Lechnerd00 -You are right about knowledge vs. a recommend, but when you are not in full fellowship with the Church, you make many of the remarks about Church doctrine and the general authorities that he has. No, he stated he was fearful he would be ratted out to his bishop, not because of his identity being known on this board. There are several on this board whose names are known, but (gasp) no harm has come to them.

G. Ag, if McConkie was your hero, then I apologize, but for me, he was a mixed bad, representing the fundamentalist wing of the Church, combatting the intellectuals and spreading false doctrines. [note, your argument against the Judas correlary is weak, you forgot, God called David but somehow he committed great sin, are you stating that God was deficient in calling David? You're so involved in the Mormon subculture of GA hero worship, you can even judge on their merits]. I have no record of McConkie knowing any of the ancient languages, being versed in biblical studies, or showing any scholarship on the issue. He was a traditional bible thumper, with a large number of scriptures memorized. Memorization is not bad, but as my inorganic chemistry professor, a brillian man from Cal Tech told me, "I don't worry about memorizing formulae, because if you understand them, you can derive them all."

Your arguments are poor. You raise the ridiculous question whether those men would quote somebody who was so wrong? First, the leadership will publicly stick together. I would not expect them to do anything else. Second, Church manuals through the power of correlation are compiled by Church bureaucrats so they quote whatever they can easily find. The manuals are for the lowest common denominator and generally provide little instruction beyond the first few years of membership. Members are to educate themselves and not to rely upon the manuals.

You're nothing but a calumnous old fart, somewhat amusing because I haven't met somebody who buys into correlation like you do.

[This message has been edited by Derrida (edited 3/9/2008 10:19a).]

I keep forgetting that it is you who are gifted with the "true' gospel insights, which by the greatest of coincidences happens to fit into your lifestyle. I notice you could not argue with the public statements that the general authorities said about Elder McConkie. Of course your out to lunch argument when you attempt to lump Judas and Elder McConkie together speaks volumes about you. Since you believe the priesthood Correlation Committee is simply a "bunch of bureaucrats" and the Apostles and prophets are simply nice men with no particular Divine revelation, I must ask you this question: Why are you a member? (if you still are)

Name calling always seems to be your last refuge.

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 3/9/2008 10:52a).]

quote:

---

because he held the administrative office of apostle

---

So 'Apostle' is just an administrative position? I thought Apostles were supposed to spread the gospel.

The position of Apostle is only partially understood by those who are not one. I am not one, so I don't claim full knowledge.

It is clear the Church is a series of large non-to-for profit organizations, and requires the leaders to function in administrative capacities. Part of that capacity is to give talks, lots of talks.

They also give direction on what to emphasize to other file leaders. And they testify of Christ.

However, nowhere is it required that they be theologically more advanced than anybody else. They must be known to leadership, must follow direction in appearances, and have general success in the capacities in which they serve, and to some extent they must enjoy serving in adminstrative capacity. You don't see Davidic selections in the process.

G. Ag, pot meet kettle in terms of calumny and perjoratives. I belong because the Church awakened belief in me, I belong because I accept the bestowal of priesthood authority through Joseph, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, important ordinances, and general charity by persons not like you. I do not interpret acceptance of priesthood authority as a form of worship of GAs, as you appear to do. I feel free to speak my mind, rightly or wrongly.

The tradition of Leonard Arrington and his history division is more honorable in my mind than the tradition of correlation, which is a form of homogenization and dumming down material. This is approach is mind boggling to you, because anything other than YOUR WAY is unfaithful in your mind. Thank goodness you are in error in that respect.

Because I chose not to argue with meaningless pablum regarding public praises of McConkie does not mean I agree with them. Color me unimpressed with his approach even though I did enjoy his final testimony. However, his approach to intellectuals was harmful and unappreciated. His dismemberment of Professor Pace was uncalled for.

[This message has been edited by Derrida (edited 3/9/2008 12:57p).]

Derrida -your claim not to understand the role of an apostle is a true tunderstatement. You are being too modest. As I said earlier, you know just enough to be dangerous. You will make great progress whenever you become converted! For your sake, I hope it happens soon enough so that you can be of real value to the Lord's Kingdom.

PS -In case you missed "The Lone Stranger's" last post on the "Iron Ore Mine discovery" thread, I will repeat the last comment of his post because it should give you much pause for thought.

"I just don't know where you are. Perhaps you don't either. If so, that's OK."


[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 3/9/2008 3:16p).]

Your arrogant lecturing is untoward. If one were to derive what you believe it is best characterized by Leonard Arrington's, former Church Historian if you are unfamiliar with him, essay, "The Search for Truth and Meaning in Mormon History," wherein he describes your belief in "spiritual marionettes". He wrote, "One gets the impression from some of our literature and sermons that the prophets and their associates in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were pious personages who responded somewhat mechanically, as if by conditional reflex, to explicit instructions from on high, and that God manipulated leaders much as marionettes in in a puppet show."

Leon Wieseltier wrote: "The belief in God does not guarantee the knowledge of God's wishes. This is the most elementary lesson of the history of religious faith. The believes lives in the darkness more than he lives in the light. He does not wallow in God's guidance, he thirsts for it."

I don't know anyone who think the General Authorities are "spiritual marionettes. I think if I were you I would focus more attention to some one who has set in an intimate setting with 7 different presidents of the Church as secretary. They were Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball and Ezra Taft Benson. It is entitled "In the Company of Prophets" and ecounts the personal experiences of D. Arthur Haycock. In addition to keeping minutes, writing letters, scheduling, telephoning, organizing and filing, he also served as the prophet's chauffer, tour guide, valet, chef, doctor, friend, confidant and security guard all rolled into one to these great men.

His most telling observation that has such applicabilty for you is his following statement: "I testify that if we follow the prophets, we will never get on forbidden paths. They are the Lord's servants and his mouth pieces upon the earth in these latter days."

How could he know these men so well and (a)still have a testimony of their Divine calling and (b) not expose them as the kind of men as they way you see them? Amazing!

ibm - Did I miss your answer to this?

quote:

---

ibm - so was McConkie right in stating that the Catholic church was the 'great and abominable church' and the 'Church of the Devil'?

---

RAB, President McKay repudiated that statement and knew it to be wrong. Apparently, G. Ag is a bigot and won't acknowledge his erroneous ways.

G. Ag, what else would expect D. Arthur Haycock to say? I'm not saying he's speaking out of turn or that he's wrong, but a public pronouncement by a public Church official is usually pablum for the masses, even if he means it.

You believe the GAs are theological or spiritual marionettes in your actions and constant praise of their words. Obviously there are faithful members, such as groove or others, who do not take your simplistic approach to life.

Rab -My opinion on this subject means nothing for this forum. President McKay recoginzed that it was counter productive to publicaly declare that point of view when you are trying to prosylete individuals. The mission of the Church is to help those who believe in Christ to actually "know" him and to teach those who believe they are saved what that actually means.

You actually believe the R. Catholic Church is that figurative organization? I'm surprised I belong to the same organization as one so naive and misguided as you.

There are loads of intellectual deconstructions of that phrase by Church intellectuals, and almost all universally reject that interpretation.

It is a symbol of all unrighteousness wherever it may be found, even in our own Church if one takes a secondary interpretation.

RAB, no reasonable faithful member believes what G. Ag believes.

ibm - It is interesting that you don't deny that belief about the Catholic Church, and you don't deny that President McKay believed it. Instead you only say it is counterproductive to make that public claim. Why can't you answer a simple question? Are you capable of inddependent thought? If so, please answer the question.

Derrida - I think ibm may belong to a group that is shrinking in importance, but it is still interesting how this belief was supported for many years. He may be right that while it is no longer publicly stated, it really isn't denied either. I guess it is part of the continued effort of mormonism to become a mainstream christian religion.

quote:

---

I think ibm may belong to a group that is shrinking in importance, but it is still interesting how this belief was supported for many years.

---

How was it "supported for many years?" In case you missed the discussion here, the instant McConkie published it, he was called on the carpet about it back in the 1950s. I don't deny that there are people in the Church who have and do harbor this view. However, it has never been "supported" and has always been an apocryphal relic.

quote:

---

He may be right that while it is no longer publicly stated, it really isn't denied either.

---

But it is denied. The official repudiation of that particular error by the First Presidency pretty much seems like a denial. Over the years there have been other publications repudiating said beliefs in official church publications. See http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=a05379356427b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 as an example.

quote:

---

I guess it is part of the continued effort of mormonism to become a mainstream christian religion.

---

No. It is part of the effort to disabuse certain people of errors which have been unfortunately perpetuated.

And because of errors such as that statement, statements on the priesthood ban, and many others, "Mormon Doctrine" should not be read, quoted or used for any purpose. Despite what his son says in his defense, and who can blame a son for defending his father, the errors were not errors in tone, but errors in dogma and opinion.

As groove has shown, G. Ag may believe it, but as in many other things, he id DEAD wrong.

Wrong again! Is the book still sold in Deseret Book stores?

PS -again name just a hundred of the "over 1,00 errors".

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 3/10/2008 3:30p).]

Well, I disagree with you there on shelving "Mormon Doctrine" to the verboten pile. It is like the Journal of Discourses or other literature which is useful for outlining doctrine where it is present or attempting to understand various thoelogical issues. It is still quoted from time to time, and McConkie does provide some very good explanations for most doctrines. A fair portion of what we have today as far as basic materials was adapted from his writings. And like it or not Bruce R. McConkie was an intellectual powerhouse who made significant, good contributions to church materials and is an important figure for 20th century LDS thought. Dismissing everything he says simply because some other things he said were ill-considered or incorrect is an error.

Groove -very good. I talked today with the owner of the Dallas Deseret Book store who is a real scriptorian and student of Church History. He said the first copy of "Mormon Doctrine" was wrote by a very talented but still an "individual". The second copy that was requested by President McKay was written with the assistance of Spencer Kimball. It is still sold and is considered to be very acceptable and accurate as it pertains to Church doctrine.

To me there was also a very pragmatic reason alone to take out the part referring to the Catholic Church as the "church of the devil." I think anyone would agree it would be hard for the missionaries to make a door approach with Catholics that would go something like this:

"Hi, we are missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you may or may not know, but you are a member of the church of the devil. Etc., etc." I don't think that conversation would go very far.

But Groove, the errors were so egregious, and what he said is more easily in Encyclopedia of Mormons or whatever the name is in a better format.

He was a driving force in the reformatting of the Quad, but what other contributions did he make other than to beat down intellectuals, a la Seven Deadly Heresies speech?

I think you're being unduly kind. Some of the stuff is so basic, it appears he compiled it from other sources. It seems you overestimate his contributions. The Church has intellectuals, and Dallin Oaks is intellectually friendly, as was Talmage, or Neil A. Maxwell, who oft consulted the intellectuals of the Church, but I'd be honestly interested to know what you consider his contributions were.

He had a forceful, dogmatic speaking style, with a deep bass voice. He was allied with Joseph Fielding Smith against Henry Eyring and others. Perhaps I'm being unkind, but I would look at that book or most of the books published by Deseret Book, being filled with pablum and useless tripe nowadays. Maybe you find it an interesting artifact and you being well-informed can discern the errors, but for the masses it's a dangerous work misleading the read on key aspects of our faith.

How big a Deseret Book store is in Dallas any ways?

The SWK story is the storyline to make BRM look good. The DOM biography makes it clear that BRM approached David O. McKay when he was 92 years old and in failing health. That is dishonest BS to say David O. McKay requested that it be published especially in light of his being upset that it was published in the first instance.

Was it really "wrote" by a talented individual?

Derrida -why don't you make the long list of egregious errors that you and others talk about but can't seem to produce. I challenge you to put up or shut up sbout the subject as they should be so easy to find.

It is a large store. You can confirm that with "mikewaters".

President McKay's health was not that "failing". He also had two able counselors not to mention the quorum of the Twelve to assist him in this matter. Just a few short years later BRM was called to the Quorum of the Twelve and only a fool would think the President of the Church and the rest of the General Authorities would have developed amnesia over BRM's supposed taking advantage of President McKay. Thus, you better go out and buy you a copy.

"Huge"?

Like the Dallas Temple?

Houston is larger than Dallas.

I once had a 58 edition and a 66 Edition, but lost them and have not replaced them. You are simply mistaken. His biography which you probably have not read makes that clear, and it was developed largely on the notes of Clair Middlemiss, his personal secretary. I even quoted you the source in an early thread. In order to preserve BRM's reputation, DOM and Peterson did not release the list of errors so that BRM would not be destroyed. DOM was a patient man. You on the other hand merely cite an apology from his son who was not present during the discussion of the matters. Your source is not as central as mine.

DOM did little requesting at the time and you are sadly mistaken as to your historical facts.

dp

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 3/10/2008 8:55p).]

Whatever. He would never been called by revelation if he were really disobedient. He was called after Joseph Fielding Smith's death by Harold B. Lee in Oct. of 1972, 6 years after the second edition was published.

There used to be two LDS Bookstores in Dallas but they merged into one as they were less than two miles apart on the same Preston Road.

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 3/11/2008 12:52a).]

That's faulty logic. He was known by the leaders and had the fundamentalists in his camp. It's much more political than you let on. There's no proof that he would not have been called if he were disobedient and there are historical precedents, which I will not cite here, of such men being called.

You cite your source as an internet article, not subject to the editorial review of a publisher, from a son of the deceased as proof.

I cite a published work from the Illinois University Press based on notes from the President's personal secretary.

Just on its face, which appears to be more credible?

Simply relying upon hagiographic works won't let you see truth.

It is obvious that you do not believe that the Prophet of the Church receives Divine revelation as to whom he calls to the holy apostleship. You are far off base when you attempt to talk about the "politics" that goes on, since you were never there. The fundamentalists (your term) will always lead the Church. The General Authorities are the most aware that obedience is the first law of heaven. Why would you not give the names of the exception to this understanding. You are truly a sad case.

You might want to examine this again:

Ezra Taft Benson, then a fellow apostle, noted in his remarks that whenever a doctrinal question "came before the First Presidency and the Twelve," it was Bruce McConkie "who was asked to quote the scripture or to comment on the matter. He could quote scripture verbatim and at great length." According to Benson, McConkie "provided the entire Church with an example of gospel scholarship. He could teach the gospel with ease because he first understood the gospel."

Mormon Apostle Boyd Packer spoke of McConkie's uncompromising attitude he had toward his obligation to speak the truth. "It was not granted to Brother McConkie to judge beforehand how his discourses would be received and then to alter them accordingly. Nor could he measure what ought to be said and how it ought to be said by ‘what will people think?'"

Gordon Hinckley, then a member of the First Presidency, was the concluding speaker. In his comments he stated, "I felt like a little puppy trying to keep up with McConkie as he took his long measured steps...So it has been with most of us in keeping up with the stride of his mind in scholarship in the gospel" (Go Forward with Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley, p.418).

Given the high regard these LDS leaders had for McConkie, why do so many members today seem to have such a low respect for this man? In light of the fact that his colleagues did not share this dismal view we can only conclude that modern-day critics of McConkie are the ones who are not in theological step with their church. (and that obviously includes you Derrida)

Mormons who have a reputation for spreading "false doctrine" are not usually quoted favorably in LDS Church manuals. Nor are they praised for their theological prowess by LDS leaders after they die.

Your basic problem, Derrida, is that you can not endure sound doctrine and you want to change it to fit what you think it should be. Wear yourself out!

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 3/11/2008 1:09a).]

You wouldn't know sound doctrine if it hit you in the face.

The quotes are meaningless. So you praise a man who is dead. Big deal. Nice PR spin.

Groove may hold him in higher esteem than I do.

And you're very binary. Either a person accepts your view entirely, or a person is unfaithful. I can see a much more nuanced approach to how the Church operates than you.

You believe in theological, mechanical marionettes. I see real living people, who live mostly in darkness, striving for the light, doing their best but not always getting it right. As a child, most members believe as you, but as they age the scales fall off from their eyes, and they see more clearly how much more majestic reality is.

Each one of those quoted, outside of GBH, was a fundamentalist, so his view is deemed to be consistent. GBH would not insult a dead leader. Plus GBH actually learned Greek, unlike BRM. So he was just being nice.

Derrida -Someday you will learn that it is not "letters' that qualifies you for being an apostle and prophet. You might even remember Joseph Smith's lack of formal education. The type of men quoted are and will always be the ones who lead the Church. You can kick against the p r i c k s all you want, but it will be a futile exercise. I suspect you are going to frustrated over this the rest of your life. I would draw your attention again to what President Ezra Taft Benson said about Elder McConkie: Bruce McConkie "provided the entire Church with an example of gospel scholarship. He could teach the gospel with ease because he first understood the gospel."

Sadly, you don't!

Quote ETB all you wish, and I'll quote Hugh B. Brown and David O. McKay and others to my heart's content.

ETB was also a renegade Bircher, to President McKay's chagrin.

BRM could teach his version to his heart's content. I am not frustrated, but I am frustrated by the simplistic, narrow-minded views you hold. In general, I'm optimistic, because I generally don't encounter too many persons such as yourself. You represent the minority of sheep who fall off the cliffs a la lemmings.

Sorry Derrida -but you live in your own little world but it is ok because the few that also live there know your name. You will learn to deal with the fact the Lord called Elder McConkie to the Holy Apostleship. Obedience is the first law of heaven and if Elder McConkie fell into that category, he would never have been called.