Miracle Of Forgiveness

[Scott Lloyd]

What could those grounds be? I think it would be irresponsible not to do so.

It seems to me there would be some things that the Church, though it does not want to endorse them, would, on the other hand, have no interest in disavowing them. That, in effect, would amount to a declaration of doctrine, just as surely as if the Church had endorsed the writer's words. There are some things on which the Church can -- and should -- remain silent.

But in truth, I am not very interested in your thread topic, so, as you have defined the parameters so narrowly, I doubt I will be participating here further.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

I can only conclude that Cinepro visited the store on an unusual day or that he should have looked harder and perhaps asked a store clerk for assistance.

There is a third, less-likely, possibility: that after all these years, Miracle of Forgiveness is so popular that Deseret Book can scarcely keep it in stock.

I must have overlooked it. I spent too much time perusing "A Beginner's Guide to James E. Talmage" and a book that told the stories of all the LDS missionaries who have died while serving their missions.

The most fascinating thing I saw was a reprint of a book called "A Collection of Facts Relative to the Course Taken by Elder Sidney Rigdon" which appeared to be a reprint of a book written during the succession crisis in Nauvoo, arguing that Rigdon was crazy and unfit to lead the Church.

I can understand why someone would write that book back in the 1840s, but I was really surprised to see Deseret Book still selling it!

I was also surprised to see the number of book in the Joseph Smith Papers series that were marked down to clearance prices, like this one.

Edited July 8, 2013 by cinepro

[Robert F. Smith]

If the book appeared in 1997, I wonder how young he could yet be.

From the perspective of being 30 years his senior, he seems quite young to me, Scott. But then of course you are probably a young whippersnapper too.

Funny thing: He is such a popular author that even works by me in the LDS History Library in SLC were listed under his name and birth year. I had to ask them to reclassify them.

[Scott Lloyd]

I must have overlooked it. I spent too much time perusing "A Beginner's Guide to James E. Talmage" ...

I'm amazed this sort of thing is still around. When I was growing up, there was a book in circulation called (if I recall correctly) Understanding Talmage. It was, in effect, a glossary of terms used by Talmage in his classic works such as Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith. Thing is, I never had any trouble at all understanding Talmage's writing, even in my young, late-teen, pre-mission days. I never understood the need for a separate work to interpret him. His writing was always very lucid to me.

The most fascinating thing I saw was a reprint of a book called "A Collection of Facts Relative to the Course Taken by Elder Sidney Rigdon" which appeared to be a reprint of a book written during the succession crisis in Nauvoo, arguing that Rigdon was crazy and unfit to lead the Church.

I can understand why someone would write that book back in the 1840s, but I was really surprised to see Deseret Book still selling it!

That does sound very interesting from a historical perspective. If nothing else, it could give insight into how Rigdon was viewed by the mainstream Church members during the succession crisis.

I was also surprised to see the number of book in the Joseph Smith Papers series that were marked down to clearance prices, like this one.

Indeed, considering that each of the volumes has been a brisk seller upon publication.

I wonder if the quality and accessibility of content on the project website is cutting into sales of the letterpress volumes. I understand that eventually everything in hard copy plus much more will be online.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

From the perspective of being 30 years his senior, he seems quite young to me, Scott. But then of course you are probably a young whippersnapper too.

Funny thing: He is such a popular author that even works by me in the LDS History Library in SLC were listed under his name and birth year. I had to ask them to reclassify them.

It is an interesting coincidence. But then, you could hardly have a name more common than Robert or Smith.

Incidentally, I have prepared your "Family History Moments" for publication. Barring an unlikely and unforeseen circumstance, you can watch for it this weekend.

I had to trim it slightly to fit the allotted space, but rest assured I used a scalpel, not a meat axe.

[cinepro]

I'm amazed this sort of thing is still around. When I was growing up, there was a book in circulation called (if I recall correctly) Understanding Talmage. It was, in effect, a glossary of terms used by Talmage in his classic works such as Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith. Thing is, I never had any trouble at all understanding Talmage's writing, even in my young, late-teen, pre-mission

Actually, the title of the book is rather misleading. It's actually more of a Talmage version of "Mormon Doctrine", with teachings culled from Talmage's books, talks and other writings, arranged by subject.

I suspect his writings are all in the public domain, which makes such an endeavor much more feasible.

Here's the chapter list according to a reviewer on Amazon:

1. The Plan of Salvation

2. The Godhead

3. Jesus the Christ

4. The Atonement of Jesus Christ

5. Mortal Probation

6. Satan is an enemy to God and Man

7. The Dispensation of the Fulness of Times

8. Church Government

9. Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel

10. Missionary Work

11. Scriptures

12. Responsibility of the Covenant People

Edited July 8, 2013 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, the title of the book is rather misleading. It's actually more of a Talmage version of "Mormon Doctrine", with teachings culled from Talmage's books, talks and other writings, arranged by subject.

I suspect his writings are all in the public domain, which makes such an endeavor much more feasible.

Here's the chapter list according to a reviewer on Amazon:

1. The Plan of Salvation

2. The Godhead

3. Jesus the Christ

4. The Atonement of Jesus Christ

5. Mortal Probation

6. Satan is an enemy to God and Man

7. The Dispensation of the Fulness of Times

8. Church Government

9. Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel

10. Missionary Work

11. Scriptures

12. Responsibility of the Covenant People

Sort of a Talmage "Greatest Hits," then.

[Robert F. Smith]

It is an interesting coincidence. But then, you could hardly have a name more common than Robert or Smith.

Incidentally, I have prepared your "Family History Moments" for publication. Barring an unlikely and unforeseen circumstance, you can watch for it this weekend.

I had to trim it slightly to fit the allotted space, but rest assured I used a scalpel, not a meat axe.

Not sure what you have in mind, Scott, but at least "Despicable Me 2" is doing well at the box office.

Edit: Oh Yeh, had a senior moment.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm amazed this sort of thing is still around. When I was growing up, there was a book in circulation called (if I recall correctly) Understanding Talmage. It was, in effect, a glossary of terms used by Talmage in his classic works such as Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith. Thing is, I never had any trouble at all understanding Talmage's writing, even in my young, late-teen, pre-mission days. I never understood the need for a separate work to interpret him. His writing was always very lucid to me.

.............................

Same here, Scott, although I read his Jesus the Christ as a young man (it was used as a lesson manual back then). I was enthralled by the clarity and power of his words.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't see anything in the posting of Sevenbak that is factually incorrect about how the Church regards homosexual behavior. The objection seems to revolve around what has been described in this discussion as "rhetoric and tone." Regarding that, I don't see anything particularly harsh or unkind about what Sevenbak has written. If he was candid, well, he was responding to a direct criticism of the writing of a former Church apostle who ultimately became Church president.

I guess we'll just have to chalk this up to a difference in sensitivities.

Anyway, as the OP has expressed heartburn over his thread being derailed, I'm exiting the discussion on the matter of Sevenbak's rhetoric and tone.

I will also exit the conversation relative to SSA.

In also have no objection to sevenbak's tone... My objection was specifically the linking of a specific personal position on SSA with the broader position of the church.

From a position of personal experience o happen to agree with most of the sentiments expressed in the posts i responded to.

My response was very narrow and not a criticism in anyway of sevenbak's position on the subject under discussion. I was commenting on the concern of stating the position was the churches position.

Later.

And for the public record... I should probably and legitimately eat humble pie for calling out the tone of a post given that my tone really was no different.

[Thinking]

This insensitive statement makes me cringe... he very poorly made his point that a woman who is raped is under no condemnation as far as personal virtue or chastity, but a victim... millions of women have been victims, having had to endure this vile crime at the hands of some man, and I find his words abhorrent to those who did survive and were not murdered.

Kimball wasn't the only one to teach this concept.

I remember how my father impressed the seriousness of unchastity upon my mind. He and I were standing in the railroad station at Rexburg, Idaho, in the early morning of 12 November 1920. We heard the train whistle. In three minutes I would be on my way to Australia to fill a mission. In that short interval my father said to me, among other things, “My son, you are going a long way from home. Your mother and I, and your brothers and sisters, will be with you constantly in our thoughts and prayers; we shall rejoice with you in your successes, and we shall sorrow with you in your disappointments. When you are released and return, we shall be glad to greet you and welcome you back into the family circle. But remember this, my son: we would rather come to this station and take your body off the train in a casket than to have you come home unclean, having lost your virtue.” Marion G. Romney

[thatjimguy]

It was stated earlier that he thinks the church may not want to make an errata sheet of sorts for "The Miracle of Forgiveness". Can anyone help me out and tell me why it might not be a good reason not to do so?

[Scott Lloyd]

Kimball wasn't the only one to teach this concept.

This is a poor comparison.

By "unclean" and "having lost your virtue," the father in your quotation obviously had in mind the son committing sexual sin, not having been the victim of sexual assault. There is a clear difference.

And for what it's worth, I can relate to the father in this instance. While there would obviously be grief and sorrow if the son were to die while on his mission, if he had been clean, there would be the assurance of being exalted with him as a family in the eternities. If he were to return home unclean and unrepentant, there could be no such assurance.

In the two generations since the beginning of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, we have reaped the whirlwind with our casual acceptance and tolerance of sexual sin. We need to get back to impressing upon the minds of young and old alike the gravity of such sin. There is not a thing wrong with parents making it known how devastated they would be if their children were to be unchaste.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It was stated earlier that he thinks the church may not want to make an errata sheet of sorts for "The Miracle of Forgiveness". Can anyone help me out and tell me why it might not be a good reason not to do so?

Perhaps because we haven't seen a good reason why the Church should do such a thing.

[thatjimguy]

Perhaps because we haven't seen a good reason why the Church should do such a thing.

I think that simply making sure the right doctrine is promoted would be enough.

[thatjimguy]

Perhaps the reason they do not edit it is because it would make Pres. Kimball look uninspired.

Maybe it is because, as much as people in the faith claim that prophets are men and can make mistakes, they are still expected to be perfect in this regard.

Maybe the church does believe in it 100% and says it's unofficial to distance itself from it to people who would attack it, yet have it fully available.

[canard78]

Perhaps the reason they do not edit it is because it would make Pres. Kimball look uninspired.

Maybe it is because, as much as people in the faith claim that prophets are men and can make mistakes, they are still expected to be perfect in this regard.

Maybe the church does believe in it 100% and says it's unofficial to distance itself from it to people who would attack it, yet have it fully available.

Hi Jim, I'm not sure what other answers you're looking for. You've had lots of good answers on why the church can both quote from and (indirectly) publish the book while not endorsing every word of it.

The (already referenced) statement on 'approaching Mormon doctrine' gives the framework for knowing what is official doctrine. It's a very short list.

Everything else is commentary. Being inspired (and I think much of it is) doesn't have to mean perfect doctrine or applicable to every living human (or Mormon).

[Calm]

Kimball wasn't the only one to teach this concept.

But remember this, my son: we would rather come to this station and take your body off the train in a casket than to have you come home unclean, having lost your virtue.”

While I would never hold this position myself, at least I think it is important to point out that the dad was unlikely thinking that this included him as a rape victim---him being male, but most likely and solely him as committing immoral acts by his own full choice.

[Bikeemikey]

While I would never hold this position myself, at least I think it is important to point out that the dad was unlikely thinking that this included him as a rape victim---him being male, but most likely and solely him as committing immoral acts by his own full choice.

Seriously... Are there any parents in this thread who would rather see their son dead than going to far with a girl one night?

Did alma the prophet feel this way?

Edited July 9, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Calm]

Seriously... Are there any parents in this thread who would rather see their son dead than going to far with a girl one night?

Did alma the prophet feel this way?

I doubt it, but in the past the idea of a girl losing her virginity was much more significant and the view was often for good girls at least, the boy would be the one who pressured her into having sex so the guy ends up being responsible for the loss of chastity for two people, not just one when one has that attitude and I can see that very troubling to a parent, not only to have to be sorrowful for the effect on one's own child, but to know that he led another into deep sin as it was considered at the time among many for those who did not hold the double standard of it was just a boy sowing his oats, but a girl risking a lifetime reputation as a slut, never to be considered as a worthy wife, etc.

I do know of one parent who wished a relative of mine had raped his daughter rather than baptized her and then one year later marry her in the temple. How's that for standards?

Edited July 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Senator]

There is not a thing wrong with parents making it known how devastated they would be if their children were to be unchaste.

To each their own, of course. I for one would be disappointed and concerned, but certainly not devastated.

[Sevenbak]

I wish you would stay. You are providing some much needed perspective and balance on a thread that was indeed deteriorating into unseemly disparagement of President Kimball and his words.

As for degrees of "gayness," I would say that the existence of professed bi-sexuality argues for that concept....

Thanks Scott, but I've said my peace. Or for some, the lack thereof. I don't need to hijack the thread any further.

[Calm]

To each their own, of course. I for one would be disappointed and concerned, but certainly not devastated.

I would be devastated because knowing both of my children, I know that it would take something horrible happening to them to put them in that situation where they felt they needed to violate their covenants as well as what the emotional consequences would be for them from having engaged in intimacy before they were ready for it. I've seen how some have talked themselves into seeing it as acceptable---and it is because of some extreme insecurity, a perception of themselves as not having much worth for others and need for love to validate even if it comes in twisted forms---and then the emotional upheaval they go through when they confront themselves with what they have done.

Perhaps those who haven't grown up expecting something different from themselves don't have such an emotional impact, but for those that have been brought up with the Law of Chastity, there are many who take it very seriously and thus are harmed by breaking it as well as being harmed by whatever put them in that situation.

I would never compare the two situations, I would much, much, much prefer my children in health even if unchaste because that can always be repented of and whatever damage was done can be healed...death is long term.

[Scott Lloyd]

To each their own, of course. I for one would be disappointed and concerned, but certainly not devastated.

I can hardly improve on calmoriah's response.

[Thinking]

This is a poor comparison.

By "unclean" and "having lost your virtue," the father in your quotation obviously had in mind the son committing sexual sin, not having been the victim of sexual assault. There is a clear difference.

The difference is not as clear as you claim.

Kimball: "It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle." Some may interpret this to mean that if a girl did survive and was raped, her struggle wasn't great enough.