Birth control

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I fully understand the idea of personal revelation and seeking your own confirmation.  So perhaps there is tension between the two ideas. Do you disagree that there is a very strong emphasis on following the brethren?

I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.  Yes, there is a strong emphasis on both which is why I don't think it is just a matter of "ignoring" the council of the leaders. 

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Checklist-type items like telling members how many chapters to read (10) and how much time to spend in the temple (all day, every day) -- is that a thing? CFR if so. Elder Cannon's quote doesn't have any such specification in it and is a "do not" message rather than one to "do this."

I wasn't meaning to say he was creating a checklist so I failed in my example to try to explain what I was saying. 

Honestly though if that's what you picked out to counter what I was saying then I have a really tough time believing that you care about understanding my point of view and at this time (2023) it doesn't matter so I'll just quit. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Fair point.  However, my position about LDS leaders teaching that they pretty much should be followed, you know, follow the brethren, keep your eye on the prophet, the prophet cannot lead the church astray, Benson, oft repeated even recently in GC, talk on the 14 fundamentals of a prophet, etc are and can be well established.  This podcast is a fair summary of the issue I believe where RFM and Bennet has this out:

https://radiofreemormon.org/2022/11/mormonism-live-102-the-greatest-problem-in-the-lds-church/

So I honestly find it surprising for any active LDS person that listens to conference and other addresses by the GAs thinks they teach that they can be ignored if we get our own "revelation' that disagrees with them.

I have not yet heard the podcast, but then they are apparently in disagreement with president Nelson, and denying scriptural admonitions to "ask God" for wisdom.

Only dictators demand absolute obedience, and clear that is NOT the position of the church

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I wasn't meaning to say he was creating a checklist so I failed in my example to try to explain what I was saying. 

Honestly though if that's what you picked out to counter what I was saying then I have a really tough time believing that you care about understanding my point of view and at this time (2023) it doesn't matter so I'll just quit. 

I think I understand that you take him to say that using birth control is a devilish act under any and all circumstances, a wrong and damaging thing to say both then and now, but it doesn't matter since he said it in the 19th century and we're in the 21st century. I simply don't see it as wrong and damaging given the two principles that a) our preventing mortal birth is wrong and b) circumstantial exceptions are warranted.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

You can reject/not be okay with something someone in the past said without rejecting the person who said it.

———-

What do you mean by “time some of us grew up”?  Are you speaking to those trying to make old teachings congruent with current understanding rather than just saying a past leader made a mistake or wasn’t clear in a teaching or to someone else?

I can’t tell if you are telling Rain to grow up or not and if you are, you need to be more explicit about why.

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. — 1 Corinthians 13:11, King James Version."

I meant no more than this ; if some find this idea offensive, I am sorry, or if anyone felt I was speaking of any one person.

I believe it is childish to believe that any person is infallible; one of my fears in joining the church with a president called a "prophet" was that he might be regarded as infallible, but after searching the scriptures, I found that any claim of infallibility was overriden by the repeated instruction to "ask God" when one lacks wisdom.

That admonition appears in both the bible and BOM.

Edited January 2, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I simply don't see it as wrong and damaging given the two principles that a) our preventing mortal birth is wrong and b) circumstantial exceptions are warranted.

It was wrong if it damaged women who heard it back then, made them fearful so they damaged their health and maybe even left their children motherless due to that fear or they felt less worthy when they were doing the best they knew how and had counseled with the Lord in their choice only to hear from the pulpit they had sinned.

For those who live now, hopefully at most a couple is confused by such an emphatic condemnation given the instruction we are given now it is meant to be a personal choice with guidance taken from the Lord.  My guess is it is pretty much only encountered by most Saints these days on critical site, so it is unlikely it is the first counsel on the subject they encounter.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

So I honestly find it surprising for any active LDS person that listens to conference and other addresses by the GAs thinks they teach that they can be ignored if we get our own "revelation' that disagrees with them.

I believe many come away from the totality of church teachings with ‘we need to follow the prophets and the Lord will help us do this by guiding us in how to adapt their counsel for our specific situation’.  This may mean putting off fulfilling a commandment until it is appropriate for us or reinterpreting it with or without guidance from leaders…I have had to reinterpret some temple covenants to adapt to my health situation, sometimes with help from a bishop to make sure I wasn’t going too far afield, others I felt I was still within the boundaries and others the Spirit confirmed for me. I remember a General Authority specifically saying that even though all hear the counsel to set up some food storage, college students and others who lived transient lives weren’t expected to do this until they were in more stable conditions and he said the same went for young mothers and genealogy work (it was either when I was both a college student and a young mother at BYU or shortly afterwards, so that sunk in deep).  
 

The reference “to everything there is a time and a season” plays a big part in my life.  I let the Lord know I will happily go all in on certain commandments that are sadly neglected now if the Lord shows me the prepared way…I don’t believe the prepared way is always available, sometimes part of the preparation is in the waiting.  Depends on if the Lord inspires you to take the leap of faith then or he lets you know it’s something you aren’t called to fulfill quite yet.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Calm

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was wrong if it damaged women who heard it back then, made them fearful so they damaged their health and maybe even left their children motherless due to that fear or they felt less worthy when they were doing the best they knew how and had counseled with the Lord in their choice only to hear from the pulpit they had sinned.

For those who live now, hopefully at most a couple is confused by such an emphatic condemnation given the instruction we are given now it is meant to be a personal choice with guidance taken from the Lord.  My guess is it is pretty much only encountered by most Saints these days on critical site, so it is unlikely it is the first counsel on the subject they encounter.

So, the rightness and wrongness of the principles, style, content, etc. of Elder Cannon's quote are simply in the eyes of the hearer (context).

[mfbukowski]

I want to expand on my point about infallibility of scripture 

I have added underlining, and bolding.

1Cor. 13:

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Re-read that boldedsection until it sinks in. 

ALL prophecies shall pass away, but if you include that statement itself as a prophecy, it also will fail

So should we trust prophets and what others have said as being infallible when it even contradicts itself?

Do we see thru a glass darkly?

How can one possibly accept scripture/ prophecy/ prophets/ as infallible?

Scripture itself says such beliefs are childish.  We see through a glass darkly.

Period.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So, the rightness and wrongness of the principles, style, content, etc. of Elder Cannon's quote are simply in the eyes of the hearer (context).

Isn’t it always that way when something’s taken out of ‘reality’ and made into a discussion topic?  But there is tons more to context than just what the hearer hears (see below).

But I think the way God, the ultimate judge, is likely to judge right and wrong is by the intent to affect an actor has as well as the effect an action has on others that the actor had control over and foresight to see…

Elder Cannon chose his words and intended them to reach a certain audience.  If he meant to make women fearful so they wouldn’t use birth control even while realizing that would possibly cause illness and death or that it caused women to doubt their own worthiness when they shouldn’t have, my guess is God would view him as sinning even if with the good intent of providing physical homes for God’s children.  If those were unintended consequences that Elder Cannon was clueless about, the Lord might absolve him of sin but still require him to eventually learn to do better because intended or not, if harm was caused by his words, he was responsible, if not always accountable.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

My guess is it is pretty much only encountered by most Saints these days on critical site, so it is unlikely it is the first counsel on the subject they encounter.

This isn’t really how it works. Maybe they don’t hear it from general conference but they certainly do hear it. My sister got married 20 years ago (so decades after the non-disavowed birth control quotes discussed in this thread). She got a letter and a lecture from her in laws about the evils of birth control. My wife was taught all types of stuff like this by her seminary teacher. Professor Bott was still teaching racist priesthood doctrines at BYU decades after the leadership stopped doing it at general conference. Unless these horrible teachings are officially disavowed, they linger on in official church settings (seminary, institute, BYU, and Sunday school lessons)

[manol]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I want to expand on my point about infallibility of scripture 

I have added underlining, and bolding.

1Cor. 13:

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Re-read that boldedsection until it sinks in. 

ALL prophecies shall pass away, but if you include that statement itself as a prophecy, it also will fail

So should we trust prophets and what others have said as being infallible when it even contradicts itself?

Do we see thru a glass darkly?

How can one possibly accept scripture/ prophecy/ prophets/ as infallible?

Scripture itself says such beliefs are childish.  We see through a glass darkly.

Period.

YESSSS!!!

On this board we often use scripture to make our points because it is a relatively common language to which most of us attribute credibility, but as you have pointed out, there is something else which matters even more than scripture and prophets and prophecy.  In the verse you quoted, Paul uses the word "charity" to describe that something else. 

As a follow-on to your bolded section above, I'm going to use another scripture to expand the definition of that something else .  From the (imo magnificent) 7th chapter of Moroni, starting in verse 47:  "Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever"

From the next verse, instruction on what we are to do:  "pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love..."

And just what is the end result? "that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure." 

Note that being filled with the pure love of Christ thoroughly purifies us.

Edited January 2, 2023 by manol

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Only dictators demand absolute obedience, and clear that is NOT the position of the church

I think they are pretty close to that.  Should we explore their teachings?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Isn’t it always that way when something’s taken out of ‘reality’ and made into a discussion topic?  But there is tons more to context than just what the hearer hears (see below).

But I think the way God, the ultimate judge, is likely to judge right and wrong is by the intent to affect an actor has as well as the effect an action has on others that the actor had control over and foresight to see…

Elder Cannon chose his words and intended them to reach a certain audience.  If he meant to make women fearful so they wouldn’t use birth control even while realizing that would possibly cause illness and death or that it caused women to doubt their own worthiness when they shouldn’t have, my guess is God would view him as sinning even if with the good intent of providing physical homes for God’s children.  If those were unintended consequences that Elder Cannon was clueless about, the Lord might absolve him of sin but still require him to eventually learn to do better because intended or not, if harm was caused by his words, he was responsible, if not always accountable.

This in part explains why I see no contradiction between his quote and the current Handbook. The principles upon which he based his instruction (multiply and replenish the earth with children) and the "extra-instructional" principles (those not mentioned in the quote) that were also known to the saints at the time (subdue the earth and justifiable exceptions to the commandments) applied. We have these same principles today. In either scenario and timeframe for his intent, Elder Cannon remains equally fallible, so I think his guilt or innocence is a moot point.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This isn’t really how it works. Maybe they don’t hear it from general conference but they certainly do hear it. My sister got married 20 years ago (so decades after the non-disavowed birth control quotes discussed in this thread). She got a letter and a lecture from her in laws about the evils of birth control. My wife was taught all types of stuff like this by her seminary teacher. Professor Bott was still teaching racist priesthood doctrines at BYU decades after the leadership stopped doing it at general conference. Unless these horrible teachings are officially disavowed, they linger on in official church settings (seminary, institute, BYU, and Sunday school lessons)

I was about to edit my comment because I proved myself wrong as in my attempted tracing back to its original source I found it included on an unfortunately somewhat popular I am guessing website run by what I see as fundamentalists in our faith (they reject old earth and go for pseudo science explanations to match their interpretations of scripture, scriptures have ultra American centric interpretations, etc).  Quite unfortunate, but at least the first quote used applies the counsel to healthy individuals, so hopefully readers assume the same applies to all.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This isn’t really how it works. Maybe they don’t hear it from general conference but they certainly do hear it. My sister got married 20 years ago (so decades after the non-disavowed birth control quotes discussed in this thread). She got a letter and a lecture from her in laws about the evils of birth control. My wife was taught all types of stuff like this by her seminary teacher. Professor Bott was still teaching racist priesthood doctrines at BYU decades after the leadership stopped doing it at general conference. Unless these horrible teachings are officially disavowed, they linger on in official church settings (seminary, institute, BYU, and Sunday school lessons)

I don't even think official disavowal will actually work for some people.  Just take your example of Professor Bott.  I thought Elder McConkie was pretty direct in disavowing everything he or other prophets had said.  And we now have the "Race and the Priesthood" essay that is even more direct.  Yet, you'll still find members who are teaching disavowed theories on why Blacks were denied the priesthood.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think they are pretty close to that.  Should we explore their teachings?

Who's "teachings" where and when and in what context?   I don't understand how ambiguity is such a problem for folks.   We are ENCOURAGED to be our own PROPHET.  SOMETIMES. 

The problem word is "their". Over 200 years there have been a lot of people saying a lot of stuff, you seem to want to pick and choose which represents "the church".  So do I.  I follow the idea that there is no problem with picking and choosing- you are the one who apparantly sees that as a problem.

"The Church" intentionally has no creed and avoids statements of "doctrine".  The articles of faith were originally a quick summary of some beliefs to answer a question in a newspaper.  More recently an incredibly ambiguous statement was officially issued about what "constitutes doctrine" which really defines nothing.

Here is the statement:

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

Quote

 

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined. 

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context, and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes 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. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being.  In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges.  According to the Articles of Faith, “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.”

Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.

Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology. 

Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.

Additional Resources

Elder D. Todd Christofferson: The Doctrine of Christ

 

So now tell me what "The Church Teaches?"

Take your pick.

WE ARE TO BE GUIDED BY THE SPIRIT.   Why is this so hard to figure out?

The answer is found only by studying psychology, imo.

https://www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/Tolerance for Ambiguity by Paul Skaggs.pdf

This incidentally fits well with Radical Empiricism- all factors affecting the conclusion must be considered in deciding who will find the paradigm "true"

This is precisely why our church fits so well with postmodernism.  What is "your truth"?

This is why our Kevin Christensen repeats quotes about psychological maturity and the Perry Scheme.

https://www.jmu.edu/geology/_files/willperry21.pdf

Quote

Unfortunately, Perry does not delineate his/her model in detail past Position 7. Broadly, Position 7 contains the ontological shift that comes with making a formal commitment, Position 8 entails learning to make more commitments in different domains, and Position 9 involves balancing commitments and devotion to the commitments. Position 9 is a more distinct balancing of paradox such that the ambiguities that were discovered in Position 5 and categorized or prioritized in Position 7 are now brought into play and lived. Ambiguities become an integral part of personal identity: no longer does the student fight the uncertainty, but rather accepts it as a part of life, regarding uncertainty with more equanimity

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

On 1/1/2023 at 11:20 AM, Teancum said:

Well that is disrespectful and judgmental.  And rude quite frankly.  You do not know me, my life situation and so on.  You see a very small slice of my life and the part that is focused on an organization which has caused a lot of pain in my life and IMO has lied to its members consistently and still does.  My comments are mostly negative and an organization that you still value.  Your comment is pretty bold really and I think steps over a line that is proper.  I would not presume to judge a persons wholeness on what they have to say here.

I didn’t mean it as a judgement of your life as a whole, but when you say stuff like “just believe like me and your life will be so much better” then you are inviting me to judge the merits of your life choices.

And the only thing I have to judge is your presence here.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/1/2023 at 10:24 AM, Teancum said:

Any men or women who claim to be God's spokesperson on earth and that they have God's word to us should be held to a higher standard than other organizations that make no such claim.  

I would like to see a first person quote claiming that from anyone in the church.  "I am God's spokeperson on earth and ........"

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't even think official disavowal will actually work for some people.  Just take your example of Professor Bott.  I thought Elder McConkie was pretty direct in disavowing everything he or other prophets had said. 

This is a very common misunderstanding. Elder Mcconkie disavowed only the timing of the ban reversal (which he previously said would come at the end of the millennium I believe but don’t quote me on it). He continued to teach the racist doctrine in his revised (post priesthood ban) book Mormon Doctrine which was on shelves until relatively recently. It was only after Bott that the church official distanced itself from this message. 

5 hours ago, webbles said:

 

 

And we now have the "Race and the Priesthood" essay that is even more direct.  Yet, you'll still find members who are teaching disavowed theories on why Blacks were denied the priesthood.

The race and the priesthood essays is the first disavowal. 

Edited January 3, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

He continued to teach the racist doctrine in his revised (post priesthood ban) book Mormon Doctrine

Could you be specific please?  I agree his disavowal wasn’t wholesale, but am curious as to what he might have pushed as actual doctrine besides the likely very vague ‘where people are now is a function of what they did in the preexistence’ that does not come up with any actual mechanism (such as if you were born in a situation like ____means you behaved like ____, so that we could always assume, for example, rich people were being rewarded for good behaviour because not being deprived is seen as a good thing or assuming rich people were getting stuck in situations which would promote greed because they were naturally selfish and gravitated towards such things or whatever).

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would like to see a first person quote claiming that from anyone in the church.  "I am God's spokeperson on earth and ........"

That they are God’s spokesperson or the latter part of what he said?

The spokesperson may not be said in first person, but must be with the approval of the person getting the label.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/prophets?filter=leadership

This includes spokesperson, but also includes personal revelation balances out prophetic imo.

Quote

Belief in prophets and apostles at the head of the Church does not mean that members blindly follow their leaders. While the prophet of God receives revelation and inspiration to guide the Church as a whole, revelation flows at every level, including to the leaders of congregations and to individual families and members. In fact, individual members are expected to seek that kind of divine guidance to help them in their own lives, in their responsibilities in the Church and even in temporal pursuits, including their occupations. Members are also expected to prayerfully seek their own “testimony” or conviction of the principles their leaders teach them.

But it isn’t a statement of fallibility, one has to find that elsewhere, though I think it is implied because if our leaders were infallible why wouldn’t we be told to blindly follow them?

Spokesman for God is also here.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-13-the-priesthood?lang=eng

An older apostle, but first person since he is one of the 12.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1979/04/signs-of-the-true-church?lang=eng
 

Quote

From this tabernacle the modern prophets speak. Our great present-day prophet, President Spencer W. Kimball, this morning gave to you God’s message for this present day, for the year 1979. He is the mouthpiece of God. He is the spokesman for God right now. So are his inspired counselors. So is the entire group of twelve inspired men, duly ordained as apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, also for today.

No talk of fallibility or infallibility though.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Could you be specific please?  I agree his disavowal wasn’t wholesale, but am curious as to what he might have pushed as actual doctrine besides the likely very vague ‘where people are now is a function of what they did in the preexistence’ that does not come up with any actual mechanism (such as if you were born in a situation like ____means you behaved like ____, so that we could always assume, for example, rich people were being rewarded for good behaviour because not being deprived is seen as a good thing or assuming rich people were getting stuck in situations which would promote greed because they were naturally selfish and gravitated towards such things or whatever).

See a discussion here which cites Edward Kimball and McConkie’s updated book. 
 

https://mormonheretic.org/2012/08/12/rehabbing-elder-mcconkie/

 

If I still had my copy, the section on caste systems is particularly telling. 

Edited January 3, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Could you be specific please?  I agree his disavowal wasn’t wholesale, but am curious as to what he might have pushed as actual doctrine besides the likely very vague ‘where people are now is a function of what they did in the preexistence’ that does not come up with any actual mechanism (such as if you were born in a situation like ____means you behaved like ____, so that we could always assume, for example, rich people were being rewarded for good behaviour because not being deprived is seen as a good thing or assuming rich people were getting stuck in situations which would promote greed because they were naturally selfish and gravitated towards such things or whatever).

 

32 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

See a discussion here which cites Edward Kimball and McConkie’s updated book. 
 

https://mormonheretic.org/2012/08/12/rehabbing-elder-mcconkie/

 

If I still had my copy, the section on caste systems is particularly telling. 

Found a pdf version in my notes:

Cain

“The Lord placed on Cain a mark of a dark skin, and he became the ancestor of the black race.”

 

 Caste

“However, in a broad general sense, have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. (Gen. 4; Moses 5.) The whole house of Israel was chosen as a peculiar people, one set apart from all other nations (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2); and they were forbidden to marry outside their own caste. (Ex. 34:10-17; Deut. 7:1-5.) In effect the Lamanites belonged to one caste and the Nephites to another, and a mark was put upon the Lamanites to keep the Nephites from intermixing with and marrying them. (Alma 3:6-11.) All this is not to say that any race, creed, or caste should be denied any inalienable rights. But it is to say that Deity in his infinite wisdom, to carry out his inscrutable purposes, has a caste system of his own, a system of segregation of races and peoples. The justice of such a system is evident when life is considered in its true eternal perspective. It is only by a knowledge of pre-existence that it can be known why some persons are born in one race or caste and some in another. Segregation and caste systems will continue on in a future eternity; the righteous will go to paradise and the wicked to hell; and finally all men will be segregated into kingdoms - each separate from the others - according as their works have been.”

 

Just a couple. From a book sold until 2010. And there is no daylight between Bott and McConkie so it’s a bit funny to me that McConkie’s quote is being used as a disavowal. 
 

As an interesting aside, I had a religion course from Bruce McConkie’s son Joseph in 2000 or so. He taught us that the text of the original first edition of Mormon Doctrine was all correct and that the changes made at the request of Church leaders was not because the things said were untrue (a la Catholic Church and others) but that it was not polite to say them. 

Edited January 3, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This isn’t really how it works. Maybe they don’t hear it from general conference but they certainly do hear it. My sister got married 20 years ago (so decades after the non-disavowed birth control quotes discussed in this thread). She got a letter and a lecture from her in laws about the evils of birth control. My wife was taught all types of stuff like this by her seminary teacher. Professor Bott was still teaching racist priesthood doctrines at BYU decades after the leadership stopped doing it at general conference. Unless these horrible teachings are officially disavowed, they linger on in official church settings (seminary, institute, BYU, and Sunday school lessons)

I agree that misunderstanding, misinterpretation and ignorance of correct principles are still perpetuated in families and cultures, but leadership disavowal only addresses false principles on paper, and then people often still hold on to them. The disavowal only enables potential ecclesiastical discipline for apostasy. I don't see the subject / offending quotes as qualifying for disavowal.