Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

[_Madison54]

Maybe the storytelling points up more that the COJCOLDS has run out of doctrine to preach, more than it points out that Dunn, TSM, and others tell a fib or two here and there.

I agree. Monson has never been a doctrinally deep speaker. His talks have always mostly been "feel good", "emotion evoking" talks. I've heard many call his talks "fluff". He actually used to be my favorite speaker when I was a teenager. But as an adult (and especially with what is going on in the world today...people starving to death....many loosing their jobs and homes....kids on drugs....and so on) I would hope that when the Prophet of God (of the entire earth today) takes the podium, he'd have more to offer.

Most of his talks would be considered an average sacrament meeting talk.

I know several active members who have really struggled with Monson being the Prophet because of this and who miss Hinckley a great deal.

[_subgenius]

Hi subgenius, thanks for posting on the 'thread that won't die'.

It's the good folks like you that keep threads like this going and going and going and going and going and...well, you get my point.


Any way - looks like Monson got caught out on this one - in terms of the OP question "Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...? Kinda looks like it don't ya think?

i think it kinda does not look like it, looks more like a lot of conjecture, distraction, misdirection and speculation, but no real proof that his motive was to deceive or mislead.

[_jon]

Hi subgenius, thanks for posting on the 'thread that won't die'.

It's the good folks like you that keep threads like this going and going and going and going and going and...well, you get my point.


Any way - looks like Monson got caught out on this one - in terms of the OP question "Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...? Kinda looks like it don't ya think?

i think it kinda does not look like it, looks more like a lot of conjecture, distraction, misdirection and speculation, but no real proof that his motive was to deceive or mislead.

I agree with you - we have no concrete proof as to his motive....

[_sock puppet]

Why do you suppose that Mormon GAs, when wanting interject a story in their preaching to emphasize a point, do not introduce it as a parable. For example, "The lord commands us not to lie. As a parable to illustrate the wisdom of this commandment and what might happen if we do lie, ... ."

[_harmony]

Why do you suppose that Mormon GAs, when wanting interject a story in their preaching to emphasize a point, do not introduce it as a parable. For example, "The lord commands us not to lie. As a parable to illustrate the wisdom of this commandment and what might happen if we do lie, ... ."

Parables are out of style.

[_subgenius]

Why do you suppose that Mormon GAs, when wanting interject a story in their preaching to emphasize a point, do not introduce it as a parable. For example, "The lord commands us not to lie. As a parable to illustrate the wisdom of this commandment and what might happen if we do lie, ... ."

[_sock puppet]

Why do you suppose that Mormon GAs, when wanting interject a story in their preaching to emphasize a point, do not introduce it as a parable. For example, "The lord commands us not to lie. As a parable to illustrate the wisdom of this commandment and what might happen if we do lie, ... ."

So you obviously have no intelligent answer to my question, as illustrated by your post trying to deflect my point. Hmmm.

[_subgenius]

...So you obviously have no intelligent answer to my question, as illustrated by your post trying to deflect my point. Hmmm.

an intelligent answer is often absent when the question does not merit one.
Your proposal of why the GA's do not subscribe to the "scared straight" school of inspiration seemed rather facetious or perhaps of some other nefarious motive.


I do not believe the record supports the notion that teaching by love or teaching by fear are mutually exclusive.
It seems rather obvious that GA's have subscribed, over the years, to both philosophies. However, if you can not see the distinction between the two then perhaps a primer is needed?

[_Equality]

The whole Manti Te'o thing reminded me of this thread. Manti is really just doing that which has been done in other venues by his church leaders: embellishing, exaggerating, misleading with a phony story whose "truthiness" is spiritually uplifting.

[_subgenius]

The whole Manti Te'o thing reminded me of this thread. Manti is really just doing that which has been done in other venues by his church leaders: embellishing, exaggerating, misleading with a phony story whose "truthiness" is spiritually uplifting.

Yet, if you were familiar with the story - Manti was not the offender
but merely the victim..
and
"Our investigators through their work were able to discover online chatter among the perpetrators that is sort of the ultimate proof of this, the joy they were taking, the sort of casualness with which among themselves they were referring to what they had accomplished and what they had done,"
and
so, your theory about "doing that which has been done in other venues by his church" seems a little...how should we say....inadequate?...or just simply without any proof, evidence, or common sense?