Tacenda Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 So am I critical of things that are not right in "Zion". If you doubt me I could probably connect you with a couple of Gospel Doctrine teachers who would verify that claim. However, I do not need people who make it their life being critical of the church to tell me what to be critical of. Are you saying I've made my life about being critical of the church or random people?
ERayR Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Are you saying I've made my life about being critical of the church or random people?Not saying either. What I was saying is you seem to search out and read the material of church critics and antis, who make their life about being critical of all thing Mormon, then come back here with their criticisms. I am saying that I don't need or care what their criticisms are. I study scripture and rely on personal revelations. I have had some startling understandings come to me in those moments and more than once have had to reevaluate. I then take this to my church classes and participate in class, both learning and teaching. It is marvelous. 1
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Joanna Brooks makes me vomit some times. I remember when an NPR caller asked her if blacks were allowed to be Mormons. Instead of answering the question first, she went our history, showed how smart she was, then by the time no one cared anymore, she said "Yes."She's a writer and words and their meaning are her life. Of course she's going to explain something to mainly the listening audience, because she probably knew they might want to know since the question makes the LDS church appear racist.
mapman Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) I thought her article was interesting. I would agree with the commentators that think that the answer she was trying to give was too complicated for the context. I don't get the animosity towards her, though. She never said she lied just that she was concerned that she was being misleading. I thought her overall point was good, though. It is part of human nature to sometimes answer questions misleadingly, not some sort of Mormon conspiracy to deceive.As for her book, I haven't read it, but if it is anything like the other things I've read by her it probably has some critiques of the church but is ultimately positive and affectionate towards it. I listened to her recent Mormon Stories interview and she was very clear that she has a testimony of her Heavenly Parents and prayer and was happy to be active in the church again. I disagree with her often, but in my opinion she is definitely on the church's side.EDIT: Her book is going to be sold in Deseret Book too. Edited August 10, 2012 by mapman
ERayR Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 She's a writer and words and their meaning are her life. Of course she's going to explain something to mainly the listening audience, because she probably knew they might want to know since the question makes the LDS church appear racist.She is also an egotist who likes to multiply words, saying in many what could be said better in a few.
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 She is also an egotist who likes to multiply words, saying in many what could be said better in a few. This could be said about so many out there. Some might even be scholars and apologetics. 2
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Not saying either. What I was saying is you seem to search out and read the material of church critics and antis, who make their life about being critical of all thing Mormon, then come back here with their criticisms. I am saying that I don't need or care what their criticisms are. I study scripture and rely on personal revelations. I have had some startling understandings come to me in those moments and more than once have had to reevaluate. I then take this to my church classes and participate in class, both learning and teaching. It is marvelous.After reading "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton. My eyes were opened and I felt like a scorned lover. Since then I read more than just the church approved material. Don't want to be side swiped again. To be honest I have been more of a Ensign reader then scripture reader sometimes. It would be fun to sit in on one of your GD classes btw.
ERayR Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 After reading "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton. My eyes were opened and I felt like a scorned lover. Since then I read more than just the church approved material. Don't want to be side swiped again.To be honest I have been more of a Ensign reader then scripture reader sometimes. It would be fun to sit in on one of your GD classes btw.The problem with, and we have posted on this before, is the agenda driving them and the misinformation and misinterpretation presented as fact. Take the hard road if you must.
cwald Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 This could be said about so many out there. Some might even be scholars and apologetics.You beat me to the punch. 1
Pahoran Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Wow, I rarely catch you in error. I think I'll take a screen print of this event, at least mentally.The flaw in your argument is in this little ditty: To argue that a Mormon widower -- who is doing exactly the same thing -- is somehow practicing "polygamy" only because he believes something different about a post death reunion with his first wife -- is special pleading, and is not a valid argument.First of all, the Mormon widower who marries another spouse eternally isn't doing exactly the same thing as someone who marries "until death do you part", whether those words are part of the ceremony or just a matter of fact because it is without true priesthod authority.From the standpoint of LDS doctrine, that is true. But that argument only works for those who accept our doctrine, which our critics do not. For those who don't accept our doctrine, eternal marriage may be anything from a silly idea to a sweet romantic notion to something startling that they've never heard of before -- but in no case is it intrinsic to what marriage is. Our marriages are recognised as marriages by the wider world only to the extent that they have key elements in common with all other marriages.And in that regard, the Mormon widower who remarries is indeed doing exactly the same thing as any other widower who remarries.Thus, a man who is sealed to one, two, three, five, eight or any other number of deceased spouses while being currently married to one living woman is practicing monogamy as that word is universally understood.Secondly, it's not only because he believes his marriage is something different, but because it is different, as a matter of fact.And No, I'm not gloating over your error, I'm just surprised and noting the fact that you are wrong, in this case.That's all right. My point is that the correct response to anyone who claims that a Mormon widower remarrying is an instance of polygamy is, "Really? Do you believe that his current and previous marriages are actually of eternal duration, and that he will be reunited with both of his wives and living eternally with them?" Because if the critic does not believe that (and they never do) then they don't believe that he is actually married to more than one woman. And thus, they don't believe he is engaged in polygamy.Thus, when they say they do, they are not telling the truth.When Mormons talk to Mormons about marriage, we are entitled to talk about marriage in LDS terms. When Catholics talk to Catholics about marriage, they are entitled to talk about marriage in Catholic terms. But as soon as we talk to each other about marriage, we have to be sure that we are talking about the same thing, which means that we have to talk in the terms that everyone understands.And in terms of a "common ground" discussion of marriage, a remarrying widower is a monogamist, not a polygamist.Regards,Pahoran 1
pmccombs1 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Smith is just one of the many fifth-columnists out there who have chosen, by design, to feign faithfulness while simultaneously working to undermine both the faith of the Saints and the progress of the Church.Maybe. But after following his career for a bit, and attending a lecture in person, I seriously doubt it. I'm convinced that Daymon Smith sees something remarkable in Mormonism, that he is sincere in his criticism as well as in his belief. Imputing evil motives to people, though, helps us ignore what they are saying. We already know our church is beyond all reproach, right? Or at least that we ought to be quiet about it. 2
Avatar4321 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 So am I critical of things that are not right in "Zion". If you doubt me I could probably connect you with a couple of Gospel Doctrine teachers who would verify that claim. However, I do not need people who make it their life being critical of the church to tell me what to be critical of.I agree. We should be focusing on what we should do, not what we arent doing right.
Popular Post Daniel Peterson Posted August 10, 2012 Popular Post Posted August 10, 2012 Does the Mormon Church encourage LDS people to lie?I'd be lying if I said Yes. 7
Avatar4321 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Does the Mormon Church encourage LDS people to lie?I'd be lying if I said Yes.I love your way of words. I wish I had that talent.
pmccombs1 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I am critical of things people do in the church that are wrong. If this book is respectful, but points to areas that need work, like what may be a problem of materialism in the church operational system of which I'm only assuming, I've forgotten the content of the John Dehlin interview, what's wrong with that? The church in the past has conducted surveys from members to get feedback on certain procedures, for instance, things done in the temple. Therefore, they just might see other areas in the church that might need changes.The tone of Daymon Smith's book is one of dark humor. I think it's reminiscent of the original BBC production, "The Office." It is simultaneously very funny and deeply discouraging. Daymon Smith is a linguistic anthropologist who spent some time at the Church Office Building, where he became soundly disillusioned. His view is that we have been left with images of things and little substance; that we are members of little more than a trademark--sending our sacred funds to the HQ where they are often shockingly misused and wasted. Daymon sees richness and power in the early church, I think; but impoverished and self-serving corporatism in the modern franchise church that has been standardized and correlated by the efforts of shallow and misguided businessmen. Daymon does not seem to view this corruption as intentional, but as a side effect of the prevalence of money within the organization. It's as if the Mormon virtue of thrift and industry went terribly awry once it came in contact with the mature money economy. Can we really serve God by serving mammon?That's my take on it.
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 The problem with, and we have posted on this before, is the agenda driving them and the misinformation and misinterpretation presented as fact. Take the hard road if you must.I don't travel those roads much anymore. Too busy on these boards. Except of course if I read that one book that started this whole conversation.
ERayR Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 This could be said about so many out there. Some might even be scholars and apologetics. I truly try to be concise. There is usually less misunderstanding that way. 3
ERayR Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Maybe. But after following his career for a bit, and attending a lecture in person, I seriously doubt it. I'm convinced that Daymon Smith sees something remarkable in Mormonism, that he is sincere in his criticism as well as in his belief. Imputing evil motives to people, though, helps us ignore what they are saying. We already know our church is beyond all reproach, right? Or at least that we ought to be quiet about it.How is it that those sincere people that see something wonderful in Mormonism not able to understand that if they make the changes they are advocating it is then changed and is no longer that something remarkable? 1
ERayR Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I don't travel those roads much anymore. Too busy on these boards. Except of course if I read that one book that started this whole conversation.Good but it only takes one rock to get a tremendous headache.
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Good but it only takes one rock to get a tremendous headache.Good one:)
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I truly try to be concise. There is usually less misunderstanding that way.Yes, you are concise, very helpful to people like me!
why me Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Lie...is a strong word for what I believe actually takes place within Mormonism...a more accurate word might be...deflect...or less than completely forthcoming (ok thats more than one word).We all are aware of President Hinckley’s…Ummmm…less than honest responses to tough questions…In a 1997 interview on the Australian COMPASS tv program, he was asked:COMPASS: "What was the reason for that? [i.e. denying blacks the priesthood]HINCKLEY: "I don't know what the reason for that was."(COMPASS, aired Nov. 1997, Australian Broadcasting System)And then...Don Lattin (religion editor, interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1)Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs [and other Christian churches]. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?Hinckley: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about. [emphasis added]Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?Hinckley: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. ...that's one thing that's different. Modern revelation. We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, we believe he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.And then…Gordon B. Hinckley, as quoted in Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997:"On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, [Hinckley] sounded uncertain, `I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it.'" [emphasis added][Q. Was God once a man?] "I don't know. ... I wouldn't say that... I don't know that we teach it... We don't know very much about [that]... I don't know a lot about it"During his Larry King Live interview, President Hinckley was asked about polygamy. He responded, "It's not doctrinal."So…what word would be appropriate? Lie is to strong….but honest would not be correct…I have always found it amazing how critics constantly bring up president hinckley and his interviews with the media. We need to remember that he was rather old at that time. It was quite up there in years. I don't think that we can hold him responsible for not thinking too quick when responding to such interviewers. But for the critics, he is either lying or deflecting. If I live to be 90 years old, I can only hope that I will be able to speak.I think that you should read his book Standing for Something. It was published in 2000. President Hinckley speaks from his heart about virtue. There is a also a forward by Mike Wallace. It is obvious that the interviewers after the interview gave him a break and understood that for a man for his age, he did quite well. 1
why me Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Ms. Brooks is obviously exercised by the principle of plural marriage, as are many Mormons and non-Mormons alike. That's fine. She won't be compelled to practice it, either in this life or in the "great beyond."As for myself, I am not bothered by "The Principle," and I certainly don't feel compelled to lie about this or any other doctrine of the restored gospel.I think that lds women in the spotlight do tend to be against polygamy. It comes with the turf. I think that it would be difficult professionally to be a supporter of early lds polygamy. It would not be fashionable and it would create many head winds. However, what is forgotten by these women such a Brooks are the spiritual experiences that the women had when they prayed about the principle before accepting Joseph in plural marriage. And the sacrifice that these women made. What they do not understand is the disservice that they do these women by their comments.
why me Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Reno quotes a former LDS Church employee, who states, “Every Mormon grows up with the idea that it’s OK to lie if it’s for a higher cause.” That doesn’t quite ring true to my [Joanna Brooks] own experience, though I do understand well the truth-swerving phenomenon Emmet and Reno describe.What part do you wish to give her thumbs down for?The problem here is simple: it it were said, it is one person's opinion and not supported by the lds church. An employee is an employee, just a human being who can be misguided in his or her opinions. But why critics attempt to make a touchdown is what amazes me.
why me Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Considering we cant get a temple recommend unless we are honest in our dealings with our fellow man, the answer is obviously no. It's absurd to think that the Church is encouraging us to lie while expecting us all to live up to the standards of the temple that require us not to lie.I don't think that this is quite correct. To get a temple recommend we do not need to be perfect with our dealings with our fellow human beings. But in a general sense it would be correct. Do you think that mormon business people are completely honest with their clients, customers, subordinates etc?
Recommended Posts