I was reflecting on Spencer W. Kimball. While I was tempted to start my new series on learning from prophets with Balaam, I decided to start with President Kimball.
I first remember seeing him live when I was seventeen and a freshman at BYU (I actually saw him when I was much younger, but don’t remember that at all).
He spoke on how blind obedience to authority would lead you straight to hell. That talk really influenced me.
Then I read his (in)famous book (The Miracle of Forgiveness). My take away was not that you need to repent of everything, even breathing, but that God would forgive everything. The other takeaway I got was that it was more important to live like Christ than to become rich. That there were things much more important than money. The biggest problem the book has is (a) it is long and (b) the real message is in the second half. He and his family members talked about how it later regretted the way the first half of the book did not help people and was too stern.
That segues into what his son, Edward Kimball had to say, both in his commitment to social justice (Edward’s) and about how his father regretting the harshness in his tone in writing and in speaking when he was trying to encourage people to do better.
Later, talking with my dad about Kimball’s visit to Newfoundland (which I expect was accidental), and his visiting with people at our branch there, brought up about how Kimball emphasized that the Church was for us, not us for the church (kind of like the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath).
The core of what he was teaching was in visits with several part member families about how they should focus on love and support of each other in their families over focusing on the church and trying to convert or activate spouses. He told them that the value the church had was as a support for marriages and in healing each other.
Some think of happiness as a glamorous life of ease, luxury, and constant thrills; but true marriage is based on a happiness which is more than that, one which comes from giving, serving, sharing, sacrificing, and selflessness.
While marriage is difficult, and discordant and frustrated marriages are common, yet real, lasting happiness is possible, and marriage can be, more an exultant ecstasy than the human mind can conceive. This is within the reach of every couple, every person.
Third, there must be continued courting and expressions of affection, kindness, and consideration to keep love alive and growing.
Love is like a flower, and, like the body, it needs constant feeding. The mortal body would soon be emaciated and die if there were not frequent feedings. The tender flower would wither and die without food and water. And so love, also, cannot be expected to last forever unless it is continually fed with portions of love, the manifestation of esteem and admiration, the expressions of gratitude, and the consideration of unselfishness.
[Quotes by Spencer W. Kimball on marriage]
My father’s memory of Spencer W. Kimball’s teaching mirrored something I had been inspired to tell someone on my mission who was looking for advice on how to convert their husband. I told them to focus on loving him instead. It turned their lives around and gave them a time of joy before he discovered he was dying of cancer.
[I’m not claiming this as a general rule, just as what was appropriate for four individual circumstances. I do think that a huge problem we have is extrapolating general rules from individual circumstances].
I know that most people think of his legacy being the end of the priesthood ban. Others just hate him.
But I was just reflecting on the lessons he taught that have affected my life.
Did any of those lessons affect yours?
What do you remember about Spencer W. Kimball?
What do you think about love? Do you agree with Kimball that we should love people, not things, and use things, not people?
Wheat & Tares 
I read the “Miracle of Forgiveness” years ago, at a time when I really needed it. I really never felt that it was too harsh, but laid out the reality of the consequences of the lack of repentance starkly. But it was no more stark than Doctrine and Covenants 19:15. However, the message of hope for those who do fall, the message that they can arise and call upon the Atonement to become clean again, even after serious transgressions left an indelible imprint upon my soul.
Glenn
That was the message I got as well.
Can you reference the talk on blind obedience?
I was given the book when I was 12, from the Bishop as “just in case”. Honestly it ruined me on God, repentance and it gave rise to habits that were hard to break, i.e. confess everything to the Bishop then God will love you again, bless you and if you slip up again God will withhold all his blessings, love etc. You can imagine the festival of errors as a teenager and beliefs you have to overcome , even now as 38.5 yr old, it’s hard to see yourself as worthy or sometimes worthwhile
Stephen. Thank you for this. It set me thinking about my appreciation for SWK and my mixed reactions to some of his teachings. There have been plenty of comments elsewhere on “Miracle of Forgiveness”. http://www.sltrib.com/home/2762815-155/lds-classic-miracle-of-forgiveness-fading I am glad to know the book had a positive effect on some people; it certainly did not have that effect on my LDS gay friends who sought me out in the early 70s for help in evaluating proposed reparative therapies.. My appreciation for SWK was most profoundly influenced by the stories Ed Kimball told of his parents, both in his books and to me as a student and a member of Ed’s ward while I was in law school. I was also influenced by others’ stories of SWK’s humanity and his loving concern for and service to individuals. One of those other stories (certainly not the most significant) came to me indirectly from Ed through our ward music chairman. One of Ed’s sons was to leave on a mission. The ward music chairman was hypothesizing (read “fretting”) about what hymns should be sung at the grandson’s missionary farewell sacrament meeting, in the event the President showed up for that farewell. She asked Ed to inquire. The word came back from SWK — anything except “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet” — SWK was quite tired of that one!
Whizbang.
I’m so sorry.
JC
I was unable to find it on-line. It dates back to 1973 or so.
I suppose we all react differently to books such as this one. I’m frankly stunned that anyone could find the linking of masturbation to homosexuality and to other “unnatural practices”, not to mention the harsh language regarding homosexuality in general, to be part of a message of hope, but to each his own. I suppose I’m heartened to hear that later in life, SWK seemed a bit repentant about the harshness of part of the M of F, but IMHO, it’s a book that is potentially so much more damaging than inspiring that I refused to have it in my house. One of my former in-laws gave me a copy and it went straight into the trash where it belongs.
I joined the Church not too long after President Kimball died, and I can only think that all of the people who loved and mourned him had never read TMOF. I found it to be one of the most disheartening, discouraging things I’ve choked down since joining the Church. Not even on the spiritual high right after my baptism was I in good enough condition to stomach that book. Although I’m delighted to hear that he was repentant of his harsh tone, removing it from print and/or printing a retraction would have been the proper response, not private misgivings expressed to his family while bishops and stake presidents continued to destroy the hopes and spirits of thousands of Saints with that misguided reading recommendation.
Exactly the people – struggling with sin, feeling guilty and unworthy, trying to find hope – who are usually counseled to read the thing are the ones who should never open it. Please, those of you in positions of counseling and authority, remove it from your shelves. I cannot think of any circumstance in which the small possible good it teaches, which can be taught in so many other ways, can outweigh its great potential for harm and hopelessness.
New Iconoclast, I can’t think you really mean this: “I can only think that all of the people who loved and mourned him had never read TMOF.” While my reaction to TMOF was like yours, SWK also taught other things and served in other ways and seemed to have been uniquely capable of seeking and receiving the revelation to end the priesthood racial policy. It is unnecessary (and possibly worse) to reject love or to fail to mourn with those who mourn because of that overly harsh, outdated, and sometimes wrong-headed book. Your request to counselors and authorities, however, is appropriate and has already been implemented by some. E.g. my ward clerk read the bishop the riot act when the bishop asked him to order more copies (which were not to be had at the time). See http://www.sltrib.com/home/2762815-155/lds-classic-miracle-of-forgiveness-fading if you haven’t already.
SWK, like all church leaders, is a bit of a mixed bag. I know we sometimes dismiss the flaws of the scriptures by talking about how living prophets are for our time, but really, both contemporary and ancient prophets are so human and flawed. Those who ignore the flaws as a means to protect their faith are, IMO, fooling themselves. If God didn’t intend deeply flawed people to run his church, then he’s accidentally fallen on that method in 100% of cases. By deeply flawed, I mean good intentions, but limited understanding (human imperfections), personal shortcomings (like temper, or ill-advised political views) and so forth. They want to serve others, to build up the church, to do God’s work, but like all of us, they sometimes are self-serving or overlook needs or misdiagnose problems or literally do the wrong thing with collateral damage resulting. They have all been like this.
I remember feeling very disappointed when SWK died and ETB took over, not at the time because I had any specific worries about ETB (although many did), but because SWK had been church president for so long during my growing up years.
My takeaway from reading MOF was that if anyone ever raped me, it was far better for me to die than to live. In my case, though, I thankfully did not have that situation arise. When I read it, I steeled myself for the eventual possibility that I should allow myself to be killed. It seemed unfair that girls were disproportionately going to be victims of sex crimes, and therefore, we were clearly more expendable. But since MOF said that was God’s will, I took it at face value as a 15 year old girl. I knew that if anyone ever raped me, it was God choosing me for martyrdom. I don’t know how many of our YW leaders knew that was his counsel, but they did bring someone in to teach us all self-defense, which seemed a better possible outcome (being able to fight off a larger, stronger attacker) than suicide by rape.
I agree with Angela, like other prophets, SWK is a bit of a mixed bag and it can be easy to focus in on one or two things, either for the good or bad. Mostly I hear the bad about MOF. I tend to think it is the reaction because it was over used by bishops and used carelessly.
There might be some people who are a bit hard-hearted or prideful that need a bold, strong message to get their attention on the importance of righteous clean living. It might be something some people need to hear.
But…my daughter is now 25. She was given the book by a bishop when she went to him trusting she could confess and get help. She is so sensitive…it gave her a complex and she basically thought she was going to be 2nd class mormon forever, even if she tries to repent. She was WAY too hard on herself already, and the book didn’t help. As her dad…I tried to help her have greater faith in the Atonement, and find the parts of the book that teach about love. But…she couldn’t get past her bishop giving her that book for a reason, and the message she took from it was not love.
Perhaps it is out-dated. It was written before people were so sensitive or introspective.
If SWK was regretful in some ways later in his life…that seems to suggest it wasn’t all truth and revelation for all situations, if he and his family could see that.
I think the problem is how bishops today are using that book. Is it because bishops have so many youth come through their office…it is a message they want to share but can’t seem to do it from their own words, it’s easier to use a book?
I’ve never been bishop to understand what they are thinking.
But…I was a kid when hearing President Kimball talk, and I remember him more loving and wise and “yoda-like” – not so bold and harsh as it seems that one book paints his legacy with people nowadays.
Mixed bag…but seems lingering feelings surround the book more than other speeches.
SWK was President during my earliest years. Though I have no direct memories of him now, his teachings had a direct effect on how I was raised as a young boy. SWK was the prophet to whom my parents looked. I remember my mom remarking about how strong a leader he had been, unexpectedly rising to the First Presidency when Harold B. Lee passed so soon after taking the reins. And my general memory is there was great love for President Kimball. I wonder how much his influence affected Mormons of the time who were so ready for blacks to finally get full participation, and yet to this day are adamant that LGBTQ people not receive formal acceptance.
Recently I listened to a couple of his General Conference talks from around the time I was born. I was struck by how harsh/stern they seem now, in contrast to the sense of love for him impressed on me as a young child. What would his tenure have been like if Twitter and Facebook had been around then? I wonder what sorts of viral push-back his remarks might have received.
Love? Yes, he clearly had deep love and sincerity. And he understood that real love should be accompanied with hard work. But would it be fair to say that in practical terms, his warmth and compassion were inward (toward the faithful) and institutional in application? It seems, like with the Book of Mormon, people’s attitude toward SWK is quite different based on their demographics and social /political leanings.
Jake, I think that what you’re saying about differing reactions to SWK is probably very accurate. I should clarify, in light of JR’s well-aimed comment above: I do not mean that anyone should have rejoiced at Pres. Kimball’s death. However, I knew nothing about him, not having known anything about the Church until after his death. (I vaguely confused him with J. Spencer Kinard, the old “Music and the Spoken Word” guy, which my local radio station carried on Sunday mornings.) My first exposure to Kimball in any substance was TMOF.
First impressions die hard. My first impression of Bruce McConkie was his last GC address, a magnificent testimony. I knew nothing of the man’s history and character. He, too, was a mixed bag, as Angela says. President Kimball seems to have been a kind and gentle man – it’s even possible that he could have delivered some of the counsel in TMOF in a loving and gentle way, in person. But in many of the transcripts I have read of his talks, he seems pretty rigid to me. That may have been his mission. At any rate, it was and is very hard for me to reconcile the Kimball of TMOF with the Kimball beloved of so many. As he was not “the prophet of my youth” as he was for Angela, for example, I have no such emotional bond. (For the record, Angela, I am glad you never had to martyr yourself.)
Kimball seemed to have been uniquely capable of seeking and receiving the revelation to end the priesthood racial policy:
Perhaps “uniquely capable” among the Q15 at the time. Certainly late is better than never, and I think Pres. McKay possibly regretted not having done it 20 years earlier when it might could have been an administrative change rather than a revelation, thus giving credence to those who believe that it was God’s will to withhold the priesthood and temple blessings from those of African descent. I doubt that we’ll ever really know how that process actually worked.
New Iconoclast, There is a great deal about the process leading to the 1978 revelation in Ed Kimball’s book on his father’s presidency and, I think, in Ed’s other publication(s), possibly including the expanded version of the book text, published in CD form. You may want to read them. I think we can know a lot about how that process worked.
I agree with much written above. SWK was a kind, loving person. He was harsh and misguided in some of his teachings. The problem wasn’t /isn’t with the level of imperfection of him or any of our leaders or anything they taught. The problem is with us the sheeple of the church who put them too high up on a pedestal and then are invariably disappointed and harmed.
If my track coach told his daughters back in 1966 that it was better to die resisting rape than to live to testify about it in court, who gives a hoot? So why does it bother anyone what nonsense SWK said of the same tenor near the same time amidst all the excellent teachings he gave?
Because he was The Prophet. He speaks the very words of God who is never wrong. It is nice to have someone telling you what to do who you think is never wrong. It relieves you of the duty to think.
And the problem is compounded when local leaders take a misguided teaching and magnify its damage in the name of following the prophet, or as the locals around her say, “laying it on the prophet.” Or out of mental laziness, they do something like assigning TMOF to be read by repenting sinners 50 years after it was written because they can’t think of anything else to do.
I give all of you my permission, you don’t have to believe EVERYTHING the prophet says. That’s OK. (In fact you don’t have to believe anything but that is another matter). And it is good that we point out these errors so that they might not be repeated- until such time as when most of us can start thinking for ourselves.