Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine

[thesometimesaint]

It is of note that despite David O. McKay's urging no further publication of Mormon Doctrine Bruce R. McConkie did anyway.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

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.    

Tacenda, earlier in this thread, I said that I had read this book and it was pretty good.  Back then, it was pretty good because it confirmed everything that I was brought up with.  Like the thread where keeping singles active, I was very much affected by what I thought was doctrine after I got into my twenties.  For those who may think that leaving the church was easy..no,,it was not.  But to leave with what I thought was truth...and for the essays to clarify or make change..it has a different kind of hurt altogether.  My grandmother was positive that the reason my aunt died was because her daughter married a black man.  Although it was cancer, grandma was convinced.  I look back and see that maybe my generation and the one after can see and make the change not just in policy, but in our hearts.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Jeanne

[why me]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.    

 The light going out of someone's eyes does not mean that the person had darker eyes. What it does mean it that the shine went out or the eyes became 'dull' looking.

The church disavowed the reasoning decades ago. The essay just made it easier for people to read. I can not undertand why anyone would still cling to such doctrine and not know that it has been disavowed.

 

 

 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, why me said:

 

She said dark.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, why me said:

 

CFR the church disavowed the reasoning years ago.

[3DOP]

11 hours 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.

Thanks for the reply Robert. I will try to explain why I am still confused.

I don't know a lot about canon law but I would not expect some kind of uniformity of behavior or even unanimity of opinion among those who have become experts (lawyers). I thought canon lawyers were most often priests who were also qualified to represent parties in ecclesiastical courts or to give advice on questions of canon law. It would seem odd, but I can't see any problem with it if Elder McConkie or other Mormons would like "that sort of thing". Canon lawyers don't legislate. Most undoubtedly disagree with some laws. They are neither infallible nor irreformable. As such, it is okay to disagree, but not okay to disobey. I think all would agree on that. The law exists in large part to outline procedures and to offer protections for those (seldom lay people) who have been censured by church authorities. It also seems important to have a legal code available to show bishops, abbots or others in authority what they may or not do about someone who they think has committed an offense against church law in their jurisdiction.

Maybe you see canon lawyers as a threat to the liberty of the people of the church? Hardly. Some may act for the prosecution while others act as defense advocates. I have the latest Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II. I don't think anyone should have any problem with a church that governs itself by outlining the rights, privileges, and duties of its "citizens". The new code is also available online: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

It is boring reading, but impressive in scope, in my opinion.

Regards,

Rory

 

 

 

[cinepro]

23 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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?

 

 

Me.

What's Wrong With "Mormon Doctrine"?

 

For example...

Birth Control

(Quoting President Joseph F. Smith:) : “I regret, I think it is a crying evil, that there should exist a sentiment or a feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. I think that is a crime wherever it occurs, where husband and wife are in possession of health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity. I believe that where people undertake to curtail or prevent the birth of their children that they are going to reap disappointment by and by. I have no hesitancy in saying that I believe this is one of the greatest crimes of the world today, this evil practice.” (Rel. Soc. Mag., vol. 4, p. 318.)

Cain

As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed and told that “the earth” would not thereafter yield him its abundance as previously. In addition he became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan. The Lord placed on Cain a mark of a dark skin, and he became the ancestor of the black race.

Caste System

…
However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. (Gen. 4; Moses 5.)

The whole text is available here for your perusal.

https://archive.org/details/MormonDoctrine

 

Edited December 28, 2015 by cinepro

[TheSkepticChristian]

29 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Me.

What's Wrong With "Mormon Doctrine"?

The First edition of Mormon Doctrine also says

Quote

It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church

I agree with that. I add that the entire mainstream Christianity is the great and abominable, especially the Evangelical churches. 

Except the anglican church, I like that one. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Zakuska said:

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.

I was responding to Consiglieri who was claiming an entire group of 15 apostles were all later proven wrong on more than one particular doctrine.
I am sure there have been "prior unique members" who did not agree with the rest on certain issues, but that's why we have 15 who must all agree to support doctrines or new policies to make sure some rogue Apostle does not introduce new incorrect doctrines.
It is believed that the black race came through Noah's son Ham who married Egyptus a descendant of Cain. 

[why me]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

She said dark.

she meant that the light has gone from the eyes, so they become dark. Not that there was a change of eye color. It was figurative...sort of like losing the spirit.

[why me]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

CFR the church disavowed the reasoning years ago.

When was the last time you heard it taught in RS or Sunday School from a church manual? Or heard it in a talk? I haven't. Even in the seventies it was never taught in the manuals. Only members sounding off about it but no where was I taught it. The lds church officially disavowed it in 2013. But it did so long ago, probably as far back as 1978.

[Bobbieaware]

20 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Me.

What's Wrong With "Mormon Doctrine"?

 

For example...

 

 

The whole text is available here for your perusal.

https://archive.org/details/MormonDoctrine

 

Thanks. I read the article.

So because Elder McConkie believed in and accepted the plain meaning of the LDS scriptures he was guilty of teachings false LDS doctrine? According to the author's take, it would seem the only way Elder McConkie could have taught true LDS doctrine would have been if he had repudiated the plain meaning of much of the content of the LDS Standard Works. Therefore, the author believes Elder McConkie's fault is found in daring to believe in the truthfulness and reliability of the LDS scriptures before believing in the secular knowledge of men.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Thanks. I read the article.

So because Elder McConkie believed in and accepted the plain meaning of the LDS scriptures he was guilty of teachings false LDS doctrine? According to the author's take, it would seem the only way Elder McConkie could have taught true LDS doctrine would have been if he had repudiated the plain meaning of much of the content of the LDS Standard Works. Therefore, the author believes Elder McConkie's fault is found in daring to believe in the truthfulness and reliability of the LDS scriptures before believing in the secular knowledge of men.

Yes. Sometimes the "plain meaning" is incorrect (such as the popular interpretation of the Curse of Cain being related to black people). 

It's not that Elder McConkie's beliefs are found lacking in comparison to "secular knowledge" (although that certainly is the case in many cases), but that his beliefs were contradictory to the current teachings of LDS Church leaders on some subjects (the origin of the priesthood ban), as well as his certainty on issues about which modern apologists insist there is great uncertainty (the scope of Noah's flood,  the American Indians have a "dominant lineage" from the Book of Mormon, the role of organic evolution in the creation, and so on).

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Yes. Sometimes the "plain meaning" is incorrect (such as the popular interpretation of the Curse of Cain being related to black people). 

It's not that Elder McConkie's beliefs are found lacking in comparison to "secular knowledge" (although that certainly is the case in many cases), but that his beliefs were contradictory to the current teachings of LDS Church leaders on some subjects (the origin of the priesthood ban), as well as his certainty on issues about which modern apologists insist there is great uncertainty (the scope of Noah's flood,  the American Indians have a "dominant lineage" from the Book of Mormon, the role of organic evolution in the creation, and so on).

Duplicate post

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

Just now, Bobbieaware said:

For starters, the position of the present-day Church leaders (if the recent essay on the subject is to be believed) is that a powerful revelation from God was given BEFORE the priesthood ban was lifted, thereby validating the previous existence of the ban (either that or the leaders who claimed to have simultaneously received that powerful revelation are liars)  The only thing the leaders have disavowed (a word which has varying shades of intensity of meaning) is that the past proffered reasons for the ban were disavowed, not the ban itself. And are you aware of the fact that in the field of law many points of evidence which at some point are disavowed are ultimately 'reavowed' (to coin a word) when more clarifying and corroborating information comes forth?

i hope you will excuse me if I, like McConkie, choose to believe the leaders of the Church are not liars and that they really did receive a powerful revelation declaring that the promised time for the ban to be lifted had come.

 

 

 

 

[cinepro]

49 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

The issue isn't the revelation.  The problem is that Mormon Doctrine clearly puts forth discredited theories regarding the origin of black people.  There's a lot of other stuff people might argue with (scope of Noah's flood, location of Hill Cumorah, the role of organic evolution in the creation process etc.), but the idea that black people have dark skin because of Cain's curse (and were not eligible for the Priesthood until 1978 because of Cain's curse) is a deal breaker.  That alone should be enough for anyone in 2015 to recognize that the book only serves as a historical artifact offering insight into the mind of a very orthodox Church leader from the mid-20th century.  Under no circumstances should the book be used as a reference or teaching tool, regardless of how eloquently and benignly the other doctrines are taught.

 

I mean, seriously...

CASTE SYSTEM

However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. (Gen. 4; Moses 5.)

Edited December 29, 2015 by cinepro

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

The issue isn't the revelation.  The problem is that Mormon Doctrine clearly puts forth discredited theories regarding the origin of black people.  There's a lot of other stuff people might argue with (scope of Noah's flood, location of Hill Cumorah, the role of organic evolution in the creation process etc.), but the idea that black people have dark skin because of Cain's curse (and were not eligible for the Priesthood until 1978 because of Cain's curse) is a deal breaker.  That alone should be enough for anyone in 2015 to recognize that the book only serves as a historical artifact offering insight into the mind of a very orthodox Church leader from the mid-20th century.  Under no circumstances should the book be used as a reference or teaching tool, regardless of how eloquently and benignly the other doctrines are taught.

 

I mean, seriously...

 

 

Agreed.  Any book with this nonsense in it should  be discarded.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Agreed.  Any book with this nonsense in it should  be discarded.

You mean kind of like this?

Quote

"We [the First Presidency of the church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."^[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)

[salgare]

Rory,

Very interesting ... "canon lawyers" is new to me.

The law exists in large part to outline procedures and to offer protections for those (seldom lay people) who have been censured by church authorities.

It seems in the Mormon world it is just the opposite. Seldom would non-lay people have any need for canon layer.  It is the lay person who finds themselves in Church Courts and in need of a unified law which they could turn to for their own defense.

 

[salgare]

Assuming this wiki is accurate, there is some interesting information here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_%28book%29

For example, three editions, the infamous first (1958), which upon a review assigned to Mark E Petersen:

"Apostle Mark E. Petersen "gave McKay an oral report in which he recommended 1,067 corrections" to the book"

These were mostly not issues with doctrine but with "tone".

Six years later, and the 1067 changes in the second edition comes out.

It was in 1978 that the third edition came out, with the only change dealing with the priesthood ban.

Another interesting quote from the wiki:

"Citing poor sales, Deseret Book opted in 2010 to cease printing Mormon Doctrine.^[6] Despite Deseret Book's claim that the decision was based on declining sales, some observers opined that the move was due to the book's uncompromising presentation of controversial Mormon ideas from which the church is attempting to distance itself.^[7] Aaron Shafovaloff of the blog Mormon Coffee stated that the book's Amazon.com sales rank was far higher than many other Mormon titles that are still in print.^[8] A story on KUTV reported that local Salt Lake City booksellers reported consistently strong sales of the book.^[9]"

 

[consiglieri]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You mean kind of like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)

I guess we see what kind of authority the First Presidency wielded when push came to shove.

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, why me said:

she meant that the light has gone from the eyes, so they become dark. Not that there was a change of eye color. It was figurative...sort of like losing the spirit.

Nope, she didn't say eye color, just dark.  Try looking in each of the member's eye next time you go to church.  The sparkly eyed ones are usually the happy ones.  Everyone has that spark when they're smiling and happy.  Eyes can be a window to the soul, but just because that spark isn't there, doesn't mean they've lost the spirit.  

Edited December 29, 2015 by Tacenda

[salgare]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Nope, she didn't say eye color, just dark.  Try looking in each of the member's eye next time you go to church.  The sparkly eyed ones are usually the happy ones.  Everyone has that spark when they're smiling and happy.  Eyes can be a window to the soul, but just because that spark isn't there, doesn't mean they've lost the spirit.  

I think it's innocence that provides that sparkle ... just back form a visit with three of my six grandchildren ... talk about sparkle in the eyes ... and all that energy.

Life seems  to be an eye sparkle sucker.

[why me]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I guess we see what kind of authority the First Presidency wielded when push came to shove.

And of course, that would be a good thing. Not everyone is following what the GAs say. At the end of the day, we all have free agency and we are free to do what we want to do. So much for the morgbot connotation that the critics often give to active members.

[why me]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Nope, she didn't say eye color, just dark.  Try looking in each of the member's eye next time you go to church.  The sparkly eyed ones are usually the happy ones.  Everyone has that spark when they're smiling and happy.  Eyes can be a window to the soul, but just because that spark isn't there, doesn't mean they've lost the spirit.  

True. But some do lose that spark and maybe this was one example of it. What you said above is what I have been saying to you all along.