Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[mathonihah]

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?

The Church has perfectly clear doctrine. The problem (for some) is knowing where to find it.

With regard to polygamy, it is a revealed doctrine. I am not aware that GBH has ever said that it is not doctrine. It is not a doctrine that is currently being practised, but that does not mean that it is not doctrine.

[why me]

The Church has perfectly clear doctrine. The problem (for some) is knowing where to find it.

With regard to polygamy, it is a revealed doctrine. I am not aware that GBH has ever said that it is not doctrine. It is not a doctrine that is currently being practised, but that does not mean that it is not doctrine.

People still have a problem with giving an elderly man a break. He did misspeak and unfortunately, this misspeak can never be forgotten thanks to the Internet. Such is life in the internet age.

[ERayR]

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.

Not very hard it seems.

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

Not to me. I don't expect infallibility. MD contains thousands of entries, add his conference addresses and his books especially the Mortal Messiah volumes and any thing you find questionable is minor.

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

Yes, however, see above answer.

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?

I have not put much study time into diagnosing the merits of the caste system. I suspect that one might answer this question in 3 words. Yes and No.

Do you think the Indians were Jews by nationality? Is the dominant Indian blood lineage Israel? Will they eventually become white and delightsome?

I don't, I think that many may have a bit of Israelite linage. Did he really say they were Jews?

I could go on...

No doubt you could but why do? I again ask the question is the problem you have with him that right or wrong he doesn't agree with you so he is to be dismissed entirely?

Edited March 16, 2013 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

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).

1. Never doctrine.

2. No doctrine.

3. Never doctrine.

4. No doctrine.

5. More accurate than most.

6. Never doctrine.

7. Not doctrine.

6. Never doctrine.

Satisfied now?

[canard78]

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.

Which items have I misrepresented? And please be specific. I have a 1992 edition of the book. Would it help you if I typed them out in full?

He had to correct some of it after the first edition, so he clearly got some wrong. I'm saying he got other things wrong that were not corrected. You're right that there are some we can't know (continents splitting, birthdays celebrated by Adam under instruction from God), but are you saying that you think he was right to say that contraception is an evil practice? Do you agree? And do you agree with caste systems and racial segregation in marriage? Do you agree that NY Cumorah was the location for the last battles?

It's not only MD, the latest edition of the scriptures has removed some McConkie-isms too. So it 'seems' the church leaders today agree that some of his contribution was unhelpful and uninspired.

[rodheadlee]

Which items have I misrepresented? And please be specific. I have a 1992 edition of the book. Would it help you if I typed them out in full?

.

The item on birth control is actually a quote from Joseph F. Smith.

[mathonihah]

People still have a problem with giving an elderly man a break. He did misspeak and unfortunately, this misspeak can never be forgotten thanks to the Internet. Such is life in the internet age.

Not sure what you are referring to. I am not aware that Hinckley has denounced polygamy as a matter of principle. His teaching has been that it is a valid principle when approved by God. The Church has discontinued the practice, not disavowed the principle.

[canard78]

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.

He was sustained as a prophet every six months.

Here's the words used in conference:

"It is proposed that we sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

All in favor, please manifest it.

Contrary, if there be any, by the same sign.

So yes, Elder McConkie was considered a prophet, a seer and a revelator.

[rodheadlee]

.

So yes, Elder McConkie was considered a prophet, a seer and a revelator.

But not at the time he wrote the book?

[canard78]

The item on birth control is actually a quote from Joseph F. Smith.

So are they both right or both wrong? If I quote an incorrect source that doesn't excuse me from being wrong.

[rodheadlee]

So are they both right or both wrong? If I quote an incorrect source that doesn't excuse me from being wrong.

Well I happen to think they are right, but I suppose that is because I don't have any children. So in your view Joseph F Smith seems not to be much of a prophet either?

[canard78]

But not at the time he wrote the book?

Correct, but he was when he republished (with some revisions). The fact that he revised some but kept others means he still believed and endorsed the unrevised parts as a prophet.

[blackstrap]

There is a phenomenom in the church if not most churches, that I would call ' folk doctrine ' wherein ideas get spread about as if they were God-speak. Someone says something about a particular event and a listener tells his cousin and so on and soon it is wide spread and accepted as 'official doctrine' ,probably because of the reasonableness or common sense. Several of your questioned areas fall within this concept.

[canard78]

Well I happen to think they are right, but I suppose that is because I don't have any children. So in your view Joseph F Smith seems not to be much of a prophet either?

Lol, I hope you have the pleasure of kids one day. I love mine dearly. But after 2 or 3 you may consider contraception to be a gift not an evil.

You're right, I would say that Joseph F Smith said some unhelpful things that I don't consider to be true.

[blackstrap]

I have a distant relative who has had over a dozen abortions. She used abortion as a method of contraception. I consider this evil. The RCC has been against contraception and feels that there is sufficient scriptural backing for such a stance. As with many hard fast rules ,there leaves little room for compassion or the influence of the spirit. The current church position on contraception is not the same as it was when birth control was first made available in quite easy forms. There was a fear that contraception would be used to defeat the Lord's command to multiply. It has in North America and western Europe to a great extent.Whether one agrees with the coming changes in demographic make up or not, there will be an effect to be dealt with because of widespread use of contraception. It often takes decades if not centuries to see the fallout from the acceptance of man's will over God's will. Not only China will pay for its experiment in social planning.

[Yep]

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

It's all subjective and very little concensus as to what is and is not valid exists. Stick with current Church designated doctrine. When discussing a topic with someone simply go with their assumptions as to anything else, it's just stupid to argue based in support that your opponent doesn't view as credible or valid. General theology discussion rules that I already knew, but I was hoping for more of a concensus among those of us that are LDS.

[Yep]

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? I don't know, given all sorts of rationale, I simply don't necessarily disbelieve it.

- A new prophet should wait 3 years to call counselors? At the time of the statement, it was true. Matters like this are irrelevant imo.

- Black people carry mark of Cain and were less valiant in pre-existence? LDS used Mormon Doctrine for a long enough period that if it were not true something should have been directly stated. I do believe our valiance in the premortal existence did in fact impact our state here. Due to Abraham, we know for a fact that it did in many cases, some were noble and great ones that were chosen. It stands to reason that others were placed in more undesireable positions due to their pre existence.

- Church paintings of the translation process are accurate? I don't know, I don't believe the process was always the exact same.

- History of the Church is an accurate record? I'll go with it as long as the Church says so, yes.

- Caste systems are gospel principles and racial inter-marrying is bad? The Bible appears to support such concepts, so true for the time. However, I don't believe that it is in force now.

- Contraception is sinful and an evil practice? True. Before you say anything, I had a vasectomy before coming to this conclusion. I believe I should not have had it. I believe that we should not constrain ourselves through contraception.

- The Catholic church is the church of the devil? I don't have any reason to view it otherwise.

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).

My responses are bold.

[canard78]

Not very hard it seems.

You'll have to take my word for it. This isn't a game for me. My confidence in the church is slowly crumbling. It's not a pleasant experience, I don't take it lightly and I'm working hard to stop it.

Not to me. I don't expect infallibility. MD contains thousands of entries, add his conference addresses and his books especially the Mortal Messiah volumes and any thing you find questionable is minor.

Yes, however, see above answer.

I have not put much study time into diagnosing the merits of the caste system. I suspect that one might answer this question in 3 words. Yes and No.

Thanks for answering the question. I think a nuanced answer is better than saying:

"... Restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not inter-marry." (Page 114, 1992 edition).

I don't, I think that many may have a bit of Israelite linage. Did he really say they were Jews?

He did:

"American Indians “When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites, but such remnants of the Nephite nation as had not been destroyed had, of course, mingled with the Lamanites. (1 Ne. 13:30; 2 Ne. 3:1-3; 9:53; Alma 45:13-14; D. & C. 3:16-19.) Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality (D. & C. 57:4), their forefathers having come out from Jerusalem, from the kingdom of Judah. (2 Ne. 33:8-10.)"

(He then talks about other arrivals in America who have further diluted the pure Lamanitish blood but finishes with:

"...for the great majority of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel. The Indians are repeatedly called Lamanites in the revelations to the Prophet, and the promise is that in due course they shall blosom as a rose, that is, become again a white and delightsome people as were their ancestors a great many generations ago." (P 32-33, 1992 edition)

No doubt you could but why do? I again ask the question is the problem you have with him that right or wrong he doesn't agree with you so he is to be dismissed entirely?

It goes deeper. If this one of the apostles can be so wrong, how can I have confidence in any of them? We hear talks like the 14 fundamentals, but then we excuse them for fallibility or "not speaking as a prophet." Given McConkie would have, presumably, sought some spiritual direction in writing such a bold book, do we accept it or presume he was misguided?

[canard78]

I have a distant relative who has had over a dozen abortions. She used abortion as a method of contraception. I consider this evil. The RCC has been against contraception and feels that there is sufficient scriptural backing for such a stance. As with many hard fast rules ,there leaves little room for compassion or the influence of the spirit. The current church position on contraception is not the same as it was when birth control was first made available in quite easy forms. There was a fear that contraception would be used to defeat the Lord's command to multiply. It has in North America and western Europe to a great extent.Whether one agrees with the coming changes in demographic make up or not, there will be an effect to be dealt with because of widespread use of contraception. It often takes decades if not centuries to see the fallout from the acceptance of man's will over God's will. Not only China will pay for its experiment in social planning.

There's a huge difference between someone who uses abortions to sort out irresponsibility, Chinese one-child policy and a couple deciding to use condoms or the pill after their 2nd, 3rd or 4th child. McConckie makes no discrimination.

[blackstrap]

Recall the event in the OT where the Israelites were afflicted by fiery serpents because of the murmuring about lack of water and bread. Moses was told to make a serpent and put it on a pole and whosoever looked on it after they were bitten,they would live.Moses made a brass serpent ,put it on a pole and the people who looked , lived. Nothing is said beyond that but I hereby speculate. There were those who said, " Moses is an old foolish man .How can looking at a brass serpent cure snake bite? It's unscientific. Besides,one of the commandments says not to raise up any graven image and worship it. God would not ask us to break one of the commandments. Obviously this is only Moses' opinion on the matter and he is just trying to control us for personal gain and agrandizement.Don't you remember the recent water from a rock business where he took credit to himself? "

[canard78]

My responses are bold.

Thanks for your responses.

I guess I disagree with you on all counts.

A couple:

- the church has categorically stated the RCC is not the great and abominable church. So which church leader is wrong or right?

- McConkie was saying that in the 20th C racial inter-marrying was wrong (not in bible times), do you still agree with him?

- Most of the believing participants of this board don't believe upstate NY is the last battle location. The church doesn't teach it is.

Out of interest, would you consider it an expression of weak faith to say he got it wrong on even one count? Because you seem willing to defend the indefensible, rather than say he got it wrong.

[canard78]

Recall the event in the OT where the Israelites were afflicted by fiery serpents because of the murmuring about lack of water and bread. Moses was told to make a serpent and put it on a pole and whosoever looked on it after they were bitten,they would live.Moses made a brass serpent ,put it on a pole and the people who looked , lived. Nothing is said beyond that but I hereby speculate. There were those who said, " Moses is an old foolish man .How can looking at a brass serpent cure snake bite? It's unscientific. Besides,one of the commandments says not to raise up any graven image and worship it. God would not ask us to break one of the commandments. Obviously this is only Moses' opinion on the matter and he is just trying to control us for personal gain and agrandizement. Don't you remember the recent water from a rock business where he took credit to himself? "

This is a fairly bog-standard response when an issue is difficult and the person is finding there's no reasonable answer. Usually it's to attack the person by calling them an arc-steadier. Suggesting I'm ignoring the serpent on a stick is a new one. I'll look forward to future creative castigation.

[ERayR]

You'll have to take my word for it. This isn't a game for me. My confidence in the church is slowly crumbling. It's not a pleasant experience, I don't take it lightly and I'm working hard to stop it.

I am not trying to be confrontational or a flip but if you want to save your confidence in the church you should get back to the basics. You should also consider that all of these brethren were/are not infallible and are subject to being swayed by contemporary ideas.

Thanks for answering the question. I think a nuanced answer is better than saying:

"... Restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not inter-marry." (Page 114, 1992 edition).

Segregation of people is a common theme in he Bible. God segregated himself out a chosen people complete with prohibitions on intermingling in marriage. Are you also losing your confidence in the Bible? God has often admonished his chosen people to keep themselves separate and pure.

He did:

"American Indians “When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites, but such remnants of the Nephite nation as had not been destroyed had, of course, mingled with the Lamanites. (1 Ne. 13:30; 2 Ne. 3:1-3; 9:53; Alma 45:13-14; D. & C. 3:16-19.) Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality (D. & C. 57:4), their forefathers having come out from Jerusalem, from the kingdom of Judah. (2 Ne. 33:8-10.)"

(He then talks about other arrivals in America who have further diluted the pure Lamanitish blood but finishes with:

"...for the great majority of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel. The Indians are repeatedly called Lamanites in the revelations to the Prophet, and the promise is that in due course they shall blosom as a rose, that is, become again a white and delightsome people as were their ancestors a great many generations ago." (P 32-33, 1992 edition)

It has been a long time and I did not remember the Jews statement in there. It is and was common to conflate House of Israel and Jews as Jews are what is left of the House of Israel. As stated above I do not expect infallibility.

It goes deeper. If this one of the apostles can be so wrong, how can I have confidence in any of them? We hear talks like the 14 fundamentals, but then we excuse them for fallibility or "not speaking as a prophet." Given McConkie would have, presumably, sought some spiritual direction in writing such a bold book, do we accept it or presume he was misguided?

How dare you expect them to measure up to your standards. Do you expect Moses,to measure up to your expectations? A man who married numerous women for political reasons. Who murdered. A man who led armies in war. What about a prophet who would have a bear kill a bunch for ridiculing him? We could go on about the shortcomings of various prophets until we talked our way out of believing in any of it.

[blackstrap]

There's a huge difference between someone who uses abortions to sort out irresponsibility, Chinese one-child policy and a couple deciding to use condoms or the pill after their 2nd, 3rd or 4th child. McConckie makes no discrimination.

Yes there is a huge difference. Personally I have no problem with the judicious use of contraception. BRM did.I suppose he had his reasons and I assume they had good logic behind them.One thing I do know ,the earth will be inherited by the fertile as well as the meek.

This is a fairly bog-standard response when an issue is difficult and the person is finding there's no reasonable answer. Usually it's to attack the person by calling them an arc-steadier. Suggesting I'm ignoring the serpent on a stick is a new one. I'll look forward to future creative castigation.

Sorry if you took this as a swipe at you personally.Not meant to be so. My point was to suggest GENERALLY,that people can always find reasons to disagree with and ignore GA thinking. Now ,how about that " one set of earrings rule " ?

[Yep]

Thanks for your responses.

I guess I disagree with you on all counts.

A couple:

- the church has categorically stated the RCC is not the great and abominable church. So which church leader is wrong or right?

I don't know. Could be either.

- McConkie was saying that in the 20th C racial inter-marrying was wrong (not in bible times), do you still agree with him?

Yes. Although, I don't believe that this is the current teaching, and don't believe it holds now. There are reasons to avoid intermarrying in cross-religion as well as cross-culture.

- Most of the believing participants of this board don't believe upstate NY is the last battle location. The church doesn't teach it is.

I'd go with either, I don't think it is really that big a deal.

Out of interest, would you consider it an expression of weak faith to say he got it wrong on even one count? Because you seem willing to defend the indefensible, rather than say he got it wrong.

I think that one should be extraordinarily hesitant when discounting a prophet, even if it's opinoin or speculation. Unless it is absolutely necessary, I abstain from stating one or the other is right or wrong.