Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[why me]

The fact that Elder McConkie never corrected the statement that it was (in his opinion) Mormon Doctrine that caste systems are of God and inter-racial marriage wrong is (in my opinion) quite unpleasant.

I don't think that it is unpleasant. Before the Internet, words came and went, quickly to be forgotten. Also, books just laid on the shelf, and words inside that book were forgotten. However, with the internet, words keep popping up never to be forgotten. And this is where the problem is. It is so simple to keep bring up quotes that may have a negative connotation and this is what is happening in the lds church. Critics constantly bring up the same old quotations to lead people out of the church. But these quotations always existed but they were only inside books or magazines. To be read...and for the most part forgotten. One needed to find an old Improvement era etc and that was not easy to do.

I know of no other church where quotations of past leaders are used so often to cast doubt in the members mind as is the case with the lds church. And a part of the problem is the misunderstanding that people have: that every time a leader of the lds church speaks, god is speaking through him. They can have no opinions.

Elder McConkie saw no need to do this. However, he did make a statement that we follow the counsel of current leaders and what was said in the past is in the past.

And in terms of interracial marriage the link that I provided with edward kimball would be of help to you. Kimball's son said that his father was against interracial marriage not because it was a sin but because of the complications that it brought into the marriage. We just need to remember american society before the 80's. Highly racial and highly polarized over race. Interracial marriage between whites and black faced huge problems as did their children. But they were permitted to marry in the lds church.

Edited March 16, 2013 by why me

[Tacenda]

Its late and perhaps I should have been a bit more explicit.

Anything printed by the Church over the signatures of the FP and/or the 12 Apostles is official doctrine or whatever is printed as doctrine by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is a matter of plain and obvious definition. If you look up the word "official" in a dictionary it will reveal to you what the term "official" means. And if you look up the word "doctrine" you will see what that means. I trust I do not have to actually post that in such a pedantic manner.

Put the two meanings together and you will find what is 'official doctrine'. You will note that this has nothing to do with truth, beauty or the American Way.

Its just that this is official doctrine.

That is all.

Good to see you again CASteinman, I always appreciated your strong testimony of the church. But on the case of the book " Mormon Doctrine" being official, I have to side with Canard here. My husband carried that around with him on his mission in 1980 and my son did in 2010!

[canard78]

Its late and perhaps I should have been a bit more explicit.

Anything printed by the Church over the signatures of the FP and/or the 12 Apostles is official doctrine or whatever is printed as doctrine by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is a matter of plain and obvious definition. If you look up the word "official" in a dictionary it will reveal to you what the term "official" means. And if you look up the word "doctrine" you will see what that means. I trust I do not have to actually post that in such a pedantic manner.

Put the two meanings together and you will find what is 'official doctrine'. You will note that this has nothing to do with truth, beauty or the American Way.

Its just that this is official doctrine.

That is all.

But even your clarified definition still does not align with the church's definition.

Under your definition, Ensign articles (published by the corp), lesson manuals (published by the corp) and handbooks (and plenty more besides) would be official doctrine. And they're not. They may be materials published officially by the corp, but that does not make them doctrine. The standard works are official based on the church's published definition. Not much else is.

That doesn't make them useless. They can be called good teaching and sound advice. But not official doctrine.

[mathonihah]

Not exactly sure what your asking but I will take a stab at it. My false paradigm of what the church is and what it isn't was in part set up by General Authroities who shared their opinion as if they were absolutely certain it was Doctrine. Since they were sure and they were prophets and apostles I also believed said statements and invested (wrongly I admit) my testimony in them. Then one day I Saw through the glass "less" darkly and it was a different picture and my world collapsed. So I have empathy for those who are frustrated with this experience and take out that frustration (wrongly I admit when done in a mean spirited way) on the leaders who stated opinion as doctrine.

Before I joined the Church I was determined that that was not going to happen to me, so I established my "paradigm" on the Book of Mormon, and the other revelations of the Restoration; and that has never let me down. That is why I don't have a lot of sympathy for those whose experience has been different. There is parable in the NT about building your house on a rock, versus building it on sand. If you build it on sand, then you have yourself to blame if it falls down.

[mathonihah]

Not exactly sure what your asking but I will take a stab at it. My false paradigm of what the church is and what it isn't was in part set up by General Authroities who shared their opinion as if they were absolutely certain it was Doctrine. Since they were sure and they were prophets and apostles I also believed said statements and invested (wrongly I admit) my testimony in them. Then one day I Saw through the glass "less" darkly and it was a different picture and my world collapsed. So I have empathy for those who are frustrated with this experience and take out that frustration (wrongly I admit when done in a mean spirited way) on the leaders who stated opinion as doctrine.

I would be looking for is the bolded portion above with the explanation of subjective personal experience as well as specific examples with support. In your response a citation with the support for it being just opinion would be helpful. Thus allowing me, and hopefully others, to come to our own conclusion as to agreement or not. As well as providing specific authorities or pieces that can be assessed.

That is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. In your OP you said the following:

I have seen a number of apologists deride various past Church authorities' works when someone uses them as a support for some position or other. I do not always understand where this comes from. I am starting this thread to discuss this. John A. Widtsoe and B.H. Roberts are two. I have also seen statements by Talmage as held in contempt as well. Not to mention the huge amount of this occuring with BY. I am wanting to understand this better.

If there is a particular authority you view in this manner, or know of one that others view in this manner, I am interested in the reasoning behind such a view. The same goes for an authority's specific work if it is only a specific work that is critiqued in this manner.

Those are all very ambiguous statements. Providing specific examples would help others to answer your questions better.

[mathonihah]

Yes, my largest issue is often that the critiqued authority, usually with regards to apostles or prophets, had, or should have had, more "light and knowledge" than I, and most often the critic, have wherewith to inform their opinions, speculations and conclusions. At least that is my opinion.

More vague statements with nothing specific to back it up.

[mathonihah]

Yes, my largest issue is often that the critiqued authority, usually with regards to apostles or prophets, had, or should have had, more "light and knowledge" than I, and most often the critic, have wherewith to inform their opinions, speculations and conclusions. At least that is my opinion.

I cannot provide an exact quote or citation. I remember a few years back someone using a quote from John A. Widtsoe's Evidences and Reconciliations and having a response being completely disregarded because it was Widtsoe and because it was from that specific text. I have seen this occur a number of times since with Widtsoe and various works of his. I never received an adequate explanation for the disregard, which to me appears to be derision oftentimes, of Widtsoe or his work. Commentary on much of BY's work suffers frequent disregard as well through statement that BY was just stating his opinion, speculation etc. in an improper forum for such. It comes across to me as a picking and choosing as to what was stated as doctrine and what was not. Where is the line? To educate myself I am asking for the explanation.

Are you referring to an occasional occurrence or to a common occurrence? If it has been an occasional occurrence, you should take it up with the individuals concerned, because they are in the best position to answer your question. If it is a common occurrence, then you should be able to give credible or specific examples. It is impossible to properly answer your question otherwise.

[mathonihah]

Official Doctrine is, by definition, that which is published officially by the Church. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong or prophetic or even whether it is printed in black ink or orange.

I personally don't find the term "official doctrine" very helpful in this context. "Official doctrine" makes sense if there is such thing as "unofficial doctrine". Since there is no "unofficial doctrine," there can be no "official doctrine" either. Doctrine is either correct or incorrect. It is either true or false. It is either accurately stated, or sloppily expressed. It is either received by inspiration, or given by speculation. The fact that it is "officially published" by the Church (i.e. has the Church's logo and imprint on it etc.), doesn't guarantee any of those things. My obligation (to myself at least) is to accept true doctrine, not "official doctrine". And Church leaders have generally concurred that true doctrine is ultimately what is contained in the standard works.

Actually the trick is to do that and not become an apostate. And there is one way you can be sure to achieve both ends: Keep your disagreements private or to yourself.

That depends on the circumstance. I happen to enjoy discussing the gospel on the Internet, not just on this forum, but on other forums as well, where people can sometimes be quite hostile to Mormonism; and one of their tactics is to misrepresent LDS doctrine by quoting past Church leaders who have taught questionable doctrines; and the only way to answer those kinds of misrepresentations is to teach the correct doctrine with reference to the standard works. I believe that is what God would expect me to do. Like it or not, Adam isn't God the Father, and the Catholic Church isn't the Whore of Babylon, and Jesus didn't get married and have kids (at least as far as we know), and God the Father didn't have sex with Mary, etc. So when they bring those things up, I inform them that those are not correct, and give them scriptural reasons why!

[mathonihah]

Its late and perhaps I should have been a bit more explicit.

Anything printed by the Church over the signatures of the FP and/or the 12 Apostles is official doctrine or whatever is printed as doctrine by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Nothing is published by the "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" any more. It is all comes under the copyright of Intellectual Reserve, Inc (IRI). And that includes everything that is published by the Church, from the standard works all the way down to how to comb your hair (Church style!).

This is a matter of plain and obvious definition. If you look up the word "official" in a dictionary it will reveal to you what the term "official" means. And if you look up the word "doctrine" you will see what that means. I trust I do not have to actually post that in such a pedantic manner.

Put the two meanings together and you will find what is 'official doctrine'. You will note that this has nothing to do with truth, beauty or the American Way.

Its just that this is official doctrine.

I agree with your definition of "official doctrine," except that it is not very helpful in every discussion. I am only interested in true doctrine, not official doctrine. If it is true then it is "official" in my book, otherwise it ain't—regardless of whose copyright it carries.

Edited March 16, 2013 by mathonihah

[Stone holm]

Official Doctrine is, by definition, that which is published officially by the Church. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong or prophetic or even whether it is printed in black ink or orange.

Actually the trick is to do that and not become an apostate. And there is one way you can be sure to achieve both ends: Keep your disagreements private or to yourself.

Not sure about the correctness of that statement , I normally believe that it needs not only the FP official approval, but the approval of the Quarum of the 12 and the sustaining vote of the Saints. But their are degrees of validity for our guidance like the stamp of approval the Church has given the hymn book, The Gospel Principles Manual, and Jesus The Christ by Talmage

[Yep]

Not really... NY Hill cumorah clearly isn't the setting for two battles that killed millions. Uncorrected for 150+ years.

First pres not called for 3 years after new prophet, not corrected until Lorenzo Snow.

Blacks and the priesthood, not corrected for 150+ years (even though Pres Kimball said it was an error and Hinkley called it an interpretation by the leaders of the day).

Blacks carry mark of cain and less valiant in pre-existence. Not corrected for 100+ years (in 1992 Mormon Doctrine's final print run was still saying Black people carry the mark of Cain)

Eternal damnation doesn't mean damnation without end, not corrected for 1000s of years (see D&C 19)

Paintings of the translation process, still used in official publication and not corrected. I know the paintings weren't done by authorities, but they approve their use.

History of the Church contains many inaccuracies (e.g. Zelph story), but continued to be published for many years and cited in D&C.

Mormon Doctrine (McConkie's) contains some horrible inaccuracies (e.g. The suggestion that caste systems are gospel principles and racial inter-marrying is bad). This statement (along with the suggestion contraception was sinful) are in my 1992 edition. Despite correcting the initial "catholics are the church of the devil" in the first edition, McConkie went to his grave with his name on an inaccurate and harmful book. It's been taken out of print, but no correction of the false doctrine has been made.

Can you show an example of quick correction?

My qualifier "generally". Also, you are operating under the assumption of these being "wrong". I don't see any of the above as "wrong", politically incorrect maybe.

[Yep]

Providing specific examples would help others to answer your questions better.

The current discussion is actually answering my question. My question was very open, I wasn't sure how to ask the question I had. This back and forth is not directly answering the question, but it is showing me the reasoning.

[mathonihah]

The current discussion is actually answering my question. My question was very open, I wasn't sure how to ask the question I had. This back and forth is not directly answering the question, but it is showing me the reasoning.

Okay, so tell me what you think the best answer to your question is, after reading the current exchanges?

[ERayR]

The fact that Elder McConkie never corrected the statement that it was (in his opinion) Mormon Doctrine that caste systems are of God and inter-racial marriage wrong is (in my opinion) quite unpleasant.

While I don't expect perfect leaders, ones who can be so offensively off-beam are disconcerting. One would hope he had sought spiritual confirmation for the statements made in his book. If he did, then I can only presume he got a "false signal." If he didn't and printed without seeking inspiration for a book making such a big claim as clarifying Mormon Doctrine then he's irresponsible. Either way, it undermines my confidence in him and, to a certain extent, his calling.

I see. The problem you have with him is that right or wrong he doesn't agree with you so he is to be dismissed entirely.

[blackstrap]

Doctrine is found within the 4 standard works. Does that mean that every word found there in is true? Does that mean that we accept the standard works to be infallible? According to the Bible, the Lord was not only unhappy with interracial marriage,He was particularly unhappy with inter- religious marriage .I wonder why? Solomon is a case in point.

As far as the RCC being the whore of Babylon,well that may be a stretch, and yet anyone who reads the history of the western world from about 300 AD to 1700 AD and discovers the political machinations ,genocide, repression, etc. perpetuated by the highest authorities within the RCC ,might well be inclined to think there is some validity to the comparison.

Also, it you think there are no disagreements within the quorum of the 12 over policy ,procedures and ,yes,even doctrine, you haven't been paying attention.

[CASteinman]

I think you are characterizing those things that are binding upon the membership to follow and accept vs those things that are official doctrine.

They aren't really the same. There is overlap but not equivalence.

[CASteinman]

I think you are characterizing those things that are binding upon the membership to follow and accept vs those things that are official doctrine.

They aren't really the same. There is overlap but not equivalence.

[canard78]

My qualifier "generally". Also, you are operating under the assumption of these being "wrong". I don't see any of the above as "wrong", politically incorrect maybe.

If your qualifier is "generally," can you give some general examples of quick correction. There must be lots if mine are the exception. And I can't think of many.

So you're really saying that you think the following are correct and true:

- NY Hill Cumorah is the setting for two Book of Mormon battles that killed millions?

- A new prophet should wait 3 years to call counselors?

- Black people carry mark of Cain and were less valiant in pre-existence?

- Church paintings of the translation process are accurate?

- History of the Church is an accurate record?

- Caste systems are gospel principles and racial inter-marrying is bad?

- Contraception is sinful and an evil practice?

- The Catholic church is the church of the devil?

I'd be genuinely interested for you to put a Y/N against each statement you think is true or not. FWIW I think every statement above is incorrect and not true. Some are of less importance (3 year wait and the History of the Church), while others are offensive and damaging (blacks less valiant, caste systems are good, contraception is evil).

[canard78]

Doctrine is found within the 4 standard works. Does that mean that every word found there in is true? Does that mean that we accept the standard works to be infallible? According to the Bible, the Lord was not only unhappy with interracial marriage,He was particularly unhappy with inter- religious marriage .I wonder why? Solomon is a case in point.

As far as the RCC being the whore of Babylon,well that may be a stretch, and yet anyone who reads the history of the western world from about 300 AD to 1700 AD and discovers the political machinations ,genocide, repression, etc. perpetuated by the highest authorities within the RCC ,might well be inclined to think there is some validity to the comparison.

Also, it you think there are no disagreements within the quorum of the 12 over policy ,procedures and ,yes,even doctrine, you haven't been paying attention.

I think these questions are for me right?

Thanks for the patronising closing sentence. I've been paying far too much attention. Part of the reason why I've lost so much confidence in the church. I'm very aware that there's debate and disagreements within the quorum of the 12. The fact that 1 or 2 (apparently) vetoed the undoing of the priesthood ban years earlier than it actually happens makes me sad. If they're all speaking to God, how can one or two veto something. Philosophies of men?

I've written at length on other threads about my perspectives on Nephi's vision of "save but two churches" - I can dig them out for you if needed. The short version is that I have reached the understanding that those two churches refer to people not organisations. I'm fairly sure that some of the people in history were not living conducive to being in the church of the Lamb, therefore were at times in the other church. But I don't sweep all Catholics throughout history into the other. I think many today and before are in the church of the Lamb. I also see it as a state of mind. On days when I'm being generous, kind, charitable and well-tempered, I'm in the church of the Lamb. On days when I gripe, shout or am selfish, I'm in the other.

And does the standard works contain mistruths? I'm very sure it does. I consider a large portion of the Old Testament to be symbolic parables, but I don't think much of it applies literally to us. Christ fulfilled the law. And some of the OT is not, for me, accurate. I don't think God sanctioned the genocides. I think the Israelites post-rationalised.

[canard78]

I see. The problem you have with him is that right or wrong he doesn't agree with you so he is to be dismissed entirely.

I'm trying not to dismiss him entirely. I recognise he had a lot of good to say. His final testimony is a beautiful witness.

But the extent to which he seems misguided is disturbing, given his apostolic calling.

Out of interest, are there any of his statements in MD that you don't agree with either?

Do you think a caste system is good and racial inter-marrying an evil practice? Or contraception? Do you think the continents split after Noah? Do you think black people carry the mark of Cain? Do you think the Indians were Jews by nationality? Is the dominant Indian blood lineage Israel? Will they eventually become white and delightsome?

I could go on...

Edited March 16, 2013 by canard78

[rodheadlee]

But the extent to which he seems misguided is disturbing, given his apostolic calling.

The key word here being seems. It seems to me you have misrepresented some of those items. It seems to me some of those items we'll just have to wait and see what is what. It seems to me you are disturbing, given his apostolic calling.

[why me]

I'm trying not to dismiss him entirely. I recognise he had a lot of good to say. His final testimony is a beautiful witness.

But the extent to which he seems misguided is disturbing, given his apostolic calling.

Out of interest, are there any of his statements in MD that you don't agree with either?

Do you think a caste system is good and racial inter-marrying an evil practice? Or contraception? Do you think the continents split after Noah? Do you think black people carry the mark of Cain? Do you think the Indians were Jews by nationality? Is the dominant Indian blood lineage Israel? Will they eventually become white and delightsome?

I could go on...

Was Bruce R. McConkie a prophet? I see him as an apostle and someone who wrote a book with an unfortunate title. Mormon Doctrine was never doctrine. About jews and white and delightsome...well...I have never met a white semite from palestine. I do think that lehi's family were not white...if they were from that part of the world. Nor was Christ white when we consider his linage.

[why me]

The key word here being seems. It seems to me you have misrepresented some of those items. It seems to me some of those items we'll just have to wait and see what is what. It seems to me you are disturbing, given his apostolic calling.

I feel sorry for McConkie. He said many wonderful and terrific things but these have been forgotten. I remember hearing him speak at conference. He was a giant and had the audience spellbound. But...because of the internet we only hear what he critics want us to hear or read.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TJqSl7cZJo

Edited March 16, 2013 by why me

[mathonihah]

I think you are characterizing those things that are binding upon the membership to follow and accept vs those things that are official doctrine.

They aren't really the same. There is overlap but not equivalence.

I think that you are confusing what is official Church publication with Church doctrine. Anything published by the Church that carries the Church’s logo and copyright etc. can rightly be called the Church’s official publication, but not necessarily doctrine. A manual describing how to organise a youth camp, or a recommended minimum food storage, is an official Church publication, but not necessarily doctrine. Now there are Church publications that necessarily contain doctrine, such as the teaching manuals of the Church; but I think it would be misleading to equate the official publication with official doctrine. For example, the current Lorenzo Snow study guide includes his famous couplet, over which Gordon B. Hinckley has cast serious doubt. Is that “official” or “unofficial” doctrine? I think it is neither. I think it is included in the manual because it is something that the great man taught, and you can’t have a manual based on his teachings, and omit the one teaching which he is most famous for. It would be hypocritical to do that. If the doctrine happens to be false, and the Lord chose not to correct him, then it is the Lord’s problem, not the Church’s problem, and he will have to sort it out in his own time and way. In reality there is no such thing as official or unofficial doctrine; only true doctrine or false doctrine. In the mean time Church members will have to decide for themselves (in the light of GBH remarks) if the Snow couplet represents correct doctrine or not. The fact that it is in the manual is no guarantee that it is.

Edited March 16, 2013 by mathonihah

[Tacenda]

I think that you are confusing what is official Church publication with Church doctrine. Anything published by the Church that carries the Church’s logo and copyright etc. can rightly be called the Church’s official publication, but not necessarily doctrine. A manual describing how to organise a youth camp, or a recommended minimum food storage, is an official Church publication, but not necessarily doctrine. Now there are Church publications that necessarily contain doctrine, such as the teaching manuals of the Church; but I think it would be misleading to equate the official publication with official doctrine. For example, the current Lorenzo Snow study guide includes his famous couplet, over which Gordon B. Hinckley has cast serious doubt. Is that “official” or “unofficial” doctrine? I think it is neither. I think it is included in the manual because it is something that the great man taught, and you can’t have a manual based on his teachings, and omit the one teaching which he is most famous for. It would be hypocritical to do that. If the doctrine happens to be false, and the Lord chose not to correct him, then it is the Lord’s problem, not the Church’s problem, and he will have to sort it out in his own time and way. In reality there is no such thing as official or unofficial doctrine; only true doctrine or false doctrine. In the mean time Church members will have to decide for themselves (in the light of GBH remarks) if the snow couplet represents correct doctrine or not. The fact that it is in the manual is no guarantee that it is.

I humbly think that the church doesn't have clear doctrines sometimes. The doctrine of polygamy is still in the D & C, yet Pres. Hinckley has mentioned that it is not doctrine? I'd love it if the church would put out the doctrines of the church in a nutshell. And if it's officially not doctrine what about those that are still sealed in the temple to many wives?