I learned in church today

[Pheidippides]

Oh, I forgot the other thing. Not only is the strike zone off limits for others to touch, you can't touch it either. That's what they said. So no touching anything below your shoulders or above your knees.

[Goatnapper'96]

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.

I don't blame them for basking in the limelight after all the years of asskissing and deep questions from the masses who await with bended knee and baited breath at every stake conference adult session they attend. I think there are very few human beings who can endure that type of obsequious treatment without really beginning to believe they trully are God's spokesperson.

Certainly, them falling prey to their vainful pride is not their best demonstrations of Christlike virtue, but this is why it is recommended not to go into titty bars as the temptation might be just too much for us to not look twice and no longer be an Elder.

I agree Elder McConkie's book indicates aspects of prideful love of his role in the LDS Church as God's spokesman. I also believe he really thought the bood would help some people to clarify their belief system and I think most of his intentions were pure.

[NorthwestUteFan]

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.

This is why I say it was damaging. The fact that he wrote a book containing a fair amount of crap (along with a lot of good stuff) is not a problem. The problem was the book was believed to be the de facto 'final word' on beliefs, when in fact it should have been just a book written by a member of the member of the 1Q of Seventy (later in the Twelve).

Further, I disagree it is true 'statement of beliefs' of the time it was written (1958?). The very fact that the then-current prophet and Twelve had issues with it supports my claim. How ironic is it that the initial book would have been far better had it been submitted for 'correlation' by the Brethren? The Second Edition (1966) had most of the errors corrected.

You are quite correct about BRM himself. He was a wonderful person, doing his very best to do what was right and proper. He just made a certain number of errors which, taken as a whole (and as FMCoug stated, through the power of titling the book, 'Mormon Doctine') have served to deeply entrench certain erroneous beliefs in the minds of many members for over half a century (including restating Brigham Young's 'blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence' mantra).

BRM did kinda, sorta 'apologize' a while before he died for fighting against giving the Priesthood to every worthy male through most of the 60s and 70s, so I guess he had that going for him.

[Portland Ute]

Oh, I forgot the other thing. Not only is the strike zone off limits for others to touch, you can't touch it either. That's what they said. So no touching anything below your shoulders or above your knees.

That's going to make for some awfully smelly young women.

Gross.

[Moliere]

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.

He wasn't an apostle when he wrote it but same difference right?

[Portland Ute]

This is why I say it was damaging. The fact that he wrote a book containing a fair amount of crap (along with a lot of good stuff) is not a problem. The problem was the book was believed to be the de facto 'final word' on beliefs, when in fact it should have been just a book written by a member of the member of the 1Q of Seventy (later in the Twelve).

Further, I disagree it is true 'statement of beliefs' of the time it was written (1958?). The very fact that the then-current prophet and Twelve had issues with it supports my claim. How ironic is it that the initial book would have been far better had it been submitted for 'correlation' by the Brethren? The Second Edition (1966) had most of the errors corrected.

You are quite correct about BRM himself. He was a wonderful person, doing his very best to do what was right and proper. He just made a certain number of errors which, taken as a whole (and as FMCoug stated, through the power of titling the book, 'Mormon Doctine') have served to deeply entrench certain erroneous beliefs in the minds of many members for over half a century (including restating Brigham Young's 'blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence' mantra).

BRM did kinda, sorta 'apologize' a while before he died for fighting against giving the Priesthood to every worthy male through most of the 60s and 70s, so I guess he had that going for him.

Even if the book was a statement of beliefs of the time, BRM took those beliefs (allegedly widespread according to Goat) and distilled and codified those ideas under a very presumptious title and did so on his way to becoming a member of the Quorum of the 12...an apostle.

In essence, he rubber stamped the craziness. (Against the wishes of the Prophet at the time, no less.) He also put the craziness to pen. It's very difficult to walk back ideas and beliefs when they are published. It's also very difficult to parse the words of an LDS apostle as just his opinion when speaking to those outside of the LDS church.

[Pheidippides]

That's going to make for some awfully smelly young women.

Gross.

My wife has (no joke) already sent an email asking how that advice squares with breast self exams and feminine hygiene products, among other things. She's not a fan of it.

That was only one of two things that happened yesterday. The other one is that I shocked my sunday school class by saying that not only did I not consider the chapter headings to be authoritative, but that I disagree with them in a bunch of places too.

[Pheidippides]

He wasn't an apostle when he wrote it but same difference right?

He wasn't. But he was the SIL of an Apostle (later prophet) and in the seventy, as I recall.

[UtahDan]

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.

No one can say that it hasn't proven entertaining. My view of MoDoc is a lot softer than it used to be. On the one hand, you can't read Prince's DOM bio (or really a lot of things McConkie said or wrote) without getting a very strong feel for his abundance of confidence and sometimes his lack of regard for others. And I have also heard the quote that whichever apostles who were called upon to review it found 1000 errors. But to me that begs the question, errors against what standard? My guess is that a huge number of those errors represent things that were not "wrong" but were simply beyond what was accepted and shouldn't have been stated authoritatively.

But this leads into why a book like that was written in the first place and why its appeal, even now, is massive. Leaders like BRM, JFS and BKP, love them or hate them, were/are willing to call balls and strikes. They were willing to make doctrinal pronouncements. That has now become incredibly rare. In fact, the messages have become much more universal and when more specific things are addressed they are sometimes so heavily qualified that it is not easy to put your finger on what the doctrine is. The closest you get to an real effort to define doctrine is found in the lesson manuals and as shown in this thread it can be really tricky to nail down what doctrine is and so there is a penchant for leaving many things very broad. I'm not saying good or bad to that, I'm just saying that this the atmosphere that creates the desire for something like a book called Mormon Doctrine. It explains its appeal.

The other thing I have said before is that placed in the context of Nate Oman's excellent theory of how doctrine is made (basically that it is similar to the law, that as to any particular issue you take everything that has already been said and the explanation that best harmonizes existing authority with existing facts will become doctrine), MoDoc actually has created a great deal of doctrine because parts of it are persuasive. They have permeated the collective consciousness because they make sense. Other parts obviously have been rejected. But it is hard to argue that this incredibly ambitious work is not among the most influential (and maybe is THE most influential) non-canonical work in Mormondom.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The Stake President gave a boilerplate talk claiming, among other things, that there are great horrors awaiting those who become inactive. These things include alcoholism, drug abuse, loose sexual standards and STDs, crime, etc. He gave several examples of people who fell into 'sin and debauchery' by leaving the church.

He went on to claim it is our responsibility as members to avoid leaving the church lest we fall into these traps of the Devil. And we as parents are required to force our kids to remain faithful for the duration of their lives to avoid the same fate.

I thank God daily that the church is around to save the world from Mormons who, without the church, would otherwise do horrible things to others.

Whatever happened to valuing 'free agency'? Are we not taught to search out an answer, study it in our minds, make a decision, then pray to know if that choice is correct? If so, didn't God give Man a brain to make such decisions? And if Man has a God-given brain, and is taught to make choices, then why are we subsequently told that if we become inactive in church that ALL of the bad things in life will happen to us?

I believe we should preach compassion for those who leave the church, and NOT shun them. Sometimes it just doesn't 'work out'. Sometimes people believe the gospel is simply different from the teachings of the church. And some members are wrong to believe that people ONLY leave the church because of some personal moral failing or desire to sin. I don't know why the SP would in effect preach precisely this faulty line of logic.

[Green Monstah]

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.

Lol.

Been there, done that.

If it's the Hafer Rd. Bldg, although it is in a slightly ghetto area, the Stake Center is nestled in a fairly safe area.

There was an 18-month period where I loved dances (from age 14 to 15.5), but afer that, their appeal diminishes significantly.

[Green Monstah]

Oh, I forgot the other thing. Not only is the strike zone off limits for others to touch, you can't touch it either. That's what they said. So no touching anything below your shoulders or above your knees.

This makes me sad for the lady making these rules. Think about how much self-loathing you must have if you feel it necessary to tell a bunch of young women not to touch their legs or stomach simply because this poor woman had an MB "issue" and thinks is akin to fornicating with her self.

[Pheidippides]

This makes me sad for the lady making these rules. Think about how much self-loathing you must have if you feel it necessary to tell a bunch of young women not to touch their legs or stomach simply because this poor woman had an MB "issue" and thinks is akin to fornicating with her self.

Apparently the teacher was simply quoting the stake leadership. Fwiw. I agree with your point, though - this type of thinking could lead to self-conscious worry, lack of self esteem, reduced dating opportunities and frigidity. My wife is unhappy that she observed similar standards as a youth and thinks they had a negative effect.

Romantic interaction is a continuum and is somewhat acquired behavior. Just like I don't think it's appropriate for 14 year olds to start having sex, I don't think it's appropriate for 18 year olds to not know how to have a good make out session. Or something like that.

[Moliere]

Lol.

Been there, done that.

If it's the Hafer Rd. Bldg, although it is in a slightly ghetto area, the Stake Center is nestled in a fairly safe area.

There was an 18-month period where I loved dances (from age 14 to 15.5), but afer that, their appeal diminishes significantly.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

The Stake President gave a boilerplate talk claiming, among other things, that there are great horrors awaiting those who become inactive. These things include alcoholism, drug abuse, loose sexual standards and STDs, crime, etc. He gave several examples of people who fell into 'sin and debauchery' by leaving the church.

This reminds me of an experience that I had with a close friend several years ago. Before knowing her, my friend, who was raised LDS but not active at the time, had been in a Salt Lake City club, and had some ass hat put something, a LOT of something, in her drink. She ended up unconscious on the club floor, rushed to the hospital and ended up spending a week in a coma, and several months in the hospital. When I met her several years later, she still had some lingering heart issues.

So, in my time of knowing her and in no effort of my own, she decides that she would like to start attending church again. She meets with her bishop and begins the formal repentance process from several years of "worldly living" and is starting to gain a little bit of confidence in her relationship with her and the church. I get a call from her in hysterics one day telling me that she tried, but that she was done. After getting a few more of the details from her, the bishop had apparently asked if she would be willing to do a fireside with the youth. When she asked what the topic was, he essentially told her that he'd like her to present to the youth all of the health issues that she's had due to the poor decision she had made in being in that club.

However well intentioned, wow. Just wow.