I respect Pres. Hinckley for his gracious hosting of the Dali Lama and of his softening the church's stance on gays and lesbians. He was visited by Kofi Annan, in Salt Lake City, who was the secretary general of the United Nations at the time.

I expect that the church will continue to open up and progress with Monson. Woman will receive stronger roles as will gays and lesbians. The humanitarian efforts of the church continue to expand as do the church's environmental views. The name Monson is Jewish and I could see that having a bearing on Mormon/Jewish relations.

verychewy:

I expect that the church will continue to open up and progress with Monson.

So..uh, you mean that Monson will receive different and unique communications from god, that another "prophet" or president would NOT have received if he (of course not she) had been elected??

Funny how that works....guess you have to be a believer to wrap your head around the special "heavenly" logic :)

There is some cognitive dissonance here, really. On the one hand, it is admirable that the Mormon Church is become a little bit more progressive and ethnically diverse with time. Some might say they are merely responding to inevitable pressures of public opinion, the same way that they renounced polygamy in 1890, because it was an obstacle to church growth and provoked public outrage. Also, the decision in 1978 to allow blacks full membership was the "right" thing to do, but less an act of bravery than it was an act of pragmatism.

The congitive dissonance, however, is that this progress is due to the "Prophet" getting updated guidance from God. To anybody outside of the church, it's obvious that the progress is due to the Church's willingness to avoid controversy in popular culture and to become, in Gordon Hinckley's words, less "weird."

The name Monson is actually Scandanavian; Norwegian specifically.

Don't count on the church sofening its position with regards to homosexuality. Homosexuality is diabolically opposed to Christ's Plan of Salvation as contained in the scriptures...with eternal marriage and family progression being the fundamental core of that plan.

Because of that fundamental doctrine, that doesn't mean that those who struggle with same-sex attraction are ostrasized or loved or cared about less; only that God, and therefore The Church will never condone or encourage anything but marriage between a man and a woman.

And to correct you statement, women do hold very strong roles in the church. Women in LDS culture, LDS marriages, LDS family life and LDS doctrine and religious worship are equal in every way to their husbands. Neither one can be saved without the other, sustaining one another and commandment keeping together.

Both he and Packer are more conservative than Gordon B. I fear for the backsliding.

As for the humanitarian efforts...The percentage of resources the church gives vs what it takes in is infinitely small compared to other religions. What is huge is the promoting for public relations of these very small gestures.

Thats just about the most retarded thing I have ever heard. You obviously don't know anything about the LDS's church's humanitarian aid efforts. They give more than any other church in the world even though they aren't the largest church in the world. Every year they give more in aid than red cross, salvation army and whoever the next biggest donor is COMBINED. They give to BYU so that students have a low tuition, they give a scholarship fund to people in 3rd world countries to receive education, they have a Deseret Industries (similar to salvation army) that hires disabled, elderly and mentally handicapped and gives them a living, they have a supply house for people who are in need of household supplies including food and even down to toiletries, they have and support people financially who need church aid who have lost jobs and and working to find one through the church's welfare program. The list goes on and on. The church keeps nothing for its for its profit, clergy isn't paid for example, and what isn't used to keep church buildings running or for the land and building of new temples for example is used for the welfare of the members and for the world. DO NOT EVEN BEGIN THIS ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOU WILL LOOSE- THEY GIVE A TON.

OH and one last thing- its not "what the church takes" it is provided by tithing- which is a commandment IN THE BIBLE. So if every church member of the catholic church for example obeyed the commandment to give 10% of their earnings to their church, they would have money to give too (assuming they didn't use it all to pay their clergy or buy new fancy robes). Its TITHING MONEY MR. BITEOF THEWEEK

bboston,

Thanks for your insights on LDS women. I am so tired of hearing how oppressed, suberviant, submissive, and inferior I am.

My huband would probably give himself a hernia laughing at the idea of me being ANY of those things. As would my dad, father-in-law, uncles, brothers, etc when thinking about their wifes.

If the church were to open up any more to stronger roles for women, we would have our men on chains in the backyard. Seriously, speaking as a woman in the church, I couldn't feel more loved an respected. My husband and I are equal partners in this religion and in my family. The Relief Society is one of the largest world wide groups and it's run entirely by women. It's an amazing organization.

As for gays and lesbians, we accept them as people, but we do not accept the sin. We love them and want to help them over come this particular vise they have, the same as we would want to help someone get over an alchohol addiction. The gay practice will never be accepted in the church at any point. It is an abomination the same today as it was in biblical times. Some things don't change because they shouldn't change.

Wow! How "Christian" of you to attack another religion to only try to prove how benevolent yours is. I am not Mormon but I do live in a community where there are many Mormons. As a people I do not have any complaints with them, but as a religion I would not and could not agree with their idealogy or fundamental tenets of thier church. I know that the Mormons are very good about "taking care of thier own" and that their generosity does not extend too far from the circle of chuch members in good standing. I do not see them running public soup kitchens, food banks, outreach programs, etc. However, as a Catholic I see my Church doing many things for the good of the community and servicing all people without regard to race, sex, or religious affiliation. If you look back into the history of most major cities in the world you will find that the majority of hospitals and schools systems were started by Catholics. My religion has a long tradition of serving the public (not just Catholics) so before you spout off about paying clergy (whose only job is serving their Church) and buying fancy robes I suggest you look at the facts with a less jaundiced eye!

Actually having had some experience on this, I will say that the Chruch does take care of its own first, but then takes care of others as well. It does so with its own org structure usually, but in places like NYC, Connecticut and others where I was a missionary I did see the Church make inter-faith moves of charity.

I think the shot at Catholicism was really unneccessary, though really your stones throwing back just made it much worse. You've inspired me however..I'd go back to the Bishops protecting and hiding priests who really weren't earning their paycheck since they weren't serving God, but their own needs if I were to thrown stones back in response to your comments.

Most hospitals around the world founded by them, yes--- yes, and it took many many years to get to that point. Catholics haven't been hunted down for many many years---they were usually the hunters particularly of the Unitarians as early as 325, or Jews as late as the Nazi occupations.

LDS folks have not had that advantage, the Missouri Extermination order was only recinded in 1976. Joseph Smith killed in the mid 1800s, Navoo basically destroyed-- So there's still some time for the jury to be out on the public good caused by the Church.

In the last 50-100 years in the US, you will find more Protestant foundings of hospitals than either--- Lutherns in particular (Calling something St this or that is also a Luthern thing as well.) did some extensive work. Though mostly you will find hospitals made not by churches but by cooperatives or corporations.

I woudl be fascinated to see your numbers on the Church's intake vs ou

outflow to the poor.

BYU indoctrination doesn't count. Though my niece went to the

Y and we barely were able to get her a small partial tuition scholarship.

Tiqvah,

I don't feel like I was throwing stones - only defending my faith from very narrow-minded, ignorant comments. You are doing much the same in your post as you defend your religion.

I am not disputing that Mormons are a giving people and do not doubt that at least some of your charity is distrubited to those of any faith. I also do think that it is very admirable that Mormons are so good at taking care of their own people. I cannot speak to the Mormon church's interfaith moves of charity in cities like New York or Philadelphia but I do live in Arizona and can say without a doubt that the two largest, most visible food banks and charity organizations are run by Catholics. Just ask anyone on the street in the Phoenix area and they will most certainly have heard of St Mary's Food Bank or the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul. There each have websites that might be worth looking into that detail the extent of social services thay provide.

As far as hospitals, Catholic Healthcare West is a NONPROFIT organization that runs at least 3 major hospitals in the Phoenix area. The Lutheran hospitals here were sold to Banner Healthcare - a for profit company years ago. I only bring up the hospitals and schools because the individuals - priest, nuns and religious orders - that started the sytems often worked for little or no pay and were truly emulating Christ in their efforts to help the sick and dying.

I will admit that there have been many a priest and bishop that are not worthy of holding the title as religious men. It is unfair to assume that a whole religion is "bad" because the actions of a few. The sex scandals in the Catholic Church are like a cancer - lurking under the surface destroying life. Those cancers have now been exposed and are being dealt with and in time our church will emerge stronger and better. The education and prevention programs implemented in the church today in response to the scandal will benefit everyone Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

As a side note, I have worked with sexual offenders before - and I can say that it takes all kinds. I have contact with sexual offenders from every walk of life and every religion (yes, even Mormons). I just don't think you hear about it in the media like you do when it is a Catholic.

As far as the Church's persecution of others - again the actions of a few tarnishing many. I assure you that would not happen in today's worlds.

I'll end this with the words of Christ in the book of John: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Based on these words I don't think any of us has any business judging other people or religion on this forum or anywhere else!

is one of the things that they consider translated correctly.

However, the church insists on a full tithe from its members, and

checks up on it in a tithing settlement at the end of the year

against their income. If they have not tithed fully, they lose

their temple rec. If they lose that, they will not make it to

the heaven of the Celestial kingdom.

Pretty strong-arm tactics, wouldn't you say?