Does The Mormon Church Encourage Lds People To Lie? -- Joanna Brooks

[sheilauk]

And I, on the other hand, think Daymon Smith has a refreshing clarity of vision. But you and I have different experiences and ways of seeing, do we not?

I wonder if Mr. Smith thinks that those who have a different view has a legitimate point of view? For me, one of the reassuring things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as opposed to the other churches I have experienced, is that it has a sure vision, seems to know where it is going, what it is here for and is correlated. I like the idea that everyone is studying from the same page and that there are authorities that are united and give guidance regularly (eg General Conference). A non church mormonism would surely result in the state of things that so many other branches of Christianity and other religions are in wouldn't it? Would that truly benefit the whole community? No one forces you to attend every week or even to study the same things. Why do away with the Church? And, in any event, the Lord guides us and He knows best.

But, I feel I may have hijacked the thread - sorry if I have.

[Tacenda]

I edited my former post to put this here. I'm listening to it right now.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-9-2012/exclusive---joanna-brooks-extended-interview-pt--1

Edited August 10, 2012 by Tacenda

[pmccombs1]

That is certainly a very naive view. How do run a world wide 14 million plus member organization without the corporate structure. Just USofA tax laws alone require it. It is not prudent to manage it like you would an ice cream truck. If you did it would soon crumble to nothing. I don't think that's what God had in mind when he restored it.

How do you run it? Like the Catholics, I suppose, though I'd prefer it more like the Baptists. The Catholics have, what, 900 million? They hold a similar view of the strong, central Church power. Yet they have somehow managed to avoid the corporate, business patina to their methods (the name of their church isn't a trademark, nor do they trademark their programs. I hold a trademark and know that, in order to secure it, one must prove interstate commerce using the mark). Actually, I really admire a lot about the Catholic Church, in particular their views on economic justice. We Mormons seem to have a de-facto acceptance of financial and commercial capitalism, even within the Church heirarchy. The Catholics have managed to get by without it, and I think their long and deep thinking on the matter is really beautiful and has attracted some of the most pious and intelligent men who have ever put pen to paper. I struggle with the fact that we haven't got such a sublime truth in our own organization, and perhaps that is what disposes me to listen to the likes of Daymon Smith.

[KevinG]

So it would be better for the LDS Chuch headquarters to appear as a small city state with its own army and ambassadors? Somehow I'm not sure that would ease the heartburn of those who think the church should be less formal.

[pmccombs1]

I wonder if Mr. Smith thinks that those who have a different view has a legitimate point of view? For me, one of the reassuring things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as opposed to the other churches I have experienced, is that it has a sure vision, seems to know where it is going, what it is here for and is correlated. I like the idea that everyone is studying from the same page and that there are authorities that are united and give guidance regularly (eg General Conference). A non church mormonism would surely result in the state of things that so many other branches of Christianity and other religions are in wouldn't it? Would that truly benefit the whole community? No one forces you to attend every week or even to study the same things. Why do away with the Church? And, in any event, the Lord guides us and He knows best.

But, I feel I may have hijacked the thread - sorry if I have.

Ha, we've all of us hijacked the whole topic, I'm afraid.

I should say that I'm fond of arguing on the forums of "those other churches," and I must humbly point out that, from their point of view, they all have a strong vision. The faithful of other churches experience their religion in much the same way we experience ours; that is, the quality of their belief is much like the quality of ours, only the contents differ. Like us, they have their less faithful who wander and sometimes find greater happiness and truth in other quarters.

What you describe might be summarized as "One Holy and Apostolic Universal Church." Only we've built it with the tools of modern mass-production economies, and while that is certainly a recipe for success-by-the-numbers, some of us feel our souls less nourished than we think they could be.

But does the Church encourage us to be less than truthful? I vote for "no." There is my contribution to the topic.

[bluebell]

So it would be better for the LDS Chuch headquarters to appear as a small city state with its own army and ambassadors? Somehow I'm not sure that would ease the heartburn of those who think the church should be less formal.

Not to mention, any study of medieval and latin american history will show exactly how the Catholic church emassed most of its wealth, and it's not very pretty.

For a lot of latin america's colonial phase, paying ten percent to the church was mandatory of everyone in the country-it was a tax-and the Catholic church often supported dictators based upon their promise not to mess with the tax or the Church's power-base. That's not what I would describe as 'really beautiful'.

[pmccombs1]

So it would be better for the LDS Chuch headquarters to appear as a small city state with its own army and ambassadors? Somehow I'm not sure that would ease the heartburn of those who think the church should be less formal.

Maybe it would! But that's not the point. I don't advocate that. I've said elsewhere that any worthwhile religion is neighborhood religion, and however our Church may be structured, let us try to be good neighbors and communities.

[pmccombs1]

Not to mention, any study of medieval and latin american history will show exactly how the Catholic church emassed most of its wealth, and it's not very pretty.

For a lot of latin america's colonial phase, paying ten percent to the church was mandatory of everyone in the country-it was a tax-and the Catholic church often supported dictators based upon their promise not to mess with the tax or the Church's power-base. That's not what I would describe as 'really beautiful'.

Nor would I describe that as really beautiful. And that clearly wasn't what I was talking about, of course. I didn't mean for my comment to invite slurs against the Catholic Church (which is, in my experience, aware of its past history and some of the problems there). There is beauty everywhere, if you have the eyes to see it.

[Deborah]

Daymon would like to see the Church become less a corporation and more like... what it used to be.

This kind of language is typical of an apostate group of Mormons who consider the church itself is currently in apostasy. This is a worldwide church and cannot be run like it used to be.

more congregationalist in nature, or decentralized in some regard, with greater power in the hands of local wards

You really don't understand that is exactly how it is. Yes there is correlation but the running of wards and stakes is by local leaders and local leaders receive revelation for their individual congregations. I firmly believe due to the worldwide nature of the church more revelation pertaining to our day to day lives will come down from the local leaders.

I see Daymon as a conservative Mormon.

I see him as a fundamentalist; I'm a conservative Mormon. Fundamentalists tend to see things in black or white and often leave reality out of the picture.

[bluebell]

Nor would I describe that as really beautiful. And that clearly wasn't what I was talking about, of course. I didn't mean for my comment to invite slurs against the Catholic Church (which is, in my experience, aware of its past history and some of the problems there). There is beauty everywhere, if you have the eyes to see it.

As my posting history on this board shows, i am not against the Catholic church. I have often spoken of things about it that i have 'holy envy' for and one of the very pro-Catholic posters here is a good friend of mine and we discuss his beliefs often with no animosity.

Accurate history is never a 'slur' though (having a degree in history-though, as i've said before it doesn't make me good for much-you have to get used to both the good and bad and can't shy away from either).

In any discussing of 'economic justice' and the Catholic church, their history is relevant. It's not the only relevant issue-their present and the good that they are trying to accomplish now certain counts-but their history can't be ignored because their current wealth stems directly from that history.

This certainly isn't a topic for this thread (or even this board probably since it's not a Catholic board), but i wanted to clarify my position, since your reply to me was judgmental of my motives.

Edited August 10, 2012 by bluebell

[Ahab]

I really don't think you get it!

You're not being very helpful in trying to help me to get it. What point would you like me to get?

[JAHS]

Does the Mormon Church encourage LDS people to lie?

I'd be lying if I said Yes.

From the movie "Liar Liar"

"sometimes grownups need to lie.

lt's hard to explain,

but if--

Look, here's a good example.

When your mommy was pregnant with you,

she gained 50 pounds;

there was nothing she wouldn't eat.

And Daddy was scared.

But when she'd ask me, "How do l look ?"

l'd say, "Honey, you look great.

You're glowing."

lf l had told Mommy she looked like

a cow, it would have hurt her feelings."

From Star trek II:

Saavik: "You lied."

Spock: "I exaggerated."

From Star Trek 2009:

Spock: You lied.

Spock Prime: Aww... I... I implied.

[Closet Doubter]

I agree. We should be focusing on what we should do, not what we arent doing right.

If we want to improve, we should be focusing equally on both

[pmccombs1]

This kind of language is typical of an apostate group of Mormons who consider the church itself is currently in apostasy. This is a worldwide church and cannot be run like it used to be.

Daymon would use the word, "impostasy," since he doesn't really think there is any church left to be in apostasy. But, I do know other active Mormons who do think the Church is more or less in apostasy, or that it presently stands condemned.

You really don't understand that is exactly how it is. Yes there is correlation but the running of wards and stakes is by local leaders and local leaders receive revelation for their individual congregations. I firmly believe due to the worldwide nature of the church more revelation pertaining to our day to day lives will come down from the local leaders.

No, I understand differently. I'm a cradle Mormon; I grew up with this stuff. I shared standard views for many years. I've come to think very differently in some regards, but I am still very much an active Mormon and in a bishopric to boot. Don't worry! I stick to the manual and don't encourage anyone to entertain the personal views about which I frequently shoot my mouth off in some forums. Anyway, some of the best men I know are leaders in my ward and stake. Make no mistake, our local units are very important. But they aren't what they used to be, and I often feel like we're getting second-bests to enable us to live "in the world." It's time to remake the world, I say.

I see him as a fundamentalist; I'm a conservative Mormon. Fundamentalists tend to see things in black or white and often leave reality out of the picture.

Ha, I was going to use that word, "fundamentalist." But Smith is like no other fundamentalist I've heard about, plus the word has become an epithet these days. He certainly has his own view of things, though, which is no means capricious or thoughtless. And it certainly isn't black or white to that guy! I still haven't figured him out, but I have no doubt that he has a pretty good grasp of reality (I say that only because it seems to mesh pretty well with my own subjective experience of reality, coming from totally different directions).

Edited August 10, 2012 by pmccombs1

[pmccombs1]

Accurate history is never a 'slur' though (having a degree in history-though, as i've said before it doesn't make me good for much-you have to get used to both the good and bad and can't shy away from either).

Amen to that. I like to pick out the good stuff when it comes to some Catholicky things.

In any discussing of 'economic justice' and the Catholic church, their history is relevant. It's not the only relevant issue-their present and the good that they are trying to accomplish now certain counts-but their history can't be ignored because their current wealth stems directly from that history.

Well, I really like the Catholic social teaching, however poorly it may match up with whatever the actual practice may have been at times.

This certainly isn't a topic for this thread (or even this board probably since it's not a Catholic board), but i wanted to clarify my position, since your reply to me was judgmental of my motives.

Ah well, it seems the thread is mostly derailed now and ought to get back on track... but thanks for the clarification.

[Ahab]

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.

The argument works because it is true. It doesn't matter if others don't agree that it's true.

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.

You seemed to be saying people who have "death do you part" marriage have exactly the same thing as people who have eternal marriages, and in this case when we're talking about whether people have more than one spouse, it does make a difference when someone marries someone else when they're still married to another spouse.

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.

So what? Just because they don't recognize them for what they are doesn't mean they're not what they really are.

And in that regard, the Mormon widower who remarries is indeed doing exactly the same thing as any other widower who remarries.

You mean in their opinion, but their opinion is wrong. I'm talking about the "truth" of the matter.

In this thread we are talking about whether or not we share the truth with others, aren't we?

Do you really condone want to condone giving a contradictory answer to the same question depending on who you are talking to?

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.

I think most people consider the word "monogamy" to mean that person is currently married to only one person.

Now you tell me: When an LDS is married and sealed to a spouse, and that spouse dies, is that LDS still married and sealed to that deceased spouse even if he later gets married and sealed to another woman who is living?

One answer, dude, and don't cater to a particular audience. Just tell the plain truth!

Edited August 10, 2012 by Ahab

[Closet Doubter]

. . . . However, what is forgotten . . . . 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.

We also seem to forget the heartache caused to so many women by this principal. Even my wife who is 100% TBM came out of a sunday school class around 2000 when they actually taught a lesson on polygamy stating that all the polygamists were "a bunch of horndogs trying to get their rocks off". At the time I was also 100% TBM and reminded her she was referring to Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, Lorenzo, Joseph F, and Heber plus most of the other apostles, stake presidents, and bishops at the time.

[USU78]

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.

Do you accept everything Todd put in that there book and his interpretation thereof as 100% TRVTH?

Yes, this is a trick question.

[USU78]

Does the Mormon Church encourage LDS people to lie?

I'd be lying if I said Yes.

:rofl:

[Mark Beesley]

How do you run it? Like the Catholics, I suppose, though I'd prefer it more like the Baptists. The Catholics have, what, 900 million? They hold a similar view of the strong, central Church power. Yet they have somehow managed to avoid the corporate, business patina to their methods (the name of their church isn't a trademark, nor do they trademark their programs. I hold a trademark and know that, in order to secure it, one must prove interstate commerce using the mark). Actually, I really admire a lot about the Catholic Church, in particular their views on economic justice. We Mormons seem to have a de-facto acceptance of financial and commercial capitalism, even within the Church heirarchy. The Catholics have managed to get by without it, and I think their long and deep thinking on the matter is really beautiful and has attracted some of the most pious and intelligent men who have ever put pen to paper. I struggle with the fact that we haven't got such a sublime truth in our own organization, and perhaps that is what disposes me to listen to the likes of Daymon Smith.

The Catholic Church is just as much involved in corporate America as the LDS Church, though it may be more of a multi-national corporation. It runs for-profit ventures. It sues and is sued. Years a go there was a lawsuit in Germany where the court held that the Catholic Church held the sole ownership rights to the name, Roman Catholic Church.

What exactly about the Roman Catholic Church that makes you believe it is not run in a firm corporate model, and what is it about the way the LDS corporate model functions that you find distasteful? At least the Church hasn't socked away its wealth in the Cayman Islands, AFAIK.

[Ahab]

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.

I have always found it amazing that not only critics of the Church but even some members of the Church couldn't see the harmony in what he was saying, in context, and how everything he said is true.

We don't know much about our heavenly Father being a man like we are, and I wouldn't say that God was once a man, either. I would say God is still a man, if he was talking about our heavenly Father, but God can also be understood to refer to his kind of being which is composed of both males and females. I can also understand why he didn't elaborate a whole lot on misunderstandings or try to teach more of our Lord's doctrine in those venues. Everything he said was still true, though, and those who want to learn more can still do so.

[DavidB]

So it would be better for the LDS Chuch headquarters to appear as a small city state with its own army and ambassadors? Somehow I'm not sure that would ease the heartburn of those who think the church should be less formal.

In a very limited sense Temple Square is a small city/state, which when the Church bought the other property to enlarge the footprint raised the ire of many a folk and even lead to lengthy court battles.

I believe many of the "If the Church would only ...." criticism/complaints would not be satisfied even if the Church did what the critic wanted done.

[Tacenda]

Do you accept everything Todd put in that there book and his interpretation thereof as 100% TRVTH?

Yes, this is a trick question.

Only as far as it is translated correctly.

[why me]

We also seem to forget the heartache caused to so many women by this principal. Even my wife who is 100% TBM came out of a sunday school class around 2000 when they actually taught a lesson on polygamy stating that all the polygamists were "a bunch of horndogs trying to get their rocks off". At the time I was also 100% TBM and reminded her she was referring to Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, Lorenzo, Joseph F, and Heber plus most of the other apostles, stake presidents, and bishops at the time.

We also need to mention that the spiritual experiences were strong for these women. Now did the principle entail a sacrifice? Yes. But the bible is full of sacrifices people made for obeying the will of god. Now let me ask you a question. If these men were horndogs I think that the women involved would have known. What do you think? But here is a fact. Many of these women were not lookers. Some were quite homey looking. I think that these men were in quite a bind. They also had to make a sacrifice. Being sealed to many women is no picnic and it would certainly negate the sex involved.

[pmccombs1]

I believe many of the "If the Church would only ...." criticism/complaints would not be satisfied even if the Church did what the critic wanted done.

True enough.