Miracle Of Forgiveness

[cinepro]

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?

As pointed out in my post about R-rated movies, there can be a wide variation among Bishops when it comes to beliefs and practices. I don't doubt that there are many leaders and members who still consider this book the "gospel truth".

[Teancum]

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.

I disagree. If the church promotes it on their official web site they clearly are quite fine with what it teaches. This is similar to arguments some apologists make that lesson manuals are not necessarily official doctrine. It is all such a moving target it seems for the defenders of the faith. What really is LDS doctrine. The church has to take responsibility for what is on their official web site.

[Calm]

The church has to take responsibility for what is on their official web site.

I agree, but I don't think that means that something automatically qualifies as doctrinal. It may be highly valued, but if it doesn't match the definition of official doctrine, I don't think one should assume that it is. I think the book has a lot of doctrinal material in it, but I don't believe all of it is.

[Damien the Leper]

An institute instructor, to this day, says that anything outside the Standard Works is not doctrinal. This includes conference talks too.

[Vanguard]

I agree, but I don't think that means that something automatically qualifies as doctrinal. It may be highly valued, but if it doesn't match the definition of official doctrine, I don't think one should assume that it is. I think the book has a lot of doctrinal material in it, but I don't believe all of it is.

So how do we resolve this then? What are we saying to those who are investigating the church when we're reduced to "Yes, I know it says this on our website and I know the site quotes GAs speaking on the subject but it isn't necessarily doctrine!". Good grief! Tecancum is absolutely correct to say the truth appears a "moving target" to suit our needs. Now all of a sudden it seems everything is up for grabs... ;(

[Calm]

So how do we resolve this then? What are we saying to those who are investigating the church

I would point them toward this article: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine and comment that those teachings in the book that meet these standards are doctrinal and those that don't shouldn't be assumed to be. And I would encourage them to seek spiritual confirmation of anything they found of significance in the text as well as approaching it overall being open to personal inspiration.

It is the same thing I would say about any investigation into our faith.

Edited July 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[awyatt]

So how do we resolve this then? What are we saying to those who are investigating the church when we're reduced to "Yes, I know it says this on our website and I know the site quotes GAs speaking on the subject but it isn't necessarily doctrine!". Good grief! Tecancum is absolutely correct to say the truth appears a "moving target" to suit our needs. Now all of a sudden it seems everything is up for grabs... ;(

Does one presume that all teachings are necessarily doctrine? (If so, one is setting oneself up for a lifetime of confusion and disappointment.)

[Vanguard]

I would point them toward this article: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine and comment that those teachings in the book that meet these standards are doctrinal and those that don't shouldn't be assumed to be. And I would encourage them to seek spiritual confirmation of anything they found of significance in the text as well as approaching it overall being open to personal inspiration.

It is the same thing I would say about any investigation into our faith.

Though I'm sure well-intentioned, the article you referenced does little to clarify the confusing issue. For example, the passage states - "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." It seems to be begging the question - that being, how would I know whether it were considered a "single occasion, single leader" statement or whether the position is viewed as doctrine because it has been repeated enough times? How is a lay member to negotiate their way through this? I can imagine taking an investigator to any similar Mormon gathering where something is said that is not only bothersome to the investigator but also to me. What do I say? "Well, this guy is only from the Seventy and this position has only been repeated twice in the last seven years and so is not considered doctrine." I know it sounds ridiculous but isn't that what we're compelled to try and figure out? I say the particular leader has a massive responsibility to delineate between "official Church doctrine" and his own opinion though I too infrequently hear this said from the pulpit. I'm all for stating one's opinon and fully recognize that said opinion could indeed be doctrine though many times this is simply not the case. We create so much more confusion than needs be.

If I can't rely on the church website to explain church doctrine then why have it? Is it said somewhere on the site that this is not necessarily doctrine and could well be infused with considerable amounts of opinion? I hope you understand my point.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Vanguard

[Vanguard]

Does one presume that all teachings are necessarily doctrine? (If so, one is setting oneself up for a lifetime of confusion and disappointment.)

You're answering a question that I did not pose. Who said anything about "all teachings" being doctrine? Do you not see the confusion that comes from a position that states, "Yes, lds.org will introduce you to the basic foundation of the restored gospel though you should know that some of it isn't necessarily true and only opinion from an obscure GA who stated it only once during a Marriot Center fireside in 1980 and the rest is doctrine. The trick is for you to figure out which is which."

Good grief.

[thatjimguy]

Does one presume that all teachings are necessarily doctrine? (If so, one is setting oneself up for a lifetime of confusion and disappointment.)

As a convert, I would say yes.

[canard78]

As pointed out in my post about R-rated movies, there can be a wide variation among Bishops when it comes to beliefs and practices. I don't doubt that there are many leaders and members who still consider this book the "gospel truth".

I was out to dinner with some Mormon friends last night. We got onto the subject (somehow) or Mormon Doctrine (the book) and I said something like, it's not doctrine and BRM later changed some of the things said in it. One of them when bug-eyed at me and said "but it was written by an apostle and it's called Mormon Doctrine - how can it be anything else but the church's doctrine?)

[Anijen]

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

What? I doubt this is true.

[ERayR]

I have owned a copy for years. I read maybe half way through it but could not read more. It did not engender hope in me.

[Brian 2.0]

Though I'm sure well-intentioned, the article you referenced does little to clarify the confusing issue. For example, the passage states - "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." It seems to be begging the question - that being, how would I know whether it were considered a "single occasion, single leader" statement or whether the position is viewed as doctrine because it has been repeated enough times? How is a lay member to negotiate their way through this? I can imagine taking an investigator to any similar Mormon gathering where something is said that is not only bothersome to the investigator but also to me. What do I say? "Well, this guy is only from the Seventy and this position has only been repeated twice in the last seven years and so is not considered doctrine." I know it sounds ridiculous but isn't that what we're compelled to try and figure out? I say the particular leader has a massive responsibility to delineate between "official Church doctrine" and his own opinion though I too infrequently hear this said from the pulpit. I'm all for stating one's opinon and fully recognize that said opinion could indeed be doctrine though many times this is simply not the case. We create so much more confusion than needs be.

If I can't rely on the church website to explain church doctrine then why have it? Is it said somewhere on the site that this is not necessarily doctrine and could well be infused with considerable amounts of opinion? I hope you understand my point.

I agree with this. Doctrine is so difficult to define and nearly impossible to pin down as what is and what is not official doctrine. In the end, that's a much better way to have it because the church can easily back away, change positions, etc without having to "change doctrine". You can simply state that the past statements were never official church doctrine... Which is true, because almost nothing anymore is official church doctrine.

[Calm]

What? I doubt this is true.

I believe it though now they are available through the online services.

http://search.lib.byu.edu/byu/id:britnica102387

I would not be surprised to have seen Playboy in a special collection to be available for actual research (as opposed to browsing). Besides the sex, there is some substantive material in the magazine I understand:

Playboy features monthly interviews of notable public figures, such as artists, architects, economists, composers, conductors, film directors, journalists, novelists, playwrights, religious figures, politicians, athletes and race car drivers. The magazine generally reflects a liberal editorial stance.[12]

Edited July 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[Sevenbak]

Do you have any evidence that the number of people who masturbate and the number of people who have a same-sex attraction is remotely correlated?

Even if he did say it both in a book and a talk, I would suggest this is an example of why his 1980 statement in the fundamentals talk (repeated twice in Oct 2010 gen conf) is wrong when he says a prophet can speak of whatever he wants without qualification.

ETB is unqualified to talk of the medical/biological effects of masturbation and the causes of homosexuality.

Do you agree or disagree with his warning that masterbation causes homosexuality?

About 90% of general population men admit to the former. About 10% of men are gay. How did the 80% manage to avoid the consequences of this prophetic warning. Why do our leaders today say they do not know the causes of SSA when it has already been discussed by ETB? Does that suggest they don't agree with him?

Mods... If the 'm' word is as bad as saying Voldemort in Harry Potter please let me know and I'll drop the conversation. I appreciate it remains a taboo. Just because we discourage it shouldn't make it an 'unmentionable' in my opinion. We openly discuss many other things considered sins.

The correlated evidence seems to me to be substantial. We as a society have embraced sexual freedom, thrown off the supposed chains of backward morality and live like there's no tomorrow. Porn is an epidemic. Does anyone really not think there is a connection to an embrace of homosexuality with the society that feeds it? I know many many gay people. Not all of them are strictly gay, but are rather open to all sorts of activity. One very gay man once told me that for him at least, the reason he was gay was because it provided easier gratification. I know not all can be categorized thus, but it is part of the issue.

[Sevenbak]

Isn't that for a Braille version?

Can you find a link to if from somewhere else on the actual website of is that a file someone has uploaded to the server for some kind of review process?

It needs the logo usually to imply endorsement. No logo in a txt file

Yes, the link is on the braille version website, along with many other books the church deems worthy to put there. This is not just a file for some kind of review process.

Here's some of the other books they list in that category, only the Church Handbook of Instructions and Jesus the Christ are listed before it. Seems pretty prominent to me.

Other Materials

• Handbook 2: Administering the Church
  
• Jesus the Christ
  
• The Miracle of Forgiveness
  
• The Pursuit of Excellence
  
• Truth Restored
  
• Repentance Brings Forgiveness
  
• Teaching Guidebook
  
• Improving Gospel Teaching—A Leader’s Guide
  
• Addiction Recovery Program
  
• God Loveth His Children
  
• 
  

https://www.lds.org/topics/disability/materials/braille?

[Sevenbak]

I don't read Sevenbak as saying that.

He can clarify as he sees fit, but what I get from his post is that the frequency of homosexual behavior today is part-and-parcel of the sexual revolution resulting in casual acceptance of all manner of action that was formerly deemed unacceptable.

I can't give you statistics but it seems reasonable to me to believe that a person with homosexual tendencies would be more apt to act on them in this day and age than he would have been a couple of generations ago when President Kimball wrote the book.

This makes it more difficult to teach people, as our Church does, that there can be no righteous expression of homosexuality.

Well said Scott.

[Sevenbak]

The percentage of homosexuals has remain relatively constant. What varies over time is the public acceptance of it.

While I agree that public acceptance of it has spiked, what is the data that shows the percentage has remained the same?

For many, homosexuality is the new hip fad. I would bet good money that the percentage of those engaging in it have spiked.

[Sevenbak]

but differing social acceptance levels makes studying it harder.

I believe that to be the key. Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but something P. Kimball said in a 77 Conference address (again, straight out of his book), speaks truth to me. I don't disagree with any of it.

http://www.lds.org/g...usness?lang=eng

We hear more and more each day about the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Homosexuality is an ugly sin, but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it must be brought into the open.

It is the sin of the ages. It was present in Israel’s wandering as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot’s visitors indicates.

There is today a strong clamor to make such practices legal by passing legislation. Some would also legislate to legalize prostitution. They have legalized abortion, seeking to remove from this heinous crime the stigma of sin.

We do not hesitate to tell the world that the cure for these evils is not in surrender.

Edit to add that this theme has been taught by many prophets since P. Kimball.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Sevenbak

[Sevenbak]

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...

Deseret Book has them for sale, the cover artworks has even been updated for modern readers. Perhaps they were just sold out when you went in. ;-)

Paperback, Hardcover, CD and ebook.

http://deseretbook.com/Miracle-Forgiveness-Spencer-W-Kimball/i/2885476

[Scott Lloyd]

Deseret Book has them for sale, the cover artworks has even been updated for modern readers. Perhaps they were just sold out when you went in. ;-)

Paperback, Hardcover, CD and ebook.

http://deseretbook.com/Miracle-Forgiveness-Spencer-W-Kimball/i/2885476

Out of curiosity, I stopped in to the Deseret Book store in Draper, near where I live. On the shelf was Miracle of Forgiveness in hard cover and paperback, with the attractive new cover Sevenbak mentioned. I looked further and found the multi-disc, unabridged CD set.

I went to the location in Sandy, my hometown, of Seagull Book. which was acquired by Deseret Book as a subsidiary a few years ago. I noted that Seagull has greatly reduced its book inventory and has devoted most of its floor space to clothing and gift items. Nevertheless, I had no trouble finding Miracle of Forgiveness in hardback, paperback and CD.

I checked the Deseret Book app on my iPod touch and found that right now I can get a digital download of Miracle of Forgiveness for $9.99, marked down from $24.95.

I've been off work for the holiday weekend, or I would have checked the flagship Deseret Book store, the one in downtown SLC that Cinepro visited. But when I go back to work on Monday, I will go there. I might have to ask a store clerk, but I expect to find Miracle of Forgiveness in stock there as well.

To adapt Cinepro's words, this should tell us all we need to know about the availability and in-print status of Miracle of Forgiveness.

Or to adapt the words of Mark Twain, reports of the demise of Miracle of Forgiveness are greatly exaggerated.

[canard78]

The correlated evidence seems to me to be substantial. We as a society have embraced sexual freedom, thrown off the supposed chains of backward morality and live like there's no tomorrow. Porn is an epidemic. Does anyone really not think there is a connection to an embrace of homosexuality with the society that feeds it? I know many many gay people. Not all of them are strictly gay, but are rather open to all sorts of activity. One very gay man once told me that for him at least, the reason he was gay was because it provided easier gratification. I know not all can be categorized thus, but it is part of the issue.

"Not strictly gay..." and "Very gay..." "I know not all... but..." with attitudes like that I'll skip any further conversation with you on this thanks.

[Sevenbak]

"Not strictly gay..." and "Very gay..." "I know not all... but..." with attitudes like that I'll skip any further conversation with you on this thanks.

That's fine if you don't wish to discuss this further. The church takes the stand that homosexuality is not a strictly inherent trait that one is always born with, and defines such as a lifestyle choice. i have many gay friends, and a lot of them are bisexual. My own nephew is "dating" members of both sexes. As my take on the matter or my "attitude" offends, then that's fine, but it is in harmony with what the Church teaches on the issue. However, perhaps I'm not the one to answer your posts.

[Bikeemikey]

That's fine if you don't wish to discuss this further. The church takes the stand that homosexuality is not a strictly inherent trait that one is always born with, and defines such as a lifestyle choice. i have many gay friends, and a lot of them are bisexual. My own nephew is "dating" members of both sexes. As my take on the matter or my "attitude" offends, then that's fine, but it is in harmony with what the Church teaches on the issue. However, perhaps I'm not the one to answer your posts.

Nope it's not...

Also to hold and express the "Churches position" with out also being willing to express it in the "Churches tone and temperament" is very disingenuous.

Even if your position stated above was representative of the general church position (which it is not) your tone and mode of expression is fundamentally at odds with how the church has most recently been expressing its position.

Please don't hide your rhetoric behind the approval of the Church.