The Seven Deadly Heresies

[Log]

So, you are saying that you are higher in authority in the priesthood than Mark, to whom you were replying, because you can judge him as unjustified in disagreeing--even privately--with someone higher in priesthood authority than himself?

I don't believe I ever told anyone that they, themselves, are unjustified. You can correct me on that point.

I do believe that publishing your disagreements with those who are higher in authority than you and under whose jurisdiction you are is unjustified. I do believe that complaints go up, and not out, and that this is the order of God's kingdom. Ark steadying has been expressly condemned from the beginning. Members of the church should not hold up their leaders to censure and/or ridicule and/or even appear to diminish their authority, for this undermines the kindgom of God on this earth.

Not sure how many more words can be spilled on this topic, and it's not one that particularly interests me in debate.

[JangoPOW!]

So, you are saying that you are higher in authority in the priesthood than Mark, to whom you were replying, because you can judge him as unjustified in disagreeing--even privately--with someone higher in priesthood authority than himself?

And then, since the prophet or other apostle would have to judge Elder McConkie, would that prophet have to have been the prophet before Elder McConkie's death? Or would an apostle have to have been called, ordained and sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve before Elder McConkie in order to be higher in authority? Or would an apostle who was called, ordained and sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve after Elder McConkie but who becomes President of the Church be qualified? Just curious how you know these things.

If the case of BRM vs. BY is our guide, it seems that you actually have to be an apostle AFTER the other guy, chronologically. Time bestows doctrinal authority, apparently. (If you're at least an apostle, that is. And if the other guy is dead. )

[Zeta-Flux]

I don't believe I ever told anyone that they, themselves, are unjustified. You can correct me on that point.

I do believe that publishing your disagreements with those who are higher in authority than you and under whose jurisdiction you are is unjustified. I do believe that complaints go up, and not out, and that this is the order of God's kingdom. Ark steadying has been expressly condemned from the beginning. Members of the church should not hold up their leaders to censure and/or ridicule and/or even appear to diminish their authority, for this undermines the kindgom of God on this earth.

Not sure how many more words can be spilled on this topic, and it's not one that particularly interests me in debate.

I have an honest question for you. If the President of the Church corrects an Apostle, is it wrong for a lay member to point this out, since it would be undermining the kingdom of God?

[Log]

If the President of the Church corrects an Apostle, is it wrong for a lay member to point this out, since it would be undermining the kingdom of God?

Can you be more specific?

[Zeta-Flux]

Can you be more specific?

I'll give you an example. Elder Pratt wrote some material. The President of the Church found fault with his writings, and with the entire First Presidency issued a statement correcting those teachings. Would it be incorrect, in your view, to cite this letter from the First Presidency, if someone was preaching the same things Elder Pratt was?

[Log]

I'll give you an example. Elder Pratt wrote some material. The President of the Church found fault with his writings, and with the entire First Presidency issued a statement correcting those teachings. Would it be incorrect, in your view, to cite this letter from the First Presidency, if someone was preaching the same things Elder Pratt was?

Yes. There's an instructive example of something quite like this here.

The Eugene England Letter

In October of 1982 a letter was made public which had been written on February 19, 1981 by Bruce R. McConkie in response to some questions which had been asked him by Eugene England. In this response Br. McConkie told Brother England that Brigham Young had apparently taught that Adam [Jr.] was God, but that he was simply wrong. When this letter was printed and distributed by an anti-Mormon group, we went to Br. McConkie and told him that we had been teaching differently than him, and we did not want to be teaching anything that was incorrect. We told Br. McConkie that if we were wrong, we wanted to know, and we would quit teaching it. After considerable discussion Br. McConkie told us to keep teaching what we had been teaching, because it was he that was wrong. He said if he had known of our views, he never would have said what he did in his letter to Eugene England, and we had his permission to tell anyone we wanted that Br. McConkie had said he was wrong in saying that Brigham Young had taught that Adam was God.

You'll note how careful Brother Watson was to entreat Elder McConkie as a father, and how careful Watson has been to preserve the holy dignity of Elder McConkie's calling and position, and also McConkie's personal reputation, both within and without the Church.

[Zeta-Flux]

Yes.

Well, then I guess we simply disagree. I believe that if the President of the Church, and the First Presidency, officially teach something and an Apostle teaches contrarily, it is okay to point out this discrepency. (Especially when the point of the First Presidency message was to correct said teachings in the first place.)

[ed2276]

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

My personal opinion is that the worst heresy we can subscribe to is Elder McConkie's!

[Log]

I believe that if the President of the Church, and the First Presidency, officially teach something and an Apostle teaches contrarily, it is okay to point out this discrepency.

What is the message you get from the instructive example and scripture I cited?

[Black Moclips]

I actually think he may be wrong about heresy #1. I think its entirely possible the God still has something to learn. "Eternal" progression isn't eternal if you stop at some point. The person or entity that is God may have mastered the experience we are going through right now, but that doesn't mean there are still some things left to do or know. What a boring state it would be to be all knowing, all everything, with nothing left to be curious about.

[moriancamur]

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

I think none of these are deadly heresies. As I go through them, none cannot be repented of so how can they put someone beyond salvation? If false beliefs could keep us out then not a soul on the planet could be saved! I take his point and message but I think deadly heresy would be an incorrect description. A deadly heresy is more likely to be something like believing God is a myth and there is no such thing as sin. Even then people can repent.

[consiglieri]

I actually think he may be wrong about heresy #1. I think its entirely possible the God still has something to learn. "Eternal" progression isn't eternal if you stop at some point. The person or entity that is God may have mastered the experience we are going through right now, but that doesn't mean there are still some things left to do or know. What a boring state it would be to be all knowing, all everything, with nothing left to be curious about.

It is especially ironic from a religious faith that regularly teaches damnation consists of being able to no longer progress.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mark Beesley]

It is especially ironic from a religious faith that regularly teaches damnation consists of being able to no longer progress.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If I'm not mistaken, in the context of damnation being the state of not being able to progress, I believe that refers to the inability to progress through the continuation of one's seed. Actually, I think Elder McConkie was correct with regards to Heavenly Father's knowledge. It is full and perfect. He progresses through His chidren. "Behold, this is my work and my glory . . . " You know the spiel.

[Log]

So, for God, every day is like Groundhog Day?

[consiglieri]

So, for God, every day is like Groundhog Day?

That would seem a humorous observation if one believes God is not progressing in knowledge.

I may have lost track of the scorecard, but I thought Log agreed with Elder McConkie that every day is like Groundhog Day for God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Log]

That would seem a humorous observation if one believes God is not progressing in knowledge.

I may have lost track of the scorecard, but I thought Log agreed with Elder McConkie that every day is like Groundhog Day for God.

I don't believe I have ever recently publicly stated whether I agreed or disagreed. Hmm.

[consiglieri]

I don't believe I have ever recently publicly stated whether I agreed or disagreed. Hmm.

Then here is your opportunity!

Do you believe that God is (or could be) progressing in knowledge?

(Drum roll, please.)

[Log]

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

I'm undecided on how God's total omniscience plays into our Agency.

[consiglieri]

How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie-Roll center of a Tootsie Pop? The world may never know.

Then from this post, let me presume for the sake of argument that you do believe God is progressing in knowledge.

If you believe this (and once again we are just using this for the sake of argument), you are at variance with one of the Seven Deadly Heresies proclaimed by Bruce R. McConkie, who said that if you believe this, you cannot be saved:

The saving truth, as revealed to and taught, formally and officially, by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Lectures on Faith is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He knows all things, he has all power, and he is everywhere present by the power of his Spirit. And unless we know and believe this doctrine we cannot gain faith unto life and salvation.

In other words, it makes no difference to Elder McConkie whether you publicly disagree with him on the issue; the mere fact that you privately hold this incorrect "belief" is what constitutes the "heresy" and makes you unfit for salvation.

So, according to Elder McConkie, public disagreement is not the issue (as you have maintained), but private belief.

Any comment?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

consiglieri:I'm undecided on how God's total omniscience plays into our Agency.

Not to derail the thread, my friend, but it is our agency that determines God's foreknowledge; not the other way around.

At least, that is how I think of it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Log]

So, according to Elder McConkie, public disagreement is not the issue (as you have maintained), but private belief.

Any comment?

That is correct - that is indeed Elder McConkie's view, which I haven't been, nor am now, addressing. All I did was ask the question "I wonder if publicly opposing the Lord's anointed, without being called to that calling, would prevent one from being exalted?"

[johndoe]

Then from this post, let me presume for the sake of argument that you do believe God is progressing in knowledge.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'm with BRM on this one. I'm actually surprised to find myself as orthodox as I apparently am, based on the heresy list.

Still, I also scratch my head at the idea that within the context of LDS doctrine, there are beliefs that we can privately hold that put us beyond salvation's reach.

[consiglieri]

That is correct - that is indeed Elder McConkie's view, which I haven't been, nor am now, addressing. All I did was ask the question "I wonder if publicly opposing the Lord's anointed, without being called to that calling, would prevent one from being exalted?"

I know a heretic when I smell one.

And I usually smell them frying in the morning.

But here is the question you should be asking: "I wonder if privately believing something different than the Lord's anointed, without being called to that calling, would prevent one from being exalted?"

Because according to Elder McConkie, the answer is yes; and you, my friend are so going to hell.

Welcome to the club!

--Consiglieri

[LDSMusic483]

I think none of these are deadly heresies. As I go through them, none cannot be repented of so how can they put someone beyond salvation? If false beliefs could keep us out then not a soul on the planet could be saved! I take his point and message but I think deadly heresy would be an incorrect description. A deadly heresy is more likely to be something like believing God is a myth and there is no such thing as sin. Even then people can repent.

It can become deadly if people don't ever see a need to repent from it.

[Log]

But here is the question you should be asking: "I wonder if privately believing something different than the Lord's anointed, without being called to that calling, would prevent one from being exalted?"

On an entirely unrelated note, I feel that personal revelation trumps all, wouldn't you agree? And quit sniffing me.