Has Time Been Good To The Teachings Of Bruce R. Mcconkie And Joseph Fielding Smith?

[Craig Paxton]

For the purpose of this post let me state emphatically that I am only referring to those teachings that have been shown to be false….and I freely acknowledge that many of their timeless teachings continue as touchstones of inspiration for many in the church today.

Let me state that I was once a huge fan of both Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie… I loved and respected both of these men as servants of God in part because you knew exactly where they stood on difficult doctrinal positions…neither of them was wishy washy or feared taking a stand, particularly when it came to Mormon Doctrine. Unlike many leders in the church today, neither of these men feared taking a position even when it flew in the face of reality and contrary to the prevailing thought of the day. However despite being great giants in Mormonism…I would dare say that time has not been kind to either of their legacies. The black and white thinking and so many of the teachings that both of these men taught as truth has been eroded by scientific advancement and many of their other teachings have been shown, with the passage of time, to be blatant falsehoods.

While I do not hold them responsible for this reality since they were merely reflecting the general thinking of their day…how are believing members of the church able to reconcile the fact that these men and other black and white thinkers in the church like them got it so wrong. Despite claiming inspiration directly from God…They got so many things wrong at the very time when they were claiming divine inspiration and revelation. If these men got God’s revelations and inspiration to them so wrong, how are we to accept any of Gods revelations to anyone who makes similar claims to this same revelatory power today? Why would God allow his chosen leaders to teach so many falsehoods as truth at the very same time they were claiming direct communications from God. How are members of the church today supposed to process and reconcile this reality?

Edited July 2, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Duncan]

I like both men and I guess the way I see them and others of the past is in a linear progression, one person to the next, one idea to the next. If I study their writings I have to wrap my head around what the context was at that time.Not all of their stuff is bad. Even today with Pres. Monson and what he says will be in x amount of time historical. One thing too is they offered their ideas or opinions on the policies of the day and so take it for what it's worth. I don't live in 1970 or 1981 I live in 2012 and sustain the leaders of today-I hope this isn't coming across as condescending because it isn't intended to be as such

[Craig Paxton]

I like both men and I guess the way I see them and others of the past is in a linear progression, one person to the next, one idea to the next. If I study their writings I have to wrap my head around what the context was at that time.Not all of their stuff is bad. Even today with Pres. Monson and what he says will be in x amount of time historical. One thing too is they offered their ideas or opinions on the policies of the day and so take it for what it's worth. I don't live in 1970 or 1981 I live in 2012 and sustain the leaders of today-I hope this isn't coming across as condescending because it isn't intended to be as such

No I appreciate your perspective...thank you

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sure, Oh wait people actually learn line upon line and precept upon precept? I actually think it quite interesting to see some views change.

[Yep]

My personal view is that it depends on each item individually. Look at the New Testament. How many times were the Apostles corrected for their mistaken beliefs/views, and not just during Christ's time on Earth but also being corrected by one another how ? Eli was also corrected by Samuel even after Eli had been told by God what was needed previously. I think that the question can move to the larger population of anyone of a Judaeo/Christian background.

If these men got God’s revelations and inspiration to them so wrong, how are we to accept any of Gods revelations to anyone who makes similar claims to this same revelatory power ever?

However, back to the topic. I have a poor memory at times and I am unsure if I have read anything that I felt were "wrong". Could you provide sources for the errors? I am not sure as to what you are referencing.

[Craig Paxton]

My personal view is that it depends on each item individually. Look at the New Testament. How many times were the Apostles corrected for their mistaken beliefs/views, and not just during Christ's time on Earth but also being corrected by one another how ? Eli was also corrected by Samuel even after Eli had been told by God what was needed previously. I think that the question can move to the larger population of anyone of a Judaeo/Christian background.

If these men got God’s revelations and inspiration to them so wrong, how are we to accept any of Gods revelations to anyone who makes similar claims to this same revelatory power ever?

However, back to the topic. I have a poor memory at times and I am unsure if I have read anything that I felt were "wrong". Could you provide sources for the errors? I am not sure as to what you are referencing.

Both men taught:

a 6,000 young earth...false

Universal flood...false

Adam and Eve...false

No death or procreation before the Fall...false

Evoution not valid...false

Earth created in a literal 6,000 years...then it was inhabited by a literal Adam and Eve...false

These are a few of their discredited teachings...yet I completely respect and miss their boldness...even though they were completely wrong

Edited July 2, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Mark Beesley]

While I do not hold them responsible for this reality since they were merely reflecting the general thinking of their day…how are believing members of the church able to reconcile the fact that these men and other black and white thinkers in the church like them got it so wrong. Despite claiming inspiration directly from God…They got so many things wrong at the very time when they were claiming divine inspiration and revelation. If these men got God’s revelations and inspiration to them so wrong, how are we to accept any of Gods revelations to anyone who makes similar claims to this same revelatory power today? Why would God allow his chosen leaders to teach so many falsehoods as truth at the very same time they were claiming direct communications from God. How are members of the church today supposed to process and reconcile this reality?

I think this is precisely where the criticism falls down. By assuming that if a person claims they were inspired to proclaim a particular truth, some will assume that they claim (or impute) divine inspiration for everything they declare. In reality, the brethren very seldom will preface (or conclude) a statement with a declaration that it was inspired. Mormon Doctrine, in particular, states right up front that it is McConkie's words and not the Church's. He does not say, I have been inspired to write every entry you wlll find herein.

It is the responsibility of each member to decide whether or not something they are hearing from the mouth of an apostle, a prophet, or anyone else is inspired. The Doctrrine and Covenants section 50 teaches us how to do this.

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

Thus, the ultimate responsiblity lies with the individual member to conduct their own life in such a manner that they are receptive to the Spirit of Truth so that they can recognize it when it is declared, and also discern when truth may be a stranger to that which is being taught. That being said, it is not the responsibility of the individual member to declare to anyone, other than those for whom they have a direct stewardship, when they have discerned through the Spirit whether or not a particular thing is true.

There is a cute sign at Downtown Johnny Brown's in San Diego, a local watering hole, that my wife gets a kick out of: Often in error, never in doubt

Edited July 2, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[SamIam]

Both men taught:

a 6,000 young earth...false

Universal flood...false

Adam and Eve...false

No death or procreation before the Fall...false

Evoution not valid...false

Earth created in a literal 6,000 years...then it was inhabited by a literal Adam and Eve...false

These are a few of their discredited teachings...yet I completely respect and miss their boldness...even though they were completely wrong

Predicated upon this list, I couldn't disagree with you more. I am convinced that if you had just a brief window of objectivity and were to look at the many scientifically based issues and conflicts with the theory of evolution alone, you would have to back away on all of your other claims. It is so riddled with weaknesses that it astounds me that anyone could with any degree of integrity legitimately overlook its flaws and accept it so completely. The best one could do is say it is the best theory of men but it is dubious at best with what science admits.

Edited July 3, 2012 by SamIam

[DBMormon]

While I think they may have said a dozen things that seem incorrect in our day and time they both said thousands of things that ring true in any dispensation. I have said stupid things from the pulpit... I would hate to be measured by those few things that were stupid...... While I am a big advocate for acknowledging mistakes, I wish we were better at not measuring these two men by their few flaws and overlooking their great strengths and talents

[yootaw]

Often in error, never in doubt

LOL. I'd never heard that before. Love it.

[Lightbearer]

Both men taught:

a 6,000 young earth...false

Universal flood...false

Adam and Eve...false

No death or procreation before the Fall...false

Evoution not valid...false

Earth created in a literal 6,000 years...then it was inhabited by a literal Adam and Eve...false

These are a few of their discredited teachings...yet I completely respect and miss their boldness...even though they were completely wrong

When were these teachings discredited by a prophet of God? Of course this board is full of detractors. But please show me a quote from a correlated manual or a scriptural reference that contradicts their views? I am sure their teachings are unpopular among many (both in their day and now) especially among those steeped in the traditions of men. I do not believe you have a "proof positive" on any of these teachings.Just because you disagree or even so-called scientists disagree or even those on this board, there is no conclusive proof that they were wrong. (When I first saw the topic I thought you would be rehashing the old Catholic=Mother of Harlots or the priesthood ban.)

The Church still teaches a literal Adam and Eve, and no death before the fall, as well as a global flood. and a 7,000 years of the earth's temporal existance, as for how long it took for the creation I do not think they taught a specific time period.

Some may choose to deny these things but I do not.

[Darren10]

has been eroded by scientific advancement and many of their other teachings have been shown, with the passage of time, to be blatant falsehoods.

Huh???

…how are believing members of the church able to reconcile the fact that these men and other black and white thinkers in the church like them got it so wrong.

One or two examples would be nice.

Despite claiming inspiration directly from God…

On what?

If these men got God’s revelations and inspiration to them so wrong

WHAT?!?!?!

how are we to accept any of Gods revelations to anyone who makes similar claims to this same revelatory power today?

I go by statements made collectively by the First Presidency and/or Qurorum of the Twelve. These statements are forthe intent of learning the gospel and eternal truths. Indidivual statements by prophets can very well be their own interpretation of any given topic which hold no weight ofthe LDS Church, or upon the faith and worship of its members.

Why would God allow his chosen leaders to teach so many falsehoods as truth at the very same time they were claiming direct communications from God.

Cuz they're human as well as prophets?

How are members of the church today supposed to process and reconcile this reality?

First and foremost, they need to know the difference between books the prophets write as NOT being official LDS doctrine and thus NOT binding on the official teachings ofthe Church, nor on the faith and worship of its members. Also, they should seek the statements by the First Presidency and/or Quorum of the Twelve if they are to ake the words of the prophets as God's truth.

The scientific part has already been handled nicely by Samlam I see. I think you are a person who focuses on very narrow scientific conclusions and elevate them as absolute eternal truths. Holding scientific conclusions as absolute truths is inherently a very unscientific action to take.

[Darren10]

The Church still teaches a literal Adam and Eve, and no death before the fall, as well as a global flood. and a 7,000 years of the earth's temporal existance, as for how long it took for the creation I do not think they taught a specific time period.

Some may choose to deny these things but I do not.

While the i think the Church more or less advocates a 7,000 (or so) existence of mankind, I do not think it teaches any such thing as tothe age of the earth.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Darren10

[yootaw]

When were these teachings discredited by a prophet of God?

I think we could agree that we shouldn't look to scientists for spiritual knowledge. Why would I look to prophets to for scientific knowledge? When faced with the evidence on each of the issues mentioned, I have to conclude that the science is correct, and that the scriptures are speaking metaphorically. That is what works for me.

[yootaw]

Holding scientific conclusions as absolute truths is inherently a very unscientific action to take.

Why is this unscientific? I'd like to understand your position better. Do you think that accepting something as absolutely true means that you have learned all there is to learn about it?

[BCSpace]

Why would God allow his chosen leaders to teach so many falsehoods as truth at the very same time they were claiming direct communications from God. How are members of the church today supposed to process and reconcile this reality?

Did they claim revelation from God backing them up on their "falsehoods", or did they merely argue that such was the logical conclusion of existing doctrine? Perhaps some of both?

What I find interesting is that JSF and BRM at one time were the young upstarts opposing the likes of James E Talmadge and BH Roberts on scientific issues like evolution and preAdamites. Of course that was all settled in the 1931 HeberJ Grant FP statement yet JSF and BRM, after some years of silence, went on to continue to agitate against science with their officially published works and now Russel M. Nelson seems to be following suit even after being corrected by his junior companion and having to backdown during the PEW Research interview.

[Buzzard]

In the case of Brother McConkie, his dying testimony given at General Conference obviates any "mistakes" he may have made. It was the testimony of a man who KNEW. In case you have forgotten, Mr. Paxton:

[media=]

[mapman]

Why is this unscientific? I'd like to understand your position better. Do you think that accepting something as absolutely true means that you have learned all there is to learn about it?

Not that I agree with all of Darren10's conclusions, he is correct in this statement.

• MISCONCEPTION: Scientific ideas are absolute and unchanging.
  CORRECTION: Because science textbooks change very little from year to year, it's easy to imagine that scientific ideas don't change at all. It's true that some scientific ideas are so well established and supported by so many lines of evidence, they are unlikely to be completely overturned. However, even these established ideas are subject to modification based on new evidence and perspectives. Furthermore, at the cutting edge of scientific research — areas of knowledge that are difficult to represent in introductory textbooks — scientific ideas may change rapidly as scientists test out many different possible explanations trying to figure out which are the most accurate. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how science aims to build knowledge.
  
• MISCONCEPTION: Because scientific ideas are tentative and subject to change, they can't be trusted.
  CORRECTION: Especially when it comes to scientific findings about health and medicine, it can sometimes seem as though scientists are always changing their minds. One month the newspaper warns you away from chocolate's saturated fat and sugar; the next month, chocolate companies are bragging about chocolate's antioxidants and lack of trans-fats. There are several reasons for such apparent reversals. First, press coverage tends to draw particular attention to disagreements or ideas that conflict with past views. Second, ideas at the cutting edge of research (e.g., regarding new medical studies) may change rapidly as scientists test out many different possible explanations trying to figure out which are the most accurate. This is a normal and healthy part of the process of science. While it's true that all scientific ideas are subject to change if warranted by the evidence, many scientific ideas (e.g., evolutionary theory, foundational ideas in chemistry) are supported by many lines of evidence, are extremely reliable, and are unlikely to change. To learn more about provisionality in science and its portrayal by the media, visit a section from our Science Toolkit.
  

http://undsci.berkel...ceptions.php#b7

Edited July 3, 2012 by mapman

[Storm Rider]

I saw a real change in Elder McConkie as he served as an apostle; there was a dramatic shift in his charity toward mankind. I saw the same thing in his writings. Had he re-written all that he had previously written we would have all seen a far more complex man and much deeper thoughts toward the Savior.

Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. It is far easier for us to critique their writings today just as it will be for those a generation from now to critique all that we do.

[Darren10]

Why is this unscientific? I'd like to understand your position better. Do you think that accepting something as absolutely true means that you have learned all there is to learn about it?

It means that the conclusion is beyond reinterpetation. Jesus Christ is the Son of God is an absolute truth. The earth being 7,000, or even several billions years old old are NOT absolute truth; but these latter statements are indeed scientific conclusions. Science by its nature is the process of disproving what has previosly been accepted as being evidentially conclusive. Those who declare an absolutness in a scientific conclusion are usally agenda-driven. You may have heard, for example, that the "science is settled" on man made global warming. Well those who have made that statement have stood in positions to gain billons of dollars to "save the planet". I've looked into man made global warmin and there is most definitely scientific data to indicate that man has not raised global temperatures.

What I was addressing to Craig is that he seems to read something about science. Like macro evolution, he sees to take what he has learned in science as an absolute truth and then uses it against God's prophets to question their being a true prophet. Craig does so while ignoring evidence that his own knowledge of science is subject to reinterpretation. That other conclusions may be made using evidence. In this case, that there's evidence which purports there NOT being macro evolution.

[Darren10]

Not that I agree with Darren10's conclusions

Nobody's perfect.

I do appreciate your # 18 post.

[why me]

For the purpose of this post let me state emphatically that I am only referring to those teachings that have been shown to be false….and I freely acknowledge that many of their timeless teachings continue as touchstones of inspiration for many in the church today.

I can speak of Bruce R. McConkie. Back in the day he was a stalwart apostle and much admired by the membership. His teachings were strict in the 70's but pehaps needed. for that time. I do know that his understandings of chasity saved many young people from herpes and HIV, these two STDs were basically unknown in the 1970's when I was a young buck. So, it is difficult to criticize him. But now for this day and age, McConkie does come across as very strict, stuck in a certain time frame. And maybe that is the way it should be. TImes change and we move on into the current time where guidance is needed in other areas.

Edited July 3, 2012 by why me

[yootaw]

It means that the conclusion is beyond reinterpetation. Jesus Christ is the Son of God is an absolute truth. The earth being 7,000, or even several billions years old old are NOT absolute truth; but these latter statements are indeed scientific conclusions. Science by its nature is the process of disproving what has previosly been accepted as being evidentially conclusive. Those who declare an absolutness in a scientific conclusion are usally agenda-driven. You may have heard, for example, that the "science is settled" on man made global warming. Well those who have made that statement have stood in positions to gain billons of dollars to "save the planet". I've looked into man made global warmin and there is most definitely scientific data to indicate that man has not raised global temperatures.

What I was addressing to Craig is that he seems to read something about science. Like macro evolution, he sees to take what he has learned in science as an absolute truth and then uses it against God's prophets to question their being a true prophet. Craig does so while ignoring evidence that his own knowledge of science is subject to reinterpretation. That other conclusions may be made using evidence. In this case, that there's evidence which purports there NOT being macro evolution.

Thanks for the response. Why not allow science to speak for science, and religion to speak for religion?

[yootaw]

Not that I agree with all of Darren10's conclusions, he is correct in this statement.

• MISCONCEPTION: Scientific ideas are absolute and unchanging.
  CORRECTION: Because science textbooks change very little from year to year, it's easy to imagine that scientific ideas don't change at all. It's true that some scientific ideas are so well established and supported by so many lines of evidence, they are unlikely to be completely overturned. However, even these established ideas are subject to modification based on new evidence and perspectives. Furthermore, at the cutting edge of scientific research — areas of knowledge that are difficult to represent in introductory textbooks — scientific ideas may change rapidly as scientists test out many different possible explanations trying to figure out which are the most accurate. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how science aims to build knowledge.
  
• MISCONCEPTION: Because scientific ideas are tentative and subject to change, they can't be trusted.
  CORRECTION: Especially when it comes to scientific findings about health and medicine, it can sometimes seem as though scientists are always changing their minds. One month the newspaper warns you away from chocolate's saturated fat and sugar; the next month, chocolate companies are bragging about chocolate's antioxidants and lack of trans-fats. There are several reasons for such apparent reversals. First, press coverage tends to draw particular attention to disagreements or ideas that conflict with past views. Second, ideas at the cutting edge of research (e.g., regarding new medical studies) may change rapidly as scientists test out many different possible explanations trying to figure out which are the most accurate. This is a normal and healthy part of the process of science. While it's true that all scientific ideas are subject to change if warranted by the evidence, many scientific ideas (e.g., evolutionary theory, foundational ideas in chemistry) are supported by many lines of evidence, are extremely reliable, and are unlikely to change. To learn more about provisionality in science and its portrayal by the media, visit a section from our Science Toolkit.
  

http://undsci.berkel...ceptions.php#b7

I completely agree. I asked the question to try and get a better understanding of Darren10's reasoning, not because I feel like science is perfect, or that it has all of the answers. That said, I do think (as also indicated in your post) that there are foundational principles that have been refined to the point where they are useful both as a base for extending the knowledge of science, and for interpreting natural data. In other words, scientists are well qualified to speak on the age of the earth, and the occurance of a global flood. Much better equiped than prophets or apostles, in my opinion. On the other hand, prophets and apostles are much more qualified to discuss the meaning behind these stories than are scientists.

[Freedom]

For the record, I do not know of any doctrines these men got wrong. Their opinions may not be consistent with what is accepted on a variety of non-doctrinal but perhaps valid interpretations of the scriptures, but the doctrines of salvation are intact. I disagree with many of the opinions of McConkie and Smith, and I do not reference their works, but there is a difference between doctrinal errors and opinions on concepts that are not established as doctrine.