selek1 wrote:It is a conceit of the critics- unfounded and unproven- that the Church is being unreasonable both in closing its Temple doors to those who are unworthy or unprepared to enter and in instituting policies which emphasize sacred covenenants over temporal obeisance.
But they desperately avoid (like vampires and garlic, politicians and honesty, Twilight fans and real literature) any examination of whether the families are being reasonable in their demands for admission
This issue was first raised FORTY-FIVE posts back (in Post #51)- and no one has troubled to offer any reasonable jusification as to why the standard should be waived.
The foot-stomping, clenched-fisted, pouting lipped "But I want it!" doesn't work for a two-year-old.
Why then should it work for a reasoning adult between the ages of thrity-five and fifty?
So a parent wishing to see the marriage of their child is like a two year throwing a tantrum....
William Schryver said: Ms. Brooks is obviously exercised by the principle of plural marriage, as are many Mormons and non-Mormons alike. That's fine. She won't be compelled to practice it, either in this life or in the "great beyond."
As for myself, I am not bothered by "The Principle," and I certainly don't feel compelled to lie about this or any other doctrine of the restored gospel.
Really? That's nice coming from a man. If it was one woman marrying multiple men...would these guys still not be bothered by "The Principle?"
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby
Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
selek1 wrote:It is a conceit of the critics- unfounded and unproven- that the Church is being unreasonable both in closing its Temple doors to those who are unworthy or unprepared to enter and in instituting policies which emphasize sacred covenenants over temporal obeisance.
But they desperately avoid (like vampires and garlic, politicians and honesty, Twilight fans and real literature) any examination of whether the families are being reasonable in their demands for admission
This issue was first raised FORTY-FIVE posts back (in Post #51)- and no one has troubled to offer any reasonable jusification as to why the standard should be waived.
The foot-stomping, clenched-fisted, pouting lipped "But I want it!" doesn't work for a two-year-old.
Why then should it work for a reasoning adult between the ages of thrity-five and fifty?
So a parent wishing to see the marriage of their child is like a two year throwing a tantrum....
There have been a few threads there about the temple marriage thing, most of them got really ugly. There was one in particular I used to link to with friends. Always left a very bad impression. My girls were quit indignant over many of the comments, they took it quite personally when they saw the posters were talking about people like their grandparents, siblings and parents. Some threads I really like
café crema wrote:There have been a few threads there about the temple marriage thing, most of them got really ugly. There was one in particular I used to link to with friends. Always left a very bad impression. My girls were quit indignant over many of the comments, they took it quite personally when they saw the posters were talking about people like their grandparents, siblings and parents. Some threads I really like
I thought it was surprisingly hostile for a MD&D thread. I just don't get it. Some people would like to have a civil ceremony so the entire family can attend. What the hell is wrong with that?
Adding another quote...
Deborah wrote:These "policies" have been good tests of faith and where one's priorities are. I admire greatly people like Darius Gray who joined the church when he could not have the Priesthood and now is a very high profile and wonderful spokesman for the church.
But I suppose some people would rather not have their faith tested. It's like not studying for the final and knowing you'll probably fail so you'd rather get out of taking the test
Yes. Wanting your family to attend your wedding is like trying to avoid a final. The same church that used to run ads about the importance of family, has a policy that needlessly excludes non members from the marriages of family and friends. They could have their cake and eat it too. They could allow a sealing and a civil ceremony, but they require this from members for God knows what reason. Also anyone who challenges that policy is a 'two year old' or 'wants to get out of taking a final.'
café crema wrote:There have been a few threads there about the temple marriage thing, most of them got really ugly. There was one in particular I used to link to with friends. Always left a very bad impression. My girls were quit indignant over many of the comments, they took it quite personally when they saw the posters were talking about people like their grandparents, siblings and parents. Some threads I really like
I thought it was surprisingly hostile for a MD&D thread. I just don't get it. Some people would like to have a civil ceremony so the entire family can attend. What the hell is wrong with that?
The thread I sent to my friends was far and away more hostile than this one. Along with the "tantrum" idea posters called non-LDS self centered, domineering, intrusive, and they were quite contemptuous of non-LDS weddings. I tried to find it over there, it was shortly after an article about a woman in AZ who's son married and LDS woman in the temple. If I recall correctly the mother of the bride opted not to attend the wedding and stayed out with the non-member family.
All temple marriage threads on MD&D are hostile, as I said there have been a few since I started reading there and the one you have posted from is the nicest I've seen. Maybe that's why the others are gone now.
café crema wrote:The thread I sent to my friends was far and away more hostile than this one. Along with the "tantrum" idea posters called non-LDS self centered, domineering, intrusive, and they were quite contemptuous of non-LDS weddings. I tried to find it over there, it was shortly after an article about a woman in AZ who's son married and LDS woman in the temple. If I recall correctly the mother of the bride opted not to attend the wedding and stayed out with the non-member family.
Stormy Waters wrote:Yes. Wanting your family to attend your wedding is like trying to avoid a final. The same church that used to run ads about the importance of family, has a policy that needlessly excludes non members from the marriages of family and friends. They could have their cake and eat it too. They could allow a sealing and a civil ceremony, but they require this from members for God knows what reason. Also anyone who challenges that policy is a 'two year old' or 'wants to get out of taking a final.'
The Church actually already does this in several countries where a temple marriage isn't civilly recognized (e.g., the UK). Members in the UK are honestly quite puzzled by the Church's stance against civil marriage ceremonies in the US. They've been doing sealings and civil ceremonies on the same day over there for decades without any problems.
The Church actually already does this in several countries where a temple marriage isn't civilly recognized (e.g., the UK). Members in the UK are honestly quite puzzled by the Church's stance against civil marriage ceremonies in the US. They've been doing sealings and civil ceremonies on the same day over there for decades without any problems.
This is one of the Mormonism's biggest mystery - for me: Isn't there in SLC one seer who sees this? Is there no GA - in lower level of hierarchy - who dare say: Bro Thisandthat, we should produce here, in US, the same environment for the kids of our dogs?
by the way This is a Hungarian saying. "A mi kutyánk kölyke." He is the kid of our dog. 'A child of somebody related to the speaker, who was granted - or will be granted - preferential treatment at the expense of outsiders.' See 750 Hungarian proverbs
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby
Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
wayfarer wrote:DBMormon, I'm glad you brought it up.
I came to know Paul Dunn personally, and by the time I went on my mission, I owned every book he ever wrote. He was a master storyteller -- fables, as it turned out, but still, stories that really motivated me and a host of others of my age group.
If you ever met him in the real person, in the 70s, you would have met one of the most motivating, inspiring people i have ever met personally. He had a way of speaking and writing that spoke truth to the very soul.
I saw him again right about the time he was "outed" by Lynn Packer. He was a broken man. All the good he had done, all the wonderfully motivating stories, all of us who ate up his words -- all destroyed. he was humiliated, and with him, a massive amount of good works.
I know that this is unpopular on an apologetic board, but I see Paul Dunn as a man like Joseph Smith. Joseph had serious issues with honesty, yet to meet the man, according to accounts, was to meet someone who had presence, who could motivate, who could be a prophet of god and help others find the Way. We honor the prophet, and hide his mistakes and his inconvenient foibles. Paul Dunn had no such luck.
To out someone in this way, while being 'honest' in one level, is the magnitude of cruelty to everyone involved. My heart aches for the man Paul Dunn was before he was destroyed. What was the point of destroying him?
Possibly a troll, but I found it amusing.
Freedom wrote:BYU is a private university with a very strict code. I would have been more surprised if the instructor was not fired. The lies were uncovered and it should have ended there. Instead, Packer took it further, either for malicious intent or for bragging rights.
Yes, the man told lies to people, but damn the person who outed him!
ERayR wrote:Gordon Whiting, then chairman of the BYU communications department, had warned Packer in a memo that `publication of the Paul Dunn article will damage the church, will damage the university, will damage the department and will damage you'" (ibid).
Not an unusual approach. Any organization I know, public, private, businesses or religious organizations, likes to handle such thing privately. So it was not an unusual request. When someone is working for an organization it is a common expectation that as long as they are on the payroll there is an expectation of loyalty. What possible motive could Packer have for doing so. All the ones I can imagine do not speak well for Packer, either he wanted to intentionally harm the church or he was looking for self aggrandizement. If he wanted to publish the very least he could have done is to have enough integrity to quit first. Even then he would be taking research paid for by BYU to use for his own purposes. Packer did his part it was beyond the scope of his authority to reprimand Dunn and he knew it.
That is my take on it.
Is it typical for organizations to cover up lies told by employees? Maybe. But is that what we should expect from the 'one true church?'
