Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine

[why me]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You mean kind of like this?

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

I don't think that the critics will place such a quotation into their mindset. It has no benefit for them and their belief system. They will continue to imply that the church supported the book. McConkie should have listened to the leadership but he didn't and we now see the mess he made.

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, why me said:

I don't think that the critics will place such a quotation into their mindset. It has no benefit for them and their belief system. They will continue to imply that the church supported the book. McConkie should have listened to the leadership but he didn't and we now see the mess he made.

I once had the opportunity to hear him speak at a Stake Conference during the one year of my life I "lived" in Salt Lake. 

I got to shake his hand.  He was bigger than life.  His spirit was on fire, he spoke boldly and directly and with precision. That Western twang gave every sentence a commanding and authoritative edge. His enunciation was as clear as a bell.  I don't think I have ever met a more charismatic individual.

He received his revelations and constructed his mini-kingdom as we must ourselves.

My mini-kingdom is not exactly the same as his, but why should it be? 

[VideoGameJunkie]

On 12/26/2015 at 10:07 PM, Stargazer said:

Thanks for that.  Clarifies things greatly.

By the way, I didn't leave anything out, I just didn't read the entire thing.  I am guilty of reading a quote from it which I found elsewhere and didn't go far enough to get the entire context.  The quote I read seemed to cover the base.

I don't know why the site is making me quote Stargazers post, but whatever. I first heard about McConkie by watching a video on YouTube of his talk called Celestial Marriage. Youtube it.

[salgare]

I went to his funeral at the tabernacle, does that count?

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, why me said:

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.

But one would hope that a Seventy who so flagrantly defied the wishes of the President would suffer some consequence.

Not be promoted to Apostle.

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, why me said:

I don't think that the critics will place such a quotation into their mindset. It has no benefit for them and their belief system. They will continue to imply that the church supported the book. McConkie should have listened to the leadership but he didn't and we now see the mess he made.

The Church did support the book.

The Church was faced squarely with the decision of whether to publicly denounce the book, but decided not to because they didn't want to expose Elder McConkie to embarrassment.

The fact he was the son-in-law of Joseph Fielding Smith played no part in the decision.

And the fact Elder McConkie had no compunction about exposing others to embarrassment is just extra irony-icing on the cake.

[salgare]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

But one would hope that a Seventy who so flagrantly defied the wishes of the President would suffer some consequence.

Not be promoted to Apostle.

Whats in a family name?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/28/2015 at 1:54 PM, 3DOP said:

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

That is just the problem, Rory.

Most LDS members feel uncomfortable with systematic, codified Church law.  We tend to be happier with our open Canon of Scripture, and continuing revelation and inspiration.  Some members feel certain that the LDS Church has been in the throes of change since day one of the Restoration, and that this gives it survival value.  Others want to set down in stone what Mormonism stands for -- they want secure answers, and Elder McConkie gave that to them, albeit in a very flawed manner.

[RevTestament]

On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 3:43 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

Is this book a must read for Mormons? I read the first version had controversy from the prophet when he released it. Should I track down a copy?

I can think of much better uses of my time. It is usually correct as a reference book, but I strongly believe it is sometimes "incorrect" although it usually mimics teachings of various leaders.

[thesometimesaint]

On 12/30/2015 at 4:31 PM, consiglieri said:

But one would hope that a Seventy who so flagrantly defied the wishes of the President would suffer some consequence.

Not be promoted to Apostle.

Peter(Simon bar Jonah) certainly had some unusual ideas. But Christ went and made him an Apostle anyway.

[Thinking]

When I went on my mission in 1982, there was a list of books a missionary was allowed to bring on the mission. Mormon Doctrine was one of them. It was customary for the bishop of my ward to give a copy to each departing missionary. I still have mine.

[thesometimesaint]

We put our son on a Mission in 2000. Definitely not one of the books we gave him.

Edited January 3, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[3DOP]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is just the problem, Rory.

Most LDS members feel uncomfortable with systematic, codified Church law.  We tend to be happier with our open Canon of Scripture, and continuing revelation and inspiration.  Some members feel certain that the LDS Church has been in the throes of change since day one of the Restoration, and that this gives it survival value.  Others want to set down in stone what Mormonism stands for -- they want secure answers, and Elder McConkie gave that to them, albeit in a very flawed manner.

Thank you for the clarification, Robert.

I think I understand how LDS might perceive Catholic canon law to be an imposing rule of law that reflects unchanging teachings of a faith that denies progress in its teaching. It follows according to an understandable mistake that Mormons make when they hear us say that we have a "closed canon". This has been discussed before, and since I am belaboring another point already, I'll refrain from commenting on that. I will try below to explain how I can't see a connection between our canon law and our closed canon of revelation, and your presumed lack of canon law and your open canon of revelation.

It is true that Catholic Canon law necessarily takes into consideration the current teachings of the Catholic faith. But it has to do with "living the life" of the Church's teachings. Even with regards to defined teachings, rules of conduct that reflect those teachings may be changed according to the will of lawful government. For instance, the law which gives the age at which persons can be lawfully married in the Catholic Church is subject to change according to fallible, but hopefully prudential judgment. Surely no one can suspect such a necessary decision to belong exclusively to organizations which have a "closed canon" of teachings. Even if teachings change, there are always necessary rules if an organization is to function properly in the present. Organization itself implies rules of law and order. The Catholic Code of 1917 was updated in 1983 which reflects the fact that canon law is under constant revision in church government, just as they are in civil government, varying with different times and new circumstances.

I do not see how a code of canon law, which might be easier understood as "rules for behavior" can be avoided. In any church government, whether written or not, whether there is an open or closed canon of revelation, someone is going to have to decide the ages at which persons may marry, and have access to other ordinances and offices. In the same sense as Catholics, the Restoration Church, every church, and indeed, every institution, has a "code of canon law" that is revisable according to the will of the lawful governing body of the church or institution. 

I am afraid that my continual pursuit of an innocent mention of canon law might seem to most Mormons as unnecessary at best, and likely a distraction from the main question of the thread. Even I now understand why you think Elder McConkie, well-meaning as he may have been, was too dogmatic perhaps, for a church with an open canon. Your point is clear. I now see what you were driving at. But it appears to me he wasn't writing canon law. He was making his Summa Theologica.

I am writing this for you and a few others who might have interest in a better understanding of the Catholic faith. Unless it can be demonstrated that oral law is always preferable to written law, I hope that you and a few others could give consideration to my suggestion that there is nothing sinister or closed minded about the concept of "canon law" properly understood. Everyone everywhere is subject to "canon laws" which will always be adjusted in accord with the beliefs and goals that govern one as a member of a family, a labor union, a credit union, a political party, or any indeed any organization, civil or religious. I will be content to let the matter drop, Robert, and assure you of my continuing esteem if you are not inclined to comment further. I do appreciate the patience with me for any who have followed my tangent thus far.

Thanks for your consideration.

Rory

 

   

 

 

 

ost Catholics, including myself, give little thought to canon law, even though many of us are interested in church teachings and how they have been growing through the centuries.

 

[salgare]

Rory,

Thank you for your thoughts on this.  When I first saw your post my mind shot to the rash of excommunications over the last five years or so.  With the Church firmly declaring all judgments of a members actions are by local leaders.  With the likes of a once more or less secrete SCMC and evidences of top down pressures, on top of the critics derogatory but very true concepts of  "Local Leadership Roulette"  there seems to me to be a very serious lack in the Church for some kind of centralized and global set of rules.  The current system, for punishment, is wrong in so many ways.

Edited January 3, 2016 by salgare

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Thank you for the clarification, Robert.

I think I understand how LDS might perceive Catholic canon law to be an imposing rule of law that reflects unchanging teachings of a faith that denies progress in its teaching. It follows according to an understandable mistake that Mormons make when they hear us say that we have a "closed canon". This has been discussed before, and since I am belaboring another point already, I'll refrain from commenting on that. I will try below to explain how I can't see a connection between our canon law and our closed canon of revelation, and your presumed lack of canon law and your open canon of revelation.

It is true that Catholic Canon law necessarily takes into consideration the current teachings of the Catholic faith. But it has to do with "living the life" of the Church's teachings. Even with regards to defined teachings, rules of conduct that reflect those teachings may be changed according to the will of lawful government. For instance, the law which gives the age at which persons can be lawfully married in the Catholic Church is subject to change according to fallible, but hopefully prudential judgment. Surely no one can suspect such a necessary decision to belong exclusively to organizations which have a "closed canon" of teachings. Even if teachings change, there are always necessary rules if an organization is to function properly in the present. Organization itself implies rules of law and order. The Catholic Code of 1917 was updated in 1983 which reflects the fact that canon law is under constant revision in church government, just as they are in civil government, varying with different times and new circumstances.

I do not see how a code of canon law, which might be easier understood as "rules for behavior" can be avoided. In any church government, whether written or not, whether there is an open or closed canon of revelation, someone is going to have to decide the ages at which persons may marry, and have access to other ordinances and offices. In the same sense as Catholics, the Restoration Church, every church, and indeed, every institution, has a "code of canon law" that is revisable according to the will of the lawful governing body of the church or institution. 

I am afraid that my continual pursuit of an innocent mention of canon law might seem to most Mormons as unnecessary at best, and likely a distraction from the main question of the thread. Even I now understand why you think Elder McConkie, well-meaning as he may have been, was too dogmatic perhaps, for a church with an open canon. Your point is clear. I now see what you were driving at. But it appears to me he wasn't writing canon law. He was making his Summa Theologica.

I am writing this for you and a few others who might have interest in a better understanding of the Catholic faith. Unless it can be demonstrated that oral law is always preferable to written law, I hope that you and a few others could give consideration to my suggestion that there is nothing sinister or closed minded about the concept of "canon law" properly understood. Everyone everywhere is subject to "canon laws" which will always be adjusted in accord with the beliefs and goals that govern one as a member of a family, a labor union, a credit union, a political party, or any indeed any organization, civil or religious. I will be content to let the matter drop, Robert, and assure you of my continuing esteem if you are not inclined to comment further. I do appreciate the patience with me for any who have followed my tangent thus far.

Thanks for your consideration.

Rory

 

   

 

 

 

ost Catholics, including myself, give little thought to canon law, even though many of us are interested in church teachings and how they have been growing through the centuries.

 

And then there is the "Sensus Fidelium" which essentially places the "universal consent in matters of faith and morals" ahead of tradition and the Magisterium- or more properly stated, the body of the church actually becomes effectively the Magisterium itself.

I do not fully understand this doctrine, but it could be seen to be a powerful vehicle for progressive forces in the church to shift doctrine to "keep up with the times" as needed.

I had never known of this idea when I was Catholic, but as an outsider I imagine that could cause some tension between the traditionalists and progressives, but I do not fully understand how all this is supposed to work.  I know that that the concept of sensus fidelium was influential in changing the perception of limbo in the last 50 years or so.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, salgare said:

Rory,

Thank you for your thoughts on this.  When I first saw your post my mind shot to the rash of excommunications over the last five years or so.  With the Church firmly declaring all judgments of a members actions are by local leaders.  With the likes of a once more or less secrete SCMC and evidences of top down pressures, on top of the critics derogatory but very true concepts of  "Local Leadership Roulette"  there seems to me to be a very serious lack in the Church for some kind of centralized and global set of rules.  The current system, for punishment, is wrong in so many ways.

Would you mind clarifying the underlined sentence?  What is SCMC?

Top down pressure on top of critics?

 

[salgare]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Would you mind clarifying the underlined sentence?  What is SCMC?

Top down pressure on top of critics?

The concept of "

 

Sorry, acronyms and there usage that are so common in other circles seem unknown here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee

I believe that link explains what it is and the top down pressure, which are common sense observations to many observers.

as to the "With the likes of a once more or less secrete"

If those acronyms and top down concepts driven from that committee really remain unknown here ... then the hint to a continued desire for a LACK OF transparency seems to be "more" than "less" even at this time.

http://transcriptvids.com/v3/pb2GRssSSMw.html

Edited January 3, 2016 by salgare

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

................................................................................

I think I understand how LDS might perceive Catholic canon law to be an imposing rule of law that reflects unchanging teachings of a faith that denies progress in its teaching. It follows according to an understandable mistake that Mormons make when they hear us say that we have a "closed canon". This has been discussed before, and since I am belaboring another point already, I'll refrain from commenting on that. I will try below to explain how I can't see a connection between our canon law and our closed canon of revelation, and your presumed lack of canon law and your open canon of revelation.

It is true that Catholic Canon law necessarily takes into consideration the current teachings of the Catholic faith. But it has to do with "living the life" of the Church's teachings. Even with regards to defined teachings, rules of conduct that reflect those teachings may be changed according to the will of lawful government. For instance, the law which gives the age at which persons can be lawfully married in the Catholic Church is subject to change according to fallible, but hopefully prudential judgment. Surely no one can suspect such a necessary decision to belong exclusively to organizations which have a "closed canon" of teachings. Even if teachings change, there are always necessary rules if an organization is to function properly in the present. Organization itself implies rules of law and order. The Catholic Code of 1917 was updated in 1983 which reflects the fact that canon law is under constant revision in church government, just as they are in civil government, varying with different times and new circumstances.

I do not see how a code of canon law, which might be easier understood as "rules for behavior" can be avoided. In any church government, whether written or not, whether there is an open or closed canon of revelation, someone is going to have to decide the ages at which persons may marry, and have access to other ordinances and offices. In the same sense as Catholics, the Restoration Church, every church, and indeed, every institution, has a "code of canon law" that is revisable according to the will of the lawful governing body of the church or institution. 

I am afraid that my continual pursuit of an innocent mention of canon law might seem to most Mormons as unnecessary at best, and likely a distraction from the main question of the thread. Even I now understand why you think Elder McConkie, well-meaning as he may have been, was too dogmatic perhaps, for a church with an open canon. Your point is clear. I now see what you were driving at. But it appears to me he wasn't writing canon law. He was making his Summa Theologica.

I am writing this for you and a few others who might have interest in a better understanding of the Catholic faith. Unless it can be demonstrated that oral law is always preferable to written law, I hope that you and a few others could give consideration to my suggestion that there is nothing sinister or closed minded about the concept of "canon law" properly understood. Everyone everywhere is subject to "canon laws" which will always be adjusted in accord with the beliefs and goals that govern one as a member of a family, a labor union, a credit union, a political party, or any indeed any organization, civil or religious. 

........................................................   

I agree, Rory, but there is a dynamic tension between progressives and traditionalists within many religions.  Jews solve the problem with authoritative responsa of the rabbis, which can come to have the status of canon law.  You have described how this takes place within Catholicism, and I know of historical examples of difficult transitions made within Presbyterianism via tough synodical discussion over an extended period of years.  I was merely hinting at the existence within Mormonism of similarly traditionalist and progressive wings of the faith -- sometimes described as the iron rodders and the liahonas (See Richard Poll at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V16N02_71.pdf ).  Elder McConkie clearly fit into the iron rod category, and wasn't always so nice to liahona types like the late Professor Eugene England.

My comments on this are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive.

[Bob Crockett]

On 1/3/2016 at 11:00 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

albeit in a very flawed manner.

I certainly know a one apostle, now deceased, who would disagree with this, although they were related by marriage.  At one time the book was one of the most frequently cited works in General Conference, along with Joseph Fielding Smith's Answers, also criticized today by the intelligentsia, both liberal and conservative, in the church.

It is all a matter of perspective.  Is it 1980 and are you (rhetorically "you") a day-to-day bishop or stake president required to find some place to find materials for talks and sermons, or a manual writer for the church looking for some authoritative quote to support an orthodox position in a church manual?  Or are you an apologist in the 2000s with a university position with lots of time and leeway to read atheistic scholarly works about the Old Testmant or New Testament, and get hip with the latest politically correct statements on race and feminism, and willing to hold your nose if you get within 10 feet of a church manual?   It is all a matter of perspective.  

Quote

Elder McConkie clearly fit into the iron rod category, and wasn't always so nice to liahona types like the late Professor Eugene England.

I am far from either type, and tend to be more an iconoclast if that is a category in the church.   But I took a course in LDS literature from England and his teaching assistant, Clifton (Jolley?) who is now a Buddhist.  Both, in my view, were deeply flawed individuals dependent upon a cult of followers and worshipers to keep them propped up.  Other universities have the same problem; it isn't just BYU. I can see how Elder McConkie would take exception to that kind of ivory tower elitism, based upon his interactions with England and Pace.   Plus, England's writing style was atrocious.  (Don't get me started on Elder McConkie's.)  The only agreement I've ever had with England is that he opposed the Gulf War.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Tacenda]

On 1/3/2016 at 9:49 AM, thesometimesaint said:

We put our son on a Mission in 2000. Definitely not one of the books we gave him.

We never gave our son one when he went in 2006.  But later on after his mission, I was going through his closet and found a Mormon Doctrine in a box of his missionary things.  

Edited January 4, 2016 by Tacenda