MormonLeaks: unpublished Bruce R. McConkie

[cinepro]

What an odd leak.

What does it teach us?  We already knew Elder McConkie had some weird, ultra-orthodox views that are rejected by the current Church leadership.  He was even kind enough to put those views into book form, organized alphabetically.  Am I surprised that there are other weird theories and views that hadn't been shared publicly?  Not really.

Even odder is that these leaks are presumably being read by a bunch of ex-Mormons.  Think about that for a second.  Do you think Elder McConkie would think this is a bad thing? 

Heck, if the Church ever wants to get some info out to the ex-Mormon community and be sure that they will study and ponder it, they finally have a perfect platform for it.  I hope one day we get a leak called "Secret Church Program for Apologizing to Bitter Ex-Mormons for Not being More Honest About the History of the Church But Asking Them To Please Come Back and Give It Another Try."

 

Anyhow, here's a post from a McConkie biographer describing the leaked documents and his thoughts on them:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s Leaked Papers: a Sorry and Sad but Salvageable Situation

 

Edited July 30, 2017 by cinepro

[CA Steve]

On 7/24/2017 at 3:32 PM, 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 typewriter or something to differentiate each one from another. So, I am cautious about their reliability

I have no idea either way but one reason we may not be seeing them in their original format is that it might make it easier to identify who leaked them.

 

From the link cinepro gave above, it is clear that Dennis Horne thinks they are genuine.

 

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

Anyhow, here's a post from a McConkie biographer describing the leaked documents and his thoughts on them:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s Leaked Papers: a Sorry and Sad but Salvageable Situation

 

Slower, but you have better advertising skills:

 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I have no idea either way but one reason we may not be seeing them in their original format is that it might make it easier to identify who leaked them. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

 

From the link cinepro gave above, it is clear that Dennis Horne thinks they are genuine.

 

 

In other words, the leaker is a coward?  

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In other words, the leaker is a coward?  

And a copyright thief.

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I have no idea either way but one reason we may not be seeing them in their original format is that it might make it easier to identify who leaked them.

 

From the link cinepro gave above, it is clear that Dennis Horne thinks they are genuine.

 

 

do you really trust anyone named Dennis? I mean really

[stemelbow]

On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 1:02 AM, 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

I'm saddened by his response. 

This weekend we had our Stake President come and speak at us.  He's been in nearly a decade, he keeps reminding us, and normally I'm not particularly fond of his talks.  So I wasn't exactly expecting to be so delightfully surprised--his talk overall was pretty good even if I had an issue or two.  Sorry to bring up one issue I had with it because it was, overall, good.  At one point in the talk he mentioned the perniciousness of motive-questioning.  It is, he said, one of the worst things we could get engaged in.  Then he went on to question the motives of anyone who had expressed criticism for the Church, in some way or another.  I'd agree, motive questioning is a problem, even if we all do it some extent or another.  It's hard to avoid and I find myself much better disposed when I am successful at avoiding it. 

Quote

I want the material, but I don’t want it disseminated this way. It’s one thing for these items to be shared, in context and with an appropriate audience that will appreciate them and be edified and blessed by them, and another for Satan’s spokespeople to be involved. Such is the same reason one needs a temple recommend to go into the House of the Lord; much greater controls are available to protect and safeguard the temple that way. Yet, we have seen traitors publicly expose the sacredness of the temple ceremonies as well. Who can doubt we are in the last days when sons of perdition make themselves manifest?

Seriously?  I'm not sure why he's so upset.  he fills the first half of this piece with what seems to be motive questioning and then admits he's glad to have the material he otherwise would not have.  Somehow putting it out there is Satan's work because someone might mock McConkie, or whatever, because he wants to "embarrass the Church". 

I wish he just stuck to commenting on the content and left his motive-questioning, name calling and all that, in his head. 

[USU78]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm saddened by his response. 

This weekend we had our Stake President come and speak at us.  He's been in nearly a decade, he keeps reminding us, and normally I'm not particularly fond of his talks.  So I wasn't exactly expecting to be so delightfully surprised--his talk overall was pretty good even if I had an issue or two.  Sorry to bring up one issue I had with it because it was, overall, good.  At one point in the talk he mentioned the perniciousness of motive-questioning.  It is, he said, one of the worst things we could get engaged in.  Then he went on to question the motives of anyone who had expressed criticism for the Church, in some way or another.  I'd agree, motive questioning is a problem, even if we all do it some extent or another.  It's hard to avoid and I find myself much better disposed when I am successful at avoiding it. 

Seriously?  I'm not sure why he's so upset.  he fills the first half of this piece with what seems to be motive questioning and then admits he's glad to have the material he otherwise would not have.  Somehow putting it out there is Satan's work because someone might mock McConkie, or whatever, because he wants to "embarrass the Church". 

I wish he just stuck to commenting on the content and left his motive-questioning, name calling and all that, in his head. 

The motive is expressed in the url. Leaks are not good things.

Theft, publication and exploitation of others' intellectual property is not laudable.

[stemelbow]

50 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The motive is expressed in the url. Leaks are not good things.

Theft, publication and exploitation of others' intellectual property is not laudable.

Though we are likely simple little foolish creatures in so many ways to God, to each other, I think we are rather complex.  There is no better explanation of our complexity than found in our motives.  Each thing we do is often a result of many motives, often competing and contradicting ones at that. 

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Though we are likely simple little foolish creatures in so many ways to God, to each other, I think we are rather complex.  There is no better explanation of our complexity than found in our motives.  Each thing we do is often a result of many motives, often competing and contradicting ones at that. 

Why not believe their self label? They have expressed a desire to be perceived as outlaws/scofflaws.

[stemelbow]

31 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Why not believe their self label? They have expressed a desire to be perceived as outlaws/scofflaws.

I've not addressed that at all.  Not sure what you think I believe or not.