to them, but I wouldn't blame them in the slightest if they revealed all inner stupid teachings of L. Ron Hubbard.

And it's the same thing with Mormonism. Once someone realizes that it's all manmade and a farce, they can talk about it if they want, or not talk about it if they want. But I would not hold someone to be bound by some oath of secrecy on the matter. I don't think that a manmade church based on fiction as truth deserves to have its beliefs kept secret. People ought to be able to learn these things while they still have the ability to view them without mental conditioning.