42 replies to this topic

[WalkerW]

I'd like to get as much historical context for Bruce R. McConkie's "Our Relationship with the Lord." I know about Pace, but I'm not really sure what McConkie's problem was. I would appreciate any info you all have.

[volgadon]

Any takers?

[daz2]

I assume you have already read what David Pace wrote about it, here.  http://www.sethpayne.com/?p=409

I disagree with much of what Elder McConkie said in the talk, and certainly the manner in which he presented it without prior notice or consultation in private with President Pace (who was then a stake president).

But I don't think Elder McConkie had a disingenuous bone in his body.  I think he genuinely thought President Pace's teachings were wrong for the reasons stated in Elder McConkie's speech.  I don't think it was anything more or less than that.

Elder McConkie considered himself responsible for keeping the doctrines of the Church "pure", and he had definite views on what the pure doctrine was, and he was not afraid to state it authoritatively.  His views may be right (and in many cases they were), but they did not necessarily represent the united views of the FP and 12.

[Duncan]

Also check out the two biographies written on Elder McConkie

[Bikeemikey]

I just read the talked referenced in the opening post. Seems like it missed the mark.

Was not very impressed as a first reading. i would be interested in getting hold of the text of the book referred to as "in error".

Has anyone read it.

Perhaps that would allow us to understand the strange doctrinal position taken in the talk.

Some one might have mentioned to him that the Apostles are Special Witnesses of Christ. If anyone should have a special relationship with Christ you think an apostle would. Perhaps that was part of his bigger concern with the "special relationship movement".

[Anakin7]

Some years ago Michael T. Griffith sent me a paper regarding the above Talk by Bruce R. McConkie with an explanation of the events and reason Elder McConkie gave the talk. It is buried in some papers I have here in my place of residence somewhere.A e-mail to Michael T. Griffith might help. Go to his link from the S.H.I.E.L.D.S web site on the Links portion on the left side of the opening page.

                                                                                In His Debt/Grace
                                                                                    Anakin7
                                                                                LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited by Anakin7, 02 February 2011 - 10:15 PM.

[mercyngrace]

daz2, on 02 February 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Elder McConkie considered himself responsible for keeping the doctrines of the Church "pure", and he had definite views on what the pure doctrine was, and he was not afraid to state it authoritatively.

This is the height of irony given the impressive number of errors removed from his own book "Mormon Doctrine".

[Lightbearer]

Actually what I would find far more interesting is what exactly is in error or wrong with what Elder McConkie states in the talk? The following is the talk in question for convience in pointing out the so-called errors:

Quote

(Our Relationship With The Lord by Bruce R. McConkie, BYU Devotional - March 2, 1982)
"I shall speak about our relationship with the Lord and of the true fellowship all saints should have with the Father. I shall set forth what we must believe relative to the Father and the Son in order to gain eternal life.
I shall expound the doctrine of the Church relative to what our relationship should be to all members of the Godhead, and do so in plainness and simplicity so that none need mis-understand or be led astray by other voices.
I shall express the view of the Brethren, of the prophets and apostles of old, and of all those who understand the scriptures and are in tune with the Holy Spirit.
These matters lie at the very foundation of revealed religion. In presenting them I am on my own ground and am at home with my subject. I shall not stoop to petty wranglings about semantics, but shall stay with matters of substance. I shall simply go back to basics and set forth fundamental doctrines of the kingdom, knowing that everyone who is sound spiritually and who has the guidance of the Holy Spirit will believe my words and follow my counsel.
Please do not put too much stock in some of the current views and vagaries that are afloat, but rather, turn to the revealed word, get a sound understanding of the doctrines, and keep yourselves in the mainstream of the Church.
Now, it is no secret that many false and vain and foolish things are being taught in the sectarian world and even among us about our need to gain a special relationship with the Lord Jesus. I shall summarize the true doctrine in this field and invite erring teachers and beguiled students to repent and believe the accepted gospel verities as I shall set them forth.
There is no salvation in believing any false doctrine, particularly a false or unwise view about the Godhead or any of its members. Eternal Life is reserved for those who know God and the one whom he sent to work out the infinite and eternal atonement. True and saving worship is found only among those who know the truth about God and the Godhead and who understand the true relationship men should have with each member of that Eternal Presidency.
It follows that the devil would rather spread false doctrine about God and the Godhead, and induce false feelings with reference to any one of them that almost any other thing he could do. The creeds of Christendom illustrate perfectly what Lucifer wants so- called Christian people to believe about deity, in order to be damned.
These creeds codify what Jeremiah calls the lies about God. They say he is unknown, uncreated, and incomprehensible. They say he is a spirit without body, parts or passions. They say he is everywhere and nowhere in particular present. That he fills the immensity of space and yet dwells in the hearts of men, and that he is an immaterial, incorporeal nothingness. They say he is one-God- in-three and three-Gods-in-one who neither hears, nor sees, nor speaks. Some even say he is dead, which he might as well be if their descriptions identify his being.
These concepts summarize the chief and greatest herracy of Christendom. Truly the most grievous and evil herracy ever imposed on an erring and wayward Christianity is their creedal concept about God and the Godhead! But none of this troubles us very much. God has revealed himself to us in this day even as he did to the prophets of old. We know thereby, that he a personal being in whose image man was made. We know that he has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's. That he is a resurrected, glorified, and perfected being; and that he lives in the family unit. We know that we are his spirit children; that he endowed us with the divine gift of agency; and that he ordained the laws whereby we might advance and progress and become like him.
We know that God is the only supreme and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell and that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and by the power of his spirit, omnipresent.
We know "the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son" (D&C 20:21), as the scriptures attest, to ransom man from the temporal and spiritual death brought into the world by the fall of Adam, and to put into operation all of the terms and conditions of the Father's plan.
We know that the Holy Ghost, as a personage of Spirit, is both a revelator and a sanctifier and that his chief mission is to bear record of the Father and of the Son. Thus there are, in the eternal Godhead, three persons--God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Testator. These three are one--one God if you will--in purposes, in powers, and in perfections. But each has his own separable work to perform, and mankind has a defined and known and specific relationship to each one of them. It is of these relationships we shall now speak.
Let us set forth those doctrines and concepts that a gracious God has given to us in this day and which must be understood in order to gain eternal life. They are:

1. We worship the Father and him only and no one else.
We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense--the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to Him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.

Our revelations say that the Father "is infinite and eternal," that he created mankind, "and gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship." (D&C 20:17-19)

Jesus said "True worshippers shall"--note that this is mandatory--"shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. For unto such hath God promised his spirit. And they who worship him in spirit and in truth." (JST, John 4:25-26) There is no other way, no other approved system of worship.

2. We love and serve both the Father and the Son.
In the full, final, and ultimate sense of the word the define decree is: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy might, mind, and strength; and in the name of Jesus Christ thou shalt serve him." (D&C 59:5) And Jesus also said, "If ye love me keep my commandments." (John 14:15)

These, then, are the commandments of commandments. They tie the Father and the Son together, as one, so that both receive our love and service.

3. Christ himself loves, serves, and worships the Father.
Though Christ is God, yet there is a Deity above him, a Deity whom he worships. That God is the Father. To Mary Magdalene, the first mortal to see a resurrected person, Jesus said, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)

All of us, Christ included, are the spirit children of the Father; all of us, Christ included, seek to become like the Father. In this sense, the Firstborn, our elder brother, goes forward as we do.

4. The plan of salvation is the gospel of the Father.
The plan of salvation originated with the Father; he is the author and finisher of our faith in the final sense; he ordained the laws by obedience to which both we and Christ become like him.

The Father did not ask for volunteers to propose a plan whereby man might be saved. What he did was to ask whom he should send to be the redeemer in the plan he devised.

Christ and Lucifer both volunteered and the Lord chose his Firstborn and rejected the amendatory offer of the Son of the Morning.

Thus Paul speaks of "the gospel of God,... concerning his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh." (Rom 1:1-3) It is the Father's gospel, it became the gospel of the Son by adoption, and we call it after Christ's name because his atoning sacrifice put all of it's terms and conditions into operation.

5. Christ worked out his own salvation by worshiping the Father.
After the Firstborn of the Father, while yet a spirit being, had gained power and intelligence that made him like unto God; after he had become, under the Father, the Creator of worlds without number; after he had reigned on the throne of eternal power as the Lord Omnipotent-- after all this he yet had to gain a mortal and then an immortal body.

After the Son of God "made flesh" his "tabernacle," and while he yet "dwelt among the sons of men"; after he left his preexistent glory as we all do at birth; after he was born of Mary in Bethlehem of Judea--after all this he was called upon to work out his own salvation.

Of our Lord's life while in this mortal probation the scripture says, "He received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fullness." Finally, after his resurrection, "he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; and he received all power both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him." (D&C 93:12-17)

Note it please, the Lord Jesus worked out his own salvation while in this mortal probation by going from grace to grace, until having overcome the world and being raised in immortal glory, he became like the Father in the full, complete, and eternal sense.

6. All men must worship the Father in the same way Christ did in order to gain salvation.
Thus saith the Lord: "I give unto you these sayings"-- those we have just quoted which tell how Christ gained his salvation by worshipping the Father--"I give unto you these sayings," saith the Lord, "that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due course receive of his fullness."

What a wondrous concept this is. We too can become like the Father "For if you keep my commandments," the Lord continues, "you shall receive of his fullness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace." (D&C 93:19-20)

7. The Father sent the Son to work out the infinite and eternal atonement.
As temporal and spiritual death came by the fall of Adam, so immortality and eternal life come by the atonement of Christ. Such was and is and ever shall be the plan of the Father. Adam was sent to earth to fall and Christ came to ransom men from the fall. Thus the Father sent this call forth in the councils of eternity: 'Whom shall I send to be my Son, to ransom men from temporal and spiritual death, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, to put into full operation all of the terms and conditions of my eternal plan of redemption and salvation?'

Christ is the Redeemer of men and the Savior of the world because his Father sent him and gave him power to do the assigned work. He said he had power to lay down his life and to take it again because he had been so commanded by the Father. Lehi says he rose from the dead "by the power of the Spirit." (2 Ne. 2:8 )

The great and eternal redemption, in all its phases, was wrought by Christ using the power of the Father.

8. The Son came to do the will of the Father in all things.
Jesus said: "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." Also I came into the world to do the will of my Father because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross." (3 Ne. 27:13-14) And Paul said of him: He "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philip. 2:7-8 )

How better could his relationship that he and his Father have be stated?

9. God, through Christ, is reconciling men to himself.
Fallen man is carnal, sensual, and devilish by nature; he is spiritually dead; he is out of harmony with the Father.

Thus, as Paul says, "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." We have "the word of reconciliation." which is the gospel, and our preaching is: "Be ye reconciled to God," that is, to the Father. (2Cor. 5:18-20)

10. Christ is the Mediator between God and man.
Because all men must be reconciled to God in order to be saved, he, in his goodness and grace, has provided a Mediator for them.

Paul tells us: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a ransom for all." (1 Tim. 2:5-6) To this we add: If there were no mediator we could never be reconciled to the Father and hence there would be no salvation.

11. Christ is our Intercessor with the Father, our Advocate in the courts above.
In the process of mediating between us and our Maker, in the process of reconciling sin-ridden men with a sin-free God, Christ makes intercession for all who repent. He advocates the cause of those who believe in him. "Father," he pleads, "spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life." (D&C 45:5)

12. Our eternal fellowship is with the Father and the Son.
John says: "Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." If we keep the commandments, "We have fellowship" with the Father--which is the object and end of our existence. And in the very nature of things we also have eternal fellowship with Christ, because he walked in the light and became and is one with the Father. (1 John 1:3-7)

13. God was in Christ manifesting himself to the world.
The Son, Paul tells us, is in "the express image of his (Father's) person." (Heb 1:3) "I and my Father are one," Jesus said. (John 10:30) Thus in his appearance, in his person, and in his attributes, the Son is the image and likeness of the Father. "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, Jesus said, the four gospels are a treasure house of knowledge because they set forth what the son is like, and he is like his Father.

14. Christ is the revealer of the Father.
God is and can be known only by revelation; he stands revealed or he remains forever unknown. Jesus said: "No man knoweth...who the Father is, but his Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." (Luke 10:22)

15. Christ is the way to the Father.
"I am the way," he said. "No man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) Who can doubt that Christ's mission is to reveal the Father, to lead men to the Father, to teach them how to worship the Father, to reconcile them to the Father.

16. Christ proclaims the gospel of the Father.
In the ultimate sense the world of salvation comes from the Father. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets," Paul says, "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." (Heb. 1:1) The Father sent the prophets; they represented him; and they spoke his word. When Jesus quoted the Old Testament prophets to the Nephites, he attributed their words to the Father.

Through the revelations came from the Son, yet in the ultimate sense the truths taught were those of the Father. We are also aware of many instances in which Jesus, acting by divine investiture of authority, speaks in the first person as though he were the Father. Thus Jesus said: "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:16-17)

17. Christ glorifies the Father and so must we.
"Glorify thy Son." Jesus prayed to the Father, "that thy Son also may glorify thee...I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." (John 17:1,4)

As Christ our Pattern, by obedience and by doing his appointed labors, glorified the Father, so must we. Acting in his Father's name, Jesus ascribed the honor and glory in all things to the Father. The very pattern of prayer that he gave us directs that we go and do likewise.

Now, we might continue on and add to this list, all of which would bear the same witness and accord with what we have said. Let us instead, based on these present concepts, discuss the problem at hand and draw some conclusions. What is and should be our relationship to the member of the Godhead? First, be it remembered, that most scriptures that speak of God or of the Lord do not even bother to distinguish between the Father and the Son, simply because it doesn't make any difference which God is involved. They are one. The words or deeds of either of them would be the words and deeds of the other in the same circumstance. Further, if a revelation comes from, or by the power of the Holy Ghost, ordinarily the words will be those of the Son, though what the Son says will be what the Father would say, and the words may thus be considered as the Father's. And thus any feelings of love, praise, awe, or worship that may fill our hearts when we receive the divine word will be the same no matter who is thought or known to be the author of them.

And yet we do have a proper relationship to each member of the Godhead, in part at least because they are separate and severable functions which each performs, and also because of what they as one Godhead have done for us.

Our relationship with the Father is supreme, paramount, and pre-eminent over all others. He is the God we worship. It is his gospel that saves and exalts. He ordained and established the plan of salvation. He is the one who was once as we are now. The life he lives is eternal life, and if we are to gain this greatest of all the gifts of God, it will be because we become like him.

Our relationship with the Father is one of parent and child. He is the one who gave us our agency. It was his plan that provided for a fall and an atonement. And it is to him that we must be reconciled if we are to gain salvation. He is the one to whom we have direct access by prayer, and if there were some need--which there is not!--to single out one member of the Godhead for a special relationship, the Father, not the Son, would be the one to choose.

Our relationship with the Son is one of brother or sister in the pre-mortal life and one of being led to the Father by him while in this mortal sphere. He is the Lord Jehovah who championed our cause before the foundations of the earth were laid. He is the God of Israel, the Promised Messiah, and the Redeemer of the world. By faith we are adopted into his family and become his children. We take upon ourselves his name, keep his commandments, and rejoice in the cleansing power of his blood. Salvation comes by him. From creations dawn, as long as eternity endures, there neither has been nor will be any act of such transcendent power and import as his atoning sacrifice.

We do not have a fraction of the power we need to properly praise his holy name and ascribe unto him the honor and power and might and glory and dominion that is his. He is our Lord, our God, and our King.

Our relationship with the Holy Spirit is quite another thing. This holy personage is a revelator and a sanctifier. He bears record of the Father and the Son. He dispenses spiritual gifts to the faithful. Those of us who have received the gift of the Holy Ghost have the right to his constant companionship.

And again, if it were proper--and I repeat, it is not!--to single out one member of the Godhead for some special attention, we might well conclude that member should be the Holy Ghost. We might well adopt as a slogan: Seek the Spirit. The reason of course is that the sanctifying power of the Spirit would assure us of reconciliation with the Father. And any person who enjoys the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit will be in complete harmony with the divine will in all things.

Heresies
Now, in spite of all these truths, which ought to be obvious to every spiritually enlightened person, heresies rear their ugly heads among us from time to time. There are those deluded cultists, and others who, unless they repent, are on the road to becoming cultists, who choose to believe we should worship Adam. These have or should find their way out of the Church.

There are others--in the main they are intellectuals without strong testimonies--who postulate that God does not know all things but is progressing in truth and knowledge and will do so everlastingly. These, unless they repent, will live and die weak in the faith and will fall short of inheriting what might have been theirs in eternity. There are yet others who have an excessive zeal which causes them to go beyond the mark. Their desire for excellence is inordinate. In an effort to be truer than true they devote themselves to gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ that is both improper and perilous.

I say perilous because this course, particularly in the lives of some who are spiritually immature, is a gospel hobby which creates an unwholesome holier-than-thou attitude. In other instances it leads to despondency because the seeker after perfection knows he is not living the way he supposed he should.

Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed. In this connection a current and unwise book, which advocates gaining a special relationship with Jesus, contains this sentence--quote: "Because the Savior is our mediator, our prayers go through Christ to the Father, and the Father answers our prayers through his Son." Unquote. This is plain, sectarian non-sense. Our prayers are addressed to the Father and to him only. They do not go through Christ or the Blessed Virgin or St. Genevieve or along the beads of a rosary. We are entitled to come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

And I rather suppose that He who sitteth upon the throne will chose his own ways to answer his children, and that they are numerous. Perfect prayer is addressed to the Father, in the name of the Son; it is uttered by the power of the Holy Ghost; and it is answered in whatever way seems proper by Him whose ear is attuned to the needs of his children. Now I know that some may be offended at the counsel that they should not strive for a special and personal relationship with Christ. It will seem to them as though I am speaking out against mother love, or Americanism, or the little red school house. But I am not. There is a fine line here over which true worshippers will not step. It is true that there may, with propriety, be a special relationship with a wife, with children, with friends, with teachers, with the beasts of the field and the fowls of the sky and the lilies of the valley. But the very moment anyone singles out one member of the Godhead as the almost sole recipient of his devotion, to the exclusion of the others, that is the moment when spiritual instability begins to replace sense and reason.

Stay in the Mainstream of the Church
The proper course for all of us is to stay in the mainstream of the Church. This is the Lord's Church, and it is led by the spirit of inspiration, and the practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of the scripture.

And you have never heard one of the First Presidency or the Twelve, who hold the keys of the kingdom, and who are appointed to see that we are not "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:14), you have never heard one of them advocate this excessive zeal that calls for gaining a so-called special and personal relationship with the Lord.

You have heard them teach and testify of the ministry and mission of the Lord Jesus, using the most persuasive and powerful language at their command. But never, never at any time have they taught or endorsed the inordinate and intemperate zeal that encourages endless, sometimes day-long prayers, in order to gain a personal relationship with the Savior.

Those who truly love the Lord and who worship the Father in the name of the Son by the power of the Spirit, according to the approved patterns, maintain a reverential barrier between themselves and all the members of the Godhead.

I am well aware that some who have prayed for endless hours feel they have a special and personal relationship with Christ that they never had before. I wonder if this is any or much different, however, from the feelings of fanatical sectarians who with glassy eyes and fiery tongues assure us they have been saved by grace and are assured of a place with the Lord in a heavenly abode, when in fact they have never even received the fullness of the gospel.

I wonder if it is not part of Lucifer's system to make people feel they are special friends of Jesus when in fact they are not following the normal and usual pattern of worship found in the true Church.

Let me remind you to stay in the course charted by the Church. It is the Lord's Church, and he will not permit it to be led astray. If we take the counsel that comes from the prophets and seers we will pursue the course that is pleasing to the Lord. Would it be amiss if I reminded you that Jesus maintained a reserve between him and his disciples and that he did not allow them the same intimacy with him that they had with each other. This was particularly true after his resurrection.

For instance, when Mary Magdalene, in a great outpouring of love and devotion, sought to embrace the Risen Lord, her hands were stayed. "Touch me not," he said. Between her and him, no matter the degree of their love, there was a line over which she could not pass.

And yet, almost immediately thereafter, a whole group of faithful women held that same Lord by the feet, and we cannot doubt bathed his wounded feet with their tears. It is a fine and sacred line, but clearly there is a difference between a personal and intimate relationship with the Lord, which is improper, and one of worshipful adoration, which yet maintains the required reserve between us and Him who has bought us with his blood.

Now I sincerely hope that no one will imagine that I have in the slightest degree downgraded the Lord Jesus in the scheme of things. I have not done so. As far as I know there is not a man on earth who thinks more highly of him than I do. It just may be that I have preached more sermons, taught more doctrine, and written more words about the Lord Jesus Christ than any man now living. I have ten large volumes in print, seven of which deal almost entirely with Christ, and the other three with him and his doctrines. I do not suppose that what I have here said will be an end to controversy or to the spread of false views and doctrines. The devil is not dead and he delights in controversy. But you have been warned, and you have heard the true doctrine taught. Those who need to study the matter further would do well to get and study a copy of what I have said when it is published by the Brigham Young University.

Let us then end on the note of testimony and of prayer. I bear record of the divine Sonship of Him of whom we have this day spoken. He is or should be our best friend through whom we can be reconciled to God.

And I pray that the true doctrine of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, which as the Book of Mormon says is one God, may be found in the hearts and souls of all of us.

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen."

As far as I know the First Presidency never censured Elder McConkie for this talk, and it is odd that something spoken by an apostle of Jesus Christ about 30 years ago should be held in such contempt by those who should be defending the faith instead of criticizing it. But let me say that while I am sure some of his language may be considered offensive to many who feel that it is so important to be "politically correct" or to not dare offend anyone, I do not think a doctrinal error can be found in it anywhere.

[mercyngrace]

Quote

Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed. In this connection a current and unwise book, which advocates gaining a special relationship with Jesus, contains this sentence--quote: "Because the Savior is our mediator, our prayers go through Christ to the Father, and the Father answers our prayers through his Son." Unquote. This is plain, sectarian non-sense. Our prayers are addressed to the Father and to him only. They do not go through Christ or the Blessed Virgin or St. Genevieve or along the beads of a rosary. We are entitled to come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

After the garden, every interaction between God and His children goes through Christ.  That's why He's called "The Mediator". There comes a point (think temple) at which God ceases talking directly to His children and even the return to His presence requires that we pass through Christ (Heb 10:20).

The temple drama illustrates this perfectly.  Comparing Christ in His role as intermediary to Mary or St. Genevieve is ridiculous for anyone who's been through an endowment ceremony.

edit: Notice also the flawed interpretation of the Pace quote - saying that our prayers go through Christ IS NOT the same as saying our prayers are addressed to Christ.

edit:  Even in scripture, the only time we have God the Father speaking (IIRC) is when He testifies of and directs us toward His Son.

Edited by mercyngrace, 03 February 2011 - 09:12 AM.

[kitmarlow]

I was actually present in the Marriott Center when this talk was given, not in the bleachers but on the floor right in front of the lectern. George Pace was a few seats down from me, with no idea of what was about to come. I clearly recall the moment I realized who Elder McConkie was talking about.

I can't speak to any doctrinal reasons Elder McConkie may have had for doing what he did. I do know that Bro. Pace had a kind of "following" at BYU in those years. After the talk had ended and I was heading out the opening under the basketball standard, a prominent BYU faculty member in the Religion Dept. said to me, shaking his head, "Elder McConkie should have given George some warning. He should have warned him. I feel so bad for George!"

"Reproving betimes with sharpness when moved upon by the Holy Ghost while showing forth afterwards an increase of love" (can't quote this verbatim)--this is what the scripture says. Again, I can't say whether Bro. Pace deserved his dressing down or not. But the way in which it was done! Such public humiliation! And I would have expected someone of Elder McConkie's stature, a special witness, etc., to have not only given some forewarning to Bro. Pace (whom he must've known was going to be not only present in the audience but right up at the front, on the stage where it was customary for local BYU stake leaders and faculty to sit)--I would have expected Elder McConkie to have forewarned Bro. Pace, and if not a warning, then at least a follow-up visit in which he would have put his arm around Bro. Pace and said, "Brother, I am sorry I had to do that but I felt it necessary. But I want you to know of the love I have for you," etc., etc. But to my knowledge Elder McConkie never spoke to Bro. Pace directly after this, he never offered any kind of follow-up. I would have thought that someone with Bro. Pace's dedication and long history of church service, not to mention his family, his son who was on a mission--I would have thought Bro. Pace deserved such consideration.

Before this, I'd had a couple of encounters with Elder McConkie in--well I won't say where. But he was not a man who was shy about giving offence, he did not suffer fools gladly. The only problem with this, in my view, is that anyone who differed with him, who didn't see things the way he saw them, was considered a fool, and so there was always a lot of offence going round when he was present.

This being said, I admired Elder McConkie when he was alive, and I still do, for all of his good qualities and his deep doctrinal understanding, perhaps unmatched in our day.

[mercyngrace]

Thanks for chiming in kitmarlow.  I also admired (and still admire) Elder McConkie but I have mixed feelings about the way he presented his opinions.  

In all the reading I've done on this particular episode, it appears that Elder McConkie responded to what he thought Bro. Pace was teaching rather than to what he actually was teaching.  That's a very human thing to do. A wiser man would have consulted Bro. Pace to clarify prior to a public denunciation.

I think what makes this whole episode so unsavory is that there was no public repudiation of Mormon Doctrine, with all the errors it contained.

Essentially, Elder McConkie received mercy and was spared a very humiliating public dressing down after he published his book.  But he didn't proffer the same level of mercy to Bro. Pace.  There's a parable about that I think.

Edited by mercyngrace, 03 February 2011 - 11:43 AM.

[kitmarlow]

mercyngrace, on 03 February 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

I think what makes this whole episode so unsavory is that there was no public repudiation of Mormon Doctrine, with all the errors it contained.

Essentially, Elder McConkie received mercy and was spared a very humiliating public dressing down after he published his book.  But he didn't give proffer the same level of mercy to Bro. Pace.  There's a parable about that I think.

I hadn't thought of this. A very interesting parallel....

[Bob Crockett]

mercyngrace, on 03 February 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

I think what makes this whole episode so unsavory is that there was no public repudiation of Mormon Doctrine, with all the errors it contained.

Essentially, Elder McConkie received mercy and was spared a very humiliating public dressing down after he published his book.  But he didn't give proffer the same level of mercy to Bro. Pace.  There's a parable about that I think.

Perhaps Elder McConkie was right on both accounts, both with Mormon Doctrine (in its edited form) and in his BYU address.   It is the apostles' job to keep the ark steady, not Pres. Pace's.  

I recall this BYU talk as well.  Up to that point I was not a George Pace fan nor of his writings and thought Elder McConkie's talk hit the mark, although I see some Book of Mormon statements that might seem to conflict with Elder McConkie's views.

Moreover, who knows here whether Elder McConkie did not have an advance discussion with Pres. Pace?  Stake Presidents go off course all the time, one might be surprised to know, and general authorities are there to reign them in.  You can see that very model in operation in St. Paul's writings.

[mercyngrace]

rcrocket, on 03 February 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:

Perhaps Elder McConkie was right on both accounts, both with Mormon Doctrine (in its edited form) and in his BYU address.   It is the apostles' job to keep the ark steady, not Pres. Pace's.  

I recall this BYU talk as well.  Up to that point I was not a George Pace fan nor of his writings and thought Elder McConkie's talk hit the mark, although I see some Book of Mormon statements that might seem to conflict with Elder McConkie's views.

Moreover, who knows here whether Elder McConkie did not have an advance discussion with Pres. Pace?  Stake Presidents go off course all the time, one might be surprised to know, and general authorities are there to reign them in.  You can see that very model in operation in St. Paul's writings.

~ How was Bro. Pace steadying the ark?  By publishing a book about his own personal spiritual experiences?  His books weren't published under any authoritative banner or titled in an auspicious or misleading way. What was he doing besides inviting all to come unto Christ?

~ The incident is well documented by those who do know.  There was no advance warning.  (You can read the link to Seth Payne's blog above for reference.)

~ I agree that it is right for those who wander to be reigned in, though the words 'love unfeigned' come to mind as well as the injunction to show a love that is faithful unto the cords of death.  The Savior outlined a format for such encounters which included speaking to one's brother in private prior to laying the matter before a judge or even before the court of public opinion.

Edited by mercyngrace, 03 February 2011 - 10:45 AM.

[Bob Crockett]

mercyngrace, on 03 February 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

~ How was Bro. Pace steadying the ark?  By publishing a book about his own personal spiritual experiences?  His books weren't published under any authoritative banner or titled in an auspicious or misleading way. What was he doing besides inviting all to come unto Christ?

~ The incident is well documented by those who do know.  There was no advance warning.  (You can read the link to Seth Payne's blog above for reference.)

~ I agree that it is right for those who wander to be reigned in, though the words 'love unfeigned' come to mind as well as the injunction to show a love that is faithful unto the cords of death.  The Savior outlined a format for such encounters which included speaking to one's brother in private prior to laying the matter before a judge or even before the court of public opinion.

I don't accept at face value what people say in a hearsay way; David Pace complains of Elder McConkie's "hatchet job" but his piece is one as well.  If Pres. Pace has words to say about the event, I'd pay attention.  Who can say that perhaps Pres. Pace wasn't warned in advance?  Do we have Pres. Pace's words?

Of course Pres. Pace could have been seen as wading off into apostasy.  What better platform to do that from than from the halls of BYU and in a book?  I think it is pretty trivial stuff, but like I say, at the time I thought his writings were quirky.  David Pace implies that Pres. Pace was released as a result of this dispute; releases are not engineered by a single general authority.

Regarding Elder McConkie's supposed heavy-handed approach, and that it should have been with "love unfeigned," perhaps the same could have been directed to St. Paul and St Peter.  "Ye generation of vipers" also comes to mind as having been uttered by the Savior.  In the Church if you're interested in getting involved in a cult of personality (like Pace, England, Firmage and many others) you're going to get into trouble.  The Church isn't about that, at least outside of the general authority ranks.

Edited by rcrocket, 03 February 2011 - 11:07 AM.

[mercyngrace]

rcrocket, on 03 February 2011 - 11:05 AM, said:

I don't accept at face value what people say in a hearsay way; David Pace complains of Elder McConkie's "hatchet job" but his piece is one as well.  If Pres. Pace has words to say about the event, I'd pay attention.  Who can say that perhaps Pres. Pace wasn't warned in advance?  Do we have Pres. Pace's words?

Of course Pres. Pace could have been seen as wading off into apostasy.  What better platform to do that from than from the halls of BYU and in a book?  I think it is pretty trivial stuff, but like I say, at the time I thought his writings were quirky.  David Pace implies that Pres. Pace was released as a result of this dispute; releases are not engineered by a single general authority.

Regarding Elder McConkie's supposed heavy-handed approach, and that it should have been with "love unfeigned," perhaps the same could have been directed to St. Paul and St Peter.  "Ye generation of vipers" also comes to mind as having been uttered by the Savior.  In the Church if you're interested in getting involved in a cult of personality (like Pace, England, Firmage and many others) you're going to get into trouble.  The Church isn't about that, at least outside of the general authority ranks.

If establishing "come unto Christ" as a primary doctrine is the same as creating a cult of personality, then you'll have to add  a lot more people to that list you've started there in the parenthesis.

It's important also to note that those harsh rebukes were reserved for priests and teachers (the ones who had the authority!) who led men away from Christ, which is the exact opposite of what Bro. Pace encouraged.

edit:  For some reason, this discussion reminds me of the following quote...
�Catholicism teaches an infallible Pope, yet few Catholics seem to believe it; Mormonism teaches a fallible prophet, yet few Latter-day Saints seem to believe it.�

Edited by mercyngrace, 03 February 2011 - 11:27 AM.

[Bob Crockett]

mercyngrace, on 03 February 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:

If establishing "come unto Christ" as a primary doctrine is the same as creating a cult of personality, then you'll have to add  a lot more people to that list you've started there in the parenthesis.

It's important also to note that those harsh rebukes were reserved for priests and teachers (the ones who had the authority!) who led men away from Christ, which is the exact opposite of what Bro. Pace encouraged.

edit:  For some reason, this discussion reminds me of the following quote...
�Catholicism teaches an infallible Pope, yet few Catholics seem to believe it; Mormonism teaches a fallible prophet, yet few Latter-day Saints seem to believe it.�

I'm not here to condemn Pace except to say at the time I thought his writings were odd, in excess of what the Brethren had been teaching, and starting to sound like sectarian evangelicalism.  But I was just a college kid at the time and wouldn't have been interested in becoming more religious, I'm sure.

But I can certainly see how it is in Church structure that Pace ran afoul of Church teachings on the worship of the Father and the Son.  The relationship of the Father to the Son has been of crucial importance to the Brethren; witness the doctrinal exposition of the father and son released by the FP in 1914 or 1916.  

And, I don't see anything wrong today, nor did I then, with having some apostle make public statements to challenge doctrinal drift.  

As to the "cult of personality," it is a common problem in the Lord's church.  Simon Magus comes to mind.

[Senator]

rcrocket, on 03 February 2011 - 11:05 AM, said:

Regarding Elder McConkie's supposed heavy-handed approach, and that it should have been with "love unfeigned," perhaps the same could have been directed to St. Paul and St Peter.  "Ye generation of vipers" also comes to mind as having been uttered by the Savior.  

And then there's the episode wherein the disciples encoutered a certain individual casting out devils in the name of Christ. They, the disciples, feeling empowered with authority, wished to pull a McConkie-like rank and demand that the individual be made to stop. Upon which the Savior said, "Forbid him not,... For he that is not against us is on our part."

Do you not see a diffentiation between the heart and mind sets of the Pharisees and Sadducess, and that of Bro. Pace, such that your parallel between the two utterly fails?

[kitmarlow]

A McConkie story....

     I had a few close encounters with Elder McConkie, but unfortunately I cannot go into detail. For this reason some may assume the story below is made up. Oh, well.

     Anyway, without going into detail--I was present in a meeting, Elder McConkie was in charge, and a much younger brother, a minor local church leader, gathered up his courage at the end of the meeting and approached Elder McConkie with a delicate but harmless question. It were as though I was witnessing a little kid with a pop gun approach a soldier dressed out in full military regalia, but instead of responding in a way appropriate to such a harmless threat, the soldier climbs aboard a tank and runs over and completely annihilates the little kid with the pop gun.

     I have since wondered about this young man, what became of him--recalling, as I do, his fallen countenance and shock at Elder McConkie's needlessly offensive reply.

     For the "choir", i.e., the righteous and all of those firm in the faith, Elder McConkie was great. But for those with questions, honest doubts....

[Bob Crockett]

Senator, on 03 February 2011 - 11:46 AM, said:

And then there's the episode wherein the disciples encoutered a certain individual casting out devils in the name of Christ. They, the disciples, feeling empowered with authority, wished to pull a McConkie-like rank and demand that the individual be made to stop. Upon which the Savior said, "Forbid him not,... For he that is not against us is on our part."

Do you not see a diffentiation between the heart and mind sets of the Pharisees and Sadducess, and that of Bro. Pace, such that your parallel between the two utterly fails?

However, in the episode you recount, we have the scriptural correction right in the books.  Jesus corrects his disciples.  Thus, the story is told from start to finish.

In the McConkie-Pace episode, we have the following:  (1) a lay person with a local church rank selling books, making money off them like so much Meldrum and Porter and advocating a suspiciously incorrect position; (2) an Apostle correcting him [with no Jesus around to pull rank]; (3) a subsequent release from position; and (4) no apparent correction of Elder McConkie.  I'd say the story has been fully told to our satisfaction on that incident.

I know that Elder McConkie is the current whipping boy of both apostates and some of the faithful.  Mockery is too easy when it comes to Elder McConkie.