Defending Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie

[ERayR]

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.

And sustained by at least twelve prophets, seers and revelators. I say he was called of God. Do you have conclusive evidence to the contrary?

[sethpayne]

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.

No, I need no rhetorical victory. You brought into question, and called me out on my statement about there being 1000+ doctrinal errors in the first edition. Indirectly, you were calling me a liar.

I then cited to you, from DOM's personal journal, where Mark E. Peterson found over 1000 "doctrinal errors" -- MEP's words ... not mine. Again -- "doctrinal errors" were MEP's words... NOT mine.

In any case, I just like people to know that I do not pull stuff out of my arse.

[ERayR]

No, I need no rhetorical victory. You brought into question, and called me out on my statement about there being 1000+ doctrinal errors in the first edition. Indirectly, you were calling me a liar.

I then cited to you, from DOM's personal journal, where Mark E. Peterson found over 1000 "doctrinal errors" -- MEP's words ... not mine. Again -- "doctrinal errors" were MEP's words... NOT mine.

In any case, I just like people to know that I do not pull stuff out of my arse.

It would be quite interesting to see what Elder Peterson considered to be doctrinal errors.

[sethpayne]

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.

I really hope most Church members don't subscribe to this view. Else, we are duplicitous and our critics are partially correct. We say one thing in public, but privately... we all REALLY know that the Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil... and we REALLY know that Blacks inherited the curse of cain. We just can't print it and we shouldn't really say it too loud...

I would hope that we can be honest and upfront about our beliefs and positions.

I very much hope that I can trust GBH's ecumenical leanings and that when he praised the Catholic Church, mourned the pope, and denounced as racist the denial of Priesthood based on skin color.

[sethpayne]

It would be quite interesting to see what Elder Peterson considered to be doctrinal errors.

I agree. It would be very interesting how "picky" he got in his analysis. Were these minor or major issues?

As far as I know, we don't have Peterson's report.

[O-Brother]

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.

LOL. ERayR: You made my day. Imagine giving a talk on Sunday and quoting BRM or Brigham Young.

[ERayR]

I agree. It would be very interesting how "picky" he got in his analysis. Were these minor or major issues?

As far as I know, we don't have Peterson's report.

Perhaps we should not be trying to discredit Elder McConkies book with a list of 1,000 that we do not have.

[ERayR]

I agree. It would be very interesting how "picky" he got in his analysis. Were these minor or major issues?

As far as I know, we don't have Peterson's report.

Perhaps we should not be trying to discredit Elder McConkies book with a list of 1,000 that we do not have.

[sethpayne]

Perhaps we should not be trying to discredit Elder McConkies book with a list of 1,000 that we do not have.

Well, it seems indisputable to me that Peterson did, in fact, have a list of 1000+ doctrinal errors. Peterson was a member of the Q12 at the time -- BRM's superior.

If I ever write a dissertation and my Professors find 1000+ errors in the text, I sure hope they would "discredit" my work and give me a failing grade.

[ERayR]

LOL. ERayR: You made my day. Imagine giving a talk on Sunday and quoting BRM or Brigham Young.

I for one believe that there will be some accountability for our treatment of all the prophets and not just the ones we agree with.

[frankenstein]

I for one believe that there will be some accountability for our treatment of all the prophets and not just the ones we agree with.

perhaps i have missed something but tone from the quote above and from lightbearers long post a page or two back give need for the following.

where have others dismissed Elder McConkie as a whole and his entire life ministry simply because of "errors" in the book mormon doctrine?

I dismiss the book because it is not Officially sanctioned by the LDS Church, I do not dismiss the person who wrote it.

excellent point sethpayne....

[O-Brother]

I for one believe that there will be some accountability for our treatment of all the prophets and not just the ones we agree with.

I dont' see any "criticism" of Paul and the veil, women being submissive to their husbands, etc. Anyway, have you read this talk by ETB?

"In conclusion, let us summarize this grand key, these "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," for our salvation hangs on them.

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything. - Modern and old?

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works. - Ouch! D&C, Bible and BOM?

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. - Ouch! BY speaking as if he was Joseph, remember?

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray. - Anti-Mormons job.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

-- Who was the last prophet without a college degree. Do you remember?

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture. - OUCH. People keep saying that this is required to be doctrine.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know. -- True. Prayer takes care of this.

Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning. -- Yep.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. -- Yep.

Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters. -- True.

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich. -- Yep. Add ignorant proud to that.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly. -- In his day or in the future?

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer. --

Well, I can see people jumping on this one, especially if they're not LDS, anti or ex.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. if we want to know how well we stand with the Lord, then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain. How closely do our lives harmonize with the words of the Lord's anointed--the living prophet, the President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency?

ETB 1980

[ERayR]

Well, it seems indisputable to me that Peterson did, in fact, have a list of 1000+ doctrinal errors. Peterson was a member of the Q12 at the time -- BRM's superior.

If I ever write a dissertation and my Professors find 1000+ errors in the text, I sure hope they would "discredit" my work and give me a failing grade.

No problem I just want to look at the list. I would have a problem with a list of 1,000 that I couldn't look at. It would also be disingenuous that once I had made the corrections and had been allowed to publish to have someone to continue to use that list to discredit my published work.

[sethpayne]

No problem I just want to look at the list. I would have a problem with a list of 1,000 that I couldn't look at. It would also be disingenuous that once I had made the corrections and had been allowed to publish to have someone to continue to use that list to discredit my published work.

Fair enough. Good point.

[thesometimesaint]

O-Brother:

Last I looked ETB's 14 principles has not been accepted by the Church. And that smacks of once a leader has spoken the thinking has been done.

[O-Brother]

Well, it seems indisputable to me that Peterson did, in fact, have a list of 1000+ doctrinal errors. Peterson was a member of the Q12 at the time -- BRM's superior.

If I ever write a dissertation and my Professors find 1000+ errors in the text, I sure hope they would "discredit" my work and give me a failing grade.

Why would the Lord call someone who makes 1,000+ errors about HIS doctrine? Makes no sense. How are the corrections supported as being correct? References to other leaders' writings? Where is this list?

[O-Brother]

O-Brother:

Last I looked ETB's 14 principles has not been accepted by the Church. And that smacks of once the Prophet has spoken the thinking has been done.

I can't remember. Was ETB a Prophet when he wrote those 14 things? If he was, then you're right. I suppose the "thinking" you speak of is for the Church and not the members. Nobody can think for you or the concept of agency goes out the window.

[SlackTime]

Why would the Lord call someone who makes 1,000+ errors about HIS doctrine? Makes no sense. How are the corrections supported as being correct? References to other leaders' writings? Where is this list?

Easy question. If a man proves that he can lay aside his pride, accept correction, and make and publish those corrections, that says alot about their humility and obedience. Both qualities that are good virtues for an Apostle of the Lord to have. I seem to recall a number of errors and mistakes that Peter made and Christ forgave him, I really think that this event in his life was one of the watershed moments that helped Brother McConkie to become the great Apostle that he did become.

- SlackTime

[sethpayne]

I dont' see any "criticism" of Paul and the veil, women being submissive to their husbands, etc. Anyway, have you read this talk by ETB?

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works. - Ouch! D&C, Bible and BOM?

I find it very interesting that BRM directly contradicts ETB on this very point.

Now may I say something for your guidance and enlightenment. If what I am about to say should be taken out of context and published in Dialogue or elsewhere, it would give an entirely erroneous impression and would not properly present the facts. As it happens, I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his doctrinal presentations. He was called of God.

He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings in general. He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation laid by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has come on to eternal exaltation.

Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.

Yes, Brigham Young did say some things about God progressing in knowledge and understanding, but again, be it known, that Brigham Young taught, emphatically and plainly, that God knows all things and has all power meaning in the infinite, eternal and ultimate and absolute sense of the word. Again, the issue is, which Brigham Young shall we believe and the answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works.

Seems like the Standard Works trump the prophet. Who is right? ETB or BRM?

http://mormonstudies.net/html/mckonkie/mcconkie_england.html

[sethpayne]

I can't remember. Was ETB a Prophet when he wrote those 14 things? If he was, then you're right. I suppose the "thinking" you speak of is for the Church and not the members. Nobody can think for you or the concept of agency goes out the window.

He was in the Q12. This was a speech at BYU in the late 70's, if memory serves.

[ERayR]

O-Brother:

Last I looked ETB's 14 principles has not been accepted by the Church. And that smacks of once the Prophet has spoken the thinking has been done.

It has been my experience that is the point where the thinking begins. For the majority it is where they begin to think about and internalize what the prophet has said. The point where they pray and get their own witness.

For others it is the point where they start thinking of why what the prophet has said does not apply to them and start thinking of ways to circumvent what the prophet has said.

[thesometimesaint]

O-Brother:

I amended to read leader. But that wouldn't make any difference to me.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/think.htm

[John Larsen]

I can't remember. Was ETB a Prophet when he wrote those 14 things? If he was, then you're right. I suppose the "thinking" you speak of is for the Church and not the members. Nobody can think for you or the concept of agency goes out the window.

He was a Prophet, Seer and Revelator duly sustained as a member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.

[sethpayne]

Why would the Lord call someone who makes 1,000+ errors about HIS doctrine? Makes no sense. How are the corrections supported as being correct? References to other leaders' writings? Where is this list?

He WAS NOT called to write Mormon Doctrine!!! One of the main concerns from the Q12 was that BRM has overstepped his bounds -- BIG TIME.

As I have stated before, to my knowledge, we don't have Peterson's list -- but we do know that such a list existed, unless we wish to call into question the integrity of DOM.

[consiglieri]

Well, it seems indisputable to me that Peterson did, in fact, have a list of 1000+ doctrinal errors. Peterson was a member of the Q12 at the time -- BRM's superior.

I, too, would like to see the list, but I am willing to wager a sawbuck that no such list exists.

Simply put, I am not convinced anybody could intentionally cram over 1,000 errors into a book the size of Mormon Doctrine.

I have read it . . . well, most of it . . . through.

10-errors I could understand, but over 1,000 errors strikes me as hyperbole. That's roughly three errors per page.

And what is an error, and how did Elder Petersen, et al, decide what constituted an error?

It is probably not fair to stand back from our futuristic vantage point and condemn a book solely because we disagree now with what was written then; and it is only more unfair to criticize the author of the book for the same reason.

I think Mormon Doctrine continues to serve a useful function, if only as a snapshot of what was indeed commonly believed in the LDS Church at the time of its publication.

Not every Mormon believed every thing written in it, and unfortunately for Elder McConkie some of those Mormons were senior to him in leadership.

But I agree with Cinepro that the vast majority of Mormons even today would see nothing wrong or controversial about any of the entries in the most recently updated version.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri