Gems from Elder Bruce R. McConkie

[cougjunkie]

Lingo is their a point to this thread?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

Lingo is their a point to this thread?

I daresay he is trying to remind us that for all the negative vibes surrounding the terrible name of "Bruce R. McKonkie," the man was STILL a special witness of Jesus Christ.

I wonder if we're too quick to dismiss anything he said. There were an awful lot of true things that he taught, too.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

I daresay he is trying to remind us that for all the negative vibes surrounding the terrible name of "Bruce R. McKonkie," the man was STILL a special witness of Jesus Christ.

I wonder if we're too quick to dismiss anything he said. There were an awful lot of true things that he taught, too.

He obviously taught some true principles, but, anything of value was also taught by others. So we can still find the valuable parts by reading the quotes of less harmful persons.

Is he the only apostle to speak on the value of work or on the value of discipleship? I think not. But he was the only one to publish unMormon Doctrine and one of the few to vigorously defend institutional racism or to deny Brigham Young's stance on Adam-God. He did leave a nice, final testimony.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

He obviously taught some true principles, but, anything of value was also taught by others. So we can still find the valuable parts by reading the quotes of less harmful persons.

Is he the only apostle to speak on the value of work or on the value of discipleship? I think not. But he was the only one to publish unMormon Doctrine and one of the few to vigorously defend institutional racism or to deny Brigham Young's stance on Adam-God. He did leave a nice, final testimony.

We should be able to read Nitzche, or even Stalin, and be able to discern points of truth, if we claim to be true seekers thereof.

If you want others to drop the appeal to authority and evaluate the quote for its own merit, we likewise should be able to overlook negative bias and discern what truth is to be found.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by All-American

I daresay he is trying to remind us that for all the negative vibes surrounding the terrible name of "Bruce R. McKonkie," the man was STILL a special witness of Jesus Christ.

I wonder if we're too quick to dismiss anything he said. There were an awful lot of true things that he taught, too.

I think the caution is that it appears from the records available to us that there is much that he taught, especially associated with Mormon Doctrine, that is either incorrect or not official church doctrine. However, it is not easy to distinguish the true things he taught from the incorrect things he taught as truth.

His standing as an authority on LDS doctrine has therefore been undermined, and it would be best to look to other church leaders (past and present) who haven't had their authority undermined.

It's not saying he's a bad person, and I agree that his final testimony was very touching. He was still an apostle and did some great things (I understand he was instrumental in the development of the new version of the scriptures in 1985).

But as a source for official church doctrine, I'm not sure he's a valid authority.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

We should be able to read Nitzche, or even Stalin, and be able to discern points of truth, if we claim to be true seekers thereof.

If you want others to drop the appeal to authority and evaluate the quote for its own merit, we likewise should be able to overlook negative bias and discern what truth is to be found.

I agree with the concept in general and don't find Nietsche unappealing just because some Nazis misunderstood and misapplied a tortured soul's approach to religious traditions. I don't remember any great orations or literary works by Stalin, but you can remind me.

However, it becomes very difficult with BRM and his acolytes, because they will not be careful to parse the good stuff from the questionable stuff. Those who really enjoy BRM are from the mullah side and worship the ground he trod. Thus, although one might find a quote from a particularly heinous person, not saying BRM belongs in that category, but I wouldn't go around quoting Stalin, or Hitler, very often if I worried too much about my credibility.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Thus, although one might find a quote from a particularly heinous person, not saying BRM belongs in that category, but I wouldn't go around quoting Stalin, or Hitler, very often if I worried too much about my credibility.

Good job speaking out both sides of your mouth.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think the caution is that it appears from the records available to us that there is much that he taught, especially associated with Mormon Doctrine, that is either incorrect or not official church doctrine. However, it is not easy to distinguish the true things he taught from the incorrect things he taught as truth.

His standing as an authority on LDS doctrine has therefore been undermined, and it would be best to look to other church leaders (past and present) who haven't had their authority undermined.

It's not saying he's a bad person, and I agree that his final testimony was very touching. He was still an apostle and did some great things (I understand he was instrumental in the development of the new version of the scriptures in 1985).

But as a source for official church doctrine, I'm not sure he's a valid authority.

Why bother worrying about his authority? Examine his argument and evaluate it on its own merit.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

Why bother worrying about his authority? Examine his argument and evaluate it on its own merit.

Since we had at least 11 prophets that were racist or were unwilling to stand up to institutionalized racism, that probably should cast enough doubt on anything they may have said or done as well.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Since we had at least 11 prophets that were racist or were unwilling to stand up to institutionalized racism, that probably should cast enough doubt on anything they may have said or done as well.

We've been around this park before.

Is that the only option you can see by apparent silence of the prophets? If you were asked to a risk based analysis, I'm certain you would come up with more optinos than that?

And in using the arm of textual criticism, the simplest answer, namely that because others ignored it must be okay with God, does not appear to be the correct one, applies in this case.