- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I thought everyone here would be interested in the following article: All I can say is that it should have happened long long ago, and I think it’s rather unfortunate that the book is as popular as it is. It only serves as fuel to the fundamentalist fire (no offense to Bruce in Montana). It’s like speculation gone wild! In my current ward, one guy brings it to church frequently and uses it in our EQ discussions. Not a big fan! Besides, don’t we have much of the relevant mormon doctrine according to McConkie in the Bible Dictionary?
Incidentally, I would have no problem with continued printing if the title were changed to something like “The Gospel According to Bruce R. McConkie.” I still probably wouldn’t like it much, but at least I wouldn’t be bothered when people quoted from it as if it were really Mormon Doctrine!
Yup – I have no problem with someone expressing his own opinion. The content is difficult enough to accept (because too much of it is flat-out wrong, imo), but the title is my biggest problem. The title was always the problem with the book. David O McKay originally prohibited further publishing of the book after its initial release because of the title, the errors, and most importantly because it came across as too authoritative. I want to give Elder McConkie credit for being a faithful and devoted scholar, but a small portion of his work did damage to many members and nonmembers. I hope and pray that the Prophet of the Church will one day stand and issue a formal apology for any harm done by the misconceptions and scriptural misinterpretations of those who were in leadership positions of the Church. I remember as a young seminary student being taught that if a person received so much as one drop of “black blood”, they would be counted as unworthy to hold the priesthood. There were white members of the church who refused blood transfusions from African Americans. I later took basic and Advanced Blood Banking and a course that qualified me to be a manager of a Blood Bank. I now fully realize that refusing to receive a blood transfusion can mean serious harm to a patient, even death. This is why I wish that the Church would open it’s heart and apologize for this. Let the healing begin.
Elder McConkie did “take back” some of the things he said, but he never actually apologized:
THIS IS A COPY AND PASTE FROM WIKKIPEDIA’S PAGE ON ELDER BRUCE R. MCCONKIE
The most well known of these was the statement made by Bruce R. McConkie in his book Mormon Doctrine. McConkie offered the following opinion:
Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin…but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate.[5]
These statements by 20th century leaders did not represent thinking that was unique to the Church, but instead reflected ideas which were much more prevalent in society during the 1950’s and 1960’s.
When the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, McConkie retracted what he had said previously:
Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said…that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.[6]
Modern Church leaders teach that everyone who came to earth in this day was “valiant” in the premortal existence. Elder M. Russell Ballard, talking of today’s youth, said in 2005:
Remind them that they are here at this particular time in the history of the world, with the fullness of the gospel at their fingertips, because they made valiant choices in the premortal existence.[7]
END OF COPY AND PASTE
It would be appropriate to update the Wikkipedia page with a note from the Church Elders and a promise to nurture those of all races.
I LOVED Hawkgirls comments about this over at MM. I laughed. I’m tempted to cut a paste it over here just because it was so good. Maybe not. Maybe later. As well meaning as BRM may have been (and I’m not judging his motives or his spirituality), I think his theological teachings (Mormon Doctrine) have “chased” away more people from the church than anyone else I can think of – and that includes “apostates”. His “teachings” have influenced several generations now of mormons, for the worse, IMO. I really really dislike this book, and I’m glad it is no longer going to be in circulation. NOW I just wish the church would retract about 80% of everything BRM has said from the podium and we would really be making some progress!
BTW – I wonder what Mr. England thinks about all this?
Quote:“It is my province to teach to the church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.” Classic McConkie, while telling Eugene England it was given in kindness and humility.
MWallace57 wrote:I want to give Elder McConkie credit for being a faithful and devoted scholar, but a small portion of his work did damage to many members and nonmembers.
I hope and pray that the Prophet of the Church will one day stand and issue a formal apology for any harm done by the misconceptions and scriptural misinterpretations of those who were in leadership positions of the Church.
Yeah, i agree, and I would like to see that too — but I’m not holding my breath.
Sam, this is why I am not able to “participate” at MM. Here is one response to Hawkgirl’s comments about “Mormon Doctrine” Quote:“When the Lord’s servants speak or write under the influence of the Holy Ghost, their words become scripture (see D&C 68:4). Page 45 Gospel Principles”
23. Hawk your on very shakey ground!!!
Elder McConkie is one of the lords annointed an Apostle of God? Are you sure you want to go on record and slam a dead apostle? Your confident enough that a book that is still cross referenced and refered to in our manuals is heretical? Do you feel that a book that has been used for decades in the church was written not under the influence of the Holy Ghost?
Unbelievable. Can you believe that? I’m not sure how all you folks over there can do it. I don’t have the patience or the PR skills. There is no way I could sit back and just merrily “converse” with folks who talk like that. Actually, that is a good reminder to me why I can’t go home and visit the fam.
cwald wrote:Unbelievable. Can you believe that? I’m not sure how all you folks over there can do it. I don’t have the patience or the PR skills. There is no way I could sit back and just merrily “converse” with folks who talk like that. Actually, that is a good reminder to me why I can’t go home and visit the fam.
I don’t mean this directed to you personally, but the general “you.” The key is to realize that many people might be thinking the same thing about you! Taking this view makes it much easier to compassionately discuss.Euhemerus wrote:…The key is to realize that many people might be thinking the same thing about you!…
Oh yeah, for sure. I’ve learned this the hard way.
Quote:I hope and pray that the Prophet of the Church will one day stand and issue a formal apology for any harm done by the misconceptions and scriptural misinterpretations of those who were in leadership positions of the Church.
Honestly, I don’t.
Individuals are individuals, and if “the Prophet of the Church” had to try to aplogize for “any harm done by the misconceptions and scriptural misinterpretations of those who were in leadership positions of the Church” he wouldn’t have time for anything else. Everyone has mis-spoken at some point, so he would have to be apologizing non-stop.
Furthermore, how widespread does the apology have to be? Should it cover apostles only? What about Seventies? The Presiding BIshop? Auxiliary presidents talks in General Conference? When should the apology be extended? Only after the offender has died? While the person still is serving in their calling? How many people need to be offended and/or harmed to warrant an apology? Should some types of harm be over-looked and not need an apology? How whould that determination be made? How should differing doctrinal interpretations be addressed and “mistakes” determined?
If that is the core standard and principle, should every Stake President be required to apologize to all local members who mis-spoke or offended someone in the Stake? How about Bishops in a ward? Should the Church look for individual members who offend and/or harm others in their doctrinal views and disavow those people and their views? All of us here would be placed in that category by someone who might make such determinations, so do you REALLY want those determinations made?
I don’t mean to be flippant or snarky in that comment,
and I certainly understand the sentiment. Please understand, I really do know why that sentiment exists. I just believe it’s better to move on when dealing with very subjective things like interpretation of doctrine than to search constantly for everything ever said that might be offensive or harmful to someone. It’s a no-win position, and an ogranization of any kind simply can’t start down that path. I wanted to buy it at the DI last year but it was $12 so I thought I might be able to find a cheaper copy later. Now I wish I had just bought it because it’s almost like a collector’s item, especially the older versions before he toned it down with some of the most questionable comments. I mostly wanted to review what he said about evolution and dinosaurs for old time’s sake because I have vague memories of reading these parts as a teenager and thinking it was absurd at the time. After that I mostly forgot about it but then when I recently told my bishop I had some doubts related to the Church doctrine’s apparent conflicts with evolution he gave me some Bruce R. McConkie explanation that just made me even more confused about the Church. Dear Ray, This meant so much to me:
The state of Illinois has formally apologized for its treatment of the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ Church of Jesus Christ may refer to:
In April, the state House of Representatives passed a resolution apologizing for the state’s treatment of Mormons, who founded Nauvoo, Ill., in 1839, and for the murder in 1844 of Joseph Smith, founder of the church.
A week after the House passed Resolution 793, a group of Illinois officials visited Salt Lake City to announce the state’s apology. In 1846, the new leader of the church, Brigham Young, led tens of thousands of Mormons on a 1,300-mile exodus from Illinois to Salt Lake City following two years of “violent acts against the community of Latter Day Saints This is a list of Latter Day Saints who have attained at least some level of fame and/or success. This list includes adherents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), as well as adherents of related denominations (as labeled). ,” the resolution stated.
END OF COPY AND PASTE
No, Ray we don’t need to go around apologizing for every little misspeak. You are right that we would spend our entire lives saying, “I’m sorry”. Apologies should be reserved for serious violations, misconduct or for the teaching of doctrines that had a direct, severe impact on others.
Ray, I respectfully disagree with you and think that perhaps you are being “flippant”. No one here is wanting or claiming that the church needs to apologize for every leaders mistakes. But a leader that was SO CONTROVERSIAL like BRM, in his position who made quotes like this, Quote:“It is my province to teach to the church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.”
and who took it upon himself to define the doctrine of the church for “everyone” AGAINST the wishes of the prophet himself – yeah, why can’t they apologize for that? BRM Mormon Doctrine IS the Mormon doctrine of (IMO) 70-80% of the church members, and we know, and apparently Pres. McKay knew, and apparently most of the prophets since then have known that IT IS NOT THE DOCTRINE.
I think that does deserve an apology. Perhaps it would undo some of the damage. Perhaps it would make some of these TBM types more open to discussion and new ideas — things that were are now black and white, might can be discussed openly again?
Here is another one Wallace
Quote:Executive Office
June 25, 1976
State of Missouri
Jefferson City
WHEREAS, on October 27, 1838, the Governor of the State of Missouri, Lilburn W. Boggs, issued and order calling for the extermination or expulsion of Mormons fro the State of Missuuri….
Expressing on behalf of all the Missourians our
deep regretfor the injustice and undue suffering which was causes by this 1838 order, I hereby rescind the Executive Order….. Again, MWallace (and cwald), I really do understand the feeling behind your concern – and I really don’t want to appear to be dismissing it. I’m not being flippant. I mean that. Even though I disagree, I do recognize the validity of your feeling about it. However, imo, there is an important difference between how the early saints were treated in Illinois and Bruce R. McConkie writings his opinion about what the Church teaches. I generally don’t like slippery slope arguments, but in this case . . . I really don’t want the Church to have to apologize for things that Joseph and Brigham and Parley and Dyer and Peterson and Kimball and McConkie and other apostles have said that we no longer follow and now deem to have been inaccurate – or even harmful to some people.
Moutain Meadows? Absolutely, even though I don’t think Brigham Young ordered or approved of the attack. Sincere regret for blaming the Indians has already been stated, and that is about all I think can be said with perfect clarity – but I still would like to see a directly stated apology. Violent responses against “Gentiles” in Missouri and Illinois? Perhaps a statement acknowledging it shouldn’t have occurred (even though there is an implied condemnation of it in the D&C) and encouraging current members not to succumb to pressure in related instances but rather react in a Christlike manner – but an apology? I have a harder time with that, honestly – even as I lay some of the blame at the feet of the members and leaders. A book published by someone who wasn’t even an apostle at the time? That’s where we are getting into a real slippery slope spot, imo – and I just don’t want to open that door.
I’m not trying to convince you of my viewpoint here, I’m just saying I can’t agree in this particular case that an apology is in order.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.