Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[CV75]

The “Startling New Church Video” thread might be pertinent too (take a look through it!):

 

In my mind, it teaches the principle that so-called “wrong” paths are no more mistaken than the Fall (which was literally a dead end) since it clearly demonstrated how we have to choose to turn around and get onto the path to Exaltation.

 

It discusses how so-called mistakes are actually inspired prayer-answered direction designed to teach us the way the Lord wishes us to go for our protection and safe arrival home. So we can confidently say it doesn’t matter how far the saints travel down the Church’s so-called incorrect decision, policies, doctrines, etc. because the Lord will not lead the faithful astray, and this is how He teaches His people.

 

It could be said that sustaining the Brethren is always the right way to go, for this is how God teaches us! We are all in this old, beat-up truck together, and it is far more functional and effective than any of the complainers give it credit for.

Edited November 8, 2013 by CV75

[rockpond]

The “Startling New Church Video” thread might be pertinent too (take a look through it!):

 

In my mind, it teaches the principle that so-called “wrong” paths are no more mistaken than the Fall (which was literally a dead end) since it clearly demonstrated how we have to choose to turn around and get onto the path to Exaltation.

 

It discusses how so-called mistakes are actually inspired prayer-answered direction designed to teach us the way the Lord wishes us to go for our protection and safe arrival home. So we can confidently say it doesn’t matter how far the saints travel down the Church’s so-called incorrect decision, policies, doctrines, etc. because the Lord will not lead the faithful astray, and this is how He teaches His people.

 

It could be said that sustaining the Brethren is always the right way to go, for this is how God teaches us! We are all in this old, beat-up truck together, and it is far more functional and effective than any of the complainers give it credit for.

 

Yup, this ol' beat-up truck is the most functional one there is.  In my opinion.

 

But I'm wondering if I understand you correctly -- Are you saying that the Lord could let us, as a church (leaders & all), stray down incorrect paths... knowing that we will learn, and that He will ultimately get us on the correct path again?

[Bob Crockett]

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.

True words.   I don't think there can be any dispute that their styles are very similar, but Elder McConkie took it to the top -- "supernal" and words like that.  I actually got quite a bit out of his DNTC volumes but they could have been 1/3rd their length.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

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.

I will look forward to them.  I think most of them are just differences of opinion, like calling critics of the church "sectarians" and "apostates," or disbelieving in evolution.   I'm agnostic about evolution and I don't think it error to say that it is contrary to the scriptures.

[rockpond]

I will look forward to them.  I think most of them are just differences of opinion, like calling critics of the church "sectarians" and "apostates," or disbelieving in evolution.   I'm agnostic about evolution and I don't think it error to say that it is contrary to the scriptures.

 

My understanding was the BRM was told not to publish by the First Presidency & Q12.  Does anyone know if he ever received their blessing or did he publish it against their wishes?

[Bob Crockett]

My understanding was the BRM was told not to publish by the First Presidency & Q12.  Does anyone know if he ever received their blessing or did he publish it against their wishes?

The biography of David O'McKay shows quite clearly that he was authorized to publish it after making efforts to withdraw the first edition.  It went through more changes; notably, after the priesthood revelation in 1978.  But, even before then, Elder McConkie was stating what prophets, (i.e., his father in law) had said on the subject before.  He didn't make the stuff up.

[CV75]

Yup, this ol' beat-up truck is the most functional one there is.  In my opinion.

 

But I'm wondering if I understand you correctly -- Are you saying that the Lord could let us, as a church (leaders & all), stray down incorrect paths... knowing that we will learn, and that He will ultimately get us on the correct path again?

I don't really think it's that much of an an old beat-up truck, just being flexible in making an allowance for those that do.

 

I wouldn't say God will "let us stray"-- in the experience Elder Holland described, there was no straying at all--there was the travelers' intent to go home, God's intent for them to get home, a legitimately faithful and divinely answered prayer, bounds and limits to the direction taken, the travelers' intelligence and agency known and respected, and divine foresight, oversight and protection every step of the way. It wasn't a matter of getting on the right path again, there was a fork in the path ahead (which ahd not been entered yet), and it was a matter of deciding which side of the fork to take. It wasn't a matter of trial and error, it was a matter of exercising faith, obedience, humility, intelligence and agency within the bounds the Lord set.

 

I would say instead, God will "intentionally teach us" to choose to take the path back to Him. It isn't realy an incorrect path if He is correctly using the choice involved -- there were two paths, thereby a choice -- for His purposes to teach and instruct the faithful on how to get home.

 

My point as far as delving into mistakes is that Elder Holland's observations can be used to easily argue that crying foul about the directions the Church has taken is like complaining about the way God works through His servants and teaches the humble. This using the same flexibility of allowance for those that perceive that a mistake was made (whether one was actually made is another story) -- maybe it really wasn't a mistake after all, but an intentional teaching mechanism.

[Stone holm]

The biography of David O'McKay shows quite clearly that he was authorized to publish it after making efforts to withdraw the first edition.  It went through more changes; notably, after the priesthood revelation in 1978.  But, even before then, Elder McConkie was stating what prophets, (i.e., his father in law) had said on the subject before.  He didn't make the stuff up.

I thought that he first published it before his Father in law ascended to the First Presidency, am I wrong on that?

[DBMormon]

The biography of David O'McKay shows quite clearly that he was authorized to publish it after making efforts to withdraw the first edition.  It went through more changes; notably, after the priesthood revelation in 1978.  But, even before then, Elder McConkie was stating what prophets, (i.e., his father in law) had said on the subject before.  He didn't make the stuff up.

Which Biography?  Greg Prince's?  as it is not so clear and actually implies that Elder McConkie took President McKay's words out of context to publish the book anyway as President McKay, by Greg Prince's view, didn't want the book republished.  This is more complex then your stating. 

Edited November 9, 2013 by DBMormon

[rockpond]

The biography of David O'McKay shows quite clearly that he was authorized to publish it after making efforts to withdraw the first edition. It went through more changes; notably, after the priesthood revelation in 1978. But, even before then, Elder McConkie was stating what prophets, (i.e., his father in law) had said on the subject before. He didn't make the stuff up.

So BRM published the first edition against their wishes but then they (FP & Q12) gave their blessing to the subsequent revisions?

I wasn't suggesting that he just made stuff up out of whole cloth. But even what "prophets had said on the subject before" doesn't constitute revealed doctrine. Sometimes they speak with limited light and knowledge.

Edited November 10, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

I don't really think it's that much of an an old beat-up truck, just being flexible in making an allowance for those that do.

I wouldn't say God will "let us stray"-- in the experience Elder Holland described, there was no straying at all--there was the travelers' intent to go home, God's intent for them to get home, a legitimately faithful and divinely answered prayer, bounds and limits to the direction taken, the travelers' intelligence and agency known and respected, and divine foresight, oversight and protection every step of the way. It wasn't a matter of getting on the right path again, there was a fork in the path ahead (which ahd not been entered yet), and it was a matter of deciding which side of the fork to take. It wasn't a matter of trial and error, it was a matter of exercising faith, obedience, humility, intelligence and agency within the bounds the Lord set.

I would say instead, God will "intentionally teach us" to choose to take the path back to Him. It isn't realy an incorrect path if He is correctly using the choice involved -- there were two paths, thereby a choice -- for His purposes to teach and instruct the faithful on how to get home.

My point as far as delving into mistakes is that Elder Holland's observations can be used to easily argue that crying foul about the directions the Church has taken is like complaining about the way God works through His servants and teaches the humble. This using the same flexibility of allowance for those that perceive that a mistake was made (whether one was actually made is another story) -- maybe it really wasn't a mistake after all, but an intentional teaching mechanism.

So do you believe that church leadership (at the highest levels) has the agency to take paths that are not what the Lord wants as long as ultimately we are headed back to Him? Could these different paths be teaching mechanisms?

[CV75]

So do you believe that church leadership (at the highest levels) has the agency to take paths that are not what the Lord wants as long as ultimately we are headed back to Him? Could these different paths be teaching mechanisms?

They certainly have the agency, as we all do. But I don’t think as a quorum (“at the highest levels”) they exercise it to take the Church down paths the Lord forbids. Plus, I think the Lord would intervene with anything that would do this or lead the saints astray.

                     

Elder Holland’s point is that God leads and directs those who seek His help (in his story, by answering their prayers) in a direction that they may superficially question as “wrong” or “mistaken,” but that actually has a deeper purpose for teaching the right and correct way. Applying this to the top quorums of the Church, He guides them in ways that some members question or complain about, or call mistakes, but the direction is actually a means to take the Church along the correct route. Those who hold to the notion that the Church was or is mistaken seem to be forgetting that their grievance may well be a lack of understanding of one of the “mysterious” ways  the Lord works.

 

Complaining about the direction the Church has taken, or is taking, and calling them mistakes is like complaining about following a divinely-directed path that ends up a “dead end,” only to find out that in the Lord’s wisdom is was actually a necessary part of the journey, which is about spiritual experience and development as well as it is checking off the TripTiks.

 

For me, wrong paths by definition are not OK, but though through the Redemption we may turn around to get onto the right track. Repentance is a separate concept from the one I've been discussing.

[rockpond]

They certainly have the agency, as we all do. But I don’t think as a quorum (“at the highest levels”) they exercise it to take the Church down paths the Lord forbids. Plus, I think the Lord would intervene with anything that would do this or lead the saints astray.

                     

Elder Holland’s point is that God leads and directs those who seek His help (in his story, by answering their prayers) in a direction that they may superficially question as “wrong” or “mistaken,” but that actually has a deeper purpose for teaching the right and correct way. Applying this to the top quorums of the Church, He guides them in ways that some members question or complain about, or call mistakes, but the direction is actually a means to take the Church along the correct route. Those who hold to the notion that the Church was or is mistaken seem to be forgetting that their grievance may well be a lack of understanding of one of the “mysterious” ways  the Lord works.

 

Complaining about the direction the Church has taken, or is taking, and calling them mistakes is like complaining about following a divinely-directed path that ends up a “dead end,” only to find out that in the Lord’s wisdom is was actually a necessary part of the journey, which is about spiritual experience and development as well as it is checking off the TripTiks.

 

For me, wrong paths by definition are not OK, but though through the Redemption we may turn around to get onto the right track. Repentance is a separate concept from the one I've been discussing.

 

So you are saying that these things that some view as mistakes are just the Lord leading us down a path as a means to an end.  But that He would not let the leaders take the church astray?  And even paths that look like a dead end are, quite possibly, a necessary part of the journey and consistent with the Lord's wisdom?

[Bob Crockett]

Which Biography?  Greg Prince's?  as it is not so clear and actually implies that Elder McConkie took President McKay's words out of context to publish the book anyway as President McKay, by Greg Prince's view, didn't want the book republished.  This is more complex then your stating.

Sure thing. I wonder what the First Presidency had in mind when they assigned Spencer W Kimball to whip it into shape for publication, and what they later had in mind when they called Elder McConkie to the Q12.

[Stone holm]

Sure thing. I wonder what the First Presidency had in mind when they assigned Spencer W Kimball to whip it into shape for publication, and what they later had in mind when they called Elder McConkie to the Q12.

Is that what was said in the biography? I thought what was said was that Pres Kimball had many more objections than were fixed, but he went ahead and republished anyway, and that a lot of his thinking came from his father in laws book which also caused a flap amongst the Brethren? Did I misread it?

[CV75]

So you are saying that these things that some view as mistakes are just the Lord leading us down a path as a means to an end.  But that He would not let the leaders take the church astray?  And even paths that look like a dead end are, quite possibly, a necessary part of the journey and consistent with the Lord's wisdom?

Yes. When we question why God told us to take an inital route back to Him after it turned out to seem only a detour, we can come to realize that there is a deeper wisdom and purpose in God's having told us to take such a journey (among othr things, to build unity and certaintly in the reliability of the second route). And that it was not a detour or a mistake after all. Knowing this helps us to trust and follow the revealed route, whether it turns out to be the last phase to our final destination one or not. The purpose in traveling the revealed the route is not to suspect it, grumble about it or pray for something better, but to have faith in the direction given, to work with it, make greater discoveries, and keep our eye single to the destination.

 

On a Churchwide scale, and in dealing with matters the Lord wishes to reveal that are common to all His children, we sustain the prophets in praying for and receiving direction, because the Lord does not reveal His will for the Church in any other way.

[Bob Crockett]

Is that what was said in the biography? I thought what was said was that Pres Kimball had many more objections than were fixed, but he went ahead and republished anyway, and that a lot of his thinking came from his father in laws book which also caused a flap amongst the Brethren? Did I misread it?

You suggest that Prince and Wright argue that the First Presidency did not really approve the republication of Mormon Doctrine.  True, but they foolishly reach this conclusion by concluding that President McKay did not intend approval when he granted approval and by slamming Elder McConkie's profession by saying that he was skilled in being disingenuous.  Prince and Wright also missed Elder Kimball's approval process even though that had been described in a publication that pre-dated theirs.

 

Quoting from President McKay:   “I then said that the First Presidency further recommend that when any member of the General Authorities desires to write a book, that the Brethren of the Twelve or the First Presidency be consulted regarding it. . . . I said it may seem all right for the writer of the book to say, “I am only responsible for it,” but I said “you cannot separate your position from your individuality.”  (Prince & Wright, p. 52.)

 

I see this statement as indicating that the First Presidency established a rule of correlation for future General Authority publications; moreover, there must be a disclaimer.  I read the concept of priesthood correlation tied, in part, to the process by which Mormon Doctrine came about.  

 

Now, as to the republication:

 

According to Gary Shapiro (http://ndbf.net/002k/), citing from Joseph Fielding McConkie’s work, President McKay gave approval for republication if changes were made and approved.  He appointed Elder Spencer W. Kimball to review and ensure that those changes were made.   Elder Kimball identified about 50 things he wanted changes which “dealt with the tone and with the wisdom of including particular things.”   Kimball recommended changes, all of which were made, and none of the changes pertained to doctrinal disagreement.   Joseph Fielding Smith, The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, SLC: Deseret Book, 2003, pp. 187, 191.  Prince & Wright’s work post-dates the younger McConkie’s, but they do not discuss Elder Kimball’s role in approving republication.

 

According to Prince & Wright, President McKay wrote that he told McConkie that “’should the book be republished at this time,’ McConkie would be responsible for it and ‘that it will not be a Church publication.’”  Prince & Wright, at p. 52.  To me, and knowing that Elder Kimball had approved the work for publication, this indicates that the First Presidency approved publication pursuant to the guidelines I outline above – submission to the Brethren and a disclaimer.

 

But, no, Prince & Wright reach an exact opposite conclusion.  They argue that Elder McConkie was a lawyer skilled in intentionally misreading intent.  Prince & Wright, at 52.   “[O]ne is hard pressed to conclude that he misunderstood McKay’s cautionary statement, ‘should the book be republished,’ as a mandate to republish.”  Prince & Wright, at 52.  Huh?  “Instead, he moved with the same boldness of eight years earlier, and published a second edition . . . .”  Prince & Wright, at 52.

 

This is what I call a Compton-ess way to torture the evidence.   Reach a conclusion which is the exact opposite of what the documentary evidence shows, on the theory that that authors had some hidden meaning.   As Prince & Wright write:  “McKay’s message seems to have been unambiguous.”  Prince & Wright, at p. 52.   This statement contains two polar opposites in one sentence.

 

In reality, here’s what happened:

 

Elder Peterson had objections to the First Edition.   Gary Shapiro points out that Elder Peterson and Elder McConkie had life-long disagreement over the value of the JST of the Bible; Elder McConkie said it was reliable; Peterson said it was not.  Elder Romney was asked to point out his objections to the First Edition.  He did; there were some harsh statements in the First Edition which, in my view, only repeated what the Brethren had been saying for decades (about the Catholic Church, the Negro, evolution) but which were impolitic to say; the First Edition was pulled from distribution. 

 

Thereafter, the First Presidency established a rule for correlating the Brethren’s publications.  Submit for review, include a disclaimer.

 

After the correlation rule was established, Elder McConkie pressed for publication of a new edition.  The Q12 assigned Elder Kimball to review the new work. He found no doctrinal errors and approved its publication.  

 

President McKay then met with Elder McConkie and approved its publication, with the words, “should the book be republished at this time” a disclaimer is needed.

 

The book was republished; Elder McConkie was called to the Q12.   McConkie was put in charge of the republication of the scriptures and the JST became an important part of the process.

 

I believe that Prince & Wright’s book is a caution to all readers of history.   You really can’t trust many historians to get things right, particularly in matters of religious controversy.  In this case, they read President McKay to intend the opposite of what he actually said, and they miss Elder Kimball’s approval process.

 

There is a certain "correctness" among people unhappy with their Church to browbeat Elder McConkie.   One cannot say enough negative things about him.  But I am rather astounded at the depths to which the critics descend.  One can see it in this thread.  I ask for examples of errors in the final post-correlation version of Mormon Doctrine, and the opening poster cuts and pastes from Elder Romney's pre-correlation and pre-edit comments.  (Comments to which Elder McConkie responded positively in all cases.)  What is the fairness and objectiveness of that?

Edited November 10, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[thesometimesaint]

I eagerly await the General Conference when MD is accepted as Scripture. Maybe next year.

[Bob Crockett]

Already done in part when the church adopted by vote the current scriptures. The dictionary lifted wholesale passages from Mormon Doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

Not even close, but who knows. Maybe next year.

[Bob Crockett]

The reality, of course, is that nothing is really canonized unless voted upon by the Saints in General Conference.  That is limited to the quad and, remarkably, the topical guide and dictionary, the latter which drew heavily from Mormon Doctrine.  And then, up to about 2009, Mormon Doctrine was cited often in General Conference.  Few other works of the Brethren enjoy such treatment except for President Joseph Fielding Smith's works.  So, far from being "not even close", Mormon Doctrine has approached canonical status like few other works in the Church.

 

But I know there is no choir here to whom to preach.  Oh well.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[thesometimesaint]

The last I heard the Scripture's Topical Guide and Dictionary are not part of our canon. I've been in the Church a long time now. I remember when the Journal of Discourses of Brigham Young's time were used more regularly than today. A few years back we regularly used the writings of C.S. Lewis in GC. So I believe we can use any source to exemplifying doctrine, by not as the source itself.

 

All that being said I deeply admire and respect Bro. McConkie and can but wish I had his deep understanding of the Gospel. I just don't accept him as the final word on what I believe.

[Bob Crockett]

Somehow I think the Brethren have treated Mormon Doctrine as far more authoritative than CS Lewis or JoD.

And, yes, the Topical Guide and Dictionary were approved by a general vote. The Church doesn't have a canon per se but what is accepted by a general vote.

And nobody advocates using Mormon Doctrine as the final word. The question posed by this thread is whether one is justified in pointing to Mormon Doctrine as to why the church ought to be changed.

[Stone holm]

You suggest that Prince and Wright argue that the First Presidency did not really approve the republication of Mormon Doctrine.  True, but they foolishly reach this conclusion by concluding that President McKay did not intend approval when he granted approval and by slamming Elder McConkie's profession by saying that he was skilled in being disingenuous.  Prince and Wright also missed Elder Kimball's approval process even though that had been described in a publication that pre-dated theirs.

 

Quoting from President McKay:   “I then said that the First Presidency further recommend that when any member of the General Authorities desires to write a book, that the Brethren of the Twelve or the First Presidency be consulted regarding it. . . . I said it may seem all right for the writer of the book to say, “I am only responsible for it,” but I said “you cannot separate your position from your individuality.”  (Prince & Wright, p. 52.)

 

I see this statement as indicating that the First Presidency established a rule of correlation for future General Authority publications; moreover, there must be a disclaimer.  I read the concept of priesthood correlation tied, in part, to the process by which Mormon Doctrine came about.  

 

Now, as to the republication:

 

According to Gary Shapiro (http://ndbf.net/002k/), citing from Joseph Fielding McConkie’s work, President McKay gave approval for republication if changes were made and approved.  He appointed Elder Spencer W. Kimball to review and ensure that those changes were made.   Elder Kimball identified about 50 things he wanted changes which “dealt with the tone and with the wisdom of including particular things.”   Kimball recommended changes, all of which were made, and none of the changes pertained to doctrinal disagreement.   Joseph Fielding Smith, The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, SLC: Deseret Book, 2003, pp. 187, 191.  Prince & Wright’s work post-dates the younger McConkie’s, but they do not discuss Elder Kimball’s role in approving republication.

 

According to Prince & Wright, President McKay wrote that he told McConkie that “’should the book be republished at this time,’ McConkie would be responsible for it and ‘that it will not be a Church publication.’”  Prince & Wright, at p. 52.  To me, and knowing that Elder Kimball had approved the work for publication, this indicates that the First Presidency approved publication pursuant to the guidelines I outline above – submission to the Brethren and a disclaimer.

 

But, no, Prince & Wright reach an exact opposite conclusion.  They argue that Elder McConkie was a lawyer skilled in intentionally misreading intent.  Prince & Wright, at 52.   “[O]ne is hard pressed to conclude that he misunderstood McKay’s cautionary statement, ‘should the book be republished,’ as a mandate to republish.”  Prince & Wright, at 52.  Huh?  “Instead, he moved with the same boldness of eight years earlier, and published a second edition . . . .”  Prince & Wright, at 52.

 

This is what I call a Compton-ess way to torture the evidence.   Reach a conclusion which is the exact opposite of what the documentary evidence shows, on the theory that that authors had some hidden meaning.   As Prince & Wright write:  “McKay’s message seems to have been unambiguous.”  Prince & Wright, at p. 52.   This statement contains two polar opposites in one sentence.

 

In reality, here’s what happened:

 

Elder Peterson had objections to the First Edition.   Gary Shapiro points out that Elder Peterson and Elder McConkie had life-long disagreement over the value of the JST of the Bible; Elder McConkie said it was reliable; Peterson said it was not.  Elder Romney was asked to point out his objections to the First Edition.  He did; there were some harsh statements in the First Edition which, in my view, only repeated what the Brethren had been saying for decades (about the Catholic Church, the Negro, evolution) but which were impolitic to say; the First Edition was pulled from distribution. 

 

Thereafter, the First Presidency established a rule for correlating the Brethren’s publications.  Submit for review, include a disclaimer.

 

After the correlation rule was established, Elder McConkie pressed for publication of a new edition.  The Q12 assigned Elder Kimball to review the new work. He found no doctrinal errors and approved its publication.  

 

President McKay then met with Elder McConkie and approved its publication, with the words, “should the book be republished at this time” a disclaimer is needed.

 

The book was republished; Elder McConkie was called to the Q12.   McConkie was put in charge of the republication of the scriptures and the JST became an important part of the process.

 

I believe that Prince & Wright’s book is a caution to all readers of history.   You really can’t trust many historians to get things right, particularly in matters of religious controversy.  In this case, they read President McKay to intend the opposite of what he actually said, and they miss Elder Kimball’s approval process.

 

There is a certain "correctness" among people unhappy with their Church to browbeat Elder McConkie.   One cannot say enough negative things about him.  But I am rather astounded at the depths to which the critics descend.  One can see it in this thread.  I ask for examples of errors in the final post-correlation version of Mormon Doctrine, and the opening poster cuts and pastes from Elder Romney's pre-correlation and pre-edit comments.  (Comments to which Elder McConkie responded positively in all cases.)  What is the fairness and objectiveness of that?

So you agree that the biography didn't support your earlier statements?

[Bob Crockett]

No. I think the biography plainly shows First Presidency approval and I've not wavered.

Prince takes the language "if you republish you will need a disclaimer" (I paraphrase) as a disapproval.

Nonsense. I read that statement as an approval.

But if you add the additional fact that SWK approved it after being tasked to do so, Prince's conclusion is exposed to be wrong. What a bucket of disingenuity is Prince's work. I don't claim original thought here and credit Gary Shapiro.

I've been a fan of Shapiro ever since his exhaustive concordance on the quad which predates full text searching.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Bob Crockett