Pine Box Thread: Suicide or Giving in to Rape?

[_bcspace]

I have indeed read the MoF, but I note that since it is not published by the Church, it is not doctrinal (see my siggy below).

Agreed. But most run of the mill Church members do not split hairs in this fashion.

Such a differentiation is not splitting hairs and in my experience, most Church members do make this distinction. There are indeed however, a few who do not.

Also, although the book was not technically published by the Church, it was WRITTEN by the current prophet of the day.

Not that it matters considering the Church's stance on what is and is not doctrine, but was SWK the President of the Church in 1969? It is no more doctrinal than the JoD or MD, whcih is to say, not at all.

[_Yoda]

Not that it matters considering the Church's stance on what is and is not doctrine, but was SWK the President of the Church in 1969?

President Kimball did not become the prophet until 1973. However, when the book was published in 1969, he was a member of the Quorum of the 12, and considered a prophet, seer, and revelator, as such. Also, while he WAS the prophet, the book sold like hotcakes among Church members. Almost every member home I was aware of had a copy.

It was also the standard used by most bishops in counseling situations.

[_Yoda]

It is no more doctrinal than the JoD

Go back and read my prior posts. I specifically stated this. ;)

This doesn't change the fact, however, that most Church members are going to assume that published written word by the prophet is doctrine.

[_Jason Bourne]

What BC obtusely avoids is it really does not matter if it was doctrinal, which can be argued. It was what is practiced and what did the member thing and the fact is most members believe when a GA says something it means something. Apologists like BC think that what they say means more then what the leaders say. The struggle to death thing was said by Kimball and other GAs as was the better dead than lose virture, over and over and the latter in GC which by BCs standards makes it doctrine. Members believed it, used it and taught these things over and over. If BC says they did not he is frankly being dishonest. This was the theme in the 60s and 70s when I grew up and seems alive and well in some quarters.

[_bcspace]

Not that it matters considering the Church's stance on what is and is not doctrine, but was SWK the President of the Church in 1969?

President Kimball did not become the prophet until 1973. However, when the book was published in 1969, he was a member of the Quorum of the 12, and considered a prophet, seer, and revelator, as such.

Yet the governing pricniple of the Church has been, since D&C 107, that the first presidency and the Qo12 are equal in authority. Therefore, it takes both those bodies to agree upon and establish doctrine.

Also, while he WAS the prophet, the book sold like hotcakes among Church members. Almost every member home I was aware of had a copy.

That does not excuse them from not knowing the doctrines of the Church. By and large, I think they've handled those distinctions rather well even at least from the time period in question.

It was also the standard used by most bishops in counseling situations.

Indeed. It still might be used. And there are complete sets of the JoD and Mormon doctrine found in our libraries. Just because those are not doctrinal works doesn't mean they are of no value.

[_bcspace]

What BC obtusely avoids is it really does not matter if it was doctrinal, which can be argued.

It does matter because it is doctrine that the Church teaches. Otherwise, it is just individual councli which may or may not be true or apply to you.

It was what is practiced

What the Church practices and teaches may be entirely different from what some indiviudal practices and teaches.

and what did the member think

Sure. There are indeed some who might not make the distinction and even a few crackpots who refuse to make the distinction even when pointed out to them.

Apologists like BC think that what they say means more then what the leaders say.

Apologists like BC are keenly interested in following what the leaders say. See the link in my siggy for example. That is the Church's official statement on how the leaders distinguish between what is and is not doctrine. It's what's been taught within the Church for decades.

The struggle to death thing was said by Kimball and other GAs as was the better dead than lose virture, over and over and the latter in GC which by BCs standards makes it doctrine.

Why don't you actually elucidate my standards by giving reference? When you do, you'll see that this is not the case.

Members believed it, used it and taught these things over and over.

I'm quite certain some did. But that is not the standard for doctrine.

If BC says they did not he is frankly being dishonest.

I think you'll find and most will agree that BC is honest.

This was the theme in the 60s and 70s when I grew up

You and I are probably close in age.

and seems alive and well in some quarters.

Evidence that it was not doctrine.

[_Moniker]

Here is a link to the entire talk:

http://LDS.org/conference/talk/display/ ... 15,00.html

Here is the link to the 1992 talk:

1992 talk

I think we need to take his most recent words more to heart about his feelings on the subject.

Surprisingly I prefer the first talk to the second one. I think equating Satan to the natural feelings one goes through after a traumatic event probably isn't that helpful. There are stages victims go through in the healing process and they're normal and they're not of supernatural origin. Anyway, there was actually a few instances when forgiveness is talked about that I appreciated the sentiments --yet, I don't necessarily think a victim should be counseled not to feel bitterness or anger.... these are stages one goes through. What sort of background does Scott have with therapy and abuse?

Thanks for linking those, liz.

[_bcspace]

Anyway, there was actually a few instances when forgiveness is talked about that I appreciated the sentiments --yet, I don't necessarily think a victim should be counseled not to feel bitterness or anger.... these are stages one goes through.

Which makes me wonder what all the fuss is about. Especially since pine boxes are not mentioned in either article.

[_Jason Bourne]

]

Apologists like BC are keenly interested in following what the leaders say. See the link in my siggy for example. That is the Church's official statement on how the leaders distinguish between what is and is not doctrine. It's what's been taught within the Church for decades

.


1: The statement you refer in your sig line does not meet the standards you set for doctrine.

2: It is not settled in the Church as to what makes official doctrine nor has it been. You do not even agree with many apologists who refuse to allow manuals the status of doctrine. Your def is more expansive than many others.

3: Again, it does not matter what is doctrine here. It is what the members of the Church believe. And by far, the members believed what Kimball and others said about sexual sin.

The struggle to death thing was said by Kimball and other GAs as was the better dead than lose virture, over and over and the latter in GC which by BCs standards makes it doctrine.

Why don't you actually elucidate my standards by giving reference? When you do, you'll see that this is not the case.

Already did give a number of quotes above. No time mow. But it does not matter. If the GAs said it over and over, in conference, out of conferene, in Esign articles, of which one was pasted above, books and members beleived it then that is what matters.

What GAs say do meant something not withstanding the dishonesty you and other apologists exhibit when you weasel out of bad things you do not want to say by repeating your mantra that it was not doctrine.

[_Inconceivable]

BC,

Why don't you start a thread outlining true, revealed and accepted doctrine of the Mormon church.

It shouldn't take too long (about one line should do it).

Be sure to clarify the definition of "is" for us.