McConkie had the right idea, but he wasn't the man for the job

[RockyBalboa]

Doesn't matter if an Apostle or a group of them ever chose to tackle a new project of this kind.

The "intellectuals" would be like piranhas just waiting to pounce and tear it all to pieces.

It really would be a moot exercise in some aspects because of that.

Then in turn the "intellectuals" would accuse the "mullahs" of not being able to think for themselves ,,,,and the back and forth begins...blah, blah, blah,....

[ute4ever]

Hey "RockyBalboa," should the church cancel General Conference? Because there are people out there who pounce and tear the teachings into pieces. It really must be a moot series of lectures.

Should they also cease printing the Book of Mormon?

Should we also stop sustaining the prophet? Because as we all know, to sustain him means merely to raise our hand to the square every few months, and defend his honor with vulgarity and crass remarks. It has nothing to do with actually living what he teaches.

[Indy Coug]

In hindsight, Mormon Doctrine may not have been the best idea or been executed flawlessly, but the near-demonization of Elder McConkie by some is very troubling to me.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Hey "RockyBalboa," should the church cancel General Conference? Because there are people out there who pounce and tear the teachings into pieces. It really must be a moot series of lectures.

Should they also cease printing the Book of Mormon?

Should we also stop sustaining the prophet? Because as we all know, to sustain him means merely to raise our hand to the square every few months, and defend his honor with vulgarity and crass remarks. It has nothing to do with actually living what he teaches.

That's not what I said was it, but like a true "intellectual" twist what I said, into thinking that I actually said something else. No surprise.

We've already seen the impact that MD has had haven't we? People say that sequels usually suck.

Now if the prophet felt inspired and it was unanimous for them to move forward on such a document I'd be behind it. BRM wrote MD on his own and like many of the apostles when they write a book say that what they're writing is their opinion.

For example: The Prophet and Apostles were united in releasing the Proclamation of the Family. That was a CHURCH released document. Of course the liberals hate it all the same, but I can only imagine what would happen if they decided to do the same thing but a MD version of it. The Proclamation IS Church Doctrine. If they did something similar and said it was also church doctrine it would be suddenly interesting to see the reaction.

That would send the liberals and "intellectuals" into a spiritual equivalent of insulin shock.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

In hindsight, Mormon Doctrine may not have been the best idea or been executed flawlessly, but the near-demonization of Elder McConkie by some is very troubling to me.

This is a valid point.

And within our little forum, I see why we can semi-privately express our concerns of how he intellectually hindered development within the Church.

We will always experience tensions within the Church hiearchy as to how we should address doctrine, beliefs and policies. The leadership desires to set these within the framework of the established clergy, and unlike many other denominations do not look primarily to scholars or intellectuals. We look to "revelation" which is usually confirmed by consensus of the clergy. Our clergy is not formally trained, and often not even informed of scholarly opinions. By virtue of this structure, we will see tension between some in leadership toward any scholarship by some such as McConkie, Packer and Bednar.

Others will issue restraints and license, such as Oaks.

Still others may receive intellectuals with open arms such as Brown, Eyring or McKay.

However, for those of us interested in both worlds, the world of lay clergy and the world of scholars, we may take offense to somebody such as BRM, who tried without authority to write an authoritative work, which did not conform to the prescribed authoritative channels or scholarship.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is a valid point.

And within our little forum, I see why we can semi-privately express our concerns of how he intellectually hindered development within the Church.

We will always experience tensions within the Church hiearchy as to how we should address doctrine, beliefs and policies. The leadership desires to set these within the framework of the established clergy, and unlike many other denominations do not look primarily to scholars or intellectuals. We look to "revelation" which is usually confirmed by consensus of the clergy. Our clergy is not formally trained, and often not even informed of scholarly opinions. By virtue of this structure, we will see tension between some in leadership toward any scholarship by some such as McConkie, Packer and Bednar.

Others will issue restraints and license, such as Oaks.

Still others may receive intellectuals with open arms such as Brown, Eyring or McKay.

However, for those of us interested in both worlds, the world of lay clergy and the world of scholars, we may take offense to somebody such as BRM, who tried without authority to write an authoritative work, which did not conform to the prescribed authoritative channels or scholarship.

I think that the McKay biography casts him as a villain. This has probably effected my thinking. Particularly if it is true that MD was intitially rejected by McKay and approval was eventually and subsequently gotten from an extremely frail McKay under circumstances that are questionable.

We don't villify Brigham Young overall over Adam-God, however. We just say "Brigham was wrong about that." Maybe we need to just say BRM was wrong about some of that stuff.

I do, however, understand the frustration that is experienced in running up against MD repeatedly. I think it is instructive, however, that the First Presidency seems content for BRM's opinions to be out there with the many other opinions expressed by leaders. They don't seem to be too worried that the true gospel is being changed in the minds of members because of MD. In the spirit of the big tent, BRM's views are welcome, if not authoritative.

[Indy Coug]

BTW, McConkie's assertion that the Catholic Church was the Church of the Devil was at worst partially correct.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

BTW, McConkie's assertion that the Catholic Church was the Church of the Devil was at worst partially correct.

Care to explain?

Here's a good article.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/disp...le=jbms&id=168

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

BTW, McConkie's assertion that the Catholic Church was the Church of the Devil was at worst partially correct.

What? How can this be partially correct?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

BTW, McConkie's assertion that the Catholic Church was the Church of the Devil was at worst partially correct.

Come now, we don't believe that at all.

McKay had a very personal conversation with the Utah Catholic bishop over that, when MD came out expressing that viewpoint, to the embarrassment of McKay.

I know it was a popular misconception, but I take the Church of the Devil stuff in the BoM to apply mostly allegorically, or basically to force a dichotomy of those alligned with God and those against him.