mikegriffith1 Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 A few--not many, but just a few--changes were made to the first edition of the book, but the book is definitely worth reading. The first edition was about 97% accurate. I still have a copy.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 17 hours ago, rpn said: ......................................................... In the 1980's the church cooperated sectarian press to publish Encyclopedia of Mormonism. ............................ ......................... I think you meant "secular press," which is what Macmillan is. However, LDS scholars saw how well they did the Encyclopedia Judaica, and wanted the same for the LDS faith. Oddly enough, I was living in Jerusalem when the Encyclopedia Judaica was begun there (I had a friend who worked on it), and was living in Provo when the contract was signed and work begun on the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Neither encyclopedia was as professional as it could have been (the late Solomon Zeitlin was merciless in his critique of the Encyclopedia Judaica), but each represented a good start. 1
CV75 Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 21 hours ago, consiglieri said: Except for a few well-known outlier teachings, everything in Mormon Doctrine is still taught in current manuals. Yes, and they quote Mormon Doctrine's more enduring explanations. 21 hours ago, cinepro said: Sadly, even the Institute Manuals have some of the same serious problems as "Mormon Doctrine". Especially when it comes to evolution. Some may have serious problems with the basic doctrine of Creation and the origin of man, but that is to be expected. Some may have serious problems with the way the science is presented in the manuals and that is to be expected too. Fortunately, there are many ways outside the manuals for people to handle any serious problems they may have with them or with what they read from them, and any responsible student will recognize the role of the manuals in pointing to these methods.
cinepro Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 2 hours ago, mikegriffith1 said: A few--not many, but just a few--changes were made to the first edition of the book, but the book is definitely worth reading. The first edition was about 97% accurate. I still have a copy. Sorry, but the book's only value is as a historical artifact from the mid-20th century. Under no circumstances should it be read by anyone who is not equipped to discern the parts that are inaccurate (especially impressionable teenagers or students, or newer members). We are constantly hearing about LDS who have an orthodox faith that is too brittle to deal with the current state of Mormon studies, and scientific knowledge, and reading and believing Mormon Doctrine is one of the fastest ways to develop such faith. The tone and content of the entire book is a recipe for a future faith crisis. 3
omni Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 It's been awhile since I've read MD, was there anything specific that wasn't taught by at least some of the past prophets? I don't believe we was just making up doctrine out of whole cloth. 1
Bobbieaware Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 15 minutes ago, omni said: It's been awhile since I've read MD, was there anything specific that wasn't taught by at least some of the past prophets? I don't believe we was just making up doctrine out of whole cloth. Very good point! In spite of the fact that virtually everything found in Mormon Doctrine was previously taught by other Church leaders, it seems McConkie was singled out and made a whipping boy because of his no-nonsense persona and dogmatic delivery. 1
why me Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 At the end of the day, it is just a book written by a seventy with a poor title. And it is now history. Nothing to fuss about. However, the critics love to bring this book up every chance they get. I suppose it ranks above The Miracle of Forgiveness as the critics best book to bash the lds church. But it is just a book, nothing more.
why me Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 32 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Very good point! In spite of the fact that virtually everything found in Mormon Doctrine was previously taught by other Church leaders, it seems McConkie was singled out and made a whipping boy because of his no-nonsense persona and dogmatic delivery. I think that it had to do more with the title. It was a poor choice of words for a title and it gave the wrong impression that such information inside was mormon doctrine. 1
Bobbieaware Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, why me said: I think that it had to do more with the title. It was a poor choice of words for a title and it gave the wrong impression that such information inside was mormon doctrine. But is it not also true that the vast majority Mormon Doctrine was -- and still is -- basic and perfectly acceptable LDS doctrine? And after the first edition's more controversial entries were corrected and modified, was not the volume then rendered an even more accurate presentation of basic LDS beliefs? The following would be an interesting exercise: For those who have possession of a final edition of Mormon Docrtine, it would be interesting to pick through it to see If any of Its entries really are doctrinally unsound and/or inaccurate. In other words, instead of just talking about Mormon Doctrine being a doctrinal travesty, let's see if it can be amply demonstrated that it really was an erroneous presentation of LDS teachings and beliefs. Who's willing to put their money where their mouth is? Edited December 28, 2015 by Bobbieaware 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 3 hours ago, omni said: It's been awhile since I've read MD, was there anything specific that wasn't taught by at least some of the past prophets? I don't believe we was just making up doctrine out of whole cloth. Well, if you think that we need a Roman Catholic canon lawyer in the LDS scene, he's your man . . .
volgadon Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 On 26/12/2015 at 8:48 AM, consiglieri said: My understanding is that, even though Mormon Doctrine has gone the way of the dodo, much of it lives on in the Bible Dictionary which borrowed heavily from Mormon Doctrine. The Bible Dictionary being published by the Church, I expect it qualifies even under BCSpace's somewhat narrow view of what constitutes "doctrine." The Bible Dictionary is mostly taken from a Cambridge(?) Bible dictionary. 2
3DOP Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Well, if you think that we need a Roman Catholic canon lawyer in the LDS scene, he's your man . . . Canon law? What are you talking about? For an LDS (omni) to defend McConkie in some slight respect is for omni to like RC canon law? I am sure I am not following. I see "Roman Catholic" and am interested...as a Catholic. But it seems unconnected. I am listening before I go further.
Guest Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 It was an encyclopedic book written by one man...no man's knows that much. As such errors were to be and are expected.
Cold Steel Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 I always found Mormon Doctrine to be inadequate. I'd go there for answers to questions and found it went on and on about the things that were easy, but the topics needing answers were sparse. If you're going to write three paragraphs on any topic, you're probably not giving it enough thought. I'd look up things like "Sons of Perdition" or "Hell" and there would be almost nothing. But then I'd look up something brainless and it would go on for pages. When I really needed it, it let me down repeatedly. And he never attempted to be in the least objective about anything. Elder McConkie was rather a sad story, but I think towards the end of his life he developed a compassionate side of his personality that wasn't there in earlier years. That he was called to be an apostle is evidence to me that the Lord calls men to such positions. At one time he had much of the First Presidency and some of the other general authorities so ready to put a contract on him that if callings came from our leaders, he most likely would have been checking IDs at the Church Office Building rather than as an apostle. I don't say this with any vitriol, because he had a clear, concise black and white mind and we wouldn't have all the neat cross referencing resources we do without him. I would have loved to put him and Elder Spencer W. Kimball in a blender for ten minutes and see what came out. I saw his last testimony at Conference (it's on YouTube) and really thought he'd achieved some balance there at the end. Oh, and about the blender, that's SPENCER W. KIMBALL, not J. GOLDEN KIMBALL. Just wanted to be clear.
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 28, 2015 Author Posted December 28, 2015 What was the cause of Bruce R. McConkie's death? I could never find info on the reason online.
why me Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said: What was the cause of Bruce R. McConkie's death? I could never find info on the reason online. Throat cancer. Here is his last talk at general conference. He knew that he was dying when he gave the talk. He was very weak but knew if the lord wanted him to speak He would give him the strength to do so. Here is his last testimony: Unfortuntely, he seems to have become only known of his book, Mormon Doctrine. Such is life these days if the wrong people get hold of a legacy. He died two weeks after this talk was given. Edited December 28, 2015 by why me 1
Stargazer Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) On 12/26/2015 at 8:22 PM, Robert F. Smith said: HEY MODS, What is up with the forum software not allowing you to just cancel a not-yet-saved post?? I had started creating this post, quoting Robert, then changed my mind and then dropped out of the forum altogether. I come back tonight and try to answer some other post with a quote in another thread, and the forum software won't even acknowledge that I clicked the Quote link. Then I come back to this thread, and found that my post with Robert's quote is still active (and apparently what was holding me back from quoting a post tonight), and THEN IT WON'T LET ME JUST ABANDON THE POST!!!! I have to clear out the text, and the method of deleting a quote that I found does not work now!!! What the heck with this software? It's soft in the head, alright, Edited December 28, 2015 by Stargazer 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 5 hours ago, 3DOP said: Canon law? What are you talking about? For an LDS (omni) to defend McConkie in some slight respect is for omni to like RC canon law? I am sure I am not following. I see "Roman Catholic" and am interested...as a Catholic. But it seems unconnected. I am listening before I go further. I am speaking of the late Elder McConkie as being the closest thing to a canon lawyer that the LDS Church has seen, Rory. Some Mormons like that sort of thing.
Stargazer Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 38 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I am speaking of the late Elder McConkie as being the closest thing to a canon lawyer that the LDS Church has seen, Rory. Some Mormons like that sort of thing. And I'm not one of them.
Calm Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 7 hours ago, Stargazer said: HEY MODS, What is up with the forum software not allowing you to just cancel a not-yet-saved post?? I had started creating this post, quoting Robert, then changed my mind and then dropped out of the forum altogether. I come back tonight and try to answer some other post with a quote in another thread, and the forum software won't even acknowledge that I clicked the Quote link. Then I come back to this thread, and found that my post with Robert's quote is still active (and apparently what was holding me back from quoting a post tonight), and THEN IT WON'T LET ME JUST ABANDON THE POST!!!! I have to clear out the text, and the method of deleting a quote that I found does not work now!!! What the heck with this software? It's soft in the head, alright, Try refreshing the page! This sometimes resets things or me
Tacenda Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 17 hours ago, why me said: At the end of the day, it is just a book written by a seventy with a poor title. And it is now history. Nothing to fuss about. However, the critics love to bring this book up every chance they get. I suppose it ranks above The Miracle of Forgiveness as the critics best book to bash the lds church. But it is just a book, nothing more. A book that, changed or conditioned lives. So not just a book, just as The Miracle of Forgiveness. There were red flags to me and I didn't realize then, that my inner compass was working. 1
stemelbow Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 I live in a very old ward. A gentleman in the ward, who is elderly, brings his copy of MD every week, sits in the front corner of Gospel Doctrine and raises his hand as often as anyone else, often referring to MD and quoting from it to get his point across. It's treated by him and others as greater than scripture, even today. I don't think most in the ward have much idea concerning the problems, if there be problems, with the work. A couple have probably read it through, but most probably don't know much about it. In my mind sometimes some of the craziest things are entertained as truth in my ward GD class (like last week, a grandma telling the class that she felt she was sitting by the devil when she sat by her apostate daughter who let grandpa baptize the granddaughter). I think the mindset and the approach, the tone found in MD, which many might see as some of the major problems with the book, are pretty pervasive in our culture. 1
JAHS Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 9 hours ago, why me said: Throat cancer. Here is his last talk at general conference. He knew that he was dying when he gave the talk. He was very weak but knew if the lord wanted him to speak He would give him the strength to do so. Here is his last testimony: Unfortuntely, he seems to have become only known of his book, Mormon Doctrine. Such is life these days if the wrong people get hold of a legacy. He died two weeks after this talk was given. Here is an interesting story about his last talk and passing away: The "I Believe in Christ Legacy" by Jane P. Merrill (Sister Merrill attends the same ward as Amelia McConkie, the widow of Elder Bruce R. McConkie who passed away in 1985.] Recently in our Fast and Testimony meeting, we had the opportunity to hear Sister Amelia McConkie bear her testimony. As she began to speak, I felt strongly impressed to take notes, recognizing that it was a rare opportunity to hear a first hand account of Elder Bruce R. McConkie's last few weeks. After church I wrote up the account and then took it to Sister McConkie to make sure it was correct, and to get her approval. Sister McConkie's story: "In Relief Society today our closing song was 'I Believe in Christ.' Then, as we began our Fast and Testimony meeting, our opening song was 'I Believe in Christ.' This co-incidence made me think that perhaps it's time I share with you how we got this hymn. "Some 15 years ago, my husband Bruce R. McConkie was very ill. The doctor told us he had two months to live, at the most. However, Bruce felt he still had some things he wanted to do. The Brethren gave him a blessing and his family gathered to share their faith and prayers. He lived an additional fourteen months, although he was very ill much of that time. He never thought he wasn't going to get better. He told me time and time again that this was the Lord's test for him, and that he had enough faith in and of himself to be healed. "Early in February, on an overcast day much like today, I decided to make a pie to cheer him up, as he loved pie. While I was doing this he lay on the floor in our bedroom, which he often did. He had a pencil and paper in hand and was writing. Then he came into the kitchen where I was working and said, 'Do you want to hear what I'm going to talk about in Conference?' "The pie was almost finished and I wanted to get it in the oven, but I soon realized that you don't make pies while he's talking like this. So I stopped and sat down to listen. He read to me his talk, and I said, 'It's the most beautiful thing you've ever written, but how will you ever do it?' He was so ill and so weak. 'I don't know,' he answered, 'but I will.' "His doctor was so worried. 'You've got a dying man on your hands; you must not let him speak at conference. If he tries, he will collapse on nationwide television.' But I couldn't try to stop him. He was determined to do it and nothing could have stopped him. Our son said, 'I don't think there's anything Dad wanted to do more than preach that last sermon at Conference.' So our children fasted together, asking that their father would have the physical and emotional strength to fulfill his wish. "During the Saturday morning session of April 1985 General Conference, a thin Bruce R. McConkie took his place at the pulpit and despite his weakened condition, he bore majestic testimony to the truths so integral to his life and mission. He testified, 'I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears. But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God's Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.' (Excerpted from his Conference address) "The following Sunday Elder Packer visited him at home and gave him a blessing in which he told Bruce he should 'quit resisting the will of the Lord.' We both knew what he meant. At the conclusion, with tears running down his face, Bruce looked at me as I stood at the foot of the bed, and said, 'Amelia, do you know what he just did?' 'Yes,' I answered, 'he has sealed you unto death.' "That was so hard on Bruce. He wanted so much to live. But as I showed Elder Packer out, Bruce got up, folded the bedspread as he always did at night, got ready for bed, and got under the covers. Always before he would insist that I make the bed and he would lay on top of it, fully dressed. But this was his way of saying to the Lord, 'I am bowing to your will.' He passed away a short time later." What a great blessing to have the beautiful hymn, "I Believe In Christ", taken from his testimony. As recorded and written by Jane P. Merrill September 6, 1998 2
Tacenda Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: I live in a very old ward. A gentleman in the ward, who is elderly, brings his copy of MD every week, sits in the front corner of Gospel Doctrine and raises his hand as often as anyone else, often referring to MD and quoting from it to get his point across. It's treated by him and others as greater than scripture, even today. I don't think most in the ward have much idea concerning the problems, if there be problems, with the work. A couple have probably read it through, but most probably don't know much about it. In my mind sometimes some of the craziest things are entertained as truth in my ward GD class (like last week, a grandma telling the class that she felt she was sitting by the devil when she sat by her apostate daughter who let grandpa baptize the granddaughter). I think the mindset and the approach, the tone found in MD, which many might see as some of the major problems with the book, are pretty pervasive in our culture. In RS yesterday, a class member said she thought the light went out of someone's eyes, when they quit belief. She said his eyes were dark. This is crazy IMO. If that's the case I know a certain GA that has dark eyes. Also, Saturday my MIL said that those that were more righteous in the pre-existence were born in the church. She has many beliefs that may or may not have been taken from MD. I'd have to read it thoroughly to know. My husband brought up racism, he had lived in a home with the belief that blacks were cursed. And was coming from a place that when he was on a mission in the deep south, they were unable to even teach black families or maybe it was give the PH to them. He was feeling like that was now not the truth. He told my MIL about the church disavowing that doctrine in the church essays, she was a little taken aback. Edited December 28, 2015 by Tacenda
Zakuska Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 On 12/26/2015 at 11:27 AM, JAHS said: From the topic article: "The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black servitude in the Territory of Utah." This is why I believe it was at least prudent doctrine in order for the Church to survive in the secular world. "After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban." "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." The article never says that the blacks not having the priesthood was wrong; it only disavows some of the reasons people gave behind its existence. Do you have any other doctrines where you believe all fifteen were wrong about? It wouldn't be just 15. it would include prior unique members of the q15 as well. Race is an intresting topic when it comes to the scriptures. Where did they all come from and how did they all survive the great flood if only 8 souls were saved.
Recommended Posts