Pine Box Thread: Suicide or Giving in to Rape?

[_Alter Idem]

If I can be honest, you can too.

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.

Does anyone wonder why we don't use "Miracle of Forgiveness" anymore? Does anyone even notice that it sits unused and unopened on shelves? I just went and found my copy (covered with a thick sheen of dust) and read the part about rape on page 196. I then went on to read his suggestion that if two people commit sin, they should "keep the sin in the family" by marrying! We don't counsel this anymore!!!! It may have worked in the 1960's, but it doesn't work now--we as a society have moved past many of these outdated ideas which were standard acceptable mores and values for that time. Does that mean they were not "inspired" in 1960? I'd say they were for the people of that time--but they sure wouldn't fly now--which is why "continuing revelation" is such a blessing to the church.

This book was written 40 years ago and the culture(inside and outside the church) that read it, mostly agreed with the sentiments expressed. A smaller minority disagreed with the sentiments and over the past 40 years, the smaller minority has now become the majority. Now, we look at the things he said and we are disturbed at the narrowminded attitudes it expresses. Does that mean Pres. Kimball did not give good counsel for the people of his time? I don't believe so--he spoke to them and offered counsel that worked for their narrower mindset and stricter society rules. Would he still hold these views today? I'm certain he would not--because I'm certain that as society changed and the people changed, he would have changed too.

And the two earring thing? Let's not make this more of a big deal than it actually is. I have so many older sisters(50's, 60's, and even 70's) in my ward and stake(in the heart of Salt Lake) who have two, three etc. earring holes and NOBODY CARES!--except you guys here on the boards who keep trying to make more out of it than it is. If Elder Bednar or anyone else wants to make it a big deal, that's their business...but most will go on and do as they please (and for the record, I have one piercing in each ear so I'm not trying to justify my own choice here.)

It's NOT doctrine--it's attitudes. And in some areas, those attitudes become a bigger deal and in other areas, nobody cares. And everyone has their agency. If someone wants to not marry a person who has two holes in their ear, that's their choice--and they'll probably make a better match if they find a mate that is as fanatical as they are. But others have the choice to not want to marry a person who would make such a big deal over a fashion statement and they'll probably also make a better match if they find someone who's more relaxed in their ATTITUDES.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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~

Exactly. So what are critics and apologists arguing about? It seems as if we're all on the same page. I especially like #7 because it's a reference to the Temple Ceremony. Of course in the temple it's the "wrong" churches that teach "philosophies of man mingled with scripture," yet apologists essentially make the same claim about the teachings of the Mormon church.

You could also add #11. There is no physical evidence for the Book of Mormon. It must be accepted on faith. No argument there.

[_Jason Bourne]

Does anyone wonder why we don't use "Miracle of Forgiveness" anymore?

Who is we? THe last bishop in my ward kept in in his desk to use with people he was counseling.

Does anyone even notice that it sits unused and unopened on shelves?

I have a copy though I have had it for 30 years. I think it is used more than you think.

I just went and found my copy (covered with a thick sheen of dust) and read the part about rape on page 196.

Yep it is there. And while I agree that this idea is not really emphasized IT WAS and there are people still living that were hurt by it and there are people still living that think it is a great idea and they still talk about it and use it as a teaching tool. Go read the MAD board.

I then went on to read his suggestion that if two people commit sin, they should "keep the sin in the family" by marrying!

Yep. Pretty bad advice. I wonder how many people followed it and ended up in really bad marriages. I wonder how many people did not and then took the idea in their head that they were forever tainted and taking sin with them into a marriage even when they had repented.

We don't counsel this anymore!!!!

Are you a Church leader? Been a bishop? Talked to other bishops that give counsel. You might be surprised that there are some who may still counsel like this. For example, what if you have a 50 year old bishop who grew up during the SWK era? What if he bought into all that is still does? How is he going to council young people on this.

It may have worked in the 1960's, but it doesn't work now--we as a society have moved past many of these outdated ideas which were standard acceptable mores and values for that time. Does that mean they were not "inspired" in 1960? I'd say they were for the people of that time--but they sure wouldn't fly now--which is why "continuing revelation" is such a blessing to the church.

No they were not inspired. And continuing revelation ought ought to be fairly consistent. To call these very harmful and harsh methods of teaching inspired and now say that they under new revelation they are not inspired because society is beyond it is just silly. Is God really that limited on what he reveals? Oh and by the way, Elder Bednar used the story by MGR about coming home in a pine box rather than lose his virtue in a BYUI talk about a year before he was called to be an apostle. I guess he thinks the methods are still inspired.

This book was written 40 years ago and the culture(inside and outside the church) that read it, mostly agreed with the sentiments expressed. A smaller minority disagreed with the sentiments and over the past 40 years, the smaller minority has now become the majority. Now, we look at the things he said and we are disturbed at the narrowminded attitudes it expresses. Does that mean Pres. Kimball did not give good counsel for the people of his time? I don't believe so--he spoke to them and offered counsel that worked for their narrower mindset and stricter society rules. Would he still hold these views today? I'm certain he would not--because I'm certain that as society changed and the people changed, he would have changed too.

Perhaps the Church should state the some times methods and teachings about sexual sin were not the best way to teach and here are better ways. But no, they don' do that. And some members still use the methods.

And the two earring thing? Let's not make this more of a big deal than it actually is. I have so many older sisters(50's, 60's, and even 70's) in my ward and stake(in the heart of Salt Lake) who have two, three etc. earring holes and NOBODY CARES!--except you guys here on the boards who keep trying to make more out of it than it is. If Elder Bednar or anyone else wants to make it a big deal, that's their business...but most will go on and do as they please (and for the record, I have one piercing in each ear so I'm not trying to justify my own choice here.)

I used it is illustrative of how member react to things leaders say. The two earring example is a perfect real time example. And I have seen people highly criticized for wearing two earrings especially young people. Your stance about and apostle using it as a way to determine if some young woman was willing to follow the prophet in all things is odd as well. This fellow is an apostle. Don't you think what he says means something?"

It's NOT doctrine--it's attitudes. And in some areas, those attitudes become a bigger deal and in other areas, nobody cares. And everyone has their agency. If someone wants to not marry a person who has two holes in their ear, that's their choice--and they'll probably make a better match if they find a mate that is as fanatical as they are. But others have the choice to not want to marry a person who would make such a big deal over a fashion statement and they'll probably also make a better match if they find someone who's more relaxed in their ATTITUDES.

Yes yes I have said it is not doctrine. But these things do impact practice and cultural practices and how people behave. If the leader want us to "Follow the brethren" then maybe they should work harder on being on the same page about what they say and promote.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

This book was written 40 years ago and the culture(inside and outside the church) that read it, mostly agreed with the sentiments expressed. A smaller minority disagreed with the sentiments and over the past 40 years, the smaller minority has now become the majority. Now, we look at the things he said and we are disturbed at the narrowminded attitudes it expresses. Does that mean Pres. Kimball did not give good counsel for the people of his time? I don't believe so--he spoke to them and offered counsel that worked for their narrower mindset and stricter society rules. Would he still hold these views today? I'm certain he would not--because I'm certain that as society changed and the people changed, he would have changed too.

And the two earring thing? Let's not make this more of a big deal than it actually is. I have so many older sisters(50's, 60's, and even 70's) in my ward and stake(in the heart of Salt Lake) who have two, three etc. earring holes and NOBODY CARES!--except you guys here on the boards who keep trying to make more out of it than it is. If Elder Bednar or anyone else wants to make it a big deal, that's their business...but most will go on and do as they please (and for the record, I have one piercing in each ear so I'm not trying to justify my own choice here.)

It's NOT doctrine--it's attitudes. And in some areas, those attitudes become a bigger deal and in other areas, nobody cares. And everyone has their agency. If someone wants to not marry a person who has two holes in their ear, that's their choice--and they'll probably make a better match if they find a mate that is as fanatical as they are. But others have the choice to not want to marry a person who would make such a big deal over a fashion statement and they'll probably also make a better match if they find someone who's more relaxed in their ATTITUDES.

There are some good points here. I think you are exactly right that Kimball simply wrote a book that reinforced the cultural values of the time. His book was simply his opinion on what are good ideas, based on the culture that shaped him. It's like Rush Limbaugh's book "The way things ought to be." Every GA book could have the same title. It's their own personal view on things and their opinions. As you point out, those opinions are shaped primarily by the culture they are raised in. No problem there. The problem comes when people accept GA books as scripture. When bishops hand out copies of GA books like the Miracle of Forgiveness to people. If you're going to offer Kimball's opinion, how about offering some other books by actual professionals in the field? Those opinions might help people too. As for the multiple piercing/tatoo thing, that was serious doctrine for a couple years, but nobody cares anymore. It is now generally accepted as "just opinion," but why was it taken so seriously for a couple years? Members should realize that if it's just opinion a few years later and can be ignored, it was just opinion the second it was spoken, and can just be ignored.

[_Alter Idem]

No Jason, I'm not a leader. I'm just a lowly female. But I am married to a 50 year old Bishop. He has a copy of miracle of forgiveness in his desk at the church---I'm sure it's been there for 40 years, but he doesn't rely on it for counseling. He uses the scriptures. Much more effective if you ask me.

Yes, I'm not denying that these things weren't taught, and damage wasn't done--but it was damage done without malice--they didn't know any better-- people were products of their times. But these things are not widely accepted anymore..and as we lose the older generation to death, many of things die as well.

The church isn't perfect and if you expect perfection for imperfect beings, you'll always be disappointed. The church is growing and developing spiritually; many things taught in the past have gone by the wayside--especially those things that were culturally inspired not spiritually inspired--many here will just see me as a "kool-aid drinker", but I see it as the love of God as he is able to bless us and inspire leaders who will actually turn to him for guidance rather than depending on their own intellect to lead.

Pres. Kimball may have been closeminded in his thoughts as far some things go, but I'll always be profoundly grateful that he was willing to challenge the status quo and think "outside the box" when it came to the Priesthood ban.

And the pine box story Elder Romney told...do you believe everyone in his audience was saying "Yea, that's right, I'd rather my child was dead'...don't you think some in the audience cringed as he said it.. If Elder Bednar tells that story, I guess he's not one who cringed at it's telling, but I'm sure there are many who do. The parable of the Prodigal son, the story of Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah teach us that there is always the possibility of repentance and change--and I'd rather hold out hope and prayers for that outcome rather than see MY child in a pine box.

[_beastie]

Yes, I'm not denying that these things weren't taught, and damage wasn't done--but it was damage done without malice--they didn't know any better-- people were products of their times. But these things are not widely accepted anymore..and as we lose the older generation to death, many of things die as well.

I think you're right - they didn't know better and were the product of their times.

In my view, one of the greatest failures of "modern revelation" is that it doesn't help the supposed leaders of God's "one true church" know better and rise above their times.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

The church isn't perfect and if you expect perfection for imperfect beings, you'll always be disappointed. The church is growing and developing spiritually

This is a new one. I know the famous saying "the members aren't perfect but the gospel is." Is it evolving into the church isn't perfect?

[_Alter Idem]

Yes, I'm not denying that these things weren't taught, and damage wasn't done--but it was damage done without malice--they didn't know any better-- people were products of their times. But these things are not widely accepted anymore..and as we lose the older generation to death, many of things die as well.

I think you're right - they didn't know better and were the product of their times.

In my view, one of the greatest failures of "modern revelation" is that it doesn't help the supposed leaders of God's "one true church" know better and rise above their times.

It seems that revelation only comes when a person asks for it. I've known some good men who it was clear thought they knew better than to waste time asking for guidance--and they ran their stakes and wards that way. Then there are the humble ones who truly want to know the mind and will of the Lord. I think the first do a disservice to their members--that is, if the members even care. Some are happy to keep their religious observance on a superficial level. Others really want to enjoy all the benefits that can come from membership in the church, living the gospel and having the guidance of the Holy Ghost in their lives.

This is a new one. I know the famous saying "the members aren't perfect but the gospel is." Is it evolving into the church isn't perfect?

I don't know about what others think, but I don't believe the church is perfect. I don't see how it can be when it's run by imperfect people and populated by imperfect people. The revealed Gospel offers us what we need to know to return to our heavenly father--but then we add a bunch of programs and policies thinking they will help us get there. Some helps, some hurts. Hopefully, as we grow spiritually as a church and can see our mistakes, we can fix them--and the members are willing to be corrected.

[_moksha]

This book was written 40 years ago and the culture(inside and outside the church) that read it, mostly agreed with the sentiments expressed. A smaller minority disagreed with the sentiments and over the past 40 years, the smaller minority has now become the majority.

Good point. I have noticed however that the most conservative Church members (probably card carrying Birchites), still fondly quote from President Benson and Elder McConkie, who seem to have a harsh interpretation on many items.




[Not referring to Bcspace].

[_beastie]

It seems that revelation only comes when a person asks for it. I've known some good men who it was clear thought they knew better than to waste time asking for guidance--and they ran their stakes and wards that way. Then there are the humble ones who truly want to know the mind and will of the Lord. I think the first do a disservice to their members--that is, if the members even care. Some are happy to keep their religious observance on a superficial level. Others really want to enjoy all the benefits that can come from membership in the church, living the gospel and having the guidance of the Holy Ghost in their lives.

First, I'm not sure the history of the church would bear out this oft-repeated assertion (that revelation only comes when specifically asked for), but aside from that, how difficult would it be for God to simply choose leaders who are "the humble ones who truly want to know the mind and will of the Lord." Those people exist, by your own admission. So why wouldn't God care enough about who leads his "one true church" to take the time to choose one of them?

The fact that God seemingly does not do so is yet one more indictment against the entire idea of "revelation".