I learned in church today

[NorthwestUteFan]

Note they go to great lengths to show that quote comes from the SECOND edition of the book (1966). My mom has a first edition before all of the corrections, and it was of course quite belligerent against the Catholic church (despite having zero doctrinal support).

IIRC, David O. McKay was very upset that BRM published the book and established a commission to review it. The commission found over 1000 errors. BRM and JFS obviously wrote that entire book from within their own personal echo chamber, and the church is worse off for it. I have to wonder if that led to the rise of the ETB and John Birch political branch of Mormonism.

[Paperback Writer]

I learned in church yesterday that they are teaching the YW that everything from their shoulders to their knees is the strike zone an they are not to let anybody ever touch them anywhere in the strike zone when dating. Not the back, not the shoulder, not the thigh, nowhere. Had this rule been strictly followed the girls I knew growing up, I'm pretty sure I would have married outside of the faith.

Should make slow dances interesting at the next stake dance.

[Pheidippides]

Should make slow dances interesting at the next stake dance.

My wife's quote exactly. Since I am going to be one of the chaperones, I think the strike zone will be greatly shrunk that evening.

[DrumNFeather]

My wife's quote exactly. Since I am going to be one of the chaperones, I think the strike zone will be greatly shrunk that evening.

That'll show 'em!

[Pheidippides]

That'll show 'em!

Indeed. As long as the youth stay mostly clothed, I'm not going to say anything.

Side note: does anybody else thing that church dances are an anachronism? They were never great when I was a youth either - mostly I just met my girlfriend there and if people had problems with our PDA we went somewhere else - but nowadays it seems like dating, to the extent it's done at all, is far different than when we were 16.

[Goatnapper'96]

Note they go to great lengths to show that quote comes from the SECOND edition of the book (1966). My mom has a first edition before all of the corrections, and it was of course quite belligerent against the Catholic church (despite having zero doctrinal support).

IIRC, David O. McKay was very upset that BRM published the book and established a commission to review it. The commission found over 1000 errors. BRM and JFS obviously wrote that entire book from within their own personal echo chamber, and the church is worse off for it. I have to wonder if that led to the rise of the ETB and John Birch political branch of Mormonism.

I disagree with this. The Church is never worse off if people have the liberty to write their own batshit crazy ideas. The issue, is the fact that the book has such widespread acceptance as doctrine, or at least did.

I sometimes think in our efforts to be so tolerant and open minded we might forget that while Elder McConkie's insight doesn't reflect mine, and I am assuming yours, he still has the right to an opinion. Further it is so much easier to pile on these anachronistic old farts 50 years after the fact to further solidify our own totally nipple hardening open mindedness. Elder McConkie is likely a lot like the rest of us, doing the best he can with the information he has at the time. He, you, I and the LDS Church are but an asymptote.

I think Mormon Doctrine gets more blame for being the cause when it was more an indicator. I think Elder McConkie took prevalent LDS culture/beliefs/doctrines/governing practices/(whatever else other word mormon apologists of today will use that tries to draw some sexy distinction between what he believed and what we want to claim he should have believed) and put it together the best he could. While the history indicates there was not unanimous acceptance of his book it is obvious that there was, at a minimum, widespread acceptance. My logic is because it probably resonated with what folks already believed. IMO, there was nothing really revolutionary in what Elder McConkie wrote. Hence, I don't accept that it was the cause of Mormons hating communists or the growth of JBS. The book was a reflection of that sentiment throughout Mormonia, specifically, and the US generally.

If Elder McConkie wants to apologize for himself, God Bless him. But I sometimes get tired of Mormons doing it for him. Not saying you are doing that amigo so don't take it personally. I have already hurt pelligrino's feelings......

[FMCoug]

I disagree with this. The Church is never worse off if people have the liberty to write their own batshit crazy ideas. The issue, is the fact that the book has such widespread acceptance as doctrine, or at least did.

I sometimes think in our efforts to be so tolerant and open minded we might forget that while Elder McConkie's insight doesn't reflect mine, and I am assuming yours, he still has the right to an opinion. Further it is so much easier to pile on these anachronistic old farts 50 years after the fact to further solidify our own totally nipple hardening open mindedness. Elder McConkie is likely a lot like the rest of us, doing the best he can with the information he has at the time. He, you, I and the LDS Church are but an asymptote.

I think Mormon Doctrine gets more blame for being the cause when it was more an indicator. I think Elder McConkie took prevalent LDS culture/beliefs/doctrines/governing practices/(whatever else other word mormon apologists of today will use that tries to draw some sexy distinction between what he believed and what we want to claim he should have believed) and put it together the best he could. While the history indicates there was not unanimous acceptance of his book it is obvious that there was, at a minimum, widespread acceptance. My logic is because it probably resonated with what folks already believed. IMO, there was nothing really revolutionary in what Elder McConkie wrote. Hence, I don't accept that it was the cause of Mormons hating communists or the growth of JBS. The book was a reflection of that sentiment throughout Mormonia, specifically, and the US generally.

If Elder McConkie wants to apologize for himself, God Bless him. But I sometimes get tired of Mormons doing it for him. Not saying you are doing that amigo so don't take it personally. I have already hurt pelligrino's feelings......

The entire problem can be summed up in the title of the book IMO. A book with that title, written by an Apostle, was bound to become de facto canon to a whole lot of Mormons ...

[Jacob]

Indeed. As long as the youth stay mostly clothed, I'm not going to say anything.

Side note: does anybody else thing that church dances are an anachronism? They were never great when I was a youth either - mostly I just met my girlfriend there and if people had problems with our PDA we went somewhere else - but nowadays it seems like dating, to the extent it's done at all, is far different than when we were 16.

I don't know if they are or not. Every community is different. The dances were great when I was that age. We had great turnout and even some non-members would go with us. This was not in Utah.

I happened by one a year ago in Farmington, UT and there were over 500 kids there. Seemed like a good time.

I'm sure that the further away from Utah you get, the less likely you are to have them very often because there aren't enough members in a close area.

[Goatnapper'96]

The entire problem can be summed up in the title of the book IMO. A book with that title, written by an Apostle, was bound to become de facto canon to a whole lot of Mormons ...

It was a pretty arrogant title.

[Pheidippides]

I don't know if they are or not. Every community is different. The dances were great when I was that age. We had great turnout and even some non-members would go with us. This was not in Utah.

I happened by one a year ago in Farmington, UT and there were over 500 kids there. Seemed like a good time.

I'm sure that the further away from Utah you get, the less likely you are to have them very often because there aren't enough members in a close area.

I think you may be part right and part wrong. This is my first experience with dances outside of Utah, so that may be a factor. However, we have a relatively small geographic area to cover (Houston) so distance isn't a concern. What is a concern is that they are doing it at a church in a totally unsafe ghetto neighborhood that I would personally not want my children to go to. In fact, I am going as a chaperone because my wife - the one involved with the youth - does not feel comfortable going there after dark without male companionship.

[Moliere]

The entire problem can be summed up in the title of the book IMO. A book with that title, written by an Apostle, was bound to become de facto canon to a whole lot of Mormons ...

Yep, 'napper's post is good except for the fact that BRM's views were issued more as a doctrinal statement than just his own personal views. It's a much bigger issue when a GA starts promoting his own views as church doctrine than having Brother Johnson expressing his views in his ward GD class.

[Goatnapper'96]

I think you may be part right and part wrong. This is my first experience with dances outside of Utah, so that may be a factor. However, we have a relatively small geographic area to cover (Houston) so distance isn't a concern. What is a concern is that they are doing it at a church in a totally unsafe ghetto neighborhood that I would personally not want my children to go to. In fact, I am going as a chaperone because my wife - the one involved with the youth - does not feel comfortable going there after dark without male companionship.

Word on the street is that even the neighborhoods in Murray and Draper are getting violent. Please for the love of all that is holy, do not forget to carry your concealed weapon with you. I know the topic of your posts are more based upon the concealed guns of the young men, but as a barister and former rural Utahn you can distinguish the difference between your weapon and gun. Take both with as the combination makes for happy and protected womenfolk!

[Flystripper]

The entire problem can be summed up in the title of the book IMO. A book with that title, written by an Apostle, was bound to become de facto canon to a whole lot of Mormons ...

I treated it as basically cannon for a long time. It is written by an apostle and titled Mormon Doctrine...duh. All that said though, most of the book is just fine. He only went crazy on a few topics.

[Jacob]

I treated it as basically cannon for a long time. It is written by an apostle and titled Mormon Doctrine...duh. All that said though, most of the book is just fine. He only went crazy on a few topics.

Not only the title, but the book is the most quoted in correlated manuals, I believe.

[Portland Ute]

Book of Mormon Lesson 4
http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon...pirit?lang=eng

My thoughts, of course, are paraphrases from the manual and the class I attended.

Damn. I wish I had been in class yesterday instead of doing financial clerk "stuff."

I always follow along with the teacher's manual when I am in class.

This would have been great fun.