Pine Box Thread: Suicide or Giving in to Rape?

[_bcspace]

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

What other standards would those be? I am in complete agreement with the Church on doctrine

2: It is not settled in the Church as to what makes official doctrine nor has it been.

It has been settle for a long time now, using the same principles taught since the Church's beginning.

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.

Where does the Church say that their definition of doctrine is correct?

And by far, the members believed what Kimball and others said about sexual sin.

Until you can answer a CFR to that, all we have is your anecdote.

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.

Where?

If the GAs said it over and over, in conference........in Esign articles,

CFR. I actually know of one pine box reference by HBL, but it does not say what you want it to say.

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.

What we have here ladies and gentlemen is an example of one whose pet theory has come crashing down in light of the facts. He's very keen to hold the Church to what it may have said but won't accept what it actually has said about what is and is not doctrine. A double standard.

Strawman/Yellow Journalism at it's finest.

[_bcspace]

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.

You could start with http://www.LDS.org as what defines doctrine is what the Church itself (not BYU, not Deseret News, etc.) publishes.

[_Inconceivable]

The Pine Box Doctrine was taught and testified to for many years.

Spencer Kimball considered himself an authority on repentance, not because he had repented, but because he reported on what he thought others experienced.

Spencer Kimball was a blind guide. I personally beleive he considered himself above repentance - like many self righteous individuals that consider themselves "worthy enough" to be a Mormon leader. His arrogance was indicative in his book MoF

Think about it:

A woman is raped. She is now unclean - she can't ever have this intangible (virtue) back. She is less of a "chosen" human than he (Kimball) is because, somehow, he retained his or gave it to ? his wife?.

It stands to reason that she (the one raped) should rather choose death than to be less than he (Kimball) thinks he is.

[_bcspace]

The Pine Box Doctrine was taught and testified to for many years.

Do you have a quote from a doctrinal source showing that this is or was a doctrine?

Spencer Kimball considered himself an authority on repentance, not because he had repented, but because he reported on what he thought others experienced.

Spencer Kimball was a blind guide. I personally beleive he considered himself above repentance - like many self righteous individuals that consider themselves "worthy enough" to be a Mormon leader. His arrogance was indicative in his book MoF

Think about it:

A woman is raped. She is now unclean - she can't ever have this intangible (virtue) back. She is less of a "chosen" human than he (Kimball) is because, somehow, he retained his or gave it to ? his wife?.

It stands to reason that she (the one raped) should rather choose death than to be less than he (Kimball) thinks he is.

Do any of these nondoctrinal quotes you are referring to speak about rape or abuse? Do they equate being raped and abused to unchastity in the victim?

[_Inconceivable]

The Pine Box Doctrine was taught and testified to for many years. - inc.

Do you have a quote from a doctrinal source showing that this is or was a doctrine? - bc

bc,

Once again the fact that the sun shines at mid-day is beyond your comprehension.

The material is there and you've read it over and over. You just don't want to agree with it.

There may be a few lurkers that fall for your deceiptful "show me your proof" crap, but it's all there and you know it.

I tire of your shameful method of contention.

[_bcspace]

The Pine Box Doctrine was taught and testified to for many years. - inc.

Do you have a quote from a doctrinal source showing that this is or was a doctrine?

bc,

Once again the fact that the sun shines at mid-day is beyond your comprehension.

The material is there and you've read it over and over. You just don't want to agree with it.

There may be a few lurkers that fall for your deceiptful "show me your proof" crap, but it's all there and you know it.

I tire of your shameful method of contention.

This is your golden opportunity to absolutely pin down members of the LDS Church with regards to doctrine and you refuse to do it? What kind of antiMormon apologist are you?

But seriously, I see that you cannot answer the question because to do so would be admitting that your argument does not work. Why not just be honest and admit you have no evidence that this is or was a doctrine of the Church?

If it were a doctrine, I would admit it just as I've done in the case of the global flood, pangaea, and the location of the garden, etc. all of which I don't necessarily agree with.

If I can be honest, you can too.

[_The Nehor]

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.

[_Moniker]

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.

[_The Nehor]

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.

I don't think the emotion itself comes from Satan just some of the negative thoughts associated with it such as:

"I should kill him"
"I'm worthless"
"I deserved this."
"God hates me."
"My life is over."

Things like this aren't helpful at all.

[_Jason Bourne]

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

What other standards would those be? I am in complete agreement with the Church on doctrine

2: It is not settled in the Church as to what makes official doctrine nor has it been.

It has been settle for a long time now, using the same principles taught since the Church's beginning.

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.

Where does the Church say that their definition of doctrine is correct?

And by far, the members believed what Kimball and others said about sexual sin.

Until you can answer a CFR to that, all we have is your anecdote.

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.

Where?

If the GAs said it over and over, in conference........in Esign articles,

CFR. I actually know of one pine box reference by HBL, but it does not say what you want it to say.

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.

What we have here ladies and gentlemen is an example of one whose pet theory has come crashing down in light of the facts. He's very keen to hold the Church to what it may have said but won't accept what it actually has said about what is and is not doctrine. A double standard.

Strawman/Yellow Journalism at it's finest.

Here it the deal BC... take you CFR and shove it. One of the reasons I am where I am is because of the asinine position apologists like you take. Say three times Oooooommm... it is not doctrine.....oooooommmm...it it not doctrine....oooooommm... it is not doctrine......and make somethign go away that we wish was never there. Adam God, Blood atonement, off the wall teachings about sex sin, and on and on. The dishonesty of this I could just not continue. And I used to do it to when I was a hobby apologist. But I could not do it anymore. When BY taught AG members believed him and thought it meant something. When he talked about the whys and whens for priesthood and the blacks members believed him.

Maybe that is why the leaders really don't say much of substance these days. Too much risk of it coming back to bite them.

I cannot give CFR for real live situations. You know this.

Personally I believe what is official doctrine of the Church is canonized scripture and FP statements. Everything else can be debated. But the point once agian is this....it does not matter what is doctrine in this case. It matters what the leaders say and do and how it impact real people in real life.

Not once have I argued that any of this is doctrine. Do I think the teaching that a woman should fight even to the death if raped to retain virtue is doctrine? No. Do I think the comments by Marion Romney about his father telling him as he departed for his mission that he would rather see him come home in a in a pine box than come home having lost his virtue...yes it was in conference and it was repeated in the 1981 Ensign that I quoted above so there is your damn CFR... and they have been repeated over and over.. are doctrine? Hell no.

So there you have it. I do not think it is doctrine.

Do I see that in practice these heavy handed teachings are put in practice and cause emotional damage, unnecessary guilt, bad council from leaders when working with repentant sinner and so on....absolutly. You can pretend it does not exist or is limited if you wish. I am sure that many here would agree with me more than you and the same on that other board. Hell go there and read the now closed rape thread and see that these teachings are still alive. SOme idiot called Paul Ray would rather see his daughter fight if being raped and die than lose her virtue because she would be in a better place in Heaven with the angels. What he thinks if that if she is in fear for her life and does not fight that she is some how culpable. This is not an isolated idea and it comes straigth from Kimball, Romney, Lee, Tanner and others who repeated over and over such nonesense. These man are viewed as prophets and what they say means something to most members. and no, most members are not as discriminating as you pretend that they.

So what we have here is a destruction of BCs straw man that I have a pet theory that has come crashing down. I never said it was doctrine. I said that members took such bad teachings seriously. Don't believe me? Read Brent Barlow's "Worth Waiting For" where as a family counselor he documents many cases of over whelming guilt many he ha counseled have as a result of heavy handed rhetoric about sexual sin.