Who's the biggest embarassment for the LDS church today?

[_harmony]

I think it is a valid point about Bruce McConkie embarrassing the church for his views on christology and Christianity.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But that's not the point that Gadianton (or Pseudo-Gadianton) was making.

Then what do you think was Gad's point? Because I think Hobart's onto something.

[_Jason Bourne]

You are correct, but that was after a long "repentance" process.

]
Of course I am. You would have done well to leave it at that.

When I was on my mission, I listened to some very, very old Brcue R. talks where he was essentially ridiculing Christians for their belief in Jesus as their savior and emphasizing worship of the Father to the point where you'd think Jesus was nothing.

I am going to call you on this one. CFR man. I know McConkie's works. I know his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary. I know his other multi volume work on the savior. I see nothing at all about what you describe other than one talk given at BYU in response to another book then in vogue that focused on a personal relationship to Christ to the almost usurping the worship of the Father. BYU students were praying directly to Christ rather than to heavenly father. McConkie gave a talk that was in response to this specific situation. And it had been routinely misquoted in an attempt to make it look like McConkie was putting Jesus down. Of course most never read the talk in total or knew the context of why it was given.

So I naturally wondered, what's up with this hypocrite? This is the guy who wrote lyrics to the song "I believe in Christ" and came just short of telling the whole world that he'd received the 2nd Comforter, like unto the Brother of Jared and the Nehor.

Hardly a hypocrite.

Years later I looked into it, and it turns out that the brethren became very angry with Bruce R. for his public mockery of Jesus Christ.

Another CFR. I know what the church leaders were upset with McConkie for and it was not for what you say at all.

As the church began to mature, it realized it needed to have something in common with Christianity if it were ever to rise above "weird cult" status, and Bruce R's pet peeves were becoming a huge political liability for the Church. So Bruce as called to repentance, and told to "gain a testimony" of Jesus Christ.

Oh boy. More spin and hyperbole. Or rather, flat out falsehood.

Certainly, had he not done as commanded, his career would have been stiffled greatly. Fortunately for him, he learned to toe the party line like no other, and became the most famous modern apostle of all time.

Oh gee he was only called as an apostle long before what you imply ever happened.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think it is a valid point about Bruce McConkie embarrassing the church for his views on christology and Christianity.

While he had some rather strong comments about traditional Christianity there was nothing embarassing about his Christology as far as LDS ideas go. He was quite orthodox for LDS doctrine.

Although I was never in the church when he was alive (so I'm not as familiar with him as some),

Now there is a shocker!! Yet you find his Christology embarrassing even though you are not familiar with him.

I think that he might have derailed and fought against the program of Mormonism trying to assimilate into mainstream, respectable Christianity.

Since that is not really happening it would be tough for him to attempt to derail it.

The 1958 version of Mormon Doctrine--which about gave McKay and the other Brethren a heart attack--is still being quoted in "anti-Mormon" literature as scandalous Mormon belief (even though all subsequent versions don't contain that original material)

The early edition of Mormon Doctrine was problematic and was really the only major offensive activity McConkie did that perhaps disturbed (hardly caused a heart attack) top LDS leaders.

[_bcspace]

Reid for sure. None of the others is embarrassing at all. Perhaps that Buttars cannot communicate his position without censure is an embarrassment but Buttars himself did not condradict LDS doctrine that I can tell. Notice that the Church did not repudiate any of his remarks, rather choosing to say that Buttars does not speak for the Church.

Do you really believe church leadership would agree with Buttars' remarks?

Yes. The scriptures essentially teach the same type of thing.

You underestimate most church leaders.

How so? If the Church wanted to contradict Buttars words, why didn't they?

I do not believe them unkind.

Neither do I. I think it would be the height of unkindness not to describe sin and those who take pleasure in it exactly as it is.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Then what do you think was Gad's point?

That Bruce McConkie hated and publicly mocked Jesus Christ.

Because I think Hobart's onto something.

Maybe. But, in contrast to (Pseudo?-)Gadianton, Hobart doesn't appear to be claiming that Bruce McConkie hated and publicly mocked Jesus Christ.

[_Inconceivable]

BYU students were praying directly to Christ rather than to heavenly father. McConkie gave a talk that was in response to this specific situation. And it had been routinely misquoted in an attempt to make it look like McConkie was putting Jesus down..

He set me straight with that talk. I was confused.

The irony, Jason, is that "Bruce R." had literally memorized the standard works. So he was well aware of this prayer:

18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.
19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 36:18 - 19)

If I wanted to be forgiven for a real big wopper, I'd follow Alma's approach. Anyone want to argue it didn't work? Alma was a prodigal dirtbag, McConkie had no need of dirtbag repentance. McConkie was the good guy that never strayed far from his Father.

I'll agree with you though, ultimately, I don't see McConkie as much of an embarrassment to Mormonism.

[_Inconceivable]

I think that Gadianton makes a very important and astute point here.

Shhhh!

When the Scratchite ritual known as "mutual public adoration" or "reciprocating endorsement" is in process, unbelievers should be quiet and, as far as possible, remain still. It's a matter of simple respect.

I speak for myself here.

The greatest embarrassment to me as a Mormon were both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I could not represent their reprehensable behavior as legal administrators, neither did they represent my attempt at a peaceable walk.

The greatest embarrassment to the church among those living are members that make their bed with the FARMS thinktank. Rather than discuss the content of a contraversial book, article, history or talk, they would attack the messenger - attempting to discredit, embarrass or mock. Although this group was the last ditch effort some members threw at me to save my soul, I concluded they did not have the capacity to countenance the essence of the truth I was searching for. They were the living Mormons that embarrassed me most as a Mormon - calling evil good, and good evil.

The quote (above from professor Daniel Peterson) is representative of much of the works of this codfish and other apologists.

(by the way, Dan, any angry fathers or grooms kick your ass yet?)

[_cinepro]

Other than the George Pace incident, what did McConkie ever say that could be construed as less-than-adoration for the Savior? I've never heard this complaint lodged against him.

I would be reluctant to classify any dead apostle or prophet as an embarrassment to the Church. Modern apologetic reasoning is quick enough to dismiss them that none of their comments or opinions are able to gain any traction, no matter how official or accepted they once were.

[_Inconceivable]

I would be reluctant to classify any dead apostle or prophet as an embarrassment to the Church. Modern apologetic reasoning is quick enough to dismiss them that none of their comments or opinions are able to gain any traction, no matter how official or accepted they once were.

This is what was so troubling to me when stumbling upon the abhoration of Mormonism called apologetics. Dismissing the revelations of dead prophets negated the great (and even ultimate) sacrifices of my believing ancestors who followed what they knew was infallable counsel. Apologists cheapen their sacrifice to current and future generations, destroying faith and respect in church and family legacy.

I think Mormons need to own all of the history just as it was revealed from the legal administrators their ancestors followed. I made a clean break because I wasn't willing to represent the legacy or fake my allegience as apologists do.

To me, the apologists are the true wolves in sheeps clothing to the downfall of Mormonism - diluting the efficacy of the words of their own prophets. Now that I am no longer a member, I would still chase them away from anyone I care for. They don't belong where I am now either.

[_bcspace]

18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.
19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 36:18 - 19)

If I wanted to be forgiven for a real big wopper, I'd follow Alma's approach. Anyone want to argue it didn't work? Alma was a prodigal dirtbag, McConkie had no need of dirtbag repentance. McConkie was the good guy that never strayed far from his Father.

Why? This verse is preChrist when to the Israelites Jehovah was the God they worshipped.