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

[_Yoda]

To God and the Church and to other members in the room. The language is "befre God, angels, and "these" witnesses"

As a temple endowed Church member, I respectfully disagree.

The covenant is being made with God and your spouse. It is being made "before", or "in front of" God, angels, and these witnesses".

[_truth dancer]

Not all ex-members, just those who reveal these things to the world, when they said they would not

Should former LDS believers continue to wear garments?

Should former LDS believers give their time, talents, and energy to the LDS church?

Should former Jews continue to not eat pork?

Should former cult members continue to donate their belonging to their leader if they promised they would?

Should former Amish not use electricity because they will break a promise?

Should former Catholics continue to not use birth control?

I think it is safe to say that most people believe that once one leaves a religion or disbelieves a religion, they are no longer bound by the promises they made under the false belief. No?

~dancer~

[_skippy the dead]

Good to see you, blixa!!

To God and the Church and to other members in the room. The language is "befre God, angels, and "these" witnesses"

So when you make marriage vows before witnesses, are you also marrying the witnesses?

I was going to say the same thing.

[_skippy the dead]

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:

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.

As others have pointed out, I think you are in error with regard to whom the covenants are made. Obviously they are not made with the witnesses or angels. In fact, I'm not even sure it's with God, based on the language. The covenant is simply made "before" those listed.

It is also interesting to me that you limit the disclosure of temple rites to the names and signs of the tokens. Are you then okay with someone revealing all else of the rituals, so long as they do not name and show the tokens? The rest of it is the "good" stuff - not many are interested in the tokens.

It would appear that you are drawing a false line in the sand for ex-members to cross to be deemed untrustworthy. For me, any covenants I made in the temple were contingent on LDS doctrine being true and required the existence of God. Since neither of those bases are (to me) reality, I do not consider myself to be bound by any such covenants.

But since I don't broadcast information regarding the tokens to the world, I guess I can be "trustworthy" anyway.

**edited to fix nested quotes and to remove an analogy that didn't seem to work

[_asbestosman]

As others have pointed out, I think you are in error with regard to whom the covenants are made. Obviously they are not made with the witnesses or angels. In fact, I'm not even sure it's with God, based on the language. The covenant is simply made "before" those listed.

If I promise to stop eating meat, but I'm not promising a particular person even though I am making that promise in front of many people as witnesses, am I therefore not obligated to keep that promise?

For me, any covenants I made in the temple were contingent on LDS doctrine being true and required the existence of God. Since neither of those bases are (to me) reality, I do not consider myself to be bound by any such covenants.

And yet, I'm not aware of those bases being explicitly stated in the promises. Does that make a difference?

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Manors, please! Got anything worth while to say.

I agree. I would absolutely love to have a "manor." Sign me up!

[_Bond...James Bond]

Manors, please! Got anything worth while to say.

I agree. I would absolutely love to have a "manor." Sign me up!

I hope there's one available near the beach. Serfs up!

[_skippy the dead]

As others have pointed out, I think you are in error with regard to whom the covenants are made. Obviously they are not made with the witnesses or angels. In fact, I'm not even sure it's with God, based on the language. The covenant is simply made "before" those listed.

If I promise to stop eating meat, but I'm not promising a particular person even though I am making that promise in front of many people as witnesses, am I therefore not obligated to keep that promise?

In this case, the promise is essentially to yourself. If you decide to relieve yourself of the obligation, then there's no problem. In fact, a friend of mine did this exact same thing. He saw a documentary on slaughterhouses and vowed never to eat meat again. But things changed, and he determined that it was okay to eat meat, and revoked the vow. Easy enough.

If we apply that to temple covenants, if there is no particular person to whom the temple covenants were made, then it is easy enough to relieve oneself of such covenants should circumstances change.

For me, any covenants I made in the temple were contingent on LDS doctrine being true and required the existence of God. Since neither of those bases are (to me) reality, I do not consider myself to be bound by any such covenants.

And yet, I'm not aware of those bases being explicitly stated in the promises. Does that make a difference?

Yes it does make a difference. If certain facts facilitate entering into the temple covenants, and those facts are not actually facts, that makes a difference. Say I make a promise to God, but I later realize there is no God. Do I still keep a promise I voluntarily undertook to a non-entity? Reason says no.

[_asbestosman]

In this case, the promise is essentially to yourself. If you decide to relieve yourself of the obligation, then there's no problem. In fact, a friend of mine did this exact same thing. He saw a documentary on slaughterhouses and vowed never to eat meat again. But things changed, and he determined that it was okay to eat meat, and revoked the vow. Easy enough.

If we apply that to temple covenants, if there is no particular person to whom the temple covenants were made, then it is easy enough to relieve oneself of such covenants should circumstances change.

It may not make me see such a person as dishonest, but it would make me think that he or she is wishy-washy.

If certain facts facilitate entering into the temple covenants, and those facts are not actually facts, that makes a difference. Say I make a promise to God, but I later realize there is no God. Do I still keep a promise I voluntarily undertook to a non-entity? Reason says no.

But I thought you said that the covenants were not explicitly made to God. I suppose there are a number of factors which may facilitate various promises, but when I promise to pay back a loan I may feel that it'll be a simple enough matter, yet when the bills keep piling up I may soon realize that it isn't as easy as I had imagined especially if it's an adjustable rate loan and the economy heads south despite what I felt was certain.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

It does not matter if you internet Mormons trust me.

All of the would be investigators, potential members, and wavering members that converse with me, THEY ALL LISTEN TO ME.

And I am not alone.