Spencer W. Kimball: Sadist, Self-Flagellator, Anti-Christ

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Spencer W. Kimball: Sadist, Self-Flagellator, Anti-Christ

Post by _Buffalo »

Jason Bourne wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
On a related note, does Stephen E. Robinson's Believing Christ mark moment in Mormon history where the Christian idea of grace was first introduced? One of the points Robinson makes is that Mormons tend not to believe in Jesus' ability to forgive them. They tend to be overly self-critical and despair at any imperfection. There's a reason for that - the failure of LDS leadership to teach them about Jesus. Too bad it took an unordained LDS Scholar to correct this grave theological error. None of the Apostles or Prophets seemed to notice the problem.



No I don't think so. Personal story. As I was striving for self perfection through my 20s and 30s I was increasingly depressed about my lack of success. Shame and guilt tended to pervade my thoughts. Often I felt very unworthy. Even small things seemed too large. I prayed long and hard and started seeing grace and mercy in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. Even in the D&C I found it. I started formulating the idea that Mormons really do believe in being Born Again, or as Alma puts it, Born of God, having a Mighty Change and being justified in the here and now. About a year after I realized this and put together scriptures to back it up I ran across Robinsons' books. I was thrilled to find someone who was smarted about these things than me who agreed.

So it was there.

I just thing we had a few generations of leaders who obscured it with their heavy handed shaming techniques.


Hmm, well I agree that grace is in the Book of Mormon, but the Book of Mormon isn't really much of a source for Mormon doctrine. The Book of Mormon is an early church document, and is heavily influenced by Methodist ideas. I think Joseph managed to remove most of the Methodism from Mormonism by the time he died, including the doctrine of grace. You don't see grace in SWK's generation, but you don't see in in Brigham Young's, either.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Spencer W. Kimball: Sadist, Self-Flagellator, Anti-Christ

Post by _stemelbow »

Jason Bourne wrote:So Stem and Mr Antley don't tell me that SWK was simply talking about normal guilt and remorse. He wasn't he carried much much further. He even wondered if he had been too harsh in his MoF book. My answer was hell yes, you were over the top.


As I said earlier I think he went overboard in MoF too. But, do tell me what you mean when you say going much furhter than normal guilt and remorse, and/or what you mean by normal guilt and remorse. We might be close on this than you think.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Spencer W. Kimball: Sadist, Self-Flagellator, Anti-Christ

Post by _stemelbow »

Buffalo wrote:We wouldn't have had to suffer infinitely, anyway. Those who reject the atonement have to suffer for their own sins in Spirit Prison. Apparently, those who accept the atonement have to suffer for their own sins on earth. The Mormon atonement is pretty ineffectual.


I think you missed my point. Oh well. Our suffering is limited in that it ends--even for those who "reject the atonement" (your words). on this the LDS concept of atonement is quite efficacious.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Spencer W. Kimball: Sadist, Self-Flagellator, Anti-Christ

Post by _Buffalo »

stemelbow wrote:
Buffalo wrote:We wouldn't have had to suffer infinitely, anyway. Those who reject the atonement have to suffer for their own sins in Spirit Prison. Apparently, those who accept the atonement have to suffer for their own sins on earth. The Mormon atonement is pretty ineffectual.


I think you missed my point. Oh well. Our suffering is limited in that it ends--even for those who "reject the atonement" (your words). on this the LDS concept of atonement is quite efficacious.


Even without the atonement, there would be an end to our suffering. Please note that those who completely reject the atonement must suffer for their own sins without benefit of Jesus, but their suffering does come to an end.

Sounds more like Jesus' atonement in Mormon doctrine ends up being purely theoretical. You suffer either way. Either one sin at a time in life, or all at once in the afterlife.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Spencer W. Kimball: Sadist, Self-Flagellator, Anti-Christ

Post by _stemelbow »

just me wrote:Hey, thanks for your response. I think I better understand your position.

Could you perhaps elaborate on the suffering part? I'll tell you what I am thinking and maybe you could share your thoughts based on that.

According to LDS doctrine drinking coffee is a sin. A sin that will keep you out of the temple, therefore it could be reasoned, out of the CK.


Bad reasoning. One could definitely be found in the CK and have never entered the temple in this mortal sojourn.

If a member drinks coffee they will likely feel guilty and bad about it because they have been conditioned to feel it is a sin from a very young age.


That's an agenda drive way to put it, no? Why not just admit that its the way the Mormon believes rather than this "conditioned to feel" stuff?

They will, in your use of the word, suffer for that drink of coffee. Let's say they repent, tell their bishop, never do it again and at some point feel relieved of their guilt and anguish over the sin.


k

Another person who has heard of the WoW but does not believe it to be a sin to drink coffee drink it every day. They love it. They feel great about drinking coffee. They drink it til the day they die. They never felt any guilt, anguish nor did they suffer at all for that "sin."

What kind of suffering can person #2 look forward to in the afterlife?


Probably nothing different than person 1. Maybe a simple bit of remorse.

What it looks like to me is that religion tells humans to feel like s*** for doing certain things (or even thinking certain things) and then gives them a special cure. The religion creates the problem and then offers an antedote.


I can see how one will see it that way. But, as it is, (coffee is a bad example of this) I'd say we're all ingrained to feel guilt for at least some sins. Murdering causes some non-bleivers some suffering in terms of remorse for instance. .

Nobody would feel guilty or suffer because they masturbate if religion didn't tell them to feel that way to begin with.


How would you know? If there be a God and He disapproves of masturbatin’ then He very well can cause someone to feel guilt for doing it. You wouldn’t know that.

Nobody would feel guilty or bad for drinking coffee without the LDS church telling them to.


This is a better example to your point. But if ya think people won’t feel remorse and thence suffer for whatever they do, you’re foolin’ yourself. We obviously feel remorse for our deeds often. There’s something to that.

There are all these normal human things that nobody suffers for doing until religion come up and tells them they should.


So. that doesn’t mean they won’t suffer because they threw rocks at a neighbor’s house breaking it, or killing the neighbor’s dog and eating it, or throwing brand new born babies off the bridge.

The things that normal, healthy humans do suffer and feel bad about doing doesn't really change by accepting the atonement. If you do something really s****y you are going to suffer for it no matter your religious preference.


Well that’s not necessarily true. It seems some people don’t feel bad for burning down their neighbor’s house, or scratching their car, or pooping on their doorstep.

So, what really does the atonement help with? I guess we have to say the afterlife of which we have no proof. Because it seems pretty impotent in this life.


I’ve already described how it benefits in this life, in my earlier response to you.

To be fair, I will say that there is a placebo effect with accepting Christ. We can cause ourselves to feel peace and love and all kinds of things by reading beautiful myths and stories....listening to certain music. But, again, non-believers can do it just as well as believers.


That’s kinda the point too. The atonement is for all, even non-bleievers. They get to have hope, without realizing the source, because of the atonement. They get to participate in the ultimate purpose of the atonement of developing love and unified relationships because of the atonement, they just don’t realize that. They don’t feel the hope, probably, and don’t recognize that good comes from Christ.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Spencer W. Kimball: Sadist, Self-Flagellator, Anti-Christ

Post by _stemelbow »

Buffalo wrote:Even without the atonement, there would be an end to our suffering.


That's true on your view, butnot mine. Of course to you not only suffering will end but all will end. You die you die. For me, that's not the case. Afterall without the atonement, on my view, there would be no hope for immortality. There would be no hope for us to become.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Spencer W. Kimball: Sadist, Self-Flagellator, Anti-Christ

Post by _Buffalo »

stemelbow wrote:
Buffalo wrote:Even without the atonement, there would be an end to our suffering.


That's true on your view, butnot mine. Of course to you not only suffering will end but all will end. You die you die. For me, that's not the case. Afterall without the atonement, on my view, there would be no hope for immortality. There would be no hope for us to become.


You're at odds with Mormon doctrine, then.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Spencer W. Kimball: Sadist, Self-Flagellator, Anti-Christ

Post by _stemelbow »

Buffalo wrote:You're at odds with Mormon doctrine, then.


I would say its more accurate to say that I'm at odds with the way you view Mormon doctrine.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Spencer W. Kimball: Sadist, Self-Flagellator, Anti-Christ

Post by _Some Schmo »

Buffalo wrote: I think it's likely that SWK was secretly gay and dealt with a lot of self-loathing issues (as most gay people burdened with Mormon doctrine do). That might have been the source of his self-flagellation fetish.

I have also suspected this for several years. The whole "masturbation leads to homosexuality" thing is so crazy and illogical that it sounds like someone was blaming his secret, unresolved, embarrassing feelings on what he did with his "alone time" in his youth. I mean, doesn't it sound like kid's logic, kind of like "kissing leads to cooties"?

But here's the thing... if repentance requires deep suffering, than I think just being a Mormon and minimally attending their meetings should qualify as all the suffering a person needs to be a saint. On the suffering criterion alone, the LDS should be ushered straight into the Celestial Kingdom upon death.

What constitutes greater suffering than living an LDS life? (I suppose they could go with country music for the hymns just to amp up the torture... *shudder*)
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Spencer W. Kimball: Sadist, Self-Flagellator, Anti-Christ

Post by _Buffalo »

stemelbow wrote:
Buffalo wrote:You're at odds with Mormon doctrine, then.


I would say its more accurate to say that I'm at odds with the way you view Mormon doctrine.


No, that's not accurate at all. You flat out don't believe Mormon doctrine. Not just in this case, of course. What I have stated about self-atonement is the doctrine of the church.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
Post Reply