How do you solve a problem like McConkie

[Anonymous]

Hi,

The recent revisions of the intros/chapter headings/bible dictionary in the scriptures has been, in many cases, the changing of Elder McConkie’s personally held views (no blood before the fall, Lamanites the main ancestor of the Native Indians).

I have a 1992 copy of Mormon Doctrine. Here are some of the less palatable parts that were in it, all the way through to his death. As a ‘prophet, seer and revelator’ (we sustain the Apostles as such) he endorsed this content. He wrote it as a 70, but revised and republished (I think) as an Apostle – at least he never refuted it as an apostle:

Quote:

American Indians “When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites, but such remnants of the Nephite nation as had not been destroyed had, of course, mingled with the Lamanites. (1 Ne. 13:30; 2 Ne. 3:1-3; 9:53; Alma 45:13-14; D. & C. 3:16-19.) Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality (D. & C. 57:4), their forefathers having come out from Jerusalem, from the kingdom of Judah. (2 Ne. 33:8-10.)”

…….

Since the days of the Spanish conquests and colonizations of Mexico and South America, there has been further dilution of the pure Lamanitish blood. But with it all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel. The Indians are repeatedly called Lamanites in the revelations to the Prophet, and the promise is that in due course they “shall blossom as the rose” (D. & C. 49:24), that is, become again a white and delightsome people as were their ancestors a great many generations ago.

Animals They were all created as spirit entities in pre-existence. (Moses 3:1-9.) When first placed on earth in the Garden of Eden, they were immortal. The revealed record, speaking of the edenic day, specifies: “All things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.” (2 Ne. 2:22.) Such would have been the continuing condition had there been no fall of Adam, but Adam and all forms of life were subject to the fall and have been living on earth in their mortal states ever since.

Article on Marriage

When the Prophet returned (in 1835) and learned of the action taken relative to the publication of the article on marriage, he was greatly troubled. However, knowing that up to that date the new and everlasting covenant of marriage had only been revealed in principle, that there was as yet no command to practice it, and that the power and keys had not been restored whereby marriages could be solemnized so they would endure for eternity, he let the action stand. The higher order was to come later.

Evolution

Adam’s fall brought temporal (natural) and spiritual death into the world. The temporal or natural death means that body and spirit separate, the spirit going to a world of waiting spirits to await the day of the resurrection, the body returning to the dust, the primal element, from which it was taken. The effects of this fall passed upon all created things.

Thus when man fell the earth fell together with all forms of life on its face. Death entered; procreation began; the probationary experiences of mortality had their start. Before this fall there was neither mortality, nor birth, nor death, nor — for that matter — did Adam so much as have blood in his veins (and the same would be true for other forms of life), for blood is an element pertaining only to mortality.

…..

However, for our present purposes, it is sufficient to know that the time element since mortal life began on earth is specifically and pointedly made known. We are now nearing the end of the 6th thousand years of this earth’s “continuance, or its temporal existence,” and the millennial era will commence “in the beginning of the seventh thousand years.” (D. & C. 77.) That is, we are approaching the end of the 6th of the periods of one thousand years each, all of which periods have occurred since the fall, since the earth became temporal, since it gained its telestial status, since it became the natural earth that we know, since death and mortality entered the scene. Thus the period during which birth, and life, and death have been occurring on this earth is less than 6,000 years.

……

How weak and puerile the intellectuality which, knowing that the Lord’s plan takes all forms of life from a pre-existent spirit state, through mortality, and on to an ultimate resurrected state of immortality, yet finds comfort in the theoretical postulates that mortal life began in the scum of the sea, as it were, and has through eons of time evolved to its present varieties and state! Do those with spiritual insight really think that the infinite Creator of worlds without number would operate in this way?

…..

Merely to list the basic doctrines of the gospel is to point out the revealed truths which are inharmonious with the theories of organic evolution and which were to taken into account by those who postulated those theories. In addition to the considerations so far mentioned attention might be given to revelation, visions, and angelic ministrations; to miracles, signs, and gifts of the Spirit; to the enjoyment of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the faithful; to the truths comprising the plan of salvation; to the decreed judgment according to works, and the ultimate assignment of all resurrected men to kingdoms or degrees of glory hereafter.

There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution.

First Man

There were no pre-Adamites; the great archangel Michael, who descended from the courts of glory to be the father of the human race, was appointed to be the father of all living. Indeed, Adam and Eve were not able to have children and provide bodies for the spirit children of the Father until after the fall.

Plural Marriage

Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium.

Flood of Noah

In the days of Noah the Lord sent a universal flood which completely immersed the whole earth and destroyed all flesh except that preserved on the ark. (Gen. 6; 7; 8; 9; Moses 7:38-45; 8; Ether 13:2.) “Noah was born to save seed of everything, when the earth was washed of its wickedness by the flood.” (Teachings, p. 12.) This flood was the baptism of the earth; before it occurred the land was all in one place, a condition that will again prevail during the millennial era. (D. & C. 133:23-24.)

There is no question but what many of the so-called geological changes in the earth’s surface, which according to geological theories took place over ages of time, in reality occurred in a matter of a few short weeks incident to the universal deluge. (Man: His Origin and Destiny, pp. 414-436.)

Birth Control

(Quoting President Joseph F. Smith:) : “I regret, I think it is a crying evil, that there should exist a sentiment or a feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. I think that is a crime wherever it occurs, where husband and wife are in possession of health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity. I believe that where people undertake to curtail or prevent the birth of their children that they are going to reap disappointment by and by. I have no hesitancy in saying that I believe this is one of the greatest crimes of the world today, this evil practice.” (Rel. Soc. Mag., vol. 4, p. 318.)

Cain

As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed and told that “the earth” would not thereafter yield him its abundance as previously. In addition he became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan. The Lord placed on Cain a mark of a dark skin, and he became the ancestor of the black race.

Caste System

…

However, in a broad general sense, caste systems 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.)

…

Cumorah

See BOOK OF MORMON, GOLD PLATES.

Both the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at and near the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites termed it), which hill is located between Palmyra and Manchester in the western part of the state of New York. It was here that Moroni hid up the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. (Morm. 6; Ether 15.) Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and many of the early brethren, who were familiar with all the circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this dispensation, have left us pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 232-241.)

Copied from here (but checked my printed version too)

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=168

So here’s the question… how can someone we consider to be an inspired leader of the church get so much, so badly wrong. I’ve been pausing to question what confidence, if any, I can place in the church leaders. It makes me more interested in being selective about what I accept and believe as a way of making mormonism work for me.

[Anonymous]

Because he was fully human – and because he got so much right, as well.

Remove the unrealistic expectation of infallibility and grant that even they can be spectacularly wrong (as Elder Holland said about the justifications for the ban), and the problem is solved. That isn’t easy, especially because of the implications, but I have no “problem” with him being in that position – even as I have major problems with some of his views.

[Anonymous]

In other words, completely disregard the 14 fundamentals because, as a sustained prophet, seer and revealator they might well lead you astray. In fact, the 14 fundamentals is an actual example of the leaders leading people astray. Ironic.

[Anonymous]

I’m not a big fan of the 14 fundamentals, even though I can interpret nearly all of them in a way that makes the indigestion disappear.

I forget and am too lazy right now to check, but have you read our threads about each of them? Lots of very diverse input in those threads.

[Anonymous]

Don’t worry about digging them out Ray. To be honest it wasn’t the 14 fundamentals I had an issue with.

My concern is this:

Elder McConkie believed certain things that I deeply disagree with. Things that I even find repellent. He didn’t just hold these as a personal view, he considered them to be the revealed word of God.

Every 6 months he, with the other apostles were sustained as prophets, seers and revealators.

So I’m having to adjust yet another perspective. I find myself having to presume that as a seer, they see very little beyond their own perspectives.

There’s a little Elder, and a lot of McConkie. We all love Elder Uchtdorf on this board. But that’s because Uchtdorf is a special person, with good upringing and generous perspective. I can’t see that his ‘Elder’ role gives him anything beyond a source of perspective.

My question is, if Elder McConkie can get so much wrong (to the point that the church is having to unwind his inaccuracies), what does that say of their calling as prophet, seer and revealator. If they’re good old men seeking guidance but sometimes share personal opinion, then what ‘special’ claim does our church actually have?

– A priesthood that gives people the confidence that they’re acting in God’s name, but history suggests was a fabrication.

– A leadership team that are supposed to replicate the prophets of the past but who appear to rely as much on their opinion, if not more, than inspiration.

– Some additional books of scripture that reaffirm how to ‘be good.’

– Some temple ceremonies that may or may not have validity in the next life.

I dunno… My “why stay” list seems pretty feeble today.

[Anonymous]

To phrase this in the most cynical way possible, look at the other extreme:

Why leave? How is what you just said ANY different than any other religion or denomination?

I mean those questions. If you start from the assumption that the LDS Church is man-made and not completely God-directed, what makes you think any other alternative is any different?

What happens, really, if you stay that isn’t going to happen if you leave? What happens if you leave that isn’t going to happen if you stay?

Do a cost-benefit analysis. Which option is better in the aggregate – not just for you, individually, but you as a spouse and father?

I’m not trying to answer your question for you, and I’m not trying to write this comment in a leading way of any kind. I really mean it. If you don’t believe Joseph was a prophet in some important way, and if you don’t believe the current leaders are unique in any important way, are there any better alternatives out there? If you can find one, and if you are OK with the consequences of leaving what you have for something else, do it. “Convert” in the classic sense. We ask it of others all the time to join our church; apply it yourself. If you can’t find that type of better alternative, work out a way to stay without all this angst. Let go of the divinity claim and work on the social Gospel level – focusing on serving and helping others.

It’s your choice, so make it a choice – not just a runaway from confusion.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

My concern is this:

Elder McConkie believed certain things that I deeply disagree with. Things that I even find repellent. He didn’t just hold these as a personal view, he considered them to be the revealed word of God.

Every 6 months he, with the other apostles were sustained as prophets, seers and revealators.

So I’m having to adjust yet another perspective. I find myself having to presume that as a seer, they see very little beyond their own perspectives.

Mine is a simplistic way of looking at it, but I’ve adopted the view that almost all of our official prophets are along the lines of Professor Trelawney from Harry Potter. (I say official because I believe there are many non-official ‘prophets’ that fit a broader definition). Q12 prophets may go a long time – years in some cases – between genuine prophecies. But sometimes they get it right. I’ve also redefined prophet / seer / revelator in my mind to mean that they are at the appropriate place in the hierarchy to make decisions for the organization. Not unlike a senior executive vice president at a bank. Because they are a prophet / seer / revelator (ie SEVP) they get to say things like the earth is 6000 years old.

It’s not a very faith promoting stance, but it’s the one I hold.

There are other Q12 / FP that are similar to Elder McConkie in terms of what I’ll call acceptability. Joseph Fielding Smith and his Answers to Gospel Questions come to mind. I think of that book as “Questions to Gospel Answers” because the book is almost embarrassing to claim as part of a religion and because it raises more questions than answers.

The Prophet to Normal Guy ratio in my mind is 1 part per 100 (give or take a couple of zeros for the 100).

Old-Timer wrote:

Why leave? How is what you just said ANY different than any other religion or denomination?

I’ve asked this question of myself and have decided that for most mainstream churches I would answer similarly to what Ray describes. However, you can choose to be atheist or agnostic you leave the paradigm of religion to a good degree. I know secular humanists who have very healthy outlooks on life and who I envy sometimes.

Mackay11 – I’m not suggesting you leave, I’m just saying this may be a question without a good answer, and one we have to take on “faith” if we decide to stay.

[Anonymous]

I think much of the problem with McConkie was his expressions of certainty. If the book “Mormon Doctrine” was instead titled “Mormon Centered Speculation of BRM” then the problem largely goes away.

But then we (both individually and collectively) tend to demand certainty, don’t we? Just today in SM there were multiple references to “conversion” and “truly converted” and “true testimony” and “strong testimony.” It seemed to me that each one of these words was used in the context of certainty – that one is certain of the church etc. Seems to me that BRM was only too happy to supply the certainty demand with his own particular version of certainty.

So for me the more important questions become: Why do I crave certainty? What spiritual questions can I explore for myself and not rely upon others to spell them out for me? My answers might be just as wrong as those of the next guy but at least they would be personally and honestly acquired.

As far as the LDS organization – I think correlation is the antidote to fellows like McConkie. You make individual personalities matter less because you focus on the shared message/theme of the entire leadership… and you require that any books to be published by members of the leadership get vetted first by some type of committee… you would need to name the committee something catchy…hmmm… 💡 – like correlation committee!!!

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I think much of the problem with McConkie was his expressions of certainty. If the book “Mormon Doctrine” was instead titled “Mormon Centered Speculation of BRM” then the problem largely goes away.

But then we (both individually and collectively) tend to demand certainty, don’t we? Just today in SM there were multiple references to “conversion” and “truly converted” and “true testimony” and “strong testimony.” It seemed to me that each one of these words was used in the context of certainty – that one is certain of the church etc. Seems to me that BRM was only too happy to supply the certainty demand with his own particular version of certainty.

So for me the more important questions become: Why do I crave certainty? What spiritual questions can I explore for myself and not rely upon others to spell them out for me? My answers might be just as wrong as those of the next guy but at least they would be personally and honestly acquired.

As far as the LDS organization – I think correlation is the antidote to fellows like McConkie. You make individual personalities matter less because you focus on the shared message/theme of the entire leadership… and you require that any books to be published by members of the leadership get vetted first by some type of committee… you would need to name the committee something catchy…hmmm… 💡 – like correlation committee!!!

It’s a good point and I am indeed preaching double-standards. On the one hand I bemoan the sterility brought through the correlation committee and how it’s allowing creeds to creep in. On the other I lambaste the last (?) in a long line of speculators who used absolute language. Before him came many others who did the same. King Follett is speculation with certainty.

I guess I can’t have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

My concern is this:…Elder McConkie believed certain things that I deeply disagree with. Things that I even find repellent. He didn’t just hold these as a personal view, he considered them to be the revealed word of God…Every 6 months he, with the other apostles were sustained as prophets, seers and revealators…I find myself having to presume that as a seer, they see very little beyond their own perspectives…My question is, if Elder McConkie can get so much wrong (to the point that the church is having to unwind his inaccuracies), what does that say of their calling as prophet, seer and revealator. If they’re good old men seeking guidance but sometimes share personal opinion, then what ‘special’ claim does our church actually have?…I dunno… My “why stay” list seems pretty feeble today.

Reading parts of Mormon Doctrine as a teenager was definitely one of the first major challenges to my faith in the Church but at the time I mostly shrugged it off and rationalized that these were just Bruce R. McConkie’s opinions and it wasn’t that important to know exactly how God created the world and why he allowed the racial priesthood ban to continue as long as it did. However, once I started paying more attention to what the scriptures said it wasn’t as easy to ignore anymore because I realized that Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, and other leaders were not generally pulling most of these ideas I disagreed with out of thin air as much as taking what various scriptures say literally as far as what they really do sound like they are trying to say.

Eventually I completely gave up on trying to interpret most scriptures literally and came to the conclusion that whatever revelation and inspiration there may be is not nearly as reliable as the Church claims both now and in the past and after that no other explanation was needed for most of the things Church leaders have said and done up to this point. To me StayLDS is not really about pure apologetics and trying to go back inside the TBM box as much as facing and coming to terms with some of the problems we don’t feel like we can deny anymore and trying to salvage some value from our experience with the Church in a way that doesn’t really depend on most of the doctrines being true as advertised to begin with (basically it promotes a Cafeteria Mormon approach). The general idea is that just because you don’t believe in some of the Church’s doctrines and policies that doesn’t automatically mean you need to leave if you don’t want to.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

In other words, completely disregard the 14 fundamentals because, as a sustained prophet, seer and revelator they might well lead you astray. In fact, the 14 fundamentals is an actual example of the leaders leading people astray. Ironic.

Yes it is, as is President Woodruff’s comment that a church leader cannot lead the church astray. That comment just doesn’t compute for me, for it to make sense we would have to believe in infallibility.

mackay11 wrote:

I find myself having to presume that as a seer, they see very little beyond their own perspectives.

Yes, nobody is super-human. As humans, we ALL see very little beyond our own perspectives.

To me it comes down to the process of revelation. I think it is easy to see that revelation cannot be “pushed” onto us, we have precedence in Oliver’s trying to translate and that resulting revelation — it takes WORK to bring the revelation. It won’t come until we ASK and we are ready to receive the answer.

Life is messy, human understanding is messy, revelation to humans is messy, religious culture and tradition that feed expectations is MESSY!

[Anonymous]

Guys and gals… Thanks for tolerating a grumpy man’s ranting.

[Anonymous]

It is important to remember that when it was published in 1958, Elder Mark E Peterson found over 1000 errors in Mormon Doctrine. I’ve recently begun a series on it and so far have discussed Blacks: http://mormonheretic.org/2013/03/13/mormon-doctrine-blacks/ and Catholocism: http://mormonheretic.org/2013/03/17/mormon-doctrine-catholicism/.

[Anonymous]

I encourage anyone who has not read this before to read the origin and the debunking of the notion that “When the prophet [or brethren] speak the thinking is done.”

http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/06/25/when-our-leaders-speak-the-thinking-has-been-done/

Here’s a thought I find somewhat comforting. The church’s org structure doesn’t really put any one person in charge. Even the president has counselors and the Q12 to keep him in check. We are truly led by an oligarchy, so that no rogue opinion predominates. What BRM did in publishing a book, without authorization, called Mormon Doctrine, that contained over 1000 errors, is extreme arrogance. There are a few reasons it’s still haunting us: 1) it’s in print, 2) rather than publicly denouncing it, they asked for a 2nd edition with corrections which were still not 100% great, because they didn’t want to reduce his influence, and 3) because his words are delightsome to a specific type of Mormon.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

2) rather than publicly denouncing it, they asked for a 2nd edition with corrections which were still not 100% great, because they didn’t want to reduce his influence…

My impression was the FP under McKay did not want him to publish a 2nd edition, and the 1st had a short print run – but McConkie sought approval for the revised edition from president McKay near the end of his life when it was more difficult for him to give a sound rebuttal.

…but I could be wrong.

[Author]

Posts