Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[Stone holm]

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.

How on earth does publishing with a required disclaimer constitute approval?

[canard78]

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

What? Mormon Doctrine as scripture? I sincerely hope not.

The Bible Dictionary is not scripture. It is the subjective commentary of individuals, offered as thought stimulation. There is nothing binding nor doctrinal in it.

There are some books that do more damage than good. MD is one of them.

[Stone holm]

What? Mormon Doctrine as scripture? I sincerely hope not.

The Bible Dictionary is not scripture. It is the subjective commentary of individuals, offered as thought stimulation. There is nothing binding nor doctrinal in it.

There are some books that do more damage than good. MD is one of them.

The Church allowed BRM to write many of the headings in the Bible edition it put out at the end of the last century, it is now in the process of correcting his errors.

[jkwilliams]

The Bible Dictionary is not scripture. It is the subjective commentary of individuals, offered as thought stimulation. There is nothing binding nor doctrinal in it.

 

Normally I would disagree with you because, when something is published by the church (with an IRI copyright), it has been through Correlation and is thus considered consistent with doctrine. This means that the publication does not have the authority of scripture but that its contents are in harmony with church doctrine.

 

However, the Bible Dictionary is a different case, as it carries the following disclaimer:

This dictionary is provided to help your study of the scriptures and is not intended as an official statement of Church doctrine or an endorsement of the historical and cultural views set forth.

I am unaware of any comparable disclaimer in a church publication, but I could be wrong.

[Bob Crockett]

How on earth does publishing with a required disclaimer constitute approval?

It doesn't, standing alone.  

 

With Mormon Doctrine, President McKay established a rule which said that when one of the Brethren published a book, it had to be approved by the Q12 and contain a disclaimer.   Prince has completely misread this account to conclude that the request for a disclaimer is a disapproval.  However, it is very common in the book publishing industry circles to require a disclaimer as a condition to approval.   

 

The Teachings of Gordon B. Hinkley was published during President Hinckley's tenure as President of the Church.  He is the putative author.  It says:  "This work is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessary represent the position of the Church or of Deseret Book Company."

 

President Hinckley followed the Church's approval process when he published the work I referenced above, and that is exactly what Elder McConkie did with the second edition.   Thus, the presence of the disclaimer shows approval.

 

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism contains a disclaimer, and it was published at the Church's expense.  Glen Leonard's Nauvoo, originally intended as a volume of the sesquicentennial history of the church but published by Deseret Books contains a disclaimer.  I could go on and on.  It is quite remarkable that, given the long relationship the Church (and other institutions) has with disclaimers for books it authorizes and for which it pays, Prince would conclude that the disclaimer business indicates disapproval.  

 

Some interesting additional points.

 

My copy of the First Edition of Mormon Doctrine contains a disclaimer.  "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility."  (Preface).

 

My paperback copy of the last 1979 edition of Mormon Doctrine contains the exact First Edition disclaimer.

 

The Bible Dictionary is not scripture. It is the subjective commentary of individuals, offered as thought stimulation. There is nothing binding nor doctrinal in it.

 

Fortunately, I never said that.   My post above stands for a different proposition.  However, I will note that when the Church refers to its "scriptures" on its website, it includes the study helps.  When Elder Packer rolled out the scriptures in 1982 General Conference, the study guide helps were an important element of his description of the scriptures.

 

The Church allowed BRM to write many of the headings in the Bible edition it put out at the end of the last century, it is now in the process of correcting his errors.

 

 I wonder if there is any possible support for this proposition.  I can see for myself what the most recent changes have been.  Thomas Monson was in charge of the editorial process of the 1979/1981 version.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

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.

I still intend in answering back on MD, time is filled at the present moment. 

Also the Bible Dictionary claims no authoritative voice and says as much in it's intro.  To claim it is cannonized is a game of semantics which is far from true.

 

Also first you claim the McKay biography supports your view and then when confronted with the fact that it does not, you then rail against the authors.  Which is it?

[Stone holm]

I still intend in answering back on MD, time is filled at the present moment. 

Also the Bible Dictionary claims no authoritative voice and says as much in it's intro.  To claim it is cannonized is a game of semantics which is far from true.

 

Also first you claim the McKay biography supports your view and then when confronted with the fact that it does not, you then rail against the authors.  Which is it?

Agree there was an about face there.

[jkwilliams]

Fortunately, I never said that.   My post above stands for a different proposition.  However, I will note that when the Church refers to its "scriptures" on its website, it includes the study helps.  When Elder Packer rolled out the scriptures in 1982 General Conference, the study guide helps were an important element of his description of the scriptures.

Again, the only portion of the study helps that bears a disclaimer about it not being doctrine is the Bible Dictionary. The Guide to the Scriptures, which was prepared in the 1990s as part of the translator's edition of the triple combination, does not bear such a disclaimer. I would be careful about assigning scriptural or doctrinal authority to the Bible Dictionary.

[Stone holm]

It doesn't, standing alone.  

 

With Mormon Doctrine, President McKay established a rule which said that when one of the Brethren published a book, it had to be approved by the Q12 and contain a disclaimer.   Prince has completely misread this account to conclude that the request for a disclaimer is a disapproval.  However, it is very common in the book publishing industry circles to require a disclaimer as a condition to approval.   

 

The Teachings of Gordon B. Hinkley was published during President Hinckley's tenure as President of the Church.  He is the putative author.  It says:  "This work is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessary represent the position of the Church or of Deseret Book Company."

 

President Hinckley followed the Church's approval process when he published the work I referenced above, and that is exactly what Elder McConkie did with the second edition.   Thus, the presence of the disclaimer shows approval.

 

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism contains a disclaimer, and it was published at the Church's expense.  Glen Leonard's Nauvoo, originally intended as a volume of the sesquicentennial history of the church but published by Deseret Books contains a disclaimer.  I could go on and on.  It is quite remarkable that, given the long relationship the Church (and other institutions) has with disclaimers for books it authorizes and for which it pays, Prince would conclude that the disclaimer business indicates disapproval.  

 

Some interesting additional points.

 

My copy of the First Edition of Mormon Doctrine contains a disclaimer.  "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility."  (Preface).

 

My paperback copy of the last 1979 edition of Mormon Doctrine contains the exact First Edition disclaimer.

 

Fortunately, I never said that.   My post above stands for a different proposition.  However, I will note that when the Church refers to its "scriptures" on its website, it includes the study helps.  When Elder Packer rolled out the scriptures in 1982 General Conference, the study guide helps were an important element of his description of the scriptures.

 

 I wonder if there is any possible support for this proposition.  I can see for myself what the most recent changes have been.  Thomas Monson was in charge of the editorial process of the 1979/1981 version.

If you google "McConkie headings" you will see a multitude of articles attesting to McConkie's authorship of chapter headings. I would post the links except my iPad is not set up for doing that easily.

[Bob Crockett]

I still intend in answering back on MD, time is filled at the present moment. 

Also the Bible Dictionary claims no authoritative voice and says as much in it's intro.  To claim it is cannonized is a game of semantics which is far from true.

 

Also first you claim the McKay biography supports your view and then when confronted with the fact that it does not, you then rail against the authors.  Which is it?

Yes, I assert that Prince's bio supports my view.   And,  yes, I criticize the authors.  How is that possibly inconsistent?

 

It is common to quote an author, with whom one disagrees, to support a position.  Indeed, I think that one of the strongest proofs in an argument is to use an opponent's writings against him. 

 

It doesn't matter that Prince misreads the evidence and reaches an opposite conclusion; I can still use him and his questionable conclusions.

 

I disagree with Dr. Mike Quinn all the time but have cited his works in my own publications to support my views. 

 

I have never asserted that the Bible Dictionary was shot out of a cannon.  In fact, I have only said that it was voted upon and approved.  I don't think the Church has a formal "canon."  It has things it has approved for publication.

 

Do you really have any objections to the 1979 edition of Mormon Doctrine?  Better yet, why should the Church get into the business of recognizing the mistakes and excesses of the first edition of Mormon Doctrine when the later editions were published correcting those "errors" (which I assert were nothing new).

Edited November 11, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

If you google "McConkie headings" you will see a multitude of articles attesting to McConkie's authorship of chapter headings. I would post the links except my iPad is not set up for doing that easily.

And, so?  Have I suggested otherwise?  I have long believed the same.

[Bob Crockett]

Again, the only portion of the study helps that bears a disclaimer about it not being doctrine is the Bible Dictionary. The Guide to the Scriptures, which was prepared in the 1990s as part of the translator's edition of the triple combination, does not bear such a disclaimer. I would be careful about assigning scriptural or doctrinal authority to the Bible Dictionary.

Have I?   I've only stated that it has been published pursuant to Church approval.  I've also said that many of its entries were lifted from Mormon Doctrine.  I've not said that the Dictionary is official doctrine.  My view of doctrine as as the Church website currently defines it.

[jkwilliams]

I don't think the Church has a formal "canon."  It has things it has approved for publication.

You would be wrong, then. The church's "canon" is the standard works, which the church defines as follows:

The volumes of scripture officially accepted by the Church, including the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

Publications become scripture through canonization, as the church describes here:

4.

Scripture becomes part of the standard works through the process of canonization.

■

Explain the meaning of canon, and describe the process by which scripture is canonized.

“A word of Greek origin, originally meaning ‘a rod for testing straightness,’ now used to denote the authoritative collection of the sacred books used by the true believers in Christ” (Bible Dictionary, “canon,” 630–31).

In the Church, canon refers to the authoritative collection of sacred books of scripture, known as the standard works, formally adopted and accepted by the Church and considered binding upon members in matters of faith and doctrine.

The process is illustrated by the action taken in the April 1976 general conference under the direction of President N. Eldon Tanner, in which two revelations were added to the Pearl of Great Price. Conducting the business of the conference, President Tanner said:

“President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote.

“‘At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the following two revelations:

“‘First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith … ; and second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith … showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world. …’

“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“All those in favor manifest it. Those opposed, if any, by the same sign” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 29; or Ensign, May 1976, 19). In 1979 these two revelations were moved to the Doctrine and Covenants and became sections 137 and 138.

[jkwilliams]

Have I?   I've only stated that it has been published pursuant to Church approval.  I've also said that many of its entries were lifted from Mormon Doctrine.  I've not said that the Dictionary is official doctrine.  My view of doctrine as as the Church website currently defines it.

What you said was that the church includes the BD in its description of scripture. I was cautioning against a belief that it had any kind of authority, scriptural or not.

[Bob Crockett]

What you said was that the church includes the BD in its description of scripture

As it does.  

 

Again, I assert that the Church doesn't have a  formal canon.  There's been too much debate on that; the fundamentalists assert that OD1 is not canon and all that nonsense.  But, you're right, the word "canon" is used on the website and I'll grant that.  But your point does absolutely nothing to counter my essential thesis here that DBMormon is wrong to assert that the Church should step forward and acknowledge the mistakes made by the book entitled "Mormon Doctrine."  He needs first to identify some mistakes.  Until he does I would say that one should not assume error just because Bruce R. McConkie's name is attached to it.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[jkwilliams]

As it does.  

 

Again, I assert that the Church doesn't have a  formal canon.  There's been too much debate on that; the fundamentalists assert that OD1 is not canon and all that nonsense.  But, you're right, the word "canon" is used on the website and I'll grant that.  But your point does absolutely nothing to counter my essential thesis here that DBMormon is wrong to assert that the Church should step forward and acknowledge the mistakes made by the book entitled "Mormon Doctrine."  He needs first to identify some mistakes.

I'll just quote the church again:

In the Church, canon refers to the authoritative collection of sacred books of scripture, known as the standard works, formally adopted and accepted by the Church and considered binding upon members in matters of faith and doctrine.

What sets the canon apart is that it has been presented to the membership in conference and voted on to accept it as revealed scripture.

I know, it's quibbling, but it's important when discussing doctrine and authority in the church. For the Strength of Youth is published by the church and has been approved by the brethren and by correlation review. But it is not part of the canon.

[Bob Crockett]

I'll just quote the church again:

What sets the canon apart is that it has been presented to the membership in conference and voted on to accept it as revealed scripture.

I know, it's quibbling, but it's important when discussing doctrine and authority in the church. For the Strength of Youth is published by the church and has been approved by the brethren and by correlation review. But it is not part of the canon.

And I'll just state my opinon again.  I don't think the Church has a formal canon per se, at least how the word "canon" is used by theologians.  (Canon is a closed thing  with the normal usage meaning that revelation is over.)  The Church has publications that, as I say above, are voted upon by the congregation.  As was the current quad -- which contains the study helps. 

 

And, it is quibbling.   I'd like my central challenge in this thread met -- by you, or anybody else.   If we must acknowledge the errors of Mormon Doctrine, and teach those errors to our children, what are they?  When I asked DBMormon, all he did was give me a list of errors which led to corrections by Elder McConkie with the approval of the Church. 

 

Tone and calling people apostates isn't error.  Thinking the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon isn't anything new.  The Puritans had a lock on that first.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[jkwilliams]

And, it is quibbling.   I'd like my central challenge in this thread met -- by you, or anybody else.   If we must acknowledge the errors of Mormon Doctrine, and teach those errors to our children, what are they?  When I asked DBMormon, all he did was give me a list of errors which led to corrections by Elder McConkie with the approval of the Church.

For what it's worth, I don't see any reason the church should acknowledge errors in a book they didn't publish. IMO, Kimball's The Miracle of Forgiveness was far more destructive than MD, but neither was published by the church, so why would the church retract anything?

[Bob Crockett]

Let's refocus upon the OP, which is a criticism of a talk given by Elder Holland about the weaknesses of church leaders.  

 

DBMormon said:  "Does this admittance of Mistakes fall short due to the reluctance to be specific on what mistakes have been made?"  Later, we read that "Mistakes" includes Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.   So, I conclude from the OP and further commentary by DBMormon that he suggests, by his question, that Elder Holland has fallen short in his "admittance" by not fessing up to Mormon Doctrine.  

 

At this point, after asking for examples and seeing none, let me say that I don't think there are errors in the 1979 edition.  There are opinions, there are tone issues.  There is an extensive essay against evolution.  But he expressly says that this work is his opinion.  How can a member really be misled by this work?  I suppose somebody might conclude that Mormon Doctrine errs with this essay against evolution, given the Church's no-stance issue on evolution.  That seems rather trivial.  I just can't imagine Elder Holland ever saying:  "We apologize for the anti-evolution stance taken by Elder McConkie in Mormon Doctrine."  After all, Elder McConkie might be right.

 

[As far as Miracle of Forgiveness is concerned, I disagree with you as well that it is "destructive" and could contribute to a separate thread on that.   When I was a church leader I relied heavily on that book.  Too bad I can't speak of particular successes.]

Edited November 11, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

Yes, I assert that Prince's bio supports my view.   And,  yes, I criticize the authors.  How is that possibly inconsistent?

 

It is common to quote an author, with whom one disagrees, to support a position.  Indeed, I think that one of the strongest proofs in an argument is to use an opponent's writings against him. 

 

It doesn't matter that Prince misreads the evidence and reaches an opposite conclusion; I can still use him and his questionable conclusions.

 

I disagree with Dr. Mike Quinn all the time but have cited his works in my own publications to support my views. 

 

I have never asserted that the Bible Dictionary was shot out of a cannon.  In fact, I have only said that it was voted upon and approved.  I don't think the Church has a formal "canon."  It has things it has approved for publication.

 

Do you really have any objections to the 1979 edition of Mormon Doctrine?  Better yet, why should the Church get into the business of recognizing the mistakes and excesses of the first edition of Mormon Doctrine when the later editions were published correcting those "errors" (which I assert were nothing new).

 

Bob, while your reasoning holds true, you are playing games here.  Greg Prince's biography is clear in that it insinuates that Elder McConkie was out of line in republishing the BOM.  But you start by saying that this biography

"The biography of David O'McKay shows quite clearly that he was authorized to publish it after making efforts to withdraw the first edition."

 

Would you please CFR for what the biography says that "clearly" shows he was authorized?

[DBMormon]

Let's refocus upon the OP, which is a criticism of a talk given by Elder Holland about the weaknesses of church leaders.  

 

DBMormon said:  "Does this admittance of Mistakes fall short due to the reluctance to be specific on what mistakes have been made?"  Later, we read that "Mistakes" includes Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.   So, I conclude from the OP and further commentary by DBMormon that he suggests, by his question, that Elder Holland has fallen short in his "admittance" by not fessing up to Mormon Doctrine.  

 

At this point, after asking for examples and seeing none, let me say that I don't think there are errors in the 1979 edition.  There are opinions, there are tone issues.  There is an extensive essay against evolution.  But he expressly says that this work is his opinion.  How can a member really be misled by this work?  I suppose somebody might conclude that Mormon Doctrine errs with this essay against evolution, given the Church's no-stance issue on evolution.  That seems rather trivial.  I just can't imagine Elder Holland ever saying:  "We apologize for the anti-evolution stance taken by Elder McConkie in Mormon Doctrine."  After all, Elder McConkie might be right.

 

[As far as Miracle of Forgiveness is concerned, I disagree with you as well that it is "destructive" and could contribute to a separate thread on that.   When I was a church leader I relied heavily on that book.  Too bad I can't speak of particular successes.]

Be careful Bob, you have a tendancey when paraphrasing me to get it wrong.  Yo have done so here on several points.  I would prefer you quote my whole statement and in context.

- Uchtdorf is who admitted mistakes not Holland.

- I do not imply the entire Mormon Doctrine book as a mistake but rather the impact portions of it that are incorrect have pigeon holed membership into believing false concepts as "Mormon Doctrine"

- No where do I say that Elder Holland or Elder Uchtdorf fall short, you are imposing thoughts on me that I do not have.

 

You trading what good you have built up the past week for an effort to regain footing in this disagreement. please quote me accurately - do not paraphrase me as you seem to always mis-align what I say

[canard78]

Normally I would disagree with you because, when something is published by the church (with an IRI copyright), it has been through Correlation and is thus considered consistent with doctrine. This means that the publication does not have the authority of scripture but that its contents are in harmony with church doctrine.

However, the Bible Dictionary is a different case, as it carries the following disclaimer:

I am unaware of any comparable disclaimer in a church publication, but I could be wrong.

Having said that, despite the disclaimer, I would imagine plenty of people still ignore it and treat it as doctrine.

[jkwilliams]

Having said that, despite the disclaimer, I would imagine plenty of people still ignore it and treat it as doctrine.

I would say that's indisputable. Kind of reminds me of the old joke about the difference between Catholics and Mormons:

Catholics teach that the pope is infallible, but they don't believe it.

Mormons believe that the prophet is fallible, but they don't believe that, either.

[DBMormon]

 

  I just can't imagine Elder Holland ever saying:  "We apologize for the anti-evolution stance taken by Elder McConkie in Mormon Doctrine."  After all, Elder McConkie might be right.

 

 

 

I agree, neither can I.  But let me tell you the issue and a solution kinder and more effective then what you are saying you can't imagine.

Elder McConkie had a tendency to see his beliefs as authoritative.  He saw he framework as Doctrine.  He also when others shared their beliefs publicly that were different then what he saw as the accepted Doctrine (based on his view) he was very liberal in offering correction and trying to get people to see him as right and themselves as out of line.

 

He got up and gave a talk at BYU that said Evolution was a heresy in spite of the First Presidency refusing to take that stance. ( there is something wrong with that picture.

 

The answer is not to throw him under the bus and say what you suggested you can't imagine.  Rather I can easily see a leader saying something like this.

"In times past, some members and even leaders of the Church have claimed the final say on topics such as the age of the Earth, Evolution, X, Y, Z.  But we remind all members that on issues outside of the Doctrine of this Church where the Brethren were not united and where the Lord has not spoken, members should not feel forced to hold those views espoused by some.  Rather we should understand that unless the Lord has spoken and the hence the Brethren united, one should never feel their personal held view to be incompatible with the gospel only because some claim in their opinions that it does not fit.  One should never feel forced to decide between the leaving the Church over the opinion of a member or leader that they can not reconcile with truth where the Lord and His Church have not spoken and given an official position of the Church.  In fact when one digs a little deeper, one may find the Church offers more flexibility on these issues then the member first thinks."

 

 

Edited November 11, 2013 by DBMormon

[Stone holm]

Having said that, despite the disclaimer, I would imagine plenty of people still ignore it and treat it as doctrine.

 

At one point, the Church was just using a Bible Dictionary which was not produced by the Church at all and was inserted with copyright permission.