Defending Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie

[ERayR]

Frankly, the only person in this discussion that seems offended is you.

Wrong

[O-Brother]

Great post, OB. The answer to that particular question is "The people who disagree with them would say they were speaking 'as a man".

I just find it disturbing when modern day LDS members criticize BRM and Brigham Young for what they preached and yet, by the same logic, we'd also criticize Joseph Smith and Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra T. Benson, among others, for some of the things they said and taught. I think that the Lord's annointed should be respected even if their views and inspired revelations and teachings don't match our politically correct world.

The Lord CHOSE those men for a reason, right? To criticize them and their teachings implies that we are demeaning their significance, their divine calling, their importance in LDS history and their role in the Gospel. To say that what they preached is false or personal opinion is equivalent to saying that they were false prophets or false teachers, no?

What faithful LDS member dares say that what is being preached from the pulpit at GC is false doctrine and false teachings without being labeled an apostate or incurring the wrath of fellow saints? Yet, many of us are comfortable discarding teachings from past leaders and diminishing their value and importance. Why is that?

Christ didn't teach them falsehoods then and truthfulness now. That makes no sense. Either they spoke the truth or they lied. Which is which? How

many people attended the temple because they said that they supported those past leaders? Were they all deceived then? It's been said that a Prophet is rejected in his own land by his own people in his own time. But in this case, it sounds like a prophet is rejected by his people in the future as well. This process of nullifying a truth from the past to justify a truth in the present is disturbing. For two reasons:

1. Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Whose words did they speak? Their own? Why? Weren't they the Lord's chosen?

2. The Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7).

If truths and revelations are changeable with each generation or so, then something is wrong with these truths. They're bendable, flexible, relative, adjustable and modifiable.

Truth, The Cameleon

Some of these inspired leaders stated that some things would NEVER change. Some truths would NEVER change. Yet, they change. Is truth like a cameleon? Is it relative?

Why be loyal to today's truths while being disloyalists to past truths and leaders? We are loyal to truths Jesus taught 2000+ years ago and we shouldn't be changing what he said or taught. True? But we change, challenge and disregard what his servants taught, which contradicts item #2 above.

Disturbing.

P.S.: Does truth need an editor before being published? It seems easier to have valid criticism of past leaders than modern ones. Why is that?

[thesometimesaint]

Lightbearer:

This attempt of yours to put BRM on some type of pedestal is what I am objecting to. BRM was a fierce advocate for the Gospel and I honor and respect him for it. But I do not consider his or any works of any man to be inerrant. I've already stated that IMNTBHO BRM made some errors in his "Mormon Doctrine" he himself revised it at least once. He himself claimed to be in error on the subject of Blacks and the Priesthood.

I doubt that even BRM would claim the perfection that you are ascribing to his "Mormon Doctrine". To paraphrase what he himself said. He is solely responsible for its contents.

[O-Brother]

Yes I find Elder McConkie to be the real face of Mormonism see: http://www.mormonhaven.com/lasttalk.htm

" And in the coming day I will feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears. But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God's almighty Son and he is our Savior and Redeemer and that Salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.

God grant that all of us will walk in the light, as God our Father is in the light so that according to his promises the blood of Jesus Christ his son will cleanse us from all sin. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ Amen."

Doesn't sound like a man who would teach false doctrines. But I suspect that he's not the only one whose teachings some members do not support. I bet there are several.

[frankenstein]

lightbearer....you last attempt at pontification reaks of self-martyrdom with a splash of holier-than-thou. the book mormon doctrine is a book nothing more. it is not an official book of the lds church....yet your sentiments seem to be that it should included in the standard works.

your unwillingness to admit it is just a book and not official doctrine of the LDS Church is very troubling.

[ERayR]

Lightbearer:

This attempt of yours to put BRM on some type of pedestal is what I am objecting to. BRM was a fierce advocate for the Gospel and I honor and respect him for it. But I do not consider his or any works of any man to be inerrant. I've already stated that IMNTBHO BRM made some errors in his "Mormon Doctrine" he himself revised it at least once. He himself claimed to be in error on the subject of Blacks and the Priesthood.

I doubt that even BRM would claim the perfection that you are ascribing to his "Mormon Doctrine". To paraphrase what he himself said. He is solely responsible for its contents.

I do not see that Lightbearer was puting Elder McConkie on a pedistal but was only trying to stem what seems like a growing tide of rejection of another servant of God.

For thos of you who continue to take umbrage at his book perhaps you should aquaint yourself with what he was really about. See: http://www.mormonhaven.com/lasttalk.htm

[ERayR]

" And in the coming day I will feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears. But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God's almighty Son and he is our Savior and Redeemer and that Salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.

God grant that all of us will walk in the light, as God our Father is in the light so that according to his promises the blood of Jesus Christ his son will cleanse us from all sin. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ Amen."

Doesn't sound like a man who would teach false doctrines. But I suspect that he's not the only one whose teachings some members do not support. I bet there are several.

I wish you hadn't done that. That is the part that brings me to tears, every time I read it.

[O-Brother]

I do not see that Lightbearer was puting Elder McConkie on a pedistal but was only trying to stem what seems like a growing tide of rejection of another servant of God.

For thos of you who continue to take umbrage at his book perhaps you should aquaint yourself with what he was really about. See: http://www.mormonhaven.com/lasttalk.htm

To ERayR:

I agree. How many past leaders do you think people reject in varying degrees? Let's see:

1. Brigham Young

2. Ezra T. Benson

3. Bruce R. McConkie

4. Spencer W. Kimball

To name a few. Why? Partially because they said things tha offend people. I still think it's all about PC. Shoudl we talk about Spencer W. Kimball and some of the things he said? So, BRM is not the only servant of the Lord people discard today. By this some logic, future generations will be discarding some of our leaders of today. That's not good.

[Vance]

Elder Bruce R. McConkie was a valiant and productive servant of God. His final witness/testimony is the most powerful I have heard.

His book is an excellent primer in explaining his understanding of the gospel. He used clear, plain language and didn't hold anything back.

He wrote it as a knowledgeable man and not as a general authority. PERIOD!

Is it perfect? I doubt it. But it is far closer than anything I could produce.

[ERayR]

lightbearer....you last attempt at pontification reaks of self-martyrdom with a splash of holier-than-thou. the book mormon doctrine is a book nothing more. it is not an official book of the lds church....yet your sentiments seem to be that it should included in the standard works.

your unwillingness to admit it is just a book and not official doctrine of the LDS Church is very troubling.

And why do you and SS etal so vehemently oppose it? There are some errors in it, but then I have yet to read any book that is error free.

I suspect there are some things in it with which you disagree and with which you are uncomfortable with self examination.

[Vance]

Lightbearer,

I have been very clear about where my disagreements with what you said have been. Other than those few and minor disagreements, I have found you to be an articulate, knowledgeable and valiant defender of the faith.

PLEASE!!! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!

Don't let the naysayers get you down.

[O-Brother]

He wrote it as a knowledgeable man and not as a general authority. PERIOD!

Does anyone write a book as a General Authority? Who? Does one write a book as a knowledgeable man but then when he writes as general authority his opinions and views change? How does that work exactly? Is there a switch that gets turned on or off?

[SlackTime]

Lightbearer:

This attempt of yours to put BRM on some type of pedestal is what I am objecting to. BRM was a fierce advocate for the Gospel and I honor and respect him for it. But I do not consider his or any works of any man to be inerrant. I've already stated that IMNTBHO BRM made some errors in his "Mormon Doctrine" he himself revised it at least once. He himself claimed to be in error on the subject of Blacks and the Priesthood.

I doubt that even BRM would claim the perfection that you are ascribing to his "Mormon Doctrine". To paraphrase what he himself said. He is solely responsible for its contents.

I don't believe that Lightbringer is putting anybody on a pedestal. In fact I think the two sides are talking past each other when they really both agree on most points. Both agree that there were errors. It is in the categorization of those errors that they disagree. You call them "doctrinal", Lightbringer does not. Both agree that BRM was a fallible man, and both see him as an inspired and faithful servant of God. (Well some of our nonmember friends don't see him that way, but oh well). I think both sides need to turn down the rhetoric and pull down some of the walls they are building around themselves.

I don't see anyone except Christ as infallible and Christ didn't bother writing his own book. (I need to remember that the next time my wife encourages me to keep a journal!)

- SlackTime

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

I did not, and do not reject him. He was a faithful servant of God. I don't reject Peter for what I see as obvious personal opinions. Nor do I reject any Apostle, Prophet for their personal opinions. The only man that was perfect was Jesus the Christ, ALL others including myself fall short of the Glory of God. God did not make Prophets, and Apostles Sock Puppets. I allow ALL men their personal opinions. I take what is god, and true. I am under no obligation to accept anything less.

I fell in love with BRM in his last talk. It deeply moved me. I only wish I'd seen more of that BRM in his book "Mormon Doctrine".

[Vance]

Does anyone write a book as a General Authority? Who? Does one write a book as a knowledgeable man but then when he writes as general authority his opinions and views change? How does that work exactly? Is there a switch that gets turned on or off?

If I am not mistaken, Elder James E. Talmage was commissioned to write "Jesus the Christ" which IS published by the Church.

So I would say that Elder Talmage wrote it as ELDER Talmage and not as just a knowledgeable man.

So, you tell me if you think there was a difference in the way these two men would have approached their projects.

[Lightbearer]

Can you at least admit that you were wrong and that my original claim that over 1000 errors were identified by Mark E. Peterson?

Paradoxically, by defending BRM's book you are throwing DOM, MEP, and MGR under the bus. It seems very odd to me that you will defend BRM to vehemently against criticism laid against him by multiple members of the Q12 and the President of the Church. Funny, that with this attitude, you feel free to call others "apostates."

Why so you can score your rhetorical victory? You can claim it if you wish, my only desire was to show a different viewpoint as is suppose to be the purpose of this forum. What exactly are you wanting me to admit? 1000 doctrinal errors? Or 1000 errors? There is a distinction. And I am not defending the first edition, but I do defend the 2nd edition. The purpose of this thread was to shed some light on what exactly this was all about, I am so sick of Elder McConkie being blackballed and his writings and speeches disparaged that I had had enough. The way you and others portray MD is that it is so far doctrinally unsound that it discredits the entire work and his ministry, I just wanted to put a little balance to that rather than just "pile on" Elder McConkie as many here and elsewhere have done. It reminds me a lot about the protesters of the Iraq war "I support the troops but I protest the mission!" (No I am not trying to introduce politics here so please refrain from comments on such-only trying to show a parallel of views)

Again I ask why was Elder McConkie called to the Twelve? Why not assign him emeritus status or release him altogether? Ironically Elder McConkie has expressed that it did not matter what is said or written by anyone (including his own works) if it did not square with the revelations of God in the Standard Works and the voice of the living Prophet, we could forget them. So when I read Mormon Doctrine or any other book I keep that in mind and try to follow that counsel.

[ERayR]

To ERayR:

I agree. How many past leaders do you think people reject in varying degrees? Let's see:

1. Brigham Young

2. Ezra T. Benson

3. Bruce R. McConkie

4. Spencer W. Kimball

To name a few. Why? Partially because they said things tha offend people. I still think it's all about PC. Shoudl we talk about Spencer W. Kimball and some of the things he said? So, BRM is not the only servant of the Lord people discard today. By this some logic, future generations will be discarding some of our leaders of today. That's not good.

Jacob 6:8

Behold, will ye reject these words? Will ye reject the words of the prophets; and will ye reject all the words which have been spoken concerning Christ, after so many have spoken concerning him; and deny the good word of Christ, and the power of God, and the cgift of the Holy Ghost, and quench the Holy Spirit, and make a dmock of the great plan of redemption, which hath been laid for you?

All of the above were prophets.

[thesometimesaint]

SlackTime:

We probably are talking past each other. I am sorry to whatever my participation in this thread has contributed to that. BRM put out a book. A very good book in my opinion. There are few and far between parts that I personally disagree with. If he would have titled it BRM's Doctrine instead of Mormon Doctrine I doubt that few would object to it. The critics will always find something to carp about, but I'm not one of those.

[frankenstein]

There are some errors in it

at least you can admit as much...lightbearer appears to unwilling to acept the book as anything other than inerrant. people can read the book all they want it.

but as i stated earlier, there are plenty of Official sources to look to when talking about Official LDS Doctrine, RARELY is there a need to resort to the book mormon doctrine, and where the book has been cited in Official LDS Prints ONLY those cited quotes can be viewed as authoritative, not the book as a whole.

I suspect there are some things in it with which you disagree and with which you are uncomfortable with self examination

so because i disagree with aspects of the book, i am less faithful is that what you are suggesting?

self examination has nothing to do with. I dont blindly accept the book, others here seemed the very opposite.

[O-Brother]

I am gratified that my OP has created no small stir and division here on the board. I find it amusing and somewhat sad at some of the responses I received and find it ironic to be buffeted by so many who are supposedly here to defend the Church and it's leaders. The apostates and Anti-Mormons I can understand, but those who profess to be faithful LDS to attack me and one of the Lord's servants is what I find difficult to understand. Cruel and unfounded statements like I want to worship his words or like responses I find troubling. I almost wish I lived in another time and place, where desensitization and acceptance of worldly teachings had not infiltrated the Church to the point that the leaders must coddle and speak "warm fuzzies" to avoid offending the world. I guess I am showing my age, I come from an era where I had to hold "black & white" values to survive with a testimony of the Gospel. I was always uncomfortable with the "shades of gray" nonsense that came out of the culture of the 60's... Perhaps Elder McConkie's "tone" is a "backlash" product of the times he lived in as well. Today's politically correct ideas of "relative truth" in which the notion seems to prevail that "all churches are true... as long as they teach Christ" (that was from the 70's version of the First Vision film we as Missionaries showed to countless people) is not only foreign to me but repugnant, I suppose that is why with only a few exceptions I do not really feel welcome on this board, but no matter I do not really consider myself an "apologist" I try to defend the Church, the truth, and the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I wonder how many today would say that Nephi was to harsh? His brothers sure did. As for those who self-righteously try to say that I am assailing a Prophet or the other apostles who criticized Elder McConkie I would ask, did not those same prophets and apostles and the members of the Church at the time sustain Elder McConkie's calling to the quorum of the Twelve? Did he get punished for revising and republishing the 2nd edition? Or did Spencer W. Kimball assist him in revising and republishing the book? I am not saying the 2nd edition is inerrant but what I am saying is that it is just as reliable as any other non-canonical book by any other general authority that is not "officially published" by the church. The fact that some of the teachings are quoted in Official Church publications does tend to say that the book, while not 100% perfect is a credible source. I find it interesting that the same ones who decry his books are quick to quote from other books that general authorities had nothing to do with and some apostates even wrote. Ironically I do not often use Mormon Doctrine as a reference I prefer his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary and other writings. But it seems because of the Mormon Doctrine fiasco everything else he ever wrote automatically becomes suspect... I hear people say "Oh thats "McConkie Doctrine" like they have license to disparage this apostle because of the controversy of an earlier work that was corrected and re-published with the permission of the Church authorities. As for the Meridian Magazine link to my original source it is here: Meridian Magazine: BRM Story

As for those who are so offended at my defense of Elder McConkie and his writings I say, go on believing whatever you want, it does not really matter... oh and if you consider saying this is a valid criticism judge ye. All I am trying to do is make another point of view that is not so popular on this board. So if the Mods are so inclined they can close this thread... I think I have said all I need to on this subject.

LightBearer: I am on YOUR side on this issue and I'm not from your generation. Hang in there. We live a PC world and it's going to get worse. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome on this board. I have felt the same way as you. BRM mostly likely HAD to correct himself so as to not cause too much controversy and upset people. He probably did it for the greater good. The man was incredible. Very few today match his spirit and insight. If he wasn't the right man for the job, he wouldn't have been called and chosen. He probably had to be tamed so divisions wouldn't take place. Imagine if JS came back today and asked the saints to believe in and do something that's not PC. What would happen? PC will destroy us. It's the Devil that's appeasable to everyone and pacifies everyone. Christ came to bring the sword. The whole BOM of Mormon is about the sword and not PC with the Lamanites, etc. There was no PC between Nephi and Laban. No PC between Cain and Abel. No PC between the 1/3 and the rest of us. No PC at the Judgment Day. No PC when Christ was tempted. No PC in the Garden Of Eden when they disobeyed. However, there is a clear difference between standing up for right and shunning wrong and creating contention. The father of lies creates contention whenever people defend the truth.

Noun

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] The way you and others portray MD is that it is so far doctrinally unsound that it discredits the entire work and his ministry[...]

Lightbearer, I can appreciate you being passionate about this, but I hope you realize this is a straw man you're attacking.

[Edited to be more Christmas-y]

[ERayR]

SlackTime:

We probably are talking past each other. I am sorry to whatever my participation in this thread has contributed to that. BRM put out a book. A very good book in my opinion. There are few and far between parts that I personally disagree with. If he would have titled it BRM's Doctrine instead of Mormon Doctrine I doubt that few would object to it. The critics will always find something to carp about, but I'm not one of those.

I am glad to hear that. I must have misunderstood your posts and tone.

[thesometimesaint]

ErayR:

No problem.

[ERayR]

at least you can admit as much...lightbearer appears to unwilling to acept the book as anything other than inerrant. people can read the book all they want it.

but as i stated earlier, there are plenty of Official sources to look to when talking about Official LDS Doctrine, RARELY is there a need to resort to the book mormon doctrine, and where the book has been cited in Official LDS Prints ONLY those cited quotes can be viewed as authoritative, not the book as a whole.

so because i disagree with aspects of the book, i am less faithful is that what you are suggesting?

self examination has nothing to do with. I dont blindly accept the book, others here seemed the very opposite.

Here is where I step to Lightbearers side. He has done no such thing. He was objecting to the portrayal of MD as nothing more than a wholesale fiasco. I stand with him in supporting the book as a valuable addition to any library. As I stated in an earlier post I have never read a book that did not contain some errors, but then I have not read one of yours.

[Mike Reed]

Again I ask why was Elder McConkie called to the Twelve? Why not assign him emeritus status or release him altogether?

McConkie was ordained an apostle under Harold B. Lee's presidency (not Mckay's), and filled the empty spot left by his deceased father in law Joseph Fielding Smith.