From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM')
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:11:27 MDT
Keywords: zeal, znake, zloth, zailfish, zalamander, zcorpion, `Zoof!'
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>
>Just a few dozen articles after describing the JWs as paranoid, Jay Windley
>starts to sound a bit unglued himself.

Huh?  I have only suggested that Andreas was paranoid, and it is
fairly clear that his opinions are not entirely shared by his Witness
brothers.  I have on NUMEROUS occasions stated that I have no vendetta
against Witness doctrine itself.  I find the medical arguments
unconvincing, but Witnesses don't rely on them as proof of their
faith.  Finally, the Witnesses with whom I have conversed via email
don't seem to feel that I'm describing them as paranoid.  Their only
complaint has been that I need to make it more explicit that I'm
disagreeing with Andreas' personal opinion, not his faith.  I have
genuinely tried to do this.

Perhaps you're confusing me with Walter Smith.  But if you understand
me to have characterized all Jehovah's Witnesses as paranoid then you
have missed the point of my arguments in a major way.  See my last few
responses to Andreas.

>I think the business of covenants goes directly against Jesus' advice NOT to
>swear oaths

The entire history of Judaism and Christianity has been the covenants
between God and man.  The covenants in the temple are merely the
continuation of this.

Now there are two classes of covenants than Mormons assume in the
temple.  First are covenants of obedience to God, strict sexual
chastity, consecration of one's resources to God's glory, and so
forth.   They are not unlike the vows taken by many Catholic religious
orders (which, incidentally, don't seem to have a problem with
proscriptions against oath-taking).

In the temple endowment ceremony we receive certain information which
is to be known only by the righteous -- by those who have made the
above promises.  We promise "before God, angels, and [human]
witnesses" that we will not divulge this information, nor discuss its
nature.

>-- if you haven't sworn an oath to what ends up being an immoral
>cause, you don't have any oath to go back on.

What does this have to do with temple ordinances?  How are they
immoral?  I think you're swerving into hypotheticals.

>If the ex-LDS truly believe
>that LDS are to burn forever, then embarassing millions of people in the
>hope of turning even one away from Mormonism as a good trade.

This is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard.  Why should we stop
at embarrassing people?  Why not kill them?  Or throw them in prison?
Or exile them?  Yours is the logic upon which is based all that is
ugly about religion:  that it's okay to employ unsavory practices, to
malign and slander, as long as a soul is saved in the process.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept the argument that the end justifies
such means.

>Suppose you made your promise, went into the temple, and found that human
>sacrifice was going on; would you have kept silent, or run to the nearest
>police station?

I'll make a hypothetical bite:  I would run to the nearest police
station.  BUT (and it is a very large BUT) I would most certainly not
go back to the temple.  The authors in question were temple workers.
Not only does that make them frequent patrons, but it makes them
agents in administering that oath to others.  They viewed the ceremony
and took the oaths many, many times.  If they were so scandalized, why
did they keep going back, time and time again?

Now I ask you, what is so terrible about the Mormon temple ceremony?
Why is it so dangerous that it needs to be exposed, contrary to the
wishes of its participants?

>But you cannot
>reasonably conclude that they don't actually care about people based on the
>methods they use to help the people.

Not only can I, I must.  If person A wants to "save" person B, why
does inflicting harm on person C help?

You simply can't argue that embarrassing the Mormon Church is
acceptable because it leads to a greater good.  You implied yourself
that the "good" is only the minds of the perpetrators.  In my way of
thinking, exposing the Mormon temple ceremony is bad.  Thus, this
greater good isn't inherently good.

What's unacceptable is that this admittedly subjective good is being
used to justify something which is objectively bad -- the ridicule of
innocent people.  In my view, it's evil for evil's sake.

Making people feel like dirt is a very poor way of helpig them,
especially if there's another way.  As I said before, if Mormonism is
so inherently evil, and if the Mormon temple ceremony is so inherently
immoral, why can't our authors simply display a more pleasing
alternative?
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2