The Real Reason I Left

[_Runtu]

If ya need a list of "Coffee Approved" weapons and gear just ask.

I'm going to get my girls some of those gutting knives. <insert evil laugh>

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

IF????? IF????? Whadaya mean by IF?

You can be sure Blixa was taught that. I was taught that. We were all taught that. Fight to the death rather than lose your virtue. Nobody has any repenting to do, that's just the way it was. Mormons teaching according to the light and knowledge they had been given.

I think Gaz would do well to reconsider calling a prophet to repentance. Even I remember that widespread teaching of President Kimball's from my youth.

Please site the talk.

Oh boy. Here we go again. You cannot win on this one Gaz.

I doubt he'll be coming back to admit it. Surprise me, Gaz!

[_wenglund]

Wade:

...but will trust that their efforts are motivated out of love and concern--and I think this is especially true of Pres. Kimball.

But even the purest motives can have disasterous consequences.

I can imagine a rewritten "Miracle of Forgiveness" that stays well within the bounds of Mormon understandings of sin and forgiveness (in so far as I understand them) without creating wholely unnecessary and insurmountable feelings of guilt and unworthiness in the errant reader. Surely the emphasis should be on recognizing the "problem," repenting and being forgiven, not creating scenarios wherein the magnitude of infraction is so dire it stands on the precipice of the never-to-be-forgiven, or apparently exceeds even what Jesus would forgive.

In the case of rape, I would think that special attention would be given to counsel a victim of it to not feel guilty or forever ruined, but entirely healable.

That is certainly something positive to consider at least on the infraction side of the balance (I don't consider rape victims to have committed a sexual infraction, and I don't believe President Kimball to have suggested that either).

However, I think prevention of sexual infractions to also be an important matter of consideration--particularly where innocent people (such as the children of an adulterous parent, or even rape victims) may be affected or victimized.

The difficulty, as I previously suggested, comes in striking a favorable balance such that the method used to better heal those who have sexual transgressed wont inadvertantly end up diminishing impedements to sexual transgression, and perhaps cause the incidence of sexual transgression to increase. Metaphorically speaking, it is like striking proper balance so that the "cure" doesn't inadvertantly cause the "desease" to spread (speaking of "disasterous consequences").

As the saying goes: "An ounce of prevention...."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

Oh, by the way, I know there are several landscape and garden enthusiasts on the board; I hope you are remaining fully clothed during these activities:

“But is this ugly displaying of one's private body to others so far removed from those instances of men who do their yard work wearing only pants and shoes?”

I honestly suspect SWK was a closet homosexual. Between this quote and the thing about masturbation leading to mutual masturbation and homosexuality just strikes me as so out there and off the wall that the only explanation I can think of was that he was aroused by other men. I've heard of studies where men who were the most outspoken against homosexuality were the ones who responded most to homoerotic materials. I mean... look a Ted Haggard.

Just a hunch.

Kind of sad, really. The guy probably should have just taken one up the rear and got it out of his system (the repressed feelings, that is) rather than writing this crap and passing it off as prophetic teachings. Imagine how much heartache it would have saved.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

If re-editing the book would help strike a more favorable (to all parties concerned) balance between discouraging sexual infractions and help those who have committed sexual infraction better overcme their infraction and/or help confort and consol those who are suffering as a result of someone elses sexual infraction, then I would be all for it as well.

However, I wonder whether that would be the outcome or not. Unfortunately, too often when the seriousness of the consequences of sexual sin are "mercifully" diminished, the frequency of the sexual sins, and the consequences to other parties for those transgressions (such as kids who are aversely affected by an adulterous parent), tend to increase.

I am not prepared to harshly judge those who may error on one side of the balance or the other, but will trust that their efforts are motivated out of love and concern--and I think this is especially true of Pres. Kimball. I can't imagine how anyone, who is well acquinted with that dear man, or who has stood close by in his presence (as I had the opportunity to do at one time), could think otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just don't expect everybody to define "sexual infraction" the way the church does. Sex isn't a sin, but unfaithfulness may be. The church only knows how to make sex the focus of everything and let more subtle moral issues go unaddressed.

Actually, I also stood close in Kimball's presence. I cried when I heard of his death. But I would never, ever make excuses or try to rationalize away his teachings on this subject. What's wrong is wrong, and your excuses and rationalizations on his account damage the veneer of integrity you are trying so hard to maintain here.

[_Mr. Coffee]

I'm going to get my girls some of those gutting knives. <insert evil laugh>

Just as long as you drill it into their skulls that they never, ever deploy unless they intend to kill something and make sure they have local use of force laws memorized, go for it. While you're at it, get them a can of http://www.guardian-self-defense.com/pepperfoam.htm (I forgot that Military/Law Enforcement grade CS spray is restricted to Military/LEOs only, so it's pepper spray for you plebes), and sign them up for some good self-defense classes (None of that kung-fu chop socky crap. That stuff takes waaaaaaaay to long to learn. Find a good K.I.S.S.* street level self defense course, preferable one sponsored by your local law enforcement agency).

*K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple, Stupid.

[_wenglund]

Thanks for clarifying that, Wade. The problem I have with SWK's statement is that the virtue is indeed 'lost' or 'stolen' and can never been regained. Doesn't sound like you agree with that, either.

Your most welcome. However, while I may not agree with Pres. Kimball's choice of words, I don't think he and I are all that far apart, if at all, on principle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Your most welcome. However, while I may not agree with Pres. Kimball's choice of words, I don't think he and I are all that far apart, if at all, on principle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, you're not all that far apart. Oh, well. It didn't die out with him, but maybe it will die out with you.

[_wenglund]

I honestly suspect SWK was a closet homosexual. Between this quote and the thing about masturbation leading to mutual masturbation and homosexuality just strikes me as so out there and off the wall that the only explanation I can think of was that he was aroused by other men. I've heard of studies where men who were the most outspoken against homosexuality were the ones who responded most to homoerotic materials. I mean... look a Ted Haggard.

Just a hunch.

Kind of sad, really. The guy probably should have just taken one up the rear and got it out of his system (the repressed feelings, that is) rather than writing this crap and passing it off as prophetic teachings. Imagine how much heartache it would have saved.

I suspect your insipid misperceptions of Pres. Kimball are driven by religious bigotry, if not also a projection of your own perverse proclivities, making your comments thrice-fold sick.

By the way...that homo-fascist tactic of stereotyping outspoken opponents of homosexuality as homosexuals, was logically debunked and virtually abandoned back in the early 80's (the very rare exceptions to the rule like Ted Haggard notwithstanding). So, how about getting a little more up-to-date with your smear campaigns?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Blixa]

I honestly suspect SWK was a closet homosexual. Between this quote and the thing about masturbation leading to mutual masturbation and homosexuality just strikes me as so out there and off the wall that the only explanation I can think of was that he was aroused by other men. I've heard of studies where men who were the most outspoken against homosexuality were the ones who responded most to homoerotic materials. I mean... look a Ted Haggard.

Oh I don't know, Schmo. The quote about working without your shirt on I threw in as a laugh..in context he's comparng it with immodest swimwear and formal dresses on women. I think it was just there to show that what's immodest for the goose is immodest for the gander.

Nor would I extrapolate a "diagnosis" of homosexuality from his remarks on masturbation and the idea that it can lead to homosexuality. I think this was a pretty widespread mistaken notion held over from the 50's by the more culturally conservative of his generation. While it may not have been the common perception when the book was published (let alone now) I think its a rather typical bit of "old guy" mythology.