MormonLeaks: unpublished Bruce R. McConkie

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I agree with USU that this is theft. Regardless, the content is a dead giveaway that this is a fake, a scam.  It is so full of falsehoods and false doctrine it could not possibly be Elder McConkie.

How about what he stated about the King Follett sermon (and little children)?  I hadn't heard that before.

Edited July 24, 2017 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

Huh..theft??  I don't know..until I do I won't say more and I haven't read anything yet.  But on another thread..the church takes a private facebook page and then fires someone for it..is that theft?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Found this through a search:

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2017/07/24/introducing-the-mconkie-papers-mormonleaks-releases-37-never-before-published-documents-by-bruce-r-mconkie/

(I have not read any of these yet, just posting the link.)

I don't think we are supposed to be posting the link to the leaks...I think the mods decided to treat them somewhat like temple content:

"We decided that we will be allowing discussions on these "mormonwikileaks".  The following rules will be applied to them.

1. Discuss the information in the leak only. 
2. Discussions that delve into the speculation will be cut off.
3. Once the discussion turns circular and rehashing of the same thing over and over again it will also be closed.

Nemesis"

But I could be wrong.  For those who are willing to believe me, I am not Nemesis or another mod and thus don't understand the nuances of this decision.   I would suggest reporting yourself and asking.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Calm

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think we are supposed to be posting the link to the leaks...I think the mods decided to treat them somewhat like temple content:

"We decided that we will be allowing discussions on these "mormonwikileaks".  The following rules will be applied to them.

1. Discuss the information in the leak only. 
2. Discussions that delve into the speculation will be cut off.
3. Once the discussion turns circular and rehashing of the same thing over and over again it will also be closed.

Nemesis"

But I could be wrong.  For those who are willing to believe me, I am not Nemesis or another mod and thus don't understand the nuances of this decision.

Thanks, Calm (I was about to post these myself for USU to start a new thread if he simply wants to discuss something different than "information in the leak only".)  If he wants to discuss how the information was obtained (if he knows), then maybe he should just start a new thread.

I haven't seen where it states to not post a link, but I will remove the link and allow others to search and find it if that's what the mods want.  I'm happy to do that.  Is that posted somewhere?  I know I've seen other links posted to previous leaks, but maybe this is a new rule?

Edited July 24, 2017 by ALarson

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I agree with USU that this is theft. Regardless, the content is a dead giveaway that this is a fake, a scam.  It is so full of falsehoods and false doctrine it could not possibly be Elder McConkie.

If it is a scam, how could it be theft?

[Gray]

I have only seen a couple of them, but these don't look like scans of old documents. Did someone transcribe hand-written documents into PDF? I wonder if they're authentic?

[Kenngo1969]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

... This thread is quickly deteriorating into silliness because USU and now you want to make silly little claims.

Thank you!   I'm halfway tempted to change my tag line to "Master of Silly Little Claims," but I like "Master of Bombast" better.  

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How about what he stated about the King Follett sermon (and little children)?  I hadn't heard that before.

That section was interesting about the sermon.  Here's what McConkie stated (or wrote):

Quote

 

Question: What is the meaning of the Prophet’s language in the King Follett Discourse regarding spirits and intelligence?

Answer: Footnote number 8 on page 354 of the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, which was written by B. H. Roberts, is in error.

Brother Roberts was one of those who propounded the idea of a pre-existence to the pre-existence. Joseph Smith’s doctrine, on the other hand, is that spirit has always existed, though spirits have not. That is, the spirit element from which the spirits of men were made has always existed, though the spirits of men have not always existed as they now do or as they did in the pre-existence. Abraham, like Joseph Smith, uses the word “intelligence” as a synonym for “spirit;” “intelligences,” then, is synonymous with “spirits.” When we say that God is our Father, or the Father of our Spirits, we mean just that. We are his begotten spirits, Christ being the Firstborn or First Begotten. Thus, when we were born in the pre-mortal sphere as spirits, we were created out of existing element called spirit (or intelligence, to use Abraham’s phrase).

The B. H. Roberts doctrine was created out of speculation, and does not conform to the scriptures. When Abraham spoke of “intelligences that were organized,” he meant the spirits or souls of men, gathered in the pre-mortal council. Intelligences are spirits; intelligence is spirit, or, I assume, one might say “matter unorganized,’ to use the language of the temple. In section 93 the word ‘intelligence” is used synonymously with the word ‘spirit’ as used elsewhere. When the Lord says in section 93 (v. 30) “otherwise there is no existence,” he is summarizing in one verse, in brief and condensed form, what Lehi said in 2 Nephi 2— verses 11-12 in particular. The phrase “otherwise there is no existence” is the same as Lehi’s meaning, and we might just as well say “otherwise there is no creation.” The fundamental issue is that of agency, without which we, with Lehi, come to the conclusion that there is no God: if there is no agency, there is no God. Nothing could exist without agency, for agency is the law of opposites. This is one of the great philosophical concepts of the gospel, for from it we learn that if there were no agency there would be no life.

When Brigham Roberts first published the Documentary History of the Church, Charles Penrose refused to let the King Follet Discourse be included in it, for he did not believe it. I have, or had, a copy of this early History, and it leaves the discourse out, though it left the pagination unchanged. Thus the pagination goes from something like page 415 to page 440.

A large part of the King Follet Discourse has been suppressed, as it reports that the Prophet said that little children would come forth from the grave and be resurrected as children, then enter into the Celestial Kingdom and reign as children.

This of course is false, and is the reason Joseph F. Smith took such labor to correct it in Improvement Era writing which has been preserved in Gospel Doctrine as well. In places, the King Follett Discourse is ambiguous, as the above note on the salvation of little children suggests. It was given in April, and the Prophet was murdered in June, without having had the opportunity to revise, review, or correct the transcription of the speech.

It is a miracle, frankly, that it has been accepted by the Church today as well as it has. It is in this discourse the Joseph announced that men could become Gods, and, once you learn the plan of salvation the idea that men can become Gods is the most natural, instinctive and obvious commonplace one could expect. That is why the fellow on the Godmakers is so wicked, because it perverts such a sound and simple gospel doctrine. This doctrine that men can become Gods is the most obvious thing in the world. (MLM Journal, Feb. 26, 1984)

 

There are several things in there that I was not aware of and I also found it to be interesting.  I'll admit that I'm not very well read on the Follett sermon or its history.  I'm only familiar with what we commonly hear regarding it.

Edited July 24, 2017 by ALarson

[Judd]

37 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I'm glad that GBH corrected that pernicious false doctrine.

Link?

[Kenngo1969]

54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That doesn't even make sense. ...

 

It must make sense to somebody, unless s/he's feeling generous with rep points.  

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It must make sense to somebody, unless s/he's feeling generous with rep points.  

Ha!!  

I suppose there's no accounting for taste. Good job on the rep point from USU!! I'm impressed.

[ALarson]

Here's what he stated about the "great and spacious building" and the "mark of the beast":

"Question:  What was ‘the great and spacious building’ which Nephi saw in his vision, in 1 Nephi chapter 8?

Answer:  Once while I was in England, in the Salisbury Cathedral, the thought came to me that the great and spacious building which Nephi saw was probably St. Peter’s Basillica. After all, he saw the great and abominable church, which is headquartered in Rome, and Rome’s greatest and most spacious building is St. Peter’s Basillica. I can similarly reason about the mark of the beast: I know what the beast is—that is, which church it is—and what sign, or mark—the sign of the cross—it has used over the generations to symbolize its presence, pre-eminence and worship. (MLM Journal, 1984)."

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I'm glad that GBH corrected that pernicious false doctrine.

True doctrine.
A "we don't know" by GBH is hardly a rousing revelation against what Brigham Young and apparently Elder McConkie and President Kimball believed.
ETA - actually correction, I cannot find ANYWHERE President Hinckley corrected or even mentioned that doctrine.

So CFR.

Edited July 24, 2017 by JLHPROF

[USU78]

32 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Either respond to the open CFRs issued to you and prove that, or admit you are making accusations that you have no proof to back up.

Do you have any proof and are you going to respond to the CFRs?

I issued CFRs to my antagonists.  That leaks are so rarely done by those having legal right, and that the leaker(s) isn't/aren't being forthcoming about having/not having the legal right, and that the leakee/publisher hasn't come forward with any statement declaring it/she/he has the legal right to publish is prima facie evidence of a theft having occurred.  Circumstantial or not, the evidence establishes a prima facie case.

That being the case, the burden of proof shifts to those who challenge the prima facie case.

That's how things work.

That's what our friends AL and HJW are supposed to do at this point.

They've, instead, mocked the CFR going right back at them.  I haven't made that much of a point of that failure at least to attempt a response, but your antagonistic and snarky post requires that I expand on my prior posts.  Doesn't it?  So  ...  do you care to take up the torch from their thus far failing hands?  Or just what are you up to this afternoon?

[ALarson]

Just now, USU78 said:

I issued CFRs to my antagonists.  That leaks are so rarely done by those having legal right, and that the leaker(s) isn't/aren't being forthcoming about having/not having the legal right, and that the leakee/publisher hasn't come forward with any statement declaring it/she/he has the legal right to publish is prima facie evidence of a theft having occurred.  Circumstantial or not, the evidence establishes a prima facie case.

That being the case, the burden of proof shifts to those who challenge the prima facie case.

Maybe you should start a new thread discussing the legalities, etc., involved with the leaks.  We've been instructed by the mods to:

Quote

1. Discuss the information in the leak only. 
2. Discussions that delve into the speculation will be cut off.
3. Once the discussion turns circular and rehashing of the same thing over and over again it will also be closed.

Since you do not have any references regarding your accusation of theft, I'd say you have delved into "speculation".

Either way, start a new thread so we can discuss "the information in the leak only" as we've been asked to do.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Question: Were spirit children born through the same process as mortal children—meaning through the union of the sexes?
Answer: It is obviously so, and I have heard President Kimball say so. (MLM Journal,Feb. 26, 1984).

Well, glad to see it wasn't just Brigham who believed this.  President Kimball too apparently.

Time for Fairmormon to update...https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/"Celestial_sex"

• Elder McConkie never talks about a sexual union between our heavenly parents

  It has been claimed that Bruce R. McConkie in his book Mormon Doctrine talks of a "sexual union" between heavenly parents. However, nothing in Elder McConkie's statements say anything about spirit creation via "some kind of sexual union."

No longer accurate.

 

[USU78]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Maybe you should start a new thread discussing the legalities, etc., involved with the leaks.  We've been instructed by the mods to:

Since you do not have any references regarding your accusation of theft, I'd say you have delved into "speculation".

Either way, start a new thread so we can discuss "the information in the leak only" as we've been asked to do.

I've made the legal prima facie case for theft.  You've failed even to attempt to rebut.  The case is thus established.  No further conversation on the subject need be hand, other than addressing the moral/ethical issue raised by aiding the exploitation of somebody else's intellectual property for one's own and not the owner's benefit.

I find it distasteful.  I wonder at the dearth of moral/ethical self-examination.

But, by all means, carry on.

Stop derailing. Posts will be removed.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's what he stated about the "great and spacious building" and the "mark of the beast":

"Question:  What was ‘the great and spacious building’ which Nephi saw in his vision, in 1 Nephi chapter 8?

Answer:  Once while I was in England, in the Salisbury Cathedral, the thought came to me that the great and spacious building which Nephi saw was probably St. Peter’s Basillica. After all, he saw the great and abominable church, which is headquartered in Rome, and Rome’s greatest and most spacious building is St. Peter’s Basillica. I can similarly reason about the mark of the beast: I know what the beast is—that is, which church it is—and what sign, or mark—the sign of the cross—it has used over the generations to symbolize its presence, pre-eminence and worship. (MLM Journal, 1984)."

 

BRM had a real problem with Catholics, which got him censured by the Prophet at least once that we know of.  These kinds of leaks reminds us why we can't just accept every thought and opinion that comes out of the mouth of an apostle as 'revelation' or 'doctrine.'  BRM would have gone to the grave teaching falsehoods about black people as well if he had died before 1978 and never had to seriously consider he was wrong about the topic.

And I don't mean that to be disrespectful to BRM in any way.  

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I've made the legal prima facie case for theft.

You made an accusation that you could not provide any evidence or proof to support.  I'd call that a complete failure on your part.  

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

 No further conversation on the subject need be hand, other than addressing the moral/ethical issue raised by aiding the exploitation of somebody else's intellectual property for one's own and not the owner's benefit.

I find it distasteful.  I wonder at the dearth of moral/ethical self-examination.

But, by all means, carry on.

Those who want to discuss the content of the leaks should continue as instructed by the mods.  They will close the thread if it veers off and I trust their judgment.

If you don't want to discuss the actual information in the leaks, you should withdraw from the thread, IMO.  That's what I do when it's a topic I'm not interested in.

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by ALarson

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

You made an accusation that you could not provide any evidence or proof to support.  I'd call that a complete failure on your part.  

You are hardly in a position to judge whether the prima facie case has been made.

And you have utterly refused to address the question of rebuttal.

Do you have someone to whom to throw the torch from your already failed hands?

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

BRM had a real problem with Catholics, which got him censured by the Prophet at least once that we know of.  These kinds of leaks reminds us why we can't just accept every thought and opinion that comes out of the mouth of an apostle as 'revelation' or 'doctrine.'  BRM would have gone to the grave teaching falsehoods about black people as well if he had died before 1978 and never had to seriously consider he was wrong about the topic.

And I don't mean that to be disrespectful to BRM in any way.  

I agree with all you wrote above, bluebell.  I remember well what was taught by some and believed by many members about the Catholic church.  I'm so grateful that this belief has been corrected.

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Time for Fairmormon to update...https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/"Celestial_sex"

• Elder McConkie never talks about a sexual union between our heavenly parents

  It has been claimed that Bruce R. McConkie in his book Mormon Doctrine talks of a "sexual union" between heavenly parents. However, nothing in Elder McConkie's statements say anything about spirit creation via "some kind of sexual union."

No longer accurate.

It also clarifies some of the issues of how close McConkie's views were to Brigham Young. Jonathan Stapley had some stuff on that at BCC a month or two back. 

[ALarson]

I'm slowly working my way through some of the information here and I have to say that much of it is really impressive (some of the speeches that McConkie never actually gave are great to read through).  Agree or disagree with him, he was quite a man and was not afraid to state what he believed.

Edited July 24, 2017 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It also clarifies some of the issues of how close McConkie's views were to Brigham Young. Jonathan Stapley had some stuff on that at BCC a month or two back.

Which is interesting considering how vehemently he opposed Young's teachings on other issues.

Edited July 24, 2017 by JLHPROF

[MiserereNobis]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's what he stated about the "great and spacious building" and the "mark of the beast":

"Question:  What was ‘the great and spacious building’ which Nephi saw in his vision, in 1 Nephi chapter 8?

Answer:  Once while I was in England, in the Salisbury Cathedral, the thought came to me that the great and spacious building which Nephi saw was probably St. Peter’s Basillica. After all, he saw the great and abominable church, which is headquartered in Rome, and Rome’s greatest and most spacious building is St. Peter’s Basillica. I can similarly reason about the mark of the beast: I know what the beast is—that is, which church it is—and what sign, or mark—the sign of the cross—it has used over the generations to symbolize its presence, pre-eminence and worship. (MLM Journal, 1984)."

 

Man, I've put the mark of the beast on myself quite a few times of the years! 

On a serious note, what's the timing on this? Was this before or after the revision or retraction or whatever it was where he no longer said the Catholic Church was the church of the devil?

Also, while St. Peter's basilica is for all practical purposes the head church of Catholicism, it is not the official mother church. The mother church is the Pope's cathedral. The Pope is the bishop of Rome, and every bishop has a cathedral. The Pope's cathedral is the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran. It's official title is: Major Papal and Roman Archbasilica of the Most Holy Savior and Saints John the Baptist and the Evangelist in Lateran, Mother and Head of All Churches in Rome and in the World. Ya gotta give it to us Catholics, we sure know how to name something