bcuzbcuz Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 20 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Makes me wonder sometimes if we aren't in a period of Devolution right now. Devolution? Oh, Please. Explain yourself. Surely you can give some ideas about areas of current human development / un-development to explain your "wondering".
JLHPROF Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 11 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: Devolution? Oh, Please. Explain yourself. Surely you can give some ideas about areas of current human development / un-development to explain your "wondering". Oh lighten up. I was just referring in a tongue-in-cheek way to the McConkie quote:Speaking of the degrees of civilization and decency found within nations in successive ages, it is clear that there have been instances of great national devolution or degeneracy. The American Indians, in their tribal and degenerate state, were the descendants of the highly civilized Nephite civilization that prevailed on the American continent for nearly 200 years after the ministry of Christ in the Western Hemisphere. So-called cave men and the like were all degenerate descendants of the highly civilized men who peopled the earth beginning with Adam, the father of civilization. We'd love to think we are SO much more civilized (ie, "evolved") than those who lived a couple of centuries ago. Based on what I see in society our "evolution" is largely in external appearance. Not referring to any kind of biological devolution.
thesometimesaint Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 45 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: An informal survey I once made showed that Mormon Doctrine and Joseph Fielding Smith's similar work, "Doctrines of Salvation" are the two most frequently quoted works in General Conference addresses. It just goes to show that in Mormon sermons by General Authorities, it doesn't matter much what is "canonical" or "doctrinal" as the Church is not so hide-bound. The Church's "no-position" position on evolution came about a hundred years ago and has remained the Church's position ever since, but there are many General Authorities who see it otherwise. Agreed. Unfortunately I've attended more than a few Gospel Rumor classes.
mfbukowski Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 On 10/6/2016 at 11:52 AM, theplains said: According to McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine": (Devolution ) See EVOLUTION. Devolution is the opposite of evolution; in the biological sense it means the degeneration of species. According to God's law there is no such thing as the development of higher forms of life from lower orders of creation anymore than lower orders degenerate from higher. In each instance living things bring forth after their own kind (Moses 2), each form of life remaining "in the sphere" in which God created it. (Moses 3:9.) Speaking of the degrees of civilization and decency found within nations in successive ages, it is clear that there have been instances of great national devolution or degeneracy. The American Indians, in their tribal and degenerate state, were the descendants of the highly civilized Nephite civilization that prevailed on the American continent for nearly 200 years after the ministry of Christ in the Western Hemisphere. So-called cave men and the like were all degenerate descendants of the highly civilized men who peopled the earth beginning with Adam, the father of civilization. Regards, Jim The publication of this book was opposed by the first presidency. Your point?
bcuzbcuz Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) On 7 October 2016 at 8:57 PM, mfbukowski said: The publication of this book was opposed by the first presidency. Your point? I read Mcconkie's "Mormon Doctrine" before going on my mission (1964) and was totally unaware of any "opposition" by the First Presidency. I did hear and discussed, while still on my mission (2 ½ years), from other missionaries who claimed to have never read McConkie's work, ideas and opinions that fairly accurately reflected those stated in the book. The fact that McConkie toned down the rhetoric when he gave out the second edition went unmarked by me and probably many others. If you read McConkie's work between the 1960's and 1978 you would not be faulted to thinking that the "thinking had been done" regarding the priesthood to the negroes (Africans) through the curse of Cain. In 1975, when questioned regarding the priesthood policy, my Bishop and Stake President gave renditions of McConkie's thoughts concerning the war in heaven and to those "less valiant". You either don't remember the actual situation prior to 1978 or you have wilfully reversed your opinion and claimed you had always believed it so. The same holds true regarding the Native Americans, First Nations or the Indígena peoples of North, Central and South America. McConkie viewed them as being in a "degenerate" state, and that "doctrine" remained in his book even in the 1979 revision. (Page 616) The internet allows us insights into historical information that was not available at the actual time of the event. Your statement that "Mormon Doctrine" was opposed by the first presidency, is such an insight. Edited October 9, 2016 by bcuzbcuz 3
thesometimesaint Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 I agree that Mormon Doctrine is problematic, even for many Saints. Fortunately none of us will be held to what BRM believed, but what we(individually) believe. 1
Jeanne Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 On 10/7/2016 at 10:11 AM, JLHPROF said: Oh lighten up. I was just referring in a tongue-in-cheek way to the McConkie quote:Speaking of the degrees of civilization and decency found within nations in successive ages, it is clear that there have been instances of great national devolution or degeneracy. The American Indians, in their tribal and degenerate state, were the descendants of the highly civilized Nephite civilization that prevailed on the American continent for nearly 200 years after the ministry of Christ in the Western Hemisphere. So-called cave men and the like were all degenerate descendants of the highly civilized men who peopled the earth beginning with Adam, the father of civilization. We'd love to think we are SO much more civilized (ie, "evolved") than those who lived a couple of centuries ago. Based on what I see in society our "evolution" is largely in external appearance. Not referring to any kind of biological devolution. Is he really saying that caveman came after civilized men beginning with Adam??? Huh..I had no idea that is what he thought...tell me I am wrong.
theplains Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 On 07/10/2016 at 2:57 PM, mfbukowski said: The publication of this book was opposed by the first presidency. Before or after his death? Jim
thesometimesaint Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 43 minutes ago, theplains said: Before or after his death? Jim Long before.
RevTestament Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 2 hours ago, theplains said: Before or after his death? Jim He came out with a second edition, probably because they criticized the first. The presidency never wanted him to publish it in the first place.
bcuzbcuz Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 18 minutes ago, RevTestament said: He came out with a second edition, probably because they criticized the first. The presidency never wanted him to publish it in the first place. And he also gave out a third edition. And how do we know the first presidency did not want him to give out his book, "in the first place"? Or further editions? That was certainly not "common information" either back in the late 50´s when McConkie published his first edition. It was not common information before the giving out of the second edition. The changes that were made in the 1979 edition had to be made, were essential, specifically regarding McConkie´s opinion about the dark skin disqualification for priesthood. But still, the idea that the first presidency were against the pubication of his work was not then, and would not be common knowledge now, if there had not been some revisionist inputs through the internet that puts forth such an idea. The first presidency is not, has not, never has been, open about their opinions with anything less than declarations of policy.
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 10 hours ago, theplains said: Before or after his death? Jim Here read it for yourself in the Infallible Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)
bcuzbcuz Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Here read it for yourself in the Infallible Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book) And even a cursory reading of the Wiki page (and if you try to sort through all the (1)´s and (2)´s of footnotes) which indicates the sloppiness of the composition of the page, all the sources quoted have been written in the 1990´s and 2000´s. The reference that you read from 1992 states that Apostle Mark E. Petersen said it was "full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation."[2] Nearly a year later, after meeting to discuss the book, the January 8, 1960 office notes of McKay reflect: (While this post would appear to be something known in 1960, it was not published until 1992) Go ahead, go back and read ALL the footnotes.
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 On 10/8/2016 at 3:56 PM, bcuzbcuz said: I read Mcconkie's "Mormon Doctrine" before going on my mission (1964) and was totally unaware of any "opposition" by the First Presidency. I did hear and discussed, while still on my mission (2 ½ years), from other missionaries who claimed to have never read McConkie's work, ideas and opinions that fairly accurately reflected those stated in the book. The fact that McConkie toned down the rhetoric when he gave out the second edition went unmarked by me and probably many others. If you read McConkie's work between the 1960's and 1978 you would not be faulted to thinking that the "thinking had been done" regarding the priesthood to the negroes (Africans) through the curse of Cain. In 1975, when questioned regarding the priesthood policy, my Bishop and Stake President gave renditions of McConkie's thoughts concerning the war in heaven and to those "less valiant". You either don't remember the actual situation prior to 1978 or you have wilfully reversed your opinion and claimed you had always believed it so. The same holds true regarding the Native Americans, First Nations or the Indígena peoples of North, Central and South America. McConkie viewed them as being in a "degenerate" state, and that "doctrine" remained in his book even in the 1979 revision. (Page 616) The internet allows us insights into historical information that was not available at the actual time of the event. Your statement that "Mormon Doctrine" was opposed by the first presidency, is such an insight. Emphasis added. You are delusional. I never said anything defending Mormon Doctrine nor was I even a member in 1978. I would not have joined the church prior to 1978 My girlfriend gave me a copy of Mormon Doctrine before I joined the church in 1979 and I though it was so weird I almost did not join the church. Face cards are satanic?? I was expecting next an endorsement of using green jello for the sacrament after I read that! (Only green of course, and it must have carrots in it!) I found the sections on evolution very troubling. I joined in spite of Mormon Doctrine because I got clobbered by the spirit and decided to ignore all these side issues in weird Mormon Culture and go for the meat of the gospel- eternal progression, the immanence of God, ongoing revelation including personal revelation, and other issues I found truthful from "the philosophies of men" All I said above was the the book is not doctrinal- and you come back with all these presumptions? Dude you are dreaming! I said it was opposed by the first presidency and it was. 2
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: And even a cursory reading of the Wiki page (and if you try to sort through all the (1)´s and (2)´s of footnotes) which indicates the sloppiness of the composition of the page, all the sources quoted have been written in the 1990´s and 2000´s. The reference that you read from 1992 states that Apostle Mark E. Petersen said it was "full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation."[2] Nearly a year later, after meeting to discuss the book, the January 8, 1960 office notes of McKay reflect: (While this post would appear to be something known in 1960, it was not published until 1992) Go ahead, go back and read ALL the footnotes. Emphasis added. WHY would I want to waste time doing that?? I have no interest whatsoever in the matter other than it was opposed by the first presidency and covered up. So what? End of story. The first presidency, fallible human beings, forgot to ask my opinion on it probably because I was a non-member at the time all this was going on. Again you are jumping to contusions. Go kick your dog or something. 1
Ed Goble Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 On 9/29/2016 at 4:24 PM, JLHPROF said: "the Church has finally conceded major ground" I think that's a bit of a stretch. The bigger issue here is religious freedom for those that believe in it so that they don't have to be in the closet.
Bob Crockett Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) On 10/7/2016 at 11:57 AM, mfbukowski said: The publication of this book was opposed by the first presidency. Your point? And, in the end, approved by the First Presidency for publication. If not (and I assert that it was), it has been ratified numerous times by the Apostles and members of the First Presidency who cite it in conference sermons. Plus, Elder McConkie was made an apostle after all the purported controversy over the book. In the end, Mormon Doctrine has been ratified by the Brethren which, under the law at least, is even better than an advance approval. I just don't get all this handwringing over the original publication of the book in light of its subsequent history. It is, without doubt, the most influential book ever published by Bookcraft (later acquired by the Church). Does he get evolution wrong? How could he? The Church takes no position which basically invites positions to be taken. I have been to very serious firesides and stake presentation by church biologists and scientists arguing that evolution could not possibly be true or God's plan, on the one hand, and I have a pair of textbooks authored by BYU professors and published by BYU asserting that evolution is accepted scientific fare and well-proven. I have long been on record as saying the Church takes no position on the geographic setting of the Book of Mormon's events, yet BYU Professors and others cite Joseph Smith and other authorities for the proposition that Church authorities have implicitly approved of MesoAmerican as the setting. "No position" means that somebody like Elder McConkie can say what he wants about evolution and still be largely correct. Edited October 10, 2016 by Bob Crockett
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: And, in the end, approved by the First Presidency for publication. If not (and I assert that it was), it has been ratified numerous times by the Apostles and members of the First Presidency who cite it in conference sermons. Plus, Elder McConkie was made an apostle after all the purported controversy over the book. In the end, Mormon Doctrine has been ratified by the Brethren which, under the law at least, is even better than an advance approval. I just don't get all this handwringing over the original publication of the book in light of its subsequent history. It is, without doubt, the most influential book ever published by Bookcraft (later acquired by the Church). Does he get evolution wrong? How could he? The Church takes no position which basically invites positions to be taken. I have been to very serious firesides and stake presentation by church biologists and scientists arguing that evolution could not possibly be true or God's plan, on the one hand, and I have a pair of textbooks authored by BYU professors and published by BYU asserting that evolution is accepted scientific fare and well-proven. I have long been on record as saying the Church takes no position on the geographic setting of the Book of Mormon's events, yet BYU Professors and others cite Joseph Smith and other authorities for the proposition that Church authorities have implicitly approved of MesoAmerican as the setting. "No position" means that somebody like Elder McConkie can say what he wants about evolution and still be largely correct. In that sense we would agree, but I think it has been shown that the person who raised the questions was not even aware of the problems with Mormon Doctrine. Yet strictly speaking all I said was that it was "opposed" by the first presidency which is perfectly true
bcuzbcuz Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 20 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Emphasis added. You are delusional. I never said anything defending Mormon Doctrine nor was I even a member in 1978. I would not have joined the church prior to 1978 My girlfriend gave me a copy of Mormon Doctrine before I joined the church in 1979 and I though it was so weird I almost did not join the church. Face cards are satanic?? I was expecting next an endorsement of using green jello for the sacrament after I read that! (Only green of course, and it must have carrots in it!) I found the sections on evolution very troubling. I joined in spite of Mormon Doctrine because I got clobbered by the spirit and decided to ignore all these side issues in weird Mormon Culture and go for the meat of the gospel- eternal progression, the immanence of God, ongoing revelation including personal revelation, and other issues I found truthful from "the philosophies of men" All I said above was the the book is not doctrinal- and you come back with all these presumptions? Dude you are dreaming! I said it was opposed by the first presidency and it was. And as I have so eloquently pointed out, your statement about the book being opposed by the firsts presidency is not based on any actual information, but instead comes from reading Wikipedia. You weren´t a member back then so you have no idea of what it was like to be a member then, nor can you state with any authority regarding anything the first presidency did or didn´t do. I believe it´s called "talking through your hat"
mfbukowski Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: And as I have so eloquently pointed out, your statement about the book being opposed by the firsts presidency is not based on any actual information, but instead comes from reading Wikipedia. You weren´t a member back then so you have no idea of what it was like to be a member then, nor can you state with any authority regarding anything the first presidency did or didn´t do. I believe it´s called "talking through your hat" I am glad to know there is no "actual information" in wikipedia. The conclusion that I take all my knowledge of the matter from wikipedia, because I quoted it, is spurious What a wasted effort! Oddly enough I have the ability to discuss things with my wife, a fan of "Mormon Doctrine," a lifetime member who is not a "spring chicken" and she would chuckle at me saying that. You have an odd ability to think you can read minds, but no "actual information" Edited October 11, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
bcuzbcuz Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: I am glad to know there is no "actual information" in wikipedia. You have an odd ability to think you can read minds, but no "actual information" I never said either of your two points. Wikipedia is a modern invention and therefore cannot be trusted as a source "current" with the past. Wikipedia is continually reformed, revised and edited. It is our "Ministry of Truth". In the question germaine to this topic, Wikipedia quotes letters not available to the general public at that time. I don´t read minds, but I do have a good memory. And of course I can´t have "actual information" of papers or doctrine not published.
theplains Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 On 10/10/2016 at 11:14 AM, mfbukowski said: My girlfriend gave me a copy of Mormon Doctrine before I joined the church in 1979 and I though it was so weird I almost did not join the church. Face cards are satanic?? Chapter 17 (pages 410-412) of the 1919 version of Gospel Doctrine talks about the evil of playing cards. Source: https://archive.org/details/gospeldoctrinese00smitrich Regards, Jim
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 3 hours ago, theplains said: Chapter 17 (pages 410-412) of the 1919 version of Gospel Doctrine talks about the evil of playing cards. Source: https://archive.org/details/gospeldoctrinese00smitrich Regards, Jim Yes I read that too.
thesometimesaint Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 On 10/11/2016 at 10:29 AM, bcuzbcuz said: I never said either of your two points. Wikipedia is a modern invention and therefore cannot be trusted as a source "current" with the past. Wikipedia is continually reformed, revised and edited. It is our "Ministry of Truth". In the question germaine to this topic, Wikipedia quotes letters not available to the general public at that time. I don´t read minds, but I do have a good memory. And of course I can´t have "actual information" of papers or doctrine not published. The actual quote from Mormon Doctrine: For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility. Salt Lake City, Utah. June 1, 1958 Bruce R. McConkie. IOW It is his opinions, and are not binding on the Church. I would have much prefered it to be called Bruce R. McConkie's Doctrine. Apparently the Church agrees.
bcuzbcuz Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: The actual quote from Mormon Doctrine: For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility. Salt Lake City, Utah. June 1, 1958 Bruce R. McConkie. IOW It is his opinions, and are not binding on the Church. I would have much prefered it to be called Bruce R. McConkie's Doctrine. Apparently the Church agrees. You and I are of similar age and have been members for a good number of years. Have you read McConkie´s book? Have you heard talks in church where the opinions expressed are essentially the same as from "Mormon Doctrine" if not directly quoted? I have. I´ve had doctrine explained to me by Bishops and Stake Presidents that are referenced to McConkie´s book. My opinions were very much influenced by "Mormon Doctrine" even if McConkie said he was solely responsible for the books contents. I can accept that current information shows that church leadership did not approve of the harsh tone in the book, but the book was readily available from church bookstores and I never saw a disclaimer in church publications. Did you?
Recommended Posts