The truth about BRM, Mormon Doctrine, and vanishing creeds.

[SeattleUte]

I admit this post is to some extent conjecture, but I am basically just connecting dots. (No, I haven't read McKay's biography, no doubt written by an apologist, and don't intend to.) This is not intended as a mean post. I think this subject is quite facinating and serious.

Remember that anti-Mormon film Waters linked awhile back? I thought there was an element of craft to it that was in its own right admirable, the way the narrator just flatly summarized "Mormon doctrine," without any editorializing, with visual aids that were not intended as characatures but appeared as good faith depictions of what was being said, and it all came across as so wierd and primitive, and, I'm sure, alien to your average Christian. And then to top it off Waters posts he doesn't believe that stuff.

Anyone who was born in the LDS Church, raised an active Mormon, and is over 40 certainly, but probably more like 30, and says that film isn't 90+ percent accurate in describing mainstream Mormon beliefs through the past century and a half would be lying or kidding himself. It's all there; the Mormonism I grew up with and even taught. Where did the maker of the film get that material? From Mormon Doctrine, I'm sure. Why not? What more handy source is there? And Mormon Doctrine backs up virtually everything in that film.

So what's going on with the new villification of McConkie is a sort of book burning. He's the fall guy for the LDS Church's jettisoning of many of the doctrines--yes, creeds--that set it apart. They just don't sell anymore. Go to Temple Square and you won't even find Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon tales highlighted as they used to be. They're confined to a fairly small area in the basement.

I bet that if you parced through those thousand-plus "errors" Mark E. Peterson and others identified in Mormon Doctrine they don't have much in common with what many Mormons find offensive about the book today. They were probably minutiae, and to call them errors, well, who says their errors? As many here have noted, it's not part of the Church's tradition to issue encyclicals or the like clarifying doctrine.

The thousand errors are just a convenient means to trashing McConkie and his book by innuendo, when really what they are appalled at is core Mormon beliefs over the past century and a half that are now being jettisoned. Waters is correct to worry about death by assimilation, because it's happening. But what was the altrnative? Death by marginalization.

[il Padrino Ute]

Honest question Seattle:

When you're with you're at a family gathering in SLC, do you bring up stuff like this to discuss with your parents and siblings?

For someone who has decided that it's all BS, you sure have a hard time letting it go.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Honest question Seattle:

When you're with you're at a family gathering in SLC, do you bring up stuff like this to discuss with your parents and siblings?

For someone who has decided that it's all BS, you sure have a hard time letting it go.

Why don't you ever address the merits instead of getting personal? I assume people here discuss these issues becaue they're not satisfied getting only sanitized explanations. It should be self-evident why someone like me has a stake in these issues.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I admit this post is to some extent conjecture, but I am basically just connecting dots. (No, I haven't read McKay's biography, no doubt written by an apologist, and don't intend to.) This is not intended as a mean post. I think this subject is quite facinating and serious.

Translation: I will say whatever I damn well feel like, and I'm not going to let my ignorance of anything past 1975 get in the way.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Remember that anti-Mormon film Waters linked awhile back? I thought there was an element of craft to it that was in its own right admirable, the way the narrator just flatly summarized "Mormon doctrine," without any editorializing, with visual aids that were not intended as characatures but appeared as good faith depictions of what was being said, and it all came across as so wierd and primitive, and, I'm sure, alien to your average Christian. And then to top it off Waters posts he doesn't believe that stuff.

Translation: It made fun of you mullahs. And the celestial wives were hot. It was awesome.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Anyone who was born in the LDS Church, raised an active Mormon, and is over 40 certainly, but probably more like 30, and says that film isn't 90+ percent accurate in describing mainstream Mormon beliefs through the past century and a half would be lying or kidding himself. It's all there; the Mormonism I grew up with and even taught. Where did the maker of the film get that material? From Mormon Doctrine, I'm sure. Why not? What more handy source is there? And Mormon Doctrine backs up virtually everything in that film.

Translation: It is right in line with what I remember about a church I left a quarter century ago and a book I don't recall ever reading. Just as the slave states were surely the ones with state churches, Mormon Doctrine must be behind this one. My research is sketchy where existent, but my guesses fit my hypothesis so well that I'm going to accept them as fact.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

So what's going on with the new villification of McConkie is a sort of book burning. He's the fall guy for the LDS Church's jettisoning of many of the doctrines--yes, creeds--that set it apart. They just don't sell anymore.

Translation: I was able to allude to book burning and creeds in back to back sentences. I am so pleased with myself.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Go to Temple Square and you won't even find Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon tales highlighted as they used to be. They're confined to a fairly small area in the basement.

Translation: I didn't conveniently forget about the statues of Joseph and Hyrum, or the display on Joseph Smith in the visitors center, or the year-long commemoration of the 200th anniversary of his birth two years ago-- I just had a different definition of "tucked away" and "basement" than you do.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I bet that if you parced through those thousand-plus "errors" Mark E. Peterson and others identified in Mormon Doctrine they don't have much in common with what many Mormons find offensive about the book today. They were probably minutiae, and to call them errors, well, who says their errors? As many here have noted, it's not part of the Church's tradition to issue encyclicals or the like clarifying doctrine.

Translation: Damned if I know what any of the errors are, or whether they were significant or not. But I'm on a roll, here.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The thousand errors are just a convenient means to trashing McConkie and his book by innuendo, when really what they are appalled at is core Mormon beliefs over the past century and a half that are now being jettisoned. Waters is correct to worry about death by assimilation, because it's happening. But what was the altrnative? Death by marginalization.

Translation: You dummies that thought the Articles of Faith were your core Mormon beliefs were duped this whole time. I frankly don't care whether it dies by assimilation or marginalization, so long as it dies. Quickly, if possible, but slow is fine too, so long as it keeps me entertained.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Why don't you ever address the merits instead of getting personal? I assume people here discuss these issues becaue they're not satisfied getting only sanitized explanations. It should be self-evident why someone like me has a stake in these issues.

Because, like you, I'm not interested in talking about anything in which I don't want to talk about.

There is no merit to your attacks on the LDS Church, only your opinion. You have a problem with the Church and that really is fine, as you choose to have a problem with it. But it's your problem.

I suppose it would just be best for me to skip all your posts in the religion category, because I enjoy pretty much all your takes in all the other categories.

I apologize that you feel I'm making it personal, but to be honest, when you mock my beliefs because you've decided that it's all BS, I consider it a personal attack on my beliefs.

[myboynoah]

SU, you really need to get your butt out to church and/or visit some church sites next time you're in Utah in order to provide some ground truth to confirm or dispel your assumptions.

Last time I was in SLC we went to the JOSEPH SMITH Memorial Building (formerly the Hotel Utah) and watched "The Testaments," a real tear-jerker set in BOOK OF MORMON times that highlighted Christ's assumed visit to MesoAmerica and put forth the BOOK OF MORMON as equal to the Bible in mission. I understand a new production, "JOSEPH SMITH: Prophet of the Restoration," will replace (or already has replaced) "The Testaments." The theatre is on the first floor of the building.

Remind me again, what "creeds" have we given up over the past few years in order to fit in?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by All-American

Translation:
Translation:
Translation:
Translation:
Translation:
Translation:
Translation:

LOL. Bravo, All-American.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Translation: I will say whatever I damn well feel like, and I'm not going to let my ignorance of anything past 1975 get in the way..

Translation: I admit the LDS Church is not the same religion it was 30 years ago, and that's why I like it so much.

Originally Posted by All-American

Translation: It made fun of you mullahs. And the celestial wives were hot. It was awesome. .

Translation: I have no basis for disagreeing with SU that the film accurately described what has been Mormon Doctrine at least to a vast majority of American LDS over 30.

Originally Posted by All-American

Translation: It is right in line with what I remember about a church I left a quarter century ago and a book I don't recall ever reading. Just as the slave states were surely the ones with state churches, Mormon Doctrine must be behind this one. My research is sketchy where existent, but my guesses fit my hypothesis so well that I'm going to accept them as fact..

Translation: Since it's irrefutable that this film accurately depicts mainstream Mormon beliefs among a majority of American LDS I'm going to engage in an ad hominem personal attack of SU because that's all I can do in response to this post.

Originally Posted by All-American

Translation: I was able to allude to book burning and creeds in back to back sentences. I am so pleased with myself..

Translation: I can't deny that creeds are vanishing (e.g., deification, fence sitters in the Celestial Kingdom="negros", Lamanites=Sioux, Apaches, Mayans, Samoans, etc.) so I'm going to make fun of some of SU's habitual rhetorical flourishes.

Originally Posted by All-American

Translation: I didn't conveniently forget about the statues of Joseph and Hyrum, or the display on Joseph Smith in the visitors center, or the year-long commemoration of the 200th anniversary of his birth two years ago-- I just had a different definition of "tucked away" and "basement" than you do..

Translation: I don't agree that putting Joseph below ground in the visitor's centor and allowing bronzes of him and Hyrum out on the grounds to still stand is tucking him away in the basement, even though the whole main floor is all about the NT, the OT, and a full-scale model of Jerusalem, and the conference talk excerpts downstairs never talk about Joseph Smith, and you won't find anything commemorating him in that monstrosity across the street where they hold conferences. And even though I know SU was talking about Temple Square, the means by which the LDS projects itself to the world, I'm going to talk about the 200th anniversary of JS's birthday, despite that the LDS Church did nothing to make this a broad based eccumenical event.

Originally Posted by All-American

Translation: Damned if I know what any of the errors are, or whether they were significant or not. But I'm on a roll, here..

Translation: Damnit, I don't know what the errors are but he's probably right that the things I don't like about Mormon Docrtine are not the things Mark Peterson didn't like. This thousand error mantra was such an easy way to lay it all off on McConkie. Ah, here's what I'll do. I'll say that SU doesn't know what the thousand errors were. Wait a minute, how can there be erros if the LDS church has no creeds. Wait, the whole book is an error. That's the ticket.

Originally Posted by All-American

Translation: You dummies that thought the Articles of Faith were your core Mormon beliefs were duped this whole time. I frankly don't care whether it dies by assimilation or marginalization, so long as it dies. Quickly, if possible, but slow is fine too, so long as it keeps me entertained.

Translation: SU is having too much fun with this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Translation: I don't agree that putting Joseph below ground in the visitor's centor and allowing bronzes of him and Hyrum out on the grounds to still stand is tucking him away in the basement, even though the whole main floor is all about the NT, the OT, and a full-scale model of Jerusalem, and the conference talk excerpts downstairs never talk about Joseph Smith, and you won't find anything commemorating him in that monstrosity across the street where they hold conferences. And even though I know SU was talking about Temple Square, the means by which the LDS projects itself to the world, I'm going to talk about the 200th anniversary of JS's birthday, despite that the LDS Church did nothing to make this a broad based eccumenical event.

SU, as hard you may try you won't win this point of the argument because your case is incredibly weak. For every minor anectdotal item that you find, there is another item to balance it out (have you visited the Joseph Smith Building lately - former Hotel Utah?). Claiming that the church is engaging in a coordinated effort to de-emphasize Joseph Smith is just nonsense.

And by the way, that "monstrosity" across the street is where general conference is held now. And believe it or not, JS is still the subject of quite a few conference talks. You may also want to check out the Church History Museum just to west of temple square on your next visit.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Translation: I admit the LDS Church is not the same religion it was 30 years ago, and that's why I like it so much.

Translation: I have no basis for disagreeing with SU that the film accurately described what has been Mormon Doctrine at least to a vast majority of American LDS over 30.

Translation: Since it's irrefutable that this film accurately depicts mainstream Mormon beliefs among a majority of American LDS I'm going to engage in an ad hominem personal attack of SU because that's all I can do in response to this post.

Translation: I can't deny that creeds are vanishing (e.g., deification, fence sitters in the Celestial Kingdom="negros", Lamanites=Sioux, Apaches, Mayans, Samoans, etc.) so I'm going to make fun of some of SU's habitual rhetorical flourishes.

Translation: I don't agree that putting Joseph below ground in the visitor's centor and allowing bronzes of him and Hyrum out on the grounds to still stand is tucking him away in the basement, even though the whole main floor is all about the NT, the OT, and a full-scale model of Jerusalem, and the conference talk excerpts downstairs never talk about Joseph Smith, and you won't find anything commemorating him in that monstrosity across the street where they hold conferences. And even though I know SU was talking about Temple Square, the means by which the LDS projects itself to the world, I'm going to talk about the 200th anniversary of JS's birthday, despite that the LDS Church did nothing to make this a broad based eccumenical event.

Translation: Damnit, I don't know what the errors are but he's probably right that the things I don't like about Mormon Docrtine are not the things Mark Peterson didn't like. This thousand error mantra was such an easy way to lay it all off on McConkie. Ah, here's what I'll do. I'll say that SU doesn't know what the thousand errors were. Wait a minute, how can there be erros if the LDS church has no creeds. Wait, the whole book is an error. That's the ticket.

Translation: SU is having too much fun with this.

Mine was better.