Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[Robert F. Smith]

Whose department is three or four people? Are you referring to the Church Historian and Recorder? His department is the entire Church History Department and it is huge in terms of staffing. There are a couple dozen or more people involved in the Joseph Smith Papers Project alone.

 

There are librarians, archivists, researchers, publications managers. The department handles requests for copies of patriarchal blessings. They deal with Church historic sites around the nation and the world. In addition to massive archival holdings that must be seen to, there is a reading library on the main level of the new Church History Library.

 

And there is an Assistant Church Historian as well.

 

The Church History Department is over the Church History Museum, which, in itself, is a very substantial institution.

 

Were you referring to the person or persons over curriculum? That is under the auspices of the Priesthood Department, which is certainly more than three or four people.

Yes, Scott, and that doesn't even count all the college professors with projects which feed into the Joseph Smith Papers Project, current and projected.

[DBMormon]

I have been tied up (different then Nephi being bound though) the last 48 hours.  I will respond to all of the Q's today

[DBMormon]

The Lord and His servants do not control belief. No matter what other ideas may be circulating, the Lord is readily available to those who will seek Him and then believe in Him (see D&C 76:51 and surrounding verses). D&C 76:110 shows how certain works still far outweigh any refusal to believe in Him.

 

No other idea is so incorrect or so damaging that it can detract from the Lord unless we want it to. People are imperfect, yet the Spirit bears witness to them and they join the Church. The members are imperfect, and yet the Spirit continues to bear witness. Somehow, amidst all the “problems” listed in this thread, the Spirit still draws people into such a Church, and they stay. It really doesn’t matter what non-essential belief they may hold onto.

 

And yet to truly come to a unity of the faith we must put off false doctrine and come unto truth.  And for this reason of unifying God gave us Apostles, prophets, teachers, ect....

[DBMormon]

Can you be more specific than "X, Y and Z?"  I mean the title of this thread talks about specific things.

 

Mormon Doctrine is still frequently cited in General Conference.

 

It is quite a regular thing for critics of the Church to point to Mormon Doctrine as a way to browbeat the Brethren for errors.  But, in truth of fact, it went through a type of correlation of its day.   Although it was improperly rushed to print for the first edition, subsequent editions were corrected after the Brethren reviewed it and commented upon it.  

 

So I wonder if one were to look at the most popular edition now in circulation (I think it is no longer published), what particular error has led members astray?   I think that Elder McConkie states in the book that he does not believe that man evolved from a lower species, but the Church has never taken a position on that one way or the other.  And I wonder how expressing an opinion on such thing would lead members astray.  Elder McConkie could easily be right.

 

He also spoke about blacks and the priesthood; he might have been right, or wrong.  (This may be the closest thing to being an error, as he discussed it later; but I am still uncertain.)  One cannot tell as there is no answer to this question.  So it would be great if you pointed to something wrong where there is an answer.

 

So, any examples?  I rather like the book.

 

 

Bob, I believe the first presidency under President Mckay found over 1000 errors with the first edition.  While some of those were corrected in future editions, no where near all corrections were made.  Greg Prince's biography about President McKay using his secretaries (Claire Middlemiss) journals (kept on behalf of President McKay and under his direction) is very adament about Elder McConkie printing the 2nd edition in the midst of President McKay stating he would have him not do so.

 

The book is still full of opinion that is portrayed as Doctrine.  http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Mormon_Doctrine_and_race_issues reviews some of the errors.  here is another http://www.ldsgospeldoctrine.net/kn/random/mo-doc.txt

A. References to churches and other groups who do not accept "Mormon    Doctrine".    1. "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," who       sometimes refer to themselves as "Josephites". (Exhibit II-1, pages       50, 141, 362)    2. "Christian Churches" generally. (Exhibit II-2, pages 139, 455)    3. "Catholic Church". (Exhibit II-3, pages 13, 66, 69, 129, 130, 216,        241, 242, 314-15, 342, 346, 350, 422, 499, 511, 697)    4. Communists and Catholics. (Exhibit II-4, pages 26-7, 131)    5. Evolution and Evolutionists. (Exhibit II-5, pages 37, 77, 136, 180,       228, 238, 659) B. Declaration as to "Mormon Doctrine" on controversial issues.    1.  "Pre-Adamites. (Exhibit III-1, pages 17, 262)    2.  Status of Animals and Plants in the Garden of Eden. (Exhibit III-2,        pages 36,234-35)    3.  Meaning of the various accounts of Creation. (Exhibit III-3, pages        157-8, 167-    4.  Dispensation of Abraham. (Exhibit III-4, page 203)    5.  Moses a translated being. (Exhibit III-5, pages 206, 445, 466,        727-    6.  Origin of Individuality. (Exhibit III-6, page 404)    7.  Defiling the priesthood. (Exhibit III-7, page 437)    8.  Manner in which Jesus was Begotten. (Exhibit III-8, page 494)    9.  Written sermons. (Exhibit III-9, pages 634-5, 716)    10. Resurrection of stillborn children. (Exhibit III-10, page 694) C. Miscellaneous Interpretations. (Exhibit IV)    Frequency of Administrations, page 22    Baptism in the "molten sea," page 98        <church stamp>    II Peter 1:19, page 102    Paul married, page 112    Status of those "with Christ in His Resurrection", page 128    Consecration of oil, page 147    Councils and schools among the Gods, page 151    Limitations on Deity, page 154    Sunday not a proper day for family reunions, page 254    Geological changes at the time of the deluge, page 268    The holy Ghost as a spirit man, page 329    Facing east in temples when giving the Hosanna Shout, page 337    Details on family prayer and asking the blessing on food, page 526    Women to be gods, page 551    Interpretation of the Doctrine and Covenants 93:1, page 581    Interpretation of "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning,"    page 606    Status of little children in the celestial kingdom, page 607    Resumption of schools of the prophets, page 613    Time of the beginning of seasons, page 616    Interpretation of III Nephi 12:20, page 618 D. Repeated use of the word "apostate" and related terms in a way which to    many seems discourteous and to others gives offense. (Exhibit V, pages    123, 125, 160, 169, 212, 223, 383, 528, 538, 546, 548, 596)

[DBMormon]

I agree with this sentiment in principle.  But, in practice we're seeing subgroups of members forming with voices outside of church leadership (but still within the church) speaking to those members... Givens, Dehlin, Brooks, etc.  I feel like we're watching church membership divide up, often over these types of issues/questions and the interpretations being drawn.  I think that the recent Joni Hilton article highlighted one such division between what some would call "TBM's" and "Liberal Mormons".

 

For me, I see the biggest threat to church growth not coming from critics outside the church but from divisions within the church membership.  And I acknowledge that your response above... kinda what I'd consider a "stay the course" approach... may be the best way to go.  But there might also be some other thoughts that should be considered, like Bill's thought as the OP of this thread.

 

Other thoughts?

 

I very much agree with this post.  I too feel like we have more issues within then without.   I also must add though that when certain subsets do not feel like their needs are met, they will develop their own voice and with the internet, it becomes easy to find that you belong to a subset rather then alone as a individual.

[DBMormon]

To be fair to DBMormon, we ought to have him say what needs to be done to correct these errors, even if he doesn't really want to be specific about them.  (Well, there are a few he discusses above.)  What is it he suggests is the remedy?  The remedy may or may not be ark-steadying. Generally talking about the "errors" on public boards isn't much ark steadying.  Signing petitions to the Brethren would be ark-steadying.  

 

Thank you Bob for the small hint of sticking up for me in this post.  Your new tone is much appreciated.

 

My ideas. 

-  make a concerted effort to let people know on what areas they have flexibility to believe outside the norm.  Let people know from time to time that they are free to believe differently on age of the earth, evolution, global/local flood, death before the fall, priesthood ban = good/bad policy, seer stone/nephite interpreters, ect.... there are many many others. 

 

It would be easy in a talk it could be said by one of the top brethren  "while we do not know the age of the earth, we do know........"  Implant any of the issues mentioned above.

 

While I realize there is an official statement here or there, it takes some digging and since most LDS do not do their fair share of digging for truth we end up with what we have which is (at least in my ward) the majority following some member in their ward who is seen as older and wiser who may or may not have a good hold on truth and who may hold up a lot of opinion as doctrine. 

[DBMormon]

I think people, like DBMormon, want to put Christ back into the Church, most of all.  Just for those that tend to become a little on the pharisaical side.  That's what the so called Liberals in our church do also, notice how they want to include everyone, like the gays?  They usually don't like the obedience to authority so much, but to their God and moral compass.  They maybe have a calling but if they don't maybe they're doing so much that no one ever sees.  Not saying this for all of them.  That's my take on it, or my .02 cents worth.    

In many cases your perception is correct.  Thank you.

[DBMormon]

My experience is that they do advise against enmity.

 

 

That has certainly been my experience in my ward.  I know that there are members who feel "disenfranchised" (for lack of a better word) and still serve & worship faithfully.  Without contention.  But then there are those who discover challenging issues, feel betrayed, and walk away.  I know because I almost was one of them a few years back.

 

I like the trend that I am see coming from both within the leadership and without in facing the challenging issues of our beliefs/history in a faith promoting manner.  I think that's what Bill (the OP) is asking for here is to continue to push forward along that path.  But I could be mistaken.

 

You are not mistaken.  I am encouraged by the new direction many in top leadership have taken in dealing with those having a deep struggle of faith.

[DBMormon]

It would be entirely outside your province to include content in gospel doctrine classes, devotionals, high council talks, etc. to the effect, for example, that the pre-1978 restriction on the priesthood was a "mistake" that the Church should apologize for.

I agree, one unofficial statement replacing another is not a fix.  That said there are plenty of official views or better historical context that contradicts what the majority believe such as Tithing not necessarily Gross, evolution not doctrinally defined as having happened or not happened, Seer Stone used for translation. age of the Earth unknown, ect.. that there is much we can address openly and with confidence.

 

I am not about defining these issues as that just goes to the other extreme but rather giving people flexibility by telling them there is no official stance and they are free to choose.

[DBMormon]

I have no idea what this means. but DB mormons podcast leaves me unhappy.

I would love to hear why my podcast leaves you unhappy?  respectful Feedback is appreciated.

my email is listed below or post here on this thread.

[DBMormon]

IMNSHO, it would be a mistake to change that policy because very few missionaries are really qualified to weigh in on such issues except for possibly the older couples.

 

Agreed, While I do believe we should equip missionaries with a little better hold on issues that without they are prone to misinform people (seer stone, church has all truth, all keys, ect...) I don't want missionaries doing apologetics or discussion of deep issues.  behavioral and cognitive studies show the average 18-22 year olds brain is ill equipped to handle this much complexity and nuance that makes up these issues and life in general

Edited November 8, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

  here is another http://www.ldsgospeldoctrine.net/kn/random/mo-doc.txt

I'm not sure if you aware of this, but this cut-and-paste job of yours is of criticisms of the First Edition by Elder Romney, i.e., the "Church."   As I point out above, the book went through its correlelation effort of the day, and you are citing it.  My question to you about errors pertaining to the book as it finally appeared in print; I am well aware of criticisms of the first edition.  You didn't answer my question.

 

Like I say, Mormon Doctrine, after it was corrected, is frequently cited as authoritative in conference addresses.  I suspect that is coming to an end as the book is now out of print.

 

I know it is quite fashionable among critics of the Church to use Elder McConkie as a whipping boy.  It appears to me that his various opinions are just that, and it is near-impossible to find error.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not sure if you aware of this, but this cut-and-paste job of yours is of criticisms of the First Edition by Elder Romney, i.e., the "Church."   As I point out above, the book went through its correlelation effort of the day, and you are citing it.  My question to you about errors pertaining to the book as it finally appeared in print; I am well aware of criticisms of the first edition.  You didn't answer my question.

 

Like I say, Mormon Doctrine, after it was corrected, is frequently cited as authoritative in conference addresses.  I suspect that is coming to an end as the book is now out of print.

 

I know it is quite fashionable among critics of the Church to use Elder McConkie as a whipping boy.  It appears to me that his various opinions are just that, and it is near-impossible to find error.

 

I'm hardly what anyone would call a critic of the Church. When the Church itself disapproves of over a thousand errors in "McConkie" Doctrine. It is long past time to put it in its proper place as the opinions of a devout man, but not LDS Doctrine.

[Buckeye]

Bob, I'm on both sides when it comes to Elder McConkie.  On a percentage-basis, I agree with, or at least have no reason to disagree with, the large majority of what he says in Mormon Doctrine.  However, because the volume addresses so much (it tries to deal with all doctrinal issues) invariably there are many statements I disagree with.  For instance, the 2nd Ed. still refers to "anti-diluvial dinosaurs" as if Noah's flood was the cause of their demise.  That's just silly to me. 

 

While I have disagreements with some passages, I also have no doubt that neither I, you, DBMormon, or anyone else today would be able to undertake what Elder McConkie tried to do and come out with a better work.  My book would be laughed off the stage.  I give a lot - I mean, a lot - of credit to Elder McConkie for honestly trying to seek out all truth and put in onto paper, all the while knowing he would be attacked.  In my worldview, the revelation process happens as someone sets out an idea and it gets tested.  Merely holding onto the truth we have is just as damning, in the end, as holding on to something that is false.  Elder McConkie, like Joseph, chose to set out a lot of ideas for consideration and the latter-day saints are blessed for his having done so.

 

For me, the real challenge when approaching Mormon Doctrine is it's name.  It's rather tough to explain to new members, "here is a book by an apostle called Mormon Doctrine, but it's really just his opinions."  

Edited November 8, 2013 by Buckeye

[DBMormon]

Bob, I'm on both sides when it comes to Elder McConkie.  On a percentage-basis, I agree with, or at least have no reason to disagree with, the large majority of what he says in Mormon Doctrine.  However, because the volume addresses so much (it tries to deal with all doctrinal issues) invariably there are many statements I disagree with.  For instance, the 2nd Ed. still refers to "anti-diluvial dinosaurs" as if Noah's flood was the cause of their demise.  That's just silly to me. 

 

While I have disagreements with some passages, I also have no doubt that neither I, you, DBMormon, or anyone else today would be able to undertake what Elder McConkie tried to do and come out with a better work.  My book would be laughed off the stage.  I give a lot - I mean, a lot - of credit to Elder McConkie for honestly trying to seek out all truth and put in onto paper, all the while knowing he would be attacked.  In my worldview, the revelation process happens as someone sets out an idea and it gets tested.  Merely holding onto the truth we have is just as damning, in the end, as holding on to something that is false.  Elder McConkie, like Joseph, chose to set out a lot of ideas for consideration and the latter-day saints are blessed for his having done so.

 

For me, the real challenge when approaching Mormon Doctrine is it's name.  It's rather tough to explain to new members, "here is a book by an apostle called Mormon Doctrine, but it's really just his opinions."  

I should of just said this! A+

[CV75]

And yet to truly come to a unity of the faith we must put off false doctrine and come unto truth.  And for this reason of unifying God gave us Apostles, prophets, teachers, ect....

Absolutely--they are one way the Lord makes Himself available. His servants are one vehicle (as fallible as some like to point out) through which the Spirit works to draw fallibe people into the Church and to Christ, and to keep them there.

[Bob Crockett]

I should of just said this! A+

 

I should of just said this! A+

I'd say C-

 

 

I'm hardly what anyone would call a critic of the Church. When the Church itself disapproves of over a thousand errors in "McConkie" Doctrine. It is long past time to put it in its proper place as the opinions of a devout man, but not LDS Doctrine.

I think you and DBMormon and me are talking past each other.   I'm interested to know about errors in the final published edition, after it underwent correction.

[CV75]

I happened to be reading this talk from October Conference today, which I think is pertinent to some of the comments made on this thread: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/look-up?lang=eng

 

"Technology has augmented our freedom of speech, but it also gives an unqualified blogger false credibility based on the number of viewers. This is why now, more than ever, we must remember this eternal principle: “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20).

 

"In particular, I caution you not to view filthy images or give your attention to the false accusers of Christ and the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both actions create the same effect: the loss of the Holy Ghost and His protecting, sustaining power. Vice and unhappiness always follow.

 

"My dear brothers and sisters, if you ever come across anything that causes you to question your testimony of the gospel, I plead with you to look up. Look to the Source of all wisdom and truth. Nourish your faith and testimony with the word of God. There are those in the world who seek to undermine your faith by mixing lies with half-truths. This is why it is absolutely critical that you remain constantly worthy of the Spirit. The companionship of the Holy Ghost is not just a pleasant convenience—it is essential to your spiritual survival. If you will not treasure up the words of Christ and listen closely to the promptings of the Spirit, you will be deceived (see Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:37). We must do these things."

Edited November 8, 2013 by CV75

[Buckeye]

I'd say C-

 

 

I passed !!!

[thesometimesaint]

I'd say C-

 

 

I think you and DBMormon and me are talking past each other.   I'm interested to know about errors in the final published edition, after it underwent correction.

 

Even the final version was so riddled with errors that there was no saving it. Great man that he was. He alone was responsible for its publication.

 

While not officially doctrine a better take on LDS belief is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Edited November 8, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[jkwilliams]

Bob, I'm on both sides when it comes to Elder McConkie.  On a percentage-basis, I agree with, or at least have no reason to disagree with, the large majority of what he says in Mormon Doctrine.  However, because the volume addresses so much (it tries to deal with all doctrinal issues) invariably there are many statements I disagree with.  For instance, the 2nd Ed. still refers to "anti-diluvial dinosaurs" as if Noah's flood was the cause of their demise.  That's just silly to me. 

 

While I have disagreements with some passages, I also have no doubt that neither I, you, DBMormon, or anyone else today would be able to undertake what Elder McConkie tried to do and come out with a better work.  My book would be laughed off the stage.  I give a lot - I mean, a lot - of credit to Elder McConkie for honestly trying to seek out all truth and put in onto paper, all the while knowing he would be attacked.  In my worldview, the revelation process happens as someone sets out an idea and it gets tested.  Merely holding onto the truth we have is just as damning, in the end, as holding on to something that is false.  Elder McConkie, like Joseph, chose to set out a lot of ideas for consideration and the latter-day saints are blessed for his having done so.

 

For me, the real challenge when approaching Mormon Doctrine is it's name.  It's rather tough to explain to new members, "here is a book by an apostle called Mormon Doctrine, but it's really just his opinions."  

 

It's important to note that Elder McConkie was put in charge of creating the Bible Dictionary for the 1979 LDS edition of the Bible.  Not surprisingly, quite a lot of the text is either copied or adapted from McConkie's various books, including MD, or from his father-in-law's books. So, obviously, where McConkie's opinions made it into the officially published LDS Bible, it can be said that the brethren were confident that he knew what he was talking about.

 

But we should also remember that his books are not part of the canon and are not published by the church, so they have no authority on their own. What he said in conference, in articles published in church magazines, and in quoted parts of church manuals has been through Correlation and is therefore to be considered consistent with doctrine.

 

My mission president expressly forbade our reading Mormon Doctrine. Some missionaries referred to it as "Bruce's believe it or not." That said, it has had an enormous influence on what is taught today.

[Bob Crockett]

Even the final version was so riddled with errors that there was no saving it. 

 

 

Like?

 

I am not naive enough to say that Mormon Doctrine doesn't have errors, or that Elder McConkie was not prone to errors.

 

When I read his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary after I had read about four other "sectarian" New Testament commentaries, it struck me that Elder McConkie had never done the most basis standard exegetical work in the scriptures, i.e., using historic framework, texts and archaeology as support.  Some of the conclusions he reached about the NT are wholly unsupported by the Greek text.  Plus, Elder McConkie was burdened by his particular florid way of writing, which he seemed to inherit from his father-in-law, and which I see his son deploy.  

 

But, Elder McConkie was obviously entrusted to oversee the republication of the standard works, its footnotes, dictionary and topical guide.  I think there is more to what Elder McConkie understood about the scriptures than many think.

 

So it is quite fashionable for critics to beat up on Elder McConkie and point to him as an example of the Church gone wrong and done wrong.  But, he was corrected in an institutional way, by correlative methods and priesthood directions.  So I reiterate to DBMormon, what is his favorite error in the final publication of MD?

Edited November 8, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

Like?

 

I am not naive enough to say that Mormon Doctrine doesn't have errors, or that Elder McConkie was not prone to errors.

 

When I read his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary after I had read about four other "sectarian" New Testament commentaries, it struck me that Elder McConkie had never done the most basis standard exegetical work in the scriptures, i.e., using historic framework, texts and archaeology as support.  Some of the conclusions he reached about the NT are wholly unsupported by the Greek text.  Plus, Elder McConkie was burdened by his particular florid way of writing, which he seemed to inherit from his father-in-law, and which I see his son deploy.  

 

But, Elder McConkie was obviously entrusted to oversee the republication of the standard works, its footnotes, dictionary and topical guide.  I think there is more to what Elder McConkie understood about the scriptures than many think.

 

So it is quite fashionable for critics to beat up on Elder McConkie and point to him as an example of the Church gone wrong and done wrong.  But, he was corrected in an institutional way, by correlative methods and priesthood directions.  So I reiterate to DBMormon, what is his favorite error in the final publication of MD?

 

How do you inherit a writing style from an inlaw?

 

Also I will respond with flaws tomorrow.  i don't have a copy of the book on me and don't want to put my foot in my mouth if other errrors I point out have been corrected in more recent editions.

Edited November 8, 2013 by DBMormon

[jkwilliams]

How do you inherit a writing style from an inlaw?

 

Just my personal opinion, but my understanding is that McConkie idolized his father-in-law, so it would not surprise me if he consciously imitated his writing style. Clearly he took his doctrinal lead from JFS, at least it's clear to me.

[Calm]

How do you inherit a writing style from an inlaw?

You respect him so much and think he is such a great writer, you copy it.