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

[_stemelbow]

Taking a quote out of context and suggesting he meant something other than he said is not coming from the position of he meant what he wrote. With that said, i think its more complex than to just say he meant what he wrote, what one writes can be interpreted to mean different things to different people.

Stem,

I have read that reply three times now and can't quite seem to make sense of it. I don't know whether it's the run-on sentence or simply the fact that the statement is somewhat incoherent, but could you please answer the question again?

Pep Pep[/quote]

Be a little patient with me please. I think its more complex than saying "he meant what he wrote". People can take what one writes and see a different meaning than intended any time. Thus, its more than just thinking "he meant what he wrote". on Top of that, on the first page, i believe, a piece of information was added to provide a little more context demonstrating the intended meaning was different then what was initially broadcasted.

[_Buffalo]

All quotes are technically out of context. If you feel the meaning is changed when presented with additional context, you need to make your case by providing it.

I think BCSpace's reply settled that already. Do you disagree with what he added?

BCSpace provided a summary of what else he felt that was contained in the lesson. He didn't provide any more context from SWK.

[_just me]

Hey stem, I read the second linked Ensign article you posted (the 1981, Lund). Did you read it? Do you believe that the atonement is conditional?

EDIT: It is a great article, by the way, and I think really says what LDS believe. Although, it does seem to say some conflicting things in it. Which is just like LDS believe, too.

I'm surprised this kind of stuff is of interest to people here, honestly. It catches me a little off-guard when someone asks something like this, because the norm is so much different here.

I'm not sure why you are surprised, honestly. This is a Mormon Discussion board and I am Mormon and enjoy discussions. I actually prefer them to the frickin' pissing matches. I've several times expressed an interest in knowing your actual beliefs on things.

Did you read the article?

Anyway, give me a chance to explain myself a little first, if you would. The atonement, in my view, is for all of those who live and have ever lived. it is for humanitie's benefit. By it we find reconciliation. There is some condition to it, sure. For instance, the atonement is not for those who followed after Satan. It applies to only those who came or will come to this earth. For all those who come, i think the atonement applies no matter what. every man and woman will receive benefit because of it. For without it, hope, love, charity and all wouldn't be.

In this kind of nuanced sense there is no condition to atonement. But, that does not mean atonement itself, in this sense, is fully in effect (can't think of better words) for all. So in another sense there is condition. Not all will be exalted, afterall. There are conditions to how exaltation comes about. Those conditions are fairly simple in my estimation, but they do seem to become quite large and cumbersome as defined by the Church. The condition to me is learning to love, embrace the good in others, and do so to the point of finding unity.

Sorry for the drawn out explanation, which kind of feels I cut short, but I feel it fair I get to offer explanation lest someone confuses what I say.

Can someone be justified by the atonement without going through suffering and a process first? In what "nuanced" sense is the atonement unconditional? It seems very conditional the way you and the church and SWK describe it.

This is where the problem lies. You were very upset at the claim that SWK told members that suffering was required to gain access to the atonement, yet I am unable to see where you disagree. In fact, you seem to agree that suffering is required but that we misunderstand what "suffering" actually means when it comes to that kind and the kind God takes away through the atenment (D&C passage).

Could you explain which suffering is lifted by the atonement?

[_Jason Bourne]

The title for this thread is asinine and inappropriate for this section of the forum. And to address the issue, President Kimball is not using the word "suffer" in the same sense as the Lord does in D&C. Christ died so that we do not have to suffer -- because of Christ, we do not have to pay the debt in order to satisfy the demands of justice. But President Kimball rightly points out that in order to take advantage of the Lord's sacrifice, we must sincerely repent, and in order to have sincerely repented we must feel some sort of pain, loss, or guilt -- some sort of "suffering" -- and this penance will enable us to avoid the same sort of justice-satisfying "suffering" that the Lord endured.

Were one to read President Kimball's teachings as a whole, with special attention on The Miracle of Forgiveness, one might understand more fully his actual teachings regarding repentance and forgiveness, which were certainly not in conflict with the Standard Works.

I have read MoF at least three times. I have read many other talks by SWK on this subject. I grew up and came of age under his presidency. There is absolutely no question that he was on the edge of extreme as to how much suffering and shame and guilt was necessary before the atonement would take effect. Many a person felt rather hopeless after reading his material. Repentance seemed like an almost insurmountable task. Things like the quote in the OP here, comments about a nail leaving a hole and repentance being the patch-but the patch had to be at least as big as the sin, etc. I remember the wonderful story about Jesus and the woman that was brought to Jesus who had been caught in adultery and was about to be stoned. After Jesus made his comment about those with no sin tossing the first stone he tells the woman he does not condemn her and to go and sin no more. SWK take that story and destroys the beauty of it by saying that she certainly was not forgiven at that point and that she had to go through all sorts of pain and suffering and had a enormously long road to go.

The list about what Spencer Kimball added to what one must need suffer and could go on and on. Counsel like telling young people who committed sexual sin that they should marry so that they did not carry the sin into another relationship and that they were damaged goods-WTF?!?!@?!!!?!!! Sure the last three chapters of the book MoF do give some hope if one makes it that far. But the book sure leaves one feeling like a piece of worthless poo along the way.

When I was a bishop I never used MoF for member going through the repentance process. I much preferred Robinson's Believing Christ.

For me SWK made the good news of the Jesus gospel bad news. It took me till my late 30s and early 40s to purge much of the shaming that was part of me. Still tough sometimes.

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.

[_stemelbow]

I'm not sure why you are surprised, honestly. This is a Mormon Discussion board and I am Mormon and enjoy discussions. I actually prefer them to the frickin' pissing matches. I've several times expressed an interest in knowing your actual beliefs on things.

what can i say, I just told you why I was surprised?

Did you read the article?

Yep. and as I read it I recall that I had read it previously.

Can someone be justified by the atonement without going through suffering and a process first?

Justified in what sense? As I've stated the atonement is beneficial to all those who live or have lived on this earth, in my view. And suffering is something every single person who lives or has lived with experience to some extent. I don't know if that means suffering is completely a condition on the atonement, but it may.

In what "nuanced" sense is the atonement unconditional?

I explained that. It applies and benefits every single person who lives and has lived.

It seems very conditional the way you and the church and SWK describe it.

Well good. I think I did my best to suggest that there is also a way in which the atonement carries conditions--afterall not everyone will be exalted.

This is where the problem lies. You were very upset at the claim that SWK told members that suffering was required to gain access to the atonement, yet I am unable to see where you disagree.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I was not upset at any claim for one. And I never said I disagree with the general idea posed by Kimball. I would say suffering is a natural reaction to sin and that suffering can often be summed up as remorse.

In fact, you seem to agree that suffering is required but that we misunderstand what "suffering" actually means when it comes to that kind and the kind God takes away through the atenment (D&C passage).

The suffering experienced in the atonement carried with it such impact it is considered infinited. Not infinite in time, perhaps but in extent. We simply won't have to suffer infinitely, or for very much at all. Indeed the extent of suffering we have to endure when we say punch someone for no reason is very little in the grand scheme of things.

Could you explain which suffering is lifted by the atonement?

Suffering is temporal for us, in that it ends at some point. We don't have to endure suffering long. Without the atonement the little bit of suffering we face would not end, and ultimately it would be much more profound I'd think.

[_Buffalo]

I have read MoF at least three times. I have read many other talks by SWK on this subject. I grew up and came of age under his presidency. There is absolutely no question that he was on the edge of extreme as to how much suffering and shame and guilt was necessary before the atonement would take effect. Many a person felt rather hopeless after reading his material. Repentance seemed like an almost insurmountable task. Things like the quote in the OP here, comments about a nail leaving a hole and repentance being the patch-but the patch had to be at least as big as the sin, etc. I remember the wonderful story about Jesus and the woman that was brought to Jesus who had been caught in adultery and was about to be stoned. After Jesus made his comment about those with no sin tossing the first stone he tells the woman he does not condemn her and to go and sin no more. SWK take that story and destroys the beauty of it by saying that she certainly was not forgiven at that point and that she had to go through all sorts of pain and suffering and had a enormously long road to go.

The list about what Spencer Kimball added to what one must need suffer and could go on and on. Counsel like telling young people who committed sexual sin that they should marry so that they did not carry the sin into another relationship and that they were damaged goods-WTF?!?!@?!!!?!!! Sure the last three chapters of the book MoF do give some hope if one makes it that far. But the book sure leaves one feeling like a piece of worthless poo along the way.

When I was a bishop I never used MoF for member going through the repentance process. I much preferred Robinson's Believing Christ.

For me SWK made the good news of the Jesus gospel bad news. It took me till my late 30s and early 40s to purge much of the shaming that was part of me. Still tough sometimes.

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.

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.

[_Buffalo]

The suffering experienced in the atonement carried with it such impact it is considered infinited. Not infinite in time, perhaps but in extent. We simply won't have to suffer infinitely, or for very much at all. Indeed the extent of suffering we have to endure when we say punch someone for no reason is very little in the grand scheme of things.

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.

[_just me]

In fact, you seem to agree that suffering is required but that we misunderstand what "suffering" actually means when it comes to that kind and the kind God takes away through the atenment (D&C passage).

The suffering experienced in the atonement carried with it such impact it is considered infinited. Not infinite in time, perhaps but in extent. We simply won't have to suffer infinitely, or for very much at all. Indeed the extent of suffering we have to endure when we say punch someone for no reason is very little in the grand scheme of things.

Could you explain which suffering is lifted by the atonement?

Suffering is temporal for us, in that it ends at some point. We don't have to endure suffering long. Without the atonement the little bit of suffering we face would not end, and ultimately it would be much more profound I'd think.

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.
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. 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.

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?

What it looks like to me is that religion tells humans to feel like crap 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.

Nobody would feel guilty or suffer because they masturbate if religion didn't tell them to feel that way to begin with.
Nobody would feel guilty or bad for drinking coffee without the LDS church telling them to.

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

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 crappy you are going to suffer for it no matter your religious preference.

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.
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.

[_just me]

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.

Well, geez, you're just a lot more succinct than I am.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.