Darth J: A simple yes or no answer please.

[_Drifting]

bcspace, answering with a simple yes or no:
Do you think you will be tested on completing certain handshakes and remembering certain names and phrases before being allowed into the Celestial Kingdom?

[_Darth J]

On the surface, it might appear to be the same as yours; if asked not to bring or use such items in an area, or if I had covenanted/promised not to reveal some rituals or anything one sees I would comply.

The Church broke the deal by not being what it purports to be.

"Therefore, a prudent leader will not and should not observe his promises, when such observance will work against him and when the reasons for making the promise are no longer valid. If all men were good, this precept would not be good; but since men are evil and will not keep their word with you, you should not keep yours to them." ---Niccolo' Machiavelli

As soon as the LDS Church shows the slightest hint of integrity or holding itself to its own standards, you might have any basis whatsoever to pontificate about double standards.

The difference is you are probably more inconsistent than I am. For example, I would comply with such instructions while touring a military base and perhaps so would you. But you have a double standard of integrity due to your dislike of the LDS Church. Either that or you're working for the other side.....

Or it could be that not all of us impart morality upon the imaginary world. When you are prohibited from disclosing classified military information, it's a matter of national security in the real world. On the other hand, when I play Grand Theft Auto IV, I'm not really killing people or stealing cars. And when I disclose things from the LDS temple endowment that have been completely invented by human beings---things that God doesn't care about---I'm not offending God. Nor am I violating a covenant I made with God, because the LDS Church has no authority to act as his agent or speak on his behalf.

Your observations are the same as thinking that if I use a pretend person to steal a car that doesn't exist from an A.I. character in a video game, I have actually committed a crime. But since you shamelessly employ intellectual dishonesty as a preferred method of defending the LDS Church, your opinions about morality and ethics are not very impressive.

[_krose]

... if asked not to bring or use such items in an area... I would comply.

While I believe you would not take a hidden camera into a military or nuclear power facility, I wonder if that principle would apply if you had a chance to show proof of some evil democrats conspiring to do something "liberal."

I haven't noticed you raising any similar concerns regarding the video creations of one James O'Keefe.

[_Fence Sitter]

Your observations are the same as thinking that if I use a pretend person to steal a car that doesn't exist from an A.I. character in a video game, I have actually committed a crime. But since you shamelessly employ intellectual dishonesty as a preferred method of defending the LDS Church, your opinions about morality and ethics are not very impressive.

+1000

[_brade]

Hey Darth, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of contract law, but supposing the whole temple experience were a contract, would it be a valid one?

[_Chap]

Hey Darth, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of contract law, but supposing the whole temple experience were a contract, would it be a valid one?

I too would like to know the answer to this.

But subject to correction, I have the impression that a valid contract usually needs to have 'consideration' involved, that is, each party agrees to give something of value to the other (which may be money, goods, services, or even under some circumstances the assurance that one will refrain from doing something). What are the 'considerations' in the temple ceremony?

Further, assuming that one contracting party is the temple 'patron' (odd word, that), who is the other contracting party? The LDS deity? How is he going to sue anybody? It would seem very hard to read the temple ceremony as constituting a contract with the Corporation of the President of the Church, surely?

But Darth J knows best ...

[_Drifting]

Hey Darth, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of contract law, but supposing the whole temple experience were a contract, would it be a valid one?

I too would like to know the answer to this.

But subject to correction, I have the impression that a valid contract usually needs to have 'consideration' involved, that is, each party agrees to give something of value to the other (which may be money, goods, services, or even under some circumstances the assurance that one will refrain from doing something). What are the 'considerations' in the temple ceremony?

Further, assuming that one contracting party is the temple 'patron' (odd word, that), who is the other contracting party? The LDS deity? How is he going to sue anybody? It would seem very hard to read the temple ceremony as constituting a contract with the Corporation of the President of the Church, surely?

But Darth J knows best ...

I'm not sure that bowing your head and saying yes demonstrably constitutes a signed acceptance of said contract...

[_Bob Loblaw]

Or it could be that not all of us impart morality upon the imaginary world. When you are prohibited from disclosing classified military information, it's a matter of national security in the real world. On the other hand, when I play Grand Theft Auto IV, I'm not really killing people or stealing cars. And when I disclose things from the LDS temple endowment that have been completely invented by human beings---things that God doesn't care about---I'm not offending God. Nor am I violating a covenant I made with God, because the LDS Church has no authority to act as his agent or speak on his behalf.

Your observations are the same as thinking that if I use a pretend person to steal a car that doesn't exist from an A.I. character in a video game, I have actually committed a crime. But since you shamelessly employ intellectual dishonesty as a preferred method of defending the LDS Church, your opinions about morality and ethics are not very impressive.

This. Ironic--isn't it?--that someone who claims to be defending the truth is so intellectually (and otherwise) dishonest. This seems to be SOP for a lot of mopologists because they know they've been dealt a bad hand--so they cheat.

[_sock puppet]

Hey Darth, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of contract law, but supposing the whole temple experience were a contract, would it be a valid one?

I too would like to know the answer to this.

But subject to correction, I have the impression that a valid contract usually needs to have 'consideration' involved, that is, each party agrees to give something of value to the other (which may be money, goods, services, or even under some circumstances the assurance that one will refrain from doing something). What are the 'considerations' in the temple ceremony?

Further, assuming that one contracting party is the temple 'patron' (odd word, that), who is the other contracting party? The LDS deity? How is he going to sue anybody? It would seem very hard to read the temple ceremony as constituting a contract with the Corporation of the President of the Church, surely?

But Darth J knows best ...

The consideration to make the contract legally binding is the exchange promises in futuro. That is, elohim's supposed promise of eternal life to the temple patron is the consideration in exchange for the promises of the temple patron for promising secrecy and obedience.

Like Goofy or Pluto, as an imaginary being Mormon elohim cannot sue or be sued. But JSJr and the LDS Church have a long and storied tradition of litigation in real life courts.

[_sock puppet]

Hey Darth, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of contract law, but supposing the whole temple experience were a contract, would it be a valid one?

I would challenge the legally binding nature of the 'contract' on the basis of undue influence given the circumstances in which the temple patron is first proposed the contract obligations, given no time to consider it, and requiring public spectacle/humiliation at the only time and circumstance not to enter into it.

It also has aspects of a contract of adhesion. It is imbalanced in favor of elohim over the temple patron, undercutting the notion that it was freely bargained. If elohim is omnipotent and omniscient, there is not the proximity of bargaining strength between elohim and the temple patron that the patron can be said to have willingly entered into the promises made.