Bruce R Mcconkie And The Criticism He Receives

[theplains]

I am looking for a quote from Elder McConkie's family where they speak out about the criticism Elder McConkie Received

I know it exists and I read it like a week ago but can not find.

Thanks

Mormonism Research Ministry has a good article on the respect mcconkie commanded when

he was still alive.

Regards,

Jim

Edited January 31, 2014 by Nemesis
Site has links to temple content. Link removed

[Bob Crockett]

Mormonism Research Ministry has a good article on the respect McConkie commanded when

he was still alive.

 

Regards,

Jim

McKeever makes some startling observations.   McConkie was loved and respected by church leaders, and is heavily quoted in church manuals, but is criticized by those members who were prone to be out of theological step with the Church.  I wonder if Bill Reel has any quotes from general authorities who take issue with BRM's teachings?  I mean, there's Oaks' "Bull in the China Shop" business, but what else?

Edited January 31, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

McKeever makes some startling observations.   McConkie was loved and respected by church leaders, and is heavily quoted in church manuals, but is criticized by those members who were prone to be out of theological step with the Church.  I wonder if Bill Reel has any quotes from general authorities who take issue with BRM's teachings?  I mean, there's Oaks' "Bull in the China Shop" business, but what else?

That wasn't about BRM the bull in a China Shop referred to BKP

[DBMormon]

As Far as quotes - I can only point to those that are encompassing but not limited to such specifics (outside of the stroy behind "Mormon Doctrine".  Elder Christofferson and elder Anderson speak of the idea when Leaders speak outside what the 15 agree on it is not binding nor official.  So this lets me off the hook in believing what he said.  But if we are honest... Some leaders have made it hard to see their opinion as opinion and have seemed to want to establish their opinion as the "official view"  That in and of itself can happen innocently.  The issue comes when one is aware that others disagree with such opinions.  This is extremely documented in the case of Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith and only slightly less with Elder BRM.  

[Bob Crockett]

As Far as quotes - I can only point to those that are encompassing but not limited to such specifics (outside of the stroy behind "Mormon Doctrine".  Elder Christofferson and elder Anderson speak of the idea when Leaders speak outside what the 15 agree on it is not binding nor official.  So this lets me off the hook in believing what he said.  But if we are honest... Some leaders have made it hard to see their opinion as opinion and have seemed to want to establish their opinion as the "official view"  That in and of itself can happen innocently.  The issue comes when one is aware that others disagree with such opinions.  This is extremely documented in the case of Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith and only slightly less with Elder BRM.  

In reality, "opinion" is what we hear from all the General Authorities.  There isn't anything more.  

[Freedom]

 

 

It isn't that black and white.  Imagine your an apostle.  You believe that dogs are actually rabbits.  Other members of the Quorum of the 12 and FP dissagree with you.  you know Doctrine requires unanimity.  At this point while you may hold such view, it is not appropriate to teach one's view simply in the face of such disagreeing voices.  This goes beyond what the Lord has given us.  Now that said we all have weaknesses but and while we should be forgiving we also must acknowledge that for some it was these opinions taught as Doctrine that someone built there house of cards on.... and when it fell... it fell hard!!!

But your issue is not with doctrine (God has a body of flesh and bones) but the a personal interpretation of doctrine (tithing is 10% of gross, an interpretation with which I fully agree). find me one example where there is a conflict over doctrine among the leadership of the church. I had the opportunity to ask a doctrinal opinon of Pres Hunter many years ago. He gave me his view and then said, if you ask the rest of the 12, you will get 12 different opinions. 

[DBMormon]

But your issue is not with doctrine (God has a body of flesh and bones) but the a personal interpretation of doctrine (tithing is 10% of gross, an interpretation with which I fully agree). find me one example where there is a conflict over doctrine among the leadership of the church. I had the opportunity to ask a doctrinal opinon of Pres Hunter many years ago. He gave me his view and then said, if you ask the rest of the 12, you will get 12 different opinions. 

you just answered your own question.  Find me a conflict and here is one..... I am bewildered

[Calm]

Different opinions do not equate to conflict.

[DBMormon]

definition = be incompatible or at variance; clash.    We are splitting hairs and playing semantics

Edited February 1, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

definition = be incompatible or at variance; clash.    We are splitting hairs and playing semantics

certainly Elder Joseph Fielding Smith was at variance with Elder Widstoe, Roberts, and Talmadge over evolution.  Seem Even Mike Ash's article says as much

 

http://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N04_33.pdf

Edited February 1, 2014 by DBMormon

[guerreiro9]

The church's position is that it is not a choice, Packards view is that it very much is a choice.

I think you have greatly over simplified the Church's position (if not gotten it wrong all together).

My understanding of the Church's current position is that the causes of same sex attraction (for the individual) are unknown and that many would choose not to have this attraction if able (as with any temptation).

This is a far cry from what you are stating, unless you have a reference to show otherwise.

-guerreiro9

[Freedom]

definition = be incompatible or at variance; clash.    We are splitting hairs and playing semantics

 

You want no disagreement which means you just want the leaders to quote scripture all the time. There is no conflict of doctrine, just varying interpretations of the application of some doctrines. 

[Freedom]

I think you have greatly over simplified the Church's position (if not gotten it wrong all together).

My understanding of the Church's current position is that the causes of same sex attraction (for the individual) are unknown and that many would choose not to have this attraction if able (as with any temptation).

This is a far cry from what you are stating, unless you have a reference to show otherwise.

-guerreiro9

Some quotes from the church website. 

 

The Church opposes homosexual behavior, and we reach out with understanding and respect to people with same-gender attraction.

 

We believe that with an eternal perspective, a person’s attraction to the same sex can be addressed and borne as a mortal test. It should not be viewed as a permanent condition. 

same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is

As fellow Church members, families, and friends, we need to recognize that those attracted to the same gender face some unique restrictions regarding expression of their feelings. While same-gender attraction is real, there must be no physical expression of this attraction. 

 

Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. 

 

“We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives, but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.”

[Calm]

playing semantics.

This criticism has never been persuasive to me. Should we just disregard what words mean and somehow 'feel' our way through conversations? Actual meaning of words seems rather important to me given they are our primary means of communication and only one over the Internet. "Conflict" has significant connotations that do not apply in all cases of difference of opinion. I think vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate, my husband disagrees. There is no conflict, we simply order our favourite for ourselves.

There may even be great overlap in differing opinions. One needs to prove significant differences that present difficulties for those involved before stepping into the realm of conflict I believe.

One can of course see potential conflict as proof of actual conflict, but I would have to wonder why one desires to do so in this case.

[DBMormon]

 

You want no disagreement which means you just want the leaders to quote scripture all the time. There is no conflict of doctrine, just varying interpretations of the application of some doctrines. 

 

 

I am simply asking that leaders when they are aware of differences of opinion among other members of the top 15 men that they then not assume to be certain that their answer is Doctrine and enforce their opinion as such when they are aware that there is not unanimity.  "whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them."  There is safety in sticking to that which the Lord himself has told us is Doctrine and truth

Edited February 1, 2014 by DBMormon

[knowone]

its my own theory, but i believe that those who have homosexual tendencies are being judged by a different ruler than we are.   for example, those who never heard the gospel will be judged differently than us.  the 3 nephites will be judged differently than us.  people who lived without free agency, such as those enslaved, will be judged differently than us.

 

what homosexuals are being tested on primarily, is how they handle their situation.  what those who do not have homosexual tendencies are being judged on is how we treat them.

 

if i recall correctly, i read somewhere that everyone on earth agreed to be in a specific situation/body.  those with mental disabilities volunteered to be in their situation/body as sid those who died as babies chose to be there, etc, etc  this can work across the board.

 

its the Lord himself who will judge us.  not only by our actions, but by what situation we were in while on earth.  if the teaching of 'when much is given, much is required' is corrrect, then that must mean the opposite is true, 'when little is given, little is required'. 

 

i wonder how many members of the church wont attain celestial glory, because they didnt do enough in comparison to a child who had died of starvation in africa.

[canard78]

In reality, "opinion" is what we hear from all the General Authorities.  There isn't anything more.  

 

Bob, it seems we've reached a principle we can agree on. General Authorities speak based on their personal opinion and very little else. We might teach our kids and new members otherwise, but opinion is what we get.

 

All 15 are sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. So when we get such a diverse and sometimes contradictory range of opinions from the leaders past and present, what should we conclude that a 'prophets, seers and revelators' actually are?

 

From Oct 2012 General Conference (emphasis added):

 

 

It is proposed that we sustain Thomas Spencer Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Henry Bennion Eyring as First Counselor in the First Presidency; and Dieter Friedrich Uchtdorf as Second Counselor in the First Presidency.

...

It is proposed that we sustain Boyd Kenneth Packer as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the following as members of that quorum: Boyd K. Packer, L. Tom Perry, Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, M. Russell Ballard, Richard G. Scott, Robert D. Hales, Jeffrey R. Holland, David A. Bednar, Quentin L. Cook, D. Todd Christofferson, and Neil L. Andersen.

...

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

 

Out of interest, I wonder how many leaders today agree with the following "opinion" (presented as doctrine) from the 1947 First Presidency (emphasis added):

 

“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel...

 

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous” 

 

“We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

 

 

 

Letter from First Presidency to Dr Lowry Nelson

(Consisting of: George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, David O. McKay)

 

When it comes to unpleasant... even repugnant... opinions like those above, I suppose this thread's Apostle in question would suggest that "we forget about them."

 

I try to remind myself of the first line I quoted from the First Presidency letter. When there are opinions "never questioned by any of the Church leaders" it should come as no surprise when those opinions become unsupportable over time.

 

Does that therefore mean we are less led by revelation and instead led by assumptions and opinions that are "never questioned by any of the Church leaders"?

[theplains]

  I wonder if Bill Reel has any quotes from general authorities who take issue with BRM's teachings?  I mean, there's Oaks' "Bull in the China Shop" business, but what else?

 

I am not aware of any quotes from general authorities who took issue with McConkie's

writings while he was still alive.  But the fact that he was not excommunicated seems to

be a sign of overall acceptance, despite some opposition from a few after he died.  I

figure that false teachings are sinful in that they lead people astray if believed. And such

sin is worthy of excommunication in my opinion.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Duncan]

I am not aware of any quotes from general authorities who took issue with McConkie's

writings while he was still alive.  But the fact that he was not excommunicated seems to

be a sign of overall acceptance, despite some opposition from a few after he died.  I

figure that false teachings are sinful in that they lead people astray if believed. And such

sin is worthy of excommunication in my opinion.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

I don't know of any either but we all know about the flap and fuss about his book Mormon Doctrine, which the brethren we tickled pink about when it first came out

Edited February 1, 2014 by Duncan

[DBMormon]

 

Bob, it seems we've reached a principle we can agree on. General Authorities speak based on their personal opinion and very little else. We might teach our kids and new members otherwise, but opinion is what we get.

 

All 15 are sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. So when we get such a diverse and sometimes contradictory range of opinions from the leaders past and present, what should we conclude that a 'prophets, seers and revelators' actually are?

 

From Oct 2012 General Conference (emphasis added):

 

 

 

Out of interest, I wonder how many leaders today agree with the following "opinion" (presented as doctrine) from the 1947 First Presidency (emphasis added):

 

 

Letter from First Presidency to Dr Lowry Nelson

(Consisting of: George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, David O. McKay)

 

When it comes to unpleasant... even repugnant... opinions like those above, I suppose this thread's Apostle in question would suggest that "we forget about them."

 

I try to remind myself of the first line I quoted from the First Presidency letter. When there are opinions "never questioned by any of the Church leaders" it should come as no surprise when those opinions become unsupportable over time.

 

Does that therefore mean we are less led by revelation and instead led by assumptions and opinions that are "never questioned by any of the Church leaders"?

 

 

Canard - great post - I often feel that our desire to be "faithful" prevents us from fully grasping the repercussions of this paradigm.  Our need to defend our faith often creates within us a reluctance to actually hear another person who might have additional truth to offer.  We simply shut them out as they are a threat to our framework.  We resist any opportunity to validate other conclusions then the one we personally hold.

 

Conservative LDS see my posts as critical but I am trying to  talk out loud what I see and think and wishing someone could change my mind (for those who think I am stubborn and do not change my mind on anything ask me and I will tell you all I have changed my mind on in the last two years)

That said

GA's have taught or admit to

- having made mistakes that were not in harmony with our principles, values and doctrines

- having unitedly taught errors and false Doctrine

- acknowledge that the Lord has permitted them to go decades falsely holding up false Doctrines that hurt a lot of people and hurt them deeply

- have asked us to know for ourselves by the spirit to know whether they are being led at any given moment in what they are teaching.

-  Have told us if we are informed, that we should not fear dissenting

- That we should not force change but that we may ask questions openly while still trying to "lead with faith"

- teach definitions of gospel principles that are conflicted and at times contradictory

 

Kevin Christensen in my recent interview said something profound which is that D&C 1 has the Lord telling us that his prophets share his word "from time to time"  or sporadically

 

Jim McConkie in my interview with him spoke about how he disagreed with with his uncle BRM and that he said sometimes we will have the truth before the Church as a whole has it

 

I add all this up - and yes 90% of what we have might be perfect and beautiful but guess what?  I wholeheartedly accept at least 90% of the Church's teachings.  The other 10% - I am here working it out and I feel 100% comfortable disagreeing, and stating so.  I have no qualms about sharing my views (as my views) and seeing if anyone here has a better way to put it together.

 

I see our leaders as caring, trying with all their energy, and having love for me... therefore I love them and admire them (and yes in my anger I have violated that relationship) , but that doesn't mean I cant disagree and share a different view (one that frankly helps some doubters to hold on and not leave). 

 

Unfortunately we often fail to understand each other.

7 years ago I would have have been right there with Bob Crockett, ErayR, and others in their view.  My faith crisis changed the entire lens I now see the Church through.  While I realize 100% I don't have a monopoly on the right perspective yet my paradigm feels authentic to me, and I feel in many ways it is more real then then the view I held years ago.  In my new paradigm I sustain leaders as Prophets seers and revelators but I also realize they act directly in that role "from time to time".  It is important to me to be in tune with the spirit to be aware when those moments are and to know generally how to stay close to the Church and not be an enemy to it (Which regardless of some views here, I do not see myself as an enemy to the Church).  I need to be careful not to disagree simply out of a desire not to obey but I also when informed through study and by faith can not make things fit, I am not only free but encouraged to dissent.  I am also free to ask questions.  Which rather then do in my Ward or in other places where other's faith is at big risk, I choose to do so here where I feel most participants have encountered these issues before and I am likely to get informed answers, people who are unafraid to disagree and more importantly back that disagreement up, and also not hurt other faith in "truth" (as faith in nonsense should not be protected as strongly or maybe even at all as it is not even real faith)

 

I am simply at a place where I can't go back.  My perception will never be what it was.  I can not see the Church in that way again.  If I am to remain I must find ways to reconcile things that do not fit.  For me many things still do not fit, but I also see many truths and combined with the spiritual experiences I have had, I feel called to remain and to in some limited way help others do the same.

Bill

 

I take all this

Edited February 1, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I am not aware of any quotes from general authorities who took issue with McConkie's

writings while he was still alive.  But the fact that he was not excommunicated seems to

be a sign of overall acceptance, despite some opposition from a few after he died.  I

figure that false teachings are sinful in that they lead people astray if believed. And such

sin is worthy of excommunication in my opinion.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

No offense Jim but this seems like circular reasoning.

Elder Uchtdorf and the recent Race article admit Leaders made mistakes that violated Doctrine and yet none were excommunicated.  Not excommunicating a leader does not mean their teachings are Doctrine or Not Doctrine.

 

It also is obvious that if two apostles disagree over  lets say the age of the earth, evolution, how to interpret tithing and a multitude of others.  There are only two options.  One Right, One wrong (false Doctrine) or both are wrong (false Doctrine)  in either case false Doctrine is taught.  We have multiple such disagreements and yet leaders are rarely excommunicated.  This logic does not work for me

Bill

[DBMormon]

I don't know of any either but we all know about the flap and fuss about his book Mormon Doctrine, which the brethren we tickled pink about when it first came out

 

Why did Pres McKay originally ask BRM not to print MD again?  did he not like the cover art?

Why did Elder BH Roberts, Talmadge, and Widstoe disagree with Joseph Fielding Smiths beliefs on Evolution? 

 

It seems naive to assume since they did not take said disagreement to a public medium they are then sustaining the other persons opinions as truth.

 

Am I missing something?  So Quetzalcoatl is Christ or is that a false Doctrine?  is the earth 6000 years old or is that possibly a false doctrine?  IS interracial marriage a sin or is that teaching false Doctrine?   is blacks as less valiant true or a false Doctrine?  Were these leaders ex'ed?  if not does this validate their teachings as true?

[jwhitlock]

I've personally found that I connect far better with certain of the brethren (with what they say) than others. Elder McConkie was not one that I connected with. Some quotes so far in this thread and in the Meridian article that stand out to me are:

 

"Growing up as a son of Bruce R. McConkie and a grandson of Joseph Fielding Smith had its moments. One of the experiences that my brothers and sisters and I shared regularly was to listen to people make disparaging remarks about our father or grandfather in Sunday School or other church classes. You could pretty well depend on the fact that if someone quoted either Elder McConkie or President Smith, that someone else would immediately respond with some kind of an insulting retort. I don't think it bothered any of us to have someone disagree with our father or grandfather, we just couldn't understand why the disagreement seemed so mean-spirited."

 

 

I don't think anyone would disagree with the sentiment expressed above. It's one thing to disagree, but it's another thing to be mean-spirited and to make judgmental personal attacks. Those are often responded to in kind. Hence, I wonder why they couldn't understand that there would be personal attacks on Elder McConkie in light of statements such as the following that went beyond disagreeing with a practice and involved disparaging the character of those who believed in or engaged in such actions:

 

At the same time, marginal practices among members of the Church were addressed strongly by Elder McConkie in the first edition of Mormon Doctrine. For instance, birth control was described as “gross wickedness” and “rebellion against God.” Card playing was called “apostasy and rebellion.” Light speeches in church meetings were described as “highly offensive” to the Spirit. Elder McConkie was not very adept at tolerating the gray area between right and wrong.

 

 

 Elder McConkie wrote, “How scrubby and groveling [changed in the second edition to ‘weak and puerile’] the intellectuality which, knowing that the Lord’s plan takes all forms of life from a pre-existent spirit state, through mortality, and on to an ultimate resurrected state of immortality, yet finds comfort in the theoretical postulates that mortal life began in the scum of the sea, as it were, and has through eons of time evolved to its present varieties and state! Do those with spiritual insight really think that the infinite Creator of worlds without number would operate in this way?”

 

 

 In the first edition, we read: “To read a written sermon, except under very unusual circumstances, is a mockery of sacred things. There may be a few instances in which sermons may be read, just as there are a few formal occasions when prayers may be read, as for instance at the dedication of temples. On some radio and television broadcasts written sermons may be appropriate, and there is no impropriety in little children reading written talks. But in the absence of some compelling reason for making an exception to what the Lord has commanded, a written sermon does no more than bear record that the preacher has neither the knowledge to draw on, the faith to rely on the Spirit, nor the ability to attune himself to the spirit of inspiration.”

 

 

 

Followed by Joseph McConkie's observation that:
 

The standard suggested here reaches well beyond the maturity level of many Latter-day Saints. 

 

 

 

One does wonder whether maturity in being a member of the Church is judged by how well one conforms to the viewpoints and tone of Elder McConkie's writings.

 

I appreciated the admission by Joseph McConkie that Elder McConkie did not deal with grey areas very well. Unfortunately, since there is so much in this life that is grey in nature (and yes, other things are relatively black and white), the inability to deal with grey areas can be a significant weakness when it comes to understanding or making sense of things. As Joseph McConkie noted in the article, Mormon Doctrine comes across as very authoritative. That's very true. In doing so it does not give the reader any room to do much other than to agree or disagree with Elder McConkie. And when you disagree, it is very clear that you're an apostate, or worse.

 

In general, if you tend to view things in a very black and white manner, you'll identify with McConkie. If you don't think that way, you're going to find Elder McConkie's writings lacking credibility because of their very black and white, authoritarian nature. Given what Joseph McConkie wrote in the Meridian article (and also from what I observed in taking a class from him decades ago), there seems to be a familial tendency to espouse very strict and narrow doctrinal beliefs and performances for Latter-day Saints according to the McConkie's understandings, and to characterize those who disagree with that viewpoint as being petty or immature spiritually or ignorant.

 

Just some observations about cause and effect when it comes to criticism of Elder McConkie. For me (and other members of the church who are evidently not that mature) I find it more productive generally to put his writings aside and instead concentrate on the scriptures and on the teachings of leaders of the church who are more adept in understanding the many nuances of experiences in this life that fall between the extremes of black and white.

[DBMormon]

I've personally found that I connect far better with certain of the brethren (with what they say) than others. Elder McConkie was not one that I connected with. Some quotes so far in this thread and in the Meridian article that stand out to me are:

 

 

 

I don't think anyone would disagree with the sentiment expressed above. It's one thing to disagree, but it's another thing to be mean-spirited and to make judgmental personal attacks. Those are often responded to in kind. Hence, I wonder why they couldn't understand that there would be personal attacks on Elder McConkie in light of statements such as the following that went beyond disagreeing with a practice and involved disparaging the character of those who believed in or engaged in such actions:

 

 

 

 

 

Followed by Joseph McConkie's observation that:

 

 

 

One does wonder whether maturity in being a member of the Church is judged by how well one conforms to the viewpoints and tone of Elder McConkie's writings.

 

I appreciated the admission by Joseph McConkie that Elder McConkie did not deal with grey areas very well. Unfortunately, since there is so much in this life that is grey in nature (and yes, other things are relatively black and white), the inability to deal with grey areas can be a significant weakness when it comes to understanding or making sense of things. As Joseph McConkie noted in the article, Mormon Doctrine comes across as very authoritative. That's very true. In doing so it does not give the reader any room to do much other than to agree or disagree with Elder McConkie. And when you disagree, it is very clear that you're an apostate, or worse.

 

In general, if you tend to view things in a very black and white manner, you'll identify with McConkie. If you don't think that way, you're going to find Elder McConkie's writings lacking credibility because of their very black and white, authoritarian nature. Given what Joseph McConkie wrote in the Meridian article (and also from what I observed in taking a class from him decades ago), there seems to be a familial tendency to espouse very strict and narrow doctrinal beliefs and performances for Latter-day Saints according to the McConkie's understandings, and to characterize those who disagree with that viewpoint as being petty or immature spiritually or ignorant.

 

Just some observations about cause and effect when it comes to criticism of Elder McConkie. For me (and other members of the church who are evidently not that mature) I find it more productive generally to put his writings aside and instead concentrate on the scriptures and on the teachings of leaders of the church who are more adept in understanding the many nuances of experiences in this life that fall between the extremes of black and white.

Great Post!!

[Duncan]

Why did Pres McKay originally ask BRM not to print MD again?  did he not like the cover art?

Why did Elder BH Roberts, Talmadge, and Widstoe disagree with Joseph Fielding Smiths beliefs on Evolution? 

 

It seems naive to assume since they did not take said disagreement to a public medium they are then sustaining the other persons opinions as truth.

 

Am I missing something?  So Quetzalcoatl is Christ or is that a false Doctrine?  is the earth 6000 years old or is that possibly a false doctrine?  IS interracial marriage a sin or is that teaching false Doctrine?   is blacks as less valiant true or a false Doctrine?  Were these leaders ex'ed?  if not does this validate their teachings as true?

 

 

I think for those particulars you'd have to consult Elder McConkie's bio, I have no idea.