I am shocked!

[cdowis]

As an apologist, I was rather shocked to discover that "Mormon Doctrine" is quoted in an official manual of the church.  
What next,  Journal of discourses?  Perhaps the White Horse Prophecy

Somebody didn't get the memo.  

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual/chapter-19-eternal-life?lang=eng

apologist, "Mormon Doctrine is not an official publication of the church.  It is just his personal opinion."

critic, "So why is it quoted.....etc"

apologist, "Well, it is a mixture of truth and error.... uhhhh... cough...."

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

As an apologist, I was rather shocked to discover that "Mormon Doctrine" is quoted in an official manual of the church.  
What next,  Journal of discourses?  Perhaps the White Horse Prophecy

Somebody didn't get the memo.  

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual/chapter-19-eternal-life?lang=eng

apologist, "Mormon Doctrine is not an official publication of the church.  It is just his personal opinion."

critic, "So why is it quoted.....etc"

apologist, "Well, it is a mixture of truth and error.... uhhhh... cough...."

The book has been quoted and cited for many years in Church manuals and publications. Much of it is very solid doctrinally. Elder McConkie is not a doctrinal pariah and should not be made out to be one. 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

As an apologist, I was rather shocked to discover that "Mormon Doctrine" is quoted in an official manual of the church.  
What next,  Journal of discourses?  Perhaps the White Horse Prophecy

Somebody didn't get the memo.  

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual/chapter-19-eternal-life?lang=eng

apologist, "Mormon Doctrine is not an official publication of the church.  It is just his personal opinion."

critic, "So why is it quoted.....etc"

apologist, "Well, it is a mixture of truth and error.... uhhhh... cough...."

It is a mix of truth and error.  Some of Elder Mckonkie's beliefs agreed with church doctrine, and others didn't.  Quoting his book is no different than quoting him, and he's quoting frequently.

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The book has been quoted and cited for many years in Church manuals and publications. Much of it is very solid doctrinally. Elder McConkie is not a doctrinal parish and should not be made out to be one. 

From an outsider's perspective, who has been a longtime member; When Church is so careful to sanitize it's past (no criticism intended) I never understood the value of keeping Publications like "Mormon Doctrine", "The Miracle of Forgiveness". Could one of you Apologist guys explain please?

Edited August 19, 2017 by Atheist Mormon

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

From an outsider's perspective, who has been a longtime member; When Church is so careful to sanitize it's past (no criticism intended) I never understood the value of keeping Publications like "Mormon Doctrine", "The Miracle of Forgiveness". Could one of you Apologist guys explain please?

Truth, no matter what the source?

[rpn]

In the front of most manuals now, there is an address and a note requesting members to bring troublesome things to their attention.   If you haven't done so, then I'm not sure you can reasonably complain about what you see as error.

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

As an apologist, I was rather shocked to discover that "Mormon Doctrine" is quoted in an official manual of the church.  
What next,  Journal of discourses?  Perhaps the White Horse Prophecy

Somebody didn't get the memo.  

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual/chapter-19-eternal-life?lang=eng

apologist, "Mormon Doctrine is not an official publication of the church.  It is just his personal opinion."

critic, "So why is it quoted.....etc"

apologist, "Well, it is a mixture of truth and error.... uhhhh... cough...."

Is there anything specificly wrong with what was quoted?  I didn't see anything.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

As an apologist, I was rather shocked to discover that "Mormon Doctrine" is quoted in an official manual of the church.  
What next,  Journal of discourses?  Perhaps the White Horse Prophecy

Somebody didn't get the memo.  

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual/chapter-19-eternal-life?lang=eng

apologist, "Mormon Doctrine is not an official publication of the church.  It is just his personal opinion."

critic, "So why is it quoted.....etc"

apologist, "Well, it is a mixture of truth and error.... uhhhh... cough...."

Who was quoting it and claiming it was official Church Doctrne? Was it just a single teaching do so? Either way beyond the Standard Works, the Church has only two  (to my knowledge) commissioned books to reflect "official doctrine". Jesus The Christ, and "The Articles of Faith" (the book, not the Articles themselves, as they are already part of our  canon). But for those quoting aspects of the book Mormon Doctrine, where Elder McConkie, was quoting others or espousing truth, and not opinion, I see no harm. But one should or any teacher should simply quote him and not promote the book by name. Even better they should look up such quotes from the Church search engine and find the "Conference Talk" in which he said it. Heaven forbid that they quote from his anti-Black comments, or ant-Catholic remarks, or other topics that were opinion only. Despite his flaws (that all men have), he was a powerful teacher and speaker, and obiedent sevant of God. His final address in Oct 1985, General Conference, was like the "dews of heaven", from a man who had given his life in the service of the Church. It was unfortunate that he did not heed to the wishes of Church leaders and publish the book, but all men struggle with ego, or a need to teach and convince others of our views. Also much of what he wrote was the words of his father-in-law, Joseph Feilding Smith and Brigham Young. Who were usually always speaking to a largely small or closed community, just went to far. We all want (or most want) to speak only the words God gives us in that hour when we speak. But sadly most, if not all can get carried away when we see we have the audience grasping at the straws  that we are offerering. 

[Robert F. Smith]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

Truth, no matter what the source?

Even Satan and his imps speak truth on occasion (Genesis 3:5, Matthew 8:29, James 2:19).  That does not make them unimpeachable and reliable sources on all matters.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It is a mix of truth and error.  Some of Elder Mckonkie's beliefs agreed with church doctrine, and others didn't.  Quoting his book is no different than quoting him, and he's quoting frequently.

Well that's mostly true.
We can't ignore the fact that at various periods in Church history Church doctrine was set and established based on the understanding of specific men.

Talmage and Widtsoe did more to define Church doctrine in their period than anyone else.
McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith in their era.

It's all well and good to say McConkie disagreed with the Church on some things, but the things they agreed on were almost certainly because he had such huge influence on Church doctrine.

[Calm]

They have, however, also removed a number of his quotes in other places in manuals.  I understood from one member who was helping produce new manuals they prefer to use scripture when they have that.  You can tell by comparing the newer GP manual to the old one.

McConkie had a lot of good to say, there was percentage wise in his work a small amount of error, but unfortunately many members can't handle that.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Calm

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Who was quoting it and claiming it was official Church Doctrne?  snip

I am speaking in my role as an apologist.  Which means, obviously, that I am talking to antiMormons.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

From an outsider's perspective, who has been a longtime member; When Church is so careful to sanitize it's past (no criticism intended) I never understood the value of keeping Publications like "Mormon Doctrine", "The Miracle of Forgiveness". Could one of you Apologist guys explain please?

You won't like my answer. I quite like Miracle. Always have. And I'm not one of those who detest Elder McConkie or his book. 

That said, I think both are out of print by now. Both have lasted longer than the vast majority of books. 

[Atheist Mormon]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You won't like my answer. I quite like Miracle. Always have. And I'm not one of those who detest Elder McConkie or his book. 

That said, I think both are out of print by now. Both have lasted longer than the vast majority of books. 

No liking/disliking your answers. I have both books in my library. They are part of LDS History.

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Truth, no matter what the source?

Sounds OK to me.

[readstoomuch]

It can be a challenge to look at Mormon Doctrine and separate the wheat and the chaff.  There is way more wheat.  I used to struggle with him as someone who studied evolution in detail.  The age of the earth and evolution were sticking points with me in his writings.  He could be dogmatic.  It all basically went away in mind with his final testimony of Christ.  I know that he spent his time and energy trying to bring Christ to as many people as he could.  I can give him some charity on some sticking points.  

[Kenngo1969]

A certain symbol receives a certain placement as a constant reminder to the faithful that "All truth may be circumscribed into one great whole."  (Have I said too much? )  Shhhhh!!!!!

[The Nehor]

We quote Wordsworth poems, Shakespeare, and C.S. Lewis regularly. I am pretty sure we are not restricted to canon here.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

From an outsider's perspective, who has been a longtime member; When Church is so careful to sanitize it's past (no criticism intended) I never understood the value of keeping Publications like "Mormon Doctrine", "The Miracle of Forgiveness". Could one of you Apologist guys explain please?

What do you mean by "keeping"?  In your library?  Where are they "kept"?

If you don't like them, throw them out.

[Atheist Mormon]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What do you mean by "keeping"?  In your library?  Where are they "kept"?

If you don't like them, throw them out.

This response is unbelievably obnoxious....you don't need patronize me. I also have a copy of "My Kampf" in my library. Not that I'm equating those books. 

 

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

This response is unbelievably obnoxious....you don't need patronize me. I also have a copy of "My Kampf" in my library. Not that I'm equating those books. 

 

I don't mean to be patronizing- sorry I just have no idea what you are saying.  You said "why keep these books" and I did not know what you meant by "keep".  Now you conclude that you are equating Mormon Doctrine with Mein Kampf because you have both in your library?

Nevermind, sorry for bothering you.

[Atheist Mormon]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't mean to be patronizing- sorry I just have no idea what you are saying.  You said "why keep these books" and I did not know what you meant by "keep".  Now you conclude that you are equating Mormon Doctrine with Mein Kampf because you have both in your library?

Nevermind, sorry for bothering you.

Lat's clarify, I didn't equate in any way and I wrote so. My view is this; Those LDS books are important (indelible) part of the History that no person can shake it loose. I do like to read them when later administrations tried to steer away from original Church Doctrines. Anybody can watch those interviews GBH gave to Larry King shows, or 60 Minutes and compare them to Mormon Doctrine. Deep down (even though I lost my faith in divine totally) I still lament that Church divest itself from those Core doctrines which were so unique to them.

[Gray]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Even Satan and his imps speak truth on occasion (Genesis 3:5, Matthew 8:29, James 2:19).  That does not make them unimpeachable and reliable sources on all matters.

Indeed. And even angels may err on occasion. So truth supersedes the authority or lack of authority of any source.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Gray

[JAHS]

At the preface of Mormon Doctrine Elder McConkie states the following.

For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility.

Salt Lake City, Utah
June 1, 1958
— BRUCE R. MCCONKIE

In other words this is Mormon Doctrine as I understand it.

In the second edition he states:
From the time the first copies came from the press, this compendium of Mormon Doctrine has found a wide and gratifying acceptance among doctrinal students in all parts of the Church. In publishing this Second Edition, as is common with major encyclopedic-type works, experience has shown the wisdom of making some changes, clarifications, and additions.

Salt Lake City, Utah
September 1, 1966
— BRUCE R. MCCONKIE

In other words he was willing to learn and progress as we all are doing and make changes where needed. The few things that he might have been wrong about in no way jeopardizes anyone's eternal life. I see no reason why the things he was right about can not be included in official church publications.

[smac97]

20 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

It can be a challenge to look at Mormon Doctrine and separate the wheat and the chaff.  There is way more wheat.  I used to struggle with him as someone who studied evolution in detail.  The age of the earth and evolution were sticking points with me in his writings.  He could be dogmatic.  It all basically went away in mind with his final testimony of Christ.  I know that he spent his time and energy trying to bring Christ to as many people as he could.  I can give him some charity on some sticking points.  

I think these 2012 remarks by Elder Neil L. Anderson are helpful when contemplating the issue of what constitutes LDS "doctrine":

Quote

Here is another trial. There have always been a few who want to discredit the Church and to destroy faith. Today they use the Internet.

...

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.”

And these remarks by . . . Elder McConkie:

Quote

3. True Doctrines Are in Harmony with the Standard Works.

The Standard Works are scripture. They are binding upon us. They are the mind and will and voice of the Lord. He never has, he does not now, and he never will reveal anything which is contrary to what is in them. No person, speaking by the spirit of inspiration, will ever teach doctrine that is out of harmony with the truths God has already revealed.

These words of President Joseph Fielding Smith should guide all of us in our gospel study: “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

“Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 3:203–4; also cited in Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], p. 609.)

4. Seek to Harmonize Scriptural and Prophetic Utterances.

Every truth, in every field, in all the earth, and in all eternity, is in complete and total harmony with every other truth. Truth is always in harmony with itself. The word of the Lord is truth, and no scripture ever contradicts another, nor is any inspired statement of any person out of harmony with an inspired statement of any other person. Paul and James did not have differing views on faith and works, and everything that Alma said about the resurrection accords with Section 76 in the Doctrine and Covenants. When we find seeming conflicts, it means we have not as yet caught the full vision of whatever points are involved.

The Lord expects us to seek for harmony and agreement in the scriptures and among the Brethren rather than for seeming divergences of views. Those who have faith and understanding always seek to harmonize into one perfect whole all the statements of the scriptures and all the pronouncements of the Brethren. The unfortunate complex in some quarters to pounce upon this bit of information or that and conclude that it is at variance with what someone else has said is not of God. Over the years I have received thousands of letters saying, “So-and-So said one thing, but Some-One-Else said the reverse—who is right?” My experience is that in most instances—nay, in almost all instances—the seeming divergencies can be harmonized, and when they cannot be it is of no moment anyway. The Spirit of the Lord leads to harmony and unity and agreement and oneness. The spirit of the devil champions division and debate and contention and disunity.

And these remarks by . . . Elder McConkie again:

Quote

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

These passages are very helpful to me.

As an attorney, I regularly litigate issues which must be decided as either A) a question of fact, B) a question of law, or C) a mixed question of law and fact.  Sometimes attorneys work with each other and, either through informal negotiations or mediation, reach an accord as to these questions of fact and/or law.  Often, however, these questions must be decided by a judge.  

I practice law in Utah (mostly in Salt Lake County), and regularly appear in both state and federal court.  I am generally quite satisfied with the competency and honesty of the judiciary.  Nevertheless, there are times when a judge is simply wrong in adjudicating a question of law or fact.  I had a case like this not too long ago, in which the state court trial judge made a decision and dismissed some claims which I felt was about 95% wrong.  However, we kept going with the litigation, and several months later the Utah Supreme Court issued a decision in a separate case but which addressed the same legal issues, and which was fundamentally incompatible with the trial judge's ruling.  We presented this Supreme Court decision to the trial judge, who promptly reversed herself 180 degrees so as to comport with the Supreme Court's decision.

I was quite gratified to see this happen.  However, it doesn't always pan out that way.  Sometimes a bad decision by a judge does not get corrected in time, such that the only things left to do are A) to accept that the bad decision happened, and B) to continue to work within the U.S. legal system anyway, knowing that occasional errors in the system do not invalidate it.

I love the U.S. legal system, despite its flaws.  It is based on the U.S. Constitution, which is an amazing (and, I believe, divinely inspired) document.  I am grateful for the judges who, in the aggregate, work hard to ensure that the laws of the land are properly interpreted and enforced with justice and equity in mind.

I also love the Restored Gospel, which is also a "system" of governance (distinct from, but having some similarities to, our Constitutional form of government).  I am grateful for the leaders of the Church who, in the aggregate, work hard to ensure that the revealed doctrines and teachings of the Church are properly interpreted and taught and applied.

If and when a General Authority says something that does not quite ring true, I think of the foregoing principles and proceed.  It works well for me.

Thanks,

-Smac