Was or was not BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" just that?

[_bcspace]

After publishing Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie was called to be an apostle, not excommunicated as an apostate. It wasn't only the unwashed masses who thought McConkie knew what he was talking about.

Then why was the work rejected for official recognition? I don't see how such would preclude him from being called to the apostleship. Also, according to the definition of doctrine the Church gives, one's indiviudal apostleship does not official doctrine make.

Don't you all realize that the formula for the 12 apostles is that if they have a quorum and all agree on a point, it is an official position? It matters not that it is different than or contradicts precedent. Precedent has no real authorized role in setting church direction.

Amen! But no, they don't realize it.

[_Molok]

So, if the book was not in fact doctrine, why was it called Mormon Doctrine? Was BRM some kind of foaming at the mouth idiot who didn't even know the doctrine of his own church? Is that the official apologist line now?

[_Yahoo Bot]

So, if the book was not in fact doctrine, why was it called Mormon Doctrine? Was BRM some kind of foaming at the mouth idiot who didn't even know the doctrine of his own church? Is that the official apologist line now?

Wow.

I guess the disclaimer that was always in there didn't mean much to you.

Here is the version for the book when it was picked up by Deseret Book from Bookcraft:

The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church or of Deseret Book Company.

[_bcspace]

So, if the book was not in fact doctrine, why was it called Mormon Doctrine?

BRM's ostentatious choice of title.

Was BRM some kind of foaming at the mouth idiot who didn't even know the doctrine of his own church?

I don't see foaming at the mouth in any of the descriptions, but yes, it was reported to the FP that his work contained lots of his own opinion.

Is that the official apologist line now?

What was the line previously? I don't perceive that anything has changed. Official publication has been the standard for doctrine for many decades now. Approval by all 15 prophets and apostles has been the standard since D&C 107 was published. BRM's Mormon Doctrine never met either of those requirements and so it never was considered official doctrine by the Church other than what excerpts they may have quoted in officially published works.

[_Analytics]

After publishing Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie was called to be an apostle, not excommunicated as an apostate. It wasn't only the unwashed masses who thought McConkie knew what he was talking about.

Then why was the work rejected for official recognition? I don't see how such would preclude him from being called to the apostleship. Also, according to the definition of doctrine the Church gives, one's indiviudal apostleship does not official doctrine make.

One would think that authoritatively teaching false doctrine in a book with a name like Mormon Doctrine would be grounds for excommunication for apostasy. At the very least such members should be marginalized and certainly shouldn't be called as apostles.

McConkie wasn’t attempting to establish what Mormon doctrine actually is. Rather, he was creating a compendium of what the scriptures, prophets, and apostles actually teach in the official sources. Just because the official church didn’t “officially recognize” the book (whatever that means), doesn’t mean that McConkie failed to create an honest and accurate compendium of what the authoritative sources do in fact state.

To the extent that McConkie failed to create a compendium of what “official Mormon doctrine” actually is, it is because official sources are frequently contradictory or patently false.

[_Jason Bourne]

Don't you all realize that the formula for the 12 apostles is that if they have a quorum and all agree on a point, it is an official position? It matters not that it is different than or contradicts precedent. Precedent has no real authorized role in setting church direction.

I absolutely understand this. Never the less it seems that any new official doctrine or position should not contradict a prior doctrine or position should it?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Don't you all realize that the formula for the 12 apostles is that if they have a quorum and all agree on a point, it is an official position? It matters not that it is different than or contradicts precedent. Precedent has no real authorized role in setting church direction.

I absolutely understand this. Never the less it seems that any new official doctrine or position should not contradict a prior doctrine or position should it?

You'd think, but then we have the story in the New Testament of Peter receiving a revelation that there would be no differentiation between Jew and Gentile. When he bowed to social pressure and required the saints to be circumcised and followed Jewish custom of not eating with Gentiles, Paul called him on his inconsistency and called him a false brother.

You have this real black and white view of how prophets and apostles work. You don't give any credit to error or disagreements. Many people exit the church when the general authorities don't live up to extraordinary expectations. Certainly, this is nothing in their sermons which invite the error that you make.

[_Willy Law]

You have this real black and white view of how prophets and apostles work. You don't give any credit to error or disagreements. Many people exit the church when the general authorities don't live up to extraordinary expectations. Certainly, this is nothing in their sermons which invite the error that you make.

From the whitewashed exalted stories of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, to "when the prophet has spoken the thinking has been done" all we get is a black and white glorified view of the prophets and apostles.

[_Corpsegrinder]

You have this real black and white view of how prophets and apostles work. You don't give any credit to error or disagreements. Many people exit the church when the general authorities don't live up to extraordinary expectations. Certainly, this is nothing in their sermons which invite the error that you make.

I get it...BRM's Mormon Doctrine is "sublime midrash".

[_bcspace]

To the extent that McConkie failed to create a compendium of what “official Mormon doctrine” actually is, it is because official sources are frequently contradictory or patently false.

Not really. Just not official. BRM's Mormon Doctrine is actually quite doctrinally accurate in most respects. Again, just not official.

I absolutely understand this. Never the less it seems that any new official doctrine or position should not contradict a prior doctrine or position should it?

Generally not unless there was no revelation previously. Perhaps some aspects of the nature of God in the Lectures of Faith or the Universal Flood for example.

The interesting thing is that LDS doctrine really has not changed in the areas our critics tend to claim it has like plural marriage or the Priesthood ban.