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

[SamIam]

So let's just talk about one of those so called truths that McConkie and Smith were fond of and help me understand how your premises is supported. McConkie and Smith clearly taught and believed that it was central to LDS doctrine that there was no death prior to the Fall of Adam. In fact the church still teaches this falsehood...and it is one of the central reasons given for a need for an atonement. I believe that McConkie and Smith were completely wrong and have been completely discredited...so how exactly will their false version of truth stand; what color is the sky to you?

Craig you are an absolute gem. I so appreciate your asking that quesiton. I am going to answer but it will take me a minute to pull this together. My goal will simply be to give it the same level of plausibility that gives a person who is objective to see the potential to fit this under the auspicies of theology with equal force of strength based on theological requirements as those who place it under the auspices of a scientific imperative. You are going to jump for joy and weep at the opportunity to be reunited to your theological roots.

[David T]

I predict it won't be mentioned at all, or if it is, only as a novelty of personal belief. IE; BY personally believed that men were living on the surface of the sun. Something we no longer believe, or even teach.

However, JFS, and the Church following in his footsteps, taught (and still does in old-but-still-being-used manuals) that there was No Blood Before The Fall (here's the problematic history of that idea), something still taught in institute manuals (although it remains to see whether that will be retained). It's not just a quaint theory - it's a concept that has been highly entrenched in 20th Century Mormon thought, thanks to JFS and BRM. It's viewed as a major trump card for the 'Evolution is an Evil Lie' crowd. a brand new, 2013 manual reinforcing that idea would be... lets just say, a big deal.

Edited July 3, 2012 by David T

[thesometimesaint]

Samlam:

Evolution does not address abiogenesis. However it is quite clear from the science that under early earth conditions organic compounds could have come together to form simple life, after which evolution took over.

That is a wrong characterization of what abiogenesis does and how it works.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

I have sufficient faith for my needs. Why must there be a reconciliation right now? I just don't see any great need for it right now. I can/do live a happy successful life keeping them apart. I'm perfectly content to let the Scriptures tell me the why God did it, and science telling me the how. Knowing how a car works doesn't make me any less a believer that God can help me arrive safely at my destination. How would knowing how God made this wonderful earth for me/us make it any less wonderful?

I probably spend more time studying my Scriptures than I do science. Should I give up either one based only on how much time I spend on them? I try to get eight hours of sleep a night. If time spent were the only consideration. Should I give up sleep?

What is reasonable? Say that there is a part of my religion that says that the sun stood still in the sky. But I know that the sun doesn't move all that much relative to our earth, but our earth sure does move. Which one is the more reasonable? Or say I have a religion that says that God flooded the entire earth, but I know that is a physical impossibility, and it is more reasonable that it was just from Noah's perspective, and not literally the entire planet? Or that 6000 years ago God said Alakazam and the earth is just like it is now, is it more reasonable to have God using a reasonable, understandable, process to achieve a specific goal?

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

[why me]

I'm just wondering how selective the Church will be when the eventual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith comes out. I wonder if some of the most controversial uber-conservative anti-science material will be reinforced, or if we'll see it sidelined. That manual in and of itself will be a major indicator of, well, a lot of things.

I think the material that the manual will include will be things that the lds will need now in the present time frame. I don't think that much controversy will be in that manual. However, in a biography of JFS, it all should be there. It would be more difficult to gloss over things in a biography.

[thesometimesaint]

David T:

I have no problem with prophets being wrong.

[why me]

David T:

I have no problem with prophets being wrong.

I think that the point is very simple. If one lives an lds life, they will be safe and secure from many of the world's problems. The prophets have not led people astray when it comes to good holy and healthy living. The guidance from the lds church has been spot on and many bulls eyes have occurred. LDS life may not be easy for many. But the understandings that one receives can make life more peaceful and in many instances, happier. And we owe this to the prophets and other authorities.

Even those that leave do not give up many of the LDSisms that they were raised with because they know that such ideas give a more secure, peaceful and contented life.

Edited July 3, 2012 by why me

[BCSpace]

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.

not to derail but what's this about Elder Nelson being corrected by his juniour comp? and what pew research interview?

http://pewresearch.o...nism-in-america

Forum: The church has said it neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment. It says it "opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience." It does not oppose removing a medical patient from "artificial means of life support." Different denominations deal differently with questions about life's origins and development. Conservative denominations tend to have more trouble with Darwinian evolution. Does the church have an official position on this topic?

Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It's interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.

Forum: Why is that?

Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works.

Wickman: The Scripture describing the Lord as the creator of all of these things says very little about how it was done. I don't know of anybody in the ranks of the First Presidency and the Twelve [Apostles] who has ever spent much time worrying about this matter of evolution.

Nelson: We have this doctrine, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: "When the Lord shall come again, he shall reveal all things, things which have passed, hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth by which it was made and the purpose and the end thereof, things most precious, things that are above, things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, upon the earth, and in heaven." So as I close that quotation, I realize that there are just some things that we won't know until that day.

Now I certainly consider JSF, BRM. and Nelson to be apostles of the Lord, even great ones. But what bothers me is that their arguments against science don't actually address science (cf Nelson's Big Bang comment in the recent GC). This is especially troublesome in Nelson's case because he is ostensibly a man of science and yet he essentially says evolution has species giving birth to other species which is false or that there is no natural (or human) selection.

Edited July 3, 2012 by BCSpace

[Craig Paxton]

Craig you are an absolute gem. I so appreciate your asking that quesiton. I am going to answer but it will take me a minute to pull this together. My goal will simply be to give it the same level of plausibility that gives a person who is objective to see the potential to fit this under the auspicies of theology with equal force of strength based on theological requirements as those who place it under the auspices of a scientific imperative. You are going to jump for joy and weep at the opportunity to be reunited to your theological roots.

Oh goodie...I can hardly wait... ...I'll get my white clothes cleaned and pressed so they can get all wet...

Edited July 3, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[John Ping Pong]

Inasmuch as I have been banned from the thread I started regarding whether the Church can make mistakes, I am gratified to find many here who seem to support such a view.

As to Joseph Fielding Smith, he has much to recommend him, and I enjoyed his writing style as I perused his Doctrines of Salvation and Answers to Gospel Questions in my early years. On the other hand, he had a great clash with scientific apostles (Talmage and Widstoe) over the theory of evolution and, after outliving them, published his magnum opus, Man, His Origin and Destiny, much to the chagrin of President McKay, who had no end of difficulty pointing out that this was not the position of the Church but only the personal opinion of Joseph Fielding. Most members of the Church seem never to have gotten that particular memo and act as if it is still the official church position.

His son-in-law, Bruce McConkie, followed a similar tack by publishing his Mormon Doctrine without authorization and then, when he was called on it and begged for forgiveness, and having received it from David O. McKay on the promise that he would not publish another edition without First Presidency approval . . . went ahead and published a second edition without First Presidency approval.

Although both were men of conviction and drive, they were not necessarily good role-models for playing well with others among their peers (and superiors).

[theplains]

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.

I watched the "Purifying Power of Gethsemane" video on YouTube. I noticed that at the 6:25 mark Elder McConkie talks about the 3

hours of darkness at the cross. He says 3 hours of darkness for the Nephites too, but it was 3 days according to the Book of Mormon.

Maybe he misspoke.

Regards,

Jim

[why me]

Although both were men of conviction and drive, they were not necessarily good role-models for playing well with others among their peers (and superiors).

There can be a ring of truth in this. With Bruce R. McConkie, it probably wasn't easy being so popular with the membership. It can all go to the head. We don't see this personality worship anymore like we did with with Bruce R. McConkie and Paul H. Dunn. And I think that there is a reason for this. Not good to focus on one church leader as was done in the past.

[Craig Paxton]

We don't see this personality worship anymore like we did with with Bruce R. McConkie and Paul H. Dunn.

You are totally kidding right? Try to telling a group of relief society sisters that Dieter Uchtdorf is standing in the ward foyer and see what happenes... the ladies will fall all over themselves trying to get his autograph...

[CASteinman]

he essentially says evolution has species giving birth to other species which is false or that there is no natural (or human) selection.

I don't think I would agree that this is what he said. I think he was saying that it did not come about by random chance, which is somewhat different.

[ERayR]

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.

The Savior did say: Rev. 3:15-16

15 I know thy ^aworks, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.16 So then because thou art ^alukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will ^bspue thee out of my mouth.

[CASteinman]

Bruce McConkie was not perceived correctly by some people. His voice and authoritarian vocabulary and phrasing made people think he was a harsh, unyielding and judgmental person. But that's not really quite right. What he was, more than anything else was devoted and disciplined.

His discipline sometimes made him not quite as gentle as other people would like. But he was quick to acknowledge his errors and repent of them. Once, he was giving a talk to many faithful members and he was talking about the demands and rigors of getting into the Celestial Kingdom. When he was a pretty fair way into his discourse, he noticed a woman looking very distressed and asked her what was wrong. She said, "With all you have told us, I don't see how anyone can make it". Elder McConkie stopped his talk, looked at the paper for a moment and then folded it up and put it in his pocket. He said, "I have erred and failed to communicate to you the Grace and Love of or Lord Jesus Christ. I apologize. I want to say that I consider myself honored to be in the company of Saints who I believe will all make it into the Celestial Kingdom."

He was also a pretty strong guy. Once, he was meeting with someone and stretched out too far in his chair and it tipped over backwards. He caught himself with one hand and pushed himself back into a sitting position. (Try that some time!).

And, despite appearances, he was meek and humble. I have already in another thread told the story of how he refused to accept sympathy or support when a prophet dressed him down -- perhaps incorrectly -- and instead bore testimony of the prophet.

These good traits may not have been with him in his early career, but they developed. That is all God asks of any of us.

[rpn]

We AREN'T supposed to just accept what great men, including prophets and apostles, and all church leaders and institute/seminary teachers say. We are supposed to seek and obtain our own inspiration that confirms what they teach as true, and how it applies to us.

The other thing it (the various definitive statements that we now know not to be doctrine) teaches us is that we really have to work hard, study hard, and live courageously to figure out what is inspiration, and what is misunderstanding, so we do not participate in the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

Edited July 4, 2012 by rpn

[John Ping Pong]

His discipline sometimes made him not quite as gentle as other people would like. But he was quick to acknowledge his errors and repent of them. Once, he was giving a talk to many faithful members and he was talking about the demands and rigors of getting into the Celestial Kingdom. When he was a pretty fair way into his discourse, he noticed a woman looking very distressed and asked her what was wrong. She said, "With all you have told us, I don't see how anyone can make it". Elder McConkie stopped his talk, looked at the paper for a moment and then folded it up and put it in his pocket. He said, "I have erred and failed to communicate to you the Grace and Love of or Lord Jesus Christ. I apologize. I want to say that I consider myself honored to be in the company of Saints who I believe will all make it into the Celestial Kingdom."

I would very much like to believe this story but fear it is apocryphal. Could you provide a reference?

While you are at it, you may want to search Elder McConkie's name in conjunction with Eugene England and Glenn Pace.

[Duncan]

I would very much like to believe this story but fear it is apocryphal. Could you provide a reference?

While you are at it, you may want to search Elder McConkie's name in conjunction with Eugene England and Glenn Pace.

I think you mean George Pace

[John Ping Pong]

I think you mean George Pace

Thank you for the correction.

A little too much time in the opium dens, I'm afraid.

[Duncan]

Thank you for the correction.

A little too much time in the opium dens, I'm afraid.

no sweat!

[CASteinman]

I would very much like to believe this story but fear it is apocryphal. Could you provide a reference?

I do not believe this was ever published.

Here is another unpublished story about him.

He and his wife were visiting some private sort of exhibit of ancient artifacts. Elder McConkie had long said that the tradition of 3 wise men has no attestation in scripture and it is only by tradition that we consider it to have been 3. Well, at this exhibit there was some extremely ancient representation of 3 wise men. Sister McConkie nudged Elder McConkie and said "See, It is three". And Elder McConkie replied back "Well I never said it wasn't three!".

While you are at it, you may want to search Elder McConkie's name in conjunction with Eugene England and Glenn Pace.

Don't know why I would do that. I am well aware of it. Elder McConkie held himself to the same standards he held others. That these standards are considered rough by some people does not matter to me.

[John Ping Pong]

I do not believe this was ever published.

The best stories seldom are. I can give you another apocryphal story about Elder McConkie, though. It is said his scriptural knowledge was so encyclopedic that all one had to do was give a scriptural reference and Elder McConkie could quote from memory the scriptures immediately preceding and following.

Elder McConkie held himself to the same standards he held others. That these standards are considered rough by some people does not matter to me.

The only standard he gave for others that Elder McConkie held to himself is that one must believe whatever Elder McConkie says or risk damnation.

[CASteinman]

The best stories seldom are. I can give you another apocryphal story about Elder McConkie, though. It is said his scriptural knowledge was so encyclopedic that all one had to do was give a scriptural reference and Elder McConkie could quote from memory the scriptures immediately preceding and following.

I know it was prodigious. But I think it may not have been quite that perfect. I seem to recall a time he could not find a reference.

The only standard he gave for others that Elder McConkie held to himself is that one must believe whatever Elder McConkie says or risk damnation.

This is absolutely false... you do not know what you are talking about.

[CASteinman]

I'm just wondering how selective the Church will be when the eventual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith comes out. I wonder if some of the most controversial uber-conservative anti-science material will be reinforced, or if we'll see it sidelined. That manual in and of itself will be a major indicator of, well, a lot of things.

People who either do not understand the mission of the Church or do not want the Church to focus on its mission do not understand the Priesthood Manuals. Its like the people who shake their fist and curse God. They don't understand Him.

[John Ping Pong]

I know it was prodigious. But I think it may not have been quite that perfect. I seem to recall a time he could not find a reference.

Strangely I have no trouble believing that unpublished story.

This is absolutely false... you do not know what you are talking about.

Would you care to engage instead of merely declaiming?