The Seven Deadly Heresies

[cjcampbell]

All of the heresies are equally bad. They are all (with the possible exception of heresy #2) attempts either to justify our sins or to make us feel that repentance is hopeless. But even heresy #2 is often used by people to misinterpret the principles of eternal progression and God's omniscience. So in that respect, heresy #2 often leads to the other heresies.

[Cold Steel]

As much as I respected Elder McConkie for his boldness, and for his forthrightness, often his dogmatic tone and pronouncements, to me, are treading upon territory reserved only for the First Presidency and the Twelve as a body. I have met more than just a few Latter-day Saints who have adopted this same sort of posturing as a means of bolstering their own beliefs and pontifications. There is one particular poster here, who is not a Latter-day Saint, but who relies on the boldness of his pronouncements to make his case.

Elder McConkie may be correct in identifying his "heresies;" however, in his boldness to establish the consequences in believing one or more of them, he makes pronouncements that are better left to the First Presidency.

The heresies:

1: God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.

2: Organic evolution and revealed religion can be harmonized.

3: Temple marriage assures a couple of an eventual exaltation.

4: Ordinances for the dead provide a "second chance" for salvation.

5: Progression from one kingdom to another in the eternal worlds is possible.

6: Adam is our Father and our God; he is the father of our spirits as well as our bodies, and should be worshiped.

7: To gain salvation, we must achieve perfection in this life.

Heresies 1 and 6 are, according to my understanding of gospel truths, complete heresies. Each could be discussed in its own thread regarding its origins and partial truths. Heresies 2, 4, and 7 don't, to me, represent "deadly" heresies. Organic evolution only represents a serious threat if it calls into question the existence of Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind. We KNOW that Adam and Eve lived, and that they brought about the fall of mankind, but borrowing from Bill Mahr's clever approach, to what extent do we believe that six thousand years ago two naked humans were conversing with a talking snake? We should recognize that science and the fall of mankind will be harmonized because this was the promise God made in the book of Moses. As to the ordinances for the dead providing a second chance, we really don't know enough as to what represents a first chance, second chance or whatever. Our beliefs, strictly speaking, don't really matter unless (and this is what I think he was getting at) we plan on putting aside our decisions and count on later accepting the gospel.

Heresies 3 and 5 are speculative at best, and the latter has been discussed even among some of the general authorities. Joseph Smith explained that the vast majority of what he and Sidney experienced in "The Vision" was withheld because, as he said, the saints weren't prepared for it.

Some of the worst heresies were ones he didn't address. For example:

* the church is still capable of lapsing into a state of apostasy.

* that the president of the church, or the Qof12, can fall, leading the Lord to raise up another people.

* that the church leadership should keep their noses out of politics and honor the separation of church and state.

I'm sure I could come up with more. I notice that attempting to establish a "personal" relationship with God is not listed in Elder McConkie's seven heresies.

I hope I haven't derailed the intent of the OP in discussing all this. It's probable that Elder McConkie simply was being far more general in his application, and that believing in these heresies might cause one to procrastinate their repentance, or get waylaid by groups that believe the church has lost its calling through disobedience. After all, to think that the great Kingdom of Daniel 2 would be displaced by some wacko like Warren Jeffs is, in itself, an abomination.

[consiglieri]

Since we don't think beliefs ultimately keep anyone from being exalted, I'd say the most damaging heresy is in substituting gospel hobbies for the atonement.

While a number of posters' comments represent feelings similar to my own, I think Juliann's comes closest to hitting the target for me personally.

Joseph Smith said that he never heard of a man being damned for believing too much, but they are damned for unbelief.

In the span of 150-years, an apostle of the church Joseph Smith founded is setting forth seven beliefs that will damn a person (and none of them have to do with not believing in Jesus or his atonement. Mark that, Elder Rigdon!).

In other words, I see the biggest heresy in the LDS Church founded by Joseph Smith to be the idea that there is such a thing as a heresy.

If anybody is game, I would like to continue this thread with comments as to how some in the leadership of the LDS Church were able to make such a 180-degree course change in the span of a century and a half (though it was already well under way within a century).

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDSMusic483]

While a number of posters' comments represent feelings similar to my own, I think Juliann's comes closest to hitting the target for me personally.

Joseph Smith said that he never heard of a man being damned for believing too much, but they are damned for unbelief.

In the span of 150-years, an apostle of the church Joseph Smith founded is setting forth seven beliefs that will damn a person (and none of them have to do with not believing in Jesus or his atonement. Mark that, Elder Rigdon!).

In other words, I see the biggest heresy in the LDS Church founded by Joseph Smith to be the idea that there is such a thing as a heresy.

If anybody is game, I would like to continue this thread with comments as to how some in the leadership of the LDS Church were able to make such a 180-degree course change in the span of a century and a half (though it was already well under way within a century).

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Believing too much isn't going to damn someone...but if they believe things that cause them to act contrary to Gods commands? The one I chose for example, where someone just believes all they have to do is be sealed and they're home free? I don't believe that necessarily falls under JS description. It causes them to not worry about persevering to the end.

[Log]

I wonder if opposing the Lord's anointed would prevent one from being exalted?

[Lightbearer]

In 1980, Bruce R. McConkie gave a well-known address called "The Seven Deadly Heresies," in which he lists seven beliefs that if subscribed to put one beyond the pale of salvation:

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?...mp;x=50&y=6

For purposes of this discussion, we will follow Elder McConkie's definition of a "heresy," that being some belief (as opposed to an act) that will keep one from being exalted.

I would like to open the discussion to any heresy that Elder McConkie listed or any other "heresy" that he may have missed.

Although I have my own personal feeling as to what heresy is the "worst," I would like to hear what other posters say before I "poison the well" by mentioning my thoughts on the subject.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Another Bruce R McConkie hate-fest? Well if I had to pick a damning heresy I guess it would be the heresy that we can reject Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ with impunity. I think that perhaps the following may be of interest:

(D&C 121:16-17) "Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them. But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves."

I think all the things Elder McConkie condemns in his talk are of equal importance if it causes one to reject the counsel of God through His authorized servants.

[consiglieri]

Believing too much isn't going to damn someone...but if they believe things that cause them to act contrary to Gods commands? The one I chose for example, where someone just believes all they have to do is be sealed and they're home free? I don't believe that necessarily falls under JS description. It causes them to not worry about persevering to the end.

On this, I think we may be in agreement, and here I think we get closer to the heart of Mormonism, which deals more with being judged based on one's actions rather than one's beliefs.

I tend to think this is one of the reasons God declared the creeds of Christendom to be such an abomination in his sight.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I wonder if opposing the Lord's anointed would prevent one from being exalted?

But what do we do when the Lord's annointed oppose each other?

Bruce R. McConkie opposes Brigham Young on the status of Adam.

Bruce R. McConkie opposes Wilford Woodruff on whether God has all knowledge.

Bruce R. McConkie opposes James Talmage on the issue of whether there can be progression between kingdoms.

Does this make you wonder whether Bruce R. McConkie will be prevented from being exalted?

Or did you have something else in mind?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDSMusic483]

But what do we do when the Lord's annointed oppose each other?

Bruce R. McConkie opposes Brigham Young on the status of Adam.

Bruce R. McConkie opposes Wilford Woodruff on whether God has all knowledge.

Bruce R. McConkie opposes James Talmage on the issue of whether there can be progression between kingdoms.

Does this make you wonder whether Bruce R. McConkie will be prevented from being exalted?

Or did you have something else in mind?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

But Sig, was BRM the only one to oppose those theories held by other prophets/apostles? He may have just been the most vocal about it.

[consiglieri]

But Sig, was BRM the only one to oppose those theories held by other prophets/apostles? He may have just been the most vocal about it.

BRM was the most vocal about everything.

[Log]

I wonder if publicly opposing the Lord's anointed, without being called to that calling, would prevent one from being exalted?

[Darth_Bill]

>In other words, I see the biggest heresy in the LDS Church founded by Joseph Smith to be the idea that there is such a thing as a heresy.

I think that is the most profound. Is heresy a formal charge in an excommunication proceding, and are these some of those examples? I agree that a person can be wrong, but heresy just doesn't sound very LDS to me. I can believe in plenty of wrong things, until further light and knowledge is given. Until then, we have to work it out ourselves.

I think we don't need any thought police in church. I believe and speculate on things all the time. I am willing to be corrected.

And I remember a priesthood manual that claims that the sealing of a child will eventually bring the child to the parents side in the eternities. In bishopric, we had a real hard time with that quote, because it implies travel between kingdoms. However, it was in the manual, and made it through committee.

[consiglieri]

I wonder if publicly opposing the Lord's anointed, without being called to that calling, would prevent one from being exalted?

You mean there's a calling to oppose the Lord's anointed?

Cool!

[LDSMusic483]

You mean there's a calling to oppose the Lord's anointed?

Cool!

Oh stop daydreaming about getting that calling Sig!

[consiglieri]

Oh stop daydreaming about getting that calling Sig!

Hah! Daydreaming, is it?

I'll have you know that being president of the Secret Society of Cavernous Evil is that calling, my friend!

All the Best!

--Cap'n P.P.

[LDSMusic483]

Hah! Daydreaming, is it?

I'll have you know that being president of the Secret Society of Cavernous Evil is that calling, my friend!

All the Best!

--Cap'n P.P.

Well you just sounded SO excited about learning about the calling. Or was it surprise that the true nature of your presidency calling having been outed?

[consiglieri]

Well you just sounded SO excited about learning about the calling. Or was it surprise that the true nature of your presidency calling having been outed?

In actuality, my surprise was that, in order to make a point, Log would tacitly state that such a calling to "oppose the Lord's anointed" even existed.

[LDSMusic483]

In actuality, my surprise was that, in order to make a point, Log would tacitly state that such a calling to "oppose the Lord's anointed" even existed.

Maybe using the word oppose is a little strong. Perhaps "clarify?"

[Log]

It is not in anyone's province to publicly, nor privately, teach things contrary to what those in higher authority have publicly declared. It may be the province for one with equivalent authority to so do.

[Zeta-Flux]

I wonder if publicly opposing the Lord's anointed, without being called to that calling, would prevent one from being exalted?

Log, are you accusing others here of doing such a thing, or are you accusing Elder McConkie of doing that with regards to his contradicting Brigham Young?

[jwhitlock]

You mean there's a calling to oppose the Lord's anointed?

Cool!

Yes.

It's called "Old Scratch".

[jwhitlock]

It is not in anyone's province to publicly, nor privately, teach things contrary to what those in higher authority have publicly declared. It may be the province for one with equivalent authority to so do.

We don't teach.

We speculate.

[cinepro]

It is not in anyone's province to publicly, nor privately, teach things contrary to what those in higher authority have publicly declared. It may be the province for one with equivalent authority to so do.

Even if the higher authority is wrong?

[Zeta-Flux]

Even if the higher authority is wrong?

If God doesn't authorize you to do so, and you believe said authorities are God's mouth-piece, then yes.

From a practical standpoint, it doesn't happen very often that they are wrong in a significant way. By setting one's self up, looking for fault in what they say, one steps onto the road to apostacy. If an authority teaches something significantly wrong, you can approach a higher authority to express yourself, and I imagine God could authorize you to teach those in your stewardship otherwise, although that also might be a sign of apostacy.

I'll give a specific example from my life. While serving as a missionary in Mississippi and Alabama, my Mission President made a promise to us, and had us pray to know if it was right. So I prayed, and felt quite distinctly that it would not come to pass. This revelation of mine was not authorization from God to preach against my President's words, but only for my own personal use.

If it ever happened that my Bishop asked something of my family, I would feel it quite within my rights to receive revelation contradicting such revelation and possible authorization to teach my family correct principles that would contradict said counsel. If I wished to correct it on a larger front, I would need to take it up with higher authorities, and not take it upon myself to correct said doctrines in sacrament meeting. [Note: I have yet to meet a Bishop who would ask something of my family which didn't come from the Lord. My Bishop's have all been understanding, caring men who would likely counsel with me if I had any qualms.]

I take Log's post to mean that he is upset with people taking upon themselves the role of correcting Elder McConkie. In the specific case under consideration, a President of the church (and in fact, a letter fom the combined First Presidency) seems to contradict Elder McConkie. Pointing this fact out doesn't seem to be taking upon oneself the role of correcting a higher authority; as one leaves that to Brigham Young's own role and words (if done correctly).

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

[cinepro]

If God doesn't authorize you to do so, and you believe said authorities are God's mouth-piece, then yes.

What if they were expressing their own opinions, and weren't acting in their role as "God's mouth-piece"? Are we allowed to then?