In retrospect, the thing that bothered me most

[_Roger Morrison]

There are plenty of great and charasmatic leaders, but you have to listen to General Confrence and to what goes on in the church to find them.

Truman Madsen, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Robert L. Millet, Apostle Jeffrey R Holland, ... I love to hear all of these men speak, and I love to read their writings.

You can find both video, audio, and written talks by each of these men with a simple google search. I encourage you to do so.

Gaz

With all due respect Bro, "...great and charasmatic leaders..." don't 'speak' people to sleep at General Conference(s)". Certainly LDSism has speakers and authors worth one's time and effort. What Sect, Institution, etc doesn't???

Would be interesting to have a pole taken across the gamut of Christian Speakers to assess their dynamism and ability to inform and inspire...

"I encourage you to" avail yourself of all information dealing with the things Jesus taught. You know what Mormonism teaches. Now reach out into the vastness of learning beyond the indoctrinational. Warm regards, Roger

[_MormonMendacity]

There are plenty of great and charasmatic leaders, but you have to listen to General Confrence and to what goes on in the church to find them.

Truman Madsen, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Robert L. Millet, Apostle Jeffrey R Holland, ... I love to hear all of these men speak, and I love to read their writings.

You can find both video, audio, and written talks by each of these men with a simple google search. I encourage you to do so.

Gaz

With all due respect Bro, "...great and charasmatic leaders..." don't 'speak' people to sleep at General Conference(s)". Certainly LDSism has speakers and authors worth one's time and effort. What Sect, Institution, etc doesn't???

Would be interesting to have a pole taken across the gamut of Christian Speakers to assess their dynamism and ability to inform and inspire...

"I encourage you to" avail yourself of all information dealing with the things Jesus taught. You know what Mormonism teaches. Now reach out into the vastness of learning beyond the indoctrinational. Warm regards, Roger

Gaz, I do still switch on conference and read the Ensign every now and then. Don't ask me why, I find the articles as enlightening as going through my own trash cans. I know what to expect. They never change. Nothing new, bizarre or illuminating, like God was once a man or Adam is God. No new revelations -- oh...right...The Great Earring revelation coupled with the Great Tattoo revelation; I forgot.

I find nothing they talk about helpful in the real world. "Pay your tithing to improve your finances" and "Attend the temple if you're depressed" fly in the face of facts and reason. In the world of the imaginary eternal rewards, they can say almost anything they want and sound profound or be viewed as experts.

When I read Packer's talk I found myself actually sad. Sad that he thinks the Church has not insulted, and does not still continute to insult, other religions. I found myself sad that Latter-day Saints try to pick up the Cross of Persecution but are completely oblivious to the insulting way they treat unendowed family members at wedding-time. That is one of the coldest things that people do, pretend it is the fault of the unendowed for being excluded from the temple.

That is why the church, and many of the members, border on mendacious. It's beyond ignorant to pretend it is the fault of the nonmember for not being able to attend the ceremony.

[_Gazelam]

I mean no offence saying this, but I really wish you'd change your screen name. I just can't type it.

I don't enjoy every talk at confrence. I am very picky about the church leaders I like to hear talk.
I like Millet because he has great insight into dealing with those outside of the church. When he speaks it from an outside looking in oerspective, or from a "we need to understand how they perceive us" stance. He published a grwat book through a non-Mormon/ Born again Christian Publishing house and Deseret Book sold it. The book is entitled "A different Jesus" and is written from an Apologist to Born Again viewpoint. Great Stuff.
Joseph McConkie speaks as bold as hid Father ever did, and you don't normally get that from the GA's, so I like hearing it. He wrote an excellent article on the "One True Church " Doctrine, as well as a number of other fantastic books. My favorites being "prophets and Prophecy" and "In his Holy Name".
Truman Madsen speaks with a powerful testimony and insight. His Joseph Smith the Prophet CD's were fantastic, I listened to them 5 times in a row driving back and forth to work for months.
Elder Holland simply has a firm and inspiring way of speaking, and great insight. His Talk on the Law of Chastity is the best I have ever heard on the subject.

These men might be saying some familiar things, but they are presented from a new and enlightening perspective. It might not always be about "new information", but it may make a new connection betwen two familiar subjects that allows you to see things in a new light.

As far as the "One true Church " Doctrine being offensive. Are you offended by Catholics? By Jews? We are not unique in this viewpoint, nor should we be.

The Temple is a Sacred place, and one needs to be worthy to enter it. This is not a new doctrine either. I haven't been to the Temple in a long time. I am going this month for the first time in years. Do I blame others for this, or myself?

Gaz

[_Gazelam]

Holland talk: http://speeches.BYU.edu/?act=viewitem&id=731

Madsen talk: http://speeches.BYU.edu/?act=viewitem&id=952

Millet talk: http://www.byubroadcasting.org/images/mediaicons/ra_active.gif

J. McConkie talk: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/jsbicentennial/051115vision.html[/img]

[_MormonMendacity]

I mean no offence saying this, but I really wish you'd change your screen name. I just can't type it.

That's okay. MM is fine.

I don't enjoy every talk at confrence. I am very picky about the church leaders I like to hear talk.
I like Millet because he has great insight into dealing with those outside of the church. When he speaks it from an outside looking in oerspective, or from a "we need to understand how they perceive us" stance. He published a grwat book through a non-Mormon/ Born again Christian Publishing house and Deseret Book sold it. The book is entitled "A different Jesus" and is written from an Apologist to Born Again viewpoint. Great Stuff.

I've read Millet for years. I used to agree with you. Now I just think he's recycling the same old stuff.

Joseph McConkie speaks as bold as hid Father ever did, and you don't normally get that from the GA's, so I like hearing it. He wrote an excellent article on the "One True Church " Doctrine, as well as a number of other fantastic books. My favorites being "prophets and Prophecy" and "In his Holy Name".
Truman Madsen speaks with a powerful testimony and insight. His Joseph Smith the Prophet CD's were fantastic, I listened to them 5 times in a row driving back and forth to work for months.
Elder Holland simply has a firm and inspiring way of speaking, and great insight. His Talk on the Law of Chastity is the best I have ever heard on the subject.

These men might be saying some familiar things, but they are presented from a new and enlightening perspective. It might not always be about "new information", but it may make a new connection betwen two familiar subjects that allows you to see things in a new light.

It's just recycling, Gaz. Nothing new at all. The early Mormon charsimatic leaders underscored the claim of revelation by onstensibly giving new information from God...these guys just refute the claim of being "prophets, seers and revelators" by attempting to extract more blood from the proverbial turnip.

As far as the "One true Church " Doctrine being offensive. Are you offended by Catholics? By Jews? We are not unique in this viewpoint, nor should we be.

I'm not offended by Mormons offending other religions. I'm just pointing out that your leaders are mendacious. They accuse others of doing something while pretending they don't do it, too. That's a tu quoque logical fallacy. In case you don't have your dictionary handy...

This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. For example, "They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. But they asserted a lot of things, too!"

The point being that Packer lies (as does Pahoran) about criticizing other people's religions.

The Temple is a Sacred place, and one needs to be worthy to enter it. This is not a new doctrine either. I haven't been to the Temple in a long time. I am going this month for the first time in years. Do I blame others for this, or myself?

It's not really relevant who is to blame. The point is that it is an insult to people who want to attend their children's/friend's weddings to be excluded for reasons of worthiness. Especially when it is not a requirement. The Church leaders are causing the membership to act cultish by prohibiting civil weddings and immediate sealings in the temple. Restricting the bride and groom from being sealed for a year after a civil marriage is pressuring them to be loyal to the Church above loyalty and love for their families and friends. That's cultish. Punishing them for caring and choosing "family first" is cultish...especially when some countries actually require civil marriage before temple marriage and in those cases the Church bypasses the year waiting period.

Even you can see that's cultish, right, Gaz?

[_Roger Morrison]

Good post MM, especially this:

It's not really relevant who is to blame. The point is that it is an insult to people who want to attend their children's/friend's weddings to be excluded for reasons of worthiness. Especially when it is not a requirement. The Church leaders are causing the membership to act cultish by prohibiting civil weddings and immediate sealings in the temple. Restricting the bride and groom from being sealed for a year after a civil marriage is pressuring them to be loyal to the Church above loyalty and love for their families and friends. That's cultish. Punishing them for caring and choosing "family first" is cultish...especially when some countries actually require civil marriage before temple marriage and in those cases the Church bypasses the year waiting period.

Currently reading "...History of Fundamentalism" by Karen Armstrong. She describes the peculiarities of cults and the needs of those who subscribe to them. At one time i would have been in denial. Now they appear glaringly through the veil/mesh that seperates the cult/clan from reality and the benefits of integration with the whole of "God's" Universe.

There may come a day... Warm regards, Roger

[_MormonMendacity]

Good post MM, especially this:

It's not really relevant who is to blame. The point is that it is an insult to people who want to attend their children's/friend's weddings to be excluded for reasons of worthiness. Especially when it is not a requirement. The Church leaders are causing the membership to act cultish by prohibiting civil weddings and immediate sealings in the temple. Restricting the bride and groom from being sealed for a year after a civil marriage is pressuring them to be loyal to the Church above loyalty and love for their families and friends. That's cultish. Punishing them for caring and choosing "family first" is cultish...especially when some countries actually require civil marriage before temple marriage and in those cases the Church bypasses the year waiting period.

Currently reading "...History of Fundamentalism" by Karen Armstrong. She describes the peculiarities of cults and the needs of those who subscribe to them. At one time i would have been in denial. Now they appear glaringly through the veil/mesh that seperates the cult/clan from reality and the benefits of integration with the whole of "God's" Universe.

There may come a day... Warm regards, Roger

Thanks, Roger. I appreciate the sentiments. One of my daughters has already married in the temple without me. Here's to hoping that families will be put first in the future.

[_Gazelam]

What, your daughters wedding was a sudden thing that just sprang up and you didn't have the opportunity to get ready?

What was so hard?


Gaz

P.S. no that's not cultish

[_Runtu]

What, your daughters wedding was a sudden thing that just sprang up and you didn't have the opportunity to get ready?

What was so hard?


Gaz

Gaz,

Are you trying to be offensive? I would have to lie to enter an LDS temple. I would have to pretend to believe in things I know to be false. So, yeah, I suppose I'd have the opportunity to "get ready" by lying, but I wouldn't do it, and I suspect MM wouldn't either.

Would you lie so you could attend a wedding?

[_Gazelam]

Of course I wouldent lie.

What does lieing have to do with repentence?