From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM')
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:42:48 -0700

In article <1992Apr9.162303.5699@gboro.glassboro.edu>, kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
> I think the business of covenants goes directly against Jesus' advice NOT to
> swear oaths -- 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.  But given that one _has_ sworn,
> and then discovers that fulfilling the oath entails allowing immorality, the
> resulting conflict is not completely cut & dried.  If the ex-LDS truly believe
> that LDS are going to burn forever, then embarassing millions of people in the
> hope of turning even one away from Mormonism as a good trade.  The only
> problem is the oath (which, granted, they shouldn't have taken in the first
> place), but which pales in comparison to having people fry forever.  They may
> even feel that the `covenant' was made under false pretenses, and therefore
> they do not need to honor it.
>
> As for the sensationalism, the fact that they use awful methods does not mean
> that they don't care about the job; maybe they just feel that what they do is
> the best method of getting results.  How many times has Joe Buehler written
> to praise the Spanish Inquisition in this newsgroup?  He seems to really care
> about his fellow men, and he seems to think that Isabella had a good idea.
> Nothing the ex-LDS have ever done even comes close to Mr Buehler's heroes.
> >
> 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?  If you told, would going back on your promise have made you a
> lousy source of information?  Would bringing 5 dozen police cars with lights
> and sirens (making a huge public spectacle and embarassing many people) have
> justified the claim that you didn't care about your fellow men?
>

        I agree with what you're saying, but we're not talking about covenants
that promote immorality or child sacrifice inside of temples etc.  In fact the
covenants made inside Mormon temples are those of high morality, integrity and
service and dedication to God.
        Jay's argument about the dishonesty of these people was not soley based
upon the fact that they had broken promises either.  He made a case of how the
Mormon religion had been unfairly misrepresented - and if this was done
intentionally then I would have to agree that this is both unchristian-like and
dishonest.  If it was unintentional, then it just shows plain ignorance and
irresponsibility.
        It's not my intention to defend the Mormon position here, I realize
that many do not agree with what the church teaches and I can understand that.
What I do not understand is why those against the church need to misrepresent,
or distort the facts.  This is not only true for the Mormon church, but I have
seen other churches unfairly attacked (misrepresented) by those who feel it is
their responsibility to "expose" the truth.  This is IMO uncalled for.
        If anyone would like to discuss more what Mormon's believe and teach
please feel free to e-mail me.

-Mark