Reconciling bruce r. McConkie

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I have to admit that I have a bro-mance for Bruce R. McConkie.  I absolutely loved this man especially for his testimony of Christ, especially the most memorable one he gave just prior to his death from cancer. An extremely powerful articulate testimony indeed and for the clear manner in which he viewed the gospel of Jesus Christ and made all of the pieces fit together.

But of all of the brethren who were such giants to me in my youth, Elder McConkie is perhaps the one of several who have not aged well with the passage of time. The other being President Kimball & President Joseph Fielding Smith (but I'll save them for another day)

Elder McConkie held to a very literal young earth biblical timeline.  While I loved that young earth 6,000 year timeline, since it put everything in such a pretty little box all tied up with a beautiful ribbon, it was all make believe and false.

In fact so many of the teachings of Elder McConkie have turned out not to be true.

He held to a Literal:

Adam and Eve living in a Garden in Missouri 6,000 years ago

No evolution

A literal Fall

The Catholic Church being the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil (Oh the fun we had with that one with my Catholic neighborhood friends)

Dinosaur Bones coming from other planets (bizarre I know)

Prophets who's pronouncements could be taken to the bank and withstand the test of time

A hemispheric setting for the Book of Mormon where all native peoples of both the Americas and the pacific were descendants of Lehi

Native American's being the principle ancestors of Lehi instead being a small undetectable trace

A literal curse of Cain (glad that one turned out to be false)

I could go on and on with teachings and beliefs held by Bruce R McConkie that have been proven beyond doubt to be false and not true.

I think the foregoing are a mix of correct recitation of his personal beliefs and somewhat hostile and tendentious caricature.

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Given the fact that so many of his teachings and beliefs have not stood the test of time,

"So many?"

I agree that Elder McConkie was fairly authoritarian/doctrinaire.  But when the chips were down, he was humble enough to correct himself and admit error.

And as you said, his testimony of Jesus Christ was "extremely powerful" and "articulate."  He had gaps and errors in his perspective on secondary/speculative matters.  And he probably should not have conflated his personal opinion with authoritative doctrine (something the current batch of Brethren are, I think, handling rather well).  But again, when the chips were down, he did his job right.  As an apostle he was supposed to testify of Christ.  He did that.

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

It makes me question even those that have.  I mean why should I or anyone else for that matter give any credence to any of his teachings if so many of this teachings have been proven to be false. 

First, that's a pretty big "if."

Second, you seem to be able to give credence to his testimony of Jesus Christ.  Hold on to that.

Third, consider this:

Quote

What Are “Special Witnesses”?

The role of a special witness is, essentially, to testify to the world of Jesus Christ. This is different from a regular witness of Christ, as we are typically only called upon to testify locally.

The term “special witness” comes from D&C 107:23:

“The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witness of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.”

The Twelve (and the First Presidency) are called to testify of Christ — His divinity, His mission, and His gospel — to the entire world. 

Elder McConkie had his failings, but I think he succeeded where it counted, in being a "Special Witness."

Fourth, I previously spoke with you, one year and two days ago to be precise, as follows:

Quote

Quote

How could the doctrine be considered flawless if we assume there are mistakes of men?

Perhaps the "mistakes of men" are not in the doctrine?

In the law, when an appellate court publishes an opinion, it is comprised of two elements: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta.

"Ratio decidendi" is "a Latin phrase meaning 'the reason' or 'the rationale for the decision'. The ratio decidendi is 'the point in a case that determines the judgement' or 'the principle that the case establishes'."

"Obiter dicta" is "a Latin phrase meaning 'by the way', that is, a remark in a judgment that is 'said in passing.'"  "For the purposes of judicial precedent, ratio decidendi is binding, whereas obiter dicta are persuasive only."

If we analogize this to scriptures (as being comparable to a published opinion), the "doctrine" in the text would be equivalent to Ratio Decidendi, with the residual text being Obiter Dicta (which can contain "mistakes of men").  The textual narrative is the framework, the tree from which the doctrinal fruit grows .

For me, this helps me reconcile the beauty of the doctrines with the presence of "errors."  For example, it is one thing to say that the Nephite record was not utterly "historically accurate" in its depiction of the Lamanites.  That they could have been, or actually were, "racist" or "ethnocentric" in their views of the Lamanites.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

It is understandable how some, without this nuanced understanding, could read the Book of Mormon as a text that portrays the Nephites as having what we today would deem “racist,” or more properly ethnocentric, attitudes towards non-Nephites. “Could the Nephites have been racist in their views of the Lamanites?” asked John A. Tvedtnes. “Perhaps, in the same sense that the biblical patriarchs were racist when it came to their pagan neighbors—the Hittites, the Canaanites, and the Amorites—and did not want their offspring to marry these unbelievers.”

Brant A. Gardner remarked that “the Book of Mormon is, in fact, racist,” but quickly added that it is “not at all ['racist'] in the usual sense of the term.” Rather than being a form of modern racism that bases antipathy on a difference of skin color, Gardner reads Nephite “racism” as an ethnocentrism “along the insider/outsider boundary, not the white/dark boundary.” Gardner concluded that “the ‘skin of blackness’ was certainly intended to be a pejorative term, but it was not a physical description.”

It should not be overlooked that the Book of Mormon itself condemns this Nephite ethnocentrism. Jacob slammed Nephite ethnic pride when he declared, “Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you. . . . Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins” (Jacob 3:5, 9). Clear at the end of Nephite history, tribalism and ethnocentrism was eschewed, and portrayed as leading to hatred, wickeness, pride, vanity, and rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (4 Nephi 1:38–43). Whatever ethnocentric attitudes the Nephites may have exhibited were thus condemned by the Book of Mormon prophets.

The Book of Mormon had an editor.  Perhaps Mormon was sufficiently inspired to craft a narrative that contains pure "doctrine" while also addressing the errors and flaws of those who sought to discern and obey those doctrines.

I invite you to consider not imposing expectations of infallibility/perfection on the Brethren.  

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Does he even carry any credibility with anything anymore?

Oh my, yes.  He spoke meaningfully and correctly on all sorts of things.

As for his errors, consider applying this wise counsel from Joseph Smith:

Quote

I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine. It looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter-day-Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It doesn’t prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.

(Joseph Smith, Discourse, 8 Apr. 1843, JS Collection, Church History Library)

And this counsel from Moroni 9:

Quote

31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; 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.

Yep.

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So how have YOU been able to reconcile Bruce R. McConkie knowing that so many of his teachings have been shown to be not true?

See above.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm not suggesting that McConkie wasn't an apostle.  He certainly was an apostle.  But had I made important life decision on his teachings I would have paid an awful price.  Oh wait, I did make important life decisions based in part on things he taught and did pay a high price.

Do you mind sharing?  How did one of his false teaching influence you to make a decision that you would not have made otherwise, which led to an awful price?  What did you learn from that experience?

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, you seem to be able to give credence to his testimony of Jesus Christ.  Hold on to that.

Elder McConkie had his failings, but I think he succeeded where it counted, in being a "Special Witness."

I think this is a very important point.  Apostles are called to be special witnesses of Jesus Christ.  They do not have authority to dictate or reveal doctrine for the church (an important doctrine to understand), and that includes their views on dinosaur bones.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'll add, my sister, who is a believer said churches are man made. 

Of course they are.  But that doesn’t mean God isn’t contributing heavily as well through revelation and inspiration just because then any direction from him has to be carried out by individuals and organizations.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Oh wait, I did make important life decisions based in part on things he taught…

Like what?

[JAHS]

45 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So imagine you run into someone whom you view as an authority only to discover long into your relationship that 50% (Just using this as an example) of the information imparted to you to make life's decisions on was false information.  Does that not cut into the credibility of anything else this person might instruct you in? Example: A certain former politician has zero credibility with me because of his lies and belief in conspiracies.  He could almost say anything today to me and I would no more take him as being credible as  a known charlatan

But it wasn't 50% and I made no life decisions based on what he said. My original answer stands

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Yet at one time he WAS the one holding the keys of being a living prophet and yet anyone following his directives would have been led into falsehoods.  How can we place any faith in those who hold the keys today given the fact that we know given enough time even their pronouncement could come back to bit us in the ...

After each point below, I add "Problem solved" because any of them solve this problem.

I have a testimony that the keys were restored.

Elder McConkie held the same keys that gave me the ordinances. I kept them while he was alive and I still keep them no matter how fallible he or his fellow servants (then or now) may be and I improve in my godly walk from year to year. 

I am not led astray no matter what I believe that might be wrong because (after faith), repentance is my #1 priority.

By God's grace it doesn't take much faith to enjoy the blessings of the restored keys; on the other hand, a particle of faith generates only a particle of knowledge. This is where errors and mistakes come from. We cannot be saved in ignorance, but faith gives us enough knowledge to be saved as indicated by continued progress.

The Lord delegated these fallible men His keys: that is grace in action, and it is consistent with how He works with me.

The Lord did not expect the prophet known as the brother of Jared to know that He would take upon Himself flesh and blood; did not condemn anyone of that dispensation for not knowing it; and He even forbade the brother of Jared from sharing this advanced knowledge. 

---

And so, given the validity of the ordinances and keeping them with integrity, the glass is half full: we (individually and collectively as a Church) are not accountably led astray by falsehoods because of lack of knowledge, but rather led into faith and repentance as we honor the light we have.

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by CV75

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm not suggesting that McConkie wasn't an apostle.  He certainly was an apostle.  But had I made important life decision on his teachings I would have paid an awful price.  Oh wait, I did make important life decisions based in part on things he taught and did pay a high price.

When I was a missionary we had a General Authority (not an apostle, but other than that I won't say who) visit.  During his presentation he said some pretty awful things.  Without going into detail, suffice it to say he made all of us feel pretty terrible.  

Fortunately, I did not make an "important life decision on his teachings."  He was one of many prophets and apostles I have listened to over the years.  I value their cumulative counsel, which I have found to overwhelmingly be good, correct and ratified by the Holy Spirit.

There is not hard-and-fast categorization of doctrinal precepts.  They exist on a spectrum.  Of important to not important.  Of "essential to our salvation" to "probative and helpful, but not essential" to "tangential" to "not really important at all."  Of "we have a lot of revelation and clarity on this" to "we know some things, but there are a lot of gaps and and imperfections" to "we know little or nothing about this."

I think the Restored Gospel provides us with ways to move forward despite errors here and there by this or that GA.  Consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

Quote

Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

This has been a very helpful framework for me to utilize when I encounter things like the flawed/erroneous teachings from GAs.  Such things are, with patience and time and study, sussed out by the other legs of the stool.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 14, 2021 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think this is a very important point.  Apostles are called to be special witnesses of Jesus Christ.  They do not have authority to dictate or reveal doctrine for the church (an important doctrine to understand), and that includes their views on dinosaur bones.  

I think Elder D. Todd Christofferson disagrees with you. All things considered, I’m inclined to go with Elder Christofferson:

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9). This is to say that while there is much we do not yet know, the truths and doctrine we have received have come and will continue to come by divine revelation. In some faith traditions, theologians claim equal teaching authority with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and doctrinal matters may become a contest of opinions between them. Some rely on the ecumenical councils of the Middle Ages and their creeds. Others place primary emphasis on the reasoning of post-apostolic theologians or on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.²

In 1954, President J. Reuben Clark Jr., then a counselor in the First Presidency, explained how doctrine is promulgated in the Church and the preeminent role of the President of the Church. Speaking of members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he stated: “[We] should [bear] in mind that some of the General Authorities have had assigned to them a special calling; they possess a special gift; they are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, which gives them a special spiritual endowment in connection with their teaching of the people. They have the right, the power, and authority to declare the mind and will of God to his people, subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. Others of the General Authorities are not given this special spiritual endowment and authority covering their teaching; they have a resulting limitation, and the resulting limitation upon their power and authority in teaching applies to every other officer and member of the Church, for none of them is spiritually endowed as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Furthermore, as just indicated, the President of the Church has a further and special spiritual endowment in this respect, for he is the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the whole Church.”³

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

The church is always growing in light and understanding. I think MANY church leaders in his era spoke their minds as if they were doctrine. I do appreciate how the leaders are more careful today about what they say in settings… however… it is also annoying that we do t get to hear all the opinions and wisdom of our leaders… but with so many members struggling to separate doctrine from opinion, it makes sense that they are more careful these days.

How do I reconcile it? They were wrong and that’s ok

I agree with this. 

I think too many leaders in the past took strongly held opinions and beliefs and taught them over the pulpit authoritatively.  That has caused a bit of a mess for us now.  But likewise, I do miss hearing their opinions and personal beliefs on things.  I think it was a benefit to be able to learn of their hard-earned wisdom (much of which is probably right!) and also a benefit to us when that wisdom ended up being wrong (I remember reading about when Pres. J. Fielding Smith taught that man would never get to space at a stake conference in Hawaii.  His reasoning for that belief was well supported.  It was also flawed--what a great lesson for all of us!).  I think both scenarios helped the members to grow spiritually. 

But understand why they don't share them very often anymore. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think Elder D. Todd Christofferson disagrees with you. All things considered, I’m inclined to go with Elder Christofferson:

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9). This is to say that while there is much we do not yet know, the truths and doctrine we have received have come and will continue to come by divine revelation. In some faith traditions, theologians claim equal teaching authority with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and doctrinal matters may become a contest of opinions between them. Some rely on the ecumenical councils of the Middle Ages and their creeds. Others place primary emphasis on the reasoning of post-apostolic theologians or on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.²

In 1954, President J. Reuben Clark Jr., then a counselor in the First Presidency, explained how doctrine is promulgated in the Church and the preeminent role of the President of the Church. Speaking of members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he stated: “[We] should [bear] in mind that some of the General Authorities have had assigned to them a special calling; they possess a special gift; they are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, which gives them a special spiritual endowment in connection with their teaching of the people. They have the right, the power, and authority to declare the mind and will of God to his people, subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. Others of the General Authorities are not given this special spiritual endowment and authority covering their teaching; they have a resulting limitation, and the resulting limitation upon their power and authority in teaching applies to every other officer and member of the Church, for none of them is spiritually endowed as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Furthermore, as just indicated, the President of the Church has a further and special spiritual endowment in this respect, for he is the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the whole Church.”³

 

Another sound bit of counsel, this one from Elder Andersen: "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."

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think this is a very important point.  Apostles are called to be special witnesses of Jesus Christ.  They do not have authority to dictate or reveal doctrine for the church (an important doctrine to understand), and that includes their views on dinosaur bones.  

We sustain those men as "prophets, seerers, and revelators".  In your opinion, if they do not have the authority to reveal doctrine, what is it they have authority to reveal?

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Adam and Eve living in a Garden in Missouri 6,000 years ago

No evolution

A literal Fall

The Catholic Church being the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil (Oh the fun we had with that one with my Catholic neighborhood friends)

Dinosaur Bones coming from other planets (bizarre I know)

Prophets who's pronouncements could be taken to the bank and withstand the test of time

A hemispheric setting for the Book of Mormon where all native peoples of both the Americas and the pacific were descendants of Lehi

Native American's being the principle ancestors of Lehi instead being a small undetectable trace

A literal curse of Cain (glad that one turned out to be false)

I didn't realize that the bolded had been proven to be definitely false.  When did that happen?

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

He taught things as an apostle that are demonstrable false.  How have you been able to accept anything else he taught as being authoritative given the fact that so much of what he taught is not true.  The man simply has no credibility.

I'm not being snarky but only asking so that maybe you can look at it from a different perspective....

But, when you have taught something that ended up being not true, how did you expect people to be able to accept anything else that you taught?  Sincere question.  

Does one have to be infallible in their teachings before any of their teachings are believable?

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We sustain those men as "prophets, seerers, and revelators".  In your opinion, if they do not have the authority to reveal doctrine, what is it they have authority to reveal?

They don’t have authority to reveal doctrine for the whole church.  This is spelled out in D&C 28 after the Hyrum Page peep stone incident.

”Joseph Smith holds the keys of the mysteries, and only he receives revelations for the Church“

Maybe their role as seer and revelator is more specific to their area of stewardship.  For example receiving revelation in regards to the direction of the church in Asia, etc.  

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think Elder D. Todd Christofferson disagrees with you. All things considered, I’m inclined to go with Elder Christofferson:

Maybe you missed this part, because he does seem to agree with me:

Furthermore, as just indicated, the President of the Church has a further and special spiritual endowment in this respect, for he is the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the whole Church.”
 

D&C 28

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

They don’t have authority to reveal doctrine for the whole church.  This is spelled out in D&C 28 after the Hyrum Page peep stone incident.

”Joseph Smith holds the keys of the mysteries, and only he receives revelations for the Church“

Maybe their role as seer and revelator is more specific to their area of stewardship.  For example receiving revelation in regards to the direction of the church in Asia, etc.  

Thanks for clarifying.  

[Bob Crockett]

Elder McConkie is a favorite whipping boy of the marginal member.

"Mormon Doctrine," last time I checked, was one of the most heavily cited references in General Conference.

Elder McConkie was uniquely a scriptorian, meaning, he knew the KJV scriptures back and forth.  But a Biblical scholar he was not.  He didn't know any of the basics of Biblical commentary even though he wrote one.  The Church doesn't really need a Biblical scholar, as Elder Dallin Oaks once said in a famous speech in or around 2003.  Elder Oaks said that we rely upon and revere the words of the Bible for what the words are today, and not for what contemporaneous religious and secular history might explain the words to be.  Elder Oaks said that the Bible can be interpreted many different ways by people subject to the Spirit. The Church doesn't need a Bart Erhmann (sp?) to understand the Bible.

In public Elder McConkie was not a very lovable fellow.  The Church doesn't really require that.  On my mission the most lovable and empathetic person, with a lot of success, came home, married a wonderful person and then divorced her to live an alternative life style.  So having a loveable personality is not much of a requirement. 

Elder McConkie tended not to be in harmony with his Brethren because he was stubborn.  I consider that to be troublesome but then he would not likey have generated his famous works.

Elder McConkie has an annoying writing style (he loved the word "transcendant" which means nothing), which seems to be copied after his father in law.  I just ignore all that, because being Terryl Givens isn't quite what the world needs.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

So I consider Elder McConkie to be one of the greatest authorities this Church has ever produced.  Do I believe everything he says?  Mostly.  Do I get great insights from him?  On occasion and significantly so.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

 

"Mormon Doctrine," last time I checked, was one of the most heavily cited references in General Conference.

 

How would one check something like this?  I looked through the footnotes of the Saturday sessions and Mormon Doctrine wasn't cited even once.  I don't expect the Sunday sessions to look that different.

[JAHS]

Some of you have probably heard this already but here is a story about Elder McConkie's last talk

"In Relief Society today our closing song was 'I Believe in Christ.' Then, as we began our Fast and Testimony meeting, our opening song was 'I Believe in Christ.' This co-incidence made me think that perhaps it's time I share with you how we got this hymn.
"Some 15 years ago, my husband Bruce R. McConkie was very ill. The doctor told us he had two months to live, at the most. However, Bruce felt he still had some things he wanted to do. The Brethren gave him a blessing and his family gathered to share their faith and prayers. He lived an additional fourteen months, although he was very ill much of that time. He never thought he wasn't going to get better. He told me time and time again that this was the Lord's test for him, and that he had enough faith in and of himself to be healed.
"Early in February, on an overcast day much like today, I decided to make a pie to cheer him up, as he loved pie. While I was doing this he lay on the floor in our bedroom, which he often did. He had a pencil and paper in hand and was writing. Then he came into the kitchen where I was working and said, 'Do you want to hear what I'm going to talk about in Conference?'
"The pie was almost finished and I wanted to get it in the oven, but I soon realized that you don't make pies while he's talking like this. So I stopped and sat down to listen. He read to me his talk, and I said, 'It's the most beautiful thing you've ever written, but how will you ever do it?' He was so ill and so weak. 'I don't know,' he answered, 'but I will.'
"His doctor was so worried. 'You've got a dying man on your hands; you must not let him speak at conference. If he tries, he will collapse on nationwide television.' But I couldn't try to stop him. He was determined to do it and nothing could have stopped him. Our son said, 'I don't think there's anything Dad wanted to do more than preach that last sermon at Conference.' So our children fasted together, asking that their father would have the physical and emotional strength to fulfill his wish.
"During the Saturday morning session of April 1985 General Conference, a thin Bruce R. McConkie took his place at the pulpit and despite his weakened condition, he bore majestic testimony to the truths so integral to his life and mission. He testified, 'I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears. But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God's Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.' (Excerpted from his Conference address)
"The following Sunday Elder Packer visited him at home and gave him a blessing in which he told Bruce he should 'quit resisting the will of the Lord.' We both knew what he meant. At the conclusion, with tears running down his face, Bruce looked at me as I stood at the foot of the bed, and said, 'Amelia, do you know what he just did?' 'Yes,' I answered, 'he has sealed you unto death.'
"That was so hard on Bruce. He wanted so much to live. But as I showed Elder Packer out, Bruce got up, folded the bedspread as he always did at night, got ready for bed, and got under the covers. Always before he would insist that I make the bed and he would lay on top of it, fully dressed. But this was his way of saying to the Lord, 'I am bowing to your will.' He passed away a short time later."
What a great blessing to have the beautiful hymn, "I Believe In Christ", taken from his testimony.

As recorded and written by Jane P. Merrill September 6, 1998

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I have to admit that I have a bro-mance for Bruce R. McConkie.  I absolutely loved this man especially for his testimony of Christ, especially the most memorable one he gave just prior to his death from cancer. An extremely powerful articulate testimony indeed and for the clear manner in which he viewed the gospel of Jesus Christ and made all of the pieces fit together.

But of all of the brethren who were such giants to me in my youth, Elder McConkie is perhaps the one of several who have not aged well with the passage of time. The other being President Kimball & President Joseph Fielding Smith (but I'll save them for another day)

Elder McConkie held to a very literal young earth biblical timeline.  While I loved that young earth 6,000 year timeline, since it put everything in such a pretty little box all tied up with a beautiful ribbon, it was all make believe and false.

In fact so many of the teachings of Elder McConkie have turned out not to be true.

He held to a Literal:

Adam and Eve living in a Garden in Missouri 6,000 years ago

No evolution

A literal Fall

The Catholic Church being the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil (Oh the fun we had with that one with my Catholic neighborhood friends)

Dinosaur Bones coming from other planets (bizarre I know)

Prophets who's pronouncements could be taken to the bank and withstand the test of time

A hemispheric setting for the Book of Mormon where all native peoples of both the Americas and the pacific were descendants of Lehi

Native American's being the principle ancestors of Lehi instead being a small undetectable trace

A literal curse of Cain (glad that one turned out to be false)

I could go on and on with teachings and beliefs held by Bruce R McConkie that have been proven beyond doubt to be false and not true.

Given the fact that so many of his teachings and beliefs have not stood the test of time, It makes me question even those that have.  I mean why should I or anyone else for that matter give any credence to any of his teachings if so many of this teachings have been proven to be false.  Does he even carry any credibility with anything anymore?

So how have YOU been able to reconcile Bruce R. McConkie knowing that so many of his teachings have been shown to be not true?

Goodness knows I have my own issues with his teachings (such as deadly heresies that happen to be true).

But I have no issue reconciling the things you listed because 1. I agree with him on most and 2. The ones I disagree with were his beliefs, not mine. 

There's no need to reconcile one's personal beliefs with another's.  Even when that man is a prophet or apostle.

The issue is when you say "In fact so many of the teachings of Elder McConkie have turned out not to be true."

Just because you or I disagree with him that doesn't have to be an issue.  You seem to have a very hard time with any authoritative pronouncement on Adam/Eve/creationism.  I would suggest that's for you to get past, not for anyone to renounce.  Some of us still believe that way.

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you mind sharing?  How did one of his false teaching influence you to make a decision that you would not have made otherwise, which led to an awful price?  What did you learn from that experience?

I served a mission, which led to a lifetime of faithful service and devotion to the church...all based on the premise that the church was true.  Now I wonder what my life would have been. 

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Like what?

See my reply to pogi 

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

After each point below, I add "Problem solved" because any of them solve this problem.

I have a testimony that the keys were restored.

Elder McConkie held the same keys that gave me the ordinances. I kept them while he was alive and I still keep them no matter how fallible he or his fellow servants (then or now) may be and I improve in my godly walk from year to year. 

I am not led astray no matter what I believe that might be wrong because (after faith), repentance is my #1 priority.

By God's grace it doesn't take much faith to enjoy the blessings of the restored keys; on the other hand, a particle of faith generates only a particle of knowledge. This is where errors and mistakes come from. We cannot be saved in ignorance, but faith gives us enough knowledge to be saved as indicated by continued progress.

The Lord delegated these fallible men His keys: that is grace in action, and it is consistent with how He works with me.

The Lord did not expect the prophet known as the brother of Jared to know that He would take upon Himself flesh and blood; did not condemn anyone of that dispensation for not knowing it; and He even forbade the brother of Jared from sharing this advanced knowledge. 

---

And so, given the validity of the ordinances and keeping them with integrity, the glass is half full: we (individually and collectively as a Church) are not accountably led astray by falsehoods because of lack of knowledge, but rather led into faith and repentance as we honor the light we have.

 

We obviously think differently