How do I respond to this? This has been picking away at me and I'm infuriated inside, and I don't know how to answer this without making myself look like I've left the church so I have an excuse to sin.

My TBM mother, who was and is very saddened by our very unambiguous declaration that we no longer believe the church to be true and that we've decided to distance ourselves permanently from the church. She says in a nearly teary eyed plea "just remember to keep your covenants".

I tried explaining to her that Joseph Smith was a highly immoral man and that lies upon lies have been perpetuated by the church since its foundation and that its history has been altered and sanitised to promote faith building aspects only. This fell immediately on deaf ears.

I'm just burning inside that there's still a hope, or expectation placed on me, which I have absolutely no intention of aligning myself with, to keep covenants made at baptism and temple endowments. Understanding the origin of these covenants, and what they really represent, makes me truly, deeply despise them, with every fiber of my soul (in mormon lingo).

I am often accused in e-mails of being a "covenant-breaker," and TBMs frequently assert that even though I have left the church, I DID make covenants not to reveal what went on in the temple.

You might want to use my response, at http://packham.n4m.org/covenant.htm

Excellent, thanks for the link. Saw your youtube video on analysis of linguistics. Excellent work you've done. It's not surprising that JS made so many errors in "translations". Rookie mistakes, it was only a matter of time before a linguist takes a look to discover what amateur errors were made in so many areas. Esaias, Isaiah... loved it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2012 11:08AM by Mormoney.

I've gotten that from TBM family on a few occasions, and I have several points of response I use.

1) A covenant made under durress without full prior knowledge of the details is an amoral covenant and akin to secret combinations detailed in the Book of Mormon such as that established by Akish in the Book of Ether.

2) A covenant is a two-way promise, meaning just as God is under no obligation to fulfill his end if I fail in mine, I am also under no obligation to fulfill my end if He fails in His. Failure to provide me with credible knowledge of His existence is just one area in which He has failed. Failure to provide reasonable evidence that He intends to ever fulfill His end of the covenant, through His very existence or otherwise, is more than enough reason for me to acceptably back out of a covenant.

3) Most covenants that mormons think they make in the temple are not actually covenants. I know the wording and I know exactly what the covenants are, and when they tell me I have a broken a covenant that is not explicit in the temple, I challenge them to give me the exact wording of the covenant I have broken. Almost always they will refuse, even though they're not aware that they never made any covenant not to reveal the wording of the covenants. One non-temple example is the idea that one baptismal covenant is to bear one another's burdens, as per the wording in Alma. Even as a TBM I would open up the Book of Mormon to people and show them exactly how this can in no wise be conceivably thought of as a baptismal covenant. If I press these points hard enough I can always get mormons to admit that most of their covenants are implied and not explicit.

4) Mormons don't even keep their own covenants. For instance, in the law of consecration we explicitly covenant to give everything to the church. It does not contain the word "willing," but is a direct and specific covenant. It doesn't matter what we are willing to do or not, nor does 10% cut it. Anyone who has not given everything they possess to the church has not yet fulfilled this covenant. If they can prolong it indefinitely, so can I.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2012 10:49AM by kimball.

One rebuttal I did give to my mother was exactly as you pointed out in your 4th point, law of consecration. I explained that I had no intention of giving anything to the church, let alone everything. Reflecting back as a TBM, I understood the law of consecration as a promise to comply with what was expected of me in the church, and that in the millenium, the full version of the law would be restored. Interesting that the law of consecration when implemented during a brief era during JS's time, was a complete flop.

Also, as you mentioned, discussing the wording of the specific covenants outside of the temple is not forbidden. TBM's are hesitant to discuss any part of the temple ceremony, but as I understand it, the only stuff too "sacred" to discuss outside the temple, things that we are forbidden to discuss are all the masonic elements. Ironically. Interesting also that mormons don't call it secret, it's "sacred". The took the "secret" wording out of the temple ceremony some time ago, because they didn't want people viewing it that way, or having an image of secrecy. Funny thing is, sacred does not in any way mean secret. The signs and tokens etc, are in every sense of the word, secret.

Mormoney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One rebuttal I did give to my mother was exactly
> as you pointed out in your 4th point, law of
> consecration. I explained that I had no intention
> of giving anything to the church, let alone
> everything. Reflecting back as a TBM, I
> understood the law of consecration as a promise to
> comply with what was expected of me in the church,
> and that in the millenium, the full version of the
> law would be restored. Interesting that the law
> of consecration when implemented during a brief
> era during JS's time, was a complete flop.

If the contract is based on fraud, then it is unenforceable. T

Probably actionable, too. Although I'm not sure exactly what the "valuable consideration" is on the part of the church or the person receiving the endowments..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2012 11:15AM by mtgrizzly.

A couple of thoughts:

1) These covenants are one of the main reasons I wanted to resign - I wanted to formally negate them.

2) A covenant with an imaginary being doesn't really exist. Even if you believe in God you don't believe in the Mormon version of God. You are under no real obligation because your obligation was based on fraudulent premises.

How to deal with your TBM mother is a completely different matter...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2012 11:18AM by bc.

A covenant made with an imaginary being is, itself, imaginary.

THe covenants in the temple aren't made with god. They are made with the church, in front of god. But the church doesn't covenant or promise anything in return.

If your mother-in-law is not currently married to two men, she is in violation of the covenants. See D&C 132. This is official "Doctrine". See if that quiets her down.

Which is exactly what the cult pulls on people with that temple endowment scam.

Yep yep. At least how I understand it.

If the process was a scam then the "covenants" would be negated.
If one is lied to in order to create a contract then the contract is null and void.

"Upon further review, the ruling on the field is overruled."

"I prefer to keep my integrity instead of false covenants."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2012 04:09PM by Finally Free!.

Just tell her with a big smile on your face that you will keep your covenants as good as Joseph kept his.

You'd be telling the truth and she would either be blissfully ignorant or understand that Joseph couldn't keep his so why should she expect anyone else to.

If you are really wanting her to understand you then your desire is currently in vain. People are at very different states of being capable to understand things and a comment like hers shows a lack of capacity to understand your current beliefs.

I vote this the best answer. Let them look up and study how JS kept his covenants, and exactly what they were. Happy reading to them.

Perfectly logical argument, love it!!! I'm gonna venture a guess that it probably won't work though :)

If a con man sells you the Brooklyn Bridge, which he has no title to whatsoever...

...there never was a valid contract or obligation. It was a lie, a fraud.

The "covenants" made in Mormon temples are made under false pretenses...fraud.

The Mormon church has no such thing as "priesthood". This is a made-up title which claims power-of-attorney for God. This is utterly false.

There never was a covenant. It was null and void all along.

The only covenants they want you to keep is to continue to give everything to the buidling up of the kingdom...translation: please don't do or say anything bad about it once you leave.

Do mormons think, or is there reason to believe that covenants made in the temple are unconditional promises? The word covenant implies or means contract no? So in that sense they'd be wrong. But wondering if there is any implied promise made anywhere?