LDS: Bruce R. McConkie's letter to BYU Professor Eugene England.

[why_me]

Thank you sirthomas, that is exactally my point. It is the same reason that certain posts are responded to and others are ignored by the ‘mormon apologists’ on these forums. So many red herrings, I wish I was a fisherman. Fish in a barrel.

How many mormons are on this forum responding to mormon threads sponsored by catholics? Two? Three? Four? Not much more. I say at least two regulars and even Parker is retiring to brighter pastures. And how many catholics attack the mormon faith on the mormon threads that the catholics start? Not many really, but there are some drive bys. The mormons are outnumbered. Also, if mormons would begin to nitpick the catholic faith, begin to post information from anticatholic sites, they would be banned because a hundred or more report buttons would be pushed by the catholics reading such posts.

Conclusion: the playing field is not even. It is easy as toasting a poptart to attack someone else’s faith. On anticatholic forums it is done all the time. Easy. And it doesn’t take too much smarts. Just go to anti whatever website, paste some information and gain support from other catholics and the ball keeps rolling.

 

[scipio337]

No, as a matter of fact, it wasn’t…and neither was the Adam/God idea that BY thought about accepted as LDS dogma. Thank you for pointing that out. It was, rather, the point.

There is quite a difference between dogma, doctrine and policy, sir. You can’t separate these concepts in Catholicism while refusing to separate them for belief systems you don’t like.

After all, the Catholic church had quite a nasty policy regarding slavery and the physical treatment of heretics for many centuries. That is all dismissed now as irrelevant because it’s not ‘dogma.’

Well…see where I"m going with this?

You’ve conflated them in the past, but I think I’ve distinguished those for LDS. Are you claiming the priesthood ban, or Oath of Vengeance, weren’t part of LDS dogma, or that Catholic policy regarding slavery or treatment of heretics was dogma?

Now YOU’RE trying to have it both ways.

 

[scipio337]

How many mormons are on this forum responding to mormon threads sponsored by catholics? …

Since when is debating dogma an “attack”? I’m glad to see your assessment of my “smarts” though. Thanks!

 

[twopekinguys]

It seems to me that the point of this thread is to address the DOCTRINE that is put forth, especially in regards to the very essence of God. When BY spoke about the Adam-God theory/doctrine, he was speaking about the essence of God, AND how it was different from the traditional Christian view of God. The aspects of God being only ONE, transcendent, omnipresent, and so forth were not new debatable concepts in BY’s time. To say that God was transitional or progressive or was Adam was to espound a different God then Christianity. We are not talking about personal opinion or actions as a man, we are talking about belief in God and who one worships. And especially when you are the spiritual leader of so many, the God you worship (and say others should as well) should be clear.

I agree, and would like to add.

If the Adam/god theory wasn’t doctrine, why did BY close that address with this statement. (bolding mine)

“Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.”

Also we have this. (bolding mine)

*"In 1980, Latter-day Saint apostle Bruce R. McConkie gave a talk elaborating upon the Adam–God theory:

"There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.
"The devil keeps this **heresy **alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam-God theory does not deserve to be saved."

So is McConkie calling BY a heretic? If it wasn’t doctrine to begin with (as some claim), why have so many called it “false doctrine”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_theory
mrm.org/adam-god

 

[SirThomasMore]

The problem being, some of what BY said, particularly towards blacks, BECAME doctrine, through the priesthood ban (and thus ALL “saving ordinances”, endowment, temple marriage, sealing to parents, and exaltation), and IS supported by BoM scripture.

Which shows the Book of Mormoln is NOT from God

 

[ParkerD]

I agree, and would like to add.

If the Adam/god theory wasn’t doctrine, why did BY close that address with this statement. (bolding mine)

"Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation."

Also we have this. (bolding mine)

*"In 1980, Latter-day Saint apostle Bruce R. McConkie gave a talk elaborating upon the Adam–God theory:

"There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.
“The devil keeps this **heresy **alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam-God theory does not deserve to be saved.”

So is McConkie calling BY a heretic? If it wasn’t doctrine to begin with (as some claim), why have so many called it “false doctrine”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_theory
mrm.org/adam-god

Twopekinguys,

This post is to let you know that although I don’t consider myself an “apologist”, I have read your questions here and intend to respond when I have about two hours to spend treating the subject with completeness and the level of depth that those particular issues deal with. It will be several days before I have that kind of time, but I wanted to let you know that someone has read your questions and is not ignoring them but just hasn’t time right now.

You could study the different meanings of the word “doctrine” in the meantime, since that particular word has more than one connotation and the differences are very important within a context. (BY used the word loosely.)

Have a good day.

 

[aquabatix]

I’m looking forward to this defence. Looking at the different meanings of the word “doctrine”, all four still imply a belief that is adhered to.
thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=doctrine
The most liberal try would be the fourth definition which is “teaching” but is as the text says, archaic.

 

[twopekinguys]

I’m looking forward to this defence. Looking at the different meanings of the word “doctrine”, all four still imply a belief that is adhered to.
thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=doctrine
The most liberal try would be the fourth definition which is “teaching” but is as the text says, archaic.

I couldn’t agree with you more.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Not sure why we even discuss this anymore. Diana already saidf Origin and the Popes are prophets. Since that is true, there was never any apostasy

 

[dianaiad]

You’ve conflated them in the past, but I think I’ve distinguished those for LDS. Are you claiming the priesthood ban, or Oath of Vengeance, weren’t part of LDS dogma, or that Catholic policy regarding slavery or treatment of heretics was dogma?

Now YOU’RE trying to have it both ways.

Ah, I have never said that these things were ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma…’ only that they happened. The most I have ever said is that they were policy. ,or at least, I don’t think I ever have. You cannot deny that something dictated by the Pope, followed by the church as a whole, and that lasted for centuries is/was not ‘policy,’ especially when the penalty for NOT following the policy was excommunication and punishment for heresy.

I do not deny that the priesthood ban happened. Shoot, I had to live with it! It was a part of my life a little more closely than for many others. The DOCTRINE regarding it, though (as we all knew, and as our critics/enemies want to deny) was that eventually everybody would have those blessings. It is why, AMOF, the world didn’t come apart when the ban was lifted. Lifting that ban was not against doctrine, and we knew it.

Acknowledging that bad things happened is not the same thing as admitting that one’s belief system is untrue. What it DOES do, though, is keep your critics from using them against you…even as it keeps you from using theirs against them. As long as one claims that someone else’s belief system is wrong because of some policy or event in the past, it leaves the way WIDE open for the believers of that other system to come right back and point out one’s own faults.

…and you will notice that I never mention Catholic history unless some Catholic tries to prove that my own beliefs are incorrect or horrible because of some event or policy in our past. When that happens, though, it’s “sauce, goose, gander” time.

Diana

 

[SirThomasMore]

Ah, I have never said that these things were ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma…’ only that they happened. The most I have ever said is that they were policy. ,or at least, I don’t think I ever have. You cannot deny that something dictated by the Pope, followed by the church as a whole, and that lasted for centuries is/was not ‘policy,’ especially when the penalty for NOT following the policy was excommunication and punishment for heresy.

I do not deny that the priesthood ban happened. Shoot, I had to live with it! It was a part of my life a little more closely than for many others. The DOCTRINE regarding it, though (as we all knew, and as our critics/enemies want to deny) was that eventually everybody would have those blessings. It is why, AMOF, the world didn’t come apart when the ban was lifted. Lifting that ban was not against doctrine, and we knew it.

Acknowledging that bad things happened is not the same thing as admitting that one’s belief system is untrue. What it DOES do, though, is keep your critics from using them against you…even as it keeps you from using theirs against them. As long as one claims that someone else’s belief system is wrong because of some policy or event in the past, it leaves the way WIDE open for the believers of that other system to come right back and point out one’s own faults.

…and you will notice that I never mention Catholic history unless some Catholic tries to prove that my own beliefs are incorrect or horrible because of some event or policy in our past. When that happens, though, it’s “sauce, goose, gander” time.

Diana

Yeah? Except your sauce, goose and gander time is nothing but humoropus red herrings. It is like comparng beef to apples. The way you debate, if I said beef makes you sick due to meat content, you would claim that apples have just as much meat.

You canl;t defend your LDS teachings in the 1800s America, so you try to deflect to European stuff that happened in 1200 AD. You may think it means something, but to anyone with an ounce of logic, it is merely humorous

 

[paulp1002]

I would like to add something, that I thought might go along with this thread.

Today I was reading the article about R.L. Gardner who is facing the firing squad. Utah is the only state that allows the firing squad as a current execution method, 40 of the past 49 executions in the last 160 years have been by firing squad. The first thing that came to mind was “Blood Atonement.”

After researching it I found several news articles from difference sources, which were all referencing an article written by a reported from the SLC Tribune.

My understanding from the below statement is that currently the LDS Church’s official stance is:

The LDS Church disavows any connection to blood atonement, says spokesman Scott Trotter. “[It] is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.”

However, church members still believe in blood atonement. Brigham Young originally taught about “Blood Atonement” and for many years it was considered “Doctrine.” Here is another excerpt from the same article (formatting is mine):

*Some Utahns, though, had a different explanation for why such an anachronistic execution technique remained an option in the 21st century: blood atonement.

The term refers to an arcane LDS belief that a murderer must shed his own blood — literally — to be forgiven by God. Since Mormon pioneers first entered the valley in 1847 until today, most of Utah’s formal executions (until recent decades) have been by firing squad, which is a lot bloodier than hanging or lethal injection.

When Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful, began proposing elimination of the firing-squad option in the late 1990s, the LDS Church itself did not object. Yet talk of blood atonement percolated “in quiet, backroom discussions,” she recalls. “A couple of people in prominent positions said to me, ‘We’ve got to have blood atonement.’ “

By 2004, Allen says, all mention of the Mormon concept “just went away” and the measure passed.

Even Gardner, who still could choose the firing squad for his scheduled June 18 execution because his original sentencing preceded the law change, told the Deseret News in 1996 that he would sue for the right to die that way.

“I guess it’s my Mormon heritage,” he told the paper.*

sltrib.com/ci_15126927?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com

getreligion.org/?p=34504

In my opinion there are so many different “doctrines” within the LDS Church that have been preached to be true by LDS Prophets in their day. However nowadays, it seems a lot of those doctrines are thrown out as a misunderstanding or as a personal opinion, just to fit in with the mainstream of today. Yet many members of the LDS church still follow those “doctrines,” as if they were scripture. I bet a majority or LDS members still believe in the Adam is God theory , or that God is “progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths” because it is what was taught to them at some point.

Another example is abortion. My understanding is that in the early LDS church did not “authorize” abortion in any way, similar to that of the Catholic Church. However now the Church’s stance on abortion are that there are exceptions to the rule; exceptions to commit murder and sin. Just like the priesthood ban on blacks of African descent. It was “doctrine” and followed, until after the Civil Rights Movement. Just like Polygamy, it was “doctrine” until the US Government made it illegal and in some cases, people moved to outside the US (like my ex-wife’s grandparents) or to a compound.

Who is to say that in 50-100 years from now, the WoW will just be an opinion and not doctrine?

 

[RebeccaJ]

paulp, mormon doctrine does change. The upside is, a lot of time it changes towards a better Christian understanding. Maybe eventually it will have changed so much, that they will be more like the Community of Christ (RLDS), which accepts the Holy Trinity and is closer to Christianity than those who followed Brigham Young into the desert (literally and metaphorically).

 

[Returning_Home]

The JoD does NOT ‘call itself’ one of the standard works. A man writing the introduction says that it deserves to be one of the standard works of the church…‘standard works’ at the time meaning something very different from the Standard Works we accept as scripture.

You have made this statement several times now. You have been corrected several times now. Running Home, you can claim that the JoD 'calls itself one of the standard works" all you want to, but y’know what? You don’t get to make that determination. We do, and in terms of Mormon Doctrine, it’s what the Mormons say that counts–just as in terms of Catholic doctrine, it’s what the Catholics say that counts.

It most certainly does and I’ve proven it over and over and now I’ll let everyone else here see it, too: "The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.“ (President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 8.)

As for the speeches themselves, in only one of them is any reference made to whether the words in it can be taken to be scripture, and by those very words, shows that they are not, since none of them fit the profile of: having the speaker able to review and correct the words, be the product of God speaking to the author (Thus saith the Lord) and canonized as scripture. The JoD is a collection of speeches given by leaders of the church. As such they are valuable both in that they can help us learn, and in learning how early leaders of the church thought. No Mormon takes the JoD as one of the Standard Works, though in as much as the church DOES have standard works (works that are interesting and important, but not doctrinal) then it would be there.

Unfortunately, your trying to wiggle out of this obvious implication is trumped by an official publication of the church: “The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.” (entire quote from Gospel Principles, pps 49-50, 1996 edition)

Further, if even just one person believed that Adam was God, your god did exactly that, didn’t he? I can also prove that as fact, too.

The willy-nilly way that the church assigns one speech to being scripture and another just so-and-so’s opinion is inconsistant and self-serving. It’s the way to escape something damaging to the church’s current version of itself and the image that it puts on for the public.

 

[dianaiad]

It most certainly does and I’ve proven it over and over and now I’ll let everyone else here see it, too: "The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.“ (President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 8.)

The introduction of a book is NOT considered ‘the book,’ for one thing. Therefore the JoD does not ‘call itself’ scripture. The man who wrote the introduction says it 'deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the church."

I have already gone over the difference between standard works as George Q. Cannon meant the phrase, and Standard Works (comprising only those works we consider to be Scripture) as we use the phrase now.

The fact is, the meaning of “Standard Works” is not the same as it was when Cannon used it, and no matter how often you ignore that, and try to bulldoze your way past it, you can’t impose your meaning on it just because doing so serves your purposes.

…and I am well and truly done with trying to get you to present anything about Mormonism in any sort of fair, never mind objective, manner.

 

[Returning_Home]

BY’s opinion on Adam/God has always been his opinion; none of us have been required to believe it or act on it. You are, then, comparing apples and oranges.

So Mormons aren’t required to believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are ‘one in purpose?’ Since it’s nowhere to be found in your own canonized works, it must just be your opinion.

…not all ‘black’ people were denied the priesthood…it was limited to those of that specific descent.

Please cite your sources for this assertion.

You see, in terms of the priesthood ban, it was CHURCH policy. It wasn’t just the opinion of a few leaders. Everybody had to go along with it; we didn’t ordain blacks of African descent until 1978. Now, of course, all worthy male members of the church can hold the priesthood regardless of ancestry. THIS sort of thing was what it was; church policy. It was part of who we were, and are, and believed. It was official.

It actually was just the opinion of a ‘few leaders.’ In fact, it was the opinion of just one man that kept the practice alive from 1969 to 1974. When the apostles voted to allow blacks to attain the priesthood in 1969, Harold B. Lee was the only hold-out.

And of course, allowing blacks the priesthood now actually defies the Book of Abraham (I believe, I don’t have my material in from of me at the moment) that says blacks wouldn’t be permitted the priesthood until some time after the Second Coming.

I am not going to pretend that church policy was different than it was simply because it is NOW different from what it was. To do so is to deny reality—and in a very real way, to deny the very real advances and progress people have made IN the church.

I agree with you here, but you forgot to mention the reason: social pressure. The Mormon god rolled over and played dead in the face of political pressure in regards to polygamy and abdicated to social pressure in allowing blacks to assume the priesthood.

Not only that, but since we know that the blacks who joined the Nephites became ‘white and delightsome.’ Why is it now that the one long-time black Mormon I know hasn’t gotten even one shade lighter in the 15 years he’s been a Mormon?

 

[Returning_Home]

The introduction of a book is NOT considered ‘the book,’ for one thing. Therefore the JoD does not ‘call itself’ scripture. The man who wrote the introduction says it 'deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the church."

You’re making yourself look foolish now, like a raving lunatic. You’re caught in a clear problem that threatens the entire fabric of what you consider to be reality and it’s forcing you to redefine words and insert meanings that are clearly not implied. Further, you’re participating in the rewriting of your own history.

I have already gone over the difference between standard works as George Q. Cannon meant the phrase, and Standard Works (comprising only those works we consider to be Scripture) as we use the phrase now.

The fact is, the meaning of “Standard Works” is not the same as it was when Cannon used it, and no matter how often you ignore that, and try to bulldoze your way past it, you can’t impose your meaning on it just because doing so serves your purposes.

Do you mean like the *‘new and everlasting covenant’ *of polygamy (D&C 132:4) actually meant 47 years? That seems to be more of the same self-serving word and definition swapping with which the church tries to cover its history.

I’m simply taking President George Q. Cannon at his word, the same thing you’re trying to get me to do with your opinion.

…and I am well and truly done with trying to get you to present anything about Mormonism in any sort of fair, never mind objective, manner.

What you mean is that I don’t use suspension of disbelief when researching Mormonism, the kind I watch Star Wars with. You want me to accept that something is what you say it is simply because it’s your opinion without benefit of supporting facts.

 

[Returning_Home]

Yeah? Except your sauce, goose and gander time is nothing but humoropus red herrings. It is like comparng beef to apples. The way you debate, if I said beef makes you sick due to meat content, you would claim that apples have just as much meat.

You canl;t defend your LDS teachings in the 1800s America, so you try to deflect to European stuff that happened in 1200 AD. You may think it means something, but to anyone with an ounce of logic, it is merely humorous

You forgot to mention ‘milk before meat.’

 

[Returning_Home]

Today I was reading the article about R.L. Gardner who is facing the firing squad. Utah is the only state that allows the firing squad as a current execution method, 40 of the past 49 executions in the last 160 years have been by firing squad. The first thing that came to mind was “Blood Atonement.”

You are 100% correct to connect these two because that’s the reason Utah allowed prisoners to choose that method of execution, so that their blood could sink intot he ground, causing the invisible smoke to enter the nostrils of God so he’d forgive the executed.

 

[dianaiad]

You are 100% correct to connect these two because that’s the reason Utah allowed prisoners to choose that method of execution, so that their blood could sink intot he ground, causing the invisible smoke to enter the nostrils of God so he’d forgive the executed.

Whatever the reason for the choice, this man chose the method of his own execution. As it happens, it turns out that firing squad has fewer problems with the ‘cruel and unusual’ part than electrocution and/or lethal injection. (shrug)

But you do what you want to with it.

I am done with all of you, and I’m done with the forum, for at least awhile.