Jump to content

Reconciling bruce r. McConkie


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The problem is knowing which parts to heed and which parts that were given as authoritative council from God should be rejected.

Except that this isn't actually a problem. As noted by Brigham Young, not engaging this matter would 'thwart the purpose of God' in relation to our salvation. It's an essential element of faith and discipleship. 'Man cannot be saved in ignorance'.

Quote

Your best hope is to seek emperical evidence that is tangible and can be tested, everything else is just a unsupported hope that could or could not bare out.

I agree 100 per cent! That is precisely what I meant when I wrote that independent verification leads to personal knowledge.

As I have argued on this forum many times, if I think an angel visited me during the night and told me about an ancient book buried in a nearby hill, it was probably just a crazy dream. If I go to the hill, and dig up the book, something more is going on. That has been my approach throughout my time in the Church because it is precisely what every prophet since Joseph Smith has taught.

Consequently, there are things that I know because I've had personal (and usually repeated) personal experience with them. Then there are things that I believe because they belong to the same 'doctrinal complex' as the things that I know, but, lacking personal experience, I don't know them yet. And then there are things I have no clue what to do with.

Engaged discipleship is specifically and carefully designed to shift things from the 'believe' pool into the 'know' pool, and to bring us increased clarity regarding everything else.

This is why Elder Bednar in a priesthood leadership training meeting here around 6 to 8 years ago told us that those who refuse to actively engage in the work of salvation have in essence made the choice to leave the Church because (a) there is no other way to know anything with surety than to have tested it through faithful application/action and (b) we live in a time when, without knowledge that is growing, the Church is increasingly not a comfortable place to be.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

This. (Though I think Bob meant "what" not "want".)

 

I believe we are church who follows the prophet, not doctrine, of course it could be argued that the prophet defines current doctrine.

McConkie was, in my opinion, the last high level GA theologian who would was willing to explicate doctrine.

 

Well, your observation about McConkie is correct but it wasn't doctrine in the official church sense.  And I dispute the concept that the prophet defines current doctrine.  It is the Q12 that does that.

Link to comment
On 7/14/2021 at 1:40 PM, 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

No death before the 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?

Bruce R. McConkie

Yours is a very clever way to get some of the believing participants on this thread to (unwittingly?) agree with you that many of the passages in the scriptures of the Church are untrue. Is it not correct that in the eyes of many former believers Elder McConkie’s main “transgression” is that he actually had the temerity to believe the scriptures are factually true?

Meanwhile, the fact is that there isn’t a single so-called ‘controversial” doctrinal belief that Elder McConkie held that can’t be well supported — or at very least strongly suggested to be true — in the scriptures of the Church. You know your ultimate target the scriptures, but you artfully used Elder McConkie’s current unpopularity as a wedge to get some of the faithful members here to begin to walk away from their trust in the reliability of the scriptures. To me at least, your ploy is very transparent.

Discuss the post not the poster.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

How does that invalidate the Church as an organization?  I don't know of any Church teaching that would invalidate the Church if wrong except for those surrounding priesthood, revelation, and Christ.

If you can trust people who teach something for over a hundred years and then suddenly we are supposed to forget it all then more power to you.  Further, now not only are we to forget it all but these leaders apparently did not know what the heck they were talking about.  All speculative.  The LDS Church claims to be Gods one and only true church and that God directs the church through apostles and prophets.  If the leaders were wrong about  the priesthood ban either they were not listening to God or they don't really talk to God. The ban was very damaging to many of God's children. God's true church would not act in such damaging ways.

 

Take another issue.  BYs Adam God doctrine.  Either he was right and the church is in apostacy or he was wrong and the alleged prophet of God did not know who God was.  Since JS taught understanding God is the first principle of the true gospel it seems to me that a prophet who messes up on this has no authority and cannot pass it on to his successors.  Either way the church loses here on being considered at all credible or true. 

Link to comment
On 7/14/2021 at 10:51 PM, JAHS said:

It is near impossible for people who live by empirical and physical evidence alone to believe in anything religious. This makes it also near impossible for people of faith to even have a conversation with them. If truth is not in the Church of Jesus Christ then where is it? Whatever you want it to be?

And visa versa.  But people of faith rely on subjective feelings and experiences which over and over prove unreliable since so many billions wjho use this come up with different conclusions.  As for if truth is not found in the Church of Jesus Christ, which I assume you mean the LDS Church, where is it?  It is whatever you want it to be, what total nonsense and even hubris. How do you reach such an illogical conclusion?

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

 And I dispute the concept that the prophet defines current doctrine.  It is the Q12 that does that.

How do you square that assertion with this statement in the Gospel Topics section of the Gospel Library app?

 

We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How do you square that assertion with this statement in the Gospel Topics section of the Gospel Library app?

 

We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

That's not the same thing as "defining current doctrine".  That's done by committee as the Church has said.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And visa versa.  But people of faith rely on subjective feelings and experiences which over and over prove unreliable since so many billions wjho use this come up with different conclusions.  As for if truth is not found in the Church of Jesus Christ, which I assume you mean the LDS Church, where is it?  It is whatever you want it to be, what total nonsense and even hubris. How do you reach such an illogical conclusion?

Good question. Why would the invalidation of one subjective, non-empirical source invalidate the existence of any and all objective truth? 

Link to comment
On 7/15/2021 at 5:15 PM, JAHS said:

I have never believed that they have actual conversations with God; probably not not since Joseph Smith. They pray and receive revelation in the form of thoughts that come into their minds that are inspired of God. The Holy Ghost bears witness to them in their minds and spirits that what they have received is from God.
"But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." (D&C 9:8)  

So why would JS have "conversations" with God but not his successors.  Seems like more dumbing down of what LDS prophets have to offer.  Great stuff!

Link to comment
On 7/15/2021 at 6:06 PM, JAHS said:

But not all 15 apostles and prophets are collectively going to allow false doctrine to be preached to the church. If one of them does make a mistake they are corrected by the other 14, just like elder McConkie was. Anything official that has a bearing on our eternal lives has to be agreed upon by all 15 of them.

All 15 allowed the priesthood ban for over a hundred years and taught things that are now called speculative.  So you lose.  

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's not the same thing as "defining current doctrine".  That's done by committee as the Church has said.

CFR as to where “the Church has said” that “defining current doctrine” is “done by committee.”

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

All 15 allowed the priesthood ban for over a hundred years and taught things that are now called speculative.  So you lose.  

False doctrine is the intentional corruption of correct doctrine. Whatever its source, and whatever the claim to doctrine, it was not an intentional corruption of correct doctrine. Given that it was put into place by earlier prophets of the Restoration (which is an ongoing process), subsequent prophets sought the revelation to lift it.

For example, the brother of Jared did not teach false doctrine because He did not teach that the Lord would take upon Him flesh and blood, either prior to knowing this correct doctrine or after for that matter. It was not shared with the world until the Lord determined the proper timing for it to come forth, which was not in the brother of Jared’s dispensation.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
On 7/16/2021 at 10:49 AM, JAHS said:

So if not all 15 agreed on it then it was not really official church doctrine. This was Brigham Youngs personal interpretation that was included in what was called the lecture at the veil. After continued study and revelation about the concept the church leaders decided it was not a valid doctrine. It was not used in all temple endowment ceremonies and was removed completely by 1904. This is another one of those concepts (your multitude of examples) that, right or wrong, has no effect on our personal exaltation. 

Yet for many years a whole bunch of LDS endowed members thought Adam was their God. They then worshipped the wrong God and worshiping the wrong God mean damnation.  Bummer for them.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet for many years a whole bunch of LDS endowed members thought Adam was their God. They then worshipped the wrong God and worshiping the wrong God mean damnation.  Bummer for them.

And wasn't it taught in the temple? 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR as to where “the Church has said” that “defining current doctrine” is “done by committee.”

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. 

 

Sounds like a committee to me.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And wasn't it taught in the temple? 

Yes.

Link to comment
On 7/15/2021 at 1:28 PM, Metis_LDS said:

Even prisons let you visit your loved ones.

Ours don't.  Only video calls at great expense - because most folks seem to be fine with exploiting struggling inmate families.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That's not the same thing as "defining current doctrine".  That's done by committee as the Church has said.

CFR as to where “the Church has said” that “defining current doctrine” is “done by committee.”


"Defining" current doctrine may not always come by committee but the "establishment" of new doctrine does.
The priesthood doctrine was certainly done by committee
Official Declaration 2:

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

 

 

Edited by JAHS
Link to comment
22 hours ago, pogi said:

Perhaps we should dismiss science for all the same reasons.  There is much disagreement in science in terms of interpreting the data.  

Come on. Science relies on a testable method.  Not at all the same as what you are arguing for.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

False doctrine is the intentional corruption of correct doctrine. Whatever its source, and whatever the claim to doctrine, it was not an intentional corruption of correct doctrine. Given that it was put into place by earlier prophets of the Restoration (which is an ongoing process), subsequent prophets sought the revelation to lift it.

For example, the brother of Jared did not teach false doctrine because He did not teach that the Lord would take upon Him flesh and blood, either prior to knowing this correct doctrine or after for that matter. It was not shared with the world until the Lord determined the proper timing for it to come forth, which was not in the brother of Jared’s dispensation.

Where did you get that definition of false doctrine? Also, it's real hard to know the intentions of people.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

False doctrine is the intentional corruption of correct doctrine. Whatever its source, and whatever the claim to doctrine, it was not an intentional corruption of correct doctrine. Given that it was put into place by earlier prophets of the Restoration (which is an ongoing process), subsequent prophets sought the revelation to lift it.

For example, the brother of Jared did not teach false doctrine because He did not teach that the Lord would take upon Him flesh and blood, either prior to knowing this correct doctrine or after for that matter. It was not shared with the world until the Lord determined the proper timing for it to come forth, which was not in the brother of Jared’s dispensation.

Oh my. Wonderful mental gyrations. there,

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Where did you get that definition of false doctrine? Also, it's real hard to know the intentions of people.

This description of my understanding is based in 1 Nephi 13: 26-29, where an organized collective intentionally did the opposite of what our Church leaders do to collectively seek and promote correct doctrine. Anyone's personal difficulty in knowing (with attendant bias) their intentions notwithstanding.

 

Link to comment
On 7/16/2021 at 9:43 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

Yup, we are in agreement.  My question then and one of the sub-points to this why I started this thread is How can who tell when they are teaching correct principles or if they are teaching you principles the believe are true are actually actually human mistakes/errors or their best shot but actually speculation?

I really wish I could reach you - or sit down for an hour or two and discuss the answer to this.

Religion is not like science.  It does not teach us  objective "facts" about the world around us, that we all can replicate like the boiling point of water

It teaches us about FEELINGS and ATTITUDES which give us MEANING in life. 

Suppose you hear thousands of people encouraging you to take up meditation - a spiritual practice that has nothing to do with organized "religion" because it will make your life and your purpose in life very clear to you.

Would you then suspect that you could meditate to find new information about physics?   Or how to design a new kind of electric battery device that will make all present batteries obsolete?

Would you sit under a tree with your eyes closed waiting to find how to construct a new type of car?

I think that it is clear that would not be a rational process.

Yet essentially that is exactly what you are trying to do to find "correct principles" to design car parts in religion.

Religion is about aligning you subjectively and personally- NOT objectively-NOT about "facts" - but about what it is like to dismiss all those worries about religion and find peace in your heart.

Religion is about SUBJECTIVITY, NOT OBJECTIVITY.  I hesitate to use those words because of their connotations BUT I hope that will jarr you to at least understand that position and see its value in solving all these alleged "factual faults in objective truth claims" about spiritual matters.

Spiritual matters are not about how the world works, but give us our own subjective understanding about WHAT WE THINK gives us peace.

Quibbling about how to design a battery is not about finding peace in life.

Can you see the difference at all?

If you can't see it, I won't bother you anymore.  We can just agree to disagree and at least to me, you will remain my brother!

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...