MormonLeaks: unpublished Bruce R. McConkie

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

 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!

And...McConkie is back to being wrong again.

[Duncan]

I saw these earlier, my thing and I hope i'm wrong but they look redone, as in someone re wrote them out so they all look the same. I would have an easier time believing they came from Elder McConkie if they looked like he wrote them with a ballpoint pen or on a typewriter or something to differentiate each one from another. So, I am cautious about their reliability

Edited July 27, 2017 by Duncan

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I saw these earlier, my thing and I hope i'm wrong but they look redone, as in someone re wrote them out so they all look the same. I would have an easier time believing they came from Elder McConkie if they looked like he wrote them with a ballpoint pen or on a typewrite or something to differentiate each one from another. So, I am cautious about their reliability

I thought of this too..I was sort of expecting something hand written and some notes.

[Calm]

oops...off topic

Edited July 25, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Off topic

Edited July 25, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

I saw these earlier, my thing and I hope i'm wrong but they look redone, as in someone re wrote them out so they all look the same. I would have an easier time believing they came from Elder McConkie if they looked like he wrote them with a ballpoint pen or on a typewrite or something to differentiate each one from another. So, I am cautious about their reliability

If someone was preparing them for a family book, they might redo them in more or less one sitting.

Caution is wise.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

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?

I remember it being discussed in a thread when it first started, but I can't remember which way the decision went.  The guideline post made sense in the context of that other thread (I think it was just moderation comments embedded as they do), but now it is quite ambiguous.

[Calm]

7 hours 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)."

 

I think I can therefore disregard his position on the Spirit/intelligence debate as well then.

I haven't seen too many Catholics standing around their cathedrals passing time by mocking others.

More likely to be a bank, university, theatre, or coliseum than a church, imo, if literal.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours 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.

 

Depending on whether or not this is a hoax.

The condemnation of a cathedral as the GandS building makes me quite cautious about accepting it as real,

[Calm]

I don't remember seeing this posted.

This gives context to a number of the documents leaked along with the writer's very strong opinion of the leakers, I am posting it for the first reason...I have strong opinions of the leakers as well, but his go substantially farther than mine:

http://www.truthwillprevail.xyz/2017/07/elder-bruce-r-mcconkies-leaked-papers.html

[Stargazer]

As soon as I saw this I headed over to MormonLeaks to have a look, and, though I thought it was marvelous to be able to read these documents, I still had the feeling of being some kind of voyeur, at least where it came down to the item(s) that seemed to be out of Elder McConkie's private writings.  And I wonder if participating even to the extent of examining this material on this website is a wrongful act.  Like opening someone else's mail.

By its very nature, and considering the great trouble that Dennis Horne had in getting some semblance of acquiescence from Elder McConkie's family in publishing Elder McConkie's biography, I think it is highly impertinent to be publishing these things from his private papers.  And whoever did it, could not possibly have obtained these things by permission.  Definitely purloined.  Even if the ultimate leaker is a McConkie family member.

Over the past 20+ years I have written probably in excess of a quarter of a million words -- mostly blithering junk -- and I have it all on disk.  If someone had "leaked" from my papers, I'm afraid I would have been very very angry.

Whoever is behind MormonLeaks is, as Dennis Horne has written, definitely ethically-challenged.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't remember seeing this posted.

This gives context to a number of the documents leaked along with the writer's very strong opinion of the leakers, I am posting it for the first reason...I have strong opinions of the leakers as well, but his go substantially farther than mine:

http://www.truthwillprevail.xyz/2017/07/elder-bruce-r-mcconkies-leaked-papers.html

Thanks for posting this link!

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As soon as I saw this I headed over to MormonLeaks to have a look, and, though I thought it was marvelous to be able to read these documents, I still had the feeling of being some kind of voyeur, at least where it came down to the item(s) that seemed to be out of Elder McConkie's private writings.  And I wonder if participating even to the extent of examining this material on this website is a wrongful act.  Like opening someone else's mail.

By its very nature, and considering the great trouble that Dennis Horne had in getting some semblance of acquiescence from Elder McConkie's family in publishing Elder McConkie's biography, I think it is highly impertinent to be publishing these things from his private papers.  And whoever did it, could not possibly have obtained these things by permission.  Definitely purloined.  Even if the ultimate leaker is a McConkie family member.

Over the past 20+ years I have written probably in excess of a quarter of a million words -- mostly blithering junk -- and I have it all on disk.  If someone had "leaked" from my papers, I'm afraid I would have been very very angry.

Whoever is behind MormonLeaks is, as Dennis Horne has written, definitely ethically-challenged.

We have many angry ex-Mormons out there I guess. Now what do you think is the reason for that? 

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

We have many angry ex-Mormons out there I guess. Now what do you think is the reason for that? 

They lost track of who they were?

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

We have many angry ex-Mormons out there I guess. Now what do you think is the reason for that? 

Is anger always justified?  Are there times when people were angry with you without cause?  If so, could not the same happen to someone else or an organization?

[mfbukowski]

On 7/24/2017 at 2:37 PM, MiserereNobis said:

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

 

When I am attending Mass I cross myself and genuflect as my knees permit.   In fact, in early Mormonism the use of the cross was common.  One of my friends, Mike Reed published a book on the subject.  https://www.amazon.com/Banishing-Cross-Emergence-Mormon-Taboo/dp/1934901350

Here is a photo of one of Brigham Young's wives, Amelia Folsom Young, wearing a cross around her neck.   Mike's book also has many photos of Mormon services etc in the early church where the cross is clearly displayed.  He argues that it was primarily during the administration of President Mc Kay that the cross was virtually banned, but in fact I know that in the Los Angeles temple, are are some crosses displayed in the external architectural decoration.  That temple was designed before President Mc Kay became president.

Mc Conkie comes from a conservative family which was a major source of conservative thought in the church in the first 50 years of the 20th Century, starting with Joseph F Smith and later, his son Joseph Fielding Smith.  JF Smith was Mc Conkie's father-in law.

McConkie published his book Mormon Doctrine despite opposition of the first presidency, and it became a source of some contention later for its somewhat reactionary positions in several areas.

I know you are horribly worried about Mc C's assessment of the Catholic Church  but know that many faithful Mormons find those views themselves to be far more abominable than your church. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

We have many angry ex-Mormons out there I guess. Now what do you think is the reason for that? 

Because they were never taught proper Mormon Doctrine but the Bruce R version and they are arguing with their internal reaction to themselves believing what they thought we believed rather than what we actually believe, still trying to convince others that we believe what they THINK they were taught.

I can't count the number of times I have been told some false authoritarian line and then opposed it, and then were told "but Mormons don't believe that".

And that is why we have some 'splainin' to do.

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

When I am attending Mass I cross myself and genuflect as my knees permit

Interesting, you do that even now? Wouldn't some interpret this as you giving some sort of credence to what is going on in Mass? Especially since some of the crossing and genuflecting is supposed to be directed towards the tabernacle as a recognition of the Real Presence.

You never cease to intrigue me, Mark

Jesse

 

[MiserereNobis]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

One of my friends, Mike Reed published a book on the subject.  https://www.amazon.com/Banishing-Cross-Emergence-Mormon-Taboo/dp/1934901350

I think I remember a thread or two about this. I read the first couple of pages on amazon with the preview and it seems like a book worth checking out.

Of course, I've got an LDS film or two (or three) to watch first. I think I'm going to check out Testaments, Man's Search for Happiness, and Saints and Soldiers.

Anyways, it would be interesting to see more LDS folk wear crosses, not because I think they should, but because it would be interesting to watch a cultural shift occur.

Edited July 27, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Anyways, it would be interesting to see more LDS folk wear crosses, not because I think they should, but because it would be interesting to watch a cultural shift occur.

Some of my ward members do, and my sister, who was given a pearl cross by a much-loved Catholic friend, wore it nearly every day of her life. We made sure to bury her with it nestled amongst her temple robes.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Interesting, you do that even now? Wouldn't some interpret this as you giving some sort of credence to what is going on in Mass? Especially since some of the crossing and genuflecting is supposed to be directed towards the tabernacle as a recognition of the Real Presence.

You never cease to intrigue me, Mark

Jesse

 

Yes I did it the last mass I attended about a year ago which was part of an important family event.

I give credence to anything which I think can bless my life and I have great respect for Catholicism if not some aspects of substance theology.  But that is a personal disagreement I have with Aquinas, and who knows if he still believes that anyway.   https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/incontext/article/aquinas/

I think the cross should be a symbol we also can revere, in fact as a shape the cross is directly related to the compass and the square, symbols which are powerful to us for symbolizing God as the creator of the universe, and also for Christ as a carpenter "by whom all things were made".  After all the cross as a symbol is four right angles joined together and the compass has always been a symbol for builders  http://thomasguild.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-medieval-toolchest-compass-calliper.html

Genuflecting I see as a purely cultural form of respect for the norms of how one behaves in church for Catholics.   I recall as a child thinking those who did not genuflect before the blessed sacrament as being little better than savages, so now I do it strictly for those who might be thinking the same about me.  I do not want to disturb their meditation by distracting them with my savagery.

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 I do not want to disturb their meditation by distracting them with my savagery.

Oh, if they only knew your adherence to post-modern philosophy, you heathen blasphemous savage you!

 

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think I remember a thread or two about this. I read the first couple of pages on amazon with the preview and it seems like a book worth checking out.

Of course, I've got an LDS film or two (or three) to watch first. I think I'm going to check out Testaments, Man's Search for Happiness, and Saints and Soldiers.

Anyways, it would be interesting to see more LDS folk wear crosses, not because I think they should, but because it would be interesting to watch a cultural shift occur.

You HAVE to watch The Best Two Years.  It's hilarious and an accurate example of what it's like to serve a mission.  Promise me!

[why me]

On 24.7.2017 at 10:21 PM, USU78 said:

You're making an extraordinary claim there, HJW.  And yet you're not.

Take a position.  If you have information that this was not clandestinely leaked by an unknown person without authority from either the Church or the McConkie family, give it up.

The title 'mormonLeaks implies something is not legal. Why leak something if one can just post the information? Usually, by implication of the name MormonLeaks implies something is not legal. .

Edited July 30, 2017 by why me

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, why me said:

The title 'mormonLeaks implies something is not legal. Why leak something if one can just post the information? 

Not necessarily.  There are many different reasons a source who legally owns the material may want to remain anonymous .  

Edited July 30, 2017 by ALarson