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

[Returning_Home]

I can’t answer for STM, but I suspect that what he might be getting at is that BY’s error is proof that he is not a prophet.

You’re either a prophet or you’re not. You either speak the truth, or you don’t. Too many Mormon “prophets” have proved to be “false prophets”, which calls a lot of stuff into question.

And while I have your attention ~ where is Hellas Planitia, Mars and how did the internet get there? I didn’t know we even had a human settlement on Mars! This is fascinating! I wonder how much other stuff we don’t know about. Please tell!

I think that about sums it up. Since only one murder makes one a murderer, just one false prophecy makes one a false prophet.

Ah, you’re the first to ask me about that here, my location. Hellas Planitia is the second largest impact crater on Mars, located in the southern hemisphere, coordinates 42.7°S 70.0°E. It’s about 7 kms deep and some 2,300 kilometers in diameter.

It gets cold here, the air is very, very dry, and the dust storms can be really bad at times, but it’s beautiful in a stark, surreal sort of way.

Since there’s not much of an atmosphere here, the signals tend to be stronger with less intereference, though my internet speed is about the same as yours, I’m guessing.

Locals tell me that the crater was formed some 4 billion years ago, but since that doesn’t jibe with a new Earth, or rather Mars, I’ll take the Bible’s word over theirs. Yes, there are a handful of us here, hardy explorer types

 

[Answersplease]

Hi, Answersplease,

"Answersplease:

Hello ParkerD.

Here are responses:

1. “The importance of the united vote and united action of the apostles and the First Presidency all together, because of the principle of counsel leadership.”

Jesus Christ was and is, of course, God the Son–perfect in every way, with no need for human counsel leadership, but yet before choosing the Twelve Apostles He had prayed most of the night before, sought the guidance of God the Father and the Holy Ghost–and thus demonstrated that counsel leadership occurs even with divine Beings.

"Answersplease:

There does’nt seem to have been a vote. Jesus accepted the will of The Father.

Moses took the advice of Jethro, his father-in-law, who gave him good counsel. Proverbs talks about the importance of seeking counsel. This is not a new leadership technique or a new principle in the world.

"Answersplease:

Hearing and/or taking advice is’nt the same as a group vote, and since there were only two, Moses and Jethro, a vote could have resulted in an unbreakable tie.

We are talking about announcing new doctrine, and we are talking about a case where the church and the guiding principles of united apostles to protect the doctrine from “going off on a tangent” have been established already by the point in time that BY made his statements. The prophet leader would be fully expected to follow the pattern already established, just like every apostles would be expected to follow that same pattern.

"Answersplease:

Listening to and then taking advice is’nt the same as voting. The person listenning to the advice still has the final decision. In a vote, the person would have to abide by the voting results, unless the person intends to ignore the results if the vote is not in their favor.

This protects the doctrine, and acknowledges that having the Holy Spirit includes that the communication from above comes differently for each person and that part of that communication includes “listen to those around you with experience as well as seek counsel from above”.

"Answersplease:

Seeking counsel from above is’nt the same as voting.

And if The Holy Spirit is guiding them, would’nt The Holy Spirit guide each person to the same conclusion? That makes voting a moot point.

Or do you think The Holy Spirit would guide different people to different conclusions about the same subject?

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost communicate with Each Other. This is a pattern of counsel leadership. Even though Each is omniscient, They show humankind the perfect pattern of leadership, which is by counsel. (Of course They don’t need to “vote”. But They show the pattern in how They do what They do. Christ showed that pattern when He prayed to the Father and sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit.)

"Answersplease:

So the Mormon gods are leading by example and showing the pattern?

But like you said they did’nt vote, there seems to have been a discussion but it seems that ultimately the choice was made by Jesus Christ alone, it seems Jesus made the decision to accept the will of The Father. Or do you think Jesus Christ did’nt have a choice in the matter?

I agree that people can make that assertion from the outside looking in or from those who left. But the pattern was in place before BY made his statements.

It is not a case of coming up with the pattern after he had made them and later died and the leaders in the following years needed to come up with a way to explain the situation of not accepting what he had said in those particular statements we are talking about.

"Answersplease:

Well I have to say again, that listening to advice and then making a decision, is’nt to same as voting.

Moses said everyone ought to be a “prophet” and the Lord’s spirit should be upon them.

As for your question, that won’t happen. Each of them is expected to voice their opinion and their own voice of experience as well as having studied the scriptures with the influence of the Holy Spirit in their life. They counsel together amidst differences of opinion. When they are going to consider a substantive change, they are deliberate, careful, and it takes some time such as the case of the announcement of the change in giving the priesthood to the Blacks. It is not willy-nilly leadership.

"Answersplease:

Well, it should’nt happen if they study the scriptures, but like I said there is really no reason to study the scriptures if they vote, because their vote would be protected from error would it not?

LDS members are expected to learn to follow the pattern of counsel leadership in their own families. The husband and the wife counsel together. They come to a united agreement if they have followed the leadership pattern.

"Answersplease:

That’s not what KathleenG knows:

…
I also know that the women in Utah have the highest use of Prozac…they are held to such high level of perfection and if they do wrong, their husband will not allow them entrance into heaven…

 

[Answersplease]

So if Brigham Young was wrong, then according to you The Holy Ghost allowed Brigham Young to teach error just to test the Mormons?

…
I also note in my copy of Gospel Principles exactly no conditions under which a Mormon prophet can be wrong. In fact, I find exactly the opposite: "We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of his prophet:

'Thou shalt give heed unto all his (the prophet’s) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

‘For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, all patience and faith’ (D&C 21:4-5).

“The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.” (entire quote from Gospel Principles, pps 49-50, 1996 edition)

In no official church publication do I find any way that the prophet can be wrong, the Mormon equivalent of Catholic papal infallibility. But to escape this fact, you have to claim that your prophets can be wrong, but only in the face of ciritcs who point it out to you. In private, however, it seems you don’t appear to believe at all.
…

 

[ParkerD]

Citing one of my comments and then a comment by “Returning Home”

Answersplease,

You seem to be asking how I reconcile two situations in my mind that can appear to be contradictory:

1–Wilford Woodruff’s teaching that “The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray” and the teaching in Gospel Principles that says "We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of His prophet:

“Thou shalt give heed unto all his [the prophet’s] words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:4–5)."

(Note: The current Gospel Principles manual contains the above, which would be found in the earlier manual also as noted by “Returning Home”.)

1. My statement that “the goal is for each member to become familiar with the Holy Ghost in their personal dealings and personal life and study. The goal is not that everyone stop thinking, stop studying and learning on their own and through their own initiative, and just accept everything any leader (even, in this case, Brigham Young) says to them. That is why Orson Pratt had no hesitation in disagreeing with BY on that subject.”

Here are my thoughts and also some historical context:

D & C 21 is written specifically about Joseph Smith, Jr. and his relationship to the LDS church while he was alive, including the scriptures he brought forth to the LDS church and that are studied as scripture today. D & C 21:2 talks about his “being inspired to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith.” That is the context of the other verses from that section. You will note also that I underlined the word “inspired” in the statements from the Gospel Principles manual. That word is a very important and distinctive and deliberately chosen modifier to the words “teaching” and “counsel”.

Wilford Woodruff was certainly aware of the disagreement that Orson Pratt, Joseph F. Smith, and he himself had had with Brigham Young about the statements BY had made that are referred to as the “Adam-god-theory”.

So the question becomes, why did the Lord allow BY to make the statements he made if three apostles disagreed with him, and why did Wilford Woodruff make the statement he made that “the Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray”?

Why?–Apostles were in place and they protected the doctrinal teachings of the church by “checking and balancing” the outspoken and contradictory statements by the president of the church. This is partly why Wilford Woodruff was comfortable making the statement he made as quoted. The LDS church didn’t “go astray” and start broadly accepting or teaching the “Adam-god-theory”, though some few members may have. The apostles I mentioned “reigned in” and “checked and balanced” in that particular instance, so the inspired system of leadership for the church worked in that instance to protect the doctrine, and the statements made by BY did not “lead the church astray.”

I might as well also comment that part of the reason I can assume that the Holy Ghost allowed BY to make the statements he made without constraining him or stopping his utterance while the thoughts were formulating in his mind, is so that the apostles and the First Presidency would have a situation where they could learn the very “check and balance” principle more thoroughly by experience than just by theory.

It goes back to the united counsel leadership principle I had noted earlier. This was a case where the united counsel leadership would have been absolutely required in order for a substantive doctrinal change to have been brought into the general teachings of the church. That did not happen. The disagreement just happened to be out in public view rather than having happened in private among the apostles and First Presidency by themselves. As far as I’m concerned, BY had a weakness in the area of allowing the united counsel leadership pattern to “reign him in” and following that pattern. Yet the system of protecting the doctrine worked, thus illustrating that a personal weakness of a key leader did not result in leading the church “astray”.

 

[ParkerD]

Seeking counsel from above is’nt the same as voting.

(1) And if The Holy Spirit is guiding them, would’nt The Holy Spirit guide each person to the same conclusion? That makes voting a moot point.

(2) Or do you think The Holy Spirit would guide different people to different conclusions about the same subject?

(3) That’s not what KathleenG knows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathleenGee
…
I also know that the women in Utah have the highest use of Prozac…they are held to such high level of perfection and if they do wrong, their husband will not allow them entrance into heaven…

Answersplease,
I think the answers to your other questions are either moot points or are loosely answered by what I have already responded. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are One in purpose and One in decision, yet the Son did the will of the Father–which means He also did His own will and made His own choice because He was united completely with the Father’s will and the Father’s omniscience. Yet He showed the counsel pattern of leadership by example, as I have noted (and yes, He did that–He showed by example, which is one of the reasons He was sent to this earth, as I assume you already know.)

(1) The Holy Spirit guides within the context of a person’s life experience and a person’s language skills, so whether two or three or twelve people have the Holy Spirit with them yet can come up with different words to express what they are feeling inspired about, would be exactly why the united counsel leadership pattern is so important. They will not be inspired to say or write exactly the same thing and can have different points of view even though each has the Holy Spirit in their life.

(2) The Holy Spirit will not override personal agency. The process whereby a substantive doctrinal change occurs relies on the principle of “checks and balances” I have noted in other comments about this subject of the apostles and First Presidency and “scripture”. The Holy Spirit is more fully operative in a condition of discussion among a unified group willing to exchange points of view and come to united agreement. The Holy Spirit would not sanction a final decision by such a group until each had come to a united consensus. Again, this is not a forced process–it is a delicate and deliberate process that requires “patience and faith” among those brethren as well as among the members of the church at large.

(3) Kathleen Gee was wrong about “husband allow entrance into heaven”, as I have already written about to you in other comments. Just because she has a wrong understanding, does not mean anything with respect to the women in Utah.

The use of Prozac (note that I have no idea whether such a statistic is current or correct, at all, by the way) would be dependent on many factors, among which are:

–the number of women who go to a doctor (could be higher in Utah than the national average)
–the number of women who have babies which increases the likelihood of post-partem depression (definitely higher in Utah than the national average)
–the number of women who set high goals for themselves and their families (probably higher in Utah than the national average) and thus may feel personal discouragement when those high goals differ from their reality. (Whether they choose to figure out a “drug approach” to feel less discouragement is their own choice–the church does not dictate what they do and certainly teaches against relying on a “drug approach” to resolving feelings of discouragement–but people can make their own choice.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

The use of Prozac (note that I have no idea whether such a statistic is current or correct, at all, by the way) would be dependent on many factors, among which are:

–the number of women who go to a doctor (could be higher in Utah than the national average)
–the number of women who have babies which increases the likelihood of post-partem depression (definitely higher in Utah than the national average)
–the number of women who set high goals for themselves and their families (probably higher in Utah than the national average) and thus may feel personal discouragement when those high goals differ from their reality. (Whether they choose to figure out a “drug approach” to feel less discouragement is their own choice–the church does not dictate what they do and certainly teaches against relying on a “drug approach” to resolving feelings of discouragement–but people can make their own choice.)

I live in UT, the statistics are accurate and current. UT has a high rate of depression. A high rate of suicide, especially in the 13-21 yr old range. Also, a high rate of death from overdose of prescription medications, and, a high rate of meth labs and usage.

I haven’t seen any studies on the actual cause of this plague that has touched everyone I know, LDS or not. I don’t attribute this to mormonism, though it’s possible it might be a factor.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I live in UT, the statistics are accurate and current. UT has a high rate of depression. A high rate of suicide, especially in the 13-21 yr old range. Also, a high rate of death from overdose of prescription medications, and, a high rate of meth labs and usage.

I don’t attribute this to mormonism, though it’s possible it might be a factor. I haven’t seen any studies on the actual cause of this plague that has touched everyone I know, LDS or not.

My daughter, who also lives in Utah, attributes the drug use, at least among young people, to boredom. Of course her experience is entirely anecdotal.

She has also told me about the high rate of use of prescription drugs, especially anti-depressants.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My daughter, who also lives in Utah, attributes the drug use, at least among young people, to boredom. Of course her experience is entirely anecdotal.

She has also told me about the high rate of use of prescription drugs, especially anti-depressants.

It can get boring, especially in winter.

The ODs are from prescription pain meds. In my daughter’s sr. year in high school, one boy’s father OD’d and one boy in her class.

 

[Returning_Home]

It can get boring, especially in winter.

The ODs are from prescription pain meds. In my daughter’s sr. year in high school, one boy’s father OD’d and one boy in her class.

I also like how the WOW doesn’t really apply when the state knows how much money it stands to make from taxing liquor. Morality: but only when convenient.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Parker, I have never seen you talk out of both sides of your mouth more than on this topic. You are NEVER supposed to question the Prophet’s teachings…except for you are.

Wow.

 

[dianaiad]

I think that about sums it up. Since only one murder makes one a murderer, just one false prophecy makes one a false prophet.

Indeed…but y’all seem to be claiming that every word that comes out of a prophet’s mouth must then be a prophecy, and that’s an illogical stance to take. Consider: there has only been one perfect Man. That means that everybody else, even prophets, are imperfect.

Yet they are still prophets.

They can make wrong personal choices (Peter being a coward, Moses committing murder, Abraham lying…) and still be prophets. Let us not get into the life style and parenting choices of Abraham and Isaac–and you REALLY don’t want to get into Jonah’s decisions.

They can even put incorrect information into scripture, when that information doesn’t affect the spiritual meaning of things…(Moses and his ‘bats are birds’ claim, and several who used language that seems to affirm the flatness of the world)

In terms of previous prophets, all we HAVE of them is what made it into scripture…a very, very small sample of their lives

As a result, there is a system by which we can determine what things being said or done by a prophet are indeed ‘prophecies’.

So…we have BY, who taught the Adam/God idea.

Did Brigham Young try to that idea get put into what Mormons consider to be scripture? If it didn’t, it doesn’t count.

Period.

 

[scipio337]

Indeed…but y’all seem to be claiming that every word that comes out of a prophet’s mouth must then be a prophecy, and that’s an illogical stance to take. Consider: there has only been one perfect Man. That means that everybody else, even prophets, are imperfect.

Yet they are still prophets.

They can make wrong personal choices (Peter being a coward, Moses committing murder, Abraham lying…) and still be prophets. Let us not get into the life style and parenting choices of Abraham and Isaac–and you REALLY don’t want to get into Jonah’s decisions. …

Thanks, D, I just hope you apply the same logic with your “Catholics are Crusaders and Inquisitors as a matter of doctrine of their faith” argument.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I also like how the WOW doesn’t really apply when the state knows how much money it stands to make from taxing liquor. Morality: but only when convenient.

I agree, Mormons have a pragmatic morality, and it does manifest itself in Utah politics.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks, D, I just hope you apply the same logic with your “Catholics are Crusaders and Inquisitors as a matter of doctrine of their faith” argument.

There’s a huge difference here, scipio.

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.

A closer comparison would be…Crusades and Inquisition to LDS policy on priesthood and men of African negro descent (not all ‘black’ people were denied the priesthood…it was limited to those of that specific descent).

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.

So were the crusades, and the inquisition, and the methods used to deal with heretics in the Catholic church, historically.

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.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Indeed…but y’all seem to be claiming that every word that comes out of a prophet’s mouth must then be a prophecy, and that’s an illogical stance to take. Consider: there has only been one perfect Man. That means that everybody else, even prophets, are imperfect.

No, we quote him

They can make wrong personal choices (Peter being a coward, Moses committing murder, Abraham lying…) and still be prophets. Let us not get into the life style and parenting choices of Abraham and Isaac–and you REALLY don’t want to get into Jonah’s decisions.

Red Herrings. None of them taught false doctrine, which is what this thread is about

So…we have BY, who taught the Adam/God idea.

The Adam-God DOCTRINE

 

[RebeccaJ]

This comes up time and again. LDS seem to confuse the sinful actions of a person who is in a position of authority, with doctrinal claims.

So once again, Abraham, Isaac, Pope Leo X, etc. did commit personal sins. What none of them ever did was teach their personal sins as doctrine, that everyone else should believe and/or follow.

LDS leaders most certainly have, the Adam/God doctrine being just one example.

 

[scipio337]

There’s a huge difference here, scipio.

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.

A closer comparison would be…Crusades and Inquisition to LDS policy on priesthood and men of African negro descent (not all ‘black’ people were denied the priesthood…it was limited to those of that specific descent).

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.

Actually, I believe you’re comparing apples and rutabagas.

BY was, by all estimations, a poor excuse for a human being, and a racist of the highest order, BUT, his personal beliefs and sermons regarding race became not just LDS policy or practice, but LDS DOCTRINE, which was, in fact supported by LDS scripture (PoGP, Abraham 1:26-27)

To quote President George Albert Smith:

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

This was a DOCTRINE that only could be overthown by…another “revealation”

dianaiad:

So were the crusades, and the inquisition, and the methods used to deal with heretics in the Catholic church, historically.

Apples and rutabagas comparison. The ban on the LDS Priesthood (and marriages, and exaltation, as few recognize, basically saying "no black person attains the highest heaven, and “godhood”) was part of LDS DOCTRINE, supported by LDS Scripture. Historical context aside, I will humbly wait for your proof that the Inquisitions and Crusades were part of Catholic DOCTRINE, or the ex Cathedra statements made in its support, or the scriptures that supported them, as such.

 

[twopekinguys]

I agree, Mormons have a pragmatic morality, and it does manifest itself in Utah politics.

Are you talking about Rep. Garn?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Are you talking about Rep. Garn?

The UT State legislature, which determines liquor laws, including those of the state liquor stores (aka the state liquor monopoly).

 

[Returning_Home]

Indeed…but y’all seem to be claiming that every word that comes out of a prophet’s mouth must then be a prophecy, and that’s an illogical stance to take. Consider: there has only been one perfect Man. That means that everybody else, even prophets, are imperfect.

Yet they are still prophets.

Fair enough; now support this with something from your scripture, please. And also please explain how the prophet of the restoration can be considered so great of a man when his accuracy rating is a perfect 0%.

They can make wrong personal choices (Peter being a coward, Moses committing murder, Abraham lying…) and still be prophets. Let us not get into the life style and parenting choices of Abraham and Isaac–and you REALLY don’t want to get into Jonah’s decisions.

How do you equate human failings to Mormon prophets being utterly wrong about everything they’ve ever prophecied?

They can even put incorrect information into scripture, when that information doesn’t affect the spiritual meaning of things…(Moses and his ‘bats are birds’ claim, and several who used language that seems to affirm the flatness of the world)

That, too, directly contradicts what GP claims, making this just your opinion.

In terms of previous prophets, all we HAVE of them is what made it into scripture…a very, very small sample of their lives

So your church canonized the Bible, which we know is missing many ‘plain and precious things’ and the D&C which is full of prophecies that cannot and will not come true? Hmmm, you seem to have a problem here, since no one then really has any way of knowing what is and is not correct. We know that the world didn’t end as a result of the Civil War, we know that the Far West and Independence, MO temples weren’t built, we know that William Smith, Lyman Johnson, and John Boynton didn’t live to see the savior either. (all were excommunicated and died before the Second Coming)

If Joseph Smith wasn’t a false prophet, what exactly makes one a false prophet?

As a result, there is a system by which we can determine what things being said or done by a prophet are indeed ‘prophecies’.

Not according to the GP there’s not. The language is very clear and the fact that there’s no mention of the possibility of prophets being wrong, you don’t have much of a leg to stand on. Or did someone just forget to add that little detail?

Are you referring to simply ignoring the parts that undermine your position?

So…we have BY, who taught the Adam/God idea.

Did Brigham Young try to that idea get put into what Mormons consider to be scripture? If it didn’t, it doesn’t count.

We know he taught it for about 19 years but what you seem to be saying here that if just one person believed it, that prophet is a false prophet. Doesn’t that go against what I’ve already quoted from GP? Indeed it does.

You also fall short because of the fact that I’ve already proven to you that the JOD calls itself one of the standard works.