English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The Prophet Heber J. Grant is quoted in President Kimball's book:
"...There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity -- realizing that chastity is of more value than anything else in all the world."

I don't understand this. Is this true of LDS?
Please only serious answers and no bashing! "Ranting and raving" is a violation of Yahoo terms. Please be respectful.

2007-05-10 16:02:03 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

guitarpick: But, why should a parent rather have a dead child than one who has lost his/her virginity? Is there room for forgiveness? Doesn't God forgive all sins of the believer in order to restore fellowship with Him?

2007-05-10 17:21:11 · update #1

8 answers

What is there not to understand? President Grant's comments were succinct and clear. God is most pleased with the chaste daughters of Zion. Therefore, we ought to be pleased with that attribute in our daughters too.

Jules, chastity among our people is prized according to the Lord. Forgiveness is important, but it wasn't in your question. To say I'd rather lose a child having lost their virginity is a stretch for me. President Grant certainly got everyone's attention with his remark, didn't he?

2007-05-10 16:07:20 · answer #1 · answered by Guitarpicker 7 · 3 1

As strange as it seems, it is true. One does want a chaste son/daugther above all else.
And its not that death is better, but rather its that to see a child loose their chastity is more painfull than to see them deceased. Because the dead son/daughter who is chaste is up in heaven, in Gods protection and love and the parents will see them again in due time, and live with them for all eternity, while the unchaste is not but goes down to Satan's world with all the suffering involved. If they do go through the repentance process a lot more suffering is felt by all which outweighs the sadness from missing someone who has died faithful and pure, or: chaste.
And also note that it says "chastity" and not "virginity". The two terms are very different and imply different things. Loosing ones virginity is not equivalent to loosing ones chastity. So the raped person, male or female, does not loose their chastity even if biological virginity is lost.
And also remember that if chastity is lost, although one can repent and avoid the punishment for sin, chastity itself isn't recovered. But that is another issue.

2007-05-11 03:49:06 · answer #2 · answered by Jose B 1 · 2 0

MY interpretation of that would mean that immorality is a very very serious sin, one that won't be forgiven unless truly repented of. Being morally clean is HUGE in the LDS doctrine...it is something that is so easy to do and yet can be SO hard to repent of. Maybe he meant that since death comes to us all, and of course we know the promise of eternal family, that he would rather have lost a child in death than lost a child to sin. At least with death, the child could still have a chance for eternal salvation but with serious sin, not repented of, the child would pretty much not have a chance.
That's just my opinon of that, that's how I would also feel.

2007-05-11 07:12:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

interior the July, 1998 situation of the Ensign, in "I also have a question," the question is "do all of us understand what proportion Latter-day Saints died between 1846 and 1869 interior the migration to the Salt Lake Valley?" It applies to your question better than it would desire to look, as you examine the object. Had the Church no longer been compelled out of Missouri and then Illinois by using our enemies, there might possibly have been no trek to Salt Lake. Jackson County, Missouri became unique to be Church headquarters until eventually the Millennium, and the contributors offered lands there, and had each and every constitutional appropriate to proceed to be there in peace and protection. the object places a low estimate of four,six hundred deaths, 6,000 as a intense estimate. greater on the instant touching directly to persecution, under which the Saints have been compelled to pass away Nauvoo interior the lifeless of wintry climate, commencing February 4, 1846, an anticipated 295-385 perished "Crossing Iowa (1846), alongside with deaths at Montrose, conflict of Nauvoo, the undesirable Camps, and the trek to the Missouri River." lots greater to the element is the long sworn assertion of Hyrum Smith earlier the Municipal court docket of Nauvoo in 1843 with reference to the Missouri persecutions, from it truly is taken right here short excerpt: "and that i understand, so does this court docket and each rational guy who's conscious of the situations, and each guy who shall hereafter develop into conscious of the info thereof, will understand that Governor Boggs and Generals Clark, Lucas, Wilson and Gillum, additionally Austin A. King, have committed treasonable acts against the voters of Missouri, and did exile and expel, on the element of the bayonet, some twelve or fourteen thousand inhabitants of the State, and did homicide some 3 or 4 hundred of fellows, ladies and childrens in chilly blood interior the main horrid and harsh way achievable. And the excellent of it became brought about by using religious bigotry and persecution, and since the Mormons dared to worship Almighty God in accordance to the dictates of their very own judgment of right and incorrect and agreeably to His Divine Will, as revealed interior the Scriptures of eternal reality...." (Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, 1979 paperback version, pages 223-224.)

2016-12-17 09:43:23 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

You gotta understand that a lot of times even though it was said, it wasn't believed, as far as the mormon church goes. This quote is probably a really good example of that. Kimball may have said it, but members probably shrugged it off. When I was mormon for 8 years, I never heard it put like that at all. I even lost my virginity as a mormon (unmarried of course), and I wasn't treated that badly at all.

2007-05-10 19:45:44 · answer #5 · answered by Her 2 · 2 1

when I was a Mormon, I found out that a mormon could also do only certain things during sex as well, now whether Mormons adhered to those things, was up to the couple. You should check out a mormons stand on abortion. They are against it unless you get raped, or the child is disformed, or it threatens the mother's life.

2007-05-10 23:43:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

I am not mormon. However, I have met and dealt with many mormons and they seem to be very merciful people. I think that there is definitly room for forgiveness in their faith and from their God. At least the ones I have met give me this impression.

2007-05-10 18:48:23 · answer #7 · answered by surfchika 4 · 3 1

All Christian denominations seek to control their followers by controlling their sexuality and reproduction. It's simply a matter of degree.

2007-05-10 16:05:11 · answer #8 · answered by Huddy 6 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers