Miracle Of Forgiveness

[BCSpace]

The whole text? Yes, This is an endorsement. The entire text. If the church thought something was wrong with something in it, they would correct it before placing it on their own website. They would not let something be incorrect there.

You seem to think that lds.org is infallible. Please provide a source that the Church leadership believes everything on the site is not incorrect.

I think it would be good to note that in in this case, the Church has retained the note on it's website that it is published by Bookcraft instead of merely publishing the text as if it originated with the Church.

[Freedom]

So let's get off this so we can get back on subject please...I do not want this important issue to be sidetracked and then thrown away and passed off.

I would like to know more specifically, now that it has been pretty established that the church, does in fact with action, if not outright statements, condone "the Miracle of Forgiveness" as something to read in it's entire form. What other books are involved that hold the same value, but yet have some things that probably should not be there...

Why do you insist on ignoring everything everybody says on this matter? You are determined to deal in absolutes. Everything must be true or not true, doctrinal or not doctrinal. The church owns a mall but I am quite certain that they do not therefore endorse every product sold therein. The church uses resources and the resources they use are of value. By using I-phones, they do not endorse the company as doctrinally correct. You're perspective is too simplistic. If the book offends you don't read it.

[thesometimesaint]

How can this be determined?

Longitudinal studies, and studies of identical twins.

[Calm]

And how far back do these studies go?

[thesometimesaint]

And how far back do these studies go?

I've seen some go back 50 years or more, stats for much further back are harder to come by, and rely more on animal kingdom models. What they all agree on is that homosexuality is a small percentage of population, but differing social acceptance levels makes studying it harder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

[Damien the Leper]

There is nothing miraculous nor forgiving about that disaster on paper. It has all the spiritual appeal and truth of a school bus fire.

[thatjimguy]

First off, thank you all for getting back on track. I was worried this would get closed or derailed.

Why do you insist on ignoring everything everybody says on this matter? You are determined to deal in absolutes. Everything must be true or not true, doctrinal or not doctrinal. The church owns a mall but I am quite certain that they do not therefore endorse every product sold therein. The church uses resources and the resources they use are of value. By using I-phones, they do not endorse the company as doctrinally correct. You're perspective is too simplistic. If the book offends you don't read it.

Freedom I am not ignoring anything. I just knew the answer was deeper and more to it. Sometimes you have to be persistent and dig. I feel there are a lot of popular answers to many LDS questions that sound good, but are not always correct.

People don't look to the church for Iphones, they go for scripture and revelation. It is their niche and specialty. When they have a book on their site to read, it is intended to fully read unless otherwise noted. That is the implication I think anyone would have. They would trust that it was all good.

We believe things are correct as long as they are translated correctly. If it is not, we correct them. That's the way it is. The church in no way intends to put out or promote material that is false or incorrect. They just would not do that. Therefore, I think it is rational to say that the church considers it 100% correct and without error.

[LordUther]

We believe things are correct as long as they are translated correctly. If it is not, we correct them. That's the way it is. The church in no way intends to put out or promote material that is false or incorrect. They just would not do that. Therefore, I think it is rational to say that the church considers it 100% correct and without error.

No, I'm sorry I don't think it's rational to say that...especially when we don't even hold the scriptures to be 100% correct & without error (Bible: as long as it's translated correctly BoM: MOST correct book (note most not 100%). Even more so when SWK puts a disclaimer in the front of MoF which states that this book is not doctrinal, is only his opinion & that any errors are his & not the churches. The reason it is so popular is because it spoke to a lot of people, on the other hand a lot of people (myself included) found it too harsh & abrasive. As with all non approved church books...you take what you need & you leave the rest. The work is only the author's understanding, it is not an official pov.

[Storm Rider]

That is just too facile. How many books do you think has been written on Forgiveness? Are they all perfect and all absolutely correct? If so, why would there ever be a need for another book on forgiveness? Is it possible to describe forgiveness in different terms from others? Is it possible to take a different perspective to explain certain concepts? Is it possible that one author focus on one concept or have a narrow approach and another author take a broader approach? Is either one right or wrong? Who decides if a book is absolutely correct or not? Under what standard will this group evaluate a book's value and "correctness"? I think it would be a terrible shame and a boring list of books, much less a very short list of books. In fact, what would be the purpose of revelation; your logic would lead us to have a single book of pure truth. The problem is that such a book is impossible to provide because God does not write books; he uses weak vessels to accomplish his work.

[Calm]

The percentage of homosexuals has remain relatively constant.

You should add "during the time statistics have been collected on them...otherwise someone might think you are talking about more than 200 years ago, maybe even all the way back a couple of thousand.

[canard78]

First off, thank you all for getting back on track. I was worried this would get closed or derailed.

Freedom I am not ignoring anything. I just knew the answer was deeper and more to it. Sometimes you have to be persistent and dig. I feel there are a lot of popular answers to many LDS questions that sound good, but are not always correct.

People don't look to the church for Iphones, they go for scripture and revelation. It is their niche and specialty. When they have a book on their site to read, it is intended to fully read unless otherwise noted. That is the implication I think anyone would have. They would trust that it was all good.

We believe things are correct as long as they are translated correctly. If it is not, we correct them. That's the way it is. The church in no way intends to put out or promote material that is false or incorrect. They just would not do that. Therefore, I think it is rational to say that the church considers it 100% correct and without error.

I understand this perspective. This perspective nearly had me leave the church. I read Mormon Doctrine and realised I deeply disagree with some of it. I read the words of Journal of Discourse and found parts of it deeply offensive. I even read things published with the church logo and said by a prophet in conference that I do not consider to apply to me, nor even to the hearers of the day. I believed that if the prophets were wrong on one thing (even when speaking as prophets) then they were nothing more than uninspired men working their own opinions and experiences into a man-made organisation.

And then I had the opportunity to reconsider my paradigm. A lot of perspectives on here allowed me to do that. Even content published with the logo is not correct and remains uncorrected. Know why? Imperfect funnels. It's not possible for even pure divine doctrine to be sent from God and then spoken by imperfect prophets and heard/understood by our imperfect ears and minds. We simply have teachings that were sent by God and are imperfect and, in (small) part, incorrect.

Add to that the following for the Miracle of Forgiveness:

It has not been published nor endorsed by the church. It is not canonised nor doctrine.

Consider this:

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context, and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (theHoly Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
  
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
  

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

• Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receiverevelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern(Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
  
• Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwidehumanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
  
• Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.
  
• Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.
  

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[thesometimesaint]

You should add "during the time statistics have been collected on them...otherwise someone might think you are talking about more than 200 years ago, maybe even all the way back a couple of thousand.

That wouldn't really be true. The ancient Greeks were far more accepting of homosexuality than we are. But there is no indications that they were more prone to homosexuality than we are. In some parts of the world it was/is an automatic death sentence to admit to being a homosexual. Self preservation would say it is better to keep your mouth shut in such situations.

[Calm]

That wouldn't really be true. The ancient Greeks were far more accepting of homosexuality than we are. But there is no indications that they were more prone to homosexuality than we are. In some parts of the world it was/is an automatic death sentence to admit to being a homosexual. Self preservation would say it is better to keep your mouth shut in such situations.

And thus no way to keep track of the rate of homosexuality over a long period of time, so to say that the rate has remained relatively constant is inaccurate if you don't provide a specific time period.

[Brian 2.0]

I understand this perspective. This perspective nearly had me leave the church. I read Mormon Doctrine and realised I deeply disagree with some of it. I read the words of Journal of Discourse and found parts of it deeply offensive. I even read things published with the church logo and said by a prophet in conference that I do not consider to apply to me, nor even to the hearers of the day. I believed that if the prophets were wrong on one thing (even when speaking as prophets) then they were nothing more than uninspired men working their own opinions and experiences into a man-made organisation.

And then I had the opportunity to reconsider my paradigm. A lot of perspectives on here allowed me to do that. Even content published with the logo is not correct and remains uncorrected. Know why? Imperfect funnels. It's not possible for even pure divine doctrine to be sent from God and then spoken by imperfect prophets and heard/understood by our imperfect ears and minds. We simply have teachings that were sent by God and are imperfect and, in (small) part, incorrect.

I'm really interested in this, mainly because I currently hold the stance of your first paragraph (a place you once were). If it's possible for a prophet to get things wrong, even when "speaking as a prophet," how can one discern between what's true doctrine, and what's incorrect because of the "imperfect funnel" speaking? I would imagine the answer being personal revelation. But how can one do this an not be accused to "buffet-style Mormonism" when they reject a teaching of a prophet? And how can one trust their own personal revelation against what a Prophet says, because we are also "imperfect funnels"?

[canard78]

I'm really interested in this, mainly because I currently hold the stance of your first paragraph (a place you once were). If it's possible for a prophet to get things wrong, even when "speaking as a prophet," how can one discern between what's true doctrine, and what's incorrect because of the "imperfect funnel" speaking? I would imagine the answer being personal revelation. But how can one do this an not be accused to "buffet-style Mormonism" when they reject a teaching of a prophet? And how can one trust their own personal revelation against what a Prophet says, because we are also "imperfect funnels"?

I consider prophets to be useful people for building a framework... But the building is mine. The God of my understanding is interested in how I use commandments/good principles of all sources to become the best me possible. Only I will be held accountable for what I become. God will not hold prophets responsible for who I am and I cannot hold them responsible for the same.

Every Mormon is a buffet mormon. Every single one. It's simply not possible for even the most devout Mormon to be prioritising and living every aspect of gospel teachings. Even if they're not eating fruit/veg in the season or if they're eating meat more than 'sparingly' they're a buffet mormon (if you'll pardon the pun).

And how do I know my own revelation is the primary source of decision making (even if it goes against the instruction of a prophet)? I don't. But given I am accountable for me then I have to take the best possible decisions for me that I can.

If God does communicate spirit to spirit then at least I don't have to add the 'white noise' of a human speaking what they have perceived and my imperfect ears hearing and understanding what they say.

That doesn't make prophets redundant. Like I said... I still need a framework. LDS Prophets and Scripture tend to provide a very effective one and I'm usually happy to work with it.

[Brian 2.0]

I consider prophets to be useful people for building a framework... But the building is mine. The God of my understanding is interested in how I use commandments/good principles of all sources to become the best me possible. Only I will be held accountable for what I become. God will not hold prophets responsible for who I am and I cannot hold them responsible for the same.

Every Mormon is a buffet mormon. Every single one. It's simply not possible for even the most devout Mormon to be prioritising and living every aspect of gospel teachings. Even if they're not eating fruit/veg in the season or if they're eating meat more than 'sparingly' they're a buffet mormon (if you'll pardon the pun).

And how do I know my own revelation is the primary source of decision making (even if it goes against the instruction of a prophet)? I don't. But given I am accountable for me then I have to take the best possible decisions for me that I can.

If God does communicate spirit to spirit then at least I don't have to add the 'white noise' of a human speaking what they have perceived and my imperfect ears hearing and understanding what they say.

That doesn't make prophets redundant. Like I said... I still need a framework. LDS Prophets and Scripture tend to provide a very effective one and I'm usually happy to work with it.

I respect that approach. Nice post.

[Freedom]

We believe things are correct as long as they are translated correctly. If it is not, we correct them. That's the way it is. The church in no way intends to put out or promote material that is false or incorrect. They just would not do that. Therefore, I think it is rational to say that the church considers it 100% correct and without error.

This is patently false and demonstrates that you are ignoring all that has been said in preference to your misconceptions of what 'truth' is. 100% correct is a fantasy that is not achievable. If you have this standard, then no book would ever by published, no song written, no artwork painted.

[cinepro]

I'm in Utah this week, and today I just happened to visit the Church History Museum and the big Deseret Book/ Church Distribution Center.

The museum had a copy of "The Miracle of Forgiveness" in its exhibit on President Kimball. The bookstore didn't have any copies for sale.

I think that tells us everything we need to know...

[Tacenda]

I'm in Utah this week, and today I just happened to visit the Church History Museum and the big Deseret Book/ Church Distribution Center.

The museum had a copy of "The Miracle of Forgiveness" in its exhibit on President Kimball. The bookstore didn't have any copies for sale.

I think that tells us everything we need to know...

Not quite, why did my bishop give them out as graduation presents? If they aren't on the shelves, especially since the distribution center is now the DB? Maybe the bishop ordered online. But wouldn't that clue the bishop that it may not be acceptable to everyone?

[Storm Rider]

Not quite, why did my bishop give them out as graduation presents? If they aren't on the shelves, especially since the distribution center is now the DB? Maybe the bishop ordered online. But wouldn't that clue the bishop that it may not be acceptable to everyone?

Of all the books that are available to give a graduate that would not be my first choice. Of course, I am not the bishop of that ward and I don't know those children. People come in all sizes, colors, and with a wide variety of likes and dislikes. I guess we just celebrate the differences.

[Bikeemikey]

This is going to sound bad, but in regard for medicinal purposes, I think the "m" word has gotten a bad rap. I see it may be necessary for health. Also, it will curb someone from being promiscuous. Not speaking personally at all here. Are there specific scriptures that support our churches views on the matter? If there are, is it revealed from a heavenly source or man made?

It is used frequently (even by marriage and sex counsellors working with LDS at BYU to resolve issues of premature ejaculation for newly married Mormons).

Sometimes they even put on an accompanying video.

[Bikeemikey]

There are no health benefits derived from masturbation.

Evidence, please, that it will "curb someone from being promiscuous." Consider that a CFR.

Maturbation is an act of lust, and we know what the Savior taught about that. I would consider His teachings a heavenly source.

It is a go to method of resolving premature ejaculation. It is called the behavioral retraining procedure.

http://www.health.am/sex/more/treatment_of_premature_ejaculation/

[Teancum]

The book itself is not published by the Church and it makes no difference that one might be able to order it from the Church or that a Bishop gives it to you read, it's not a doctrinal work. However, that being said, if anything it teaches is also found in a work published by the Church, then that particular thing is doctrine. I think one would be hard pressed to find something in the Miracle of Forgiveness that is not either quoted directly or otherwise taught elsewhere in actual official doctrinal works.

Does any one else here find the position above I bolded totally and absolutly ludicrous? Let me see, the Church makes the book available on its website but it may not be doctrinal? Right.....

[Calm]

Let me see, the Church makes the book available on its website but it may not be doctrinal? Right.....

They have hidden pictures available on the lds.org website: http://www.lds.org/friend/online-activities/activities/hidden-pictures?lang=eng

Being on the website doesn't automatically mean something is doctrinal.

[thesometimesaint]

Heck back in the 1970's BYU had old Playboy magazines in their racks of periodicals.