Follow The Prophet

[Flyonthewall]

I guess I am wondering if the message of repentance is what you object to... or is it that we are not to procrastinate the day of our repentance that you object to... or is it not the message but the tone of the message?

I see no false/wrong teaching from Miracle of Forgiveness. The tone may be austere, but is the message wrong?

[Coreyb]

What??? I've heard many Mormons quote Amos 3:7 and say the true church would always have a prophet leading it. Yet you're saying the LDS church hasn't had a prophet for about 150 years?

 

Plus, that doesn't answer the question about why current LDS leadership and members seem to be ignoring Kimball's strict and urgent teachings.

We may have prophets. We may all be prophets. Who knows but God, and whoever God reveals it.

[Coreyb]

.

I am more interested in the wording of the initial

apostolic ordination (not that of Pres. of HP).

However, if that apostolic ordination is bestowed

in the Temple, I can understand why you might

feel restrained from quoting the exact wording.

 

UD

They may, but my point is that their calling as apostle does not require it, according to the scriptures.

[UtahTexan]

if you think President Kimball had strong and difficult teaching, then you are really gonna hate the Savior's teaching...

 

Matthew 5:48:  "Be ye therefore Perfect.  Even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."

 

Notice...Jesus does not say, "Try to be perfect.  Nor does he say, "there is no way to be perfect.

 

It says BE YE PERFECT.

 

Now...do I want a Prophet who tells me to just do my best?

 

No.  I need my leaders to push me.  The path is narrow.  The path is straight.  If you reject President Kimball for his strong teaching, you must reject Jesus.

 

For that matter, you can dislike Yoda, too..."Do or Do Not...there is no Try"

Edited March 15, 2015 by CountryBoy

[Sleeper Cell]

 

 

I heard someone quoting from Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball, so I looked into it further and found the full book online, https://archive.org/stream/MiracleOfForgiveness/MoF#page/n0/mode/2up. I certainly disagreed with parts of it, but I found the responses I got from Mormons to be even more disturbing. For instance, take these quotes:

 

That is a very strict way of looking at faith.

 

And that adds a strong sense of urgency to the teaching on faith.

 

Yes, I know MoF was published in 1969 and Kimball wasn’t president until 1973, but it seems like Kimball continued to believe and teach this strict and urgent view of faith during his presidency.

 

I asked some missionaries how Kimball’s strict and urgent teachings should be interpreted, but they said they’ve never read the book. They suggested I read talks by Brad Wilcox and Elder D. Todd Christofferson, which I did, but they aren’t presidents of the church. Their talks may not contradict Kimball’s teachings, but they certainly didn’t have the same sense of urgency or strictness. Why should I take their teachings over the teachings of a president?

 

 

The quote you cited is better described as adding a strong sense of urgency to the teaching on repentance.  

 

I have referred previously to the significance of this life in the application of repentance but will emphasize it here in relation to the eventual judgment. One cannot delay repentance until the next life, the spirit world, and there prepare properly for the day of judgment while the ordinance work is done for him vicariously on earth. It must be remembered that vicarious work for the dead is for those who could not do the work for themselves. Men and women who live in mortality and who have heard the gospel here have had their day, their seventy years to put their lives in harmony, to perform the ordinances, to repent and perfect their lives.

 

In his first sentence, President Kimball  explains his purpose for saying the things he was about to say.  He said that he was trying to emphasize the significance of this life  “in the application of repentance.”   

 

Was he being too harsh?  Was what he wrote any more harsh than: “Strait is the gate and narrow is the way … and few there be that find it?”  Or “I know thy works … because thou art lukewarm, … I will spue thee out of my mouth?”  

 

He was trying to motivate the living to repent, not condemn every individual who had died before getting  around to repenting.  And despite saying that the vicarious work for the dead is not for those who procrastinated their repentance during mortality,  President Kimball allowed (and, IIRC, even encouraged) us to perform these sacred vicarious ordinances for them, anyway.  Why?  If it is eternally too late for them to repent, wouldn’t performing sacred ordinances -- the effectiveness of which depends on the recipient’s repentance -- be a mockery of their sacredness?  

 

We cannot judge whether a particular deceased individual really has had his fair chance to repent and bring his life into harmony with the Gospel, or whether there are unknown mitigating factors involved. Hence, we perform these vicarious ordinances for everyone. But those who are procrastinating their repentance sometimes use this fact to rationalize their procrastination.  It is too easy to tell yourself, I am one of the exceptions;  therefore, I can pretty much continue doing whatever I want -- and repent in the next life.

 

Remember, President Kimball was directing his remarks primarily to an LDS readership who were aware that vicarious ordinances would be performed for them anyway, regardless of what they did in this life.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Sleeper Cell

[NotaMormon]

Maybe other people have other ideas about repentance, that's entirely possible............You are aware that he wished he had toned down the book right?

Someone else mentioned Kimball said something about the tone, but they didn't have a link. Do you remember where you heard it from?

 

I see no false/wrong teaching from Miracle of Forgiveness. The tone may be austere, but is the message wrong?

So are the teachings still being taught? Has any general conference talk since Kimball's book taught anything like "Trying is not sufficient," "We must always do better than we can" or 'This life is our time to repent and perfect our lives'? If that strict and urgent message is right, then shouldn't it have been taught again during the last 40+ years?

 

if you think President Kimball had strong and difficult teaching, then you are really gonna hate the Savior's teaching...

 

Matthew 5:48:  "Be ye therefore Perfect.  Even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."

 

Notice...Jesus does not say, "Try to be perfect.  Nor does he say, "there is no way to be perfect.

 

It says BE YE PERFECT.

Yes, Kimball also quoted the verse and I looked into it. The Greek term for 'perfect' had two different meanings. One was basically the same modern definition we use for the word and the other could be interpreted as 'mature' or 'grown up.' So which meaning makes the most sense?

 

The passage isn't talking about morality in general. Verses 5:38-47 talk about being kind and compassionate with others, even when they hurt us. It wouldn't make sense for Christ suddenly talk about morality in general with no transition. Plus, since none of the NT authors urge us to be perfect, it makes more sense that Christ was talking about maturity, not moral perfection.

[CV75]

I’ve talked with quite a few Mormons over the past few years and many of them have made good points that made me seriously think about what I believe. But then other things I’ve heard from Mormons have pushed me even further away from the LDS church. This is one of those things that has pushed me away.

I wouldn’t worry about putting style over substance. Everyone changes his style over time and from time to time, and changes his response to substance according to his own style of receiving the Word from someone else, who may employ a compatible or conflicting style of delivery. If a servant of the Lord has a style that is a stumbling block for some, another servant’s style shouldn’t be.

 

As far as not meeting anyone LDS who follows the prophet’s teachings on faith (over years?), there are still other sources of the Word that might stimulate faith or the faith to follow the substance of what the prophet teaches (doctrines and principles) and provides (saving covenants and ordinances): scripture, prayer, testimonies and examples of people you haven’t met yet but can if you gather where they are or read about them online (Mormon.org “I am a Mormon” site).

 

I think we have to be as patient with others' styles as we would want them to be with ours.

Edited March 16, 2015 by CV75

[Duncan]

Someone else mentioned Kimball said something about the tone, but they didn't have a link. Do you remember where you heard it from?

 

So are the teachings still being taught? Has any general conference talk since Kimball's book taught anything like "Trying is not sufficient," "We must always do better than we can" or 'This life is our time to repent and perfect our lives'? If that strict and urgent message is right, then shouldn't it have been taught again during the last 40+ years?

 

Yes, Kimball also quoted the verse and I looked into it. The Greek term for 'perfect' had two different meanings. One was basically the same modern definition we use for the word and the other could be interpreted as 'mature' or 'grown up.' So which meaning makes the most sense?

 

The passage isn't talking about morality in general. Verses 5:38-47 talk about being kind and compassionate with others, even when they hurt us. It wouldn't make sense for Christ suddenly talk about morality in general with no transition. Plus, since none of the NT authors urge us to be perfect, it makes more sense that Christ was talking about maturity, not moral perfection.

 

 

"In 1977 he said to Lyle Ward, his neighbour, "Sometimes I think I might have been a little too strong about some of the things I wrote in this book"  Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball" p 80

 

Further on the same page his son Edward wrote, "But when he heard of others who read the book and became discouraged by a standard that seemed to them unattainable, he wished he had communicated more understanding and encouragement"

[UtahTexan]

Someone else mentioned Kimball said something about the tone, but they didn't have a link. Do you remember where you heard it from?

 

So are the teachings still being taught? Has any general conference talk since Kimball's book taught anything like "Trying is not sufficient," "We must always do better than we can" or 'This life is our time to repent and perfect our lives'? If that strict and urgent message is right, then shouldn't it have been taught again during the last 40+ years?

 

Yes, Kimball also quoted the verse and I looked into it. The Greek term for 'perfect' had two different meanings. One was basically the same modern definition we use for the word and the other could be interpreted as 'mature' or 'grown up.' So which meaning makes the most sense?

 

The passage isn't talking about morality in general. Verses 5:38-47 talk about being kind and compassionate with others, even when they hurt us. It wouldn't make sense for Christ suddenly talk about morality in general with no transition. Plus, since none of the NT authors urge us to be perfect, it makes more sense that Christ was talking about maturity, not moral perfection.

 

It may have been written in Greek, but it was said Aramaic....and yes...it meant perfect.  And wat makes sense to you may not be what makes sense to Jesus.  You appear to want to determine the meaning, rejecting face value, because it does not meet your desires.  Dangerous game.  The message is clear.  

 

The bottom line...Following God is not a wishy washy mambi pambi deal.  We need the straight and narrow

 

And when we fall....we have repentance.  

[Flyonthewall]

So are the teachings still being taught? Has any general conference talk since Kimball's book taught anything like "Trying is not sufficient," "We must always do better than we can" or 'This life is our time to repent and perfect our lives'? If that strict and urgent message is right, then shouldn't it have been taught again during the last 40+ years?

Yes.

https://www.lds.org/topics/repentance?lang=eng

Repentance is one of the first principles of the gospel and is essential to our temporal and eternal happiness. It is much more than just acknowledging wrongdoings. It is a change of mind and heart that gives us a fresh view about God, about ourselves, and about the world. It includes turning away from sin and turning to God for forgiveness. It is motivated by love for God and the sincere desire to obey His commandments.

Additional Information

The Need for Repentance

The Lord has declared that “no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven” (Alma 11:37). Our sins make us unclean—unworthy to return and dwell in the presence of our Heavenly Father. They also bring anguish to our soul in this life.

Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, our Father in Heaven has provided the only way for us to be forgiven of our sins (see Forgiveness). Jesus Christ suffered the penalty for our sins so we can be forgiven if we sincerely repent. As we repent and rely on His saving grace, we will be cleansed from sin.

Notice there is nowhere in here that says we don't have to repent or simply try to repent - do, or do not, there is no try as Yoda would say.

Alma 34:33

33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

Perfection Pending Oct 1995

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/perfection-pending?lang=eng&query=be+ye+therefore+perfect

All concepts you bring out are still being taught.