Article Re: Mental Health of Latter-day Saints

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I really like this post and yet at the same time it was a big part of me that really would benefit from hearing somebody officially state that the church no longer recognizes “The Miracle” book as the authority on sin. 

I think the merits of The Miracle of Forgiveness are not an all-or-nothing sort of matter.  Much of its content is great, while some parts are - as discussed here - quite problematic.  And the problematic elements are not, AFAICS, being propagated.

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s ironic that we are talking about a book about forgiveness because my understanding and experience is that forgiveness requires accountability.

Yes, that is so.  But accountability by whom?  And to whom?

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

There are things about church that have scrambled. My brains, and I have had to do some work to unscramble those things. I do hold the church accountable.

I don't understand.  Is it your understanding that part of Person A forgiving Person B is that Person A first holds Person B "accountable" for the misconduct?  I have always thought that the "accountability" thing was a matter for the transgressor to address.

Also, I don't understand what "hold the church accountable" means in the context of forgiveness.  Isn't forgiveness an individualized thing?  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  (AoF 1:2.)  

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I have to do my own work to reconcile the church’s part in that scrambling.

Okay. 

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It would have been nice and healing and an efficiency in my journey to hear church leaders, both locally and globally acknowledge missteps. I will not get that.

We are coming up on the tenth anniversary of these remarks by then-President Uchtdorf of the First Presidency:

Quote

Mistakes of Imperfect People

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.

It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed.

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

This is not, in your view, an acknowledgment of mistakes?

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m still here, but only because I’ve done the work alone. 

I am glad to hear that you are "still here."  But I wonder if you really have "done the work alone."  In Moroni 6:4, we read: "And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith."  But for the spiritual convictions and experiences in my heart and mind, I don't know that I would still be a member.  Ours is a pretty high-demand religion, after all.  But those convictions and experiences are there, and parts of that include forgiveness, sustaining (imperfect) leaders, and persevering despite our individual and collective flaws.

Much of what we experience in the Church is wonderful, but on occasion we receive negative treatment or behavior by our fellows.  And sometimes we are the ones doling out that mistreatment.  In the end, though, we are all in this together.  Forgiveness is, I think, key to us being able to keep moving foward.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

My friend and I were recently discussing this book.  She had read it years ago in college.  I've only read parts of it. Her husband also read it completely when he was younger.  My and her feelings about the book are there were some good things in there but some problematic stuff too (and some stuff that's just horrible, like his words about rape and virtue).  Her husband (who has a different personality than her and I) really liked the book when he read it as a 20 something and believes that the stern tone helped him a lot.

Different stuff helps different people I guess.  For me, the problem was that some bishops used to assign this book to everyone as a part of the repentance process even though it's clearly not a useful book for everyone.  And can/had caused some people harm.

I'm glad it's sunsetting.  And I do wish that the church was more forthright in acknowledging the potential for harm that some applications of the book could/did have.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

The big complaint against Pres. Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness is that it was too strident and condemnatory.  And in a few entries, it was - particularly by contemporary standards.  In later years even Pres. Kimball seemed to have recognized this, as according to his son (and neighbor), he "later seemed to wish he had adopted a gentler tone."

It is a shame President Kimball didn’t have a platform with which to disseminate that corrective more widely and he was only able to tell a few people close to him. Real shame.

So we ought not only condemn Pres. Kimball for his errors, but also for his failure to sufficiently publicly retract them?  If we could harness faultfinding and convert it into kinetic energy, we'd have a perpetual motion machine.  It's endless.

Until, of course, we stop and listen to what the Lord has told us.  The sins of Spencer W. Kimball, who died 38 years ago, are between him and the Lord.  Our responsibility, meanwhile, is pretty clearcut: "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  (D&C 64:10.)

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the merits of The Miracle of Forgiveness are not an all-or-nothing sort of matter.  Much of its content is great, while some parts are - as discussed here - quite problematic.  And the problematic elements are not, AFAICS, being propagated.

Yes, that is so.  But accountability by whom?  And to whom?

I don't understand.  Is it your understanding that part of Person A forgiving Person B is that Person A first holds Person B "accountable" for the misconduct?  I have always thought that the "accountability" thing was a matter for the transgressor to address.

Also, I don't understand what "hold the church accountable" means in the context of forgiveness.  Isn't forgiveness an individualized thing?  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  (AoF 1:2.)  

Okay. 

We are coming up on the tenth anniversary of these remarks by then-President Uchtdorf of the First Presidency:

This is not, in your view, an acknowledgment of mistakes?

I am glad to hear that you are "still here."  But I wonder if you really have "done the work alone."  In Moroni 6:4, we read: "And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith."  But for the spiritual convictions and experiences in my heart and mind, I don't know that I would still be a member.  Ours is a pretty high-demand religion, after all.  But those convictions and experiences are there, and parts of that include forgiveness, sustaining (imperfect) leaders, and persevering despite our individual and collective flaws.

Much of what we experience in the Church is wonderful, but on occasion we receive negative treatment or behavior by our fellows.  And sometimes we are the ones doling out that mistreatment.  In the end, though, we are all in this together.  Forgiveness is, I think, key to us being able to keep moving foward.

Thanks,

-Smac

I won't speak for MS but to me, a catch all "mistakes were made" admittance is not the same thing as acknowledgement of specific missteps or misapplications by church leaders.  I also think that we need to stop the idea that the church is not also accountable for things done in its name and by its leaders, but that only those specific leaders are accountable for their actions. 

Especially when we are talking about actions that the church upheld and essentially sanctioned for years or decades.

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's not a matter of convenience.  It's a matter of pragmatism.  And forgiveness. 

The big complaint against Pres. Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness is that it was too strident and condemnatory.  And in a few entries, it was - particularly by contemporary standards.  In later years even Pres. Kimball seemed to have recognized this, as according to his son (and neighbor), he "later seemed to wish he had adopted a gentler tone."

It is pragmatic and reasonable to forgive people from past generations for their errors.  They are dead, after all.  Moreover, often such errors are manifest in a "looking back in hindsight" kind of way.  Forgiveness is the better way because it allows us to set aside anger and bitterness, and helps us avoid the risks of presentism, and helps us avoid hypocrisy, and so on.

That is not to say that we ignore the mistakes of those who have gone before.  The answer, I think, is in Mormon 9:31: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

I think we ought to neither condemn nor forget.  Instead, we should - as exhorted by Moroni - look at mistakes of the past and "learn to be more wise" than our predecessors (and perhaps also "give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto {us their} imperfections").

That seems a bit much.

And I can't help but wonder if you have a latent expectation/requirement for perfection here.  If you have it in you to forgive John Q. Public for his putative trespasses against you, why not "a high level apostle, then church president"?

Yes, that is what I am proposing.  Better that than allow resentments and animosity to fester in our souls in perpetuity.

Prophets and apostles also get so much right. 

One of the biggest downsides to faultfinding (and harboring resentments) is the tendency to measure a person by their faults and weaknesses, with little or no concomitant regard for their virtues and strengths.  Back in January I made a few comments along these lines.  Some excerpts:

I wrote this in response to a purported Latter-day Saint.  It is my understanding that you are a nominal, but currently unbelieving, member.  I therefore share this and hope you can find at least some of it worth your consideration.

I'm not running away from it, nor am I recommending that to others.

I am, instead, proposing that we A) forgive our predecessors, B) learn from their errors, and C) give thanks to God that He has allowed us to see such things, and in so doing become more wise than past generations have been.

This is not a fair or accurate characterization of "how the church works," or of what I have said.

Hopefully, our errors will be set aside.  And forgiven by future generations.

I respectfully disagree.  The sum total of the life of Spencer W. Kimball cannot reasonably be reduced to some harsh rhetoric he included in a book.  He was much more than that, and did so much more than that.  To characterize him and his fellows as "totally unreliable" is to overstate their flaws.  By a country mile.

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe he felt pressed to write what he did. I read his autobiography and know the struggles he had when called as a prophet of feeling inadequate and I do have the connection of my husband spending time with him on his mission, and a photo too. So I do have tender feelings, especially for his wife Camilla! 

[smac97]

Just now, bluebell said:

I won't speak for MS but to me, a catch all "mistakes were made" admittance is not the same thing as acknowledgement of specific missteps or misapplications by church leaders. 

I am curious as to which "specific missteps or misapplications by church leaders" will require "specific" public acknowledgment.  I can't help but thing that this would likely devolve into an endless series of navel-gazing apologies, followed by shifting of goalposts.  Specific acknowledgments would not be specific enough, or would not be sufficient penitent, or whatever.

Just now, bluebell said:

I also think that we need to stop the idea that the church is not also accountable for things done in its name and by its leaders, but that only those specific leaders are accountable for their actions.  Especially when we are talking about actions that the church upheld and essentially sanctioned for years or decades.

Could you elaborate?  I'm a bit leery of "collective guilt" sorts of things, particularly in the context of collective apologies.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So we ought not only condemn Pres. Kimball for his errors, but also for his failure to sufficiently publicly retract them?  If we could harness faultfinding and convert it into kinetic energy, we'd have a perpetual motion machine.  It's endless.

Until, of course, we stop and listen to what the Lord has told us.  The sins of Spencer W. Kimball, who died 38 years ago, are between him and the Lord.  Our responsibility, meanwhile, is pretty clearcut: "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  (D&C 64:10.)

Thanks,

-Smac

If you run over someone with your car, you are still liable to help them recover, regardless of their forgiveness of you and your lack of intent to harm. 

SWK's book, which was endorsed by the church and used by its leaders, has caused some harm.  The liability to help people recover from that harm exists despite his lack of condemnation, regardless if he has sinned or needs to be forgiven (or has been forgiven), and even without him personally being here to lead the recovery efforts.

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe he felt pressed to write what he did. I read his autobiography and know the struggles he had when called as a prophet of feeling inadequate and I do have the connection of my husband spending time with him on his mission, and a photo too. So I do have tender feelings, especially for his wife Camilla! 

My wife's family has a story about Pres. Kimball when he was a stake president in Arizona.  Her great-grandfather, then a counselor in a ward bishopric, was involved in a serious dispute with the other counselor (IIRC, the issue was a property or business concern).  Her great-grandfather ("GGF") was so affronted that he was on the cusp of leaving the Church.  The stake president, Spencer W. Kimball, invited GGF to the church building, where they had a private conversation.  GGF emerged from the meeting and apparently never told another soul what (Stake) President Kimball had said.  However, it was apparently effective enough to A) immediately resolve the dispute GGF had with the other bishopric counselor, and B) induce GGF to become even more devoted to the Restored Gospel (as demonstrated by still more family stories that are too long to relate here).

I suspect there are many folks who will, on the other side, attest to the good works and efforts of Spencer W. Kimball.  He, like all of us, made mistakes.  He, like all of us, needed repentance and forgiveness.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you run over someone with your car, you are still liable to help them recover, regardless of their forgiveness of you and your lack of intent to harm. 

In a legal sense, sure.

But I am not obligated to apologize to a bystander who heard about the accident and became upset by it.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

SWK's book, which was endorsed by the church and used by its leaders, has caused some harm.

Not in a legal sense.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The liability to help people recover from that harm exists

But that "liability" is not sufficiently addressed by Pres. Uchtdorf's decade-old acknowledgement?  Why?

This seems like a recipe for navel-gazing (endless apologies) and goalpost-shifting (endless declarations that such apologies are insufficient).

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I am curious as to which "specific missteps or misapplications by church leaders" will require "specific" public acknowledgment.  I can't help but thing that this would likely devolve into an endless series of navel-gazing apologies, followed by shifting of goalposts.  Specific acknowledgments would not be specific enough, or would not be sufficient penitent, or whatever.

Could you elaborate?  I'm a bit leery of "collective guilt" sorts of things, particularly in the context of collective apologies.

Thanks,

-Smac

When you've accidentally hurt one of your kids, or your wife, or a friend, and they bring it up later, is it hard to help them heal?  Does it devolve into an endless series of navel-gazing apologies, followed by the shifting of goalposts?  Do you require that they provide specific missteps and specific harms so you can judge if you are accountable or not?  Do you outline how your sins are between you and the Lord and they need to forgive you and not be hurt and let it go?

If it's something that your wife did that accidentally hurt a child, that you supported because you didn't realize it caused hurt, and your child comes to you to express that hurt, do you respond with how leery you are of "collective guilt" and tell them that you don't believe collective apologies are helpful or necessary?

I'm guessing you don't do any of that, because, while we can make this topic obtuse, it's not in and of itself an obtuse topic.  It's pretty basic.  We all understand the basic application of accountability for harms we cause.

I'm not sure why elaboration is needed. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In a legal sense, sure.

But I am not obligated to apologize to a bystander who heard about the accident and became upset by it.

Not in a legal sense.

But that "liability" is not sufficiently addressed by Pres. Uchtdorf's decade-old acknowledgement?  Why?

This seems like a recipe for navel-gazing (endless apologies) and goalpost-shifting (endless declarations that such apologies are insufficient).

Thanks,

-Smac

1). I'm not sure where the idea came from, but we aren't talking about legal accountability with SWK's book.  We are talking about moral accountability. 

2).  Acknowledging mistakes is different and separate from repairing mistakes. 

3).  We aren't talking about bystanders who observed harm. We are talking about people who have been harmed.

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So we ought not only condemn Pres. Kimball for his errors, but also for his failure to sufficiently publicly retract them?  If we could harness faultfinding and convert it into kinetic energy, we'd have a perpetual motion machine.  It's endless.

Until, of course, we stop and listen to what the Lord has told us.  The sins of Spencer W. Kimball, who died 38 years ago, are between him and the Lord.  Our responsibility, meanwhile, is pretty clearcut: "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  (D&C 64:10.)

Thanks,

-Smac

I didn‘t mention an apology. Just a correction.

I forgave him a long time ago. He loved his moral panics obviously since he was still worried about the necking and petting parties of the 20s half a century later. Jumping on to the gay panic train was probably just inevitable.

I don’t hold animosity over it but it did convince me that the Brethren don’t have any revelation on this issue and don’t know how to help those who struggle with it.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

I am curious as to which "specific missteps or misapplications by church leaders" will require "specific" public acknowledgment.  I can't help but thing that this would likely devolve into an endless series of navel-gazing apologies, followed by shifting of goalposts.  Specific acknowledgments would not be specific enough, or would not be sufficient penitent, or whatever.

Could you elaborate?  I'm a bit leery of "collective guilt" sorts of things, particularly in the context of collective apologies.

When you've accidentally hurt one of your kids, or your wife, or a friend, and they bring it up later, is it hard to help them heal? 

No.

But Spencer W. Kimball died 38 years ago, and Miracle of Forgiveness was published 54 years ago.  And here we are not talking about Pres. Kimball apologizing, but the Church doing so.  A call for institutional apologies (because, candidly, one will never be "enough," as the goalposts will immediately shift) in this context seems really attenuated.

And, again, such public institutional apologies will not be sufficient.  Ever.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Does it devolve into an endless series of navel-gazing apologies, followed by the shifting of goalposts?

No.

But nebulous apologies from the institutional Church would, as would endless goalpost shiftings.  I'd take that to the bank.

Just look at Pres. Uchtdorf's acknowledgment.  Ten years ago.  Not enough.  Gotta get more specific.  Gotta publicly denounce a man who has been dead for nearly four decades.  And then move on to the next "hurt."  And then the next, and then next, and the next . . . ad infinitum.  

At least our Catholic friends stopped with only one Cadaver Synod.  We as a Church would be setting up virtual equivalents of that.  Every day of the week.  And it still wouldn't be enough.  

Again, I am leery of "collective guilt" sorts of things, particularly in the context of collective apologies.  Not only are they unlikely to satiate those calling for them, they are potentially problematic from a doctrinal/moral point of view. 

Individual forgiveness is not supposed to be contingent on the transgressor's apology or remorse or whatever. 

Collective/institutional guilt is not a thing.

Apologizing to bystanders is unreasonable.

Acceding to this expectation seems like a recipe for navel-gazing (endless apologies) and goalpost-shifting (endless declarations that such apologies are insufficient).

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you require that they provide specific missteps and specific harms so you can judge if you are accountable or not? 

I would want some information, yes.  I'm not going to apologize for something I did not do.  Or for something that a family member did decades ago.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you outline how your sins are between you and the Lord and they need to forgive you and not be hurt and let it go?

If a stranger comes to me and demands that I apologize for something that a family member did decades ago, I would find that strange.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If it's something that your wife did that accidentally hurt a child, that you supported because you didn't realize it caused hurt, and your child comes to you to express that hurt, do you respond with how leery you are of "collective guilt" and tell them that you don't believe collective apologies are helpful or necessary?

The analogy is getting too attenuated.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm guessing you don't do any of that, because, while we can make this topic obtuse, it's not in and of itself an obtuse topic.  It's pretty basic. 

I respectfully disagree.  

To resist notions of collective guilt is not "obtuse."  

To resist unreasonable and attenuated demands for apologies for nebulous claims of "harm" substantially attenuated by actor and time is not "obtuse."

To anticipate such demands becoming endless (because one will not suffice) is not "obtuse."

To anticipate such endless demands being paired with endless goalpost shifting (because we're already seeing that vis-à-vis Pres. Uchtdorf's comments) is not "obtuse."

If I offend someone, it is my duty to seek their forgiveness and make amends.  In private.  A public apology for a private offense is, in my view, an apology "to be seen of men" that starts to sound pharisaical.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We all understand the basic application of accountability for harms we cause.

Again, accountability by whom?  And to whom?

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure why elaboration is needed. 

Because I don't understand your position.  And because I am not being obtuse.  But you have no obligation to elaborate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

And here we are not talking about Pres. Kimball apologizing, but the Church doing so. 

The Church distributed his book through Church Distribution and had it on its very short list outside of scriptures, manuals, and magazines of recommended to read texts until relatively recently.  Even if the Church didn’t write it or arrange for it to be written, the Church as an institution promoted it through its official channels and possibly even kept its price at cost or lower if what I was told by others who should know (longtime church booksellers) about CD books and manuals, etc is true  and because of this promotion, had many leaders personally recommend it up to relatively recent years.

I no longer have my ward librarian church catalogs so I can’t give you the year it was finally removed from the Book section; iirc it was among only 4-6 books recommended and available through Church Distribution, which meant it was among the very few books that were supposed to be in a ward library.  Articles of Faith and Jesus the Christ are the others I remember without checking) plus a dictionary was supposed to be available. No other books were supposed to be included, though some wards in my experience had some, especially older wards with leftovers from when libraries were allowed to have lots of books and members were in the habit of borrowing them.

This makes Miracle of Forgiveness part of a very small group of officially approved books, treated the same as lesson manuals and scriptures by the Church itself, as an institution, available worldwide at a very reasonable cost through the Church itself for decades.  By having it in ward libraries, it was meant to be free to read for anyone who wanted to, the same as scriptures and manuals.

This may not seem like a big deal to non librarians, but I well remember the in person lectures and the lectures in writing I got in the instructions from the Church about what we could and couldn’t keep in stock in the library or use in lessons as well as copyright cautions.  That I didn’t have to have any concerns about Miracle of Forgiveness and the other few texts as far as the Church was officially concerned was a very big thing to me.  It was a hard thing for me as a book lover to remove the books that had been part of the library for decades when I would do inventory cleanup.  There was one ward that was in one of the oldest chapels in the Church that still had a large collection when I was called.  Miracle of Forgiveness was one of five books out of over a hundred iirc that remained in the library by the time I was done.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's not a matter of convenience. 

Yes it is, This is what you and other apologists do. Just run away from things that you don't want to deal with nor hold the church and its leaders accountable. Sorry. But it does not  work that way. And is it disingenuous.  

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

It's a matter of pragmatism.  And forgiveness. 

No.  It is a matter of kicking under the rug awful teachings that so called apostles and prophets taught and running away from them.  And forgiveness has nothing to do with it really.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The big complaint against Pres. Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness is that it was too strident and condemnatory.

Yes.

 

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

  And in a few entries, it was - particularly by contemporary standards. 

Ummm far more than a "few entries." Most of the book but for the last few chapters.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

In later years even Pres. Kimball seemed to have recognized this, as according to his son (and neighbor), he "later seemed to wish he had adopted a gentler tone."

Well how nice.  I read that in his son's bio.  If he felt that way why did he not say so. But that is not what LDS leaders do. They say things, teach things, they may wish that they had not but the stay silent. Sort of like the book Mormon Doctrine and that fiasco.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is pragmatic and reasonable to forgive people from past generations for their errors.  They are dead, after all.  Moreover, often such errors are manifest in a "looking back in hindsight" kind of way. 

When you have a church that claims its leader talk to God, that they receive revelation from God, that we should follow the brethren and so on you just cannot run away from what they have taught.  So what if they are dead.  So is Moses, Isiah, Pater, Paul and so on.  But I understand why you want to do this. It is tough to try to defend the indefensible.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Forgiveness is the better way because it allows us to set aside anger and bitterness, and helps us avoid the risks of presentism, and helps us avoid hypocrisy, and so on.

So all those damaged by that awful book so just simply so "oh well" right?  And presentism has nothing to do with this.  The book is recent and in modern times.  Goodness you are working hard to brush this under the rug. Maybe this is a testimony issue for you?  Your cognitive dissonance seems pretty heavy on this issue.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

That is not to say that we ignore the mistakes of those who have gone before.  The answer, I think, is in Mormon 9:31: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

Another nice get out of jail free card.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

That seems a bit much.

As does you entire post.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And I can't help but wonder if you have a latent expectation/requirement for perfection here.

Wonder away.  My only expectation is that the LDS leaders own and are held accountable for what they teach. Because you know, it really does impact peoples lives.  But your approach is meh, whatever just move on.  But when you have a church that claims its leaders speak for God, and that the members should follow what they say, you really cannot run away from it.  Even though you seem to want to. 

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

  If you have it in you to forgive John Q. Public for his putative trespasses against you, why not "a high level apostle, then church president"?

It is not a forgiveness issue.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, that is what I am proposing.  Better that than allow resentments and animosity to fester in our souls in perpetuity.

I am quite fine these days. I understand what Kimball and others said is total BS. While it has impacted my life it no longer does because I understand that this was not from God like I once believed.  The  freedom is exhilarating.  

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Prophets and apostles also get so much right. 

Do they?  What do they get right?  And when they get things wrong, which they do, how can we know what they get right? Why are they any better than your judgement or mine?  My take is they are no better then you or me.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I respectfully disagree.  The sum total of the life of Spencer W. Kimball cannot reasonably be reduced to some harsh rhetoric he included in a book.  He was much more than that, and did so much more than that.  To characterize him and his fellows as "totally unreliable" is to overstate their flaws.  By a country mile.

Thanks,

-Smac

Kimball was the church president of my teen and early adult years.  I loved him and admired him.  In many ways I still do.  But when I look at a lot of what he said I think there was a lot of awful things.  But I still care for him.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.

But Spencer W. Kimball died 38 years ago, and Miracle of Forgiveness was published 54 years ago.  And here we are not talking about Pres. Kimball apologizing, but the Church doing so.  A call for institutional apologies (because, candidly, one will never be "enough," as the goalposts will immediately shift) in this context seems really attenuated.

And, again, such public institutional apologies will not be sufficient.  Ever.

Can you reference who in this discussion has asked for an apology?  It's a sincere question because I'm not sure who is asking for that.

Quote

Just look at Pres. Uchtdorf's acknowledgment.  Ten years ago.  Not enough.  Gotta get more specific.  Gotta publicly denounce a man who has been dead for nearly four decades.  And then move on to the next "hurt."  And then the next, and then next, and the next . . . ad infinitum.  

As I said earlier, acknowledgement is not the same thing as helping to heal.  And again, who is denouncing SWK in this discussion?  Can you provide the reference for that because I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Quote

 

Individual forgiveness is not supposed to be contingent on the transgressor's apology or remorse or whatever. 

Collective/institutional guilt is not a thing.

Apologizing to bystanders is unreasonable.

 

Agreed.  But we aren't talking about that stuff so that's all moot.

Quote

 

Again, I respectfully disagree.  

To resist notions of collective guilt is not "obtuse."  

To resist unreasonable and attenuated demands for apologies for nebulous claims of "harm" substantially attenuated by actor and time is not "obtuse."

To anticipate such demands becoming endless (because one will not suffice) is not "obtuse."

To anticipate such endless demands being paired with endless goalpost shifting (because we're already seeing that vis-à-vis Pres. Uchtdorf's comments) is not "obtuse."

 

This comes across like making up an argument in your head that doesn't exist, and then getting indignant about the fight that never happened.  When/if this became a problem then that seems like a time to deal with it. 

Quote

If I offend someone, it is my duty to seek their forgiveness and make amends.  In private.  A public apology for a private offense is, in my view, an apology "to be seen of men" that starts to sound pharisaical.

You have a duty to repair the harm, not just seek forgiveness for it.  And harm done in public should be repaired in public.

Quote

Again, accountability by whom?  And to whom?

Accountability by those who caused or allowed the harm to occur, to the harmed.

 

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is not, in your view, an acknowledgment of mistakes?

It’s noted but not enough.  It’s something of an explanation of the flawed nature of man.  But it reminds me of my best friends dad who got up in church one testimony and said “to any of you whom I have offended” ( you know the rest)- 

- does that cover the sexual abuse he was perpetrating on my friend? No.  She needed a specific statement made to her. Anything else feels yucky. 
 

I don’t need a statement from the church delivered by (any) leadership, but I would like one.  I won’t get it.  President Kimball was speaking on behalf of the Church and presumedly at the time, God.  I don’t need an apology from him personally.  

Edited July 11, 2023 by MustardSeed

[Calm]

Miracle of Forgiveness was still on the Church Distribution list in 2006 (this means the Church itself, not Deseretbook or other church owned businesses, provided members with the items and it was allowed to be stocked in ward libraries).

Two of the other books available through CD (and still are along with Jesus the Christ***) were Our Heritage and Our Search For Happiness.  I believe that short list (including Articles of Faith which I mention above) was it for most of the time I was a ward librarian. 

***https://store.churchofjesuschrist.org/usa/en/top-cat/gospel-study/study-aids/5637160381.c

Edited July 12, 2023 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

We shall heretofore refer to it as “It’ll Be a Miracle If You’re Forgiven”

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

It's not a matter of convenience. 

Yes it is, This is what you and other apologists do. Just run away from things that you don't want to deal with

And yet here I am, having a civil discussion with you.  Kinda hard to characterize this as me "run{ning} away" and "{not} wanting to deal with" the subject at hand.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

nor hold the church and its leaders accountable.

I don't know what you mean by "hold the church and its leaders accountable."

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sorry. But it does not work that way. And is it disingenuous.  

Again, here I am.  Having a discussion with you.  Not running away.

And I am telling you what I really think, so I'm not being "disingenuous," either.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

It's a matter of pragmatism.  And forgiveness. 

No.  It is a matter of kicking under the rug awful teachings that so called apostles and prophets taught and running away from them.  And forgiveness has nothing to do with it really.

I don't understand.  You would surely not prefer that the Church maintain supposedly "awful" teachings.  

You may be referencing teachings that are unpopular.  And on that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I want the Brethren to teach us what is right, not what is popular or trendy.

And forgiveness has everything to do with this.  Pres. Kimball said some intemperate things.  He used strident rhetoric that caused offense and turmoil and (emotional) injury.  And he died nearly four decades ago.  And the Church is letting Miracle of Forgiveness "sunset."  

Christ forgave far worse men and women for doing far worse things than what Pres. Kimball did.  If the Atonement applies to them, surely it must apply to him as well.  Our job, then, is to forgive, to learn, to grow.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The big complaint against Pres. Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness is that it was too strident and condemnatory.

Yes.

Quote

 And in a few entries, it was - particularly by contemporary standards. 

Ummm far more than a "few entries." Most of the book but for the last few chapters.

Well, that may be so.  From MormonWiki:

Quote

"As one reads the book, particularly the first portion, one wonders if anyone will make it to the Celestial Kingdom. However, in reading the final portion, it is apparent that, with effort, all can qualify." - Thomas Monson (On the Lord's Errand, p.342)

 

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

In later years even Pres. Kimball seemed to have recognized this, as according to his son (and neighbor), he "later seemed to wish he had adopted a gentler tone."

Well how nice.  I read that in his son's bio.  If he felt that way why did he not say so. But that is not what LDS leaders do. They say things, teach things, they may wish that they had not but the stay silent. Sort of like the book Mormon Doctrine and that fiasco.

They make mistakes, yes.  They sometimes do not publicly and specifically own up to those mistakes, yes.

They still deserve a bit of grace. 

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

It is pragmatic and reasonable to forgive people from past generations for their errors.  They are dead, after all.  Moreover, often such errors are manifest in a "looking back in hindsight" kind of way. 

When you have a church that claims its leader talk to God, that they receive revelation from God, that we should follow the brethren and so on you just cannot run away from what they have taught. 

I am not running away.  I am here, discussing these things with you.

Your remarks impliedly require that the Brethren be infallible.  That's just not a reasonable expectation.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So what if they are dead.  So is Moses, Isiah, Pater, Paul and so on. 

If they are dead, then their ability to communicate with us - to "repent" or seek our forgiveness - is gone.

We are then left with Mormon 9:31.  Our job is not to condemn, nor to ignore, but to learn and grow.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But I understand why you want to do this. It is tough to try to defend the indefensible.

I am not defending the strident language Pres. Kimball used.  I am, instead, proposing that we forgive him for it.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Forgiveness is the better way because it allows us to set aside anger and bitterness, and helps us avoid the risks of presentism, and helps us avoid hypocrisy, and so on.

So all those damaged by that awful book so just simply so "oh well" right? 

No.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And presentism has nothing to do with this. The book is recent and in modern times. 

I think it has a lot to do with this.  You are lambasting Pres. Kimball and the Church in 2023 for rhetoric he crafted five decades ago.  Society has changed a lot since then.  The Church has changed a lot since then.  And yet here you are, berating a dead man and condemning the organization that has made great strides in improving its tone and language as to sensitive and difficult issues.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Goodness you are working hard to brush this under the rug.

Brushing it under the rug by . . . talking to you about it?  Several times?

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Maybe this is a testimony issue for you? 

I don't know what that means.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Your cognitive dissonance seems pretty heavy on this issue.

Armchair psychoanalysis doesn't do much for me.

I can acknowledge that Pres. Kimball said some things in ways he later regretted.

I can also acknowledge that disciples of Jesus Christ are obligated to forgive him.

I can also acknowledge that, per Mormon 9:31, our job is not to condemn our predecessors for their errors, but rather to learn from them and gain wisdom enough to avoid repeating them.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

That is not to say that we ignore the mistakes of those who have gone before.  The answer, I think, is in Mormon 9:31: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

Another nice get out of jail free card.

Again, Pres. Kimball is dead.  What "jail" is it that you think he is in?

And more to the point: Christ atoned for all our sins.  Including President Kimball's.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

And I can't help but wonder if you have a latent expectation/requirement for perfection here.

Wonder away.  My only expectation is that the LDS leaders own and are held accountable for what they teach.

I don't know what you mean here.

My expectation and hope is that the leaders of the Church grow and improve.  And I think they have.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Because you know, it really does impact peoples lives.  But your approach is meh, whatever just move on. 

You persist in putting words in my mouth.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But when you have a church that claims its leaders speak for God, and that the members should follow what they say, you really cannot run away from it.  Even though you seem to want to. 

I am not running away.  I am here, having a discussion with you.

And again, your comments seem predicated on notions of infallibility, from which is what you seem to be running away.

If you do not expect infallibility, then all your fiery and condemnatory rhetoric fails.  Pointing to the flaws of a person who never claimed to be infallible is a waste of time.  It's a dog-bites-man story.

Conversely, if you do expect infallibility, then your fiery and condemnatory rhetoric makes sense.

With respect, I submit that your vitriol is more rooted in your presuppositions and expectations than in Pres. Kimball's book.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is not a forgiveness issue.

Yes, it is.  That's as plain as day.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Yes, that is what I am proposing.  Better that than allow resentments and animosity to fester in our souls in perpetuity.

I am quite fine these days. I understand what Kimball and others said is total BS. While it has impacted my life it no longer does because I understand that this was not from God like I once believed.  The  freedom is exhilarating.  

Okay.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Prophets and apostles also get so much right. 

Do they?

Yes.  Really.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What do they get right? 

The General Conference talks are a good place to start.  Here we are, talking about a book that was published before I was a twinkle in my father's eye, written by a man dead for nearly four decades.  Why is it that so many of the criticisms of the Brethren focus on the dead ones?  From decades or centuries back?  

We could test this, I suppose.  We could go back and cull the General Conference talks by members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for the last, say, ten years.  We could go through each one, and I could itemize what I think they are saying that they are getting "right," and you could itemize things that substantiate your claim that they are "totally unreliable."

Let's start with the April 2023 session: 

·       Gary E. Stevenson: The Greatest Easter Story Ever Told

·       Gerrit W. Gong: Ministering

·       Quentin L. Cook: Safely Gathered Home

·       Henry B. Eyring: Finding Personal Peace

·       Dale G. Renlund: Accessing God’s Power through Covenants

·       Dieter F. Uchtdorf: Jesus Christ Is the Strength of Parents

·       D. Todd Christofferson: One in Christ

·       Ulisses Soares: Followers of the Prince of Peace

·       Neil L. Andersen: My Mind Caught Hold upon This Thought of Jesus Christ

·       Russell M. Nelson: Peacemakers Needed

·       Dallin H. Oaks: The Teachings of Jesus Christ

·       M. Russell Ballard: Remember What Matters Most

·       Ronald A. Rasband: Hosanna to the Most High God

·       David A. Bednar: “Abide in Me, and I in You; Therefore Walk with Me”

·       Russell M. Nelson: The Answer Is Always Jesus Christ

Thoughts?  Are you open to such an exercise?

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And when they get things wrong, which they do, how can we know what they get right?

Through study, prayer, revelation, application, and so on.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why are they any better than your judgement or mine? My take is they are no better then you or me.

I think the question is whether Jesus Christ is better at judgment as compared to you or me.  My take is that His servants' principal mandate is to testify of Him, and I think they largely and overwhelmingly succeed at that, and that when they err, we ought to forgive them, learn from their mistakes, and carry on.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Kimball was the church president of my teen and early adult years. 

Same here.  I remember being delighted at hearing the urban legend about how George Lucas modeled Yoda after him:

Alas, it wasn't true.  And in a way it was better off being a bit of affectionate fiction.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I loved him and admired him.  In many ways I still do.  But when I look at a lot of what he said I think there was a lot of awful things.  But I still care for him.

That is good to hear.  Maybe some day you can come to forgive him as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

An interesting tidbit I came across in searching for other info (when MoF stopped being recommended/approved by the Church through CD), thought others might find it interesting as well….

In a list of the most important Mormon books published about 20 years ago:

Quote

Inspirational/Devotional. The voting on “Inspirational/Devotional” books was much closer. Believing Christ, by Stephen E. Robinson, took first place. This book received a great deal of support from BYU Religious Education. Next on the list was The Miracle of Forgiveness, by Spencer W. Kimball. BYU non-Religious Education and CES Institute instructors gave this title its greatest support. This book actually would have been in first place had all the points it received under “Inspirational/Devotional” and “Doctrine” been combined. Finishing third, fourth, and fifth were Standing for Something, by Gordon B. Hinckley; Jesus the Christ, by James E. Talmage; and A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, by LeGrand Richards. Jesus the Christ is the ubiquitous title: respondents listed it under all the nonfiction categories and ranked it fourth in “Inspirational/Devotional,” sixth in “Biography,” seventeenth in “History,” third in “Doctrine,” and second “Overall.”

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/which-are-the-most-important-mormon-books/

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet here I am, having a civil discussion with you.  Kinda hard to characterize this as me "run{ning} away" and "{not} wanting to deal with" the subject at hand.

The running away comment is not meant to say YOU are not interacting with me on the topic. Rather, your approach is sort of like "Just forget about it and forgive. Move on. Let is sunset."  But my point is men who claim to speak for God have severe impact on those who believe them. For good or ill.  I just don't think it is fair to say to so many, myself included, to just forgive and forget. See this is what is happening quite a lot IMO in the church and with those who defend it.  Let's just ignore and forget about the bad stuff prior prophets and apostles taught.  Because the church does not teach it now let's just move on.  I think that is a disingenuous approach to such things.

 

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean by "hold the church and its leaders accountable."

You don't know what it means to hold people and an organization accountable?  It means the church and its leaders need to own the bad stuff and if the MoF should sunset they should say so and say why.  But they don't.  They ignore it. Brush it under the rug, move and and frankly gaslight on things they want to move past.

 

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, here I am.  Having a discussion with you.  Not running away.

See above.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

And I am telling you what I really think, so I'm not being "disingenuous," either.

I think your approach to just let it sunset it disingenuous.  Why should we do such things when the church and its leaders just ignore things and hope they go away.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  You would surely not prefer that the Church maintain supposedly "awful" teachings.

Of course not.  But they should disavow "awful" teachings.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

  

You may be referencing teachings that are unpopular.  And on that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I want the Brethren to teach us what is right, not what is popular or trendy.

So what is right?  Do you know?  Can you tell?  Kimball's books was considered "right."  It was used EXTENSIVELY.  It was on the approved reading list when I was a missionary from 1979 to 1981.  Bishops kept the book handy and recommended it to so called sinners. So now you suggest to sunset the book but it was at one time considered right.  And what is considered right now may be wrong in the future. Such is how the church rolls really.  This is why I think the so called apostles and prophets are no better for guidance than anyone else is.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

And forgiveness has everything to do with this.  Pres. Kimball said some intemperate things.  He used strident rhetoric that caused offense and turmoil and (emotional) injury.  And he died nearly four decades ago.  And the Church is letting Miracle of Forgiveness "sunset."  

When the church disavows the book and repents of its heavy handedness then I will forgive them and him. Till then not so much. I won't hold my breath.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Christ forgave far worse men and women for doing far worse things than what Pres. Kimball did.  If the Atonement applies to them, surely it must apply to him as well.  Our job, then, is to forgive, to learn, to grow.

Honestly I don't lose much sleep over this anymore as I noted. I understand that Kimball was no more a prophet than you or me. So what? It was his opinions. As for Christ and the atonement, well ok.  Like I said when the church disavows the books and repents (meaning the church leaders) then we can talk about forgiveness. I will hold them to the same standard Kimball did me and all the other sinning heathens.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

They make mistakes, yes.  They sometimes do not publicly and specifically own up to those mistakes, yes.

They still deserve a bit of grace. 

Everyone does. But when men hold themselves out as the God's  prophets to the world their standards for being accurate on what they say and do and how it impact the lives of those who follow them, AND WHO THEY TELL TO FOLLOW THEM, is higher. Where much is given, much is expected.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not running away.  I am here, discussing these things with you.

See above.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your remarks impliedly require that the Brethren be infallible.  That's just not a reasonable expectation.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. And you are incorrect.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

If they are dead, then their ability to communicate with us - to "repent" or seek our forgiveness - is gone.

But the current leaders can repudiate the things they taught that you now simple want to sunset.  But the don't.  And won't.  As Oaks says, the church does not apologize.  And he is still alive.  What arrogance and hubris.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

We are then left with Mormon 9:31.  Our job is not to condemn, nor to ignore, but to learn and grow.

Nah that is not my job. 

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not defending the strident language Pres. Kimball used.  I am, instead, proposing that we forgive him for it.

See above.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I think it has a lot to do with this.  You are lambasting Pres. Kimball and the Church in 2023 for rhetoric he crafted five decades ago.

Yep.  Thus my comment that you just want to run away from it. 

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

  Society has changed a lot since then.  

Yes?  So what?

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

The Church has changed a lot since then. 

Oh yes it certainly has. I hardly recognize it when comparing it to the church I grew up with.  I am sure many of the dead leaders would hardly recognize it as well.  It changes.  It is not consistent. And it won't be the same 20 years from now.  Thank you for demonstrating why I think living a life based on what the LDS leaders say is an exercise in futility. You and I can find our own way as well as trying to do what they say.  They have no special insite.  None at all.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

And yet here you are, berating a dead man and condemning the organization that has made great strides in improving its tone and language as to sensitive and difficult issues.

Yes I am. Deal with it. These things harmed me. Personally. And millions of others. So you bet smac97.  I am condemning a dead man.  He deserves it. And do does the church unless they disavow these things.  The church does not deserve nor need some special grace when they make the claims they do yet change and move the goal posts on a regular basis.  The church and its leaders deserve to be called out and condemned for some things.  Take the stupid 2015 policy on gay parents and their kid. It was "revelation' and then the reversal of it was "revelation."  You can't make this crap up. What a joke really. 

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Brushing it under the rug by . . . talking to you about it?  Several times?

I hope by now you are clear on what I mean by this.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

\

Armchair psychoanalysis doesn't do much for me.

Yet you do such things on me and others ALL THE TIME here. So pardon me if I think this comment is also disingenuous.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can acknowledge that Pres. Kimball said some things in ways he later regretted.

Ok.  To bad he did not bother to repent of such things before he died. If there is a God I hope he is held accountable for the damage he caused.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can also acknowledge that disciples of Jesus Christ are obligated to forgive him.

Well currently I cannot say I am a disciple of Jesus Christ.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Again, Pres. Kimball is dead.  What "jail" is it that you think he is in?

The get out of jail free comment is in your reference to just let this sunset.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

And again, your comments seem predicated on notions of infallibility, from which is what you seem to be running away.

Nope.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

If you do not expect infallibility, then all your fiery and condemnatory rhetoric fails.  Pointing to the flaws of a person who never claimed to be infallible is a waste of time.  It's a dog-bites-man story.

As noted, those who claim special communication with God then tell us to follow them are held to a higher standard. But you and other apologists want to downplay what they say. I get it. It is tough to defend garbage. I do not expect infallibility. So you can stop putting words in my mouth like you ask me to do for you.  You and the other hand want to just dismiss the bad stuff the LDS leaders teach and have taught as fallible humans. Anything that is indefensible was just from a fallible man.  

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Conversely, if you do expect infallibility, then your fiery and condemnatory rhetoric makes sense.

Such nice hyperbole.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I submit that your vitriol is more rooted in your presuppositions and expectations than in Pres. Kimball's book.

With respect you are wrong and trying to psychoanalyze me.  So stop and practice what you preach.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

The General Conference talks are a good place to start.  Here we are, talking about a book that was published before I was a twinkle in my father's eye, written by a man dead for nearly four decades.  Why is it that so many of the criticisms of the Brethren focus on the dead ones?  From decades or centuries back?  

Why is it you want to run away from dead prophets teachings?  Were they prophets, seers and revelators or not? And the reason is because they taught a lot on nonsense. Stuff that the church does not teach now perhaps, or downplays. And then wants to gaslight us and just ignore it. Just like you are doing.  And as for you bot being around for Kimball's "Repent All Ye Heathens" book so what?  I was.  So were millions of others. What do I care that you were not around for it?  Count yourself fortunate. You grew up in a different LDS Church than I did.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

We could test this, I suppose.  We could go back and cull the General Conference talks by members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for the last, say, ten years.  We could go through each one, and I could itemize what I think they are saying that they are getting "right," and you could itemize things that substantiate your claim that they are "totally unreliable."

Let's start with the April 2023 session: 

·       Gary E. Stevenson: The Greatest Easter Story Ever Told

·       Gerrit W. Gong: Ministering

·       Quentin L. Cook: Safely Gathered Home

·       Henry B. Eyring: Finding Personal Peace

·       Dale G. Renlund: Accessing God’s Power through Covenants

·       Dieter F. Uchtdorf: Jesus Christ Is the Strength of Parents

·       D. Todd Christofferson: One in Christ

·       Ulisses Soares: Followers of the Prince of Peace

·       Neil L. Andersen: My Mind Caught Hold upon This Thought of Jesus Christ

·       Russell M. Nelson: Peacemakers Needed

·       Dallin H. Oaks: The Teachings of Jesus Christ

·       M. Russell Ballard: Remember What Matters Most

·       Ronald A. Rasband: Hosanna to the Most High God

·       David A. Bednar: “Abide in Me, and I in You; Therefore Walk with Me”

·       Russell M. Nelson: The Answer Is Always Jesus Christ

Thoughts?  Are you open to such an exercise?

Sure.  But these talks are pretty milk toast stuff.  That is what the church is teaching these days.  They don't want to have to deal with stuff like Kimball's book, or McConkie, or JFS and so on.  So let's just water it down.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Through study, prayer, revelation, application, and so on.

Yea I did that as well.  When Kimball's book condemned me and others. I thought it was from God when I did this. So this is not a reliable method IMO.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the question is whether Jesus Christ is better at judgment as compared to you or me.  My take is that His servants' principal mandate is to testify of Him, and I think they largely and overwhelmingly succeed at that, and that when they err, we ought to forgive them, learn from their mistakes, and carry on.

Same here.  I remember being delighted at hearing the urban legend about how George Lucas modeled Yoda after him:

Alas, it wasn't true.  And in a way it was better off being a bit of affectionate fiction.

That is good to hear.  Maybe some day you can come to forgive him as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[gopher]

On 7/2/2023 at 6:44 PM, Calm said:

I think you yourself though could be more careful in your criticisms so that it does not appear you are being completely dismissive of claims of influences as opposed to protesting they were the cause or even primary cause.  That is a similar inappropriate way to discuss suicide in beneficial, informative ways.  In trying to prevent one error it is not wise to commit another one. 

***https://www.lgbtmap.org/file/talking-about-suicide-and-lgbt-populations.pdf

Not sure where in our conversation you got that idea.  I thought I was agreeing with you about claims of influences even though I didn’t bring them up and they weren't the point of my comments.  The link you posted explains it well:

7. DON’T normalize suicide by presenting it as the logical consequence of the kinds of bullying, rejection, discrimination and exclusion that LGBT people often experience. Presenting suicide as the inexplicable act of an otherwise healthy LGBT person—or drawing a direct, causal link between suicide and the bullying or discrimination that LGBT people often face—can encourage at-risk individuals to identify with the victim (or the victim’s life circumstances) and increase risk of suicidal behavior.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

Not sure where in our conversation you got that idea. 

Now I got to go back and try and find what triggered the thought, lol.  I do remember I didn’t think you were being dismissive, just that it might come across that way to someone for some reason.

Edit:  found it…

Quote

 don't believe past comments of church leaders are responsible for suicides of LGBT members.  From what I've read, suicide is much more complicated than that.  Hopefully we'll continue to get a better understanding as more research is done.  I listened to an interview with a therapist this week who pointed out that the rates of suicide for LGBT youth is nearly identical to those of youth with underlying mental health challenges.  Hopefully we can find better ways of suicide prevention in the future.  I also disagree with those that have blamed suicides on social media, climate change, and Fade to Black by Metallica.  At least until there is a broad consensus among researchers that those things directly cause suicide.

While I read it as what you clarified later as they could have had influenced behaviour and you were only denying a one to one correspondence (comments were the only reason or the primary cause of suicide) because that was how I interpreted your “more complicated than that” as well as your usual commentary style, someone who is unfamiliar with you and only sees such a comment in a very limited context might read the above as dismissive of any impact due to the “don’t believe….are responsible” and the “nearly identical”.  If someone isn’t aware of what you mean by “complicated” (which I assume means has many different things that contribute to an individual becoming a risk, such as biology; home, school, church and other environments; internal and external dialogues; possible substance abuse, rather than just a few variables easily discovered), since you aren’t saying anything about what is responsible and only what isn’t, it could be read as dismissive.

Having said that, I am very cautious with this topic because I have known people—including myself who most saw as capable (I was) and fully supported for my needs (I wasn’t plus it was not a problem that could be solved, just gotten used to)—who were experiencing suicidal ideation who were hiding it or who were desperate and they felt they weren’t being taken serious as what others were saying was unintentionally adding to the heaviness of it all because they felt their pleas were dismissed or ignored and instead weight was being added to the wrong side of the scales making the impossible balancing act even more precarious.  There is a low chance imo in this context of your minimal misstep (my opinion it was a misstep, but may be wrong) having any significant negative effect.  I point this kind of stuff out as much to remind myself as others to take extra care because developing a habit of care will help most when we are presented with a crisis (though hopefully that day never comes) and our brains freeze up in the face of the immense pain you see the other carrying (also something experienced by me, my daughter’s response to my efforts to support her was “it sounds like you think this is a good thing!” because I focused on how her crisis could motivate us to change our lives for the better instead of letting her feel okay about grieving for what she had lost and just being there while she worked through being afraid of the certain pain to come that she did not believe she could endure).

added:  I think Nehor’s later implied paraphrase  was an example of how I saw your comment as being potentially misread as dismissing any relevancy of past comments to people’s experience of suicidal ideation.

Quote

Basically it is too complex so you can’t blame things church leaders have said even if they are clearly some of the primary drivers. 

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, gopher said:

Not sure where in our conversation you got that idea.  I thought I was agreeing with you about claims of influences even though I didn’t bring them up and they weren't the point of my comments.  The link you posted explains it well:

7. DON’T normalize suicide by presenting it as the logical consequence of the kinds of bullying, rejection, discrimination and exclusion that LGBT people often experience. Presenting suicide as the inexplicable act of an otherwise healthy LGBT person—or drawing a direct, causal link between suicide and the bullying or discrimination that LGBT people often face—can encourage at-risk individuals to identify with the victim (or the victim’s life circumstances) and increase risk of suicidal behavior.

How about we tackle the bullying, rejection, discrimination, and exclusion instead?

If we just don’t do anything to make them think suicide is an option they will just live lives filled with suicide level pain? I think the idea of suicide will pop up on its own.

I spoke to a young guy earlier. He realized he is queer. He now knows the love of his family is at least partially and quite possibly mostly conditional on keeping this secret. He is scared and an emotional mess. I would be surprised if he hasn’t considered suicide and I don’t think he is thinking of suicide role models. He more likely wants some escape from the whole situation. I listened and tried to give him as much hope as I could.