Joseph Fielding Smith: Two-Faced?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
It just seems to me that the Book of Mormon would be very, very short. . . and darn near useless. . . if the prophets therein exercised their prophetic mantle with the same approach employed by Gordon B. Hinckley.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5604
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm
LifeOnaPlate wrote:KimberlyAnn wrote:I think the secret and/or embarrassing nature of certain aspects of Mormonism foster deceptive behavior.
Mormons, to my thinking, are not at all generally deceptive people, but I know from experience that it's disconcerting to be asked to keep things secret from investigators and even other members. I justified it with the old "pearls before swine" argument, but even with that excuse, I was often uncomfortable with not telling the complete truth at times. I never felt telling people certain things were "sacred" and that I couldn't talk about them was a good answer, but it was the only answer I could give.
Looking back, I resent being asked to keep religious ordinances secret from others--even my own family at times.
KA
I tend to try not to fall back on a "pearls before swine" escape when I am in one-on-one situations, or especially when I know the person I am talking to and feel they know me. Friends know where I stand on some of the less-discussed issues because we have a relationship aside from a happenstance religious discussion.
Translation: anyone who is not dealing with you "one-on-one" is therefore a "swine."
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2799
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm
Mister Scratch wrote:LifeOnaPlate wrote:KimberlyAnn wrote:I think the secret and/or embarrassing nature of certain aspects of Mormonism foster deceptive behavior.
Mormons, to my thinking, are not at all generally deceptive people, but I know from experience that it's disconcerting to be asked to keep things secret from investigators and even other members. I justified it with the old "pearls before swine" argument, but even with that excuse, I was often uncomfortable with not telling the complete truth at times. I never felt telling people certain things were "sacred" and that I couldn't talk about them was a good answer, but it was the only answer I could give.
Looking back, I resent being asked to keep religious ordinances secret from others--even my own family at times.
KA
I tend to try not to fall back on a "pearls before swine" escape when I am in one-on-one situations, or especially when I know the person I am talking to and feel they know me. Friends know where I stand on some of the less-discussed issues because we have a relationship aside from a happenstance religious discussion.
Translation: anyone who is not dealing with you "one-on-one" is therefore a "swine."
Not necessarily. Sometimes there are swinely situations, though. Also, sometimes not sharing is a failure on my part.
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!
-Omar Khayaam
*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!
-Omar Khayaam
*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*