Any thoughts on this? I remember that Bob McCue, a lawyer's lawyer, concluded it wasn't binding on him.

I think most of us act as if it isn't valid, but it's good to have a nice, concise explanation for the right occasion.

They're only binding if the participants see them that way.

The requisite elements that must be established to demonstrate the formation of a legally binding contract are

(1) offer;
(2) acceptance;
(3) consideration;
(4) mutuality of obligation;
(5) competency and capacity;
and, in certain circumstances,(6) a written instrument.

Source: http://contracts.uslegal.com/elements-of-a-contract/

If you work your way through each item you will have your answer.

when you are entering a contract that entails financial obligations, one usually has a 14 day 'cooling off', or 'right to cancel' period.

However, the church considers itself above the law of this world since it deals in eternal laws (allegedly) and claims godly authority to do so.

At least they do not have people signing half million year contracts for all consecutive incarnations during the duration of said contract, like the scientologists. Now that would REALLY screw with your psyche.

See my discussion of this issue at http://packham.n4m.org/covenant.htm

FAQ: Why are you breaking your covenants?

It's not worth the tumbaga it's written on.

I'm not a lawyer, but here are a few things problematic about the endowment "contract."

1. Did you know what you were required to agree upon before you had to agree to it?
2. Were you made to make your signs, tokens, penalties (for us older folks) under duress?
3. Were you given a written, signed, document from the parties involved?

Good point about the written, signed copy. It's too "sacred" for that.

You're constantly depending on their selective recall of what you supposedly promised to do, usually veiled in innuendo.

Wasn't Tom's case in England essentially saying that it *was* a legal contract, and the church got out of it by claiming it *wasn't,* because, you know, it was religion not law...?

I bet they hate it when being in breach of contract results in more laughter in one's life.

The question is how is god bound? is there a power that will force god to honor his word? does he just cease to be god if he doesn't?

Is God the person with whom the contract is made? If so it is not a valid contract because you can only make a contract with a legal entity, which God is not.

Were the temple workers acting as agents for God? If so were they authorized by God to enter into contracts on his behalf? If so, there is no evidence of authorization so it wouldn't hold up in court.

Was the contract made with "The Church"? How do you prove which church, and which legal entity of the church the contract was made with?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2016 10:48PM by The Invisible Green Potato.

Who would press the matter in court? The covenant is supposed to be between the endowee and God. Is God going to sue? He would also have to show up in court or there would be a default judgement in favor of the defendant. If God showed up in person, I doubt He'd need a court to enforce his covenants.

The Church could conceivably sue, but they'd have to prove standing. Good luck with that. And the PR nightmare of the Church suing someone over this would cut off even the current trickle of convert baptisms.

If the Church really wanted to keep people from revealing the temple ceremony, they'd have to take a page from the Scientologists and declare the endowment to be a trade secret, and then require everyone who goes through it to sign an intellectual property and non-disclosure agreement. Not that that has worked very well for Scientology.

My landlord wouldn't let me review the lease before signing it, but it is very unfavorable to me. Is there a way for me to get out of it?

Brigham Young got out of paying one of his divorced wives a hefty alimony by successfully arguing that polygamous marriage was not legally binding.

"You never realize how short a month is until you pay alimony." -- John Barrymore

A few legal maxims in the US legal system would immediately dismiss such a contract because it is:
(1) Verbal only because any contract dealing with large sums of money must be in writing.
(2) Secret. No court would even consider enforcing a secret agreement.
(3) Immoral. No court would consider enforcing a contract such as a "billion years of service". Even if every aspect of the contract was created legally but it is immoral then the courts will not enforce it.

From a logical, philosophical perspective, it's obviously not binding. And the reason is that women are an afterthought. All the wording, the clothes, the priesthood, the underwear, the tokens, is all in the male form. feminine pronouns are missing.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that women aren't really accepted in the celestial ritual. It's like getting to a rock concert and finding that you never had a ticket to begin with, but your husband did.

A contract of adhesion is not legally binding. There is no way the party presenting the requirements can fulfill its part of the agreement. Thus it is nullified.

The pre-1990 endowment included explicit descriptions of how the participant could be brutally murdered if they did not keep their agreements to not reveal those stupid handshakes. The courts will not enforce an agreement between any parties wherein a person agrees to be the victem of a crime if they do not fulfill their agreements. Any contract wherein parties conspire to commit a crime, is void. Thank god for the courts of law. The mormon church can go to hell.

It can not be binding as one of the parties to the contract doesn't exist (god).

I am curious as to why you are asking this question.

I had my fingers crossed. Seriously. And I considered that I had obligated myself already to Christ so that I had nothing to commit to TSCC. Moreover, we were coerced. Where I live an oral contract can't be enforced after three years.

It's not a real contract that could ever be enforced in a court. But if you want to think of it that way as a means of gauging moral responsibility to adhere to the agreement--it might be helpful to think of it that way.

The first thing, I like to do is think of this in principal agent terms.

The LDS Church claimed to be acting for a principal (God).

After examining the voluminous evidence that demonstrates that LDS truth claims are false, most people reach a variation on one of two conclusions:

1) The principal (God) does not exist. Without the principal the agent's action is invalid. It would be like an insurance agent selling you a policy from a totally fictitious insurance company.

2) In the case of someone who believes God does exist (or may exist), it generally becomes clear that the authority of LDS, Inc. to act exclusively on God's behalf is seriously dubious to non-existent. In this case the insurance company has not authorized the agent to act on its behalf. So any contract with that agent is not valid.

In addition, to that we have issues about misrepresentation of fact that accompanied the agreement. The LDS Church never made adequate disclosures. It's education materials said little to nothing about the multiple versions of the first vision story, the Egyptological translations of Joseph Smith's papyri, the influence of Free-Masonry on the temple ceremony, Danite hit squads, church finances, or any number of other things that might be relevant to your decision to dedicate your life to this organization.

As mentioned before, consideration is also an issue. They make you promise a lot of concrete things, and only imply certain things in return that you have no way of knowing they can deliver on. The church has some ways of finding out whether you burbled the temple secrets at the bar--and what were you doing at the bar anyway? Or they could know that you broke the law of chastity if someone confessed to sleeping with you. But there's no way of knowing if the signs and tokens will help you past the angels that stand as sentinels to the gates of heaven, or if you have been cleansed of the "blood and sins of this generation." These are just illusory promises. There's no way of knowing the LDS Church or God will keep their end of the bargain. I suppose they would say that's what faith is for. But can we really have faith in something thought up by a person as unreliable as Joseph Smith?