What's wrong with Mormon Doctrine?

[Tex]

Via Wikipedia (if you're Cali Coug, please stop reading now):

When the First Presidency met with McConkie about their decision, he responded, "I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want. I will do exactly what you want. I will be as discreet and as wise as I can."

In his biography of his father, Joseph Fielding McConkie, states that:

"On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder Spencer W. Kimball [of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] was assigned to be Elder McConkie’s mentor in making those changes. ... My father told me that President McKay had so directed him. In addition to that, I am in possession of handwritten papers by my father affirming that direction."

The second edition of Mormon Doctrine, with its approved revisions, was published in 1966. [Biographer Dennis] Horne states, "The most obvious difference between the two editions is a more moderate tone."

And now you know .... the rest of the story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Via Wikipedia (if you're Cali Coug, please stop reading now):



And now you know .... the rest of the story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)

Oh Great wikipedia and his son, those sources are unbaised.

We know that BRM pestered McKay about publishing it again, because I seriously doubt McKay was soliciting BRM to publish it, given the disdain for which he held the work.

So you have JFS and BRM pestering older man to republish, DoM did not like controversy, so he gives in.

Approval, meaning acquiescence, doesn't mean much to me, and BRM should never have tried that.

And the second edition begs the question, why did BRM keep trying to publish something that the President of the Church really would rather not have published? That seems like a pride issue.

[SteelBlue]

Here's some more, from page 51:

The next day, McKay met first with McConkie and informed him of their course of action, to which McConkie replied, "I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want." McKay then met with the Q12, using what was for him, extremely strong language:

'At Council meeting I reported to the Brethren our decision regarding Elder Bruce R. McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine, stating that it had caused considerable comment throught the Church, and that it has been a source of concern to the Brethren ever since it was published. I said that this book had not been presented to anyone for consideration or approval until after its publication. I further said that the First Presidency have given it very careful consideration, as undoubtedly have some of the Brethren of the Twelve also, and that the First Presidency now recommend that the book be not republished; that it be not republished even in a corrected form, even though brother McConkie mentions in the book that he takes all responsibility for it; and that it be not recognized as an authoritative book.

I said further that the question has arisen as to whether a public correction should be made and an addendum given emphasizing the parts which are unwisely presented or misquoted or incorrect; but it is felt that that would not be wise because Brother McConkie is one of the General Authorities, and it might lessen his influence. The First Presidency recommend that the situation be left as it is, and whenever a question about it arises, we can answer that it is unauthoritative; that it was issued by Brother McConkie on his own responsibility, and he must answer for it...

I then said that the First Presidency further recommend that when any member of the General Authorities desires to write a book, that the Brethren of the Twelve or the First Presidency be consulted regarding it...I said it may seem all right for the writer of the book to say, "I only am respnsible for it," but I said 'you cannot separate your position from your individuality.'"

McKay's message seems to have been unambiguous. Nonetheless, McConkie audaciously approached McKay six years later and ;pushed for publication of the book in a revised form, albeit with the same title and general tone. At that point, McKay, age ninety-two and in failing health, did not take the matter up with his counselors or the Quorum of the Twelve. Rather, he said that "should the book be re-published at this time," McConkie would be responsible for it and "that it will not be a Church publication." (emphasis mine)

Three days after meeting with McKay, McConkie wrote in a memo to...McKay's secretary, "President McKay indicated that the book should be republished at this time." McConkie, who practiced law prior to becoming a General Authority, was well versed in the legal meaning of words; and so one is hard pressed to conclude that he misunderstood McKay's cautionary statement, "should the book be re-published," as a mandate to republish. Instead, he moved with the same boldness of eight years earlier, and published a second edition of Mormon Doctrine. The book became one of the all-time best sellers in Mormondom, achieving the near-canonical status that McKay had fought unsuccessfully to avoid, and setting a tone of doctrinal fundamentalism, antithetical to McKay's personal philosophy, that remains a legacy of the church to this day.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Via Wikipedia (if you're Cali Coug, please stop reading now):



And now you know .... the rest of the story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)

I find Wikipedia to be an interesting site because it provides links to actual authorities and can give you a popular (though frequently untrue) version of what you are looking for. I most certainly do not view it as any sort of an authority as you do.

A brief review of the entry on elephants and Colbert should explain why it isn't an authority, in part.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I find Wikipedia to be an interesting site because it provides links to actual authorities and can give you a popular (though frequently untrue) version of what you are looking for.

Cali, at my last job I used to sit behind the reference desk and watch kids use Wikipedia to study for the MCAT. :o

Wikipedia has made an effort over the last year to include bibliographies to reputable sources, I've found that feature useful.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Here's some more, from page 51:

The next day, McKay met first with McConkie and informed him of their course of action, to which McConkie replied, "I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want." McKay then met with the Q12, using what was for him, extremely strong language:

'At Council meeting I reported to the Brethren our decision regarding Elder Bruce R. McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine, stating that it had caused considerable comment throught the Church, and that it has been a source of concern to the Brethren ever since it was published. I said that this book had not been presented to anyone for consideration or approval until after its publication. I further said that the First Presidency have given it very careful consideration, as undoubtedly have some of the Brethren of the Twelve also, and that the First Presidency now recommend that the book be not republished; that it be not republished even in a corrected form, even though brother McConkie mentions in the book that he takes all responsibility for it; and that it be not recognized as an authoritative book.

I said further that the question has arisen as to whether a public correction should be made and an addendum given emphasizing the parts which are unwisely presented or misquoted or incorrect; but it is felt that that would not be wise because Brother McConkie is one of the General Authorities, and it might lessen his influence. The First Presidency recommend that the situation be left as it is, and whenever a question about it arises, we can answer that it is unauthoritative; that it was issued by Brother McConkie on his own responsibility, and he must answer for it...

I then said that the First Presidency further recommend that when any member of the General Authorities desires to write a book, that the Brethren of the Twelve or the First Presidency be consulted regarding it...I said it may seem all right for the writer of the book to say, "I only am respnsible for it," but I said 'you cannot separate your position from your individuality.'"

McKay's message seems to have been unambiguous. Nonetheless, McConkie audaciously approached McKay six years later and ;pushed for publication of the book in a revised form, albeit with the same title and general tone. At that point, McKay, age ninety-two and in failing health, did not take the matter up with his counselors or the Quorum of the Twelve. Rather, he said that "should the book be re-published at this time," McConkie would be responsible for it and "that it will not be a Church publication." (emphasis mine)

Three days after meeting with McKay, McConkie wrote in a memo to...McKay's secretary, "President McKay indicated that the book should be republished at this time." McConkie, who practiced law prior to becoming a General Authority, was well versed in the legal meaning of words; and so one is hard pressed to conclude that he misunderstood McKay's cautionary statement, "should the book be re-published," as a mandate to republish. Instead, he moved with the same boldness of eight years earlier, and published a second edition of Mormon Doctrine. The book became one of the all-time best sellers in Mormondom, achieving the near-canonical status that McKay had fought unsuccessfully to avoid, and setting a tone of doctrinal fundamentalism, antithetical to McKay's personal philosophy, that remains a legacy of the church to this day.

I tend to believe that no general authority, outside of perhaps the prophet, should ever publish any book while serving as a general authority, regardless of who receives the profits. "You cannot separate your position from your individuality."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I tend to believe that no general authority, outside of perhaps the prophet, should ever publish any book while serving as a general authority, regardless of who receives the profits. "You cannot separate your position from your individuality."

That is how I remembered it as well. McConkie selfishlessly misused a man in failing health, then used legal language to achieve his own personal aims.

Every time I study how this came to be, it paints a very dark and selfish picture of BRM.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Via Wikipedia (if you're Cali Coug, please stop reading now):



And now you know .... the rest of the story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)

Yeah, grapevine has posted that version of the story for us a few dozen times.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I find Wikipedia to be an interesting site because it provides links to actual authorities and can give you a popular (though frequently untrue) version of what you are looking for. I most certainly do not view it as any sort of an authority as you do.

A brief review of the entry on elephants and Colbert should explain why it isn't an authority, in part.

I really don't care about Cali Coug and his straw men, but for the benefit of others on the board:

I would never cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source in a speech, a graduate thesis, or even a high school term paper. Un-vetted data is still un-vetted data. But its information is mostly (but not all) accurate and mostly (but not all) cross-referenced, certainly good enough for a discussion as important and consequential as a online message board. I am under no illusion that the resource is 100% accurate, but see no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, to borrow a cliche.

As for the Colbert prank, it barely got out the front door. It's amusing to see Cali cite an instance that, for all intents and purposes, actually demonstrates how dogged the resource's moderators are about their articles.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...lephant_prank/

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I tend to believe that no general authority, outside of perhaps the prophet, should ever publish any book while serving as a general authority, regardless of who receives the profits. "You cannot separate your position from your individuality."

And some people think I am a mullah.

Originally Posted by Archaea

That is how I remembered it as well. McConkie selfishlessly misused a man in failing health, then used legal language to achieve his own personal aims.

Every time I study how this came to be, it paints a very dark and selfish picture of BRM.

Personally, I think you are on a crusade to discredit and disparage any church leader you happen to disagree with or dislike, and to that end, you'll conveniently pick and choose the sources you wish to believe.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yeah, grapevine has posted that version of the story for us a few dozen times.

You apparently have short memories.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I really don't care about Cali Coug and his straw men, but for the benefit of others on the board:

I would never cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source in a speech, a graduate thesis, or even a high school term paper. Un-vetted data is still un-vetted data. But its information is mostly (but not all) accurate and mostly (but not all) cross-referenced, certainly good enough for a discussion as important and consequential as a online message board. I am under no illusion that the resource is 100% accurate, but see no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, to borrow a cliche.

As for the Colbert prank, it barely got out the front door. It's amusing to see Cali cite an instance that, for all intents and purposes, actually demonstrates how dogged the resource's moderators are about their articles.

I think you missed the point entirely. The Colbert prank was quickly stopped, but only because it was so obvious and blatant. What he pointed out (and he certainly wasn't the first) was that entries in Wikipedia are based on popularity. Colbert took that premise to an extreme level, but what he said was absolutely true and occurs to an extent in every single entry on Wikipedia. Wikipedia will never be a source for anything; it may be, however, an interesting reference point to begin researching a topic. It is useful only if the reader treats it as first base, whereas you frequently tend to paint it as home base.