You are not being honest. I have noted over three times is does not matter if it is doctrine. What matters is men who are apostles and prophets said and taught these things and members listened, agreed and practiced it in how they taught, counseled and viewed their own sins with exceesive unecessary guilt as well as how members view those who sinned as well.
Now I expect you to say It is not doctrine so that was the members fault. But I never saw any leaders attempting to steer the ship.
What really makes me sick about your approach is there is never any willingness to deal with the bad things that do and have come at times from leaders comments filtering into the culture of the Church. The two earring thing is another fine example. It has been latched upon and made such an issue of that now we have an apostle (Bednar) using anecdotes about a hero of a young RM dumping some girl because she had two earrings and he feared she would not follow the prophet in all things.
Oh but that is not doctrine. Yet in wards and stakes it is taken a a poor girl who dares wear two earrings has her faith and devotion questioned and can even be viewed as a bit slutty.
Ok, now I wait for you to say well it is not doctrine along with a CFR.
Jason, my old friend, you are wasting your breath. The dictionary definition of "doctrine" states that it is simply something that is "taught." Apologists always insist upon placing a million ridiculous qualifications on this, essentially making it impossible to define what is or is not doctrine. That said, in the loosest possible sense, those whacked-out stories from seminary about how God hid dinosaur bones in the Earth as a kind of "trick" to test our faith would have to be considered---in the strict dictionary sense---"doctrine."
Mister Scratch wrote:Jason, my old friend, you are wasting your breath. The dictionary definition of "doctrine" states that it is simply something that is "taught." Apologists always insist upon placing a million ridiculous qualifications on this, essentially making it impossible to define what is or is not doctrine. That said, in the loosest possible sense, those whacked-out stories from seminary about how God hid dinosaur bones in the Earth as a kind of "trick" to test our faith would have to be considered---in the strict dictionary sense---"doctrine."
I know I know. You are correct. I used to do it. I know how to do it. I used to say "All you can pin us down to is our canon and FP statements. Anything else is opinion and non binding.
But then I hear the leaders say "Follow the brethren" and "The President of the Church will never lead it astray." And I thought that what men who claim to be prophets and apostles means something. Oh I am not going to hold them to every word. But when something is taught over and over, and regarding sexual sin rhetoric, by more than a few of these leaders, then it means something. Even if it really is not doctrine it still has meaning to those who are told "Follow the brethren."
I really could no longer feel like I had integrity and argue like BC is here.
liz3564 wrote:President Kimball specifically spoke about this issue in his book, "The Miracle of Forgiveness". He also spoke about it in several talks.
Yes, but just remember he was still suffering from the Stockholm syndrome secondary to his capture and release by Klingon rebel forces. That has to account for something, does it not? When one picks up distorted messages about honor and death and later parrots them while suffering from this insidious syndrome, some leeway must be given. Perhaps we need a Miracle of Forgiveness.
One thing I agree with apologists on is that members should not take what their leaders say seriously.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
I realized some time ago that in many ways critics and apologists have quite a bit in common in regards to their beliefs about the church:
1. A prophet is just a man leading the church.
2. Scriptures (even the Book of Mormon) are not the word of God nor can they be taken as truth.
3. Members should believe whatever they want.
4. Following the prophet is not necessarily a good idea, best to follow your own ideas.
5. Because something is doctrine it doesn't mean it is true.
6. You can't trust leaders to provide truth.
7. The church is a mixture of men's (not to be confused with humankind's) opinion mingled with scripture.
8. Don't rely on leaders or the church to provide answers to the deep questions of life.
9. Doctrine can (and does) change in a heart beat.
10. Commandments, advice, counsel, direction given by the Brethren are not necessarily inspired, and may or may not be worth adhering to.
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Moniker wrote: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.
That may be true but you have to realize that LDS believe that everyone is in contact with Satan regularly and often so you could say Satan's influence is a natural part of life.
Right, I understand LDS believe that. Yet, in the context of counseling a woman that she should not feel anger or bitterness 'cause these emotions emanate from Satan this could actually hinder the healing process, Nehor. The victim, most likely, would try to repress these emotions since they came from Satan? Anger is a stage a victim can go through and it shouldn't be short circuited.
Anger is a stage of healing..I don't think Elder Scott was saying to "supress it"--he was teaching an aspect of healing through the atonement, which is clear in the Bible as well as BofM--that to be completely healed through the atonement, the anger must be gone--we see this clearly in Christ's example and in his teachings. Also, note Elder Scott's comments you might have missed in reading the second article;
As impossible as it may seem to you now, in time the healing you can receive from the Savior will allow you to truly forgive the abuser and even have feelings of sorrow for him or her. When you can forgive the offense, you will be relieved of the pain and heartache that Satan wants in your life by encouraging you to hate the abuser. As a result, you will enjoy greater peace. While an important part of healing, if the thought of forgiveness causes you yet more pain, set that step aside until you have more experience with the Savior’s healing power in your own life.1
The point you missed; "if the thought of forgiveness causes you yet more pain, set that step aside.." He's acknowledging that a person will feel anger, bitterness and it is to be expected. The scriptures are clear; true healing through the atonement will not come until all the steps have been worked through and that means getting past the anger stage at some point. This is all Elder Scott is trying to say.