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

[Craig Paxton]

Craig Paxton:

God didn't make sock puppets.

I'm guessing that it was with brilliant posts like this that you've reached 25,507 posts and counting...impressive...

Insulting other posters... not impressive. You are excused from this thread.

[cinepro]

Yup, and here is proof...

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

Further light and knowledge is a wonderful thing. You can mock the Saints for their past but at least we grow as individuals and as a people.

You and Vance have overstated Elder McConkie's bean recognition.

In the quote you have provided, he simply told us to "Forget everything that I have said...that is contrary to the present revelation." If you read Official Declaration 2, you'll notice that it doesn't contradict anything Elder McConkie had said about Cain or Castes or other racial matters, other than his teaching that the Priesthood would not go to these people in this life.

But don't take my word for it. Just read the first half of the paragraph immediately preceding the quote you provided:

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?”

It would be great if Elder McConkie and other leaders disavowed all their previous statements on race, but the fact that Elder McConkie kept them in circulation in Mormon Doctrine until his death (and the book remained in print for 20 years after his death), would indicate he also recognized only his error in teaching about the time frame of the restriction on the priesthood, and not matters regarding the origin and status of the races in general.

[KevinG]

You are reading a lot into those statements.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

So if McConkie never went through a line by line repudiation of his Mormon Doctrine then all of it is LDS Doctrine?

[DBMormon]

It's also disingenuous to say that Elder McConkie's more unusual teachings were appropriate for a different time or place. For example, I'm pretty sure there were LDS who recognized that Elder McConkie was full of beans when he published his views on race, even back in the 1950's and 1960's

Cinepro - you confused me, Where was I being disingenuous? All I am saying is that with the early church leaders just after Jesus we don't have General Conference, Ensign articles each month, recorded talks from branch/ward/stake conferences, multiple books written, ect... and if the early leaders did have those things; is it reasonable that we would have just as many compliaints about them as we do of leaders of this dispensation? When you consider all that has been said in this dispensation we are actually talking about relatively few things that bother us in what they have stated.

.

Edited July 10, 2012 by DBMormon

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Craig Paxton:

God didn't make sock puppets.

That was the 8th day.

[wenglund]

Then how do you know what biblical scriptures are indeed scripture and what is Paul or Isaiah speaking as a man?

As usual, you mis the point of the scriptures and the gospel--a common fundamentalist mistake. They aren't intended to systematically and unequivocally establish the "truth," but rather to facilitate our spiritual growth. The point isn't to vet which passages of scriptures are "true" or not or which were spoken as men or prophets. Instead, they are meant to convey precepts and practices to be implemented in in our lives. In other words, our role as members isn't to be scriptural fact-checkers (leave that to God--he knows better and has it covered to his satisfaction), but scripture abider and livers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

...I remember you and the impact you've had in my life. You matter. You have worth. You've made a difference.

You are too kind. However, the credit is not mine to take. My worth and matter and impact are rightly due to Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Then how do you know what biblical scriptures are indeed scripture and what is Paul or Isaiah speaking as a man?

Same way as I know now, the Spirit.

[DBMormon]

There is not a single scripture written by God. Every single one has mans' fingerprints all over it. So how do I tell where the inspiration came from? The only way that I know of is by the power of the Holy Ghost.

THESOMETIMESAINT - I agree with what you said and am trying to say that I am for giving this dispensations leaders more flexibility and cutting them slack because what they say is under a bigger microscope then early christian leaders due to all the outlets their words are available in today

[DBMormon]

Same way as I know now, the Spirit.

Besides the song of Solomon, tell me two other scriptures in the standard works where the spirit has authorized you to be permitted to ignore and not sustain as scripture?

[cinepro]

cinepro:

So if McConkie never went through a line by line repudiation of his Mormon Doctrine then all of it is LDS Doctrine?

As far as I can tell, this thread isn't about "LDS Doctrine." It's specifically about the stuff the Elder McConkie and President Smith taught.

I don't consider their teachings to be de facto "LDS Doctrine", but whether or not anyone else does (or should) is a different conversation.

The point is that Elder McConkie stood up and was pretty clear that people had asked him about his statements regarding the time frame of when the priesthood would be available to black LDS, and he had said "not in this life" (echoing the statements of earlier Church leaders), and that he recognized that statement contradicted OD2 and therefore was mistaken.

But his other statements about Cain, Egyptus, curses, dark skin, negroes, castes etc. didn't contradict OD2, and continued to be published in the revised, post-1978 edition of "Mormon Doctrine." So it would appear that his "I was mistaken" acknowledgement didn't apply to those teachings.

[Calm]

Besides the song of Solomon, tell me two other scriptures in the standard works where the spirit has authorized you to be permitted to ignore and not sustain as scripture?

I think you and I have different ideas of what scripture is.

[thesometimesaint]

DBMormon:

I think Joseph Smith said it best, and I'm paraphrasing here; IF the Saints demanded perfection of him he'd demand perfection on them.

I believe we should all treat with each other a great deal compassion and empathy. We all fall short of the glory of God.

[ERayR]

DBMormon:

I think Joseph Smith said it best, and I'm paraphrasing here; IF the Saints demanded perfection of him he'd demand perfection on them.

I believe we should all treat with each other a great deal compassion and empathy. We all fall short of the glory of God.

Rep points twice in the same day. Either you are coming around or I am slipping.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

BRM was a valiant, outspoken, advocate for Christ. That he had some wrong ideas just doesn't bother me that much. I acknowledge his wrong ideas, and can only pray that my sometimes wrong ideas be forgiven me.

[DBMormon]

I think you and I have different ideas of what scripture is.

Calmoriah - please explain. I am not disagreeing at all with what you said but trying to push the principle further and see how it plays out when applied to other ideas. It is one of the ways my brain works. I want to understand how you differentiate between early christian scripture (all we have from prophets and apostles) and All we have from this dispensation's prophets and apostles.

I am fully aware we are talking apples and oranges when we compare the book of Luke with "Doctrines of Salvation" by JFS. I get that but want to explore that comparison anyway.

So please explain what is your perception of my view of scripture and what is your view of scripture?

By the way, I have respected your thoughts from day one so don't hold back any punches if you see them needed.

Edited July 10, 2012 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I believe we should all treat with each other a great deal compassion and empathy. We all fall short of the glory of God.

I agree and am learning that.... What I am struggling to get is that I have been taught and still hold the Bible and Book of Mormon as essentially completely worthy of my trust and reliance. that I can take any teaching in it and trust it completely outside of "songs of solomon" and a few outdated (due to new revelation) teachings like paul's thoughts on women. And with the Bible and BOM I have the only writings of these leaders. I don't have paul's journal, or the ensign from 27 AD, or Paul's book "Doctrines of Exhaltation".

And yes I know these men apoligized for their weaknesses including writing and any problems with any fault found in their writings and yet in meaning and doctrine we realy don't do that... if they wrote it, it is assumed true accross the board. We may battle over how we define their words but assume they knew what it was supposed to mean and that what they intend is absolutely true. Kind of like saying the sky is blue and we debate what shade, but "a few" things BY, or BRM, or JFS wrote is while perhaps only their opinion, is absolutley false (in my understanding) and these men wrote their thoughts as if they felt it was true and they also seem to to be wanting to be taken seriously in those writings and while writing disclaimers (an invention of the modern age or this dispensation) seem to want to be taken as theologians who are stating the doctrine of the church. I see BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" as his effort to state LDS doctrine. I see JFS's "Doctrines of Salvation" as his attempt to state LDS doctrine.

So in regards to the BIBLE and BOM I am left with only the absolute scritpural record and no other record whereby to test a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.

Yet in this dispensation you are forced to allow these men, who though called of God, wear their fallibility on their sleeves because time is on the side of previous dispensations. We are so enabled to be critical of modern leaders because so much of their writing and talks are available it is so much easier to find fault.

I am curious how one looks at ancient leader's writings and having so little to go on can help the critic see them as falliable as well if we automatically accept their every word as "Scripture" and therefore true.

Does that explain it better? sorry for the confusion!

Edited July 10, 2012 by DBMormon

[ERayR]

I agree and am learning that.... What I am struggling to get is that I have been taught and still hold the Bible and Book of Mormon as essentially completely worthy of my trust and reliance. that I can take any teaching in it and trust it completely outside of "songs of solomon" and a few outdated (due to new revelation) teachings like paul's thoughts on women. And with the Bible and BOM I have the only writings of these leaders. I don't have paul's journal, or the ensign from 27 AD, or Paul's book "Doctrines of Exhaltation"

So I am left with only the absolute scritpural record and no other record whereby to test a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.

Yet in this dispensation you are forced to allow these men, who though called of God, wear their fallibility on their sleeves because time is on the side of previous dispensations. We are so enabled to be critical of modern leaders because so much of their writing and talks are available it is so much easier to find fault.

I am curious how one looks at ancient leader's writings and having so little to go on can help the critic see them as falliable as well if we automatically accept their every word as "Scripture" and therefore true.

Does that explain it better? sorry for the confusion!

Wouldn't be wonderful to find a complete library of all the works of all the prophets conveniently translated into English? But alas I am afraid that even then we would have to rely on personal revelation as I don't believe they were infallible either.

[Calm]

So please explain what is your perception of my view of scripture and what is your view of scripture?

By the way, I have respected your thoughts from day one so don't hold back any punches if you see them needed.

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.

I imagine your view of scripture is the Standard Works.

As a youth, I was taught that the Ensign was a modern form of scripture, patriarchal blessings are personal scriptures and our own personal histories would become the scripture of our descendants. I see scripture as pretty much anything that attempts to document our interaction with the Spirit and with God.

I lean toward the idea that it may be necessary for one to see oneself in a covenant with God as canonized scripture is told from the viewpoint of a covenant people....but I am playing with the idea at the moment and haven't settled on either side of the debate.

But that also means there is going to be a lot of extra material in scripture that doesn't deal with actual doctrine. And I don't think the Spirit worries too much about witnessing to us whether that nondoctrinal stuff, the stuff that doesn't lead us to seek out God, is factually true or not. So I see that type of scripture as true for the one who wrote it (in that he is explaining how he perceives or experiences the world) even though it might not be true in another context (someone else might not perceive or experience the world in the same way).

I am fully aware we are talking apples and oranges when we compare the book of Luke with "Doctrines of Salvation" by JFS.

Except for the fact the Church has accepted Luke as binding upon us, I actually see them as apples and apples, which is one of the reasons contradictions between the gospels don't bother me in the least just as contradictions between modern apostles or modern and ancient ones don't bother me. Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

As usual, you mis the point of the scriptures and the gospel--a common fundamentalist mistake. They aren't intended to systematically and unequivocally establish the "truth," but rather to facilitate our spiritual growth. The point isn't to vet which passages of scriptures are "true" or not or which were spoken as men or prophets. Instead, they are meant to convey precepts and practices to be implemented in in our lives. In other words, our role as members isn't to be scriptural fact-checkers (leave that to God--he knows better and has it covered to his satisfaction), but scripture abider and livers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But for LDS it is to establish truth...in fact the very point of the BoM.

[DBMormon]

Except for the fact the Church has accepted Luke as binding upon us, I actually see them as apples and apples, which is one of the reasons contradictions between the gospels don't bother me in the least just as contradictions between modern apostles or modern and ancient ones don't bother me.

So then if they are apples to apples is it possible to look at a scripture such as "The liar shall be thrust to hell" and say he was wrong? speaking just as a man

[cinepro]

cinepro:

BRM was a valiant, outspoken, advocate for Christ. That he had some wrong ideas just doesn't bother me that much. I acknowledge his wrong ideas, and can only pray that my sometimes wrong ideas be forgiven me.

You will probably find your wrong ideas more quickly forgiven if you don't find yourself in a position of authority in the church and then repeatedly teach them over the pulpit and in print.

[wenglund]

But for LDS it is to establish truth...in fact the very point of the BoM.

Not quite. Establishing the "truth" is but a means to the end which is Christ, and not the end, itself, and is thus secondary to the end. And, the way the "truth" is established, in addition to asking God (Moroni 10), is by living by the precepts of the Book of Mormon (Alma 32), as I suggested.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

So then if they are apples to apples is it possible to look at a scripture such as "The liar shall be thrust to hell" and say he was wrong? speaking just as a man

If the Spirit so impresses you, then I wouldn't argue it with you as your understanding. But since you are not called to determine doctrine for the Church, such an interpretation would only be binding on you if the Spirit revealed it to you.