asbestosman wrote:If you haven't made that promise, go ahead and reproach him all you want.
I made the promise - luckily I did it post-1990, so I don't have to worry about decapitation or disembowelment as consequences.
Because without those consequences, reneging on your word is so much better . . .
Alright, I'm not trying to hold you to that promise or smear your name. If you truly believe there's a higher moral principle that should be cause to break it then go ahead. I think, for example, that King Herod should not have kept his promise which made him behead John the Baptist (see Mathew 14).
There actually was no 'reneging on my word', since Packer is not one of the Lord's anointed. So there.
If and/or when I ever find out who the Lord's anointed is, I will not speak evil of him/her/them.
Asbestosman - ever had a case of lightmindedness? ;)
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Rollo Tomasi wrote:See link below for article in Provo's Daily Herald about BKP's latest talk to BYU students, particularly the evils of TV and the gall of LDS girls who 'tease' their hair. This is an instant classic!!!
But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.
And another for comparison:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The above tells me that the product is of far greater importance than the package.
Wait a minute- what exactly is wrong with facial hair? (I don't have any, fortunately, as I am a woman, but DH does. It's sexy, right??)
by the way I love the girl's multi-colored teased hair that was posted.
twinkie wrote:Wait a minute- what exactly is wrong with facial hair? (I don't have any, fortunately, as I am a woman, but DH does. It's sexy, right??) by the way I love the girl's multi-colored teased hair that was posted.
I've got a rather healthy gotee. I would not be allowed to go into BYU unless i shaved it off. (if i ever wanted to go into that damned school) I love my facial hair. It looks good on me, ask keene, i would look funny without it. Does facial hair make me more likely to be sinfull!?! am i now going to mainline black tar herroin into my sack? its just a sad extreme conformity they MUST have.
Its kinda funny too, its a bright orange gotee, and i have brown hair.
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew
The leaders know no shame! Packer's speech is destined to become a classic. Is there anywhere to get the full text of the speech? Perhaps I should wait for the next Ensign?
Just think, in 20 years or so, when they are teaching from the "teachings of Boyd K. Packer" manual, how fun Priesthood and Sunday School lessons will be (history, masturbation, and teased hair, etc.).
Everyone sing along: "We thank thee, O God, indeed, for a Prophet, to guide us in these latter-days...."
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
twinkie wrote:Wait a minute- what exactly is wrong with facial hair?
The only written rule (I believe) is that male temple workers must be clean-shaven (I don't think this rule is in writing for Church leaders, but it is certainly an unwritten rule; BKP has gone so far as to say in a training session that all Melchizedek Priesthood holders should be clean-shaven, not just leaders). The explanation I heard was that men should try to emulate the Brethren, who are all clean-shaven. And you will notice in the several versions of the temple film that, slowly but surely, everyone has become clean-shaven except Elohim and Jehovah (in the earlier versions of the film Peter, James, John, and Lucifer were bearded -- the beards on PJ&J went first, and now even Lucifer is beardless).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Here's something I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the focus on appearance.
I was watching an old Simpsons rerun, and Marge said something that really stuck with me:
"It doesn't matter how you feel inside, you know. It's what shows up on the surface that counts. Take all your bad feelings and push them down, all the way down, past your knees, until you're almost walking on them. And then you'll fit in, and you'll be invited to parties, and boys will like you ... and happiness will follow."
I was thinking that in Mormonism, that's pretty much what we were taught: on the surface, everything must be in order, neatly presented in a modest and "appropriate" manner, without drawing too much attention to yourself. There's this gem from "For the Strength of Youth":
"Prophets of God have always counseled His children to dress modestly. The way you dress is a reflection of what you are on the inside. Your dress and grooming send messages about you to others and influence the way you and others act. When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and can exercise a good influence on those around you."
Did you catch that? If how you dress reflects what you are on the inside, then what they are really saying that they want you, both inside and out, to be bland, inoffensive--in short, a conformist who does what he or she is told. They want to put a dark, conservative suit or a maternity jumper on your soul. Here's President Hinckley's take on it:
"People think in a very critical way before they come into this Church. When they come into this Church they’re expected to conform. And they find happiness in that conformity."
[As an aside, notice that he says that people think critically before they come into the church; apparently, they abandon critical thinking skills along with their immodest dress after baptism. LOL]
It really is kind of disturbing that the leader of somewhere around 4 million believers thinks that true happiness is achieved in the denial of self in favor of an uncritical acceptance of some rather arbitrary rules. Suddenly, Bednar's use of a young woman's earrings to decry "nonresponsiveness" to prophetic counsel makes sense.
Ironically, the one time we were encouraged to bare our souls was in the sharing of our testimonies. But even in this we were told what was appropriate and not. I recall that not long ago, one of the apostles spoke in conference about what the proper elements of a testimony were (I can't remember who it was and am too lazy to look it up). But people have an innate desire to express what is inside, and for many Mormons, testimony meeting is the time it comes spilling out.
It seems to me that it's no wonder that testimony meeting can be such a surreal experience. I've heard a farmer talk about "lambing," a woman in my home ward speak of saving spiders from certain death in a shower drain, and one demented old soul talk about a woman who drowned because she kept repeating the word "scissors" (that's worth another thread). But only in testimony sharing were we allowed to share a glimmer of what was beneath the surface.
But the one thing that was never allowed was for the negative to be shared in testimony meeting. No, this was the time for the useful and uplifting, not the real. So, somewhere in the deep recesses of our souls, we kept our hurts, our sadness, our frustrations, our grief hidden away in a locked box.
I like so many here have finally found out what it is like to let my feelings out, and it really is exhilarating. Interestingly enough, Mormon reaction to a lot of it has been quite critical. When I expressed hurt for the loss of my faith, I was told I suffered from a cognitive distortion. And when I expressed anger at having spent 40 years of my life on a fraud, I was told that Satan had gotten hold of my heart.
But I know better. The truth shall set you free. And not just the uplifting truth.
Runtu wrote:Ironically, the one time we were encouraged to bare our souls was in the sharing of our testimonies. But even in this we were told what was appropriate and not. I recall that not long ago, one of the apostles spoke in conference about what the proper elements of a testimony were (I can't remember who it was and am too lazy to look it up).
It was Russell Ballard at the October 2004 Gen'l Conference who gave a talk on "pure testimony." Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):
My experience throughout the Church leads me to worry that too many of our members’ testimonies linger on “I am thankful” and “I love,” and too few are able to say with humble but sincere clarity, “I know.” As a result, our meetings sometimes lack the testimony-rich, spiritual underpinnings that stir the soul and have meaningful, positive impact on the lives of all those who hear them.
Our testimony meetings need to be more centered on the Savior, the doctrines of the gospel, the blessings of the Restoration, and the teachings of the scriptures. We need to replace stories, travelogues, and lectures with pure testimonies.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Runtu wrote:Ironically, the one time we were encouraged to bare our souls was in the sharing of our testimonies. But even in this we were told what was appropriate and not. I recall that not long ago, one of the apostles spoke in conference about what the proper elements of a testimony were (I can't remember who it was and am too lazy to look it up).
It was Russell Ballard at the October 2004 Gen'l Conference who gave a talk on "pure testimony." Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):
My experience throughout the Church leads me to worry that too many of our members’ testimonies linger on “I am thankful” and “I love,” and too few are able to say with humble but sincere clarity, “I know.” As a result, our meetings sometimes lack the testimony-rich, spiritual underpinnings that stir the soul and have meaningful, positive impact on the lives of all those who hear them.
Our testimony meetings need to be more centered on the Savior, the doctrines of the gospel, the blessings of the Restoration, and the teachings of the scriptures. We need to replace stories, travelogues, and lectures with pure testimonies.
That's right. I had forgotten. It's strange, isn't it, that the church even prescribes what to say when making one's most personal expression of faith.