How to answer/address a comment made by my Daughter-in-law

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

 

 

God is no respecter of persons, right?  So the woman caught in the act of adultery, as a member of Jewish society, she certainly knew better.  BUT if God is "no respecter of persons" then she DID NOT get a "freebie". 

So Jesus did three things:  1) He rescued her from those who condemned her; 2) He explicitly did not condemn her; and 3) He gave her correction ("go and sin no more"). 

No time for anything remotely approaching the classic repentance process, no mention of her needing to feel guilty, no requirement to establish a track record of wholesome living.  Boom.  The Christ does not condemn you, now Go and sin no more. 

New wine, for which old bottles are not ready.

I sign it, and if I have erred, well that's on my head.

(Easy for me to say, because I am in zero danger of ever being a bishop.)

Don't be so sure

You get a couple of virtual rep points for that one!  Nailed it, pardon the expression 

No freebies needed either!

I wish people actually understood the At one ment.

 

[Fether]

6 hours ago, webbles said:

He is most likely referencing Marion G. Romney's message from the September 1981 Ensign (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1981/09/we-believe-in-being-chaste?lang=eng).

That last quote is actually President Romney quoting President Clark.

Thanks!
 

My next question is this. Am I to accept that this statement made In the 80s is the whole of systemic shame culture on the church?

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Forget about it. 

It's an unanswerable question and a waste of time. I know for a fact that some must feel darkness before the dawn. I stand by every word I have said.

I completely agree. Where we disagree is that dawn can come without acknowledging the darkness that came before it.

[california boy]

Sometimes you guys make things. so complicated.  If your DIL really wants to go to the temple, a father should tell her to talk to her bishop about how she feels and whether she qualifies to go to the temple.  She felt like it was important enough to her to tell you she didn't feel bad about living with your son before they got married.  She certainly should tell the bishop how she feels.  He is the one that decides how to approach that and whether to issue the temple recommend.  

What should the father do?  Simply tell her if she wants to go to the temple, she should talk to her bishop.  Period.  If she truly wants to get married in the temple, she will do what is asked of her by the bishop in the interview. If she doesn't want to do what is asked of her, then she shouldn't be going to the temple.  Feeling like she deceived the bishop by not telling her how she felt about living together is not a good way to get a recommend.

 

 

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I completely agree. Where we disagree is that dawn can come without acknowledging the darkness that came before it.

But this is what I have been arguing.

I am totally mystified 

Ok this is it

Forget about it. 

It's an unanswerable question and a waste of time. I know for a fact that some must feel darkness before the dawn. I stand by every word I have said.

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But this is what I have been arguing.

You've been arguing that we have to repent of past sins or acknowledge that they were wrong, even if they were necessary for our growth? 

If so I have completely misunderstood you and apologize.  

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Fether said:

Once again, sources? Links?

Your lengthy posts are just that… lengthy. They lack sources. Your just spewing the normal rhetoric we expect. And as I said… they are just anecdotal. Lacking substance.

The book the Miracle of Forgiveness is real.  Exhibit 1.  Have you read it?

 

Bishops interviews are real. The probing question are real. The teachings that sexual sin is next to murder and is the third worst sin is real. A passage from Alma to his son about sexual sin is oft quoted.  Are you telling me you have never heard this?

 

See below for a nice sexual shaming message.

 

We Believe in Being Chaste

By President Marion G. Romney

Second Counselor in the First Presidency

 

You will recall Alma’s teaching his son Corianton that unchastity is the most serious offense there is in the sight of God, save murder or denying the Holy Ghost. (See Alma 39:5.) You will remember, too, these words from Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians:

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy.” (1 Cor. 3:16–17.)

Some years ago the First Presidency said to the youth of the Church that a person would be better dead clean than alive unclean.

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.”

I pondered his statement at the time. I did not then have the full understanding of it that my father had, but I remembered it every time I approached temptation. I understand it better now, and I feel the same way about my sons and grandsons as he felt about me.

I can think of no blessings to be more fervently desired than those promised to the pure and virtuous. Jesus spoke of specific rewards for different virtues. But he reserved the greatest, it seems to me, for the pure in heart; “for they,” said he, “shall see God.” (Matt. 5:8.) And not only shall they see the Lord, but they shall feel at home in his presence. Here is his promise:

“Let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God.” (D&C 121:45.)

The rewards for virtue and the consequences of unchastity are dramatically portrayed in the lives of Joseph and David. Joseph, though a slave in Egypt, stood true under pressure of great temptation. As a reward he received the choicest blessings of all the sons of Jacob, and he became the progenitor of the two favored tribes of Israel. Many take pride in being numbered among his posterity.

David, on the other hand, though highly favored of the Lord—indeed, he was referred to as a man after God’s own heart—yielded. His unchastity led to murder. And the consequences? Like Lucifer, he fell; he lost his families and his exaltation. (See D&C 132:39.)

So it has always been and always will be: the laws of retribution are so devised that one cannot with impunity disregard the seventh commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Ex. 20:14.) The penalty for so doing under the Mosaic law was death. Notwithstanding the fact that in this generation’s corrupt permissiveness the violation of the law of chastity is tolerated with impunity, under God’s divine law it is as it has always been, a soul-destroying sin. Its self-executing penalty is spiritual death. No unforgiven adulterer is magnifying his calling in the priesthood; and, as President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., used to say, the Lord had made “no fine distinctions … between adultery and fornication.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1949, p. 194.) Nor, may I add, has he made such distinctions between adultery and sex perversion.

I am advised that in some circles the teaching of personal purity is outmoded and that promiscuity and other degenerate sex practices are condoned and at times encouraged. Do not be misled by such satanic sophistry, for in truth it is of the evil one.

President Clark, in a conference address in October 1938, said: “Chastity is fundamental to our life and to our civilization. If the race becomes unchaste, it will perish. Immorality has been basic to the destruction of mighty nations of the past; it will bring to dust the mighty nations of the present. …

“You young people—May I directly entreat you to be chaste. Please believe me when I say that chastity is worth more than life itself. This is the doctrine my parents taught me; it is truth. Better die chaste than live unchaste. The salvation of your very souls is concerned in this.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1938, pp. 137–38.)

Now, my dear friends, I know there is nothing new in what I have said. These things are time-tested; they are true. To this I testify.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1981/09/we-believe-in-being-chaste?lang=eng

 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Fether said:

Once again, sources? Links?

Your lengthy posts are just that… lengthy. They lack sources. Your just spewing the normal rhetoric we expect. And as I said… they are just anecdotal. Lacking substance.

Another shaming message.

 

 

Better Dead and Clean than Alive and Unclean

It may be hard for nonmembers to comprehend just how serious Mormons consider my sin [sex outside of marriage] to be. Former prophet Spencer W. Kimball said that “[e]ven mortal life itself, when placed upon the balance scales, weighs less than chastity.” In his 1969 book, Miracle of Forgiveness, President Kimball quoted two other Mormon prophets: David O. McKay said, “Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please, young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives” (not at all a pleasant thing to believe for rape victims who are overpowered but not killed); and Heber J. Grant said, “There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or a daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity” (both quotes on p. 63). Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, in the 1966 version of his classic Mormon Doctrine, put it bluntly: “Better dead clean, than alive unclean. Many is the faithful Latter-day Saint parent who has sent a son or daughter on a mission or otherwise out into the world with the direction, ‘I would rather have you come back home in a pine box with your virtue than return alive without it.’” (p. 124)

[Fether]

51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Another shaming message.

 

 

Better Dead and Clean than Alive and Unclean

It may be hard for nonmembers to comprehend just how serious Mormons consider my sin [sex outside of marriage] to be. Former prophet Spencer W. Kimball said that “[e]ven mortal life itself, when placed upon the balance scales, weighs less than chastity.” In his 1969 book, Miracle of Forgiveness, President Kimball quoted two other Mormon prophets: David O. McKay said, “Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please, young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives” (not at all a pleasant thing to believe for rape victims who are overpowered but not killed); and Heber J. Grant said, “There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or a daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity” (both quotes on p. 63). Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, in the 1966 version of his classic Mormon Doctrine, put it bluntly: “Better dead clean, than alive unclean. Many is the faithful Latter-day Saint parent who has sent a son or daughter on a mission or otherwise out into the world with the direction, ‘I would rather have you come back home in a pine box with your virtue than return alive without it.’” (p. 124)

Thank you for providing these (I would also like a link, but we can’t always get what we want).

You speak as if this issue permeates through the church today. The most recent reference you have is from a man who died 36 years ago. And, correct me if I’m wrong, each of those statements mentioned were made in a non-church setting. 
 

I will happily accept that there is a shame culture in the church. I will happily accept that these statements, made by these long dead apostles/prophets who were forged by their time, are extremely harmful and the affects of them can still be felt today. 
 

But I will not accept that the church itself is propagating shame culture. I feel there is no strong evidence for this. If these three 35+ year old statements made In non-official settings this the back bone to your view that the church is pushing shame on its members… well… we don’t have much to talk about.

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The book the Miracle of Forgiveness is real.  Exhibit 1.  Have you read it?

I have not read it, nor has anyone ever suggested I read it. It wasn’t even allowed in my mission.

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Bishops interviews are real. The probing question are real.

Please show me where in the church handbook or in any church literature that it says bishops should prove and ask explicit questions about sexual experiences. 
 

From what I can see, this is a failure of bishops, not the church.

I will concede that I believe Bishops should be better trained. I can get on that hill

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The teachings that sexual sin is next to murder and is the third worst sin is real. A passage from Alma to his son about sexual sin is oft quoted.  Are you telling me you have never heard this?

Sexual sin is next to murder. However, Shame has nothing to do with this. Shame comes when you see yourself ad evil, and not the sin. This comes down to poor teaching and false analogies permeates through culture. Not the church

As for everything about being better to be dead than to sin. This isn’t a new or obscure teaching. It comes from scripture.

Matthew 18:6 - “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Mark 9:43 - “if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched”

Mark 14:21 - “but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.”

3 Nephi 28:34-35 1 “And wo be unto him that will not hearken unto the words of Jesus, and also to them whom he hath chosen and sent among them; for whoso receiveth not the words of Jesus and the words of those whom he hath sent receiveth not him; and therefore he will not receive them at the last day;
And it would be better for them if they had not been born. For do ye suppose that ye can get rid of the justice of an offended God, who hath been trampled under feet of men, that thereby salvation might come?”

Edited October 20, 2021 by Fether

[Olmec Donald]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't be so sure

You get a couple of virtual rep points for that one!  Nailed it, pardon the expression 

No freebies needed either!

I wish people actually understood the At one ment.

Thank you very much.

Must confess that I am one of those people who do not understand what is meant or implied by writing "atonement" as "at one ment".   I've come across it written that way several times but whatever the explanation was (if any), it didn't click for me at the time.   What does "at one ment" mean to you, if you don't mind?

[bOObOO]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I wish you luck with your private version of “Newspeak”. May you remove all the ungood from your vocabulary.

Thank you for your well wishes.  My system is working much better for me so far.  Not only do I use a better word or term for sin (something I need to improve on) but I also have a better word for repentance (stop doing something not so good to do something better instead), ordinance (something we should do because our Lord said we should do it, also some kind of weapon or ammunition), righteousness (doing what is right), and God (our Father and what we already are even though we're not as perfect as our Father in heaven, yet).  I'll probably think of a few more improvements as I continue to progress to become as perfect as our Father in heaven.

[bOObOO]

10 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Thank you very much.

Must confess that I am one of those people who do not understand what is meant or implied by writing "atonement" as "at one ment".   I've come across it written that way several times but whatever the explanation was (if any), it didn't click for me at the time.   What does "at one ment" mean to you, if you don't mind?

Excellent question.  I may need to add the word atonement to my list of words that should be replaced by a better word. As it is it refers to an act or action which qualifies us to be one with God, in unity with him, our Father, as we do what is required of us to accept that act.  Kinda wordy.  I think we can do better.  Hmm. What would be a better word to refer to what our Savior/Messiah did to qualify us to be at one with our Father as long as we do what is required of us to accept what he did?  I'll have to give this some more thoughtful consideration.

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Thank you very much.

Must confess that I am one of those people who do not understand what is meant or implied by writing "atonement" as "at one ment".   I've come across it written that way several times but whatever the explanation was (if any), it didn't click for me at the time.   What does "at one ment" mean to you, if you don't mind?

Sure! To me it just means that the Atonement is the only way we can again become ONE with Christ and his Father.

It is the way to sit together with them in their thrones and all humanity has a shot at exaltation, by becoming one with our Father and the savior.

No big doctrine deal, just a spelling coincidence that kind of reminds us that the overall goal is to become ONE with the Godhead which is only possible through the atonement 

Anyway that is how I understand it 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 hours ago, webbles said:

You might want to quote the sentence before it as well:

So, you don't have to actually struggle to be without condemnation.  Saying "no" or just freezing up are non voluntary participation so the victim would have no condemnation.

I’m pretty sure the second sentence sets the terms whereby we can interpret “voluntary”. If we don’t “struggle” then it would have been better to die. I have no idea why you are even trying to defend this horrendous statement. Since we are providing context don’t forget this sentence just above: “Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained.”

That anyone can still try and defend this trash makes me want to throw up. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, Fether said:

Thanks!
 

My next question is this. Am I to accept that this statement made In the 80s is the whole of systemic shame culture on the church?

Just because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t mean it’s not endemic. Are you familiar with the BYU honor code changes recently? The ones that basically until recently punished rape victims if they came forward for honor code violations? The way the BYU PD was basically integrated with the honor code office?

Have you read articles like this:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/07/27/how-outdated-mormon-teachings-may-be-aiding-and-abetting-rape-culture/
 

Just one story:

Quote

In 2009, when a BYU student sought help from her ecclesiastical leader after a male friend threw her down on his bed, groping and assaulting her, the bishop responded in much the same way as the man in New York had.

The victim, Britt, who did not want her last name used, says she was told she no longer could participate in many church activities.

“The bishop had a whole entire drawer full of ‘The Miracle of Forgiveness,’ ” she says. “He took one out and handed it to me.”

How about Tad Callister’s recent address where called women walking pornography, and stated that in the end women get the kind of man they dress for?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng

There are a million modesty threads on this board where the faithful women talk about how damaging the churches approach to modesty is. 

 

Go read this:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/04/28/rape-and-the-miracle-of-forgiveness/amp/
 

Go Google Elizabeth Smart and chewed gum. 
 

My niece is at BYU and was hanging out with my sons recently (who are both exMormons). They were shocked when she explained that if something happened to some of the rule breaking girls (who allowed boys into their dorm room) of course it would be their fault. My sons were outraged. Where’d she get that idea?

This is pervasive in the church today. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bOObOO]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I pretty sure the second sentence sets the terms whereby we can interpret “voluntary”. If we don’t “struggle” then it would have been better to die. I have no idea why you are even trying to defend this horrendous statement. Since we are providing context don’t forget this sentence just above: “Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained.”

That anyone can still try and defend this trash makes me want to throw up. 

I am appalled that you can't see the good sense in this statement:  "There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation.  It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."

In English, someone who says means it is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it (one's virtue) without a struggle.  One's virtue is something someone should struggle to keep, rather than lose it with no struggling involved.

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sure! To me it just means that the Atonement is the only way we can again become ONE with Christ and his Father.

It is the way to sit together with them in their thrones and all humanity has a shot at exaltation, by becoming one with our Father and the savior.

No big doctrine deal, just a spelling coincidence that kind of reminds us that the overall goal is to become ONE with the Godhead which is only possible through the atonement 

Anyway that is how I understand it 

Not really a spelling coincidence. The word “atonement” is English and was created specifically for Bible translations. The spelling is pretty deliberate. I remember reading once that it was one of only a few unique theological words in English not borrowed from other languages. Not sure if that is still believed to be true though.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

I am appalled that you can't see the good sense in this statement:  "There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation.  It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."

In English, someone who says means it is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it (one's virtue) without a struggle.  One's virtue is something someone should struggle to keep, rather than lose it with no struggling involved.

Where I sit, it is better to submit to and live through a rape than getting your self killed. Not to mention many women just freeze. I know I’m feeding a troll, but your attitude is horrible and terrifying. Luckily society and humanism is pushing the church away from views like yours and towards more just and wholesome values. 

[Fether]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t mean it’s not endemic. Are you familiar with the BYU honor code changes recently? The ones that basically until recently punished rape victims if they came forward for honor code violations? The way the BYU PD was basically integrated with the honor code office?

Have you read articles like this:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/07/27/how-outdated-mormon-teachings-may-be-aiding-and-abetting-rape-culture/
 

Just one story:

How about Tad Callister’s recent address where called women walking pornography, and stated that in the end women get the kind of man they dress for?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng

There are a million modesty threads on this board where the faithful women talk about how damaging the churches approach to modesty is. 

 

Go read this:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/04/28/rape-and-the-miracle-of-forgiveness/amp/
 

Go Google Elizabeth Smart and chewed gum. 
 

My niece is at BYU and was hanging out with my sons recently (who are both exMormons). They were shocked when she explained that if something happened to some of the rule breaking girls (who allowed boys into their dorm room) of course it would be their fault. My sons were outraged. Where’d she get that idea?

This is pervasive in the church today. 

The topic we are discussing is the statement made by Teancum

On 10/19/2021 at 8:29 AM, Teancum said:

It seems there is a great deal of shame creation built into the LDS repentance system. 

I’m not saying there are not major issues within the church concerning shame. What I am saying is that the church does not propagate this, but rather the members.

[Vanguard]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My niece is at BYU and was hanging out with my sons recently (who are both exMormons). They were shocked when she explained that if something happened to some of the rule breaking girls (who allowed boys into their dorm room) of course it would be their fault. My sons were outraged. Where’d she get that idea?

This is pervasive in the church today. 

SU, could you clarify why this example is an issue? I think I'm missing something. Why wouldn't they be dealt with if they had gone against the rules by letting the opposite sex into their dorm rooms?

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

I am appalled that you can't see the good sense in this statement:  "There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation.  It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."

In English, someone who says means it is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it (one's virtue) without a struggle.  One's virtue is something someone should struggle to keep, rather than lose it with no struggling involved.

The 1950s called. They asked when you are coming back with the time machine you stole.

[bOObOO]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Where I sit, it is better to submit to and live through a rape than getting your self killed. Not to mention many women just freeze. I know I’m feeding a troll, but your attitude is horrible and terrifying. Luckily society and humanism is pushing the church away from views like yours and towards more just and wholesome values. 

Where I sit, you either don't value your virtue enough to fight for it, or you don't believe women should value their virtue enough to fight for it.  You do realize this issue is all about how much people should value their virtue, don't you?

I believe some things are worth fighting for, even if the fighting results in someone's death.  Virtue for example is something I believe is worth fighting for.  This current generation of wimps who would not fight to maintain their virtue is deplorable. 

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

I believe some things are worth fighting for, even if the fighting results in someone's death.  Virtue for example is something I believe is worth fighting for.  This current generation of wimps who would not fight to maintain their virtue is deplorable. 

I'm guessing you don't have any daughters.

I would rather have an alive daughter than a dead daughter.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Where I sit, you either don't value your virtue enough to fight for it, or you don't believe women should value their virtue enough to fight for it.  You do realize this issue is all about how much people should value their virtue, don't you?

I believe some things are worth fighting for, even if the fighting results in someone's death.  Virtue for example is something I believe is worth fighting for.  This current generation of wimps who would not fight to maintain their virtue is deplorable. 

Virtue and chastity are not things that someone can take from you.  They are not something you can give.  They are not like a stick of gum.  They are not things that once lost can never to return.  They are not things. Neither are they equivalent to virginity.    You haven't lost either of these virtues if you freeze in fear and are a victim of a heinous act. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by pogi

[bOObOO]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm guessing you don't have any daughters.

I would rather have an alive daughter than a dead daughter.

I have one daughter, a DIL, and if some fool ever determined to try to rape her I like to think she would resist even if resisting and fighting off her attacker led to her death, than to think she just laid down and took it without any resistance whatsoever.

Fighting to preserve our virtue, or someone else's virtue, is probably the best way I can think of to die.  Better than just rotting away with old age at least.