bcspace wrote:It was never published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine. There are quotes from it in various officially published manuals and those particular quotes are doctrine because they are officially published.
Tis true. I am a McConkie fan and revered Mormon Doctrine.
However, the fact that it was published by Bookcraft speaks volumes about its lack of official support.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
AQ key issue with MD is that BRM's reputation as the 'expert" on all things MD has been ingrained in Gospel Doctrine teachers in wards at least US-wide. So what BRM wrote or expounded upon is taken as authoritative by many gospel doctrine teachers who use his book and his writings in their classes. They feel comfortable that they are on solid ground when teaching when they quote BRM.
As an example in a little ward in colorado last weekend on our visit to our daughter's family, the Gospel doctrine teacher, a former mission president in france and "righteous TBM in his own mind", told the class that the book of romans was written by paul for the Mormons because BRM has definitively shown that all others in Christendom have not understood its teachings-"only the LDS get it right". it is pretty clear to me that BRM, as all apologist try to do , is take LDS restoration theology/doctrine as true and shoe horn in the New Testament (eg romans) to fit their mold.
so BRM is alive and well in the chapels across america whether the church views MD as doctrine or not. of course you will never hear michael quinn or palmer or even BHR quoted in your run of the mill GD class.
and finally if BRM were alive today would he be allowed to hold a MD book signing in the foyer of the Joseph Smith building?- Hhmmmmm!
bcspace wrote:It was never published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine. There are quotes from it in various officially published manuals and those particular quotes are doctrine because they are officially published.
Yahoo Bot wrote:Tis true. I am a McConkie fan and revered Mormon Doctrine.
However, the fact that it was published by Bookcraft speaks volumes about its lack of official support.
Bot and BC are technically correct. And it is now fairly common knowledge that President McKay did not want McConkie to publish the book and that two apostles reviewed it after the fact and made over a thousand corrections. President McKay let the book stand because he did not want to embarrass a GA publicly. The result? It ended up defacto doctrine due to it popularity and being used so often by so many members. I mean really, the book is called Mormon DOCTRINE and was written then revised by a very vocal doctrinaire apostle. Members treated it as if it was doctrine.
bcspace wrote:It was never published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine. There are quotes from it in various officially published manuals and those particular quotes are doctrine because they are officially published.
True or false?
If a statement is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then it's true.
Tralse.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
President McKay let the book stand because he did not want to embarrass a GA publicly
And yet BRM was a public figure and a loud mouthed one too -- so why not embarrass him? He was a rat. The Mormon church goes out of its way to hide any embarrasments to its desired squeaky clean image. But, most everyone knows it's a facade. Mormon leaders sanitize their image because they care more about how they look rather than the truth. Mormonism and truthfulness are worlds aparts. I wouldn't trust a Church President with a wooden nickle. They have no honor in revealing all truth. It's all for show. it's all for baptisms and a numbers game.
When I was baptized in 1986, three books were handed to me as gifts by my Stake President and Bishop. Mormon Doctrine, Miracle of Forgiveness and Faith Precedes the Miracle. It was doctrine. BCSpace is a parrot, nothing more. If the cult started saying yellow, BCSpace would start saying yellow.
I studied Mormon Doctrine hard. We all had it in Priesthood. We quoted from it, taught from it. I guess the cult didn't like that because later on every lesson came from a watered down book from cult HQ - and nobody could teach their own anymore. Gone was MD. I used to joke in Sacrament meetings that next they'd have prescribed talks, no more studying - you just read a statement prepared by the legal team of Intellectual Reserve Inc.
But I'll bet you today they still hand out that atrocious pile of steaming crap MOF by Kimball. When I left Mormonism I dumped that book in the trash can to make sure that if any of my collection (and I had over 400 books) was given away, nobody would be unlucky enough to get that one.
Ah, I see that the Lord's bookstore isn't carrying MD.
Meh. Nothing Mormons do surprises me anymore. When the cult speaks the members obey and willingly forget.
Jason Bourne wrote: Members treated it as if it was doctrine.
Infymus wrote:Just think about all those s****y members! You are way down on your flogging quotas Jason.
My point was like you, and me, we all thought the book meant something. Sure there is the good old disclaimer that it was his opinion and all. But the man was a larger than life apostle and was very authoritarian. It was not easy to just dismiss the book. It was on every members shelf that I knew. Then all the sudden it goes out of popularity. McKay should have pulled the book if he was unhappy with it.
However, what you say Infymus, anybody who had any kind of knowledge of general authority publications would have instantly seen the significance of a Bookcraft publication. Not official, and possibly questionable. Some of my more favorite questionable books were those published for Hyrum Andrus. MY least favorite are those published by Cleon Skousen. Since Andrus was excommunicated for his views, I think that says it all.