LDS Revelations

[PaulDupre1]

No, as it happens.

…and your point is?

Joseph Fielding Smith (Bruce R. McConkie’s father-in-law) became president of the church in 1970. He died in 1972, creating a vacancy in the Q12. At that time, BRM was called as an apostle.

You may not like it, but it is fact.

Marrying the boss’s daughter is a sure track to success, wouldn’t you agree?

Sometimes what is true is not very useful, is it?

 

[canis73]

How about…because he is human, and because he is human, he can make mistakes?

Even errors of belief?

Good grief; (and at the risk of being accused, yet again, of being ‘out to get’ Catholics) you do not expect your Popes and Cardinals to be perfect all the time; in fact, your doctrine of papal infallibility is extremely clear on this; there are times when a Pope is infallible…and there are times when he is not.

You are right. But it is very clear when the infallibility applies. And so, in those cases, we can expect no change whatsoever in the future, regarding such doctrine.
I still struggle to understand how mormons know, without a doubt, when has there been revelation.
Sorry if I insist on something that has been answered before (I know you tried to), but I sincerely want to understand as much as I can about LDS, not because I find it particularly appealing, but because I usually find myself accepting falacies about your religion, that I know ought to have a more charitable explanation.

 

[Rockymtsnowman]

Hello,

I read your post, and I have to say that I am bombarded almost daily about Mormonism. Where I live and where I work are two areas where I am exposed to some of the most rude comments towards my Catholic faith, and at times it’s hard for me to hold my comments back. Sometimes they come at me respectfully, and other times they come at me aggressively. Some of the statements made to me cross the line and violate company policy. But I can’t report this behavior for a few reasons.

To put things in perspective, I work with a group of individuals which consists of 5 Mormon bishops and 4 practicing or “active” Mormons. These individuals are who I interact with on a daily basis, and only 1 of the 9 rarely if ever brings up religion.

I hope you stick to your guns, because I know that some people from the Mormon faith can be down right stubborn in their pursuit to convert others… especially Catholics. I know of two poorly catechized Catholics who have already converted to the Mormon faith.

I never bring up the subject of religion because of company policy, but when it’s brought up to me, I argue back… and I know I’ve stumped them on several occasions, and these occasions I call -“Stump the Bishop.”

As for the rest of my colleagues who aren’t practicing Mormons, I really think they’ve grown to respect me a bit because I argue back and always keep my composure while doing so… but it’s getting harder and harder to hold back how I truly feel about their Mormon faith.

I follow Fr. Coyne’s lead when I find myself faced with antagonists. And if anyone who reads this reply of mine has any advice for me, please share!

Stick to your guns, and NEVER let them take you away from the Catholic Church!

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t have to know Mormon doctrine to know that Mormon Doctrine was Mormon doctrine for 32 years, until it became an embarrassment.

You cannot trust your leaders to teach you anything because in a generation it will be called a mistake.

Evidently you do. “Mormon Doctrine” was the title of a book, a title of which the church disapproved. It was not then, and never has been, a 'Mormon catechism." While it is valuable, and has a great deal of interesting information in it…and a great deal of “Mormon Doctrine,” it is NOT Mormon Doctrine.

If you don’t like that, I’m sorry, but that is fact. I"ve been a Mormon for sixty five years, and have been studying it in depth for nearly fifty of those years (give me time to get through puberty and all). In none of those years was the book “Mormon Doctrine” recommended to me as the ‘go to’ place to find out what our beliefs were. It’s not, I repeat, not, a catechism.

Setting it up to be one so that you can attack us for it is the epitome of the 'strawman fallacy."

 

[dianaiad]

Joseph Fielding Smith (Bruce R. McConkie’s father-in-law) became president of the church in 1970. He died in 1972, creating a vacancy in the Q12. At that time, BRM was called as an apostle.

You may not like it, but it is fact.

Marrying the boss’s daughter is a sure track to success, wouldn’t you agree?

Sometimes what is true is not very useful, is it?

Sometimes what is true is, indeed, not very useful…except as a strawman argument. Yes, Bruce R. McConkie married President Smith’s daughter.

So what?

Do I get to go after all the Cardinals of the Catholic church who happened to be nephews of the Pope?

No?

I didn’t think so.

Tell me: is it reasonable to assume that a family…even by marriage…can only produce one good leader?

 

[dianaiad]

You are right. But it is very clear when the infallibility applies. And so, in those cases, we can expect no change whatsoever in the future, regarding such doctrine.
I still struggle to understand how mormons know, without a doubt, when has there been revelation.
Sorry if I insist on something that has been answered before (I know you tried to), but I sincerely want to understand as much as I can about LDS, not because I find it particularly appealing, but because I usually find myself accepting falacies about your religion, that I know ought to have a more charitable explanation.

I’m not being flippant when I ask you this; it is a serious question and I’m asking for a serious answer.

How do YOU know that God is?

I mean, really…how do you know this?

I promise. It is relevant.

 

[Stephen168]

“Mormon Doctrine” was the title of a book, a title of which the church disapproved. It was not then, and never has been, a 'Mormon catechism."

Mormon Doctrine was a book approved by the Mormon Church in 1966 which was Mormon doctrine. It was referenced in the Gospel Principles Manual until 2009.
It also contained the Mormon understanding of Catholic beliefs which is why my Catholic friends in the 1970’s like to try and tell me what I believed; I want suggest it is also where you get what you think the Catholic Church believes.

The Mormon Church is now embarrassed by Mormon Doctrine and stopped using it in 2009 and stopped publication in 2010. The embarrassment is caused by the strange Mormon beliefs and its anti-Catholicism which Mormons what to deny.

It does seem you cannot trust your leaders to teach you anything because in a generation it will be called a mistake.

 

[dianaiad]

Mormon Doctrine was a book approved by the Mormon Church in 1966 which was Mormon doctrine. It was referenced in the Gospel Principles Manual until 2009.
It also contained the Mormon understanding of Catholic beliefs which is why my Catholic friends in the 1970’s like to try and tell me what I believed; I want suggest it is also where you get what you think the Catholic Church believes.

I get 'what I think the Catholic Church believes" from the Catholic catechism, and from sites like www.catholic.org. I do not get my information about Catholicism from anyone who is not a true believing Catholic.

Not even from LDS sources. You have seen me go on about how nobody should get information about Mormons (or anybody else) from anybody but a true believing member of that belief system: what on earth makes you think I would make an exception for myself?

Just because you get your information from anti sources doesn’t mean that I do.

The Mormon Church is now embarrassed by Mormon Doctrine and stopped using it in 2009 and stopped publication in 2010. The embarrassment is caused by the strange Mormon beliefs and its anti-Catholicism which Mormons what to deny.

It does seem you cannot trust your leaders to teach you anything because in a generation it will be called a mistake.

You have your opinion. I have mine. The difference between us is that I’m right.

 

[Stephen168]

You have your opinion. I have mine. The difference between us is that I’m right.

actually there is plenty of information on the web that counters your opinion.

Most Mormons accept it was doctrine and they are glad it is gone. Of course they are talking among themselves and aren’t trying to defend Mormonism to a Catholic.

 

[dianaiad]

actually there is plenty of information on the web that counters your opinion.

Most Mormons accept it was doctrine and they are glad it is gone. Of course they are talking among themselves and aren’t trying to defend Mormonism to a Catholic.

And you would know this, how?

 

[kimg901]

@Diana: If you would like some insight into what we Catholics believe and what our church teaches you could by a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or sign up to go to RCIA (religious education for adults) and just here what is taught also. You don’t have to convert and no one will say you have to. Its just learning.

 

[lynnettejane]

How about…because he is human, and because he is human, he can make mistakes?

Even errors of belief?

Good grief; (and at the risk of being accused, yet again, of being ‘out to get’ Catholics) you do not expect your Popes and Cardinals to be perfect all the time; in fact, your doctrine of papal infallibility is extremely clear on this; there are times when a Pope is infallible…and there are times when he is not.

If you allow your own leaders to be imperfect, why can’t people who believe something other than what you do accept imperfection in* their* leaders?

I think it is unreasonable for you to expect other belief systems to adhere to standards you don’t expect from your own leadership.

The issue here is a book written by a prominent Mormon that was entitled Mormon Doctrine, we are now told was not doctrine. Just as many of the doctrinal statements in the Journal of Discources are denied as doctrine. Why, because what was once taught is now an embarrassment to your church. Of course McConkie believed it to be doctrine, and someone who was that knowledgeable about his faith and who became an apostle subsequently, expected it to be accepted as such. The fact that he buckled and changed it doesn’t say much for his integrity, unlike the much maligned Grant Palmer, who was told to retract his book or be excommunicated. He did not buckle, he could not retract what he knew to be true, so he was excommunicated from the church that he had no wish to leave. You are talking nonsense.

 

[dianaiad]

@Diana: If you would like some insight into what we Catholics believe and what our church teaches you could by a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or sign up to go to RCIA (religious education for adults) and just here what is taught also. You don’t have to convert and no one will say you have to. Its just learning.

Thank you. Bless you all, you have an extensive copy of the catechism online, as well as several official Catholic websites (I make sure they ARE Catholic, and not anti-)

 

[dianaiad]

The issue here is a book written by a prominent Mormon that was entitled Mormon Doctrine, we are now told was not doctrine. Just as many of the doctrinal statements in the Journal of Discources are denied as doctrine. Why, because what was once taught is now an embarrassment to your church. Of course McConkie believed it to be doctrine, and someone who was that knowledgeable about his faith and who became an apostle subsequently, expected it to be accepted as such. The fact that he buckled and changed it doesn’t say much for his integrity, unlike the much maligned Grant Palmer, who was told to retract his book or be excommunicated. He did not buckle, he could not retract what he knew to be true, so he was excommunicated from the church that he had no wish to leave. You are talking nonsense.

Your opinion is noted. you have a right to it.

But the point is, When it was first published, the leadership of the church wasn’t all that happy about the title of the book. However,

Oh, I’m not going to argue with you. Here. I read this…and it is NOT in a ‘pro-mormon’ site…and it is quite an extensive and accurate history of the publication of “Mormon Doctrine.”

Go read it. Then tell me that I’m 'talking nonsense."

 

[Stephen168]

Mormon Doctrine has been a popular encyclopedic reference defining a wide range of Latter-day Saint doctrines with hundreds of thousands of copies printed.

Six years later, Bruce R. McConkie published an approved, revised version of Mormon Doctrine with most of the 1067 identified problems corrected.

The book would go on to become a best seller among Latter-day Saints, proving to be a useful, approved resource for doctrinal information.

Latter-day Saint sociologist Armand Mauss noted that for members of the LDS Church, Mormon Doctrine “is considered authoritative, if not definitive, and easily ranks alongside the older Articles of Faith [by James E. Talmage] in its importance.”

 

[dianaiad]

Stephen168:
Interesting that you quote this part, and entirely ignore the information that I gave…that everybody was calling me a liar for.

 

[Stephen168]

The book Mormon Doctrine. It was Mormon doctrine for only 12 years before it had to be changed and 32 years after that was no longer Mormon doctrine at all.

“Mormon Doctrine” was NEVER 'Mormon Doctrine."

Mormon Doctrine has been a popular encyclopedic reference defining a wide range of Latter-day Saint doctrines with hundreds of thousands of copies printed.

Six years later, Bruce R. McConkie published an approved, revised version of Mormon Doctrine with most of the 1067 identified problems corrected.

The book would go on to become a best seller among Latter-day Saints, proving to be a useful, approved resource for doctrinal information.

Latter-day Saint sociologist Armand Mauss noted that for members of the LDS Church, Mormon Doctrine "is considered authoritative, if not definitive, and easily ranks alongside the older Articles of Faith [by James E. Talmage] in its importance.”

 

[dianaiad]

Mormon Doctrine has been a popular encyclopedic reference defining a wide range of Latter-day Saint doctrines with hundreds of thousands of copies printed.

Six years later, Bruce R. McConkie published an approved, revised version of Mormon Doctrine with most of the 1067 identified problems corrected.

The book would go on to become a best seller among Latter-day Saints, proving to be a useful, approved resource for doctrinal information.

Latter-day Saint sociologist Armand Mauss noted that for members of the LDS Church, Mormon Doctrine "is considered authoritative, if not definitive, and easily ranks alongside the older Articles of Faith [by James E. Talmage] in its importance.”

OK, since you will not address the pertinent part of that article yourself, and have taken this bit out of context not just once, but TWICE…

Here is the information from the article that applies.

Elder McConkie saw it as “the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom.” Church leaders liked the concept of such a work, but were concerned about its harsh tone and errors, thinking it “most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation.”

Three years earlier the First Presidency had stopped the publication of Elder McConkie’s book “Sound Doctrine” as they had decades earlier with B. H. Roberts’ theological work “The Truth, The Way, The Life.”

Church president David O McKay’s combed through the book attaching hundreds of notes to its pages, and asked two apostles to investigate the book further. “I asked them if they would together go over Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s book, Mormon Doctrine and make a list of the corrections that should be made preparatory to his sending out an addendum to all members of the church who have purchased his book.”

After a lengthy investigation, Elders Mark E. Peterson and Marion G. Romney reported their findings to President McKay and his counselors. President McKay’s office journal noted:

They submitted their report upon their examination of the book Mormon Doctrine by Elder Bruce McConkie. These brethren reported that the manuscript of the book Mormon Doctrine had not been read by the reading committee, that President [of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and father-in-law of Bruce R. McConkie] Joseph Fielding Smith did not know anything about it until it was published."

Not only were they unhappy with a book seeking to declare church doctrine without their consent, but the committee took issue with strong anti-evolutionary and anti-Catholic statements, as well as the harsh tone and controversial interpretations of some doctrines and practices. President McKay had been contacted by the Catholic bishop in Salt Lake City about his displeasure with the book.

Elder McConkie was called in to meet with the First Presidency. Declining to be seated, he was informed of their decision not to allow a second edition which he was preparing. He responded, “I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want. I will do exactly what you want.” Elder Henry D. Moyle noted “I’ve never seen a man in the Church in my experience that took our criticism - and it was more than criticism - but he took it better than anyone I ever saw.”

Unused copies of the book were recalled and inventories destroyed. But the book continued to cause concern. For example, the next month, President McKay tried to alleviate concerns that the church was against evolution. Other criticisms of the book included: that playing face cards was apostasy and rebellion; that birth control was rebellion against God; that capital punishment should be the penalty for sex crimes.

Six years later, Bruce R. McConkie published an approved, revised version of Mormon Doctrine with most of the 1067 identified problems corrected.

Since you do not seem to feel it necessary to do anything but take a paragraph out of context and post it without comment, you won’t mind if I post the relevant material, will you?

you all may read it and make up your own minds. I’m done with this subject.

 

[twopekinguys]

Interesting that you quote this part, and entirely ignore the information that I gave…that everybody was calling me a liar for.

Nobody is, or has called you a liar. I think you are being a bit melodramatic here. (thisi s where people talk about playing the persecution/victim card)

This has actually been a rather civilized thread.

Just because someone disagrees with you and your opinion, doesn’t mean they hate you, or you’re a liar, etc.

 

[dianaiad]

Nobody is, or has called you a liar. I think you are being a bit melodramatic here. (thisi s where people talk about playing the persecution/victim card)

This has actually been a rather civilized thread.

Just because someone disagrees with you and your opinion, doesn’t mean they hate you, or you’re a liar, etc.

Disagreeing with my opinion is fine.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

They are not entitled to their own facts. I stated that “Mormon Doctrine” was not 'Mormon Doctrine," not published by the church and not meant to be a “Mormon catechism.” I provided absolute proof of this, only to have stuff taken out of context and presented as if I were giving misinformation.

Sorry, but I have a problem with that.

I try very hard to be as factual about my beliefs as I can; when I am entering into ‘speculation,’ I say so.

But one thing about LDS beliefs is true; from the outside, it really does look like we change what we teach and believe. Policies may change according to what is required by the people at the time.

Given that we believe in modern prophets and revelation, how could that NOT happen?

The basics; Who God is, Who Christ is, and who we are? Those things do not change.

At least, not from where I sit.