On what topics is it OK for the Brethren to not be honest?

[_degaston]

One of the challenges of marketing yourself as being a TRUE CHURCH is that it brings with it the high expectations from people that you'll be honest with them. Where much is given, much is required. I know it did this for me, and as a result I've spent my entire life habitually expecting that the church leadership would be honest. I make the caveat that I have never believed that any person can be perfectly honest 100% of the time. I was taught and fullheartedly accept (and still do) the doctrine of repentance. If we'll recognize our errors, feel genuine remorse, make restitution and sincerely strive to refrain from making the same errors again then we'll be repenting and be fully justified in expecting others to forgive us. On this topic my TBM mom is now concerned that I'm too judgmental in expecting too much of the Brethren. Maybe I am being judgmental. But it would be nice to know the TBM perspective on when its OK -vs- not OK for the Brethren to be dishonest.

For starts, the 1998-1999 Priesthood/Relief Society manual ...... why were the sermons' wordings changed to make Brigham Young look like a monogamist?

Why does the LDS visitors center near Sharon, VT portray Joseph Smith as if he were a monogamist?


As I wrote earlier "where much is given, much is required". I'll illustrate this by comparing Thomas S. Monson to Dr. Shades. What does Monson require of those who seek to be fully assimilated into the organization he's heavily involved in leadership? 10% of our gross income ... 1 of 7 days for the sabbath ... 3 hours of meetings each week ... underwear ... loyalty ....... etc. What does Dr. Shares require? Does he claim to have the authoritative answers on anything?

[_Mercury]

Good Question!

So far I would say the topper is Mormon Theology.

[_harmony]

It's okay for the Brethren to not tell us their health problems, their personal issues, their family situations; In other words, it's okay for them to keep us in the dark about their personal lives.

If it has to do with the church, though, they are honor-bound to tell us everything in blistering honesty. In other words, open the books, own up to the history, clean up the canon.

[_Mahonri]

Telling me lies to try and convince me you have the truth is a dishonest as it comes.

Quit revising history to suit the current popular concept/current change you are promoting.

Admit people are not perfect and go from there.

"Teach correct principles" and let the rest take care of itself. Paul Dunn Mormonism is alive and well. Revisionist history never seems to stop. Polygamist leaders that are now only that way in obscure histories are an affront to the idea that truth is something worth seeking.

Private lives are just that, private. That is, until they become the subject of a police log or public affair of some sort. The leadership does not have any reason to lie about them, just keep quiet about family problems. If it effects their ability to be honest they are doing something very wrong. The idea their families have to be perfect is asinine. You do what you can and hope for the best for your kids and relatives. No matter how they screw up now they can always straighten up in the future. To deny this is to deny 'repentance' and forgiveness in the gospel that is professed to be true.

The leadership are just men and women trying to do something good in most cases. Some have found an easy scam target and take advantage of it. WEED OUT those vermin, like the Stake Pres/Bank Owner who followed women employees into the bathroom and molested them.(they didn't complain because 'what would happen to him in the church') Get rid of the child molesters who are currently protectled by Bishops and leaders who don't report them, excommunicate them and testify against them. NO 'confidientality' protects someone who molests a child.


It is OK to say 'I can't address that question now', it is not OK to lie.

[_Moniker]

I agree completely with Mahonri.

The problem I have with the Church is the hiding away (seemingly) aspects of its past while at the same time pushing forward that very past as incredibly important to the Church. The Church is obviously embarrassed by some of the actions of Joseph Smith and the history of the Church, yet, at the same moment dwell on the history that is distorted to put the best face forward. Either they need to scrap the entire Joseph Smith worship or come clean.

[_Dr. Shades]

I'll illustrate this by comparing Thomas S. Monson to Dr. Shades.

Hah! I love it!

[_antishock8]

Well, the problem is we're dealing with something akin to a totalitarian junta (minus the fatigues), the remnants of a Brigham Young authoritarian dictatorship. As Christopher Hitchens has said, "Totalitariansim is the combination of authority with caprice." The Mormon junta, as it were, has the audacity to dictate to you how to live your life right down to the kind of underwear you possess and how many piercings a woman can have in her earlobes, but recoils with indignation if a faithful member has the audacity to ask how his or her tithing money is being used. It's the consumate fascist organization that embodies Mussolini's vision of society when he intoned, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state". Be in the world, but not of the world. No ill speaking of the Bretheren. If you do you can be assured that damnation will not only be afforded you in this life, but follow you to the hereafter, too.

[_moksha]

As Christopher Hitchens has said, "Totalitariansim is the combination of authority with caprice." .

Sounds more like the definition of MAD moderation.

[_bcspace]

For starts, the 1998-1999 Priesthood/Relief Society manual ...... why were the sermons' wordings changed to make Brigham Young look like a monogamist?

Examples?

Why does the LDS visitors center near Sharon, VT portray Joseph Smith as if he were a monogamist?

He was a monagamist. Think carefully now.....

As I wrote earlier "where much is given, much is required". I'll illustrate this by comparing Thomas S. Monson to Dr. Shades. What does Monson require of those who seek to be fully assimilated into the organization he's heavily involved in leadership? 10% of our gross income ... 1 of 7 days for the sabbath ... 3 hours of meetings each week ... underwear ... loyalty ....... etc.

No assimilation required. Monson doesn't require anything of you.

What does Dr. Shares require? Does he claim to have the authoritative answers on anything?

Does Shades have a church?