Why is virtue more important than our life?

[Snow]

also, one last thing.

does the miracle of forgiveness have the churches original logo on it?

for example, the church only puts their official brand on a book if they deem it entirely doctrinal.

I say that is untrue.

[Eleven]

I say that is untrue.

do you have any examples?

i most definitely could be false in my presumption, but it was something i picked up on whether im right or wrong.

reason why i gave mormon doctrine as an example is because it was literally opinion from an apostle. not that theres anything wrong with that, 95% of the mans opinion (in my opinion) was spot on with the gospel, but in the first edition of that book, he was asked to take back somethings that were a little too forward. (things that would open a can of worms in a thread meant to answer a different question.)

but a small example that wouldnt be too drastic was i guess his opinion of caffeinated drinks, though it is still in the 2nd and 3rd edition, he completely felt that they were highly against the spirit of the word of wisdom.

so if that were doctrinally true.. why are we not asked in temple recommend interviews.. why do we not teach that as missionaries? see what i mean? In a book he is allowed to give his opinion, Ive also heard a time president packer came to a sacrament meeting and the first thing he said was " this talk is based on my own experiences, opinions, and advice, i was not asked to act within the authority of an apostle during this meeting." and it was a very warm, heartfelt talk.

some may ask "why in the world would he say that or ever give a talk outside of the apostolic authority.." and the reason was he was giving advice on the importance of college.. importance of this and that.. etc.

Joseph smith also said once (hopefully im quoting this word for word, but i know the context is right) "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such."

So again, my two cents turn into ten, but the reason i bring all this up is because IF the miracle of forgiveness does not have the logo on it, the book could merely be used as a tool for the spirit, like the Apocrypha, a book heavily used by Jefferey R Holland in general conference talks that could have been in standing with the bible if it wasnt translated and changed so many times.

so though the meaning and message behind the book is that the book is intended to make the reader feel grief for sin and hope for redemption in the most extreme ways, his opinions may be traced in the book that to him personally, some sin may be more serious than others, or that you must take some things literal and some not.

that is his LENS of the subject. we have ours. his lens i believe is definitely more clear than ours, but that doesnt mean its perfect, and the only time he is to be speaking a perfect message is when he is standing in his office as an apostle, where every word that comes out of his mouth or on paper is prayed about and confirmed by the spirit inwardly in his heart, and outwardly with the rest of the twelve. No one is perfect in understanding, and i believe if they were, God would translate them to heaven.

its a very controversial conversation and my intention of the post was not to convert everyone to the ways and thoughts of my own, some things we just dont know.

please bare in mind i am not deeming my post as doctrine either, we're all here putting drops in a bucket of experience and opinion, i am openly subjecting myself to correction.

[Snow]

do you have any examples?

Any examples? You made the claim. You ought to back up your own claim.

Let me ask you a question - why do you suppose that the Church would have the practice of placing a logo on publications that it approved of as accurate but then not tell anybody what the logo placement meant?

reason why i gave mormon doctrine as an example is because it was literally opinion from an apostle. not that theres anything wrong with that, 95% of the mans opinion (in my opinion) was spot on with the gospel, but in the first edition of that book, he was asked to take back somethings that were a little too forward. (things that would open a can of worms in a thread meant to answer a different question.)

The problem wasn't that some things were a little too forward - the problem was that some things were erroneous and offensive,

By the way, my set of new scriptures does not bear any logo of the Church. Do you suppose that means the Church doesn't officially approve them as being accurate?

Edited September 19, 2011 by Snow
error in formatting

[Eleven]

Any examples? You made the claim. You ought to back up your own claim.

um... my example was mormon doctrine, and thats how i backed up my claim. if you notice, i even said "a good example is mormon doctrine.."

i was simply asking you for examples of books the church has deemed doctrinal and -didn't- have the churches logo on it, never implementing the fact that i believed there wouldnt be. it was a question of inquiry, not a challenge.

Let me ask you a question - why do you suppose that the Church would have the practice of placing a logo on publications that it approved of as accurate but then not tell anybody what the logo placement meant?

They would have the practice of placing their logo the same reason anyone would have the practice of giving a signature.. a politician approving of a message... so on and so forth.. i thought that was a given..

The problem wasn't that some things were a little too forward - the problem was that some things were erroneous and offensive,

i was being modest in saying "too forward" because i didnt want to offend anyone. but whether i say its too forward or you say its erroneous and offensive, would that not make us on the same team?

By the way, my set of new scriptures does not bear any logo of the Church. Do you suppose that means the Church doesn't officially approve them as being accurate?

i would be very interested to see them, or ask where you got them. of course we are not the only church that binds the KJV of the bible, but if im under the impression that youre saying you have a book of mormon.. triple combination.. quad.. etc that does not have the churches logo on the bottom of the spine.. or first couple of pages.. i would love to hear how you got one. i used to work at deseret book after highschool, and ALL of our scriptures came from the same place as the distribution center and seagull books.. from the church... where they put the logo. i mean the book of mormon is copyrighted for heaven sakes, so i do question your statement.

either way im not here to challenge, i get the impression youre getting flustered.

again, i'll say what I've said is simply opinion. the original poster could end all of this by saying hey the miracle of forgiveness has the churches logo on it. that was the whole reason i brought any of this up anyways.

[shine7]

Want to add my thoughts:

Being and staying virtuous clothes us in 'the robes of righteousness'. When we choose to break the law of chastity, we are then naked. Repentance will again clothe us. How would any of us feel if we must 'stand naked' because our chastity was ripped from us when we gave in to satan's wiles/temptations?

Also, sexuality is more than of this world.......it is very very spiritual in nature; satan knows this and wishes to rob us of these high and lofty gifts/blessings, and then laughs at us when we are stripped of dignified clothing by giving in to temptation.

ps......when I read The Miracle of Forgiveness the first time, it helped me want to be more repentant, it humbled me and I felt God's amazing grace that He gives us the gifts through Christ of repentance and forgiveness.

Edited September 19, 2011 by shine7

[Snow]

i would be very interested to see them, or ask where you got them. of course we are not the only church that binds the KJV of the bible, but if im under the impression that youre saying you have a book of mormon.. triple combination.. quad.. etc that does not have the churches logo on the bottom of the spine.. or first couple of pages.. i would love to hear how you got one. i used to work at deseret book after highschool, and ALL of our scriptures came from the same place as the distribution center and seagull books.. from the church... where they put the logo. i mean the book of mormon is copyrighted for heaven sakes, so i do question your statement.

either way im not here to challenge, i get the impression youre getting flustered.

again, i'll say what I've said is simply opinion. the original poster could end all of this by saying hey the miracle of forgiveness has the churches logo on it. that was the whole reason i brought any of this up anyways.

Do you own scriptures? Have you looked at them?

The scriptures say Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - in a normal font - just like others things that are published by Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It not a logo and it doesn't mean that the Church approves of it's accuracy - it's a statement of who published it.

Again I ask - why do you suppose the Church would have this secret technique of yours and then try so hard to keep it secret?

[Eleven]

Do you own scriptures? Have you looked at them?

The scriptures say Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - in a normal font - just like others things that are published by Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It not a logo and it doesn't mean that the Church approves of it's accuracy - it's a statement of who published it.

Again I ask - why do you suppose the Church would have this secret technique of yours and then try so hard to keep it secret?

for the sake of the original poster, we must agree to disagree. this is definitely not helping the poster figure out feelings on the miracle of forgiveness.

lol and i dont know why you keep saying its a secret technique. I'll answer this the best i can and let us get on with life and allow the poster to get the info they desire.

its simply an act of endorsement. anything that is not endorsed by the first pres AND quorum of the twelve is not to be considered 100% doctrine. they could be agreeing with doctrine.. per say..

i asked a good knowledgeable friend and he explained it this way. anything that does not have the endorsement of the first pres and quorum of the twelve is not to be considered doctrine. and you'll never find something of that caliber without the churches logo on it anyways. anything outside those bounds are nice thoughts, very good advice, very very likely to be true, but not doctrine.

The only things considered doctrine are: standard works, pmg, handbook of instructions, living Christ, family proclamation, general conference and things of that nature.

autobiographies, biographies, books simply written by a single apostle that does not have the churches endorsement (mormon doctrine), not to be considered doctrine, though it doesnt mean its entirely false either in any way. its just not doctrine. though these books promote spirituality, bring an apostles specific opinion on a subject that would be very educational on many levels, you still should not regard it as you to the standard works.

so in essence, does the "logo", or the "statement of who published it" we keep talking about have a secret meaning behind it meaning the church secretly deems it doctrine? no of course not. it means exactly what you said it means, it was published by THE CHURCH. now take that a step further.. if its published by the church... would that automatically mean its DOCTRINE? correct?

now connect the dots with me here lol..

im sorry if you dont agree, but i know for a fact that the bottom of the spine on your book of mormon has a named "logo" that says

The Church of

JESUS CHRIST

of Latter Day Saints.

say what you want about what the logo means.. but im sorry. its a logo.

[Traveler]

Why is virtue more important than our lives (according to Pres. McKay, Pres. Kimball, and Elder McConkie)? Is it because sexual sin temporarily disqualifies us for eternal life until we repent, and the sin is so dangerously difficult to repent of? I appreciate any insight as I try to better keep my covenants and help others do so. Thank you!

It is because sexual sin is addictive and has the power to take from us our ability to be free as well as destroy the lives of others that we love or should love most; especially the innocent children deprived of righteous parents. We may think that without children sexual sin is “safe” and that is the delusion we create to justify our addiction and disconnect us from being responsible.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

lol and i dont know why you keep saying its a secret technique.

He's calling it secret because you seem to be the only one to know about this. If "has Church logo" really was the standard for doctrine then one would expect the Church to share that little detail with all of the membership instead of keeping it a 'secret' between it and you.

it was published by THE CHURCH. now take that a step further.. if its published by the church... would that automatically mean its DOCTRINE? correct?

Um... no.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Linky: Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

You'll note the distinction is not: Everything published by the Church is doctrine. And don't confuse the statement that doctrine is proclaimed in official Church publications to mean everything in official Church publications is doctrine. They aren't equivalent, the NBC nightly news is on NBC, not everything on NBC is the NBC nightly news.

If nothing else to take the position that everything published by the Church is doctrine requires one to assert that recipes found in the Friend (which is published by the Church) are doctrine. Additionally the position removes the authority to establish doctrine from the first Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and hands it over to people who write for (and produce) Church magazines and curricula, and anyone who speaks at conference (due to talks being published).

Edited September 19, 2011 by Dravin

[Dravin]

im sorry if you dont agree, but i know for a fact that the bottom of the spine on your book of mormon has a named "logo" that says

The Church of

JESUS CHRIST

of Latter Day Saints.

This made me curious so I went and grabbed my scriptures. My triple combination has the text on the spine (on the bottom half) worn off, but my Bible (Yes, LDS edition) still has it as does my wife's quad. If Snow's scriptures are like mine (or my wife's) then they differ from what you claim:

1) The letters are all capitals (in this instance that means it matches the logo, your recreation of it errs in using lower case letters).

2) Only one word per line.

3) The words are all in the same font, of the same size, and all are equally bolded (which is to say none of them are from my perspective).

Leaving me concluding that the spine of my book has the name of the Church but it is not in the logoized style:

If Snow has scriptures like mine then his scriptures don't have the logo on them either. I also looked online at images of the economy sets, they by all appearances also only have one word per line (aka don't have the logo on the spine).

Edited September 19, 2011 by Dravin

[Snow]

for the sake of the original poster, we must agree to disagree. this is definitely not helping the poster figure out feelings on the miracle of forgiveness.

Sorry - I don't agree to disagree. You are simply wrong. You, or someone who told you, are making something up that is untrue. It seems like you genuinely believe it and that you intentions are good but it just plain wrong.

Assuredly, the Church tries hard to not publish things that are untrue or incorrect, non-logo name of the Church in the Scripture of manuals, etc (Published by The Church...) is exactly what it says it is - a statement about who publishes it. If it meant something else, it wouldn't be in secret code, it would say what it meant.

Has it dawned on you that the reason you have zero evidence to back up your view is because there is no such evidence?

[Blackmarch]

Why is virtue more important than our lives (according to Pres. McKay, Pres. Kimball, and Elder McConkie)? Is it because sexual sin temporarily disqualifies us for eternal life until we repent, and the sin is so dangerously difficult to repent of? I appreciate any insight as I try to better keep my covenants and help others do so. Thank you!

Virtue is more than just sex. Its how we honor the covenants we have made, if we become oathbreakers we cannot obtain the promises of the covenants.

Death is not voluntary and carries no penalty, breaking that what we have promised to do is.

Can you be justified dor breaking them by repenting later in some cases? Yes. Peter did... He denied the christ, I dont think he made that mistake a second tipme.

If irecall right we need more of the context here- Ithink what was being said is that its better to fight to keep your virtue or honor and die trying to do that than giving up without a struggle. i think he was trying to juxtapose two extremes for showing something, usually reality is somewhere inbetween.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Guest gopecon]

I think we need to be careful about terms here. Saying that something is "not doctrine" can mean a couple of different things.

1) It's not accurate as a statement of spiritual truth (i.e. it's wrong).

2) It is from a source that has not been officially recognized for official church use (i.e. scriptures, lesson manuals, etc.). This doesn't mean that something is incorrect, just that is has not been officially recognized. With enough official publications to police and put together, there's no reason to think that every book by a GA will be reviewed and endorsed as reliable truth. That said, I'm sure that an apostle who takes the time to put his thoughts into a book will be pretty careful about not going too far out on a limb.

[skippy740]

I have read that book twice and I still struggle with it. Even putting things in perspective like when it was written, what was going on socially when it was written, the intended target audience for the book, I still can't come to terms with it.

It is meant to humble, and it does that well. But when you talk about the atonement, the Savior, the plan of salvation, the restored gospel and church, you can't accurately communicate what these things mean without including hope. And I can't walk away from that book with hope for anything.

I was told to read the last 2 chapters first, then read the book from the beginning.

It's still a hard read.

[skippy740]

In regards to the book being doctrine or not, I've found that if LDS Distribution carries it, it (generally) has full endorsement by the church.

(I say "generally" because I don't know the entire distribution catalog and every resource available.)

The Miracle of Forgiveness - LDS Online Store

Keep in mind that LDS Church Distribution is a different entity than Deseret Book and the other publishers through them.

[beefche]

Keep in mind that LDS Church Distribution is a different entity than Deseret Book and the other publishers through them.

Whew! For a moment, I was afraid that you were arguing Twilight was doctrine...

[Spartan117]

In regards to the book being doctrine or not, I've found that if LDS Distribution carries it, it (generally) has full endorsement by the church.

(I say "generally" because I don't know the entire distribution catalog and every resource available.)

The Miracle of Forgiveness - LDS Online Store

Keep in mind that LDS Church Distribution is a different entity than Deseret Book and the other publishers through them.

The book has also been mentioned several times across the pulpit at several GC's from several GA's. I believe it also one of a hand full of books approved for missionaries to read on their mission (I'm not at all sure on that so if that isn't the case I freely stand corrected)

I'm just saying it's a powerful book, extremely well written for the purpose of humbling. I personally struggle with it, but that's a commentary on me as well.

[Spartan117]

Whew! For a moment, I was afraid that you were arguing Twilight was doctrine...

That's crazy talk ... right?

[LittleWyvern]

The book has also been mentioned several times across the pulpit at several GC's from several GA's. I believe it also one of a hand full of books approved for missionaries to read on their mission (I'm not at all sure on that so if that isn't the case I freely stand corrected).

It may have been, but it isn't anymore. The missionary library currently contains:

• Our Search For Happiness
• Jesus The Christ
• True to the Faith
• Our Heritage

And, of course, Preach My Gospel and the scriptures.

[skippy740]

I don't think any mission president would STOP a missionary from reading it. I read it on my mission... and no, it wasn't part of the missionary library.

[RMGuy]

I had a companion go home specifically because of TMoF, and not because he was guilty of any major sins. He was abit OCD and lets just say it REALLY messed with his mind. One of the scariest things I have ever seen was the transformation in him after reading TMoF. I think that the book has done a lot of good, but it has also caused some harm.

-RM

[Eleven]

This made me curious so I went and grabbed my scriptures. My triple combination has the text on the spine (on the bottom half) worn off, but my Bible (Yes, LDS edition) still has it as does my wife's quad. If Snow's scriptures are like mine (or my wife's) then they differ from what you claim:

1) The letters are all capitals (in this instance that means it matches the logo, your recreation of it errs in using lower case letters).

2) Only one word per line.

3) The words are all in the same font, of the same size, and all are equally bolded (which is to say none of them are from my perspective).

Leaving me concluding that the spine of my book has the name of the Church but it is not in the logoized style:

If Snow has scriptures like mine then his scriptures don't have the logo on them either. I also looked online at images of the economy sets, they by all appearances also only have one word per line (aka don't have the logo on the spine).

last time ill comment on the subject.. really this time.

Dravin you are correct, the scriptural version of the logo is one word at a time and in caps. my plea wasnt exactly what the logo's form or font it was in, just simply that it was there. the logo comes in many fonts, and forms. just because Nike decides to make their logo one letter at a time down a shirt still doesnt mean its not their logo/copyrighted name.

Snow, my evidence was mormon doctrine, a book written by an apostle that is neither published by the church, accepted as doctrine (though still has spiritually correct statements like another poster commented) and it does not have the logo.. evidence of logo is still present, dravin cleared that up. evidence of a book written only by one apostle considered not doctrine.. also cleared up by a quote dravin made, which somehow seems very similar to what my friend said to me... hmm. strange.. (sarcasm)

Ill say this one last time, because i still fail to see my hypothesis has been proven wrong, though im still open to be wrong.

logo does not directly equal doctrine.

logo means published by church. only a select few things are published by the church. (scriptures.. living christ.. pmg.. church handbooks..) all things that i have seen published by the church i have considered doctrine. if anyone knows of a book published by the church they want to opening say is not doctrine, message me. id love to see what you got.

and i believe dravin, you were the one that said the Friend magazine had recipes in it, haha that was a good point! made me smile, of course its DOCTRINE jk

well. my counter statement to that is some book of mormons have pictures in the front. theres no way the PICTURES could be accurate with nephi looked like this.. alma looked like that.. they are just put in a doctrinal book for the readers accommodation.

though one may come back and say "No you said ANYTHING with a logo, the book of mormon has a logo, those pictures are inside the book, your proving yourself wrong!"

not really. just because the pictures are in the same binding doesnt mean its part of the Book of Mormon.

but anyways.. the one second thought of does the miracle of forgiveness have the logo turned into an open debate that im done debating. i can see both sides of it.

ps- Snow, theres nothing wrong with having a friendly disagreement. life is too short to get flustered at small things, even if some dork you've never met on a forum has another opinion.

thank you and goodnight. lets be adults and get back to the context of the thread.

[Dravin]

Dravin you are correct, the scriptural version of the logo is one word at a time and in caps. my plea wasnt exactly what the logo's form or font it was in, just simply that it was there. the logo comes in many fonts, and forms. just because Nike decides to make their logo one letter at a time down a shirt still doesnt mean its not their logo/copyrighted name.

Snow, my evidence was mormon doctrine, a book written by an apostle that is neither published by the church, accepted as doctrine (though still has spiritually correct statements like another poster commented) and it does not have the logo.. evidence of logo is still present, dravin cleared that up. evidence of a book written only by one apostle considered not doctrine..

You err in equivocating the name of the Church with it's logo. The logo of the church is a certain stylized rendering of it's name. This certain stylized rendering of it's name does not, contrary to your assertions, exist on the spine of mine (and I suspect Snow's) scriptures. That is what I cleared up. You then promptly moved the goal posts from having the logo to having the name of the Church appear on the spine, which is something Snow would have agreed with.

It's kinda like:

Person A: It's snowing.

Person B: No it's not, it's raining.

Person C: I just looked outside, it's raining.

Person A: Like I said, it's precipitating, thanks for backing me up person C.

also cleared up by a quote dravin made, which somehow seems very similar to what my friend said to me... hmm. strange.. (sarcasm)

What my quote clears up is that the Church in an effort to explain what its doctrine is does not concur with you. That the position you are taking is not one being taken by the Church. The manuals and magazines produced by the Church very well contain doctrine but that is not because they are published by the Church (that is to say as a direct cause and effect, the Church certainly strives to fill the materials chock full of doctrine), nor is the fact that they are published by the Church mean that everything contained therein is doctrine. If it was you'd think when discussing what exactly is the Church's doctrine in a press release that they would have included one or both of those suppositions. It'd certainly be a lot clearer to say, "Did we publish it? Then it's doctrine." if such was the case.

You're bowing out of the thread, I realize that, but I wanted to clear up that my posts were not supporting your assertions.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Dravin

[spamlds]

The gravity of sexual sin relates to the principle of restitution in the repentance process. When we repent, as we are taught, there are several steps: recognition of the sin, remorse, making restitution, and then receiving the Lord's forgiveness. It is flippant to say, "Oh well, I can always repent later!" The reason this attitude is irresponsible is that true repentance includes making restitution for the wrong committed.

If we lie, that means we have to come clean and tell the truth. If we stole something, we need to pay for the item or return it. If we have gossiped about someone, we need to take steps to restore their reputation and apologize.

When it comes to sexual sin, how does one make restitution? How can one return virtue once it has been lost? That's why it is such a grave sin. Without the ability to make restitution, the personal contrition that is involved must necessarily be enormous. If an unwanted pregnancy results, there is no way to "repent away" the consequence. The impact upon the innocent life is immeasurable.

Thus, one must consider, if restitution is necessary for repentance to be complete, how difficult is it to truly and sincerely repent of sexual sin? The atonement has the power to save us, but it only comes into effect when we are willing to undergo the often painful cleansing process of obtaining a remission of sins.

[Snow]

Snow, my evidence was mormon doctrine, a book written by an apostle that is neither published by the church, accepted as doctrine (though still has spiritually correct statements like another poster commented) and it does not have the logo.. evidence of logo is still present, dravin cleared that up. evidence of a book written only by one apostle considered not doctrine.. also cleared up by a quote dravin made, which somehow seems very similar to what my friend said to me... hmm. strange.. (sarcasm)

Now I'm beginning to wonder if you are for real of if you just trying to say the goofiest thing you can think of in order to get a reaction.

1. The reason that Mormon Doctrine doesn't have a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint "logo" is because it was published by Bookcraft and not by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint.

2. You obviously don't know what a logo is.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Snow
fact correction