Bruce R Mcconkie And The Criticism He Receives

[DBMormon]

"I don't believe God ever chose any man to hold an office in His Church, that he might shine for his own sake, or because he was any better, in a general way, than his brethren around him. I believe there are just as good men down in the ranks as those who hold high positions. There are men serving as bishops, as high counselors, as stake presidents, who would honor the apostleship if called to it. The Lord does not give men and women high office because they are His pets or favorites, or because He wishes to honor them or their families above the rest of the people. Rather is it because He can use them in those places better than anywhere else, for the general good. He needs bishops as well as apostles. He needs good, strong men out on the frontier as presidents of stakes. All cannot be in the same place; where a man is needed, there is his proper place, and we must go where we are sent, and come when we are called."

Loved the quote in your signature

[canard78]

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

 

I appreciated this post DB.

 

I reach a similar conclusion to you. I'm of the view that there has been very little genuine revelation since the days of Joseph Smith. Lots of personal interpretation, opinions and assumptions leading to embedded attitudes and practices.

 

I also have a lot of appreciation for our leaders. I am convinced that they are sincere and genuine and trying to lead the organisation in a positive way and aim to prepare talks/articles/material/programs that uplift and support faith.

 

But I feel very comfortable disagreeing with certain perspectives and approaches. I believe some things that are being emphasised at the moment to be no more "revealed" than the explanations for the priesthood (or the ban itself) or the gut-wrenching attitudes to inter-racial marriage.

 

There are some challenging implications to that conclusion. It also leads to a heavy dose of tongue-biting in church lessons.

[DBMormon]

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.

 

Cal, All I am saying is that when anyone of us "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."  <----- do this  we often build barriers to faith that others will stumble over.

[Stone holm]

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

Have you read David O. McKay and The Rise of Modern Mormonism, I wouldn't say they were tickled pink about it. But there was great aversion to criticizing to a General Authority in public.

[Duncan]

Have you read David O. McKay and The Rise of Modern Mormonism, I wouldn't say they were tickled pink about it. But there was great aversion to criticizing to a General Authority in public.

 

 

i have read it and also Elder McConkie's bio several times but I agree with you assesment, they weren't happy in the least but it's kind of out there now so how do you deal with it

[Stone holm]

i have read it and also Elder McConkie's bio several times but I agree with you assesment, they weren't happy in the least but it's kind of out there now so how do you deal with it

Not sure. How they dealt with it is Priesthood Correlation which in turn led to a steady milk based diet until they had a Swedish GA go inactive for lack of a solid knowledge, so now we are carefully trying to dispense meat in a coherent small dose fashion. Meanwhile people are throwing BY under the bus and sweeping BRM under the rug. Am sure he was a sweet man, but GAs who publish extensively are judged by their writings, not on how sweet they were in person. There should be a new motto for Mormon GAs, "No success as a person on a personal basis, can compensate for a reckless pen."

[cinepro]

Our Sunday School lesson today, on The Fall, had the teacher discuss Elder McConkie's "Three Pillars of Eternity":

 

1. The Creation

2. The Fall

3. The Atonement.

 

I offered to the person sitting next to me that Elder McConkie originally had a fourth "Pillar of Eternity", which was:

 

4. The Birth of Bruce R. McConkie

 

Their laugh was heard all over the classroom, to their embarrassment

Edited February 2, 2014 by cinepro

[teddyaware]

Our Sunday School lesson today, on The Fall, had the teacher discuss Elder McConkie's "Three Pillars of Eternity":

 

1. The Creation

2. The Fall

3. The Atonement.

 

I offered to the person sitting next to me that Elder McConkie originally had a fourth "Pillar of Eternity", which was:

 

4. The Birth of Bruce R. McConkie

 

Their laugh was heard all over the classroom, to their embarrassment

What a blast it is using the Lord's anointed for those zinger one liners! See if you can come up with one equally as funny, this time using another apostle as the butt of the joke...

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

He is criticized in and out of the Church. When his son Joseph Fielding McConkie was mission president in Scotland evangelicals would find out he was there and damn him to the deepest depths of hell because he was the son of the guy who taught that we must engage in good works in addition to the even more important grace of Christ. I'd heard this from a couple different sources.

 

Having said that, I don't know of a recent statement by his family on this. Even people in the Church criticize him and usually they do so on the basis of very little true understanding of what Elder McConkie was like. I even did so at one point. Early on in my mission I had another elder offer me a McConkie talk tape to listen to and I turned it down saying, "I don't really like how  he's all hellfire and damnation." But once I actually started reading his stuff I saw he wasn't really like that. The fact that he may have said something now and then that wasn't totally 100% accurate doesn't stop him from being one of the great doctrinal teachers of this dispensation. We already know not to expect perfection from other mortals.

I know it is not popular, but I love the Man. His final address just a few days before he died changed my life. I carry a copy in my briefcase ( well did before the advent of the IPAD) every Sunday.

[rameumptom]

Elder McConkie opened himself up to much criticism by making himself a lightning rod.  When he spoke or wrote, he did so in an authoritative voice, even in areas of conjecture.  His Seven Deadly Heresies speech is an example of his daring others to disagree with him on issues like evolution.  It would be one thing if he were to have said that he personally does not believe in evolution, but to insist that it was a heresy and damnable does not give much wiggle room for anyone else to have a conversation regarding it.

 

If he is criticized, it is because he called his key tome: Mormon Doctrine, and not "My Views on Mormon Doctrine."  Again, he opened himself up to the ridicule that some of his authoritative sounding statements made. He insisted that the Creation was only a few thousand years, not billions. He insisted that blacks would not receive the priesthood until the Millennium, and until 1978 supported many of the theories for the ban.  When we find any person, including a General Authority, move away from the clear and exact doctrine, and insist on other things they believe in being doctrine also, then they open the door for such attacks.  His teachings held strong sway in the Church for several decades, but like dominoes, they are quickly falling down.  As was common in his time, most GAs insisted on obedience being the "first law of heaven", even though I've never seen that written in scripture anywhere.  Meanwhile, Grace took a back seat back then, even though the Book of Mormon gives us a very detailed understanding of grace.

 

That said, where he spoke on the core doctrines, he was usually spot on.  And I do believe hiim to have been a special witness of Jesus Christ.

[Stone holm]

Elder McConkie opened himself up to much criticism by making himself a lightning rod.  When he spoke or wrote, he did so in an authoritative voice, even in areas of conjecture.  His Seven Deadly Heresies speech is an example of his daring others to disagree with him on issues like evolution.  It would be one thing if he were to have said that he personally does not believe in evolution, but to insist that it was a heresy and damnable does not give much wiggle room for anyone else to have a conversation regarding it.

 

If he is criticized, it is because he called his key tome: Mormon Doctrine, and not "My Views on Mormon Doctrine."  Again, he opened himself up to the ridicule that some of his authoritative sounding statements made. He insisted that the Creation was only a few thousand years, not billions. He insisted that blacks would not receive the priesthood until the Millennium, and until 1978 supported many of the theories for the ban.  When we find any person, including a General Authority, move away from the clear and exact doctrine, and insist on other things they believe in being doctrine also, then they open the door for such attacks.  His teachings held strong sway in the Church for several decades, but like dominoes, they are quickly falling down.  As was common in his time, most GAs insisted on obedience being the "first law of heaven", even though I've never seen that written in scripture anywhere.  Meanwhile, Grace took a back seat back then, even though the Book of Mormon gives us a very detailed understanding of grace.

 

That said, where he spoke on the core doctrines, he was usually spot on.  And I do believe hiim to have been a special witness of Jesus Christ.

I have no problem with his being a beloved Apostle, or even his writing Mormon Doctrine, although a less authoritative title like Mormon Teachings would have been better. But his writings are fair game for criticism as are his father in laws. They were both excellent folklorists who had over literalist brains. It was definitely not Mormonism's finest era.

[Duncan]

if Elder McConkie or President Joseph Fielding Smith weren't around who else was there since what like 1946 who was a scholar in the General Authorities? It just seems to me that people don't like what they said but who was the alternative?

[Stone holm]

if Elder McConkie or President Joseph Fielding Smith weren't around who else was there since what like 1946 who was a scholar in the General Authorities? It just seems to me that people don't like what they said but who was the alternative?

Not sure what you are asking? Are you saying there were only young Earth literalists who were racially biased in the Church?

[Storm Rider]

I am not sure that there was a need for an alternative, but rather a need for a different tone in speaking.  When you speak as if what you say is the absolute truth others tend to expect that you are right. You set an expectation of absoluteness.  Unfortunately, when it is determined that you did not really know some things with absolutely correctness or clarity it affects the perspective of others for what you have said in total.

 

I have never perceived BRM as a scholar, but as a theologian. He was the one who chose to write Mormon Doctrine.  He was not asked to write such a book on behalf of the Brethren, but chose to write it; is this not accurate?  

 

We have always talked in our family about the reality that we create our own hell; it remains a valid principle in this situation. 

[Duncan]

Not sure what you are asking? Are you saying there were only young Earth literalists who were racially biased in the Church?

 

 

who among the brethren was a theologian, if people didn't like what Elder McConkie and Pres. Smith were saying then who did they like from that time-40's to 80's.?

 

Pres. Lee?

Edited February 4, 2014 by Duncan

[Stone holm]

who among the brethren was a theologian, if people didn't like what Elder McConkie and Pres. Smith were saying then who did they like from that time-40's to 80's.?

 

Pres. Lee?

 

Nope, let's go with LeGrand Richards, Spencer W. Kimball, Hugh B. Brown ... having a photographic memory of Scriptural verses does not a theologian make. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Elder McConkie opened himself up to much criticism by making himself a lightning rod.

As does anyone who takes a stand based upon belief.

[cinepro]

who among the brethren was a theologian, if people didn't like what Elder McConkie and Pres. Smith were saying then who did they like from that time-40's to 80's.?

 

Pres. Lee?

LDS don't look for "theologians". We look for leaders (and other speakers) who can explain things to us clearly or in an entertaining manner. From what I can tell, during that period other popular leaders (based on their books and talks) were Alvin R. Dyer, Legrand Richards, and of course Paul Dunn.  James E. Talmage and John A. Widstoe had passed away years before, but I think their writings were still popular for decades after their death (and obviously Talmage's "Jesus the Christ" and "Articles of Faith" were bedrock LDS books).

[Stone holm]

LDS don't look for "theologians". We look for leaders (and other speakers) who can explain things to us clearly or in an entertaining manner. From what I can tell, during that period other popular leaders (based on their books and talks) were Alvin R. Dyer, Legrand Richards, and of course Paul Dunn.  James E. Talmage and John A. Widstoe had passed away years before, but I think their writings were still popular for decades after their death (and obviously Talmage's "Jesus the Christ" and "Articles of Faith" were bedrock LDS books).

How are we defining theologian here?

[cinepro]

How are we defining theologian here?

 

To me, a "theologian" is someone who discusses "God" and religion from an analytical or philosophical point of view.  Theology would involve asking uncomfortable questions, or questions we might not know the answer to on the assumption that the discussion itself is worthwhile pursuit.

 

LDS on the other hand eschew uncomfortable or unanswered questions.  We want "Answers to Gospel Questions" that are easy and clear, even if they might not be right.

[Storm Rider]

LDS don't look for "theologians". We look for leaders (and other speakers) who can explain things to us clearly or in an entertaining manner. From what I can tell, during that period other popular leaders (based on their books and talks) were Alvin R. Dyer, Legrand Richards, and of course Paul Dunn.  James E. Talmage and John A. Widstoe had passed away years before, but I think their writings were still popular for decades after their death (and obviously Talmage's "Jesus the Christ" and "Articles of Faith" were bedrock LDS books).

 

Others that comes immediately to mind are Sterling W. Sill, Hugh B. Brown, and Hugh Nibley, I suspect there are several more, but I cannot think of them off the top of my head.

[cinepro]

Others that comes immediately to mind are Sterling W. Sill, Hugh B. Brown, and Hugh Nibley, I suspect there are several more, but I cannot think of them off the top of my head.

 

I agree, although Nibley wasn't a GA and Duncan originally asked "who among the brethren?"

 

The Church would probably be a different place if Hugh B. Brown had gained the prominence that Elder McConkie had.

[Duncan]

I agree, although Nibley wasn't a GA and Duncan originally asked "who among the brethren?"

 

The Church would probably be a different place if Hugh B. Brown had gained the prominence that Elder McConkie had.

 

 

plus he is easier to imitate!!!! we used to listen to Pres. Brown talk tapes in the field and imitate his voice! hahha!

[Stone holm]

To me, a "theologian" is someone who discusses "God" and religion from an analytical or philosophical point of view.  Theology would involve asking uncomfortable questions, or questions we might not know the answer to on the assumption that the discussion itself is worthwhile pursuit.

 

LDS on the other hand eschew uncomfortable or unanswered questions.  We want "Answers to Gospel Questions" that are easy and clear, even if they might not be right.

 

Okay...thanks....my hesitation with Bruce R. McConkie and Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith have primarily to do with their literalism when it comes to Bible vs Science, Race, and their tendency to put forth opinions based on a black and white perspective of our culture.  When they came to actual important core doctrine they were inspired -- but they didn't stick to the core beliefs in their writings and when they decided to wing it on their own they tended to get into trouble.  I am reminded of the motto of a local Maple Syrup producer, "Frequently wrong, but never in doubt."

[jwhitlock]

 

LDS on the other hand eschew uncomfortable or unanswered questions.  We want "Answers to Gospel Questions" that are easy and clear, even if they might not be right.

 

Speak for yourself. While there are LDS who think this way, there are also many others who do not.