Is this what you would tell Elizabeth Smart & her parents?

[_ludwigm]

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine
... and other works written by APOSTLES

Nondoctrinal works.

The correct description of Mormonism.

If I didn't know that this is the case, I wouldn't believe.

Please define the meaning of the words below:
- yes
- no
- black
- white

[_truth dancer]

Hi Dan,

This despicable teaching is one of the most cruel and disgusting of all LDS nonsense.

I strongly suspect, though it would take me some considerable effort to demonstrate it, that there is absolutely nothing uniquely LDS about the better-dead-than-unchaste notion, but that, indeed, it was quite common among people of the same age as those cited in the opening post.

Of course this has been taught in religions around the world for what, six thousand years or so? Men didn't like other men using their property.

For one reason or another I would think those who are in communion with Jesus Christ himself may have moved beyond this cruel and disgusting teaching.

The fact that it is still alive and well, believed and honored in the church (see BC's statements above) is disheartening to say the least.

I neither believe it, teach it, nor honor it.

YAY! I'm seriously thrilled to know you are not one who embraces/teaches this teaching.

~td~

[_Roger Morrison]

This dispicable teaching is one of the most cruel and disgusting of all LDS nonsense.

I strongly suspect, though it would take me some considerable effort to demonstrate it, that there is absolutely nothing uniquely LDS about the better-dead-than-unchaste notion, but that, indeed, it was quite common among people of the same age as those cited in the opening post.

The fact that it is still alive and well, believed and honored in the church (see BC's statements above) is disheartening to say the least.

I neither believe it, teach it, nor honor it.

I find encouragement in Dan's remarks. I think we too often tend to blame LDSism exclusively for what is also wrongly promolgated generally in other Orthodox Christian sects.

There are many whackier sects than Mormonism. All with good intent to prepare their believers for another existance beyond this one... I respectfully suggest in that, they are all, without exception, wrong...

I think there will come a time when--as Dan said about the wrong of the chastity question, "...I neither believe it, teach it, nor honor it."--that sentiment will be expressed by an increasing number of Christian leaders concerning the "Fall" "Blood atonement" and other imaginings that served in other times.
John Selby Spong comes to mind...

Education and enlightenment cannot help but expose the truth-of-all-things...
Roger
*
*

[_Jason Bourne]

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (all editions), page 124.

THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS by Spencer W. Kimball

THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS by Spencer W. Kimball

Spencer W. Kimball, THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS

Nondoctrinal works.

Certainly these works contain doctrine of the Church. It is foolish to claim they do not. Better to say that they are not official works. Never the less the idea that a woman being raped ought to struggle to the death was not only stated in these so called non official works. I heard it in conference talks as well in the 70's just like I heard the pine box over a child losing their vitirue.

Like or not Mr. Denial, these things were taught fairly routinely.

Also, is it not a be foolish to argue that two book written by two apostles, one of whom became Church prophet, that were found on almost all believing members book shelves are not doctrinal?

[_Pokatator]

This dispicable teaching is one of the most cruel and disgusting of all LDS nonsense.

I strongly suspect, though it would take me some considerable effort to demonstrate it, that there is absolutely nothing uniquely LDS about the better-dead-than-unchaste notion, but that, indeed, it was quite common among people of the same age as those cited in the opening post.

I too do not believe this to be uniquely Mormon but that fact doesn't make it any less "cruel and disgusting".

The fact that it is still alive and well, believed and honored in the church (see BC's statements above) is disheartening to say the least.

I neither believe it, teach it, nor honor it.

Thank you, let sanity prevail.

[_truth dancer]

Adding to what Jason stated, BC, who cares about what is or is not doctrine. The word is pretty much meaningless in the LDS church.

We are talking about teachings from the prophet and apostles and other leaders of the LDS church.

Most people in the LDS church believe they are in communion with Jesus Christ. Most people in the LDS church believe they are inspired when they are acting as representatives of Jesus Christ. Most people in the LDS church believe the teachings of their leaders are true.

Enough of the silly, "this is not doctrine" nonsense. Seems NOTHING is doctrine in the LDS church, or if something is no one really knows, at the same time many people seem to think they know.

There is no way to tell what is just practice, what is official doctrine, what is opinion, what is going to be out dated next week, what is not really what it says, what is taught but not true. It is all just a guess.. yours is a guess like everyone else's in spite of your belief that you are the one who actually REALLY knows what is doctrine. Others of your faith totally disagree with you.

So back to the point, lets not argue what is or is not official doctrine which means nothing. The point is, the teaching is from the prophets and apostles while acting as representatives of Jesus Christ in the LDS church.

~td~

[_Jason Bourne]

Adding to what Jason stated, BC, who cares about what is or is not doctrine. The word is pretty much meaningless in the LDS church.

We are talking about teachings from the prophet and apostles and other leaders of the LDS church.

Most people in the LDS church believe they are in communion with Jesus Christ. Most people in the LDS church believe they are inspired when they are acting as representatives of Jesus Christ. Most people in the LDS church believe the teachings of their leaders are true.

Enough of the silly, "this is not doctrine" nonsense. Seems NOTHING is doctrine in the LDS church, or if something is no one really knows, at the same time many people seem to think they know.

There is no way to tell what is just practice, what is official doctrine, what is opinion, what is going to be out dated next week, what is not really what it says, what is taught but not true. It is all just a guess.. yours is a guess like everyone else's in spite of your belief that you are the one who actually REALLY knows what is doctrine. Others of your faith totally disagree with you.

So back to the point, lets not argue what is or is not official doctrine which means nothing. The point is, the teaching is from the prophets and apostles while acting as representatives of Jesus Christ in the LDS church.

~td~

But TD, BC knows what is and is not doctrine. Just ask him and see his sig line. And he is rather self assured about it. I will give him credit though, his definition is more expansive than many apologists and he will include teaching manuals and the like.

And this leads to another point. Teaching manuals often quote (and did even more so in the 70s) the two works here BC says are not doctrinal. So if a manual quoted a book like MoF does that make the book doctrinal or just that quote. And if just that quote is that not confusing. Let's say Edwin the Elder reads a quote in his priesthood manual that is from MoF. He thinks it is a good comment so he wants to read more of this book. He goes and buys it and studies it. Why would he not think that it is doctrine? It was quoted from in his manual?

And another point. Do prominent church leaders in other sects publish works that have similar disclaimers as the ones GAs write in our church? I must say I always found the disclaimer a bit odd. After an apostle ought not be writing a book that the church does not approve it would seem.

Just look at all the confusion it causes!

[_karl61]

If the person is under 18 then telling them this is child abuse. (ask any non LDS couselor who would looked shock if told this ) If the child comes from a dysfunctional family then the likelyhood of remaining a virgin until married is low. This just compounds the problem with creating lower self esteem, more feelings of unworthiness,a poorer self image, more self hatred. This can lead to other problems: addictions.

I've already written many times when people bring this up that you cannot take a person's virtue. Being virtuous is a state of mind and spirit. It is not a physical state. Married people who have been faithful to each other are still virtuous.

What these guys have done is just cross the line and abuse power. No one gets to call them on stupid things they say or write. You could be excommunicated if you do. It is wrong to criticize leaders even when they are wrong, right? These guys are not only wrong they need a shovel to back out of what they have said.

If you started a church court process because of what happened then this just puts gas on the fire.

I lived it so I can talk about it.

[_Pokatator]

This can lead to other problems: addictions.

Or suicide.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Never the less the idea that a woman being raped ought to struggle to the death was not only stated in these so called non official works. I heard it in conference talks as well in the 70's just like I heard the pine box over a child losing their vitirue.

Like or not Mr. Denial, these things were taught fairly routinely.

My wife was taught this in Relief Society in the early 90s. The bishop gave the lesson, and he was not a very old guy. So it seems this teaching has been passed down to future generations. The good news is many, many women were upset by his lesson, including my wife. So the teaching is losing adherents, but it is not completely gone from LDS thought.