puf_the_majic_dragon

Had a wonderful conversation with a friend of mine on this topic recently. Our conclusion: Atonement is 100% necessary for apotheosis. That is exactly why we are commanded to "Bear one another's burdens" and to "Mourn with those that mourn." I'm somewhat amused that the conversation has turned towards defining perfection when I think we ought to be focusing on defining atonement. There is a difference between "atonement" and "The Atonement" - the former is two individuals coming to agreement, the latter is Christ's infinite and eternal sacrifice that helps us accomplish the former with our Heavenly Father.

That's a really interesting reference. I'll have to get me a copy of that handbook.... I remember vividly one experience I had as a teen. First off, my dad had a temper (putting it mildly). One weekend, he had just purchased a number of things at a very large auction. As we were loading things up into our truck, we noticed several items were walking off the auction floor without us. We caught one of the thieves in action. The ensuing argument between my dad and this man got very heated as my mom and I stood by. And it just kept escalating. When my dad threatened to grab his gun from the car, my mom raised her hand to the square and commanded - in the name of Jesus Christ - that the spirit of contention depart immediately. My dad turned to her and told her "You don't have the right!" But it worked! If she didn't have the right or the authority, then it could not have worked! And even with my dad's temper and his anger at an angry thief standing in front of him and his displeasure at my mom's choice of action, the contention was instantly gone. My dad's anger evaporated. The thief's anger evaporated. The spirit of contention literally vanished and the argument was over. That was one experience among many. There are a great many things that are presently reserved to the priesthood that have nothing (or very little) to do with priesthood authority. Perhaps, as the above reference states, there's good reason for that. But I will forever be grateful that my mother knew better than to let mormon culture limit her spiritual power. I could have watched my dad kill a man that day, but instead I saw the power of God in great glory being exercised by a Godly woman.

Skousen definitely did his research. Where he and I part ways is that he has a tendency to teach his own theories and ideas as though they were doctrine. Sure, a lot of it's based on doctrine, but he takes several long strides beyond doctrine into the realm of speculation without warning his readers that he's crossed that line. I'll confess that my exposure to him is limited, so I may not have the most accurate picture. He was a learned man with a great deal of earthly credential, but he was never a general authority. His writings should be read with at least that grain of salt.

3 words Culture Ignorance Discomfort A subject is culturally taboo because it's culturally taboo. How it became culturally taboo is another discussion entirely and is largely historical. A subject is personally taboo because a person is ignorant on the subject and prefers to remain so. Their preference to remain in ignorance usually follows a cultural taboo against studying the topic. A subject is uncomfortable (and therefore taboo) if it challenges our existing beliefs or notions or if it contradicts what we think we know. Our discomfort with a particular topic is almost always directly correlated with our ignorance on that subject. It'd be interesting to list all of the taboo subjects. 1: Evil spirits. My own studies and personal experience suggest that a great majority of the temptation we face in life is actually a direct consequence of being "possessed of a devil". The converse of which is being "possesed of the Holy Ghost". It's a taboo subject primarily because of ignorance or discomfort. 2: Women giving blessings. It's important to note that in the early days of the church, women who gave blessings by the laying on of hands were not doing so "By the authority of the Priesthood", but rather only "in the name of Jesus Christ". Similarly, a father's blessing is not a priesthood blessing - nonmember fathers are entitled by their role as father and that is all the authority that they need. I'm not aware of any official announcements discontinuing the practice of women giving blessings, but I suspect that it probably caused a lot of confusion about women and holding the priesthood, since blessings are generally considered to be associated with the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. This is a taboo subject mostly because of ignorance and culture. 3: Conspiracy theories. Well, this is probably less of a taboo subject and more of an off-topic one. And especially one, like politics, that can cause a lot of disagreement and contention. There are a lot of nut-jobs out there reading Erich von Däniken and Cleon Skousen who think they know the "deep doctrine" and "mysteries of the kingdom". Yes, there are conspiracies and gadiantons in the world today, but unless we are a member of these conspiracies the fact is we just don't know anything about them. So we teach what we do know, the doctrines of the Gospel, and by so doing we are prepared to meet any conspiracy. This is a taboo subject in church because it has nothing to do with the church.

I think you'll really appreciate this BYU devotional. A quotation that I think answers your question: "Nothingness describes not man’s lack of value, but rather his powerlessness during his mortal probation and, especially, his all-encompassing need for the Lord." (emphasis added)

Was scrolling down my newsfeed and saw this. I think it sums up the point I'm trying to make quite nicely. With this adendum: competition is literally defined as comparing ourselves to others. I think that our general authorities have made it quite clear that self-esteem is a good thing. If the author of the article wishes to argue against certain ways that we define self-esteem, or certain ways that we develop it, then he should probably consider a rewrite. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/james-e-faust_self-esteem-great-human-need/ https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/the-value-of-self-esteem?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/liahona/1983/09/helping-your-children-like-themselves?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/new-era/2014/01/truth-lies-and-your-self-worth?lang=eng

Yep, I know, my point of view is pretty rare. Even within these circles. Makes for some interesting Sunday School lessons, lemme tell ya. But like most people, I'm pretty well convinced that my point of view is the right one, so I'm dead set on getting others to see it my way As for a plan... well, the problem's way more complicated than that. I mean we've been weaving individualist philosophy into our culture and our politics and our economics and our religion for 200 years - the only plan that can really combat that is the Plan of Salvation, and there's even disagreement about that among people who share their belief in that plan. So on a large scale? No, I'm sorry, there's not much I can do. But what I can do, is share and discuss and teach and hopefully influence the few people within my tiny corner of the world to see a better way and to strive for it. Anyway, I hope you understand that I don't have anything against competition per se. The problem is in our attitude towards competition and in the instruction (or lack thereof) that we give to our children when we put them in competitive environments.

Well, first, thanks for a thoughtful reply. That means I wasn't too dramatic in my last post. Either that, or you're just a better person than I am. "Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal;" I do realize it's an editorial and not an official church piece or even necessarily an article about the church or church doctrine. But I (try to) view everything through a Gospel-focused lens. Truth is truth, whether we're talking about the Gospel or whether we're talking about sociology studies and public education. So, the way that you have it written there, I would agree with (almost) completely. Yes, we can and do and will face a lot of hard things. Yes it's absolutely important that we understand how to face hard things. Yes it's imperative that we teach our children how to face hard things. If we enroll our kids in competitive activities (sports or what have you) while explicitly teaching them "facing hard things" as the context, then those competitive activities can greatly benefit our kids. The problem is that that is not what is happening (at least not on a societal scale). Instead, competition is training our kids to value winning over sportsmanship and to avoid at all costs facing the hardest thing of all - failure. There's a reason that the word "loser" has so many derogatory connotations to it. So I'll throw all of that out the window and just consider one thing: What is the Gospel perspective? Our reward in Eternity is based on one thing: How we play. Our success/failure at any of the innumerable challenges of life is utterly meaningless, all that matters is how we face those challenges. And what that means, at its most simple, is it all comes down to whether or not we participate in the Gospel. If we participate, we obtain Eternal life. If we don't participate, we obtain nothing. So if that's how God's plan works, then how does that apply to school and sports and career and family? Well, to me, it means that whether I get an A or an F on the math test doesn't really matter, as long as I am participating, engaging, learning, and progressing. It means that whether I win or lose the football game doesn't matter, as long as I am participating, engaging, and learning, and progressing. It means that whether or not I add value to the gross national product doesn't matter, as long as I am participating, engaging, learning, and progressing. It means whether or not I'm the ideal father doesn't matter, as long as I am participating, engaging, learning, and progressing. In short: success is in the effort, as long as it's our best effort. The "market" and our society and everything that we are raised by our culture to believe will tell you that what I just said is wrong. That people with that kind of attitude will be dysfunctional. Well, the market is ungodly. So do we adapt to serve an ungodly economy? Or do we adapt the economy to serve God's plan? The whole reason that self-esteem is a thing is because somebody discovered that accomplishment was a consequence of confidence and not the other way around. I will raise my children to face hard things knowing that they are children of God and that God has the power to save them. That's going to mean self-esteem, and it may mean participation trophies. It may mean that they wind up being dysfunctional misfits in our current economic system. I certainly hope so. :edit: P.S. There are a LOT of hard things you can have your kids face in a controlled environment that do not involve competition. (Tangent) I took a university class where the professor listed about 10 very controversial topics on the board. The assignment was to pick a topic and then prepare an oral presentation where we had to argue that topic from the point of view opposite of what we personally believed. This is a beautiful exercise and I encourage everyone to engage in it as often as possible because it's really quite enlightening. Anyway, he gave the class an example to discuss and that was the topic of participation trophies. When I raised my hand and he asked me to explain why participation trophies were a good thing, I thought about Nash economics and game theory - cooperation is always better than competition. And that became my answer. Participation trophies teach kids that participation and cooperation are better and more important than competition. Of course, in reality, kids learn whatever they're told to learn, so if you tell them that participation trophies will only make them dysfunctional praise-junkies, then that's what they will learn. I'm getting distracted. So after that class, having defended a position on participation trophies that I originally did not agree with, I took some time and considered it thoroughly. I came to the same conclusion that John Nash did. Cooperation is always better for the group and for all of the individuals within the group. The problem is that, as cultural individualists, we never ever think outside the individualist perspective, which means we always choose competition. In short, our society is broken by selfishness.

I'm going to say something that is going to get me into a lot of trouble, but I think it NEEDS to be said. This article is complete JUNK. I'd use stronger language, but I'm riding close enough to offending people as it is. The author made this statement: "From an academic standpoint, what conscientious parents and educators are finding out, far too late, is that at some point, the praise junkie will one day be pitted against a merciless market. The market is indifferent to feelings and only rewards added value for efficient production’s sake and not for mere existence." (emphasis added) Don't you all realize that it is the market that is the problem? It is the "relentless, merciless market" that is ungodly! God, our FATHER is NOT indifferent to feelings, and His rewards are completely unrelated to added value or efficient production. Do you want a perfect picture of what God's way looks like? There have been numerous comments, and the article itself, that conflate self-esteem with pride. Anyone who makes that mistake has never read a single scientific study (or even a dictionary) on the subject of self esteem. noun 1. a realistic respect for or favorable impression of oneself; self-respect.Let me quote a prophet: "God Himself said we are the reason He created the universe! His work and glory—the purpose for this magnificent universe—is to save and exalt mankind. In other words, the vast expanse of eternity, the glories and mysteries of infinite space and time are all built for the benefit of ordinary mortals like you and me. Our Heavenly Father created the universe that we might reach our potential as His sons and daughters." Let me be clear. GOD does not reward you based on your competitive comparison to other people. God rewards you for participation in His Plan of Salvation ONLY. There is absolutely NOTHING any of us can do to earn our place in the Celestial Kingdom, short of showing up. Eternal Life is a participation trophy. I am sorry if this offends anyone. That's not my intention (honestly). But I can not sit back and allow false doctrine to be perpetuated. Satan wants you to have a false pride in your own "earned" confidence, the same as what nearly destroyed this woman's life. Satan wants you to compete against others rather than work with them. Satan wants you to think that a relentless and merciless market that cares nothing for feelings and only rewards added value is Godly while recognizing our own intrinsic worth as caring and compassionate beings is satanic. Again, I'm sorry. This got me rather upset. I'm going to step away now and take 10 deep breaths yadda yadda. Hopefully I can come back and discuss this in a slightly more rational (and less emotional) mode.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but the fact that you ignored my point in favor of responding with sarcasm tells me that this conversation is not going to go anywhere. All of the these ^ are because of love. The others may, sometimes, be motivating factors for some, socially disabled type people. Usually those sorts of people end up on street corners with signs and very few take them seriously.They are because of pride.

So... I had to take a leave of absence because I was communicating poorly and it was on the edge of causing trouble. There's a lot to catch up on, and I haven't read all of the intervening comments, but I think I have something to add that might shed a new light on the topic. Let's hope I can explain it in a way that everyone can understand and appreciate. Mormons are afraid to be sinners. By which I mean that we are afraid to openly admit to or talk about our sins. I bet we're far more afraid to talk about sin than we are to commit sin. But this is the true church of Christ, a hospital for the spiritually sick. "We come to church not to hide our problems but to heal them." It's meant to be a support group, where everyone can "bear one another’s burdens". Nobody can help you bear a burden that you don't share (as in talk about). I did read a few of the added comments and I saw someone who mentioned having been tempted by attraction to someone who wasn't their spouse. As an example (and not an accusation), when was the last time you talked about that in your priesthood quorum? I suspect you haven't, because none of us do. I think this lack of sharing is a problem because someone in our quorum or relief society might be facing the same struggles and our success can give them encouragement or advice that they need to overcome it! One reason I think we're afraid to talk openly about our problems is because we're afraid of being judged, condemned, or, God forbid, "called to repentance". I put the repentance in quotes because so frequently such calls come without the prerequisite Christlike love, and as such are simply condemnations in a thin disguise. I saw a question on why people would call others to repentance if not out of love. Well, here are a few ideas. I'm a know it all, so I have to be right and make sure everyone knows I'm right. I have a duty to declare repentance. The righteous declare repentance and I am trying to be righteous. I made a commitment to the missionaries to share the Gospel with someone. I want other mormons to think I'm righteous. This will make a great story to tell in Priesthood when they ask for a personal experience about repentance. If I don't condemn this sin, then I'm not keeping my covenants. If I don't condemn this sin, then I'm not standing firm for what is right. If this person hasn't completely overcome this sin, then they aren't even trying because "repentance means change". These are reasons why mormons frequently get the label of "self-righteous" or "holier than thou". As we've talked about before - there is a big difference between how repentance is declared and how that declaration is received. As Josiah said, if we take the time to ensure that we love the person and if we're really in-tune with the Spirit, then we can be instructed in how to declare repentance in a way that it will best be received. (Though maybe not heeded, as every missionary knows.) So back to the topic at hand - in what way can we declare repentance so that those we meet and talk to will feel encouraged and loved and supported in their trials? So that they will feel like church is a safe place to talk about their trials and temptations and sins, knowing that there is a whole quorum or sisterhood who will do anything to help them rise above their challenges?

Yeah, that was something I meant to rewrite, knowing it would not be taken very well. But after spending 2 hours (no kidding) rewriting and editing and revising to try and avoid such misunderstandings, that one got missed. But out of all of the things you could have responded to, you chose that one. You know, I wish I could just ignore your posts and your comments and thus avoid the misunderstanding and all the drama that comes with it. But you do have a keen mind and a fair amount of insight, and those are things I relish. It's too bad we can't get along better.

"Intelligence is more than just problem solving. Intelligence is questioning the assumptions you're presented with. Intelligence is the ability to question existing thought-constructs. If we don't make that part of the simulation, all we'll create is a really effective slave." When phrased the way you have, I agree with you. A conscious choice to obey even knowing one's understanding is limited is not mindless. However, the reason I agree is because making that conscious choice requires that the you ask the question. Choice necessarily requires an alternative, and you can not choose obedience unless you have considered disobedience. Maybe for some people it's "one and done" - made the choice once and never question it again for the rest of their lives. Those people are missing out on a wealth of knowledge and wisdom that the Lord is anxious to reveal to those who inquire. (They're also completely missing the point of having commandments in the first place.) But others here seem to be advocating "Never consider the alternative". That is not exercising agency, it is sacrificing it. In the other thread, someone mentioned a hypothetical bishop who was letting young women pass the sacrament - when faced with that decision, should the young woman knowingly commit blasphemy out of obedience to her bishop? If she considers the decision and with "humble determination to obey...regardless of her understanding" goes ahead and passes it, I suspect the Lord would bless her for obedience. But if she considers the decision and recognizes the Spirit's voice telling her it is wrong, and so she refuses, I KNOW the Lord would bless her for her faith in Him and for her courage to keep that faith. And if she doesn't consider the decision and simply does what her bishop tells her to do because he's her bishop - that is mindless. If that is all of the will of God that you know or follow, I am sorry for you. On this I agree, that is the way it should be. But based on the discussion so far, this isn't actually what people are doing. Moral agency is far more than just the ability to make your own choices but includes also the responsibility for the choices you make. Anatess' comment was a declaration shirking that responsibility - that the prophet is responsible for our choices as long as our choice is to follow him. If obeying the prophet's counsel absolves us of responsibility for our choices, then our moral agency is destroyed.

My understanding of the principle of faith is a work in progress: http://lds.net/forums/topic/57654-what-is-perfect-faith/ I've learned a lot in discussions with many of my friends on this subject, and I believe I have a rough idea, but that idea is not yet clear enough for me to be able to describe it. More study is needed.

I'd be inclined to call them an idiot as well. But don't you think there might be a way to convey the message of firearm safety without getting offensive? I don't think the conversation is about whether or not to communicate high moral values, but rather it's about how to communicate those values. The leaders of the church have chosen to take a softer, gentler approach to communicating those values. Some people feel this approach is ineffective or misses the entire point of "declaring repentance". Having personally experienced the difference, both in my own repentance and in that of others, I find the gentler approach to be far more effective.

See, this is where you and I just can't seem to share any kind of meaning. I never ever suggested that humble obedience was the same as mindlessness. I absolutely DID say that mindless obedience was mindlessness. Here is the exact excerpt I was referring to and it undeniably endorses mindlessness: My quotation from Brigham Young, excerpted from Elder Christofferson's General Conference talk which I linked to, very explicitly contradicts this level of mindlessness. Elder Christofferson's talk also very explicitly contradicts this implied lack of responsibility. We are given agency so that we can use it, not give it away to a prophet, no matter how inspired he may be. http://lds.net/forums/topic/57601-sustaining-our-leaders-a-blog/?p=831802

That's an interesting revelation, and I think that is sometimes how the Lord sees things. In my opinion, in such a situation, you will never be wrong by following the Lord, even if it contradicts the prophet. (Of course, it behooves each of us to be absolutely certain that it is the Lord we are following, and not our own false revelations or deceptions.) You mean spiritual immaturity? Spiritually mature people are fully capable of having their questions answered and doubts resolved through personal revelation. The quote you reference from Mark is an example of such a person in the process of having his doubts resolved. THIS! I absolutely do advocate complete skepticism - where skepticism is defined as a doubt that leads to earnest questioning and seeking; not where skepticism is a doubt that enters the realm of intentional disbelief. We absolutely should seek the Lord's personally revealed confirmation on every single thing that prophets and apostles and church leaders teach us. Some seem to assert that seeking this personal confirmation demonstrates a lack of faith. I assert that it is the opposite. It is, in fact, the very essence of a personal testimony. In every case, from General Conference to the scriptures to Sunday School lesson manuals, we are constantly told to ask the Father for a personal witness. It is the crux of our missionary efforts, that investigators not rely on the testimonies or instruction of the missionaries but seek and obtain their own personal revelation. Brigham Young called it our duty to know and understand for ourselves. There also seems to be some confusion about what it means to seek and ask for that personal confirmation. In 99.9% of cases, there is no need to ask simply because the Spirit will already be there testifying of the truth as it is spoken by our leaders. If you're listening to the Spirit, you already have your confirmation the moment the prophets have spoken. In that 0.1% of times when the Spirit doesn't confirm the truth of it unto you, it is absolutely most imperative that you earnestly seek for it. Because one of two things is happening: either you are going astray (and hence didn't hear the Spirit's voice) or the person instructing you is going astray, and neither is going to be good for your eternal welfare if you don't seek answers from the Lord.

The topic of the thread: "The decline of declaring repentance" Your OP: "What happened to declaring repentance?" If you have to ask the question, then you clearly feel that "declaring repentance" is not happening, and therefore church websites, church literature, talks by general authorities, etc. do not qualify as "declaring repentance". If you feel that "declaring repentance" is happening, then these things do qualify as "declaring repentance" and your question is irrelevant and I move that the case be dismissed. If you still feel that repentance is not being declared, yet agree that the media and publications of the church are declaring repentance, then I have no way to resolve your cognitive dissonance and I wish you luck. If you feel that repentance is not being declared, and affirm that the media and publications of the church are not (adequately?) declaring repentance, then I restate my original comment: The media and publications of the church are declaring repentance, but in a manner consistent with persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned rather than reproving with sharpness. If I've missed your point entirely... well, like I said, we don't seem to be able to communicate very effectively with each other.

huh... Free Forever, to Act for Themselves We've sometimes been told that if we follow the prophet's counsel and he "ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." My opinion is that this can, at best, earn you a terrestrial glory. If the Lord wanted mindless automatons, He'd have created such. He did not give us minds of our own just for us to shut them off. Of course, I do NOT advocate anyone rationalizing or justifying disobedience. I do expect everyone to justify their obedience by constantly seeking the Lord's personal confirmation on every single point of doctrine. Those who do not do this have not experienced true religion.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/9.23?lang=eng#22

To elaborate, when you receive [counsel,commandments] from the Lord or His servants, ask yourself these questions: "What does this help me to understand?" "How does this show me where I have erred and need correction?" "What wisdom does this instruct me?" "How have I sinned that this chastens me?" "How can this help me to be more humble?" And we would all do well to follow the "counsel" in 1 Corinthians 8:9.

Whether we call it "counsel" and therefore optional, or "commandment" and therefore requisite, the purpose as outlined by the Lord in D&C 1 is the same. Whatever you call it, seek to understand its purpose and that will do more than anything to help you understand how it applies to you.

Reproof against you or contention with you is not my intent. That would be one of the ways in which you and I simply don't seem to be communicating. Maybe it shouldn't make a difference. When you don't know what the reason is, how should you respond? Your words have indicated that you prefer to respond as though your companion is lazy until proven otherwise. I suggest you respond as though there is a legitimate reason. My statement was to demonstrate your apparently cynical view. By this I infer that you assume that I am not listening to, following, or obeying ALL of the teachings God has given us. I might make the same assumption about you. Hence that second sentence. You assume that you are right and have the more complete view of the Gospel, and I assume that I am right and have the more complete view of the Gospel, and we can't both be right. So my question still remains. Your assertion is that the current official stance of the church does not qualify as "declaring repentance" because it does not meet your standards for harshness, clarity, bluntness, or sharpness. My assertion is that it absolutely qualifies as "declaring repentance" and is possibly far more effective with this particular example and demographic. Everything else is just you and I bickering over semantics on provincial topics because we can't agree on that single point.

It's also quite possible that another person's expression of love is interpreted as pampering or pandering or spoiling by those who have experience with other, very different, kinds of expression. The cycle of abuse has continued in some of my siblings, who ridicule others for "being too soft" - their idea of correction means beating the tar out of their kids, because that's what they grew up with and they never stopped to ask if there was a better way. The first barrier to communication is the lack of a common core of experience. For example, I might say "airplane" and you picture a 747 and I picture a Cessna 172. And this is where the expression is often different from how it is received. A loving and compassionate exhortation for honest, legitimate, never-ending effort to change can be received as a condemning, judgmental, criticism. This has nothing to do with being spoiled or pampered, as much as it has to do with prior experience and attitude. Generally, those who have experienced real and frequent criticism will interpret many things as criticism that are not actually critical. I've seen you and I both do that in our communications. It matters to me why I have trouble getting up in the morning. But it shouldn't matter to you or anyone else. There is only one reason anyone else would care why I have trouble getting up in the morning: to justify or correct a judgment about me that they never should have made in the first place. To wit: "Until you show me that you have a real medical condition, I assume you're just lazy and don't want to get up." "The most universal subjugation in our day, as it has been throughout history, is ideology or political beliefs that are inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ." "It seems to be a trait of humanity to assume that we are right even when we are wrong." How does one know if they are in bondage to a false ideology? I've seen false ideologies rampant among members of the church (the theology of prosperity I already mentioned is a big one that has even been discussed on this forum). I ask this because I see the world very differently from the way that you apparently do. Perhaps even completely opposite. Which suggests that one of us might be in bondage to a false ideology - and of course I'm going to assume it's you, and you're going to assume it's me, and we both can back up our ideologies with scripture. So how do we tell?

It was not my intent to make it sound that way. And as I said, I'm not going to list examples, because that would be counter-productive. Anyone interested in the subject of false doctrine can do the research themselves - but false doctrine is perhaps not a field a person should spend time becoming an expert in. 1: As I said - I'm gaining a greater appreciation for him. So yay :) 2: My two cents: NEVER be worried about the truth. Just remember the source of all truth is God, not history books or the Journal of Discourses. If you ever find a teaching in the church that worries you, take it to God in prayer. He will answer you and instruct you in what is right. 3: "The Mountain of the Lord" is perhaps one of the most famous and best, though it's more about the temple than Brigham. I'm not aware of anything else, it already sounds like you do more reading than I do though most of the first-hand stuff you can find in Journal of Discourses or History of the Church.