42 replies to this topic

[Bob Crockett]

kitmarlow, on 03 February 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

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....

So what?  They're human.   My inlaws were in their home ward when Elder Haight came for a visit.  The organist was sitting at the organ, her husband on the stand, and their 8 young children a little unruly.   Elder Haight interrupted the meeting to demand that the parents of these children control them.  Elder McConkie was not a people person.  That isn't a requirement for the office.

[mercyngrace]

rcrocket, on 03 February 2011 - 12:04 PM, said:

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.

I don't think it's mockery to acknowledge the foibles of men, regardless of their position.  It is false doctrine, in fact, to pretend they are above sin or mistakes. It's also dangerous and creates the exact kind of cult of personality you warned against earlier and is a form of worship.

Edited by mercyngrace, 03 February 2011 - 12:13 PM.

[mercyngrace]

rcrocket, on 03 February 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

So what?  They're human.   My inlaws were in their home ward when Elder Haight came for a visit.  The organist was sitting at the organ, her husband on the stand, and their 8 young children a little unruly.   Elder Haight interrupted the meeting to demand that the parents of these children control them.  Elder McConkie was not a people person.  That isn't a requirement for the office.

But God IS a people person. (Moses 1:39)

Our efforts to emulate Him and His Son, should bring us closer to that ideal.

I would argue that a desire to save God's children, rooted in a love of both Him and them, is the foremost job requirement.  That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of on-the-job training, though

[Bob Crockett]

mercyngrace, on 03 February 2011 - 12:11 PM, said:

I don't think it's mockery to acknowledge the foibles of men, regardless of their position.  It is false doctrine, in fact, to pretend they are above sin or mistakes. It's also dangerous and creates the exact kind of cult of personality you warned against earlier and is a form of worship.

In this case, however, there is nothing to indicate that Elder McConkie was in error except your own subjective determination as to what is being Christ-like and what is not.  I guess you don't want to acknowledge my points above about the story being told from soup to nuts in this instance, culminating in the release of Pres. Pace.   Again, it is too easy to whip up poor Elder McConkie over the incident, but I thought at the time that Pres. Pace was kind of loony.

[WalkerW]

rcrocket, on 03 February 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

In this case, however, there is nothing to indicate that Elder McConkie was in error except your own subjective determination as to what is being Christ-like and what is not.

What is wrong with making subjective determinations?

[Bob Crockett]

WalkerW, on 03 February 2011 - 01:04 PM, said:

What is wrong with making subjective determinations?

A New Age view of Jesus Christ's unconditional love is contrary to Biblical principles.  

Sure, Jesus loves his children, but he also corrects them, lectures them and declares them evil if need be.

[WalkerW]

rcrocket, on 03 February 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

A New Age view of Jesus Christ's unconditional love is contrary to Biblical principles.  

Sure, Jesus loves his children, but he also corrects them, lectures them and declares them evil if need be.

Is this not a "subjective determination"?

No one said anything about New Age views.

[Senator]

rcrocket, on 03 February 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

So what?  They're human.   My inlaws were in their home ward when Elder Haight came for a visit.  The organist was sitting at the organ, her husband on the stand, and their 8 young children a little unruly.   Elder Haight interrupted the meeting to demand that the parents of these children control them.  

Really?

I believe I would be of mind to leave the stand or the organ, respectively, gather up my 8 little darlings and march right on out door to tend to my kids at home.

Or perhaps, (hopefully) E. Haight didn't actually speak in such a way as you present it.

[WalkerW]

Senator, on 03 February 2011 - 02:20 PM, said:

Really?

I believe I would be of mind to leave the stand or the organ, respectively, gather up my 8 little darlings and march right on out door to tend to my kids at home.

Or perhaps, (hopefully) E. Haight didn't actually speak in such a way as you present it.

Joseph Smith would have said (about the children), "Let them stay!" He did so during his own sermons when other brethren tried to usher them out.

[mercyngrace]

rcrocket, on 03 February 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

In this case, however, there is nothing to indicate that Elder McConkie was in error except your own subjective determination as to what is being Christ-like and what is not.  I guess you don't want to acknowledge my points above about the story being told from soup to nuts in this instance, culminating in the release of Pres. Pace.   Again, it is too easy to whip up poor Elder McConkie over the incident, but I thought at the time that Pres. Pace was kind of loony.

Actually, if you'll read back up through the thread, you will see where I pointed to the temple drama as evidence that Elder McConkie was in error.  I could be wrong but since we're discussing doctrine, the endowment strikes me as authoritative.

"Loony" is subjective.  "Whip up" is subjective. "Poor" is subjective.  

rcrocket, are you really suggesting that the temple drama and the scriptures (I cited Moses 1:39) are not authoritative in a discussion of LDS doctrine?

[mercyngrace]

rcrocket, on 03 February 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

A New Age view of Jesus Christ's unconditional love is contrary to Biblical principles.  

Sure, Jesus loves his children, but he also corrects them, lectures them and declares them evil if need be.

Isn't the "condition" coming unto Christ?

[consiglieri]

rcrocket, on 03 February 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

So what?  They're human.  

Of course they are human, but that is no excuse for an apostle of God to behave abominably to anyone, much less to one of the church he purports to lead.

Bruce R. McConkie was a bully, plain and simple.

Although this is my "subjective determination," Elder McConkie was jealous of the attention Pace was getting and felt threatened.  

That is why he lashed out at Pace publicly the way he did with no warning beforehand.  He perceived Pace as an enemy to himself, and therefore an enemy to the entire church.

It is interesting that the issue was whether we worship (and have a relationship with) a lesser being in the Godhead that the Father.

Ironically, Elder McConkie's adamant stance (contrary to the Book of Mormon) that we are to have no spiritual relationship with anybody less than the top dog was reflected in the fact he did not want other church members to have a spiritual relationship with anybody less than the duly constituted general authorities of the Church.

Just my thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Edited by consiglieri, 03 February 2011 - 03:13 PM.

[Senator]

consiglieri, on 03 February 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

Bruce R. McConkie was a bully, plain and simple.

Although this is my "subjective determination," Elder McConkie was jealous of the attention Pace was getting and felt threatened.  

That is why he lashed out at Pace publicly the way he did with no warning beforehand.  He perceived Pace as an enemy to himself, and therefore an enemy to the entire church.

It is interesting that the issue was whether we worship (and have a relationship with) a lesser being in the Godhead that the Father.

Ironically, Elder McConkie's adamant stance (contrary to the Book of Mormon) that we are to have no spiritual relationship with anybody less than the top dog was reflected in the fact he did not want other church members to have a spiritual relationship with anybody less than the duly constituted general authorities of the Church.

Ok...

What gives Consig??

[WalkerW]

Senator, on 03 February 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

Ok...

What gives Consig??

He really doesn't like Bruce.

[consiglieri]

WalkerW, on 03 February 2011 - 03:37 PM, said:

He really doesn't like Bruce.

I hope that didn't seem like it came out of the blue.

Some people hold apostles to a lower standard that other folks.

Call me crazy, but I feel they should be held to a higher standard.

This incident, more than any other of which I am aware, painted Elder McConkie in his true colors.

He was a smart feller never fitted for the apostleship but got there anyway through the machinations of his father-in-law.

Can you say "nepotism"?

Would I have felt differently if he had apologized?  Absolutely.  But . . . he . . . never . . . did.

Either publicly (which is what he should have done--just as public as his unjustified denouncement) or privately.

(Cue the BRMA saying I can't know if he ever apologized privately.)

Elder McConkie got a lot of mileage out of his knowledge of the scriptures.

Too bad all that book learning never translated into mere Christianity.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S.  Sorry for the rant, but like WalkerW said, I really don't like Bruce.

[WalkerW]

Quote

I hope that didn't seem like it came out of the blue.

It didn't for me. I remember sharing your thoughts on Bruce long ago with my parents. Posters on a particular thread were trying to justify something Elder McConkie had said. You simply called him a "pompous windbag" (or something like that) and moved on. It made me laugh.

I have a love/hate relationship with Elder McConkie. I'm often blown away by him, both in good ways and bad ways. To be fair, I think this is true of just about anyone. However, McConkie achieved more spotlight (largely of his own doing) than many others. Therefore, I have more to go on.

Edited by WalkerW, 03 February 2011 - 04:09 PM.

[Duncan]

As long as we are sharing brethren stories, my bro-in law told me about a time when Elder Ashton visited his mission and someone told the organist to play something that everyone would know and then the missionaries would just join in and so when the time came he started playing the Flintstones theme! Everyone knows that song!

[mercyngrace]

Consig,

If it makes you feel any better, my dad was present during a conversation where a man was raving about Mormon Doctrine and Elder McConkie said he wished he'd never written the book.

Even apostles repent.

MnG

[consiglieri]

WalkerW, on 03 February 2011 - 04:07 PM, said:

It didn't for me. I remember sharing your thoughts on Bruce long ago with my parents. Posters on a particular thread were trying to justify something Elder McConkie had said. You simply called him a "pompous windbag" (or something like that) and moved on. It made me laugh.

I have a love/hate relationship with Elder McConkie. I'm often blown away by him, both in good ways and bad ways. To be fair, I think this is true of just about anyone. However, McConkie achieved more spotlight (largely of his own doing) than many others. Therefore, I have more to go on.

I'm glad I didn't offend you, WW.  I'm not sure what annoys me most--the way BRM acted sometimes or the way people try to justify his bad behavior.

But then, I also have to take into the mix that one of the most powerful spiritual experiences I ever had was sitting in a chapel in Austin, Texas, watching him give his final testimony in April 1985 General Conference.

It was then I understood what it meant to feel the Spirit like a mighty, rushing wind.

But he was still a boor.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

mercyngrace, on 03 February 2011 - 04:22 PM, said:

Consig,

If it makes you feel any better, my dad was present during a conversation where a man was raving about Mormon Doctrine and Elder McConkie said he wished he'd never written the book.

Even apostles repent.

MnG

Did he wish it strong enough to stop having it republished?